Re: I'm not here to pick a fight...
3 answers:
1 - I didn't say he was right, and I can recognise political statements as well as you. But he laid it all out clearly as a basis for decisions. That's the first time I see that done;
2 - I really am not interested in his history. He may have been JC himself and change into the devil tomorrow, or vice versa. Besides the point.
3 - If you think his statement is rhetoric, you clearly have been a very good pupil of him.
Jan Didden
stadams said:
3 answers:
1 - I didn't say he was right, and I can recognise political statements as well as you. But he laid it all out clearly as a basis for decisions. That's the first time I see that done;
2 - I really am not interested in his history. He may have been JC himself and change into the devil tomorrow, or vice versa. Besides the point.
3 - If you think his statement is rhetoric, you clearly have been a very good pupil of him.
Jan Didden
The US may win the war - but not the occupation - freedom after the battles. But it may be they dont want to win this expensive and from public relation aspects uninteresting phase. They want to leave this job to us.
Like in Kosovo or Afghanistan.
"Old Europe" has more soldiers in Afghanistan and balcan now. Why? we have to pay for what comes now. Afghanistan is burned land, US goes to next "Blitzkrieg". They really learned from Vietnam.
Christer said:
You ask good questions. The thoughts are that the people in Iraq will not fight for long. I am scared myself of long term urban warfare, but I don't think it will come down to that. Iraq had big plans in the first war, and look what happened.
Yes, in a worst case, there could be WMD used and urban fighting (stangely, if he uses WMD, it would validate our reason for going in). But, even if this happens, think how much worse things would be if we wait another decade before doing anything! While going to war today may be bad, going to war next year will be even worse. I return to the Hitler analogy - would it have been better to go to war BEFORE he had amassed so much power? The answer is YES! The "peacenicks" back then have a lot of blood on them - a lot of American blood. Let's learn our history lessons, ok!
I am not for war - I simply see bigger problems ahead if we don't do something now. We should have taken him out the last time, but we didn't because we were afraid of what the world would say. Well, we listened to the world then and look at the mess that resulted.
Well, you are probably correct. A lot of brainwashing has been going on. Saddam has killed more Arabs than anyone else alive, but he convinces others that it is the Americans who are bad. If wanted to take over their oil fields, we would have gotten in the first Gulf war.
We - the world - needs to educate all the peoples to embrace diversity. That's what "peacenicks" say they want - so go do it! But guess what - in some countries you can be arrested and killed for your religious and political views. Why aren't you protesting against them? Why aren't you protesting Saddam's treatment of his people? Why aren't you protesting against terrorism? Why, instead, are you protesting against America?
Truce.
Brett,
Actually I abstained from the presidential vote. I could also post an equal amount of bile and hatred for what I see are archaic, antiquated, and brutish tactics that are used by the GOP and its controlling demagogues. It's unfortunate for myself and others that we are constantly bombarded by the endless streams of spin and bombast from both sides of our own government and forced to find the center between the sides. In some cases it is actually enjoyable to see how the two sides are juxtiposed against each other but, after a time, the arguments, the backstabbing, and the jockying wear my own armor thin causing any good that speech's like Senator Byrd's may contain to be dismissed without care.
So, Brett and any others that may have been offended by my previous remarks I apologize from my heart. I am as tired, or possibly even more so, as you are of hearing the war mongering and the drums of war.
Still Staunchly Independent and proud of it,
Brett,
Actually I abstained from the presidential vote. I could also post an equal amount of bile and hatred for what I see are archaic, antiquated, and brutish tactics that are used by the GOP and its controlling demagogues. It's unfortunate for myself and others that we are constantly bombarded by the endless streams of spin and bombast from both sides of our own government and forced to find the center between the sides. In some cases it is actually enjoyable to see how the two sides are juxtiposed against each other but, after a time, the arguments, the backstabbing, and the jockying wear my own armor thin causing any good that speech's like Senator Byrd's may contain to be dismissed without care.
So, Brett and any others that may have been offended by my previous remarks I apologize from my heart. I am as tired, or possibly even more so, as you are of hearing the war mongering and the drums of war.
Still Staunchly Independent and proud of it,
Re: NOT QUITE THE SAME.
Afganistan was not bombed to shreds. Russia had already done that. We failed to get Bin Laden becasue we were concerned about civilian casualities. We had identified a small group of people and the order to attack was denied pending verification they were not civilians. By the time we got an ID that showed they were the bad guys and included Bil Laden, he was gone.
If you think we were dropping bombs everywhere and shooting at everything, you are sadly mistaken.
And if we take your fatalistic viewpoint, then what is the point in anything? Let's not even try? Let Saddam get some nukes - you don't care. Let Saddam iinvade Kuwait - you don't care. Let Saddam obliterate Israel - you don't care. Well, if he does that, then maybe you will dust off your protest sign but, wait, you won't be protesting Iraq, you will be protesting against the US for its plan to attack Iraq, now saying that millions will be killed in the ensuing nuclear nightmare if we do. You will say "give peace a chance". Well, it will be too late.
Am I being overly dramatic. Maybe. I hope. Are you being naive about what Saddam will do? I think so.
Again, I appreciate the debate and while minds may not be changed, I hope we are getting glimpses into both sides. I only wish we had a crystal ball to tell us which way really is the right way to proceed.
fdegrove said:
Afganistan was not bombed to shreds. Russia had already done that. We failed to get Bin Laden becasue we were concerned about civilian casualities. We had identified a small group of people and the order to attack was denied pending verification they were not civilians. By the time we got an ID that showed they were the bad guys and included Bil Laden, he was gone.
If you think we were dropping bombs everywhere and shooting at everything, you are sadly mistaken.
And if we take your fatalistic viewpoint, then what is the point in anything? Let's not even try? Let Saddam get some nukes - you don't care. Let Saddam iinvade Kuwait - you don't care. Let Saddam obliterate Israel - you don't care. Well, if he does that, then maybe you will dust off your protest sign but, wait, you won't be protesting Iraq, you will be protesting against the US for its plan to attack Iraq, now saying that millions will be killed in the ensuing nuclear nightmare if we do. You will say "give peace a chance". Well, it will be too late.
Am I being overly dramatic. Maybe. I hope. Are you being naive about what Saddam will do? I think so.
Again, I appreciate the debate and while minds may not be changed, I hope we are getting glimpses into both sides. I only wish we had a crystal ball to tell us which way really is the right way to proceed.
DRAMA.....
Hi,
It seems you're reading an awful lot into a few lines of comment.
That Saddam should be kept on a short leash is obvious to all.
That going to war in Iracq will solve all the problems isn't all that obvious to all of us.
Let me just say that so far, no argument pro war has convinced me.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
It seems you're reading an awful lot into a few lines of comment.
That Saddam should be kept on a short leash is obvious to all.
That going to war in Iracq will solve all the problems isn't all that obvious to all of us.
Let me just say that so far, no argument pro war has convinced me.
Cheers,😉
Re: DRAMA.....
Fair enough. I respect you.
I agree that one should never rush in to war. Hard questions need to be asked and I mean no disrespect when I use the term "peacenick". We need peacenicks to ask the hard questions and while many peacenicks will never agree to war, except possibly when their own standard of living is being directly threatened, we need to be able to have answers to their questions.
As for keeping Saddam on a short lease, how do you plan to accompolish that? Only the threat of war from the US has kept him in check thus far. We know he wants to acquire or further develop WMD so he can be like North Korea and thumb his noses at the world and threaten a nuclear strike if we try to reign him in. I really don't think my fear of him going after Kuwait and other countries is inaccurate. He might not attack Israel on his own, but if the rest of the world threatens him again, he most likely will.
I have vacilated myself on going to war. What has convinced me that it is right is my fear of what he will do in the future if we don't act now. A short leash will not prevent him from getting nuclear weapons. I fear Iraq may turn into another North Korea but, unlike North Korea, which has little of what the rest of the world wants or needs, Iraq has lots of oil, and Europeans certainly want and need that oil, and he will be able to blackmail you with it. I think he already is, actually.
fdegrove said:
Fair enough. I respect you.
I agree that one should never rush in to war. Hard questions need to be asked and I mean no disrespect when I use the term "peacenick". We need peacenicks to ask the hard questions and while many peacenicks will never agree to war, except possibly when their own standard of living is being directly threatened, we need to be able to have answers to their questions.
As for keeping Saddam on a short lease, how do you plan to accompolish that? Only the threat of war from the US has kept him in check thus far. We know he wants to acquire or further develop WMD so he can be like North Korea and thumb his noses at the world and threaten a nuclear strike if we try to reign him in. I really don't think my fear of him going after Kuwait and other countries is inaccurate. He might not attack Israel on his own, but if the rest of the world threatens him again, he most likely will.
I have vacilated myself on going to war. What has convinced me that it is right is my fear of what he will do in the future if we don't act now. A short leash will not prevent him from getting nuclear weapons. I fear Iraq may turn into another North Korea but, unlike North Korea, which has little of what the rest of the world wants or needs, Iraq has lots of oil, and Europeans certainly want and need that oil, and he will be able to blackmail you with it. I think he already is, actually.
Re: Truce.
Hi, no offence at all was caused to me, but thank you anyway.
My reason for questioning was to see whether there was merely a rhetoric spin to your comments, as they sounded to me like much of the Republican spin I'm reading in the press. Thanks for clarifying.
I agree, and find exactly the same thing down here in Australia. To watch the fighting is at once amusing, and incredibly sad. There is very little to differentiate the two major political parties here, and one commentator describes them as corporations for the obtaining and weilding of power, which I feel is a pretty apt description.
The last line of your comment quoted above is the worst part of the current situation. People with reasoned views are not being heard.
Thanks again, and I'd like to offer my apologies in case I came across as rude.
When I trained martial arts, my Sensei always said that if you get into a fight you have already lost. There are always alternatives to any given course of action, and that the decisions made reflect your true humanity. The same dynamic that applies between individuals also applies between nations, and it pains me greatly for the loss of life that this coming conflict will involve. Unfortunately most of the casualties will be people who have no combative role, and the destruction of infrastructure will cause untold suffering on the rest, whist SH and cronies will likely not be affected much.
Good.
Regards
Hi, no offence at all was caused to me, but thank you anyway.
My reason for questioning was to see whether there was merely a rhetoric spin to your comments, as they sounded to me like much of the Republican spin I'm reading in the press. Thanks for clarifying.
stadams said:
I agree, and find exactly the same thing down here in Australia. To watch the fighting is at once amusing, and incredibly sad. There is very little to differentiate the two major political parties here, and one commentator describes them as corporations for the obtaining and weilding of power, which I feel is a pretty apt description.
The last line of your comment quoted above is the worst part of the current situation. People with reasoned views are not being heard.
Thanks again, and I'd like to offer my apologies in case I came across as rude.
When I trained martial arts, my Sensei always said that if you get into a fight you have already lost. There are always alternatives to any given course of action, and that the decisions made reflect your true humanity. The same dynamic that applies between individuals also applies between nations, and it pains me greatly for the loss of life that this coming conflict will involve. Unfortunately most of the casualties will be people who have no combative role, and the destruction of infrastructure will cause untold suffering on the rest, whist SH and cronies will likely not be affected much.
Good.
Regards
Re: Re: Truce.
I agree that there always alternatives, however we must also bear in mind that these alternative choices will also involve "loss of life" and mostly to "people who have no combative role".
We really have three choices
1. Go to war to enforce the UN resolutions. People will die on both sides, there will be destruction and devestation. However when it is over the opression of the Iraqui people will be lifted and those who survive will likely have a better future.
2. The world community can give up and let Sadam off the hook, and remove the sanctions. People will die due to the opressive and murderous regeime and who knows what Sadam's future actions will be. He may choose to be content, or he may choose to launch another war against his neighbours.
3. Continue the inspections and sanctions. People will die due to starvation, lack of adiquate medical treatment and again the Sadam regeime. This is not however not a solution to the problem, either Sadam continues to deny full proactive cooperation and eventually option 1 will result or the world gives in and chooses option 2
It is not a choice between people dieing and people not dieing. It is only a choice between when and how and if they die through our action or inaction.
Brett said:
I agree that there always alternatives, however we must also bear in mind that these alternative choices will also involve "loss of life" and mostly to "people who have no combative role".
We really have three choices
1. Go to war to enforce the UN resolutions. People will die on both sides, there will be destruction and devestation. However when it is over the opression of the Iraqui people will be lifted and those who survive will likely have a better future.
2. The world community can give up and let Sadam off the hook, and remove the sanctions. People will die due to the opressive and murderous regeime and who knows what Sadam's future actions will be. He may choose to be content, or he may choose to launch another war against his neighbours.
3. Continue the inspections and sanctions. People will die due to starvation, lack of adiquate medical treatment and again the Sadam regeime. This is not however not a solution to the problem, either Sadam continues to deny full proactive cooperation and eventually option 1 will result or the world gives in and chooses option 2
It is not a choice between people dieing and people not dieing. It is only a choice between when and how and if they die through our action or inaction.
Re: Re: Re: Truce.
With UN backing this is <i>possibly</i> the most palatable option of the 3 you listed. However the "Shock and Awe" strategy that seems like it is going to use, will kill at a minimum tens of thousands of civilians, and have no effect whatsoever on SH, the Republican Guard or his cronies. The US couldn't find or capture OBL, so why should we be confident they'll get SH?
Letting him "off the hook" was never really an option and is a bit of a strawman argument. I've never suggested it.
The last part of your last sentence is the most telling: SH is most likey to loose an attack on a neighbour, than the US. It does not have the capacity to do that militarily, and so far there has been no credible evidence presented that the Iraqi regime is involved in terrorism. They <i>may</i> be, but put up the evidence.
Hans Blix's report shows little to no evidence of WMDs, and he knows more than all of us. However, we have an administration in the US which is rampaging about using threatening rhetoric, and deliberate use of force, against UN policy and rules as it suits their own agenda. And who has the biggest WMD and miltary capability? SH is an evil man and should be removed from power, but he actually has little military capability, and what he does have is localised to the region. Realistically, who can or will he attack?
It is criminal the way the sanctions are being implemented. There are undoubtedly better solutions to this, but they would be expensive (still probably much cheaper than war) and longer term. There is a good chance the bush regime will not be in power next year, so any longer term, humanistic solutions will not carry enough political mileage for the current administration to gain any benefit from them.
You make a great assumption here that the average Iragi will see the US as liberators. That is definitely not the feeling of the Iraqis that I've known. There is a deep distrust of America and Americans. Whether it is justified or not, is irrelevant.
What are the longer term consequences of this action going to be? My beleif is less stability in the region, and more terrorism from the extremists, who will have the added propaganda ammmunition of dead civilians.
The answers presented for invasion are too pat, and have in no way convinced me that the current intentions and plans for invasion are a good idea for longer than the soundbite they are.
Senator Byrd's speech was excellent, and articulate many of my concerns better than I have here. When I get time I will write a better synopsis.
Kelly McDonald said:
With UN backing this is <i>possibly</i> the most palatable option of the 3 you listed. However the "Shock and Awe" strategy that seems like it is going to use, will kill at a minimum tens of thousands of civilians, and have no effect whatsoever on SH, the Republican Guard or his cronies. The US couldn't find or capture OBL, so why should we be confident they'll get SH?
Letting him "off the hook" was never really an option and is a bit of a strawman argument. I've never suggested it.
The last part of your last sentence is the most telling: SH is most likey to loose an attack on a neighbour, than the US. It does not have the capacity to do that militarily, and so far there has been no credible evidence presented that the Iraqi regime is involved in terrorism. They <i>may</i> be, but put up the evidence.
Hans Blix's report shows little to no evidence of WMDs, and he knows more than all of us. However, we have an administration in the US which is rampaging about using threatening rhetoric, and deliberate use of force, against UN policy and rules as it suits their own agenda. And who has the biggest WMD and miltary capability? SH is an evil man and should be removed from power, but he actually has little military capability, and what he does have is localised to the region. Realistically, who can or will he attack?
It is criminal the way the sanctions are being implemented. There are undoubtedly better solutions to this, but they would be expensive (still probably much cheaper than war) and longer term. There is a good chance the bush regime will not be in power next year, so any longer term, humanistic solutions will not carry enough political mileage for the current administration to gain any benefit from them.
You make a great assumption here that the average Iragi will see the US as liberators. That is definitely not the feeling of the Iraqis that I've known. There is a deep distrust of America and Americans. Whether it is justified or not, is irrelevant.
What are the longer term consequences of this action going to be? My beleif is less stability in the region, and more terrorism from the extremists, who will have the added propaganda ammmunition of dead civilians.
The answers presented for invasion are too pat, and have in no way convinced me that the current intentions and plans for invasion are a good idea for longer than the soundbite they are.
Senator Byrd's speech was excellent, and articulate many of my concerns better than I have here. When I get time I will write a better synopsis.
Jeff R said:
Do you have any particular reason why you don't think it will
go into urban warfare? That is what most experts over here
seem to think will happen, at least.
As for what happened in the Gulf war, as far as I remember
Powell convinced the administration to stop short of Bhagdad
to avoid getting into urban warfare, since he realize this would
lead to massive casualties on both sides. Iraq has learned their
lesson and will not try to stop you out in the open fields.
Same comment as above. The reason you didn't go after Saddam
was to avoid casualties. You would not have had as much
problems with protests then. In the Gulf war you were not the
agressor, since you responded to Kuwaits plea for help when
attacked by Iraq. I know a lot of people protested also then,
but personally I cannot see there is anything wrong with helping
a country that has been attacked and asks for help. Suddenly
attacking Iraq now without UN support is a very different
matter.
Maybe there will be new problems ahead, maybe not. Saddam
is after all 65 years old, I think, and he might die of a heart
attack tomorrow, perhaps.
I don't know if this was directed towards me personally, but
just for the record, I have nowhere in this thread taken a clear
stand against a war under any circumstances, nor have I joined
any of the peace marches. I just think that the reasons for a
war are currently very vague and not very strong, especially
considering the likely outcome of such a war.
Otherwise, I agree that the often heavily filtered media in many
arab countries contribute to a hatred against west. However,
it is not as simple as that either. In the eyes of most of us in
the west, the situation is terrible in many arab countries,
especially for the women, but also in general. I supported the
war in Afghanistan, since it was rather clearly targeted against
al Queda and overthrowing the taliban regime, since this regime
was probably the most tyrranic one since the red Khmers. In this
case it seemed possible, and also was so, to keep civilian
casualties very low. Yes, many civilians died, but however much
I hate to trade lives for lives, I reason that these were very
few compared to the tens of thousands of women dying each
year because of the almost non-existant health care for women
under the taliban regime. Still, if it hadn't been for al Queda,
you wouldn't have touched Afghanistan, so freeing the people
was just a bonus effect. In my view, and most others in the west,
something must happen in the arab world or it will go very bad.
Still, we must also ask ourselves, what right do we have to
impose our view on these countries? For us it is so obvious that
there should be democracy, freedom of speech and that women
should be equal to men, but can we really claim that our view
is more correct? When our views collide with Islam, should the
freedom of religien yield to the other rights? I'd better stop here
since I am wandering off into the field of ethics here.
Senator Byrd's speech
Yes, He sure is a man of intergrity and courage!
Like Bob Dylan.
#################################################################
Senator Byrd's speech is somewhat in line with halojoy's speech
in post number #694 in this "his very own" thread:
/halo - has been called "one of the peacemakers" at this site
- before this war issue come up
*******************************************************
Read Senator Byrd's Couragious Speech at
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7276
janneman said:
Yes, He sure is a man of intergrity and courage!
Like Bob Dylan.
#################################################################
Senator Byrd's speech is somewhat in line with halojoy's speech
in post number #694 in this "his very own" thread:
halojoy said:
/halo - has been called "one of the peacemakers" at this site
- before this war issue come up
*******************************************************
Read Senator Byrd's Couragious Speech at
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7276
Actually, former Klansman Byrd is the most dishonest man in the entire Senate. The only reason he opposes military action is that the money spent will not go to West Virginia. Byrd has been ripping off the American public for decades, extracting billions of dollars of our hard-earned money for one boondoggle project after another, purely to ensure his perpetual re-election.
I wouldn't expect non-Americans to be familiar with this man and his record.
I wouldn't expect non-Americans to be familiar with this man and his record.
Christer has some excellent points. Thank you for sharing them. I see the pain you have in trying to understand what is going on and what is the best thing to do. There is nothing at all wrong in trying to understand why one has to go to war and what the consequences will be if one does, or does, decide to fight.
I will try to address some of your concerns. I think the reason the US did not go on to Bagdad in the Guld War was that we had no UN authority to do so, plus we naturally assumed that Saddam would be killed from within. Yes, we were concerned about US soldiers being killed, but we really felt Saddam was doomed at that point, so why kill more US soldiers and innocent Iraqi's? I worked with an Iraqi at that time and he was jublient that SH was near the end of power. Well, we were wrong. We wanted to give peace a chance and, guess what, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have suffered even more.
Will there be a bloodbath in the streets of Bagdad? I don't think so. Routers is saying that most of the people will not fight. Some of the Republican Guard might hold on for a while, but the only people there who really want to fight are the oppressors who fear what the people will do to them when they are ousted from power.
Should we wait for Saddam to die of old age? Well, don't bet on a nice guy taking over. And what do we do in the meantime? It is sad to see the suffering of the people there as they deserve better. I am at the point where if we don't do anything now to oust SH, let's go on and lift the sanctions. Why allow the people to suffer any longer if we aren't going to do anything about SH? At least with the sanctions lifted, he can't blame the problems on the Americans any more. When he invades Kuwait and threatens other countries with nuclear weapons if they oppose him, we will let France and Germany take care of the problem. Yeah, right. Talk is cheap.
You are right, we would not have touched Afganistan had it not been for al Quada. As I said before, we just don't wake up some mornings and decide to attack some country to force a regime change. But, while you complain about a possible double standard on our part, how many peace protestors protested the brutal treatment of women, the persecution of Christians, the myriad civil rights violations there?
Peace protesters have an amazing set of double standards. They lie asleep while bad things happen and when someone wants to do something about it, they chant "give peace a chance".
Again, I keep asking, what will happen if we back down and SH gets his hands on some nukes? Will France and Germany try to stop him when he reinvades Kuwait?
I will try to address some of your concerns. I think the reason the US did not go on to Bagdad in the Guld War was that we had no UN authority to do so, plus we naturally assumed that Saddam would be killed from within. Yes, we were concerned about US soldiers being killed, but we really felt Saddam was doomed at that point, so why kill more US soldiers and innocent Iraqi's? I worked with an Iraqi at that time and he was jublient that SH was near the end of power. Well, we were wrong. We wanted to give peace a chance and, guess what, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have suffered even more.
Will there be a bloodbath in the streets of Bagdad? I don't think so. Routers is saying that most of the people will not fight. Some of the Republican Guard might hold on for a while, but the only people there who really want to fight are the oppressors who fear what the people will do to them when they are ousted from power.
Should we wait for Saddam to die of old age? Well, don't bet on a nice guy taking over. And what do we do in the meantime? It is sad to see the suffering of the people there as they deserve better. I am at the point where if we don't do anything now to oust SH, let's go on and lift the sanctions. Why allow the people to suffer any longer if we aren't going to do anything about SH? At least with the sanctions lifted, he can't blame the problems on the Americans any more. When he invades Kuwait and threatens other countries with nuclear weapons if they oppose him, we will let France and Germany take care of the problem. Yeah, right. Talk is cheap.
You are right, we would not have touched Afganistan had it not been for al Quada. As I said before, we just don't wake up some mornings and decide to attack some country to force a regime change. But, while you complain about a possible double standard on our part, how many peace protestors protested the brutal treatment of women, the persecution of Christians, the myriad civil rights violations there?
Peace protesters have an amazing set of double standards. They lie asleep while bad things happen and when someone wants to do something about it, they chant "give peace a chance".
Again, I keep asking, what will happen if we back down and SH gets his hands on some nukes? Will France and Germany try to stop him when he reinvades Kuwait?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Truce.
Never claimed you did, I'm just presenting the possible options. If there is another alternative I am open to the suggestion. Its easy to be against something, its much harder to come up with an alternative course of action.
I agree that the terrorism link is pretty tenious and it is part of the rhetoric to draw support from the rage caused by 9/11. Yet even if we let Sadam off the hook and he chooses to behave himself and not build up his military and attack his neighbours as he has done in the past. People will still die under his regeime. If he were suddenly allowed to sell all the oil he wanted, I doubt much would go towards his starving population. Most would go towards rebuilding his shattered military.
However even Hans Blix has agreed that when UN weapons inspectors left in 1998 there were thousands of tonnes of materials and equipment suitable for the production of WMD that had been tagged but not yet destroyed. Iraqs weapons declaration did not make mention of these materials at all. They may all be destroyed, but Iraq has not provided any indication that this is the case.
The purpose of resolition 1441 was not to put inspectors on the ground with the hopes that they might stumble onto somthing. The purpose was for Iraq to make a full declaration of all materials they might have that could be used in the production of WMD (or WMD themselves), the inspectors would then determine if this material posed a threat and determine if they should be destroyed or not. Iraq has yet to come clean on what has happened to these materials, thus they are not complying with the resolution.
The question is what is thier agenda? People on both sides are attributing all sorts of attributes to the Bush agenda without any sort of evidence, the anti-war side claims its all about the oil. The pro war side claims its all about September 11. I think that its somewhere in the middle.
If the UK and France had "used threatening rhetoric, and deliberate use of force, against League of Nations policy" to stop Hitler in the late 1930's I would have been all for it.
The US by far, however the US never signed a ceasefire agreeing to destroy its capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction. As well under the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, the US, UK, France, China and Russia are actually legally entitled to posses nuclear weapons.
Today SH has little military capability, but if the sanctions were removed he could rebuild it in a matter of years. He does have a history of invading his neighbours before (both Kuwait and Iran). Sure he's not going to invade the US or Europe, but there are a lot of small Middle East nations that he easily could.
Depends who you talk to, some exiles are cheering for the US to go in and take over. Others less so, just like everywhere else opinion is divided.
Remember this was supposed to be the outcome of Afghanistan, so far stability has been increased and terrorism hasn't really changed "orange" alert not withstanding
Unfortunately we are not privy to what the US military will actually do if and when the time comes to go into Iraq. Sure some journalists will uncover some of the plans that are being evaluated. Some military personel and experts will make conjectures and theories, but the actual plans will not come out until they are put in action.
They might not have got OBL, but Afghanistan is now free of the Taliban and the terrorist training camps. Girls can actually go to school again. Yes thousands of Afghani's died in the invasion, but I'd say that the average Afghani is better off today than they were two years ago? The US might not get SH, but he won't be running Iraq thats for sure.Brett said:
Never claimed you did, I'm just presenting the possible options. If there is another alternative I am open to the suggestion. Its easy to be against something, its much harder to come up with an alternative course of action.
I agree that the terrorism link is pretty tenious and it is part of the rhetoric to draw support from the rage caused by 9/11. Yet even if we let Sadam off the hook and he chooses to behave himself and not build up his military and attack his neighbours as he has done in the past. People will still die under his regeime. If he were suddenly allowed to sell all the oil he wanted, I doubt much would go towards his starving population. Most would go towards rebuilding his shattered military.
However even Hans Blix has agreed that when UN weapons inspectors left in 1998 there were thousands of tonnes of materials and equipment suitable for the production of WMD that had been tagged but not yet destroyed. Iraqs weapons declaration did not make mention of these materials at all. They may all be destroyed, but Iraq has not provided any indication that this is the case.
The purpose of resolition 1441 was not to put inspectors on the ground with the hopes that they might stumble onto somthing. The purpose was for Iraq to make a full declaration of all materials they might have that could be used in the production of WMD (or WMD themselves), the inspectors would then determine if this material posed a threat and determine if they should be destroyed or not. Iraq has yet to come clean on what has happened to these materials, thus they are not complying with the resolution.
The question is what is thier agenda? People on both sides are attributing all sorts of attributes to the Bush agenda without any sort of evidence, the anti-war side claims its all about the oil. The pro war side claims its all about September 11. I think that its somewhere in the middle.
If the UK and France had "used threatening rhetoric, and deliberate use of force, against League of Nations policy" to stop Hitler in the late 1930's I would have been all for it.
The US by far, however the US never signed a ceasefire agreeing to destroy its capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction. As well under the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, the US, UK, France, China and Russia are actually legally entitled to posses nuclear weapons.
Today SH has little military capability, but if the sanctions were removed he could rebuild it in a matter of years. He does have a history of invading his neighbours before (both Kuwait and Iran). Sure he's not going to invade the US or Europe, but there are a lot of small Middle East nations that he easily could.
I think sanctions are useless, they only harm the civilian population. Sadam didn't have any problem importing Italian marble and Roll's Royces to rebuild his palaces, while letting the international media in to film the starving dieing masses. Neither side is above using propaganda and rhetoric.
Depends who you talk to, some exiles are cheering for the US to go in and take over. Others less so, just like everywhere else opinion is divided.
Remember this was supposed to be the outcome of Afghanistan, so far stability has been increased and terrorism hasn't really changed "orange" alert not withstanding
Unfortunately we are not privy to what the US military will actually do if and when the time comes to go into Iraq. Sure some journalists will uncover some of the plans that are being evaluated. Some military personel and experts will make conjectures and theories, but the actual plans will not come out until they are put in action.
Re: Senator Byrd's speech
I am not so sure what there is to be so proud about. Your country is too weak to attack others, and you have not been attacked due to the nature of the Swiss banks and the general fact that your country has little to offer others. Plus, you are a member of NATO, I think, and you figure the US will come in and protect you should any nation ever try.
The US, on the other hand, is a lucky nation and we have tried to help others in time of need. We get beat up a lot for this, but a lot of other countries need to thank God that we are strong and were able to stop the spread of communism. While you remain neutral in wars, the US sent money and soldiers to keep Europe free. That is something to be proud of. What is there to be proud of in being neutral? If you see two people fighting in the street, is it more honorable to try to stop the fighting, or to sit and watch, selling bandages to both sides? I really see little honor in neutrality - it just means you have no backbone to stand up for what you belive in, if you believe in anything but looking out for only yourself.
But, hey, I like Sweeden! I would love to visit - I know I would be safe there. And ABBA rocks! For them, I will gladly come to your defense.
halojoy said:
I am not so sure what there is to be so proud about. Your country is too weak to attack others, and you have not been attacked due to the nature of the Swiss banks and the general fact that your country has little to offer others. Plus, you are a member of NATO, I think, and you figure the US will come in and protect you should any nation ever try.
The US, on the other hand, is a lucky nation and we have tried to help others in time of need. We get beat up a lot for this, but a lot of other countries need to thank God that we are strong and were able to stop the spread of communism. While you remain neutral in wars, the US sent money and soldiers to keep Europe free. That is something to be proud of. What is there to be proud of in being neutral? If you see two people fighting in the street, is it more honorable to try to stop the fighting, or to sit and watch, selling bandages to both sides? I really see little honor in neutrality - it just means you have no backbone to stand up for what you belive in, if you believe in anything but looking out for only yourself.
But, hey, I like Sweeden! I would love to visit - I know I would be safe there. And ABBA rocks! For them, I will gladly come to your defense.
um
and to minimize the perception that americans don't know anything about the rest of the world, some of us do know that swiss bank accounts are in switzerland 🙂 probably an honest mistake though
although I do agree that not starting any wars isn't necessary anything to be proud of. I'm still undecided about Iraq, but we all live in this world and there are times when action needs to be taken. If you're concerned about double standards, its possible that of all the oppressive countries, only iraq is being targeted because there is the most worldwide support for it. I think we'd have a much harder time bombing Cuba or N Korea
and to minimize the perception that americans don't know anything about the rest of the world, some of us do know that swiss bank accounts are in switzerland 🙂 probably an honest mistake though
although I do agree that not starting any wars isn't necessary anything to be proud of. I'm still undecided about Iraq, but we all live in this world and there are times when action needs to be taken. If you're concerned about double standards, its possible that of all the oppressive countries, only iraq is being targeted because there is the most worldwide support for it. I think we'd have a much harder time bombing Cuba or N KoreaRe: Re: Senator Byrd's speech
Sorry Jeff, but now you are really living up to the clichés about
americans that some of your fellow countrymen worked so
hard to prove wrong earlier in this thread. 🙂 🙂
We have no Swiss banks in Sweden, or rather, I am sure
some of them have branch offices here, but the head offices
of swiss bank will typically be found in Switzerland. Also,
Sweden is not and has never been a member of NATO. We
have remained neutral, although it should be admitted that
the neutrality has not always been quite firm. We did help
the germans somewhat early in WWII and the allies later in
the war. During the cold war we also had access to more
advanced american radio surveillance equipment than even
the NATO countries, the price of this being that we shared
some information with the US.
Edit: Oh yes, I should perhaps add that we actually were an
"evil" superpower who used to go to war with other countries
like Russia, but was long ago, when your country was still a
colony.
Jeff R said:
Sorry Jeff, but now you are really living up to the clichés about
americans that some of your fellow countrymen worked so
hard to prove wrong earlier in this thread. 🙂 🙂
We have no Swiss banks in Sweden, or rather, I am sure
some of them have branch offices here, but the head offices
of swiss bank will typically be found in Switzerland. Also,
Sweden is not and has never been a member of NATO. We
have remained neutral, although it should be admitted that
the neutrality has not always been quite firm. We did help
the germans somewhat early in WWII and the allies later in
the war. During the cold war we also had access to more
advanced american radio surveillance equipment than even
the NATO countries, the price of this being that we shared
some information with the US.
Edit: Oh yes, I should perhaps add that we actually were an
"evil" superpower who used to go to war with other countries
like Russia, but was long ago, when your country was still a
colony.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.