<strong>Exactly. All you U.N. lovers/admirers (or those calling for more "diplomacy" or resolutions) wouldn't run your house or family in the piss-poor, idiotic way that the U.N. is handling this.
"Okay, Matthew...put the cookie jar down. I really mean it. Okay, put it down. You said you would. No, don't take a bite. Please put the cookie back into the jar, okay? I'm going to ask you once again. I'm going to give you just ONE more chance, Matthew. Please do what I ask. I'm getting really upset. Please put the cookies away. Would you please stop eating those? Okay, please? Okay, Mommy's getting mad. I'm going to count to 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Okay, I'm going to count to 10 again...and I REALLY mean it this time..."
Idiots. Won't even enforce the things they themselves AGREED to or came up with! Useless, toothless clowns. I mean, really.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If this man Saddam Hussein is considered so damned dangerous that we have to go to attack the people of the nation which he leads (supposedly to destroy some mythical WOMD), WHY did America support this bozo for 11 years, until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990? Those 11 years were the time Saddam was at his most brutal, and his military was n times the strength of what it is now. Why did America, Britain and other Western European industrial nations sell weapons of mass destruction to this maniac? Why did the Reagan Administration not only look the other way, but also encourage him to use mustard gas against the Iranians?
Our old buddy Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was the same Saddam Hussein who is now considered by Bush and his neo-con-men to be world security threat #1. Hussein is the SAME DAMNED GUY as the one we supported not that long back. Now, he is 15 odd years older, rumors are he has cancer, his military is disabled, he has virtually no navy, there is no proven connection between Iraq and 9-11, and most of what's left of his (ageing) airforce is still impounded in Iran, there's inspection teams crawling round every which where with a fine-tooth comb without being obstructed, and none of his neighbors want a war. The thing they got against Iraq is this supposed WOMD handle. The only people who want war are people who are going to make a bunch of $$loot out of it (defense contractors, oil industry), those who subscribe to the 'neo-con' doctrine, and the yahoo/redneck/fake-patriot/fratboy party mob. I wonder how many will be in front of the TV with a 12 pack of Bud Lite (or Coors?) and watch the firewoks display/video game of hi-tech war, whoop it up and yell to each other how America kicks ass? If the US media presented some reality...as opposed to the glut of predictable administration propaganda, then support for this insanity would evaporate like a Wyoming snowfield during a chinook.
Now Bush is saying that the U.N. is irrelevant, if the vote on a 2nd resolution didn't go his way....when he was the one who called for it. Hang on, isn't the United Nations the organization that passed Res. 1441, which is what Bush and Co. keep railing about? Strange how the UN is irrelevant one minute and and a solid rock the next...when politically expedient? Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy, he's yet another right-wing nutter (thats probably why he found favor with Reagan and Bush Sr.)...and now, the only handle he got against him is this WOMD stuff, that's why it's been recycled over and over....it sounds so scary...but the probablity of the stuff existing looks less and less likely with each passing day.
Now we're going to smash entire cities, kill a large number of people who have nothing against us, whose only crime is having an absolute jerk, (but a former US ally) for a leader. 42% of Iraq's population is under the age of 15....they are children. And who is being rewarded with the contracts to rebuild infrastructure that has been flattened by US bombers? You got it...we the taxpayer are shelling out $billions to criminal corporations like KBR and Halliburton, with intimate links to senior officials in the White House.
Pscates, how would YOU FEEL if a huge army of foreigners suddenly invaded here, destroyed your home and city, killed your family and kids, just because they decided they wanted George W. Bush out of the picture?
As an afterthought, the Bush Administration keeps on about "disarming Saddam". He has been told to prove to the world that he has "no weapons of mass destruction". How can he do this, knowing that whatever answer they give is the wrong one? How will anyone know when he is disarmed? What if he has nothing left? What if he has 50 tons of 'agent X' stashed somewhere in the desert that nobody knows about, and he declares 20 tons? What does he have to declare to qualify as "disarmed"? Nobody has a clue. Elementary logic tells us that proving a negative is impossible. It is a meaningless request, like a "divide by zero" in a piece of computer code. The reason for this tactic of inverse logic is that it makes it absolutely impossible for Iraq to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction. No matter what Iraq says, it will be be inadequate. The plan, written years ago by neo-cons like Perle, Wolfowitz and others was to go to war with Iraq, no matter what, in order to make the US more assertive in the region. "WOMD" is the emotionally laden decoy.
Premasticated kindergarten-standard FOX Channel/Rupert Murdoch BS doesn't cut it.
1) Does Saddam Hussein have weapons of Mass destruction? Where/what is the proof that he does?
2)Does Saddam have ties to Al Qaeda?
3) I Saddam a bad person? A Bad leader? A brutal dictator?
These three platforms, are the (perpetually changing) Bush rationale for 'preemptively' striking Iraq.
1) I've yet to hear anything besides wild claims from Bush and Powell on this one. Abiguous satellite photos with big dialogue boxes pointing stuff out like "Truck containing Anthrax" and "Big depot of volatile Chemical Weapons". Curiously, America seems not to have provided UN inspectors with information that would prove Iraqi possesion of WOMD, which would actually give their arguement credibility and end UN in-fighting.
Bush and Powell would have us believe that it's because those Iraqis are so conniving and sneaky that no empirical evidence has been found... Unless you count empty Chem. Warheads as weapons.
2) we've been there. This one's a no-brainer: Of course not. Al Quaeda and Saddam are bitter enemies. One is a group of Islamic Fun Da Mentalists. The other is a godless heathen. The none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi, or tied to Iraq/Saddam. Sadly, a lot of Americans seem to have bought the weak, one sided arguement that Al Quaeda and Saddam are linked. What the hell. I guess they are all darkies, aren't they?
3) Hell yeah. Strange that the urge for 'regime change' (previously 'disarmament' and 'UN compliance') merits war with Iraq, and not various countries in Africa, South America, etc etc. I guess Saddam is Most Evil Person On Earth of something. Strange that America, just over a decade ago, was all pally with the same, twisted Saddam. Strange that prior to that, it was America that saw to it Saddam was put in power. But now he's the bad guy, apparently a huge threat to 'Freedom' and 'Peace'
The punchline, of course was that 9-11 jets were hijacked by Saudi Arabians with box cutters, who steered American jets into office towers. No Iraqis, no WOMD, no government backing by Saddam.
I can't imagine the terrorist attacks that America will face in the near future, as a direct result of this war with Iraq.
But I'm sure further tightening of 'security' and erosion of civil liberties will be the Bush solution. Feel safer?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>...there's inspection teams crawling round every which where with a fine-tooth comb without being obstructed</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, they really shouldn't be "crawling" anywhere, should they? You live in California: could you and a couple hundred of your friends find a Ford Taurus I've got located somewhere within California's borders if I really didn't want you to "find" it? I doubt it. I'm fairly confident I could take a can of soda and hide it in my house and you would NEVER find it...if I didn't want you to. As Bush and others have said, this is NOT a scavenger hunt. Yes, maybe no "obstruction" in the sense of "if you look here, we'll shoot you in the eye", but do you truly, truly know for sure that they aren't playing games? Moving stuff around and things of that sort? How come every time it gets close to being "it's your butt, pal!" time, they miraculously "find" another piece of hardware they weren't supposed to have? It's the very definition of dealing with a child: they'll get away with as much as they can, playing silly shell games or pushing things as far as they can. When they're held accountable or looked at harder, they suddenly grow a conscience or "remember" how to act right or whatever. Just as Hollywood and college students don't truly know the facts (or speak for me), you too don't know the things you talk about. It's just as much speculation on your part, regarding Saddam's health, whether or not the inspectors are being shown everything, whether Iraq is truly, truly "cooperating". Honestly, how would you know?
Quote:
Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>and none of his neighbors want a war. The thing they got against Iraq is this supposed WOMD handle. The only people who want war are people who are going to make a bunch of $$loot out of it (defense contractors, oil industry), those who subscribe to the 'neo-con' doctrine, and the yahoo/redneck/fake-patriot/fratboy party mob. I wonder how many will be in front of the TV with a 12 pack of Bud Lite (or Coors?) and watch the firewoks display/video game of hi-tech war, whoop it up and yell to each other how America kicks ass? If the US media presented some reality...as opposed to the glut of predictable administration propaganda, then support for this insanity would evaporate like a Wyoming snowfield during a chinook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I can't help you there. Rest assured, however, that I'm not one of these "fratboy" types, drooling at the prospect of war, destruction, dead soldiers, dead civilians, pretty explosions, etc. Whatever images you harbor of that, I'm sorry you have to imagine it that way. Maybe others are that way? Well, they're idiots too, aren't they? I'd much rather Saddam choke on a chicken bone during dinner tonight, OR that one of his goons (or several of them) suddenly realize what an asshole he is and cap him themselves.[/QB]
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Now Bush is saying that the U.N. is irrelevant, if the vote on a 2nd resolution didn't go his way....when he was the one who called for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are, regardless of who said it or who called for what. Sorry if a bunch of gabby diplomats, handshakers and motormouths in suits seems like the end-all/be-all "solution for everything" to many of you. No one can say we're "rushing in" to ANYTHING. We've MORE than given the talkers and diplomacy the chance it deserves.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Pscates, how would YOU FEEL if a huge army of foreigners suddenly invaded here, destroyed your home and city, killed your family and kids, just because they decided they wanted George W. Bush out of the picture?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice. Well, if President Bush was having people tortured, was a madman who was daring the entire world, was keeping the people of this country afraid to speak out, enjoy their lives, disagree with him, living in fear or torture, rape, etc., then I'D want him to be gone. No, I wouldn't want myself and family killed and property destroyed, but I'd like to think that the soldiers know that their beef isn't WITH US, THE CITIZENS. It's with the idiot in charge. And I'd probably think "you know, this guy is bringing us nothing but misery. We truly aren't 'free'..." and maybe figure out a way to "fix things" where another country's military wouldn't HAVE to come in and "kill children" and "destroy buildings", which, by the way, I think is being played up really strong. I don't believe there's going to be this random, wanton killing of civilians, children, non-military targets as many like to say. I really don't.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Premasticated kindergarten-standard FOX Channel/Rupert Murdoch BS doesn't cut it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said it did. But your stuff doesn't either. Are people who see it your way, or share your views, the only ones who have "valid" views and takes on the topic? In your mind, it seems the ONLY people supporting the President are toothless yahoos "lookin' forward to a good televised ass-whoopin'! Yeehaw!" or bratty, Limbaugh-fueled "neo-cons", dying to see kids and old ladies getting bombed.
indeed...
Maybe when it's all over, the stories from Iraqi citizens will tell the story? Why don't we wait until then. If they're elated and grateful from being freed from this horrible dictators clutches, then I'm going to consider that "reason enough". All the other stuff (rebuilding contracts, oil, etc.) is down the list of things that keep me up nights, worrying.
... For the starvation in Iraq, i did not hear many infos that since the trade against food there is a lot of Iraq people dying of starvation at the countrary of NK. Sure the economy suffer from the sanctions, but i have no doubt that the war will make more casualties than the starvation. I understand that there is pro-war arguments, but i have some problems to buy the humanitarian aspect of it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative - a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box.
They are wrong.
Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.
In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.
The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.
Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War - and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.
Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.
Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.
Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.
Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals.
Wrong.
The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.
But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.
The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.
Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.
Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.
The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.
But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.
This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.
So that is our cost.
And what have we bought?
We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for the American people.
We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.
What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime.
Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy. Containment can be tweaked - made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile - but the basic equations don't change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror - with no end in sight.
This is disaster, not policy.
It is time for a change.
Walter Russell Mead is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."<hr></blockquote>
<strong>There would not be indiscriminately attack, but a lot of collateral damages will be done according to the US military staff (at the difference of the claim of 91 and the surgical strikes)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well our military is far more advanced in 2003 than it was in 1991. In 1991 the vast majority of the bombs we dropped weren't "smart", those were mainly a few for the television cameras. Hopefully there are more precision-weapons used this time around.
Of course there will be civilian casualties and that is tragic.
[quote]<strong>Sure the economy suffer from the sanctions, but i have no doubt that the war will make more casualties than the starvation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's understandeable, because the word "war" is far more violent than the word "economic sanctions". But if you were to go to Iraq and see starving and diseased children dying by the thousands you might change your mind. I have been hearing anti-sanction arguments for years and years, but suddenly those people have dropped that cause and turned against war, seemingly forgetting the atrocity they once protested against.
Why is it that you have "no doubt", though?
[quote]<strong>I understand that there is pro-war arguments, but i have some problems to buy the humanitarian aspect of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does seem counter-intuitive, but thousands of Iraqis are going to die at the hands of the UN, war or no war. We might as well give them a chance by ousting Saddam.
<strong>Exactly. All you U.N. lovers/admirers (or those calling for more "diplomacy" or resolutions) wouldn't run your house or family in the piss-poor, idiotic way that the U.N. is handling this. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is about a war, not a jar of cookies. If you can equate the two, then I'm not surprised at all that you can accept war without thinking. Emphasis on without thinking.
Interesting article Spaceman. I am going to comment some select quotes from it.
[quote] The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.<hr></blockquote>
I agree with this, whenever you have a foreign army in a countrie it create anger against this army, even if the goal of this army is to protect the population. Example : South korea, for US and Ivory coast for France (and many more examples avalaible).
It's sad that eleven years ago, we (the coalition) did not throw out Saddam : we feared a new Iran or two many death among our soldiers or the population (the myth of an absolute clean war). At the time i did not understood why we did not invade Baghdad and throw out or kill Saddam.
Eleven years after , we know that this war would not have been worse for the iraq people , than the economical sanctions. But eleven years after we do not know , if there is a risk to have in long term, the control of Iraq by Islam extremists, and we did not know how dead soldiers we will have.
We must also be aware that, a selective war, implies more dead upon US and UK soldiers, than a global war (bombing a house, is less dangerous than to send people in it to "clean" it ).
The author implie also that US troop will have to leave soon Iraq after the victory in order to avoid an other terrorism acess against US. Preventing Iraq to become an islam integrist state imply some physical presence for some years.
The war will resolve many immediates problems : the Saddam threat, but bring also some others potential problems.
BTW we will know soon the answers about the supposed side effects of the war. If i doubt that tomorrow there will be a big Apple anouncement , i hear the rumor ,that the war will start tomorrow.
This is about a war, not a jar of cookies. If you can equate the two, then I'm not surprised at all that you can accept war without thinking. Emphasis on without thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You?re wrong. It?s also about human psychology. War can, and has changed collective human psychology. This is something them ME islamic gangsters are badly in need of.
[quote]The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia. <hr></blockquote>
There's also Iran: the reason the "west" backed Saddam in the first place. Them huge bases in Saudia were built for one purpose and one purpose only: to house US forces.
Perhaps too many anonymous quotes, but that's how most articles are worded these days.
I probably could have gotten away with starting a new thread, but reviving this old one might be kinda funny. In hindsight, we were all probably wrong about lots of things.
Not really news to those of us with sense, but interesting nonetheless.
In other news:
Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA veteran
Commenting on the tendency for intelligence to be politicized, he said: ?It's a problem whenever a U.S. administration sets its heart on a policy that cannot be supported by intelligence.? [Baltimore Sun, 4/4/03 no longer available online]
Comments
<strong>Exactly. All you U.N. lovers/admirers (or those calling for more "diplomacy" or resolutions) wouldn't run your house or family in the piss-poor, idiotic way that the U.N. is handling this.
"Okay, Matthew...put the cookie jar down. I really mean it. Okay, put it down. You said you would. No, don't take a bite. Please put the cookie back into the jar, okay? I'm going to ask you once again. I'm going to give you just ONE more chance, Matthew. Please do what I ask. I'm getting really upset. Please put the cookies away. Would you please stop eating those? Okay, please? Okay, Mommy's getting mad. I'm going to count to 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Okay, I'm going to count to 10 again...and I REALLY mean it this time..."
Idiots. Won't even enforce the things they themselves AGREED to or came up with! Useless, toothless clowns. I mean, really.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If this man Saddam Hussein is considered so damned dangerous that we have to go to attack the people of the nation which he leads (supposedly to destroy some mythical WOMD), WHY did America support this bozo for 11 years, until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990? Those 11 years were the time Saddam was at his most brutal, and his military was n times the strength of what it is now. Why did America, Britain and other Western European industrial nations sell weapons of mass destruction to this maniac? Why did the Reagan Administration not only look the other way, but also encourage him to use mustard gas against the Iranians?
Our old buddy Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was the same Saddam Hussein who is now considered by Bush and his neo-con-men to be world security threat #1. Hussein is the SAME DAMNED GUY as the one we supported not that long back. Now, he is 15 odd years older, rumors are he has cancer, his military is disabled, he has virtually no navy, there is no proven connection between Iraq and 9-11, and most of what's left of his (ageing) airforce is still impounded in Iran, there's inspection teams crawling round every which where with a fine-tooth comb without being obstructed, and none of his neighbors want a war. The thing they got against Iraq is this supposed WOMD handle. The only people who want war are people who are going to make a bunch of $$loot out of it (defense contractors, oil industry), those who subscribe to the 'neo-con' doctrine, and the yahoo/redneck/fake-patriot/fratboy party mob. I wonder how many will be in front of the TV with a 12 pack of Bud Lite (or Coors?) and watch the firewoks display/video game of hi-tech war, whoop it up and yell to each other how America kicks ass? If the US media presented some reality...as opposed to the glut of predictable administration propaganda, then support for this insanity would evaporate like a Wyoming snowfield during a chinook.
Now Bush is saying that the U.N. is irrelevant, if the vote on a 2nd resolution didn't go his way....when he was the one who called for it. Hang on, isn't the United Nations the organization that passed Res. 1441, which is what Bush and Co. keep railing about? Strange how the UN is irrelevant one minute and and a solid rock the next...when politically expedient? Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy, he's yet another right-wing nutter (thats probably why he found favor with Reagan and Bush Sr.)...and now, the only handle he got against him is this WOMD stuff, that's why it's been recycled over and over....it sounds so scary...but the probablity of the stuff existing looks less and less likely with each passing day.
Now we're going to smash entire cities, kill a large number of people who have nothing against us, whose only crime is having an absolute jerk, (but a former US ally) for a leader. 42% of Iraq's population is under the age of 15....they are children. And who is being rewarded with the contracts to rebuild infrastructure that has been flattened by US bombers? You got it...we the taxpayer are shelling out $billions to criminal corporations like KBR and Halliburton, with intimate links to senior officials in the White House.
Pscates, how would YOU FEEL if a huge army of foreigners suddenly invaded here, destroyed your home and city, killed your family and kids, just because they decided they wanted George W. Bush out of the picture?
As an afterthought, the Bush Administration keeps on about "disarming Saddam". He has been told to prove to the world that he has "no weapons of mass destruction". How can he do this, knowing that whatever answer they give is the wrong one? How will anyone know when he is disarmed? What if he has nothing left? What if he has 50 tons of 'agent X' stashed somewhere in the desert that nobody knows about, and he declares 20 tons? What does he have to declare to qualify as "disarmed"? Nobody has a clue. Elementary logic tells us that proving a negative is impossible. It is a meaningless request, like a "divide by zero" in a piece of computer code. The reason for this tactic of inverse logic is that it makes it absolutely impossible for Iraq to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction. No matter what Iraq says, it will be be inadequate. The plan, written years ago by neo-cons like Perle, Wolfowitz and others was to go to war with Iraq, no matter what, in order to make the US more assertive in the region. "WOMD" is the emotionally laden decoy.
Premasticated kindergarten-standard FOX Channel/Rupert Murdoch BS doesn't cut it.
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
1) Does Saddam Hussein have weapons of Mass destruction? Where/what is the proof that he does?
2)Does Saddam have ties to Al Qaeda?
3) I Saddam a bad person? A Bad leader? A brutal dictator?
These three platforms, are the (perpetually changing) Bush rationale for 'preemptively' striking Iraq.
1) I've yet to hear anything besides wild claims from Bush and Powell on this one. Abiguous satellite photos with big dialogue boxes pointing stuff out like "Truck containing Anthrax" and "Big depot of volatile Chemical Weapons". Curiously, America seems not to have provided UN inspectors with information that would prove Iraqi possesion of WOMD, which would actually give their arguement credibility and end UN in-fighting.
Bush and Powell would have us believe that it's because those Iraqis are so conniving and sneaky that no empirical evidence has been found... Unless you count empty Chem. Warheads as weapons.
2) we've been there. This one's a no-brainer: Of course not. Al Quaeda and Saddam are bitter enemies. One is a group of Islamic Fun Da Mentalists. The other is a godless heathen. The none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi, or tied to Iraq/Saddam. Sadly, a lot of Americans seem to have bought the weak, one sided arguement that Al Quaeda and Saddam are linked. What the hell. I guess they are all darkies, aren't they?
3) Hell yeah. Strange that the urge for 'regime change' (previously 'disarmament' and 'UN compliance') merits war with Iraq, and not various countries in Africa, South America, etc etc. I guess Saddam is Most Evil Person On Earth of something. Strange that America, just over a decade ago, was all pally with the same, twisted Saddam. Strange that prior to that, it was America that saw to it Saddam was put in power. But now he's the bad guy, apparently a huge threat to 'Freedom' and 'Peace'
The punchline, of course was that 9-11 jets were hijacked by Saudi Arabians with box cutters, who steered American jets into office towers. No Iraqis, no WOMD, no government backing by Saddam.
I can't imagine the terrorist attacks that America will face in the near future, as a direct result of this war with Iraq.
But I'm sure further tightening of 'security' and erosion of civil liberties will be the Bush solution. Feel safer?
<strong>...there's inspection teams crawling round every which where with a fine-tooth comb without being obstructed</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, they really shouldn't be "crawling" anywhere, should they? You live in California: could you and a couple hundred of your friends find a Ford Taurus I've got located somewhere within California's borders if I really didn't want you to "find" it? I doubt it. I'm fairly confident I could take a can of soda and hide it in my house and you would NEVER find it...if I didn't want you to. As Bush and others have said, this is NOT a scavenger hunt. Yes, maybe no "obstruction" in the sense of "if you look here, we'll shoot you in the eye", but do you truly, truly know for sure that they aren't playing games? Moving stuff around and things of that sort? How come every time it gets close to being "it's your butt, pal!" time, they miraculously "find" another piece of hardware they weren't supposed to have? It's the very definition of dealing with a child: they'll get away with as much as they can, playing silly shell games or pushing things as far as they can. When they're held accountable or looked at harder, they suddenly grow a conscience or "remember" how to act right or whatever. Just as Hollywood and college students don't truly know the facts (or speak for me), you too don't know the things you talk about. It's just as much speculation on your part, regarding Saddam's health, whether or not the inspectors are being shown everything, whether Iraq is truly, truly "cooperating". Honestly, how would you know?
Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>and none of his neighbors want a war. The thing they got against Iraq is this supposed WOMD handle. The only people who want war are people who are going to make a bunch of $$loot out of it (defense contractors, oil industry), those who subscribe to the 'neo-con' doctrine, and the yahoo/redneck/fake-patriot/fratboy party mob. I wonder how many will be in front of the TV with a 12 pack of Bud Lite (or Coors?) and watch the firewoks display/video game of hi-tech war, whoop it up and yell to each other how America kicks ass? If the US media presented some reality...as opposed to the glut of predictable administration propaganda, then support for this insanity would evaporate like a Wyoming snowfield during a chinook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I can't help you there. Rest assured, however, that I'm not one of these "fratboy" types, drooling at the prospect of war, destruction, dead soldiers, dead civilians, pretty explosions, etc. Whatever images you harbor of that, I'm sorry you have to imagine it that way. Maybe others are that way? Well, they're idiots too, aren't they? I'd much rather Saddam choke on a chicken bone during dinner tonight, OR that one of his goons (or several of them) suddenly realize what an asshole he is and cap him themselves.[/QB]
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Now Bush is saying that the U.N. is irrelevant, if the vote on a 2nd resolution didn't go his way....when he was the one who called for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are, regardless of who said it or who called for what. Sorry if a bunch of gabby diplomats, handshakers and motormouths in suits seems like the end-all/be-all "solution for everything" to many of you. No one can say we're "rushing in" to ANYTHING. We've MORE than given the talkers and diplomacy the chance it deserves.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Pscates, how would YOU FEEL if a huge army of foreigners suddenly invaded here, destroyed your home and city, killed your family and kids, just because they decided they wanted George W. Bush out of the picture?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice. Well, if President Bush was having people tortured, was a madman who was daring the entire world, was keeping the people of this country afraid to speak out, enjoy their lives, disagree with him, living in fear or torture, rape, etc., then I'D want him to be gone. No, I wouldn't want myself and family killed and property destroyed, but I'd like to think that the soldiers know that their beef isn't WITH US, THE CITIZENS. It's with the idiot in charge. And I'd probably think "you know, this guy is bringing us nothing but misery. We truly aren't 'free'..." and maybe figure out a way to "fix things" where another country's military wouldn't HAVE to come in and "kill children" and "destroy buildings", which, by the way, I think is being played up really strong. I don't believe there's going to be this random, wanton killing of civilians, children, non-military targets as many like to say. I really don't.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Premasticated kindergarten-standard FOX Channel/Rupert Murdoch BS doesn't cut it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said it did. But your stuff doesn't either. Are people who see it your way, or share your views, the only ones who have "valid" views and takes on the topic? In your mind, it seems the ONLY people supporting the President are toothless yahoos "lookin' forward to a good televised ass-whoopin'! Yeehaw!" or bratty, Limbaugh-fueled "neo-cons", dying to see kids and old ladies getting bombed.
Maybe when it's all over, the stories from Iraqi citizens will tell the story? Why don't we wait until then. If they're elated and grateful from being freed from this horrible dictators clutches, then I'm going to consider that "reason enough". All the other stuff (rebuilding contracts, oil, etc.) is down the list of things that keep me up nights, worrying.
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
Your first mistake was actually reading one of SJO's posts.
<strong>
... For the starvation in Iraq, i did not hear many infos that since the trade against food there is a lot of Iraq people dying of starvation at the countrary of NK. Sure the economy suffer from the sanctions, but i have no doubt that the war will make more casualties than the starvation. I understand that there is pro-war arguments, but i have some problems to buy the humanitarian aspect of it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13019-2003Mar11.html"; target="_blank">Deadlier Than War</a>
By Walter Russell Mead
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21
[quote]Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative - a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box.
They are wrong.
Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.
In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.
The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.
Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War - and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.
Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.
Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.
Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.
Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals.
Wrong.
The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.
But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.
The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.
Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.
Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.
The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.
But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.
This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.
So that is our cost.
And what have we bought?
We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for the American people.
We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.
What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime.
Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy. Containment can be tweaked - made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile - but the basic equations don't change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror - with no end in sight.
This is disaster, not policy.
It is time for a change.
Walter Russell Mead is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."<hr></blockquote>
<strong>There would not be indiscriminately attack, but a lot of collateral damages will be done according to the US military staff (at the difference of the claim of 91 and the surgical strikes)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well our military is far more advanced in 2003 than it was in 1991. In 1991 the vast majority of the bombs we dropped weren't "smart", those were mainly a few for the television cameras. Hopefully there are more precision-weapons used this time around.
Of course there will be civilian casualties and that is tragic.
[quote]<strong>Sure the economy suffer from the sanctions, but i have no doubt that the war will make more casualties than the starvation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's understandeable, because the word "war" is far more violent than the word "economic sanctions". But if you were to go to Iraq and see starving and diseased children dying by the thousands you might change your mind. I have been hearing anti-sanction arguments for years and years, but suddenly those people have dropped that cause and turned against war, seemingly forgetting the atrocity they once protested against.
Why is it that you have "no doubt", though?
[quote]<strong>I understand that there is pro-war arguments, but i have some problems to buy the humanitarian aspect of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does seem counter-intuitive, but thousands of Iraqis are going to die at the hands of the UN, war or no war. We might as well give them a chance by ousting Saddam.
<strong>Exactly. All you U.N. lovers/admirers (or those calling for more "diplomacy" or resolutions) wouldn't run your house or family in the piss-poor, idiotic way that the U.N. is handling this. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is about a war, not a jar of cookies. If you can equate the two, then I'm not surprised at all that you can accept war without thinking. Emphasis on without thinking.
[quote] The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.<hr></blockquote>
I agree with this, whenever you have a foreign army in a countrie it create anger against this army, even if the goal of this army is to protect the population. Example : South korea, for US and Ivory coast for France (and many more examples avalaible).
It's sad that eleven years ago, we (the coalition) did not throw out Saddam : we feared a new Iran or two many death among our soldiers or the population (the myth of an absolute clean war). At the time i did not understood why we did not invade Baghdad and throw out or kill Saddam.
Eleven years after , we know that this war would not have been worse for the iraq people , than the economical sanctions. But eleven years after we do not know , if there is a risk to have in long term, the control of Iraq by Islam extremists, and we did not know how dead soldiers we will have.
We must also be aware that, a selective war, implies more dead upon US and UK soldiers, than a global war (bombing a house, is less dangerous than to send people in it to "clean" it ).
The author implie also that US troop will have to leave soon Iraq after the victory in order to avoid an other terrorism acess against US. Preventing Iraq to become an islam integrist state imply some physical presence for some years.
The war will resolve many immediates problems : the Saddam threat, but bring also some others potential problems.
BTW we will know soon the answers about the supposed side effects of the war. If i doubt that tomorrow there will be a big Apple anouncement , i hear the rumor ,that the war will start tomorrow.
<strong>
This is about a war, not a jar of cookies. If you can equate the two, then I'm not surprised at all that you can accept war without thinking. Emphasis on without thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You?re wrong. It?s also about human psychology. War can, and has changed collective human psychology. This is something them ME islamic gangsters are badly in need of.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia. <hr></blockquote>
There's also Iran: the reason the "west" backed Saddam in the first place. Them huge bases in Saudia were built for one purpose and one purpose only: to house US forces.
I probably could have gotten away with starting a new thread, but reviving this old one might be kinda funny. In hindsight, we were all probably wrong about lots of things.
I greatly overestimated the civilian casualties.
Originally posted by groverat
After re-reading the thread I was wrong about one thing.
I haven't re-read the thread, but did you agree or disagree with the accusation that the Bush admin was still lying to start a war?
EDIT: Your humility knows no bounds....
Not really news to those of us with sense, but interesting nonetheless.
In other news:
Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA veteran
Commenting on the tendency for intelligence to be politicized, he said: ?It's a problem whenever a U.S. administration sets its heart on a policy that cannot be supported by intelligence.? [Baltimore Sun, 4/4/03 no longer available online]
I haven't re-read the thread, but did you agree or disagree with the accusation that the Bush admin was still lying to start a war?
Of course I agreed with it. All politicians are liars.
Originally posted by groverat
Of course I agreed with it. All politicians are liars.
Yet you regurgitated everything put out by them. Don't try to change your story.
The justifications you gave in this thread all centered around the idea that war was necessary to 'disarm iraq,' a phrase you got from the bushies.
Originally posted by giant
Yet you regurgitated everything put out by them. Don't try to change your story.
The justifications you gave in this thread all centered around the idea that war was necessary to 'disarm iraq,' a phrase you got from the bushies.
naw he got it from Hans Blix.
Originally posted by Scott
naw he got it from Hans Blix.
Hans Blix was justifying a war? I never saw that.