Author Topic: Worth Repeating (Read 1832 times)

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:09:58 AM »

But Hortlund, what really IS the problem with Iraq at the moment? Aside from the way it's treating it's own occupants.

Hortlund · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:33:31 AM »

Are you kidding?

To keep it very very simple it is the combination of mad dictator and wmd. In the Iraqi case the mad dictator is also someone who does not hesitate to use wmd, he does not hesitate to invade or attack his neighboring countries, and he supports various terrorist organizations. He needs to go. period.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:37:40 AM »

Ok, I'm glad to see you no longer put 911 with the list of reasons.

Edit: Btw I agree with the necessity.. But not for reasons like Iraq is a viable threat to others, for the threat within.

My biggest fear is, however, that after Saddam is gone the country will fall into civil war and will emerge as a fundamentalist country. Afghanistan #2.

Hortlund · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:39:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Ok, I'm glad to see you no longer put 911 with the list of reasons.

Other people might see a connection between moslem terrorism and 9-11...apparently you dont.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:42:16 AM »

Dear Hortlund, all muslims are not terrorists.

Try to get that in first.

US government hasn't been able to show a single proof of Iraq's participation in the attack. If they could, trust me they would.

OTOH they COULD show strong connect to saudi-arabia for one..

Hortlund · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:49:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Dear Hortlund, all muslims are not terrorists.

Well, I alreay knew that. There is a difference between saying
"Moslem terrorists" and
"All moslems are terrorists".

SaburoS · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2003, 05:39:38 AM »

Hmmm. Let me see if I have this straight. First we go into Iraq and get rid of our "problem."
Then we might as well go to N. Korea as we know what big threat they are.
Iran too after all since they are a member of the Axis of Evil.
Syria next cause they should be on the list.
Saudi Arabia because most of the WTC terrorist members came from there (there's gotta be more there).
Egypt because some members came from there too.
Libya because since they used to sponsor terrorism, they probably still are.
Heck, take out all of the muslim world in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia just to be sure we wipe out all terrorists (we can never be too sure now.)
Don't forget China, our most feared enemy as they really have a lot of weapons of mass destruction (you never know they might just be willing to attack us.)
Might as well finish off all the former USSR member states as you know, they have WMD and they might use them on us.
Don't forget to attack parts of Germany, France, Canada, and the US because I am sure there are Al Quaida cells in hiding (we gotta be sure to wipe them out no matter what because it might get worse you know.)
We gotta have War and killing to have peace and freedom you know.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2003, 05:43:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Hmmm. Let me see if I have this straight. First we go into Iraq and get rid of our "problem."
Then we might as well go to N. Korea as we know what big threat they are.
Iran too after all since they are a member of the Axis of Evil.
Syria next cause they should be on the list.
Saudi Arabia because most of the WTC terrorist members came from there (there's gotta be more there).
Egypt because some members came from there too.
Libya because since they used to sponsor terrorism, they probably still are.
Heck, take out all of the muslim world in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia just to be sure we wipe out all terrorists (we can never be too sure now.)
Don't forget China, our most feared enemy as they really have a lot of weapons of mass destruction (you never know they might just be willing to attack us.)
Might as well finish off all the former USSR member states as you know, they have WMD and they might use them on us.
Don't forget to attack parts of Germany, France, Canada, and the US because I am sure there are Al Quaida cells in hiding (we gotta be sure to wipe them out no matter what because it might get worse you know.)
We gotta have War and killing to have peace and freedom you know.

Yes that is exactly what the USA is gonna do...

Ping · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2003, 08:40:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Pakistan and Saudi are US allies. Pretty foolish to go to war on them. They do have problems with Al Queida presence within their borders, but the solution to that problem is hardly to send in the Army.

There lies the problem then. If they are a larger problem as regards terrorist activities then it doesn't matter if they are an ally at all. Otherwise it is allowing double standards for your friends. And there is my whole problem with this war.
I do not care in the least if Saddam is popped. The world would be a better place for it, Whoever, There are admittedly Greater threats out there and they are sitting in your allies borders.
I for one would take this War against terrorism more seriously if they were actually doing something about it.
Removing Saddam because he Could give them WMD????? That is just removing a POTENTIAL supplier.

War on terrorism, lead the way into Egypt , Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (which by the way is another ally where 4 Terrorists were just arrested, including 2 from the military),
-
-
-
These guys aren't coming from Iraq, their weapons and training aren't coming from Iraq. This leaves a big credibility issue IMO.

Hortlund · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2003, 08:47:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
There lies the problem then. If they are a larger problem as regards terrorist activities then it doesn't matter if they are an ally at all. Otherwise it is allowing double standards for your friends. And there is my whole problem with this war.
I do not care in the least if Saddam is popped. The world would be a better place for it, Whoever, There are admittedly Greater threats out there and they are sitting in your allies borders.
I for one would take this War against terrorism more seriously if they were actually doing something about it.
Removing Saddam because he Could give them WMD????? That is just removing a POTENTIAL supplier.

War on terrorism, lead the way into Egypt , Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (which by the way is another ally where 4 Terrorists were just arrested, including 2 from the military),
-
-
-
These guys aren't coming from Iraq, their weapons and training aren't coming from Iraq. This leaves a big credibility issue IMO.

Ok, lets see, 30 000 Iraqi children starving to death every month due to Saddams policy of not giving up WMDs. The entire Iraqi people opressed on a level not seen since Stalin or Pol Pot. Torture and murder is standard method of operation for the Iraqi security services. Thousands of civilians killed each year. Thousands more "dissapear". A mad dictator arming himself with weapons of mass destruction while cooperating with fundamental moslem terrorists. A dictator that is the outspoken enemy of the west, one that has started wars of agression and used wmd against his enemies...

and your problem with going to war against him is that would be "allowing double standards for your friends"?

It must be g....I think I just los...You are...
(Hang, this is one of those occations where I'm biting my tounge)

Ping · « **Reply #25 on:** February 16, 2003, 09:05:51 AM »

Hortlund..I commend you for holding your tongue

The world would be a better place without him, do you want me to put that in my sig for you? I firmly believe that statement.

What is this war going to be about ?
You said this earlier, argue the points. The stated reasons for this war are not on humanitarian grounds are they? It is about terrorism and now mostly WMD, it seems to have expanded.
If its all about humanitarian concerns then lets talk about Africa, NK, and of course once again the list goes on.

The Facts are that Iraq is not the Worst concern right now. Hell neither is NK. Its the principle source of terrorists that are hitting Western interests.
Getting rid of Saddam will do nothing to stop the funding, training, or supply of terrorists. Pakistan as I already stated funds and trains terrorists and they also have WMD.

It really seems like dealing with these immediate threats your allies pose would seem to be more appropriate at this time.

Toad · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2003, 09:41:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
Getting rid of Saddam will do nothing to stop the funding, training, or supply of terrorists. Pakistan as I already stated funds and trains terrorists and they also have WMD.

It really seems like dealing with these immediate threats your allies pose would seem to be more appropriate at this time.

Just one point of the many your post presents.

Has it escaped your notice that the Pakistanis are at least trying to help root out terrorists on their soil? Did you read Wulfie's post in another thread about how many Pakistani CT troops have died in that effort?

In short, the Pakistanis are trying to help.

Or can you make the case that the Pakistani government is working both sides? Training and funding terrorists AND deluding the US into thinking it is also helping catch terrorists?

Can you say that Iraq is trying to help catch them at all? Particularly after the recent reports of A-Q operatives transiting Iraq?

Ping · « **Reply #27 on:** February 16, 2003, 09:50:38 AM »

Pakistan is working on the eradication of AQ in its borders. But what of the other groups. Pakistan has stated that it is giving Moral support to those in the Kashmir region.

Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of a government working both sides. I think all of us were pissed when the Saudi family member visited NY and tried to make that political statement while he was trying to give the Mayor a Donation. I'm sure you will remember that one.
So in the end, Yes, I think the Dictatorship in Pakistan is having to play both sides, failure to do so will end in his downfall due to the overwhelming opposition he faces from his own people.

Sorry, about Iraq, The relationships at this time are still ?ble.
From what I hear there are more links to the Iranians then anyone else.

Ping · « **Reply #28 on:** February 16, 2003, 10:30:06 AM »

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2432.htm

Pakistan
Pakistan's military government, headed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, continued previous Pakistani Government support of the Kashmir insurgency, and Kashmiri militant groups continued to operate in Pakistan, raising funds and recruiting new cadre. Several of these groups were responsible for attacks against civilians in Indian-held Kashmir, and the largest of the groups, the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, claimed responsibility for a suicide car-bomb attack against an Indian garrison in Srinagar in April.

In addition, the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, continues to be active in Pakistan without discouragement by the Government of Pakistan. Members of the group were associated with the hijacking in December 1999 of an Air India flight that resulted in the release from an Indian jail of former HUM leader Maulana Masood Azhar. Azhar since has founded his own Kashmiri militant group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and publicly has threatened the United States.

The United States remains concerned about reports of continued Pakistani support for the Taliban's military operations in Afghanistan. Credible reporting indicates that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisers. Pakistan has not prevented large numbers of Pakistani nationals from moving into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. Islamabad also failed to take effective steps to curb the activities of certain madrassas, or religious schools, that serve as recruiting grounds for terrorism. Pakistan publicly and privately said it intends to comply fully with UNSCR 1333, which imposes an arms embargo on the Taliban.

The attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in October prompted fears of US retaliatory strikes against Bin Ladin's organization and targets in Afghanistan if the investigation pointed in that direction. Pakistani religious party leaders and militant groups threatened US citizens and facilities if such an action were to occur, much as they did after the US attacks on training camps in Afghanistan in August 1998 and following the US diplomatic intervention in the Kargil conflict between Pakistan and India in 1999. The Government of Pakistan generally has cooperated with US requests to enhance security for US facilities and personnel.

blitz · « **Reply #29 on:** February 16, 2003, 10:30:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Ok, lets see, 30 000 Iraqi children starving to death every month due to Saddams policy of not giving up WMDs.

What ya sayin is that We kill 30000 iraqi children every month because He is not givin up his possible WMD policy.
just for clarification.

Regards Blitz

America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.