Has it ever occurred to you that... - Page 5 - 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 09-23-2002, 01:57 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Ultraviolet7:

The arguements for attacking seem rational, clear, and obvious to me, the arguements against seem to be naive and more about wishful thinking.
Then be nice and answer my question as well.

It is true that there is some ratio in the arguments you posted as well. Itīs not all mindless blabbering about "we want to dominate the world", and I see your point of view, and I think Saddam is dangerous.

But why not make it a CIA thing? Why not only remove him and his family, invade the nuclear plants with special teams, and build up international control?

I have the feeling that some politicians just want to see the whole region burning. Not to kill Saddam, no, he has to be kept! We have to remove his teeth maybe, but weīll keep him. The U.S. needs some enemies. How would you explain the horrendous sums that go into the "defense" sector each and every hour to the taxpayers - if you were without a real enemy? Since cold war is over, the commies are gone - no danger no more. Twisted logic, fantasy, yeah, true, and then there is also the terrorist attack of last year. But I am also aware that IF US INTELLIGENCE WANTED TO REMOVE WHOEVER IN HISTORY, THEY WERE ABLE TO PLAN AND EXECUTE EXACTLY THIS, AND RELATIVELY FAST.

Saddam could be dead ten times. Why is he still alive?

Youīll have to admit that those are viable questions to ask, even if we donīt know the answers.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 02:21 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 AM
I think a lot of people--including myself--are, at least, mildly skeptical, due to the fact that the Bush Administration *does* seemingly love to run everything in secret. Everything from Dick Cheney's energy policy with Kenneth Lay to details of the "Homeland Security" department, Bush wants to keep it out of the arms of democracy, which, whether he likes it or not, requires that some people will not agree or give him carte blanche to blow up any nation that looks at him wrong. Everyone from the American people to international leaders are supposed to just *trust* that there is some imminent danger that requires a comprehensive world war against terrorism, and Bush refuses to tell anyone why, outside of highly ambiguous, non-specific threats that will *always* be a concern, even when bin Laden, Saddam, and Al-Qaeda are just as much a distant memory as the Tripoli pirates that assaulted American shipping vessels around 1800...

Outside of this, do I think there is a real threat against America? Actually, I quite do, particularly after hearing the virulently anti-American sentiments not only from the Islamic world, but from the European world as well. However, in the long term, I feel that Bush is doing nothing to alleviate those sentiments, and his almost autocratic approach to this "war" is not helping in the slightest.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 02:31 PM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Outside of this, do I think there is a real threat against America? Actually, I quite do, particularly after hearing the virulently anti-American sentiments not only from the Islamic world, but from the European world as well. However, in the long term, I feel that Bush is doing nothing to alleviate those sentiments, and his almost autocratic approach to this "war" is not helping in the slightest.
Wasn't it big news a couple of weeks ago that a Canadian poll showed something like 84% of polled Canadians feel that the USA is partially or wholly responsible for 9/11? I was in Cuba at the moment, and ironically, one of the only English channels was CNN. I remember the shock with which the anchors delivered this news. Surely, if your next door neighbour feels this way, there is trouble on the horizon. It's not just that Bush isn't doing anything to alleviate the sentiments, but he is actually aggravating them with his unilateral, nationalistic jingoisms. I fear it does not bode well longterm. Remove Saddam, and what, the Muslim world, the Europeans, the Canadians and who knows who else will suddenly see the light? Hardly.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 02:31 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 AM
BTW, in terms of strategy, I do think that Bush is smart for appealing to the U.N., using the factual knowledge that Iraq has repeatedly flaunted the terms ending the Gulf War back in 1991. I do believe that this route does force the U.N. to do something about it after all, and that may, indeed, require a military strike. At least, with a U.N. sponsored action, it will not give the appearance of U.S. aggression, but, rather, punitive action against Iraq for not cooperating with its own agreements.

My predictions, however, are that Bush has settled for another winter war, and is just crossing his fingers that the U.N. acts in time. Otherwise, he will just go on it alone, which I do not believe is smart at all, due to the international reluctance and the ongoing tensions between Israel and the PLO. I believe it would turn into something *very* messy at that point.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 04:59 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:51 AM
I like what
Mark
Dread
Sting said
a lil what Melon said..
The rest of you thank u for your imput

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 07:43 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:51 PM
In response to HIPHOP,

The CIA does not have the ability to take out Saddam's entire regime which is what would be needed. I seriously doubt they have the ability to take out Saddam himself as well.

First though even if it was a possibility, killing Saddam or Saddam and his family would just mean that another person in his regime would take charge. Someone that might be even worse than Saddam as far as making miscaculations and taking risk in regards to Iraq's foreign policy.

Realize that Saddam has spent over 20 years constructing his regime through bribes with his massive wealth, and mass murder, sometimes over a hundred key officials killed in one day. Saddam has created a regime that is tied to him, and one infact that he is tied to as well. Both depend on the other for survival. Saddams regime of course consist of 100,000 very well payed Republican guard troops, many members of the rubber stamp Iraqi government, and even includes believe it or not, members of ethinic groups in opposition to his rule. Saddam has used his power to divide and rule the country in a way, which makes a civilian uprising or CIA coup impossible to ever succeed. Nearly every independent military expert has stated that the "Iraqi resistance would be slaughtered if we tried to do an Afghanistan style operation, with mainly resistence forces on the ground.

The CIA cannot remove 100,000 well payed Republican guard troops that are willing to die for Saddam, just as they did in large numbers in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's total Military strength is between 300,000 to 400,000. The Republican guard is the corp with 100,000 troops, the regular army may be worthless, but you will still nead a large conventional military force to unseat Saddam's regime which includes his 100,000 Republican guard troops.

Regarding the CIA's ability, its true that is possible that they can kill individuals, but this won't accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq. The regime is more than just Saddam. A much weaker regime, the Taliban, would still not be a target that the CIA could change, simply because despite having far less military capability than the Republican guard, it is way to large for the abilities of the CIA. Airpower combined with special forces and the Northern Alliance succeeded in Afghanistan. With Iraq though, only large conventional US military forces will be able to accomplish and guarentee regime change. I could go into far more detail if you want.

The only way that Saddam could be guaranteed to be dead ten times would be a large conventional military invasion to overthrow the regime. Hundreds of people have tried to kill Saddam over the course of his life, even before he became the leader of Iraq. The CIA does not have the ability to kill anyone they want to, although they have been successful in the past. Killing Saddam does not constitute a regime change at all. In fact it could create a worse situation, only if that is one thinks that Saddam has retained some ounce of sanity he rarely uses and would be better than the family member of Republican guard officer that would take his place. Regime change cannot be accomplished in this case by taking out a single individual, which I seriously doubt the CIA has the ability to in this case anyway. If regime change were that easy the history of the 20th century would be a lot different. Only a large military force can accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq.

In regards to the defense budget, coming from a military family, my own relationship with the military in the past, and friends that are currently serving in the military, I can tell you the military is often underfunded. If you'd like to discuss the defense budget futher in detail, I'd love to. I'd like to know what serviceman's salary you want to cut, what weapon system you want them not to have when they risk their lives in combat for our security, how much exercises and training you want to cut which is also vital to their survival on the battlefield? Again, the military is often underfunded in many of these area's. More needs to be spent on defense, not less. If you feel differently, tell me exactly what you would cut and why?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 09:42 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:51 AM

Didn't President Ford, (the only "non-murderous" U.S. President in recent history), issue an executive order banning the assassination of leaders of other countrues? And isn't that executive order still standing? From what I have read in Free Your Mind over the past 2 years, Ford seems to be the only U.S. President who has not been charged with or convicted of war crimes by the members of this forum.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 07:52 AM   #68
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Tony Blair's 'evidence'.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme is "active, detailed and growing...

click link for more...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...raq/index.html
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 01:02 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to HIPHOP,

The CIA does not have the ability to take out Saddam's entire regime which is what would be needed. I seriously doubt they have the ability to take out Saddam himself as well.

First though even if it was a possibility, killing Saddam or Saddam and his family would just mean that another person in his regime would take charge. Someone that might be even worse than Saddam as far as making miscaculations and taking risk in regards to Iraq's foreign policy.

Realize that Saddam has spent over 20 years constructing his regime through bribes with his massive wealth, and mass murder, sometimes over a hundred key officials killed in one day. Saddam has created a regime that is tied to him, and one infact that he is tied to as well. Both depend on the other for survival. Saddams regime of course consist of 100,000 very well payed Republican guard troops, many members of the rubber stamp Iraqi government, and even includes believe it or not, members of ethinic groups in opposition to his rule. Saddam has used his power to divide and rule the country in a way, which makes a civilian uprising or CIA coup impossible to ever succeed. Nearly every independent military expert has stated that the "Iraqi resistance would be slaughtered if we tried to do an Afghanistan style operation, with mainly resistence forces on the ground.

The CIA cannot remove 100,000 well payed Republican guard troops that are willing to die for Saddam, just as they did in large numbers in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's total Military strength is between 300,000 to 400,000. The Republican guard is the corp with 100,000 troops, the regular army may be worthless, but you will still nead a large conventional military force to unseat Saddam's regime which includes his 100,000 Republican guard troops.

Regarding the CIA's ability, its true that is possible that they can kill individuals, but this won't accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq. The regime is more than just Saddam. A much weaker regime, the Taliban, would still not be a target that the CIA could change, simply because despite having far less military capability than the Republican guard, it is way to large for the abilities of the CIA. Airpower combined with special forces and the Northern Alliance succeeded in Afghanistan. With Iraq though, only large conventional US military forces will be able to accomplish and guarentee regime change. I could go into far more detail if you want.

The only way that Saddam could be guaranteed to be dead ten times would be a large conventional military invasion to overthrow the regime. Hundreds of people have tried to kill Saddam over the course of his life, even before he became the leader of Iraq. The CIA does not have the ability to kill anyone they want to, although they have been successful in the past. Killing Saddam does not constitute a regime change at all. In fact it could create a worse situation, only if that is one thinks that Saddam has retained some ounce of sanity he rarely uses and would be better than the family member of Republican guard officer that would take his place. Regime change cannot be accomplished in this case by taking out a single individual, which I seriously doubt the CIA has the ability to in this case anyway. If regime change were that easy the history of the 20th century would be a lot different. Only a large military force can accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq.

In regards to the defense budget, coming from a military family, my own relationship with the military in the past, and friends that are currently serving in the military, I can tell you the military is often underfunded. If you'd like to discuss the defense budget futher in detail, I'd love to. I'd like to know what serviceman's salary you want to cut, what weapon system you want them not to have when they risk their lives in combat for our security, how much exercises and training you want to cut which is also vital to their survival on the battlefield? Again, the military is often underfunded in many of these area's. More needs to be spent on defense, not less. If you feel differently, tell me exactly what you would cut and why?
Thank you for your detailed answer. I just read it now, after responding in the Why Bush why thread, so no need to repeat yourself.

So you assume that to overthrow the regime in Iraq, those 100,000 soldiers have to be taken out of action. Meaning 100,000 victims. Apart from the other - who knows how many thousands - civil victims. Hmmm, well,.... this is a high number. I can undersatnd the leaders of some European countries very well then, if they assume it is going to be a large scale long war - harder than in Afghanistan.

I ask myself if there wouldnīt be another possibility. Canīt we, with more allies form Europe so not only Americans risk their lives, destroy all the nuclear plants, which are the real threat, completely? If they are kept secret, I am sure that its no problem to locate them with the NSAīs finesse. Now youīll argue that as long as Saddam rules, he will try to build up new nuclear programs if everything is destroyed. So you have to remove him.

What if the U.S. troops are not able to remove him?

Will it take twenty more years of threatening, another 100,000 victims, et al?

I donīt know.... I think a different strategy would serve the U.S. better. What if the U.S. concentrated on minimizing illegal nuclear trade? Oh, lets not stop there. Lets minimize all illegal weapon trade!

This, my friend STING, however important fast and strong action against Iraq may be, would be WAY MORE EFFECTIVE to minimize potential terrorist threats. Sure, if you go this way, the road is different. This means loads of problems, especially with the illegal weapon traders with who the U.S. (and lots of other countries) does business. Sure, our friends in Marbella wouldnīt be so happy of that. But if there was a way to slowly, slowly get more control over illegal arms trade, chances would be high that (dangerous, difficult to smuggle, not a few Uzis) weapons would not fall into the hands of terrorists.

Couple that with an effective strategy to put Saddam out of power. What if you simply destroyed the communication systems and the computers of all the country? Electromagnetic bombs or something - Iīm sure I donīt know as much as you of weapon systems, but I think that also non nuclear devices are able to destroy communication and all electricity over hundreds of miles without hurting persons. True? And then kill him and his family and the top military positions (command structure). The 100,000 would run around all the country without any real plan. Chaos would break out. Then you can offer a strong hand and install another government.

Possible, in your opinion?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 01:18 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Oh, and in regards to the defense budget:

Forget it, its not my business what the U.S. spends the taxpayers money for. Your argument is that more money is needed, well... I am looking at the situation from another non military point of view. I know I donīt really have the right to do that, because it is really not my business.

But if you ask me for my opinion, I think that the U.S. should better reduce its debts, build up a serious social system (see diamond in "Iīm angry with my health care provider") and invest A LOT MORE in education (see the threads of the children in highschool unable to read). Instead of throwing money into SDI programs, or even into the dustbin throats of General Electric that has betrayed the government more than once. Backup if you want, all non classified, official hearings etc.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 01:55 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:51 AM

Mr HipHop-
Has it ever occured to you that if any Iraqi citizens are killed..that the blame will reside w Mr Saddam for not following the UN resolutions.. that the civilized world has repeadedly asked him to follow?
or
is it easier for you blame Tony B and GW..which is more easy and fashionable for some folk..?

Perhaps, we can send you overthere as a 'special envoy' to sit and drink tea w Saddam and reason w him over his choices?

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 02:17 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Perhaps, we can send you overthere as a 'special envoy' to sit and drink tea w Saddam and reason w him over his choices?

DB9
Sure why not? Maybe I could do business with him like some other folks 15 years ago

But I want my provision. O,6 percent to be precise.

diamond brother: to say "civilised" means that you think he is uncivilised.... donīt you underestimate him?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 02:58 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:51 AM

Hiphop-
No.

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 03:20 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:51 PM
I may ask you again: civilised in which sense?

I donīt think he is encouraging a civil society, for example.

But I donīt think he is primitive. If you think so, you clearly underestimate him imho. For example, he knows how to walk on two feet.

Anyway, I am still waiting for the answer of STING2.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 03:37 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
Didn't President Ford, (the only "non-murderous" U.S. President in recent history), issue an executive order banning the assassination of leaders of other countrues? And isn't that executive order still standing? From what I have read in Free Your Mind over the past 2 years, Ford seems to be the only U.S. President who has not been charged with or convicted of war crimes by the members of this forum.

~U2Alabama
Bush "suspended" that executive order, and has ordered Hussein's assassination.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon 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 11:51 AM.


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