Originally posted by kingdavid

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
tsk, tsk.... I could'a sworn I started this thread about the largely ignored threat of war between India and Pakistan!...

But look how you put it:
"While the 'civilized world' looked elsewhere"
And this was the Monday(?)after the weekend when there were anti war demos around the world.
People were bound to mention Iraq.
I suspect half of your brain's RAM at the time you started this thread was filled with Saddam.

My point was, and is, that the Euro-centric media has focused on Iraq (due to the potential threat to oil supplies?), while ignoring developments in the Kashmir.

Originally posted by kingdavid

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
...So now that everyone has had a chance to re-state all of the same circular, emotion-based factoids that do not refute my position, or Raskolnikov's...

Your position,and Rask's is to a large extent emotion based factoids:
"Saddam is hell bent on expanding his nation"
Yeah,yeah.He tried that in '91.Look what happened.
"Meanwhile,several million people(the entire population of Israel)have been wiped off the map" I won't even say yeah yeah.

Your quotes are taken from Rask's replies, so I can only give you my interpretation of them: The casualties (admittedly just estimates) for the war with Iran, and the subsequent genocide against the Kurds, plus the invasion of Kuwait, add up to well over a million, by the most conservative estimates. And the events of '91 don't seem to have curbed his ambition. He's just gotten better at manipulating opinion to cover his actions.

Originally posted by kingdavid
Someone mentioned that Britain still owes america money given sometime after the WW2. If America was to start to ask for that money now(in as much as they have a right to it)I'm bound to wonder why now?

Same thing with Iraq. I first heard on CNN this whole war issue being raised after 911,sometime during the Afghan war(is it being called that?).

And I'm bound to ask,why now?Since the end of the gulf war,how many appeals (like the one Powell made the other day) have been made to the UN,asking it to pass a resolution for the removal of Saddam? Was there a time limit? When did it expire? You know,if Powell saying "Iraq was given until November 2002 to disarm, at which point if he won't have disarmed,then the allied forces will move back in, and this time they are to topple him..."or something along those lines,I wouldn't wonder. But now I wonder.

As I said back on pg 10 of "a moral dilema..." 2003/01/29 12:28 PM:

"...Put aside the notion that control of Iraq's oilfields is at the heart of this crisis. Return to the 'war against terror' idea for a while, and see how this fits.

Iraq has had twelve years in which to prove that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in place. Say what you will about the presence, or absence, of UN inspectors, the bottom line is that the conditions Saddam Hussein agreed to at the end of the Gulf War have not been met. Even by the standards of the UN, there is justification for military action...."

"... I suggest that Bush has studied the history of his nation enough to understand the situation at present much better than ohters give him credit for. Iraq must be dealt with before it becomes a bio-nuclear-armed menace."

Originally posted by kingdavid
If the UN (America is a pivotal member,right?) didn't find it necessary to remove Saddam from power in '91, why is it necessary now? Or would America have preffered to remove Saddam back then, only the rest of the foolish world(I feel sorry for America for having to live on a planet inhabited by such fools)(sarcasm)didn't agree?

from the same post:

"It is no coincidence that (Iraq's) main target is the only democratic government in the region. For all its faults, Israel is the only country in the area that is not ruled by some form of dictatorship. This is at the root of much of the fear and hatred directed at it by the surrounding regimes.

Now, what happens when the US, with or without an international coalition, removes Saddam Hussein from power, and supports the kind of transition to democracy that was fostered in post-war Japan? The economic sanctons are lifted, the oilfields go back into production. Iraq may or may not join OPEC. Either way, the wealth produced from oil exports reaches more of the people because it is no longer being diverted to support a totalitarian police state. People discover a kind of personal freedom and responsibility that is unknown in any other part of the Arab world. And that causes great nightmares for the House of Saud, the Syrians, the Jordanians, and the regimes in Oman, Yemen, and the UAE!

It is useful to remember that most of the terrorist hijackers who took part in the attacks of 11 September 2001 were Saudis. Osama Bin Laden is Saudi. The Wahibi form of Islam that foments violent destruction of the decadent West is Saudi in origin. Contemplate the future of such evils in a democraticly governed Arab society. At the moment, they are useful to the ruling Suadis as a distracton from their own abuse of power."


from my post on page 12 of "a moral dilema..." 2003/01/31:

"You seem to have forgotten that the US is already at war... has been since the destruction of the World Trade Centre.

Afhganistan was the first round, Iraq is next. The goal is [u]not[/u] to kill Saddam Hussein, any more than the goal in Afghanistan was to kill Osama Bin Laden. If it happens, good. The main goal is to change the form of government.

As I described earlier, that is expected to set off a series of internaly-driven regime changes in the Arab world, with democracy replacing the current dictatorship/theocracies. It is much more difficult for terrorist organisations to get state support for their activities when government programs are subject to public debate...."

Originally posted by kingdavid
Is Saddam more dangerous now than he was in '91?
Note that it's not Saddam I'm for. I'm against the precedent this is going to set... About America having sponsored folks who end up becoming terrorists(which may not even be her fault-I mean,you won't blame America for Oklahoma '95 just coz the guy that did it was once a soldier):
The problem is not "fixing" such deviants.The problem is why America would use such deviants in the first place.

from the same post:

"It is a common reaction to claim that someone we don't like is stupid. In truth, the Americans have often done things that tend to support that assessment. On the issue of terrorism, though, I think they have a better understanding than most of the international community (gives them credit for). Bush has made it clear that state support of terrorism will be considered an act of war against the US. The only acceptable responses are to lead, follow, or [u]get out of the way[/u]!"



By "circular" I mean arguments that lead back to the same place. I submit that the fact I am able to answer your queries with points I made a month ago illustrates the concept.