View Full Version : [SOLVED] Why are we at war?
Lifegazer
Mar20-03, 12:32 PM
Please justify this war.
I know that I'm in for a bit of stick here (nothing new for me), but I thought that I'd represent the thoughts of the majority of Europeans, who are dumbfounded by what's going on here. Even half of the British people are angered by this. And I'm one of them.
I know that Saddam has commited many attrocities against his own people, but so have the Chinese. So, don't use that as an excuse unless you also propose marching upon Beijing.
Where's the weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any. And why can the US have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, whilst Iraq is invaded for possibly harbouring some biological weapons?
You cannot use 'terorism' as an excuse either; for nobody has any evidence linking Iraq with terrorism.
To me, this whole thing stinks of oil and imperialistic might... mixed with paranoi of terrorism and a crumbling stock-market.
And to walk over the judgement of the United-Nations (which asked for more time to find some real evidence), is the biggest disaster to befall the whole planet. The worst political-judgement possible. The United-Nations is the last bastion of World-peace. Our last hope.
I think the US/UK have made a mistake - regardless of the outcome. Sorry to disrupt the gung-ho patriotism; but that's how I feel.
N_Quire
Mar20-03, 12:58 PM
This is a politics question, so it might get moved.
Saddam Hussein is one of the world's most brutal dictators, possibly the most brutal since Stalin and Hitler. He has had more than a decade to disarm according to UN resolutions and has chosen instead to lie and deceive.
The French stand cannot be taken seriously. The French have an appalling history of colonialism and support to dicatators. They are not on morally higher ground than the British and Americans.
If you wish to know President Bush's ideological reasons for the war and the, perhaps naive, hope that democracy will spread from Iraq to the middle east in general, you can read the writings of one of his main advisers, Paul Wolfowitz.
Some dictators can be contained, talked to, ie North Korea; some are of importance to the US, ie China and Saudi Arabia, and can/will be transformed over time. Some, such as Saddam or the Taliban, should be taken out immediately.
When this war is won, no one will regret the loss of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party.
russ_watters
Mar20-03, 01:14 PM
One thing you must remember about the US is we are no more or less selfish than anyone else. It may very well be that our primary motivation is securing an uninterrupted flow of oil. But the French motivation for opposing it is no less selfish: they have a considerable trade investment in iraq.
As you said, everyone agrees that Saddam is a terrible dictator. What separates the US is we are willing to act to correct that, where others are not.
My opinion of this follows the "moral imperative." It is in fact IMMORAL to sit by and watch another person be persecuted if you have the means to stop it.
Now how does this apply to China? We do NOT have the means to reasonably attempt to invade China so we won't. It really is that simple.
Now of course that doesn't mean we always do what is needed to be done. In Somalia, we had nothing to gain whatsoever by being there. Our only mission was saving the lives of the civilian population. But as soon as 17 soldiers died we pulled out. Did we still have the means? Certainly. Why did we leave? Cowardace on the part of our leader.
We should do as much as we can. Sometimes we don't do all we should. Often our efforts are inconsistent - they reflect the current political climate. But NONE of our failings our unique in the world. Again, the thing that sets us apart is we are willing to TRY to fix the problems in the world. And we alone have the means to fix many of these problems.
As for time to allow diplomacy to work: How long does diplomacy have to fail before you say enough is enough? 12 years? The purpose of these inspections is for SADDAM to show that he has GOTTEN RID OF these weapons that we have already cataloged. He has not. The fact that we are finding illegal weapons is evidence of non-compliance.
The US has nukes. Certainly. The US is the only country in the world to ever use them. Certainly. But the US is also a stable democracy - Iraq is not. A criminal dictatorship CANNOT be allowed to have such weapons.
I would guess these reasons all come into play:
1) With fears of fundamentalist revolutions in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Bush wants a friendly country around and a backup place to base troops in the Middle East, both for normal geopolitical reasons (oil) and in order to try and stop terrorism there.
2) The US administration wants to demonstrate its willingness to use force when defied, in the hopes that it will have to do so less in the future. Places like North Korea, etc, are likely to be less belligerent/combative after seeing the US conquer two countries in as many years.
3) The US has been all wrapped up with Iraq for years and years, and Bush sees this as the only medium-term way out without risking Saddam or one of his sons re-arming and maybe pulling another Iran-Iraq or Kuwait.
Originally posted by N_Quire
The French stand cannot be taken seriously. The French have an appalling history of colonialism and support to dicatators. They are not on morally higher ground than the British and Americans.
And saying they will support the assault if biological weapons are found/used makes them look even sillier...
Saddam Hussein did have biological and chemical weapons in huge amounts as of 1998. He showed no evidence of their destruction, and was not willing to do so.
Iraq has worked with terrorist organizations. Their relationship with Hamas is well known. (I still don't buy the Al Qaeda connection. Their only contact to Iraq are the Al Ansar guerillas).
Iraq has used chemical weapons.
Iraq has attempted direct covert acts against the United States. Iraqi secret service attempted to assassinate former president Bush.
It is a small step from these four items to sponsoring a terrorist attack with biological or chemical weapons against the US.
Given this threat, the US first acted through the UN, imposing sanctions for several years. Saddam Hussein seized the food and medicine meant for his people, sold it, and used the profits to supply his military with materiel, and his cronies with luxuries. Sanctions had no effect.
The US then made it clear that Iraq must disarm or be invaded. They did this through the UN, which agreed (with the disarming part). No cooperation at all was forthcoming. Pretend inspections were conducted and mock interviews with intimidated scientists were done. As the build up of US forces increased, there was some token cooperation, but nothing of substance. At the point when war was imminent, Iraq was still unwilling to cooperate. There was no possible additional diplomatic pressure that could be brought on Iraq. Some people wanted more
time for inspections to work, but it was never a question of time. It was a question of willingness. Without cooperation, Iraq could increase its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction even while inspections were ongoing.
Njorl
Originally posted by russ_watters
The US has nukes. Certainly. The US is the only country in the world to ever use them. Certainly. But the US is also a stable democracy - Iraq is not. A criminal dictatorship CANNOT be allowed to have such weapons.
Also, keep in mind that NATO weapons inspectors routinely investigate ALL member countries to make sure we are not developing bio/chem/nuclear weapons. That includes the US.
It's not an issue for us, because we don't:
give the inspectors runaround,
keep them stranded on the side of the road for hours before they can continue onto an unexpected inspection site,
have "minders" present when interviews are taking place,
kill dissidents or their families,
bug inspecter's hotel rooms,
kill or imprison scientists who refuse to work on weapons programs,
etc.
etc.
etc.
or most importantly: develop chemical or biological agents for weapons purposes after the Geneva Convention made it illegal under international law to do so.
Saddam has done and does do all of those things.
Saddam is a psychopath. You do not allow psychopaths to keep weapons.
A person does not need ICBMs to do catastrophic damage. Anyone who thinks that leaving a man like Saddam alone is doing enough to keep him from trying to hurt us or our allies is ignoring history.
Tom Mattson
Mar20-03, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
But the French motivation for opposing it is no less selfish: they have a considerable trade investment in iraq.
Funny, I mentioned that same fact in PF v2.0, and it was instantly pooh-poohed by the hippie--er--"progressive leftist" element.
Originally posted by N_Quire
Saddam Hussein is one of the world's most brutal dictators, possibly the most brutal since Stalin and Hitler. He has had more than a decade to disarm according to UN resolutions and has chosen instead to lie and deceive.
Sorry, but according to Blix Iraq was destructing the illegal weapons, and no mass distruction weapons were found !
Originally posted by Njorl
Saddam Hussein did have biological and chemical weapons in huge amounts as of 1998. He showed no evidence of their destruction, and was not willing to do so.
Not showing evidence does not mean that they still have the weapons.
If the weapons were still there, why didn't Blix (and his crew) find them ?
In other words, if Iraq did not proove they don't have those weapons, this does not proove that they have them !
Iraq has used chemical weapons.
Iraq has attempted direct covert acts against the United States. Iraqi secret service attempted to assassinate former president Bush.
Given this threat, the US first acted through the UN, imposing sanctions for several years. Saddam Hussein seized the food and medicine meant for his people, sold it, and used the profits to supply his military with materiel, and his cronies with luxuries. Sanctions had no effect.
Proofs please ?
... No cooperation at all was forthcoming ... Iraq was still unwilling to cooperate ...
Again, Blix said that Iraq was cooporative, so where are u getting this from ?
Blix was able to access (almost) all the places he wanted to, he made interviews with the people he wanted to, he was free to do what he wanted !
Originally posted by enigma
Also, keep in mind that NATO weapons inspectors routinely investigate ALL member countries to make sure we are not developing bio/chem/nuclear weapons. That includes the US.
It's not an issue for us, because we don't:
Sorry, but why is it that you (not you personally, but i mean all of you) assume that Iraq is able to hide weapons, and US is not ?
STAii,
You seem to perpetually be under the misconception that the inspectors were there to look for evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They were not. Their only job was to examine the evidence provided by Iraq to see if it was conclusive evidence that the previously discovered weapons had been destroyed. Hans Blix himself said that trying to find the weapons without Iraqi cooperation was a waste of time. There were no interviews with Iraqi scientists conducted without monitors or a significant probability of a listening device. Any scientist who cooperated would expect to be tortured to death.
Since Iraq refused to show evidence that weapons they had were destroyed, as they were required to do by a cease fire agreement they signed, the US is justified in assuming they have those weapons.
You want proof of the gassing, the assassination attempt and the diversion of food and medicine. I obviously can not prove this to you over a web site. The first two were both demonstrated to the UN security council to their satisfaction. This is sufficient, unless you happen to believe that the UN is a pawn of the US. That ridiculous belief has been dispelled I hope. The third, since you lived in Jordan, you could have seen for yourself. I saw it being done on the evening news here in the US.
Blix never said Iraq was cooperating. He said Iraq was making progress toward cooperation. He then gave pathetic examples of Iraq throwing the UN a bone or two. Iraq destroyed 50 missiles which were essentially useless anyway, and allowed the interview of 9 scientists in hotel rooms which were never examined for listening devices. That was the extent of Iraqi cooperation. In fact, to the end, Blix said Iraq was not in compliance of resolution 1441 at any time.
Njorl
Some of the interviews were made outside Iraq.
Not only scientists where interviewed, lot of people were interviewed too.
And UN gave Blix to interview whoever he wants, whenever he wants, where ever he wants, so must have been able to interview some people without the the Iraqi government knowing.
After all, suppose that Iraq had mass destruction weapons, and that it should be attacked, isn't this a decision that the UN should take and not the US ?
Who gave the right to US (along with UK) to decide what should happen next ?
Lifegazer
Mar20-03, 04:37 PM
I've just heard the news that 'ricin' (a poison) was found in a Paris station.
That's something else which few people seem to have considered: this very war will fire the terrorists to a frenzy; thus increasing terrorism - not decreasing it.
Though we cannot be expected to do nothing about terrorists, we should be especially careful to act in a manner that does not create more terrorists, and more terrorism. Clearly, invading a moslem country against the wishes of the UN, is not an act made with this thought in mind. It seems our actions are going to bring an abundance of terrors upon us. Ironically, yet sadly, our actions have worsened our situation.
I see no gain for anyone here, except the money-men. Terror is something which thrives upon fear. Terror wins again.
To not deal with a threat because it might encourage someone else to be threatening is something the French do.
If you discover a hornets nest very close to the front door of your house, do you not attempt to remove it because in the act of doing so you might get stung.
We have a word for people like that in America. We call them pussies.
Lifegazer
Mar20-03, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Alias
[B]To not deal with a threat because it might encourage someone else to be threatening is something the French do.
The French do lots of things. At one time, they had the mightiest armies in the world, and thought nothing of using them. Don't mock them as cowards. The French as a whole might have lots of faults, but cowardice aint one of them.
If you discover a hornets nest very close to the front door of your house, do you not attempt to remove it because in the act of doing so you might get stung.
Unfortunately, this particular hornet's nest is bigger than Iraq itself. And unless you totally destroy it in short time, you'll be stung several times over by the hornets which you do not get - the terrorists.
We have a word for people like that in America. We call them pussies.
Like I say: don't confuse wisdom with cowardice. Doing all you can to avoid war, does not make you a coward. It makes you wise.
N_Quire
Mar20-03, 07:08 PM
Zargawee,
Saddam had 12 years in which to get rid of weapons and illegal substances. He did not. The charade came to an end when the USA and its allies lost patience with him and with the United Nations, which was not prepared, until the last minute, to enforce inspections.
If Saddam had disarmed, Iraq would not have been invaded.
Why should we have any sympathy whatsoever with a leader who gases, tortures, poisons and murders his own citizens? Removing him from power is good; it is one of the best things that President Bush has done.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar20-03, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Alias
We have a word for people like that in America. We call them pussies.
Alias, whatever happened to Mauritania? but I see that you are still yourself, insult to win.
Read my signature, as it is very apropo to you!
russ_watters
Mar20-03, 07:24 PM
Sorry, but according to Blix Iraq was destructing the illegal weapons, and no mass distruction weapons were found ! So hiding and lying about weapons for 12 years, then only destroying them when they are caught red handed with them is compliance? Yikes.Not showing evidence does not mean that they still have the weapons. See above: You acknowledge they have illegal weapons. *IF* is not a relevant question. It is only a question of HOW MUCH they still have. After all, suppose that Iraq had mass destruction weapons, and that it should be attacked, isn't this a decision that the UN should take and not the US ?
Who gave the right to US (along with UK) to decide what should happen next ? The UN has proven repeatedly that they do not have the stones to take action when action is required. We go around the UN all the time. Yugoslavia comes to mind: the UN couldn't decide so we invoked NATO. Hell, even France is currently fighting a war without UN approval.
Nicool003
Mar20-03, 08:03 PM
Well I heard someone mention the french and not wanting to go to war?
They want iraqi oil fields and they have once-upon-a-tiime- secret tradings with iraq hence the reason they wont fight them! Watch the news and read the paper.
Nicool003
Mar20-03, 08:14 PM
Alias what post were you replying to?
And shouldn't that post be edited somewhat?
Without getting into or revealing a pro-war or anti-war stance, I think a majority of people agree that Hussein has and will pose a threat and that removing him from power may help distribute the wealth of Iraq to the rightful owners (the citizens and that is if the imperialist powers don't get their hands on it first). The problem is how to go about it with minimum loss of life and without further imflaming a dislike for the western powers.
In the long run, the question is not why, but how.
so our are political leaders going to distribute their wealth to us as well then? it would seem only fair.[6)]
Well, like I've been predicting...
looks like the reason which we've abandoned the "Shock and Awe" military plan is that the Pentagon is in capitulation talks with the leaders of the Republican Guard.
The regular grunts are already laying down their weapons in droves.
With luck, this will all be over very soon.
************
Now, who of those who are against this war want to make a bet against me that we won't find any illegal weapons that they've been lying about?
I wouldn't even be surprised if we found US airmen held prisoner from the first war, to be honest with you...
russ_watters
Mar21-03, 01:10 AM
In the long run, the question is not why, but how. I agree completely. Only time will tell. But....looks like the reason which we've abandoned the "Shock and Awe" military plan is that the Pentagon is in capitulation talks with the leaders of the Republican Guard. It may even be simpler than we expected. No need for a hard fight. But its early and we don't really know yet.
Originally posted by N_Quire
Why should we have any sympathy whatsoever with a leader who gases, tortures, poisons and murders his own citizens? Removing him from power is good
No sympathy at all, but it is a souvereign country, so that a foreign nation has no right to act in it. One could have said the same during the government of Ulisses Grant (et al.), who killed thousands of indians in the U.S. No exterior nation made an intervention, since it was their problem.
Dissident Dan
Mar21-03, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by N_Quire
Zargawee,
Saddam had 12 years in which to get rid of weapons and illegal substances. He did not. The charade came to an end when the USA and its allies lost patience with him and with the United Nations, which was not prepared, until the last minute, to enforce inspections.
If Saddam had disarmed, Iraq would not have been invaded.
Why should we have any sympathy whatsoever with a leader who gases, tortures, poisons and murders his own citizens? Removing him from power is good; it is one of the best things that President Bush has done.
Why do people continue to insinuate that the anti-war folks somehow sympathize with sadam?! Let's get one thing straight: nobody likes sadam. But you know what, if we started a war every time that we didn't like somebody, or even in every country that is ruled by ruthless tyrants, the Earth would lay in ruins.
Yes, Iraq has not disarmed like it was supposed to. But we have to think about the consequences of war. Why not have armed escorts for pumped-up inspections instead? It seems that people have in their heads "war against sadam", but there is more at stake than just hussein's hide.
Greg Bernhardt
Mar21-03, 02:27 AM
inspections
inspections weren't going to do anything. sure if they had three more months they might have found more, then what? saddam with magicly disarm, no! Heck, he just fired a SCUD at our troops today!!
Dissident Dan
Mar21-03, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
inspections weren't going to do anything. sure if they had three more months they might have found more, then what? saddam with magicly disarm, no!
I didn't say to just continue the kind of inspections that was going on, but to beef them up with armed escorts. They should be in greater numbers. There would be progress. Do you think that all the weapons will just disappear after war?
Heck, he just fired a SCUD at our troops today!!
Well, I think that anybody would fire a missile after being under attack by missiles.
You can't disarm the world by war...because there will be no world left. Dozens of, if not over a hundred, countries have missiles. Should we go to war with India and Pakistan for wanting to sell missiles to 3rd-world countries?
Greg Bernhardt
Mar21-03, 02:53 AM
Dozens of, if not over a hundred, countries have missiles.
Sure, but not Chemical/Bio SCUDS. My point is that they lied about having SCUDS and now they use them against us.
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I didn't say to just continue the kind of inspections that was going on, but to beef them up with armed escorts. They should be in greater numbers. There would be progress. Do you think that all the weapons will just disappear after war?
Do you think that all the weapons would just stay gone after the massive inspections are done with? Or would you rather we have a perpetual Easter Egg hunt for weapons which they shouldn't have and say they don't have, but are actually just hiding from us?
They said they didn't have any missiles which went beyond the range limits. They didn't say they had them and destroyed them- they said they never had them. That was until we found them.
They said they were done developing chem/bio weapons after the first war. Inspectors went through and destroyed what they could find. Iraq destroyed quite a bit without UN inspectors present (going against direct mandates) so that they could cover up exactly how much was gotten rid of. In 1996, 5 years later, the defection of Saddam's son-in-law provided intel that much still remained and was in operation. Sure enough, the intel proved true. Is that the sign of a government which is being sincere? Is the fact that the son-in-law was tortured and killed when he returned to Iraq the sign of a government which is being sincere?
Originally posted by russ_watters
The UN has proven repeatedly that they do not have the stones to take action when action is required.
I didn't ask for UN to take the action , only take the decision !
UN represents the world, if UN is not with you, then the world is not with you, and you don't have the right to do something in the globe without the permission of the world.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar21-03, 09:14 AM
First, he is allowed to have scuds, same as the "al samoud's" that he had, just that they exceeded the range limitation when tested.
That is because they didn't want him having a missile that could reach Israel, other then that, he is allowed to have them, limited in range.
As for the CW and BIOW, sold to him by the US, Europe, and GB.
Heck Rumsfeld was in on the selling, during Bush's Dads reign, precursive gases were sold to him, Saddam, when he was the 'Friend' of America, during the Iran-Iraq conflict.
As for him having Gassed the Kurds, you do know of the LEGISLATION that America passed, (Financing) so that the dissidents in Iraq would be incited to rebel against him.
It is an old bullies trick, pushing one person, into another, in order to try to get them to fight, hence, some of the responcibility, for what resulted from that, is in the hands of them that pushed!
You do know that presently Bush is tendering the contracts to rebuild, to five "Security Cleared" American companies, 900 Million dollars worth. and that is just the beginning, the "Mother" contract.
Funny, as I had heard that this was to "Liberate" Iraq, "Democracy", but here we have the American President deciding just how the Iraqi's money is going to be spent, and to whom it is going to go.
Hummm, first a public asassination, world stage no less, then 'pickpocketing' the people that he is claiming to be Liberating, making them pay for the damage, and destruction, that the US is inflicting upon innocent people.......all because Bush has NO patience!
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I've just heard the news that 'ricin' (a poison) was found in a Paris station.
That's something else which few people seem to have considered: this very war will fire the terrorists to a frenzy; thus increasing terrorism - not decreasing it.
Though we cannot be expected to do nothing about terrorists, we should be especially careful to act in a manner that does not create more terrorists, and more terrorism. Clearly, invading a moslem country against the wishes of the UN, is not an act made with this thought in mind. It seems our actions are going to bring an abundance of terrors upon us. Ironically, yet sadly, our actions have worsened our situation.
I see no gain for anyone here, except the money-men. Terror is something which thrives upon fear. Terror wins again.
Actually this is one of the most important reasons to go to war.
The principle grievence Al Qaeda has expressed has been the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, not Iraqi sanctions, not support for Israel. It has been quite clear that Saddam Hussein intends to conquer the oil producing regions of the middle east - Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The US has been guaranteeing Saudi independence with the presence of these troops. The removal of Saddam Hussein will allow the removal of these troops, and therefore mollify fundamentalist Muslim discontent. In the short run, I have no illusions about it. There will be an increase in terrorist activity. In the long run, provided we do leave Iraq, it will be lesser.
Njorl
Originally posted by Lifegazer
[B]I've just heard the news that 'ricin' (a poison) was found in a Paris station.
That's something else which few people seem to have considered: this very war will fire the terrorists to a frenzy; thus increasing terrorism - not decreasing it.
Isn't it funny that after vehemently protesting the use of force against Iraq, it is France that ends up being the target of this particular chemical warfare plot?
So it seems that the intent to not take action against dictators breeds terrorist plots. Hmm...
Clearly, invading a moslem country against the wishes of the UN, is not an act made with this thought in mind.
So, by your logic, invading a moslem country with the UN's approval is perfectly acceptable. Sounds kind of boneheaded doesn't it?
Though we cannot be expected to do nothing about terrorists, we should be especially careful to act in a manner that does not create more terrorists, and more terrorism. ... It seems our actions are going to bring an abundance of terrors upon us. Ironically, yet sadly, our actions have worsened our situation.
Apparently in France, terror won even after the French tried to be "especially careful".
When someone punches you in the nose, do you not fight back because you might make that person angry? Should the wildabeast not attempt to gore the attacking lion in fear that the lion might get angry?. Will laying down during an attack make the lions not want to kill the wildabeast? What planet are you from where this evolutionary process produces any kind of worthwhile life form.
Make no mistake, leaving terrorists alone is not going to make them not want to kill you.
I know what you are thinking, "The people of Iraq aren't terrorists!!!!! They didn't perpetrate 9-11!!!! American imperialists!!!!"
Firstly, the war in Iraq is not against the Iraqi people and the coalition will do everything possible to depose Sadams regime with as few civilian casualties as possible. Even the Iraqi military is given every opportunity possible to surrender and avoid death.
Secondly, terrorists and brutal tyrannical dictators have the same effect on free people. Death, torture, and the destruction of the quality of life of free people. Terrorists and butal dictators are the same thing, and should be dealt with in the same way.
This is one of those situations where you have only two choices. Kill or be killed.
If you like, you can hide and wait for the terrorists to find you and kill you. I prefer to fight for my life. If you change your mind, I'll see you on the battlefield. Don't forget to bring your balls.
Zargawee
Mar21-03, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by N_Quire
Zargawee,
Saddam had 12 years in which to get rid of weapons and illegal substances. He did not. The charade came to an end when the USA and its allies lost patience with him and with the United Nations, which was not prepared, until the last minute, to enforce inspections.
If Saddam had disarmed, Iraq would not have been invaded.
Why should we have any sympathy whatsoever with a leader who gases, tortures, poisons and murders his own citizens? Removing him from power is good; it is one of the best things that President Bush has done.
I Wonder When I Posted Here ... But anyway .
Whether Saddam has WMD's Or Not , There Was Still Time To Search For Them ...
But your president is a person who looks for war when it can be started , he fought with afghanistan , and now iraq ... who's next ?
Another thing , USA has a economic problem , How can USA rebuild Iraq by giving it 20 million Dollars just after saddam removal ?
Also Saddam is not the first leader to kill his poeple , Bosh also kills his poeple , by sending them to wars they have nothing to do with it .
[i]Al-Somoud[/u] 2 Missles ( A kind of Scud missles ) , were being destroyed by UN Inspectors , this means that Iraq is cooperating , this means that Iraq is doing the right thing .
N_Quire
Mar21-03, 11:14 AM
Zargawee,
Perhaps more time should have been given to Saddam to disarm. Then, we might have had France and Germany with us. However, the probability was too great that Saddam would abuse that extra time by engaging in even more trickery.
The American troops are not conscripts, they chose to join the armed forces. Some might have done so because they could not get other work but the fact remains, they are in the military by choice. Part of being in the armed forces can involve being sent to war: this is understood by those that join.
Let us hope that this war will be brief. By my guess, more than 90 percent of the Iraqi people hate Saddam Hussein and the allied forces will soon be seen as liberators, just as they were in Kuwait.
Lifegazer
Mar21-03, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Alias
If you change your mind, I'll see you on the battlefield. Don't forget to bring your balls.
What battlefield? Sat behind your computer 10,000 miles from Iraq?
Zargawee
Mar21-03, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by N_Quire
Zargawee,
Perhaps more time should have been given to Saddam to disarm. Then, we might have had France and Germany with us. However, the probability was too great that Saddam would abuse that extra time by engaging in even more trickery.
The American troops are not conscripts, they chose to join the armed forces. Some might have done so because they could not get other work but the fact remains, they are in the military by choice. Part of being in the armed forces can involve being sent to war: this is understood by those that join.
Let us hope that this war will be brief. By my guess, more than 90 percent of the Iraqi people hate Saddam Hussein and the allied forces will soon be seen as liberators, just as they were in Kuwait.
N_Quire ,
But 100% Of Iraqi Poeple Hate America ...
anyway, If UN Insectors keep Looking For Weapons for Ever ,This Means That He will not be able to use them , becuase if he did , this means he has ... So Un Inspectors exsistance in Iraq was the first deffence to avoid using WMD's.
Greg Bernhardt
Mar21-03, 11:49 AM
But 100% Of Iraqi Poeple Hate America ...
How in the world can you make a statement like this? Zarg, I'm beginning to think your anti-american.
When we finish liberating Iraqi and the people end up being grateful, you better apologize in this topic. There are tons of reports that the afgans treat our troops over there like rock stars. Sure there will be some that still hate our guts, but once the Iraqi people taste freedom there is no going back. Are you against freedom Zarg?
N_Quire
Mar21-03, 12:03 PM
Zargawee,
Many of those Iraqis you mention are Kurds and they are longing to be liberated by America and its allies. So the figure is hardly 100 percent, rock solid hatred of America. Also, once Iraq is liberated, we will see expressions of gratitude from Iraqis to the United States.
The United States and Britain will do quickly what the United Nations talked of doing but never did. Liberation of Iraq from brutality and dictatorship is a worthy aim and one we should support.
Zargawee
Mar21-03, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
How in the world can you make a statement like this? Zarg, I'm beginning to think your anti-american.
When we finish liberating Iraqi and the people end up being grateful, you better apologize in this topic. There are tons of reports that the afgans treat our troops over there like rock stars. Sure there will be some that still hate our guts, but once the Iraqi people taste freedom there is no going back. Are you against freedom Zarg?
I'm Not Anti-American , I Have Nothing Against America But It's Supportance To Israel, But That Doesn't Make Me Anti-American.
And Surely I'm Not Against Freedom , I Really Support Freedom , But Freedom is deffirent for eveyone , everyone sees it from his angle.
Most Of Iraqi Poeple are Very fanatic To The Palestinian Side , Because They Know they are very oppressed by The Israeli forces ( Which is supported by the US government ) .
This means that They Will Not Accept The US Exsistnance In Their Home .
russ_watters
Mar21-03, 12:19 PM
I didn't ask for UN to take the action , only take the decision !
UN represents the world, if UN is not with you, then the world is not with you, and you don't have the right to do something in the globe without the permission of the world. So "I pledge alegience to the flag.... of the UN?" No, sorry it doesn't work that way. You may WANT it to work that way, but wishing things to be so has never made them so. The UN has prove on countless occasions that it is IMPOTENT to deal with real problems. Thats why we circumvented the UN when we liberated Yugoslavia. In fact, the UN only exists because of the US. *WE* are in charge. Like it or not. The fact that we created the UN and allow it to oppose us is a demonstration of our excessive benevolence.
Yes, Iraq has not disarmed like it was supposed to. But we have to think about the consequences of war. Why not have armed escorts for pumped-up inspections instead? It seems that people have in their heads "war against sadam", but there is more at stake than just hussein's hide. So lay out a full cause and effect scenario of going to war and not going to war. Add up the body counts and the other positives and negatives and see what you get. People who make this case base their opinion on rediculous assumptions of the severity of the war.
Whether Saddam has WMD's Or Not , There Was Still Time To Search For Them ... There is always time. The question is how much time are you willing to waste on failure? I guess Bush decided 12 years was enough failure.
But your president is a person who looks for war when it can be started , he fought with afghanistan Clearly you have forgotten why we went to Afghanistan. If there is a better reason for war, I haven't heard it. And it CANNOT be argued that the end result of that conflict was negative. We took down a regime that was almost unanamously considered to be just a bunch of criminals (ironically not unlike Iraq).But 100% Of Iraqi Poeple Hate America ... Heh. We'll see. In two days when the Marine Corps gets to Bagdhad, people will be dancing in the streets (just like in Afghanistan) and trading their children for American flags.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
What battlefield? Sat behind your computer 10,000 miles from Iraq?
Is that all you've got? I completely trashed your argument, yet, instead of conceeding defeat like any decent scientist, your position struggles from beyond the grave with some pathetic attempt at retaliation much like a child that can't think of anything to say except, "Well, you're a big dummie!" Loose like a man. Good greif!!
Also for your information, I served in the US Army for over 5 years during the first Gulf war. While I spent much of my time in South Korea, and was not assigned to duty in the Gulf, I gladly voluteered my service in that theater. I would gladly do it again if they would let me.
And all this crap about how we should have given the inspectors more time is a cowards way out and not an effective means by which to solve the problem. The UN is a paper tiger and doesn't have the balls to enforce its mandates. It's much like you in that it believes that the way to deal with dictators and terrorists is negotiation.
The wildabeast will loose its life everytime it tries to "negotiate" with the lion.
Maybe your motives are the same as many of the anti-war protestors. You simply don't like George Bush. That's fine. If that's your motivation, use your spine, stand up straight and give us a sound argument about why Bush is the Devil. Don't obfuscate the discussion by arguing that all humans are rational and can be dealt with using reason.
When you realize that many people are irrational, and that your idea of a socialist utopia will never work, then you can join the rest of the real world and help make it a better place.
Don't misunderstand, youthful idealism is a wonderful thing, unfortunately it seems many people have to be slapped in the face by the harsh realities of the imperfect world we live in, before they take a more practical approach. Hopefully, your face will be slapped by logical prose and not VX gas. I'm doing everything I can to see that your slap comes from the former, and not the latter.
(The bile and condescending tone of this post was provided free of charge.[;)])
russ_watters
Mar21-03, 02:49 PM
[salutes Alias] (go Navy, beat Army)
Lifegazer
Mar21-03, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Alias
Is that all you've got? I completely trashed your argument, yet, instead of conceeding defeat like any decent scientist, your position struggles from beyond the grave with some pathetic attempt at retaliation much like a child that can't think of anything to say except, "Well, you're a big dummie!" Loose like a man. Good greif!!
No squire. I was laughing at the battlecry of a soldier stationed in Texas. I was also mocking your "let's kick their butt" attitude.
I didn't respond further because I understand your mindset, and realise that I'd be wasting my time. Forget it.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
No squire. I was laughing at the battlecry of a soldier stationed in Texas. I was also mocking your "let's kick their butt" attitude.
You are right. I suppose that was a bit of cheerleading from the sidelines.
Or could this forum be considered a "battlefield" of ideas. Hmmm.
Oh, and "mocking" is entirely expected from the left as this seems to be the method to fall back on when you don't have a viable solution. So mock on brother, it bolsters my point.
I didn't respond further because I understand your mindset, and realise that I'd be wasting my time. Forget it.
Hey wait a minute. What happened to your humanitarian urges? I thought you really cared about your fellow human beings?!?!? By all means, help me understand the errors of my "mindset".
well i imagine that he would do so if he felt you would give his efforts respect.
Dissident Dan
Mar21-03, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
Sure, but not Chemical/Bio SCUDS. My point is that they lied about having SCUDS and now they use them against us.
We are invading the country. The USA would do the same thing.
Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]
Yes, Iraq has not disarmed like it was supposed to. But we have to think about the consequences of war. Why not have armed escorts for pumped-up inspections instead? It seems that people have in their heads "war against sadam", but there is more at stake than just hussein's hide.
So lay out a full cause and effect scenario of going to war and not going to war. Add up the body counts and the other positives and negatives and see what you get. People who make this case base their opinion on rediculous assumptions of the severity of the war.
I briefly explained my ideas in another thread. I don't know how you can possibly expect me to lay out exact body counts. You have increased terrorists action through more terrorists and an increase in the fervency of current terrorists. You have the grave possibility of the spread of war through pre-emptive doctrine and the tensity of relations that will result.
Originally posted by Alias
[B]
And all this crap about how we should have given the inspectors more time is a cowards way out and not an effective means by which to solve the problem. The UN is a paper tiger and doesn't have the balls to enforce its mandates. It's much like you in that it believes that the way to deal with dictators and terrorists is negotiation.
You reveal a lot about your mindset. It seems that you are concerned with being a "manly man". Let's not call people cowards, but have rational debate.
The wildabeast will loose its life everytime it tries to "negotiate" with the lion.
A perfect example of why I am sick of analogies. People just find some relationship and magically extend it to another situation.
When you realize that many people are irrational, and that your idea of a socialist utopia will never work, then you can join the rest of the real world and help make it a better place.
You reveal a lot about your assumptions. I haven't seen lifegazer post any idea of a socialist utopia, and I doubt that he has. It would be best to stop stereotyping people into easily-digestible explanations.
Don't misunderstand, youthful idealism is a wonderful thing, unfortunately it seems many people have to be slapped in the face by the harsh realities of the imperfect world we live in, before they take a more practical approach. Hopefully, your face will be slapped by logical prose and not VX gas. I'm doing everything I can to see that your slap comes from the former, and not the latter.
Is this another reference to Iraq being behind terrorist attacks? This war will not prevent terrorism, only increase it.
Originally posted by kyleb
well i imagine that he would do so if he felt you would give his efforts respect.
I give respect where respect is due.
If you mean I have to be polite and say, "Well, I guess your argument may have some merit" when in fact it is arguments like his that allow dictators and tyrants to butcher innocents, then I say "thicken your skin" because not only will I not bough to the ridiculous and dangerous, but I will emphasize my arguments with flammable rhetoric in hopes that it will quiet those with ridiculous and dangerous opinions. It's a right we regularly exercise in the US. We call it "free speech".
Of course, I understand that the forum moderators can shut me down any time they want as that is their right. That is also why I have the utmost respect for the moderators supreme intelligence and good looks.[;)]
russ_watters
Mar21-03, 09:40 PM
I briefly explained my ideas in another thread. I don't know how you can possibly expect me to lay out exact body counts. What? How can you expect to use the deaths of civilians as a reason not to go to war when you won't even speculate on how many are going to die? 'Too many' is not an answer. Clearly no one can give EXACT body counts, but you must have an order of magnitude type of idea here, don't you? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Unless you can speculate on that and then decide how many is too many, you can't have a reasoned opinion - you haven't done the reasoning.
Here's mine: In this conflict we will probably kill on the order of 1,000 civilians if it goes according to plan. If there is extremely heavy resistance in Baghdad (unlikely) it could be 10,000. Even 10,000 is justifiable (indeed quite reasonable) considering people estimate 100,000 (some say 500,000) have died since the 1991 as a direct result of Saddam's tyranny.
If I thought we were going to kill 100,000 civilans, I would not be in favor of this war. Given the extrordinary lengths the US goes to to avoid civilian casualties, I don't see this as being reasonable.
Greg Bernhardt
Mar22-03, 02:17 AM
go here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html
then go down to the video section and click on the "Coalition troops liberate Iraqis in Safwan, southern Iraq (March 21)" video. Play it and tell me that Iraqi isn't happy they are being liberated!!!
• Villagers in Safwan in southern Iraq were seen shaking hands Friday with coalition soldiers and saying "thank you." A coalition soldier tore down a picture of Saddam Hussein, and one villager pounded it with his shoe.
schwarzchildradius
Mar22-03, 04:57 AM
*We attacked at will, without a significant international coalition.
*We used effective tactics from world war II; massive air strikes with the mother of all bombs coupled with the mother of all panzer columns.
*We destroyed most of the government infrastructure.
*We attacked without a significant threat or beligerance on the part of the enemy.
*George Bush seemed relaxed and carefree, playing with the dog and taking a vacation to camp david.
What the hell is going on here? Is the best case scenario portrayed by the not so free press realistic? In any case the international reputation of the US is deeply at stake. It is not difficult to imagine an Imperialist superpower striding the globe like a collosus. One thing is certain - such an enterprise will not be a democracy.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar22-03, 07:27 AM
Coupled with your president having called Saddam a "Tyrant and a Dictator" for his attempt to asassinate George's dad, yet George is out doing the EXACT SAME THING! (on the world stage no less!)
It is a simple principal, called "Moral Equivalence", but, alas, they are not 'equivalent' as your president is quite capable of having that death sentance enforced, hence it actually makes him worse!
There is not one single good reason for what is being done, it is an Evil, nothing less,
It was where I started in all of this, I wanted to know the reason why George wanted to send my family off to there deaths.
Heck, if they had had a good reason, I would have been willing to go in their place, but George is breaking International law, the only difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist' is which side of the law you are really on.
It is the Motto of the Canadian Mounties, "Maintain the right" which is to say, "stay on the proper side of the law" as it is long known in this world that staying on the proper side of the law is the only real difference between criminals and police, respective of the use of force, and is why the Peace officers (police) are allowed to use force....Legally!
Geo-ogre is on the wrong side of the law, laws that YOUR country, America, helped write, signed there names to, and are now, by his actions, in contravention of.
His Saviour, (Geo-ogre's) Jesus Christ, tells us in the Bible that the Devil Himself is characterized as a "Liar and a murderer" so if you are in contravention of the words of your very own personal saviour, well.....Do you know what that means?
Laser Eyes
Mar22-03, 07:50 AM
For those of you who have no problem with this war I would like to put a new born Iraqi baby in your left hand a pistol in your other hand and let you fire the first shot by blowing the baby's brains out. Children will die in this war people, nothing is more certain. Or is it you only want to go to war if someone else does your killing for you?
Laser Eyes
Actually Laser, the one group that will benefit most from this war is new born babies. Currently Iraq has a ridiculously high infant mortality rate due to shortages at hospitals. It is the selling of medicines from the oil-for-food program that is causing this. They smuggle the medicines into Jordan and sell them to get money for Saddam's loyalists.
So, it is if you oppose this war that you should be willing to shoot this baby in the head. But I forget...people who never take any action are blameless for everything, right?
Njorl
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
For those of you who have no problem with this war I would like to put a new born Iraqi baby in your left hand a pistol in your other hand and let you fire the first shot by blowing the baby's brains out. Children will die in this war people, nothing is more certain. Or is it you only want to go to war if someone else does your killing for you?
Laser Eyes
For those of you who are so blind I would like to allow you to become a volunteer conscript for Saddam's army and perhaps you can stand next to his son the next time he goes down the street beheading women in front of their homes and assist him by being the one to hang them on a stick for their children and parents to see?
Or perhaps you would next like to be the one in charge of dragging 3,000 political prisoners out to "the garden" and mowing them down with your little machine gun?
yes, yes, entire families, children, women and men are dying and being tortured daily under Saddams brutal regime, nothing is more certian, Or is it you only are interested in your anger at the big bad Americans?
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar22-03, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by kat
For those of you who are so blind I would like to allow you to become a volunteer conscript for Saddam's army and perhaps you can stand next to his son the next time he goes down the street beheading women in front of their homes and assist him by being the one to hang them on a stick for their children and parents to see?
Or perhaps you would next like to be the one in charge of dragging 3,000 political prisoners out to "the garden" and mowing them down with your little machine gun?
yes, yes, entire families, children, women and men are dying and being tortured daily under Saddams brutal regime, nothing is more certian, Or is it you only are interested in your anger at the big bad Americans?
Got any referances to that?
American have been a very trusted part of the worlds Peoples for a long time, longer then most of the People alive today.
For a Country, as powerful as the US is, to demonstrate instigational war hostilities, based upon having 3 (or is it 4) Alleged Ex Oil Company Execs., having usurped the 'body politics' agenda, (the 'Peoples' agenda) directing the execution of a foriegn President, in a country the size of California, sitting upon a pile of oil, sorry, but you are the cause of the breech of trust here, not the rest of us!
Then again, you could always live in a country where criminals use suppression fire tactics, and body armour, to attempt to subdue the police/peace officers called to the scene of the robbery.
I suppose that it is apparently better to execute your criminals, call it capital punishment, sort of along the same chant that says that "gas is bad" (for killing) but "BOMBS are GOOD!" (for killing)
Every countries got there problem, and it would be much better to help that change, but War is not the method as the making of this war is an Illegal action, A Globally Illegal action/activety
Otherwise, just chant "Four legs good, two legs better!"
(and no, I do not agree with 'beheading' anyone, nor starting, aggressing, war!)
schwarzchildradius
Mar24-03, 03:28 AM
* Millions of people worldwide are fed up with Bush and his rogue nation tactics.
Ironic quote of the day:
"He starves his people to build himself palaces" GWB on Saddam.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar24-03, 06:42 AM
It would be really nice if anyone of you could explain the difference between, lining people up against a wall, and machine gunning them to death, and surrounding a city with tanks and artillery, then bringing in B 52's to saturate bomb that city, when that city no longer has any viable air defences!
What is the difference? (Self evident truth, NONE!, or if you are really heartless, like Geo-Ogre, the co$t!)
Don't be fooled by 'Optics' please, yes you can see anti aircraft fire eminating from the city, but they cannot shoot down a 'stratospheric flier', so they are, in a nutshell, defenceless
This is NOT WAR, this is simply Bloody Murder
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.
Njorl
heumpje
Mar24-03, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Njorl
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.
Njorl
Call it whatever you want but 2000+ cruise missiles landing in three cities is a lot of firepower. Even if it would be 100% certain that each missile hits it's designated target, it would be a miracle if this is not going to cost a lot of (normal) Iraqi lives.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar24-03, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Njorl
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.
Njorl
Norjl, I live in an emergency shelters, (Because the tent I normally live in is flooded in the spring melting) I am a homeless person, I have no TV, but I do still get to hear some of the news, and the last I had heard is that Geo-Orge is calling in the B 52's.
Tell me, oh one of dubious insult, what do you think that they are used for??
The only differance between "Shooting fish in a barrel", and what Geo-Ogre is about to do, is, well NOTHING, 'cept this time it is innocent men women and children, in 'the barrel'!
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar24-03, 09:35 AM
In case you missed the News Norjl, try this one.....
B-52's (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2430955)
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Norjl, I live in an emergency shelters, (Because the tent I normally live in is flooded in the spring melting) I am a homeless person, I have no TV, but I do still get to hear some of the news, and the last I had heard is that Geo-Orge is calling in the B 52's.
Tell me, oh one of dubious insult, what do you think that they are used for??
The only differance between "Shooting fish in a barrel", and what Geo-Ogre is about to do, is, well NOTHING, 'cept this time it is innocent men women and children, in 'the barrel'!
So you admit to speaking without accurate information. The vast majority of Baghdad is untouched. The B-52's are not dropping bombs, they are launching stand-off precision guided cruise missiles. This reduces a B-52's explosive payload by more than an order of magnitude. These missiles are landing almost exclusively in a small part of western Baghdad occupied by government buildings. Most of these have been destroyed, and the bombing, which has dropped off significantly, is now targetted mostly on army barracks on the outskirts of town. This is not saturation bombing.
But you did not know; you were in doubt. Your philosophy seems to be, when in doubt, spout the most insulting thing about the US that you can think of.
Njorl
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar24-03, 09:39 AM
missed it big time Norjl, try this one.....
B 52 BOMBING BAGHDAD! (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html)
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar24-03, 09:49 AM
From the site linked above.. (h**p://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html)
This lovely quotation;
"Dozens of missiles and bombs rained down between nine and 10pm. A final wave of attacks by low flying jet fighters at 10.30pm was the ultimate proof of how defenceless Baghdad really is."
So you think that I am somehow wrong for thinking that attacking people, with/by the last standing superpower in the world, DEFENCELESS PEOPLE, is wrong?, anti American? to be pro American you must think that slaughtering defenceless people is, what?? GOOD?????? (YA NUTS?)
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
missed it big time Norjl, try this one.....
B 52 BOMBING BAGHDAD! (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html)
Did you bother reading this? It is almost an exact description of what I posted. I understand that as a French Canadien English is not your primary language, but perhaps you should restrict your comments to the things you do comprehend.
Njorl
I can see from the last bit of history that America has a certain element that promotes a sort of 'cultural imperialism', in which America sets teh rules for everyone else. This 'war' is just one aspect of it...there will likely be much more in teh works.
Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the content of America's "cultural imperialism". What a horror to beset on the world?!?!? Good grief!
Originally posted by Alias
Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the content of America's "cultural imperialism". What a horror to beset on the world?!?!? Good grief! Do other cultures not have the right to self-determination. And how do you deal with the idea that a free, democratic world might tell America to take a hike and keep to its own borders?
It is not the responsibility of the world to agree with the U.S..
russ_watters
Mar24-03, 12:18 PM
Do other cultures not have the right to self-determination. And how do you deal with the idea that a free, democratic world might tell America to take a hike and keep to its own borders? No country EVER given the gift of self-determination has EVER chosen tyranny over the principles Alias outlined. EVERY country we have set up a government in has CHOSEN these principles through self-determination.
Furthermore, those principles are the ONLY ones compatible with the concept of self-determination itself.
Originally posted by russ_watters
No country EVER given self-determination has EVER chosen tyranny over the principles Alias outlined. EVERY country we have set up a government in has CHOSEN these principles through self-determination.
Furthermore, those principles are the ONLY ones compatible with the concept of self-determination itself.
I would disagree with your idea that those principles are somehow the single 'magic bullet' for government, but besides that, do we believe that other nations can be democratic, and yet oppose teh US?
Originally posted by russ_watters
No country EVER given the gift of self-determination has EVER chosen tyranny over the principles Alias outlined. EVERY country we have set up a government in has CHOSEN these principles through self-determination.
Furthermore, those principles are the ONLY ones compatible with the concept of self-determination itself.
Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo all reached power via democratic means. Tojo never had to rely on an illegitimate power structure to maintain his power; he was always a democratically supported tyrant. Several years ago, Algeria was conducting its first free and fair elections. They were cancelled because the party that was going to win, the Muslim Fundamentalists, had as part of their platform the abolishment of democracy.
Njorl
No one suggested anything regarding "magic bullets".
Democratic countries can and do oppose us on many issues. In fact, it's quite the latest fad.
Just to bring this back into perspective...
While all of the facts are not in yet, it appears that coalition troops have captured a 100 acre chemical weapons manufacturing facility.
This is precisely why an invasion was necessary. We couldn't see it from the air and the UN inspectors were totally oblivious. It is also another indicator of the untrustworthiness of Saddam's regime. I hope that this finally puts the debate about whether or not invasion is necessary to rest.
Originally posted by Alias
No one suggested anything regarding "magic bullets".
Democratic countries can and do oppose us on many issues. In fact, it's quite the latest fad.
Just to bring this back into perspective...
While all of the facts are not in yet, it appears that coalition troops have captured a 100 acre chemical weapons manufacturing facility.
This is precisely why an invasion was necessary. We couldn't see it from the air and the UN inspectors were totally oblivious. It is also another indicator of the untrustworthiness of Saddam's regime. I hope that this finally puts the debate about whether or not invasion is necessary to rest.
Are we sure about it being a WEAPON factory? Clinton blew up one of those, once, that turned out to be the source of some 40-50% of all the medicine in Sudan. I'm not buying it until someone outside the U.S. confirms it.
russ_watters
Mar24-03, 01:30 PM
Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo all reached power via democratic means. That is misleading (at best) and you know it. Hitler for example murdered the entire government of Germany to gain dictatorial power. It doesn't matter if he won an election once. The German people did NOT choose Hitler to be a dictator. Let me add to clarify, that for something to be a choice it has to be an INFORMED choice. Certainly it could be possible to TRICK someone into voting for a dictator, but that is NOT self-determination.
Algeria was conducting its first free and fair elections. They were cancelled because the party that was going to win, the Muslim Fundamentalists, had as part of their platform the abolishment of democracy. Never head that one. But I suspect there is more to it than that....do we believe that other nations can be democratic, and yet oppose teh US? Certainly. Germany is democratic. I never said that every democratic nation would agree with the US in every occasion.
No one suggested anything regarding "magic bullets". I would disagree with your idea that those principles are somehow the single 'magic bullet' for government Though I'm not sure I agree with the term "magic bullet" those principles are inherrent to democracy. Democracy cannot exist (and work) without them. Other types of governments have tried to have those principles without democracy, but success has been limited (at best). I *DO* tend to think that those principles are not possible without democracy.
Trying to apply those principles to most other forms of government only leads to oxymorons like "free dictatorship" or "lassez-faire socialism."
Originally posted by russ_watters
Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo all reached power via democratic means.
[B]That is misleading (at best) and you know it. Hitler for example murdered the entire government of Germany to gain dictatorial power. It doesn't matter if he won an election once. The German people did NOT choose Hitler to be a dictator. Let me add to clarify, that for something to be a choice it has to be an INFORMED choice. Certainly it could be possible to TRICK someone into voting for a dictator, but that is NOT self-determination.
It is not misleading. We have sanctified democracy here in the US, but it is more fragile that you might think.
Hitler became chancellor, head of government, by purely democratic means. He did not murder the rest of the government (the reichstag building was empty when it burned down). He used the chancellorship to manipulate the press. In the next general election, the Nazis, with their closely allied Nationalist party formed a majority coalition. They passed the Enabling Act in 1933, making Hitler dictator(legislative and executive only, no military control) for four years. The deal that also gave him the presidency required him to murder his own staunchest followers. On June 30th, 1934 he slaughtered the leadership of his brownshirts, or SA. He made this deal with the military and industrial leaders. With the brownshirts defunct, the military supported him. President von Hindenburg, convinced by the military, named Hitler vice-president. Hindenburg died, leaving Hitler as head of state, military commander-in-chief, and dictator. All of this was done in compliance with the democratic process. Only the next step, declaring himself dictator for life, or Fuhrer, was non-democratic.
Njorl
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar24-03, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Njorl
So you admit to speaking without accurate information. The vast majority of Baghdad is untouched. The B-52's are not dropping bombs, they are launching stand-off precision guided cruise missiles. This reduces a B-52's explosive payload by more than an order of magnitude. These missiles are landing almost exclusively in a small part of western Baghdad occupied by government buildings. Most of these have been destroyed, and the bombing, which has dropped off significantly, is now targetted mostly on army barracks on the outskirts of town. This is not saturation bombing.
But you did not know; you were in doubt. Your philosophy seems to be, when in doubt, spout the most insulting thing about the US that you can think of.
Niether of the sites I linked specified Precision guided cruise missiles as the ONLY means, they both mention that the payloads can be either conventional bombs or precision bombs.
As in, From the "B 52's bombing" link;
Prime Baghdad real estate along the west bank of the River Tigris came under devastating attack with buildings destroyed one after another, missiles and bombs ploughing into them throwing wreckage high into the air.
And from the "B 52's" link
A Reuters eyewitness saw two of the giant bombers, which can carry a massive payload of bombs and cruise missiles, lifting off from the Fairford airbase in Gloucestershire at 6:23 a.m. EST.
So your next posting........
Originally posted by Norjl
Did you bother reading this? It is almost an exact description of what I posted. I understand that as a French Canadien English is not your primary language, but perhaps you should restrict your comments to the things you do comprehend.
This is what you are doing,
Originally stated by Norjl
"So you admit to speaking without accurate information."
And this is my signature at work, as you are the one speaking without accurate information, especially that french Canadian thing, as I was brought up in a household that spoke only english,(learned french in school, and at work!) all my life, so. to quote you again, (as in take your own advice)
Originally stated by Norjl
but perhaps you should restrict your comments to the things you do comprehend.
Follow your own advise Norjl
Ganshauk
Mar24-03, 11:16 PM
I can hem-haw and get all political, I may cry "Oppression!" and point to diabolical regimes.
I would be quite right in doing so.
However, the personal justification of this war, IMHO, lies elsewhere.
The human race is much like a pack of lemmings. We multiply and consume, it is our nature. Historically, we tend to beat upon our neighbors like a rising tide beats upon a rockbound shore, growing ever more violent as the moon waxes. Finally, there is a bursting point when we all line up in militaristic formation and decimate each other in a supreme act of jumping off the cliff. This tendancy is marked by a rise in global population by an order of magnitude. The greater the procrastination for this purge, the more terrible it tends to be.
And, brothers and sisters, we are overdue by almost three decades. This, IMO, is due to the spectre of nuclear war, making the natural progression of war into a total extermination of the species - an anathema noone can countenance - except terrorists.
No matter how nasty it gets (and it is bound to be nasty - whether in this decade or the next) it is better than total extermination. I would rather have an unjustifiable war of attrition, conducted with the preservation of the species in mind, than a righteous extermination any day!
That is why I believe in this war - and the next two to come. We can be percieved as evil, empiristic, war mongering - it doesn't matter. As long as we can vent the valve of social pressure before the world rips itself into minute radioactive granules I am content.
russ_watters
Mar25-03, 12:32 AM
It is not misleading. Nice explanation (for the most part). You know the facts better than I do. But where exactly do you see that Hitler was elected "Fuhrer"? You said he was elected "Chancellor." If he wasn't elected "Fuhrer" he was *NOT* an elected dictator.We have sanctified democracy here in the US, but it is more fragile that you might think. Every system has weaknesses, but again, that implies that the SYSTEM failed. Unless he was elected to the position of dictator. He was not. Whether he exploited weakensses in the system or just destroyed it, he was still NOT an elected dictator.
Just some nitpicks:
Only the next step, declaring himself dictator for life, or Fuhrer, was non-democratic. The deal that also gave him the presidency required him to murder his own staunchest followers. On June 30th, 1934 he slaughtered the leadership of his brownshirts, or SA. So murder is a democratic process? In any case, even if only that final act were undemocratic, that still means he became a dictator undemocratically.
Robin, Njorl erred (but only slightly). We HAVE dropped bombs on Baghdad. HOWEVER, for the first time ever, EVERY bomb dropped on Bhagdad is guided.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar25-03, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by russ_watters
Robin, Njorl erred (but only slightly). We HAVE dropped bombs on Baghdad. HOWEVER, for the first time ever, EVERY bomb dropped on Bhagdad is guided.
Firstly, I doubt that, the cost is prohibitive, and the forces had just tested a new explosive that was two pallets of explosive pushed out of the back of a transport plane, "biggest yet" (non Nuke) I had heard, but certainly the only 'guidance' was the plane carrying it.
But that is not the mistake Njorl made, that is what I responded to.
Originally posted by Njorl
So you admit to speaking without accurate information.(truncated)
Tell me where I have done that!! That is what I object to, the false characterization, based upon assumption on Njorl's part
Please, Njorl, forgive me the misspelling in my last several post, your name, I'll try to get it right. (TX)
russ_watters
Mar25-03, 09:44 AM
Firstly, I doubt that, the cost is prohibitive, and the forces had just tested a new explosive that was two pallets of explosive pushed out of the back of a transport plane, "biggest yet" (non Nuke) I had heard, but certainly the only 'guidance' was the plane carrying it. We haven't dropped a moab in Iraq. And our commanders (Bush himself too I think) have stated explicitly that EVERY bomb and missile fired and dropped on Baghdad has been guided. If you don't believe them, then there is nothing to argue - no evidence to contradict it. It is also *NOT* cost prohibitive to have 12 times the bombing efficiency as we did in the first Gulf War. (Bombing efficiency is targets serviced per mission).
Originally posted by Ganshauk
I can hem-haw and get all political, I may cry "Oppression!" and point to diabolical regimes.
I would be quite right in doing so.
However, the personal justification of this war, IMHO, lies elsewhere.
The human race is much like a pack of lemmings. We multiply and consume, it is our nature. Historically, we tend to beat upon our neighbors like a rising tide beats upon a rockbound shore, growing ever more violent as the moon waxes. Finally, there is a bursting point when we all line up in militaristic formation and decimate each other in a supreme act of jumping off the cliff. This tendancy is marked by a rise in global population by an order of magnitude. The greater the procrastination for this purge, the more terrible it tends to be.
And, brothers and sisters, we are overdue by almost three decades. This, IMO, is due to the spectre of nuclear war, making the natural progression of war into a total extermination of the species - an anathema noone can countenance - except terrorists.
No matter how nasty it gets (and it is bound to be nasty - whether in this decade or the next) it is better than total extermination. I would rather have an unjustifiable war of attrition, conducted with the preservation of the species in mind, than a righteous extermination any day!
That is why I believe in this war - and the next two to come. We can be percieved as evil, empiristic, war mongering - it doesn't matter. As long as we can vent the valve of social pressure before the world rips itself into minute radioactive granules I am content.
Ummm...ok, thanks for sharing, Ganshauk. That was interesting, if nothing else.
Entropia
Mar25-03, 04:30 PM
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/bush_bravely_leads.html
schwarzchildradius
Mar25-03, 08:41 PM
I think that one reason that so many millions of people oppose this action is the numerous lies of the Bush admin. about Iraqi nuclear weapons.
Seems like they wouldn't have to lie if there were true justification for engagement.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar25-03, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
We haven't dropped a moab in Iraq. And our commanders (Bush himself too I think) have stated explicitly that EVERY bomb and missile fired and dropped on Baghdad has been guided. If you don't believe them, then there is nothing to argue - no evidence to contradict it. It is also *NOT* cost prohibitive to have 12 times the bombing efficiency as we did in the first Gulf War. (Bombing efficiency is targets serviced per mission).
Firstly Mr. watters, as I asked you before please tell us all who you are quoting, (Heck, the system does it for your!) secondly, I do not really trust your President, don't trust people who have such flagrant disreguard for the rules of law, at these levels of operation.
Yes, is is cost prohibitive to have greater efficiency, as that efficiency has come at a cost of refitting some those weapons with guidance rocket motors (JSAID's?? is that the new acronym??) and your "Bombing efficiency is targets per mission service" try please to recall that there are people there, people who will die as a result of the "increased Bombing efficiency".
It doesn't really matter how efficient you are, you are at war, and wars are NOT really 'efficient' at anything other then killing, and relative to what side of the law you are on, invaded or invader, you are killing in self defence, or murdering in an act of invasive aggression, respectively......the US is, currently, the active, aggressive, Invader.
The Iraqi's are, at this time, the defenders of there own Freedoms, defending their homeland, and peoples, against a hostile and aggressive invasionary force, the United States of America, the ones clearly in violation of the law!
Entropia, really liked that one, Ha! Ha!
That whole Onion is fantastic! I loved the Point-Counterpoint... "This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?
It won't.
"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?
Not really.
"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?
Sorry, no, I disagree.
"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?
You are completely wrong.
Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.
Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.
Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
It doesn't really matter how efficient you are, you are at war, and wars are NOT really 'efficient' at anything other then killing, and relative to what side of the law you are on, invaded or invader, you are killing in self defence, or murdering in an act of invasive aggression, respectively......the US is, currently, the active, aggressive, Invader.
And we are going out of our way to only kill those loyal(guilty) to Saddam. Also, believe it or not, all of this is in the defense of the average Iraqi citizen.
The Iraqi's are, at this time, the defenders of there own Freedoms, defending their homeland, and peoples, against a hostile and aggressive......dictatorial regime. Please see Basra.
russ_watters
Mar25-03, 11:56 PM
I do not really trust your President, don't trust people who have such flagrant disreguard for the rules of law, at these levels of operation. Who then do you trust? Do you implicitly trust Saddam Hussein?
Also, the reason I quote the way I do is a combination of habit, laziness, and utility. If you don't like it, tough. :)
to implicitly trust anyone is to ignore the nature of humanity.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar26-03, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by a lazy russ_watters
Who then do you trust? Do you implicitly trust Saddam Hussein?
What/whom I trust, is the Truth, all the rest is lies, and I do not trust them!
Originally posted by Alias
And we are going out of our way to only kill those loyal(guilty) to Saddam. Also, believe it or not, all of this is in the defense of the average Iraqi citizen.
Biggest piece of propaganda'd BS I have had to listen to all along, when do you admit that that is the MAIN LIE!
And it's selling point...........
Originally posted by Alias
...dictatorial regime. Please see Basra.
Lets see, Saddams Country, A Republic BTW, is composed of three divisions of people, the ****es in the south, the Kurds in the North, and the majority of the rest of the citizens, (Sunni's is it, or is it Shi_ah) the ones who support Saddam, and have all along, live in the more central region of that little slice of Allah's Garden.
Those 'Middle dwellers' are the ones that the American media have almost never reported on, when their representation (Saddam) wanted equal time, in the propaganda war that Geo-Ogre ran, Geo-Ogre said 'No', probably out of fear that some of the truth would leak out and people might just have gotten to hear the other side of the story.
Then you might have gotten the notion that his nation has internal division that are what has been played out as if there were cause to topple him, when in fact it would be analogous to the divisions in the US, the North and the South, and someone else financing the South to "Rise again" against the North, attempting to ressurect a civil War, internally, in the US, and useing that as an excuse to INVADE the US, as to liberate those 'Poor Southern peoples from that oh so oppressive government, that is Dictating their every way of life'
Some of you swallow it just a little to quickly, in the name of the "Fatherland" (Patriotism!) no less.
You are being burned by your own devotion to your own ideological beliefs in your nation, your patriotism is being held against you to get you all to feel good about committing a criminal act of Bloody WAR
russ_watters
Mar26-03, 09:48 AM
to implicitly trust anyone is to ignore the nature of humanity Thats cute, kyle, but you dodge the question. Do you trust Hussein, (implicitly or otherwise)? WHO do you trust?
Originally posted by a lazy russ_watters Sue me.
What/whom I trust, is the Truth, all the rest is lies, and I do not trust them! How do you know what is truth and what is lies? WHO is speaking the truth and who is speaking lies? Most people start with a predetermined assumption of trust or mistrust in a source and then declare everything that comes from that source is absolute truth or absolute lies. Thats backwards. And it would seem that is the line of reasoning here.Lets see, Saddams Country, A Republic... If you really believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Are you saying you believe the results of his recent "election?" If you do, you have problems with reality that I can't even begin to help you with.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
What/whom I trust, is the Truth, all the rest is lies, and I do not trust them!
Oh please, great holder of the truth, enlighten us!
Lets see, Saddams Country, A [b]Republic BTW, ...
Saddam got 99% of the vote in the last election. What conclusions about Iraqs 'Republic' can you draw from that fact?
Those 'Middle dwellers' are the ones that the American media have almost never reported on, when their representation (Saddam) wanted equal time, in the propaganda war that Geo-Ogre ran, Geo-Ogre said 'No', probably out of fear that some of the truth would leak out and people might just have gotten to hear the other side of the story.
So Bush should have accepted the offer to debate Hussein? What a joke!
Let me get this straight...
Saddam is not a dictator.
Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction.
99% of Iraqi people love Saddam.
Saddam doesn't brutalize his people.
Canada is "where it's at". (Oh, brother!)
russ_watters
Mar26-03, 04:13 PM
Saddam got 99% of the vote in the last election. What conclusions about Iraqs 'Republic' can you draw from that fact? You sure about that, Alias? Thats not what I remember hearing. I heard he got exactly 100%.
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I AM a professional hairsplitter.
Thanks for flushing my credibility down the toilet, Russ. Now, instead of people characterizing me as being a smart-*** and a dickhead, I'm just a dickhead!
Alias <--- off to delete cookies and become born again at PF.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar27-03, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by a sarcastic and lazy russ_watters
How do you know what is truth and what is lies? WHO is speaking the truth and who is speaking lies? Most people start with a predetermined assumption of trust or mistrust in a source and then declare everything that comes from that source is absolute truth or absolute lies. Thats backwards. And it would seem that is the line of reasoning here.
Lets see, I dervive the "truth of it" from as many sources as I can, from what presents itself as the most reasonable and logical representation of the fitting together of the description, with the self evident truths, the facts.
Apparently you, Mr. Watter, do not follow that pathway, as you didn't know how I did it till I told you, and the only other manner that you would know, would be the method that "arises from within you", your statement, that I have quoted above
So your Assumption, in green, is (not unlike you?) False!
Alais, your sarcastic responcivness is, simply put, not worth the effort! as it clearly reveals that you are apathetic to the words of others.
Since clearly you do not care, why do you bother, or is it that you amuse yourself......after all, "small things amuse.........."
russ_watters
Mar27-03, 09:09 AM
Robin, you still dodge the question. There are many instances in which allegations CANNOT be independantly verified. If you see an allegation from Saddam and a counter-allegation from Bush with no confirmation of either from a 3rd party, which are you more likely to believe?
I believe you dodge the question because we both know the answer already.
Lets see, I dervive the "truth of it" from as many sources as I can, from what presents itself as the most reasonable and logical representation of the fitting together of the description, with the self evident truths, the facts. So is it "reasonable and logical" to consider Iraq a Republic? Or just "self evident"?
N_Quire
Mar27-03, 09:32 AM
Russ,
Truth is what America is doing. Lies are what the Iraqis present us with. That's how we want to see it. Which of course is a lie, or perhaps the truth. Who knows? But I don't want Saddam to win.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Alais, your sarcastic responcivness is, simply put, not worth the effort! as it clearly reveals that you are apathetic to the words of others.
Since clearly you do not care, why do you bother, or is it that you amuse yourself......after all, "small things amuse.........."
It was not all sarcasm. In fact, the revelation is that I am sympathetic in that I did respond to your words. Go look up the word, 'sympathetic'.
I do care. The fact that I am amusing does not discount that.
It seems that you spend too much time deriding the opinions of others. It might benefit us all if you spent more time proposing solutions.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar28-03, 11:44 AM
28/03/2003
Alias, lets try it this way,instead of telling me that Saddam got 99% of the vote, tell me how many people that actually was, minus the ~23,000,000 that live there.
Lets see, the UN authiorized the allotment of 1 Billion dollars/per ninety days from oil revenues, @ 23 Million people, that works out to $43.48/per person/per ninety days, which works out to about $0.43 (cents!)per person/per day/per purchasing of the food/per transportation/per distribution/per person/per day!
Not bad in a country that has 112,000,000,000 barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia.
Lets see, in the last US election ~100 million people voted, out of a possible ~280 million people, less then 40%. Of that, less then half voted for George, as Gore is known to have won the "Popular" vote, just that the Electoral Colleges held "Legal" sway, so George got in on less then 20% of the US's population's expression of self.
Not bad in a country that Consumes ~19 Million barrels of oil, per day.
You should support your boys, get them out off there, and back home, safe, where they belong.
God Bless America! (Please)
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar28-03, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by russ_watters
Robin, you still dodge the question. There are many instances in which allegations CANNOT be independantly verified. If you see an allegation from Saddam and a counter-allegation from Bush with no confirmation of either from a 3rd party, which are you more likely to believe?
I believe you dodge the question because we both know the answer already.
So is it "reasonable and logical" to consider Iraq a Republic? Or just "self evident"?
Actually Russ, what I tend to do if I do not have enough information to make an ascertation, I don't.....it's as simple as that, and, generally speaking (God's Grace in my life) I admit to that.
As for labeling Iraq's Status as a nation, 'we' generally use the appropriate notion, it is a "Republic" (set up and administratively) to the best of anyone’s knowledge. It's internal affairs, and administration, is only our business 'insomuch as' we would, collectively, attempt to have the administration of law prevail, as that is how we ALL find Justice!......simple as that
I'm repeating myself for the benefit of Mr. Parsons.
Saddam Hussein is untrustworthy and probably has weapons of mass destruction.
Human Rights Watch says Saddam Hussein is responsible for the murder of over 250,000 people.
Those two reasons should be enough for us to tear his regime down.
russ_watters
Mar28-03, 03:13 PM
Actually Russ, what I tend to do if I do not have enough information to make an ascertation, I don't.....it's as simple as that, and, generally speaking (God's Grace in my life) I admit to that. That REALLY doesn't appear to be the case.
Lifegazer
Mar28-03, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Alias
Saddam Hussein is untrustworthy and probably has weapons of mass destruction.
All politicians/leaders are untrustworthy, and George Bush definitely does have weapons of global destruction.
Human Rights Watch says Saddam Hussein is responsible for the murder of over 250,000 people.
It's ironic that George Bush might have to kill another 250,000 to free the country of such an atrocity.
Those two reasons should be enough for us to tear his regime down. [/B]
You're very short-sighted Alias. And extremely bias to the extent that you would be dangerous, given enough power.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
It's ironic that George Bush might have to kill another 250,000 to free the country of such an atrocity.
but from what i hear; it will be all peace, love, and flowers afterwards. that makes it all the killing worth while; right?
[:((]
Originally posted by Lifegazer
All politicians/leaders are untrustworthy, and George Bush definitely does have weapons of global destruction.
He's not likely to use them. If you can't tell the difference between Bush and Hussein, maybe in your world, there isn't one. Move to Iraq.
It's ironic that George Bush might have to kill another 250,000 to free the country of such an atrocity.
Oh well.
You're very short-sighted Alias. And extremely bias to the extent that you would be dangerous, given enough power.
I guess you better watch your a$$ then.[<:)]
ProMetal
Mar29-03, 07:45 AM
And why is the US the self-proclaimed champion of human rights and the liberator of all those needing liberation? A single party which accuses, judges and punishes. Wonderful. Democracy, did I hear?
When Iraqi people starve, they are aware of the sanctions imposed upon them by the West. With the wealth in the country, they could've lived lives of luxury under even the most oppresive and dictatorial regimes, amidst the highest level of corruption. The refugee camps set up by humanitarian agencies with capacities of several thousands lie empty.
Pakistan and India find each other threats to the security of their citizens. Both find each other armed with weapons of mass destruction. According to the logic of the American administration, both should go to war with each other. They should also then discuss the post-war setup of each country.
Many are under the impression that the Americans are guaranteeing Saudi and Kuwaiti freedom. I pity the lack of awareness of these individuals. And I am certain these people have either never set foot on Arab soil or have never been exposed to the opinion of the masses. The Arabs want the Americans gone. Period.
To say that this war is not about vested interests that harm the interests of other parties is laughable.
A comparison would not be a bad idea. North Korea claims to develop WMDs. Iraq does not. N. Korea gives no indication of destroying them. Iraq is, at least on the international political level, willing to compromise. N. Korea expels IAEA officials. Iraq allows them into it. N. Korea's dictator is vocal in his opposition of America and his intent to destory it in the case of intervention. The Iraqi government aims to negotiate.
Why is N. Korea then being deal with diplomatic kid gloves by this self-proclaimed liberator? The Koreans know. Find
Those who fought for American independence are American heroes. The Chechnyan, Kashmiri and Palestinian militants, however, are terrorists. How about America liberate these people? People who've been fighting for freedom for years upon years.
Ah but why would it? Oppose Russia, India and Israel? Sure it will promote negotiations between the parties concerned. Why then, not negotiate with Iraq?
Israel, infact, receives one-third of the total American aid.
No one here needs to be told of American double-standards. Somalia. Vietnam. Truckloads of examples from history.
And while we're upon history, we must not forget that during the Iran-Iraq war, WMDs were supplied to Iraq by the US. At one point in the war, the US was supplying weapons to BOTH Iran and Iraq. Working for world peace? Lick my boot.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar29-03, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
That REALLY doesn't appear to be the case.
I take it that that, is actually, a compliment!!, well THANK YOU Mr. Watters, ummmmm, errrrrrr, Russ. (may I call you russ??)
Alias, apparently, according to you, this statement of yours is NOT sarcastic??
Originally posted by Alias
Oh please, great holder of the truth, enlighten us!
Followed by the usual; "Let's stick words into his mouth to prove ourselves as justified/right"
Originally posted by Alias
So Bush should have accepted the offer to debate Hussein? What a joke!
Let me get this straight...
Saddam is not a dictator.
Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction.
99% of Iraqi people love Saddam.
Saddam doesn't brutalize his people.
Canada is "where it's at". (Oh, brother!)
This is what you would wish me to believe is sympathetic from you, PATHETIC, Yes!! but 'Sympathetic', not on your life.
Do you really think people to be so guillible, what I seek in this is Justice, your President is attempting to do an Al Capone, or what people of that 'ilk' do, "Murder the last/only Witness" to the crimes that have taken place.
That DOES NOT make Saddam Hussein, NOT a criminal, himself, but as I remember American law, Due Proccess, the Right of an accused to speak on behalf of his own defence, and alot more protections, that should soon be disappearing from the American Legal Landscape with the new security measures that "George" is going to need to impose, due to the increase in externally sponcered terrorism, that is to ensue his present couse of actions.
Your throwing it all to the wind.
And as usual Mr.P, all talk, no solutions.
It took about 15 seconds of me wathcing film clips of Saddam's henchmen shooting people in the head for me to realize that some people only understand violence. So, it is no surprise that we have decided to speak to them in terms they will understand.
ProMetal
Mar30-03, 02:35 AM
When I was told that a vast majority in the west took the word of the media, I refused to believe it. Now, I refuse not to believe it.
You saw Saddam's henchmen killing some people. Any context? No. Any evidence of originality? No.
I've seen American soldiers fill the old and the young with lead in Gitmo. I see Israeli soldiers rape and shoot innocent Palestinians. If, then, I were you, I'd go to war with both. Salute those who propose the war, shouldn't we?
This discussion is getting more juvenile by the post. Proposition of war can go out of the window. Few would will to bank upon wrecked arguments.
And why is the US the self-proclaimed champion of human rights and the liberator of all those needing liberation? A single party which accuses, judges and punishes. Wonderful. Democracy, did I hear?
When Iraqi people starve, they are aware of the sanctions imposed upon them by the West. With the wealth in the country, they could've lived lives of luxury under even the most oppresive and dictatorial regimes,
So why haven't they?
Those who fought for American independence are American heroes. The Chechnyan, Kashmiri and Palestinian militants, however, are terrorists. How about America liberate these people? People who've been fighting for freedom for years upon years.
Good point![:)]
Israel, infact, receives one-third of the total American aid.
No ****?!?!
Hmmm.
A comparison would not be a bad idea. North Korea claims to develop WMDs. Iraq does not. N. Korea gives no indication of destroying them. Iraq is, at least on the international political level, willing to compromise. N. Korea expels IAEA officials. Iraq allows them into it. N. Korea's dictator is vocal in his opposition of America and his intent to destory it in the case of intervention. The Iraqi government aims to negotiate.
It has failed. The most pressing is the most present.
It's ironic that George Bush might have to kill another 250,000 to free the country of such an atrocity.
I pray he kills the right ones.
To say that this war is not about vested interests that harm the interests of other parties is laughable.
You talk too much.
Ah but why would it? Oppose Russia, India and Israel? Sure it will promote negotiations between the parties concerned. Why then, not negotiate with Iraq?
To speed your evolution?
And while we're upon history, we must not forget that during the Iran-Iraq war, WMDs were supplied to Iraq by the US. At one point in the war, the US was supplying weapons to BOTH Iran and Iraq. Working for world peace? Lick my boot.
2 points. So both of you mutherfukers hate us? Join the party.
As for labeling Iraq's Status as a nation, 'we' generally use the appropriate notion, it is a "Republic" (set up and administratively) to the best of anyone’s knowledge. It's internal affairs, and administration, is only our business 'insomuch as' we would, collectively, attempt to have the administration of law prevail, as that is how we ALL find Justice!......simple as that
Somebody give that dude a job!
You're very short-sighted Alias. And extremely bias to the extent that you would be dangerous, given enough power.
Your point.
Apparently you, Mr. Watter, do not follow that pathway, as you didn't know how I did it till I told you, and the only other manner that you would know, would be the method that "arises from within you", your statement, that I have quoted above
Look into my eges, you are becoming sleepy...
Lets see, the UN authiorized the allotment of 1 Billion dollars/per ninety days from oil revenues, @ 23 Million people, that works out to $43.48/per person/per ninety days, which works out to about $0.43 (cents!)per person/per day/per purchasing of the food/per transportation/per distribution/per person/per day!
Dollars/Days/People???? You're a communist. And that's bad.
Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy:
Every time I hear about a martyr, I think, there's one more crazy mutherfuker that I don't have to worry about.
PF rules.
Not bad in a country that has 112,000,000,000 barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia.
Capitalism rules. Get with it.[:)]
Lets see, in the last US election ~100 million people voted, out of a possible ~280 million people, less then 40%. Of that, less then half voted for George, as Gore is known to have won the "Popular" vote, just that the Electoral Colleges held "Legal" sway, so George got in on less then 20% of the US's population's expression of self.
Same same.
The following is plagerized...
You should support your boys, get them out off there, and back home, safe, where they belong...
Since clearly you do not care..."
(in my best valley girl imitation) ...as if!!!
... as you didn't know how I did it till I told you ...
Peasoup anyone?
ProMetal
Mar30-03, 06:08 AM
So why haven't they?
Because the saviours of world peace and humanity have imposed upon these people sanctions. Read what you quote before you quote it.
Good point!
Definitely.
It has failed. The most pressing is the most present.
It has not failed. It awaits an oppurtunity. Ask me of evidence if you refuse to take my word. And upon the context you said this in, Korea is definitely a greater threat at the present time.
You talk too much.
Bothers you, does it not, that all of it makes sense?
And, just to satisfy my curiosity, what exactly was your post aimed at? Defending your argument or wriggling out of this in a dignified manner? You failed to do either.
I choose to ignore your smart-as$ sarcastic one-liners. They are not arguments. They are the words of a cornered debator who will not concede to the truth.
And, just to satisfy my curiosity, what exactly was your post aimed at? Defending your argument or wriggling out of this in a dignified manner? You failed to do either.
It was aimed at exposing your assumptions.
I choose to ignore your smart-as$ sarcastic one-liners. They are not arguments. They are the words of a cornered debator who will not concede to the truth.
My smartassed one liners are just as precise as your monotonous diatribe. Let truth be the qualitative judge.
And, just to satisfy my curiosity, what exactly was your post aimed at? Defending your argument or wriggling out of this in a dignified manner? You failed to do either.
It was aimed at exposing your assumptions.
I choose to ignore your smart-as$ sarcastic one-liners. They are not arguments. They are the words of a cornered debator who will not concede to the truth.
My smartassed one liners are just as precise as your monotonous diatribe. Let truth be the qualitative judge.
ProMetal
Mar30-03, 07:04 AM
Aimed at exposing my assumptions? It failed.
The stress was not on one-liners. It was on the sarcastic content of them rather than any debate.
Two more off-the-topic remarks and I suppose the anti-war argument is blown away?
Refute all anti-war arguments, and I'll appreciate your utterly humorous replies.
Moreover, let me and you both not let this turn out to be a personal battle - propose your pro-war stance.
well if sarcastic content wins an argument, one liners can be effective but there are more ways to go about it than that. so if that is going to be the way we play it, i think it is time i paraphrase South Park's very own Johnny Cochran with an argument that is sure to take the cake:
Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed society, some people would certainly want you to believe that this war is justified (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/leaflets/5.leaftlet.front.jpg), and they make a good case (http://www.uwire.com/uwireplus/saddam.jpg). hell, i almost felt pity myself. but Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed society, I have one final thing I want you to consider; Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca (http://zapatopi.net/bsa/chewbacca.jpg). Chewbacca (http://www.usc.edu/dept/matrix/clerc/studentweb/shinds/chewbacca.jpg) is a Wookie (http://www.acommecinema.com/dossier/02/starwars/photos/wookie.GIF) from the planet Kashyyyk (http://www.starwarz.com/kashyyyk.jpg), but Chewbacca (http://upx.primenova.com/swc/chewie.jpg) lives on the planet Endor (http://www.index.hu/cikkepek/0102/tech/endor/endor.jpg). now think about it; that does not make sense. why would a Wookiee (http://www.vanderzande.com/chewie/pix/chewie3.jpg), an eight-foot-tall Wookiee (http://1001resources.com/hosting/users/cinesecrets/images/People/KayChew1.jpg), want to live on Endor (http://swg.stratics.com/content/gameplay/guides/planets/images/endor_ewokvillage_a.jpg) with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks (http://www.episode-x.com/galleries/EpisodeVI/Ewoks.jpg)?
that does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself; what does this have to do with this war (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/leaflets/2.leaflet.front.jpg)? nothing! Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this war (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/leaflets/1.leaflet.front.jpg). It does not make sense. look at me. i'm a some guy in Kansas (http://www.awildorchid.com/kansas.jpg) on an internet forum speaking up against this war (http://www.robert-fisk.com/anglo_am_victim1.jpg) and i'm talkin' about Chewbacca (http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1623/students/kimberly/chewie.jpg). does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen; i am not making any sense. none of this makes sense and, so you have to remember when you're going about your life, deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/images/emancipation_01.jpg), does it make sense? no! Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed society; it does not make sense. if Chewbacca (http://www.starbase21ok.com/CHEWIE1.jpg) lives on Endor (http://www.coruscantlibrary.com/images/ewoks.jpg) you must oppose (http://www.schnews.org.uk/sotw/images_sotw/anti-war-march-young-muslim.jpg) this war (http://www.eyeballkid.co.za/mushroom-cloud.jpg).
[:D]
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar30-03, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Alias
And as usual Mr.P, all talk, no solutions.
And after I just read all of the rest you've posted there after, Alias, well, those words up there, sure and certainly do apply to you!!
Have a nice lunch, pea-soup I hear your drinking, French or English?
russ_watters
Mar30-03, 11:58 PM
I take it that that, is actually, a compliment!!, well THANK YOU Mr. Watters, ummmmm, errrrrrr, Russ. (may I call you russ??) You can call me whatever you want. I really couldn't care less. It doesn't change your bias.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Thread.
Originally posted by ProMetal
Aimed at exposing my assumptions? It failed.
Classic debate technique, when you have no facts to refute your opponent's argument, is to simply say that your opponent's argument is false. Anyone can do that. At least wit and sarcasm require some talent. I will concede that there was a shortage of rational debate on my part. However, this was surely a combination of a reaction to your bewildering reliance on supposition, and my extreme drunkeness.
Moreover, let me and you both not let this turn out to be a personal battle - propose your pro-war stance.
I will be glad to propose a pro-war stance for your analysis. I just need to do it in a different post. Thanks for waiting.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mar31-03, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
It doesn't change your bias.
Once again, Thank you, as I have already indicated that My Bias is pro truth, and you admit that, you too see that I am still maintaining my bias, (seeking the tracks of the Truth) I Thank You, once again, for a second compliment. (Cheese your turning out to be a nice guy after all there Mr. Watters)
russ_watters
Mar31-03, 01:58 PM
...as I have already indicated that My Bias is pro truth... Uh huh. Do you actually believe that? I'm speachless. It really appears you don't understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion."
odd, i don't see him haveing trouble with that at all; however a lot of people lately do seem to have issues with such things.
ProMetal
Apr1-03, 09:12 AM
I will be glad to propose a pro-war stance for your analysis. I just need to do it in a different post. Thanks for waiting.
I believe that's an end to this thread, then? Except maybe for some twisting and turning of words and some understanding of the difference between opinions and facts.
I'll eagerly await the response you've committed yourself to.
Lifegazer
Apr1-03, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Alias
I will concede that there was a shortage of rational debate on my part. However, this was surely a combination of a reaction to your bewildering reliance on supposition, and my extreme drunkeness.
LOL. I liked that. The best thing you've said all week.[;)]
Originally posted by damgo
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Thread.
Mr. Damgo,
WE CAN"T AFFORD A SARCASM GAP!
Njorl
Originally posted by ProMetal
I believe that's an end to this thread, then? Except maybe for some twisting and turning of words and some understanding of the difference between opinions and facts.
I'll eagerly await the response you've committed yourself to.
For some reason most Arab nations have failed miserably in governing themselves with civility. Many say it is because the west supports the opressive and dictatorial governments that exist in these countries. Maybe so. But please, tell me why most of these countries have crappy governments to start with. Maybe these governments are a reflection of their respective cultures or religions?
The reason for war in Iraq is very simple. We believe that Saddam Hussein posesses WMDs. His actions over the last 12 years indicate that there is a high probability that he will never willingly disarm himself of these weapons as was prescribed by the 1991 cease fire he agreed to. Saddam repeatedly demonstrates his dishonesty, so we simply can not trust him to be responsible in the posession or destruction of these weapons. We live in a dangerous world where many people will go to extraordinary means to inflict damage on the west. Should the types of weapons Saddam posesses (small pox for example) fall into the wrong hands, the results could not only be catastophic for the west, but also for most of the world. And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so.
Should the disarming of Saddam lead to a liberated Iraqi people with an opportunity to govern themselves with a modern democracy that might infect other Arab countries with similar aspirations, then hoorah! I don't really give a gosh darn!
ProMetal
Apr1-03, 11:21 AM
The reason for war in Iraq is very simple. We believe that Saddam Hussein posesses WMDs.
You believe Saddam posesses WMDs? Mr. Blix doesn't. If I am to take into account the responses regarding Mr. Blix in earlier posts, I understand that the weapon inspectors were not there for inspections - a statement that contradicts itself. The weapon inspectors were in Iraq for inspections, the reason why sites were 'inspected'. The fact that the US believes Iraq posesses WMDs does not ascertain that accusation. Under international pressure or not, the US agreed to 1441. And according to 1441, compliance and disarmement are issues that are to be dealt with and commented upon by the weapon inspectors, not by Powell in the UN.
Saddam repeatedly demonstrates his dishonesty, so we simply can not trust him to be responsible in the posession or destruction of these weapons. We live in a dangerous world where many people will go to extraordinary means to inflict damage on the west
Elimination of threats by military opposition, eh? I'll reiterate what I earlier stated. India and Pakistan are threats to each other - much bigger threats than Saddam Hussein is to the US. By your logic, both should eliminate each other as and when possible. And both would be justified in doing so. Ironic, isn't it, that the US and the UK called upon India and Pakistan to put an end to tensions after the commencement of the war on Iraq.
And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so.
Are you, by any chance, implying that not being capable of keeping the loss of life to a minimum is the reason more than half of the world is opposed to this? I believe not, for suicide when a debate has but started is naive.
Or are you telling me that the US has taken up this job because it is capable of doing it? I'm capable of sinking a dagger into the chest of a man who can do little to defend himself. I filed a case in the court a few months earlier, that the man is a threat to me. The court has, at least as yet, not declared the man a threat. I, however, along with a few friends, kill him. The justification I give to the members of the society is that I considered the man a threat, and was capable of carrying out this, therefore I did it.
If I expect my act to be declared justified, I better get my head out of the trash can.
Originally posted by ProMetal
You believe Saddam posesses WMDs? Mr. Blix doesn't. If I am to take into account the responses regarding Mr. Blix in earlier posts, I understand that the weapon inspectors were not there for inspections - a statement that contradicts itself. The weapon inspectors were in Iraq for inspections, the reason why sites were 'inspected'. The fact that the US believes Iraq posesses WMDs does not ascertain that accusation. Under international pressure or not, the US agreed to 1441. And according to 1441, compliance and disarmement are issues that are to be dealt with and commented upon by the weapon inspectors, not by Powell in the UN.
1441 mandates that Iraq disarm or provide proof of same. A number of proscribed weapons were found by the inspectors including the upgraded Al Samud II missiles that Iraq actually admitted were a violation. This demonstated the Regime's inability to TELL THE TRUTH even after 12 years of urging by the international community. Seriously man, what part of untrustworthy do you not understand?
Elimination of threats by military opposition, eh? I'll reiterate what I earlier stated. India and Pakistan are threats to each other - much bigger threats than Saddam Hussein is to the US. By your logic, both should eliminate each other as and when possible. And both would be justified in doing so. Ironic, isn't it, that the US and the UK called upon India and Pakistan to put an end to tensions after the commencement of the war on Iraq.
Their balance of power (both have nuclear weapons) will protect them unless their leaders become mentally unstable. Saddam is mentally unstable and there is no balance of power between the US and Iraq. Therefor we act preemptively.
Are you, by any chance, implying that not being capable of keeping the loss of life to a minimum is the reason more than half of the world is opposed to this? I believe not, for suicide when a debate has but started is naive.
I don't understand this. Would you please restate this?
Or are you telling me that the US has taken up this job because it is capable of doing it? I'm capable of sinking a dagger into the chest of a man who can do little to defend himself. I filed a case in the court a few months earlier, that the man is a threat to me. The court has, at least as yet, not declared the man a threat. I, however, along with a few friends, kill him. The justification I give to the members of the society is that I considered the man a threat, and was capable of carrying out this, therefore I did it.
Your analogy is inncorrect. You assume that the UN is a fair court respected in the world community as one that can enforce it's mandates. The UN has proven that it is a paper tiger with no more ability to enforce it's regulations than the debating society that it is.
If I expect my act to be declared justified, I better get my head out of the trash can.
I don't know what you mean here, but yes, I agree that it is better if your head is not in the trash can.
Saddam would be much more popular if he were Jewish....http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,917834,00.html
ProMetal
Apr1-03, 01:42 PM
1441 mandates that Iraq disarm or provide proof of same. A number of proscribed weapons were found by the inspectors including the upgraded Al Samud II missiles that Iraq actually admitted were a violation. This demonstated the Regime's inability to TELL THE TRUTH even after 12 years of urging by the international community. Seriously man, what part of untrustworthy do you not understand?
Out of the two options given to Iraq, the first is to 'disarm'. If Iraq chooses this option, it is in effect complying with the resolution. This option comes into play only in the case where Iraq posesses these weapons. Disarmement is impossible without prior armement. (duh). If war was to waged upon the discovery of weapons, what was the point of giving Iraq the option of disarming? The resolution should have, in that case, asked Iraq to provide proof that it does not posess any prohibited weapons, and in the case that it failed to do so or weapons were found, Iraq would be attacked. If the US intended to attack upon the discovery of weapons, I don't see a reason behind their agreeing to 1441.
Their balance of power (both have nuclear weapons) will protect them unless their leaders become mentally unstable. Saddam is mentally unstable and there is no balance of power between the US and Iraq. Therefor we act preemptively.
Firstly, 'Saddam is mentally unstable' is a blanket statement, an unsubstantiated remark - a supposition, to put it in words more familiar. Liars and moustached men are not always mentally unstable.
Moreover, according to what you say, this tyrannical dictator who disrupts world peace and shakes off international law could exist in his utterly evil existence had he been able to match the military might of the USA?
And, by the way - a factual error. India is far more advanced than Pakistan militarily. It is in posession of more and better nukes, and militarily outclasses Pakistan. If the mere posession of nukes balances power, the US and Pakistan would be balanced in power. Would that mean that if Pakistan was a threat to the US, say on account of the religous parties that are now partially in power, it would be ignored and the security of the American people would not be guaranteed in the manner it is guaranteed now? I'm sure you President does not agree with you.
I don't understand this. Would you please restate this?
My interpretation to what you said, when you said, 'And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so' was that you are implying that the US has taken this up because it is capable, and those who oppose it do it because they are incapable.
You've dealt with my response to this interpretation, so it does not really matter. This was just to clarify. Moving on,
Your analogy is inncorrect. You assume that the UN is a fair court respected in the world community as one that can enforce it's mandates. The UN has proven that it is a paper tiger with no more ability to enforce it's regulations than the debating society that it is.
Two possibilities we have here.
1- The UN commands respect and is to be obeyed. In that case, my analogy stands.
2- The UN does not command respect and can be overlooked and its resolutions need not be necessarily complied with. In that case, let's look at history. The 91 attacks on Iraq were in compliance with UN resolutions. (Several UN resolutions were passed, placing trade embargos and demanding Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait by 15 January, 1991 or to prepare for war). The ceasefire agreement you talk about was signed under the UN. It was under the UN that Iraq ever agreed to destroy its WMDs, if it had any. It was under the UN that Iraq agreed to cease its nuclear weapon programs.
If the UN is that flawed a party, and no one is under an obligation to abide by it, Iraq is no exception. It can walk over resolutions the same way the US can walk over 1441. According to you, Iraq does not need to follow agreements regarding destruction of its WMDs.
Back to square one. And that's square imperialism.
Accept it. If this war is justified, we're entering the colonial era again. A France and a Germany can find so many threats around the world. And act unilaterally to eliminate these threats.
Reminds me of another deceased friend of ours. Adolf, was it?
It is really much simpler than all of that, and I apologize for implying that it is not. Let me break it down for you.
The US is at war with terrorists.
Saddam and his regime are terrorists.
Simple enough?
^^^ If it were true. Saddam is a bastard dictator, but he is no friend to al Qaeda or the type of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that threatens the US. Overthrowing Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime is, after all, a major goal of terrorist Islamist organizations.
He terrorizes his own people. He's a terrorist.
i think you are a terrorist in your own way Alias. [:((]
Honestly, I don't quite know how to respond to an accusation like that. But I'll try to 'in kind'.
I think you're a big dummy!?!?!?
russ_watters
Apr1-03, 04:41 PM
If it were true. Saddam is a bastard dictator, but he is no friend to al Qaeda or the type of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that threatens the US. Does this mean you didn't hear about the terrorist training camp camp they found in Northern Iraq?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-iraqi-militants_x.htm
And there is more to it than that, damgo. Shooting your own civilians in the back for fleeing a war zone and forcing civilans to fight under threat of death is also terrorism. These are recent examples. I'm sure you know of the less recent ones.
Originally posted by Alias
He terrorizes his own people. He's a terrorist. You want to know how many such terrorists we have in India ?
The Chief Ministers of Gujarat, Bihar and Tamil Nadu today are such terrorists. They have robbed, killed, bribed and deceived en masse for power and money. Come attack India next.
But you wont . We dont have oil, you see [;)]
- S.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Does this mean you didn't hear about the terrorist training camp camp they found in Northern Iraq?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-iraqi-militants_x.htm
Er... actually that particular group is part of the Islamic guerillas against Saddam's 'infidel' rule. Notice:
there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.
many of Ansar's 700 members have slipped out of Iraq and into Iran — putting them out of reach of coalition forces.
Northern Iraq. The Ansar al-Islam camp was in PUK territory, de facto Kurdistan; Iraq hasn't had control of that area since 1991. Honestly I'm not entirely sure why we didn't take it out earlier -- the Kurds were certainly happy to see them gone, and we've had Special Forces in the region for a long while.
I'm assuming Alias meant terrorists in the traditional blowing-up-planes-and-building way, since (s?)he said "the US is at war with terrorists." Given some of the members of the Coalition of the Willing, it's clear the US is not at war with all brutal dictatorships.
Russ, Alias, anyone, do you guys truly believe Saddam is in bed with Islamist terrorists? He's not; this isn't just a liberal/anti-war thing; those familiar with the region -- pro and anti-war alike -- know well that they hate each other, and always. The fundamentalists and terrorist groups have been trying to overthrow Saddam and the Ba'athists for years.
It's a classic example of the Big Lie... if you look closely, Bush and his top advisors never come outright and directly make the link. They just constantly insinuate it, make speeches as if it were true, and point out and play up every story which contains both the words "terrorists" and "Iraq." Makes me incredibly angry... I mean there are plenty of valid reasons to support this war; it's demeaning and disgusting that Bush&Co is instead pushing an utter lie on us.
Originally posted by Alias
Honestly, I don't quite know how to respond to an accusation like that. But I'll try to 'in kind'.
I think you're a big dummy!?!?!?
no, i think you propogate fear.
Maybe we are all wrong.
Maybe what the Bush administration is trying to do is change the fundamental cause of terrorism in the middle east.
You could say that they are attempting to do this by converting one of the potentially wealthiest countries in the region to a democracy, hoping that the domino effect will take care of many of the others.
When Arabs are allowed to be in charge of their own destiny, maybe they won't have a reason to be angry.
russ_watters
Apr2-03, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by damgo
Russ, Alias, anyone, do you guys truly believe Saddam is in bed with Islamist terrorists? It's a classic example of the Big Lie... damgo, this isn't a belief, this is well established FACT we are talking about here. The thin link is when you (we) specifically talk about Bin Laden being in bed with Saddam. But Saddam has for YEARS provided monetary awards for the families of islamic terrorists in Israel and actively supported the efforts of the terrorists. He is currently specifically invoking "jihad" on the US - appealing to islamic terrorists to come to his aid.
Northern Iraq. The Ansar al-Islam camp was in PUK territory, de facto Kurdistan; Iraq hasn't had control of that area since 1991. So a dictator isn't in complete control of (and/or not responsible for) what goes on in his country? You really believe that?
Alias: now that's an argument! :) The Bush Adminstration is certainly a fan of that 'reverse domino' theory of spreading democracy in the Middle East, though personally I think it's going to be as erroneous as the original.
Another point is that installing a friendly government in Iraq will allow the USA to move its troops out of Saudi Arabia; that will go a good ways towards reducing terrorism, as US troops in Saudi/the Middle East is their #1 complaint.
russ-
Yes, Saddam giving money to suicide bomber's families is a fact. But that doesn't make him a supporter of Islamist terrorism. Example: before 9/11, the USA gave millions in aid to the Taliban to reward them for dramatically slashing opium manufacturing. Does that mean we supported what the Taliban stood for? Of course not.
Giving money to (dead) Palestinian terrorists' families is an easy way for Saddam to gain political capital in the Arab world without actually aiding the terrorists themselves. The mullahs and Islamists despise Saddam, almost as much as they did the Shaw...
re: jihad. Yes, of course he appeals to religion. Have you listened to Bush's speeches recently? "There will be a day of reckoning", "God is not neutral in this conflict," and so forth. They often sound oddly similar...
re: Northern Iraq. Yes! It's his country in name only, that's what I'm saying. [:)] There is even a well-defined bloody border marked on many recent maps: on one side are the Iraqi lines, on the other are the Kurdish militias' (PUK/KDP) lines. Check out: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_kurdish_areas_2003.jpg
russ_watters
Apr2-03, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by damgo
russ-
Yes, Saddam giving money to suicide bomber's families is a fact. But that doesn't make him a supporter of Islamist terrorism. Damgo, thats a self-contradictory statement. Supporting terrorism is not supporting terrorism? Those payments saddam made were a REWARD for TERRORISM. It doesn't get any more cut and dried than that.
^^^ Eh, that's just semantics. :) (I see what you mean about haisplitting [;)] )
Analogy: The USA (until recently) gave lots of food aid to North Korea, thus freeing them up to spend more on their military w/o having their people starve. This doesn't mean that the USA was trying to reward NK, or supported North Korea. It means rather that they didn't feel the NK people should suffer because of their government's policies. Similarly, giving aid to the families of suicide bombers could be taken to mean not that you support terrorism, but that you don't feel families should suffer (their homes are usuallly bulldozed, and the wage earner is gone) because of one of the family's choice.
Are their deep issues here about what is a legitimate act and to what extent family members are responsible for each other? Hell yeah... but it's not cut-and-dried.
Now, do I think that's why Saddam gives them money? Not likely! I doubt he gives a damn about those families. But playing up to them is a good way to gain support on the Arab street; and hypocritical politican that he is, Saddam "feels their pain."
russ_watters
Apr2-03, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by damgo
^^^ Eh, that's just semantics. :).....
Now, do I think that's why Saddam gives them money? Not likely! Wait, you went to all that trouble to prove its a question of semantics, then contradict your own hypothetical? Now I seriously am confused.
You *DO* believe that Saddam supports the families of the terrorists to reward them for their terrorism, (not for some altruistic aid to people who have lost something) right? Hasn't he said that explicitly?
Motivation is not a question of semantics. Motivation is EVERYTHING here. Certainly people attempt to muddy the waters with contradicting statements on their own motivation - our (Bush's) motivation for fighting this war is a great example. Saddm Hussein on the other hand has been quite explicit and consistent as to what his motivation is for his actions.
^^^ The semantics line was tongue-in-cheek. Damn this non-emotion-conducting Internet!
I believe Saddam supports families of terrorists for selfish political reasons, yeah. Like I said, I have no doubt he's a scumbag. The point I've been making is that the Islamists hate his guts, too; he's not likely to give them much aid (say chem weapons), when they could use it against him far easier than they could use them against the USA.
Would you say that the world would be in more peril if Saddam had WMDs, than if the Pope had them?
russ_watters
Apr3-03, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by damgo
^^^ The semantics line was tongue-in-cheek. Damn this non-emotion-conducting Internet! Oops, I get it - I should have picked up on it.
Would you say that the world would be in more peril if Saddam had WMDs, than if the Pope had them?Hmmm, I don't kwow, that's a really tough one... would you say that the world would be worse-off if Kim Jong Il had WMDs, or if the Care Bears did? :)
Originally posted by damgo
Hmmm, I don't kwow, that's a really tough one... would you say that the world would be worse-off if Kim Jong Il had WMDs, or if the Care Bears did? :)
Well Kim Jong Il's got'em. But I'll be damned if I let those evil Care Bears upset the balance of power! Death to the butal dictator Care Bears! I think I'll issue a fahtwah.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Apr3-03, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Alais
(snip)I think I'll issue a fahtwah.(snip)
Alais, you can do it in the name of the Sunni's,(the former ruling class of Iraq) as they are now the last people defending Baghdad, and to 'Win the War', all George needs to do, is, "Kill them All".
Isn't there another name for that?
BTW Alais, the solution(s) are/was/were, to end the war, now, bring the Boys back home where they are safe, sign a Peace Treaty with the people that are left whom have not yet been slain/murdered.
That I had suggested, well before, this war started.
Blessed are the Peace Makers.............J.C.
I disagree with your solution, although I'm quite happy you stated it. I wish we could get that much from Zero.
I think a better solution would be to continue to make war on all of those that oppose the removal of Saddam's regime. Make no mistake, they know what they are in for, and can surrender at any time. If they continue to fight, their deaths will be their own doing.
Of course, for those being forced to fight, I pray for them.
Hmmm...another personal attack, Alias?
Certainly, murdering anyone who might ever interfere with U.S interests is a brilliant strategy...get that from a G.I. Joe comic book?
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...another personal attack, Alias?
No, just some playful ribbing. I miss you in this thread. It's my pathetic attempt to get your attention.
Certainly, murdering anyone who might ever interfere with U.S interests is a brilliant strategy...get that from a G.I. Joe comic book?
That's not what I said, or meant, and you know it. I think you actually kind of like me. I think you've got this love/hate thing going for me, no?
Seriously, don't you think that ultimately, when the dust settles, the Iraqi people will be better off running their own country?
And why is it you can't see my compassion, even when I lay it out right in front of you? Please re-read my last post.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Apr4-03, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Alias
I disagree with your solution, although I'm quite happy you stated it. I wish we could get that much from Zero.
I think a better solution would be to continue to make war on all of those that oppose the removal of Saddam's regime. Make no mistake, they know what they are in for, and can surrender at any time. If they continue to fight, their deaths will be their own doing.
Of course, for those being forced to fight, I pray for them.
Must admit alias, you are good with that party line
Werdatothewise
Jun2-04, 01:31 AM
This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq:
As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two-week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper/TV is putting out.)
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.
Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about, but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.
Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion
Werdatothewise
Jun2-04, 01:34 AM
Alais, you can do it in the name of the Sunni's,(the former ruling class of Iraq) as they are now the last people defending Baghdad, and to 'Win the War', all George needs to do, is, "Kill them All".
Isn't there another name for that?
BTW Alais, the solution(s) are/was/were, to end the war, now, bring the Boys back home where they are safe, sign a Peace Treaty with the people that are left whom have not yet been slain/murdered.
That I had suggested, well before, this war started.
Blessed are the Peace Makers.............J.C.
Who remembers the days of the VIETNAM WAR?
pelastration
Jun2-04, 04:28 AM
Who remembers the days of the VIETNAM WAR?
John Kerry? Sure.
GW Bush: I doubt.
IRAQ: BEFORE AND AFTER SANCTIONS
Hospital beds:
Before sanctions: 1.9/100
After sanctions: 1.4/100
Life expectancy:
Before sanctions: 65 years
After sanctions: 59 years
Infant mortality:
Before sanctions: 80/1000
After sanctions: 104/1000
Adult literacy rate:
Before sanctions: 89%
After sanctions: 58%
Student enrollment:
Before sanctions:
Primary School: 99%
Secondary School: 47%
Number of School Buildings: 9460
After sanctions:
Primary School: 80%
Secondary School: 31%
Number of School Buildings: 7572
Education status:
Before sanctions: Public education was free and compulsory at all levels.
After sanctions: UNICEF estimated that only 10% of Iraq's needs for education could be met by the Oil for Food Programme.
Calory intake:
Before sanctions: 3400 calories per day (The highest in the region at that time)
Two thirds of Iraq's food was imported.
After sanctions: 2268 calories per day
94% of the FAO recommended minimum requirement
Undernourishment:
Before sanctions: 4%
After sanctions: 27%
Access to safe water:
Before sanctions:
Urban: 100%
Rural: 72%
After sanctions:
Urban: 85%
Rural: 48%
Access to sanitation:
Before sanctions:
Urban: 96%
Rural: 18%
After sanctions:
Urban: 79%
Rural: 31%
Electricity
Production:
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: KWh27.3 billion
Consumption
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: KWh25.389 billion
Telephone lines in use:
Before sanctions: 462,000
After sanctions: 675,000
Internet service provider
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: One ISP for 12,500 users
Television & radio
Before sanctions: Unknown
After sanctions: 13 TV broadcast stations, 3 radio stations
(Sources: FAO/UNESCO/WHO/World Bank Data.)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/34695329-3D30-406E-BFDE-3E44899B7730.htm
studentx
Jun2-04, 01:16 PM
So Adam, you agree that this war brought forth some good: the end of sanctions which crippled the country?
that is like saying the hurricane brought some good becuase it ended the drought.
phatmonky
Jun2-04, 05:36 PM
that is like saying the hurricane brought some good becuase it ended the drought.
If the hurricane costs less lives than the indefinite drought, then yes it did some good.
So Adam, you agree that this war brought forth some good: the end of sanctions which crippled the country?
1) X causes all sorts of problems through sanctions and such, for Y.
2) X invades Y, destroys all basic infrastructure, kills lots of people, and ends those sanctions.
3) Some idiot thinks X's invasion is good because the sanctions (caused by X) are over.
I have recommended to you before that you should simply stay out of these conversations.
studentx
Jun3-04, 11:45 AM
1) X causes all sorts of problems through sanctions and such, for Y.
2) X invades Y, destroys all basic infrastructure, kills lots of people, and ends those sanctions.
3) Some idiot thinks X's invasion is good because the sanctions (caused by X) are over.
I have recommended to you before that you should simply stay out of these conversations.
I contemplated your recommendations but i had to put them aside :zzz: When the truth gets assaulted its my duty to protect it.
X imposes the sanctions and X invades Iraq? Last time i checked, the UN didnt invade Iraq.
Do you dispute the fact that sanctions would not have been lifted while Saddam was in power?
To say that the war was good because it ended the sanctions is just like saying that if the Holocaust had been 100% successful it would have been good because it would have stopped the Nazis from persecuting the Jews.
studentx
Jun4-04, 04:59 AM
strawman Pyrovus
The campaign against Iraq was always driven by the USA.
And no, Pyrovus's analogy was not a straw man argument.
studentx
Jun4-04, 10:06 AM
the jews did nothing to deserve persecution, had no leader that led them to hell. Saddam killed thousands of kuweitis, tens of thousands of Kurds, hundreds of thousands of iranians and millions of iraqis. Once again Adam i have made recommendations not to attack the truth, or i will have to protect it.
the jews did nothing to deserve persecution, had no leader that led them to hell. Saddam killed thousands of kuweitis, tens of thousands of Kurds, hundreds of thousands of iranians and millions of iraqis. Once again Adam i have made recommendations not to attack the truth, or i will have to protect it.
Really? Wow. How interesting. Perhaps you could tell us what you base these assertions on?
studentx
Jun4-04, 12:24 PM
alright, which assertions do i need to clarify for you !
Where did Saddam get the weapons and materials to kill all those people? Which administrations were in charge? What were their policies regarding Saddam? (while supplying WMD and techonolgy for building WMD.)
studentx
Jun4-04, 03:13 PM
America, Russia, France, Germany, China.
Now, we are talking about the strawman Amp.
American troops are not nazis persecuting Iraqis and the invasion of Iraq was not the holocaust. If you have any love for the truth you should crush this strawman
Please show me on what you base these:
- tens of thousands of Kurds,
- hundreds of thousands of iranians
- millions of iraqis.
schwarzchildradius
Jun4-04, 10:01 PM
What an awesome thread, I had thought that it was dead and buried (along with those er... civilians). This thread is a magnificent time capsule of the tension and uncertainty permeating the intellectual atmosphere of the war. Thanks, Lifegazer, for starting this thread.
______________________
I have heard the argument stated axiomatically: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C; for example, going to war = getting Saddam, getting Saddam = good, therefore going to war = good (Ed Gillespie, Charlie Rose). Sure, it's a quick rationalization for the Charlie Rose show, but it leaves out some important facts, for example, all the costs associated with A, all the ramifications (besides C) of B, and the fact that even though we;ve arrived at C, there will be no withdrawal, and no forseeable end to the occupation of Iraq. No end to the dozen or more US soldiers killed every week. No end to the hundred or more Iraqi civilians and fighters killed every week. When will Iraqi insurgents stop bombing Iraqi troops and police?
Rush Limbaugh said today "war in the Middle East is a fabulous idea, as long as I don't have to fight in it."
What do you think he meant by that?
Ann Coulter calls it a "fantastic success."
I wonder if she said that at any of the funerals.
studentx
Jun5-04, 04:57 AM
http://hnn.us/articles/862.html
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/03/27/52394-ap.html
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.
Iranian leaders have denounced the military strike as "satanic" and "a threat to humanity." They fear being drawn into the conflict after their own eight-year war with Iraq, which killed an estimated 1 million people on both sides.
Now i havent even mentioned the Madan (marsh people).
Read and enjoy.
A War Crime or an Act of War?
It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent � that is, a cyanide-based gas � which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades � not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition � thanks to United Nations sanctions � Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
(Stephen C. Pelletiere, The New York Times, January 31, 2003)
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
Now what about the "millions of Iraqis"?
studentx
Jun5-04, 04:14 PM
Well the war with Iran cost at least a million Iraqi lifes. Then theres the invasion of Kuwait and the following war with the coalition, theres the Kurds , the marsh ppl and who not! Also lets not forget sanctions, a direct result of Saddams actions. Im sure i forgot many other people as well, i apologize to them.
Btw, survivors of Halabja witnessed iraqi planes dropping the gas. When the Kurds themselves say it was the Iraqis, who are we to argue with them? Even if Halabja isnt Saddams crime, there are 2000 other villages that are!
So you mean when the Kurds heard a shell or two explode in the village, they had some psychic sense which told them they were Iraqi weapons?
I've read through the pages of posts on this thread and have come to the conclusion that no one here truly understands why this war on terror has arisen.
This man Osama Bin Laden; he used to be a rich construction merchant in Saudi Arabia (very rich). At that time he consorted with the Saudi Royal family and many heads of state around the world, but he became very disillusioned with the distribution of the oil wealth among his native Saudi Arabians (especially the poor).
As a result of this disillusionment he tried to bring reform to the Saudi system to help the poor there but was shouted down by the house of Saud. Consequently Bin Laden set up Al-Quaeda as the armed resistance movement to liberate the Saudi Arabians from what he sees as an undemocratic, aristocratic dictatorship. To most people, Al-Quaeda is some kind of nutty 'scaramanga' movement out to bring chaos and lunacy just like the character in the James Bond films. However, Al-Quaeda is nothing more than Saudi Arabia's version of the IRA. All Bin Laden ever wanted was to give his people a greater share of the oil wealth, but he has lost the 'appearances war'and we now all see him as world enemy number one.
I remember some time ago that four British men were arrested in Saudi and accused of planting bombs in some sort of 'illegal alchohol war'. The men were imprisoned, tortured (they said) and made to confess to things they had never done. The bombs they were accused of setting off all targeted foreign workers in Saudi and the Saudi goverment lied to everyone and concealed the fact that the real culprit was the Saudi liberation movement, Al-Quaeda.
The goverment here in the UK always knew the truth of those imprisoned Brits, but this war to keep a so called 'friend' in control of the Saudi oil reserves is more important to Mr Blair and his gang that they can sacrifice our own - just like GB and the US military personell lost in action fighting in Saudi's war against liberation.
selfAdjoint
Jun8-04, 10:17 AM
Your account of bin Laden's development misrepresents him and makes him seem like a social reformer in the western sense, where he is really a fundamentalist Islamic rebel. What fired him up was not the disparity of income, but the besmirching of the holy places, Mecca and Medina, by the money hungry Saudi's, and then the presence of infidel (US) troops on the holy soil of Arabia.
Bin Laden got radicallized in Afghanistan, and was a great supporter of the Taliban and their Sharia religious law.
SA.,
My description of Bin Laden is only a misrepresentation if you look at him from a western viewpoint. It may make him seem like a social reformer in the western sense, but he's not a westerner is he? To properly understand what he is you have to see him from the eastern sense.
Bin Laden did not become radicallized in Afghanistan, he was allowed to flee there to escape from the Saudi goverment by the Taliban (a great supporter of Bin Laden).
Nonetheless, if you look back far enough you will find the true origins of Bin Laden's discontent to be just as I have said; the business about besmirching holy Islamic places and the presence of infidel (US) troops on the holy soil of Arabia came long after he set out to remove the House of Saud. It is propoganda he very stupidly provided when he decided to court Islamic fundamentalism to swell his ranks.
Personally I couldn't care less for Bin Laden, he's killed Brits (9/11) and Africans (Kenya) who had no part in what he's fighting against, so he is my enemy now and the world ought to wipe its butt of him. But I can't stand the fact that our goverment (UK) has seen fit to use our military and tax money to help lose Saudi's war of independence.
But I will always see the enemy for what he truly is and not what propoganda and goverment tell me he is because it is the only way to kill him.
The Saudi Royals are also enemies of Britain; they imprisoned our people and tortured them even though they knew the truth about who the bombers were and still deny what they did. It doesn't matter if there were only four ordinary men, or even if there were just one; Those guys are somebody, they have families, friends and life just as we do and no one on this earth has the right to do that to anyone. But our goverment like all others doesn't truly care about it's people, they only care for appearances, policy and career.
I think you're romanticizing Osama Bin Ladens movement. It's more likely that he was origionaly (and very likely still is) in cahoots with Prince Turki al-Faisal in the continueing struggle for power in Saudia Arabia. Prince Turki al-Faisal is a NOT proponent of democracy, nor is Osama, both have chose to harness the power of the religious fanatics for their own personal advantage. If Osama is still around, and the struggle between Prince Turki Al-Faisal and Crown Prince Abdullah ends with Prince Turki Al-Faisal and his faction in control..I think you will see a open friendship between Osama and the controling Saudi royalty.
I'm not romanticizing anything Kat, Bin Laden needs a bullet in the head.
But like you said (and hit the nail on the head) "the continuing struggle for power in Saudia Arabia". This war on terror is not a war on terror at all, it is the the war over the struggle for power in Saudia Arabia.
Why then are we (the west) fighting it for the Saudi's, and why have they brought their war to our shores. Saudi's war should be kept within Saudi's borders but our inept politicians have brought their work home with them and its stinking up the house.
If its all about oil we ought to remember what the house of Saud did in the seventies when Israel was attacked; they cut off the supply to the west without warning and we ought to remember that date just as we remember 9/11 (a surprise attack) - just like Bin Laden they ain't our friends. But the ordinary Saudi/Iraqui/Iranian etc in the street are our friends because they are no different to Kevin & Tracy with their 2.4 kids.
As for terrorists, we have ours and they have theirs but theirs and ours are running things.
The Saudis have another hold on the US (and possibly the UK) They are heavily invested in our stock market. If they pulled out, the devastation to the US economy would make the great depression look like a walk in the park.
phatmonky
Jun10-04, 11:27 AM
The Saudis have another hold on the US (and possibly the UK) They are heavily invested in our stock market. If they pulled out, the devastation to the US economy would make the great depression look like a walk in the park.
You greatly exaggerate that threat.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html
Justify criticisms (ie saying it is complete bull****) of this link, please. It seems to have a source or two as backing. Just looking for opinions, seems like the right thread...
We can't either justify criticisms' or agreements Rashad, this war touches everyone in some way so all we can do is voice our opinions and accept those of others.
Nonetheless, we in our democracies have a vote!
studentx
Jun22-04, 12:01 PM
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html
Justify criticisms (ie saying it is complete bull****) of this link, please. It seems to have a source or two as backing. Just looking for opinions, seems like the right thread...
On the one hand we have people blaming the Bush govt for not taking the terrorist threat seriously before 911, and on the other hand we have people blaming Bush gvt for planning to overthrow a terrorist regime before 911.
Elizabeth1405
Jul31-04, 08:45 PM
Where's the weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any. And why can the US have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, whilst Iraq is invaded for possibly harbouring some biological weapons?
You cannot use 'terorism' as an excuse either; for nobody has any evidence linking Iraq with terrorism.
To me, this whole thing stinks of oil and imperialistic might... mixed with paranoi of terrorism and a crumbling stock-market.
I think the US/UK have made a mistake - regardless of the outcome. Sorry to disrupt the gung-ho patriotism; but that's how I feel.
I'm American, and I agree with you 100%. Please don't believe that all Americans are in favor of this war--trust me, we're not. I went to France and Germany a couple months ago, and I felt the strange need to apologize to everyone. Cowboy George made us all look like a bunch of idiots--and the whole gung-ho-we're-so-great thing is even more embarassing.
JohnDubYa
Aug2-04, 01:42 AM
Where's the weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any.
Hmmm... are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?
And why can the US have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, whilst Iraq is invaded for possibly harbouring some biological weapons?
I find it laughable that anyone would propose the US do nothing about other countries possessing, or trying to possess, weapons of mass destruction.
You cannot use 'terorism' as an excuse either; for nobody has any evidence linking Iraq with terrorism.
I think even Kerry said that such a link existed. Or am I mistaken? If I am, what were his justifications for voting for the war?
To me, this whole thing stinks of oil and imperialistic might... mixed with paranoi of terrorism and a crumbling stock-market.
I think the US/UK have made a mistake - regardless of the outcome. Sorry to disrupt the gung-ho patriotism; but that's how I feel.
I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.
loseyourname
Aug2-04, 01:53 AM
If all Bush wanted was oil, he'd go into Alaska, not Iraq.
loseyourname
Aug2-04, 01:59 AM
By the way, the two largest exporters of oil to the US are Mexico and Canada. Why aren't we invading them?
Elizabeth1405
Aug2-04, 02:03 AM
I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.
No we haven't yet, but I'm guessing George W. can't wait to be 'friends' with the Iraqis so he can get a nice discount on as much oil as he wants.
And do you blame this person (who is European) for having an anti-Republican attitude? Look at what the ever-so-eloquent Mr. Rumsfeld said about France and Germany. Do you blame them for being 'anti-Republican' or better yet, anti-AMERICAN?
Elizabeth1405
Aug2-04, 02:06 AM
By the way, the two largest exporters of oil to the US are Mexico and Canada. Why aren't we invading them?
Don't worry, I'm sure they're next.
JohnDubYa
Aug2-04, 02:17 AM
No we haven't yet, but I'm guessing George W. can't wait to be 'friends' with the Iraqis so he can get a nice discount on as much oil as he wants.
They call this Truth by Prophecy, and it's a fallacy. In other words, you were unable to respond to my question. You pulled the same line of reasoning out when you stated:
Don't worry, I'm sure they're next.
In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.
Prometheus
Aug2-04, 02:32 AM
In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.
Elizabeth1405: Your comments were structurally similar to those of JohnDubYa, but he was quicker on the draw to insult your for doing what he does.
Hmmm... are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?
Didn't answer the question
I find it laughable that anyone would propose the US do nothing about other countries possessing, or trying to possess, weapons of mass destruction.
Avoided the question.
I think even Kerry said that such a link existed. Or am I mistaken? If I am, what were his justifications for voting for the war?
Sidestepped the question.
I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.
Irrelevant shift of focus to justify his self-confessed failure.
Elizabeth1405
Aug2-04, 02:51 AM
In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.
Geez, relax a little. I thought the Canada and Mexico thing was sorta funny. But thank you for setting me straight on my worthlessness, your highness....
JohnDubYa
Aug2-04, 03:11 AM
Didn't answer the question
Never said I did. And the same goes for the rest of my responses. Besides, you never answered my question either. ("Are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?")
Your comments were structurally similar to those of JohnDubYa,
Hmmm... I don't recall relying on future events to prove any statements.
Elizabeth1405
Aug2-04, 03:14 AM
Hmmm... I don't recall relying on future events to prove any statements.
I have an idea...let's start a new thread just to find out if this is true.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
JohnDubYa
Aug2-04, 03:20 AM
I have an idea... why don't you admit that you have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism? The evidence doesn't support your statements. We are paying more now for oil than before the invasion.
Elizabeth1405
Aug2-04, 03:27 AM
I have an idea... why don't you admit that you have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism?
Ok, you ready? Here goes: "I have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism."
Does that make ya feel better? I hope so, because you seem really angry and uptight. Anyway, I'm not going to fight with you. Life's too short, and we're never going to agree on anything anyway. I'm tired and it's late, so I'm going to bed. Have a nice evening, OK?
JohnDubYa
Aug2-04, 03:46 AM
Sweet dreams.
Prometheus
Aug13-04, 08:43 PM
They call this Truth by Prophecy, and it's a fallacy.
You are mistaken in your use of pronouns. You say "they" so that we will think that someone of merit is involved. In truth, it is not some anonymous they but you who is calling it a fallacy, and you are using Truth by Propehcy as your hook to get people to believe you.
In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.
That you consider this the sole source of her intent is a fallacy on your part, in my opinion.
I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.
What kind of fallacy are you using? Surely you have a name for it when others speak this way. The fact that you fail to see something is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Bush had numerous goals for the venture in Iraq. He seems to be failing miserably. You ignore what his purpose was, and look upon his failure as proof that he never had the intentions in the first place. Perhaps your views are heavily tainted by a pro-Republican attitude. Is that not at least as likely?
selfAdjoint
Aug13-04, 09:57 PM
I wonder if Bush himself remembers what his true mix of purposes was. He's very much a spur of the moment guy, who can't be bothered with analysis. Various of his advisors had different motives, but I think very much the leading one was to stand tall and top the successful Afghanistan campaign with something bigger and better. Remember "Shock and Awe"?
Gokul43201
Aug19-04, 08:55 PM
You can't disarm the world by war...because there will be no world left. Dozens of, if not over a hundred, countries have missiles. Should we go to war with India and Pakistan for wanting to sell missiles to 3rd-world countries?
I know this is really old, but I just saw it, and I strongly object.
Dear Dan,
Please show me any evidence you have that India has sold (or wanted to sell, whatever that means) missiles to 3rd world countries. I will even accept rumor.
And the US has sold (often just given away) more weaponry to 3rd world countries than probably the rest of the world put together.
Does being a 3rd world country automatically qualify it as a rogue state or a dangerous entity ?
Ethanol
Aug22-04, 11:32 AM
Uncle Sam says afghanis are terrorists, we said yes. Uncle Sam says iraqis have got weapons of mass destruction, we don't speak up a word in iraq's favour.Uncle Sam says israel isn't terrorist, we remain quiet. Uncle Sam says we want terrorists, we say OK. Uncle Sam says give us your airbases we want to attack afghanistan, we give them that too. Uncle Sam says fight afghanis in WANA(a mountain terrain), we say 'your wish, our command'.
But who has the right to rule us and tell us that our Nuclear scientists were terrorists.Uncle Sam says Dr. Qadeer Khan should be imprisoned we asy Ok again.Do you Know why because might is right. After Pakistan conducted nuclear research with AbdulQadeer Khan he was prosecuted in various countries for the theft of researchof the Developed countries but what he really transfered to Pakistan was just knowledge. Might is right. the world works on the principle.Where are WMD(weapons of mass destruction) that Iraq possessed?Those were just WMD(words of mass deception) by Uncle Sam. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Where is the democracy that was promised to Iraqis? Truly Third World deserves the Gallows by the mighty developed countries. Why? Because they are still not rising against the tyranny.If we want to produce electricity by nuclear plant then why are we stopped? Because no one wants us to be developed. If we were developed whom would the Developed rule?And your words are right Gokul being 3rd world does not qualify us to be spanked. It does not suggest that we are dangerous.But it does suggest that we could be suppressed easily.
Uncle Sam says "India and Pakistan, no more fighting". Why would America want our friendship. If 3rd world countries like us become friend who would Uncle Sam sell his weapons to?
P.S. I'm in the favour of indo pak friendship. If the fighting ends the two nations will put their strenghts to development rather than each other's destruction and maybe they wont be regarded rogue.
JohnDubYa
Aug22-04, 10:31 PM
Let me guess: You read The Guardian and Al Jazeera for your information too, right?
At least TRY to examine the situation a little more objectively.
Ethanol
Aug23-04, 12:59 AM
Let me tell you that I read neither of the papers. I am a national of Pakistan and have good enough information on what is going on in the heads of my nation. Even though the dictator of ours is in favour of the US an average Pakistani does not think that we should support US in the so called war against terrorism. Every one has the right to freedom and I think Abe Lincoln of yours said that. When you attack Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq they are sure to fight back. If US really wanted to throw Saddam off, there was an easy way. You could have just helped his enemies by arms or something. And might i remind Americans that their partial success in Afghanistan is due to Pakistan. Afghanis are a warrior nation and they would still not give up and i fear that this time they will also be the reason for Pakistan's destruction cause they are our friends no more.
P.S. If you think saddam was bad to his general public then why are Iraqis fighting back and was there a terrorist attack on the Deputy prime minister of Iraq today even though Prime minister is leveling the path to democracy.
JohnDubYa
Aug23-04, 04:30 AM
I am a national of Pakistan and have good enough information on what is going on in the heads of my nation.
So where do you get your news? You didn't answer the question.
Even though the dictator of ours is in favour of the US an average Pakistani does not think that we should support US in the so called war against terrorism.
How many Pakistani nationals were killed in the World Trade Center attack? Exactly.
Pakistan is home to some of the most extreme religious bigotry in the world. It is little surprise that they would not support the US' attack of Afghanistan.
If US really wanted to throw Saddam off, there was an easy way. You could have just helped his enemies [buy] arms or something.
Oh, you mean Israel?
Or Iran? (Oh yeah, that would be a smoooooooth move considering our experience getting involved between those two countries.)
So which enemies are you referring? The Shi'ites? They had no chance in Hell of overthrowing Saddam. Hell, they didn't even have an organized militia!
And might i remind Americans that their partial success in Afghanistan is due to Pakistan. [No one has suggested otherwise.] Afghanis are a warrior nation and they would still not give up and i fear that this time they will also be the reason for Pakistan's destruction cause they are our friends no more.
Well, I hope you have kept the powder dry.
P.S. If you think saddam was bad to his general public then why are Iraqis fighting back and was there a terrorist attack on the Deputy prime minister of Iraq today even though Prime minister is leveling the path to democracy.
Fundamentalist Islam's wierdness is well-documented. If there is one thing we have learned in the war, the enemy we face acts very strange. There is no doubt that we saved many of these people's lives from Saddam's clutches, but they turned on us anyway. Again, this is partly due to religious bigotry.
And anyone that doesn't think Saddam was "bad to his general public" is insane. You need to see some of what he did to his people in Iraq. When you see video clips of wailing Iraqis pulling bones out of the dirt, what do you think happened? Did these mass graves occur because of avalanches? The stories of inhuman cruelty have been told countless times. These people are not making this up.
In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty. And that goes for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Baby Doc...
And don't think we could have waited for him to pass on. His sons were no better. Uday, especially, was a sheer pyschopath who carried out some of his father's more gruesome murders. Ask former members of his Olympic teams (well, if any have survived).
By the way, coming from Pakistan, what is your view on religious freedom and civil rights? What is your average citizen's views? Care to explain the contents of the following links?
http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/6.24/001128-honor.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/pakistan/reports/honour/overview.html
"At the end of July, however, the upper house of Pakistan's Parliament rejected even a highly watered-down version of a resolution condemning honor killing."
Nice country.
Pyrovus
Aug23-04, 06:21 AM
Fundamentalist Islam's wierdness is well-documented. If there is one thing we have learned in the war, the enemy we face acts very strange. There is no doubt that we saved many of these people's lives from Saddam's clutches, but they turned on us anyway.
Yeah, I guess it is pretty strange that people don't like the Americans after having relatives blown to pieces by American bombs.
In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty.
Yes, definitely in your opinion, rather than in fact. Saddam was a complete amateur compared to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Hitler came very close to succeeding in systematically annihilating the entire Jewish race - he managed to kill 6 million, in case you've forgotten. He slowly starved them to death, used them for slave labour and sadistic medical experimentation. Saddam's worst atrocities pale in comparison. It says a lot about your case that you need to exaggerate Saddam's evil in order to justify the war. It is utterly ridiculous to claim that Saddam is the worst dictator in two centuries, but hardly a surprising claim considering all the others; Saddam has nukes, he's planning to commit suicide by launching an attack against America, he has ties with a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who want him dead. Next thing we'll find out is that Saddam was a lightning weilding demigod who was plotting to turn everybody on earth into frogs with his evil magic powers handed to him by Satan. Sure, Saddam was bad, but there's about a dozen people worse than him that I don't see us attacking.
And don't think we could have waited for him to pass on. His sons were no better. Uday, especially, was a sheer pyschopath who carried out some of his father's more gruesome murders. Ask former members of his Olympic teams (well, if any have survived).
Uday was not Saddam's designated successor; his excesses were so great that even Saddam felt he was a liability. And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.
And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.
This is a really BIG assumption.
selfAdjoint
Aug23-04, 11:19 AM
Counterfactuals make for empty discussions.
JohnDubYa
Aug23-04, 12:30 PM
Yeah, I guess it is pretty strange that people don't like the Americans after having relatives blown to pieces by American bombs.
Except that isn't necessarily the population we are fighting. Al Sadr's father and two brothers, for example, were killed by Saddam Hussein, not George Bush. In fact, the only reason he was able to come out of hiding was George W. Bush' ousting of Saddam Hussein. He owes every bit of religious freedom he has to Bush.
How much religious freedom did the Shi'ites have before the US invasion? How much do they have now?
Yes, definitely in your opinion, rather than in fact. Saddam was a complete amateur compared to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Hitler came very close to succeeding in systematically annihilating the entire Jewish race - he managed to kill 6 million, in case you've forgotten.
Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.
Saddam would have made a perfect NKVD chief for Stalin.
And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.
I think Saddam's sons knew exactly how to retain power once the old man died. kat is right, you are making a big assumption. No, make that a pollyanna assumption. Should foreign policy rest on such grandiose wishes?
Pyrovus
Aug24-04, 07:30 AM
I think Saddam's sons knew exactly how to retain power once the old man died. kat is right, you are making a big assumption. No, make that a pollyanna assumption. Should foreign policy rest on such grandiose wishes?
Allow me to clarify:
Any regime is at it's most vulnerable following the death of it's leader. The successor has no guarantee that everyone will automatically support him; rival factions will want power for themselves. The successor will begin with a much smaller power base than his predecessor as a result. It is at this point that a popular uprising is most likely to succeed. I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.
Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.
So, because Hitler was far better at covering his tracks than Saddam, he wasn't as bad? And he certainally had his share in direct involvment eg having many of the conspirators in the July 1944 bomb plot hung with piano wire and videotaped for his amusement.
Allow me to clarify:
Any regime is at it's most vulnerable following the death of it's leader. The successor has no guarantee that everyone will automatically support him; rival factions will want power for themselves. The successor will begin with a much smaller power base than his predecessor as a result. It is at this point that a popular uprising is most likely to succeed. I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.
The U.S. was at a point where there was increasing pressure to drop sanctions, the regime was weak because of sanctions and the military that was parked at it's door. The option was act while they were weak, drop sanctions and continue to monitor and engage on a regular basis with a military precense (which wasn't winning us any points either), or withdraw, drop sanctions... It appears Bush took your advice and acted while they were weak. Either way, there still would have been a need deal with outside interference, as there is now.
Prometheus
Aug24-04, 01:03 PM
In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty. And that goes for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Baby Doc...
And you wonder why many people do not take you seriously.
Now, you are going to argue that it depends on what the defintion of witness is, aren't you. Perhaps you will stop being so cruel and provide us with your definition for what constitutes cruelty.
JohnDubYa
Aug24-04, 01:14 PM
I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.
Yeah, I can see the Left supporting this kind of action. :(
First of all, it is wishful thinking that anyone was going to rise up against the Husseins, especially Uday with his Shred-O-Matic. Second, Saddam may not have died for another 20 years for all we know. (I am sure there were some in the 1970s that said we should have done the same with Castro.) If such is the case, how many people would have died in Iraq to Saddam's brutality and the United Nation's economic sanctions? Could they number in the millions?
So, because Hitler was far better at covering his tracks than Saddam, he wasn't as bad?
I don't recall saying anything about Hitler covering his tracks. Nor did I even imply it.
And he certainally had his share in direct involvment eg having many of the conspirators in the July 1944 bomb plot hung with piano wire and videotaped for his amusement.
Videotaped? Yeah, Hitler used to drop in a VCR tape and watch executions. His favorite was the "Many Faces of Death" series (when he wasn't watching The Brady Bunch).
By the way, I see your tactic: You are trying to make it appear as if I am discounting Hitler's atrocities. Nice try. I am saying that there was a sadistic bent to Saddam that not even Hitler and Stalin shared (although they came close, especiallly Stalin).
JohnDubYa
Aug24-04, 01:16 PM
And you wonder why many people do not take you seriously.
Have you answered the question about JFK yet?
Now, you are going to argue that it depends on what the defintion of witness is, aren't you. Perhaps you will stop being so cruel and provide us with your definition for what constitutes cruelty.
I think the term is well understood.
Now, about JFK...
Ethanol
Aug24-04, 01:19 PM
You do know lots about Pakistan ofcourse.But let me tell you a simple normal man does not get easily involved in politics in the country. Do you know why there was not a single protestor about the rejection of the new law about honor killings? Simple. I can bet no woman would actually know what is happening in the upper house! The sole problem in our country is the lack of education and greed of money. I explored the given sites. Those brothers and cousins are actually told from childhood that they r far superior to girls. Most of the families want boys. I myself have just one brother and v r three sisters but like i said education is a big factor my parents never discriminate among us children. The women in rural areas are so brainwashed that they feel honorbound to serve their husbands who r good for nothing scoundrels.
Our own maid's husband drove her out of home with 5 kids and no means of living.:devil: My mom says she should have kicked him out of his house, took over everything and make the kids go away with him. he would have returned in 2 days for the lack of responsibility he had.
As for the honor killings let me reveal to you that honor ih usually not involved in it. Those who kill their sisters and wives do it for the sake of money. they actually do not wnt their inhertitance to be shared with these females. this was the case for brothers. Men usually kill their wives to marry a new one or somehow they feel that divorce is not a good way to separate from a woman so better kill her or she will marry another man which those insane people do not like. :grumpy:
there is a vast history of honor killings. Usually parents do not put down the names of daughters for inheritance. I think they do them a favour. at least they do not lose their lives that way. However as a citizen of Pakistan I feel that Law and order should be maintained strictly. The main problem is the chieftains of tribes. they are honored not because they are intelligent of something. they are nominated due to their money and property. I strictly believe that this is a big reason for the underdevelopment of my country furthermore these chieftains are directly involved in the crimes against women. They rape the women and then get them slaughtered.
I once suggested to my parents that they have enough money to buy another property but they said that property is the worst reason for dispute in families.
My grandpa owned some agricultural land which was to be divided among dad and his two brothers but my father refused to take it and the other two of his brothers are still fighting over it. It is really a matter of education.
You actually said that Pakistan is a place of religious bigotry. Let me tell u my father is a shia and my mother is a sunni i.e. they belong to the two major sects in Pakistan that were involved in the fightings against each other. I've never seen them row about it.
Prometheus
Aug24-04, 01:35 PM
Have you answered the question about JFK yet?
I think the term is well understood.
Now, about JFK...
Don't cry so loud, dubya. I repsonded to you. You never read my posts, and you wonder why you don't know what I have said.
Quit crying long enough to read my post and respond to it. You are sounding like a broken record, again.
Prometheus
Aug24-04, 01:37 PM
I think the term is well understood.
Well, we are all excited for you. If you think so, then everybody should just recognize what you mean. You have no need to explain yourself, because you think that everyone should just know, somehow, what you mean.
Nice move on your part to avoid saying anything, again.
JohnDubYa
Aug24-04, 01:38 PM
The sole problem in our country is the lack of education and greed of money.
When you have a sizable portion of the country willing to kill their own daughters, your problems run much deeper than education and money. Trust me.
You actually said that Pakistan is a place of religious bigotry. Let me tell u my father is a shia and my mother is a sunni i.e. they belong to the two major sects in Pakistan that were involved in the fightings against each other. I've never seen them row about it.
I see. And would I have community support if I opened a Jewish bookstore?
I am not impressed with your anecdote about your mother and father (both Muslims) being able to get along as an example of religious tolerance.
By the way, here is the State Department's evaluation of religious freedom in Pakistan. Not too good.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14026.htm
Prometheus
Aug24-04, 01:41 PM
Trust me.
Trying to sound like the other Dubya, I see. Do you really expect this to work?
Pyrovus
Aug25-04, 09:01 PM
The U.S. was at a point where there was increasing pressure to drop sanctions, the regime was weak because of sanctions and the military that was parked at it's door. The option was act while they were weak, drop sanctions and continue to monitor and engage on a regular basis with a military precense (which wasn't winning us any points either), or withdraw, drop sanctions... It appears Bush took your advice and acted while they were weak. Either way, there still would have been a need deal with outside interference, as there is now.
The regime was still internally strong, even though it was militarily weak. I was suggesting that it would be wiser to wait for an opportunity to destroy the regime from within, rather than a clumsy use of external force. Undermining the regime from within would most likely have been much more economical in terms of resources required (for instance, I highly doubt it would have required tying up 10^5 troops), and in terms of lives lost. Any new government formed would be far more likely to have the support of the people than one imposed by force (for some reason people don't tend to like having foreign powers telling them how to run their country). The point here is that Bush, instead of attacking Mr bin Laden's criminal organisation when it was weak after taking a massive pounding in Afghanistan, chose instead to unnecessarily fight a war on two fronts in order to persue a personal grudge against a toothless tyrant. And in so doing he has delivered Mr bin Laden a propaganda victory he could have only dreamed of, by launching an unprovoked attack on a Muslim country. So not only has it allowed bin Laden's mob to regroup while the heat's off them, it has handed to him on a platter a large number of new recruits. Bush's action is about as logical as if the US in 1945, seeing that Japan was on it's knees, had decided to forget about Japan for a while and go and invade Spain.
It is wishful thinking that anyone was going to rise up against the Husseins, especially Uday with his Shred-O-Matic.
Just because they're brutal doesn't make them politically street-smart. Let us remember that Qusay's and Uday's power came not from their own efforts and abilities, but from who their father was. Once Saddam died, their position would have been most precarious, and their brutality would have become a liability. All other powerful figures in the regime would have reason to be afraid of either of the Hussein kids taking power, for as potential rivals they would be very likely to end up with a tour of the inside of Uday's mincing machine. As a result they would be likely to move against the Hussein brothers while they have the chance.
I don't recall saying anything about Hitler covering his tracks. Nor did I even imply it.
I'll try again.
Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.
You're arguing that because Hitler preferred to avoid directly ordering killings in order to keep his hands clean, this makes him less sadistic than somebody who does the same stuff but on a much, much smaller scale but takes direct involvement in it. Hitler pioneered assembly line cruelty. He wasn't content merely with having a few enemies of the regime tortured, he also had entire populations systematically exterminated by very slow means, simply because he believed that they were untermensch. Does that fact that he didn't choose to oversee a concentration camp as a hobby detract from the brutality of his actions? Saddam's cruelty pales in comparison. The SS made Saddam's secret police look like the Salvation Army. Why don't we compare, for instance, how Saddam and Hitler dealt with troublesome ethnic minorities? Saddam dealt with the Kurds by attacking them with poison gas and killing thousands of them. Hitler dealt with the Jews by having them systematically rounded up, tortured, had medical experiments performed on them and either worked them to death or executed them by putting them in gas chambers. Unlike Saddam with the Kurds, Hitler attempted to exterminate the whole lot of them. Maybe you should read a bit about the Third Reich to get some idea.
By the way, I see your tactic: You are trying to make it appear as if I am discounting Hitler's atrocities.
By trying to claim that Hitler was not as bad as Saddam, that is indeed what you are doing.
JohnDubYa
Aug26-04, 03:55 AM
You're arguing that because Hitler preferred to avoid directly ordering killings in order to keep his hands clean, this makes him less sadistic than somebody who does the same stuff but on a much, much smaller scale but takes direct involvement in it.
That's right. My argument is based around the word "sadism," which implies getting a thrill out of cruelty. "Sadistic" is not the same as "cold-blooded." All three were indifferent to human suffering, but that isn't the point.
If you had one of Saddam's Shred-O-Matics, with a prisoner sentenced to death, I doubt neither Hitler nor Stalin would have had the stomach to lower the prisoner into the machine.
I am sure Hitler couldn't have done it. I don't even think he could have ordered it. If someone had done it, he probably wouldn't have fretted over it, however. It wasn't like he was a nice guy.
Stalin, possibly. At no time did he ever display any respect for human life. But such cruelty was unknown to his persona. However, his NKVD shot, starved and worked to death millions of people under Stalin's direct orders, so it is anyone's guess how personally he could have become involved in killing.
Saddam? I am sure he would have had no problems performing the execution. None, whatsoever. I think he would have enjoyed it.
Have you ever seen the character played by Joe Pesci in Casino? Remember when he crushed the thug's head in the vise? That's the essence of Saddam's character.
Hitler pioneered assembly line cruelty.
By the time Hitler came to power, Stalin had already intentionally starved to death 5 million Ukrainians. If anything, Saddam resembles Stalin more in his paranoia and iron grip on his country.
By trying to claim that Hitler was not as bad as Saddam, that is indeed what you are doing
So let me carry your argument to the next step, since I can now guess where you are going: I must hate Jews, right? Is this how the strategy is supposed to unfold?
klusener
Sep3-04, 09:29 PM
bringing up an aging topics, sorry....
john i have a question for you, buddy... what would you say to the 11793 - 13802 innocent iraqi civilians killed by the US army? don't respond to me, but think about what you would say to a child who has just lost his father and mother in an US air strike..
JohnDubYa
Sep3-04, 11:39 PM
what would you say to the 11793 - 13802 innocent iraqi civilians killed by the US army? don't respond to me, but think about what you would say to a child who has just lost his father and mother in an US air strike..
First of all, where did you get your figures?
Now to answer your question, I would say the following:
"We are terribly sorry about what happened to your family, but some day you will hopefully understand that innocent people often die in order for others to live free and peacefully. Many peaceful German and Japanese civilians died during our air raids, but over their relatives understood. I hope you will as well. May the Lord look over you in your time of sorrow."
Heh, heh. How did you like that last line I threw in there? Pretty clever, no?
Gokul43201
Sep4-04, 12:32 AM
Have you ever seen the character played by Joe Pesci in Casino? Remember when he crushed the thug's head in the vise? That's the essence of Saddam's character.
And this deep understanding of Saddam's inner psyche comes from ?
JohnDubYa
Sep4-04, 02:16 AM
You're right. We shouldn't judge him. After all, he may be a nice guy. Hitler too.
JohnDubYa
Sep4-04, 02:37 AM
More seriously, I watched the video with the "informant" reading off the names of supposed conspirators. Everyone in the room knew what it meant to have a "yes" attached to his name. And as the men cried for compassion, Saddam's amusement just heightened. To me, his expressions told me that he was a particularly sadistic individual.
Keep in mind also that of the three -- Hitler, Stalin, Saddam -- only one actually tried to kill a man. And which leader would that be?
Dissident Dan
Sep4-04, 02:38 AM
So, bush says that we went into Iraq to "liberate" Iraqis. He was very gung-ho about it. So why isn't he so gung-ho about going into Sudan?
JohnDubYa
Sep4-04, 02:40 AM
I guess he figures we have enough on our hands right now. Would he be right?
Frankly, I don't care why Bush went into Iraq. He did. And whatever his motives, it was a good thing.
Theres a few Key differences between Stalin and Hitler, and Saddam.
1. Saddam was a strong partner with the CIA and US government for many years and only went sour during the Kuwait war (persian gulf war to you yanks).
2. Most of Saddam's 'Terrorist Acts' were done with US and/or CIA support.
3. Saddam never killed anyone without outside (western) pressure and/or support.
and the big 3 are Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Saddam doesnt come close to their body counts.
More seriously, I watched the video with the "informant" reading off the names of supposed conspirators. Everyone in the room knew what it meant to have a "yes" attached to his name. And as the men cried for compassion, Saddam's amusement just heightened. To me, his expressions told me that he was a particularly sadistic individual.
This means nothing, your opinions are that of a typical westerner who's morals have been twisted and shaped by the media to the government and corporates whim.
Frankly, I don't care why Bush went into Iraq. He did. And whatever his motives, it was a good thing.
So which part was good?
The thousands of corpses?
The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure?
The theft of Iraqi oil?
The massive profits for Bush, Cheney, and their friends?
The dead US troops?
The complete loss of international trust of the US administration?
The global impression that the US administration has turned governing a nation, going to war, and killing thousands of people into nothing more than a business opportunity?
Oh, I know. It's the removal of a bad man, right? Was it worth the things listed above?
Once again: Would it be worth it if it was your own family splattered all over the neighbourhood for Bush's profit?
Saddam never killed anyone without support from a western government/faction. He was a pawn in a larger game.
Remove the source.
JohnDubYa
Sep6-04, 03:18 PM
So which part was good?
* The thousands of corpses?
* The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure?
* The theft of Iraqi oil?
* The massive profits for Bush, Cheney, and their friends?
* The dead US troops?
* The complete loss of international trust of the US administration?
* The global impression that the US administration has turned governing a nation, going to war, and killing thousands of people into nothing more than a business opportunity?
Your question is loaded. When you ask a reasonable question, I will answer.
Oh, I know. It's the removal of a bad man, right? Was it worth the things listed above?
I realize this shakes your foundation, but Saddam was more than a bad man. And yes, it was worth it for reasons you did not list.
Once again: Would it be worth it if it was your own family splattered all over the neighbourhood for Bush's profit?
Again, loaded question.
JohnDubYa
Sep6-04, 03:26 PM
This means nothing, your opinions are that of a typical westerner who's morals have been twisted and shaped by the media to the government and corporates whim.
Let me guess, these corporations are all controlled by Jews, the entire Iraq War was a Zionist conspiracy, Saddam wasn't really so bad, yadda, yadda, yadda.
How close did I get, Smurf?
Frankly, I think it's hilarious that the US, according to Smurf, supported Saddam in his quest to rid his party of traitors. I guess the US trained the informant to rat out those that betrayed the Ba'ath Party. Or maybe the US trained Saddam's bodyguards to shoot political prisoners with revolvers.
Smurf, you should take your comedy act on the road.
Your question is loaded. When you ask a reasonable question, I will answer.
I realize this shakes your foundation, but Saddam was more than a bad man. And yes, it was worth it for reasons you did not list.
Again, loaded question.
Of course the questions are loaded. With truth. Sometimes that can be painful and frustrating for those whose personal sense of order relies upon clinging to falsehoods. However, nothing in the questions was incorrect or misleading in any way. They are quite straightforward.
I guess the US trained the informant to rat out those that betrayed the Ba'ath Party. Or maybe the US trained Saddam's bodyguards to shoot political prisoners with revolvers.
Why not? They trained Osama Bin Laden.
JohnDubYa
Sep6-04, 10:27 PM
Of course the questions are loaded. With truth. Sometimes that can be painful and frustrating for those whose personal sense of order relies upon clinging to falsehoods. However, nothing in the questions was incorrect or misleading in any way. They are quite straightforward.
Adam, I am going to ask you a loaded question... loaded with truth. I suppose this question will be painful and frustrating for you because of your personal sense of order relies on clinging to falsehoods.
Are you ready? Here goes...
Why are you stupid?
JohnDubYa
Sep6-04, 10:33 PM
Why not? They trained Osama Bin Laden.
What did they train him do? How do you know this? Be specific.
The CIA trained osama and fellow terrorists to fight the soviets in the 70s
Adam, I am going to ask you a loaded question... loaded with truth. I suppose this question will be painful and frustrating for you because of your personal sense of order relies on clinging to falsehoods.
Are you ready? Here goes...
Why are you stupid?
Dont go insulting people just because they have a different opinion than yourself, that comment says more about you than him.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 01:25 AM
Dont go insulting people just because they have a different opinion than yourself, that comment says more about you than him.
You missed the point completely --- that loaded questions cannot be answered and should not be answered. The fact that Adam would look upon such a question as an insult displays the inherent fallacy of a loaded question. After all, I was just asking a question, right? After all, he should be able to just answer the question, right? What's the harm in just merely asking a question?
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 01:26 AM
The CIA trained osama and fellow terrorists to fight the soviets in the 70s
You only answered one of my questions. The other was "How do you know this?"
I am not saying you are wrong. But I would like to see your point validated by a credible source.
some interesting reading for you
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 05:02 AM
There is no mention of bin Laden anywhere in the article.
Find a link that tells me something I didn't already know.
well I appologise if I wasted your time.
I thought it was interesting..
Adam, I am going to ask you a loaded question... loaded with truth. I suppose this question will be painful and frustrating for you because of your personal sense of order relies on clinging to falsehoods.
Are you ready? Here goes...
Why are you stupid?
Wow. More ad hominem garbage. Instead of resorting (as usual) to these personal attacks, why don't you (for once) try answering the questions posed in these threads? You know, that whole "on-topic" thing?
What did they train him do? How do you know this? Be specific.
Haven't we covered this extensively in other threads?
Yes Several times, and I've posted many links to it in one of these iraq threads.
And WTF is a 'loaded' question anyhow?
You missed the point completely --- that loaded questions cannot be answered and should not be answered. The fact that Adam would look upon such a question as an insult displays the inherent fallacy of a loaded question. After all, I was just asking a question, right? After all, he should be able to just answer the question, right? What's the harm in just merely asking a question?
Actually you're presenting a false comparison here. I didn't insult anyone here. You did. I asked questions directly related to the topic, with no lies, misdirections, or unsupported assumptions. You didn't.
When you feel capable of posting on-topic, please do come back and try again.
And WTF is a 'loaded' question anyhow?
It's the Dubya label for any question he feels threatened by, any question which, if answered honestly, might perforate his otherwise ironclad support of a ridiculous mockery of a government.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 12:40 PM
A little lesson in Logic for Adam (and Prometheus).
A loaded question is negatively presumptous. For example:
"Why are you so stupid?"
In order to answer the question, the respondent has to assume the negative connotation embedded in the question.
Now, "Are you stupid?" is not loaded. The question does not assume stupidity on part of the respondent.
YOu asked:
So which part was good?
* The thousands of corpses?
* The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure?
* The theft of Iraqi oil?
* The massive profits for Bush, Cheney, and their friends?
* The dead US troops?
* The complete loss of international trust of the US administration?
* The global impression that the US administration has turned governing a nation, going to war, and killing thousands of people into nothing more than a business opportunity?
Your question presumes that those seven bulleted items are the only possible outcomes of the Iraq War, for which I am to pick just one. So not only did you ask a loaded question, you employed the Fallacy of Limited Options as well.
We all ask loaded questions, but you phrased yours in such a way that it would have taken me too much contortion to sift out the assumptions. Rather than that, I asked you to ask me honest questions.
Sorry, you're wrong (or deliberately misleading) yet again, Dubya. My question does not present those options as the only possible outcomes of the invasion of Iraq. You are able to pick one or more of the items. You are able to pick the last item, not grouped with the rest. Heck, I'd be overjoyed if you provided your own item, something new to add to teh list, which shows why the invasion was good.
All I wanted was one thing which shows why you think the invasion of Iraq was good. That was the entirety of the question. There was nothing "loaded" about it, nothing misleading or tricky. No cards up any sleaves. Your misuse of the logical fallacies, and erroneous assertions of their occurrence, has not gone unnoticed.
Then I asked a simple question yet again: Would that "good reason" still be worth it if your own family was splattered all over the neighbourhood as a result?
well.. saddam WAS caught and he wasnt very nice....
next target: George W Bush.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 01:07 PM
Adam, quit screwing around and read the following:
So which part was good?
* The thousands of corpses?
* The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure?
* The theft of Iraqi oil?
* The massive profits for Bush, Cheney, and their friends?
* The dead US troops?
* The complete loss of international trust of the US administration?
* The global impression that the US administration has turned governing a nation, going to war, and killing thousands of people into nothing more than a business opportunity?
You couldn't find a better example of the Fallacy of Limited Options if you tried. It is OBVIOUS that your question is loaded. So why are you trying to defend it?
He did say he'd be over joyed if you came up with your own reason why the war was a good idea.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 01:20 PM
Good things coming from this war:
Saddam will face justice.
Saddam will no longer kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Thousands of Iraqi families now know what happened to their relatives that previously disappeared.
Shi'ite Muslims can now worship freely.
There is a good chance the Kurds will finally be able to live in peace.
Democracy has a chance of taking root in an Arabic country. (How good of a chance is anyone's guess, but the chance is undeniable.)
The Iraqi people have a chance to be truly free.
Saddam's sons are dead.
We no longer need to wonder about Saddam's capability of using WMDs. (We didn't know for sure before, now we do.)
Now for military matters...
We now have the best trained and experienced troops in the world. (Can't buy that kind of training for any amount of money.)
Our military weaponry has been tested in extreme conditions.
We have managed to filter out those in our military who have no stomach for fighting.
We have learned a great deal about logistic support.
We now know what we could face in the future in terms of Islamic fundamentalist fighting tactics.
Those are just a few.
studentx
Sep7-04, 01:20 PM
Can you imagine an Iraqi who lost his family to Saddam, or is the best you can do an Iraqi which is killed by American bombs? I can tell you for a fact, there are several hundred thousand less of the latter. I think that about defeats any arguments against this war.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 01:25 PM
Right, studentx. Those who oppose the war simply do not fathom how nasty Saddam's regime really was. What Saddam did to hundreds of thousands of people was unspeakably cruel.
I've always told people that Saddam's attack on Khabul (i think) was much worse than 9/11. 5000 people died emediatly, and twice that in the aftermath of chemical and biological weapons. Theres no doubt Saddam was a bad man.
Good things coming from this war:
Saddam will face justice.
Saddam will no longer kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Thousands of Iraqi families now know what happened to their relatives that previously disappeared.
Shi'ite Muslims can now worship freely.
There is a good chance the Kurds will finally be able to live in peace.
Democracy has a chance of taking root in an Arabic country. (How good of a chance is anyone's guess, but the chance is undeniable.)
The Iraqi people have a chance to be truly free.
Saddam's sons are dead.
We no longer need to wonder about Saddam's capability of using WMDs. (We didn't know for sure before, now we do.)
First, thanks for finally attempting to answer the first question.
Now answer the second: Would those things be worth the splattering of your family all over the neighbourhood?
And now on to the funny stuff...
Saddam will face justice.
If they allow those who have lost relatives and spouses to his rule the honour of executing him, sure. I hope they do.
Saddam will no longer kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Has there yet been any reliable estimate for the numbers he killed?
But yes, this is good.
Thousands of Iraqi families now know what happened to their relatives that previously disappeared.
I hope so. I hope the effort is made.
Shi'ite Muslims can now worship freely.
They always did. Iraq under Saddam was a secular state, meaning the state itself was not governed by a religious group, or the state did not espouse any one religion over others. However, they allowed people to worship in different ways. This is why the country has such a huge unmber of Shi'ites. If Saddam, who apparently killed people by the hundreds of thousands, wanted to oppress any form of worship, he would have killed them. This is one of the common misconceptions about Iraq under Saddam. He didn't give a damn about how people worshipped. They had all sorts. People had free education all the way through to university and post-grad studies. You just couldn't say anything bad about Saddam or the state, or they'd cane your feet.
There is a good chance the Kurds will finally be able to live in peace.
Are you aware that the Kurds were attacked more by Turkey than by Saddam?
Democracy has a chance of taking root in an Arabic country. (How good of a chance is anyone's guess, but the chance is undeniable.)
It has been established in many Arabic countries for a very long time.
The Iraqi people have a chance to be truly free.
The survivors?
Saddam's sons are dead.
They were complete bastiches, yes. However, I will never approve of people cheering and celebrating deaths, nor of the parading of corpses on TV for PR value.
We no longer need to wonder about Saddam's capability of using WMDs. (We didn't know for sure before, now we do.)
Yep. Go kill some innocent man, then say "On the good side, we'll never have to worry about that guy's plans to steal my car, whether he had such plans or not!" No, I'm not saying Saddam was a nice guy. It's an analogy. Look it up.
We now have the best trained and experienced troops in the world. (Can't buy that kind of training for any amount of money.)
No. Too easy.
Our military weaponry has been tested in extreme conditions.
Yes it has. You're right.
We have managed to filter out those in our military who have no stomach for fighting.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
We have learned a great deal about logistic support.
Very true.
We now know what we could face in the future in terms of Islamic fundamentalist fighting tactics.
Very bigoted and insane.
Can you imagine an Iraqi who lost his family to Saddam, or is the best you can do an Iraqi which is killed by American bombs? I can tell you for a fact, there are several hundred thousand less of the latter. I think that about defeats any arguments against this war.
It does? How?
Right, studentx. Those who oppose the war simply do not fathom how nasty Saddam's regime really was. What Saddam did to hundreds of thousands of people was unspeakably cruel.
Now (for your educational benefit) this is a logical fallacy. You state that those who disagree are merely ignorant, and you don't bother addressing any actual points.
I, and no doubt everyone else here, realises perfectly how brutal Saddam Hussein was. That is not at all in question (at least not that I have seen). What is in question is law, justice, motivation, even more deaths at the hands of the invader, and other matters.
I've always told people that Saddam's attack on Khabul (i think) was much worse than 9/11. 5000 people died emediatly, and twice that in the aftermath of chemical and biological weapons. Theres no doubt Saddam was a bad man.
Do you mean Halabja?
A War Crime or an Act of War?
It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent � that is, a cyanide-based gas � which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades � not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition � thanks to United Nations sanctions � Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
(Stephen C. Pelletiere, The New York Times, January 31, 2003)
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
They were complete bastiches, yes. However, I will never approve of people cheering and celebrating deaths, nor of the parading of corpses on TV for PR value.
HA! You ARE against advirtising violence.
I'm against anything on Channel 7.
Where I live channel 7 is ESPN.. please elaborate
Energy is Power. Of course it's over energy. Oil is the life blood of the America infrastructure engine.
But, since Bush Administration didn't convince us of this, which would be real easy to do if we actually needed the oil, it's probably not the for good of Americans. It's probably for the good of a few who'll benefit while Iraqis are murdered for the energy.
Where I live channel 7 is ESPN.. please elaborate
It was just a silly joke.
studentx
Sep7-04, 05:21 PM
The ratio of Iraqis actively helping the americans and Iraqis fighting them is close to 100:1. The ratio of Iraqis not fighting the Americans to Iraqis fighting the Americans is close to 10.000:1 . You cant defeat these numbers Adam.
Parts of Iraq are a mess, absolutely. But 90% of Iraq isnt. The parts of Iraq that are a mess have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis risking their lifes to help the Americans. There are different opinions of the US in these parts, and an overwhelming majority does NOT want the Americans to leave. You betray millions and gamble with the lifes of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis when argueing against the continuation of US presence in Iraq.
And i have suggested this before, try to discover the truth about what Iraqis want before you pretend to voice their opinion.
Gokul43201
Sep7-04, 06:23 PM
Where I live channel 7 is ESPN.. please elaborate
Aussie TV has stations called Channel 9, Channel 10, Channel 31 and Channel 7 - don't know if there are others like that.
I'm guessing Ch 7 is owned by ol' Rupert (judging from Adam's pronouncement).
Oops...just noticed Adam already replied to this question, so ignore this.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 08:44 PM
They always did. Iraq under Saddam was a secular state, meaning the state itself was not governed by a religious group, or the state did not espouse any one religion over others. However, they allowed people to worship in different ways. This is why the country has such a huge unmber of Shi'ites. If Saddam, who apparently killed people by the hundreds of thousands, wanted to oppress any form of worship, he would have killed them. This is one of the common misconceptions about Iraq under Saddam. He didn't give a damn about how people worshipped. They had all sorts. People had free education all the way through to university and post-grad studies. You just couldn't say anything bad about Saddam or the state, or they'd cane your feet.
Saddam's oppression of the Shi'ites and their religious activities is well known and documented. Just do a Google search using "Saddam oppressed Shiite" and you will find page after page (some more credible than others).
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 08:46 PM
Adam, would you have celebrated the death of Hitler? Just curious.
Adam, would you have celebrated the death of Hitler? Just curious.
Did you celebrate the bombs dropped on Japan?
The ratio of Iraqis actively helping the americans and Iraqis fighting them is close to 100:1. The ratio of Iraqis not fighting the Americans to Iraqis fighting the Americans is close to 10.000:1 . You cant defeat these numbers Adam.
Parts of Iraq are a mess, absolutely. But 90% of Iraq isnt. The parts of Iraq that are a mess have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis risking their lifes to help the Americans. There are different opinions of the US in these parts, and an overwhelming majority does NOT want the Americans to leave. You betray millions and gamble with the lifes of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis when argueing against the continuation of US presence in Iraq.
And i have suggested this before, try to discover the truth about what Iraqis want before you pretend to voice their opinion.
:cry: this just makes me sad
The ratio of Iraqis actively helping the americans and Iraqis fighting them is close to 100:1. The ratio of Iraqis not fighting the Americans to Iraqis fighting the Americans is close to 10.000:1 . You cant defeat these numbers Adam.
The ratio of red ants to black outside my kitchen door is 100:1. You can't defeat these numbers. But it's entirely irrelevent, isn't it? Think about it.
Parts of Iraq are a mess, absolutely. But 90% of Iraq isnt.
So what exactly are you basing these numbers on?
I'm guessing Ch 7 is owned by ol' Rupert (judging from Adam's pronouncement).
Everything here is owned either by Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Packer. Packer is mostly domestic though. He's also the one you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.
Saddam's oppression of the Shi'ites and their religious activities is well known and documented. Just do a Google search using "Saddam oppressed Shiite" and you will find page after page (some more credible than others).
1) Shi'a Muslims make up about 60-65% of Iraq's population.
2) Saddam was secular and fair; he oppressed them all equally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Saddam_Hussein_as_a_secular_leader
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 01:46 AM
Did you celebrate the bombs dropped on Japan?
No. But that was mainly because I was born in 1960.
Adam, would you have celebrated the death of Hitler? Just curious.
No. I celebrate no deaths.
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 01:59 AM
Adam,
Shia Muslims were oppressed by Iraq's Baathist regime for more than 30 years and excluded from the highest ranks of power...
Under his rule, Shia opposition groups were fiercely oppressed and political and religious leaders murdered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2931903.stm
The notion that he oppressed all groups equally is absurd. Given that the Shia were a majority in the country, they should have been well-represented in higher government. They were not.
And ask the Kurds if Saddam treated them like he did his own Sunni Muslims.
Here is another article from Iraq.net
Hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims are in the Iraqi town of Karbala to mark the festival of Ashura for the first time in more than 30 years.
The festival was severely restricted by Saddam Hussein.
Ashura is the climax of a 10-day period of mourning for Shias commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussain,
who was killed in Karbala in 680 AD.
His death is being marked by rhythmic chanting and ritual self-flagellation from devotees clad in black.
Over 2 million people are expected in Karbala in time for the festival's climax on Tuesday.
Many of the devotees this year have come illegally from neighbouring Iran, which, like Iraq, has a majority Shia population.
Years of suppression
Shias were repressed under Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime.
Observation of Ashura was hampered by a ban on the practice of ritually beating themselves and - among some Shia groups - of cutting wounds in their skin.
Pilgrims from Iran - a wartime enemy of Saddam Hussein's Iraq - were also not welcome at Karbala, one of Shia Islam's holiest sites.
The death of Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammad, cemented the split between Sunni and Shia Islam over who should inherit lead the faith.
The BBC's Barbara Plett says the Ashura processions were tightly controlled not only by Saddam Hussein but by the Sunni rulers of Baghdad who preceded him - all saw them as dangerous rallying points for resistance.
Security fears
"We have been waiting for this ceremony for 30 years. I can't begin to describe my feelings. This is total freedom," said Saad al-Masoudi, a Karbala resident.
But other mourners in the procession felt things had changed for the worse.
"Today is not a good day," said Mohammed Hussein Fadel. "I would have preferred Saddam over the American conquerors... At least Saddam was a Muslim." [nice display of religious bigotry]
The focus of the celebrations is the gold-domed shrine of Imam Hussein in the centre of Karbala.
This year's event coincides with the growing dominance of Shias in post-Saddam Iraq - leading to fears that disgruntled Sunni militants may target the celebrations.
To prevent this, Karbala has been ringed by security forces - with Polish soldiers policing the town's entry points and Shia militias guarding its streets and shrines.
Leaders of all sorts of religious and other groups were killed or disappeared throughout Saddam's reign. Like I said, they were oppressed equally.
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 04:35 AM
If you are saying that the Sunni were oppressed to the same extent as the Shia, then you are dead wrong.
There are more Shi'a than Sunni.
studentx
Sep8-04, 08:25 AM
The ratio of red ants to black outside my kitchen door is 100:1. You can't defeat these numbers. But it's entirely irrelevent, isn't it? Think about it.
Im not following you here. How is it irrelevant that there are 100 times more Iraqis helping the americans than fighting them? Please answer this one Adam.
The question is not "How is it irrelevent?" but "How is it relevent?" What was your purpose in bringing it up (and it was you who brought it up)?
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 11:39 AM
There are more Shi'a than Sunni.
Yeah, so what?!?!? You keep bringing this point up. Why is it relevant to this argument?
Good grief. If someone likes squashing fruits, and is equally violent toward all fruits, and there are twice as many oranges as lemons, then the number of orangse squashes will be double the number of lemons squashed.
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 01:26 PM
That may be one of the dumbest posts you have presented so far.
studentx
Sep8-04, 01:42 PM
The question is not "How is it irrelevent?" but "How is it relevent?" What was your purpose in bringing it up (and it was you who brought it up)?
The question is not "What was your purpose in bringing it up" but "What was your purpose in not bringing it up?".
Yes Adam, we can all evade questions.
That may be one of the dumbest posts you have presented so far.
It's called an analogy. One day you might understand such things. Maybe.
The question is not "What was your purpose in bringing it up" but "What was your purpose in not bringing it up?".
Yes Adam, we can all evade questions.
You're amazing. And I'm sure you don't even know why.
Watch closely:
Your post dated 7:21 AM yesterday, #277:
The ratio of Iraqis actively helping the americans and Iraqis fighting them is close to 100:1. The ratio of Iraqis not fighting the Americans to Iraqis fighting the Americans is close to 10.000:1 . You cant defeat these numbers Adam.
My post dated 3:10 PM yesterday, #282:
The ratio of red ants to black outside my kitchen door is 100:1. You can't defeat these numbers. But it's entirely irrelevent, isn't it? Think about it.
Your post dated 10:25 PM yesterday, #291:
Im not following you here. How is it irrelevant that there are 100 times more Iraqis helping the americans than fighting them? Please answer this one Adam.
My post dated 12:59 AM today, #292:
The question is not "How is it irrelevent?" but "How is it relevent?" What was your purpose in bringing it up (and it was you who brought it up)?
And finally, your post dated 3:42 AM today, #296:
The question is not "What was your purpose in bringing it up" but "What was your purpose in not bringing it up?".
Yes Adam, we can all evade questions.
Now, as is quite clear from this debacle, this thread of conversation begins with some utter piffle you posted (#277). You brought it up. You brought up irrelevent garbage. Again. And I asked you what the relevence was. You have yet to answer.
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 03:43 PM
Well, it was a BAD analogy.
The idea that Saddam treated Shias and Kurds equally to Sunnis is laughable and unsupportable. Saddam's blatant suppression of the Sunnis and their religious ceremonies is well-documented. Besides, your analogy falls apart with his treatment of Kurds.
russ_watters
Sep8-04, 04:48 PM
Wait, no, I get it - if there are twice as many oranges than lemons but you only have two fists, squashing the same percentage of oranges as lemons takes twice as much effort!
Ugh, I feel dumber for understanding Adam's line of reasoning.
klusener
Sep8-04, 10:20 PM
this article is from the USA today on the opinions of iraqis on US presence in Iraq...
Poll: Iraqis out of patience
USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Pol
klusener
Sep8-04, 10:21 PM
wait i have found more info from the same article:
Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."
That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.
The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.
"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."
Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."
In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do.
Americans regard their men and women in uniform as liberators who are trying to help Iraq. But the Iraqis now see them as a threat and focus their anger on them.
"When they pass by on the street, we are curious, so we go out to look and they immediately point their gun at you," says Muia, the bicycle shop owner.
Except for the Kurds, such feelings are widely held. For example:
Two-thirds say soldiers in the U.S.-led coalition make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire.
58% say the soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly.
60% say the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% say U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques.
46% say the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women.
Only 11% of Iraqis say coalition forces are trying hard to restore basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 10:43 PM
That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."
Josef Stalin, murderer of over 20 million people, was widely mourned across the Soviet Union when he died. There are still people who moan about his absence. "The trains ran on time" is a common theme expressed by those that weren't personally persecuted.
Well, it was a BAD analogy.
The idea that Saddam treated Shias and Kurds equally to Sunnis is laughable and unsupportable. Saddam's blatant suppression of the Sunnis and their religious ceremonies is well-documented. Besides, your analogy falls apart with his treatment of Kurds.
Actually the Kurds in northern Iraq were troubled far more by the Turkish. Saddam was a secondary concern for them.
Wait, no, I get it - if there are twice as many oranges than lemons but you only have two fists, squashing the same percentage of oranges as lemons takes twice as much effort!
Ugh, I feel dumber for understanding Adam's line of reasoning.
Wow. A misrepresentation and an ad hominem, all in one little post. Well done russ_watters.
JohnDubYa
Sep9-04, 04:23 AM
I doubt anyone could describe Saddam as a mere "secondary concern" to the Kurds. He slaughtered them by the thousands. Do you have any references to back up your claim that he carried out such progroms against the Sunnis?
Gokul43201
Sep9-04, 10:06 AM
Klusener, it is natural for the citizens of any country to be distrustful and incipiently opposed to any occupying force. If a marine sees someone poking his head out his window, sure he'll point his gun at the head. Wouldn't you, if you were there ? But that's a good example of how little it takes for the occupier the make the native feel oppressed.
On the other hand, this does make Bush's words a lie every time he says : "The people of Iraq are better off now". Not if a majority of them don't feel that way.
As a counter-argument to this last point, what an Iraqi says to a western journalist may not be really what (s)he feels and may be deliberately (or at least subconsciously) biased.
To summarize : "The Iraqi people don't really know what's good for them. The President of the United States does." :wink: :biggrin:
Go ahead, call me a flip-flopper...
Yay for Manifest Destiny...
JohnDubYa
Sep9-04, 02:12 PM
Klusener, it is natural for the citizens of any country to be distrustful and incipiently opposed to any occupying force. If a marine sees someone poking his head out his window, sure he'll point his gun at the head. Wouldn't you, if you were there ? But that's a good example of how little it takes for the occupier the make the native feel oppressed.
I would have to live under Saddam's rule for 25 years in order to answer that question.
On the other hand, this does make Bush's words a lie every time he says : "The people of Iraq are better off now". Not if a majority of them don't feel that way.
You assume that being better off is merely a matter of opinion, and that everyone can accurately gauge how much better off the people as a whole are in any situation.
Applying your reasoning, the economy would never be a campaign issue. Even if the unemployment rate hits 10%, 90% of the people would have few complaints. Instead, people vote based on how OTHERS are doing, not just themselves. What you are seeing from Iraqis is tunnel-vision --- since Saddam didn't torture and kill the majority of the population, this majority feels that living under Saddam was better.
Ending the sanctions alone will improve the lives of Iraqis. But those Iraqis who, themselves, were unaffected by the sanctions apparently couldn't care less about those that died from starvation and disease.
Those that wish the US had never invaded are just selfish. They couldn't care less about those that Saddam tortured. They couldn't care less about those that died from the sanctions. All they care about are their own personal living conditions.
I think these attitudes are based largely on religious bigotry. If the US had invaded with an army of Muslims, I am sure the opinion polls would have been different.
As a counter-argument to this last point, what an Iraqi says to a western journalist may not be really what (s)he feels and may be deliberately (or at least subconsciously) biased.
To summarize : "The Iraqi people don't really know what's good for them. The President of the United States does.
Do you really think Saddam Hussein was good for the Iraqi people? Were the sanctions imposed by the United Nations good for the Iraqi people? Or are the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people just a matter of opinion?
Ethanol
Sep17-04, 01:22 PM
Who provided Saddam those gases he killed Kurds with? i never actually found out. He was ****** he killed all those people but those who were not against him fared well. He was the man who never listened to the opposition. Instead he killed them. i dunno how some of them survived but they were lucky.
i do want to know who gave saddam those gases or the technology to prepare them?
pelastration
Sep17-04, 05:00 PM
i do want to know who gave saddam those gases or the technology to prepare them?
ICI. Rotterdam. Special containers.
(corrected ICC to ICI)
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.