Iraq . . . Decisions

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Iraq . . . Decisions

Postby Daz » Tue Sep 03, 2002 9:55 pm

I wanna know how people feel about this? Not public flaming, speeches about patriotism, or general propaganda, but opinions, information, and perspectives.

I stumbled across the following article on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/03/blair.iraq/index.html
The line that stood out to me was:
"This isn't just an issue for the U.S., it is an issue for Britain, it is an issue for the wider world. America shouldn't have to face this issue alone, we should face it together."

I found that to be a refreshing statement in light of all the recent controversy America has induced. After watching Pearl Harbor last night (Yes! The whole thing!) I couldn't help but wonder if it would take another such attack to prompt our government to take action, not just to protect America, the last superpower, but to protect our way of life.

Many other countries object, often violently, to American points of view, in particular our need to intrude on their way of life and push our opinions on them. While many times this may be justified, (can you say DMCA?) there are plenty of times when America is just acting as the misunderstood parent figure role that, like it or not, the majority of the world has thrust upon us.

You simply can not ask us for support, aid, assistance, and other favors without expecting America to intrude in your lives to ensure that what we have given you is used properly. The war on Iraq is potentially going to be dirty . . . the world is squaring off; Russia and China have sided with Iraq, Britain has teamed with the USA. I think, that now that Britain has stepped forward, the majority of Europe will join, if for no other reason that to continue with a unified nation.

World War 3 anyone? Will Japan stay neutral? Or, will they join the American cause simply to war with China? Will they side with China simply to war with the US?

What happens if, as Eminem mentions in a song, Saddam collaborates with Bin Laden? Worldwide terror attacks? Guerrila warfare?
Should we step in now and prevent this, or do we wait and hope that Saddam is building weapons of war for peaceful reason?

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:37 pm

Interesting analysis Daz..

One point I would disagree with you on is whether the rest of Europe will go along with the US and UK. I don't see it happening. The sentiment in the international community is strongly against the US on this issue. To me the big question in this regard is why it is even important to have an international coalition. Perhaps someone else can explain because I sure can't figure it out...

As for Hussein, I believe he is a menace and I would love to see him dead. He is an honest-to-goodness madman. He invaded a neighboring country without any provocation. He sent scud missiles into civilian areas of Israel during the gulf war even though Israel was a non-combatant. He has used chemical weapons against his own people. He provides financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers by paying their families up to $25,000.

And most importantly, he has been trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons for years.. as far back as in 1982 when the Israelis took out his nuclear plant. Interestingly, the Israelis were harshly denounced at the time, even by their American allies. Of course, in retrospect, the Israeli action was justified. Imagine Hussein invading Kuwait and perhaps Saudi Arabia armed with nuclear capabilities. That would certainly deter the US and the rest of the world from trying to stop him.

The US plan is preemptive, as was the Israeli attack in '82. For the same reasons that Israel was denounced, the US is being criticized. But I think the objective of stopping this madman from becoming a true threat to the region, The US, and the rest of the world, justifies preemptive measures. In '82, Israel had to stick its neck out and get it done with absolutely no support in the international community. It looks like the US will have to do the same. The biggest question as far as I'm concerned is whether George W. is capable. Given the recent blundering of his administration on almost everything, I'm not so sure he is...

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:47 pm

I only suppose that the rest of Europe will follow Britain for 2 reasons:

1 - Tony Blair apparently has information he will be publishing regarding Hussein's regime and their weapons capabilities

2 - Europe has been trying to form a unified front for quite some time now, (we all know about their new currency as a single example) but something like this could form a major rift in those efforts. Europe's interests in this issue would be to stay out, but with Britain breaking away from that, the logical course of action is to follow suit and continue presenting a unified image to the world.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue Sep 03, 2002 11:28 pm

when push comes to shove people are gonna stand on the side that they have the most to gain. id wager china and russian distance themselves from iraq after the start of a real conflict...

china is siding with iraq until the US gives them a nod on taiwan. russia is siding with iraq as long as they think they can get some favorable treatment in economic deals. when things move into the action phase, china nor russia have anything to gain after the guaranteed disposition of saddam.

i was excited to read blair's statements. i think a lot of us would have a much different opinion on a lot of matters if we knew the details on things iraq... possibly kyoto and earth summit. if US had gone after bin laden and al qaeda 2 years ago, i bet a lot of nations would've cried foul... its wise of the public to have a healthy mistrust of government, but they generally do try to do whats in the best interests of the nation and its people and are a lot more informed to make those decisions.

as far as america's role in the world, being a parent, and having that thrust upon them... im not nearly so egotistical. US does it. doesn't seem to do a terrible job at it. reaps the rewards, takes the flak, and by some accounts provides a lot of monetary aid.

blast it all you want, but i dont think you can reasonably say the world would be a better place without the US's leadership over the last century. a lot of the criticism is over how much better of a job it should be doing rather than how terrible a job it is doing... kinda like when we bitch at our imms here on soj.

------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue Sep 03, 2002 11:38 pm

ummm there are many that notice a distinct difference between the relationship britain has with the EU and most of the other member countries... to say that EU will follow britain is bold, especially when it should be the other way around from an EU ideal perspective and blair/UK critics make allusions to them as a puppet of the US.

its funny that you mention currency since i believe UK is the only country that didnt switch completely over to the EU. I believe the pound is still legal tender in UK.

I do agree that the published information will be helpful in shoring up the UK position and the US position however, lets see how much at least reasonably substantiatable info there is.

I love that thing about the 25k to families of suicide bombers, and i really dont understand why the media and rest of the world doesnt jump all over that. lets face it palestine is a poor economically depressed region where no one has any hope of social/economic mobility. 25k to a palestinian is probably more like 250k to your typical person from a developed country. You could argue the purpose in giving the money away all you want, but the reality is that the money encourages and rewards people to suicide bomb.

Saddam needs to go. He has a god complex... a lack of limits to behavior... I have no doubt he would use nuclear weapons on Israel as soon as he acquires them. I have no doubt he would attempt to destroy his own country, oil resources, and whatever else he could do to cause the US in particular trouble. especially equip the enemies of the US. i do think that probably the US set him down this path... one of those best allies worst enemies kinda thing, but his imperialistic desires were bound to get him in trouble in an age where conflicts are primarily fought economically.

------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri

[This message has been edited by kiryan (edited 09-03-2002).]
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:40 am

i'm an american, and i'm quite patriotic.

but i'm also not stupid.

our whole reason for even caring is the oil in the region.


the united states is who put saddam on the throne in the 80's. the united states is who trained bin laden and his cronies during the afghan war. and now we want to control iraq.

for the oil.


there are other issues at hand obviously. if, however we do go about removing saddam and putting someone else in there i hope it goes better than afghanistan is right now, and that the new leader's priority is education, because too many people in that part of the world have less than a 1st grade education - and lack of education breeds ignorance as well as being a breeding grounds for radical megalomaniacs like bin laden.


just my two cents, but IF we go in we cant do it half assed like we have in the past.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:43 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Teyaha:
<B>our whole reason for even caring is the oil in the region.


the united states is who put saddam on the throne in the 80's. the united states is who trained bin laden and his cronies during the afghan war. and now we want to control iraq.

for the oil.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

everyone on every bbs in the world loves saying this, could someone do me a favor and substantiate these claims? it may have been done in the past, but the frequency with which I have heard these statements really sends them to urban legend land in my mind.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:55 am

If I am not mistaken, it was not the 'US' who trained the Al-Qaeda network, but rather american citizens or residents exploiting american non-profit laws to fund their actions. This is not quite the same thing as the United States writing a check the bin Laden every week.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:59 am

If oil is the deciding factor in all of this, then we're being quite silly. Who were the terrorists on those planes? Large number of Saudis, a few Egyptians. Not an Iraqi, not a Palestinian, not a North Korean or an Iranian. Saudis and Egyptians.

The deals we've struck with both Saudi Arabia and Egypt have not prevented their civilian populations from continuing to conduct terrorist operations against the US and Israel. On the contrary, it has given them a safe harbor.

What is the punishment in Saudi Arabia for stealing, looting, murdering? And what punishment did Osama bin Laden receive for his initial attack on the WTC? He was banished from the country, in a country whose criminal punishment is normally quite heinous. This was done to protect the royal family from him and his followers.

Muslims number in the billions, around the world. A small minority (a couple of hundred million) have an extremist viewpoint, whose goal is nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel, and the removal of US influence in the region (that last goal, in and of itself, wouldn't bother me so much... but the means to the end apparently require killing civilians, in their view).

If the United States sits on its backside long enough, horrendous things will happen. In a perfect world, without the influence of oil from the region, state like Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be on our list of terrorist nations (whether or not they condone the activities, they allow them). The reality is that oil is precisely what is protecting terrorists, not putting them in danger.

Europeans frequently hold the position that the US is too quick to interject itself into conflicts that are none of its business. That's quite true, in terms of past actions. The US cannot go back and change the actions we took in the 50's setting up the Shah. We're left having to pick up the pieces of failed policies and decisions (joined in by European nations at the time, it should be pointed out).

Some day, probably soon, a nuclear device is going to be used in anger again. Whether it's in the Indian-Pakistani conflict, a terrorist attack, or in some other venue, the results will be horrific.

In the meantime, a group of radicals are calling for a Jihad (loosely translated a holy war) on Israel and the US. Perhaps this is a uniquely American perspective, but if this is ever pushed too far, I fear for the lives of the non-extremists in those regions.

In the end, if Muslims of moderate views either cannot or will not stand up and fight tooth and nail with these extremists, there will be a 'holy war,' and the result, for both Islam and the rest of the world will be a catastrophe.

If you are a follower of Islam, you would do well to stand up and denounce those who would twist passages from an ancient book, in an effort to fuel the fire of their rage. It has brought only heartache to the Christian west, and it will bring only heartache to Islam. In the end, Mecca and Modhina(sp?) are the only bits of leverage the US truly has over those who espouse these beliefs. But one wonders if the extremists would even care.

If weapons of mass destruction are ever employed against the western countries or Israel, the likely result would be an uninhabitable holy land (in Saudi Arabia, and quite likely Jerusalem), for a very long time. The ensuing devastation and death that that action would cause is beyond comprehension.

If the world cannot learn to stand up to those who hold extremist, violent views, then the human population of the world will perish in their wake. Perhaps something better will rise from our ashes.
Kasula
Sojourner
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Kasula » Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:11 am

Noone is that stupid to start a war with Iraq with such overwhelming protest, not even George "Im Stupid" Bush and Dick " <-Im with Stupid" Cheney. As we speak, Bush is pulling away from the hard stance and softing with the use of Powell. And Powell's annoucement to leave on 2005 at this time wasnt just a coincidence, he is leaving as a protest against the warmonging ways of Cheney. In a poll in Britian, they asked who is the greatest threat to war peace: 1) Saddam 2)Osama Bin Laden and 3) George Bush. There is no way Blair will be unified with Bush.
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Postby Todrael » Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:17 am

< > l
Ust Circle - North
Room size: Large (L:40 ft W:40 ft H:20 ft)
Exits: -N -E -S -W -D
Corpse of Zissus is lying here.
Corpse of Sesexe is lying here.
A ravenar fountain gurgles softly here.
A large bulletin board is mounted here.
A drow surface raider pads silently along here, fingering her dagger.
Dizzaragar (RP) (Duergar) stands here.
Declal (AFK) (Drow Elf) stands here.
Iyachtu (God) stands here holding a cardboard sign.

< 849h/849H 121v/121V >
< >
Iyachtu shouts 'You're all going to die!'

< 849h/849H 121v/121V >
< > l sign
The sign is tattered from use and creased down the middle. It reads 'The End of the World is at Hand!'

< 849h/849H 121v/121V >
< > yawn iyachtu
You let out a big yawn at him.

Not to make light of the issues, but that was a post to make the book of Revelations proud.

------------------
-Todrael Azz'miala, Ravager
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:34 am

Did you read the link kasula?

Tony Blair already has.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:46 am

Kasula:

The world can protest all it wants. Thats what the UN is for. They make resolutions that 'strongly condemn' something or other.. but they don't actually do anything. The only practical reason the US would like to have allies in this war is because they need a place, such as saudi arabia, to stage their attack from. As for the war itself.. well, the europeans would just get in the way... I don't think G.W. cares much if the europeans join him.

But if someone can come up with a reason that the US needs a coalition or the general support of the international community, please tell me. It seems that everyone assumes that its necessary but I haven't yet seen a concrete reason.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Glorishan
Sojourner
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Glorishan » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:00 am

Just wanted to post in a thread where Corth and Daz appear to be getting along. Move along now.

Glorishan


------------------
Gormal group-says 'damn im worthless'
Erthyne
Sojourner
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Erthyne » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:34 am

I've always loved to read these forums even though I haven't really spent time playing Sojourn3 after it came back up... and while reading this thread.. a question came into my mind:

How many of the US posters that have written so strongly about this thread have actually lived outside the US for more than say 1 year..?

Just curious to know.. that's all. Because it seems to me that the only countries that are really interested in going ahead with the war are US and UK. And I don't even think the UK people are in favor of the idea (at least my families over there weren't).

I have just returned from France (spent 6 months there).. From what I saw, most French people I talked to (and from things I saw on TV and newspapers) seem to think W. Bush is an idiot, and they are also totally against the war and think Blair needs help. With such a large portion of population feeling so strongly against the idea of war, France's probably the one nation in the EU that won't be nurturing this war notion with W. Bush anytime soon.

I'm not a war analyst or specialist, but to say the reason why US wants/needs help from other countries, here are some points that seem logical to me...

1) Money.
Going to war costs insane amount of money. Yes, USA is rich, but the country is still recovering from the 9/11 attack and is slowly building its way back up. Waging a war SOLO is just asking for a RIDICULOUS amount of extra expenses. Having other countries sharing the cost would lift a huge burden off the shoulders of the US economy.

2) Resources.
Yes, US have one of the finest trained military force in the world (or so we were told, no one ever really tested it out as far as I know..) but you can't send all the troops off to war. You need to leave enough people behind to PROTECT the country while the others go to war. There's where the foreign soldiers some in.

3) Elite war combatants and analyists with experiences in different fields.
I'm sure it will take less time if we put together all the top war/battle/combat etc specialists and work out a plan instead of just having US people planning on the attacks. Sometimes it works wonder if you try to look at things from a new perspective.

4) Air space and other locational issues
As Corth mentioned, US would need an area closer to the actual warring region to plan their moves and also for their tanks/battle ships/fighter jets.. etc to park. So you probably need foreign help, if they pledged neutrality, chances are they won't be able to host your soldiers and such during the war, or they will risk retaliation from the opposing side.

That's about all I can think of for now. All in all, going to war alone is always a bad idea. Look at Japan in WW2. (I have recently watched a documentary about WW2, I couldn't sleep well for at least 2 days after watching it. Image and some people in Japan actually call the WW2 Japanese soldiers war heroes...) *mourns for the dead*


This last bit probably should be in another thread.. but... the 1 year anniversary of 9/11 is coming up.. anyone plans to go pay tribute at Ground Zero?

[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-04-2002).]
Tesil2
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Tesil2 » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:17 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erthyne:
<B>I've always loved to read these forums even though I haven't really spent time playing Sojourn3 after it came back up... and while reading this thread.. a question came into my mind:

How many of the US posters that have written so strongly about this thread have actually lived outside the US for more than say 1 year..?

Just curious to know.. that's all. Because it seems to me that the only countries that are really interested in going ahead with the war are US and UK. And I don't even think the UK people are in favor of the idea (at least my families over there weren't).

I have just returned from France (spent 6 months there).. From what I saw, most French people I talked to (and from things I saw on TV and newspapers) seem to think W. Bush is an idiot, and they are also totally against the war and think Blair needs help. With such a large portion of population feeling so strongly against the idea of war, France's probably the one nation in the EU that won't be nurturing this war notion with W. Bush anytime soon.

I'm not a war analyst or specialist, but to say the reason why US wants/needs help from other countries, here are some points that seem logical to me...

1) Money. </B>
Going to war costs insane amount of money. Yes, USA is rich, but the country is still recovering from the 9/11 attack and is slowly building its way back up. Waging a war SOLO is just asking for a RIDICULOUS amount of extra expenses. Having other countries sharing the cost would lift a huge burden off the shoulders of the US economy.

[b]2) Resources.

Yes, US have one of the finest trained military force in the world (or so we were told, no one ever really tested it out as far as I know..) but you can't send all the troops off to war. You need to leave enough people behind to PROTECT the country while the others go to war. There's where the foreign soldiers some in.

3) Elite war combatants and analyists with experiences in different fields.
I'm sure it will take less time if we put together all the top war/battle/combat etc specialists and work out a plan instead of just having US people planning on the attacks. Sometimes it works wonder if you try to look at things from a new perspective.

That's about all I can think of for now. All in all, going to war alone is always a bad idea. Look at Japan in WW2.


This last bit probably should be in another thread.. but... the 1 year anniversary of 9/11 is coming up.. anyone plans to go pay tribute at Ground Zero?

[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-04-2002).][/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! You ask how many people have lived outside the US for a year....but you were in the "cultural mecca" of France for a WHOLE 6 months? roflmao (No Change)

"I'm not a war analyst or specialist, but to say the reason why US wants/needs help from other countries, here are some points that seem logical to me..."

We don't really need/want anyones help...we can take out the trash all by ourselves....(And to protect our interests We can/will act whether the rest of the world agrees or not, It's real easy to be able to sit back and try to take some moral high ground and say war is not the answer when you are not under threat of attack.)

"1) Money.
Going to war costs insane amount of money. Yes, USA is rich, but the country is still recovering from the 9/11 attack and is slowly building its way back up. Waging a war SOLO is just asking for a RIDICULOUS amount of extra expenses. Having other countries sharing the cost would lift a huge burden off the shoulders of the US economy."

Still recovering from 9/11?! Slowly building our way back up? Hardly, 9/11 may have hurt our spirit...very temporarily...but our military can....for lack of a better phrase...."kick the shit out of anyone".....(Most in the US would rather spend that "RIDICULOUS" amount of money than to be the target of Chemical, Biological....or possibly Nuclear terrorist attack.)

"Yes, US have one of the finest trained military force in the world (or so we were told, no one ever really tested it out as far as I know..)"

Please feel free to test at your earliest convience.....(Haven't been tested...hrmmm...ask Iraq and the Taliban about that.)

"That's about all I can think of for now. All in all, going to war alone is always a bad idea. Look at Japan in WW2."

Japan was aligned with Germany....(Again acting alone is our right....just as it is any countries right to protect/defend itself.)




[This message has been edited by Tesil2 (edited 09-04-2002).]
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:02 am

Tesil, man, as strongly as you may feel about the subject here, I don't think insulting anyone will help get your point across, and calling names, while it makes you feel better, just lowers the perceived value of your opinion.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:06 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erthyne:
Image and some people in Japan actually call the WW2 Japanese soldiers war heroes...) *mourns for the dead*</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why wouldn't they?

Every soldier who fights for his country has the right to be called a war hero if he does his duty and beyond. Your country's politics or if you won or lost the war does not affect that.


------------------
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
Tesil2
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Tesil2 » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:11 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B> Tesil, man, as strongly as you may feel about the subject here, I don't think insulting anyone will help get your point across, and calling names, while it makes you feel better, just lowers the perceived value of your opinion.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daz,

You are correct....I will adjust my post when I'm in a better state of mind....read sober...
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:13 am

"Yeah booze iz cool.. aren't I cool drunk?"

All your posts must have been written while drunk because they are all pitiful flames.
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:16 am

One point... you may be able to kick the shit out of anyone with planes and bombs, but in a down-and-dirty ground war, I wouldn't be so sure of it. And no, picking off stray T-72s in the desert is not a ground war.
Erthyne
Sojourner
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Erthyne » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:26 am

Fighting for country, yes, they should be war heroes.

But you should read how many of these 'war heroes' have actually breached the code of war. They were trialed as Genocidal war criminals. Soldiers do not have rights to kill civilians and rape women and children. That imho stripped their title as a soldier.

As for Tersil.. I'm not a French, I just happened to have to be there for 6 months (and I've moved from countries to countries all my life, can't say I like it, but if you are unlucky like me, you have to do what you have to) Image

And it's a pity that you feel the need to flame me Image, I merely stated my views and is trying to discuss why W.Bush (despite what you, Tesil, feel) is welcoming the help of Blair and other leaders, since you obviously thinks USA can "kick ass" alone just fine.

Oh..yeah.. Japan sided with Germany.. but not at the beginning of the war, Japan was in the league of the 8 countries when they invaded China, but pulled out once the other countries told the Japanese government to stop acting so aggressive. But that's pre-WW2 Image Maybe I shouldn't quote Japan in WW2.. but Japan did pretty much fight all their battles without the aid of the German army.

Annnnnd, why would I want to test out how powerful the US military force is. I'm not saying it's not good, I'm just saying, there are good armies out there too, it wouldn't hurt to enlist their help (Swiss and Sweden both have (again, supposedly) really good and well-trained armies). Don't be quite so defensive. I'm sure the US armies have better things to do than to duel it out with other countrie's armies to see who's stronger.

If you cannot take any opposing opinion or ideas that don't go along with your lines of thought or just simply slightly non-agreeing, then it would kind of defeat the purpose of Daz posting the first post and starting a thread, because I remember reading this thread is about wanting to discuss ideas and perspectives.. and.. no flaming. I merely asked a question.

[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-04-2002).]
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:16 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erthyne:
(Swiss and Sweden both have (again, supposedly) really good and well-trained armies). </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not very accurate. The swedish military is not anything that you want to rely

Sure we got state of the art aircraft, and a pretty capable navy. Our ground forces are standard western european units, with Leopard tanks, and the usual stuff.

However, the majority is conscripts, and the parliament simply don't send out our forces to war en masse.

We are providing a mechanized batallion for the europan unions repaid deployment, and had our spec ops forces in Afghanistan supporting the US troops, and are currently part of the western forces in Afganistan ( http://www.operations.mod.uk/fingal/index.htm )

Anyway, I would NOT count of swedish or swiss forces to be your primary allies.
Look for UK, Italy and Turkey.


------------------
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:36 am

Some good points Erthyne:

One thing I noticed though is you didn't say at any point that its wrong or immoral in any way for the US to go to war alone. You said that its difficult, costly, and that two-heads are better than one, but you didn't say that the US has a responsibility to obtain permission from the rest of the world before invading a sovereign country.

The US policy for many years has been to maintain a military capable of fighting a major war on two different fronts. This policy is probably a vestige of WWII where they got taken by surprise and actually drawn into a war with multiple fronts when they weren't prepared. Whether or not in practice the army is capable of doing so currently, is irrelevent. The country could always mobilize for war and direct all its resources towards fighting it, as it did during WWII.

The question then is whether its worth it to do so. The citizens of the US would have to make major sacrifices in order mobilize in such a manner. The economy is already sluggish and its doubtful that a major increase in defense spending would be beneficial.

However, for the reasons I stated in my first post in this thread, I believe that the objective of removing Hussein from power warrants this type of sacrifice. He is a threat to our very existence. Does anyone doubt that he would detonate a nuclear weapon in Manhattan or Tel Aviv if he were able to get his hands on one? I do not. Who knows what will happen. Perhaps I am wrong and he would never do such a thing. Or perhaps he has no chance of ever getting ahold of a weapon of mass destruction. My point is that there is a serious and real chance (threat) of that happening. The threat of having someone as crazy as him in power justifies any and all sacrifices necessary to remove him. If Bush listens to his people, (latest poll says 75% of americans are in favor of removing Hussein) then he will do whatever it takes to get rid of that madman.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Tesil2
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Tesil2 » Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:52 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B>"Yeah booze iz cool.. aren't I cool drunk?"

All your posts must have been written while drunk because they are all pitiful flames.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least MY posts have a point....go craw back under whatever rock you crawed from under.....

"pitiful flames" - This coming from the biggest flamer on the board....roflmao!

Waiting anxiously for your oh so lame comeback.....lol!

[This message has been edited by Tesil2 (edited 09-04-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Tesil2 (edited 09-04-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Tesil2 (edited 09-04-2002).]
Tesil2
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Tesil2 » Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:04 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erthyne:
<B>
If you cannot take any opposing opinion or ideas that don't go along with your lines of thought or just simply slightly non-agreeing, then it would kind of defeat the purpose of Daz posting the first post and starting a thread, because I remember reading this thread is about wanting to discuss ideas and perspectives.. and.. no flaming. I merely asked a question.

[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-04-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with people's opinions or ideas...as long as they can get the facts straight and produce an intelligent argument.....which you didn't.



[This message has been edited by Tesil2 (edited 09-04-2002).]
Deltin
Sojourner
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Sackets Harbor,NY
Contact:

Postby Deltin » Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:32 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
One point... you may be able to kick the shit out of anyone with planes and bombs, but in a down-and-dirty ground war, I wouldn't be so sure of it. And no, picking off stray T-72s in the desert is not a ground war.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all the night vision capabilities that the U.S. has you don't think a ground war would be any different? There were troups on the ground in Iraq if you remember. Most of the battles where at night because the Iraqie army couldn't see at night. Remember all the military stuff we see on tv (equipment wise) is what the military wants us to see, I'll bet there's stuff that kicks butt that we don't see.
This is not ment to be instulting or anything but would it be safe to say you do not live in the U.S.?



------------------
So whad are we gonna do tonight Brain? Same thing we do everynight Pinky, TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:48 pm

1) Money. Going to war costs insane amount of money. Yes, USA is rich, but the country is still recovering from the 9/11 attack and is slowly building its way back up. Waging a war SOLO is just asking for a RIDICULOUS amount of extra expenses. Having other countries sharing the cost would lift a huge burden off the shoulders of the US economy.

War is historically been a tremendous economic stimulus (cept when you lose). Its huge amounts of spending and usually a lot of that is spent domestically although I believe this is changing especially when you fight wars far from your own borders.

2) Resources. Yes, US have one of the finest trained military force in the world (or so we were told, no one ever really tested it out as far as I know..) but you can't send all the troops off to war. You need to leave enough people behind to PROTECT the country while the others go to war. There's where the foreign soldiers some in.

You don't really need that many soldiers at home in today's world if your the US. Canada is not going to invade the US and neither is Mexico. Use of foreign soldiers is typically political or I daresay to minimize casualities (spread the loss of life around a bit). Foreign soldiers also are great after the conflict is resolved as "peace keepers." Garrisoning an army in a foreign country is bad enough when the local populace doesn't hate you for being the invaders.

3) Elite war combatants and analyists with experiences in different fields. I'm sure it will take less time if we put together all the top war/battle/combat etc specialists and work out a plan instead of just having US people planning on the attacks. Sometimes it works wonder if you try to look at things from a new perspective.

if you put all the "top" whatevers together in the same room it will probably degenerate. I'm sure one team of elite whatevers can do a great job, and 10 teams is going to be anything from marginally more effective to extremely disorganized and bogged down.

I definitely think its better to go to war with political allies rather than without, but i also think coordinating and cooperation in actual plan decision making is slow and is more likely to cause mistakes and if you can avoid it you should.

The US is big enough to take care of Iraq all by itself; if I was Iran, I'd get allies to help. Neither China or Russia is in a position to come to their aid and while EU may disapprove of action I don't see them willing to do more than engage in rhetoric especially with an ally like the UK within the EU. The only real deterrent I can see is the possiblity of the ME nations banding together in another oil embargo. Everything else is rhetoric.

Ooh agree on the war soldiers, right or wrong side, they can be considered heros. they definitely should be stripped of their statuses for things like rape or theft. wanton and reckless killing should be investigated by the a military court. every nation's soldiers have committed all the same atrocities. war is base and brings out the worst in people, but sometimes its necessary. Short of a radical change in Saddam's position on inspectors, I think we are rapidly approaching the time when its necessary to remove the threat in Iraq.

------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Wed Sep 04, 2002 4:00 pm

I just wanted to remind everyone that there is a certain amout of trust you are supposed to put into your global leaders for this kind of stuff due to the simple fact that they know a hell of a lot more about the situation then you ever will. So many pieces of information are classified because leaking them would be a huge blow.

When you give classified information away to sate the public not only do you lose the advantage that it gave you but you lose that avenute of collection as well. No one here has all the facts but is completely willing to make a judgment on a person/nation/decision without them.

------------------
Gormal Stoneforge -Hammerstrike-

"Forward Mithrilguard!"
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:39 pm

In today's news . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/congress.iraq/index.html


------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Kuurg
Sojourner
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Faang
Contact:

Postby Kuurg » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B>In today's news . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/congress.iraq/index.html


</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is reassuring. Bush's assertion last week that he didn't need congressional approval was
disheartening and a little frightening. Having
a president who would disregard SOP for
no readily apparent reason is just mal mal not good.

To address the person who posted regarding
sentiment in France about possible US action, I feel it prudent to point out that France has decried most US military action, historically. They're as likely to criticize US military action as Israel is to support it.

Having said that, it would seem that the world at large does not support US action against saddam hussein, but the reasons I've heard are seldom because they favor his rule. The vacuum created by his removal could potentially destabilize the middle east. Who can argue with this? It's one of the main reasons I don't support US action at this time.

------------------
·•Kuurg•·

[This message has been edited by Kuurg (edited 09-04-2002).]
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:29 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B>If I am not mistaken, it was not the 'US' who trained the Al-Qaeda network, but rather american citizens or residents exploiting american non-profit laws to fund their actions. This is not quite the same thing as the United States writing a check the bin Laden every week.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The CIA was helping as well as SAS. Ofcource it was just agents that without anyones knowledge on their own initiative went to Afganistan.

/Disoputlip
as a side note i can say the danish right wing parties (not the government) supported al quida as well back when they fought USSR
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:48 pm

Technically, congress did give Bush approval last year when they passed a resolution a couple days after Sept. 11th, saying that we authorize the president to use any necessary means to prevent future attacks of terrorism, weather they be from individuals, groups, or countries.

So I fail to see why he needs to get approval again, when he already has it. Incidently, that resolution only has 1 dissenting vote (I forget the name of the bitch who dissented), and she was voted out of office.. boo hoo.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:23 pm

Actually, I think this is less an instance of Bush seeking congressional approval, as making the effort to show the public he is not working alone, to win public support (last count shows 75% in favor here), so it seems to me to be a PR issue.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rylan:
<B>Technically, congress did give Bush approval last year when they passed a resolution a couple days after Sept. 11th, saying that we authorize the president to use any necessary means to prevent future attacks of terrorism, weather they be from individuals, groups, or countries.

So I fail to see why he needs to get approval again, when he already has it. Incidently, that resolution only has 1 dissenting vote (I forget the name of the bitch who dissented), and she was voted out of office.. boo hoo.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This kind of blanket permission scares me. I know that he was voted into office with faith that he would act in the best interests of the nation. But I don't think anybody should have persmission to do something "by any means necessary". Too many lines could be crossed.

Checks and balances are vitally important to the freedoms that the United States citizens enjoy.

Sylvos
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:10 pm

Yes, I agree that the type of blanked permission given is scary also. I just found it funny that some of the people in congress who are saying bush "must have our approval" are the ones who wrote and approved that blanket statement last year Image

I think what is going on right now is good.. there is discussion and debate and will be a vote in congress.
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:17 pm

this is kinda off subject and prolly is more appropriate for corth's post on islam a while back, but i just read unveiling islam. anyways wondering if anyone else has read this book and wanted to comment. if you believe it should go to another post, corth u think u can start taht topic again and copy and paste this post to that post?
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:56 pm

I heard the guy who wrote that book is in a lot of trouble at his job (i think he is a prof. somewhere?)

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Dedraelin
Sojourner
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:01 am
Location: channelview,tx,usa

Postby Dedraelin » Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:35 am

Ok, I'd like to throw in my opinion, as a member of the USAF. Before I enter into this I have to ask, have any of you actually seen the effects of biological or chemical warfare? Have you seen what a chemical nerve agent can do? Do you know how much of a liquid nerve agent it takes to drop a room full of people? About 4 drops. Do you know how much Saddam Has? Abour 400 tons. I dont know about you but that scares the living crap out of me. I personally think it should scare the crap out of everyone in the free world. Well thats my little tiff.

Oh, one more thing, about people violating the ROF <rules of war>. I've got a bone about this. In the military we are taught to obey orders, We're taught the ROF, and the COC <code of conduct> and we know all the small quiffs. BUT GOD DAMMIT IF SOMEONE SHOOTS ME, I'M DAMN WELL GOING TO SHOOT HIS ASS BACK!

Ok, i've said my little piece, Have a good day.

------------------
Roleplay Please!!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:03 am

Bush unequivocally said today that he would get Congressional approval for any action taken against Iraq.

On the checks and balances issue. Article II of the US Constitution declares that the president is the commander in chief of all branches of the US military. Article I gives congress the power to declare war and fund the military. Obviously, there is some tension between the two provisions. Additionally, the War Powers Act, which Congress passed following the Vietnam War, requires that the President ask Congress for permission before engaging in war. Every president since the passage of that Act has held the position that it is unconstitutional and that they are therefore not constrained by it. However, in practice, they have all come to Congress when required to by the act, while still maintaining that they don't need to. Regardless, whether or not Bush would need to consult with Congress before acting on Iraq is an open question. Practically speaking, it would be political suicide not to.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:30 am

I would guess that Bush really doesn't care too much about what is political suicide... I firmly believe that he is not afraid of making controversial decisions and do what he believes is best for the nation. He already lined himself up for self martyrdom (worst case) in statements he has made. He's been the president of the US, how much higher can you go politically?

I would read his recent comments regarding unequivocally seeking congressional approval as his hawks believe the evidence they have is irrefutable and winning approval will be easy. Its also very interesting that Blair made his announcement this week too about publishing info... obviously they have been working together on this plan. I certainly do not think he would've bowed to popular opinion or congress on this issue given how strongly he feels about it and that his advisors believe he can technically engage the nation in war without congressional approval. Congress would have to impeach him to stop him cuz the military is gonna follow his orders, not pop opinion, not congressional statements or laws.

The blanket power does scare me a little, but I put a little more trust and faith in my president than most people. Funny, I don't really feel the same about congress.

------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Sep 05, 2002 11:18 am

Heheh Kiryan.. NOBODY becomes president of the US without doing the political expedient thing from time to time. If you need more proof, look at the farm and steel subsidies that Bush has signed since he came into office. Those laws aren't very typical for someone who calls himself a free-market conservative.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Abue
Sojourner
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Abue » Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:00 pm

Well Saddam does need to be delt with. He has proven a number of times that he is capable of using big time war weapons to kill. He used biological weapons in the 70's against Iran and in the 80's he used them on the curds in the north side of Iraq. His own country. During the Gulf war he sent missiles into Isreal who wasn't part of the war even. They didn't even retaliate as Saddam had hoped for. I feel he wouldn't hesitate to use a Nuke on Isreal or us. No doubt he wouldn't have any problems with supplying Nukes to terrorists either. Can you say goodbye LA? Or goodbye London? At this point there is nothing we can do other then to deal with Saddam. With or with out support. This isn't a matter of being egotistical as some would say. It is more of a matter of surviving. You can argue all you want and accuse all you want about how this situation resulted but the matter of fact is, the situation needs to be delt with and firmly. BTM. I think Bush is an idiot and it scares the living hell out of me that he is the one incharge of dealing with this whole thing. I'd rather have Jesse Ventura in charge instead of him. How scary is that?
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:15 pm

Jesse Ventura! WWF!! ROAR!!!

He'd bodyslam Saddam and then piledrive him... "Hey saddam, you like oil? Let's go drill for some!" BOOM!

*snaps back to reality and goes back to his boring Erlang work*
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:05 pm

In demolition man they spoke of the great things Arnold Schwarzenegger would do as president . . . I'll bet that movie had some substance, after all!

Well, maybe . . .

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Fri Sep 06, 2002 7:12 am

In today's news . . . the US was 'warned' against taking action in the middle east by politicians.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/05/arableague.iraq/index.html

Check it out, I think we should nuke em all! *nodself*

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:20 pm

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

I started getting sick while reading this article. The reporter speaks with Kurds in Northern Iraq and gets first-hand accounts of what its like to have sarin and mustard gas dropped on your head. This lengthy article also describes numerous other human rights atrocities committed by the Iraqi regime, as well as concrete evidence of a tie between al-qaeda and Bagdad. Everyone who decides to express an opinion on iraq should be forced to read this first...

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Fri Sep 06, 2002 2:58 pm

Yeah, nice guy how he tests stuff on his own people, and hides the weapons in schools and hospitals so civilans will be killed if we try to bomb the stockpiles.

Here is a thought.. a nuclear weapon creates enogu heat to melt sand. There is a lot of sand there. Giant glass parking lot anyone? Image
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Sep 06, 2002 4:42 pm

and i didnt say bush didnt play the political game. im saying committing political suicide doesnt mean as much to you once you become president. Your gonna get paid for life and there is no higher rank to achieve. Even if opinion goes against you, your still gonna be able to lecture on the circuit. The biggest effects will be on his ability to campaign for others, like Jeb Bush... not anything for himself.

i also read that article corth, stupid imo and its all posturing with an implied threat of reprecussions in the region (read israel) and perhaps beyond (oil price manipulation and or terrorism). heres my favorite part which I consider contradictory.

But he warned, "No Arab country will accept any strike on any other Arab country."

then he backpedals and says this

"An action against Iraq, with the general opposition of the world, I believe would lead to serious repercussions in this region and perhaps beyond," he said.

so which is it. no acceptance or only no acceptance as long as their is general opposition in the world? Its posturing, they wont come out and say if you attack iraq we will bring armies and fight, we will attack israel, ect because when the shit hits the fan they don't wann be on the losing side... So, they come out and condemn it in rhetoric to appease the arab nations, their arab people. If the world sides with the US they wont do anything, if the world is sympathetic, they'll milk it for whatever they can.

and this is exactly why i believe bush has taken such a unilateral stance since office. he dont give a shit about rhetoric and posturing on this stuff. he believes that when someone stops talking and does something, friends and enemies alike will evaluate it for its real effect. EU may talk down about ousting saddam now, but i bet the come around in the event of real action or at least distance themselves from the issue.

in the end, whatever happens, either saddam had plenty of time to avoid it by readmitting the inspectors (who are basically observers and do not destroy anything themselves) or the US had plenty to take action to prevent the next 9/11. Clearly, this is a matter of who takes action first. not who puts forth the best rhetoric.

------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
Nazruth
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Nazruth » Sun Sep 08, 2002 3:26 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
I started getting sick while reading this article. The reporter speaks with Kurds in Northern Iraq and gets first-hand accounts of what its like to have sarin and mustard gas dropped on your head. This lengthy article also describes numerous other human rights atrocities committed by the Iraqi regime, as well as concrete evidence of a tie between al-qaeda and Bagdad. Everyone who decides to express an opinion on iraq should be forced to read this first...
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/US-Bioweapons.html

I started getting sick while reading this article. It explains how the American corporations sold bacillus anthracis (cause for anthrax) and other pathogenic biological agents and plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment to Iraq. Washington was fully aware of these actions and expected Saddam Hussein to use these weapons of mass destruction against Iranians (which he succesfully did). The fact that he also used them against his own people must have been acceptable collateral damage. Everyone who decides to express an opinion on USA should be forced to read this first, and wonder when does the US intend to take the responsibility of the decades long acts of terrorism they perform around the globe.

The article also explains how the US army tested biological weapons on the american population between years 1950 to 1969.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

/Naz

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests