War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking? - 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 08-02-2002, 06:59 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:11 PM
(In a classic melon departure...)

Why, suddenly, is there so much sympathy for a dictator? Certainly, Bush is not one of our more loveable American presidents, but, for all intensive purposes, Hussein is not exactly a cuddly dictator himself.

I've felt all along that Hussein is perhaps one of the minds behind September 11th; if not that, at least a financial source. Bin Laden, in reference to his motivations against America, often refers to two scenarios that started from the half-assed Gulf War:

1) Continued American military presence in Saudi Arabia, which he "believes" is a desecration of holy land.

2) Continued American aggression and sanctions against Iraq.

It's funny how many sympathies this man has for a nation he's never lived in, right? Money can certainly build loyalties, and, without evidence, I think that Hussein may indeed be one of Al-Qaeda's silent partners. The guilty party is often the one with the most to gain and the least to lose, and, indeed, Hussein would have much to gain from Al-Qaeda's success. While I am disgusted at America's most half-assed way of dealing with Iraq over the last decade, it is too late to just say "oh well" and let him go free. This man needs to be removed, because an unleashed, battered dictator is the last thing the Western world needs.

I am often upset at the history behind all of these military conflicts, which often are borne of self-serving past conflicts. I see that America is no longer in the business of building nations, which successfully disassembled and built powerful allies out of Germany and Japan. Indeed, over the last decade, we've seen the fall of the Soviet Union as a sputtering and slowly improving nation, and I certainly see Afghanistan as being similarly ineffective. Of course, why would America wish to build powerful competitors when it can have political vassals? Unfortunately, I believe, it is this system that is fueling the conflicts of the future. We may be solving immediate problems, but what problems are we creating for the future? That is where I have some trust issues with Bush, as Reagan, his self-professed political idol, and Bush, Sr., his father, were no different.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 07:35 PM   #32
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Money can certainly build loyalties
true
__________________

__________________
“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 08-02-2002, 07:43 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge
Your reference to shelling is caused by artillery, I did not post pics of artillery cannons/rounds but 2 airplanes that I see daily that really had nothing to do with your situation.

Is there some sort of rule as to what should and should not trigger old, painful memories? Because God certainly knows millions of people's lives would be a hell of a lot easier if that were the case.

Anyways, I don't care to continue on with this. It's a beautiful day.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-02-2002, 07:46 PM   #34
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 07:11 PM
I didnt quite see the point in posting those plane pictures either.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 07:57 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Melon,
We did give Russia over 5 Billion dollars in the 1990s but it simply went to the mafia. With a country as large as Russia, unless they let us come in take control of the government for a decade or so, its up to them to solve their problems. We can help with money and advise. I think eventually things will work out, but you have to realize that democracy and capitalism has no history in Russia unlike Germany and maybe Japan had. In addition Russia is much larger and more complex ethinically, especially if you throw in the 14 other new countries formed after the break up of the Soviet Union.

I think Bushes policy in 1991 in regards to the Gulf War was perfect. The USA had the full support from the international community in everything it did, which did not call for the overthrow of Saddam. The international community payed the cost of the war(in fact, they overpayed, there was a slight profit for the USA). Iraq's Conventional military capabilities were cut by 2/3s and the remaining 1/3s capability has been decayed because of 11 years of sanctions. The countries in the region in addition to a small US force or able to deter any adventures by Iraq's conventional forces. Iraqs own military capability is still strong enough to deter military action by Iran. The military balance has been restored and that has meant peace for the countries that border Iraq for the past 10 years unlike the 10 years before 1991. In addition, the UN inspection team was very successful in the 1990s in destroying and disrupting Iraq's weapons program.

Unfortunately, the problems with Bush's policy came to ahead when the inspection teams were kicked out in 1998. We have not taken serious action to get them in there and that is part of the reason Iraq becomes a threat. Saddam secretly supplying terrorist with mass destruction weapons is now a possiblity. But as long as the inspection teams were in there, I do not feel there is a threat, providing they get to look at what they want.

The international climate in 1991 made going all the way to Baghdad an impossibility. Remember, there was still a Soviet Union, and as late as the fall of 1990 there were still over 2,000 Soviet troops and advisors in Iraq. It was difficult enough to get the mandate to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Nearly every democrat in the Senate voted against the use of force! They thought you could regulate Saddam's behavior with sanctions! I'd have to say they were of the mark on that one.

Bottom line, Bush Sr. did an amazing job, when one looks at the context and environment in which the action was taken. The Senate only approved Bushes use of force by 53 to 47. It was the Republicans and a few Democrats on one side, against the rest who were Democrats. There was definitely no public support, at least not in the Congress for going all the way to Baghdad and there certainly was no support in the international community for doing that either.

Regardless of the political opposition, I think Bush Sr. made the right choice back then in not going all the way to Baghdad based on what was known then. No one felt that Saddam could survive the aftermath of the Gulf War. Plus 2/3s of Iraqs military was destroyed and they would have to endure UN inspections for years. Security and balance of power were restored.

Now though after 9/11, the effectiveness of terror organizations seems to have increased combined with the fact that no inspectors have been in Iraq since 1998, leads to the concern that the two may hook up some time in the future to commit an act worse than 9/11! These two problems did not exist in 1991 in the magnitude that they exist today. So now we have the question do the new risk of just continuing containment outweight the cost of invasion and regime change in Iraq?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 08:02 PM   #36
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 07:11 PM

Who needs areason to post pictures of cool planes???

I'd start a thread exclusively for that purpose, but I started two pro-military threads long ago, and they both got flamed. I didnt voice any political opinions in them, either. Just posted links to charities and groups that help make life better for deployed members of the armed forces.
__________________
".....People of America - SHUSH-........."

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert

Well tonight thank God it's them, instead of you...

^^ Life's a bitch, so i became one ^^
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 08:23 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Like Someone to blame,

As far as international law goes, the 1991 Gulf War is not technically over do to Iraq's failure to 100% comply with all the UN demands that led to the Gulf War Ceacefire. Were technically still at war because they have failed to meet their obligations under the ceacefire terms.

If a country is under threat of a harmful attack or one that could cause mass loss or the end of the country, it is the Presidents duty to use all means neccessary to prevent such a disaster from taking place. I would have supported as I'm sure everyone would preemptive action by the FBI in the days before 9/11 if they could have put info together and had found more things out. I would have supported a preemtive strike on Al Quada strong holds(with a large ground force instead of cruise missiles) in Afghanistan in 1998 after the embassy bombings in Africa. Israel would not exist today if it had not launched a preemptive strike in 1967. The only way you defeat terrorism once it is likely to happen is to strike first!

Again though, are policy of containment on Iraq has worked very well, but with the inspectors out, and the new aggressivness of terrorist, the question is raised: does the risk of continuing the policy of just containment outweight the cost of invasion and regime change? As I said in the begining were already technically at war because Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1998 and has failed to comply with the Gulf War Ceace fire resolutions.

As far as a congressional declaration of war, that has not happened since 1941. But look at all the military actions that have been launched under both democratic and Republican administrations. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Beruit, Panama, The Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan. There are more that did not make this list. I think the threat of nuclear destruction in under 15 minutes at any given time during the Cold War, made the need for a declaration of War not at all relevant. The President has to have a free hand to act in certain situations to safeguard the security of the country. Congress and the US public has recognized this. There are still votes of approval for certain military actions, but I doubt they will use the declaration of war again. Public approval can be measured or recieved in other ways.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 09:54 PM   #38
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Normal

I was referring to the planes dropping bombs.

I dont like war.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 11:34 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

First off, I have not voiced my opinion for or against an attack on Iraq; we will get to that later.

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame


Bama, I wasn't aware Saddam kills 500,000 children EVERYDAY! The whole country must be awash in corpses...it sounds like an international crisis. Haven't read this in the news anywhere. Could you provide some evidence of this. Possibly you made a typo?

This was my personal stab at all of the figures I have seen in this forum over the past couple of years about all of the Iraqi civilians that George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, former Journey lead singer Steve Perry, George Bush Jr., and most recently, Tony Blair, have been killing on a daily basis with their own hands. It has ranged from 5,000 to 500,000, and in timespans of "per minute" to "since 1991."

It is about responsibility. A certain ideology (not liberal, not conservative, I don't know what to call it) wants to shift responsibility in the world.

When a guy rapes a woman and is convicted and sent to prison, who is responsible for the fact that his son grows up delinquent and commits crime himself? Is it the dad's rape victim, the dad's arresting police officer, the prosecuting district attorney, the trial witnesses, the judge, and the jury?

I believe that Saddam is both (1) allowing his civilians to starve and die due to economic sanctions and the (2) he is killing his own civilians in order to bolster carnal numbers, as sickening as that is, to use to sway people around the world. Like I said, it is working. Like the rapist father above, Saddam can point the finger at those who are punishing him rather than taking responsibility himself and stepping down for the good of his people.

What was your opinion on sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s? Listen to Bono's rant in "Silver & Gold" on RATTLE AND HUM. Bono is pleading for Western sanctions against the apartheid regime in Cape Town.

Up until January 15, 1991 (the day I turned 18 - and registered with Selective Service), the United States, Great Britain, Jordan and numerous other countries sought a diplomatic resolution with Iraq. The efforts failed. As I learned in my History of Foreign Policy class a few years later, military action is the final stage of diplomacy.

Saddam Hussein is very likely developing new chemical weapons and in possession of others. Just because they were allegedly eliminated a few years ago (officially, at least, according to your statistics) certainly does not mean that he has acquire others. Don't forget that the early 1990s saw the breakup of the former Soviet Union, and the subsequent rise of a mafia-run black market of their old weaponry, ESPECIALLY in the Southern-most former "republics" near Iraq. I think of Saddam (or you or me for that matter) wished to go on a shopping spree for unmentionable weapons in that area, it would be quite easy. Melon makes a good point of his possible financial connection to the attacks of 9/11. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the Czech meeting; in fact, it was Czech intelligence authorities that notified us of this alleged meeting; I have not heard them say "Oh, sorry, we were just kidding."

And you are incorrectwith this statement:

Quote:
...and no one wants this war...except the Bush administration.


It was Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat who first called for action against Iraq as far back as October, 2001. And numerous other Democratic and Republican members of Congress have done the same.

I don't know if it is possible for me to agree with zooropa, Melon and Sting2 at the same time in this thread, but to an extent I do.

The thug needs to be removed from power; how and when we do it, I am not sure yet. Why some of you accept his retention of office is beyond me.

Can anyone post any "good things" about Saddam? Should I start one of those "What do you know/like/love about Saddam Hussein?" threads?

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 12:38 AM   #40
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:11 PM
I am impressed.

Achtung Bama that was great
that post was needed

STING2, as always

Sicy
I didn't post planes to offend anyone, rather they voice my opinion more than my words can at times

Rob
I do feel for your last paragraph bud
Diamond was right you are a nice guy
I have a lot to tell you in a bit

Melon
Get your ass over here and take J.C. Watts seat when he leaves

Honestly Melon, you have proven once again how open you are and I do appreciate it as others do

*with this direction I am going to add some *** back to this thread
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 12:46 AM   #41
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram



Is there some sort of rule as to what should and should not trigger old, painful memories? Because God certainly knows millions of people's lives would be a hell of a lot easier if that were the case.

Anyways, I don't care to continue on with this. It's a beautiful day.

Sweetheart I wish you more than the best, you certainly deserve it.

No rules like that either.

My opinion is that with those planes flying around in the ethers and doing their job then the world will be better.

It may take some time to realize this, but we have the future in our hands so why let the evil use that against us?

All of us that is.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 02:46 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:11 AM
I do not agree with everything the Economist says but this is their latest opinion on this subject matter:
The case for war

Aug 1st 2002
From The Economist print edition


If you will the end, it is only honest to will the means

Reuters






ITS founders called on America to show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. And so, by and large, it does. But in the case of the looming American war against Iraq, another wise saw needs to be borne in mind. This one can be found pinned in many a corner shop. It advises customers against asking for credit, because a refusal often offends.

In much of the world, and even among some Americans, indignation is growing at George Bush's slow but remorseless preparations to remove Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president, by military force (see article). No step, the complainers say, could be better calculated to offend a billion Muslims and confirm fears that, after September 11th, the over-mighty superpower feels entitled to trample wantonly on any enemy, imagined or real. At the least, it is argued, America should abide by the rules. If Mr Bush is planning military action against Iraq, he should first ask the UN Security Council for permission. At talks in Germany this week, the French president and the German chancellor said once again that there could be no new military action against Iraq without fresh UN approval.

Will Mr Bush seek a new resolution before removing Mr Hussein? It is unlikely. If he asks, he may be refused, and a refusal often offends. Having refused, the other members of the Security Council will be offended in turn ifmake that whenAmerica, with Britain probably alongside, strikes Iraq regardless. Lawyers for America and Britain will claim that Mr Hussein's wholesale violation of the UN disarmament agreements he signed after being driven out of Kuwait in 1991 is all the justification they need. But with all due respect to the Security Council, the legal arguments its members deploy to justify their prior political choices are not especially gripping. The issue here is not Jarndyce v Jarndyce, a quarrel about small print. It is the danger Mr Hussein poses to the world, and whether that danger is big enough to justify the risks of a war.



How bad does he have to be?
The danger Mr Hussein poses cannot be overstated. He is no tinpot despot, singled out for arbitrary American punishment. Nor is Iraq a banana republic. With the possible exception of North Korea, but perhaps not even then, Mr Hussein is the world's most monstrous dictator, who by the promiscuous use of violence has seized unfettered control of a technologically advanced country with vast oil reserves. He has murdered all his political opponents, sometimes squeezing the trigger in person. He has subdued his Kurdish minority by razing their villages and spraying them with poison gas. In 1979 he invaded Iran, thus setting off an eight-year war that squandered more than 1m lives. In 1990 he invaded and annexed Kuwait, pronouncing it his 19th province. When an American-led coalition started to push him out, and though knowing Israel to be a nuclear power, he fired ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv, in the hope of provoking a general Arab-Israeli conflagration. Next time you hear someone ask why, in a world full of bad men, it is Mr Hussein who is being picked on, please bear all of the above in mind. He may very well be the worst.

And yet it is not simply in his record of aggression, cruelty and recklessness that the peril to the wider world resides. If that were all the story, the danger might be easily contained. The unique danger in Iraq is that this country's advanced technology and potential oil wealth could very soon give this aggressive, cruel and reckless man an atomic bomb.






How dangerous would that be? To judge by the reaction of Mr Bush's foreign critics, the magnitude of the threat is in the eye of the beholder. But it is not difficult to see why, after September 11th, Americans in particular find it hard to be sanguine about the prospect of a sworn enemy equipping himself with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In the worst case, these might one day be used against the United States, either directly by Iraq itself or by some non-state group to whom Mr Hussein had transferred his lethal technology. At a minimum, a nuclear-armed Mr Hussein could be counted on to revive his earlier ambitions to intimidate his neighbours and dominate the Gulf. Prophesying is difficult, especially about the past. But if Mr Hussein had already had nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait 11 years ago, he might still be there.



Presidents and precedents
Many people who acknowledge that Mr Hussein is a danger nonetheless oppose Mr Bush's plan to depose him, on the ground that this would in itself set a dangerous precedent. How safe would the world really be if the United States, armed now with Mr Bush's new doctrine of pre-emption, swanned about it shooting up any country that possessed or sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction, deposing any president whose face it did not like? That is a good question. It is not, however, the question that arises in Iraq.





When he invaded Kuwait, Mr Hussein forfeited some of Iraq's normal sovereign rights. After his defeat, it became apparent that Iraq had been secretly developing chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, in contravention of its treaty obligations, such as those under the nuclear non-proliferation pact. Given this, and his recent aggression, the United Nations put Iraq under a uniquely intrusive system of surveillance, designed to ensure that his WMD efforts would come to an end. Crippling economic sanctions were to be lifted only when the UN's arms inspectors could be sure he had complied. Eleven years on, Iraq is still crippled, the inspectors have been forced out, and nobody believes that Mr Hussein has given up seeking a bomb or scrapped all the chemical and biological weapons he already has. He has literally preferred to starve Iraq than to give up his appetite for them.

None of this is to argue that a war to remove Mr Hussein should be undertaken lightly. Though the Iraqi army is even less of a match for America's than it was a decade ago, that was a different sort of war. With his own head and not just his most recent conquest at stake, and especially when he calculates that he has nothing to lose, Mr Hussein might very well use the unconventional weapons he has collected. The casualties this timeespecially the civilian casualtiescould be much larger than they were before.

It is little wonder, given this, that people of goodwill are groping for a safer alternative. But wishful thinking in the face of mortal danger is bad policy. Perhaps the best hope is that, as the noose tightens, Mr Hussein will save himself by letting the inspectors return. If they did so on a credible go-anywhere, check-anything basis, such an opportunity would be worth grabbing, at least to see if it worked.

Failing this, however, the outlook is grim. Some argue that a better alternative to war is to keep Mr Hussein in his box, persevering with the strategy of containment. But after 11 years, it is time to acknowledge that the box is full of holes and that containment has failed. By keeping Iraq poor, the sanctions have inflicted suffering on Iraq's people and so brought America and its allies into disrepute in much of the Arab world. But the sanctions have not dulled the Iraqi leader's appetite for the most lethal of weapons, and have slowed rather than stopped his ability eventually to procure them. The honest choices now are to give up and give in, or to remove Mr Hussein before he gets his bomb. Painful as it is, our vote is for war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2002, 05:59 AM   #43
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Saddam Hussein is not a role model for children, but let's take a look at the facts that we've seen posted in this forum, thus far.

We've learned that War should be the last option. We've learned that the Bush Administration wants a war before anything else.

This is wrong and will cause many problems for future generations including my own. I know it sounds trite, but I'm not wanting to live through a massive war that bids the Muslims against the Christians. YOu know what I mean.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-04-2002, 12:57 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:11 AM
If the Bush Administration had wanted a war before anything else, they would have invaded Iraq over a year ago. The potential for Saddam to do serious damage to other countries grows everyday. Many feel for security and the longterm interest of the region, that the regime there should be changed. Unfortunately nothing can do that except war. Only Bin Laden's and those that follow their sick twisted ideals truely see this is a Muslim vs the west situation. This is about international security, not religion and culture, although Bin Laden wants you to believe otherwise.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2002, 06:23 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If the Bush Administration had wanted a war before anything else, they would have invaded Iraq over a year ago. The potential for Saddam to do serious damage to other countries grows everyday. Many feel for security and the longterm interest of the region, that the regime there should be changed. Unfortunately nothing can do that except war. Only Bin Laden's and those that follow their sick twisted ideals truely see this is a Muslim vs the west situation. This is about international security, not religion and culture, although Bin Laden wants you to believe otherwise.
I too do not agree with Danospano's assertion that Bush wants a war before anything else.

But his point about provoking a Muslims versus Jews/Christians is very valid, even if he didn't express it completely clearly. The point is not that this war is a Muslims versus the West war (Saddam is, strictly speaking, a secular despot), the point is that it will be perceived that way throughout the Middle East, and that could be disastrous. The US is going to have to get its diplomatic ducks in a row in the Middle East before invading Iraq
__________________

__________________
speedracer 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 10:11 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