OMG! Iraq slamming the UN!

ByteMe said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/international/middleeast/16CND-NATION.html?ex=1072242000&en=2aedd578f1c193c5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
Click to expand...


Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, has slammed the countries that opposed the war.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Hopefully there will be more to come, these people will finally have their say.
 
It's good to hear what Iraq thinks.

All this time we're sitting over here in relative luxury, some of us yelling "Yay war! Go Bush! Get that Saddam! EH!" and some of us yelling "No war! Don't send our troops to no man's land!" and it didn't really mean much.

These people were in the war zone. We faced casualties of over 250, they've faced thousands. Not to downplay the heroic and ultimately sacrificial efforts of our troops, but the Iraqis have had it much worse in the war.. and in years past.
 
One day I am hopeful that we will be able to hear other condemnations like this from other countries such as North Korea.
 
Just wait til the Iraqis find out America's part in propping up Saddam's regime in the 80s. ;)

But seriously, his response is perfectly understandable given what his people have gone through. Could anyone have honestly expected anything different?
 
Natoma said:
But seriously, his response is perfectly understandable given what his people have gone through. Could anyone have honestly expected anything different?
Click to expand...

If I was in a country that the people were being repressed... I'd beg for the USA to invade. The truth of the matter is that the French, Russians and Germans in the next few years will be the brunt of many insults from iraqi people. And once again you can bet they will cry like babies and find somehow to blame it on the USA.


But then I did here that France and Germany were going to "forgive" all prewar debt? (buying forgiveness?) I hope they feel like the jackass's they are.
 
I agree ByteMe. And as I've said before, I'm glad we went into Iraq for the humanitarian purposes alone. I come across as unfeeling and very sarcastic at times, but that's because I genuinely care about the failure of our intelligence, the usage of that intelligence, and the vetting process of our intelligence in building the case that pushed us to war, i.e. Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There was a failure somewhere along the line, and I for one want to know where it was so it doesn't happen again.
 
Natoma said:
I agree ByteMe. And as I've said before, I'm glad we went into Iraq for the humanitarian purposes alone. I come across as unfeeling and very sarcastic at times, but that's because I genuinely care about the failure of our intelligence, the usage of that intelligence, and the vetting process of our intelligence in building the case that pushed us to war, i.e. Weapons of Mass Destruction. <snip>
Click to expand...

I care about the failure of morals when "humanitarian purposes alone" are not enough justification for action.
 
Natoma said:
I agree ByteMe. And as I've said before, I'm glad we went into Iraq for the humanitarian purposes alone. I come across as unfeeling and very sarcastic at times, but that's because I genuinely care about the failure of our intelligence, the usage of that intelligence, and the vetting process of our intelligence in building the case that pushed us to war, i.e. Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There was a failure somewhere along the line, and I for one want to know where it was so it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...


Dammit, if you are going to reasonable I'll agree somewhat :) I don't know if I would label it a failure so much, it seems most were tricked. It even seems that Sadam did not know what he had or did not have. Maybe his underlings told him what they thought he wanted to here so they looked good/ would not be killed.

And then you could argue that the administration KNEW that that the WMD were not as much as a problem as they claimed. Maybe they claimed this so the USA people would support the war because it WAS the right thing to do (remove Sadam).

The europeans seem to think they are more important in world affairs than they are. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if we all could agree. The fact is we don't need them. We will do what we think is right. Their current attitude does little more than bury them further into insignificance.

I think in another 25 or so years the EU will be number 5 in economic power. This kills them. (that is if they can hold it together) It would suck going from the world's superpowers to an afterthought (over 200 years).

I hope everyone learns a lesson from this. You would think that Germany, France and Russia would be THE countries that KNOW how it sucks to be ruled by a tyrant. I would of thought they would be the first willing to help the people in Iraq. (This brings up another debate- I think that euro's are more selfish than US citizens)

Find another topic we can disagree on. (gays in military?, women voting?, soccer sucks?, McD's or Burger King?) Hell, I don't care... pick something I'll pick the other side.

And for something ironic. As much as I disagree with the french... Some of the people I respect the most (recent history) were french. The french resistance/underground in WWII was brutal. Those people had guts.
 
ByteMe said:
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, has slammed the countries that opposed the war.
Click to expand...

Just for some perspective, Hoshyar Zebari happens to be the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, which has been in the pocket of the U.S. administration for quite some time now. So I see a proclamation from him about his happiness with the war in about the same light as I see Ahmed Chalabi, (although admittedly I think he's at least been in the country during this time, can't say the same for the INC head).
 
nelg said:
Natoma said:
I agree ByteMe. And as I've said before, I'm glad we went into Iraq for the humanitarian purposes alone. I come across as unfeeling and very sarcastic at times, but that's because I genuinely care about the failure of our intelligence, the usage of that intelligence, and the vetting process of our intelligence in building the case that pushed us to war, i.e. Weapons of Mass Destruction. <snip>
Click to expand...

I care about the failure of morals when "humanitarian purposes alone" are not enough justification for action.
Click to expand...

Whoever said that wasn't enough?

What have I said since the beginning? That "humanitarian purposes" was not the primary reason that we went to war. We went to war to get and destroy his WMD, not free the Iraqi people from tyranny. You know as well as I do that we didn't take out Saddam for humanitarian purposes. We went in because of the supposedly imminent threat of WMD.

Would I have supported this war on humanitarian purposes as the primary cause? Most certainly. But that wasn't what pushed the US into war. It never was. And again, I want to know what happened and where the failure was.
 
So if France moved into a number of african nations who are currently living under a tyrant I suppose some future foreign minister from that foreign country might blame the us for all the propping up of dictators its done and is doing thru such orgs as the imf and world bank not to mention the cold war (and languishing post cold war) era of right wing dictators to counter communism real or perceived.

I dont care what political mouthpieces have to say. Plenty of criticism by ordinary iraqis is had all around in various interviews and they dont spare the US, France or any other western nation anymore than saddam in their verbal outlays.

We say we care about human right then we only apply it to one nation. This war was never about human rights.
 
ByteMe said:
I think these last two posts are a form of denial.
Click to expand...

Denial of what? We've gone to war (or gone to "police action" :p ) on human rights grounds before. Plenty of people challenged those grounds and offered lots of criticism before, during, and since... If that was really what it was "about," why wasn't it presented that way in the beginning? Why the huge shift in tone and rallying points in speeches as time went by? It was certainly a part, as it makes for good speechwriting and is something pretty much everyone can agree on as Bad Thing(TM), but it's certainly not what it was "about." Not as presented to we, the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top