War With Iraq

[stan]

nowt to say i just wanted to be no 500.

[hr]if music be the food of life then radiohead be a spam sandwich.

[kensson]

Poo. I wanted to be 500th.

[s]Unregisted User should check links before I post. wrote on 02:48, 14th Mar 2003:
I just want to add I checked out your school of americas link. Believe me im against us backing some of the dictators we back in latin america. But I argue everyday about our policies with my history of lattin American proffessor. They site rebel involvement in Panama and Columbia. The Columbian rebels that we fight against are marxist drug dealers. And we all know about our buddy Noriega in Panama. Some of the things that happened in Guatemala are indefensible except I would point out to you that is clintons administration not bush.


Instead of closing down the School of the Americas, the Bush administration changed its name to avoid scrutiny. It continues to train terrorists. It is funded by the USA. Therefore I think it's reasonable to say that the USA supports terrorism. "Shouldn't that be enough" to take out Bush?

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User War_Monger wrote on 01:52, 14th Mar 2003:

yeah i checked the world factbook after i posted that, It is a republic. But none the less in a country with no electricity how informed can its citizens be.


In a country where Fox News is the most popular conduit for information, how informed can the citizens be? Just because Guinean people don't have much television doesn't mean they can't see how their government is treating them. There are also things called 'radios' and 'newspapers' which, in this country at least, provide far more insightful coverage of, well, everything.

You should respect the men and women that are willing to lay down thier lives for a cause your elected government deems moral. Regardless of rather you believe in what they are fighting for you should respect that they fight under your countries name.


Should I? By that argument, German citizens of the 1930s should have been right behind their army, no?

Whats his name Dominique livilipad( I know thats not close to being right)? He has been going around campaigning the african countries for voting no on the council. That's an anti American Campaign.

No, that's an anti-war campaign. There's a difference. An anti-American campaign would be a boycott of American goods, for instance.

Let me tell you how Americans feel. ( The educated ones, half our country doesnt vote, 20 percent of the half that does are liberal extremists who thought we should unilatterally disarm at the height of the cold war.) America was at tacked on september 11th. It was the most horrible day that I can ever remember. America hadn't been attacked since 1941. We fealt safe. Everytime an ally was attacked or needed help Americans have been there to help. When Hitler tried to take over Europe (even though we came later than we should have) we came to the aid of your counties. When the USSR put a blockade up in germany. The US airlifted food to Berlin. We were the ones that brought down the Soviet Union. Now we, the US citizens, feel we've been attacked and our allies, France and Germany aren't there to help us. We see it as you people would rather protect a tyrant than let us defend our country.


I don't dispute that September 11th was a horrible, horrible day. But it has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. America is not defending itself, it is attacking another sovereign state. It has at best shaky legal justification for doing so ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 90,00.html ).


Im of Scotish decent, we even have a Bayley Coat of Arms over there. I already feel I need to denounce my German heritage. Well i still got the Irish heritage to fall back on.


(I'm also a little puzzled why Mel Gibson would want to call himself a Scotsman, but that's another matter.)
I'd have thought a patriot like you would be clinging to his American heritage?

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Stan - you got the 500th *reply*. Not the 500th post.

[Al]

Countries are born, they develop, they mature and then they die. A lot like humans. Which would explain, at least in part, why the US is acting like Kevin the Teenager.

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.

[drunken irish man]

In a country where Fox News is the most popular conduit for information, how informed can the citizens be? Just because Guinean people don't have much television doesn't mean they can't see how their government is treating them. There are also things called 'radios' and 'newspapers' which, in this country at least, provide far more insightful coverage of, well, everything.

Just whats wrong with fox news? Because it shows the conservative view point. Fox's commentators make very good pro war argument but allow the anti war arguement to be debated. The point was the country guenie has a lot bigger problems to worry about than issues invovling super powers. Do you really think the people of Guinie have any idea whats going on around the world.

Should I? By that argument, German citizens of the 1930s should have been right behind their army, no?

Theres a big difference between hitlers army trying to take over the world and getting rid of a tyrant. If the country is doing something sinister then you have the right to condemn the troops on political differences though you should be behind your troops

No, that's an anti-war campaign. There's a difference. An anti-American campaign would be a boycott of American goods, for instance.

the war is Americas war, we need to do this for our safety if your against it your agianst our safety.

I don't dispute that September 11th was a horrible, horrible day. But it has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. America is [i]not defending itself, it is attacking another sovereign state. It has at best shaky legal justification for doing so ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 90,00.html ).[/I]

A few monthes after 9-11 there were a few memos that surfaced about knowledge of 9-11. Afterwards people came out asking why didnt we connect the dots and take out al queda earlier. Thats what we are doing here connecting the dots, not to today maybe not tommorrow but someday saddam will probably give a nuke to a terrorist we are stopping it before it starts. Through legal means since he agreed to disarm in the peace treaty.


(I'm also a little puzzled why Mel Gibson would want to call himself a Scotsman, but that's another matter.)
I'd have thought a patriot like you would be clinging to his American heritage?

Im a patriot but i take pride in my heritage as well, except german. I often brag about my scotch irish heritage and my ability to drink like a fish

[Dog of War]

Sure you would'nt catch Tony Blair appeasing unreconstructed terrorists and bullies- just look at his treatment of the IRA.

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User drunken irish man [/i]!wrote on 20:03, 14th Mar 2003:
Just whats wrong with fox news? Because it shows the conservative view point. Fox's commentators make very good pro war argument but allow the anti war arguement to be debated. The point was the country guenie has a lot bigger problems to worry about than issues invovling super powers. Do you really think the people of Guinie have any idea whats going on around the world.


American news channels are regarded here as insular, conservative, short on analysis, and big on soundbites. Pretty pictures of bombs, pundits saying 'yah, that's pretty lethal' but no pictures of people maimed in previous conflicts. This is more than likely a prejudiced view, but I saw nothing to contradict it when I visited the USA.

Theres a big difference between hitlers army trying to take over the world and getting rid of a tyrant. If the country is doing something sinister then you have the right to condemn the troops on political differences though you should be behind your troops

I think the country is doing something sinister. It's invading another country without proper justification, and illegally.

the war is Americas war, we need to do this for our safety if your against it your agianst our safety.

You don't need to do it for your safety. Saddam Hussein, as I've repeatedly posted, is not a threat to US interests unless the USA attacks him. If that happens, he'll swiftly disarm by using all of the weapons he has as viciously as he can. The argument is not as simple as your President (you at the back! stop sniggering. I've told you once) makes it out to be.

A few monthes after 9-11 there were a few memos that surfaced about knowledge of 9-11. Afterwards people came out asking why didnt we connect the dots and take out al queda earlier. Thats what we are doing here connecting the dots, not to today maybe not tommorrow but someday saddam will probably give a nuke to a terrorist we are stopping it before it starts. Through legal means since he agreed to disarm in the peace treaty.


You clearly didn't read the link. As soon as the ceasefire was declared, justification for military action stopped. If Iraq is in breach of the ceasefire agreement, then the UN has to pass another resolution permitting force - or "all necessary measures" in UN-speak. "Serious consequences" is not enough.

Moreover, you still think Saddam Hussein - who, as we all know, has worked very hard to buy and make nasty weapons, often from our countries - after all that hard work will simply give away any nukes he has to terrorists he doesn't control.

Further, if he's years away from this technology, surely it would be better to keep UNSCOM working to disarm him peacefully?


Im a patriot but i take pride in my heritage as well, except german. I often brag about my scotch irish heritage and my ability to drink like a fish


Nobody from Scotland ever uses the term 'Scotch' for anything other than whisky, and even then it's pretty rare.

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Anon.]

[s]Unregisted User War_Monger wrote on 01:52, 14th Mar 2003:
Im of Scotish decent, we even have a Bayley Coat of Arms over there.

Merely because a Bayley coat exists, it does not mean you can bear it. Under Scots heraldic law, you are only automatically entitled to those arms if you are the heir-male of the person to whom the arms were granted.

[flarewearer]

if saddam hussein goes on television and states that he is a liar, do we believe him??? catch 22?

[hr]-I hate to be such a f*cking dumbass, but are we actually at war, I mean did we ever declare war?

-Declare war?! Who has time to declare war when there are so many bombs to drop!

[Tom Plant]

This is the most incredible nonsense:

"Whats his name Dominique livilipad( I know thats not close to being right)? He has been going around campaigning the african countries for voting no on the council. That's an anti American Campaign."

It makes about as much sense as those who say anyone who disagrees with Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land is anti-semitic. Are you saying that nobody has the right to disagree with the USA anymore, and that anyone who does is 'Anti-American?' This strikes similar chords as Bush's initial declaration that 'you are either dor us, or against us.' Politics are not that simple.

And next:

"Let me tell you how Americans feel. ( The educated ones) .... we, the US citizens, feel we've been attacked and our allies, France and Germany aren't there to help us. We see it as you people would rather protect a tyrant than let us defend our country."

How many times do we have to point this out - America was not attacked by Iraq, nor is there any proven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden refers constantly to Saddam, who is an arch-secularist, as an 'infidel.' This does not make them best buddies. Attacking Iraq has NOTHING to do with the War on Terror, nothing at all. Even America concedes this.

Bear in mind too, that Europe has been at the receiving end of war within living memory. Our parents' generation were children in the War, and in most of Europe lived under occupation. America forgets this too easily when it coldly calculates the human cost of war on another people. It has never suffered anything like our countries did; Pearl Harbor and September the 11th do not even come close.

I would also point out that none of my American friends support the war, and they are certainly educated. In some cases, that's why they left their country and came here to Japan. There is nothing 'anti-American' about opposing this war (although I for one am certainly boycotting America as a result of it). When America returns to sane government, perhaps it will regain the world's respect.

[Jaque Strap Chirac]

(you at the back! stop sniggering. I've told you once) ?

what is that about?

One quick point about Fox. Our news is entertainment driven. So there is a lot of flash to it but there is still enough substance for it to be credible. Our country is conservative so the news reflects that, much like BBC reflects your liberalism.

Anyway, its come to the point where ive said all I can. People are only against this war because its led by a republican. During clintons reign I didnt see war protests over bosnia or the attacks on Iraq, but when a republican is the one going to war, the guy is a crazy, oil hungry, war monger.

Ill just add a couple of things.

The 17th resolution said saddam had to disarm the inspectors were just supposed to see if he had. The real deadline was Dec 9t, its obvious he hasnt disarmed. If anyone disagrees with me there i can send you twenty plus links showing they havent.

The human rights issue is the most important to me the casualties will be no where near as high as you people think. There will be no urban warfare, thats not the US style. The answer is to circle baghdad with troops, and allow the Iraqis to retake thier capital, if i can figure this out, surely the pentagon knows this. Anyway if anyone wants to question Iraq's gross human rights abuses i can post those links, and pictures to.

Terrorism, we've been down that road recently but those links i posted are very interesting, I will cede there may not be enough concrete evidence for the terrorism, buts that why we are taking the wmds issue.

I dont think I'm going to change any minds here anymore but a lot of people are going to have egg on thier face after we liberate Iraq. I'd imagine I wont get the apology for people not listening to me when the people of Iraq dance in the street. I'll probably hear well if Iraq is so much better how come the rape rate is up?(thats an example, the rape rate, at least state sponsered will go way down)

[Tom Plant]

GeorgeWBushSupporter, you should be a comedian, really. Anyone who resorts to the Old Testament as a document of modern property rights is seriously missing the mark, especially if he thinks it justifies killing innocent people to regain the land of old. Also, I don't think they had the Good News edition of the Bible back then, so it probably didn't have a handy map on the inside cover detailing national boundaries. Perhaps the Palestinians are the new Jews, and the Jews are the Egyptians? The regime the Palestinians live under is comparable, to be sure. I think that's a more useful biblical reading than yours, but thanks anyway for the 'lesson,' Father.

Now, who was the next remarkable prophet? He can clearly see into the future:

1."The war will be short and precise."

Military analysts, both American and British, disagree. In fact, the military isn't really too keen in the idea, and as one who respects the ability of armed forces, I'm not going to dispute them.

2."A country that has lived under tyranny for thirty years will be liberated."

We don't need to go into the history of how we have happily funded that tyranny here (I'm sure you know the facts about the Reagan and first Bush regimes). But we should admit that they will not be liberated, not at all. If we give them democracy, that will enfrachise the 60% Shiite muslim majority of the population, who have been fighting Saddam to achieve a Taliban-style Sharia theocracy. Will America really support the creation of such a regime?


3."We will go in, we will find Saddam's huge "stash" ..."

We're already in, we haven't found it, and previous UNSCOM inspectors who know their stuff say that there is nothing to find.


4."..and we will get on with the war on terrorism and turn our focus on another mad man in North Korea who has his finger on the button."

Now this may well be a just war - but there's no oil interest, so I doubt we will bother.


5."If we were to avoid this war. . . we would eventually have Saddam's finger on the button and in less time than five years."

Utterly untrue. Continued weapons inspections prevented nuclear development throughout the 90s, are preventing it now, and can continue to do so. Or do you think our weapons inspectors, our satellites and our intelligence agencies are missing something?


6. "...this time we are taking these issues seriously, as they should have been taken before S11."

Once again, confusing the issue - Iraq has nothing to do with September the 11th. This much has been clearly shown often enough that I do not need to go into details again here.


For those who consider me 'ignorant' because I happen to disagree with you (an increasingly American attitude these days, unfortunately), I would recommend William Rivers Pitt and Scott Ritter's book, 'War on Iraq' (Profile Books, London, 2002). Ritter is a former UNSCOM weapons inspector, a US Marines officer and a staunch Republican. He is also a vocal opponent of the impending war, and you might find it harder to label him ignorant. I'd wager he knows more about it than any of us talking here, no matter how big our heads.

[Upholder of Human Rights]

[s]Tom Plant wrote on 09:28, 16th Mar 2003:
This is the most incredible nonsense:

"Whats his name Dominique livilipad( I know thats not close to being right)? He has been going around campaigning the african countries for voting no on the council. That's an anti American Campaign."

It makes about as much sense as those who say anyone who disagrees with Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land is anti-semitic. Are you saying that nobody has the right to disagree with the USA anymore, and that anyone who does is 'Anti-American?' This strikes similar chords as Bush's initial declaration that 'you are either dor us, or against us.' Politics are not that simple.

And next:

"Let me tell you how Americans feel. ( The educated ones) .... we, the US citizens, feel we've been attacked and our allies, France and Germany aren't there to help us. We see it as you people would rather protect a tyrant than let us defend our country."

How many times do we have to point this out - America was not attacked by Iraq, nor is there any proven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden refers constantly to Saddam, who is an arch-secularist, as an 'infidel.' This does not make them best buddies. Attacking Iraq has NOTHING to do with the War on Terror, nothing at all. Even America concedes this.

Bear in mind too, that Europe has been at the receiving end of war within living memory. Our parents' generation were children in the War, and in most of Europe lived under occupation. America forgets this too easily when it coldly calculates the human cost of war on another people. It has never suffered anything like our countries did; Pearl Harbor and September the 11th do not even come close.

I would also point out that none of my American friends support the war, and they are certainly educated. In some cases, that's why they left their country and came here to Japan. There is nothing 'anti-American' about opposing this war (although I for one am certainly boycotting America as a result of it). When America returns to sane government, perhaps it will regain the world's respect.


I missed this one you didnt read my links i dont think about linking Saddam to terrorism. He has a terrosit training camp, there is a proven link. And then you say your not anti american but your boycotting America?

Fine im not Anti-France but im boycotting them.

And for the record I've always maintained that anyone who believes Isreal should not exist is anti semitic. And while being against the war is not anti american, but leading a campaign against a war that has no affect on you is anti American.

[Alison]

The USA killed 200,000 Iraqis in 1991 with Bush's Desert Storm; we fired 300 tons of depleted uranium shells and now thousands more Iraqis are dying of radiation poisoning.

1.5 million Iraqis starved to death after we imposed sanctions according to UNICEF; 600,000 of the dead are children.

Iraq had no defence against the USA last time and has even less now. The new Bush will massacre them again.

The USA put Saddam's Baathist party in power with a coup in 1963, and we are responsible for all Iraq's suffering.

Shouldn't we take Saddam out with another coup, instead of killing another 200,000 Iraqis?

(Journalist John Pilger, who frequently visits Iraq, has front page articles in UK national newspapers verifying these figures; copies at www.johnpilger.com) or see:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/pa ... teid=50143

[Antagonizer of the Anglos]

[s]Unregisted User Alison wrote on 22:29, 16th Mar 2003:
The USA killed 200,000 Iraqis in 1991 with Bush's Desert Storm; we fired 300 tons of depleted uranium shells and now thousands more Iraqis are dying of radiation poisoning.

1.5 million Iraqis starved to death after we imposed sanctions according to UNICEF; 600,000 of the dead are children.

Iraq had no defence against the USA last time and has even less now. The new Bush will massacre them again.

The USA put Saddam's Baathist party in power with a coup in 1963, and we are responsible for all Iraq's suffering.

Shouldn't we take Saddam out with another coup, instead of killing another 200,000 Iraqis?

(Journalist John Pilger, who frequently visits Iraq, has front page articles in UK national newspapers verifying these figures; copies at www.johnpilger.com) or see:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/pa ... teid=50143



If only we could take saddam out with a coup, he rules with such a tight fist it hasnt worked. After the first war the Iraqis tried to take back thier country, and Bush Sr. (due to pressure from his allies, mainly france and the Arab league). 500,000 Iraqis were slaughtered by republican guard helecopters.

Bush isnt just going in to massacre as many people as possible. We will take as much caution with collateral damage, like afghanistan. I've heard some military guys saying the collateral damage could be even lower than afghanistan if Iraqis rebel. There are some strong signs of that. Lately posters of saddam have been torn down a crime that is punishable by death, and Iraqs supply line rail road tracks have been blown up.

And im so sick of people saying that we put saddam into power. What does this have to do at all with the situation? If we didnt put him in would that mean we have a better mandate to go to war? If you ask me us putting him in to power makes us responsible for righting the wrong.

[jack gibson]

The way I see it, there are 3 options to this situation:

1) Continue with the current sanctions and inspections. the problem with this is that it will continue to devastate the Iraqi population by resulting in starvation, malnutrition, and general oppression under a dictator who kills and tortures his own people while opressing their freedoms. At the same time, it allows Sadaam to continue his attempts to build a "cult of personality"- similar to what had been done to North Korea so that the more time that continues, the less likely it will be that Sadaam could be removed wit hth supprt of his own peopel (which we do have now- ask about any Iraqi who has left the coutnry- they and you wil lbe hard pressed to find a single one who supports the current regime or doesn't want someone to go in and take Saddaam out.)

2) Lift the sanctions. The problem with this is that again, it leaves in power a dictator who tortures and kills his own people. (Please no responses about how America put him there- that is simplified answer that does nothing in terms of addressig the issue: how can we make the iraqis lives better NOW). Lifting the sanctions seems to signal to other would-be tyrants that we will "reward" bad behavior and also does nothing to ensure that Saddaam does not have WMD.

3) Invade Iraq. Will innocent people die? Yes. But look at the other options: innocent people have already died adn will continue to die under those options as well. The upside to invasion is that it will result in removing an evil dictator from power and help create a more peaceful and prosperous country for the iraqis. It also helps to ensure that Saddaam does not WMD. And while we can't know for certain, I'm willing to place my bets that any invasion will be short and sweet- the only people who support saddaam are his closest family and friends- the common iraqi does not harbour any love for the man and will likely greet any liberating force with tears of joy.

I must say, I am at a loss as to how europeans can be so vehemnetly anti-american on this issue. After all, they have dealt with tyrant dictators most of their existence- it was only after WWII when- with the help of their American cousins- they finally were able to shrug off their tyrant past and inner-fighting and become more like America: a sontinent of multi-culturalism that co-exists peacefully side-by-side under the banner of economic cooperation.

I really do urge Europeans to look past the bias they may have against America- for wheterv the reason- and take a long, hard look at what they are supporting if they do not support the removal of Saddam Hussein. Europe (particularly France) has a history of not standing up to dictators until it is too late- please don't repet the mistakes of your past.

[kensson]

I find the phrase 'collateral damage' very, very useful. It immediately marks out the user as an irredeemable arse. (Gosh! 'Collateral damage' sounds so much less gruesome than 'killing civilians.')

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Appeaser of]

[s]kensson wrote on 12:05, 17th Mar 2003:
I find the phrase 'collateral damage' very, very useful. It immediately marks out the user as an irredeemable arse. (Gosh! 'Collateral damage' sounds so much less gruesome than 'killing civilians.')

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change



Its spelled ass and im saying two weeks from now some Scots on this board are going to look like one

[Al]

You mean we'll all look like you? Oh cruel fate!

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.