I don't know much about international law, but couldn't saddam be removed without going to war? Couldn't he be tried for human rights attrocities? They have the evidence, which is more than can be said for the current war, it would remove him from power, and quite likely a number of his cronies, and it would mean that innocent civilian lives wouldn't be lost. The resulting govenment might not be quite to western liking, but the UN would be able to oversee the installation of a new government, and it would be less heavy-handed and I think would give the Iraqi people more influence on where they want their country to go. I think it would be seen to more people as a justifiable removal from power under international law, unlike this current situation wich has divided the world.
Don't yell at me if it's not possible, it was just a thought, but I would appeciate it if someone who knows could tell me if it was feasible.
Home
TheSinner.net
War With Iraq
Re:
by Cattet on Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:20 am
RRankin, you seem not to be paying attention to the fact that Saddam is sitting on major oil--he is not poor. His people are. He has more than 100 palaces and the country is being filled, as quickly as he can do it, with propagandist statues and murals of himself. He is dripping with the money he takes from France and everybody else who buys oil from him. The Iraqi economy is wrecked because of him, not because of sanctions or anything else. If he cared about his people, he wouldn't be a tyrannical dictator or a killer of his own people.
Can't remember who it was who was decrying the fact that the US has (according to that person) dumped Afghanistan, but I think those facts are not correct,either. The US has spent over $840 million since everything started in 2001, still has troops there, has its first ambassador in 20 years there, and has committed not only to helping create their new democratic government, but to be there to shore it up for at least the next five years. Kabul is full of aid agencies and people selling their wares, and rebuilding is everywhere.
I'm still not advocating US leading a war, but I do think that people ought to get both sides of the story. The US needs to be the force behind the guys who take Saddam out from his own country. But lest everyone say the US wants to leave the same government in power, those facts need to be checked, too.
Can't remember who it was who was decrying the fact that the US has (according to that person) dumped Afghanistan, but I think those facts are not correct,either. The US has spent over $840 million since everything started in 2001, still has troops there, has its first ambassador in 20 years there, and has committed not only to helping create their new democratic government, but to be there to shore it up for at least the next five years. Kabul is full of aid agencies and people selling their wares, and rebuilding is everywhere.
I'm still not advocating US leading a war, but I do think that people ought to get both sides of the story. The US needs to be the force behind the guys who take Saddam out from his own country. But lest everyone say the US wants to leave the same government in power, those facts need to be checked, too.
-
Cattet
I agree..... I agree to removing Saddam's regime
by Guest on Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:22 am
Rrankin,
Last I checked these satellites didn’t have the capabilities to penetrate the ground. I say again, Saddam isn’t stupid; do you actually think he would produce these weapons above ground where the whole world could see them? He’s had plenty of time to build his underground facilities. Not until recently were inspectors even allowed onto his most private palace grounds that encompass thousands of miles. 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 “California” is a pretty hard task to accomplish.
As for the economy, the only people that are suffering from these sanctions are the Iraqi citizens, and do you think Saddam cares? Don’t think for a second that any money from the relief funds and limited exports the sanctions allow benefit his people, it goes to Saddam’s regime. Not to mention the oil profits he makes smuggling through the north.
And what proof are you talking about? The thousands of vials of toxic agents that are so conveniently missing, the nuclear grade plutonium that he had been trying to acquire on the black market, or the rockets the weapons inspectors currently found and Saddam refuses to destroy? Don’t you see the big picture here? Saddam is a very violent man, with an extremely brutal past. While he has been in power he’s invaded two neighboring countries, gassed thousands of his own people, not to mention eliminated any political threats he might of had. He has gone as far as having his rival opponents wives raped in front of them and their beards lit on fire. So when his regime comes out and says “we don’t have any weapons of mass destruction or any facilities producing them” I FIND IT EXTREMELY HARD TO BELIEVE and you should too. Furthermore, whether you agree with it or not, our governments will always have more information that they ever care to divulge to the public.
Carrie,
Last I checked the twin towers didn’t reside in these “less politically powerful countries”. And prior to 9/11 when was the last attack against the US? The last one I can think of was Pearl Harbor, didn’t we enter a war then too? Insinuating that Bush is putting pressure on Iraq so that everyone forgets about Bin Laden is the most ridiculous comment I’ve seen on this thread. Don’t you think finding one man in a huge country like Afghanistan may be rather difficult? Don’t forget, one of the biggest reasons for invading Afghanistan was to eliminate the terrorist training facilities and prevent them from having safe haven in the country.
So what’s your plan Carrie? How should this be resolved? Are we to wish this “evil man” Saddam away and magically are problems are solved? Should we press more resolutions so Saddam can break and brush them off? Or is it more inspectors, so we can find more weapons that he refuses to destroy?
I believed in a peaceful solution 8 months ago, 4 months ago, even up to 2 months ago. But it’s been over 8 months and Saddam hasn’t made any spectacular movements to disarm. Playtime is over; Saddam obviously doesn’t want a peaceful resolution. So go complain to him if you don’t want war, don’t blame this on your own President!
Last I checked these satellites didn’t have the capabilities to penetrate the ground. I say again, Saddam isn’t stupid; do you actually think he would produce these weapons above ground where the whole world could see them? He’s had plenty of time to build his underground facilities. Not until recently were inspectors even allowed onto his most private palace grounds that encompass thousands of miles. 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 “California” is a pretty hard task to accomplish.
As for the economy, the only people that are suffering from these sanctions are the Iraqi citizens, and do you think Saddam cares? Don’t think for a second that any money from the relief funds and limited exports the sanctions allow benefit his people, it goes to Saddam’s regime. Not to mention the oil profits he makes smuggling through the north.
And what proof are you talking about? The thousands of vials of toxic agents that are so conveniently missing, the nuclear grade plutonium that he had been trying to acquire on the black market, or the rockets the weapons inspectors currently found and Saddam refuses to destroy? Don’t you see the big picture here? Saddam is a very violent man, with an extremely brutal past. While he has been in power he’s invaded two neighboring countries, gassed thousands of his own people, not to mention eliminated any political threats he might of had. He has gone as far as having his rival opponents wives raped in front of them and their beards lit on fire. So when his regime comes out and says “we don’t have any weapons of mass destruction or any facilities producing them” I FIND IT EXTREMELY HARD TO BELIEVE and you should too. Furthermore, whether you agree with it or not, our governments will always have more information that they ever care to divulge to the public.
Carrie,
Last I checked the twin towers didn’t reside in these “less politically powerful countries”. And prior to 9/11 when was the last attack against the US? The last one I can think of was Pearl Harbor, didn’t we enter a war then too? Insinuating that Bush is putting pressure on Iraq so that everyone forgets about Bin Laden is the most ridiculous comment I’ve seen on this thread. Don’t you think finding one man in a huge country like Afghanistan may be rather difficult? Don’t forget, one of the biggest reasons for invading Afghanistan was to eliminate the terrorist training facilities and prevent them from having safe haven in the country.
So what’s your plan Carrie? How should this be resolved? Are we to wish this “evil man” Saddam away and magically are problems are solved? Should we press more resolutions so Saddam can break and brush them off? Or is it more inspectors, so we can find more weapons that he refuses to destroy?
I believed in a peaceful solution 8 months ago, 4 months ago, even up to 2 months ago. But it’s been over 8 months and Saddam hasn’t made any spectacular movements to disarm. Playtime is over; Saddam obviously doesn’t want a peaceful resolution. So go complain to him if you don’t want war, don’t blame this on your own President!
-
Guest
Re:
by Jeff on Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:55 pm
Sorry about the length of this folks, but I thought it illustrated a point. It's not all of the article, the rest can be found at http://www.factsofisrael.com/load.php?p ... 00367.html
"Death to America
by Daniel Pipes, New York Post, September 8, 2002
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/460
America's war on terrorism did not begin in September 2001. It began in November 1979.
That was shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, riding the slogan "Death to America" - and sure enough, the attacks on Americans soon began. In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, making them the first of militant Islam's many American casualties. Others included:
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:
July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.
August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.
September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.
February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.
In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 - more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War. (Further, this listing does not include the dozens more Americans in Israel killed by militant Islamic terrorists.)"
It is obvious that there have been a number of terrorist attacks on americans, namely in foreign countries, but also on american soil. And lets fact it, Pearl Harbour wasn't in america either. It's true that there has not been an attack of September 11th size before, but I also don't think that the terrorists really expected the towers to fall down, though they might have hoped they would.
"Death to America
by Daniel Pipes, New York Post, September 8, 2002
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/460
America's war on terrorism did not begin in September 2001. It began in November 1979.
That was shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, riding the slogan "Death to America" - and sure enough, the attacks on Americans soon began. In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, making them the first of militant Islam's many American casualties. Others included:
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:
July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.
August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.
September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.
February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.
In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 - more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War. (Further, this listing does not include the dozens more Americans in Israel killed by militant Islamic terrorists.)"
It is obvious that there have been a number of terrorist attacks on americans, namely in foreign countries, but also on american soil. And lets fact it, Pearl Harbour wasn't in america either. It's true that there has not been an attack of September 11th size before, but I also don't think that the terrorists really expected the towers to fall down, though they might have hoped they would.
-
Jeff
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:57 pm
You just proved my point
by Carrie MN on Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:12 pm
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 02:07, 26th Feb 2003:
Carrie,
Last I checked the twin towers didn’t reside in these “less politically powerful countries”. And prior to 9/11 when was the last attack against the US? The last one I can think of was Pearl Harbor, didn’t we enter a war then too? Insinuating that Bush is putting pressure on Iraq so that everyone forgets about Bin Laden is the most ridiculous comment I’ve seen on this thread. Don’t you think finding one man in a huge country like Afghanistan may be rather difficult? Don’t forget, one of the biggest reasons for invading Afghanistan was to eliminate the terrorist training facilities and prevent them from having safe haven in the country.
So what’s your plan Carrie? How should this be resolved? Are we to wish this “evil man” Saddam away and magically are problems are solved? Should we press more resolutions so Saddam can break and brush them off? Or is it more inspectors, so we can find more weapons that he refuses to destroy?
I believed in a peaceful solution 8 months ago, 4 months ago, even up to 2 months ago. But it’s been over 8 months and Saddam hasn’t made any spectacular movements to disarm. Playtime is over; Saddam obviously doesn’t want a peaceful resolution. So go complain to him if you don’t want war, don’t blame this on your own President!
Thanks for just proving my point. I'm not trying to be condescending or trite here, but anyone who disgrees with war is seen as small minded or ignorant. I totally agree that something needs to happen, but nothing you say will make me agree with the slaughter of millions of innocents! Any man can start a war. It takes an exceptionally special man to use peaceful resolutions. That's all I have to say, but I do want to say thanks to your country for being supportive of us, even though it's for something I disagree with.
Carrie
Carrie,
Last I checked the twin towers didn’t reside in these “less politically powerful countries”. And prior to 9/11 when was the last attack against the US? The last one I can think of was Pearl Harbor, didn’t we enter a war then too? Insinuating that Bush is putting pressure on Iraq so that everyone forgets about Bin Laden is the most ridiculous comment I’ve seen on this thread. Don’t you think finding one man in a huge country like Afghanistan may be rather difficult? Don’t forget, one of the biggest reasons for invading Afghanistan was to eliminate the terrorist training facilities and prevent them from having safe haven in the country.
So what’s your plan Carrie? How should this be resolved? Are we to wish this “evil man” Saddam away and magically are problems are solved? Should we press more resolutions so Saddam can break and brush them off? Or is it more inspectors, so we can find more weapons that he refuses to destroy?
I believed in a peaceful solution 8 months ago, 4 months ago, even up to 2 months ago. But it’s been over 8 months and Saddam hasn’t made any spectacular movements to disarm. Playtime is over; Saddam obviously doesn’t want a peaceful resolution. So go complain to him if you don’t want war, don’t blame this on your own President!
Thanks for just proving my point. I'm not trying to be condescending or trite here, but anyone who disgrees with war is seen as small minded or ignorant. I totally agree that something needs to happen, but nothing you say will make me agree with the slaughter of millions of innocents! Any man can start a war. It takes an exceptionally special man to use peaceful resolutions. That's all I have to say, but I do want to say thanks to your country for being supportive of us, even though it's for something I disagree with.
Carrie
-
Carrie MN
Re:
by devolved_kmbkr on Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:30 pm
Bush didn't win the election. Full stop. Osama Bin Laden hugging trees with Al? Get real. You seem to have the most warped view of your own country, and the quintessential American attitude of "I'm better than everyone else so you can all shut up" - gives Americans (and Canadians whose accents aren't different enough) a bad name abroad. I'll agree, there wasn't really a choice between Gore and Bush (although the lesser of the two evils was obviously Al), but to go on some facist rant about how Bush reacted well to the 9/11 attacks is ludicrous. War distracts all those Yanks at home from realising that Bush has no real foreign policy (with the exception of nuking anything he doesn't like), no real economic policy (yes, I watched the State of the Union live and still think he was talking through his arse), and no real social programs. Some president. Bush will go to war, but only to finish what his daddy started, and only because he doesn't really have a presidential legacy. The real reason the attacks on America happened is the exact reason that you continue to rant about how good the US is. Maybe I'm cynical because I grew up within 100 miles of you guys (as did 96% of the population), or maybe it's because I don't believe all this pro-American rhetoric that the people in the States are so quick to lap up as truth.
Saddam should be stopped, but you guys have had over a decade to do it. Don't you think it's time to try a new method?
Saddam should be stopped, but you guys have had over a decade to do it. Don't you think it's time to try a new method?
-
devolved_kmbkr
Re:
by devolved_kmbkr on Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:31 pm
The "dead or alive" BS is out the window, as is any foreign policy that makes any sense. Saddam doesn't appear to have anything to do with Bin Laden (although please correct me if I'm wrong), and the Al Samoud 2 missiles if you care to check are well within the range set out by 1441. It's a classic Salem witch hunt, only instead of Salem we have Baghdad, and instead of religious grounds we have someone pretending it's on religious grounds when in fact it's just an excuse to send someone else's kids to kill and get killed. All the US is doing is painting itself to be a nation of hypocrites, liars and neo-patriots.
-
devolved_kmbkr
Re:
by Dee on Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:01 pm
Has anyone on this thread suggested any alternative solution to the problem of Saddam? I've looked through it and can't find one.
It seems to be some sort of article of faith with the anti-war movement that there has to be another way.
Can I ask the question - what if you're wrong? What if there is no other way? What if this is the only way to topple Saddam?
Because if you're wrong, you're condemning Iraq to Saddam's oppressive regime for God knows how many years, to be followed by his son's rule - which I suspect will make Saddam's look like a picnic. You're condemning neighbouring countries to invasions by his regime, and that's before we even consider the WMD, which we know he has from previous inspections.
For myself, there is no excuse for covering our eyes so we don't see the Kurdish massacres; the widespread disapperances, oppression, imprisonment, murder, torture, and rape that the Iraqi people are subjected to.
Also, it seems from what I've read that a major reason for being against the war is not wanting to be on the same side as Gee Dubya, or admit America might, on occasion, do the right thing. Regardless of your feelings on America, and its past misdeeds, this is not an admirable reason to deny the Iraqi people the chance to be free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
You don't have to like right wing politics to support this war. You don't need to "sell your soul", and vote Conservative/Republican. By all means write letters stressing your quite reasonable humanitarian concerns - expressing your desire that the liberation of Iraq should be conducted in as humane a manner as possible with minimal loss of human life.
Lord knows this is what a respectable political left-wing would have been doing for the past few months.
Lastly, on the matter of WMD, just so you know, the primary exporters of weapons to Iraq have been Russia, and (everyone's favourite candid friend) France.
That the US and UK armed him in the past as well is atrocious I do not deny it. But the fact that we served to create the problem, does not remove the need for someone else to solve it. Quite to the contrary - it seems to me to double the moral imperative on us to solve the problem.
[hr]"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
It seems to be some sort of article of faith with the anti-war movement that there has to be another way.
Can I ask the question - what if you're wrong? What if there is no other way? What if this is the only way to topple Saddam?
Because if you're wrong, you're condemning Iraq to Saddam's oppressive regime for God knows how many years, to be followed by his son's rule - which I suspect will make Saddam's look like a picnic. You're condemning neighbouring countries to invasions by his regime, and that's before we even consider the WMD, which we know he has from previous inspections.
For myself, there is no excuse for covering our eyes so we don't see the Kurdish massacres; the widespread disapperances, oppression, imprisonment, murder, torture, and rape that the Iraqi people are subjected to.
Also, it seems from what I've read that a major reason for being against the war is not wanting to be on the same side as Gee Dubya, or admit America might, on occasion, do the right thing. Regardless of your feelings on America, and its past misdeeds, this is not an admirable reason to deny the Iraqi people the chance to be free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
You don't have to like right wing politics to support this war. You don't need to "sell your soul", and vote Conservative/Republican. By all means write letters stressing your quite reasonable humanitarian concerns - expressing your desire that the liberation of Iraq should be conducted in as humane a manner as possible with minimal loss of human life.
Lord knows this is what a respectable political left-wing would have been doing for the past few months.
Lastly, on the matter of WMD, just so you know, the primary exporters of weapons to Iraq have been Russia, and (everyone's favourite candid friend) France.
That the US and UK armed him in the past as well is atrocious I do not deny it. But the fact that we served to create the problem, does not remove the need for someone else to solve it. Quite to the contrary - it seems to me to double the moral imperative on us to solve the problem.
[hr]"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
I probably don't like you, but don't take it personally. Nobody likes you.
-
Dee
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 5:32 pm
Bananas v. Oil
by Guest on Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:49 pm
You are completely missing the fact that the world was already at war when Pearl Harbor happened. And, it took the US that much time to actually get involved in the war - as long as things don't concern them, they're fine with it. Let's see...the former president of Zaire (now the Dem Rep of Congo) was amassing arms to create a crater the size of Kenya, but since the US had no vested interest (they can get their bananas and grain elsewhere) in the DRC, nothing was done about it. Civil war still rages on. But because we don't need bananas as much as we need oil, Bush, Clinton and Bush just forgot about it. So what if a few million Congolese die because of an oppressive leader? Doesn't matter, 'cause they ain't got no oil, and the US can get their bananas from Puerto Rico - that'll do 'em just fine. Let's remember what this war is really about. Control of a precious commodity, not saving the lives of Kurds who have been starving. The US could find Bin Laden in a heartbeat, just like they could've found Pol Pot - doesn't it make it a lot easier to hate someone who's there? Where would Kennedy have been without Kruschev? Where would Churchill and Chamberlain have been without Hitler? Because of the existence of the enemy, it's easier to rally public support, not that they really did much to find Pol Pot, but again, who wants bananas over oil?
It seems to be you that is making the ridiculous comments. War isn't necessary - call me a hippie or a liberal - but the UN (if the US would finally start paying) is able and willing to do something about it, only the US has veto power, and UNHQ is on the East river...think about how ridiculous it is to bomb innocent civilians. Hey - if the tables were turned and say, Canada didn't like Tony Blair because he had nukes in the Northwest Territories, would you be so gung-ho for the Canadians (who don't really have an army/air force, but this is pretend) to bomb Aberdeen, Cardiff, Bournemouth or Scarborough? Tell you what - you get your nukes off Canadian territory (the US too), and then we'll talk. But for now, leave the name calling to someone who understands that peace is a viable option - I don't see people going after Bush for his 3 trillion nuclear missles.
It seems to be you that is making the ridiculous comments. War isn't necessary - call me a hippie or a liberal - but the UN (if the US would finally start paying) is able and willing to do something about it, only the US has veto power, and UNHQ is on the East river...think about how ridiculous it is to bomb innocent civilians. Hey - if the tables were turned and say, Canada didn't like Tony Blair because he had nukes in the Northwest Territories, would you be so gung-ho for the Canadians (who don't really have an army/air force, but this is pretend) to bomb Aberdeen, Cardiff, Bournemouth or Scarborough? Tell you what - you get your nukes off Canadian territory (the US too), and then we'll talk. But for now, leave the name calling to someone who understands that peace is a viable option - I don't see people going after Bush for his 3 trillion nuclear missles.
-
Guest
Re:
by Guest on Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:50 pm
[s]Jeff wrote on 01:02, 26th Feb 2003:
I don't know much about international law, but couldn't saddam be removed without going to war? Couldn't he be tried for human rights attrocities? They have the evidence, which is more than can be said for the current war, it would remove him from power, and quite likely a number of his cronies, and it would mean that innocent civilian lives wouldn't be lost.
and how exactly do you propose to arrest him for his crimes?
I don't know much about international law, but couldn't saddam be removed without going to war? Couldn't he be tried for human rights attrocities? They have the evidence, which is more than can be said for the current war, it would remove him from power, and quite likely a number of his cronies, and it would mean that innocent civilian lives wouldn't be lost.
and how exactly do you propose to arrest him for his crimes?
-
Guest
Re:
by lnschrader on Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:52 pm
[s]Unregisted User devolved_kmbkr wrote on 15:25, 26th Feb 2003:
Bush didn't win the election. Full stop. Osama Bin Laden hugging trees with Al? Get real. You seem to have the most warped view of your own country, and the quintessential American attitude of "I'm better than everyone else so you can all shut up" - gives Americans (and Canadians whose accents aren't different enough) a bad name abroad. I'll agree, there wasn't really a choice between Gore and Bush (although the lesser of the two evils was obviously Al), but to go on some facist rant about how Bush reacted well to the 9/11 attacks is ludicrous. War distracts all those Yanks at home from realising that Bush has no real foreign policy (with the exception of nuking anything he doesn't like), no real economic policy (yes, I watched the State of the Union live and still think he was talking through his arse), and no real social programs. Some president. Bush will go to war, but only to finish what his daddy started, and only because he doesn't really have a presidential legacy. The real reason the attacks on America happened is the exact reason that you continue to rant about how good the US is. Maybe I'm cynical because I grew up within 100 miles of you guys (as did 96% of the population), or maybe it's because I don't believe all this pro-American rhetoric that the people in the States are so quick to lap up as truth.
Saddam should be stopped, but you guys have had over a decade to do it. Don't you think it's time to try a new method?
Sorry but my view is not "warped". Maybe yours is. Sorry but I'm sure it is hard living that close to the US; can't be easy on the ego. Yes we had a decade to get rid of Saddam and diplomacy didn't work, that's why we are trying a diffrent method. You seem to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, and just believe all that is fed to me. What makes you such a political expert? I assume you must be studying politics in school at the moment?
Bush didn't win the election. Full stop. Osama Bin Laden hugging trees with Al? Get real. You seem to have the most warped view of your own country, and the quintessential American attitude of "I'm better than everyone else so you can all shut up" - gives Americans (and Canadians whose accents aren't different enough) a bad name abroad. I'll agree, there wasn't really a choice between Gore and Bush (although the lesser of the two evils was obviously Al), but to go on some facist rant about how Bush reacted well to the 9/11 attacks is ludicrous. War distracts all those Yanks at home from realising that Bush has no real foreign policy (with the exception of nuking anything he doesn't like), no real economic policy (yes, I watched the State of the Union live and still think he was talking through his arse), and no real social programs. Some president. Bush will go to war, but only to finish what his daddy started, and only because he doesn't really have a presidential legacy. The real reason the attacks on America happened is the exact reason that you continue to rant about how good the US is. Maybe I'm cynical because I grew up within 100 miles of you guys (as did 96% of the population), or maybe it's because I don't believe all this pro-American rhetoric that the people in the States are so quick to lap up as truth.
Saddam should be stopped, but you guys have had over a decade to do it. Don't you think it's time to try a new method?
Sorry but my view is not "warped". Maybe yours is. Sorry but I'm sure it is hard living that close to the US; can't be easy on the ego. Yes we had a decade to get rid of Saddam and diplomacy didn't work, that's why we are trying a diffrent method. You seem to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, and just believe all that is fed to me. What makes you such a political expert? I assume you must be studying politics in school at the moment?
-
lnschrader
Explain this to me
by Guest on Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:52 pm
Carrie,
What exactly is your point? I understand you believe war is a horrible thing, no one disagrees with you. But what are we suppose to do about Saddam? You still haven’t given us a solution. Why aren’t you people posting to Iraqi websites asking for a peaceful disarming?
I can respect your point of view, but all the people on the website bashing Bush, the US, Britain etc. have still yet to give us some kind of peaceful solution that will work. We are now going on 8 months of inspections, sanctions, and resolutions Saddam hasn’t made any spectacular movements to disarm.
devolved_kmbkr,
You have made it quite obvious you fall into the Anti-bush/Anti-US not anti-war category. First of all, Religious grounds??? Where are you getting that? This has never been a war against Islam or whatever religion you may be talking about. Secondly, why are you calling this a Witch-hunt lead by the US? The Inspectors are made up from UN nations; furthermore, your knowledge about the Al Samoud missiles is incorrect.
“Earlier this month, an expert panel agreed that the missiles had a range beyond the prescribed 93-mile limit. Blix said the calculations used by Iraq to argue that the missiles do not exceed the allowable range included data "in conflict with well-documented information" about the missile engines.”
But why would we want to listen to the UN inspectors, they are only experts.
This only further displays Saddam’s defiance to the UN.
What exactly is your point? I understand you believe war is a horrible thing, no one disagrees with you. But what are we suppose to do about Saddam? You still haven’t given us a solution. Why aren’t you people posting to Iraqi websites asking for a peaceful disarming?
I can respect your point of view, but all the people on the website bashing Bush, the US, Britain etc. have still yet to give us some kind of peaceful solution that will work. We are now going on 8 months of inspections, sanctions, and resolutions Saddam hasn’t made any spectacular movements to disarm.
devolved_kmbkr,
You have made it quite obvious you fall into the Anti-bush/Anti-US not anti-war category. First of all, Religious grounds??? Where are you getting that? This has never been a war against Islam or whatever religion you may be talking about. Secondly, why are you calling this a Witch-hunt lead by the US? The Inspectors are made up from UN nations; furthermore, your knowledge about the Al Samoud missiles is incorrect.
“Earlier this month, an expert panel agreed that the missiles had a range beyond the prescribed 93-mile limit. Blix said the calculations used by Iraq to argue that the missiles do not exceed the allowable range included data "in conflict with well-documented information" about the missile engines.”
But why would we want to listen to the UN inspectors, they are only experts.
This only further displays Saddam’s defiance to the UN.
-
Guest
The French Solution
by Oddball on Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:53 pm
Chirac, seems to have come up with a delightful solution to the problem. He wishes to prolong the inspections, thus allowing the French and Russians more time for their oil contracts and other sneaky deals. Meanwhile in order to force Saddam to disarm (very slowly of course) he will doubtless encourage Britain and America to keep a huge army on Iraq's borders, at their expense. Thus he wins both ways, trust the French to think of something.
-
Oddball
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Re:
by Jeff on Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:10 pm
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 17:05, 26th Feb 2003:
[s]Jeff wrote on 01:02, 26th Feb 2003:[i]
I don't know much about international law, but couldn't saddam be removed without going to war? Couldn't he be tried for human rights attrocities? They have the evidence, which is more than can be said for the current war, it would remove him from power, and quite likely a number of his cronies, and it would mean that innocent civilian lives wouldn't be lost.
and how exactly do you propose to arrest him for his crimes?
[/i]
Gotta be easier than blowing Iraq to bits, hasn't it though?
[s]Jeff wrote on 01:02, 26th Feb 2003:[i]
I don't know much about international law, but couldn't saddam be removed without going to war? Couldn't he be tried for human rights attrocities? They have the evidence, which is more than can be said for the current war, it would remove him from power, and quite likely a number of his cronies, and it would mean that innocent civilian lives wouldn't be lost.
and how exactly do you propose to arrest him for his crimes?
[/i]
Gotta be easier than blowing Iraq to bits, hasn't it though?
-
Jeff
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:57 pm
Re:
by Oddball on Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:19 pm
[s]Jeff wrote on 18:10, 26th Feb 2003:
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 17:05, 26th Feb 2003:[i]
[s]Jeff wrote on 01:02, 26th Feb 2003:[i]
I don't know much about international law, but couldn't saddam be removed without going to war? Couldn't he be tried for human rights attrocities? They have the evidence, which is more than can be said for the current war, it would remove him from power, and quite likely a number of his cronies, and it would mean that innocent civilian lives wouldn't be lost.
and how exactly do you propose to arrest him for his crimes?
[/i]
Gotta be easier than blowing Iraq to bits, hasn't it though?
[/i]
The problem of how to persuade him and his cronies to attend an international court is still left unresolved. Like the Nazi party, it can only be removed by force. Saddam is unlikely to just step down, and face the music. It is true that some innocent lives will be lost, though I doubt it will be in the millions as some claim. However the cost of merely maintaining the current sanctions is real enough. Infant mortality has risen since 1989, estimates vary wildly as to how many extra deaths this has caused, but it may be over 100,000. What money that does go into Iraq(as part of the 'oil for food' program and smuggling) is not spent upon health or public serives, instead it appears to go into military expenses, or into Saddam's pockets.
I can understand your desire for a more peaceful solution, but force does appear to the only option.
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 17:05, 26th Feb 2003:[i]
[s]Jeff wrote on 01:02, 26th Feb 2003:[i]
I don't know much about international law, but couldn't saddam be removed without going to war? Couldn't he be tried for human rights attrocities? They have the evidence, which is more than can be said for the current war, it would remove him from power, and quite likely a number of his cronies, and it would mean that innocent civilian lives wouldn't be lost.
and how exactly do you propose to arrest him for his crimes?
[/i]
Gotta be easier than blowing Iraq to bits, hasn't it though?
[/i]
The problem of how to persuade him and his cronies to attend an international court is still left unresolved. Like the Nazi party, it can only be removed by force. Saddam is unlikely to just step down, and face the music. It is true that some innocent lives will be lost, though I doubt it will be in the millions as some claim. However the cost of merely maintaining the current sanctions is real enough. Infant mortality has risen since 1989, estimates vary wildly as to how many extra deaths this has caused, but it may be over 100,000. What money that does go into Iraq(as part of the 'oil for food' program and smuggling) is not spent upon health or public serives, instead it appears to go into military expenses, or into Saddam's pockets.
I can understand your desire for a more peaceful solution, but force does appear to the only option.
-
Oddball
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Re:
by RRankin on Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:05 pm
[s]Unregisted User Cattet wrote on 00:34, 26th Feb 2003:
RRankin, you seem not to be paying attention to the fact that Saddam is sitting on major oil--he is not poor. His people are. He has more than 100 palaces and the country is being filled, as quickly as he can do it, with propagandist statues and murals of himself. He is dripping with the money he takes from France and everybody else who buys oil from him. The Iraqi economy is wrecked because of him, not because of sanctions or anything else. If he cared about his people, he wouldn't be a tyrannical dictator or a killer of his own people.
Can't remember who it was who was decrying the fact that the US has (according to that person) dumped Afghanistan, but I think those facts are not correct,either. The US has spent over $840 million since everything started in 2001, still has troops there, has its first ambassador in 20 years there, and has committed not only to helping create their new democratic government, but to be there to shore it up for at least the next five years. Kabul is full of aid agencies and people selling their wares, and rebuilding is everywhere.
I'm still not advocating US leading a war, but I do think that people ought to get both sides of the story. The US needs to be the force behind the guys who take Saddam out from his own country. But lest everyone say the US wants to leave the same government in power, those facts need to be checked, too.
What weapons do you think saddam is spending the money on?? He can't import anything substantial, he was effectively disarmed afterthe first gulf war. Sure he is selling his oil, using the illegal pipelines but I doubt he is getting much for it - he's not allowed to sell his oil so any he sells is likely to be sold well below its market value. Palaces, Statues etc. are much cheaper than Weapons. His palaces etc are built using cheap local materials using cheap local labour. Weapons require harder to obtain materials, expertise and facilities such as factorys. He doesn't have the kind of infrastructure to be able to sustain a large army or to afford to make/buy weapons of any significance. The most possible is some chemical weapons and the missles we know he has but no one has shown he actually has anything more or anything to worry about. We should prove he has, not make him proive he hasn't (Proving he hasn't is basically impossible because you can always say hes "lieing" but proving he has involves conrete indisputable one off proof)
And afghanistan, $840 million? Didn't the US just give Turkey $20,000 million of aid in exchange for allowing the US to use Turkey in a war? If the US had $20 billion spare cash why didn't they spend it on the last regime they destroyed instead of as leverage to help destroy the next?
RRankin, you seem not to be paying attention to the fact that Saddam is sitting on major oil--he is not poor. His people are. He has more than 100 palaces and the country is being filled, as quickly as he can do it, with propagandist statues and murals of himself. He is dripping with the money he takes from France and everybody else who buys oil from him. The Iraqi economy is wrecked because of him, not because of sanctions or anything else. If he cared about his people, he wouldn't be a tyrannical dictator or a killer of his own people.
Can't remember who it was who was decrying the fact that the US has (according to that person) dumped Afghanistan, but I think those facts are not correct,either. The US has spent over $840 million since everything started in 2001, still has troops there, has its first ambassador in 20 years there, and has committed not only to helping create their new democratic government, but to be there to shore it up for at least the next five years. Kabul is full of aid agencies and people selling their wares, and rebuilding is everywhere.
I'm still not advocating US leading a war, but I do think that people ought to get both sides of the story. The US needs to be the force behind the guys who take Saddam out from his own country. But lest everyone say the US wants to leave the same government in power, those facts need to be checked, too.
What weapons do you think saddam is spending the money on?? He can't import anything substantial, he was effectively disarmed afterthe first gulf war. Sure he is selling his oil, using the illegal pipelines but I doubt he is getting much for it - he's not allowed to sell his oil so any he sells is likely to be sold well below its market value. Palaces, Statues etc. are much cheaper than Weapons. His palaces etc are built using cheap local materials using cheap local labour. Weapons require harder to obtain materials, expertise and facilities such as factorys. He doesn't have the kind of infrastructure to be able to sustain a large army or to afford to make/buy weapons of any significance. The most possible is some chemical weapons and the missles we know he has but no one has shown he actually has anything more or anything to worry about. We should prove he has, not make him proive he hasn't (Proving he hasn't is basically impossible because you can always say hes "lieing" but proving he has involves conrete indisputable one off proof)
And afghanistan, $840 million? Didn't the US just give Turkey $20,000 million of aid in exchange for allowing the US to use Turkey in a war? If the US had $20 billion spare cash why didn't they spend it on the last regime they destroyed instead of as leverage to help destroy the next?
-
RRankin
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:50 pm
Re:
by Pilmour Boy on Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:12 pm
RRankin- the SA2 missile engines used in the al-samud missiles were imported illegally after the inspectors left in 1998. Also see my earlier post about bubble gum machines and mobile phones. From the figures I have seen, Iraq is selling oil worth between $2bn and $5bn a year on the black market, mainly through Syria and Turkey.
-
Pilmour Boy
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 4:31 am
Re:
by devolved_kmbkr on Thu Feb 27, 2003 12:18 am
I suppose my intolerance of the Americans comes from growing up next to them, no doubt about it - but the fervor and hype generated after the attacks in the United States, fed by the media (mostly CNN) has led to a warped sense of supremacy. I'm proud not to be an American, although I think that's what all Canadians abroad think of themselves. I'm sure I don't know 2 percent of what is really going on in Iraq, so there's a chance that I could be talking BS, but from what we DO know is that measures taken to rid Saddam from power didn't work. George's strategy of bombing Iraq to smithereens didn't work, and neither will Dubya's. I'm just curious - if we're going after Saddam for the nukes and bioweapons, why can't we ask Bush to disclose the US weapons program? How much nuclear force to THEY have? I'm not condoning Iraq in any way, I just think that the United States is unbelievably hypocritical when it comes to hunting down so-called terrorists. Don't train them in the first place, and don't go around selling arms to them. I profess no expertise on politics, however I feel that my experience on the matter (especially with regards to Iraq) suggests that there shouldn't be a push towards all out war. But I'd love to discuss it with you, and perhaps clear up a few misconceptions you might have regarding the issue.
One of my offbeat solutions to get rid of Saddam? Send in a woman to be one of Saddam's concubines, and let her kill him - it's the most effective way to do it, and it's certainly been done before. But then again, why doesn't the US just use as many bombs as possible and see how many more innocent civilians they can kill. There are other methods - you just have to get control of your lovely second amendment (which is so darned important in everyday life) and itchy trigger fingers.
One of my offbeat solutions to get rid of Saddam? Send in a woman to be one of Saddam's concubines, and let her kill him - it's the most effective way to do it, and it's certainly been done before. But then again, why doesn't the US just use as many bombs as possible and see how many more innocent civilians they can kill. There are other methods - you just have to get control of your lovely second amendment (which is so darned important in everyday life) and itchy trigger fingers.
-
devolved_kmbkr
Re:
by devolved_kmbkr on Thu Feb 27, 2003 12:19 am
I am completely anti-war, I'm sorry it hasn't been made clear to you. And you're completely right, I am very anti-Bush and anti-US policy - fortunately all Americans aren't quite as on board with war as you'd like to think.
Let's think about something else. The UNHQ's location: The US. Veto power: US (among others, I do actually know that). Countries who pay their dues: Not the US. However, the US seems to be able to completely control what goes on in the UN. Hans Blix, sure he's from Sweden, but he hasn't been able to find a twentieth of what the US wants him to find. Irregardless of how many missles they found (I apologise, I had read a different report saying otherwise and it appears that information might have been misleading), can they actually bomb targets anywhere near US soil? But let's think about this - we're supposed to sit back while the US puts missles in other countries aimed at Iraq (among other countries)? I sure don't feel very comfortable that there are nuclear missles belonging to the United States in my country, and I'd feel pretty pissed off if they started using them. Perhaps it's a case of big brother/little brother sibling rivalries, but if the US can have missles of complete and utter mass destruction, why is it so wrong for Iraq to have them? And yes, Iraq is just as predisposed to using them as the United States is.
As far as a crusade against Islam, it is perhaps going a bit over the top. However, it seems like because people who believe in something other than the Southern Baptist Bible Belt teachings, they are immediately wrong. And to a certain extent, the US has led a crusade to soften up the edges of Islam and get the hard liners kicked out. There's a great article in last month's New York Times magazine (either the end of Jan or beginning of Feb, trying to find it again online but can't) if you care to look.
Finally, the UN inspectors may be experts, but they're certainly not turning up the huge masses of chem/bio weapons that Dubya keeps on about. I don't think that Dubya's daddy could stop Saddam, so why could Dubya? Or are we just going to get all annoyed and push the button?
Let's think about something else. The UNHQ's location: The US. Veto power: US (among others, I do actually know that). Countries who pay their dues: Not the US. However, the US seems to be able to completely control what goes on in the UN. Hans Blix, sure he's from Sweden, but he hasn't been able to find a twentieth of what the US wants him to find. Irregardless of how many missles they found (I apologise, I had read a different report saying otherwise and it appears that information might have been misleading), can they actually bomb targets anywhere near US soil? But let's think about this - we're supposed to sit back while the US puts missles in other countries aimed at Iraq (among other countries)? I sure don't feel very comfortable that there are nuclear missles belonging to the United States in my country, and I'd feel pretty pissed off if they started using them. Perhaps it's a case of big brother/little brother sibling rivalries, but if the US can have missles of complete and utter mass destruction, why is it so wrong for Iraq to have them? And yes, Iraq is just as predisposed to using them as the United States is.
As far as a crusade against Islam, it is perhaps going a bit over the top. However, it seems like because people who believe in something other than the Southern Baptist Bible Belt teachings, they are immediately wrong. And to a certain extent, the US has led a crusade to soften up the edges of Islam and get the hard liners kicked out. There's a great article in last month's New York Times magazine (either the end of Jan or beginning of Feb, trying to find it again online but can't) if you care to look.
Finally, the UN inspectors may be experts, but they're certainly not turning up the huge masses of chem/bio weapons that Dubya keeps on about. I don't think that Dubya's daddy could stop Saddam, so why could Dubya? Or are we just going to get all annoyed and push the button?
-
devolved_kmbkr
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests