While the 'civilized world' looked elsewhere...

I forgot to say this:
It's the pinnacle of undemocracy to impose democracy on an undemocratic nation.
It's no different from the way the former USSR used force to force communism on it's neighbours.
It's no different.
That notion about "...I know this is gonna hurt,but it's good for you,I'm doing it for your own benefit..." only works with your parents telling you what to do and not what to do,irrespective of how you feel about it.
It doesn't work in international situations.

It has been roughly 6 months since the last post on this ever-so-popular topic, and I'd like to know how everyone's opinion has (or hasn't) changed.

I'd also like to know what everyone thinks about the new bombing (United States Embassy bombing in Baghdad, killing 20, injuring 80), and your general feelings on all of this.

I just finished re-reading the entire thread, and it seems like we are all quicker to bash something than to praise it. Someone mentioned the fact that the United States is the leader in humanitarian aid, something I never even thought of before. Do you find this to be true, false, neither (meaning that we are quicker to blame/hate, than we are to praise/love?) I'd like your thoughts. Thanks.

~Incidents

I can't believe you actually spent the time to read through the wonderful piece of literature known as this thread.

Whatever anyone thinks, Rask's post on the first page (about the dissidents) still has to be one of the most classic things ever posted on this forum.

Yeah really. I was pretty suprised to see email saying that someone has replied to this thread. I thought it was dead gone, but yeah I do wonder what other's thoughts are after. I don't feel like having another arguement about it, but I can only say one thing. I told you so, and stuff like the enbassy bombing has been continuing since the war ended like I said it would. Not everything I said has come true but give it some time, and it will continue to unfold. I'm not trying to play Nostradamus here as most who don't agree with me are probably thinking, I just knew it wasn't going to play out all pretty like the government wanted us to think. Heck they didn't even have proof of WMD when they went to war, they found out that they made it up, BTW where are those WMD's??

Sorry if that was alittle too passionate, but I don't like the feeling of the world crumbling underneath my feet and not being about to do anything about it. So when I'm asked I'm going to say my thoughts.

The whole "Terrorists killing terrorists" idea, and the "Who is good? who is evil?" idea, really sparked my imagination. After all, aren't we the ones who gave Saddamm Hussein the WMDs that they can't find? And aren't we the ones that gave Osama Bin Laden the SCUD missiles to use against the communists?

I still don't really understand why we went into Iraq. After all the 14 pages of posts, to me there was still no real evidence of a needed war. If someone could say "We went to war with Iraq to....." and answer that, I'd greatly appreciate it, because this American thinks that the war was pointless.

~Incidents

As long as there is different races of people with different beliefs and people with power, there will always be war.

Power corrupts. (and money too)

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
Yeah really. I was pretty suprised to see email saying that someone has replied to this thread. I thought it was dead gone, but yeah I do wonder what other's thoughts are after. I don't feel like having another arguement about it, but I can only say one thing. I told you so, and stuff like the enbassy bombing has been continuing since the war ended like I said it would. Not everything I said has come true but give it some time, and it will continue to unfold. I'm not trying to play Nostradamus here as most who don't agree with me are probably thinking, I just knew it wasn't going to play out all pretty like the government wanted us to think. Heck they didn't even have proof of WMD when they went to war, they found out that they made it up, BTW where are those WMD's??

Sorry if that was alittle too passionate, but I don't like the feeling of the world crumbling underneath my feet and not being about to do anything about it. So when I'm asked I'm going to say my thoughts.

A friend of mine came across a really interesting article recently, I wish I had the link for it. The writer essentially suggested that Saddam might have been trying to make the US think he had WMDs so as to discourage an invasion. If that was his intention, it obviously backfired. I won't say that's necessarily the case, but it is an interesting theory.

Anyway, this is what I know: More people are alive than would have been, Saddam may have disarmed so as to get the UN off his back (I still won't be suprised to see caches of Biological or Chemical weapons dug up at some point), but it's pretty easy to see that Saddam's long term plans were NOT peaceful. So I'm glad to see him gone, I still think it was the right thing to do, and if it helps get rid of GW, then that's cool by me too.

Right now I'm much more concerned with rebuilding Iraq than anything. Unfortunately, it does seem that Saddam was a bit prophetic when he said "you can't take the blood" to the US; some very minor harassment of troops it seems is enough to turn popular opinion to withdrawing and giving up on the country - probably the worst thing we could do at this point.


And no, the world is not crumbling. It's gone through far worse before and will survive worse things in the future.

Originally posted by Incidents Happen
The whole "Terrorists killing terrorists" idea, and the "Who is good? who is evil?" idea, really sparked my imagination. After all, aren't we the ones who gave Saddamm Hussein the WMDs that they can't find? And aren't we the ones that gave Osama Bin Laden the SCUD missiles to use against the communists?

I still don't really understand why we went into Iraq. After all the 14 pages of posts, to me there was still no real evidence of a needed war. If someone could say "We went to war with Iraq to....." and answer that, I'd greatly appreciate it, because this American thinks that the war was pointless.

~Incidents

You're missing a lot of details.

1). The US did give a lot of military aide to Iraq durring the Iran/Iraq war, including some biological and chemical agents that Saddam used as the basis for his weapons research. But so did a lot of other countries including Russia, France and Germany. In a lot of respects, US aide to Iraq was minor in comparison, and stopped at the end of the Iran/Iraq War. Russian and French (extra especially Russian) weapons sales to Iraq never really stopped almost until we invaded.

2). Osama bin Laden never had access to SCUD missles. Infact, the SCUD missle is a Soviet (Communist) Russian system. I don't think he'd even want SCUD missles as they require large launcher trucks and a lot of infrastructure to support. bin Laden is interested in small, portable systems that can be more easily hidden. We did though give training to bin Laden when he was fighting the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, well before his anti-US feelings ever surfaced.

Rask-
One thing that I don't understand about your opinion is when you mentioned sadamm hussein's plans..."They were not peaceful". How do you know? Maybe he's like another Fidel Castro.

And what is never mentioned is the fact that the "Iraq Invading Kuwait" thing, is the fact that Kuwait was drilling oil on Iraqi land, and Iraq kept threatening Kuwait to leave. They asked the United States about this, who said "We have no interest in border disputes". This kept happening for like 3 months, until Iraq started the invasion. Now, I'm not defending Iraq, but it seems to me that the full story is never told in our media.

I don't want to express my political agenda and make this a big shout fest, I just want an understanding, proper reasoning for war, if you will.

I look at it, and say

"They didn't declare war on us...They didn't bomb us...They didn't attack us in any way...They didn't attack another nation (for 12 years), they don't have nuclear weapons..."

Note that the 'probation terms' were given by the United Nations, and not the United States. If Iraq breaks United Nations' terms, shouldn't the United Nations deal with it?

I see where, yes, Sadamm's regime was an eyesore to the Arab world, but it seemed like a pointless war to me.

~Incidents

Found on zmag.org:

Iraq Collapse (by Elliot Fisk)
Preventive War 'the Supreme Crime'
(By Noam Chomsky)

[Edited by Azrael on 08-25-2003 at 12:48 AM]

Very nice, Azrael!!!

One question:

Why does Blair (or any British Prime Minister) agree with everything an American president says? I've always been curious, my guess is because America has a foothold in Europe, and Britain because they have America to protect them in case of war. Is that a good guess?

~Incidents

there is a hell of alot info on this and other things on zmag.org - a VERY interresting a nd valuable site, if you ask me

This is obvious but it comes down to money and power.Unfortunatley this motive is deadly.Why did we go to war with Irag?Not for saddam or WOMD.We went for oil...a pretty false objective since research into alternatives to fossil fuels has been purposley ignored and they're fundings revoked.North korea has nothing we need as of yet so we turn a blind eye.This is off the subject(far off).How many of you have heard of Dupont?They make some great synthetic materials.Ever hear of the marijuana law tax act headed by Harry Anslinger?Around the mid 30's farmers had a new machine that could harvest hemp well enough to mass produce materials.Well Dupont and other company's(RX company's)would stand for this super material/medicine to muck things up for them.At the same time a man named Harry Ansliger who hated black jazz musicians and the mexican movment in the south drove a campain of disinformation and ultimatley prohibition of cannabis.Mexicans were seeking jobs in the south,which Harry(and other justice powers and officials)didnt care for.To scare people they associated cannabis directly to the mexicans and blacks,with the spanish word we all know...Marijuana.Then came reefer madness,the largest disinformation act in the history of mankind.Well they failed to eliminate the minority progress in america,but they managed to illegalize cannabis...forcing us to rely on fossil fuels,synthetic materials/medicines e.c.t.(just an interesting note,the Bush family has large amounts of stock in RX medicine companys).There keeping the disinformation strong still in schools and the general public,but more and more people are hearing the truth.Did you know Cannabis has never killed anyone in the 5000 years of recorded history?Did you know ASPIRIN kills 10,000 people a year?All for the sake of money!You all remember the recent space shuttle tradgety right?Not long ago,the companys that build the space shuttle and its parts urged NASA to stop the funding and research for more efficient and safer space craft and transport.The companys make money from the space shuttle launches because the launches are so costly.There deep pockets cost the lives of that space shuttle crew.As long as theres a monetery system,there will be war and ultimatley our demise as the human race.Spread and advocate the truth.

!!!AMEN!!!

Chuck-
That was the greatest post I've ever read here on GuitarTricks. You summed up everything about American Propaganda, political tactics, everything. Like Azrael said, "AHMEN!"

~Incidents

Originally posted by Incidents Happen
Rask-
One thing that I don't understand about your opinion is when you mentioned sadamm hussein's plans..."They were not peaceful". How do you know? Maybe he's like another Fidel Castro.

The Ba'athist doctrine is one Arab nation and it's no secret that Saddam saw himself as the man who would bring it about, and if he couldn't, his sons would be the ones who did it for him. Now we all know that this would never happen peacefully.

Next, while no active WMD plants nor WMDs have been found as of yet, much of that infrastructure was still very much intact and very much unknown and unreported to the UN Insectors. So basicly, if the UN had stumbled across some of those camoflaged plants, Iraq could say "sorry, we forgot about this one, but look, we're not producing anything" but in reality Saddam was hoping to keep as much of his programs secret so they'd be more difficult to monitor after inspectors left Iraq. The problem with biological and chemical weapons is that they're very easy to produce once you know how to, and the equipment can be used for benine chemical and biological production and research. In other words, the second the UN is not looking any more, production can begin anew and stock piles can be quickly rebuilt.

Now how do I know these aren't regular old chemical plants? Regular chemical plants are not highly camoflaged and maintained by a garrison of soldiers commanded by a General. For a government that claimed to have nothing to hide, it was hiding A LOT.

And what is never mentioned is the fact that the "Iraq Invading Kuwait" thing, is the fact that Kuwait was drilling oil on Iraqi land, and Iraq kept threatening Kuwait to leave. They asked the United States about this, who said "We have no interest in border disputes". This kept happening for like 3 months, until Iraq started the invasion. Now, I'm not defending Iraq, but it seems to me that the full story is never told in our media.

A). I've never seen proof that Kuwait was drilling for oil in Iraq (and the accusation was not that the wells were on Iraqi land, but that they were angling the pipes so as to reach into Iraqi oil reserves - a very shakey accusation). I do know that Saddam made the accusation that Kuwait was drilling only days before he invaded and that immediately the US government told him NOT to invade under any circumstance.

B). It is a fact however that Iraq's monetary reserves were depleted from the Iran/Iraq War and that Kuwait not only represented more oil revenu, but also some much needed deep water ports. Remember, Iraq only has one deep water port which greatly imeads its economic growth.

C). Criticising the US for taking action in this situation but making excuses for Iraq's invaison of Kuwait is a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Especially when you compare the way Saddam conducted wars in comparison with the US and other coalition partners conduct war, especially in regards to Civilian populations.

I don't want to express my political agenda and make this a big shout fest, I just want an understanding, proper reasoning for war, if you will.

I look at it, and say

"They didn't declare war on us...They didn't bomb us...They didn't attack us in any way...They didn't attack another nation (for 12 years), they don't have nuclear weapons..."

Note that the 'probation terms' were given by the United Nations, and not the United States. If Iraq breaks United Nations' terms, shouldn't the United Nations deal with it?

Getting the UN to take action of that magnitude would be nearly impossible. Two nations with veto power had very keen interest in keeping Saddam in power. Saddam was smart enough not to do anything too drastic, but had no intention of behaving any longer than it took to get the UN off his back.

I see where, yes, Sadamm's regime was an eyesore to the Arab world, but it seemed like a pointless war to me.

An eyesore? Saddam is responsible for 1.5 - 2 million deaths, displacing around 6 million Iraqis and allowed sanctions to kill thousands of Iraqis every year. I have to look up the numbers again, but to allow sanctions to continue to their conclusion would have cost another few hundred thousand Iraqi civillians their lives and would have probably only delayed the war Saddam was planning, costing even more lives 10-20 years down the road.

At the war's peak, the Iraqi Information Minister was claming less casualties than UN sanctions were already killing in one month. And we know 1). his interest in excadurating civillian deaths, and 2). just how reliable his information was.

We can be certain if of nothing else that the war saved more innocent lives than it cost, even before you include the possibility of future Iraqi attacks on other nations. That's what I care about. I truely beleive that Saddam would have been content to leave the US alone so long as we didn't interfere with his plans, but I personally hold your life in no more regard than I do of an Iraqi, a Kuwaiti, a Saudi, a Canadian, or an Austrailian, or anybody else. We're all human, we're all equal.

I don't beleive that it's morally OK to allow innocent people to die by the hundreds of thousands and to be subjugative by the millions by an oppressive regime just because those people aren't my fellow citizens of my paticular nation or because they don't look like me or talk the same language. Taking the "diplomatic" route asked us to do just that. We're all human and we all have a responsibility to look out for and if neccessary defend our fellow man.

What I am concerned with today is making sure that Iraq is rebuilt and that we leave the country with a viable Democratic government in power.

Once again, I admit that I am not the most knowledgable person on this topic, i was four years old when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Had the Bush administration said initially, "This is an oppressive government, and by taking out this dictatorship will improve human rights...." or something to do with human rights, I might've said "hm...okay". But by saying he has WMD's, instilling fear into American Ignorants, and putting on hold any change in the government (Note that the republicans took everything in 2002, largely because George Bush went to most states and urged them to vote for the republican).

Think about it; If this was a humanitarian mission, American people wouuldn't have been afraid to sleep at night (some were, trust me); What's better, putting fear into your own citizens, or putting hope? Obviously, if you plan on invading a nation, putting fear into your own citizens is essential. "Fear leads to anger....anger leads to hate....hate leads to suffering" as I believe Master Yoda once said, it is very true!

Fear, that the government put into its people about another nation/person, leads to anger about that nation/person; if given the proper amount of time, hate will surface. Don't you think this is how Arab radicals began hating us? They feared us, and our western ways, that turned to anger, and then turned to hate. Makes sense to me.

~Incidents

This is a great tread. I'm glad that some people somewhere in the world can have an intelligent conversation about political issues.

ok to me Bush and all those other ****heads in the government are stupid*** ***** ****ing w***es....Bush doesnt give **** about no ****ing people he just wants revenge on him and **** like that to "improve' upon his stupid**** ego that he has....its sad that he's off killing millions of innocent people while he won't even let gay people get married or stuff like that...he has no regard for the well-being of society or the nourishment of mankind nor does anybody else in his bull**** republican party...

and for that i say [u]F**K YOU PRESIDENT BUSH!F**K YOU AND YOUR STUPID BULL**** EXCUSE FOR A GOVERNMENT! F**K YOU ALL![/u] (of course by all i mean the the government not u guys...:))

o and BTW i luv that Pearl Jam song 'Bu$hleaguer' just cuz of the content of its lyrics...(plus im a big fan of pearl jam)

sorry if i didn't explain that well i just need to let out some anger....:)