Re: Iraq/Mindy

  • Thread starter LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud
  • Start date
L

LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud

Guest
> look, dont get bitchy with me after i defended you against people who have
> nothing better to do than make up fake IDs and post pointless remarks
> about your nazism.

> of course i dont want saddam to have nukes. the thing is, he doesnt have
> em. there is no proof whatsoever. if there is, where the f*** is it?

I'm sorry you pay so little attention to the news, but weapons inspectors have destroyed weapons of mass destruction and the work Saddam has done on nukes over the years, so how can you sit there and say he hasn't been trying to build them? And the information has been in the news, from what weapins inspectors have found in the past, to what Iraqi defectors who WORKED ON SADDAM'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM have stated, to just a few weeks ago when Tony Blair showed satellite photos of facilities being reconstructed that have been used in the program. You're right he doesn't have one ready to launch. If he did we'd be in a world of trouble. Which is the whole point of acting now. DUH!!

>im
> sorry that im more distrustful of the government than you are,

You seem to be more distrustful of the American and British governments than you are of Saddm Hussein. After all, to you it's only a "possibility" that Saddam is "up to bad things," but you're 100% sure Bush is lying about *everything*. Not to mention your distrust for the other governments in the United Nations who have issued SEVENTEEN RESOLUTIONS to force Saddam to show what he's got and disarm - AS HE AGREED IN THE CEASEFIRE OF THE GULF WAR BUT HAS NEVER COMPLIED WITH. I can't figure out how Saddam,the fascit f*** freak, has earned such trust from you that you want him to have all benefit of the doubt, risking the lives of millions of people on it. I happen to think the burden of proof is on Saddam Hussein at this point, while you appear to be against weapons inspections that can expose the truth once and for all. Don't you want to find out the truth? Saddam's regime wrote to Kofi Anan (in a most derganged letter rambling on about zionism this and zionism that)claiming they have no weapons of mass destruction, and are not building nukes. This flieds in the face of all the intelligence reports, not just from America, but from England, Germany, the UN, the whole f***ing world, that he's a busy bee, hiding his weapons programs in modile trucks and pirvate residences. It's all a big conspiracy, is it? You think Tony Blair spends his evenings in smoke filled rooms thinking up massive conpsiracies to inflict evil upon the world? And how could it be that after the German chancellor's election was over (where he cynically capitalized on anti-American sentiments) he came out and praised the U.N. for their resolution?

If you're calling Bush and EVERYONE OTHER SANE LEADER IN THE WORLD a liar, you must think the weapons inspectors will find nothing, and therefore you should be 100% in favor of them.

>but i dont
> believe everything that is said. maybe if they backed it up with some real
> information. and that book that you mentioned doesnt prove anything. no, i
> havent read it, but it does not prove that in the here and the now saddam
> has nukes.]

Again, the point is, he's been working desperately to get nukes for a long time now, and he's got everything he needs to have them if he has a little more time.
This is proven and it's been all over the news. No one is saying we know he has nukes ready to launch "in the here and now." The point of the war is to keep that day from coming.

> newsflash: we're already in a depression.

See, this is the kind of tell-tale statement that makes me laugh. Aren't there any level-headed people left around here?

> bottom line: saddam is not THAT f***ing stupid. dont you think he knows
> that we can wipe the floor with his ass?

His whole history proves his M.O. is to make grave miscalculations in military strategy. He also stated to his aids that his big mistake was to invade Kuwait before he had nukes. In his speeches he says he wants a super-power in the region led by him. His personal hero is Stalin, having a whole bookshelf of books about him. He wants nukes to become a super-power, dominate the arab world, hold the world hostage, and of course his ultimate goal to kill all the jews in Israel to achieve the crowing place in history. In the last 15 years the guy has attacked all his neighbors. The guy, left alone, will f*** up the world. So I think it's gonna save plenty of lives to spend the 5 days to 5 months Donald Rumsfeld says it'll take to remove him, if he violated the UN resolution.

>dont you think he knows that if
> the rest of the world found out he had nukes,

You're opposed to weapins oinspections though. What exactly is the policy with respect top IRaq that you would favor? You haven't stated.

>the nations that have
> formerly protested american action over there would most likely lose all
> sympathy for him?

"SYMPATHY for him"? Anyone who has sympathy for that motherf***er is an enemy of humanity.

>i honestly think that saddam is a wee bit savvier than
> that.

YEah because he was so smart to invade Iran and waste a million lives, accomplishing exactly zero gain for himself. ANd he was a bright one to invade Kuwait. At the time he actually believed he could put up a fight against the international coalition. That's what his yes-men told him, so afraid of making him angry that they hyped up Iraq's milotary chances in meetings. After all, everyone working for Saddam is afraid to displease him, because he might throw them in a torture chamber at any moment.

And, again, what really says it all to me is how Saddam sacrifizes EVERYTHING
in his desperate craving to become a nuclear power. He has sacrifed IRaq's economy, IRaq's conventional military, and worst of all, Iraq's civilians, all to continue defying United Nations resolutions designed to keep him from continuing to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction, including nukes. That's how much he wants them. We've tried to get him to comply without forcefully toppling him, and that obviously can't work and is obviously costing many civilian lives.

So what we have right now, as the book I recommended argues, is a similar moment as when the French and British in the 1930s were fully capable of defeating Hitler. The French and British, in a world weary from WW1, decided to wait and see. And what did we see? Hitler got stronger, plowed over Europe, and cost the lives of millions of people. IRaq may not be the equivalent of Hitler's Germany, but the situation is comparable.

So...if you're opposed to weapons inspections, what do you SUPPORT doing?

I saw a woman on TV the other day who respresented the Iraqi Action something or other. An American group opposed to U.S. policy. the first time I saw her, she was screaming that the no-fly zones were illegal, to which her opponant, not believing his ears, asked (paraphrasing), "So you want the air protection pulled out, so Saddam can get back to slaughtering the Kuirds again?" She didn't reply to that, of course. She was too busy screaming like a retard about Evil America. LAter that day she was on again, and she was feeling so sorry for poor Saddam. She was ranting about how poor Saddam is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. The person debating was someone who defected from IRaq, and the discussion went like this (paraphrasing): Irai defector: "You're an American, right?" Deranged lady: "Yes, I was born in America, of IRaqi descent." Iraqi defector: "Well my God, it makes all the difference in the world. I lived under Saddam. Let me tell you, the IRaqi people are in a constant state of war with Saddam. You have no idea what you're talking about." Then the deranged lady started screaming and filibustering again.

Thankfully no one here is like that lady. But I hope you've really thought about what the best policy is for the good of the people in Iraq, the people in the region, and the rest of us. If you have, I can respect that. Icould be wrong and how events unfold is very unpredictable. But, again, why don't I see any policy ideas from you guys? Why do I only see how much you dislike Bush?
Is that all you're about?
 
uh where did i say i was against weapons inspections. i was against using force. that is all. i'm a bit relieved that the UN decided to do weapons inspections actually as it means that war, for now, will be postponed.

and you know, not all the higher-ups think he has weapons. yeah, you said it yourself, he had them in the past. the past does not equal the presence. sure, we should find out if he has them or not, but it's retarded how for months, the government was speaking as though we knew for a fact, when several weapons inspectors who checked the first time around said they didnt believe he had any, including one man who has gone back and visited since.

it is not necessarily pro-american to support weapons inspections.

and the depression statement, i admit, was a bit dumb. i forgot my economics terms for a second there. i meant to say a recession. and we are in a recession - you can not contest that.

and the U.S. decided to wait and see during both world wars. remember?

i realise that the iraqi people are unhappy under saddam (although one reason for that is surely the trade embargo we have against iraq, which has led to mass starvation - saddam isnt the only one who uses the iraqi people as pawns), i just think an all-out war would be a bit much at this juncture. it would lead to the loss of many many civilian lives - the same civilian lives we claim to be trying to save.

and why should i trust bush? the man didn't even really win the election for god's sake. and let's say the florida thing never happened, gore still would have won. the electoral college is an outdated p.o.s. we need elections by popular vote, not this electoral college bullshit.

and really now, would you please answer me as to why daddy bush didn't take out saddam when we had the chance? come on. why do we have to be going through this now? give me one good, real answer for that.
 
one more thing, why won't this thread die? you keep saying the same things over and over and expect a response. i'm getting rather tired of rehashing the same points over and over.
 
> I'm sorry you pay so little attention to the news, but weapons inspectors
> have destroyed weapons of mass destruction and the work Saddam has done on
> nukes over the years, so how can you sit there and say he hasn't been
> trying to build them? And the information has been in the news, from what
> weapins inspectors have found in the past, to what Iraqi defectors who
> WORKED ON SADDAM'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM have stated, to just a few weeks ago
> when Tony Blair showed satellite photos of facilities being reconstructed
> that have been used in the program. You're right he doesn't have one ready
> to launch. If he did we'd be in a world of trouble. Which is the whole
> point of acting now. DUH!!

"Acting now" - what do you mean, precisely? And what if Saddam decides to let go on the nuke program, don't you think he should still be monitored?

> You seem to be more distrustful of the American and British governments
> than you are of Saddm Hussein. After all, to you it's only a
> "possibility" that Saddam is "up to bad things," but
> you're 100% sure Bush is lying about *everything*. Not to mention your
> distrust for the other governments in the United Nations who have issued
> SEVENTEEN RESOLUTIONS to force Saddam to show what he's got and disarm -
> AS HE AGREED IN THE CEASEFIRE OF THE GULF WAR BUT HAS NEVER COMPLIED WITH.

Israel is another country that (a) has nukes - proven - and (b) doesn't comply with UN resolutions. But we don't send weapon inspectors to Israel. It's a "friendly" nation. The Palestinians cheer ! I'd like to send weapons inspectors to Israel as well, now that they're back in business and in the region.

> I can't figure out how Saddam,the fascit f*** freak, has earned such trust
> from you that you want him to have all benefit of the doubt, risking the
> lives of millions of people on it.

He used to be on USA's buddy list. Could that make him more trustworthy? I don't know. Anyway, do people really support Saddam? Hard to believe.

I happen to think the burden of proof
> is on Saddam Hussein at this point, while you appear to be against weapons
> inspections that can expose the truth once and for all.

Oh, let's send inspectors ! And above all, let them stay.

Don't you want to
> find out the truth? Saddam's regime wrote to Kofi Anan (in a most
> derganged letter rambling on about zionism this and zionism that)claiming
> they have no weapons of mass destruction, and are not building nukes. This
> flieds in the face of all the intelligence reports, not just from America,
> but from England, Germany, the UN, the whole f***ing world, that he's a
> busy bee, hiding his weapons programs in modile trucks and pirvate
> residences. It's all a big conspiracy, is it? You think Tony Blair spends
> his evenings in smoke filled rooms thinking up massive conpsiracies to
> inflict evil upon the world? And how could it be that after the German
> chancellor's election was over (where he cynically capitalized on
> anti-American sentiments) he came out and praised the U.N. for their
> resolution?

The UN resolution is not terribly bad, indeed. It doesn't give Bush carte blanche either. But don't you think you're losing sight of the contents and the time-frame concerning Mr. Schroeder? (a) he was against an immediate war on Iraq and (b) the resolution came after the elections. Praising res. 1441 is not incompatible with Schroeder's viewpoint from before the election.

> If you're calling Bush and EVERYONE OTHER SANE LEADER IN THE WORLD a liar,
> you must think the weapons inspectors will find nothing, and therefore you
> should be 100% in favor of them.

> Again, the point is, he's been working desperately to get nukes for a long
> time now, and he's got everything he needs to have them if he has a little
> more time.
> This is proven and it's been all over the news. No one is saying we know
> he has nukes ready to launch "in the here and now." The point of
> the war is to keep that day from coming.

"war"? Why do we need a war for that? And will a war prevent that from happening? Scenario Gulf War I ? Is the M.E. ready for a war against Iraq? Sure? First things first. Inspection, reports, analysis.
Again, it's wrong to depict Saddam as a threat because he may one day have nukes. He's a threat without nukes as well. Already for quite a long, long time.

> See, this is the kind of tell-tale statement that makes me laugh. Aren't
> there any level-headed people left around here?

> His whole history proves his M.O. is to make grave miscalculations in
> military strategy. He also stated to his aids that his big mistake was to
> invade Kuwait before he had nukes. In his speeches he says he wants a
> super-power in the region led by him. His personal hero is Stalin, having
> a whole bookshelf of books about him. He wants nukes to become a
> super-power, dominate the arab world, hold the world hostage, and of
> course his ultimate goal to kill all the jews in Israel to achieve the
> crowing place in history. In the last 15 years the guy has attacked all
> his neighbors. The guy, left alone, will f*** up the world. So I think
> it's gonna save plenty of lives to spend the 5 days to 5 months Donald
> Rumsfeld says it'll take to remove him, if he violated the UN resolution.

So why would Saddam use nukes? I mean, the moment he uses one, he's dead meat. No one will then object to killing him. Are we seriously led to believe that because Saddam would have nukes, he would be ruling the world? Don't think so. Does Pakistan rule the world? Saddam is a threat to the stability of the region even without nukes. It's a bit silly to continue to pose the problem of nukes in order to get to Iraq; there are other valid reasons as well to keep a very close eye on Iraq.

> You're opposed to weapins oinspections though. What exactly is the policy
> with respect top IRaq that you would favor? You haven't stated.

I can't speak for anyone else but I say YES to inspectors, I say yes to containment, however difficult (see Pollack's congressional statement of 98) or perhaps pointless. And let's talk about the sanctions and embargo against Iraq as well.

> "SYMPATHY for him"? Anyone who has sympathy for that
> motherf***er is an enemy of humanity.

> YEah because he was so smart to invade Iran and waste a million lives,
> accomplishing exactly zero gain for himself. ANd he was a bright one to
> invade Kuwait. At the time he actually believed he could put up a fight
> against the international coalition. That's what his yes-men told him, so
> afraid of making him angry that they hyped up Iraq's milotary chances in
> meetings. After all, everyone working for Saddam is afraid to displease
> him, because he might throw them in a torture chamber at any moment.

> And, again, what really says it all to me is how Saddam sacrifizes
> EVERYTHING
> in his desperate craving to become a nuclear power. He has sacrifed IRaq's
> economy, IRaq's conventional military, and worst of all, Iraq's civilians,
> all to continue defying United Nations resolutions designed to keep him
> from continuing to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction,
> including nukes. That's how much he wants them. We've tried to get him to
> comply without forcefully toppling him, and that obviously can't work and
> is obviously costing many civilian lives.

"is obviously costing many civilian lives" - could you comment on that? Are you talking about the desastrous effects of the international sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people?

> So what we have right now, as the book I recommended argues, is a similar
> moment as when the French and British in the 1930s were fully capable of
> defeating Hitler. The French and British, in a world weary from WW1,
> decided to wait and see. And what did we see? Hitler got stronger, plowed
> over Europe, and cost the lives of millions of people. IRaq may not be the
> equivalent of Hitler's Germany, but the situation is comparable.

Ah? So the Germans were as much terrorised back then as the Iraqi people right now? Your "comparable", doesn't really say much in this case. Drop it. There's no need to compare Iraq to anything else, Iraq by itself is already plenty enough to deal with.
 
Very interesting posts on this thread. Nice to know there is some intelligence and measured thought going on here. Keep it up!

GDx

> uh where did i say i was against weapons inspections. i was against using
> force. that is all. i'm a bit relieved that the UN decided to do weapons
> inspections actually as it means that war, for now, will be postponed.

> and you know, not all the higher-ups think he has weapons. yeah, you said
> it yourself, he had them in the past. the past does not equal the
> presence. sure, we should find out if he has them or not, but it's
> retarded how for months, the government was speaking as though we knew for
> a fact, when several weapons inspectors who checked the first time around
> said they didnt believe he had any, including one man who has gone back
> and visited since.

> it is not necessarily pro-american to support weapons inspections.

> and the depression statement, i admit, was a bit dumb. i forgot my
> economics terms for a second there. i meant to say a recession. and we are
> in a recession - you can not contest that.

> and the U.S. decided to wait and see during both world wars. remember?

> i realise that the iraqi people are unhappy under saddam (although one
> reason for that is surely the trade embargo we have against iraq, which
> has led to mass starvation - saddam isnt the only one who uses the iraqi
> people as pawns), i just think an all-out war would be a bit much at this
> juncture. it would lead to the loss of many many civilian lives - the same
> civilian lives we claim to be trying to save.

> and why should i trust bush? the man didn't even really win the election
> for god's sake. and let's say the florida thing never happened, gore still
> would have won. the electoral college is an outdated p.o.s. we need
> elections by popular vote, not this electoral college bullshit.

> and really now, would you please answer me as to why daddy bush didn't
> take out saddam when we had the chance? come on. why do we have to be
> going through this now? give me one good, real answer for that.
 
> one more thing, why won't this thread die? you keep saying the same things
> over and over and expect a response. i'm getting rather tired of rehashing
> the same points over and over.

Notastichtowear told me I was ignoring points you made.
 
fair enough, but you still haven't answered my question! why didn't we take the motherf***er out when we had the chance? was he less of a threat back then? less evil?
 
> uh where did i say i was against weapons inspections. i was against using
> force. that is all. i'm a bit relieved that the UN decided to do weapons
> inspections actually as it means that war, for now, will be postponed.

First of all, the U.N. resolution and these weapons inspections would not be happening if Bush had not put the threat of war behind them.

Second, if you read IRaq's letter to the U.N., which is available on the Washington Post's web site, you'll see that war is inevitable. IT's the most f***ed up letter I've ever seen.

> and you know, not all the higher-ups think he has weapons. yeah, you said
> it yourself, he had them in the past. the past does not equal the
> presence.

>sure, we should find out if he has them or not, but it's
> retarded how for months, the government was speaking as though we knew for
> a fact, when several weapons inspectors who checked the first time around
> said they didnt believe he had any, including one man who has gone back
> and visited since.

Only one of them, actually. The others all disagree with him. And I read an interesting artcle about Scott Ritter. I don't have the link now, but it showed how he is claiming to know more than he can know. He's claiming to know things that's it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to know, and which other inspectors are not backing him up on. So something fishy's up with that dude.

> it is not necessarily pro-american to support weapons inspections.

So why did I get all those attacks for praising the U.N.?

I know why actually. Because everyone knows that Saddam is in breach of all the past resolutions, and will be in breach of this resolution too, and so war is inevitable.

> and the depression statement, i admit, was a bit dumb. i forgot my
> economics terms for a second there. i meant to say a recession. and we are
> in a recession - you can not contest that.

I don't know if we're technically still in one. I think we had one and there's now a sluggish recovery which may fall back into one.

> and the U.S. decided to wait and see during both world wars. remember?

Different world back then. U.S. had a different place in it.

> i realise that the iraqi people are unhappy under saddam (although one
> reason for that is surely the trade embargo we have against iraq, which
> has led to mass starvation - saddam isnt the only one who uses the iraqi
> people as pawns), i just think an all-out war would be a bit much at this
> juncture. it would lead to the loss of many many civilian lives - the same
> civilian lives we claim to be trying to save.

So, what then?

Oh yeah you're tired of the thread, so I guess we'll never find out. From what I can tell, you support pulling out of Iraq entirely?

> and why should i trust bush? the man didn't even really win the election
> for god's sake. and let's say the florida thing never happened, gore still
> would have won. the electoral college is an outdated p.o.s. we need
> elections by popular vote, not this electoral college bullshit.

I consider that eleciton a tie, too close to call, with a system not knowing how to deal with such a mess. Whatever you feel about the electoral college, all the candidates strategized their campaigns based on those being the rules, so you don't know what the outcome would have been had it been based on popular vote. But yeah, I think it was a f***ed up election, and I don't know who really won it. Democrats are ridiculoius to obsess on it, though, as the rest of the country is well over it. Democrats spent all their time and moneyh trying to oust Jeb Bush, and I don't think that did much good. How can they actually believe the nation is worked up over not having AL GORE as President.
It's hilarious and pathetic.

And btw, in my county in Ohio we've always had the exact same punch card ballots as they had in Florida. Florida changed their system, but my county has not. I couldn't believe they were the same a couple week ago.

What I also saw from the aftermath of that is Al Gore is a big baby who I'm glad wasn't in charge when 9/11 happened. He'd have flipped out, and broken down in tears, and his response might've been either in the direction of overrreaction (nuking Afghanistan till it glowed for a decade) or underreaction (send a few squad cars in, file a few lawsuits, and lob a few missiles from afar). I don't see him patiently putting together a plan for a few months as good as Bush's team did. bush is f***ed domestically, but I'm REALLY fond of his foreign policy team. There's different perspectives on it fighting each other. Like Rumsfeld v. Powell. Rice seems pretty with it. But mostly it's Powell that makes me feel good. Huge improvement over the people Clinton had, who btw allowed all that mass-murder in Rwonda, and allowed Clinton to hang the phone up on Sudan when they called wanting to extradict bin Laden (or so Vanity Fair claims).

> and really now, would you please answer me as to why daddy bush didn't
> take out saddam when we had the chance? come on. why do we have to be
> going through this now? give me one good, real answer for that.

Already said what I thought about that.
 
best website ever (besides moz-solo) www.bushorchimp.com

i am not in favour of pulling out of iraq entirely. i think it is fair to have peaceable weapons inspections.

and i like how you assume that i am a democrat. i'm actually registered as an independent and have green/socialist leanings. if i had been old enough (i turned 18 in april of 2001), i would have voted for nader because, in california, gore was a shoo-in anyway. nader needed the votes to prove himself as a viable candidate and get more funding for later elections.

and i agree with you about colin powell. i think he is the reason we didn't take any untimely military action against iraq. he wants saddam gone too, but he is far more tactful than most of bush's other advisors.

and i believe we are technically still in a recession and it's only getting worse. remember notastitch's post about all the companies laying off employees?
 
> "Acting now" - what do you mean, precisely? And what if Saddam
> decides to let go on the nuke program, don't you think he should still be
> monitored?

Acting now means doing what Bush is doing. And if Saddam has a nuclear program right now, that means he lied in his letter last week, so that ought to be cause for it to go back to the UN to decide if that's a "material breach," and if so the invasion should commence immediately.

> Israel is another country that (a) has nukes - proven - and (b) doesn't
> comply with UN resolutions. But we don't send weapon inspectors to Israel.
> It's a "friendly" nation. The Palestinians cheer ! I'd like to
> send weapons inspectors to Israel as well, now that they're back in
> business and in the region.

I agree that there should be enforcement of UN resolutions, whether it be IRaq or our friends, like Israel. You're right that that's a flaw in consistancy.

> He used to be on USA's buddy list. Could that make him more trustworthy? I
> don't know. Anyway, do people really support Saddam? Hard to believe.

US's "buddy"? No. Jimmy Carter, apparently, wasn't upset when he invsded IRan, and maybe even was happy it happened and encouraged it. Which is sick.
God knows why Carter just got a Nobel Peace PRize. And Ronald Reagan continued on that confusied, misguided path of not condemning Saddam's atrocities, maybe even encouraging them, but Reagan was a sick f*** in general. I'm a little blurry on those events, but it's all the more reason we have to help clean up the mess there.

There's this idea though, that everyone the U.S. has dealings with is suddenly our "buddy." Was Stalin our "buddy" in WW2, or did we simply see the need to defeat the more immediate problem of Hitler? We've now got dealings with PAkistan, even though their leader is a son of a bitch too, and hardly democratic. But we did it for some very good reasons. It helped us remove the Taliban. It's helping us round up terrorists. It helped prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan some months back. It's helpong to keep ISlamic-fascists from taking over Pakistan, a nuclear country. Does that me what's his face (his name slips my mind) in PAkistan is America's hero? That we just adore him? Absolutely not. The world is the way it is, we have no choice but to deal with what's out there.
It doesn't excuse many of the policies, but it makes some of them more understandable, especially during the Cold War.

> Oh, let's send inspectors ! And above all, let them stay.

So I see everyone can't actually oppose the inspectors when I pin them down. Apparently I wasn't quite the "nazi" I was name-called when I started the thread praising the UN. Weapins inspections that never would be happening without the Bush's war drum.

> The UN resolution is not terribly bad, indeed. It doesn't give Bush carte
> blanche either. But don't you think you're losing sight of the contents
> and the time-frame concerning Mr. Schroeder? (a) he was against an
> immediate war on Iraq and (b) the resolution came after the elections.
> Praising res. 1441 is not incompatible with Schroeder's viewpoint from
> before the election.

And res. 1441 never would have come into being if not for the actions of Bush which Schroeder condemned in his election compaign.

> "war"? Why do we need a war for that? And will a war prevent
> that from happening? Scenario Gulf War I ? Is the M.E. ready for a war
> against Iraq? Sure? First things first. Inspection, reports, analysis.

Well, a lot of us are of the opinion he's already in breach of the resolution, but we'll see how long it takes to expose that. We ought not let the Europeans bog it down in extensive debates. If there's one material breach, that determination is the end of the discussion and - bang - Saddam ought to have the U.S. military, by air, land and sea, all up and down his ass in record time. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

> Again, it's wrong to depict Saddam as a threat because he may one day have
> nukes. He's a threat without nukes as well. Already for quite a long, long
> time.

> So why would Saddam use nukes? I mean, the moment he uses one, he's dead
> meat.

He'd be willing to take the gamble that the world would blink if he used nukes as a blackmail threat. If he goes into Kuwait and says, "Well, you're just gonna have to accept it, or else I'll nuke this city, that city, and that one."
Um...that could work. WE'd have to accept cities being nuked to get him out. What also can work is Saddam phoning up other Arab states and saying, "Hey there, all praise to Allah, Allah has given me nukes to deter the Great Satan Zionists. Now, if you wanna be underneath my nuclear umbrella, that would be great! Of course, you'll have to do this and this and that as I dictate." Saddam could also call up his international terrorist friends and give them a weapon of mass destruction to use, which might not even be traced back to him. And so forth. So give me a break, man. The Cold War deterrence worked between the USA and USSR, which was just ONE CASE (not a big sampling) but even that put the world an inch from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

>No one will then object to killing him. Are we seriously led to
> believe that because Saddam would have nukes, he would be ruling the
> world? Don't think so.

Who said "rule the world"? I don't know...read his own words, he has said why he wants nukes, to dominate the region.

>Does Pakistan rule the world?

Nope. But Pakistan and India were an inch away from nuclear war just a few months ago. I wouldn't be so relaxed about it if I were you, because it almost f***ing happened. What also could have happened is Islamic extremists could have taken over Pakistan.

Far, far worse is the idea of Saddam Hussein, with all his agressor intentions, with nukes. But you should be sweatin Pakistan.

>Saddam is a threat to
> the stability of the region even without nukes. It's a bit silly to
> continue to pose the problem of nukes in order to get to Iraq; there are
> other valid reasons as well to keep a very close eye on Iraq.

What is silly? Obviously he's been a threat without nukes. It is heightened all the more if he gets nukes.

> I can't speak for anyone else but I say YES to inspectors, I say yes to
> containment, however difficult (see Pollack's congressional statement of
> 98) or perhaps pointless. And let's talk about the sanctions and embargo
> against Iraq as well.

Ah! Kenneth Pollack? He happens to be the author of the book I recommended when I began this thread. You're right he supported containment of some form in 1998, although he felt the way it was couldn't last the long-term. Today his book is called "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading IRaq," and he reluctantly sees no other option but war.

> "is obviously costing many civilian lives" - could you comment
> on that? Are you talking about the desastrous effects of the international
> sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people?

Yes.

> Ah? So the Germans were as much terrorised back then as the Iraqi people
> right now? Your "comparable", doesn't really say much in this
> case. Drop it. There's no need to compare Iraq to anything else, Iraq by
> itself is already plenty enough to deal with.

No need to learn from the disasterous errors in history?
 
Re: best website ever (besides moz-solo) www.bushorchimp.com

> and i believe we are technically still in a recession and it's only
> getting worse. remember notastitch's post about all the companies laying
> off employees?
this guy named Alan Greenspan would disagree with you.
 
> fair enough, but you still haven't answered my question! why didn't we
> take the motherf***er out when we had the chance? was he less of a threat
> back then? less evil?
Bush SR. said the UN wouldn't give him permission to do so.
 
> one more thing, why won't this thread die? you keep saying the same things
> over and over and expect a response. i'm getting rather tired of rehashing
> the same points over and over.
I thought this was a general discussion board? Have you actually read Loafing's posts because if you did you would realize this isn't the case at all.
 
> I thought this was a general discussion board? Have you actually read
> Loafing's posts because if you did you would realize this isn't the case
> at all.

It's okay, I've been a little bitchy to Mindy here and there, so she can be so to me too. = )
 
Oaf, who is really deranged is a big fat question! :)

I remember very funny comedy of Michael Moore "Canadian Bacon" about USA going to war with... Canada to deflect attention from Bush Jr. recession. Of course, he meant Bush Sr. war with Iraq at 1992.

History repeats itself... Except Bush Sr. war with Iraq had certain sense: after all, Saddam foolishly ate up independent state of Kuweit (or Quweit or Kyweit), whatever is the right spelling... Now, tell me, what Saddam had done lately to deserve this war, which was so terrible? Did he terrorized Palestinians together with Israeli Army, did he financed Bin Laden together with Saudis, did he created energy crisis in California together with Ken Lay - Enron's chairman and Fastow, chief financial officer, did he supported Chechen terrorists (who took Russians hostages at Moscow at music-hall) together with those same Saudis? (Answer to all 4 questions: he didn't).

Saddam Hussein is an Stalin-loving despotic asshole. So is Kim Chen Ir, infamous Kim Ir Sen son (I hope my memory is serving me well here, maybe not? :) ) of Northern Korea, Kibila of Congo plus dozen of third world dictators, small or medium-sized? Do you want to take upon them all, one by one?

As of Kurds independence, I wonder what will happen if California or Delawere states would declare themselves independent from USA? I bet US will send some psychiatrists to cure those assemblymen plus some symbolic federal troops from Washington DC to restore law and order. I'm not sure about Kurds, their aspirations must be respected, but so an Iraqi territorial integrity... Definitely, America would be foolish to impose Kurdish nation state upon region against wishes of at least 4 countries with sizable Kurdish minority: Syria, Iran, Iraq and yes, pro-Western enlightened NATO member TURKEY! There are some problems, which Arabs must solve alone... America would not like Mexicans to give us recommendation about new independent state called East LA! Spain would not like Americans pressuring her to give Basque peoples at Catalonia an independence from Madrid. Even if Basques may deserve it. (BTW, I tend to side with Basques on this one.) Those questions usually are not black and white. Let's respect other countries sovereignity, even if they are Arabic. (Irony)
You could ask (I preempt your potential question) "But what about Israeli sovereignity"?

My answer, straightforward, without unnecessary diplomatic smokescreen: Israel sovereignity ought be questioned, 'cause this country was established upon fundament of unjustice to local Palestinian population. Unlike historical Arab states, Israel had not earned yet by its conduct for the last 50 years to be a part of UN.

That's my opinion, as an American I would recognize Israel right to exist in view of current political situation, however reluctantly, but as an American taxpayer, I resent my taxes going to kill Palestinians and to provide European-style luxury for Israelis, while some peoples at home are semi-starving on foodtamps and welfare. If I be an American president, my economic and military help to BOTH Israel and Russia would be big fat Zero.

Yet I would maintain my help to Egypt, a third world country.
I would also help to countries like Salvador, Uganda and Somalis who are starving and really need all help they can get, unlike Israel.

Sorry, Loaf, let's talk honest man to man: you are using Kurds as a stick to beat Arabs with this oh so cleverly invented stick of yours over the head... Your tactics is to put Kurd against Palestinian. But let me tell you: Kurds are Muslim peoples (for better or worse) and in Israeli-Palestinian conflict their sympathies are of course on Palestinian side... So if it is a new tactics of Israel: to support and arm Kurds against Syria, Iran and Iraq, this is just another instance of Tel Aviv political adventurism... Or was your desire to be the Father of all Kurds your own homegrown idea, not something your local AIPAC peoples put in your head? Just curious...
 
> and really now, would you please answer me as to why daddy bush didn't
> take out saddam when we had the chance? come on. why do we have to be
> going through this now? give me one good, real answer for that.

1) The UN Security Council had authorized member states to use military power to enforce its resolutions demanding an Iraqi withdrawal from occupied Kuwait. There was no authorization to invade Iraq. The U.S., by basic tenets of international law and in the eyes of the international community, would have become the aggressor.

2) The decisive military victory came with relatively few American casualties, mainly because Iraqi forces were deployed in flat, open desert, where U.S. forces could take full advantage of their technological superiority. Entering Baghdad, a city of more than five million, would have first required an advance through 200 miles of heavily populated land, facing house-to-house fighting and undoubtedly resulting in thousands more casualties.
 

Similar threads

L
Replies
27
Views
3K
Librarian on Fire
L
L
Replies
1
Views
615
Notastitchtowear
N
W
Replies
90
Views
3K
Mr.Improper the undisputed heavyweight PIMP
M
D
Replies
4
Views
836
Mindy
M
G
Replies
2
Views
3K
suzanne
S
Back
Top Bottom