Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on March 03, 2003, 11:37:58 AM
-
why when the going gets tough, it is so easy to hate countries with the same democratic structure who disagree with the US policies?
I've read a lot of posts now. Mostly, it boils down to this:
'Americans are true badarses when we are pissed. No one should stand in our way then, because we're pissed. You're either with us or against us. We're pissed. We keep the world free and fair and are mostly altruistic, whereas Europe is a continent full of ungrateful nations with people wearing clogs or leather, or possibly clogs made out of leather. And Europe isn't pissed like us. We saved their tulips when the Zeppelins were dropping mustard gas during WWXI on French cyborgs. F*cking Eurorutabagas are trying to stop the war on terrorism - the arrests are just a coverup. Euros love Saddam Hussein and everyone not in favour of the war are in favour of Hussein. We're pissed and irrational - therefore we are right'.
Or:
'We're the mightiest nation on earth and we have 250 different kinds of toilet paper, including really fluffy stuff. We don't need the UN and Europe with its puny economy can go to hell. UN only has one kind of toilet paper and the European economy is centered around providing arse wiping material to 'um. We don't need anyone, except the ones we do need. Europe has never supported us despite everything we've done and we'll now boycott everything not made in the US. Except the toilet paper from abroad, we'll need that. The upcoming war against Iraq is about the war on terrorism and the very fact that we don't have any evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda is proof of that connection'.
Ok, it is exaggerating, but still. I cannot believe that otherwise intelligent people leave their brains as soon as something with some passion is being spoken about. They don't even bother to check the facts; Spain is in Europe. UK is in Europe. Denmark is in Europe. Same with former Soviet 'colonies'.
And that is what I find insulting - our government has taken an unpopular stance (in DK) and supported the US in every possible way. AWACS to guard US skies when the US AWACS went to Afghanistan. Peacekeepers in Afghanistan, some of which were killed. F-16 fighterbombers dropping eggs on Al Qaeda. Special forces to guide them. Still Eurorutabagas never helped.
Our government now says; the US will have support for war against Iraq if the war is in accordance with the Rule Of Law - i.e through the UN. This doesn't mean Denmark hates the US or is against the US - or rather it does, according to the Bush 'either with us or against us' doctrine.
Also the UN is seen with extreme skepticism, since it is a hindrance to absolute US power. It seems some Americans find it annoying that for a war to be internationally legally sanctioned, it has to be UN sanctioned. When the UN isn't quickly enough adapting the US position, it is blasted. Hell, even then it is blasted; seen as an annoyance that stands in the way of the US. There is a lack of understanding about why the UN exists and how it works.
What I'd kindly ask for is less trashing and more content. Also it'd be nice if blanket statements such as 'Eurorutabagas' were dropped in favour of more accurate, geographically precise names. I'd also ask for a ratio of 5:1 trashing/content: you get five Euro-trashings, but then have to provide one line of substance.
To put it in a way so that those involved will understand it; yer current way of arguing isn't winning anyone over and to an objective observant, there's very little differentiating your style of posting and logic from that of for instance Straffo and blitz. You think they come off as fanatic nutters? Not only them, matey.
Who's next for the soap box?
-
Why should we listen to a request from a Europopsicle
:D
-
I found myself agreeing with ya only to be disappointed when you confessed to exageration. Who can argue with fluffy toilet paper?
-
{Sniffs...gag reflexes begin again...swims away}
-
Real good post Santa.
So instead of a Europopsicle can I call ya a Danewuss? ;)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Q: Why do Danish people never play hide and seek?
A: Nobody wants to look for them.
A Danish airplane was getting ready to land in Stockholm's airport. The control tower contacted the pilot and asked for his position. The Danish pilot was surprised and didn't do anything. Again the control tower contacted the pilot. "Please tell us your position." Then the pilot understood and answered: "Here I am in the front seat, as always..."
The Danish man had a problem. His wife was coming home on the train but he could not remember if she was coming at 8:40 or 4:80.
-
That is "Boiled Down"???
:eek:
-
That's more like it! Much better chaps!
And Ripsnort, the pilot dinnae understand the question because Stockholm is the capital of SWEDEN and the ATC was speaking SWEDISH. :D
Gotta find my battleaxe. Am growing a beard.
-
ok..NOONE can argue that US toilet paper is worse than Euro bog roll.. I had to remove splinters from my bellybutton the first time I took a pinch over there:eek: if anything..we are kind to our tulips here.
-
Irrelevant Hawk.
Here we use the British Army method of wiping ones arse:
Take 1 sheet of bog roll (any design) and tear off 1 corner.
Make a whole with your middle finger through the middle of the remaining sheet.
Wipe arse on finger.
Use bog roll sheet to clean finger.
Use previously torn off corner to clean fingernail.
I get through one bog roll about every 8 months.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
and i shook hands with the guy! glad I'm not a nail biter.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Also the UN is seen with extreme skepticism, since it is a hindrance to absolute US power. It seems some Americans find it annoying that for a war to be internationally legally sanctioned, it has to be UN sanctioned. When the UN isn't quickly enough adapting the US position, it is blasted. Hell, even then it is blasted; seen as an annoyance that stands in the way of the US. There is a lack of understanding about why the UN exists and how it works.
Some substance:
We know how the UN works. We were instrumental in its design, funding and execution.
Overall, I don't think we find it a bit annoying that a war needs to be sanctioned by the UN SC.
What we find annoying is:
1. It's highly unlikely that any governement with a decent intelligence service has failed to realize that Saddam:
a. Has some serious WMD and is working on more including nukes
1. and has near totally ignored UN sanctions for over 12 years
2. Even now at the last moment he's dragging his feet on disarmament and not fully cooperating
b. Has already demonstrated that when the spirit moves him he WILL invade his neighboring sovereign states
c. Is an out and out bastige to the citizenry of Iraq
1. he's ruined agriculture to the point that 60% of Iraqis live on UN food handouts
2. he tortures and murders his own citizens... in fact killed his own son... and will torture a child to get the parent to talk
3. has engaged in genocide against the Kurdish minority
2. Nonetheless, knowing all of these things, a few countries sitting on the UN SC refuse to acknowledge that there is a need to remove Saddam and will not sanction US action even though they're not being asked to contribute militarily
We understand quite clearly how the UN is supposed to work. We don't understand why it is NOT working like it should right now. The world would be a better place without Saddam feverishly working to build nukes. IRAQ would be a much better place for its citizens without Saddam building statues of himself while his people starver.
That, I believe, is a more accurate reflection of the view from here.... at least on my part.
-
Zyprexa makes confusion go bye-bye :D
-
But Toad, some of your spin points are being refuted these days..
a. Has some serious WMD and is working on more including nukes
Not according to Gen. Hussein Kamel who in 1995 told U.N. inspectors
that Iraq had DESTROYED ITS ENTIRE STOCKPILE of chemical and biological
weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
site: http://www.msnbc.com/news/876128.asp
Glen Rangwala's analysis of the Kamel transcript:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
1. and has near totally ignored UN sanctions for over 12 years
Not to have a double standard or anything but what does the U.S plan to do about the 65 U.N sanctions Israel has violated?
2. Even now at the last moment he's dragging his feet on disarmament and not fully cooperating
They keep raising the bar.. he started destroying the missiles, now they want Saddam to leave the country..
b. Has already demonstrated that when the spirit moves him he WILL invade his neighboring sovereign states
No. Last 12 years he’s been contained.
1. he's ruined agriculture to the point that 60% of Iraqis live on UN food handouts
So we should feed them cruise missile hand outs?
2. he tortures and murders his own citizens... in fact killed his own son... and will torture a child to get the parent to talk
U.S had the moral high ground on that. See POW treatment at Gitmo-- Patriot act etc.
3. has engaged in genocide against the Kurdish minority
Another spin point refuted by the CIA!.. Kurds got caught in crossfire of battle btwn Iraq and Iran.
2. Nonetheless, knowing all of these things, a few countries sitting on the UN SC refuse to acknowledge that there is a need to remove Saddam and will not sanction US action even though they're not being asked to contribute militarily
If George Bush goes ahead with this attack, he could be indicted for crimes against humanity. Sanctions could be placed on the U.S!. Bush could cause a world wide depression worse than he already has..
BTW Toad, are you familiar with "The Project For The New
American Century"? No?.. here have a look at their web site http://www.newamericancentury.org/
PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defense spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
Finally we get to weed out the truth from the spin. George W. Bush and the boys' wanna do is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what's more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy - that's old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce
the Pax Americana through military might.
So when George Bush and his gang talk about Saddam posing a "threat" to America - they don't mean he's going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) - what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East.
In fact, do you know that President Bush's crew regard Saddam as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states:
"the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the
regime of Saddam Hussein."
Ah so Iraq is merely "the immediate justification" and Saddam's regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf.
Hehe forgot all those spin points Toad your talking to us now. Now you might understand why the U.N. might have some quibbles.
-
Spain is in Europe. UK is in Europe. Denmark is in Europe
StSanta
they don't know where England, Spain and Denmark is on the map, it must be somewhere near mexico.....:D
CB
-
Very good post StSanta. 100% agreed.
And here is something to think about - every time the people here disagree on something that they cant refute, they will simply start making "hilarious" statements to deviate the original purpose of the thread in an attempt to make the arguement loose validity.
Oh, and Toad, good points.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Very good post StSanta. 100% agreed.
And here is something to think about - every time the people here disagree on something that they cant refute, they will simply start making "hilarious" statements to deviate the original purpose of the thread in an attempt to make the arguement loose validity.
Oh, and Toad, good points.
Or, some statements just invoke hilarity. But hey, who doesn't enjoy a good laugh? Uh oh, did I do it again?
-
Its ok I'm cool with it :)
I do it too.
Just an observation.
-
And an astute one at that. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Some substance:
What we find annoying is:
1. point
a. point
1. point
2. point
b. point
c. point
1. point
2. point
3. point
2. point
1. good points
a. what the heck
2. kind of
c. numbering system
IV. is that?
-
A 4 place cessna crashed in a cemetary in Denmark.
So far they have recovered 876 bodies and the death toll is rising...
-
Hehe, heard that one before.
-
:p
Originally posted by X2Lee
A 4 place cessna crashed in a cemetary in Denmark.
So far they have recovered 876 bodies and the death toll is rising...
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
a. Has some serious WMD and is working on more including nukes
Not according to Gen. Hussein Kamel who in 1995 told U.N. inspectors
that Iraq had DESTROYED ITS ENTIRE STOCKPILE of chemical and biological
weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
So tell me 10Bears...if they destroyed everything they had back in 95...how come the inspectors found mustard gas a couple of weeks ago?
-
gawddammit, santa, just when we have the axis of weazils all boxed up and ready to send ta hell, COD; you pop in with some noise about us badmouthin all of europe.
We ain't pissed at poland, are we??
There's even some pizzaria in denmark that won't serve frogs or kraut till the tourist season starts.
butterin A, we know who our friends are. Theres at least 6-7 folks in europe that don't hate us. We know who they are. We sent 'em condoms and silk stockings. (Hortland.. yer sex wax is on back order)
whereas Europe is a continent full of ungrateful nations with people wearing clogs or leather, or possibly clogs made out of leather.
We know the diffrence between the Luftwaffe and the dutch. You must be confused.
We're pissed.
You seem to have gotten that part right.
And Europe isn't pissed like us.
Of course not. Who in hell can get pissed on that stinky foamy beer. That toejam just gives us a headache. You guys ain't even gotta deal with a decent hangover. And don't get me started on Perrier.. even my alchoholic cat won't touch those little green bottles of vichy pee the morning after.
Euros love Saddam Hussein and everyone not in favour of the war are in favour of Hussein. We're pissed and irrational - therefore we are right'.
Well, toejam, the guy dresses like he's a Legionaire, WTF is up with that? And try gettin as pissed as we are, see how butterin rational you sound... (did i just say what i thought he said?)
'We're the mightiest nation on earth and we have 250 different kinds of toilet paper, including really fluffy stuff.
When Mr. Whipple see this, he's gonna be pissed too. You miserable Danewuss, you didn't even mention two-ply hugahunk.
Now, we're gonna have to TP yer butterin country tonight.
We don't need the UN and Europe with its puny economy can go to hell.
Well, yah got that part right, too. Thanks fer stayin with the ratio quota. ;)
They don't even bother to check the facts; Spain is in Europe. UK is in Europe. Denmark is in Europe. Same with former Soviet 'colonies'.
Unless yah bomb us, we really don't give a toejam where yah are. But if yah do bomb us... we'll find out EXACTLY where yah are. ;)
Some reporter is reputed to have remarked to Colin Powell that only 10% of americans even know where the hell iraq is on the map. Powell replied.. "..and the bad news for iraq is that 10% happens to be in the US military." As long as we can play 'smack the towelhead' anywhere on the planet from Whiteman AFB, who the butter cares where yah are? We don't need to know where Spain, Denmark and Lithuania is.. the Air Force knows.
To put it in a way so that those involved will understand it; yer current way of arguing isn't winning anyone over and to an objective observant, there's very little differentiating your style of posting and logic from that of for instance Straffo and blitz. You think they come off as fanatic nutters? Not only them, matey.
Well, Jeezus butterin popsicle! You just now catchin on to the dismal fact that americans are as nutty as the proverbial fruitcake? You ever see ANY hollywood movies?? Fer gawdsakes, man, we're ALL diddlyin nutcases! We've been warnin the world for 50 gawdamned years.. "we're scary-crazy. we have nukes. don't piss us off!". Is there ANYTHING we've done in the past 50 years that would indicate that we're playin the game with the full deck?
Dammo.. have I been shouting up my own bellybutton fer a turd burger fer three years here and accomplished NOTHIN???..
now i'm depressed.
:(
-
Ok I'm gonna start calling them Frogrutabagas and Krautrutabagas. :)
-
Relatively few people on this board have argued the subject. Virtually all that have argued it have been somewhat boisterous. People are generalising based on the people they are aguing with instead of the people in general.
That has worked both ways Santa as your assesment and your tone reflect.
MiniD
-
So tell me 10Bears...if they destroyed everything....
Hortland I gotta ask you a serious question... Are you diddlying the president of the United States?... no seriously.. are you?.. Your country sure isn't going for any of this nonsense... they'd vote same as France/Germany/Russia/China/Turkey... and pretty much the rest of the world.
-
MT, it didn't format correctly. There are points and subpoints beneath some of those and sub-sub points beneath some of those. You'll have to muddle through.
;)
-
10B,
If you think Iraq does not have combat ready chemical and biological weapons you are mistaken. If you think they do not have an ongoing nuke weapon research program you are mistaken.
I'm aware of Israel's violation of UN sanctions and I've posted in the O-Club on it before. They should be made to comply. However, that is not the question before the SC right now, is it? Nor has ANY of the SC permanent members or rotating members put it before the SC in the recent past, have they?
He is dragging his feet. He's BEEN dragging them for 12 years. My comments are in response to Santa's post which deals with a situation that has been going on for 2 months. The failure to disarm has been going on 12 years and the destruction of the Al Samoud's has been going on 2 days. You'll notice that so far no UN inspectors have been present or have confirmed destruction of the missiles.
However, I do agree that raising the bar is wrong.
Point is he does have demonstrated record of invading his neighbors when he feels the time is right. Kuwait is all the proof you need of that.
Does it strike you as odd that a nation sitting on a gazillion petrodollars waiting to be harvested is starving? Agriculture in Iraq is not going to improve when the bulk of the emphasis is placed on building weapons (and hiding the $ in private accounts; current estimates are that Saddam will put nearly $3 billion in private accounts this year (60 minutes).
The treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo lost us the moral high ground? The Patriot Act lost us the moral high ground.
Can you possibly believe what you write?
Amnesty International has over the years received numerous reports of torture and interviewed hundreds of torture victims. The organization has also published many reports documenting a wide range of human rights violations in the country, including torture and ill-treatment.
Victims of torture in Iraq have been subjected to a wide range of forms of torture. The bodies of many of those executed had evident signs of torture, including the gouging out of the eyes, marks of severe beatings and electric shocks to various parts of the body, when returned to their families. Some detainees died as a result of torture. Many torture victims now live with permanent physical or psychological damage.
Yeah, go ahead and compare the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo to this... and tell me about morality again. Sheesh.
GENOCIDE IN IRAQ The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/)
Here's some "spin" from Human Rights Watch. You might want to read it. It's very long and detailed; 13 chapters and it is footnoted.
Why were the women and children only killed in certain areas? Did their execution reflect patterns of combat and resistance, or was some other criterion used? Where are the graves of all those who died, and how many bodies do they hold?
The answer cannot conceivably be less than 50,000, and it may well be twice that number. When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000--a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages.
Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. "What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?" he is said to have asked. "It couldn't have been more than 100,000"--as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds.15
We're not talking one gas attack here. We talking about a planned program to eliminate the Kurds that was systematically carried out on orders from Hussein. This was no "accidental crossfire". Or do you think HRW is making it all up?
If Bush gets indicted, it'll be real interesting. Because a case can well be made that this is merely the completion of the first Gulf War SC resolution. Iraq did not comply with the terms negotiated at the end of the war. But basically that whole presumption is so far out as to be beyond comprehension. It's more stuff thrown up in the air to obscure.
-
Saddam 'killed missile chief' to thwart UN team
2003-03-02 06:01:19
Daily Telegraph
Western intelligence agencies are investigating claims that Saddam Hussein ordered the murder of a senior Iraqi missile engineer to prevent him passing vital information to United Nations weapons inspectors.
Gen Muhammad Sa'id al-Darraj, who was in charge of Iraq's mobile Scud missiles until three months ago, died 24 hours after talks with Saddam's officials, according to Arab newspaper reports. The officials wanted to discuss how the general would conceal his knowledge if he were called for interview by the UN.
The London-based Al-Zaman newspaper said that Gen al-Darraj told "indignant" relatives shortly before he died that he had been slipped a poisoned drink during the meeting at one of Saddam's presidential palaces.
Iraqi opposition groups suspect that the general's loyalty to Saddam was in doubt after he was removed from his post at the end of last year.
-
"If you think Iraq does not have combat ready chemical and biological weapons you are mistaken. If you think they do not have an ongoing nuke weapon research program you are mistaken." - Toad
How do you know?
-
Toad,
If you think Iraq does not have combat ready chemical and biological weapons you are mistaken. If you think they do not have an ongoing nuke weapon research program you are mistaken.
I’m willing to see the evidence. You seem to know 100% can you point a link to the actual evidence? Not circumstantial, has to be real evidence that can be used in a court of law.. not a couple of buckets of bug spray either.
I'm aware of Israel's violation of UN sanctions and I've posted in the O-Club on it before. They should be made to comply. However, that is not the question before the SC right now, is it?
Hold on.. it has to be in context.. You can’t have a double standard in one country and not the other otherwise the whole thing is disingenuous. Are you trying to say it depends on the meaning of “is” is?
The treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo lost us the moral high ground? The Patriot Act lost us the moral high ground.
Can you possibly believe what you write?
This notion of preemptive strikes cost us the moral high ground, having a police state cost us the moral high ground. Having American citizens locked up God knows where no trial nothing most definitely cost us the moral high ground... How can you say anything about human rights to the Chinese?... How can you stop the Chinese from doing a preemptive strike on Taiwan? Or Pakistan on India? Do you expect American POWs to be treated a little better than being put in dog cages outside?
Toad... Can you possibly believe what you write?
Here's some "spin" from Human Rights Watch. You might want to read it. It's very long and detailed; 13 chapters and it is footnoted.
Yeah?.. well here’s some spin from STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000
ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
-
As soon as you start calling me names Toad I'll be happy :D
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hortland I gotta ask you a serious question... Are you diddlying the president of the United States?... no seriously.. are you?.. Your country sure isn't going for any of this nonsense... they'd vote same as France/Germany/Russia/China/Turkey... and pretty much the rest of the world.
Maybe you should answer my question instead?
If they destroyed everything they had back in 95...how come the inspectors found mustard gas a couple of weeks ago?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
I’m willing to see the evidence. You seem to know 100% can you point a link to the actual evidence? Not circumstantial, has to be real evidence that can be used in a court of law.. not a couple of buckets of bug spray either.
[/b]
This quote is so hillarously funny I dont even know where to begin.
"Can you point a link to the actual evidence" what exactly do you think evidence like this looks like? Oh, and apparently the evidence must be something that can be used in a court of law too huh?
Tell you what, why dont you post a link to evidence that can be used in a court of law that you own a car, or if you dont have a car, that you are a US citizen.
..and remember that the evidence must be something that can be used in a court of law.
How can you say anything about human rights to the Chinese?... How can you stop the Chinese from doing a preemptive strike on Taiwan? Or Pakistan on India? Do you expect American POWs to be treated a little better than being put in dog cages outside?
[/b]
Yes...and tell me...when you are talking to the Chinese about human rights, are they listening?
When the Chinese are pondering over the question whether they are to invade Taiwan or not, do you think they are going "No, wait, we cant do that, it would be wrong. You stop the Chinese with force or with the threat of force, just like you stop N Korea and how you stopped the USSR.
As for American POW's, I think the Pearl video gave a pretty clear indication on how they can expect being treated...
-
Whatever your ranting about Hortland...
Capitol Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1870.shtml)
Senior aides to President George W. Bush say he faces a humiliating defeat before the United Nations Security Council next week.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, fresh from his latest round of meetings with representatives of countries on the Security Council, delivered the bad news to Bush on Monday. "You will lose, Mr. President," Powell told Bush. "You will lose badly and the United States will be humiliated on the world stage."
Some White House advisors are now urging the President to back off his tough stance on war with Iraq and give UN weapons inspectors more time. "We have no other choice," admits one Bush advisor. "We don't have the votes. We don't have the support."
Powell told Bush on Monday that Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troops to stage at the country's border with Iraq doomed any chance of consensus at the UN. "Many were watching Turkey," Powell told Bush. "Had they agreed, it might have helped us sway critical votes."
Some Bush aides now admit privately that the President, for all his tough talk, may have to back down and postpone his plans to invade Iraq in the near future. "The vote in Turkey diddlyed things up big time," grumbles one White House aide. "It pushes our timetable back. On the other hand, it might give us a chance to save face." "Saving face" means backing away from a showdown with the UN Security Council next week and agreeing to let the weapons inspection process run its course. ,,,
So praying does work.. Thank you Jesus!
-
Hm...apparently you missed my question 10Bears. Here, let me post it again:
If the Iraqis destroyed every WMD they had back in 95...how come the inspectors found mustard gas in Iraq a couple of weeks ago?
-
Hmm you must be refering to this
From DesertSun (http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories/local/1039231488.shtml)
AL-MUTHANNA STATE ESTABLISHMENT, Iraq -- The chemical team stepped into a hangar-like shed carpeted with clumps of bird droppings and feathers. In the shadows they saw them -- a dozen artillery shells still filled, as they have been for years, with one of man’s most dreaded substances, mustard gas.
For the U.N. arms monitors, locating them last Wednesday was a first -- the first batch of weapons of mass destruction brought under their control in the new round of inspections in Iraq.
However, the fact that such weapons had been found caused no alarm. In fact, the team was relieved. Its mission was to locate and secure the mustard munitions, first inventoried by their predecessors in the 1990s. And the team succeeded. The shells were where they were supposed to be.
"The inspectors were happy," Iraqi liaison Raad Manhal told journalists at the end of the day. "They found everything OK."
Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, concurred. Asked in New York on Friday if the mustard gas was a violation by the Iraqis, he said: "They had been declared before, and that was not news."
[/SIZE][/b]
Oh.... they had been declared before, and that was not news..
Your point?
-
[Iraq] Has some serious WMD and is working on more including nukes
Originally posted by 10Bears
Not according to Gen. Hussein Kamel who in 1995 told U.N. inspectors
that Iraq had DESTROYED ITS ENTIRE STOCKPILE of chemical and biological
weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Hm I see you missed my question again. Here it is:
If the Iraqis destroyed every WMD they had back in 95...how come the inspectors found mustard gas in Iraq a couple of weeks ago?
-
Mustard gas is not WMD as far as I know.
In fact only Nuke are WMD.
If you disagree with this definition you should add to the WMD list : all gun (AK47,M16 etc ...) ,landmine ,gas,car ,boycott,embargo,revolution the list is endless ...
there was a redefinition WMD done in 1994
redefinition by the US not by international instances (not that the US are wrong IMO but it's an international conflict no ?)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Mustard gas is not WMD as far as I know.
In fact only Nuke are WMD.
Well, you are wrong. All chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are considered weapons of mass destuction.
-
Since 1994 yes.
Not before look here : http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/cwc/index.html
-
Did you have a point to all this?
-
yes , if you change the rule mid-game you can pretend anything.
-
Originally posted by straffo
yes , if you change the rule mid-game you can pretend anything.
And in the cease fire agreement from 91...does it say "wmd" or does it say destruction of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
Again I fail to see your point. This is not a case where the UN said Remove all X in 91, and then in 94 said "oh, and btw X=X+Y". Why are you trying to spin it like that?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Your point?
Did he lie when he said all chemical weapons had been destroyed in 95?
-
But were they supposed to destroy it ?
It's a candid question as the inspector had knowledge of the exact location of the gas were the Iraqi supposed to destroy it ?.
-
Originally posted by straffo
But were they supposed to destroy it ?
It's a candid question as the inspector had knowledge of the exact location of the gas were the Iraqi supposed to destroy it ?.
*sigh* yes they were.
The inspectors were/are only there to find evidence of such destruction. They are not there to look for illegal weapons, that is just some weird media spin.
See in theory it works like this.
Iraq says "now we will destroy our mustard gas in compliance with the UN resolutions",
the UN says, "ok, wait, we dont trust you, wait for our inspectors."
Then the inspectors arrive, and the Iraqis destroy their stuff.
They way it works now is Iraq says "we already destroyed all our stuff, now go away".
And the UN inspectors says "no way dude, we will find some evidence that you are lying".
It was never intended to work that way, and indeed it cannot work that way. The UN should be asking this simple question: Have the Iraqis proven that they have destroyed everything? Yes/No. IN case of yes, go home, in case of no, resume hostilities.
This is why the French idea of three times as many inspectors and more time is simply ludicrious. ONE inspector is enough.
-
Can't say I agree or disagree as all side look to have their own interpretation of the resolution.
I'm to lazy to read the resolutions 661 (1990) ,686 (1991) , 678 (1990) 1990, 687 (1991) , 688 (1991) , 707 (1991) , 715 (1991) , 986 (1995) ,1284 (1999) and 1441 (2002).
The only I read (partially) is the 1441 were we can read :
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably
to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems,
components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to
impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof
It's not to Iraq to decide what to destroy but more to the UN so If the UN don't ask for the destruction of mustard gas what should happen ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Can't say I agree or disagree as all side look to have their own interpretation of the resolution.
I'm to lazy to read the resolutions 661 (1990) ,686 (1991) , 678 (1990) 1990, 687 (1991) , 688 (1991) , 707 (1991) , 715 (1991) , 986 (1995) ,1284 (1999) and 1441 (2002).
What is your point with this post?
-
Look at my quote.
I don't think the Iraqui had to destroy anything untill being asked to do so (not that I would sleep better with Gas in the hand of saddam)
-
Yes but they were being ordered to destroy all their NBC capability and all such weapons. It was part of the cease fire agreement (that you wont find in any UN resoluion).
I'm sorry but I really do not understand what you are saying.
-
Where can I read this ?
it's in resolution 687.
I agree Iraq should on his own destroy any stock of chimical and biological agent.
It was not clear for me that it was in a UN resolution.
-
This is laughable.
10Bears....where were you and your wisdoms when Clinton showered bagdad with cruise missles....sent US troops to Bosnia without the UN's blessing....Somalia? Oh that's right....he was the good president....missle technology to the chinese was acceptable to you I suppose?
This is about your personal hardon towards GW....at least have the stones to admit it.
And spin? Was 9/11 spin? How about the other 4 or five attacks against US interests since 93...those spin too? Why are you not questioning why nothing was done during the Clinton years to protect our interests?
As to your US occupation of the middle east theory....if that is fact as you claim, why didn't we stay in 91 when our troops were there and in position to stay....maybe even take over the oil....ya know were only in this for the oil.
The very worst thing about threads like these, is I know I won't get an honest answer from any of you Bush haters....it's not about the truth, it's all about not getting your way in the last election...you just can't let it go and support our nations president...you feel your unalienable right to spout your tripe is what it's all about....this crap makes me sick to my stomach.
I'm not convinced that this war effort is the best move for our nation, but I'm going to trust and pray for our president to make wise choices for our nation.
C'mon....who do some of you think you are anyway? I manage, lease, develope and build shopping centers and office buildings....it's what I know how to do. How do you, 10Bears, know so much about what is the truth and what isn't? You have some direct line to the truth regarding these issues? How are you such a learned individual regarding geopolitical truth and fact? At least I'll admit that I could be wrong about the whole direction we're currently taking...I've just chosen to support my country and the current president....somethin wrong with that too?
I don't think you'll hold your bitter tongue until another 3000 Americans are dead....even then, you'll find a way to blame GW.
How nice it must be to sit on the sidelines and spout your crap....and hey, it's free too....won't cost you a damn thing cept a blister from all the typing.
-
There is no evidence I could post on a BBS that would convince some of the people here. I think Saddam could presonally drive up to the house of some posters with a truckload of anthrax in bags with his picture and personal signature on each one and it would be discounted as evidence.
I've had enough "proof" to convince me from folks that I personally know, worked with and trust. This will not suffice for you.
However, I think this war is going down no matter what any of us think or do, so I'm willing to make you a wager. I believe my statement will be proven within a year of removing Saddam from power. It may be proven when chem weapons are used on the invading troops. It may be proven after the conflict when bunkers of the stuff are found and destroyed.
So, how bout $45 that it's shown they had such weapons within a year of Saddam's removal? If I win, you pay the AH bill for a squaddie of mine that's over there now in Special Forces for threee months.
If I lose, I'll pay $45 to any AH account you name or send it to the legitimate charity of your choice in your name.
Bet?
Are you trying to say it depends on the meaning of “is” is?
No, not at all. I could never lie to someone's face in that way. I'll leave that to your heros.
I'm saying that yes, Israel is in violation. Bush has signaled that the Palestinian issue will be addressed in concert with the rehabilitation of Iraq after the regime change. So, that's down the road for me. As I said, if you do a search you'll easily find my position on Israel and the UN SC resolutions. It's no different than my position on Iraq.
The question before the SC and the entire world right now is Iraq and war.
I find it laughable that you're willing to totally ignore the DEATH caused by Saddam in his own country yet find the US losing the "moral high ground" without killing anyone at all. You seem to find a spartan prison in Gitmo, where there is adequate, religiously appropriate food and clean, suitable resting facilities and NO TORTURE more morally offensive than an Iraqi prison system where people are systematically tortured and starved in completely barbaric cells.
That's the basic problem I have with almost all your arguments. You're willing to ignore truly evil crap by Iraq to overemphasize some basically innocuous thing the US does and then vituperatively condemn the US for such "evil". Gitmo is a spartan prison system but it isn't inhumane in the least.
Same with the Chinese; there's NOTHING the US is doing in the "Patriot Act" that doesn't pale in comparison to standard Chinese operating procedure. Yet you're willing to overlook that.
Your CIA article deals solely with Halabja.
The Human Rights Watch 13 Chapter report (did you even read it?) details an Iraqi program of genocide against Iraqi Kurds that went on for years and killed between 100,000 (Saddam's executioners estimate) and 180,000 Kurds (Estimate from the Kurds themselves).
The genocide happened. Again, the evidence doesn't fit your argument so you ignore it.
...and you'll wait a long time for me to "call you names". If I were ever to break my personal stricture against ad hominem attacks, it'd be for someone who's best argument isn't thinking up cute negatively charged names for political officials.
:p
-
Your bet is far from being tempting :D
We all know what scumbag Saddam is ... our disagreement is about the way to get ride of him and the impact on this region.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
why when the going gets tough, it is so easy to hate countries with the same democratic structure who disagree with the US policies?
I've read a lot of posts now. Mostly, it boils down to this:
'Americans are true badarses when we are pissed. No one should stand in our way then, because we're pissed. You're either with us or against us. We're pissed. We keep the world free and fair and are mostly altruistic, whereas Europe is a continent full of ungrateful nations with people wearing clogs or leather, or possibly clogs made out of leather. And Europe isn't pissed like us. We saved their tulips when the Zeppelins were dropping mustard gas during WWXI on French cyborgs. F*cking Eurorutabagas are trying to stop the war on terrorism - the arrests are just a coverup. Euros love Saddam Hussein and everyone not in favour of the war are in favour of Hussein. We're pissed and irrational - therefore we are right'.
Or:
'We're the mightiest nation on earth and we have 250 different kinds of toilet paper, including really fluffy stuff. We don't need the UN and Europe with its puny economy can go to hell. UN only has one kind of toilet paper and the European economy is centered around providing arse wiping material to 'um. We don't need anyone, except the ones we do need. Europe has never supported us despite everything we've done and we'll now boycott everything not made in the US. Except the toilet paper from abroad, we'll need that. The upcoming war against Iraq is about the war on terrorism and the very fact that we don't have any evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda is proof of that connection'.
Ok, it is exaggerating, but still. I cannot believe that otherwise intelligent people leave their brains as soon as something with some passion is being spoken about. They don't even bother to check the facts; Spain is in Europe. UK is in Europe. Denmark is in Europe. Same with former Soviet 'colonies'.
And that is what I find insulting - our government has taken an unpopular stance (in DK) and supported the US in every possible way. AWACS to guard US skies when the US AWACS went to Afghanistan. Peacekeepers in Afghanistan, some of which were killed. F-16 fighterbombers dropping eggs on Al Qaeda. Special forces to guide them. Still Eurorutabagas never helped.
Our government now says; the US will have support for war against Iraq if the war is in accordance with the Rule Of Law - i.e through the UN. This doesn't mean Denmark hates the US or is against the US - or rather it does, according to the Bush 'either with us or against us' doctrine.
Also the UN is seen with extreme skepticism, since it is a hindrance to absolute US power. It seems some Americans find it annoying that for a war to be internationally legally sanctioned, it has to be UN sanctioned. When the UN isn't quickly enough adapting the US position, it is blasted. Hell, even then it is blasted; seen as an annoyance that stands in the way of the US. There is a lack of understanding about why the UN exists and how it works.
What I'd kindly ask for is less trashing and more content. Also it'd be nice if blanket statements such as 'Eurorutabagas' were dropped in favour of more accurate, geographically precise names. I'd also ask for a ratio of 5:1 trashing/content: you get five Euro-trashings, but then have to provide one line of substance.
To put it in a way so that those involved will understand it; yer current way of arguing isn't winning anyone over and to an objective observant, there's very little differentiating your style of posting and logic from that of for instance Straffo and blitz. You think they come off as fanatic nutters? Not only them, matey.
Who's next for the soap box?
Communist bastard :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Rude
This is laughable.
10Bears....where were you and your wisdoms when Clinton showered bagdad with cruise missles....sent US troops to Bosnia without the UN's blessing....Somalia? Oh that's right....he was the good president....missle technology to the chinese was acceptable to you I suppose?
This is about your personal hardon towards GW....at least have the stones to admit it.
And spin? Was 9/11 spin? How about the other 4 or five attacks against US interests since 93...those spin too? Why are you not questioning why nothing was done during the Clinton years to protect our interests?
As to your US occupation of the middle east theory....if that is fact as you claim, why didn't we stay in 91 when our troops were there and in position to stay....maybe even take over the oil....ya know were only in this for the oil.
The very worst thing about threads like these, is I know I won't get an honest answer from any of you Bush haters....it's not about the truth, it's all about not getting your way in the last election...you just can't let it go and support our nations president...you feel your unalienable right to spout your tripe is what it's all about....this crap makes me sick to my stomach.
I'm not convinced that this war effort is the best move for our nation, but I'm going to trust and pray for our president to make wise choices for our nation.
C'mon....who do some of you think you are anyway? I manage, lease, develope and build shopping centers and office buildings....it's what I know how to do. How do you, 10Bears, know so much about what is the truth and what isn't? You have some direct line to the truth regarding these issues? How are you such a learned individual regarding geopolitical truth and fact? At least I'll admit that I could be wrong about the whole direction we're currently taking...I've just chosen to support my country and the current president....somethin wrong with that too?
I don't think you'll hold your bitter tongue until another 3000 Americans are dead....even then, you'll find a way to blame GW.
How nice it must be to sit on the sidelines and spout your crap....and hey, it's free too....won't cost you a damn thing cept a blister from all the typing.
Traurig :(
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
"There is no evidence I could post on a BBS that would convince some of the people here.... I've had enough "proof" to convince me from folks that I personally know, worked with and trust. This will not suffice for you.
But Toad, how familiar sounding is THAT? Let me guess, you could tell us, but then you'd have to kill us? :)
You've got that last bit right - how could it suffice? Where's this evidence or unmistakeable "proof" of combat ready WMD or the nuke program that you apparently have? Don't just tell us, tell the rest of the world. Because it's really all they've been asking for.
-
Blitz for crying out loud, stop quoting the entire damn post just to say a word in the end.
Just say "Rude, I disagree" instead of quoting a wall of text.
-
Originally posted by straffo
We all know what scumbag Saddam is ... our disagreement is about the way to get ride of him and the impact on this region.
Pretty much sums up my view.
-
Quote from 10Bears: "b. Has already demonstrated that when the spirit moves him he WILL invade his neighboring sovereign states
No. Last 12 years he’s been contained."
He hasn't been "contained", so much as been allowed to rearm. Not the popsicle Clinton administration nor the UN would enforce the UN's restrictions that's why were in th mess we're in now. 11 years of appeasement. IMHO.
-
Nash, there is literally no post I could make here that would convince anyone. It would simply be dismissed. As you've just done.
I have faith in the people I worked with; I believe their assessment without having to be shown a bag of anthrax with Saddams picture, personal signature and fingerprints all over the bag.
If I had such a bag and presented it, people would say "anyone can get his picture, anyone could fake his signature and there's no proof those are his fingerprints".
As I said, I'm totally convinced.
I can't convince the world, but I'll be glad to extend the offer of the same wager that I offered to 10Bears to you.
-
Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 man, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Blitz for crying out loud, stop quoting the entire damn post just to say a word in the end.
Just say "Rude, I disagree" instead of quoting a wall of text.
Why ???? Rudes post is well worth reading it twice a day.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Hang on Toad I’ll get to you in a minute.
Rude, my redneck credentials should be in order here.. I worked on a horse/cattle ranch for 5 years, then got hired by the phone company as a frame maintainer. Later became a plumber’s apprentice, licensed plumber, and finally plumber contractor for new instillation so please don’t write me off as some wild eyed hippy. OK?
where were you and your wisdoms when Clinton showered bagdad with cruise missles....sent US troops to Bosnia without the UN's blessing...
We’ll get into this in another thread, suffice to say Bush’s predecessor had all kinds of international support.
As to your US occupation of the middle east theory....if that is fact as you claim, why didn't we stay in 91 when our troops were there and in position to stay....maybe even take over the oil....ya know were only in this for the oil.
This is an easy spin point to refute. I hear this silly strawman a lot. The U.N. mandate back then did not call for invasion of Iraq. As is all laid out in Geo Bush Sr’s book. In fact the whole thing starting back on the first day of the Kuwait invasion as a U.N. project. Part of the U.N.’s mission is to STOP aggression.
you feel your unalienable right to spout your tripe is what it's all about....this crap makes me sick to my stomach.
Interesting string of words there Rude coming from an American.. I on the other hand would fight to the death to allow you to spout your tripe..
How do you, 10Bears, know so much about what is the truth and what isn't? You have some direct line to the truth regarding these issues? How are you such a learned individual regarding geopolitical truth and fact?
There’s a couple of things you can do here. First, read everything. Check who the author is, read carefully the articles be suspect if they use unnamed sources.. ie reports indicate that.. according to officials... papers are reporting that.. Avoid partisan publications as much as possible both left or right. Usually the initial reports are the most correct as they haven’t had time to create the spin. Finally, make good use of Toad’s wonderful tool Google. I use google to whack him upside the head..
I don't think you'll hold your bitter tongue until another 3000 Americans are dead....even then, you'll find a way to blame GW.
No doubt.. you’ll find a way to blame Clinton.
Sigh..
Toad,
I don’t give a damn about Saddam’s two buckets of bug spray... there’s a much larger issue here.. I pray to God that you look a little closer into this.. As I said last year, your going to stir up a billion diddlyin’ Muslims all over the world. Not to mention every other wackjob.. look at Kim Jong and his long dong.. ah toejam!.. I was reading about a very respected economist this morning talking about how all this could cause a major world wide depression. I’ll get the article for you. This is the guy that predicted the current recession way back in ’99! so he’s someone to listen too.
However, I think this war is going down no matter what any of us think or do, so I'm willing to make you a wager. I believe my statement will be proven within a year of removing Saddam from power
Trouble here is that we are in disagreement. My prediction, if your willing to wager, is that the Security Council is going to vote no on the latest resolution. Cooler heads in the administration will somehow coxes Pres. Bush to back down... The spin will be what you said the other day.. that if the U.S forces had not been there.. no way would the inspectors had be let back into Iraq.
If your willing to wager that... and I win.. my favorite charity is Ronald McDonald House.. They have the lowest overhead of any charity and most of the money goes to where they say it goes. BTW, many Conservatives also support Ronald McDonald House. You would need to send me a receipt of deposit.
No, not at all. I could never lie to someone's face in that way. I'll leave that to your heros.
My hero would be Zebb Jamison... you oughta read some of his work..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Toad, you're willing to bet that the US will find the necessary evidence to justify an invasion AFTER invading Iraq. I find this morally questionable. The evidence should be found and presented BEFORE invading. No nation should attack another nation without being first attacked by that nation, or presenting evidence that that nation was involved in such an attack.
GScholz, are you then discounting all the evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN?
-
First, just so you're not confused, I've said here many times I don't favor invading Iraq without UN sanction. Can't say it any plainer than that, nor should I need to keep repeating it.
***
I don’t give a damn about Saddam’s two buckets of bug spray...
It isn't "two buckets of bug spray" although how typical to minimize it. It's TONS of anthrax, amongst other chemical and biological weaponry.
If you'll recall what just 3 or 4 envelopes with a spoonful of anthrax in them did to the US not long ago, perhaps you'll reevaluate your minimalization of the threat. Think THAT might start another world wide depression?
Stirring up Muslims? Uh, did you notice they already are stirred up? Didn't 9/11 start this whole parade?
Kim Jong Il? His idiotic focus on building the world's 4th largest land army has brought his country nothing but poverty, starvation and misery. Now, he has to do something, anything to get more food... and obviously he's not willing to give up building weaponry. To link his problem to our problem in Iraq is a stretch. With or without Iraq in the news, Kim would be doing what he's doing right now. It's either focus his population away from their empty bellies and overfull graveyards or face internal revolution. That's why NK is doing what they're doing right now.
Were you the one arguing that all the talk of starving Koreans was government disinformation a while ago?
Tell, me, do you think a terrorist strike against the US that was equally or more successful than 9/11 would cause a world wide depression?
Well, we can make an either or bet. If the war happens, we deal with the wager I offered.
If the war doesn't happen, we deal with your wager. However, I don't really understand your wager. Are we simply betting whether the war will happen or not? In that event, I'd think two wagers are in order.
Because I am willing to bet this war will happen. And I'm also willing to bet that either Iraqi WMD will be used during the fighting or that bunkers full of the stuff will be found shortly after the fighting is over. (Of course, Scholz will tell me that the US manufactured VX artillery shells in Soviet sizes and lettered them to look like Iraqi rounds and did that with dozens of bunkers of the stuff. ;) Heck, you'll probably say that too.)
$45 on each? War has to begin by what date? (How long?) They're running up close to the "no fighting in the desert" season and this could be put off till Fall.
Ronald McD is fine. I'm sure they'll send you a card thanking you for my contribution and I'm sure I'll get a bill......IF you win.
If I win, you pay my SF squaddies AH bill for 6 months? I'm sure he'll get confirmation from HTC. If, for some reason he doesn't make it back, you give the money to his children's college fund?
My hero would be Zebb Jamison... you oughta read some of his work..
I've read more than enough of his work. You posted that tripe here, remember? If that's an example of one of your heros....
-
git 'em Toad!
:D
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I've read a lot of posts now. Mostly, it boils down to this:
'Americans are true badarses when we are pissed. No one should stand in our way then, because we're pissed. You're either with us or against us. We're pissed. We keep the world free and fair and are mostly altruistic, whereas Europe is a continent full of ungrateful nations with people wearing clogs or leather, or possibly clogs made out of leather. And Europe isn't pissed like us. We saved their tulips when the Zeppelins were dropping mustard gas during WWXI on French cyborgs. F*cking Eurorutabagas are trying to stop the war on terrorism - the arrests are just a coverup. Euros love Saddam Hussein and everyone not in favour of the war are in favour of Hussein. We're pissed and irrational - therefore we are right'.
Or:
'We're the mightiest nation on earth and we have 250 different kinds of toilet paper, including really fluffy stuff. We don't need the UN and Europe with its puny economy can go to hell. UN only has one kind of toilet paper and the European economy is centered around providing arse wiping material to 'um. We don't need anyone, except the ones we do need. Europe has never supported us despite everything we've done and we'll now boycott everything not made in the US. Except the toilet paper from abroad, we'll need that. The upcoming war against Iraq is about the war on terrorism and the very fact that we don't have any evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda is proof of that connection'.
And it boils down to this with The Europeans.
"But what is clear is that [he] is keenly sensitive to anything that touches his pride or self-esteem ... he has a high opinion of himself and a great contempt for others. He is quite aware of his superiority to them in certain respects; and he either disbelives in or despises the qualities in which they are superior to him. Whatever disturbs or wounds his sense of superiority irritates him at once; and in that sense he is highly competitive ... he has a spite against goodness in men ... he has a spite against it, not from any love of evil for evil's sake, but partly because it annoys his intellect as a stupidity; partly (though he hardly knows this) because it weakens his satisfaction with himself, and disturbs his faith that egoism is the right and proper thing; partly because, the world being such a fool, goodness is popular and prospers. But he, a man ten times as able ... does not greatly prosper. Somehow, for all the stupidity of these open and generous people, they get on better than [he does] ... Goodness therefore annoys him. He is always ready to scoff at it, and would like to strike at it." - From A.C. Bradley's analysis of Shakespeare's Iago.
That about sums it up :)
-
Well, 10Bears, do we have two wagers going? Better hurry, the first one on "war/no war" may well be answered in the near future.
Scholz, as I said, I'm not in favor of going without UN sanction. However, I think we're going anyway and when we do I think a few of the Republican Guard commanders will probably try chem/bio attacks against our troops.
Will that be enough proof for you that he didn't destroy that stuff over the last 12 years? Or will you need more proof that Powell knew what he was talking about?
-
Krusher, I'm going to save that. Applies to quite a few situations that happen in daily life. Nice!
-
US just wants the UN to at least pretend they give a toejam about our security. They dont.
US WILL be the target of a nuclear attack if and when the terrorists get their toejam together. NOT EUROPE. Keeping that in mind, what do you think we have to lose? If someone nukes NYC. It will do serious damage to the US economy. We are a bit reactionary and maybe a bit paranoid, but look what WE have to lose.
I subscribe to the following:
Kill everyone on this planet that has declared himself our enemy. Either we kill them while they are small and easily disposed of, or they grow in power and numbers and kill us.
Its kill or be killed.
I prefer to kill.
zap out!
-
I gave thought to putting up all of the nice little quote thingies in an effort to convince you otherwise....would be a giant waste of my time.
Your assumption that I am not well read regarding current issues is a false one. The difference between us is I do not operate under fear...I believe that dealing with evil should be done directly and that to do otherwise is foolish and encouraging of that very same evil.
I do not view the U. N. as the director of US foreign policy, but rather as a group of ineffective, self serving and indecisive nations frought with political motivations rather than true ambitions to do what is right.
To listen to you and others ignore the past twelve years, to ignore who Saddam really is, to ignore what destructive ambitions have existed towards the United States and to act as if this is our fault in some way, saddens me.
You conveniently left out of your reply, that I admittedly stated that I could be wrong regarding Bush and that I would be the first to admit the same. My intent is not to involve myself in a pissing contest with you or anyone else.....I just have a hard time dealing with folks who operate from fear rather than substance.
When something wrong exists, to dance around it because you fear the consequences or to make excuses for the same is all to common.
Bottom line for me....for those of you who are so against this action in Iraq, it's about Bush and not about the facts. It's politically driven at it's source and you along with those who share your views care very little about making what sacrifice is necessary to improve our worlds way of life....you would rather find that comfortable and harmless middle ground called containment.
To make it even more clear as to my stance....I believe that all of these things must come to pass....the bible tells of wars and rumors of wars, but not to fret over them. GW supposedly begins his day on his knees...if that's true, then I believe God will cause what ever he touches to prosper.
-
Toad stop messin’ with Kim Jong and his long Dong... we’ll get to that in a bit..
No we haven’t debated the NK situation yet..
Tell, me, do you think a terrorist strike against the US that was equally or more successful than 9/11 would cause a world wide depression?
It shouldn’t no more than the Ok city bombing.. like anything, depends on how it’s handled. I do think naked aggression of a middle eastern country could very well send the entire world into depression. Is George Bush smart enough to realize this? Does he have vision?.. The only vision I see is from his handlers is "The Project For The New
American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ One could conclude that it’s pretty much a Superman script where we get to play the Gene Hackmen character.
What happens after Iraq falls?.. They might say they’ve found your Mass program of weapons of destruction (mass) but who cares about the U.N inspectors at this point.. will they be allowed to see these weapons for themselves?. I doubt it, the U.N will be more preoccupied with the aggression issue. Besides, by that time the focus will be on Syria/Iran et al. Your bet would only be good if the weapons (if found) were inspected by a third party.
Now to clarify the terms of the bet.. If you win I pay your SF squad mates subscription for 6 months?.. and if I win you pay the subscription of the entire 323rd for 6 months.. I’m I understanding this correctly? Of course you know you’d be paying for Blitz..
As for the issue of the probability of going in without U.N. sanction, if as I said cooler heads would prevail, what cooler heads?.. do you see any? Naw... that’s not a safe bet.. I would be betting that someone up there has a sense of logic. They do.. but it’s a different kind.. You see, once Iraq falls next come Syria, then Iran. You would have American military force all the way across the middle east to central Asia. If Russia or China want to try anything snappy, no way.. U.S. will have them surrounded. That’s the plan.. if it sounds outrageous it is.. Don’t believe me? Do a google search on The Project For The New American Century.. take note on who’s on their board of directors.
-
I find this presentation by The Project For The New American Century member Kristol to be particularly interesting. As 10 Bears pointed out, you only have to look at the group's founders and earlier BOD (Cheney, Rumsfeld, various staffers) to see what the war with Iraq is all about:
William Kristol
Testimony Before
The House Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia
May 22, 2002
Since the end of World War II, the United States has regarded the al-Saud regime as a friend, or an ally, or at least a partner for stability in the Middle East. After September 11, it is time to call this assumption into question. It is time for the United States to rethink its relationship with Riyadh. For we are now at war -- at war with terror and its sponsor, radical Islam. And in this war, the Saudi regime is more part of the problem than part of the solution
The case for reevaluating our strategic partnership with the current Saudi regime is a strong one. Begin with the simple fact that 15 of the 19 participants in the September 11 attacks were Saudi nationals. That’s something the Saudis themselves could not initially admit. A large proportion -- perhaps as high as 80 percent, according to some reports -- of the “detainees” taken from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay are Saudis. And although Osama bin Laden has made much of his antipathy to the Saudi regime, his true relationship with the royal family is certainly more complex and questionable. The Saudis refused, despite the urgings of the Clinton Administration, to take him into custody in 1996 when Sudan offered to deliver him.
The Saudis also have been deeply implicated in the wave of suicide bombers that have attacked Israeli citizens, and American citizens in Israel, in recent years. Again, initial Saudi official reaction has been to deny the link. Even as documents captured by Israel in its spring offensive against the Palestinian Authority revealed the Saudi role, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States denounced as “baseless” any suggestion that Saudi money “goes to evildoers.” The Israelis, Prince Bandar complained, were engaged in a “shameful and counterproductive” attempt to discredit his family “which has been a leading voice for peace.” The charge “that Saudi Arabia is paying suicide bombers” is “totally false,” he said.
The prince’s claim is proven false not simply by the documents discovered by Israel but by the Saudi government’s own press releases. One from January 2001 boasts how the “Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds Intifada,” headed and administered by Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz, the kingdom’s interior minister, has distributed $33 million to “deserving Palestinians” including “the families of 2,281 prisoners and 358 martyrs.” Other releases from subsequent months detailed further payments to Palestinian “martyrs” totaling tens of millions of dollars. Public announcements in Palestinian newspapers have given instructions on how to receive payments from the intifada committee. And the documents make clear the close connection between the Saudis and the terrorist Hamas organization in particular.
But even more important than funding terrorist acts has been the Saudi regime’s general and aggressive export of Wahhabi fundamentalism. “Saudi Arabia,” writes Michael Vlahos of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has “sought to make Islam a sort of wholly-owned subsidiary of the Saud family.” Wahhabi teachings, religious schools and Saudi oil money have encouraged young Muslims in countries around the world to a jihad-like incitement against non-Muslims. The combination of Wahhabi ideology and Saudi money has contributed more to the radicalization and anti-Americanization of large parts of the Islamic world than any other single factor.
It has taken something like willful ignorance on the part of successive American administrations to ignore such developments or explain them away, and to maintain the fiction that the Saudis are our “strategic partners.” Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger lamented -- once safely out of office -- that “the veil has been lifted [from over U.S.-Saudi relations] and the American people see a double game they’re not terribly pleased with.” Brent Scowcroft, always cautious, admitted, “We [Americans and Saudis] probably avoid talking about the things that are the real problems between us because it¹s a very polite relationship. We don’t get all that much below the surface.” Former Secretary of State George Shultz bluntly terms the traditional U.S.-Saudi relationship “a grotesque protection racket.”
Clearly, the long tradition of quiet diplomacy with the Saudi monarchy no longer serves American purposes. The royal family has taken silence as consent in its strategy of directing Arab and Islamic discontent away from the House of Saud and toward the United States, Israel and the West. This is a strategy inimical to American security and a dangerously crippling problem in President Bush’s war on terrorism.
The first step in fashioning a realistic American policy toward Saudi Arabia is understanding the nature of the Saudi regime. We should begin by a public, detailed and thorough investigation -- perhaps initiated by this committee -- into the Saudi role in the events of September 11. This should be a broad investigation, addressing the ideological preparation, financing and recruitment of terrorists eager to commit suicidal attacks. Congress should not be deterred in this by any concurrent investigations by the Justice Department.
Public knowledge can then be the basis for public diplomacy. Only by applying pressure can we encourage whatever modernizing movement there may be within the royal family and the armed forces while isolating the radical Wahhabi clerics and their supporters. Prince Abdullah is sometimes seen as a reformer. We should give him every incentive to reform the current Saudi regime, and the main such incentive would be to tell him, privately and publicly, that the status quo is unacceptable.
Beyond speaking truth to the House of Saud and encouraging modernization within Saudi Arabia, the United States should demand that the Saudis stop financing and encouraging radical and extreme Wahhabism, beginning with mosques and charities in the United States but extending also throughout the Islamic world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan and other trouble spots. Given its role in providing a breeding ground for anti-American terror, the export of Wahhabism is a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens. In general, we must make clear that the Saudis can no longer play both sides of the fence. What President Bush has demanded of others -- to cut off all support for terrorists and to stand with the United States -- applies also to Saudi Arabia.
At the same time, it is clear that we cannot base our strategy for the region on the hope that the Saudis will moderate their behavior to suit our interests. To the Saudis we have been, at best, allies of convenience, shielding them from other would-be regional hegemons with greater conventional military strength, larger populations and more diverse economies. The Saudi desire to create a caliphate of money and religious extremism depends upon an unwitting American partner.
So in addition to hoping for and encouraging change from within Saudi Arabia, we should develop strategic alternatives to reliance on Riyadh. In the military sphere, we have already begun to hedge, with agreements and deployments to other Gulf emirates. Although still the strongest influence on oil prices, other source -- in Russia, the Caspian Basin, Mexico and elsewhere -- can be developed and brought to market at a reasonable cost. The attacks of September 11 remind us that it is not just what we pay at the pump but what we pay in lives, security and international political stability that comprise the true price of Saudi oil.
In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime.
In sum, we should not be attempting to preserve our past relationship with Saudi Arabia but rather forging a new approach to the greater Middle East. We have learned at great cost that Persian Gulf dictators, be they in Tehran, Baghdad or Riyadh, are shaky partners at best and cause major problems at worst. In the future we must find an alternative, either through reform in Saudi Arabia and/or the fostering of other relationships with truer allies, to a Saudi regime that funds and foments terror.
Charon
-
LOL StSanta thats quite exact expresion of our feelings :D
ROFL
-
10 Bears
Two bets, $45 each one.
First bet:
Ths war will happen. Time frame for bet to be determined between us. I think it will be this Spring, but desert weather may postpone it till fall. You think "cooler heads" will prevent this war. I don't. I'll wager you $45 it happens. If I win, you pay $45 to HTC to cover 3 months subscription of the one TAS member that is in the Special Forces of the USA and is currently "in theater". If you win, I send $45 to Ronald McDonald house and provide you either with a receipt or have them notify you it has been received in you name.
Second bet. When the war does happen, Iraq (most likely Republican Guard Units) will you either chemical or biological weapons currently prohibited by the UN against the US forces. If not, it will be clearly shown on worldwide media AFTER the war that Iraq had stockpiles of these weapons that WERE NOT known to the UN inspectors prior to the war. In other words, that they're lying through their teeth about not having this stuff. I'll wager you $45 this also happens. If I win, you pay $45 to HTC to cover another 3 months subscription of the one TAS member that is in the Special Forces of the USA and is currently "in theater". If you win, I send another $45 to Ronald McDonald house and provide you either with a receipt or have them notify you it has been received in you name.
If, for some reason, the TAS member does not make it through in good enough condition to play AH, you donate the money directly to his family.
Well?