Iraqi soccer players no fan of Bush

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by home_sweet_dome+Aug 20 2004, 12:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (home_sweet_dome @ Aug 20 2004, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 04:40 PM


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun26.html

From the story:

[i] An annex to the country's interim constitution requires the approval of a majority of Allawi's ministers, as well as the interim president and two vice presidents, to overturn any of Bremer's edicts. A senior U.S. official in Iraq noted recently that it would "not be easy to reverse" the orders.

Thanks for the article Cow. It basically says the exact same stuff as the article I posted, so thanks for helping me out.

Of course with the approval of so many people, especially US influenced people, needed to overturn Bremer's edicts, they ain't gonna be overturned anytime soon, thus allowing America to continue to control Iraq, just as my original article stated.

So, um, thanks again I guess. Now the "real news stories" and the "crap I was peddling earlier" both seem to support my original point. [/b][/quote]
Thanks for giving up.

We both know the LA Times letter you posted had zero way out for Iraqi's, had no depth because that would have destroyed the author's position and did not present an alternate view for the reader.

Aside from that . . . . it was still a piece of crap.

Cowperson

[kipperfan]

I feel Lanny's POV on this issue for sure.

To me its real simple: Bush and many Americans in general have no respect for the soverignty(sp?) of other nations. They have no problem moving into a country and demolishing anything in the way to achieve what they THINK may be better for the people. Yet they dont consider that whats best for AMERICAN people isnt always whats best for ARAB people or CUBAN people.

And yeah torture would be horrible and iam sure these players are happy to have it cease, but does that mean they have to give up there nation and everything in it they love? Does it mean they have to watch there innocent family members die in street? Does it mean they have to live in a war zone, that isnt changing 1 year later? Just beacuse 1 bad thing was stopped in their lives, Im pretty sure that wouldnt weight against all of the injustices that have mounted on the heads on the Iraqi citizens since "liberation"........a dead family, ruined home and dismantled country is NOTa good trade for the cease of torture.

How can you tell these people that they have to put up with these injustices in their own land?? The reprive of torture will NEVER make up for the destruction the Americans caused.

[home_sweet_dome]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 06:01 PM

Thanks for giving up.

We both know the LA Times letter you posted had zero way out for Iraqi's, had no depth because that would have destroyed the author's position and did not present an alternate view for the reader.

Aside from that . . . . it was still a piece of crap.

Cowperson

LOL, a piece of crap that basically said the exact same thing as your eloquent Washington Post article.

Just look at the last paragraph of YOUR article:

He likened the power of the commission to that of religious mullahs in Iran, who routinely use their authority to remove candidates before an election. "In a way, Mr. Bremer is using a more subtle form than the one used by hard-liners in Iran to control their elections," Cole said.

Heck, the title of your article is even "U.S. Edicts Curb Power Of Iraq's Leadership"

Anyways, i am "giving up" now, but only because this is a futile exercise as:

A) you can't seem to read

B) you're one of the head honchos around here and this is the best hockey and Flames board on the net and I'd prefer not to get banned from it :P

Peace.

[Cowperson]

I agree that its a good idea for you to jump overboard in a hurry given we're all waiting for you to produce from YOUR article the paragraphs which allow us to see the new Iraqi government, or a democratically elected one, can overturn any and all of Bremer's edicts.

In fact, the clearly outlined mechanism to do so is actually one of the edicts!!!

Guess your "fair" article didn't have that now did it?

The author wouldn't have had much of a point if he had included it.

The Washington Post story covered both sides, those in favour and those opposed, giving their arguments equal weighting, letting the reader decide between the positions.

A good news story should do no less.

I would take the piece you presented as simply the position of a person with a vested interest in one side of the argument.



B) you're one of the head honchos around here and this is the best hockey and Flames board on the net and I'd prefer not to get banned from it :P

That's a cop-out. People don't get banned for disagreeing with Bingo or I. There'd obviously be no one left if that were the case.

Sorry for the load of bricks on your head.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Firstly, Iraq... I still fail to see anything that would give the Americans the right to do what they did in Iraq. They lied, plain and simple. The international community saw no reason for them to go into Iraq (no weapons of mass distraction). I also no longer buy the bullsh*t that media has spun about Hussein being the animal they painted him to be. After the invasion he was hid by the citizens of his country for crying outloud. Sounds like a lot of people really wanted to get rid of him badly. All they had to do was tell anyone in an American uniform and Hussein would have been caught. Did that happen quickly? Nope. Hussein is still considered a string figure in the Middle East whether westerners care to admit that or not.

Secondly, Cuba... anyone with a brain in their head would surely admit that 40 years of sanctions and blockade would certainly cause a country to suffer. Jesus, look at what a six month embargo on soft woods did to the lumber industry in BC. Imagine if you were cut off from pretty well everything for 40 years. Think that would have an effect? America's policy is what is hurting Cuba, not Fidel Castro. That is obvious as the nose on anyone's face, if they care to look in the mirror.

Finally, the problem that is the lynch pin to a lot of what ails the world is American foreign policy. If the US would worry about their own backyard and no focus on other nations the world would be a much safer place. American foreign policy and the actions of a half wit in the whitehouse have solidified the hatred against the US that has been deep seeded for almost three quarters of a decade. Instead of intelligently attacking the problem the nimrods in power threw the war machine into over-drive without weighing the consequences. They have made their bed, America will continue to suffer, and the problem will only get worse. Fix the foreign policy and you fix the problem.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 19 2004, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 19 2004, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I also no longer buy the bullsh*t that media has spun about Hussein being the animal they painted him to be. After the invasion he was hid by the citizens of his country for crying outloud. Sounds like a lot of people really wanted to get rid of him badly. [/b]

Mafia, drug dealers, murders, etc are hidden by citizens of the US and Canada every day. Does that mean you don't believe that they're being animals either?

Everybody in the world has people on their side who are willing to do almost anything to back them... especially people in power. You should know this. This does not mean that he is not an animal, a murderer, etc, etc. It just means that there are those who are living high due to his actions and want to do anything in their power to continue it.

Originally posted by Lanny MacDonald@

Secondly, Cuba... anyone with a brain in their head would surely admit that 40 years of sanctions and blockade would certainly cause a country to suffer. Jesus, look at what a six month embargo on soft woods did to the lumber industry in BC. Imagine if you were cut off from pretty well everything for 40 years. Think that would have an effect? America's policy is what is hurting Cuba, not Fidel Castro. That is obvious as the nose on anyone's face, if they care to look in the mirror.

Yeah.. and it's not Castro's fault that the Cubans are suffering??? IF he wanted to, he could EASILY improve their standard of living. Obviously, he doesn't want to and yet you're pointing the finger at someone else?

I'm not going to deny that the country is suffering...that much is obvious. I"m just going to lay the blame at someone else's feet... someone who could easily change things but doesn't.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lanny MacDonald
Fix the foreign policy and you fix the problem. [/quote]
You make it sound like it is just so easy... leave everyone else alone and they'll become loved by everyone in the world.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The US is one of the main countries pointing out problems, and trying to get action, in the Sudan. Is this bad?

They have questionable decisions and questionable priorities at times, that much is obvious. That said, not everything they do is bad.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Really Calc. You, as President of Cuba, are responsible for getting your country back on its feet. What do you do? What can YOU do to end the American blockade? The only thing that the Americans want is an end to Communism, which means you would abandon your values and systems in which the whole country is based on. That would be good in what way?

And you think I'm over simplifying things by suggesting that America should fix its foreign policy and that that would make a lot of these issues moot points? Well, we'll have to disagree on that. Because America is doing jack sh*t in Sudan other than talking. That isn't action to this administration. If talk was action and was considered important to the Americans, then what the hell are they doing in Iraq?

[home_sweet_dome]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 06:32 PM
I agree that its a good idea for you to jump overboard in a hurry given we're all waiting for you to produce from YOUR article the paragraphs which allow us to see the new Iraqi government, or a democratically elected one, can overturn any and all of Bremer's edicts.

In fact, the clearly outlined mechanism to do so is actually one of the edicts!!!

Guess your "fair" article didn't have that now did it?

The author wouldn't have had much of a point if he had included it.

The Washington Post story covered both sides, those in favour and those opposed, giving their arguments equal weighting, letting the reader decide between the positions.

A good news story should do no less.

I would take the piece you presented as simply the position of a person with a vested interest in one side of the argument.



B) you're one of the head honchos around here and this is the best hockey and Flames board on the net and I'd prefer not to get banned from it :P

That's a cop-out. People don't get banned for disagreeing with Bingo or I. There'd obviously be no one left if that were the case.

Sorry for the load of bricks on your head.

Cowperson

Well golly gee, I guess your article is better cuz it implies the chance of Bremer's edicts (at least the main ones I was referring to in the original article) being overturned in the near future are somewhere between slim and none whereas my article simply assumes that's the case and makes no mention of it.

While we're at it, why not argue over whose daddy is tougher too.

Anyways my original point was that it is my opinion that I don't blame the soccer players as US foreign policy stinks and that most US news networks don't always report the facts straight. This was, and still is my opinion and there ain't nothing you can say that's gonna change that.

Obviously you have your own opinion and it's quite obvious nothing I or anyone else says is gonna change that either, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 19 2004, 10:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 19 2004, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Really Calc. You, as President of Cuba, are responsible for getting your country back on its feet. What do you do? What can YOU do to end the American blockade? The only thing that the Americans want is an end to Communism, which means you would abandon your values and systems in which the whole country is based on. That would be good in what way?[/b]

If I'm Castro and I'm 70+ and I really, truly, care for the people of my country, I'd retire. I'm sure Castro has all the money he would ever need and could easily retire. Even if he wouldn't retire but hand the reigns over to someone else, it'd signal a change that the Americans could grasp onto.

Right now, they have guy in power that threatened to shoot missiles into the US. Sure, times have changed, but some things still haven't. As you said, why would you abandon your values and systems? Castro, from this line of reasoning, would still have a serious hate-on for the US.

If you look at most, if not all, countries in the world, they have elections. It's the way of the world. Castro doesn't. He doesn't want to lose power. He doesn't want to do what the people want. He wants what he wants and that's it. He doesn't care about the people of his country, and for that the Americans should reward him by lowering the sanctions?

From 1999:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_ameri...bright_1-5.html

Originally posted by Secretary Madeleine Albright@
Well, the purpose here, we've talked a lot about the fact that it was important to have a democratic transition in Cuba, that we want Castro to allow the people of Cuba to have free elections and to be able to operate in a way as do people throughout the world. And the purpose here is to press the democratic values, humanitarian values, and to allow the people to act independently. That's the purpose and Castro needs to understand that the only way to normalize relations with the United States is if indeed he moves towards a democratic transition and allows the people to have independent activity. One of the things that's happened, Jim, is we had hoped very much that after the pope's visit, a lot of the people actually and the dissidents would improve. It has not, frankly. People have been arrested and re-arrested. And Castro is not getting the message. And what we're trying to do is to follow up on what the pope was doing there, his message of hope and liberty, and freedom, and to try to give some space to the Cuban people.

And yet, since Castro does nothing to promote any of this, the sanctions should be eliminated???

<!--QuoteBegin-Lanny MacDonald
And you think I'm over simplifying things by suggesting that America should fix its foreign policy and that that would make a lot of these issues moot points? Well, we'll have to disagree on that. Because America is doing jack sh*t in Sudan other than talking. That isn't action to this administration. If talk was action and was considered important to the Americans, then what the hell are they doing in Iraq?[/quote]
What they're doing in Iraq is backing up all the talk that has been going on for the past decade and more.

What good is talk? What good is barganing if it's not done in good faith or followed up on? What good are threats if not followed up on? This all takes action, but the talk was there and has been there for years. For someone as well read as you, I'd have thought you knew this.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Come on Calc, being in Iraq has nothing to do with "talk from the past decade" and you know it. Weapons of mass distraction was all bullsh*t and we know it. There were other motivations. Hell, there have been numerous sources that stated Bush wanted back in Iraq before he even won the election. The whole talk angle just doesn't hold water.

You raise an interesting point on Castro's age and his motivations. Well what about the Americans? Shouldn't they start to soften as well? If the Americans are this great wonderful country they say they are, shouldn't THEY be able to forgive a transgression 40 years old? And should they eleminate the blockade, who is going to be basing missles in Cuba now? The Soviet Union is dead. What is the point?

That Albright article you posted was interesting as well. I especially liked it when she said we (being America) wants Cuba to start having democratic elections. Uh, maybe I'm wrong here, but itsn't hat up to the people of Cuba to decide (after Castro steps aside) and not the Secretary of State of the United States of America? See, there's that American foreign policy again. Sticking its nose into the business of other nations that pose no threat to them and wanting to do nothing but erect puppet states that they can control. Seems to me that Imperialism ain't dead, its just wearing funky new clothes.

[Alexandria]

I think we need to push for more flexibility and understanding of other nations when we choose to put sanctions on a country. The first time I think I heard about sanctions was when I was a little girl. South Africa had apartheid at the time. The rest of the world chose sanctions against South Africa instead of war. As country after country refused to do business with them, they began to change the way things worked. This era was also greatly influenced by de Klerk and Mandela. I don't know if these sanctions helped or if it would have ended anyway, but this is the only example I can think of where sanctions might have actually worked.

I do know that America sometimes seems unreasonable with its sanctions and use it to punish instead of encourage a different line of action. There are no steps to follow to ease restrictions or any small steps to to take for a government we don't like (Cuba for example). I believe our policy with Cuba is all or nothing.

As the planet grows in population and ways are discovered to travel to different places on the planet, people start learning how other people live. Now with the Internet, people all over the planet can communicate in seconds. Unfortunately, those born in countries that are poor don’t have this luxury yet.

We need to keep dreaming for a better world. What are we going to do today to make things better for our future?

I don’t think invading Iraq is going to make the world a better place. My country is responsible for thousands of deaths. We chose war. We justify it by saying that we killed less people then that Saddam guy did. It’s still the US killing other human beings. It’s wrong. Deep down to the core of my soul, I feel it’s wrong.

If you have nothing better to do.. Read this article. I actually heard this guy speaking at a commencement speech for some college while flipping through channels. I don't know what channel it was, but the way this guy spoke made me want to listen.

Be warned, it's pretty anti-Bush.

A very long but interesting article on America's Global Role

It's long, but it starts getting interesting about the 4th or 5th paragraph in.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Part of the problem here with the "well Saddam was a dictator" argument is what Lanny said, about having to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

There are two things at work for this pent-up hatred of the US. Keep in mind that the US had crippling sanctions on Iraq for a number of years, and that would have fueled contempt for the US, seen as demons for most of a decade in Iraq. The Iraqis who lived through this period would have also heard of the invasion by the us in 1990 from Saddam, who would have painted it rather differently for his people. In any event these sanction had had a huge impact on the life of Iraqis, moreso than a dictatorial Saddam Hussien would have.

Sanctions in Iraq

And forgetting about the war and politics involved, we can always dredge up Maslow's hierarchy of needs when required to explain how groups of people can act in certain situations. This applies on a large scale for sociological purposes, too, and illustrates where most Iraqis heads are at. The adapted 1990's version is as follows:

1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc.

3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc.

4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc.

5. Cognitive needs - knowledge, meaning, etc.

6. Aesthetic needs - appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form, etc.

7. Self-Actualization needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.

8. Transcendence needs - helping others to achieve self actualtization.

One adapted specifically for those practicing Islam can be found here. (not too different, some more spiritual things thrown in to reflect the values of certain segments of Iraqi society)

Before the US invaded, it's safe to say that most Iraqis were probably sitting in working on the 3-4+ categories and now many are lucky if they can say #1 and 2 are satisfied when the US and UK troops came in an wrecked what was left of the infrastructure of the country after the 1990's.

I think that's where a lot of this bitterness resides. In the West, one sees the hurrahs for dictator disposed. Many Iraqis just see a bunch of dead countrymen, blackouts and food/water shortages and can't be bothered to see what 'good' has come to their country.

I think it's sick that these guys were tortured - the only time I felt that way towards someone associated with pro sports was after game 4 of the SCF and Kerry Fraser. Still it's kind of amazing that they would be p*ssed at the guys who knocked Uday's big brother out of power. If there was any segment of society that would support them, you would figure it would be then. Speaks volumes for the invasion effort, IMHO.

[transplant99]

There are two things at work for this pent-up hatred of the US. Keep in mind that the US had crippling sanctions on Iraq for a number of years, and that would have fueled contempt for the US, seen as demons for most of a decade in Iraq. The Iraqis who lived through this period would have also heard of the invasion by the us in 1990 from Saddam, who would have painted it rather differently for his people. In any event these sanction had had a huge impact on the life of Iraqis, moreso than a dictatorial Saddam Hussien would have.

2 things.

The 1991 war was a UN security council vote for ALL nations to remove Iraq from Kuwait...you know the country that was illegally invaded.

and more importantly...the sanctions.

The sanctions were ALSO implemented by the United NATIONS not the US...but of course, the big bad US gets blamed for everything wrong in the middle east once again.

people forget history way to easily and it makes discussions like this pointless.

Lanny says the whole WMD was a lie, complete BS....when we know for a fact it wasnt. We know he had them, we know he used them, and we know he said he would use them again...but somehow that equates to them never being in existance?

No point in talking about it when examples like these are what's conjured up in peoples minds as facts.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I can't believe we have people still using the phrase "US sanctions against Iraq".

How negligent can you be?

ugh.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by home_sweet_dome@Aug 20 2004, 04:36 AM
Well golly gee, I guess your article is better cuz it implies the chance of Bremer's edicts (at least the main ones I was referring to in the original article) being overturned in the near future are somewhere between slim and none whereas my article simply assumes that's the case and makes no mention of it.

If you can't see or admit the difference between the two there's no helping you. Go back and bury your head in the sand of the radical left - or the radical right if you choose - and continue to tell yourself you're getting the "truth" when you're hearing only one side.

Beyond that, I can't help you.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 20 2004, 12:39 PM
Lanny says the whole WMD was a lie, complete BS....when we know for a fact it wasnt. We know he had them, we know he used them, and we know he said he would use them again...but somehow that equates to them never being in existance?

Who said he never had them? It certainly wasn't me. What I said was that he did not have them at this time, which is what made the whole campaign in Iraq a load of bullsh*t. The UN inspectors came up empty. They didn't find anything. To the UN Iraq had complied and destroyed their weapons and weapon making capability. If the UN couldn't find anything and the UN felt the potential incursion into Iraq was unjust, then that was good enough for me. I will believe the world body over that of a self serving single entity government.

If there were indeed weapons of mass destruction, where are they? Oh, I know, they're buried in the sands, to be dug up in times of war and emergency. Yeah, that makes sense. "We're being invaded! Someone dig up the mustard gas and bio weapons! Now where is that shovel anyways!" Or better yet, "Someone dig up the bio-weapons factory that we buried in the sand. We need more munnitions!" I think that if the UN couldn't find any, and the US can't find any, that they no longer exist. They have either been destroyed to comply with UN resolutions, or they have been moved out of Iraq and are gone for ever. Since it is highly unlikely that Hussein would arm one of his neighbours with weapons that could be used on himself I'll go with the former. As tough as it is for those poisoned by the propaganda to swallow, it is more likely that the weapons were destroyed than it is for them to have been buried or shipped out of the country. Or so says/believes the UN.

[transplant99]

To the UN Iraq had complied and destroyed their weapons and weapon making capability

Out and out BS Lanny. The UN says unequivocally he never met their requirements for diarming and never accounted for them if he did destroy them.

fer chriisakes...read the David Kay report again...it was written and published right before the war started. The CHIEF inspector KNOWS they wouldnt find them...not because they dont exist (he KNOWS they do) but because for the 4 years they were not allowed to inspect, and the following months after they were allowed to inspect, they were never allowed to go where they wanted, when they wanted with who they wanted.

Its pretty clear that you havent read this part of the story very well, if you suggest the UN said Iraq had complied...if they had why was their still 17 UN RESOLUTIONS standing aginst Iraq at the time of the war??

http://www.useu.be/Categories/Global...ingGunKay.html

I guess Kay was poisoned by the US propoganda as well huh?

Too funny.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 19 2004, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 19 2004, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Come on Calc, being in Iraq has nothing to do with "talk from the past decade" and you know it. Weapons of mass distraction was all bullsh*t and we know it. There were other motivations. Hell, there have been numerous sources that stated Bush wanted back in Iraq before he even won the election. The whole talk angle just doesn't hold water.[/b]

Once again, you appear to want unilateral action by the US and nothing else. It takes two to tango. If Saddam had decided to FULLY comply with everything that the United Nations security council had demanded, or at least not play games, this war would not have happened. It never would have got to a point of having a resolution threatening "serious consequences", especially when everyone could see what that meant. If you don't think that the talk was tried, then that's up to you...

Originally posted by Lanny MacDonald+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny MacDonald)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You raise an interesting point on Castro's age and his motivations. Well what about the Americans? Shouldn't they start to soften as well? If the Americans are this great wonderful country they say they are, shouldn't THEY be able to forgive a transgression 40 years old? And should they eleminate the blockade, who is going to be basing missles in Cuba now? The Soviet Union is dead. What is the point?
[/b]

The Americans have started to soften and have hoped for actions, or even hints of actions, from Castro in similar fashions. From that same article, on the left column:

March 20,1998: The U.S. lifts restrictions on Cuba regarding travel and money

Also, regarding the Baltimore Orioles wanting to play an exhibition game in Cuba:

Originally posted by Albright
Well, it would be permitted if they can work out the arrangements and whatever profits come from the game would be given to a Catholic charity, Caritas, so that there would be no profits to the regime or to anyone. It would go directly to this Catholic humanitarian organization, so that it can help the people. The main emphasis, the constant kind of imperative here, is to do everything that we can to help the people of Cuba.

This, from Bush himself in 2002:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/20/...uba.transcript/

Originally posted by Bush
"Today and everyday for the past 43 years, that legacy of courage has been insulted by a tyrant who uses brutal methods to enforce a bankrupt vision. That legacy has been debased by a relic from another era who has turned a beautiful island into a prison.

"In a career of oppression, Mr. Castro has imported nuclear-armed ballistic missile, and he has exported his military forces to encourage civil war abroad. He is a dictator who jails and tortures and exiles his political opponents. We know this. The Cuban people know this, and the world knows this.

"After all, just a month ago, the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights, in a resolution proposed by the nations of Latin America, called upon Cuba's government to finally -- to finally begin respecting the human rights of its people.

As you can see, they are softening their stance, albeit slowly. They want Castro to move with them, to allow freedoms for his people. If he really cared for his people, it'd be happening already. He wouldn't "having the government seize their hard currency wages and pass on a pittance in the form of pesos." (from that same Bush speech above).

You can say all you want that the US should act unilaterally, but I don't see how that would help. I don't totally agree with everything the US is doing in this manner, but I see that they want cooperation from Castro and are getting little, if any. Castro is the main barrier to the lives of his people and could change that overnight if he so chose... and obviously he doesn't.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lanny MacDonald@

That Albright article you posted was interesting as well. I especially liked it when she said we (being America) wants Cuba to start having democratic elections. Uh, maybe I'm wrong here, but itsn't hat up to the people of Cuba to decide (after Castro steps aside) and not the Secretary of State of the United States of America? See, there's that American foreign policy again. Sticking its nose into the business of other nations that pose no threat to them and wanting to do nothing but erect puppet states that they can control. Seems to me that Imperialism ain't dead, its just wearing funky new clothes.[/quote]
I agree. It should be up to the Cuban people:

<!--QuoteBegin-Bush
"Through all their pains and depravation, the Cuban people's aspirations for freedom are undiminished. We see this today in Havana where more than 11,000 brave citizens have petitioned their government for a referendum on basic freedoms. If that referendum is allowed, it can be a prelude, a beginning for real change in Cuba.[/quote]

If Castro was sure that he was doing what his people wanted, he'd have free, open, unchallenged, uncontrolled elections. Obviously he isn't. Obviously, he knows that his people are not happy and want change. He resists.

And yet, it's still the American's fault.

Gotcha.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 20 2004, 05:06 AM
There are two things at work for this pent-up hatred of the US. Keep in mind that the US had crippling sanctions on Iraq for a number of years, and that would have fueled contempt for the US, seen as demons for most of a decade in Iraq. The Iraqis who lived through this period would have also heard of the invasion by the us in 1990 from Saddam, who would have painted it rather differently for his people. In any event these sanction had had a huge impact on the life of Iraqis, moreso than a dictatorial Saddam Hussien would have.

This is the important part...

What role does Saddam Hussein play in the sanctions?

The only reason the UN had sanctions was because of Saddam Hussein.

The only reason the Iraqi people have suffered is because of Saddam Hussein - causing the sanctions and then skimming off money to build new palaces when his people are starving and living in poor conditions.

Saddam has painted it as the Big Bad US (ignoring the fact it was the UN) picking on his poor little country.

Meanwhile, he's taking absolutely no responsibility for the conditions of his people.

We can all debate whether the sanctions are good or bad, whether they're too harsh or not harsh enough, but we have to remember why they are there in the first place. We have to remember that if Saddam cared for his people, he'd be doing things to help them and not hurt them.

To me, the answer is obvious. He cares only for himself.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 20 2004, 02:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 20 2004, 02:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Aug 20 2004, 12:39 PM
Lanny says the whole WMD was a lie, complete BS....when we know for a fact it wasnt. We know he had them, we know he used them, and we know he said he would use them again...but somehow that equates to them never being in existance?

Who said he never had them? It certainly wasn't me. What I said was that he did not have them at this time, which is what made the whole campaign in Iraq a load of bullsh*t. The UN inspectors came up empty. They didn't find anything. To the UN Iraq had complied and destroyed their weapons and weapon making capability. If the UN couldn't find anything and the UN felt the potential incursion into Iraq was unjust, then that was good enough for me. I will believe the world body over that of a self serving single entity government.

If there were indeed weapons of mass destruction, where are they? Oh, I know, they're buried in the sands, to be dug up in times of war and emergency. Yeah, that makes sense. "We're being invaded! Someone dig up the mustard gas and bio weapons! Now where is that shovel anyways!" Or better yet, "Someone dig up the bio-weapons factory that we buried in the sand. We need more munnitions!" I think that if the UN couldn't find any, and the US can't find any, that they no longer exist. They have either been destroyed to comply with UN resolutions, or they have been moved out of Iraq and are gone for ever. Since it is highly unlikely that Hussein would arm one of his neighbours with weapons that could be used on himself I'll go with the former. As tough as it is for those poisoned by the propaganda to swallow, it is more likely that the weapons were destroyed than it is for them to have been buried or shipped out of the country. Or so says/believes the UN. [/b][/quote]
Well, you're not going to see me saying they're buried in the sand. They just ain't there. That's my opinion.

I will say, however, that its a fallacy to suggest that Saddam Hussein co-operated fully with UN Weapons Inspectors to the point where they could say: "There's nothing there."

In fact, Saddam never co-operated in 12 years under the gun.

At the end, he refused to allow inspectors, as one example, to remove Iraqi scientists AND their families so they might be questioned in a neutral country, one of the key requirements of UN resolutions on the matter.

Lastly, if he had nothing, why not throw the doors open and let the inspectors prove it instead of playing brinkmanship with the most paranoid and most powerful nation on earth?

Even if you believe GW Bush and the neocons actually believed there was nothing there in the first place, why would Saddam help them out by not co-operating fully and showing the world there was nothing there?

They couldn't prove he had them but he never let them prove he didn't have them either. That dodgy gamble worked pre-9/11 but was a dead duck post-9/11.

Cowperson