TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US VS. Saddam
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BTW

quote:

Originally posted by Juricimo they got no freedom of choice, expression.... that is fucking wrong, immoral...eh

For the sake of playing devil's advocate I'd have to say that the west is a little too gung-ho to push their notion of what the "correct" way of living is on others, and that *we* don't exactly have a great record on *respecting* freedom of speech even as we publically venerate it every step of the way.

I agree that in a perfect society you're going to have those freedoms, but the fact of the matter is that if Saddam was that unpopular he wouldn't be in power; armed revolution tends to occur when a large percentage of the population gets peeved about the ruler, even in a dictatorship based place like Iraq.

An important point that needs to be made as well that a lot of the middle eastern and eastern bloc areas (including Russia) have a deep history that venerates "strong man" leaders who stand up to outsiders, do what needs to be done at home, and so on. To people living in such a place, democracy is strange, and not altogether welcome at times.

I'm certainly not going to say whether that's better than what we've got or not, but as I observed in another thread, a democracy being voted on by ill or completely uninformed people isn't really a whole lot better than *or* significantly different in essence than a dictatorship.

For instance, when was the last time the Green Party had a president in the US? When was the last time the Socialists made a serious splash in Parliament?

People in democractic societies need to stay informed, and actually realize that the parties they're voting on are increasingly becoming the *same damn party* made up of rich white guys who really are just trying to stay in power at any reasonable cost, with "reasonable" being in constant flux.

If you want proof of this in the US just look at the ridiculous second and third debates between Gore and Bush last election...they'd basically take turns saying the same friggin' thing. Even the press picked up on it, asking where the difference was between the two candidates. To me, this underlines the necessity for an informed, and active voting population for democracy to be effective.

Going back to the freedom of speech issue though:

Yes, in the west there's freedom of assembly and speech, but in the US for example, people with different viewpoints are being marginalized by the press, or the ominipresent CNN.

Just for one instance of such look at the anti-war rallies that were recently held in DC, San Fran, and several international cities.

The American press completely downplayed the event, and at times even seemed to be poking fun at "those silly demonstraters", much like the attitude that's greeted anti-G8 rallies.

And I know this isn't just me noticing this stuff, because my ethics teacher, a Croatian who only recently moved to North America, commented on it as well. IMHO freedom of speech, and actually having that speech be *heard* by anyone are two entirely different things.

Re: Re: Re: Re: BTW

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 -the majority supports saddam because they have a strong feeling of pride you guys will never understand , they prefer saddam who's causing them to suffer instead of the US governing the country

This pride thing is a very good point fastmp3.
We want to go into Iraq, get rid of the current government, and replace it with one that we can control. Put yourself in the person's shoes. Ok, living conditions might improve, but how would you feel if you knew your country was just a puppet of the US?

My parents, who are both from South Vietnam, says that it would've been nice if the South won, and democracy was established, but at the same time, acknowledge that having the North win also brough some advantages. At least now, the people can call the country their own, as opposed to being ruled by teh French, or a south Vietnamese US puppet.

It is not suprising why many Arabs are opposed to the US going into the middle-east, and replacing governments one by one. In our eyes, it might be better for the people that we do this, but maybe they don't feel the same way...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BTW

quote:

Originally posted by quddha This pride thing is a very good point fastmp3. We want to go into Iraq, get rid of the current government, and replace it with one that we can control. Put yourself in the person's shoes. Ok, living conditions might improve, but how would you feel if you knew your country was just a puppet of the US? My parents, who are both from South Vietnam, says that it would've been nice if the South won, and democracy was established, but at the same time, acknowledge that having the North win also brough some advantages. At least now, the people can call the country their own, as opposed to being ruled by teh French, or a south Vietnamese US puppet. It is not suprising why many Arabs are opposed to the US going into the middle-east, and replacing governments one by one. In our eyes, it might be better for the people that we do this, but maybe they don't feel the same way...

dude i'm so glad u understood what i mean and it's exactly what you explained

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BTW

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb For the sake of playing devil's advocate I'd have to say that the west is a little too gung-ho to push their notion of what the "correct" way of living is on others, and that *we* don't exactly have a great record on *respecting* freedom of speech even as we publically venerate it every step of the way........

i knew that was gonna come up good points ^^^ and i somewhat agree with you because i have experience living in different countries. i'm just saying what i believe is moral, yeah different culures do their own things...boils down to respect and that is what a lot of the time is lacking...and pure hate as well...


ALTHOUGH, nobody should ever feel threathned and fear their life and bow down to a dictator, do you agree? anyways, good arguments in your thread i respect that

>JM<

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BTW

quote:

Originally posted by Juricimo ALTHOUGH, nobody should ever feel threathned and fear their life and bow down to a dictator, do you agree? anyways, good arguments in your thread i respect that >JM<

First things first, yes, much respect to people in this thread, this is just another instance of the political forum being a big success...I was a little tenative about the idea of it being split from the chill room initially, but so far I've been really happy with what's been going on over here.

And yeah, I agree that people shouldn't have to live in fear of their lives, particularly in as a result of speaking their minds about political or social issues.

As I said above though, I'm not entirely down on the notion of dictatorships, it really depends on who the dictator is, and how the people feel about it, if you have a guy that the people have no big problems with, then I guess I really don't see the problem either. It's all in context.

And even though I dislike the notion of living underneath someone like Saddam, I also can't, in good conscience, support a war that I haven't heard compelling reasons for. Right now the scales are essentially a (IMHO) slim to low moderate possibility that Saddam can in fact

A) Get WMD

and

B) Would be crazy enough to deploy them, or hand them off.

(And, as JohnSmith has said repeatedly, the guy isn't completely gone, he knows that attacking the US would be tantamount to suicide for him, and the entire country; so I have to discount B to a large extent)

vs.

The 100% guranteed high "collateral damage" toll as a result of a US invasion plus the additional terrorist attacks that'll be inspired in the future by such an act.

To me, the choice is pretty clear. On one hand you've got politically motivated rhetoric and a low to medium percentage, on the other you've got the guranteed death of soldiers and innocents in Iraq with a very probable follow up of innocents dead in the US due to retaliatory terrorist attacks.

And I'm certainly not saying that the possibility for terrorist attacks is nill if the US doesn't attack, all that I'm saying is that every time the US acts against an Islamic state it's serving to rub a little more salt in the wound, and give the Bin Laden's of the world one more thing to bring up to motivate people into suicidal terrorist acts.

In short, I can sympathize with the Iraqi people's situation as a political radical, because people like me are the ones who tend to be in danger in those kinds of states; but I don't think the situation is bad enough to where a war has become justifiable, not even close.

Additionally, I think the US led UN sanctions have done more to screw the people of that country over then any policies that Saddam has. People can say that as long as he's in power he's the one causing the deaths, but to me that argument rings hollow. He's the ruler of that country, and it's not our place to say whether he should be or not, punishing the people with sanctions for having a ruler that we don't care for is a piss-poor way of handling things, and it's certainly not making for a positive P.R. image IMHO.

In any case, sure, the Iraqi people don't currently have freedom of speech against the government, but we seem to forget that people in the US routinely sacrifice freedom for safety these days, and I think we should respect the Iraqi people enough to let them do the same.

As odd as it seems to us to not be in control of who's governing the country (hmm...the last election?), and as strange as it might be to not be able to say anything bad about said person (again, for a while there this seemed to be the case in the US as well...), that's simply a part of life in Iraq, and since the resistence movement is still a tiny minority I say let them make their own minds up about whether or not their government and way of life is unacceptable or not.

It's not our place to judge the merits of the world, or to overthrow governments whenever we perceive a *possible* threat.

Well said CortexBomb, that's pretty much the way I see things as well..

Also just a point about dictators that was raised earlier in the thread.. consider this:
if Hitler had've died in 1938, he probably would've been one of the great leaders of modern history.

Think about it, he hadn't started a world war, hadn't started to exterminate minorities etc, but what he had done for Germany was actually pretty incredible. He took a country devastated from World War I, exhausted from 10 years of useless democratically elected governments who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery, let alone organise a country. Also don't forget that Hitler was originally elected via democratic means (ie he won the election - an election that wasn't staged .. the people truly wanted him to run the country). It wasn't until ~1935 that he started to eliminate threats to his leadership.

Before you flame me for being a Nazi or supporting Hitler or whatever, please let me clearly point out that I DON'T support any of his ideas or anything like that, nor do I think he left a good mark on the world. I'm just raising a point that needs to be made.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Of course the US has chemical weapons. Not only that but they have biological weapons too. Probably more than any other country besides Russia. What do you expect from the Cold War buildup? The difference is that the US has never had the propensity to use chemical warfare. Nor have they ever THREATENED to use it. If I recall, Iraq has not only threatened to use it ... but they HAVE used it, against the Iranians and their own people. What kind of restraint do you think they will show if they have nuclear weapons? Fine they might not use it against a country that can retaliate in kind (because they are bullies and cowards at heart), but they would most certainly use it against smaller, weaker countries without remorse. Ummmmmmm how did the gulf war start? I guess the American CIA told Iraq to invade Kuwait. Then the CIA told Iraq to start threatening to invade Saudi Arabia. Then the omnipotent CIA coerced the Saudis to set up bases for US troops as a guise for the PROTECTION of Saudi Arabia. Then, in secret, the CIA convinced the United Nations that the benevolent Iraqis were a hostile threat to the region and that they should set up a coalition force to oust the Iraqis from the countries they invaded. Then, the warmongering United States, despite having the ability to completely destroy Iraq, inexplicably decided to sign a peace treaty returning the countries to their natural borders. How out of character. Finally, the godless Americans have the audacity to get upset over the peace loving Iraqis after they refuse access of several research areas to the UN weapons inspectors ... who are agents of Satan (America). I would back up my arguments with facts but that's old school ... everybody nowadays just blurts out whatever they think.

Damn that was well put.... great job explaining occrider!

Also funny what cortex bomb said about his teacher being croatian, so they "Must" have a better view... ironically enough, the person you were arguing with is croatian! our very own Juricimo! LoL, funny little humor there...

Anyway the last couple of posts i partly agree with... I don't blame the iraqi people, and i understand national pride - sometimes it sees no limits, usually reflecting the country itself and not its government (perfect example of this is Cuba - the people there HATE fidel castro, yet they maintain so much pride in their country..) So i can perfectly see how each iraqi citizen must feel.... however what they need to realize that a conquering of Saddam Hussein is not going to lead to a US-government in Iraq... initially it will seem that way b/c we will have to set up some kind of organization, SOMEthing to stabilize a little bit. We defeated Germany and Japan in WWII - are they still US puppets? by NO means.... We helped out Kuwait and Saudi in the early 90's... no US-puppeteering here either. It seems like you guys give too much credit to the USA in these cases of re-installing governments.

And there seems to be countless references blaming the US for setting up these embargoes and not "helping" the iraqi people... but you fail to mention how iraq was no better off BEFORE they invaded kuwait and f*cked themselves... they were already in the shitter back when there WAS no restrictions! Basically what you guys are saying here is that "shame on the USA for not doing aid-airlift-drops back then!" Doesn't make sense... you can scold a guy for doing something bad, but you can't scold him for not doing something that he is not required to do. Sure, it would have been kind of the US to do it, and they have done it for other countries, but you just can't do everywhere... Doesn't mean its the US's fault. Its unfortunate for the Iraqi people that Saddam had to go and screw every chance they would have had for aid up when he invaded Kuwait, but hey, thats the way it happened. If your country is going to be a threat and attack others, why the hell would you expect others to help you? IT DOESN"T MAKE SENSE!

Reverse the roles here.... if the USA had attacked, say Canada to seize oil or something, and the UK and France and Germany came and kicked our ass, and over the last ten years we've been starving and dying.... and at the same time we've been producing a lot of weapons and stockpiling them, would it be our place to blame the UK France and Germany for placing restrictions on us? In my eyes no, b/c we were/are a threat for attacking Canada! And b/c we still have weapons we are STILL a threat.... if we agreed to get rid of all of our weapons, and made ATTEMPTS towards a treaty with everyone, and showed earnest effort in restoring peace, then we could rightfully ask for aid....

See thats why i dont see why Iraq doesn't do this... if they simply got rid of all their weapons (and don't say "why doesn't the US get rid of its weapons???" - b/c we aren't threatening to blatantly attack someone for no reason), and if saddam showed ATTEMPTS at peace talks, let the UN inspectors search EVERYTHING, then we'd agree to help them out, give aid, etc.... and it WOULD NOT REQUIRE A USA-PUPPET GOVERNMENT!!! all the USA needs is an assurance of peace and a serious lack-of-hostility! This is where Saddam's personal pride is smothering his country.

What everyone needs to do here is replace the names of USA and Iraq with names of friends of yours, and re-enact all the events - it would be a lot different with such an easy solution if some people would just put their pride away and suck it up. Don't worry about politics or US-relations with Israel and supposed favoritism or whatever-the-f*ck.... it doesn't matter - worry about yourself and don't "harass" anyone else (sic 'other countries'). Help when needed, but don't harass. If Saddam had never invaded Kuwait, and had earnestly asked for the United States help wayyy back then, i don't see why we would not have helped! Especially since, as was pointed out earlier, we were allies with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war! Just drop the pride Saddam...

its not that hard...

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline Also funny what cortex bomb said about his teacher being croatian, so they "Must" have a better view... ironically enough, the person you were arguing with is croatian! our very own Juricimo! LoL, funny little humor there...

I don't know where it was that I said she had to have a better view, I was just stating that someone who'd only recently moved here *immediately* picked up on the way the media portrays things here, that's all. I'd would have mentioned anyone from off-continent who'd brought it up, it just so happens that she's Croatian :shrug:

quote:

And there seems to be countless references blaming the US for setting up these embargoes and not "helping" the iraqi people... but you fail to mention how iraq was no better off BEFORE they invaded kuwait and f*cked themselves... they were already in the shitter back when there WAS no restrictions! Basically what you guys are saying here is that "shame on the USA for not doing aid-airlift-drops back then!" Doesn't make sense... you can scold a guy for doing something bad, but you can't scold him for not doing something that he is not required to do.

I don't know how you define "better off" but the increased numbers of people dying of starvation because of food that's deemed unacceptable for one reason or another underneath the sanctions never getting to them, not to mention increased deaths due to lack of medicine, isn't exactly old hat, it's a direct result of the US led UN sanctions.

I can't speak for anyone else in the thread, but I'm not saying the US should be obligated to give Iraq more food and medicine, I'm saying that they should be obligated to push for lessening sanctions so Iraq can sell more oil, and do more to procure these kinds of items for themselves, and from other countries so people aren't dying left and right.

That's not exactly a push for positive action (ie: actively giving things) it's just a push for the easing of the rules so Iraq can help itself per se.

quote:

Reverse the roles here.... if the USA had attacked, say Canada to seize oil or something, and the UK and France and Germany came and kicked our ass, and over the last ten years we've been starving and dying.... and at the same time we've been producing a lot of weapons and stockpiling them, would it be our place to blame the UK France and Germany for placing restrictions on us?

I don't see a problem with sanctions on *weapons*, what I have a problem with is sanctions which prevent the flow of food and medicines. I don't think sanctions which directly cause the death of innocents are acceptable in any situation, regardless of the actions that preceded them.

quote:

See thats why i dont see why Iraq doesn't do this... if they simply got rid of all their weapons, and if saddam showed ATTEMPTS at peace talks, let the UN inspectors search EVERYTHING, then we'd agree to help them out, give aid, etc.... all the USA needs is an assurance of peace and a serious lack-of-hostility!

I think Iraq is justifiably wary of the US motivation for picking it out of a host of possible choices in their "War on Terror"...you say that if A, B, and C are met that the US isn't going to attack, but I don't think Saddam, or a lot of people on this board entirely believe that.

For one reason or another Bush and his cabinet have been pushing hard for this war for months. Every time Iraq sounds like it's going to give in to their demands what's the US response? Elation? No, each time they respond by making increasingly unreasonable demands, which naturally means that eventually they'll push things to the point where Saddam has to stop giving in because he'd end up looking weak (a seriously dangerous proposition for any dictator) and likely end up being removed from office by his own people instead of by the US; which I'm sure you can imagine seems less glorious than a fight to the death with the "imperialist US forces"...when given the choice I'm sure *any* dictator would rather die fighting a foreign enemy than by having his own people knock him off in retaliation for looking weak, and IMHO this is basically the point we're getting to with the Iraq case.

The constant escalation of demands makes a lot of people wary of the US motives, especially when coupled with brilliant quotes from Bush like "That guy tried to kill my Dad"...

quote:

it would be a lot different with such an easy solution if some people would just put their pride away and suck it up. Don't worry about politics or US-relations with Israel and supposed favoritism or whatever-the-f*ck.... it doesn't matter - worry about yourself and don't "harass" anyone else (sic 'other countries').

First, by this rationale, the US should just "suck it up" and give in to international consensus that a war against Iraq is the wrong thing to do...because Bush is surely pursuing the war at this point out of pride, and an unwavering faith in the righteousness of his actions, because the majority view on it is crystal clear.

Secondly, you can try to seperate these other conflicts from the picture, but that's not going to give you a realistic look at things. This issue *isn't* happening in a vacume, so why should we try to treat a discussion about it as though it is?

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb I can't speak for anyone else in the thread, but I'm not saying the US should be obligated to give Iraq more food and medicine, I'm saying that they should be obligated to push for lessening sanctions so Iraq can sell more oil, and do more to procure these kinds of items for themselves, and from other countries so people aren't dying left and right.

ok there seems to be a big mis-understanding of how these sanctions work... Iraq CAN purchase/get a hold of food and medicine... the sanctions are on oil trade, metal trade, raw materials, etc... If Saddam really cared enough about his people, he could just approve spending to go next door (or pick any random country), and buy food and medicine... but he is not looking to do so. Just b/c people are starving and dying doesn't mean that Iraq can't purchase necessities... so we need to clear this up... and if you still disagree, look at it this way: Iraq didn't follow UN instructions on weapons inspections, so why would it "follow" the sanctions? if it REALLY wanted to, it would just violate them too! and don't tell me that no country would sell them any food or medicine - thats B.S.... you mean to tell me that all other countries in the world are pro-USA and anti-iraq? I don't think so...

quote:

I don't see a problem with sanctions on *weapons*, what I have a problem with is sanctions which prevent the flow of food and medicines. I don't think sanctions which directly cause the death of innocents are acceptable in any situation, regardless of the actions that preceded them.

again, you are glorifying iraq's case. Thats like blaming us for not helping out the homeless... for a crude example, i will reference the "bum" on the corner of 5th and Main everyday... I see this guy receive decent amounts of money begging everyday... probably enough to get himself back on his feet and DEFINITELY enough to buy decent clothes or some good food... Yet he always has a bottle in his hand and cigarettes, wearing the same raggedy clothes - and who knows what drugs he buys with the money (again, assumption).... but for the effect of my analogy here, do you catch my drift? You may offer the opportunity for someone to better their position, but that doesn't mean they will act on it.

quote:

I think Iraq is justifiably wary of the US motivation for picking it out of a host of possible choices in their "War on Terror"...you say that if A, B, and C are met that the US isn't going to attack, but I don't think Saddam, or a lot of people on this board entirely believe that.

well then everyone needs to do two things: 1) have some level of trust, (which iraq blew when they invaded kuwait), and 2) realize that the UN has clearly stated a set of rules, and why is Iraq so special they don't have to follow? After Desert Storm, treaties were drawn outlining certian things for iraq to do in order to earn its own "freedom" back .... yet they couldn't follow these simple steps? Back then it wasn't about pride - they were already conquered. They would have been back in the clear if they had just followed the rules. This is what i've been talking about - its not that hard. Bottom line: if saddam simply rid of his weapons of "mass destruction", and allowed the UN inspectors to survey ALL areas, i can GUARANTEE The USA would not invade. We are not doing this "for fun", trust me. But everyone on their anti-USA kick will point fingers at Bush and the US anyway saying we are warmongering and just want to pick a fight... :rolleyes

quote:

For one reason or another Bush and his cabinet have been pushing hard for this war for months. Every time Iraq sounds like it's going to give in to their demands what's the US response? Elation? No, each time they respond by making increasingly unreasonable demands, which naturally means that eventually they'll push things to the point where Saddam has to stop giving in because he'd end up looking weak (a seriously dangerous proposition for any dictator) and likely end up being removed from office by his own people instead of by the US; which I'm sure you can imagine seems less glorious than a fight to the death with the "imperialist US forces"...when given the choice I'm sure *any* dictator would rather die fighting a foreign enemy than by having his own people knock him off in retaliation for looking weak, and IMHO this is basically the point we're getting to with the Iraq case.

possibly true about saddam's pride part... but your whole comment about "every time iraq 'gives in' to demands the US just places harsher demands and there is no elation"... i dont like this comment at all - NOT true. The only, i repeat ONLY cooperation iraq has ever shown was to allow UN inspectors in AT ALL, but they still left certain areas off limits! whats the point in that!?? Duh he just moved and relocated his facilities and weapons! It was simply a PR stunt by saddam to garner some votes in his favor around the world.... and it worked. the USA has not made "increasingly unreasonable demands"... if you think so i'd like to hear one. The only demands the US has made are to remove its threats toward others. Shit 95% of the rest of the world had to do this. again, what makes iraq so special?

quote:

The constant escalation of demands makes a lot of people wary of the US motives, especially when coupled with brilliant quotes from Bush like "That guy tried to kill my Dad"...

wary of US motives? Correct me if i'm wrong, but iraq initially attacked Kuwait ten years ago right? ok, just checking, b/c by the way everyone's arguement has been going, you would have thought the USA was attacking innocent countries for their own personal gain. Thats iraq's job, get it straight!

quote:

First, by this rationale, the US should just "suck it up" and give in to international consensus that a war against Iraq is the wrong thing to do...because Bush is surely pursuing the war at this point out of pride, and an unwavering faith in the righteousness of his actions, because the majority view on it is crystal clear.

again here you are incorrect.... you are re-using my expression of "suck it up" for the wrong purpose - i was referring to saddam's pride at little to no physical cost... if the USA just pulled out and didnt do anything, nothing would stop the increasing terrorist camps, the threat of that hostility and weaponry in the middle east, and yes nothing would be shown to get some sort of payback for the attack on our country. Its not "international consensus" that a war with iraq is bad - where do you get your information? Most of the countries participating in the UN (and everywhere else for that matter) all AGREE that something needs to be done about iraq and saddam needs to be ousted, but the disagreements are all with how we "go about it".... the USA is gung-ho in this respect and wants to attack right now - but of course we do, iraq already violated its trust ten years ago, and over the last ten years haven't taken any steps to better itself or make itself a better part of the world community....

if you ask me ten years is more than enough to agree to simple terms.... again, we didnt tell them what government they had to have, we didnt tell them what religion to be, all we told them ten years ago after the war was to deplete your weapons and do NOT attack anyone else again. Those rules weren't that hard, and if in ten years they didn't even make a STEP towards fixing this, then IMO they are pretty much "asking" for it (literally asking, not the expression)... its almost as if they are daring us or something!

Anyway, off to bed. I'm out like the fat kid in dodge ball....

-ABT-

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline ok there seems to be a big mis-understanding of how these sanctions work... Iraq CAN purchase/get a hold of food and medicine... the sanctions are on oil trade, metal trade, raw materials, etc... If Saddam really cared enough about his people, he could just approve spending to go next door (or pick any random country), and buy food and medicine... but he is not looking to do so. Just b/c people are starving and dying doesn't mean that Iraq can't purchase necessities... so we need to clear this up...

There are two sets of sanctions on Iraq currently, weapon sanctions, and economic sanctions.

The economic sanctions freeze Iraq's assets, and prevent them from full trade with other countries which would enable the money necessary to get things like more food, and more medicines.

Additionally, a lot of the illness that exists over there is a result of destoyed or non-existant infrastructure such as water treatment plants, power plants, and so forth because the US considers a number of things that are necessary to rebuild "dual use technology" (i.e.: pumps, pipe, chlorine, etc.), in fact, the US seems to consider most anything other than edibles to fall under that category, which isn't exactly helping things out much.

This attitude actually comes back to my thoughts in the gun control debate, the US is currently gripped by a state of fear, and because of it tends to be looking at everything through the glasses of suspicion and pessimism.

Just today for instance I was reading about how the US considers a castor oil producing plant as being a threat in Iraq because of the possibility that by-products of the production of castor oil can be used to produce chemical weapons.

Well, I'm sure that that's the case, but you can only take paranoia and fear about secondary uses so far before it starts to get ridiculous IMHO. Is it fair to deprive Iraqi people of castor oil because there's a possibility that a chemical weapon can be created from the by-product?

I'd say no, that you *have* to trust people and governments to a certain extent, because it's impossible to guard against every possible use for technology without taking it to the ridiculous lengths that the US has with the sanctions that currently exist, which've directly contributed to the deaths of 1.5 million people, with almost half of those deaths being children under 5, with their primary cause of death being dysentery and diarrhea, which again comes back to infrastructure like water treatment plants.

I'm certainly not arguing that Saddam isn't enjoying a high standard of living right now, but that's usually the case for people in control of a country, any country, regardless of what's going on outside the palace. But what *if* Saddam went to live in squalor with his people and used his money for food and medicine? It'd be a drop in the bucket for a country with a population in excess of 20 million.

quote:

and if you still disagree, look at it this way: Iraq didn't follow UN instructions on weapons inspections, so why would it "follow" the sanctions? if it REALLY wanted to, it would just violate them too!

Again, it's about the freezing of assets and limitations on trade. If you can't access your assets, you can't access your assets, it's not as simple as just saying that "I don't feel like following these rules today".

Getting weapons on the black market is considerably more simple than casually dipping into your bank accounts when you're not allowed to.

quote:

again, you are glorifying iraq's case. Thats like blaming us for not helping out the homeless... for a crude example, i will reference the "bum" on the corner of 5th and Main everyday... I see this guy receive decent amounts of money begging everyday... probably enough to get himself back on his feet and DEFINITELY enough to buy decent clothes or some good food... Yet he always has a bottle in his hand and cigarettes, wearing the same raggedy clothes - and who knows what drugs he buys with the money (again, assumption).... but for the effect of my analogy here, do you catch my drift? You may offer the opportunity for someone to better their position, but that doesn't mean they will act on it.

This is a horrendous analogy to use with people who don't believe in the protestant work ethic.

So tell me, you think that that guy, sitting on the street, is making enough money begging to where he can:

A) Get some clean clothes.
B) Get some housing, so he can shower and have a place to stay.
C) Get a job, and actually make ends meet on minimum wage with no socialized health coverage in case he gets sick. (which incidentally, is the cause of many people initially getting poor enough to have to live on that street initially in the US).

That's pushing it *a lot* IMHO.

Even when the US government was making a strong push for subsidized housing projects that'd be a stretch, and now, as that program is in decline, it's even less likely.

If you honestly believe that people living on the street are just "not trying hard enough" then I'm going to have a lot of difficulty making any leeway in a discussion, because the assumption is based on the myth of the rugged individualist who can make it on his own, and so forth.

While that myth might have had some weight back when it originated, that simply isn't the case in our largely interdependent society. I need someone to grow my food. I need someone to make my car. I need someone to do all these things for me because our society is based on niche occupations.

People need each other, especially in an interdependent society, and once someone ends up poor enough to where they're living on the street it's *very* difficult for them to get back off of it.

I know, it's hard to believe that the people sitting down on that corner aren't doing it because they enjoy it, or becaus they're the moral inferiors of those of us who *do* live in houses and have food. Modern US culture is based on the belief that those people are lazy scum, but I simply don't buy it. I've known too many poor people who worked their asses off at 2 or 3 jobs simultenously to try to make ends meet, and still had a hard time of it. The problem isn't the poor person, the problem is that we're *not* giving them an adequate opportunity to help themselves.

If you have a system set up for say socialized health care, socialized day care (so poor people *can* work a full time job and not have to leave the kid home alone, or pay out the nose for day care) more mass transit so people living in the urban sprawl can get out to jobs in the suburbs without a car, and more and higher quality subsidized housing, then yes, I'd say you'd have a stronger case that the opportunity is there. As it stands, I simply don't buy the argument.

Similarly, I simply don't think the US has given Iraq adequate opportunities to pursue food and medicine, and it's just another excuse that people are telling themselves in many US households so they don't feel guilty about going along with the sanctions which have killed over a million and a half people in the country, very similar to the way that homeless and poor people are viewed as moral inferiors, as failures, so that people don't feel guilty about buying that second house on the lake.

quote:

the UN has clearly stated a set of rules, and why is Iraq so special they don't have to follow?

This is one of the arguments that's been repeatedly pushed forward, and has never done much for me. Why? Because countless countries are in violation of UN rules, especially the US's favourite son, Israel. And I certainly don't hear very much about *those* violations....

Additionally the US is in violation of the Geneva conventions in the way it's handling the prisoners caught in Afghanistan at it's base at Guantanemo, and you're certainly not hearing much about *that* on CNN anymore....

quote:

your whole comment about "every time iraq 'gives in' to demands the US just places harsher demands and there is no elation"... i dont like this comment at all - NOT true. The only, i repeat ONLY cooperation iraq has ever shown was to allow UN inspectors in AT ALL, but they still left certain areas off limits! whats the point in that!??

You're making me wish I made a stronger point of archiving articles as this has progressed.

Essentially the US demands inspectors be let back in, as before. Iraq agrees.

The US panics and then demands that inspections should have leeway to check out the 8 presidential sites that were previously off limits. Saddam hems, haws, agrees, but then faces an eye rolling response by the administration, essentially stating that just becuase Saddam *said* he was going to allow them doesn't mean much of anything. As a result Saddam hems and haws his way back out of it.

I think the main point I take out of the whole affair is that the US seems to be using the UN violations as a pretense for attacking, because every time they face any opposition by the UN Bush seems eager to point out that they have this, and this, and this reason for being able to act alone if they damn well please.

quote:

again here you are incorrect.... you are re-using my expression of "suck it up" for the wrong purpose - i was referring to saddam's pride at little to no physical cost... if the USA just pulled out and didnt do anything, nothing would stop the increasing terrorist camps, the threat of that hostility and weaponry in the middle east, and yes nothing would be shown to get some sort of payback for the attack on our country.

Of course you'd think I was using it in the wrong way, I was using it against you

I'm assuming that you're saying if the US pulled out of Iraq and didn't do anything, and to a certain extent I agree, leaving Iraq to it's own devices is a dangerous proposition because of the built up anger that's resulted from the sanctions.

I'm not following the second part though, payback for attack on our country? When exactly was this? I don't recall Iraq ever doing anything hostile to the US, unless you count their attack on Saudi Arabia, and hence the US oil interests there, as being a direct assault on the US.

quote:

Its not "international consensus" that a war with iraq is bad - where do you get your information? Most of the countries participating in the UN (and everywhere else for that matter) all AGREE that something needs to be done about iraq and saddam needs to be ousted, but the disagreements are all with how we "go about it"....

You're saying three things here, and only one of them is true.

First you say that there's not an international consensus against war with Iraq, which is false, it's overwhelmingly the case with only the UK and US really being in favour of an outright attack.

Then you follow it up by saying that most countries agree that something needs to be done about Iraq possibly having weapons, which *is* true.

Finally you tie Saddam needing to be outsted to the second statement, which is partially true. Most countries agree that Saddam is a bad guy, but I haven't heard anything approaching a consensus that that means he needs to be, or should be ousted.

There's a large difference between supporting the return of weapons inspectors, and supporting *war* or *assassination/ousting*. War is the word I used, and word I meant in my statement, and it's important to keep that distinction.

And I've said more than enough on this issue for the time being as well

Cheers,

M.

yikes!


Sorry for bringing the thread down
Good posts everyone, nice to see that we can have intelligent discussion of issues in here without flame wars....

Well, i have really enjoyed reading this thread. it's good to hear different opinions, and i learn a lot just from reading. in particular, the exchange between cortexbomb and atbsportsline was very enlightening, i enjoyed reading it. there are many things i could say, or clarify, or expound upon, many opionions i could state, some backed up with facts, some not. however, i think that my time is better spent reading posts than typing them.

There are many many things i could have taken issue with in atbs posts, but i think cortexbomb did a good job.

However, i need to take a few.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline See thats why i dont see why Iraq doesn't do this... if they simply got rid of all their weapons (and don't say "why doesn't the US get rid of its weapons???" - b/c we aren't threatening to blatantly attack someone for no reason),

Sorry, yes you(the US) are. that is exactly what you are doing, threatening to attack iraq for no reason. Or, invalid reasons at best, fear, revenge, profit, imperialism, and hubris are some that spring to mind.

so. i can say it. why doesn't the US get rid of its weapons?

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline and if saddam showed ATTEMPTS at peace talks, let the UN inspectors search EVERYTHING, then we'd agree to help them out, give aid, etc.... and it WOULD NOT REQUIRE A USA-PUPPET GOVERNMENT!!!

he has shown attempts at peace talks. he has allowed inspections. if what cortex bomb says is true, he has even consented to let the presidential palaces be searched. I have not personally read that yet, although, i can see how it is much harder that information than it is to find that president bush's address to the UN. Hussein also addressed the UN i believe, although i can't find that either, my friend said he read the transcript though. you need to dig very deep for any of this sort of thing, it isn't easy to find.

In any case, even if he has not let the presidential palaces be searched, can you blame him? when it was discovered that the US was spying on his security practices under the auspices of the UN the last time weapons inspectors came in? when the US has publicly stated their goal of regime change? regime change is just a euphimism for assasination, can you blame him?

He doesn't want people poking around his palace, finding good sight lines to shoot him, or planting bugs, or even bombs.

Recently some nuns tried to do a "weapons inspection" at a US facility and were arrested. Can you imagine if a foreign country wanted to inspect the white house, or camp david? i don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline all the USA needs is an assurance of peace and a serious lack-of-hostility! This is where Saddam's personal pride is smothering his country.

that's what iraq needs. an assurance of peace, and the gun taken out from under it's nose. It's bushes pride that is smothering his country, and making the bullseye on it's chest for terrorists to shoot at even bigger with these agressive actions.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith he has shown attempts at peace talks. he has allowed inspections. if what cortex bomb says is true, he has even consented to let the presidential palaces be searched.

ok i dont quite agree here....
in the inspection years following the persian gulf war. saddam DID do everything he could to hinder the insperctors. i saw a dateline a few years back where they showed the 'under-cover' films of the UN inspectors, and the shit the iraqi officials were pulling was appalling. everything from delaying teams to specific sites for weaks with countless iraqi trucks coming in and out... shredding of documents, restricted tours... etc. no wonder when american wanted to take tougher actions in '98 iraq threw ALL inspectors out. at the time he knew clinton, a softy, would not do anything out of the normal to threaten iraq, and the UN was and always is the UN so he expected nothing from them either... so saddam was able to throw the inspectors out and have no additional threats. in period of time (until current day status) saddam has had complete freedom to do as he likes with his WOMD. that right there is a good reason for threatening iraq with war. i dont agree with this "lets give him one more chance" philosophy just because of the way he has acted in the past 10 years. it is time he lives up to those consequences. So using Saddam's rational, of course he would accept inspectors this time around becuase this time he is dealing with a force (bush) that will actually do something if he doesnt comply. its all diplomatic cat and mouse games. so honestly do you really think that Saddam is a changed man this time around and that he will be helpful and aiding to the inspectors to help prove he has no WOMD?

Sorry, i will not debate what i think is right, you know my stance.

However, you have made some errors, and these are the facts:

Iraq never kicked out US inspectors.

quote:

Ritter was asked if Hussein �kicked out� the UNSCOM inspection team in 1998. �No,� Ritter said. �The US government ordered them out two days before the US started Operation Desert Fox, bombing over 100 targets that were identified using information provided by the UN inspection team.

Despite the iraqis lying, and creating hassles for the UNSCOM team, the weapons were largely eliminated.

quote:

He(scott ritter) acknowledged that, in 1991, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and said Iraq was then on the verge of having nuclear bombs. After the Gulf War, he was on the UNSCOM team that went into Iraq to seek and destroy any such weapons. �The Iraqis made it difficult by lying. They tried to hold onto the weapons of mass destruction, but we persevered, and achieved a ninety to ninety-five percent weapons eradication. And we also eradicated the means of production.�

source: http://baltimorechronicle.com/ritter_sep02.shtml


Clinton is(was) no softie

quote:

To demonstrate once again that reckless acts have consequences, to reduce Saddam's ability to strike out again at neighbors, to increase America's ability to prevent future acts of violence and aggression," Clinton said in explaining the attacks. source:

after attacks on iraq, to bolster clintons flagging popularity.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03/iraq.wrap/

I've used cnn sources for these, which are obviously very biased. Everything is quoted as being "military targets" and identified by US officials.

Here are some of the more radical links i found when searching for information.

http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm
http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml
http://www.etext.org/Politics/Alter.../v3n1_umrd.html

and if you haven't had enough reading, take a look at this piece, i find it is the best commentary on the situtation i have read so far.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=15&ItemID=2481

or, if you prefer it a little more humourous, then try this flash cartoon.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.swf

need more links?

this should do you:

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm

the internet is rife with opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Sorry, i will not debate what i think is right, you know my stance.

i know your stance, i respect it dont worry, you have obviously put thought and research into your beliefs.

However...

quote:

Iraq never kicked out US inspectors.

although, iraq technically did not kick them out, in all practicality they did kick their purpose out by not allowing UNSCOM to do as mandated... they were basicly just a bunch of tourists in iraq.
in fact before the inspectors left, iraq had demanded a stop to all UNSCOM (basicly thats just saying, "get out of here nicely")

quote:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan: "I am saddened and burdened by the Iraqi decision of 5 August and 31 October not to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). "

that is from the un website http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastw...mpl&setCookie=1

or how about this one
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastw...mpl&setCookie=1

quote:

UN press release The Security Council this afternoon reiterated its demand that the Government of Iraq allow the inspection teams of the United Nations Special Commission immediate and unconditional access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation.

and this was after a quick search of the word 'UNSCOM' at un.org there was many more condemnations of iraqi actions agianst unscom.

as for the butler statements about how UNSCOM managed to clear out most of the WOMD, there is no way of knowing that... do you really trust the butler knew how much iraq had to begin with? Because of Saddam's deliberate policy of concealment and obstruction, not everything has been found. He has under-reported his materials and weapons at every stage, and used an increasingly sophisticated concealment and deception system. no one really knows what he has and by all indicatoins, non co-operation with unscom ealier and lying about what he does have, thats a good indication to me that he is hiding more then enough.

quote:

Clinton is(was) no softie

sorry i should have said IMO, i belive even tougher actions should have been taken back then so that we arent in the postion we face today... but then agian hindsight is 20/20

quote:

after attacks on iraq, to bolster clintons flagging popularity.

so he was a softy until his popularity started slipping

quote:

Here are some of the more radical links i found when searching for information. http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm

interesting, this actually backs my beliefs

quote:

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East. Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=15&ItemID=2481

quote:

or, if you prefer it a little more humourous, then try this flash cartoon. http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.swf

um half of those 'errors' are actually true

quote:

need more links? this should do you: http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm the internet is rife with opinions.

am reading some stuff there now... no opinions yet

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Sorry, yes you(the US) are. that is exactly what you are doing, threatening to attack iraq for no reason. Or, invalid reasons at best, fear, revenge, profit, imperialism, and hubris are some that spring to mind. so. i can say it. why doesn't the US get rid of its weapons?

not to sound trite, but its comments like these that make me mad. You may laugh when i say the USA is the protector of the free world, but you would not be laughing if your country was riddled with terrorism, or conquered by a dictator's red-army.

sometimes, just sometimes i wish you could know whats its like to live without order and freedom. Criticize the US-government all you want, bottom line is *your* life is better as a DIRECT result of US actions...

*note* - iraq has not opened up all zones to be inspected, i dont know where you guys are reading this... just read time magazine from last month if you won't take the word of a guy who was just over there...

Well some of your statements make me mad as well atb. But, i think we are all doing a wonderful job of not letting this overflow into a flame war.

as for the statement about saddamn allowing unfettered access to all sites, i have not seen that, and will not believe it until i see it.

i'd like to know where cortex bomb had heard that actually.

and finally.. time magazine? well..

let's just say i respect your informed opinion as a soldier who has been there than time magazine.

the only country ever used nuclear against ppl is US (Hirosima, Nagasaki). Only one country has made this mistake. It doesn't mean others have to do that mistake again. I think only fundamentalist group would use nuclear weapons not any country. Still its very unlikely if that group has something to loose. I'm sure the one group/country/what ever/ uses nuclear will be torn apart by the rest of the world.

Where's the evidence which proves Iraq currently has chemical or nuclear weapons? Iraq had chemical weapons in the gulf war but it doesn't mean it has those atm. If there's an evidence then show me that I'm wrong.

My opinion is US politics is the main reason why its targeted by terrorists. US makes conditions where hatred and anger will prosper, Like continously bombing Iraq. If my country would be the target of continous bombing, I damn sure would be pissed and I even would join terrorist group to fight back, because they can't fight back in any other way. They can't harm US or their enemies in any other way. I think Iraq should be given a second chance. This "eye for an eye" politics wont end in any other way. The other option is to kill all those muslims who resists US or commits these terrorist acts against US. That option would include wiping off half of the middle east. Are you willing to commit that kind of massacre? US has the keys to start ending this never ending war. It may take time but its worth it.

UN should deal with Iraq and if Iraq starts another war like attacks Kuwait then and only then US and other countries should take actions required for ending that conflict.

Politics which breeds anger and hatred are not the ones which will bring the world peace. Things are not so easy as they seem.

Bush declared war against terrorism. With his statement "axis of evil" he includes civilians within. Do you think after this statement less ppl will join terrorist groups? Don't think so either.

Islam has the most fundamentalist believers of the religions. They are blinded by their religion and hatred. More and more ppl will join these groups until US changes its politics. There's also another country which gives more reasons to make terrorist strikes --> Israel.

Lots of thing to blame. I include religions to that list, expecially Islam. If you are willing to die for your religion I count you as a total fool. Thats why the ending of the eye for an eye politics must come from US and Israel. I count them as civilized countries which are not blinded by their beliefs or anger.

quote:

Originally posted by Tuikkari the only country ever used nuclear against ppl is US (Hirosima, Nagasaki). Only one country has made this mistake. It doesn't mean others have to do that mistake again.

Mistake? The only viable alternative was massive firebombing, and more people died in the firebombing we DID do than in the nuclear attacks. I don't see how something could be a mistake when it saved so many lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Tuikkari Where's the evidence which proves Iraq currently has chemical or nuclear weapons? Iraq had chemical weapons in the gulf war but it doesn't mean it has those atm. If there's an evidence then show me that I'm wrong.

i work in intelligence. We have satellite photos and exact locations of these storage facilities and factories disguised as hospitals and schoolhouses. I have seen it with my own eyes, and about this i will say no more...

quote:

My opinion is US politics is the main reason why its targeted by terrorists. US makes conditions where hatred and anger will prosper, Like continously bombing Iraq. If my country would be the target of continous bombing, I damn sure would be pissed and I even would join terrorist group to fight back, because they can't fight back in any other way. They can't harm US or their enemies in any other way. I think Iraq should be given a second chance.

we didn't just (for no reason), "continuously bomb iraq".... they, on their own initiative, invaded kuwait first. We did not tear their country apart upon victory either - we GAVE them a second chance by allowing them to retain their current government assuming they would follow some rules. they haven't. Black and white, man...

quote:

This "eye for an eye" politics wont end in any other way. The other option is to kill all those muslims who resists US or commits these terrorist acts against US. That option would include wiping off half of the middle east. Are you willing to commit that kind of massacre? US has the keys to start ending this never ending war. It may take time but its worth it.

i personally agree with you to a point here... i don't want this to escalate to war any more than you do... it would be very bloody no matter how you look at it. The only thing that would stop this war is if Iraq would JUST GET RID OF ITS WEAPONS! (and delete some of its Al-Qaeda camps as well... - which i've seen photos of)... As gung-ho as you all think Bush is, he has told the UN that if Iraq would simply concede to the verdict of the 1991 Gulf War (finally), that he would not invade... Doesn't mean we won't still tag those terrorist camps, but we wouldn't invade Iraq as a country. This however is not good enough for saddam - he, like bin laden, wants the USA out of the entire middle east. This however won't happen, b/c the second we "pull out" of the middle east, i can guarantee a huge world war will take place over there. Its another act the USA is doing for the good of the world, and nobody seems to notice...

quote:

UN should deal with Iraq and if Iraq starts another war like attacks Kuwait then and only then US and other countries should take actions required for ending that conflict.

this is passive action... remember iraq HAS invaded in the past... thats like moving into a bad neighborhood, and taking the locks off your doors saying "i won't put locks on until we get robbed".... Trust me if we didnt' put saddam on the spot here, the US would pull-out for good, and just let the middle-east annihilate each other...

quote:

Politics which breeds anger and hatred are not the ones which will bring the world peace. Things are not so easy as they seem.

exactly, you answered your own question here... its not as easy as just saying "why can't we all get along"... trust me no country like to fight wars - there are no winners, only losers. but there will always be disagreements, and politics on a higher level that people like you and me will never understand.

quote:

Bush declared war against terrorism. With his statement "axis of evil" he includes civilians within. Do you think after this statement less ppl will join terrorist groups? Don't think so either.

i don't follow your point here... that statement wasn't meant to discourage terrorists - it was strictly to rally Americans against terrorists.

quote:

Islam has the most fundamentalist believers of the religions. They are blinded by their religion and hatred.

EXACTLY. this is unfortunate, and there will never be world peace until someone outlaws religion altogether.

oh, and JohnSmith its ABT, not ATB!

ok, so this will come off as high and mighty, since the US is already decidedly the loser here, but....

you all speak of how 'there isnt enough evidence' and whatnot, and that we should wait until something worse happens.

first of all, as ABT has been trying to point out all along (and yes, you arent arguing with Time magazine there, but a real soldier) is that the US military has the evidence...being that they are the most advanced in the world. just because *you* personally arent privy to it doesnt mean its not there...

and secondly, this question has been answered all too often. how long has Saddam been in power? Did the US help this during the Iran Contra? it seems that what the US may or may have not done in the past is a moot point. that *was* the past, nothing more. things have changed drastically and while the rest of the world sits around and critiques the US for doing anything, they have that ability simply because in their apathy(to a degree) none of you worry about what Saddams influence has on you. Its pretty common knowledge that if Saddam strikes out itll be against Israel, the US or Saudi Arabia most likely. How many opinions are coming from that side here? Relatively few - at least those speaking out.

as for my position on the invasion/battle/inquiry/whatever, im pretty neutral. i dont want to see further issues, like most of you. but then again I also know that the US military usually knows what its doing, and the average global citizen knows very little about the military. and in that vein, sitting around and hoping a problem will disappear is a bad solution in anyones book|

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline oh, and JohnSmith its ABT, not ATB!

SORRY!! my mistake, wouldn't want to confuse you with atb!

i'd have edited the post but we can't. i also said:

quote:

and finally.. time magazine? well.. let's just say i respect your informed opinion as a soldier who has been there than time magazine.

What i meant to say was:

and finally.. time magazine? well..

let's just say i respect your informed opinion as a soldier who has been there a lot more than time magazine.

And one more thing, i agreee with arbiter on the nuke issue. yes it was horrible, but i believe that it needed to be done, and probably ended up saving lives by ending the war.

Regardless i still think ALL the worlds nuclear weapons should be destroyed or fired off into space or something, the world would be a better place without that amount of destructive power available.

and yes, i realized the hypocrisy in saying that using them was neccesary, but we should get rid of them.

the obvious argument is "what if we need them again"

well, honestly, there is only one super power who could ever be so powerful that it would needed to be stopped by nukes. and, since most of the nukes are possesed by that country, it would do no good anyway, and we would have a large scale nuclear conflagration possibly causing the extinction of life on this planet.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith i'd like to know where cortex bomb had heard that actually.

As I prefaced the post with, sadly, I haven't and usually don't make a very good point of archiving articles that I read.

I know that the article in question was written some time ago though, not recently, and likely appeared in the TO Star since that's the publication that I read most regularly. Their on-line archive only go back 14 days though, so I've lost a lot of interesting articles (particularly some on the nuclear holocaust at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to that.

And I *could* be mistaken, given what you guys are saying I'll certainly retract the existence of the article/statement until I can find some hint of it *somewhere*. I was just dead-on certain that for a brief window Saddam agreed to palace inspections, and then due to US comments, retracted his statement about a day later.

In any case, I've certainly said my bit in this debate already, and I agree with your statement that regardless, it's not an entirely reasonable demand for the US to make to have full access to the palaces. As you said, it's not as though the US would consent to something similar being done to the white house, and so forth.

This isn't to say that I don't understand the US rationale as well, but, again, you can only take paranoia and fear so far before they start to get ridiculous. I don't know if I consider the request to inspect the palaces in that realm yet, but I certainly consider some of the US definitions of "dual use technology" to be, so it makes me wary.

Well let me "brief" you guys on some things you learn in the military and before you get deployed... (this is unclassified..)

there is something called LOAC which is Laws of Armed Conflict... they are rules that the UN and many many countries came to decide on back after WWII during the Geneva Convention... They are basically ROE - rules of engagement.

These rules encompass many areas, but to summarize, they basically say how medics are not to be attacked or shot at, POW's are to be treated fairly and given proper clothing and shelter/food, Chaplains are not to be treated as soldiers, etc...

One of the OTHER stipulations is that you are *not* to bomb or attack schools, churches, structures of cultural interest, etc... BUT, the stipulation to this clause is if you attempt to exploit these protectional laws, then you forfeit your protection under LOAC. For instance, if you arm your medics, and they fire at our soldiers, THEY become targets... if you place weapons in churches, then the churches are "fair game".

In short, EVERYONE is allowed certain protections under LOAC, and these are guaranteed safe-havens. However, when you breach this contract, you forfeit your protections.

We have pictures of Saddam storing weapons in Mosques and Hospitals. He armed his medics and religious figures back in desert storm. He violated LOAC. He forfeits his privileges.

Pretty straight forward, end of story.

-ABT-

...oh and to add another fact (also unclassified...) :

Iraq has enough chemical weapons (anthrax in particular) to kill every single man, woman, and child on this planet. FACT

The worst part about anthrax is you cannot see it, cannot smell it, cannot feel it. The spores are almost invisible, especially if dispersed into the atmosphere by a missle, and it only requires a handful of spores to kill you within the week. And you'll never even know you're gonna die. FACT

also forgot to mention, that under LOAC, NO use of chemical or biological weapons is permitted. It allows traditional bombing, traditional guns and ammo, but any type of slow or painful death is considered excrutiatingly cruel and unnecessary. Splatter-bullets are not allowed, nor is chemical or biological warfare. FACT

We, although having some chemicals and biologicals, use them strictly for research and not for an "edge" in warfare. Saddam on the other hand has proven his use of them and production of them, and frequently relied on them during the Iran/Iraq conflict, even sometimes on his own people. FACT

well, thats all for now

-ABT-

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.