by expatbrit 62 Replies latest jw friends
Really...why the "OIL FOR FOOD" crap. Why not just food? The oil for food program was set up by the US as a means to keep their economy going.
Why not say to Saddam, "If you want to be the tyrant that you are and oppress your people, well then we won't give you ways to generate income, no one will buy your oil" Why isn't it that way? Why isn't the US boycotting Iraq's oil, until Saddam is removed?
Can you answer that US warmonger?
It is true that the only way Saddam will give up power is if we wrest it from his cold, dead hand and that further attempts at political solutions to the issue will serve to prolong his reign. But I don’t believe that by opposing the war, one is necessarily supporting Saddam. When voicing an opinion, the speaker should not automatically be considered to be a backer of all possible affects resultant of the implementation of that opinion. For example:
For reasons I will not get into now in the interests of staying on topic, I support the military action now going on. I fully realize that during this action, some of our boys and girls over there will be captured and tortured. Anyone who tells me that I am in any way supportive, passive or otherwise, of having American troops tortured is asking for a fat lip and a black eye.
On the flip side, there are those out there who will protest any action by any military force anywhere. That means that they were against the military action of
When someone champions a cause or supports a course of action, the effects of that course of action should be up for scrutiny and discussion, but I think it unfair to attribute the support of that person to any negative repercussions.
""According to your logic, then we are also passively supporting every other dictator and human rights criminal by not policing the world. To take it even further, you are passively supporting Hussein since you are not over their helping fight this war. ""
What rubbish. Is this the best you can do? Support can be given in may ways, like counteracting misinformation, false choices and reasonings like yours....
""Why don't you go see how our depleted uranium use, is torturing and murdering children.""
The Facts prove otherwise.......do a search on the studies posted here...more rubbish!
By JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA
ILI, East Timor
I often find myself counting how many of us are left in this world. One recent morning my two surviving brothers and I had coffee together. And I found myself counting again. We were seven brothers and five sisters, another large family in this tiny Catholic country.
One brother died when he was a baby. Antonio, our oldest brother, died in 1992 of lack of medical care. Three other siblings were murdered in our country's long conflict with Indonesia. One, a younger sister, Maria Ortencia, died on Dec. 19, 1978, killed by a rocket fired from a OV-10 Bronco aircraft, which the United States had sold to Indonesia. She was buried on a majestic mountaintop and her grave was tended by the humble people of the area for 20 years.
Early in September of last year, I went through the heart-wrenching process of unearthing the improvised grave of our sister, whom I last saw when she was 18. As her body was exhumed, I noticed that the back of her head and one side of her face had been blown off. She must have died instantly. We reburied our sister in the cemetery in the capital, Dili. Two other siblings who were killed, our brothers Nuno and Guilherme, were executed by Indonesian soldiers in 1977. With little information on the area where they were killed and disposed of, we have no hope of recovering their bodies for a dignified burial.
There is hardly a family in my country that has not lost a loved one. Many families were entirely wiped out during the decades of occupation by Indonesia and the war of resistance against it. The United States and other Western nations contributed to this tragedy. Some bear a direct responsibility because they helped Indonesia by providing military aid. Others were accomplices through indifference and silence. But all redeemed themselves. In 1999, a global peacekeeping force helped East Timor secure its independence and protect its people. It is now a free nation.
But I still acutely remember the suffering and misery brought about by war. It would certainly be a better world if war were not necessary. Yet I also remember the desperation and anger I felt when the rest of the world chose to ignore the tragedy that was drowning my people. We begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary.
So I follow with some consternation the debate on Iraq in the United Nations Security Council and in NATO. I am unimpressed by the grandstanding of certain European leaders. Their actions undermine the only truly effective means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the use of force.
Critics of the United States give no credit to the Bush administration's aggressive strategy, even though it is the real reason that Iraq has allowed weapons inspectors to return and why Baghdad is cooperating a bit more, if it indeed is at all.
The antiwar demonstrations are truly noble. I know that differences of opinion and public debate over issues like war and peace are vital. We enjoy the right to demonstrate and express opinions today because East Timor is an independent democracy — something we didn't have during a 25-year reign of terror. Fortunately for all of us, the age of globalization has meant that citizens have a greater say in almost every major issue.
But if the antiwar movement dissuades the United States and its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have contributed to the peace of the dead. Saddam Hussein will emerge victorious and ever more defiant. What has been accomplished so far will unravel. Containment is doomed to fail. We cannot forget that despots protected by their own elaborate security apparatus are still able to make decisions.
Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace.
I agree that the Bush administration must give more time to the weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate. The United States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its enemies. It can afford to be a little more patient. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, has proved himself to be a strong mediator and no friend of dictators. He and a group of world leaders should use this time to persuade Saddam Hussein to resign and go into exile. In turn, Saddam Hussein could be credited with preventing another war and sparing his people. But even this approach will not work without the continued threat of force.
Abandoning such a threat would be perilous. Yes, the antiwar movement would be able to claim its own victory in preventing a war. But it would have to accept that it also helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself to the tens of thousands of his victims.
History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar intellectual once told me how he felt when the world finally interceded in his country: "I am a pacifist. But I was happy, I felt liberated, when I saw NATO bombs falling."
José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.
Cut and paste sucks on this board. To continue my truncated thought...
On the flip side, there are those who will protest any military action by anyone anywhere. That means they were against the military action of Iraq against Kuwait that touched off Gulf One as well as the military action of the U.S. against Iraq to reverse the situation. Not terribly practical but it didn't mean that they were for Iraq's invasion just because they were against the U.S. liberation. They were just against war.
""If we are supporting Saddam by *not* wanting a war then how guilty is the USA for FUNDING the regimes (such as Saddam and others) that do these things?""
Historically, this is a red herring. Geopolitics and the dynamics of the world situation changes with time. What was once friends are now enemies. This has happened over and over throughout history. We must deal with issues that are real today.
To follow through on this premise, then no Nation can act by virtue of its past dealings with other nations.
"""Yes, the antiwar movement would be able to claim its own victory in preventing a war. But it would have to accept that it also helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself to the tens of thousands of his victims. """
I agree 100%!
""Why don't you go see how our depleted uranium use, is torturing and murdering children.""The Facts prove otherwise.......do a search on the studies posted here...more rubbish!
Ya "facts" from the same people that are defending the use of it, namely the military, give me a friggin break, I know 2 people this is currently affecting, I can see it with my own eyes, those are my facts, what are yours? YOu don't have facts, you have government propaganda.
""Ya "facts" from the same people that are defending the use of it, ""
Pot calling the kettle black? The same can be said for the mis-information that your agenda demands. Your point is a fallacy. Sorry, Facts are Facts! The studies really demonstrate the agenda of the "blame US for everything" club.
""That the Iraqi people will trust the western powers. Why should they? We've screwed them over several times before so any notion that we'll turn up and they will open their arms cheering is a bit naive. They will not rebel until they are confident that the USA is going to win ... that they are in the cities, in control. But they will not find it at all easy to get into the cities and be in control without this internal revolt. A lot seemed to depend on this and assume it was going to happen but it does not seem to have been based on real intelligence, more "wishful thinking".""
Are you kidding, if we did not buy their oil, then they would have no standard of living. Thanks to the western powers, they have $$$. Just check commodity prices.....OPEC.... Also, compared to the dictators and leaders they tolerate, our standard of treatment is a refreshment. I will not even get into how they treat each other......
Hello ThiChi,
An interesting article in which despite my 'anti-this war at this time' stance, I found many points of agreement. I also agree with this particular paragraph in its entirety :
I agree that the Bush administration must give more time to the weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate. The United States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its enemies. It can afford to be a little more patient. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, has proved himself to be a strong mediator and no friend of dictators. He and a group of world leaders should use this time to persuade Saddam Hussein to resign and go into exile. In turn, Saddam Hussein could be credited with preventing another war and sparing his people. But even this approach will not work without the continued threat of force.
The war against Iran was sanctioned in the US on two basic grounds and I wish to make it plain that the plight of dying children, the liberation of the Iraqi people and the immense brutality of the monstrous Saddam Hussien were not the reasons given to the world for this war. They became the reasons as opposition grew around the world to the war. Let us remind ourselves that the two reasons that the US Coalition invaded Iraq were:
1) The Iraq had not abided by UN resolutions in declaring and destroying its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq claimed that it once had these weapons but that they had been destroyed. As of today’s date, no such weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. They may indeed exists, but eight days into the war, with half of Iran in Coalition hands, no such weapons have been uncovered.
2) That Iraq was directly linked to the murderous tragedy on 9/11, had harbored, trained and financed the terrorists who committed this act. As of today’s date, despite the full weight of US intelligence and special forces actually on the ground for many years, within Iraq, no such connections have been established. They have of course been established with Saudia Arabia, but I digress!!
HS
