Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on February 10, 2003, 07:18:16 PM
-
Yep! Finally we will solve this peacefully.. Because Saddam has turned a new leaf and will now be honest even on every little thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html
BTW screw Germany and France for abandoning a NATO ally.. Their personal cowardice has reached a new extreme. :D
-
Those Germans, Belgians, and French are big old meanies for not believing chimpys "evidence" for war.
Kudos to the euros for having the courage to stand up to the salamander in the White House...obviously not many Americans have the balls to question the little sociopath.
-
Someone slip weazel a day pass?
Hey ahh weazel, who needs chimpy's evidence when Saddam keeps providing himself :)
-
Sorry Guys I am not happy about the the German government is acting, so feel many Countrymen too.
But I don'T like some of the general statements here and in that other threat either :mad:
regards
-
I guess we are in the same boat, maik.
I'm an American in Germany, and I hear those statements everyday.
P.S. I see Fischer is starting to disagree with Schröder. I'd hate to see him (Schröder) throw everything built in 50 years, away in three months.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep! Finally we will solve this peacefully.. Because Saddam has turned a new leaf and will now be honest even on every little thing.
Too little, too late. The US should go ahead as it sees fit, regardless of the UN.
-
Where Do you live Monk?
I heard that Fischer Disagreed with Schroeder even befor the election Campaign, but right now it seems that they can hold that under the carpet.
Never thought that I say that but Fischer seems the only 1 who lives a bit in reality of that whole government :(.
-
Originally posted by maik
Never thought that I say that but Fischer seems the only 1 who lives a bit in reality of that whole government :(.
I never thought I would either.
Kelsterbach, I can spit to the Frankfurt Flughafen
;)
-
obviously not many Americans have the balls to question the little sociopath.
Yes, but you do weasel. You are doing your country proud, you brave fellow.
-
Grunherz man you need to share what ever your taking. He took all the time to hide all his crap in underground bunkers. So that the UN can not find it..Its all a ploy.
-
Originally posted by nuchpatrick
Grunherz man you need to share what ever your taking. He took all the time to hide all his crap in underground bunkers. So that the UN can not find it..Its all a ploy.
What Kind of like US does ... or every country on the whole bloody planet .. what makes Iraq diffrant .. Oil .. Oil Oil Oil .. don't be stupid this is about Oil.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Those Germans, Belgians, and French are big old meanies for not believing chimpys "evidence" for war.
Kudos to the euros for having the courage to stand up to the salamander in the White House...obviously not many Americans have the balls to question the little sociopath.
You're right there weazel. I have yet to hear a single American come up with a convincing question to argue the President's position. It seems that the only active American opposition against war in Iraq are simply attacking Bush's motivations (war for oil, etc) instead of attacking his logic. The rest of the American opposition (where you fall in), just blindly follows the lead and calls names while turning a deaf ear to those trying to argue for war.
It would be nice if somebody could give convincing arguments stating that the UN isn't weakening and that Iraq isn't pursuing mass weapons and relations with terrorists. It would be nice if somebody came out and demonstrated all the good that Iraq has done for the Middle East and how a war would only harm an acceptable situation. It would be nice if SOMEBODY would come up, giving the current administration the respect it deserves, and argue a solid case against its position (because that's one of the best things about being an American).
But nobody is stepping up, so we're either too slow, stupid or cowardly... OR MAYBE THEY'RE RIGHT.
-
preon, you're not allowed to make sense here. move along now! :D
-
Originally posted by weazel
Those Germans, Belgians, and French are big old meanies for not believing chimpys "evidence" for war.
Kudos to the euros for having the courage to stand up to the salamander in the White House...obviously not many Americans have the balls to question the little sociopath.
Attention Weazel.
Stop talking.
Thank you.
-
obviously not many Americans have the balls to question the little sociopath.
__________________
shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers. less than half of americans aprove of going to war without UN aproval (it's been a week or so since I've had much time to check out the news. but last I heard it was somewhere around 65% against war without UN aproval)
and there are protests going on all over the country against the war thats comming.
btw- don't confuse a lack of suport for this war with a lack of suport of the men/women fighting it. not at all the same thing.
I have my doubts about Bush. we tell Iraq that if you don't co-operate we will go to war. then every time he meets a demand, Bush says something like 'it doesn't mean anything, he is just trying to avoid the war'. isn't that the point of threatening Husein with war? to get him to comply in order to avoid the war?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
obviously not many Americans have the balls to question the little sociopath.
__________________
I have my doubts about Bush. we tell Iraq that if you don't co-operate we will go to war. then every time he meets a demand, Bush says something like 'it doesn't mean anything, he is just trying to avoid the war'. isn't that the point of threatening Husein with war? to get him to comply in order to avoid the war?
I think Bush is pretty set on the idea that getting compliance in little bits every six months isnt going to cut it. Saddam is just delaying. Just because he meets 6 new demands out of 83 doesnt mean he is "cooperating." He isnt going to disarm peacefully, anyone who thinks its even a remote possibility is fooling themselves.
The bigger issue here, however... is the refusal of Germany, France, and Belgium to give defense forces to Turkey. If no military aid and support for the US isnt a violation of the NATO treaty, the Turkey issue certainly is. (As I understand the NATO treaty - if a member state requests defense, it MUST be provided, regardless of external circumstances. This was presumably to avoid another Poland.)
Perhaps if France shared a border with Iraq and didnt pump so much money into their oil fields they would have a different viewpoint.
-
The bigest fear of turkey is a free Kurdistan not Iraq.
-
Originally posted by straffo
The bigest fear of turkey is a free Kurdistan not Iraq.
I dunno if I would classify it as a "fear" but it is most definately a concern, yes. They wont stand for it, but theres not much they could do about it.
-
They wont stand for it, but theres not much they could do about it.
You mean apart from bombing Kurdish villages, like they have been for the last couple of years?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You mean apart from bombing Kurdish villages, like they have been for the last couple of years?
There isnt anything they can do about the creation of the state. What they drop on it afterwards is up for debate.
-
There isnt anything they can do about the creation of the state.
Apart from bombing Kurdish villages, like they have been doing for the last couple of years?
What they drop on it afterwards is up for debate.
But not what they drop on it before?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers. less than half of americans aprove of going to war without UN aproval (it's been a week or so since I've had much time to check out the news. but last I heard it was somewhere around 65% against war without UN aproval)
recent polls say otherwise:
Washington Post
February 11, 2003
Pg. 14
Most Support Attack On Iraq, With Allies
Poll Finds Renewed Backing for War
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, Washington Post Staff Writers
A majority of Americans support attacking Iraq even without the approval of the United Nations, provided that the United States has the backing of some key allies, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they would endorse military action to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over the objections of the U.N. Security Council if the United States is supported by close allies such as Britain, Australia and Italy. The governments of those countries have been among the strongest supporters of military strikes against Iraq.
In important ways, the latest survey documents how President Bush has managed in a few weeks to refocus national attention on the crisis with Iraq and renew public support for taking military action in the next few weeks.
Bush's job approval rating, which had spiraled steadily downward through 2002 and into January, has rebounded and now stands at 64 percent. Support for military action is far broader and deeper than opposition to it. A growing majority say negotiating with Iraq won't work. And the proportion of the public that wants the war to begin in a few weeks rather than a few months has never been higher.
The survey also found that a majority of the public remain open to a postwar role for the United States in Iraq. But most Americans are unwilling to commit the United States to the kind of postwar rebuilding effort that many inside and outside the administration say will be essential to bringing economic and political stability to the country.
Fifty-six percent said they oppose the postwar rebuilding efforts in Iraq if the United States would have to keep troops in the country for several years and spend $15 billion a year, the most conservative publicly available estimates of what it would take to stabilize a post-Hussein Iraq.
Opposition is fairly strong even among Republicans (46 percent), who otherwise are strong backers of the president's positions on Iraq.
Taken together, the poll results suggest that Americans are far more willing to wage war than to do what may be necessary to bring a lasting peace to Iraq -- views that could change as the Bush administration moves from winning support for the war to persuading the public to support ambitious plans to rebuild postwar Iraq.
A total of 1,001 randomly selected adults were interviewed Feb. 6 to 9 for this poll. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Americans clearly sense these are troubling times at home and abroad. More than 7 in 10 said they are worried about the situations in Iraq and North Korea, and nearly as many expressed concern about the national economy.
The survey shows how the public has rallied around Bush during this time of national crisis. Six in 10 approve of the way Bush is handling the Iraq situation, up 11 points in three weeks. More Americans say Bush is doing a good job dealing with North Korea than disapprove of the president's performance. But fewer than half -- 47 percent -- like the way Bush is managing the economy, a slight improvement in recent weeks.
The survey found support for war has surged since mid-January, a boost that began with Bush's State of the Union address and was sustained by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's address last week to the U.N. Security Council.
Two in 3 Americans support going to war, unchanged from immediately after the State of the Union speech but up 9 percentage points in less than a month. Half the public continues to support U.S. action if the United Nations opposes war -- a proportion that rises to 57 percent if at least some allies join the United States. On the Sunday morning talk shows, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made repeated references to the "18 European countries" that support disarming Hussein.
Support for war remains far stronger than opposition to it. Two-thirds of those who favor attacking Iraq said there is little chance they will change their minds. But more than half of all opponents -- 53 percent -- acknowledge they are wavering and could switch.
One reason for the broad and deep support for war is that the public's confidence that diplomacy will be successful is diminishing. Fewer than a third -- 30 percent -- said there is at least some chance negotiations with Iraq will work, down from 38 percent in a Post-ABC survey conducted three weeks ago. (In contrast, 2 in 3 believe negotiations will successfully conclude the confrontation with North Korea, though the proportion expressing confidence is also down from last month.)
Another reason is that an overwhelming majority of Americans now believe there is clear, convincing evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is hiding them from U.N. inspectors. Seven in 10 believe Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, and 6 in 10 believe Hussein is trying to develop nuclear arms.
A majority -- 55 percent -- now believe that Iraq has provided direct support to the al Qaeda terrorist group, up from 49 percent in a survey conducted immediately after Powell addressed the Security Council.
And Americans, 56 percent to 33 percent, said Iraq poses a greater threat to the United States than North Korea, the other "axis of evil" nation in the headlines recently for its apparent renewed efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
edit: of course, nobody should let their vews be swayed by a poll
-
I love it.
Europeans are correct.. we are a nation of warmongers.. and if rebuilding Iraq will get us another grateful nation like France, then screw it; leave the place a smoking wreck when we get through with it.
Gotta love polls!
The media is gonna fan up the flames, we're gonna bomb the hell outta baghdad, then we're gonna put the UK in charge of the Oil Lease deals for Europe.
hehehehhehhe..
-
Something I STILL remember about Saddam... remember the little
video clip of him after he invaded Kuwait trying to make nice nice
to the little boy (wasn't he from the UK?)? You could tell the boy
wasn't happy, I thought I remember his fists being clenched but
his arms lowered at his sides. Despite this Saddam patting him
on the head, smiling, etc. I don't think we should go in to Iraq
without friends either. One of the rules of a gunfight:
Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
If nobody else had wanted to go through with this in Iraq, then
the US probably should've let it drop also. If something happens and people die (probably the only way you can get people to be
proactive these days), well I guess the same folks who were
originally so disagreeable would probably say "why didn't you do
anything to stop him?"
As for Germany, I don't consider the actions of their government
absolutely representative of their people. Maik has confirmed that
sentiment (thanks Maik).
mauser
-
What Kind of like US does ... or every country on the whole bloody planet .. what makes Iraq diffrant .. Oil .. Oil Oil Oil .. don't be stupid this is about Oil.
And can you think of a batter reason. Think of all the plastics you use. Computers. cell phones, pagers, TVs/ water bottles, hair driers, toothbrushes, etc etc. all made from petrolem by-products. Of course this is about OIL. The Stabalization of the Worlds fuel source is a very good reason to go to war.
We import 20m barrles a day into US. 13m for transportation, thats right: trucking to move our food, medicines etc., air travel agian for shiping and personal travel, trains shipping etc. and ships, both pleasure and cargo and of course cars. We also heat our homes and hospitals and factories with oil. The plastics used in hospitals in surgery are petrolem by-produts. The plastics in the equipment are by-products. I can go on. But I made my point.
So I ask again, is ther a better reason then OIL, I would like to know what it is.
-
Freedom from terror and those that support it, elimination of a mass-murdering dictator, stabilization of a region that threatens world peace.
Oil is why France, Germany and Russia DO NOT want us to go to war there. We might mess with their slice of the pie.
-
I think the Oil argument is idiotic. If we just wanted access to their Oil nobody would be happier than Saddam Hussein to sell it to us provided that we drop the sanctions and allow him to sell the stuff. I think everyone knows what he would with the money... And which two countries have been the most agressive in keeping up the sanctions? France and Germany? Nah. Russia and China? Nope! America and England???? Yep I think those two...
-
please add one more american veteran who has the balls to question the little sociopath.
I prefer cokehead deserter. but sociopath is more correct I suppose. he got away with the desertion without being charged.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Apart from bombing Kurdish villages, like they have been doing for the last couple of years?
But not what they drop on it before?
Let me get this straight.
Keeping Saddam's record for the past 20 years in mind, we want to give him chance after chance to "do the right thing" because he is as trustworthy as a Boy Scout, but you dont think Turkey should be given the same benifit of the doubt?
I have a solution to all of this:
We go and fence off the whole of the Middle East and tell them to have at it. In 9 months it will all be Jewish.
-
2 Words for the stupid oil argument. Texas and Alaska...... That doesn't even count the gulf of Mexico.
it ain't about oil.....
-
Originally posted by Udie
2 Words for the stupid oil argument. Texas and Alaska...... That doesn't even count the gulf of Mexico.
it ain't about oil.....
Sure it is.
If Saddam were nowhere near oil, we wouldn't care about him.
as much.. :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sure it is.
If Saddam were nowhere near oil, we wouldn't care about him.
as much.. :)
No we wouldnt (as much). But what sane person would want a man who set fire to oil fields 10 years ago in control of them?
-
I think the Oil argument is idiotic. If we just wanted access to their Oil nobody would be happier than Saddam Hussein to sell it to us provided that we drop the sanctions and allow him to sell the stuff.
2 Words for the stupid oil argument. Texas and Alaska...... That doesn't even count the gulf of Mexico. it ain't about oil.....
Why is it people are so willing to see the "oil influence" in France's motivations, yet overlook the numerous and rather glaring advantages to the world energy market (some markets more than others, actually) by this move? These include:
1. Adds security against potential Saudi fundamentalist disruptions. Who are the big supporters of Islamic terrorism again? Potential for another Shaw/Homeni/Iran kinda thing?
2. Limits the potential of Iraqi disruption of other oil supplies in the region (actually noted, but downplayed by Bush actually in his address) If WMD are an issue this is where the threat lies, IMO.
3. Add, hopefully (flip of a coin?), greater stability to the region for the world's petroleum infrastructure. It also clears up a military monitoring expense and any number of irritations dealing with Iraq in the region.
As ancillary benefits (don't believe they are sufficient in their own rights for the political fallout, but they are hard to ignore):
1. Opens a new, major market for the US/British "Multinational" oil companies and infrastructure support companies.
2. Provides access to low-sulfur crude which makes producing the low-sulfur gasolines and diesels mandated by recent environmental rules more efficient and less costly to implement. When you push technology for a 97 percent reduction in distillate sulfur, having low sulfur crude saves a lot of money in new cracking towers or lost efficiency by having to process the crude 2-3 times in an existing refinery. You do the math.
It takes an extremely willful effort to accept the less honorable motivations of the "others" yet totally dismiss potential US and British motivations where Iraqi oil is concerned. I mean, it's not like we let "morality" get in the way when dealing with countries like PRC, which represent significant business opportunities. Why should morality have an overwhelming role here? It's not like we haven't overthrown leaders in the fairly recent past for our own cold war interests.
But of course, the whole WMD/OIL connection is all liberal ignorance shining though, right? Well, such noted liberals as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, seem to agree with the OIL connection. In fact they outlined Husseins WMD threat -- to oil mainly -- as early as 1997 when pushing for a preemptive regime change. No terrorist linkage then, nor real concern about a direct threat to the good old US of A.
In 1997 a group of prominent Republicans and neo-conservatives (including Cheney, Jeb Bush and a number of individuals who are now Bush foreign policy staffers) organized the Project for the New American Century. Among the “urgent” needs they identified was a regime change in Iraq, due to Hussein's WMD programs and their potential threat to the regions oil supply, our ally Israel, and other moderate states. Heres' a quote with the remainder posted below. The good news is that you can at least blame it on Clinton!
The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
Here’s the full letter
Cont.
-
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams; Richard L. Armitage; William J. Bennett; Jeffrey Bergner; John Bolton; Paula Dobriansky; Francis Fukuyama; Robert Kagan; Zalmay Khalilzad; William Kristol; Richard Perle; Peter W. Rodman; Donald Rumsfeld; William Schneider, Jr.; Vin Weber; Paul Wolfowitz; R. James Woolsey; Robert B. Zoellick
(A few familiar names like Rumsfeld and Kristol, but many unfamiliar names are now holding staffer positions, such as Bolton - Colin Powell’s staff; Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld’s staff; Perle - chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Armitage - Powell’s staff; Khalilzad - UNOCOL consultant/new Bush Admin. Afghanistan envoy)
If you think that oil isn’t at the heart of this action, I bet even Donald Rumsfeld would call you an idiot, but not in front of the press, of course.
I still believe that we would be more than happy to practice containment, as we do with North Korea, if there wasn't that huge reserve of crude sitting under Iraq. We technically have the justification to do what we are going to do. The Iraqi people may think of this as a great liberation. But what leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that this new morality is being applied selectively based on other, less nobel reasons. What also bothers me on a personal level, is that I can almost justify it based on the significance of petroleum in the developed world, and in my personal standard of living.
Charon
-
boo hoo we want his oil yadda yadda yadda. What about all that Anthrax he has in his basement?
Do you think France is mad because we might tear up that nice little nuclear reactor they sold Sadam?
Quote: "You mean apart from bombing Kurdish villages, like they have been for the last couple of years?"
Has Turkey bombed the Kurds?
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Has Turkey bombed the Kurds?
Ignorant or what ?
-
D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the going gets tough . . . the tough get going. Who's with me? Let's Go! Come on! AAAAEEEEEGGGHHHH!!
Charon
http://funwavs.com/wavfile.php?quote=184&sound=41
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Has Turkey bombed the Kurds?
LOL - everyone bombs the Kurds. Its a sporting event in the Mid East. Great folks, eh? :D
-
I'm glad I don't live in a major American city. I have no doubt that Saddam will gleefully sell or donate some of his weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda as soon as he has enough for his own needs. Or before.
The biological weapons will be used first. Any moves to retaliate will be countered with the threat of the bomb. How will our government, and those of our "allies," counter THAT threat when it develops?
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The biological weapons will be used first. Any moves to retaliate will be countered with the threat of the bomb. How will our government, and those of our "allies," counter THAT threat when it develops?
Shuckins
Maybe they should stop delivering such weapons to their frankensteins like Saddam.
It was the USA - as also Germany, France, USSR, Spain, UK, China and so many other countries - which delivered Saddam his chemical weapons or the hardware to produce them when he was defined the good guy in his war against the bad Iran.
When he killed by chemical warfare 125000 iranian soldiers and Iran protested at the UN it was the US government which blocked a resolution against Iraq with the argumentation that Iraq was acting in self defense.
Also when Saddam killed the kurds with gas weapons these "civilized" countries remained silent. because many iraqui kurdish clans wer fighting for Iran.
So instead asking how a government would deal if a monster has the ability to use chemical weapons it should answer the question before why they had delivered exactly this monster these weapons...
-
I'm glad I don't live in a major American city. I have no doubt that Saddam will gleefully sell or donate some of his weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda as soon as he has enough for his own needs. Or before.
I imagine Saddam would be trying to use them on Al Qaeda, since he is about as popular to a fundamentalist Islamic arab as GW Bush. In fact, as a traitor to the faith in a country with the 2nd home city of Islam, he might even be less popular in the end.
My belief isn't really a feeling, it just reflects stuff Bin Laden has been saying for about a decade, and that he just reiterated in his latest speech. In fact, the disruption caused by a war in Iraq provides him with quite an opportunity to expand his influence in the country. Again, even Rumsfeld isn't that concerned about WMD on US soil apparently, it's the threat to a major portion of the world's oil supply that he, rightfully perhaps, takes seriously. But Shuckins, if it makes you feel better...
Charon
-
That's all very reassuring guys, considering the country is under a heightened alert status. Saddam Hussein may be a pariah to other Muslims in the Middle East, but he is THEIR pariah. Fundamentalist terrorists such as Ben Laden will gladly forgive him of his sins if he aids them in their war against the "Great Satan." Some of the evidence presented by Colin Powell suggests that they have already forgiven him. Or do you really believe that Colin Powell doesn't know what he's talking about?
We're all arm-chair theorists. We tend to accept the facts that we want to believe and discard those that don't jibe with those beliefs. In this matter, I think we had better trust the experts. They know a lot more about what's actually happening than any of us. Doing so is a lot better than being a member of the Neville Chamberlain Fan Club.
Regards, Shuckins
-
WHOO HOO Shuckins! Stick a fork in it mate! :D
-
That's all very reassuring guys, considering the country is under a heightened alert status.
It would really be nice to think our priorities had been focused on the immediate threat on the ground, instead of a long-term threat to an admittedly vital national interest abroad. The guy that destroyed the World Trade Center is still alive and well, he's just not the center of attention, which says a lot.
Saddam Hussein may be a pariah to other Muslims in the Middle East, but he is THEIR pariah. Fundamentalist terrorists such as Ben Laden will gladly forgive him of his sins if he aids them in their war against the "Great Satan."
No, fundamentalist terrorists are working to replace him, likely in the most violent manner they can. A secular, Westernized ruler is a threat to the drudgery of a taliban, and a continual insult to fundamentalist Islam.
Some of the evidence presented by Colin Powell suggests that they have already forgiven him. Or do you really believe that Colin Powell doesn't know what he's talking about?
He's following the party line, just like you would expect. His job is to not disagree with his boss. BTW, I assume you're referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and that Zarqawi supports a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network..." in unsubstantiated claims by Powell related to a poison and explosive training camp in Northern Iraq.
According to the liberal Chicago Tribune, there is a captured terrorist and Zarqawi associate that claims the camp belongs to Ansar al-Islam, a group not connected to Al Qaeda and violently opposed to Hussein and operating in a region outside his control. Ansar al-Islam seeks the establishment of an Islamic regime in Baghdad similar to that in Iran, as well as a similar fate for Jordan. This was leaked by the Germans, so it probably carries as much weight as Powell's claim in the end, no more, no less.
[edit: If I was in a former profession, I would have left this last line out :) If you find out this detail on your own, I would claim that his credentials have been good enough to convict other terrorists and that Zarqawi was directly linked to actions against Jordanian targets, which adds support to his claims.]
We're all arm-chair theorists. We tend to accept the facts that we want to believe and discard those that don't jibe with those beliefs. In this matter, I think we had better trust the experts. They know a lot more about what's actually happening than any of us. Doing so is a lot better than being a member of the Neville Chamberlain Fan Club.
That philosophy really worked for the German people 1933-1939 didn't it? Unfortunately, their trust was misplaced. What about Clinton? The same apply there?
IMO a citizen's obligation is to think for his or her self and realize that not all experts or politicians tell the full truth. Politicians' well-paid and very sharp staffers study the demographics of the target audience and generate messages that strike the most resonance with that audience. It doesn't mean they have to lie, in fact, in PR you never lie, you just concentrate on telling the truths and half truths that support your position while averting the counter truths. No doubt there is a moral thread in the whole process, but read the previous 1998 Project for the New American Century letter for what is likely the major motivation. It just fits too well with everything else.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Has Turkey bombed the Kurds?
Yup :-(
-
Thanks Thunder, I wasnt aware of that. Guess I'm no longer ignorant eh Straffo? .:rolleyes:
Whats the purpose of them bombing the Kurds? Other than the sporting aspect of it.
-
I guess you don't have any kurd in you vicinity...otherwise you would be aware of a bit of Kurd tragedie (btw Turkey as strange human right records ... think about the Armenian)
Kurds were bombed/gazed by Saddam because they wanted an independant Kurdistan and they were supported by Iran ... same reason for the Turkish except they didn't use gaz.
btw Ignorant is not a insult for me just a constat
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Whats the purpose of them bombing the Kurds? Other than the sporting aspect of it.
Actually, if it was for sport, then I could *ALMOST* understand. However, it seems as though the reasons aren't nearly that clear. :-(
I have been over in Turkey twice now for Operation Northern Watch. The Turks, being the host country for the coaltion aircraft, have the final say on whether or not the coaltion flies. Knowing that, on more than a few occasions, the Turks said "No Fly today!" to the coalition big-wigs. Instead, their F-16's go blasting off toward the east, only to return a couple of hours later, sans HE bombs.
According to the unofficial reports, every time a large number of Kurds crosses from northern Iraq into SE Turkey, the Turks go bomb 'em. It's quite intriguing how bombing the Kurds is bad if they're just south of a map line, but it's okay if they're north of it (or if the bombers are from a NATO country). The politics of this whole deal is rather perplexing. :-(
-
hmm so when Iraq is killing civilians it's bad and a reason why to invade that country but when Turks are doing the same it's O.K ?
Hell it sounds like Iraq should join to the NATO... they might even get some NATO hardware to drop to the kurd villages :)
-
Damn, I'd never heard that before. What a f*cked up situation. Thanks again Thunder. BTW hello from North Richland Hills
Straffo-
Yes, I was aware of Saddam's actions against the Kurds, I wasnt aware of of what Turkey was doing. I had only heard that they were against an independant Kurdish state, not that they were bombing them. You sure assumed alot from someone asking a question.
-
Keeping Saddam's record for the past 20 years in mind, we want to give him chance after chance to "do the right thing" because he is as trustworthy as a Boy Scout, but you dont think Turkey should be given the same benifit of the doubt?
Err... I'm not sure, but I think the key difference is that Turkey is a member of NATO and is meant to be a partner in a democratic Western alliance, whereas Iraq is led by despotic nut-case. Bombing civilian populations with fighter-bombers is kind of not very civilised. I don't want my country associating with a nation that is prepared to deliberately bomb civilians.
The Kurds want their own state, which would encompass parts of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. I believe broken promises by Western powers have turned a potential ally against Hussein into an enemy. I think we'll be hearing more from the Kurds very soon.