quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter By attacking him pre-emptively and without UN support, we deprive any government we instill in the region of legitimacy and thereby ensure even greater instability in the region.

I have to agree with Arbiter.

Irak is not really a thread against the U.S. But many americans won't listen. My theory is that before 9/11 the US thought that nothing was really a thread against them. Then as the Al Qaida attacked (many americans didn't knew what Al Qaida was, and they couldn't point out Afganistan in a map) and the US was in shock. And now they thing EVERYONE is a potential attacker. And they think they have the pre-emptive right to attack.

The most clear example is the "axis of evil". If Iran is part of the EVIL, it can attack the US, and so the US has the RIGHT to attack it "pre-emptively". So tomorrow Bush starts thinking that not only Irak, Iran, and N.Korea are part of the evil, but Zenegal, Tunis, and Venezuela, and we're all f*cked up.

___________________
jamesholden
The best DJ / Producer in the entire Silverplanet.

Oh, another thing I forgot to mention.

Ask anyone with some understanding about Irak's society and religion, and probably they'll tell u this:

If Saddam is overthrown by the US, the US will install a Puppet Regime. This regime will only last a few years. After that, there will be a fight for power between chiites and suniites. A *bloodly* fight.


¿Do u think we can just go there and install a democracy or something like that?

Such an idea doesn't consider how are the other countries in the region, or the historical background of that culture.

A democracy instaled externaly (not caused by an internal process) will fail. A conflict in Irak, between those two islamic groups will de-stabilize the entire region. The entire region would be in risk with such a war.

And if the emerging leader is a religous leader or something, he will be able to influence muslims from other countries, and the impact on neighbour nations will be bigger than you could imagine.

I just hope that this will never happen, but you should understand the risks of overthrowning Saddam.


---
oh, and btw. Bush is not a fool. He doesn't want to go to war because he thinks Irak may be a thread (Al Qaida continues to be a thread, a weak Irak isn't). He isn't doing this for the ppl of Irak neither. So the question is, ¿what is his real purpose?

___________________
jamesholden
The best DJ / Producer in the entire Silverplanet.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy * Saddam is a terrorist (i can back this up too).

that puts you ahead of the CIA.

quote:

Originally posted by IronDragon that puts you ahead of the CIA.

come on boy, you dont need to be in the CIA to know he's a terrorist, just open up a history book. ill bring up one case, saddam intentionally targeted innocent kurdish civilians in northern iraq with chemical weapons in the 80's. if that doesnt prove he is a terrorist i dont know what does.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by zzleeper After that, there will be a fight for power between chiites and suniites. A *bloodly* fight.

that is one possible outcome but not the only.
where do you draw the line on this. should every ethnicity group and nationalist movement have the right to an autonimus, international recognized coutry? why cant they live in power together as is the case in present day afghanistan? how come the flemmish in belgium dont fight with the more frech belgiums to the south? there are many stable multi-ethnical countries that prosper today (US, canada and basicly every developed country)

quote:

Irak is not really a thread against the U.S.

true america is not in direct threat of iraq, and its quite improbable that iraq would attack america HOWEVER he is an indirect and serious threat agianst america in that he can not be trusted. With his proven arsenal of at least chemical and biological weaponary, what is to stop him from selling it to some terror organization who is willing to target the US? if he starts selling nuclear weapons (which i doubt he has right now) on the black market the implications of this could be catastrophic. there are allegations that he has "diplomatic" with al-queda, three months ago israel had caught an al-queda agent in the palestinian territories that had recieved training IN iraq. and for a more personal view of mine, the IDF intellegence has proven that the iraqi government's money was being used to pay family members of palestinian suicide bombers.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

something else we need to think about...

no matter what we may think or say, there are a million other equations and political events happening that we will never hear about. Bush may seem insane to a lot of people for doing "this", but you can't forget the one million and one reasons that we (myself included) will never know. Bush is no idiot - he knows what he's doing, and all decisions do not come down to only him... remember the system of checks and balances, it has to go a long way before anything gets approved....

which means...

there is a lot more to everything than we know.

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy that is one possible outcome but not the only. where do you draw the line on this. should every ethnicity group and nationalist movement have the right to an autonimus, international recognized coutry? why cant they live in power together as is the case in present day afghanistan? how come the flemmish in belgium dont fight with the more frech belgiums to the south? there are many stable multi-ethnical countries that prosper today (US, canada and basicly every developed country)

Hatred that has been festering for hundreds of years typically doesn't go away easily. It is not only one possible outcome, but by far the most likely.

quote:

there are allegations that he has "diplomatic" with al-queda, three months ago israel had caught an al-queda agent in the palestinian territories that had recieved training IN iraq. and for a more personal view of mine, the IDF intellegence has proven that the iraqi government's money was being used to pay family members of palestinian suicide bombers.

IMHO this is just not strong enough of evidence to suggest that Saddam would supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. As far as we know, he hasn't so far, and anything beyond that is too speculative to be a reason to go to war.

Guys tone it down a bit please .. discussion/debate is good, flame wars are not.

Bear in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

When I was talking about fresh evidence, I was talking about real proof that Saddam is more of a threat now than he was on 10 Sept 2001. Because I haven't seen any.

ABT: I'm sorry but I think you're quite wrong - Bush is an idiot. OK wait, let me rephrase that - he's not an idiot, but you have to admit he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Yes he may be surrounded by smart/competent advisors, but he's surrounded by people with similar views; hawks like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al. So no, I don't think he knows what he's doing.

As for Bali, you say that that has nothing to do with the US. Then why does your government stand up and say "this attack proves why we should attack Iraq"? I am angry for revenge like you suggest I should be, but that doesn't stop me from thinking clearly and objectively - namely, what does this have to do with Iraq?

Yes the perpetrators of the Bali bombing need to be captured and punished, and yes this does fit in with the war on terror as you suggest. I do support the war on terrorism.

Afghanistan = Taliban = al-Qaeda, this connection is clear. However: to then move on to destroying Iraq and killing Saddam Hussien because he might possibly have some sort of unproven connection to al-Qaeda doesn't seem to fit with a war on terror.

There are many many established terrorist groups in existence that have a far more active role in terrorism than Saddam (and keep in mind it's unclear whether he's linked with al-Qaeda). If this is truly a "global war on terror" then why not target the IRA? Ba'asque separatists in Spain? Qaddafi in Libya? Israel and/or Palestine? Indonesian Islamist terrorist groups? There has been at least four significant terrorist attacks in the Philippines in the last month, yet has Bush has not done a thing.

I saw an interview with him last week on television, asking him about the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. His response? He stumbled, said ummm and ahhh and errm, then came up with something like "you just can't separate them, because they are inseparable."

IMO it's not so much of a war on terrorism as mandate for Bush to do what he likes - this is why he seems to take so little interest in the Bali bombing.

I suppose it all comes down to a simple choice: whether you choose to believe what your government tells you.

But as I said earlier, all this arguing is largely irrelevant - simply because the decision to war Iraq was made months ago. The entire process since has been about pre-emptive justification and preparing the world for the reality that the US is going to attack.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior No blood for oil!

just because Iraq has oil and Afganistan didn't isn't a valid reason not to attack Iraq. You really have to have access to the secret intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs to assess how big a threat they are. I dont have access to that information, so I'm neutral for the moment.

___________________
Current fav albums

DNA, kick me up
Protoculture, Circadians

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister Guys tone it down a bit please .. discussion/debate is good, flame wars are not. Bear in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. When I was talking about fresh evidence, I was talking about real proof that Saddam is more of a threat now than he was on 10 Sept 2001. Because I haven't seen any. ABT: I'm sorry but I think you're quite wrong - Bush is an idiot. OK wait, let me rephrase that - he's not an idiot, but you have to admit he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Yes he may be surrounded by smart/competent advisors, but he's surrounded by people with similar views; hawks like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al. So no, I don't think he knows what he's doing. As for Bali, you say that that has nothing to do with the US. Then why does your government stand up and say "this attack proves why we should attack Iraq"? I am angry for revenge like you suggest I should be, but that doesn't stop me from thinking clearly and objectively - namely, what does this have to do with Iraq? Yes the perpetrators of the Bali bombing need to be captured and punished, and yes this does fit in with the war on terror as you suggest. I do support the war on terrorism. Afghanistan = Taliban = al-Qaeda, this connection is clear. However: to then move on to destroying Iraq and killing Saddam Hussien because he might possibly have some sort of unproven connection to al-Qaeda doesn't seem to fit with a war on terror. There are many many established terrorist groups in existence that have a far more active role in terrorism than Saddam (and keep in mind it's unclear whether he's linked with al-Qaeda). If this is truly a "global war on terror" then why not target the IRA? Ba'asque separatists in Spain? Qaddafi in Libya? Israel and/or Palestine? Indonesian Islamist terrorist groups? There has been at least four significant terrorist attacks in the Philippines in the last month, yet has Bush has not done a thing. I saw an interview with him last week on television, asking him about the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. His response? He stumbled, said ummm and ahhh and errm, then came up with something like "you just can't separate them, because they are inseparable." IMO it's not so much of a war on terrorism as mandate for Bush to do what he likes - this is why he seems to take so little interest in the Bali bombing. I suppose it all comes down to a simple choice: whether you choose to believe what your government tells you. But as I said earlier, all this arguing is largely irrelevant - simply because the decision to war Iraq was made months ago. The entire process since has been about pre-emptive justification and preparing the world for the reality that the US is going to attack.

bro..what saddam did to his own people in the 80's with chemical weapons is more than enough reasons for any anti-terrorism country to act on..your right the list goes on..but one fish at a time..if saddam can act like Bin Laden by hurting thousands of people, arab or not at one time, is enough for ME to wanna duke it out with him..regardless of Bush's standpoint..

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy no offense but your definition of a terrorist is far beyond any logic. a terrorist in my opinion, is a person or group of people or even a government, that INTENTIONALLY kills innocent civilians for the purpose of achieving a goal of some kind. NONE of the US presidents have intentionaly targeted civilians as part of thier operations.

thats exactly what they do

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer thats exactly what they do

please, elaborate on how exactly they do this

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.