USA Citizens (Americans)

[stevemcgee99]

So, should the USA team change their flag to the UN flag? How will shimpan distinguish Spain, Australia and USA (and other "coalition forces' like those the US has already esttablished puppet governments in)?

Oh yeah, and BEN, Bush did not win any election outside of Texas.

[Phlebas]

Maybe the USA should change their flag to the "Jolly Roger". : )

[KhawMengLee]

Or the Nazi one. :p

[Ostrak]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KhawMengLee
Or the Nazi one. :p [/QUOTE

That joke is in very poor taste Meng....and if you're not joking...do you really equate the U.S. to the Nazi's? Please provide some support to analogize the U.S. to what happened during the Holocaust. I certainly haven't seen any genocide but maybe the media is covering it up right? Or maybe you're the only one that's privy to such knowledge.

[xvikingx]

Boy Meng, you sure got our number. I don't know how it slipped out but... well yeah, we are Nazis. Damn, now that the secret is out we are just going to find a new club.

[JSchmidt]

I agree, the nazi joke was very bad taste.

Jakob

[stevemcgee99]

I didn't expect this thread to de-rail into an anti-semite vs. historically sensitive squabble!

I think the Jolly Roger is a good joke, though. Don't let that one slip by!

I was being sarcastic, but I'm serious in a way. Don't patrioyts fly their flag upside down when they disapprove or are in rebellion of their government? I believe I've seen that somewhere before, the blue part of 'ol starry spangled on the bottom.

Well, of all the dictatorships responsible for genocide, the mentioning of Nazis seems to stir up the most stink. Sorry if I've provoked that.

[KhawMengLee]

I apologize for equating all Americans with the Nazis.

Please understand though,
But it is increasingly frustrating to watch the current turn of events in Iraq from the point of view the media would have us believe(this includes what Al Jazeera says). To me this war is illegal and harks of half century ago when the league of nations(early UN) could do and did nothing to stop the annexation of the chekoslovakia by the Nazis. Their reason for that was to liberate people of German origin there but of course it was a matter of wanting more land(labenstraun).

On the same note, this war was first declared because Saddam has WMD but none have been used so far or found. THen it was chemical weapons but also, none have been found(note: the bio-warfare suits were left over from before the gulf war). Then it was about liberating the people but the coalition forces aren't seen as liberators (watching coalition troops pushing around "suspected" malitiamen at a checkpoint. Knocking of their headdress and then pushing them to the ground and then smacking them on the head once detained inside the APC is not really the act of liberators....) Finally they say its not about oil, but in a recent report on CNN, a spokesman for the US military gave full details of how at the moment, the Iraqis oil production is only 3 times larger than the US, given investment it could produce 16times more, surpassing even saudi arabia. HIs closing comment was, "if I was to put my money anywhere it would be here." just a little dodgy...

No, I am not saying the US is commiting genocide but to invade a country without just cause and against UN backing is very similar to the situation with the Nazis, hence, the aforementioned statement in bad taste.

But tht comment was immature and insensitive, all I can do here is give you my formal and humble apology. If you choose to not accept it, sorry, but then I can do nothing else. So,

I apologize humbly for the aforementioned statement about associating Americans to Nazis. I ask humbly for forgiveness and bear no ill will.

MENG

[Ostrak]

Thank you for the apology. I, for one, accept it.

[burger boy]

Meng,
I understand your frustration with the current situation in Iraq. I love my country, but sometimes I just don't understand why we do the things we do.

Apology accepted.


burger boy

[kendomushi]

The flag is flown upside down to serve as a distress signal. It can be the result of rebellion or any action where the location over which the flag flies is at imminent risk of being over run. Flying it so to indicate disapproval of government policy would be inappropriate but those unfamiliar with the rules, regulations, and laws governing display of the US flag may well do so in some cases.
The Nazi comment was offensive, childish, and worst, narrow minded. Just the kind of point of view that allowed the league of nations to turn a bling eye to troubles the Nazis caused. Caring about the rest of the world is good, but we have to do with our eyes wide opened to all sides of the issue. Even though war is a bad thing, we can not just blindly oppose it and condemn it without first understanding all those in it. Or as I learned from a religious teacher of mine many years ago, an unquestioned, unexamined belief is a hollow belief and void of meaning or purpose.

[stevemcgee99]

I do remember the "distress signal" attribute of the upside down flag from my Citizenship Skill Award. But I also remember it to mean disapproval, I don't remember when or where. Some event in US politics from somewhere in the last 10 to 15 years, or a long time ago and I learned about it 10 - 15 years ago.

[titus]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee
I apologize for equating all Americans with the Nazis.

To me this war is illegal and harks of half century ago when the league of nations(early UN) could do and did nothing to stop the annexation of the chekoslovakia by the Nazis. Their reason for that was to liberate people of German origin there but of course it was a matter of wanting more land(labenstraun).
MENG

It's interesting that you use the League of Nations example to protest the war on Iraq, because I would use that exact same example to say why the war on Iraq is a good thing.

1. The League of Nations tried to appease Hitler (Saddam).
2. Chief among these countries that were pro-appeasement was France (as again today).
3. In the end Hitler took over Europe and the Americans had to bail everyone out. (No one will stop Saddam from aquiring WMDs until it's too late, so the US is taking steps to prevent this).

Just my personal opinion on the subject.

[KhawMengLee]

Ah, but no WMDs have been found and Saddam has hardly the troops nor weapons nor technology to be in the same league as the Wermacht or Waffen SS. I mean, even he wouldn't be as stupid as to try to invade Israel because it would mean the rest of the world coming down on him....

[titus]

First of all, I think it's WAY too early to say they haven't found anything yet. I'm guessing it will take a while to go through all his labs, bunkers, etc. and look for traces of anything illegal.

Second of all, it's not like he would try a direct attack on anybody anyways. I think Kuwait taught him a lesson in 1991. The thing is, with just a little bit of money, few hundred thousand to a few million, he could eventually get his hands on nukes, bio weapons, etc. Is the world just going to wait around until he does?

Having met several people who immigrated to Canada from Iraq, the most common thing I hear is that Westerners are dangerously naive. Saddam is a dictator, we're not talking about some democratically elected government that's being brought down. He has killed many people to secure power and will continue to do so until he is stopped. Weapons inspections will stop nothing. The only reason Saddam didn't get nukes before the first Gulf War is that Israel made a pre-emptive strike on his main nuclear research plant.

[KhawMengLee]

Possibly dude, but the one thing the world needs is proof. Now oil is a big player here. Now everyone on the other side of the field thinks its just about oil and even if it isn't, the proof to back up the case against Saddam isn't there.

1) Firstly, it was about WMD and Chem weapons. There is no proof so far. And most of the cases reported in the media have proved to be hollow. Eg. A suspected factory was found to be clear and the Chem suits found in a barracks was shown to be left over from before the gulf war.

2) Then there was the case of pre-emptive strikes against possible terrorist threats. The case stated was that Iraq will sell to groups like Al Quieda. The problem here is that Bin Laden hates Saddam...this is because he is a secular muslim and Bin Laden is a fanatic. Not exactly the best of friends.

3) Human Rights abuse: Now here is one I totally agree with, murderers and terrorist regimes should be put down...so what about Israel, Zimbabwe, South Africa etc then? It seems here that the powers that be are laying down the human rights card as a tool to get what they want...the people factor here has been really manipulated by the press as a propaganda tool. I mean one news article says, "Iraqis glad that US is here" but when you read it, it begins Kurds glad US troops are in Northern Iraq...sure its like we went to war against the USSR(back during the cold war) and you read Soviet ppl glad NATO is here, only to read that CHechnyan's glad US is here. If human rights is going to be an issue at least make it a permanent one, not a bargaining chip to be used for agendas.

4) Oil. As I posted before, there was a report a while back on Iraq's oilfields and it was really suspiscious how well it was presented. The knowledge given by the military spokesperson was in depth on how much oil the iraqis produce, could produce and how much bigger they would be than saudi arabia. Already contracts have been given to only US companies to help rebuild Iraq's oil industry but why not use locals from the region? Surely, fellow arabs or muslims would have the local knowledge and savvy?

Finally, there are many avenues one can take to get rid of Saddam. I mean the coalition nearly got him with their first strike at his home. They therefor, could have done that anytime before, so why didn't they do it? Is this ground war really neccesary? I say this because the realities of this war is blocked out in the West...over where I am we get both sides of the story and can make up our own minds and its really heartbreaking when you see picture after picture of Iraqis cradling their dead and bloodied children, fathers crying in anguish, trying to stop their infant son's brains spilling out his skull, children missing limbs from bombs...to this end I get real frustrated when ppl (on seeing/hearing this) tell me, "Oh, Saddam does worse to his own people." Oh, like two wrongs don't make a right?

sigh...depressing, neh?

[xvikingx]

Hey Meng,
Apology accepted. I wasn't all that offended but thank you for the apology none the less. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I feel both sides make excellent points. I cannot condone or oppose this war. I honestly do not know how to feel. But I can tell you no matter what side they may fall on, all Americans are heart broken over the war. And may I say, have fallen on hard times because of it. So in short; yes, a little sensitivity is in order, but don't get to bent out of shape about.

[kendomushi]

Meng,

Yes the world wants proof. But the majority of the anti war types will accept no proof other than Saddam using WMD against their people. Even if he used such against coalition forces now some people, the French for example, would accuse the coalition of driving him to it and so it is their own fault. At this point, the French attitude to postwar Iraq is the coalition caused the war so the coalition must rebuild it themselves. How childish is that?
As to the oil, any good military officer in charge of any operations in Iraq has been briefed on the country, every member of the military who deploys under the US banner is given a lengthy briefing on the country they are going to to include culture, terrain, climate, languages, perception of americans in general and forces in particular, and resources. So that a proactive military officer knows about such things and is aware of the material profits does not surprise me in the least.
Based on your impression he would not benefit from it anyway, only the government of the US would.
As to getting both sides of the story, how can you believe anything from the Iraqi side when the information minister says that coalition forces are not in the capital when only a few hundred meters away everyone can hear the sounds of battle? Granted, the other side is not presenting everything either. But if they want to entirely discredit Saddam's regime, why do they not simply claim or plant chemical weapons evidence? Why have they reported that the warehouse of remains and coffins was not evidence of attrocities but a methodical attempt to identify and return Iran-Iraq war dead to their families?
As to BinLaden hating Saddam, he also hates the regime of Saudi Arabia, yet he keeps his family business interests there. He hated the Soviets and welcomed aid from the US before the Soviets were routed from Afghanistan. Bin Laden is a pragmatist who needs a focus for his hatred and will change that from one to another as often as the wind changes if it keeps him in business. And is there not a saying that goes like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." As Bin Laden has called for resistance against the coalition in Iraq, does that not make him and Saddam very likely bedfellows? Bin Laden's behavior to date would say that he is willing to climb under the covers at a moments notice.
Your arguments may be based on a wider spectrum of information than most in the west have and are valid at least from one point of view, but for me they fall apart when all the information is viewed together.
However, the whole truth of what each side has done will never be known I think. History will judge the outcome, not you, not I, not likely any of us here.

[JSchmidt]

"Even if he used such against coalition forces now some people, the French for example, would accuse the coalition of driving him to it and so it is their own fault. At this point, the French attitude to postwar Iraq is the coalition caused the war so the coalition must rebuild it themselves. How childish is that?"

Erhh..don't know whom you've been listening to, but that's utter nonsense.
France said that if WMD's was used on the coalition, they would join the war. They're also quite eager in getting their hands into the rebuilding process (like everyone else), mainly because there's big money in it!.

Jakob

[kendomushi]

Yes the French did say that. I just find it difficult to believe. They also shot down the Brits trying to discuss the EU in rebuilding Iraq. But now they want the UN to run things so that they won't be shut out of the process. Their position is too obviously self serving and fickle. Granted everyones position is self serving, they are just too obvious about it.
I wonder how old the exocet (French) missiles the coalition found are, and are they prohibited under the sanctions?

[Kingu]

I am absolutely certain that if it had been proven Irak possess WMD, French would have join the coalition; they've done many times, last one in Afghanistan, remember?
And if I'm not wrong, EU spends more money than anyone else in helping third-world countries including those in postwar situation.

[kendomushi]

You might be right that the EU as a group spends more money, but as an individual nation, Japan spends more than anyone else.
The coalition now believes they have found chemical weapons. Lets see what the position of the French government is when and if this is confirmed......

[ShÖgun]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee
Possibly dude, but the one thing the world needs is proof. Now oil is a big player here. Now everyone on the other side of the field thinks its just about oil and even if it isn't, the proof to back up the case against Saddam isn't there.

1) Firstly, it was about WMD and Chem weapons. There is no proof so far. And most of the cases reported in the media have proved to be hollow. Eg. A suspected factory was found to be clear and the Chem suits found in a barracks was shown to be left over from before the gulf war.

2) Then there was the case of pre-emptive strikes against possible terrorist threats. The case stated was that Iraq will sell to groups like Al Quieda. The problem here is that Bin Laden hates Saddam...this is because he is a secular muslim and Bin Laden is a fanatic. Not exactly the best of friends.

3) Human Rights abuse: Now here is one I totally agree with, murderers and terrorist regimes should be put down...so what about Israel, Zimbabwe, South Africa etc then? It seems here that the powers that be are laying down the human rights card as a tool to get what they want...the people factor here has been really manipulated by the press as a propaganda tool. I mean one news article says, "Iraqis glad that US is here" but when you read it, it begins Kurds glad US troops are in Northern Iraq...sure its like we went to war against the USSR(back during the cold war) and you read Soviet ppl glad NATO is here, only to read that CHechnyan's glad US is here. If human rights is going to be an issue at least make it a permanent one, not a bargaining chip to be used for agendas.

4) Oil. As I posted before, there was a report a while back on Iraq's oilfields and it was really suspiscious how well it was presented. The knowledge given by the military spokesperson was in depth on how much oil the iraqis produce, could produce and how much bigger they would be than saudi arabia. Already contracts have been given to only US companies to help rebuild Iraq's oil industry but why not use locals from the region? Surely, fellow arabs or muslims would have the local knowledge and savvy?

Finally, there are many avenues one can take to get rid of Saddam. I mean the coalition nearly got him with their first strike at his home. They therefor, could have done that anytime before, so why didn't they do it? Is this ground war really neccesary? I say this because the realities of this war is blocked out in the West...over where I am we get both sides of the story and can make up our own minds and its really heartbreaking when you see picture after picture of Iraqis cradling their dead and bloodied children, fathers crying in anguish, trying to stop their infant son's brains spilling out his skull, children missing limbs from bombs...to this end I get real frustrated when ppl (on seeing/hearing this) tell me, "Oh, Saddam does worse to his own people." Oh, like two wrongs don't make a right?

sigh...depressing, neh?

Here Here..... I totally agree with KhawMengLee.... you talk some serious sense there

[Confound]

May I be so crude as to point out that under Saddam's regime, the Kurds were persecuted, and many other ethnic minorities were hardly riding the gravy train? Saddam was originally vaulted to power by American military aid, as a pawn in the Cold War. When he decided to become independent, America was affronted. It just so happens that Saddam is a barmy lunatic as well (killing your own people is never a good pr move).

As for the situation inside Iraq, under Saddam's regime, how can we actually know what it was like? Iraqs who visited other countries, or left Iraq permanently, were either enemies of Saddam's regime seeking political asylum, or people who had enough money to take a holiday. How can we know exactly what life was like for everyday citizens under Saddam's regime? The current climate in Iraq isn(t exactly one that will solicit unbiased answers.

The invasion, let us not mince words, it was certainly not a war, was begun illegally. How strange is it that wars are now legal and illegal. We may never know if it was justified or not. I cannot pass judgement on the invasion of Iraq, or on American conduct in general, as not everyone supported the war, and there is not yet sufficient information on the subject.

Nazi comparisons may be historically warranted, in amilitary sense, but one must also remember the other things that the Nazis did. You can't say Nazi without saying Holocaust. There was no Holocaust in Iraq caused by American troops. Saddam has killed far more Iraqis than America could ever hope to do, without use of nuclear weapons, that is.

Meng, you were even crasser than usual, though your save was pretty good. Titus raised a good point, but bear in mind that the last time Iraq entered a major war, it resulted in a detente. (Not Kuwait, which was an invasion, but the war with Iran.) Whether the evidence will villify or acquit America remains to be seen.

c