|
Saddam Hussein is eating lobster? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The argument you make that say's Bush Sr. chose to leave Baghdad alone because he FEARED the remants of a wash-tag-group of professional surrenderies that make the french look bad, is just plain wrong.
|
Please, go back and read that, I didn't say he was afraid, I said he knew what the ramifications would be, and wisely chose to not go on. It had nothing to do with machismo and everything to do with common sense.
| quote: |
Oh, we should be so glad that the region is just in such perfect harmony and such a stabilized region that such an attack would turn this all around...I'm sorry, where you living in the same world as I during the Gulf War? |
I'm not sure what your point is here, but if you think an attack, and the toppling of a government, that *no one* in the world except for the US and the British government support, is going to stabalize anything you're mistaken. All it's going to do is breed yet more hatred, this time expanding from religious fundamentalists out to normal people in the EU.
And no, thankfully I apparently wasn't living in the same world as you were during the Gulf War, as *I'm* aware of the high number of civilian casualties the war inflicted, and think that another war in the region, again based on ethically shaky foundations, would be a mistake.
| quote: |
America has a legal right to defend itself, if the toppling of a sovereign government is part of that defense, then that makes it right.
|
Wow, this should definitely be my last post on this. The proof that Iraq can threaten the US *in any capacity* is at this point based on theories with *zero* proof to back it up beyond the bantering of Bush and Blair to drum up support.
Once you come to the conclusion that Iraq isn't a threat to US sovereignty, or even a threat to attack (again, Saddam is crazy but not moronic, attacking the US in any capacity while there's no balance of power in the world is tantamount to suicide) then the whole argument for toppling their government looks pretty weak IMO.
| quote: |
Furthermore on the international law scale the USA has a just cause for war due to the violations of contract that Iraq has done (expelling inspectors, producing weapons most notably). On the local level the USA has given the president with the post-September 11th decleration passed by congress on the 14th of September I belive the right to declare war on all who support/harbor and fund terrorist with the descretion of selecting who falls into that category going to the Commander and Chief - the President. |
A couple of short points here.
Just because a country *can* doesn't mean they should, or even that they're ethically entitled to do so.
I'm one of the growing number of people who thinks that the US declaring itself the authoritative source on who or where is a "terrorist" country is a bunch of crap. The UN should be the source of decisions on international matters, and that's what this war would be, because it'd destabalize the middle east region even further, and would also adversely affect stability in the EU.
I also think a long look needs to be taken at the amount of latitude that's been given to presidents in modern times. Congress and the House have the right to put a straight jacket on what he can do, and how he can do it. It's just that in more recent years the power of the position has grown to ridiculous proportions, to where we've now arrived where the president's aides are crassly declaring that they don't need to get approval from the other branches of government, or from the UN before they take military action based on *no concrete evidence*.
| quote: |
Again, all countries do things in their own interests - the Russians did thing in their interest, the Europeans do thing in their interest. The USA also does it, just because they are more powerful and say they are doing it in their interest as opposed to the others, makes it hard for me to see why the world would want another super-power who might be less benevolent who would do things in its own interest as well. - And speaking about lots of casualties a fallout between two super powers will be much more costly in human life then anything we could comprehend if there were to be one.
|
Because it produces balance. If the Soviet Union still existed America would simply not have the option of attacking Iraq.
The danger for large scale war between super powers is one thing, but given rational people in government (which perhaps shouldn't be a given when guys like Bush Jr. get elected...) a mass war would never occur, because both sides, in the grand scheme of things, want peace.
I think the danger of having one super power is much more immediate, because of the situation we're witnessing right now. The US essentially has carte blanche to do what it wants, when it wants. People might complain about it, but no one is in a power position to do anything about it. With a pair of super powers both find themselves limited in what they can do, and hence, unilateral action, like the hypothetical war on Iraq, would simply be undoable.
| quote: |
Dammit man where did you go to school?
Hitler was neither elected into office, nor came to it by force (yet he did use his storm-troppers to assinate all his rivals). He was appointed to Chancellor by the King (Kaizer), at a time which the Nazi party had actually lost all of its mass-popularity for the people feared it would actually take control. |
I didn't say Hitler was elected to office, I said that the Nazi party was. Yes, once in power they definitely set out to eliminate their rivals, but that initial mandate gave the party legitimacy that they never would have had with a straight military coup.
| quote: |
Please, get your facts right. The Nazi party was elected in 1932 BUT Hitler did not get power because of that!
|
I think this is a question of how literally you want to look at things. *A* Nazi was unquestionably going to come to power after the election, and subsequent purges...so I argue that he did. He wasn't directly elected, but as I said, he was made more legitimate by the fact that he *was* a Nazi, the last elected party.
| quote: |
So stop being an idealist!
Bah |
"I don't suppose there's much case to be made for striving toward something better and more ideal than the paranoid, suspicious, pessimistic, fatalistic, pernicious, sour picture of the world that you paint (and apparently, subscribe to)?"
I have no idea who said that, but it makes my point for me... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Ok just a few more notes:
The West does not fear a direct strike from Iraq; as you said no one in can understand why someone would want to do this. However the general fear is that Iraq will attack via a proxy method, such as Al Queda or another terrorist group with weapons of mass destruction. Picture September 11th with nuke (civilian casualties?). Then try and find the trail of who actually did the nuke would take weeks if not months since all evidence would be nuked away. Retaliation would be impossible, and detterence for such future attacks would be ungodly using this system.
Now you say that if the USSR would still exist (but they didn't since they went bankrupt) that this conflict would not have existed. And I agree, because during that time they were overt threats between super-powers, not covert threats... the Soviets would never allow Iraq nukes if it believed it would give them to terrorist groups it could not control.
As for decleration of war, the prez has the power (according to the constitution) to declare war as he wishes. It is congresses sole duty to fund or cut funds ot such efforts. Congressional laws have changed it since then, but currently Mr. Bush has the power to declare war on whom he choses so long as they are connected with terrorism as ratified by the congress September 14th. - Call it post-sept 11th hysteria or whatever, but its the law.
Thirdly, IMHO I believe the President has evidence of the links of Saddam with Bin Laden's group and of their efforts to build nuclear facitilies, and I am sure hints of this evidence will reach the press before the d-day. I also believe that Saddam WILL give his nukes to terrorist once he has them, and that this belief alone warrents in assualt to try and pre-empt such action; as if you do nothing the cost of this will be catastrophic.
The american people who experienced Sept-11th do not want to experience something greater, and therefore they understand this point. A clearer picture of this will be painted from the Bush guys in the coming weeks, which hopefully might hint you in as to the real cost of inaction.
And finally - Hitler's party election actually made him much less popular with the people, after his party was offered the Vice Chacnellorship and refused asking only to be the Chancelor. This made people see the bluff that he claimed he did not want power, but only to get rid of the hundreds of small political group taking part in the germanic 'democracy'. As well; his stormtroppers acted much before 1932, killing and threatening reporters and rivals of his party. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The american people who experienced Sept-11th do not want to experience something greater, and therefore they understand this point. A clearer picture of this will be painted from the Bush guys in the coming weeks, which hopefully might hint you in as to the real cost of inaction.
|
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. you cannot scare these people, they have nothing left to lose. when you back the cat into a corner is when it starts to scratch.
The real cost of inaction? I fear that you will feel the cost of action very soon. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith when you back the cat into a corner is when it starts to scratch.
|
thats why u KILL the cat before it scratches you..... |
|
|
| Munken |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
thats why u KILL the cat before it scratches you..... |
That's how you kill innocent ppl. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Munken
That's how you kill innocent ppl. |
well if u dont then innocents on the American side will be killed.....and i would rather it be them then me and my family members...sorry but if someone has to go...its them...not us |
|
|
| Munken |
I Really don't understand this whole kill one of us and we'll kill 10 of your aditude...
You bring alot of it on yourself... how can you expect the rest of the world to put up with america's "it's ok that we have nukes, bio and chemical weapons, but if you have them we're gonna take them away from you" and then wonder why ppl dislike USA.
Yes nukes, bio and chemical weapons are very dangerous in the wrong hands... but USA are no exeption USA are just as dangerous as any ohter third world countrie because they have those weapons... i see USA as the biggest tread to the world.
Don't get me wrong i like USA nice ppl and all, but you got to muck power. |
|
|
| fastmp3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
well if u dont then innocents on the American side will be killed.....and i would rather it be them then me and my family members...sorry but if someone has to go...its them...not us |
wtf ???
did you realise what you have just said ??? ...
no one should wish the death to someone else ...
you're really sick , that's why a lot of people hate americans.
you should never wish the death to someone innocent ... |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by fastmp3
wtf ???
did you realise what you have just said ??? ...
no one should wish the death to someone else ...
you're really sick , that's why a lot of people hate americans.
you should never wish the death to someone innocent ... |
shut the up u moron....read what iw rote...i never wished innocents to die...i SAID..that if it's them or me and my family then i would rather it be them....because if we dont attack Iraq eventually my fellow Americans will be targeted....
same thing if someone had a gun to you --- and you had the chance to kill them before they killed you...you would take that chance and kill them before they killed you... |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| and how stupid are u people...the U.S. would not be targeting civilians....but some will die by accident..like in any war...the difference is terrorists target the innocent civilians...hence the WTC...when we bombed Afghanistan we werent aiming at civilians...when they where killed it was not on purpose.......but your all too much of ing morons to comprehend that... |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The West does not fear a direct strike from Iraq; as you said no one in can understand why someone would want to do this. However the general fear is that Iraq will attack via a proxy method, such as Al Queda or another terrorist group with weapons of mass destruction. Picture September 11th with nuke (civilian casualties?). Then try and find the trail of who actually did the nuke would take weeks if not months since all evidence would be nuked away. Retaliation would be impossible, and detterence for such future attacks would be ungodly using this system. |
Again, this all sounds well and good until you come back to the stark reality that there is *zero proof*. None. Nada. Zilch. Nil.
I've heard talk of Iraq getting nuclear technology, but the point that seems to be getting lost in transit is that they're building power plants, which aren't exactly the same as ICBM's last time I checked.
If you think attacking Iraq is going to deter a single terrorist from attacking the States in the future, I again have to say you're mistaken. All this is going to do is throw more fuel on the fire.
| quote: |
Now you say that if the USSR would still exist (but they didn't since they went bankrupt) that this conflict would not have existed. And I agree, because during that time they were overt threats between super-powers, not covert threats... the Soviets would never allow Iraq nukes if it believed it would give them to terrorist groups it could not control.
|
Are you inferring that Russia is going to supply Iraq with nuclear weapons? Because otherwise this statement makes no sense.
Obviously the USSR went bankrupt, that's not in contention at all, and I'm glad you can see my point, that with two super powers instead of one conflicts like this would simply not happen because the country acting would have too much to lose.
| quote: |
As for decleration of war, the prez has the power (according to the constitution) to declare war as he wishes. It is congresses sole duty to fund or cut funds ot such efforts. Congressional laws have changed it since then, but currently Mr. Bush has the power to declare war on whom he choses so long as they are connected with terrorism as ratified by the congress September 14th. - Call it post-sept 11th hysteria or whatever, but its the law. |
My point has never been that Bush doesn't have the option to attack without consent, etc. What I've been trying to get across is that it's irresponsible, and that the ramifications of said actions will be greater than the cost of not taking action. By far.
| quote: |
Thirdly, IMHO I believe the President has evidence of the links of Saddam with Bin Laden's group and of their efforts to build nuclear facitilies, and I am sure hints of this evidence will reach the press before the d-day. I also believe that Saddam WILL give his nukes to terrorist once he has them, and that this belief alone warrents in assualt to try and pre-empt such action; as if you do nothing the cost of this will be catastrophic. |
And I believe that he doesn't.
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*.
| quote: |
The american people who experienced Sept-11th do not want to experience something greater, and therefore they understand this point. A clearer picture of this will be painted from the Bush guys in the coming weeks, which hopefully might hint you in as to the real cost of inaction. |
Oh trust me, I've heard all the terrible things that can happen if the States doesn't act, and it sounds very familar...to the tune of what the States said before going into the Vietnam war. I don't think that conflict was justified, and I don't think this one will be either.
And I again state that anyone who thinks the US attacking Iraq unilaterally with *zero* evidence to back up their claims is going to stop future terrorist attacks...well, I feel sorry for you.
| quote: |
And finally - Hitler's party election actually made him much less popular with the people, after his party was offered the Vice Chacnellorship and refused asking only to be the Chancelor. This made people see the bluff that he claimed he did not want power, but only to get rid of the hundreds of small political group taking part in the germanic 'democracy'. As well; his stormtroppers acted much before 1932, killing and threatening reporters and rivals of his party. |
A shame my main point has been lost in this nitpickery over Nazi era Germany. I quote myself here and say again:
"I fail to see how democracies not fighting democracies often proves *anything* since it obscures the obvious fact that democracies are still getting into, and causing wars for their own, often selfish ends, just like dictatorships. Do you honestly think that if the entire world was a democracy that there wouldn't be any war?"
I don't think this Germany debate is going to interest anyone but us, but I do have to say the following...Hitler got *into* government by legitimate means. He curried favour with the kaiser by intrigue (hardly an unusual tactic...) and ended up being rewarded. His tactics were abhorrent, no one's going to argue that, but his were far from unconventional.
Hitler's message was one that the German people wanted to hear, he was far from unpopular. |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| 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. you cannot scare these people, they have nothing left to lose. when you back the cat into a corner is when it starts to scratch.
The real cost of inaction? I fear that you will feel the cost of action very soon. |
Thank you for summing things up nicely with this...my entire point over this entire discussion has been that action is simply going to make the situation worse, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is going to be in for a rude awakening at some point in the future.
One would think that the events last September would have been enough to make people reflect on *why* the States was attacked, and possibly reconsider foreign policy that led to the terror.
But saying that the States was partially to blame for the attacks doesn't seem to be an opinion that the American press or public cares to hear, much less talk about these days.
A shame, because until the country acknowledges that changes need to be made in foreign policy, I just see more terror, more war, and more deaths resulting, both in America and throughout the world. |
|
|
|
|
