The christs living in Iraq (I'm not talking about people from christian countries living there) are supporting him in a way that they are afraid of what can happen if he's away. I've seen an interview with a monk of a christian monestary in northern Iraq who knows about Kurdish people living in this area were killed by Saddam's chemical weapons and condemns him for this, but on the other hand he knows most likely these people will plunder his monestary when Saddam is away.

If you multiply power * christian fanatism Bush is the person with the highest rating on earth I'd say, but what he does won't really help the christians living in Iraq. If it wasn't so much else, it'd be funny.

Neo Neko, thank you for your cool-headed approach to the discussion this time around. You have some good arguments, and I'd like to comment on a couple of them.


If it was as simple as swapping Saddam Hussein out and putting a new leader in, I'd agree with this sentiment. Except this matter affects many countries now, not just the United States. Neighboring countries are being affected by the military strikes, and if Iraq collapses it will shake up the whole Middle East even more. Other U.N. and NATO countries have business deals with Iraq (ah, the smell of free enterprise!). Plus, I don't even know what the Iraqi people think about all this. And besides, the Bush Administration has made no mention of our prior mistakes with Iraq: their argument is that Saddam (why does everyone refer to him by his first name? Why not "Hussein"?) poses a threat to the United States. If it were simply an issue of non-compliance with a U.N. sanction, wouldn't Bush follow U.N. procedures?


Good point; I think almost everyone here agrees that Saddam should be sent to the moon, or maybe to another galaxy. I wonder if the "absolutely no military action" U.N. members would still hard-line if the U.S. wasn't so go-get'em. As it stands, their being content to sit idle doesn't seem very fitting.


I thought he just had to dispose of his "weapons of mass destruction" (God, I hate that phrase). Right now he's just shooting cream pies at our F-117's.


I'm still unclear on how much the embargos have hurt the Iraqi people. Obviously that wasn't their original intent. But anyway, back to the topic. Did Saddam really have the power and capital to finance a public utilities rebuilding? If so, and he sqandered his money on weapons programs, that's enough to convince me that he's a maniac without regard for his own people. But then again, we were doing something along those lines during the Cold War: didn't Reagan push military spending through the roof while unemployment rates were exceptionally high?


That's certainly another count against Saddam. But that still doesn't link Saddam to Al-Queda, a link that the Bush Administration needs to effectively argue that Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to the U.S. and warrants military action immediatley.


I disagree: the U.S. has a history of imperialist activity, and the government's corporate sponsors push hard for such activity. It only answers to the people when the people know what's really going on.

And many U.S. citizens would probably be happy with the annexing of Iraq, or at least its oil fields. As long as it's purely an under-the-table "annexing", and gas prices go back down (they've gone up 30% in the last month where I live), the people will support it. It really stings when, after dropping a lot of money on a huge new SUV, a full tank of gas costs $50.

Personally, I think diplomacy has failed. Saddam has shown that he won't do what he's told. The embargo has not achieved its goal. Perhaps military action is the only option now. But I still say we shouldn't be bombing Iraq, because I have not heard the administration's plans for rebuilding Iraq to ensure the Iraqi people have a better life after the military strikes. It seems like it's our job to drop the bombs, and everyone else's to clean up after us. But without U.N. support, who will help with the, arguably more difficult, task of rebuilding Iraq?

Welcome to the discussion, tigre.

This gets at the heart of my concern for the military action: will bombing Saddam to smithereens really improve the situation in Iraq? I have not set seen a convincing argument for this, nor have I heard of any coherant plans for rebuilding Iraq. Does someone have a link to a reputable news source that addresses these issues?

According to some reports the US has frozen over a billion $ for use after this ordeal to rebuild.

And yes, Reagan didn't really care what the cost was. But, then again, look at where we are now. Tough call...

What do you expect, they were stupid enough not to live their country, knowing it's gonna be bombed sooner or later.

Anyway you always have the chance to catch one in unexpected time and place as well. There was a site mentioned in this thread (BBC, IIRC) with list of mistargeted bombs during Milosevic removement.

Although Pentagon claims it uses only high-precision ones now, so practice of utilizing overdue arsenal in such campaigns seems to be left behind. They're progressing.

500 000 (40% under 18) during 12 years of embargo.

At least this war should stop that but bombing in 91 killed between 120 000 and 180 000 (according different estimations).

Compared to the $85 billion cost of the destructive phase of the campaign, $1 billion for reconstruction doesn't seem like much. Admittedly, that $85 billion figure I might be mistaken about, because I can't recall the source of it, but I know I saw on the Fox News channel today that we spent $1.5 billion just on the Tomahawk missiles launched during the first day of bombing.

Just saw on Fox, that there are 6 possible Iraqi nationals in the southern US, or northern Mexico (unclear at this time), that may be carrying toxins that are temp sensitive.

If so, there is a flaw in the reporting of deadly agents to the UN, that the leadership of Iraq has been saying they do not have.

Just adding more views/thesis/opinions on the table for all to read and make them think...the next one comes from Michael Moore (visit the site to get to know him)...the following "letter" was written on Monday, March 17, 2003...let's also add that he is not just another prejudiced/antiamerican european citizen pissed off with America:

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

Yours,
Michael Moore[/B]

bluewer than blue-





He is the President. Not the Governor.


EDIT-ADDITIONAL: Mr. Moore Can't even get his rants correct.

And that has what to do with the Iraq War? Nothing, just to reaffirm your anti-American preoccupation. And why exactly do people copy & paste articles within a thread? Is the risk just too great that someone might not click on a simple hyperlink to the article and therefore miss out what the poster thinks is vital reading? It would be annoying to read the forum if everyone was pasting entire articles in their posts.



How about this guy this guy or this guy?



Do you seriously think that way? You can't differenciate between what a terrorist act is and what isn't? Or to you there is no such thing as a terrorist as long as that person does believe in their cause no matter what it is? And if you're going to make numbers up, why not just say "millions" instead of "thousands", it'll sound even more sinister that way.



Listen, they've made it quite clear that they don't care if Saddam breaks UN resolutions. They won't even acknowledge it, they can't. They don't care about wars that don't involve the US. And they don't care about those civilians being killed or how that war is waged or if it's UN sanctioned (Chechnya anyone?). They don't care about France's policies of regime changes, propping up and bolstering tyrant dictators, and other miscelanious meddling throughout Africa (which indirectly enabled genocide) who are now all the sudden in this case pretending to be saints. Ditto for Belgium. Apprently they had/have the UN approval for all their escapades being that they're so concerned about upholding only the highest values of the UN. Germany...German companies were listed in Iraq's recent weapons reports to the UN as providing material that Iraq should not have been receiving. And it wasn't just a few companies, try around 100. Yeah, they ignored UN sanctions (huh, staunch UN supporters breaking UN sanctions?). You can say the Iraqis were lying, but then you'd have to assume they're also lying about not having WMD which doesn't work well if your goal is to protect the Hussein regime and protect you business interests in the regime. Not that I didn't already know it, but it's becoming clear that all this fuss has little to do with the upholding the supposed virtues of the UN and has everything to do with anti-Americanism. Am I wrong, and if so, how do you justify your double standard? If you're wondering who "they" or "your" is, then it doesn't mean you.

ChS...funny...last time I checked it was Dibrom who was paying for the space of this excellent forum and he is in charge to decide what is appropriate and what is not. If you think that 3-4Kb more are that much trouble, please go ahead and demand for those posts to get deleted and save you from the need to read them.

But I have the feeling that you don't like those articles because they speak about "wrongs" and "problems" in US way of thinking. Maybe you just can't tolerate a different view. And I truly disagree that Brian Eno's comments have nothing to do with this war. It's obvious that the article has much to do with it...



I'm sure that it was intentional. Maybe he doesn't acknowledge the presidential status of Bush.

But even if he made a mistake (although I doubt it), let's not forget that Bush managed to become a president even if he faces much more rhetorical problems

Then go live somewhere else that is more appealing. Maybe Iraq?

This thread moves very fast, so it's impossible to answer every statement I think I have to say something to. Anyway, I want to add some thoughts:

- To understand what's happening I recommend everyone to read a (scientific) book about islam and maybe refresh history knowledge (particularly about western hemisphere) from the crucades until today.

- It took at least 300 years (from start of modern age philosophy) for Occident to get free enough from religious ideologies to stop waging war because of it (talking about majority, some still do or pretend to do). As Nazi Germany shows even the absence of religious ideology is no warranty against any harmful ideology.

- Compare this to vast majority of countries with a majority of islamic people!

- Some helpful facts about this (no offense against any religion intended):
(Most) christs believe that the bible is a collection of storys about faithful and other people - you can get ideas about what you shall do and what not from interpreting these stories. The Koran on the other hand is believed to be what God was saying to Muhammad literally which was true then, has been true and will be true - One detail of it that makes things complicated is that there's no compatibility between being a Muslim and separating religion and government.

- What is ideology (no matter if religious or other) good for? It gives a system stability by hiding internal problems behind bigger common ones. It gives the single person a meaning, a reason to live, a goal and causes it to be a working part of society. It ensures that the power in a society stays where it is or that it even accumulates.

- Is the western society as enlightened as it seems to be? No more dangerous ideologies? I don't think so. Have a look at USA for example: How comes that the majority gets poorer but the upper 1% (or 0.1%) get more and more money and power? Reminds me of Rome 2000 years ago and later...

- Looking at long terms a big problem about the situation now is this: No matter how noble (or not) George W.'s reasons are to wager this war, some (especially arabic nations and/or islamic people) will understand it like this (combinations possible):
a. USA needs oil, much oil and cheap oil. Everyone who threatens this need is threatened by death.
b. USA doesn't care about what other nations think what they're doing, so every nation has to protect itself (however this might look like).
c. If a president of the USA wants to be elected again and has too much trouble at home, he'll find a reason to wager war against a country to make his own people elect him.
d. <put your own idea here ...>
e. <ok, you have another one ...> ...

- So countries that feel threatened will try to protect themselfes by combinations of
a. buying weapons (trying to prevent this will cause increasing prices, but with oil you can pay every price, if you feel you need this weapons)
b. make pacts with each other
c. take a hostage (=e.g. threaten israel)
d. terrorism
e. ...

- So even if you're not talking about the people killed, this war will create trouble that is nothing compared to what it has been like before. Trying to handle this trouble will most likely create new bigger trouble. Running out of oil will stop it but maybe it's too late then.

- What's needed IMO: The war has begun, so the security that UN can protect countries from the USA is gone. "Good" countries/governments don't have to be afraid - but if the "bad" ones feel insecure now and buy weapons, train terrorists, ... with every $ they have because of this, you could say the UN, even if doing nothing in case of Mr. Hussein, helped to prevent armor as it will happen now. So to get confidence in international community again, the power of the UN has to be restored, maybe with new rules.
The other thing that's needed is secularization in islamic countries which can be only achieved by education=fighting against ignorance. This won't work with brute force (maybe for a single country like Iraq as it had been done after WWII in Germany) but by offering help in a honest way.
Blah ... I think I'm just watching too much Star Trek Next Generation.

[quote=Neo Neko,Mar 22 2003 - 11:06 AM] Personally Brian Eno can think what he wants. Personally his oppinion is not touted very highly. Perhaps it is all time you actually listened to what others are saying and you can understand a few very important things. [/quote]
At least Mr. Eno does take the risk to express have his personal opinion, while too many people in the U.S seem to derivate theirs from the official government's opportunistic position.

[quote]I was not "bashing" anyone because of their disagreement. Nor was I "bashing" anyone in particular.[/quote]
Well, I was talking about you calling people "ignorant" just because their opinion differs from yours.
From their side, they could easily say that people with dogmas such as "you're either with US or with THEM" don't show much maturity and a broad angle of view either.

[quote][quote=NumLOCK,Mar 22 2003 - 03:45 AM]- movies that U.S government doesn't like, are censored in the U.S homeland[/quote]

That goes for any country. Don't you think we know not to unquestioningly trust the national media? You did not get the oppinion we did from your national media did you? Did Mr. Eno?[/quote]
No, don't worry, I haven't got my opinion from the national medias. The only way is to understand several languages, so you can imagine yourself being in the various countries, and experiencing the various difficulties and sentiments about this war.

The important thing is to focus on: 1 - history, 2 - what you know, 3 - the events. If you listen too much to the medias' (any media !) interpretation of all that, you can't be anything but biased.

A war is a process, not a movie.

[quote][quote=NumLOCK,Mar 22 2003 - 03:45 AM]- Saddam Hussein was brought to power by the U.S[/quote]

Nope. America did give him weapons to fight with Iran for taking American hostages.(Big mistake yes.) Guess what. He was already in power.[/quote]
Ok, ok, well... let's say "he was powered" instead of "brought to power". If you like to play on words..
I personally don't see much difference in the underlying U.S policy on this.

[quote][quote=NumLOCK,Mar 22 2003 - 03:45 AM]- Ousama Bin Laden was trained and brought to power by the U.S[/quote]

Again wrong. America did work with Ousama Bin Laden to fight against the Russians. They did provide weapons and munitions so they would not be throwing stones against AK-47s. [...] He has the money to buy all sorts of weapons and munitions. Even had the US not left weapons there how confident are you that Ousama would have never got them any way and we would not be in the same situation we are in today?[/quote]
Whatever. What matters, and remains - unarguably - is the result: Ousama Bin Laden was helped by the U.S, and used to their advantage. The result was 9/11.

[quote][quote=NumLOCK,Mar 22 2003 - 03:45 AM]Does this sound right to you ?[/quote]

Not even close.[/quote]
Well, what can I say ? Just open a good history book on middle east (no offense !), and read a bit about the effects on the U.S's foreign attitude. Then you'll see.

[quote]Nope. Because they are not facts. There are bits of facts in there. But it is packed in with copious ammounts of chaff. And here comes the most important part for me. Of all those so called facts only one has any close relation to the topic at hand for now. Ousama asside. Saddam has done more than enough on his own to warrant this.[/quote]
Ousama aside, Saddam has done more than enough on his own to warrant HIS death. Not the death of thousands Irakians under the bombs, mind you.

[quote][quote=NumLOCK,Mar 22 2003 - 03:45 AM]Many dictators were put in place, as a part of the US's foreign policy.[/quote]

I am not saying that the US has not facilitated some in the past. After all there are benevolent and not so benevolent dictators. But I am quite interesed to see the list you attribute. I am not so sure that I would not see Hitler on there. But I am sure it would be a fun if not slightly fabricated read.[/quote]
Hitler ? At first I wanted to say "Fuck you" but right after, I realized, you bring an extreme cases, in order to focus someone on this very matter - an thus protect/hide your lack of arguments.

No, Hitler's enpowerment had little to do with the U.S, but (pun intended here), had been any oil involved, it would have been perfectly likely - even though Americans are used to spread havoc in the Middle East, and not in Western Europe.

Just so you know: Hitler's start-up capital was provided - as expected - by both Europe and (to a lesser part) the USA.

Dictators put in place by the U.S: Noriega, communist China, Pinochet (in part), Saddam (financially), etc etc !

For your information, here's a few of the worst past or present dictators, who have always been friends with the U.S:

General Sani Abacha (Nigeria), Colonel Hugo Banzer (Bolivia), Idi Amin (Uganda), P.W Botha (S. Africa), General Humberto Branco (Brazil), Chiang Kai-Shek (Taiwan), Ngo Dihn Diem (Vietnam), General Francisco Franco (Spain), Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire), Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi (Iran), General Suharto (Indonesia), General Jorge Rafael Videla (Argentina), and so on !

[quote]I am not claiming conspiracy theory. But a very warped sense of events is not out of the question. I am not saying what the US has done is always good like the national media would have you believe.[/quote]
That's the least I can hope !

[quote]But for all accounts I may as well have because it looks as if much of the data you are claiming has an equaly nationalistic spin.[/quote]
Well, it may look so to you, but look at my flag, I'm afraid I'm in a pretty neutral (with all the good and bad things this will imply) land. I'm not saying I don't see biasing here (there's lots of it) - but I think the worst case is U.S, very frankly.

[quote]I want to see your argument to this.

1. America did give Saddam weapons. I find it fitting that America go in and rectify that mistake no matter how belated it is.[/quote]
No problem. Let's kill Saddam without hurting the people that don't deserve it. I mean discrete and efficient operation, like most developed Northern countries are now capable of. Not war. No bombs.

[quote]2. Saddam violated UN sanctions and resolutions repeatedly over the last 12+ years. Sanctions and resolutions which Sadam was told there would be consequences to if he did not comply. So why has the harshest consequence the UN has dished out been no consequences and more resolutions with no teeth.[/quote]
Well, I regret it also, the UN was created with very idealistic ideas in mind, but no real power (except the pressions between the supporting members of the UN). It's true that something had to be done, but I think in this case, just taking out the top commanding officers would have been plenty enough. Just look at all the surrending soldiers.

I agree that the UN's inability to act in such static cases (=nothing changed in 12 years) is pathetic.

[quote]3. Saddam is actually firing weapons he does not have at us and Saudi Arabia?[/quote]
Weapons he does not have ? What a stupid sentence - he hasn't yet fired ANY of the long-distance missiles which he's supposed to hide. (btw I'm not claiming he doesn't have them !!)

Anyway, I find it pretty unsurprising that he's firing weapons back at enemy soldiers. What do you think are American soldiers dropping in Bagdad ? huh ?

About weapons, I find it pretty ridiculous that G.W.Bush claimed Saddam was a threat for U.S in-land security ! I mean, what about China ? South Korea ? I think Irak was the least dangerous offender, they knew they'd get annihilated at once if they tried to fire anything in the direction of U.S.

[quote]4. As a consequence to Saddam remaining in power there were restrictions and embargos placed on Iraq by the UN and the US. That's right. The UN is partly to blame for the poor living conditions over there. The US is not sole heir to that blame.[/quote]
Yes, the U.N is partly to blame for the senseless embargo to Irak. Before all, this deprives the people from living normally.

However... the (very arguable) need for an embargo is a consequence of Saddam bringing HUGE benefit from the oil.. and I wonder who buys the most oil in the world ?!? It's this kind of hypocrisy (not blaming you more than any other American) that disgusts me the most.

[quote]5. Saddam does support terrorism. He pays very large sums of money to the families of those who commit terrorism at the very least.[/quote]
Saddam indeed supports many bad things, like prostitution and terrorism - but don't you support him by buying millions of gallons of oil PER DAY ?

Remember, every time you take your car and go to Wal-Mart to buy donuts, you pay some money to guys who are just like Saddam ! Big bad Middle-East people.. very terrorists and very dangerous. Blah !

No seriously.. You think there's no drawback when you have the price of petrol that's 1/5 those in other countries ? How do you think the government has done to lower the prices so much ? YOU Tell me..

Why you say that?

There are many among the american people who do think that Bush became president through some "dirty" work at Florida (and not only). They don't really feel that this president represents them at all and personally I find it perfectly understandable...should they leave the country just because of this?



Not that it would surprise me at all if that's true (and I actually would bet that it is according to chances), but is there any real proof of that? Still though, even CIA admitted that he has nothing to do with Laden as far as I know...

Nothing to do with him? That's only half the truth. There have actually been clashes between Al Qaeda and Iraq / Pres. Hussein.

Eeh, there's a very big difference there. Saddam was from his childhood practically poised to become the leader, as he was greatly influenced and "trained" by his uncle. If you read Saddam's bio in any sources, it's clear that he's a person who wanted to be the dictator, who was certain that he was supposed to be the "ruler of Mesopotamia", and was willing to do anything in order to achieve that. And that he indeed did. It's pretty clear that whether USA had "supported" him or not, he would still be the leader of Iraq, so imo these arguments that "USA brought Saddam to power" or anything like that aren't valid at all. In reality Saddam put himself to power, not USA.

It's funny to read these opinions, that just because USA was at some point supporting (there are many levels of support) Iraq or even Osama bin Laden, that somehow USA itself is responsible about everything what Saddam or Osama have done. This is very naive and way too simplistic thinking imo. Not to mention the world situation and governments were totally different during the cold war era than now....

This was reported vastly over a year ago, but I remember it was then regarded pretty much as a fact, and that Saddam himself admitted it.

Here are few news about it:
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;...storyID=2424659
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=saddam...uicide+payments

Well, you should know that a dictator in a row material provider country is very interesting for industrial countries. Thanks a dictator, industrial countries can easily bribe one individual (the dictator) and control the price of the resources of that country.
So, I think we are part of a lot of dictatorship in the world and I’m quite sure there would be fewer dictators in the world without our complicity.

Saddam didn't help Ben Laden but he supported Palestinian families involved in terrorist’s acts... like a lot of middle-east countries...

So nothing weird in that..???

How do you know that? Of course this could be only propaganda but it has been widely reported that Iraq indeed has used scuds during the first days of war.
http://www.news-register.net/edit/story/03...202003_edt2.asp
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=scud

Or he will get the tree shredder!
No offense, buddy, but really, this has to be one of the dumbest posts in this thread. He should leave the country, at once (and go to Iraq?! Are there no in-betweens?) if he dares to disagree with The Almighty Cowboy. With it, you have put yourself in the side of Saddam-like dictators. Isn't yours supposed to be the free-est country on earth? Where even the fries are free?
I don't remember if it was you also the one who urged the Dixie Chicks to leave for Iraq. If it was you, then you have used the "if you are not with us, you are against us" argument twice. Zealotry?
Really, I think that no one can regard the election which placed him in office as "transparent" (to use a HA term).
Really bad argument, try again.

Scuds miracously shot down or misguided so that there's no damage that can prove their existance?
I could be wrong (<-- read again, please!) but sounds like propaganda to me.
Shouldn't Saddam be using the WMDs he HAS (as Bush said), already?
What's he waiting for?
Or maybe there were no WMDs?

According to the New York Times, these are not Scud missiles, but Ababil-100 missiles. Some of these seem to have exceeded the 90 mile range limit set by the UN.

It's pretty much ungrateful job to speak of history in conjunctive mood. In fact US left no possibility to see what it would be like without its surgical impacts.

Besides, if you take actions, you get consequences. If you act on international arena as a major player and don't take the responsibility, it's another talk.

If it was so clear, what's the point in supporting him initially and delaying his removement later? Besides, I don't believe US has no means or experience in doing this w/o bombardment.

Now think if someone supports either of them these days. I don't think anyone dares.
It's pretty much diffused opinion that you can't support terrorists in any form at any stage, whatever your goals were. I know it sounds pretty much like maximalist' talk, but I bet Bush could sign to these very words.

If bin Laden wasn't terrorist when US supported him, and got converted later, it's yet another talk again.

It could be propaganda, but I don't find it so "miraculous" if the missiles were shot down by PAC-3... Nor I don't find it very unlikely that Iraq indeed would have some scuds hidden, which they used. Well, at least we know that Iraq didn't destroy all the other missiles which were forbidden by UN because of their too long effective usage distance.

I think the point was to support Iraq so that Iran or some other Arab state of the Gulf/Middle East area wouldn't alone become too powerful, which would then create instability to that area. Same thing in Afganistan. USA supported groups in Afganistan (Taliban, Bin Laden) which fought against USSR invaders, so that USSR controlled area wouldn't further increase.
Of course different USA administrations have a bit different foreign policy. Bush older didn't want to continue to Baghdad, because he believed that Iraqi people would "handle" Saddam themselves. Clinton had clearly less agressive foreign policy than what George W now has. I'm quite sure that if Gore had won the US presidency, the situation now would be quite different. So it's weird to think that USA would have somekind of similar continuous foreign policy all the time, thus saying that "why USA does X now when Y wasn't done way earlier" is just naive imo. USA foreign policy changes everytime more or less depending who is in power and depending what happens in the world.

Dumb? Now you have to attack my opinions about what I think Mr. Moore could do? Just a suggestion, too, by the way. Talk about ridiculous, 'I live here, but I don't acknowldege the Presidential status of Bush'. This is supposed to be coming from the mouth, or mind, of an adult. Sort of like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you'. Which, judging from the bashing of anyone here who displays an American flag, is quite common worldwide.

And WTF does fries have to do with this thread? Now you sound like an imbecillic moron bringing something this tepid to a debate. Talk about zealotry. You're only in it for the sake of an arguement.

And I wrote nothing about T.D.Chicks.

Friend sent me a link to an article by the United Press International. Not sure how reliable/accurate it is since I have never heard of this organization or whatever it is, but there is a quote that is quite interesting:



Maybe it might change some people's minds, maybe it won't. Quite interesting.

No doubt some iraqis hate Saddam, but I think we have to wait till the end of the war to really hear what's their most common opinion about Saddam and the war.

I find it ridiculous that even if Iraq has missles exceeding the UN limit, that its somehow a threat to the US. These things have so little range they can barely make it to the border, let alone do any real damage when they get there. They can obviously make it to Israel, but the Israelis have their own military; let them deal with it if they are frightened of the Scuds.

Nations that have proven they actually have weapons of 'mass destruction' that could be a threat to everyone: Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, most of Europe, Russia, Israel, and of course USA. Iraq's 90-mile Scuds, even if they are loaded with chemical weapons, are nothing compared to the arsenals of these nations, many of which are nearly as unstable as Iraq.

I'm sure it will be the US opinion



Well it sure looks like they needed them.

Soon will come the day when another country will come along & "fix", "free" the US. Last time we had a country try to make the world "live the right way" was WW2

Umm.. you only need one cessna or even unmanned plane to spread BCs very effectively. Or you could attack water systems or crowded areas (Metro station,airport etc.). There's really no need to have long distance missiles in order to use chems, although it makes things easier.
And as everybody knows, Saddam has used chems more than once.

1) We'll see. I'm sure there are journalists worldwide who will cover this.

2) They said they didn't have them. ? ? ? Part of a UN agreement IIRC.

3) What?

The point was that people are using the scuds are 'evidence' that saddam needs to be disarmed, when they are basically useless in attacking the USA, filled with chems or not. Sure, Saddam could have someone fly a plane over the USA dropping chems, but the risk of that is hardly diminished by invading Iraq. It will just be someone other than Saddam ordering the drop.

Hey floyd-

You just don't get it, do you? Iraq swore up and down that they didn't have any of these things. Well, what is this? For crying out loud, they had 12+ years to conform to UN sanctions and thumbed their noses at everyone.

Useless or not, this is so contradictory to what has been said, it makes me sigh. Do you get it yet? Do you still think that this should be allowed any time a sanction against a nation has been agreed upon? You have just fueled the fire that the UN is a toothless entity.

Heh, how about US moving toward world domination (or at least owning the right to pick up the right guys and remove the wrong ones). I believe such state matches 'too powerful' definition and not only in some region but worldwide.

As for stability, it certainly didn't achieve its goal.
Is there really no other way of eliminating possible future threat but by creating another one?

There was such mindless soviet slogan: 'the goal justifies the means'. I have such impression US had followed it literally.


What administration bases its politic on beliefs? I mean after spending pretty much money on war, leave it to Iraqi people to do the rest? Believe that they will justify such investments without external guidance?

It could be right with casual current issues, but not with longlasting strategic interest in the region, IMO.

You can't have it both ways: either, as bush says, Iraq represents a clear danger to the USA, or it doesn't. Currently there is no evidence it does; certainly these missles aren't evidence.

If you want to go the UN route, complaining that Iraq broke resolutions, this is laughable because USA has dismissed the UN authority itself.

Personally it only seems reasonable to assume Iraq would have some missles left; pretty unfair to have to destroy all of the missles so you have nothing left to defend yourself with when the inevitable (and yes, it was inevitable, regardless of the UN resolutions) attack from the USA comes.

Even with the missles, the whole war is like a little kid with a pointy stick vs. an adult with a rocket launcher.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysi...heck030317.html

Just an excerpt:


A search on Google will reveal many articles on the very same.

NOTE: Flaming me will be pointless as I have not presented an argument or opinion, but only a link with possibly useful information. Enjoy.

I think there was restrictions placed on the USA by the UN that said no, you can not go into Baghdad. Have not searched, but trying to recall from memory.

Well, lets say that he hoped that they would take out Saddam. Obviously Bush senior wasn't ready for an urban battle on the streets of Baghdad, in order to get Saddam out of power.

Well, USA has longlasting strategic goals in the region (mainly to maintain stability, secure USA's oil income and prevent threats like the use/manufacturing/selling of NBCs), but the means to achieve the goals are different depending on the USA administration.
The Bush administration now accepts means defined in the doctrine by the current US deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, which makes pre-emptive strikes/war against "US enemies" possible.

floyd-

We should go fishing together sometime. We seem to have an opinion that would rival any tale, anywhere.

PS - I do like your view on this. B)

To friend JohnV and others who wonder how the Iraqi people really feel about Saddam: I work for a Christian organization that has partners in the Middle East (Arab Christians) which have been doing work in Iraq for many years. They have for years consistently reported how Saddam is hated by the population there. His regime is evil and the reports you've read about what he does to his own people are true. Some of the families our partners have helped have not had access to medicines for 10 years. He imprisons people for saying virtually anything that is even slightly critical.

I have a family member on the frontlines right now. He and the other troops there believe in what they are doing.

What's important now is the commitment the world makes to relief efforts in Iraq after the war.

Not sure if this link has been given before...but has the recent history of Iraq (and Saddam). Excellent page.

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm

If any of you folks still think the US is wrong after reading it thoroughly, then I would suggest that you...

Put in your earplugs,
Put on your eyeshades,
You know where to put the cork!

xen-uno

No, we don't bash anyone with an American flag. That, again, is your mind playing it's little "if they are not with me, they are against me" tricks on you. Look for example at SometimesWarrior, he hasn't been bashed yet.
You are likely to get strong "opposition" to your posts if you start posting stuff such as your Michael Moore "suggestion".

I am, of course, as you are concerned, only in it for a good argument. You seem unwilling to accept anything but your views. Yet. Maybe, as JohnV wrote your opinions will not stand the test of time. It's happening already: What, no chemical weapons???

So maybe, there wasn't a real threat (I do acknowledge that this is not over yet, but things are unlikely to change). Don't worry, Dubya will find you another country to direct your hatred to.

Oh, and about those Dixie Chicks, my mistake. It just sounded like you.

Careful, dude. I am Mexican. My people are in your country, in your military (10% last time I cheched), our economies, cultures and goverments are so closelly bounded together that we are just beginning to understand it. Whatever happens to you, whatever your fate is, it will surely be ours too. We have no business in Iraq, we have business in Ametica. We are your friends. And you would expect a friend to tell you when you feel he is taking a wrong turn, right?
Going into this war alone, in such a hurry, without the REAL support from those nations that matter (not the 30-50 you have managed to round up), without no clear and present danger to you is risky to say the least. And could be dreadful to a lot of people. Americans included.
That's the whole deal. The world, the UN security council, your friends tried to talk you people out of this. For your own good. Have you thought what this war will do to your economy?
We, at least in Mexico, don't hate you. Our nations have helped each other far more than a lot of nations have/will. We don't support Saddam or any of your "enemies". We support you, just no when the issue is this shady. And I personally wish this whole nonsense ends quickly and painlessly to everybody.

NOTE: Due to not-so-good connection, the post I quoted ended up just below this one. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am not really a mind reader

Quick note to you. Actually I could ream you to hell and back and it would not be pointless. Presenting a blatant article based on speculation, oppinion, and quite possibly sattire. And not stating your position implies that you agree with it whole heartedly and take that oppinion as your own. As such you are highly liable for what is expressed in it. Having said that it is quite clear that the article is pure speculation and oppinion.(Yeah I already had read it a while back.) As such I have no desire to make you look sillier than you have yourself at this point.

Like I said I don't care if dubbya is a closet meglomaniac. Should he persue a course of action to that effect he will A) definatly not be re-elected and B) Likely be impeached so fast his head will spin. To put it in terms dubbya would understand. That dog don't hunt. The people do not want an empire. The people do not want colonies. The people want to reduce human suffering. The people want to reduce terrorism.

Do you want to know something I find real ironic? Ok not so much ironic as hypocritical or even funny. Most of you condemming the US and their actions live in nearly ratially or ethnicly pure areas. Tiny homegenous nation states. Your answer is shutting yourself off from the world. Because after all why should you care about someone in another country. They are not you or your people after all. Your people are in your country and that is as far as you concern yourself. We have a fairly unique situation here in America. I would hazard a well based guess that every nation on the earth has representatives among our population and citizens. Iraqis are American. Americans are Iraqi. We can't pull such closed minded ignorant stunts as shutting ourselves off from the world and calling ourselves neautral. Americans have fathers, mothers, sons ,daughters, aunts, uncles, and cousins in Iraq. And I am not talking about US soldiers but Iraqi citizens. Go on and tell us we have no business in Iraq or any where else. Because even if you are a total ass, if you are ever in trouble; you can bet there will be an American who will be there for you and want to help you out. Whether they came from your country or not. Because Americans are not ratially or ethnicly myopic. Can your country say that? I wish they could but I think not. Note that I am not saying that ethnicly or ratially pure countries are evil. There are many factors that could facilitate such things outside evil ratial or ethnic hate.

Yeah, Americans are imperialist pig wannabes. Many of them give money and resources daily to children and people in third world countries or disaster areas with no goals for compensation other than the smiles of happy people. Man that's just sick now isn't it?

Yes America is the worlds biggest consumer of oil and related products. But our situation is much different from yours. 1. Our population in general is much larger than almost everyone else. 2. Even if everyone relied totally on mass transit we would still use more oil. 3. On top of having more people Americans do and have to travel more. It's a fact. Bigger countries have bigger distances to cross. But here is another one of those funny, ironic, hypocritical things on your part. For all the oil we use. As a whole the total percentage of oil we use from the middle east in comparrison to european countries is much less. Many europen countries are almost 100% dependant. I myself only frequent stations who specialise in oil derived products supplied by fields in the US, Alaska, and the gulf of Mexico. And I am not alone. And it is not a hard thing to find. Many stations relying largely on middle east oil are suffering for business. While those who do not see an increase. Another funny, ironic, hypocritical thing on your part. Even though the United States uses the most oil in the world we also have put the most money in to natural resources and alternate power sources. Oil is a factor in the war. But if it is the basis for your hatred you have built your arguments on sand. Many people are more concerned that Saddam will set the oil fields alight as he has done in the past and pollute the environment for everyone and especially the people in the area. More so than the current price of gas.

There! A post that completely dances around the crux of the argument just like most of the foriegn posters. Yet perhaps I have made you feal in some way inadequate and given you pause to think about your inadeqacies as a nation and people. Not fun when the tables are turned is it? I would ask that everyone focus on the core topic. But that is just not in the best interests for many of you. I know America is neither holy nor above reproach. But the real important thing to remeber is that neither are YOU.

_____________________________________________________________________
Oh BTW this argument is not aimed specifically at VLSI. He just happend to get the unlucky draw. VLSI perhaps it would have been better for your ego had I simply flamed you. Sorry I could not live up to your expectations. This is however largely aimed at bluewer than blue, ak, NumLOCK, and the rest who know who they are. If you are upset because your nick did not make it here let me know and I will pencil you in.

@John V
Sorry for our missunderstandings in the past. Even without what is posted here.

Peace! I'm out!