A strike on Iraq - Page 6 - 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 09-09-2002, 11:37 PM   #76
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Re: With the BEAAAATLES !!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by pinkfloyd


ofcourse he's not , he's Ringo , I'm George !!

Are you speaking to us from the dark side of the moon?
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 12:33 AM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 03:13 PM

The lunatic is on the grass
The lunatic is on the grass
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
Got to keep the loonies on the path.
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 09:46 AM   #78
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: 10:13 PM
Hello Sting

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Now back to the original subject matter of this thread:

Lets take your list of countries you say would under the conditions I laid out of Behavior PLUS weapons of mass destruction that would constitute a threat requiring regime change.
You can't count it that way - example:

*polemic on*
  • USA:
  • Invaded in several countries in the last 20 years (was there anyone who invaded in more countries?)
  • Supported various terrorist groups incl. al-quaida (paid maybee more than any other country to Bin Laden)
  • it using large amounts of national treasure to build weapons of mass destruction (Definetly No. 1 here)
  • used mass destruction against their own people (Atomic Bomb tests with members of the Army for exaple)
  • You Killed your President once and your last president wasn't supported by the mayority of your people - huh i smell a lack of democraty here
  • The family of the current President had for years contacts with the family of Bin Laden

*polemic off*

Off course i don't seriously think that the US is a evil country!
I love America and because of that i care about US politics.
All I wanted to say with this:
Your way of argumentation could legitimate A LOT!

(I also don't agree of some arguments you brought to those 4 countries but that 's not important for our discussion)


The point for counting these countries wasn't to "hey - shoot at them too" but just to show you that morale or anti-terror ideas are not the reason for the invasion in Iraq. Believing that would be naive.

Quote:
You can't stop terrorism completely with war, but you can defend yourself and manage terrorism with war, just like the police force in your local comunity manages but never eliminates various types of crimes. Even police in your local community may be called on to use deadly force to deal with criminals in the area.


It was allways my point that war is an option - i'm not a pacifist.

But it's like police shooting a shoplifter (why there were other ways to icatch him) while letting walk away several robbers

Also Police has to stop when the blamably person walks over the border - Police is a nice example for that.
Sometimes you have to stop even if a person did something wrong (converted to our situation: International laws break US laws) :-)

Quote:
But a strike on Iraq goes beyond simple terrorism, but to a State that has failed to comply with ceacefire resolutions that it signed on to end a war that started as a result of ITS aggression against Kuwait. It is the nature of Iraq's violation of international law, the ceacefire agreement, that gives the USA the right to resume offensive operations against Iraq in order to bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions.


That's job of the UN - if the UN needs US military for that they'll call

Quote:
There has been no unnecessary aggression in this war, there has been targeting mistakes in this war, but they are unavoidable accidents. That is the reality of war. Thankfully with technology, targeting and hitting specific targets is easier than it was in WW II where it usually took a nearly a thousand sorties to destroy one target from the air. This has led to a corresponding decrease in civilian causaulties. If the bombing in Afghanistan had been done with WW II technology, hundreds of thousands of Afghans would if not millions would have been killed.


WW II is a bad example because both sides decided to bomb civilists they didn't care about that at all it was part of their strategy (weaken morale).

And in the Afghan war there was more than "unavoidable accidents" US Military was used by Warlords to eliminate concurents - a missunderstanding of culture and the idea of "we don't want to argue as long as in former Yugoslavia to decide which place to bomb"

Quote:
I understand people become angery when family and friends are killed by mistake but that does not mean they automatically become terrorist. There has been NO corresponding increase in terrorism as a result of the invasion of Afghanistan. In fact it has decreased. I


I was talking about long term morales and People growing ab who could be easily recruted as future members of terrorist organisations- why do you think people become terrorists? They aren't just stupid.

Quote:
I think you fail to understand that there are conflicts that cannot be solved without war.


I never denied that - it's sad but true - when everything else failed it's the ultima ratio as i said before

Quote:
We are currently spending money to help the people of Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, but its not aid alone that will help, following the advise of international economic and government experts is also key and build their new countries. Again, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy or for that matter most of the countries in Europe that were reduced to rubble and rebuilt by the USA. We can and are doing this.


People have to rebuild their countries themselfes - other countries can help.
And the US did a lot after WW2 in Germany (Marshall plan, Care Packages)

Quote:
By the way, the Daisy cutter is not an internationally outlawed weapon and was used against Taliban and Al Quada troop concentrations in area's away from cities. The use of this weapon helped to bring down the Taliban quicker, and the sooner the major fighting is over, the more civilian lives are saved. So in that sense, the use of Daisy Cutters saved lives!


I've read this in several international newspapers Example "Die Zeit" (www.zeit.de)
Just because the US dosn't agree with that dosn't stop international laws

Btw. the "dirty ammunition" US (Apache i think) Helicopters used in Iraq for example isn't outlawed - just immoral

Quote:
Klaus, the reason we started a war against Afghanistan is because the ruling Taliban


No discussion about that one. The UN did allow this and almost the whole world - even Fidel Castro supported the United States!



Just because i criticize some "how you did it" dosn't mean it was wrong to do it at all.

Quote:
DID NOT sieze and take and turn over Bin Laden and his thousands of Al Quada supporters. France, Canada and are other friends including those in the middle east have helped the USA


Spain, Germany and England to mention some important ones who helped a lot to find the men behind the Terror attacs ,-)

Quote:
capture Al Quada in their countries. With Iraq, they are in violation of the ceacefire agreement, that stopped the 1991 Gulf War, that is why they are a candidate for regime change! US offensive operations would have taken over Iraq in 1991 if Iraq had not signed the ceacefire agreement, their failure to comply to the agreement they signed gives the USA the right to resume the very offensive operations that we stopped in 1991 because of the ceacefire agreement!




Quote:
Comparing Vietnamn War to the war on terrorism is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't think the term


Right - i just wanted to show that it is not a classical war with a enemy who has a conventional army

Quote:
winning can be applied to the general war on terrorism. Better terms are the "successfully defending one from terrorism" and the management of terrorism, much the same way one would speak of crime in your local community.


That's right - and the same reason why you can't shoot on innocent people in a town if you're hunting a gangster you should be carefull with killing civilists in a foreign country who have nothing to do with the terror attack

Quote:
The specific action against the Iraq is a different case and is something that can be won.
From the millitary view it can be won - i told that before, it's not the problem of our high-tech western armies to win the war - the real chalenge starts after that

I think we both agree that we dislike the government and the politics of Iraq.

But as long as the UN dosn't see a reason to invade it's not the job of the US to do it "because they think it's a good thing"
We can't start war with every country who has different principles than we have.

We shouldn't believe too much the propaganda of the US or Iraq - luckily we live in a democracy and are allowed to talk and listen, read and write.

Take a look at Scott Ritter for example a US Weapon inspector who was in Iraq for the UN.

He says that the Iraq is not a thread to us. He allso talks about a "historic mistake" of BWBush by threatening with Sadam with a new government in his country.
The IISS dosn't see a reason for invading at this moment too.

Take a look at Hi Bias's Posting - imho she did a good job in pointing out most important motivations for war


U2Bama:
Comparisons like that are not appropriate.
It makes one of the Worst dictators of all time to "just another dictator".
This post was not funny!
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 05:26 PM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Published on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 in the Chicago Tribune

Cheney's Warped Perspective on the Need to Attack Iraq
by Scott Ritter (the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and the author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem-- Once and For All.")


It was a tour de force in terms of storytelling--the vice president of the United States speaking before an enthralled audience at the Veterans for Foreign Wars national convention last month in Nashville. Vice President Dick Cheney took full advantage of his bully pulpit to reinforce the case for war against Iraq, which hinged on Saddam Hussein's alleged continued possession of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, all outlawed since 1991 by a United Nations Security Council resolution).
"The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," Cheney told the audience. "And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago."

On what basis did Cheney substantiate his assertion?

"We've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors," he grimly noted, "including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction."

And so the tale began. "During the spring of 1995, the weapons inspectors were actually on the verge of declaring that Hussein's programs to develop chemical weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles had been fully accounted for and shut down," Cheney told the veterans. "Then Saddam's son-in-law [Hussein Kamal] suddenly defected and began sharing information. Within days the inspectors were led to an Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq's most secret weapons programs."

All of this would be valid, if it were only true. I have spoken with the CIA and British intelligence officials who debriefed Hussein Kamal after his defection and reviewed the complete transcript of UNSCOM's own session with Saddam's prodigal son-in-law.

Contrary to the myth propagated by Cheney, there were no "smoking gun" revelations made by Hussein Kamal regarding hidden Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a UN special commission, Hussein Kamal reiterated his main point--that nothing was left. "All chemical weapons were destroyed," he said. "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed. There is not a single missile left ... they [Iraq] had kept blueprints and molds for production, but all the missiles were destroyed."

Everything Hussein Kamal said about Iraq's undeclared weapons programs was confirmed, in parallel, through the ongoing analysis by UNSCOM experts of the chicken farm documentation alluded to by Cheney.

There was nothing unique, nothing that differed from the documentary evidence. The bottom line from this high-profile defector--there was nothing left, that all proscribed weapons and their programs had been eliminated, and that the worst fears of a retained Iraqi capability--a nuclear device, for instance--were without substance.

Up until the Cheney's speech, the Bush administration had been vague about its objections to the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq.

However, in speaking of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Cheney revealed some of the thinking behind the rhetoric, and in doing so exposed fundamental flaws in the factual basis supporting the reasoning of the White House. The vice president's speech was intended to help solidify the case for war against Iraq. But if the evidence cited is representative of the level of knowledge possessed by those promoting regime change in Iraq, then it is high time we as a nation demand a halt to this rush toward war.

Unfortunately, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, it seems that when it comes to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, truth is more often than not the first casualty. Consider Cheney's emphasis during his speech that " ... we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself."

I would ask Cheney to review the transcript of the debriefing of Hussein's son-in-law, and heed carefully the words he spoke to the weapons inspectors that day in August 1995. "You should not underestimate yourself." Hussein Kamal said. "You are very effective in Iraq."

Inspectors were very effective in Iraq, and would be again if given a chance to carry out their tasks. Some in the Bush administration are waking up to this fact. "The president has been clear that he believes weapons inspectors should return," Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently. "And so, as a first step, let's see what the inspectors find. Send them back in."

That, Mr. Vice President, is advise worth heeding.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 06:20 PM   #80
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to NOT George Lucas:

1. No one ever said that the USA had been given the position of world police. It is are right and duty to intefere with the affairs of others when their affairs effect the safety and security of US citizens!!!!!!!!!
We do not know that their affairs effect the safety of US citizens. Even so, a pre-emptive strike is not justified. For forty years, the US had a superpower on the other side of the world pointing nuclear warheads at us, threatening to blow us off the face of the earth. Did we attack them? No. We just threatened them back. Eventually, the communist regime fell apart and the USSR split up. We did not go to war. Furthermore (I like that word. Futhermore. Furthermore. Furthermore. Furthermore - two two two words in one!), we do not know that they are a threat. All we have is speculation. If we knew for a fact that they had nuclear weapons, and that they indend to use them against us, maybe I'd concede, but we do. All we know of is that Saddam is an asshole, and no one here likes him. That's no reason to go to war.


Quote:
2. The US does decide which countries behavior PLUS weapons of mass destruction does threaten Its security and because of that are candidates for possible regime change. It is are right because their behavior PLUS certain weapons threatens are security and endangers are freedom and prosperity. Again we have the right to interfere with any country that interfere's with are affairs in a threatening way first, anywhere in the world.
Iraq is hardly a threat to our freedom and prosperity. If anyone is a threat, it's the president. I'd like, once again, to point out the relationship between the United States and the USSR. Their behavior was abhorrant, and they had nukes. They were also a valid threat to our freedom and prosperity. Our government knew that and didn't attack. Why? We were waiting for them to make to provoke us. They never did.

Quote:
3. Any attack on Iraq is NOT unprovoked! In 1991 Iraq signed a UN ceacefire agreement with the USA that called for among other things the complete unrestricted inspection and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has failed to comply with this UN resolution among others that led to the ceacefire agreement which put on pause US offensive operations against Iraq. Iraq's failure to comply with the UN ceasefire agreement allows the USA to resume offensive military operations against Baghdad that were put on hold in 1991 on the condition that Iraq complied with conditions in the ceacefire agreement. Rather than being in violation of international law like Iraq, the USA seems to be the only country willing to comply with the international law. The USA is the only country willing to enforce the UN ceacefire agreement that put on hold indefinitely the 1991 Gulf war. To sum up, a US invasion of Iraq is not only sanctioned by international law, but it is mandated, under the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991!
You're actually using the violation of an eleven year old ceasefire agreement as basis for an all-out invasion?? Yes, it was mandated by the UN, and the UN does not see its violation as reason to go to war. If you're gonna support the UN, please do it consistantly, not just when it serves your needs. Lots of things can change over eleven years.


Quote:
4. The reason for a possible US invasion and regime change in Iraq have nothing to do with the actual events of 911. Again its Iraq's non-compliance with the condititions of the UN ceacefire agreement which allows the USA to resume offensive operations against Baghdad. This is about Iraq's behavior and weapons program, both in violation of the UN ceacefire agreement. It is about how Iraq's non-compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceacefire agreement threaten the world. Iraq's unwillingness to cooperate over the past few years on such a serious matter makes their government a candidate for regime change.
Didn't Iraq recently say they would allow inspectors in? I seem to remember that. I could be wrong. As I recall, it was over the past month or two, Iraq said the US could send in all the inspectors they want, and the US just laughed it off. At any rate, the US has not been attacked by Iraq in any way. We do not have any evidence that they have nuclear weapons. We do not have any evidence that they even have the means to make nuclear weapons. Saddam is an asshole, a corrupt, tyrannical leader, yes, but until he starts gettin all up in our shit, we have neither right nor duty to invade.
__________________
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 06:47 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 PM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

I think we have different definitions on what intervention is. You seem to consider the US intervention on a constant basis over 60 years as just one intervention I think, while I consider it to be thousands of interventions with all the different military exercises, joint weapons programs, economic aid packages etc. Interventions in other parts of the world were often tiny and often single events unlike Europe. Do to the small scale of these interventions, it is questionable about their impacts on the civilian population and political situation. In some cases, it is likely that the events would have taken place with or without US and Soviet intervention. Also, these area's were of lower interest to the USA and the USA did not have an unlimited amount of money to spend. The money was spent in area's where the threat was greatest to the USA and its allies. If more money was available it could have been used for these lower tier interest area's. The USA foreign aid budget today is constrained by a large political voice in the country that does not see the benefit to the USA of aiding thirdworld countries. They do have a point in that hundreds of billions of dollars has often been sent to many these countries over a few decades with nothing to show for it because of corruption in the country itself. If a certain strategy of aid can be proven to work, then I think the majority in congress would support. But its difficult to get support for anything when many view the aid as simple charity and not in the interest of the USA to send. The fact is, disregarding politics for a second and just looking at the USA, it is in the interest and a benefit to the USA to aid thirdworld countries and see a reduction in their level of poverty. Reducing poverty cuts down on immigration, terrorism, and anti-democratic or anti-capitalist groups.

In the case of the lesser of two evils, the USA was involved simply to prevent the side that would support the Soviets from gaining power. It is not right paint who the US supported as the devil while painting the otherside as white angels. As far as evidence and proof about a threat, there are two sides to that debate and history is replete with examples of threats that were not taken seriously because that couldn't be "proven" with terrible results for the human race. To not be involved at all in many of these area's would be to let the Soviets have a free hand. Perhaps at that very moment not a serious threat, but what about 10 or 20 years down the road in a situation in which the world is on the verge of World War, suddenly these area's of less importance become important and your situation as far as how many allies one has in the region is effected and based on the actions one may have taken there 10 to 20 years earlier. The fact is, will never know for absolute sure if a Soviet take over was likely or not in some of these countries. A very limited US action was taken to support forces that were pro-western and anti-Soviet, against forces that were seen as pro-Soviet. The experts at the time believed the threat was real and went with the best option available considering the lack of funds available for this part of the world. In cases where the threat is uncertain, it is far better to be safe than sorry for the long term effects could be very bad in a future Global confrontation for the world. The fact is preventing or defeating Communist and Soviet influence in these countries was in their best long term interest.

In most places where the US intervened in a major way, the local situation for people did improve. In area's of less interest and less US involvement, situation for people may have become worse, but this is for a variety of factors, and its not clear that such a small US intervention could effect the average standard of living of so many people. Their are problems and events in these third world countries that would happen and exist with or without Soviet/US intervention. It is incorrect to say that political persecution or economic problems would not of happened in country if the US did not intervene and other political forces, most likely pro=Soviet were allowed to secure power. These opposing forces were just as likely to murder and be a detrimental effect to the people once in power, as pro-US side was. Murder and detrimental effects to the people would happen either way, the only question is, does the pro-Soviet side have power or does the Pro US-side have power. The US used its limited resources in the region to support the pro US side without any real confidence that the amount of support that was being given would actually have any effect on the situation at all. With limited resources, the US did the best it could with what was going to be a bad a situation no matter which side came to power.

In the case of Afghanistan and Islamic fundamentalism, the only group or groups available that were resisting Soviet Occupation in Afghanistan were groups that would be considered Islamic Fundamentalist. There was not a secular or non-fundamentalist group to support. The Mujahadeen were all that was available. So it can be used as an example of the US using Islamic forces to hedge against Communist expansion. The majority of the people of Afghanistan were Fundamentalist and all the resistence groups were 100% fundamentalist. Whether are not there were any fundamentalist at all, the USA still would have supported any available opposition group to fight Soviet occupation. It is true that guerrilla tactics cost less money, but there could have been far greater support in money even using those tactics. Build a conventional army to inflict greater losses on the Soviets and drive them out would have been far better, but would have cost a massive amount of money, more than we were willing to commit to that region, and it would have been technically difficult or nearly impossible to pull off. Contrary to popular belief, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan for politcal and economic reasons, not because they had been defeated on the battlefield.

It does not matter that Soviet-supported Islamic countries did not fall entirely under the "Soviet Orbit", in terms of interest and influence back then, these countries were pro Soviet when it came to global politics. Their relationships with the Soviets cannot be minimized. For example, the Soviet Union still had 2,000 troops and military advisors in Iraq, 3 months prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The USA supported the Shah as a counterweight to Soviet supported Iraq. When the Shah fell, we lost are ally in the region and did pick up a new enemy, but not one that was Soviet supported. But the Shah and his regime of Iran were not Islamic fundamentalist, so this is not the USA using Islam fundamentalism as a bulwark against Soviet Expansion. In the 80s, the USA supplied Iran with a limited number of outdated Tow missiles in exchange for hostages. This one time weapons transfer had no effect on the outcome of the Iran/Iraq war and was not done to support Islamic fundamentalism.

Your conclusion on Iraq's relationship is off as well. Just because Iraq was not completely in the Soviet orbit does not mean it was not pro-Soviet. Few countries have ever add as close a relationship as Iraq and the Soviet Union. The Iraqi army was built and trained by the Soviet Union. Thousand of Soviet soldiers served in Iraq advising them on various things. The Soviets wouldn't mind Iraq recieving some aid from the west, because its an opportunity for them to see and look at western designed weapons. BUT the USA did not supply Iraq with combat weapon systems at any time during the 8 year Iran/Iraq war. Money for food was sent at one time as well as a single shipment of a few military trucks and transport helicopters.

The Iraqi military is in extremely poor condition when it comes to its major weapon systems, because of the loss of support from the old Soviet Union because sanctions have been in place since August of 1990, and not because the Soviet Union collapsed. Iraq needs the weapons and had its own money to pay for it sitting on the worlds second largest oil reserves. Since the Gulf war which wiped out 2/3s of Iraqi military equipment holdings, Iraq has not been able to rebuild their military because of the loss of their supplier. What Iraq does to cope is to cannabolize parts from other vehicles in order to keep certain tanks and other equipment operational. The loss of Soviet support has had an unbelievable detrimental effect on Iraqi military training, readiness and capability. It effects Iraq's ability to defend itself from foreign attack, but would not effect Saddams ability to put down civilian revolt that would never have chance to topple him without the support of the army.

I understand your reasoning of why Islamic fundamentalism would be a good tool against Soviet expansion, but Islamic fundamentalism was and is not as widespread to be that powerful a force to prevent Soviet expansion. Most important though you fail to really site a case where this indeed happened. In Afghanistan we supported any resistence that was available. All that was available was Islamic fundamentalist, but we would have supported a non-fundamentalist or secular group as well, if one existed there. In the case of Iran, the Shah was not a fundamentalist, and the USA stopped supporting Iran after the Shah was thrown out. A one time sending, of a few Tow missiles that did not even remotely confer Iran an advantage on the battlefield in exchange for hostages, cannot be construed in any way as support for Islamic fundamentalism as a check against Soviet expansion.

The anti-westernism that exist in the middle east comes from a lack of education, and government control of the media that allows only certain information to be printed, much of it false and taken out of context. Iraq for one can sell as much oil as it wants to by humanitarian supplies for its people, it can sell tens of Billions dollars worth if needed, far more than what is needed to take care of a population of 25 million. Iraq was not anyway dependent to that degree on those types of imports before sanctions. The accusations of deaths is unproven, no one can see anything in Iraq, a police state, unless Saddam allows it or US spies are able to detect it. Saddam starves various parts of his population to control the situation in his country and to make pretend claims that sanctions are hurting the people of his country in order to get them lifted so he can use the money from oil exports to rebuild his army. Saddam and not sanctions are the problem, if the problem even truely exist. Iraq can buy humanitarian supplies in what ever quantity it needs, even under sanctions. The US does not support any government in the middle east with the exception of Afghanistan through the deployment of US troops. US troops are deployed in some of these countries for operations and monitoring of Iraq. I can put out numbers if you need to see them. In Israel the USA supports Isreal to prevent it from being overrun by Arab countries that have attacked it 4 times in the past 50 years. We also support Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian oppression that is fond of blowing up Israely teens in Disco's perhaps listening to U2! The Palestinians talk much of the Israely occupation by soldiers on the West Bank but do nothing to attack them. Instead they sneak into Tel Aviv and kill only civilian and non-military people going about their lives.

If what you say is true about Saudi Arabia doing what the USA tells them to do, and there for the USA is resposible for aiding the Taliban in 1996, then I guess the USA is responsible for the suicide bombings in Israel that Saudi funds support and also takes part in giving funds to the families of suicide bombers which the Saudi's do as well. Sorry, I'm not buying that, not in a million years. Pakistan in addition to Saudi Arabia, have their own interest that they look after independently of the USA. Pakistan felt it was in interest to support the taliban to nuetralize what they felt was a threat from the Northern Alliance. Pakistan does not want to worry about having to put to many troops on its border with Afghanistan when war could break out with India's much larger army on its eastern border at any time. Pakistan in many ways is very independent of the USA and acts in its own interest. It was not the desire of the USA to see Pakistan develop a nuclear weapon, but they did despite protest from the USA. If Saudi Arabia was are servant, we wouldn't have any trouble going after Iraq and using Saudi Arabia as a base for are troops. Saudi Arabia is opposed to the strike on Iraq and is not allowing the USA to use its soil for a strike on Iraq. So Saudi Arabia nd Pakistan are very independent, Pakistan even more so, from the USA in their policy actions, and have interest that is sometimes of no concern to the USA are actually in conflict with the USA. Again, the USA pulled out of Afghanistan completely economically, politically, and militarily in 1989. Pakistan supported the Taliban not really out of love for their brand of Islam, but to destroy or subdue their enemy in the Northern Alliance, in order to focus more the military threat posed by India.

Sorry about the statement "You only see what you want to see" but you were the one who said it first and I simply responded to your criticism by applying the statement to you because I feel I am no more guilty than you on this one. Really I don't think either of us is seeing simply what we want to see and I probably should have responded differently to your statement. I have not ignored your statements about US interventions eslewhere, but simply doubted their impact and influence on the country of which there is little if any proven evidence that US intervention directly led to these events, and that these events would not of happened without US intervention is not proven either. Only biased liberal claims on this one.

More in a few minutes on the rest of your post.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 08:18 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 PM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

In response to your assertion of the weakness of the South Korean economy, I present the folowing GDP, Export and Import statistics. In addition to this I will also show the UNs latest estimate on the standard of living for the average person in all countries in the world, ranking them, and where Korea is in that rank, and where it was 10 years ago.

South Korea's GDP in 1991 was 282 BILLION Economic growth on year earlier was 8.6% in 1990 and 9.7% in 1991.

South Korea's GDP in 1996 was 473 BILLION Economic growth on the year earlier was 9% for 1995 and 7.1% in 1996.

South Korean Exports and Imports:

1990: 62 BILLION in Exports : 61 BILLION in Imports
1991: 65 BILLION in Exports : 70 BILLION in Imports
1992: 72 BILLION in Exports : 82 BILLION in Imports
1993: 76 BILLION in Exports : 82 BILLION in Imports
1995: 96 BILLION in Exports : 102 BILLION in Imports
1996: 125 BILLION in Exports : 135 BILLION in Imports
1997: 130 BILLION in Exports : 150 BILLION in Imports
1998: 137 BILLION in Exports : 145 BILLION in Imports
1999: 132 BILLION in Exports : 93 BILLION in Imports
2000: 144 BILLION in Exports : 120 BILLION in Imports
2001: 172 BILLION in Exports : 160 BILLION in Imports

South Korean population has steadly grown from 44 million in 1990 to 48 million in 2001.

The most important piece of evidence though is the UN's report on the average standard of living in each country and the chart that ranks these standards of living with the best standard of living at #1 and the worst at #190. In 1991 South Korea was at #35 on this list. In 2001 it had moved up on the list to #27! The standard of living for the average person in South Korea is better than any country in South and Central America! It is better than Portugal, Slovinia and Malta in Europe among many others. It is nearly as good as Italy #20 and Spain #21! Ireland is at #18, the USA at #6, and Norway at #1.

I have yet to see anything on a mass immigration of South Koreans to South America for economic reasons. Why would they leave a country that has a very good standard of living to countries who's standard of living is much poorer than theirs, that if this mass immigration is really so? From the statistics its clear that South Korea is economically healthy and a good place to live for the average person. It is an economic success, partly because of US intervention in its history! We defend South Korea as if it was a part of the United States, and have plans to keep troops there even after a possible reunification of Korea to guard against Chinese expansionism.

When it comes to monopolies, I realize there are monopolies outside the USA, but I was talking about inside the USA. I don't see where there is going to be this sudden concentration of oil reserves in US hands and even if that was so why that would lead to a monopoly? Private US companies control the oil and compete with each other. The Government has emergency supplies but thats it. You might conclude that Opec has a monopoly, but in actuallity they don't and Opec nations often compete with each other. Again where is the high priced consumer goods that would be the natural result of a monopoly? Globalism paves the way for competition, capitalism, which is as the USA proves, the best economic system. Actually, Monopoly has more to do with Communism than Capitalism in theory. Capitalism is about competition and private ownership, monopoly is about the complete dominance of one group or organization over the market. Government regulation of Capitalism prevents, occurances where monolpoly sometimes develop, and restores competition to the market by breaking up growing monopolies.

Non-comliance with the ceacefire agreement is not an excuse but a fact of International Law! The international community may not believe are evidence but that is not going to preclude us from doing the right thing under International law. The International community that opposes the invasion of Iraq also is against the very international law that mandates such an attack. It is a fact that Iraq is in violation of the ceacefire agreement, and it is obvious, or it least it should be, what violation of the ceacefire agreement requires the international community to do. The USA is ready to do the lawful and right thing if the rest of the international community is not. Were not going to sit in do nothing like we did 65 year ago are practice apeasement like the international community did in the 1930s. Thank God the USA steps in often to do the right thing while the rest of the international community sits back and does nothing. Bosnia and Kosovo are more recent examples.

Individuals who hold economic and financial power. Hmmmm....I may have some family members and friends of the family on that list, although I havn't seen them getting into black helicopters yet.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 09:06 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 PM
In response to Klaus:

The US acted in the self defense of countries and people that had been attacked, that is far different from what Iraq did which were unprovoked attacks over the past 20 years. The USA did not launch ANY unprovoked attacks!

The US supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In 1989 the USA stopped their aid. In 1992 the Mujahadeen turned into the Northern Alliance and then in 1996 the Taliban who had remnents of the Mujahadeen rose up against them and took over the country. Al Queda later based their operations from Afghanistan and operated with the Taliban. The USA DID NOT SUPPLY the Taliban or Al Quada. Both of these organizations came into existance after the USA had pulled out of Afghanistan economically, politically, and militaryly in 1989!!!!!

We do have weapons of mass destruction to deter their use against, not to be used against other countries though in an attack. That only happened in 1945 and was done in Japan because it was the best way to force a surrender of Japan there by saving millions of Japanese lives that would have died in a ground invasion.

The test that were "against our own people" were done at a time when the full long term effects of the weapons were not known. No one was instantly killed on purpose in any of these test.

Sorry, a lone gun man killed the president, or yes if you listen to the liberals and Oliver Stone it was the government supported by space monkey's or something. Perhaps there was more than one gun man but that does not mean that the government or a corperation killed him. Jeez, total rubbish!

President Bush was elected President under the laws and constitution of our country. The one who wins the most electoral votes wins the election. 99% of the time, the person with the most electoral votes also has the most popular votes. But a long time ago in our nations history, it was decided to base the eclection on the electoral votes of the states as a way to balance the views of rural American with Urban America. Otherwise, Politicians simply go after the cities in a popular vote and largely ignore States that have large more rural populations. Its not perfect and Bush is not the first president to win election after losing the popular vote, it is demacracy with a small check on the power of the majority over the minority.

W. Had contact with Bin Laden for years. Yep, I bet they were great golf budies. Oh his extended family in Saudi that threw him out of their family and the country, I've never seen that before, but even if its true it doesn't confer support for Bin Laden because Bin Laden's family is against Bin Laden as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 09:11 PM   #84
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Let me just say that the quality of debating has been excellent over the last few pages in particular.

STING2, Klaus, Joyfulgirl, Ultraviolet7, U2Bama and Not George Lucas - your names stand out in particular. Great points, all of you.

Cool.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 09:31 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Comparisons like that are not appropriate.
It makes one of the Worst dictators of all time to "just another dictator".
This post was not funny!
How is such a comparison not appropriate? Should I provide some additional comparisons? Both goobers have made names for themselves gassing and otherwise executing their own citizens. Both goobers have made names for themselves threatening, invading and conquering neighboring countries and regions for the acumulation of resources and human subjects. And in good ol' goober #1 fashion, Saddam Hussein's highest executive council issued a decree ordering the death penalty for prostitutes, homosexuals and people hiding prostitutes. Interestingly, he has been known to have his own consortium of mistresses and prostitutes, much like Hitler's "Joy Division." He also pays the surviving families of suicide bombers the equivalent of an insurance benefit for blowing up Israeli discos (oh, I fogot; infidels shouldn't be drinking liquor and dirty dancing to evil western music in that part of the world; I guess it's okay to pay them).

I agree with your concept that I should not make Hitler to look like "just another dictator," but that was not my point. My point was to illustrate that Saddam Hussein is not "just another dictator" either. His potential frightens me due to his history, the things he has said, and his capabilities if he is allowed to go unwatched.

I did not intend for the post to be "funny." Perhaps you are referring to my use of the word "goober," as I did not wish to dignify either dictator with their proper name. I guess that I should have used the monikers "Asshole #1" and "Asshole #2" instead, although I'm certain someone would say "that is offensive."

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 09:34 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 03:13 PM

Thanks, Anthony; that means a lot coming from you (I'm serious!)

The fact that most of us whom you named disagree with one another illustrates the fairness of your moderating style. It is much appreciated.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 10:03 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Oops, hit the wrong button there. Now back to the point at hand with KLAUS:

My arguement only presents ONE country for possible regime change! Iraq is the only country who's behavior PLUS having weapons of mass destruction threatens the world. Most of your examples of other countries did not fit my conditions because the countries behavior was not like that of Iraq or they did not have weapons of mass destruction of both! AGAIN, its Behavior PLUS weapons of mass destruction that makes a country a candidate for regime change!

Anti-terrorism in addition to non-compliance with the ceacefire agreement that stopped the Gulf War are the reasons that the USA is considering regime change in Iraq! Iraq's potential threat to international security and unwillingness to cooperate with the rest of the world and its open violation of the ceacefire terms which it SIGNED is the reason! Not the dreams of liberals claims of US imperialism.

Sorry, were not shooting a shoplifter, were shooting at a one of the worst violators of international law, and butchers the world has ever known. No, were not going to stop and let people who commit terror get away! Nope no way!

The UN is made up of several countries of which the USA is one and usually the only one out of 160 that enforces UN law and resolutions. If other countries or in fact the rest of the UN decides to ingnore its own laws and ceacefire resolutions that were passed, were not going to sit there be in violation as well. Were going to do what the UN resolution calls for and bring Iraq into compliance with the UN ceacefire agreements they signed and which the UN is called on to enforce. If the rest of the UN decides not to abide by its own rules, that is not going to stop us from doing what is right. The other countries should be ashamed that they are not there helping us enforce the very resolutions that they passed! The Ceacefire agreement does not say if Iraq violates the agreement, to have a meeting and consult about what to do next, it approves the resumption of US offensive operations that were put on hold in 1991!

In World War II it is true that the Germans temporarily in the Blitz over England used bombing to try and weaken British morale but this was an utter failure and a waste of war munitions. 99% of bombing was an attempt to try and target the other countries military or military infrastructer and assets. Because of the low technology at the time and the location of military targets in civilian area's, millions of civilians on both sides were killed from the bombing, but they were not the actual targets! Again back then with the best technology at the time, it often took hundreds of sorties to completely knock out a single target. Some targets were never destroyed by arial bombardment. Today, the high technology allows for one shot, one kill, which means less stray bombs falling into civilian area's. The civilians that died in Afghanistan are unavoidable accidents, warlords or no warlords! US soldiers sometimes are killed in bombing when they are training! Its unfortunate, we do everything to prevent it, but it does happen. These are accidents. I currently have a friend in Afghanistan that can confirm this!

Actually, most people who become terrorist, with the exception of the hijackers, are very young with low levels of education and are brainwashed by militants and are confused about the true reason and source of their problems. Clearly, their solution to their problems only makes it worse!

There is no international law and certainly no basis for one in banning daisy cutters. Certainly one does not want to use them in cities but they are an effective weapon used in the open countryside of Afghanistan that helped to quickly win the war and most likely did not kill any civilians considering the geographic area's in which the weapon was used.

The Apache Helicopter and the Cobra Helicopter do not use "DIRTY AMMO". They use depleted Uranium bullets for the 30 mm gun. Depleted uranium is used on the tip of the bullet to increase its penetrative power. Contrary to skeptics and other foreign media, it is NOT dangerously radioactive and does not cause health problems. Depleted Uranium is also used on the US army's current tank as an additional mesh in its armor package that protects the tank. Listen to the people who handle and train with this ammo day in and day out! Its danger is a liberal fantasy!

I know for a FACT, that there is not another military in the world that does more to care and protect innocent civilians than the US military often at risk to themselves! But accidents still do happen. It is unavoidable.

We don't start wars with other countries because they simply have different principles than we do. If the other member nations are unwilling to enforce the mandated UN ceacefire agreement, then the USA is NOT going to sit with them and go against its own agreement that it signed into law! Again, I do not know how many times I have to emphasize this! Violation of the UN ceacefire agreement calls for the resumption of US offensive operations against Iraq in order to bring Iraq back into compliance with the ceacefire agreement. The Ceacefire agreement was pro-active and does not need or require another vote, its the law! Iraq has broken it, and the UN must bring Iraq into compliance. If other UN members fail to fullfill their duty thats up to them, but as a member of the UN the USA is going to fullfill its obligation to the UN and resume offensive operations against Iraq which the UN ceacefire agreement calls for!

Actually your wrong about the IISS, I have it on tape from last night the british think tank going against public opinion in the United Kingdom and calling for an operation against Iraq to bring it in compliance with UN ceacefire agreement!

Scot Ritter is one of hundreds of inspectors that have worked in Iraq. Most other UN inspectors including all those that outranked him have an opposite opinion than he does. Scott Ritter also did not see some of the most sensitive information during the inspections which the leaders had. I disagree with nearly everything he has had to say, but I understand he'll sell a few more copies of his books if he has a view in opposition to the adminstration. Nothing sells like something that is controversial.

I can't find Hi Bias post, where is it?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 10:50 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 PM
In response to Not George Lucas:

We do know that Saddam is a threat to the international community because of his Behavior and his well documented productions of weapons of mass destruction. Comparing the world confrontation with him to the Soviet Union is like comparing apples and oranges. Deterence worked against the Soviet Union because they caculated that the cost of world war we be to great and that they could not win. Saddam does not caculate things like the Soviets did. He mis-caculated with Iran, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and Israel. He believed that the USA would not go to war with him because it was unwilling to take losses which he mistakenly thought he could inflict on the USA. My point is that Saddam is a risk taker and a miscaculater where the Soviet Union was not. Saddam's not detered by things that would deter most rational governments or leaders whether they be good or evil. More importantly after 9/11 Saddam may supply terror organization with Weapons of Mass destruction to do his dirty work and get away with it because the line back to him is difficult and perhaps impossible to trace. His behavior suggest that he would do such a thing, he is not rational and cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. The Soviet Union while evil was smart and rational, and there for detered by are military build up. In the aftermath of 9/11, the only way to defeat a planned terrorist act is to pre-emt it. Waiting for textbook case to prosecute someone will mean thousand of dead US citizens or citizens of another country.

As Colin Powell recently said, it is not incumbent on the USA to prove that Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbent on Iraq to prove that they DO NOT have weapons of mass destruction. They are the one's in violation of the UN ceacefire agreement!

Iraq is a threat to are freedom and prosperity. Their endangerment of world oil supply was a total threat to the entire world. Please don't tell me you don't understand oil's effect on the global economy. Prosperity and freedom are tied together along with security from terrorism. The best the USA could hope for in the cold war against the Soviets was to deter a military attack from them. A pre-emtive strike was not possible in the conventional military sense because we barely had enough conventional forces to defend western Europe from attack let alone launch an offensive against Soviet forces which would require 3 times as much military resources that we had at the time. Using nuclear weapons except in the case of a Soviet Nuclear attack was out of the question. The USA from the 1960s on did not have a first strike capability against the Soviet Union. The Soviets did have a survivable second strike capability meaning are nuclear first strike would simply lead to nuclear devestation in the USA. Luckily though, deterence worked, the Soviets although evil were rational and smart enough not to try anything unless they thought they could win. Saddam does not think that way and has a proven record of miscaculation and irrational decision making. It is his irrational behavior PLUS his weapons of mass destruction that make him a candidate for regime change!

I'm sorry you think 11 years is long enough to change the law or a signed resolution but its not! Another vote within the UN is not required. A violation of the UN ceacefire agreement explicitly calls for the US to resume offensive operations that it stopped in 1991 in order to bring Iraq in compliance with the ceacefire agreement! I don't understand how people can forget what happened in 1990 and 1991 unless of course they were to young then to remember. The passage of time does not change the ceacefire resolution at all. How would it?

The USA and the rest of the world was Attacked by Iraq when they invaded Kuwait in 1990 and in addition attacked both Saudia Arabia and Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. They signed a ceacefire agreement which stopped US offensive operations towards Baghdad. They are in open violation of the ceacefire agreement they signed on to, which requires the resumption of US offensive operations to bring Iraq into compliance with the UN ceacefire agreement which they signed!

There is no clear cut evidence that Iraq actually has a nuclear bomb, but there has been tons of evidence that they have many of the components and expertise needed to build a bomb. This was found in UN inspections that determined that Saddam Hussain was 6 months away from building a bomb at the end of the Gulf War. The USA has recently intercepted containers with components be shipped to Iraq that are key in helping to build a bomb. Their are sites all over Iraq that have been rebuilt that are engaged in the process of tyring to build a bomb. The Scientist and expertise that Iraq had before the Gulf War is still there.

But it is not incumbent on the USA to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent on Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction, they are the ones in violation of the ceacefire agreement which they SIGNED!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-10-2002, 11:00 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 03:13 PM

I would like to add a "funny" quote attributed to Saddam by a woman claiming to be a former mistress, Parisoula Lampsos, after his forces were driven from Kuwait; she says he began to cry and became very upset:

Quote:
"His eye, was red, red, red," said Lampsos, adding that Saddam vowed at the time to retake Kuwait. "'Who's America? Who are they, what they think they are? I am Saddam,'" she quoted the Iraqi leader as saying when Kuwait fell into the hands of coalition forces.

"He would say they will never find anything. But he would laugh about them," Lampsos said referring to the inspectors who left Iraq in late 1998 ahead of U.S. and British airstrikes. "They are crazy. Let them come ... They will not find anything," she quoted Saddam as saying, according to the excerpts. (from the AP)
.

On a less humorous note, I have seen numerous offerings of former weapons inspector Scott Ritter lately, and I do not discount them, but as Sting2 pointed out, Mr. Ritter is not the only valid source of information. Jeffrey Goldberg wrote an article for THE NEW YORKER in March that caught my attention. I realize it is a few months old, and I apologize if the contents of the article have already been refuted by Scott Ritter, Tariq Aziz, or the space monkeys. It is a bit long, so rather than me posting it, you can find it here.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-11-2002, 12:44 AM   #90
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
Let me just say that the quality of debating has been excellent over the last few pages in particular.

STING2, Klaus, Joyfulgirl, Ultraviolet7, U2Bama and Not George Lucas - your names stand out in particular. Great points, all of you.

Cool.

Ant.
I'll drink to that. Nice job, everyone.
__________________

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


Join Amnesty.
pax 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 04:13 PM.


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