While the 'civilized world' looked elsewhere...

That's the wife's choice, no one can make that choice for her. Even if a nieghbor was to report it, if she doesn't press charges. Nothing can be done. That's the law.

Guess that depends on where you live. In most US states domestic abuse (male or female) that show's any visible signs (bruise, small cut, red mark, anything) means an automatic trip to jail whether the person wants to press charges or not :).

Just thought I would clarify that! :P

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
I think your right Rask, but dropping a few hundred bombs over baghdad isnt going to change Saddam's mind.

Of course it isn't going to change his mind. It's going to remove him from power. After that, what's on his mind doesn't matter.

If Saddam is the tyrant we say he is, do you think he cares about his people.

Of course he doesn't care about his people. He's been using his people's suffering and natural human empathy abroad for leverage in acheiving his goals for the past decade. I've said many times that if Saddam cared about his people over half a million of them wouldn't have starved under UN sanctions these past 12 years. If he cared he would have disarmed years ago, proven it via inspections and this would have been done and over with by the mid 90s.

And who do you think is going to die when we drop bombs?? The innocents Iraqis, which have done NOTHING to us.

Many, many more innocent people are likely to die if we do nothing, but that's OK because starvation's quiet, right?

Outside of Iraq's Ba'ath party (a minority group within a minority group), Saddam doesn't have supporters. bin Laden's supporters point to the plight of Iraqi civillians starving under sanctions and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (stationed there since Iraq invaded Kuwait to keep Saddam in line) as some of their key greivances. How does removing Saddam from power make any of those problems worse?

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 03-06-2003 at 12:53 PM]

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
'Popular Opinion' is not inherently correct. It is simply a position embraced by many people. People who may all be getting their guidance from various branches of the same source. People who instinctively prefer to belive tales that fit teir notions of how things should be. The only protection available to an individual who wishes to avoid being overwhelmed by propoganda, is the skill of clear, analytical thought.

The world is not right; it is merely very vocal about being wrong.

I agree it’s an opinion, I clearly stated this in my previous posts. Why go in circles with this?? Ok now if the world says that bombing Iraq is wrong, it’s the same as saying it’s WRONG to kill innocent people. So if your saying that the world is [u]not[/u] right, wouldn’t you be saying that it is OK for the world to believe in killing innocent people??? I hope I’m wrong. When I say world, I mean the majority population of the world. You could say the same thing about a lot of similar incidents, take the concentration camps of WWII. In your opinion where they right or wrong by killing those people?? Same thing with 9/11, we’re the actions of the terrorists right or wrong?? You don’t need guidance, a source, tales, or propaganda to make a decision. Yeah it is an opinion, and most of the world shares the same opinion. My post stats in my opinion (along with the world), it is wrong!

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
I think your right Rask, but dropping a few hundred bombs over baghdad isnt going to change Saddam's mind.

Of course it isn't going to change his mind. It's going to remove him from power. After that, what's on his mind doesn't matter.

How?? By killing off the entire population of Iraq, so he would have no country left?? Yeah that's humane.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

And who do you think is going to die when we drop bombs?? The innocents Iraqis, which have done NOTHING to us.

Many, many more innocent people are likely to die if we do nothing, but that's OK because starvation's quiet, right?

No it’s not right, but its not our fight. I know we wish to do something about it and that is all good. But killing doesn’t make killing ok. Another point, do you remember the incident in Somalia in 1992. Would you like that to happen again?? Same circumstance. We’re going into a hostile country, with a starving population but they also doesn’t want us there, to remove a leader from office. If you don’t understand, watch the movie Black Hawk Down. I think you’ll soon change your mind. Pressing forth the actions we have been threatening on taking is walking into the same crisis. Is our government brain-dead???

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Outside of Iraq's Ba'ath party (a minority group within a minority group), Saddam doesn't have supporters. bin Laden's supporters point to the plight of Iraqi civillians starving under sanctions and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (stationed there since Iraq invaded Kuwait to keep Saddam in line) as some of their key greivances.

I personally believe Saddam has a lot more supporters than we know about. The way we are approaching this situation makes me believe this. Here’s why, Iraq by itself is not a true threat even with the weapons they were making. They have had 12 years to destroy the weapons but it wasn’t a big deal until recently, why??? Why do we still push for war when the very reason for war is being taken care of??Why is Iraq such a focus point when they’re are more formidable enemies out there? Take the Bin Laden and guys like that, they hurt us. The Iraqis haven’t done crap, so why has bin laden been taken off the majority radar and been replaced by Saddam. Plus, our government is willing to put forth billions of dollars to support these actions when our own economy is in a slump. There is a lot of things that just don’t add up. A very common quote I follow on this is, “believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.” I believe we only know half the truth, and until someone gives me a DARN GOOD REASON, I believe these actions are wrong.

On the point that Bin Laden and Saddam could never be allies. That’s naive, I’m sorry but it is. Take the WWII again, the nazis and the Japanese. Both countries ideals contradict each others but yet they were still able to forge an alliance. You don’t think it can happen again?? They both could benefit very well from a coalition and they both share a hatred for the US. Why is that so hard to believe?? Is it because we now trust the words of BIN LADEN?? Open your eyes...

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

How does removing Saddam from power make any of those problems worse?

A lot of ways such as your relationship with the UN. If we go against the UN support and attack Iraq, I’m sure that’s going tick some people off in the UN. The UN is a big part of our position and power in the world, such actions are not going to benefit our relations with the UN (countries against these actions).

Second, your ticking off a lot of people in the middle east. They don’t want us there, yet we stick our nose in at every chance we get. Look at Vietnam and the Korean war, it’s the same actions that started those wars and what did we accomplish??

Third, the majority of the people of our nation DO NOT support it. War is not a good thing for any nation for it crunches the economy. With our economy suffering as it is, it’s not a good idea to flush a couple of billion dollars to a war. We need that money more here than there. There are a few other reasons how it will hurt our mainland.

There are many more but this post is long enough...

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 03-06-2003 at 05:43 PM]

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.

...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.
Rask says the result of not following thro' on UN resolution has always been invasion and regime change.I ask for examples(if you ask me,a lack of such examples is a rebuttal).He says to look up UN resolutions on Iraq.Is that an example?I was hoping(silly me) for something like: 1973,Canada invaded Argentina,UN said to get the **** out,Canada said **** you,and Kaboom!!!!the allies came in,toppled the govt.,blah blah blah.
Your basic argument is that Saddam signed an agreement to end the gulf war.And he hasn't fulfilled the terms of that agreement.So technically we should revive the gulf war.
The argument is fine.
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.
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?
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.And don't ignore the power of precedent(how many times does someone tell you not to do X,then you ask if Joe is doing it,why can't I?Or look at the legal fraternity.You'll see the power of precedent).
It's also been argued that Saddam is buying time.
For what?
Even if Saddam had an arsenal the size of America,believe you me,it wouldn't mean ****,coz if say today,just coz America is a superpower,if you were to start invading countries and ****,the rest of the world would stand up against you,and your imperialism wouldn't help you.It's one thing for Saddam to have ideas in his head.It's another to try and work them out on the ground.
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.


[Edited by kingdavid on 03-07-2003 at 03:18 AM]

Originally posted by noticingthemistake

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
[B] 'Popular Opinion' is not inherently correct. It is simply a position embraced by many people. People who may all be getting their guidance from various branches of the same source. People who instinctively prefer to belive tales that fit teir notions of how things should be. The only protection available to an individual who wishes to avoid being overwhelmed by propoganda, is the skill of clear, analytical thought.

The world is not right; it is merely very vocal about being wrong.

I agree it?s an opinion, I clearly stated this in my previous posts. Why go in circles with this?? Ok now if the world says that bombing Iraq is wrong, it?s the same as saying it?s WRONG to kill innocent people. So if your saying that the world is [u]not[/u] right, wouldn?t you be saying that it is OK for the world to believe in killing innocent people??? I hope I?m wrong. When I say world, I mean the majority population of the world. You could say the same thing about a lot of similar incidents, take the concentration camps of WWII. In your opinion where they right or wrong by killing those people?? Same thing with 9/11, we?re the actions of the terrorists right or wrong?? You don?t need guidance, a source, tales, or propaganda to make a decision. Yeah it is an opinion, and most of the world shares the same opinion. My post stats in my opinion (along with the world), it is wrong!

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?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
I think your right Rask, but dropping a few hundred bombs over baghdad isnt going to change Saddam's mind.

Of course it isn't going to change his mind. It's going to remove him from power. After that, what's on his mind doesn't matter.

How?? By killing off the entire population of Iraq, so he would have no country left?? Yeah that's humane.

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...

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

And who do you think is going to die when we drop bombs?? The innocents Iraqis, which have done NOTHING to us.

Many, many more innocent people are likely to die if we do nothing, but that's OK because starvation's quiet, right?

No it?s not right, but its not our fight. I know we wish to do something about it and that is all good. But killing doesn?t make killing ok. Another point, do you remember the incident in Somalia in 1992. Would you like that to happen again?? Same circumstance. We?re going into a hostile country, with a starving population but they also doesn?t want us there, to remove a leader from office. If you don?t understand, watch the movie Black Hawk Down. I think you?ll soon change your mind. Pressing forth the actions we have been threatening on taking is walking into the same crisis. Is our government brain-dead???

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.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Outside of Iraq's Ba'ath party (a minority group within a minority group), Saddam doesn't have supporters. bin Laden's supporters point to the plight of Iraqi civillians starving under sanctions and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (stationed there since Iraq invaded Kuwait to keep Saddam in line) as some of their key greivances.

I personally believe Saddam has a lot more supporters than we know about.

Why?

The way we are approaching this situation makes me believe this. Here?s why, Iraq by itself is not a true threat even with the weapons they were making.

Illegal arms purchases are sent into Iraq all the time, how difficult can it be to smuggle some out? Especially in the small quantities that can be used in a terrorist-style attack, or assembled in a sympathetic nation then shipped in a simple cargo container to agents in the US who deliver the weapon to it's target.

They have had 12 years to destroy the weapons but it wasn?t a big deal until recently, why???

There hasn't been the political will until now. Do you think Bill Clinton was about to toss his (and Hillary and Al Gore's) political careers down the toilet by going to war over Iraq?

Why is Iraq such a focus point when they?re are more formidable enemies out there? Take the Bin Laden and guys like that, they hurt us.

We just got bin Laden's third in command. Osama bin Laden will not be found by brute military force. If he's found at all, it will be an accident of some kind or somebody close to him will turn him in.

The Iraqis haven?t done crap, so why has bin laden been taken off the majority radar and been replaced by Saddam.

See the above.

Plus, our government is willing to put forth billions of dollars to support these actions when our own economy is in a slump. There is a lot of things that just don?t add up.

Unless the administration really beleives that Saddam is a threat atleast to his own region.

On the point that Bin Laden and Saddam could never be allies. That?s naive, I?m sorry but it is. Take the WWII again, the nazis and the Japanese. Both countries ideals contradict each others but yet they were still able to forge an alliance. You don?t think it can happen again?? They both could benefit very well from a coalition and they both share a hatred for the US. Why is that so hard to believe?? Is it because we now trust the words of BIN LADEN?? Open your eyes...

Wait.... "Why do we still push for war when the very reason for war is being taken care of??"
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.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

How does removing Saddam from power make any of those problems worse?

A lot of ways such as your relationship with the UN. If we go against the UN support and attack Iraq, I?m sure that?s going tick some people off in the UN. The UN is a big part of our position and power in the world, such actions are not going to benefit our relations with the UN (countries against these actions).[/quote]
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.

Second, your ticking off a lot of people in the middle east. They don?t want us there, yet we stick our nose in at every chance we get. Look at Vietnam and the Korean war, it?s the same actions that started those wars and what did we accomplish??

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.
And some corrections:
In Korean War we (and several other nations) were asked by the South Korean government to help repel the Northern communist invaders. While not a total success, you should note that South Korea still exists today.
In Vietnam, we were not only asked to intervine by the South Vietnamese government, but by France too. In Vietnam we have a war that could easily have been won, but was lost due to political reasons, not military.

Third, the majority of the people of our nation DO NOT support it. War is not a good thing for any nation for it crunches the economy. With our economy suffering as it is, it?s not a good idea to flush a couple of billion dollars to a war. We need that money more here than there.

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?

Originally posted by kingdavid
[B]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.

A). One Arab nation is a key point of the Ba'athist platform. B). There are HUGE holes in Iraq's claims to have disarmed, they've been caught lieing numerous times even since inspections have resumed, and you still take Saddam's word that he has no hostile intentions? Weapons, especially WMDs are intended to be threats, that's true of any nation. Now take a good look at Saddam Hussein himself, and his government; if he had good intentions this chrisis could have been over a decade ago. Give Saddam or whichever of his sons succeeds him five to ten years with no sanctions to rebuild their strength and see what happens.

"Meanwhile,several million people(the entire population of Israel)have been wiped off the map"
I won't even say yeah yeah.

Huh?

Rask says the result of not following thro' on UN resolution has always been invasion and regime change.I ask for examples(if you ask me,a lack of such examples is a rebuttal).He says to look up UN resolutions on Iraq.Is that an example?I was hoping(silly me)...

Here's one. Since those resolutions are so easily atainable I figured it would be obnoxious (and unnecesarily verbose) to quote them. If you really want, I can comb through it and quote specific texts that apply here, but again, that's a lot of words to say some very simple things... Lawyers!

Your basic argument is that Saddam signed an agreement to end the gulf war.

On Mar 3, 1991...

And he hasn't fulfilled the terms of that agreement.So technically we should revive the gulf war.
The argument is fine.

Thank you.

And don't ignore the power of precedent(how many times does someone tell you not to do X,then you ask if Joe is doing it,why can't I?Or look at the legal fraternity.You'll see the power of precedent).

So allowing Saddam Hussein to get his will sets a good precedent?
How can the UN expect to have any authority or credibility with the next dictator it decides to challenge if it doesn't carry through with Iraq?

The problem is why America would use such deviants in the first place.

In the case of Osama bin Laden, he was taught to use his faith as a weapon against the Soviets then taught a lot of guerilla tactics. I think we can all agree that those are reasonable measures for resistance fighters to take against an invading army. What then happened is that bin Laden applied those tactics against civillian populations - THAT is crossing the line in my book.

As to your other 'whys,' I'm pretty sure I've answered most of them in the last post.

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???

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”. Now we both agreed that Saddam doesn’t care much for his people or military (ego or whatever). So what is the bombing of Iraq going to do??? Tried it 12 years ago and it didn’t work, so why now?? We just going to keep bombing until he gives up?? With his “ego” I find that might take awhile and the cost of many innocent lives. But it’s for the great good of the Iraqi people?? So with that opinion, you could also say 9/11 was good for us. Al-Quida saw us as evil like we see Saddam as evil, so bombing civilians in their buildings is the same as flying planes into our buildings? In the end is OK for us to do it, but not them. Please don’t tell me that you are in support of this.

I’ll give them this, if your going to bomb somewhere make sure it’s a military base, preferably not the one that is also the most populated city in Iraq. If we’re so humane don’t your think we would look for a better place to bomb. Again it was horrible when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but it’s OK if we bomb Iraq. Yeah, and we’re so against terrorist but it’s OK if we tell the Iraqi people that “we’re going to bomb the crap out of you and your family one night and there's nothing they can do about it, but we‘re fighting terrorism”.

About Iraq purchasing replicas of our stuff, were you thinking they were just going to let us bomb them and not do anything??? Of course they’re going to fight back, but if we weren’t threatening them with military action, they probably wouldn’t be buying that stuff. War is war, we are also vulnerable.

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.

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.

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. And who asked for our help in this situation???? 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. Peace Treaty????

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. Our government blinded by “PRIDE OF BEING THE MOST POWERFUL NATION” is bend on a World War with nuclear technology. Call me crazy but this is where I see this ending up.

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.

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.

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.

Now with your corrections. I didn’t write my post based on what you said, but I will use only one statement to show your something interesting in your corrections. Here it is..

Both those cases, we were ASKED to intervene but we are not being asked now. The only asking I hear is Bush asked for UN support in war with Iraq.

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.

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."

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
45,000 people starve in Iraq in just one year due to sanctions that are questionably able to keep Saddam contained. That's 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.

Thousands more starve in African and South American countries due to leadering bodies, but we’re not going to war with them. Second, many less Iraqis died before the Gulf War so most Iraqis will point to us as the cause rather than Saddam. Although this would be false, it is what the Middle Eastern people are directly pointing to, which is any easy thing to do out of anger. Like the Germans blamed the world for it’s suffering after World War I, not it’s governing body which failed during and after the war.

Again, is it absolutely necessarily to attack Bagdad so viciously? We accomplished nothing last time, why is it going to work this time?? Also I hope the analysts are right, because history tells us that war never goes as planned. Our involvement in the Vietnam war was only supposed to last a couple of months. The last attack on Bagdad was supposed to end Saddam then and there. Who knows maybe we’ll get lucky.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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.

I must ask you before anything. How do you know? Unless your the president himself, you really don’t know. You’ve seen this on the news, I can tell cause the majority of your information comes it. But it is preposterous to think they we can actually get away with broadcasting what we’re going to do ahead of time and get away with it. As an example, we announced on the news we were going to bomb Bagdad. Did we succeed it getting Saddam?? No. Even as a military strike, it was a semi-success. Another thing that is quite humorous is the fact that our military thinks we’re just going to walk in and take Saddam that easily. Just as well as we have in Iraq, I’m sure Saddam is ready to leave Bagdad at any sign of trouble. If he did get away, I doubt he is just going to “give up” after we take Bagdad. He would still be a threat, just like Bin Laden is. He may even find a way to exploit it given 12 yrs to think up a plan.

We all hope that this invasion will go as smoothly as you have explained, I am hesitant to rest my head with everything resting on PRIDE. No military strike like this has ever gone as planned, and it’s very naive to think this one will. I don’t see this war as a jolly walk in the park, that’s just my opinion. You can base your facts on what Larry King tells you or what happened in ‘91, but I feel I am opening my mind to more possibilities. I am looking and seeing farther down the road.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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.

Am I? How? Where’s the lion's den?? The Middle East. 13 middle-easterners (most were from the middle east) flew 4 jet planes and killed around 175000 people in a matter of a couple of hours. The ratio speaks for itself and these are the people we are at war with. At least once a week for the last 25 years or so, you have heard about people dying because of a suicidal bomber on a Israeli bus or something. I meant no disrespect to any Arabic person, I thought I clearly showed that I was talking about the terrorists. I’m sorry I didn’t write a few more sentences to indefinitely clear that up. By the way, how is Israel doing these days?? They’ve been at war for what 60+ years?? Don’t bother bringing up the treaty, cause we both know they’re still at war whether they’re government wants to acknowledge it or not. It is a miracle that they are not in cinders now, but they are not winning either.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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 neighbors and the world with which to take anything he wants.

Could he have?? For 12 years he has had the UN and it’s inspectors so far up his brown hole, the chances of any war attempt would have been extremely slim. Even if he succeeded, he would have the entire UN stomping down on him in a second. In this position, he isn’t a threat to a housefly. But waiting for the US to attack him first will lift off the UN sanctions and also divide the UN, which has been his biggest slap in the face for the last 12 yrs. Divide and conquer. It’s perfect from his side, cause the weapons he has not destroyed he can now use in defensive manner. After the Gulf War, it was estimated that Saddam would acquire chemical and nuclear technology within a year. It’s been 12, has he shown the destruction of any such weapons? Also, it is proven that he had secret installations, which we know have not all been found, where such science is run. So where are they??? Just take some time to actually think about it. An easy way to get the sanctions lifted is for US to go to war, why do you think he’s been so cocky towards Bush?? Arrogance or Intelligence?? I hope its arrogance, for this and even more deadly outcomes are easily played out from this situation.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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.

I agree. The UN should act more strictly than it has in the past. Saddam may be getting away lightly by having 12 yrs to destroy all weapons, but he also has to think of his country. The middle east is a very hostile region of the world, it isn’t exactly smart to disarm yourself completely and expect to stay in power. I think he also knew that if he destroyed all his weapons he would have no leverage over the UN. We all know without any threat, he would soon be thrown out of office or invaded. Especially when he was at war with Iran in the very early 80’s. Their is still tension and Iran is also developing weapons of mass destruction (as you can see where not up their buttocks). Saddam is in a rut, a very big one, but he has complied with the UN as much as he can. They are doing their job and that job is maintaining him as a minimal threat. He may be a threat to the Middle east but not the US so I still feel this is not our game. The UN has kept Saddam unthreatening for 12 yrs, there is no need for an active war. Especially with the consequences that may follow.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
A lot of Iraqi exiles for one.

Yeah well a lot of Cuban exiles have asked for our help in the last 30 yrs. We’re not planning on invading Cuba at the moment. Why? Go back and look at the Bay of Pigs, and you’ll see why. Could it happen with Iraq?? I also don’t believe that any of these Iraqis are friendly. Remember these are the countrymen that burn our flag like it’s a holiday. Now there our friends?? Please, don’t be stupid. I would not trust a single one of them, they are more likely to be anything but our friends. I remember hearing that after we captured Iraqi attackers in The Gulf War they begged and pleaded to us that Saddam was evil so we would let them go. Well, maybe they just didn’t want to die. If they were friendly, they wouldn’t have declined to offer any information about Saddam whereabouts.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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.

Exactly man, that’s what it is and all it is. It’s not a united war party. And yeah it is messed up that Iraqi people are dying, and the UN can’t do as much as we would all like. I totally feel where your coming from on this, and if it wasn’t for the aftermath I can see from war. I’d be a supporter of using military action to remove Saddam. I’m not trying to defend Iraq but it deserves the right to protect itself and I doubt it will use that right wrongfully since the UN is constantly breathing down it’s neck. Iraq truly isn’t a threat in it’s current situation, but allow it to fight a war and you have now given them the right to use those weapons. I still believe the UN is doing there job by keeping Saddam under supervision.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Just like in Afghanistan?

I’m not exactly sure why you brought that up. The whole reason we went into Afghanistan is because there were terrorist training camps there, and that's the last place we encountered Bin Laden. Besides helping the Afghanistan government fight a small group of terrorist militia, there was no political reason to be there. We were also in a relatively friendly neighborhood, we don’t really have many enemies over there. Although any consequences (which I think will be minimal) that will come from this won’t be clear for years. What we did there was pretty much the same thing we did when the Russians tried to invade.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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.

What I notice about the plans for Iraq is that they should probably be the other way around. If the Iraqis only want Saddam out, we should leave them to re-elect a new government. It’s there country and they should be allowed to have the government they chose. Replacing it with a democratic government enforced by military action sounds like a dictatorship in disguise to me. Sounds kind of unpatriotic but it isn‘t democracy at work. Invertingly what were saying by this is, "we'll help you but you’ve got to accept our democratic party”. So all we’re doing is taking out a leader(government) that we don’t approve of and replacing it with one we do, based on our opinion. It sounds like a dictator whether you believe it is right or not, democracy says you have the freedom to choose what body you will be governed by. The Iraqi people never said they wanted a democratic government. Saddam may be right, “we are trying to enslave the Iraqi people”. It would just be a political move, something like Vietnam.

Now if you look at the other democratic nation in the middle east and look how they are treated amongst the other nations. I doubt the Iraqi people would want to be a democratic nation. In the longer run, more Iraqi people will probably die in protest or neighboring nations fighting against the new democratic government. Just like the Israelis. So by forcing democracy into Iraq, we will create even more hostility in the middle-east, then ensued by more hatred for the US.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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."

As for the Iraqi living in New York City. It's the same stories over and over on the news, which is only one side of the story. So he is no more equipped to answer in that interview than a white guy from NYC that moved to Canada. This is why I am so open-minded on this subject cause I am not easily brainwashed by propaganda. You can clearly see that the only thing we hear in the news is how bad Saddam is and those who support action. You will never hear from a Iraqi that detests America or any statistics that show negativity in our part. It’s easy to wash out anything that the media doesn’t want the public to see. So as you can see I don’t stamp down the crap I hear on the news in my posts, so yeah I am stating opinions on the matter. I think that's just keeping an open mind and so far no one has given me a reason to think otherwise. I do wish someone would cause what I see spells out an ominous future for the world.

Looking at it for both ends, it really is a double-edged sword. There are risks on both sides whether you support military action or not. Of course, starting a war in the hornets nest called the middle east has many complications that arise other than Iraq and the US/UN. But an over-all look at world order and the possibility of another war world. On the other hand, trusting the UN as it stands does show the UN as a rather weak organization if it doesn’t act on Saddam and his regime. Which indeed leaves a not-so good impression on the rest of the world. But I think the true choice is to follow peace, especially for Americans. To me the UN is following that path regardless of how weak and unnecessary it seems. Post, Pre, or acting war is not peace. That’s the bottom line.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 03-11-2003 at 12:38 AM]

The reasons for the war against Iraq now are :


1) Hidden WMDs which are already dealt with inspections , and I can't believe that Saddam can be hiding "a lot more" as some people claim since he hasn't blown Kuwait or Israel off the map back in '91 .
Also , IN CASE he hides a lot more , wouldn't such a war be the best occasion for Saddam to play with these toys ??! :confused:
In other words , by war you're giving him a chance to use his WMDS (If there realy exist WMDs in Iraq) instead of letting the UN inspectors do their job which has been succesfull so far (Destruction of Al Somod 2 , inspections everywhere in Iraq including presedential sites , almost confirmed that Iraq is nuke free,U2 flights , etc.).


2) Removing Saddam from Power , which is a good goal although it's illegal .
So why doesn't the U.S. come up with a new resolution and pass it to the UN for voting about establishing democracy in Iraq , like UN supervised elections (starting with the parliament) and so ... Instead of this meaningless ARROGANT insistance on war no matter what the UN or the rest of the world wants.


3) Iraq isn't complying with the UN resolutions ... Bullsh*t , see the end of pt 1 .
Also , the US is the one who seems to neglect or ignore the UN resolution ... If 3 out of 5 permanent members in the security council are AGAINST the war (refusing a resolution only needs one permanent member against it) , and most other members are aginst war too , so why do you go on violating the international law ,destroy the UNs authority and credibility ??
The UN was meant to be for international democracy and that means it serves the interests of the majority of the world , not the US ONLY , this can't be justice or democracy ! :mad:


4) Sanctions are killing Iraqi citizens ... Also bullsh*t , what makes you so sure that multiples of this numbers aren't going to suffer to death in case of war.
What I know (you may not know this btw) ,Saddam is preparing 7 million civilian Iraqies millitarily not only in Bagdad , but across the whole country ...You can't assume that all or most of those are against Saddam .
I can tell you that 90% of them are poor, ignorant and don't know sh*t about politics or what's going on the rest of the world unless from their poor media , I've seen their satalite TV channel couple of times and it's very funny and full of sh*t and mythologies about the mighty Saddam ... They even call him there "Saddam the hero" :rolleyes: ,so I won't be surprised if some people there worship him.
Regarding other soldiers in the army , civilian casualties (which can be much more than we can count in case the US used WMDs or nukes as Bush said) .
So the number of innocent people deaths (in case of war) can never be determined or controled.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
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.

Am I? How? Where?s the lion's den?? The Middle East. 13 middle-easterners (most were from the middle east) flew 4 jet planes and killed around 175000 people in a matter of a couple of hours.

175,000 killed in the 9/11 hijackings? Try around 3,000. Your number is 58 times too large. So who is it that's buying propoganda now? (PS: it was 19 hijackers on the planes, not 13).

Sorry, but when I make a point, it's backed up by multiple sources; you're spewing a lot of exadurations (this is a prime example), and a great deal of information that is simply out of context.

Now, as to the Kamikaze attacks; Initially effective because they came completely as a suprise, but ultimately became inconsequential as 1). it wasn't a suprise any more and so were shot down a lot more easily, and 2). the quality of pilots trying to make Kamikaze attacks deteriorated rapidly, again making them much easier to shoot down before they could attack their targets. As a specific example, in the battle of Leyte Gulf - the first mass Kamikaze attack of the war - only five ships were sunk. Considering the US fleet consisted of several hundred ships at this point in the war, trying to say Kamikaze attacks sunk anything resembling "most" of the Pacific Fleet is totally innacurate.

I also fail to understand how Iraqi refugees living in the US who left to escape Saddam and still talk to relatives in Iraq are more prone to propoganda than the rest of us who've never even been there.

Originally posted by SLY
The reasons for the war against Iraq now are :

1) Hidden WMDs which are already dealt with inspections , and I can't believe that Saddam can be hiding "a lot more" as some people claim since he hasn't blown Kuwait or Israel off the map back in '91 .
Also , IN CASE he hides a lot more , wouldn't such a war be the best occasion for Saddam to play with these toys ??! :confused:
In other words , by war you're giving him a chance to use his WMDS (If there realy exist WMDs in Iraq) instead of letting the UN inspectors do their job which has been succesfull so far (Destruction of Al Somod 2 , inspections everywhere in Iraq including presedential sites , almost confirmed that Iraq is nuke free,U2 flights , etc.).

2) Removing Saddam from Power , which is a good goal although it's illegal .
So why doesn't the U.S. come up with a new resolution and pass it to the UN for voting about establishing democracy in Iraq , like UN supervised elections (starting with the parliament) and so ... Instead of this meaningless ARROGANT insistance on war no matter what the UN or the rest of the world wants.

3) Iraq isn't complying with the UN resolutions ... Bullsh*t , see the end of pt 1 .
Also , the US is the one who seems to neglect or ignore the UN resolution ... If 3 out of 5 permanent members in the security council are AGAINST the war (refusing a resolution only needs one permanent member against it) , and most other members are aginst war too , so why do you go on violating the international law ,destroy the UNs authority and credibility ??
The UN was meant to be for international democracy and that means it serves the interests of the majority of the world , not the US ONLY , this can't be justice or democracy ! :mad:

4) Sanctions are killing Iraqi citizens ... Also bullsh*t , what makes you so sure that multiples of this numbers aren't going to suffer to death in case of war.
What I know (you may not know this btw) ,Saddam is preparing 7 million civilian Iraqies millitarily not only in Bagdad , but across the whole country ...You can't assume that all or most of those are against Saddam .
I can tell you that 90% of them are poor, ignorant and don't know sh*t about politics or what's going on the rest of the world unless from their poor media , I've seen their satalite TV channel couple of times and it's very funny and full of sh*t and mythologies about the mighty Saddam ... They even call him there "Saddam the hero" :rolleyes: ,so I won't be surprised if some people there worship him.
Regarding other soldiers in the army , civilian casualties (which can be much more than we can count in case the US used WMDs or nukes as Bush said) .
So the number of innocent people deaths (in case of war) can never be determined or controled.

Fist off, the "ignorant" nation of Iraq sports a 70% litteracy rate. Second, expatriated Iraqis (even those who don't agree with war) and people who've been in Iraq recently and have been able to talk to Iraqis out of sight of government officials consistantly report that there is virtually no loyalty to Saddam outside of the Ba'ath party and the Republican Guard. That means mass defections of soldiers and quite possibly an uprising of the people just as soon as they know help is coming. I might be wrong, but I think the average Iraqi takes Saddam's propoganda about as seriously as I take the "Pot = Terrorism" advertisements on the TV here in the US.

It's pretty naive to beleive that weapons and weapons production can't be hidden and hidden easily inside a nation the size of Iraq isn't possible. The best experts available, Saddam's own escaped weapons scientists consistantly say just that and that they doubt his plans for WMD development have changed at all. Saddam's strategy is simple - give up a little bit here and there, hide the rest, wait for the world to give up. Yeah, Al Somod 2s are being destroyed, but at a very slow pace, and we have know way of knowing how many were actually produced, so there could be considerbly more quietly hidden in a secluded location. Next, Iraq still has produced no evidence at all that they've destroyed tons and tons and TONS of Anthrax and other biological/chemical agents that we know they had as late as 1998.

Also, after 12 years of inspections you define the limited steps in the right direction taken so far and taken with A LOT of kicking and screaming from Saddam "success," you have a much looser definition of the word than I do. Well, unless you're talking from Saddam's perspective. I'm sure he's tickled with the results so far.

Though dated, I think this commentary by one of Saddam's former advisors and a weapons scientist responds to your other points most effectively:

Hiding Arms Is Easy
by Khidhir Hamza
New York Times
December 17, 2001

President Bush's recent demand that Saddam Hussein allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, as required by the United Nations, looked like a continuation of Bill Clinton's Iraq policy. But Mr. Bush's angry statement that Mr. Hussein "will find out" the price he will have to pay if he does not agree to inspections may indicate a hardening line. Unfortunately, even resumed inspections would have little effect other than to increase the international legitimacy of Mr. Hussein's dictatorship.

The two top American inspectors in the last Iraq inspection effort the United Nations Special Commission, known as Unscom were Charles Duelfer, deputy chairman and chief American representative, and Richard Spertzel, director of Unscom's biological weapons unit. Both have expressed skepticism about any inspection system in Iraq under present conditions. For inspection to be meaningful, Iraq needs a strong incentive to comply. The only incentive that might move Mr. Hussein is the prospect that the United States would agree to a lifting of United Nations economic sanctions. But that will not happen, and even Mr. Hussein gave up hope on it long ago. The United States will never agree to a full lifting of sanctions because it knows that this move would lead Mr. Hussein to accelerate his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

If President Bush were to put some teeth in his threat and a serious military strike against the Iraqi regime became imminent, Mr. Hussein might relent and allow inspectors, as he did in November 1997. But even then, it is almost certain that he would do whatever he could to keep up the weapons programs in secret.

Inspections would probably be less fruitful now than in the past. Research and development no longer take place only at fixed factory sites. Even before I left Iraq, the government was spreading its weapons-development sites across the country" in mobile units, in military barracks and well- camouflaged buildings both to evade inspections and to reduce exposure to air attacks. Suppose inspectors were to find one of these locations. According to the inspectors I talked to in the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission formed to replace Unscom and still awaiting an invitation to Baghdad the new protocols do not allow inspectors to demand immediate access after finding a site. They would report their findings to their New York headquarters, which would pass them on to the Security Council. Then, a few days later, permission could be granted by Baghdad to inspect the site by which time the site would have been sanitized.

The inspectors would then, of course, report that they found nothing, and Mr. Hussein's allies Russia, France and most Arab countries would have their opportunity to demand, as Russia has before, that sanctions be lifted. This pattern was repeated daily in Security Council meetings just before Mr. Hussein stopped inspections altogether in 1998.

The environment in which Unscom was effective no longer exists. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait won very strong backing for inspections from the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors. But over time, Iraq's recovery from the war [u]and the desire of France and Russia to reopen military trade with Baghdad[/u] combined to undermine Unscom. Now the new, far weaker inspection commission has to negotiate its way into a set of inspection conditions agreeable to Iraq. Whatever Mr. Bush decides to do about Saddam Hussein, weapons inspections will, in the end, have little effect.

Almost prophetic, ain't it?

As I have been saying in previous post when some have argued that this could never happen. Our government is now saying that there is prove that Bin Laden and Hussein are working together. Whether this is fact or another attempt at growing support for war...

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
175,000 killed in the 9/11 hijackings? Try around 3,000. Your number is 58 times too large. So who is it that's buying propoganda now? (PS: it was 19 hijackers on the planes, not 13).

Haha. Yeah I guess I did make a mistake, and not to make excuses but I wrote that at 3 am in the morning. I was wrong but the numbers isn’t the point I am trying to make. The point is the ratio of dead from each side, 3000 to 19 is still something you can not ignore. BTW I didn’t get that from propaganda, so you can’t say I’m buying anything. Sorry my bad on the numbers.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Sorry, but when I make a point, it's backed up by multiple sources; you're spewing a lot of exadurations (this is a prime example), and a great deal of information that is simply out of context.

That’s great you cleared that up after I stated that in the post before. I know your posts are taken from what you hear in the news, I don’t disagree. I, on the other hand, don’t believe everything I hear. So what I’m saying might be exaggerations to most, but before you take action you should always look at the consequences also. Especially in war, and those my friend are NOT IN THE NEWS!! I’m thinking not just listening. This is what I see coming out of this military aggression on Iraq. In all fairness, everything that you have posted supporting war only shows the positive side of going to war. This so clearly shows pride or ignorance. Is it that our government thinks their is no negative side to war? And there is no way we can lose or make things worse?? Now of course they’re not going to show the negatives to the public, because they are trying to get support from the people. This is all the more reason not to believe everything, or I should say not to strictly believe everything. “oh yeah we’re going to bomb bagdad, throw Saddam out of power, and turn their government in a democracy, it’s just that easy”. YEAH RIGHT!!!! You can believe that if you want, but I am open to more possibilities. I am not making my theory based on what the news says, I am aware of that. I’m just trying to show you that that there are others things that could happen besides such an easy and perfect victory. Everything I say is taken from what is actually going on and how the enemy is responding to what is going on. They’re actions in the past, and what their tactics and resources are now. If your going to try to rebut what I am saying give me a solid reason why such things can not happen. You know why you can’t?? Cause anything can happen in War, and that should always be taken into consideration before you start one.

What is out of context?? Is it my examples?? I put examples to show the results from similar incidents in the past, so you can see their potential effectiveness now. I only use incidents that are clear possibilities of this war. Kamikazes, well they may be called suicide bombers now. I am illustrating the similarities and effectiveness of such attacks which are a type of military attack in the middle east today. If it is my views of the future, if war broke out. Yeah, these are my theories based on play by play after an attack. Based souly on the conditions and views of the middle east, along with pretty much everyone involved. So how am I out of context???

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Now, as to the Kamikaze attacks; Initially effective because they came completely as a suprise, but ultimately became inconsequential as 1). it wasn't a suprise any more and so were shot down a lot more easily, and 2). the quality of pilots trying to make Kamikaze attacks deteriorated rapidly, again making them much easier to shoot down before they could attack their targets. As a specific example, in the battle of Leyte Gulf - the first mass Kamikaze attack of the war - only five ships were sunk. Considering the US fleet consisted of several hundred ships at this point in the war, trying to say Kamikaze attacks sunk anything resembling "most" of the Pacific Fleet is totally innacurate.

I know about the kamikaze pilots, but I don’t think they failed if you look at it‘s effectiveness. Yeah we were able to shoot down the majority of them and invade Japan, but when you ratio the numbers. Around a few hundred kamikazes died while nearly a thousand marines and navy men died (56 ships). That’s a pretty lob sided victory in terms of casualties. We can’t claim victory by saying that we shot those pilots down, cause they were planning on dying anyways. Our victory relied on the fact that there were so few kamikazes in WWII, there just wasn’t enough to be victorious. But now we are facing many more, and much more devious ways of carrying out a suicidal attack.

I can not believe you are discounting this, considering the amount of attacks from these people in these ways. This is how these guys fight, so unless you can point out a way to stop it (when no one else can). I think you should take this into consideration cause as of right now there is not much of a defense or offense for something like this.

But let me take the fact that after 9/11, we placed maximum security in airports. Once war starts, security will go down to minimum again. So I guess it’s more important to fight a war over in Iraq than to protect our own people here in America.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I also fail to understand how Iraqi refugees living in the US who left to escape Saddam and still talk to relatives in Iraq are more prone to propoganda than the rest of us who've never even been there.

Frankly, it would be the same if an American left the US to live in Jamaica. Then told everyone how he hated the area he lived in, and he likes Jamaica much better. There are a lot of people who complain about their situations, and once they get away, they tell you how horrible it was. Take a job you once had and hated. It’s not much different, except the conditions of course we’re much worse for Iraq. I’m not saying Iraq is a paradise. But if you are talking to a friend about jobs and his worst job came up, he’s sure as heck is not going to tell you the good points. It’s the same if a news reporter asking a Iraqi about Iraq, and of course he’s going to talk about the bad conditions. Guess what, since we’re trying to go to war with Iraq. What part of the story is going to be played on the news. This is just another way for the government to gain support. The period after war became an option, everything on the news was mostly anti-war related, now it’s mostly everything supporting war. Even when the reasons for us enforcing war are being settled or have been settled. You don’t hear much about the first reasons for war, I wonder why?? Now it’s just propaganda about how messed up Iraq is. To me it’s a weak and feeble attempt for support of war.

The bottom line is war with Iraq is unnecessary. We have many more problems to deal with than a piece of crap like Saddam. I ask anyone who supports war, why can’t our government swallow it’s pride (and Bush’s revenge for his father) and focus it’s concerns on the American people?? Saddam is not a threat, he can talk all he wants but the UN is not planning on lifting the sanctions that keep him strung like a puppet. So why is it so necessary to go to war with Iraq??

War is what Saddam wants. It’s the only way he can get free from the sanctions of the UN. Right now he can not make weapons or at least use them and expect victory, but if he is attacked the UN can not keep him from defending himself. The UN has stated this when Bush first showed signs of aggression towards Iraq. So please, let us fall right into whatever trap Saddam has planned for the world. If you’re looking for reinsurance in the Gulf War. I’m pretty sure Saddam knows that too and if he’s half as intelligent as the we say he is, he knows not to insinuate a war which he thinks he can not win.

I will support war if the Un lifts it sanctions or if Saddam attacks. That’s pretty much it, but I leave myself open to unforeseen possibilities.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Fist off, the "ignorant" nation of Iraq sports a 70% litteracy rate. Second, expatriated Iraqis (even those who don't agree with war) and people who've been in Iraq recently and have been able to talk to Iraqis out of sight of government officials consistantly report that there is virtually no loyalty to Saddam outside of the Ba'ath party and the Republican Guard. That means mass defections of soldiers and quite possibly an uprising of the people just as soon as they know help is coming. I might be wrong, but I think the average Iraqi takes Saddam's propoganda about as seriously as I take the "Pot = Terrorism" advertisements on the TV here in the US.

Take this statistic closer to home. US citizens who are often illiterate are often most adapt to being street smart. This is a different intelligence, you can not rate all intelligence on the fact of reading. Humans have been on this planet for 3 million yrs, yet reading and writing in only 3000 yrs old. Our survival is based on the ability to adapt in the environment, in fact all creatures are. I’m sure these Iraqis are well able to adapt better in Iraq than any American who went to college for 8 yrs.

Now take the idea of no Loyalty toward Saddam and relate it to criminals in the United States. If a criminal is arrested with association to a much bigger criminal, and is also threatened or maybe not. Either way, do you think that the smaller criminal is going to admit he was involved with the bigger criminal? I highly doubt it in either situation. You can’t trust these people, even if they are friendly. It’s war and as far as we know these guys are enemies. If an Iraq guy came up to a soldier, and the soldier thought he was alright and asked him if he was one of Saddam’s men. Now if the man says “no”, would you invite him to check out our military facilities?? I hope not, for this sort of scenario would be like taken a cobra into a nursery.

About the “pot = terrorism“, that’s our governments propaganda to try to get the public to stop smoking weed, right?? Yet you still base your beliefs on these events by the same propaganda, written by our government to get support for a war?? Sounds kind of funny. Our government also does the same thing as Saddam to get support, believe it or not.

On the second and third paragraph on your latest post, I would have to agree for the most part. Saddam is most definitely still producing weapons, I will not contest to this. But as the UN stands, if he was to use any of those weapons on another country. The UN would crush him in a second. It wouldn’t just a be a coalition of the US and other supporters, but the entire UN attacking him in retaliation. This is a far worse outcome for Saddam than if we were to attack him first, and splitting the UN in half. By the way, most the of UN is against the war so most of the nations would be against us. Our part of the treaty says we will not attack Iraq just as much as Iraq says they can’t use weapons of mass destruction. It really is a game of who will break the rules first. However, letting the UN continue to keeps this threat supervised leaves us with a stalemate. Having the US attack first just lets the whole thing go. Nations against nations will be the outcome. I don’t know how to put this in any other way.

My response to the documentation you quoted. I only believe half of it and there are many reasons. One is why did this guy become a traitor?? You should never trust a traitor, even if it’s in your own benefit. They’re are very unloyal and they have less dignity. They could easily be betraying us just as they betrayed Saddam, or he could be a spy dressed in the disguise of loyalty towards us. He said a lot of things that suggests insincerity.

Taken what he said into account, I would say and have believed since 98 that the inspection should be much more strict. He is getting away with a lot, and as the inspection process declines. He will get away with more, which is just as worse as going to war. Our focus on this situation should be to this end, not war because Bush doesn’t get what he wants. Playing the game like this would also let us concentrate on other problems facing our nation.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Fist off, the "ignorant" nation of Iraq sports a 70% litteracy rate. Second, expatriated Iraqis (even those who don't agree with war) and people who've been in Iraq recently and have been able to talk to Iraqis out of sight of government officials consistantly report that there is virtually no loyalty to Saddam outside of the Ba'ath party and the Republican Guard. That means mass defections of soldiers and quite possibly an uprising of the people just as soon as they know help is coming. I might be wrong, but I think the average Iraqi takes Saddam's propoganda about as seriously as I take the "Pot = Terrorism" advertisements on the TV here in the US.

When I said "Ignorant" I wasn't refering to "Illitteracy" , 70% Litteracy rate is just the rate of grown ups (above 15 or 18 , not sure) who can JUST read and write ... You haven't seen their media , you don't know how are they living , so you CAN'T compare them to someone like YOU.
You can see an ad or something on TV and disbelieve it's credibility or whatever , cuz you've got thousands of other TV & radio stations , magazines, papers , etc.
On the other hand , Iraqies got nothing to base their knowledge on other than the Baath party controled media ... i.e. They don't know anything the government there doesn't want them to know , so they are partialy IGNORANT ... From a strict point of view , you can say they are totaly ignorant politicaly.

I also remember that I've read something about banning dishes (satelite recievers) , and internet in Iraq .... Anyway , even if there exist satelite recievers & internet there , I realy doubt how many are going to be able to have these considering how realy poor is most of the people there.

It's pretty naive to beleive that weapons and weapons production can't be hidden and hidden easily inside a nation the size of Iraq isn't possible. The best experts available, Saddam's own escaped weapons scientists consistantly say just that and that they doubt his plans for WMD development have changed at all. Saddam's strategy is simple - give up a little bit here and there, hide the rest, wait for the world to give up.

Ok , but you can't be so sure of the credibility of information you get from escaped scientists , or even if you trus & depend on them and take their words to be true , these ain't solid proves or evidence ... We're talking about war here , probably millions of innocents are gonna die for some suspections .... Gimme something that's hard and solid plz .
I don't mean that you can trust the credibility of Saddam instead , but it's all about proves , SOLID PROVES not SUSPECTIONS.
The U.S. can always claim that Iraq is hiding something , but I'm NEVER going to believe untill they give some real proves or find some nuke heads out there.

Yeah, Al Somod 2s are being destroyed, but at a very slow pace, and we have know way of knowing how many were actually produced, so there could be considerbly more quietly hidden in a secluded location. Next, Iraq still has produced no evidence at all that they've destroyed tons and tons and TONS of Anthrax and other biological/chemical agents that we know they had as late as 1998.

Iraq has reported some sites for inspectors to check out and calculate the amounts of destroyed bio/chem agents , and the pre-investigations tends to lean towards Bagdad's side.
You haven't been following the news lately , yeah ?



P.S.
====

Plz , don't reply to this post before covering the left points in my previous one .
Thanx. ;)

Originally posted by SLY
[Plz , don't reply to this post before covering the left points in my previous one .
Thanx. ;)

I have several times already.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
[Fist off, the "ignorant" nation of Iraq sports a 70% litteracy rate. Second, expatriated Iraqis (even those who don't agree with war) and people who've been in Iraq recently and have been able to talk to Iraqis out of sight of government officials consistantly report that there is virtually no loyalty to Saddam outside of the Ba'ath party and the Republican Guard. That means mass defections of soldiers and quite possibly an uprising of the people just as soon as they know help is coming. I might be wrong, but I think the average Iraqi takes Saddam's propoganda about as seriously as I take the "Pot = Terrorism" advertisements on the TV here in the US.

When I said "Ignorant" I wasn't refering to "Illitteracy" , 70% Litteracy rate is just the rate of grown ups (above 15 or 18 , not sure) who can JUST read and write ... You haven't seen their media , you don't know how are they living , so you CAN'T compare them to someone like YOU.
You can see an ad or something on TV and disbelieve it's credibility or whatever , cuz you've got thousands of other TV & radio stations , magazines, papers , etc.
On the other hand , Iraqies got nothing to base their knowledge on other than the Baath party controled media ... i.e. They don't know anything the government there doesn't want them to know , so they are partialy IGNORANT ... From a strict point of view , you can say they are totaly ignorant politicaly.[/quote]
I have seen some translations from Iraqi television - pretty rediculous stuff. I honestly don't see how anyone can take it credibly. How is propoganda supposed to curb word on the street? It can't. Especially when people know people who've disapeared into Government custody and have never come back. One journalist talked about asking a cab driver about the people's support for Saddam (as indicated by the government propoganda) and the cab driver rolled his eyes. If you see 100% support for propoganda on camera and nearly 0% support off camera people aren't buying. They're covering their asses so they don't end up dead. No information source other than Iraq's own media support your conclusion here - I've never heard a single expatrioted Iraqi say that their family who's remaining in the country buys it, they say that they've simple given up on hope.

It's pretty naive to beleive that weapons and weapons production can't be hidden and hidden easily inside a nation the size of Iraq isn't possible. The best experts available, Saddam's own escaped weapons scientists consistantly say just that and that they doubt his plans for WMD development have changed at all. Saddam's strategy is simple - give up a little bit here and there, hide the rest, wait for the world to give up.

Ok , but you can't be so sure of the credibility of information you get from escaped scientists , or even if you trus & depend on them and take their words to be true , these ain't solid proves or evidence ... We're talking about war here , probably millions of innocents are gonna die for some suspections .... Gimme something that's hard and solid plz .
I don't mean that you can trust the credibility of Saddam instead , but it's all about proves , SOLID PROVES not SUSPECTIONS.

12 years ago the burden of proof was put upon Saddam Hussein, the ball's been in his park for quite some time and he's done nothing with it. As to hard and solid statistics, the highest vaugely credible estimates for Gulf War civillian fatalities is around 100,000. That's a number that a US Government Agency (I can't remember the acronym at this paticular moment) chose that didn't look too high or too low. The fact is, there's no way of knowing how many civillians died in the Gulf War, but what we do know is that casualties were comparitively light. It is clear, (and this information comes from Guitar Tricks' own educatedfilm, Anesty International and a lot of other human rights organizations, NOT the US government (though Colin Powell has cited these sources) that well over 500,000 Iraqi civllians have died from malnutrition or the inavailability of weapons as a direct consequence of UN sanctions since the end of the Gulf War. That's an average of 45,000 a year, 120 people a day. How many more have to die under sanctions? And do you honestly beleive for a second that Saddam Hussein isn't going to exploit the lifting of sanctions to it's fullest?

The U.S. can always claim that Iraq is hiding something , but I'm NEVER going to believe untill they give some real proves or find some nuke heads out there.

The problem is that nothing is being found, UNSCOM can still account for very little of Iraq's KNOWN arsenal and no new information is really coming forward.

Yeah, Al Somod 2s are being destroyed, but at a very slow pace, and we have know way of knowing how many were actually produced, so there could be considerbly more quietly hidden in a secluded location. Next, Iraq still has produced no evidence at all that they've destroyed tons and tons and TONS of Anthrax and other biological/chemical agents that we know they had as late as 1998.

Iraq has reported some sites for inspectors to check out and calculate the amounts of destroyed bio/chem agents , and the pre-investigations tends to lean towards Bagdad's side.
You haven't been following the news lately , yeah ?

Actually, I have. They've recovered some chemical and biological agent filled bombs from a few sights, but the problem is the sites are a decade old. I'm am talking about stockpiles UNSCOM knew for a fact to exist in 1998 and HAVE NOT been accounted for as of Hans Blix' last report. That is a BIG problem.

I should have done this post days back,but out server has been acting up,so ...
Rask
You asked some pages back,why,when I raised the question of Bush's open approval of our former president(a bad muther****er)while at the same time baying for Saddam's(another bad mother****er) blood,why I was ignoring the fact that the US gives a lot of money in aid to countries like Kenya.Here's the answer:
The aid doesn't matter to all the political dissidents(and their families-dissidents killed,not entire families,I'm avoiding a misunderstanding)killed under Moi's rule.The aid doesn't matter to the thousands murdered(and thousands more displaced-imagine being a refugee in your own country) during state-sponsored "tribal clashes" for living in regions that were percieved as anti-govt.(there was very little real support for govt. anywhere.In some places,famine relief food was used as leverage.A starving man has very little thought about democracy and ****).The aid doesn't matter to the millions of us who have to live in abject poverty and in very harsh economic conditions,in no small part due to the economic sabotage this man wrought on this country.
Simply put,the fact that Saddam is a SOAB is not a reason Bush can give to your average Kenyan as reason for going to war.I'll go circular and mention this again:
Last year around October,Bush(perhaps it was one of his famous gaffes?I doubt he's that ignorant) referred to Moi as a "...good and strong leader...".
If you'd like a small glimpse of the kind of man Moi was,just go to google,and in the search engine type in "wagalla massacres."
Then you'll understand why when Bush(and you too,you keep raising this question)raises the question of the wretched of Iraq,my face can't help crease up.
Btw,I'm not blaming the US for what we went through.Not at all.I'm just pointing out my frame of mind when you go "so and so is such an evil man,who should be removed from power blah blah blah...."
And as Lordatherings(this is your new name,Mr.Circles:).I am creative,huh?)pointed out(in reference to how resources are diverted in a totalitarian police state-and for a while we were that)just because you give aid doesn't necessarily mean it reaches where you thought it was meant to go.
Seeing as I'm anti Moi,I'm not expected to mention his good points.The truth is,the man had none.His sychophants were praising him for handing over power to the election winner peacefully.WTF?!?That is standard procedure!It's nothing to thank a guy for.And if that's the only "good" thing his cronies see,it should give you an idea of what was good about him then.
And would I have wanted America to intervene and depose Moi for us?
HELL ****ING NO!!
We'll deal with it.
And we dealt with it.(Can you hear the opera music rising?)
OK.
Back to the main issue.
You tell me(us in general,me in particular,since I raised the question)that the reason we haven't heard a lot of talk about deposing Saddam all these years(years which,you contend,he's always been in violation of the agreement ending the war,an agreement which you also state stated that his penalty for vilation is his removal from power-does it say what was to be done after that?)is because there was no political will.That Clinton wasn't going to throw away his career away just to make sure Saddam,as big a threat as you say he is,was out of power,for violationg that said agreement.Not to mention Hillary's and Gore's careers.
I wonder how saving the world from such a disaster as Saddam is(or will become,if,according to you,we give him more time)would destroy a man's political career.I'm not an expert on American politics,so I'd need your insights on that one.Other than that,I can't help wonder whether if doing it was going destroy a man's career,then wouldn't doing it make another man's career?Just wondering(need enlightment,I already SOS'd you).As in more than anthing else,it's a career move,forget about the issues.
I'm going to read that thing you gave a link to.Closely.Then I'll come back.
And while we're on the agreement,it seems to me the agreement never dealt with te details of what would and what wouldn't comprise a violation.Coz what I'm mostly reading is weapons that have not been accounted for.If both parties(the UN and Iraq)are agreed that at point X in time,Iraq had Y such and such missiles,and then P were destroyed,meaning Iraq still has Y-P missiles,but can only account for M missiles,where M is a lot less than Y-P,what is so hard about asking them directly?What is so hard?They did sign the agreement,so at least we're still on talking terms,right?
Generally speaking,this thing looks to me like you have this guy on parole.Then a cop is sent to his house to see if he has weapons(a parole violation).The cop isn't saying anything conclusively concrete(three barretas in the bedroom,a magnum in the basement,blah blah).But the chief back at the precints is yelling "...bring him in!bring him in!i know he's in violtion and is going to go on shooting spree and murder his neighbours....we better deal with before it's too late..."
Suppose the convict had seven barretas and two magnums before arrest.Then when he was released,he handed over two barretas and a magnum to the cops.So,he still has a question or two to answer.True,Rask and co.,true.But a judge wouldn't put him back in for that.The prosecution would have to provide concrete evidence of his parole violation.He isn't guilty until he proves himself innocent.He's innocent until the prosecution proves him guilty.That should be the state of affairs to justify a war.
Lordatherings
I've put the notion of war for oil out of the head.And looked at it from a war on terror perspective.Here's what I see:
Everyone understood Afghanistan.For a very simple reason.They were shielding one Osama bin Laden.And in case you didn't know,Osama was(still is,as far as I know)the prime suspect behind the WTC bombings.And again in case you didn't know,WTC was the largest attack on American soil(so large it's funny to call it terrorism,war would be the word)since the WW2.Perfect sense to me.
No one complained.No one.
So,when did this "...Afghanistan was first,Iraq is next..." business begin?And if that is so,tell me about tha terrorist training camps Saddam is funding.Tell me how many wanted suspected terrorists(note that suspicion isn't necessarily guilt,but often it is)Saddam has given assylum.And so on and so forth.if it's war against terror,if you give a case as you had against the Taliban(or nearest offer),I'm with you all the way.
And if then this is war on terror,what's the connection with that war and Iraq not having complied with the agreement ending the Gulf war?And this is not sacarsm or rebuttal,it's an honest question.Coz even if I may have no effect on the grand scheme of things,I wanna know wussup.So when my grandkids ask me about it(like I ask my grandma about WW2)I'll be able to answer.
About the Ba'ath party wanting one united Arab nation?So what.Organizations with all sorts of ideologies walk this planet.I hear the nazi party is still there somewhere.
And if Saddam was to have,in Rask's words,"...an ugly nuclear stick to wave at her neighbours and have whatever he wants...",he knows,you know,I know,that if Saddam was to even report to have dreamt of having an idea about attacking anyone,that would be the end of him.
In my opinion(as flawed,biased,circular:) as it may be)Saddam isn't going to engage in any form of "acreage enhancement",commonly known as gobbling smaller neighbours.

[Edited by kingdavid on 03-13-2003 at 05:26 AM]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by SLY
[Plz , don't reply to this post before covering the left points in my previous one .
Thanx. ;)

I have several times already.

Not everything , or at least not the main points that I'd like you to cover.


The point of WMDs isn't very convincing to most people , since none were found ... And the U.S. can claim there are many hidden to infinity , that's ok with me , so let the inspections go on and stop talking about war.
And in case of war , and in case the WMDs thing is for real , when the hell do you think Saddam going to use these , after he's out of power ?
If he realy got WMDs , the U.S. shouldn't go to war against him not to let him use these weapons (like the case with N.Korea) ... That's why I'm not buying the claims of U.S. officials about this issue these days.
In other words , if the U.S. isn't sure that Saddam is harmless , they wouldn't never get their butts involved in war with him , unless they are totaly dumb ... So how do they claim he's got dangerous WMDs ?
Pretty logical , yeah ?

In the same manner you should look to a co-alition between him and Bin Laden ... This is only going to be possible in case of total war , although I realy realy doubt that those two buttholes can come along for any reason on this earth , their Ideologies are hell lot more than contradictions.



If the U.S. is so determined on removing Saddam's goddamn,evil,totalitarian regiem , why does it have to be through a total war ???
For God's sake , I posted out ONE peacefull solution (see page 11) , I know it looks naive and dreamfull , but I'm dead sure that there are hell of international law prodigies and experts in the WHITE HOUSE and they can say hell lot better than a normal person like me ... But that's if they realy wanted a peacefull solution.
Therefore , it's not a good excuse for war.



About the Iraqies population , I've seen , met ,etc. Iraqi people many times .... Lot's of them , or let's say most of them are absolutely against Saddam (btw, they are also against the war) but that's only cuz they know how realy bad is he since they can see the real image from outside.
But other Iraqies believe that he was a victim & a hero!!
Although they see from outside too, but these are the naive or ignorant people I was talking about , and I'm sure that the majority of Iraqi population inside Iraq are like that.
They say that the U.S. persuaded him to invade Kuwait , and other bullsh*t about international conspiracy against him and against Iraqi people in general ... And I'm DEADSURE that these are the crap the he's feeding his own people through the media (which is controled by one of his sons).
That's why I can imagine the amount of support he has from his poor people.
Do you know that in the latest elections (that was few months ago) , he got a 100% ?!
Of course it was fake , even GOD himself wouldn't get such support in a decent elections or survey among religious guys ... But I strongly believe that in a decent elections , Saddam isn't going to have less than 80% or a similar result.
And as I said in a previous post, he's preparing 7 million civilians (I don't doubt that number pretty much) militarily for the expected war , and of course he would never forget the psychological preparation .
Personaly I count all of these as innocent, poor, igonrant people , and I'm sure that you agree with me about that ... The question is how many of those have to be killed beside other soldiers in the army (who are not evil or bad too) and other civilian casualties in a TOTAL war?? Half of them , 70% , or even all of them ??!



Finaly , about international justice and democracy ... Why is the U.S. claiming that the UN has become useless ?? It wasn't established just to serve the U.S. interests in first place , it was established to serve the majority of the world's interests (primaty rule of democracy) , right?
And since most of the world are against the war , then the U.S. should comply as a good country , instead of destroying the UN's authority and credibility.
Am I wrong ?


For all of the above reasons (and many others of course) , the optimum solution for Iraq is through the UN and peacefully, unless Iraq starts aggression like in gulf war 2 (which is not likely to happen again ever).



Anybody else here got the feeling that posts in this thread are becoming too long and very boring to read ? ;)

[Edited by SLY on 03-13-2003 at 10:26 AM]

It is a real shame what the U.S. and Great Britian are doing to the U.N. A global political unit is going to be the key for survival of the human race and planet earth for thousands of more years to come.
On the other hand every time U.N. military power is used it is 90% funded and operated by U.S. & G.B.. Still I feel a dissinagration of this type of political system would be detrimental to humanity.