Iraq

[Sween]

Here is a very topicial topic and one that i am sure a lot of you hold dear to you. what are we going to do with Iraq? Its clear america wants war. Its clear england doesnt want to upset america and its also clear the rest of the world would rather have the international comunity deal with it without there own country deal with the problem (the fatal flaw of the UN).

What are your personal feelings on this? would an attack be justified? Has Iraq acctually made an attack on the US?

My pernal feelings have allways been that sadam was never intrested in messing with america he just wanted to happily invade quate and that be that. But america got in his way and his plans failed.

They claim to have proof that hes making wepons of mass destuction but ive never felt he wanted to deal with the USA he knows he would get his ass kicked to the moon and back.

This seems to be a problem that wont go away until something drastic is done it should of been sorted in the first war with the deposing of sadam (thats the way any war should end). So whats the answer i dont think the war is really to do with Iraq as a country i think the real key is sadam and i think he needs to be deposed with a carefully targeted special force opperation or if you will assination.

[Khamûl]

A "topical topic", eh?:D

We recently had a debate about this in Government class. I believe that we should go to war, but only if nothing gets accomplished through other means (like the U.N.).

On another note, don't let this discussion turn into a flame war or a game of "pass the buck" (This country is to blame. No, no, this country is to blame. Etc...) This kind of topic has a tendency to flare tempers. Don't let it get out of hand.

[BeardofPants]

I believe they should go through the appropriate channels first (UN). Also, I'm a bit leery of the fact that Iraq seems to be an old sore rather than a threat. I don't buy the 45 minutes WMD thing that Tony nincompoop Blair is trying to sell. :rolleyes: Personally, I'd worry more about Iran....

Also: what would the repurcussions be of going to war with Iraq? Especially if they agree to UN inspections? Is this the first on a checklist of areas that are on the planned invasion list? (Axis of Evil?)

It has been intimated that M16 and CIA agents were smuggled into the last lot of UN weapons inspections in Iraq. I'd hope that this time the UN are more wary of such a compromise occuring. I mean, can you really blame Saddam, madman that he is, for being wary of letting UN inspectors into his personal quarters where there will most likely be sensitive information? In light of the fact that federal agents might have been working as UN inspectors?

[Dunadan]

Morally, it boils down to whether we should, with overwhelming force, initiate an assault on a sovereign nation because we want to control their natural resources.

So, er, I think the answer is NO (I took Moral Philosophy 101) ;)

Happy to explain why this is the case if people want to hear it.

[Millane]

to tell you the truth, that ol' hilbilly G.W. Bush is a little girl, he picks a fight then sends off all his army to go fight the fight for him... he'll probly get me killed for that *nervously looking over shoulder expecting bullet*
but that is none of my business if America wants to fight Iraq go for it... if John Howard starts kissing Bush again and he decided to go to war aswell.. well i say we send them out first...
i reckon that Bush should just go back to texas and play toy soldiers and war games there...

[Sween]

Its everyones business if america go to war. I feel sorry for them in a way. Because its a problem that Bush has made for himself Iraq on the global scales isnt nthat much of a threat to america and he knows it. But he seems to want to take care of things which in a way is fair enough because im one for action and not just letting things fester away.

[BeardofPants]

Yes, that's the general feel isn't it: That Dubya wants to take care of old family business - he has even said as much. Which to me, doesn't make much sense when there are greater threats to America out there. But I guess Iraq is probably just first one the list. :rolleyes:

You know: it's funny. Before the gulf war when America was such buddies with Iraq, they were santioning the atrocities that Iraq were doing to Iran. "Hey you just sank an American ship! Oh...? You thought it was an Iranian one....? Well, okay, then." :rolleyes:

[Sween]

How easy we forget the past :( . It is just family business and its shocking that someone can wheild that much power :(

[Wayfarer]

Hmm...

Well, iraq is (supposedly) shooting at american and british planes on a regular basis.

I think this problem is the result of a lack of backbone by western parties. The UN in particular, seems to be a major proponent of of 'give him just one more chance' 'one more chance' 'jsut one more... etc. We should have slagged him the first time... how much reason do we need to finish the job?

[Sween]

so he shots t our planes occasionally does he acctually expect to hit them. as i have said b4 its a game toi him he loves winding up the americans he finds it well funny.

[Wayfarer]

That's just about the stupedist thing I've ever heard, sween. What are you, ten years old?

Shooting at someone and missing carries only a slightly lighter sentance than hitting them.

But hey, if it's ok for saddam to play around by shooting at american planes, what's wrong with bush playing around with invasion?

[Sween]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
That's just about the stupedist thing I've ever heard, sween. What are you, ten years old?

Shooting at someone and missing carries only a slightly lighter sentance than hitting them.

But hey, if it's ok for saddam to play around by shooting at american planes, what's wrong with bush playing around with invasion?

well i am affraid i diagree with you on that. Its not stupid. Sadam is a bit of a mad person in all fairness (his football team looked so happy when they won the other day probably because they would not get any beatings)

Do you think sadam could find any better form of ammusement than getting the americans all puffed up about him shoting a few stay shots at there planes? no he loves it. he is a wind up merchent. hes like that boy at school that would spend all day flicking but of paper at you and when you turned round to beat the living day lights out of him ran off and hid in the corner for a lesson then started all over again.

[crickhollow]

I doubt the Kurds would view Hussein in such a harmless light...

Perhaps more later. my mid-terms

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Hmm...

Well, iraq is (supposedly) shooting at american and british planes on a regular basis.

You know, maybe, just maybe that is because US planes keep taking out the radar on their civilian airports? :rolleyes:

Or could it be that the US/Brit planes are violating Iraq airspace? :rolleyes: You fly into hostile territory, what do you expect? A party?

[osszie]

Well at least the americans can tell which arms and armaments they'll be facing...........they can look at their receipts from the sanction days:rolleyes:

far too easy to start flaming in here...........keeping me gob shut;)

but me eyes open:)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
far too easy to start flaming in here...........keeping me gob shut;)


Yeah: I should take a leaf outta your book. My pinky leftist views usually get me in trouble.... :rolleyes:

[Comic Book Guy]

What I find funny is that Blair and his cronies are traveling to various different countries to try and gather support for the killing of thousands of civilians, yet they still haven't convinced the people of the United Kingdom that War on Iraq is needed, as the general opinion of the populace in the United Kingdom is one that is opposed to war.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
What I find funny is that Blair and his cronies are traveling to various different countries to try and gather support for the killing of thousands of civilians, yet they still haven't convinced the people of the United Kingdom that War on Iraq is needed, as the general opinion of the populace in the United Kingdom is one that is opposed to war.

Erm.........I was gonna keep me gob shut but welcome back CBG:D ............we can always rely on the Admins in a time of international crisis;)

BoP the world could do with MORE pinky leftist views;)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
What I find funny is that Blair and his cronies are traveling to various different countries to try and gather support for the killing of thousands of civilians, yet they still haven't convinced the people of the United Kingdom that War on Iraq is needed, as the general opinion of the populace in the United Kingdom is one that is opposed to war.

Oh yes, I find that completely hysterical. I wonder how much he's shot himself in the foot in terms of re-election possibilities --- especially when his OWN caucus thinks he's a joke. Me wonders why he wants to be in Bush's pocket so much... yessss, me wonders.

Good to see you around again, CBG.

[Comic Book Guy]

Me wonders why he wants to be in Bush's pocket so much...

Pocket? Lap more like.

One question, why are you so interested in Britains affairs BeardOfPants?

[Hasty Ent]

thought this was scary -- here's an excerpt -- author Michael Kinsley on Slate:

"According to the Bush administration, the threat posed by Iraq is serious enough to risk the lives of American soldiers, to end the lives of what would undoubtedly be thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and to risk a chemical or biological attack on the American homeland, but not serious enough to interrupt prime-time television. None of the big three broadcast networks carried Bush's case-for-war speech Monday night because, they say, the White House didn't ask. Pre-empting Saddam Hussein is one thing, apparently, but pre-empting Drew Carey is another."

and more:

"The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting. Arguments that stumble into each other like drunks are not serious. Washington is abuzz with the "real reason" this or that subgroup of the administration wants this war. A serious and respectful effort to rally the citizenry would offer the real reasons, would base the conclusion on the evidence rather than vice versa, would admit to the ambiguities and uncertainties, would be frank about the potential cost. A serious effort to take the nation into war would not hesitate to interrupt people while they're watching a sitcom."


if you're interested in the rest of the article:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072211

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
One question, why are you so interested in Britains affairs BeardOfPants?

I'm an anthropologist. I like to be current in world affairs and human idiocy.

[HOBBIT]

well, its not like Bush is all that great a speach giver :P I didn't watch it, but I heard about it (history class, etc). It wasn't that exciting. Nothing new was told. Why should they have broadcast it? :P

[Hasty Ent]

Yes, Hobbit, I agree that Bush is a pitiful public speaker -- I positively cringe at most of what he says. And yet...as citizens, shouldn't we be informed? I listened to the House speeches (broadcast on NPR), and while most seemed to mouth the usual self-serving political nonsense, I still wanted to know what our elected representatives had to say.

The problem with the issue of what to do about Iraq is as much about political grandstanding (what's new?:( ) as it is about the general public's apathy. Why should they hear these speeches when they have no trust or faith in their leaders? When whatever they spout is simply a pre-election ploy to lure voters? The danger is that these morons (and yes, we did elect them - the horror...the horror...) can do tremendous damage. Claiming a moral high ground for a military strike is the easiest explanation for a public that has neither the patience nor the interest in what is a terribly complex issue.

[webwizard333]

Despite my often leftist views (Green Party forever!), I would support Bush in removing Saddam Hussein from power, though mostly for different reasons that the ones he gives.

1) He's a mass murderer. He's gassed so many people, and according to one article I've read, an ethnicity is slowly dieing from the effects of his gasses, which have caused most of the survivors to be sterile, effectively killing this group. If the UN and US really supports human rights, they should act on these beliefs and use the international justice system they're st up to bring charges against him. What they've done so far, is hurt the people of Iraq, while Saddam stays in power.

2) I've always found Saddam's view of himself particularly disturbing. He believes himself to be the new Saladin and does desire to control the Arab region. Though I doubt a single nuclear weapon would give him instant power, the accumulation of several would allow him to finally take countries such as Kuwait and Iran.

3) In response to Sween's post, you think shooting at people is no big deal?! Threatening lives has always been a major offense, and if its come to be ok to attempt to kill others, then I'm worried. In response to BoP's post, I was under the impression that the pilots were flying on their side of the perimeter. If they weren't, that puts a new spin on things, and though I wouldn't condone the Iraqi shootings, I wouldn't support the pilots' actions either.

4) Will the UN do anything to support its own regulations and decisions? Though I think it has done and continues to do many things that I feel are very good and support it in doing, I feel that in the Middle East it has repeatedly failed to uphold its mission of peace, human rights, and such. If it continues to show it lacks a backbone in the Middle East, then I feel its declining, and either should be replaced or fixed somehow.

[Erawyn]

He's a mass murderer. He's gassed so many people, and according to one article I've read, an ethnicity is slowly dieing from the effects of his gasses, which have caused most of the survivors to be sterile, effectively killing this group.

Exactly. Saddam is an evil guy. Thats why we should get rid of him. Not because Bush wants to protect his family business. I am against america attacking iraq for the reasons it is. They said they would let the weapons inspectors in!!
The US in so hypocritical, THEY put him in power in the first place, then they got all mad at him so they put sanctions on his country, to hurt him, but all it did was hurt the general population:mad:

[Cirdan]

My favaorite Bushism was that we need to invade Iraq because Saddam is a threat to peace... *prolonged head scratching*

When did my country become filled with cringing cowards? I lived through the cold war to end up being afraid of this punk? oy...

Why is my president spending all his energy trying to scare his people? Wormtongue lives...

[Millane]

Sween it sounds to me that your American am i right:) ?
Think about it like this... Saddam shoots down American Planes... ok what would Bush do if Saddams planes were anywhere near america???...
isnt it ironic that the weapons that Afganisthan used to fight america were actually given to them by america to fight the russians? it just seems to me that america thinks they do no wrong and that there enemies are always in the wrong...

[Sween]

Originally posted by Millane
Sween it sounds to me that your American am i right:) ?
Think about it like this... Saddam shoots down American Planes... ok what would Bush do if Saddams planes were anywhere near america???...
isnt it ironic that the weapons that Afganisthan used to fight america were actually given to them by america to fight the russians? it just seems to me that america thinks they do no wrong and that there enemies are always in the wrong...

No im english born and bread ive never been so insulted in all my life (hehehe only kidding my american chums).

Your new so ill let you off but ive been known to be very critical of amerrica in the past.

It is true that america has provided many countries through out there years with wepons and also stood idley by for long periods of time in the world wars whislt they made mass profits but lets not get into that.

Bush has set himself up as kinda leader of the world. Since september the 11th he has obvoisly seen it as his duty as the leader of the worlds most powerful nation to sort out a few of the worlds problems and in many ways i say good luck to him. But there is also a thin line bettween leadeding the world and dominating it and thats why he is receving so little support.

He is sending out the wrong image of Iraq to the american people hes trying to sell Sadam as a real danger to the american people and they aint buying it. America vs Iraq hmmmmmmmmm that would be a tought one to win.

I feel sadam is an evil evil man (look at the way he treats his football team) and certinal;ly if he thought he could he would try to take over the arab world in a second. this is the message that should be sent out and people would go along with it. Not silly storys he 'could' have wepons of mass destruction and be heading for the USA this does no one good i could have a wepon of mass destruction politics should never involes 'coulds'

[Millane]

America DOES have weapons of mass destruction... sorry to offend you i am new hear and thatll be my excuse...
and as for the America vs Iraq thing that would be a hard one to win... many people forgot that there are two major powers in the world and one hasnt declared any support whatsoever for america. America vs Iraq sounds pretty one-sided but america vs Iraq and China and it gets a whole lot worse for bush...

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Why is my president spending all his energy trying to scare his people? Wormtongue lives...
One word for you:

Oil.

(you knew it anyway)

[osszie]

Originally posted by Dunadan
One word for you:

Oil.

(you knew it anyway)

And a very interesting word it is, it's also the reason why the UN will never fully back America's proposed attack on Iraq.........

Both Russia and France have trade deals worth billions of $'s with Iraq, both countries have waited patiently the UN to lift sanctions on Iraq......the USA now sends $10 billion dollars of aid to Russia per annum as a sort of "apology" to the failing sanctions, yet they send nothing to France:confused: ............ naturally France is a little perturbed by this:mad:

Saddam's main argument to the weapons inspections has always been that he does not want such a strong American prescense to be part of the inspection, as the inspection is carried out by the UN, why does America feel the need to make it's prescence felt so much during these inspections:mad: ................ does America not trust the other countries of the UN to carry out a professional inspection?

The sanctions against Iraq are a joke............as soon as the UN learned that the people of Iraq were dying through malnutrition and inadequete medical care they lifted "some" sanctions to allow Iraq to make enough money for life's neccessities (food, hospitals etc) then they became upset when Saddam built new palaces etc with the money. Did they really think Saddam would build hospitals with this money:confused: ............. Saddam whould hardly give aid to his people with money that the UN allowed him to have:rolleyes: he has spent a long time brainwashing his people into believing that the western world is evil, he would never give them reason to be grateful to the UN.

America proposes to attack Iraq, and there is little doubt that they would win. But the question remains unanswered "what happens after?".........who gains control of Iraq and its resources? The rest of the middle east is eager to trade with Iraq again, the oil alone used to gernerate billions of $'s for that part of the world. If Saddam is removed then who do they deal with?......as with many things, it boils down to who will controls the money:(

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emeritz are taking a very "diplomatic" stance, they are asking for answers regarding the future of Iraq in the middle east after any such attacks, and America is giving them none. Naturally this turns suspicion towards America.............do they (or indeed the UN as a whole) see themselves as taking control of the oil resources?

The UN will never gain the kind of support for this attack it recieved after the Gulf War (90-91) simply because Saddam actually did make an aggressive move by invading Kuwait.......at the moment he is using nothing more than insults and crafty diplomacy to attack America. Ok, maybe the odd pot-shot at the occasional plane, but what are they doing there anyway? China shot down an American spy plane not very long ago and that did not lead to war with China.

Personnally I think Bush is using far too much propaganda to support his position against Iraq.................untill Iraq aggressively attacks he has no justification in attacking them.

Saddam is a potential threat of course, but it is only 20yrs since Cl.Gaddafi was going to destroy America............. since that was resolved (with just a few missiles if I remember correctly) Libya has again become a prosperous country and Gaddafi has proven himself to be a very capable leader during peace.

Bush does worry me............... a lot of his statements seem to reek of "the genocide of the Iraq people".

As for Tony Blair.........probably the most popularist politician in history, the man thinks nothing of changing his stance to recieve the most public acclaim, Bush could not have found himself a better lap-dog.

[markedel]

I think invading Iraq could easily inflame the Middle East. That's bad because I have relatives in Israel and gas masks aren't a laughing matter.

[Sween]

i hate Blair he has not got an origional thought in his body. He is a useless public speaker a failed politcian and no leader. He is a voice for other peoples words.

The labour government is a shamble.

soz had to gtet off my chest the only reason they are in power is because the conservatives are such a disgrace (i was watching thgere pary conference they have no idea they were saying they need to run an election like thater did :eek: )

Bush is fast beccomming the most unpopular president ever. i dont know how he is seen in america but in england he is seen as an idiot and a shabbles he is in charge of the most powerful country in the world. I fear he could lead us into ruin

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by markedel
That's bad because I have relatives in Israel and gas masks aren't a laughing matter.
You must find this all very worrying. I sincerely hope there isn't an invasion, as Saddam would like as not shoot off his last few SCUDs at Israel to try to broaden the conflict, and Sharon has indicate that he would retaliate.

(BTW - that's something you don't hear given the credit it deserves: Israel's restraint during the Gulf War, when they were being attacked by missiles. I suppose they didn't need to because Uncle Sam went and kicked butt for them.)

You're close, Sween, but it's actually simpler than that. The US isn't that bothered who owns the oil as long as they are prepared to sell it to the US (and the world in general) without too much fuss.

Saddam controls the world's second largest oil reserves. This makes the US particularly dependent on the Saudis. The Saudis walk a very delicate tightrope between making anti-infidel noises (e.g. refusing the US permission to use its bases) and propping up their feudal dynasties with western armaments. However, they also house the most sacred sites in Islam, and there is a lot of resentment towards them in the Arab world. They are perceived as being vulnerable to an Islamic revolution (Bin Laden is a Saudi). This would leave the West's oil supply controlled by a Taliban-style regime in Riyadh and a genocidal nutcase in Baghdad.

So, get rid of Saddam and replace him with a sympathetic (or even just neutral) regime, and you break the Saudis' stranglehold. The ideal candidate would be Saddam as he was 20 years ago when, in fact, he was propped up (and tooled up) by the West to act as a bulwark against fundamentalist Iran.

All the War on Terror, UN and WMD stuff is a rather unconvincing fig leaf for the US's priapic purposes.

Hey ho, twas ever thus

[crickhollow]

I may be the only one here, but I'm glad we have Bush in charge right now. He might not have been my first choice, but hey, we can't always have a George Washington, right? Anyway, he's disciplined, and his actions are well thought out. It's too bad that a guy's leadership ability is judged solely on his public speaking. I'd much rather have Bush and his cabinet than a lazy smut like Clinton in charge of a war.

Judging by the congressional votes the last couple of days (yes, I may be out of the country, but hurrah for internet new organizations), it looks like war is headed our way whether we like it or not. My preference would be to go back in time and alter the objectives that Bush Sr. laid out for the gulf war. My understanding is that because he didn't specifically set out in the first place to remove Saddam from power, congress pulled him up short and told him that it "wasn't part of the planned objectives". Since that's impossible...

Look, I'm not keen on going to war either, but I'd say it's necessary IF Saddam really is this close *holds thumb and forfinger three millimeters apart* to going nuclear. He may never outright attack on American soil, I freely admit that. Israel would probably be his first choice--it would save him from having to shell out money to all the families of the suicide bombers.

[Garina]

The problem that I have with this is:

Apparently Hussein has all these chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that he will use if given a reason.

So America are going to attack Iraq, giving him a reason...

Ok, I'm not the most politcally informed individual, but there seems to be something wrong with this!!!

[Sween]

Originally posted by Garina
The problem that I have with this is:

Apparently Hussein has all these chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that he will use if given a reason.

So America are going to attack Iraq, giving him a reason...

Ok, I'm not the most politcally informed individual, but there seems to be something wrong with this!!!

the pijnt is does he? And if he did have them can he deliver them to america? Probably not. moving a nuclear wepon arounds not that simple. 9/11 came about because no one expected that in there wost nightmares it was unconsived.

And does sadam really hate america i think not he just likes playing dictator.

[jerseydevil]

Currently I don't support or condemn a war with Iraq.

However I want to get some things straight.

America and England are patrolling the NO-FLY zone in order to protect the Kurds. This was a requirement made by the UN when Iraq surrounded after the previous Gulf War. Iraq had accepted this stipulation. By them firing at the patrolling aircraft is a direct affront to the agreement that they signed.

Europe and Japan get far more Middle Eastern oil than America does - we don't need their oil. So to say that we're fighting for "America's" oil is a lie that everyone likes to petite.

Another point is that America has fought repeatedly to have smart sanctions laid against Saddam Hussein. This would alleviate the hardships of the Iraqi people. However, some countries (such as Russia and France) don't like this because it also closes the loopholes that allow them to get things into Iraq.

Everyone says that Saddam has not done anything to warrant an attack. Yet today we question why no one stopped Hitler when there were clear signs of what he was doing. Are we going to question 50 years from now and say – “why didn't anyone do anything against Iraq when they had the chance?”. I know that England tried negotiations with Hitler. They were even guaranteed that Germany was not going to attack other countries. Russia had treaties with Germany. Is Hussein, who has used chemical weapons on his own people, that different from Hitler, who set up concentration camps for his own people?

I am perfectly aware that Hussein will most likely attack the US or supply terrorist groups with weapons to get back at us for any attack. But they already hate us and are just biding their time. The entire Middle East hates us because of the news (propaganda) they listen to.

Iraq will attack - whether we attack first or in a defensive position. I feel that Iraq will launch an attack on the western world once he has his weapons ready.

The question now is which is better to do - take a preventive measure and get him before he does anything? Before he is prepared? Before he has his weapon arsenal back together? Or later - when it's on his terms? After he's unleashed a biological weapon through the London underground or the NY subway?

When is it okay to take action? If America had gone after Bin Laden before 9/11 - people (including in America) would have been questioning why. Do we really need or want an attack as big or bigger than 9/11 from Hussein before the world says - "Okay you can attack Iraq now"? It's what it took for the world to wake up to Hitler.

Also - as I said before, the US is going to do what is in our self interest. All countries pursue their self interests.

How many times can Iraq thumb it’s nose at the UN before they decide to enforce the agreements that Iraq signed? The world says that the US should go through the UN – well we did. We’re waiting for action now from both parties. As Bush said and I agree, this is a time for the UN to prove that it is not an irrelevant body of political windbags. So I paraphrased. But as anyone knows – I have no love for the UN.

[Cirdan]

is true that america has provided many countries through out there years with wepons and also stood idley by for long periods of time in the world wars whislt they made mass profits but lets not get into that.

Just be glad your not speaking german right now.:D

[Sween]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Just be glad your not speaking german right now.:D

god bless all of the men that fought in the war. My grandad did but his time is running out as is many of the people who foaught in the 2nd world war i hope we dont forget what they did for us ever.

But im english we would of never sucombed to the Germans even if we all died its not our way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
god bless all of the men that fought in the war. My grandad did but his time is running out as is many of the people who foaught in the 2nd world war i hope we dont forget what they did for us ever.

But im english we would of never sucombed to the Germans even if we all died its not our way.

I'm not so sure. Just look at what happened to the "high and mighty" French.

Also - as I said regarding us staying out of WWII until we were bombed at Pearl Harbor - it was Europe's war. You got us into another world war less than 20 years before - against the same country. American's did not support geting involved with the war. Also - we helped militarily by supplying weaponry and everything else. We weren't exactly uninvolved in it as you seem to suggest Sween.

[Earniel]

Why is Bush so bent on getting Saddam out? Is Saddam suddenly more dangerous than he was a year ago? Rather unlikely I think. In my view Bush wants to find another enemy to focus on since the taliban no longer control Afghanistan. I think it's really really stupid. The moment you pick up your gun to start a war you'll destroy more than you'll ever be able to rebuild in a lifetime. Yes, the taliban are defeated and Afghanistan has a new government but that didn't stop the war there. Look how long it took the two parts of Korea to come on speaking terms again. I don't think that removing Saddam is going to solve the iraq-situation like that. Most likely it's going to increase anti-american sentiments in the arab world even further.

Saddam probably has weapons, but there is a difference between having them and using them. So far he hasn't used them and I don't see the need of giving him a reason to do so. And seeing the time it took him and Blair to show us the evidence of the iraqi threat, I can't help myself but thinking that the evidence is either forged or exagerrated. It is as like nothing iraq can say or do will stop Bush from attacking.

What's even more frightening is how Bush seems to place America above every one else: American soldiers shouldn't be allowed to be judged by the international court of The Hague, America doesn't need to ratify Kyoto, if America wants to build a missile shield, the former treaties preventing that are simply abandoned.... It wouldn't surprise me if he attacked Iraq even when the UN says no. I'm not such a great supporter of the UN, they are slow and indecisive about a lot of things and each land has it's own agenda. But I believe it's a better way to deal with international situations than that each country does what it pleases.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Why is Bush so bent on getting Saddam out? Is Saddam suddenly more dangerous than he was a year ago? Rather unlikely I think.

Maybe you should be asking if 5 - 10 years from now will Hussein havethe weapons and will he be able to unleash them on the world or have thatr capibility? How long did it take Hitler to build up his army while the world stood back and watched?


Saddam probably has weapons, but there is a difference between having them and using them. So far he hasn't used them and I don't see the need of giving him a reason to do so.

Yeah - I guess we should just let him go and continue about his business. As I've said - personally I feel we should shut America's doors, take our troops back home, eliminate our foreign aid, require Europe to pay us back for the Marshall Plan like they were supposed to and worry about ourselves for a change.

What's even more frightening is how Bush seems to place America above every one else: American soldiers shouldn't be allowed to be judged by the international court of The Hague, America doesn't need to ratify Kyoto, if America wants to build a missile shield, the former treaties preventing that are simply abandoned.... It wouldn't surprise me if he attacked Iraq even when the UN says no. I'm not such a great supporter of the UN, they are slow and indecisive about a lot of things and each land has it's own agenda. But I believe it's a better way to deal with international situations than that each country does what it pleases.

Why shouldn't the President of OUR country put our interests first? I don't recall Belgium, New Zealand, England or any other country electing him or any of our other Presidents. I hate to tell you this - but our representatives report first to the American people. Oh - I know how people complain about lobby groups and claim that they really elect our representatives now. Of course these same people seem to have no problem with the Union lobby, or the lobby groups that they support (like the Sierra Club).

Why should we have signed the Kyoto treaty? And why can't we discuss with the country that we had a treaty with and leave it after mutual agreement. I don't recall Belgium or any other country signing the missile treaty. The only country we had to discuss pulling out of the treaty with was Russia - which we did. As far as I'm concerned it was no one else's business.

And yes - if we felt it was in our overriding best interest to attack Iraq and the American public supported it - we would. Right now the American public support is still very questionable. Everyone argued on this board months ago that America was going to attack anyday. Well we still haven't attacked. We did everything that the world wanted us to do - but it's still not enough. We don't say the right things. We don't give enough information. We don't give the information fast enough. Give me a break.

[Cirdan]

J-D, the Hitler comparison doesn't wash. Before WWI Germany was THE most populous industrialized nation. Very little happen to Germany in the WWI. They overcame the Depression and Post-war sactions to build tyhe most powerful military force in the world. The US was a hick town by comparison. It to the combined effort of many nations so subjegate them. Saddam doesn't even have an air force to speak of. Anything that was left from the Gulf War is decrepit and there is no sigh he can put forth more than lots on infantry. Syria could beat Iraq. If WMDs exist they will be launched agaist Israeli civilians of the first day of the invasion. We would be better served to devise a scheme of protecting our borders from ALL threats, not just imaginary, potential ones.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
J-D, the Hitler comparison doesn't wash. Before WWI Germany was THE most populous industrialized nation. Very little happen to Germany in the WWI. They overcame the Depression and Post-war sactions to build tyhe most powerful military force in the world. The US was a hick town by comparison. It to the combined effort of many nations so subjegate them. Saddam doesn't even have an air force to speak of. Anything that was left from the Gulf War is decrepit and there is no sigh he can put forth more than lots on infantry. Syria could beat Iraq. If WMDs exist they will be launched agaist Israeli civilians of the first day of the invasion. We would be better served to devise a scheme of protecting our borders from ALL threats, not just imaginary, potential ones.

Why would you need infantry or airforce if you have nuclear weapons or biological weapons and crazy enough to use them?

Oh and by the way - the only reason why germany was able to build their military up and overcome the sanctions 0- was because they weren't enforced by Europe. Forgive me if I'm wrong - but it does seem sort of similar. I'll grant you that Hitler put more money into his people than Hussein does though.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why would you need infantry or airforce if you have nuclear weapons or biological weapons and crazy enough to use them?

Beacuse just using a WMD without gaining anything isn't crazy, it's stupid. Hussein has proved he is wily if nothing else.

The chemical and biological weapons he has came from us. We intended him to use them on Iran. Nobody thinks he actually has any nukes. He has no way to deliver them except via terrorist. But then even if he is gone that threat still exists. It's treating the symptom and not the disease; namely piss-poor home security on the part of the US government.

[Earniel]

Why shouldn't the President of OUR country put our interests first? I don't recall Belgium, New Zealand, England or any other country electing him or any of our other Presidents. I hate to tell you this - but our representatives report first to the American people. Frankly I'm glad I didn't elect him. Now will you try and tell him to stop trying to dictate our policies?

Well we still haven't attacked. For which I am rather grateful, actually. Thank you.

We did everything that the world wanted us to do - but it's still not enough. We don't say the right things. We don't give enough information. We don't give the information fast enough. Give me a break. Well that's the downside of being the wealthiest and most powerful, I guess. Everyone looks to America to make things right and to do the right thing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Frankly I'm glad I didn't elect him. Now will you try and tell him to stop trying to dictate our policies?

How are we dictating your policies? It seems as if the world wants to control the US and dictate ours.


For which I am rather grateful, actually. Thank you.

Well that's the downside of being the wealthiest and most powerful, I guess. Everyone looks to America to make things right and to do the right thing.

It is a downside. We should just stop babysitting other countries. Why should you look to us to make everything right? Why should our tax dollars go to constantly helping the world out of it's problems. Many of these problems occurred way before we had any role in world affairs anyway. It's not our responsibilty to fix the world. Let the countries that constantly complain about the way America does things get off their fat a$$es and do something for a change.

[osszie]

Well congress has just granted GW Bush the powers to use America's armed forces to attack Iraq:rolleyes:

Lets hope the terrorists, in my view the most immediate threat to American security don't take advantage at this time:(

I think this is going to have consequences even out children (or granchildren) are going to both hate and be worried about:rolleyes:

Go America:mad:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Well congress has just granted GW Bush the powers to use America's armed forces to attack Iraq:rolleyes:

Everyone knew that the House and Senate were going to give Bush the go ahead on it. I haven't read yet what Congress has actually given Bush the go ahead on though.

Lets hope the terrorists, in my view the most immediate threat to American security don't take advantage at this time:(

How do you know that Saddan Hussein hasn't been supporting any terrorists? He publicly supports the suicide bombers.

I think this is going to have consequences even out children (or granchildren) are going to both hate and be worried about:rolleyes:

Go America:mad:

Yeah - and our children and grandchildren could also in many years from now be questioning why no one did anything sooner. Just like we do when looking back on Germany and WWII. People already ask why the government didn't do anything about Osama bin Laden. Iif the government had "declared war" on him prior to 9/11 and used armed forces - people would be screaming and yelling about why we were worrying about him.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Everyone knew that the House and Senate were going to give Bush the go ahead on it. I haven't read yet what Congress has actually given Bush the go ahead on though.
[/b]
How do you know that Saddan Hussein hasn't been supporting any terrorists? He publicly supports the suicide bombers.


Yeah - and our children and grandchildren could also in many years from now be questioning why no one did anything sooner. Just like we do when looking back on Germany and WWII. People already ask why the government didn't do anything about Osama bin Laden. Iif the government had "declared war" on him prior to 9/11 and used armed forces - people would be screaming and yelling about why we were worrying about him. [/B]

Google has a very good search engine specifically geared towards news from around the world JD:)

My main concern in this whole "war on Iraq" is that there is no physical proof!!.........You made reference to the days preceding WW2 earlier, can I remind you that negotiations between Chamberlain (the pm at the time) and Hitler actually took place because we knew that Hitler was creating his war machine (amassing armies, stock piling arms and armaments etc). The nightmare outcome in this Iraq scenario is that the US (or the UN if they back america) invade Iraq, kill thousands, only to discover that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction at all and Sadam was just another loudmouth who relied on propaganda to remain in control.............relations between the middle east and the west will never recover from such actions:rolleyes:

Where is the evidence........surely it is not legal, or moral, to go to war just because a nation has voiciferically proclaimed hatred and prejudice against another:( ................ if the proof was there, sure I cannot argue against anyone defending themselves from a real threat...............but where is the proof:confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Google has a very good search engine specifically geared towards news from around the world JD:)

You don't have to tell me to look at sites to keep up on the news. I am very well informed - but since I have been away for a while - I have been unable to keep up on the news as much.

I do however know that the polls still indicate that the majority of AMERICANS support taking out Saddam Hussein.


My main concern in this whole "war on Iraq" is that there is no physical proof!!.........You made reference to the days preceding WW2 earlier, can I remind you that negotiations between Chamberlain (the pm at the time) and Hitler actually took place because we knew that Hitler was creating his war machine (amassing armies, stock piling arms and armaments etc). The nightmare outcome in this Iraq scenario is that the US (or the UN if they back america) invade Iraq, kill thousands, only to discover that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction at all and Sadam was just another loudmouth who relied on propaganda to remain in control.............relations between the middle east and the west will never recover from such actions:rolleyes:

Where is the evidence........surely it is not legal, or moral, to go to war just because a nation has voiciferically proclaimed hatred and prejudice against another:( ................ if the proof was there, sure I cannot argue against anyone defending themselves from a real threat...............but where is the proof:confused:

You know what - it's great that everyone claims they want proof - but when proof is given America is either accused of fabracating it or people rant on about how it's not enough proof.

This was Nightline (http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/Nightline/) a couple of nights ago -


TONIGHT'S SUBJECT: They were threatened, blocked, bugged, and they knew
that just by talking to certain Iraqis, they were sentencing them to
death. It wasn't easy being a weapons inspector in Iraq - something to
think about as the UN considers sending inspectors back in.

----

They couldn't talk about their plans in Iraq because they were certain their rooms were bugged. They couldn't talk about their plans at their headquarters in Bahrain for the same reason. In fact, they didn't even feel secure at UN headquarters in New York, so their planning was done in
loud New York restaurants. In Iraq they got threatening phone calls. One
inspector was in his hotel room when the knock on the door and the cry of
"housekeeping" came. He opened the door to find two Iraqi men in suits.
They would often arrive at a site after following a circuitous route, but the U.S. spy planes overhead could see convoys of Iraqi vehicles leaving out the back. And sometimes they would talk to Iraqis, who would never be seen again.

It all sounds like the stuff of a spy novel, and maybe even a comedy,
except that it was all very serious. It was a constant game of cat and
mouse, each side trying to outwit the other. As the UN is considering sending new teams of inspectors back into Iraq, we thought it would be a good idea to hear what it was like for the previous inspectors. We thought we had a pretty good idea of what had been going on before, but we were wrong. It was much crazier.

All of this comes as the debate continues in Washington. The House is
probably going to vote tomorrow, and the outcome is a foregone conclusion,
on the resolution authorizing the President to use military force against
Iraq. The Senate will probably vote next week, but passage there also
seems assured. The CIA sent a letter to the Senate saying that while
Saddam probably does have chemical and biological weapons, and is working on nuclear weapons, he is unlikely to use them against the U.S.unless attacked, in which case they expect Iraq to use whatever it has. There was a flurry this morning as the White House went out of its way to say that this in no way contradicts what the administration has been saying, and then released a letter from the CIA director saying the same thing. All this while the UN is still trying to work out the wording on a new
resolution about Iraq.

So Robert Krulwich will have the stories of the inspectors, and Ted will
be anchoring. The stories really are terrific, I hope you'll join us. Of
course, we are still watching the hunt for the sniper here in the
Washington area, and if there are developments, we'll report those as
well.

Wednesday, October 9, 2002

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices
Washington, D.C.

[jerseydevil]

Bush Wins Key Support of Daschle (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021010_1331.html)
President Bush Wins Key Support of Senate Majority Leader As Congress Heads Toward Vote on Iraq
W A S H I N G T O N, Oct. 10 — President Bush's request for authority to use force against Iraq drew solid support Thursday in both the House and Senate. The Senate voted 75-25 to end delaying tactics and open the way for final passage and the House overwhelmingly defeated efforts to weaken it.

In the Senate, 28 Democrats joined 47 Republicans in voting to draw debate to a close. The key vote came after the Senate's top Democrat, Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, told colleagues, "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice."

The House also rejected, by 270-155, the main challenge to the White House-backed resolution, a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats that obliged the president to return to Congress for a second vote on the use of American force against Iraq after he decides that cooperative efforts with the United Nations are futile.

Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said that without a multilateral approach, "this will be the United States versus Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world."

The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.

As the House wrapped up debate, a protester was escorted from the chamber after shouting "no war, no war for oil."

The Senate vote was procedural, but both sides viewed it as a key test vote. It choked off delaying tactics by a few Democratic opponents and made it all but certain that the Senate would pass the measure.

Only two Republicans voted against bringing debate to a close: Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Daschle's support was crucial to the administration's hope for a substantial vote and brought him praise from the White House. He was the last holdout among major Democratic congressional leaders.

"The president appreciates Senator Daschle's decision to vote with the president on this matter," Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Supporters of the resolution fought back efforts in both chambers to weaken the resolution.

Approval of the Iraq resolution in the GOP-led House was expected later Thursday. The Senate, which has been debating the measure for a full week, was expected to approve it late Thursday or early Friday. That could put the resolution on Bush's desk by the weekend.

By a 66-31 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. the most outspoken Senate opponent of the war resolution that would have ended the authorization for him to use force against Iraq after two years.

Minutes later, the House also turned back, by 355-72, an alternative offered by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would have committed the United States to the U.N. inspections process but not authorized unilateral force. "I plead with you to avoid this rush to war," Lee said.

Bipartisan support for Bush's request for war authority was growing steadily, and chances seemed good he'd have the measure on his desk by week's end to put the nation on combat-ready footing.

"The president hopes this will send a strong message to the world, and to Iraq, that if Iraq does not obey the U.N. resolutions, that the United States is prepared to enforce the peace," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Bush, who has stressed that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Baghdad, has urged Congress to stand with him as he presses the U.N. Security Council to approve a new resolution demanding that Iraq abide by comprehensive inspections and disarmament or face the consequences.

Progress was slower on the diplomatic front, where three members of the U.N. Security Council France, Russia and China continued to hold out against a U.S.-British proposal sanctioning military action if Iraq does not comply with coercive inspections.

A 25-minute telephone call between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac on Wednesday failed to yield a breakthrough over wording of a new Security Council resolution to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "This is intricate diplomacy and we are continuing our consultations," White House spokesman Sean McCormack said.

In Paris, Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said the French president was open to strengthening the powers of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, but still could not accept making military recourse an automatic response should they be hampered. In Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov relayed a similar stance.

[jerseydevil]

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. He said he considers Saddam "deterrable and containable at this point."

"I'm not convinced we need to do this now," Zinni said during a question-and-answer session at a Middle East Institute forum.

Debate in the House went deep into the night both Tuesday and Wednesday, with nearly every member intent on expressing the necessity, and gravity, of granting authority to send Americans into war.

"I know the heartache and pain of the families that are left behind," said a tearful Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., who was a pilot in the Vietnam War.

But Cunningham and almost every Republican backed the president. "It's time we go straight to the eye and dismantle the elements from which the storm of brutal, repressive tyranny and terrorism radiate," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., He said that as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, "I can attest to the evilness of Saddam Hussein."

On the Net:

Information on the House bill, H.J. Res. 114, and the Senate version, S.J. Res. 45, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You know what - it's great that everyone claims they want proof - but when proof is given America is either accused of fabracating it or people rant on about how it's not enough proof.
[/B]

I wonder why:rolleyes:

IMO this is just another war based on hearsay, speculation and paranoia:( ............. everyone raves on how much of a psychopath Saddam is..........yet his physical actions against the western world are practically non-existant.

Hopefully this will not be viewed on as the next American Vietnam:rolleyes: ( a pointless war )

So much conflict in the world......so many wars and America are starting one of their own:mad:

I hope someone finds those news reports you've posted usefull JD, personally I try to find as many varied news reports as possible, not just ones from my own country.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

Hopefully this will not be viewed on as the next American Vietnam:rolleyes: ( a pointless war )

Well we got involved in Vietnam because of France. I've gone into this in other threads.


So much conflict in the world......so many wars and America are starting one of their own:mad:

I hope someone finds those news reports you've posted usefull JD, personally I try to find as many varied news reports as possible, not just ones from my own country.
I do read news and listen to news from other parts of the world. I also talk to many people from around the world. However, it seems as if people from other parts of the world really don't listen to American news FROM America. They get it only after it's been filtered through their own media with their countries' own biases thrown in and really have no idea what is going on in America.

Also since this news is FROM America and you're from England I don't exactly see your point about "personally I try to find as many varied news reports as possible, not just ones from my own country. "

You should try to understand the way the American system of government works before blabbing the two dimensional views that Europe and the rest of the world has about our political system. Very view people seem to understand our political system and just assume it works the same way as theirs. It's impossible to read a lot of outside news from the rest of the world about American policies because they water down the decision making process so much. The rest of the world seems to think that the US government revolves around the president. They have no understanding of our checks and balances or the role Congress and the Supreme Court play.

Outside views of America are very shallow and stereotypical. Europe claims we should work to understand the outside world more - but they seem to be very unwilling to take the time to understand us.

[Cirdan]

Americans are divided on this issue. Most people support the effort, but even more support waiting for weapons inspections and using the UN first. If the inspections go well we may yet avoid war. If we use the inspections as an intelligence gathering tool for the CIA as we did before, we will jepodize the unstable regimes in the Middle East when war begins. It is critical that the opposition here at home holds the administration's feet to the fire. The administration's credibilbity is questionable since the reasons and the plans have changed from week to week. At one point they were demanding first stike without the UN and regime change, weapons inspections or not. Only the poll numbers have moderated this position. I hope that the bellicose stance has the positive effect of producing successful weapons inspection and no war. Leave the regime change to the Iraqi people. Hussein will die eventually, one way or another.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
If we use the inspections as an intelligence gathering tool for the CIA as we did before...

There has been absolutely no proof brought forth that we had CIA operatives in the UN inspector contingent.


The administration's credibilbity is questionable since the reasons and the plans have changed from week to week. At one point they were demanding first stike without the UN and regime change, weapons inspections or not. Only the poll numbers have moderated this position. I hope that the bellicose stance has the positive effect of producing successful weapons inspection and no war.

A perfect example of people never being satisfied. People yell that the government should listen to the people and listen to our "allies" and then when they do - they're credibility comes into question for changing plans. I thought Bush gave everyone what they wanted when he went to the UN? We will now see where these "inspections" lead - but if Saddam Hussein back pedals (as is most likely) what then? What happens if all of a sudden the inspectors get there and the same things happen as before? When is enough enough? How many chances is the world going to give to Saddam Hussein to follow through with the agreements that were initially set forth after the Gulf War.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You should try to understand the way the American system of government works before blabbing the two dimensional views that Europe and the rest of the world has about our political system. [/B]

hmm if I blab my "two dimensional" view is this because my views were influenced by the media, or the way that America portrays itself to the rest of the world:rolleyes:

JD I hope you are right, if your not then the next generation is going to have to spend an awfull long time clearing up this potential mess:(

Earlier in this thread I said that I would not become involved in this discussion (hypocrit that I am;) ) and now I think it is time to bite my tongue again;)

JD, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I did sense a teeny bit of animosity in your earlier posts:confused: .......... I viewed this thread as a discussion, nothing more (with maybe a small bit of flame on my part).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
JD, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I did sense a teeny bit of animosity in your earlier posts:confused: .......... I viewed this thread as a discussion, nothing more (with maybe a small bit of flame on my part).

Sorry - but most of these become a flame war against America after a while. I've proabably have become very defensive because of past topics like these. I realise that in the beginning of the thread that it was said to stay civil. It's just that everyone spouts off their countries self interests - and America is expected to just follow along with them or else we're considered wrong. I have also found that very few Europeans bother to really understand the US political system (of course very few Americans even understand it). I also regularly go into BBC.co.uk (http://www.bbc.co.uk) and LeMonde.fr (http://www.lemonde.fr) - but they only give a very surface view of what goes on in American policy, I used to even going into RussiaToday (http://www.einnews.com/russia/) until it became a pay news site.

I just wish that the countries that constantly complain about America's involvement in the world would get more involved if they want to. Let them be hated for a while - while at the same time giving billions and billions in aid.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There has been absolutely no proof brought forth that we had CIA operatives in the UN inspector contingent.

It was on CNN last night. It was revealed that some of the inspection staff were on the CIA payroll at the time.

]
A perfect example of people never being satisfied. People yell that the government should listen to the people and listen to our "allies" and then when they do - they're credibility comes into question for changing plans. I thought Bush gave everyone what they wanted when he went to the UN? We will now see where these "inspections" lead - but if Saddam Hussein back pedals (as is most likely) what then? What happens if all of a sudden the inspectors get there and the same things happen as before? When is enough enough? How many chances is the world going to give to Saddam Hussein to follow through with the agreements that were initially set forth after the Gulf War.

If Hussein is smart he will allow the inspections. I do think he has a desire to possess nukes but I believe the intelligence that says it is years away. Getting weapons grade plutonium is difficult. The US atomic energy commisison stated that the time to procure the equipment and raw materials, and the time to refine it puts him 10 years from the last inspection to reach the goal.

The facility we saw on the speech recently was filmed by news crews. They found "dual use" equipment, but most everything was in a relatively primative state.

My guess is that much of the Iraqi coomand and control in these so called palaces. I also beleive SH is afraid to reveal the details of his hideouts for fear of assination. Not completely irrational given the circumstance. If he fails to allow the inspections, this would ultimately prove he does have something to hide and action would be required.

If the inspections occur and nothing is found with regard to the nuke production, then what? Invade anyway? It will become more and more difficult to justify as time goes on and that is what SH wants. That is why many congressmen and senators crossed over. The threat of force is useful only if it's application is a real and imminent threat.

[Sween]

wow lots was said whilst i was drunk or sleeping last night. JD you seem quite a clever man but its intresting to see how well the propagandar has worked against you. The next Hittler lol dont make me laugh sadam couldnt be the next hittler if he tried they are completally diffrent people and have completally diffrent aims.

i see this has come down the the american system of government so lets move off that topic. The major complaint that we non americans have is how much power you have. I mean in england its a sad state that when you say jump we do :( . Ive written Mr Blair a letter today comp[laining about the way we are such lap dogs (special realtionship ha)

Iraq is not that much a threat why would sadam attack america it would be like signing his death warrent.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
The major complaint that we non americans have is how much power you have. I mean in england its a sad state that when you say jump we do :( . Ive written Mr Blair a letter today comp[laining about the way we are such lap dogs (special realtionship ha)

So then your hatred toward America basically is because of jealousy and your lack of power.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then your hatred toward America basically is because of jealousy and your lack of power.

hatred a rather strong word. We dont lack power you see. I just feel like we are americas lap dogs its embrassing

[Comic Book Guy]

I'm sorry to say this but I believe Sween is right.

Also JD you refer to England, when you should be referring to the United Kingdom or Britain.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
I'm sorry to say this but I believe Sween is right.

Also JD you refer to England, when you should be referring to the United Kingdom or Britain.

i should only refer to the United Kingdom or Britain if i was referring to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I was only referring to England.

I knew hatred was a strong word - but that's a lot of what people from Europe come across as.

By the way - it's not America's fault you feel like lapdogs. Sounds like a self esteem problem to me.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
i should only refer to the United Kingdom or Britain if i was referring to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I was only referring to England.

I knew hatred was a strong word - but that's a lot of what people from Europe come across as.

By the way - it's not America's fault you feel like lapdogs. Sounds like a self esteem problem to me.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh get you. Our government does seem to think that we have to go along otherwise we will not be the americans best buddies.

The reason this matters to me is my best friend is in the amry and i would not like to think he is been sent to his possiable death just because America wants him too. Any good country should only attack in defence and im just not convinced that Sadam posses any danger to us.

[Comic Book Guy]

i should only refer to the United Kingdom or Britain if i was referring to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I was only referring to England.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear, what I meant was you obviously think there is a separate military organisation for every country in the UK, English Army, Scottish Army etc, in fact there is just one whole army, the British forces.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear, what I meant was you obviously think there is a separate military organisation for every country in the UK, English Army, Scottish Army etc, in fact there is just one whole army, the British forces.

I know that. But I was referring to the England as a people not England as a military unit.

I studied Bristish History on my own throughout high school and then took a senior Bristish history class when I was a freshman in college. Although I had taken it mostly because I was interested in the Plantagent Kings it did extend into the modern era.

[BeardofPants]

The issue here is not whether or not we are jealous of America, or whether or not we feel they are too powerful (hasn't this been covered before? :rolleyes: ), it's the fact that War seems pretty imminent. The question I have to ask is, why? Why Iraq when Iran has silos? When Iran actually has a means of transporting out warheads? It seems to me like Bush is running a campaign for war because of sour grapes more than anything, and he has said as much.

Saddam won't be happy with the UN inspections because of last times security compromise -- can you blame him? Even this wily madman can see that a compromise in his security ain't a good thing.

You say that the US hasn't been violating Iraq airspace, and yet there have been TWO missions in which the airforce were sent in to take out civilian airport radars.

This is sad to say, but it seems that even if the UN DO manage to get in and undertake their weapons inspections without compromise, that Bush is still gonna press for war. He has pretty much gotten the green light from congress.

Furthermore, what would war acheive? Would they actually manage to take out Saddam? Bear in mind that photographic analysis indicates that he is using at least three imposters.

And once it has ended, then what next? I can't see it ending there... and contrary to what you say (sorry, don't trust YOUR figures here), I think oil DOES play an important part in this equation. Remember: the US used to be friendly with Saddam. Any weapondry that he bears was because the US gave it to him in his attacks against Iran.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Furthermore, what would war acheive? Would they actually manage to take out Saddam? Bear in mind that photographic analysis indicates that he is using at least three imposters.

Only 3 - here they said that it was more like 9 or 10 and that he has only been confirmed to have appeared in public once in the last 3 years.

Once again of course the US hasn't done or said anything right in your eyes. Granted - I agree some of the things that Bush has said is a bit idiotic. But he went to the UN like everyone asked. He has been consulting with allies. And he went through Congress.

For those of you that think America has no outlet for outside news - I am currently watching the French Prime Minister give his speech concerning Iraq which is being shown on CSPAN.

[BeardofPants]

This might be of interest: an abstract detailing oil percentages, and sources.

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:usXKOfpxeNYC:www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/petroleum_issues_trends_1996/CHAPTER3.PDF+US+domestic+oil+ratios+versus+foreign +oil&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

JD, I said at least three, and once again, I see that you are taking umbrage at any non-US person disagreeing with the topic matter. Let's try and keep this on topic, eh?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This might be of interest: an abstract detailing oil percentages, and sources.

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:usXKOfpxeNYC:www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/petroleum_issues_trends_1996/CHAPTER3.PDF+US+domestic+oil+ratios+versus+foreign +oil&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

JD, I said at least three, and once again, I see that you are taking umbrage at any non-US person disagreeing with the topic matter. Let's try and keep this on topic, eh?

Oh yes admin. :)

It gives no information on what percentage the US gets it's oil from. It is a document that contains information on the oil producers of the world - but does not say where their oil goes.

Also - you should have really have supplied the PDF version because the Google translated HTML one doesn't contain the graphs - http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/petroleum_issues_trends_1996/CHAPTER3.PDF

[jerseydevil]

According to the "Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products into the United States by Country of Origin, July 2002 (Thousand Barrels)" ( [url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/psmr.txt[/url)

Canada was our single largest supplier of oil at 41,998,000 barrels; Saudi Arabia second with 41,977,000 barrels and Venezuela third with 41,248,000 barrels. The US produced 183,146,000 barrels of oil. Without the domestic supply in there - the US imports 21% of it's oil from Arab Opec countries. Taking into account US production - we imported 12% of our oil supply from the Persian Gulf Region in July 2002. Iraq was our second largest Persian Gulf supplier of oil with 9,327,000 barrels coming from them.

International Petroleum Information (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html)


United States of America (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.htm)
The United States of America is the world's largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It also ranks twelfth worldwide in reserves of oil, sixth in natural gas, and first in coal.
The United States had total gross oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 11.6 MMBD during 2001, representing around 59% of total U.S. oil demand. Around 47% of this oil came from OPEC nations, with Persian Gulf sources accounting for about 23% of U.S. oil imports during the year. Overall, the top suppliers of oil to the United States during 2001 were Canada (1.8 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.7 MMBD), Venezuela (1.5 MMBD), and Mexico (1.4 MMBD). During 2001, about 48% of U.S. gross crude oil imports came from the Western Hemisphere (19% from South America, 15% from Mexico, 14% from Canada), while 30% came from the Persian Gulf region (18% from Saudi Arabia, 9% from Iraq, 3% from Kuwait).



The European Union (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html), with increasingly integrated economies and energy sectors, is the world's second-largest energy consumer (behind the United States). EU members include: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The EU region is a net importer of energy. In 1999, while the EU's 15 members consumed 16% of the world's energy, they produced only 8%. Import dependency varies by fuel and individual country, with an overall import dependency for the entire EU of around 50%. In 1999, the EU was a net importer of coal (8% of world production in terms of tonnage vs. 11% of consumption in terms of tonnage); natural gas (9% of world production vs. 16% of consumption); and oil (5% of world production vs. 18% of consumption). Germany, Italy, and France are the EU's largest net importers of energy; the United Kingdom is the only significant net exporter. EU oil is imported primarily from Russia, the Persian Gulf region, Norway, and North Africa.

[Sween]

hmmmmmmmm your point has no purpose. We dont want war with iraq and you do therefore saying we want to gain from oil is a bit of a pointless argument.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
hmmmmmmmm your point has no purpose. We dont want war with iraq and you do therefore saying we want to gain from oil is a bit of a pointless argument.

I don't necessarily want war. At this point I'm actually undecided. The majority of Americans currently support outing Saddam Hussein - but that changes based on the question.

If he doesn't allow unrestricted weapons inspectors - as was decided originally - then I think that the argument to go into Iraq is more justified.

You keep saying that Saddam Hussein won't use the weapons? Yet you also claim he is a madman. Why do you think he won't use them, either undercover by supplying them to terrorist groups - or openly?

[Sween]

Im not sure sadam is a madman. I mean sure hes evil but mad? No i think not he is probably very intelgent. Hittler wasnt mad he just had evil ideals.

Sadam would never ever openly attack america? what would he gain? How could he possiably win. Im not sure he even hates you that much. I mean it wasnt even you that directly put sancions on his country thats UN business. Would he supply terrorists with wepons of mass destuction (does he even have these have any ever been recovred?) possiably mind you its not hard to find out wheres these things came from so again that would be him seeling his own doom again. Does he want this? No.

For me its a bit like my fun to cost ratio which i invoke a lot. Say i go to watch scunthorpe united play its £12 to get in then its £2 for a burger then add about £10 for bozze and before you know it you've payed £24 and watched the shambles that is scunthorpe united and become very depressed and sat in the coldest stand (its even cold even when its warm everywhere else i dont understand that). Applying this to Iraq is it really worth all the cost and human suffering and possiable death to deal with maybes and buts. I just feel that this campain is bassed entirly on irrational fears of the American people.

My fear of this is my friend (in army) been sent out to die for not a worth while cause.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween

Sadam would never ever openly attack america? what would he gain? How could he possiably win. Im not sure he even hates you that much. I mean it wasnt even you that directly put sancions on his country thats UN business. Would he supply terrorists with wepons of mass destuction (does he even have these have any ever been recovred?) possiably mind you its not hard to find out wheres these things came from so again that would be him seeling his own doom again. Does he want this? No.

Most of the proganda around the world and especially in the Arab World blames us for the sanctions, They completely ignore the fact that we tried getting smart sactions instituted that would have eliviated the suffering of the Iraqi people. But most news agency in that part of the world - accuse us of killing 100's of thousands of iraqis through the UN sanctions, that we have instituted a wart against islam. Of course the completely ignore the times we have come to the aid of Muslims or the fact that we have many arab muslims freely living and worshipping in this country.

I just don't think he would refrain from using the weapons if he could. He could also destabilize the entire region too (I know something that we're being accused of). He can hold all his neighbors basically hostage. If he has nothing to hide - he should give the weapons inspectors unfettered access as was agreed upon in the beginning.

Without the US pushing the UN into taking some action in regards to weapon inspections he would be happily building his war machine again. Clinton should have taken a harder stand with the UN and forced the issue long ago. We should never have accepted him just throwing out the inspectors.

[osszie]

Brilliant Sween................that's all I'm saying about that:D

Sween statistically your friend in the forces has much more to fear from the Americans..........more British soldiers were killed by "friendly fire" during the Gulf War than by Iraqi soldiers.

Re: Oil

"Despite the sanctions and lack of diplomatic ties between Iraq and the United States, the U.S. is still the biggest buyer of Iraqi crude oil under the U.N.-approved oil-for-food programme. "
Source. CNN.com

Saddam evicted weapons inspectors in 1998 when the USA broke the UN agreement by sending inspectors into Iraq who were directly linked to the CIA.

Surely if he were willing to use weapons of mass destruction this would have been the ideal time? He would have gained sympathy from many countries after america had broken the UN regulations regarding weapons inspection.

American weapons of mass destruction used in the Gulf War are STILL claiming casualties............cases of childhood lukemia, birth deformaties and cancer through all age groups has risen by 280%, mainly due to the use of missiles containing depleted uranium during the Gulf War.

Saddam has once again started negotiations to allow weapons inspectors into his country, it is the same trick he has used a hundred times, but it is enough to ensure that any invasion will be illegal...............he is dancing rings around the western world but surely that is not enough reason to invade his country?

There has been a lot of talk about the UK being the US's lap-dog, Bush has now, by saying that he will go against the will of the UN if he feels it necessary, forced every country in the world to make a black and white decision. "Are you with us or against us?".......I think he will get quite a surprise how many are against him.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

There has been a lot of talk about the UK being the US's lap-dog, Bush has now, by saying that he will go against the will of the UN if he feels it necessary, forced every country in the world to make a black and white decision. "Are you with us or against us?".......I think he will get quite a surprise how many are against him.

It's no secret that the world is not siding with us 100%. A lot of countries such as Saudi Arabia are playing both sides of the fence though.

It's your own countries decision as to whether they go to war with Iraq and stand by America. You have a choice - just like we have a choice in the matter. You have to take up your problems with your government if you think they are a bunch of lap dogs to the US. Sween obviously did - if he wrote a letter to Blair.

As has been stated repeatedly - our president reports to the American people, Congress reports to it's constiuents. The US is currently a member of the UN but we do not report to the UN. We went to them as the international community was screaming for - now we have to see what comes of it. Personally I don't think much will. When it all comes down to it - we may or may not support military action against Hussein.

Just because your country doesn't support it or understand America's stance - does not necessarily mean that we are wrong.

Looking at the foreign news sources - you hardly report all the discussion that is going on in the US concerning the possiblity with war on Iraq. I have noticed that the only thing that your news agencies report are the things that already support the general concensus. Until recently you basically left out Congress's role in the decision. People complain that America has very one sided reporting - but I have noticed it more with the reports coming out of international news agencies.

The feeling out here is different than what it is in England. My cousin the other day told me he has been considering dropping out of college to JOIN the army.

[Cirdan]

The war discussion here in the US is very similar to the culture in Germany before WWI. THey so whipped themselves up about the threat to the nation that they ended up attacking France despite having invaded them last in 1870. The events in Serbia were but a spark to the powderkeg that already existed. Other parallels are interesting. Germany was a relatively new nation, having cast off the last invader in the form of Napoleon. There was a war to unify the country. Despite being the largest country in population (of industrial nations) , industrial output, and military strenth, they still felt the world was against them. Sound familiar.

The question of Iraqi oil is more than imports and exports. With the second largest reserves of oil, control of Iraqi oil would mean control of world supply and pricing. The US could break the back of OPEC. Hmmmm.... maybe that wouldn't be so bad.:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The war discussion here in the US is very similar to the culture in Germany before WWI. THey so whipped themselves up about the threat to the nation that they ended up attacking France despite having invaded them last in 1870. The events in Serbia were but a spark to the powderkeg that already existed. Other parallels are interesting. Germany was a relatively new nation, having cast off the last invader in the form of Napoleon. There was a war to unify the country. Despite being the largest country in population (of industrial nations) , industrial output, and military strenth, they still felt the world was against them. Sound familiar.

I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

Support for Iraq Attack Drops (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Iraqpoll020927.html)

In this latest poll, 61 percent of Americans support attacking Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. That's eased a bit from 68 percent after Bush addressed the United Nations on Sept. 12, but it's still up from late August.

That support remains conditional. As has been the case for months, support for attacking Iraq is substantially lower — 46 percent in this poll — if U.S. allies are opposed. Support consistently has been lower still if ousting Saddam required a high-casualty ground war.

At the same time, support for attacking Iraq grows, to 77 percent, if Baghdad admits but then interferes with U.N. weapons inspectors. And Americans overwhelmingly (79 percent) believe that Iraq in fact does not intend to cooperate with those inspectors. Indeed, antipathy toward Saddam is so broad that two-thirds say the United States should continue to try to oust him even if he does cooperate fully with U.N. inspectors.

The recent political sniping on Iraq is informed by election politics. Iraq and terrorism are two issues of prime importance to voters in the November midterm election, sharing the top tier with the economy and jobs, education and health care. And just as dealing with terrorism has been the wellspring of Bush's support the last year, so it is with his party more broadly.



The question of Iraqi oil is more than imports and exports. With the second largest reserves of oil, control of Iraqi oil would mean control of world supply and pricing. The US could break the back of OPEC. Hmmmm.... maybe that wouldn't be so bad.:D


Spoils of War (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/NTL_oil_iraq_021004.html)
In Iraq War, to the Victor Goes the Oil

Oct. 4 — Saddam Hussein is sitting on a gold mine — the second-largest oil reserve in the world — and everyone wants a piece of it.

Of all of the reasons offered for removing Saddam, from terrorism to terrible weapons, oil is seldom mentioned. Yet critical to the American agenda is the fear an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons could dominated, or hold hostage a region through which flows an estimated 30 percent of the world's oil and natural gas.



Inspector Intimidation (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/Iraq_inspectors021012.html)
Former Iraq Inspectors Recall Tough Task That Could Get Tougher

The United Nations told the Iraqis that, as hosts, they were responsible for the inspectors' safety and had to follow rules: U.N. inspectors could go wherever they pleased, examine any documents, inspect facilities and take pictures.

But Terry Taylor, another former inspector, said the rules didn't always matter in Iraq, and, "sometimes things got a bit confrontational."

If the Iraqis broke the rules and barred inspectors from a site, the chief inspector had a satellite phone and could, on the spot, call U.N. headquarters in New York and inform the Security Council. The council, theoretically, could order U.N. troops to use force, maybe even bomb a building.

More likely, the council would threaten to prolong the economic sanctions against Iraq, which usually prompted the Iraqis to give in. But Iraq would resist and stall and spy constantly on the inspectors, trying to figure out their next move.

[Sween]

Iraq would not stand a chance against scunny united we've got steve 'im not very violent' torpy.

[Erawyn]

and worry about ourselves for a change.
like the US does anything else?



We should just stop babysitting other countries. Why should you look to us to make everything right? Why should our tax dollars go to constantly helping the world out of it's problems. Many of these problems occurred way before we had any role in world affairs anyway. It's not our responsibilty to fix the world. Let the countries that constantly complain about the way America does things get off their fat a$$es and do something for a change.
Being the most powerful country in the world, and the cause of many world problems, isn't it the responsibility of the US to be a positive force in the world? IF you can help other countries why shouldn't you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
like the US does anything else?

That's a completely ignorant comment.

Being the most powerful country in the world, and the cause of many world problems, isn't it the responsibility of the US to be a positive force in the world? IF you can help other countries why shouldn't you?
Most of the problems that the US deals with are problems that were brought about by Europe's colonialism. They caused the problems in Africa, Kashmir, Iraq, Israel and Palestine far more than the US did. They occupied these areas, controlled them, created these countries and then left. We're here trying to clean up the mess they left.

Oh and now it's our responsibility to be a positive force in the world? Why should we constantly help others? Europe relies on us for support and military action when they need it - just look at how we had to get involved in Bosnia after they requested our help because they couldn't handle it. Europe relies us as all their tax dollars go to help their own people. Europe can do a lot more to help the world than it does instead of constantly whining about the US. But they won't because it'll take their tax dollars away from their socialized health care and their welfare systems.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's a completely ignorant comment.
[b]
Oh and now it's our responsibility to be a positive force in the world? Why should we constantly help others? Europe relies on us for support and military action when they need it - just look at how we had to get involved in Bosnia after they requested our help because they couldn't handle it. Europe relies us as all their tax dollars go to help their own people. Europe can do a lot more to help the world than it does instead of constantly whining about the US. But they won't because it'll take their tax dollars away from their socialized health care and their welfare systems.

Oh no what an argueement oh we should stop our 'socialized' or as i like to call them free to all public services and our well fare systems and spend all our money going after some pathetic little iraqui dictator.

No offence but the american people are more than happy to play the part as world leaders as is your government so dont begrudge us for asking you to play your role.

But are you that strong my mate told me a funny story about american troops that he was training with they were out on menovers and sudenlly it started to rain so all the brits got there wet weather gear out but the americans all went bk to camp the english asked why and got the responce 'we dont train in the rain' lmao :D .

The british forces are still regarded as the best trained if not that numeriable in size :D god bless the queen.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Just because your country doesn't support it or understand America's stance - does not necessarily mean that we are wrong.


I'm sorry, but at this given moment in time there is not enough evidence on Hussein to justify a war: there has been no physical sightings of anything that might in anyway be construed as "war machines" or WMD. Since when has America waged an unprovoked war? (No, don't answer that. :rolleyes: ) If it comes to pass that the US goes ahead with the war anyway, then it will drastically change the light which America is viewed in. America got roped into WWI because Germany was trying to join forces with Mexico. The threat of an attack on home soil was enough to shue them in. WWII was Pearl harbour - again, an attack. The messy relations of Central America aside, the US has seldom waged an unprovoked war. I hope to the god I don't believe in that this does not change.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

hmmm......Congress voted in favour of Bush by a much bigger percentage than that:p .....when Congress reports directly to it's people is it going to report that it blatantly ignored public opinion regarding an attack on Iraq?:rolleyes:

As I said in my initial post THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ATTACK:p

JD I totally agree, letting the colonies obtain independence is probably the worst move Europe made......all I ask is that America prove us wrong:rolleyes: ............ you also seem to think of Europe as a single country when in fact it consists of independant countries working as a coalition:rolleyes:

[Khamûl]

My view on it is that if we did go to war, it would be an act of prevention. Do we attack now or wait 5 years until he has nukes? And when (notice I said when, not if) he gets nukes, what's to keep him from selling them to some extremist terrorist organization to use in an attack that would be 100x worse than September 11? However, I think that we should try the UN first and see if they let inspectors in with unrestricted access.

[osszie]

Saddam is not so much willing to actively use nukes as he is to use the threat of them to control trade of his oil reserves, this would make him so powerful, he could actually be capable of his threats........he would use the nukes as a deterrent against an attack on his country.......

Of course that is just one POV.........if we had proof that he DOES have weapons of mass destruction then of course he should be stopped............he is of course mad as a kipper:D

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Khamûl
My view on it is that if we did go to war, it would be an act of prevention.

Oh yes, and how far do we want to take this? :rolleyes:

I say again: this is unjustified. Since when has prevention been a good excuse for a war? Especially since we don't actually know if Saddam has the capabilities to actually get hold of nukes.

What about Iran? They have frickin' silos. Why is no one worrying about them? What next? India? Pakistan? They have nukes. Why don't we go and "prevent" them?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Oh yes, and how far do we want to take this? :rolleyes:

I say again: this is unjustified. Since when has prevention been a good excuse for a war? Especially since we don't actually know if Saddam has the capabilities to actually get hold of nukes.

Well a lot of people argue that a preemptive strike against Hilter would have been justified. How many nukes or technology should we permit Hussein before it becomes "acceptable" to attack him?


What about Iran? They have frickin' silos. Why is no one worrying about them? What next? India? Pakistan? They have nukes. Why don't we go and "prevent" them?
Iran, India and Pakistan aren't on the same level as Iraq at the moment. India isn't supporting terrorist against America and Pakistan is currently allied with us in the fight against terrorism. Iran has a moderate ruler right now. All this of course can change. If any of the hardliners take control of the government in Pakistan or Iran - then that is an issue.

Osszie - it seems again you don't understand how our government works. Each state has two representatives in the Senate, the House is based on population of each state. Each Representative in the House represents a particular district within THEIR state. You can't really look at the national polls and compare percentages of voters who support or don't support a partular item with the percentage of Congressmen that did or didn't. The only representatives I or any New Jerseyan can worry about are the ones that represent the state of New Jersey. Since it is midterm elections right now - it would be suicide for a lot of congressman not to be supporting what THEIR constituents want. Congress does not support the country as a whole - but are the states representatives to the federal government. These are the elected officials I have to worry about (not including local) - New Jersey Elected Officials (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/ziplookup.phtml?zip5=08536&zip4=2427) . Hobbit and BMilder have a different representatvie in the House than I do because they're in a different district.

Also - I do not think that Europe is one country. If you want though from now on I'll paste all the countries in my posts that make up Europe. Of course I'll have to then seperate out which ones are supporting us, which ones are on the sidelines and which ones are against the war all together, otherwise I'll hear about that. I'll do it and you list the feelings and political leanings of all 50 states in your posts when you talk about the US. Because believe me - where California and Oregon stand on the issue is a lot different than where the midwest stands or the northeast.


No offence but the american people are more than happy to play the part as world leaders as is your government so dont begrudge us for asking you to play your role.

Well then don't complain about it - because the fact remains we voted in our elected officials and only we can vote them out. If you want to leave the governing of the world to the US - then just leave it to us. As I've stated before though - I think we should get out of the UN, remove our troops from Bosnia and all other places around the world and stop giving so much aid. If your unhappy with how we handle things then tell your governments to take a more active role. But as I said - in order to do that you'll have to move a lot of money out of your welfare programs to support it.

[Erawyn]

India? Pakistan? They have nukes. Why don't we go and "prevent" them?
good point!


Oh and now it's our responsibility to be a positive force in the world? Why should we constantly help others?

Because there is no reason not to if you can! Or the US could just leave everyone alone instead of barging in the with army at the slightest hint of trouble!

it'll take their tax dollars away from their socialized health care and their welfare systems
Which are great things, that make the living standards in european countries (and canada) so high!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn

Which are great things, that make the living standards in european countries (and canada) so high!

As if we don't have high living standards? All Canada's good doctors move to the US and the hall ways of your hospitals are filling up. But we've gone over that before. By the way my friend in Canada who is studying to be a nurse now interns in a hospital.


Because there is no reason not to if you can!

The same goes for Canada. Instead obviously you only look at your own needs so you can supply YOUR country with high living standards.

[osszie]

Ty for that brief lesson in American politics JD.
Let me see if I've got this straight.

The Public=Representatives=Congress=President........a nd the president answers to?.........no one, he has just been given autonomous power:rolleyes:

Sure you can post the opinions of the INDEPENDANT acting countries of Europe but why do I need to post each of the fifty states opinions? They don't mean a thing now that the president has autonomous power in this matter (say, didn't a man called Hitler once demand his government hand over autonomous power of the armed forces?) ............. I have been under the mishaprehension that the States worked together to act as a country, obviously I was wrong.

Still it cannot be all bad at least they counted INDIVIDUAL votes at the last election.

JD you seem to be under the impression that America is the most powerful country in the world because it has a right to be but the reality is America has power because the rest of the world allows it to.

Look at your countries declining trade defecit and ask youself if the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions on America where would you be in ten years time?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well a lot of people argue that a preemptive strike against Hilter would have been justified. How many nukes or technology should we permit Hussein before it becomes "acceptable" to attack him?


It has been said before, but I'll say it again: there is no comparison between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Why? Because there has been no evidence that Hussein is prepared to wage war with America. With Hitler there were at least indicators that he was up to no good.... Poland, anyone? :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Ty for that brief lesson in American politics JD.
Let me see if I've got this straight.

The Public=Representatives=Congress=President........a nd the president answers to?.........no one, he has just been given autonomous power:rolleyes:

Sure you can post the opinions of the INDEPENDANT acting countries of Europe but why do I need to post each of the fifty states opinions? They don't mean a thing now that the president has autonomous power in this matter (say, didn't a man called Hitler once demand his government hand over autonomous power of the armed forces?) ............. I have been under the mishaprehension that the States worked together to act as a country, obviously I was wrong.

The president DOESN'T have autonomous power in terms of the military. Although the president has always been Commander in Chief. The only thing Congress has given him is the rigth to act when it comes to Iraq. Not unilateral control around the world or at home.

The representatives of the states represent the interests of their respective states in the federal government. We do work as a country, but we also have strong state rights. The federal government was ORIGINALLY set up with very very limited powers and the majority of power rested with the states. That has been changing and I think it is not a good thing. I am for state rights. What is good for California is not necessarily good for New Jersey. Also it was recently reported that New Jersey pays to the federal government $2,000 for every $1 we get back - yet a midwestern/mountain state (which I can't remember right now) pays $1 for every $1500 it gets.


Still it cannot be all bad at least they counted INDIVIDUAL votes at the last election.

The last election was determined by the supreme court based on the electoral college and the existing hand count of Florida ballots. The constitution calls for an electoral college and each state has it's own laws regarding when that STATE'S votes need to be hand counted. There is no way that all the votes can be individually counted and not use the electorial college unless Congress passes, by a 2/3 majority vote to change the Constituion, then it goes to the states and 2/3 of them most agree.


JD you seem to be under the impression that America is the most powerful country in the world because it has a right to be but the reality is America has power because the rest of the world allows it to.
[b][quote]
We're the most powerful country in the world because the European countries, including England, lost their power after WWII.

[quote][b]
Look at your countries declining trade defecit and ask youself if the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions on America where would you be in ten years time?

Ask yourself where you would be if you imposed trade sanctions on the US. Most of your goods go to US consumers. Look at how the strike in the Pacific docks was having an affect around the world. Europe couldn't afford it anymore than the US could. It would like cutting off your hand beca

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
It has been said before, but I'll say it again: there is no comparison between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Why? Because there has been no evidence that Hussein is prepared to wage war with America. With Hitler there were at least indicators that he was up to no good.... Poland, anyone? :rolleyes:

So we need Hussein to invade a country again before we do anything? Hitler COULD have been stopped way before Poland - except no one really cared and Hitler kept assuring everyone he wasn't doing anything. Of course he made back room deals with the Soviet Union to share Poland. If Europe had done something - millions of people's lives could have been saved and that's just counting his own German citizens that he executed in his concentration camps.

[webwizard333]

JD you seem to be under the impression that America is the most powerful country in the world because it has a right to be but the reality is America has power because the rest of the world allows it to.
I was under the impression that what he was saying, that if the rest of the world didn't like it, they would have to take a more active role themselves.


Look at your countries declining trade defecit and ask youself if the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions on America where would you be in ten years time?
<laughs at thought of the rest of the world commiting economic suicide> In all seriousness, the global economy would be pretty much ruined and all countries would suffer immense problems. Aid would instantly vanish and most of the world's population would instantly decline to even worst standards of living, while most trade would mostly dry up. Of course, thats not even taking into account the most certainly violent reaction of the US for having sanctions imposed upon it. We are the only superpower, and could dominate the rest of the world with our military.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by webwizard333
I was under the impression that what he was saying, that if the rest of the world didn't like it, they would have to take a more active role themselves.

Thank you WebWizard because that is what I was saying. They won't though - because then their people will have to make sacrifices (welfare programs for their own countries or international involvement).


<laughs at thought of the rest of the world commiting economic suicide> In all seriousness, the global economy would be pretty much ruined and all countries would suffer immense problems. Aid would instantly vanish and most of the world's population would instantly decline to even worst standards of living, while most trade would mostly dry up. Of course, thats not even taking into account the most certainly violent reaction of the US for having sanctions imposed upon it. We are the only superpower, and could dominate the rest of the world with our military.
And that is very very true. Look at what England had done when it was powerful - and they had countries that could balance their power. We have refrained ourselves and managed our power pretty well - especially if you look at the ruthlessness of the European countries.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The president DOESN'T have autonomous power in terms of the military. Although the president has always been Commander in Chief. The only thing Congress has given him is the rigth to act when it comes to Iraq. Not unilateral control around the world or at home.

Ask yourself where you would be if you imposed trade sanctions on the US. Most of your goods go to US consumers. Look at how the strike in the Pacific docks was having an affect around the world. Europe couldn't afford it anymore than the US could. It would like cutting off your hand beca

Who said anything about unilateral control:confused: I thought Iraq was the subject here?

Yes trade sanctions would be disastrous.......but I trust my government to do it if it is the right decision.......e.g the existing sanctions against Iraq......Iraq invaded Kuwait, this was of course wrong as Kuwait had taken no military action against Iraq

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So we need Hussein to invade a country again before we do anything?

No. But there needs to be some compelling evidence before we should even be contemplating an attack on Iraq. Since when did America wage unprovoked wars?

JD:
Hitler COULD have been stopped way before Poland - except no one really cared and Hitler kept assuring everyone he wasn't doing anything.

Yes, but in Hitler's case, he was actually up to no good, and it was observable. The fact that nobody wanted to get involved is another matter entirely. But the fact of the matter still remains: in the case of Iraq, there is NO EVIDENCE.

Get your evidence, and THEN attack. You seem to forget that if this war goes ahead, many civilians will die. These people didn't ask to be run by a madman. If America goes to war, thousands will die. They had just better make sure that they are right first.


Can we please refrain from the "blame x" theme? It's completely futile, and hardly pertinent to this thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Who said anything about unilateral control:confused: I thought Iraq was the subject here?


I believe you said this -


The Public=Representatives=Congress=President........a nd the president answers to?.........no one, he has just been given autonomous power

Sure you can post the opinions of the INDEPENDANT acting countries of Europe but why do I need to post each of the fifty states opinions? They don't mean a thing now that the president has autonomous power in this matter (say, didn't a man called Hitler once demand his government hand over autonomous power of the armed forces?) .............

You said this as if the president could just launch an attack against Spain if he felt like it with the powers that Congress has just given him.


Yes trade sanctions would be disastrous.......but I trust my government to do it if it is the right decision.......e.g the existing sanctions against Iraq......Iraq invaded Kuwait, this was of course wrong as Kuwait had taken no military action against Iraq

Wow - so you DO expect YOUR government to act in YOUR best interests. I believe the argument I have been making is that we expect OUR goivernment to act in OUR best interests.

[osszie]

Originally posted by webwizard333
<laughs at thought of the rest of the world commiting economic suicide> In all seriousness, the global economy would be pretty much ruined and all countries would suffer immense problems. Aid would instantly vanish and most of the world's population would instantly decline to even worst standards of living, while most trade would mostly dry up. Of course, thats not even taking into account the most certainly violent reaction of the US for having sanctions imposed upon it. We are the only superpower, and could dominate the rest of the world with our military.

Webwizard America is about to engage in a war because just one country did not care less about breaking away from trade with the rest of the world.........big shock time THOUSANDS ARE ABOUT TO DIE, in fact in Iraq today thousands have died :( If you think in this nuclear age that any country could dominate the world through military might than I can only fail to agree with you. DESTROY the world yes, dominate it no:(

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Can we please refrain from the "blame x" theme? It's completely futile, and hardly pertinent to this thread.

Oh, but I'm supposed to stand by while several times in this thread it has been said that America is the cause of the world's problems and that we do nothing good for anyone.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
in fact in Iraq today thousands have died :( (
Iraqi citizens have died at the hands of Hussein while he lives in his palaces. HUGE palaces that extend for city blocks.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Wow - so you DO expect YOUR government to act in YOUR best interests. I believe the argument I have been making is that we expect OUR goivernment to act in OUR best interests.

First off, a quick apology JD - I should have expressed that I was in fact referring to the thread topic earlier.

Well yes, of course we both expect our governments to act in our best interests.................surely this discussion would be redundant otherwise:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

Well yes, of course we both expect our governments to act in our best interests.................surely this discussion would be redundant otherwise:rolleyes:
Well many times in this thread and others people seem to expect the US to put everyone else's interest ahead of it's own. I have always stated that ALL countries and ALL people act in their self interest first.

I DO want Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I think it is the best thing for the peace of the world. I do however hope that we can do it without going through a huge militray conflict. If we can somehow manage to take him out in the dark of night - that would be the best.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh, but I'm supposed to stand by while several times in this thread it has been said that America is the cause of the world's problems and that we do nothing good for anyone.

Nobody has been doing that, with maybe the exception of Sween. In the interest of staying on topic - now there's a novel thought - can we please try and stay away from bashing each others countries, and finger pointing? It has been done before, and really isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Can we just discuss the relations of Iraq without getting all personal about it?

Now. I agree with you JD, that the world would probably be a better place without Hussein. This person had the gall to take advantage of UN sympathy and use it to build his palaces instead of using it on medical treatment for those that direly needed it. The man is without a doubt, one of the biggest SOBs out there. BUT. I hardly think that waging an unprovoked war against someone that may or may not have WMD is conducive to the situation. By going in there with inconclusive evidence makes the US almost as bad as he is. I'll say it again: thousands of civilians will DIE if the US goes to war.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Nobody has been doing that, with maybe the exception of Sween. In the interest of staying on topic - now there's a novel thought - can we please try and stay away from bashing each others countries, and finger pointing? It has been done before, and really isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Can we just discuss the relations of Iraq without getting all personal about it?

Do I need to point out America Jr's coments? :D


Now. I agree with you JD, that the world would probably be a better place without Hussein. This person had the gall to take advantage of UN sympathy and use it to build his palaces instead of using it on medical treatment for those that direly needed it. The man is without a doubt, one of the biggest SOBs out there. BUT. I hardly think that waging an unprovoked war against someone that may or may not have WMD is conducive to the situation. By going in there with inconclusive evidence makes the US almost as bad as he is. I'll say it again: thousands of civilians will DIE if the US goes to war.
There is as of yet no guarantee that we are going to war. Also - the question remains - what happens if Saddam Hussein again comes up with excuses not to allow weapons inspectors to search without restrictions? What kind of proof do you want? Many of the previous weapons inspectors have stated that we are probably not going to find physical nuclear weapons - but evidence that they are being developed.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - the question remains - what happens if Saddam Hussein again comes up with excuses not to allow weapons inspectors to search without restrictions?

Well, by then we'll know that he's probably pulling fast one. And at least the proper channels will have been negotiated by that point. Hopefully.

And it really depends on which weapons inspectors you're talking about. They're hardly consistent in their opinions, ya know. Some are saying that there's no way that he could manage to pull out WMD in the next ten years or so. Really, there's no way of knowing, unless we can get some conclusive evidence.

I really hope these weapons inspections go ahead without hitch... and that *BOTH* sides behave.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

I really hope these weapons inspections go ahead without hitch... and that *BOTH* sides behave.

Well the inspectors are an international coalition. It's not the "US" going into Iraq - it's the UN. I hope that the UN doesn't put up with any crap though from Iraq and just let him off the hook like it did before. I think America has made it perfectly clear though that we are not going to accept a half a$$ job. Either the UN is going to do the inspections right and Hussein is going to cooperate or the US will handle it.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I really hope these weapons inspections go ahead without hitch... and that *BOTH* sides behave.

Certainly. This is the last chance we have of a diplomatic solution, if such a word is still relevant after Saddam's diplomatic maneuvres, the best case scenairio, the inspectors find nothing (wonder what will happen as regards international relations with Iraq then?). Worst case, they do find WMD and war is declared.

I agree with you JD a quick assassination would be the best outcome........but it will have a couple of small complications. Saddam is not an easy bugger to find (dopplegangers etc) and his son (who's name escapes me) is the head of his armed forces and from press reports his son is so mad he makes Saddam look like Father Christmas.............if they do have WMD then I think the son will have no hesitation in using them:( .......if they find WMD the only future I can see is a big Iraq shaped hole where people used to live.

[jerseydevil]

Show and Tell in Iraq (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/iraq021011_wright.html)
Reporter's Notebook: Inside One of Saddam's Factories

B A G H D A D, Iraq, Oct. 11 — Trust, but verify. Former President Ronald Reagan's watchwords during the days of Soviet disarmament don't apply when it comes to Saddam Hussein.

.....

As journalists, it is our job not to trust and always to try our best to verify with firsthand observation. So when the minister invited us to see for ourselves, we jumped at the chance, even though we all new full well that we lacked both the expertise and the equipment to prove anything one way or the other.

With uncharacteristic speed, Iraqi officials organized several buses to take reporters to one of the sites the White House identified Monday as a part of Iraq's ongoing effort to acquire nuclear weapons. Within an hour, we were off.

....

Reporters were taken first to a cavernous building identified with a yellow arrow on the satellite surveillance photos.

It is, as it was before, a metal-working shop. The inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believed Baghdad used the computer-assisted lathes to fashion centrifuges that would help them isolate enough fissile material to make a bomb. Iraq denied those charges then, and denies them now.

What was striking about the facility was how empty it was. There were three lathes, each about the size of a small truck, in a hanger big enough to house a jumbo jet.

There appeared to be no production line, no piles of material waiting to be worked on or just completed. In all this space, there were just a handful of workers working on a few rounded bits of metal.

Here and there on the floor, however, there were pools of oil. Recently, it seemed, some items — either equipment or supplies — had been moved.

....

This is hardly the first time that Iraq has led journalists through facilities that the U.S. has identified as potential targets. During the Gulf War, officials here famously took reporters to what the U.S. claimed was a chemical weapons lab and the Iraqis claimed was a baby food factory.

We were no better positioned than those reporters to say whether the equipment here was being used for perfectly acceptable purposes or to develop dangerous weapons.

Interestingly enough, along the road back to Baghdad, there was long train parked at a railway siding. The train was loaded down with tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other military hardware.

We couldn't help but notice how tracks would have passed right by the facility we had just left behind. But the train was not on the tour.


Is this what we're in for again?

[Draken]

Hussein has one and only one bargaining tactic - he takes up a strong position - stronger than where he needs to be, with rhetoric to suit - then at the very last minute "climbs down" a little, thought only to a position he initially would have been happy with. He's playing to the moderate Arab and non-aligned part of the gallery, making it look like he's the conciliatory one beset by bullies. Also he'll announce a sweeping "acceptance" only to clarify it a little later with conditions which mean it isn't an acceptance at all.

Let's face it, the West missed its chance in 1991. His army disintegrating, the Marsh Arabs in the south rebelling, the Kurds in the north hostile as ever to him - but for whatever reasons we bottled it and decided our remit was just the liberation of Kuwait. Well it might have been - but that remit was easier to stretch than building up a case for a "first strike", which is where we're at now.

Thorough inspections will drive weapons developments underground but I very much doubt they'll stop them. That Hussein is a deranged maniacal dictator is not in doubt - but in the past that hasn't been enough to prompt the West to attack a nation. It comes down to the weapons of mass destruction argument - and where they're concerned, "better safe than sorry" isn't such a bad idea. I just wish the evidence for that was proving a little more compelling than it has been so far.

[Cirdan]

Ye, I wish we had finished the job the first time. The reasons for not doing so then are the same reasons for not invading know. I think that Chaney & Co. regret not finishing Hussein off much more than I do. I can't help but believe that large egos are involved, however, if the case is made either by weapons inspectors finding nuclear materials, or by blocked inspections, then it may be enough justification to go in. If Hussein is willing to risk war with the US then maybe he is crazy. We must accept that this war would be very detrimental to the US in terms of finance, miltary readiness, and credibility in the world.

The war will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will come with a long term commitment. While the US miltary is advanced it's troop strength is weak and such a war would require a huge commitment of troops. If anything else happens we would be hard pressed to respond without a draft. Finally, every tinpot dictator will have an excuse to attack his neighbor. How long will India and Pakistan wait to "eliminate the nuclear threat"?

At least for show, the US must go through every last step to avert war while maintaining the pressure. Remember that the favorite tactic of US enemies has been to ameliorate until democracy changes the US players. Castro has gotten by on that for years. The formula that cantained Castro is the most effective policy outside war. Whilehe has been allowed to stay in power the long term effect has forced him closer to the US position. Threats of war will rally a people to the side of the worst dictator. Endless sactions and embargoes crush the will of the people to follow and they don't cost nearly as much. Cuba will probably be a democracy within ten years. Remember they had actually nuclear missles during the Cuban missle crisis.

[Lizra]

My closest neighbor, and a very dear friend both have young sons who joined the Navy and Air Force in the spring of 2001. Both signed up for 5 years. We are bumming heavily over this, but what can you do! The boy in the Air Force has already spent about 6 months in what he called "the big sand box", Quatar (?). Thank goodness he's back, but with several more years to go....?! The Navy boy is gearing up to go somewhere, they never know or can tell what they're doing. One mom prays a lot, the other chain smokes. Of course, the boys volunteered, but both sets of parents were unhappily surprised when they did. They are proud of their young sons, but would have preferred different scenarios for parental pride!

[osszie]

Originally posted by Lizra
My closest neighbor, and a very dear friend both have young sons who joined the Navy and Air Force in the spring of 2001. Both signed up for 5 years. We are bumming heavily over this, but what can you do! The boy in the Air Force has already spent about 6 months in what he called "the big sand box", Quatar (?). Thank goodness he's back, but with several more years to go....?! The Navy boy is gearing up to go somewhere, they never know or can tell what they're doing. One mom prays a lot, the other chain smokes. Of course, the boys volunteered, but both sets of parents were unhappily surprised when they did. They are proud of their young sons, but would have preferred different scenarios for parental pride!

Yeah, I can understand what your neighbour and friend are going through Lizra. I have two cousins serving in the Royal Navy, at this moment we are all just sitting around waithing for their next orders:( ................. one of them has a wife and three kids and she is almost frantic................the UN inspection, and the following decision on action against Iraq cannot happen fast enough for us.

[Sween]

same as for my mate hes in the signals in the british army hes a bit nervous he only joind a few mounths ago.

what i want to know is how do the people of iraq see sadam? do they like him? apprentally he's quite evil to them. If he were assinated how would they react?

If military action does take place what form will the action take? A full scale ingvaion or just air strikes?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
same as for my mate hes in the signals in the british army hes a bit nervous he only joind a few mounths ago.

My brother is in the navy and was stationed in Bahrain when the Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked. He was out there for a while afterward too. He's going to be on his way to Japan I guess shortly.


what i want to know is how do the people of iraq see sadam? do they like him? apprentally he's quite evil to them. If he were assinated how would they react?


A lot of reporters, especially from ABC have gone in and interviewed people. One woman came up to an ABC reporter and whispered and begged for something to be done to bring down Hussein. But I think generally the situation is like a massive cult. They have a leader that feeds them propaganda and have no other outlet for receiving news. For instance - they expect Saddam Hussein to get 100% of the vote in the Iraqi elections. In order for anyone to get 100% acceptance something is wrong. Also they showed on the news these 8 year olds dressed in military uniforms and singing "we love you saddam, we will spill our blood for you." over and over again in preparation of the elections. It's just strange - but it's also what Hitler did with his youth group organizations.


If military action does take place what form will the action take? A full scale ingvaion or just air strikes?
From what they've been saying here - it would have to be full scale invasion.

[Cirdan]

An assassination would be futile, at least in the short term. Saddam's son is next in line and he is worse from what I have read. Also, as far as the Iraqi peoplego, the reprisals would be most brutal. The final configuration after years of turmoil might be an improvement over the current situation, but the cost in human terms would be high. More reasons for a complete regime change by force.

Young men put into harms way? Anyway a sad story. I'm sure many are in for adventure and have a good idea what kind of risks they run. The ones I really worry about are those in it for financial reasons or the ones who are not so sharp and are swayed by marketing. They are usually the first to be killed in action.

How many here of service age are willing to go to Iraq in uniform?

[Draken]

Air power by itself won't win a thing. Yes you can pound an army to the point of collapse but you still need forces on the ground to bring that collapse about. Plus in 1991 the Iraqi's were adept at hiding military targets in amongst civilians. All a prolonged air campaign gets you is a small but steady trickle of air crew losses, lots of TV footage of bombed hospitals and little that the viewing Western public would see as tangible gains. The West wouldn't lose a war on the battlefield - it could lose it in the sitting rooms of (say) Ohio, though.

Who can say how the Iraqi public would react to the removal of Hussein? Enclaves in the North and South of Iraq hate him with a vengeance. He has executed members of his own family, which speaks volumes of his methods. They certainly turn out all revved up and loyal for the cameras, but who knows how much of that passion is genuine. We could hope for a mass rising against him if he's on the ropes but I don't think we can count on it. Plus I doubt any Western-led force would ever be seen as liberators.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Draken
Plus I doubt any Western-led force would ever be seen as liberators.

Well the Islamic fundamentalists and muslim extremists would never view this as a liberation of Iraq- even if the iraqi people gave a huge parade and were marching down the streets in celebration after Hussein was toppled.

We need the support of Arab countries and in particular the Iraqis themselves. I think meeting and supporting the exiled Iraqis is a good start and having them play a key role is extremely important. One thing the US needs to do - and I know I keep saying the US needs to be more isolationist - but if we're going to be a world player and do these type of things then we need to set up programs like the Marshall Plan. The international community needs to go in there and build hospitals, build schools, build roads, etc. We are doing these things in Afganistan - but does the Arab world see anyof it? The US and the west in general has to do a better job of promoting the things we do. The Arab world needs to see, understand and accept that we don't condemn their religion or condemn their culture. We're never going to win over the extremists - but we need to make sure that it is harder for terrorist groups to use proganda against the west as a recruiting tool. We need to show the Arab world the good things we do and we can't just topple Hussein and then leave (yet we can't act like an occupying force). It's a huge balancing act the west will have to do once Hussein is removed.


How many here of service age are willing to go to Iraq in uniform?

My cousin has stated that he is considering joining the army to fight in Iraq. I would prefer him to do something less in harms way - like navy or air force though.

[osszie]

"Bush puts world on alert for new wave of al-Qaida attacks "

So now there is going to be a war on two fronts:confused:

Maybe the war on terroism does not involve an invasion of Iraq after all........but it should involve war against the ACTUAL terrorists:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
"Bush puts world on alert for new wave of al-Qaida attacks "

So now there is going to be a war on two fronts:confused:

Maybe the war on terroism does not involve an invasion of Iraq after all........but it should involve war against the ACTUAL terrorists:rolleyes:
Well most Americans feel that both can be managed. The war on terrorism has never stopped. Did we stop fighting Germany to fight Italy or Japan?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

oh, I thought that "barely"a majority, and a minority, if no UN agreement, supported an actual war with Iraq.......opinions must have changed in the USA since:confused: surely it would have made more sense to eliminate one threat before taking on another?

JD this has been stated before..........there is no similarity between WW2 and the present time..........why do you keep referring to it:confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
oh, I thought that "barely"a majority, and a minority, if no UN agreement, supported an actual war with Iraq.......opinions must have changed in the USA since:confused: surely it would have made more sense to eliminate one threat before taking on another?

Whether we can deal with two issues at the same time (one being the fight against terrorism and the war with Iraq) is a seperate question from whether people actually support all ouot war. Surely in England when they do polling they do ask multiple questions - right?

So we should deal with only one problem at a time? I guess we should hold off on the rebuilding of Afganistan because we're still fighting terrorism. Also - the economy should wait too.


JD this has been stated before..........there is no similarity between WW2 and the present time..........why do you keep referring to it:confused:
Because I think there are some similarities. Just because others may disagree doesn't change my views.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
because I think there are some similarities. Just because others may disagree doesn't change my views.

Whether we can deal with two issues at the same time (one being the fight against terrorism and the war with Iraq) is a seperate question from whether people actually support all ouot war. Surely in England when they do polling they do ask multiple questions - right?

Yes, we have opinion poles.........but they are opinion taking from just a percentage of the population and they are not a representation of the whole population so IMO they they are not valid:rolleyes:

So what are the figures for the american people supporting a these two seperate issues?.........you have already claimed that "most" american people feel that both the attack on Iraq and the war against international terrorism can be won.

If you feel that there are similarities in this impending conflict and WW2, fine, personally, as I have said in numerous posts on this thread, I see none..........WW2 had physical evidence........this situation has none:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Yes, we have opinion poles.........but they are opinion taking from just a percentage of the population and they are not a representation of the whole population so IMO they they are not valid:rolleyes:

So what are the figures for the american people supporting a these two seperate issues?.........you have already claimed that "most" american people feel that both the attack on Iraq and the war against international terrorism can be won.

They are scientific polls - they take a cross sample of the population that represents the make up of the population as a whole. Polls generally have a small percetage of plus or minus accuracy rating (usually 3 - 4%).

I can't remember. It was in our local paper I think. I'll have to look.

If you feel that there are similarities in this impending conflict and WW2, fine, personally, as I have said in numerous posts on this thread, I see none..........WW2 had physical evidence........this situation has none:rolleyes:
Wel considering that it has been shown that Husein buries a lot of stuff., or as the inspectors go in on door, the equipment is going out the other, I don't knwo how you will ever be satisified with physical evidence. What kind of physical evidence do you want?

So if there was physical evidence of what Hitler was doing - then why wasn't anything done before he invaded Poland?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They are scientific polls - they take a cross sample of the population that represents the make up of the population as a whole. Polls generally have a small percetage of plus or minus accuracy rating (usually 3 - 4%).

Wel considering that it has been shown that Husein buries a lot of stuff., or as the inspectors go in on door, the equipment is going out the other, I don't knwo how you will ever be satisified with physical evidence. What kind of physical evidence do you want?

So if there was physical evidence of what Hitler was doing - then why wasn't anything done before he invaded Poland?

Wow your polls are that accurate? Ours certainly are not :mad:

So you are saying that there IS physical proof?.......... I had no idea that there was proof that Saddam buried "a lot of stuff" or that as the inspectors were "going in one door, the equipment is going out the other".......if there is that proof then why the need for another investigation, surely any invasion is justified:confused:

Hitler was not stopped from invading Poland for exactly the same reasons that Saddam was not stopped from invading kuwait:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
.......if there is that proof then why the need for another investigation, surely any invasion is justified:confused:


There is no proof as of yet... only speculation.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
There is no proof as of yet... only speculation.

'xactly;)

[jerseydevil]

I don't think any amount of proof would be enough for you guys unless there was an ICBM with a huge arrow pointing at it - saying here is the nuclear weapon.

Try this video and tell me if it works for you -

Nightline, 10/9/02:
It isn't easy being a weapons inspector in Iraq. (rtsp://start.real.com/rd?pid=abcchan&url=nightline/021009ntl.rm&rpcontexturl=_keep)

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think any amount of proof would be enough for you guys [/url]

It's not a case of any amount of proof JD it's a case of any proof and at the moment, there is none:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
It's not a case of any amount of proof JD it's a case of any proof and at the moment, there is none:rolleyes:

He just lied and deceived the previous weapon inspoectors and after they left he woke and thought - "I think they're right - I'll just get rid of everything they were looking for and stop working on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons."

I seriously doubt the weapon inspections will go without a hitch. I think he will prove to the world that he is not sincere about allowing weapon inspections. Of course this will just be enough time for him to prepare for invasion.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think any amount of proof would be enough for you guys unless there was an ICBM with a huge arrow pointing at it - saying here is the nuclear weapon.

Your link does not work.

I'm sorry but NO PROOF does not work on me. Maybe if there was actually some of this "any amount of proof" I'd be a little more gung-ho about war, but as it stands, there is no proof.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Your link does not work.

I'm sorry but NO PROOF does not work on me. Maybe if there was actually some of this "any amount of proof" I'd be a little more gung-ho about war, but as it stands, there is no proof.

Well the link I provided was to a Nightline show where they interviewed several of the previous weapon inspectors. I just can't see with the stuff that they had gone through that anything has changed in Baghdad.

Also - for some reason - even if Iraq had weapons and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - I can't picture you being "gung-ho about war."

The UN weapon inspectors are going to go in soon - so it'll be interesting how they are actually received in iraq once they get there.

The link is a Real One Player link - but I'm not sure if you need a subscription for it or not. Nowhere on the Nightline page says that you need a subscription.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
He just lied and deceived the previous weapon inspoectors and after they left he woke and thought - "I think they're right - I'll just get rid of everything they were looking for and stop working on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons."

I seriously doubt the weapon inspections will go without a hitch. I think he will prove to the world that he is not sincere about allowing weapon inspections. Of course this will just be enough time for him to prepare for invasion.

Prepare for invasion???..............do you serioulsy think if he had WMD he would not have said "back off or I will use them"????

This is a man who is willing to allow tens of thousands of his own people to die.

65% of captured Iraqi' tanks, during the Gulf War, did not actually contain amunition (even more were captured because they ran out of fuel)............I personally know two people who served as infantry in the Gulf War and the Iraqi soldiers gave up with after only minimal aggression. This is situation based on propaganda.............on both sides (Iraq v's any who oppose them), nothing more IMO.

Actually Saddam played a very clever diplomatic game during the last inspection (1998) as has been said several time in this thread, he discovered that members of the UN Inspection team were on the CIA payroll, therefore making the inspection illegal under the agreed conditions:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - for some reason - even if Iraq had weapons and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - I can't picture you being "gung-ho about war."

You're right. I will never be "gung-ho about war." However, if it was proven that Saddam was harbouring WMD, then I would be 100% behind an invasion.... even if I dislike the idea of war. Some evils are just too great to ignore.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

Actually Saddam played a very clever diplomatic game during the last inspection (1998) as has been said several time in this thread, he discovered that members of the UN Inspection team were on the CIA payroll, therefore making the inspection illegal under the agreed conditions:rolleyes:

Well I have heard rumours of CIA agents being on the payroll - but I have not seen proof. Provide me with proof that there were CIA Agents? Or is it just Iraqi propaganda?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I have heard rumours of CIA agents being on the payroll - but I have not seen proof. Provide me with proof that there were CIA Agents? Or is it just Iraqi propaganda?

Well, it depends on what you call proof. The fact that one of them came out and admitted it could be considered as proof... however, it could be an Iraqi conspiracy: he could be on Saddam's payroll. :rolleyes:

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I have heard rumours of CIA agents being on the payroll - but I have not seen proof. Provide me with proof that there were CIA Agents? Or is it just Iraqi propaganda?

I would have thought that the fact that the inspections stopped and no move were made against attacking/enforcing the investigations at the time were proof enough:rolleyes: .......surely if Saddam had acted illegally dismissing the UN inspectors that would have been justification for an attack at that time?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I would have thought that the fact that the inspections stopped and no move were made against attacking/enforcing the investigations at the time were proof enough:rolleyes: .......surely if Saddam had acted illegally dismissing the UN inspectors that would have been justification for an attack at that time?

The British and American planes spent two or three days bombing various facilities after he kicked the inspectors out. And if it was the case - why didn't the UN condemn it?


Saddam Wants U.N. Sanctions Lifted Iraq Threatens All Inspections (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/iraq0109/index.html)

B A G H D A D, Iraq, Jan. 17 — Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein marked the anniversary of the start of the Gulf War today by threatening to ban all U.N. arms inspectors if sanctions against the country are not lifted.

“President Saddam Hussein has warned that the government of Iraq will have to heed a recommendation by its National Assembly to stop cooperation with U.N. inspection teams unless the (U.N.) Security Council moved to meet its obligation and end crippling sanctions clamped on Iraq,” the Iraqi News Agency said in a report on a speech delivered by Saddam today to mark the start of the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam also demanded that the U.N. stop its disarmament activities by May 20.

“There is no other option left for Iraq but this position,” Saddam said.

Saddam also warned the United States against any military attack on his country, saying Washington would reap nothing from such action.

“They (Americans) should not deceive themselves to think that what they have failed to achieve through wickedness and tricks, they are able to realize by a military aggression, ” he warned.

“They should be more careful and they should reconsider what they are intending to do,” he said.


Nothing has changed from the end of the Gulf War to now. The 1998 articale above could have been printed yesterday practically.

On that page there is also an article about Scott Ritter who I think you might be referring to.


On a New Mission
Former U.N. Weapons Inspector Says Iraq Is Disarmed (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq_ritter000802.html)

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 2 — Once one of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s chief tormentors, Scott Ritter is now a changed man.
The former United Nations weapons inspector is spending the week in Iraq, convinced that Saddam no longer poses a military threat to his neighbors. The Clinton administration believes Ritter is wasting his time.
Ritter turned up in Baghdad last weekend with a camera crew to videotape weapons sites so he can assess first hand what the Iraqis have been up to since Saddam shut down the U.N. operation in December 1998. Ritter plans to make a documentary in hopes of dispelling what he believes are rumors about Iraq’s weapons activities.
The Clinton administration wants to replace the defunct U.N. operation with a new one that has been authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

[jerseydevil]

Not much has changed in the last 4 years.

Chronology II: Latest Events
Gulf Tension Escalates Again (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/iraq_timeline.html)

Jan. 22 — Since October 29, 1997, tensions with Iraq have escalated steadily. Here’s a look at the developments in the crisis so far:

Chronology of a Crisis
Oct. 29
Iraq announces that all Americans on United Nations weapon’s inspections teams have one week to leave the country.

Oct. 30
Iraq announces it does not fear the use of force and officials begin obstructing American involvement in the inspections, turning away two U.S. members of the UNSCOM team.

Nov. 1
Russia and France urge Iraq to back down, but both nations say they are against unilateral action. Nov. 2
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan announces he is sending a three-man diplomatic mission to Baghdad.

Nov. 3
Iraq issues a less-than-veiled threat it will shoot down the U-2 spy planes keeping Iraq under surveillance for the United Nations.

Nov. 4
Iraq agrees to extend the Nov. 5 deadline until after the United Nations assesses its mission. U-2 flights are suspended.

Nov. 5
Annan’s three envoys arrive in Baghdad to meet Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

The United Nations accuses Iraq of obstructing its weapons monitoring system by hiding equipment from surveillance cameras.

Nov. 6
Washington threatens economic sanctions or military action if Iraq does not comply with the United Nations.

Nov. 7
Aziz pledges Iraq will not expel the American inspectors while talks continue, but Iraq repeats its threat that U-2 aircraft could be shot down if flights are not halted.

Nov. 10
The United States calls for the Security Council to condemn Iraq, threaten “serious consequences,” and impose travel sanctions on Iraqi officials obstructing inspections.

Nov. 11
Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf says his government will not call off the ban on American inspectors unless trade sanctions are eased or the Security Council sends key members to Iraq to verify arms compliance.

Nov. 12
The Security Council unanimously imposes a travel ban on Iraqi officials who interfere with inspections and condemns Iraq for blocking American U.N. arms inspectors.

Nov. 13
Iraq announces it will expel the American arms monitors immediately and U.S. weapons inspectors leave Iraq.

Nov. 14
President Clinton, stepping up military pressure, dispatched a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Gulf and Britain puts a squadron of warplanes on 48-hour alert.

Nov. 15
A newspaper owned by the son of Saddam urges Arabs to attack American and British targets in the region to show solidarity with Baghdad.

Nov. 16
The United States says it has received a commitment from Russia to intervene in the crisis and makes a similar appeal to France.

Nov. 17
The United States considers sending more fighter planes to the Gulf region as well as increasing the amount of oil Iraq can sell to buy food and other humanitarian goods.

Nov. 18
Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz meets in Moscow with Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov and President Boris Yeltsin. Primakov says Russia has worked out a plan to bring a peaceful end to the crisis.

Nov. 19
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright cuts her trip to India short to attend talks in Geneva on the Iraqi crisis.

U.N. Security Council has closed-door meeting on Iraq situation.

Nov. 20
U.N. arms inspectors are allowed back into Iraq.

Nov. 21
Upon their return to Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors find that the Iraqis have dismantled equipment and moved around and destroyed physical evidence and files.

Nov. 30
The United Nations considers allowing Iraq to sell more oil to buy badly needed food and medicine.

Dec. 1
Massive amounts of U.S. military planes and ships remain in the Gulf.

Dec. 2
Saddam Hussein pressures the United Nations to either lift sanctions against Iraq or change the terms of the food-for-oil program.

Dec. 4
The U.N. Security Council votes to renew, and expand, the food-for-oil arrangement with Iraq, paving the way for Saddam Hussein to purchase much-needed food and medical supplies for the Iraqi people.

Dec. 18
Richard Butler, head of the commission investigating Iraqi weapons programs, reports that the Iraqis have declared wide areas off-limits and expresses anxiety about the future of the U.N. program in Iraq. During his visit to Baghdad days earlier, he was lambasted as a U.S. tool by government-controlled media.

[jerseydevil]

Jan. 2, 1998
A rocket-propelled grenade hits a U.N. building in Iraq. A window is shattered and walls are damaged, but there are no injuries. The Iraqi government condemns the attack.

Jan. 13
Iraq blocks a U.N. inspection team from carrying out its duties, saying the team has too many British and American inspectors. President Clinton decries the move.

Jan. 16
The U.N. inspection team led by former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter leaves Baghdad after being prevented from carrying out its work for three straight days. Iraq had accused Ritter of being an American spy. In response, the United Nations Security Council issued a statement “deploring” Iraq’s failure to comply with the terms of the Gulf War peace agreement by allowing unfettered access to all U.N. inspectors.

Jan. 21
United Nations chief weapons inspector Butler ends two days of crisis talks in Baghdad without reaching agreement on access to suspected weapons sites. The two sides did agree to bring in outside technical experts to assess the situation, but Iraq strengthened its resolve never to allow inspectors into the so-called presidential sites.

Jan. 23
U.N. chief inspector Butler reports to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq has adopted a dramatically different tone with the weapons inspection teams and is being more secretive than ever before.

Jan. 26
President Yeltsin sends a special envoy, Deputy Foreign Minister Viktor Posuvalyuk, to Baghdad, to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Jan. 27
Buoyed by support from Congress and a well-received State of the Union address, President Clinton sends envoys abroad to seek support for U.S. action against Iraq.

Jan. 28
Russian envoy Deputy Foreign Minister Posuvalyuk meets with Saddam, delivering a letter from Yeltsin.

Jan. 29
U.S. Secretary of State Albright leaves for talks with French and Russian foreign ministers and the British foreign secretary. She warned a defiant Saddam he had “no excuses left.”

Jan. 30
U.S. Secretary of State Albright meets with Russian Foreign Minister Primakov, with the two disagreeing on whether force should be used.

Feb. 1
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis reportedly begin military training to ward off a possible attack by the United States.
Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Viktor Posuvalyuk crosses into Iraq.

Feb. 2
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls to increase Iraqi oil sales to $5.2 billion from $2 billion to buy food and medicine. U.S. Secretary of State Albright continues her trip to the Gulf states.

Feb. 3
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright claims regional support for a military strike against Iraq, but cannot convince Saudi Arabia to permit airstrikes launched from its territory.

Feb. 5
President Clinton orders a Marine expeditionary force of 2,000 troops and four ships to the Gulf.

Feb. 12
Russia accuses the United States of a “rigid and uncompromising stance on Iraq.”
Newspapers report Russia may have agreed to sell Iraq equipment that could be used to produce biological weapons. Russia denies the charge.

[jerseydevil]

Retaliation and War
Chronology: Gulf War and After (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/gulfwar_chronology2.html)

1990
Aug. 2 Iraq invades Kuwait.
Aug. 11 United Nations imposes sanctions on Iraq. They’re still in force today.

1991
Jan. 16 U.S.-led coalition launches air war against Iraq.
Feb. 26 Allied troops take control of Kuwait.
Feb. 28 Cease-fire announced.
March 2 Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north rebel, and Iraqi army crushes both revolts.

1992
Aug. 27 "No-fly-zone" is imposed over southern Iraq to stop air attacks on Shiite Muslim rebels. United States and some allies begin air patrols.

1993
Jan. 7 Baghdad refuses to remove missiles the United States says it has moved into southern Iraq; allied warplanes and warships attack missile sites and a nuclear facility near Baghdad.
June 27 U.S. warships fire 24 cruise missiles at intelligence headquarters in Baghdad in retaliation for plot to assassinate former President Bush. By Iraqi count, eight die.

1994
Oct. 7 Iraqi troops move toward Kuwait, then pull back when U.S. dispatches carrier group, 54,000 troops and warplanes.

1996
Aug. 31 Saddam sends Iraqi forces into northern Iraq, capturing Irbil — a key city inside the Kurdish “safe haven” protected by U.S.-led forces.
Sept. 3-4 U.S. ships and airplanes fire scores of cruise missiles at military targets in a move to punish the Iraq military and discourage it from following Saddam. Clinton extends the southern no-fly-zone to the suburbs of Baghdad.
Nov. 25 Iraq announces “full agreement” with the United Nations on implementing the oil-for-food deal.
Dec. 9 U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali gives final OK allowing Iraq to make limited oil sales.

1997
June 21 President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agree to consider tougher sanctions against Iraq unless U.N. weapons inspectors certify in October that Baghdad is fully cooperating.
Oct. 7-30 Iraq refuses to disclose full details of its banned weapons programs and bars Americans from participating in the inspections.
Nov. 5-12 The United Nations accuses Iraq of obstructing its weapons monitoring system and unanimously imposes a travel ban on Iraqi officials.
Nov. 13-14 Iraq expels the American weapons inspectors. President Clinton and Britain step up military presence in the Gulf region.
Nov. 20-21 U.N. arms inspectors are allowed back into Iraq to find that the Iraqis have dismantled equipment and destroyed physical evidence.
Dec. 4-18 The Security Council votes to renew the oil-for-food program, allowing Saddam to purchase much-needed food and medical supplies. Inspectors report that the Iraqis have declared wide areas off-limits.

1998
Jan. 2 A rocket-propelled grenade hits a U.N. building in Iraq. The Iraqi government condemns the attack.
Jan. 13 Iraq blocks a U.N. inspection team, saying the team has too many British and American inspectors.
Jan. 21 U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq agree to bring in outside technical experts to assess the situation. Iraq still denies access to so-called presidential sites.
Feb. 5 President Clinton orders a Marine expeditionary force of 2,000 troops and four ships to the Gulf.
March 26 U.N. weapons inspectors, accompanied by senior diplomats, begin the search of presidential sites previously closed to inspection.
April 16-27 Iraq threatens new crisis unless talks to lift sanctions begin by the end of April. The Security Council maintains the embargo.
June 24 Chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq placed deadly VX nerve gas in missile warheads.
June 30 The United States fires a missile at an Iraqi anti-aircraft battery in response to a threat from Iraq against a British aircraft. Iraq denies locking the aircraft on radar.
Aug. 4-20 Butler refuses to certify that Iraq has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq freezes all cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, and the Security Council agrees to maintain sanctions.
Sept. 8 Iraq says allegations that inspectors have been barred from certain sites distort the truth.

1999
Jan. 5 U.S. warplanes fire missiles at four Iraqi fighter jets after Iraqi aircraft electronically targets two U.S. fighters patrolling the no-fly-zone in the southern part of the country.

2001
Feb. 16 U.S. and British forces launch an air attack on targets on the outskirts of Baghdad in response to increased Iraqi activity to target coalition planes.

[jerseydevil]

Moment by Moment (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraqtimeline981116.html)

Dec. 16 — President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have launched air strikes and cruise missile attacks on Iraq. They say Iraq refused to cooperate with the United Nations arms inspection regime, and seemed bent on keeping an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

1998 Day by Day Timeline
Saturday, Oct. 31
Iraq suspends all cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. The United States and Britain warn Iraq of potential military action to force cooperation.

Thursday, Nov. 12
The United States continues to bolster its military forces in the Gulf region with a combination of troops, ships and warplanes.

Friday, Nov. 13
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan makes a final attempt to convince Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to rescind his decision not to cooperate with U.N. arms inspectors. President Clinton orders the military to proceed with plans for a massive cruise- and air-missile attack against Iraq.

Friday, Nov. 13, 8 a.m.
Clinton sets in motion the air strikes against Iraq. He directs National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to go ahead and telephone Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to tell him to proceed with the strike on Saturday.

Saturday, Nov. 14, 8 a.m.
CNN reports that a statement is forthcoming from Baghdad and that it will be a positive response to Annan's previous letter seeking a resolution to the crisis. President Clinton decides to "pause" the operation, in effect delaying but not aborting the air strikes. Soon after, the White House receives the first of three letters from Iraq that will clarify Iraq's position its agreement to let U.N. inspectors back into Iraq.

Saturday, Nov. 14, 11 a.m.
Clinton says the first Iraqi offer is not acceptable because of an annex detailing what the United States believes are conditions of Iraqi acceptance of inspectors.

Saturday, Nov. 14, 7:20 p.m.
The White House receives Iraq's second letter. Iraq says the annex contains views and preferences only and spells out that its acceptance of inspections is unconditional.

Saturday, Nov. 14, 9:06 p.m.
A third Iraqi letter is received at the White House that specifies that Baghdad's previous decision to cease cooperation with weapons inspectors from the U.N. Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency is null and void.

Saturday, Nov. 14, 9:00 p.m. until Sunday, Nov. 15, approximately 2 a.m. EST
Clinton telephones members of his national security team as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Sunday, Nov. 15, 3:00 a.m.
Clinton orders the operation to stand down.

Tuesday, Nov. 17
Eighty-six U.N. weapons inspectors return to Iraq following its climbdown over inspections after bombing threat.

Sunday, Nov. 22
Iraq says that "provocative" requests for documents by the chief U.N. weapons inspector are intended to provide the United States with a pretext for a military attack.

Wednesday, Dec. 16
U.N. weapons inspectors withdraw from Baghdad one day after reporting Iraq was still not cooperating with their work.

Wednesday, Dec. 16, 5pm EDT
U.S. and British forces start attacks on Iraq. President Clinton says "a strong, sustained series of air strikes" to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. "Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world," Clinton says.

[BeardofPants]

JD, shouldn't you be in bed? :p

This stuff is interesting, but it doesn't actually prove that he is harbouring WMD... and we already knew that he was a #$%!.:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD, shouldn't you be in bed? :p

This stuff is interesting, but it doesn't actually prove that he is harbouring WMD... and we already knew that he was a #$%!.:rolleyes:

Yes I should be in bed. :) I wanted to post these so when Hussein rejects UN Inspectors and plays the same games as demonstrated above - then no one can be surprised.

There is also this which was report ed 12/19/99...

Iraq Rejects U.N. Resolution (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/iraq991219.html)
Aziz Says Iraq is ‘Ready to Face the Consequences’

Dec. 19 — Iraq has rejected a new U.N. policy that would return weapons inspectors to Baghdad after a yearlong absence, saying that it is prepared to face the consequences.

The Security Council passed the resolution on Friday. But Iraq’s allies on the council abstained from the vote, wrecking hopes for a united front to force Iraq to cooperate in return for a possible suspension of U.N. sanctions.

Intelligence sources tell ABCNEWS that Iraq has rebuilt many of the military factories destroyed in last December’s bombings, and they fear the worst about what’s going on inside those buildings.

“It could very well be that Iraq has rebuilt a substantial capability and resumed production of chemical agents [and] biological agents,” Ken Katzman, a former CIA analyst said.

It could be hard to find out. Even when the U.N. inspection team was at full strength, Iraqi officials played cat and mouse games such as keeping inspectors out while quickly emptying the rooms inspectors wanted to see.

While U.S. officials admit they don’t know what Iraq has been up to, they are concerned about what Saddam Hussein had in mind when he ordered three medical machines from a German company. They break up kidney stones but have small switches that are also crucial parts in nuclear bombs.

Iraq has reported to have ordered extra switches. It’s not clear if Iraq got them. But if it did, say analysts, all Iraq lacks now to make atom bombs is enough uranium, a commodity which is available on the black market.

[BeardofPants]

And I'll say it again, ya know, just in case you missed it the first time. Just because he's a @!#$ doesn't mean that he's harbouring WMD. If the inspections fail, then at the very least the appropriate channels were attempted; Bush will at least have a better reason to get hot-headed. :rolleyes:

Personally, I'm more worried about Al-Queda. It seems that even Australia and New Zealand aren't safe. (RE: Bali. Bin Laden is said to have praised their handy work... sick bastards.)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
And I'll say it again, ya know, just in case you missed it the first time. Just because he's a @!#$ doesn't mean that he's harbouring WMD. If the inspections fail, then at the very least the appropriate channels were attempted; Bush will at least have a better reason to get hot-headed. :rolleyes:

I'm just pointing out that it is more likely that Hussein has never stopped manufacturing WMD. They are there - whether the UN Inspectors are successful in finding them or not. It's a known FACT he was manufacturing WMD - it is ignorant to believe that he just stopped for the past four years after he was able to kick out the inspectors.


Personally, I'm more worried about Al-Queda. It seems that even Australia and New Zealand aren't safe. (RE: Bali. Bin Laden is said to have praised their handy work... sick bastards.)

You're surprised that they aren't safe from Al Qaeda? What do you think their ultimate goal is? Do you really think it's just to get America out of the Middle East? Their goal is the destruction of the west and worldwide fanatical muslim domination.

By the way - it's generally becoming the American public feeling that bin Laden is dead. There have been no videos. Only still picture with voice over claiming to be bin Laden and written letters claiming to be coming from him. There hasn't been a verifiable video since around December.

They are sick. And Hussein would probably have no problems supplying them with biological, chemical and nuclear weaponary.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They are sick. And Hussein would probably have no problems supplying them with biological, chemical and nuclear weaponary.
Look, not even the US intelligence services believe that Iraq poses a particular threat to the west.

If Bush really cared about stopping Al-Qaida he'd be trying to engage the co-operation of the moderate Arab states which could help track them. As it is, of course, he only cares about oil, mid-term elections and being seen to be doing something.

In my book, these (combined with your "probably") are not sufficient moral grounds for going to war.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I have heard rumours of CIA agents being on the payroll - but I have not seen proof. Provide me with proof that there were CIA Agents? Or is it just Iraqi propaganda?

dont you think this just contradicts all that you have said. Provide me with proof. when all your argueements are based soley upon opinon and speculations. AS BoP said one of them admitted.

Is this iraqi propagander? My friend are you so clouded by USA propaganda you cannot see?

Not just iraqis lie you know :D

you quote a lot of media sources in all your posts. Dont believe all you read. All sorces in my opion show a certain level of bias. Esspecially the unregulated internet sources.

do me a favor and think about this one question. What would sadam gain from attacking the USA?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
you quote a lot of media sources in all your posts. Dont believe all you read. All sorces in my opion show a certain level of bias. Esspecially the unregulated internet sources.

None of my sources come from unregulated internet sources. ABCNews is a highly respected news organisation in the US. They do news items on both sides of the issues. Just because you don't get this news from the US - doesn't mean that it is unreliable. As I stated before - the news items in the international press seem to be far more biased. They present the news in a way that already supports the public opinion of their particular country. When I read the BBC concerning what the US is doing - many things are left out - you only get half the picture.

Also as I have said - we will see. The inspectors are going in. All I did above was present Saddam Husseins past actions. It will all be repeated when the inspectors go into Iraq again. If you don't think so - then you have your head in the sand.

Concerning the CIA agent being part of the last inspector team AND admitting it - all I did was ask you guys to supply me with proof that he had admitted this. You have supplied nothing so far. I will accept it if it came from BBC or something like that - not some islamic fundamentalist site.

Also - why wouldn't Saddam Hussein don't supply terrorist groups with weapons if he thinks he can get away from it. He constantly manages to come in and convince your countries that he's the one that is being bullied.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also as I have said - we will see. The inspectors are going in. All I did was above was present Saddam Husseins past actions. It will all be repeated when the inspectors go into Iraq again.
You're probably right, of course. Like any self-respecting politician, Saddam will try to turn the Inspections issue to his advantage while trying to reveal as little as possible about what he's actually doing.

This whole WMD/inspections issue, though, is a red herring. If the US really cared about implementing UN resolutions, what's so special about Iraq? What about Israel, Cyprus, etc.?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
You're probably right, of course. Like any self-respecting politician, Saddam will try to turn the Inspections issue to his advantage while trying to reveal as little as possible about what he's actually doing.

Well then I guess it's alright if he is hiding biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Since he's a good politician - when he does prevent inspections - we should just let him off the hook.


This whole WMD/inspections issue, though, is a red herring. If the US really cared about implementing UN resolutions, what's so special about Iraq? What about Israel, Cyprus, etc.?

If the world cared, why don't they force those countries to comply with the UN? Why is it only the US's responsibility? Everyone acts as if the US is the UN and then complains about what we do. If this is the case and the UN does not want to enforce their own resolutions then I guess the UN is irrelevant. Also - why doesn't the world condemn the suicide bombers that repeatedly attack Israeli citizens?

[osszie]

You all may find this interesting:)

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13898

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
If t he world cared, why don't they force those countries to comply with the UN? Why is it only the US's responsibility? Everyone acts as if the US is the UN and then complains about what we do. If this is the case and the UN does not want to enforce their own resolutions then I guess the UN is irrelevant. Also - why doesn't the world condemn the suicide bombers that repeatedly attack Israeli citizens?
They do, or at least I do, though that hasn't stopped them. Funnily enough, neither has bulldozing more of their homes.

However, these are fair points, well put. The world should not expect the US to act as a "policeman" for its affairs and perhaps ought to put more energy into figuring out how else to enfoice resolutions.

Nevertheless, it's still morally wrong (IMO) to invade Iraq now and kill thousands more innocent people.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
You all may find this interesting:)

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13898

Yes very interesting. Too bad their website is all one sided. All you have to do is look at their list of Recommended Sites list -


United for Peace
Web resource put together by a collaboration of national and international peace and social justice organizations led by Global Exchange.

IraqAction.org
An online media and activists' resource center for groups and activists who are working to end the war against the people of Iraq.

Education for Peace in Iraq
Working to improve conditions in Iraq through education and advocacy, not war.

AntiWar.com
A libertarian anti-war site that offers breaking news, analysis, and opinion on the war on Iraq.


Give me information from a site that isn't so blatantly biased.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Give me information from a site that isn't so blatantly biased.

I didn't post the site address specifically for you JD, I posted it because I felt a lot of people posting/viewing this site may share the opinions of those writers.

Feel free to disregard anything I post that you feel is biased :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I didn't post the site address specifically for you JD, I posted it because I felt a lot of people posting/viewing this site may share the opinions of those writers.

Feel free to disregard anything I post that you feel is biased :)


Okay - I will. :D Okay - so I thought you were sending that information to me. I could have swore there was a "JD" in your post somewhere. :)

I still feel the site is biased. It's almost as bad as the Islamic websites that BoP used to post. :)

[Sween]

Me and my lasswere having one of our in depth conversations about how media can affect our perspective of life (hey its better than hearing about shoes all the time) she made a good point how the media can distort things to an extent. In this country we have the red tops and if i read them they pretty much tell a person what to think. Its quite sad. I myself read the times very respectable paper apprentally wish it wasnt so bigg i have problem reading it on the toilet but that doesnt matter.

I am still waiting to hear a reason for attacking Iraq which does involves 'if' 'buts' 'maybes' and 'possiably'.

As the suppoded most civilised countrys in the world (allthough i doubt this by looking at the way some people act in my town bunch of muppets baseball caps who invented them) we should not attack unless there is a clear danger?

Has sadam ever made a agressive move against the US he invaded quaiate he had no intrest with america till they got involved (rightly so) and since then has he killed anyone in hostile action that wasnt war (wars wars all bets are off killings allowed so that dont count)

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
I myself read the times very respectable paper apprentally wish it wasnt so bigg i have problem reading it on the toilet but that doesnt matter.

:D :D Yes accessing accurate information from the media can be difficult, never more so than when the paper rufuses to open properly while on the cludgy:D

I am still waiting to hear a reason for attacking Iraq which does involves 'if' 'buts' 'maybes' and 'possiably'.


Very good point:)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
None of my sources come from unregulated internet sources. ABCNews is a highly respected news organisation in the US.

We get ABC now (instead of BBC world). I wouldn't say that it was reporting both sides of the issue... it seems very biased to me.

JD:
Concerning the CIA agent being part of the last inspector team AND admitting it - all I did was ask you guys to supply me with proof that he had admitted this. You have supplied nothing so far.

Cirdan has already mentioned that it was on CNN.

JD:
I still feel the site is biased. It's almost as bad as the Islamic websites that BoP used to post.

You're like a @#$@! wind up toy, aren't you? :rolleyes: You don't !@#$#@ stop. I removed those sites, and you still bloody harp.

All I can say is, at least I was attempting to present BOTH sides of the propaganda argument.

I can't believe you. You rant about bias, and yet you only seem to post stuff from American news sources. Does anyone else smell a rat?

[Sween]

JD is the most pro american american ive ever known. Do you find any faults with your country? He doesnt even mind that they dont have a health serivce for everyone:confused:

[BeardofPants]

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000204.php

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I can't believe you. You rant about bias, and yet you only seem to post stuff from American news sources. Does anyone else smell a rat?

Well, to be honest, there has been a whiff of rodent in a lot of things said in this thread:rolleyes:

I know that I personally do not trust the mainstream american media to give accurate information, how can I respect the views of the three biggest american TV channel news when they themselves decided that prime time television should not be interupted by the presidents address to the nation:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
...how can I respect the views of the three biggest american TV channel news when they themselves decided that prime time television should not be interupted by the presidents address to the nation:rolleyes:

Don't worry, I'm sure JD has a very good reason why they didn't address this. :p

[Hasty Ent]

one reason could be that the networks are primarily concerned with making profit, which means airing commercials so that viewers could buy things they don't need with money that don't have (possibly a definition for "advertising")

and since prime time air is expensive, better to air braindead sitcoms for a population that would only tune out any presidential address

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Don't worry, I'm sure JD has a very good reason why they didn't address this. :p

Actually I was pissed that the three networks didn't carry the president's speech.

I find a lot of faults with my country. Not have national health care isn't one of them. If you knew anything about America, whihc by talking to you guys I know you don't, we do have programs for people that can not pay for medical treatment. No one gets turned away from hospitals or doctors. They may not get the same level of service as someone with insurance or who can pay - but neither does Canadians or British.

I have looked at international news sources - as I have said repeatedly - they only report the portion of US news that supports the publiucs view (case in point the BBC).

BoP - you get ABC now? Do you get Nightline and World News Tonight then?

I have been to England twice - so I've seen your newscasts also - have any of you been to the US to actually experience America first hand?

And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,

In the last Iraq thread we were at the same point. You guys were arguing that the US should consult it's allies and go to the UN. Well we did that. Now the weapons inspectors are going to be going to Iraq. Just admit it - when Saddam Hussein kicks them out again or prevents them from doing their job - you will still think the US has no reason to do anything about him.

I have said that I'm not necessarily for the war or against the war right now. I WANT to see what happens with the weapons inspections. When it was first announced that we were going to go after Iraq - I was VERY much against it. But look what our threats did - Iraq has agreed to let weapons inspectors in. Would he have if the UN got down on it's hands and knees and begged like it was before? No - of course not. As Teddy Roosevelt said - "Speak softly but carry a big stick." The thing is Hussein only understands the big stick. We've threatened him with the big stick and we will continue to threaten him. If he doesn't comply we will use it.

I'm not ashamed of being patriotic. Supporting a stand you believe in though has nothing to do with being patriotic though. I do support the process that we are going through and if Hussein does not give the inspectors unfettered access like he's supposed to - then I will support the war also.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
one reason could be that the networks are primarily concerned with making profit, which means airing commercials so that viewers could buy things they don't need with money that don't have (possibly a definition for "advertising")

and since prime time air is expensive, better to air braindead sitcoms for a population that would only tune out any presidential address

I watched the President's speech on CNN. Also on Satruday I watched the French Parliment Debate Iraq which was shown on C-SPAN (http://www.cspan.org/).

[Hasty Ent]

i don't have cable, and most people i know don't either... i refuse to pay money to watch commercials

don't have the stats on this, but maybe someone here does: what percentage of the tv viewing public in the usa has cable? and of that percentage, how many tune in to political programs?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
BoP - you get ABC now? Do you get Nightline and World News Tonight then?

We only started getting it recently so I'm not too sure of its format; it runs quite late as well -- about 12.30am onwards. But the first half an hour or so appears to be an ABC world type thing.

JD
- have any of you been to the US to actually experience America first hand?

Planning on it.

JD
And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,

Do a google search. It's not hard. There's a whole bunch of stuff. Can't promise any unbiased sources though. :rolleyes:

JD
Just admit it - when Saddam Hussein kicks them out again or prevents them from doing their job - you will still think the US has no reason to do anything about him.

I have never said that Saddam wasn't an SOB. He is. But the US has never started a war without a strong pretext to back it up before. I'm sorry, but every part of me screams "sour grapes". I still think there are bigger threats in the world to worry about... Bali being case in point. Let's worry about the actual terrorists, instead of trying to link Iraq into everything. :rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

JD, have you ever thought about running for congress? You'd be quite good at it. :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
We only started getting it recently so I'm not too sure of its format; it runs quite late as well -- about 12.30am onwards. But the first half an hour or so appears to be an ABC world type thing.

Then how can you say it's so biased?


Do a google search. It's not hard. There's a whole bunch of stuff. Can't promise any unbiased sources though. :rolleyes:

I do do google searches - that's the problem - I haven't found anything. As I have already said also - if it was reported from BBC or something I would believe it. If it was from Iraq.com - I'm not going to. I judge news sources just as harshly here. Time lost a lot of respect from me when they called the Bushes "The Bushies". That demostrates their biases. It's something a Kindergartner would say, not a professional news source.


I have never said that Saddam wasn't an SOB. He is. But the US has never started a war without a strong pretext to back it up before. I'm sorry, but every part of me screams "sour grapes". I still think there are bigger threats in the world to worry about... Bali being case in point. Let's worry about the actual terrorists, instead of trying to link Iraq into everything. :rolleyes:

Yes and unless anything like Bali attack occurred in Indonesia - you would be complaining if America started sending troops there. You would be screaming for proof - and nothing would be good enough. Now that close to 200 people have died - it's alright for the US to get involved. Why do we always have to be on the defense?

We still have not started a war with Iraq. Chances are there will be. He's not going to let inspectors in.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually I was pissed that the three networks didn't carry the president's speech.

I find a lot of faults with my country. Not have national health care isn't one of them. If you knew anything about America, whihc by talking to you guys I know you don't, we do have programs for people that can not pay for medical treatment. No one gets turned away from hospitals or doctors. They may not get the same level of service as someone with insurance or who can pay - but neither does Canadians or British.

I have looked at international news sources - as I have said repeatedly - they only report the portion of US news that supports the publiucs view (case in point the BBC).

BoP - you get ABC now? Do you get Nightline and World News Tonight then?

I have been to England twice - so I've seen your newscasts also - have any of you been to the US to actually experience America first hand?

And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,

In the last Iraq thread we were at the same point. You guys were arguing that the US should consult it's allies and go to the UN. Well we did that. Now the weapons inspectors are going to be going to Iraq. Just admit it - when Saddam Hussein kicks them out again or prevents them from doing their job - you will still think the US has no reason to do anything about him.

I have said that I'm not necessarily for the war or against the war right now. I WANT to see what happens with the weapons inspections. When it was first announced that we were going to go after Iraq - I was VERY much against it. But look what our threats did - Iraq has agreed to let weapons inspectors in. Would he have if the UN got down on it's hands and knees and begged like it was before? No - of course not. As Teddy Roosevelt said - "Speak softly but carry a big stick." The thing is Hussein only understands the big stick. We've threatened him with the big stick and we will continue to threaten him. If he doesn't comply we will use it.

I'm not ashamed of being patriotic. Supporting a stand you believe in though has nothing to do with being patriotic though. I do support the process that we are going through and if Hussein does not give the inspectors unfettered access like he's supposed to - then I will support the war also.

Actually people in the UK who subscribe to a private health plan recieve exactly the same health treatment as those on the NHS, the only major differnence being the administration, people who have a private plan have more control over there medical records, Dr's refferals etc.............the treatment covered by a private health plan is adminstered by doctors who also work for the NHS (I know because I have one:) )

The BBC has, and still does, operate the biggest international news service , the World Service, are you saying that this bias is carried to the majority of the world capable of recieving radio transmissions:confused: ..................... if so then why does this not directly affect the world?.......tune your radio to the World Service.........I think you'll find it to be incredibly unbiased. The World Service is broadcast in 37 different languages internationally, no other company provides that kind of converage.

If Saddam "kicks out" the inspectors then surely the problem of Iraq becomes an international problem.........the world knows this but why is America so willing to make it their own personal problem:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD, have you ever thought about running for congress? You'd be quite good at it. :p

Nice sarcasm. Just because you don't agree with my feelings doesn't mean that I'm wrong. I was right in saying in the other threads for you guys to wait - that we weren't going to war tomorrow. That was several months ago. We're still not at war. I had stated that we would be meeting with out allies and we have been. We even went through the UN.

The only reason the UN decided to pick up the issue was because we said that it was time for the Un to prove that it was not irrelavent and that if they didn't handle the problem we would.


Hasty Ent - C-Span broadcasts over the net. Also - a lot of news organisations broadcast over the net. Since you're on Entmoot - I must assume you have access to the net. You can also get all or most of the President's Speeches off of Whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Then how can you say it's so biased?

Well maybe because it is? :rolleyes:

JD:
I judge news sources just as harshly here. Time lost a lot of respect from me when they called the Bushes "The Bushies". That demostrates their biases. It's something a Kindergartner would say, not a professional news source.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are many left that have any semblance of respect for Bush......

JD:
Yes and unless anything like Bali attack occurred in Indonesia - you would be complaining if America started sending troops there. You would be screaming for proof - and nothing would be good enough. Now that close to 200 people have died - it's alright for the US to get involved. Why do we always have to be on the defense?

Ah, but you see, I don't want the US to go barging into Bali to try and sort it out. It would only make it worse. As would an Australian resolution. The extreme hatred for Australians in Indonesia is overwhelming... You really think that Aussie or US troops sent in would sort things out? It is unfortunate, but the only way these things can be resolved is if they have a chance to mature.... an endless vicious cycle, because they won't get a chance with us breathing down their necks: and with good reason too.... close to 200 people died. I want to personally strangle them myself. But. Our interference wouldn't acheive anything. The change has to come from within.

JD:
We still have not started a war with Iraq. Chances are there will be. He's not going to let inspectors in.

Yeah, and that's a great reason to start a war, and kill thousands of civilians. "We suspect you have WMD and you won't let us in so we are going to level you." :rolleyes:

Show me the money, JD.

Give me, and the rest of us, proof that there are WMD in Iraq. I don't want conjecture or speculation... I want actual proof.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

The BBC has, and still does, operate the biggest international news service , the World Service, are you saying that this bias is carried to the majority of the world capable of recieving radio transmissions:confused: ..................... if so then why does this not directly affect the world?.......tune your radio to the World Service.........I think you'll find it to be incredibly unbiased. The World Service is broadcast in 37 different languages internationally, no other company provides that kind of converage.

When I had tried looking at how BBC was reporting the debates going on here over Iraq - they never mentioned all the discussions that Congress was have, nor did they mention all the meetings the President was having with Congressmen. They were basically reporting at that time that we were going to war and that was it.


If Saddam "kicks out" the inspectors then surely the problem of Iraq becomes an international problem.........the world knows this but why is America so willing to make it their own personal problem:rolleyes:
Because the world doesn't get involved unless America does. Also - as I've said - I think that America should take it's troops, it's aid and it's foreign policy and leave it all up to the rest of the world. Have Britain send troops to Indonesia - and lead the charge. Let France, let New Zealand, Germany. If you don't like what America is doing then get involved and you guys go in and attempt to fix the problems. Don't constantly stand behind us and critisize.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Hasty Ent - C-Span broadcasts over the net. Also - a lot of news organisations broadcast over the net. Since you're on Entmoot - I must assume you have access to the net. You can also get all or most of the President's Speeches off of Whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)

yes, I do ck out net news sources...however...how many people have that access? many don't have computers, and if they go to a local library, don't know how to use them... in terms of sheer numbers, more people get their news from broadcast tv, and of those people, I'm afraid most reach for their remote if they see anything political interrupting their 'must-see tv'

but back on topic, you're right -- we're not at war yet

however, it seems inevitable, and regrettable

btw, I may not agree with some of what you say, but I always truly enjoy reading your posts :)

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
What are your personal feelings on this? would an attack be justified? Has Iraq acctually made an attack on the US?


JD these were the initial questions asked in this thread.

IMO you've answered the first question but you have not answered the last two, although you seem to think that they are being answered by justifing past events regarding Iraq.

would you care to answer the remaining questions now?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,


So, your calling me a liar, JD? Why would make up something like that? I noticed you only said there is no proof. My guess is you beleive there were CIA there. I only said they were on the CIA payroll, not that they were spies.

Where do you think the CIA gets its information... the Internet.

It's people like you for whom the phrase "ugly american" was coined.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
When I had tried looking at how BBC was reporting the debates going on here over Iraq - they never mentioned all the discussions that Congress was have, nor did they mention all the meetings the President was having with Congressmen. They were basically reporting at that time that we were going to war and that was it.


Because the world doesn't get involved unless America does. Also - as I've said - I think that America should take it's troops, it's aid and it's foreign policy and leave it all up to the rest of the world. Have Britain send troops to Indonesia - and lead the charge. Let France, let New Zealand, Germany. If you don't like what America is doing then get involved and you guys go in and attempt to fix the problems. Don't constantly stand behind us and critisize.

Which BBC broadcasts did you watch???..............I have never seen or heard a BBC broadcast the stated "America is going to war with Iraq":confused: ....................... I have seen/heard a few that said "America was willing to go to war with Iraq".........why should they mention the discussions and meetings? it is the outcome of these that effects the world:confused:

We do get involved, you've stated several times how America becomes involved with the worlds problems at the request of other nations................because we make a decisive stance, to help a country in need, first and then ask for America's aid does that put us in the wrong?........no we make the moves first to help people........if you have a problem with america becoming involved, take it up with your politician.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well maybe because it is? :rolleyes:

Well if you barely watched it and it just resently started being shown - I don't know how you could judge it so quickly.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are many left that have any semblance of respect for Bush......

Well here he still has a VERY high approval rating and that is the only place that really matters.


Ah, but you see, I don't want the US to go barging into Bali to try and sort it out. It would only make it worse. As would an Australian resolution. The extreme hatred for Australians in Indonesia is overwhelming... You really think that Aussie or US troops sent in would sort things out? It is unfortunate, but the only way these things can be resolved is if they have a chance to mature.... an endless vicious cycle, because they won't get a chance with us breathing down their necks: and with good reason too.... close to 200 people died. I want to personally strangle them myself. But. Our interference wouldn't acheive anything. The change has to come from within.

Wow - we should just let them go on. Even though the US government has been TELLING the indonesian government that there were terrorists there for the past year.

Yeah, and that's a great reason to start a war, and kill thousands of civilians. "We suspect you have WMD and you won't let us in so we are going to level you." :rolleyes:

Well then don't come whining to the United States when he starts to attack his neighbors or sell his weapons to terrorists then.


Give me, and the rest of us, proof that there are WMD in Iraq. I don't want conjecture or speculation... I want actual proof.

No proof will be acceptable for you becuase you will not believe it.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No proof will be acceptable for you becuase you will not believe it.

ANY proof...................it could be a note tied to a camels back.......but ANY proof would be greatly recieved:)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if you barely watched it and it just resently started being shown - I don't know how you could judge it so quickly.

How long am I supposed to watch something before I can form judgements? I have watched CNN for about a year now, and I have watched ABC off and on for the past fortnight. In my opinion, they are both very biased media.

JD:
Wow - we should just let them go on. Even though the US government has been TELLING the indonesian government that there were terrorists there for the past year.

No. I didn't say that. I said that it needed to be resolved by the Indonesian govt. not the powers that be. :rolleyes:

Nice example of putting words in my mouth, btw.

JD:
Well then don't come whining to the United States when he starts to attack his neighbors or sell his weapons to terrorists then.

JD:
No proof will be acceptable for you becuase you will not believe it.

And again, I state that you have not shown any grounds for these assumptions. I have seen no proof, only conjecture in your posts. If you can give me conclusive unbiased proof that Saddam has WMD then and only then will I "stop whining" as you put it. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
So, your calling me a liar, JD? Why would make up something like that? I noticed you only said there is no proof. My guess is you beleive there were CIA there. I only said they were on the CIA payroll, not that they were spies.

Where do you think the CIA gets its information... the Internet.

I didn't say you lied - I asked for proof on it. I am perfectly aware of the rumours. I don't believe 100% that there weren't CIA agents there - but I believe it was a possibility. If they weren't spying (in which case I'm not sure what the exact difference would be since they were there to INSPECT and check out what Hussein was up to) then Hussein still had no right to kick out all the inspectors. He did not want ANY American or British inspectors in Iraq at all.


It's people like you for whom the phrase "ugly american" was coined.
And how is that? Because I stick up for my beliefs and won't roll over on this issue?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

When has THAT been a very high approval rating?:confused: :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
When has THAT been a very high approval rating?:confused: :rolleyes:

That's not the President's approval rating. Those were the poll numbers for support of war with Iraq. It has nothing to do with Bushes approval rating.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And how is that? Because I stick up for my beliefs and won't roll over on this issue?

No, it's because you cannot provide any FACTS to back up you CLAIMS:rolleyes:

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's not the President's approval rating. Those were the poll numbers for support of war with Iraq. It has nothing to do with Bushes approval rating.

So there does not neccessarly have to be approval of a war initiated by your president for there to be presidential approval:confused: :confused: :confused:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
No, it's because you cannot provide any FACTS to back up you CLAIMS:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's it, in a nutshell.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
JD these were the initial questions asked in this thread.

IMO you've answered the first question but you have not answered the last two, although you seem to think that they are being answered by justifing past events regarding Iraq.

would you care to answer the remaining questions now?

I feel that if Iraq does not let unfettered inspections - the military action is justified. If weapons are found - military action is justified. Before when we were going to attack him without seeing if inspectors could go in again - I felt was unjustified.

He has not DIRECTLY attacked America - but once he has the weapons he WILL attack others or sell them to terrorists.

Whether you agree or not - those are my feelings. I believe I have stated them through this thread. Maybe not as straigtforward as I have there - but that is how I feel.

Iraq hadn't attacked the US before the Gulf war either - as Sween had pointed out. No one seems to be questioning our use of force there. So asking the question of whether Iraq has attacked America is unfair. Does Iraq pose a POTENTIAL threat to America and world peace would be a better question. And the answer to that is YES.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So there does not neccessarly have to be approval of a war initiated by your president for there to be presidential approval:confused: :confused: :confused:

No - the President's approval rating deals with how people feel he is doing overall. It get's broken down into economy, war on terrorism, etc. Those numbers that I had supplied show how many people SUPPORT the idea of going to WAR. The numbers have NOTHING to do with the president.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No, it's because you cannot provide any FACTS to back up you CLAIMS:rolleyes:

What claims have I made? I FEEL that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to world Peace. As does the majority of Americans. He may not be an immiediate threat - but the majority of Americans don't feel like waiting around until he has all his weapons he needs.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - the President's approval rating deals with how people feel he is doing overall. It get's broken down into economy, war on terrorism, etc. Those numbers that I had supplied show how many people SUPPORT the idea of going to WAR. The numbers have NOTHING to do with the president.

I see, so the war on Iraq may not sway public opinon as to how the president is doing overall:rolleyes: .......... even though any war will cost billions in US dollars.

To be honest you are confusing me JD.........you stated earlier that you would like to see Europe pay back what "it owes" after the Marshall Plan (the great fiasco of insuring that Europe traded with America instead of the communist block IMO)...........yet you state later in the thread that another, modern day Marshall Plan (the plan that fed the horse after it had been starved IMO) should be implemented:confused: ..........do you feel that the American public would support the government rebuilding the Middle-East at the cost of the taxpayer?............you have already stated several times that you feel America should look after its own interests first:confused:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Iraq hadn't attacked the US before the Gulf war either - as Sween had pointed out. No one seems to be questioning our use of force there. So asking the question of whether Iraq has attacked America is unfair. Does Iraq pose a POTENTIAL threat to America and world peace would be a better question. And the answer to that is YES.

Actually, Iraq sank a couple of US ships before the gulf war... but claimed that they thought they were Iranian ships. The US brought it. Yep, he's a wiley bastard.

Iraq poses a potential threat to the US but so do alot of other countries. Come to think of it, so does New Zealand for that matter, ya know, since we're anti-nuclear. :rolleyes:

JD:
What claims have I made?

Several, actually. Only now have you changed your tune and changed it to "I feel" statements as opposed to "Saddam will" statements. :rolleyes: What about these claims of Saddam smuggling weapons out the back door while the inspections were going on? Burying them? These were backed up how? At what point did you state that these were opinions rather than facts?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What claims have I made? I FEEL that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to world Peace. As does the majority of Americans. He may not be an immiediate threat - but the majority of Americans don't feel like waiting around until he has all his weapons he needs.

Surely I do not need to remind you of your own posts JD:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I see, so the war on Iraq may not sway public opinon as to how the president is doing overall:rolleyes: .......... even though any war will cost billions in US dollars.

To be honest you are confusing me JD.........you stated earlier that you would like to see Europe pay back what "it owes" after the Marshall Plan (the great fiasco of insuring that Europe traded with America instead of the communist block IMO)...........yet you state later in the thread that another, modern day Marshall Plan (the plan that fed the horse after it had been starved IMO) should be implemented:confused: ..........do you feel that the American public would support the government rebuilding the Middle-East at the cost of the taxpayer?............you have already stated several times that you feel America should look after its own interests first:confused:

Why is it so confusing? This is what I said.....

One thing the US needs to do - and I know I keep saying the US needs to be more isolationist - but if we're going to be a world player and do these type of things then we need to set up programs like the Marshall Plan. The international community needs to go in there and build hospitals, build schools, build roads, etc. We are doing these things in Afganistan - but does the Arab world see anyof it? The US and the west in general has to do a better job of promoting the things we do. The Arab world needs to see, understand and accept that we don't condemn their religion or condemn their culture. We're never going to win over the extremists - but we need to make sure that it is harder for terrorist groups to use proganda against the west as a recruiting tool. We need to show the Arab world the good things we do and we can't just topple Hussein and then leave (yet we can't act like an occupying force). It's a huge balancing act the west will have to do once Hussein is removed.

I may want us to be looking more inward - but currently we don't. If we are going to be a world player then there are certain things WE HAVE TO DO. We just can't leave countries unstable like we did with Afganistan after Russia left.

[osszie]

Yes your quote was of your opinion..............but we were talking about public opinion (american) surely:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Actually, Iraq sank a couple of US ships before the gulf war... but claimed that they thought they were Iranian ships. The US brought it. Yep, he's a wiley bastard.

yup'am - he sure es.


Iraq poses a potential threat to the US but so do alot of other countries. Come to think of it, so does New Zealand for that matter, ya know, since we're anti-nuclear. :rolleyes:

Honestly - the US can careless that you're anti-nuclear. I didn't even know they were anti-nuclear until I started talking to you.


Several, actually. Only now have you changed your tune and changed it to "I feel" statements as opposed to "Saddam will" statements. :rolleyes: What about these claims of Saddam smuggling weapons out the back door while the inspections were going on? Burying them? These were backed up how? At what point did you state that these were opinions rather than facts?
Oh I'm sorry I didn't say they were my feelings. I thought it would be understood since weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for 4 years and I have never been there. The only REASON weapon inspectors are supposed to go now is because of the threat of military action.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Yes your quote was of your opinion..............but we were talking about public opinion (american) surely:rolleyes:

I had not responded to this...

I see, so the war on Iraq may not sway public opinon as to how the president is doing overall .......... even though any war will cost billions in US dollars.

It does. But people APPROVE of how he is going about it. And the majority of Americans currently support war with Iraq.

I am ASSUMING that you were questioning the fact that had left that part in when I quoted you - but then responded to the "Marshall Plan: section. If I'm wrong please correct me. Because currently - you're not making any sense.

[osszie]

Surely it was America that first gave Saddam Nuclear power, which the Isreali' army soon destroyed:D

And did not America spent almost 8yrs giving Saddam "dual use" chemicals...............fertilisers that when mixed could be made into poisonous gases..........or in other words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION:rolleyes:

the americans supplied this stuff...........are you not surprised that the world is worried that WMD may be soon a possibility in Iraq?........but they are not there................Saddam would have used them:rolleyes:

"Honestly - the US can careless that you're anti-nuclear. I didn't even know they were anti-nuclear until I started talking to you."


How typically American:rolleyes: ........... no wonder Cirdan stated the obvious:rolleyes:

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I am ASSUMING that you were questioning the fact that had left that part in when I quoted you - but then responded to the "Marshall Plan: section. If I'm wrong please correct me. Because currently - you're not making any sense.

I was reffering to your earlier posts in this thread.

You said that you feel that America should be repaid by Europe for the expenditure of the Marshall Plan (post WW2) then later you said that a "new Marshall Plan should be implemented for the middle east:)..........do you feel that a Marshall Plan following any conflict in the middle east should also leave the middle east indebted to you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Surely it was America that first gave Saddam Nuclear power, which the Isreali' army soon destroyed:D

And did not America spent almost 8yrs giving Saddam "dual use" chemicals...............fertilisers that when mixed could be made into poisonous gases..........or in other words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION:rolleyes:

the americans supplied this stuff...........are you not surprised that the world is worried that WMD may be soon a possibility in Iraq?........but they are not there................Saddam would have used them:rolleyes:

I thought earlier it was said that he wouldn't use them? And just because he hasn't used them yet - doesn't mean that they're not there.



"Honestly - the US can careless that you're anti-nuclear. I didn't even know they were anti-nuclear until I started talking to you."


How typically American:rolleyes: ........... no wonder Cirdan stated the obvious:rolleyes:

Why would we worry that New Zealand is anti-nuclear? It's their business. They have a right to choose not to be nuclear. They also have 5,000,000 less people than the state of New Jersey or even New York City. They can afford to have other sources of non-polluting energy.

And the kind of things that are said about America and Americans (you weren't here for the anti-American thread) - what I just said to BoP was minor.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I was reffering to your earlier posts in this thread.

You said that you feel that America should be repaid by Europe for the expenditure of the Marshall Plan (post WW2) then later you said that a "new Marshall Plan should be implemented for the middle east:)..........do you feel that a Marshall Plan following any conflict in the middle east should also leave the middle east indebted to you?

Okay I will quote what I said earlier and try making it a little clearer.


One thing the US needs to do - and I know I keep saying the US needs to be more isolationist - but if we're going to be a world player and do these type of things then we need to set up programs like the Marshall Plan. The international community needs to go in there and build hospitals, build schools, build roads, etc. We are doing these things in Afganistan - but does the Arab world see any of it? The US and the west in general has to do a better job of promoting the things we do. The Arab world needs to see, understand and accept that we don't condemn their religion or condemn their culture. We're never going to win over the extremists - but we need to make sure that it is harder for terrorist groups to use proganda against the west as a recruiting tool. We need to show the Arab world the good things we do and we can't just topple Hussein and then leave (yet we can't act like an occupying force). It's a huge balancing act the west will have to do once Hussein is removed.


We are a world player and that's not going to change anytime soon. It's not so they can be indepted to us. But if we're going to go into Iraq or any other country - in the name of making the world a safer place - we need to do more to build the infastructure of these countries. The world community - including - Europe should be doing a better job. We're currently doing a lot of that in Afganistan and if we do go into Iraq we WILL NEED to do it there too. The US should NOT be the only one that shoulders the responsibilty of rebuilding these countries.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I thought earlier it was said that he wouldn't use them? And just because he hasn't used them yet - doesn't mean that they're not there.
Why would we worry that New Zealand is anti-nuclear? It's their business. They have a right to choose not to be nuclear. They also have 5,000,000 less people than the state of New Jersey or even New York City.
And the kind of things that are said about America and Americans (you weren't here for the anti-American thread) - what I just said to BoP was minor.

So by that reckoning because Al Qaeda does not have nuclear weapons they are not a threat?............sure they use semtex and CF4..........to kill people........yet america has made it clear that they would wage war on Iraq.........who have used mustard gas admittedly ................. but not against the western world. Incidently it has been said that "he has not used them". he would not use them anyway..........just like the nuclear powers we know of, nuclear weapons are a better prevention of war than a cause of war.........would america dare invade if Saddam were known to have nuclear missiles?............only if they wanted to destroy the world would they invade, a 200 megaton bomb that landed ANYWHERE on solid ground would create an ice age(from destroyed topsoil) that would last for hundreds of years!!

JD I have always tried to be courteous to you...........but if you are going to be a part of this discussion pls try and answer my questions............

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We are a world player and that's not going to change anytime soon. It's not so they can be indepted to us. But if we're going to go into Iraq or any other country - in the name of making the world a safer place - we need to do more to build the infastructure of these countries. The world community - including - Europe should be doing a better job. We're currently doing a lot of that in Afganistan and if we do go into Iraq we WILL NEED to do it there too. The US should NOT be the only one that shoulders the responsibilty of rebuilding these countries.

Very true.......so why the say that Europe should repay America for the Marshal Plan (post WW2 ) earlier:confused:

Big shock time:eek: .............America does NOT shoulder the responsibility for rebuilding Afaghanistan............it is the UN's responsibilty...........if you feel that America is burdened with more of it's fair share then you should address that problem yourself (POF there are currently 34,000 UN troops in Afganistan)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So by that reckoning because Al Qaeda does not have nuclear weapons they are not a threat?............sure they use semtex and CF4..........to kill people........yet america has made it clear that they would wage war on Iraq.........who have used mustard gas admittedly ................. but not against the western world. Incidently it has been said that "he has not used them". he would not use them anyway..........just like the nuclear powers we know of, nuclear weapons are a better prevention of war than a cause of war.........would america dare invade if Saddam were known to have nuclear missiles?............only if they wanted to destroy the world would they invade, a 200 megaton bomb that landed ANYWHERE on solid ground would create an ice age(from destroyed topsoil) that would last for hundreds of years!!

I was taking BoP's comments about being anti-nuclear and being a threat to America as meaning that they demonstrate constantly against the US and users of nuclear energy and countries that have nuclear weapons. There was an incidence a couple of months ago when Japan was transporting nuclear waste and was going around New Zealand. I can't remember if they had actually entered New Zealand waters or not.

Al Qaeda being a threat has nothing to do with having or not having nuclear weapons.


JD I have always tried to be courteous to you...........but if you are going to be a part of this discussion pls try and answer my questions............

I have tried answering your questions. It has partially been difficult because I'm having to respond to five people. Also - the answers I give aren't the answers you want. I have answered all three questions posed in the beginning of the thread you asked me to answer. If you didn't like my answers there is nothing I can do.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Very true.......so why the say that Europe should repay America for the Marshal Plan (post WW2 ) earlier:confused:

Because you were actually supposed to pay us back.

Big shock time:eek: .............America does NOT shoulder the responsibility for rebuilding Afaghanistan............it is the UN's responsibilty...........if you feel that America is burdened with more of it's fair share then you should address that problem yourself (POF there are currently 34,000 UN troops in Afganistan)
I know there are UN troops in Afganistan. But the US does more than it's share of support around the world. It is time other countries do more.

As I had said in a previous thread - The US went in to protect UN aid to Somalians from the warlords - our marines were killed and dragged through the street naked. We got out of there. No one else sent troops into Somalia to protect the aid workers - so the UN had to leave.

When the massacre in Rwanda occurred - Americans didn't want to go in because of what had occurred in Somalia. Why didn't any other country go in and help them? Why does every one say "Why didn't America go in there and protect them?" Why was it our responsibility to begin with?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is time other countries do more.

They do. Through this thing called the UN. You might have heard of it? :rolleyes: Just because the rest of the world isn't high-ho silver about war, doesn't make their contributions any less valuable.

Edit: Backpedalling here. This is hardly on topic.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Al Qaeda being a threat has nothing to do with having or not having nuclear weapons.
I have tried answering your questions. It has partially been difficult because I'm having to respond to five people. Also - the answers I give aren't the answers you want. I have answered all three questions posed in the beginning of the thread you asked me to answer. If you didn't like my answers there is nothing I can do.

So by Saddam NOT using WMD and NOT using terrorist action against the west then it is STILL justified that America is willing to go to war with Iraq???

JD you have not only not answered my questions but you have chosen extracts from my posts to answer that, in your opinion, give evidence why America is in the right...........BoP was correct someday you will make a brilliant politician:rolleyes: you have constantly stated why America is right and the rest of the world is wrong without backing ANY of your statments with evidence (aside from some very sketchy historical evidence)..............Patriotism is one thing but Patriotism based on blind propaganda is quite another:mad: .......your feelings and personal beliefs are your own...............so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
They do. Through this thing called the UN. You might have heard of it? :rolleyes: Just because the rest of the world isn't high-ho silver about war, doesn't make their contributions any less valuable.

Edit: Backpedalling here. This is hardly on topic.

You must be up for the new Admin position.

Yes I have heard of the UN and as you know I support the US leaving the UN and closing down it's headquarters in NY. And America is not high-ho silver on war.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You must be up for the new Admin position.

Well, you know how I feel about power. ;)


I'm sorry, but I feel that this is a senstive enough topic without generating antipathy towards each other whilst going off on a tangent about who is more great, and who contributes more. We ALL contribute.

Now, back to Iraq:

We are still waiting for you to answer the questions JD. You've evaded for long enough.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So by Saddam NOT using WMD and NOT using terrorist action against the west then it is STILL justified that America is willing to go to war with Iraq???

JD you have not only not answered my questions but you have chosen extracts from my posts to answer that, in your opinion, give evidence why America is in the right...........BoP was correct someday you will make a brilliant politician:rolleyes: you have constantly stated why America is right and the rest of the world is wrong without backing ANY of your statments with evidence (aside from some very sketchy historical evidence)..............

Just a second - let me take a flight to Iraq and get some evidence for you. As I have stated - weapon inspectors have not been in Iraq for 4 years, I have never been to iraq. How am I supposed to give you evidence - other than historical past behavior of Hussein. We do have satelite photos that have indicated possible weapons manufacturing. As I said - we will find out once the weapons inspectors get into Iraq - if they are even allowed to perform their job.

Patriotism is one thing but Patriotism based on blind propaganda is quite another:mad: .......your feelings and personal beliefs are your own...............so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???

What do you mean by - "your feelings and personal beliefs are your own.... so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???"? I do not have blind propaganda - I am making educated decisions - based on the way Hussein has acted in the past and the way he has recently acted about allowing weapons inspectors in. I watch the news - i search for news items. You have not supported your arguments enough for me to say that if Hussein does not allow unfettered access to the weapons inspectors that military action is not justified. He knows the consequences of not abiding by the UN resolutions. Which are the same consequences as four and five years ago.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Now, back to Iraq:

We are still waiting for you to answer the questions JD. You've evaded for long enough.

What the f*** question do you want me to answer?

I've answered the questions. Military action IS justified if Hussein either has WMD or prevents weapon inspectors from doing their job.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've answered the questions. Military action IS justified if Hussein either has WMD or prevents weapon inspectors from doing their job.

What about the other countries with WMD? Do they warrant an invasion too? Just a thought.

These are both very weak excuses for war. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are greater threats.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Just a second - let me take a flight to Iraq and get some evidence for you. As I have stated - weapon inspectors have not been in Iraq for 4 years, I have never been to iraq. How am I supposed to give you evidence - other than historical past behavior of Hussein. We do have satelite photos that have indicated possible weapons manufacturing. As I said - we will find out once the weapons inspectors get into Iraq - if they are even allowed to perform their job.


What do you mean by - "your feelings and personal beliefs are your own.... so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???"? I do not have blind propaganda - I am making educated decisions - based on the way Hussein has acted in the past and the way he has recently acted about allowing weapons inspectors in. I watch the news - i search for news items. You have not supported your arguments enough for me to say that if Hussein does not allow unfettered access to the weapons inspectors that military action is not justified. He knows the consequences of not abiding by the UN resolutions. Which was the same consequences as four and five years ago.

If you have no evidence then why are you trying to justify an attack on Iraq?

You have said yourself on several occasions in this thread that you see no reason why America should not threaten Iraq with all-out war, yet you have also said yourself that you do not support all-out war...............yet over the last two days you have said that you feel that the UN inspectors should be allowed to do their job first, and again you contradict yourself by repeatedly saying that America should seperate itself from the UN:rolleyes: ........ you are making no sense JD:rolleyes:

[Khamûl]

Time for my two cents worth...

Originally posted by BeardofPants
What about the other countries with WMD? Do they warrant an invasion too? Just a thought.
What other countries? Are these countries run by a tyranical dictator? Will these countries sell WMD to terrorists?

These are both very weak excuses for war. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are greater threats. What kind of threats?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
If you have no evidence then why are you trying to justify an attack on Iraq?

You have said yourself on several occasions in this thread that you see no reason why America should not threaten Iraq with all-out war, yet you have also said yourself that you do not support all-out war...............yet over the last two days you have said that you feel that the UN inspectors should be allowed to do their job first, and again you contradict yourself by repeatedly saying that America should seperate itself from the UN:rolleyes: ........ you are making no sense JD:rolleyes:

Why is it so confusing? What I want and what the current situation is are two different things.

You want to know what I really want? I want the Al Qaeda to come around and say we give up our terrorist attacks and say "We need to work together on making the middle east a more peaceful place instead of putting all this money into terrorist camps." I want Israeli and Palestinians to meet and shake hands and share the land peacefully. I want Saddam Husein to say - "here - here are all my weapons. let's work together to make the Iraqi people happy and not feel like they're living in fear." I want North and South Korea to be able to join back together. And the skies parted and a huge rainbow appeared and there was a peace for ever more. The thing is - we don't live in that world. That isn't going to happen.

So even though - I feel we should leave the UN - it is a fact that we are a member of the UN. Therefore we must work under the current circumstances.

In regards to all out war - I would prefer that it doesn't come to that. As I have said over and over again. And I do feel we should be threatening Iraq with the consequences of not allowing UN Inspectors in - which would be an all out war.

I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

[osszie]

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Armed Islamic Group (GIA)

Aum Shinrikyo

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Gama'a al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Group, IG)

HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)

Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM)

Hizballah (Party of God)

Japanese Red Army (JRA)

al-Jihad

Kach

Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

National Liberation Army (ELN)

Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction

Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)

al-Qa'ida

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)

Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front

Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)

Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)

Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)

Well acording to the UN website, that's the top ten (although it does change at a moments notice according to the site)

In the UK the IRA is the biggest threat quickly followed by the ALF (animal liberation front)

[osszie]

Originally posted by osszie
If you have no evidence then why are you trying to justify an attack on Iraq?

You have said yourself on several occasions in this thread that you see no reason why America should not threaten Iraq with all-out war, yet you have also said yourself that you do not support all-out war...............yet over the last two days you have said that you feel that the UN inspectors should be allowed to do their job first, and again you contradict yourself by repeatedly saying that America should seperate itself from the UN:rolleyes: ........ you are making no sense JD:rolleyes:

It's not hard to understand JD..............but please try to answer my questions!!.............honestly............. why do you always avoid them:rolleyes:

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by osszie
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Armed Islamic Group (GIA)

Aum Shinrikyo

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Gama'a al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Group, IG)

HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)

Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM)

Hizballah (Party of God)

Japanese Red Army (JRA)

al-Jihad

Kach

Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

National Liberation Army (ELN)

Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction

Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)

al-Qa'ida

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)

Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front

Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)

Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)

Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)

Well acording to the UN website, that's the top ten (although it does change at a moments notice according to the site)

In the UK the IRA is the biggest threat quickly followed by the ALF (animal liberation front) So would an attack on any of groups be justified? What if one of these groups happened to be in Iraq? Would war be justified?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
It's not hard to understand JD..............but please try to answer my questions!!.............honestly............. why do you always avoid them:rolleyes:

I've lost track of what your question is because all you keep saying is to answer your question and I have answered your questions.

in terms of all those threats you posted - they all fall under the war against terrorism.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Khamûl
So would an attack on any of groups be justified? What if one of these groups happened to be in Iraq? Would war be justified?

Of course not anti-terrorism action would be justified.............effective measures to eliminate the terrorist threat............only an invasion or an attack of a country justifies war:)

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've lost track of what your question is because all you keep saying is to answer your question and I have answered your questions.

in terms of all those threats you posted - they all fall under the war against terrorism.

Goodnight JD:rolleyes: ......... if you feel that you have answered my questions then fine:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Goodnight JD:rolleyes: ......... if you feel that you have answered my questions then fine:rolleyes:
I'm willing to answer yout questions - just ask me again instead of just saying "can you answer my question."

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by osszie
Of course not anti-terrorism action would be justified.............effective measures to eliminate the terrorist threat............only an invasion of a country justifies war:) Even if a country is harboring terrorists and is paying money to suicide bombers? At what point do you consider the actual government of that country terrorists? Wouldn't an invasion be anti-terrorism action?

[osszie]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Even if a country is harboring terrorists and is paying money to suicide bombers? At what point do you consider the actual government of that country terrorists? Wouldn't an invasion be anti-terrorism action?

I'm sorry this is a thread devoted for the discussion of Iraq, and in the case of Iraq there is NO PROOF (how many time to say this?) of WMD or harboring terrorists:rolleyes:

the number of times this thread has weaved off topic:rolleyes:

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm willing to answer yout questions - just ask me again instead of just saying "can you answer my question."

They are on the thread JD:rolleyes: ...........

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I'm sorry this is a thread devoted for the discussion of Iraq, and in the case of Iraq there is NO PROOF (how many time to say this?) of WMD or harboring terrorists:rolleyes:

the number of times this thread has weaved off topic:rolleyes:

And as I've said repeatedy - weapon inspectors have been kept out for 4 years. If you think that he just gave up his weapons on his own then you must have your head stuck in the sand.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And as I've said repeatedy - weapon inspectors have been kept out for 4 years. If you think that he just gave up his weapons on his own then you must have your head stuck in the sand.

This is sheer conjecture. Not enough evidence there to warrant an expensive (in terms of both money AND lives) war.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
They are on the thread JD:rolleyes: ...........

because I answered as many of the questions as the five of you were throwing at me. I also answered the main question that you wanted answered. You just don't like my answers.

[osszie]

No JD, you did not give any answers except "perhaps, maybe, probably etc etc etc..........

Sween was right.............propaganda.............popularis t theory:rolleyes:

IMO You slate other countries constantly (esp. European countries) yet your own arguments are full of contradictions and shifts:rolleyes:

I used to think that you were intelligent, now IMO you will change your argument simply to prove what you percieve as being right.

(I'm very aware that I may be banned for this opinion, but after many changes in this discussion thread I feel I need to have said this).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This is sheer conjecture. Not enough evidence there to warrant an expensive (in terms of both money AND lives) war.

I guess the war won't be expensive after he uses the weapons then.

You can't honestly believe that the probability of him having them is less than him not having them.

[Khamûl]

Ok, why would Saddam get rid of the weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? And why is he so reluctant to let them back in?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No JD, you did not give any answers except "perhaps, maybe, probably etc etc etc..........

Sween was right.............propaganda.............popularis t theory:rolleyes:

IMO You slate other countries constantly (esp. European countries) yet your own arguments are full of contradictions and shifts:rolleyes:

I used to think that you were intelligent, now IMO you will change your argument simply to prove what you percieve as being right.

(I'm very aware that I may be banned for this opinion, but after many changes in this discussion thread I feel I need to have said this).

Why would you be banned? And you weren't around for the many many "let's bash America" threads.

I don't change my opinions. It's just that you are unable to discern from what I would like and what is. I haven't chnaged my arguments either - i have expanded on them. There are many reasons why i support taking out hussein and many ways of going about it.

I have not changed my opinion on war with Iraq at all. I will state what I said in the very beginning. I wouldf prefer not to have an all out war. I would prefer to have Hussein taken out in the cover of dark. Do I think that an all out war is likely - yes I do. WHY? Because most likely he will either hinder the weapons inspectors from doing their job or he will have weapons of mass destruction.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Ok, why would Saddam get rid of the weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? And why is he so reluctant to let them back in?

hmm maybe because the former Yugoslavian states (any war like states) that had conflict with the UN did not have 30% of the worlds oil resources and subsuquentially did not have any sanctions forced upon them..........and no other country in the world has ever had to trade "oil for food"....................gods we give any country aid, willingly, but with Iraq it has to be traded for oil:eek: if we can put food drops on a starving country then why can we not have food and medicine for Iraq?.........probably because most of the cancer suffer's in Iraq are suffering because of "depleted uranium" missiles which were used during the Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox...........and the western world cannot give aid to the suffering we caused............can we:mad:

[jerseydevil]

By the way Osszie - you try debating with 5 people - all of which disagree with you and are practically grilling you. maybe that is also the reason i had a hard time remembering what questions you asked me. There was only so much time to respond to you guys without coming back after finally replying and finding out I had 5 more posts I needed to reply to.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess the war won't be expensive after he uses the weapons then.

You can't honestly believe that the probability of him having them is less than him not having them.

I am not in any way for a war based on the probability of Saddam having WMD. By all reckoning I doubt that he does. The gulf war should have been an indication how poorly resourced Iraq is. However, IF it is proven that he does have WMD, then by all means, finance your blasted war. Until then, I will remain skeptical. Somebody has to. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Khamûl
Ok, why would Saddam get rid of the weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? And why is he so reluctant to let them back in?

He COULD have WMD. He could have something to hide. He could be wary of having his security compromised after last times inspections with CIA on the payroll. It could be any number of reasons. Until we are sure of what he's up to, I don't think we should invade Iraq because of mere speculation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
hmm maybe because the former Yugoslavian states (any war like states) that had conflict with the UN did not have 30% of the worlds oil resources and subsuquentially did not have any sanctions forced upon them..........and no other country in the world has ever had to trade "oil for food"....................gods we give any country aid, willingly, but with Iraq it has to be traded for oil:eek: if we can put food drops on a starving country then why can we not have food and medicine for Iraq?.........probably because most of the cancer suffer's in Iraq are suffering because of "depleted uranium" missiles which were used during the Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox...........and the western world cannot give aid to the suffering we caused............can we:mad:

Milosevic was removed from power. He didn't have to be sanctioned like Iraq. UN imposed these restriction on Iraq.

You mean give aid - - even as Hussein lives in his palaces? The US has been arguing for smart sanctions which would allow more aid to the Iraqi people. But several countries, such as Russia, block this because it would put close the loop holes that allow them to get other things into Iraq.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am not in any way for a war based on the probability of Saddam having WMD. By all reckoning I doubt that he does. The gulf war should have been an indication how poorly resourced Iraq is. However, IF it is proven that he does have WMD, then by all means, finance your blasted war. Until then, I will remain skeptical. Somebody has to. :rolleyes:

Well chances are he does. He's not going to just dismantle his program after he successfully got the world to back off of him and give him free rein for 4 years.


He COULD have WMD. He could have something to hide. He could be wary of having his security compromised after last times inspections with CIA on the payroll. It could be any number of reasons. Until we are sure of what he's up to, I don't think we should invade Iraq because of mere speculation.

Are American arm forces invading Iraq right now? i don't think so. We are waiting for the weapons inspections.

Also - as I've always said - the world is grey not black and white. You have to weigh the probability of things - because nothing is 100%. Unless they pull out a nuclear weapon fully built - it's not 100% that he has nuclear weapons. Even if the inspectors did find a fully working nuclear weapon - people would still accuse the US of planting it.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You mean give aid - - even as Hussein lives in his palaces? The US has been arguing for smart sanctions which would allow more aid to the Iraqi people. But several countries, such as Russia, block this because it would put close the loop holes that allow them to get other things into Iraq.

No I don't mean give aid, once again you are misinterpreting what I say...............there is no "aid" for Iraq there is only "oil for food"............and you have repeatedly said that the impending war is not about oil:rolleyes: ........as I have said priviously did anyone really expect Saddam to provide for his people with the money the UN allowed him to have...............he has spent the last 18 yrs brainwashing his people into beleiving the west was evil, do you really think he would feed, clothe and treat his people with money the west allowed him to have.......................emergency food supplies are daily distributed throughout the third world but would food drops be made in Iraq? No..........we judged that food could only be exchanged for oil:rolleyes: ............ do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well chances are he does. He's not going to just dismantle his program after he successfully got the world to back off of him and give him free rein for 4 years.

Speculation.

JD:
Are American arm forces invading Iraq right now? i don't think so. We are waiting for the weapons inspections.

No. Congress has just set it up to give Bush consecutive powers to invoke war, and a couple of planes have been sent in to take out Iraqi radars. :rolleyes:

JD:
Also - as I've always said - the world is grey not black and white. You have to weigh the probability of things - because nothing is 100%.

You're right. Nothing is 100%. But then, war has never been waged without pretext before.... always a first for everything, I guess. :rolleyes: "He tried to kill my daddy."

It is about self-defence and reaction, NOT offensive and preemptive strikes.

And if we're worrying about threats, then what about Bush revoking the anti-ballistics treaty?

JD:
Even if the inspectors did find a fully working nuclear weapon - people would still accuse the US of planting it.

What utter bollocks.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No I don't mean give aid, once again you are misinterpreting what I say...............there is no "aid" for Iraq there is only "oil for food"............and you have repeatedly said that the impending war is not about oil:rolleyes: ........as I have said priviously did anyone really expect Saddam to provide for his people with the money the UN allowed him to have...............he has spent the last 18 yrs brainwashing his people into beleiving the west was evil, do you really think he would feed, clothe and treat his people with money the west allowed him to have.......................emergency food supplies are daily distributed throughout the third world but would food drops be made in Iraq? No..........we judged that food could only be exchanged for oil:rolleyes: ............ do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq:rolleyes:

And we're supposed to fly over Iraq how? when they even fire at US AND Bristish plains while patrolling the no-fly zone. Do you think he would just let food supplies in from the west?

Also - if as you say - the people have been brainwashed to think the west is evil - why would they even accept our food and medicine?

Were food drops ever suggested? The US did institute that in Afganistan during the bombing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

[osszie]

Once again you ignore my question by trying to divert the subject:rolleyes:

I'll repeat myself for posterity sake:rolleyes:

Do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq? Got that? Good!!

As for airdrops...........if the UN can attack missile launchers and radar bases then they can easily organise escorted food drops:rolleyes: .............. but they don't:rolleyes: ....because there is no oil in it for them:mad:

Food for oil.........phfah!!!!!........wot next food for soil in Ethiopia???????

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No. Congress has just set it up to give Bush consecutive powers to invoke war, and a couple of planes have been sent in to take out Iraqi radars. :rolleyes:

We've been taking out radar for years.


You're right. Nothing is 100%. But then, war has never been waged without pretext before.... always a first for everything, I guess. :rolleyes: "He tried to kill my daddy."

It is about self-defence and reaction, NOT offensive and preemptive strikes.

I didn't like the "he tried to kill my father, after all" statement either.

Come to think of it - Milosevic never really attacked any other countries - so technically I guess we shouldn't have gone into Bosnia. That was preemptive. True he was killing people - but they were his people.


And if we're worrying about threats, then what about Bush revoking the anti-ballistics treaty?


That was a treaty between Russia and the US. We didn't revoke it - we negotiated our way out of it.


What utter bollocks.


Oh yeah - just like the accusations from some muslims that the US blew up the nightclub in Bali. I guess you aren't aware that some people are accusing us of blowing up th nightclub in order to justify going into Indonesia. Not to mention that some people still feel that we blew up the Twin Towers.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
As for airdrops...........if the UN can attack missile launchers and radar bases then they can easily organise escorted food drops:rolleyes: .............. but they don't:rolleyes: ....because there is no oil in it for them:mad:

He has a point there, JD. Now admit it........... you have a woman's bottom! I'll wager that sweet round pair of peaches has never been forced 'twixt two splintered planks, to plug a leak and save a ship! ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Do you still argue that oil is not a common factor in the struggle for Iraq? Got that? Good!!

Yes it is obviously partially for oil. A lot of wars have been fought for the free flow of resources. But the majoity of it I BELIEVE is because of the potential threat that Hussein and Iraq can cause in the future.

As for airdrops...........if the UN can attack missile launchers and radar bases then they can easily organise escorted food drops:rolleyes: .............. but they don't:rolleyes: ....because there is no oil in it for them:mad:

Food for oil.........phfah!!!!!........wot next food for soil in Ethiopia???????
Well then I guess the UN should have done something about it. It is supposed to be a WORLD governing body - and the US is only one member. Any number of countries could have come up with that plan - including any in Europe. New Zealand could have even have suggested it. But as i said - if Iraqis are as brainwashed as you claim - would they have accepted it?