What a rediculous thread.

What we should be arguing about is whether he had hollandaise sauce or bernaise with the lobster, or just plain lemon butter.

We must also entertain the fact that it may have been one of his 9 impostors (that drive around the country in routes different to Saddam's route, to ensure that its almost impossible for him to be assassinated) if it in fact WAS an impostor, what was the real Saddam eating?

___________________
We repeat, this is only a test. This is only a test. This station in conjunction with other airwave announcements will conduct this exact test without prejudice under the durest prudence of the soul, the mind, the body, the positive, the negative, the ground, the proton, the neutron the electron, the yin, the yang, the young, the sun, the moon, the stars.

Ok the argument basically boils down to this;

Do you believe Saddam if he has nukes (HE DOES HAVE BIO/CHEM WEAPONS - according to UN inspectors after 1998, and I'm fairly certain Iraq just didn't get rid of them themselves after expelling the inspectors) that he will use them, or give them to terrorist to use for him as a proxy?

Some believe don't mainly for this reason:

quote:

Don't you think that if Bush had evidence that he'd be waving it all over the camera and putting it on CNN *right now*? Bush would kill for some actual hard evidence and if and when he gets anything resembling such trust me, it'll be everywhere; because it's the only thing that's going to sway public opinion, both in the States and abroad *at all*.

But, I will say that I do believe Bush has the evidence, and he will not compromise his spies in Iraq till invasion is imminent and therefore not compromise most of this. Furthermore had this 'evidence' been released, it would not be 'proof' enough for the rest of the world just like the Bin Laden tapes didn't go under very well. So it would not sway public opinion abroad, and public opinion in the States is already strong enough... So why compromise your sources in vain?

Secondly, I geniunely believe that Mr. Bush has nothing to do with Iraq if he did not believe that it posed a direct and imminent threat to the USA. Why else would he have to attack Iraq?

Why waste the billions of dollars and lives of many for a war with no reason? What Oil - if it was Oil he'd go after Saudi Arabia, after all they have more clear ties to Bin Laden (he was born there for one) which are much more oil rich then Iraq.

Now finally, I would say that I can't see any point in history where action was taken which resulted in worse results then if no action would be taken. I know of points where action was taken inadequetly (such as WWI), and created future conflicts, but it would have been far worse had no action been taken at all.

My conclusion to this is that Appeasement does not work; it is the worse solution for the problem. Especially when you are at the higher advantage. We have already tried to Appease Iraq some 3-4 times in the past decade.. why will anything we do change his mind now?

quote:

Originally posted by Munken thats why u KILL the cat before it scratches you..... -That's how you kill innocent ppl.

That's why you need to remove its claws.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus That's why you need to remove its claws.

No that's why you back up.. and start to talk to the cat and explain that it needs to cut it's claws... and the cat won't listed it you claws if 5 times bigger and you don't have to cut it.

___________________

Livet er en lang lort....
Jeg tager bare større bider end andre.

this is becoming a ridiculously bad analogy if people are talking like having a discussion with a cat is a plausible thing.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I don't want to see something like september 11th again either. that is why i say the US should not attack iraq, it will only make more people hate them, and INCREASE not DECREASE the chances of another attack. The real cost of inaction? I fear that you will feel the cost of action very soon.

that is the exact basis to which i disagree, i feel that the outcome will be much worse if no action is taken. taking no action gives the enemy no reason to stop. by taking no action you still allow the hate to fester and even aid it by allowing a pool for it to fester in. you can, as yoepus said, infact be creating the potential for a mega-terror attack. one must take control and take away the means to do so.

quote:

you cannot scare these people, they have nothing left to lose.

it has nothing to do with the people, in fact the people have nothing as a result of Saddam's control of power. this would not be an attack agianst the iraqi people but rather the government.


agian - UN Inspectors have been in Iraq on several occasions after the persian gulf war and were not able to do their job properly due to the iraqis. how many times do we have to do this over and over agian? when will enough finally be enough? do you want the iraqi people to suffer and die from the imposed sactions forever? do you want the UK & American planes to patrol the no-fly zone forever? the only option to make sure saddam does not have any weapons of mass destructions is by going in with force.

another note to add is that everyone fears the innocent civilian casualties as a result of an upcoming war. will i feel that there is considerable difference in sides between iraq and the US. the iraqi government is willing to intentionally target innocent civilian targets (as evident during the gulf war with the scud attacks agianst Suadia and Israel) where as it is not the policy nor will of the american government to intentionally target innocents. this is another reason why i belive Saddam should be taken out as soon as possible.

and yes, cortexbomb, it is my belief that when the whole world is made up of democratic and free market governments, that uphold the freedoms of each human being, there will finally be peace from war.

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

Last edited by Izzy on Sep-08-2002 at 05:34

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus So it would not sway public opinion abroad, and public opinion in the States is already strong enough... So why compromise your sources in vain?

I'm getting tired of this debate, but I really can't let this particular statement go.

According to a New York Times article by Adam Clymer and Janet Elder which ran today a poll run by CBS News and the NY Times produced the following results:

"But only 1/4 said Iraq presented such a grave threat that the United States should act now, while 2/3 said the nation needed to wait for support from it's allies." (which isn't forthcoming)

"...as 43 percent said the nation was going in the right direction while 49 percent said it was seriously "off on the wrong track."

"Half of the respondents were asked whether the United States should attack "another country" if that country did not attack first, and 47 percent opposed such an attack, while 41 percent favored it if the United States thought that country might launch an attack." (though these numbers flip-flopped out to 61 to 26 with the other half when the word "Iraq" was substituded for "another country"...which just goes to show how little people actually *think* about what they're saying at times...)

I fail to see how this is *strong* public opinion in favor of an attack on Iraq...the last quote shows people are generally opposed to pre-emptive strikes, but have been conditioned to accept one on Iraq...but I think the more interesting number is the "view Iraq as a grave threat" combined with the question as to whether or not the US should attack unilaterally...because let's face it, outside of a few stalwart supporters in Britain, the US will be attacking unilaterally. Thankfully even Canada seems opposed to jumping onboard this time.

If the attack *does* occur, and these numbers hold up, you're going to be guranteed a very nasty couple of elections, and you can bet that Bush is going the way of his old man, and hopefully will be replaced by someone who isn't so intent on war mongering...

quote:

Secondly, I geniunely believe that Mr. Bush has nothing to do with Iraq if he did not believe that it posed a direct and imminent threat to the USA. Why else would he have to attack Iraq? Why waste the billions of dollars and lives of many for a war with no reason? What Oil - if it was Oil he'd go after Saudi Arabia, after all they have more clear ties to Bin Laden (he was born there for one) which are much more oil rich then Iraq.

Hmm, let's see...plummeting approval rating (particularly in foreign policy where he's down to 54% from 68% in July) and a country that's slowly realizing that he's putting the economy in the tank?

The military industrial complex loves a war, that's far from uncommon knowledge. And given the rhetoric that Bush was pushing *before* the 11th of September attacks against Iraq, I hardly think this is a new idea. The Hawks in Washington have wanted to take out Saddam since the Gulf War, and this is just the latest excuse in a long line of them.

quote:

Now finally, I would say that I can't see any point in history where action was taken which resulted in worse results then if no action would be taken. I know of points where action was taken inadequetly (such as WWI), and created future conflicts, but it would have been far worse had no action been taken at all.

Well of course you can't...because you're engaging in a purely subjective exercise, and if you're not interested in looking at things in a certain way, you simply won't see them.

quote:

My conclusion to this is that Appeasement does not work; it is the worse solution for the problem. Especially when you are at the higher advantage. We have already tried to Appease Iraq some 3-4 times in the past decade.. why will anything we do change his mind now?

If you're honestly comparing appeasement, as in ceding of territory to the Nazis, to *not attacking* Iraq then you've got some serious issues...since when is respecting the sovereignty of a nation considered appeasement?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy do you want the iraqi people to suffer and die from the imposed sactions forever?

As if the sanctions couldn't be lifted without a bloody war...

quote:

and yes, cortexbomb, it is my belief that when the whole world is made up of democratic and free market governments, that uphold the freedoms of each human being, there will finally be peace from war.

Boy, this is a hoot...uphold the freedoms of each human being...heh...

From the TO Star, today's edition...

"Under George W. Bush, the U.S. has rejected international treaties aimed at controlling biological and nuclear weapons, declined to co-operate with the Kyoto accord on global warming, refused to abide by the Geneva conventions on rights for prisoners of war and now is poised to invade Iraq, despite near-universal world opposition. All this suggests that Washington is increasingly adopting an obstreperous, go-it-alone, in-your-face attitude towards the rest of the world ? something that would appear to have little resonance with Canadians.

There also seems to be no limit to how far the Bush administration will go in using the tragedy of Sept. 11 to promote U.S. interests. The White House is even invoking the war on terrorism to quash a human rights lawsuit launched by Indonesian villagers against Exxon Mobil.

The villagers, who managed with the help of the International Labour Rights Fund to bring their case before a U.S. court, allege that security forces hired by Exxon murdered, tortured and raped villagers while patrolling a vast Indonesian gas field. Now, at first glance it might seem like the connection to terror here is the terror the Indonesians allegedly experienced at the hands of the Exxon-paid guards.

But that kind of terror apparently doesn't concern Washington. It's considered merely bothersome by the Bush administration, which has asked the court to dismiss the villagers' lawsuit, arguing the suit could discourage foreign investment in the country, thereby weakening the Indonesian government, a key U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism.

With the needs of the war on "terror" defined this broadly, it's hard to imagine anything the U.S. and its corporations might want to do in the world that couldn't be classified as essential for U.S. security. The post 9/11 era seems to be shaping up as one where a highly arbitrary, self-serving military giant feels justified to do whatever it pleases.

It makes you wonder if we should be so quick to conclude that there are "no other people on the planet closer to us in terms of value structure." I suspect the values of many Canadians are actually closer to those Indonesian villagers, who apparently cling to primitive notions like the rule of law."

--McQuaig

Not exactly the same rosy picture you paint of human rights eh?

Just another reminder that there are two sides to any debate, if not two dozen...

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy that is the exact basis to which i disagree, i feel that the outcome will be much worse if no action is taken. taking no action gives the enemy no reason to stop. by taking no action you still allow the hate to fester and even aid it by allowing a pool for it to fester in. you can, as yoepus said, infact be creating the potential for a mega-terror attack. one must take control and take away the means to do so.

You're right on one point. You can't just stand by and do nothing. However, you can't say that hate won't fester if you barge into their country and use violence and force to take control of their government, imposing your foreign systems. Because that is why there is so much hate in the first place.

But of course the US gov't just can't stand by and do nothing, that's unsafe, and most people would be unhappy. However, I think the better solution would be to assess why the terrorists are attacking in the first place. Perhaps give them reason to like the US instead of hate them. You have to admit, its hard to like another country when they dispatch military forces in your area, and use their economic muscle to strangle your economy. Add on the fact that they wish to topple your government, so they can slowly infiltrate your nation with their western way of life. It just gives them more reasons to attack, since they have nothing to lose anyways. I'm sure if the US became a crucial economic partner for Iraq, there would be no threat from Saddam. Of course, its VERY hard for two countries to forgive and forget, and I might be dreaming, but its been done before, and I truely believe this is the best solution, in the best interest of both nations.

I'm sure there's alot more going on behind the scenes of this proposed war. Its too obvious of a solution for an economic slump, rather than a neutralization of a proposed threat. I think people of Bush's administration are a bit smarter than that. They know damn well waging war on Iraq wouldn't change much in terms of security. But they know they could easily mask our eyes and use it as an excuse, get the economy going, and gain TONS of support, for not only making heroes of themselves by getting rid of the evil saddam, but by getting the US economy rolling again.

___________________
jimtran.net

Of course, my opinion could easily change if Bush was to present some hard believeable evidence that Saddam was somehow linked to WTC terrorist attacks.

___________________
jimtran.net

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb As if the sanctions couldn't be lifted without a bloody war...

yes why dont we lets lift the sanctions and basicly give money straight to hands of Saddam, seeing as we trust the way he spends it.


Look, it's simple. the americans endorse two reasons for acting against Iraq: weapons of mass destruction and the regime's support of terrorism against the United States (as well as other targets). why the rest of the world cannot comes to terms with this as a reason for the US wanting to call for a pre-emptive attack I cannot see. We have tried other solitutions (sanctions, weapon inspections...) it is time to try something more desisive. you said (or has been said by someone out there) that there will be innocent civilians killed in war, i said there will be more if we do nothing. you said (or someone else) it will destablize the area, i said the area is already destablized and this will help stablize it and that if destablization should occur it is a risk worth taking in order to get rid of the weapons and regime in iraq.

quote:

Not exactly the same rosy picture you paint of human rights eh?

you are missing the whole picture, you're eyes are too narrowly focused inwards, look at the bigger picture. i never said america is perfect, america has a lot to improve itself on, infact i said earlier that i belive democracy isnt perfect. but if you compare America's (or any other democratic contries) track record of human rights agianst that of any other NON-democractic country (iraq, saudia, zaire...) tell me which is the better to live in. democracy is a step in the right direction.

quote:

Hmm, let's see...plummeting approval rating (particularly in foreign policy where he's down to 54% from 68% in July) and a country that's slowly realizing that he's putting the economy in the tank?

i find it highly offensive that you would hint at Bush wanting to go to war just for ratings and wanting to be elected in agian.

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

quote:

Originally posted by quddha But of course the US gov't just can't stand by and do nothing, that's unsafe, and most people would be unhappy. However, I think the better solution would be to assess why the terrorists are attacking in the first place. Perhaps give them reason to like the US instead of hate them.

sure lets invite the terrorists over and talk with them over a cup of tea how we think they should start liking us. negotating with terrorist or appeasing to what they want does not solve anything. Terrorism is something that needs to be dealt with an iron fist. One must never allow it to be a way of solving a problem.

example: the Israelis appeased the Hizbollah terrorist group of lebonan when the unilaterly withdrew from southern lebanon (that was the terrorists demand for them to stop terrorizing). You know what happened? the terrorists now are spreading the word that terrorism works it achieved their goal, and you know what else sucks, they still havent stopped terrorizing Israel (they continually shoot mortar fire into israel proper).

quote:

Add on the fact that they wish to topple your government, so they can slowly infiltrate your nation with their western way of life.

whats wrong with the western way of life? no im kidding but what i feel strongly about is that people should have the CHOICE of how they want to live their lives, in Iraq that there is no choice, you have to live you life according to what Saddam has choosen for you.

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