War after war, whether is new one? HISTORY REPEATS

Falling of pro-English authority in democratic
protectorates approaches falling of authority in mother country.

In the English society where there is a leadership of mercenary interests
and concentration of authority at financial circles,
colonialists represent safety from acts of terrorism
as the basic condition of preservation of their democracy.
Safety is provided by indifference to colonized
people, unauthenticity of the information, neutralization of opposition,
development of political apathy in a society, the statement of fear for the life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleg281

Falling of pro-English authority in democratic
protectorates approaches falling of authority in mother country.

In the English society where there is a leadership of mercenary interests
and concentration of authority at financial circles,
colonialists represent safety from acts of terrorism
as the basic condition of preservation of their democracy.
Safety is provided by indifference to colonized
people, unauthenticity of the information, neutralization of opposition,
development of political apathy in a society, the statement of fear for the life.

---

I like icecream

Yeah oleg... and the middle east is so enlightened.


Sadaam: THE RULE OF TERROR

The numerous security services have been the principal instrument that Saddam has used to create a pervasive climate of terror throughout the country, which is the linchpin of Iraqi totalitarianism. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convey a full sense of this terror in only a little space. In April 2002, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution condemning "the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror; the repression faced by any kind of opposition, in particular the harassment and intimidation of and threats against Iraqi opponents living abroad and members of their families; summary and arbitrary executions, including political killings and the continued so-called clean-out of prisons, the use of rape as a political tool, as well as enforced or involuntary disappearances, routinely practiced arbitrary arrests and detention, and consistent and routine failure to respect due process and the rule of law; [and] widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offences. A more tactile sense is provided by John Sweeney, a veteran foreign correspondent for the BBC, who had this to say: "I have been to Baghdad a number of times. Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else's migraine. The fear is so omnipresent you could al most eat it. No one talks."

Max Van der Stoel, the former United Nations special rapporteur for human rights in Iraq, told the United Nations that the brutality of the Iraqi regime was "of an exceptionally grave character--so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War." Indeed it is to comparisons with the obscenity of the Holocaust and Stalin's mass murders that observers are inevitably drawn when confronted with the horrors of Saddam's Iraq. Saddamist Iraq is a state that employs arbitrary execution, imprisonment, and torture on a comprehensive and routine basis. A full catalogue of the regime's methods of torture is not available. Suffice to say that based on voluminous accounts of witnesses and victims, the list is very, very long. In some ways, to try to name all of its practices would detract from the regime's monstrosity. A few examples, however, are useful.

This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year old-girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime (which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing does not match) would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue.

This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thallium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens--not just on the fifteen thousand killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. This is a regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse the agents to inflict the greatest damage. This is the fate that awaits thousands of Iraqis each year. The roughest estimates are that over the last twenty years more than two hundred thousand people have disappeared into Saddam's prison system, never to be heard from again. Hundreds of thousands of others were taken away and, after unforgettable bouts of torture that left them psychologically and often physically mangled, eventually were released or escaped. To give a sense of scale, just the numbers of Iraqis never heard from again would be equivalent to about 2.5 million Americans suffering such a fate.

As terrifying as this is, so too is the ease with which an Iraqi can realize such a fate. It is not only the regime's political opponents who face these most terrifying measures. Torture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort. When an Iraqi is brought in by one of the security services for a whole range of issues—many of them seemingly minor offenses such as accidentally defacing an image of the president—the regime's agents, particularly the AMN, often start by torturing the person before deciding what to do with him or her. Moreover, many people are brought in by the security services by mistake—their name was similar to that of someone the regime was looking for, they had an incidental conversation with someone the regime suspected, in a moment of anger or frustration they said something that was construed as anti-Saddam, they were at the wrong place at the wrong time—and it is only after lengthy torture and/or execution that the regime realizes its mistake. (It goes without saying that there is never an apology or restitution in such cases.) Two Iraqi soccer players who have defected since 1999 have reported that Uday Saddam routinely had Iraqi athletes beaten and tortured for losing international matches.

The regime is always watching. It has legions of regular informants who are rewarded for reporting suspicious activities. There are rewards for anyone who reports on someone else's anti-regime activities and penalties for those who don't report such activity. Children are encouraged to inform on their parents and publicly rewarded for doing so. The regime bugs and listens to a wide range of communications media and locales. Most Iraqis, especially Baghdadis, automatically assume that everything they say in public will be heard by the regime. Even in private, many Iraqis are wary of expressing any political views for fear that the regime is listening or that a member of their household will inform on them. Iraqis have learned to adapt and survive in this Orwellian nightmare, but they live their lives on a tightrope, knowing that the slightest misstep could plunge them into a vat of acid—figuratively or literally.

As an example of the lengths to which the regime is willing to go to ensure its control, beginning in 1992, Baghdad began a systematic effort to drain the al-Hawizeh, al-Hawr, al-Hammar, and al-Amarah marshes in southern Iraq. These marshes had become a sanctuary for the army deserters and Shi'ite rebels who had mounted an insurgency against the regime after their defeat during the 1991 Intifadah. Iraq built a massive system of canals to divert the waters of the Euphrates that feed these marshes. By late 1993, the regime had dried more than 4,500 square kilometers of wetlands, roughly 90 percent of the marshes. Iraqi soldiers were ordered to bum the villages and poison the water in what little remained. In so doing, they created an ecological catastrophe and destroyed the way of life of several hundred thousand Marsh Arabs who had made their homes among the rushes and reeds for more than a millennium. Like the slaughter and forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of Kurds during the 1970s and '80s, this is just another example of the cruelty of the regime. Given Saddam's willingness to obliterate entire peoples and societies without a second thought, what chance does the average Iraqi have of happiness in what Kanan Makiya has aptly called "the Republic of Fear"?


From Kenneth Pollack’s
The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq
pp. 122-125

And there was me thinking that the main reason for going to war was the “very real” threat of weapons of mass destruction!

It looks like, in fact, it wasn't at all. It was a chivalric and utterly selfless rescue of a people oppressed by an evil regime!

Each night, on CNN, we can witness the success this campaign by counting the dead.

England with the out-of-date antinational form of the board, being
in a precritical condition, being nuclear empire, represents
the basic danger to the world from itself.
Danger is represented also by the foreign policy of England, loosening
the peace relations, developing and aggravating political conflicts.
Before disarmament of England, with a purpose of prevention of occurrence armed
conflicts provoked by England, it is necessary to consider England as a possible aggressor.
It is necessary to conduct defending policy as protection against English colonialism
and to redirect weapons from politically illiterate conductors of war
to their source. England should know that it will not avoid responsibility any more
for kindling of war and for colonization. Disarmament of England
and transfering all authority to democratic bodies would remove military
intensity in the world.

You're just off your F :smiley35: trolley mate.

Main principles of English democratic colonization which invaders of Iraq follow by, Hitler sounded 64 years ago.
" We shall declare, that we are compelled to occupy, operate and pacify, that it is done for the sake of the population; that we provide order, communications, feed. We should represent ourselves as liberators. Nobody should guess, that we prepare the final order, but it will not prevent us to take to necessary measures - to send from the country, to shoot - and these measures we shall accept. We shall operate as if we here only temporarily ".
After S.Husejn disarmed the country, and democratic colonialists occupied Iraq, Iraq insurgents use the remained means of conducting emancipating war - terror for emancipating the country.
Democratic colonization goes to a counterbalance to own development of the countries of Asia.
Using natural aspiration of people to an establishment of a free society,
and backwardness of system of the state and local management, before occupation, democratic colonialists aggravate contradictions arising on this way, collide a society together to irreconcilable opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleg281

Main principles of English democratic colonization which invaders of Iraq follow by, Hitler sounded 64 years ago.
" We shall declare, that we are compelled to occupy, operate and pacify, that it is done for the sake of the population; that we provide order, communications, feed. We should represent ourselves as liberators. Nobody should guess, that we prepare the final order, but it will not prevent us to take to necessary measures - to send from the country, to shoot - and these measures we shall accept. We shall operate as if we here only temporarily ".
After S.Husejn disarmed the country, and democratic colonialists occupied Iraq, Iraq insurgents use the remained means of conducting emancipating war - terror for emancipating the country.
Democratic colonization goes to a counterbalance to own development of the countries of Asia.
Using natural aspiration of people to an establishment of a free society,
and backwardness of system of the state and local management, before occupation, democratic colonialists aggravate contradictions arising on this way, collide a society together to irreconcilable opposition.

---

I like ice cream too joshua! my favorite is CHOCOLATE! mmmmmmmm......chocolate......

Similarities are not present, except for:

1. In opinion of London in Sudetes in 1938 human rights were broken,
and Czechoslovakia threatened the peace in the Europe.
In opinion of London in Iraq in 2003 human rights were broken,
and Iraq threatened safety in the world.
2. London lobbied occupation of Sudetes in 1938 and Iraq in 2003.
3. Military force in these operations is assigned to the most armed countries
during corresponding times.
4. Sudetes and Iraq had become the important strategic and raw resource.
5. London shifts the responsibility for occupation on the countries-allies.
Attitudes before the allied countries change.
The policy becomes internal matter.

As well as 64 years ago a priority policy of London is a struggle for
human rights in the East.

Does similarity comes to an end on this?

With strengthening a role of England in Asia and colonization of Iraq, the question about restoration the status of democratic Hong Kong and an aggravation of contradictions between London and Pekin rises. China a developing socialist country having complex times of perfection of a control system. England – country with aspiration of restoration of colonialism in the form of democratic and military-political in АPR. The greatest danger is represented with idea of profascist disinformation by London and presence of nuclear weapon in London.

In the USA people supported ideas of Freedom during formation of a state system. With coming to international scene the government of the USA has changed idea of Freedom under influence of London to the doctrine of Democracy. Democracy has become the system of the modern control over the person in the hands of colonialists. In international relations it is a form of colonialism.
Civil emancipating war in Iraq becomes regional movement of people and the governments for Freedom from Democratic colonization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cohibanut

And there was me thinking that the main reason for going to war was the “very real” threat of weapons of mass destruction!

It looks like, in fact, it wasn't at all. It was a chivalric and utterly selfless rescue of a people oppressed by an evil regime!

Each night, on CNN, we can witness the success this campaign by counting the dead.

---

Yeah and we can also witness the success of this campaign by counting the thousand upon thousands of innocent men women and children whose lives have been spared because our boys have destroyed the evil regime.

I've only got one question for you:

What was the official basis (or reason stated) upon which the entire war was started?




(Clue: Where are they?)

Sure Im gonna admit no WOMD have been found yet. But this had to be done and should have been done during the Clinton years to save all those people from tyranny. No one else would. This was and is a war for one thing....Freedom...Freedom against oppression and terroristic rule. WOMD may have been a excuse but the main bad guy is gone,millions are saved. Now then I do believe it is time however to bring the troops home and let the new democracy pick up the pieces and begin life anew.

I agree with you that SH was a dictator and yes I agree that the people of Irac are better off without him.

What I do not buy is the way this war was sold to us.

First of all it was sold on the basis that SH did have some WMD and that they were a direct threat to the US. Wrong.

Secondly it was sold on the basis that the world as a whole would be safer without SH. Wrong. Terrorists are now stronger than ever due to the bad publicity this war has triggered.

I have always maintained and probably always will, that this war should have been fought under the flag of the UN. NOT by the US, UK and the other couple of countries who decided to join in.

I would have backed it under the UN as a consensus agreed by most countries in the world. The major problem was that the case for WMD was never made clear and unequivocal.


PS: Damn! You're up early! I'ts 12.05 here in London but I see you wrote at 5.33 am!!! You must love cigars so much that you log on in the middle of the night! :smiley2:

Can't blame you though. This is a great site. :smiley37:

I work from 10pm to 6am so when I have a weekend off I usually stay up all night just like at work and sleep during the day. :smiley36:

Well sir, it's a pleasure to have a civil debate with someone who prefers sharing ideas and opinions as opposed to engaging in antagonisic banter! :smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cohibanut

What was the official basis (or reason stated) upon which the entire war was started?

(Clue: Where are they?)

---

pssst... There was more than one reason. But just for the fun of it, even the democrats, for years and years, told us all Sadman had WMDs. Of course it was usually right after Billary had just blown up a milk factory to get attention away from whichever piece of ass he just got caught with. Why is it that when Bush finally did something about the possible WMDs, and the many other reasons, people get their underroos in a bunch and try to pretend like Bush just came outa nowhere and just made this up on the spot?

Seems to me about 15 years worth of dems AND repubs should take the blame for being wrong about the WMDs.

Emancipating movement of provinces against England is connected with colonial
form of board in Mother country.
The English democracy which arisen in 13 century as the form of colonial board
served interests of barons and peers, in modern England - to the same noblemen.
Provinces are practically as dominions and protectorates. Struggle of English
provinces is conducted for free participation in government against
limited democracy.
Development of English democratic colonization threatens also to safety
of the world. The state with the out-of-date form of board where the lie can
become the reason of war should not have the nuclear weapon.

Oh God. Not you again. Forget my comment about good manners and antagonism.

:smiley38: :smiley38: :smiley38: :smiley38: :smiley38: :smiley38: