PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Military build up in The Gulf: Is war inevitable?



The Overlord Returns
01-14-2003, 11:22 AM
Weapons inspectors still looking for the "smoking gun":

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/14/sproject.irq.wrap/index.html

With US military foces building up everyday, is this an indication that war will come no matter what the Inspectors find (or don't find) in Iraq?

sith_killer_99
01-14-2003, 11:59 AM
I don't know.

That's a good question.

:confused:

QLD
01-14-2003, 12:17 PM
Probably.

2-1B
01-14-2003, 12:44 PM
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
--Albert Einstein--

Patient Zero
01-14-2003, 02:11 PM
Exactly Caesar!

Now I am not looking to get involved in a heated discussion on this, but I would just like to point out, as a side note, that Bush's public comment on the "Axis of Evil" was one of the most incompetent moves I have ever seen. Whether you believe that it is true or not as a statement is irrelevant. The point is that you don't declare to the world that you are completely against someone as evil and expect no repercussions. Perhaps that is not the best explanation. How about this: What would happen to a kid on the play ground if another kid ridiculed him in front of everyone? The child would feel 'small' and lash out at the first child because he sees it as the only way that he can acquire respect and power with all the other children; in a sense: to matter or to defend himself. It may sound odd as an example, but I do not believe that the developing situation with N. Korea and the US is all that different. These are base human behaviors where both sides are not helping a possible explosive situation. The future (Fate, destiny, whatever you want to call it) exists because we are creating it with everything that we do in the now. People need to realize that and take some responsibility for the pebble that they roll down the snowy mountain towards the village.

There I B*tched about it! Said and done. Thanks for listening.

Fulit
01-14-2003, 08:21 PM
Of course it's inevitable. Bush drew up the plans for it over a year ago, 6 days after the terrorist strikes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11

Congress? We don't need no stinking Congress!!!

2-1B
01-14-2003, 10:37 PM
War is not the answer.
--Sheryl Crow's T-Shirt on the American Music Awards last night--

stillakid
01-14-2003, 10:42 PM
I don't think it's about a war. It's about Jr. exacting revenge for his daddy. Any Jr. Republicans around that want to challenge that little bit of truth?

QLD
01-14-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I don't think it's about a war. It's about Jr. exacting revenge for his daddy. Any Jr. Republicans around that want to challenge that little bit of truth?

I would.....however, I am too busy stealing old people's social security, buying slaves, and bombing abortion clinics. Us Republicans are so busy these days!

Emperor Howdy
01-14-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
War is not the answer.
--Sheryl Crow's T-Shirt on the American Music Awards last night--



LAME
--A pretty good all-around description of Sheryl Crow--

Jedi Clint
01-14-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I don't think it's about a war. It's about Jr. exacting revenge for his daddy. Any Jr. Republicans around that want to challenge that little bit of truth?

Truth? What do you think he is seeking "revenge" for? What is a "Jr. Republican"?

TheDarthVader
01-14-2003, 11:22 PM
Yes, there will be a war soon. They are preparing...there is no prevention.

Exhaust Port
01-14-2003, 11:29 PM
He wants to finish what his dad started and ride the wave of public admiration all the way to a second term. Bush Sr. has always said with hindsight that he wished he had taken the fight all the way to Bagdad and remove Saddam from power. Who better to finish that job than his own son.

Kidhuman
01-14-2003, 11:37 PM
We will be going to war. IMO.

Jedi Clint
01-14-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
He wants to finish what his dad started and ride the wave of public admiration all the way to a second term. Bush Sr. has always said with hindsight that he wished he had taken the fight all the way to Bagdad and remove Saddam from power. Who better to finish that job than his own son.

For the most part, I agree. It is my opinion that Bush one should have removed Saddam from power when he had the opportunity.

2-1B
01-14-2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
I would.....however, I am too busy stealing old people's social security, buying slaves, and bombing abortion clinics. Us Republicans are so busy these days!
From the looks of that avatar, I'd say you're busy doing something else. ;)




Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
LAME
--A pretty good all-around description of Sheryl Crow--

40 YEAR OLD HOTTIE
--A pretty good all-around description of Sheryl Crow--

Emperor Howdy
01-15-2003, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
Who better to finish that job than his own son.

I couldn't agree more! :happy:

Emperor Howdy
01-15-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Caesar

40 YEAR OLD HOTTIE
--A pretty good all-around description of Sheryl Crow--



YEAH, I GUESS
--Emperor Howdy responding to Caesar--

EricRG
01-15-2003, 01:04 AM
Sorry I don't have a reference for this...but I heard in like November that when Bush Sr. was preparing for Gulf War I, studies determined that, climate wise, FEBRUARY was the best time to attack Iraq. Mark my words, this thing'll go down no later than March.

It's SO obvious that this war will happen regardless of what the inspectors do or do not find, what the American people think is right, and what the UN and the world believe is the right move. Bush's war of revenge, the blatant oil grab that it is, will destabilize the region and furthur **** off anybody in that region with ill will toward the US.

W to himself: Congress? I don't need no stinkin Congress. UN? Irrelevant. Inspectors? Inspectors? I am the NWO. Just like my Daddy.

As for Sheryl Crow, what do you know about her? Nothing. Except her music, which you may or may not like, but you know nothing about her. And even if you do not like her music, she's a SUCCESSFUL musician, on her own terms, right? (Note: I don't like her music either.)

The bottom line, is this war is about the OIL. Why else would we be getting wonderful new machines like the Hummer2... 9 miles per gallon, and a base price of $50,000! Anybody who buys one of these things is RETARDED. Seriously, anybody who buys one of these has something wrong with them. Only in America!

2-1B
01-15-2003, 01:17 AM
Awwwwwww, MAAAAAAAAAAAN, we have to deal with Gulf War II?

Gulf War I was so fresh and new, where can they go with a second one? Man, I HATE sequels. :p




Originally posted by EricRG
As for Sheryl Crow, what do you know about her? Nothing. Except her music, which you may or may not like, but you know nothing about her. And even if you do not like her music, she's a SUCCESSFUL musician, on her own terms, right?

EASY BIG FELLA !

Uh, we don't exactly know "nothing", now do we? We know she wore a T-shirt on the AMAs which read 'War is not the Answer'.
Oh, and we know she's a pretty cute gal. :crazed:

So there you have it - TWO things we know about her, unrelated to her music. ;)

QLD
01-15-2003, 02:56 AM
We have to go to war, if only for this reason....

Gulf War II - Electric Boogalo.

The prophecy will come true. The oil will be ours. And there is nothing you meddling Democrats can do about it!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JediElf
01-15-2003, 09:59 AM
Soooo, yes a war is happening as we type and what's this deal with North Korea? Bush seems so driven to war and yet he is just a puppet for some other people. I saw some little spiel Bush was giving to some reporters on the Daily Show the other night and by the end of his presentation (which was unscripted and filled with ums and ahs) Bush said "O.K. let's go get that coffee" .
that statement was totally robust and meaningfull compaired to the important stuf he was saying about the state of the world.

Old Fossil
01-15-2003, 10:27 AM
Well, coffee IS important, JediElf.:mad:

Vortex
01-15-2003, 11:27 AM
I'm torn about this whole war biz.

On one hand, Bush is demanding that So-Dame-Insane, admit his guilt. Then keeps giving the illusion that he (Bush) has some secret information that Iraq HAS these "yet to be found by the inspectors" weapons...but Bush won't tip his hand to justify the strike and I don't think he will either until we get into it.

Either militray intelligence has photos, samples, or something and Bush can't tell the general public or its a bullying factor to get So-Damb-Insane out of the country...which I think is funny since the US helped to put him in power in the 80's to fight the Alytola (sp) of Iran and now its coming back to bite us in the backside.

I think there's more to this conflict than "Finishing Daddy's job" and oil.

I will admit both of these are probably a factor to some extent, but I personally think Bush, and the US, is looking for a foothold in the middle east.

When and if we do take So-Damb-Insane out, we will probably have a country under our control to establish military bases, and won't have to bargin or deal with middle east countries to borrow or use their bases. The US would have waterway access from the persian gulf and they would also have air space access from the persian gulf also...so no more political dealings with the Saudies, Turks, or Packies to use their airspace or bases. It's centrally located and would be good staging ground for any future middle east military operations...or a war on terror.

I think its nothing more than a stragity move. Iraq has yet to acknowledge any weapons, and yet we're hot for them. N. Korea has came out and said they would fight back and will make weapons...yet Bush would rather deal with this matter over a political table. Hmmm...one group doesn't appear to have anything, and another group is making threats, demans, and starting up its nuclear program...yet we're not as hot for them...hmmm.

But hey what do I know. I'm not a military stratigist...

mabudonicus
01-15-2003, 11:45 AM
Just as an addition to JediElf's post, in the same bit Wubbya put forth reasons as to why there was trouble with both Kim jong-il and saddam;
Kim jong-il, bush said, is a problem because he "starves his folks", bush went on to say that THAT was the fundamental problem with North Korea.....
Saddam... well, according to wubbya, the problem is that he "gasses his folks"........
By these ridiculous statements, wubbya set the table for any country that may be a problem in the future as well...
Iceland - Freezes their folks
Britain- bores it's folks (also, clogs it's folks arteries)
China- forces it's folks to use one of the most complicated written languages in existence, thus handicapping it's folks
Japan- Animates it's folks
Mexico- ALSO gasses it's folks
Canada- Taxes it's folks
Australia- misrepresents it's folks ( every aussie is Croc dundee or Steve-O Irwin?? Maybe they'd like it if we tossed another WAR on the barbie, EH??)

sith_killer_99
01-15-2003, 11:58 AM
I though this thread was about Iraq.:confused:

Peace through mutually assured destruction.:eek:

We
Are
Right

(BTW, the "Jr. Republican" must be a throw back to the 80's "Young Republicans". I think someone's showing their age. Besides, its "Team Leader" now.);)

stillakid
01-15-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
(BTW, the "Jr. Republican" must be a throw back to the 80's "Young Republicans". I think someone's showing their age. Besides, its "Team Leader" now.);)

You're right. :) Except I thought the new term was "patriot." :rolleyes:

Jedi Clint
01-15-2003, 05:54 PM
Yes! Let's all get our news and opinions from The Daily Show and Sheryl Crow! Their views are cooooool......if you are an extreme liberal that is.

Iowa's liberal pulp places Iraq at about 3% of the worlds oil production.


Originally posted by tjovonovich
I think its nothing more than a stragity move.

I think that is the main reason we are on Iraq's case.

Eric,

What did Iraq do to G.W.'s father that requires "revenge"?

sith_killer_99
01-15-2003, 07:20 PM
Nope, it's definatly "Team Leader" see:

http://www.gopteamleader.com/about.asp

;)

EricRG
01-15-2003, 09:01 PM
JC-

Yeah, I used used the term "revenge" in error, really. I guess I used it to make up for the last minute decision by George Lucas not to use it.

I guess I meant that Bush just wants to finish what his daddy started. I mean, if Iraq under Hussein somehow DID attack the US one day, Bush Sr. would sure look bad for not having removed him.

EricRG
01-16-2003, 01:21 AM
I know this is me twice in a row, but I just saw this on CNN:

Donald Rumsfeld today said that the fact that the inspectors haven't found anything may be an indication that Iraq is hiding something!

That has GOT to be one of the STUPIDEST statements I've ever heard by a politician. It just blows me away. It just shows that the current administration are going to war, come hell or high water, no matter what.

QLD
01-16-2003, 02:39 AM
Yes. It is all part of our master plan!!!!!


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH.....

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

BWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA....

Bwahahaha....

huhhuhha....

ha.....

woooooo....

2-1B
01-16-2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Yes! Let's all get our news and opinions from The Daily Show and Sheryl Crow! Their views are cooooool......if you are an extreme liberal that is.

Dude, like I'll smoke to that. :happy:

"All I wanna do, is have some fun . . ."

sith_killer_99
01-16-2003, 03:16 AM
Welcome to the Decline of Western Civilization.:rolleyes:

Patient Zero
01-16-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
Dude, like I'll smoke to that. :happy:

"All I wanna do, is have some fun . . ."

"...shake my body all night long!"

Wait, that was Samantha Fox! Sorry. :rolleyes:

derek
01-16-2003, 04:28 PM
OK, now that war heads have been found by UN inspectors, Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker has agreed to lead a crack team of Navy Seals into Iraq to shut down the deflector shield, despite the objections of Admiral Ackbar.:D

Darth Trymybestus
01-16-2003, 07:29 PM
Unless Saddam Hussein goes into exile or tells the truth about his weapons programmes, then yes, war is inevitable.
I mean the U.S. is sending thousands and thousands of soldiers to the region and tanks, and warplanes (this build up costs A LOT of money and it doesn't help the economy at all).
It's up to Saddam Hussein whether war happens or not...

Emperor Howdy
01-17-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
I know this is me twice in a row, but I just saw this on CNN:

Donald Rumsfeld today said that the fact that the inspectors haven't found anything may be an indication that Iraq is hiding something!

That has GOT to be one of the STUPIDEST statements I've ever heard by a politician. It just blows me away. It just shows that the current administration are going to war, come hell or high water, no matter what.


Well Golly Gee, Eric. Looks like the Iraqis WERE hiding something after all. But I'm suuuuuuuuure it's just a simple misunderstanding. As a matter of fact, I'm sure Bush and his cronies planted the undocumented warheads......yeah....that's it! :D

It matters not. The time is at hand. You war-protestors better grab a pacifier, crawl under your desks, and nervously pen your final love letters to Saddam. :happy:

QLD
01-17-2003, 12:43 AM
Now Howdy......

EVERYONE knows....that Saddam was going to fill those warheads with water, and use them to water the feilds of poppys over Israel.

EricRG
01-17-2003, 01:06 AM
Oooooooooooooooh. 11 empty warheads. Watch out for that! I feel pretty threatened.

They still have yet to determine whether this is even in violation of anything.

Please, Saddam, PLEASE, don't drop those things on my doorstep!

I'm sure Rumsfeld is preparing his next speech now:

"The noxious Iraqi air contained within these warheads are an obvious weapon of mass destruction if dropped in our wonderful American air. NUKE 'EM!"

In all seriousness, as I've stated before, I don't agree with war without real good reason. Yes, the finding of these warheads are, to me, strike one against Saddam. But Iraq still has not in any way threatened the US (with these empty warheads.) Nor has anything besides air been found to fill these things.

You see Howdy, I'm not against war WHEN IT IS WARRANTED. I'm glad to read the joyous gloating jumping from your fingertips. The fact is, if some huge cache of chemical weapons and the rest of the stuff required to build a fully functional WMD are found, AND he threatens to use them on the US (not Israel, not Kuwait, not his own people, even) then yeah, I advocate disarming him (I always have: http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16461).

My whole point (and the point of this thread), which you've obviously missed, is that the US is preparing for war no matter what. To me, that's wrong.

I mean, how stupid will the US look if we attack Iraq for 11 empty warheads. Pretty damn.

And maybe they did plant those warheads. ;)

Old Fossil
01-17-2003, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by tjovonovich


I think there's more to this conflict than "Finishing Daddy's job" and oil.

I will admit both of these are probably a factor to some extent, but I personally think Bush, and the US, is looking for a foothold in the middle east.

When and if we do take So-Damb-Insane out, we will probably have a country under our control to establish military bases, and won't have to bargin or deal with middle east countries to borrow or use their bases. The US would have waterway access from the persian gulf and they would also have air space access from the persian gulf also...so no more political dealings with the Saudies, Turks, or Packies to use their airspace or bases. It's centrally located and would be good staging ground for any future middle east military operations...or a war on terror.

I think its nothing more than a stragity move.

Well, that's comforting: America, the Great Satan, home of Las Vegas ("Sin City"), takes over ancient Babylonia. Baghdad, ancient home of the Caliphs and a city sacred to the Islamic faith, becomes an American/Western enclave, kind of like Beirut was before it tore itself to shreds.

That ought to win the good ol' U.S.A. a lot of friends in the world of Islam!

Maybe we could even stage a Miss World pageant in Baghdad one day, when democracy returns! (When was it ever there to begin with, I wonder?) But before we do THAT, we'll be sure to pour in lots and lots of humanitarian aid, like we always do when we invade other countries and replace their governments with regimes more friendly to our own. I mean, look at Panama, and Haiti (those crazy Haitians are probably about due for another American invasion soon, gotta love 'em!), and Afghanistan, and the Phillipenes (ah, what a shame about the Marcoses), and Grenada, and South Vietnam, and Cambodia! Well, don't look at those last two. Oops! But seriously, folks, who wouldn't want to go to any one of those other countries listed above TODAY, and see all the good we've done for them since we helped them out of the fixes they got themselves into? And we're gonna do the same for those poor Iraqis, after their cities are gutted, of course. But War Is Hell, as they say in the movies, and the Iraqis are just gonna have to tighten their belts a little more and keep their chins up and coax a living from the barren desert, just like their ancestors did! Nothing wrong with earning a living from the land, even if you have a degree in engineering. At least they won't be living under that tyrant Hussein anymore, and the rest of the world can sleep better, too; and that's really what it's all about, anyway, right? Right?

EricRG
01-17-2003, 01:40 AM
The REAL Dark Lord:

http://cicatrix.fragland.net/smurf/frodo_has_failed.jpg

QLD
01-17-2003, 02:10 AM
I know I'd sleep better at night.

mabudonicus
01-17-2003, 10:05 AM
Ahh that ring of power pic is awesome!!!
Also of note, there's a good article on the onion's main page about the whole iraq/korea situation, pretty informative:):)

I can't recall the anniversary of desert storm's beginning in earnest, it was around now (shield started a bit before, but it became storm around now).. I'm surprised that the war hasn't started yet....
If there is no war, the debt incurred by the troop movements made so far would be insurmountable, so even economics can be used to show that war is inevitable, wubbya would gain nothing from a "clean" result from the inspectors... the troops would just all come home disconsolate, no huge run on American flags or nothing, with a huge bill to pay down, no footage for CNN, nothing.... that just wouldn't do...
It can't be stopped, and it will get much worse before it gets better, I really do feel sorry for the whole planet for this situation...

sith_killer_99
01-17-2003, 10:54 AM
But War is Hell, as they say in the movies...

War is hell, but unless you've been there you will never know. It is not just some stupid little comment made in a movie. So, unless you are facing the very real possibility of going, please do not belittle that fact.


the troops would just all come home disconsolate.

Nothing could be farther from the truth! Soldiers prepare for war, we train for it, we practice but we never look forward to going. We never look forward to being ripped from our family and sent off to some God forsaken place to fight a war. What's more, if we are sent, we would much prefer to turn around and go home because someone called off the war!

I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I do so proudly, and without any regrets. I take my obligations seriously.

But don't think for one second that any soldier would be disconsolate over not fighting a war!

Emperor Howdy
01-17-2003, 12:12 PM
Well said, SK.

TwoDot, nice going. You should be ashamed of yourself. To write such a callous and funny post when we are in the middle of a serious cri......

Errrr, excuse me TwoDot, I have a call.

Hello? Yes, it is. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. No, I never said funny. No, no, you misunderstood...I said "callous and demeaning". Um, excuse me, I don't need to be told what I said. I KNOW what the Hell I said. Hey pal?....uh-huh....uh-huh.....right....Hey pal? WHAT? Well you too, you little s***! Yeah, I sure did.....to your mom. Riiiiight....riiiight.....whatever. Look, I don't have time for this. Tell your sister the check is in the mail. Yeah....you too, a*****e.


*Echem*.....well, that was pleasant. Anyway, TwoDot, what were we saying? TwoDot?


TwoDot?




Hello?






Dammit! :mad:





**NOTE**

Sith-killer, not that I'm condoning Twodot's march outside the White House, but I'm pretty sure that post was loaded with sarcasm. Remember, a lot of these guys will take shots at the President, but when war finally begins, the majority of them will stand behind their soldiers. :happy:



Atleast I think they will. :stupid:



Well, they sure as Hell should! :mad:

Vortex
01-17-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Twodot Tatooine
Well, that's comforting: America, the Great Satan, home of Las Vegas ("Sin City"), takes over ancient Babylonia. Baghdad, ancient home of the Caliphs and a city sacred to the Islamic faith, becomes an American/Western enclave, kind of like Beirut was before it tore itself to shreds.

That ought to win the good ol' U.S.A. a lot of friends in the world of Islam!

At least they won't be living under that tyrant Hussein anymore, and the rest of the world can sleep better, too; and that's really what it's all about, anyway, right? Right?

I don't disagree with you, and I do see your point...and I'm still on the fecne about how things should be handled, since war only makes more enemies and political talk only lasts for a short time and we all know talk is talk unless acted upon...so what is the right solution? Will there ever be a right solution? Stuff like this is always a double edged sword. No matter which way you flip it, you will cut yourself if you're not careful.

Sadly every powerful nation, tribe, country, clan, throughout time has pushed other nations around, staked claim to land, and absorbed other peoples, land, and property through empire expansion.

You had the mighty British empire at one point in time which the sun never set on, the Roman empire that trampled most of europe, N. Africa and the middle east. The Ottoman empire that expanded through the middle east and into europe. Napoleon marched through europe for domination. The Egyptians were conquoring peoples, as were the Persians, and Mayans. You throw in Kahn and his armies, the Goths, Normans, Vikings, Spainards in the new world, and even Am. Indian tribes wared and marched on others staked territories. And just last century we had the Germans, Russians, and Japanese claiming land, and taking over various areas that it didn't have before. Russia is still dealing with break-away nations and groups. Serbia and the old remains of Yugoslavia are still at it, thanks to a bad decision after WW I. Heck even WW I was a theater for this cycle. Top that off with the Middle East itself - in most of those countries, once you're outside a city limit it's tribal rule and one tribe vs another for land and power. The national police, and laws don't usually apply in these areas. The middle east is nothing more than a bunch of fueding tribes. They might act like a united islamic nation front, but they would have no problem going to war with a neighboring country or starting a civil war to put their warlord in power. I'm sure there are other histories I've forgotten, but its an ugly cycle and one that is constantly occuring.

The US will fade like all the other Empires, (nothing lasts forever) and China or Russia will rise up at some later date, and be the next world's voice, policeman, and enforce its ideals or political stance. And I'm sure they will do things the rest of the world doesn't like...but like they say, "Its good to be King".

If we act, go to war, we will futher the rift between the western worlds/culture and the middle east/or islamic nations.

If we do nothing and something does happen (for example look to germany 30's when they broke their pacts/treaties after WW I, pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and turned into a formidable nation. The world knew what was going on, yet did nothing at first to stop them.) then the US will be blaimed and held responsible along with the UN for not taking steps or precautions at an earlier date to stop some action. And we still make enemies no matter which road we take.

Its a no win situation no matter how you cut it, and a good compromise leaves everyone upset.

Having 2 sides to a coin always complicates matters.

sith_killer_99
01-17-2003, 12:51 PM
I hear ya Howdy, I'm just a little stressed out right now. Without going into details, I'm sure most of you will understand.

Sometimes people make comments about Politics/Politicians and they tend to lump in the military, as if the politicians actions and decisions reflect our (the militarys') opinions.:rolleyes:

I just wanted to draw a distinction, I guess I may have gone a little overboard.

Ask any soldier if they want to go to war, and they'll most likely say no. Ask them if they are ready to go to war, and they better say yes.

jobi
01-17-2003, 07:39 PM
Come on SK you know all of us military types are war-mongers and baby-killers. I can't wait to go kill me some bad guys.:rolleyes:

Jedi Clint
01-17-2003, 08:13 PM
I want to know where the current liberal anti-war machine was when the Clinton Administration took out Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic? If opposition to regime change in Iraq is soo fundamentally wrong, then shouldn't these same people have protested that war as well?

EricRG
01-18-2003, 06:21 PM
Just wanted to say that I'm glad the war protests made front page on cnn.com today. Way to go everybody, wish I could have been there.

Although the gov't won't give 2 sheets about it.

Vortex
01-19-2003, 03:16 AM
Does anyone have hard actual proof this pending war is all about oil?

Has any politician come forward and said so? Has Bush stepped up the plate and said as much? Does anyone have any actual numbers of how many barrels of oil we actually buy from Iraq? Didn't we liberate Kuat from the Iraq invasion forces? Wasn't this the same guy that was launching scuds into Isreal during that little incident? Are we sure without a doubt that whole mess is about some oil fields? If so why the hell would the UN waste time, money, and effort to search the nation for biological weapons and use this as a US smoke screen to cover up the assumed reasons for war. Last I checked the US was part of the UN and the UN still has final say on matters if Iraq is guilty of breaking its treaties...US is being a bully I'll admit that, but since we are part of the UN council, and if Iraq is found guilty, it is the US job/duty to help support the UN with troops and equipment.

No offense to those who participated in all the anti war rallies...but is there any proof besides mass speculation that this is really about oil? No one has any hard facts, yet they speculate and jump to conclusions.

EricRG
01-19-2003, 05:13 AM
This whole crusade is not UN led - it's US led. Remember Bush "convincing" the UN of the need to destroy Saddam? We are also the only country really building up our troops in the area. Hasn't Bush come right out and said basically "we will do this with or without the support of the UN"?

Why don't we go after North Korea? We already have proof that they have broken major treaties and even our gov't speculates they have NUCLEAR capabilities. You tell me what the difference between Iraq and N. Korea is. It's just one example of many. Or Pakistan. Or China. Etc.

The major thing that makes many people suspicious is the way the US got ready for war (and continues to) in the absense of any threat from Iraq. That means that even though the possibility exists that Saddam in fact has no WMD, the US is ready to attack. That means there must be another reason.

Oil. Why would a politician "step up to the plate" and admit this? It's the will of the big corporations that fund the gov't in the first place.

You ask for proof of oil as motivation...I ask for proof that Saddam has WMD *AND* is a DIRECT threat to the US. The US prepares for war with proof of none of it.

mabudonicus
01-19-2003, 09:07 AM
SK99.Jobi, point taken, and I wasn't trying to besmirch the military profession.... I have a lot of respect for the individuals involved, and unfortunately the media chooses to portray the military as much more of a concept than a group of actual human beings....
Forget the "disconsolate" thing and just tell me this: if the inspection finds nothing to go on, and the UN says invasion is not warranted under any circumstances (unlikely, the UN is in many ways a puppet , but hey), WOULD Bush get on the tube and say "Great news, the Iraqis aren't what we though, we can bring all our troops home"...

I mean, it's PURE speculation, but it really does seem that justice is not on the list of reasons for this whole deal, and could the US economy survive a "non war" in this event??
Bush did say that he would rebuild America and redefine the way wars were fought if he became president (in the debates, along with all the "fuzzy math"), and in order to fulfill that promise, it would seem that there would have to be wars to fight, warranted or no...
Don't take this the wrong way, it is not a personal attack on ANYONE, it just seems to me that wubbya is pushing too hard for something that is based on oil (take a look at the makeup of the republican higher ups, see what they did and what they own, it starts to give a lot more credence to the OIL arguement, heck even condoleeza has ties to big oil, there's got to be something in that, North Korea is a proven threat to that but no-one in power in the US stands to make any money off cabbages and water buffalos, thus the hands off approach... that or the fear that Korea IS dangerous, while Iraq is going to be a pushover, all the fireworks of all out war with NO chance of a nuclear strike on the US mainland......)

QLD
01-19-2003, 10:17 AM
A freind brought up a very good point last night.....

"I suspect that the government knows a lot more than they are saying. Most likely we KNOW that they have nuclear capability. However, the reason we won't come forward with the proof, is because we most likely gave it to them at some point. So they KNOW, but they can't tell us they KNOW."

Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting speculation.

sith_killer_99
01-19-2003, 11:21 AM
Twodot and Mabudon, I appologize if I misinterpreted or read too much into what was posted. I know that pretty much everyone here is behind our military. Even the anti-war folks. The truth is noone here wants to see blood shed.

I have my own theories behind the current situation. Here is what I know and understand.

1. We have been at odds with Saddam for well over a decade.

2. In 1996 the Central Intelligence Agency informed the US Military that one of the storage facilities we blew-up in Iraq had in fact been filled with Biological weapons. Given the windage and location of our own troops it was highly likely that the US Military was exposed to the Biological agent(s) (this has been touted as a possible cause for Gulf War sickness). The CIA knew about this before the target was hit. Yet, they still did not revealed that information before the attack.

3. It is common practice for the CIA and other agencies to withhold information to protect their sources. One of the most drastic cases of this was during the Kennedy investigation. One of our own operatives was actually with the Soviet Heads of State when the news hit the Kremlin about Kennedy's death. He was literally in the same room with them! Yet to reveal that the Soviets were just as suprised as the rest of the World would have undermined one of our greatest operatives. In fact, the Soviets conducted their own investigation into the Kennedy assassination.

4. The conflict with N. Korea is a relatively new development, whereas the issues with Iraq have been on going since the end of the Gulf War. Saddam has had more than enough time to get rid of his bio-weapons. We are still in talks with N. Korea. N. Korea has, in the past, been known to be cooperative, unlike Saddam. So there's the difference.

5. Let's not forget that for 8 years we had an administration that would sit on their thumbs while the USS Cole was hit, or embassies were bombed. Slick Willie allowed Bin Laden and Saddam to become the monsters that they are today. He did this, by doing virtually nothing for 8 years.

6. Could this be about oil? Yes. Does that mean we should do nothing? No.

Just my 2 cents.

EricRG
01-19-2003, 01:42 PM
SK-

Just so you know, I do have a lot of respect for the military. It's something I could NEVER do myself. It takes a certain type of person with regards to being able to give up ones identity for a "greater cause".

I will always support the troops in any type of war situation. Just not necessarily the war itself nor the cowards who send young men to die from behind desks in Washington.

"The truth is, no one here wants to see blood shed." Well said.

EricRG
01-24-2003, 02:59 PM
At the risk of being banned;) , I'm gonna kickstart this thread.

1) Good to see China, France and Germany are demanding more/better proof of real reasons to attack Iraq. Russia is also hesitant to support the current US position. The US CLEARLY, at this point, does NOT have the approval of the permanent members of the security council. In fact, as far as I can tell, once again, the US is at square one with having to "convince" the UN that war is the right thing to do.

2) Saddam's son has commented that an attack on Iraq would bring new attacks on America. If you think he's joking or issuing empty threats, you'd better reconsider, I think. To me, this is a HUGE deterrant for an attack, and if Bush pushes ahead with his agenda despite warnings like this...there's gonna be HUGE political backlash against him.

The Overlord Returns
01-24-2003, 03:04 PM
There already is.

Bush's approval ratings are at their lowest point since pre 9/11 numbers. And the most recent poll shows 54% of americans dissaprove of unilateral action against Iraq.

France annoys the hell out of me at the same time. There reasons for not wanting war are about as selfish as Bush and co.'s reasons for pushing invasion. While they end up looking like peacekeepers, they're really just opportunists.

Fulit
01-24-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by EricRG

2) Saddam's son has commented that an attack on Iraq would bring new attacks on America. If you think he's joking or issuing empty threats, you'd better reconsider, I think. To me, this is a HUGE deterrant for an attack, and if Bush pushes ahead with his agenda despite warnings like this...there's gonna be HUGE political backlash against him.

Not that I'm for this or anything, but we're going to be attacked anyway. Arrests are being made all the time of people who are planning attacks against us. It is likely that one of these will succeed at some time, and probably after we invade Iraq, so everyone will say its because of our aggression, when in REALITY, people are going to attack us anyway. So you see this is a shallow argument.

EricRG
01-24-2003, 03:39 PM
Fulit,

Well...maybe if one small attack or something occurs (which have been happening all along) but if all of a sudden we see another major attack or several smaller attacks coinciding with a US invasion, what would the argument be then?

Overlord,

Good point about France, but no matter what their motives, they are still AGAINST the decision to invade Iraq as we speak. That's my real point...that the US will go ahead no matter who tells us not to.

Fulit
01-24-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Fulit,

Well...maybe if one small attack or something occurs (which have been happening all along) but if all of a sudden we see another major attack or several smaller attacks coinciding with a US invasion, what would the argument be then?




What's the argument going to be if we wait a year or more until these B.S. "inspections" (which are no more than a cat and mouse game) fail and we or someone else gets hit big with whatever he's building? Then people will say, "Oh, why didn't we do anything?"

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, obviously.

I'm not for or against this, I don't know enough about it. I know I don't want anyone to have to die over it, but it looks like many will die anyway. I really don't like all the criticism from foreign countries, because ultimately, it is the U.S. that will have to shoulder the responsibility for this thing no matter how it turns out.

EricRG
01-24-2003, 09:42 PM
Fulit,

Certainly it would suck if Iraq somehow was able to attack the US with WMD. But please, can you give me some proof that says he 1) can AND 2) will. If the US gov't has such information, I believe it might be a good idea that they share it...don't you? Otherwise...WHAT IS THE REASON TO ATTACK??? (HINT: 3-letter word beginning with "o" and rhyming with "loyal")

Or perhaps the it was the US and/or its allies that gave Saddam the tools in the first place (as it's been suggested earlier in this thread).

Fulit
01-24-2003, 10:12 PM
It's funny how people keep saying the war is over oil, and how screwed their lives would be without it. If every one of our domestic oil wells and all our stored supplies ran dry tomorrow, the populace would demand we go get some more. If everyone wants to complain and criticize our government for getting involved in an "oil war", why haven't we all lobbied for electric cars all this time? That would end that. But no one will challenge our oil company-run government. I think people are too quick to call this an "oil war" and also too quick to forget Saddaam's involvment in a little thing known as the worst terror attack on U.S. soil a year and a half ago. Remember that?

Proof that Saddam can and will, I personally can't give you. Certainly all the weapons stuff the U.N. has been finding lately is pretty interesting, Saddaam certainly ain't playing chemistry lab. Have you not heard the reports that have been going on for years about his attempts to hire out of work nuclear scientists from Russia? I don' t think he was hiring them for janitor positions. What the hell else is he going to do with a nuclear bomb, roast wieners?

To me, waiting for more proof is like waiting to see if that pit bull charging at you will bite before you blow its head off.

I hate the thought of anyone dying for this war, and if it was all solved tomorrow without bloodshed, I would be happy. But let's be realistic.

EricRG
01-24-2003, 10:49 PM
Yes, let's be realistic.

1) Solar power and electric/alternative powered cars have been lobbied SINCE THE 70'S!!! It's the big oil companies THEMSELVES (and hence, the auto makers) that continually block such PROGRESS. We've had the technology since the 70's, man! If we had used it, I doubt we'd be in a lot of the messes we are in today.

2) Can you site for me where you found the information CONFIRMING Hussein's role in 9/11? That's another big ol' rumour.

3) Last time I checked, nuclear scientists can also do things like BUILD POWER PLANTS, right???

By your logic, Fulit, we should ALREADY be at war with North Korea (and Pakistan, China, etc. etc. etc.) Why are we not? Oil.

Fulit
01-24-2003, 11:11 PM
Who do you think is next on Bush II's list? And it's not by my logic, I don't want a war at all, I just don' t think these inspections work, and we need to keep all options open. I do NOT think they should go in in the next few weeks, as is rumored. And no, I can cite no specific information on Hussein's involvement, it 's a speculation on my part, but don't you think it stands to reason? Can you prove he isn't? The argument goes both ways, you see.

Jedi Clint
01-24-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
At the risk of being banned;) , I'm gonna kickstart this thread.

1) Good to see China, France and Germany are demanding more/better proof of real reasons to attack Iraq. Russia is also hesitant to support the current US position.

Speaking of Oil. China, France, and Russia have oil deals with Saddam. Nifty.

The L.A. Times -

NEC Engineering Private Ltd., used phony customs declarations and other false documents, as well as front companies in three countries, to export 10 consignments of raw materials and equipment that Saddam Hussein's regime could use to produce chemical weapons and propellants for long-range missiles, according to Indian court records.

The shipments, valued at nearly $800,000, took place between September 1998 and February 2001. The exports -- highly specialized supplies like atomized aluminum powder and titanium centrifugal pumps -- ostensibly went to Jordan and Dubai.

He wanted to make pin-wheels and pixie sticks right?

plasticfetish
01-25-2003, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Fulit
It's funny how people keep saying the war is over oil ... If every one of our domestic oil wells and all our stored supplies ran dry tomorrow, the populace would demand we go get some more. If everyone wants to complain and criticize our government for getting involved in an "oil war", why haven't we all lobbied for electric cars all this time? That would end that. But no one will challenge our oil company-run government. I think people are too quick to call this an "oil war" ...

I'm not sure I understand the funny part, but "oil war" or not, I think it's high time we invade Alaska. That oil under Iraq is old and dirty. Hardly worth the effort to fight for it, while the oil waiting for us up in Alaska is sweet and pure. Mmmmmm ... sweet, sweet Alaskan crude. Even Ed Begley Jr. would want to burn up a bunch of that liquid dinosaur!


In all seriousness ... :rolleyes: ... I think the idea of decreasing our dependence on oil (foreign or not) has become more and more mainstream as of late. We've got people taking issue against the promotion and continued development of vehicles that are incredibly inefficient. As well, the major auto companies are starting to put more and more money toward developing alternate fuel sources for automobiles. I think that most of us realize, whatever the motives for this "war" thing, a change has always needed to occur. If there is a silver lining to any of this, perhaps it's that now there is even more motivation for that change to occur.

mabudonicus
01-25-2003, 09:10 AM
I like how the US released the statement the other day that Iraqi oilfields WILL be held "In Trust" after the planned invasion....
Sounds like the US government is already carving up the pie...
Oh wait, I mean, already planning on how to give the Iraqi people the freedom from tyranny that they so crave...yeah,that's the ticket!!!
Seriously, the deal is pretty odd.. that's like me starting up a nutty thread here about how someone is a threat to this and that, and steadily building a case against him, and invoking all sorts of hints as to what might happen if we didn't do something, we'll all suffer, and denying any allegations that there are any ulterior motives.... So I sway the opinions and emotions of many, and this threat seems real, and THEN, after begging altruism and justice the whole time to get the required support and look like a hero, I come out and say "oh, and the persons extensive SW collection, including rare prototypes, will be kept safe by me just to... ahhhhhh.... make sure that it's safe"
Now, do you question all the things I said to build the case, or do you nod and say "well, yeah, somebodies gotta have the collection, since the guy who owns it is evil, and we are the good guys, so screw him, it'll be ours thanks to our virtue"

I dunno, sounds goofy to me.... check out bushwatch (. org, I believe) It's left wing, I know, but there is some interesting info in betweeen the rants (I won't put the link here, I'm not sure it's appropriate)

Fulit
01-25-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by mabudon
I like how the US released the statement the other day that Iraqi oilfields WILL be held "In Trust" after the planned invasion....
Sounds like the US government is already carving up the pie...
Oh wait, I mean, already planning on how to give the Iraqi people the freedom from tyranny that they so crave...yeah,that's the ticket!!!


You don't think the Iraqi's are going to have it better after we install a puppet democracy? That's better than what they have now. At least the Secret Police won't come take you away for saying Bush is a moron. I can't understand these seeming "Saddaam Apologists", 12 years ago everyone wanted to ram a Patriot missle up his *ss, now everyone's boo-hooing and saying "leave him alone." Are you really going to be that upset if we "take" oil from a ruthless, torturing dicator who uses the oil to control his starving populace while himself living in palaces? I swear, I can't understand it, everyone's so quick to label this an oil war. The info Jedi Clint posted about the three countries that want us to wait all having oil deals with Iraq ought to open your eyes some. Quit listening to Europe and China, and quit being on their side, unless you're European or Chinese. And what about the L.A. Times article Jedi Clint quoted right under that, outlining Hussein' methods for getting nuclear materials? Is that "proof" enough for anyone? I swear, some of you sound like you need to be burned by the radiation fallout before your need for "proof" will be satisfied. It seems to me some people are so bent on hollering "No War!" they haven't stopped to consider whether it might be a neccessary evil. This is not like Vietnam, not even close.

Again, I sound pro-fighting but I'm not, so let me say, I've read reports that Saddaam has been approached by Arab countries about the possibility of going into exile to avoid war. If this were to happen, if war could be averted, if the U.N. inspections were worth a damn and didn't take so long, that would be great. But what are the chances of that?

One way or another, you have to admit, it's probably going to happen, it will likely be over soon, and we won't have to hear about it anymore. I'm so sick of the oft-repeated words "Saddaam Hussein", and "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
And don't forget, everyone of you who is 18 has a chance to end Bush's policies next year if you don't like them. I plan to vote against him myself.

JON9000
01-25-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Fulit
This is not like Vietnam, not even close.


Actually, this war is remenant of Vietnam, except it is more like the French occupation than our own.

The big problem I see is that we are going to want the populace on our side in bringing down Saddam, just like it was when Clinton bombed the brakes off of Milosovic. But will the Iraqi people rise up? Memories are long, and last time I looked, Bush I told the Iraqis to rise up in 1991, then promptly turned his back on them. Saddam slaughtered everyone.

And then there is the matter of the puppet government that will give us the oil. Feel free to review the Southern Vietnamese puppet government of Ngo Din Diem for an example of how smoothly things go for us with BS proxy governments in unstable regions.

If we must go, I think we should start up the draft. I think many people might give the negatives of war more weight if it were their families' and friends' butts on the line.

Fulit
01-25-2003, 01:24 PM
I was thinking more of how our reasons for going to Vietnam weren't oil or to stop WMD. I never did understand why the Gulf War ended where it did, with Hussein still in power.

Old Fossil
01-25-2003, 02:47 PM
One thing that would be nice to see is what one senator -- I don't recall who -- called 'full disclosure.' What is the proof that the Bush administration claims to have, exactly, to justify an invasion of Iraq? If Bush wants to have the broad support he needs at home, then full disclosure of that proof is absolutely necessary. We had it with regards to the Taliban training camps in Afghanistan. Why not now?

Jedi Clint
01-25-2003, 02:48 PM
Fulit,

Support for the war started fading after we bombed a stretch of road where the people of Iraq (military and a few non-military) were fleeing from Kuwait. We were stomping them up to that point. Getting carried away cost us support and in turn Bush 1 didn't end up finishing the job.

Clinton also encouraged uprising in Iraq, and without our help those rebels were slaughtered.

The U.N. has an oil for food program with Iraq. I don't think for a second that they wouldn't advertise our actions to the world if the U.S. were to tap Iraq oil for our own personal gain (not to pay for the war and rebuilding). I don't have any problem with replacing Saddam's regime. I think he is a ruthless vile tyrant. And if the new leaders make better deals with us, then I'm even happier.

Iraq's oil reserves are said to be second only to Saudi Arabia, but they don't have the infrastucture to produce more than they do now. It would take (a rather risky) investment in their country to exploit those reserves. It would be cheaper and less risky to simply work with Saddam or any other country if our goal was purely oil production.

I am willing to wait and see whether we even attempt to garner the profit of oil exports from Iraq AFTER they have a new governing body. Liberals seem unwilling to give us the benefit of the doubt, but places like China, France, and Russia are simply concerned about keeping the peace right?

Tycho
01-25-2003, 08:21 PM
An interesting notion, JediClint, about working with Saddam being cheaper - to develop the infrastructure for an oil industry there.

Possibly, due to his feelings of Muslem loyalties, and possible past betrayals by the US (in his mind) for not letting him keep Kuwait, etc., Saddam will never work with us or even discuss the possibility.

Bush may be trying to force it.

As to oil providing the incentive? Sure. They can run a pipeline (not necessarily a physical one - but a strategic trading line) from Iraq right through Afghanistan and up to Europe where Westerners will benefit from the oil.

If Afghanistan was part of the conspiracy, then we haven't arrested Bin Laden because he was working for our intelligence agency when he called for the Sept. 11 travesty. Of course they knew it was going to happen, just like they knew Bush had to defeat Gore in that sham of an election. I'd have been a little more trusting of the results had the final state not come down to Florida (or Texas) where the Bush family had the strongest ties.

Now I have no proof for my suspicions, but it is actually possible if you think about it. So that's got to be the worst case scenerio - and we may never know.

Meanwhile, sometimes I wonder if the US, with its power, shouldn't just create a New World Order and invade areas like in Africa where they are killing each other in tribal warfare and educate at gunpoint, several generations of these peoples in democracy until they can govern themselves, and the common people can stand up for themselves.

I am on the fence about the war for that reason. I'm all for us having solar vehicles and ending the oil company dependancy before we destroy any habitat in the arctic wild. Meanwhile, I do want to see real proof that he's got weapons he's going to USE. And I want to know the real story about the current life of an Iraqi citizen from their mouth, and what the future American government can do for them.

And while were on that subject, I want to know when the American government is going to invade Watts, Harlem, East L.A., Detroit, Washington, D.C. and more towns where people are starving, live in squalid conditions, don't have a voice in their government, are kicked out of their homes, etc?

sith_killer_99
01-25-2003, 09:22 PM
If we must go, I think we should start up the draft. I think many people might give the negatives of war more weight if it were their families' and friends' butts on the line.

I couldn't disagree more.

1. the United States Military is currently overstrength by nearly 40,000 and Congress is looking at how they are going to pay everyone as it is.

2. My mother (a democrat) and most of my friends (back home) support the idea of going to war with Saddam. Knowing full well that I may be sent. So, believe it or not, knowing someone who is over there (or may be going) does not automatically make you opposed to the war.

3. My cousin just got the word that he will be shipping out in a few weeks, and I may be next. We both support the idea of ousting Saddam.

4. The fact that we may be going over there because of our own interests (oil) does not negate the fact that getting rid of Saddam is the right thing to do.

5. Saddam's son (who is in charge of Iraq's NBC weapons) has stated that if the U.S. invades then they will make 9/11 look like a pleasant memory. How else, than with Weapons of Mass Destruction? Does it strike anyone else as odd that the UN inspectors are not checking any military bases in Iraq?:eek: Where else would Iraq store their weapons? These inspections are a sham. Smoking gun? Hmmmmm With threats like these and military bases left unchecked do we really need one?

6. The Gulf war ended with Iraq agreeing to disarm. This has not happened, in 1998 they kicked out weapons inspectors, thus violating the UN resolution that ended the war. THAT is the difference between Iraq and N. Korea.

7. Just because Slick Willie was too afraid to get involved back in 1998 or when the U.S. Embassy was bombed or when the USS Cole was hit, does not mean that we should continue our pacifierst ways. To do so risks another 9/11.


And while were on the subject, I want to know when the American government is going to invade Watts, Harlem, East L.A., Detroit, Washington, D.C. and more towns where people are starving, living in squalid conditions, don't have a voice in their government, are kicked out of their homes, etc?

I honestly don't believe this has anything to do with our war against Iraq, more a chance to stick it to our government. But I will comment.

I believe that California is a perfect example of how liberal (bleeding heart) policy fails to resolve the issue facing our nations poor. The term a hand up, not a hand out comes to mind. These are the same liberals who brought on their own energy crisis a couple of years ago and ran crying to our new President about it.

They complain about saving the environment and drive enough to have several of the most polluted cities in the nation. They continue to cry about the evils of power plants and oil, yet they consume more of it than any other state. Meanwhile their rich definatly continue to get richer and their poor get poorer with worse living conditions. All the while their Democrat representatives do nothing. They are too busy protecting Hollywoods right to artistic expression to care about East L.A. or the poor.

But these are really issue for a different thread.;)

EricRG
01-25-2003, 09:54 PM
SK-

I don't think Saddam's son was referring to use of WMD (although he may be). I think he is referring to the possibility that other terrorist groups will likely become more active against the US if we invade Iraq. Al Queda for example has expressed such intentions.

I agree the UN needs to be allowed unfettered access, especially to military bases.

And if the primary reason to invade Iraq is in fact for oil, then the US is lying to the UN, the US citizens, and the whole world. Who cares if Saddam "should" go or not? It's like cheap makeup worn to make someone look "better" than they actually do when all it really does is make them look fake.

Also, hasn't N. Korea also broken resolutions/agreements? Plus, we basically KNOW they have nuclear capabilities. (Just like we "basically know" Iraq has WMD???)

Also...I think you are generalizing just a bit too much with regards to California. I live here, and I don't think it's nearly as "ultra liberal" as you make it out to be. That's like saying Georigia is a bunch of good 'ol boys in every home. It's just not true. Of course Californians use the most power...we've got the largest population by far. And the "energy crisis" had more to do with energy companies in both Texas and California attempting to rob California citizens than any "environmental" policy.

sith_killer_99
01-25-2003, 10:30 PM
I don't think Saddam's son was refering to use of WMD (although he may be). I think he is refering to the possibility that other terrorist groups will likely become more active against the US if we invade Iraq. Al Queda for example has expressed such intentions.

So either:

1. They were theratening to use WMD.

or

2. Al Queda will attack us for going into Iraq.

Either way they are either hiding WMD or tied to Al Queda or other terrorist organizations. Or is someone going to make the arguement that Al Queda is not tied to Saddam? Yeah, yeah, yeah...Bin Bobo head called Saddam a false musslim. So why the big interest? It must be because they don't want the US over there. But then why no similar threats with the US in Afghanistan?

Yes, N. Korea has broken a UN resolution. However, Saddam did so years ago and has shown on several occassions that he will break resolutions when ever he feels like it. We just found out about N. Korea. We tried to work with Saddam for years, he kept out inspectors for 4 years. Oh and let's not forget that N. Korea could drop a nuke in S. Korea and kill thousands of US troops or Japan! These are two different situations.

Personally, I was with Patton, we should have liberated the whole peninsula.

As for California:

Of course the energy crisis had nothing to do with the fact that California hasn't built any new power plants in...how many decades? Despite the fact that they knew they needed them. Yet they continued to grow in population and build. The bottom line is that California shouldn't have to import power.

But as I said before, the issue of California and it's government is a subject for a different thread.;)






:Pirate:

plasticfetish
01-25-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
And while were on that subject, I want to know when the American government is going to invade Watts, Harlem, East L.A., Detroit, Washington, D.C. and more towns where people are starving, live in squalid conditions, don't have a voice in their government, are kicked out of their homes, etc?
All this talk of war with Iraq IS getting boring ... so let's talk about California. The government isn't going to have to invade! With 2 bedroom houses in my L.A. county neighborhood selling for $300,000 and up, it isn't long before that poverty problem has been resolved. All of the nice people moving HERE to live from places east of the Rockies are going to need somewhere to settle down. We'll just have Wal-Mart and Starbucks invade Compton and Watts ... problem solved, moving on.

Originally posted by sith_killer_99
I believe that California is a perfect example of how liberal (bleeding heart) policy fails to resolve the issue facing our nations poor.
As a life long resident of California, I don't know if it's a perfect example of anything. I do know that I'm within spitting distance of the Nixon and Reagan libraries ... I'm so close to Orange County that I can smell the decay of "right-wing" success ... I mean bankruptcy. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other states with poor people that get ignored ... in some places it's a common way of life.

... the same liberals who brought on their own energy crisis a couple of years ago and ran crying to our new President about it.
Here's a conservative cure for the liberal's energy problem ... hey everybody!!! Stop moving here!!! That way we won't have to build any more nuclear power plants or build bigger highways for the stupid SUVs that Detroit keeps designing.

They complain about saving the environment and drive enough to have several of the most polluted cities in the nation.
I think to correct what you've said, that we have the top 4 most polluted cities ... not simply "several" of the worst. ;)

They continue to cry about the evils of power plants and oil, yet they consume more of it than any other state.
We big state, have many people ... you, little states ... have not so many people.

Meanwhile their rich definitely continue to get richer and their poor get poorer with worse living conditions. All the while their Democrat representatives do nothing. They are too busy protecting Hollywood's right to artistic expression to care about East L.A. or the poor.
I dunno ... it's 8p.m. and it's 68 degrees out. I'd rather be a bum living in a park here than in Boston. Though I'll admit, since 1966 when our sweet heart governor "de-institutionalized" all of the crazy people ... things have been great out on the streets. Other than that, I think it's certainly fair to blame those liberals for all of the state's problems. It's even fair to blame them for Hollywood ... or what's left of it. But, you're right ... these are issues for a different thread ...

... now back to your regularly scheduled war.

sith_killer_99
01-25-2003, 11:18 PM
In comiiinnnnggggg!

;)



:Pirate:

Jedi Clint
01-25-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
SK-

I don't think Saddam's son was referring to use of WMD (although he may be). I think he is referring to the possibility that other terrorist groups will likely become more active against the US if we invade Iraq. Al Queda for example has expressed such intentions.

I agree the UN needs to be allowed unfettered access, especially to military bases.

Also, hasn't N. Korea also broken resolutions/agreements? Plus, we basically KNOW they have nuclear capabilities. (Just like we "basically know" Iraq has WMD???)

Also...I think you are generalizing just a bit too much with regards to California. I live here, and I don't think it's nearly as "ultra liberal" as you make it out to be. That's like saying Georigia is a bunch of good 'ol boys in every home. It's just not true. Of course Californians use the most power...we've got the largest population by far. And the "energy crisis" had more to do with energy companies in both Texas and California attempting to rob California citizens than any "environmental" policy.

SK,

Do you mean to tell me that Iraq might keep their WMD on military bases?!? Next you'll try and tell us that California is dominated by liberals! ;)

Eric,

Recently, N. Korea officially withdrew from the "Agreed Framework" that brought them into the NPT in 1994. They have been testing their ballistic missile capability since at least 1998. I'll let you decide what the most likely payload for inter-continental missiles would be.

Tycho
01-25-2003, 11:45 PM
These threads are like a podrace. Of course I have a lot to say, but you have to keep in the race so bad, when do you eat, sleep, or see your girlfriend?

I am going to attempt a pitstop of a dinner with a friend who's patiently waited here while I've taken forever to get ready, as I've drained California's energy while I've been online talking to y'all.

Have no fear though: I have plenty of detailed analysis of conservative cries for energy deregulation (versus liberal price ceiling policies, etc.) that helped rich elites plan to gouge us.

Of course that brings in Enron, and Texas energy companies, and politicians in Texas who stood to gain.

Also, prejudice against Californians as well as the origins (out of state) of many, many Californians that used to be your neighbors within the last 20 years.

And I'm going to let liberals fess up and take responisbility for derailing power plant construction, and also not ramming alternative energy - like massive solar power conversion - down everyone's throat while we have a liberal-controlled (but still energy company controlled) home-state legislature.

(when those Democrats who are invested in the energy companies decide to retire, they will become Republicans and turn anti-taxes on their retirement income and holdings, and what they can bequeath to their heirs of course). :rolleyes:

But I will also address what should be conservative policies, or is it liberal policies now,(?), on immigration, both state-to-state, and foreign.

War used to trim populations, but they cause baby-booms in their aftermath. But this war won't be like WWII, it'll be like The Persian Gulf: Episode One, but possibly hit our population with terrorism like never has been seen before.

So maybe at least don't come to California by plane. If you do get here, don't drink the public water. Take a gas mask to the superbowl. Get a smallpox vaccination before you wash your car. etc. etc.

I'm off before I starve or someone I love does....

EricRG
01-26-2003, 12:29 AM
Sk-
I don't know if Iraq has ties to al Queda. I doubt it. I imagine the US gov't has been trying like hell to tie Iraq to al Queda...but have yet to turn up even a single e-mail message.

JC-
I guess you didn't quite "catch my drift" on N. Korea. I realize they likely have nuclear capabilities (as I've stated earlier in this thread) and that they've broken treaties. I just wonder why the US hasn't targeted them when we know they almost certainly have WMD like we target Iraq on the basis they MAY have WMD.

Jedi Clint
01-26-2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
Sk-
I don't know if Iraq has ties to al Queda. I doubt it. I imagine the US gov't has been trying like hell to tie Iraq to al Queda...but have yet to turn up even a single e-mail message.

JC-
I guess you didn't quite "catch my drift" on N. Korea. I realize they likely have nuclear capabilities (as I've stated earlier in this thread) and that they've broken treaties. I just wonder why the US hasn't targeted them when we know they almost certainly have WMD like we target Iraq on the basis they MAY have WMD.

You guessed wrong. I caught it. Would you rather we attack them before we attempt diplomatic solutions?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/22/koreas.talks/index.html

It doesn't appear that N. Korea wants the U.N. involved in this.

EricRG
01-26-2003, 01:13 AM
Obviously I wouldn't "rather" we attack N. Korea prior to talking to them. I just simply wonder why a country that has more "evidence" against them is left be (for now) while we go after a country where the "evidence" is less. It's probably because Bush II has been planning to attack Iraq for a long time.

Jedi Clint
01-26-2003, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
Obviously I wouldn't "rather" we attack N. Korea prior to talking to them. I just simply wonder why a country that has more "evidence" against them is left be (for now) while we go after a country where the "evidence" is less. It's probably because Bush II has been planning to attack Iraq for a long time.

Why are you declaring the evidence is less? Do you believe that Iraq has disposed of the weapons that they had? Did you skip the L.A. times article or simply disregard it? The burden of proof is on their shoulders. Believe what you will, I don't think they've disarmed. Was Clinton wrong for condemning Saddam during his time in office? Was he wrong for attacking him?

Tycho
01-26-2003, 01:47 AM
This is a bit idealistic, but if we'd ultimately win in an invasion, and they plan to attack definitely (let's say they find some proof),
why can't the negotiations change to allow the peaceful occupation of Iraq by our military, who will peacefully disarm them and assess the public health and welfare of the civilian population, with some kind of internationally known agreement that we leave Saddam in power - and when we're done and out - we'll be back again if he misbehaves. In other words, we'll waste money, but not lives. And he will waste money if he knows we're going to disarm him and keep coming back to check on him. So why should he bother buying the weapons in the first place? That's like purchasing beer for a party that no one ever drinks.

Meanwhile, why am I suggesting this?

1) It's a non-violent solution - though as a SW fan and war monger, I don't fear violence, I just want to make sure we are on the moral high ground for reasons.

2) I have less than full faith in the UN weapons inspections teams. What we could inspect and where we could go under a full occupation is immensely different than UN inspectors going on guided tours, or even being delayed when they try and get access to where they aren't wanted (military bases, etc.)

3) Since we will not depose the current government, we will not be accused of gaining oil rights through violence, and our leaders with conflicts of interest due to energy company ties will not benefit from this course of action, but international security will - the main goal for this course of action.

4) Since Saddam is probably a serious human-rights abuser, we can gain crystal clear evidence, evacuate Iraqi nationals that are persecuted or witnesses that want to leave, and under a peaceful occupation, we can make permanent public contacts with Kurds, and others that are oppressed, and monitor their quality-of-life issues, under the conditions that they improve, or Saddam at least leaves them alone, or we'll retain a peace-keeping force to protect them (and we will mine for oil on any lands those people let us - if they agree to that benefit for us in exchange for more protection).

This is dreaming because it asks for Bush and Co. to give up their benefits they derive from this (which they ought to volunteer to do in exchange for American public trust and support) and it requires Saddam Hussein to be reasonable (which isn't highly likely, but you and I haven't met him, we just go on what the CIA supposedly tells our highest officials).

But that begs the question which country will have leaders truly in public service, and not in self-service?

sith_killer_99
01-26-2003, 06:02 AM
I don't know if Iraq has ties to al Queda. I doubt it.

Then why would we need to worry about Al Queda attacking if we go into Iraq? It dosen't make sense!:crazed: Why else would Al Queda step up their attacks (or plans) against the US (as has been suggested, if we go in) unless there are ties between Saddam and Al Queda?


I just wonder why the US hasn't targeted them when we know they almost certainly have WMD like we target Iraq on the basis they MAY have WMD.

I posted reasons earlier:

1. N. Korea has just recently started it's nuclear weapons program. They have only violated 1 part of a UN resolution and we haven't had time to work on negotioations.

2. N. Korea is at least talking to other nations about it's program and there is still a chance we can come to an agreement with N. Korea. Unlike Iraq, who has been in violation for 4 years now.

3. Add that to the fact that Iraq has also violated the No Fly Zone on several occassions, and fired on US jets patrolling the area.

4. Iraq had Biological and Chemical weapons during the Gulf war. These are WMD. Saddam agreed to disarm under a UN resolution. He has not proven that he has disarmed (remember he kicked out Inspectors before the disarming was completed), under the conditions of the UN resolution that ended the Gulf war the burden of proof is on him.

5. Oh, and with N. Korea there is also the concern about nuclear war.:rolleyes:

***This just in***

Powell address the issue of oil.

Colin Powell has just addressed the issue of oil concerns with respect to the War with Iraq. In Americas defense he pointed out that when America liberated Kuwait we finished the job, packed up and left. Despite tha fact that Kuwait is one of the richest oil nations around. The only people we left behind were clean up crews to extinguish the oil wells Saddam set on fire. Powell re-emphasized the fact that we are not doing this to get our hands on their (Iraq's) oil.

Make of that what you will. No doubt we will have plenty of nay sayers.;)

mabudonicus
01-26-2003, 10:20 AM
Now THIS is podracing:D ;) !!!!

All's I'll say is, SK99- kuwait is totally politically a puppet of the west, man, Britain "created" the "country" some years ago to make sure that the richest oil land in the world was under the control of a "thankful/sympathetic/paid-for" government..... kuwait was a part of Iraq up till that point....
And why not ask Turkey to give some land to the Kurds?? They have the same stance on that issue as Iraq does, and they are good guys, so you never hear about it, at least not the way it's hammered on in the current situation.....
I don't know everthing, please again take what I say with a grain of salt, please realize that I'm NOT a US citizen, and despite the "this is the whole world's proble" rhetoric, I wish that the country right next to ours wasn't so eager for war, as it truly does seem that way and frankly it scares me (as I imagine it does others here, look at how this thread has been quite level toned yet urgent at the same time, a lot of us are thinking about it pretty hard, and for the most part analytically, thanks to everyone for that as well)

EricRG
01-26-2003, 02:05 PM
al Queda has made it known since 9/11 that US policy in the Middle East is the reason for the events that took place. Specifically, they want the US to:
1) Stop funding Israel
2) Get out of Saudi Arabia
3) Lift sanctions against Iraq (which are responsible for thousands and thousands of civilian deaths.)
That's their reasons. From what I've seen/read, they could care less about the Iraqi gov't, BUT do care for the Iraqi people. There doesn't necessarily need to be a connection between the Iraqi gov't and al Queda. They have already issued warnings about a US attack on Iraq. And wouldn't proceeding with such an attack despite such warnings be tatamount to the "doing nothing" of Bill Clinton that helped precipitate 9/11 that you love to disparage?
Yeah yeah yeah JC, you BELIEVE they haven't disarmed. So does the rest of Bush's supporters. Is BELIEF enough for a war? No.

Fulit
01-26-2003, 02:17 PM
And do you think we should do all those things?


And wait a minute, al Qeda(sp?) says it's our policy that is respnsible for the war they started? So you believe them, then?

sith_killer_99
01-26-2003, 02:36 PM
Of course, if we do not give in to these terrorists then our actions would be tantamount to those which precipitated 9/11!:crazed:

It makes perfectly logical sense.:confused:

Old Fossil
01-26-2003, 02:57 PM
Doing nothing certainly worked wonders for Britain and France in 1938-39. Neville Chamberlain, Munich Pact, "Peace in our time," and all that jazz.

Tycho
01-26-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Fulit
And do you think we should do all those things?


And wait a minute, al Qeda(sp?) says it's our policy that is respnsible for the war they started? So you believe them, then?

Elements of Western policy, this includes all the European colonial powers: Spain (fought Muslems once - remember the Moores?), France (carved up Africa, Vietnam, Indies, Canada), (England) United Kingdom (went just about everywhere), Germany (only tried to take over one planet), Japan (attempted to take China, Korea, Vietnam & more) and the United States (as we cleaned up the previous nations' messes and then took over or attempted to) have all strongly impacted less-advanced, non-white cultures.

Pretend you were not white, not Western, and minded your own business trying to improve your own country. How would you feel?

Now give yourself a religion that makes you believe you should witness and tell everyone else what a great feeling you've discovered when you simplify your life and cut out bad influences.

Now try and be content with that.

Uh-oh. Those Western folks are coming back again, and they want to rip you off and under-pay you for natural reasources your country has, because you are not white, and you are not advanced yet enough to have developed those resources so your people are prosperous and all drive cars instead of ride animals, etc. How do you feel about that?

I just said that you should give us gasoline at 10 cents a gallon and that's because your a stupid, superstitious non-white who I am only talking to because you have one thing I want.

Oh -and I can't help it if our satelite beams over movies with naked women and things that tempt unrest in your culture and upset your society's resolve to all conform to one ideal.

(the equivalent of that homogenous one-ideal society would be related to here, if all Americans spoke English, did not join ethnic street gangs, or listen to gangsta rap music about cop-killing, and did not threaten to make your life totally unpleasant when you're caught in the middle of a gas-station-convenience-store cash robbery, where neither the clerks nor the crooks speek fluent English or have more than an 8th grade level of education)

Oh- and by the way, in your little, undeveloped, backward utopia, you are dictator and have absolute power, because you were smart enough to make some deals with these interlopers and bought some guns a few years ago - but your people don't have them, so that's ok. Meanwhile, you can have as many women, StarWars figures, or whatever you want. If you make yourself stronger with bigger guns, you can get these things by making yourself tougher at the bargaining table so they give you more than 10 cents per gallon.

But ultimately, they can over-run your country and end your contented living.

But there are 2 deterrants to that:

1) covert warfare (your term for terrorism) - so you don't have to have superior forces, just hit them where it will hurt

2) nuclear deterrants - the crazier they think you are, and the more capability you have, the more you get at the table. Here's to hoping you don't develop a bi-polar disorder when inspecting your new weapons you have to play with. - oh and Bio-weapons really scare them, too. Don't forget that.

So finally, you have some method to negotiate more. But everything could be just fine, but there's some things that still irk you:

1) There's a group of people that are more like you than these other Western people are - and they're laughed at too. They lost control of the lands they lived on because the West hurt their Jews, but still didn't want to live near them, so they gave one contemptable element of their society, control over the land of another group of backward people that they found even more contemptable. (That is, the West could get rid of those non-conforming Jews and get them out of our site, but they mostly look and live like us. So we'll take away land from non-whites, who are by far much worse, and the Jews will be greatful enough that they'll let us visit our shared holy lands and even buy weapons from us). But hey, since you're a non-white, little backward people yourselves, doesn't that smack of somebody still disrespecting you? Shut-up. You're not a modern power. You're opinion doesn't matter!

2) Shouldn't that land, a site that's holy to your religion, be open for pilgrimages to anyway? Oh, but the whites will racially profile you if you go there because you're surely a terrorist no matter what you do anyway.

So why not do what they expect you to do?

There opinion has never changed about you. You find their hate for you to make you have no love for them. If you hurt some of them, their democratic ways will weaken their elistist leaders, who will eventually find themselves replaced by peace-lovers you can exploit some concessions from. Of course you risk being blasted into oblivion - but you can call their bluff because they think you live in oblivion already.


Did I basically sum it up so you guys can see it from the other side?

I don't agree with Iraq's position. I understand it though. And until we can come up with a better position that they would be interested in taking, I'm not sure what can solve this situation, but it will just continue unless we do invade. If we do, we are only proving their point about us. Let's be sure we are right it's necessary for our safety before we become the bad guys. When blood is shed, revenge is all that they will want next. History has 2 sides to every story. Of course ours will say we are right. What else would it say?

EricRG
01-26-2003, 06:20 PM
You know, yes, I do think the US should support a Palestinian state. Israel is Palestinian land. Saudi Arabia is an ally to us and allows us to be there. I don't think there is anything wrong that. And the world policy towards Iraq has resulted in nothing but the starvation of Iraqi civilians.

So Fulit, why do YOU think 9/11 happened? Just because OB Laden is just so full of jealousy and hatred for the US? Yes he does hate us, but it's not out of jealousy. It's because he has a political agenda and I do agree with a lot of his ideas...JUST NOT HIS METHOD OF ADDRESSING THESE PROBLEMS. Same with the Palestinians and Arafat and the PLO.

Now, the National Anthem before the Super Bowl is on. What is it about? War. Boy it makes me feel so.....proud to be a country based upon war as the bottom line.

Fulit
01-26-2003, 07:13 PM
I don't presume to know why. Wow, you don't like being a part of a country where war is the bottom line? But you agree with Bin Laden's ideas? I can't say I think his motives were justified, no matter what the leaders of our oft-misguided country did to cheese off these *ss backward nations who chop off each others hands for stealing and stone women to death for showing more than their face in public, not to mention what they do to homosexuals. Arabic nations just try to improve their citizens lives, and we get in the way? That must be why so many in Afghanistan were found eating dirt under the rule of the Taliban. Are they included in the list of innocent Muslim nations we've supposedly screwed over? Look, I'm not saying the U.S. always plays fair, but last time I checked, I was a citizen of this country, and those "poor" Muslims over there would like to kill me for it. Why the hell should I feel sorry for them? Sure, I have questions and problems with things our leaders do, but if it comes down to it, it's only logical to me to support the country I live and take refuge in.

Tycho
01-26-2003, 08:22 PM
No doubt we all should be proud and thankful to be Americans.

We are very lucky - but we should not let the pride delude us to think that our leaders are perfect and everything they do, we should be proud of.

Probably no one posting in this thread will have a chance to serve in Congress, or become President. I may actually make the attempt. I already hold some minor political positions and I know how I want to ascend on both merit, and luck that my rhetoric and philosophy will be subscribed to. Of course it all seems logical to be, but not my statistical probabilities at mine or anyone else's chances of ascending to power here. Don't kid yourself: when we really advance, we do so only at the desire of those who are already there. Those folks in power, are shielded from the consequences we have to face, for the reactions to their decisions - such as war.

As I come from a military family and have the strongest respect for those who serve, I know that wars can be fought for our rich, often on the backs of our poor. Kids join the military out of high school because they don't have access to free college educations and need the GI Bill - one way our government rewards them for their service which is good. Others don't even know if they'll go to college - they hated school, so this is just a place where a drill sargeant will tell them what to do, and they don't have to think for themselves. The Navy assumes sailors don't know how to be gentlemen and makes courses on how to treat women, and foreign civilians mandatory. I believe conduct BECOMING of a Marine is also taught, featuring the same thing - because the military won't take the chance that these kids' families didn't teach them this stuff, and neither did the public schools.

My father's case was different. He was already graduating college, but the draft for the Vietnam War was on, and my father's education was nearly complete, plus he was into sailboat racing etc., so volunteering for the Navy appealed more to him than serving in the army. He excelled in the military, entered active duty after Officer Candidate School, and rose to command virtually all the sailors and Marines on his ship, where he was the Executive Officer of a destroyer. He served on the frontline of the Cuban Missle Crisis and during the escalation of Vietnam, though I never knew his political views on that conflict. His ship fired warning shots, and he never said much more about any other weapons fire after that. I KNOW he was anti-USSR / anit-Cuba as you'd guess. He always spoke of duty to the Country, though I think he voted Democratic (for Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis) - while other members of my family are Republican - the wealthy ones in my family's case.

But just because we'd support our troops, does not mean we need to support our President.

AND WE DEFINITELY CAN FEEL SORRY FOR THE IRAQIS - even those that want to hurt us.

Why? They are jealous, or coerced or brain-washed by another elitist leader type that all nations have, whether frequently or not.

There are many ways to make them not want to kill you, and even decide they can trust and like you.

Killing them is only one way to accomplish that. It is the easiest way.

In self-defense, it can be required to take the easiest way - but can we trust our President, given the reasons we have to doubt him stemming back from the election of 2000, to all his other agendas from economic policy, to conflicts of interest in making decisions that affect energy trade, to tell us the truth as to whether we need to take these actions in self defense now?

Contrast this with WWII: then there were peace protests and people that didn't want to get involved to stop Hitler. At the time, concentration camps and the Holocaust were just rumors. I'm not sure how much we knew about all that before we went in.

Stories go that President Rooseveldt (a Democrat) knew the Japanese would strike Pearl Harbor, and he let it happen to sway public opinion to let us enter the war. It ended up being for the greater good.

This might also. However, I don't know if Rooseveldt had as many conflicts of interest as Bush does, going into this. In addition, his family's history with this enemy is more to make us suspicious.

So was it good that we invaded Normandy and pressed into Berlin? Yes.

How about the bombs we dropped on Japan? I'm still undecided. Did we value life there less because they were not whites? Was it a better target, because it was an island nation, and if we miscalculated, a bomb dropped on Japan would not hit China or Korea, as easily as a bomb dropped on Germany could affect Belgium, Switzerland, France, etc? We'd never dropped an active-duty bomb in war before. For that reason, a racist argument can't exactly be proved - or didn't encompass absolutely everyone agreeing we should've dropped the bomb. The main reason given, was it would cost that many more lives of American and Japanese troops if we didn't just sacrafice - the supposedly military targets for our nukes, versus all the lives that would be lost if we fought The Emperor on his turf, in a ground battle. (There were still Samurai, Ninjas, or whatever over there amongst the Emperor's troops).

But back to today, did September 11 happen because our government allowed it to happen, or even planned it to get us into a fray in the MiddleEast? For our elite's profits? For the better, greater good? Is it just coincidence? Does al Queda have anything to do with Iraq? Why don't we also invade other countries where human rights travesties are occuring? Why not attack Pakistan, North Korea, etc? Or why do our churches spend so much effort to send everyone missionaries, and our government can't be so bothered to send these despotic nations advisors to teach them democracy in exchange for food, aide, even guns if they don't realize that an armed and educated populace, with our CIA, could then depose the single dictator and leave behind a democracy, whether religiously based or not, behind in its wake.

Jedi Clint
01-26-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
al Queda has made it known since 9/11 that US policy in the Middle East is the reason for the events that took place. Specifically, they want the US to:
1) Stop funding Israel
2) Get out of Saudi Arabia
3) Lift sanctions against Iraq (which are responsible for thousands and thousands of civilian deaths.)
That's their reasons. From what I've seen/read, they could care less about the Iraqi gov't, BUT do care for the Iraqi people. There doesn't necessarily need to be a connection between the Iraqi gov't and al Queda. They have already issued warnings about a US attack on Iraq. And wouldn't proceeding with such an attack despite such warnings be tatamount to the "doing nothing" of Bill Clinton that helped precipitate 9/11 that you love to disparage?
Yeah yeah yeah JC, you BELIEVE they haven't disarmed. So does the rest of Bush's supporters. Is BELIEF enough for a war? No.

http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=216433#post216433

JUST in case you missed that. Iraq also had a few empty rockets that they "forgot about", and then produced four more after we found the first batch. The burden of proof is not on us. The information they gave us in the past doesn't account for thousands of chemical weapons (WofMD). Just out of curiosity, what would satisfy your desire for proof? Perhaps if we search every square inch of ground, in every building, and all of their underground (if we can find them) facilities all the while knowing exactly what was going on in the entirety of the rest of Iraq (just in case they decide to move things while were checking in other spots).....maybe then you'd be happy?

Tycho,

What 2000 Election "reasons" do we have not to support the President in his decision to disarm Iraq? We can get to your other "reasons" after you explain that one.

Tycho
01-26-2003, 09:54 PM
1) a conservative supreme court decided it - there's politics there.

2) it came down to Florida - where Jeb Bush is governor.

3) a full state's recount was never done on the spot*

4) I wonder whether we'd have had a 9/11 if Gore was in office

5) If they were looking to do this during Sr's admin. they never could beat Clinton. Again if Dole had been Prez., I wonder if we'd have had a 9/11 and a war with Afghan, then Iraq.

* There was some independent media recounts. Not sure how extensive they were (whole state, or select counties). Not sure if military and overseas vote wasn't tampered with.

+ Does anyone here believe that the election cannot be tampered with (by either party)? That we are so much beyond just a banana republic?

+ Do people here think other nations see us as a banana republic after that election?

Jedi Clint
01-26-2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
1) a conservative supreme court decided it - there's politics there.


No Tycho, they stopped the ballots from being futher spoiled.



2) it came down to Florida - where Jeb Bush is governor.


So what. How did Jeb tamper with the counting of votes? Please be specific.



3) a full state's recount was never done on the spot*


A statewide recount was completed almost immediately.



4) I wonder whether we'd have had a 9/11 if Gore was in office


Pointless.



5) If they were looking to do this during Sr's admin. they never could beat Clinton. Again if Dole had been Prez., I wonder if we'd have had a 9/11 and a war with Afghan, then Iraq.


Once again. Point being?



* There was some independent media recounts. Not sure how extensive they were (whole state, or select counties). Not sure if military and overseas vote wasn't tampered with.


The entire state was recounted once. Al didn't win. A few counties in Dem country were counted multiple times. Al didn't win. Several media organizations (including those supporting liberal interests) recounted the contested ballots several times. Al still didn't win. Poor li'l Al hasn't won a count to date. No military ballots were tampered with. There was some contention over some of the applications to recieve some of those ballots being legitimate because they had permitted them to write the voter I.D. numbers on them, but the ballots themselves were unspoiled. Al did his best to disenfrancise those military personel though.



+ Does anyone here believe that the election cannot be tampered with (by either party)? That we are so much beyond just a banana republic?


I think Al did a damn good job of tampering with that election :)



+ Do people here think other nations see us as a banana republic after that election?

If they know the facts, they would have no doubt as to the outcome of the election.

derek
01-26-2003, 10:27 PM
1) a conservative supreme court decided it - there's politics there.

only after a liberal florida state court tried to re-write election rules after the election. that is the job of the state legislature, and if the law was going to be changed it should be done before an election.


2) it came down to Florida - where Jeb Bush is governor

this means nothing. all the election problems were in three counties run by democrats, and thier democrat approved so-called confusing ballots.


3) a full state's recount was never done on the spot

gore never wanted, or asked for a full recount of the state. he only wanted to recount 3 counties who are known to vote for democrats.


* There was some independent media recounts. Not sure how extensive they were (whole state, or select counties). Not sure if military and overseas vote wasn't tampered with.

state wide re-counts were done by NUMEROUS credible media groups, not right wing nuts, and bush won every time.


+ Does anyone here believe that the election cannot be tampered with (by either party)? That we are so much beyond just a banana republic

tampering......that's just what democrats were attempting. they were actually trying to manufacture votes, which is illegal. the florida supreme court was allowing this, which is illegal, and the supreme court had to step in.

i'm no republican, but i followed this whole mess very closely. gore lost, fair and square. get over it.

Tycho
01-26-2003, 11:23 PM
JediClint, we should bury this side trip quickly, as the thread is really about the war, but the election has a relation, so to finish the election 2000 part quickly....

How do you think the Supreme Court stopped the ballots from being further spoiled?

Obviously you know politics is about compromises and traded favors, how do you think a Court with a majority of justices apointed by Republicans for their conservative values would vote?

Point of information: how did the justices appointed by liberal presidents vote? (I'm sure they could have been biased towards Gore's case, for his favorable outcome, just like the conservatives would side with Bush, but I'd be interested if any of them voted against Gore)

NEW POINT: if the election came down to a state with a governor not related to the President, or not even Republican, wouldn't it have looked less suspicious?

If it could have been rigged in Florida, rigging it in Democratic precincts would have looked less suspicious.

Are you sure a STATEWIDE recount was completed almost immediately? Was it by the same folks who did the first count?

(I do seem to recall that now.)


My question as to whether 9/11 would have happened if Gore had been elected in 2000, or Dole in 1996 is whether an war for MiddleEast oil was on the hawk's agenda since way back when something happened and George Bush Sr. couldn't take down Baghdad, so it was supposed to continue as soon as they got rid of Clinton, who was a much stronger opponent to beat than Gore.

As far as you thinking Al Gore tampered with the election, do you also think it's possible that if the Republicans wanted to tamper with an election, that a state where the brother of their candidate was governor would be an easy place for them to do it?

On the international viewpoint, that's just the thing - there is the truth, and then there are facts that are spewed out by what we got as our collected information. So whether a "fact" is the truth, and whether or not its believed are all different things. Do you think the international community believed they got believeable facts about Bush's victory?

Derek actually made really interesting, and more credible points. No offense JC. I just felt it was harder to debate his responses, but I am still thinking about them. (not conceeding, Derek ;) )

Jedi Clint
01-26-2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
JediClint, we should bury this side trip quickly, as the thread is really about the war, but the election has a relation, so to finish the election 2000 part quickly....

How do you think the Supreme Court stopped the ballots from being further spoiled?


They count hasn't changed since your buddies in Florida stopped manipulating them :). Counted and Counted and Al still hasn't won.



Obviously you know politics is about compromises and traded favors, how do you think a Court with a majority of justices apointed by Republicans for their conservative values would vote?

Point of information: how did the justices appointed by liberal presidents vote? (I'm sure they could have been biased towards Gore's case, for his favorable outcome, just like the conservatives would side with Bush, but I'd be interested if any of them voted against Gore)


The libs supported your boy, and the conservatives supported mine. I don't think any of them were unbiased in their decision.



NEW POINT: if the election came down to a state with a governor not related to the President, or not even Republican, wouldn't it have looked less suspicious?


I don't really care how it looked. I am intested in FACTS Tycho.



If it could have been rigged in Florida, rigging it in Democratic precincts would have looked less suspicious.


Your going to have to clarify this.



Are you sure a STATEWIDE recount was completed almost immediately? Was it by the same folks who did the first count?

(I do seem to recall that now.)


Yes I am sure. It was a manual recount. All of the counties in the state recounted and returned their totals.



My question as to whether 9/11 would have happened if Gore had been elected in 2000, or Dole in 1996 is whether an war for MiddleEast oil was on the hawk's agenda since way back when something happened and George Bush Sr. couldn't take down Baghdad, so it was supposed to continue as soon as they got rid of Clinton, who was a much stronger opponent to beat than Gore.


So what your are saying is that you aren't introducing any facts to support your "Gore wouldn't have let 9/11 happen" theory. Ok. Gothcha.



As far as you thinking Al Gore tampered with the election, do you also think it's possible that if the Republicans wanted to tamper with an election, that a state where the brother of their candidate was governor would be an easy place for them to do it?


That doesn't answer the question I asked you. HOW did Jeb tamper with the election?



On the international viewpoint, that's just the thing - there is the truth, and then there are facts that are spewed out by what we got as our collected information. So whether a "fact" is the truth, and whether or not its believed are all different things. Do you think the international community believed they got believeable facts about Bush's victory?


I haven't done any polling worldwide. What they think really doesn't make any difference in this debate.



Derek actually made really interesting, and more credible points. No offense JC. I just felt it was harder to debate his responses, but I am still thinking about them. (not conceeding, Derek ;) )

If you really want to believe that you debated my responses easily, then all the more power to you. No offense taken.

Derek did bring up some valuable info. The Liberal dominated FL Supreme court did change the rules after the election to help out Albert. Al also focused his recounting effort on those few counties where he felt he had the best chance of stealing the election.

Tycho
01-27-2003, 01:16 AM
I can't prove that Jeb Bush ordered people to help his brother steal the election.

I don't believe that for a fact. I think it is a good idea to question whether it happened though. There is motive.

I don't think Jeb Bush influenced the Governor of Illinois into changing all the death sentences in his respective state. Maybe he did?

Just the same, there's less probable reasons to think so.

JediClint, you cannot prove that Jeb didn't order things done so that his brother won the election.

We're not insiders anywhere, so far as I know.

As to Gore "not allowing 9/11 to happen?"

1) if it really had nothing to do with any Americans plotting this against our own people, he would not have prevented it, most likely.

2) if it was some kind of big sacrafice made to make Americans want to go to war, and actually planned by hawks in our own government in league with Bin Laden, and alligned with military (command) interests, and energy company interests, then I'd expect Gore would not have gone along with it. Bush might not have gone along with it either, but he might have been easier to lie to, easier to puppeteer, than Gore would have been.

But Bush had to be in office in order for this thing to work. His father had all the connections they'd need. And he was beholden to all those invested in it: energy companies are self-explanatory. Military generals and admirals can leave and become highly paid war industry consultants and CEO's when they retire from active duty. President Eisenhower (a Republican) warned us about the military industrial complex making a coup de tat when Kennedy wouldn't escalate the war in Vietnam. Kennedy died shortly afterwards. His brother would have been elected, too.

Gore didn't need to be shot. They were much better at it - if they did something this time. See - we don't know. And Gore can make himself look like a jealous idiot if he continues to protest it. But he didn't scare too easily. But he has family, and his family might have even been threatened. I'm not Al's son. Are you? Then neither of us can know. But we can tell there could be motivations there.

People that wanted a pipeline from Iraq through Afghanistan and up to Europe could have motivations for all of this.

Osama Bin Laden was just a little bit smarter than Lee Harvey Oswald, who couldn't have killed Kennedy. But Oswald was dirty. And so is Bin Laden - just smart enough to not get caught, make a good deal, or double-cross those that set this up so he comes out alive, plus gets to do something he enjoys: attack America and reap the imfamy - or heroism over there... He gets more powerful, either way. But he's been gambling with his life big time.

But he's been at that for a long time. Oswald was working for the CIA when he defected to the Soviet Union and lived over there, taking for a wife, the daughter of some high Soviet official.

No doubt Oswald was part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but he might have not even known he would be the patsy. Obviously he knew that others would be the shooters, because as a military man, he would have seen the folly of setting up that shot.

So, if they were going to do something like that again, (elites, special interest groups in military hardware and energy sales), they'd be more careful, and this time instead of making Gore look like the victim, they made him both the loser, and the patsy.

Pretty clever if true.

And we don't know if it were true, because we aren't elites. Heck, President Bush doesn't know what happened, or even if he won the election fair and square most likely.

And if Bush is smarter than popular opinion rates him, we could be in worse hands.

Elites do not pay the price of a war!

Fulit
01-27-2003, 09:02 AM
There was a funny political cartoon in my local paper Sunday, it featured Bush and Chirac (French Prez) nose to nose, and Bush is saying to Chirac, "I am trying to give you a backbone." And Chirac is saying to Bush, "And I am trying to give you a brain."

No matter how you slice it, that's pretty funny.

Vortex
01-27-2003, 11:18 AM
not to jump into a 2 way debat here...

But wasn't it Slick Willy (Clinton) who launched that missle into that home which was hosting that birthday party that was tied to Bin or that he was expected to be there? Clinton made a move to get rid of him once and for all and failed.

I serioulsy doubt 9/11 would have been stopped or put on hold due to who was in office at that time. Also if I remember my news right...on CNN on friday or last week they talked about Al Q. switching to assanations, and Clinton was on the hit list. I don't think the terriorist care whos in office or what political party is ruling. It would have happened regardless.

As for the US military and the previuos Iraq war...that war was never about expelling so-damb-insane. Our primary mission was to liberate Kuait...not to do in so-damb-insane. The other problems with the US military is the fact that they still do a half-assed job finishing what they start. Nam, Korea, Libia, Desert Storm, the current war on terriorism. We do just enough to get by and never really finish the job we started to do. As soon as the public looses interest we back down. The US is too afraid of casualities and loss of public support. We have the means, man power, and technology to finish the wars, get our man, but yet we don't apply full pressure and accomplish the missions.

As for this whole florida tampering with the votes...let it go. Florida was just made a larger issue since it was hung and a family member was gov. and add on the problems with the ballots. I remember a big stink arising in Wis because members of the dem party were paying homeless in cigarettes to go vote for al gore. But since the electorial college already voted for al, it was a done deal. Even here in MN. In every pre-election poll Bush won by a fair %, yet the election night the electorial college already gave its vote to al, prior to all the votes being tallied. Bush probably won the popular vote, but this being a heavy demoractic state already passed its votes on prior to having all the information or votes tallied.

No system is perfect, and if we really want a fair system, do away with the electorial college, and make everyone go vote. WE should impose a fine like Australia does, if you don't go and vote.

If I remember right weren't some other states missing their votes or returns? The only reason why florida was a big deal is beacuse it held just enough electorial votes to possibly put al over the top and the win?

EricRG
01-28-2003, 03:22 AM
Well, it looks like G-Dub is ready to show us his evidence against Iraq. My question is, why did he wait until now? Because it took a drastic fall in his approval rating to bring this out. Pretty sad, actually. BUT- if Bush can show CONCLUSIVELY (sorry JC, I don't care which world organization BUSH coerced into making the rules for this game, in any case where war is the consequence, the burden of proof is upon the accuser. I'm not talking UN rules...I'm talking the morally correct thing to do) that Iraq HAS WMD *AND* plans to use them against the US, then yeah, disarm him. I hope for his political future, that he has something good. ;)

plasticfetish
01-28-2003, 04:10 AM
OK. Since I'm hopped up on Hershey's chocolate and Starbuck's coffee right now I'll toss this out there.

I think the need for some of you to question the war and the "system" in general is commendable. I don't think as a nation we've fought to get where we are just to wander blindly from one conflict to another without needing to know why. Questioning and in some ways attacking authority is good ... It keeps them from being totally corrupt. Not that I truly believe that they don't manage anyway, but at the same time to those who are arguing the "pro-war" point ... I'll sympathize as I'm not inclined to believe that our government is totally sinister. Sure, there's agendas, histories, hidden battles, secret motives and probably a few hands held out to collect a buck if possible. I would even think that as a result of this situation, someone somewhere is going to make a whole LOT of money. Could be the people that manufacture spy planes ... could be the people that manufacture gasoline ... could be the folks that make those "Saddam Insane!" bumper stickers. I don't know. What I do know, is that I don't believe we'd get ourselves into anything, if there wasn't SOME good reason. Fine! Now we're going to find out why ... going to see the "evidence". I doubt we're going to see anything that the people who fix the big messes don't want us to see. I also doubt that the motives behind any war are as sinister as some would have us believe. I have faith in people, it may be naive, but I do believe that somewhere somebody's looking out for our better interests.

In the mean time ... keep debating, keep questioning and never assume anyone is on the up and up, just because they've got a fancy title and look good on camera.

Fulit
01-28-2003, 09:57 AM
"But Saddam has been complying with U.N. inspectors"
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/67625.htm

mabudonicus
01-28-2003, 10:46 AM
WOW... with all the evidence in that article, I guess we're good to go!!!
That's way better than "the Iraquis are lying", lot's more meat on the bones.....
I imagine that if this article were presented to the UN, Iraq would be flattened tout suite , with everyone knowing that the right decision was made......
I'm gonna sleep easy tonight, man!!
(sorry, but big articles like that which say SOMEONE has learned SOMETHING do not exactly constitute empirical evidence, and yet I get into conversations with lots of people who would tell me that I was an IDIOT for questioning such an article , and it seemes like "public opinion" is based, by and large, on knee-jerk reactions to sinister headlines)
Ahhhhh, sorry, I'm not slamming anyone here, I've just been ticked off at "civilisation" lately, I'll mellow out again soon, yellow journalism (can you even SAY that anymore) is one of my pet peeves...

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 10:54 AM
I think the important point of Blix and el Baradei's report is that there is no proof of WMD, and that more time for inspections are needed.

Iraq Needs to co operate fully, that much is true. Still, I don't think Bush was handed the jumping point for war that he was hoping for.

Fulit
01-28-2003, 11:16 AM
Did I say it was overwhelming, compelling evidence? No, it was just to point out that its ridiculous to second-guess Iraq. People want proof all in one big package, its the little bits and pieces that add up. Why would he dissuade his people to comply unless he had something to hide? Don't you think if you wanted to avert a war, you'd show the U.N. whatever they wanted to see? C'mon people, Iraq is full of it, and for that matter so is America on some things, but who's more full of it, you decide for yourself.

Wait, it's me. I'm more full of it. :crazed:

Not to be a smart*ss, this is a serious question:

What "evidence" would make you consider that war might be a neccessity?

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 11:28 AM
You could make the same argument about Americas "evidence" Fulit.

Blix had to practically beg for the scraps he has been given, yet the US and british intelligence considered to be the "smoking gun" is not being revealed to the inspectors. Talk about hampering the disarmament process. IF GWB's primary goal was disarmament, and not disarmament through war, invasion, and takeover, would they not provide their "evidence" to the inspectors freely?

The problem here is, on both sides, we're dealing with politicians, and politicians are bastiches..... Both sides want to control the flow of information to suit there purposes.

The fact is, the inspectors who left in '94 managed to locate and destroy far more WMD's and related materials than the US forces did during desert storm. The process is proven to work, at least it's proven more than military action is....

stillakid
01-28-2003, 11:38 AM
Well, tonight we hear W's "compelling" argument about why war is necessary and imperative (as well as other "spin" about how well our economy is doing :rolleyes: ).

Whatever the case, it's clear that he doesn't have compelling evidence to present to anyone. At least not enough to convince our allies to pick up their weapons and join us.

So do we "go it alone" with the definite outcome of alienating our longstanding alliances all in the name of grabbing some more oil fields for W. and his father's friends?

Or should we just hang out, knowing full well that Iraq is misbehaving, but take the high road and better cement those international bonds that we formed in the wake of the Cold War and 9/11?

The latest polls indicate that terrorism is far more of a concern to Americans and the world than Hussein is. Also, W. is so hell-bent on finishing his father's job that he's neglecting the economy. What's this mean? It means that he's not listening. Big surprise there, but the real question is, how to stop him and his party before they bury this country and world a hole so deep that we won't know how to dig ourselves out again.

Protest marches?
Letters?
National Strike?
When's that next election?

Any other ideas?

Jedi Clint
01-28-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Well, it looks like G-Dub is ready to show us his evidence against Iraq. My question is, why did he wait until now? Because it took a drastic fall in his approval rating to bring this out. Pretty sad, actually. BUT- if Bush can show CONCLUSIVELY (sorry JC, I don't care which world organization BUSH coerced into making the rules for this game, in any case where war is the consequence, the burden of proof is upon the accuser. I'm not talking UN rules...I'm talking the morally correct thing to do) that Iraq HAS WMD *AND* plans to use them against the US, then yeah, disarm him. I hope for his political future, that he has something good. ;)

And I ask you again what it would take to prove that to you?

I guess I don't see any reason why anyone should take the anti-war-mongers seriously when they simply disregard information that supports their opposition's position on the issue of disarming Iraq, and seem only to make their presence known when a conservative leader is championing a cause such as this.

I've seen enough to make me believe that Iraq has not disarmed, but then again, I haven't been humming while sticking my fingers in my ears and shutting my eyes closed really tight ;). You want to know that Saddam is definitely going to use them on us? You are basically only going to be satisfied with inaction. I'm glad that the U.N. isn't using such standards in determining Iraq's threat level :)

Thanks for contributing the "death threat" article Fulit. If I were in their position I'd want my accuser sitting with me in those interviews as well.

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 01:28 PM
Hurm.......

Just HOW does Iraq plan on getting these WMD's they may have within range of a strike on the U.S.?

And, as of the report to the U.N. last night, the inspectors stance is that there is no proof, YET, of Iraqs programs, but they have not been fully co operative, and they need to start. Baradei himself essentially stated that Iraq has no Nuclear weapons program.

I agree, some anti war folks directly ignore the notions that Iraq has done anything wrong. However, the pro war side do the EXACT same thing when it comes to blindly excepting the spoonfed reasons their leader is doling out for why this will lead to war.

Still, while I supported the liberation of Kuwait, lets remember that Iraq were told by the US that they would not get involved in the first place. World pressure obviously played a part in Americas defense of kuwait, much more so than legitimate concern for the Kuwaiti population.

Desert storm was not nearly as succesful as the first un inspections in terms of locating and destroying Iraqi WMD's and related programs. Why not allow the UN inspectors to do their job to the fullest?

Jedi Clint
01-28-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Hurm.......

Just HOW does Iraq plan on getting these WMD's they may have within range of a strike on the U.S.?

And, as of the report to the U.N. last night, the inspectors stance is that there is no proof, YET, of Iraqs programs, but they have not been fully co operative, and they need to start. Baradei himself essentially stated that Iraq has no Nuclear weapons program.

I agree, some anti war folks directly ignore the notions that Iraq has done anything wrong. However, the pro war side do the EXACT same thing when it comes to blindly excepting the spoonfed reasons their leader is doling out for why this will lead to war.

Still, while I supported the liberation of Kuwait, lets remember that Iraq were told by the US that they would not get involved in the first place. World pressure obviously played a part in Americas defense of kuwait, much more so than legitimate concern for the Kuwaiti population.

Desert storm was not nearly as succesful as the first un inspections in terms of locating and destroying Iraqi WMD's and related programs. Why not allow the UN inspectors to do their job to the fullest?

At this point there isn't really any evidence that Iraq has an ICBM program that would allow it to hit the North American continent. I wouldn't put it past them to use some type of terrorist attack to deliver the payload though. I am more concerned with Saddam's goals of accomplishing the former, but we have interests and allies within range of Iraq's current suspected range of attack.

Rather than try to say what Blix said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html

I fault the resolution of Bush 1 for leaving Iraq before Saddam's threat was neutralized.

Anakin2121
01-28-2003, 02:00 PM
To Overlord Returns: How could they? UN inspectors are, for the most part, woefully inept.

*Don't shoot me*

EricRG
01-28-2003, 02:15 PM
Isn't it obvious what constitutes "proof"? A big ol' pile of sarin or anthrax or mustard gas or whatever. And the means to deliver such a payload AGAINST THE US. Either discovery of a plan to attack us directly, or something like a US military base in Saudi Arabia or something. For me, a threat to somewhere like Israel, for example, is ISRAEL's problem and not a reason for the US to jump in and start killing Iraqis. An actual ATTACK on Israel by Iraq might be a different issue...

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint

Rather than try to say what Blix said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html


Yeah, essentially, co operation has been high in many areas, and lacking in some. I agree, Iraq needs to co operate fully. Still no evidence there that constitutes war, and the Inspectors are keen on doing their job. let them do it.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint

I fault the resolution of Bush 1 for leaving Iraq before Saddam's threat was neutralized.

To an extent I agree with you there. Bush Sr. could have made the current war talk a non issue, provided that the U.S. did not take over Iraq summarily afterward. Funny thing is, al it took was a special forces unit (Britains SAS actually detailed a plan to go in and get Hussein out, which Bush turned down). A strike of this nature makes much more sense than an expensive war that sees civilians killed and young soldiers dead for no reason.

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Anakin2121
To Overlord Returns: How could they? UN inspectors are, for the most part, woefully inept.

*Don't shoot me*

What the hell are you talking about? They did a much better job of ridding Iraq of WMD's than military action ever did....

Jedi Clint
01-28-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Yeah, essentially, co operation has been high in many areas, and lacking in some. I agree, Iraq needs to co operate fully. Still no evidence there that constitutes war, and the Inspectors are keen on doing their job. let them do it.



To an extent I agree with you there. Bush Sr. could have made the current war talk a non issue, provided that the U.S. did not take over Iraq summarily afterward. Funny thing is, al it took was a special forces unit (Britains SAS actually detailed a plan to go in and get Hussein out, which Bush turned down). A strike of this nature makes much more sense than an expensive war that sees civilians killed and young soldiers dead for no reason.

We differ on our interpretation of that report. I don't trust Iraq. Their current level of cooperation coupled with evidence of his current acquisitions lead me to believe that Saddam has no intention of disarming without being forced to do so.

At this point I can't really second guess the military's strategy to destroy a leader's army in order to get to the leader. I agree that taking out Saddam and his inner circle at any point during conflict would be ideal. Basically as soon as they can get to him, they should. If history is any indication of how an attack on Iraq's military would go this time, then success would be swift and this time we may be better prepared to handle the mass exodus of troops surrenduring to us.

I don't have any problem with allowing inspectors to do their job. I just want them to take a vacation while we get rid of Saddam. I think that would make their jobs much easier so that elimination of WMD in that region could be far more effective.

Fulit
01-28-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Isn't it obvious what constitutes "proof"? A big ol' pile of sarin or anthrax or mustard gas or whatever. And the means to deliver such a payload AGAINST THE US. Either discovery of a plan to attack us directly, or something like a US military base in Saudi Arabia or something. For me, a threat to somewhere like Israel, for example, is ISRAEL's problem and not a reason for the US to jump in and start killing Iraqis. An actual ATTACK on Israel by Iraq might be a different issue...

Well, they'll never be able to find it if Saddam doesn't comply. And as far as the Israel thing, I actually agree with you on that one. I never understood why we kill ourselves supporting Israel so much. What obligation do we have towards them, aren't they capable of defending themselves?

sith_killer_99
01-28-2003, 02:57 PM
You know, yes, I do think the US should support a Palestinian state. Israel is Palistinian land.

Anti-Semitism always leaves me a bit cold, but I fell that this issue needs to be addressed.

1. The world, including the United Nations has recognized Israels' legitimate right to exist as a country. They do have a legitimate claim to land over there.

2. Support of Palastine also means supporting terrorism, especially with the likes of Yasser Arafat running things. Arafat will not be happy until every Jew is eradicated from the face of the earth. He has proven as much every chance he has had.

3. Palastinians are not, themselves terrorists, but many of their leaders are. I also recognize that both sides have spilled much blood over this issue. But in having read up on the issue, extensively, I honestly believe that the Palastinians have been guilty of much worse crimes than the Israelies.

4. The international community should be sick at what is happening over there. And the UN should force the issue of settlement and peace, but this will never happen.

5. The Jews have been kicked out of every single county in Europe and the Middle East at one time or another in history.

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 03:05 PM
Sithkiller, It is naive and reactionary to compare support of a palestinian state, or Palestines rights to land with anti semitism. It just isn't the case.

The fact is that land the Palestinians called home for centuries was taken from them in 1949 and given to the israelis as a jewish homeland. What they were given in return was a fraction of what they had, and they were given little choice in the matter. I feel both peoples need a homeland, but there also has to be equality in that agreement.

Both the PLO and the Israeli governments are to blame for the continued problems there, but I would not go so afar as to say what the Palestinians have done is far worse. Bloodshed is bloodshed, wether it's a suicide bomber or an armed tank division.

In a recent study, it was actually revealed that 85 % of palestinians and Israelis agreed with the most recent peace proposals set down. Who holds them up? The politicians on both sides......


Jedi Clint: I to think we interpret the report differently, however, neither one of us trust Iraq. The major differance I see is you trust GWB and his intentions....I do not.

sith_killer_99
01-28-2003, 03:15 PM
I did not say that support of a Palastinian state was anti-semetic, what I was saying was that removing the Israelies was anti-semetic.

EricRG said that the land was Palastinian. No mention or acceptance of the Israel anywhere in his remaks.

This is anti-semetic, in that the International community recognizes at least part of this land as Israelie land.

For the record, I support the idea of Palastinian and Israelie states.

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 03:19 PM
He didn't say kick them out..... he said israel is palestinian land.....that is true, from a certain point of view....

Besides, you can be anti "state of israel" without being anti semitic. Two different things.

Tycho
01-28-2003, 03:39 PM
If one is to believe the Bible, at least even in a historical context, the ancient Hebrews (Jews) were given the land by God.

However, that reference in the Old Testament is supported by the worlds 3 largest religions, including the very same history described in the Muslems' holy book the Koran (their Bible) which has everything in it as the Jewish and Christian Bibles, and then some.

So it is the Jews' land, from that standpoint. Muslems trace their origin to the Hebrew tribe of Ishmael (recall the 12 tribes of Israel). So I wonder why they think the other 11 tribes (or descendants of such) are entitled to 'get the hell out?'

It is my understanding that the tribe of Ishmael left the region to never be conquered by the Roman Empire. Jews under the thumb of the Empire were persecuted for not being Pagan (and worshipping Roman gods like Mars and Venus who they borrowed from the Greeks' Apollo and Aphrodite (same gods). Many Jews looked for their Messiah to deliver them. Christians believe he came as Christ, and eventually their beliefs infiltrated the Roman Empire, and it converted to Christianity. Jews that did not believe in Christ, remained Jews, but were dispersed throughout the Empire. As it fell, tribes descended from Ishmael's returned, accepting Christ had been a prophet, but not finding him to be the Messiah, according to another prophet, Mohammed.

What they started justifying retaking from the now-Christian Romans, they claimed they could take from the Jews, as they threw them in the same category as citizens and slaves of the Roman Empire.

Muslem anti-Semitism has its roots in anti-Romanism.

It's all rationalization to say who gets rights to the land. The truth is, many Jews never left it and Israel was supposedly established there by God, according to all 3 major religions.

Then it comes down to whether or not you believe in God. But all 3 major world religions do. So do their leaders?

The Overlord Returns
01-28-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
Then it comes down to whether or not you believe in God. But all 3 major world religions do. So do their leaders?

Only when it's convenient.

Tycho
01-28-2003, 03:52 PM
Exactly

stillakid
01-28-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
Then it comes down to whether or not you believe in God. But all 3 major world religions do. So do their leaders?

Much like a guy like Bin Laden claiming to fight for a "holy" cause, any of this "jihad" rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. The leaders wisely use that religious element because they know that the under-educated peasants that actually listen to them will believe it.

As Tycho mentioned, the fact is that before Israel was created, both Palestinians and Jews lived on that land. It never was just for the Palestinians, as those terrorists would have everyone believe.

Of course, Israel didn't help matters any by extending their borders, but they've also been in a constant battle because the Palestinian's refuse to accept Israel's existence in the first place.

What's really stupid is that if the Palestinians would just stop blowing themselves up and causing such a ruckuss, in time Israel would stop their own invasions and curfews and such. They could all live peacefully on that desert wasteland. But no. Because they've been convinced that this is some kind of "religious" struggle, the situation will never improve no matter what.

EricRG
01-28-2003, 06:30 PM
Stillakid and SK,

I know it's hard for us Westerners to imagine what it might be like to live in a Palestinian refugee camp. And watching all your family members starve to death or die of some other easily curable disease resulting from massive overcrowding. Why do Palestinians blow themselves up? Is it because they like to do that? Please give me a break if you believe that for a second. The fact of the matter is, the Palestinians who commit such acts are SO desperate as to be willing to do such things. They have no way (in thier eyes) to stand up to US supplied tanks and automatic weapons. Why do we always see these wonderful pictures of Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli tanks? Because that's basically the actual situation.

Having said all that, in no way do I support the PLOs or Islamic Jihads methods. They are old, tired and obviously get them nowhere. The fact of the matter is, if not for such terrorism (namely the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin - an act commited by ISRAELIS who didn't want a solution) there would have been an agreement between Israel and Palestine in the mid-90s.

I for one, could care less who the Bible thinks should own what land. The fact of the matter is, is that Palestinian land was taken from them in 1949 and never replaced. I agree that Israel at this point also has a right to exist...but they need to give up something for a Palestinians state. And I truly believe that that is all Arafat wants as well.

Fulit
01-28-2003, 07:34 PM
slightly off the subject:

*smirk* Maybe the U.N. should head towards Japan next:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1042491288304

jobi
01-28-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
.

I for one, could care less who the Bible thinks should own what land. The fact of the matter is, is that Palestinian land was taken from them in 1949 and never replaced. I agree that Israel at this point also has a right to exist...but they need to give up something for a Palestinians state. And I truly believe that that is all Arafat wants as well.

You know Eric I think that's the first thing you've said that I whole-heartedly agree with.:D

mabudonicus
01-29-2003, 09:54 AM
To follow you off topic just for a sec, Fulit...
Yeah, Japan should be dealt with, but Bush is afraid of Godzilla!!

Sorry to get yer hackles up, too, Fulit......
I swear I'm not one of those "whatever you say is right, I say is wrong" type of objectors, valid points are valid points...

I would at this time mention the "State of the union" address... some of it truly baffled me, like the whole "hydrogen cars" bit, I like the idea, but it seemed like it just came right outta nowhere, and it seemed he got off the subject as soon as he could....
And really, toward the end of the speech it started sounding like Lee Majors wrote the thing... that crack about how we don't have to worry about some of our enemies... right back to the old "wanted poster" comment......... he was a lot less about "evidence" and a whole lot more about "emotional reasons" IMO... correct me if I'm wrong, but did he not say something like how the evidence no longer matters???
Please, someone put a link to it or something, as there are a couple paragraphs that pertain directly to the conversation taking place in this thread..... I want to discuss the speech, and don't want to get anything right wrong, just for clarity

The Overlord Returns
01-29-2003, 09:57 AM
The speech itself provided nothing new. Obviously, the announcement that there is evidence to be presented February 5th is intriguing......

Oh, and BTW, it's nuclear George....NUCLEAR!

Fulit
01-29-2003, 10:02 AM
Wonder why he didn't mention that one guy, what was his name.? Tall fellow, turban, responsible for planning the deaths of thousands in NY and D.C? Well, his name escapes me, but I could've sworn just a year or so ago, Bush wanted him "dead or alive". Hmm, guess they forgot about him.


Did anyone play the State of the Union drinking game? You know, where you take a drink every time he says stuff like, "Amurika", "Nukyalur", "Weapons of Mash Destruction", or "terra". I have a link to it if anyone wishes to see it.

Jedi Clint
01-29-2003, 10:20 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76919,00.html


Originally posted by mabudon
that crack about how we don't have to worry about some of our enemies... right back to the old "wanted poster" comment.........


He never mentioned anything of the kind.


Originally posted by mabudon
he was a lot less about "evidence" and a whole lot more about "emotional reasons" IMO... correct me if I'm wrong, but did he not say something like how the evidence no longer matters???


That either.

The Overlord Returns
01-29-2003, 10:31 AM
I think Mabudon was reffering to the "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" statement....

mabudonicus
01-29-2003, 10:41 AM
"And many others have met a different fate. They are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."

That's the quote from the article.... in the actual speech, I swear he said (and I do not have a fast enough connection to verify, but I'm pretty sure, maybe his expression just said it) "Lets just say" , right after the word fate, and the "tell" he puts on everything, that little licking the upper lip, he did that then too...
That's the part I was talking about JC (oh, and thanks for the link man:))


"We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
I'm not going to quote the other blatant fearmongering, complete with all the emotional highjacking techniques and all, that's a matter of personal tolerance... what I was mentioning earlier is the word "BUT" in that quote, especially when mixed with all of the "disarm completely" jargon... I was under the impression that W's of MD were the issue, not complete disarmament to the point of utter defenselessness, which is what was implied last night...

Anyways, juts the word "BUT" gives a sort of carte blanche, where no evidence is actually required, if it is not found it will still happen... that's just my read on those points.... it's not like the speech wasn't crafted REAL tight, every word placed intentionally (too bad they mispelled "nucular" every time, though:):))

The Overlord Returns
01-29-2003, 05:04 PM
I thought the address last night would have sparked much more conversation than it has,.....

surprising.

EricRG
01-29-2003, 10:25 PM
That's because he said a whole load of nothing. Same as every other SOTU address I've ever heard.

mabudonicus
01-30-2003, 09:02 AM
I wonder, if our PM gave the same speech (of course, changing specifics so as to pertain to Canada), if the reaction would be any bigger.
Ahh, well, I agree, TOR, I thought there'd be a real buzz about certain points of the address... not so much the content itself, since it was just a reiteration of a lot of other points made elsewhere (cept for that hydrogen car bit, I still can't get over how "outta left field" that bit was), but maybe over the lack thereof....
I heard a comment on CNN just before it aired, saying that "if the leaked bits of the speech meet public approval, they stay in the speech"... not sure who it was attributed to, but it bears consideration, since there were rumours that W was going to announce/declare war on Iraq in the very address, rumours that were quashed soundly right before the speech....
I know this is pure speculation, but I imagine that that could have been the case, but the "leak" met with such dissent that the speech , the centrepiece of which would have been such a declaration, had to be retooled, and the result was like re-making a hamburger without the actual burger...
Just a thought, I expect no-one will agree with me, but this should create some kind of discussion/debate....
I guess it comes from the fact that since 911 I have been watching all the major speeches Bush gives, and as a Canadian, the regular domestic poilicy is not too exciting for the most part, and just like many Americans already learned, and I am learning to my chagrin, these "big Speeches" amount to nothing almost every time, the most interesting things in em seem to be the stuff that gets avoided....