Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I don't realy care if you find that sentance funny or not (it was meant to be serious.in fact as serious as killing hundreds of thousands, potentially, of people in the name of the "evidence").

If the "evidence" was 100% proof of WMD being harboured in Iraq' and that the ability was there to use them do you think that any country would be against a direct assault and the removal of the Hussien regime?

there you go twisting resolution 1441 again. It does NOT have to prove imminent threat. The resolution stated that Iraq had to comply FULLY and UNCONDITIONaALLY or face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. All UN has done for Iraq'a noncompliance these 6 months is say give it more time. More time isn't going to make them comply anymore than they are.

And by the way = once Iraq publicly decalres they have them TIME IS UP. It makes it much harder to take them away or take action. This is perfectly demonstrated by how North Korea currently has Asia held hostage.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As I've said before on other threads. I personally think we should pull out troops out of the world stage. Take them out of South Korea, Europe, leave NATO, leave the UN, leave Africa, leave the Middle East and build our missile shield and lock our borders a little tighter. Then you can deal with the world as you see fit. We never wanted to conquer the world - we haven't set out to conquer the world.

Jerseydevil, it isn't as though everyone out there detests us for our interferance/assistance. Look at the effect we've had in Afghanistan, and how they celebrated the Taliban's demise. If a person's child were unappreciative of what you were doing for them, generally you don't just stop doing it and leave them to the consequences. I think that we have a responsibility to these people. We are extremely wealthy and prosperous- few people in America are starving, but look at the rest of the world. What do you think would have happened if we hadn't helped in World War 2? Or in stopping Communism? If we did as you suggest, we would begin to deserve to be called arrogant and unfeeling. When we can do so much, even if some, or most, don't appreciate us, protecting them has been shown in history to have benefit on the world.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Laurelyn
Ja, I agree. Is Ireland a part of NATO or something or not? I figure if I'm going to be moving to Ireland I want to find out what the deal is there in the world of wacky politics. Hopefull this war business will be over by the time I move, but that's the country I care about. Do they support/not support war on Iraq; anybody know?

Southern Ireland is a third world country (statistically).....they are have also never been really occupied...........the country is the utimate :cool: :cool:

*loves Ireland*

[Dúnedain]

....continued

This defector is currently hiding in another country with the certain knowledge that Saddam Hussein will kill him if he finds him. His eyewitness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources.

A second source, an Iraqi civil engineer in a position to know the details of the program, confirmed the existence of transportable facilities moving on trailers.

A third source, also in a position to know, reported in summer 2002 that Iraq had manufactured mobile production systems mounted on road trailer units and on rail cars.

Finally, a fourth source, an Iraqi major, who defected, confirmed that Iraq has mobile biological research laboratories, in addition to the production facilities I mentioned earlier.

We have diagrammed what our sources reported about these mobile facilities. Here you see both truck and rail car-mounted mobile factories. The description our sources gave us of the technical features required by such facilities are highly detailed and extremely accurate. As these drawings based on their description show, we know what the fermenters look like, we know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like. We know how they fit together. We know how they work. And we know a great deal about the platforms on which they are mounted.

As shown in this diagram, these factories can be concealed easily, either by moving ordinary-looking trucks and rail cars along Iraq's thousands of miles of highway or track, or by parking them in a garage or warehouse or somewhere in Iraq's extensive system of underground tunnels and bunkers.

We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. That means that the mobile production facilities are very few, perhaps 18 trucks that we know of--there may be more--but perhaps 18 that we know of. Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands of trucks that travel the roads of Iraq every single day.

It took the inspectors four years to find out that Iraq was making biological agents. How long do you think it will take the inspectors to find even one of these 18 trucks without Iraq coming forward, as they are supposed to, with the information about these kinds of capabilities?

Ladies and gentlemen, these are sophisticated facilities. For example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. In fact, they can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. And dry agent of this type is the most lethal form for human beings.

By 1998, U.N. experts agreed that the Iraqis had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programs. Now, Iraq has incorporated this drying expertise into these mobile production facilities.

We know from Iraq's past admissions that it has successfully weaponized not only anthrax, but also other biological agents, including botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and ricin.

But Iraq's research efforts did not stop there. Saddam Hussein has investigated dozens of biological agents causing diseases such as gas gangrene, plague, typhus, tetanus, cholera, camelpox and hemorrhagic fever, and he also has the wherewithal to develop smallpox.

The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air. For example, Iraq had a program to modify aerial fuel tanks for Mirage jets. This video of an Iraqi test flight obtained by UNSCOM some years ago shows an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet aircraft. Note the spray coming from beneath the Mirage; that is 2,000 liters of simulated anthrax that a jet is spraying.

In 1995, an Iraqi military officer, Mujahid Sali Abdul Latif (ph), told inspectors that Iraq intended the spray tanks to be mounted onto a MiG-21 that had been converted into an unmanned aerial vehicle, or a UAV. UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons.

Iraq admitted to producing four spray tanks. But to this day, it has provided no credible evidence that they were destroyed, evidence that was required by the international community.

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.

UNMOVIC already laid out much of this, and it is documented for all of us to read in UNSCOM's 1999 report on the subject.

...continued

[Dúnedain]

....continued

Let me set the stage with three key points that all of us need to keep in mind: First, Saddam Hussein has used these horrific weapons on another country and on his own people. In fact, in the history of chemical warfare, no country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry — 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war — UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons. These quantities of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for.

Dr. Blix has quipped that, quote, "Mustard gas is not (inaudible). You are supposed to know what you did with it."

We believe Saddam Hussein knows what he did with it, and he has not come clean with the international community. We have evidence these weapons existed. What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are. That is what we are still waiting for.

Third point, Iraq's record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons.

The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law. UNSCOM also gained forensic evidence that Iraq had produced VX and put it into weapons for delivery.

Yet, to this day, Iraq denies it had ever weaponized VX. And on January 27, UNMOVIC told this council that it has information that conflicts with the Iraqi account of its VX program.

We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again.

These inspections would be unlikely, any inspections of such facilities would be unlikely to turn up anything prohibited, especially if there is any warning that the inspections are coming. Call it ingenuous or evil genius, but the Iraqis deliberately designed their chemical weapons programs to be inspected. It is infrastructure with a built-in ally.

Under the guise of dual-use infrastructure, Iraq has undertaken an effort to reconstitute facilities that were closely associated with its past program to develop and produce chemical weapons.

For example, Iraq has rebuilt key portions of the Tariq (ph) state establishment. Tariq includes facilities designed specifically for Iraq's chemical weapons program and employs key figures from past programs.

That's the production end of Saddam's chemical weapons business. What about the delivery end?

I'm going to show you a small part of a chemical complex called al-Moussaid (ph), a site that Iraq has used for at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field.

In May 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in this picture. Here we see cargo vehicles are again at this transshipment point, and we can see that they are accompanied by a decontamination vehicle associated with biological or chemical weapons activity.

What makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. So it's not just the photo, and it's not an individual seeing the photo. It's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case.

This photograph of the site taken two months later in July shows not only the previous site, which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site, have been fully bulldozed and graded. The topsoil has been removed. The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity.



..continued

[Dúnedain]

...continued

To support its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs, Iraq procures needed items from around the world using an extensive clandestine network. What we know comes largely from intercepted communications and human sources who are in a position to know the facts.

Iraq's procurement efforts include equipment that can filter and separate micro-organisms and toxins involved in biological weapons, equipment that can be used to concentrate the agent, growth media that can be used to continue producing anthrax and botulinum toxin, sterilization equipment for laboratories, glass-lined reactors and specialty pumps that can handle corrosive chemical weapons agents and precursors, large amounts of vinyl chloride, a precursor for nerve and blister agents, and other chemicals such as sodium sulfide, an important mustard agent precursor.

Now, of course, Iraq will argue that these items can also be used for legitimate purposes. But if that is true, why do we have to learn about them by intercepting communications and risking the lives of human agents? With Iraq's well documented history on biological and chemical weapons, why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the doubt? I don't, and I don't think you will either after you hear this next intercept.

Just a few weeks ago, we intercepted communications between two commanders in Iraq's Second Republican Guard Corps. One commander is going to be giving an instruction to the other. You will hear as this unfolds that what he wants to communicate to the other guy, he wants to make sure the other guy hears clearly, to the point of repeating it so that it gets written down and completely understood. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

Speaking in Foreign Language.

(END AUDIO TAPE)

POWELL: Let's review a few selected items of this conversation. Two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood:

"Remove. Remove."

The expression, the expression, "I got it."

"Nerve agents. Nerve agents. Wherever it comes up."

"Got it."

"Wherever it comes up."

"In the wireless instructions, in the instructions."

"Correction. No. In the wireless instructions."

"Wireless. I got it."

Why does he repeat it that way? Why is he so forceful in making sure this is understood? And why did he focus on wireless instructions? Because the senior officer is concerned that somebody might be listening.

Well, somebody was.

"Nerve agents. Stop talking about it. They are listening to us. Don't give any evidence that we have these horrible agents."

Well, we know that they do. And this kind of conversation confirms it.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan.

Let me remind you that, of the 122 millimeter chemical warheads, that the U.N. inspectors found recently, this discovery could very well be, as has been noted, the tip of the submerged iceberg. The question before us, all my friends, is when will we see the rest of the submerged iceberg?

Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people.

And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them. He wouldn't be passing out the orders if he didn't have the weapons or the intent to use them.

We also have sources who tell us that, since the 1980s, Saddam's regime has been experimenting on human beings to perfect its biological or chemical weapons.

A source said that 1,600 death row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments. An eyewitness saw prisoners tied down to beds, experiments conducted on them, blood oozing around the victim's mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects on the prisoners. Saddam Hussein's humanity — inhumanity has no limits.

Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program.



...continued

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Laurelyn
Ja, I agree. Is Ireland a part of NATO or something or not? I figure if I'm going to be moving to Ireland I want to find out what the deal is there in the world of wacky politics. Hopefull this war business will be over by the time I move, but that's the country I care about. Do they support/not support war on Iraq; anybody know?

Well Northern Ireland is still fighting for their indepence from England after they were invaded and taken over. Most of Ireland has won and enjoyed the freedom of their own country - but for some reason England seems to be very attached to the northeatsern section for some reason.

England has negotiated and made deals with the IRA for years and hardly anything changes. It goes through a series of heavy bombings and then things quiet down after they sign an agreement and then after a little while - the bombings start up again. it's been going on for decades and decades.

[Dúnedain]

...continued

On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

To fully appreciate the challenge that we face today, remember that, in 1991, the inspectors searched Iraq's primary nuclear weapons facilities for the first time. And they found nothing to conclude that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

But based on defector information in May of 1991, Saddam Hussein's lie was exposed. In truth, Saddam Hussein had a massive clandestine nuclear weapons program that covered several different techniques to enrich uranium, including electromagnetic isotope separation, gas centrifuge, and gas diffusion. We estimate that this elicit program cost the Iraqis several billion dollars.

Nonetheless, Iraq continued to tell the IAEA that it had no nuclear weapons program. If Saddam had not been stopped, Iraq could have produced a nuclear bomb by 1993, years earlier than most worse-case assessments that had been made before the war.

In 1995, as a result of another defector, we find out that, after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein had initiated a crash program to build a crude nuclear weapon in violation of Iraq's U.N. obligations.

Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of the three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb. He has a cadre of nuclear scientists with the expertise, and he has a bomb design.

Since 1998, his efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program have been focused on acquiring the third and last component, sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion. To make the fissile material, he needs to develop an ability to enrich uranium.

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War. This incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer show that Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors. One of these companies also had been involved in a failed effort in 2001 to smuggle aluminum tubes into Iraq.

...continued

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
there you go twisting resolution 1441 again. It does NOT have to prove imminent threat. The resolution stated that Iraq had to comply FULLY and UNCONDITIONaALLY or face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. All UN has done for Iraq'a noncompliance these 6 months is say give it more time. More time isn't going to make them comply anymore than they are.

And by the way = once Iraq publicly decalres they have them TIME IS UP. It makes it much harder to take them away or take action. This is perfectly demonstrated by how North Korea currently has Asia held hostage.

I'm not twisting 1441 again.....you are. It does have to prove that it does not prove imminent threat (otherwise every country in the world would be breaking 1441 :rolleyes: )

Funny y'know........we heard none of this TIME IS UP malarky before 9/11......a little overcompensating are we? (or maybe too arrogant in the case of NK......weren't you blaming the Clinton Administration for that a few pages ago JD?:rolleyes: )

[Dúnedain]

...continued

People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind, these elicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material. He also has been busy trying to maintain the other key parts of his nuclear program, particularly his cadre of key nuclear scientists.

It is noteworthy that, over the last 18 months, Saddam Hussein has paid increasing personal attention to Iraqi's top nuclear scientists, a group that the governmental-controlled press calls openly, his nuclear mujahedeen. He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress. Progress toward what end?

Long ago, the Security Council, this council, required Iraq to halt all nuclear activities of any kind.

Let me talk now about the systems Iraq is developing to deliver weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq's ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs.

First, missiles. We all remember that before the Gulf War Saddam Hussein's goal was missiles that flew not just hundreds, but thousands of kilometers. He wanted to strike not only his neighbors, but also nations far beyond his borders.

While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles. These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometers.

We know from intelligence and Iraq's own admissions that Iraq's alleged permitted ballistic missiles, the al-Samud II (ph) and the al-Fatah (ph), violate the 150-kilometer limit established by this council in Resolution 687. These are prohibited systems.

UNMOVIC has also reported that Iraq has illegally important 380 SA-2 (ph) rocket engines. These are likely for use in the al-Samud II (ph). Their import was illegal on three counts. Resolution 687 prohibited all military shipments into Iraq. UNSCOM specifically prohibited use of these engines in surface-to-surface missiles. And finally, as we have just noted, they are for a system that exceeds the 150-kilometer range limit.

Worst of all, some of these engines were acquired as late as December — after this council passed Resolution 1441.

What I want you to know today is that Iraq has programs that are intended to produce ballistic missiles that fly 1,000 kilometers. One program is pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers. And you can see from this map, as well as I can, who will be in danger of these missiles.

As part of this effort, another little piece of evidence, Iraq has built an engine test stand that is larger than anything it has ever had. Notice the dramatic difference in size between the test stand on the left, the old one, and the new one on the right. Note the large exhaust vent. This is where the flame from the engine comes out. The exhaust on the right test stand is five times longer than the one on the left. The one on the left was used for short-range missile. The one on the right is clearly intended for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 kilometers.

This photograph was taken in April of 2002. Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath the test stand.

Saddam Hussein's intentions have never changed. He is not developing the missiles for self-defense. These are missiles that Iraq wants in order to project power, to threaten, and to deliver chemical, biological and, if we let him, nuclear warheads.

Now, unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs.

Iraq has been working on a variety of UAVs for more than a decade. This is just illustrative of what a UAV would look like. This effort has included attempts to modify for unmanned flight the MiG-21 and with greater success an aircraft called the L-29. However, Iraq is now concentrating not on these airplanes, but on developing and testing smaller UAVs, such as this.

UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons.

There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth. One of these lies is graphically and indisputably demonstrated by intelligence we collected on June 27, last year.

...continued

[Dúnedain]

...continued

According to Iraq's December 7 declaration, its UAVs have a range of only 80 kilometers. But we detected one of Iraq's newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot in the race track pattern depicted here.

Not only is this test well in excess of the 150 kilometers that the United Nations permits, the test was left out of Iraq's December 7th declaration. The UAV was flown around and around and around in a circle. And so, that its 80 kilometer limit really was 500 kilometers unrefueled and on autopilot, violative of all of its obligations under 1441.

The linkages over the past 10 years between Iraq's UAV program and biological and chemical warfare agents are of deep concern to us. Iraq could use these small UAVs which have a wingspan of only a few meters to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War. This incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer show that Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors. One of these companies also had been involved in a failed effort in 2001 to smuggle aluminum tubes into Iraq.

People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind, these elicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material. He also has been busy trying to maintain the other key parts of his nuclear program, particularly his cadre of key nuclear scientists.

It is noteworthy that, over the last 18 months, Saddam Hussein has paid increasing personal attention to Iraqi's top nuclear scientists, a group that the governmental-controlled press calls openly, his nuclear mujahedeen. He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress. Progress toward what end?

Long ago, the Security Council, this council, required Iraq to halt all nuclear activities of any kind.

Let me talk now about the systems Iraq is developing to deliver weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq's ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs.

First, missiles. We all remember that before the Gulf War Saddam Hussein's goal was missiles that flew not just hundreds, but thousands of kilometers. He wanted to strike not only his neighbors, but also nations far beyond his borders.

While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles. These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometers.

We know from intelligence and Iraq's own admissions that Iraq's alleged permitted ballistic missiles, the al-Samud II (ph) and the al-Fatah (ph), violate the 150-kilometer limit established by this council in Resolution 687. These are prohibited systems.


...continued

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Jerseydevil, it isn't as though everyone out there detests us for our interferance/assistance. Look at the effect we've had in Afghanistan, and how they celebrated the Taliban's demise. If a person's child were unappreciative of what you were doing for them, generally you don't just stop doing it and leave them to the consequences. I think that we have a responsibility to these people. We are extremely wealthy and prosperous- few people in America are starving, but look at the rest of the world. What do you think would have happened if we hadn't helped in World War 2? Or in stopping Communism? If we did as you suggest, we would begin to deserve to be called arrogant and unfeeling. When we can do so much, even if some, or most, don't appreciate us, protecting them has been shown in history to have benefit on the world.

All I'm saying is that Europe should lift a finger more. All they are is a bunch of armchair quarterbacks.

If we're not there "running the world" like they complain about all the time - maybe they'd figure out that we were actually doing good things instead of always complaining about us.

Our military supports the world - that is part of the reason our defense budget is so high. While they can rely on us - and instead concentrate on their own citizens and country.

[Dúnedain]

...continued

UNMOVIC has also reported that Iraq has illegally important 380 SA-2 (ph) rocket engines. These are likely for use in the al-Samud II (ph). Their import was illegal on three counts. Resolution 687 prohibited all military shipments into Iraq. UNSCOM specifically prohibited use of these engines in surface-to-surface missiles. And finally, as we have just noted, they are for a system that exceeds the 150-kilometer range limit.

Worst of all, some of these engines were acquired as late as December — after this council passed Resolution 1441.

What I want you to know today is that Iraq has programs that are intended to produce ballistic missiles that fly 1,000 kilometers. One program is pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers. And you can see from this map, as well as I can, who will be in danger of these missiles.

As part of this effort, another little piece of evidence, Iraq has built an engine test stand that is larger than anything it has ever had. Notice the dramatic difference in size between the test stand on the left, the old one, and the new one on the right. Note the large exhaust vent. This is where the flame from the engine comes out. The exhaust on the right test stand is five times longer than the one on the left. The one on the left was used for short-range missile. The one on the right is clearly intended for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 kilometers.

This photograph was taken in April of 2002. Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath the test stand.

Saddam Hussein's intentions have never changed. He is not developing the missiles for self-defense. These are missiles that Iraq wants in order to project power, to threaten, and to deliver chemical, biological and, if we let him, nuclear warheads.

Now, unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs.

Iraq has been working on a variety of UAVs for more than a decade. This is just illustrative of what a UAV would look like. This effort has included attempts to modify for unmanned flight the MiG-21 and with greater success an aircraft called the L-29. However, Iraq is now concentrating not on these airplanes, but on developing and testing smaller UAVs, such as this.

UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons.

There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth. One of these lies is graphically and indisputably demonstrated by intelligence we collected on June 27, last year.

According to Iraq's December 7 declaration, its UAVs have a range of only 80 kilometers. But we detected one of Iraq's newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot in the race track pattern depicted here.

Not only is this test well in excess of the 150 kilometers that the United Nations permits, the test was left out of Iraq's December 7th declaration. The UAV was flown around and around and around in a circle. And so, that its 80 kilometer limit really was 500 kilometers unrefueled and on autopilot, violative of all of its obligations under 1441.

The linkages over the past 10 years between Iraq's UAV program and biological and chemical warfare agents are of deep concern to us. Iraq could use these small UAVs which have a wingspan of only a few meters to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States.

Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins.

The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence, again, proved him right. When the British unearthed a cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the disruption of the cell.

We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al-Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al-Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al-Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaida.


...continued

[Laurelyn]

Originally posted by Coney
*loves Ireland*
Yep. :) :D Frankly, I can't wait to get out of the US and tie up my last loose ends with immigration folkies and whatever I have to do and find someplace to live in Ireland, probably on the Beara peninsula.
I'm one of those Americans who really doesn't want anything to do with such a big superpower country as America. I don't have the politicial know-how or care-how and I don't like the image the media portrays of America.
I'm torn about the war on Iraq because while I don't want to go to war, Saddam Hussein seems to be quite dangerous. HOWEVER, if we go to war against him, won't he break out the big guns and infect us all with these supposed biological weapons he has? We'd all be screwed. And who was it who said a little ways back that all he'd have to do was give us influenza and knock us all flat-on-our-backs sick for two weeks . . . that's so true. It's flu season where I live and everybody's out sick, nothing's getting done, one of the schools even took a day off because they could get enough substitutes to replace the sick teachers. :(

[Dúnedain]

...continued

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to al-Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the al-Qaida organization.

Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al-Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.

And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999, and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.

Al-Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida.

Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

This senior al-Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan.

His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al-Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased al-Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that al-Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.

When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.

My friends, this has been a long and a detailed presentation. And I thank you for your patience. But there is one more subject that I would like to touch on briefly. And it should be a subject of deep and continuing concern to this council, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights.

Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died.



...continued

[Dúnedain]

....continued

His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shi'a Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.

Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him.

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he must hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach.

Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continued defiance of this council.

My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens, we have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance.

We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body.

Thank you, Mr. President.



Man that was freaking long!! :D

[Coney]

DUNEDAIN...CAN'T YOU JUST GIVE US A LINK?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Laurelyn
Frankly, I can't wait to get out of the US and tie up my last loose ends with immigration folkies and whatever I have to do and find someplace to live in Ireland, probably on the Beara peninsula.
I'm one of those Americans who really doesn't want anything to do with such a big superpower country as America. I don't have the politicial know-how or care-how and I don't like the image the media portrays of America.

No offense man, but if you don't like all that America can and does provide for you, then get the *expletive* out....

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
DUNEDAIN...CAN'T YOU JUST GIVE US A LINK?

I wanted to make sure you would read it :D

BTW, here is the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com//stories/2003/02/05/iraq/main539459.shtml

:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Laurelyn

I'm one of those Americans who really doesn't want anything to do with such a big superpower country as America. I don't have the politicial know-how or care-how and I don't like the image the media portrays of America.

What image is that?

I'm torn about the war on Iraq because while I don't want to go to war, Saddam Hussein seems to be quite dangerous. HOWEVER, if we go to war against him, won't he break out the big guns and infect us all with these supposed biological weapons he has? We'd all be screwed. And who was it who said a little ways back that all he'd have to do was give us influenza and knock us all flat-on-our-backs sick for two weeks . . . that's so true. It's flu season where I live and everybody's out sick, nothing's getting done, one of the schools even took a day off because they could get enough substitutes to replace the sick teachers. :(
So you'd rather wait until Iraq becomes like North Korea? Right now he can't strike America very easily - unless he slips a few terrorists some biological weapons. We can either take out a small threat at the moment or - let it build up into a cancer and then try taking care of.

[Coney]

I wanted to make sure you would read it

I don't need to re-read it *pats cd box* I've got the recording here:p

This is the age of audio recordings y'know;)

Still...I suppose your posts may enlighten some 'mooters to the truth:D

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
I don't need to re-read it *pats cd box* I've got the recording here:p

This is the age of audio recordings y'know;)

Still...I suppose your posts may enlighten some 'mooters to the truth:D

Where did you get the audio? Can you point me in the direction please :D

[Dúnedain]

JD clean out your PM's so I can write you back f00l! :p

[Coney]

NP.........downloaded it off Kazza:)........I think I used search "political speech" or something like that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
No offense man, but if you don't like all that America can and does provide for you, then get the *expletive* out....

I feel the same way - the door swings both ways. And unlike the way it was in East Germany - you don't get shot for crossing the border. :D

I just thought about one of the many complaints I've heard Europeans say to indicate they're more wordly than Americans. It's the number of people who have passports. Few Americans have passports. But that makes sense. We can go to Canada, through the US and to Mexico WITHOUT a passport. In order to go from England to France you need a passport. You still need a passport to cross into many of the European countries. America is bigger than Europe and we don't need a passport - all I need is my drivers license to go to Canada or Mexico (even when I flew). I know not many Europeans actually leave Europe - just like not many Americans leave America. However, many Americans travel and visit other states - which is similar to a European going from one European country to another.

We also get the similar ridiculous complaint that Americans speak only one language - see above for explanation to that. :D

[Coney]

Well ladies and gentlemen......thanks for another night of drunken entertainment:D (don't say I didn't warn you JD ;) ).......time for this lil' rabbit to hop off:D

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Coney
Well ladies and gentlemen......thanks for another night of drunken entertainment:D (don't say I didn't warn you JD ;) ).......time for this lil' rabbit to hop off:D Are you ever ashamed the next day when you read your posts Coney? Heehee!:D

[Coney]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Are you ever ashamed the next day when you read your posts Coney? Heehee!:D

Nah......all part of my mission to get JD up to 80 words per min. ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Are you ever ashamed the next day when you read your posts Coney? Heehee!:D

no - he's usually still drunk into Sunday. So it's not till SUNDAY that he's ashamed. Then he sends a message "did I really say that???" :D

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
no - he's usually still drunk into Sunday. So it's not till SUNDAY that he's ashamed. Then he sends a message "did I really say that???" :D

I have never sent a message saying that:eek: ........I may have deleted the post where I called you a Nazi.......but me apologise?


Well yes......I have apologised to a few 'mooters:o

*has an attack of conscience*

;)

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
I have never sent a message saying that:eek: ........I may have deleted the post where I called you a Nazi.......but me apologise?


Well yes......I have apologised to a few 'mooters:o

*has an attack of conscience*

;)

Coney just pm'ed me the following:

Dúnedain, I wanted to apologize for some of the things I said to you in the Iraq thread. I really don't hate America, I am just upset I am not American, it has always been my dream.

hehe :D

[Coney]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Coney just pm'ed me the following:



hehe :D

No I didn't:rolleyes:

But I will be pm'ing you from now on *evil grin*

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I have never sent a message saying that:eek: ........I may have deleted the post where I called you a Nazi.......but me apologise?


Well yes......I have apologised to a few 'mooters:o

*has an attack of conscience*

;)
Well yeah - I think you did eventually apologise for calling me a nazi. Can't really remember.

You didn't really send me a message - but you have posted that after you came out of your drunken stupor. :D

[BeardofPants]

Just a point: Anti-Bush admin NOT anti-American. Some of my best friends are American. :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
No I didn't:rolleyes:

But I will be pm'ing you from now on *evil grin*
I always knew you were just envious of Americans because we live in such a great and wonderfuil country. :D

As I offered to Sween to others - I'd be happy to show you around if your even in the US (particularly the New Jersey, Philadelphia, New York area).

[Sister Golden Hair]

Coney just PMd me saying that all of his posts in this thread were made during blackouts and to disregard them.:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Just a point: Anti-Bush admin NOT anti-American. Some of my best friends are American. :p

At least we finally have a president that has the guts to actually take on the problems of this world - instead of just sitting in the oval office with his intern. Negotiation only goes so far with dictators.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah well, JD just PM'd me and said he was moving to France. :D

[Coney]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Coney just PMd me saying that all of his posts in this thread were mad during blackouts and to disregard them.:D

Again.......this can't be denied;)

(Actually a few of them were made by my friends.....who have now thankfully left)........

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
At least we finally have a president that has the guts to actually take on the problems of this world - instead of just sitting in the oval office with his intern. Negotiation only goes so far with dictators.

Yeah, but can he spell potato? :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah well, JD just PM'd me and said he was moving to France. :D

you must be with Coney and drinking too much. If I do go there - I'll make sure I wear a American flag t-shirt, baseball cap and jacket. :D I'll especially wear my Great Adventure shirt that has the state of New Jersey colored in with the American Flag and another with Taz, Bugs and another character carrying the American Flag. Make sure they know I'm AMERICAN and not afraid to admit - like some people have previously said.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
At least we finally have a president that has the guts to actually take on the problems of this world - instead of just sitting in the oval office with his intern. Negotiation only goes so far with dictators.

I think JD and I finally found something we disagree on, but it's all good cuz he is American, lol :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah, but can he spell potato? :D

That was blown out of proportion. It was actually the spelling card which had it mispelled.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
you must be with Coney and drinking too much. If I do go there - I'll make sure I wear a American flag t-shirt, baseball cap and jacket. :D I'll especially wear my Great Adventure shirt that has the state of New Jersey colored in with the American Flag and another with Taz, Bugs and another character carrying the American Flag. Make sure they know I'm AMERICAN and not afraid to admit - like some people have previously said.

Damn straight, you have regained my respect after bashing the intern lover ;)

One of my friends that lived in my apartment last year was from France, I am owning his ass in the e-mails I am sending him, lol. I can't wait to go visit him over there so I can stand out with American flags all over me :D

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
you must be with Coney and drinking too much. If I do go there - I'll make sure I wear a American flag t-shirt, baseball cap and jacket. :D I'll especially wear my Great Adventure shirt that has the state of New Jersey colored in with the American Flag and another with Taz, Bugs and another character carrying the American Flag. Make sure they know I'm AMERICAN and not afraid to admit - like some people have previously said.

Yes, but what I want to know is: will you be wearing stars and stripes on your underpants?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yes, but what I want to know is: will you be wearing stars and stripes on your underpants?

Underpants? What are those? :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I think JD and I finally found something we disagree on, but it's all good cuz he is American, lol :D

I figured you wouldn't agree with that - because you said you weren't republican and you didn't vote for him.

I'm republitarian though.

The two people I've really I wanted for president is Secretary of State (Colin Powell) and the other person I've wanted for president - who I had actually e-mailed and told that while she was Provost at the Stanford University - is the National Security Adiser (Condoleeza Rice).

Otherwise for this election - I had initially wanted John McCain.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I figured you wouldn't agree with that - because you said you weren't republican and you didn't vote for him.

I'm republitarian though.

The two people I've really I wanted for president is Secretary of State (Colin Powell) and the other person I've wanted for president - who I had actually e-mailed and told that while she was Provost at the Stanford University - is the National Security Adiser (Condoleeza Rice).

Otherwise for this election - I had initially wanted John McCain.

I'm registered Independent, so I am neither Republican or Democrat. My views are more Liberal though. I registered Independent because I won't align myself with a party, because I disagree with the two-party system...

[Coney]

That was blown out of proportion. It was actually the spelling card which had it mispelled.

I love Bush (President.....not the intoxicating substance.but I do have a certain liking for the genetalia reference)

No president has given so much........to humourous sarcasm on the 'net:D

*is beginning to see where the animosity for the French stems from.........entrepreneur maybe?*

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
I love Bush (President.....not the intoxicating substance.but I do have a certain liking for the genetalia reference)


I sincerely agree with you 100%, especially about the latter :p


Originally posted by Coney
No president has given so much........to humourous sarcasm on the 'net:D


Strategory! lol, SNL ruled during the Elections :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Strategory! lol, SNL ruled during the Elections :D
you should see how they're making fun of the UN, France and Germany. I need to make sure I watch it tomorrow. Oh - they were also making fun of the peace demonstrators.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
you should see how they're making fun of the UN, France and Germany. I need to make sure I watch it tomorrow. Oh - they were also making fun of the peace demonstrators.

LOL, I definitely need to check it out, I haven't seen SNL in the longest time. All the good people left!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
LOL, I definitely need to check it out, I haven't seen SNL in the longest time. All the good people left!
I know - I haven't either because of the same reason. But ABCNews had it on the Nightline last night. It was hilarious.

[jerseydevil]

cartoons...

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/ChiracOil.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/FranceGermany.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/FranceGermanyBelgium.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/ToFranceLoveSaddam.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/SaddamOsama.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/BushFrench.gif

[jerseydevil]

Ironically this cartoon is the truth...

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/UNDebatingSociety.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/FranceGermanyDogs.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/SmokingGun.gif

[Coney]

*is thankfull that the thread has descended into parady*

*Hopes that reality can be seen in such a light*

History records, not only for prosperity.........but also for folly........

[wahine]

Jeez, I'm surprised you people haven't had enough to say yet.

I mean it's mainly Cone-Jerseydevil and pop ins from other people.

Can't this just be over and done?

Note: cute cartoons. * a mixture of admiration and exasperation* Most guys use up the 5,000 words with orders and sports(not to mention any sort of sexual talk) I'm at least happy you have something important to talk about! :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
*is thankfull that the thread has descended into parady*

*Hopes that reality can be seen in such a light*

History records, not only for prosperity.........but also for folly........
yeah - folly for France not supporting it.

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/FrancePeeing.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/StabbingBack.gif

Someone just sent me this joke...

"I've heard that they don't have fireworks at euro-disney because apparently every time they went off, France surrendered."

:D

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/FrenchPoker.gif

http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/IraqStickup.gif

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
http://www.AboutNewJersey.com/cartoons/SmokingGun.gif

By far the best one! LOL! Thanks captain obvious! :D lol :p

[BeardofPants]

Hey man, you forgot about the joke that there's no way that Iraq is producing anything that's worse than living next to New Jersey. :p

********************************************

I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush

Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hey man, you forgot about the joke that there's no way that Iraq is producing anything that's worse than living next to New Jersey. :p

I'm supposed to be offended by that from someone who hasn't even been to the US - let alone to New Jersey? I expected better insults than that from you.

Too bad the story has a very simplistic tone to the whole situation. If nothing is done now - when Iraq does finally have all the weapons he feels he needs to hold the middle east hostage and he comes out and admits it - it'll be too late. Then the world will be asking us to solve a LARGER problem. I personally hope that that we turn our back and tell the world to go to hell at that point and give them the phone numbers for France and Germany. Let them take care of the even bigger problem.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm supposed to be offended by that from someone who hasn't even been to the US - let alone to New Jersey? I expected better insults than that from you.

Nope. Can't say I can claim this one. It was some guy on a US comedy thing that they were showing on the news. :p

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not talking about the populations supporting us. The public doesn't - the governments do however.

I obviously didn't make it clear enough since Elvellon didn't understand either. I realise the people don't stand behind the US position - that is very clear. But the US doesn't work with the people of those countries - we work with those countries' governments. It's their responsibility to deal with their citizenry.

The people can be anti-American and resort to American bashing while at the same time their governments support and stand by our positions - which the majority of European GOVERNMENTS do.

If Europeans were Anti–American we would not have supported your action in Afghanistan and in other occasions before, we simply do not abdicate of having free will and good sense.

[Coney]

*re-reads the last couple of pages*

Not a bad nights work!:D

JD+Dunedain.......my congratulations.......I haven't seen the "flooding" tactic used on a message board before:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
If Europeans were Anti–American we would not have supported your action in Afghanistan and in other occasions before, we simply do not abdicate of having free will and good sense.
Good sense? Being reactive instead of proactive?

You can be like that - but we're going to be going to war in the first week in March. That is very clear. YWe're not going to wait for Saddam Hussein to build up his weaponry like North Korea did or the way Europe allowed Hitler to do. We're not going to wait for Saddam Hussein to start supplying terrorists with biological and chemical weapons, in order to take action.

And in Europe - plenty of American bashing has gone on for many many decades. It's the great European pastime. On the many past entmoot anti-American threads - let's see some of the things we were bashed with. Americans are lazy, we're fat and stupid. We don't bother learning languages (no matter that we live in a hemisphere where only 3 languages are mainly spoken - and French is only in Quebec). America has no culture. America is evil and has never done anything good in this world (that one was repeated over and over - even by some people who are still on this board). I wish that Ben hadn't deleted all the Anti-American threads - then you'd see why I'm lashing out so much on it. Now everyone is trying to back pedal and act like there has never been any American bashing.

I know how Europe (particularly France) has their hand out for the American tourist dollar while at the same time under their breath saying "Damn uncultured Americans".

As more Americans really find out what Europe thinks of us - maybe few will be so willing to hand over our tourist dollars to the people who accuse us of being lazy and everything. We have a great country which is larger than all of Europe (that's not even taking into account Alaska or Hawaii) - Americans should explore it more and stop spending so much money in Europe just to be put down the moment we turn our back. As I said - schools here have already started cancelling their trips to France and Germany (not as really political statement - but they're concerned about the students safety in those countries)

It's very funny by the way - how the demonstrators against the war are trying to convince us "We don't have any anti-American feelings - this isn't about American bashing - this is because we're against the war." No - your right - the demonstration USED to be American bashing - bu now Europe doesn't want the backlash of the American tourists cancelling trips and not spending money there. It'll actually affect your economy worse than it already is. It's about time Americans started boycotting countries who didn't appreciate us all these years.

[Dúnedain]

I am not trying to knock Europeans or those around the world, as I don't think everyone is Anti-American, but over the past few months some of my views have changed as far as US policies, especially after the latest UN Security Council hearing. I have never been for US Isolationism, however I would absolutely love for the US to become Isolationist and pull out from every place across the world that we are. That way we can build stronger bonds with Canada & Mexico and have the North American continent the safest place to be. Also, it would let the world deal with their own damn problems, since it is obvious the world is ungrateful for the peace we provide them day in and day out. If we were Isolationists, the world would go to utter chaos, and then we'd have all the countries that stabbed us in the back begging for our help once again. I would absolutely love to see that happen, not for other countries or people to be in danger, but just to say "I told you so" and because spite rules.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I am not trying to knock Europeans or those around the world, as I don't think everyone is Anti-American, but over the past few months some of my views have changed as far as US policies, especially after the latest UN Security Council hearing. I have never been for US Isolationism, however I would absolutely love for the US to become Isolationist and pull out from every place across the world that we are. That way we can build stronger bonds with Canada & Mexico and have the North American continent the safest place to be. Also, it would let the world deal with their own damn problems, since it is obvious the world is ungrateful for the peace we provide them day in and day out. If we were Isolationists, the world would go to utter chaos, and then we'd have all the countries that stabbed us in the back begging for our help once again. I would absolutely love to see that happen, not for other countries or people to be in danger, but just to say "I told you so" and because spite rules.
I feel the same way. I wasn't always for isolationism - but as I started looking at world politics and how ungrateful the European continent has been with our tax dollars and how condescending many of them are toward Americans and our culture and way of life - I've started to say "screw it - take care of your own damn problems."

I think we should help out Mexico - expand NAFTA and create a free trade block that extends from Canada to Mexico. Boosting Mexico out of third world status is also the only way to stop the flood of illegal immigration. We should worry about the western hemisphere. Help mexico and work southward and help South America get out of their poverty. We're wasting time on continents half a wold away who have nothing but contempt for us. We sholuld worry about our neighborhood. Let Europe worry about the Middle East - we only get a fraction of our oil there - while they get the majority of theirs there. We can get ours from South America while we work on renewable energy sources.

The amazing thing is - most Americans - not just me are starting to talk like this. It's time to stop propping up and helping out a bunch of ingrates.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The amazing thing is - most Americans - not just me are starting to talk like this. It's time to stop propping up and helping out a bunch of ingrates.
bye then. you can start now if you like.

[BeardofPants]

Wow. I love the double standards. Don't bash America, but we are alowed to bash Europeans, and other respective non-US countries? *shakes head.*

[Dúnedain]

First of all, I don't see any bashing of Europeans, at least not from my mouth. I am disappointed, as I said, in those countries that have begged us to help them in the past and then whenever we need help, they turn the other way. This even happened on September 11th with some countries!

[Dúnedain]

Here is another reason why Iraq is full of bs. This is an excerpt from an article (I saw this press conference too) where Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, speaks to the press:

There was a storm at the news conference when the Iraqi deputy PM refused to answer a question from an Israeli journalist -- drawing jeers from the international press corps.

An Israeli correspondent for the newspaper Ma'ariv cited the report mentioned by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix that determined Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missile exceeds the 93-mile (150-km) range limit specified by U.N. resolutions.

"Are you considering any kind of attack as a possibility against Israel in case of American attack?" the reporter asked. He also asked about any attack plans against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar -- Arab countries with ties to Washington.

"When I came to this press conference it was not in my agenda to answer questions by the Israel media. Sorry," Aziz said, looking away immediately.

The press corps responded with a chorus of jeering whistles.

"Is it possible for you to answer our colleague?" another reporter said. "He is a journalist. He is a member of the foreign press office. Is it possible?"

"No, I am not going to answer his question," Aziz responded.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.aziz.assisi/index.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Wow. I love the double standards. Don't bash America, but we are alowed to bash Europeans, and other respective non-US countries? *shakes head.*

What he's saying is that you condemn us when we do nothing but help you, so we have some right to condemn you.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Wow. I love the double standards. Don't bash America, but we are alowed to bash Europeans, and other respective non-US countries? *shakes head.*

Give me a break - you were one of the lead American bashers on the past threads. You did later back down and have refrained from bashing us lately - but I don't apolgise for what you now consider Euro-bashing. None of the cartoons which I have posted bash the citizens of those countires - they bash the leaders. Just like we seem unable to do anything to get your disgusting and very INAPPROPRIATE sig "Oh yes, and Death to the Bush Administration" removed. And I'm sorry - but I've seen and heard the condescending attitude of the Europeans towards Americans for years.

If you want to know how bad the feelings are with France and Germany here in the US - a friend of mine who is actually against the war now called me today. Not saying hi or anything he said "**** the French". Just to let you know his step grandmother is french, who he has actually always gotten along with and he has always wanted to go to France.

The comments made and the condscending attitude of the French at the UN about them being an old country and therefore some how superior in judging how to deal with the Iraq situation was completely uncalled for. I do like Colin Powell's response when he started his speech and he said "as the representive of the oldest democracy on the security council" that was great. :D France's attitude that since they are an older country and therefore somehow superior to the US is EXACTLY the attitude of Europe that pisses me off.

By the way - even the admins and mods were getting pissed at some of the American hatred and anti-semitic stuff that was being said in those passt threads. You can deny that there was a lot of Anti-American comments going around by europeans, you and even some Americans all you want I just wish those threads weren't deleted so people could see even a small fraction of what was being said. What I've said is tame compared to the things that were directed at us. I still do have some PMs that I have saved where people had expressed their outrage to me over the constant American bashing during that timeframe. Also - if that wasn't as prevalent as I have said then there would NOT have been any reason to start politcal threads and have to postfix them with "(NO American Bashing)".

[Coney]

How widespread is Anti-Americanism?

Take the quiz (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2635419.stm) :)

Are you Anti-American?

Quiz 2 (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/02/11_Quiz.html)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
How widespread is Anti-Americanism?

Take the quiz (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2635419.stm) :)

Are you Anti-American?

Quiz 2 (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/02/11_Quiz.html)

If Anti-American sentiment wasn't an issue as people have been claiming - then there wouldnt be any polls asking about it.

I found it interesting that France was the only country that actually had an increase in their favorable view of Americans. But as I was thinking - with a number being as low as France has always thought of - it most likely could only go up.


In Germany, favourable views slipped by 17%; in the UK they fell 8%; in Italy they declined by 6%; but in France, they rose by 1%. (French views of the US are, however, the lowest in Europe.)


Also - if Anti-Americanism isn't issue then why did Salman Rushdie say...

... anti-Americanism was an ideological enemy that the US would find harder to defeat than militant Islam.

Although he may havbe only been referring to it in the Middle East - it is just as rampant in Europe.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
How widespread is Anti-Americanism?

Take the quiz (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2635419.stm) :)

Are you Anti-American?

Quiz 2 (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/02/11_Quiz.html)

That 2nd quiz was about as opinionated as you can get. To even compare and to have the audacity to say Thomas Jefferson would be 'anti-american' today is absurd. That quote they referred to would be instilled in Jefferson if our government was defining itself as all-mighty and a dictatorship against our people and not in tune with those who govern us. Those last few paragraphs was nothing but rhetoric and propaganda....

[Coney]

Also - if Anti-Americanism isn't issue then why did Salman Rushdie say...

I didn't say that Anti-Americanism isn't an issue........unedjucated prejudice is worse than unedjucated patriostism.

*shrugs* Luckily it's the US's problem.......with even more luck anti-americanism might get our muppet of a prime minister to realise that he cannot afford to ignore popular opinion either (although I'm not holding my breath).

Wasn't it a good turn-out at the peace rallies today?:)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
That 2nd quiz was about as opinionated as you can get. To even compare and to have the audacity to say Thomas Jefferson would be 'anti-american' today is absurd. That quote they referred to would be instilled in Jefferson if our government was defining itself as all-mighty and a dictatorship against our people and not in tune with those who govern us. Those last few paragraphs was nothing but rhetoric and propaganda....

Welcome to a minor example of what I had to deal with in the past threads.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I didn't say that Anti-Americanism isn't an issue........unedjucated prejudice is worse than unedjucated patriostism.

*shrugs* Luckily it's the US's problem.......with even more luck anti-americanism might get our muppet of a prime minister to realise that he cannot afford to ignore popular opinion either (although I'm not holding my breath).

As I've said before whether you consider your Prime Minister a puppet or not is your problem.

Wasn't it a good turn-out at the peace rallies today?:)

Well here - OUR president has the support of the people. 69% of Americans now support military action. There was actually a pro-military talk at Columbia University (a liberal university) and the auditorium was packed. There have also been pro-military demonstrations here too. I guess your media doesn't show those though.

[Erawyn]

Well here - OUR president has the support of the people. 69% of Americans now support military action. There was actually a pro-military talk at Columbia University (a liberal university) and the auditorium was packed. There have also been pro-military demonstrations here too. I guess your media doesn't show those though

I was watching CNN today, and it said something like only 38 % of ppl support going to war now.

Wasn't it a good turn-out at the peace rallies today?
YES!!! It was great! I went to the one here, even though it was like -20!!! stayed out for hours

[Coney]

69%? Impressive........although I think I'll stick with^^^38% sounds a bit more optimistic.

As I've said before whether you consider your Prime Minister a puppet or not is your problem.

It is.....unfortunately the bugger will probably back-slide on his policies (again)........just to gain public trust....with a bit of luck he'll be declaring that the weapons inspectors do indeed need more time.

Although hang on.........didn't he just do that?;)........sound familiar?

I'll leave you with a nice little light reading....

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896587,00.html

And a few Cartoons (http://208.55.133.27/cartoons/cartoon.fr.main.htm) .......Because you seem to like them:)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
I was watching CNN today, and it said something like only 38 % of ppl support going to war now.


YES!!! It was great! I went to the one here, even though it was like -20!!! stayed out for hours

You mean like this survey done by Gallop Poll...


Public Rallying Around Bush's Call for War (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp)
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the wake of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's appearance before the United Nations Security Council last week, as well as President George W. Bush's speech to the nation the week before, public support for war against Iraq appears to be on the rise, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Overall, 63% of Americans support an invasion of Iraq, up from 58% last week prior to Powell's U.N. presentation, and 52% the week before, prior to Bush's State of the Union speech. The percentage of supporters with firm opinions has also increased, to 37% from 31% last week.

A solid majority of Americans say that the Bush administration has made a convincing case for military action against Iraq. The percentage is slightly higher than it was last week, but is up by seven points over the past two weeks. Also compared with last week, Americans are now more likely to say that Iraq is obstructing U.N. weapons inspectors, has facilities to create weapons of mass destruction, and has biological or chemical weapons.

At the same time, Americans remain unconvinced that Iraq represents an immediate threat to the United States, and only four in 10 are willing for the United States to invade Iraq without a new authorizing vote by the U.N. Security Council.

The poll was conducted Feb. 7-9, and shows that support for an invasion of Iraq is the highest it has been since November 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

You were only going by number of americans who don't support going without UN support - but after France - that number has now changed. More people see the UN for what it is - a debating society that refuses to take hard action.

[Coney]

Interesting site:)

Of course the French weren't always the enemy ..........Where they? (http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-07/ourman.html)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Interesting site:)

Of course the French weren't always the enemy ..........Where they? (http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-07/ourman.html)

You don't have to give me a history lesson on Benjamin Franklin.

But as is usual with the French - we had to be almost guaranteed of winning before they got involved to help us militarily. I also found it ironic that you had to go all the way to 1776 to find an event where the French helped us.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
Interesting site:)

Of course the French weren't always the enemy ..........Where they? (http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-07/ourman.html)

If you are going to put it in the perspective of 18th century history, look to the books some 20-30 years earlier when the French were the enemy during the Seven Years War a.k.a. The French and Indian War.

Coney, your thought processes are warped. You are providing information that does nothing but prove you are misinformed. No one here is calling the French or Europe "enemies" as you like to call them, with the exception of my counter point to yours. You are trying to school us on American history and points of reference that mean nothing short of propaganda pieces.

If you really want to get into an Historical debate, let's do this, I will be more than happy to break out my History degrees to counter every single point you try and make. Actually instead, let's start with this:

American involvement, cases where we have helped the French:


World War I (1917-1918)
-US Soldiers killed in action = 116,708
-US Soldiers wounded in action = 204,002
-US costs in dollars = $33 billion
World War II (1941-1945)
-US Soldiers killed in action = 408,306
-US Soldiers wounded in action = 670,846
-US costs in dollars = $360 billion
Total Killed = 525,014
Total Wounded = 874,848
Total costs = $393 billion


Now, those are only two instances where we have done something selfless for the world and France, and look at the costs we incurred. The monetary aspect is truly nothing compared to the number of lives taken and wounded. Think about how many kids lost fathers, how many kids never got 1 second with their fathers, how many families went on broken, how many people lived on alone, how many people who didn't have the chance to say goodbye, and so on.

When you can talk with powerful figures as those and compare what we have given only to get smacked in the face years down the road, then we have something to talk about. Until then do yourself a favor and know what you speak of before you type your posts. I have no problem with your opinions, in fact I am glad you have them, however, if you want to play a game of semantics then you should bring better stuff to the table cuz my gloves are off....

[Dúnedain]

damn double post :D

[BeardofPants]

Sig changed. Better now? :rolleyes:

JD, I'm tired of saying this, but I have never been anti-American. If I'm anti- anything, it is anti-war, or anti-bush administration.

[Dúnedain]

I would just like to make this clear once and for all.

America does not want to fight or have war!! We only do so when we feel it absolutely necessary!!! Colin Powell said it best the other day, "Force is only the last resort, but it must be a resort!"

That is all...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Sig changed. Better now? :rolleyes:

JD, I'm tired of saying this, but I have never been anti-American. If I'm anti- anything, it is anti-war, or anti-bush administration.
Somewhat better now. Except that we gave peace a chance, We did it the UN way for 12 years. Iraq is still NOT complying. If our troops were NOT putting pressure on Iraq he wouldn't be doing jack ****. The UN would be as impotent as it always is. Right now the UN is dead, and possibly NATO too. If the Un doesn't get some balls - they're going to be going down the same path as the League of Nations.

Iraq is the Chairman of the Disarmament Committee and Libya is the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee. If you think that the UN has any moral reason for being after those two appointments - then you are truly ignorant.

As I've said - I think the US should pull it's troops ouit of everywhere.
Let's pull them out of the Middle East, our of Africa, out of Europe, out of Asia. I want to see how long it take the Middle east to launch an attack on each other, how long it takes North Korea to invade South Korea.

Then I want you guys to call up France and ask them to handle the situation. Based on what they just gave away in the Ivory Coast - I think world will be very sorry to be following the damn French.

[Dúnedain]

Here is an article that JD showed me today. It is based off of the Iraqi-American point of view:

‘Starving for Freedom’
Iraqi-Americans Support War With Saddam, But Not With Iraqi People

By Navneet K. Gill and Justine Schiro

P H O E N I X, Feb. 12 — As the likelihood of a U.S. war with Iraq grows, support for ousting Saddam Hussein is coming from an unusual group: Iraqi-Americans.

"I think the United States is now on the right track to get rid of Saddam Hussein and help the Iraqi people to bring democracy," said Jabir Algarawi, the director of the Arizona Refugee Community Center in Phoenix, and one of the 3,000 Iraqis who have settled in Phoenix since the Gulf War ended.
With a warm, dry climate that is similar to Iraq's, Phoenix has the second-largest number of Iraqi refugees in the nation. Detroit, with 12,000 refugees, is the largest Iraqi community. Overall, 37,714 people in the United States have identified themselves as Iraqi nationals or Iraqi-Americans, according to the 2000 Census.

Since many of these refugees ran away from the brutality of Saddam's regime, for them, there is no debate about whether the United States should go to war with Iraq.

According to one refugee named Diaa, who fled Iraq in 1994 and asked that his last name be withheld, the Iraqi dictator is a "dangerous person" who has chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. government should not "leave him alone this time," Diaa added, especially since the Iraqi people are waiting for the opportunity to fight alongside American troops.

Mixed Feelings

What Diaa and the other refugees are concerned about, however, are the parameters of such a war, especially since most of the refugees still have families back in Iraq.

"I think it's good to go to war with Iraq, but not the people. We want Saddam to be destroyed, but not the people," said Mohammed Yusef, 15, who came to the United States four years ago.

For Batool Shamil, who left Iraq in 1995, the memory of Iraqis being killed in 1991 is still fresh. "I'm worry about my family there," she said. "Too many people got killed [in 1991]."

Algarawi also has mixed feelings: "A feeling that I want to see the end of that regime, and a feeling of concern about the family and the friend in Iraq."

Iraqi-Americans Cherish Freedom

As most of the Iraqi Americans have noted, the biggest difference between their homeland and their adopted land is the freedom they enjoy here. And they are worried that a postwar Iraq would not have the same liberties, especially if a U.S.-occupation of Iraq lasts several years.

"I agree with the action to change the regime only … I don't want American soldiers to stay there. We need to enjoy the freedom in our country," explained Shamil. "We are afraid they will occupy my country and they will take the oil."

Algarawi says despite the risks that would be involved in a war between America and Iraq, even those now living in Iraq are willing to support an attack against the current regime if it results in a democratic Iraq.

"The Iraqi people [are] starving for freedom," he said. "The Iraqi people want to build their country and want to be part of the international community."

Although Algarawi would rather see Saddam leave Iraq on his own, he thinks that no matter what happens, the United States has a mission to bring democracy to Iraq.

But he does not want to see a repeat of 1991. At the end of the Gulf War, Algarawi participated in a civilian uprising encouraged by then-President George Bush, father of the current president. But when the United States did not provide military support for Iraqi citizens, Saddam was able to crush the rebellion.

Algarawi said he felt betrayed and soon fled Iraq. This time around, however, he is willing to forgive the United States if it follows through.

So far, based on President Bush's pledge in his State of the Union speech to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, the refugees have faith.

"When he said we will bring the freedom to Iraq, I start to cry because it's our dream ... to have freedom," said Shamil. "I think he will keep his promise."

Here is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/IraqiAmericans030212.html

I don't think you can get more to the point than that. This is from people who have witnessed Iraq at it's worst and who hate Saddam. These are Iraqi people who can actually speak their minds and not worry about the consequences....

[Dúnedain]

I just want to re-emphasize something from that article I posted above:

"When he said we will bring the freedom to Iraq, I start to cry because it's our dream ... to have freedom," said Shamil. "I think he will keep his promise."

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You don't have to give me a history lesson on Benjamin Franklin.

But as is usual with the French - we had to be almost guaranteed of winning before they got involved to help us militarily. I also found it ironic that you had to go all the way to 1776 to find an event where the French helped us.

Now the real irony is that France ploughed so much money into helping the colonies that the ensuing french revolution brought about the democratic process which is now directly blocking you:D

Truly. fate works in mysterious ways:)

Maybe Powell should adopt Franklin's attitude and woo the French with his charms:D

Interesting addition to your sig JD-

Oh yes - And Death to all Greenpeace members.


Have the nasty people been disagreeing with you?......or calling you names again?....bless:rolleyes:

[Sister Golden Hair]

Administravive Warning- Ok folks, here is how we are going to proceed. After receiving complaints about a few things, I am under the impression that this thread may need closer monitoring then it has recieved. So here's the way it is. This is not a niegbhood block party. This board reaches people from all over the world. If you wish to discuss the situation between Iraq and the U.S. it will be done in a more constructive fashion. Under no circumstances will Flaming of other members, or bashing other countries, including but not limited to the U.S and Iraq, be tolerated. If that occurs, the post will be deleted on sight, the thread closed, and possibly other action taken.

[Elvellon]

Good sense? Being reactive instead of proactive?

You can be like that - but we're going to be going to war in the first week in March. That is very clear. YWe're not going to wait for Saddam Hussein to build up his weaponry like North Korea did or the way Europe allowed Hitler to do. We're not going to wait for Saddam Hussein to start supplying terrorists with biological and chemical weapons, in order to take action.



That is an overly melodramatic, unsubstantiated attempt at futurology.
You keep comparing him to Hitler, yah, right. What do they have in common?

Let me answer that:
Saddan is immoral creature, greedy and ambitious. The only thing he believes is in his own welfare. But, his campaigns were a joke. He never managed to defeat Iran when he had the support and blessings of the US, and only tinny Kuwait could not resist him. Even so he only advanced to attack Kuwait because apparently he believed that the US wouldn’t object.

Is capability of using weapons of mass destructions is normally used as an argument for war, but those people that do so never seem to remind that he is supposed to have had them since before the Gulf War. During this last 13 years have he use them? No? Why? Many reasons could be said but, most of all, he had nothing to gain from it and because he feared retaliations. Now tell me, what reason may he have NOT to fear them in the future?
None.
And don’t come to tell me that it is about atomics; he is supposed to be near finishing his atomic program for nearly a decade and a half now. And even if he finishes it, what changes? Wasn’t he supposed to have biological and chemical weapons already?

Hitler was not even remotely comparable with Saddan, nor was Nazi Germany to Iraq. If you want to compare someone with Hitler would not be Saddan, it would be Bin Laden.
Like him, he is a fanatic with a cause, a dangerous one. Saddan only cause is himself. He is an opportunist, and can be contained, Hitler couldn’t be.


And in Europe - plenty of American bashing has gone on for many many decades. It's the great European pastime. On the many past entmoot anti-American threads - let's see some of the things we were bashed with. Americans are lazy, we're fat and stupid. We don't bother learning languages (no matter that we live in a hemisphere where only 3 languages are mainly spoken - and French is only in Quebec). America has no culture. America is evil and has never done anything good in this world (that one was repeated over and over - even by some people who are still on this board). I wish that Ben hadn't deleted all the Anti-American threads - then you'd see why I'm lashing out so much on it. Now everyone is trying to back pedal and act like there has never been any American bashing.


Not nearly so popular a pastime as it is to SOME Americans to complain of anti- Americanism whenever someone doesn’t agree with their position over something.
It is so much comfortable.
If we keep claiming that if someone opposes something we do “because they don’t like us” we can comfortably dismiss their protest, so much simpler and comfortably. Much better than actually try to figure it out who is right; after all, what if we are the ones wrong? :rolleyes:

You complain about a FEW flaws perceived by SOME people about your nation (but then you like to attribute the authorship of all the criticism to all the Europeans).
You like to lecture us of how America is not culturally monolithic. Then let me remind you the obvious; neither are we. People perceive some flaws about you culture, true. But it would be interesting to notice that what may be a flaw to Jose is not to Henri, and what is a flaw to Henri is not to Joe. Everyone judges other nations using their own nation as comparison, you do no less.
Do Americans never perceive any cultural flaw about another culture? Of course you do. You yourself are very vocal about those that you perceive (but God forbid if they dare to do the same to you).
But do all Americans perceive the same flaws about any single nation? I think not.
America exports an IMAGE of itself, a partial, imperfect image. People judge you based on it, the same way you are judging us based or even more partial and imperfect images (after all, we don’t have such an industry exporting our culture for you to base your opinion).
Is this judgement necessarily fair/unfair? No. Nor it is equal to all the individuals making it.
And it is not because someone believes he identified a flaw in someone’s culture that he believes that nation does not have positive things, neither.

[

[Elvellon]

I know how Europe (particularly France) has their hand out for the American tourist dollar while at the same time under their breath saying "Damn uncultured Americans".
.
.
.


Please, give me a brake. There are, unfortunately, “Ugly American Tourists” (as there are of other nations). But you are very wrong if you think you are in the highest rank of the “Ugly Tourist championship” in Europe. Sorry to disappoint you, you are not even a runner up for the title.

But if you want to make tourism inside your country, well, good for you. We Portuguese defend the same thing about our country, anyway.


It's very funny by the way - how the demonstrators against the war are trying to convince us "We don't have any anti-American feelings - this isn't about American bashing - this is because we're against the war." No - your right - the demonstration USED to be American bashing - bu now Europe doesn't want the backlash of the American tourists cancelling trips and not spending money there. It'll actually affect your economy worse than it already is. It's about time Americans started boycotting countries who didn't appreciate us all these years.


The “funny thing” is that American tourism is hardly that relevant for the European Economy. Is but a small part of the European tourism industry, and for those not into the industry it have no relevance at all. And you want to justify the “sneaky explanation” of the protesters trying to cover up their “Anti-American” feelings because they had economical concerns, now that IS really hilarious.

The really thing you don’t want to see is that there are REASONS for not agreeing with the war. Like I said before, it is so much easy to pretend that those that oppose war do so because of bigotry that is to face the problem and discuss it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
That is an overly melodramatic, unsubstantiated attempt at futurology.
You keep comparing him to Hitler, yah, right. What do they have in common?

Let me answer that:
Saddan is immoral creature, greedy and ambitious. The only thing he believes is in his own welfare. But, his campaigns were a joke. He never managed to defeat Iran when he had the support and blessings of the US, and only tinny Kuwait could not resist him. Even so he only advanced to attack Kuwait because apparently he believed that the US wouldn’t object.

The US wanted neither Iraq or Iran to win that war. Either one winning would have brought instibility to the region. We were ONLY supplying Iraq in the war because of the Soviet Union was supplying Iran. Kuwait, Kuwait as the only country who resisted Iraq???? That is hiliarious. Maybe you should check what happened. Kuwait was fully occupied. The Royal family was in exile and it was the US led coalition who DROVE Iraq out of Kuwait.

Is capability of using weapons of mass destructions is normally used as an argument for war, but those people that do so never seem to remind that he is supposed to have had them since before the Gulf War. During this last 13 years have he use them? No? Why? Many reasons could be said but, most of all, he had nothing to gain from it and because he feared retaliations. Now tell me, what reason may he have NOT to fear them in the future?
None.

He's NOT supposed to have them? What you are proposing is let him have them, let him continue developing them, he hasn't used them yet - so why should we worry. Who cares if it's a terroristic regime - who is currently on the same road as North Korea.

And don’t come to tell me that it is about atomics; he is supposed to be near finishing his atomic program for nearly a decade and a half now. And even if he finishes it, what changes? Wasn’t he supposed to have biological and chemical weapons already?

Not even the French or Germans dispute the fact that he has chemical and biological weapons. Why is nuclear so bad? Let's see.... Move to the Asia penesula and look what is going on with North Korea. When yoyu have Iraqs nuclear missiles aimed right at you - which if he continues on the path he is - it will happen, I hope you call France and Germany to abil you guys out of this situation.

Hitler was not even remotely comparable with Saddan, nor was Nazi Germany to Iraq. If you want to compare someone with Hitler would not be Saddan, it would be Bin Laden.
Like him, he is a fanatic with a cause, a dangerous one. Saddan only cause is himself. He is an opportunist, and can be contained, Hitler couldn’t be.

Hitler was power hungry - the same as Saddam. Saddam entire goal has been to be the main power in the Middle East. If he develops enough weapons and the world community does NOT take a stand now - he will invade his neighbors. Then we will have much bigger problem to deal with.


Not nearly so popular a pastime as it is to SOME Americans to complain of anti- Americanism whenever someone doesn’t agree with their position over something.

The anti-americanism has been going on far longer than americans complaining about it or this particular even.

If we keep claiming that if someone opposes something we do “because they don’t like us” we can comfortably dismiss their protest, so much simpler and comfortably. Much better than actually try to figure it out who is right; after all, what if we are the ones wrong? :rolleyes:

So tell me - what makes France and Germany right? Because they're against war? They were against war during WWII, they were protesting us putting nuclear weaponry in Germany in the 1980's saying that it was going to cause nuclear holocaust - instead it lead to the break up of the Soviet Union.

[jerseydevil]

You complain about a FEW flaws perceived by SOME people about your nation (but then you like to attribute the authorship of all the criticism to all the Europeans).

As I said in previous threads - I'm not going to list every single European country. And you can't deny that the French have had serious distain for Americans for a VERY long time. And that the common phrase among Europeans toward American tourists is "Damn Americans"

You like to lecture us of how America is not culturally monolithic. Then let me remind you the obvious; neither are we. People perceive some flaws about you culture, true. But it would be interesting to notice that what may be a flaw to Jose is not to Henri, and what is a flaw to Henri is not to Joe. Everyone judges other nations using their own nation as comparison, you do no less.

I never thought you were a monolithis culture. I KNOW Poland isn't like France and England isn't like Italy. It took some teaching on my part to many mooters in the anti-american thread to teach people that the US is basically NO different than Europe. That each state is a country - tied together through the Federal Government.

Do Americans never perceive any cultural flaw about another culture? Of course you do. You yourself are very vocal about those that you perceive (but God forbid if they dare to do the same to you).
But do all Americans perceive the same flaws about any single nation? I think not.

I was never like this until the anti-american posts of last year started appearing. Also after going on other message board or ICQ and seeing so many people saying "I'll talk with anyone except Americans". If you deny that this is the case then you are blind. I personally like Europe - but I like it A LOT less than I did before I had direct dealings with people from Europe. The anti-American threads where we were called lazy, fat, stupid people was the last straw.

America exports an IMAGE of itself, a partial, imperfect image. People judge you based on it, the same way you are judging us based or even more partial and imperfect images (after all, we don’t have such an industry exporting our culture for you to base your opinion).

I actually have seen it first hand. I've shown Europeans around and I've been to England. I've come into contacts with European tourists.

Is this judgement necessarily fair/unfair? No. Nor it is equal to all the individuals making it.
And it is not because someone believes he identified a flaw in someone’s culture that he believes that nation does not have positive things, neither.
[
So then why is one of the main complaint from you guys that we're patriotic. As I said in other threads - nothing prevents you guys from being patriotic. i don't think that Europe doesn't have any positive attributes - but I'm tired of hearing the "lazy fat, uncultured Americans" I'm proud of being an American. And if anyone in Europe has distain for our culture - our culture is the cultrue of the world. We celebrate almost every country in the world here. Americans celebrate the Chinese New Year, Cinco D Mayo, we have heritage celebrations all year long.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Now the real irony is that France ploughed so much money into helping the colonies that the ensuing french revolution brought about the democratic process which is now directly blocking you:D

Truly. fate works in mysterious ways:)

Maybe Powell should adopt Franklin's attitude and woo the French with his charms:D

they're not blocking us - they're just causing the inevitable from taking place. Chirac isn't concerned about peace - he's concerned about his billions in Iraqi deals. He wants to stand up to the US and this whole thing is a power trip for him. But basically it is viewed in the US that he has just killed the UN.

Interesting addition to your sig JD-

Have the nasty people been disagreeing with you?......or calling you names again?....bless:rolleyes:
No they haven't calling me names again and I don't really care if they did. I put that in response to BoP's sig Death to the Bush Administration I wanted to make a point. I never criticised BoP once when I used to talk to her on AIM about her being in GreenPeace. I don't agree with them - but that is her opinion as to what she supports

Oh and if I had put that quote there because of her comment about New Jersey - I would have put something about New Zealand. I know she's ignorant about New Jersey - because she's never been here and she's never been to the US. She has no idea what New Jersey is like.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Is capability of using weapons of mass destructions is normally used as an argument for war, but those people that do so never seem to remind that he is supposed to have had them since before the Gulf War. During this last 13 years have he use them? No? Why? Many reasons could be said but, most of all, he had nothing to gain from it and because he feared retaliations. [

I guess you missed the fact that he dropped Anthrax from a plane onto his own people amongst other thigns he has used on them...:rolleyes:

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Elvellon
The “funny thing” is that American tourism is hardly that relevant for the European Economy. Is but a small part of the European tourism industry, and for those not into the industry it have no relevance at all.

I sincerely hope you don't believe that! It might be the case in Portugal, however since American tourism has declined since 9/11/01 you can see the slow decline in the European Economy. It's funny how when the American economy is suffering and goes down, so too does the European economy. Coincidence? I think not....

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Please, give me a brake. There are, unfortunately, “Ugly American Tourists” (as there are of other nations). But you are very wrong if you think you are in the highest rank of the “Ugly Tourist championship” in Europe. Sorry to disappoint you, you are not even a runner up for the title.

yeah - my friend from Italy said to ignore the French - they hate everyone and everyone hates them.


But if you want to make tourism inside your country, well, good for you. We Portuguese defend the same thing about our country, anyway.

The “funny thing” is that American tourism is hardly that relevant for the European Economy. Is but a small part of the European tourism industry, and for those not into the industry it have no relevance at all. And you want to justify the “sneaky explanation” of the protesters trying to cover up their “Anti-American” feelings because they had economical concerns, now that IS really hilarious.

Do you understand ecomonics and how the tourism industry affects almost every part of a society. How it is a ripple affect? You may think it only affects hotels and restaurants and tourist attractions - but it affects TAX dollars which are placed on those business, it affects transport (taxis, rail,etc) it affects the lively hood of people all the way down to the maids. but your probably right - Americans may not make up a big part of tourism in Europe. But if it does and more schools and individuls start cancling trips - you will feel an affect.

People are cancelling French and German purchases, imported cheese, wines, etc.

The really thing you don’t want to see is that there are REASONS for not agreeing with the war. Like I said before, it is so much easy to pretend that those that oppose war do so because of bigotry that is to face the problem and discuss it.
By the way - did you see on Iraqi news today where Hussein has declared victory? We discussed th problem for 12 years. There have been numerous resolutions which Hussein has never complied with. The US has technically not even have had to go to the UN - part of the cease fire WAS the REQUIREMENT that Hussein comply. The Gulf War has never ended and won't end until Hussein unconditionally releases all his information on the weapins he holds and allows inspectors unconditionally to search for them. Even Hans Blix has said he is NOT complying. The 1441 resolution was very clear in that he MUST comply.

If we DON'T take action it will show the rogue states that the UN won't do anything or stand up to anything UNTIL they have the weapons.

You seem to want to deal with them when they are bigger threat than they are now. You want to deal with them as North Korea. I want to save lives and deal with Hussein NOW before he has all his weapons ready to hold the Middle East Hostage.

[Dúnedain]

This just in:

My roomate works for the US Government and we were just talking about the possibilities of war with Iraq. He told me that over 90, yes 90, countries want to go to war against Saddam, that includes 18, yes 18, countries in Europe. So this shows that this isn't just an U.S. issue....

[markedel]

I have mixed feelings overs this.

As a Canadian I always wish our neighbours to the south well, but I am unhappy that the government has painted itself into a corner to fight because invading Iraq could have aboslutely terrible consequences. The chaos from a war would seem to argue that the U.S should not fight.

But Iraq has WMD, and if the threat of force is rendered impotent (as it would be if the U.S has to back down) then Iraq will use the weapons it has at some point, and that would be very ugly.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - America's consumerism which Europe complains about a lot - is what keeps your countries going. All you have to do is just look at the trade deficit that the US has with Europe. It is constantly talked about in the papers here how the cargo containers are piling up in Port Elizabeth, because we currently import more than we export.

[Dúnedain]

This just in:

I just read that in Florida a restaurant owner poured out all of his French & German wine in protest of them.

In Pennsylvania a lawmaker is trying to pass legislation to ban the import of French wine to Liquor stores.




The above are only 2 instances of the turn around of American sentiment currently. In case you don't know, Pennsylvania & Florida are states in the US...:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
But Iraq has WMD, and if the threat of force is rendered impotent (as it would be if the U.S has to back down) then Iraq will use the weapons it has at some point, and that would be very ugly.
not only that - but it'll create another North Korea which everyone says is a much bigger problem. And why is North Korea a problem today? Because of inaction from the UN, becasuse of negotiating three treaties with North Korea which they never adhered to.

If we want to prevent a North Korean situation in the Middle East then we have to take action while we have a chance.

I would rather have not have had war and when it was first talked about - I was against it. But as Iraq started initially to refuse inspectors - then when we had troops there - he accepted inspectors, then he refused to allow scientists to be interviewed, then when the US put more pressure on him - he accepted that. He IS a danger and he will only grow as a danger unless something is done.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
This just in:

I just read that in Florida a restaurant owner poured out all of his French & German wine in protest of them.

In Pennsylvania a lawmaker is trying to pass legislation to ban the import of French wine to Liquor stores.

The above are only 2 instances of the turn around of American sentiment currently. In case you don't know, Pennsylvania & Florida are states in the US...:p
California wines are better anyway. :D It annoys the french to no end when California wines beat them at international wine tasting competions. New Jersey also has a number of good wineries too.

[Erawyn]

You were only going by number of americans who don't support going without UN support - but after France - that number has now changed. More people see the UN for what it is - a debating society that refuses to take hard action.

Yes I know. I said going to war NOW. As in the next few weeks without UN support.

[jerseydevil]

This is what is so stupid about the peace activists who argue that North Korea is a bigger problem - so we shouldn't worry about Iraq.

There was an interview with our local paper with Joseph Cirincione who is the director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


What should we be doing about North Korea?
The administration is ignoring the fact that North Korea is steadily getting back into the plutonium production business

This is not true - we are currently working with South Korea, China and Japan and working out a plan. We have naval ships that have been to sent to North Korea.

There are three possibilities. Invade, which we can't do. Accept it, but that's dangerous. Or you can negotiate. The administration is ideologically opposed to negotiating with outlaw regimes. But the result is the North Korea is manufacturing plutonium that it can fashion into bombs or sell. It's far more dangerous than thr situation in Iraq.

Now it is more dangerous - but it started the same way Iraq is starting. Negotiating and taking at face value that they were complying.

It's also very easily solvable. We could negotiate a deal in a matter of weeks. North Korea is willing to sell us its nuclear program. We just need to negotiate the price.

In other words - pay off the local mafia of Asia. They have a gun at our head now - and in order for them not to kill us - we need to pay them off.

It would involve a nonagression pact, diplomatic recognition, aid. In exchange, we demand immediate removal of fuel rods and dismantling of all facilities so that we don't have to buy this horse again.

Funny thing is - we already did this. We already had all these things in the agreement that Clinton negotiated with North Korea. They were even continuing their nuclear program right under the nose of the UN inspectors. So I'm wondering - we have to "buy the horse" a second time and HOPEFULLY they won't do the same thing in another 5 years when they need more money?

I'm sorry it's like the mafia coming into a mom and pop store and telling the owners - we'll guarantee protection for a price. When they refuse - they're windows get broken and graffitii and everything goes on (problems they never had before). So they agree to pay - and the vandalism stops. Time goes on - and now the mafia says the price has just gone up - they refuse to pay the higher price. Again the vandalism and destruction to their store. Finally they agree a second time and everything stops.

This is basically what is going on in North Korea - and if Iraq isn't stopped now - it will be the same thing with Iraq.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
Yes I know. I said going to war NOW. As in the next few weeks without UN support.
The numbers have changed since Friday and the polls aren't out on that.

As has been pointed out - 85% of Americans were against going into WWII until pearl harbor. I think the show by Chirac has changed people's minds in America reguarding going to war in Iraq.

Everyone talks about Clinton - but Clinton's OWN advisers are saying that we have to go into Iraq. That he has clearly not complied. We tried getting the world community behind us, that failed in terms of the UN and France and Germany. The Clinton advisors have even been saying that we can not allow them to dictate our national interests or foreign policy. Clinton has even gone on television and said the same thing. The American people did NOT elect the UN. The UN does NOT have a seat in Congress.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - what I propose you guys should be wholeheartly supporting.

I propose the things which the US was founded on.

No allies, build up a defense system that supports the US only. We should recall all our troops from over seas and build up defenses in the US. That way - you don't have to worry about US foreign policy.

But when the world falls apart becuase of French and German inaction - the sign to the Statue of Liberty will be down. We can't protect everyone inside our borders. People will have to do with the new world order on their own without the US help.

[Aralyn]

I would just like to say this, My father is in the air force so this hits close to home. Everyday we wonder whether he will get called up or not. In spite of this my opinion is that this war will happen and needs to. Whether in ten years or now. Iraq needs it's weapons to make it feel big. They are also jealous. In case you haven't noticed thier economy is not the greatest. Thier weapons are a life craft to them. Ignoring the problem and deciding not to go to war will not make the problem go away. I would wholeheartedly loved to be proved wrong that war will happen but I believe it will probably come to something big.

P.S. Dont get me wrong I don't WANT this to happen.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Aralyn
I would just like to say this, My father is in the air force so this hits close to home. Everyday we wonder whether he will get called up or not. In spite of this my opinion is that this war will happen and needs to. Whether in ten years or now. ....
Ignoring the problem and deciding not to go to war will not make the problem go away.

I agree with you. All it does is give Hussein more time to perfect his weapons.

My brother is in the Navy - he was stationed in Bahrain - but now he's stationed in Japan(most likely dealing with North Korea).

I am concerned about my brother - so people who say that if you know people who would fight that the feelings would be different - isn't true. I support a war now - before Iraq becomes even a larger problem.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
My brother is in the Navy - he was stationed in Bahrain - but now he's stationed in Japan(most likely dealing with North Korea).


Speaking of Bahrain, they took 5 guys into custody over there today because they were targetting a terrorist attack on the US Navy's 5th fleet stationed there...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Speaking of Bahrain, they took 5 guys into custody over there today because they were targetting a terrorist attack on the US Navy's 5th fleet stationed there...

I had heard that.

By the way - now that North Korea has nuclear weapons - this is how they are reacting to anything to disarm them...


U.S., Russia push peaceful Korea solution (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/15/nkorea.nuclear/index.html)

Russia, which has ties with North Korea and is trying to mediate the standoff, has criticized the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency's decision to refer the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) move could open the way for punishing sanctions, which the North has said it would consider an act of war.

The North Korean government has accused the IAEA of being a pawn of the United States and meddling with its national affairs by referring the nuclear dispute to the U.N. Security Council.

Pyongyang has no obligation to the nuclear watchdog since pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty last month, according to a statement in the country's official Korean Central News Agency.

Pyongyang said it is an "interference" in its affairs for the IAEA to even discuss North Korea's "nuclear issue," calling it illegal now that it has left the NPT.

The 35-nation executive board of the IAEA Wednesday voted 31-0 to cite Pyongyang for defying U.N. nuclear safeguards, and sent the issue to the Security Council.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has said the agency will seek a "diplomatic solution" to North Korea's breach of international nuclear agreements.

"I think the message from the board ... was very clear," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Wednesday. "I think everyone made it clear that the DPRK has to come into full compliance.


If things continue to go on the way they are with Iraq - we might as well replace the name "North Korea" with the name "Iraq".

[Legolaslvr!]

What r we talking about here?

[Elvellon]

Dunedain wrote:
I guess you missed the fact that he dropped Anthrax from a plane onto his own people amongst other thigns he has used on them..


No I didn’t, but I guess you forgot when he did it. :rolleyes:


I sincerely hope you don't believe that! It might be the case in Portugal, however since American tourism has declined since 9/11/01 you can see the slow decline in the European Economy. It's funny how when the American economy is suffering and goes down, so too does the European economy. Coincidence? I think not....


Do you actually think the European recession was caused by lack of American tourists?

It has nothing to do with American tourism. All economies are connected nowadays, if a major economy, like the American, enters recession so do others, but claiming that American tourism is an important factor to the European Economy…


The above are only 2 instances of the turn around of American sentiment currently. In case you don't know, Pennsylvania & Florida are states in the US...


Are we to take you seriously at all? :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
It has nothing to do with American tourism. All economies are connected nowadays, if a major economy, like the American, enters recession so do others, but claiming that American tourism is an important factor to the European Economy…
The American economy isn't as bad as the European economy. No matteer how much the media says how bad the economy of the US is - our unemployment rate is only a little above 6% - whereas Germany's is 10.5 and the rest of Europe is only slightly less than that.

The only reason everyone thinks the American economy is so bad is because we had 4% unemployment rate 2 years ago. The US economy right now is just in a wait and see mood.

The US public boycotting European products and cancelling trips will NOT help your economy.

NATO just agreed to protect Turkey.

[Laurelyn]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
No offense man, but if you don't like all that America can and does provide for you, then get the *expletive* out....
Counting the years til I can follow your advice, buddy. Sucks to be a minor, if people want rid of me.

[Elvellon]

JD wrote:
Kuwait as the only country who resisted Iraq???? That is hiliarious


Yes it is, especially because what I was telling was that they were the only ones that didn’t manage to resist Iraq.


He's NOT supposed to have them? What you are proposing is let him have them, let him continue developing them, he hasn't used them yet - so why should we worry. Who cares if it's a terroristic regime - who is currently on the same road as North Korea.


Do we care about North Korea, Iran, Byelorussia, Saudi Arabia, China, etc?

Well, if we do (notice that I’m not speaking only of the US) we do have a strange way of showing it.

You cannot use the justification that you attack them because he is a vicious dictator and at the same time ignore all the others that do precisely the same thing (including hoarding mass destruction weapons). It becomes a void, suspicious looking explanation.


Not even the French or Germans dispute the fact that he has chemical and biological weapons. Why is nuclear so bad? Let's see.... Move to the Asia penesula and look what is going on with North Korea. When yoyu have Iraqs nuclear missiles aimed right at you - which if he continues on the path he is - it will happen, I hope you call France and Germany to abil you guys out of this situation.


You think the danger is in the missiles? That is the least of the dangers. It is so much easy to smuggle a weapon (specially a biological one) into another country and then use it.

But you keep saying it is certain he would use them. Well, the questions are what and when. What can he can gain and when can he profit from doing it?
Yet, to use that weapons is to became exposed to certain retribution, and therefore to loose all he have. Those weapons are only valuable if they are not used.


he will invade his neighbors

Nope, he will wait for the opportunity to invade. If he remains convinced that that would bring retribution he would not dare to do it.


If we DON'T take action it will show the rogue states that the UN won't do anything or stand up to anything UNTIL they have the weapons.

You seem to want to deal with them when they are bigger threat than they are now. You want to deal with them as North Korea. I won't to save lives and deal with Hussein NOW before he has all his weapons ready to hold the Middle East Hostage.


It is not only what one’s do, but how one does it.

Personally I believe that, under the current situation, containment, being viable, is the best solution by far.

And if one decides the attack is absolutely necessary, it must be done with a clear mandate of the UN (not the current case) and with hard evidence backing it, not mere conjectures or proofs that can easily be contested. Otherwise you are merely increasing local (and global) instability.

[Elvellon]

Do you understand ecomonics and how the tourism industry affects almost every part of a society. How it is a ripple affect? You may think it only affects hotels and restaurants and tourist attractions - but it affects TAX dollars which are placed on those business, it affects transport (taxis, rail,etc) it affects the lively hood of people all the way down to the maids. but your probably right - Americans may not make up a big part of tourism in Europe. But if it does and more schools and individuls start cancling trips - you will feel an affect.


I believe I have an obligation to understand something of Economics, yes. You forget only a small thing here, since American tourism is but a small part of the European tourism industry even considering the multiple ways tourism affects economy, well, don’t hold your breath expecting it to cause any major crisis (or even a significant one). So obviously you will have to find a better reason than that.


The American economy isn't as bad as the European economy. No matteer how much the media says how bad the economy of the US is - our unemployment rate is only a little above 6% - whereas Germany's is 10.5 and the rest of Europe is only slightly less than that.

The only reason everyone thinks the American economy is so bad is because we had 4% unemployment rate 2 years ago. The US economy right now is just in a wait and see mood.

The US public boycotting European products and cancelling trips will NOT help your economy.


By the way - America's consumerism which Europe complains about a lot - is what keeps your countries going. All you have to do is just look at the trade deficit that the US has with Europe. It is constantly talked about in the papers here how the cargo containers are piling up in Port Elizabeth, because we currently import more than we export.


Yes, and that from non-competitive Europe. Who would say, uh? :D

But seriously, you certainly know that consumerism itself is the target of much criticism here, American one its merely an extension, and frankly most people care about the local one, not yours.

As for you boycotting European products, sure, that would hurt…both of us, or do you expect that that wouldn’t have consequences for both sides?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Yes it is, especially because what I was telling was that they were the only ones that didn’t manage to resist Iraq.

Do we care about North Korea, Iran, Byelorussia, Saudi Arabia, China, etc?

Well, if we do (notice that I’m not speaking only of the US) we do have a strange way of showing it.

You cannot use the justification that you attack them because he is a vicious dictator and at the same time ignore all the others that do precisely the same thing (including hoarding mass destruction weapons). It becomes a void, suspicious looking explanation.

We looked at diplomacy before. Obviously that hasn't worked. Look at North Korea as example. And by the way - we have been working toward a resolution in regards to North Korea.

You think the danger is in the missiles? That is the least of the dangers. It is so much easy to smuggle a weapon (specially a biological one) into another country and then use it.

I agree - but I'm not willing to wait for him to use them or to give them to some terrorist organisation. When the time comes and he does supply them with bio and chemical weapons - how many people do you think will believe us that he supplied them. People still claim that there is no proof that Osama Bin Ladin implemented the 9/11 attacks.

But you keep saying it is certain he would use them. Well, the questions are what and when. What can he can gain and when can he profit from doing it?

He can easily sell them or he can do exactly what North Korea is doing right now. You want a situation like North Korea in the Middle East?

Yet, to use that weapons is to became exposed to certain retribution, and therefore to loose all he have. Those weapons are only valuable if they are not used.

Nope, he will wait for the opportunity to invade. If he remains convinced that that would bring retribution he would not dare to do it.

It is not only what one’s do, but how one does it.

Personally I believe that, under the current situation, containment, being viable, is the best solution by far.

Again - North Korea is a perfect example. North Korea was contained. North Korea had nuclear inspectors. North Korea has now torn up their treaties and have said "give us money or we will blow you away. If you sanction us - we will consider that as a decaration of war."

And if one decides the attack is absolutely necessary, it must be done with a clear mandate of the UN (not the current case) and with hard evidence backing it, not mere conjectures or proofs that can easily be contested. Otherwise you are merely increasing local (and global) instability.
1441 wasn't about proving that Hussien had the weapons. Hussein was supposed to declare everything he had. Even Hans Blix has said that tons of VX nerve gas has NOT been accounted for by Iraq. That they have missiles which gone beyond their limits. That they have continued to comply with 17 resolutions to date. Now we are working on an 18th resolution - another resolution that Hussein can take and use as a door mat.

By the way - the typ eof man Hussein is has been very much demonstrated today. He has declared that will blow up his oil wells, blow up his dams, starve his own people. You really think a person like this will have any qualms about using biological and chemical weapons to get what he wants in the Middle East?

[Elvellon]

So tell me - what makes France and Germany right? Because they're against war? They were against war during WWII, they were protesting us putting nuclear weaponry in Germany in the 1980's saying that it was going to cause nuclear holocaust - instead it lead to the break up of the Soviet Union.


So I tell you; the point here is not if they are right or wrong, the point is they (the people) do it because they have reasons to believe in the peace solution. Claiming they oppose you here because “they are anti-Americans” is simply refusing to face their reasons and to refuse democratic debate.



actually have seen it first hand. I've shown Europeans around and I've been to England. I've come into contacts with European tourists.


So you actually think that gives you more than the merest glimpse about Europeans? First hand would be to live here, for a long time. I’m sure you would agree the same is true about America.


So then why is one of the main complaint from you guys that we're patriotic. As I said in other threads - nothing prevents you guys from being patriotic.

Patriotism is a double edge sword. While it have its positive points, it blinds those who live it too intensely towards facts, and allows people to be led by obscure characters for their own dark schemes. You like to talk about WWII; that should give you a good hint why we distrust it.


but I'm tired of hearing the "lazy fat, uncultured Americans"


Yes, I’m tired of it too, even if it is usually just Americans complaining to have been called it, somewhere. And yet some Americans do not seem to refrain to use even worse epithets about others, too. Fortunately true bigots are rare in both sides of the Atlantic, so why give them power by playing their game?

I think I’ll not repeat myself more over this issue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
So I tell you; the point here is not if they are right or wrong, the point is they (the people) do it because they have reasons to believe in the peace solution. Claiming they oppose you here because “they are anti-Americans” is simply refusing to face their reasons and to refuse democratic debate.

We've tried the peace solution. He kicke out the inspectors - which according to the agreement made at the end of the Gulf War was that military action would commence. The US and Britain lobbed a few bombs - the world took no action. So now he has been free for 4 years to continue with his weapons programs.

So you actually think that gives you more than the merest glimpse about Europeans? First hand would be to live here, for a long time. I’m sure you would agree the same is true about America.

Yes - but I've heard enough Europeans state everything about Americans. Last year - I will go again with the anti-American comments - there were many posts from Europeans making accusations with no idea how the US government works or anything about state governments or anything about Americans themselves. But one thing at least seperated me from them - I have at least BEEN to Europe (England) and I have at least studied European History.


Patriotism is a double edge sword. While it have its positive points, it blinds those who live it too intensely towards facts, and allows people to be led by obscure characters for their own dark schemes. You like to talk about WWII; that should give you a good hint why we distrust it.

Sorry - but we're not goosestepping down the streets of Washington. We're proud of our country and we're not afraid to express it. If it bothers - oh well.


Yes, I’m tired of it too, even if it is usually just Americans complaining to have been called it, somewhere. And yet some Americans do not seem to refrain to use even worse epithets about others, too. Fortunately true bigots are rare in both sides of the Atlantic, so why give them power by playing their game?

I'll have you know that Americans are VERY welcoming to outsiders. For one thing - our nation is made up of outsiders. No matter what country you come from, once you become a citizen of this country - you are an American. When visitors come to this country we are always nice - and not superficial nice either. I'd like to know what worse epithets you think we say to visitors from other countries.

[Elvellon]

but I'm not willing to wait for him to use them or to give them to some terrorist organisation. When the time comes and he does supply them with bio and cemical weapons


Look. He is supposed to have them, right ?
Now then, the surest reason he may have to use them is if he is attacked, so, if you strike him to avoid an attack, that seems a rather pointless thing to do.
But, if he does not uses those weapons, even if under the extreme case of an attack against him, it also becomes pointless to attack him because of it.
On the other hand, the threat of his destruction if he uses them should work, since his first goal is to keep his power.


He can easily sell them or he can do exactly what North Korea is doing right now. You want a situation like North Korea in the Middle East?


Frankly I don’t see Saddan separating himself of his “precioussssss” for anything in the world.

If you want to worry about terrorists getting their hand on those kind of weapons think of the Russia mafia & co.



We looked at diplomacy before. Obviously that hasn't worked. Look at North Korea as example. And by the way - we have been working toward a resolution in regards to North Korea.

Again - North Korea is a perfect example. North Korea was contained. North Korea had nuclear inspectors. North Korea has now torn up their treaties and have said "give us money or we will blow you away. If you sanction us - we will consider that as a decaration of war


North Korea was always treated in a very, very different tone, I might say.


1441 wasn't about proving that Hussien had the weapons. Hussein was supposed to declare everything he had. Even Hans Blix has said that tons of VX nerve gas has NOT been accounted for by Iraq. That they have missiles which gone beyond their limits. That they have continued to comply with 17 resolutions to date. Now we are working on an 18th resolution - another resolution that Hussein can take and use as a door mat.


Nor was I saying it was. Yet, like I said before, this is not only about “doing the right thing”, but also of how to do it.
For over a decade the Iraqi situation hardly mattered, during that time he was contained. Now, suddenly, without any new dramatic action from Iraq, what was considered a mild problem and a low threat is now considered a major one. It is not very difficult to see that if those faults weren’t seen as a reason then, then the people will have a hard time seeing why they are now.
Further, liking or not, the way Bush is handling the problem hampered his case a lot.

[Elvellon]

Yes - but I've heard enough Europeans state everything about Americans. Last year - I will go again with the anti-American comments - there were many posts from Europeans making accusations with no idea how the US government works or anything about state governments or anything about Americans themselves. But one thing at least seperated me from them - I have at least BEEN to Europe (England) and I have at least studied European History.


I’ll not return to the Anti-American thing, I believe I have stated clearly my opinion before.


Sorry - but we're not goosestepping down the streets of Washington. We're proud of our country and we're not afraid to express it. If it bothers - oh well.

Actually you are the one that seems bothered because we distrust it, and it is not yours, it is “it” in general.


I'll have you know that Americans are VERY welcoming to outsiders. For one thing - our nation is made up of outsiders. No matter what country you come from, once you become a citizen of this country - you are an American. When visitors come to this country we are always nice - and not superficial nice either. I'd like to know what worse epithets you think we say to visitors from other countries.


Eurowimps, cowards, Nazis, lazy, presumptuous/arrogant <inset nationality>, Eurotrash, parasites, and other generally colourful sobriquets.

The point is, those that say these kind of things are a minority, in both sides of the Atlantic , so I repeat; why play their games?

BTW, I was not speaking in particular of tourists going there.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Look. He is supposed to have them, right ?
Now then, the surest reason he may have to use them is if he is attacked, so, if you strike him to avoid an attack, that seems a rather pointless thing to do.
But, if he does not uses those weapons, even if under the extreme case of an attack against him, it also becomes pointless to attack him because of it.
On the other hand, the threat of his destruction if he uses them should work, since his first goal is to keep his power.

Yeah - that worked with Hitler and is working with North Korea just great. History shows that mad regimes do not just "sit" on their stock pile of weapons. They use them either as blackmail, us them to attack, or they sell them.

Frankly I don’t see Saddan separating himself of his “precioussssss” for anything in the world.

keep dreaming then - the world is a much nicer place if you ignore reality. :rolleyes:

If you want to worry about terrorists getting their hand on those kind of weapons think of the Russia mafia & co.

I do - but at least Russia is stable now and doesn't have a madman it's helm.

North Korea was always treated in a very, very different tone, I might say.

In there weird twisted minds they were. The US had no intentions of invading North Korea. We have about 50,000 troops in South Korea, compared to a million soldiers in North Korea. Think about it - how were they threatened?

Nor was I saying it was. Yet, like I said before, this is not only about “doing the right thing”, but also of how to do it.
For over a decade the Iraqi situation hardly mattered, during that time he was contained. Now, suddenly, without any new dramatic action from Iraq, what was considered a mild problem and a low threat is now considered a major one. It is not very difficult to see that if those faults weren’t seen as a reason then, then the people will have a hard time seeing why they are now.
Further, liking or not, the way Bush is handling the problem hampered his case a lot.
No - iraq did matter. The world just chose to ignore it. The US and Britain have been keeping watch on the no fly zones and protecting the Kurds and Si'ites for 10 years. Also - the Middle East situation has changed after 9/11. We did it the UN way - and that has failed.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Actually you are the one that seems bothered because we distrust it, and it is not yours, it is “it” in general.

Well we're not going to change our attitude toward our country to please outsiders view of how we should act.

Eurowimps, cowards, Nazis, lazy, presumptuous/arrogant <inset nationality>, Eurotrash, parasites, and other generally colourful sobriquets.
Well we never called Europeans Nazis, or lazy or parasites. Arrogant does fit a lot of times (expecially when Europeans talk about their culture). But you did forget the latest - Eurowhiners. :D

[Elvellon]

keep dreaming then - the world is a much nicer place if you ignore reality


Yes it is, you, for instance, never gave a good valid reason why he would want to do it, yet there are several reasons why he wouldn’t do it.


I do - but at least Russia is stable now and doesn't have a madman it's helm.

Since Putin doesn’t control the Russian mafia that fact doesn’t seems very reassuring.


there weird twisted minds they were. The US had no intentions of invading North Korea. We have about 50,000 troops in South Korea, compared to a million soldiers in North Korea. Think about it - how were they threatened?


Precisely, they weren’t, (nor are), in the least.


Well we're not going to change our attitude toward our country to please outsiders view of how we should act.


And who cares? You brought that issue up in the first place.


Well we never called Europeans Nazis, or lazy or parasites. Arrogant does fit a lot of times (expecially when Europeans talk about their culture). But you did forget the latest - Eurowhiners


You mean you never saw it, but I did. But frankly, what that kind of people says it is not something even worth discussing.

As for arrogance, it is a flaw that can be seen in some people of both sides of the Atlantic.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Yes it is, you, for instance, never gave a good valid reason why he would want to do it, yet there are several reasons why he wouldn’t do it.
Yes I did - you just don't want to accept them. You'd rather stick your head in the ground, ignore the problem like Europe generally does - until it becomes too late.

You think he's just developing weapons for the fun of it? He himself has declared that his goal is and has been to take control of the Middle East. I don't know how much more he has to say for Europe to wake up to what his plans would be once he has enough weapons. It might have been back in the 1980's when he declared this openly - but if you think his plans have changed then you're blinded even more than I thought. Oh and Iraq will be an even better place once his son takes the reins.

[Draken]

Bloody hell is this one STILL rumbling on?

Nice debate but 12 years late. Iraq was quite open about its chemical weapon capability then and there wasn't much debate about their theatre weapons as they were dropping them on Israel at the time. The best time for "the West" (let's generalise it to spare sensitive souls) to get tough on Saddam was when his army was in shreds, the Marsh Arabs were rising in revolt and coalition forces were advancing on Basra.

I as working at a defence establishment at the time and pretty much everyone thought the end to the 1991 war came prematurely. Then it was the leaders of "the West" that meekly claimed they wished to obey the UN resolution to liberate Kuwait and no more. I don't recall there being much concerted pressure on "the West" - there hadn't been time, for starters - but suddenly everyone was keen to slam on the brakes and watch as the falsely encouraged Iraqi rebels were stamped on.

12 years ago blokes with allied armies in Iraq reached for the UN rulebook, played it cautiously and let Saddam be - and were hailed as victors.

Sort of ironic that those same attributes now are being portrayed as the the ultimate in cowardice and ingratitude.

Times change, n'est pa?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Draken
Bloody hell is this one STILL rumbling on?

Nice debate but 12 years late. Iraq was quite open about its chemical weapon capability then and there wasn't much debate about their theatre weapons as they were dropping them on Israel at the time. The best time for "the West" (let's generalise it to spare sensitive souls) to get tough on Saddam was when his army was in shreds, the Marsh Arabs were rising in revolt and coalition forces were advancing on Basra.

I as working at a defence establishment at the time and pretty much everyone thought the end to the 1991 war came prematurely. Then it was the leaders of "the West" that meekly claimed they wished to obey the UN resolution to liberate Kuwait and no more. I don't recall there being much concerted pressure on "the West" - there hadn't been time, for starters - but suddenly everyone was keen to slam on the brakes and watch as the falsely encouraged Iraqi rebels were stamped on.

12 years ago blokes with allied armies in Iraq reached for the UN rulebook, played it cautiously and let Saddam be - and were hailed as victors.

Sort of ironic that those same attributes now are being portrayed as the the ultimate in cowardice and ingratitude.

Times change, n'est pa?
i agree - i wanted the fight to finish it off. if it had - we wouldn't be in todays situation. We wouldn't be playing this cat and mouse game with Saddam Hussein. The reason we backed off was because the European countries were against that action. The Muslim support was going to disolve too.

We allowed the resistence movement within Iraq to think that they could rise up against Hussein and they'd have backing. Instead 50,000 paid with their lives. Then when Hussein kicked out the inspectors - the UN and the world said "oh well". France during this same time - even though Hussein did not comply with a single resolution - has repeatedly called for the lifting of sanctions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The reason we backed off was because the European countries were against that action. The Muslim support was going to disolve too.

I always heard that the reason we backed off with Iraq that time was because we didn't have a strong plan of what to do if he was gone, were afraid of destabilizing the region and didn't want to keep up a military presence in Iraq.

At that point we had Saddam Hussein's army cornered and could easily have won the war. Whether we had European backing or not at that point, I think, wouldn't have made much difference.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I always heard that the reason we backed off with Iraq that time was because we didn't have a strong plan of what to do if he was gone, were afraid of destabilizing the region and didn't want to keep up a military presence in Iraq.

At that point we had Saddam Hussein's army cornered and could easily have won the war. Whether we had European backing or not at that point, I think, wouldn't have made much difference.
that might have been part of it - but the majority of allies in the coalition were saying that the UN didn't mandate the removal of Hussein. Un only authorised the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Once that was done - everyone else considered the mission accomplished.

[Dunadan]

The US wasn't bothered about Saddam as long as he toed the line and only killed Kurds and Iranians. In fact, that was his job. They thought he'd learn his lesson and get back to what he was good at after 1991, which he did, hence 12 years of containment.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
The US wasn't bothered about Saddam as long as he toed the line and only killed Kurds and Iranians. In fact, that was his job. They thought he'd learn his lesson and get back to what he was good at after 1991, which he did, hence 12 years of containment.
No that wasn't the case. If you remember what was going on between iran and Iraq during the cold war - then you'd understand. The US was only supporting Hussein because the Soviet Union was supporting Iran. As I have said - the US wanted NEITHER country to become dominate in the region.

And if we wanted him to get on with killing Kurds - do you really think we'd be spending billions protecting them in the north? or protecting the Shi'ites in the south?

[Elvellon]

Yes I did - you just don't want to accept them. You'd rather stick your head in the ground, ignore the problem like Europe generally does - until it becomes too late.



Valid explanation? Then you should have no trouble explaining this:

As you have defended:
Saddan have mass destruction weapons, he have contacts with terrorists, and he is likely to us them, so a war is made to prevent him of using them.

But now comes the incongruent point; if he has the weapons and the will to use them, won’t he use them if attacked?
And if he uses them if attacked, doesn’t that make void the motive for the war, which is supposedly to prevent it?

Not that I’m really expecting an answer to this…

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Valid explanation? Then you should have no trouble explaining this:

As you have defended:
Saddan have mass destruction weapons, he have contacts with terrorists, and he is likely to us them, so a war is made to prevent him of using them.

He might resort to using them on the military - or possibly even his own people (which he doesn't need an excuse to do anyway). But he won't have time to get them out of his country to attack a western country with them. Once he gets them into the hands of someone to attack a western country with them - at that point - he will have enough where an offensive against him will be MUCH MORE expensive in terms of human lives.

But now comes the incongruent point; if he has the weapons and the will to use them, won’t he use them if attacked?
And if he uses them if attacked, doesn’t that make void the motive for the war, which is supposedly to prevent it?

Not that I’m really expecting an answer to this…
Well then I guess you'll be surprised to get an answer.

So in other words - what you are saying is that we should just let him go on developing them until he has enough to actually use them in offensive - instead of a defensive posture where we currently have the upper hand???

The role of the war is to disarm him - if he uses them during the war - he will not have any left and he will be removed from power. We will NOT have to worry about him again in 5 or 10 years like we do now with North Korea.

If something isn't done now - you will be seeing the following in 10 years from Iraq...


N. Korea 'will win nuke war' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/17/nkorea.nuclear/index.html)
SEOUL, South Korea -- In another verbal barrage aimed at Washington, North Korea says it will win any nuclear conflict with the United States thanks to Pyongyang's "army-first" political system.

"Victory in a nuclear conflict will be ours and the red flag of army-first politics will flutter ever more vigorously," a North Korean state radio broadcast said, as reported by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

"Our victory is certain and the future ever more radiant."

The standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons program began in October when the U.S. said Pyongyang admitted to secretly pursuing plans to enrich uranium, violating a 1994 agreement.

North Korea then dismissed weapons inspectors, pulled out of the international nuclear anti-proliferation treaty and restarted its nuclear facilities.


You may have to replace the nuclear with biological and chemical - but I actually fear those more than nuclear. Bilogical and chemical can basically be transported in an aresol can.

By the way - your same argument was used with Hitler during WWII. -"Maybe if we let him go - he won't attack us" it didn't work then - and it won't work now.

[Elvellon]

But he won't have time to get them out of his country to attack a western country with them. Once he gets them into the hands of someone to attack a western country with them - at that point - he will have enough where an offensive against him will be MUCH MORE expensive in terms of human lives.


He won’t have? You mean that 13 years are not enough to do it?
Then I suppose we should not bother with him at all, at that speed he won’t do it before he dies of old age.

Well then I guess you'll be surprised to get an answer.

in other words - what you are saying is that we should just let him go on developing them until he has enough to actually use them in offensive - instead of a defensive posture where we currently have the upper hand???

The role of the war is to disarm him - if he uses them during the war - he will not have any left and he will be removed from power. We will NOT have to worry about him again in 5 or 10 years like we do now with North Korea.

If something isn't done now - you will be seeing the following in 10 years from Iraq...


Upper hand? Defensive unconventional war?
JR, those weapons have only one use, and one use alone, dissuasion. If you actually use them against another country, then it always becomes an offensive weapon, and the result is always the same, retaliation and complete destruction.

But you are right in one thing, if you attack and he is as dangerous as you believe you won’t have to worry with him in 5 years, you will have to worry with him now.

For if he do have close contacts with terrorists, and if he is willing to use them that way, then they already have them, and furthermore even after wining the war I bet you won’t find most of what is now currently missing.


As for North Korea, a rather uninspired propaganda speech don’t you think?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
He won’t have? You mean that 13 years are not enough to do it?
Then I suppose we should not bother with him at all, at that speed he won’t do it before he dies of old age.

Oh - that makes a lot of sense. By the way - his son is even worse.

Upper hand? Defensive unconventional war?
JR, those weapons have only one use, and one use alone, dissuasion. If you actually use them against another country, then it always becomes an offensive weapon, and the result is always the same, retaliation and complete destruction.

Yeah - with A LOT MORE human casualities. So you'd rather be reactive than proactive? If Hitler was taken care of when he first moved into France (before he over took Austria) - WWII would have been avoided.

But you are right in one thing, if you attack and he is as dangerous as you believe you won’t have to worry with him in 5 years, you will have to worry with him now.

I'd rather deal with him NOW than try to deal with him when he has developed himself into another NK situation. We will also in the process be freeing the Iraqi people from the torture and death they now face under his regime.


For if he do have close contacts with terrorists, and if he is willing to use them that way, then they already have them, and furthermore even after wining the war I bet you won’t find most of what is now currently missing.

that is not necessarily tru and a very weak argument for going against him. Under that argument I guess we shouldn't be going against anyone. Everyone may use their weapons or supplied them to someone else and once they have - I guess there is just no reason to take action.


As for North Korea, a rather uninspired propaganda speech don’t you think?
It may be propaganda - but it is definitely true. It makes dealing with North Korea much more difficult. What happens if he launches a nuclear bomb across to Japan? Do you recommend that the US launch Nuclear bombs at North Korea? We can - but then it affects China and South Korea. It can launch the entire area into a nuclear conflict.

Also - by your rationale of dealing with Iraq =- I guess we should just let North Korea go. They haven't used their weapons yet. They haven't in FIFTY years - so what makes us think they will now????

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No that wasn't the case. If you remember what was going on between iran and Iraq during the cold war - then you'd understand. The US was only supporting Hussein because the Soviet Union was supporting Iran.
Exactly my point: he was doing what we required of him, so we didn't mind him wiping out Kurds. Maybe if you remember to read the post, then you'd understand.

All these Hitler analogies are utterly bankrupt. Iraq is a total mess, Germany in the late 30s was the second largest economy in the world, with the largest military machine. OK, both Hussein and Hitler are utter bar stewards who deserve to be tied up and shot with a blunderbuss loaded with their own *****e, but that's as far as it goes.

Just because you were 2 years late for that war doesn't mean you need to be early for this one.
:rolleyes:

cheers

d

By the way, that was a joke

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Exactly my point: he was doing what we required of him, so we didn't mind him wiping out Kurds. Maybe if you remember to read the post, then you'd understand.

You stated that we wanted him to go BACK to killing Iranians and Kurds after 1991.


All these Hitler analogies are utterly bankrupt. Iraq is a total mess, Germany in the late 30s was the second largest economy in the world, with the largest military machine. OK, both Hussein and Hitler are utter bar stewards who deserve to be tied up and shot with a blunderbuss loaded with their own *****e, but that's as far as it goes.

We live in the Twenty-FIRST Century now. You don't need a huge military machine or large economy to do what Hitler did. Osama bin Ladin took down two office buildings which had more business space than all of the city of San Diego. All it took for him to do that was a couple of box cutters and a few plane tickets. maybe you don't realise how big those buildings were - but they had their own zip code. They were basically a city within a city. (And don't tell me that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because I know that) - I'm just pointing out that in order to do massive damage an d to wage war in todays time - you do NOT need the massive military or economy that Hitler needed.

Look at North Korea - their country is bankrupt - their people are starving. They may have 1 million strong in their military - but we CAN take them out. It gets much more difficult when you are dealing with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Again - if you want to use that excuse for Iraq - then why are we worrying about North Korea? It doesn't take much to produce chemical and biological weapons which will cause a LOT MORE civilian casualties than the German Blitzkrieg did during the bombing of London.

Just because you were 2 years late for that war doesn't mean you need to be early for this one.
:rolleyes:

By the way, that was a joke
I should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.

[Elvellon]

Oh - that makes a lot of sense. By the way - his son is even worse.

Yep, I was being ironical (should have used smillies).


that is not necessarily tru and a very weak argument for going against him. Under that argument I guess we shouldn't be going against anyone. Everyone may use their weapons or supplied them to someone else and once they have - I guess there is just no reason to take action
[/quote]
Not what I believe neither, BUT according with the War apologists should be true. After all, they are the ones saying he has the connections with them, and is willing to give those weapons to them. If he has the contacts and the willingness, why wouldn’t he use them? There is a gap in the reasoning there.

It doesn’t make any sense at all that he, having those weapons all this time, and being eager to use them, never deployed them out of the country and tried to blackmail the west against the lifting of the sanctions or for another dark scheme of expansion. In fact, you seem to believe that it isn’t even likely that he, after 9/11 did deployed them, just in case if he got attacked due to his terrorist contacts.


Yeah - with A LOT MORE human casualities. So you'd rather be reactive than proactive? If Hitler was taken care of when he first moved into France (before he over took Austria) - WWII would have been avoided.
I know that, you know that, millions know that, and yet you seem to believe Saddan doesn’t know it or doesn’t care. Well I can’t say he strikes me as being that ignorant, nor does he seem to be the kind to suicide.

Also - by your rationale of dealing with Iraq =- I guess we should just let North Korea go. They haven't used their weapons yet. They haven't in FIFTY years - so what makes us think they will now????


Now that makes me curious, what do you think holds him back?

[Elvellon]

should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.


Nothing? You mean that the Nazis and Imperial Japan would leave the US alone?

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You stated that we wanted him to go BACK to killing Iranians and Kurds after 1991.


We live in the Twenty-FIRST Century now. You don't need a huge military machine or large economy to do what Hitler did. Osama bin Ladin took down two office buildings which had more business space than all of the city of San Diego.[/B]
I know. I watched it on the TV. And I wept.

However, I'm glad you mentioned that, because it's another example of how you've got it all wrong over Iraq/Al-Qaida and terrorism. It's a simple fact that you cannot defeat terrorism in a war. By its nature, all you need are a few diehard nutters and they can wreak all manner of devastation. New technologies (always developed by states, by the way) just provide new ways of doing it. They can, and do, hide anywhere.

There are two ways of doing it: having a police state, which worked quite effectively in the Soviet bloc (though how well we probably don't really know), or eroding their support.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Nothing? You mean that the Nazis and Imperial Japan would leave the US alone?

Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.

I should remind you that Slobodan Milosevic didn't attack any other countries. His attrocities could have been contained within his country possibly. We can never know. Maybe we should have waited longer to take action against him. Wait until he ACTUALLY attacked another country.

[Erawyn]

Someone in the government who is saying something....

War: The Most Horrible Human Experience
Senator Robert Byrd, AlterNet
February 17, 2003
Viewed on February 17, 2003

U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) made the following statement on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003.


To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.


Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.


We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.


And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.


This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.


High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.


Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.


This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

[Erawyn]

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.


In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.


Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.


The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.


Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?


And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?


Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?


Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?


In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.


One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.


But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

[Erawyn]

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.


To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.


Sorry this was so long, but I think it's a really great speech, and basically I agree with everything in it, and my guess is a lot of other people do too.... It would be great if someone would listen to this guy!

[jerseydevil]

Too bad there has been discussion - incuding Congress overwhelmingly giving the president authorization to use force against Iraq.

He may not like what the majority of the Senate feels - but that is his problem. The "non-supporters" are in the minority in Congress.

[jerseydevil]

Also - you might want to look at Robert Byrd's record. He is the KING of pork barrel projects.

[Elvellon]

Wow, not much more to say, now :D.

[Erawyn]

He is the KING of pork barrel projects.
So therefore any opinions he might have are invalid?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Wow, not much more to say, now :D.

Actually I do - but it's hard to communicate with some with her head stuck in the ground.

The fact is that Resultion 1441 requires Hussein to comply unditionally or face severe consequences. He is not complying - even according to Hans Blix - so he's using another resolution as a door mat and France and Germany and the rest of the inept UN are letting him.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
So therefore any opinions he might have are invalid?
first off the economy is not that bad. It's in a wait and see attitude.

The economy was a bubble econmy which was created under the Clinton administation and had actually started to unravel in his last year of office. 9/11 did not help the situation after that and being in continuous fear of a terrorist attack is not helping the stock market.

But th unemployment rate of the US is only a little above 6% - the only reason why it sounds so much worse than it is - is because it was 4% before. Germany's unemployment rate however is 10.5% and the rest of Europe is only slightly below that.

In terms of the deficit - the deficit in terms of GDP of the United States is minor.

[Elvellon]

Actually I do - but it's hard to communicate with some with her head stuck in the ground


Well, I wasn't talking about you.
And Yes, I agree, you should try to come out of that hole in the ground more often :D


Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.

I should remind you that Slobodan Milosevic didn't attack any other countries. His attrocities could have been contained within his country possibly. We can never know. Maybe we should have waited longer to take action against him. Wait until he ACTUALLY attacked another country.


And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.

But the question was not that, I was rather curious that you being pro-active would like to sit waiting for Hitler to make his move, doesn’t seems very congruent.


Ah yes, Slobodan, actually, that was a reactive action. The argument used for war now was not what Saddan is doing but what he might do, not the same thing. But I do believe that there isn’t much to be add to this discussion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Well, I wasn't talking about you.
And Yes, I agree, you should try to come out of that hole in the ground more often :D

I don't have my head stuck in the ground. I have history to back me up on issues where IF we had taken PROACTIVE action - we could have saved millions and millions of lives.


And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.

Japan actually declared war on us by attacking us.


But the question was not that, I was rather curious that you being pro-active would like to sit waiting for Hitler to make his move, doesn’t seems very congruent.

No it doesn't - but obviously you missed my point. Why should we have helped you with Germany - Germany didn't attack us. Maybe we should have just have contained him in Europe. :D


Ah yes, Slobodan, actually, that was a reactive action. The argument used for war now was not what Saddan is doing but what he might do, not the same thing. But I do believe that there isn’t much to be add to this discussion.
What was he doing to Europe or any other country other than his own? What country did he attack? I don't recall him moving tanks into Austria, Turkey, England, France, Germany or any other European country. We could have contained him and let him go on killing his own people - like Hussein does.

We went in there because we were afraid that it WOULD spill over into the rest Europe. In other words we acted PROACTIVELY. We should have acted far sooner though - we would have saved thousands of innocent lives.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

But he didn't. So your point is?

[BeardofPants]

Only because it was blown out of the water by the British Code-Breakers. And I would have thought my point was excruciatingly obvious.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

Germany found us a threat and where it saw a threat, it sought to eliminate. And anyway, Hitler didn't give that order. It was one of his officers, acting without authorization, as I recall.

And even if your point is meant to be extremely obvious, I'm afraid I still don't see it. Is your point that we had a reason to attack Germany because it was trying to attack us? I think that if that's your point, it's pretty lame, because it is obvious that Hitler was after world conquest. Our taking a passive stance to that war would have had disastrous effects upon the world, even though it didn't effect us quickly. Its effects would have been later on, when they came after us. But we saw the threat and attempted to neutralize it, even though Germany wasn't after America. Whatever way you look at it, whether you're saying in that fight we were reactive or the attackers, the situation still says something for not being reactive.

[BeardofPants]

Something like that.

http://www.disappearing-inc.com/Z/zimmermantelegram.html

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/scied/Staff/Shoberg/History/wwi/zimmer.htm



******

My point is that the US would not have been able to pursue an isolationist policy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Only because it was blown out of the water by the British Code-Breakers. And I would have thought my point was excruciatingly obvious.

But he didn't and based on what everyone has been saying - we should not have attacked Germany - even if he was planning on attcking us through Mexico. We should have basically have waited until he attacked California, New Mexico, Arizona or Texas.

I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Our taking a passive stance to that war would have had disastrous effects upon the world, even though it didn't effect us quickly. Its effects would have been later on, when they came after us. But we saw the threat and attempted to neutralize it, even though Germany wasn't after America. Whatever way you look at it, whether you're saying in that fight we were reactive or the attackers, the situation still says something for not being reactive.
Which is EXACTLY what we are doing in Iraq and the Middle East.

[Lief Erikson]

I think BeardofPants is trying to make World War 2 useless as an example of successful proactive attack, based on the idea that we were acting entirely on self interest.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack.

It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
My point is that the US would not have been able to pursue an isolationist policy.
And just like we couldn't sit back then and wait for something to happen - we can NOT just sit back now and wait for something to happen.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Which is EXACTLY what we are doing in Iraq and the Middle East.

Yes.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think BeardofPants is trying to make World War 2 useless as an example of successful proactive attack, based on the idea that we were acting entirely on self interest.

I'll make this nice and simple. I wasn't making an argument on pro-active attacks. I was commenting on JD's comments that America should have just left Europe to it. Hence my bringing up the Mexican link. Got it yet? :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

My isolationist arguments were SATIRICAL. I keep hearing everyone say that we should be reactive with Iraq than proactive - I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that is. Sorry you missed the satire in it all.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

Ahhh! Okay, I see what you're saying now. And I actually tend to agree with you. Although it might sound nice to settle down in complete safety, earning money and protected by fine intelligence operations and a strong military, I personally hate to think what the consequences on the world would be if we took such a position. Because of that, I'd go against being isolationist, and think that would be selfish. Even if some don't appreciate us. If we need everyone to appreciate what we're doing, then we're acting to be heroes in the public eye, not to do what's right.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
My isolationist arguments were SATIRICAL. I keep hearing everyone say that we should be reactive with Iraq than proactive - I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that is. Sorry you missed the satire in it all.

You weren't serious in your isolationist arguments? :confused: Jeepers, either I'd better get off this thread to avoid making a fool of myself, or you and BeardofPants should try to be more straightforward. You fooled each other as to your points and both of you fooled me! Too witty to be understood ;).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
You weren't serious in your isolationist arguments? :confused: Jeepers, either I'd better get off this thread to avoid making a fool of myself, or you and BeardofPants should try to be more straightforward. You fooled each other as to your points and both of you fooled me! Too witty to be understood ;).

I knew what BoP was getting at - I just wanted to make my point stick in a little more. Of course we couldn't act reactively in WWII or be isolationist. If we did we would have been fighting against the entire world. We should have probably have gotten into the war sooner - but before Pearl Harbor American public opion was 85% AGAINST going to war.

Being proactive - is not always a bad thing and is sometimes necessary. Which in the case of Iraq - I think it is since he refuses to fully comply with the UN resolutions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I knew what BoP was getting at - I just wanted to make my point stick in a little more.
Hmm, somehow I recall you saying "I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack."

We were in the same boat :p . Agh, anyway, this is petty. I'll sit out now and listen for a while. Talk to you more another time, jerseydevil.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Hmm, somehow I recall you saying "I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack."

We were in the same boat :p . Agh, anyway, this is petty. I'll sit out now and listen for a while. Talk to you more another time, jerseydevil.

I wanted her to explain why a proactive attack was valid in her own words. Everyone is saying that we can't go proactively into Iraq even though they refuse to comply with inspections and the resolutions. I have been arguing that sometimes beig proactive is necessary.

She also made another point for me too. Everyone is saying that if we go into Iraq he MIGHT use his weapons. By going against Germany it MIGHT have given Hitler MORE reason to ally himself with Mexico. It doesn't mean we should have been afraid to go against hitler though and stayed on the sidelines of WWII until he actually did something against us.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I wanted her to explain why a proactive attack was valid in her own words.

Er. Did you miss something? I wasn't arguing the pro-active argument!!! At no point have I even delved into that argument!!! Please credit the arguments to the appropriate people.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Er. Did you miss something? I wasn't arguing the pro-active argument!!! At no point have I even delved into that argument!!! Please credit the arguments to the appropriate people.
If you say so.

[BeardofPants]

Okay. Really slowly:

You said:

I should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.

To which I said:

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

You responded:

But he didn't. So your point is?

And I replied:

Only because it was blown out of the water by the British Code-Breakers. And I would have thought my point was excruciatingly obvious.

I clarified further as Leif seemed a bit confused over my point:

Something like that.

http://www.disappearing-inc.com/Z/z...antelegram.html

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/s.../wwi/zimmer.htm



******

My point is that the US would not have been able to pursue an isolationist policy.

And then back to you:

But he didn't and based on what everyone has been saying - we should not have attacked Germany - even if he was planning on attcking us through Mexico. We should have basically have waited until he attacked California, New Mexico, Arizona or Texas.

I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack.

[Note: the first usage of 'pro-active' between our debate comes from YOU not me.]

And my response:


It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

[BeardofPants]

And then you claimed to "get" what I was saying:

I knew what BoP was getting at - I just wanted to make my point stick in a little more.

To which Lief said:

Hmm, somehow I recall you saying "I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack."

We were in the same boat :p.

And you followed up with:

I wanted her to explain why a proactive attack was valid in her own words. Everyone is saying that we can't go proactively into Iraq even though they refuse to comply with inspections and the resolutions. I have been arguing that sometimes beig proactive is necessary.

And then it's back to me...

Er. Did you miss something? I wasn't arguing the pro-active argument!!! At no point have I even delved into that argument!!! Please credit the arguments to the appropriate people.

And finally:

If you say so.


To which I respond: Yes. I do say so. I said it a few times.

[Lief Erikson]

Jerseydevil, your PM Inbox is full.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
To which I respond: Yes. I do say so. I said it a few times.

You were at one point stating that Iraq actually had to do something to the US in order for us to take action...


Page 13 (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5758&perpage=20&pagenumber=13)
Until we are sure of what he's up to, I don't think we should invade Iraq because of mere speculation.


Page 15 (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5758&perpage=20&pagenumber=15)
So? I'll say it again. Saddam doesn't appear to have moved against the US since the gulf war. Heck, he's been isolated in Iraq!

You have yet to prove that he's moved against the US. You have yet to answer why this war is justified. All you have provided is speculation. Not good enough. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Before that Hussein was refusing to allow inspectors in and you were saying that we needed proof of WMDs. Now we have a resolution from the UN - which it took a show of force from the US to make him accept the resolution and inspectors. This resotion even Hans Blix is declaring that Hussein is not complying with. Iraq has not accounted for ANY of the weapons which the United Nations KNOWS he had.


By the way - back then over 6 months ago - you were arguing we were rushing to war. It doesn't seem like that much of a rush to me. We've been giving Iraq chance after chance after chance to come clean.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You were at one point stating that Iraq actually had to do something to the US in order for us to take action...

So? That was then, this is now. Two separate arguments. Eesh, you're grasping at straws here.

I'll say it again: I brought up the Mexican reference purely in response to US isolationism. I was not at any point during TODAYS debate referencing to pro-activism. Now if you'll excuse me: I have a date with a brick wall....

[BeardofPants]

By the way: I'd like for you to actually point out where I mentioned the word "pro-active" in my arguments at any give point during this thread, apart from where I was diassociating myself from the argument. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
So? That was then, this is now. Two separate arguments. Eesh, you're grasping at straws here.

I'll say it again: I brought up the Mexican reference purely in response to US isolationism. I was not at any point during TODAYS debate referencing to pro-activism. Now if you'll excuse me: I have a date with a brick wall....
Please - knock your brains out. :D

[BeardofPants]

What brains? I'm blonde. ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
What brains? I'm blonde. ;)
Well I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But at least you admitted it. :D

[Millane]

Good News! australias foolproof against any air attacks if we go to war against iraq... it said on the news tonight about how leaflets were given out at an airshow showing all Military Bases, Explosives factories/storage, communication etc etc and its all available on the internet:rolleyes: ohhh well alls good we got anti terrorist leaflets aswell:rolleyes: one more for the stupid govt:rolleyes:

[Elvellon]

Japan actually declared war on us by attacking us.

You said:

“Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.”

And I completed:

“And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.”

Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.



I don't have my head stuck in the ground. I have history to back me up on issues where IF we had taken PROACTIVE action - we could have saved millions and millions of lives.

Your perception of the situation makes you believe History backs you up, not proofs.


No it doesn't - but obviously you missed my point. Why should we have helped you with Germany - Germany didn't attack us. Maybe we should have just have contained him in Europe.

It seems we may both have missed each other’s points. You may recall that my argument was, quoting:

“Personally I believe that, under the current situation, containment, being viable, is the best solution by far.”

You will notice I’ve said, “under the current situation,” and not “in any circumstance.” That was a deliberate choice of words.



What was he doing to Europe or any other country other than his own? What country did he attack? I don't recall him moving tanks into Austria, Turkey, England, France, Germany or any other European country. We could have contained him and let him go on killing his own people - like Hussein does.

We went in there because we were afraid that it WOULD spill over into the rest Europe. In other words we acted PROACTIVELY. We should have acted far sooner though - we would have saved thousands of innocent lives.

JD, if he had not initiated a massive, systematic deportation program he would not have been attacked, DESPITE the fact that he DID represent a danger to his neighbours and WAS NOT contained.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Millane
Good News! australias foolproof against any air attacks if we go to war against iraq... it said on the news tonight about how leaflets were given out at an airshow showing all Military Bases, Explosives factories/storage, communication etc etc and its all available on the internet:rolleyes: ohhh well alls good we got anti terrorist leaflets aswell:rolleyes: one more for the stupid govt:rolleyes:

lets hear it for the austrilians. But why would anyone want to attack you? Hav you ever had a war with anyone? everyone likes the ozzies!!!

[markedel]

Er...

Japan

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellon
You said:

“Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.”

And I completed:

“And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.”

Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.
I think that it's fairly obvious that if we had attacked Germany before it had gained solid bases in all those other countries, we would have won the war a lot more easily and with an incredibly reduced loss of life.



Your perception of the situation makes you believe History backs you up, not proofs.
I'd like to see the second interpretation, if you don't mind. I'd also like to hear you say how the countries of the world would have ended up certainly losing just as many lives if we had attacked early as if we hadn't. It's been shown that with these ruthless dictators, they're willing to manipulate the pacifist thinking in their favor. Saddam Hussein is actually using a far more transparent tactic than Adolf Hitler did, and his similarity to Hitler in terms of his ruthlessness and lust for power is visible from the beginning. With Adolf Hitler, we refused to see it. With Saddam Hussein, many are refusing to see it. Adolf Hitler conquered other countries and broke treaties he'd made, Saddam Hussein has attacked surrounding countries and broken his promise to the UN. Adolf Hitler murdered and tortured his own people (the Jews). Saddam Hussein murders and tortures his own people. Adolf Hitler killed his political opponents in his own country or sent them to concentration camps, Saddam Husseiun does the same thing. Hitler took over Europe and used their own pacifism against them, so Saddam Hussein's achieving the weapons of mass destruction (that all evidence points he has) would enable him to endanger the surrounding countries and ultimately potentially hold most of the Middle East hostage.

Jeepers, he's only one example, though a very obvious one. History is repeating itself, but thank God the Bush Administration can see it and is doing something about it!

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Sween
lets hear it for the austrilians. But why would anyone want to attack you? Hav you ever had a war with anyone? everyone likes the ozzies!!!
Well, terrorists did target us in the Bali bombings and we did take part in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf war. Not everybody likes us, and now we are hearing strong reports that terrorist attacks may be taking place here in the future...

[Elvellyn]

yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans?:confused: are we that unlovable??:confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans?:confused: are we that unlovable??:confused:

Well if it's any consolation - Chirac is upset with the Eastern European countries who side with the US now. He said that the fastest way NOT to get admitted into the EU was to side with the US - "Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way," Chirac said.


Chirac lashes out at 'new Europe' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/18/sprj.irq.chirac/index.html)
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- French President Jacques Chirac has attacked eastern European countries hoping to join the EU, saying they missed a great opportunity to "shut up" when they signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq.

But 13 countries either set to join the EU or in membership talks have signed letters supporting the United States.

Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."

"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.

Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all of whom have dates for EU membership, joined EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal in signing a letter last month supporting Washington's stance on Iraq.

Ten other eastern European nations -- eight with entry dates and Romania and Bulgaria who are still in membership discussions -- signed a similar letter a few days later.

"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way," Chirac said.

When asked why he wasn't similarly critical of the EU nations that signed the letter, Chirac said: "When you are in the family ... you have more rights than when you are asking to join and knocking on the door."

CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley described Chirac's outburst as "pretty grumpy and imperious."

"For him to lecture these applicant countries or these accepted members on their way in was really behavior like the worst of what the French complain about in the United States," Oakley said.

"It was bullying really. ... It was very, very tough stuff. I think some of the other EU leaders will feel it was out of order.

Chirac's words have angered some of those aspirant nations with Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondr saying it appeared Chirac was trying to bully them.

And Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld told public radio: "France has a right to its opinion and Poland has the right to decide what is good for it. France should respect that."

European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union.

"I would be lying it I said I was happy," he told reporters. "I have been very, very sad, but I am also patient by nature, so I hope they will understand that sharing the future means sharing the future."

On Tuesday, leaders of the EU aspirants traveled to Brussels for a briefing on Iraq and endorsed Monday night's joint declaration by EU leaders.

The candidates were upset over not being invited to Brussels for Monday's emergency summit on Iraq.

Britain and Spain had sought to have the candidates invited to Monday's summit, but France and Germany opposed the idea.

Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, denied they had been excluded from the summit because of their backing for Washington, insisting rules require the accession treaties be signed first.


Chirac sounds like a father scalding his children. For some reason I thought that France didn't control the EU - Chirac sounds like he does though.

[Millane]

yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans? are we that unlovable??
nope your not that unloveable its just that Australians are extra loveable:p and the fact that the french dont like australians doesnt really worry me, they have got to be one of the least liked countries in the world
maybe its just that australia never really instigates wars and we only went to WWI for the mothercountry:rolleyes: WWII Japan was going to take us over... and Vietnam was just a screw up anyway you look at it (but im not one of those wankers that would go out and spit at Viet vets because of the then Govt :mad: ) i think the weird thing is that there arent grudges held with these countries anymore, hey i speak japanese now:p
as for the situation in iraq well a few of my friends keep going peace rallying and ive got nothing agaisnt that but when they keep shouting NO BLOOD FOR OIL!! in my ear i really start losing it... and then all i heard last night is about how George Bush is the 3rd anti-christ :rolleyes: actually that was pretty creepy:(:p

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans?:confused: are we that unlovable??:confused:
Well, at a personal level, there's probably a lot of envy involved in those feelings, but I think it works on all sorts of levels.

I would guess that people in the Arab world perceive the American position as being hugely hypocritical: no attempt to enforce the numerous UN resolutions against Israel, for example. Also, again from an Arab perspective, why should it be OK for the US to have (and use) weapons of mass destruction but not for anyone in the Arab world to have them?

More generally, lots of people believe that, over the years, the US has used foreign policy to undermine democratic governments and prop up corrupt dictatorships. Also, it looks pretty bad for the world's richest, most powerful country to launch an attack on a third world country.

Another issue is poverty. People starve to death all over the world, yet their economic policies are dictated by US-dominated financial institutions and markets, from the macro level right down to what seeds you can plant for next year's crop. The perception is that the US regards the rest of the world simply as a market for its products and that this drives all of its interventions.

The Bush regime has added a new dimension to this: disagreement with their views, even by their allies, is simply not tolerated. They have not entered into a debate, just decided unilaterally what is to be done. Their motives are regarded as being 100% to do with business. The current US government is perceived as being the most extreme right-wing the US has ever had.

Presumably most Americans wouldn't agree with these views, but if you can put yourself into that mind-set for a moment you might get a sense of why people are anti-American.

Personally, I think anti-Americanism is just racism by another name, and have no time for it.

cheers

d.

[Elvellon]

I think that it's fairly obvious that if we had attacked Germany before it had gained solid bases in all those other countries, we would have won the war a lot more easily and with an incredibly reduced loss of life.

And?!?
Please, read again what I was saying there:

“Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.”

It has nothing to do with what you are saying. At the time JD seemed to be defending an isolationist stance, remember? He clarified the issue later, hence the last part of the phrase.


I'd like to see the second interpretation, if you don't mind. I'd also like to hear you say how the countries of the world would have ended up certainly losing just as many lives if we had attacked early as if we hadn't. It's been shown that with these ruthless dictators, they're willing to manipulate the pacifist thinking in their favor. Saddam Hussein is actually using a far more transparent tactic than Adolf Hitler did, and his similarity to Hitler in terms of his ruthlessness and lust for power is visible from the beginning. With Adolf Hitler, we refused to see it. With Saddam Hussein, many are refusing to see it. Adolf Hitler conquered other countries and broke treaties he'd made, Saddam Hussein has attacked surrounding countries and broken his promise to the UN. Adolf Hitler murdered and tortured his own people (the Jews). Saddam Hussein murders and tortures his own people. Adolf Hitler killed his political opponents in his own country or sent them to concentration camps, Saddam Husseiun does the same thing. Hitler took over Europe and used their own pacifism against them, so Saddam Hussein's achieving the weapons of mass destruction (that all evidence points he has) would enable him to endanger the surrounding countries and ultimately potentially hold most of the Middle East hostage.

Jeepers, he's only one example, though a very obvious one. History is repeating itself, but thank God the Bush Administration can see it and is doing something about it!
[/quote]

On the same post you are commenting I wrote:

“Personally I believe that, under the current situation, containment, being viable, is the best solution by far.”

And

”You will notice I’ve said, “under the current situation,” and not “in any circumstance.” That was a deliberate choice of words.”

That should clarify that I do not believe containment is always viable, and I expect it should answer the first part of your post.

As for why I think it is a bad example, there are several reasons, you will forgive me if I won’t make an exhaustive accounting of them, but a few are, quoting an earlier post:

“You keep comparing him to Hitler, yah, right. What do they have in common?

Let me answer that:
Saddan is immoral creature, greedy and ambitious. The only thing he believes is in his own welfare. But, his campaigns were a joke. He never managed to defeat Iran when he had the support and blessings of the US, and only tinny Kuwait could not resist him. Even so he only advanced to attack Kuwait because apparently he believed that the US wouldn’t object.


”Hitler was not even remotely comparable with Saddan, nor was Nazi Germany to Iraq. If you want to compare someone with Hitler would not be Saddan, it would be Bin Laden.
Like him, he is a fanatic with a cause, a dangerous one. Saddan only cause is himself. He is an opportunist, and can be contained, Hitler couldn’t be.”


And I’ll also to bring to your attention what Dunedan said:


All these Hitler analogies are utterly bankrupt. Iraq is a total mess, Germany in the late 30s was the second largest economy in the world, with the largest military machine. OK, both Hussein and Hitler are utter bar stewards who deserve to be tied up and shot with a blunderbuss loaded with their own *****e, but that's as far as it goes.

Hope this clarifies somewhat.

[Draken]

Ah sod all this.

Can we have another war with France? We used to be quite good at those!

[Finmandos12]

Time to refute Dunadan's points.

Also, again from an Arab perspective, why should it be OK for the US to have (and use) weapons of mass destruction but not for anyone in the Arab world to have them?

When was the last time we used nuclear weapons? Almost fifty years ago. Also, we do not use biological or chemical weapons.

More generally, lots of people believe that, over the years, the US has used foreign policy to undermine democratic governments and prop up corrupt dictatorships.

We have never undermined a democratic government. We have supported bad dictators in the past. But in these countries, the alternative (Communism) was even worse than the dictators we supported. You have to understand that there is not always a choice between good gov'ts and bad gov'ts: the choice is often between a bad gov't and an even worse gov't.

Also, it looks pretty bad for the world's richest, most powerful country to launch an attack on a third world country.

Whose fault do you think it is that Iraq stays as a third world country? Perhaps Saddam? :rolleyes:

Another issue is poverty. People starve to death all over the world, yet their economic policies are dictated by US-dominated financial institutions and markets, from the macro level right down to what seeds you can plant for next year's crop.

The countries where people are starving are countries where the gov't is our enemy. None of our allied countries are starving to death.

The perception is that the US regards the rest of the world simply as a market for its products and that this drives all of its interventions.

If our government only cared about money, we wouldn't even bother standing up to these countries. We would just let them do whatever they wanted to, without taking the risk of war messing up the economy. If we only cared about Iraq for oil, we wouldn't have imposed sanctions. We would have lobbied the UN to drop sanctions on Iraq so we could trade with them.

The Bush regime has added a new dimension to this: disagreement with their views, even by their allies, is simply not tolerated. They have not entered into a debate, just decided unilaterally what is to be done.

Where have you been for the last three months? We've been trying to work through the UN to get it to enforce its own regulations. We have not invaded yet, we have tried to come to an agreement with our "allies."

Their motives are regarded as being 100% to do with business.

You wanna know who's motives are 100% business? France and Russia. Saddam owes them big debts and they don't want to see those debts erased.

The current US government is perceived as being the most extreme right-wing the US has ever had.

"Extreme right-wing?" Compared to Clinton, maybe. If Bush is so extreme, why does he have high approval ratings?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
Where have you been for the last three months? We've been trying to work through the UN to get it to enforce its own regulations. We have not invaded yet, we have tried to come to an agreement with our "allies."
I agree. But three months? Try going beyond six months now. The only reason why there are even inspections in there or that the world is even discussing this - is because the US said "fine - you won't do something about what the UN said in 1991 - 1998, we will". It wasn't until we started moving troops there that the wolrd listened to us.

Hussein is still not complying with inspections and still refuses to let his scientists be interviewed. He still has not turned over a list of scientists who had a part in the distruction of the weapons he has. He was asked to do these things under 1441 and again 5 days ago - Hans Blix has asked Iraq to comply with this, as of yet Hussein has not. Today the government of Iraq's attitude was that they don't really have to - the world is against the US now. As long as there is no pressure on Hussein - he feels he can do what ever he wants. And why not? - this how the world has reacted to him and all the world's dictators. The world is afraid of taking action and would rather the situation blow up in their face before paying attention. It was the same for Osama, the same with Hitler (Churchill lost his position because he was for taking PREEMPTIVE action against Germany/Hitler), North Korea, etc.

I find it rather disturbing that with ALL the suposed peace rallies - there was NO plackerts asking Hussein to step down, no one was screaming for Iraq to comply with inspections or give up their WMD.

As you said - we haven't invaded yet. if you look at the history of this thread - you'll notice that people were acting like we were invading in October.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
Time to refute Dunadan's points.

It's not me you need to be refuting them to. I'm just bringing the news. That was the point (someome asked why people around the world don't like America).

[Finmandos12]

It's not me you need to be refuting them to. I'm just bringing the news. That was the point (someome asked why people around the world don't like America).

Whatever. I was showing why those reasons are wrong.

Anyways, just try and beat those points. Mwhahaha!

[markedel]

On a more humorous note here's something topical and amusing

click and enjoy

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[The Lady of Ithilien]

I find it rather disturbing that with ALL the suposed peace rallies - there was NO plackerts asking Hussein to step down, no one was screaming for Iraq to comply with inspections or give up their WMD.Exactly. It's only safe to demonstrate against the civilized -- the uncivilized have a way of taking things personally and (at least right now) the means, if it bugs them enough, to do something about it. Like Sauron, their arm has grown very long.

It's about time someone gave them an impediment in their reach. This is going to happen and soon, after which it will turn out that the world was behind America and its present allies (bless them one and all) all the time.

R-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

A Briton, G. K. Chesterton, said in 1922: "What I say is that when we realise that this ('conception of a nation with the soul of a church') exists at all, we see the whole position in a totally different perspective. We say that the Americans are doing something heroic or doing something insane, or doing it in an unworkable or unworthy fashion, instead of simply wondering what the devil they are doing." from "What Is America? (http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/america.html)

I wonder how many who call America nasty names over this phase of the war on terrorism--and this includes some Americans, even some Americans who are old enough to know better--are simply doing it to be socially (or even in some parts of the world physically) safe, but really haven't a clue about America or 'what the devil we're doing.'

Don't worry. Protest without understanding doesn't have a very long half-life, and radiated a very dim light from the start anyway.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellon
And?!?
Please, read again what I was saying there:

“Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.”

It has nothing to do with what you are saying. At the time JD seemed to be defending an isolationist stance, remember? He clarified the issue later, hence the last part of the phrase.

Very well, I wasn't talking about the isolationist stance but was talking about pre-emptive attack.

Originally posted by Elvellon
Saddan is immoral creature, greedy and ambitious. The only thing he believes is in his own welfare. But, his campaigns were a joke. He never managed to defeat Iran when he had the support and blessings of the US, and only tinny Kuwait could not resist him. Even so he only advanced to attack Kuwait because apparently he believed that the US wouldn’t object.


”Hitler was not even remotely comparable with Saddan, nor was Nazi Germany to Iraq. If you want to compare someone with Hitler would not be Saddan, it would be Bin Laden.
Like him, he is a fanatic with a cause, a dangerous one. Saddan only cause is himself. He is an opportunist, and can be contained, Hitler couldn’t be.”

The belief that Saddam Hussein can be contained is based on the belief that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Must I remind you that the evidence at this point all points to his having such weapons?




And about Iraq being a less powerful nation, I don't see how that changes things. Since Saddam's country is less powerful, it causes him to seek other methods to gain the power he craves. Hitler's threat was in conventional weapons, Saddam Hussein's strength is in weapons of mass destruction. Armed with these weapons, he still would be a grave danger to surrounding nations. Particularly as larger nations would be cautious in attacking him, lest he should respond with these weapons he has created. From the stance the UN has taken so far, I doubt we can expect much more from it at this later point in time.

If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, by looking at his history, it can be seen pretty plainly that he would be a threat to the Middle East at large, and potentially to the West as well.

While the ambition Hitler and Saddam had is the same, the methods by which this goal can be accomplished have changed with the times. I still am waiting to hear the alterate interpretation that I asked for, Elvellon. I'm waiting to hear a strong reason why they aren't similar, and why we shouldn't learn from the past.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
I wonder how many who call America nasty names over this phase of the war on terrorism--and this includes some Americans, even some Americans who are old enough to know better--are simply doing it to be socially (or even in some parts of the world physically) safe, but really haven't a clue about America or 'what the devil we're doing.'

Don't worry. Protest without understanding doesn't have a very long half-life, and radiated a very dim light from the start anyway.

You might find this interesting. Someone went out into the demonstration in NY to get an idea of anti-war demonstrator's thoughts. He video taped them and put it on his website. The video takes a while to download without a high speed modem. I just let it download while I did other things - and then watched it.

Protesting the Protesters (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html)

Some of his questions really had them stumped. I like how he confronted them about the war for oil and asked them why the US just didn't go in during the Gulf War and take the oil.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Dunadan
The current US government is perceived as being the most extreme right-wing the US has ever had.

Dunadan , the most right wing? more so then Reagan even? I find that very hard to believe. How did Europe see Reagan? Bush and his business cronies are sort of standard right wing in my book. Reagan was much more arch conservative in principal though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Dunadan , the most right wing? more so then Reagan even? I find that very hard to believe. How did Europe see Reagan? Bush and his business cronies are sort of standard right wing in my book. Reagan was much more arch conservative in principal though.
From what I remember - Europe thought of Reagon as a simpleton who knew nothing about foreign politics - in particlar during his first term. There were COUNTLESS demonstrations when he put more missiles in Germany. Europeans felt that he was going to incite WWIII. Instead - the Berlin Wall ended up coming down and the Soviet Union dissolved. Today we are allies with Russia.

Also - concerning Bushes "business cronies" - do you remember Clinton's first cabinet? Clinton basically brought in all his old drinking buddies to be his advisers. Clinton very much acted like the Beverly Hillbillies - except instead of going to Beverly Hills - he ended up in the White House.

[jerseydevil]

This is rather interesting...


Secret Saudi Plan (http://members.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Insider_030220.html)
Feb. 20 — The crown prince of Saudi Arabia has recently transmitted a secret proposal to the Bush administration, using one of his own sons, Prince Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah as an emissary, rather than officials from the Saudi Embassy in Washington, sources told ABCNEWS.

The Saudis are proposing that after Saddam Hussein's fall, Saudi Arabia should lead a coalition of Islamic nations to occupy Iraq while a transitional Iraqi government is established. According to the Saudis, the Turks would play the leading role in the Islamic force.

Senior government officials told ABCNEWS that according to the crown prince, an Islamic occupation force would defuse the anti-American hostility that is sweeping the Middle East and putting pressure on moderate Arab governments that are allied with the United States.

The Saudis would then be free to crack down on the extremist Jihadis in the Kingdom who are allied with al Qaeda or are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden.

Right now, Saudis feel a full scale crackdown would look like the kingdom is doing American bidding, at a time when President Bush is very unpopular there.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted to the story by calling it "laughably wrong." He added, "There is no truth to it."

The crown prince has also been instrumental in making secret overtures to Saddam through his son Qusai, offering Sadam refuge in Saudi Arabia if Saddam were to chose to leave before hostilities break out.

It appears that no Saudi emissary has had the temerity to make the refuge offer directly to Saddam. The only word the United States has heard back on the Saudi overtures to Saddam is: "no."

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Dunadan , the most right wing? more so then Reagan even? I find that very hard to believe. How did Europe see Reagan? Bush and his business cronies are sort of standard right wing in my book. Reagan was much more arch conservative in principal though.
Right-wing executive + right-wing legislature + right-wing judiciary = most right-wing US government, probably ever. This translates to a small group of people who have an unparalleled opportunity to restructure US politics according to their own, business-driven agenda. Worrying times for the rest of us, especially those who care about turning our planet into a toilet.

Clinton achieved diddly squat in office because his relatively "left-wing" (I use that term very loosely :rolleyes: ) executive was hamstrung by Congress and was nearly hounded out of office by right-wing federal prosecutors.

JD, the collapse of communism had nothing at all to do with Reagan. He, like Bush Jr, was little more than a block of wood with some strings coming out the back. The lasting legacy of his era is a Supreme Court packed with right wingers.

ANyway, back on topic, at least the Saudis are acknowledging that they're harbouring far more terrorists than Iraq is :rolleyes:

cheers

d.

[BeardofPants]

FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY
10001
ACTION ALERT:
Common Myths in Iraq Coverage

November 27, 2002

An issue as serious as the Iraq crisis deserves the highest possible degree
of accuracy from the press. U.S. media coverage, however, is marked by
frequent misstatements and distortions of reality-- some of which have been
made repeatedly, even after being pointed out by critics.

Here are a few examples of commonly repeated errors:

1. "But as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare to return to Iraq for the first
time since Saddam kicked them out in 1998, the U.S. faces a delicate
balancing act: transforming the international consensus for disarmament into
a consensus for war." --Randall Pinkston, CBS Evening News (11/9/02).

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N.
weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or
"expelled" (Extra! Update, 10/02). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler,
actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was
imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the
time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of
a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).

2. "The last weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq nearly four years
ago. Baghdad charged that there were spies on the team, and the United
States complained that Iraq was using the accusation as an excuse to
obstruct the inspectors. After the team withdrew, the U.S. and Britain waged
a four-day bombing campaign."
--L.A. Times (11/19/02)

Treating the use of the U.N. weapons inspection team for espionage as a mere
Iraqi allegation might be referred to as "Saddam Says" reporting. In fact,
reports of the misuse of the inspectors for spying were made in early 1999
by some of the leading U.S. newspapers, sourced to U.S. and U.N. officials
(FAIR Action Alert, 9/24/02). These papers reported as fact that "American
spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors" (New
York Times, 1/7/99) in order to "eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the
knowledge of the U.N. agency" (Washington Post, 3/2/99) as part of "an
ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence
apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein" (Boston
Globe, 1/6/99).

3. "Many [in Iraq], of course, are bitter over the 12-year-long
U.S.-supported embargo, which Baghdad claims has led to thousands of infants
and elderly people dying from preventable diseases."
--Time (11/25/02)

The topic of sanctions is also often covered in a "Saddam Says" fashion. In
fact, there are detailed reports on the deadly effects of sanctions that
come from respected international health organizations and public health
experts, not from the Iraqi government. For example, UNICEF published a
report in August 1999 that found that sanctions against Iraq had contributed
to the deaths of 500,000 children under five. Richard Garfield, a public
health specialist at Columbia University, estimates that 350,000 children
have died as a result of sanctions and the lingering effects of the 1991
Gulf War (The Nation, 12/6/01; 12/6/01). To describe a death toll in this
range as "thousands" is like saying that "dozens" of people died in the
World Trade Center attacks.

4. "The Pentagon also points out, the Bush administration also points out
very, very strongly, that the Iraqi regime itself is to blame for all of
these problems. If they simply complied with U.N. Security Council
resolutions and disarm, there would be no sanctions, there would be no
problem getting medical supplies, doctor, pediatricians, to all parts of
Iraq."
--Wolf Blitzer, CNN (11/7/02)

It's not at all clear that sanctions against Iraq would automatically be
lifted if the country disarmed; President George Bush the elder declared in
1991, shortly after the sanctions were imposed, "My view is we don't want to
lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." His secretary
of state James Baker concurred: "We are not interested in seeing a
relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."

President Clinton made a point of saying that his policy toward Iraq was
exactly the same as his predecessor's. His secretary of state Madeleine
Albright stated in her first major foreign policy address in 1997: "We do
not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its
obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be
lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful
intentions.... And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's
intentions will never be peaceful." (See Institute for Public Accuracy,
11/13/98. )


From here. (http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html)

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
Time to refute Dunadan's points.
Prepare to have your refutations refuted (is that a metarefutation?)

Originally posted by Finmandos12

When was the last time we used nuclear weapons? Almost fifty years ago. Also, we do not use biological or chemical weapons.
Well, you are the only country ever to have used them at all. However, that's not the point, since it probably saved more lives than it took. No, the point is that you sell them to your cronies, like Saddam, who then use them. Now you're working on "business friendly" mini-nukes which will take out punters but leave the pipelines intact. Nice. And what do you call cruise missiles and carpet bombing? Napalm? Are these Weapons of Not Very Much Destruction or something??

Originally posted by Finmandos12

We have never undermined a democratic government. We have supported bad dictators in the past. But in these countries, the alternative (Communism) was even worse than the dictators we supported. You have to understand that there is not always a choice between good gov'ts and bad gov'ts: the choice is often between a bad gov't and an even worse gov't.
Right, that would be why the deomcratically elected Allende government in Chile was overthrown by a US-back coup and led to 20+ years of military dictatorship, state-sponsored torture and mass murder of its own citizens.


Originally posted by Finmandos12

Whose fault do you think it is that Iraq stays as a third world country? Perhaps Saddam? :rolleyes:
Sure, though 12 years of sanctions haven't helped. In fact, they've probably killed half a million people.

Originally posted by Finmandos12

The countries where people are starving are countries where the gov't is our enemy. None of our allied countries are starving to death.
So presumably that's why the US development aid budget is less than half that of the UK (as a proportion of GDP) and one-eighth that of the Netherlands.


Originally posted by Finmandos12

If our government only cared about money, we wouldn't even bother standing up to these countries. We would just let them do whatever they wanted to, without taking the risk of war messing up the economy. If we only cared about Iraq for oil, we wouldn't have imposed sanctions. We would have lobbied the UN to drop sanctions on Iraq so we could trade with them.
Well, you clearly understand nothing about the globalised market. To take one example, the US depends on the cheap labour of third world countries to keep them in Nike trainers and SUVs. On the oil issue, as JD has pointed out in the past, the US doesn't need Iraq's oil, but it's a long game: if they can't find enough reserves by digging up the Alaskan wilderness, they're gonna need it sooner or later. They also, as I've said before, are painfully aware that OPEC holds the world economy (and therefore the US economy) in its hands. Here's a chance to re-draw the map and undermine the Saudis.

It's also good for the ratings, of course; it's a way of diverting huge amounts of government cash into business; and you can get people to swallow all sorts of propaganda in the name of patriotism. I recommend you read Orwell's 1984: War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.

Originally posted by Finmandos12

Where have you been for the last three months? We've been trying to work through the UN to get it to enforce its own regulations. We have not invaded yet, we have tried to come to an agreement with our "allies."
Except when they don't agree with you, in which case you call them ungrateful cowards. Oh, and except that you've made clear that you're going in whatever the UN says.


Originally posted by Finmandos12

You wanna know who's motives are 100% business? France and Russia. Saddam owes them big debts and they don't want to see those debts erased.
I agree. I think all of these governments are entirely self-interested. It's utterly naive to think otherwise.
Originally posted by Finmandos12

"Extreme right-wing?" Compared to Clinton, maybe. If Bush is so extreme, why does he have high approval ratings?
See above.

cheers

d.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Common Myths in Iraq Coverage
Nice one, BoP.

Classic doublethink on the part of US/UK govts.

If truth is the first casualty in war, then the last Gulf War is still going on.

cheers

d.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Nice one, BoP.

Classic doublethink on the part of US/UK govts.

If truth is the first casualty in war, then the last Gulf War is still going on.

Well actually the Gulf War IS still going on. The terms of the cease fire was that Hussein would disarm. He has not. The UN has just repeatedly issued resolutions which he has used as doormats.

Also = BoP's information isn't all correct either. For one thing - the US has repeatedly been fighting for "smart sanctions" which would ALLEVIATE the suffering of the Iraqi citizens. France and Russia have repeatedly blocked this. It would cut into their billions of illegal deals they currently have with Iraq.

Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with the inspectors anymore in 1998 - that is why we bombed them. Actually - invation WAS supposed to be the outcome of Iraq not cooperating - except the world just wanted to turn it's back.

Dunadan - I might want to remind you that GERMANY was supplying a lot to Iraq and still does, Britain did, France did and does, as well as Russia and other countries. Just because we might have supplied him during the cold war to prevent Iran from taking control of the region - DOES NOT mean that we should just sit back and let him keep his weapons and develop far more when the situation has changed. This is a far different time than the cold war. If we based our foreign policy on who was our enemies and friends in the passed - The US and England shoud be arch enemies. We had to fight for our freedom, you invaded us and attempted to burn down Washington in 1812, during the Civil War you supported the South trying to get America to destroy itself so you could pick up the pieces. About 50 years later we were fighting side by side with Britain to help defeat Germany during WWI.

Concerning the ignorant statement - too bad it represents the peace marchers more than anyone else. It's see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Then when something does happen - everyone stands up and says "Why wasn;t something done before". It happened with Osama Bin Ladin, with Hitler, with North Korea, etc. History is strewn with dictators where the world just let them go about their business as they continued to build up their weaponry and plans - but no one wanted to make the tough decision to put an end to it before it blew up into something even larger.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Clinton achieved diddly squat in office because his relatively "left-wing" (I use that term very loosely :rolleyes: ) executive was hamstrung by Congress and was nearly hounded out of office by right-wing federal prosecutors.

My mistake - fro some reason I THOUGHT that Clinton enojoyed a majority of democrats in the House and the Sentate his first term. Oh yeah - I am right. :D

Concerning the impeachment trials - maybe you should read the Constitution. It's the WRITTEN document that our government stands on. Impeachment procedings according the Constitution had to take place. He was obstructing justice. The president swears to uphold the Constitution.


JD, the collapse of communism had nothing at all to do with Reagan. He, like Bush Jr, was little more than a block of wood with some strings coming out the back. The lasting legacy of his era is a Supreme Court packed with right wingers.

yeah sure. If you think so. Without Gorbachev, Reagan and Margaret Thatcher the Soviet Union would still be there, Germany would still be split, along with Berlin, Eastern Europe would still be living under a totalitarian government.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
My mistake - fro some reason I THOUGHT that Clinton enojoyed a majority of democrats in the House and the Sentate his first term. Oh yeah - I am right. :D
No, you're wrong, as usual. The Democrats controlled Congress for or all of two years during the Clinton presidency. He was reduced to vetoing Republican tax cuts to try to preserve what was left of welfare.

But that's the whole point about the US system: it's supposed to be impossible for the President to do any meaningful political intervention which gets in the way of business. But now we've got business controlling the three arms of your government, who knows what we're in for? Oh wait, I do: a war, more weapons, tax cuts for the rich, reneging whatever treaties might disrupt profits and crap all over anyone or anything that gets in the way.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Concerning the impeachment trials - maybe you should read the Constitution. It's the WRITTEN document that our government stands on. Impeachment procedings according the Constitution had to take place. He was obstructing justice. The president swears to uphold the Constitution. [/B]
Yes, and when they found out that he didn't do anything wrong, they kept digging until they caught him lying about porking some intern.

Originally posted by jerseydevil

yeah sure. If you think so. Without Gorbachev, Reagan and Margaret Thatcher the Soviet Union would still be there, Germany would still be split, along with Berlin, Eastern Europe would still be living under a totalitarian government.
Oh, right, so it was Reagan standing on that tank outside the Russian parliament. I wondered where he'd got to.

[BeardofPants]

Edit: See below.

[BeardofPants]

"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here

By Rahul Mahajan

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media.

It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).

There has also been an attempt to seize on the lowest possible numbers. In early 1998, Columbia University's Richard Garfield published a dramatically lower estimate of 106,000 to 227,000 children under five dead due to sanctions, which was reported in many papers (e.g. New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/15/98). Later, UNICEF came out with the first authoritative report (8/99), based on a survey of 24,000 households, suggesting that the total “excess” deaths of children under 5 was about 500,000.

A Dow Jones search shows that, although some papers covered the UNICEF report, none mentioned that the previous figure had been contradicted. In fact, papers continue to cite the obsolete Garfield numbers (Baltimore Sun, 9/24/01).

Who's to blame

The summer of 2001 saw a revival of long-discredited claims that sanctions are not to blame for Iraq's suffering, but that Saddam Hussein bears sole responsibility--an argument put forward in a State Department report (8/99) issued shortly after the UNICEF report on the deaths of children. Seizing on the fact that infant mortality had decreased in northern Iraq, which is under U.N. administration, while more than doubling in the rest of the country, where the government of Iraq is in charge, the State Department accused Baghdad of wide-scale misappropriation of funds from Iraqi oil sales earmarked for humanitarian purposes.

Michael Rubin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who spent nine months as a private citizen in northern Iraq, has pushed this argument in at least eight op-eds in papers ranging from the Wall Street Journal (8/9/01) to the Los Angeles Times (8/12/01). These op-eds follow the same basic theme: Since conditions in the north of Iraq are much better than the rest of the country, Saddam must be taking oil-for-food money and using it to buy weapons; Iraqis don't want sanctions lifted, they want Saddam out; the U.S. should support the overthrow of Saddam.

In fact, oil-for-food money is administered by the U.N., and disbursed directly from a U.S. bank account to foreign suppliers, so direct misappropriation of funds is impossible. Allegations about misappropriation of goods on the other end have repeatedly been denied by U.N. officials administering the program in Iraq (e.g. Denis Halliday, press release, 9/20/99), a fact that has garnered virtually no media coverage (Extra!, 3-4/00).

The disparity between north and south in Iraq has to do primarily with structural factors not considered in mainstream media coverage, including the fact that the north, Iraq's breadbasket, is far less dependent on imported food. Per capita, citizens of the north receive 50 percent more oil-for-food relief, and much more humanitarian aid.

[BeardofPants]

While Rubin was given space for his misrepresentation of the effects of sanctions, critics of the sanctions were virtually shut out of the debate. When the Bush administration put forward a proposal for a new, supposedly less deadly embargo known as "smart sanctions," only one major newspaper (Seattle Times, 5/14/01) carried an op-ed that criticized the plan for not doing enough to help the Iraqi people. Among those who could not get published were Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both former coordinators of the U.N. oil-for-food program who resigned because the program failed to prevent the humanitarian disaster caused by sanctions.

Biological warfare?

With renewed concern about biological warfare in the U.S., it's worth noting an instance of the use of disease for military purposes that has gone almost uncovered. Last year, Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University unearthed a Defense Intelligence Agency document entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," which was circulated to all major allied commands one day after the Gulf War started. It analyzed the weaknesses of the Iraqi water treatment system, the effects of sanctions on a damaged system and the health effects of untreated water on the Iraqi populace. Mentioning that chlorine is embargoed under the sanctions, it speculates that "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," something that the United States disallowed for many years.

Combined with the fact that nearly every large water treatment plant in the country was attacked during the Gulf War, and seven out of eight dams destroyed, this suggests a deliberate targeting of the Iraqi water supply for "postwar leverage," a concept U.S. government officials admitted was part of military planning in the Gulf War (Washington Post, 6/23/91).

A Dow Jones search for 2000 finds only one mention of this evidence in an American paper--and that in a letter to the editor (Austin American-Statesman, 10/01/00). Subsequent documents unearthed by Nagy (The Progressive, 8/10/01) suggest that the plan to destroy water treatment, then to restrict chlorine and other necessary water treatment supplies, was done with full knowledge of the explosion of water-borne disease that would result. "There are no operational water and sewage treatment plants and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels," one post-war assessment reported; "further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation," another predicted.

Combine this with harsh and arbitrary restrictions on medicines, the destruction of Iraq's vaccine facilities, and the fact that, until this summer, vaccines for common infectious diseases were on the so-called "1051 list" of substances in practice banned from entering Iraq. Deliberately creating the conditions for disease and then withholding the treatment is little different morally from deliberately introducing a disease-causing organism like anthrax, but no major U.S. paper seems to have editorialized against the U.S. engaging in biological warfare--or even run a news article reporting Nagy's evidence that it had done so. (The Madison Capitol Times--8/14/01--and the Idaho Statesman--10/2/01--ran op-eds that cited Nagy’s work.)

[BeardofPants]

Decreased safety?

While there has never been much sustained attention in U.S. media to the costs of sanctions inside Iraq, one might expect the renewed concern for safety to occasion critical re-appraisal of whether U.S. policy towards Iraq contributes to or undermines American security. But there has been no such re-examination of, for example, the December 1998 bombing campaign known as "Desert Fox."

Contrary to much subsequent reporting, Iraq did not expel U.N. weapons inspectors in December 1998; rather, the U.S. withdrew them in preparation for conducting the unprovoked, unauthorized military strike. Many critics at the time suggested that this would make it impossible to conduct future inspections--especially after it was revealed that the CIA had been using weapons inspection as a cover for military espionage (Washington Post, 1/6/99; Extra!, 3-4/99)--rendering verification that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction impossible. This analysis got little play in the media at that time.

The de-stabilizing effect of the airstrikes was evaluated at the time by analysts like the Merchant International Group (London Times, 1/1/99) as likely to increase the threat of terrorism. Yet more recent U.S. policies have followed a similar approach. In July 2001, the U.S. decided to dump a proposed protocol for inspections and other mechanisms designed to give teeth to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, preferring instead to rely on surveillance and espionage coupled with unilateral enforcement (New York Times, 7/25/01)--presumably through more strikes like Desert Fox, and like the August 1998 bombing of the El Shifa plant in Sudan, which turned out to produce pharmaceuticals, not chemical weapons. Since then, it has been reported that U.S. bioweapons research "pushes" the limits of the 1972 treaty, and that the Pentagon is even planning to produce a new strain of anthrax, ostensibly to test anti-anthrax procedures (New York Times, 9/4/01). Even before the September 11 attacks, bombing of Iraq had dramatically increased. In February 2001, two dozen U.S. and British planes attacked Iraqi radar installations, some of them out of the "no-fly" zones. In August and early September, there were at least six more pre-planned attacks to degrade Iraqi air defense. This was part of a comprehensive plan for multiple strikes, with a U.S. government official quoted (on MSNBC, 9/14/01) as saying "Hitting targets one by one doesn't draw the same kind of attention or reaction. It takes longer, but it should eventually get the job done." It's certainly true that the bombing campaign didn't receive much notice from a Gary Condit-fixated media.

Independent military analysts like George Friedman of Stratfor (a private intelligence company) had concluded that this sustained attack on Iraqi air defense was a prelude to another major bombing like 1998's Desert Fox. This is particularly relevant once again, with frenzied attempts by commentators to link Iraq and bin Laden, or to assert that such a connection wasn't necessary to justify a renewed bombing of Baghdad (William F. Buckley, National Review, 10/9/01). Laurie Mylroie, an analyst noted for a 1987 New Republic article urging the U.S. to support Saddam Hussein ("Back Iraq," 4/27/87), has been making her rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows and op-ed pages (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 9/13/01; CNN Crossfire, 9/27/01) peddling her book, Study of Revenge, claiming that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, based on the questionable analysis of the identity of one man.

TV's drive to convict Iraq may have something to do with the fact that Iraq has real targets for bombing campaigns, unlike Afghanistan, which is already in ruins after more than 20 years of U.S., Soviet and other foreign meddling. Although no immediate plans to bomb Iraq have been revealed, if the Bush administration follows the advice of hawkish pundits like William Kristol and Fred Barnes, don't expect U.S. journalists to do a better job than they have so far in explaining the bombing's impact on the people of Iraq--and on U.S. security.


From http://www.fair.org

And I notice that they're called US sanctions.

There is a bit about smart sanctions, above. This is what you're talking about?

[BeardofPants]

Chapter 6 “Smart” Sanctions, Price Disputes and Military Threats

6.1. Background

Sanctions results in the 1990s suggest that comprehensive economic sanctions are ineffective and do not reliably persuade the leadership of an offending country to make required policy changes. (124) Secretary Generals Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan have made this point repeatedly in public statements. The Security Council itself no longer uses such broad sanctions in other international security crises and seeks instead to develop more “targeted” sanctions.

UN officials, academic experts and national policy makers have recently held a number of conferences to consider how sanctions could be better targeted on the arms trade and on the personal finances and travel of responsible leaders and elites. The most important such efforts are known as the Interlaken Process (sponsored by the Swiss government) which began in March 1998, the Bonn-Berlin Processes (sponsored by the German government) which began in November 1999, and the Stockholm Process (sponsored by the Swedish government) which began in February, 2002. (125)

The Security Council briefly imposed targeted sanctions on the Iraqi leadership through Resolution 1137 of November 12, 1997, prohibiting international travel of listed leaders until full compliance with UNSCOM inspectors had been restored. That resolution brought swift Iraqi compliance, and seemed a great success, but curiously the Council did not further use this effective and well-targeted measure.

As international and domestic opposition to Iraq sanctions mounted in the late 1990’s, and as pressure rose for targeted sanctions against the Iraqi leadership, United States and UK policy makers sought means to deflect criticisms while holding the comprehensive sanctions system in place. During the US presidential election campaign in 2000, candidate George W. Bush often spoke of the need for a new approach to Iraq sanctions. Secretary of State Powell, in his congressional confirmation hearings in early 2001, repeatedly stressed the need to shore up public opinion against Iraq through what he referred to as “smart” sanctions:
So this wasn't an effort to ease the sanctions; this was an effort to rescue the sanctions policy that was collapsing. We discovered that we were in an airplane that was heading to a crash, and what we have done and what we are trying to do is to pull it out of that dive and put it on an altitude that's sustainable, bring the coalition back together.” (126) Early in 2001, after a tour of the region by Secretary Powell, the UK government (with US support) proposed to modify Iraq sanctions. The UK did not propose targeting the Iraqi leadership, however, ignoring several years of discussions about more effective sanctions. Rather, the UK proposed a further streamlining of imports, combined with more rigorous controls at Iraq’s borders to prevent smuggling. Eventually, after much discussion, this proposal bogged down in the summer of 2001 in the face of doubts by many Council members and a threatened Russian veto.

The events of September 11, 2001 changed the political equation on the Council and created greater unity among the permanent members through shared concern about terrorism and related issues. As a result, opposition by Russia, China and France to Iraq sanctions softened, opening the way for a modified version of the original UK resolution centering on a Goods Review List (GRL) to streamline imports. Resolution 1382 (November 2001) provided for a GRL to be adopted by the Council by May 29, 2002. The GRL theoretically offered a means to speed contract approval by compiling in advance a list of potentially dual-use items, with all remaining items exempted from automatic Sanctions Committee review. Committee members would retain the option, though, to block future contracts.

The United States and Russia negotiated the GRL list over the course of several months, with the Russians favoring a short list and the US favoring a long one. The United States lifted holds on $200 million in Russian contracts and it promised to lift holds on $550 more as a means to secure Russian agreement. (127) France and China allegedly asked for holds on their contracts to be lifted also, as a condition of their agreement. (128) Since the policies of the US and the UK are widely believed to be driven by commercial interests in the oil sector, this bargaining fed the perception that the Security Council sanctions are dominated by commercial dealing among the permanent members, not by concerns about “peace and security” or arms control.(129) The elected members of the Council were kept, as usual, entirely in the dark until the resolution was finally submitted to the Council on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

[BeardofPants]

6.2. Smart Sanctions vs. Targeted Sanctions

Reconstruction and economic revival, not the relief-based approach of the Oil-for-Food program and its “smart” variant, are essential to human development and the human rights of Iraq’s people.

US-inspired smart sanctions, mainly in the form of a Goods Review List, completely fail to address the major problems of the current sanctions against Iraq. Four pillars of the present sanctions effectively prevent the rebuilding of Iraq’s economy:


Targeting the entire population, not just leaders
Controlling Iraq’s oil export income through a cumbersome UN-administered “escrow account”
Controlling Iraqi imports in ways that limit access to key goods, especially items for Iraq’s infrastructure and for its oil sector, and that drastically slow the delivery of most contracts
Prohibiting foreign investment and freezing all foreign assets


The four pillars have remained the basic operating method of the (new) sanctions. No government could restore a healthy domestic economy within the confines of such sanctions. As the Security Council itself concluded in 1999, Oil-for-Food cannot provide a framework for rebuilding Iraq and restoring its vital infrastructure. (130)

The “smart” sanctions initially envisaged by the Security Council in Resolution 1382 and finally adopted in Resolution 1409 are not smart. They do not follow the recommendations of the Interlaken or Bonn-Berlin process. (131) They do not reflect a focus on the culprit regime or a better targeting of military equipment. While theoretically speeding up delivery of certain goods, these proposals also allow the blocking of vital imports. Iraq needs foreign investment projects and contact with the outside world to train a new generation of Iraqi managers, scientists and technicians. An open Iraq would almost certainly lead to positive political changes. Instead, “smart” sanctions shore up the old, failed system.

Judging by the experience of “fast-track” lists drawn up in 2000, the new “smart” sanctions could increase the volume of humanitarian goods arriving in Iraq, but this is by no means sure. Some well-informed observers think that the new system will be no better than the old and possibly worse, depending on how UNMOVIC, IAEA and OIP are able to handle the new process of contract compliance scrutiny. Even if the new arrangements result in some marginal improvement, they offer far too little to address the pressing humanitarian crisis. So much effort for such small gain suggests that the US and the UK are more interested in “public relations” (New York Times) or “cosmetic surgery” (The Economist) than in speeding up goods shipments to Iraq. (132)

From here. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm)

[BeardofPants]

Nevermind.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
No, you're wrong, as usual. The Democrats controlled Congress for or all of two years during the Clinton presidency. He was reduced to vetoing Republican tax cuts to try to preserve what was left of welfare.

But that's the whole point about the US system: it's supposed to be impossible for the President to do any meaningful political intervention which gets in the way of business. But now we've got business controlling the three arms of your government, who knows what we're in for? Oh wait, I do: a war, more weapons, tax cuts for the rich, reneging whatever treaties might disrupt profits and crap all over anyone or anything that gets in the way.

Sorry - but the house is still very split. The president can't just railroad things through. You are obviously ignorant of our system or of how the Congress is currently split. Of course this has been made abundandly clear from the past threads.

And let me see - how do YOU have business controlling three arms of the government? You are English. Unless you become an AMERICAN citizen - you have NOTHING to do with our government. The midterm elections were in November - the Democrats could have regained the house and even possibly the Senate - instead they actually lost seats. If you want a say in US politics and our government - then move to the US.

Also - the authorization from Congress to go to war against Iraq - was HEAVILY supported by the Democrats.


Yes, and when they found out that he didn't do anything wrong, they kept digging until they caught him lying about porking some intern.

I find it OFFENSIVE thatr the president would have sex in the oval office. He was also NOT taking phone calls from congressman during the time that the government was shutdown because of the budget - he was too busy with his intern. If it was any other person in a business - they would have been out of there. He also lied under oath and tried to get others to lie - which in this country IS a crime.


Article II
Section 2
The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Oh, right, so it was Reagan standing on that tank outside the Russian parliament. I wondered where he'd got to.
At that time the Soviet Union was already failing. That was after Reagan was out of office. I DO remember the storming of the Russian Parliament I guess your feeling is that nothing in the past has any bearing on the future or present. :rolleyes: Yeah that all happened in a vacuum I guess.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Nevermind.
Why should your information be anymore valid?

Sanctions would be lifted if Hussein complied. They may BE called US sancations - but they instituted by the United NATIONS. They can lift them - but the US would veto it. It's Husseins fault that his people suffer - NOT the US. He lives in splender while his people live with nothing.

It's like the hypocrits from Hollywood screaming about homeless people and poverty - as they strut onto the awards stage wearing enough diamonds to supply food to an entire third world country.

Sorry - you say you're not anti-American - but most things you talk about - are AGAINST America. I don't think there is a single thing that you think America does right in this world. And let me see if I care.... Nope don't.

[BeardofPants]

:rolleyes:

I critique the govt, not the people, JD.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sanctions would be lifted if Hussein complied.

It's not at all clear that sanctions against Iraq would automatically be
lifted if the country disarmed; President George Bush the elder declared in
1991, shortly after the sanctions were imposed, "My view is we don't want to
lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." His secretary
of state James Baker concurred: "We are not interested in seeing a
relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."

President Clinton made a point of saying that his policy toward Iraq was
exactly the same as his predecessor's. His secretary of state Madeleine
Albright stated in her first major foreign policy address in 1997: "We do
not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its
obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be
lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful
intentions.... And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's
intentions will never be peaceful."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
:rolleyes:

I critique the govt, not the people, JD.
So then our government (by the people) has never done anything right? :rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then our government (by the people) has never done anything right? :rolleyes:

Did I say that? :rolleyes:

Although Jimmy Carter DID get the nobel peace prize. You do get some things right. :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Did I say that? :rolleyes:

Although Jimmy Carter DID get the nobel peace prize. You do get some things right. :p
Jimmy Carter is an idiot - look at how the country was during the 70's. He handled the Iranian hostage crisis really well too. I guess to win the Nobel Peace Prize all you have to do is be pacifist no matter what the circumstances. The only thing he really did was the "Camp David Peace Accord"

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Jimmy Carter is an idiot

Jersey come on. If Jimmy Carter is an idiot then George Bush has the intelligence of a bicycle tire with a hole in it. I mean the man has like a 180 IQ and a list of accomplishments so long its stunning. And are you sure you want to take pot shots at other americans when you are so valiently trying to defend american global policy? I dont think that works. And Carter is a decent man.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Jersey come on. If Jimmy Carter is an idiot then George Bush has the intelligence of a bicycle tire with a hole in it. I mean the man has like a 180 IQ and a list of accomplishments so long its stunning. And are you sure you want to take pot shots at other americans when you are so valiently trying to defend american global policy? I dont think that works. And Carter is a decent man.
I agree up to a point. But when he was president he had a lot to be desired - stagflation, Iran hostage crisis, gas shortage. His family really was the Beverly Hillbillies coming to the Whte House. Remember his brother Billy?

I can have a problem with Jimmy Carter - who I think is a pacifist under all circumstances and still defend our global policy. I must agree though - the rescue of the American diplomats (although at the time Canada was given the credit inorder to protect the lives of the other hostages in Iran) was very good.

[Elvellyn]

Carter didnt deserve the nobel peace prize any more than he did last time.
Any guesses as to why he got it this year?

[Cirdan]

Jimmy Carter presided over the largest peacetime military spending increase in history. The MX missle \, the trident sub the stealth project. Some pacifist. So achieving peace between countries is nothing but mindlessly invading every annoying petty dictatorship is admirable? Carter was not very good but neither is either of the Bushes. Thimble brained war-mongerers that ruin the economy. Make jobs not war!

[Evenstar1400]

i think bush is an idiot. and hes my president!

really..... going to war doesnt seem to be the right thing right now. alot of people dont agree with going to war, like half of the US and France, Germany, and other countries. Sadam hasnt done anything to really threaten us, or Isreal, so we shouldnt get involved. i mean, were wasting our time arguing over whether or not we should go to war when we could be searching for Bin Laden who has actually threatened the country. but thats just my opinion.

[Khamûl]

JD, BoP and Dunadan: take a minute, calm down and let's get back to the subject of Iraq.

[BeardofPants]

Er... Did you just miss my posts on Iraq on the previous page? You know - the bit about sanctions? :rolleyes:

[Khamûl]

Yeah, I saw that, it's just that the conversation has wandered away from Iraq and moved in the direction of Jimmy Carter. It seems that you unknowingly opened another can of worms.

[sun-star]

Joining in... (pretty much against my better judgement)

First of all, let me say clearly that I am in favour of a war against Iraq. Saddam Hussain is an evil dictator, and the fewer of them around, the better, in my view, so if we can get rid of him, good :). I don't really know if he is a current threat to us (i.e. the West) - I couldn't presume to judge - but I think it's quite likely, and if the American government says he is, I actually trust them.

Yes, you heard me. George Bush is great. :D. I spend a lot of my time defending him against people I know (largely for his lack of eloquence - since when was it a crime to be inarticulate?) Sure, he's not perfect, and I have concerns about the whole environmental issue, but he does seem to have deep convictions and strongly-held beliefs. I admire that.

I don't believe the war is about oil. Lots of people who say that don't understand their own argument when you question them about it. I don't believe the war is about imperialism. I don't believe it's about some personal thing of George Bush - well, you get the idea.

The point is, I support the war. And I'm British - European, if you want, though I don't think of myself as that. I find myself pretty much in a minority here. It does seem like most people oppose the war, at least until further evidence (although I don't know what they're looking for) is provided, or until the UN gives it's blessing (the UN - not infallible, last time I checked).

So jerseydevil and company, I'm on your side. About the war. However, at the risk of opening up old wounds ;), I don't agree about anti-americanism, at least as far as war on Iraq is concerned.

Please, take it from me. It is possible to oppose the war without hating America. Anti-war does not equal anti-America. Some people on those peace marches were probably there because they oppose the US and whatever it does, full stop, no argument, and they would rather see Saddam Hussain running the world than support a US-led war.

However. There were lots of people marching. Some of them I knew. They're not all prejudiced bigots (which is what anti-Americanism is, IMO) - some of them just don't want war. They have several concerns. Some people are concerned about the effect of this on the UN or Nato. Some people are afraid that America is becoming too powerful (not the same as hating America! Many believe it's not a good thing for any country to be a lone superpower). Some people just hate the idea of war, and are worried that too many Iraqis will be killed. Some people in the UK think Britian should be closer to the EU than to the USA, and fear we are alienating ourselves from France and Germany. And some people fear Tony Blair taking Britain into a war so many British people oppose, and have concerns about his mandate. However, as jerseydevil is so fond of saying :), those last two are specific to Britian, and since no one else elected our Prime Minister, it's no one else's business.

Anyway, I'm just trying to show that it is possible to oppose this war without hating America, without forgetting everything they've done for the world, without forgetting the World Wars (how long before we stop comparing every conflict to WW2, anyway?). It is possible. I hate to see many people who either love or don't have strong feelings on America branded "anti-American", just because they're anti-war. I know people who oppose the war. They're good people. They just have doubts about what war will achieve. It is allowed, you know :)

You can all ignore this if you want. I've tried to comment on anti-Americanism before in other threads, because it happens to be something I think about a lot, and people weren't interested in actually discussing the issues, only in insulting other people's countries. Not productive, in my opinion - so I've tried again. Be nice :)

edit- oh, and you don't need to "refute" any of the points I made expressing other people's possible motives for opposing war. I don't agree with them, I was just pointing them out. OK? :)

[markedel]

In my country my PM is too afraid to make a stand one way or another...:(

I have to vote in a year-who am I going to vote for?

[Lief Erikson]

If you want to have an informed opinion on this issue, read this thread. (Glances at the number of pages and goes cross-eyed) Er, read part of the thread. Maybe the most recent five or six pages. If by then you still want to make sure there isn't more, read more. But just start with the most recent stuff- most of the arguments are recirculated here again and again and again, anyway. The same arguments and counter arguments have shown up here a lot, so it shouldn't be necessary to read everything to get an idea for the factors at work in this issue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
JThimble brained war-mongerers that ruin the economy. Make jobs not war!
The economy was falling apart the last year of Clinton's term. That was when the recession started. Then 9/11 happened which didn't help. Then the Enron scandal as well as others, whichh again occurred under the Clinton administration, but didn't come to light until Bush's presidency, the technology bubble burst during the Clinton administration - but hasn't fully recovered yet. Right now the economy is just waiting for something to happen.

The government can't make jobs - unless we go back to the WPA days and create artificial jobs. But the economy isn't that bad. The latest unemployment figures came out last week - and the unemployment rate is below 6% again. As I said - Germany's is 10.5% and the rest of Europe's is only slightly below that. The recession has been over for a while. Inflation so far has remained steady. There was the largest increase in home building in 16 years last month. Interest rates are still low. The only thing that's needed now is the stock market to pick up.

The stock market has terrorist jitters.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Evenstar1400
really..... going to war doesnt seem to be the right thing right now. alot of people dont agree with going to war, like half of the US and France, Germany, and other countries.

The majority of Americans support taking out Hussein. There is just the question as to whether we do it without the UN blessing. Which, contrary to some people's views - is not illegal. There have been numerous times that the US and other countries have gone into other countries without the UN giving it's OK. American's didn't turn our foreign policy over to the UN - and the UN is not included in our Cnstitution as a fourth branch of the US government.


Sadam hasnt done anything to really threaten us, or Isreal, so we shouldnt get involved.

North Korea was peacefully going on for years, including the last 10 secretly working on it's nuclear weapons program. maybe we should just let North Korea get on with what ever they want to do. They haven't done anything yet - so why worry about them. Let's just worry about them once a Nuclear bomb is lobbed at Tokyo. Let's just wait until Iraq gives chemical weapons to a terrorist and kills millions in the NY subway. Personally - it's not a chance I want to take. We've done the waiting game and now 2 of the largest buildings in NY no longer exist. Waiting to be attacked is not the answer.

We need to be proactive to threats. Hussein has repeatedly refused to disarm - they have this one final chance to comply and they still are not complying.

i mean, were wasting our time arguing over whether or not we should go to war when we could be searching for Bin Laden who has actually threatened the country. but thats just my opinion.

You honestly think we're not looking for Bin ladin? Just because it's not in the news - doesn't mean nothing is being done. The war against bin Ladin is completely different. It's a clandestine war. It's using special forces, CIA intelligence, to hunt him down. It's not a full scale military operation to take out Bin Ladin, since he doesn't have a country. It's a matter of hunting him down and killing him.

We now also have military in the Phillipines to take out the terrorists there. To say that stuff isn't being done to combat terrorism - just because we have a military buildup against Hussein - is very ignorant.

[Cirdan]

HAs anyone heard about Iraq's "Unit 999"? This was defector testimony so take it as is. This unit was resposible for giving chemical weapons and terrorist tactics training to Al Qaeda recruits.

There is little doubt that Saddam is evil. The question will be wether this is an effective foreign policy. Nobody claims to be planning a long term campaign to subdue all dictatorships in the world. It is only a strategic question.

Will the terrorists be in a better position after military action in Iraq? They will lose one sympathetic state but how many will they gain? They will lose some combatants but how many will they gain from bitter feelings in other places? Will the weapons of mass destruction be found or be used in desperation or delivered to terrorists in the fog of war? Will the people of Iraq see the US as a liberator or an invader? How large and effective will the guerilla resistance be?

The law of unforseen circumstances calls for prudence but it is probably too late. War is inevitable. No president would send in 200,00 troops, make unabiguous statements as to his belief that war is the only solution, and then tuck tail and run.

We may as well start a pool on the date of the invasion.

[jerseydevil]

I think war is inevitable too - but I also think that maybe in the long run it'll have a calming affect on terrorism.

The only way to quell terrorism from the Middle East is to give people there a better life, the only way to give people a better life is to bring democracy. I think by having Iraq, Afganistan and Turkey as Muslim democracies - it will make it harder for the other theocracies and dictatorial regimes to survive. Iran is about to go one way or the other. Either it's going to become more open or the Islamic fundamentalist religious leaders will quell the student protests and take control. I think if people in the regin see that life in the "new" Iraq is much better and freer - they will turn their anger where it belongs - at their own governments.

There have been desenters from the Iraqi army lately who have said that they are just waiting for the US to invade so they can defect. During the Gulf War their defection was there for all the world to see - so to say that it is just government propaganda would be ignoring the past.

The US military has also invited 500 journalists to partake in the campaign so they can report from the battle lines. Al Jazeera has even been invited. I think the US military is doing everything to prove to the Middle East that we are going in their to liberate Iraq from a tyranical dictator and not to take control of a country. Even the possibility of Saudi Arabia going in to help after the battle is a way of preventing an outcry of Anti-American feelings in the Middle East.

We can't just let things go on like they have been in the Middle East. Something needs to be done and I think dethroning a barbaric dictator and setting up a democracy in Iraq will be a positive change for the region and the world.

People argued that we'd get bogged down in Afganistan, that going in there would produce more terrorism, bringing down the Taliban would cause the extremists to rise up. True - there were some attacks in Pakistan, but no where near the backlash that was predicted.

I'm not worry about the terrorism, I'm worried about what Hussein will do to his own country. He is planning on blowing up dams to flood cities and villiages and fields, he's planning on blowing up his oil fields and he will most likely try to attack other countries - such as Israel and Turkey.

As for the start of the war - I think the first week in March. I am seriously hoping that everything goes as smoothly as it did in Afganistan - but that is a very hard question to answer. I think in order to combat terrorism this is the type of action we need to take.

After this - the Palestinian situation will be the next situation we will attempt to combat. It's impossible to bring about peace between the israelis and the Palestinians as long as their is even a fringe group of suicide bombers. Egypt has attempted just this week to get all parties to agree to a one year cease fire, but so far Hamas has refused. Maybe the world community should start looking at establishing a coalition (western as well as Arab countries) to go into that region and attempt to enforce peace between the two sides.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
After this - the Palestinian situation will be the next situation we will attempt to combat. It's impossible to bring about peace between the israelis and the Palestinians as long as their is even a fringe group of suicide bombers. Egypt has attempted just this week to get all parties to agree to a one year cease fire, but so far Hamas has refused. Maybe the world community should start looking at establishing a coalition (western as well as Arab countries) to go into that region and attempt to enforce peace between the two sides.

It's not that easy; fighting terrorism isn't likely to be able to be accomplished by an army. The Palestinians have real grievances; if that weren't so, they wouldn't have terrorists coming from them in the first place. Poverty, hunger, suppression all are factors that breed terrorism, and Israel's behavior toward them make me think that it is likely their fault and their policy to do this. There are many evidences for this, both historical and recent. I could bring them up, but I don't want this discussion to get too off-topic ;). Ronald Reagan would be nothing compared to this :D.


About most Americans supporting taking out Saddam Hussein (This isn't meant to be proof of anything, I'm just mentioning it), I was at my fencing class today and was walking outside of the building while we were taking a break. Several of the other students were out there as well, and I was humming the French National Anthem to myself. One of the students objected because he was upset at France because of its stance on the Iraq issue and the Anti-American bias. I managed to explain to him that even if France is biased against America, if we go Anti-French we'd be no better than them.

I was however pleased that he had the same view as me about the Iraq issue, even if he was taking it to an extreme that I am not.

[Cirdan]

Well, at least you weren't humming "Deutchland Uber Alles":D

The Euros are probably smart for bailing. The cost is estimated to be about 1 trillion dollars. That's a whole lot of oil to "use" for "reconstruction".

Turkey is on the fast track toward an Islamic Republic. They will play the fence as long as they get MA fron NATO and the US. Syria, Lebannon, and Jordan will be lucky to last 10 more years. Afganistan will stay "together" only as long as US troops are there to play enforcer.

The worst aspect of the coming war, other than causualties, is seeing the news services slavering over the ratings potential. Vultures!:mad:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It's not that easy; fighting terrorism isn't likely to be able to be accomplished by an army. The Palestinians have real grievances; if that weren't so, they wouldn't have terrorists coming from them in the first place. Poverty, hunger, suppression all are factors that breed terrorism, and Israel's behavior toward them make me think that it is likely their fault and their policy to do this. There are many evidences for this, both historical and recent.

I know it's not that easy and I'm not saying attack with an army.

I disagree with you that it is Israel's fault. I'm not saying that they don't always have a role to play. After the agreement was established to develop a Jewish "homeland" and give the other section to the Palestinians - the Arabs weren't satisfied. They tried to take over all the land. Israel almost lost everything. Israel eventually gained the upper hand and ended up gaining land. The Palestinians started a war to take over Israel in order to destory Israel - now that they lost they call the land Israel gained control of during the conflict as the "occupied territories". If Jordan, Egypt Syria, etc didn't start the war with Israel - there would be NO occupied territories. The Palestinians are hellbent on reclaiming land they lost in a war THEY started. In other words - it's SEVERE case of being a sore loser.

In terms of the poverty and so forth. The Palestinians are in pverty because they'd rather support the suicide bombers than support the peace. There are Palestinian groups that support peace - but it's Hamas that gets all the support. Saddam Hussein even pays somethine like $15,000 to every family of a suicide bomber.

Given a chance - the Middle Eastern countries would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The Euros are probably smart for bailing. The cost is estimated to be about 1 trillion dollars. That's a whole lot of oil to "use" for "reconstruction".

The majority of European governments support the US. France and Germany are really the only desenters and that is because they have billions in deals with Hussein, as does Russia. As commentators have said - it's common knowledge that both countries have also had dealings with Iraq that go against the UN resolutions. It will be interesting after the war to see all the stuff that has "Made in France", "Made in Germany" stamped on it.

Nightline the other night had on the cost of the war - with breakdowns. It was estimated to cost 50 billion. Most of the cost of the war is actually the transport of troops to the region - which we've already done. The 50 billion of course only covers the cost of the war - not the reconstruction. But even so I do not think that the cost comes anywhere near $1 trillion. I have never once heard that figure - so if you can supply me a link that states that figure - I would like to see it.

Also - once the war is won - the countries against the war at this time will support helping in the reconstruction. If they don't - then they know they'll be cut out of any future business deals.

Turkey is on the fast track toward an Islamic Republic. They will play the fence as long as they get MA fron NATO and the US. Syria, Lebannon, and Jordan will be lucky to last 10 more years. Afganistan will stay "together" only as long as US troops are there to play enforcer.

I disagree concerning Afganistan. The reconstruction of Japan and Germany wasn't completed in a day and although Afganistan will be much more difficult I think it can be done.

The worst aspect of the coming war, other than causualties, is seeing the news services slavering over the ratings potential. Vultures!:mad:
I don't really care, just as long as it goes well and there aren't a lot of casualties. I do hate the networks naming their war coverage though. I think that goes a bit too far.

[Dúnedain]

Good lord have I missed a lot. I guess I will spend the next week catching up :p

[Cirdan]

The 1 trillion figure was for the war, the reconstruction, and the occupation for ~10 years. If you look at S. Korea, ten years is not a very long time.

Without two of the three largest economies (France and Germany) out, help isn't coming in large amounts. The "billions" in deals are miniscule in comparison to the economies. Eastern Europe's support is worth about two nickels, economically. It's only value is political.

As for Afganistan, they have nothing. Germany and Japan had huge industrial, economic, and educational foundations. Afganistan has dirt. Economics is what it is all about. Iraq is oil rich, so the chances are better there. Neither has the cultural cohesion of Germany or Japan. Too many factions at odds. Besides, we still have troops in Japan and Germany. It's still al large expense to us.