PDA

View Full Version : Should the United States stand for anything?



stillakid
03-08-2003, 04:43 PM
There has been a plethora of issues of late which prompt the question above as well as many others like it. From the Pledge of Allegience controversy (removing "under God") to the actions of the government as the world's policeman, one starts to wonder what this nation does stand for if indeed it actually does. And if it should stand for anything at all?

What prompted this question in me? A couple days ago I was filling up my gas tank when this car pulls in next to me. On it was a bumper sticker that said "JESUS: AMERICA'S CHOICE." I could hardly believe my eyes. You see, I was brought up to believe that the United States was founded on the idea that EVERY (reasonable) choice (religious, political, artistic, etc.) was tolerated. The notion that "America" would have a preferential choice flies in the face of the Constitutional rights that are supposed to protect us all. This nation wasn't founded on Christian beliefs, rather on the idea that everyone was entitled to personal freedoms to do just about anything they wish (with certain obvious and understandable limits).

So, question one: What are your thoughts about a bumper sticker like that?

Question two: Should the United States, the bastion of democracy and freedom, actively attempt to spread this ideal around the globe for purely humanitarian reasons? Granted, there are probably a few people out there who enjoy living under dictatorships, but my guess is that most wouldn't mind too much if they also enjoyed the freedoms that we protect. So, should the US be actively engaged in trying to unseat tyrannical governments or should we merely exist and "teach" by example with the hopes that through the natural course of time, those who are oppressed in other nations will rise up on their own to claim the rights which are due them?

Fulit
03-08-2003, 04:46 PM
I hate stickers and thoughts like that. There was a lady here that wrote to the paper and said she didn't understand why Bush didn't declare this "A Christian Nation and bring us back to our roots." Well, I would've loved to show her the site I found one day that listed the various religions claimed by the founding fathers, and the majority were NOT Christian. Most were Unitarian. I'm really sick of high and mighty Christians and Muslims trying to push their crap on everyone.

LTBasker
03-08-2003, 05:15 PM
I'd rather have a country based around common sense.

derek
03-08-2003, 05:21 PM
Should the United States stand for anything?

yes. freedom and individual rights.(the right to live your life and own property as you see fit, without ANY governmental intervention)


Should the United States, the bastion of democracy and freedom, actively attempt to spread this ideal around the globe for purely humanitarian reasons?

no. the job of the federal government is to protect us from foreign invaders. the ironic thing is, that most of those against war in iraq have no problems at all about us sticking our noses in other countires business.:confused:

as one of the few "free" countries on the planet, we are morally justified in invading any country that opresses it's citizens, but ultimately, that is "their problem", to put it bluntly. when this country was a mere british colony, we didn't need someone to "free" us.

2-1B
03-08-2003, 10:47 PM
"As long as there's still sex and drugs, I could do without the rock and roll."
--Mick Shrimpton of Spinal Tap--

stillakid
03-08-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by derek
as one of the few "free" countries on the planet, we are morally justified in invading any country that opresses it's citizens, but ultimately, that is "their problem", to put it bluntly. when this country was a mere british colony, we didn't need someone to "free" us.

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, extend your above statement to Nazi Germany. Should we have just kept the German army from extending it's reach while allowing it to "oppress" it's own citizens within it's borders?

I guess the question is, where do we draw the line? The Northern Kurds have seen their share of similar "oppression." The same has happened in the Balkan's and many other "isolated" parts of the globe. What would constitute a legitimate stage of "oppression" to justify US intervention?

derek
03-08-2003, 11:49 PM
Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, extend your above statement to Nazi Germany. Should we have just kept the German army from extending it's reach while allowing it to "oppress" it's own citizens within it's borders?

i'm no history expert, but if i recall correctly, the vast majority of european countries hitler invaded never put up a fight. they just let hitler come in and take over. if they had stood up and fought, there may have never been a WW2.

if i were president, i would not enter into war unless my country was directly threatened. if private US citizens felt a duty to free oppressed jews in germany, i would not stand in their way to go and fight. but i stand by my view that the sole purpose of a government is to protect it's citizens, not the people of others. hitler, for example, did what he did because those directly threatened by him would not fight him.


What would constitute a legitimate stage of "oppression" to justify US intervention?

it's not the job of the US to police the world; so to answer your question, under no circumstances. only when the US itself is actually threatened, should they take military acton. take the cuban missle crisis for example. we were directly threatened, and kennedy acted correctly.

stillakid
03-09-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by derek
i'm no history expert, but if i recall correctly, the vast majority of european countries hitler invaded never put up a fight. they just let hitler come in and take over. if they had stood up and fought, there may have never been a WW2.

if i were president, i would not enter into war unless my country was directly threatened. if private US citizens felt a duty to free oppressed jews in germany, i would not stand in their way to go and fight. but i stand by my view that the sole purpose of a government is to protect it's citizens, not the people of others. hitler, for example, did what he did because those directly threatened by him would not fight him.



it's not the job of the US to police the world; so to answer your question, under no circumstances. only when the US itself is actually threatened, should they take military acton. take the cuban missle crisis for example. we were directly threatened, and kennedy acted correctly.

Alright, then to take your entire answer into consideration, let's hypothosize that a new world power rises up either across the pond in Europe or say in South America. We stand by and do nothing as it takes over nation after nation. Not only is it controlling the people over there, but it is also building it's own military strength so that within a given amount of time, it finally does pose a potential and formidable risk to the United States itself, either through the use of intercontinental ballistic weaponary, covert terrorist activites on our home turf, or an out and out invasion across our borders...all because we allowed it to grow unabated just because it wasn't our problem to begin with.

So while taking an isolationist approach certainly seems like a viable and "fair" way to deal with international relations, in the long run it could come back and bite us in the buttocks.

No?

EricRG
03-09-2003, 01:14 AM
Keep on philosophising while filling your gastank Stilla. It's the epitome of what America stands for.

2-1B
03-09-2003, 01:19 AM
I thought Lance Armstrong is the epitome of what America stands for.

Beast
03-09-2003, 01:21 AM
I thought America stood for having it your way, right away, at Burger King now. :confused:

Emperor Howdy
03-09-2003, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Alright, then to take your entire answer into consideration, let's hypothosize that a new world power rises up either across the pond in Europe or say in South America. We stand by and do nothing as it takes over nation after nation. Not only is it controlling the people over there, but it is also building it's own military strength so that within a given amount of time, it finally does pose a potential and formidable risk to the United States itself, either through the use of intercontinental ballistic weaponary, covert terrorist activites on our home turf, or an out and out invasion across our borders...all because we allowed it to grow unabated just because it wasn't our problem to begin with.

Couldn't have said it better myself, stillakid.



Anyway, to answer your question about the bumper sticker: it's dumb. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I think that kinda stuff is silly and lame. In the Bible, Christ tells the disciples to go out and spread His message......so nowadays every little old lady's car driving down the street has some chessy Jesus reference. I don't like the "knock at your door" Jehovahs, or the "stand outside a Slayer concert" fanatics, either. Nevertheless, I'd much rather read a million "Jesus is my co-pilot!" bumper stickers than live in a country where the right to express your thoughts, feelings, or opinions were restricted.

As for question 2......should we unseat tyrannts?....yes. Especially obvious dirtbags like Hussein. I'm amazed people still have a problem with taking this guy out. I believe even you, stillakid, have spoken out against taking down his regime. Why? Do you think Saddam is going to suddenly change his ways and fly around on a magic carpet dropping rose pedals and candy from the sky? He's a murderer and an anti-Semitic pr**k.


Just 9 more days! :D :D :D :D


Now, I don't necessarily agree with every conflict we've been in. Nor do I believe we are a perfect nation with a perfect government. However, I think it is the job of the United States to invade and eliminate every country possible. We should start with commies like Iraq and N. Korea.....but then we should move into peaceful cities as well.....bombing and torturing anything that moves. We should invade every nation, on every continent, and make their women slaves to our every desires. What buildings we don't destroy should be turned into prisons and work camps for everyone foreign, and those considered "questionable Americans". Eventually, the world will be just one giant United States of AMERICA!!! It would ALL be ours, ours, OURS!! OURS, I SAY!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........HA........ha.......errr... ..oh. :stupid:

QLD
03-09-2003, 03:21 AM
Oooohhhhh....CANDY! Thanks uncle Saddam!!!!!

Tonysmo
03-09-2003, 03:59 AM
I have to agree with Howdy on this one. I certainly think that America should stand for something.. and it should be WORLD DOMINATION. It may take some re-adjusting to put more stars on our flag, but hey, Im all for it..

Beast
03-09-2003, 04:04 AM
Nah, we can just ditch all the stars entirely. Just stick a globe directly on the blue field. And, I always though America used to stand for Baseball, Hot Dogs, and Mom's Apple Pie? :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

derek
03-09-2003, 11:24 AM
Alright, then to take your entire answer into consideration, let's hypothosize that a new world power rises up either across the pond in Europe

this actually has happend. and we made it very clear to the USSR that if they made an offensive move against us, we would unleash hundreds(or thousands) of nuclear missles against them. we had a 40 year cold war that finally ended with the collapse of that corrupt country without ever firing a shot.

M.A.D. is the answer in this situation. (mutually assured distruction) the russions were just what you described above, yet they knew very clearly that if they messed with us, we would kill them all.

i believe the US is morally justified to invade numerous countries at this very moment to overthrow dictators and free oppressed people. everyone from almost every middle east country, north korea, china, south american and african country and so on. but to do so, we would actually have to opress our citizens to accomplish this. not many people are going to volinteer to go die for someone else's freedom 3000 miles away, hence we would have to force them to via a military draft. so wouldn't it be ironic that we would be fighting for the freedom of another country while en-slaving our own people?

JediTricks
03-09-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I thought America stood for having it your way, right away, at Burger King now. :confused: Burger King is a British corporation.


Originally posted by derek
M.A.D. is the answer in this situation. (mutually assured distruction) the russions were just what you described above, yet they knew very clearly that if they messed with us, we would kill them all. Um... if we destroy the Russians while they simultaniously destroy us, that pretty much means we both lose - some answer, "defend the citizens of the US by assuring their complete annihilation".


Should the United States of America stand for something? Absolutely it should: freedom, democracy, integrity, honor, and peace... everything the future of mankind should be. Sadly, there has been little evidence of these things of late, our great nation doesn't learn from its mistakes, doesn't fight corruption and evil within our own borders, doesn't ensure basic human needs are met to all people; that is a shame, we seem to losing our way a little more every day.

Beast
03-09-2003, 08:17 PM
Wasn't M.A.D. the evil organization run by Dr. Claw in those Inspector Gadget cartoons? I agree, M.A.D. is the solution to the problem. We just have to make sure that they eliminate Inspector Gadget, and more importantly Penny and Brain so they don't mess things up. :crazed: :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

derek
03-09-2003, 08:42 PM
Um... if we destroy the Russians while they simultaniously destroy us, that pretty much means we both lose - some answer, "defend the citizens of the US by assuring their complete annihilation".

i'm not advocating using nuclear missles in an offensive manner. their only purpose is as a deterrant, which is what kept Russia in check for 40 years. they knew that if they moved against us, it would insure their demise. as bad as they were, they were not sucidial. a lot of people were against the nuclear arms race, but it actually saved a lot of lives on both sides.

JediTricks
03-09-2003, 08:50 PM
The true enemy of the US and humanity itself - now more than ever - is not a bomb or a gun, but ignorance and intolerance. Having a MAD pact with a power that believes that they will ascend to their heaven specifically for destroying Americans is only an assurance that we lose since they feel they'll win. The war on terror should be a war on ideas - guns don't win that war.

derek
03-09-2003, 08:55 PM
The war on terror should be a war on ideas - guns don't win that war.

i completly agree with this statement. the problem is, in order to discuss ideas, the party you are engaged with must be rational, which is something the nazis', russians, or muslims are not. basically they are thugs, and thugs understand only one language, force and the guarantee of it's use if we are threatened.

i'm no war-monger, but i understand very clearly that thugs can not and do not hear the voice of reason.

JediTricks
03-09-2003, 09:31 PM
I don't believe throwing these people into that sort of label helps - during the cold war, the US didn't really pay attention to what the Russians were actually thinking, we instead acted on the stereotypes and the fears of what we assumed the enemy might be thinking. It turned out once we tapped their phones that we had wasted a large amount of energy and resources over the fear that the "ruskies were gonna move against us"; these highly-placed taps told us that those same "ruskies" not only felt pretty much the same way about us, but also that they had no intentions for first-strike and were primarily busy dealing with their own domestic situations. Propeganda on both sides of the fence served not to make things safer, but much much worse.

I've known a few muslims in my life, not one of them ever said or did anything that led me to believe they were anti-American; pretty much all of them led normal lives living the American dream, they sent their kids to public school, they paid their taxes, some even worked to help fix up their communities; they were and still are loyal Americans and some are model citizens. Radicals come in all shapes, sizes, colors and religions; radicals give the rest of us a bad name - don't let radicals give America one as well by giving in to stereotypes and prejudices these extremists cause.

stillakid
03-09-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Keep on philosophising while filling your gastank Stilla. It's the epitome of what America stands for.

I've thought about your response all day, Eric, and I still can't figure out what point you might be trying to make. The questions posed here may begin in the philosophy column, but the answers play a very large role in determining very real public policy.

If I were to take your above answer at face value, I'd have to assume that you fully support any US action as justified that brings more energy (oil) into this country, no matter what the moral or practical cost. But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the pricetag on this current near conflict would most likely pay down much of what it would cost to build the infrastructure in this country that would allow hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles to be mass produced. That simple act of redirecting federal funds from warfare to prioritizing a new energy source would nearly instantaneously reduce the US need for Middle East oil to zero. (But that won't happen because we've got a second-generation oil-man in the White House).

Want to talk about philosophy then? If the US had no need to be over there for the sake of energy supplies, it could pull out all of it's military personnel and bring them back home. Then we'd see just how much our "allies" care about having us around as some ****-ant third world nation saw the open door and decided to kick it in. They'd be clamoring for US intervention ("Please, come back and save us!") faster than you can say "impeach oil-baron Bush."

Exhaust Port
03-10-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by derek i'm no history expert, but if i recall correctly, the vast majority of european countries hitler invaded never put up a fight. they just let hitler come in and take over. if they had stood up and fought, there may have never been a WW2.

There are interesting similarities between the German expansion of the 30's and the possibilities of Iraq.

All the European countries that Hitler pummeled at first (Poland, Belgium and France) all did put up fights but they were out classed in military might. How could it be that a country that was under strict international law and sanctions create such a powerful military? By bypassing the rules, plan and simple.

No training of military pilots were allowed. So what did they do? They created an Air Force training program using gliders until they unveiled their powered aircraft that were developed in secret.

No military transport or bombers were permitted. So what did they do? They created a fleet of "airliners" to be used for their non-existant or false airline structure. Then one day the did some amazingly easy conversions to change the mission of their "airliners" into military aircraft. ie The Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor commerical aircraft became a long range reconnaissance bomber. The Junkers Ju 52 became a bomber initially then a highly successful troop transport. The Ju 86 became the first twin engine bomber used by the Luftwaffe during WWII.

Technology that eventually created the highly successful Me109 fighter was developed under the German seaplane air race program.

The immense German Battleship, the Bismarck, was falsely reported by the German press as weighing less in order to pass international limits placed on them. They didn't lie by a few tons either, I belief they errored by nearly 25%.

Once they had their technologies lined up Germany was able to test them out by giving them to the Spanish to use in during the Spanish Civil War. It was a free trial of their tactics and equipment.

Looking back on the infractions, they seem obvious as we know what the outcome was. At the time there was a lot of ignorance and self confidence that Germany wasn't a threat. Sound familiar? The League of Nations became weak after the US left in the early 30's. The attempted in vein to push for disarmament. Germany didn't listen. No one in Europe was preparing to be invaded and therefore were easy marks for the advancing Germans. No one new the extent of the German military might as it had been developing in secret for so long. The first time anyone saw it was when 1000's of tanks, planes and soldiers came pouring out of the Rhineland but by then it was too late. Germany was up against WWI era tactics and equipment. A 10 year old bi-plane was no match for a brand new mono-plane developed from race plane.


Now looking at Iraq, can't the same be said for what's going on there? Here's a madman who's already invaded another country once in the last 10 years and has a history of genocide with his own people. He's had a history of producing balisitic missles and chemical weapons. The governing body, the UN, is becoming weak and continuing to give this man "one more chance."

He's had 10 years to hide any programs that are being used to generate weapon technology so looking for them is never going to be successful. Asking that he voluntarily give up anything that the UN sees as a threat is a false hope. He'll only give up enough to cause the pressure to be lifted. Once it's lessened then it's back to the status quo.

Yes, it would have been nice if the League of Nations had gotten off their fat behinds and cleaned out Hitler before he got up to full steam, but they didn't. The US left the League of Nations after they refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles due to its inability to assure peace. The Treay of Versailles asked that all of it's members to "respect and preserve" it's fellow members borders. It never demanded that other countries stop from invading, only that they "respect" the borders. It was pansy language like that lead to the US pulling out. It should be black and white, either you obey the rules or you are in violation.

What's wrong with putting some diffinatives in there? No more cutting someone else slack or giving them one more try. Hitler was cut slack inside his own country and outside as well and look what he got a way with. The same should be done here. No more resolutions, it's time to clean out Saddam.

Emperor Howdy
03-11-2003, 01:06 AM
Holy Cow, Exhaust Port, that was beautiful. :eek:

No, seriously.

Nicely said.

No, for real, man. I was moved.

So much so, actually, that if I was an alternative lifestyler, I'd ask you out.

:kiss:

wedgeA
03-11-2003, 01:57 AM
Something to discuss and debate: Where is the line drawn between the government protecting the citizens of the United States and the loss of civil liberties?

It seems that the current administration, which IMO reflects the sentiments of the majority, places an emphasis on security. I am not saying that we should do nothing, and currently, the government has not gone too far, but what if there are more attacks? Will we see more oppressive security measures?

To go back to the original question: what does the US stand for? Is it insuring safety for the people at all costs, or does it mean that people will have to make sacrifices, sometimes their lives, to preserve our civil liberties?

Vortex
03-11-2003, 01:49 PM
Good topic...

I've felt for the last 5-6 years the US has lots its identity and its symbolic meaning. The ground work and true meanings our founding father laid down, has been trampled and forgotten to some extent.

We as individuals and as a nation have become so "anti-offensive" that we've wrapped up the true american ideals, thoughts, and traits and stuffed them into a manilla envelope and labeled the items inside as dangerous and offensive, when they helped formed and create this nation.

We've diluted things so much to pander and cater to small ethnic groups, political and religious organizations, that we are loosing and willingly giving up personal, invididual freedoms, just to appease some one or some group that decries "foul" and demands special freedoms and things that they take freedoms away from my family, friends and myself.

I grow tired of all these do gooders, and "liberals" tellings me I can't do that because its offensive to some, yet they have no problem offending me or removing freedoms from me. Or telling me the proper and PC way to address individuals or groups. The funny thing always was, they want to be treated just like everyone else, yet they feel the need for special treatment and the need to be singled out and identified some how.

I grow tired of having some lawers and some over protective parent take away my rusty old swing, teeter-tooter, and high, unenclosed, slide from my local park, because its in my best interest, and for my safety. I grow tired of human stupidty making a mockery of the justice system with wild lawsuits against companies or people when the plaintif was just plain old careless or willingly reckless, or intentionaly disobeyed posted warnings and still feel a large compensation is owed to them for their own careless mistakes.

I am amazed that in a public school, funded by the state with help from the feds, that talk about a national holiday like Thanksgiving is taboo and banned in the class room...yet all the kids get days off because of it. A nation marker, a symbolic corner stone of Americana, is shoved into a dark corner to apease a small minority, yet they still reap the benifits from it.

We are no longer ruled by the majority and do things for the best interest of the masses. We are run and controlled by the minorities who scream the loudest or who have the deepest pocket book.

The nation waves the white flag of surrender at the 1st sign of hurt feelings, something that runs contrary to some ones religious belief, or a different way of thinking or acting. We are slowly loosing the meaning and items that created the Stars and Bars...soon some one will take offense to the Stars or Bars and those will be removed until we actually do have a white flag of surrender.

The heathens no longer pound at the gate. They rise up amongst us.

I love this country dearly and I do tow the company line about going to war. I do support this nation even if I don't totally agree, but its time we as a nation re-establish what we are about and what makes us American. If you do find offense about this or that, suck it up, there are others out there besides you and this is a joint effort to keep everyones freedoms alive...not just a select few individuals or groups.

A government for the people...by the people.

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 02:07 PM
Little fuzzy here........

What Minority groups are you speaking of ?

Vortex
03-11-2003, 02:19 PM
Minority = not majority.

I'm not singling out ethnic groups, or sexual preference groups.

Minority's to me are small pockets of individuals, like the radical groups, small bands of radical idealists, anyone outside the norm standard.

For example the Boundary Water groups that scream and protest motorized water vehicles in the boundary waters. The rich folk living on the mississippi river who want to divert a main road since its too noisy and their property value is decreasing. So they are lobbying to tear out apartments, business, and old shops just to save their property value.

Those are the minorities I'm talking about. Small groups who refuse to be lumped into melting pot. The groups that want their own ways and don't care who or what they tread on.

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 02:21 PM
Cool. Thanks for the clarification.

stillakid
03-11-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I've thought about your response all day, Eric, and I still can't figure out what point you might be trying to make. The questions posed here may begin in the philosophy column, but the answers play a very large role in determining very real public policy.

If I were to take your above answer at face value, I'd have to assume that you fully support any US action as justified that brings more energy (oil) into this country, no matter what the moral or practical cost. But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the pricetag on this current near conflict would most likely pay down much of what it would cost to build the infrastructure in this country that would allow hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles to be mass produced. That simple act of redirecting federal funds from warfare to prioritizing a new energy source would nearly instantaneously reduce the US need for Middle East oil to zero. (But that won't happen because we've got a second-generation oil-man in the White House).

Want to talk about philosophy then? If the US had no need to be over there for the sake of energy supplies, it could pull out all of it's military personnel and bring them back home. Then we'd see just how much our "allies" care about having us around as some ****-ant third world nation saw the open door and decided to kick it in. They'd be clamoring for US intervention ("Please, come back and save us!") faster than you can say "impeach oil-baron Bush."



(a response to a PM, but I thought I'd make my end public)

Eric,
I think we're on the same page. While I don't come right out and say it, I think what I was getting at was the contradiction that the US displays all the time as you mentioned. On one hand we put forth a picture of freedom and justice and opportunity for all. On the other hand, in order to "preserve" all that we hold dear, we think nothing of betraying those ideals when it comes to dealing with other nations. Ergo, what does the US stand for? Should we be a shining light of justice to maybe improve the world and humanity as a whole...or do we act in our own self-interest to merely ensure our own selfish desires for opportunity within our own borders? We can't have both.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-11-2003, 03:01 PM
On Saddam Hussein:


Originally posted by Exhaust Port
the UN, is becoming weak and continuing to give this man "one more chance."

He's had 10 years to hide any programs that are being used to generate weapon technology so looking for them is never going to be successful. Asking that he voluntarily give up anything that the UN sees as a threat is a false hope. He'll only give up enough to cause the pressure to be lifted. Once it's lessened then it's back to the status quo.



I wish more people realized THIS!

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Deoxyribonucleic


I wish more people realized THIS!

Well....they probably won't realize it, because it isn't true.

UN Inspectors last left Iraq in 1998, just before the airstrikes ordered by Clinton. Indeed, the UN pulled them out due to these strikes.

This ten year number (we also here 12) is either a grave mistake, or an outright lie. During their time in Iraq, those initial inspectors managed to locate and destroy 95% of Husseins Banned weapons cache, a fact I was unaware of until seeing 2 senators debate on CNN this past sunday.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-11-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Well....they probably won't realize it, because it isn't true.

UN Inspectors last left Iraq in 1998, just before the airstrikes ordered by Clinton. Indeed, the UN pulled them out due to these strikes.

This ten year number (we also here 12) is either a grave mistake, or an outright lie. During their time in Iraq, those initial inspectors managed to locate and destroy 95% of Husseins Banned weapons cache, a fact I was unaware of until seeing 2 senators debate on CNN this past sunday.

I wasn't really talking about the "time" quotient here. I was talking about the secret caches of biological and other type weapons. :) Guess I shoulda trimmed down the quote there, sorry 'bout that. :)

Jedi Clint
03-11-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Well....they probably won't realize it, because it isn't true.

UN Inspectors last left Iraq in 1998, just before the airstrikes ordered by Clinton. Indeed, the UN pulled them out due to these strikes.

This ten year number (we also here 12) is either a grave mistake, or an outright lie. During their time in Iraq, those initial inspectors managed to locate and destroy 95% of Husseins Banned weapons cache, a fact I was unaware of until seeing 2 senators debate on CNN this past sunday.

Isn't true? Every time we ratchet up the talk of force, he gives us more weapons that we didn't know he had! So how accurate can your "95%" quote be?

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Deoxyribonucleic
I wasn't really talking about the "time" quotient here. I was talking about the secret caches of biological and other type weapons. :) Guess I shoulda trimmed down the quote there, sorry 'bout that. :)

Yet, the Pro war contingent of the UN has been unable (or unwilling) to prove where these weapons caches are now. They continue to "claim" they know. People might realize the point your emphasizing were such a disclosure to take place. Question is, what method has the better chance of working, threat of military action while qualified experts look for and destroy these weapons...or military action that did very little to disarm Hussein the first time around....

Jedi Clint
03-11-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Yet, the Pro war contingent of the UN has been unable (or unwilling) to prove where these weapons caches are now. They continue to "claim" they know. People might realize the point your emphasizing were such a disclosure to take place. Question is, what method has the better chance of working, threat of military action while wualified experts look for and destroy these weapons...or military action that did very little to disarm Hussein the firat time around....

The reason it "did little to disarm the firat time around" is because the U.N. charter we worked under allowed us to liberate Kuwait. We weren't after disarming the guy or regime change.......we are now!

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Isn't true? Every time we ratchet up the talk of force, he gives us more weapons that we didn't know he had! So how accurate can your "95%" quote be?

I was talking about the "ten years" thing..... as was clearly stated.

As for the al samouds....they did know they had them. In fact, the inspectors asked for them to be destroyed because they "could" be altered to exceed their maximum range, but, they were not themselves an illegal weapon.

stillakid
03-11-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Yet, the Pro war contingent of the UN has been unable (or unwilling) to prove where these weapons caches are now. They continue to "claim" they know. People might realize the point your emphasizing were such a disclosure to take place. Question is, what method has the better chance of working, threat of military action while wualified experts look for and destroy these weapons...or military action that did very little to disarm Hussein the firat time around....

You make a valid point, although the solution is full of blind alleys. Taking the situation we have today, Hussein has every reason in the world to expect an attack, thus making him extremely unlikely to disarm, for the primary reason that he knows that he'll need those weapons to fight. Look at it this way: if some big bully in the schoolyard told you to hand over that stick you found in the woods and you knew that he was going to beat the crap out of you no matter what...would you give it to him? Or keep it to try to defend yourself? Common sense says that you'd keep it. Dubbya has made it clear that he's going in no matter what. If Iraq backed up a million dump trucks full o' war toys at the border today, W (his bosses actually) would still march our troops into Baghdad and Hussein knows it. So Hussein would be certifiably insane to give up any weapons he has at this point. Dubbya is wayyyy out of control. He's backed his prey into a corner and even the most simple of mammals knows that without a realistic option of escape, the only way out is to fight.

Of course, simply waiting around for a handful of inspectors to "scour" an area the size of California isn't going to work either. It now seems entirely illogical that we didn't go and take Baghdad back when Bush #1's regime ruled the roost. What was the logic? That we went in to merely liberate Kuwait? Yeah, great. Stupid. There's precedent for entering a foreign invader's homeland (Germany, for one) to unseat the tyrannical ruler so that they can't continue to cause trouble. That was the time to do it. Now, Dubbya has to invent some farcical link to terrorism to justify finishing his daddy's war for him and to load up the family fortune with Iraqi oil spoils.

There's no easy way out of this now. This whole thing is just f'ing idiotic.

Vortex
03-11-2003, 03:57 PM
Ahh the arms race. That just might have been 95% of the things we knew about...but then again military might has never been one to divulge its secrets or tip its hand to true stock pile counts.

Do you really believe anyone's missle count? I'm sure for every 5 the US was willing to destroy as a friendly gesture with the old USSR, we built 15 more to take their place and I'm sure the Russians did the same thing.

You never tell the enemy what you have in your arsenal or how much.

Jedi Clint
03-11-2003, 04:00 PM
The U.N. began disarming Iraq on April 11th 1991. That makes about 12 years of playing this game with Saddam.

I wasn't referring solely to the al samouds:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

What about an addendum submitted after he'd given his testimony mentioning drones (UAV) that could deliver chem and bio agents? Why did he hold that back?



U.N. resolution 687 was a cease fire between the U.S. and it's allies and Iraq contingent upon Saddam voluntarily disarming. He obviously has not.


And finally:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80742,00.html

ElBaradei doesn't think Saddam is fully cooperating yet either.

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by stillakid

There's no easy way out of this now. This whole thing is just f'ing idiotic.

Truer words were never spoken.....

The problem here IS the fact that Hussein should have been removed the first time around. Now, as you point out, the war is inevitable, for any number of stated reasons, and Hussein is most likely holding onto whatever stockpiles he has left, hoping wither to show his hand and force a withdrawl, or go down fighting, and take thousands of coalition soldiers with him.....

However......the inspections can work......and the man has been contained for 12 years. Which is why this "greatest threat to world peace" notion going around washington isn't cutting the mustard in the rest of the worlds eyes....

stillakid
03-11-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


However......the inspections can work......and the man has been contained for 12 years. Which is why this "greatest threat to world peace" notion going around washington isn't cutting the mustard in the rest of the worlds eyes....

...and that's the EXACT reason why Dubbya and Co.'s motives should be questioned. Why now? When Hussein has been effectively contained, why the sudden rush to invade? There is something fishy going on in the White House (aside from the regular stuff) that's prompting all of this. Maybe one day, the widows and orphans of our dead soldiers will be let in on it.

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
ElBaradei doesn't think Saddam is fully cooperating yet either.

I think you fail to realize that no one is debating that Hussein isn't cooperating fully...

We all KNOW he is lying...He's bloody Saddam Hussein! However, he's not the only one lying.....


The point is not Saddams lying...the point is can another solution be found that doesn't lead to thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in bagdhad (cue "saddam kills his own people" rebuttal) and disarm Hussein?

Why a massive, costly, and destructive war, when a covert SAS mission (something proposed to Bush Sr. before, and neglected) to take out Hussein? Cue removal of Sanctions and a soon to be healthy Iraqi people ready to take control of their own government....

The thing that Irks people is Bush' singular view of what MUST happen. It's as Stillakid pointed out, were Iraq to drive every piece of banned weapon they've hid right up to the Inspectors footsteps, and somehow, war would still take place....

Jedi Clint
03-11-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Truer words were never spoken.....

The problem here IS the fact that Hussein should have been removed the first time around. Now, as you point out, the war is inevitable, for any number of stated reasons, and Hussein is most likely holding onto whatever stockpiles he has left, hoping wither to show his hand and force a withdrawl, or go down fighting, and take thousands of coalition soldiers with him.....

However......the inspections can work......and the man has been contained for 12 years. Which is why this "greatest threat to world peace" notion going around washington isn't cutting the mustard in the rest of the worlds eyes....

YES! He should have been removed the first time around....and he could have. Is he "contained", or is he simply biding his time until he has a substantial arsenal that he could threaten the world with?


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I think you fail to realize that no one is debating that Hussein isn't cooperating fully...

We all KNOW he is lying...He's bloody Saddam Hussein! However, he's not the only one lying.....


The point is not Saddams lying...the point is can another solution be found that doesn't lead to thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in bagdhad (cue "saddam kills his own people" rebuttal) and disarm Hussein?

Why a massive, costly, and destructive war, when a covert SAS mission (something proposed to Bush Sr. before, and neglected) to take out Hussein? Cue removal of Sanctions and a soon to be healthy Iraqi people ready to take control of their own government....

The thing that Irks people is Bush' singular view of what MUST happen. It's as Stillakid pointed out, were Iraq to drive every piece of banned weapon they've hid right up to the Inspectors footsteps, and somehow, war would still take place....

Exactly how would we know that Iraq had actually driven "every piece of banned weapon they've hid right up to the inspectors footsteps"? They said they already divulged all their banned weaponry MANY TIMES! ;)

I'm all for taking out the head so the rest will fall. Hopefully we try something like that. Bush 1 didn't "neglect" it. There is a ban on such actions. Should we lift that?

Vortex
03-11-2003, 04:34 PM
I still beileve that the US is looking for a larger foothold in the Middle East. The whole Oil debate does have its merits, but its not the entire reason I believe.

With all the sudden added termoil in Gaza, our efforts to flush out Osama-mama, I think the US is looking to gain a foot hold over there and Iraq is center stage and centrally located to deal with any issues or a base of operations to flush out these countless terriorist groups we keep adding to our wanted list.

Right now we have to pay for and ask for military base usage in Kuait, Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan, and whever else. If we do remove So-Damn-Insane, we put a puppet government in place with warm feelings toward the US, and in return we get to use, build, and establish our own air bases and various military bases. We would no longer need approval to use anyone's airspace or water ways. Iraq is connected to the Persian Gulf so we can unload our troops weapons, jets, vehicles, dock our ships, and what not directly from the Gulf without having to get anyones OK.

Iraq is neighboring Iran, a stones throw from Pakistan and Afganistan and if trouble does arise anywhere in the middle east, the US is already there and within striking distance if need be.

Its a military strong hold. Air space access, water access, centrally located, and can strike anywhere easily with little effort or little mobilization time. Its a prime military target.

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
YES! He should have been removed the first time around....and he could have. Is he "contained", or is he simply biding his time until he has a substantial arsenal that he could threaten the world with?


And just how WOULD he do this? GW1 left his army heavily depleted, and current sanctions and embargoes (and they are enforced. I work in export compliance, and have a very good idea of what can and canot be sold/shipped to iraq) make it impossible for Hussein to rebuild his army to an uncontainable degree.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint

Exactly how would we know that Iraq had actually driven "every piece of banned weapon they've hid right up to the inspectors footsteps"? They said they already divulged all their banned weaponry MANY TIMES! ;)


So, what you're saying is we will never know if we've rid saddam of his banned weapons? What was the point of this charade that Bush jr. started then?


Originally posted by Jedi Clint


I'm all for taking out the head so the rest will fall. Hopefully we try something like that. Bush 1 didn't "neglect" it. There is a ban on such actions. Should we lift that?

Are you saying black OPS units don't exist? ;)

Vortex
03-11-2003, 04:43 PM
Since we're talking about disclosing information and weapon counts...chew on this...for every one we use we upgrade to keep the enemy on its toes...


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/index.html

Jedi Clint
03-11-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
And just how WOULD he do this? GW1 left his army heavily depleted, and current sanctions and embargoes (and they are enforced. I work in export compliance, and have a very good idea of what can and canot be sold/shipped to iraq) make it impossible for Hussein to rebuild his army to an uncontainable degree.

There we go! Overlord gave us his expert opinon on how Iraq can't procure banned weapon resources. Guess we can rest easy ;)

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.

I'm so glad they can't get ahold of that stuff :rolleyes:


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
So, what you're saying is we will never know if we've rid saddam of his banned weapons? What was the point of this charade that Bush jr. started then?

As long as Saddam controls Iraq we will never know what they have or don't have.....what we DO KNOW is that he has a little more every time we threaten to thrash him.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Are you saying black OPS units don't exist? ;)

HOW did you gather I was saying black OPS don't exist? I said such actions were illegal, and asked if you thought we should lift the ban. Should we?

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
There we go! Overlord gave us his expert opinon on how Iraq can't procure banned weapon resources. Guess we can rest easy ;)

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.

I'm so glad they can't get ahold of that stuff :rolleyes:



Yes, this case proves that the embargoes are a joke :rolleyes:

The fact remains that this one company did something illegal, and the Indian government should have been better at controlling their exporters. However, I'm talking about major weaponry here, something Hussein will never be allowed access to again.

And if you want to find out how Iraq got a hold of it's Banned weapons to begin with, you need look no further than your own country, JC.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint

As long as Saddam controls Iraq we will never know what they have or don't have.....what we DO KNOW is that he has a little more every time we threaten to thrash him.


So why the rush to war if we know we can force his hand?



Originally posted by Jedi Clint


HOW did you gather I was saying black OPS don't exist? I said such actions were illegal, and asked if you thought we should lift the ban. Should we?

Don't the little winky's mean one is joking?

Let's just say I would support such an operation...

Jedi Clint
03-11-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Yes, this case proves that the embargoes are a joke :rolleyes:

The fact remains that this one company did something illegal, and the Indian government should have been better at controlling their exporters. However, I'm talking about major weaponry here, something Hussein will never be allowed access to again.

And you know "Hussein will never be allowed access to major weaponry again" how? How do you intend to ensure this?



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
So why the rush to war if we know we can force his hand?

Rush? 12 years is a "rush"? I already told you that one reason we take issues like Saddam's non-compliance more seriously now is because we got a wake up call. How do "we know we can force his hand" to the point where we are certain he has given up the everything? Given his past record, I say we can not.




Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Don't the little winky's mean one is joking?

Let's just say I would support such an operation...

I was not aware that official meaning had been given to the winky.

The Overlord Returns
03-11-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
And you know "Hussein will never be allowed access to major weaponry again" how? How do you intend to ensure this?


Don't be an @, you know I can't ensure something I have no control over. What I am saying is, in my experience, the Major world defense and armament companies FOLLOW the embargoes. If they don't ...they go to prison and are shut down, just like this little indian company will be.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint

Rush? 12 years is a "rush"? I already told you that one reason we take issues like Saddam's non-compliance more seriously now is because we got a wake up call. How do "we know we can force his hand" to the point where we are certain he has given up the everything? Given his past record, I say we can not.


And I already told you that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Again, you've chosen to buy the current administrations jargon about 9/11 and al qaeda being linked to Hussein.

"Rush" was a poor choice of words. The question is how Hussein suddenly became the biggest threat to world peace in the span of a week.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint


I was not aware that official meaning had been given to the winky.

I believe it's been noted in Websters.

Jedi Clint
03-11-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Don't be an @, you know I can't ensure something I have no control over. What I am saying is, in my experience, the Major world defense and armament companies FOLLOW the embargoes. If they don't ...they go to prison and are shut down, just like this little indian company will be.

So now I'm an @? Don't you trash Howdy every time he resorts to such behavior?




Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
And I already told you that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Again, you've chosen to buy the current administrations jargon about 9/11 and al qaeda being linked to Hussein.

Obviously? You just told me that I wasn't included in the "using 9/11" crowd a few posts back. Remember? I certainly will not rule out the possibility of connections existing between the two. Is that what you're doing? Why does Osama care enough about the leadership of Iraq to come out in support of them in one of his "tv spots"?


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
"Rush" was a poor choice of words. The question is how Hussein suddenly became the biggest threat to world peace in the span of a week.

"the span of a week"? He's been "a threat" since the first gulf war. Were simply tired of allowing him to play games with the agreements that led to our cease fire in 1991.





Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I believe it's been noted in Websters.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wink&r=2

Not a big deal.

stillakid
03-12-2003, 10:31 AM
A friend of mine in San Diego has a very pacifist philosophy that when followed to it's inevitable conclusion, results in martyrdom for this nation. Essentially, by living through example, and perhaps dying for the truths we believe in (not through the act of fighting), good would ultimately prevail. A very Gandhi-like theory. For a "Christian" nation and a "Christian" party as the Republicans present themselves as, it's amazing to see them not adopt such a policy. Of course it's the hard road, but isn't that what Jesus did?

stillakid
03-12-2003, 12:05 PM
Gauging Promise of Iraqi Oil

Ousting Hussein could open the door for U.S. and British firms. Chinese, French and Russian rivals would lose their edge.

By Warren Vieth and Elizabeth Douglass, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON -- Maybe it's a coincidence, but American and British oil companies would be long-term beneficiaries of a successful military offensive led by the United States and Britain to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Industry officials say Hussein's ouster would help level the playing field for U.S. and British firms that have been shut out of Iraq as Baghdad has negotiated with rivals from other countries notably France, Russia and China, three leading opponents of war.

A post-Hussein Iraq also would be a bonanza for the U.S.-dominated oil-services industry, which is in the business of rehabilitating damaged infrastructure, reversing declining output from aging fields and providing essential support work to drillers and explorers. A leader in that industry is Halliburton Co., where Dick Cheney was chief executive before becoming vice president.

The confluence of foreign policy objectives and commercial interests is fueling suspicions that U.S. and British war plans are motivated in part by a thirst for Iraqi oil. Those concerns would be magnified, experts caution, if Washington winds up calling the shots in a postwar Baghdad.

"All over the world, people will be watching very carefully," said Issam Al-Chalabi, who ran Iraqi National Oil Co. for four years and served as Hussein's oil minister for three.

"Even if they give only 10% of the work to Americans, people will say the Americans are being favored if there is supervision by the United States," said Al-Chalabi, now a consultant in Amman, Jordan. "But let the Iraqis decide, and no one can say they've been under pressure, even if they give 50% to American companies."

Experts say it would make sense for U.S. and British firms to get a significant share of any repair and development jobs in Iraq, because they are such major players in the global industry with arguably the best technology and professional expertise. That would be recognized, analysts say, even if the United States left all postwar decision-making to Iraqis.

And with the door open to companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group of London, the losers could be the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies that have either signed contracts or negotiated preliminary agreements to drill in Iraq.

That the three countries wield veto power in the U.N. Security Council is widely believed by industry experts and U.S. officials to be one reason their companies received favorable treatment in Baghdad, although Hussein's government also has negotiated with companies from at least two dozen other countries.

The company with perhaps the most at stake is Paris-based TotalFinaElf, which in recent years negotiated, but never signed, agreements to develop two of Iraq's largest oil fields, Majnoon and Nahr Bin Omar. The contracts, valued at $7 billion, could ultimately double Total's oil reserves and boost its production by 400,000 barrels a day.

Total CEO Thierry Desmarest declared last month that he was not about to cede the field to U.S. and British rivals. Desmarest acknowledged that France's opposition to a likely war could make Total's standing in Iraq "more complicated," but he expressed confidence the company could land new contracts if allowed to engage in good-faith negotiations.

"We have shown in the past that we are able to defend ourselves on an equal footing with our peers even in some areas where there was a reputation of significant American influence," Desmarest said.

The French, among the original members of the international consortium formed in 1928 to develop Iraq's reserves, continued to enjoy favored treatment in Baghdad after Iraq nationalized its oil industry in 1972. Russia's oil industry also had special access after Iraq tilted toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government prohibited American firms from engaging in any commercial activities or business negotiations with the Iraqi government. United Nations sanctions barred foreign companies from investing in Iraq's oil sector, though they were allowed to negotiate deals for the future. One reason Total's contracts were never consummated was that the company wanted to include language making the work contingent on the lifting of sanctions, and Hussein's government refused.

Major oil companies might not be the only commercial casualties of war.

Petrel Resources, a tiny oil firm in Dublin, Ireland, has been negotiating with Hussein's government since 1978 for exploration rights in Iraq's western desert, and recently signed a contract. It's unclear whether the contract would be recognized by a new regime. And if U.S. and British companies also are in the game, Petrel could be out of luck.

"We've done some very good work, but we can't compete with the multinationals," said Petrel Chairman John Teeling. "They'll crunch us and jump on us as much as they can."

The reason: Only Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq. Iraq's proven reserves total about 112 billion barrels, and industry experts figure as many as 250 billion more await discovery. To develop the proven reserves to their full potential over the next 10 years or so will cost as much as $40 billion, according to think tanks and petroleum consultants.

Presuming a U.S.-led military victory, industry officials and experts expect the postwar work to proceed in two phases.

For the first year or two, companies that provide repair, rehabilitation, engineering and construction services including Halliburton, Schlumberger Ltd., Baker Hughes Inc. and BJ Services Co. would receive an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in contracts from an interim government.

As part of that first phase, engineering and construction project specialists such as Aliso Viejo-based Fluor Corp. could be in the running for contracts to repair and upgrade Iraqi oil facilities.

Fluor spokesman Jerry Holloway declined to discuss the company's possible involvement in any postwar oil and gas projects. But he confirmed that Fluor submitted a bid, at the U.S. government's request, for possible work through the U.S. Agency for International Development work that is said to focus on humanitarian projects such as repairing roads, sanitation systems and hospitals.

The second phase would begin after the installation of the new government, according to U.S. officials. That's when multinational exploration and production companies would be invited to negotiate long-term exploration and development deals.

So far, most multinationals are circumspect in their public comments about their plans though not necessarily about Iraq's potential.

"We know where the best reserves are in the world. We covet the opportunity to go get those someday," said Archie Dunham, chairman of ConocoPhillips in Houston.

Britain's BP said it would be interested in Iraq, but only if the circumstances were right.

"If there is a change of governments and if sanctions are lifted and if the government in Iraq wants foreign investment, then BP would obviously consider the opportunities that were available," said spokesman Toby Odone.

Royal Dutch/Shell said it discussed opportunities with Hussein's government in the mid-1990s and was ready to resume the dialogue if a new government is installed.

"We're not doing any business in Iraq at the moment," said spokesman Justin Everard in London. "But we're interested in doing business in countries that have large reserves of oil, and Iraq is one of those."

At Halliburton, spokeswoman Wendy Hall declined to discuss the possibilities for the company in Iraq. But the opportunities are more than theoretical: Last week, the Pentagon announced it intended to use a plan developed by Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit to control oil well fires that might accompany a military offensive.

As soon as the smoke clears in Iraq, some in the industry say, the jockeying will begin in earnest. Teeling, the Petrel Resources chairman, predicts "a Wild West, frontier rush" for reserves that are plentiful and relatively easy to access compared with offshore fields where so many of the major oil companies are focused.

"In the last three or four years, most of the world's oil companies have either visited Iraq or opened offices or had representatives there," he said. "They have no choice. It's the world's cheapest oil. They have to be there."

Teeling saw it firsthand during one of his initial trips to Baghdad in 1998. Standing in line in the lobby of the Al-Rashid Hotel, he said, he spotted what he assumed to be another European waiting to check in.

"I peeked over his shoulder. He had an American passport. It turns out he was representing an American oil company," Teeling said, declining to identify the firm.

Vieth reported from Washington and Douglass from Los Angeles.



What was that reason for war again? Something about terrorism or Al Qu...something or other? :rolleyes:

No wonder the world hates the US. We proclaim our commitment to peace and justice while marauding across the globe to fulfill our selfish needs. Nobody likes a hyprocrite.

The Overlord Returns
03-12-2003, 12:22 PM
I've been pointing that out for months now....

Nice article SK... ;)

Vortex
03-12-2003, 12:47 PM
History is always written by the winners, and every world power has staked claim to things not theirs...and its never going to change.

Alexander the Great, The British Empire, The Spainards in the New World, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, Kahn, Hitler, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Ottomans, Vikings...

If we think we're more advanced and sensitive than those folks, we're only lying to ourselves. Power and greed corrupt and the US is on top of the dog pile and we are king. We are just writing history the way we see fit.

The Overlord Returns
03-12-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
History is always written by the winners, and every world power has staked claim to things not theirs...and its never going to change.

Alexander the Great, The British Empire, The Spainards in the New World, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, Kahn, Hitler, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Ottomans, Vikings...

If we think we're more advanced and sensitive than those folks, we're only lying to ourselves. Power and greed corrupt and the US is on top of the dog pile and we are king. We are just writing history the way we see fit.

Yes.....you're absolutely right...

However....should the west, we that claim to be the good guys, not actually act like it? History is written by the winners, but History also offers us a way of learning and evolving....a way of becoming better.

Vortex
03-12-2003, 01:09 PM
Too bad people forget their history.

We can try to learn, but money and power will always hold sway and this conflict contains both.

The next super power (Russia or China) will do the same thing at some point to some one they dislike or distrust. Some one will have something they want and this cycle will start again.

Its human nature and in a some what round about way...progression. Without the ruling nations flexing their muscle, would we be were we are today?
The progress from the WW's and Cold War gave us quite a bit of technological advancement, and without a little muscle flexing, the US and Canada and most Western Continent nations wouldn't exist as they do now...

Who's got the crystal ball to see the grand outcome of this pending war? Will it help in the long run or only hurt? I can't judge...

Jedi Clint
03-12-2003, 01:52 PM
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government prohibited American firms from engaging in any commercial activities or business negotiations with the Iraqi government. United Nations sanctions barred foreign companies from investing in Iraq's oil sector, though they were allowed to negotiate deals for the future. One reason Total's contracts were never consummated was that the company wanted to include language making the work contingent on the lifting of sanctions, and Hussein's government refused.

Major oil companies might not be the only commercial casualties of war.

If we lift the sanctions (buy into Saddam's claims of disarmament and allow the world to do as much business with him as they want), then American businesses could move in and compete for all the oil Saddam is willing to sell. With the sanctions out of the way he would be free to do with that oil revenue whatever he wishes.

What is the difference in the U.S. doing business with a democratic and W.M.D. free Iraq and Mexico?

Why are we opposed to doing the business we could with Saddam now?

The article mentions that post Saddam oil production sales in Iraq will be closely monitored by the world community. I agree. Because the U.S. oil industry will do the business we currently chose not to do when Iraq is free and the threat Saddam poses is extinguished, we will receive critism. Perhaps those that offer critisism at that time will be the same ones who could not compete with the U.S. oil production industry (those that would benefit from our continued abstinence from said oil production in Iraq).

I see condemnation of U.S. policy from both parties offering commentary of the article posted. Where is the followup condemnation of the other permanent security council members? They were obviously indicted by the same article. The difference is they choose to do business with Saddam whether he has W.M.D. or not, yet they ALL voted yes on U.N. resolution 1441.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
What I am saying is, in my experience, the Major world defense and armament companies FOLLOW the embargoes. If they don't ...they go to prison and are shut down, just like this little indian company will be.

That has yet to be seen. Who's to say he can't bypass the rules again? Or isn't? Or hasn't done so multiple times in the past?

Jedi Clint
03-12-2003, 02:22 PM
I clicked quote instead of edit.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-12-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Yet, the Pro war contingent of the UN has been unable (or unwilling) to prove where these weapons caches are now. They continue to "claim" they know. People might realize the point your emphasizing were such a disclosure to take place. Question is, what method has the better chance of working, threat of military action while qualified experts look for and destroy these weapons...or military action that did very little to disarm Hussein the first time around....

Microbiologists, biologists and many other scientists, especially ones who have defected are your experts Overlord. It's no secret that Iraq has biological weapons stashed away....most of the labs that these microorganisms are created and bread in are extremely mobile....sniff the UN within a mile and off they go...they have this stuff down to a science. All you have to do is know where to look for the proof that these mobilized labs do exist...any scientifically peer reviewed journal articles on the subject will give you all the information you need. Happy hunting :)

The Overlord Returns
03-12-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Deoxyribonucleic
Microbiologists, biologists and many other scientists, especially ones who have defected are your experts Overlord. It's no secret that Iraq has biological weapons stashed away....most of the labs that these microorganisms are created and bread in are extremely mobile....sniff the UN within a mile and off they go...they have this stuff down to a science. All you have to do is know where to look for the proof that these mobilized labs do exist...any scientifically peer reviewed journal articles on the subject will give you all the information you need. Happy hunting :)

If this is indeed the case.....why aren't Britain and the US providing the Inspectors with the evidence you think they clearly have?

stillakid
03-12-2003, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I see condemnation of U.S. policy from both parties offering commentary of the article posted. Where is the followup condemnation of the other permanent security council members? They were obviously indicted by the same article. The difference is they choose to do business with Saddam whether he has W.M.D. or not, yet they ALL voted yes on U.N. resolution 1441.


As I've stated previously elsewhere, there is a lot of blame to go around. You are correct in that the article clearly indicts those on the other side of the fence just as much as it does the US. Regardless of "blame," what is clear is that everyone involved seems to be making decisions based primarily on the oil that flows out of Iraqi soil and their individual opportunities to control it. This is and never has been about keeping world peace and anyone who believes that it is, is consciously choosing to not see it for any one of a variety or reasons.

IF the US had gone to the UN with a resolution denouncing Iraq's blatant and sadistic actions towards it's own people, then maybe we'd see a little more constructive progress. This allegation would have been far easier to prove and agree with rather than this needle-in-a-haystack ploy. Not only that, even if it was a disingenuous reason to attack, the US could at least point to the official paperwork (with a wink and a nod) and claim that it only had the best interests of freedom and justice in mind.

But instead, the US is claiming that this war is about world peace while everyone and their grandmother knows that it isn't. Bush & Co. have seemingly managed to fool the minority of voters who actually cast ballots for him, but the people that really matter across the globe are seeing right through the charade.

Jedi Clint
03-13-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
This is and never has been about keeping world peace and anyone who believes that it is, is consciously choosing to not see it for any one of a variety or reasons.
But instead, the US is claiming that this war is about world peace while everyone and their grandmother knows that it isn't. Bush & Co. have seemingly managed to fool the minority of voters who actually cast ballots for him, but the people that really matter across the globe are seeing right through the charade.

Choosing not to see what? That we could simply lay off Saddam and promote lifting the sanctions (ya know the ones that say: disarm, quit being a sadistic tyrant, etc) to get at the oil that you claim we must have a war to purchase and develop? ;) Those countries in opposition to us in the U.N. are the ones that don't care whether Saddam is a brutal dictator actively seeking W.M.D. They'll make him a WEALTHY brutal dictator actively seeking W.M.D. :)

"The people that really matter"

Does this mean that if we disagee with you (support and or vote for Bush), then we don't "really matter"? :rolleyes: "Everyone and their grandmother" doesn't have to agree with your opinion to "matter".

"This is and always has been about keeping world peace and anyone who believes that it is not, is consciously choosing to not see it for any one of a variety or reasons. "

"Works" both ways doesn't it? ;)

The Overlord Returns
03-13-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
"This is and always has been about keeping world peace and anyone who believes that it is not, is consciously choosing to not see it for any one of a variety or reasons. "

Works both ways doesn't it? ;)

Hmm...you've lost me....

Why did you switch "never" with "always"?

Vortex
03-13-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
IF the US had gone to the UN with a resolution denouncing Iraq's blatant and sadistic actions towards it's own people, then maybe we'd see a little more constructive progress. This allegation would have been far easier to prove and agree with rather than this needle-in-a-haystack ploy. Not only that, even if it was a disingenuous reason to attack, the US could at least point to the official paperwork (with a wink and a nod) and claim that it only had the best interests of freedom and justice in mind.

But instead, the US is claiming that this war is about world peace while everyone and their grandmother knows that it isn't.

Seriously, would sadistic actions towards his own people have given us or the world a viable excuse to go in and remove him or even open the door for talk of his removal?

Please, if this was a viable reason, we or the UN would have stepped into Bosnia and the old Yugoslavia crisis much sooner than it did. Hell, if this was a focal point, or an important point to wage war or remove leaders, we'd be in every African nation liberating people from tyranical warlords that spring up ever other day. We'd be fighting a non stop war in Afganastan and Pakistan, doing away with tribal leaders and warlords that practice ethinc cleansing on a daily basis or whenever they can. We'd be so entrenched in wars in the middle east we'd have a massive religious war on our hands due to some of those middle eastern nations treatment of women. Isn't that just cause to go in and house clean? We'd be in Russia and all its small -stan nations that fragmented from old mother Russia liberating poor distressed widows and orphans. We'd be in China, Indonesia, N. Korea, and Argentina. We would have support and the reason to invade Mexico for its rotten living standards and corrupt national government...

That reasoning about bad actions towards his people wouldn't have mattered at all. Look at all the nations guilty of mistreatment of their peoples.

Just hypothetically speaking here...what if there is a link between Iraq, Iran, and various terriorist groups? What we if find a viable connection with So-damn and Osama or a money trail or weapons trail? Would you change your thinking? What if we do go in and find all this stuff Bush is carrying on about? Would you climb the fence and support our nations actions?

The Overlord Returns
03-13-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
Seriously, would sadistic actions towards his own people have given us or the world a viable excuse to go in and remove him or even open the door for talk of his removal?



Why do you think the action in kosovo was supported?

It would certainly be a much more sympathetic stance to come from....as I have said in other posts.....the world opinion on the topic might be very different hsd that been the platform such action was presented on.

Darth Trymybestus
03-13-2003, 05:33 PM
The fact is, the United Nations is the most corrupt of all... why should countries like Angola have a deciding vote in world policy?

Vortex
03-13-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Why do you think the action in kosovo was supported?

It would certainly be a much more sympathetic stance to come from....as I have said in other posts.....the world opinion on the topic might be very different hsd that been the platform such action was presented on.

Yea it was supported, but the hatred and genoside was going on for many, many, many years prior to the UN involvement.

The problems between the Serbs and Croats existed befor WWI and then when they all got lumped together it made things worse. Then you started to mix in Albanians and some religious groups that didn't "fit in" or belong and you had a huge powder keg. I remember my grandpa and grandpa talking about mistreatment my great-grandma and great-grandpa experienced since they were from opposite sides of the rift, and family rumor has it my grandpa was wanted at one point as a political enemy...but it took the UN a long time to react to that and step in. Even then they botched the whole thing and look how much happened before they even started talking.

I'm just saying that Stilla's idea was a rather limp reason.

stillakid
03-13-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Choosing not to see what? That we could simply lay off Saddam and promote lifting the sanctions (ya know the ones that say: disarm, quit being a sadistic tyrant, etc) to get at the oil that you claim we must have a war to purchase and develop? ;) Those countries in opposition to us in the U.N. are the ones that don't care whether Saddam is a brutal dictator actively seeking W.M.D. They'll make him a WEALTHY brutal dictator actively seeking W.M.D. :)
True, there is the matter of WMD going on, but it's just a very convenient pretense for going in and taking control of the region and it's natural resources.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
"The people that really matter"

Does this mean that if we disagee with you (support and or vote for Bush), then we don't "really matter"? :rolleyes: "Everyone and their grandmother" doesn't have to agree with your opinion to "matter".
No. You've got my meaning all wrong. You have a tendency to look for the conspiracy against home-grown Republicans. I was referring to the UN and the countries with veto power. You can't seriously think that ordinary US citizens actually have any true say in what Bush and Co. do?


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
"This is and always has been about keeping world peace and anyone who believes that it is not, is consciously choosing to not see it for any one of a variety or reasons. "

"Works" both ways doesn't it? ;)

No, it doesn't. There is more than adequate proof to suggest that this is more about oil and less about world peace. Hussein has been effectively reigned in since we pushed him back and there has been no sign that there is any change imminent. The only evident catalyst that Dubbya could capitalize on was 9/11, and that has proven to be a tenuous link at best. If the current Republican administration was that terribly concerned about WMD and world peace in general, there are a variety of nations we should have invaded by now and several tyrants who are at least as dangerous as Hussein is. But we haven't...and we won't.

stillakid
03-13-2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
Seriously, would sadistic actions towards his own people have given us or the world a viable excuse to go in and remove him or even open the door for talk of his removal?

Please, if this was a viable reason, we or the UN would have stepped into Bosnia and the old Yugoslavia crisis much sooner than it did. Hell, if this was a focal point, or an important point to wage war or remove leaders, we'd be in every African nation liberating people from tyranical warlords that spring up ever other day. We'd be fighting a non stop war in Afganastan and Pakistan, doing away with tribal leaders and warlords that practice ethinc cleansing on a daily basis or whenever they can. We'd be so entrenched in wars in the middle east we'd have a massive religious war on our hands due to some of those middle eastern nations treatment of women. Isn't that just cause to go in and house clean? We'd be in Russia and all its small -stan nations that fragmented from old mother Russia liberating poor distressed widows and orphans. We'd be in China, Indonesia, N. Korea, and Argentina. We would have support and the reason to invade Mexico for its rotten living standards and corrupt national government...

That reasoning about bad actions towards his people wouldn't have mattered at all. Look at all the nations guilty of mistreatment of their peoples.

YES! That's exactly the point of this thread. Many nations speak with forked tongue. What I was saying was that had the US declared that it was going to invade based on humanitarian causes, it would give other nations pause in disagreeing. The whole weapons thing is far too easy to shrug off. "Not enough proof," "inspections are keeping him reigned in," etc. There are too many excuses that UN nations can use to veto an invasion with the US cause of disarmament. But if we were going in to "liberate" an oppressed society, then other nations could refuse to participate just for the hell of it, but they certainly would have to work harder to find viable reasons to object.

But since neither WMD nor humanitarian reasons are the true cause for this conflict, both are subject to justifiable critique. Had the US just come right out and said that we want Iraq's oil and we're going to invade for it, the world would continue to hate us but at least we'd be honest about it.


Originally posted by tjovonovich
Just hypothetically speaking here...what if there is a link between Iraq, Iran, and various terriorist groups? What we if find a viable connection with So-damn and Osama or a money trail or weapons trail? Would you change your thinking? What if we do go in and find all this stuff Bush is carrying on about? Would you climb the fence and support our nations actions? Yes. I'd change my thinking. But a connection hasn't been made. Dubbya and Co. have tried to suggest it, but when pressed for proof, they stutter and move on to something else.

As far as supporting the actions of our nation, it's not so easy to do given our tumultuous history. Heck, just dig into our seriously f'd up policies in the banana-republics in the 1960s for a prime example of that. I'm all for serious military action when it's justified and the reasons are crystal clear. But Dubbya and Co.'s motives are suspect in my eyes (and the eyes of millions upon millions of other people on this planet). I don't trust him and his cohorts and neither did a majority of voting Americans in the last election. But all they have to do is lay out a convincing argument for why this action is so gddmned imperative right now and maybe people will get behind him.

But I digress. The point here is that without a clear "mission statement" for what this country is supposed to stand for and how we will conduct ourselves to further that goal, our political leaders will continue to act irresponsibly at times in a manner which clearly contradicts the values and principles this country was founded upon. The last time I checked, invading another country for it's oil wasn't in the Constitution. And if you disagree that that is the reason, and suggest that it all about world peace, then why aren't we invading all those other equally dangerous countries right now?

Jedi Clint
03-13-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
True, there is the matter of WMD going on, but it's just a very convenient pretense for going in and taking control of the region and it's natural resources.

Why do we need war to "take control of their natural resources"? We could lift the sanctions. How do you figure we will have "control" of their natural resources post war?


Originally posted by stillakid
No. You've got my meaning all wrong. You have a tendency to look for the conspiracy against home-grown Republicans.

What is a "home-grown Republican"?


Originally posted by stillakid
I was referring to the UN and the countries with veto power. You can't seriously think that ordinary US citizens actually have any true say in what Bush and Co. do?

You failed to make clear who you were referring to. You made the claim that the "people who matter" agreed with your position on this issue. All of us matter.


Originally posted by stillakid
No, it doesn't.

I took your declaration and modified it to fit my position. Making declarations doesn't prove the validity of your position. That was my point.


Originally posted by stillakid
There is more than adequate proof to suggest that this is more about oil and less about world peace.


What proof would that be?


Originally posted by stillakid
Hussein has been effectively reigned in since we pushed him back and there has been no sign that there is any change imminent.

I ask you for proof that he has been effectively "reigned in". If he has weapon programs that will allow him to (if not now then soon or sometime in the not too distant future) exist as a threat to global security, why should we wait to act?


Originally posted by stillakid
The only evident catalyst that Dubbya could capitalize on was 9/11, and that has proven to be a tenuous link at best.

It seems you expect us to forget what we know of Saddam's compliance. We ratchet up the talk of force, and he produces weapons he said he didn't have. Why should we believe that he doesn't have viable W.M.D. programs?


Originally posted by stillakid
If the current Republican administration was that terribly concerned about WMD and world peace in general, there are a variety of nations we should have invaded by now and several tyrants who are at least as dangerous as Hussein is. But we haven't...and we won't.

We won't?! How do you know this?


Originally posted by stillakid
The whole weapons thing is far too easy to shrug off. "Not enough proof," "inspections are keeping him reigned in," etc. There are too many excuses that UN nations can use to veto an invasion with the US cause of disarmament.

Far too easy to shrug off?


Originally posted by stillakid
But since neither WMD nor humanitarian reasons are the true cause for this conflict, both are subject to justifiable critique. Had the US just come right out and said that we want Iraq's oil and we're going to invade for it, the world would continue to hate us but at least we'd be honest about it.

Once again, because you declare something to be so, does not give it legitimacy. If we want Iraq's oil, why don't we drop the hostility toward Saddam and buddy up with him as France, Russia, and China have?


Originally posted by stillakid
Yes. I'd change my thinking. But a connection hasn't been made. Dubbya and Co. have tried to suggest it, but when pressed for proof, they stutter and move on to something else.

Why did Osama come out in support of Saddam's Iraq? Are you claiming that Iraq does not support terrorism? He isn't supposed to according to the U.N., but he has offered the families of suicide bombers money in return for the terrorist actions of a family member. You're sure he hasn't offered sanctuary and support to Al Quida? I am not.


Originally posted by stillakid
But all they have to do is lay out a convincing argument for why this action is so gddmned imperative right now and maybe people will get behind him.

It isn't easy to convince someone who is unwilling to accept information contrary to already established beliefs. Just an FYI. "People" are behind him.

Why aren't we invading other countries right now? Which one's do you want us to invade?

CloneTrooperMace
03-13-2003, 07:38 PM
WHY WAR???:confused: Buch is doing this because his DADDY didn't do it before so Buch Jr is doing. Which is so Stuid.We are Sending millions of troops over sea's just for stuidy.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Old Fossil
03-13-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by CloneTrooperMace
WHY WAR???:confused: Buch is doing this because his DADDY didn't do it before so Buch Jr is doing. Which is so Stupidity.We are Sending millions of troops over sea's just for stupidity.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Stupidity, or Madness:

"'Twas not so hard a task. I thought to find one stubborn, at the least; but my one cogged circle fits into all their various wheels, and they revolve. Or, if you will, like so many ant-hills of powder, they all stand before me; and I their match. Oh, hard! that to fire others, the match itself must needs be wasting! What I've dared, I've willed; and what I've willed, I'll do! They think me mad... but I'm demoniac, I am madness maddened! That wild madness that's only calm to comprehend itself!... I will not say as schoolboys do to bullies, -- Take some one of your own size; don't pommel ME! No, ye've knocked me down, and I am up again; but ye have run and hidden. Come forth from behind your cotton bags! I have no long gun to reach ye... come and see if ye can swerve me. Swerve me? ye cannot swerve me, else ye swerve yourselves!... Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents' beds, unerringly I rush! Naught's an obstacle, naught's an angle to the iron way!"

This, of course, was not President Bush, thinking to himself after trying to convince his fellow Americans that war on Iraq is justified; it is the soliloquy of a madman who's just talked his ship's crew into helping him destroy a White Whale.

The 'Xir
03-13-2003, 11:52 PM
You know what? I think it's time that we as Americans wake up and smell the money!!! Tell our congressman and senators to relay to the president; that it's ok that he once and for all can declare that our little Republic here is really an Empire! I mean really we are! We are no different then the Holy Roman Empire of 2000 years ago! I mean Great Britain is too to an extant, but we really have grown too big, too fast and too powerful to soon! Our reconstruction of Japan, Invasions of South Korea and Vietnam, and the recent Invasion & reconstruction of Afganistan are only a handful of examples of our Policies of Power! Japan is the most shocking of them all! Because although a powerful country in it's own right(at the time), say unlike Afganistan, It's incredible how "Amercanized" Japan became almost overnight, after "The Bomb" in WWII! A once proud country just crippled and scared into submission! Wether they would admit to that today or not, it's true! The only difference is that the Romans physically occupied nations when they took them over, while we just retain strongholds within our conquered countries, but allow them the appearence that they are governing themselves!

The problem is, is that we as Americans have become to lazy and even to stupid to realize that we're being blinded, by our own government and higher society of Intellectuals, to our own capitalsitic enslavement! We are influenced by news organizations along with Madison Ave(the once marketing capital of the world) alike, to think a certain way and live life a certain way! And anyone who gains any glimpse of power that challenges that "American Way", either: 1)learns how to manipulate the masses and joins that higher society of Intellectuals, or 2) Is labeled either an Anarchist or Communist and is quickly discredited by the mainstream media, to the acceptance of the 'court of public opinion', and is destroyed(in one way or another) as an enemy of the people!

We have been convinced that we are truely free, and truely masters of our own destiny, when in fact we are just slaves to an Imperial-like government using capitalistic control over it's people! Debate it all you want, the details might not all be there, but it's true!:greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy:

Vortex
03-14-2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
YES! That's exactly the point of this thread. Many nations speak with forked tongue. What I was saying was that had the US declared that it was going to invade based on humanitarian causes, it would give other nations pause in disagreeing. The whole weapons thing is far too easy to shrug off. "Not enough proof," "inspections are keeping him reigned in," etc. There are too many excuses that UN nations can use to veto an invasion with the US cause of disarmament. But if we were going in to "liberate" an oppressed society, then other nations could refuse to participate just for the hell of it, but they certainly would have to work harder to find viable reasons to object.

But since neither WMD nor humanitarian reasons are the true cause for this conflict, both are subject to justifiable critique. Had the US just come right out and said that we want Iraq's oil and we're going to invade for it, the world would continue to hate us but at least we'd be honest about it.

I still don't buy your bit about humanitarian causes. I don't think they would pause to think about it. I think most nations would fight tooth and nail on this too.

If I was a nation guilty of mistreatment or suspect of it, I'd put the breaks on. If the UN or US is gunning for Iraq because of this, who's to say they won't at some later date come gunning for me under similar circumstances or forced reasons. That whole logic falls under a witch hunt...as does the WMD...it is something of a witch hunt at this point...but nothing people say or do will ever fully support a war or keep people away from war.

The thing that matters now, since this war is looming, is to make sure the end result is a positive one for the nation of Iraq, and hope that the US does find something concrete to support its actions...then again there will be plenty of folks in the states and around the world that will think the stuff was planted or its propaganda...there's no winning but at this point all that matters is the end result and how things are handled from here on out.

At some future date, we will come close to exhausting the natural oil reserve, and there will be other confrontations in other areas that have oil supplies. Who knows our next target might be Canada or we might invade Siberia to loot and plunder their reserves.

No matter how we handle this situation, leave it alone, flatten everything, some one some where will hate us. Everyone loves a winner for a short time till they've been on top for too long...then it only breeds hatred, jealousy, and envy. The US is on the top of the food chain and all eyes are always on us, looking for any reason to add to the hatred and loathing. We're like the NY Yankees right now... a power house that buys its championships, gets special treatment, and the team that everyone loves to hate...

Exhaust Port
03-14-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by The 'Xir
We have been convinced that we are truely free, and truely masters of our own destiny, when in fact we are just slaves to an Imperial-like government using capitalistic control over it's people! Debate it all you want, the details might not all be there, but it's true!

Boy I was going to quote the whole post but felt it would have just taken up too much space.

Nothing personal, but I think your comments are idiotic and uneducated. The US is Imperialistic in the world economy because of how widespread our products are? Oh Please. :rolleyes: How many people do you know that own a foreign car? How many of the top selling cars are foreign? The world's economy has changed completely since the 50's. What you see and are blaming on the US is called a world economy not the domestic economy that we had previously.

I also find your comments that our rebuilding of decimated countries idiotic. So we're Imperialistic for helping out other countries? For helping them set up democracies? For building up their infrastructure so they can be somewhat selfsufficient? The reason the US does this is because no one else will. Should we have bombed Japan into submission and then left them for dead after they surrendered? Should we have done the same for Europe? Just because you might see similarities between one country and another doesn't imply conquest, it's a result of that world economy. They become like us and we become like them.

Look at the homogeneous existance between all the countries of Europe. For every difference there are just as many if not more similarities. Heck they have the same money now (GB is still exempt right?). Again I think this can be attributed to a change in the European economy, not one country's cultural conquest.

Invasions of South Korea and Vietnam? :confused: Man, you have no idea what your talking about? I would suggest picking up a couple good history books and reading through them completely before you start claiming the US is attempting to conquer the world.

stillakid
03-14-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Why do we need war to "take control of their natural resources"? We could lift the sanctions. How do you figure we will have "control" of their natural resources post war?
You are kidding, right? No, seriously.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
What is a "home-grown Republican"?
Well, I suspect you are. :confused: What's the problem with that label? You don't like being labeled? Be proud of who you are!




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You failed to make clear who you were referring to. You made the claim that the "people who matter" agreed with your position on this issue. All of us matter.
BS. Our government couldn't give a rats arse about what you or I think...unless we're agreeing with them of course. All that matters is their personal agenda(s) and, of course, getting reelected. Common sense suggests thst the second part of that should be taken care of by leadership actually representing the wishes of the majority, but we've seen throughout history that it isn't the case. Leadership does what it wishes, then when election time draws near, all is fair in love and war, including trying to discredit the competition unfairly.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I took your declaration and modified it to fit my position. Making declarations doesn't prove the validity of your position. That was my point.
I wasn't relying on merely making a statement in order to "prove" is worth. I simply made the statement which is backed by other sources of "proof," such as the article that I quoted above. Simply naysaying a statement doesn't disprove it. Offer serious rebuttal to the evidence as presented and then maybe you can alter my declaration accurately.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
What proof would that be?
I'm not going to go through it all again. You believe what you want to about our government, but until you get to the library to do some research about our history in international relations and of course our present situation, there's no way to speak on equal ground about any of it.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I ask you for proof that he has been effectively "reigned in". If he has weapon programs that will allow him to (if not now then soon or sometime in the not too distant future) exist as a threat to global security, why should we wait to act?
When's the last time Iraq attacked anyone besides his own people? .....la de da de da....I'm waiting..... uh huh, right...he hasn't. How much proof do you want? Which is why I suggested that we attack based on humanitarian reasons. What was that slogan after we took out the Nazi's? Something about "never again"? Well, it has happened...again and again and again. Or maybe we only meant never again when it's happening to a Jew.

Ah, yes...the real point of contention here and abroad. Do we take him out now or wait until he actually does something with the weapons he's hiding? Well, he has been reigned in so far and I think that that is what some of the other nations are saying. Can we do that indefinitely? Maybe. Maybe not. There's no reason to think we couldn't. But there's more to this than just a UN declaration telling him to disarm. You can't just look at this disarmament issue in a vaccuum to evaluate what's going on. We've also got the issue of Jr. finishing off pop's work. There's the issue the Bush Family interest in oil. There's the lucrative oil reserves sitting under Iraqi soil. There's the US interest in maintaining a solid base of operations dead center in the Middle East. There are a lot of balls being juggled right now and all it takes is a little bit of conscious effort to sift through the facts and hyberbole to figure out what's going on. But Bush and Co. are relying on people like you, who enjoy towing the company line, to balance out the popular sentiment against them.

There's no easy answer, especially now with the situation we are in as of today, but the motivations of all the players (foreign and domestic) haven't escaped notice from most people.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
It seems you expect us to forget what we know of Saddam's compliance. We ratchet up the talk of force, and he produces weapons he said he didn't have. Why should we believe that he doesn't have viable W.M.D. programs?
No, not at all. I haven't asked anything of the sort. I don't think anyone really believes that he doesn't have WMD. Should the UN enforce their own declaration for disarmament? Yes, if it wishes to remain a viable organization. But the problem is that while the UN is supposed to be some kind of police force for the world with world peace as it's objective, each player is involved in it's own games. The US has many selfish reasons to invade as I described above, that have nothing to do with just enforcing the UN resolutions. The French clearly have oil contracts (that they'll lose once the US takes control over the region) on their minds, which is what is driving their consistent veto.

So, should somebody go in to enforce the UN resolution? Maybe. But again, Bush and Co. haven't offered any evidence to suggest that Hussein would use WMD outside his own borders. This entire Al Queda connection is a bust. There is nothing else.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
We won't?! How do you know this?
Fair enough...you start....what tyrannical nation will we attack next? Once the carriers and battleships are refueled, which beaches will we line up next to?

Or maybe all those ships will come home. Except for the one's "keeping the peace" in the Middle East of course.

Wanna make a bet?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Far too easy to shrug off?
They're doing it, aren't they? The UN nations who disagree with US policy can and are easily saying that an invasion at this time isn't necessary. Perhaps their reasons are suspect (as I've suggested), but they are indeed shrugging off the US accusations. What's your objection to that statement? Or do you just feel it necessary to object to anyone who disagrees with Dubbya?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Once again, because you declare something to be so, does not give it legitimacy. If we want Iraq's oil, why don't we drop the hostility toward Saddam and buddy up with him as France, Russia, and China have? We want it all. Not only that, but we want a solid base of operations in the Middle East. Just getting commercial contracts doesn't place our military where we want them. Plus, "buddying up" at this point would be an open statement of approval for him and his regime. I don't realistically see Bush Jr. doing that to his daddy. Kind of like slapping him in the face.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Why did Osama come out in support of Saddam's Iraq? Are you claiming that Iraq does not support terrorism? He isn't supposed to according to the U.N., but he has offered the families of suicide bombers money in return for the terrorist actions of a family member. You're sure he hasn't offered sanctuary and support to Al Quida? I am not.
Who knows why Osama came out in support of Iraq. Maybe we can ask him if we ever catch him. But I suspect (as do many other people) that Osama simply supports anybody who is our enemy. Osama has no personal love for Hussein and his secular rule. Given half a chance, that religious fanatic would send airliners into Baghdad too.

Does Iraq support terrorism? Again, who knows. Probably. But the day we start sending our entire military might into Palestine, is the day I believe that the motives of our government are to wipe out terrorism.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
It isn't easy to convince someone who is unwilling to accept information contrary to already established beliefs. Just an FYI. "People" are behind him.
Yes, some "people" are behind him. Not enough and not the right ones. I'm not saying that a dictator like Hussein shouldn't be deposed. What I'm doing is questioning the motives of the US and the methods by which we plan on doing it. Remember the topic of the thread. It's business as usual in Washington...say one thing while really doing another.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Why aren't we invading other countries right now? Which one's do you want us to invade?
I lost my list, but at last count, I believe that there are around 15 or so nations which regularly torture and generally oppress their own people. The leaders of those countries live in luxurious surroundings while their people eek out a living in mere survival mode. But guess what...no oil in those places. Funny, huh? Bush can take his disingenuous claim for world peace and shove it.

The Overlord Returns
03-14-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port

Invasions of South Korea and Vietnam? :confused: Man, you have no idea what your talking about? I would suggest picking up a couple good history books and reading through them completely before you start claiming the US is attempting to conquer the world.

While US involvement in Vietnam was hardly an "Invasion"...it bears similarities to the current Idea of regime change for Iraq.

They wanted to stop communist take over of Viet Nam. However, they had no place being there, and , as we all know, lost the war.

The notion of regime change in North VN left 50 000 us soldiers dead (who had no business being there in the first place). The regiem exists top this day, and has never once been a threat to the security of america.

stillakid
03-14-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich

At some future date, we will come close to exhausting the natural oil reserve, and there will be other confrontations in other areas that have oil supplies. Who knows our next target might be Canada or we might invade Siberia to loot and plunder their reserves.


You may be right. "Humanitarian" causes aren't always enough to prompt action. I'm letting my optimism for human compassion get the best of me. Time and time again I expect too much from people.

But your statement above got me thinking...you're absolutely right. One day, Iraq won't mean anything once the oil is gone. Once we figure out solar power, I imagine cloudy nations trying to set up puppet governments in places with wide deserts. :cool: Heck, Iraq seems to have everything the world needs to supply our energy requirements forever! :D

Vortex
03-14-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
You may be right. "Humanitarian" causes aren't always enough to prompt action. I'm letting my optimism for human compassion get the best of me. Time and time again I expect too much from people.

But your statement above got me thinking...you're absolutely right. One day, Iraq won't mean anything once the oil is gone. Once we figure out solar power, I imagine cloudy nations trying to set up puppet governments in places with wide deserts. :cool: Heck, Iraq seems to have everything the world needs to supply our energy requirements forever! :D

Well it was the cradel of civilization. Sumerians, Persians, Babalyon, etc. Look at all the powerful advanced nations and civilizations that came out of the area now labed as Iraq.

Its a major land player in the world market. sort of like Tatootine in all the Star Wars movies:) A dust ball, but so much has come outta the area.

Exhaust Port
03-14-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
They wanted to stop communist take over of Viet Nam.

Similarly they wanted to stop an invading army from taking over S. Korea. Why is it when an army under the banner of Communism invades its called spreading communism and not invading? The countries involved in stopping the "Spread of Communism" where there to stop an invasion. It wasn't like the communist were spreading leaflets trying to drum up support for their cause.

I don't know about not having any right to be there to attempt to protect the oppression of the S. Vietnamese. It wasn't about a regime change, it was about helping the southerners. Remember they had their own army attempted to stop the "Spread of Communism" and others came in to help them in their struggle. That is in your history book isn't it?

The Overlord Returns
03-14-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
Remember they had their own army attempted to stop the "Spread of Communism" and others came in to help them in their struggle. That is in your history book isn't it?

Yes it is. Along with the carpet bombing the US did of civilian areas throughout North VN.......oh...the My Lai Massacre is in there as well ;)

Vortex
03-14-2003, 02:27 PM
Are there really any rules when it comes to engaging the enemy? Both sides want to win and will do anything to ensure that. The established rules of engagement are tossed out the window. In all war cases it win or nothing.

In WWII the Allies saturation bombed Berlin. They dropped one bomb per 10 sq. ft or something like that. We did a number on the civs, and the germans had no problems dropping bombs on London and populated areas.

There will always be civilian deaths and in cases like Solomia, and probably in Iraq, the military will use civilizians as human shields. Is that fair by the current rules of UN established engagment? No, but yet its all about winning at any cost.

Loss of civ life is just part of the whole war equasion.

The Overlord Returns
03-14-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich

Loss of civ life is just part of the whole war equasion.

Mmm.....

However..... the My Lai Massacre went well beyond "bending" the rules of engagement. This was a massacre of innocents .....the superior officers told their troops.."this is what you've been waiting for - search and destroy - you've got it".

How fair does that sound?

Vortex
03-14-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Mmm.....

However..... the My Lai Massacre went well beyond "bending" the rules of engagement. This was a massacre of innocents .....the superior officers told their troops.."this is what you've been waiting for - search and destroy - you've got it".

How fair does that sound?

There's no such thing as fair in war. Or in any fight for that matter. There's no such thing as rules of engagement when there is an actual war. Bend, break, grey area...whatever will help you side win will be done. Was it necessary? I wasn't there. Was it called for? Who tipped the military off to those people in that area?

The military generals may have/did step over the line there, but hey guess what. It wasn't the 1st time, nor will it be the last time.

Hell, Iron Fist Joseph Stallin, rounded up and executed people who's ideas ran against his? The Nazi party did the same thing with the Jews. General Sherman and his march on Savana GA during the Civil War. George Washington attacked the Hessians at night and slaughtered them. The Red Coats killed colonial supporters. During our westward expansion we slaughtered indians. How about the Battle of the Alamo?

There's no such thing as fair in war, that's all I'm saying. You have corruption and rule breaking no matter what in life or death situations. And the old homage about "All's Fair in Love and War" rings true. All bets are off, and if people are in the wrong place at the wrong time...tough, its a war.

Exhaust Port
03-14-2003, 03:38 PM
How do you think the English got their empire? By asking nicely?

The massacre that you quote wasn't condoned by the US military. So you're going to hold responsible and judge an entire country because of the actions of a few?

Since you metioned the carpet bombing of civilians in N.Viet Nam, what targets were they? I've never seen record of intentional bombing of civilian cities in N. Viet Nam.

The Overlord Returns
03-14-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich

There's no such thing as fair in war, that's all I'm saying. You have corruption and rule breaking no matter what in life or death situations. And the old homage about "All's Fair in Love and War" rings true. All bets are off, and if people are in the wrong place at the wrong time...tough, its a war.

So...apply this logic to the notion that Al Qaeda sees itself at war with the US...and what do you get?

Vortex
03-14-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
So...apply this logic to the notion that Al Qaeda sees itself at war with the US...and what do you get?

you get dirty bombs, civ targets, planes into towers, chemical warfare. Everyone and everything is a target...so what's your point? They just escalated it and widened their circle of military and infrastructure targets. Everyone is the enemy, they are under the thinking that whatever they do to us, hurts us some how. I for one wasn't shocked when 9/11 happened.

But then let me toss this at you...how do fight a holy war or a war of religious ideals? What's the target or what are the targets then? Isn't it everything and everyone?

Darth Trymybestus
03-14-2003, 04:29 PM
The United States is the world leader and I have no problem at all with the USA policing the world.
After all, how can we take the United Nations seriously after it has voted Libya chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and Iraq to chair the UN disarmament conference.
I ask myself, is this some kind of sick joke?

Jedi Clint
03-14-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
You are kidding, right? No, seriously.

Why would I be "kidding"? You're the one making accusations as such. Why do we need war to "take control of their natural resources"? We could lift the sanctions. How do you figure we will have "control" of their natural resources post war?




Originally posted by stillakid
Well, I suspect you are. :confused: What's the problem with that label? You don't like being labeled? Be proud of who you are!

I asked you what a "home grown Republican" was. Do you not have an answer to this question either? I've never denied being a Republican. Nor do I have a problem being proud of who I am :D




Originally posted by stillakid
BS. Our government couldn't give a rats arse about what you or I think...unless we're agreeing with them of course. All that matters is their personal agenda(s) and, of course, getting reelected. Common sense suggests thst the second part of that should be taken care of by leadership actually representing the wishes of the majority, but we've seen throughout history that it isn't the case. Leadership does what it wishes, then when election time draws near, all is fair in love and war, including trying to discredit the competition unfairly.

What part was "BS"? You must be referring to the absence of my answer regarding "do they really care what we think". I'm unwilling to make such a guesstimation. :)



Originally posted by stillakid
I wasn't relying on merely making a statement in order to "prove" is worth.

You absolutely were :)


Originally posted by stillakid
I simply made the statement which is backed by other sources of "proof," such as the article that I quoted above.

I also quoted the article "above" to show you that your claim that this was all about oil doesn't hold water ;)


Originally posted by stillakid
Simply naysaying a statement doesn't disprove it.

You're right! Thanks for coming over to my way of thinking :D



Originally posted by stillakid
Offer serious rebuttal to the evidence as presented and then maybe you can alter my declaration accurately.

Hey now. I thought we had an undestanding. You can't simply "naysay" something to disprove it. ;)


Originally posted by stillakid
I'm not going to go through it all again.

Why not? Present your case.


Originally posted by stillakid
[B] You believe what you want to about our government, but until you get to the library to do some research about our history in international relations and of course our present situation, there's no way to speak on equal ground about any of it.

Oh! I must not be as educated as you....huh? LOL! If you wish to throw your nose in the air and claim that "there's no way to speak on equal ground about" something, I will take that as failure to address the arguments I present and offer a solid case to the contrary.....thanks for playing though :D




Originally posted by stillakid
When's the last time Iraq attacked anyone besides his own people?

Kuwait. Early 90's. Next question!


Originally posted by stillakid
.....la de da de da....I'm waiting..... uh huh, right...he hasn't.

He hasn't?


Originally posted by stillakid
How much proof do you want?

At this point, I don't trust Saddam even a little bit. He has to go.


Originally posted by stillakid
Which is why I suggested that we attack based on humanitarian reasons. What was that slogan after we took out the Nazi's? Something about "never again"? Well, it has happened...again and again and again. Or maybe we only meant never again when it's happening to a Jew.

I don't think we should let mass murdering dictators do as they please. What's this about only "when it's happening to a Jew" stuff though? Rwanda? That was a U.N. failure and Bill was running the U.S. at the time.


Originally posted by stillakid
Ah, yes...the real point of contention here and abroad. Do we take him out now or wait until he actually does something with the weapons he's hiding? Well, he has been reigned in so far

Why are you so sure that he has been "reigned in"? If he has been developing W.M.D. while playing games with inspectors, he has not been "reigned in" at all! He just hasn't used his arsenal yet!


Originally posted by stillakid
and I think that that is what some of the other nations are saying. Can we do that indefinitely? Maybe. Maybe not.

France turned down the last resolution before Iraq did. I am not willing (as they appear to be) to wait and find out.


Originally posted by stillakid
There's no reason to think we couldn't.

I say there is! He turns in a report saying he is clean. We demand he isn't and threaten force. He produces weaponry he said he didn't have! He is a proven liar! He is playing games with the inspections.


Originally posted by stillakid
But there's more to this than just a UN declaration telling him to disarm. You can't just look at this disarmament issue in a vaccuum to evaluate what's going on.

You are correct. Let's look at what YOU wish us to take into account!


Originally posted by stillakid
We've also got the issue of Jr. finishing off pop's work.

You will have to define this issue! Simply finishing work left undone isn't a reason to cast doubt upon the President.


Originally posted by stillakid
There's the issue the Bush Family interest in oil.

They made money in the oil business. For that there is also no discredit. If you wish to make a case against them for interest in Iraq's oil, you will have to explain why they refuse to do business with Saddam, while others do not.


Originally posted by stillakid
There's the lucrative oil reserves sitting under Iraqi soil.

Yes.


Originally posted by stillakid
There's the US interest in maintaining a solid base of operations dead center in the Middle East.

Although we have bases in Saudi and other presence in the region, Iraq would be a nice place to set up camp. Maybe the next leader of Iraq will let us stay. :)


Originally posted by stillakid
There are a lot of balls being juggled right now and all it takes is a little bit of conscious effort to sift through the facts and hyberbole to figure out what's going on.

You're not suggesting that I haven't put "a little bit of conscious effort" into this are you? Then again, you've already accused me of not doing my homework in order to bolster your unsubstantiated claims regarding this war being "all about oil" so it woudln't suprise me if you'd claim that I don't "think" or "think right" either!


Originally posted by stillakid
But Bush and Co. are relying on people like you, who enjoy towing the company line, to balance out the popular sentiment against them.

Strike 3! Now I'm just "towing the company line" huh? And "enjoying" it too right? It couldn't be that I've reviewed the information available and come to my own conclusions? I'm sorry you feel that you must resort to this in order to counter my arguments.


Originally posted by stillakid
There's no easy answer, especially now with the situation we are in as of today, but the motivations of all the players (foreign and domestic) haven't escaped notice from most people.

That would depend upon which "motivations" of which "players", and what you are referring to when you say "escaped notice". When you apply all of those variables to the words "most people", I can't help but question the accuracy of the entire statement. Some people might deny that France does all sorts of business with Saddam and that that might be a motivating factor in their opposition to regime change, and others might try to equate war to oil while ignoring the issue of sanctions as related to doing oil business with Iraq :)



Originally posted by stillakid
No, not at all. I haven't asked anything of the sort. I don't think anyone really believes that he doesn't have WMD.

That is why I said "seems". I'm glad that you aren't buying into Saddam's deception though.


Originally posted by stillakid
Should the UN enforce their own declaration for disarmament? Yes, if it wishes to remain a viable organization.

I agree!


Originally posted by stillakid
But the problem is that while the UN is supposed to be some kind of police force for the world with world peace as it's objective, each player is involved in it's own games.

Yes. And in different situations, different people have different motivations. Notice I haven't denied that U.S. oil compaines want to do business with Iraq. But as the guy has proven himself to be a dictator that rules his people with fear and torture, and given his desire for procuring W.M.D. the U.S. (Bush and co.) choose NOT to do the business we could be doing with him. If we did, he would be a well financed maniac with W.M.D.!




Originally posted by stillakid
The US has many selfish reasons to invade as I described above, that have nothing to do with just enforcing the UN resolutions.

If you wish to discuss our desire to have military presence in Iraq and the ethics of being a peace keeping force in the world, so be it.


Originally posted by stillakid
The French clearly have oil contracts (that they'll lose once the US takes control over the region) on their minds, which is what is driving their consistent veto.

Nothing is stopping them from negotiating new contracts with a new Iraq. Perhaps they are deeper into the weapons side of conflicted interest than we know. Perhaps they simply don't want to compete with the U.S. oil production industry. Perhaps there exists loyaly to Saddam that we have yet uncovered.


Originally posted by stillakid
So, should somebody go in to enforce the UN resolution? Maybe. But again, Bush and Co. haven't offered any evidence to suggest that Hussein would use WMD outside his own borders.

So he would only use them inside his own borders? I'd say he would use them to protect what he considers his. Whether that action falls inside or outside the borders of Iraq or whether he simply lords them over the nations of the world as a threat in order to negotiate further power, I do not feel safe as long as he retains power in the region. I doubt his neighbors feel safe either.


Originally posted by stillakid
This entire Al Queda connection is a bust. There is nothing else.

A bust?




Originally posted by stillakid
Fair enough...you start....what tyrannical nation will we attack next? Once the carriers and battleships are refueled, which beaches will we line up next to?

I'm not the one blustering about how there are other locations that should be invaded, so no thank you.


Originally posted by stillakid
Or maybe all those ships will come home. Except for the one's "keeping the peace" in the Middle East of course.

Wanna make a bet?


You claimed we won't attack the other nations (which you claim deserve equal treatment of Saddam). I want to know how you can garuntee said declaration.

I tell ya what. You lay out (in detail) what we would be betting on, and I'll decide whether I'll take your bet.



Originally posted by stillakid
They're doing it, aren't they? The UN nations who disagree with US policy can and are easily saying that an invasion at this time isn't necessary. Perhaps their reasons are suspect (as I've suggested), but they are indeed shrugging off the US accusations. What's your objection to that statement? Or do you just feel it necessary to object to anyone who disagrees with Dubbya?

I don't think they can simply "shrug off" our efforts. If they do, they risk the credibility of the U.N. Do I "just feel it necessary to object to anyone who disagrees" with George W. Bush? It depends upon the issue and where my own convictions are. Do you feel it necessary to object to anything a Republican says or does?



Originally posted by stillakid
We want it all.

It doesn't matter if we want it all. But since you made the statement, you will furnish the plan for taking "it all". If your going to make an accusation, you should be prepared to back it up. How will we take "it all"?


Originally posted by stillakid
Not only that, but we want a solid base of operations in the Middle East.

I tend to agree with you on this.


Originally posted by stillakid
Plus, "buddying up" at this point would be an open statement of approval for him and his regime. I don't realistically see Bush Jr. doing that to his daddy. Kind of like slapping him in the face.

We could buy into the mindset of the French now (or we could have before we started the threats of enforcing sanctions). It was more of an option then, than it is now. But it was and is still an option.


Originally posted by stillakid
Who knows why Osama came out in support of Iraq. Maybe we can ask him if we ever catch him. But I suspect (as do many other people) that Osama simply supports anybody who is our enemy. Osama has no personal love for Hussein and his secular rule. Given half a chance, that religious fanatic would send airliners into Baghdad too.

Whether he likes him or not, he rallied his supporters around Saddam's Iraq.


Originally posted by stillakid
Does Iraq support terrorism? Again, who knows. Probably. But the day we start sending our entire military might into Palestine, is the day I believe that the motives of our government are to wipe out terrorism.

So we have to wipe out Palestine in order for you to believe that we want to wipe out terrorism? I'm hoping that the dispute between Palestine and Israel can be solved through diplomacy as does the President.


Originally posted by stillakid
Yes, some "people" are behind him.

You expected all people to be behind him? That isn't possible.


Originally posted by stillakid
Not enough and not the right ones.

"Not enough?" How many constitutes enough?

"Not the right ones?" Please. Who would the right ones be?


Originally posted by stillakid
I'm not saying that a dictator like Hussein shouldn't be deposed. What I'm doing is questioning the motives of the US and the methods by which we plan on doing it.

We are discussing your questioning of our motives.


Originally posted by stillakid
Remember the topic of the thread.

Yes, I do. Do you?:confused:


Originally posted by stillakid
It's business as usual in Washington...say one thing while really doing another.

What are they saying as opposed to what they are doing?


Originally posted by stillakid
I lost my list, but at last count, I believe that there are around 15 or so nations which regularly torture and generally oppress their own people. The leaders of those countries live in luxurious surroundings while their people eek out a living in mere survival mode.

I don't doubt that.


Originally posted by stillakid
But guess what...no oil in those places.

Maybe not as much oil in those places. ;)


Originally posted by stillakid
Funny, huh?

No it isn't. Why don't you pick the next one we should target. Tell us whether there should be negotiation or whether we should start right in with the military action.


Originally posted by stillakid
Bush can take his disingenuous claim for world peace and shove it.

LOL!

The Overlord Returns
03-14-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
you get dirty bombs, civ targets, planes into towers, chemical warfare. Everyone and everything is a target...so what's your point? They just escalated it and widened their circle of military and infrastructure targets. Everyone is the enemy, they are under the thinking that whatever they do to us, hurts us some how. I for one wasn't shocked when 9/11 happened.


The point I was making is this. If, as you state, the agressive actions against civilians purpotrated by a group that sees themselves at war are "fair", then by your own logic you must feel the 9/11 attacks were justified.



Originally posted by tjovonovich

But then let me toss this at you...how do fight a holy war or a war of religious ideals? What's the target or what are the targets then? Isn't it everything and everyone?

It shouldn't be, and that's where we differ, between what should be, and what is. Lets see, most religious battles, or conflicts where violence is rampant have been going on for decades with no resolution. However, Ghandis peaceful revolt throughout india (both political and religious) brought India it's freedom in a relatively short time.

The idea that we should judge our own actions by those brutal monsters of history (hitler, stalin) is ludicous. Stalin helped massacre south vietnamese....so we are allowed to slaughter North vietnamese? Makes no sense...especially when we're the side claiming to be the good guys.

Vortex
03-14-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The point I was making is this. If, as you state, the agressive actions against civilians purpotrated by a group that sees themselves at war are "fair", then by your own logic you must feel the 9/11 attacks were justified.

Yes and no. Yes, because that is their way of thinking and acting. They have their logic that says America and the West is the devil. Their individual clerics tell them its their religious duty to kill americans. Hence in their way of thinking it's justified. And no, because if you use the UN accepted rules of international war, they intentionally picked out civ targets and used civ aircraft as their weapon. It doesn't matter there's always 2 sides to a coin and it all depends on what side your on when you flip the coin.



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
It shouldn't be, and that's where we differ, between what should be, and what is. Lets see, most religious battles, or conflicts where violence is rampant have been going on for decades with no resolution. However, Ghandis peaceful revolt throughout india (both political and religious) brought India it's freedom in a relatively short time.

The idea that we should judge our own actions by those brutal monsters of history (hitler, stalin) is ludicous. Stalin helped massacre south vietnamese....so we are allowed to slaughter North vietnamese? Makes no sense...especially when we're the side claiming to be the good guys.

1st the Iraq crisis isn't a religious issus. 2nd Al Q's motto and battle cry is. Anything the West does in the middle east will always get branded with the jihad term.

Hmmm...wasn't England in the process of receeding from their motto of the "Sun never sets on the British Empire" because of stretched resources and differnt world view? Britian was on the way out anyway, and if you really think one man's actions of peacful protest can sway national leaders...whatever crack your smoking you can export that my way...

I'm not saying we follow suite with mass carnage and civ killings. I'm just saying it happens, it has always happened it WILL continue to happen again. If you think humanity has moved beyond all those past examples, just read any newspaper these days. Good guys or bad guys...it all depends on which side your on and how you view things, but it will happen again. And to not acknowledge this and expect it at some point in some form is just blind faith, in a matter of speaking.

Human nature is more often than not destructive. We'll killed for food, land, ideals, power, sex and money. These basic instincts within ALL of us won't go away, especially if some one has something we want. If we want something bad enough we will kill, steal, lie, and take by force if necessary to achieve our goals...if we see a clean opening.

Joan of Arc (if she really did exist, but that's another thread), Ghandi, Mother Thresa, MLK, didn't work miracles and didn't change things by their voice alone. They were used as ideal images. Its like saying George Washington was the sole reason and the main factor for the colonies winning their freedom from England. We use these historic people as icons. Its easier to relate to and understand.

JediTricks
03-14-2003, 08:21 PM
Please ease up on the quoting, some of you guys are just bickering with one person back and forth taking every little comment and turning it into its own battle. Try to stick to posts where your points are forming some sort of cohesive argument, the current route is like a shotgun blast of quotes & comments, and seems to be pushing the envelope on the "no personal attacks" rule.

stillakid
03-14-2003, 08:52 PM
:rolleyes: Where to start?


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Why would I be "kidding"? You're the one making accusations as such. Why do we need war to "take control of their natural resources"? We could lift the sanctions. How do you figure we will have "control" of their natural resources post war?
Does everything have to be spelled out for you? Okay, I'll give it a shot, though based on the majority of your replies, you either won't get this either or will mask agreement by claiming confusion of what I'm saying.

Why don't we need a war to get control of Iraq's oil is the question. I'll tell you. Iraq isn't about to just give it to us, are they? And we've already made it clear that we hate the regime, haven't we? So trying to do a standard business contract with them is out of the question, isn't it? So how else are we supposed to get that oil? Military conquest is the only other method. So, when the US goes in (mostly alone), we'll have every reason to suggest that "recouping" the costs of military action through oil from the region is justifiable.

How much clearer and obvious can this be? :confused: You seriously don't think we're going to bomb the crap out of them, march our armies into Baghdad, and then just pull back and "demand" nothing in return? Unless we're going in to "save" somebody, like we did in Kuwait, that's not what war is typically about.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I asked you what a "home grown Republican" was. Do you not have an answer to this question either? I've never denied being a Republican. Nor do I have a problem being proud of who I am :D
You've got a problem with labels. This is a non-issue and I fail to understand the relevance of the question. And I have answers to EVERY question you've asked, so I don't know where that comment is coming from. Another diversionary technique from the Republican handbook.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
What part was "BS"? You must be referring to the absence of my answer regarding "do they really care what we think". I'm unwilling to make such a guesstimation. :)
Again, do you even read what people write to you? The BS is in response to your statement. :confused: Don't play dumb. What I was referring to is excruitatingly obvious and I won't play this silly game.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You absolutely were :)

I also quoted the article "above" to show you that your claim that this was all about oil doesn't hold water ;)

You're right! Thanks for coming over to my way of thinking :D

Hey now. I thought we had an undestanding. You can't simply "naysay" something to disprove it. ;)

Why not? Present your case.
More word games. Again, I won't play. Discuss the issues. The arguments have been laid out previously. I won't do your research for you twice.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Oh! I must not be as educated as you....huh? LOL! If you wish to throw your nose in the air and claim that "there's no way to speak on equal ground about" something, I will take that as failure to address the arguments I present and offer a solid case to the contrary.....thanks for playing though :D
Again, the evidence has been offered. Go look it up again.






Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Kuwait. Early 90's. Next question!
You've failed to counter the question. No kidding Iraq went into Kuwait. You know perfectly well that the question was in regards to after that. So answer that question for real this time.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
He hasn't?
Not the last time I checked. Has he attacked some other nation since in your private universe?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
At this point, I don't trust Saddam even a little bit. He has to go.
You and everybody else. That isn't the question.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I don't think we should let mass murdering dictators do as they please. What's this about only "when it's happening to a Jew" stuff though? Rwanda? That was a U.N. failure and Bill was running the U.S. at the time.
No, we shouldn't and that is getting to the heart of what this thread is about. Asking ourselves what this country should stand for. Do we go marauding around the world in the genuine name of peace and justice, or do we merely hide behind that benevolent shield in order to selfishly prosper?






Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Why are you so sure that he has been "reigned in"?
Well, he hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait, has he?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
If he has been developing W.M.D. while playing games with inspectors, he has not been "reigned in" at all! He just hasn't used his arsenal yet!
Yes, pre-emptive strikes. That's your real concern. Maybe he will use WMD, maybe not. But the guy is pretty isolated diplomatically. For all the vetos in the UN, not too many nations would get behind him if he unleashed a new invasion tomorrow. He may have the WMD, but the only viable ways that he could use them would be in self-defense in the event of an invasion (which is imminent) and by selling them off to rogue terrorist groups. I would think that #2 should be a larger concern.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
France turned down the last resolution before Iraq did. I am not willing (as they appear to be) to wait and find out. sigh. As suggested many times previously, France's motives for veto seem to have very little to do with "waiting to find out." They've got current oil contracts on their minds, as do we.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I say there is! He turns in a report saying he is clean. We demand he isn't and threaten force. He produces weaponry he said he didn't have! He is a proven liar! He is playing games with the inspections.
Yes, he is. I don't think anyone is disputing that.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You are correct. Let's look at what YOU wish us to take into account!
Already done. Go look it up again.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You will have to define this issue! Simply finishing work left undone isn't a reason to cast doubt upon the President. When it's Bush and Bush Jr., I think this definitely is a viable reason to cast doubt upon his motives. Dubbya came into office declaring that he'd see to it that there was regime change in Iraq. It was part of his platform. Not that standard Republicans paid attention to that. Most were too focused on the non-issue distractions of the Clinton era.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
They made money in the oil business. For that there is also no discredit. If you wish to make a case against them for interest in Iraq's oil, you will have to explain why they refuse to do business with Saddam, while others do not.
This couldn't be any clearer. This is tiring. Okay, what's the question? Why the US and the Bush Clan wouldn't do legitimate business with Saddam? Again, you must be joking when you ask that. After Bush Sr. sends our military might over to push them out of Kuwait and denounces that regime, you'd honestly suggest that he'd turn around and sign a business contract for oil production? Get out! That's damn near the funniest thing I've heard all day.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Although we have bases in Saudi and other presence in the region, Iraq would be a nice place to set up camp. Maybe the next leader of Iraq will let us stay. :)
Right. Maybe the next leader will be nicer! Again, this is all I'm saying when I suggest that our motivations aren't about "world peace." We want...no, we NEED a presence over there to "protect" our energy interests, particularly after we wrest control of Iraqi oil fields from that regime.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You're not suggesting that I haven't put "a little bit of conscious effort" into this are you?
Based on some of your answers, no, it doesn't appear as such so far. Much of what I'm reading here sounds like it's coming from the Republican war brochures, not from any sense of the bigger and broader issues going on.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Strike 3! Now I'm just "towing the company line" huh? And "enjoying" it too right? It couldn't be that I've reviewed the information available and come to my own conclusions? I'm sorry you feel that you must resort to this in order to counter my arguments.
Strike 3? What happened to 1 and 2? And aren't you fully supporting everything coming out of Washington? Couldn't that be readily defined as "towing the company line"?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
That would depend upon which "motivations" of which "players", and what you are referring to when you say "escaped notice".
sigh, not again. Criminy, don't you read the newspapers. The "players" are those guys in suits hanging out in that place called the U.N. It stands for United Nations. There are also some other guys in suits in a country called Iraq (pronounced: I ROCK). WE, that is ordinary citizens like you and I, don't matter and are just along for the ride, as are the ordinary citizens of IRAQ, most of whom also have been brainwashed by their irresponsible leaders.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
When you apply all of those variables to the words "most people", I can't help but question the accuracy of the entire statement. Some people might deny that France does all sorts of business with Saddam and that that might be a motivating factor in their opposition to regime change, and others might try to equate war to oil while ignoring the issue of sanctions as related to doing oil business with Iraq :)
Please clarify your point. I apologize, but I'm not getting it.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
That is why I said "seems". I'm glad that you aren't buying into Saddam's deception though.
Of course not. This isn't about Saddam at all. This is about the US, it's true motivations, and how we present ourselves to the world.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Yes. And in different situations, different people have different motivations. Notice I haven't denied that U.S. oil compaines want to do business with Iraq. But as the guy has proven himself to be a dictator that rules his people with fear and torture, and given his desire for procuring W.M.D. the U.S. (Bush and co.) choose NOT to do the business we could be doing with him. If we did, he would be a well financed maniac with W.M.D.!
But you keep asking me why Bush and Co. won't just go get legimate contracts when you see the problem yourself? Why the distraction and subterfuge? I don't get it.






Originally posted by Jedi Clint
If you wish to discuss our desire to have military presence in Iraq and the ethics of being a peace keeping force in the world, so be it.
Uh, yeah, that's what I've been trying to do, but you keep trying to deny our true motivations for the current invasion. In the most simple terms, all I'm suggesting is that the US is trying to justify an invasion because of disingenuous reasons. The US is saying that it is all about disarming Iraq. I'm suggesting, as are many others, that oil is the bigger target and the US is not coming clean about this. Because the UN is tied up with this issue, it is also being suggested that France, for one, is against invasion also because of oil interests, and not because it believes in inspections or disarmament or whatever else.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Nothing is stopping them from negotiating new contracts with a new Iraq. Perhaps they are deeper into the weapons side of conflicted interest than we know. Perhaps they simply don't want to compete with the U.S. oil production industry. Perhaps there exists loyaly to Saddam that we have yet uncovered.
That is what is being suggested by many people, but they know that their influence in a new Iraq will be severely diminished by the US presence there. That is why they are trying to stop us from invading under the UN banner.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
So he would only use them inside his own borders? I'd say he would use them to protect what he considers his.
Rightfully so. We have weapons to do the same, don't we? He is allowed the same "courtesy." That is why he is allowed to produce missiles with only a limited range.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Whether that action falls inside or outside the borders of Iraq or whether he simply lords them over the nations of the world as a threat in order to negotiate further power, I do not feel safe as long as he retains power in the region. I doubt his neighbors feel safe either.
As mentioned, nobody is likely to back him, as they are doing now, if he decided to launch an invasion into new territory. His only viable means of using any of his weapons at this point are for self-defense and for sale to third parties. In fact, his neighbors probably feel as safe from him right now as they ever have. They know that he's staring down the barrel of a US gun and any false move will pull the trigger. Even if our ships and troops weren't amassed over there right now, every nation within a stones throw has been aware that the US has just been looking for the opportunity to strike Baghdad.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
A bust?
Do you have some proof of an Osama connection to Iraq that the rest of the world doesn't know about? Bring it on. You'll be famous.






Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I'm not the one blustering about how there are other locations that should be invaded, so no thank you.
You're suggesting that this is solely about world peace. And furthermore, you're supporting this notion of pre-emptive strikes to counter the potential threat from a tyrannical dictator. If this is to be the new policy of the United States of America, then I would expect that our ships will travel the globe until these evil-doers are extinguished. So, yes, if this is the situation that you support, then I would like to see your own list of who we should go after next.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You claimed we won't attack the other nations (which you claim deserve equal treatment of Saddam). I want to know how you can garuntee said declaration.
There are no guarantees in life. However, Bush Jr. has had several years so far to support this notion that tyrannical dictators should be pre-emptively put down. But he hasn't made move one on any of them, until now, and it just magically happens to be the same guy that his daddy rumbled with.

So, if nothing else, precedent says that the US will not launch pre-emptive strikes upon other tyrannical dictators.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I tell ya what. You lay out (in detail) what we would be betting on, and I'll decide whether I'll take your bet.
Your side of the bet says that our troops will immediately move on from Iraq to launch attacks on at least 2 or more tyrannical regimes.

My bet is that our troops will come home (except for the "peace keepers" who are left in Iraq.)





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I don't think they can simply "shrug off" our efforts. If they do, they risk the credibility of the U.N.
Clearly, yet it appears as if they don't care, "they" being those who oppose the US. By the same token, the US can be accused of doing the same, by ignoring the wishes of the UN body as a whole. The US is supposed to be a democracy, yet we choose to ignore that principle in the UN whenever their wishes don't mesh with ours. How do you think it would fly here at home if, say, Kansas said "up yours" to the Federal government? Not so well, I'd say.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Do I "just feel it necessary to object to anyone who disagrees" with George W. Bush? It depends upon the issue and where my own convictions are. Do you feel it necessary to object to anything a Republican says or does?
Only when it doesn't make sense. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. Both have their strengths and both have their faults. The problem is that we need more people to stand on their own and formulate their own opinions instead of just standing in line to regurgitate what their party of choice tells them is true. But just like a religion, there is a certain sense of security in knowing that somebody else is out there taking care of the big issues for us. "we should support our President," right? No matter what he says or does?





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
It doesn't matter if we want it all. But since you made the statement, you will furnish the plan for taking "it all". If your going to make an accusation, you should be prepared to back it up. How will we take "it all"?
We'll go in enmasse with our troops and take control of that country. We'll set up a puppet government, as we've done many times in the past in many different locales, and set up lucrative deals with domestic oil companies. US and British companies will be given preference as "repayment" for the cost outlay of the incursion. Other foreign interests may get a bone thrown to them as a diplomatic gesture. Again, if you'd read the papers lately, the spoils of Iraq are already being divided up among the main participants. This is not a secret and I'm not typing anything new here.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
We could buy into the mindset of the French now (or we could have before we started the threats of enforcing sanctions). It was more of an option then, than it is now. But it was and is still an option.
Not a chance in hell. The US, and particularly George W. Bush, would never stoop down, back our troops out of there, and accept Hussein as a legimate business client. Maybe prior to Kuwait, but it hasn't been a realistic option since. The US has made too many accusations at this point. Backing down now would give legimacy to Iraq and strengthen Muslim resolve against the US in the future. That's the last thing the US wants right now, particularly in our fight against Al Qaeda.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Whether he likes him or not, he rallied his supporters around Saddam's Iraq.
True, which is what Osama wanted. Any enemy of the US is his tenuous friend. But that doesn't mean that the two are buddies by any stretch of the definition.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
So we have to wipe out Palestine in order for you to believe that we want to wipe out terrorism? I'm hoping that the dispute between Palestine and Israel can be solved through diplomacy as does the President.
No, that's not what I said. In the context of the public reasons for a US invasion of Iraq, our motivations for said invasion do not appear to mesh with the stated government stance. Were we truly interested in stamping out terrorism across the globe, we would have stepped into Palestine militarily by now. But we haven't. Why not? Clearly, because the hope is that it can be done peacefully. By the same token, why can't the same be done with Iraq? Why the sudden rush to wipe the desert clean of his regime with such a strong show of force? He hasn't threatened to use any of his WMD on any other nations and with the constant threat of US action against him, he isn't likely too either.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You expected all people to be behind him? That isn't possible.
Especially since most people didn't choose the little box next to his name in the election either.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
"Not enough?" How many constitutes enough?
Enough to enable the US to attack under a legitimate UN banner.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
""Not the right ones?" Please. Who would the right ones be?
The one's that have veto power in the UN. Please, I know you're a bright guy. You can't tell me that you don't know the answers to your own questions.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
We are discussing your questioning of our motives.
The discussion is about the US, it's overall philosophy towards fundamental rights and how it conducts itself across the globe. Does it offer itself as a legitimate living breathing example of those principles or does it just say those words while marauding across the globe to satisfy it's selfish needs? History has shown the latter to be true already. The details of this conversation with you deal with the current conflict and whether it fits the mold of previous US policies. I say it does and that we are not being genuine about our motivations in this current conflict. You are suggesting that we are.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Yes, I do. Do you?:confused:
I would hope I know what the topic of the thread is. But you've blinded yourself with current events instead of looking at the larger picture and how these events fit into our history.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
What are they saying as opposed to what they are doing?
again? sigh.... alright, since you didn't get it the first, second, or third time..... the US is saying that this incursion is about world peace when it is really about securing a US position in the Middle East to stabilize our oil supplies.

IF the US pulls out of that region completely after Hussein is gone, then we'll talk some more. But I'm not going to hold my breath.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I don't doubt that.
Maybe not as much oil in those places. ;)
Colombia is a fine example. We've just ratcheted up our military committment a few notches. Why? Not because of the dreaded "war on drugs," but because there's a huge pipeline running through the middle of that country that keeps getting holes blown in it.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint
No it isn't. Why don't you pick the next one we should target. Tell us whether there should be negotiation or whether we should start right in with the military action.
You're right, it isn't funny. Couldn't you hear my sarcasm? You tell me if we should start with negotiation first? What was that exact date when Bush started negotiating with Saddam again? Oh yeah, he didn't. It was a simple accusation of non-compliance and we're off to the races. We've got more solid proof of tyranny from other nations so based on this precedent, we can go in shooting. Why wait?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
LOL!
Yeah, me too. I was amazed that Dubbya got as many votes as he did, but this discussion illustrates how such a thing could happen.



All that aside, just answer this for me: Do you support a policy that says that the US should be allowed to use it's military force whenever and whereever in the world it deems necessary to secure resources that ensure the stability of the nation? In other words, should this country merely worry about it's own safety and prosperity or should we expand our responsibility to ensuring the safety and security of innocent people in other nations?

stillakid
03-14-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Please ease up on the quoting, some of you guys are just bickering with one person back and forth taking every little comment and turning it into its own battle. Try to stick to posts where your points are forming some sort of cohesive argument, the current route is like a shotgun blast of quotes & comments, and seems to be pushing the envelope on the "no personal attacks" rule.

I've tried that in the past and it doesn't work for a couple reasons. One, it isn't fair to the original poster that each comment isn't responded to on it's own merits. Generalizing is neither fair nor accurate.

Two, when generalizing, the responder can quickly be accused of ignoring some points while only attacking others.

In fact, this forum format is a far more effective, efficient, and fair manner in which to hold an in-depth discussion as typical verbal debates offer too many opportunities for rash generalization and exclusion of prime points.

I'd love to cut back on the quoting as their is no efficient manner in which to do it, however allowing defaming or disinformation to exist unchallenged is unfair to everyone. Some topics require a critical examination of the minutia to support the larger topic at hand.

:)

Jedi Clint
03-15-2003, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
:rolleyes: Where to start?
Does everything have to be spelled out for you?

No, it just has to make logical sense.


Originally posted by stillakid
Okay, I'll give it a shot, though based on the majority of your replies, you either won't get this either or will mask agreement by claiming confusion of what I'm saying.

So now I don't get it? Whatever helps you sleep at night :kiss:


Originally posted by stillakid
Why don't we need a war to get control of Iraq's oil is the question. I'll tell you. Iraq isn't about to just give it to us, are they?

No. We would have to develop the oil and purchase it from them.


Originally posted by stillakid
And we've already made it clear that we hate the regime, haven't we?

We made it clear that we expect him to disarm, to end his support of terrorism, and to stop torturing the people of Iraq.


Originally posted by stillakid
So trying to do a standard business contract with them is out of the question, isn't it?

No. We could ratchet down the situation with him and buddy up just like France, Russia, and China have.



Originally posted by stillakid
So, when the US goes in (mostly alone), we'll have every reason to suggest that "recouping" the costs of military action through oil from the region is justifiable.

We will be under extreme scrutiny for our actions during and after the liberation of Iraq. That includes our oil contracts and production assistance in the region. We may recoup our investment in their country, but we will not be allowed to "take it all" ;)


Originally posted by stillakid
You seriously don't think we're going to bomb the crap out of them, march our armies into Baghdad, and then just pull back and "demand" nothing in return?

I think that the people we liberate might give us the opportunity to bid on oil production and purchases in their country.


Originally posted by stillakid
Unless we're going in to "save" somebody, like we did in Kuwait, that's not what war is typically about.

If I lived under Saddam's oppressive regime I think I would consider myself "saved".


Originally posted by stillakid
You've got a problem with labels. This is a non-issue and I fail to understand the relevance of the question. And I have answers to EVERY question you've asked, so I don't know where that comment is coming from. Another diversionary technique from the Republican handbook.

Hold on! Let me get out the "Republican handbook". Ok. page 276! "Always consider all available information." Nope sorry nothing about diversionary tactics :)

Now what the hell is a "home grown Republican"?



Originally posted by stillakid
Again, do you even read what people write to you?

Yes. :)


Originally posted by stillakid
The BS is in response to your statement.

Which one?


Originally posted by stillakid
:confused: Don't play dumb. What I was referring to is excruitatingly obvious and I won't play this silly game.

Then don't. Unless you're able to tell me which statement was B.S. I will have to count that as yet another question you failed to answer.




Originally posted by stillakid
More word games. Again, I won't play. Discuss the issues. The arguments have been laid out previously. I won't do your research for you twice.

Why do you refuse to present a clear case for "all about oil"? You have presented your guesstimation of how the big bad U.S. will plunder Iraq, but I have yet to see any evidence to support your position.


Originally posted by stillakid
Again, the evidence has been offered. Go look it up again.


I don't understand why you expect me to do your work for you.



Originally posted by stillakid
Well, he hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait, has he?

He killed thousands of people who revolted agaist him.



Originally posted by stillakid
Yes, pre-emptive strikes. That's your real concern. Maybe he will use WMD, maybe not. But the guy is pretty isolated diplomatically.

He has his supporters. A few even sit on the U.N. security council.



Originally posted by stillakid
He may have the WMD, but the only viable ways that he could use them would be in self-defense in the event of an invasion (which is imminent) and by selling them off to rogue terrorist groups. I would think that #2 should be a larger concern.

Or left to his ways he could finally procure enough W.M.D. that he can spread his reign of fear and torture throughout the world.


Originally posted by stillakid
sigh. As suggested many times previously, France's motives for veto seem to have very little to do with "waiting to find out." They've got current oil contracts on their minds, as do we.

Our possible oil contracts depend upon removing a vile dictator, their's do not.



Originally posted by stillakid
When it's Bush and Bush Jr., I think this definitely is a viable reason to cast doubt upon his motives.

Why did Clinton support our position against Iraq?


Originally posted by stillakid
Dubbya came into office declaring that he'd see to it that there was regime change in Iraq. It was part of his platform

Good for him!! I'm glad he is making good on his promise :D


Originally posted by stillakid
Not that standard Republicans paid attention to that. Most were too focused on the non-issue distractions of the Clinton era.

:D We pay attention to more than you'd like us to.



Originally posted by stillakid
This couldn't be any clearer. This is tiring. Okay, what's the question? Why the US and the Bush Clan wouldn't do legitimate business with Saddam? Again, you must be joking when you ask that. After Bush Sr. sends our military might over to push them out of Kuwait and denounces that regime, you'd honestly suggest that he'd turn around and sign a business contract for oil production? Get out! That's damn near the funniest thing I've heard all day.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml


If it weren't for the sanctions we imposed, we would be doing far MORE business with Iraq than we do now. Thing is, we know he takes money from the oil for food program and uses it for his weapons programs.



Originally posted by stillakid
Right. Maybe the next leader will be nicer! Again, this is all I'm saying when I suggest that our motivations aren't about "world peace." We want...no, we NEED a presence over there to "protect" our energy interests, particularly after we wrest control of Iraqi oil fields from that regime.

And hand them to the people of Iraq :)


Originally posted by stillakid
Strike 3? What happened to 1 and 2?

Strike 1


Originally posted by stillakid
You believe what you want to about our government, but until you get to the library to do some research about our history in international relations and of course our present situation, there's no way to speak on equal ground about any of it.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Oh! I must not be as educated as you....huh? LOL! If you wish to throw your nose in the air and claim that "there's no way to speak on equal ground about" something, I will take that as failure to address the arguments I present and offer a solid case to the contrary.....thanks for playing though :D

Strike 2


Originally posted by stillakid
There are a lot of balls being juggled right now and all it takes is a little bit of conscious effort to sift through the facts and hyberbole to figure out what's going on.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You're not suggesting that I haven't put "a little bit of conscious effort" into this are you? Then again, you've already accused me of not doing my homework in order to bolster your unsubstantiated claims regarding this war being "all about oil" so it woudln't suprise me if you'd claim that I don't "think" or "think
right" either!


Originally posted by stillakid
Based on some of your answers, no, it doesn't appear as such so far.

I figured as much. No sweat though. Your opinions of me are of no consequence. :)


Strike 3



Originally posted by stillakid
But Bush and Co. are relying on people like you, who enjoy towing the company line, to balance out the popular sentiment against them.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint Strike 3! Now I'm just "towing the company line" huh? And "enjoying" it too right? It couldn't be that I've reviewed the information available and come to my own conclusions? I'm sorry you feel that you must resort to this in order to counter my arguments.



Originally posted by stillakid
Much of what I'm reading here sounds like it's coming from the Republican war brochures, not from any sense of the bigger and broader issues going on.

Hunt me up one of these "Republican war brochures". And now your saying I have no "sense of the bigger and broader issues going on". *yawn* Why do you feel it necessary to attack me personally? It appears that the strength of your arguments isn't enough.



Originally posted by stillakid
And aren't you fully supporting everything coming out of Washington?

Not everything. It might seem that way to a liberal blinded by their own opinion though.


Originally posted by stillakid
Couldn't that be readily defined as "towing the company line"?

I review the information available and come to my own conclusions.



Originally posted by stillakid
sigh, not again. Criminy, don't you read the newspapers. The "players" are those guys in suits hanging out in that place called the U.N. It stands for United Nations. There are also some other guys in suits in a country called Iraq (pronounced: I ROCK). WE, that is ordinary citizens like you and I, don't matter and are just along for the ride, as are the ordinary citizens of IRAQ, most of whom also have been brainwashed by their irresponsible leaders.

And now you speak down to me. "sigh"



Originally posted by stillakid
There's no easy answer, especially now with the situation we are in as of today, but the motivations of all the players (foreign and domestic) haven't escaped notice from most people.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
That would depend upon which "motivations" of which "players", and what you are referring to when you say "escaped notice". When you apply all of those variables to the words "most people", I can't help but question the accuracy of the entire statement. Some people might deny that France does all sorts of business with Saddam and that that might be a motivating factor in their opposition to regime change, and others might try to equate war to oil while ignoring the issue of sanctions as related to doing oil business with Iraq



Originally posted by stillakid
I apologize, but I'm not getting it.

I know. It's ok.


Originally posted by stillakid
But you keep asking me why Bush and Co. won't just go get legimate contracts when you see the problem yourself? Why the distraction and subterfuge? I don't get it.

We can:

1) Remove Saddam. Do business with a democratic Iraq.
2) Drop the issue of sanctions and do business with Saddam.

You say we "can't" back off? Why? If revenue from oil were ALL we cared about, then why would do we care who we are enriching?




Originally posted by stillakid
Uh, yeah, that's what I've been trying to do, but you keep trying to deny our true motivations for the current invasion. In the most simple terms, all I'm suggesting is that the US is trying to justify an invasion because of disingenuous reasons. The US is saying that it is all about disarming Iraq. I'm suggesting, as are many others, that oil is the bigger target and the US is not coming clean about this. Because the UN is tied up with this issue, it is also being suggested that France, for one, is against invasion also because of oil interests, and not because it believes in inspections or disarmament or whatever else.

You fail to prove that oil is our "true motivation".



Originally posted by stillakid
That is what is being suggested by many people, but they know that their influence in a new Iraq will be severely diminished by the US presence there. That is why they are trying to stop us from invading under the UN banner.

Why would the people of Iraq show any favor to those that supported their oppressor?



Originally posted by stillakid
Rightfully so. We have weapons to do the same, don't we? He is allowed the same "courtesy." That is why he is allowed to produce missiles with only a limited range.

Is that why he STILL has weapons that violate that mandate?!


Originally posted by stillakid
As mentioned, nobody is likely to back him, as they are doing now, if he decided to launch an invasion into new territory. His only viable means of using any of his weapons at this point are for self-defense and for sale to third parties.

Because Saddam said so right? I thought you didn't believe what Saddam claims. What the inspectors know is almost entirely dependent upon what Saddam furnishes them.


Originally posted by stillakid
Do you have some proof of an Osama connection to Iraq that the rest of the world doesn't know about? Bring it on. You'll be famous.[/b

Powell presented a decent case in support of the connection, but Osama did a much better job when he came out in support of Saddam's Iraq.



Originally posted by stillakid [b]
You're suggesting that this is solely about world peace.


You must be referring to that time I quoted your statement-of-fact style claim and changed a couple of words in an attempt to show you what your unsubstantiated claims look like when the come from the other side of the isle. I don't believe that it is solely about world peace. I think it is primarily about world peace, and secondly about freeing the people of Iraq.

I won't rule out the possibility that we look upon Iraq as a great place to establish a free society that would support our military actions in the region as well.


Originally posted by stillakid
And furthermore, you're supporting this notion of pre-emptive strikes to counter the potential threat from a tyrannical dictator.

I support an end to dealing with Saddam. He will never come clean. Depending upon his honesty in the inspection process is a sure course to failure.


Originally posted by stillakid If this is to be the new policy of the United States of America, then I would expect that our ships will travel the globe until these evil-doers are extinguished. So, yes, if this is the situation that you support, then I would like to see your own list of who we should go after next.

We can't bring them home before the next mission? Our actions in dealing with Iraq might show other tyrants that we mean business and military action might not be necessary when dealing with the next thug.



Originally posted by stillakid
There are no guarantees in life. However, Bush Jr. has had several years so far to support this notion that tyrannical dictators should be pre-emptively put down. But he hasn't made move one on any of them, until now, and it just magically happens to be the same guy that his daddy rumbled with.

His father AND Bill Clinton (hardly like minded individuals). Bill didn't do very much.....but at least he tried.....a little. Bush2 has been working toward this goal for at least the past 18 months.



Originally posted by stillakid
So, if nothing else, precedent says that the US will not launch pre-emptive strikes upon other tyrannical dictators.

What precedent? Are you referring to the "precedent" Bill set in the Balkans?


Originally posted by stillakid
Your side of the bet says that our troops will immediately move on from Iraq to launch attacks on at least 2 or more tyrannical regimes.

My bet is that our troops will come home (except for the "peace keepers" who are left in Iraq.)

I will not take that bet. I will bet that another dictator will become the focus of our attention, but I think we will bring our troops home before another military action (if it is even necessary).




Originally posted by stillakid Clearly, yet it appears as if they don't care, "they" being those who oppose the US. By the same token, the US can be accused of doing the same, by ignoring the wishes of the UN body as a whole. The US is supposed to be a democracy, yet we choose to ignore that principle in the UN whenever their wishes don't mesh with ours. How do you think it would fly here at home if, say, Kansas said "up yours" to the Federal government? Not so well, I'd say.

If someone did accuse us of doing the the same they would have to blindly ignore the resolutions that the security council has passed including resolution 1441.



Originally posted by stillakid
Only when it doesn't make sense. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. Both have their strengths and both have their faults.

How often do you focus on the strengths of Republicans? How often do you focus on the faults of Democrats?


Originally posted by stillakid
The problem is that we need more people to stand on their own and formulate their own opinions instead of just standing in line to regurgitate what their party of choice tells them is true.

I agree. I think that same line of thought could be applied to people that regurgitate the opinions of entertainers as well.


Originally posted by stillakid "we should support our President," right? No matter what he says or does?

No. Debates like these aren't possible in places like Iraq.




Originally posted by stillakid
We'll go in enmasse with our troops and take control of that country. We'll set up a puppet government, as we've done many times in the past in many different locales, and set up lucrative deals with domestic oil companies. US and British companies will be given preference as "repayment" for the cost outlay of the incursion.

If the people of Iraq appreciate our efforts, then why shouldn't their new democracy treat us fairly?


Originally posted by stillakid
Other foreign interests may get a bone thrown to them as a diplomatic gesture.

They will be allowed to compete for contracts the same as we are. Those that supported their freedom MIGHT receive a bit of preferential treatment. I have no problem with that. The eyes of the world will be glued on our post Saddam activities in Iraq. Any shady business dealings will cause massive back lash against the U.S. and it's leadership.


Originally posted by stillakid
Again, if you'd read the papers lately, the spoils of Iraq are already being divided up among the main participants. This is not a secret and I'm not typing anything new here.

Would you care to share this information you've gathered from the papers?


Originally posted by stillakid
Not a chance in hell. The US, and particularly George W. Bush, would never stoop down, back our troops out of there, and accept Hussein as a legimate business client.

You're Right. We won't do that because Saddam is a vile tyrant who actively seeks W.M.D.


Originally posted by stillakid Maybe prior to Kuwait, but it hasn't been a realistic option since. The US has made too many accusations at this point. Backing down now would give legimacy to Iraq and strengthen Muslim resolve against the US in the future. That's the last thing the US wants right now, particularly in our fight against Al Qaeda.

And Saddam would use our lack of resolve to push for a lifting of the sanctions. He'd sell all the oil he wants and use the money for what he wants.....W.M.D.




Originally posted by stillakid
True, which is what Osama wanted. Any enemy of the US is his tenuous friend. But that doesn't mean that the two are buddies by any stretch of the definition.

Who cares whether they love each other or not. Osama's actions are indicative of their business relationship.


Originally posted by stillakid
No, that's not what I said. In the context of the public reasons for a US invasion of Iraq, our motivations for said invasion do not appear to mesh with the stated government stance. Were we truly interested in stamping out terrorism across the globe, we would have stepped into Palestine militarily by now. But we haven't. Why not? Clearly, because the hope is that it can be done peacefully. By the same token, why can't the same be done with Iraq?

We've been trying that method for 12 years. He isn't willing to cooperate.


Originally posted by stillakid
Why the sudden rush to wipe the desert clean of his regime with such a strong show of force?

Rush? 12 years is rushing to you? Is 18 months "rushing"?



Originally posted by stillakid He hasn't threatened to use any of his WMD on any other nations and with the constant threat of US action against him, he isn't likely too either.

By the time he does have enough to use a threat against his neighbors or the world, mutually assured destruction will force us to deal with his demands.



Originally posted by stillakid
Enough to enable the US to attack under a legitimate UN banner.

At this point legitimacy is a problem for the United Nations, not our military action in Iraq.


Originally posted by stillakid
The one's that have veto power in the UN. Please, I know you're a bright guy. You can't tell me that you don't know the answers to your own questions.

We have nothing to worry about from them because they can't enforce their own resolutions.



Originally posted by stillakid
The discussion is about the US, it's overall philosophy towards fundamental rights and how it conducts itself across the globe. Does it offer itself as a legitimate living breathing example of those principles or does it just say those words while marauding across the globe to satisfy it's selfish needs?

In this situation, I say we are standing on principle.




Originally posted by stillakid
I would hope I know what the topic of the thread is. But you've blinded yourself with current events instead of looking at the larger picture and how these events fit into our history.

Now I'm blind to the larger picture :rolleyes:


Originally posted by stillakid
IF the US pulls out of that region completely after Hussein is gone, then we'll talk some more. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I guess I'll keep an open mind and reserve judgement on any issues that come up after we get rid of Saddam.


Originally posted by stillakid
You tell me if we should start with negotiation first?

Always.


Originally posted by stillakid
What was that exact date when Bush started negotiating with Saddam again?

We started trying to bring this situation to a close about 18 months ago......how long should we wait for Saddam to decide that he wants to comply with the U.N.?


Originally posted by stillakid
Oh yeah, he didn't.


What has he been asking of Saddam for over a year now? How many times has the U.N. addressed the issue with him and for how long?


Originally posted by stillakid
It was a simple accusation of non-compliance and we're off to the races.

"off to the races". Try off to the U.N. where we were able to push through 1441 by a vote of 15 - 0.


Originally posted by stillakid We've got more solid proof of tyranny from other nations so based on this precedent, we can go in shooting. Why wait?

What other locations should we set our sights on? Your the one blowing on and on about it. Which one is next?

I think we should finish with Iraq before intentionally starting into another peace keeping mission.




Originally posted by stillakid
Yeah, me too. I was amazed that Dubbya got as many votes as he did, but this discussion illustrates how such a thing could happen.

Perhaps your side of this argument.


Originally posted by stillakid
All that aside, just answer this for me: Do you support a policy that says that the US should be allowed to use it's military force whenever and whereever in the world it deems necessary to secure resources that ensure the stability of the nation?
In other words, should this country merely worry about it's own safety and prosperity or should we expand our responsibility to ensuring the safety and security of innocent people in other nations?

Secure resources? No.
We aren't worried about the safety and security of innocent people in other nations?

Exhaust Port
03-15-2003, 09:00 AM
Sweet Jesus! These have got to be some of the longest posts ever on the SSG Forums!!

Please feel free to quote me on this. :)

stillakid
03-16-2003, 03:00 PM
Other nations, and especially the Arab world, fear the start of an American empire.
March 16, 2003
By Tyler Marshall and David Lamb, Times Staff Writers


DOHA, Qatar -- On what looks like the eve of war in Iraq, there is evidence of a vast gap between the way the United States and the rest of the world view the crisis.

What Americans see largely as a campaign to eliminate one Middle Eastern dictator -- Saddam Hussein -- is viewed by many in Europe and especially the Arab world as nothing less than a watershed in global affairs.

They worry that America's self-declared right to launch preemptive wars, its willingness to dismiss the United Nations, to shuck allies and make plans to invade and occupy another country -- all amid talk of remaking the Mideast -- are the beginning of the end of the post-World War II order and the start of an American Imperium.

Indeed, for a growing number of observers outside the United States, the central issue in the crisis is no longer Iraq or Hussein. It is America and how to deal with its disproportionate strength as a world power.

What the Bush administration describes as a war of liberation is widely seen abroad -- even by those who condemn the Iraqi president -- as a war of occupation.

"A simple truth has been withheld from the American people," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. "In the eyes of most Arabs, America lacks the legitimacy and moral authority to impose itself on Iraq."

Added Sabah Mukhtar, the Iraqi-born head of the Arab Lawyers Assn. in London: "Arabs and Muslims are just like anyone else in the world. They don't like invaders, even if they come as liberators. There's a serious belief the United States wants to redraw the map of the Middle East to favor Israel."

Even President Bush's announced decision to unveil a so-called road map for Middle East peace has been dismissed in the region as little more than a public relations trick -- a last-ditch effort to build support for war among Arabs.

"The timing will make people across the Arab world look at it as part of the preparation for war," said Hamad Kawari, Qatar's ambassador to the United Nations in the 1980s and, later, to the United States. "They won't take it seriously."

Ironically, the 1991 Persian Gulf War was also seen as a watershed in world affairs -- but a very different one. As the first major conflict of the post-Cold War era, it unfolded against a backdrop of Soviet-American diplomatic cooperation, a rejuvenated U.N. and a broad, American-led coalition of nations. The era was one of high expectations, in which America, standing triumphant amid the wreckage of communism, perhaps was never more admired, never had more friends.

The spirit of that moment is frozen in a photo that hangs today in Kawari's Doha office. It shows him standing proudly with envoys from nearly 30 other nations, Arab and non-Arab, all gathered around a smiling President George H.W. Bush in the White House Rose Garden. The faces represented both the coalition of partners Bush had assembled to roll back Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the larger hope for a new age.

"In 1990, the case [against Hussein] was very clear, and President Bush succeeded to build it," Kawari said. "I think the current president didn't succeed in building a case that there is a threat. It is not a war of liberation -- it is a war for [Hussein's] head."

If Bush has indeed failed, the price of that failure is easy to see: America's actions -- and its stated intentions -- have rarely elicited such disquiet or such suspicion. In this part of the world, where so many countries joined the United States to confront Hussein 12 years ago, there is neither enthusiasm nor a perceived need to attack him again today.

Dogu Ergil, a professor of international relations at Ankara University in the Turkish capital, offered what he called the prevailing view of Hussein within the Turkish leadership, including the armed forces and the foreign policy establishment.

"Saddam's teeth and nails have been pulled out," he said. "He's not dangerous anymore except to his own people. He is a paper tiger. Iraq is not threatening anyone in the region."

Even in Muslim countries that are helping U.S. military forces, the public is ambivalent, and policymakers admit privately that they worry far more about the impact of unchecked American actions than about Hussein.

In the years since the Gulf War, admiration of the U.S. has turned to fear and resentment.

Consider:

In Doha, just a few miles from the U.S. Central Command base where Gen. Tommy Franks stands ready to run a war against Iraq, a theater audience made up mainly of Qataris breaks into applause as the leading actor reacts to television scenes of the collapsing World Trade Center towers with the words: "Americans go around punishing everyone. Now it's time to let them feel something."

A follow-up line -- "The boys who flew those planes, now they were real men" -- draws even louder applause, along with whistles of approval.

In Egypt, one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid, a political cartoon in the respected national daily Al Ahram depicts the Statue of Liberty using her torch as a flamethrower, its fire covering the world with dark, forbidding clouds. In Cairo, a cab driver politely asks an American to get out of his taxi when he learns her nationality.

Also in Egypt, a singer cum political commentator named Shaaban Abdel-Rahim cuts a wildly popular new song titled "The Attack on Iraq," whose lyrics include these lines: "Since the twin towers, we've been living in a dilemma. / If one thousand died then, how many more thousands have died as a result. / After Afghanistan, here comes the turn of Iraq, and no one knows who is next." The song is a special favorite of the younger set and plays hourly on Egypt's version of MTV.

In Saudi Arabia, where the U.S. bases large numbers of strike aircraft, the country's national airline has canceled daily summertime flights to Orlando, Fla., because of reduced interest in trips to Walt Disney World. Saudis say they are discouraged by visa hassles, restricted stays and the possibility of facing interrogations by U.S. authorities. Meanwhile, at home, a steady stream of anti-American rhetoric spews from Saudi mosques, much of it denouncing America's planned involvement in Iraq.

Because of such public sentiment, Arab nations that do support U.S. military efforts do their best to play down that support.

In the small gulf emirates, such as Qatar, many locals say they don't support aggression against Hussein, but they accept it because in such a politically volatile region, tiny, energy-rich states need America's protection and its markets for survival.

Several factors have tainted Bush administration efforts to sell the case for attacking Hussein in Arab countries. Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians beamed nightly into the region have left many Arabs convinced that the U.S. operates by a double standard, declining to stop Israel yet wanting to attack Hussein. The gulf of suspicion between the U.S. and the Muslim world since the Sept. 11 attacks has added to the difficulty.

Still, critics say, a series of Bush administration blunders ended up making a difficult task impossible.

In 1991, specialists note, the goal of U.S. intervention never wavered: Free Kuwait. Twelve years later, the Bush administration has attempted to justify military action with a number of arguments -- ranging from Hussein's alleged stocks of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist links to human rights violations -- with marginal results.

These varied messages have only blurred America's motives, according to regional analysts.

But administration critics argue that it is ambitious talk of remaking the Middle East and hints of toppling leaders in other countries that have most frightened many of America's friends.

"I can think of many good reasons for taking ... [Hussein] out, but I can't think of any worse approach than the one we've followed," said Nicholas Veliotes, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Jordan. "We've poisoned the well we drink from. We didn't need to announce preemptive strikes. We didn't need to talk about democratizing the entire Arab world. We didn't have to walk with a swagger.

"We've alienated our allies in the Arab world and elsewhere," he added. "Now we're looking around for help, and guess what? It isn't there."

Compared with the 29 nations that contributed military forces in 1991, just two other countries -- Britain and Australia -- have so far joined U.S. troops prepared to attack Iraq.

The depth of public feeling in the Arab world against an attack on Iraq has observers already worried about postwar fallout. Regional specialists note that Osama bin Laden's campaign of terror began as an attempt to drive American forces from the Arab world -- forces that settled there after the Gulf War.

"What's going on now is a legacy of the 1991 war," Kawari said. "Now we can only ask what the long-term consequences of this war will be."

Marshall reported from Doha and Lamb from Cairo. Times staff writers Richard Boudreaux in Ankara, Turkey; Kim Murphy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and Jailan Zayan in Doha contributed to this report.

'Saddam's teeth and nails have been pulled out. He's not dangerous anymore except to his own people.'

Dogu Ergil, professor at Ankara University in Turkey




Hussein Girds for 'Foreign Aggression'
By John Daniszewski and Michael Slackman, Times Staff
March 16, 2003

BAGHDAD -- Iraq put itself on a war footing Saturday night, dividing the country into four military districts under the command of President Saddam Hussein, with the heartland cities of Baghdad and Tikrit to be defended by Hussein's second son, Qusai, commander of the elite Republican Guards.

The four new regional leaderships were ordered to "take the necessary steps to repulse and destroy any foreign aggression," the state-run Iraqi News Agency announced.

The president retained for himself the authority to use aircraft and surface-to-surface missiles against an expected invasion by U.S. and British forces, according to the order, Presidential Decree No. 61, the news agency said.

But ignoring the portents of an imminent invasion, or seeking to prevent it, Iraq earlier Saturday invited chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to fly to Baghdad and resolve any remaining disarmament issues at the "earliest suitable time."

The suggestion that Blix and ElBaradei make their third visit to this capital in four months was a way for Iraq to emphasize its view that the U.N. inspections that began in November are working and that only a few outstanding issues remain, which Iraq is willing to settle by cooperating with the inspectors.

Rather than rejecting the invitation out of hand, Blix said he would consider it seriously and consult with ElBaradei and the U.N. Security Council about whether to accept.

It was unclear what concessions Iraq might offer if Blix and ElBaradei returned to Baghdad.

"They have to be desperate to offer anything," a Western diplomat said. "Only in the last day or two has it become clear that they are headed toward war."

The diplomatic maneuver seemed unlikely to deter President Bush and his allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who are meeting today in the Azores islands in the Atlantic. The summit is widely viewed as the last prelude to a war to change the Iraqi government and rid the country of its alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Amir Saadi, Hussein's advisor on disarmament, drafted the invitation to the chief U.N. weapons inspectors "to discuss ways to speed up joint cooperation between Iraq and the parties they represent on all aspects, particularly of issues considered pending by Blix and ElBaradei," said a statement by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.

Speaking on CNN, Blix said: "We will have to give serious thought to what the answer will be."

He noted that he and ElBaradei had been to Baghdad in mid-January and mid-February to confer with the regime on outstanding disarmament issues. "However, the situation is a little different now -- tense," Blix said.

The two arms inspectors are due to appear before the council Monday and report in detail what questions remain to be answered by the Iraqis for them to get a clean report from Blix's U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency.

The number of observers still in Baghdad has dropped by more than a third, to about 70, and one source with U.N. staff in Iraq said that the inspectors have been informed of a special flight Wednesday that could be used to evacuate them in case of war.

Also Saturday, tens of thousands of Iraqis took part in demonstrations in Baghdad, Tikrit, Karbala and other cities, shouting their defiance of the United States and vowing their fealty to Hussein.

As part of a government-organized campaign to show the world that Iraqis support their leader and are ready to fiercely resist any U.S.-British plan to topple their government, the demonstrators marched, brandished weapons and shouted pro-Hussein slogans.

In Tikrit -- the home city of Hussein, about 100 miles north of Baghdad -- thousands of people, including high school and college students, marched along a main street, led by activists of the ruling Arab Baath Socialist Party wearing green military uniforms.

"Bush! Bush! Listen well! We all love Saddam Hussein!" a large group of female students chanted in English.

Local party leaders and members of the city administration who watched the demonstration from a reviewing stand were protected by numerous guards with Kalashnikovs and submachine guns positioned on sidewalks and on the roofs of one- and two-story buildings nearby. A Toyota pickup with a heavy submachine gun mounted on it was parked on a side street.

"Americans don't understand anything about our country," said one of the marchers, Wad Khadim, 12. "Many of them don't like their own leaders, and they can't understand how we all can love our president."

At the other end of the age spectrum, two octogenarian sisters sat in their garden near a similar march in Baghdad and lamented in excellent English over sweet tea what has happened to the United States they loved when as young girls they were educated by American missionaries.

"Your democracy is a hypocrisy," Naria Abbas told a visitor.

"Nobody wants to be ruled by someone else," chipped in her sister, Souad. "You claim democracy only when it suits you."

Naria said the two don't care what happens to them but worry about the trauma and fear being inflicted by the United States on their country's children.

"I have a grandson who painted airplanes dropping bombs on people," she said. "His mother said, 'Why don't you draw flowers instead?' "

She said the 6-year-old answered, "They don't drop bombs on flowers."

stillakid
03-16-2003, 03:49 PM
Mostly silliness, so I'll just address some of the serious points.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
No. We would have to develop the oil and purchase it from them. Since we aren't about to go against our own sanctions and Bush Jr. isn't about to reverse the US policy against his daddy's wishes, the only avenue to securing Iraq's oil is through conquest.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
No. We could ratchet down the situation with him and buddy up just like France, Russia, and China have.
How many times do you have to hear the same exact thing. The situation you propose is 100% out of the question. Why keep bringing it up?





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
We will be under extreme scrutiny for our actions during and after the liberation of Iraq. That includes our oil contracts and production assistance in the region. We may recoup our investment in their country, but we will not be allowed to "take it all" ;) You're assuming that Bush and Co. care what that scrutiny will say about us. See the above articles I've posted here for you. Clearly Bush and Co. don't care what anyone else thinks about the US. Why should they start caring after a war?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I think that the people we liberate might give us the opportunity to bid on oil production and purchases in their country...If I lived under Saddam's oppressive regime I think I would consider myself "saved"....Why would the people of Iraq show any favor to those that supported their oppressor?

Again, see the articles above. What you've been taught to see as "liberation," those in the Middle East see as conquest, and I highly doubt that they will be as accomodating as you and your leaders hope.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
He killed thousands of people who revolted agaist him.
Yes, inside his own borders...this would technically fall under the "reigned in" definition. However, this is also why I brought up the topic of the Jews in Nazi Germany that you claimed to not understand. If we were attacking for that kind of humanitarian cause, that would be one thing. But this is not Bush's stated reason.






Originally posted by Jedi Clint
And hand them to the people of Iraq :)
Does the term "banana republic" mean anything to you?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Strike 1
Strike 2
Strike 3
Strikes? You have to be in the same ballpark to even play the game.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
We can:

1) Remove Saddam. Do business with a democratic Iraq.
2) Drop the issue of sanctions and do business with Saddam.

You say we "can't" back off? Why? If revenue from oil were ALL we cared about, then why would do we care who we are enriching?

Why "do business" when we will just control the country anyway? It's a question of semantics, I suppose. You propose"doing business" with parties that our government will control. What kind of free market is that?

And, as stated again and again and again and again, Dubbya would never slap his father in the face by legitmizing Saddam Hussein's regime by doing true business with him. I'm actually truly amazed that such a staunch Republican such as yourself would ever propose such a concept. It's an idea I'd expect to see out of a Dem or other third party.

It's not just about oil as you write. Of course we also care about not "enriching" Saddam Hussein. Bush would rather "enrich" the wealthy 1% elite that helped him steal our last election.






Originally posted by Jedi Clint
You fail to prove that oil is our "true motivation".
You fail to prove it isn't. Where are the weapons? How has Saddam Hussein proven itself to be a threat, an immediate threat at that, to the United States? Why won't continued inspections work? Why won't continued inspections and sanctions continue to keep him "reigned in"?

I suspect you'll ignore each of those questions or respond with the standard Bush rhetoric.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Is that why he STILL has weapons that violate that mandate?!
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. The inspections have NOT found significant evidence to prove your quite adamant statement above. This is definitely a pre-emptive attack on something that might not be true. Ever see the movie "Minority Report"? Is this the kind of society and world you wish to live in? Where simple accusation is all that is necessary for pre-emptive retaliation? You've accused me (falsely) of merely stating things and suggesting them to be truthful, yet you ask for proof in this instance. Why not demand the same of Bush and Co.? Why the double-standard?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Because Saddam said so right? I thought you didn't believe what Saddam claims. What the inspectors know is almost entirely dependent upon what Saddam furnishes them.
The statement you referred to here had nothing to do with what the inspectors know and how they know it. It comes from a common sense evaluation of Hussein's options. I'd suggest you stop taking the White House appraisal of the situation at face value and start putting pieces together on your own.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Powell presented a decent case in support of the connection, but Osama did a much better job when he came out in support of Saddam's Iraq.
Wrong and ...um, wronger. ;) There's no connection proven beyond a mutual hate of the US. But if that's all you need, see the articles above for more US Haters we can go and invade next.






Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I won't rule out the possibility that we look upon Iraq as a great place to establish a free society that would support our military actions in the region as well.
You know, maybe, just maybe, they don't want the kind of society the US can offer them. Have you bothered to go and ask any of them? Or is this all about us, the United States of America, trying to spread our own ideals and influence around the globe. See the articles above for more information about how well the rest of the planet perceives this attitude.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint
We can't bring them home before the next mission? Our actions in dealing with Iraq might show other tyrants that we mean business and military action might not be necessary when dealing with the next thug....His father AND Bill Clinton (hardly like minded individuals). Bill didn't do very much.....but at least he tried.....a little. Bush2 has been working toward this goal for at least the past 18 months. ...What precedent? Are you referring to the "precedent" Bill set in the Balkans? .....I will not take that bet. I will bet that another dictator will become the focus of our attention, but I think we will bring our troops home before another military action (if it is even necessary).

Yeah, right. That's what I thought. :rolleyes: After this conflict...after Bush has totally rammed our own economy into the ground, he'll put forth a half-hearted attempt to resurrect his own appeal after alientating most of the US population and the rest of the world so that he might be re-elected. No further pre-emptive attacks on "tyranny" will occur...until Iraq can no longer serve our energy needs that is.







Originally posted by Jedi Clint
If someone did accuse us of doing the the same they would have to blindly ignore the resolutions that the security council has passed including resolution 1441.
True, as I've also mentioned. But this thread isn't about everyone else. It's about us, the US, and how we behave. We use the democratic process when it serves our purpose and ignore it when it doesn't. Nice example we set, isn't it?





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
How often do you focus on the strengths of Republicans? How often do you focus on the faults of Democrats?
Whose in power right now?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I agree. I think that same line of thought could be applied to people that regurgitate the opinions of entertainers as well.
I've never had a subscription to People magazine, and you'll actually find a larger proportion of film industry crew people who aren't very keen on movie stars in any sense of the word. So your very weak attempt to connect anyone's anti-war stance with the Hollywood elite is about as strong as the connection between Osama and Hussein. Tenuous at best.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
If the people of Iraq appreciate our efforts, then why shouldn't their new democracy treat us fairly?
You're assuming that the people of Iraq will appreciate our efforts. They have every reason to despise us right now. First we cut off access to things they need through sanctions. Now we threaten to invade and conquer. See the articles above for more on that.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
They will be allowed to compete for contracts the same as we are. Those that supported their freedom MIGHT receive a bit of preferential treatment. I have no problem with that. The eyes of the world will be glued on our post Saddam activities in Iraq. Any shady business dealings will cause massive back lash against the U.S. and it's leadership.
And going to war right now isn't causing massive backlash against Bush and Co? What makes you think they'll care in a post-war environment any more than they do now?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Would you care to share this information you've gathered from the papers?
Would you like me to reprint them all for you, or can you scrape together some of your tax rebate to get your own subscription?





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Always.
So, when will the US start negotiating?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
We started trying to bring this situation to a close about 18 months ago......how long should we wait for Saddam to decide that he wants to comply with the U.N.?
He says he has. The inspectors have found no significant evidence so far. Saddam has posed no viable threat outside his borders since Kuwait due to sanctions and to our enforcement of the no-fly zone. It appears as though we can wait for quite some time.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
What other locations should we set our sights on? Your the one blowing on and on about it. Which one is next?
I'm "blowing on and on about it" because you're the one suggesting that this is all about world peace and not at all about oil. If this is indeed about world peace, we have a lot of work to do. Why wait? Let's get movin'!




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Secure resources? No.
We aren't worried about the safety and security of innocent people in other nations?
Not so much, no.

Sorry, I just wanted (and felt I needed to) expand upon this last statement. If we indeed were concerned "about the safety and security of innocent people in other nations" then we would have to look no further than the Kurds in northern Iraq. Not only did we not go to their aid when Hussein launched attacks upon them, but we also were ready to sell them out to Turkey as the price for using Turkey's airspace and land to invade Iraq. If we are so humanitarian as you suggest Clint, then why would we so blatantly ignore and block an innocent population's desire for independence? Isn't that what this country stands for? Huh? Isn't it?

Old Fossil
03-16-2003, 07:26 PM
Looks like tomorrow is the world's last chance for peace, unless something totally unforseen (by anyone) happens.

stillakid
03-16-2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Twodot Tatooine
Looks like tomorrow is the world's last chance for peace, unless something totally unforseen (by anyone) happens.

Ever see the special Director's Edition of The Abyss? :eek: We could use a big dose of Almighty power right now.

JediTricks
03-16-2003, 09:25 PM
So apparently it's ok to have what amounts to a public viewing of the Private Message discussion stillakid and Jedi Clint are currently having. This isn't "Point-Counterpoint" with you 2 as hosts; obviously you 2 have staunchly opposing views, but nobody else can get in their opinions without getting their posts lost in the whirling vortex of bickering and semantics you are both creating here. As a moderator, it is my job to make sure this remains a group discussion where everybody has the same opportunity to voice their opinions. The 2 of you seem to be focusing on the minutiae of each other's comments rather than the discussion at large. I am not trying to hinder your discussion, but this is not the place for a 1-on-1 debate, that is what Private Message or email is for. What I can't figure out is if neither of you respects the other's opinion, why are you lending such credence to it by focusing so heavily upon it? These are public forums, nothing said here is fact, everything is opinion and many presentations of "fact" are often slanted to the author's viewpoint - so neither of you are proving anything except that you are both too hard-headed to realize that most of what you're quoting is assumption and opinion that the other person is entitled to have even if they are ultimately wrong. Do you really think either of you are going to change minds endlessly bickering back and forth on the interpretations of policies and the assumed intentions of politicians? I hate to single anybody out publically but this is getting way out of hand.

Jedi Clint
03-17-2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Mostly silliness, so I'll just address some of the serious points.

Since we aren't about to go against our own sanctions and Bush Jr. isn't about to reverse the US policy against his daddy's wishes, the only avenue to securing Iraq's oil is through conquest.

Why must we secure Iraq's oil? We certainly didn't need military action in order to do business with Iraq.




Originally posted by stillakid
How many times do you have to hear the same exact thing. The situation you propose is 100% out of the question. Why keep bringing it up?

Perhaps because you refuse to address the issue. Why is military action necessary to "secure Iraq's oil business"? You don't think he'd sell it to us? Our money isn't good enough? :rolleyes:





Originally posted by stillakid
You're assuming that Bush and Co. care what that scrutiny will say about us.

You assume they won't.


Originally posted by stillakid
See the above articles I've posted here for you. Clearly Bush and Co. don't care what anyone else thinks about the US. Why should they start caring after a war?

I wonder what the penalty for refusing to protest our actions would be in Iraq? As fear is Saddam's favorite method of control, my bet is the torture or muder of the disloyal citizen or their family.



Originally posted by stillakid
Again, see the articles above. What you've been taught to see as "liberation," those in the Middle East see as conquest, and I highly doubt that they will be as accomodating as you and your leaders hope.

We will see. I wouldn't want to live in fear of speaking out against the treatment of my fellow citizens or myself. If someone changed that part of my life, I would be VERY appreciative.



Originally posted by stillakid
Yes, inside his own borders...this would technically fall under the "reigned in" definition. However, this is also why I brought up the topic of the Jews in Nazi Germany that you claimed to not understand. If we were attacking for that kind of humanitarian cause, that would be one thing. But this is not Bush's stated reason.


I understood that you were drawing a parallel between the situation of the people of Iraq and Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany. It was the "only if you're a Jew" comment I found curious. Bush might not focus on the need to remove Saddam for humanitarian reasons, but he has listed that among the reasons we have to act. The primary reason given for military action is Saddam's lack of compliance with disarmament resolutions. His own actions show that he will lie to avoid disarmament so we will remove his influence from the process.




Originally posted by stillakid
Does the term "banana republic" mean anything to you?

It appears you wish to use it to describe any politician who supports the actions of the United States in post Saddam Iraq.


Originally posted by stillakid
Strikes? You have to be in the same ballpark to even play the game.

They were strikes because you seem unable to debate an issue without attacking your opponent personally.



Originally posted by stillakid
Why "do business" when we will just control the country anyway? It's a question of semantics, I suppose. You propose"doing business" with parties that our government will control. What kind of free market is that?

I don't think we will control Iraq. I think we will show them the benefits of freedom and democracy and allow them to make their own choices.


Originally posted by stillakid
And, as stated again and again and again and again, Dubbya would never slap his father in the face by legitmizing Saddam Hussein's regime by doing true business with him.

What is "true" business? Are you implying that the oil business that we currently do with Iraq isn't "true"?


Originally posted by stillakid
I'm actually truly amazed that such a staunch Republican such as yourself would ever propose such a concept. It's an idea I'd expect to see out of a Dem or other third party.

You have mistakenly correlated the option of doing more oil business with Iraq with my support for such an endeavour.


Originally posted by stillakid
It's not just about oil as you write. Of course we also care about not "enriching" Saddam Hussein.

Thank you.



Originally posted by stillakid
Bush would rather "enrich" the wealthy 1% elite that helped him steal our last election.

The last presidential election wasn't stolen.....but Al gave it his best shot :). They've counted and counted in Florida and Al STILL hasn't won. Sorry kid.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that our military action in Iraq will "enrich the wealthy 1% elite?





Originally posted by stillakid
You fail to prove it isn't.

Keep telling yourself that.


Originally posted by stillakid
Where are the weapons?

In Iraq.


Originally posted by stillakid
How has Saddam Hussein proven itself to be a threat, an immediate threat at that, to the United States? Why won't continued inspections work? Why won't continued inspections and sanctions continue to keep him "reigned in"?

His actions in dealing with disarmament requests are proof enough for me. When asked to declare everything he has, he submits a report. When we press that we do not believe him, he suddenly produces weapons that weren't previously disclosed. Why do you believe him?



Originally posted by stillakid
I suspect you'll ignore each of those questions or respond with the standard Bush rhetoric.

What is "standard Bush rhetoric"? Is it any opinion formed that either disagrees with yours, or is in agreement with Bush?


Originally posted by stillakid
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. The inspections have NOT found significant evidence to prove your quite adamant statement above.

They haven't?

http://www.flipsideshow.com/Fact_-_disclosure_games.htm

http://www.usembassy.it/file9801/alia/98110605.htm

They certainly don't seem to be in a rush to destroy the al sams as Blix ordered either.


Originally posted by stillakid
This is definitely a pre-emptive attack on something that might not be true. Ever see the movie "Minority Report"? Is this the kind of society and world you wish to live in? Where simple accusation is all that is necessary for pre-emptive retaliation? You've accused me (falsely) of merely stating things and suggesting them to be truthful, yet you ask for proof in this instance. Why not demand the same of Bush and Co.? Why the double-standard?

Are you suggesting that Saddam has cooperated fully? Even the inspectors don't claim that. They realize that they are limited in their inspections because they rely upon Saddam to furnish them with HONEST and complete weapons delcarations in order for them to conduct their business. Saddam knew this going in and he still submitted a false and incomplete declaration. He has done so repeatedly for YEARS!



Originally posted by Stillakid
The statement you referred to here had nothing to do with what the inspectors know and how they know it. It comes from a common sense evaluation of Hussein's options. I'd suggest you stop taking the White House appraisal of the situation at face value and start putting pieces together on your own.

It has nothing to do with what the inspectors know or how they know it?


Originally posted by Stillakid
His only viable means of using any of his weapons at this point are for self-defense and for sale to third parties.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Because Saddam said so right? I thought you didn't believe what Saddam claims. What the inspectors know is almost entirely dependent upon what Saddam furnishes them.

It absolutely does! You accuse me of not "putting the pieces together on my own". Do you really feel that personal attacks bolster your position?


Originally posted by stillakid
Wrong and ...um, wronger. ;) There's no connection proven beyond a mutual hate of the US. But if that's all you need, see the articles above for more US Haters we can go and invade next.



NEW YORK (SH) - In what must be history's longest act of foreplay, the United Nations' prelude to a blitz grinds on. Amid all the diplomatic billing and cooing, remember why Saddam Hussein must be dislodged, not just disarmed: He runs a one-stop-shop for international terrorists. His lethal largesse already has helped maim and kill thousands of innocent civilians, including Americans. Here's how: - A 9/11 connection? According to Michael Ledeen's book, "The War Against the Terror Masters," Sept. 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta flew from Virginia Beach, Va., to Prague on April 7, 2001. The next day, he met with an Iraqi diplomat named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani in Prague. On April 9, Ledeen writes, Atta flew home to Florida. "Less than two weeks later he opened an account at the Sun Bank in Florida, and $100,000 was transferred into that account from an unknown money-changer in the Persian Gulf." That April 22, Czech officials expelled Al-Ani for "engaging in activities beyond his diplomatic duties," namely surveilling Radio Free Europe's Prague headquarters.

- Collaboration with al-Qaida.

U.S. authorities say Abu Musab Zarqawi, a high-level Osama bin Laden associate, ran an Afghan camp that specialized in poisons and chemical weapons. With the Taliban under U.S. attack, he fled to Iran in fall 2001. Between May and July 2002, he had war-related leg wounds treated in Baghdad.

About two dozen Islamists reportedly joined him, including two top officers of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Zarqawi allegedly masterminded last October's assassination of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan. Intelligence officials believe Saddam let Zarqawi fight with a group called Ansar al-Islam against northern Iraq's anti-Baghdad Kurds.

Ansar al-Islam apparently produces explosives and poisons such as ricin, which kills via circulatory collapse.

- Refuge.

At gunpoint, Faisal Naji al-Balawi and Ayesh Ali al-Fridi diverted a London-bound Saudi Arabian Airlines jet from Jeddah to Baghdad on Oct. 14, 2000. Rather than extradite these hijackers to Riyadh, Saddam granted them political asylum. Veteran Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal died of possibly self-inflicted gunshot wounds last Aug. 16. He lived in Baghdad since 1999, "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities," Nidal's Beirut-based colleagues told the Associated Press. (Iraqi officials claim he entered illegally.) Among other massacres, Nidal engineered the Dec. 27, 1986 grenade and machine-gun attacks on El Al ticket counters at Rome's and Vienna's airports. His minions injured 121 and killed 14 innocents, including five Americans.

- Real estate.

The Arab Liberation Front, Palestine Liberation Front and Abu Nidal Organization maintain Baghdad offices, according to the State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism," published last May 21. Saddam also let Hamas open a Baghdad office in 1999. In 2000, Hamas led the parade of homicide bombings that still plague Israel.

- Instruction.

As Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Feb. 5, "Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives." One Iraqi defector, AP reports, said Saddam sent Iraqi experts to Afghanistan to teach al-Qaida members how to forge documents.

Al-Qaida detainees have indicated to American officials that Iraqi agents gave them chemical and biological weapons instruction between 1997 and 2000.

- Resources.

On March 11, 2002, Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, announced that "President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000." At this writing, 28 homicide bombers subsequently injured at least 1,273 people and killed 225, including some eight Americans. Among them: Hannah Rogen, 90, blasted at a March 27, 2002 Passover Seder and Abigail Leitner, a 17-year-old Baptist visitor killed in a March 5 Haifa bus explosion.







Originally posted by stillakid
You know, maybe, just maybe, they don't [I]want the kind of society the US can offer them.

That is a possibility. It is also a possibility that they do.


Originally posted by stillakid
Have you bothered to go and ask any of them?

To be fair, have you ever bothered to go and ask any of them?


Originally posted by stillakid
Or is this all about us, the United States of America, trying to spread our own ideals and influence around the globe.

I don't have any problems with spreading the ideals of this country around the globe. Is it all about spreading ideals? No.


Originally posted by stillakid
See the articles above for more information about how well the rest of the planet perceives this attitude.

Those articles aren't indicative of the beliefs of "the rest of the planet". I doubt that the opinions shared by the citizens of Iraq in those articles are even indicative of their true feelings. They come from a country where speaking anything but praise for your leader earns you or your family pain and/or death. I question whether the articles provide statements indicative of the entire population of a any of the nations mentioned therein or even the majority.



Originally posted by stillakid
Yeah, right. That's what I thought. :rolleyes: After this conflict...after Bush has totally rammed our own economy into the ground, he'll put forth a half-hearted attempt to resurrect his own appeal after alientating most of the US population and the rest of the world so that he might be re-elected. No further pre-emptive attacks on "tyranny" will occur...until Iraq can no longer serve our energy needs that is.

Why can't we bring them home before focusing on the next conflict?

Forgive me if I disagree with your crystal ball.




Originally posted by stillakid
Whose in power right now?

How often do you focus on the strengths of Republicans? How often do you focus on the faults of Democrats?

If you can't offer an honest answer either way, I understand.



Originally posted by stillakid
I've never had a subscription to People magazine, and you'll actually find a larger proportion of film industry crew people who aren't very keen on movie stars in any sense of the word.

Thrilling.


Originally posted by stillakid
So your very weak attempt to connect anyone's anti-war stance with the Hollywood elite is about as strong as the connection between Osama and Hussein. Tenuous at best.

My weak attempt to connect anti-war with hollywood elite? I simply said:

I agree. I think that same line of thought could be applied to people that regurgitate the opinions of entertainers as well.

Which was in response to:


Originally posted by stillakid
The problem is that we need more people to stand on their own and formulate their own opinions instead of just standing in line to regurgitate what their party of choice tells them is true.

I am not suprised that you oppose the suggestion though.


Originally posted by stillakid
You're assuming that the people of Iraq will appreciate our efforts.

Yes I am. Are you assuming they will not?


Originally posted by stillakid
They have every reason to despise us right now.

When they are free, and get their news from someone other than Saddam, even those that honestly despise us might have a change of heart.


Originally posted by stillakid
First we cut off access to things they need through sanctions.

Yes, we support sanctions. Saddam's cooperation is the key to removing those sanctions. If the citizens of Iraq blame us for the continued sanctions, they are most likely misinformed as to the nature of those sanctions in the first place.


Originally posted by stillakid
Now we threaten to invade and conquer. See the articles above for more on that.

We will not conquer them, we will free them.



Originally posted by stillakid
And going to war right now isn't causing massive backlash against Bush and Co? What makes you think they'll care in a post-war environment any more than they do now?

Their contention with this war now is based upon the same false and misleading accusations you espouse here on the forums.


Originally posted by stillakid
Would you like me to reprint them all for you, or can you scrape together some of your tax rebate to get your own subscription?

Can I scrape together enough of my tax rebate? :rolleyes: I read the articles you offered.



Originally posted by stillakid
So, when will the US start negotiating?

We have been for about 12 years now.



Originally posted by stillakid
He says he has.

You believe him?


Originally posted by stillakid
The inspectors have found no significant evidence so far.

Why do they feel he still isn't cooperating fully?


Originally posted by stillakid
Saddam has posed no viable threat outside his borders since Kuwait due to sanctions and to our enforcement of the no-fly zone.

You base this statement on the honesty of Saddam. The accuracy of the inspections depend upon his desire to fully disclose his activities.


Originally posted by stillakid
It appears as though we can wait for quite some time.

We won't and we shouldn't





Originally posted by stillakid
I'm "blowing on and on about it" because you're the one suggesting that this is all about world peace and not at all about oil.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I think it is primarily about world peace, and secondly about freeing the people of Iraq.

Do you pay attention to anything I say?




Originally posted by stillakid
Sorry, I just wanted (and felt I needed to) expand upon this last statement. If we indeed were concerned "about the safety and security of innocent people in other nations" then we would have to look no further than the Kurds in northern Iraq. Not only did we not go to their aid when Hussein launched attacks upon them,

You are correct. Bush1 and Clinton both encouraged the uprisings which ended in slaughter.


Originally posted by stillakid
but we also were ready to sell them out to Turkey as the price for using Turkey's airspace and land to invade Iraq. If we are so humanitarian as you suggest Clint, then why would we so blatantly ignore and block an innocent population's desire for independence? Isn't that what this country stands for? Huh? Isn't it?

Turkey worries that there will be another mass exodus from Iraq like there was in 1991. They also claim that they are concerned that the Kurds in the north of Iraq will inspire a separatist revolt in their own Country. It will be a challenge to keep all interested parties in the area from fighting among themselves for control of areas currently under the control of Iraq. I don't want to see Turkey turn caution into conquest. The Kurds will want to return to land that Saddam drove them from. In the end I hope we negotiate a fair agreement between all parties. It will be difficult, but it is possible.

Jedi Clint
03-17-2003, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
So apparently it's ok to have what amounts to a public viewing of the Private Message discussion stillakid and Jedi Clint are currently having. This isn't "Point-Counterpoint" with you 2 as hosts; obviously you 2 have staunchly opposing views, but nobody else can get in their opinions without getting their posts lost in the whirling vortex of bickering and semantics you are both creating here. As a moderator, it is my job to make sure this remains a group discussion where everybody has the same opportunity to voice their opinions. The 2 of you seem to be focusing on the minutiae of each other's comments rather than the discussion at large. I am not trying to hinder your discussion, but this is not the place for a 1-on-1 debate, that is what Private Message or email is for. What I can't figure out is if neither of you respects the other's opinion, why are you lending such credence to it by focusing so heavily upon it? These are public forums, nothing said here is fact, everything is opinion and many presentations of "fact" are often slanted to the author's viewpoint - so neither of you are proving anything except that you are both too hard-headed to realize that most of what you're quoting is assumption and opinion that the other person is entitled to have even if they are ultimately wrong. Do you really think either of you are going to change minds endlessly bickering back and forth on the interpretations of policies and the assumed intentions of politicians? I hate to single anybody out publically but this is getting way out of hand.

I think your comments regarding our discussion are extremely accurate. It is honestly not my intention to drown out other opinions with my responses.

Tonysmo
03-17-2003, 04:08 AM
I say we go back to the really old days, when we just plant a flag on someone elses land and call it ours..



no, its not your land..

sure it is, look, heres our flag...


but we were here first..

talk to the hand.. ( points to flag )

Jargo
03-17-2003, 08:52 PM
I remember when britain owned half the world............ all those chunks on the map colored pink, great days - great great days..... Me and Vicky, we had it all sorted back then.

You Americans may have won your independence but one day... one day...... America's arse is mine! Mwahahahahaha!!! Then i'll sell off the bits i don't want and franchise out states i don't much like. There's a whole state i have in mind for a time share deal with the Swedes. Oh yes, big plans, big plans. I'm just biding my time............................... :Pirate:

Vortex
03-17-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by EMPEROR JARGO

You Americans may have won your independence but one day... one day...... America's arse is mine! Mwahahahahaha!!! Then i'll sell off the bits i don't want and franchise out states i don't much like. There's a whole state i have in mind for a time share deal with the Swedes. Oh yes, big plans, big plans. I'm just biding my time............................... :Pirate:

If you were thinking Minnesota for time share...don't do it...way too kalt. Even though 60% of the population is an anderson or knutson or larson, gustafson...

stillakid
03-19-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Turkey worries that there will be another mass exodus from Iraq like there was in 1991. They also claim that they are concerned that the Kurds in the north of Iraq will inspire a separatist revolt in their own Country. It will be a challenge to keep all interested parties in the area from fighting among themselves for control of areas currently under the control of Iraq. I don't want to see Turkey turn caution into conquest. The Kurds will want to return to land that Saddam drove them from. In the end I hope we negotiate a fair agreement between all parties. It will be difficult, but it is possible.

I'll skip most of that nonsense and get to the meat of it, which is summed up by our proposed treatment of the Kurds. Turkey simply does not want to allow the Northern Iraqi population to gain an independent state lest it start a precedent that causes unrest within their own borders. The US is perfectly willing to go along with Turkey's wishes as long as we get what we want out of the deal, which is a gateway into Iraq.

Now I suppose it's fair to say that we're stuck with choosing between two evils,

A) don't sell out the Kurds and help them achieve independence, or

B) sell out the Kurds with the intention of destroying the evil Saddam.

Choice B goes against EVERYTHING the United States should stand for (which indeed is the point of this thread which you've chosen to forget) in order to get rid of a tyrannical dictator, secure a home for the US in the Middle East, and lay claim to oodles of oil reserves.

Choosing A we run the risk of not succeeding with the conflict, although military planners must obviously think that it's still possible without Turkey's help.


So again the question remains, what does this country stand for? I suppose the answer to that question relative to the current conflict depends greatly on how much you trust the stated motives of the current leadership. Clint would clearly follow the Republican Party off a cliff if they told him it was the right thing to do. But shouldn't the ideals of the United States rise above petty partisanship? This whole hubbub lately about "respecting the office of the Presidency" even though you might not like the individual who sits in the chair is extremely pertinent. Our Constitution was specifically designed so that the selfish desires of our elected leaders could not supercede the grander foundation that the government sits upon. As lofty as that goal is, the history of this country abounds with examples where that has not been the case. Our leaders have lied, cheated, and conducted themselves in a manner which more than justifies world anger toward us...all the while the "loyal" citizens and "patriots" blindly follow their lead because we're told that it's all for the best.

You know where that kind of attitude got us?...9/11. Study the events from the past 50 years to see exactly what led up to that moment and you'll understand that this country absolutely positively brought such unmitigated hate upon itself.

To speak to the current conflict briefly, only history will be able to show us the truth, but it is my feeling that this administration has failed to learn from history and is dooming the United States to repeat it. While wiping Husseins regime from existence may indeed be admirable, in the end the cure may be worse than the disease.

The Overlord Returns
03-19-2003, 12:01 PM
You know, I'm not going to get inbetween this debate between the two of you...

I just found it particularly admirable, and inspirational, that family members of the victims of september 11th were willing to be arrested to voice their objection to this war in the name of their tragedy....

Vortex
03-19-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
You know, I'm not going to get inbetween this debate between the two of you...

I just found it particularly admirable, and inspirational, that family members of the victims of september 11th were willing to be arrested to voice their objection to this war in the name of their tragedy....

Wait wasn't it you or was it some one else that said the events of 9/11 didn't concern this pending war or it wasn't about terriorism? So why should their voice in this matter or sway judgment? I'm sure those families didn't put up a stink when we went into Afganastan...

And on the other side of the coin, I'll glad to see families of 9/11 fully support this action to prevent prior possible world troubles at least here in MN. (people on the jet that crashed in PA)

Some analyist on BBC last night brought up a good point...Saddam hasn't provided proof he has WMD...nor has he provided documentation or proof he destroyed all of the 1st lot.

Saddam should have been removed from power after he gased the Kurds 15 years ago. But the UN allowed him to continue to be dictator. Maybe the US still wanted him in power incase Iran started up again...isn't that the reason saddam is in power, an old US puppet put there by the USA as a friend in case the old Allyatola started trouble in Iran back in the 80's?

If you look at it from one side, the US created its own problem and now we are fixing our problem. Where as on the other side, we created the monster, so we should just have to sit back and accept our punishment and problem.

Yet in Bosnia the UN insisted that Milosovic be removed from power for ethnic killings?

Which is worse...shooting people of ethnic origin or gasing a large lot of them from a distance.

Being on the eve of War, I don't totally support the war, but I will support our troops and only hope the end result is positive for the people of Iraq and middle east.

People right now are jumping to too many possible negative conclusions and fears...on nothing more that personal feelings or assumptions. Look how many people were against going into Afganastan when we proposed it...most people could care less a year later. The same thing will happen here. The war will start, end, and in time people will forget or no longer care. They will find another idealistic crusade for fight for. Too many people assume things will affect them personally, yet when it actually starts and they realize that it doesn't affect them personally they don't give a rats ***.

I'm backing the troops, keeping some reservations about it, but I do hope for a positive end, and better way of life for the kurds and locals after the dust has settled.

The Overlord Returns
03-19-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
Wait wasn't it you or was it some one else that said the events of 9/11 didn't concern this pending war or it wasn't about terriorism? So why should their voice in this matter or sway judgment? I'm sure those families didn't put up a stink when we went into Afganastan...


It matters because they, more than anyone, could support this hogwash propaganda the US government is spewing about ties to Al qaeda, and "remember 9/11" ....however, they are choosing to recognize how many iraqis are about to suffer the same tragedy as they did.


Originally posted by tjovonovich

Some analyist on BBC last night brought up a good point...Saddam hasn't provided proof he has WMD...nor has he provided documentation or proof he destroyed all of the 1st lot.


You're absolutely right. However, the US has provided as little evidence that states what he does have, and where it is.


Originally posted by tjovonovich


Saddam should have been removed from power after he gased the Kurds 15 years ago.


Ah yes, the gassing of kurds using US provided technology and money. The same technology they used in the Iraq/ Iran war.

You are right though. The US created this frankenstein monster, and now they are stuck with it. I wonder if anyone will ever question this kind of policy in the aftermath?

Vortex
03-19-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


Ah yes, the gassing of kurds using US provided technology and money. The same technology they used in the Iraq/ Iran war.


:rolleyes: I'm guessing you'd blame the gun manufactures when some murderer pulls the trigger and shoots some one?

Will you blame N. Korea if Yemen ever fires those missles it bought or was given by N. Korea?

Do you blame the Russians for supplying Milosovic with tanks, guns and ammo?

Do you blame the USA for the tanks and ammo it sells to Isreal when some one is killed in conflict?

So then by your thinking do you blame russia and the us for creating mr. osama bin laden? A product of the afgan soviet war, trained and supplied by the CIA?


:rolleyes:

The Overlord Returns
03-19-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
:rolleyes: I'm guessing you'd blame the gun manufactures when some murderer pulls the trigger and shoots some one?


Yes. "Guns don't kill people...." is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for not having gun control




Originally posted by tjovonovich

Will you blame N. Korea if Yemen ever fires those missles it bought or was given by N. Korea?

Do you blame the Russians for supplying Milosovic with tanks, guns and ammo?

Do you blame the USA for the tanks and ammo it sells to Isreal when some one is killed in conflict?

So then by your thinking do you blame russia and the us for creating mr. osama bin laden? A product of the afgan soviet war, trained and supplied by the CIA?


:rolleyes:

In answer to all of these....yes. If you are a part of the problem you must be held accountable in some fashion.


However.........in the case of Bin Laden.......the example you cite would be a no.

However, americans foreign policy in regards to the middle east shares some blame for the very creation of al qaeda....

T

Vortex
03-19-2003, 01:40 PM
I think blaming the source or manufacture is bunk.

You have a conscious decision and choice...free will to buy or not to buy an item like a gun. You also have a free will to selectivly choose to use it for good or bad.

You might as well sue ever rotten liquor dealer, auto manufacture, and toy company for their "indirect" roles in the deaths of many people. Would you hold medical companies responsible if a doctor prescribes the wrong medication and the person dies...the mfg is guilt of making a deadly drug in that senario...

(You're starting to sound the do-gooders who take away my choice and freedoms to use a teeter-totter or merry-go-round on a play ground since its in my best interests that you are protecting me from getting hurt...when I full well know and understand the possible dangers)

So then do you have trouble sleeping at night if you export "dangerous" items. Aren't you just as guilt of supplying foreign people with possible dangers?

The Overlord Returns
03-19-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
So then do you have trouble sleeping at night if you export "dangerous" items. Aren't you just as guilt of supplying foreign people with possible dangers?

Me? Personally? I mean, I know I'm talented, but manufacturing WMD's for sale in my basement is beyond even my considerable abilities ;)

I am not saying that the manufacturers are solely to blame, but they do play a part in the problem, and you can't turn a blind eye to it.

Guns are manufactured with a violent intent, plain and simple. Not quite the same as a teeter totter (then again, perhaps the manufacturers behind those death traps have a hidden agenda):evil:

Vortex
03-19-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Guns are manufactured with a violent intent, plain and simple. Not quite the same as a teeter totter (then again, perhaps the manufacturers behind those death traps have a hidden agenda):evil:

Violent intent...violent intent. You are a funny guy sometimes you know that...

Ok so my dad who skeet shoots for fun has viloent intentions and buys into his violent nature. My old man, doesn't hunt animals, just clay pigeons in leagues.

I shoot metal animal cuts out in my garage with a pellet gun on rare occasion...am I evil and a threat?

My uncle shoots in national marksmen leagues around the US. That's the only time he uses a gun, and some other guys in that competition only shoot targets...that must be pure violent intent there:) How about the cross country skiiers in the olympics who ski and shoot for a gold medal?

My friends who deer hunt and duck hunt for sport and food have violent intentions? Hmmm roasted duck is violently delicious... My uncle who collects and sells antique guns is twisted. (well he is but there are other reasons for that)

So are we all violent criminals with some alternate adgenda?

The Overlord Returns
03-19-2003, 02:29 PM
Don't even get me started on sport hunters.......

A gun is a weapon. It is used to inflict damage on things, be they clay pigeons, real pigeons, or people. Hence, violent intent.

You fail to realize that I would also place blame on the utilizer of such a weapon....however.....you have to look at the entire chain that leads to something ......

stillakid
03-19-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
You are right though. The US created this frankenstein monster, and now they are stuck with it. I wonder if anyone will ever question this kind of policy in the aftermath?

The answer to that is a resounding "yes." But that kind of retrospective analysis has been going on for years now, across many generations, involving many areas of the world. Remember Peter Paul and Mary singing about Afghanistan back in the day? The problem is that hard-core Conservatives like to essentially call people names when they don't agree with questionable policies, so those who genuinely protest are called "un-American" or "un-patriotic" or are met with unsubstantiated or ridiculous rebuttals like these...


Originally posted by Jedi Clint

Their contention with this war now is based upon the same false and misleading accusations you espouse here on the forums.



Originally posted by Emperor Howdy

THAT'S exactly the kind of statements that make protestors look ridiculous.



When will people ever learn? As far as I can tell, most people really do have better things to do than complain and spend their time "protesting." So when someone does raise a red flag, it generally means that there is something afoot worth looking into, especially when that one voice turns into a million or more. Blind faith in our political leaders, religion, or anything else is just a bad way to live life in my opinion. But for some, it appears anyway, that it is the way to go.

Vortex
03-19-2003, 02:37 PM
Oh well...I'm in your evil camp and that's fine. I placed you in the do-gooder group and you have some of my scorn:)

Yea I have problems and issues with certain sport hunters too, like the safari folks, but hey I'll let it go.

So you say you lay blame on the user too...interesting. You didn't make that overly clear before...

But hey, I'm done with the topic. Its been a fun debate, and I'm sure I'll mix it up later in some other thread, but I'm tired of this thread and topic.

I'm entreched and your entrenched and we're getting no where, this thread has drifted and I'm quickly loosing interest.

Catch ya around.

The Overlord Returns
03-19-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
Oh well...I'm in your evil camp and that's fine. I placed you in the do-gooder group and you have some of my scorn:)


Hey, I never said you were evil, don't put words in my mouth (or, in my post, I guess).

Yes, of course the user is to blame, that's common sense. However, I would imagine it is much easier to fire a gun at an animal, or a person, from 30 yards away, then it is to walk up to them and gut them with a knife.....

See what I am getting at here?

Jedi Clint
03-19-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Now I suppose it's fair to say that we're stuck with choosing between two evils,

A) don't sell out the Kurds and help them achieve independence, or

B) sell out the Kurds with the intention of destroying the evil Saddam.



C) Don't sell out the Kurds of northern Iraq. Remove Saddam.



Originally posted by stillakid
Choice B goes against EVERYTHING the United States should stand for (which indeed is the point of this thread which you've chosen to forget) in order to get rid of a tyrannical dictator, secure a home for the US in the Middle East, and lay claim to oodles of oil reserves.

You have YET to explain how we will "lay claim to oodles of oil reserves".



Originally posted by stillakid
So again the question remains, what does this country stand for? I suppose the answer to that question relative to the current conflict depends greatly on how much you trust the stated motives of the current leadership. Clint would clearly follow the Republican Party off a cliff if they told him it was the right thing to do.

I would?! I'm so glad I have you here to tell other people what I would do. This is just another example of you using hateful and ignorant personal attacks in an attempt to strengthen your arguments.


Originally posted by stillakid
The problem is that hard-core Conservatives like to essentially call people names when they don't agree with questionable policies, so those who genuinely protest are called "un-American" or "un-patriotic" or are met with unsubstantiated or ridiculous rebuttals like these...


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Their contention with this war now is based upon the same false and misleading accusations you espouse here on the forums.

I find your accusation to be "unsubstantiated and ridiculous". :)

QLD
03-19-2003, 04:17 PM
Starbucks cannot be stopped. Their corporate greed will destory Iraq, their oil, and THEN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JediTricks
03-19-2003, 08:32 PM
George W. Bush:
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people....
Not about oil, huh? :rolleyes: :(

Jedi Clint
03-19-2003, 09:04 PM
George W. Bush:
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people....


Originally posted by JediTricks
Not about oil, huh? :rolleyes: :(

The last time we fought Saddam, he set oil wells on fire......massive environmental disaster. Was calling them a source of wealth for the people of Iraq innaccurate in some way? In this situation oil income takes a back seat to safety concerns and human rights violations.

bigbarada
03-20-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
There has been a plethora of issues of late which prompt the question above as well as many others like it. From the Pledge of Allegience controversy (removing "under God") to the actions of the government as the world's policeman, one starts to wonder what this nation does stand for if indeed it actually does. And if it should stand for anything at all?

What prompted this question in me? A couple days ago I was filling up my gas tank when this car pulls in next to me. On it was a bumper sticker that said "JESUS: AMERICA'S CHOICE." I could hardly believe my eyes. You see, I was brought up to believe that the United States was founded on the idea that EVERY (reasonable) choice (religious, political, artistic, etc.) was tolerated. The notion that "America" would have a preferential choice flies in the face of the Constitutional rights that are supposed to protect us all. This nation wasn't founded on Christian beliefs, rather on the idea that everyone was entitled to personal freedoms to do just about anything they wish (with certain obvious and understandable limits).

So, question one: What are your thoughts about a bumper sticker like that?

Question two: Should the United States, the bastion of democracy and freedom, actively attempt to spread this ideal around the globe for purely humanitarian reasons? Granted, there are probably a few people out there who enjoy living under dictatorships, but my guess is that most wouldn't mind too much if they also enjoyed the freedoms that we protect. So, should the US be actively engaged in trying to unseat tyrannical governments or should we merely exist and "teach" by example with the hopes that through the natural course of time, those who are oppressed in other nations will rise up on their own to claim the rights which are due them?

I joined this discussion late, so I will just comment on stillakid's original post.

For one, the United States was founded on Christian beliefs, never mind what the revisionist historians say. The Continental Congress was actually called "The Bible Congress," meaning a biblical system of government that recognized mankind's God given rights. Those concepts didn't exist in governments of the time. George Washington himself, was a very strong Christian and stated in his presidential farewell address that success for this massive experiment called America depended solely on the government remaining as close to God as possible. As soon as we try to separate God from our governmental system, the system would fail.

Look what has happened just in the last 60 or so years since we took prayer out of public schools, legalized abortion and started handing out birth control in high schools. Teen pregnancy rates are higher, teen suicide rates and teen depression rates are skyrocketting. Gang violence is at an all time high, where the inner cities have become nothing more than war zones. School shooting are becoming so common they barely seem to raise an eyebrow anymore. Woodstock 99 ended in riots and gang rapes. Public schools not only have to worry about tardiness or truancy; but add murder, rape and drug dealing on school grounds to the list. On top of all this, children are being slaughtered in abortion clinics at a rate that rivals Nazi Germany's concentration camps.

Meanwhile, people claim that we shouldn't allow the "Bible-bangers to brain-wash another generation of kids" (as it was worded on a recent episode of Law & Order) .

Let's see here: "You will not murder." "You will not steal." "Honor your father and mother." "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Yeah, I can see how those are really dangerous concepts and we better not oppress our kids with such rules.:rolleyes:

Anyways, the US was founded as a Christian nation, a Christian nation that valued free speech, freedom of the press and equality of all mankind (slavery was a practice that had existed for thousands of years before 1776, the founding fathers felt it better to deal with the issue later rather than jeopardize the union in it's infancy, not the best solution admittedly; but that's a totally different issue). The very same values that liberals have used to suppress our right to practice our beliefs.

It's unconstituional to tell a kid that he or she cannot openly pray in school or even take a Bible to school. In the middle school my dad works at, kids can get suspended just for talking about God. Why don't the bleeding heart liberals rally to Christian childrens' aid when faced with such blatant religious oppression? But let some homosexual student try to start a homosexual/lesbian club, and the ACLU is all over the school board if there is even the slightest hint of hesitation. That's a serious double-standard.

In this increasingly politically correct world, people are not allowed to have convictions or beliefs. They're considered a hamper to the almighty god of progress. In fact, we're not allowed to feel strongly about anything at all. We're supposed to just be mindless, wishy-washy, lumps of clay ready to believe whatever the government or media wants us to believe.:rolleyes:

This is nothing less than slavery of the mind. That's a life that I don't consider worth living.

When a government tries to control everything about a people to include their very thoughts, that's not called democracy that's totalitarianism. The idea that we all have to be tolerant and accepting of different cultures and that we all have to accept them as equally legitimate to ours, is a very totalitarian idea (the very essence of politically correct thought). The idea that there is no right, no wrong, no good, no evil, no immorality and no morality is also a very anarchistic and satanic form of government (or non-government, whichever the case may be).

If progress means that I have to give up my beliefs in God and Jesus Christ, then I will be happy to stand against progress at every turn. But rest easy, since I am a child of God, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that means that I am not capable of risking innocent lives to protect my beliefs. I will stand up for them, I will speak out for them, I will even die for them; but I will never kill for them.

SirSteve
03-20-2003, 09:03 AM
Political Thread - CLOSED