War after war, whether is new one? HISTORY REPEATS

[cigarsarge]

Time for someone to take a flying leap. Oleg281

[Oleg281]

England which made so much for nazism, has remained out of work after occupation of the Europe by nazis. Hitler not only ignored interests of England but also “put to the place” his neighbour. To Hitler it was enough, and further - to the East.
There was no second front. The England-American front was urgently opened and question about repartition of the Europe was rised then.

Hitler’s policy was based on
political views of London in many respects. Hitler headed a policy of colonization.
So " the policy of pacification" actually was a policy of the consent with
Hitler's actions, but it was replaced by policy of treachery to Hitler after, though
ideological views of London have not changed.

Iraq (2002) was disarmed and was ready to cooperate with the United Nations, S.Husejn was deceived, now terrorists protect the country from democratic colonialists.

[Oleg281]

1. The economy of Germany after defeat in the First World war was completely under the control of the English capital (reparation, credits).
By 1932 Englishmen did not know what is more favourably for England - credits or reparations, and democratic elections passed under the control of the English capital.
2. Hitler has won democratic elections owing to support of London.
Money come also directly from abroad: English oil king Deterding, a friend of Hoffmann and Rehberg, supplied Hitler with currency on a regular basis (he gave 10 million of dutch guldens once).
3 England never consider seriously to Hitler. Hitler was a hope as a force which is capable to control people.
4 When war began? Was Czechoslovakia occupied after partition of Poland? England initiated war.
5 Hitler was not going to occupy England. Hitler understood, that England is the leading colonial power, and England understood that there must be no friends in war for colonies.
Military actions against England had inconsistent character.
Luftvaffe never undertook concentrated attacks to the British radar stations, and they had huge value for defense of the country. Hitler counted, that having transferred bombardments on cities of England he will compel London to go for negotiations. Negotiations about what?
6. The second front was conducted in Africa in trying to solve colonial problems.
Only people's liberation movements and USSR battled against colonialism. For England the main thing was preservation of owned colonies and repartition of the Europe.
7. 60 million person was lost because of a colonial policy of England which come to deadlock.

[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.

[joshua]

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

[samclemmons]

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

[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.

[Oleg281]

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.

[Cohibanut]

You're just off your F trolley mate.

[the ox]

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.

[Cohibanut]

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?)

[Oleg281]

Asia has appeared not ready to oppose lie and hypocrisy,
therefore democracy in Asia is shown in the worst form,
as imposing of colonial standards, suppression of freedom,
destruction of culture and morals.
Anticolonial war in Iraq is directed to restoration
of statehood, free development of a society.

[Oleg281]

Financed by London and Washington and created artificially,
democratic аuthority support tolerance of people to colonial occupation.
Democratic colonizers use educational backlog of Iraq – it is difficult
for people to understand colonial ways of a robbery
by having little education.

[joshua]

war after war, oleg keeps posting

[Oleg281]

Colonialistic coalition.
Militarians from more than 30 countries were directed to a coalition gathered by London and Washington.
The most part is made with the countries which left ideas of socialism
(The CIS, Baltics, the East Europe, Asia, America).
London and Washington successfully used instability in these countries, which
has led to replacement of universal values by ideas of English colonialism.
Other participants of a coalition can be named supporters
or adherents of colonialism.

[TheVitaleMob]

Geez Oleg, shut up already!!!

[CoventryCat86]

Don't make him think that anyone cares.

You've forced me to spam this thread again!

[Oleg281]

Spontaneous transfering of authority from hands of
invaders to emancipating movement in Iraq can cause big
number of victims. It is necessary for regional and international
organizations to come into contact with emancipating movement
to help with the organization of transfering of authority, to create
system of amnesty to pro-American Iraq democrats.
To not allow disintegration of the country into the North and the South.

[Oleg281]

The next large act of genocide will probably be emancipated
city Ale-Khaim, the plan of London and Washington may be
in concentration the guerrilla in the city for carpet bombing the
city. Emancipating war undermines colonialism of London and
Washington.
The basic centers of where the Anglo-American militarians are
located, are in areas of extracting of oil and Bagdad. Washington
and London hardly will throw large forces from protection of oil
extracting on suppression of emancipating movement. More likely,
tactics of suppression of revolts of Anglo-Americans will be carpet
bombing and retaliatory operations, use of the technical superiority.
Nevertheless, guerrillas can win, if their army becomes imperceptible.
Tactics of insurgents can become emancipating of the
cities and transfering of management to national structures,
without direct collisions with coalition armies. The main thing
is that there would be no pro-American democrats in management.
Probably, insurgents will be able to emancipate the country having
created wide guerrilla emancipating movement. And how do you think?

[nhcigarfan]

"I ain't to pontificate out my ass or jerk you all off...."