A strike on Iraq - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-05-2002, 11:04 PM   #31
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:36 AM
We're making some progress here, FYMers. Let's try and keep the debate going in the civilized manner in which it is currently proceeding, mmmmmkay?
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 11:18 PM   #32
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
We're making some progress here, FYMers. Let's try and keep the debate going in the civilized manner in which it is currently proceeding, mmmmmkay?
Yes miss Fully subscribe to that
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 11:56 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 12:36 AM
wink

alright, if the us has the balls to attack everyone evil, since apparently they were blessed with the ability to decide what IS in fact good and evil when are they gonna attack the horrible chinese?

theyre a communist country.

they have been stockpiling weapons for years...they never fight big wars... there surplus MUST be huge.

oh wait! they dont have any oil...

i guess we dont need to fight them either...
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 12:49 AM   #34
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 01:36 AM
did I hear someone babbling about "pro-Western governments" in the Middle East? ha! what a oxymoron if I ever heard one! two-fold in fact

and the US is already fighting a war with the Chinese, albeit economic, which is what I prefer because that's when we are most leathal
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 01:47 AM   #35
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spyplane
Actually Salome, the real question is do we know what we are getting ourselves into if we do nothing at all?
simply put, I do not agree

I don't think you can let speculation decide military actions
-->
you can't decide on military actions without having a very clear idea about the consequences of your deeds

if you don't chances are you have only made the problem worse for the future

even if the chance of things getting worse is only 10% then IMO that is still too high to take a gamble and start a war
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 04:11 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:36 AM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

1. How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II? After all if its in the interest of the USA to replace a regime with a dictatorship so it can control everything, as you say, why not do it in the part of the world that is most important to the USA? Wouldn't have been a problem to do it either with Europe in ruins and considering how easy most of the countries fell to the Germans which we defeated. Where are the dictatorships today in Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the rest of Eastern Europe? All area's of US military, political, and economic intervention.

a. The US invasion of Iraq does have to do with Saddam Hussains behavior which when combined with weapons of mass destruction and the opportunity to supply terrorist with those weapons, makes the case for changing the regime.

2. Actually "spyplane" was right in a way when he said the USA is the UN. In terms of enforcing UN resolutions especially regarding Iraq, the USA has been the UN. UN resolutions specifically stated that if Iraq violated the UN ceacefire terms(which it signed on to) that stopped the conflict in 1991, that the UN is obligated to enforce the terms by force if necessary. Iraq has never fully complied with the Gulf War Ceacefire terms and has been in open violation of them since November 1998. Rather than going against the UN, the USA is the only country attempting to live up to its UN obiligations in regards to enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

3. People look at evidence differently, but few other nations have the technology that the USA does to see and investigate what may be going on behind the scenes in another country, and provide evidence for the need for intervention. It was non-intervention and Isolationism on the part of the USA that contributed to the starting of WW I and WW II. Engagement and the willingness to use force early on could have prevented these World War's. The US policies of Engagement and Containment since 1945 have been a great success. There is no evidence that the Talaban were helped to power in any way shape or form by the USA. The main critisism of the USA when it comes to Afghanistan after the Soviets left 1989, is that we were not involved and completely pulled out politically, economically and militarily. The Talaban were born out of schools in Pakistan and assisted and supported by Pakistan to take over Afghanistan in order to destroy or keep the Northern Alliance pinned down, who were their political enemies.

a. as far as US interventions worsening conditions in the country intervened in I refer to Europe, and several countries in Asia where your theory has no traction. As far as Hussain's replacement and the idea that the USA can't guarantee that his replacement will be better, similar things were said about the replacement of the dictatorships in Germany, Japan, and Italy. Those that thought we could not do it were wrong. If the USA is willing to commit enough resources to build a new nation in Iraq, the US can guarantee not only a stable democratic government, but a prosperous country as well.

4. In 1990 on the eve of the Gulf War, everyone was saying the same things, how every country in the middle east would become militantly anti-US and governments would be overthrown left and right. Islamic fundamentalism would reign supreme. Arabs would be in the streets everywhere pulling down their governments once the USA attacked Iraq. Not so, not even close. The same was said about the US invasion of Afghanistan last year, again this did not happen, not even in Pakistan. It is in Arab peoples interest to have Saddam Hussain removed from power as well and millions of arabs behind the scenes realize this. That is why these catastrophic events do not happen when the USA intervene's in a major way in the middle east.

5. There are cost to war, but one must also think of the cost of inaction. Doing nothing can be costly as well. This war will bring freedom and democracy to a country that has never known it, and throw out perhaps the worse dictator and certainly the most destabilizing influence in the middle east of the late 20th century and early 21st century. You, me and everyone else on this planet benefit when the world is made more secure by the elimination of a threat to international security. Intitially oil prices will go up as well as energy cost, but then they will return to normal and in fact drop as the region experiences more stability than it had before do to the removal of a regime that has attacked 4 countries in the region and been in a near state of war with either one or all its neighbors for the past 20 years. When the price of oil drops, so does the cost of energy for you and me that we use everyday. That free's up money and increases the amount of disposable income one can use to save or buy things which spurs economic growth. I imagine the few that you think are trying to some how cynically profit in some way from this are the President and his circle of advisors. Even if that was their aim, I really don't see how they could in the long run benefit, since this will lead to lower oil prices, plus they only get the opportunity for one more four year term in the Presidency, that is if they get re-elected.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 07:15 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 06:36 AM
I agree with sting2
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 03:44 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Ultraviolet7:

1. How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II?

a. The US invasion of Iraq does have to do with Saddam Hussains behavior which when combined with weapons of mass destruction and the opportunity to supply terrorist with those weapons, makes the case for changing the regime.
I think you missed the intention of the original post.

The point of ultraviolet7 was:
The chances are high that the current dictator is just exchanged for another dictator are pretty high here the US didn't install dictators in all - but in some countries.


Quote:

2. Actually "spyplane" was right in a way when he said the USA is the UN. In
The US is not the UN .
Sadam Agreed once to let UN Troops in the country as long as there are no US Citizen among them (because some of the US-UN Guys were spys)


Quote:

3. People look at evidence differently, but few other nations have the technology that the USA does to see and investigate what may be going on behind the scenes in another country, and provide evidence for the need for intervention. It was ..
Traditional Spys seem to work quite efficent. It was always the approach of the US to "investigate " their enemies with high-tech but the low-tech isn't neccessarily worse

Russians were quite efficient with that and if you look back to the 11th September lots of European countries "with a low budget on Spy technology" knew stuff the US didn't know.

BTW: i'm still waiting for the proof that there were chemical wepons in that factory like Mr. Clinton said!

Quote:

non-intervention and Isolationism on the part of the USA that contributed to the starting of WW I and WW II. Engagement
Sorry but that just shows a lack of historical knowledge!

Quote:

5. There are cost to war, but one must also think of the cost of inaction. Doing
There are more political options than war! (And no - we (US+Alies) didn't try verry hard in that point.

But the most important questions weren't asked.

1. Why do we (Western Media + Politics) see only one solution:
Starting War without using all diplomatic options before that?

2. Could it be that the US is used by some Iraq politicians who live in the US (and spend tons of $ in the last years for lobying) to get control over "their" country?

3. Wouldn't it be wise to think about arguments of allies?

4. Can we afford to wait until Sadam attacks another country?

5. Can the US afford to break international rules (is the US trustworthy after attacking in from the view of the islamic world)

6. How are the chances to win and kill the old dictator - how high is the "price" for the 2nd? (how many dead civilians and soldiers)

7. How about the Kurds after the War?

8. Why didn't we accept Sadam's invitaion for Mr. Blix (UN-Chiefinspector)

9. What will change after a War?


There are good reasons for a war - but there also good reasons against!
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 05:54 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:36 AM
In response to Klaus:

Actually they way Ultraviolet7 presented their view did suggest that in nearly every case the USA installed a dictatorship to further its own interest. If the USA goes in to remove Saddam, the US military will be there for at least 10 years giving time for a democratic government to devolop. If the US invest the needed resources in Iraq, there is no chance for a return to dictatorship(look at Japan, Germany, Italy, and several other countries)

Upon the ending of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement in which US forces agreed to halt their advance towards Baghdad in exchange for the Iraq's agreeing to multiple conditions. These conditions were 1. the elimination of all Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear related components, weapons, and supplies. This was to be done by a group of international inspectors. It was very successful and was coming close to completion despite Iraqi interference, in the years 1991 to 1998, then in November 1998 the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq for good, a total open violation of the Gulf War Ceace fire terms, which when violated calls for the resumption of offensive military action against Iraq in order to bring them into compliance with UN resolutions. Other ceacefire resolutions included 2. return of Kuwaiti hostages and other missing Kuwaities, 3. paying for the rebuilding of Kuwait. There were other conditions in addition to these 3. The US is not the UN of course, but when UN resolutions need to be enforced especially in regards to Iraq, the US is usually the only country enforcing agreed upon UN resolutions. It makes it SEEM like then that the US is the UN.

In response to me saying that US Isolationism and non-intervention as chief tenents of US policy from 1900 to 1941 partly contributed to WW 1 and WW 2, your response was this:

"Sorry but that just shows a lack of historical knowledge"

Oh really. You could of asked me to explain myself or offered your own assesment of why my arguement was not valid, but instead you decided to print a false, unbased, and untactful statement about me. Not that I'm really concerned because I'd love to debate this specific point with you. Rather statements like that today in the FYM forum can get you kicked out of here if one of the mods see's it. Just be careful and please remind me if anything I ever say is out of line too! A great member of this forum was recently just kicked out.

You are certainly correct in stating there are other political options rather than war, but the USA has more than used these options for the past 12 years with mixed results in regards to Saddam. Sometimes force is necessary.

1. Name one diplomatic solution that the USA has not used over the past 12 years in regards to Iraq.

2. There are Iraqi dissendent groups in the USA, but these have actually largely been ignored by the US government over the past 12 years.

3. Certainly we do respect and consult are allies, but it would be foolish to do simply what they say, especially when it is the USA and not are allies that have the evidence that proves are allegations. I have not seen a convincing arguement by any of our allies yet.

4. Can we afford to wait for an event 10 times worse than 9/11 to happen before we act.

5. Again the USA is NOT breaking international rules by attacking Iraq. It is mandated that we attack under the conditions of the March 1991 UN ceacefire agreement. Breaking the agreement allows for the resumption of offensive operations against Iraq that were halted in 1991 only because Iraq agreed to the Ceacefire agreement.

6. What is the cost of NOT killing the old dictaror and replacing his regime with a democracy?

7. The Kurds will finally have a voice in the government in Baghdad, and Kurdish politicians will now have the opportunity to become the president of all of Iraq.

8. We didn't except it because it was inspections with restrictions. Part of Saddam's cheat and retreat strategy. The UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 called for un-restricted inspections of all of Iraq.

9. Iraq will become a prosperous democracy helping to bring greater stability to the middle east and lower energy cost for the entire world helping to spur economic growth.

The question of war with Iraq should be decided by the answer to this question: Does the risk of continuing with just containment of Iraq outweight the cost of regime change in Iraq?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 07:38 PM   #40
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

Actually they way Ultraviolet7 presented their view did suggest that in nearly every case the USA installed a dictatorship to further its own interest. If

Right - all i wanted to say that the truth is somewhere inbetween your and Ultraviolet7's statement

Quote:

the USA goes in to remove Saddam, the US military will be there for at least 10 years giving time for a democratic government to devolop. If the US invest the needed resources in Iraq, there is no chance for a return to dictatorship(look at Japan, Germany, Italy, and several other countries)
Right - IF the US invest these 10 Years.
But afaik Mr. Bush told the world that the US Troops are not in foreign countries for peacemission or as policemen - others should do that.

Quote:

Upon the ending of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement in which US forces agreed to halt their advance towards Baghdad in exchange for the Iraq's agreeing to multiple conditions. These conditions were 1. the elimination of all Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear related components, weapons, and supplies. This was to be done by a group of international inspectors. It was very successful and was coming close to completion despite Iraqi interference, in the years 1991 to 1998, then in November 1998 the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq for good, a total open violation of the Gulf War Ceace fire terms, which when violated calls for the resumption of offensive military action against Iraq in order to bring them into compliance with UN resolutions. Other ceacefire resolutions included 2. return of Kuwaiti hostages and other missing Kuwaities, 3. paying for the rebuilding of Kuwait. There were other conditions in addition to these 3. The US is not the UN of course, but when UN resolutions need to be enforced especially in regards to Iraq, the US is usually the only country enforcing agreed upon UN resolutions. It makes it SEEM like then that the US is the UN.
All okay here just one point
The UN Troups were kicked out from Baghdad because there were US Spies inbetween them - after that kickout most went wrong for years and now we can discuss how to continue in such a messy situation.
Of Course Sadam is not an innocent guy - and i'd love it when he would loose his power.

But imho one of the reasons why he's still there is that he blames the US and the UN for almost everything that is going wrong in his country.
Starting war and not succeding 100% would make that worse

Quote:

In response to me saying that US Isolationism and non-intervention as chief tenents of US policy from 1900 to 1941 partly contributed to WW 1 and WW 2, your response was this:
...
I didn't want to offend you
If it felt for you that way i appologize when I translate words too direct from my native language to english they are sometimes more harsh than i expect.

Also i didn't want to start a WW 1 and 2 discussion here that would really take lots of time.

I'd be glad to discuss this in mails with you because i'm sure that talking that way about the reasons of WW 1 and 2 . really misses the point.

Quote:

You are certainly correct in stating there are other political options rather than war, but the USA has more than used these options for the past 12 years with mixed results in regards to Saddam. Sometimes force is necessary.
Right - that's what i said at the end, there are some good reasons for starting a war - it might be the "ultima ratio" .

Quote:

1. Name one diplomatic solution that the USA has not used over the past 12 years in regards to Iraq.
They denied a sollution with UN inspectors without American inspectors for example.

Quote:

2. There are Iraqi dissendent groups in the USA, but these have actually largely been ignored by the US government over the past 12 years.
I read different things in the "New York Times" and in "Die Zeit".
They were both talking about growing influences of these groups for the last 2 years

Quote:

3. Certainly we do respect and consult are allies, but it would be foolish to do simply what they say, especially when it is the USA and not are allies that have the evidence that proves are allegations. I have not seen a convincing arguement by any of our allies yet.
I hope the US and it's alies exchange their proves.
And i was talking about a discussions not about taking orders from it's allies ,-)

Quote:

4. Can we afford to wait for an event 10 times worse than 9/11 to happen before we act.
No - and how can we protect us from things like that?
I'm affraid war raises the chances for a desaster like that.

Chemical or Biological weapons are relatively easy to create. Extremists don't need a sadam hussein for that.
Nuclear Weapons are more difficult but "dirty bombs" don't need much testing.
Or just finding one of the bombs the US military has lost in the last centuries in oceans (the one in the himalaya was US too or was it russian?)

Quote:

5. Again the USA is NOT breaking international rules by attacking Iraq. It is mandated that we attack under the conditions of the March 1991 UN ceacefire agreement. Breaking the agreement allows for the resumption of offensive operations against Iraq that were halted in 1991 only because Iraq agreed to the Ceacefire agreement.
I have to read the original UN papers for that because my informations (newspapers) are different.

Quote:

6. What is the cost of NOT killing the old dictaror and replacing his regime with a democracy?
Good Question!
I wouldn't say that "ignoring the problem" is a alternative to war but there are alternatives. Lots of revolutions in countries started from the inside - if you give them a chance.

Quote:

7. The Kurds will finally have a voice in the government in Baghdad, and Kurdish politicians will now have the opportunity to become the president of all of Iraq.
Turkey for example said that they would never accept a country controlled by Kurds that would mean war

(you probably know kurds are in the iraq and in turkey - they are discriminated and hated in both countries. I just wanted to mention it to other readers of this thread)

Quote:

8. We didn't except it because it was inspections with restrictions. Part of Saddam's cheat and retreat strategy. The UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 called for un-restricted inspections of all of Iraq.
Imho the main restriction was:
No more US citizens inside the UN Inspectors troups - or am i missing a 2nd point?


Quote:

9. Iraq will become a prosperous democracy helping to bring greater stability to the middle east and lower energy cost for the entire world helping to spur economic growth.
If it's going that way i'd be impressed and would vote for it - but i just don't believe it. Sometimes this works (example japan / germany) sometimes it dosn't work (vietnam / somalia)

and all examples are no good to compare it to the current situation.

The Arabic Culture is quite different from the US or European (which are pretty similar). Also Government and Religion is tied together - only a few countries start to change that (Iran)

Quote:

The question of war with Iraq should be decided by the answer to this question: Does the risk of continuing with just containment of Iraq outweight the cost of regime change in Iraq?
I'm not a military expert - so i can't tell you how many US and Iraq men and women could die in a worse case scenario but i'd love to read about that.
(The US military simulated it already)

So when we've carefully thought about all that options there's imho the best way:

- The US shows the proves to the world
- The UN manifests an ultimatum because of that (and the world should accept that Sadam dosn't trust US Inspectors)

AND no matter if we start a War or not:

We have to assure that the "human rights" are also minded for enemies and political enemies. (ai talks about 30 potential political enemies who are in Jail)
If we don't care about that we might win a war but loose our credibly

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 02:38 AM   #41
The Fly
 
Hi Bias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southwest, U S
Posts: 49
Local Time: 06:36 AM
I keep listening to the words coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and I become increasingly alarmed. There seems to be such confusion, but through it all a grim determination that they are, at some point, going to launch a military attack.

The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia:

Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example.

The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.
__________________
Hi Bias is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 11:25 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 04:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spyplane


What?
If not the US then whom?
We have no business in other countries policies? The truth is we are the only ones with the balls to interviene and put a stop to terrorism, tyrants, dictators, genocide, etc.

The UN?
We are the UN buddy!
WHAT A FREAKING JOKE!



I just saw this post and it is the most pathetic thing ever.

it is this arrogance and feeling of superiority that gives you guys a bad name.

America never intervenes BUDDY
which of the dozens of genocides in the 20th century has the US stopped? They didn't even enter WWII until the last minute when somebody attacked them.
And Hiroshimi and Nagosoki both seem like genocidal massacres to me.

And what about canada you ask? we like hiding in the shadows?
Well, I think the whole kyoto affair proves that wrong, alone.-
-We were in both of the world wars right from the beginning-
-We were the ONLY ones who tried to stop the Rwanda genocide, but the UN (which I guess is actually the US right?) ignored that canadian officer and let 800,000 people become slaughtered.
-We are the worlds leading peace keepers and have soldiers all over the world. When the UN wants peacekeepers they come to us

So don't say we are hiding in the shadows of the US, I hate it when people say that
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 05:33 PM   #43
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Bush will give a ultimatum after his speech in U.N. next week , i strongly hope Sadam or whoever Iraq main people will accept it , for peace and the future of our children .
__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 08:20 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:36 AM
In response to Klaus:

Bush did say he wanted to reduce US peace keeping missions, and he was mainly refering to the US role in Bosnia and Kosovo. But those missions have continued to this day. The US still has thousands of troops in both places.

It is true there were spies in the UN team, but Saddams moves and his weapons of Mass destruction or inter-mixed. Spies are needed to dig up evidence that does not exist elsewhere or to get a lead. His uncooperative nature through out the 90s gave the US no choice but to have spies. Of course the mere fact that he was uncooperative at any time following the signing of the UN Ceacefire agreement, give the USA the write to resume offensive military operations against Baghdad that were halted in March 1991.

In regards to WW 1, WW 2, I have the feeling you do not completely understand what I was talking about when I said US policies of isolation and non-intervention contributed to launching and widening of both World Wars. I'll have to explain that in a later post, and yes I have plenty of history to support my theory.

A UN inspection regime without US inspectors is simply crazy. It benifits Iraq because its easier to hide things when some of the best members of the inspection team are not on the inspection team. This is Iraq's proposal and they don't have the right to make such a proposal. They agreed to unrestricted UN inspections when they signed the ceacefire agreement in 1991. If they had not signed that ceacefire agreement, US tanks could have been in Baghdad in under 72 hours. Any violation of the ceacefire agreement gives the US under the UN the right to resume those offensive operations that were stopped in March 1991.

If the USA topples Saddam, then Saddam will have been prevented from the possibility of building and arming terror organizations with Weopons of Mass destruction that could cause an event in the USA 10 times worse than 9/11. Chemical and Biological weapons are easy to create, but not easy to effectively disperse in such a way as to cause mass causalties over several miles. The Anthrax attacks last year were do to someone in the USA. They were able to get a hold of incredibly refined Anthrax, something not even Iraq could create at this point, but still their method of sending Anthrax in the mail did not cause mass losses. Many people took medication, but only 5 people died. Terrorist may be able to create crude chemical and bio weapons, but the specially refined weapons and the means to effectively disperse them to cause thousands of dead over several miles, lie primarily with Nation States. In addition, a full Nuclear weapon, not a dirty bomb, is something that probably only a country like Iraq could build and then give to terrorist. There are not as many nuclear bombs missing as you may think, and even if one was found, most terrorist would not know how to detonate it. Thats where a country like Iraq comes in!

A successful revolution in Iraq is impossible without the Iraqi military itself turning on its ruler. Saddam bribes his military to stay loyal to him and controls what they know from the outside world. The civilian uprisings of April 1991 throughout all of Iraq were easily wiped out by surviving Iraqi Republican guard troops. Saddam cannot be toppled from within because of the loyalty of the Republican Guards and his ruthless annual killings of anyone he suspects could go against him. Only foreign intervention can knock Saddam out of power.

Turkey does not accept an independent Kurdastan. But they would not have any problem if a Kurdish politician became president of a united democratic Iraq.

Arabic culture may be different from the US or European, but Iraq is actually the most westernized country of the Arab world. All the restrictions that women are force to deal with in other countries do not exist in Iraq. In this regard, Iraq is more like their muslim neighbor Turkey.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 09:02 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:36 AM
A Revolution in Saudia Arabia is no more likely than it was when the US invaded Iraq in 1991 or when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. In both cases people predicted the government would be overthrown and there would be thousands of people in the streets and both times it did not happen. Not even close.

Basstrap,

Perhaps you have never heard of Bosnia and Kosovo, both places where ONLY the intervention by US military power stopped the slaughter of innocent civilians. By the way, the Canadians early on opposed US military intervention in those conflicts and favored the UN peacekeepers that did next to nothing except watch civilians get slaughtered for up to 3 years and until the USA under NATO finally intervened in Bosnia in 1995. It was the USA again that intervened in Kosovo in 1999 under NATO, but 90% of the forces were US. In 1993, US forces intervened in Somolia to prevent mass starvation of civilians. So we were late in getting into World War II. Would you prefer that the USA did not get involved at all? I think not since the genocide would have spread and gotton worse. By the way where were the Europeans when Hitler was rising to power in Germany in the 1930s?!!! As far as Japan goes, you sound like you would have prefered a US invasion of the Island potentially killing tens of millions of Japanese citizens as opposed to the 200,000 that died in the A-bomb drops.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com