That's the only reason it has survived this long: by fighting back and resisting the forces of genocide arrayed against it. If they behaved differently, the Israelis would quickly become nothing more than ashes and a memory.
I empathize with the suffering the Jews have endured ever since the dawn of times. And I might agree with the fact that Israel could be a lot smaller would it not have demonstrated military superiority. Yet, in this day and age, Israel's vulnerability is a myth! It has a huge nuclear arsenal that should be more than enough to deter any agressor that threaten its existence.
It has always been rather strong. Early on, Muhammed ordered the sizable Jewish population of what is now Saudi Arabia exterminated. This was a sizable community of many thousands of people. Ever since then, it has been pretty much illegal to be Jewish in (what is now) Saudi Arabia. Are Islamic leaders inherently anti-semitic? Probably: there is much in their faith, as written in the Q'uran, that demands oppression of Jews and others.
Wow! I had no idea Muslims were that bad. (tongue in cheek)
I have studied Muhammad's life and can't honestly see what makes you think he can be descibed as inherently anti-Semitic. For the anecdote, Arabs are of Semitic heritage themselves.
He indeed did order the killing of male adults in a Jewish tribe that betrayed him. I'll redirect you to the work of Karen Armstrong on the issue if you wanna know more. http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/kar en_arm/qurayzah.html
You have to understand that the Quran explicitly orders Muslims to respect Jews and Christians and "only treat them with the better" (literal translation).
What seems to be also missing from the picture portrayed in the western media, are the thousands of Jews who've been living peacefully with Muslims - from Morocco all the way to Iran - for centuries. And we all know about the Roman, Spaniard and German sad treatment they received in Europe.
I have read the Quran many times and cannot think of any verses that could be interpreted as demanding oppression of the Jews. Please illuminate me on that.
Propaganda has been agressive on both sides. I cannot deny the ever-increasing hatred of the Jews among Muslims (or other people who watch the daily carnage in Gaza). Only a genuine will to learn about the other can help mitigate the feeling.
As for Saudi Arabia, the current rulers (and by extention rules) do not have much legitimacy and by no mean represent Islam's point of view. I'm pretty sure the whole "Jewish ban" is post-Jewish-colonization-of-the-land-of-Palestine though. Saudi Arabia should be treated as an exception. Even Afghanistan under Talibans had synagogues!
Such sympathy for an army created in Iran in 1982 for the sole purpose of institaging aggression against Israel.
Not sure where you got that "created in Iran" bit from and how it is even relevant. Some might infer a lot of bias towards Iran from your statement. Anyway, let's try to keep this constructive.
Hezbollah was created in Lebanon to resist the Israeli occupation. And yes, they were trained by Iranians. Now, if you assume the common Zionist position that "the land of Israel" is between "the two waters" (as represented in the flag), it of course follows that Lebanese have no right on that land and Hezbollah has indeed "created [..] for the sole purpose of institaging aggression against Israel".
That said, Lebanon was doing a formidable reconstuction job before last summer. It was only a matter of time before the grassroot support for Hezbollah withered. In that sense, Israel made a strategic mistake because they followed Washington orders.
Here are some quotes from the Hesbollah leader that are very anti-semitic and/or demand genocide: " Its destiny is manifested in our motto: 'Death to Israel.'"
Hmmm...Their motto is a Quranic verse which can be translated as "Those in the party of God will not be defeated".
Anyway, anti-semitism has never been stronger in the Islamic world altogether (I have heard even more inflammatory remarks in mosques across the Arab world). While I deplore such gratuitous agression, I can't help but wonder why it is happening. Are Islamic leaders inherently anti-semitic, or is it response to decades of occupation? Either way, I don't see Israel making it past this century if it continues to behave the way it always did. One thing is for sure; It won't go down quietly. And on the day of the "death pang", God help us all!
The other scenario - though less likely given Liebermann's appointment - is when Arabs become the majority in Israel (which is bound to happen within decades unless Israel preemptively revokes their citizenship). I don't see the kids who witnessed the violence perpetrated against their parents to be very forgiving. Worse, I don't think they will have enough judgement and might just end up blaming the whole Jewish race. But then again, they probably already are...
Blame hezbolla for hiding in civilian areas. More to the point, hezbola should have respected international borders themselves and we could have avoided that whole bloody mess.
I won't dwell in yet another Israel/Lebanon debate as I wasn't in Southern Lebanon when the conflict sparked (though I met people who were there). Please take the time to read this interesting perspective on the matter. http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0269.htm#Top
On the contrary... if Israel had WANTED to commit a war of that nature, they wouldn't have been using laser guided bombs and air bombardment. The would have simply leveled everything in their path and slowly swept up to Beruit to demand surrender.
During the campaign, Israel's Air Force flew more than 12,000 combat missions. The Navy fired 2,500 shells, and the Army fired over 100,000 shells, destroying large parts of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure. 400 miles of roads, 73 bridges and 31 targets such as Beirut International Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures, up to 350 schools and two hospitals were destroyed, as well as some 15,000 homes. Some 130,000 more homes were damaged. Ambulances and UN personnel were apparently targeted. There's also enough evidence of radioactive and cluster bombs being used.
But you're totally right in that they could have nuked the whole bazar. Should we thank them for not doing that?
In my opinion, the israelis need to invest in far better armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
This will ensure a never ending cycle of violence. Of course, weapon manufacturers in the US will benefit from it. The only conclusion worth drawing from the latest Israelo-Lebanese conflict is that you need to kill every single soul in the country. Israel tried to kill as many as possible thinking the population would eventually give up and withdraw their support to Hezbollah. Guess what? It only made it stronger!
And before you start with the usual diatribe against Arabs and how they wanna drive Jews to the sea, the origin of the conflict was not the capture (not kidnapping!!!) of the Israeli soldiers, but the regural violations of Lebanese airspace by IDF jets. Heck, even the French peacekeeping troops were gonna shoot them down. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2640384
True. The hundreds of people sequestrated in CIA's secret prisons around the world could attest to that. And yes, despite the meager evidence against them (sharing the same name as a 9/11 hijacker), it has become routine.
Say it with me, kids. Software Patents are Insane.
Not directly related, but maybe even more insane are patents on life forms. I just watched a documentary by the widow of Jerry Garcia called "the future of food", and the facts are mind-blowing. A must see!
It's a bad implementation of a very good idea. "Open-sourcing" yourself might work miracles. Allow me to elaborate; I started pumping iron a few months back, and realised that posting info about yourself would allow more people to correct any "bugs" (eg: pictures, training routine, nutrive plan, measurements, supplements, etc...)
By the way, the creator of OpenHuman.org admitedly "can't do without Microsoft Frontpage." Traitor I say!
Re:AIDS Hoax-Ten reasons HIV is not the cause of A
on
AIDS Can Fight AIDS
·
· Score: 1
Might I suggest the movie "The other side of AIDS". Pretty biased IMHO, but definitely an eye opener on several misconceptions surrounding the issue. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427614/
However, I disagree strongly that the terrorists or their movement would ever just "go about their everyday lives".
Allow me to step in as an insider; If free election were held in any of the countries mentionned in the article, the islamists would win by a large margin. It's not necessarily good for the liberties or women's rights but at least such governments would certainly stand up to the west. And that is what the population is interested in at this point.
Now, you're right that some of the Islamists have blood and chaos in sight, but the majority just wants to instaure a regime where the will of the people's represented. And trust me, more than 90% of the inhabitants of those countries are convinced that Americans are nothing short of warmongers. Heck, the majority of Europeans thinks so as well. And don't even get me started on Latin America...
You might argue that Saudi Arabia already has a regime that's as close to Islamism as it could get. True enough, but what the people really want (if they had the opportunity to cast their votes in fair elections) is somebody who'd be less lenient on US interests in the region and hopefully stop the pillage.
Why Islamists? Because they're the only alternative. Arab nationalsm has been smothered by the west back in the early 60's and the little remains wiped out by the west-friendly oppresive regimes that were put in power.
You can't get rid of ALL the terrorist kooks but if structural change is introduced in foreign policy and trade, support for those will wither. Support of Hezbollah has grown tremendously after the latest Israeli summer carnage in Lebanon. I suspect that the latest raids in Gaza are only making more people pro-violence (Lebanon and Palestine are the only Arab countries where there were FREE elections recently - and yeah, Algeria back in the early 90's with the consequences we all know). Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Egyptians, Saudis and Emiratis are all watching the supply of weapons and tacit support the US is giving unconditionally to Israel. Next guy who puts "death to America" on his agenda will be assured to get a lot of sympathizers. Sadly, there are no free elections in any of those countries anyway. Maybe it's all for the better since they wouldn't stand a chance in a military confrontation. Oh wait, they blow themselves up...nevermind!
Saddam Hussein was not targeted by Israel personally. Their attack was far away from Baghdad. They targeted Iraq -- an aggressor in the war since 1948.
True enough. Saddam was not targeted personally (I wish they did though!). It's just a bit hard to justify bombing a country because it had attacked you 33 years earlier. The Israeli state was a few weeks old at the time of the 1948 war.
The idea that the existence of Israel is in danger or ever was after 1970 is pure myth. But let's not get started Israel...
Wrong. "US bully strategy" has little to do with the sorry state of those, who hate our freedoms (including the economical ones). The oppressed are suffering from their own regimes' tyranny and/or misgovernment. The meaning of my post could not possibly have been construed in the manner you have -- I suspect, you are not arguing in good faith -- I'm unlikely to respond to you again.
Believe it or not, I'm much more interested in learning something new and getting an insight into your logic than tricking you into conceiding any ground.
Anyway, I couldn't have possibly knew that you were refering to the people under oppressive regime; My original question was "Out of curiosity, did you ever start thinking why the world's crushing majority doesn't share your opinion? Do they all "hate you for your freedoms"?" To which you replied by saying that the "oppressed" were acting out of envy. Not only does it imply that the world's crushing majority is oppressed, but also that they all would trade their lives for yours. Around where I live - Scandinavia - people are interchanging the words "greedy", "arrogant", "wasteful" and "materialist" with "American". Now, you can't claim that the Swedes are oppressed or that they lack your freedoms. If anything, we actually have more freedoms than you. The same logic applies to the Germans, French, Indians... and on all over the political spectrum.
Even among allies of Washington (Italy, Spain, UK...), the population's overwhelmingly opposes the war. But that you already probably concluded by yourself, from the elections.
Unfortunately, that is not true -- not even among the educated people, of whom, BTW, there is severe shortage world-wide.
Right. I shouldn't have used "educated" since it could be interpreted in numerous ways. I should have said, people who don't resort to violence and who know better than blame their problems on others.
If your theory was true, I'd get kicked in the street when flashing my new iPod by people who don't own one. Or, get my shiny sport coupe vandalised by the envious. That's a behaviour that (hopefully) stops around teen years. Of course, it's no secret that it's more pronounced in the US because of the immense social fracture.
Back to the subject of "illegal war" -- sorry, in our imperfect world UN Security Council is the only body, that can call a war illegal... I do agree on the "irrelevance" bit, though -- the body should've called on all to destroy Saddam long ago.
Do you have any idea how much influence the US has over the UNSC? The whole thing is a scam, but hey, it's an imperfect world as you say. Now, when even a poodle like Kofi Annan says it was illegal, there must be some basis to his claim. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Confirming the doubts, is PNAC hawk Richard Perle who admits it wasn't legal http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,108 9042,00.html
What difference does it make either ways? Not much for the kids who are dying. It just would stop those endless (and let's face it, sterile) discussions.
Take also a peek at this well compiled account of the issue; http
You accused Israel of attacking Iraq "first" -- that was not true -- Iraq was the aggressor (since 1948), and I simply pointed that out.
No. I accused Israel of attacking Saddam first. I specifically refered to "him". And just for the record that was with the open support of the US. But that's just picking on details...
Thank you, conspiracy-theories are abundant in any place on Earth.
Imagine if somebody came to you, back in the 1940's, claiming that the US government had thousands of people working on an explosive device million-folds more destructive that anything else its size, wouldn't you immediately dismiss it as "conspiracy theory"? I know I would.
It is a long-known phenomenon -- the opressed, who can't do anything about their disadvantages, begin to accept them as normal and fair, blaming those, who don't have them, for "perversion" and violating "natural order" or "God's will" or whatever.
Your use of the word "oppressed" makes this whole discussion irrelevant as it's an acknowledgment, from your side, of the US bully strategy. It probably wasn't the word you intended to use, but your sneaky subconscious took over...
Seriously though, if you truly believe that "they" hate you out of sheer envy, you're probably not trying hard enough. If that was to be true, where does the growing home opposition originate from?
Soon after they left, the local kids -- my age -- discovered me, and got infuriated, that I was allowed to be in the boat (and take off to the river, whenever I pleased), because their camp's policy prohibited anyone under 16 to do that... Before long they began to pelt me with wet sand and I had to retreat from the shore...
We all go thru that experience, I suppose. But we're dealing with rational adults here, not 12 years old - with a few rotten apples on every side.
While your argument might holds true for the impressionable minority who doesn't need much to get all worked up, it is clearly fallacious when applied to educated people.
You must realise that it's not a case of wanting to break the toy because "they" can't have it. I won't simplify the problem by saying that "they" wanna hurt you because you stole their toys, but it's definitely more somewhere along those lines.
Saddam has patently not destroyed the know-how to rebuild WMDs immediately after the sanctions were lifted -- American web-site displaying the captured documents was taken down last night after someone realized, the documents are too detailed for world-view...
The whole pre-war justification legal build-up was extremely absurd and just went to show the irrelevance of the UN. Interestingly, courts have been looking in the matter and ruled the attack unlawful http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/iraq-s27 .shtml
Even assuming that the violation of resolution 1441 was the incentive to attack, one contemplates the multitude of blatant violations of UN resolutions that are affecting the lives of millions who don't seem to disturb the sleep of the "just and noble". http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq02.ht ml. Israel, of course, being largely ahead in terms of violations in spite of the considerable of amount US vetoes in its favour. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usv etoes.html
On the latest piece of news, I wondered where all that nuclear secrecy craze was going. Maybe the next step would be running a political/religious/racial profile check for students applying to nuclear programs. Security thru obscurity is doomed to failure. Genuine good will from nuclear power to demilitarize is the only way out, but who's gonna be making money out of that?
Saddam's regime invaded Kuwait, threatened Saudia Arabia, and attacked Israel (with which it was at war for decades).
Israel attacked first by bombing him in the early 80's.
Wrong. Iraq was one of the aggressors atacking Israel in 1948.
Surely the discussion was centered around Saddam Hussein.
Wrong. There were no sanctions before Saddam's attack on Kuwait
Right. But he had US support. The same support that makes any regime change impossible in most of the Arab world. How can I back that claim up? I can't in a post. You'll have to live a couple of decades in one of these countries to understand. I know that it's probably high up in your list of "myths". I'm just giving an insider's opinion here.
That said, I'm glad, we agree, that the sanctions were not working...
They were downright helping him while starving the populace.
There is no "evidence". There are allusions -- most of them groundless or outright faulty (as the most common fallacy of "War for Oil" is).
If this cause is so noble and just, why did Bush&co resort to deceit (WMDs) to justify it? Out of curiosity, did you ever start thinking why the world's crushing majority doesn't share your opinion? Do they all "hate you for your freedoms"?
I'll grab a copy of that book by Natan Sharansky right away. Please take the time to read Chomsky's "Hegemony or survival". The worse that can happen is that we might end up learning something new.
Saddam's regime invaded Kuwait, threatened Saudia Arabia, and attacked Israel (with which it was at war for decades).
Israel attacked first by bombing him in the early 80's. Israel did not want anyone to challenge its military dominance (which started by a pre-emptive massive blow in 1967) over the region and succeded at it. Did Saddam receive a green light from Washington to invade Kuwait? I believe so, but can't possibly pretend to have the resources to convince you in a post. Would a toppling of the Saudi monarchy have benefited human rights and wealth distribution inside Saudi Arabia? Definitely. Heck, it might even have prevented 9/11, but I'm speculating here.
Saddam was a bloody dictator and would the country not have been subjected to economic strangulation for so long, his days were surely counted. But that would have benefited the populace not the mighty US elite.
Our cause was and remains just, and our mission noble. Thank you very much.
Out of context, I'm ready to bet that 99% of the world's population would interpret this statement as sarcasm. That you firmly believe that shit with the overwhelming evidence leaves me breathless.
I agree -- the world should've acted pre-emptively back then too...
Put the economic factor into the picture and you might see the reason for the inaction. When business is good with the Nazis, you don't blow against the wind, do you?
Revolutionary pacifist A.J. Muste said in 1941, "The problem after war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?". My only hope is that it doesn't come down to that.
Clearly, the US military now officially has its spending priorities correct. Who gives a damn about winning the bloody war
IMHO, "winning the war" can only be achieved thru total annihilation of the Iraqi population. And even if they do, jihadists will continue to pour into the country to resist the occupation.
Let me recollect; Iraqis were already suffering under the reign of Saddam before the first Gulf war. They made sure any real opposition is suppressed by strangling the countrie's economy for 12 years. Then, they rescue the dictator while bombing and killing his victims. Now, if you were an Iraqi, wouldn't you devellop a formidable hatred toward the US?
Slashdot Mirror
I have studied Muhammad's life and can't honestly see what makes you think he can be descibed as inherently anti-Semitic. For the anecdote, Arabs are of Semitic heritage themselves.
He indeed did order the killing of male adults in a Jewish tribe that betrayed him. I'll redirect you to the work of Karen Armstrong on the issue if you wanna know more. http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/ka
You have to understand that the Quran explicitly orders Muslims to respect Jews and Christians and "only treat them with the better" (literal translation).
What seems to be also missing from the picture portrayed in the western media, are the thousands of Jews who've been living peacefully with Muslims - from Morocco all the way to Iran - for centuries. And we all know about the Roman, Spaniard and German sad treatment they received in Europe.
I have read the Quran many times and cannot think of any verses that could be interpreted as demanding oppression of the Jews. Please illuminate me on that.
Propaganda has been agressive on both sides. I cannot deny the ever-increasing hatred of the Jews among Muslims (or other people who watch the daily carnage in Gaza). Only a genuine will to learn about the other can help mitigate the feeling.
As for Saudi Arabia, the current rulers (and by extention rules) do not have much legitimacy and by no mean represent Islam's point of view. I'm pretty sure the whole "Jewish ban" is post-Jewish-colonization-of-the-land-of-Palestine though. Saudi Arabia should be treated as an exception. Even Afghanistan under Talibans had synagogues!
Hezbollah was created in Lebanon to resist the Israeli occupation. And yes, they were trained by Iranians. Now, if you assume the common Zionist position that "the land of Israel" is between "the two waters" (as represented in the flag), it of course follows that Lebanese have no right on that land and Hezbollah has indeed "created [..] for the sole purpose of institaging aggression against Israel".
That said, Lebanon was doing a formidable reconstuction job before last summer. It was only a matter of time before the grassroot support for Hezbollah withered. In that sense, Israel made a strategic mistake because they followed Washington orders. Hmmm...Their motto is a Quranic verse which can be translated as "Those in the party of God will not be defeated".
Anyway, anti-semitism has never been stronger in the Islamic world altogether (I have heard even more inflammatory remarks in mosques across the Arab world). While I deplore such gratuitous agression, I can't help but wonder why it is happening. Are Islamic leaders inherently anti-semitic, or is it response to decades of occupation? Either way, I don't see Israel making it past this century if it continues to behave the way it always did. One thing is for sure; It won't go down quietly. And on the day of the "death pang", God help us all!
The other scenario - though less likely given Liebermann's appointment - is when Arabs become the majority in Israel (which is bound to happen within decades unless Israel preemptively revokes their citizenship). I don't see the kids who witnessed the violence perpetrated against their parents to be very forgiving. Worse, I don't think they will have enough judgement and might just end up blaming the whole Jewish race. But then again, they probably already are...
There's also evidence that Israel planned the attack way before last summer; http://www.coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?arti
But you're totally right in that they could have nuked the whole bazar. Should we thank them for not doing that?
And before you start with the usual diatribe against Arabs and how they wanna drive Jews to the sea, the origin of the conflict was not the capture (not kidnapping!!!) of the Israeli soldiers, but the regural violations of Lebanese airspace by IDF jets. Heck, even the French peacekeeping troops were gonna shoot them down. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2640384
http://chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?Tor
It's a bad implementation of a very good idea. "Open-sourcing" yourself might work miracles. Allow me to elaborate; I started pumping iron a few months back, and realised that posting info about yourself would allow more people to correct any "bugs" (eg: pictures, training routine, nutrive plan, measurements, supplements, etc...)
By the way, the creator of OpenHuman.org admitedly "can't do without Microsoft Frontpage." Traitor I say!
Might I suggest the movie "The other side of AIDS". Pretty biased IMHO, but definitely an eye opener on several misconceptions surrounding the issue. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427614/
Now, you're right that some of the Islamists have blood and chaos in sight, but the majority just wants to instaure a regime where the will of the people's represented. And trust me, more than 90% of the inhabitants of those countries are convinced that Americans are nothing short of warmongers. Heck, the majority of Europeans thinks so as well. And don't even get me started on Latin America...
You might argue that Saudi Arabia already has a regime that's as close to Islamism as it could get. True enough, but what the people really want (if they had the opportunity to cast their votes in fair elections) is somebody who'd be less lenient on US interests in the region and hopefully stop the pillage.
Why Islamists? Because they're the only alternative. Arab nationalsm has been smothered by the west back in the early 60's and the little remains wiped out by the west-friendly oppresive regimes that were put in power.
You can't get rid of ALL the terrorist kooks but if structural change is introduced in foreign policy and trade, support for those will wither. Support of Hezbollah has grown tremendously after the latest Israeli summer carnage in Lebanon. I suspect that the latest raids in Gaza are only making more people pro-violence (Lebanon and Palestine are the only Arab countries where there were FREE elections recently - and yeah, Algeria back in the early 90's with the consequences we all know). Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Egyptians, Saudis and Emiratis are all watching the supply of weapons and tacit support the US is giving unconditionally to Israel. Next guy who puts "death to America" on his agenda will be assured to get a lot of sympathizers. Sadly, there are no free elections in any of those countries anyway. Maybe it's all for the better since they wouldn't stand a chance in a military confrontation. Oh wait, they blow themselves up...nevermind!
True enough. Saddam was not targeted personally (I wish they did though!). It's just a bit hard to justify bombing a country because it had attacked you 33 years earlier. The Israeli state was a few weeks old at the time of the 1948 war.
The idea that the existence of Israel is in danger or ever was after 1970 is pure myth. But let's not get started Israel...
Believe it or not, I'm much more interested in learning something new and getting an insight into your logic than tricking you into conceiding any ground. ... and on all over the political spectrum.
Anyway, I couldn't have possibly knew that you were refering to the people under oppressive regime; My original question was "Out of curiosity, did you ever start thinking why the world's crushing majority doesn't share your opinion? Do they all "hate you for your freedoms"?" To which you replied by saying that the "oppressed" were acting out of envy. Not only does it imply that the world's crushing majority is oppressed, but also that they all would trade their lives for yours. Around where I live - Scandinavia - people are interchanging the words "greedy", "arrogant", "wasteful" and "materialist" with "American". Now, you can't claim that the Swedes are oppressed or that they lack your freedoms. If anything, we actually have more freedoms than you. The same logic applies to the Germans, French, Indians
Even among allies of Washington (Italy, Spain, UK...), the population's overwhelmingly opposes the war. But that you already probably concluded by yourself, from the elections.
Right. I shouldn't have used "educated" since it could be interpreted in numerous ways. I should have said, people who don't resort to violence and who know better than blame their problems on others.
If your theory was true, I'd get kicked in the street when flashing my new iPod by people who don't own one. Or, get my shiny sport coupe vandalised by the envious. That's a behaviour that (hopefully) stops around teen years. Of course, it's no secret that it's more pronounced in the US because of the immense social fracture.
Do you have any idea how much influence the US has over the UNSC? The whole thing is a scam, but hey, it's an imperfect world as you say. Now, when even a poodle like Kofi Annan says it was illegal, there must be some basis to his claim. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Confirming the doubts, is PNAC hawk Richard Perle who admits it wasn't legal http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,108 9042,00.html
What difference does it make either ways? Not much for the kids who are dying. It just would stop those endless (and let's face it, sterile) discussions.
Take also a peek at this well compiled account of the issue; http
Your use of the word "oppressed" makes this whole discussion irrelevant as it's an acknowledgment, from your side, of the US bully strategy. It probably wasn't the word you intended to use, but your sneaky subconscious took over...
Seriously though, if you truly believe that "they" hate you out of sheer envy, you're probably not trying hard enough. If that was to be true, where does the growing home opposition originate from? We all go thru that experience, I suppose. But we're dealing with rational adults here, not 12 years old - with a few rotten apples on every side.
While your argument might holds true for the impressionable minority who doesn't need much to get all worked up, it is clearly fallacious when applied to educated people.
You must realise that it's not a case of wanting to break the toy because "they" can't have it. I won't simplify the problem by saying that "they" wanna hurt you because you stole their toys, but it's definitely more somewhere along those lines.
The whole pre-war justification legal build-up was extremely absurd and just went to show the irrelevance of the UN. Interestingly, courts have been looking in the matter and ruled the attack unlawful http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/iraq-s2
Even assuming that the violation of resolution 1441 was the incentive to attack, one contemplates the multitude of blatant violations of UN resolutions that are affecting the lives of millions who don't seem to disturb the sleep of the "just and noble". http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq02.h
On the latest piece of news, I wondered where all that nuclear secrecy craze was going. Maybe the next step would be running a political/religious/racial profile check for students applying to nuclear programs. Security thru obscurity is doomed to failure. Genuine good will from nuclear power to demilitarize is the only way out, but who's gonna be making money out of that?
I'll grab a copy of that book by Natan Sharansky right away. Please take the time to read Chomsky's "Hegemony or survival". The worse that can happen is that we might end up learning something new.
Saddam was a bloody dictator and would the country not have been subjected to economic strangulation for so long, his days were surely counted. But that would have benefited the populace not the mighty US elite. Out of context, I'm ready to bet that 99% of the world's population would interpret this statement as sarcasm. That you firmly believe that shit with the overwhelming evidence leaves me breathless. Put the economic factor into the picture and you might see the reason for the inaction. When business is good with the Nazis, you don't blow against the wind, do you?
Revolutionary pacifist A.J. Muste said in 1941, "The problem after war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?". My only hope is that it doesn't come down to that.
The US must take this opportunity to show a bit of good will. Remember, the Iranians are watching...
Even in Israel (a declared and sworn enemy of the Baathist regime), intelligence reports emphasized the harmlessness of Saddam.
Let me recollect; Iraqis were already suffering under the reign of Saddam before the first Gulf war. They made sure any real opposition is suppressed by strangling the countrie's economy for 12 years. Then, they rescue the dictator while bombing and killing his victims. Now, if you were an Iraqi, wouldn't you devellop a formidable hatred toward the US?
Yep, it's official; Testosterone level is dropping in American males.