War to Iraq explained!

[LUPO]

It's started like a joke, but became a very interesting feedback about different points of wiew of the whole Iraqui story. More, became a very interesting poll about people here in the community. I really want to thanks everybody expressing theirs opoinion here. It is argument of reflexion for me.
BTW, my position about the question is very near to the one expressed by StSanta. Thanks to him by espressing in a so clear and polite way something that was becoming clear to me. I strongly believe in the possibility of dialog also when positions seems to be very far each other.

[bounder]

Originally posted by Eagler
bounder

yes, all life is precious - born and unborn

I too would like all of us to live in peace, but unlike you, I think it will happen one day - when man's conciousness is raised enough to see we are truly brothers BUT until then I say kick thier arse first and hard
Seriously, if I went off into my beliefs concerning man's conciousness, spiritual evolution, our quest for enlightenment & how all of us are tied together, creating a universal level of conciousness which is the baseline of the world's divinity  -  u'd think me nuts
======================================

[/B]
You mean I don't already?

Seriously though, I wouldn't think you were nuts at all, optimistic perhaps, but certainly not nuts. I think we probably differ quite a lot on our core beliefs about consiousness, spirituality and enlightenment, but I am pleased that we both agree on the ideal outcome of our repective efforts: where all humanity recognises the importance of loving ones neighbour.

I am not a Christian, or even religious in any way, but I would be the first person to espouse the doctrine of Jesus on conflict. Divine or not, he was a true philosopher (changing the world, not analysing it). But I recognise the political difficulty of adhering to a policy of 'turning the other cheek'

so far we haven't fired a single shot and have gotten more results out of Saddam in the last 12 months than the entire world got out of him for the last 10 years.

[/B]
You are right there, although I might rephrase that (if I may) as:

so far we have bombed Iraq at least once every couple of months for the last 10 years,and we have gotten more results out of him in the last 12 months than we ever did before.

I don't think he is a nice guy. I don't think left alone, he would leave us alone. I think the gov knows much more about him and his croonies and are taking steps to head off a disaster. I think once it starts we should finish - once and for all. He, Saddam has the power in his hands to prevent anything from happening to his country and his ppl. All he has to do is bend over backwards and produce what he says he doesn't have (me thinks he is lying ). Taking that course of action would set the US up to be the aggressor if they tried anything. But not coming clean he gives the US carte blanche to wipe his arse off the face of the earth and with his arse, too many innocents.
if the global community, of which i think most believes saddam is hiding the truth, put as much pressure on him as they are now the US and their buildup - if they's had applied like pressure from the get go ('92) with saddam, this buildup and possible future military action would never have had to happen. [/B]

Well, I do agree with a lot of that, but I am of the mind that the unilateral action by the US and the UK should not be an option. Such an action would merely further radicalise pan Arab opinion against us, with a concomitant increase in in terrorist actions against us.  If there is going to be an invasion of Iraq, it must be under the auspices of the UN.

That is not to say that I would support the UN in it's actions either. I just think that we are being presented with a false dichotomy of Military Action vs Doing Nothing. I have yet to see any attempt to provide more creative solutions to the problem.

I'm not going to suggest any alternatives because I don't have the facts, I just hear and read the pro and anti propaganda streams like the rest of us.

But I expect my elected representatives to be able to do better than simply spouting propaganda either for or against. There is a paucity of information in the public arena regarding the real reasons for this possible war IMO.

Saddam Hussein is the problem, not Iraq. I simply do not believe that the combined forces of the world can't come up with a better way of ushering in a new regime in Iraq than mounting a multi-billion dollar military campaign that can only result in the deaths of innocents as well as the guilty.

What troubles me most is the clear evidence of ulterior agendas at work. Unfortunately I have to go now, I will try and continue in this thread later today.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by StSanta
Thing is Eagler, the US hasn't got anything on him. or rather, they lack the hard evidence against him. So he can argue that he has come clean and the US is the agressor.

not being able to see everyones hand, you as everyone else but those at the very top in both countries, are relying on what the media spoon feeds us and they on what is spoon fed to them ....

in the end I think it'll be clear who is/was holding what

[Wotan]

No my post was true.  Bush is more restricted in his actions here by American popular opinion then by European opinion. The truth is theres very little Europe could do if the US decided to invade.

As for the ugly American thingy that only comes when I read Euros making assumptions and accusations about my country thats unfounded. War for oil for instance, and Bush is like Hitler and a warmonger.

I didnt vote for Bush and I am not a "conservative". Europe has been totally ineffective is solving anything on its own. When you look at the Balkans its completely clear and demonstrates how ineffective Europe was in dealing with situation there. Europe has a history of appeasement. Why should we expect any more from Europeans in the Future? Especially when some of the larger economies in Europe have an economic relationship with folks like Hussein.

If you want to argue against, or for that matter, for action against Iraq put up a credible arguement. The "Evil American Imperialist's are out to steal your wealth and exploit you" arguement is the same bs being spewed, particularly by left wing Euro types, since the end of world war 2.

If you think other wise then put up something shows that. Pulling the "you ugly mean American" card carries no weight at all.

[AKIron]

I have little doubt that the US govt has evidence and/or knowledge of Iraq's secret WMD program. It would be foolish to reveal this knowledge too early. If we did and we were not yet ready to invade we'd simply be giving him more time to evade or prepare for our advance.

Timing is very important and I think it likely we'll drop bombshells, both metaphorical and not so metaphorical when we're ready.

[AKIron]

If we invade Iraq and learn that they in fact had gotten rid of their WMD and given up their development plans then I will be among those calling for the resignation of the current administration.

[StSanta]

Wotan, I'm not calling the US a squeak. I ain't saying all Americans or America are/is gutless potatos who have no brains.

Not saying they're toejamless cracksluts.

YOU start namecallingwhen someone make a point (an innocent one) YOU disagree with. And that is the ugly bit of the American equation - this needless name calling. It was uncalled for and is a show of either great ignorance, intolerance or just an amazinhunk-like attitude.

War for oil - it's plausible, or at the least possible. There's nothing insulting to America in it. All countries do stuff outta self interest, and it is quite obvious what the benefits of removing Saddam could be. If you equal that with 'Europe is a squeak', then I think your thought process is somewhat biased by nationalism.

'Ugly American' card is used when someone uses profane language to assert dominance over a person referred to as a foreigner. It's ignorance compared with childishness with and added spoonful of stupidity. Interestingly enough, it's a descriptive term I use for non Americans as well.

Maybe it's the group mentality effect taking place. But you're better than that Wotan.

I didn't really intend to make a point pro or against a war with Iraq. I've made it clear before - no matter if the war primarily is for oil and the side effect is Saddam dead, I'm for it. Still, I think NK is more pressing.

My problem is with your pointless name calling. If you want to sling dirt, check your own back yard. Where Europe has been incompetent, the US has been too. The CIA has been involved in some things that make European 'incompetence' look pretty tame.

I mean, you're capable of putting your point there eloquently and precisely, so why the need for calling Europe a squeak? What warranted that? If Lupo or someone else had called the US a diddlyed up crack potato, I'd understand. But all that's been done is the questioning of the US administrations motives. Something that is done but a lot of Americans too.

[LUPO]

If Lupo or someone else had called the US a diddlyed up crack potato, I'd understand.

And actually I didn't...

[Wotan]

I was referring to the European political class. It was a generalization based on history. You can include or exclude yourself as you wish but to infer that I called you a "squeak" or any individual European would be wrong.

I am not the Flag waving patriot like others on the board. I dont think Bush has made a clear case for an invasion of Iraq.  But I surely dont give European objections much thought given their history of inaction and "buisness" dealings with Iraq. They will support the US in the end either way.

However, the idea that America would embark on a war of conquest to capture the raw materials of another is ridiculous and flies in the face of our history.

We dont have a dictator.

[StSanta]

Your choice of words could have been better. I mean, they annoyed me and I'm not particularly squeamish. As I said our political system reflects on the citizen so an overly broad characterization (European) reflects directly on every European country.

If you mean Europe will squeak and moan if the US goes ahead yet are powerless to stop it, you're right. That doesn't make Europe a subservient part of the world to the US. Military dominance is one thing. All other countries as a squeak is another. For example, despite all its power, the Israelis have yet to make squeakes out of poorly armed Palestinians. It's a combination of political and military reasons for why this hasn't happened. Russia haven't managed to make squeakes out of the Chechens yet - despite huge atrocities committed against the civilian population.

I just find the term a bit derogatory - especially when its coming from one ally to another.

Thanks for clarifying though.

[Dowding]

Ahhh...why am I not suprised Dowding has a problem with Isreal?

Your true colors are showing.

Not really. I have a problem with people justifying action over Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions, while conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel has been ignoring the UN resolutions against it for decades. It's called hypocrisy, Rude. Go look it up. Go look up 'smokescreen', 'transparency' and 'excuse'. 'Piss poor' isn't in there but can be attached to those other words to form a useful phrase.

I don't have a problem with Israel. I have a problem with an Israeli leadership led by a biggoted war criminal.

[Dowding]

But I surely dont give European objections much thought given their history of inaction and "buisness" dealings with Iraq...

Oh dear. Trying to place the US on a moral high horse as regards 'business' dealings is a little laughable. Old Donny Rumsfeld was involved in the US's supply of Anthrax to Hussein. The US sold them weapons, trained their troops etc etc.

The US' hands are as dirty as Europe's.