The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching the news, a special report on a Shi-ite group in Iran.
One of them said (paraphrased) 'there are many of us willing to give our lives to prevent the American occupation of Iraq'.
And I felt admiration.
People with the balls to stand up.
I should probably qualify that by confirming that the only implication of harm was towards the American military.
But nonetheless, when I caught myself thinking that.. damn.
On reflection I feel like I shouldn't think this way. If I'm completely honest with myself I'm not sure whether I really do or not.
IMO, the American occupation does increasingly look like just another corrupt dictatorship, hanging onto power for as long as the international community will stand by watching.
I saw on the news that all over Iraq, oil production is at upwards of 90% of pre-war levels, while cities still lie in ruins and a population are left largely unaided as they try to get to their feet.
But even so...
Damn.
Maybe I've lost objectivity. Maybe I've been swept along with an overreacting media / public opinion.
Maybe I've come to realise that the evil is truely inherant in all sides, and I'm just yet to learn to balance for the lesser.
Or maybe that instinct was right.
I don't know anymore. And I don't know who to trust from the people who claim to know.
One of them said (paraphrased) 'there are many of us willing to give our lives to prevent the American occupation of Iraq'.
And I felt admiration.
People with the balls to stand up.
I should probably qualify that by confirming that the only implication of harm was towards the American military.
But nonetheless, when I caught myself thinking that.. damn.
On reflection I feel like I shouldn't think this way. If I'm completely honest with myself I'm not sure whether I really do or not.
IMO, the American occupation does increasingly look like just another corrupt dictatorship, hanging onto power for as long as the international community will stand by watching.
I saw on the news that all over Iraq, oil production is at upwards of 90% of pre-war levels, while cities still lie in ruins and a population are left largely unaided as they try to get to their feet.
But even so...
Damn.
Maybe I've lost objectivity. Maybe I've been swept along with an overreacting media / public opinion.
Maybe I've come to realise that the evil is truely inherant in all sides, and I'm just yet to learn to balance for the lesser.
Or maybe that instinct was right.
I don't know anymore. And I don't know who to trust from the people who claim to know.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
It's fine
> arguing that it's not that black and white, but to America and it's
> allies it is.
Which is EXACTLY what Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaida wanted in the first place; polarisation, no room for grey areas, and a man in charge who is too stupid to realise that there is more than one way to skin a cat than by declaring war on it.
It's fine
> arguing that it's not that black and white, but to America and it's
> allies it is.
Which is EXACTLY what Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaida wanted in the first place; polarisation, no room for grey areas, and a man in charge who is too stupid to realise that there is more than one way to skin a cat than by declaring war on it.
Icarus wrote:
> So basically America has to nuke everything in the whole world,
> inlcuding the UN, every country that has different opinions to those
> of the "coalition", because surely a difference in opinion,
> however slight, is still a potential threat for the future?
No, that is not what I said. For a start "tackled" does not eqaute with "nuke everything" or even military action. A difference in opinion is not a threat par se, it's all about context. If the difference of opinion is on the price of banana's, defecits, international events, and such, then excuse me if you don't see the B2's roaring out of Roswell and Andrews.
If it's on topics which directly threaten national security or strategic interests and such, then it has to be tackled - not war - tackled. War always is and always should remain the final option, but it must always remain the option for without it everything else lacks credibility. What stops North Korea doing more than talking tough ? Because it knows that any action will cause the US to retailiate in defence, and then neither side wins.
Ever since 9/11 the most decisive split in nations, and that I suspect will shape the future more than anything else, is those who commit to fighting terrorism and those who do not/will not. It's fine arguing that it's not that black and white, but to America and it's allies it is.
> So basically America has to nuke everything in the whole world,
> inlcuding the UN, every country that has different opinions to those
> of the "coalition", because surely a difference in opinion,
> however slight, is still a potential threat for the future?
No, that is not what I said. For a start "tackled" does not eqaute with "nuke everything" or even military action. A difference in opinion is not a threat par se, it's all about context. If the difference of opinion is on the price of banana's, defecits, international events, and such, then excuse me if you don't see the B2's roaring out of Roswell and Andrews.
If it's on topics which directly threaten national security or strategic interests and such, then it has to be tackled - not war - tackled. War always is and always should remain the final option, but it must always remain the option for without it everything else lacks credibility. What stops North Korea doing more than talking tough ? Because it knows that any action will cause the US to retailiate in defence, and then neither side wins.
Ever since 9/11 the most decisive split in nations, and that I suspect will shape the future more than anything else, is those who commit to fighting terrorism and those who do not/will not. It's fine arguing that it's not that black and white, but to America and it's allies it is.
Belldandy wrote:
> Because I'm biased towards the US/UK/coalition alliances. Anything
> that threatens that has to be tackled
So basically America has to nuke everything in the whole world, inlcuding the UN, every country that has different opinions to those of the "coalition", because surely a difference in opinion, however slight, is still a potential threat for the future?
> Because I'm biased towards the US/UK/coalition alliances. Anything
> that threatens that has to be tackled
So basically America has to nuke everything in the whole world, inlcuding the UN, every country that has different opinions to those of the "coalition", because surely a difference in opinion, however slight, is still a potential threat for the future?
Light wrote:
> You're rather hung up on it just being China and Russia. That's as
> may be, but you seem overly determined to paint them as the boogeymen
> of arms sales, when that's not the case. ALL nations sell arms to
> questionable buyers. ALL 1st and 2nd world countries have arms
> dealing as a stain on their record. To try and point to someone else
> and say they're somehow worse than us not much short of blind faith.
Okay, I think I need to clarify a few points in my last post so here goes.
I'm quite aware that just about every nation has in some way been involved in the weapons trade, bar a few. My point in relation to the Russians and Chinese is that it seems a little stupid on their part because of the risk that one day coalition forces would be fighting against the equipment they'd sold. Admittedly coalition forces in 1990/91 faced a similar situation, facing some weapons, including WMD, that was western sourced and a hangover from the Iran/Iraq war. To me, Russian/Chinese involvement in supplying arms post 1991 undermined their positions in the UN and the Iraq debate. Part of me wondered how much they just didn't want to see Russian T80's being blown apart by Apache's and Americans piling up hordes of AK's and Chem-bio suits.
It's well known that Russia broke the sanctions on many occasion post 1999 (After, I think, Desert Fox) and it's never been entirely clear what happened when they did - no way was it sight seeing. On the other hand we'll never know the flipside for a long while ? I suspect, as others in the media and press have wondered, that Russia and China may have slipped information via back channels to the US or at the very least exerted some influence.
> Right; to maintain a pro-western government? What, you mean like
> Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Iraq was prior to 1991? Bearing in mind
> how often you've quoted the human rights abuses in Iraq as sufficient
> justification for invasion, you're awfully willing to sweep those
> committed by Indonesia or, say, Burma under the carpet as long as
> they're pro-western.
Within the conditions of the Cold War the Ba'athist regime was pro-western but actual support for him in the sense of funds/trainers and so on was cut off around 1988. Remember that at the time Iran had just had it's revolution, and NATO knew Russia was sending people and equipment to the country. Idealogically the two countries had differences but each had an interest in the other - Iran to increase it's power in the region and protect itself from Israel, and Russia to gain a foothold in the vital oil producing region. Within the scope of the 'big picture' the main concern was to ensure the Russians forgot about any ideas like that, and Saddam was willing to do the deed given our help. Yes, Saddam was doing god-knows what, but it's reasonable to assume this would have gone on regardless of Western support, or failing that an invasion by Iran and Soviets would have led to equal abuses and may have precipitated a larger conflict. It was a case of making sacrifices in order to fulfill large objectives, as has happened before and will happen again. The only redeeming thing is that Saddam was eventually ousted.
> Tell me, if the west fell out with Indonesia for
> whatever reason, would you be so willing to justify the arms sales
> and human rights abuses then?
No, because the only reason for basically ignoring much of what goes on there is a friendly government in power. It's a fair guess that the rebels, if allowed to form a government, would not be pro-western and would kick out the military stationed in the area. Simple fact is we need those bases in that area more than ever because Asia represents the last area with potential for a war.
There is no guarantee that a rebel government would act any differently, whilst this does not excuse anything it is the job of the UN as well as countries willing to take unilateral action to sort problems like this. Right now the Indonesians provide vital support for the war on terror in Asia, and until the rest of the UN gets tough on the subject I don't expect anything to change. Get the right tv footage, send in a UN expeditionary force, and you'd get support to effect change.
> Also, if it's okay for the UK to maintain a pro-western government,
> why are you demonising Russia and China for trying to maintain
> governments favourable to them? After all, if you're saying that to
> do so is a reasonable political tactic, regardless of the hideous
> human rights abuses committed by the country in question, then surely
> you've got absolutely no right to criticise them?
Because I'm biased towards the US/UK/coalition alliances. Anything that threatens that has to be tackled, and it is my belief that the best chance for a better world does lie with such alliances. China is still a potential enemy, Russia less so.
With respect towards the subject of the indonesians/rebels, it's one for one, one lot kills those they shouldn't, the other side does, and so on. Both are equally as bad to me, but again, whilst one remains pro-western not an awful lot is going to happen. Even Russia rarely comments on it, 'cause in a way the bases are just as important to it as they are to the US.
> why are you
> excusing Indonesia in the very same post that you're trying to say
> that you're the only one who was condemning them?
I am excusing them in a way , but it's political fact and nothing much will change that. No, it's not inevitable, but I'm saying that unless Indonesia becomes a threat that there are bigger priorities right now. Say we end the war on terror at some point, the US will turn it's attention elsewhere and, I believe, one by one these problems will be solved. There is not one thing however stopping the UN acting without the US to throw Indonesia into the headlines and build support for action if the government will not act itself.
> Now then; did Iraq have secret plans to roll up half of the middle
> east? No? Yet IT still got an awful lot of coverage, correct?
It threatened Israel, had invaded Kuwait and suchlike, which was good enough. Saddam's gone and to me that's a major victory, the other point is that the coalition encouraged TV coverage for the most part. I found it quite hilarious to see all the "shock" at times when the footage shown was later revealed to be acting or likewise. To many people watched the coverage and assumed they'd get the truth, which in a time of war is frankly naive.
> 4 officers? 4 people have been brought to account for the god-knows
> how many judicially approved murders and acts of torture ordered by
> government? 4 men?
I didn't actually say that made it okay did I ? I should have perhaps been clearer - they were obviously scape goats put on trial purely to quieten the international community and silence various NGO's. The West has a general belief that blame for actions lies at the top of an organisation - by sentencing 4 such people it undermines any NGO protests because the average person will think along the lines of "those responsible were punished" and that's that.
> Lets make one thing clear; I'd prefer it if ALL ugly land grabs,
> invasions of other nations, human rights abuses, and general evil
> committed by man against man, stopped.
Me too, I think most people want the same kind of thing but we all want to get there, and believe we can get there, different ways.
>If you can contribute
> something that doesn't involve trying to stop the debate about Iraq
> altogether because you somehow find it offensive that anyone should
> doubt the motives of the land of the free (and yes, that should be
> said with a sneer), then I really am all ears.
I've never said "stop the debate" or such, not that I remember anyway, I've simply pointed before to other similar examples related to Iraq, I find it annoying that some can be so blase in their assertions without little fact, and can't admit their own biases despite taking me to task about mine - thee still seems to be this idealised view that someone can be unbiased, which is rubbish, everyone is biased in some way. Yes, I've probably done likewise myself but that doesn't stop me.
I don't idealise the ideas as much as some seem to think, nothing is perfect, but as I said previously, I believe it's the best way to get where we want to go.
> You're rather hung up on it just being China and Russia. That's as
> may be, but you seem overly determined to paint them as the boogeymen
> of arms sales, when that's not the case. ALL nations sell arms to
> questionable buyers. ALL 1st and 2nd world countries have arms
> dealing as a stain on their record. To try and point to someone else
> and say they're somehow worse than us not much short of blind faith.
Okay, I think I need to clarify a few points in my last post so here goes.
I'm quite aware that just about every nation has in some way been involved in the weapons trade, bar a few. My point in relation to the Russians and Chinese is that it seems a little stupid on their part because of the risk that one day coalition forces would be fighting against the equipment they'd sold. Admittedly coalition forces in 1990/91 faced a similar situation, facing some weapons, including WMD, that was western sourced and a hangover from the Iran/Iraq war. To me, Russian/Chinese involvement in supplying arms post 1991 undermined their positions in the UN and the Iraq debate. Part of me wondered how much they just didn't want to see Russian T80's being blown apart by Apache's and Americans piling up hordes of AK's and Chem-bio suits.
It's well known that Russia broke the sanctions on many occasion post 1999 (After, I think, Desert Fox) and it's never been entirely clear what happened when they did - no way was it sight seeing. On the other hand we'll never know the flipside for a long while ? I suspect, as others in the media and press have wondered, that Russia and China may have slipped information via back channels to the US or at the very least exerted some influence.
> Right; to maintain a pro-western government? What, you mean like
> Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Iraq was prior to 1991? Bearing in mind
> how often you've quoted the human rights abuses in Iraq as sufficient
> justification for invasion, you're awfully willing to sweep those
> committed by Indonesia or, say, Burma under the carpet as long as
> they're pro-western.
Within the conditions of the Cold War the Ba'athist regime was pro-western but actual support for him in the sense of funds/trainers and so on was cut off around 1988. Remember that at the time Iran had just had it's revolution, and NATO knew Russia was sending people and equipment to the country. Idealogically the two countries had differences but each had an interest in the other - Iran to increase it's power in the region and protect itself from Israel, and Russia to gain a foothold in the vital oil producing region. Within the scope of the 'big picture' the main concern was to ensure the Russians forgot about any ideas like that, and Saddam was willing to do the deed given our help. Yes, Saddam was doing god-knows what, but it's reasonable to assume this would have gone on regardless of Western support, or failing that an invasion by Iran and Soviets would have led to equal abuses and may have precipitated a larger conflict. It was a case of making sacrifices in order to fulfill large objectives, as has happened before and will happen again. The only redeeming thing is that Saddam was eventually ousted.
> Tell me, if the west fell out with Indonesia for
> whatever reason, would you be so willing to justify the arms sales
> and human rights abuses then?
No, because the only reason for basically ignoring much of what goes on there is a friendly government in power. It's a fair guess that the rebels, if allowed to form a government, would not be pro-western and would kick out the military stationed in the area. Simple fact is we need those bases in that area more than ever because Asia represents the last area with potential for a war.
There is no guarantee that a rebel government would act any differently, whilst this does not excuse anything it is the job of the UN as well as countries willing to take unilateral action to sort problems like this. Right now the Indonesians provide vital support for the war on terror in Asia, and until the rest of the UN gets tough on the subject I don't expect anything to change. Get the right tv footage, send in a UN expeditionary force, and you'd get support to effect change.
> Also, if it's okay for the UK to maintain a pro-western government,
> why are you demonising Russia and China for trying to maintain
> governments favourable to them? After all, if you're saying that to
> do so is a reasonable political tactic, regardless of the hideous
> human rights abuses committed by the country in question, then surely
> you've got absolutely no right to criticise them?
Because I'm biased towards the US/UK/coalition alliances. Anything that threatens that has to be tackled, and it is my belief that the best chance for a better world does lie with such alliances. China is still a potential enemy, Russia less so.
With respect towards the subject of the indonesians/rebels, it's one for one, one lot kills those they shouldn't, the other side does, and so on. Both are equally as bad to me, but again, whilst one remains pro-western not an awful lot is going to happen. Even Russia rarely comments on it, 'cause in a way the bases are just as important to it as they are to the US.
> why are you
> excusing Indonesia in the very same post that you're trying to say
> that you're the only one who was condemning them?
I am excusing them in a way , but it's political fact and nothing much will change that. No, it's not inevitable, but I'm saying that unless Indonesia becomes a threat that there are bigger priorities right now. Say we end the war on terror at some point, the US will turn it's attention elsewhere and, I believe, one by one these problems will be solved. There is not one thing however stopping the UN acting without the US to throw Indonesia into the headlines and build support for action if the government will not act itself.
> Now then; did Iraq have secret plans to roll up half of the middle
> east? No? Yet IT still got an awful lot of coverage, correct?
It threatened Israel, had invaded Kuwait and suchlike, which was good enough. Saddam's gone and to me that's a major victory, the other point is that the coalition encouraged TV coverage for the most part. I found it quite hilarious to see all the "shock" at times when the footage shown was later revealed to be acting or likewise. To many people watched the coverage and assumed they'd get the truth, which in a time of war is frankly naive.
> 4 officers? 4 people have been brought to account for the god-knows
> how many judicially approved murders and acts of torture ordered by
> government? 4 men?
I didn't actually say that made it okay did I ? I should have perhaps been clearer - they were obviously scape goats put on trial purely to quieten the international community and silence various NGO's. The West has a general belief that blame for actions lies at the top of an organisation - by sentencing 4 such people it undermines any NGO protests because the average person will think along the lines of "those responsible were punished" and that's that.
> Lets make one thing clear; I'd prefer it if ALL ugly land grabs,
> invasions of other nations, human rights abuses, and general evil
> committed by man against man, stopped.
Me too, I think most people want the same kind of thing but we all want to get there, and believe we can get there, different ways.
>If you can contribute
> something that doesn't involve trying to stop the debate about Iraq
> altogether because you somehow find it offensive that anyone should
> doubt the motives of the land of the free (and yes, that should be
> said with a sneer), then I really am all ears.
I've never said "stop the debate" or such, not that I remember anyway, I've simply pointed before to other similar examples related to Iraq, I find it annoying that some can be so blase in their assertions without little fact, and can't admit their own biases despite taking me to task about mine - thee still seems to be this idealised view that someone can be unbiased, which is rubbish, everyone is biased in some way. Yes, I've probably done likewise myself but that doesn't stop me.
I don't idealise the ideas as much as some seem to think, nothing is perfect, but as I said previously, I believe it's the best way to get where we want to go.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Because Robin Cook needs to maintain official policy in public
> statements. I knew full well that several nation states sold arms to
> Iraq post 1991 - notably China, Russia - through various channels
You're rather hung up on it just being China and Russia. That's as may be, but you seem overly determined to paint them as the boogeymen of arms sales, when that's not the case. ALL nations sell arms to questionable buyers. ALL 1st and 2nd world countries have arms dealing as a stain on their record. To try and point to someone else and say they're somehow worse than us not much short of blind faith.
>
> You expect nation states to question who arms are sold to? Then why
> do the UK continue to sell arms to Indonesia?
>
> In reality, no, I would have expected that China and Russia would
> show some sense and not sell stuff to a country that was obviously
> going to be revisited one day by a coalition force unless Saddam went
> peacefully. I expect the UK sells arms to Indonesia to maintain a
> pro-western government in the area thus keeping a vital strategic
> location relatively safe, plus the government rebels are essentially
> classed as terrorists now, hence it's all lumped into the war on
> terror e.t.c. Whilse I can see that the Indonesians can be easily
> criticised for their use of troops e.t.c. in suppressing/hunting the
> rebels, the rebels seem equally as bad but with even less
> accountability.
Right; to maintain a pro-western government? What, you mean like Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Iraq was prior to 1991? Bearing in mind how often you've quoted the human rights abuses in Iraq as sufficient justification for invasion, you're awfully willing to sweep those committed by Indonesia or, say, Burma under the carpet as long as they're pro-western. Tell me, if the west fell out with Indonesia for whatever reason, would you be so willing to justify the arms sales and human rights abuses then?
Also, if it's okay for the UK to maintain a pro-western government, why are you demonising Russia and China for trying to maintain governments favourable to them? After all, if you're saying that to do so is a reasonable political tactic, regardless of the hideous human rights abuses committed by the country in question, then surely you've got absolutely no right to criticise them?
Rebels seem as bad eh? I can't comment on the majority of anti-government rebels in Indonesia, but does their being brutal and viscous killers excuse the Indonesian military and government in any way for the acts of murder and torture they've committed? Have you read up on what happened in East Timor? If you can find me any evidence that the paltry few rebels there committed anything like the attempted ethnic cleansing committed by the Indonesians, I'll be impressed.
>
> However, unless Indonesia has secret plans to roll up half of Asia
> it's not something that seems likely to get much news coverage -
> during the Gulf Conflict earlier in the year I did repeatedly point
> to the little conflict there, and the lack of criticism\concern a
> majority of those who were so concerned about Iraq seemed to express.
> I won't pop the topics because they're somewhat buried under replies
> like "yeah stop trying to get attention away from Iraq".
C'mon Bell, that's hypocrisy of the highest order from you and whats more, you know it. Do you want me to go through the HUGE number of times you've tried to distract attention from criticism of the UK or US by going "But what about...." and moving onto something else? Hell, look at this thread; I mention the arms dealing of the UK, and before I know it you're making references to those evil commies and their nasty arms dealings. If you're going to try and reinvent yourself as someone who's interested in bringing human rights abuses to the attention of everyone on this board, why are you excusing Indonesia in the very same post that you're trying to say that you're the only one who was condemning them? Take a long, hard look at your own debating tactics over the last few months before making thinly veiled criticisms of those of others.
Now then; did Iraq have secret plans to roll up half of the middle east? No? Yet IT still got an awful lot of coverage, correct?
>
> As Indonesian troops bounded through village upon village in the
> region of (I think) Aceh, I am in no doubt they were glad that
> attention was in Iraq. Later on I believe 4 officers were sentenced
> to death over their loss of control of their men.
4 officers? 4 people have been brought to account for the god-knows how many judicially approved murders and acts of torture ordered by government? 4 men?
Tell me, had Iraq sentenced 4 of their army officers to death for the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq, or for the invasion of Iraq, or for the murder of all the Iraqi civilians post 1991, do you think YOU would have thought "Well, that's alright then; they're obviously in control of the situation"? Or do you think that you would have decided that those death sentences (have they even been carried out?) were a sop to the west and nothing more? Would you have thought "There will be no more human rights abuses by the army in Iraq; 4 men have been executed, so it'll all stop!".
Lets make one thing clear; I'd prefer it if ALL ugly land grabs, invasions of other nations, human rights abuses, and general evil committed by man against man, stopped. If I'm picking up on those in Iraq, it's because this is a public webboard, and that is one of the major topics of conversation. Personally, I've discussed the crimes against humanity of many many more nations than just the chimp-led US, but I don't feel the need to keep bringing them up whenever someone talks about the situation in Iraq. If you can contribute something that doesn't involve trying to stop the debate about Iraq altogether because you somehow find it offensive that anyone should doubt the motives of the land of the free (and yes, that should be said with a sneer), then I really am all ears. But until then, and the VAST improvement in your attitude over the last week notwithstanding, you'll excuse me if I view your posts, with their attempts to demonise what you perceive as the enemies of the US and UK, with extraordinary cynicism.
JESUS I'm in a FOUL mood today...
>
> Because Robin Cook needs to maintain official policy in public
> statements. I knew full well that several nation states sold arms to
> Iraq post 1991 - notably China, Russia - through various channels
You're rather hung up on it just being China and Russia. That's as may be, but you seem overly determined to paint them as the boogeymen of arms sales, when that's not the case. ALL nations sell arms to questionable buyers. ALL 1st and 2nd world countries have arms dealing as a stain on their record. To try and point to someone else and say they're somehow worse than us not much short of blind faith.
>
> You expect nation states to question who arms are sold to? Then why
> do the UK continue to sell arms to Indonesia?
>
> In reality, no, I would have expected that China and Russia would
> show some sense and not sell stuff to a country that was obviously
> going to be revisited one day by a coalition force unless Saddam went
> peacefully. I expect the UK sells arms to Indonesia to maintain a
> pro-western government in the area thus keeping a vital strategic
> location relatively safe, plus the government rebels are essentially
> classed as terrorists now, hence it's all lumped into the war on
> terror e.t.c. Whilse I can see that the Indonesians can be easily
> criticised for their use of troops e.t.c. in suppressing/hunting the
> rebels, the rebels seem equally as bad but with even less
> accountability.
Right; to maintain a pro-western government? What, you mean like Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Iraq was prior to 1991? Bearing in mind how often you've quoted the human rights abuses in Iraq as sufficient justification for invasion, you're awfully willing to sweep those committed by Indonesia or, say, Burma under the carpet as long as they're pro-western. Tell me, if the west fell out with Indonesia for whatever reason, would you be so willing to justify the arms sales and human rights abuses then?
Also, if it's okay for the UK to maintain a pro-western government, why are you demonising Russia and China for trying to maintain governments favourable to them? After all, if you're saying that to do so is a reasonable political tactic, regardless of the hideous human rights abuses committed by the country in question, then surely you've got absolutely no right to criticise them?
Rebels seem as bad eh? I can't comment on the majority of anti-government rebels in Indonesia, but does their being brutal and viscous killers excuse the Indonesian military and government in any way for the acts of murder and torture they've committed? Have you read up on what happened in East Timor? If you can find me any evidence that the paltry few rebels there committed anything like the attempted ethnic cleansing committed by the Indonesians, I'll be impressed.
>
> However, unless Indonesia has secret plans to roll up half of Asia
> it's not something that seems likely to get much news coverage -
> during the Gulf Conflict earlier in the year I did repeatedly point
> to the little conflict there, and the lack of criticism\concern a
> majority of those who were so concerned about Iraq seemed to express.
> I won't pop the topics because they're somewhat buried under replies
> like "yeah stop trying to get attention away from Iraq".
C'mon Bell, that's hypocrisy of the highest order from you and whats more, you know it. Do you want me to go through the HUGE number of times you've tried to distract attention from criticism of the UK or US by going "But what about...." and moving onto something else? Hell, look at this thread; I mention the arms dealing of the UK, and before I know it you're making references to those evil commies and their nasty arms dealings. If you're going to try and reinvent yourself as someone who's interested in bringing human rights abuses to the attention of everyone on this board, why are you excusing Indonesia in the very same post that you're trying to say that you're the only one who was condemning them? Take a long, hard look at your own debating tactics over the last few months before making thinly veiled criticisms of those of others.
Now then; did Iraq have secret plans to roll up half of the middle east? No? Yet IT still got an awful lot of coverage, correct?
>
> As Indonesian troops bounded through village upon village in the
> region of (I think) Aceh, I am in no doubt they were glad that
> attention was in Iraq. Later on I believe 4 officers were sentenced
> to death over their loss of control of their men.
4 officers? 4 people have been brought to account for the god-knows how many judicially approved murders and acts of torture ordered by government? 4 men?
Tell me, had Iraq sentenced 4 of their army officers to death for the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq, or for the invasion of Iraq, or for the murder of all the Iraqi civilians post 1991, do you think YOU would have thought "Well, that's alright then; they're obviously in control of the situation"? Or do you think that you would have decided that those death sentences (have they even been carried out?) were a sop to the west and nothing more? Would you have thought "There will be no more human rights abuses by the army in Iraq; 4 men have been executed, so it'll all stop!".
Lets make one thing clear; I'd prefer it if ALL ugly land grabs, invasions of other nations, human rights abuses, and general evil committed by man against man, stopped. If I'm picking up on those in Iraq, it's because this is a public webboard, and that is one of the major topics of conversation. Personally, I've discussed the crimes against humanity of many many more nations than just the chimp-led US, but I don't feel the need to keep bringing them up whenever someone talks about the situation in Iraq. If you can contribute something that doesn't involve trying to stop the debate about Iraq altogether because you somehow find it offensive that anyone should doubt the motives of the land of the free (and yes, that should be said with a sneer), then I really am all ears. But until then, and the VAST improvement in your attitude over the last week notwithstanding, you'll excuse me if I view your posts, with their attempts to demonise what you perceive as the enemies of the US and UK, with extraordinary cynicism.
JESUS I'm in a FOUL mood today...
I think that overall America has handled this system very badly and that it has now all gone terribly wrong.
I think it all first started to go wrong with the American troups not waiting long enough before plunging into another Conflict like that of the Falklands, then Doctor Kelly killed himseld and it has all steadily gone downhill from there. I saw that on the news, The UN now want about 3 billion pounds to rebuild Iraq, and that is not a good sign. It has become like WW2 were the Americans pumped so much money back into the German economy that it became one of the worlds leading financial countries, top of things like car manufacturing.
This issue was very controversial, and it is this controverasy that has started the Iraq "war", I say war like that simply because how is running into a country killing a few rebel groups and tearing down some statues a war?It isn't, it's a joke, simply because all the arguementation has lasted longer than the so called "war" already.
This all started with the catastrophic destruction of the Twin Towers on that fateful day from the terrorist group Al-Caudia (or something spelt like that) and the world, me included felt very sorry for the Americans, it has since spiralled out of control with the Americans on more of a witch hunt for revengeance than any real danger, but it may be unfair to say this, I just think they rushed into this conflict. I don't dispute that IF Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he should be immediately disarmed, only the key word is IF, and the Government can't seem to tell the newspapers or the News or anyone otherwise.
It is a very contoversial issue but I , personally, do not believe that this "war" should have been allowed to happen to the extent that we owe Iraq's economy 3 billion to rebuild. I also don't believe we should have bombed the country, with monstrous results, such as in "The tale of two Alis" documentary.
A biological/chemical war nukes should have been prevented at very high stakes, but not so that innocent children are maimed by George W Bushes witch hunt policies.
This may be my own opinion, but I really do not believe that it should have been endorsed and allowed to go this far by Tony Blair.
Handy Man
I think it all first started to go wrong with the American troups not waiting long enough before plunging into another Conflict like that of the Falklands, then Doctor Kelly killed himseld and it has all steadily gone downhill from there. I saw that on the news, The UN now want about 3 billion pounds to rebuild Iraq, and that is not a good sign. It has become like WW2 were the Americans pumped so much money back into the German economy that it became one of the worlds leading financial countries, top of things like car manufacturing.
This issue was very controversial, and it is this controverasy that has started the Iraq "war", I say war like that simply because how is running into a country killing a few rebel groups and tearing down some statues a war?It isn't, it's a joke, simply because all the arguementation has lasted longer than the so called "war" already.
This all started with the catastrophic destruction of the Twin Towers on that fateful day from the terrorist group Al-Caudia (or something spelt like that) and the world, me included felt very sorry for the Americans, it has since spiralled out of control with the Americans on more of a witch hunt for revengeance than any real danger, but it may be unfair to say this, I just think they rushed into this conflict. I don't dispute that IF Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he should be immediately disarmed, only the key word is IF, and the Government can't seem to tell the newspapers or the News or anyone otherwise.
It is a very contoversial issue but I , personally, do not believe that this "war" should have been allowed to happen to the extent that we owe Iraq's economy 3 billion to rebuild. I also don't believe we should have bombed the country, with monstrous results, such as in "The tale of two Alis" documentary.
A biological/chemical war nukes should have been prevented at very high stakes, but not so that innocent children are maimed by George W Bushes witch hunt policies.
This may be my own opinion, but I really do not believe that it should have been endorsed and allowed to go this far by Tony Blair.
Handy Man
Light wrote:
> I'm afraid that some of those arms dealers ARE nation states. Why do
> you think Robin Cook felt the need to make that laughable statement
> about how arms would not be sold by the UK to countries who will use
> them as tools of oppression?
Because Robin Cook needs to maintain official policy in public statements. I knew full well that several nation states sold arms to Iraq post 1991 - notably China, Russia - through various channels
> You expect nation states to question who arms are sold to? Then why
> do the UK continue to sell arms to Indonesia?
In reality, no, I would have expected that China and Russia would show some sense and not sell stuff to a country that was obviously going to be revisited one day by a coalition force unless Saddam went peacefully. I expect the UK sells arms to Indonesia to maintain a pro-western government in the area thus keeping a vital strategic location relatively safe, plus the government rebels are essentially classed as terrorists now, hence it's all lumped into the war on terror e.t.c. Whilse I can see that the Indonesians can be easily criticised for their use of troops e.t.c. in suppressing/hunting the rebels, the rebels seem equally as bad but with even less accountability.
However, unless Indonesia has secret plans to roll up half of Asia it's not something that seems likely to get much news coverage - during the Gulf Conflict earlier in the year I did repeatedly point to the little conflict there, and the lack of criticism\concern a majority of those who were so concerned about Iraq seemed to express. I won't pop the topics because they're somewhat buried under replies like "yeah stop trying to get attention away from Iraq".
As Indonesian troops bounded through village upon village in the region of (I think) Aceh, I am in no doubt they were glad that attention was in Iraq. Later on I believe 4 officers were sentenced to death over their loss of control of their men.
> I'm afraid that some of those arms dealers ARE nation states. Why do
> you think Robin Cook felt the need to make that laughable statement
> about how arms would not be sold by the UK to countries who will use
> them as tools of oppression?
Because Robin Cook needs to maintain official policy in public statements. I knew full well that several nation states sold arms to Iraq post 1991 - notably China, Russia - through various channels
> You expect nation states to question who arms are sold to? Then why
> do the UK continue to sell arms to Indonesia?
In reality, no, I would have expected that China and Russia would show some sense and not sell stuff to a country that was obviously going to be revisited one day by a coalition force unless Saddam went peacefully. I expect the UK sells arms to Indonesia to maintain a pro-western government in the area thus keeping a vital strategic location relatively safe, plus the government rebels are essentially classed as terrorists now, hence it's all lumped into the war on terror e.t.c. Whilse I can see that the Indonesians can be easily criticised for their use of troops e.t.c. in suppressing/hunting the rebels, the rebels seem equally as bad but with even less accountability.
However, unless Indonesia has secret plans to roll up half of Asia it's not something that seems likely to get much news coverage - during the Gulf Conflict earlier in the year I did repeatedly point to the little conflict there, and the lack of criticism\concern a majority of those who were so concerned about Iraq seemed to express. I won't pop the topics because they're somewhat buried under replies like "yeah stop trying to get attention away from Iraq".
As Indonesian troops bounded through village upon village in the region of (I think) Aceh, I am in no doubt they were glad that attention was in Iraq. Later on I believe 4 officers were sentenced to death over their loss of control of their men.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> As to where it came from; are you really saying that you expect arms
> dealers to question who they sell to as long as the money is
> forthcoming?
>
> Arms dealers no. Nation states yes.
>
I'm afraid that some of those arms dealers ARE nation states. Why do you think Robin Cook felt the need to make that laughable statement about how arms would not be sold by the UK to countries who will use them as tools of oppression?
You expect nation states to question who arms are sold to? Then why do the UK continue to sell arms to Indonesia?
> Light wrote:
> As to where it came from; are you really saying that you expect arms
> dealers to question who they sell to as long as the money is
> forthcoming?
>
> Arms dealers no. Nation states yes.
>
I'm afraid that some of those arms dealers ARE nation states. Why do you think Robin Cook felt the need to make that laughable statement about how arms would not be sold by the UK to countries who will use them as tools of oppression?
You expect nation states to question who arms are sold to? Then why do the UK continue to sell arms to Indonesia?
Everything is about power. No one can be trusted because everything is about power. The will-to-power: on a personal level, on a group level, on a financial level, on a national/global level. No one should be surprised. Call it the curse of mankind. There is no solution. Conflict [of differing degrees and manifestations] forever.
Light wrote:
> As to where it came from; are you really saying that you expect arms
> dealers to question who they sell to as long as the money is
> forthcoming?
Arms dealers no. Nation states yes.
I'll discuss the other stuff later, got stuff to do.
> As to where it came from; are you really saying that you expect arms
> dealers to question who they sell to as long as the money is
> forthcoming?
Arms dealers no. Nation states yes.
I'll discuss the other stuff later, got stuff to do.
Page: