Originally posted by noticingthemistake
Rask, man. We?re saying the samething but with different views on how to accomplish it. Everything your arguing over, I have said in support a few times in previous reports. Sorry I didn?t rewrite every post before into the new post. Now I?ll reply to your last post.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Yet you support a position that the evidence idicates is more likely to kill a higher number of innocent people in the long run? Do you mean to tell us that a violent death is worse than a starvation death? Or that you honestly expect Saddam Hussein to just give up his plans after all these years (bearing in mind his well noted ego and public statements that giving in is "dishonorable") and that we can simply lift the sanctions with any kind of assurance that weapons production in Iraq won't go back into full production?

No, I don?t support the death of innocent people by any means, I thought I stated that at least a couple of times in previous posts. No, any death is bad BUT it?s no better to inflict death by dropping bombs on a populated city. So explain to me how this is right? Don?t bother giving me the explanation ?for getting rid of Hussein? cause we both know. Not a single one is going to get him or any of his associates, just innocent people. But I guess it?s ok for the US to kill people with bombs opposed to killing them by starving or torturing them? What's the difference??? Killing people is wrong, and you justifying it by saying we?re saving them death by starving by blowing them up. What part of it is RIGHT???

45,000 people starve in Iraq in just one year due to sanctions that are questionably able to keep Saddam contained. That's [b]considerably less than most estimates of Gulf War civillian casualties. What's "right" about this is that removing Saddam now saves more lives in the long run. We're not talking about indescriminate bombing here, we're talking about precision strikes against military targets. Civillians living near by certainly will take casualties, but those who live a good distance from military targets will be mostly unaffected except in the case of very errant bombs. Most analysts expect Bagdad to be under coalition control in under three weeks, after that point civillian casualties virtually drop to zero.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Who's talking about killing off the entire population of Iraq? I wouldn't want to be a member of Iraq's military right now, but anybody who's not near a military target is going to be relatively safe. The only place that there's likely to be excessive civilian casualties is in Bagdad itself and only because the Republican Guard is digging in there and trying to create as much of a humanitarian chrisis as possible. From NPR News today: Iraq has purchased a large number of replicas of US and British military uniforms and insignias. I wonder what they plan to use them for...

Well with Bush and Powells Neanderthal intelligence, ?ahh we?ll just bomb that crap out of Iraq and pray Saddam will withdraw from power once he sees what we have done?...

Here is the critical flaw in your argument. This isn't going to be just bombing like was seen in the Gulf War and in years since. Airstrikes will coincide with the invasion (we actually have troops in Kurdish areas of Iraq now), and coalition forces will quickly move to take control of the country, essentially picking Saddam up by the scruff of his neck and throwing him out of power. He may get away, but he will no longer be in control of the country, hence he will no longer matter.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
It's been our fight since the Gulf War and we (including all UN member states) demanded that Iraq disarm. I've seen Black Hawk Down, and I remember the actual news from the time, and I'm personally disgusted that we gave in so easily. We're not talking about an overwhelming majority of Somalis not wanting us there, we're talking about a few warlords who want to keep their share of power in what's essentially a country in anarchy. Also, Iraqi defectors/refugees are some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power and by force if neccessary.

No it wasn?t. The Gulf War was a fight between Iraq and Kuwait, we were only there to protect Kuwait. Now Somalia had only one warlord and just one small city that didn?t want us there. In the middle east, we?re talking about ENTIRE COUNTRIES, it?s not only Iraq that doesn?t want us there. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and so on. Bin Laden?s whole reason for hating us is the fact that we are in Saudi Arabia. He?s just one man from one country, we would be generally facing the entire Middle East. We have supporters yes, but those numbers are far less than those who oppose us. These people are suicidal too, that is the worst enemy to face in war. A ?SMALL? fleet of Japanese kamikaze pilots nearly destroyed our entire navy fleet in WWII, imagine millions of kamikazes. Still think attacking Iraq and in the process ticking off the middle east is going to be a walk in the park?? Do the math.

First off, you're blowing the Kamikaze's effectiveness WAY out of proportion, and by your portrayal of Middle Easterners Israel should be cinders by now. If I was Arab, I'd actually be offended by that remark.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
You don't trust Osama bin Laden's integrity, but you trust Saddam Husseins? The inspections process will only work if Iraq's government allows it to. Indicators show that Saddam is holding back A LOT of materials he isn't allowed to have anymore and the "progress" that's being made is purely stall-tactics. Also, you think that they might be working together, but somehow Iraq isn't a threat? Make up your mind.

When did I say that??? No I don?t trust Saddam, I think I cleared that in one of my first posts. Maybe not, but I know what your saying. He?s disarming the weapons which was the point that started this cold war, so how are we justifying our threats now? Yeah, I do believe he does have more and he is distrustful, but I also think war is what he wants. And I said that Iraq alone isn?t a threat, but starting a war in the middle east is a threat because there are many other terrorists (including Bin Laden and other terrorist organizations) there too. If us just being there ticks him off, imagine what starting a war there is going to do. Iraq alone isn?t such a threat, we could easily defeat them. If you reflect on the Gulf war, the nations in the area remained neutral. Now they have clearly demonstrated otherwise, and the entire middle east is a threat. If you can?t see that, you are blind.

If Saddam wanted war, he could have started one at any point very easily. What he wants is sanctions lifted so he can go about business as usual and rebuild his weapons programs to the point where he can wave a big ugly nuclear stick at his neigbors and the world with which to take anything he wants.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If the UN is unwilling to act it's powerless and useless. And like it or not, America is powerful to the point that the rest of the world really needs us - that is probably 90% of the world's reservations regarding the US right there.

I think the UN is aware of the threat that may occur if war breaks out. That is why they are unwilling to act in War, they have chosen to act politically first which I believe is the right decision. Yeah we are powerful, but not invincible like you may think.

Nobody/nothing is invincible. Diplomacy has to come first, but after 12 uneffective years it's time to say "enough is enough." The world/UN cannot make demands it's not willing to enforce and expect to be listened to.

And who asked for our help in this situation???

A lot of Iraqi exiles for one.

We are the aggressors in this situation, no one asked for help. Why do you think the UN is against it, they are peace-keepers not enforcers. I think the UN is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The agreement after the Gulf war was that inspectors would be allowed to inspect Iraq not bomb it.

The UN is a political organization designed to preserve peace and human rights, but is currently being used to preserve a few nations political and financial interests at the expense of the Iraqi people. That's repulsive. And the agreement at the end of the Gulf War was that if disarmament didn't happen, Saddam would be removed from power. Inspections were the means to prove this, and inspections have failed miserably.

When you look at just Iraq, easy target but what if they possess nuclear technology or have access to it. Believe me it can come to this, does the world need us to start a nuclear war?? Korea has nuclear technology and they?re not too happy with us either cause we?re already messing with them.

North Korea is looking for food, financial aid, and assurances that we won't try regime change with them. It's been the same story for forty years now.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
People in the Middle East are ticked off at us anyway. Once Saddam is out of power we can leave Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Quatar entirely because our troops are only there because of Saddam's government. Next, when Iraq is on it's own two feet, we can leave Iraq too. I see that as positive steps towards getting our nose out of the Middle East.

Yeah and starting a war couldn?t possibly push that tension over the edge. The problem is you only see Iraq, and you seem to think if we just war with Iraq everyone else will be cool with it. If Castro started dropping bombs in Canada, do you think we would be cool with it?? To the people in the middle east, we are Tyrants so they will rise up and try to fight us. I don?t see them just sitting back and watching war unfold in their backyard.

Just like in Afghanistan?

In all likelyhood, postponing war in Iraq now means going to war in Iraq later (more costly in lives and money) - or turning our backs on slaughter (just plain wrong). Just look at what ignoring post-WWI Germany did for the world. You want to make the same mistake again?

Yeah I agree, the stuff going on with Iraq and the middle east is wrong. But in fairness it is they?re war, no one has asked for our help. I?m afraid we are making the same mistake that lead to Hitler by persecuting Iraq with war. It has some differences but a lot of striking similarities. Hitler rose up because after WWI we crippled Germany economically, which infuriated the Germans. Hitler capitalized on the circumstances for Germany after WWI. Same thing with the circumstances after the Gulf War, along with a dictator to manifest an entire country to rise up and take control of the world. Saddam has indicated the same intentions and also has grown in supporters in the middle east. Without writing the entire history which lead to WWII, there are a lot of similarities if you would check yourself.

The mistakes allowing Hitler to come to power were numerous, but most boiled down to international negligence; As bad as the Great Depression was in the US, it was worse in Germany - and not rebuilding Germany after WWI made the situation that much more desperate. Next, Hitler's re-armament of Germany flew completely in the face of all the accords and treeties ending WWI. But you'll notice that plans for Iraq aren't "knock it down, root out Saddam, then leave," they're "go in, get Saddam out, rebuild the nation, and leave it with a freely elected Democratic government." That's much more like the Marshall plan after WWII that rebuilt Germany and Japan than the end of WWI which left both nations out in the cold, albeit for different reasons.

I don?t want to make the mistake again and I?m afraid that this mistake is going to be even more destructive than ANY war in history. I am not an avid believer in psychic abilities but Nostradamus wrote, ?mankind will nearly destroy itself and the bringer will be from the middle east?. Think about it. ??? We now have the technology to accomplish such destruction and he has be rather accurate before. I don?t fully believe in it but it is very striking. A lot more could happen from these events that I don?t think a lot of people see or want to see.

Nostradomus has been "accurate" via being very vauge. The same verses in the Bible that led Christians in years past to beleive the world was flat in the past are now pointed to as predictions that the world is round. Frankly, they could mean either, and I can come up with example upon example of this just from the Bible. Nostradomus isn't much different. Negligence led to World War II, and negligence is what the world is showing towards Iraq today. You's have to be crazy to beleive that the Iraqi people aren't/won't be bitter at the world if nothing isn't done about Saddam. As one Iraqi Kurd now living in New York City interviewed on NPR just this morning put it, "Without justice there can be no peace, and as long as Saddam is ruling Iraq there will be no justice."