- 07 Jun 2003 02:17
#207728
Yeah they are actually different in the dictionary, imperialism seems to include expansionism and empire does not. Doesn't really make sense, since imperialism should just be a country which builds an empire.
Of course it doesn't prove anything, but its strong evidence that sanctions weren't as bad as they were portrayed as being. I didn't say this action was evil, only deceptive.
True, but Saddam could have easily ordered the doctors to go out to the countryside and find babies really killed by the sanctions, if there were 500,000 of them.
He probably put some in the military and his palaces, but I think he was withholding from his people the food and medicine he received from the oil-for-food program. This would be useful to him, since the more of his people he killed, the greater the outcry against sanctions, and if they were lifted it would increase his power.
I read a UNICEF report which said it was $400 on average in the south, and $700 in the north.
They were given mostly worthless desert by the UN, that is why they took more. Still, the UN established them, so they have a right to exist.
It kept the apartheid in place, but it wasn't apartheid in itself. If you don't have apartheid to begin with, the barring of Muslim-Jewish marraiges does not make apartheid.
The Arabs were plainly the aggressors. Syria had been shelling Israeli farms and villages for two years before the war from the Golan Heights.
Nasser said before the war,
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." Then, "...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."
Arabs then launched increasing numbers of terrorist attacks against israel. The Syrian defense minister said right after all the troops were massed along the Golan Heights,
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
Egypt then created a blockade that prevented Israel from getting oil from Iran or getting anything from Asia.
After Jordan joined up with Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, Nasser said,
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."
250,000 Arab troops surrounded Israel.
Now how can you say Nasser was not serious about an attack?
I don't know why I bother to respond to this but...
You could more accurately draw comparisons between Sauron and the radical Islamists. Sauron's Mordor was a dictatorship more similar to Arab states than the US's republic. It also was a huge threat that was constantly fighting with Gondor, a nation with a relatively small population, while Mordor had infinite population to draw on by recruiting in the south. This is like all the large Arab countries ganging up on Israel.
But don´t forget empire and imperialism mean diferent things. Look at a dictionary and we can clarify this topic better.
Yeah they are actually different in the dictionary, imperialism seems to include expansionism and empire does not. Doesn't really make sense, since imperialism should just be a country which builds an empire.
Well, this don´t proves nothing, except the fact that Saddam used its dead babies for propaganda purposes (which, btw, isn´t evil in itself, I would have done the same thing if it was useful to influenec the world opinion in order to lift the sanctions).
Of course it doesn't prove anything, but its strong evidence that sanctions weren't as bad as they were portrayed as being. I didn't say this action was evil, only deceptive.
But the big truth here is that most of those deaths happened in impoverished areas. And the embargo made those areas even poorer, so it increased mortality.
True, but Saddam could have easily ordered the doctors to go out to the countryside and find babies really killed by the sanctions, if there were 500,000 of them.
On Saddam putting all money into the military, this seems ridiculous when we see how his army was in horrible shape in this war.
He probably put some in the military and his palaces, but I think he was withholding from his people the food and medicine he received from the oil-for-food program. This would be useful to him, since the more of his people he killed, the greater the outcry against sanctions, and if they were lifted it would increase his power.
around US$200,00 per capita to Iraqi people.
I read a UNICEF report which said it was $400 on average in the south, and $700 in the north.
Actually they grabbed more than what was given to them by UN. But you know very well that I was talking about the occupied territories.
They were given mostly worthless desert by the UN, that is why they took more. Still, the UN established them, so they have a right to exist.
It was one of the main instruments used by South Africa to keep its system. The only diference is that South Africa used racial criteria and Israel uses a religious criteria. If Israel had a civil code, then a large number of inter racial marriage would eventually turn the country in a multiethnic democracy, instead of a Jewish state.
It kept the apartheid in place, but it wasn't apartheid in itself. If you don't have apartheid to begin with, the barring of Muslim-Jewish marraiges does not make apartheid.
I know this version, but the extremely poor levels of alert of their AF (which wasn´t even flying CAP over their bases) and the fact that the Egyptian Army was caught by complete surprise suggests that Nasser wasn´t being serious about an attack. That´s thing I must study better
The Arabs were plainly the aggressors. Syria had been shelling Israeli farms and villages for two years before the war from the Golan Heights.
Nasser said before the war,
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." Then, "...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."
Arabs then launched increasing numbers of terrorist attacks against israel. The Syrian defense minister said right after all the troops were massed along the Golan Heights,
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
Egypt then created a blockade that prevented Israel from getting oil from Iran or getting anything from Asia.
After Jordan joined up with Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, Nasser said,
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."
250,000 Arab troops surrounded Israel.
Now how can you say Nasser was not serious about an attack?
On a side note... completely unrelated to this topic... Isildur, you are a dishonor to your namesake. Isildur fought against the great evil empire of Sauron, he did not support the great evil empire of Bush. Isildur only went to war when war was absolutely necessary to stop the spread of a great evil. He joined in a great alliance with elves and dwarves and all free men of middle-earth to combat Sauron's imperialistic dogma, he did not attempt to piss the hell out of his former allies. To sum it all up, Isildur was the man, and most likely had a huge cock. You are a dumb, imperialistic, warmongerer, and undoubtably have very limited equipment.
I don't know why I bother to respond to this but...
You could more accurately draw comparisons between Sauron and the radical Islamists. Sauron's Mordor was a dictatorship more similar to Arab states than the US's republic. It also was a huge threat that was constantly fighting with Gondor, a nation with a relatively small population, while Mordor had infinite population to draw on by recruiting in the south. This is like all the large Arab countries ganging up on Israel.