Where are all the people who were constantly saying the US had no support for the invasion of Iraq? I could be wrong about this, but I thought I heard that the UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY (including Syria) to approve the sanctions.

Nox

You should know by now that these people are the same that claim 9/11 was orchestrated by Mossad and CIA, that the IDF murdered thousands of children and old women in Jenin, that invasion of Afghanistan would be terribly costly in terms of American lives, that the US killed tens of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan, that the US unilateral approach is too "simplistic" and "arrogant," and that Saddam is a legitimate head of state.

They also like Noam Chomsky. Enough said.

Although Security Council approval of sanctions and international support for a US invasion of Iraq are two distinct things, let's not forget.

Still though, to get Russia, China, and France on our side seemed highly unlikely by some.

SANCTIONS AND INVASION PLANS ARE TOTALLY FUCKING DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST NOX!!!!
GET A GODDAMN DICTIONARY!!!!

Sanction, n
3.something that gives binding force to a law, as a penalty for breaking it, or a reward for carrying it out; a provision of law that secures obedience
6. a coercive measure, usually taken by several nations together, for forcing a nation considered to have violated international law to stop the violation; may consist in withholding loans, limiting relations, imposing a blockade, etc.

invasion, n:
1. a hostile entrance into the possessions of another; especially, the entrance of an attacking army into a country.

GET IT DUMASS!!!
invasion != sanctions
Nox = moron

Homer

Now correct me if I'm wrong, which you will probably try to do anyways, but wasn't part of the UN resolution the STIPULATION that if Iraq did not disarm itself to a satisfactory degree or just decieded to ignore another UN resolution, that the United States is given the option to invade and achieve the reuslt they want themselves. What this effectively means is that if Saddam ignores the resolution, America invades. It also means that if Saddam decides to obey the vote, but drags his feet and uses obstructionistic tactics, the U.S can invade. America has basically been given a big loophole that they can exploit at their will. The effect of the reslution is to give America the "go ahead" to do whatever they feel is necessary.

NukeChild

You�ve got it right. And if Iraq doesn�t obey, the most likely outcome will be that the UN takes a decision to use military force, like in the Balkans. If not, USA has been given a "loophole" as you call it. and given is a key word, because all the member states must have known what they voted for.

FoxLeonard

Although they did vote for that, it does not mean that they wanted to.
The US has been cramming invasion of iraq down everyone's throat, and at some point they had to figure that no matter what they did that the warmongering neanderthals would invade, so why not let their monkey, I'm sorry, president, have his way.
I am in support for action in Iraq, but only at the right time, and I think that this loophole is a little to big, so that the US will attack at the wrong time.

Homer

They voted yes on Iraq because they realized that no matter what they said, the US going to do its own thing anyways. This leads to two important considerations. First, when the attack against Iraq comenses and is a complete success and all the people are dancing in the streets now that their tyrant is dead and gone, the UN will want to claim some credit for it. The second reason ties into a Machiavellin attitude where it is better to appear cruel than weak. The UN had no power to stop the US so it was better to side with the neanderthals than appear as the impotent organization that they are. Say what you want, but the UN's choice was equally self serving.

why was thier no vote on Afganistan? They just moved in and overtrew the gouvernemnt. Almost no one complained.
compare the amount of time that it took to declare a war in afganistan and the amount that its taking to act against Irak.

Damn right.
The UN is the bitch of the US.
The US is the bitch of Israel.
Israel is a bunch of land-stealing assholes.
That is why the mid-east hates the US and the UN.

Homer

Why is there a UN anways ?

1. It is controlled by the powerfull
2. They complain
3. No one listens to them [Except the weak against the powerfull]
4. Vive the revoltion against the UN !!!

The war against the Taliban, and an eventual attack on Iraq are two different things.

Afghanistan�s government at the time, the Taliban, were harbouring Usama bin Laden and
al Qaida, the organisation who was behind an attack on the US homeland, on Sept 11 2001, if you remember?!

Therefore the attack on Afghanistan was retaliation, or self defense. And as such approved by the UN!

As Afghanistan under the Taliban was the worlds� only neo-Islamist state; the first state founded according to the idea of the Islamist Jihad, it could actually be said that it was the state Afghanistan that attacked USA.

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-10-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-10-2002).]

Also, Afghanistan had no capability to carry out strikes against UN members, and none of the UN members were trying to trade with them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
Also, Afghanistan had no capability to carry out strikes against UN members,

---

If you by strikes mean attacks, what happened on Sept 11 2001, showed that they could strike at any UN member in the world.

quote:

---

and none of the UN members were trying to trade with them.

---

If this refers to France�s weapons deals with Saddam, I don�t believe those deals and Iraq�s debts were the reason for France�s standpoint (for a while).

FoxLeonard

Lets not also forget that Iraq owed Russia somewhere arounf 7 billion dollars. If Iraq went into the shitter, then Russia would have a hard time collecting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Lets not also forget that Iraq owed Russia somewhere arounf 7 billion dollars. If Iraq went into the shitter, then Russia would have a hard time collecting.

---

The reason that Russia wants to delay an attack for as long as possible, could be that Putin et al are trying to fix it on their own. Russia has kept good relations with Iraq since the Gulf War, but for very pragmatic reasons, and not because they support Saddam. Neither does all his seemingly loyal henchmen, I�m sure. A situation that Russia could use.

Russia most likely have their own allys of sorts, withing Saddam�s government, intelligence apparatus etc. If anybody could trigger a coup de etat in Iraq, it�s Putin and Russia.

If they succed, they will keep their infuence in the Middle East, become "heroes" in the world, as they avoided a war, and they would have a much better chance to get their money back - some day in the future. With Saddam in power, they�re likely to never see even one Rubel returned.

A proof of what they can do, that nobody else has managed, is that Putin recently has "opened up" the world�s most "closed" state, North Korea.

FoxLeonard

If you are saying that Saddam and Putin are "close," then to me it makes even more sense that Saddam would pay off his debt to Russia. The fact that they are "business partners" probably has led to a bit of interdependence where neither party stands to gain from screwing each other. Not saying that the rest of your post is wrong, but to me, the 7 billion is collectable and Russia would not want to lose that debt in the event of war.

NukeChild!

I was almost going to write: read my post again...

Russia wants to have some influence in the Middle East, wich is one main reason they have kept good diplomatic - and some trade, within the sanctions - relations to Iraq.

Most of this was made under Jeltsin, who saved Russia for the moment, but didn�t excactly progress with anything. In one sense he was careless. For him it was probably good enough to have relations to anybody, Saddam included.

Putin is the very opposite; very eager to put things into order, and he has managed more than was expected. As he never was a politician, but made his whole career within the intelligence apparatus, he - if anybody - must know what happened when USA tried to make an ally out of Saddam, and everything else about Saddam�s unreliability, and the threat he is.

As the situation has been for the last few years (Putin�s whole time in power, at least) Iraq has not been in a position to pay back, and it hasn�t become more likely since the war on terror began; not least because Putin has sided with USA on all issues but one. But Putin must be fully aware that he is only delaying the inevitable (if the UN inspectors don�t succeed now, at last).

Therefore Russia�s best chance is to topple Saddam themselves; help to set up a coup de etat. The people who then take over will have a debt to Russia and Putin, but Putin is smart enough to (try to) see to that they also make the UN and USA satisfied.

In one sense this is nothing but a conspiracy theory before the fact, but I have borrowed the basics for it from a Swedish expert on Russia, who hinted at it. He was also the one who pointed out that Russia has little or no chance to get their money back, as long as Saddam is in power.

FoxLeonard

Putin is just as impotent as the UN.
Over in Russia, they call Putin "10% putin" because he takes a bribe of 10%.
Russia should not be considered in anything becuase since the advent of capitalism, russia is a sad and ruined nation.
Capitalism is a virus on russia.

homer

Russia is always sad.

-Edit- Spelling

[This message has been edited by VeneFrigus (edited 11-11-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingenrage:
why was thier no vote on Afganistan? They just moved in and overtrew the gouvernemnt. Almost no one complained.
compare the amount of time that it took to declare a war in afganistan and the amount that its taking to act against Irak.

---

The last time I fucking checked, the US did not need permission from the UN to do anything.

In Afghanistan, we went for the sole purpose of destroying the Taliban. This is not the case in Iraq. In Iraq, we really have no immediate threat, so we work with the international community.

BTW, the US has not declared war since WWII.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603
Russia should not be considered in anything becuase since the advent of capitalism, russia is a sad and ruined nation.
Capitalism is a virus on russia.

---

The real virus, or parasite, on Russia was Communism, at least from Stalin and all the way until Gorbatjev took over with his Perestrojka. At that time the Union was already in severe economical, and other problems.

Gorbatjev tried to keep the Soviet Union intact and reform it, into a modern socialist - or social democrat - union. Had he succeeded in keeping all the states once belonging to the Soviet Union together, the economical crisis had been less severe. As it now was, a lot of states saw their chance to break away and (once again) become independent. Perhaps we shouldn�t blame them for that, but Russia crumbled even more because of it, and many of the states that broke loose suffer from it too, at least economically.

Jeltsin saved Russia from total collaps, but after a while he lost control, or seemingly let go of it. Why, nobody seems to know. In the end he retired and made Putin his successor, and, as I said above, Putin has made more progress than most experts expected...

It is true that some Russians wish for the old Soviet times "when there was order", but the people as a whole would never vote for (a Soviet style) Communism again.

I don�t have a clue if Putin takes bribes, but if he does, I�m not sure things would have been better if he didn�t.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Russia is always sad.

---

At least melancholic...

Why was communism a virus on russia?
How is capitalism any better?
yes, the people are more free, but they have no fude.

Homer

Why was communism a virus?

Hmmm let's see. There are good bacteria and bad bacteria. I can't say as I've ever heard of a 'good' virus, so based upon what I know (right now) virus is bad. Under the Czar (Tsar if you will), 5% of the population (the royals et al) controlled the other 95% of the population. When Vladamir and the boys took over, 2% of the population controlled the other 98% (good thing we're dealing in percentages because there were a lot fewer living bodies when Vlad [notice the similarity in names to another infamous Vlad] took over).

The virus continued to 'help' the Russian people under 'good ol Joe' for a long time and continued under a succession of sweethearts until Gorby ended it all by curing the initial virus. Unfortunately, like all virus', this virus mutated and we now have the Putkin strain.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
Why was communism a virus on russia?
How is capitalism any better?
yes, the people are more free, but they have no fude.

Homer

---

Would you sell your freedom for food?

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
Why was communism a virus on russia?
How is capitalism any better?
yes, the people are more free, but they have no fude.

Homer

---

First of all:

Between 1917 and 1987, the Soviet Union killed 62 million of its own people!

Stalin alone was responsible for at least half of that.

After having said that, it seems unnecessary to continue, but I do it anyway.

The Soviet leaders, in one way, actually believed in the Communist ideology. and they overdid it. It was more important to "go by the book" than to see to reality. Everything from farming to science was done "ideologically". And remember, alternatives were forbidden. Those who came up with an un-communistic solution, were sent to Kolyma to die, if they weren�t excecuted right away.

For example, they made plans for five years at the time, for the farming. And as this was decided in Moscow, for the whole, vast union, it was bound to go wrong. In a free capitalist economy and country, the farmers could have adopted to weather, and to what was needed, and so on. In the Soviet system, they continued growing carrots, when there was a need for tomatoes...

This meant that, for most of the time, they had too little of everything. People lined up in the morning outside of the state-owned shops, and by lunch-time they went home with one bread when they needed three breads, and butter and meat and...

Towards the end of the Soviet era many went home with empty hands, as the shops were literally emptied long before everybody that had lined up reached the door...

From this we can conclude that the Soviet people didn�t have enough food (as you indirectly claim they had).

Same thing with the industry. It was controlled in a way that soon made the products worthless, for everybody. The Soviet people were still forced to use them of course, but the products were impossible to sell outside of the union, and it�s slave states in eastern Europe. I don�t think I have to point out that that had a negative effect on the Soviet Union�s economy.

Especially as they used most of their money for the Cold War, the space program and other projects, with the sole purpose to show the greatness of the Soviet Union and its Communist ideology.

The Soviet leaders didn�t care one second about their people, but they cared very much about "showing off" to the world. And they continued even when the (western) world since long had stopped to admire them. For the last twenty or so years, it was nothing but the worlds most expensive mirror, for the leaders to look in, to see their own glory. And they were totally satisfied with that, until Gorbatjev came to power...

NukeChild has, in other topics, such as the one about Cuba, explained other, more specific ecomical effects of Communism compared to capitalism. And as he does that better than I could, I suggest you read his posts as well.

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-11-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Would you sell your freedom for food?

---

If I did not have food?

OH HELL YEAH!!!!!

Homer

Thank you for the compliment FoxLeonard.

Whats funny about selling your freedom for food is that yeah for that night you can eat, but the next day, you are still hungry and all the food is gone. If you meant long term food provision, well, if you have freedom, you have no need to sell anything except your abilities and the services you can render for food.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Thank you for the compliment FoxLeonard

---

Your�e welcome!

But it was hard facts and practical thinking. Why force Homer, or anybody else interested, to try to dechipher my muddled explanations, when there are good ones provided by you...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Where are all the people who were constantly saying the US had no support for the invasion of Iraq? I could be wrong about this, but I thought I heard that the UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY (including Syria) to approve the sanctions.

Nox

---

of course they will agree USA is the superpower and every one wants to please her
syria have border and water problems with Irak that's why thy participated with 12000 men in the first gulf war
and the syrian gov as all the arab govs is not a democratic regime it's ruled by the syrian baath party witch is the syrian split of the grand arabic party created by arab nationalist in early 40S
irak is ruled by the Iraki fraction of the baath party so they are two non democratic regimes and in all dictatorships
gov decisions are not the same as people decisions i'm sure that most syrians doesn't want an attack on Irak

quote:

---

If you by strikes mean attacks, what happened on Sept 11 2001, showed that they could strike at any UN member in the world.

---

I was thinking about ballistic missile attacks. Iraq's arsenal may lack range and accuracy but it can still attack the interests of some UN members. Afghanistan's ability to conduct a repeat of the 9/11 suicide attack was pretty limited due to the lack of communications and the increased vigilance of Western intelligence and internal security.

quote:

---

Between 1917 and 1987, the Soviet Union killed 62 million of its own people!

---

I'm interested to see where you got this surprisingly precise statistic from. It seems higher than all the other estimates I've seen though I guess it has a wider timescale.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Would you sell your freedom for food?

---

YES

Stalin Era:

"Overall the first three Five Year Plans, which ran from 1928 to 1941, increased industrial production by about 400%"

Vive le Communist !!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0:
Stalin Era:

"Overall the first three Five Year Plans, which ran from 1928 to 1941, increased industrial production by about 400%"

Vive le Communist !!!

---

And when your starting point is close to zero, those percentages are easy to obtain. Here's a question for you: What was the Soviet industrial production circa 1927?

So much for "Vive le Communist !".

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
And when your starting point is close to zero, those percentages are easy to obtain. Here's a question for you: What was the Soviet industrial production circa 1927?

So much for "Vive le Communist !".

Nox

---

In 1927, the power struggle within the Communist Party was over. Stalin had gained full political power. Stalin rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture would transform Russia into a rich and strong socialist state. He made use of the State Planning Commission (Gosplan) to make a survey of the country's economic resources. Targets were then set for each of the industries and each of the collective farms. The industries and the farms had to increase their rates of production according to these targets.

Vive le Communist [Again] !!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
I was thinking about ballistic missile attacks. Iraq's arsenal may lack range and accuracy but it can still attack the interests of some UN members. Afghanistan's ability to conduct a repeat of the 9/11 suicide attack was pretty limited due to the lack of communications and the increased vigilance of Western intelligence and internal security.

---

Al Qaida had, and have, operationals (almost) all over the world. Groups on "stand by", who already got their assignment and instructions and work independently. All they need is a key word, or a "key action" from the enemy, to go into action. One such key action could have been US retaliation, and even the kind of retaliation that USA choose to use. Different strategies depending on if USA attacked Afghanistan or Sudan, for example.

Another wave of attacks by hi-jacked planes was very unlikely, as you say, but bombings and other acts of terror could not be ruled out. There was also concern for this, at least among Swedish experts, when USA prepared for the attack on Afghanistan.

quote:

---

I'm interested to see where you got this surprisingly precise statistic from. It seems higher than all the other estimates I've seen though I guess it has a wider timescale.

---

The source is Rudolf Rummel�s Death by Government (1994), about all state genocides (or, as Rummel calls it, democide) in modern times. In his research for this he has used 8200 reports done by other researchers, plus his own research at the sources.

In the case of the Soviet Union, most estimations are done before the union fell apart. The researchers therefore choosed lower numbers, to stay away from accusations of propaganda and sensationalism. Many estimations also single out the Stalin era, but their numbers are often quoted without saying so, giving the impression that the Soviet Union killed "only" about 30 million people, all in all.

Rummel did extensive research in Russia, after the union fell. He (and his team) went through a lot of documents that had been top secret until then, and he (they) also interviewed people in position to know what had happened.

In numbers this resulted in: 62 million people killed by the Soviet Union, between 1917 and 1987. To some extent this includes activities in the other communist states in eastern Europe. But as they were in reality parts of the Soviet empire, it is still correct to call it "their own people".

This is, of course, still an estimation, but based on more hard facts and more inside Soviet information, than any other estimation. There is little or nothing to suggest that it was significantly less people killed, nor significantly more people killed, by the soviet Union.

It is also interesting to compare the soviet Union and other Communist states to other regimes who have committed extensive genocide:

Soviet Union (1917-1987).......62 million

Communist China (1949-1987)....35 million

Nazi Germany (1933-1945).......21 million (incl war crimes)

Nationalist China (1928-1949)..10 million

Japan (1936-1945)...............6 million (incl war crimes)

China,Mao Guerilla (1923-1949)..3 million

Cambodia, Pol Pot (1975-1979)...2 million

Turkey (1909-1918)..............2 million

Vietnam (1945-1987).............1.5 million

North Korea (1948-1987).........1.5 million


This is the world�s most depressing top ten list.

And even more depressing for Communism apologists.

Six out of ten regimes above are/were communist. Statistically they should have committed 60% of the murders. But in reality:

Communist regimes....105 million

Other regimes.........39 million

The balance doesn�t change significantly if we choose the top 100 list instead.

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-11-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-11-2002).]

I am fully aware of the Gosplan. My point is that when you start near zero, obtaining triple digit percentage increases is not necessarily earth shattering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0:
The industries and the farms had to increase their rates of production according to these targets.

---

You have not answered the question:

What was the Soviet industrial production circa 1927?

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
I am fully aware of the Gosplan. My point is that when you start near zero, obtaining triple digit percentage increases is not necessarily earth shattering.

You have not answered the question:

What was the Soviet industrial production circa 1927?

Nox

---

The question is pointless, it neither proves or disaproves that communism was good or bad. It doesnt matter what the circa was, all it matters is that communism works with right people.

Now thats a bunch of crap. Without base year numbers as a point of reference, all statistics relating to growth and production become meaningless!

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0:
The question is pointless, it neither proves or disaproves that communism was good or bad. It doesnt matter what the circa was,

---

If so, your mentioning of 400% increase must be as pointless. Or have I missed something here?!

quote:

---

all it matters is that communism works with right people.

---

Could be true.

But even Marx finally realized that Communism would never find those "right" people. Probably because they choose to choose ideologies that doesn�t need opression to work in reality.

FoxLeonard

---------------------------------------------
If so, your mentioning of 400% increase must be as pointless. Or have I missed something here?!
---------------------------------------------

400% increase in not pointless in portion of 13 years.

---------------------------------------------
But even Marx finally realized that Communism would never find those "right" people. Probably because they choose to choose ideologies that doesn�t need opression to work in reality.
---------------------------------------------
True but oppression always existed in every ideological, regime change to a minority, majority, and third parties. There will always be disagreements.

There were comparable percentage increases under the Tsarist regime. When you start almost from scratch, a massive percentage increase isn't that impressive.

You must also concider america's position as a world super power has great influence and perhaps intimidation over other countries like Syria and Israel not to metion possible backhand deals between govements so i support what you say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
but they have no fude.

---

No what?

I thought he meant fudalism. Or maybe feudalism.

[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 11-15-2002).]

hahahahahahaha