War With Iraq

[kensson]

I think you're the one putting words in Al's mouth here.

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 14:54, 12th Sep 2002:
"If you believe that Sadam is justified to do these things, why don?t you consider moving to Iraq? Aren?t you a hypocrite for saying that Sadam is justified to do all these things but still choose to live in a free country?"

Al just said he (Saddam) was justified in attacking Kuwait - indeed, his (Saddam's) political party is committed to Baathism, or a single Arab state. You seem to have interpreted that as 'he was justified in attacking Iran and Israel' which wasn't what he said at all.

You also seem to be using a different definition of hypocrisy than the one in my dictionary.

"Most of the Middle East allows torture, whether they turn their head the other way or just outright allow it. So just because these prisoners were sent there, just might mean they didn?t want to moved them all back to Cuba."

No, your convoluted syntax has utterly defeated me. See also http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/usa!Open

[cheimon]

I know some of the details of those death penalty cases. There were trials where the defendant's lawyer fell asleep, or didn't even bother to cross-examine witnesses. If the defendants had been rich, those sorts of things would never have happened, or if they had it would be declared a mistrial. furthermore, in illinois, governer george ryan has declared a moratorium on all death penalty sentences because of the 30-odd they've looked into, 15 or 16 have been innocent. he's now considering a blanket commutation to life sentences while the rest of the cases are looked into. I admit I don't know much about other states, but if just one has put so many innocent men on death row, what's to say the rest haven't? I'm not blaming Bush solely, he is/was only one of many, but the fact remains that if one state had so many innocent people on death row, others could too. Bush's refusal to even admit that there could be problems in Texas' system-- i don't even have words to describe how i feel about that.

I don't know if any of you have read TIME magazine's issue commemorating September 11, but you should, it was one of the most thoughtful treatments of the issues I've ever read. They have viewpoints from 11 different people, representing lots of different sides/situations related to the attacks, terrorism in general, etc. The article on Bush especially made me think, because it made an observation I think is very true: in international politics, because he doesn't know so much, he likes to look at things only in black and white. Of course, it's pretty obvious, but it still makes it clear just why Bush isn't suited to deal with the problems surrounding 9-11. There are so many sides to this, so many legitimate reasons why Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have a reason to hate the US, that you can't possibly refuse to see it in anything but half a thousand shades of grey. His idea of war with Iraq is just another demonstration of his inability and/or refusal to look at all sides of the story.

We could have seen it with the death penalty stuff-- do we really want a leader who ignores facts because he thinks he's morally right, and be damned to anyone else? But most Americans don't take the time to think about political candidates as people AND politicians, and how those two facets interrelate to produce the person's way of thinking and acting. They just look at a guy and think, "Oh, he's nice, charismatic, I'll vote for him." Sure, I'll believe Bush is a nice guy. He's also an ignorant, close-minded, stubborn person who shouldn't be anywhere near the US Government. But this is what voter apathy and lack of deep thought will get you.

[Guest]

Kennson,

Again, they talked about considering nuclear strikes. Will they end up doing it, most likely not.

I’m not going to start discussing the history of US foreign involvement in its entirety.

Libya was a well know supporter and partook in terrorist attacks such as Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The bombings were justified. Libya is the perfect example on how governments don’t necessarily need to be replaced with a democratic system. He was punished accordingly, and since has changed his view on terrorist involvement.

Again, I don’t want to address every conflict the world has seen.

Yes the US backed bin Laden in pushing the Communist Soviets in the early 80’s. However, the terrorist network Al-Qaeda, was not formed until 1988.

I never said being friendly with Saudi Arabia while having terrorist links was ok.

“Um, no. The UN are still there trying to stop a civil war” They just captured one of Al-Qaeda’s high financial officers on the border of Pakistan last month.

Testing Anthrax on sheep located on an unpopulated island and accidentally having some of the government-employed scientists incur some form of contamination hardly comes close to the following link.

http://www.iraqcp.org/Democrat/0703wom.htm

If you are such a Human rights believer how can you not agree that Sadam must be taken out of power for the atrocities in this article alone? He is a dictator that willingly oppresses and kills thousands of his own people and refuses to step down for the benefit of his country. If he is capable of committing such atrocious acts on his own people, do you think for a moment he would ever question using weapons of mass destruction on innocent people or allowing terrorist to do so? I am defending Bush’s reasoning behind removing Sadam from power not Bush himself.

Don’t forget to take a look at this one.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open



Salma,

The US sent aid to both countries in the early 80’s I’m not going to pretend I know the exact details behind it. In either case it’s a moot point, we have to address today’s problem at hand and that is Sadam’s motivation to build these weapons and his willingness to share them with terrorist groups.

Again, Yes the US backed bin Laden in pushing the Communist Soviets out of Afghanistan in the early 80’s. However, the terrorist network Al-Qaeda, was not formed until 1988.

[Guest]

I think that the US should back the hell off and let Europe deal with the psycho, then we (US Citizens) will have alot more vacation destinations after we save all your butts again (ie WWII). Thanks to that little thing we engineered known as the atom bomb. With out that you would all be speaking German. But hey, I'm just an ignorant american, "Land of the free, Home of the Brave" and everyone's best friend when they need thier butts saved. Which I'm sure will happen when he decides to test out his new toys in Isreal, or Kuwait, or possibly London. I will tell ya that if its in the US and we prove it, Iraq will be a nice area to get a sunburn, oh wait it already is.

[Al]

Pillock!

[underworlddreams]

If it wasn't for the British, you'd all be speaking Dutch... So what?

[hr]Before you criticise anyone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you do criticise them, you're a mile away and have their shoes.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 22:43, 12th Sep 2002:
I think that the US should back the hell off and let Europe deal with the psycho, then we (US Citizens) will have alot more vacation destinations after we save all your butts again (ie WWII). Thanks to that little thing we engineered known as the atom bomb. With out that you would all be speaking German. But hey, I'm just an ignorant american, "Land of the free, Home of the Brave" and everyone's best friend when they need thier butts saved. Which I'm sure will happen when he decides to test out his new toys in Isreal, or Kuwait, or possibly London. I will tell ya that if its in the US and we prove it, Iraq will be a nice area to get a sunburn, oh wait it already is.

You mean the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th 1945?
Almost 3 months after VE day was celebrated on May 8th?
Germany was doomed to losing WWII when Operation Barbarossa was launched on June 6th 1941, 6 months before the USA entered the war. This decision to invade territories that had been given to the CCCP as part of the secret addendum* to the Nazi/Soviet Non-Aggression pact of August 23rd 1939 was what eventually caused the end of the thousand year Reich, most definately not the (eventual) US participation. The launch of a war/front without clear politico/military objectives is almost always fatal to the chances of victory, for example the US in Vietnam or the UK in India.
For fictional insight into what it might have been like if this had never happened, read "Fatherland", by Robert Harris.
* This secret addendum gave Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the CCCP, as well as Poland East of the Narew, Vistula and San rivers.
(Edit- Spelling and HTML)

[Al]

Pilmour Boy! Don't go confusing him/her/it with the facts.....

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 21:36, 12th Sep 2002:
Kennson,

You mean Kensson, presumably.

Again, they talked about considering nuclear strikes. Will they end up doing it, most likely not.

What I've read of it seems to indicate that they have firm plans to do so.

Libya was a well know supporter and partook in terrorist attacks such as Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The bombings were justified.

The official justification for the 1986 bombings was revenge for alleged involvement in an attack on a West Berlin discotheque. The real perpetrators of this attack? Apparently the CIA again. Simply brilliant.

Libya is the perfect example on how governments don?t necessarily need to be replaced with a democratic system. He was punished accordingly, and since has changed his view on terrorist involvement.

Now, a little bit of maths. The Lockerbie bomb happened in December 1988, over two years later. Gadaffi certainly learnt his lesson on that one, hey?

Yes the US backed bin Laden in pushing the Communist Soviets in the early 80?s. However, the terrorist network Al-Qaeda, was not formed until 1988.

... and the last Soviet troops withdrew the following year.

I never said being friendly with Saudi Arabia while having terrorist links was ok.

You seemed to be excusing it by calling it a 'delicate situation'. The subtext seemed to be that Iraq should be bombed because it doesn't co-operate with the US and Saudi Arabia shouldn't because it does.

Um, no. The UN are still there trying to stop a civil war.

They just captured one of Al-Qaeda's high financial officers on the border of Pakistan last month.

... and they've been keeping an eye on Kabul and Karzai, not to mention trying to keep the warlords from attacking each other. Any Al-Qa'eda-catching they do is a bonus.

Testing Anthrax on sheep located on an unpopulated island and accidentally having some of the government-employed scientists incur some form of contamination hardly comes close to the following link.

I quite agree, although The UK were testing it specifically to drop on the civilian population of Germany.

If you are such a Human rights believer how can you not agree that Sadam must be taken out of power for the atrocities in this article alone? He is a dictator that willingly oppresses and kills thousands of his own people and refuses to step down for the benefit of his country. If he is capable of committing such atrocious acts on his own people, do you think for a moment he would ever question using weapons of mass destruction on innocent people or allowing terrorist to do so? I am defending Bush?s reasoning behind removing Sadam from power not Bush himself.

I agree, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. He is not alone in this. I believe that it is for the people of Iraq to enforce a regime change, if they want it. (The last time they tried, the US promised assistance; it never arrived and the rebellion was quashed.) My understanding at the moment is that years of sanctions have served only to rally them behind Saddam.

I disagree wholeheartedly with another war which will lead to thousands of civilian casualties and will, in my opinion, only increase antagonism towards the West.

(In a previous post, you argued that the correct cycle of things was 'bad man does bad thing, good guys bomb bad man to teach lesson, bad guys learn lesson and stop but stay in power.' Clearly this doesn't work.)

Don?t forget to take a look at this one.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open

I've written as many letters to Iraq as to Texas. My reason for including the link in the first place was to demonstrate that the USA is not quite squeaky-clean when it comes to turning a blind eye to torture.


The US sent aid to both countries (Iran & Iraq, presumably) in the early 80?s I?m not going to pretend I know the exact details behind it. In either case it?s a moot point, we have to address today?s problem at hand and that is Sadam?s motivation to build these weapons and his willingness to share them with terrorist groups.

The US and UK (and probably many others, I imagine the Soviet Union too) were eagerly selling weapons to both sides.

[Maud Lebowski]

George W Bush threatening an 'Iraq Attack' for the good of the Western World? I think not. Bush's main priority is getting finished the job his father started. 'Daddy, Daddy! Please let me blow up the big bad man!? Please? Oh pretty please! Me want to play and then hide in big bunker'. Unsubstansiated(no, I can't spell) this may be, but it does look as though Bush is a monkey and Tony Blair is in his pocket.

[Ignorant American]

Al that was a funny one, that whole facts thing. But since we are dealing with facts, then technically if it wasn't for the Brit's/Pilgrims we would all be American Indians. You know that fact right, the one about white man and disease and the killing and raping of indian women. But hey I guess when it all comes down to it even "Mother England" has caused some genocide. The other thing I propose, since "us" americans seem to not doing anything correct, is send all the "Prisoners of War", I like to call them "Dirt" over to your nice island and let you treat them the correct way. I mean 9/11 didn't effect any Britons right? oh wait, another "fact" for you "fact gatherers" the country that lost the most citizens second only to the US is the UK. I guess you all still love the Taliban even though they didn't give two sh*ts about all of your countrymen/women on 9/11. I'm not saying we should light them on fire or anything, but I don't think we should treat them any better then they treated 2800+ people on that tuesday morning. On the Iraq thing, we had him in our sites in "91" and we should have pulled the trigger. Like I said before though, we should just let Europe deal with him, we can come in and save the day 6 months after you guys have liberated Europe, of course most of your major cities will be uninhabitable, but you will be able to say that you stopped the US from doing the "wrong" thing. Then we will send you billions and billions to rebuild.

[Guest]

Kensson,

>What I've read of it seems to indicate that they have firm plans to do so.
You need to stop reading your conspiracy theory websites. Have they done it? NO, Will the American public tolerate such an act? Absolutely not. So again I say, they talked about considering nuclear strikes. Will they end up doing it, most likely not.

> Now, a little bit of maths. The Lockerbie bomb happened in December 1988, over two years later. Gadaffi certainly learnt his lesson on that one, hey?
Actually I would say he did. We haven’t heard a word from him in over a decade.

>You seemed to be excusing it by calling it a 'delicate situation'. The subtext seemed to be that Iraq should be bombed because it doesn't co-operate with the US and Saudi Arabia shouldn't because it does.
I’m not excusing anything, Saudi Arabia isn’t an aggressive nation, and they didn’t invade Kuwait, Iran, or Israel. It doesn’t gas its own people and isn’t under sanctions that forces its people to suffer.

>Um, no. The UN are still there trying to stop a civil war.
I never disagreed with you; I simply added that current event in to inform you that they are still looking for taliban and Al-Qa'eda members. I feel no need to dispute this matter any further.

>I quite agree, although The UK were testing it specifically to drop on the civilian population of Germany.
This goes back to the point you made on the US’s intentions to start slinging nuclear weapons at everyone. They thought about using it, but did they actually do it?.. Obviously not.

>I agree, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. He is not alone in this. I believe that it is for the people of Iraq to enforce a regime change, if they want it. (The last time they tried, the US promised assistance; it never arrived and the rebellion was quashed.) My understanding at the moment is that years of sanctions have served only to rally them behind Saddam.
So you agree that Saddam is a “tyrant”, you support the people of Iraq enforcing a regime change, who are not capable or too scared to do so, but you don’t support Bush’s effort, which is fully capable of making this happen. Isn’t there some level hypocrisy in that?

>I disagree wholeheartedly with another war which will lead to thousands of civilian casualties and will, in my opinion, only increase antagonism towards the West.
So your saying lets turn our heads and pretend that Sadam won’t continue to oppress his people, build weapons of mass destruction and pray that he won’t give those weapons to terrorists or use them himself to kill “thousands of civilians”. I want to live in your world where everything is perfect, how do I get there?

>(In a previous post, you argued that the correct cycle of things was 'bad man does bad thing, good guys bomb bad man to teach lesson, bad guys learn lesson and stop but stay in power.' Clearly this doesn't work.)
Are you looking at the right posts? I implied that the Sadam regime must go and fully support the safest and most effective way of doing so. Unfortunately Sadams selfish mentality is leaving no other way but by force.

I've written as many letters to Iraq as to Texas. My reason for including the link in the first place was to demonstrate that the USA is not quite squeaky-clean when it comes to turning a blind eye to torture.
I commend you for doing that, but doing so has obviously had little effect if any. I don’t pretend that any government is perfect or does not have any level of corruption within them. However, when you take a look at the current facts and history of Sadam it brings me to no other conclusion that his reign of power must end.

Arab nations starting to back the UN action plan.
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20020913/D7M10HQO1.html

[Phina]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 20:04, 13th Sep 2002:
Gadaffi certainly learnt his lesson on that one, hey?
Actually I would say he did. We haven’t heard a word from him in over a decade.

Well actually there is the rather sinister 'African Union' he's trying to impliment. Recently done a tour of c. nine African countries* trying to (and successfully) persuade them to join what is in effect a dictatorship with- you guessed it- him as leader. His argument is that Africa won't ever work in democracy. He wants to make it a great power to rival the US and EU. Hmm. Learn his lesson then?

Those that I can remember offhand are Malawi, Zim, SA, Swaziland, Uganda (I think), Mozambique, Zambia.


[hr]
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. [s]Oscar Wilde[/s]

[Al]

Aren't many Americans funny? You wind them up and they go on and on and on and on. They seem actually unable to grasp the point that the US is not a perfect state, a utopia of shiny hopes and dreams, and a beacon of light to the rest of the world. Of course, they is a lot about the US to be praised but there is also a lot to be condemned. The UK is a friend to the US just as many British people are friends to Americans. Being a friend sometimes means telling the truth even if that is not what the other person wants to hear.

[hr]Is it meant to be like that?

[Clonion]

This is taken from Newsweek, Sep 9th.
Bush's Arm-Twister
President George W. Bush has relaunched his drive to curb the pwers of the Internation Criminal Court - by cutting separate deals with 180 countries. Washington has eased its threats to halt global peacekeeping operations, but instead, countries are being asked to agree in writing not to turn over American citizens if they are indicted by the war crimes tribunal, says the State Department's Marisa Lino.
Lino, the former ambassador to Albania in charge of getting the signatures, will go afield in the coming weeks.
And she carries a very big stick: Bush has signed a new law that threatens to halt military aid to those who refuse to provide the waiver. A senior State Department aide, Pierre Prosper, also recently warned that if aspiring NATO member in Eastern Europe do not comply, the United State will be forced to reconsider their NATO prospects. The State Department denies it has set a new condition for NATO membership, but aspirants are shaken by the tug of war between the EU and the US-led NATO alliance. These US tactics have left NATO member steaming, particularly after Washington signed up Romania, a candidate for both NATO and European Union membership, before vacationing European governments agree to a common position.
In an effort to reduce friction, Secretary of State Colin Powell was in touch with several EU foreign ministers last week about an EU initiative to grant waivers to US troops or government officials. But US aides say they doubt administration hard-liners will agree to the compromise. Says one European: "We have to find a way to cooperate with the world's sole superpower on this new court." Says Lino: "We don't want to cooperate with the ICC."

Call me cynical, but to me that just says that US troops are being told, "don't worry if you commit some sort of warcrime, just go to these countries and you'll be safe from prosecution". In fact I suspect that many such crimes have been committed, given the need to set up these safe houses.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I think the US are justified in this - we rent them out as an army, they don't worry if they break some of our stuff.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 20:04, 13th Sep 2002:

So your saying lets turn our heads and pretend that Sadam won’t continue to oppress his people, build weapons of mass destruction and pray that he won’t give those weapons to terrorists or use them himself to kill “thousands of civilians”.

NO! By not bombing we are not justifying Saddam Hussain's actions. However, by bombing, we are merely contradicting ourselves.

Britain and the US builds lots of "weapons of mass destruction", and sells some of them overseas - and yet we are criticising Saddam Hussain for possibly doing this! By bombing Iraq we are merely using some of our weapons, and demonstrating that Britain and the US thinks weapons and terrorism are the way to sort out the world's problems, thereby justifying Iraq's use of weapons in self-defence.

If the British and US government think that countries should not have weapons of mass destruction, and shouldn't sell weapons, they should start by decommissioning their own weapons, and stopping the Arms Trade. Only then are they in any position to criticise Iraq. And then the criticism would be by diplomatic means which is much more likely to result in success.

[Guest]

AS an ex grad who occasionally sees this site to see how much shit 10 nerds can spout i am very, VERY pissed off: "our Armed Forces suck", do they? Really? As you are stuck in front of your screen 24 hours a day how dare you have the audacity to insult the finest Armed Forces in the world. And that is a fact widely recognised by all the other armies too. Why do you think they all ask for British advisors? So , you fat, stupid, idle dick. Come for a little stay in my world and see how long you would last. I give you two minutes:

[Al]

It's good to see such an intellectual taking the time out from his busy schedule to post. How could we have coped for so long without his input?

[bananaman]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 14:54, 12th Sep 2002:
Granada took place during the cold war. The socialist government was overthrown; communist Cuba and the prior Soviet Union were building a huge military air base there. There is some level of justification there.


Really? There is no evidence that has been released that shows that Grenada was ever a threat.

----

Bring out Jo. Jo who? Jo McCarthy? No, Jo Stalin - why they're the same thing.