The War Thread [Archive] - Relicnews Forums

Martian

20th Mar 03, 5:53 AM

Top White House anti-terror boss resigns

By P. Mitchell Prothero
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 3/19/2003 5:37 PM

WASHINGTON, March 19 (UPI) -- The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.

Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror.

Beers has served as the NSC's senior director for counter-terrorism only since August. The White House said Wednesday that he officially remains on the job and has yet to set a departure date.

"Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."

A Senate Intelligence Committee staffer familiar with the resignation agreed that it was not a protest against the war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but confirmed that frustration is widespread in the anti-terror establishment and played a part in Beers' decision.

"Randy said that he was 'just tired' and did not have an interest in adding the stress that would come with a war with Iraq," the source said.

The source said that the concern by the administration about low morale in the intelligence community led national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to ask Beers twice during an exit interview whether the resignation was a protest against the war with Iraq. The source said that although Beers insisted it was not, the tone of the interview concerned Rice enough that she felt she had to ask the question twice.

"This is a very intriguing decision (by Beers)," said author and intelligence expert James Bamford. "There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."

Bamford cited a recent address by President Bush that cited documents, which allegedly proved Iraq was continuing to pursue a nuclear program, that were later shown to be forgeries.

"It is absurd that the president of the United States mentioned in a speech before the world information from phony documents and no one got fired," Bamford said. "That alone has offended intelligence professionals throughout the services."

But some involved in the fight on terror said that it was dangerous to look too far into one resignation -- particularly from an official who has not blamed the war on Iraq.

"I found his resignation shocking," said one official closely involved in the domestic fight on terror. "And it might reflect a certain frustration over the allocation of resources. But I'm not positive that there's a consensus (among intelligence services) that deposing Saddam's regime is a bad idea for fighting terror. I think that there are serious concerns about resources and alienating allies, but some of us see an upside."

But others point out that the CIA warned Congress last year that an invasion might lead to a rise in terrorism. This, they say, is evidence there's more than just ambivalence about the war among the spy community.

"If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?" said one official. "I know I'm not (happy)."

Beers joined the NSC in August after heading the State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement branch, where he ran the Plan Colombia program to fight narco-traffickers in that country. Beers served both Bush administrations as well as serving in similar capacities with both the Clinton and Reagan administrations.
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20030319-040543-3049r

I have many more interesting articles like this- among wich an article written by an Iraqi refugee in the UK, who writes against war. On the danger of being called an USA basher, I'll post an excerpt:

In Iraq, the US record speaks for itself:

- it backed Saddam's party, the Ba'ath, to capture power in 1963, murdering thousands of socialists, communists and democrats of all shades;

- it backed the Ba'ath party in 1968 when Saddam was installed as vice-president;

- it helped him and the Shah of Iran in 1975 to crush the Kurdish nationalist movement;

- it increased its support for Saddam in 1979, the year he elevated himself to president,

- helping him launch his war of aggression against Iran in 1980;

- it backed him throughout the horrific eight years of war (1980 to 1988), in which a million Iranians and Iraqis were slaughtered, in the full knowledge that he was using chemical weapons and gassing Kurds and Marsh Arabs;

- it encouraged him in 1990 to invade Kuwait when the Arabic-speaking US ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, told him on July 25 1990 that the US had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts" when she knew that Saddam's forces were only one week away from invading;

- it backed him in 1991 when Bush suddenly stopped the war, exactly 24 hours after the start of the great March uprising that engulfed the south and Iraqi Kurdistan (US aircraft were flying over the scenes of mass killing as Iraqi helicopter gunships were aiding Saddam's forces crush the uprising); and

- it backed him as the "lesser evil" from March 1991 to September 11 2001 under the umbrella of murderous sanctions and the policy of "containment".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,916266,00.html

[edit: link fix]

Starfisher

20th Mar 03, 7:54 AM

- it backed him as the "lesser evil" from March 1991 to September 11 2001 under the umbrella of murderous sanctions and the policy of "containment".

At least that has changed.

Martian

20th Mar 03, 8:49 AM

Originally posted by Starfisher

At least that has changed. Yes. But the rest of the US' track record, proving that humanitary reasons are of no concern to the US (or, for that matter, for any other country) raises a big question: why?

And that question has not been answered by the US' government except by forged documents, unfounded accusations, and pure lies.

Now don't come tell me that Saddam is an evil man; i KNOW that. My question is, with the above-mentioned track record in mind, wich clearly shows that his evilness does not matter: why? and why NOW? Why not in 6 months, after the inspections got a real chance?

TPMdm-DD

20th Mar 03, 9:16 AM

Because he's had 12 years. By your reasoning why not in 12 more years when the inspections really really get rolling?

1. Yes, Iraq has oil and that is certainly a factor but this war is not "about oil"
2. Yes, there might be worse dictators than Sadam around the world
3. Yes, he used to be "our guy"
4. For christ's sake, yes I know we supplied him with weapons

None of that changes the fact that IMO this is a righteous war and a just cause.

(Martian, you seem pretty good at finding links and articles, find a few relating France's sources of oil to their support of Iraq)

Martian

20th Mar 03, 9:40 AM

I know that France does not have the moral high ground. Just like the USA uses the suffering of the Iraqi's under Saddam's rule to defend their war, the French use other reasons (among wich the inevitable suffering of the IRaqi in a war) to defend their interests. Why do I need to find articles about that? The fact that France is not right, does not mean that the USA is right.

1. The inspections did not last 12 years. Don't be silly: the USA ignored Iraq for 12 years, and then, all of a sudden, hurried to cause a crisis that suddenly has to be solved in a few months. Hans Blix said it himself: the USA never was interested in giving the inspectors a chance.

2. This war is definately partially about oil, although I agree that it is not the only answer to my 'why' question. Other reasons?
-the USA needs a 'bad guy' to catch, to keep the public happy now that they failed to catch Bin Laden.
-The USA needs to divert the attention of its population from the bad economy and Bush' horrendous and unaffordable tax reductions.
-The USA wants (indirect) power in the middle-east: a pro-American government in Iraq will be a big help. This is also related to the oil.

But I also believe that many Americans, probably including a large part of the government, maybe even Bush, really believe that the Iraqi's can be helped by this. I just don't believe that Iraq will suddenly transform into a democracy now. The chance that a new dictator will rise who will keep the USA happy is much more likely I tthink.

3. I dont know about 'worse'. I just know about 'other' dictators. I haven't been there; so i dont know how bad it really is.
But yes, i DO wonder why specifically Saddam has to be chosen, while North Korea, for example, is much more dangerous.

4. He used to be "your guy", yes. But the American government conviniently forgets about that in their current propaganda war. As I said, because they need to justify their war by showing Saddam to the public as the ultimate evil, after ignoring and/or aiding him for years.

5. Yes you supplied him with weapons. And I don't believe that the USA did not know what they were likely to be used for. This, among other things, destroys any moral credibility the USA has in this war.

I consider it highly likely that the Iraqi will not hail you as their saviours. They will definately be happy that Saddam is gone; but many Iraqi do not like the USA, and definately not without reason (the Western sanctions claimed many lives). So I am very worried about what the post-war Iraq will look like.

GhostTX

20th Mar 03, 9:44 AM

We supplied the Soviet Union with food, weapons, etc during WW2.

By your logic, Martian, we shouldn't have had a 'Cold War', either.

Its the lesser of two evils.

By the way, Bush 1 stopped the first Gulf War, not 'suddenly', but because the world was lamenting after images of the 'highway of death' were broadcast everywhere. If not for that, the conflict wasn't to end until the entire Republican Guard was wiped out.

As far as your 1991-2000 containment policy...France, Germany, & Russia still want containment. So it wouldn't have matter if we struck for whatever reasons then, there'd still be moaning.

TPMdm-DD

20th Mar 03, 10:04 AM

In all honesty Martian you seem to be more informed about general world events then I (I am an American afterall :D ). That is why I thought you might have had some news stories re:France's position or could find them easily.

With my list I just wanted to point out I am not ignorant of my country's history with Iraq and knowing all that I still think this war is a good idea. True we might not have been focused on disarming Iraq for the last 12 years, but that doesn't mean Sadam was not supposed to disarm. IIRC it was part of the cessation of hostilities of Desert Shield/Storm i.e. we're done bombing now if you start dismantling your WMD programs. Besides denying he ever had WMD Sadam hasn't proved he got rid of them and Dr. Blix has never used the word cooperation favorably re:Iraq. It was the 9/11/01 attacks which crystalized our outlook on Iraq's WMD. We realized a significant portion of the fundamentalist muslim world wants to hand us our a**es and they might get support or WMD from Iraq's current dictator.

I too fear for a post war Iraq. Short of adding a 51st star to our flag Iraq is likely to be trouble (even then.....who knows?). But still knowing all this I believe we (the United States, Britain, Australia and our "support allies" Turkey et al) are doing the right thing.

IronHammer

20th Mar 03, 10:21 AM

I like how you use an article from a Vehemently anti-Bush source, I'm sure you can find "sources" in alot of places that would say this war "might" increase terrorism, that was never a garuntee, why? Because there are any numer of "sources" that say otherwise.

I really like your informed opinion that totally ignores the horrendus atrocaties in Iraq, vary humanitarian of you.

Let me put it here, You hate Bush, you hate america, you hate democracy, and you hate this war. Why?

This war is quite just, and our goals are not domination, it simply is freedom, can we not give freedom to the Iraqis people? Or do you still want a killer incarge of Iraq?

ÜberJumper

20th Mar 03, 10:34 AM

Martian:

One of the problems with the US democracy is their policies can change at the will of the current administration. However, that's also one of the strengths as a government can "right the wrongs" of the past. As someone else mentioned, (paraphrasing) "just because we acted one way 26 years ago doesn't mean we can step up and fix the mess we created".

While I agree war is horrible, and this one undoubtedly will have horrible parts, I think action is a lesser evil than inaction.

Martian

20th Mar 03, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by IronHammer
I like how you use an article from a Vehemently anti-Bush source, I'm sure you can find "sources" in alot of places that would say this war "might" increase terrorism, that was never a garuntee, why? Because there are any numer of "sources" that say otherwise.

I really like your informed opinion that totally ignores the horrendus atrocaties in Iraq, vary humanitarian of you.

Let me put it here, You hate Bush, you hate america, you hate democracy, and you hate this war. Why?

This war is quite just, and our goals are not domination, it simply is freedom, can we not give freedom to the Iraqis people? Or do you still want a killer incarge of Iraq? I find this answer a very good example of the totally ignorant 'patriotic' American who thinks 'being against the war in Iraq' is the same as 'hating the USA and Democracy'. You just showed your own sadness and lack of arguments.

But I am willing to go into this.

I did not know that this source is anti-Bush: possibly, you are just making that up. I am sure there are sources that have a different opinion, but as you can see in the article, at least part of the CIA agrees with it, and I, too, fear for an increase in terrorism if thi war goes ahead.

I do not ignore the situation of the Iraqi's. On the other hand, the USA has ignored it for years, and now suddenly claims that 'thousands are killed every year' and that the Iraqi's must be liberated. They totally ignore the fact that they have known of this for many years, and that partially, it is because of the Western sanctions. As I said, suddenly, they cause a huge crisis and insist on a quick solution, after ignoring the problem for 12 years. I find this, how shall I say.... fishy.

-I do not hate Bush. I disagree with his policies, but I do not hate him. I also disagree with my own nation's policies; but I do not hate our PM. Saying this is silly.

-I do not hate America. What makes you think I hate America? I like America; it is a great country in many ways. I just disagree with their current government's policies. FYI, i really liked Clinton's foreign policies.

-I definately do not hate democracy. By saying that I do, you placed yourself outside of any serious discussion of this subject.

Do you really believe that the goal of the USA is freedom for the Iraqi's? Give me arguments that counter my arguments that I posted above, that their goal cannot be freedom for the Iraqi's. Especially the track record I posted.

Martian

20th Mar 03, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by GhostTX
We supplied the Soviet Union with food, weapons, etc during WW2.

By your logic, Martian, we shouldn't have had a 'Cold War', either.
The Cold War was ofcourse a very different situation: Europe was in shatters, and ready to be divided between the conquerors. (the Americans gave us alot of freedom though. I am still thankful for that, but it does not matter in todays discussion).

2 equally powerful powers were 'fighting' for world domination. The situation was very different.

By the way, Bush 1 stopped the first Gulf War, not 'suddenly', but because the world was lamenting after images of the 'highway of death' were broadcast everywhere. If not for that, the conflict wasn't to end until the entire Republican Guard was wiped out.

As far as your 1991-2000 containment policy...France, Germany, & Russia still want containment. So it wouldn't have matter if we struck for whatever reasons then, there'd still be moaning. being only 19, i cannot say first-hand how the first Gulf War ended. you might be right. But the Iraqi source I posted said you let down the people who started a revolt, encouraged by the Americans. If that is so, its a very sad thing.

The country's that are against a war are also against Saddam; they just think that a war is not the right way tot ake him down. More inspectors, and more time for the inspectors was what they proposed. And I really don't see any reason why they should not have had their 6 months; except because of the Western public's short attention span, that made a quick war neccesary to keep public support....

Starfisher

20th Mar 03, 11:10 AM

It's ironic that you think that war should only happen under moral circumstances. No war has ever, EVER been fought for any altruistic reason. All wars have had that cloak thrown over them. I don't see why people are so indignant or shocked about this - its been a part of war since the dawn of time.

And I really don't see any reason why they should not have had their 6 months; except because of the Western public's short attention span, that made a quick war neccesary to keep public support....

Ya. France was the first country to lose interest in enforcing the ceasefire agreements and the UN resolutions passed after 1991. They pulled out of the no-fly zone in 1994. They have proven that they are not willing to stay the course in the past, and yet now they ask that we give it more time?

Saddam is counting on just that. He knows what happened after 1991: everyone got bored and wandered off. He played the world to perfection in this crisis. Give it more time - perfect for him. More time for him to be in power, more time for the world to again lose the will to continue.

IronHammer

20th Mar 03, 11:12 AM

Ok, what has my president ben saying about reconstruction and liberation all the Time?:dolt:

Also, any action against Iraq after the past twelve years, or after the golf war would have ben under the jurisdiction of the UN, which places blame more on the countries who wanted saddam to stay in power, and makes that more their fault.

Bush is simply carrying out current UN sanctions.

Several countries, Russia, France, Germany, have ben using the situation with Saddam as a chance to line their pockets. so, do you blame us for not removing Saddam during the gulf war?

Or do you blame the US for not removing him after?

This war is correct, the fact that we could not remove saddam before speaks more about the US's diplomatic limitations in the UN, and about the corruption that is in the very institution, Heck it did nothing about Pol Pot, nothing about the atrocities in Africa and Rewanda, if you want to place blame place it ware its due, the US is an international force, but the fact is it has placed itself under the UN.

Let me go further THE US IS NOT THE POLICE FORCE OF THE WORLD.

It has acted as such because of its own interests, and has behaved farly charitably, but what can we do when poeple come and say that we must subject ourselves to the UN, and yet still go outside of its policies?

I support my president in times of war and because this is a just war, it is a removal of a really evil guy, we will go on futher to remove terrorists, because we chose to defend ourselves. Wharever we have ben with military ocupation in the past century there has ben peace afterwords, take Afghanistan for example, the vary people who were under oppression are now prospering.

I dont need to put up link's because nothing will penetrate you.
Do you accuse us for being a lax ruler of the world? I never thaught we were, I thaught that such things resided under UN jurisdiction.

You can accuse the UN of being cracked and not solving these things, but place blame were it is due Martian.

EchoEffect

20th Mar 03, 11:57 AM

I wish people would stop refering to it as the "golf" war. It just brings up overly humerous images of Tartan trousers, or small cars......or both.

All other arguments aside. This war is going to increase terrorism, not decrease it. If the main goal of the US government is to stop terrorism, then this war was a rediculous idea. Most poeple can see that, its obvious. Look at the rise in anti-Amercan sentiment in Europe; Anti-American sentiment in a continent of the US's allies. Imagne the hatred that is being created among the Muslim countries of the middle east.

This is not to do with the American governments abilty to conduct two wars at once (the fact that the "war on terrorism" is a stupid phrase is another matter). It is about the consequences of this action. The world wide support the US recieved after Sept. 11th is gone, it has been a monumental achievement of US diplomacy to destroy that alliance so quickly.

ÜberJumper

20th Mar 03, 11:59 AM

Martian:

You say "On the other hand, the USA has ignored it for years, and now suddenly claims that 'thousands are killed every year' and that the Iraqi's must be liberated." and I say that it's about damned time they stopped ignoring it. As my mom used to say, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it". The US helped birth Saddam, then he's their responsibility. I'm hoping this is the start of the world pulling it's lazy ass together and sorting out the lil nests of evil around the world.

As someone who was doing his basic training when the US invaded Kuwait in 1990, and was doing his Infantry training when the Coalition forces spanked the Iraq army around with a trout in early '91, I definately remember how it ended. The Iraqi's signed this document that said the war would end if they agreed to a bunch of conditions. They didn't, so game on.

Martian

20th Mar 03, 1:44 PM

Uber: But I highly doubt the reasons why the USA suddenly stops ignoring it, about time or not. And I higly doubt the effectiveness of the means used -a war- to improve the life of the common Iraqi. I think the USA just wants a pro-USA government in the region, and does not give a damn about how that government treats his civilians. In short, I do not believe the USA just turned around 180 degrees morally.

Again, this goes for every country in the world, but the USA is just the strongest boy in the schoolyard. We have a nice saying: High trees catch the most wind....

IronHammer: I will not discuss with you until you apologize for your ridiculous first post. You did everything short of calling me a terrorist.

IronHammer

20th Mar 03, 1:52 PM

Were are in no polularity contest Echo, the president has come flat out and said "if you support terrorists then you are against us", thats it. The vary Idea that we should make decisions of defense based on popularity is humorus, whatever we do will get attacked, Sep/11 proved that, should more die just to show you that we are hated and despised already?

Well Martian, i'm calling what I see, the very fact your espusing such anti-US rhetoric about US imperialism, and the US using the country of Iraq, speaks for itself; especially while my countrymen are fighting, and quite possibley dieying for its defense, it was your comments which are insensitive and full of hate. Rightly so I call you against the US.

We can go into facts about past history, and you can continue to say exactly what America hater's spurt, but know this you will not draw feindship from me.

APOLLO(SLS)

20th Mar 03, 2:50 PM

Do not make this a name-calling contest please. I will warn only once.

Martian

20th Mar 03, 2:54 PM

*tries very hard to ignore IronHammer*

A nice post I found in a good discussion on another forum.

The Iraqi people need to be freed from tyranny and opression.

Too bad they're not even on the list of Bush's concerns.

If Iraq was any other 3rd-world country, The rapes and tourtres of civillians would go on, and no one in the US would even know. A war that stems from greed can mean nothing but trouble, and trouble is what's going to come unless the higher powers learn to respect people instead of profit.

What I'm getting at is: Don't even TRY to suggest this is a war to aid the Iraqi people. There are many countries out there that make Iraq look like disneyland, and most people cannot even name them.
If you are interested, click here (http://www.evilavatar.com/redirected.asp?fromurl=http%3A//www.evilavatar.com/EA/News/M44000/%23discussion)

[edit]another one, last one:

I really hate that compassion is suddenly the handbag for conservatives to bandy about as the reason this war is just. The Kurds have been under Saddam's gun for 20+ years, and NOW we're so concerned about it. Hell, other people all over the world are oppressed and killed off and tortured and raped by their governments (let's not get started on the Chinese), but we pick Iraq and the Kurds as the ones we're going to shed tears over at the moment. Get a clue. The war is over Israel, oil, and the extrememly tenuous links the administration has drawn between Iraq and terrorism. As someone pointed out above, global terror is far more rooted in Saudi Arabia then Iraq, but no one seems to care.
saves me some writing ;)

IronHammer

20th Mar 03, 3:16 PM

Are you saying that a conservative is an un-compassionete when they are the one's supporting the freedom of Iraq?

You are the one indiferant because of your hatred to the US, the liberation of Iraq can serve as both the defense of my country, and the liberation of the people there, the fact that we are responding show's more that conservative veiw nowadays works, you never cared about those people, all you care about is how Bush is the one calling the shots.

rc mad

20th Mar 03, 3:24 PM

Quite frankly i'm getting sick of all the anti war protestors here in the uk. Will they not understand the threat that sadam and other regimes like his pose until the uk suffers its own 9/11??

Seems some students prefer sitting around doing nothing but protesting against a war they know nothing about.

It is a well known fact that the USA did support sadam - thats in the past under a different administation - george bush cannot be tarred with the same brush as the previous administration. He feels that 12 years - 12 years for gods sake is enough time for sadam ( not iraq or its people) to disarm, and that enough is enough.

And on a serious but slightly humerous note -

Here's a quote from my a very reliable source (unlike the net) - my father

Whilst in leeds last tuesday

Anti war protestor: George bush is a terrorist!
dad: wtf?? Did George Bush Bring down the two towers?
Protestor: Umm No - But he's still a terrorist
Lengthy heated discussion ensues - at the end of which-
dad: :flame: shut up you silly bi**h and get the f*** out of my face.
Dad: (whilst leaving ) Nuke the Bas**rds! (he didn't mean the last part he just likes winding up the protestors :D)
My dad says is funny to watch 200+ plus protestors all turn and look at you in the same instance :D

Martian

20th Mar 03, 3:29 PM

@IronHammer
I hereby claim that it is not my fault if this ends up in a flame war.

You should start to read the things I post instead of hammering on my fictional hatred of the USA.
Read the first post I quoted. And the same argument I already posted before. *sigh*. I do not believe that the Bush administration cares jack shit about the liberation of the Iraqi people. At best, it is a positive side-effect for them.

Also, I do not believe that a war will liberate the Iraqi people. Be realistic, the chances that Iraq will transform into a democracy after this war are very slim. Look at Afghanistan, the people who now 'prosper' according to you: the central, democratic government only holds power in the capital. outside of the capital, the warlords who have always held power there, still do. And what will happen after the Americans leave? The government will most likely collapse again, and the nation will remain the warzone it has aways been.

In Iraq, it is highly likely that a civil war will follow your 'liberation'. The Kurds in the North, the people in the South, they will want to have their own nations. And the Kurds in Turkey and in Iran might join this revolt. Et voila: the conflict spreads, and the Middle east burns. You probably do not realise what a gigantic hornet's nest the Middle East is.
Also, a conflict over the leadership of what is left of Iraq will most likely ensue. The opposition is far from united.

Keep calling me indifferent, anti-democratic, and whatever names you can make up: you only make yourself look like a fool without arguments. Because, you haven't countered a single argument I've posted so far....

Martian

20th Mar 03, 3:32 PM

Originally posted by rc mad

It is a well known fact that the USA did support sadam - thats in the past under a different administationOh how funny. I cannot complain about that because it was under 'another administration' and 'in the past'. But I also cannot complain because the Americans liberated us 60 years ago.

:rolleyes:

rc mad

20th Mar 03, 3:39 PM

I did not say you could not complain - that is your right and you have chosen to express it, i was merely stating the fact that whatever the us did in the past was under different leadership and thefore i personally feel that it is not relevant to this discussion.

In Iraq, it is highly likely that a civil war will follow your 'liberation'. The Kurds in the North, the people in the South, they will want to have their own nations. And the Kurds in Turkey and in Iran might join this revolt. Et voila: the conflict spreads, and the Middle east burns. You probably do not realise what a gigantic hornet's nest the Middle East is.

This i find unlikely (not impossible just unlikely), for a start US and British troops will be in iraq, When the war ends they will most likely move into peace keeping roles - keeping the opposing factions apart until all sides can be brought to the table and discussions on the future of iraq can begin.

IronHammer

20th Mar 03, 3:45 PM

Read these links (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10268&perpage=15&pagenumber=5) I have posted then, and tell me that Saddam has not commited crimes that would make even Hitler proud.

As for what I see Martian, your still espousing an argument that is anti-US.
I can respect that as an opinion but it is not based on any rational argument, I am a fool and I can admit it, but when such opinions are utterd in times like this, you look far more foolish.

Martian

20th Mar 03, 3:52 PM

IronHammer, really, outside of your little black-and-white world, it is possible to be against war and not against the USA. Although your governments neat propaganda war probably made you believe otherwise.

Also, i know that Saddam is an evil man. Get that into your mind. But, I repeat for the umphteent time, I think this war is NOT about the suffering of the Iraqi's, and I think it will cause more suffering than it will solve. And I really hope to be proved wrong.

EchoEffect

20th Mar 03, 3:59 PM

IronHammer: I was not suggesting it was a popularity contest. But if you cant see that pissing off millions of people isn't helping your cause then I am afraid all hope for peace in this world is lost.

APOLLO(SLS)

20th Mar 03, 4:11 PM

Ironhammer, do not post in this thread again. You are making this a personal issue. I suggest you back off and cool off a bit. Martian and others are entitled to their antiwar opinions. You are reducing this thread to personal attacks against anyone without a positive view on the war. This is the only warning you will get. Failure to comply will result in censor and/or red card.

GhostTX

20th Mar 03, 4:25 PM

Martian,

I do think you'll be proved wrong.

The Cold War was ofcourse a very different situation: Europe was in shatters, and ready to be divided between the conquerors.

You don't think Iraq is in shatters? Its people aren't mistreated (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html) ?

Bush seems to have a plan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80807,00.html) to rebuild Iraq.

(the Americans gave us alot of freedom though. I am still thankful for that, but it does not matter in todays discussion).
Don't you think the Iraqi's will be grateful, too? I think it does matter in today's discussion. You don't think they want the same freedoms?

nickersonm

20th Mar 03, 4:36 PM

This war is not primarily for the benefit of the Iraqi people, it is for the safety of the US. Liberating the Iraqis is just a beneficial side-effect. Is it wrong for the US to use its power to protect its interests? If Saddam were allowed to stay, he might achieve his stated goal of bringing the entire Middle East under his control. This would give him control over most oil-dependant countries, which would not be in the interest of the US. The war is also to prevent Saddam from using his WMDs, or selling them to those who would. The US has a right to protect itself from mad dictators like Saddam.

- nickersonm

Martian

20th Mar 03, 4:42 PM

Originally posted by GhostTX
Martian,

I do think you'll be proved wrong.

You don't think Iraq is in shatters? Its people aren't mistreated (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html) ?

Bush seems to have a plan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80807,00.html) to rebuild Iraq.

Don't you think the Iraqi's will be grateful, too? I think it does matter in today's discussion. You don't think they want the same freedoms? I hope you are right. But I still think you won't. Only time will tell ;)

Iraq, in some ways, is in shatters, yes; I am just saying that the two situations are very different.

Its people are mistreated, as I already said. But, as I posted even in my last post, I do not believe this war will bring a stable government that is NOT going to mistreat its people. Also, I believe that it will cause the region to be plunged into a civil war in wich many people will suffer.

about the plan:

Privately, American officials say an Iraqi interim government could be functioning within months. But some Iraq experts disputed that, saying it would be more like years.

The plans are not without controversy at home. On Capitol Hill, a growing chorus of voices want firm answers from the Bush administration about how much the war and the rebuilding will cost.
This does not sound promising..... I do not believe that the USA's rosy view of the situation will become truth. One of the stereotypical characteristics of the Americans is their optimism. It often helps them, but wich might also turn the mess they are possibly facing into a huge dissapointment. And then what?

Here, also: I hope to be proved wrong.

And no, I don't think the Iraqi will be grateful for long. They hate Saddam, but they also hate the USA (unlike the Europeans in WWII). I doubt you will be seen as liberators; especially when many civilians die in an urban war in Baghdad. Your war will be seen as one against Saddam and not one for the Iraqi people; and, ofcourse, rightly so.

I would dearly love to give the Iraqi the same freedoms as I enjoy; but once again, I do not believe this war is going to give those freedoms to them. And there are many more opressed people in the world....

Tygre

20th Mar 03, 4:43 PM

Martian (and others): I'm not a political or military analyst (heh, as if I have to tell you), but I don't see why it would be better to leave this "hornet's nest" alone. Would the best solution be to continue to let the UN back down to inaction and extend that whole "no nukes for yuo, Saddam" that was put in place 12 years ago yet again? The US has been ignoring Iraq for those 12 years because we were trusting and trying to obey the freaking UN.

I'm not entirely sure that the war is the best solution to our terrorism problem, but it is high time someone stepped up and took responsibility for the US's past actions (fine, we put Saddam in power, we gave him weapons, <INSERT MORE PSEUDOHISTORY HERE>, let's take the blame) and at least tried to right some wrongs. True, there are at least dozens of other countries that are in just as much poverty as the Iraqi people are...but hey, let's go for the guy with 2000 tanks, who knows how many captured Soviet vehicles, illegal weapons and an army rivaling our own in numbers first to get him out of the way, just for fun, hmmm?

In spite of all that...I saw an anti-"Iraqi Freedom" flash animation that I thought humorous, but the site seems to be down. [Watch this space for a Middle Eastern fusion of Sim-City and Risk] It does involve a rather non-sequitir action by Israel (among others), though, but it's thought-provoking nonetheless.

Starfisher

20th Mar 03, 5:04 PM

You would like to give them the freedoms you enjoy...

You constantly list problems about our approach, yet have offered nothing in the way of an alternative beyond "give it more time!"

The Isreali/Palestinian conflict is seen as the root of all hatred. Since any soltution to this conflict would involve killing off the hatred between the Isreali's and Palestinians, and doing that would require the current generation's ingrown hatred to die off, the solution to this would be a generation in the making, at least.

So, we can wait a generation before removing the immediate threat of an Iraqi weapon, or Iraqi expertise, or Iraqi anything being used by a terrorist. That doesn't seem to realistic, does it?

The problem, Martian, is that you offer no alternative to action other than inaction, which doesn't work. So, what would you have us do?

Martian

20th Mar 03, 6:06 PM

K. An alternative, although I already know you will all disagree with me.

You say: inaction doesn't work. I did not say that I want inaction, although you are right about the fact that I did not offer an alternative. Also, it is too late for any alternative, but I will post it anyway.

The inspections should have continued. The French idea of tripling the amount of inspections could have worked. With a large enough force in the Gulf to back the inspectors up, and a promise that Saddam would get his butt kicked as soon as he hindered them or kicked them out, it could have worked.
Ofcourse, the Iraqi government would try to stall them in any way the could without causing a war. But in the 6 months the anti-war coalition in the UN proposed, I do believe that they would have found proof of weapons of mass destruction, if they existed.

The process of disarmament would be slower and harder, and it wouldnt be complete, but I think it would work better than throwing the country into chaos and probably causing the weapons to either dissapear in the chaos or be used on civilians/coalition forces.

You probably consider this inaction; I consider it reachin the same end slower, with more effort, but without chaos, the chance of civil war, and many casualties.

Ofcourse, the people of Iraq would not benefit from this; at least not immediately. But the inspectors could probably be extended to watch over the civil rights of the people, or something. Anyway, I think there is a very good chance that leaving Saddam in power will be better for the Iraqi's that plunging the region into a huge conflict, as is happening now. Once again, I hope to be proved wrong.

There is no way to end the problem quickly, just as there is no way of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict quickly. That the USA tries it anyway is highly dangerous and, i hope, highly naive.

Starfisher

20th Mar 03, 6:20 PM

"With a large enough force in the Gulf to back the inspectors up, and a promise that Saddam would get his butt kicked as soon as he hindered them or kicked them out, it could have worked."

There already was that. Saddam hindered them. Now he's getting his butt kicked.

Even assuming we successfully disarmed Saddam without war, how does that help the overall world situation? If Bush's highly risky endeavour works out, there will be a democratic Arab state - a first.

I know you don't consider that possible, but at least this way there's a chance. Doing nothing to alter the situation beyond disarmarment in the region wouldn't, in the long run, change a thing. You'd have Saddam's sons in power for the next fifty years. If we tried to force reform on any of the other oppressive governments, Iraq would be hurled out by the same people who now complain of the hypocrisy of "liberating Iraq" while being friendly with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. You have to start somehwere, or you never start at all.

Bonnet

20th Mar 03, 6:42 PM

Yes those inspections where working real well you know with the fact that they have already launched SCUDS against our troops and have igven thier field commanders chem weapons.

Martian

20th Mar 03, 7:34 PM

Zbobet you did not read or understand what I posted. The inspections haven't been given enough time; the USA never took them seriously; and there were not enough inspectors. Obviously, they haven't discovered much.

But Scud's aren't weapons of mass destruction, although definately a breach of the UN demands.

btw: someone please put up a link to an article that says that Scud's were fired, the Dutch news talked about Al Samouds and something they called 'artillery rockets', but not about scud's. Yet, i've heard multiple people claiming scud's were fired.

Now I really need to get some sleep.... *yawns*

nickersonm

20th Mar 03, 7:38 PM

ABC News said that of the 7-8 missiles that were fired today, 1-2 of them were suspected of being Al-Hussein SCUDs. The rest were probably Al-Samoud missiles.

- nickersonm

Bonnet

20th Mar 03, 7:53 PM

Martian the inspections where not working and liekly would not have. The inspectors have reported enough Anthrax missing to kill everything on the planet thirty times. And if Iraq had allowed more inspectors in they would have found nothing, why? Because the Iraqis had spent months stalling the UN so they could hide thier weapons. If no one noticed they caved in all in one day, when they refused the slightest concessions the day before. Its like me saying martian im coming over to youre hous tomorrow to search for youre dope, well youre going to hide it duhhh.(I am not implying that you smoke dope it was just a example.) The Iraqs where also playing the political game per the usual.

APOLLO(SLS)

20th Mar 03, 8:08 PM

Martian, I must point out that the Iraqis are strongly suspected of having mobile chemical weapon factories. This was indicated by the defector who went back to Iraq after they said, "Sure, come on back, you'll be safe." Then they proceeded to execute him AND his family (after raping all the women). Not that the USA would not have executed a defector who dumbly returned to our country, but at least he would have not been tortured to death. And his family certainly would not have been touched.

The point being is that the inspectors have no means of determining weapons being hidden in this manner. They were not searching trucks for weapons, they were searching suspect facilities. Therefore, inspections = fail.

BattleFox

20th Mar 03, 8:42 PM

APOLLO, where did you get the info about the fate of that defector guy?

APOLLO(SLS)

20th Mar 03, 9:04 PM

From a widely published article written by Daniel Schorr that appeared in theChristian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1213/p11s02-cods.html). Not the best of sources granted, but this is not the only place I have heard this from, notably the part about the raping of the women in his family. Obviously that would likely not be published in a CSM article.

Retroboy

20th Mar 03, 9:44 PM

Was that the defector who ran several months ago, or the one from a couple years back?

The more recent defector sounded a bit smarter than that, and they got his family out too, didn't they?

-- Retro

APOLLO(SLS)

20th Mar 03, 9:55 PM

This was the defector from 1995...Saddam's son-in-law. The one who brought boxes of information detailing the fact that Iraq was not disarming, but was hiding stuff they had not reported back in 1991.

Walker

20th Mar 03, 11:01 PM

so youve already crashed a chopper and killed your own and british soldiers. nice. can you guys get through a day in a war without screwing something up? how about you bomb some canadians or your own forward positions now?

Zeenith

20th Mar 03, 11:47 PM

nevermine, Ill get in trouble.

frstkor13

20th Mar 03, 11:59 PM

Walker, do not post in this thread again.

Zeenith

21st Mar 03, 12:28 AM

Can we please just shut up on the war till it is over with, then talk about it. rember this, we are not even 96 hours into it and we got this stuff going on.

lets keep our opinions to ourselves till this conflict is over with ok.

Bonnet

21st Mar 03, 12:32 AM

:naughty:
Fedman if you dont want to know our opnions dont read the thread now cut it out!

The troops are already in Iraq and the invasion is underway :sniper: time.

Retroboy

21st Mar 03, 2:40 AM

(from bottom of previous page)
Apollo, I'm surprised he didn't make the Darwin awards. He should at least been A-listed.

Saw some footage of the "bunker buster" bombs the Americans are reputedly using, and the newer generation of precision targetting cruise missiles. The former are quite impressive - cut through six feet of reinforced concrete like it was butter.

Saddam's gotta know it's just a matter of time before they track him down in whatever his current nerve centre is. The ability to take out a room from fifteen hundred miles away is a very scary thing. I'd have to wonder what his psychological state is right now.

Interesting question: if he did evacuate, where would he run TO, and who'd take him in? I've not seen anything on the news discussing this, although I haven't looked too hard yet.

[mod hat]
Folks, a reminder that this IS going to be the only new allowed thread on the war and Iraqi present situation in this forum. If you don't like the topic, don't try to close or steer or change it, just immediately click the little X in the far upper right hand corner of this window.
[/mod hat]

-- Retro

Rincewind

21st Mar 03, 3:34 AM

Retroboy, if you had been told "Come back or we shoot your family", wouldn't you have gone back, too?

Don't believe the CSM. His family (at least Saddams daughter...duh) was left alone.

frstkor, why can't Walker participate in this thread anymore? I know that what he said was a bit silly, but as this is going to be the only thread about the war, you might have given him a warning instead. Though the method he put his point across was stupid, the subject is valid. Already the US has lost a multi-million dollar Abrams tank, to it's own Cobra helicopter :D

Earth-Command

21st Mar 03, 3:53 AM

12 Years of non Compilance with UN resolutions
+
Murdering and raping men, women and children
+
Human Shredding Machines
+
Chemical and Biological Weapons
+
Torture of people that disagree with you
+
Suicide Bombers Marching in streets
+
Elections with yourself being the only candidate
+
Granting a pardon to every criminal in the country 4 x-mas
=
a Spielberg horror film.............

What................ this actually happens, and people march in our streets burn our flags saying that military action will not solve the problem, let the UN sort it out, it only took them 5 years to get their inspectors back into this hell hole, may be in another 5 years they will find something or still be there.

I guess if you don't live in the country it is not your problem and you should allow them to sort it out. Don't interfere, don't lose sleep over it at night, it will never hurt you.

I hear you say that the US put this mad man in power, I guess that makes them prone to changing their minds. They and their allies should remove their troops with out delay and return the UN inspectors so they can find every weapon of mass destruction and leave in 12 months time patting themselves on the back of what a good job they have done. Good solution that will teach Saddam to mess with the UN, his people can all be happy knowing that there is no weapons of mass destruction in their country. They will all be able to go back and live their wonderful lives with their leader, without interferance.

May be we could ask Mr Saddam to leave his country for a nice holiday house in Bali.

How easy these anti-war protestors have it. ............... I wish I was one life would be so easy then.

I know there are alot of young people on these boards and I was around your age (18) when the 91 Gulf conflict happened. I prayed for peace believing it was the only way, trust in the UN I said.

Well I am now 30 and the UN have done very little to help the people of Iraq, to disarm Saddam Hussain. (Little did I care for the oppressed people of Iraq)

Just take a moment and imagine yourself living in Iraq under the rule of Saddam.

Is 12 years to long to wait for HELP?

How long do you give the UN to disarm Saddam and then do you leave him in power?

How do you get rid of him with out using force?

War is horriable but so is the consequences of inaction.

frstkor13

21st Mar 03, 3:55 AM

frstkor, why can't Walker participate in this thread anymore?

Because I said:

Walker, do not post in this thread again.

I'm sick of his 110% flame inciting negativity.

Any more inquiries to moderation procedures can be pm'd to me or put up in forum issues. They will simply be deleted here.

Martian

21st Mar 03, 4:36 AM

Please Earth-Command, read why I do not think that war will help those people and then tell me again that I don not care about the people of Iraq. I'm getting sick of repeating the same arguments over and over again because you people are too lazy to read or understand my posts.

Retroboy

21st Mar 03, 5:12 AM

Anyone here think Saddam is dead as a result of that recent rocket strike? Not me...

=-=--=--=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---=-==

Rincewind, if someone from Iraq said to me "Come back or we shoot your family", I'd be incredibly (and justifiably) concerned that they misworded the statement and it should be "Come back and we shoot your family".

I'd broker a deal for a hostage exchange, me for them and they get to leave the country, or not go back at all. If Iraq didn't negotiate on that, I'd think they were dead regardless, and it's just a matter of how much torture they would endure first.

However, I'd never be in that situation because I'd have done it like the second defector and arranged simultaneous evacuation of both myself AND my family, or not left in the first place.

I also wouldn't marry Saddam's daughter. That's another Darwin award right there. :D

-- Retro

Earth-Command

21st Mar 03, 7:04 AM

Martian I was not refering to you directly and most cerainly not saying you don't care for the people of Iraq.

My statements have been based on my thoughts and discussions with others in my community.

I have though been back and re-read your posts.

From my understanding of the content of your posts I see that you are against a US led war but would rather a peaceful solution to the Weapons of Mass Destruction. ie UN Weapon Inspectors

You believe that by the coalition forces removing Saddam from Iraq more corupt people may take his place and or war may break out in the Middle East killing many more people than Saddam and his merry men may kill in the next 10 years.

Thus it is not worth going to war when in the future more people may or may not die. What happens if in 10 years an Iraqie biological agent is released in your country killing half the popullation. (would that be alot of people?)

I live in Australia and we lost 98 Australian lives to a terrorist attack in Bali last October. So don't ever say it can't happen to you. Our crime as stated by Bin Laden was going into East Timor to protect the lives of the people in that country that were being slaughtered on mass, because they wanted their freedom.

I suggest that at the completion of the Coalition of the willing removing Saddam and his sons an interim government will be installed till fair public elections can be held. Till then and after that period I feel certain that the UN will have a peace keeping force in Iraq along with the US to warn off trouble in the short to mid term.

Long term I believe the UN will remain with a presence in the region. Till stability is a real thing.

Result of this the Iraq people will be free of a man that is really BAD. No Weapons of Mass Destruction will be left, medicenes and food will flow into Iraq.

I certainly do appreciate your opinions and in no way wish to start a flame war.

My concern with your suggestion of UN inspectors and Saddam remaining is that in 18 months time the inspectors will find chemical weapons at which point he will expell them from his country as happened in 1998.

We are then back to where we started.

But I do take on board what you are saying as it is now a possiablilty. The Allied forces will rid Iraq of Saddam, so we will then find out once and for if we should have sat on our hands and persisted with UN inspectors for a second time or a third time or a fourth time or have attacked with out the UN.

You may be right about civil war and the people of Iraq being better off. In the coming years we will know.

I HOPE NOT. :err:

If you keep doing what you have all ways done you will only get more of what you've already got.

Paladin

21st Mar 03, 7:17 AM

By international treaties that the US has signed, and obeyed for decades, we will be required to remain in occupation of Iraq for 10 years keeping the peace and rebuilding their infrastructure. 10 years.

I think it's fair to say that if Bush is having us invade, knowing that, that he is commited to helping the Iraqi people.

-Paladin

Retroboy

21st Mar 03, 7:48 AM

Not so sure about how "binding" those treaties are, Paladin, considering most legal experts in my country agree that the United States' attack is illegal, regardless of whether or not you believe it's justified.

-- Retro

Rincewind

21st Mar 03, 8:17 AM

There was an interesting article in the newspaper about a senate hearing in the US where they discussed this. Apparently, they will keep up to 200,000 troops in Iraq for 2-3 years, then start re-organizing the Iraqi army and finally transferring control to a civillian authority in 5-6 years.

Martian

21st Mar 03, 10:08 AM

Paladin: the USA also signed a treaty called the 'Kyoto treaty', if you remember it. Also, they are willing to invade my little country by the sea to save war criminals. Furthermore, they have one-sided cancelled the Nuclear treaty with Russia, and illegally imposed import taxes on steel to protect their financial interest. I do not have a reason to trust the Bush administration.

Earth-Command: again you use the unfounded accusation of links between Iraq and terrorists. There is no proof for that, so it can;t be a reason to start a war. Also, I posted that I fear that the weapons of mass destruction, if they are there, might dissapear in the chaos that the war will cause. This is much more dangerous than inserting inspectors to find those weapons while keeping the country stable.
The USA cannot possibly secure all the weapons that are hidden in Iraq quickly, because they do not know where those weapons are. Also, the weapons might be used in the war, either on coalition forces or on the Iraqi population, killing thousands or more. It is a big risk to take-imho, a too big risk to take.

and btw: half our population would be almost 8,500,000 people. You'd need alot of chemical weapons for that ;), but I see your point.

Shalishaska

21st Mar 03, 10:09 AM

While they enjoy the wonderful prices of the oil they resell to themseves at a very low cost.It's a wonderful idea,ain't it?

Starfisher

21st Mar 03, 10:22 AM

Ok. If anyone suggests that Bush's plan is to take over the oil wells and get cheap oil again, I will be forced to act like a moron and flame, flame FLAME :madashell:!

As everyone has rightly pointed out, the US can't just do whatever it wants. Throughout this entire process Bush has said over and over again, "The Oil is the property of the people of Iraq." If he goes back on that, he loses what remains of his credibility at home, and would truly shatter what remains of the various international alliances. BUSH IS NOT GOING TO 'STEAL' THE OIL!

GhostTX

21st Mar 03, 11:02 AM

Just so that its known....

In 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam met with our diplomat from our embassy in Kuwait.

In a nutshell, Saddam told the American diplomat, "Leave us alone and we'll sell you oil for a very good price, or fight us and you'll have tens of thousands of American soldiers dead."

If we wanted the oil, we could have made a deal then.

Enough with the stupid oil comments! JEEEEZ!

EchoEffect

21st Mar 03, 11:10 AM

I am getting worried now how anyone who voices an anti-war opinion is immediatly branded a trator, or a appeaser, or a friend of Saddam. I find it very worrying how it seems more and more people in America can not say what they like because they are branded as unpatriotic.

The Lib Dems get shouted down in parliment simply for having an opposing view, which i find disgraceful ,and utterly childish. I am very disapointed in the behaviour of many of our MPs, especialy the Tories. The Lib Dems are accused of being oppertunists because they have the same view as much of the public. A stupid conclusion. The stance (the consistent stance) of hte Lib Dems fits perfectly into Liberal ideology, and they would be saying it whether it was popular or not. At least The Liberals have an ideology, as do the Conservativies. Which is more than can be said for New Labour.

It smaks of totalitarianism, and is very scary. Being against the war does not mean you want allied soldiers to die, or for the allies to lose. It means you dont think there should have been a war in the first place.

edit: Transcript of Blairs address to Britain last night:

"On Tuesday night I gave the order for British forces to take part in military action in Iraq.

Tonight British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea.

Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

I know that this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country but I know also the British people will now be united in sending our armed forces our thoughts and prayers - they are the finest in the world and their families and all of Britain can have great pride in them.

The threat to Britain today is not that of my father's generation.

War between the big powers is unlikely, Europe is at peace, the Cold War already a memory.

But this new world faces a new threat of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction or of extreme terrorist groups.

Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy.

My fear, deeply held, based in part on the intelligence that I see is that these threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and our world.

These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life - the terrorists delight in destroying it.

Some say if we act we become a target the truth is all nations are targets.

Bali was never in the frontline of action against terrorism, America didn't attack al-Qaeda - they attacked America.

Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back but even if we were it wouldn't avail us.

Should terrorists obtain these weapons now being manufactured and traded around the world the carnage they could inflict to our economies, to our security, to world peace would be beyond our most vivid imagination.

My judgement as prime minister is that this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before.

For 12 years the world tried to disarm Saddam after his wars in which hundreds of thousands died.

UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.

So our choice is clear: back down and leave Saddam hugely strengthened or proceed to disarm him by force.

Retreat might give us a moment of respite but years of repentance at our weakness would, I believe, follow.

It is true that Saddam is not the only threat but it is true also as we British know that the best way to deal with future threats peacefully is to deal with present threats with resolve.

Removing Saddam will be a blessing to the Iraqi people: four million Iraqis are in exile, 60% of the population dependent on food aid, thousands of children die every year through malnutrition and disease, hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes or murdered.

I hope the Iraqi people hear this message. We are with you. Our enemy is not you but your barbarous rulers.

Our commitment to the post-Saddam humanitarian effort will be total.

We shall help Iraq move towards democracy and put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so it benefits Iraq and no-one else.

Neither should Iraq be our only concern.

As so often before on the courage and determination of British men and women serving our country the fate of many nations rest.

We will strive to see it done. But these challenges and others that confront us: poverty, the environment, the ravages of disease require a world of order and stability.

Dictators like Saddam. Terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, threaten the very existence of such a world.

That is why I've asked our troops to go into action tonight.

As so often before on the courage and determination of British men and women serving our country the fate of many nations rest. Thank you."

possibly a few duplications as i copied it off the BBC and they have extra captions and things.

Mac_Bug

21st Mar 03, 11:56 AM

As everyone has rightly pointed out, the US can't just do whatever it wants. Throughout this entire process Bush has said over and over again, "The Oil is the property of the people of Iraq." If he goes back on that, he loses what remains of his credibility at home, and would truly shatter what remains of the various international alliances. BUSH IS NOT GOING TO 'STEAL' THE OIL!

I'm sure every American is well versed on why the Soviets wanted Afghanistan in the first place, and very well informed about the pipeline being constructed in Afghanistan which American oil companies has spent millions and millions upon and had planned for literally decades.

SvK

21st Mar 03, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Martian
Furthermore, they have one-sided cancelled the Nuclear treaty with Russia,

You mean the treaty against missile defenses? I was under the impression the USA made that treaty with the Soviet Union.

Genetic Bryy

21st Mar 03, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by GhostTX
Enough with the stupid oil comments! JEEEEZ!

Oh my god. For a minute there, I thought we were a DEBATE FORUM.

Starfisher

21st Mar 03, 1:14 PM

Oil, Mac? Wow, that wasn't blatantly obvious!

A facet of any war is protecting a country's resources, or the flow of those resources. Obvious the US is heavily dependant on oil.

That doesn't mean we're going to annex the oil fields. We're still going to buy it at OPEC prices from the Iraqis. If any sort of US meddling is found, the outrage the world has now would be nothing compared to what would happen. And Bush would lose all popularity at home. Despite international opinion, the average American is not a drunken oil tycoon. Already Bush has lost most of his post 9/11 popularity, and it won't take much for him to lose the rest.

Martian

21st Mar 03, 1:47 PM

Originally posted by SvK

You mean the treaty against missile defenses? I was under the impression the USA made that treaty with the Soviet Union. Oh, yeah. Lets start whining about the details.

The treaty was still in effect-until the USA suddenly decided to step out of it.

APOLLO(SLS)

21st Mar 03, 1:52 PM

This is a thread about the war in Iraq, not about US policy with Russia. Please keep the thread on-topic.

Bonnet

21st Mar 03, 2:58 PM

If Bush was trying to get rich with his "oil buddies" he would do the exact opsite of invade iraq so he could make millions when they jacked up the price. And Mac if they had planed on this for litteraly decades the why did we just invade it? Also if the American oil Companies are puring bilons into a country which GNP is less then my states, is that not a good thing?(please stop the oil stuff unless you can provide one shred of evidence that this is what the war is about)

molo

21st Mar 03, 4:47 PM

well, the first thing that the brits - with americans, as well - did was secure the oil-rich southern peninsula.

Starfisher

21st Mar 03, 4:59 PM

Because the only point of entry into Iraq is in the south. And Saddam set Kuwaiti oil fields on fire after the first Gulf War, so it would stand to reason the he may set Iraq's on fire to snub the US.

Trying to attach deep importance to the fact that the US secured the oil fields first would be like trying to attach the same to the fact that when you get of bed in the morning, your feet hit the floor.

Tygre

21st Mar 03, 5:07 PM

Always useful...

Paladin

21st Mar 03, 5:08 PM

Paladin: the USA also signed a treaty called the 'Kyoto treaty', if you remember it.
Actually we refused to endorse it, there's a difference. The whole Kyoto issue is equivalent to the rest of the world looking at the US in a cross manner and saying "The rest of us all signed it, what's holding you up?" Fortunately we americans react badly to bullies.

Treaties we have actually signed and ratified we keep. Americans value keeping their word.

And as for oil... Iraq contributes such a piddling proportion of the middle-east oil supply it quite simply wouldn't be worth our time to go to war over, certainly not when we have our own reserves we could tap if we really wanted more.

-Paladin

Retroboy

21st Mar 03, 5:09 PM

A HUMOROUS WAR STORY (no, really!)

I was returning with a client from a meeting today, and we decided to stop on the highway for a bite to eat at a small restaurant. He's 23 and single, BTW. I'm old and hitched. But I ain't dead.

We walk in, and there's one table free. The rest are filled with very pretty young ladies. A whole friggin' busload of them, in fact. And they're bored and want to chat.

While my client bobbled his head back and forth with a big stupid grin, looking like a squirrel OD'ing on caffeine, I calmly relaxed and enjoyed the view.

After half an hour, they all paid up and left. The line-up at the cash register looked like a beauty pageant, except a lot of 'em were wearing some pretty wild clothes. Hell, a lot of 'em looked like they were in their 20's!

We found out the digs after they'd left. Apparently, they were a bunch of senior high school cheerleaders (15 and 16 year olds) on their way from Halifax to a competition in New York. But the Big Apple is so full of protesters right now, the bus driver turned around on recommendation of the border crossing guards, and headed back, so our little restaurant got a surprise visit!

Now... I love the war!

-- Retro, being trivial AND on-topic! :D

Martian

21st Mar 03, 5:20 PM

Paladin: you convieniently forgot the other examples I posted.

funny, huh.

And you did sign it, although not endorse it. It's not like you didn't commit yourself to it already.

APOLLO(SLS)

21st Mar 03, 5:46 PM

Martian and Paladin, final warning. Your next off-topic post in this thread will be your last. If you wish to debate the Kyoto treaty start another thread.

Harmanoff

21st Mar 03, 7:55 PM

"The polish state has refused the peaceful solution to our relations that I wanted and have put their trust in weapons. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and are driven from their homes. A number of border violations, impossible for a superpower to tolerate, shows that Poland is no longer willing to respect this nations border.
To end this madness I have no other choise but to from now on meet violence with violence. The german army will fight the battle for the honour and vital rights of the reborn Germany with fierce resilience. I expect each soldier, with the eternal German soldiercorps proud tradition in mind, to always be aware that he represents the Great Nationalsocialist Germany. Long live our people and our state!"

-Proclamation by Adolf Hitler, german Reichschansler, to the german army september 1st 1939

This doesn't sound familiar to anyone does it?

Starfisher

21st Mar 03, 8:39 PM

No, not really.

The only similarity tween that and current Bushian rhetoric: "refused the peaceful solution to our relations that I wanted and have put their trust in weapons." Which wasn't really true in Polands case, but has been shown over twelve years to be true in Saddam's.

eadipus

21st Mar 03, 9:37 PM

yay! turkey has invaded northern iraq where the kurds live and i'm sure we all know how well the turkish government treats the kurds.

i wonder if the US will invade turkey now?

Genetic Bryy

21st Mar 03, 9:39 PM

The US is going to invade whoever steps out of line, whomever we think needs a national wake-up call.

starrider

21st Mar 03, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by eadipus
yay! turkey has invaded northern iraq where the kurds live and i'm sure we all know how well the turkish government treats the kurds.

i wonder if the US will invade turkey now?

oh come on if you havent noticed turkey and the US are allies its customary for allies not to start wars

Retroboy

21st Mar 03, 10:23 PM

Starrider, have you ever heard the phrase "allies of convenience"?

Turkey's making a mistake.

-- Retro

Stealth

21st Mar 03, 10:25 PM

Anyone who feels that we as a people should live in peace, throw down our arms, and march happily through the streets singing and dancing is naive.

Until we all agree on everything, look exactly alike, and think the exact same way, there will never be peace in the world. Don't let those happy futuristic shows like Star Trek where the entire world gets along fool you either.

Genetic Bryy

21st Mar 03, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Stealth
Until we all agree on everything, look exactly alike, and think the exact same way, there will never be peace in the world

I actually think it will be the opposite. If we all think, look, and act the same, there would be 1984. More anarchy for change, stricter rules imposed by governments.

Rincewind

22nd Mar 03, 3:51 AM

Wohoo! Just heared from the news that Ali Hassan al-Majid is dead. He's the one known as "Chemical Ali" and he was mainly responsible for gassing the Kurds.

My parents are still in Iraq, but not in Baghdad anymore, rather a small town a bit south from it. The farm they are staying in is insignificant, so they should be safe, but the only things that worry me are chemical weapons used in Baghdad coming downstream (the farm is next to the river) or stray ordnance...

That's why I'm so happy. Ali 'aint gassing no-one no-more. I just hope that it will take them too long to re-organize their stockpiles (he was the one responsible for CW) to use them in this conflict.

Note that this isn't confirmed yet, it's just "almost certain" info from the CIA (stop laughing!).

The other two who are believed dead are Tajhi Ramadan and Izzat Ibrahim.

Mac_Bug

22nd Mar 03, 4:46 AM

UNOCAL, the spearhead for Standard Oil interests, has been trying to build the north-south pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean for several decades. In 1998, the California-based UNOCAL, which held 46.5 percent stakes in Central Asia Gas (CentGas), a consortium that planned an ambitious gas pipeline across Afghanistan, withdrew in frustration after several fruitless years. The pipeline was to stretch 1,271 km from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields to Multan in Pakistan at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion. An additional $600 million would have brought the pipeline to energy-hungry India.

In the spring of 2001, Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's company, signed a major contract with the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan to develop a 6000-square-meter marine base to support offshore oil construction in the Caspian Sea. The base will be used to assist Halliburton's catamaran crane vessel, the Qurban Abbasov, in upcoming offshore pipe-laying and subsea activities, according to a statement the company released May 15, 2001.

UNOCAL cut off its earlier agreement with the Taliban in 1998 when it became clear that the Taliban could not control all of Afghanistan and provide a stable political environment for a north-south pipeline construction project. It was likely at this juncture that a new "war against terrorism" ploy was conceived by the Standard Oil-influenced U.S. government. The "war against terrorism" in Afghanistan has come to a hiatus, with war-lords once again ruling the country, and the Bush administration has put their own man, Karzai, in power to control Afghanistan.

Karzai was a top adviser to UNOCAL during the negotiations with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan. Karzai is the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe. A member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s, Karzai was a top contact for the CIA, maintaining close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service go-between. After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, the CIA sponsored the relocation of Karzai and a number of his brothers to the U.S.

The real motives for the Bush administration's war in Afghanistan are clear for all to see. The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, met with Pakistan's oil minister, Usman Aminuddin, in January, 2002 to continue plans for the north-south pipeline, encouraging the construction of Pakistan's Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

President Bush says our military will continue its presence in Afghanistan, which means that while the U.N. forces serve as a paramilitary police force, U.S. soldiers will be guarding the construction of the north-south pipeline.

To assure that the pipeline project will proceed apace, the Afghani-American Zalmay Khalilzad, a previous member of the CentGas project, became President Bush's Special National Security Assistant. Khalilzad has recently been named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Khalilzad is a Pashtun and the son of a former government official under King Mohammed Zahir Shah. Along with being a consultant to the RAND Corporation, he was a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban government. Khalilzad also worked on various risk analyses for the project under the direction of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron.

Now that the Afghanistan portion of the "war on terrorism" is concluded--with permanent U.S. military bases in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan in place--where next will the Standard Oil-influenced U.S. government look to gain further control over oil in the world? Coincidentally, most of those places are in countries which have been branded as harborers of terrorists: Iraq, Syria, Iran, and South America, among others.

Bush Sr.'s Gulf War in 1991 resulted in securing access to the huge Rumaila oil field of southern Iraq by expanding the boundaries of Kuwait after the war. This allows Kuwait, controlled by Standard Oil, to double its prewar oil output.

Iraq, which recently discovered an oil field in its western desert, is widely regarded as having more oil than Saudi Arabia once its deposits are developed. Iraq is producing 3 million barrels a day, funneling most of it to world markets through a United Nations-monitored program that directs the proceeds to food and medicine for the Iraqi people. But Saddam Hussein is still exporting his oil to Syria, which is glad to resell Iraqi oil as if it were Syrian. The United States is one of Syria's biggest customers, because it likes the low sulfur content of Iraqi oil, says Nimrod Raphaeli, publisher of the Middle East Economic News, a Washington-based newsletter. Iraq earns $1.5 billion a year from oil smuggling and oil sales outside UN controls, through Syria, Turkey, and Jordan, as well as by ship down the Gulf.

Since 9/11/01, the Bush regime has threatened to include Iraq in its "war on terrorism." But any incursion into Iraq will have to deal with the reality that American companies, such as Cheney's Halliburton and G.E. are making billions in Iraq by selling them goods and services. Also, the eradication of Saddam would seriously compromise America's establishment of bases on the Arabian peninsula on the pretext of protecting poor Arab sheikhs against the Iraqi Evil Monster.

Iraq is desperately trying to ingratiate itself with the Gulf Arab Cooperation Council (GCC) members: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to gain support for the lifting of the U.N. sanctions against it. Russia, Iraq's closest U.N. Security Council ally and a major beneficiary of contracts to purchase Iraqi oil and to sell Iraq humanitarian supplies, is demanding "a comprehensive settlement" of the sanctions issue, including steps leading to lifting the military embargo against Iraq. On January 24, 2002, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov made a formal statement that Moscow was opposed to any U.S. military operation against Iraq.

Russia's Lukoil Oil Company and two Russian government agencies have a 23-year contract to develop Iraq's West Qurna oil field. By the terms of the contract, Lukoil gets one half, Iraq one quarter, and the Russian government agencies get one quarter of the oil field's 667 million tons of crude, potentially a $20 billion deal. Iraq still owes Russia at least $8 billion from the old cold war days when Russia armed Iraq, considering it a client state.

But because of United Nations sanctions on Iraq, Lukoil has not pumped a drop from West Qurna since it won drilling rights in 1997. In 2001, Saddam gave Russia $1.3 billion in oil contracts under the United Nations oil-for-food program that allows Iraq to sell oil to buy supplies to help Iraqi civilians. In September, 2001, Saddam announced plans to award Russian companies another $40 billion in contracts as soon as United Nations sanctions were lifted.

In February, 2002, Russia's foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, said that Russia and Iraq saw eye to eye on questions of extremism and terrorism and that the American-backed sanctions against Iraq were counterproductive and should be lifted. He then emphasized that Russia solidly opposed "spreading or applying the international antiterror operation to any arbitrarily chosen state, including Iraq."

Also to be considered in any plans to extend the Standard Oil/Bush oil imperialism is China's growing interest in supporting Middle-East nations in their struggle against the U.S. During Jordanian King Abdallah II's January, 2002 visit to China, Chinese President Jiang Zemin said that China wants stronger ties with Arab countries to help promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Yeah, sure, that's the reason China wants to put its foot into the Middle East, to promote peace. China has supplied military weaponry to Pakistan and is ready to intervene in the Middle East if the Standard Oil/Bush imperialists attempt to attack Iraq as Bush senior did in 1991.

But the Standard Oil/Bush imperialists probably won't concern themselves with the threat of China in the Middle East. They will likely try to seize control of all of Iraq's, Syria's, and Iran's oil. Enter phase two of the war on terrorism: invading countries that Bush says harbor terrorists, with the real intent to seize those countries' energy sources. And since U.S.-British a.k.a. Standard Oil imperialism now--since 9/11--results in the killing of American civilians, we can say that the next phase of the war on terrorism will soon be at a theater near you.

Mac_Bug

22nd Mar 03, 4:58 AM

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12946

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0130-05.htm

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=6072&TagID=7

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm

the grand daddy of them all

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

Take your pick, slice dice chop them anyway you want, and we'll talk about it

Retroboy

22nd Mar 03, 8:04 AM

A non-moderator comment on style - Mac_bug, it's hard to discuss the validity or applicability of your massive quote without knowing where it comes from. The double-posting is a mild no-no, tho. :)

-- Retro

Cooker

22nd Mar 03, 8:54 AM

2 cents on world peace

those who lives in peace prepare for war...

sorry to use one of the more evil quotes...

"PEACE THOUGH POWER !"
Kane, CNC TD

APOLLO(SLS)

22nd Mar 03, 12:49 PM

Mac-Bug, no one with half a lick of sense is going to argue that oil is not "a" reason we are going there. But some are arguing we are going there to "take" their oil, which is not the case. As I pointed out in another thread, we are going to pay the new Iraqi regime a fair price for their oil when it becomes available, not annex it as so many insist. It's called protecting foreign interests, and I hardly think we are the only country that does this.

However, you cannot refute the fact that we are partially taking down Saddam's regime because of his support of terrorism. Do not forget Saddam pays the families of suicide bombers in Palastine $25,000 for every child they brainwash into blowing themselves and some Israelis up. If that isn't support for terrorism, I don't know what is.

Is it too far a stretch of the imagination to think he supports (or at least ignores) other anti-American terrorists in his country? And what of the scud missiles he launched at Kuwait? The missiles he is not supposed to have. More and more I am thinking we did the right thing by overthrowing Saddam's power.

Tygre

22nd Mar 03, 2:17 PM

I spy the preterite there in the last sentence Apollo...But it's true. After the first few hours of Shock and Awe™, it's all cleanup.

Mac_Bug

22nd Mar 03, 2:24 PM

If suicide bombers could be bought with $25,000, then perhaps Israel should fire all their security personel and distribute $30,000 to every Palestinian family.

Is 'support' or 'at least ignore' terrorists in his country the 'main' reason? Why is it that none of those 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq, but rather US friendly nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia? How come North Korea still gets away with making nukes, having an army that can overrun South Korea in days, and missiles that's capable of hitting North America?

What's the best way to get a dictator who apparently is 'mad' and has no feelings for his people, who cannot be reasoned with, who has no desire to cover his own ass to use his 'hidden' weapons of mass destruction? Attack him. And what did Saddam throw back? Four scuds? Wee?

Why didn't the US attack Russian in the cold war? Because of MAD. Why did the US attack Iraq? Because Iraq can't retaliate, as opposed to North Korea that could level Seoul in a day.

Some argue that if the US wanted oil, they would've made a deal with Saddam before the Gulf War. Well, if they had wanted to free the Iraqis from this horrible dictator who by then had already gassed his own people, they would've done it then, too.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam has to go, but I wonder though, whether he'll end up like another bin Laden or Mullah Omar - nowhere to be found.

Tygre

22nd Mar 03, 2:46 PM

Yeah, that bothers me too. While Enduring Freedom and the other operations blew up a lot of terrorist buildings and trucks, our main targets -- the leaders -- are still at large in caves, or, more likely, a friend's mansion somewhere in another not-quite-US-friendly state.

Shock and Awe™ was an attempt to decapitate the Iraqi regime beast, while Anaconda was like those old Looney Toons where the roadrunner is standing on a rocky outcropping, Wile E. tries to cut the rock off, but the cliff falls down while the place where RR was standing is floating in place.

Then again, decapitation never worked out all that well against the Hydra, now, did it?

There should be some sort of per-user per-thread limit on tenuous metaphors. I apologize

APOLLO(SLS)

22nd Mar 03, 3:08 PM

Mac, the number of Scuds he launched is irrelevant. He said he didn't have any to launch in the Iraqi statement to the UN, which was demonstrated to be a blatant lie. What else was he lying about?

The point of removing someone like Saddam and not invading Korea is that North Korea responds to diplomacy for the most part, something that Saddam obviously didn't. North Korea understands the concept of MAD. Terrorists in Iraq couldn't care less about MAD. They would use nukes in the name of martyrdom.

Dukath

22nd Mar 03, 3:21 PM

Whats better?

Bomb a country and then have some american oil companies "rebuild" the infrastructure on the cost of the bombed country? Or have to BUY oil legally?
For america this will be more expensive, but bush's friends, the oil companies are having a field day. They will make tons of money on the back of the iraqi and american people.

Saddam has to go, there is no doubt about that, but so does arafat and (war criminal) sharon and every single illegal settler in the occupied territories. You have no credibility if you give a few billions to them while going after the other one.

In a country there is a legal system. If you do something wrong the police comes after you. What you do not allow is a self proclaimed vigilante going after whoever they want based on their own rules. Especially when that vigilante isn't really clean itself. The us doesn't like how the un works? Fine then change it! just as with laws, you don't like a law? that doesn't give you a reason to break it, you should change it in stead of whine about how bad it is.

Bonnet

22nd Mar 03, 3:26 PM

Mac that article is clearly biased and inacurate as Rumsfield resigned from that company when he joined the administration. (If we pump trillons into iraqs economy is that not a good thing?)

Mac_Bug

22nd Mar 03, 3:42 PM

uh, what? Rumsfield? where?

Bonnet

22nd Mar 03, 4:25 PM

Sorry i meant the VP

In the spring of 2001, Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's company

Starfisher

22nd Mar 03, 4:32 PM

Dukath, the settlements are an idiotic mistake. Removing the settlers wouldn't solve the problem however, it would just shift it a bit. We'd have displaced, fanatically religious Isrealis instead of displaced, fanatically religious Palestinians. There were Jewish terror groups before the creation of Isreal... do you really think that the Isreali's would just take it lying down?

Impë126

22nd Mar 03, 4:40 PM

Here (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-3-2003_pg7_7) is a news article that shows CNN news crew was expelled from Iraq.

Starfisher

22nd Mar 03, 4:54 PM

Yeah. Shouldn't this be in the war thread?

bluevorlon

22nd Mar 03, 5:04 PM

Merged...

Stealth

22nd Mar 03, 5:11 PM

Dukath, it will be the Iraqi people who rebuild their country, not the U.S. oil tycoons.

Starfisher

22nd Mar 03, 5:42 PM

Interesting comment on this thread.. the post count is at 120, yet the view count is only 39. I'm guessing it only counts views if the viewer doesn't post. Which means that almost everyone who looks at this thread posts in it. A forum first?

Tygre

22nd Mar 03, 5:55 PM

It just got merged with a new thread and it kept the low viewcount.

Tronno

22nd Mar 03, 7:59 PM

Conspiracy theory: Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan are US allies, and Iraq will soon be occupied by US troops; smack dab between those is another big oil country - Iran, which isn't known for its outstanding relations with the USA. Given the US's tendency to attack countries that "harbor terrorists", will Iran be the US army's next stop? Is Bush gunning for the entire Middle East's oil supply, and the power that goes with it? Will I ever stop spewing garbage? The truth is out there... or something.

ÜberJumper

22nd Mar 03, 9:51 PM

I think Iran's next... after all, they're on the list.

bluevorlon

22nd Mar 03, 10:10 PM

Yeah, I buggered the view count... I think I merged two threads backwards...

=/

Tygre

22nd Mar 03, 10:11 PM

You're fired. Give me your badge.

So as to keep it on-topic, I'll say Iran won't get nu'n if they don't start nu'n.

Starfisher

22nd Mar 03, 11:03 PM

Oh please. Bush is already enjoying a "surge" of support in the polls. You can almost hear him wondering what a "shock and awe" campaign in Iran will do. Even though I think this will benefit Iraq, it's hard to like my president when his motives are so clearly political.

frstkor13

23rd Mar 03, 3:33 AM

I find it easy to like my president. Politics or not, he believes it is in my country's best interests to get rid of Saddam's regime. I agree.

sigh.

Rincewind

23rd Mar 03, 3:53 AM

Nah, North Korea is next.

By the way, even though the Iraqis are surrendering en masse, it's quite funny how 120 Republican Guards have held up the Coalition forces for a couple of days now in Umm Qasa :p

Mac_Bug

23rd Mar 03, 4:25 AM

It would be logical to do Iran next, except Bush hasn't been beating the drums about Iran and connections to terrorism.

bluevorlon

23rd Mar 03, 8:19 AM

North Korea won't be next because there is a far bigger chance they'll put up an actual fight

Retroboy

23rd Mar 03, 9:23 AM

I have a theory that Bush's targeting of Iraq is based in a great part because he thinks it's his job to finish what his father started. There are many, many Iraqis living in refugee camps and other countries who believed that assisting the United States in the Gulf War would result in regime change then, and had to leave their country when the U.S. left. There are also many Americans who don't understand why Bush Sr. didn't finish the job. Now, his son has an excuse to do just that.

If this is the case, Iran was never ever really "paid back" for their role in the hostage crisis during the Reagan years, and perhaps this adds to the reason they might be a target. There'd be a lot of people in the U.S. who might find retributive action against that country, regardless of the guise it's performed under, quite appealing.

Bush, the great avenger. *shudders*

-- Retro

Stealth

23rd Mar 03, 10:20 AM

I feel the United States should repair it's international image before it starts attacking other countries. A successful liberation of Iraq and a successful rebuilding and establishment of a new government would help.

EchoEffect

23rd Mar 03, 10:23 AM

gah! RAF Tornado shot down by a patriot missile.

APOLLO(SLS)

23rd Mar 03, 11:18 AM

Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time :(

Rincewind

23rd Mar 03, 12:11 PM

If others happily praise the U.S. Military, I'm cheering for Iraq!

Another plane was seen going down over Baghdad, in broad daylight. The crew was seen ejectin near/into the Tigris river, and now the Iraqis are looking for them. The crew would probably be more eager to show themselves if the Iraqis weren't shooting at anything that moves in the river :D

Oh, and the fighting continues in the south. In yahoo news (via Reuters) U.S. military says 10-12 Marines are missing, and the Iraqi TV has shown 6 prisoners and at least 4 bodies, so that's 10 accounted for... and some lucky bastard/damn good shooter managed to fire an RPG straight into a landing craft. According to Reuters, at least 10 dead marines were seen next to it.

Go Iraq! :)

Starfisher

23rd Mar 03, 12:31 PM

So, in other words Ricewind, you're cheering for a brutal dictator and his loyal killers? Even though, I hope, you're being sarcastic, that is just sick.

Rincewind

23rd Mar 03, 12:32 PM

Oh, found this funny story in a New York Times article:

The American soldiers fanning out across the region said they were ready for the Iraqi prisoners, but there were signs that there might be unexpected complications.

As a column of tanks moved toward the northwest, the marines took into custody a group of Iraqi soldiers who were willing to surrender, but also, apparently, a group of farmers caught up in the confusion.

Under an afternoon sky, the 11 farmers sat on the blacktop of the Baghdad Highway. The marines had rounded them up with others taken in the area, and without an Arabic interpreter present, they were not able to ask them any questions.

Instead, they handed them packs of American rations to snack on while they sorted out their fate.

When an Arabic speaker did arrive, it became clear that the 11 were not soldiers at all, but tomato farmers who lived in a nearby village. The young marines in charge tried to assure the Iraqis that they had no desire to hold them.

"We'll sort everything out," First Sgt. Lew Ducett told the men. "Just have some lunch first."

Ali Kathem, one of the farmers, threw down his ration packet in frustration. "I don't want to eat lunch," Mr. Kathem said. "I want to go to my farm."

:D

Starfisher: Yes, I was, but there's more to it. I'm half Iraqi myself, and even though I've lived my entire life in Finland and consider myself Finnish, there's still some part of me that cringes everytime I see soldiers with white flags. I know that it's better off for them, the country and everyone but still. It's good to know that someone is putting up a fight.

Oh, and not to mention the fact that most Westerners (not on this forum, just people in general) have great trouble having sympathy on non-westerners.

Don't remember who said it, but the quote was something like this: "Tis a good thing war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it". That's exactly what's happened here. The lack of coalition casualties blinds people to the realities of war and the extent of human suffering. I'm willing to bet good money that thousands of Iraqis are decomposing under the desert sun, but strangely no-one seems to care.

I still have friends in Iraq, some of them in the army, and I know for a fact that they are not "loyal killers", just people who are forced into a bad situation. Hell, my parents live there too, so I'm worried sick about them. Sure as hell no-one else here seems to care.

Stealth

23rd Mar 03, 12:39 PM

I believe the Department of Defense says that according to the pattern of the wounds on the dead marines shown on Al-Jazeera TV, it seems as if they were executed.

Blatent violation of the Geneva Convention, but of course these aren't humane people.

Starfisher

23rd Mar 03, 12:55 PM

I know that it's better off for them, the country and everyone but still. It's good to know that someone is putting up a fight.
And therefore bringing even more death and destruction onto an already devastated place. Great to know that they are willing to fight to prop up a brutal regime and prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people.

I still have friends in Iraq, some of them in the army, and I know for a fact that they are not "loyal killers", just people who are forced into a bad situation.
The regular Iraqi army was not what I was referring to. I mean the units that actively fight to support Saddam, which usually are composed of loyal killers.

EchoEffect

23rd Mar 03, 1:25 PM

I dont think you can overly blame a lot of the Iraqis from defending their country. Whether its better off for their people in the long run or not, to many of them it must look like they are being invaded with the intention to occupy their country.

If your country was having the shit bombed out of it by a military vastly superior to your own, I dont think many poeple could say they would not feel some form of resentment towards the invaders. And whether this was is right or not, we are the invaders.

Starfisher: I dont think we can really take the moral high ground to much. We might think what we are doing is in the best interests of the Iraqi people, but tell that to the women and children living near to the buildings that our Air Forces have been obliterating.

I dont think they should say that it is bad that those marines were executed because it is against the geneva convention. They should say it is bad because it is bad. Saying it is bad because it is against the geneva convention is just going to make the US look foolish, as they often break conventions, and this war itself could be said to be against internatioanl law.

Artoo

23rd Mar 03, 1:58 PM

I just watched a press conference showing the war from the Iraqi army side... I wasn't suprised that their situation is a lot better the way they described it then it really is:/
...sigh... I hate propaganda, it ruins all the facts. But on the other hand that's what it's all about.

Vaarok

23rd Mar 03, 2:38 PM

I collect propaganda.

And this is amusing: http://www.protestwarrior.com/

Stewart Ramses

23rd Mar 03, 3:06 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind
Oh, and not to mention the fact that most Westerners (not on this forum, just people in general) have great trouble having sympathy on non-westerners.

I still have friends in Iraq, some of them in the army, and I know for a fact that they are not "loyal killers", just people who are forced into a bad situation. Hell, my parents live there too, so I'm worried sick about them. Sure as hell no-one else here seems to care.

I find that remark very ignorant and insulting. You obviously know nothing about the "Westerners" in the United States if you claim that we do not care. Sure as hell, you probably don't care when you hear "US Marine, US Soldier Killed." So back that train up, I don't think it is fair for you to make such an ignorant accusation against us, when it is damn well wrong. Is it not enough that we say "We don't want to harm innocent civilians?"

We don't, period. You think that honestly we don't care when innocent people are hurt? Well, if the press is conveying information correctly, and those Republican Guard are putting innocents in harms way purposely; had I been a marine, I would personally execute them for that myself. Our soldier's, most of them, sure as hell care enough to watch out for civilians, and they will either take down or capture those individuals for making that move.

But, we don't care over here. You know what? The more I hear from European people, and Asian people, and other people around the world how much we don't care, and how cold and terrible we are over here, the more cold hearted I become in my views of them.

The way I see it? I personally could care less as to what happens to Saddam Hussein and his political allies. When he falls, and if the coalition is truely for helping that country, I believe that in the decades to come, Iraq would be a powerful ally. Not neccessarily in strength, but in principle and spirit. I don't want to convert them to the American way, and neither do the rest of us. What the US Troops wan't to do is try to help them out of the dark ages by helping them use their own resources to help themselves, instead of using them to help Saddam become more wealthy to build another palace. Iraq has lots of oil right now, and it could really help them. But I don't believe it is being used to help anyone other than the wealthy in that country allied with Saddam.

It's not like its an easy thing for them to do, and its not like there won't be opposition. But the UNcaring Coalition is going into this with the best of hopes, and the gamble on the table. We do care, and obviously a heck of alot more than the rest of Europe. So leave us the heck alone, and stop referring to us as the Ugly American or the typical ignoramus. Enough of this political bull shit. No one dictates how we feel. And most of us are happier to see them surrender.

Not because we want an easy victory, but because we are not cold blooded killers, and we do not wish to harm the people of that country and those unwilling to fight in the situation. Go ask Britain what Blitzkrieg means, and you will see what "uncaring" is.

Stewart Ramses

23rd Mar 03, 3:08 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind
If others happily praise the U.S. Military, I'm cheering for Iraq!

Another plane was seen going down over Baghdad, in broad daylight. The crew was seen ejectin near/into the Tigris river, and now the Iraqis are looking for them. The crew would probably be more eager to show themselves if the Iraqis weren't shooting at anything that moves in the river :D

Oh, and the fighting continues in the south. In yahoo news (via Reuters) U.S. military says 10-12 Marines are missing, and the Iraqi TV has shown 6 prisoners and at least 4 bodies, so that's 10 accounted for... and some lucky bastard/damn good shooter managed to fire an RPG straight into a landing craft. According to Reuters, at least 10 dead marines were seen next to it.

Go Iraq! :)

And you accuse us of being cold hearted? Look at what the f*ck you're saying @$$.

Stewart Ramses

23rd Mar 03, 3:19 PM

BTW Rice, why don't you go over to some unpopulated island so when I become president, I won't have to feel terrible for nuking an ally. Just you.

APOLLO(SLS)

23rd Mar 03, 3:27 PM

Steward, you just removed yourself from this thread with that last comments towards Rince. You are free to disagree with his opinion. You are not free to make personal attacks upon him. Don't post in this thread again.

RBA-Wintrow

23rd Mar 03, 3:50 PM

Rincewinds comment was out of line. Death and destruction are horrible. Although he makes a good point about CNN making a big deal about every Alliance causalty and ignoring the hundreds of Iraqi deaths.
However, Steward, by saying what you did in the now deleeted posts you must realize your not making friends. If that was supposed to make Europeans have confidence in the US, its counterproductive.
You try to discredit Rincewind but torpedo yourself.

This war is horrible, by acting without UN approval the US has split the world.

Rincewind

23rd Mar 03, 3:58 PM

This has been brought up before, but I'll bring it up yet again (yay): if the United States (and Britain and others) really care about the Iraqi populace so much, why put them through 12 years of sanctions? The old "US isn't at fault, blame Saddam" argument simply isn't valid. If you know a man is a thief, liar, murderer, torturer and complete bastard and you take away, say, 80% of his wealth... what the hell do you expect to happen? At the very minimum western leaders are part of the murder of over two million people. When Madeline Albright was asked about these 2 million dead, she said "We feel it was worth it". I mean fucking hell, two million people. This would never happen to a country whose population was white or christian.

I myself lived in Iraq for 3 of those 12 years, and I've experienced that life myself. My father worked all the time, 16-20 hours a day, and I almost never saw him. Now I haven't seen him in 8 years, talked to him about a dozen times on the phone. My mother worked herself to tears every day just to keep us clothed, fed and in school, and we were one of the lucky few. Took three years of hell to save enough money to get the hell out, and my father is still there, because he can't leave. So, I shall reserve the right to be bitter, thank you very much.

APOLLO(SLS)

23rd Mar 03, 4:39 PM

Rincewind, you of all people, having lived there, should respect the fact that Americans and Britons and others are willing to lay down their lives to usurp a dictator when obviously the Iraqi people are powerless to do anything about him.

Your bitterness is misdirected if you think the US is to blame for the woes of Iraq. Yes the US put Saddam in power. But honestly, how were we to know he was going to turn out the way he did? We have no magic crystal ball to tell us who will make a good leader and who will not.

As far as blaming the UN for the sanctions on Iraq, again your ire is misdirected. All Saddam had to do was comply fully with the resolutions against his government, and the sanctions would have been lifted. It was the actions of Saddam alone who kept Iraq impoverished. How many billions of dollars were spent on "presidential palaces" while the people of Iraq starved? How much of the humanitarian aid ended up in the hands of the Iraqi army instead of in the starving civilians, where it belonged?

You comments aren't earning you any friends here. If you continue down this path, all I can tell you is that you might as well resign yourself to finding another community to visit, because you will be met with nothing but spite here.

Rincewind

23rd Mar 03, 4:54 PM

Like I said, if you do nothing to stop a murder, you're at least partly responsible. I have suprised myself by being quite optimistic about this war; if the country does not disintegrate and/or any of the people I love or care about (Sam & Max mental image :D ) don't get hurt, I'm all for this little war.

Your bitterness is misdirected if you think the US is to blame for the woes of Iraq. Yes the US put Saddam in power. But honestly, how were we to know he was going to turn out the way he did? We have no magic crystal ball to tell us who will make a good leader and who will not.

Puh-leeze!. The United States has supported so many dictators, murderers, rebel groups, terrorists and just random bastards in history that I can't imagine anybody could think that anymore!

I'm not blaming the U.S. public, nor it's army, nor it's citizenship; my critique is aimed at the administration. If you read my comments earlier, you should know why I posted what I did: people don't care about Iraqi or any non-western casualties, only Coalition ones. Look at this shitstorm I got, yet if I had mentioned "oh, look, five thousand dead Iraqis" no-one could have given a toss.

As for earning friends, well, I've been visiting and/or posting for just about 4 years now, and I've always spoken my mind. If someone is going to take offence, go ahead.

Summa Summarum: I don't approve of the reasons nor the past actions of the Yanks and the Brits, but if this conflict does turn up for the best, great. Best case scenario is that this Christmas/New Year, I'll be sitting in our family home with people I haven't seen for almost nine years. Worst case scenario? Not gonna think about it.

RBA-Wintrow

23rd Mar 03, 5:21 PM

Perhaps when the war is over the UN will try to save face and try to rebuild Iraq. Its a very beautiful country with a long and rich history.
Much of our culture (not to mention the alfabet) come from that region. (Syria, but at the time it was one larger empire.)

Rincewind

23rd Mar 03, 5:37 PM

We can only hope. It is a beautifull country, and has frigging ancient history; the oldest still-standing cities are over eight thousand years old! We were laying the foundations of civilization when the Romans were living in caves and thinking that hitting each other on the head and going "urk" was a good idea :D

Still, the Palestinian Jericho beats them all. The city is 11,000 years old. I've been there, and if you could cut up the feeling of history and sell it on the market, they'd be very, very rich...

IronHammer

23rd Mar 03, 5:52 PM

I agree there is quite a bit of rich history in Iraq, which is just another reason to get rid of this dictator, did someone say tourism.

Retroboy

23rd Mar 03, 6:19 PM

Actually noted a science-related story where the international archaeological society was extremely concerned that ancient mesopotamian artifacts and dig sites could get destroyed in the war, which would be a sincere tragedy since they're from the world's first "civilization", whatever that term means.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Something I realized watching TV tonight and seeing some estimated casualty counts:

The war has a huge probability of costing less Iraqi casualties and injuries than six months of continued sanctions would.

Better, those casualties aren't going to have as high a percentage of women, children, and ethnic minorities.

-- Retro

EchoEffect

23rd Mar 03, 7:26 PM

Interesting side note. I was watching Panorama (BBC program), it was all abotu the anti-war protests etc. In it, it showed the different stages of the political manouverings that the British government has done to get support for the war. It showed video footage, or Mr Blair, talking to (i assume) the BBC in which he said words to the effect of

"1441 does not authorise military action"

the argument after the second resolution was not passed changed to

"1441 does authorise military action"

Now I am assuming the wording of 1441 didn't change suddenly. So all I am left to deduce from that fantastic change of understanding of the resolution is...that the British government are liars. Either it doesnt authorise action, or not. I know there are people who say it does, and people who say it doesnt. But the same person cant claim both, changing his interpetation to suit the current need.

Disgraceful.

Starfisher

23rd Mar 03, 7:30 PM

Echo, they are a government. Find me a politician that hasn't lied and you'll violate some universal law.

But the same person cant claim both, changing his interpetation to suit the current need.

Or perhaps he realized that his earlier interpretation was incorrect? People can change their minds, you know. You don't just decide something and then ignore all further data on that something.

Vaarok

23rd Mar 03, 7:59 PM

Amen to tourism. Mount Arrarat or whatever it's spelled, several major judeo-islamo-christian historical holy sites, and one major ancient egyptian palace complex are all in iraqi territory. One's surrounded by a minefield, even.

Bust out the tinpot tyrant, and lemme go on vacation!

Stealth

23rd Mar 03, 8:02 PM

There are reports confirmed by the Pentagon that a "huge" chemical weapons facility was found and secured outside Najaf, a city about 100 miles south of Baghdad.

Source from FOXNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html)

This certainly would advance the cause of the Coalition.

Starfisher

23rd Mar 03, 8:10 PM

I'd wait till this was confirmed by a press release before biting on this one. After all, it IS fox, and such a prize would have spread all over by the administration as soon as it was secured.

Retroboy

23rd Mar 03, 8:10 PM

Stealth, I was waiting for that to happen. The US intelligence consistently said Iraq was hiding stuff, and they would've looked pretty bad if they didn't discover some of it during the invasion.

The link you gave is remarkably short on details, though. Mostly blabs on about other war-related things.

But, interestingly, it's not up on CNN yet. FOX must've went for the big scoop. :D

-- Retro

Bonnet

23rd Mar 03, 8:44 PM

Rincewind you are right we should have kicked that idiot tyrant out of thier long ago but the country elected a offical (clinton) who refused to do anything. Also the amount of civillans killed would likely be about 1,000 to the tryants 1.5 million that seems pretty good eh?

eadipus

23rd Mar 03, 8:52 PM

where do these numbers come from? i'm intrigued as to where the 1.5 million dead from saddam come from. does that include casualties from the iraq/iran war and from whose side? also does that include the people whose deaths are attributable to US enforced UN sanctions?

i'm not saying saddam is a saint, i'd just like to know

Bonnet

23rd Mar 03, 8:58 PM

The number comes from the Discovery Chanell special I watched last night. It is just people outright exicuted by that regime. The Iran Iraq war was something like 8 million.

eadipus

23rd Mar 03, 9:02 PM

the iran iraq war was well under 1 million, i mean there are only 24 million people in iraq now. i'd really love a link to some decent trustworthy figures on this.

Starfisher

23rd Mar 03, 9:10 PM

And trying to blame the fact that Bush didn't invade Iraq during the first Gulf war on clinton doesn't make you seem very logical or likely to post un-biased figures, zoe.

Bonnet

23rd Mar 03, 9:25 PM

Sry you where right it was .8 million
source http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/marerror.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm for the killed by saddam directly and http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm minus the 450 from iran he includes thats youre total.

eadipus

23rd Mar 03, 9:33 PM

i personally wouldn't include anything from the war on iran as that was an odd conflict. it was a US endorsed pre-emptive strike on iran as saddam was afraid of being invaded by the new fundamentalist regeime. the only bit from that last link that directly attributable to saddam are the 100,000 kurds and the 1,000 in kuwait.

theres lies, damned lies and statistics.

Nova

23rd Mar 03, 9:39 PM

The story about the chemical plant that was at the link Stealth provided is beginning to circulate (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035779780917&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037). The American's still wont comment on it.

Bonnet

23rd Mar 03, 9:40 PM

Yeah you are right the First Bush should have done it but that would have caused the same uproar that it did this time and it was right near elections. After that even after Iraq through out the inspectors the Clinton admin did nothing. (eadipus the second one does put them on his plate)

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 12:04 AM

If you guys are looking for 100% accurate figures on the people Saddam has murderd, your not going to find them till it is all tallied; however, if your looking for a rough estimate look here from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/weekinreview/26JOHN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5062&en=1aec64f892889c31&ex=1044248400&partner=GOOGLE) on pages one, and two of the article.

After reading this a while back, I had a hard time understanding the protester position for not going to war.

Mac_Bug

24th Mar 03, 12:40 AM

I have even harder time to imagine why then the Americans supported him throughout the 80s and didn't take care of him back in the 90s.

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 12:50 AM

Seculer power played off against Iran, which was considered (and still is) a terrorist supporting country.
as for the 90's I could blame Clinton and his gang, but other countries would have found it hard to accept us going in and removing him, not without damn good reasons on top of that; eg, hay whats going on right now maybe?

Mac_Bug

24th Mar 03, 1:10 AM

IronHammer, whether someone is a convicted pedophile, rehabed murderer, or plain old war criminal is irrelevant, it doesn't make you a saint if you kill them out of the kindness of your heart.

Time and again people brings up Saddam's history as if that somehow magically takes away the table from under peace protestors' feets - it doesn't. Every American is entitled to a trial, and things like 'well since he lied about this what else is he hiding' wouldn't hold a finger up against 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Not to mention certain fabricated evidence, and you wonder why some people not living in America remains skeptical about Iraq and the issue of WMDs.

Paladin

24th Mar 03, 1:36 AM

Well the war is essentially an arrest. We gave him the opportunity to turn himself in, he refused, so we've sent in the SWAT team. It's not our fault if he's resisting arrest.

If someone resists arrest, with guns no less, you shoot him. That's how it works.

-Paladin

Mac_Bug

24th Mar 03, 2:46 AM

Yes, mr. world policeman

Earth-Command

24th Mar 03, 2:53 AM

Ricewind good to have you on board for this discussion. (important to get a percpective from both sides of the fence)

Don't understand though what you are on about celebrating the reported death of "Ali Hassan al-Majid " (chemical Ali) yet 2 posts later saying "go Iraq".

Last time I checked this is not a game of Football.

Do you want the coalition forces to defeat Saddam and his reigem or would you be happy for the coalition to withdraw from Iraq leaving Saddam in power to find a new Chemical ALI?

Could you tell us a bit what it was like living in Iraq under Saddam and how you compare it to living in Finland? (would you want for the people of Iraq a similar standard of life that you have in Finland?)
Also what is your opinion on the best way to get rid of Saddam and his sons? (with sanctions, UN inspectors or WAR)?

Do you believe that the coalitions motives for War is Oil (which I disagree with) or WMD after Sept 11?

Also to say we don't care about Iraqie casualties is untrue. I saw a young child that had 80% burns to his body and was not predicted to live.

Every time I see Abarham tanks laying down blanket fire on trenches I think those poor people on the other side being ripped to pieces.

When I see a report of 5 Civilians killed and 270 injured, I think to my own situation and how lucky I am to live in Australia.

Every time I hear that coalition forces have killed more soldiers, I think of the wasted lives and the children that are left with out fathers, mothers with out sons and so on.

I am pro war because I truely believe that it is better to have 100 thousand lives lost than to have a 100 thousand lives lost every year that a mad man stays in power. (is he a mad man) and indeed a 100 thousand lives lost every year the UN try to disarm him.

War is horriable but so is the consequences of inaction.

(Hoping your family and friends are safe and a quick end to the War)

Retroboy

24th Mar 03, 6:31 AM

I have to wonder how many Iraqis know the whole story about Saddam.

Granted, I haven't been glued to the TV throughout all this, but so far, I've only seen one newsclip of an Iraqi countryman joyously beating the face of a poster of Hussein as some coalition forces disassembled it. Has there been more, or is the general population of Iraq actually against deposing Hussein?

Can Rincewind or anyone in the know comment?

-- Retro

Ammon Ra

24th Mar 03, 7:05 AM

depends from which country, which news program you hear, read it from. The us has been fairly restrictive with the things they show and tell. granted, they have at least 500 reporters there. However, you should see that not everything they say and do, and are told gets to the populus. i.e. the clip of the (pressuamble US soldiers...no1 knows) dead, and captured soldiers. And about the geneva convention, the us never DID sign it, although it sort of does aby to the rules. and as for sadam Hussein, well. lets leave the poor guy for now. he'll proly die from "natural" causes in a few years anyway.

And for the ppl who think that the us/UK isn't there for the oil, but for the NBC's, well, if blair really wanted to do anything against theNBC's, then he would have taken action at the beginning of his term, or year, or whatever the UK system is. As 4 the US, bush is just finishing his fathers busines. imo. dont say he isn't b/c it's my opinion.

Earth-Command

24th Mar 03, 7:10 AM

Some of the Southern most cities have been portrayed as shaking hands and horsing around with American soldiers.

Apart from the poster incident that is about all I have seen. Other than farmers waving to the troops as they went past, but I am sure they wouldn't dare flip them the bird either. :sick:

On Aussie Tele the other night they had 2 Iraqie families that imigrated to Australia after the last War. One said no to the war, solve it through diplomacy and the other couple said they didn't want war but it was the only way to remove Saddam and that was the only out come satisfactory to them.

There was also a pro war protest by a group of Iraqies the other day in Melbourne or Sydney. Who showed up but a white anti war protester that had to be restrained cause he wanted to get physical.

EchoEffect

24th Mar 03, 10:08 AM

Starfisher: First of all "all politicians lie" isnt an excuse for doing it.

and also, this is not a matter of ideology he has changed his mind on. I have no problem atall (infact would commend) a leader for say; changing his view on crime prevention. For instance he might originaly belive that capital punishment is a good thing, and then may later on change his mind. There is nothing wrong with that.

But this is different. Resolution 1441 was a document. You can not change what it means. It either authorised war or it didn't. My view is that it didn't, as if it did, the French would never have agreed to it. Mr Blair had often point out that it didnt authorise war to please many of his own party, and many of his own people, nevermind the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese + other countries on the council. 1441 either authorised war or didnt authorise war. If it didnt, then he can not suddenly say it does. If it did, then why did he say it didnt. If it was ambigious as to what it meant, then wtf is the point of passing a resolution that is open to complete opposite interpretations. It would be like passing the Bible as a resolution. differnt people would take it to mean differnt things.

APOLLO(SLS)

24th Mar 03, 10:18 AM

1441 did not authorize war per se. What it did was say that there would be "serious consequences" (verbatim) for not obeying the resolution. I would think that war falls into the lexicon of "serious consequences".

The sanctions had failed, and they were hurting the Iraqi populace, not Saddam. What is the next "serious consequence" beyond sanctions if not war?

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 10:20 AM

Ammom Ra the US did sign the genev convetion, but under a few conditions in regards to the chemical use. There was a topic about this not so long ago I believe.

If you want you could also rightly consider this the recomencing of the first golf war, because saddam did break his treaties, like 18 times I think. So yeah hes getting it both berrels now.

Echo, this is a recommencement, Saddam was supposed to disarm, he lied so its time to go in, you could make the Humanitarian argument about war bring a terrible thing to inflict on the people there, but you would then meet the counter that inflicting Saddam is far worse.

EchoEffect

24th Mar 03, 10:32 AM

I wasn't saying whether I thought this war was right or not. I was just addressing the Issue of whether 1441 authorised war or not. And more exactly, how my government first of all said it didn't, then later said it did. Which I think is unbeliveable that they have got away with it. They didn't say "1441 didn't authorise war, but we are going to do it anyway", they said "actualy, now we think about it, 1441 does authorise war". Whether it did, or it didn't; they said it didn't to begin with. It cant do both.

My personal view is that 1441 doesn't authorise war, as I dont believe that it would have been passed if the rest of the security council had understood it to be an authorisation of war. I think the intent on everyone one elses part was that there would need to be a second (or 18th, whatever) resolution before war was authorised. Whether that is morally correct is another matter.

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 10:47 AM

yes but let me be frank then, the UN is Bull*hit, no way were we gonna get another resolution, and that is because of a french declaration of Veto, thats it, as far as weather 1441 is an all out declaration of war would be a harsh interpretation yes, but one not impossible to act on. After all of this crap, the US has decided to go multi-lateral outside of the UN's "irrelevance."

If we want to go into why Saddam has disobayed 1441 and the one 643 we could, but Saddam agreed to the first one after the golf war as a surrender condition, and he failed to live up to it, 1441 was a final last chance for him to change and give up his WMD's, he did not, so as Uber put it "game on."

RBA-Wintrow

24th Mar 03, 11:00 AM

That should be a UN decision as is was a UN resolution.

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 11:05 AM

Duh... the UN can't do squat for itself....so were eh.. gonna have to ah, go in yep, and take em out.

Btw last chance usually means that, "last chance."

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 11:49 AM

1441 was written to be suitably vague and completely down to interpretation, it doesn't say whether it authorises force or not. and france said they'd veto a resolution until the inspectors had finished their job. if only bush could have waited 2 weeks or even tried to pass a resolution based on humanitarian reasons it might have been easier.

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 11:59 AM

Well we know now that Saddam has ben lying, and putting on a show all this time for those inspecters; besides, if your gonna go in with troops the weather and heat is a major factor, and Chirac said quite clearly that he would Veto any resolution specifically and singly sanctioning war, if you want too put blame someware, it resides soley with those Europian powers that have not ben playing ball in the first place.

I support inspectors too but I want about 300,000 of them.

RBA-Wintrow

24th Mar 03, 12:14 PM

Blaming Europe is easy isn't it. Puts the responsebility of this war comfortably far away. [/flame]

Fact is, this war is splitting the world in three factions. Sorted NOT by nation but by personal beliefs.
Half the nations of Europe are having a crisis in the goverment because of this (Spain, England and The Netherlands) and the others are just discusted with the the American "gung ho" way of doing things. ("Leave the nation in 48 hours or me an' the boys are coming in to get ya.")

Starfisher

24th Mar 03, 12:21 PM

Heh, Wolf Blitzer just thought a car horn beeping was a bomb going off in Bagdhad. Really grasping for an explosion, he is.

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 12:31 PM

Well WBA-Wintrow, are they faulting the US for being wrong, or because there "doing" the rght thing, some of those "people/countries" are not doing anything but filling up a commities and quaffiling the issues.
The vary hard fact is the US, UK, Spain, and those other countries are right, and more anoying then that, they're fallowing through with their conclusions, they are backing this correct action up. Unlike some in the international who would like to discuss this, till this issue can get cold, and then can then be ignored.

APOLLO(SLS)

24th Mar 03, 12:48 PM

There is a simple reason why the UN resolutions failed against Iraq. There are too damned many countries against action in Iraq who have financial interests there. Sugar coat it all you want, but France and Russia, et all were more worried about not getting their debts honored than they were about Iraq developing WMDs and THAT is the only reason a UN backed war didn't happen.

Open your eyes. All this talk about "war is a terrible thing" and "we have seen war and know what it is like" is bullshit propaganda from countries who are owed money to cover up the fact that they sold a ton of shit they shouldn't have to Iraq, including the parts for the nuclear reactor way back when. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that war is bad. We don't need to be reminded of it. How about coming clean with the "real" reason war is opposed.

It is my opinion that France, Germany, Russia, and China's reason for not fighting the war is just as bad, if not worse, than the USA, UK, Australia's reason for wanting to fight the war.

RBA-Wintrow

24th Mar 03, 12:52 PM

Which is?
I'm not at all clear on WHY the US wants this war. There have been so many reasons given, changed and changed again.

I'm re-reading the thread looking for some inspiration. I know what I want to say, I'm just not sure how to say it in english.

proofread before posting

[edit 2]
Saddam has not complied with UN resolution and thus the UN must act upon this resolution.

But, since the UN does not believe war is the answer the US has taken it upon themselve to act upon this resolution (which may or may not legitemise UN agression against Iraq).

EchoEffect

24th Mar 03, 12:55 PM

The UN is not bull*hit. The UN is more than just the security council. Anyone who thinks the world would be a better place without the UN should go talk to some poor helpless starving child in Africa who is kept alive by UN food aid.

I dont think you can say the UN has been made irrelevent by the actions of the French. (i do not belive it has been made irrelevent anyhow). You can not say that the French exercising their right to Veto anything they wish, as part of the legal framework of the security council, is wrecking the UN. You may think they are wrong to Veto, but that is different. Many many countries think the US is wrong when it Vetoes resolutions regarding Israel. Which it has done a lot. If after that US veto, the rest of the council went "hmm, f*ck them, we are goign to do it anyway" the US government would be screaming at them for wreckign the UN. If anyone has underminded the UN, it is the US and UK, not France. + it isnt just France, it was Russia and Germany and China as well. People just like picking on the French because its easy.

Now I do think that UN resolutions should be enforced. But I think to show the world that we are being fair, we should enforce those applying to our friends first. If we do that then we can not be accused of Hypocrasy, which in truth, is fair at the moment.

On a seperate issue. That worried me. I was watchign the news, and they were talking to a US soldier, he was writing a messege on a shell. No problem with that inparticular, i'm sure it makes them feel better. But he was saying how he saw this as pay back for Sept 11th. Which means he thinks Iraq is somehow directly linked to those attacks, somethign that has not been proved, and that the UK government has strongly denied that there is any link. What worries me is that if he thinks that, how many more think that, and how much is this war being represented as "pay back" for Sept 11th. It also makes me think that maybe some elements of the US government think of it like that to.

Starfisher

24th Mar 03, 1:34 PM

The UN security council is a throwback to 1945. It needs badly to be overhauled, but since that overhaul would involve removing the veto power as obsolete, it will never happen. It would also require that the five permanant members better reflect the balance of power, which would mean good-bye France.

The humanitarian side of the UN is a noble effort, but is marred by such hypocrisies as allowing Libya to hold the Human Rights chair. That too needs reform, but as Appollo said, the governments involve could care less about the people in other countries so long as their interests are protected. Welcome to the real world, and how much it sucks for the individual.

EchoEffect

24th Mar 03, 2:26 PM

Removing France's veto would leave Europe without a voice on the security council. Britain doesn't really count as the UK tends to have different ideas about foreign policy than the rest of the EU.

But yes, i agree, the UN needs reform. For example, Africa has hardly any say in anything. I would put fowards the case for reform. Rather than simply giving up.

Vaarok

24th Mar 03, 2:57 PM

Why should the UN keep the poor helpless starving african child alive? It is because there are so many poor starving african children in those inpoverished nations that they are starving.

And all the french have done is expose the ridiculously unwieldy nature of aspects of the UN while behaving badly towards neighboring nations (eastern europe).

Harmanoff

24th Mar 03, 3:06 PM

Originally posted by APOLLO(SLS)
Open your eyes. All this talk about "war is a terrible thing" and "we have seen war and know what it is like" is bullshit propaganda from countries who are owed money to cover up the fact that they sold a ton of shit they shouldn't have to Iraq, including the parts for the nuclear reactor way back when. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that war is bad. We don't need to be reminded of it. How about coming clean with the "real" reason war is opposed.

Open your eyes. All this talk about "doing it for the iraqi people" and "getting rid of an evil man" is bullshit propaganda from countries that want a new powerfull ally in the middle east now that it turns out that Saudi and Quatar are not that loyal after all, including some bonuses like control over the 2nd largest oil reserve and justifying an astronomical military budget. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that war is bad. You do need to be reminded of it obviously. How about coming clean with the "real" reason war is proposed.

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 4:16 PM

i think the UN could be drastically improved by giving the veto holding members of the security council a half veto so it takes two of them vetoing something to prevent it from happening. it would stop america being assy about israel and other countries from being assy about other things.

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 4:16 PM

Harmanoff, open your eyes to a world of deceit and plots, a world of terror and of pain, the US's position like it or not is primaraly a position of self defense, the reason we can also say that it is the humain thing too, is because both goals coincide, your saying that we are not making this decision based on humanitarian reasons, and in a sense you would be correct, were not making this based soley on those reasons, but along with them and others, fact is there are so many reasons for going to war and so few against it, besides simple prejudice. Prejudice, thats the whole thing, thats why you have freedom fries, thats why you have terrorism, and that is why you have war. Today's world is one ware war can break out at a moments notice, because it is a world of gross atrocities and prejudice, or we could just call it a world of vice.

And for some to target the country of freed peoples, just because their trying to protect that freedom, is in my mind, just adding to the terrible state we live in.

Listen then to a man of good wisdom.

War is not 'the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.

And

There is a corollary to the conception of being too proud to fight. It is that the humble have to do most of the fighting

But I like this one best.

The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him
-G.K Chesterton

Stealth

24th Mar 03, 4:34 PM

The United States only imported about 17% of it's total oil from the Persian Gulf (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E.) in 1997. Recent figures aren't far off.

The United States isn't after Iraq's oil. It is to subdue a threat to National and International security that is leading the United Nations (and France, Russia, etc) by the nose.

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 4:39 PM

Stealth, the places the US currently gets its oil from are going to run out far sooner than the persian gulf will. venezuela and canada are using their oil up much faster than the middle east is, probably because they haven't got much else so they're trying to keep something for the future.

and besides, why wouldn't the worlds biggest oil user want a friendly government and large miliatary presence in the wolrds largest oil field?

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 4:41 PM

As for the UN feeding the world whare does that food come from?
Does the UN magicaly conjur up sustanence out of nothing?

No, the UN has only acted as a broker and dealer in that respect, if that is all that UN can and should do then it should be called something else.IMHO

EchoEffect

24th Mar 03, 4:58 PM

No of course it doesnt magic the food out of nowhere.

It might be my evil European upbringing, but I really dont understand all this hostility towards the UN.

What would be better in the world if the UN didn't/hadn't existed? The UN is the only world wide orginisation that has any control over the execess of other nations. It isnt perfect, clearly. But it is so fantasticaly better than having NOTHING that its truly amazing.

I want the UN to be there to coordinate the distribution of food aid. I want the UN there to help with refugees (of which there are millions sadly) I want the UN to help in anyway with peacekeeping. I want the UN there to be a forum where small countries who have no other international voice can come before the world and tell of their problems. I want the UN there to constrain the bigger powers from fu*king over the smaller ones, and yes, I include my own country as one of those bigger countries. I dont want my government attacking some tiny one and completly getting away with it because no one noticed. For all the things you may say that are wrong with the UN, the good things greatly outweigh it. The UN is respected by most people, which is very hard to come by these days.

Above all the UN is the symbol of our world. If you want to destroy the UN, then you are saying you want to destroy any idea of international law, and return to an older, school playground, way of life.

I can not think of anything worse than that. It isnt progress, its pointless, backward looking, and bloody scary.

Starfisher

24th Mar 03, 5:06 PM

UN Security council of the future: France's veto should be changed into an EU veto. There needs to be some sort of representation of Brazil, Japan and other populous and/or economically strong countries. Hell, the veto should just go away. It's a stupid throwback to a time when the major powers might actually fight an apocolyptic war. Now that that danger is much much less of a major power striking another's interests, we should have a real representative Security Council instead of the US vetoing anything it doesn't like and to keep France from wielding the veto in another last desperate attempt to appear internationally important.

That's my rant. The security council needs to change. Where would we be it had actually enforced the cease-fire agreements of 1991? There wouldn't be a war right now, and there probably wouldn't be a Saddam either.

Bonnet

24th Mar 03, 5:16 PM

I agree that the UN needs to be thier for the humanitarian aid of other nations and a place to negotiate however it seems that it is in need of major reform. Some of its biggest problems arose with these attacks not citing others while making sure to hit otghers for fortifing themselves. The UN did not stop the Arab countries from invading the israelis but puts snactions on them for defending themselves.

Harmanoff

24th Mar 03, 5:42 PM

Originally posted by IronHammer
the US's position like it or not is primaraly a position of self defense
Yes of course it is. Just like when you invaded the philipines or when italy invaded ethiopia or when hitler invaded poland etc etc. Imperialism is a wonderful thing.

APOLLO(SLS)

24th Mar 03, 5:48 PM

Harmanoff, I have no delusions about why this war is being fought. There is no one single reason for it. Oil is certainly a concern. First of all, the US govt. wants a stable democratic government in control of it is all, not a despot.

Second, we "do" care about the plight of the Iraqi people or else we wouldn't be going about this in the way we are. We'd carpet bomb the place and be done with it instead of using tens of billions of dollars in precision ordinance.

Thirdly, with the capture of the complex that appears to make chemical weapons, I feel the US govt was completely justified in claiming Iraq was illegally developing WMDs. Good thing we went in and revealed it, now isn't it?

Finally, we have plenty of WW2, Korean, and Vietnam war veterans here in the USA. My own father served in Korea. We "do" know how ugly war is believe it or not. We are just willing to fight for what we believe in instead of sitting on our duffs and doing nothing, which is exactly what would have happened if the US and Britain and their allies had decided to follow the dictates of the UN.

I have seen no one in our govt deny that we want someone else controlling Iraq. What the hell do you think our govt was talking about when they went on about "regime change". I think we stated the objective pretty clearly. Who the hell really cares for the ulterior motives if the good of the act outweighs the bad things you have to go thru to get it? If the result is long term stability in the region for the price of short term unrest, is the end goal not worth the initial cost?

Bonnet

24th Mar 03, 6:02 PM

Imperialism is a wonderful thing.
Harmanoff that was a unfounded statment and if we were Imperialistic than youre country would not be free but a american colony from WW2

IronHammer

24th Mar 03, 6:06 PM

Or Russia would have ben Nuked and invaded the day after the war.

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 8:48 PM

the US had a sensible leadership at the end of the second world war, that has changed since then.

if iraqs oil doesn't end up being extracted for the good of the iraqi people by american companies and the new iraqi government doesn't seem to be immensely friendly with american companies and prefer their business over others i'll eat my barrington teh hat (a vital and holy part of our culture).

Higaran

24th Mar 03, 8:59 PM

Ok on a diffrent note some of you guys should check out this (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/24/95147), yes its from newsmax, and so of you think its a extremely republican website. Yes it is, but its not like cnn.com isn't a extremely liberal democratic website.

I'm glad that the preacher learned his leason, and I think that alot more people should go through the same experience, especially the idiots that are blocking major city streets to protest, and some of them think we are fighting IRAN.

Bonnet

24th Mar 03, 9:04 PM

If we had Imperialistic designs do you really think we would be paying so much attention not to cause damage to the civillans? Also if the American companies pay billons for oil from the Iraq's which makes them rich and increases thier living standards then why is that a bad thing? remeber the Uk and the US are putting that money from oil in a trust fund for the Iraqis so we clearly arent out thier to take over the country as a colony.

Another thing is that taking over a country will provide to be more of a problem than its worth as proved through out history and demonstrated to us in the 1900's when we took over the former spainish colonys for ourselves.

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 9:09 PM

i said that the US was imprerial not stupid, its hard to have citizens who do what you say when you blew the crap out of their country the week before.

and of course trading the oil on the free market wouldn't benefit the iraqi people more than just selling it to the friendly neigbourhood americans?

Bonnet

24th Mar 03, 9:14 PM

The Americans have always been the highest payers for oil so no.
And you still havent answered my questions about the liabilitys. (i am a American and knowing many people of this country if we attempted to turn Iraq into a colony thier would be a 90% vote against the person who tried.)

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 9:18 PM

i obviously wouldn't be a direct colony in a 51st state kind of way. you would merely end up with a regeime that is overly friendly to the US and wouldn't mind having troops stationed there for its "defence".

APOLLO(SLS)

24th Mar 03, 9:20 PM

eadipus, it is complete and utter nonsense to say that the USA is exerting imperialism by attacking Iraq. In all honesty it is quite silly to say that we are trying to "take over" Iraq, seeing as it would be the biggest overextention imaginable to try to permanently occupy a country halfway across the world. Give us a little more credit then that. If we were truly and imperialist society, would we not have annexed Mexico and Canada first? I don't see that happening, so I have to conclude that the USA is NOT an imperialist country.

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 9:54 PM

i believe the US permanantly has troops in saudi arabia and germany amongst other places.

i said nothing about occupying, i said overly friendly government. the US desperately needs a large foothold in the middle east as it appears that that is the new enemy. also, as i've said before, having an über friendly government and a miliatry force in the middle of the worlds largest oil field can't be a bad thing can it?

Stealth

24th Mar 03, 9:55 PM

I find it amazing how little most of Europe thinks of the United States.

The people of the United States do not want Iraq. We want to oust an evil dictator who is a threat to world security. We don't want to dominate or annex that country through imperialism, as you say.

If you also think that United States oil companies will come in and take over Iraqi oil, again I must say that you are incorrect. Not only would that start a complex international situation, but the American government has beaten the dead horse of "we will return control of the country to the Iraqi people."

Again, please give us some credit.

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 10:18 PM

which iraqi people will the country be returned to?

the US has a long history of installing leaders who it thinks will benefit its interests (one of the reasons saddam is there in the first place) and i see no reason why this should change now.

after this war the US will very likely be responsible for setting up the new iraq and that is a huge responibility that i don't believe should be in the hands of one country.

Bonnet

24th Mar 03, 11:37 PM

eadipus you are stating a opnion that can not be logical I as a American Citizen and there for a member of the goverment and most of my fellow americans would be in a uproar if the goverment installed another dictator and because we are a democracy that means that it would not come to pass as the people dont want it. Ge that through youre head.

eadipus

24th Mar 03, 11:43 PM

iraq will be ruled by a small group of inidividuals picked by the US at least for a few years until a democratic system is established, its happening in afghanistan and it will happen in iraq.

it may not be called US imperialism but its exactly the same thing, stop believing everything you are told and think about what will actually happen and how people will accept it.

fatDEMON

25th Mar 03, 12:11 AM

The notion that the USA initiated this war out of the 'good of their heart' , ie. in order to 'liberate' Iraq is ludicrous. This is just an excuse used by the Bush administration in an attempt to somehow gain support for their attack on Iraq. No state has ever done anything out of the 'good of their heart', any action taken by a state (especially when involving armed conflict) is purely in self-interest.

If the coalition of the willing wins this war they will make damn sure the next rulers are friendly towards the USA. So, in effect it's a coup, just neatly disguised under the pretense of installing democracy and liberty.

The fact of the matter is that the USA does this because they can, just as other superpowers have done throughout history (the Roman Empire, Germany, Japan, Russia etc.). Don't be so ignorant that you believe they do this for any other reason than for their own benefit.

It's not a just war. I believe this will prove to be a very serious mistake by the Bush administration.

Mac_Bug

25th Mar 03, 12:33 AM

Well just take a look at France and its democracy, and see how the Americans like it.

ASnogard

25th Mar 03, 2:32 AM

I am curious of the reaction of the US and allies when the war is over and the UN sticks its nose in and say ok you lot had your war, now let us 'assist' the Iraqi people. You can almost see some countries rubbing their hands in glee at the idea of 'assisting' Iraq. France had concerns in Iraq before the war and is one of the most vocal in voiceing its intrest to 'assist'.

Like ALL political situations everything must not be taken at face value , there is always some other motive, a hidden political adgenda.

I mean can you really imagine the UN countries going to all the trouble to rebuild Iraq , make it profitable and stable then hand it over to a truely democaraticly chosen leader , then just leaving ??

Rincewind

25th Mar 03, 3:06 AM

Yes? Like they did in Japan?

Addimtedly, it will take a long time, 20-30 years, but anything is better than Emperor Shaddam...

P.S. I'll answer those questions asked of me later, I have to go and contact my friends and ask for someone to come help me move house.

EchoEffect

25th Mar 03, 5:10 AM

There are other forms of imperialism besides the old kind, that Britain proved quite good at. America is imperialistic in terms of its culture and belief system. American "culture" domminates most of the western world, and beyond. There are Mcdonalds in every town and you could probably buy Coke in the amazon if you looked hard enough. the USA is an imperialistic country, just not so much with the soldiers, more with the burgers. What better way to control a country than by swamping it with your culture and beliefs that you dont need to invade it. Whether the American way of life is right, or wrong, it doesn't matter, it is stil happening. The stated goal of the US government in Iraq is regime change. To install a friendly "democratic" government. A democratic government that will most likely be friendly towards the US, and be based on the US model of democracy. I am not saying that is neccessarily bad, but it is imposing your vaules on other people. I find it highly unlikely that the US would allow a hostile government to be formed in Iraq after this war.

I do not doubt that the people of America, just as most people in the world (most normal people) do not wish to hurt innocent people. But please, this war is not about rescuing the people of Iraq, it never was and never will be. It may be a fortunate side affect, but that isnt the main goal. The main goal is to make the USA feel safer (which is not inherently bad in itself), not to liberate anyone. We arent liberating the people of every other dictatorship in the world, and we arent about to. However, this war will not make the USA safer, it will make more people hate it. So it will not infact achieve its main goal. The USA has done many things that have been for "good" reasons, such as the NATO intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo. There I can not see an selfish reasoning behind the actions.

Stealth: I dont think many people in Europe think particularly ill of the American people as people. We just despise your government. The values of the Republican party, are in complelte opposition to the predomminent centre-left governments of Europe. Even Britain's. There are some places where they agree, but not many. The extent to which this is obvious is shown by how the word "Liberal" means individual freedom, welfare, equality of oppertunity, and the desire for a pluralistic and tolerant society in Europe. Whereas in America it seems to be. Liberal = Satan. And to their horror! the Liberal parties of Europe aren't even the most left wing! argh!!

I wish people would stop refering to this "coalition", its invokes images of multiple countries armies sweeping accross the desert...

...not just the USA, with a substantial but small in comparison British contigent...oh, and some Australian special forces. Everytime I hear Rumsfeld, or Tommy Franks, or Blair, or Bush, say "coalition" I want to laugh. Even Spain hasn't committed troops, and they are almost as for this as Britain is.

Retroboy

25th Mar 03, 5:26 AM

Echo, some of what you say about the U.S. invading to make their nation safer is true - there are some self-defeating elements of this action - but I don't think you're counting all of the potential spin-off effects.

This war shows the U.S.
- is willing to GO to war, spend billions, and risk putting its soldiers in harm's way to protect what it feels are its interests, even if those interests may be unclear.
- is still the mightiest military machine on the planet.
- has allies that are willing to back it with their own contributions.
- is not afraid to mess around and get dirty in the Middle East, one of the political hottest potatoes on the planet.
- is not completely constrained or reined in by the U.N., and will actively go against them if it fits their purpose

Other countries can't help but notice that the U.S. isn't a good nation to annoy, and tinpot dictators elsewhere are going to be less motivated (or at least less brash) to pursue things that the U.S. feels are counter to its own safety. In other words, Iraq is an example to others as much as anything else.

Does it make the American tourist safer in Iraq? No. But does it make the nation of the United States safer in general? I would argue Yes, it does. The bully of the playground has just flexed his muscles, and geez, those are some pretty honkin' muscles!

-- Retro

EchoEffect

25th Mar 03, 5:40 AM

I would agree with most of those points. But, Most of them appear to be negative rather than positive outcomes. Or did you intended them to be?

The problem isnt that it will make tourists in Iraq feel less safe (because frankly, how many of us were planing trips there) but that it will make American's everywhere else, including at home, more vunerable. And by assosiation, that applies to British people too.

Its those honkin' muscles and the tendency to flex them that have so much of the world plotting the USA's downfall.

Edit: interesting Guardian (UK newspaper) poll. Support for hte war has risen to about 54% now. But that is probably just due to the fact that we are at war now and people want to support our troops. More interesting is that the section of the population that still opposes war are young (16-22ish), liberal democrats, who live in South East England....which rather correctly, is me.

Retroboy

25th Mar 03, 6:26 AM

Unfortunately, when you're already built a foreign policy based on aggressive meddling, it's very very difficult to cease without surrendering a lot of your advantages and position in the pecking order in the process. Given this, escalation is a viable tactic.

Yes, terrorist cells are dangerous as hell and can do a lot of damage, but the risk they create is nothing compared to that of a full country with an agenda to take your nation on directly. The U.S.'s recent actions in Iraq show that countries with this agenda had best keep a very low profile.

Example: Qaddafi's been VERY quiet lately.

-- Retro

Ammon Ra

25th Mar 03, 6:48 AM

anyways for the pro war ppl in the UK, that know that the us is there for oil, or who believe that the us is there fore the oil, and think/know/believe that blair is really involved because of the NBC's, well, think about this: Blair became the prime minister in 1997. and has he done anything to halt saddam from ignoring 1441? No he hasn't. he only went to this "war" (massacre would be a better term...imo) because america went.

And anyways, they haven't found ANY Hard proof of the NBC's.
soldiers talking about NBC's....well, unless they are contaminated, i wont believe anything i hear or read, for a fair amount of time.

And if i may point this out, although it might get strong oposition, i still insist that youthink about it...warning, squid, pls do not take this seriously, biologicly that is. im just using it as a corrilation between evolution and military strength, and the sort of strengths...

First, the US has the BIGGEST army in the world. it spends the most(pressumably) on military equipment in the world. it is a strong force that no other countries, or even coalitions of countries can face head on. The only way to fight the US army would be to go to non-conventional warfare, non-direct warfare. They bypass the direct military force and attack where it really hurts. now, im not pro terror, or war or even real violence. im not saying that terrorism is the future of the earth. but it could be if at any one time there is a "super power" that has an offensive policy in general.

BTW, try to compare the romans with the US. you should find many similarities. i have.

Nova

25th Mar 03, 9:42 AM

Ammon, there quite a few mistakes in that last post, so lets fix a few things.

First, have the pro-war people in the UK said they are just in it for oil or are you putting words in thair mouths? Second, the UK (and most of Europe) probably get their crude oil and natural gas from Russia, which happens to be the largest non-OPEC oil exporter (second largest oil exporter in the world) and the have the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.

Bush came into power in 1999, has he done anything to halt Saddam from ignoring 1441? No he hasn't. He has done as much as Blair with this issue. Maybe because 1441 didn't exist in 1997.

And anyways has any one found any evidence that there aren't any illegal weapons in Iraq? Have you been there to check?

First, the US doesn't have the largest military on the planet, they have the most globally wide spread and technologically advanced military, but not the largest, not by a long shot. And per capitia, the Swiss spend the most on their military and defence forces.

The only way to fight the U.S. is to use your brains when deploying your military and heavy use of ECM, American's are not invincible, they are just well trained and well equpied.

I am not pro-terror either, however organized terrorism will exist if people do not act (properly). The fact that the United States has an agressive foreign policy may be a strong factor in the motivations of terrorist, but it is not the only one.

Before we jump to conclusions, lets put some thought into it. There is no strong evidence that this war is for oil and there is no strong evidence that it isn't.

[edit]BTW, when you compair the Romans with the U.S. you'll find that they existed nearly 2000 years apart and have virtually noting in common.

grdja

25th Mar 03, 12:15 PM

EchoEffect

25th Mar 03, 12:47 PM

Ok Find myself in the odd position of defending the pro-war people here. But I am prepared to enlighten you. point by point.

1. the UN in no way inspected every crevice. There was a 4 year gap where there were no inspectors there. After they went back, there were about 100 of them (someone tell me how many, it was aroun that wasnt it?) to inspect a country the size of France. The idea that he is hiding them is far from rediculous, it is highly likely.

2. How do you know they knew of every soviet weapon placement? you only know of the ones you know of. Also, the US did not manage to find the Israeli nuclear production plant, and they had inspectors right on top of it.

3. He couldnt get anyone with missiles. But it would not be done by missiles. It would be done by carrying it in in a box, on a boat, in a plane.

4. I have not seen any evidence that Iraq and Bin Laden's network are working together. But that doesnt mean they wont be soon. The enemy of my enemy is my friend ring any bells? the allies and comunist Russia became friends against the Nazis, while they had far greater ideological differences than Bin Laden and Saddam do.

5. *laughs a lot* you think a country the size of the USA is impregnable! I think you are in for a shock, eventualy something will get through. It is almost impossible to stop EVERY terrorist attack, no matter how hard you try.

I have to say, even though I guess we are both anti war. You reasons for being anti-war are, well, IMO, wrong.

Also this war is not all about oil. If it were about oil we would have made a nice deal with Iraq over it. Like we have with Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. It may be a little bit to to with oil, but it is not all about oil. It annoyes me when anti-war protesters say that, it makes them look foolish.

Nova

25th Mar 03, 12:54 PM

OK, just one little question. Some of you folks have been saying that Iraq is a threat to US, and this is only self defense OK. Just how is that? Even if Iraq has WOMD. And one should not forget that UN inspections inspected every cravice and hole in Iraq, and the idea that Sadam is hiding those things is redicolous. US millsats can se 10 meters below ground, no single Soviet chemickal and nuclear plant ever went undetected. And you think Sadam is better in hiding WOMDs than "Evil Red Bear" was, come on.
The Soviets had massive bases and installiations to house these projects both below and above thr ground, many sites were not hidden, the fact that most Soviet military complex's had four of five perimiter fences to keep people out only helped point out importent sites to American spies. Iraq is a dessert and it is much easier to hide things in a vast wasteland of blowing sand then it is anywhere else, in order to examine a picture of a building to have people tell you what it is you first need to have a picture of it. THe fact that he would have less of these weapons then the Soviets would also make them easier to hide if he infact has any.

Even if Saddam has nukes or whatever, whom can he hit with them. He kept destroying Al-Samuds until bombs started falling. And they had a range of less than 100miles. I just dont thing one can hit US with that. I dont know can he hit even Israel. You`ll say that the bad guyes have SCUDS and other long range missiles. Sorry, i keep hearing US army officials saying that there has been a single SCUD fired at coalition troops in the region.
Many military officals believe he is capiable of hitting Kuwait, Saudi Arbia, Isreal and many other supportive countries in the area, he doesn't only have to fire one at a time, the Patriot batteries stationed in the area can only shoot down so many rockets at a time and they would not be able to stop a saturation attack if one was launched.

OK, next possibility, Saddam has WOMDs but no delivery vehicles.
A warhead doesn't need to be attached to a rocket for it to be dangerous. You can tie it to a truck or put it on a ship and wait for it to reach it's destination before having it explode, most terrorists don't announce that they plan to attack and how they plan on doing it. I've recent heard reports of air force recently attacking a compund belonging to a group called al-Islam (or something like that) which they believed to have connections with Osama. And Saddam is head of the Baath Party, not the Bass Party.

OK , Saddam has WOMDs , is working with Usama bin Laden and US dont know where does he keep his weapons. You know, he has to get them into US. And i dont think u can get a pen inside US after 9/11 without it being found.
There are American's and American allies all over the world, so what if they can't get it into the United States, there are plenty of other targets that U.S. troops aren't guarding. Just because your not Amercian doesn't mean you can't be hurt in a terrorist attack. IF Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is working with terrorists he is a threat to more then the U.S.

APOLLO(SLS)

25th Mar 03, 1:01 PM

Nova, you have been at Relicforums long enough to know not to use Omnislashing (quote dissection) to rebut an argument. Please refrain from doing so again or you will have to sit out the rest of the thread.

RBA-Wintrow

25th Mar 03, 1:15 PM

Everybody assumes General Tommy Franks, Commander of the Coalition forces in Iraq, deliberatly humiliated the dutch goverment by introducing Leutenant-colonel. Jan Blom as representative of a coalition nation during his first press conference.

But did he?

I can imagine that both soldiers met for the first time shortly before the conferance started.

"And you are?"

"Blom, General Franks. Leutenant-Colonel Jan Blom, Royal Dutch Airforce, The Netherlands."

"OK, Jan. And what do you do here?"

"Here at your command I'm acting liason for the Dutch Patriot Unit protecting the people of Turkey against possible Iraqi Scud attacks."

"Aha, so The Netherlands is part of the Coalition!"

"I can't really say that, General."

"How so?"

"Our politicians decided we support the war politically, but not with our militairy."

"Then why are you here?"

"Here at your command I'm acting liason for the Dutch Patriot Unit protecting the people of Turkey against possible Iraqi Scud attacks."

"You already said that."

"Yeah, but I can't think up anything better."

"Lets recapitulate, Jan. You are a Dutch Officer, in uniform, of the Dutch Air Force, here on an order directly related to the war."

"Thats correct General."

"It is your job to relay our information on Iraqi Scuds, fired at Turkey, to your Patriot sites at the Turkish border so they can shoot them down."

"Entirely correct General."

"But then your military is working with our military?"

"Eeehhh..."

"Isn't it, Jan?"

"Well..."

"Can't argue with that can you?"

"I can only think of one answer to that General."

"Which is?"

"Here at your command at Katar I'm acting liason for..."

"Yeah, yeah, I got that part."

Then Tommy Franks looked at his watch and saw the press conferance was about to start.
And he decided to explain the presence of Jan Blom, Leutenant-Colonel of the Royal Dutch Airforce, as anyone would have.

By a Dutch citizen :angel:
Special thanks to the Dutch paper "De Telegraaf".
The War (tm) and Iraq (tm) are property of their respective owners.

IronHammer

25th Mar 03, 1:40 PM

Okay war in Iraq then, the reasons for US going to war are self-defense, humanitarian, and as a UN stick, and what about our obligations to our allies notably Isreal? and perhaps other countries?
Do you guys really think that if terrorists had these WMD's they would not use them on the Isrealis? or in Europe?
Can you guys honestly say such things cannot and will not happen?
I'll put it here, Saddam Hussian has funded, trianed, and supplied terrorits, and those who say this will only increase terror, are not acknowledging that a war with terrorism is being, and has ben faught already, do any of you think that Sep/11 was an accedent???
Or the 98 Bombings?

Whatever can be said you guys in Europe dont seem to get it, the war that the terrorists have started, has ben going on for much longer then the past 2 years, and the proliferation of WMD in the hands of terrorists must be stopped. Yes, you might get a swell of support and sympathy for that cause; because of the conflict in Iraq, but you will also note that they will not be in control of WMD's, and or, part of an already crumbling terrorist network. We cannot give into fear of the possobility of terror when the reality is already upon us, im sorry, but that is whare I differ with some.
These "veiled warnnings," I mean really, the Towers have fallen, the enemy is currently on the run, and you say that we should have folded and not gone in because it will "make more terrorists"?

We can kill terrorists but some will sneak through any defense, even the defenses of a "police state," they will in time deliver their payload, and that payload if it be a bomb, or a WMD, really depends on how serious we are.
And hay, what if a few "experts" are wrong, and this helps in lessoning the terrorist network, and brings about a new wave of possible peace in the mideast, what then?

This war as I have said, is also in line with any hope of humanitarian designs on that region, there is no way that any real help can, or could be given to a people under that man, period. In order to help them or for them to recieve any help, then war must be made to eleminate the cause, just like antidote to a virus. After hes gone then what do we do next?

Some have said that the US will "enslave them with freedom," oh really I did not know that a free sociaty were a group of slaves, IT DOES NOT ADD UP.IMO
Some have also said in line with this, that this is a new kind of american imperialism, calling it "cowboy deplomacy", in that we engage in wars with real enemies, remove them, and reconstruct all and more of what was in country, while also leaving a freed government in place to keep chaos from engulfing it..... Thats not imperialism thats good manners.

Say what you like about this, but the reason Iraq will be our friends in the future is because we were 100% charitable. Just like we were with Japan, and them having their last Shogun Macarthur. Was that country not stabilized? Its pritty domned rich now for a country that size I think.

I will tell you what is wrong with the UN, it has no power except that wich is given to it from other countries, so it really is a shame organization if people cannot agree. What is happening now is the realization of that very simple fact, and the whole issue of disagreement is this, unless the UN wants to backs up its resolutions, it can never be taken seriously. So the US is also backing them up with a coalition consisting of many countries, who are contributing military forces. I know for a fact that we had Polish special forces helping us, that was in that news, does anyone have the list of countries giving any military support?
That coalition btw, they are the ones, who actually give damn about the UN as whole in the first place, you could say that they consider it so important, that they are also willing to go to war just to keep it relavent.