Preserved Topic: census: should the USA attack Iraq

I say no.

I don't think people like me could begin to understand. Then again, a 22 year old guy with no criminal record has a very good chance of being drafted, so I sure as hell hope we don't attack, but if we have too, well- thats life (or should I say death)

I say bust a cap in Saddam and let god sort it out. But thats just me.

Call me wierd, but doesn't this type of question belong in another section?

. . : slicePuzzle

-2 side comments-

... Inition... I think it's pretty safe to say that there won't be a draft if the USA were to attack Iraq, or vice-versa.

... Bugs... ya... absolutely.

to Bug: WEIRD!!!!!

There won't be a draft, period. The U.S. military is more than equipped to handle Saddam. American government just doesn't have the motivation to follow through with an full-fledged attack on Iraq. I also heard on one of the politics talk shows that if we do go after Saddam, we go directly after Saddam... which means we drop a Navy SEALs, or Spec. Forces team to kill him. Though, I'm not sure what U.S. Policy is on assassination. I don't think a draft, or an assassination will happen. It's easier for Congress to declare war on Iraq for a short time.

This really belongs in Philosophy...and there it goes...

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

I'll second Michael and ramsay on this: there won't be any more of a draft now (if we do invade) then there was the first time around. I was of draftable age when the Gulf War began, and one of the guys I worked with asked me if I wanted to go to Canada with him. I couldn't figure out if I should punch him in the face or laugh at him. Anyway, you don't have anything to worry about Inition.

Um, as for the actual question here (should the US invade Iraq)... hoo-wee, that's a tough one. I guess we have to ask ourselves if taking out Hussein is going to solve our problems. If the answer is yes, than we should invade. If the answer is no, then I think we should let events run their course. Do I personally think that taking out Hussein will solve our problems in that area? Probably not. I guess that's my answer.

I will say this, though: If the US does invade, we'd better be prepared to go all the way this time. And I don't just mean in war, I mean the whole deal--making sure another Hussein doesn't step into the gap, and making sure Iraq doesn't implode. That's the real challenge.




Cell 270

No.
That is, not unless the attack complies with the UN Charter.

The UN Charter (written mostly by the US) says one nation may attack another only if one of two conditions are met:
1) The UN Security Council specifically authorizes the attack
2) In response to a direct and immediate attack, and only in defense, and only as a short term solution until the UN Security Council gets their shit together to move forward on condition #1.

To date, neither of these conditions have been met.

Some may argue that Iraq violating some UN Resolution on weapons inspections satisfies condition #1.
This is a farce, a lie, blindly repeated by our Ministry of Information (Ted, Cokie, Geraldo, Peter and Dan) without the slightest hint of rational examination.

Scott Ritter, formerly a leading weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nation Special Commision (UNSCOM), has repeated over and over again there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There are no biological weapons plants. There are no chemical weapons productions facilities.

Still, some NATO jackass stands up last November, holds up a metal canister and says "if Saddam Hussein were to fill this canister with chemical weapons it could kill a lot of people"...
...no shit?
If anybody filled most any container with chemical or biological weapons and released it in a city it could kill a lot of people too.
But the journalists bite...and so do most of the US public.

Iraq has been asking the UN over and over again to sit down and have a meeting that exactly outlines the terms of the agreement. The US refuses. My take on this is that the US is making compliance such a vague idea, no matter what Iraq does the US could say Iraq is being non-compliant.

Just as in the prelude to Desert Storm, the US (represented by George and his band of self-rightous warmongers) is doing everything it can to make sure war is inevitable.
We will destroy, we will kill.
That is our God given right as superpower of the world, and nobody better give us so much as one cross look in the process.

All that being said, Hussein is not a nice guy. He is a bully, a murderer and a thief. We supported, encouraged his mischief when he was our bully, our murderer, our thief. Now that he wants a little for himself, well, let's have war.

I don't much care what happens to Saddam Hussien. It's the 1 million+ innocent people of Iraq that have died so far do to unjust sanctions and it's the many more innocent people that are going to die in the future that I care about.
And those who live? Their lives will not be better. The US will install a puppet regime in Iraq that will play the role Saddam played before he was public enemy #1 -- that of bully, murderer, thief...for the US.

your 21st century pinko, commie, psuedo-hippy, punk rock, anarchist, peacenik,
mobrul

You should care what happens to Saddam. He is a dictator, an oppressive dictator. He should be eradicated.

Fuck Iraq, just kill suddam and everything is taken care of.

Mobrul's a communist! uhh.. Lets sacrifice him to our Lord!

Seriously though, very well said, and I agree 100%
Killing Hussien serves only the purpose of allowing america to replace him with someone just as bad. It wont help the situation in the country. The same goes with attacking the country, or placing more sanctions on it. The only way those would work is if the current government would roll over at the thought of its people becomming victims, and make an enormous effort to make the changes neccessary to help its people, or if america was willing to make the same effort themselves after a "liberation". I don't believe that either side would do so, therefor I don't think that any action taken by america would serve any purpose except giving them another person to blame, and a campaign speach next election.

heh, I know there wont be a draft, I was just kidding about my situation. We (USA) will probably attack if the oil is in jepardy.

Dan: The elimination of Saddam Hussein (who isn't all that sane) will benefit the neighboring countries, which will improve our international relations in the process, and further our trade with the Middle Eastern nations. There's a lot more to ending Saddam's oppressive dictatorship than what meets the naked eye. If you're looking for accurate, unbiased news media... good luck. Or you can use the links below:

DefenseLINK (Dept. of Defense Newswire)

DefenseLINK (Dept. of Defense Newswire): Search Query? Saddam

quote:

---

"THIS (TRANSCRIPT) WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400."

---

Have fun!

It's questions like these that make me wish I was Canadian...

Why? Because. I simply don't like the fact that America can, would, and does use its power to push around smaller, less powerful nations. Don't get me wrong, I know Iraq is powerful, but the whole "I'm bigger than you, so I can make the rules" thing just sounds too arrogant to me.

and for the record: Yes, I am a small guy

Sidenote: Suho, didn't see the P1K celebration, but congrats!

[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 07-19-2002).]

Statements like those, Raptor, are very common. Though, they are untrue in respect to the politics of America. People are very easy to criticize America... how sad...

For example, the following is fairly common amongst... people of this caliber:

quote:

---

Since Hermit is gone for an indeterminate amount of time, I will step up and
offer my lengthy commentary on the "debate" we have here. I'm no proper
replacement, but his absence is felt.

Before all else, I'd like to recommend a wonderful web site I stumbled upon
tonight:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html

It tackled all these issues quite well.

>...i will not willingly pledge blind allegiance to some nation state which
>has drifted miles from the notions of its founding fathers which were a far
>sight wiser than the right-wing,
>"it's-ok-to-shove-this-and-that-down-your-throat-in-spite-of-it-being-uncons
>titutional-as-long-as-it-coincides-with-my(your
>politician)-value-systems" monkeys we have in place today. i typically can
>only honestly and goodheartedly "pledge allegiance" to a group or
>organization that either reflects my interests/values, embraces the notion
>of negative freedom, or aspires to not estrange any particular value system
>which at least doesnt massively compromise the elementary golden rule. i
>can currently pledge some sort of allegiance to the notions on which this
>nation was founded, but the current state is a far far cry from several of
>the key points which made this nations creation such an advancement in
>social development. at this point i'd sooner pledge allegiance to my
>beloved Brasil.

Ah, I love your entertaining rants. I feel the same way about the Czech
Republic. I am much more Czech at heart then I am American. But there are two
great redeeming qualities about the United States:

1) The diversity and lack of an indigenous and homogenous culture allows for
many different ethnicities and cultures to co-exist at least somewhat
peacefully. So you have many citizens whose first language is not English, and
keep living as though they never left their native culture. Those who do not
fully assimilate. In any major city one can immerse yourself in the miniature
pocket of another culture. The fact that there is no real truly "American"
culture is what I like about living here. I like the elements that are very
far removed from what is American, if that makes any sense.

2) The fact that I can express my un-American and anti-American to a certain
extent without severe penalties is pleasing to me. Of course, socially I may
be persecuted by my peers and always have been, but as long as I'm not lynched
and set on fire then I don't mind being unpopular and ostracized; I'm used to
it. Of course I am an unknown nobody in the public eye, so I can get away with
these things. I'm not going to bother dredging them up but we all know that
plenty of censorship exists. I'm merely saying that it's nice to be able to
walk down the street and exclaim, "America sucks!" without having and limbs cut
off.

Your post reminds me that when I was once in grade school I refused to
participate in the bogus Veteran's Day ceremonies and stand up for the Pledge
of Allegiance. I was one of two people who were pissed off by the mockery of
patriotism we had to witness. I left the whole farce and went back to the
classroom. I didn't get in trouble, I just got in some fights as a result.

So....

I don't understand what you are doing here. You write:

>
> When our actions reflect inconsistent beliefs we are guilty of hypocrisy.

Only last night you were in the #virus channel on IRC telling this arrogant
prick in another channel to "Debate the issue not the person. Attack the issue
not the person, etc, etc." But here you are calling my friends a bunch of
"dumb shits". I can think of better ways to introduce and endear yourself to
the congregation. So you subscribe to some of our ideas and goals-- hanging
out in the chat is a good strategy for interacting with other members. Flaming
people that have been here for years in your first string of posts is generally
not a good idea. Were it Everett we would applaud you, but I do believe some
people are making points which you are not considering, only retorting with
insults. However, if the whole Snowleopard/Rose/Will person could come around
eventually, there must be hope for you as well. Play nice. And remember that
a great deal of wisdom comes with age and experience, not from books or college
courses.

What our country was really founded on is slaughter of its natives ("Indians")
and it prospered through the exploitation of Africans. This tradition
continues today, in a lesser extent, through the hard labor that immigrants
endure for crap wages in order to live here. The "ideologies" and rights you
speak of, which our founding fathers endorsed were created for wealthy white
male landowners. They were not created for women of any ethnicity, foreigners,
or non-Caucasian and impoverished males. These basic democratic civil rights
are a relatively recent invention for anyone who isn't a wealthy white man.
It's been less than a hundred years that my entire gender has even been able to
vote or obtain higher education. I'd say those same when were ungrateful
dicks, considering they owed their very existence to the suffering of women,
just as all men do.

> If you've no sense of pride or patriotism, go to another country and see how
> well you do. The fact still remains that even our "anti-American" enemies, if
> given the chance, would move to America.

One of the best things for a typical American to do would be to live abroad.
Personally, I never missed the United States. One of the things that
perpetually irked me about the other countries I visited is the feeling of
hopelessness when it comes to lacking certain luxuries that we take for
granted. It's so easy to be lazy here. It's hard to give up customer service,
wait at least twice as long for anything, not have a vehicle. It's takes
sacrifice of the American slothful lifestyle.

But on the other side of the coin, there is a lot of freedom we are missing out
on. Most places in Europe, if I felt like smoking a joint, drinking some
whiskey, and having gay kinky sex in a public square on a Sunday, I may be
frowned upon but I most likely not be arrested, fined, harassed, hauled away
and such. We cannot express ourselves in the U.S. except in ways the religious
fundamentalist government allows. We cannot harm ourselves if we want to.
It's a constant war against Drugs, against Sex, against Pornography, against
Reason... in many ways it is a war against personal freedom. I feel MUCH more
confined and oppressed in this country than I have anywhere else.

> College is personal research you fucking idiot. College is questioning. It's
> education. Educations other countries don't even have. Oh, how I would like
> to send you fuckers to N. Korea. Maybe then you could give your "educated"
> opinion on America.

Is that why we spend twice as much money from hard-working tax-payers to lock
our citizens up than we spend to educate them?

Although I have attended university for about five years so far, I am currently
S.O.L because I am not poor or ethnic, or rich enough to have it paid for. I
have cannot even receive money that I will pay back because of the fucking
policies that exist. It is impossible to get a college education in this
country unless you are extremely lucky, athletic, genius, work your ass off
(and then have your grades suffer), go deep into debt, or have wealthy parents.
Why is this? Because the money that could be going to help me finish getting
my degree is going to fund military operations that I am totally against; to
build fucking bombs to kill babies and innocent civilians, and arms to give to
Israelis so that they can help eradicate their neighbors. Yes, I am pissed
about this, because I have always worked hard and I'd rather have my tax
dollars go to health care (I've always been sick often) and education (I'd love
to finish school but I can't) than fucking guns.

> Remember the United States was founded on freedom. Who founded this country?
> Refugees from the oppressive British Empire at the time. There are some
> problems with our democratic republic but those problems are Human. And we're
> all Humanists right so we're not about to get rid of our own kind to make a
> perfect government! Shit, it's like you guys wanted Hitler to takeover the
> world.

"Refugees" who turned around and oppressed everyone else they came in contact
with through slavery and imperialism, among other things. Oh, and speaking of
Hitler, his main method was to use nationalism, heavy propaganda, and turning
his enemies against each other in order to procure power for his elite group.
That is what the United States does best. The US is just a lot more subtle.
As far as the other 'human problems' go, racial and gender inequality doesn't
appear to be going away any time soon...

> Did you know that the primary priority of the average member of Congress is
> to get re-elected? That's not bad. That's healthy! Why? Because the only way
> Congressmen and Congresswomen get re-elected is by doing good stuff for us.
> That means they need to get in the paper a lot and show us what they're doing
> for us. And if we agree with what they're doing then they get re-elected.


By means of heavy crafty propaganda! Yay! Not to mention slinging shit at
their opponents to make them look as bad as possible.

> I don't see why we shouldn't remove the borders between Canada and America.
> Perhaps, we shouldn't because we need to find better ways to control crime
> since we can't rid ourselves of criminal activity.


Why? The crime rate has been going down steadily. It's the prison population
that is rising. Besides the obvious like theft, rape, and murder, most
"crimes" in this country are imagined and completely subjective.

For example: (from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Prison_System.html )

>
> "The U.S. has both the largest prison population and the highest rate of
> incarceration in the world, including China and Russia. The U.S. incarcerates
> people at a rate more than 15 times that of Japan, and its prison population
> is more than eight times that of Italy, France, the UK, Spain, and Australia
> combined."


>
> The number of people in prison, in jail, on parole, and on probation in the
> U.S. increased threefold between 1980 and 2000, to more than 6 million, and
> the number of people in prison increased from 319,598 to almost 2 million in
> the same period. This buildup has targeted the poor, and especially Blacks.
> In 1999, though Blacks were only 13 percent of the U.S. population, they were
> half of all prison inmates. In 2000, one out of three young Black men was
> either locked up, on probation, or on parole. The military-industrial complex
> of the 1950s, with its Cold War communist bogeyman, has been replaced by a
> prison-industrial complex, with young Black "predators" serving as its
> justification."

As for your lecture on how great and wonderful the American system of
government because everyone gets to vote for everyone they want to, and all
turns out peachy in the end...

>
> *There are nearly four million persons currently or permanently
> disenfranchised as a result of laws that take away the voting rights of
> felons and ex-felons.
> * No other democracy besides the US. disenfranchises convicted offenders for
> life. Many democratic nations, including Denmark, France, Israel and Poland,
> permit prisoners to vote as well.
> * Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the disenfranchised are not in prison
> but are on probation, on parole or have completed their sentences.
> * 1.4 million African American men -- 13 percent of the adult African
> American male population -- have lost the right to-vote, a rate of
> disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. By comparison,
> in the 1996 general election 4.6 million African American men voted.
> * In Florida one in three African American men has permanently lost the right
> to vote.
> * In five states lowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming one in
> four black men (24% to 28%) have permanently lost the right to vote.

Speaking American corporations (I am now), along with the gluttony and
ignorance of most Americans, here is another great web site to look at:

http://www.eatveg.com/vegstuff/realities.htm

There are just under 250 million Americans. While they are devouring their
daily greasy McFodder like the silly beasts they are, 1.3 BILLION human beings
could be fed by the grain and soybeans eaten by U. S. livestock.
Meanwhile 40,000 children starve to death every day. While tribal African men
make a yearly dangerous trek across miles of desert to graze their cattle and
in search of water, risking their life to provide enough food for their
families, and some fight to protect their crops from deadly wild elephants,
fast food "restaurants" tempt children with plastic Disney characters as
another form of advertisement in their HAPPY Meals(tm)-- over 60 billion
Sold(out).

(another source- http://www.reutershealth.com/wellconnected/doc53.html )

>
> Enough food is produced in the US to supply 3,800 calories every day to each
> man, woman, and child, far more than any single person needs to sustain life.
> Such food has to be marketed and sold. In spite of the proven health risks of
> obesity, the government, insurance companies, and the medical profession
> spend very little money to oppose the billions of dollars that the food
> industry spends to promote food products.


>
> The prevalence of obesity (defined as a BMI of over 30) in the United States
> has risen dramatically over the past few years. It is now estimated that 61%
> of Americans are now overweight, up from 43% in the early 1940s. And
> according to a 2001 study, nearly 20% of American adults are obese. More
> children and adolescents are overweight in America than ever before.


> It is our ideologies that feed the fire in the American heart not soccer.


No, it's not soccer-- it's CHEESEBURGERS! Yep, that fire is not the warm glow
of pride, it's high cholesterol intake! As that web site mentions, the number
one cause of death in Americans is heart attacks from all the fatty, nasty
McSludge we consume!

If you want to see "shit for brains", you ought to work where I do, at a
temporary office job. It's very depressing, not only because of the mindless
job itself, but the work environment due to my clueless co-workers. They are
EMINEM-listening, Burger King-gobbling, Egg-McMuffin-swallowing,
television-watching, narrow-minded, astoundingly ignorant zombies. Most of
them haven't gone to college. Some of them actually abhor the idea being
exposed to foreign cultures. You'd think after reading about sick and dying
people all day (we deal with Medicaid insurance claims) with horrible diseases,
confined to their homes or a wheelchair, one would not sit there all day eating
glazed doughnuts. I can't have a normal conversation with nearly all of them
because we have nothing in common. I probably have permanent lacerations on my
tongue from biting down on it so much. Here is the kind of confounding
retarded assertions that I have to hear on a daily basis:

"Yuck, I wouldn't want to live in another country; that would be terrible."

"Ohmigod, I can't miss {insert inane television program here}; I have to find
out who wins! How can you not like watching TV?"

"I'm going to go work out tonight when I'm done for at least a half-hour. So
who's coming to McDonald's with me for breakfast?"

"Britney Spears is good music for walking with headphones."

"Are you one of those anarchist people?" [after I said that I wish I could
write "Stupid Jesus Freak" as a reason code for a return letter]

"Well, I don't understand vegetarianism because God put animals on this earth
for us to enjoy, so we should eat them."

What does one say to comments so retarded? I don't even know where to begin, so
I say nothing.


Let's face it-- our country (US) is fucked. I don't know about you, but I sure
feel like grabbing a six-pack of Budweiser or Miller beer, a frozen steak TV
dinner, some potato chips, and settling down on the couch to watch shows like
"American Idol" and "The Real World", interspersed with advertisements for
products to remember those deaths last year in NYC caused by the evil
anti-Christian terrorists. It's easier to just forget about it and become a
fat stupid slob. Oh, and while you're at it, make sure you raise your bratty
kids to be uncouth fat little Bush-voting pigs as well!


That is all.

-Kristy

---

[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 07-19-2002).]

Also, as a Canadian you will pay higher taxes, deal with the medical system sucks for care of serious illness, and face the Canadian government whom controls 90% of the economy of Canada.

You can call America great all you want, and give me all the quotes you like, but you're not going to persuade me otherwise. This country (as do all, mind you) has underlying issues that need to be resolved, and we can resolve them.. but we don't. What it really boils down to is that, we're just lazy.

It was said somewhere else here on the asylum "racism, sexism, and all sorts of other -ism's," or something to that extent. Run a search for that, *if* I remember correctly it was an interesting thread.

No, we're not lazy. My Political Science: American Government/Californian Government professor lectured on Saddam and the events that will take place against him, today. He also mentioned that some people criticize America and will also say "we're lazy" just as you did. A guy in the back of the class also sparked the Saddam lecture.

By the way, that quote was ANTI-AMERICAN. Jeez... just goes to show you that you didn't read it. Actually, some of America's problems cannot be resolved without reform that is unwanted by the majority of the populous. It is mostly the liberals that speak in tongues and... verbally attack America. As you put it, "what it all boils down to is that" the rest of the world is experiencing a brain drain, which means the greatest minds, and entrepreneurs are coming into America this very year. "What it all boils down to is that" most liberals have never lived a third-world nation, or in an oppressive society dirtied with hunger, disease, poverty, and tyranny. It is different to visit the place for a few weeks than to live there for 1+ years. "What it all boils down to is that" most people don't realize that the rest of the world also has their share of problems. In fact, they have more problems than America does. Go to: http://www.al-qaeda.com/indexb.html and check out their forums. You'll see what I mean when I say "problems." But you can convince yourself that America is going down the drain and that I'm full of shit. I know I can't convince you otherwise and I don't want to try, Jermie.

Ok...I'm not sure how we got into a bash/don't bash America stump-hump here...I think the original question was 'Should the US invade Iraq?'

So to the original question - well, that depends. It depends on whether or not we (America) want(s) and is prepared to introduce instability into this oil-rich area. Because, like it or not, removing Hussein will result in just that...don't forget that the Kurds are in Irag (the northern part), and that Turkey really doesn't like the Kurds at all...and would just love to get a chance to hit them hard...

Also, consider the fact that Iraq's neighbor, Iran, doesn't like Iraq at all...esp. after fighting a long, 7 year war that ended in a stand-still (actually, the war never really came to an end...it's just at a stand-still, really). There is much more to this, but the point is, removing Hussein would really result in instability for the region...and that (from an American standpoint) is not in our best interests...oil prices would increase.

Now, for the folk of Iraq...well, 'liberating' them is a nice, idealistic picture, isn't it? But without a long range plan to help them 'get back on their feet', this picture becomes somewhat stained, now, doesn't it. One must consider that the entire infra-struckture of Iraq is basically destroyed...or non-existent. Hussein (along with the military) is the only thing that is keeping Iraq going...remove that, and what do you have?

So much for the stability question...let's consider the moral one.

On what moral grounds are we walking here? Well, he is a despot, a tyran, a dictator, who is more than willing to kill his own people for his own gains. And we helped 'create' him. And we didn't get rid of him before, when we had the chance. So, morally, it would seem like we are in the 'right', if you will. Also, it would go a long way to 're-establishing' the international picture of America...that it will do what it sets out to do...which is a huge deterent in and of itself. Fear is a powerful weapon, esp. in diplomatic arenas...not to mention downright war.

One thing that should be mentioned here...the UN. Though I really like the idea behind the UN, in it's present form, it's really just a 'helpless' entity...because it has no military arm (not one that is soley under the UN, that is). This is sort of like a little scrawny runt that stands before a pack of bullies and indignantly points out that beating the living crap out of him is against the law...which may be true, but that is not going to save the guy from an ass-whooping...the UN has no real 'teeth'. Crime and Punishment...more important than ever on a Global scale.

Consider as well that irregardless on how America conducts itself...someone is not going to like it. That's how it always is with the Alpha member of a group...the others are always waiting to 'pounce' on the first signs of weakness...and in the Global arena, anything and everything can be regarded as a 'weakness'...

So let us change the picture for a moment...say for a moment that America is not a super power...and never was one. That all it was ever interested in was within it's own boarders, and never 'peeked' it's head outside of them. How would the world look today...

There will always be a 'top dog'....history proves this. So who would be in Americas stead? And would they have done a better job?
One would have to 'erase' all the things that America has contributed to World history...good and bad.

Of course, there would be other considerations, as well, but I think at the moment, these offer enough food for thought.

I personally would say, invade Iraq, but only under the conditions that Hussein goes, an UN intermediate appointed leadership assumes power (until the land is ready for local elections), and re-building of the infra-struckture takes place. Also, investigations in the Human Rights area should also take place...I'm sure that there are many in Iraq in need of such measures...

Otherwise, no. The instability in the Region would not be worth just removing Hussein from power.

Whew! Just reformat'd, repartition'd, and reinstall'd...

I believe that when America decides to eliminate the Saddam Hussein threat that they would also occupy Iraq until America convinces herself that Iraq is ready for a local government. Look what we're doing with Afghanistan... We're destroying the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda while re-building Afghanistan. We helped elect President Karzai and established an openly limited democratic Afghan government.

The American government is really trying to promote its peacekeeper status. Now, WebShaman, about the oil... while you may be correct you have to wonder why America has located a cheaper, more available oil source and has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Apart from that, I absolutely agree with you, WebShaman.

PS. (WebShaman) You're a really cool person and I respect you despite our differences in another thread.

yeah and north korea and wile we are at it pakistan

Perhaps this is a little off-topic, and maybe a little trivial to some, but how valid is the assumption that America knows what the people of a country halfway around the world want?

America chose democracy, as did many other countries - but many did not and are getting along perfectly well without it. A lot of countries are flourishing under a monarchy...even in the Middle Eastern region. Look at the United Arab Emirates - center of tourism today, not to mention flourishing economy and one of the higest rates of economic growth in the world. Pretty high up on the quality of life too, according to The Economist. And this is by no means the exception. A lot of Americans do not know about it (which I think reflects on their general knowledge more than on the country's success), and for the record, the UAE does *not* live off camels and goat-cheese, and is in many ways more civilised than New York :P

In many cases, if the people aren't happy with the way they are living, they will either leave, or make some changes, ala Khomeini and Iran. Having said that however, there are certain cases where international intervention is necessary - I just don't feel that such a decision is America's to make. Wouldn't it be great if there were some forum for countries around the world to get together and discuss issues like this and reach decisions for everyone's good? Oh wait, that's what the UN is for.

WS, perhaps it would have been better to have a few competing 'superpowers' that could keep each other in check...it might have been a little like a balanced game of chess then. Right now its a dozen pawns against one Queen - with a lightsaber.



.. One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor ..

The United Nations is a sad little organization. It used to have a purpose but it no longer does. They try to keep peace but no country has to listen to them. In fact, many ignore them. I feel pity for them...

One of my friend's visited the UAE and said that if you want to buy gold there... that's the place to buy it because it's cheap. The problem with many Americans and pretty much all foreigners to America (exclude educated political scientists) is that they are frightened of what they don't understand. It's too bad there's not enough political science in the public school systems under colleges. It'd be nice to have a more educated citizenry.

Aerosoul: There's a few exceptions to the "without a democratic government, we're doing fine" 'rule'. The UAE is one of them. But don't ignore the fact that the living STANDARDS in America are higher than almost any other country. .... .... ya we're off-topic!

For those of you eager to bad mouth the UN for its powerlessness...you can't have it both ways.
You can not, out of one side of your mouth, say the UN is ignored, has no military force of its own, is useless...
...while at the same time, say out the other side of your mouth, the US has the authority to attack the citizens of Iraq because they are violating UN weapons inspection resolutions, and insist on calling US attacks 'international coalitions.'

You can either say the UN could be a useful organization '...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...' and then do everything in your power to make that happen...
...or you can say 'fuck the world, Pax Americana baby, who's next! YeeeHaaaa!'

You have to decide who is the 'rogue state'.
Your choice -- just be consistant and let everyone else know which it is.

mobrul

Ok. I love the United States. Period.

If what the US government and media say about Saddam is half accurate, we should help the Iraqi people remove him from power. However, before we initiate any strike, we should come up with a plan to help the Iraqi people govern themselves after Saddam. No sense getting rid of him if one of his buddies can step in and pick up right where he left off.

Saddam has friends? That's a laugh.

mobrul - I think I said that the underlaying reasons for the UN are sound and moral...just that it has no way of 'inforcing' it's own 'laws' and rulings...which means that anyone can choose to ignore them without fearing the consequences from the UN. Of course, there are consequences when other lands that are members of the UN charter wish to 'impliment' the UN rulings...

And that is the problem. The UN should have an independant 'police' force, coupled with the ultimate authority (law-wise) that superceeds all others. However, it doesn't. All it really has is the 'security council', and those making up the security council are not going to indite themselves, now, are they? So think about it...is then, America, really a 'rogue state'? As a member of the security council, I don't think so. And America does respect the UN...when it is in Americas favor. And yes, that is the problem with all the security council members...not just the US.

You all realize that we tried all throughout Desert Storm (the US, that is) to kill/assassinate Saddamm, right? Why would now be any diffrent?

quote:

---

On the morning of August 2, 1990 the mechanized infantry, armor, and tank units of the Iraqi Republican Guard invaded Kuwait and seized control of that country. The invasion triggered a United States response, Operation DESERT SHIELD, to deter any invasion of Kuwait's oil rich neighbor, Saudi Arabia. On August 7, deployment of U.S. forces began. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660 and 662 condemned Iraq's invasion and annexation and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces. On August 20 President Bush signed National Security Directive 45, "U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait," outlining U.S. objectives - which included the "immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait," and the "restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq." -- from Operation Desert Storm: Ten Years After

---

It's obvious why now would be different: this is now and that was then. Science has prospered, technology has advanced, culture has developed, and unfortunately... the liberals are expanding. It is very possible that an assault on the Iraqian gangster, Saddam Hussein, would be successful. Our military technology is some of the most advanced in the world even if corporate military technology developers are restricted to retail technology. Our military is much stronger than in the past. It is smaller but has a technological advantage.

There's one true thing that has been kept from the American public. Politicians are covering up and have covered up that our military has not killed a lot of Taliban and Al-Qaeda members. America has eliminated the threat almost completely. Word is circulating around political chambers that Osama bin Laden is suggested to have disintegrated in a blast smaller than that of the events that occurred on 9-11. Whether his corpse is concealed by millions of pounds of sand and rock or converted to subatomic particles... it is unknown, but suggested. A squad of U.S. Special Forces has eliminated 1000+ Al-Qaeda members with the help of air support. Although there have been mishaps such as the two bombers that dropped bombs on the Canadians, it is relatively rare that our new military fails. Many think that when the bombs dropped on a building said to have been inhabited by innocents that what the politicians said were true. It is untrue. I've been told by reliable sources that the American ground units were witness to night-time anti-aircraft fire coming from that same building.

The ONLY reason why the U.S. Armed Forces fails at times (e.g. Vietnam) is because of political strength. President Carter took frail steps instead of the advised confident stride during Vietnam. The Vietnam War happened on baseless conditions. I won't get into that since it requires a history lesson . But this is my point: Operation Desert Storm is history. It's time to concentrate on the future.

By the way, if there isn't enough public support for an assault on the Iraqian gangster, Saddam Hussein, then it most likely won't happen, but there's a good chance that it will anyway. Have a nice night!

> Edited to fix URL

[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 07-31-2002).]

ws - I agree with you on two counts.
1) The UN is fundamentally a good idea and is built upon a sound and moral ideal of justice, peace and law.
2) The UN has no way of enforcing it's rulings, thus, can be ignored without [much] fear of consequence.

So, the US, as a global leader, can do one of two things:
1) Use it's military might to bully around other countries; killing when they it is advantageous; turning a 'blind eye' when it is advantageous; encouraging and actually committing atrocities when it is advantageous.
2) step up to the plate, encourage other countries to live by the UN laws, and, more importantly, actually live up to them itself.

Currently, we are most definately following path #1. All patriotic stances aside, we are a bully. One can argue we do lots of great things in the world (absolutely true) and one could argue a lot of countries act as bullies from time to time (again, absolutely true), but neither of these arguements is to the point. In fact, they only exist to hide the point. The point is, just to repeat, we are bullies. We (The United States) often encourages war rather than do our best to stop it.

So, you are right, the UN needs to, in some way, have a policy by which it can enforce its rules fairly, justly and universally. The question becomes, should the US, as a - no - THE, so-called world leader, continue with the inadequecies or encourage a change?
I vote for encouraging a fair, just and equitable change.

Now, on to ramsaydesigns

I don't even know what you are trying to say.
You start with some uber-cleansed psuedo-history of late summer 1990, quoted from the book "Operation Desert Storm: 10 years after"
You then move on technology being more than it was 12 years ago...
...and this is my favorite "the liberals are expanding." Instead of a tirade on the fact that our country was founded by liberals, I'll just say I'm most certainly a liberal, and I'm most definately not expanding. I've weighed roughly the same for about 8 yrs now.

We didn't not kill Hussein because we couldn't, we didn't kill him because it was our foreign policy put in place by George I and his band of hooligans. We didn't kill him because there was nobody who was 'iron-fist[ed]' enough to take his place. That's what you don't get. US foriegn policy is not against Saddam Hussein. It is against him not being OUR bully.

You may not remember, but immediately after our invasion into Iraq, the Iraqi military was seriously in trouble -- virtually non-existant. At that time, there were a few local Iraqi pro-democracy, groups who banded together, got ahold of some Iraqi military weaponry and decided to mount a coup. By all accounts they would have easily succeded, even without US help.
Do you know what the US did?
We said 'no' and took their weapons away.
Now, ask yourself 'why?'
The reason is, we don't want a democracy in Iraq. We don't want the people voting and deciding how to sell their oil and who is going to profit from it. We want that decision making power in the hands of a ruthless thug who will kill anybody who gets in his way. We want that power in the hands of someone who would 'gas his own people'.

The embargos on Iraq over the last 12 years have accomplished the same thing. They have weakened the people, while making Saddam and the Iraqi army stronger, wealthier and more dominant. This is not 'liberal' crap; this is real, acknowledged fact.

There is so much talk about him 'gassing the Kurds -- his own people'. 'What kind of a leader would gas his own people?!?'
Well, let's open the history book and see how the US reacted when he did it. We encouraged him! He was our bully, then. He was putting down his own people to keep control of US oil interests. That's fine...until he decides he wants a little oil for himself...then he's a thug who 'gasses his own people.'

The hypocricy...the ignorance...the blinding arrogance...astounding.

So, is Saddam Hussein a 'gangster'...if by that you mean a murderous thug, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
Did we have a problem with it when he was doing it for us? No.
Should we help the local population (who, contrary to popular US belief, actually doesn't really like him) overthrow him? Only under three conditions.
1) they ask for help
2) it is under the guidance of the UN
3) ulitmately a real democratic gov't is built

Minus anyone of those three things and the US is just as much a rogue state as Iraq, and George II is just as much a bully as Saddam Hussein.

mobrul

That was very interesting, mobrul, and agree with most of what you said. The problem lies here: We don't need Iraq for oil. We have much cheaper sources for oil... not mention we have the largest oil reserve in the world. Oil is one of the main points of conflict between us and them, but it is not chief.

You forget the fact that Saddam is manufacturing biological weapons. I know where you'd say, "So what?" Because not only does the United States have bio-weapons but so does virtually every other country. It's about power. It's about who's in charge of what and why. It's about money, oil, and the power dance.

I hate anyone who says they want peace but are disturbed by war. You must have war to establish peace. Those who are pro-peace and anti-war... "the hypocrisy...the ignorance...the blinding arrogance..." it's "astounding."

The problem with Americans today is that they lack the intelligence, nationalism, and faith in our leader. Why do most Americans distrust George Bush, Jr.? (It's not George Bush I/II... America is not Britain... and we're certainly not an empire.) Because he comes from an incredibly wealthy family, his father was the former president, and he has connections in the oil industry. People attribute the crash of the largest corporations in the world to Bush, Jr. because of his connections with that industry. It's an irrational and stupid way to think.

It's also irrational to even compare George Bush, Sr. and George Bush, Jr. They are two completely different people. "Like father, like son" is no longer applicable to the modern world... atleast... generally speaking.

In the ideal (dream) world, peace can exist without war. The ideal (dream) president would be a Good King Wenceslas with no flaws. IT CANNOT BE THAT WAY. GET OVER IT! Why? Because we're human. When humans cease to exist and artificial intelligence takes over the world... only then would there be the possibility of an ideal world. Nobody is perfect.

Oh and... mobrul... You're not a liberal in the sense I was thinking of... The liberals I know of all hang out at http://www.churchofvirus.com/bbs/ and use big words like memetic, etc. and dream up ideal governments and ideal philosophies. Aside from that, a liberal will never win the Presidential Election.

quote:

---

Currently, we are most definately following path #1. All patriotic stances aside, we are a bully. One can argue we do lots of great things in the world (absolutely true) and one could argue a lot of countries act as bullies from time to time (again, absolutely true), but neither of these arguements is to the point. In fact, they only exist to hide the point. The point is, just to repeat, we are bullies. We (The United States) often encourages war rather than do our best to stop it.

---

It's impossible to lay blame at any one source. I say it's everyone's fault for being alive. Eh? If you cannot enjoy life that was given to you as a gift, then give the present back to someone who needs it. In other words, donate to a charity (not the Red Cross... they're worse than the IRS). The best charity to donate to is either a children's charity or a disabled veterans charity.

I'm getting off-topic here. Latas...

quote:

---

...and this is my favorite "the liberals are expanding." Instead of a tirade on the fact that our country was founded by liberals, I'll just say I'm most certainly a liberal, and I'm most definately not expanding. I've weighed roughly the same for about 8 yrs now.

---

Now this quote is MY favorite. Take a long look at Ted Kennedy. What do you see?

I think we(USA) should just make a choice and stand by it. Don't be a peacekeeper when we have obvious interests in an ally(Isreal & Palistine) Either stand by our ally or don't be an ally with them. Stop trying to be friends with people you don't really want to be friends with. Time after time we'll go into a country remove the current government and replace it with another government that we'll remove in another five or ten years. If we want the place run the right way we should run it ourselves. Depose the current government and take over. Thats the way it worked in Medival times. You walked in killed everybody and took the land. Wars should work BraveHeart Style too. One, maybe two big battles and there aren't enough able bodied people left to fight anymore. I'm just tired of all of this ridiculous attempt to mediate a situation that we don't REALLY want to mediate. Let Isreal and Palistine destroy each other(or watch Isreal level Palistine in any case). Finish Saddam like we should have during Desert Storm. If we don't want something from the country or we aren't joining an ally I think we should stay out of it. If we truly gain security from offing Saddam... go for it. If we gain nothing... stay out of it. Nice, Simple, Clean cut ideas that always work. Screw world politics. We're allies with our allies for a reason. Take a stand on how we deal with our allies. Most of what's going on in the world wouldn't be if we said "We will militarily support our allies without question, Always, Without fail." Do you really think Palistine would ba attacking Isreal if the USofA was holding that card and everybody knew it? As it stands now nobody knows what the USA will do so they take the chance and perpetuate the violence. It should be policy to adhere to our allies. That's what being an ally means. I understand this was meant to be a "Do we invade Iraq" issue but I think it's intertwined with the Isreali/Palistinian issue as far as the US deals in world politics. It was a good example N-E-Way.

GrythusDraconis

quote:

---

If we don't want something from the country or we aren't joining an ally I think we should stay out of it. If we truly gain security from offing Saddam... go for it. If we gain nothing... stay out of it.

---

And we'll know what our gains and losses are beforehand how?

quote:

---

Screw world politics. We're allies with our allies for a reason. Take a stand on how we deal with our allies. Most of what's going on in the world wouldn't be if we said "We will militarily support our allies without question, Always, Without fail." Do you really think Palistine would ba attacking Isreal if the USofA was holding that card and everybody knew it? As it stands now nobody knows what the USA will do so they take the chance and perpetuate the violence. It should be policy to adhere to our allies. That's what being an ally means.

---

No, I am sorry. That's not how it works.

Though some of the things said by GrythyusDraconis do have a basis in reality (being consistent, for one, on foriegn policy, one of the US' weakest areas), it is hardly realistic to suggest that America should start invading (and thereby conquering and assimilating) lands because where does it then end? With the whole world? I'm sorry, but I just don't support that. Yes, it may seem like the 'easy' solution, but it really wouldn't solve anything (as the imperial age showed), because nobody is happy with an invader. No, the days of conquering and world conquest are dead. This is not a solution. I would even go so far as to say, it is downright wrong. Might does not make right.

So, without that option to consider...one has to start dealing with shades of grey...and not black and white. And that is a whole lot harder, and much more complicated.

This is, of course, not helped by the changing of the American governments direction every 4-8 years, which of course then has the following effect of changing the direction of Americas foreign policy. Personally, I would like to see the Foreign policy dept. be seperated from this mess...to allow for a strong, clear, steady approach. However, I don't see this happening in the near future...

To my knowledge, WebShaman, the United States does not have a department strictly devoted to making foreign policy. These are some facts on U.S. foreign policy:

I. The Constitution and the Modern World
Compared to every other democracy, the U.S. makes its foreign policy in a cumbersome way. The framers of the Constitution, wary of impulsive decisions that could draw the country into war, built into that document a number of safeguards that have prevented tyranny, but sometimes at the cost of speed and efficiency. These safeguards frequently pit Congress against the executive branch, make it difficult to develop and implement a cohesive foreign policy, create uncertainty as to what that policy is, and give foreign governments and interest groups openings to apply pressure at many points to influence policies in their favor.

The complexity of foreign policymaking has greatly decreased with the blurring of the distinction between foreign and domestic issues. More and more the two overlap as a consequence of global economic interdependence. U.S. tax policy and business regulation is domestic, but it affects American manufacturers' costs of doing business and the competitiveness of their products. American labor laws affect the number of workers hired and the number of jobs available in the U.S. and at what cost. In fact, almost every law relating to business or labor or farmers also has an impact on American foreign trade. This, in turn, affects our diplomatic and military positions.

Finally, developments that the framers could not have foreseen have added to the complexity of policymaking. These include the growth in the outreach and influence of information technology (the Internet, global communications, etc.), political organizations, and special-interest groups.


II. The President and Congress
The President is most responsible for the foreign policy of the United States. The Constitution divides power, as you know, between three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, and gives each some power to check or block the others. Although there are some restraints that can be used by Congress, our system clearly gives the authority to manage America's foreign relations and military defense to the chief executive - the only nationally elected official.

The President's foreign policy powers under the Constitution are few and restricted. He serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces; appoints ambassadors and other public ministers, with the consent of the Senate; and makes treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators approve.

Democratic nations usually require civilian supremacy over the military because elected representatives are more likely to pursue national goals, in the light of long-term considerations and overall domestic factors. The military, on the other hand, are more inclined to focus on immediate results through the use of armed force (that is, after all, their job). Generals prefer to commit to combat only when there is a clear-cut objective and they have sufficient force to do the job quickly.

Realizing this, the framers designated the President to be the supreme commander of the armed forces. As such, he is responsible for selecting top command officers and for determining the missions for each branch of service. Naturally, the President delegates most of these tasks to subordinates in the Department of Defense. Yet here, too, he must share power with Congress, which must approve top commanders and has the authority to decide on each year's defense budget.

Although the President commands the military forces, the power to declare war rests with Congress (which has only exercised this right five times in our history, always in response to a presidential request). WW II was the last official "war" which illustrates the changes in the nature of international conflict.

The framers deliberately made treaty-making difficult so that the country could not enter into alliances lightly (due to fear of "entangling foreign alliances" that might lead to war). The difficulty of convincing two-thirds of the Senate to consent to controversial treaties has prompted most presidents to substitute "executive agreements" with other countries for treaties. Although lacking the same binding legal force as treaties, most "deals" between the U.S. and foreign leaders today take the form of executive agreements.

Conducting effective foreign relations require one voice, a degree of secrecy, and sometimes swift decisions; a single person better handles such decisions, partly because he - unlike Congress - has the necessary staff and information at his command. Information reports on events in other states are received by the State Department from nearly 25,000 people at 250 embassies and consulates, and a vast amount of information is collected from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The White House staff (National Security Advisor, et al) assists the President in making decisions by sifting and analyzing this data.

Since the Vietnam War, however, Congress has become more assertive in foreign affairs, partly in reaction to what Congress saw as the executive's abuse of military power (in Vietnam and C*****n's many interventions), and partly due to the fact that money has become more important in carrying out foreign policy - and Congress controls the money. This constitutional authority of Congress to tax and control government spending - the "power of the purse" - is its most important. Although the President cannot spend money not authorized by Congress, he has always been granted some latitude for emergencies.

The President also has two additional informal but influential powers in foreign affairs. One of these is the ability to determine the national agenda - to bring issues to the forefront of public attention and concern. The other - perhaps his most important - is the power to commit the nation to a particular course of action diplomatically. Once he does so, it can be extremely difficult (or dangerous) for the President's opponents to alter that course (e.g. Cold War containment, Persian Gulf access and stability, protection of Taiwan, a strategic defense system, etc.).

-- This is an excerpt from Dr. Newbrough's manuscript, "America & The World: Essentials of Foreign Policy." (Chapter Six, Sections I/II) --

No-no-no You misunderstood my intended statement, WS. We DON'T wish to be a dictator or a conquerer. That's my point. Quit stirring things up more then they are hoping for a "Good" government to show up on the flip side of the coin when it lands. Conquer and Rule wasn't my intended meaning at all that would be wrong and savage.

As far as knowing what our gains/losses are before hand... How do we know now what our gains and losses are before we take any sort of action now? We look back on the past actions of similar thought and tally the results. As of most recent count I don't think we have a very good track record as far as saving actual people in the places we've tried to help. We remove one gov'mt and replace it with another that we'll try, and probably succeed, in replacing in 5-10 years. it's a cycle that needs to stop.

Would you mind explaining to me why "that's not how it works" Ramsey? I need a few qualifiers as to why it doesn't work that way. It's hardly an arguement if you have no reasons. It's like saying "Because" all the time.

Basically I look at it this way. An ally is a friend... A true, through and through friend. If your friend asks for help, you give it to them. If they piss you off you tell them so. I fthey continue to piss you off you stop associating with them as much until soon... they aren't your friend anymore because they obviously didn't value your friendship enough to look at what they were doing that was pissing you off. Does that make any more sense to you? Politics is a world of feints, thrusts and ripostes that never really finish anything because nothing is real. Everything moves on assumptions. it's all an attempt to outmaneuver someone and fooling yourself into thinking you got a victory in there somewhere.

BTW: Yes, my name is slightly different... I mis-keyed it last time.

GrythusDraconis

You're really out there, huh?

quote:

---

As far as knowing what our gains/losses are before hand... How do we know now what our gains and losses are before we take any sort of action now? We look back on the past actions of similar thought and tally the results. As of most recent count I don't think we have a very good track record as far as saving actual people in the places we've tried to help. We remove one gov'mt and replace it with another that we'll try, and probably succeed, in replacing in 5-10 years. it's a cycle that needs to stop.

---

Life is about trial-and-error. It's a cycle that will never stop unless some eerie phenomenon destroys all life in the galaxy. There is no way to know the future. Omniscience is impossible. In reality, the United States has a very good "track record" in terms of saving lives. We also have economic prosperity to finance any operation deemed necessary to our means to correct life's errors. There's one thing that everyone forgets when they lay blame to another: the biggest mistake ever made was the creation of humans. Don't get me wrong, I'm a dutiful humanitarian, but I understand that fault is typically inherent.

Secondly, the United States of America is a government and a government is a business without the usual civilian business hassle. Therefore, the following definition of what is an "alliance" is applicable to foreign policy: http://www.alliancestrategy.com/MainPages/PDFs/AlliancesDefinition129.PDF

Another term that can be used instead of "alliance" is "bloc" as in "the communist bloc." A bloc (or alliance) is an alliance of people, nations, or organizations working together to achieve some legislative or political goal. Coalition, union, league, federation, confederacy, assembly, association, society, and guild are all synonymous with alliance and bloc.

I imagine that you are the kind of person who wants an international government to replace the current anarchy but you also don't want each country to meddle in the others' affairs. Hypocritical? Yes. If you're not, then I apologize.



[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 08-02-2002).]

Now, just how am I supposed to take this then

quote:

---

. If we want the place run the right way we should run it ourselves. Depose the current government and take over. Thats the way it worked in Medival times. You walked in killed everybody and took the land. Wars should work BraveHeart Style too. One, maybe two big battles and there aren't enough able bodied people left to fight anymore. I'm just tired of all of this ridiculous attempt to mediate a situation that we don't REALLY want to mediate. Let Isreal and Palistine destroy each other(or watch Isreal level Palistine in any case). Finish Saddam like we should have during Desert Storm. If we don't want something from the country or we aren't joining an ally I think we should stay out of it. If we truly gain security from offing Saddam... go for it. If we gain nothing... stay out of it. Nice, Simple, Clean cut ideas that always work. Screw world politics.

---

GrythusDraconis? I don't think that it was a case of misunderstanding, but of you poorly wording your intend and opinion.

And that is exactly the problem in world politics and foriegn affairs (misunderstandings). That's why it is a world of grays, and not black and white.

@ramsaydesigns - you don't need to inform me of the intelligence community...I used to work for them in the information gathering area.
And yes, there is a dept. for Foreign affairs...and in some instances, America has had long-running, consistent foreign policy (cuba comes to mind). More to the point, is establishing a consistent, steady approach to the world. Americas ever-changing 'face' causes a lot of turmoil and scepsis in the political arena. This could (and should, for the most part) be avoided. Unfortunately, the world is an ever-changing place (politically), requiring new 'solutions' to old problems. It's all about national interest. This must be understood.

I for one, do think that a global government has it's uses. I would very much like to see the powers of the UN increased. But this will probably not occur for some time. Most of the developed countries are against this (and they are on the security council, for the most part). Until Global interest is put before National interests, there will continue to be tension between countries of the world.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that this would solve all the problems that we have. However, it would go a long way toward establishing an environment where most problems could be dealt with without resorting to the threat (or actual use) of force.

Life is about trial and aerror... Hmmm... sound like what I said. The cycle I spoke of had nothing to about learning how to deal with life. The cycle I spoke of was removing governments and helping one get into place that we would be removing in 5-10 years.

You're really very good at pulling apart the bit of information you want to see.

No, I don't want an International government but I don't think I'd die if one was put into place either. I also wouldn't other countries meddling in each others affairs. Hypocritical? Yes. Unreal? Yes. You needn't apologize for calling me a hypocrite. I am. And so is most everyone else. All a hypocrite is is someone who wants more than they can have. Of course, knowing that just means that I'd rather settle for something better than what is around right now.

You're right WS. I did poorly word my opinion. But thanks for using that to furthur your arguement. I agree with your statement about the UN needing more power to do its job. Global interest is something that's very hard to come by. I don't really expect to see a world unified by a common enemy or realizing that we aren't alone in the universe(s) which seems to be the only way it ever happens in movies. So how do we get there in reality?

To get back to the issue; I've decided in my opinion that going after Saddam would be pointless. Going after his munitions plants and labs might be a better choice. Since that's what bother us most about him in the first place. Saddam is just a man. If we take him out specifically then we'll get some other man who will have the same bombs and biologics that Saddam had. Unfortunately that means we have to go in and occupy the area until we find them all. Whilst my point of view on war makes me seem like an ass I don't really want or like it in any way. So to refresh my memory... we're going after Saddam because he's a potential threat? Isn't that pretty close to first striking everyone who could hurt us ad happens to ahve a gripe with the US? Where does that stop(To quote WS)? It sounds like that puts us right where WS thought I was trying to go.


GrythusDraconis

Draconis: Life is about trial-and-error and so is politics. (e.g. remove government, establish new government, result is bad, try, try again)

Shouldn't we perhaps let the people decide who should govern them? What right do we have to tell them who can and can't govern them? We should let them decide how they want to be governed and by who. If the people decide that they don't want to be dictated to be their government they'll take care of it. If they refuse to take a chance and stand for their beliefs, I have a hard time supporting the United States doing it for them. They still won't get anywhere because they don't have the convictions to succeed on their own. They need to be proud of what they've earned. As it is now they have no pride in anything because they've had little to nothing to do with the removal/replacement procedure. Revolution is a good thing when it's necessary. Revolution promots change and growth. Revolution is also an internal issue. A struggle for the greater good of the people involved. We're never letting the people of these countries get to that point of necessity where they choose to revolt and change things in their country for the better. We change it for them and they never get anywhere, things rarely change, and we end up dictating to them who is allowed to rule them. We're helping them stagnate and I think that's one of the worst things we can do.

GrythusDraconis

Sorry about that last post if you saw it. I just had to walk a long ways because my ride disappeared...

I'll let WebShaman answer you, Draconis, since he was in intelligence. If I answer you, I'll end up insulting you and starting a flame war... then this thread will burst into flames and the moderators will lock it to contain the blaze....

[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 08-03-2002).]

Well. GrythusDraconis that's an interesting point that you raise...and one that deserves to be investigated.

quote:

---

Shouldn't we perhaps let the people decide who should govern them?

---

Ok, let's deal with the question for a moment - we are talking about the Iraqi citizens here, right? Now, I take it, they have many things in common with just about all human beings, in that they do wish to have a better future, and better living conditions, esp. for their children. However, their country is shot to hell, living conditions are miserable (most are only thinking about surviving today, and that is hard enough, without thinking about tomorrow...), the countries infra-strukture is pretty much non-existent...

So how do you suggest that someone 'poll' them for what kind of Government that they want? Hell, they'd take anything that offered jobs, money, and food. It's only when someone has a relative amount of security, wealth, and prosperity that one begins to 'long' for more...this is all based on the 'needs pyramid', you know, that thing you learned in basic psychology...or are you suggesting an 'armed revolt'? Then you are asking a people to somehow arm themselves (with who's help? Even the Americans didn't 'do it alone'...we had help from the French...), get organized, and somehow topple Saddam from his throne...get real. This is an example of a dictator, who has a very tight control on everything. He's got spies everywhere, and the military at his disposal. And he has no qualms with 'eliminating' threats to his reign...as he has showed, time and again. But most importantly, he controls information. And because the US has before 'suggested' such an action (and even supported it, for awhile, before dropping the thing like a hot potato), it is hardly likely that anyone there would be stupid enough to trust the Americans again. So who's going to do it? The UN? Well, they are not 'allowed' to do such things...so somebody will have to do it, but without the help of the UN...

To be blunt - the 'easy' way, if you will, is to just get rid of Saddam...and give the people time to get back on their feet, improve living conditions, etc. with a provisional government, supported by UN Peacekeepers. Then one could have local elections, whatever. One must keep in mind, that Iraq does have substantial reserves of oil, which can be readily turned into currency...with a solid start, Iraq could get back on it's feet again in a relatively small amount of time.

Ramsey -

No, I didn't see the post but it makes me wonder what you thought was so terrible about it. And secondly... I don't join fire fights. They're pointless. I would've just let you dish it out. you'd have lost your voice soon enough.

WS -

I didn't mean we should 'poll' the people for what they wanted. I meant they should decide for themselves, on their own. Your proposition of the US getting help is true. We did get help. We even asked for it. What I want to see is the people to take initiative, not for us to cram Democracy down their throats. They want Saddam gone. Very good, we can do that for them. They want a benevolent ruler/president/ whatever they want. Well... we refuse to rule them because we don't want to appear the conqueror. This is where they need to have some drive all on their own. They have to want it badly enough to work at it after we fix it for them. I still think the best way for that to happen is for them to initiate everything. That shows that they are going to try and keep what we're trying to help them get.

My issue with the provisional governments that are set up is that they always seem to be the governments that take over and get replaced later on. We need to pay attention to the quality of the provisional government. We can't keep just replacing governments all the time. Eventually we're going to run into a government structure that the people like and that ruler might not like us any more than Saddam does. So what do we do then? We can't site the suffering of the people as our reason for going after him then. It just becomes war. As of right now, I don't see any vested interest based on the people of Iraq. They have plenty of interest in seeing him taken out, mind you, but they aren't turning that interest into action. Even if the only action they take is to ask for help. That'd be the first step in their revolution. Not all revolutions are fought by those who want the revolution to happen. But revolutions are always fought for an ideal that someone within the country wants. Not what we want for them. That's just a war against their government. They need to make the first move or they'll end up depending on the US or the UN or whoever's name this happens under. In short, we get a spoiled brat of a country that is used to things being done for them and given to them.

GrythusDraconis

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-05-2002).]

One thing that many people (e.g. the general population of the United States of America) don't realize is that America is not ABLE to attack Iraq any time soon. Why? Because we've used up all of our bombs in Afghanistan. Defense companies like Raytheon and DRS Technologies are getting BIG contracts for more Jadam (1000lbs.) bombs and the newest bomb "Dial-A-Bomb." It'll be at least a year before we see any action taken by the U.S.

Also, there are some folks who think that assassinating Saddam is a breach of foreign policy. This is untrue. The presidential directive banning assassinations issued in 1976 by President Gerald Ford applies only to assassinations of private citizens. Saddam Hussein and Kadafi have a problem. They call themselves generals. In other words, they are the top general of their country and military, therefore they are not private citizens. The presidential directive banning assassinations will not apply to these two persons.

Current U.S. President George Bush's staff is complete with his father's old foreign affairs personnel. America's foreign affairs is managed by the best of the best in foreign affairs. Remember, former President George Bush was incredible with foreign affairs and was also the most experienced president we've ever had.

Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, is one of those foreign affairs people. He knows from his experiences in past wars like Vietnam that in order to win a war... you must be the nastiest bastard alive. Nice guys finish dead. You have to sledgehammer your opponent and destroy his forces in quick, heavy blows to the head. We saw this in Vietnam from former President Lyndon Johnson. We also have to know why we are fighting and what we will do when we achieve our goal. Colin Powell knows how to win wars.

I've more interesting facts but I have to go work soon. Be back later.

GrythusDraconis, though you do have some points of merit (and we are getting further and further away from the original topic here), you must keep a few things in mind. First of all, who should one ask in Iraq as to what kind of government is wanted? Because irregardless of who one asks, others will disagree.

Second, people fearing for not only their own lives, but those of their families, are not very communicative...how do you propose to 'protect' such people from retaliation for Saddam before the actual 'rebellion'?

Third, the problem with self-rule is (from an American standpoint) that it could decide not to be 'friendly' to the US...and this is a 'natural' result of national interest...as such, many 'governments' have been either a) supported by the Americans, because they give us what we want or b) disposed of, because they get in the way of what we want. Sadly, this is business as usual, not only for America, but the world at large.

Fourth, one must consider that (and I can't believe I have to say this...do some research on the region, for cryin' out loud) Iran, Iraqs neighbor, has a vested interest in Iraq...and would just love the chance to 'include' it into the Moslem faith...controlled, of course, by Iran...but as a 'seperate' nation...as it does with other lands in the region...

So as one can see, the problem is certainly not one of black and white, but one of grays, many grays...where the margin to err is great. Because of this, it is often easier (and quicker) to use military force. Whether or not that is the best way, is a relatively moot question here. It is simply the most efficient. Blast Saddam away, get the Un to set up a 'provisional' government, and it's business as usual in the world...not meaning that it is right, or just.

Here an interesting link http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13749 - though not everything in the article I agree with, it's not totally inaccurate...


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 08-06-2002).]

And a rebellion it would be for the Iraqi people for rebellions are crushed and revolutions succeed. I'm having a moment here... um...

The question is made so that we would help ourselves to understand. The question is not made in order for us to merely say what is right and what is wrong; it is the question that blinds us and it is the question that lets us see clearly. We must find answers to the question stated in the first post and in the topic in order to help us understand the decisions of the world for it is unlikely that any of our mere opinions will have a real effect on others' decisions.

Is that clear?

A question is for understanding that which is questioned not for "questioning" the act that which is done by another.

I say yes .. only because we should have finished what we started .. he is only creating more and more tension in the area


Click on the Image to go to the Recycling Center .::. cEll .::. 513

Well, in my personal opinion, we should leave Iraq be for the present time. I hate to say this, but Dubya's getting just a little bit too gung-ho for my liking. He goes on about a preemptive (pardon the spelling if it's wrong) strike to usurp Saddam Hussein from power. He is completely disregarding the political and social-economic consequences that this will have on the Middle East and indeed, the entire world.

If the US attacks Iraq when the majority votes against such action, does that not make the US a greater threat? Everyone goes on about how good the US is, and then they try to pull a foolish action such as this. True, not all Americans agree with Bush's view of things, but it is their country and their elected government. They should have a say on what their country commits to. Is the world really prepared for another Gulf War?

it's simple.
Saddam is contractually obligated to not have certain weapons, due to the terms of the gulf war when we beat his ass.

If he has these weapons now and won't let us dismantle them, then we'll have to beat his ass again and most likely remove him from power.

Only problem I have is that no proof has been shown to us or anyone else that he actually is harboring these weapons.

If we get proof, cool, do it. If not, no way.
And none of that post-war "evidence".
No one can believe that crap anyway.

Now here is an interesting one - there seems to be an assumption that if the US (and hangers on like the UK) attack Iraq that they would win but this could be a fatal assumption:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,787017,00.html

The US seems to be gearing up for a straight toe-to-toe fight with Iraq but that is certainly not the kind of war they got in the war games mentioned above and it certainly wouldn't be the way I (as an armchair general) would fight it. Iraq knows it would loose a conventional battle but it can fight two different kinds of war:

1. A hit and run war on the American supply lines - truck bombs, suicide bombers, small planes loaded with explosives all hitting bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. and the fleet as well as strikes across the US and Europe (technically he doesn't even have to co-ordinate these efforts as events of nearly a year ago proves there are people ready to do that anyway).

2. A psychological war gragging the whole of the Middle East to Hell with him. Saudia Arabia is on a knife edge (one of the reasons the US want another oil-rich country in their back pocket) and other countries like Egypt aren't far behind (I think it was an Egyptian minister who said the other day that a war would 'open the gates of hell'). One anthrax laden Scud landing in Israel would probably prompt a nuclear retaliation and you would find a lot of people in the Moslem world taking a more militant stance than before.

Of course it is possible for the US to take out Saddam but the world is a different place to what is was when the Gulf War took place. If you go in without some kine of UN agreement then the psychological war will be far worse - if they go in without expecting a dirty war then they might win but the losses will be huge.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

hmmmmmz...........

nope.... well not until u can provide some hard evidence.

americans are wierd. what i find ammusing is that america does go about bullying people and then when they get a reaction everyone is like "OMG WHY DID THAT HAPPEN"
thus the saying what goes around comes around, spin shit an it will come back to you.
aside from that, i have sore pecks! heeeeelp..........

Well your points are certainly well researched and valid StickyFinguz.

I'm proud of all the effort you put into those points and counterpoints you just listed.

Oh wait... i'm sorry.... that wasn't you at all.
And I was being sickeningly sarcastic.

But please go ahead and be an Osama-apologist.
Doesn't bother me.
Living in your socialist, crime-ridden, freedom-bereft, greenpeace Australia is punishment enough, I'm sure.

<shakes head, sadly>

I'm not going to pollute this thread with a bunch of facts, since they would be lost in the allegations and generalizations.
I'm not going to attack anyone, directly, since clearly we're all much more interested in side-stepping the ideas and turning directly to personal conflict.
I'm not going to follow the above rules.

genis, first off, I need to spend a moment taking apart your character, as it's clearly in desperate need of some glue -- even your ideas fall apart when collected under a header such as this:

quote:

---

But please go ahead and be an Osama-apologist.
Doesn't bother me.
Living in your socialist, crime-ridden, freedom-bereft, greenpeace Australia is punishment enough, I'm sure.

---

I've heard Dear Abbey columns that were better researched. I think it might be time for you to take a step out of Dallas and look at the rest of the world for a few minutes -- really, it does exist. It's frightful that our current dicta...president came from your backwards state. I am suddenly no longer surprised that we are going trigger-happy with the lives of the rest of the world.

After all, those bastards needed a'killin'. That's a legal defense over there in Tay-hah, right?

Now, taking a step back from the character assassination #1, we'll turn to the focus the above quoted material (for the Texans in the audience, it's the part right before, "I've heard Dear Abbey," and right after, "header such as this:").

We are speaking about a possible massacre in Iraq, right? And Captain Bush is trying to pull this all under the "WE'RE BEING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS SO GET YOUR GUNS AND DRINK A LOT OF FUCKING COFFEE AND SHOOT AT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT THREATEN OUR SUPERPOWER REGIME AND/OR LOOK DIFFERENT FROM US," Presidential Seal, correct? Alright. So, when does the public get our grubby, clearly-too-stupid little hands on the evidence that Bush has collected? (Side note: I wouldn't trust Bush to Collect All Four toys from a McDonald's Happy Meal drive) Even if we were to finally see this mythical data, at what point did we appoint ourselves (as no one else would) to the rank of Uber-Soldat in charge of keeping everyone under us subservient? I missed that memo. Maybe you could fax it to me? I'll be in the bomb shelter.

This war wouldn't be about facts any more than the last one we fought was. It's about oil. It's about people with towels on their heads getting rowdy with the rowdiest fuckin' bully on the block. It's about a bunch of rich white people getting together to pick a new enemy, since the last one (Russia) became too friendly. It's about giving Americans something to talk about beyond the weather which is positively depressing.

Eek. I can't leave the assassination there, genis. You mentioned the contracts that Iraq had to sign after the Gulf War. When will we learn that incredibly-punitive reparations lead to more wars? Someone didn't read their history books. I'll point you to the Treaty of Versailles. Don't stop there, follow it for a couple years. Nod and say thank you.

RammStein makes a very interesting point. He says that we should go ahead and kill some more civilians because, "...we should have finished what we started." Awww, haven't you ever started a .PSD and never actually completed the damn thing because you realized you were trying to use Photoshop to improve your sex life? Surely you have. Surely you have also recognized that the two things (a sex life, and photoshop) have absolutely nothing to do with eachother, right? In this case, the metaphor is solid: killing civilians in Iraq has nothing to do with keeping America safe from terrorists...or completing what we started, for that matter. That was a previous Bush Regime. Read up on it--he was beaten soundly in '92 because no one in America supports an over-zealous war-monger.

WebShaman also graces us with a few pearls of wisdom. He mentions that this regime-change in Iraq (something I suggest for ourselves, but I keep getting guns shoved in my face) has a possible side-effect of "[not being] 'friendly' to the US." We cherish remarks like these, because they remind Us why We don't like listening to Rush Limbaugh. Remember how we used to vote for presidents? Man, things are tough all over for the heartless regimes of America. Next, we'll think our votes actually count!

Suddenly, from the darkness of night, ramsaydesigns tells us that America cannot attack Iraq right now because we "used up all of our bombs in Afghanistan." Allow me to sit back and giggle for about twenty minutes. When I'm finished there, I'll tell you about how many bombs we actually have, and if we had used them all, Afghanistan would be a glass parking lot.

<giggles>

Alright, I'm done. Wait, no I'm not! Not after reading this gem: "...former President George Bush was incredible with foreign affairs and was also the most experienced president we've ever had." Call me when FDR rolls over, vomits, and then comes back to kick your ass. He'll be seriously upset to note he's been pushed down the totem pole to below the man that threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister.

Oh, I could go on, but I need to get back to my drinking. The world is going to hell, but at least now I know who is goading it on.

s t e p h e n

[This message has been edited by twItch^ (edited 09-07-2002).]

Oh what... are you trying to say I just listed an opinion without stating any fact or research whatsoever to back up that opinion?

OMG how adept of you.

I wish someone would get the irony.... anybody at all get the irony and sarcasm???!!!

I mean, I WAS replying to someone who just gave as a ridiculous response about my country as I just did about theirs.... I mean... HELLOOOOO.... HELLOOOOOOO!!!

<shakes head, sadly>

But then after your personal attack on my state (and president, and also backed up with no facts) you went into the actual subject.
In which you blabbed about reparations... <giggles> (<-- oh by the way with all these reutterances of your own words in your post... I'm making fun of you.... had to point that out... you're not exactly the most astute individual.)

reparations my ass!
What? Like we're a bunch of carpet baggers, marching into Baghdad claiming Iraqi merchandise for ourselves? Only thing we took was their bombs, and then we dismantled them.
I think you're thinking of economic sanctions.... its what we put on all fucking countries that don't play nice.
You seem to remember Russia not playing nice.... it's what we did to them.
It's how we won the Cold War for fuck's sake!

Did that lead to another war? Hell no, it stopped the biggest war there ever would've been.
Have these economic sanctions caused another war?
nope, only rebellion amongst the Iraqi citizens, which was their intent.

I don't know what history books you're reading, biggin, but they must have the horrible stank of an angle.
Not the best facet for a history book to have. (and they say the winners write the history books.)

Your passion for history facts amaze me, because then you say Bush (41) lost in '92 because no one likes an overzealous war-monger! HAHAHAHA.... oh man... do you live in this country ???
We love over-zealous war-mongers as long as the work for us.
Bush was beaten in '92 because
1.) he was a liar - said he wouldn't raise taxes.... but he did
2.) he signed the brady bill - this is only the most restrictive measure to the 2nd Amendment EVER. And Bush was a LIFE-MEMBER of the fucking NRA (who kicked him out and rightly so).
3.) Ross Perot was on the ticket - This guy got all the NRA supporters (6million members + non-member supporters) plus he got the ultra-conservative vote... he took a substantial share.
4.) We were in a recession - This combined with tax hikes will unseat any incumbent president. Hands down.

HOLY FUCK, could I go on and on, but apparently your stupidity knows no bounds.
Attacking me with no apparent reason other than my attack on an Osama-apologist has got to rank up there as one of the dumbest posts of all time.

Amazing.... simply amazing.

*Gets out popcorn*...ohboy...Genis...you're kinda new around here...and so, you don't know twItch^...

*Grins*...maybe he will actually reply...been a long time since he's done that...the first post here is just a taste...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-07-2002).]

don't mind me.... i'm just a "passer-by"...

but um... we've got a bomb or two "left over" from that afghanistan incident.


-that's all.
-go back to chattering about nonsense and not listening to each other.

*pulls out little black book*
... anyone want a piece of this?

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

it's genis..... come on... g-e-n-i-s .... you spelled twitch^ right.... yeesh.

Living outside of America gives me a slightly oblique angle on this entire saga.

Genis, you really need to wake the fuck up and stop believing that it's your countries right to govern the world. There's been a bunch of polls about this very subject the world over (that's outside of America btw) and the reason why no one has blindly offered support for America in this is becaue they're so not in your favour. Well, except for Australia, cause our sorry excuse for a Prime Minister is only still in power because of the media coverage surrounding him about September 11 last year. Thus he thinks by continuing this he will continue to cast a shadow on any other political matters in this country and steal the press away from the real shit that's happening over here. The really sad part about this is that it'll work too.

Leading up to 9.11 the polls were showing him to be in a dismal political position. Post 9.11 they almost reverses themselves. Why? Because all of a sudden there was a new enemy to parade to the people and he knew he could hide his true self behind the propaganda and appear to be a hero for doing little more than kissing bush's ass.

64% of Australians don't want to support America in this. Given the huge amount of sympathy flowing towards the US lately even I was surprised to find the figures this one sided. Maybe there is hope left for humanity after all. Still, doesn't it make you want to stop and ask why the support from the people outside your borders is failing?

Oh and getting shitty about people miss spelling your handle comes across as really pertinacious. It happens all the time, get use to it already.

quote:

---

Genis, you really need to wake the fuck up and stop believing that it's your countries right to govern the world.

---

Did I say that?

Hmm, nope.
Don't know where you got that shit from Dragsis.

genis, it's not about what you say, its what can and will be inferred from your posts

edit: and for the record, no offense genis, but you haven't been here but a week or too, and already your ethnocentricly judging people left and right, reminds me a lot of ramsaydesigns who ended up leaving the asylum after a very short mounth of what you seem to be doing

word of the wise

watch your fucking mouth before you end up like me

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 09-09-2002).]

seems to me he's making some good points in a rather arrogant way, he fits in just fine around here I think.

a big chunk of successful living can be carved out for anyone that wants to filter through the arrogance and trash talk of a different perspective and take something from it. everyone's got something to offer man, even you insider, yep.

Jason

I can't see how I have come off arrogant, however I might come off conceited.
Because I am. In this particular topic anyhow, after reading some of these rants.

But i swear... it's only because some opinions expressed in here are espoused by utter morons.

(<-- HA! Now THAT was arrogant! )

Oh yeah, I forgot to make fun of Insider... hoo boy!

quote:

---

genis, it's not about what you say, its what can and will be inferred from your posts.

---

If you are referring to how many in this forum dislike you Insider, it isn't because of what they infer about your character from your posts, it is because of what you say in your posts.

Your sadly overbearing tone I always consider secondary to any good content in your post.
Unfortunately, you rely heavily on your tone to speak for you, rather than any sort of point.
And it doesn't seem to be working.



[This message has been edited by genis (edited 09-09-2002).]

hmmmmmmmm (interesting thead btw... for a change)

what about the bigger picture?

Ozone problems (as in atmosphere), the Aids epidemic, starving children , anon , et al? heh

~sigh~

If Isreal, a nation known for launching pre-emptive attacks, isn't worried about Saddam why should the United States be? If Saddam doesn't have the ability to launch nuclear weapons at US targets and if the likelyhood of him selling nuclear weapons to bin Laden are so slim, then why are we going to risk the lives of our citizens to stop this man?

Other then helping Bush win re-election, what insentive does the United States have to invade Iraq?

-Jestah
Cell 277

good point Jestah.
And as the outspoken U.N. weapons inspector Ritter (who is against another war) has said he has close ties to Israeli intelligence and says they don't believe Saddam is building large weapons factories.

I mean we do know he keeps building anti-aircraft weapons, we blow them up weekly, but large scale weapons should be the only worrisome thing.
But hey it all comes down to evidence.
We don't actually need any more to justify going in, but the public should demand it before we send our sons and daughters to war again.

Who knows what the incentive is for the US, other than preventing a bigger war in the future.
It may be a secret Israli-US deal after all, or it may be we just want to have control of two sides of Iran.

Who knows, but if there is sufficient evidence that he's close to a nuke (hell, even conventional ICBMs) I say lets turn his backyard into the surface of the moon.

As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination.
When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular.

Oscar Wilde

What difference does it make if Saddam's nuclear or close to it?

Historically speaking nuclear nations don't pose as much of a threat to us.

Besides, what evidence has been gathered against him?

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 09-09-2002).]

Historically speaking, nuclear nations were led by people as power hungry AND as terrified of nuclear war as we are in the US. I don't know that we can say the same for Saddam. Personally I think he already has nuclear capability. We seem to be focusing on his building of nukes... Why? He has enough money to buy them from anybody who's offering. They may not be good nukes. but they don't really need to be, do they? Think "Sum of All Fears". Tactical missle launches aren't the only way to deliver nukes to the US.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Haha...

My tone?

How would you know what my tone of voice is when I read this in my head as I post?

It's all about interpretation buddy...

And as far as the "infer," comment goes, I meant some people can interprete (there's that word again) from what you say.

And as for the "If you're refering to how many poeople dislike you in this forum," comment goes... Damn right, I am probably the most disliked person in this forum, but I don't care. I'm still here, giving blood, keeping faith... Or ermz, no faith I guess...

Good Luck.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Can't say I've seen Sum of All Fears, could you clearify your point please?



-Jestah
Cell 277

The basic drive of the movie is the production and shipment of a nuclear bomb to US soil. Some old, nuclear bomb off of an Isreali fighter jet was bought on the black market, rebuilt into a vending machine and put in a stadium in Baltimore, Maryland. All organized with agents that were already in place and waiting for the word to go. The whole thing is based on our focus on missle attacks and the ease with which the plan was enacted.

We are focused on Saddam's ability to create things, ICBM's and nukes and the rest. Why? Nukes aren't only missiles and he has the money to buy what he wants even if he can't/we don't allow him to make it himself.

Sorry to all those who haven't seen the movie yet.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 09-10-2002).]

Read the book...it's much better...

And in the wake of 9/11, just the more erie...

That's a Tom Clancy book right WS? The last few of his that I've read have been very disappointing. I'll hafta pick up a copy though.

September 11th was a tragedy, but try not to forget this is a movie. We can't simply invade everyone because there's the chance they *might* be trying to become nuclear. The world's a sad place when a politician (Bush) is willing to send a country to war so voters will forget about financial troubles come election time. Saddam poses no new threat to the United States then he did a decade ago.

Bush hasn't even been able to convince Republicans in Congress to support him. We'll have to wait until tomorrow when he addresses the United Nations to find out exactly what type of evidence he does have. Although I get the sinking sensation once again he's going to tell people he has evidence. He can't show anyone the evidence because it would compromise the United States but we have evidence.

Yea. I have the original Mona Lisa. I can't show it to you, but if you give me $10,000,000 in cash upfront I'll let you have it.

-Jestah
Cell 277

i havnt seen it, is it like a really pro-america patriotic movie? i hate those.
Pearl Habour would have to be the worst movie ever made

*Insert your god(s) here* forbid they make a movie based on history.

Yeah, those pro-australian films really get on my nerves, too...

Just kiddin.

Well, apart from the untrue parts...the movie wasn't all that bad...though I don't see how a film on Pearl Harbor can really be pro-american...we got caught with our pants down.

But we are getting off the topic.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_105

No problem! This thread is now completely unnecessary because "Saddam Hussein told the United Nations in a speech read Thursday by his foreign minister that Iraq is free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

That's settles it we can all stop worrying now.

Bugs: Is that a hint of sarcasm there!!

Saddam's offer is just the next move in the game (and one I think most people were expecting) - it all depends on how the US (and the UK as number one ally) play it from here.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Iraq: "You cannot prove we have these weapons."

US: "Prove you don't."

yep.

Emps, sarcasm??? Me??? Be serious

I am far more concerned about the UN than I am Iraq. The Iraq situation will be dealt with one way or the other. What really bothers me is that a letter like the one in the article is met with enthusiastic applause from the UN assembly. I am just about ready to stop calling it the United Nations and begin a small protest and from now on refer to it as the United Governments. Do you get my point?

genis pretty much sums it up

-^^-
--::--
\___/

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 09-23-2002).]

Bugs, well of course it is the United Governments.
National boundaries are only defined by those powers which control their fate.

The UN isn't really anything more than a forum for governmental sabre-rattling.
This international court is no more relevant than a court without a bailiff or officer.

Iraq has already proven its 16 or so judgments or resolutions placed upon them mean nothing if someone doesn't force them to comply.

Once a man is sentenced in a courtroom who is to stop him from saying, "fuck that. I'm outie."
Well the guy with gun of course. Be that the bailiff, the sheriff, or a real citizen.

Guess who is the bailiff of the UN?
Well that'd be US of course. The #1 super power.

Our forefathers knew we needed checks and balances and so too does the international scene.
And Saddam has been writing checks his body can't cash. (Top Gun)

Great, The US has just been likened to the UN's Bouncer. Which we were until we decided the UN wasn't doing its job. The UN no longer serves its purpose, if it ever did. Perhapr it should be known as Unity Nullified. There is no common goal within the UN anymore. If membership to the UN was based on the acceptance of the long term goals and precepts set out at the UN's instigation things would be different. There wouldn't be this petty squabbling over what should/shouldn't be done. At this point I don't think the US gains anything from being a member of the UN.

Why we're waiting for the UN to agree with our terms is beyond my understanding. There's no reason for it. If we do it on our own it'll be our fault and people will blame us. If we push the UN into agreeing with us it will be our fault and people will blame us. If the UN out and out agrees with us, we'll still be the strong man and thus it will be our fault and people will blame us. We aren't and shouldn't be worried about people's viewpoints, we're the Top Dog. We don't need the UN and its bureaucratic BS. As Genis said, sanctions mean nothing if action isn't taken to enforce them.

This should have been settled years ago at the first infringement on the rules placed on Iraq. What we need to do is stop sending in 6 weapons inspectors at a time to this place or that place. Send in 6,000 weapon inspectors to look at every location we want to examine. Put an end to this shuffling of feet and transfer of materials. It's ridiculous the things that have been allowed to slide. It needs to happen and it needs to happen now. Saddam has used weapons of mass extinction in the past and will do so again, given the chance. He has also stated that he wants to destroy America. This is a simple matter of National Defense. While I agree with how things have gone so far, I would like to see it follow the forms and structures that are in place for these actions we want to take. A Formal Declaration of War, for instance. That would at least remove the BS surrounding prisoners that are taken(if any).

The UN refuses to take action, so we will. They've left us no choice.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

*sigh*

quote:

---

We aren't and shouldn't be worried about people's viewpoints, we're the Top Dog. We don't need the UN and its bureaucratic BS.

---

WTF??

You know, it's because we are 'Top Dog' (as you put it) that we need to be specifically careful as to our actions...because all are watching. And we don't want to give the impression that we are particularly hungry as Warmongers...this sends a rather bad signal to the rest of the world. Try putting yourself in other countries shoes for a minute...and picture in your mind how you would react to such a message. Also, just blatantly ignoring the UN is also a bad idea...it just gives precedence for others to do the same...and puts us in the same boat as Iraq.

Though I can understand the fustration...and though I do have some concerns about the worth of upholding the UN resolutions, I don't feel that totally ignoring the Un is appropriate, or in our best interests. One has to keep in mind that in the 60s and 70s the US had exactly this problem with the UN, and it brought nothing but problems...the UN gives the US many advantages...and, of course, some disadvantages.

Like it or not, the world is globally linked, today moreso than ever before. It is imperative that the world have an international forum to help 'iron out' problems...even when it doesn't always work. Otherwise, the alternative is posturing, threats, and downright war...

And once again, we are getting further and further away from the original thread...

The sooner there is one government on this earth, the sooner their will be world peace. Who would one government fight? How would there be wars if there was only one government? I say we kill them all.



-^^-
--::--
\___/

My reasons for citing the UN's negligence in my last post were to support my belief that we should attack Iraq. long winded perhaps but not the intended focus of the post. The specific point of support was that this should have been done at the first infringement of the UN sanctions against Iraq. It wasn't off topic. It was just justification for my statements.

If a 'Yes' or 'No' was all that was wanted... fine. Yes, I think the US should attack Iraq. I just thought that people might want to discuss the reasons to do so or not. The fact that this would have been done long ago had the UN been enforcing its sanctions is a valid point.

The UN never enforces its sanctions, just look at the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Think about an organization that is supposed to bring about a greater good for the world when it has a country like Syria on the Security Council and a country like Sudan on the Human Rights committee. That speaks volumes about some of the fundamental problems of the organization.

...and there's another country in the UN. It's on the Security Council.
It's the only country to ever be 'convicted' by the International Court of Justice (the so-called "World Court") for unlawful aggression. When instructed to cease the unlawful aggression it ignored the World Court, and increased the aggression. It also vetoed a resolution calling for, in very general terms, "all nations to observe international law".
Being on the Security Council, it also has been the sole veto'er of various proposed resolutions more than all other vetos of all other Security Council members combined.
It continues to supply weapons (even so-called weapons of mass destruction) to countries that refuse to follow UN resolutions -- countries that practice torture, collective punishment and terrorism.

You're all right. The UN is a worthless, corrupt, powerless entity.
Why in the world would the US ever want to be a part of such an organization?

When asked point blank the other night on CNN's Crossfire what new evidence has come forward to suggest Iraq has become a greater danger then last January, that we can't wait until next January or even after after the mid-term elections to intervene, a Republican Senator admitted that he didn't know. He did assure everyone though that Pres. Bush does have evidence, no one outside of his circle has seen it though.

That pretty much sums up the entire Bush II administration. Plenty of evdience to go around. It just so happens no one has ever seen it.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, the reason much of that evidence cannot be publicized is because doing so would mean the immediate death sentence for many of the sources of that information. I understand it seems too convenient for Bush/Blair to keep much of it under wraps and I'm not saying that they don't play the propoganda game to some degree, but I wanted to make sure you knew one of the legitimate reasons for witholding that type of information from public consumption.

mobrul, being convicted by the 'World Court' does not automatically mean much. On what possible grounds can we say that it should have the final word in world affairs? Who sits on that court? What kinds of political corruption guide it? There is no such thing as a perfect authority and there *never* will be on this earth. The best we can hope for is organizations that do the right thing most of the time to remain dominant on the world scene. America, with all it's problems, stands above Syria and Sudan in that regard.

For some, what's "legal" is the highest form of morality. For others, what's "right" is. Ghandi did not do what was "legal", nor did Rosa Parks but they both did "right".

I'm not saying we always do "right" but that should be the standard for our actions and not necessarily following the dictums of some "world organization" that only knows what is "legal" without regard to "right".

legal?
right?
Even a very hawk-ish U.S. congress did not call the Contras in Nicaragua "right".

You ask, "On what possible grounds can we say that it should have the final word in world affairs?"
Well, very shortly before the World Court judgement I mentioned, the U.S. openly praised the court for ruling in the US's favor with regards to the Iran hostage crisis.
And shortly after the ruling I mentioned, the U.S. again praised the World Court and the General Assembly for its actions and decisions regarding the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and in Cambodia.
So it seems, at the time, the US was very happy with the court as a body of justice...until, that is, it ruled against torturing children, assassinating priests, raping nuns and 'disappearing' civilians in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

But, I suppose, that is the difference between 'legal' and 'right'.

[Rereading this, I notice it seems kinda harsh. Well, it is harsh.
Please don't take anything personally.
Do I write passionately? Yes.
Do I write to attack personally? No.
I hope you (Bugs, and anyone else) understand.]

Sorry Bugimus, that just isn't a good enough excuse for me. It's one thing to not be able to come public with specific sources, but it's a complete other to leave both Congress and the United Nations in the dark. If Saddam is as dangerous as the Bush administration is leading on, the evidence they present will only help in furthering a global effort to remove Saddam from power as well as give Bush the green light by both Congress and the citizens of the United States to invade. Bush maintains that this isn't about oil, which Iraq has, or elections, which are coming up. He insists its about protecting the United States. Well if thats thats the case maybe he needs to understand that there are going to be casualties in any war and as POTUS he has loyalty to the citizens of the United States, not a spy in Iraq.

Bush withholding evidence from the world is only limiting the support he's getting. When serious talk is being given to assassination attempts and sending in ground troops, the more help we can get the better.

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 09-25-2002).]

Why does there need to be 'new' evidence to support an attack on iraq? Saddam has publicly declared that he will attack and destroy the US. Isn't that evidence enough? Whether he makes his weapons or buys them, or pays a group to attack us or does it himself, he's proven himself to be a ruthless leader and willing to use chemical, biological, and mass destructive weapons. He probably has everything he needs to attack us or organize an attack against us.

This isn't an issue of proving that we should attack them now. It's an issue of trying to justify why we didn't attack them before. With everything that has happened because of the WTC disaster there may finally be enough support in congress to do what should have been done long ago, declare war on Iraq. Think about it, there may not be any more evidence to divulge nor any need to divulge it, the existing evidence is enough.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Whats to think about? He hasn't attacked us.



-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, please don't take this the wrong way but how much history have you read?

[edit]
It wouldn't have been good to leave it like that... what I mean is that if you wait for aggressors to make a move, they won't disappoint you. Hitler is an overused example but still a very good one. But you don't even need to go back that far.

Hussein attacked Iran. After that war, he attacked Kuwait. What makes you think he's done? In other words, I think the burden of proof should be more on your side to explain how someone like Hussein will be the first aggressor in human history to just decide to be nice one day.

Perhaps I'm just asking you to give a lesson from history that supports your proposal of wait an see.
[/edit]


[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-26-2002).]

Heh.

quote:

---

...explain how someone like Hussein will be the first aggressor in human history to just decide to be nice one day.

---

*Chuckles*

Man, Bugs, that was good...

Actually, you've got a good point there. Putting aside all the other reasons Mr. Bush has for what he is trying to get us into, that point is one that rings soundly.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm against war. I know what it is like, and it's just not a nice thing. Period. That aside, I do think that maybe the question of Iraq should be solved. Quite clearly, the UN resolutions (and all the 'embargos' against Iraq are just punishing the people, and not Saddam) are not having the desired result (and are largely just being ignored...or 'played' around with).

I also don't think (and according to my sources) that Saddam currently has the ability to really be a threat to the US. However, that could change, and very quickly. That he has real reasons to want to hurt the US, and as badly as possible, should be clear to any and everyone. Removing him would erase any future threat from him, that is clear. It would probably also be better for the people of Iraq, in the long run.

Now, whether or not Saddam has direct ties to Al-Quida is not clear to me. That said, it would be better to make absolutely certain that he cannot give such an organization any weapons of mass destruction...esp. not nuclear ones. And the only way to guarantee that is by removing him.

So to answer the threads original question, though I am against war, I see no other real alternative than to remove Saddam from power.

And I hate the idea that Mr. Bush is leading the charge...I know for certain that I will vote against him in the upcoming elections...


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-26-2002).]

quote

"For some, what's "legal" is the highest form of morality. For others, what's "right" is. Ghandi did not do what was "legal", nor did Rosa Parks but they both did "right"."

Not sure how to do that line thing, but ahh. Yea. Thats a good quote. I like.

Also, um yea. I am pretty sure everyone already knows this, but about 80% of Americans do not support the views of our Government.
We just support America and its general views.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Bugimus - So let me get this straight. The overwhelming evidence that your presenting is that Iraq has invaded both Iran and Kuwait, so clearly we're next? C'mon Bugimus maybe you should catch up on your own history. Does Saddam Hussein hate us? With a good majority of the world, of course. That isn't an indication that he's about to nuke us. Generally nations who have become nuclear haven't used this new found weapon to conquer the world as the Bush Administration would like us to believe. In fact it's been used for peace. As Pat Buchanan points out, what makes Saddam so evil is that he's used weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Of course gas attacks against the Kurds fails in comparassion to dropping two atom bombs, killing 140,000 Japanese. Am I mistaken in Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy stockpiling H-bombs and putting them on 15 minute alerts to drop on the Soviet Union if they coughed? Throughout WWII did we not out stockpile Germany in poisonous gas?

So where does that leave us now? The likelihood of Saddam even having nuclear weapons is slim to none. The likelihood of Saddam ever using them against the United States is almost non-existent. This entire war comes back to what people have been saying since Bush was elected. Oil and finishing his fathers work.

-Jestah
Cell 277

*Butts in...sorry Bugs*

Jestah, I don't think it is a question of Saddam 'nuking' the US...or anything else, directly. That is, namely, as far as I know (and as far as my sources are saying), not possible at the moment. However, it is possible, that Saddam could give an organization weapons of Mass Destruction, to use against the US. Such a threat as that cannot go ignored...I think the rammifications of 9-11 have showed what can happen when we let our guard down...and there are organizations that would just love to take a shot at us...and Saddam would like to, as well, esp. if he thought that he could get away with it...

Who wouldn't?

That logic just astounds me.

Why would a man who sleeps in a different bed every night, and is reported to have three doubles, risk giving nuclear weapons to a terrorist group only so it can come about that Saddam has given the nukes or other weapons of mass destruction out? Not to mention the fact that there are several countries who are nuclear and dislike us, just as much as Iraq. So does that mean it's only necessary that we burn each country to the ground and occupy them, just like we're planning to do with Iraq? In some opinions a very strong yes and I just think thats absurd. If the Bush administration took more insentive not to piss off everyone, we wouldn't need to worry about so many countries disliking us.

-Jestah
Cell 277

quote:

---

If the Bush administration took more insentive not to piss off everyone, we wouldn't need to worry about so many countries disliking us.

---

That would work Jestah if they weren't already pissed off at us. The fact is that they are pissed off at us and want retribution. They have taken retributive actions against the US and will continue to do so.

I mentioned this once before in an above post but the other nuclear nations understand the responsibility of having nuclear weapons. They care about how they are treated and used. Can you say the same about Saddam? He has proven that killing tons of people isn't an issue for him. He's proven that he doesn't really care what the consequences are for causing so many deaths. Sounds like someone that I don't want in a position to attack the US or supply those who can.

So far as I know there aren't any plans to 'occupy' Iraq. We want to change the leadership. You know, put somebody a little more stable in power. Someone who doesn't kill their own family to make sure that he stays on the throne.

If Saddam think even half like the Al Qaeda do then war is the correct course of action.

Check this out Al Quaeda Training Manual.

Now tell me that these are people that can be reasoned with. They are trained to give no quarter and to never give up unto their dying breath. Their ultimate goal is to throw off the yoke of western influence and then after that to utterly destroy the US. Even if Saddam isn't like the Al Qaeda he is harboring them and he has the ability and motive to arm them.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 09-27-2002).]

Well Jestah, you do have a point...that violence just spawns violence. That is true. Al Queda used violence, and it is spawning more. So did Saddam. I'm sure that a war in Iraq will spawn more, as well.

However, in the wake of 9-11, we have learned that with current technology, nobody is really safe, anymore. Someone with the will, can attack anybody, anywhere. They just need the will to do it, and the people to follow (and money, for training and weapons).

So let's take a look at the big picture...

After WWII, we had the cold war...which spawned all kinda of 'hot spots' in the so-called third world countries around the Globe. At that time, as the 'Big boys on the block' were positioning for a more 'favorable' position, many of these countries were used to 'duke it out' so to speak. Of course, this spawned a lot of enmimity against both the west, and east. Well, the east fell (they still exist, but lost, for all means and purposes). That means that the west is the only 'target' left to really express the hate and disgust that was spawned (and the east is still dealing with countries within their old borders that feel this way, too).

The west was relieved that it was finally over (though the 'old guard' wasn't). As the west struggled to re-align their goals and national interests in a post-cold war ara, others used this time to get mobilized. Then came Iraq...well, actually it came close before the 'end' of the cold war...and so was 'ignored' by the world as a whole (there was bigger fish to be concerned about). Iran paid a heavy price for that war. Nobody cared. Then came the russian invasion of Afghanistan, which reduced that country to shambles...and we supported the 'defenders'...well, kinda. Then came the Iran hostage situation...our first 'clue' that all was not good and well in those 'third-world' countries...we basically 'ignored' that threat...and let it build, take shape, until it is what it is today. In fact, we probably 'fueled' the fires...

Then came the 'second' Gulf war (we arrogantly call it the 'first'...beginning to get the picture here?). Then came 9-11...'seemingly' out of nowhere...but the seeds and signs were there...we just totally ignored them (they are no real threat...the USSR and China are, so the thinking of the 'old guard'). Well, they proved that wrong, didn't they? They are a threat, a real one. We are just 'waking up' to the fact that the cold war 'spawned' a real hatred of the 'victors' of the cold war...and their willingness to express that.

So, an adjustment to the post-cold war mentality. No 'golden ara' yet...instead, a 'cleaning up' of the 'problems' that the cold war instigated. We still have no real 'direction' in this post-cold war ara...

I'm pretty sure there is more coming...it seems that the world is moving towards...something. What that is, I'm not sure. What I am sure of, is that Mr. Bush is most likely not the right person to have in power at this time...but he is, and that is something we have to deal with.

The question is, how do we wish to deal with all these 'problems' left over from the cold war? Do we wish to make peace, or war? What is the best course of action? Is it even possible to make peace anymore? With Mr. Bush in power, I think not. Peace means dialogs being opened and ways being found to 'disfuse' the tensions, hatreds and animosities. Not shaking a big stick and saying 'Be nice, or else...'. To be on top, is to be scrutinized by all, every action under suspicion and distrust. Even doing nothing has a price. We need to decide on what our role is, and how we wish to present ourselves in this 'new' ara...

Mr. Bush seems to think that 'cleaning up' these problems can be solved militarily...I think that will span just more violence, mistrust, hatred. However, the case of Iraq is...tricky. We ignored the 'threat' of Iran...and they used that time to 'build' their networks, and to spread their propaganda...and we are reaping that now. We ignored the plight of the Palestinians...and still do. And then there is still Libya. Mr. Quadafi has reasons to hate us, as well. He's been remarkably silent in the 'Modern ara'...what is he planning?

Now, if it was possible to 'reason' our way out of this...then that is the path I would suggest. I don't think that we can reason with a man like Saddam...not only has he attacked his neighbors twice, but he used weapons of mass destruction against his own people...I don't think that he would hesitate to do the same to us if he thought he could get away with it!. 9-11 showed that it is possible. Bin Laden still exists, Al Queda also. Who knows what other 'organisations' are out there, waiting, planning...for the'right' moment and the 'right' weapons to fall into their hands...with nuclear weapons, the control factor is a bit easier...but biological? Imagine the death toll of a bilogical agent in downtown Los Angeles...or in the water supply...or whatever. So how do we protect ourselves from such a threat? A real threat, mind you...

At this point, I'm not sure...and I'm sure that goes for most of the west at this point in time...

Do we risk more, by removing Saddam? or do we risk more, by not removing him...

Only history shows us that waiting is most of the time a bad idea. Hitler comes to mind...

Therefore, though it sickens me to my bones, removing Saddam may be necessary. I really don't wish to take the chance of leaving him in power, only to wake up one morning with the report on the news that an atomic bomb has been exploded somewhere on our territory by a terror organisation...do you?

A choice between two evils...*sigh* This is what we are left with...do it now, or wait for a possible situation like I just suggested...

And believe me, the threat is real...more than ever. The 'cat is out of the bag' so to speak. With the fall of the USSR, nuclear material is easier than ever to become...and nuclear material is easier then ever to produce. Just takes a Madman to wish to use it...or very strong hatreds...and the chance of getting away with it. We won't even discuss the biological, chemical, element, because it's almost a childhoods game to produce them...one just needs someone either crazy enough, or convinced enough to use them. And 9-11 has proved that such exists...they exist now. They are more than willing to use them, if they can get them. Where shall they get them? That is the question...if we ignore this, it will surely happen. If we don't, it may happen anyway. It could be that we will drive more to actually do this, with action. But to do nothing...that is surely wrong.

So what do we do? Answer this in good 'faith'...

Here is a bit of 'side' information...in the past couple of years (I don't know if it actually made it's way into the American media...), the German border patrols have siezed weapon grade uranium 3 times...the last time a few days ago. In each case, the uranium was enough to make a 'dirty' bomb...all was from the USSR.

I don't even want to think about how much may have made it through...or gone through other routes...

So the threat is very real...and people are trying it...

Wherever there is enough money, and desire...there is usually a way. And since the US is a main target...if it happens, it will be there, most probably. Scary thought....isn't it?

WS - You make plenty of valid points. For the record I'm not against going into Iraq, I'm against going into Iraq uninformated. Theres a rather large difference between a dirty bomb and an actual nuclear weapon. Most expererts believe a dirty bomb will do little more then cause panic. Theres also a huge difference between being idle while Hitler invaded countries and being idle while Saddam is rumored to be mounting a nuclear weapon against the United States. Saddam hasn't shown aggression towards the United States, and has little insentive to do so. Rather then Bush getting up in front of the camera's and threaten the latest 'axis of evil' we need to gather more information and figure out whats going on. Rumors aren't enough for me to place my trust in an assassination attempt and rumors is about all we have.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, does attempting to assasinate Bush (Dubya's dad) count as agression towards the U.S. because that really happened. Or do you just see that as 'something personal'?

[edit] Oh, and WS those are all very good points. We may not agree about God but it seems our geopolitical views are pretty darn close. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-30-2002).]

Bugimus - That depends. Do you honestly consider the security of the United States to be in jeopardy of a nuclear attack because of a 1993 car boming in Iraq?

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 09-30-2002).]

Well, not if that were the only fact we were dealing with. Keep in mind that this guy has a track record. His MO is pretty clear. You should read Tony Blair's dossier.

Also consider why we do nothing when other people all around the world slaughter each other in civil wars. Ruwanda is a good example, the fighting between the Hutus and the Tootsies was horrendous but in the words of C*****n's former campaign advisor, Dick Morris, Americans wouldn't support intervention for African blacks like we would for white Northern Europeans in Bosnia. Sickening but true. But the point being that Hussein has turned his aggression outward and that is a huge step up in threatening what we like to maintain which is stability.

Personally, I would consider taking action against Iraq to be justified if we could stave off the deaths of thousands of Isrealis. Remember how may scuds he shot at them during the Gulf War.

But there is another angle to this and that is if he gets real nukes with minimum range capability, he doesn't need to be able to hit the continental US to be able to keep us from doing anything. Can you imagine what we would be facing if we were talking about invading a country that we knew had tactical nukes??? Do you have any idea how many soldiers we would lose in a situation like that?

I actually heard a US congressman respond to that possibility with saying we would just nuke Iraq because we have more. I won't even tell you his name because of his utter brainlessness. We would never nuke Iraq as a first strike which is all we would have left as an option in a case like that. So we would be effectively blackmailed in that situation and it would be too late to do much even if he wanted to retake Kuwait. Because we probably wouldn't risk a war at that point because the stakes would be too high.

So, in other words, there are plenty of reasons to act against him now before he gets these weapons. We already know for a fact he has chemical weapons and we are 99% sure he has small pox and other biological agents. We also know he has had contact with Al Qaeda. He's worked real hard to conceal it but he would love any way to "get back" at us for what we did to him.

Now why is it incredibly good for us that Bush and Blair, and now Berlusconi, are saber rattling? Precisely because Hussein understands action backed up with force. Read up on his upbringing to get an understanding of where he is coming from on that. Anyway, the only way the UN inspectors have any chance of getting back in and avoiding an actual attack is if Hussein thinks his only choice is to allow them unfettered access. He will *never* do it unless he is forced to. And it's unlikely he'll do it even with the threat of attack but at least that has the best chance.

WS, I was thinking about the phrase, "violence only begets violence". I don't agree with that at all. The use of violence has brought about all sorts of tremendous good. Several terrible regimes have been defeated with violence. We live in a world governed by the use of force... might makes right is the actual way of the world. That's a fact and it will never change. That is why I support some use of violence when you have less bad forces opposing worse bad forces. I see it as necessary to maintain a higher ratio of order over chaos. (order being preferable to chaos)

Well Bugs (yes, though we do have very different beliefs, it is somewhat surprising that we 'agree' on many fronts...) this

quote:

---

WS, I was thinking about the phrase, "violence only begets violence". I don't agree with that at all. The use of violence has brought about all sorts of tremendous good. Several terrible regimes have been defeated with violence. We live in a world governed by the use of force... might makes right is the actual way of the world. That's a fact and it will never change. That is why I support some use of violence when you have less bad forces opposing worse bad forces. I see it as necessary to maintain a higher ratio of order over chaos. (order being preferable to chaos)

---

I think you need to think a little more about "violence only begets violence". Because it is true. All those 'terrible regimes' have come out of violence. Hitler 'rose' from the ashes of WWI, and wasn't taken all that seriously by the rest of the world until it was too late. Cambodia...well, the Vietnam war comes to mind...doesn't it? We don't even need to talk about Africa...all products of the Cold War (and, of course, hostilities from the Zulu Empire days...).

Violence is a last resort in my book. There are few exceptions to this rule. Stopping a 'Madman' before he can do more damage is, for me, an acceptable reason to use force. However, one must be prepared for the consequences. Violence breeds violence, always...I need only to bring up the Isreali/Palestinian conflict (which is very, very old, now, isn't it?) as proof of this...

That's also why it is known under the name of 'The Circle of Violence'...

This is getting kinda long...so continued here