I'm not saying you aren't, but I'm interested to know the reasons why you believe citizens of the US are under serious threat from Saddam or Iraq. Do you personally feel threatened, on a continent thousands of miles away?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
[quote]<strong>Don't you feel the US could detect an imminent attack before it started? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
An invasion force of tanks, planes, and troops, sure.
A single cargo container with a nuclear weapon detonated in a major port city, no. I'm from Seattle. A single nuclear weapon smuggled onto a ship anywhere in the world could be detonated in the Port of Seattle and take out much of the city center. Or maybe New York Harbor. Or San Francisco. Miami anyone?
[quote]<strong>Do you think Iraq, if left alone, would actually attack the US or any western country? </strong><hr></blockquote>
In concert with others, yes. Not in any direct way that could be proven directly, but covertly supplying WMDs, yes.
[quote]<strong>Do you feel there is a proven link with Iraq and terrorism?</strong><hr></blockquote>
YES.
[quote]<strong>As a UK citizen, I don't feel under threat from Iraq at all, though that could change if Iraq were attacked.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you feel about ricin in your water supply?
That's the sort of threat I think we face. Not military against military, but attacks on mass civilian populations without warning. Iraq is setting itself up as the weapons manufacturer for any two-bit terrorist group with some cash.
Pakistan is for another thread. Having said that, just because Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia and others who "cooperate" with the US aren't such good friends after all, doesn't mean that Iraq isn't a threat. Two entirely separate thoughts and problems here.
Trying to be on topic, war is a last resort only. I do not object to even pre-emptive war if the danger is immediate. I think every reasonable person in here is still trying to tell whether the danger is immeidate enough, or whether the violations of the UN resolution warrant other means of punishment/action. I am ambivalent on that topic, but I am not closing my eyes to the arguments and facts presented by the US and the UK.
People always seem to turn these things into all-or-nothing debates. "If Iraq isn't such an immediate threat to our safety, then they are not dangerous and none of these actions are justified." Get a grip.
Iraq could definately attack one of our closest allies in the region , Israel. They have before, and their intention is to again. I'm not saying it's THE reason, just A reason.
A single cargo container with a nuclear weapon detonated in a major port city, no. I'm from Seattle. A single nuclear weapon smuggled onto a ship anywhere in the world could be detonated in the Port of Seattle and take out much of the city center. Or maybe New York Harbor. Or San Francisco. Miami anyone?
<hr></blockquote>
OK. So we should pay more attention to Pakistan a country that actually has nuclear weapons and many direct connections from the nuclear program to militant islamists, rather than Iraq, a country without nuclear weapons that has, at best, a possible connection to one militant islamist.
Just a quick thought from over this side of the pond. Most likely outcome of war without another UN resolution could be the demise of Tony Blair. Its not a popular option over here no matter what he might claim.
Unfortunately, while the US pick and choose which resolutions to enforce and which to ignore they are open to allegations of self-interest.
Bottom line-, if we catch them at it we're all onside. If not, and the US head for action alone or with the UK, we're all heading for a lot of trouble.
<strong>Iraq could definately attack one of our closest allies in the region , Israel. They have before, and their intention is to again. I'm not saying it's THE reason, just A reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. But, not to sound too brutish, I think Israel could more than hold its own in any war with Iraq if it came about.
Of course, that would initiate more violence against israel from arab states, but it survived a war with egypt.
Agreed. But, not to sound too brutish, I think Israel could more than hold its own in any war with Iraq if it came about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's assuming conventional means of war. With the success of the 9/11 terrorists, I think everyone is convinced of what would be more potent and less defensible mmeans of waging war.
<strong>Unfortunately, while the US pick and choose which resolutions to enforce and which to ignore they are open to allegations of self-interest. </strong><hr></blockquote>
AGREED. Ticks me off that Israel flaunts resolution after resolution and we *back* them. Cripes. (Not like that's the only example, but the one that keeps gnawing at me... it's almost like we're giving the Muslim world a reason to hate us on purpose, it's so &*%$^&*(@!# blatant.)
[quote]<strong>Bottom line-, if we catch them at it we're all onside. If not, and the US head for action alone or with the UK, we're all heading for a lot of trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, agreed. Would *vastly* prefer to have the UN on this, or at least a major coalition of nations outside the UN. Heck, even Saudi Arabia is showing tentative support. *sigh*
Of course, France's stubbornness couldn't come from the fact that something like 70% of their oil comes from Iraq, now could it? Would cause major concerns if that supply were interrupted. (Talk about having oil as a reason to do or not do something. )
That's assuming conventional means of war. With the success of the 9/11 terrorists, I think everyone is convinced of what would be more potent and less defensible mmeans of waging war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's assuming conventional means of war. With the success of the 9/11 terrorists, I think everyone is convinced of what would be more potent and less defensible mmeans of waging war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Israel would just lob some nukes over Baghdad way and call it justified. Honestly, I think that's one of the main reasons we back them so much, is to keep them from being backed into a corner where they do something inane.
No, Israel would just lob some nukes over Baghdad way and call it justified. Honestly, I think that's one of the main reasons we back them so much, is to keep them from being backed into a corner where they do something inane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doubtful, but interesting theory. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Naturally I'm not too keen on ricin in my water supply
I haven't followed the story closely, but I wasn't aware the incident was related to Iraq or Saddam at all.
Isn't there a danger the issues of Iraq and terrorism have been (conveniently) confused, and solving the Iraq issue isn't going to prevent terrorism at all, only make it worse?
If Iraq and Saddam disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, it isn't going to stop people producing ricin from caster oil beans.
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
That's the sort of threat I think we face. Not military against military, but attacks on mass civilian populations without warning. Iraq is setting itself up as the weapons manufacturer for any two-bit terrorist group with some cash.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So do you feel a standard military response by the US will actually solve something, given the war isn't even being fought on a battlefield?
No, Israel would just lob some nukes over Baghdad way and call it justified. Honestly, I think that's one of the main reasons we back them so much, is to keep them from being backed into a corner where they do something inane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Don't tell me you are that naive to believe that.
We are talking about Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand that. Do you find it hard to believe that Iraq would use terrorist means to kill? Iraq used bio weapons and other unconventional means in the Iran-Iraq War, and as I already said, the precedent of 9/11 shows a more effective means they could and probably will wage war. I am talking about Iraq.
Those of you that want a war or believe the US is right to act alone, think about this:
Al Qaeda did not exist in it's current form in 1991. It is known that there still might be sleeper cells in the US.
If there is a war, what will stop a terrorist from blowing himself up in a mall, a movie theater or a restaurant? Where will the economy go? How will the american lifestyle change? imagine the whole country in a scenario as shown in the movie 'Siege'.
I am more scared of this than Saddam possessing WMD. Maybe the US has a strong case against Iraq but how can they forget that they are also responsible for creating Saddam.
the ultimate solution still lies in changing US foreign policy. It's time for the US to eat crow and step out of foreign countries. It needs to relinquish it's 'world police' image. Let the UN be the world police.
I understand that. Do you find it hard to believe that Iraq would use terrorist means to kill? Iraq used bio weapons and other unconventional means in the Iran-Iraq War, and as I already said, the precedent of 9/11 shows a more effective means they could and probably will wage war. I am talking about Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you are talking about something different. Chemical/Biological weapons are not new and sept. 11 has no importance here. Iraq is severely limited in its ability to use ANY weapons against anyone. Saddam also knows that any unprovoked attack on Israel would end up with the sky falling on Iraq. Saddam might be crazy, but he is not a moron. There is no benefit for him big enough to justify an unprovoked attack on Israeli civilians, or America if it was even possible (which it isn't) considering what the result would be. It would also be wholly contrary to what his goals and motivations are.
Hell, how many discovery channel and pbs shows are available to you people showing you pretty clearly what his motivations are, yet you still live in a fantasy world? You don't even need to go to books if it is really such a problem! Is it really so difficult to inform yourself before creating a life philosophy?
Man, are you thick! Are you so sure he doesn'thave the means to attack? Are you ignoring how they can cover their tracks? They will not blow up a building in the US and take credit for it. They will launder money and/or arms to soeone to do it for them, and deny the whole thing. Stop thinking conventionally. War will not be contained by these assumptions.
Hussein wants to be the next Saladin, the man who vanquised the crusaders and rules the Arab world. That's his motivation. You think he just wants to be left alone? You think he's only in it for the oil?
As far as terrorists: the question was asked what would stop a terrorist from blowing him or herself up if we attacked Iraq. I wonder what would stop a terrorist if we did not attack Iraq? What difference would it really make? Do you really think terrorists are purely retaliatory in their acts? As far as I can tell or assume, they would attack us either way. So the point is what would help prevent more terrorist attacks? I'm not sure atacking Iraq would prevent more attacks (though I'm tending to think that), but I sure don't think that not attacking would prevent more either.
And while people do bring up a veryvalid point for playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" with regard to Hussein, I don't see how that impacts our decisions now. What would we do, wait for karmic justice to unleash itself on Americans? What's the point in this angle?
I don't think I understood your last sentence, giant. What are you getting at when you mention a life philosphy?
Comments
<strong>
I'm not saying you aren't, but I'm interested to know the reasons why you believe citizens of the US are under serious threat from Saddam or Iraq. Do you personally feel threatened, on a continent thousands of miles away?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
[quote]<strong>Don't you feel the US could detect an imminent attack before it started? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
An invasion force of tanks, planes, and troops, sure.
A single cargo container with a nuclear weapon detonated in a major port city, no. I'm from Seattle. A single nuclear weapon smuggled onto a ship anywhere in the world could be detonated in the Port of Seattle and take out much of the city center. Or maybe New York Harbor. Or San Francisco. Miami anyone?
[quote]<strong>Do you think Iraq, if left alone, would actually attack the US or any western country? </strong><hr></blockquote>
In concert with others, yes. Not in any direct way that could be proven directly, but covertly supplying WMDs, yes.
[quote]<strong>Do you feel there is a proven link with Iraq and terrorism?</strong><hr></blockquote>
YES.
[quote]<strong>As a UK citizen, I don't feel under threat from Iraq at all, though that could change if Iraq were attacked.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you feel about ricin in your water supply?
That's the sort of threat I think we face. Not military against military, but attacks on mass civilian populations without warning. Iraq is setting itself up as the weapons manufacturer for any two-bit terrorist group with some cash.
Trying to be on topic, war is a last resort only. I do not object to even pre-emptive war if the danger is immediate. I think every reasonable person in here is still trying to tell whether the danger is immeidate enough, or whether the violations of the UN resolution warrant other means of punishment/action. I am ambivalent on that topic, but I am not closing my eyes to the arguments and facts presented by the US and the UK.
People always seem to turn these things into all-or-nothing debates. "If Iraq isn't such an immediate threat to our safety, then they are not dangerous and none of these actions are justified." Get a grip.
A single cargo container with a nuclear weapon detonated in a major port city, no. I'm from Seattle. A single nuclear weapon smuggled onto a ship anywhere in the world could be detonated in the Port of Seattle and take out much of the city center. Or maybe New York Harbor. Or San Francisco. Miami anyone?
<hr></blockquote>
OK. So we should pay more attention to Pakistan a country that actually has nuclear weapons and many direct connections from the nuclear program to militant islamists, rather than Iraq, a country without nuclear weapons that has, at best, a possible connection to one militant islamist.
Just a quick thought from over this side of the pond. Most likely outcome of war without another UN resolution could be the demise of Tony Blair. Its not a popular option over here no matter what he might claim.
Unfortunately, while the US pick and choose which resolutions to enforce and which to ignore they are open to allegations of self-interest.
Bottom line-, if we catch them at it we're all onside. If not, and the US head for action alone or with the UK, we're all heading for a lot of trouble.
<strong>Iraq could definately attack one of our closest allies in the region , Israel. They have before, and their intention is to again. I'm not saying it's THE reason, just A reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. But, not to sound too brutish, I think Israel could more than hold its own in any war with Iraq if it came about.
Of course, that would initiate more violence against israel from arab states, but it survived a war with egypt.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Agreed. But, not to sound too brutish, I think Israel could more than hold its own in any war with Iraq if it came about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's assuming conventional means of war. With the success of the 9/11 terrorists, I think everyone is convinced of what would be more potent and less defensible mmeans of waging war.
<strong>bunge:
Wrong paste from the clipboard in the wrong thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cool. I don't know if that means I screwed up, you screwed up, or I'm just confused. Either way, I ferget.
<strong>Unfortunately, while the US pick and choose which resolutions to enforce and which to ignore they are open to allegations of self-interest. </strong><hr></blockquote>
AGREED. Ticks me off that Israel flaunts resolution after resolution and we *back* them. Cripes. (Not like that's the only example, but the one that keeps gnawing at me... it's almost like we're giving the Muslim world a reason to hate us on purpose, it's so &*%$^&*(@!# blatant.)
[quote]<strong>Bottom line-, if we catch them at it we're all onside. If not, and the US head for action alone or with the UK, we're all heading for a lot of trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, agreed. Would *vastly* prefer to have the UN on this, or at least a major coalition of nations outside the UN. Heck, even Saudi Arabia is showing tentative support. *sigh*
Of course, France's stubbornness couldn't come from the fact that something like 70% of their oil comes from Iraq, now could it? Would cause major concerns if that supply were interrupted.
Agh, it's all a big mess. Wake me when it's over.
<strong>
That's assuming conventional means of war. With the success of the 9/11 terrorists, I think everyone is convinced of what would be more potent and less defensible mmeans of waging war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are talking about Iraq.
<strong>
That's assuming conventional means of war. With the success of the 9/11 terrorists, I think everyone is convinced of what would be more potent and less defensible mmeans of waging war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Israel would just lob some nukes over Baghdad way and call it justified. Honestly, I think that's one of the main reasons we back them so much, is to keep them from being backed into a corner where they do something inane.
<strong>
No, Israel would just lob some nukes over Baghdad way and call it justified. Honestly, I think that's one of the main reasons we back them so much, is to keep them from being backed into a corner where they do something inane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doubtful, but interesting theory. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
Doubtful, but interesting theory. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't mind me, I'm just a conspiracy nut with too much posting time.
Back to Powell...
<strong>
How do you feel about ricin in your water supply?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naturally I'm not too keen on ricin in my water supply
I haven't followed the story closely, but I wasn't aware the incident was related to Iraq or Saddam at all.
Isn't there a danger the issues of Iraq and terrorism have been (conveniently) confused, and solving the Iraq issue isn't going to prevent terrorism at all, only make it worse?
If Iraq and Saddam disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, it isn't going to stop people producing ricin from caster oil beans.
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
That's the sort of threat I think we face. Not military against military, but attacks on mass civilian populations without warning. Iraq is setting itself up as the weapons manufacturer for any two-bit terrorist group with some cash.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So do you feel a standard military response by the US will actually solve something, given the war isn't even being fought on a battlefield?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
No, Israel would just lob some nukes over Baghdad way and call it justified. Honestly, I think that's one of the main reasons we back them so much, is to keep them from being backed into a corner where they do something inane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Don't tell me you are that naive to believe that.
Iraq is setting itself up as the weapons manufacturer for any two-bit terrorist group with some cash.<hr></blockquote>
Wow. I never knew. You must have at least a shred of evidence to support this.
Or not.
<strong>
We are talking about Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand that. Do you find it hard to believe that Iraq would use terrorist means to kill? Iraq used bio weapons and other unconventional means in the Iran-Iraq War, and as I already said, the precedent of 9/11 shows a more effective means they could and probably will wage war. I am talking about Iraq.
Al Qaeda did not exist in it's current form in 1991. It is known that there still might be sleeper cells in the US.
If there is a war, what will stop a terrorist from blowing himself up in a mall, a movie theater or a restaurant? Where will the economy go? How will the american lifestyle change? imagine the whole country in a scenario as shown in the movie 'Siege'.
I am more scared of this than Saddam possessing WMD. Maybe the US has a strong case against Iraq but how can they forget that they are also responsible for creating Saddam.
the ultimate solution still lies in changing US foreign policy. It's time for the US to eat crow and step out of foreign countries. It needs to relinquish it's 'world police' image. Let the UN be the world police.
<strong>
I understand that. Do you find it hard to believe that Iraq would use terrorist means to kill? Iraq used bio weapons and other unconventional means in the Iran-Iraq War, and as I already said, the precedent of 9/11 shows a more effective means they could and probably will wage war. I am talking about Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you are talking about something different. Chemical/Biological weapons are not new and sept. 11 has no importance here. Iraq is severely limited in its ability to use ANY weapons against anyone. Saddam also knows that any unprovoked attack on Israel would end up with the sky falling on Iraq. Saddam might be crazy, but he is not a moron. There is no benefit for him big enough to justify an unprovoked attack on Israeli civilians, or America if it was even possible (which it isn't) considering what the result would be. It would also be wholly contrary to what his goals and motivations are.
Hell, how many discovery channel and pbs shows are available to you people showing you pretty clearly what his motivations are, yet you still live in a fantasy world? You don't even need to go to books if it is really such a problem! Is it really so difficult to inform yourself before creating a life philosophy?
Hussein wants to be the next Saladin, the man who vanquised the crusaders and rules the Arab world. That's his motivation. You think he just wants to be left alone? You think he's only in it for the oil?
As far as terrorists: the question was asked what would stop a terrorist from blowing him or herself up if we attacked Iraq. I wonder what would stop a terrorist if we did not attack Iraq? What difference would it really make? Do you really think terrorists are purely retaliatory in their acts? As far as I can tell or assume, they would attack us either way. So the point is what would help prevent more terrorist attacks? I'm not sure atacking Iraq would prevent more attacks (though I'm tending to think that), but I sure don't think that not attacking would prevent more either.
And while people do bring up a veryvalid point for playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" with regard to Hussein, I don't see how that impacts our decisions now. What would we do, wait for karmic justice to unleash itself on Americans? What's the point in this angle?
I don't think I understood your last sentence, giant. What are you getting at when you mention a life philosphy?