Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • paul wheaton
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Himai Minh

no war

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

No, but you might check the list of "countries who want to keep a murderous dictator in power".


What India says and does on this issue is immaterial. India is in an uneviable position where it can't go against or with either Iraq or US. So we are just playing it neutral.
Further, India does not have any "lucrative" deals with Iraq as France and Germany have. So accusing India of "supporting a murderous dictator" does not make any sense here. The obvious reason is, with second largest muslim population in the world, we have no other option but to play neutral.
BTW, Saddam was a murderous dictator even before invading Kuwait and also while he was getting the chemical weapons from US. :roll:
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
A Costly Charade At the U.N.
The article is worth a read imho.


Quote:
The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the United Nations, it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea and Cameroon and Angola count.
I was in a bookstore and came across "The Soviet Viewpoint. Georgi Arbatov and Willem Oltmans" book, it was published around 1983, I think. I bought it out of curiosity, thought it would be funny to read all this communist crap now. Recently I read the first chapter and instead of good laugh had to scratch my head... A lot of what I read corresponds to what was said in this forum or with some of my sad observations.
"Georgi Arbatov - the director of the Institute of United States and Canadian Studies in Moscow. He is a doctor of History. At the Twenty-sixth Party Congress in 1981 he was elected as Full Member of the Central Committee"
"Willem Oltmans, the noted Duth journalist and author, was educated at Yale University and spent twelve years as a United Nations correspondent."
"GA: Then let me mention another feature typical of U.S. foreign policy, though America is hardly unique in this: a tremendous respect for strength. As far as I understand American attitudes, a weak country is no partner for them. It's only the strong that they respect, and this should be regarded as a fact of life, at least for time being. Though the main American complaint about the Soviet Union today centers around our strength and even our alleged superiority, I think that our weakness wouldn't have provided for better Soviet-American relations. Quite to the contrary. Our country in such a case would have been far worse off in its relations with the United States than now. The same, by the way, can be said about many other countries that gained their independence and freedom of action just because the Soviet Union emerged as a counterweight to overwhelming American power. Saying this, I don't mean to picture America as a nation inherently aggressive. This is simply not so, if we take Americans as human beings. But though the United States likes to attribute this exclusive respect for strength to other countries, it's mostly applicable to the United States itself. We have more than once felt it on our own skins.
WO: But your becoming strong hasn't turned your relations with the United States into a romance, either.
No, it hasn't. I only want to stress that our weakness would have made these relations worse. It would have increased false hopes for remaking us according to American standards. "
Except that hopes weren't false...
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"GA: Then let me mention another feature typical of U.S. foreign policy, though America is hardly unique in this: a tremendous respect for strength. As far as I understand American attitudes, a weak country is no partner for them.

He obviously doesn't understand American attitudes, does he. We have many countries that are relatively weak that are our partners. The Phillipines, Taiwan, most of the Carribean Islands are all partners with us.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I just happened to get some few words from martin sheen about this proposed war, You cannot lead the world by fear and intimidation, you should lead with vision and humanity" we have a US administration arm-twisting every country it needs and paying off countries just for Bush to have his war. I salute the courage of the Turkish parliament in rejecting this war,over 90% of the turkish people reject the war and oppose US troops on their soil, we need more countries to step up and stand up for what is right.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Jos� Ramos-Horta (War for Peace? It Worked in My Country.), East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, who is quite familiar with living in a dictatorship, wrote the following:

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.


Protester Carrying Appropriate Sign
[ March 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
I salute the courage of the Turkish parliament in rejecting this war,over 90% of the turkish people reject the war and oppose US troops on their soil, we need more countries to step up and stand up for what is right.


Turkey was not "standing up for what is right". In 1991, the Gulf War and aftermanth did some hefty damage to the Turkish economy. On top of that was what was a de facto civil war going on in part Turkey with the Kurds. They don't want a repeat, simple as that.
I'm glad that we won't be using Turkey as it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Supposedly we had caved into Turkish demands to let their forces accompany ours into northern Iraq. This would have been a huge mistake as the Iraq Kurds would have (rightly) viewed the Turkish military as an invading force bent on stifling Kurdish freedom, and hostilities would have broken out. This isn't without precedent, as when we established the northern no-fly zone in 1991, Turkish military aircraft, using the cover of coalition aircraft, would bomb Kurdish targets in Iraq.
Anyway, it will be best for us and the Iraqi Kurds if Turkey stays out of things. Ideally we would have been able to launch a northern front from Turkey, which would allow us to bring armored and mechanized forces to bear more quickly, but we can make do fine without it. I'm guessing though that the Turks will cross into Iraq anyway as soon as military action commences though, in order to clamp down on the Kurds. That has the potential to cause us some problems.
[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Speaking about Turkey, here is broader perspectve:
Iraq's neighbours: How do they feel about America's looming Iraq attack?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:

:roll:


Are you expecting an answer ....
Dont you know Silence is Gold ....
Its India only who should check the list "countries who want to keep a murderous dictator in power".
As usual US is always right , why he should check a list
Ek Sher Arz Hai: (I would like to recite a Sher[Urdu poetry])
Tum Karo Toh Wah Wah
Hum Kare Toh Hai Hai.
Meaning :
If you do a thing, it should be prasied.
If I do the same thing, it should be cursed.
I think we should start a thread where one can post who should remember what.
But even it is useless, cause then no one agree that they made OBL, they wont have any answer why they should try to remove dictatorship in one country and in another they should supprt.
They wont answer why after 9/11, they are supporting countries which supported Taliban.
Are you still expecting answers ???
And above all they wont agree that US is doing it for its self interest. They will tell how the world will benefit from this action.....
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Turkey was not "standing up for what is right". In 1991, the Gulf War and aftermanth did some ehfty damage to the Turkish economy. On top of that was what was a de facto civil war going on in part Turkey with the Kurds. They don't want a repeat, simple as that.
I'm glad that we won't be using Turkey as it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Supposedly we had caved into Turkish demands to let their forces accompany ours into northern Iraq. This would have been a huge mistake as the Iraq Kurds would have (rightly) viewed the Turkish military as an invading force bent on stifling Kurdish freedom, and hostilities would have broken out. This isn't without precedent, as when we established the northern no-fly zone in 1991, Turkish military aircraft, using the cover of coalition aircraft, would bomb Kurdish targets in Iraq.
Anyway, it will be best for us and the Iraqi Kurds if Turkey stays out of things. Ideally we would have been able to launch a northern front from Turkey, which would allow us to bring armored and mechanized forces to bear more quickly, but we can make do fine without it. I'm guessing though that the Turks will cross into Iraq anyway as soon as military action commences though, in order to clamp down on the Kurds. That has the potential to cause us some problems.


Well 2003 is not 1991, in 1991, the whole world was with the united states now the situation is the opposite. Right not The TURKISH PARLIAMENT which i believe truly represents the turkish people said no.The Turkish govermnet officials on their own part have been compromised. Also since when did the US become a defender of human rights abuses.Previous administrations conveniently looked the other way when the other Bush was in power. I Think it is self-serving beyond belief that the current US administration is so concerned by human right abuses in iraq that it want to bring "freedom" to iraq by raining bombs on its cities, killing its people by the hundreds of thousands and occupying it for years
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

I Think it is self-serving beyond belief that the current US administration is so concerned by human right abuses in iraq that it want to bring "freedom" to iraq by raining bombs on its cities, killing its people by the hundreds of thousands and occupying it for years


1. Bombs do not fall like rain anymore, they are aimed. Serious consideration is made before a target is attacked.
2. Concern for others human rights is not self serving.
3. US concern for human rights of Iraq citizenry is a benefit which in comp sci terms is a side effect.
US is going to remove a wealthy, irrational, and dangerous despot that represents a percieved threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness of US citizens. Protecting US citzens is the duty of the US government.
[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

1. Bombs do not fall like rain anymore, they are aimed. Serious consideration is made before a target is attacked.
2. Concern for others human rights is not self serving.
3. US concern for human rights of Iraq citizenry is a benefit which in comp sci terms is a side effect.
US is going to remove a wealthy, irrational, and dangerous despot that represents a percieved threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness of US citizens. Protecting US citzens is the duty of the US government.
[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]


That is very interesting, it is one of those "aimed bombs" that destroyed the chinese embassy in bosnia a couple of years ago. The military has an euphemism for it "colllateral damage"-- it is alright for us to sit in front of our computer monitors and gameboy consoles and aim
bombs at others, may I remind people that some of these bunker-busting bombs are made of depleted uranium--anyone who knows anything about uranium will know very well its side -effects. Our country has never been so widely hated around the world as it is now. It is sad, instead of being leaders, we are bullies, those we cannot bully we bribe. I know there are still people in the world
who will stand up and condemn a genocidal war. The other argument is this, we have people in this country who cannot wrap their minds around complexity, ie "if you are not with us you are against us", "if you do not support us you are unpatriotic" i would submit that those people are the real non-patriots, willing to waste the lives of our brave soldiers in a senseless war for oil and global domination.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
That is very interesting, it is one of those "aimed bombs" that destroyed the chinese embassy in bosnia a couple of years ago.
It was in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, not Bosnia. And it hit precisely what was aimed for.

may I remind people that some of these bunker-busting bombs are made of depleted uranium--anyone who knows anything about uranium will know very well its side -effects.
Uranium and depleted uranium are not the same thing, so knowing what the side-effects of uranium are does not contribute much to knowing what the side-effects of DU are. While people suspect that there are short-lived localized effects from spent DU weapons, there is currently no scientific evidence supporting this claim one way or the other.
Our country has never been so widely hated around the world as it is now.
And? Aside from the fact that this is merely your perception, it really doesn't matter. Life is not a popularity contest. As long as we are doing basically the right thing, as removing Hussein from power obviously is, I really could care less what others perceptions are. Part of the responsibiilty of strength is having the courage to do the right thing even when it's not popular.
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
That is very interesting, it is one of those "aimed bombs" that destroyed the chinese embassy in bosnia a couple of years ago.
It was in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, not Bosnia. And it hit precisely what was aimed for.

may I remind people that some of these bunker-busting bombs are made of depleted uranium--anyone who knows anything about uranium will know very well its side -effects.
Uranium and depleted uranium are not the same thing, so knowing what the side-effects of uranium are does not contribute much to knowing what the side-effects of DU are. While people suspect that there are short-lived localized effects from spent DU weapons, there is currently no scientific evidence supporting this claim one way or the other.
Our country has never been so widely hated around the world as it is now.
And? Aside from the fact that this is merely your perception, it really doesn't matter. Life is not a popularity contest. As long as we are doing basically the right thing, as removing Hussein from power obviously is, I really could care less what others perceptions are. Part of the responsibiilty of strength is having the courage to do the right thing even when it's not popular.


first point whether belgrade os bosnia is not the point, unless the you are implying that a bomb was aimed at the chinese embasssy, then i guess you are right, the bomb was aimed at the chinese embassy and it hit precisely what it was aimed at, Depleted uranium is still uranium, if you take some time to check out the facts, do a search and find out what the half-life of uranium is what the effects have been attributed to it. And there is lots of scientific evidence to support the effects of depleted uranium. The information is out there, that is if you want the truth of course
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
By the way if anyone is interested in finding out about depleted uranium,why don't you check out the campaign against depleted uranium at:
http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
more info about depleted uranium for the naysayers from the website above:The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium 238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term 'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by producing deadly weapons.
"
Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled. These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human health and the environment. "
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Latest updates on the "human shields":
Human shields: They came, they saw, they fled
Inside the deluded world of the 'human shields'

It seems some of Saddam's helpers have left Iraq, fearing for their lives. It's noteworthy how quickly their convictions were tossed aside as soon as it became apparent they might have to die in defense of Hussein.
Regarding DU, you're not telling us anything new. Best that can be guessed at this point is that the effects of DU poisoning are similar to the effects of poisoning from any heavy metal, such as mercury. Anyway, they are still lacking in scientific studies from the effects of DU after the Gulf War and Kosovo, as I had previously stated.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Shay, you really don't have clue. A war that will remove Saddam from power and free his people is a "genocidal" war that will kill "hundreds of thousands"? Where do you get this? The last war killed about 100 Iraqi civilians. What makes you think this one will be any different? If you want us to consider what you say why not toss aside the hyperbole and speak facts not fiction.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I'm glad that we won't be using Turkey as it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Supposedly we had caved into Turkish demands to let their forces accompany ours into northern Iraq. This would have been a huge mistake as the Iraq Kurds would have (rightly) viewed the Turkish military as an invading force bent on stifling Kurdish freedom, and hostilities would have broken out.


New York Times today:
"While Kurds in Turkey still live under a web of restrictions, those in northern Iraq govern themselves and have almost unlimited freedom to embrace their communal identity. So it is no surprise that Iraqi Kurds have erupted in protest at the news that thousands of Turkish soldiers would enter their enclave if the planned American invasion of Iraq takes place. Some have burned Turkish flags. Others have declared themselves ready to fight if Turkish troops move more than 12 miles inside their territory, a limit the Turks have tentatively accepted."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/02KINZ.html?tntemail1
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
By the way, does anybody have a clue what is this "prosperous Kurdish democracy" in Iraq about?
From the same article:
"In the 11 years since the end of the gulf war, Kurds in northern Iraq have built their enclave into a surprisingly prosperous democracy.
...
In seeking wide-ranging autonomy within a new Iraq, the Kurds can argue that they have built the only democracy that has ever existed on Iraqi soil, one that could be a model for the rest of the country."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/02KINZ.html?tntemail1
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Shay, you really don't have clue. A war that will remove Saddam from power and free his people is a "genocidal" war that will kill "hundreds of thousands"? Where do you get this? The last war killed about 100 Iraqi civilians. What makes you think this one will be any different? If you want us to consider what you say why not toss aside the hyperbole and speak facts not fiction.


Far from that:, you want the facts, why not try checking it out yourself?. Its all out there
you can check out the website below if you want more info:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4593608,00.html
Here is quote from the site for your benefit:
"Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, estimates casualties could be five times higher than in the 1991 Gulf war. "The avowed US aim of regime change means any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive, and will involve more deadly weapons developed in the interim," it says in a report available on the first Gulf war, the UN calculated that between 3,500 and 15,000 civilians died during the war (plus between 100,000 and 120,000 Iraqi troops). A new war of the kind projected by the US could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 in Baghdad and between 1,200 and 30,000 on the southern and northern fronts in Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul. If biological and chemical weapons were used, up to 33,000 more people could die."
You wanted the facts, you got it
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Latest updates on the "human shields":
Human shields: They came, they saw, they fled
Inside the deluded world of the 'human shields'

It seems some of Saddam's helpers have left Iraq, fearing for their lives. It's noteworthy how quickly their convictions were tossed aside as soon as it became apparent they might have to die in defense of Hussein.
Regarding DU, you're not telling us anything new. Best that can be guessed at this point is that the effects of DU poisoning are similar to the effects of poisoning from any heavy metal, such as mercury. Anyway, they are still lacking in scientific studies from the effects of DU after the Gulf War and Kosovo, as I had previously stated.


I think you should try harder, why not dispute facts from the information supplied instead of being dismissive and minimising it?. I am sure others observing this discussion will be willing to check out the facts for themselves instead of relying on your "learned opinion"
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
60 Minutes tonight says Saddam has appropriated $20 billion in oil revenues for his own pocket.
Isn't that oil money supposed to be the birthright of all the Iraqi people?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
You want the facts, why not try checking it out yourself?. Its all out there
you can check out the website below if you want more info:


Not to be argumentative, but that goes under the realm of opinion, not fact. I guess we will find out soon enough the validity of their guesses. Hopefully they are vastly overestimating.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
I think you should try harder, why not dispute facts from the information supplied instead of being dismissive and minimising it?. I am sure others observing this discussion will be willing to check out the facts for themselves instead of relying on your "learned opinion"


http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/misconceptions.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/depleted_uranium.shtml
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_balkans/index.html
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
By the way, does anybody have a clue what is this "prosperous Kurdish democracy" in Iraq about?


Since the northern no-fly zone was put into place in 1991, the Kurds have been able to achieve some level of autonomy from Baghdad and have been doing alright for themselves. I think it bodes well for a post-Saddam Iraq.
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Since the northern no-fly zone was put into place in 1991, the Kurds have been able to achieve some level of autonomy from Baghdad and have been doing alright for themselves. I think it bodes well for a post-Saddam Iraq.
I thought that myself, until I read:
See No Evil by Robert Baer
Anyway, the above book is an interesting and a quick read into how our CIA went to sleep for awhile. The author was a CIA agent who had met with some of the Kurds.
The Kurds in the Northern Fly Zone are split into two groups and are quite at odds with each other. The do fight we each other. I think this will be one region that really gets affected by the potential war with Saddam. Hopefully they won't need to go thru the kind of bloodshed the Afgans witnessed after the Soviets left and before the Taliban came in.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Since the northern no-fly zone was put into place in 1991, the Kurds have been able to achieve some level of autonomy from Baghdad and have been doing alright for themselves. I think it bodes well for a post-Saddam Iraq.
I found some quotes.
"The areas along the borders with neighbouring countries of Iraq, and some areas around the dividing line with the three northern governorates presently under the control of Kurdish local authorities, are 'protected' by barrier minefields..."
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.html
"A short while later, Kurds in the north of the country rebelled, and they too received no help. The Kurds were able to withstand Hussein longer than the Shiites, in part because they had a history of organized, armed resistance. In the end, though, the Kurds achieved only a very modest success: a UN-guaranteed haven in the extreme north of the country. No permanent solution-such as Kurdish self-rule-was negotiated."
http://www.armscenter.com/mby/gulf.html
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Not to be argumentative, but that goes under the realm of opinion, not fact. I guess we will find out soon enough the validity of their guesses. Hopefully they are vastly overestimating.


Actually, as I understand, these estimations were made to organize preparations, not that all these people are already doomed.
"It had to be recognized that conflict might occur and might cause terrible loss and suffering to the Iraqi people. Prudent preparatory measures were, therefore, necessary to address the potential humanitarian impact.
...
The Deputy Secretary-General, said Mr. Oshima, also gave the Security Council members an overview of preparedness measures taken to date, especially the prepositioning of limited stocks inside Iraq and in neighbouring countries, carried out by the various United Nations agencies. The stocks included food for 250,000 beneficiaries for 10 weeks against an initial target figure of 900,000 beneficiaries. Other items were hygiene and emergency water and sanitation supplies for about 300,000 people; and high-protein biscuits for 240,000 children distributed to hospitals and health-care centres. Emergency health kits for 240,000, against a target of 1 million people. As regards refugees, winter kits, including shelter material, for 118,000 people were in place. Supplies for 350,000 had been ordered and should be in place by the end of March. The overall target for UNHCR’s prepositioning was enough supplies for 600,000 people.
...
As regards funding, he said donors were approached in mid-December with an initial request of $37.4 million for a minimum level of preparedness, and as of now, some $30 million had been pledged. It was now necessary for a higher level of preparedness to be reached which would require additional funding. The funding requirement had consequently been revised to a total of about $120 million, including the initial $37 million originally requested. Mr. Oshima stressed that the figure was only for preparedness measures.
...
The agencies had faced funding problems and had been dipping into their own limited funds. The situation was serious, hence, the initial appeal that had been launched. He again said they would soon be approaching the donors for urgent additional funding."
Another interesting statistics:
"One crucial factor related to the duration of the disruption of the ration-distributing system in the event of conflict, he added. Under the current system, the quantity of food distributed through the government network was 460,000 tons per month, almost four times the highest amount delivered during the Afghanistan crisis. "
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2003/OshimaBriefing.doc.htm
[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Where do you get this? The last war killed about 100 Iraqi civilians.


1. Civilian Deaths from War-Induced Adverse Health Effects
Subtracting the expected deaths from this inflated number of deaths after the war, one finds that approximately 111,000 persons died in 1991 from health effects of the Gulf war. Approximately 70,000 of these deaths were to children (persons under 15 years of age) and 8,500 to the elderly (persons over 65 years of age).
2. Wartime Military Deaths
William Arkin, a military analyst for the IST, has extensively studied the military aspects of the Gulf war. He has estimated that between 49,000 and 63,000 soldiers died during the war (personal written communication, July 1992). Much of the uncertainty in the estimate comes from uncertainty in the number of Iraqi soldiers actually involved in the conflict. According to Arkin, 20,000 to 25,000 men died from air attacks in Kuwait, 12,000 to 15,000 died from air attacks in Iraq, and 17,000 to 23,000 died during the final ground war. Arkin's midpoint estimate of 56,000 military deaths during the war was accepted under the assumption that they had the same age and sex (all male) distribution as the Iraqi military before the war.
3. Wartime Civilian Deaths
In addition to the eyewitness reports, the Iraqi Ministry of Civil Defense released information in August 1990 of the number of deaths, injuries, and houses destroyed in each governorate. This information was compared to the data base. The comparison between these two sources suggests that the Iraqi government did not systematically over- or underestimate the number killed
Because there may be some overreporting of deaths and uncertainty in the absolute number, it is concluded reasonable to settle on the estimate of 3,500 civilian deaths from direct war effects
Civilian and Military Postwar Deaths from Violence
Beginning on March 1, 1991, the day after the cease fire, uprisings began to sweep through Iraq [14]. The violence was primarily in the Kurdish north and Shiite south during March and April 1991. An untold number of people died, and the estimate in this report of excess deaths during this time is the most uncertain. In Endless Torment, Middle East Watch describes a scene of mass chaos in northern and southern Iraq. Although the number killed in the postwar turmoil is impossible to estimate, two independent sources (William Arkin and the U.S. Census Bureau) arrived at the same estimate: 30,000 civilian deaths and 5,000 military deaths.
Conclusions
According to the methods described in this paper, the number of Iraqis who died in 1991 from effects of the Gulf war or postwar turmoil approximates 205,500. There were relatively few deaths (approximately 56,000 to military personnel and 3,500 to civilians) from direct war effects. Postwar violence accounted for approximately 35,000 deaths. The largest component of deaths in this reconstruction derives from the 111,000 attributable to postwar adverse health effects. Of the total excess deaths in the Iraqi population, approximately 109,000 were to men, 23,000 to women, 74,000 to children.
A Case Study in Estimating Casualties from War and Its Aftermath: The 1991 Persian Gulf War
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
What makes you think this one will be any different?
"There is a temptation is some quarters to equate the situation following any future military intervention in Iraq, with the population's ability to cope in 1991. Such comparisons are not valid, as the sustentative majority of the population, immediately prior to the events of 1991, were in full employment and had cash and material assets available to them to cope with the crisis. Aside from now not having been gainfully employed for some time, during the intervening period, all except the most privileged have completely exhausted their cash assets and have also in most cases disposed of their material assets. Accordingly, the bulk of the population is now totally dependent on the Government of Iraq for a majority, if not all, of their basic needs and, unlike the situation in 1991, they have no way of coping if they cannot access them: the sanctions regime, if anything, has served to increase dependence on the Government as almost the sole provider."
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.html
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
The Kurds in the Northern Fly Zone are split into two groups and are quite at odds with each other. The do fight we each other. I think this will be one region that really gets affected by the potential war with Saddam. Hopefully they won't need to go thru the kind of bloodshed the Afgans witnessed after the Soviets left and before the Taliban came in.


Feud Between Kurdish Clans Creates Its Own War
[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
"Health effects"? What "health effects"?
As to other casualties, yes the US invited rebellion and then did nothing to help the rebels. Shame on us. We will do better this time.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
"Health effects"? What "health effects"?
"Deaths from war-induced adverse health effects include those caused indirectly from the collapse of the infrastructure, including disruption in electrical services, transportation systems, and distribution networks. Such deaths may be due to gastrointestinal and respiratory infections and other diseases and infections that thrive on weakened populations.
...
The substantive result of this research is that in modern warfare, postwar deaths from adverse health effects account for a large fraction of total deaths from war. In the Gulf war, far more persons died from postwar health effects than from direct war effects."
http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/PSRQV3N2Daponte.html
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Well here's something for both sides to think about.
First for the anti-war side.
Suppose you are going to vote in an election where all the running candidates are dumb, corrupt, evil, or simply not worthy of the office. What choices do you have? You either abstain from voting or you vote for the lesser-of-the-two evils, right?
Now consider two candidates Bush and Saddam. You think Bush is a bad guy because he is after oil, settling family feud, does not care about civilian casualties, economy etc. But you also think that Sadaam is an evil dictator too, does not care about his people, kills his own civilians, etc. You have only two choices then- First of which is abstain from voting, which translates to 'let's just shut up and let the two bad guys take care of each other'. Another choice is to side with the one that is lesser-of-the-two-not-worthy-to-be-sided-with, and which translates to, 'let the lesser evil take care of the bigger evil'. Thinking that way may not make it very easy for the inner-moral-conscious to go with the war, but it will probably make it a bit easier not to go so much against the war. That is ofcourse if you consider Bush as lesser of the two evils.
---------------------------
Second is for the pro-war side
Would the US (or Bush, specifically) have gone to Iraq to take Saddam out even if there were no 9/11 attacks?
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/misconceptions.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/depleted_uranium.shtml
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_balkans/index.html


Now there's a credible source of information alright, the ministry of defence of the UK, what a laugh
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:

Now there's a credible source of information alright, the ministry of defence of the UK, what a laugh


And an activist organization is a credible reference? :roll:
If you had read all the links, the latter two at least listed work from several internationally respected and well-funded organizations as sources. But if you'd rather only credit activist sites as sources of valid information, I guess that's your choice.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1871
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

Suppose you are going to vote in an election where all the running candidates are dumb, corrupt, evil, or simply not worthy of the office. What choices do you have? You either abstain from voting or you vote for the lesser-of-the-two evils, right?


Are you talking about India
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 126
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
That is very interesting, it is one of those "aimed bombs" that destroyed the chinese embassy in bosnia a couple of years ago.
It was in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, not Bosnia. And it hit precisely what was aimed for.

may I remind people that some of these bunker-busting bombs are made of depleted uranium--anyone who knows anything about uranium will know very well its side -effects.
Uranium and depleted uranium are not the same thing, so knowing what the side-effects of uranium are does not contribute much to knowing what the side-effects of DU are. While people suspect that there are short-lived localized effects from spent DU weapons, there is currently no scientific evidence supporting this claim one way or the other.
Our country has never been so widely hated around the world as it is now.
And? Aside from the fact that this is merely your perception, it really doesn't matter. Life is not a popularity contest. As long as we are doing basically the right thing, as removing Hussein from power obviously is, I really could care less what others perceptions are. Part of the responsibiilty of strength is having the courage to do the right thing even when it's not popular.


When you find such lovely naive guy like Jason, you really can't laugh.
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
Are you talking about India



Isn't it true about all countries?
And isn't it true sometimes even when choosing an authority in a small local organization?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:
When you find such lovely naive guy like Jason, you really can't laugh.


While personal attacks may be all you can muster, let's avoid them please. But on the off chance you have something of substance you feel is worth adding to the conversation, please blind us with your acumen. :roll:
 
A feeble attempt to tell you about our stuff that makes us money
Free, earth friendly heat - from the CodeRanch trailboss
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/free-heat
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic