Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on February 15, 2003, 08:03:58 AM
-
Charles Krauthammer
From the Feb. 17, 2003 issue of TIME magazine
War in Iraq is coming. The demonstrators shout, "No blood for oil!" In his State of the Union address, President Bush declares, "We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers." Which is it? Well, it ain't for oil. And it is for more than liberty.
What the demonstrators, who have the historical memory of a gnat, don't understand is that, on the contrary, oil is why America kept its distance from the region for so long. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt made alliance with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. chose to leave the Arab world to its own political and social devices so long as it remained a reasonably friendly petrol station. The arrangement lasted a very long time. Had Sept. 11 never happened, it would have lasted longer.
Sept. 11 brought home a terrible truth. It revealed a mortal enemy, even more fanatical than the vanquished scourges of the 20th century (fascism and communism), lying this time in the bosom of the Arab world. It was temporarily housed in Afghanistan, but it was not Afghan. It has non-Arab Islamic adherents, but it is not pan-Islamic. It does not speak for all Arabs, but it does speak to Arab frustrations, failures and fantasies, what Fouad Ajami has called "the dream palace of the Arabs."
Neglect, it turned out, had a price, a terrible price. After World War II, America pressed for democratic reform in Germany and Japan and throughout Western Europe and Asia. It succeeded. Democracy put down roots. Yet two regions remained exempt from this democratizing impulse: Africa, because of its chaos and lack of strategic assets; and the Middle East, because of its oil and apparent benignity.
Sept. 11 forever abolished the notion of benignity. It revealed an Arab world that had resisted modernization and democracy — and become home to the most virulent anti-Americanism on the planet. And that hatred threatens the most catastrophic consequences. Maybe not from Saddam, maybe not even from al-Qaeda. Maybe only from their emulators and successors. The players may change, but the blow will come.
Hence the awful realization: preventing the next Sept. 11 will require America to engage the Arab world the way it engaged Europe and Asia a half-century ago. Totally. We have long recoiled from such an undertaking. For decades, we tried a far more modest approach to the Arab world. It had three parts:
--Pacification: buying off and subsidizing corrupt governments.
--Policing: dealing with terrorism as a form of crime, not war.
--Patrolling: maintaining a balance of power in the region principally through an offshore naval presence.
After Sept. 11, the old offshore, hands-off, see-no-evil policy will not suffice. We now understand the cost of that abdication. It leaves a critical part of the world insulated and isolated — and incubating terrible enemies and terrible weapons.
Hence Iraq. This is about more than the terrible weapons. It is about reconstituting a terrorized society. A de-Saddamized Iraq with a decent government could revolutionize the region. It would provide friendly basing not just for the outward projection of American power but also for the outward projection of democratic and modernizing ideas, which is why the Administration plans an 18-month occupation for a civil and political reconstruction unlike any since postwar Germany and Japan. If we succeed, the effect on the region would be enormous, encouraging democrats and modernizers — and threatening despots and troglodytes — in neighboring Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and beyond. To do this, however, America must give up patrolling from over the horizon. It must come ashore.
Americans don't like that. They do not hunger for exotic lands. America is perhaps the only hegemonic power in history in constant search of "exit strategies." But Sept. 11 taught that what the U.S. needs in the Arab world is not an exit strategy but an entry strategy. Iraq is the beckoning door.
The Arabs fully understand this historic shift from containment to construction. They see that pan-Arab reformation is the deepest meaning of an American entry into Iraq. That is why the Arab League so strenuously opposes the intervention. The rulers of the 22 Arab states — not a single one freely elected — understand that Iraq is only the beginning and that reformation ultimately spells their end. Not a happy prospect for them, but a real hope for their long-repressed peoples — and for those threatened by the chaos and fanaticism bred in that cauldron of repression.
Reformation and reconstruction of an alien culture are a daunting task. Risky and, yes, arrogant. Which is why there is no great desire in America to undertake such a mission. Before 9/11, no one would have seriously even proposed it. After 9/11, we dare not shrink from it. America is coming ashore.
Charles Krauthammer
From the Feb. 17, 2003 issue of TIME magazine
-
NO WAR FOR OIL!!!
Or as Dowding would say:
What...ever... :D
-
Why dont you pro-attack soldiers focus on the true threats.
Pakistan which funds and supports terrorists. Has Al-quackies running in and out of its borders.
Korea which has commited armed agression and threatens Nukes (include India and Pakistan in that)Has a real horrid human rights problem.
Saudi Arabia which has a HUGE Al-quackie and other orginizations in its boundries. Has a real horrid human rights problem. Provided the most Manpower behind 9/11. Talking about having the US leave its land.
Turkey which is guilty of genocide and abuse of the Kurds. Horrid violater of Human rights.
Israel which is guilty of the worst record of violating UN resolutions and is also guilty of war crimes as well as Humans Rights. (check out the UN site for confirmation).
The list goes on and on and on. But the problem is that most on the list I gave is hampered by the minor detail of being a US ally.
-
Think deeper.
-
So in your mind Israel and Turkey are worse than Saddam Hussein.... Are all Canadians as stupid as you?
-
Grun..once again look up the facts.
this is the point of the edit..where are any of my points wrong?
-
Ping..
Would you prefer we wait and do nothing about saddam?
Shall we launch on Paksitan, India, Saudi Arabia, N Korea??
.... by your argument, since we allow Saudi Arabia to exist, we should allow Iraq to continue it's program unmolested?
Would world opinion favor us better if we assaulted King Fasil because his dissidents are pro-AQ?
Would the world hate or applaud if we destroyed tel-aviv?
Shall we bomb the General Shaif outta pakistan for aiding us against the Taliban?
By your logic, a pre*emptive strike on ottowa to secure canadas oil would be a prudent thing. No tellin who yer gonna sell that oil to, and we MUST control all oil. That is americas mission.
*sigh*
-
No Hang..It is all of you telling us what is the greatest threat. I am only showing you what is a greater threat according to your own news sources as well as the UN and government sources.
You asked and I answered. That is all..
-
Heh Habu, your democatic friends outa Saudi Arabia sends the deadly load on WTC.
Might ya better deal with them.
Regards Blitz
USA is threathened in no wa by Iraq, it's just plain redicuolous.
-
Ping,
Solve the problem then.
Lead me.
-
Originally posted by Ping
No Hang..It is all of you telling us what is the greatest threat. I am only showing you what is a greater threat according to your own news sources as well as the UN and government sources.
You asked and I answered. That is all..
Ping I agree that Iraq is not the most evil regime in the world at this time. However the US and Iraq have a long history. Iraq has links to terrorists. Do you not think that a country that so openly gives money to encourage suicide bombers is innocent in this regard? And Iraq had defied the UN for years. What better a target to make an example of.
Is you suggestion to go after a nuclear power like North Korea first? When the majority of terrorists in the world are middle east based? What would that do?
Part of the reason the US is such a target is that they tend not to respond to terrorist attacks (at least in the past that is) and this encouraged people like Bin Laden to get more and more bold.
Do you remember how anti US the Taliban was just before the attacks? They were ready to kill a number of US citizens for being Christians and having bibles in Afghanistan. Once the US said they were coming to wipe the Taliban out did you not see how Pakistan did a 180? They saw what the rest of the Arab world is seeing. There is not future in being the US's enemy or in aiding and abetting the US's foes.
It is unfortunate that it is necessary to have a war. But better a small one now than a large one later.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Heh Habu, your democatic friends outa Saudi Arabia sends the deadly load on WTC.
Might ya better deal with them.
Regards Blitz
USA is threathened in no wa by Iraq, it's just plain redicuolous.
Blitz did you even read the article at the beginning of this thread? I can tell you did not or if you did then your reading comprehension skills are lacking (to put it mildly).
-
Originally posted by Ping
Why dont you pro-attack soldiers focus on the true threats.
Pakistan which funds and supports terrorists. Has Al-quackies running in and out of its borders.
Korea which has commited armed agression and threatens Nukes (include India and Pakistan in that)Has a real horrid human rights problem.
Saudi Arabia which has a HUGE Al-quackie and other orginizations in its boundries. Has a real horrid human rights problem. Provided the most Manpower behind 9/11. Talking about having the US leave its land.
Turkey which is guilty of genocide and abuse of the Kurds. Horrid violater of Human rights.
Israel which is guilty of the worst record of violating UN resolutions and is also guilty of war crimes as well as Humans Rights. (check out the UN site for confirmation).
The list goes on and on and on. But the problem is that most on the list I gave is hampered by the minor detail of being a US ally.
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.
Turkey and Israel are part of the good guys, if you have any objections with their policies, you should take it up with your congressman or whatever.
N Korea is a threat that needs to be removed. Right now the bulk of the US army is deployed on the Iraqi borders...it would be kinda silly to redeploy to Korea, and then back to Iraq dont you think? I mean better to take out Iraq first and then take out N Korea.
-
Hortlunds logic: We should attack Iraq and problem is solved because:
"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."
Laymans logic: We should figure out ways to force Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to root out the AQ camps and the people who fund it instead of attacking Iraq which is a minor player in the game.
"Pakistan and Saudi are US allies. Pakistan only recently became one because US needed a standpoint to invade afghanistan. Both Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia officially support US but unofficially act as the MAIN working grounds for AQ."
The laymans logic falls to it's own impossibility.. Pakistan has plenty of nukes and missiles to go with. They're already half in war with India, nobody dares to touch the region as both have nukes.
Saudi-Arabia on the other hand sits on a huge storage of oil and is one of the concentrations of wealth on the planet. It's really tough to try to make thier life miserable by trade embargoes etc. because they simply have us on a chain.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Hortlunds logic: We should attack Iraq and problem is solved because:
Correction: we should attack Iraq and the problem with Iraq is solved. I'm not saying there are no other problems, but one thing at a time ok.
-
But Hortlund, what really IS the problem with Iraq at the moment? Aside from the way it's treating it's own occupants.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.. :)
-
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".
-
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.
:rolleyes:
-
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.
:rolleyes:
Yes that is exactly what the USA is gonna do...
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Blitz either way Saddam Hussein obviously values his WMD programs to 30,000 of his own peoples lives every month.
What a guy! Would make papa Stalin proud! No wonder you defend his regime now...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Blitz either way Saddam Hussein obviously values his WMD programs to 30,000 of his own peoples lives every month.
What a guy! Would make papa Stalin proud! No wonder you defend his regime now...
We call that collateral damage, who cares about that little terrorists tulips anyways .
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by blitz
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.
I think you will find if you do some research that Iraq is importing as much food now as they were before 1991.
Sorta blows that accusation out of the water.
-
Originally posted by blitz
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.
Blitz...walk me through your line of reasoning that leads you to that conclusion please.
If we say:
"We see you are attempting to manufacture WMDs, we find that unacceptable. Until you stop your WMD program we will place an embargo on your nation."
And he says:
"Screw you Crusaders and jew lovers. Deth to Amreeka".
At what point did the responsibility for the Iraqi civilian deaths pass over from him to us and why?
-
"Ok, lets see, 30 000 Iraqi children starving to death every month due to Saddams policy of not giving up WMDs."
Where do you get this statistic from...FAUX News?
I've watched a LOT of coverage from Iraq the last few months and haven't seen ANY starving babies or "skinnys" like were seen in Somalia.
The only thing I've seen are fat and sassy looking Iraqis getting ready for another fight.
We're going to get them thar evil-doer Iraqis cause I won't allow the bills of sale for Saddams chem and bio weapons to fall into the wrong hands!
RoNaLD RaYgUnZ and Poppy Chimps reputations are too important to let that thar info come to light.
Besides, Jebus told me that thar oil is mine-unz Unka Dicks....and being the weak minded fool that I'ze is I alwayz minds what Jebus sez cuz I don't wanna spend eternity a-bilin' in ol' scratchs cookin' pot.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Blitz either way Saddam Hussein obviously values his WMD programs to 30,000 of his own peoples lives every month.
What a guy! Would make papa Stalin proud! No wonder you defend his regime now...
According to Blix, after over 400 inspections, there is no evidence of WMD and no convincing evidence that the Iraqis were warned in advance of the inspections.
-
Originally posted by blitz
We call that collateral damage, who cares about that little terrorists tulips anyways .
Regards Blitz
that explains alot. No wonder you don't want them liberated you think they are all terrorist and should die.
makes sense now.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
According to Blix, after over 400 inspections, there is no evidence of WMD and no convincing evidence that the Iraqis were warned in advance of the inspections.
they had the stuff in 1998. It's not up to the inspectors to find the stuff it's up to iraq to prove it's been destroyed. What's so hard to understand about that?
-
How do you prove that something does not exist?
There's a flaw in that logic somewhere.
-
Not gonna aruge about the War,,, if you think war is a good idea I pity you.
What i want to know is how many of you protested on SAT.?
-
I believe what he's saying is what Blix said.
According to the terms, they're supposed to be able to show when/where/how that stuff was destroyed so that it "doesn't exist".
They either haven't been able to show that or they choose not to do so.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
How do you prove that something does not exist?
There's a flaw in that logic somewhere.
The flaw is in your understanding of what the UN weapons inspectors are doing there. They are not there to look for WMD's, they are there to verify that the Iraqis have destroyed their WMD's.
In theory, the Iraqis should say "we have destroyed 500 C warheads, here is the evidence." Then the weapons inspectors go there and confirm that the Iraqis are telling the truth.
Public opinion seems to think it works the other way around. That the weapons inspectors are in Iraq to find WMDs or find evidence of WMDs. Incidentally Saddam Hussein seems to think that is the way it works too. Therefore he is saying "we have already destroyed everything, now go away", and the UN inspectors are saying "no, we dont believe that, show us the evidence." But the Iraqis are refusing.
Public opinion in the west...for example the tards out demonstrating yesterday seems to believe the Iraqi interpretation too. But that is wrong, and indeed hopeless. How do you go look for something the size of a refridgerator in an entire country? It doesnt work that way, and it was never supposed to work that way.
Stalin said it best:
What luck for rulers that man doesnt think.
Meaning that public opinion is oh so easy to control. Something we saw proof of yesterday.
-
Originally posted by weazel
"Ok, lets see, 30 000 Iraqi children starving to death every month due to Saddams policy of not giving up WMDs."
Where do you get this statistic from...FAUX News?
Sorry, was Hoprtlunds info, ask him.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The flaw is in your understanding of what the UN weapons inspectors are doing there. They are not there to look for WMD's, they are there to verify that the Iraqis have destroyed their WMD's.
In theory, the Iraqis should say "we have destroyed 500 C warheads, here is the evidence." Then the weapons inspectors go there and confirm that the Iraqis are telling the truth.
So... if the record keeping wasn't thorough, they're screwed.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Not gonna aruge about the War,,, if you think war is a good idea I pity you.
What i want to know is how many of you protested on SAT.?
Me. No biggy, but glad i got my bellybutton up altough whether was lousy.
Didn't sah Anti- americanism, sah tons of Anti Bush statements, tho.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So... if the record keeping wasn't thorough, they're screwed.
Not if you want to listen to the anti war demonstrators...
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by blitz
We call that collateral damage, who cares about that little terrorists tulips anyways .
Regards Blitz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that explains alot. No wonder you don't want them liberated you think they are all terrorist and should die.
makes sense now.
__________________
UDIE, you make me laugh :D
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not if you want to listen to the anti war demonstrators...
It's difficult to argue that Iraq is a larger threat today than they were five years ago. Of course, the standard argument is that it's a different world today, after 911. Nevermind that terrorism has existed for decades and also nevermind the fact that not a single Iraqi was on board any of the hijacked planes.
I've yet to hear anyone state that they are supportive of Hussein and his regime. The big question is why is regime change in Iraq such a high priority?
-
umm sand, WMD aren't grocery lists, you don't just misplace them. You don't have screwed record keeping.
you don't just misplace tons of nerve gas,hmmm now where did i put that vx. Especially when the ruler of the country is so paranoid of being overthrown he kills he own inlaws.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's difficult to argue that Iraq is a larger threat today than they were five years ago. Of course, the standard argument is that it's a different world today, after 911. Nevermind that terrorism has existed for decades and also nevermind the fact that not a single Iraqi was on board any of the hijacked planes.
I've yet to hear anyone state that they are supportive of Hussein and his regime. The big question is why is regime change in Iraq such a high priority?
5 years ago the US president was a *bites tounge again* a different type of person, with other priorities in life.
9-11 showed us two things
1) exactly how vunerable we are
2) exactly how much they hate us, what they are capable of.
Now I dont know what kind of future the anti-war crowd want to see for their children. But I sure as he** dont want to see a world where various suspect nations have wmds or where terrorists have wmds.
It is as simple as that. Saddam has wmds, he supports terrorists=he must go.
-
Yeah... I heard what Powell said. He rattled off the list of WMD items.
Still, Blix has stated that the U.S. is witholding evidence from the inspection teams. It would be nice if the U.S. would tell the U.N. what they should be looking for.
-
Didnt you read my previous post? The UN isnt supposed to look for anything. Iraq is supposed to prove that they have destroyed the weapons we know they had.
The US have no obligation to give any evidence to the UN, it would just be a waste of good intel. By the time the inspectors would get there, the stuff would be gone anyway.
Get this:
The UN inspectors dont want to find a smoking gun. The Iraqis would never let them find a smoking gun and live (tragically they were killed in a riot, the guilty ones will be punished etc).
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
5 years ago the US president was a *bites tounge again* a different type of person, with other priorities in life.
9-11 showed us two things
1) exactly how vunerable we are
2) exactly how much they hate us, what they are capable of.
Now I dont know what kind of future the anti-war crowd want to see for their children. But I sure as he** dont want to see a world where various suspect nations have wmds or where terrorists have wmds.
It is as simple as that. Saddam has wmds, he supports terrorists=he must go.
IMHO, removing Hussein isn't going to make us any less vulnerable.
Where do we stop? Do we conduct "regime change" operations in every country that doesn't like the U.S? After we've telegraphed the punch, do we then use their development of WMD as an excuse?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO, removing Hussein isn't going to make us any less vulnerable.
Where do we stop? Do we conduct "regime change" operations in every country that doesn't like the U.S? After we've telegraphed the punch, do we then use their development of WMD as an excuse?
That's why as a french I'm very disturbed by the planned attack of Iraq.
Because we disagree with the US of A and worst we have working WMD !
In fact when thinking just a bit more ... we are as safe as Noth Korea.
-
Originally posted by straffo
That's why as a french I'm very disturbed by the planned attack of Iraq.
Because we disagree with the US of A and worst we have working WMD !
In fact when thinking just a bit more ... we are as safe as Noth Korea.
I'm sure you intend this to be deragatory Straffo. However, have no fear from the US. And by the way, don't run up the white flag before checking with us, we might still be willing to defend you again.
-
oups ...
it was intended as a sarcastic joke but as usual I diddlyed on the smilley part.
I shouldn't post when I'm pissed because of another post ...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO, removing Hussein isn't going to make us any less vulnerable.
Where do we stop? Do we conduct "regime change" operations in every country that doesn't like the U.S? After we've telegraphed the punch, do we then use their development of WMD as an excuse?
Removing threats is always good.
Where do we stop? As I have been trying to say in several threads on this subject, it is the mad dictator+wmd combo that is priority one. That would make N Korea next after Iraq.
We are also after terrorist supporters. That would make Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia potential targets.
Does it stop Sandman? The terrorists are playing for keeps...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Removing threats is always good.
Where do we stop? As I have been trying to say in several threads on this subject, it is the mad dictator+wmd combo that is priority one. That would make N Korea next after Iraq.
We are also after terrorist supporters. That would make Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia potential targets.
Does it stop Sandman? The terrorists are playing for keeps...
I see removing Saddam as setting a big example that the rules of changed.
Once that has happened everything will change.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I see removing Saddam as setting a big example that the rules of changed.
Once that has happened everything will change.
The rules you are referring to changed with the Kosovo war already.
-
Even FAUX News coverage doesn't try working this angle, it requires showing starving children and I haven't seen any.
"Ok, lets see, 30 000 Iraqi children starving to death every month due to Saddams policy of not giving up WMDs."
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The rules you are referring to changed with the Kosovo war already.
Yes but the middle eastern arab dictatorships that have no intention of introduceing democracy and who hold on to their power by providing the disinfranchised in their lands an outlet for their anger by passively encouraging them to hate the west and blame the west for all their problems, those dictatorships do not seem to have grasped the fact that the rules have changed.
Is that a run on sentence?
-
for once we agree Habu (you know now that it can happen ;))
-
Weazel. Do you trust unicef as a source, or are they a part of the conservative conspiracy too?
http://www.unicef.org/media/publications/irqu5est.pdf
http://www.unicef.org/media/publications/irqscont.pdf
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/97pr60.htm
http://www.unicef.org/sowc01/pdf/SOWC5.pdf
Bottom line:
Over 1 000 000 Iraqi children suffer from malnutricion.
1999 numbers (latest avaliable)
Under 5 moratlity rate: 128
Infant moratlity rate: 104
Hard numbers: 804 000 (births) 103 000 (deaths)
Compare to Swedens numbers if you will
Under 5 mortality rate: 4
Infant mortality rate: 3
Hard numbers: 86 000 births 0 (deaths - 0 means below 1000)
-
Since when Sweden is under embargo ?
-
We are not. The reason I included Swedens numbers was to give a comparrisson with a "normal" country.
-
I think it's not fair we all know the high quality level of medecine/education/food in Western country :)
Comparing with Egypt or any country from middle west would be IMO more correct.
-
Straffo, if you read one of those pages I linked, you will see a graph on child mortality rate over time in Iraq. Lets just say that the numbers indicate that something happened in 1991...
-
let me guess ....
a Tsunami ? :p
a war ? :D
-
8533 deaths per month in 1999 falls well short of 30,000 per month doesn't it?
MMMMMM.....propaganda tastez guuuuuud.
-
Originally posted by weazel
8533 deaths per month in 1999 falls well short of 30,000 per month doesn't it?
MMMMMM.....propaganda tastez guuuuuud.
wow...you really are an amazinhunk. THE POINT weazel, the point is those kids die every month because of Saddam and his nuclear ambitions.
And those figures are from 99...remember that...look at the graphs...notice any trend?
-
I wonder how many wonderful hospitals could be built to save children if the oil dollars were not being misspent on palaces and the military there.
-
http://www.childinfo.org/cmr/revis/db2.htm
2001 Infant MR 105
2001 Under 5 MR 133
Tragic yes. But I invite you to look at the figures to see they are by no means the worst.
The trend from the 1960's showed that Iraq would have been in the 30's for MR if the Gulf war had not happened.
Be honest. This coming war is not for humanitarian reasons. It is merely to give the public a moral handle to grasp onto.
Sierra Leonne alone has an under 5 MR of 316.
Besides these I think I counted 9 countries that were over 200.
Count how many are 150 and higher. 26 countries.
-
Originally posted by Ping
http://www.childinfo.org/cmr/revis/db2.htm
2001 Infant MR 105
2001 Under 5 MR 133
Tragic yes. But I invite you to look at the figures to see they are by no means the worst.
The trend from the 1960's showed that Iraq would have been in the 30's for MR if the Gulf war had not happened.
Be honest. This coming war is not for humanitarian reasons. It is merely to give the public a moral handle to grasp onto.
Sierra Leonne alone has an under 5 MR of 316.
Besides these I think I counted 9 countries that were over 200.
Count how many are 150 and higher. 26 countries.
What are you saying? I think the figures show clearly the relationship between Saddam and CMR In Iraq. As you say, Iraq was in a very positive trend until 91, then the very positive trend switched to a very bad trend. Those rates will continue the way the are now as long as Saddam is in power, because he priortizes his WMD-program over his own population. He needs to go. Period. Everyone will benefit from that, we because it will be one less threat. Iraqis because they wont have to live under the opression of a mad dictator.
Same with N Korea, another mad dictator that prioritizes his WMDs ahead of his population. Another one that needs to go.
BUT Iraq and N Korea can prosper. They have the natural resources for that. All we need to do is remove the insane dictators. The same cannot be said about Sierra Leone for example.
-
I am arguing the Humanitarian angle and that alone. SL is a perfect example of where countries in the interest of humanity could step in to stop the slaughter and misery.
The coming war is not for the liberation of Iraqi people just as it is not about the poor innocent children.
-
Who said that? That is one of the positive consequences of taking out Saddam...there are hundreds of other positive consequences too. There is not one positive consequence of leaving him in power though.
-
Hortlund, this may surprise you but, you are correct. However there is even more to lose by going in without due caution.
#1 priority: War against terrorism
By Unilaterally going in on Saddam you will weaken that #1 objective.
Terrorism is not a State, it is a shadowy entity with no borders. By acting rashly, 1000's more of these shadowy figures will emerge due to an act of aggression.
And please note that I said DUE CAUTION.
-
FYI Hortlund terrorism didn't start 9/11.
-
Why the hell did I answered to a 2 week old thread ?
back to the bar ... hips !
-
***WHACKS*** Straffo with a Crusty Roll
-
ouch !
but what is a crusty roll ?
-
Originally posted by Habu
I wonder how many wonderful hospitals could be built to save children if the oil dollars were not being misspent on palaces and the military there.
Kinda like what that $50 billion a year to secure oil interests could be used for.
-
Tis a Crusty bread roll. Kinda like a baby French bread.
-
yummy :)
a sort of "dwarf" baguette ?
-
baby french bread?
-
Ya I know...lousy comparison but hey...Couldnt think of anything else at the time.