Oil is thicker than Blood
- Thread starter Turha.
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
It could well be true that we the "ignorant masses" do not know half the story surrounding the lead up to this war. But the fact remains that killing innocent people to 'free' these same people is a complete waste of life. As soon as one innocent person gets killed, imo that war has become unjustified. I'm saying this regardless of whether we can apply this to the situation in Iraq, if indeed there is a 'situation' at all. Propaganda will always exist, not only because certain parties feel the need to justify decisions with exagerrated 'factual' evidence, but also because these parties exist far higher in the political hierachy and have means to influence us.
We can argue forever about how much we know about this war, and how much we have been shown is indeed true, but, whether it's brought to our attentions or not, if one innocent person dies then the world leaders involved have made grave errors in their decisions to use force in Iraq. Of course it is possible to argue that, if the Iraqi people are freed, then the few lost have not died in vain. It is, however, then necessary for you to decide whether it was better for these people to live in suppressed circumstances, perhaps involving starvation, homelessness and persecution, or for people to die to make changes in the daily life of these people...
The International Study Team, an independent group of academics, researchers, physicians and child psychologists founded in 1991 to examine the effect of military conflicts on civilians had forcast a "grave humanitarian disaster". The team broadcasted their findings at a news conference (I cannot find out which one) and their findings were based on data collected in three Iraqi cities -- Baghdad, Basra and Karbala -- and interviews with 200 families. The team did not receive any help from the Iraqi government and hired its own interpreters. What they found was that at least 500,000 Iraqi children are either malnourished or underweight and that Iraq has no more than a one-month supply of food and a three-month supply of drugs in central hospitals ---Iraq has an estimated population of 25 million people. The team leader - Eric Hopkinds said that "Iraq's 13 million children are at a grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma ---Iraqi children are more vulnerable than ever."
"While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries . . . casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands,"
Unless the allied forces are shipping in thousands of tonnes of food, it is pretty safe to say then, that, if this war does last for a fair time, there are alot of children who are going to starve; as it is highly unlikely that the Iraqi government will bring such quantities of food in, is it?
You can compare this team's findings with previous reports before there was talk of war, from CARE Internationals (an Australian based relief agency) findings, which show that starvation was already a huge problem before the onset of war.
These are things which we have been told, mildly, by our newspapers etc. But, in my mind, the fact that this war could last for quite some time only backs up my thoughts that going into this war was a first-class error, as people will almost certainly now starve..
We can argue forever about how much we know about this war, and how much we have been shown is indeed true, but, whether it's brought to our attentions or not, if one innocent person dies then the world leaders involved have made grave errors in their decisions to use force in Iraq. Of course it is possible to argue that, if the Iraqi people are freed, then the few lost have not died in vain. It is, however, then necessary for you to decide whether it was better for these people to live in suppressed circumstances, perhaps involving starvation, homelessness and persecution, or for people to die to make changes in the daily life of these people...
The International Study Team, an independent group of academics, researchers, physicians and child psychologists founded in 1991 to examine the effect of military conflicts on civilians had forcast a "grave humanitarian disaster". The team broadcasted their findings at a news conference (I cannot find out which one) and their findings were based on data collected in three Iraqi cities -- Baghdad, Basra and Karbala -- and interviews with 200 families. The team did not receive any help from the Iraqi government and hired its own interpreters. What they found was that at least 500,000 Iraqi children are either malnourished or underweight and that Iraq has no more than a one-month supply of food and a three-month supply of drugs in central hospitals ---Iraq has an estimated population of 25 million people. The team leader - Eric Hopkinds said that "Iraq's 13 million children are at a grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma ---Iraqi children are more vulnerable than ever."
"While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries . . . casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands,"
Unless the allied forces are shipping in thousands of tonnes of food, it is pretty safe to say then, that, if this war does last for a fair time, there are alot of children who are going to starve; as it is highly unlikely that the Iraqi government will bring such quantities of food in, is it?
You can compare this team's findings with previous reports before there was talk of war, from CARE Internationals (an Australian based relief agency) findings, which show that starvation was already a huge problem before the onset of war.
These are things which we have been told, mildly, by our newspapers etc. But, in my mind, the fact that this war could last for quite some time only backs up my thoughts that going into this war was a first-class error, as people will almost certainly now starve..
Last edited:
the problem is you cant just take out 1 person and solve the problem there are hundreds of pple ready 2 take over the only way is 2 topple the whole regime and 2 do that you need military action
Quote Extase:
Iraq has an estimated population of 25 million people. The team leader - Eric Hopkinds said that "Iraq's 13 million children are at a grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma ---Iraqi children are more vulnerable than ever."
over half the population are children i think some of the figures are wrong here or there are a lot of missing adults
a point 2 ponder
When there were debates about what to do about hitler who had broken the Versailles Treaty,no fewer than 10million people in Britian signed petitions against any war or military intervention
As with mussolinis invasion of Abyssinia the leauge of nations ( pre WW2 version of the UN) proved useless because of vested interests,mainly due to france (now theres a surprise)
so history does indeed repeat itself
I am not 4 any form of action that involves the Massacre Of Innocents but this regime has got 2 be toppled there is no political solution as far as i can see so action maybe the only way
maybe next time we will learn our lesson and take these *Madmen* out before they get 2 powerful but i doubt it
as with everyting in life the ever revolving never evolving head in the sand attitude will prevail untill its to late then drastic action is the only way 2 solve the problem
:/
Quote Extase:
Iraq has an estimated population of 25 million people. The team leader - Eric Hopkinds said that "Iraq's 13 million children are at a grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma ---Iraqi children are more vulnerable than ever."
over half the population are children i think some of the figures are wrong here or there are a lot of missing adults
a point 2 ponder
When there were debates about what to do about hitler who had broken the Versailles Treaty,no fewer than 10million people in Britian signed petitions against any war or military intervention
As with mussolinis invasion of Abyssinia the leauge of nations ( pre WW2 version of the UN) proved useless because of vested interests,mainly due to france (now theres a surprise)
so history does indeed repeat itself
I am not 4 any form of action that involves the Massacre Of Innocents but this regime has got 2 be toppled there is no political solution as far as i can see so action maybe the only way
maybe next time we will learn our lesson and take these *Madmen* out before they get 2 powerful but i doubt it
as with everyting in life the ever revolving never evolving head in the sand attitude will prevail untill its to late then drastic action is the only way 2 solve the problem
:/
Lots of quoting goin on around here .. so Ill quote what some1 said a while back that he/she no doubt stole from somewhere else 
Crusader
Crusader
Yes exactly. But why is military action of this type needed? Iraq has ignored the UN for x amount of years, why would it have been such a problem for us lot to make a secret treaty through all the correct UN guidelines and come to a more appropriate means of thwarting the Iraqi reigime?
I quoted that from a website, so I assumed it to be correct. Can not find anywhere else which states child population. doh.
As a side not, I am neither for nor totally against war. I am just weighing up in my own mind the other eventualities which could have entailed given different military action. Reading stuff like that war report on the effects of war on children only leads me to believe that Bush, in particular, has not thought about 'how' to overcome Iraq, but more, in his mind, 'when' can he do it and 'why' can he do it.
No, we elect leaders and governments to make decisions on our behalf. If we dislike or distrust the decisions they make we have the option to vote them out, or not vote them in in the first place. At least in principal.
Too many people are trying to judge history before its even been written.
Obvious we all hope for an outcome for the best of the Iraki people. Things being as they are at the moment, I do hope the war ends soon. If it doesn't the consequences could be very grave indeed. Most of the arab/muslim world is in an uproar. Not something that can be contained for long I'm afraid. The war better be over soon, very soon.
With regard to over half the population of Irak consisting of children. Well that doesn't surprise me. Seems pretty normal to me for that region. Not many people grow very old... So the chance of many casualties amongst children is realistic if this continues (and what is left of the elderly...) Big mess indeed.
With regard to over half the population of Irak consisting of children. Well that doesn't surprise me. Seems pretty normal to me for that region. Not many people grow very old... So the chance of many casualties amongst children is realistic if this continues (and what is left of the elderly...) Big mess indeed.
btw claiming history repeats itself is a bit doubtful
Only with a very shallow view one could claim that, there are similarities with what went on before that start of the second world war. But nothing more than that, very different times. Different countries, different cultures....
Only with a very shallow view one could claim that, there are similarities with what went on before that start of the second world war. But nothing more than that, very different times. Different countries, different cultures....
i only say history repeats itself from the fact we never seem 2 learn from past mistakes
as for the the similarities i was meerly pointing out that the un like the leauge of nations were indecisive as to what actions 2 take
and there are similarities between saddam and hitler
both were told 2 disarm
both built weapons instead
both were involved in ethnic cleansing
both were democraticaly voted dictators (if you can call them elections)
both had expansionist tendencys claiming border disputes
as 4 population
Quote:
0-14 years: 41.1% (male 5,003,755; female 4,849,238)
15-64 years: 55.9% (male 6,794,265; female 6,624,662)
65 years and over: 3% (male 341,520; female 388,376) (2002 est.)
so yip mainly children dont know y they dont class 15/16 yr olds children
stats taken from here
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
A democracy is not about the population of a country governing itself and knowing all the facts. The population, by and large, are idiots. In a democracy we elect intelligent people to power to do all the important thinking and decision making for us. Sure, our freedoms allow us to form and demonstrate opinions about whatever the media is exposing us to, but we don’t know the half of it. Even if we did, none of us would even come close to properly, really properly understanding the most sensitive issues, let alone try and make an authoritative decision on them.
Whatever anyone might think of our politicians, or the ones over the pond, there can be no doubt that the elected officials are doing an infinitely better job than any banner-wielding pleb strutting up and down the streets of London barking the same old tired anti-war rhetoric. No one is infallible of course, and bad decisions do get made, but I doubt that even one of us could stand a single day in the prime ministerial office. Look at footage of Tony Blair when he came to power, and look at him today. It looks like he’s put on 15 years, not 7. It’s a bloody stressful job.
Good, and I hope he looks like he put on 25 years next year too. I hope he knew what the job entailed before he came into it, and him ageing is simply due to the lack of sleep he is getting atm cos of all the extra hours he is putting in now, right?
It is indeed same old same old anti-war rethoric. I don't always agree with them, but am glad they are (always) there. What ever them politicians are doing they better know that there are loads of people actively disagreeing with them. And making themsleves heard. Just to make sure a politician thinks twice before he does something. I don't hold politicians in such a high respect. Seen too many of them being good at nothing. All talk and no clue. But indeed there are (very) good ones as well. But its a minority, the thing that keeps a country going are the people behind the government and politicians, the higher ranking civil servants. Simply because they stay longer in position and have more experience. Experience does count. But they also have a fair share of nutcases as well in the higher 'ranks'. Is unfortunately the thing about power, it attracts mostly the wrong people. Better have a democracy to dampen that effect. What ever them politicians do, there better be protesters to make sure they think twice. Democracy, not perfect, but good enough for me. Protesters are part of that.
Thousands of years men has rule this planet.
Thousands of years every one of them has seen a war.
Thousands of years we say a war will never come again because we are civilized
Thousands of years people have killed it's eachother because of hate, religion, power, fear and land.
Thousands of years we ask ourselves why we are doing this.
What can I say. War is in our nature. Maybe fighting eaother till the end is our destiny. Will we ever learn? I think not.
Like a wise man said once:
A nation is a society united by delusions about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbours.
thx Brown 
Thur,
Bloody arms sales, I am soooo fucking (sorry but that IS the word for it) fed up with that. I stumble over them every bloody everywhere. UK or France or USA wotever. Arms dealers are very powerful. They get soooo much money it is FUCKING unbelievable. (sorry that word again) It is really unbelievable how much money the USA spends on arms. Really totally unbelievable, multiply that with 10 and you are not even getting close. Science and engineering my trade... Arms dealers, offensive or defensive (is there a difference?) they will cut through any type of red tape if they can. Any type of embargo if they can. Anything anywhere all the bloody time. Its all about money, it does buy power and that makes them buy arms. One bloody way or the other. They ALL do it. Its a simple question of economy. The better the economy, the more arms they have.
About selling arms to countries like Irak.... If they pay for it, they will get them. France has ABSOLUTELY no problem with it (Guess why is Chirac doing what he does). UK a bit tbh not that bad. Not clean but ok-ish compared to others. USA, well....... they put it in a foreign policy package. And they know very little about proper policy in the first place. 80% of the US population is xenophobe, not that the arab world is not xenophobe wotever, but the USA keeps messing things up. Others would probably do the same thing, messing it up. But its simply the fact that they are by far the strongest country in the world, what 'they' do always has an impact. That is their position, not an easy one tbh. The sad thing is the USA actually means (often) well. But they have no clue (ok overstatement) and damage delicate balances. Like now in Irak. i see no proper way out of this but a swift victory. If this prolongs, it will be very bad I think. No way the arab world will keep out of this if the war continues. My guess, for what its worth, is that muslims simply won't accept it. Whatever happens, this war causes serious damage in the arab world. That is not good, these people have a completely different perspective on things than we have. Not because they are stupid and we are smart (if they are stupid we are stupid), its a difference in culture, education, media. They do look at things differently. Like we do. That makes all of this so difficult. That is also the reason why careful diplomacy is so important. Such a pitty the UN didn't act with force. But one can hardly expect that from the UN. Also divided by culture, unbalance in power and countries that for all the wrong reasons want to make a stand if they can veto. Would be better if the UN was more independant. But that would probably also mean even more powerless. Its a catch 22 I'm afraid.
Power does corrupt. Not a nice thought to go to bed with. :/
Thur,
Bloody arms sales, I am soooo fucking (sorry but that IS the word for it) fed up with that. I stumble over them every bloody everywhere. UK or France or USA wotever. Arms dealers are very powerful. They get soooo much money it is FUCKING unbelievable. (sorry that word again) It is really unbelievable how much money the USA spends on arms. Really totally unbelievable, multiply that with 10 and you are not even getting close. Science and engineering my trade... Arms dealers, offensive or defensive (is there a difference?) they will cut through any type of red tape if they can. Any type of embargo if they can. Anything anywhere all the bloody time. Its all about money, it does buy power and that makes them buy arms. One bloody way or the other. They ALL do it. Its a simple question of economy. The better the economy, the more arms they have.
About selling arms to countries like Irak.... If they pay for it, they will get them. France has ABSOLUTELY no problem with it (Guess why is Chirac doing what he does). UK a bit tbh not that bad. Not clean but ok-ish compared to others. USA, well....... they put it in a foreign policy package. And they know very little about proper policy in the first place. 80% of the US population is xenophobe, not that the arab world is not xenophobe wotever, but the USA keeps messing things up. Others would probably do the same thing, messing it up. But its simply the fact that they are by far the strongest country in the world, what 'they' do always has an impact. That is their position, not an easy one tbh. The sad thing is the USA actually means (often) well. But they have no clue (ok overstatement) and damage delicate balances. Like now in Irak. i see no proper way out of this but a swift victory. If this prolongs, it will be very bad I think. No way the arab world will keep out of this if the war continues. My guess, for what its worth, is that muslims simply won't accept it. Whatever happens, this war causes serious damage in the arab world. That is not good, these people have a completely different perspective on things than we have. Not because they are stupid and we are smart (if they are stupid we are stupid), its a difference in culture, education, media. They do look at things differently. Like we do. That makes all of this so difficult. That is also the reason why careful diplomacy is so important. Such a pitty the UN didn't act with force. But one can hardly expect that from the UN. Also divided by culture, unbalance in power and countries that for all the wrong reasons want to make a stand if they can veto. Would be better if the UN was more independant. But that would probably also mean even more powerless. Its a catch 22 I'm afraid.
Power does corrupt. Not a nice thought to go to bed with. :/