Debate: The Latest Bombing of Iraq Air Defenses- Supporter or Against.
Trivelli
newsgroup. What does everyone think of the recent American/British bombing
of Iraqi missile defenses?
I will start by dropping my 2 cents (or 2 fils but I dont think the 1 fils
coin is being circulated often):
I am usually anti-Iraqi regime in everything but this time I cannot hide my
disgust for the latest bombing. Everytime the American/British try to bomb
Iraq (without getting Kuwaiti permission or agreement) we get Mr. SOBs
(otherwise known as Saddam, Arafat, and most Arabs) backfiring at Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia as if it had any thing to do with it. I would be very
supportive if these bombs were helping to destroy Iraqi palaces, ground
military posts, naval installations or in any way helping us get back our
civilian prisoners from Iraq. But these bombs seem to only hit air defenses
that cannot be used for attacking (or invading) but only in defense. Our
allies have every right to protect their planes but then dont use Kuwaiti or
Saudi lands to satisfy your objectives. For God sake, the Kuwaiti/Saudi
governments are probably paying for this too because they have to.
And look how it backfired and as expected. Even Egypt and Islamic
Organization condemned the attack. If they want to attack something, let
them attack the ground forces, airplanes (not air defence installations), or
bomb the palaces of Saddam and his corrupt regime.
Anyhows, this is a summary of my view on this matter and let us start the
debate.
SUMMARY: AGAINST bombing Iraqi Defences.
PF
wrote:
> Everytime the American/British try to bomb
>Iraq (without getting Kuwaiti permission or agreement)
Kuwiati permission or agreement? Are you kidding? Considering that
Kuwaitis do practically nothing to defend themselves while Americans
and Brits do all teh work and take all the risks, I have a hard time
seeing why Kuwait should have any say in the matter at all.
> we get Mr. SOBs
>(otherwise known as Saddam, Arafat, and most Arabs) backfiring at Kuwait and
>Saudi Arabia as if it had any thing to do with it.
So the U.S. and Britain are responsible for the SOB's shooting off
their mouths at poor little you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! I suppose
personal responsibility is an alien concept to you? If you don't like
what the SOB's say, why don't you grow some hair and just tell them to
shut the f*** up?
> I would be very
>supportive if these bombs were helping to destroy Iraqi palaces, ground
>military posts, naval installations or in any way helping us get back our
>civilian prisoners from Iraq.
Why don't Kuwaitis get off their butts and get their prisoners back
THEMSELVES?
> But these bombs seem to only hit air defenses
>that cannot be used for attacking (or invading) but only in defense. Our
>allies have every right to protect their planes
>but then dont use Kuwaiti or
>Saudi lands to satisfy your objectives.
What you seem to be saying here is that we should bomb installations
that are a threat to YOU, but leave those alone that are only a threat
to US -- or at least disassociate ourselves from you so that the other
Arabs won't get mad at you.
Don't like American and British tactics? Send us home. Call up Bayan
Palace right now and say that you don't want any more Americans or
Brits hanging around giving poor little Saddam a hard time and making
you look bad.
> For God sake, the Kuwaiti/Saudi
>governments are probably paying for this too because they have to.
They don't have to. They can face Saddam all by themselves if they
want. As far as I'm concerned, I'd just as soon we bought our oil
from Iraq as from Kuwait or Saudi.
>And look how it backfired and as expected. Even Egypt and Islamic
>Organization condemned the attack. If they want to attack something, let
>them attack the ground forces, airplanes (not air defence installations), or
>bomb the palaces of Saddam and his corrupt regime.
Since you're so well attuned to other people's opinions, you should
understand that bombing inactive ground forces, non-hostile equipment,
or (my God) palaces is not justified in the minds of civilized people.
We still try to draw an imaginary line between military combatants
and everything else. The former are fair game, the latter are
hands-off.
>Anyhows, this is a summary of my view on this matter and let us start the
>debate.
Summary: ROTFL.
Diggler
your land to bomb another Islamic nation ?
Do you feel proud when Muslim blood is being spilt ?
I just hope God punishes your pathetic and weak minded nation (and that
includes Saudi Arabia too)
Keep in touch, won't you ?
Kuwaitis = Hypocrites, cowards etc....
Saudi = see above......
Trivelli <had...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FxNk6.2$xs4...@news.dircon.co.uk...
The Aggressor
We here in Kuwait live approximately 75 KM's from the Arab world's most
rutheless dictatorship yet, and the stink of it is, we have to endure
whatever the Iraqi regime brings upon itself. For example, whenever there's
a slight hint of an air raid, a re-enforcement of the embargo, a VIP
visiting the region, hairs on the backs of dogs necks, etc...our military
goes to full alert in a heartbeat, and stays that way for days...all that,
just to provide ourselves with some sense of security, albeit a false one to
an extent: No one's gonna believe a couple of brigades are gonna stop
500'000 men crossing the border!
If ever there was a bombing, reports of a revolt, a skirmish on the
Northern Iraqi border..you just name it...everyone, not just the military
apparatus, go to the information mediums (TV's, Internet, Radio, etc..) and
grab as much info as he/she can to view and assess the severity of the
situation. Whenever there's a bomb threat anywhere in Kuwait people would
either head back home or don't leave home for the night altogether. The
children are exposed constantly to 'security measures' everywhere in Kuwait.
Now, my question is this: "Till when??"
If the latest bombing in Iraq was a reminder of promises long past, then
the present should be the precursor to a new school of thougth. We all
remember the ramblimgs of our leaders about removing Saddam and installing a
more 'friendlier' regime, one that would forsee the renovation of Iraq and
it's integration into 'the world community'. Ten years later, Saddam is
still very much in power, his miltary apparatus is apparently still
effective, and could go on the offensive within a matter of days, and the
Iraqi people are still enduring pain, poverty and threats. But what's the
alternative? Qusay? Uday? An islamic revolution that would invite Iranian
intervention, and ultimately an Iranian threat, instead of an Iraqi one?
The argument is not condemning or subscribing to the bombing of Iraq.
Rather, it is a question of what is the alternative? On one hand, we have
the pressure of the west, on the other, we have the unclear threat from the
north. And to add insult to injury, we have the greed & influence eminating
from the south to worry about as well!!
Now, coming back to the latest bombing: What was targeted? Radar
installations that were set up-The Washington Post says 'with Chinese
technical assistance'- explicitly to provide the Iraq military establishment
with detailed information about the Allied air movements south of the 'No
Fly' zone. In the course of the attack, civilian casualties were portrayed
on Iraqi TV 24-hours a day, with commentary of condemnation to the US, UK,
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.Bahrain. The UAE and Oman were never mentioned,
although they had a part in it too: Bahrain is home to the US Navy's fifth
fleet, and the UK's Tornado fighter/bomber squadron, Oman, incidentally,
hosts the US Airforce's Air-refueling wing and logistic support, while the
UAE is home to the US tanker fleet as well, as well as another squardon of
UK fighters and a variety of western military arms, and also bases a few
thousand US marines as well. But naturally, Kuwait and Saudi are singled out
because A) We're Kuwait, B) They're Saudi., C) We slapped Saddam's face with
our bundles of money, and humiliated him in front of the world.
Keeping in mind all this military presence looking down explicitly on
Iraq, with the intent of keeping it at bay as well as enforcing the UN
Resolutions of 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1994, i present you with this question:
If the Iraqi regime was so serious about renovation and resistance, why
would it expunge it's scarce resources on military equipment that it knows
for a fact will definately be targeted and destroyed if exposed? Would it
not be wiser to redirect that wealth to improve living standards, rebuilding
the infrastructure and re-educating the populous? At the very least, it
would reduce the mortality rate!!
Are we fed up? Yes. Are we feeling sorry for the Iraqis? We've always
been. Do we attempt to help them? I'll let history speak for itself. Do we
have the capability to revoke our current stance? Not unless we find
unquestionable proof that Iraq shall pose absolutely no threat to us or our
surroundings anymore. Nevertheless, we spend millions on military
re-equipment and readiness, millions on the Allied presence in the region,
and millions more on treaties and pacts that would otherwise be as fruitful
as buying your dog a bicycle!
What about the other side of the story? We have become a nation of
snobs, whores, bastards and greedy child-molesters to most people in the
Arab world, the same people whom we aided when their countries were still
in the dark ages of the post-Nationalist era of the 1970's and 1980's....or
better still, people who had no country at all! Our MP's are attacked and
harrassed on Satellite TV by emotionally-moved call-in Arab simpletons who
have been 'flirted with' by Saddam's speeches of liberating Jerusalem, and
ridding the world of the 'Great Satan"...words and promises that are over 30
years old!! We are accused of complying to our American 'masters' wishes by
having them conduct attack sorties from our bases, while at the same time,
we are privately praised and thanked for the relief funds we provide to
these accusers, at the expense of our own economy.
I leave you with one more question: If we really wanted the destruction
of Iraq, being the greedy Kuwaitis we are accused to be, would we risk our
economic future and our livelihood by opposing a regional power that has the
fourth largest army in the world, AND holds 30% of the world's Oil reserves
under it's belly? After all, business is business, and we 'are' the Jews of
the Gulf, are we not?
The Aggressor
PF
wrote:
>So why does your "compassionate" government allow these hypocrites to use
>your land to bomb another Islamic nation ?
You mean, "Another Islamic nation whose soldiers raped, murdered, and
decimated the Kuwaiti nation and did their best to steal everything
they could find."
>Do you feel proud when Muslim blood is being spilt ?
Don't be a donkey. Put the blame where it belongs. Kuwait didn't
bomb Iraq. Kuwait _should_have_ bombed Iraq, but Kuwait didn't.
>I just hope God punishes your pathetic and weak minded nation (and that
>includes Saudi Arabia too)
God has already punished you. Look at how he has crippled your mind.
PF
<theagg...@hotmail.com> wrote::
Very thoughtful post. Thank you.
[...]
> The argument is not condemning or subscribing to the bombing of Iraq.
>Rather, it is a question of what is the alternative?
Yes, that is the question. Most critics of the bombing seem to feel
that it happened in a vacuum and that the Allies chose from
comfortable options. The fact that Saddam is still a threat and has
demonstrated his willingness to tread on anyone and anything that gets
in his way seems to be quickly forgotten by too many people. If the
Allies could just politely ask Saddam not to target their planes and
he could politely comply, none of this would be necessary -- as it
wouldn't be necessary if he could refrain from targeting Kuwait, the
Kurds, Israel....
[...]
> Now, coming back to the latest bombing: What was targeted? Radar
>installations that were set up-The Washington Post says 'with Chinese
>technical assistance'- explicitly to provide the Iraq military establishment
>with detailed information about the Allied air movements south of the 'No
>Fly' zone. In the course of the attack, civilian casualties were portrayed
>on Iraqi TV 24-hours a day, with commentary of condemnation to the US, UK,
>Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.Bahrain. The UAE and Oman were never mentioned,
>although they had a part in it too: Bahrain is home to the US Navy's fifth
>fleet, and the UK's Tornado fighter/bomber squadron, Oman, incidentally,
>hosts the US Airforce's Air-refueling wing and logistic support, while the
>UAE is home to the US tanker fleet as well, as well as another squardon of
>UK fighters and a variety of western military arms, and also bases a few
>thousand US marines as well. But naturally, Kuwait and Saudi are singled out
>because A) We're Kuwait, B) They're Saudi., C) We slapped Saddam's face with
>our bundles of money, and humiliated him in front of the world.
And because the support provided by Kuwait and Saudi poses the most
significant hindrance to the aims of the Iraq-Chinese alliance. Let
him get his military strength back and the Chinese will have a
foothold in the Gulf from which they can easily and forcefully
influence Middle East affairs. That's worth thinking about.
[...]
> I leave you with one more question: If we really wanted the destruction
>of Iraq, being the greedy Kuwaitis we are accused to be, would we risk our
>economic future and our livelihood by opposing a regional power that has the
>fourth largest army in the world, AND holds 30% of the world's Oil reserves
>under it's belly? After all, business is business, and we 'are' the Jews of
>the Gulf, are we not?
The facts you present and the issues you raise are inconvenient for
the quick-and-dirty slogan-shouters and rabble-rousers. Again, thank
you.
N.N.
"PF" <petya_...@bulgaria.com> wrote in message
news:3a95fda...@east.usenetserver.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:36:38 -0000, "Diggler" <Digg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So why does your "compassionate" government allow these hypocrites to use
> >your land to bomb another Islamic nation ?
>
> You mean, "Another Islamic nation whose soldiers raped, murdered, and
> decimated the Kuwaiti nation and did their best to steal everything
> they could find."
Since when is Iraq an "Islamic nation"? You two must be using some broad
definition I'm unfamiliar with.
PF
Yes, we are. Any country or group that tries to hide its true agenda
behind Islam becomes, for propaganda purposes, an "Islamic nation".
It's kind of like when the U.S. calls itself a "democratic nation".
:-)
The Aggressor
professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
falseness.) like begging for medical supplies and emergency funds for the
populous, and later diverting that aid to the military and the government
officials. The Allies said they will 'contain' the Iraqi regime after the
war, and that's exactly what they're doing.
A compassionat act, or responsibility for that matter, on behalf of any
government, is not the portrayal of civlians injured in a bombing raid, but
the complete removal of these civilian elements from any military
installations altogether! In Kuwait, as in any other country i've been to,
it is forbidden even to approach a military installation, much less live
near it. Boubyan Island, once a favorite recreational area, is now
off-limits to anyone but the military for the 'protection' of the civilian
population.
In contrast, however, back in 1990 civilian Westerners were removed to Iraqi
presidential palaces and military installations as 'guests' of the Iraqi
people...or have we forgotten that? In addition, the 'Al Amiriyah' shelter
remains to be the mightiest witness to the Iraqi regime's carelessness
towards it's people. True, innocent civilians were killed, but also true was
the fact that a 'bomb shelter' with a 'microwave antenna arrays' looks
suspicious to anyone, even to the untrained eye!
Do you still want to discuss the ethical implications of hypocricy? Just
look at the Iraqi regime's track record during and after the Kuwaiti war;
For one thing, they were prepared to accept a Soviet solution, and NOT an
Arab one, like they've always asked for. Why? Because the Arab solution was
based on what was right, not what was convenient to them.
More hypocricy? Iraq has claimed it does not hold any Iranian POW's after
their war with them. What happened after the invasion? Hundreds and hundreds
of bewildered Iranian POW's cross the border back to their country from the
Iraqi prisons...those of them that lived, at least.
People, it's only been ten years. Have we forgotten what actually sparked
this status quo in the first place? The mere 'fact' that Iraq invaded and
occupied Kuwait back in 1990 leaves little to be argued about or discussed.
It was a blatant and naked act of pure aggression, total and inconsiquential
annihilation of everything Kuwaiti, even the automobile license plates!!!
And now we're the ones accused of committing genocide? by allowing foreign
presence on our soil, and allowing it to launch offensive measures, we are
merely-and rightly-protecting ourselves, nothing more, and nothing less
would be expected from our government either.
The Kuwaitis feel for the Iraqis. They are, after all, our cousins, and we
don't need anyone to remind us of our responsibilities towards arab
'friends' or neighbours, much less blood relatives! Neither the Western
countries, nor the naysayers would change that, come hell or high water.
It's our responsibility as Arabs, neighbours and, above all, as muslims.
Everyone in Kuwait feels for the Iraqis, and we do what we can to assist
them. But when the Allies attack military installations like Radar and
Missile sites, only to find later on that they were placed in civilian
areas, or even worse, were surrounded by civilians, and were injured because
of the attacks, only makes avoiding casualties or war virtually impossible!
The Aggressor
P.S.: For more examples of hypocricy, please tune your satellite dish to
ArabSat, where you'll receive the Iraqi Satellite TV channel.
Abdalla Alothman
PF wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:48:56 -0000, "N.N." <ni...@nite.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, we are. Any country or group that tries to hide its true agenda
> behind Islam becomes, for propaganda purposes, an "Islamic nation".
An Islamic nation is built on a set of principles. An example would
be the Khalifa of the Muslims. That's a person whom the Muslims pledge
their allegiance to. The Khalifa is first selected through a previous
khalifa, or he is selected by the people or a counsel. Then, the rule
of the khilaafa starts where the Khalifa's government would be a
centralized government which rules the Islamic nation (the first
successful federal government was the Islamic rule, by the way).
In Iraq's case, no Muslim country has pledged to Saddam. And Saddam's
rule does not extend to other Muslim countries. Moreover, Saddam's
government is not a centralized government.
And finally, we would like to make it clear that Saddam and his regime
are Ba'athists. We like to notify our ignorant visitors that no Ba'athist
can be a Ba'athist and a Muslim at the same time, just like it is absurd
to imagine a Hindu who is a Hindu and a monotheist at the same time.
In an Islamic nation, no citizen is charged annually for his or her
income as it is done nowadays. And no citizen needs a passport to
visit another region. And no citizen is thrown in jail for being unable
to pay his or her debts. In an Islamic nation, people are not charged
for water, because water is not something which the people own. Foreigners
are not taxed for entering the Muslim lands, because the earth belongs
to its Creator. Furthermore, in an Islamic nation, the ruler is God, not
an idolized human being.
The Islamic nation does not only offer its citizens freedom and
liberties, but it also grants them dignity. None of the free nations
of today (including America) grant dignity to its citizens. And
insha-Allah, if requested, we can prove that with ease.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman.