It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So the U.S. is an imperialistic occupier huh?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Jakomo -




posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Iraq isn't back in the people's hands (as if it ever was) until one of the actual average Iraqi people is at the post of control and listens with an open ear to each voice of concern from all angles of differing opinion without prejudice or preference based upon an oppressive form of Islam such as the one exercised by the extremists. HOWEVER; do not be so ignorant as to defend the occupying and invasive administration which we here in the U.S. live under for what they have done. Printed in every news paper in black and white and flashed on each tv screen that they have 'handed the country back' and 'the iraqi's are finally free.' How are they free? We handpicked their 'new' government, we installed it based on our administrations interests and we advertise it as Iraqi in nature.

Ohhhh and have you lost notice of just who remains in Iraq. Oh boy, Paul Bremer left...... whooooo hoooo..... how about the U.S. military forced to remain there against their own will haunting Iraqi civilians with their presence day in and day out..... not to forget also the ones guarding the Iraqi oil fields and the millions in Iraqi money flowing out of the country into U.S. corporations pockets.

Iraq still Occupied?? Nahhhhh. Never. Yeahhhhhhhh, righhhhhht.






posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Romeo, in case you haven't been clued in, the Iraqis are producing more power than during Saddam's regime, purifying more water and have more access to health care. For future reference, don't blab your big mouth without blabbing some statistics. I don't have to because once you look them up you'll realize I'm correct. *I love my logic* hahah


This is patently false. Pure propaganda with no facts to back it up.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason

Iraq has superceeded all pre-war levels of energy, food, health care, water and so on.

ap.tbo.com...



Brought to you by: Statistics on Progress Made in Iraq Under the Coalition Provisional Authority

Pure horseshizit.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Hehe, yeah I didn't even mention the source.

Sources: Coalition Provisional Authority, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development.

Pretty pathetic on a propaganda scale, but they do have cojones.

"Ok so maybe 130 people died in Iraq last week due to violence, but 7 out of 10 of them had CELL PHONES!"


E_T

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Today you don't need army to "keep colonies"/for imperialism, just force everyone to give power to "free" capitalism/market economy/globalization and it will do the job.



In fact, the Bretton Woods Institutions (the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank) were actually designed with Keynesian policies in mind; to help provide international regulation and control of capital. As Susan George notes, “when these institutions were created at Bretton Woods in 1944, their mandate was to help prevent future conflicts by lending for reconstruction and development and by smoothing out temporary balance of payments problems. They had no control over individual government's economic decisions nor did their mandate include a license to intervene in national policy.” This is very different from what they are doing today.

www.globalissues.org...

Today IMF and World Bank are forcing developing countries to privatize everything, even basic need, like water distribution and those... basic needs shouldn't be playground of corporations whose only goal is maximising profits.
Or instead of growing editable plants they're urged to grow tubacco and others for export (cheap raw material for big corporations) when there's still famines.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NashMan
I heard a statistic on the news a while back, that in the 10 years from the 1st gulf war no new hospitals had been built - You guys will probably say "because of the embargo -" blah, blah blah. Saddam did build dozens of palaces in that time however....


Yes, it is. Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the best health service in the Middle East, built on the model of the British NHS. Because before the sanctions, oil was bringing in enough money for Saddam to do both. After the sanctions, the money was limited, and hell the people had tried to kick him out (don't worry, we didn't let them). So why was he gonna share what limited wealth there was. So he stuck to the palaces and to hell with the hospitals.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:55 AM
link   
So in other words he had a choices between more palaces and more hospitals and he chose not to provide for his people. The sanctions didn't degrade Iraqs healtcare the choices of its dictator did.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Not entirely. As I said, pre-sanctions, he did both because he could afford to. On that level,you are perhaps right. But the fact that many medical supplies were specifically prohibited from being imported did contribute to the degradation of the Iraqi health service, and is directly due to sanctions. So yes, Saddams choices had a direct effect on the lower quality of the health service post 1991, but so did the sanctions imposed by the UN. We must share responsibility. It is not as simple as just saying that it is an either or situation.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Personally I disagree with sanctions in principle because it hurts the people as opposed to the leader as this example has shown. However in the world we live in governments are too cowardly to use military force in these situation. The funny thing is that in the long run the military option is less harmful to the people as a whole. But as long as france and germany are on the U.N. security council there are no other options.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331The funny thing is that in the long run the military option is less harmful to the people as a whole. But as long as france and germany are on the U.N. security council there are no other options.


I do agree with you that sanctions can be more harmful but you shouldn't put the blame on France and Germany for that.
They weren't the one who proposed economic sanctions:


Iraq Chronology
August 2 Iraq invades Kuwait. The U.S. government embargoes oil imports from Iraq, freezes Iraqi and Kuwaiti assets in the United States, and starts moving naval reinforcements towards the Persian Gulf. The U.N. Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion and calling for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

August 5 President Bush says that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait "will not stand" and proposes a sweeping economic blockade and sanctions against Iraq.

August 6 The U.N. Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 661 imposing a mandatory and complete embargo of all investment and trade, including oil, with Iraq and occupied Kuwait. This results in a reduction of over 4 million bbl/d in oil supplies to world markets (over the next several months, Saudi Arabia increases its production to make up the loss). President Bush orders the deployment of U.S. armed forces to defend Saudi Arabia in an operation named "Operation Desert Shield."



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The comment was more bout thier refusal to support the U.S. in iraq which I believe was a cowardly and immoral decision by the french and german governments.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   
mwm1331:

The comment was more bout thier refusal to support the U.S. in iraq which I believe was a cowardly and immoral decision by the french and german governments.


Cowardly and immoral based on what? The fact that they didn't believe Saddam had WMDs and that he didn't pose an immediate threat? The fact that THEIR PEOPLE (you know, the so-called "voting public") opposed the war?

More countries REFUSED to join the Coalition than joined, so are you saying all of those countries are immoral and cowardly?

And bearing in mind the last 2 years, where NO WMDs have been found, NO link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, NO "imminent threat" has been discovered, you STILL say that the decision by these countries to not go to war was cowardly?

Are you capable of rational thought?

Iraq was at the time (still is, I guess) similar to a 3rd World country in military capabilities.

It's like the biggest fattest kid in the schoolyard picking on the skinny brown kid, and yet you spew venom on the ones who chose not to join in on the violence.

Iraq didn't have an Air Force and yet they were carpetbombed for days, causing military and civilian casualties in huge numbers.

Let's talk about cowardice.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Cowardly - Both french and german leaders believed that saddam had WMDs but did nothing about it
Immoral - france was making too much money off of brokering weapon and oil sales for iraq to want Saddam gone.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Personally I disagree with sanctions in principle because it hurts the people as opposed to the leader as this example has shown.

If you are willing to accept that this is the case, why then do you attempt to deny that the sanctions must have a significant role in the deterioration of the Iraqi health service.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Because while the sanctions reduced the amount of capital the Iraqui government had it was saddam who chose to spend that capital on palaces rather than on healthcare.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join