The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?Yeah I know, But we shouldn't dance around the subject. If we were all in the pub at the moment, what would we be talking about? So, I thought I'd open the discussion [i](just in case some of you didn't post because you were worried about being accused of being a troll!).[/i] We may be into sci fi, but we also care about stuff! My thoughts are: [list][b]War bad[/b] (but justified).
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by A-DM on Sun, 23/03/2003 - 08:55.
My thoughts have remained the same since Saddam reared his fat ugly head again, and that is that war was inevitable.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by Bekka on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 11:16.
Im actually offened that you would acuse anti-war protesters of being cowards and suporting Sadam i didnt protest myself but i dont suport the war at all. I think sadam should/must die but this is the wrong way to go about it. Im sure there have been assasination atempts before but it was still a vable option. there is no way that the bombings will help matters, if sadam hasent fled the country long before now he will have once the bombing started. you have to remeber that this guy has at least 9 bodydoubles (he claims that there not alowed to talk but do you trust him) even if sadam is killed in the war whats to stop his suporters and family using a bodydouble and staying hes alive and keeping power. We would have to kill everyone that has worked for hussains government in anyway, all his family and anyone that looks like him to be compeatley certain he is dead and that iraq can be converted to our ways. The war will not work because there are to many obstcals and when we give up we will go back to being hated by everyone around the world for all the inocent civilan deaths.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by SadGeezer on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 13:06.
What bothers me about it all, is that this war wont fix the miss- understandings or breed compassion. It'll cause us to get all defensive. I thought I was fairly open-minded about the whole situation, I could see both sides and although A-DM is maybe too outspoken for my tastes, a ruthless dictator who murders so many people just shouldn't be allowed to get away with it! BUT, the US and UK and some of the other allies are really going to get it in the neck for this! Many Arab people who hate Saddam will no doubt rally around him because the allies (non-Arabs) are seen by most as the invader. No matter how much they tell everyone that they are not after the oil, or that they are not invaders, but liberators - non-Arabs (and I know I'm speaking too generally here) won't believe it. Whichever side we're on, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place with this. Leaving Saddam to continue with his atrocities and support terrorism and mass killing is a terrible solution. But war could be worse - it's thought by many (including me) to be the last resort of the foolish. I think everyone now preys for a swift conclusion before a peaceful resolution - not of the war, but the aftermath - can be sought. That will be the real test for all of us, because if it continues, there will just be more and more conflict. I guess that's what I'm most concerned about.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by fluffy bunny on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 15:26.
Am going to copy and paste what I typed in another forum for this post- will reply to the rest later - apologies if a tad disjointed : ____________________________________ Mar 18th, 2003, 9:18pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The biggest crime people are guilty of is standing by and doing nothing despite the injustices they see every minute of every waking day. As to the UN issue- the idea was so countries could get together and talk things over between themselves. A problem with the old League of Nations was that it had no army, or a way of enforcing its own rules- it relied on goodwill between its member states. In the end the bigger members of the League did what they wanted anyway. The UN is not too different. It could be years before a resolution is passed- can we afford to wait? Apparently our intelligence says no. Mar 19th, 2003, 6:20pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe a twarted attempt (then again maybe not)- may be part of the reason we are backing America so passionately at this moment in time. Could be a knee jerk reaction, and a policy of better not dismiss evidence that doesn't definitly link Iqaq with terrorism, but has a 60-70% risk instead of 100% risk desired by other nations before a resolution is passed. ___________________________________________________ Mar 20th, 2003, 9:23pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vietnam was fought against a supposedly inferior opponent equipment wise Don't take quick victory for granted. They've had over 10 years to prepare - the americans are probably not the only ones to have learnt from the last war Mar 21st, 2003, 10:31pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, they'll find WMD when they win the war (whether it's Iraqi or some surplus weapons planted by Coalition forces will be up for debate). Heck if I was responsible for a war and couldn't find anything, I'd plant them whether a politician or a military man. On the other hand if I were French/German/anit-militant action, to save face, I'd spread rumours about WMDs being planted even if the Iraqis had them. The political fallout from this war's looking to be quite big Forgive me for being cynical, but as you said, the first casualty of war is truth. Let me also add, history is written bt the victors __________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by fluffy bunny on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 15:44.
My thoughts have remained the same since Saddam reared his fat ugly head again, and that is that war was inevitable.
"The anti-war brigade, as far as I'm concerned are all misguided cowards, for the best part they are not concerned about stopping war, they are more concerned in showing their anti-americanism."
Think you're taking liberties here "People forget that his world is nothing like ours, he only answers to Allah, while we try diplomacy to resolve the issue, diplomacy is not part of that world, you need be a democratic state for it to exist, his is a tyranny...diplomacy and humanatarian ideals aren't part of his world."
Again - making assumptions- both on religion (which many people would take offence at- most muslims are peaceful) and about the man. Where'd the assumption that all muslims are fanatics come from? Do you believe everything the media tell you? "As for France, that country has no gratitude for the help it has received in the past, and I hope that if trouble reaches their borders again that they are left to deal with it by themselves, they deserve as much for their cowardly behaviour.
France and these anti-war protesters are made up of anti-americans, extremists and a large bulk of pro-Saddam supporters, they have no voice and no idea, they are all cowards."
On the contrary, a lot of people are reluctant to go to war- it isn't a game - many people need evidence before being prepared to inflict a terrible thing on another country, rather than just taking another person's (who may have ulterior motives or may have recieved false intelligence) word for it. I'd like to reassure our friends in the US that the people in the UK support your cause, of course we have a large number of idiots who don't
Since when is it idiocy to think for yourself and wish to weigh up the facts presented to you? I'd argue it's stupid not to do so. To those that oppose this opinion, to them I say 'look at the end goal', forget your prejudices and your hatred, look at the root cause for this trouble (Saddam) and nothing else, can you honestly believe that this one man will do what you'd like him do?, do you really think that he won't kill you and your families just because you believe in peace?, he hates all of us and once he has the capabilty do you think he will stop too listen to your cries then, he will have the power too kill in the masses and would be ready to use it, how are you going to stop him then...because more demonstrations or more diplomacy will not stop him.
ADM
our troubles stem from the individual terrorist cells operating in our respective countries. Instead of targetting these (which is extremely difficult), we go for the static target, who couldn't do as much damage. And if that's the case, it'd be countries such as Iran and Algeria we'd be going after for setting up these cells (and if you want to get pedantic, in the cold war it was CIA which taught them how to do it). Evidence rather than libel please.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by Aleck on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 17:12.
Great post, there, fluffy bunny. *applauds*
Okay, LISTEN UP!! :)
Submitted by LexxLurker on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 19:36.
Ok, here's the skinny. Our world is at a crossroads. Throughout history many governments have called themselves Republic and Democratic. All of these, ALL OF THEM, are now called Empires. There is no escaping this fact. In the United States we refer to Glorious Age of the United Kingdom as the British Empire. The Romans? A Republic more often than a despotic Emperor, yet it will forever be known as the Roman Empire. A thousand years from now, regardless of what happens, the United States will one day be known as the American Empire. Many of you will read and doubt this, but we are not the authors of history. As for this particular conflict? Many claim "Oil for Blood" yet don't realize this is the most ignorant arguement at all. The United States REFUSES to drill in most of Alaska. The Oil output of Alaska dwarfs the output of Iraq, yet at this point in time, long before Iraq, our government agree'd it was cheaper to buy oil than to drill it and deal with environmental issues. Does this sound like a country desperate for oil? I could write pages and pages on this subject, but believe me, oil is the last thing on our minds. What IS on Bush's mind??? I don't like this President. He is weak, and his policy is vague. But his decision to attack Iraq was not only justifiable, but necessity. Look at the coalition. A group of 30+ nobody countries sprinkled with our brother allies like the UK, and Australia. Other than that its a whos whos of nobodies. Or is it? These countries in our coalition stand at a crossroads between becoming an Iraq, a North Korea, or becoming democratic, and joining the modern world of freedom. We are setting an example that NO country will be allowed to hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Does Iraq have these weapons? No probably not, but North Korea does. And now they hold Japan and South Korea hostage. One day North Korea will nuke someone. It's not a question of if, just when. And when this happens the world will finally wake up to its responsibility. But until that day it falls upon those who were pulled out of their comfortable isolation to save the world once again 58 years later due to the failure of the system we created (UN). I feel terrible for the majority of Iraqi people. The people of the inner-city are modern, well thinking, and they care about the world. However the rest are animals, who take pleasure in the torture of the weak as noted by the lovely pictures of our young woman and men captured and many murdered in custody. These were not combat troops, these were supply engineers, simply bringing meals and ammunition to the front lines. Many were shot point blank in the forehead. Others had their genitalia displayed, showing the lack of manhood America has. Many people in this world are animals, still stuck in an age where you beat your fellow man over the head for food and wealth, and rape the weak women when emotion dictates. These people will be educated or systematically wiped out, this is the rule of modern imperialism. And I for one want a unified world in which people like this are only talked about in the history books. It's not an easy path at all, but one we must take or face extinction in the long run as our world slowly dies. As for France Ill say this. Im ashamed to be descened from the same Germanic tribes that spawned a race of cowards. Im even more ashamed to use this as a blanket for the French people, but the days of The Resistance are long gone. The French have degenerated into a bickering, sly race willing to sell technology to the highest bidder. They have committed countless atrocities, beginning with the Ardennes(sp) in which they ignored the UNs demand to stop, the first such country to do so in the history of the UN. Today they sell electronics to Iraq for missile and demolitions. The same weapons that kill our pilots (US/UK/Australia). What other secrets and technology have the French sold the Iraqi regime that tortures its people, and hangs menstrating woman by their feet as punishment? We will soon find out. This is a country that has proliferated more nuclear weapons in the last fifteen years than the world combined. They now have the third highest amount, and will soon be number one as the Russians and Americans continue to disarm. Ahh the Russians. Lets just say they are done yet as an Empire themselves. Vladimir Putin is a genius, and I fear him greatly. But he is also a rational man and loving father and husband. I cannot say the same of the leader of North Korea, but I digress. Putin has the unenviable task of rebuilding Mother Russia. This requires a lot of dirty work, and surprise surprise, the other country most objecting to this war is also selling them arms, inclulding anti-tank missiles. We will have to wait for Baghdad to find how many lives the Russians will take from us in this war. The end result is that war sucks. But as a race (Humanity) we have only one major immediate goal left, and one permanent goal. Our immediate goal is peace, our permanent one is humanity itself. One day we will have to leave this planet, there is no denying this, Earth is finite. But its timeline is to be determained by those with will and power not those tiny dictators willing to build just one nuclear weapon so they can go down in history as the one to end humanity for all time. For those that don't believe anyone could be so insane, I invite you to read upon Mr. Kim in North Korea, as well as Mr. Hussein and his children. Spend just a few minutes researching their atrocities and tell me Isolation is good enough. Lastly, Im not inhuman. Id rather just live in a world where everyone says "What the hell is war?" and my heart breaks when I read about the two British pilots slain by friendly fire. But this is a hard necessity, one that we all have to bear and I for one feel the majority of the world is up for it. And if not, necessity will always take over, and on the day Kim nukes South Korea or Japan, the world will once again turn to the Modern World, countries like Britain and America to lead them in confronting these threats. In the interim they will see us as Imperialistic. Okay this is getting too long, so one last thing I want to say. Protesters. These people make me a little sick. They want to help by being socially disruptive. If you really want to help, stop stepping over the homeless to scream "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" instead put down that sign and give your fellow man a coin or better yet buy him or her a nice meal, and get to know them. They dont understand that's what were doing in Iraq. And they are the type of people not willing to do it themself, and the first to cry for help when invaders come killing their children and raping their woman. To me its the ultimate in irony, to have the luxury to preach about this war, yet not realize where that right came from. Forgive me if Im a bit longwinded and incoherent at times, its just in times like this I feel many miss the ultimate long range point, and I doubt I articulated it well here. =) Just stay safe everyone including those Iraqis that yearn for peace and prosperity, you will get it soon but there's much work to be done.
After reading the posts...
Submitted by LexxLurker on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 20:20.
I did not want to read the posts before posting myself I was afraid it would bias me. Now that I have just a few things I want to address personally. Where does the money come from? It comes from governments. I read that people want proof. If you want proof it's easy, go out there and see it with your own eyes. I've been to the West Bank twelve times in my life. I've seen with my own eyes the smoking corpses peel from the seats of a bus. Ive seen families of these suicide bombers now finally eating, but heartbroken and blaming Israel for the death of their son. When asked, they claim they were compensated by the Palestinian government, through Saddam Hussein. Were they lied to? It's from their own mouth. Just because a CNN reporter wasent in the building doesent mean it never happened. It's like the war you're watching on TV that say "Another Baghdad attack!" yet its no where near Baghdad, it'd be like attacking Pomona and claiming LA was hit. The news lies to you more than your government, they go live with stories that just arent true, and fill in details when none are available. This has been proven more time and time again than actual government lying. Many of these people who are hailed by the Modern World, to have great resolve for willing to trade their life for a bus full of students, dont. They are simply starving and jobless, and being a soldier, or a suicide bomber is like hitting the jackpot for some of these families. By creating jobs, and stable governments we help to end this cycle. It will never be possible to end it entirely, as there will always be those people ignorant enough or brainwashed enough to think that innocent death will make them heroes. To wait until airplanes crash into your home buildings, is folly. The first time the continental United States was attacked so massivly was on 9/11/01. It had never happened to such a degree before at a single moment. To allow this to happen again would be sin. It's not until your freedom has been taken, and the every day fear of invaders and murderers and worse is constantly on your mind that you'll begin to understand why we must activly protect it. Until then people will abuse democracy by heading to the streets to protest something they really dont know anything about one way or another. They simply rely on their fantastic innate sense of the value of human life, and I do applaud that sentiment, however misplaced. As this terrible war unfolds many secrets will be revealed, the least of which will be that Saddam funded major terrorist organizations. Read again my previous post. I'll talk about it again here. Bush's policy is VAGUE. My gripe if I have one at all, is that we are only doing what were "Allowed" to. The sad truth is, powerful people within the Saudi government as well as many 'friendly' governments also fund terrorism. Yet we cannot touch them due to the sentiment "You hate Islam, all Arabs!" and many of the complaints Im reading about this war just support that fact. And sadly these people have never gone beyond CNN to find the truth about these regimes, not just Iraq, but Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemin, Jordan. Unfortunatly what all these countries have in common is their large Muslim populations. They have done a fantastic job at preventing us from ever stopping this funding entirely by reaching into your heart and telling you white people hate arabs and want their oil. One day these countries will have nuclear weapons, and they wont be so secretive about their hatred of you. Oil has nothing to do with anything. But enough said, I'm sure by now I have ostracized myself sufficiently =)
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by lizard on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 21:05.
Well for me (a US citizen) this war appears to be unjustified-- since we have been able to bomb selected targets in Iraq for years, and they have been under a no-fly zone. Why now? Why this big invasion? I don't believe that GWB wants to liberate the children of iraq out of the goodness of his heart and not much evidence has been shown that Sadaam (awful though he is) was about to embark on a new agressive assault on some other country. Invading another country should be a last resort. Should we take over the entire chunks of the third world because many goverments in africa and other parts of the middle east and asia are doing a bad job running their countries??? Do we intend to rebuild Iraq? Can we really afford it? Have we rebuilt Afganistan-- aren't we accused of sticking the UN with most of the bill for that? I think that invading a country to get rid of a leader that we don't like is decadent, and opens the door to other countries making pre-emptive strikes (it has been pointed out that the Japanese considered pearl harbor to be a pre-emptive strike). This is all just my opinion and is not meant to be insulting-- i just have many questions and misgivings about this drastic action.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by Flamegrape on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 21:08.
Golly! Saddam Hussein is such an awful man! Gee whiz! How did such a bad man come into power? And why are the French, Germans, and Russians so eager to help him? And why did those strange Israelis bomb that nuclear reactor that the French built for Iraq? Why didn't we retaliate against the Israelis when we were giving so much to Saddam to fight those evil Iranians? Who put Saddam in charge in the first place? I've seen few people talk about his history in any depth. It's as if he suddenly materialized in 1990 and suddenly became a menace.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by A-DM on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 21:52.
My thoughts have remained the same since Saddam reared his fat ugly head again, and that is that war was inevitable.
"The anti-war brigade, as far as I'm concerned are all misguided cowards, for the best part they are not concerned about stopping war, they are more concerned in showing their anti-americanism."
Think you're taking liberties here **ADM: Not at all, most of the peaceful demo's are a mix of those who geniunely wish too stop war and those who are against the US, I call them cowards because at the end of the day they do not offer a solution, they do not and cannot offer a solution, and they will be the ones who will berate our troops for their actions, too me that is cowardly. "People forget that his world is nothing like ours, he only answers to Allah, while we try diplomacy to resolve the issue, diplomacy is not part of that world, you need be a democratic state for it to exist, his is a tyranny...diplomacy and humanatarian ideals aren't part of his world."
Again - making assumptions- both on religion (which many people would take offence at- most muslims are peaceful) and about the man. Where'd the assumption that all muslims are fanatics come from? Do you believe everything the media tell you? **ADM: If you read that carefully you would realise I am speaking of one man's world (Saddam) and the country he lives in, it is not an assumption it is a fact, the people of Iraq do not pose the threat, but they do not live in a democracy, they live live in a tyranny. Now I would really like to know how you infer that I meant the muslim world as a whole?, Muslims are a peaceful people and I have never questioned that. "As for France, that country has no gratitude for the help it has received in the past, and I hope that if trouble reaches their borders again that they are left to deal with it by themselves, they deserve as much for their cowardly behaviour.
France and these anti-war protesters are made up of anti-americans, extremists and a large bulk of pro-Saddam supporters, they have no voice and no idea, they are all cowards."
On the contrary, a lot of people are reluctant to go to war- it isn't a game - many people need evidence before being prepared to inflict a terrible thing on another country, rather than just taking another person's (who may have ulterior motives or may have recieved false intelligence) word for it. **ADM: That's absolute rubbish and you know it, the evidence comes from the first Iraqi war, how long are you prepared to seek this evidence, while you and other's stall, are you stupid enough believe that during this time Saddam would not continue too obtain and possibly deploy weapons of mass destruction? I'd like to reassure our friends in the US that the people in the UK support your cause, of course we have a large number of idiots who don't
Since when is it idiocy to think for yourself and wish to weigh up the facts presented to you? I'd argue it's stupid not to do so. **ADM:The facts have been presented and anyone can say war is never good, but these facts should bring you to one conclusion, that the UN inspectors would never have acheived what they set out to do, even after all the time spent in trying too disarm him he would still continue, the UN inpectors can't watch over a country that large indefinitely, hell they can't even find all the evidence they needed if they spent years doing it, Saddam would simply keep moving all the pieces. To those that oppose this opinion, to them I say 'look at the end goal', forget your prejudices and your hatred, look at the root cause for this trouble (Saddam) and nothing else, can you honestly believe that this one man will do what you'd like him do?, do you really think that he won't kill you and your families just because you believe in peace?, he hates all of us and once he has the capabilty do you think he will stop too listen to your cries then, he will have the power too kill in the masses and would be ready to use it, how are you going to stop him then...because more demonstrations or more diplomacy will not stop him.
ADM
our troubles stem from the individual terrorist cells operating in our respective countries. Instead of targetting these (which is extremely difficult), we go for the static target, who couldn't do as much damage. And if that's the case, it'd be countries such as Iran and Algeria we'd be going after for setting up these cells (and if you want to get pedantic, in the cold war it was CIA which taught them how to do it). Evidence rather than libel please. **ADM:Even though terrorism is something that Saddam could realistically support, this is not the sole reason for taking him out, yes it's harder to go for the cells, but the thinking is that the supply of weapons would need to come from a large enough organisation such as the Iraqi regime, with Iraq comes the possibility that should Saddam be successful in devoloping weapons of mass destruction (which he already has), comes the realisation that terrorists could get their hands on them, better for Iraq to have a regime that would not do that don't you think? But I say to you, offer me another solution, show me another way, think hard about who is being dealt with here and see if you can offer me another solution, forget the anti-american rhetoric, forget the politics, forget about your own personal feelings, offer me an objective and viable solution that is not going to spill a drop of human blood. ADM
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by fluffy bunny on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 22:07.
Thx for your thinking out your last post ADM. I'm for this war, as long as it's done for the right reasons and intentions. Sorry, but I don't think the moral high ground "we're better than them" etc won't work with me- if you try that, it can be pointed out that every country in the world has committed it's share of atrocities at one time or other. Going in to help the Kurds is not a reason that'll wash with me- Saddam does not consider the Kurds as Iraqi in the same way that neither Iran or Turkey, both allies in the first gulf war and tentative ones in the second, consider their kurdish people Iranian or Turkish. In the first gulf war American bombers were not allowed to fly raiding missions at certain times because Turkey were running bombing raids on their own Kurdish minority. It is not justifiable to any extent but at the same time no-one in Iraq considers them Iraqi, one of many examples of racial prejudice throughout the world. If all this was ignored in the 1st war, how can it be a validation for a second? The motives for this war will most likely not be revealed in the near future, and we can only hope that the intentions of our leaders are noble ones. Just because France doesn't agree with the Coalition's way of doing things doesn't automatically make them cowards. If you feel someone gets it wrong you don't roll over and agree with them - ok I'd say it was rash of them to threaten to veto any descision without hearing it out first, but still France, Germany and Russia are simply doing what they feel is right from their perspective. We do not know what evidence is out there, and whether the coalition or the french did the right thing regarding it- how can we as the public interpret it if we haven't seen it. If we can't interpret it, who are we to judge and subsequently ostracize? I guess it'll be for the historians to debate when the evidence is revealed Another reason is political- if we cajole and threaten, and don't do anything, we'll be seen as paper tigers and will be ignored the next time we need to send a warning
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by A-DM on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 23:02.
Im actually offened that you would acuse anti-war protesters of being cowards and suporting Sadam
**What you don't seem to understand is that these rallies are the perfect opportunities for extremists, fundamentalists, Anti-Americans and supporters of communism to join in, these people are using this as an excuse to air their views. i didnt protest myself but i dont suport the war at all. I think sadam should/must die but this is the wrong way to go about it. **And how do you propose we do that?, if it was a simple case of special forces going in and assassinating Saddam don't think they would've have done it already? Im sure there have been assasination atempts before but it was still a vable option. **Not it's not, I'm sorry, but that really is wishful thinking, he has had years to ensure that an assassin could not get near him, and US intelligence knows this only too well, as you have said yourself he goes too great length's to ensure his personal safety, employing numerous lookalikes and is likely never to actually make public appearances. there is no way that the bombings will help matters, if sadam hasent fled the country long before now he will have once the bombing started. **That's not true, this operation is called 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' for the sole reason of liberating the Iraqi people of Saddam, whether we get him or not is secondary to ensuring the freedom of the Iraqi people. you have to remeber that this guy has at least 9 bodydoubles (he claims that there not alowed to talk but do you trust him) **Huh??? even if sadam is killed in the war whats to stop his suporters and family using a bodydouble and staying hes alive and keeping power. We would have to kill everyone that has worked for hussains government in anyway, all his family and anyone that looks like him to be compeatley certain he is dead and that iraq can be converted to our ways. **He won't keep power even if he is alive, the whole Iraqi regime is too be ousted when the war is won, I can't see the US allowing Saddam to remain can you!?! The war will not work because there are to many obstcals and when we give up we will go back to being hated by everyone around the world for all the inocent civilan deaths. **The war will work as the obstacles to be removed are Saddam and his cronies, peace and stability would eventually return to Iraq.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by SadGeezer on Mon, 24/03/2003 - 23:30.
WoW! Some great arguments on both sides! Lots to think about and all was an excellent read. After reading all that I find that I have more questions than answers! Especially after Flame's post. And yet, I remember when I was little, programmes about the holocaust and seeing comments by people that we shouldn't ever forget what happened. Welp, I don't think we have forgotten, unfortunately it hasn't stopped either. Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it, but then he is currently the most obvious mass murderer, we forget about Cambodia, Ruanda and others too easily. I really hoped that in my lifetime, we'd have found a way to stop mass killing but if anything, it seems to be getting worse - or at least more open. Is it any wonder then that most of us are worried about the aftermath or our elected representatives become desperate? One other thing that keeps niggling away in the back of my mind is that the Arab nations all seem against the coalition and primarily the US. Some of you have pointed out that it's only a few terrorists that are responcible for these cowardly terrorist attacks but I'm not so sure? Arab societies (and peer pressure it seems) seemed openly (the peopel at least) supportive of say 9/11 and although they may hate Saddam they will support him against the US and it's allies! Why is that? And more importantly, why is it always OTHERS that have to deal with the likes of Saddam and the Taliban etc. Why are there few (if any) muslem countries involved or providing support) in stamping out terrorism directed at people other than themselves? It seems to me that more moslems have died at the hands of Saddam than at the hands of the Isrealies and the US etc. Why do the Mouslim communities support him? That's not an attack on these communities, I just can't understand why they never get involved themselves. Hmmm. This post isn't turning out the way I intended it. It maybe that my comfortable western lifestyle is so different from that of countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran that I can't understand such mentality. I've just seen a news report where some mouslim countries are ganging up to condemn the war. The defensiveness in me says, "You ungreatful bastards! We're doing your dirty work for you!"
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by A-DM on Tue, 25/03/2003 - 00:23.
Thx for your thinking out your last post ADM. I'm for this war, as long as it's done for the right reasons and intentions. Sorry, but I don't think the moral high ground "we're better than them" etc won't work with me- if you try that, it can be pointed out that every country in the world has committed it's share of atrocities at one time or other.
**I don't believe we are any better morally than the Iraqi people, I do know we are morally correct when compared too the Iraqi regime. Going in to help the Kurds is not a reason that'll wash with me- Saddam does not consider the Kurds as Iraqi in the same way that neither Iran or Turkey, both allies in the first gulf war and tentative ones in the second, consider their kurdish people Iranian or Turkish. In the first gulf war American bombers were not allowed to fly raiding missions at certain times because Turkey were running bombing raids on their own Kurdish minority. It is not justifiable to any extent but at the same time no-one in Iraq considers them Iraqi, one of many examples of racial prejudice throughout the world. If all this was ignored in the 1st war, how can it be a validation for a second? The motives for this war will most likely not be revealed in the near future, and we can only hope that the intentions of our leaders are noble ones. **Not so much going too help the kurds is the issue, it's what has been tested on them that is, the use of banned weapons is a clear violation of international law, it's a shame that the press choose to highlight the plight of the kurds as propaganda, but it does show that this man is quite willing too kill using these weapons, that alone is a clear indication of why this man needs to be removed. Just because France doesn't agree with the Coalition's way of doing things doesn't automatically make them cowards. If you feel someone gets it wrong you don't roll over and agree with them - ok I'd say it was rash of them to threaten to veto any descision without hearing it out first, but still France, Germany and Russia are simply doing what they feel is right from their perspective. We do not know what evidence is out there, and whether the coalition or the french did the right thing regarding it- how can we as the public interpret it if we haven't seen it. If we can't interpret it, who are we to judge and subsequently ostracize? I guess it'll be for the historians to debate when the evidence is revealed This still brings me back to the point for which my opinion is based, I am not interested in the feelings France has towards the US, whatever the reason all of us have to recognise that sooner or later Saddam Hussein is a timebomb waiting to go off, I can't imagine that anyone is any doubt as to whether Saddam has the guile to attack whomever he chooses should he obtain weapons of mass destruction or pass them on to someone who is willing to do it for him. Another reason is political- if we cajole and threaten, and don't do anything, we'll be seen as paper tigers and will be ignored the next **Exactly, nothing but death will stop Saddam, words are meaningless now and the message that is now sent to other would be madmen is that we will try too talk our way out of it, and the use of force will be less and less likely given the trouble that is caused because of it.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by marybeth on Tue, 25/03/2003 - 01:09.
Fluffy bunny and Lexxlurker have pretty much summed up my views on this topic. thanks guys! :D that means much less typing for me!:D i hate war and i do pray that the human race will someday acheive world peace. i do not see this happening in my lifetime or even my sons, but i hope my grandchildren will see at least the beginning of the process. i do feel as though this war is necessary though. my heart cries out for the loved ones left with nothing but memories and pictures. but i was raised in a military family, my grandfather was a pilot in WWII, Korea and a advisor in Vietnam. more recently my little brother was in the Gulf war. any military person knows that it is possibly they may not make it back and they accept this risk with pride. i know it is of no comfort to the ones left behind but they should always respect the decision and be proud. as for the anti-war protesters, i want to make my opinion very clear on this! they have the right to protest! as long as they are pure of heart in believing that this war is wrong. if they are using this chance to protest simply to show how much they hate America, Bush, ect... then i say that they are absolutely wrong!!! they need to find a different way of protesting and not use this legitamite protest as a forum for their hate. we all have freedom of speech but it comes with responsibility. in other words don't confuse your hatred of America or Bush with anti-war sentiment. i did not vote for Bush, it is my personal opinion that he should not be in the White House because he did not win the popular vote. and the voting in Florida (where his brother was the govenor) was very hinky. but i would never use something as serious as a anti-war protest to voice my opinion about this. it is just wrong! i also think that it is wrong for people to bash these anti-war protesters whether they be actors, politicians or everyday people. again we have freedom of speech and when we try to stomp on one of our rights, whats next?! whew! so much for not typing very much!
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Submitted by fluffy bunny on Tue, 25/03/2003 - 01:58.
Playing devil's advocate: WoW!
One other thing that keeps niggling away in the back of my mind is that the Arab nations all seem against the coalition and primarily the US. Some of you have pointed out that it's only a few terrorists that are responcible for these cowardly terrorist attacks but I'm not so sure? Arab societies (and peer pressure it seems) seemed openly (the peopel at least) supportive of say 9/11 and although they may hate Saddam they will support him against the US and it's allies! Why is that? A lot of them have major misgivings of Israel- a country right on their doorstep. Despite the infighting between those nations, they're pretty much unified in their hatred for Israel who a lot of them feel has been able to get away with a lot of s**t that's unacceptable to them due to America's involvement and meddling in middle eastern matters. Funded by America to an amount of money in goods and military equipment greater than the combined support America offers to the rest of the world. The West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights. Israel even supposedly (need to double check this but if memory serves), surpasses even China in violation of UN human rights against its neighbours. A lot of them feel Palestine has been unfairly treated on several occasions. Religion is one of the reasons they back palestine, but noone in the region likes Israel. The US bombing Iraq every few years seems a bit excessive and some may have misgivings over it. That's not an attack on these communities, I just can't understand why they never get involved themselves.
Why should they? How would they benifit from a war? There is no surefire outcome, war leads to international condemnation . Besides- taking out Iraq wouldn't solve the terrorist problem (look at the Iran/Iraq war - on another note, while you're there look at the reasons for it). America is on the other side of the world, they're right next door- counteroffensives etc could be very bloody- and of the major weapons of mass destruction supposedly there ---->abundant chemical and biological agents (less likely to have nukes). Chemical and biological weapons are notoriously difficult to distibute over long distances, but local borders are easy. I've just seen a news report where some mouslim countries are ganging up to condemn the war. The defensiveness in me says, "You ungreatful bastards! We're doing your dirty work for you!"
Again, nothing is being done for their benifit, simply shifting the balance of power in the region, putting in governments sympathetic to the west. After Iraq, where next? One or 2 of the league will may be funding terrorism themselves and would at least start to sweat. Others think it's a regional matter and the US should stay out of it. |
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
I was surprised at your post lexxrobotech :/
I don't think there has been a dictator like Hitler. Saddam certainly isn't like the dude. Certainly he's as evil as Hitler, but he commits his atrocities for completely different reasons. He's just power crazy. Hitler was a nutter - a powerful nutter.... Hmmmm. Maybe that's not quite true. Maybe to be a dictator you HAVE to be a nutter? I guess you can have different types of nutter, ones that are racially motivated, money mad or just plain thirsty for killing and mutilation!
How then, can you compare a democracy (two democracies, Brits and Yanks) with Hitler!? Sure they have their consitutional problems (I saw a report today that shows the Brits have one of the highest poverty figures in Europe - and those bloody French didn't even show up in the figures (I wonder who's statistics they were!)) and similar problems with the US - Americans are the first to raise such points, hell, every time the President of the US ventures out of the White House he nearly trips over some sort of demo of say a group against the poor treatment of gay japanese immigrant shoe salesmen or something.
The fact is that if we look hard enough, we can see problems with all our countries, the difference between the US and Nazi Germany, is that people in the US can do something about it. If there is a backlash against Bush after the troupes come home, his ass is toast! ie. someone else will be votes into the Presidency. Which of course, to a US president (the most powerful geezer in the world) is a fate worse than death!
I suspect the VAST majority of people against this war are actually against the might and force of the US military flexing it's muscles and making us all feel very meagre. It sure scares the shit outa me and some of my best buddies are Americans.
Some dude on TV tells me that the US is more powerful (militarily speaking) than the NEXT 27 MILITARY POWERS PUT TOGETHER! Strange how most of these nations are against the war (Russia, China, France etc.).
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
We can mudsling all day, but just bear in mind that whether this war is justified or not, the troops are in there now. We can't pull them out now without dishonouring those who were killed and injured in action,
For better or for worse, events have been set in motion. Instead of arguing about who is to blame for putting us in this situation, ask for a quick resolution with as little loss of life as possible, and then ask what is the best way to move forward to the future. Quibbling over the past solves nothing.
Listen to what I am saying.
Perhaps if you reread my earlier posts you would get a clearer understanding.
When I say that "The U.S. actions are very much like early Nazi Germany" I mean that the disregarding of the UN is grounds for trouble further down the road. Early Nazi Germany new that the UN as such was powerless to do anything, thus the taking back of land took place. The US and UK new that they could go with or without the rest of the worlds backing.
This all brings back into what worries me. The US foreign policy has failed often. It tends to be really short sighted. This is what worries the other UN Countries.
Look at the US's to main enemies. Osam Bin Laden and Saddam. Both were put in power by the US. Again, failed foreign policy.
FX - You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that Americans were Nazi's. I could have worded it better, but I am comparing the invasion despite foreign anger.
ADM - Read my posts. I don't understand why you keep going back to Sadam. I hate the guy just as much as you do. My wish was that diplomacy could have been given a chance. It wasn't given enough chance to. I have been in battles, which is why I would have liked to have seen diplomacy fully used. War should only be a last measure, and in this case it wasn't.
SadGeezer - Like I said to FX, it is like Germany Pre World War II ignoring the rest of the world and simply pushing ahead because it suited their agenda and nobody else was prepared to do anything about it. I am not and have never said that the US are Nazi type people or that Bush is a Hitler himself. However, there are certain actions that are undeniably similar.
Fluffy Bunny - I agree with what you said, but history has a tendency to repeat itself, which is why we should look back so as to see where we are going.
All in all, I think there is going to be a terrible backlash to this war.
Re: Listen to what I am saying.
When I say that "The U.S. actions are very much like early Nazi Germany" I mean that the disregarding of the UN is grounds for trouble further down the road. Early Nazi Germany new that the UN as such was powerless to do anything, thus the taking back of land took place. The US and UK new that they could go with or without the rest of the worlds backing.
This all brings back into what worries me. The US foreign policy has failed often. It tends to be really short sighted. This is what worries the other UN Countries.
Look at the US's to main enemies. Osam Bin Laden and Saddam. Both were put in power by the US. Again, failed foreign policy.
Ok so you've stated the problem- all very well and good. Now what do you propose we do about it?
Fluffy Bunny
Firstly - give diplomacy a full chance at working. (This wasn't done... the US felt it was taking too long)
Secondly - get the UN backing
Thirdly - attack as a last resort only.
You know, under Apartheid you had two complete opposite sides in an evil national conflict. What happened is that two great men (De Klerk and Mandela) got together, then got both evil factions together and thrashed it out behind closed doors. A peaceful solution was found, and the New South Africa was born. The evil militant blacks and the white racist dictatorship was destroyed and the South African public as a whole was freed. Without war. Without bloodshed. Diplomacy.
On second thought...
I'd just like to add that if you often wonder about true democracy and diplomacy, you should read Nelson Mandela's "Long Walk To Freedom".
That book changed a lot of my views on how to solve problems. No matter how strongly you feel about something, there is someone that feels just as strongly against it. It is the ability of mutual tolarance that will lead to peace.
Re: On second thought...
That book changed a lot of my views on how to solve problems. No matter how strongly you feel about something, there is someone that feels just as strongly against it. It is the ability of mutual tolarance that will lead to peace.
i applaud your faith in diplomacy, and your championing of a great man...but let's not give people the idea that the south africans, particularly the hard core afrikaners , came to the table of their own accord...a lot of countries, including the us, had to get off of their complacent tushes and bring strong protest and economic sanctions to bear on south africa to help get the parties to sit down and talk (you see, all that 'divest in south africa' stuff happened while i was in college, about the same time that the shah's iranian students were at my university staging demonstrations against the shah ;) )...and there was a lot of unfavorable publicity about the atrocities perpetrated in the townships by the south african government, not to mention the political prisoners such as mandela...although i noticed your listing as south africa, i would not have brought any of this up until you opened the discussion...i say again, although i am not prowar, i think i am tired as an immigrant of hearing countries, including the one of my birth (italy), whining about the evil americans and the horrible things that they have done, while taking american money hand over fist as they scurry to hide the far uglier skeletons in their closets...so while we discuss the war, let us leave out the antiamerican rhetoric, and talk about how, outside of force, we are seriously going to get saddam, or the terrorists, to bow to outside pressure and come to the table and talk...do you seriously think all these suicide bombers are going to say, gee you are right, what was i thinking? reason only works with the reasonable...why haven't all the socalled peaceful muslims banded together to toss these terrorists out? i am not being contentious, i am simply still waiting for a reasonable answer....
Re: On second thought...
(1) Bring Hussein up on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Doing so has helped force more than one tyrant out of office.
(2) Use the military we're currently using to bomb the hell out of Baghdad to support the UN inspection process -- which was working already. (Oh, and news break: there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. British Home Secretery David Blunkett has already admitted that WMD may never be found in Iraq. The closest we've come? Pesticide. Yep, Weapons of Mass Insect Destruction. The question of WMD *only* came up at the time that we sought UN approval. It was never mentioned previous to that because *it wasn't an issue* even though Iraq was known to be the next stop after Afghanistan.)
What suicide bombers are we talking about, FX? You mean the ones that came from Saudi Arabia on behalf of a terrorist organization acting on behalf of a Saudi in hiding in Afghanistan to attack the WTC and the Pentagon? Because they're not part of the conflict we're currently discussing, nor are they even remotely connected to the conflict we're discussing, and so they should not be considered part of the discussion on Iraq. No evidence links them, any evidence that was cited beforehand linking Iraq and Al Qaeda has been proven to be false, and this connection has just been repeated over and over in order to get people to believe it despite its inaccuracy.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Just curious as to your opinions on this issue:
Should Bush and Blair stand before a war crimes tribunal if no WMD are found? I know many of you will say they will be held accountable by the public, but how many of you would say a war crimes tribunal would be appropriate if nothing was found?
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Should Bush and Blair stand before a war crimes tribunal if no WMD are found? I know many of you will say they will be held accountable by the public, but how many of you would say a war crimes tribunal would be appropriate if nothing was found?
A tough question to answer, because I don't know where exactly the cutoff point is for what is considered a "war crime." If it comes up that there are no WMD found, then at the least I'd hope that someone moves for impeachment.
I believe in a peaceful solution
Hi All,
I believe in a peaceful solution to getting Saddam, if he's still alive, to reveil all the weapons of mass destruction, then inprison him; I don't believe in creating World War III, which we're in right now. By the time this war began, the UN was finding all kinds of things that would make a weapon, not just the Chemical & Bioligical weapons. We should be supporting our soldiers, not the guy who put them them, President Warmogar Bush, or as my parents like to call him, King George; King George is the 1 we should rally against, not the soldiers.
I think that anyone who for this war should read the peaceful, Anti-Bush posts, so that may be there can be an understanding to anyone who's opposing this war; I also think that if anyone who's for this war believes that those of us opposing this war is Anti-American, not supporting our Troupes & pro-terrorism, better realize & understand that there are many of us who oppose World War III & are Anti-Bush, but we do support our soldiers; we're just Anti-King George, & none of us support terrorism, you just pay way too much attention on those Protestors who make the rest of us who oppose this war like fools. Yes, I'm opposing this war, but I believe there are peaceful solutions to everything; anyway, it's King George who wanted World War III in the 1st place.
In all the posts I've been reading here, I don't hear or see anyone writing about what's going happen after this war's over & the US has conquered & taken over Iraq; no body's writing about post-war Iraq, it's all just about the war. I'd like to have something written about what will happen after this war's over.
Take care, have a nice April & Peace be with you, all.
I believe in Peace,
__________________________Jhevz
Happy Fall
...
Jhevz - fantastic post!
FX - Your ignorance is staggering. When, in any of my posts, have I given the impression that I am anti-american? I am anti the current US foreign policy. I don't know what else to say to try and make you see that. Try read my posts. I find it insulting that you call me anti-american, especially when I have American friends and family.
As for the South African bit... yes, all Countries have their skeletons. I have said that already. I agree with you on that. One thing I must add... perhaps you should read up on Apartheid before you judge it. The sanctions damaged the people of SA, not so much the apartheid government. It played right into the Apartheid Governments hands. They were inforcing isolation, the west was just making it easier for them. As for America's involvement in the ending of Apartheid. That was almost none existent. The US bribed the Apartheid Government in the 80's to fight the Angolans and wipe out the communist tide sweeping Southern Africa. Although this was disgusting, when the New South Africa was born, the UK and US did the most for South Africa. They helped write our constitution and do many other uplifting tasks. There are many reliable books to read up on this subject. I suggest you read some before you go off on a tangent.
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
lol- if I go into postwar Iraq, my pessimism comes through. Assuming WMD aren't found
1) Iran and Syria become insecure with regards to the American troops posted on their doorstep
2) Someone has to pay for the war- chances are it'll be the Iraqi people. Reparations didn't do postwar germany (WWI) any good. Iraq may come to hate its so called liberators as well. After all, despite the oil and relative wealth of Saddam, Iraq is a 3rd world country- and reparations could cost Iraq dearly. Iraq stays broke, the people get enlisted as terrorists by slightly wealtier nations in the gulf region not due to religion, but simply due to the benifits money can provide to them and their families in a poverty stricken country.
3) Rise of pan-arabism unifying the arab states in resentment of the States operating in a region that 'should have been left alone'
4) UN shown to be weak, and more easily bypassed in future conflicts (I still see America going to war with Iran in the next few years)
5) Division of NATO- France and Germany wanting a separate european army to offset American and British dominance at the mo. Distrust and petty infigting----> what was the cold war about anyway? Arabic countries building their own forces and preparing for Israel and America.
There's more, but I'm getting hungry
-Later
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Lexxrobotach wrote:ADM - Read my posts. I don't understand why you keep going back to Sadam. I hate the guy just as much as you do. My wish was that diplomacy could have been given a chance. It wasn't given enough chance to. I have been in battles, which is why I would have liked to have seen diplomacy fully used. War should only be a last measure, and in this case it wasn't.
You don't understand why I keep going back to Saddam???, what war are you watching?, it's because it's about Saddam, it's not about your gripes over the US's foreign policy, if you want to go on a US bashing spree then start a new thread, this one is about the war, it has nothing to do with what you feel America has done in the past.
And you're saying read your posts, well why should I when you've clearly not read mine, if you had you'd realise that diplomacy doesn't work with Saddam, you're not dealing with other UN countries that recognise diplomacy, you know nothing of Saddam, if you did you'd know that it's obvious diplomacy is just a tool for him to buy more time for him. While a diplomatic solution is attempted, Saddam is saying what you want to hear, while in reality he has no intent of following anything set down by the west.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Saddam doesn't come from our culture, he doesn't follow our rules, telling him to do something is not going to work...ever, the threat of war means nothing to him, whereas an actual war does. And after all the diplomatic avenues have dried up, where will we be?...in Iraq and engaged in war, that's where, and all that the diplomacy had resulted in, is buying Saddam more time to prepare for it by getting his hands on more weapons, possibly even nukes, so I say again...Diplomacy and UN Inspections mean nothing to Saddam and are as a result doomed to failure.
And as you so inaccurately quoted a likeness to the US and NAzi Germany, here's another thing you should know. The UN (or league of nations as it was then) did nothing but try to find a diplomatic solution to the impending crisis that led too WW1 and WW2, when they finally realised they could not get the Nazi's too listen, it was too late.
There is a time a place for diplomacy, this conflict isn't one of them, for diplomacy too work both parties need to play ball, and Saddam was never going to. Diplomacy is an invention for the west, Saddam has no interest in what we declare morally wrong, he answers only to Allah and not western diplomacy, his beliefs are based on religion, everything he does is governed by the belief that God has wished him too take such action, he rationlises his actions by what he believes God has asked of him, no diplomacy, politics or inspections is going to sway him in that belief, and If you really do think that diplomacy is the answer then I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world.
ADM
Re:The WAR! - Who is on Who's side?
Bush's Religious Basis for War[/url]
Re: Fluffy Bunny
Secondly - get the UN backing
Thirdly - attack as a last resort only.
You know, under Apartheid you had two complete opposite sides in an evil national conflict. What happened is that two great men (De Klerk and Mandela) got together, then got both evil factions together and thrashed it out behind closed doors. A peaceful solution was found, and the New South Africa was born. The evil militant blacks and the white racist dictatorship was destroyed and the South African public as a whole was freed. Without war. Without bloodshed. Diplomacy.
**South Africa has no bearing in this conflict and there isn't anything to say that what worked in South Africa will work here.
For starters it took the two main political leaders to resolve their differences, do you honestly think that Saddam is going to sit down with Bush and thrash out a peaceful solution?, this isn't about two cultures sharing the same country as with SA, you are so way of the mark with this it's unbelievable, peace was achieved within a country that didn't threaten the security of the west, it has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict and as a result your attempt to liken your country's success would never work in this scenario.
Saddam hates the west, diplomacy is an action that only works in the west, Saddam is not going to be told how to behave in a country that he more than runs, in his mind Iraq belongs to him, as do the Iraqi people.
And the US was right, it was not so much taking so long, more so that it would've taken longer, and all the while Saddam is given more time to play cat and mouse and either deploy or create more weapons, that simply is not a risk worth taking when everyone knows at the end of the day Saddam is a threat, that if left alone would attack the west.
ADM
Re: On second thought...
(1) Bring Hussein up on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Doing so has helped force more than one tyrant out of office.
**He's already up on charges of crimes against humanity, Amnesty international has put forward a strong case in light of his treatment of the kurds, yet oddly he is still in office, secondly, do you honestly think he will answer to a tribunal set by the west?
(2) Use the military we're currently using to bomb the hell out of Baghdad to support the UN inspection process -- which was working already. (Oh, and news break: there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. British Home Secretery David Blunkett has already admitted that WMD may never be found in Iraq. The closest we've come? Pesticide. Yep, Weapons of Mass Insect Destruction. The question of WMD *only* came up at the time that we sought UN approval. It was never mentioned previous to that because *it wasn't an issue* even though Iraq was known to be the next stop after Afghanistan.)
**Oh so we're wrong to bomb Iraq, but we're right to do it while UN inspections go on, and the point of that would be?
And how can you say that the inspection process was working?, Hans Blix already stated he knew Saddam had weapons, but was unable to provide strong enough evidence, I would say that was an abject failure on their part.
**NEWS FLASH** A number of missiles has been found that may have been tipped with chemical and biological agents, Hans Blix had documented evidence of missing chemical weapons, yet Saddam denied their existence.
And the question of WMD did not only come up when seeking UN approval, it was well known after the last gulf war what weaponary Saddam may have possesed, and during the time between that war and this one, weapons inspectors had been sent in, so it has been a mitagating factor all along.
And of course the question of WMD is going to be raised witihin the UN, the UN requires full disclosure from the US as too why they seek a resolution on war, so of course it's going to be mentioned.
What suicide bombers are we talking about, FX? You mean the ones that came from Saudi Arabia on behalf of a terrorist organization acting on behalf of a Saudi in hiding in Afghanistan to attack the WTC and the Pentagon? Because they're not part of the conflict we're currently discussing, nor are they even remotely connected to the conflict we're discussing, and so they should not be considered part of the discussion on Iraq. No evidence links them, any evidence that was cited beforehand linking Iraq and Al Qaeda has been proven to be false, and this connection has just been repeated over and over in order to get people to believe it
despite its inaccuracy.
**Wrong Aleck, the same groups of people that came to assist the Taliban have been reported as active within Iraq, as the Taliban had links too Al Qaeda, so do these people, so FX's statement is correct. No documented proof linking the Iraqi regime to either the Taliban or Al Qaeda is present, but that in no way means you can rule out a link between them, at the moment Hezbollah are in Iraq supporting Republican Guard, but this has been reported as a visual sighting, and other active cells from terrorist organisations have been spotted. We all know Al Qaeda is lying low, it's unlikely that it will commit it's supporters to Iraq while so many US and UK special forces are there, for fear of capture and disclosing information that may lead to the capture of Bin Laden.
But you cannot discount the possibilty of Al Qaeda approaching the Iraqi regime if this war had not taken place, for that matter any terrorist organisation.
And at the nd of the day there is a considerable risk of Saddma linking up with Al Qaeda, but it's some people will ignore that risk until evidence is provided, by which time they have attacked again and then you're proof is found amongst the dead of innocent civilians, personally, I would prefer to extinguish any chance of that happening.
ADM
My opinion
Bush's Religious Basis for War
I want to clear up what is a misconception amongst some people (not sure where you heard it): Saddam is not really religious (although he calls on the religion now -- jihad -- so as to garner support from Arab peoples) -- his party's secularism is one reason why bin Laden hated it so much. He modelled himself after Stalin (even had similar purges after gaining power in a coup), and the Baath Party is secular (not religious), in fact it was originally founded on socialist principles.
As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was...), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.
BTW, "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn't bad enough! :shock:
Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires -- they're both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn't mean that there are no similarities -- and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).
Just something that still bugs me...
BTW, ADM, you're an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define "coward"?
thank you so much Saddy!!!
i have been wary about about posting this topic, like you said
i admit i have been dancing around wondering what to do cause i really did want to discuss this with my fellow Sadgeezers. but i have been a little reluctant after our past experience with the terrorism post. :( there were alot of hurt feelings involved then and i really don't want anyone hurt this time! i do hope that our members and guests will be respectful of each others opinions. :D remember everyone is entitled to their opinion and we encourage lively discussions here! :) but we do not allow the peeps to bash each other here at Sadgeezer.com!
i will attempt to organize my thoughts and respond more in detail about the war on sunday. :D :D
thank you again Saddy for having the courage to broach this touchy subject and get the ball rolling for an honest and open discussion! :D :D :D