War With Iraq

[The_Farwall]

[s]Oddball wrote on 20:38, 22nd Feb 2003:
If as you argue America has caused some of these problems during the cold war, would it not be better to try to undo some of the damage?

Undo the damage with bombs and guns? What an ingenius concept! Why couldn't any of us see this is what they are doing, it all makes so much sense now! The Lord be praised! I can see!
God bless us, everyone.
[hr][s]My weakness is none of your business[/s]

[Carrie MN]

President bush using propaganda and scare tactics? Are you out of your simple little mind? Do you have any idea how easy it would be for terrorists to get smallpox from iraq? it has been proven that Iraq has missles that can hit isreal. iraq has several thousand gallons of anthrax as they have had since the early ninties. Do you think, and i know that this is really hard for someone from minnesota to understand, that Saddam will hesitate to use these weapons against isreal. I think not. you have your crazed leaders mixed up here. The enemy is not bush, thats right not, but it is Saddam. If you dont like the way that Bush is running this country move to your beloved Iraq.
[/i]
Oh, honey, you have no idea what you just said. Everyone agrees that Saddam is an evil bastard, no argument there. But we "simple minded" Minnesotans and many others are trying to see the big picture. Not only has Bush twisted Sept. 11th into an all out war on Islam, a religion that has become the scapegoat for the attacks, he has deployed thousands of American troops to fights in other countries' wars like the Phillipines, WITHOUT INFORMING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC! That is deceptive and misguiding. Remember, before Sept. 11th, we all hated that Bush was in office, he didn't even win the election. Now he's crying "You're unpatriotic!" if anyone questions his motives! Does this remind you of anyone?(Oh, and as for your comment about Minnesota, let's not resort to petty ignorant comments. I could say a few nasty things about your country, but thankfully, I'm above that level.)

[Oddball]

[s]The_Farwall wrote on 02:54, 23rd Feb 2003:
[s]Oddball wrote on 20:38, 22nd Feb 2003:[i]
If as you argue America has caused some of these problems during the cold war, would it not be better to try to undo some of the damage?

Undo the damage with bombs and guns? What an ingenius concept! Why couldn't any of us see this is what they are doing, it all makes so much sense now! The Lord be praised! I can see!
God bless us, everyone.
[hr][s]My weakness is none of your business[/s]
[/i]

I did not suggest using violence in all cases(merely when appropriate). My point was that perhaps instead of just walking away it could try to help resolve some of the issues it left unfinished. I hardly feel this is a controversial issue.

[Oddball]

[s]Unregisted User Carrie MN wrote on 12:38, 23rd Feb 2003:

Oh, honey, you have no idea what you just said. Everyone agrees that Saddam is an evil bastard, no argument there. But we "simple minded" Minnesotans and many others are trying to see the big picture. Not only has Bush twisted Sept. 11th into an all out war on Islam, a religion that has become the scapegoat for the attacks, he has deployed thousands of American troops to fights in other countries' wars like the Phillipines, WITHOUT INFORMING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC! That is deceptive and misguiding. Remember, before Sept. 11th, we all hated that Bush was in office, he didn't even win the election. Now he's crying "You're unpatriotic!" if anyone questions his motives! Does this remind you of anyone?(Oh, and as for your comment about Minnesota, let's not resort to petty ignorant comments. I could say a few nasty things about your country, but thankfully, I'm above that level.)
[/i]

Bush has hardly turned the war on terror into a war on Islam. However it is noticable that many terrorist groups have strong Islamist leanings. If Bush were truly waging war on Islam he would have invaded Saudi Arabia, the main spiritual home of Islam. As to the commital of troops of abroad, to far off places such as the Phillippines, the information has been available. However that deployment does not appear to finalised as there is still the issue of the local constitution which bars foreign soldiers from operating on Phillipine soil. At present American operations are limited to 'advising' and training, not actively seeking combat. This might change, but given the habit of the local terrorists to target American citizens, such a program is a reasonable response. The issue of being 'Unpatriotic' is an unfortunate one, but there is some logic to rallying around your leader in a time of difficulties, rather than whining and complaining about him. As to the election issue, it was no worse than JFKs election, and not everybody hated Bush before 9/11. I can see why you might be defensive about living in Minesota, but not everybody is lucky enough to live in New England.

[RRankin]

President bush using propaganda and scare tactics? Are you out of your simple little mind? Do you have any idea how easy it would be for terrorists to get smallpox from iraq?

This is the sort of propaganda s/he means. Smallpox is now only found in the labs of a few countries. It would be very hard for terrorists to get it from Iraq considering they have none.

it has been proven that Iraq has missles that can hit isreal. iraq has several thousand gallons of anthrax as they have had since the early ninties. Do you think, and i know that this is really hard for someone from minnesota to understand, that Saddam will hesitate to use these weapons against isreal. I think not. you have your crazed leaders mixed up here. The enemy is not bush, thats right not, but it is Saddam.If you dont like the way that Bush is running this country move to your beloved Iraq.


North Korea has missiles that can reach Japan (it's tested them in the past). And now its openly pushing it's nuclear weapons program into the faces of the Americans. This may be an attention seeking effort by a country on the verge of disater or a very real threat. Isn't it a little disproportionate to target one country, that claims innocence and has been co-operating with the UN, with the threat of war and to ignore another thats actually boasting about being a threat?

[Rennie]

Did anyone just watch that documentary on Iraq on BBC2 tonight 7 till 8? I think the show was called 'correspondance'. I thought it was really good, and provided one of the least bias views on Iraq so far.

[Emma]

[s]Oddball wrote on 17:12, 23rd Feb 2003:
If Bush were truly waging war on Islam he would have invaded Saudi Arabia, the main spiritual home of Islam.

If Bush were truly waging war on terrorism he would attack Saudi Arabia. It's where most of the people responsible for 9/11 came from, including Bin Laden, and has an appalling human rights record (schoolgirls burned to death because they weren't wearing their hijabs when leaving the building, and were therefore not allowed out, anyone remember that?). It's also got a completely undemocratic feudalistic monarchy, who happily sell Bush oil. Hmmm.

At present American operations are limited to 'advising' and training, not actively seeking combat. This might change, but given the habit of the local terrorists to target American citizens, such a program is a reasonable response.

Where have we heard this one before? Afghanistan, for one. Chile. Nicaragua. Iraq. There have been repressive dictatorships all over the world (and I'm not saying the Phillippines is one) whose troops have been trained in torture and combat by the USA. The muhajedins are one example. The School of the Americas has changed its name, but I see it's still dealing in teaching terror tactics to those the USA want in charge. Those attacks on American citizens are fairly common in most Arab countries, too.

The issue of being 'Unpatriotic' is an unfortunate one, but there is some logic to rallying around your leader in a time of difficulties, rather than whining and complaining about him.

I'm sorry, but I was always taught that dissent is one of the most patriotic activities in America. America's right to free speech is one of the things it always accuses terrorists of wanting to take away. But the Bush administration filed a brief to New York city council reccomending strongly that they refuse a permit for a march through the city. I'm not even going to go into the proposals for powers to secretly arrest and indefinitely detain anyone accused of terrorism offences, nor the continued detainment of the "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay. The terrorist scare me, sure, but John Ashcroft's hatchet job to the Constitution scares me too.

I can see why you might be defensive about living in Minesota

Yes, after all, it must hurt to live in a state with a name that people can't spell.

[hr]
'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'

Edited to remove excessive 'Hmmm's

[cberry]

RRankin,

North Korea and Iraq are hardly comparable. North Korea already has the means to launch Nuclear weapons at South Korea, Japan, and parts of the United States. Additionally, it has an army of one million soldiers and thousands of artillery pieces within range of Seoul, a city of over 12 million people. War with North Korea could be a humanitarian catastrophe, and is thus not an option. Additionally, the government of North Korea is weak and highly dependant on foreign aid, making diplomacy entirely possible. It is true that North Korea is a threat, especially since it sells weapons technology to any bidder. There is enough civil unrest within the country to foresee a collapse of the government, something that we all must hope for.

Iraq’s military poses less of threat. Though it has chemical and biological weapons, it will have difficulty delivering them. Israeli and American air defenses as well as targeting of SCUD missiles by the Air Force can realistically prevent weapons of mass destruction from reaching cities outside of Iraq. Furthermore, the Iraqi army is weak and shows signs of defecting in presence of American and British forces. This is not to say Saddam is weak and feeble and therefore should not be removed. Saddam destabilizes the mid-East and supports terrorism. He is actively working towards nuclear capabilities and more effective means to deliver his weapons. North Korea and Iraq are run by terrible regimes that need to be removed. The difference between the two lies in the ability of the western militaries to remove them.

[RRankin]

I didn't say they should go to war with North Korea, I said they should get a sense of proportion. Iraq is no threat to anybody, or if it is a threat then only to Israel. Why are we spending so much time worrying about a very poor regime from which we have no proof of imminent danger when we have another regime openly developing much more powerful weapons and threatening other countrys? The US and UK have spent alot of time (and money - it costs alot just to have the armed forces in the gulf) over Iraq, yet we have no tenable proof of an impending problem. The US and the UK rushed into this mess without looking where they were going, and now they have to go to war just to save Bush and Blair's political faces. I don't believe this rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction when the US and UK can show us no convincing proof, despite having several of the worlds best intelligence agencies working for them. Where is the smoking gun in Iraq?

We can't even show that a post saddam iraq will be any better. We should learn from our mistakes and stop interfering in the business of other countries because we always leave things 10 times worse.

[Oddball]

[s]Unregisted User Durham Bloke wrote on 00:26, 23rd Feb 2003:
Forgive me but a friend of mine has just asked the question that must be at the front of all our minds,

"Don't the French notice that they are being bad??"


Fair point.


The fact that Chirac was willing to invite Mugabe (that well known fan of Human rights) into France, whilst at the same time be critical of other countries on moral grounds suggests they have no comprehension of their own badness. It is strange how they feel the EU travel ban does not apply to evil visitors to France.

[Carrie MN]

The issue of being 'Unpatriotic' is an unfortunate one, but there is some logic to rallying around your leader in a time of difficulties, rather than whining and complaining about him.

I'm sorry, but I was always taught that dissent is one of the most patriotic activities in America. America's right to free speech is one of the things it always accuses terrorists of wanting to take away. But the Bush administration filed a brief to New York city council reccomending strongly that they refuse a permit for a march through the city. I'm not even going to go into the proposals for powers to secretly arrest and indefinitely detain anyone accused of terrorism offences, nor the continued detainment of the "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay. The terrorist scare me, sure, but John Ashcroft's hatchet job to the Constitution scares me too.

I can see why you might be defensive about living in Minesota

Yes, after all, it must hurt to live in a state with a name that people can't spell.

Thank you Oddball, for seeing my point. Our right to disagree with the president's actions is the cornerstone of our country, and this is why I think Bush is the most dangerous leader since, well, his father. Ihave the unalienable right to say whatever the hell I want about how crappy a job Bush has done to this country, but don't tell him I'm saying this - he'll probably have me arrested for supporting terrorism! WHICH I DON'T! You're right about him restricting any kind of peaceable demonstrations against war - chew on this: First Lady Laura Bush was scheduled to speak at a poetic reading, and when she heard that some 85,000 poets signed a petition, she backed out of the event. SHE WASN'T EVEN WILLING TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY! Bush has completely ignored the American public's desire not to kill millions of innocent Iraqis.
P.S. Thanks, I know the truly ignorant people cannot spell "MINNESOTA" - just like it sounds people. And home of the most intelligent, beautiful, thought provoking Americans in the country!

[Guest]

After Saddam’s invasion into Kuwait was spoiled, Saddam signed a peace treaty, which involved his commitment to disarming weapons, which included weapons of mass destruction. In 1996 he felt that that he could break this treaty and kick out inspectors. The problem that the UN and world faces now is that he continually defies that treaty and everyone the UN presents him. He has continued to play a cat and mouse game with the UN, which as time goes on is only going to make the UN look like it can’t enforce anything.

Saddam isn’t a moron; he learned after the gulf war, that he needed to hide his weapons program. The fact of the matter is 200-300 inspectors looking for weapons in a country that is the size of France, or the US state of Texas is a pretty hard task to accomplish. The few weapons that Hans Blix teams have found and asked to be destroyed still haven’t been. Furthermore, there are thousands of vials of toxic agents and equipment that are unaccounted for. We are now going on over 8 months of disarmament agreements and talks with Saddam’s regime. His deadlines have been pushed back numerous times. So when do all these doctrines, agreements, blah blah that were signed get enforced? What is the point of having them if they aren’t?

I full heartedly agree that a peaceful resolution should be tried before anything else. But it’s getting to that time where enough is enough. It’s been over 8 months and Saddam hasn’t made any spectacular movements to disarm. The stop or I’ll say stop again approach the UN is taking is just not working with Saddam’s thickheaded regime. To make matters worse this whole Anti-war movement is doing nothing but strengthening Saddam’s defiance on disarming. Most of them are anti-bush or anti-US instead of what they should be. Where are the signs or chants “SADDAM, DISARM FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE”, or “DISARM FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR PEOPLE!”. Because lets look at the dotted line…. If he did, THIS WHOLE WAR WOULD BE AVOIDED!!!!

[Cattet]

That's a good way to think about it...perhaps the antiwar campaign would better be posed to Saddam instead. Although it could very well be that the protesters know he'd never disarm on his own, and figure it's a waste of time.

Iraq is the size of California, not Texas.

[Emma]

Thank you Oddball, for seeing my point.


Erm, those were my points. But never mind.

[hr]
'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'

[Oddball]

[s]Emma wrote on 16:12, 25th Feb 2003:
[i]
Thank you Oddball, for seeing my point.


Erm, those were my points. But never mind.

[hr]
'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'
[/i]

It was nice taking the credit.

[lnschrader]

Remember, before Sept. 11th, we all hated that Bush was in office, he didn't even win the election.

Speak for yourself, I voted for Bush and was extremely thankful we didn’t have Al Gore running the country. Can you even imagine what his response to Sept. 11th would have been? He would have invited Osama Bin Laden to go hug trees or something.
As for trying to compare the situations of Iraq and N. Korea, you are looking at two totally deferent things, and the ways of dealing with those two countries will have to vary. The international community has given Iraq plenty of time to cooperate, and he hasn’t. He is making everyone look extremely stupid. To actually believe that he is going to cooperate is naïve; he is just playing with everyone. And if your not worried about smallpox and other things of the sort, maybe you should worry about the VX poison gas he has yet to account for, for it is pretty nasty stuff. Bush will go to war, he made up his mind a while ago on that. Unfortunately, when that does happen, chemical weapons are likely to be used. There will be the proof, used on our soldiers.

[RRankin]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 23:55, 24th Feb 2003:
Saddam isn’t a moron; he learned after the gulf war, that he needed to hide his weapons program. The fact of the matter is 200-300 inspectors looking for weapons in a country that is the size of France, or the US state of Texas is a pretty hard task to accomplish. The few weapons that Hans Blix teams have found and asked to be destroyed still haven’t been. Furthermore, there are thousands of vials of toxic agents and equipment that are unaccounted for. We are now going on over 8 months of disarmament agreements and talks with Saddam’s regime. His deadlines have been pushed back numerous times. So when do all these doctrines, agreements, blah blah that were signed get enforced? What is the point of having them if they aren’t?


The US has Iraq under 24hr satallite surveillance. There are numerous sanctions and trade embargos againts his country. The Iraqi economy is near non-existant. How and where do you think Saddam has got the resources to rearm and pose a significant threat to anyone? He does export oil illegally but no one has proven he has managed to get any real weapons, or that he has weapons of mass destruction. The onous seems to be on iraq to prove they HAVEN'T got any weapons, instead of on america to prove they HAVE. Why should we go to war with a country when we have no proof what so ever? Thats a terrible reason for war, and a terrible and very dangerous precedent to set.

[Jeff]

I have to agree that I think that Bush has twisted the september 11th tradgedy as a case for war. There were terrorists before september 11th, and there will continue to be terrorist attacks after an iraqi war. Terrorism and Iraq are completely different issues, and the media and the government should be treating them as such. I can't stand the continual chirping of "War on Terror" as a valid reason for attacking Iraq.

[GeorgeBushSupporter]

Saddam needs to be removed without a doubt. Anyone who kills his own people the way he does is not a sane individual. He used biological weapons on thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. He kills anyone that speaks against his motives and his regime.

For you people against the war, why don't you go to Iraq for one day and see just how good you all have it. Iraqi's are praying for the removal of Saddam, day in and day out. Yet, they can't publicly say it. Ever wonder why Saddam got 100% of the votes in the last election in Iraq? Because anyone who didn't vote for him would be executed.

Saddam obviously has his dreams of dominating the entire Arab world. He tried to invade Iran. He tried to invade Kuwait. When will you tree huggers wake up and see the real world for how it is?

[Carrie MN]

[s]Jeff wrote on 17:57, 25th Feb 2003:
I have to agree that I think that Bush has twisted the september 11th tradgedy as a case for war. There were terrorists before september 11th, and there will continue to be terrorist attacks after an iraqi war. Terrorism and Iraq are completely different issues, and the media and the government should be treating them as such. I can't stand the continual chirping of "War on Terror" as a valid reason for attacking Iraq.




Exactly! Where was all the support for war when all the poorer, less politically powerful countries were getting attacked every day? And wasn't it a man named bin Laden who attacked us? Where is all that "wanted dead or alive" rhetoric now? Bush has conveniently shifted the blame to an easier target so as to deflect the fact that he has FAILED to capture bin Laden. Don't get me wrong, Saddam is an evil man, and I was scared out of my mind on Sept. 11th, I couldn't go to school or reach my family. But it does reflect on us as hypocrites to use 9/11 as reason for ANY ACTION BUSH PLEASES.