|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
[ March 15, 2003, 23:58: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
No I didn't. You never answered the question (at least, I saw no response to it; sorry if I missed it if you did answer it). My request was for someone to answer it without spouting propaganda. There was no accusation against anyone, as no one posted a response to the question (excpet Thermodyne, but that was not an answer, it was just talking about what responses would be). Had you posted a response to it filled with propaganda, then you would have been accused of doing so. But, I do not recall seeing any responses that attempted to answer it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Noone has addressed Powell fabricating evidence, because that didn't happen. It's a lie. The Pentagon gives contracts to lots of people. Cheney has lot's of associates. Everybody in poloitics does. The two facts together aren't proof of dispropreity. The reason we are all the sudden in the business of nation building is because we are trying to protect the lives of our citizens and our strategic interests. In the past we could do that, or we tried to do that anyway, by exerting political pressure. In a post 9/11 world the rules have changed. When governments support these kind of activities they are held responsible. But you simply can't remove the old bad governemt and leave a vacuum. So we help Afghanistan rebuild, and we'll do it for Iraq too. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I have just listened to the clip. So what ?
There are Iraqi who is in favor of war, there are Iraqi who are against war. Nobody in this forum has even vaguely indicated support for Saddam. To answer the question: Leaving Saddam in power will do absolutely nothing to promote peace and justice in Iraq. Replacing Saddam will probably be an improvement in Iraq, but I doubt very much that it will make the world as a whole a better and safer place. I respect people who actually have thought about this and come to the opposite conclusion, but it is very clear (I don't talk about this forum now) that many people on both sides of the fence never have taken 2 minutes to think this over. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The point is that a major part of the girl's "argument" is that war will cause deaths. A few people will die, sure. But, many more will die if Saddam Hussein is left in power. Many have died from Saddam being in power. The only way to end the madness is to remove him from power. Leaving him in power will not solve any problems. The only way to help the Iraqi people is to remove Saddam. The girl was unable to address this, and many, many people that oppose the war make the same mistakes as her. Appeal to international law, negotiation, all of that stuff has failed repeatedly in the past to help the Iraqi people. You can not peacefully arrest the leader of another nation. All you can do is try to get them to act differently. This has failed repeatedly with Saddam. Do you think we should leave the guy in power so he can commit more atrocities against the Iraqi people?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
So the girl is a moron. I'll give you that.
So is a lot of people advocating the opposite view. Pointing out the moronity of your oponents is hardly usefull debating tactics. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Are you saying I'm lying or the particular news source CNN is lying? It was big news yesterday. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ BTW I DO listen to O'Reilly and he IS blaming Germany and France for arming Iraq. Obviously not you but other people in this forum implied as much. It not just any company that one the award, but Haliburton the company which Cheney was CEO. I personally am for nation building, but one of the center pieces of W's campaign was against nation building and he severly criticized clinton for it. They wanted to invade before 9/11 btw as the letter to Clinton clearly shows so 9/11 provided the cover not the reason. [ March 16, 2003, 00:42: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
This is typical; very few people that are against the war have taken a hard look at the situation. And even fewer offer any solutions that will fix the problem. We gave the region eight years of appeasement and that got 3000+ Americans killed. It got the side blown out of a ship, embassy’s bombed. What does it take to convince these peace nicks that force is the only thing that ½ of the world understands. Someone says lets have a march and the sheep flock out, asking “what are we marching for today?” Then when they find out that it’s a peace march, they think it’s cool. Just like the sixties marches were cool. They seem to be able to overlook the fact that we have been under attack for quite some time now.
We have the choice of responding like Israel, and fighting them in the streets of our cities, or going the hell over to their homes and killing the sick bastards there. Take a good look at Israel; do we really want mandatory military service, lifetime reserve status? Do we want to issue MAC-10’s to everyone so that they can defend their homes. How stupid can these people be? We support Israel, so most of the Arab world hates us, fine. They have the right to hate. But when they reach out and kill some of us, then they also have the right to die by the thousands. The value of human life is very high when viewed individually, but when taken in large Groups, it tends to break down into other indicators, such as economic earning power, contributions to arts and humanities, and the stability of communities. Perhaps the peace marchers should sit home for a few weeks and call the people who lost loved ones on 9/11. I think they might come away with a different perspective after having a look from the individual point of view. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
in support of rex, there is also the plagiarised "evidence" presented by the UK government Last month. I posted a link to it a few weeks ago.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html
How many sources do you need? The London Times is a respected paper BTW - for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox. Just because Rush or O'Reilly conveniently forgets to mention how the U.S. is complicit doesn't make it not true. " This one is better, Rex. The first article didn't support your point at all- this one does. Phoenix-D |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Rex, you quoted the article and then made a statement that the US knew all about the WMD because we still had the receipts. The article does not say that! It says that we provided real time intel and loans, along with advice. Old news my friend. It was well known that the US went out of its way to keep the Arabs and Persians at war. And that we made sure that both side had a steady supply of weapons. But we never gave them VX or anything like that. And you have implied that we did. So I would like to see you support your statement by supplying a link to these receipts. Is that too much to ask, after all, it was you who made the statement.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Sorry Fyron, missed the question at the bottom.
There is a time and a place for everything. It is very difficult for people like us who have very little of the facts to deceide when it is the right time to remove someone forcefully. When enough of those who actually have info support an invasion, I will support it too (I am not a peace freak if you had that impression). But at the moment it is only GBW and a few of his closest friends (of those with the facts) who support the invasion. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I thought you were refering to comments made by the Iraqi's at the time of the presentation that all of the evidence was false accusations by the US and Britain. This is patently not true and what I was refering too as a lie. I was not accusing you of lying or CNN. I was talking about the Iraqi's. By the way Rex, check your email. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
"By the end of the decade, Washington had authorised the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications. These included poisonous chemicals and biological viruses, among them anthrax and bubonic plague." I am not a pacifist BTW if we were attacking North Korea I would be behind that(one of the reasons we're not though is because it's not profitable). NK is about to have the bomb and they can deliver it. Still it would only take out us liberals in California. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Regardless, it doesn't address the issue of how does our alleged past complicity mean we shouldn't take an active role in fixing the problem now. Geoschmo EDIT: Rex beat me too it. And a more detailed andswer to boot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ March 16, 2003, 01:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I read that, and the reason for the gloss is that the Anthrax documents are public. Anyone can view them. Iraq got samples of barnyard varieties of several biological agents that are harmful to humans, as did a lot of other countries where the organisms were a problem. 97 countries was the number I believe. If Iraq went to the trouble to weaponize it, then perhaps we should not have included them. But why go to the trouble of all that when their main supplier already had the best weaponized strain in the world. All they needed to do then was grow it. At the time of the Gulf war, Iraq was not in the business of designing biologic agents, they were however very much in the business of growing them.
As to the Yellow Cake document, it is sad that it happened. But then I guess we need to look at the source. Then we need to look at the buyer. I would assume that the heads are already rolling over at the Central Stupidity Agency. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
While Korea is not making the headline that Iraq is, it not as if we are doing nothing, we are just doing it quietly. This is a large escalation based on the nature of the threat.
• In February 2003 the 8th Army announced a stop movement policy which prevented soldiers from rotating out of South Korea back to the United States. This stop movement order currently impacts some 2,800 soldiers. It is not clear however whether or not the replacement for those soldiers have already arrived in the region thus making US forces presence larger then the normal 37,000 personnel. • On February 6, the Navy ordered the USS Carl Vinson and its Battle Group to the Western Pacific where it will replace the Kitty Hawk Battle Group and be in position to respond to any events that may develop regarding North Korea. This development is listed on the US Forces Japan page. • In late February the 2nd Battalion, 34th Armor Regiment, an element of the 1st Infantry Division arrived in Korea to participate in Foal Eagle. Fort Riley, the base that the 2-34 Armor is from indicated that between 400-500 soldiers were involved in the movement. • On February 28 the Department of Defense ordered the deployment of 24 bombers to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam to act as a deterrent to North Korea. The deployment would consist of twelve B-52s and twelve B-1Bs. As of March 5 it was not clear which units would be sent or when they would deploy. • By March 10, 2003 seven B-52s and ten B-1s were at Andersen Air Force Base. The aircraft belonged to the 7th Bomb Wing and the 2nd Bomb Wing. • Elements of the 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized) were alerted to prepare to deploy to South Korea. This is not a normally scheduled deployment. • On March 11 the Associated Press reported that at least six F-117 Nighthawks from the 49th Fighter Wing will deploy to the South Korea in support of RSOI/FE 2003. CNN on March 12 indicates that the aircraft are headed to Kunsan Air Base. • It has recently been confirmed by GlobalSecurity.org that elements of the 3rd Wing have indeed been ordered to deploy to South Korea in support of RSOI/FE. Specific numbers or squadrons would not be disclosed. CNBC reported on March 10 that F-15s from Alaska were being deployed to South Korea or Japan. • According to the International Herald Tribune on March 13, 2003 six F-117s departed New Mexico for Kunsan Air Base pn March 13 and will arrive in Korea on March 14. • According to Stars & Stripes on March 13 elements of the 160th Special Operations Regiment (Airborne) are operating in South Korea. The element is E Company, and is normally based in the region. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And much more dramatically, in early 1990?" Noam Chomsky
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=2422 Question... Why are we not going after Turkey for its attacks on the kurds ??? How is this different ? [ March 16, 2003, 03:31: Message edited by: tesco samoa ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
IMHO, between the two powers, Iraq & Korea, the one I strongly feel is the more dangerous is most definitly North Korea. They are more military able and willing besides being stronger in relation for fighting forces.
During the Korean war, they and the Chineses sacrifices thousands of troops against certain objectives, where all they wanted was to see if the allies were willing to fight for them and how much they were willing to lose. Their military is way above that of Irag and better armed and trained. Also IMHO they are more radical and willing to start a war then any other nation around. Be afraid, be very very afraid IMHO only Just my 2 cents Mac |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
It is interesting that so many nations are against the war in Iraq.
Further there are mass demonstrations against it. Things are so crazy that that everything is being turned on its head and George Bush and the USA is being portrayed as the evil aggressor nation instead of Iraq. On January 15th, I posted this in the Rating the President thread --------------------------------------------- What I am about to say may upset a few people, but it is my opinion that George Bush missed the boat of being a great president. Being a neighbour of the U S of A, I wondered from 9/11 why George Bush did not actively propose a world court and a world law. With 9/11, he had a magnificent opportunity since almost every nation lost citizens in the twin towers. IMHO, the shock of the collapse would have galvanized the major nations of the world into establishing a world court with teeth to deal with nations who terrorize others just as our national courts deal with individuals who terrorize individual citizens within national borders. All, it need was a leader and in this I feel George Bush fell short. Instead, he choose to go on a crusade against the Al Queda while requesting the rest of world follow. And most of the world did because of the loss of their citizens and because of the shock of the event. Now he wants to go after Iraq and he also has an issue with North Korea. I wonder why he didn't take the route of establishing a world court in concert with the support of other nations. I can only come up with the concept that he feared that the U S of A would have to use its power somewhat more responsibly because it could come up on charges if it misused its powers. Because as it now stands, the U S of A is the only superpower, both economically and militarily, and most nations do not want to seriously offend the U S of A because if push came to shove, the weaker nation is sure to suffer. Generally, I feel that the U S of A has an admirable record in conducting itself in world affairs. But power does corrupt and absolute power does corrupt absolutely. With no outside body like a world court to judge its actions, the U S of A will have to be unusually diligent in overseeing its own actions to ensure it does not misuse it's power. One can argue we already have the United Nations and a world court. But it is apparent, they lack the the formulation of laws to deal with terrorism as well as the power to enforce it. With 9/11, Bush could have ensured major changes which would have made the world a safer place since all the nations would be an active participant rather than just following the lead of the U S of A whenever it suffers a catastrophe. And before I am buried under a barrage of vitriol (probably from U.S. citizens), I want to say the above is only my opinion. : ) ========================================== But alas, Bush choose to keep his powerful military base and his "so-called right to wield it when and where he wishes." Because Bush and the USA refuses to acknowledge a higher law, nations and the populace of the world are concerned. And they are acting out their concern by refusing to support the USA. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
My guess on why we go after Iraq and not Korea,
There is no way we can win in Korea. We can win in Iraq. We go after Iraq because we can. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
[ March 16, 2003, 06:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Sorry, messed up Fyron's quote with my own comments.
Correct Version follows... [ March 16, 2003, 07:25: Message edited by: tbontob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is not just semantics. The term "Aggressor" is not soft and cuddly which is why it is being used. And many people associate aggressiveness with some form of evilness. And ignorance is also not the issue. Once you are tagged with being "evil", it takes a lot of work to change it. And unfortunately, ignorance can promote the association of "evil" with the current Bush administration and Americans in general. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Those are some confusing to read Posts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ March 16, 2003, 07:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron words communicate both thoughts and feelintgs. There is a world of difference between "You are a stubborn, jackassed mule" and "You are a very determined person." Think about it and you will realize they both mean the same thing. What is different is their emotional content which in this case has to do with the proponents opinion of the person in question (not very good in the first, somewhat neutral in the second). Similarly "aggressor" and "attacker" mean the same think but the the emotional content is different. Now you think it is for the wrong reasons, but they think it is for the right reasons. Just because you say it is for the wrong reasons does not, ipso facto, make it the wrong reason. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is you who is implying that ignorance is the issue and then dismiss it as not being relevant. Ignorant or not, Bush and the American people are starting to be tagged as "evil". That is the issue and most people would say this is not a good thing. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Umm... please reread what I posted. I never said anything about relevancy.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
The real issue which they are trying to promote is "the evilness of Bush and the American people." One of the means of promoting that issue is the manipulation of the people's ignorance. [ March 16, 2003, 07:51: Message edited by: tbontob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I know what I said. Simply quoting me doesn't do anything.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Where?
Explain yourself. [ March 16, 2003, 07:52: Message edited by: tbontob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You edited your post. I guess you just clicked the wrong button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Do you have a point? You have not contradicted anything I have said. Your (latest) Posts speak of entirely different thinks than mine do. [ March 16, 2003, 07:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
And who said that you said they didn't? [ March 16, 2003, 07:56: Message edited by: tbontob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Obviously, you need time to collect your thoughts.
After 1 AM here. See you tomorrow. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ March 16, 2003, 08:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
In keeping with the chess analogy from a different thread, can we consider the Last set of Posts between Imperator Fyron and tbontob a stalemate by way of repeated moves--er, Posts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I think many people (not their leaders...) are concerned because they just don't see how attacking the Iraq will bring peace to the middle east in the long run.
The second thing that people concern is the attitude of the US government: they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. And because the US government "knows" that it is right it will ignore the opinion of the rest of the world no matter what and even fabricate evidence to support it’s cause. Can't you see why people are so very concerned about this? No matter how small an evidence they fabricated, they have lost the morale high ground of being "right" and the rest of the world "wrong" about a war. They start to look like a bully making up things so they can hit their target. If any government begins to fabricate evidence and dismiss the law to do what it thinks is "right", where will it stop? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Iraq seems to think it will be war
_______________________________________ Iraq: Hussein Divides Country Into Military Districts Baghdad; Washington, 16 March 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Iraq has put itself on a war footing as U.S. President George W. Bush tells the American people the country's military is ready to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein if need be. In Baghdad yesterday, the Revolutionary Command Council issued a decree dividing Iraq into four military districts under Hussein to "repulse and destroy any foreign aggression," the official INA news agency reported. Hussein's son, Qusay, was placed in charge of the regime's heartland of Baghdad and the president's hometown Tikrit. Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, was placed in charge of the key southern sector facing U.S. and British troops massed in Kuwait. Al-Majid is known as "Chemical Ali" for his role in the 1988 campaign against rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq in which thousands of Kurds died, many in chemical weapons attacks. Hussein's deputy, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was placed in command of the strategic northern region. The central Euphrates district, which includes the Shi'ite Muslim holy sites, was placed under Mazban Khader Hadi, a member of the ruling Revolutionary Command Council. Saddam himself retained sole authority to order the use of surface-to-surface missiles and aviation resources, the decree said. "Each command of a region is in charge of defense affairs within its geographic boundaries and to lead and use all the financial, human, party organization, the people and military division to confront any foreign aggression aimed at Iraq's sovereignty, independence, and security as well as maintaining internal security," the decree said. Meanwhile, in his weekly radio address, Bush said he has little hope Iraq will disarm peacefully: "There is little reason to hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm. If force is required to disarm him, the American people can know that our armed forces have been given every tool and every resource to achieve victory." Later today, Bush will meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on the Azores islands. The three have been trying for weeks to build a nine-vote majority in the 15-nation Security Council for a resolution authorizing force against Iraq. But only one other council member, Bulgaria, has publicly backed them. U.S. officials said the summit on the Portuguese islands is not a war council, but aimed at increasing pressure on Hussein. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said war now looked "much more probable." The French foreign ministry issued a statement saying nothing justified force now. France, along with Germany and Russia, also issued a call for foreign ministers to convene a meeting of the Security Council on 18 March to discuss the Iraqi crisis. Also yesterday, Baghdad invited the top weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Muhammad el-Baradei to visit as soon as possible to discuss outstanding disarmament issues. Blix said he would study the invitation. In cities across the world, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in what many saw as a final global protest against any U.S.-led war on Iraq. Copyright (c) 2003. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
And the world has a new problem. This one also gets laid at the feet of the French. I wonder if they will need a UN resolution to put their man back into power.
DATE=03/15/03 TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT TITLE=CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC/UNREST (L-only) NUMBER=2-300732 BYLINE=CHALLISS MCDONOUGH DATELINE=ABIDJAN CONTENT= VOICED AT: INTRO: Violence has broken out in the capital of the Central African Republic, in what appears to be a coup attempt. As V-O-A Correspondent Challiss McDonough reports from our West Africa bureau in Abidjan, gunmen have surrounded the president's palace and the airport. TEXT: Reports from the capital, Bangui, say there was panic in the streets as automatic gunfire and artillery fire broke out Saturday afternoon, and truckloads of armed men were seen driving through the city. Some of the heaviest shooting was heard near the presidential residence, which appeared to be surrounded. Heavy fighting was also heard near the airport. Both are now reported to be under rebel control. The national radio station went off the air, and rebel fighters were seen near the offices of the state television station. The violence erupted while President Ange-Felix Patasse was out of the country, attending a summit in Niger. The French news agency, A-F-P, says his plane turned around after it was shot at as it tried to land at the Bangui airport. A-F-P says he has now landed in Cameroon, but there is no independent confirmation of that report. Witnesses say the gunmen appear to be rebels loyal to former military chief General Francois Bozize, who led a coup attempt in October. The general fled to neighboring Chad when he failed to gain control of the government. His fighters still held about half the country until recently, when the government claimed to have re-taken most of its territory. President Patasse has survived a string of coup attempts since his election in 1993. His army is weak, and he has largely come to depend upon foreign troops to put down rebellion. The most recent coup attempt in October was foiled by troops from Libya and rebel fighters from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Libyan troops have since left the country, replaced by a Central African peacekeeping force. (signed) NEB/CEM/PT |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
It would seem that Iraqis wish to leave their country at a rate that exceeds the rest of the world. This indicates to me that things are not as the press portrays them. The press shows poor people looking for food or selling their household belongings. This report would indicate that the middle and upper class are also leaving. Poor people don’t jet to Europe and hire a solicitor to file am asylum claim.
__________________________________________ DATE=3/15/2003 TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT TITLE=UNHCR/ASYLUM (L-ONLY) NUMBER=2-300725 BYLINE=LISA SCHLEIN DATELINE=GENEVA CONTENT= VOICED AT: INTRO: A new study by the United Nations refugee agency, U-N-H-C-R, shows that Iraqis comprised the largest group of asylum seekers in industrialized countries Last year, replacing Afghans who now have fallen to fifth place. Lisa Schlein reports from Geneva. TEXT: The U-N-H-C-R study shows the number of people who applied for asylum in industrialized countries Last year dropped by nearly five-and-one-half percent, compared with the year before. The U-N refugee agency attributes this decline in large part to the dramatic drop in the number of Afghans seeking asylum. Nearly two-million Afghan refugees have gone home since the fall of the Taleban in late 2001. Most returned from neighboring Pakistan and Iran. U-N-H-C-R spokesman Rupert Colville says the Afghans have been replaced by Iraqis at the top of the list of asylum-seekers coming to industrialized countries. He says they are followed by those coming from former Yugoslavia, Turkey and China. /// COLVILLE ACT /// In terms of percentage changes, Zimbabweans showed the biggest increase in 2002. They were up by 83 percent on 2001 with a total of eight-thousand-600 applications. The biggest decreases after the Afghans were Sierra Leoneans, who were down 43 percent. /// END ACT /// /// OPT /// The new statistics show more than 580-thousand asylum claims from all nationalities were lodged in 37 industrialized countries in 2002. This is nearly 35-thousand fewer than the year before. The report notes this number is small when compared with some 13-million refugees and asylum seekers throughout the world, most of whom are found in developing countries. /// END OPT /// Mr. Colville says the largest recipients of asylum seekers among the industrialized countries Last year were the United Kingdom, followed by the United States, Germany, France and Austria. /// COLVILLE 2nd ACT /// The top three asylum seeker Groups coming to the U-K -- Iraqis, Zimbabweans and Afghans -- all three of which are countries with strong historical links to Britain. /// OPT /// Zimbabwe was a British colony, Iraq was a British protectorate and Afghanistan had close links with British India. Between them, these three Groups account for more than a quarter of all asylum seekers that went to the U-K Last year. /// END OPT /// /// END ACT /// The U-N-H-C-R study notes the number of people seeking asylum in central European countries has decreased for the first time since 1994. It says countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have tightened their asylum rules, as they prepare to join the European Union next year. (Signed) NEB/LS/ALW/TW |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I have seen a lot of Posts in this thread and I respect most of the positions. One of the problems I have noticed is that many people rely on CNN, MSNBC, and other large Entertainment services to provide facts for their statements. These are poor sources, the show the things that create Ratings and color stories to make them more news worthy. For months now they have put great strength in the position that the inspector take during their reports to the UN. Has anyone of you seen a CNN story about the failure of inspections in the past. The UN has never completed a successful program. I would like to suggest that those of you who have a real interest start checking the raw data, the reports that CNN and MSNBC edit and add unrelated video to. Also check the reports that are written by respectable sources. Sure, it takes time to read them, but you will learn a lot from them. The other day I posted a report writhen by the State Dept. during the Clinton years. It was damning then and is still on the valid list today. But not one reply about it? Some of you should read it. Here is a link to a paper done by a think tank. The worldly among you will recognize the name, and realize that this group has impeccable credentials, unlike some of the fly by night tanks that have been quoted to date. We all have systems with net access, go out and look around. There is a lot of raw data to be had.
http://www.csis.org/burke/iraqishellgame.pdf Inspections will never solve the problem in Iraq, and every member of the Security Council knows it. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Personally, I am *hoping* that all members of the Security Council are aware of evidence for going to war. But as long as there isn't war, they benefit from profitable trade relations with Iraq. In the event of war, I *hope* the US can quickly enough find hard, solid evidence of WMD. It that is the case, then the impact on the world of the US going it alone *may* not be so severe.
On the other hand, if the US invades Iraq, and a month later still hasn't found any evidence of WMD, then I worry which direction the world opinion will turn. Of course, I think that there is and already has been found evidence of WMD. It is interesting how a week or two before a possible war Iraq is revealing this and that bomb, UAV, etc. But this is still pretty minor compared to the THOUSANDS of GALLONS of VX gas we thinks Iraq manufactured. If the US invasion finds ->THAT<-, then I hope that will sway world opinion back towards the US. [ March 16, 2003, 18:09: Message edited by: raynor ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.