A strike on Iraq - 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 09-10-2002, 05:47 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
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, 07:18 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
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, 08:06 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
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, 08:11 PM   #84
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 06:13 AM
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, 08:31 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:13 AM
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, 08:34 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:13 AM

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, 09:03 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
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, 09:50 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
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, 10:00 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:13 AM

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 09-10-2002, 11:44 PM   #90
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:13 AM
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  
Old 09-11-2002, 03:34 AM   #91
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Hello Sting,

There was a reason why i marked this stuff as "polemic" these points shouldn't become part of a discussion - it was just to ilustrate that sometimes it's dangerous to argue with short "facts" like these.

But two short statements:

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

Quada. Both of these organizations came into existance after the USA had pulled out of Afghanistan economically, politically, and militaryly in 1989!!!!!


Afik Bin Laden got money from various Official US organisations like the CIA up to 1999.
But the year isn't that important i just wanted to show that "we" also use Terrorists as alies (This guy was never a good one, the only reason that we liked him was that he hated the Russians)

Quote:
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.


G.W.Bush pointed out that Nuclear weapons are no more "Defense only" (which resulted in indignation here in Europe). Newertheless it would be interesting to define "Mass Destruction" I think you want to reference to "ABC" Weapons (Also in my mind most wapons are designed for "mass destruction" )

Quote:

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!


Maybee another interesting Topic we could call it "Conspiracy Theories" ;-)

Quote:

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
...


Again you don't have to convince me that the US is a great country - as i mentioned before i love the USA.
I was just trying to show you the US with the eyes of one who dislikes the US like we dislike Sadam. And imho we should argue with a higher moral not just with some details - we could talk about details for years and compare the darkest episodes of our world. That wouldn't lead to much except: We shouldn't repeat historical mistakes.

Quote:
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!
As someone other pointed out the USSR fitted in there also quite well - and Stalin was one of the worst dictators ever.

Your President at that time decided not to start a war and that was verry wise.

And again there are some international laws that decides what Countries are alowed to do to each other. If the US starts to break these rules it's hard to tell some other countries why they should care about international contracts.

(I also pointed out how a invasion could be legal in international terms from my point of view)

Quote:
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!
It's like with the Police (you started that example ;-) if the Police stops to care about its own laws it destroyed the thing it should protect.



Quote:

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 US is one (the biggest and most important) member of the UN. But the UN is doing a good job also lots of coutries try to blackmail them - even the USA (remember at 2001 9/11 the US had debts of 2.000.000.000,00 $ by the UN. The UN was nearly Bancrupt and the US tried to force the UN to withdraw some of their (imho greatest) laws)
It's the UN job to decide international things like this because only by that way we can make sure that Invasions are not made because of Financial or Political reasons of single Countries.

Only the UN can help to prevent wars. Sometimes it takes longer than the way we all would prefer it but it's important, it's like a court. It takes longer than just lynching him - sometimes guilty persons might escape but it's a fundamental of our system and giving that up has a verry high price!


Quote:
World War II:
Not only Germany who bombed London. It was also the Alied over most of the huge German cities (also when there were no Factories or Millitary) one of the most obvious examples: Dresden.
It was (on both sides) to weaken morale of the enimy. It was a bad thing but wars are cruel.
Maybe we should start the Worldwars thread when i'm back (see end of the mail)

And for me some things like Toybombs (Russians in Afghanistan) or Daisy Cutters (as mentioned before) are a perfect example of unnecessary cruelness.

Quote:

I'm sorry you think 11 years is long enough to change the law or a signed resolution but its not!
11 years are enough - but not if we ignored the problem for about 10 of these 11 years


Quote:
The USA and the rest of the world was Attacked by Iraq when they invaded Kuwait
I'm sorry i might have forgotten something over the years but for me Iraq attacked Kuwait without a mandate of the UN and because of that it was unlawful. But because of that the Iraq didn't attack the whole world and the USA.


So still the same argument from me:
Either America gets attacked from Iraq or it's business of the UN.
the USA as the (most important and biggest) member has the chance to discuss these points in the UN - they had time for almost 11 years.
A invasion of a country is a serious violation of a international war

The UN decides, the Armies of the members act and after all the Sadam should be judged by the ICC

No matter what we know and feel what to do we have to care about the law.s.


It's like a Policeman he's not allowed to kill the evil person because he has the proof that he's a guilty person. He has to show it to the Court and they decide.

Maybee you or me would decide different (invasion yes/no) but we should accept it like we accapt our laws and courts.

That what's (imho) the difference between civilization and barbarism

Klaus

U2Bama:

Comparisions like that are imho highly respectless, it's like comparing the US with the "third Reich" because they both hated the Communists.

Historical comparisions fail most of the time, especially comparisons to Hittler.
Comparing Hittler to anything like Sadam is belittling and therefore makes me feel like someone is making bad jokes about the victims of the thrid Reich.

If you want to learn more about Hittler and Europe at that time i can strongly recomend visiting "The Museum Of Tolerance" in LA or visit a former extermination camp like the mauthausen-memorial.
Sorry, i might be a little too sensitive on that subject.

Maybee we should really start a "Worldwars" Thread to discuss that...


I'm sorry that i can't join this discussion for a while i'm off for vacations at the Lake Of Constance and playing a little with my nephew.
I enjoyed talking with you - off course including the people that didn't share my ideas and the impulsive z edge ,-)

Klaus

p.s. Sorry i can't resist adding a picture of my cute nephew
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-11-2002, 12:06 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Published on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 by the BBC

Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace by Tim Radford

One of the world's most respected statesmen, Nelson Mandela, has condemned United States intervention in the Middle East as "a threat to world peace".

In an interview with the US magazine, Newsweek published on Wednesday, the former South African president repeated his call for President George Bush not to launch attacks on Iraq.

He said that Mr Bush was trying to please the American arms and oil industries.

And Mr Mandela, 84, called some of Mr Bush's senior advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney "dinosaurs".

He said that the United States' backing for a coup by the Shah of Iran in 1953 had led to that country's Islamic revolution in 1979.

On Afghanistan, Mr Mandela said that US support for the mujahideen (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Soviet Union and its refusal to work with the United Nations after the Soviet withdrawal led to the Taleban taking power.

"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace," he said.

Mr Mandela said that the US was clearly afraid of losing a vote in the United Nations Security Council.

"It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America," he said.

He said that no evidence had been presented to support the claim that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, while former UN weapons inspector in Baghdad Scott Ritter has said there is no such evidence.

"But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody mentions that," he said.

The former South African leader made it clear that the only member of the Bush team he respects is Colin Powell.

He called Mr Cheney a "dinosaur" and an "arch-conservative" who does not want Mr Bush "to belong to the modern age."

Mr Mandela recalled that Mr Cheney had been opposed to his release from prison.
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-11-2002, 12:08 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 12:13 AM
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.
Well, I don't really have the time to get into a real debate here so I've just been offering articles for people to read. But thanks.
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-11-2002, 08:48 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Comparisions like that are imho highly respectless, it's like comparing the US with the "third Reich" because they both hated the Communists.

Historical comparisions fail most of the time, especially comparisons to Hittler.
Comparing Hittler to anything like Sadam is belittling and therefore makes me feel like someone is making bad jokes about the victims of the thrid Reich.

If you want to learn more about Hittler and Europe at that time i can strongly recomend visiting "The Museum Of Tolerance" in LA or visit a former extermination camp like the mauthausen-memorial.
Sorry, i might be a little too sensitive on that subject.

Maybee we should really start a "Worldwars" Thread to discuss that...
Klaus:

I hope you have a great vacation, and I look forward to hearing from you upon your return.

I still don't see why it is "respectless" for me to point out some similarities between the two assholes. Do you deny that Saddam Hussein has killed thousands of his own people merely for their political opposition to his rule? Do you deny that he has funded terrorist acts against Israel? I am making no jokes, good or bad. I am merely referencing a few statements and actions made by one of the most powerful and established dictators in the Middle East who happens to have probably very good resources to wreak terror on more of his citizens and neighbors.

It is perfectly fine with me if such historical comparisons fail; God knows I do not wish for Hussein to continue and soon be an equal of Hitler in terms of atrocities. But perhaps such comparisons have failed because other parties in the world have kept a check on such tyrants and stopped them soon enough?

I know very much about Hitler, the Third Reich, World War II, etc. I also know that a lot of theocratically-inclined and racist terrorists in a certain part of the world have been reading up on the Third Reich for inspiration, as they have also been sharing information with red-neck anti-semitic militia groups int he U.S. (the FBI and CIA have been monitoring such exchanges).

I in no way mean to diminish the atrocities commited by Hitler. At the same time, I wish to expose the atrocities that HAVE been commited by Hussein, and I wish to bring to light some of the things he has said that are in line with things that Hitler said. Do you think that I am being "respectless" to Hussein? Should I overlook some of the things he has said and done and give him the benefit of the doubt and say, "Oh, it is just part of his culture?" Honestly, I think that figureheads such as Hussein and The Osama are the reasons that such cultural excuses are allowed to flourish. The majority of the people in that part of the world likely do not share their hatred, but the hatred is pretty much the only "opinion" that is allowed to be expressed.

~U2Alabama
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 01:03 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 12:13 AM

Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Toronto Star CNN's Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter

Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq
by Antonia Zerbisias

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt


OF COURSE it was just coincidental that, on Sunday, as CNN was discrediting former United Nations weapons' inspector Scott Ritter, it was running promos for the remake of Four Feathers, A.E.W. Mason's tale of the coward who would not go to war.



By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."


Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After his 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq allowed.

Ever since, he has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's failure to complete its mission — a failure Ritter largely blames on Washington — and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that, if the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is building nukes, then the American people have a right to see it before they sacrifice their lives.

So, naturally, CNN talking head Miles O'Brien on Sunday questioned Ritter on his loyalty.

"As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with the — with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter. "It's the most patriotic thing I can do."

Not in this climate. Not when there's the ironically named U.S.A. Patriot Act which abrogates civil rights. Not when those who criticize the administration are considered to be "with the terrorists." Not when the U.S. media let President George Bush's advisers — who, with the exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, have never served their country as Ritter has — gallop all over the airwaves.

You couldn't flip a channel on Sunday without catching one of the Bush bunch, including wife Laura, Powell, vice-president Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice, promoting an attack on Iraq as if they were actors flogging their latest project on Leno and Letterman.

Certainly, the line of questioning was no more tough. Nowhere was any of them asked seriously, if at all, about such trivia as the costs of a war, or what, if anything, is known about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or what proof there is that Iraq has the ability to make and deliver nuclear weapons, or why that country as opposed to others, or what oil has to do with it, or how Cheney justifies his former business dealings with the regime he now so desperately wants to change ...

Still the demonization of Ritter continued.

First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility..."

The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided," "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."

By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."

Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips interrogated him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq —and all but calling him a quisling.

"Ha! Excuse me; I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass destruction. I believe I've done a0 lot about Saddam Hussein," he replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States. But at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United States worthy of war."

Maybe today, in his speech to the United Nations, Bush will make that case.

Maybe not.

Whatever happens, the list of cowards and traitors here won't include Scott Ritter.
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 01:06 PM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Normal

i don't think scott ritter is a coward or a traitor, however, i do worry that since he left his position in 1998, his statements on iraq might not be as valid anymore.
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 07:01 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
In response to Klaus:

Bin Laden's role in the 1979-1989 occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was primarily that of supplier and financer of Mujahadeen rebels. At this time, Bin Laden had not been apart of any terrorist attack or any military attack, except for actions against Government Afghan forces and Soviet forces. It is unlikely although possible that some CIA support found its way into the hands of Bin Laden, but even if true is not relavent since Bin Laden at that time was NOT a terrorist. In 1989 the USA pulled out of Afghanistan militarily, economically, and politically. Bin Laden and his organization Al Quada formed after the 1990/1991 Persian Gulf conflict, and at that time was NOT based in Afghanistan!

A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that causes damage and loss of life of a magnitude many times greater than average weapons systems or conventional munitions. It is also usually dificult to control its effects when used. It is for that reason usually not a good weapon for military use, but an excellent one for terrorist and their goals.

The USA is not breaking any international laws by invading and changing the regime in Iraq. In fact by doing so, we are complying with UN resolutions by enforcing the ceacefire agreement.

The Soviet Union, might and I underline might fit into my criteria for nations that are candidates for regime change, but we did not attack because we did not have the military capability to invade and change the regime in the Soviet Union. In fact we were barely strong enough to deter a Soviet invasion of Europe. So the #1 reason we did not we was were not even close to having the capability. #2 there was considerable evidence that we were successful in detering the Soviet Union from certain actions. Everything we see with Saddam Hussain is that he is a risk taker, unpredictable, and it is therefore unknown if deterence can be effective. In the world of 9/11, a man like Saddam may feel he can strike the USA covertly through a terror organization and escape being targeted in retaliation.

Again the USA is obiding by international law by resuming offensive operations against Iraq which is called for in the ceacefire resolutions which Iraq has violated!

Again, the USA seems to be the only country willing to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq which call for military force if Iraq is in violation of the ceacefire agreement and other resolutions. IF the UN is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions, it ceaces to be of any revelance! It becomes a joke like the League of Nations in the 1920s and 1930s. The USA is doing what the UN has already called for by launching an attack on Iraq, which is mandated if the 1991 ceacefire agreement is violated!

German cities like Dresden were bombed because of their importance in the war effort. What is so cruel about a Daisy cutter weapon rather than another weapon. Its got a larger radious of fragmentation and effects, which makes it an effective weapon when properly used than can help to bring a conflict to a quick resolution and save lives!

I'm sorry but the passage of 11 years does not in anyway change what is called for under the UN ceacefire resolution. How could it? Thats like saying maybe in 11 years shoplifting and murder will all of a sudden become legal! How strange can you get?

The world was attacked by Iraq when it attacked Kuwait because the world has strong international trade ties with Kuwait that effect everyone on the planet economically.

AGAIN, LISTEN, The US invasion of Iraq is mandated because they have violated the UN CEACEFIRE AGREEMENT! The US invasion of Iraq in 1991 was put on hold because of the ceacefire agreement which Iraq is now in violation of! Violation of that and other UN resolutions calls for the enforcement of those resolutions through military force. This has nothing to do about who has attacked someone today, ITS about Iraq's failure to comply with the UN ceacefire agreement which calls for the resumption of US offensive military operations against Iraq in order to enforce the resolution!

By invading Iraq and changing the regime, the USA is the only UN member that is complying and enforcing the UN resolutions that call for such an invasion of Iraq if they violate the UN ceacefire agreement! Your idea's go against UN resolutions and are there for a violation of international law. If the UN is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions it ceaces to be relevant. The USA is the only country that is acting in accordance with international law when it comes to Iraq, because it is the only country ready to enforce UN resolutions which the law(ceacefire agreement) calls for if Iraq is in violation of its agreements!
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 07:08 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
It is interesting to note on SCOTT RITTER, when he resigned from the UN inspections team in August of 1998, he stated that Iraq still had substantial amounts of Chemical and bio weapons not found, and was still a threat to the international community! Those are his words as he left the job he was in!

Now years later he says Iraq is not a threat and does not have weapons, yet, he has not been in a position the past 4 years to be able to refute his final statements when he resigned from the inspections team in August 1998.

Because he is the only member of the former inspection team speaking out against invasion and because his views today contradict his own views the last time he was in a position to know anything, I really don't think has any idea what he is talking about, and wonder what is real motives are? I'm sure he certainly sells more books this way.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 07:14 PM   #99
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 01:13 AM
I heard that Iraq has about 3 oil factories and one nuclear reactor , USA will bomb this country , Chernobyl2 ??? , do the U.S . even need to re-establish new government , after all alive will be destroyed ??????????????????????????????
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 08:45 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Was it Chernobyl 2 when Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981? Honestly they have more Oil factories than most countries in the world, thats a good thing. That does not worry the USA. Were concerned about his weapons of mass destruction and his history of behavior. Those two things are why the USA is considering regime change in addition to the fact that the UN ceacefire agreement signed by Saddam which he is in open violation of, mandates that military force be used to bring him into compliance.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×