IRAQ: USA & Iraq, a neverending story

[Hirila]

I am quite interested in your opinion of the US government's plans to attack Iraq and kill Saddam. Yes, kill. That is what I have read in a newspaper.
The US's goals are to end Saddams dictatorship and kill him. Is this really something that should be made public?
First: that way they will never get him; second: they will have many parts of the civilized world against them.
I have not the slightest objections to ending dictatorships, but is there really no other way? It seems as if there was no other way. But I think another way could be found. Please don't ask me how.
But then I was shocked when reading parts of what Cheney said at that veterans' day. It was something like that: The US would attack the Iraq even when weapons controllers were admitted into the Iraq.
So Bush wants war. Is it that?

I know my English is just the little bit too bad to be able to discuss this matter the way it should be discussed, but I'm sure you excuse that.

[Legolam]

I agree with Hirila. I was going to post this topic the other day but got distracted and forgot.

Basically, what I've heard in our media is that Bush and the US government are determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein once and for all, no matter what it takes. No one else in the world seem to be giving support for attacking Iraq, but they want to do it anyway.

In my opinion, this is just another example of the US gung-ho attitude at the moment. They call it a "pre-emptive strike". What they mean is that they want to start a war in an area alrady torn apart by two other wars (Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine). Something like this should be resolved diplomatically or else the US will be witnessing atrocities far worse than September 11th in the very near future. You can't just attack a nation because you don't agree with the way it is run. Will China be next? Or Cuba?

[Gloer]

I think George Bush jr. should finish what his father left half done. He chose to follow his fathers footsteps and legacy. Therefore it is right to go and take Saddam

Political situations change but who gives "eine schaiBe". Bush is the president of USA and that means he does not need to ask anyone anything, right. He can do anything. Americans will agree. I saw "Wag the dog" so don't try to convince me otherwise.

I am really surprised he is not going ahead already. What is he waiting for? Saudi support? Common, those saudi Arabs are wimps. They are lazy and have a mind of a slave or a child that should be commanded with firm hand! Once they see - again - that US Army is invincible - they praise your efforts and pump more oil than ever...

[Tar-Ancalime]

Yeah just fire some neucs into the capital of Iraq and were on are way to being respected for a few years

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I am appalled, but not surprised at what Bush is doing with his office. But I sit back and feel powerless because my vote in the last election went down the drain. I get the impression that Bush went into that office with the hidden agenda to get back to the issue of Iraq, and to finish what his father started. History will tell.
I dispise the idea of arresting and holding people without due process of law, or of overthrowing other countries leaders, BEFORE they actually do anything internationally wrong. (Minority Report?) Naturally Bush would not want to support the International Criminal Court, because he then might have to follow similar due process laws on an international level, as we do within our country. That LACK of law on that level, gives him a lot of power to bully and be tyranical, and to do things that would not be acceptable within our own system of governance. Our leaders rhetoric goes on and on about protecting ourselves from other countries' potential to attack or harm us, but seemingly ignore the intrusion we have made into countless other nations' rights to maintain self-autonomy. Our country is acting like a priest who preaches goodness to his congregation on Sunday, while abusing alter boys on the other days of the week, and even expecting to have it swept under the carpet by his colleages if he is caught.

[Tar-Ancalime]

DO NOT BRING IN THE FEW 70'S CASES OF PRIEST ABUSE! IT IS IRRELEVENT IN THIS ISSUE! Anyways, why shouldn't he go and show that no one can muscle America without going soft. What's so harmful about that? He believes in the power of the presidency. Iraq can pretend to be nice to the US,so can the saudi's, but aren't they just a judas iscariot??? Iraq has neucs and biological weapons of unspeakable power, lets bring in another weapons inspector so he can say,"Today is a bad day, come back next decade.":rolleyes: :rolleyes: . Are you people daft??? Mindy, would you rather have some public official being bribed to keep Hussien alive and well to find the next morning your family is dying of a plauge????

[Legolam]

why shouldn't he go and show that no one can muscle America without going soft. What's so harmful about that

Is that not called starting a war? Is that not how every war in history has started? Think of the bloodshed that he would have on his hands. Iraq is not Afghanistan. It will retaliate, and not just against America. Saddam Hussein sees the West as all standing together, so whether we agree with you or not, we'll be sucked in as Iraq uses her weapons against the whole of the Western world.

Iraq has neucs and biological weapons of unspeakable power

So do Britain, India, China, Pakistan. France etc etc. Is America going to attack all of these countries just to protect its "right" to remain the single superpower in the world?

He believes in the power of the presidency

That's because not many other people are suporting him at the moment and he's prepared to do it despite them. And what's so different from Hussein the dictator attacking Kuwait, a much less powerful nation, ten years ago, to Bush "going it alone" against Iraq, apart from the much more dire consequences?

[DGoeij]

What I see is the classroom bully, ready to beat the cr*p out of the kid he never liked anyway, because he still holds a grudge over the mayonaise-in-the-locker joke, about which everybody else is still wondering who really did it.

Next thing you'll know the US-marines are charging the beaches of The Hague, because one of them is held at the International Criminal Court.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Ok, I think the Islamic Jihad started the war by attacking us and other nations with terrorism. Listen, It's common knowledge that Iraq and
Al-quada have a sort of alliance. Also, doesn't this problem sort of stretch to any Islamic nation. I mean, the Al-queda has broad base of power from the United states to the Philipenes. It's not finishing what his father started it's self-protection. LIke owning a gun, if you use it responsibly. and furthermore, we aren't going after china, pakistan , and ect. we are going after countries who are threats, not allies. So how can you accuse bush of wanting us to be the only super-power. Soon we'll be a third world country if our status militarily is not kept

[Gloer]

I might go soft with capital punishment issue but that is a legal matter.
Now we are discussing power politics, it has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with ability to execute your will upon others.

USA can force it's will on Iraq regardless of EU or NATO or UN. They can go alone, but only if oil prices hold. USA can force it's will on Iraq, but not against Saudi/OPEC.

ICC is a good idea except that USA would as the ultimate executive power be the supreme court. ICC can condemn an american, but only americans can execute the judgement. Deciding that is the real court! It will take stand in Washington, not in Hague, no matter what we pretend.

It is similar to asking someone to "execute himself". You would need samurai training and dicipline.

I agree with Tar-Ancalime that USa is right to keep up military power. the Western world is like Rome: USA is the western part and Europe the eastern - greek - part. The western part had the political and military power providing an umbrella under which the eastern part prospered with stable trade and low military costs.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Well said gloer *whispers* are we the only intelligent ones here??LOL. I mean rome just fell cause they went soft, and allied themselves with barbarians...who was your friend in rome, surely not the politicians. If we can't trust our military to do their job, than our country is as good as third world

[Legolam]

Actually, Rome fell because it was overthrown by "barbarians" because it was overstretched trying to hold on to all its land. And I don't really see the relevance of that here.

I can't believe that you have more trust in the bully boys with guns than in your own polititians, people trained to negotiate and avert war. I agree with the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I just don't think that "pre-emptive strikes" are necessary, legal or morally defensible.

Ok, I think the Islamic Jihad started the war by attacking us and other nations with terrorism
You could also argue that they attacked the West because of years of repression and support of Israel against Palestine. Someone somewhere has got to show a little tolerance to break this cycle of violence before it escalates into something worse than what we saw recently with India and Pakistan.

[Gloer]

But the eastern part that didn't spend anything on inefficient mainatanance of military power lasted for 1000 years more.

Power translates to trust, trust translates to credit, credit translates to foreign debt. USA has a budget deficit, USA has a foreign trade deficit. Bad symptoms. Countering the increasing incertanity wheather US can defend it's area will take a bigger part of the budget. It is clear that US economy needs the government to interfere the security risks at their sources rather than letting them ´creep in´ undermining general trust and security of assets and trade. That means maintaining a formidable and over powering global reach that will be even more expensive than the Cold War. Now you need a tighter grid, the enemy is elusive. It is more policing than war. Enemies in wars can be won, but here it is more like fighting crime: it never ends, it takes all your money and all there is to do is to contain it.

[Gloer]

Died.

During his reign Rome had reached it's military and territorial peak.
The only state with an army and resourses capable of facing the legions were the Parthians in the area of Iran and Iraq.
But Trajan had destroyed their armies, conquered their cities and most importantly annexed the Armenia and Mesopotamia to Roman Empire.
(compare: USA after gulf war)

Then came his successor Hadrian. He saw it better to give up these new areas because it was expensive to maintain control of areas far away from the Mediterranean sea and Rome. later it became only too expensive to fight neverending wars against the Parthians when the Legions were needed at rhein and Donau. I am not insisting that Hadrian chose wrong or wheater his choice could have made any difference. I believe that Rome could have held on to Mesopotamia for a long enough time to introduce their culture of law and order. That would have been a great benefit for the area.
(USA decided not to hold on to gains in Iraq)

What happened is that during the 7th century, the Eastern part of Rome ruled from Constantinople (Istanbul) was still a formidable economically and militarily. It had conquered Italy back and reached out to take Spain and Africa. Justinian and Belisarius were feared and honeored and their successors capable. But there was a great threat in the east: The new Persian empire attacked Eastern Rome. In this battle the Roman legions were heavily depleated although the Persian empire was annihilated, all their cities occupied, but the Romans could not keep them due to their ownshortage of resources.
(American's are currently not thinking of the long term costs of war. But keeping the gainst might be too expensive.)

What happened next:
A fellow called Muhammed gathered the Arab tribes and they easily conquered Persia that had no army. The battered legions could not defend syria adn palestien and also those places where lost to a weak and small but fast and enduring beduin armies.
(Ok. Now we annihilate Saddam and get a bunch of fundamental islamist with a religious zeal instead. And even in Saudi Arabia maybe. Not a good idea, status quo is better.)

If the Roman culture had been introduced to Mesopotamia, I doubt we would have islam at all. ( I am a great believer in peaceful cultural exchange and nation building. Romans had a superior system of laws and governance that conquered nations learned to appresiate and adopt with due time.)

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Gloer
I think George Bush jr. should finish what his father left half done.... Once they see - again - that US Army is invincible - they praise your efforts and pump more oil than ever...

As a veteran of the Gulf War, I beg to differ. We completed the task that we intended in Kuwait. The purpose of the engagement was never to overthrow the sovereign nation of Iraq. The mission was to liberate Kuwait and secure the Saudi Arabian Oil fields. Both of which we did. We did not attempt to capture, kill or in any way replace Saddam Husein simply because that was not our objective.

Do you really want to replace the government of Iraq or any other nation. Think about what that will require. Granted, we have the strongest military in the world right now, but that is not enough. If we steped in and raised out own choice for government for Iraq or anyone else, the long term demand on our defences would be astronomical.

Air power and weapons of mass destruction are fine for the actual battle, but winning the war is the easy part. To truly secure Iraq, we would first need to install a new government, then we would need to protect it. I don't think that anybody would want to see our armed forces tied up in a security detail for the next quarter of a century to ensure that Iraq does not collapse back into a despotic state, or worse still a religious Oligarchy. Remember how well we did with our implanted governments in El Salvador, Nicaragua or Vietnam. In the nearly decade and a half that I served with the US Special Forces, I was called to act in such political fiascos in Central and South America, as well as in the more popular missions in Grenada, Panama, Saudi Arabia Somalia and Macedonia. I've seen first hand what happens when one nation tries to depose of another.

Until someone provides me with actual verifiable proof of Iraq's threat to either the United States or her allies, I will stand against the idea of any aggresive action against the government of Iraq.


RD

[Eledhwen]

Would the USA give a monkeys about Iraq if they had no oil?

[DGoeij]

Would they give a monkeys if Iraq wasn't in Arabia? I mean, I hear nothing about this country called North-Korea. Whatever happened to the 'commies are the bad-guys' attitiude?

Apart from turning the whole region into bloody chaos, there's no gain in attacking Iraq, trying to overthrow Saddam. Unless that is precisely what the US wishes to achieve.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Watch out Rangerdave - you might be putting ideas into Bush's head (though I suspect it's crossed his mind already) As an oil man himself, I'll bet he sees overtaking a country in the Middle East and occupying their country and usurping their oil fields, as a positive alternative energy plan. (You know Texans would hate to give up their Yukons and Escalades now that they have gotten used to them.) Plus he already has an insiders edge on strategies. His father can prep him based on his own experience of setting up bogus excuses for armed action, as he did in the Panama Canal zone, in order to keep the canal from going out of the control of the US at it's scheduled time.
It all starts sounding like a corporate power structure that is using our government to gain it's own favorable economic power.

(Maybe I AM dumb, but I always thought the Black Plague was spread by flea bites. I haven't been bitten by a flea for 10 years.)

[Legolam]

I don't think there is much doubt as to whether Saddam Hussein is evil or not. He has killed thousands of his own people, invaded neighbouring countries and is probably stockpiling weapons of mass destruction as we speak (although I too would like to see the proof of this). I'm just worried that by initiating war, America (and by extension, the rest of the West) would be little better than the dictator they oppose. What's the difference in forcing our will on people to him forcing his will on others.

For this reason, Iraq is maintaining the moral high ground at the moment and if America strikes, there is no way that the Middle Eastern states around there will stand by and watch. Even Iran, sworn enemy of Iraq, has come out in support of Saddam. Surely there must be another way of dealing with the problem of these weapons?

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I feel that way too. It is nice to get this feedback from non-Americans (If you certainly are from Scotland)

Surely there must be another way of dealing with the problem of these weapons?
There is a way, but people do not want to hear it. (Because those in power now do not want to share power.) I will come back with it in a minute.

(edit) Here's it is:

[Legolam]

I certainly am from Scotland! Although I'm not very proud of what our Prime Minister said last night - he seemed to say that he would stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush no matter what. The majority of the public in this country are against doing this, as are a great number of polititians from Blair's own party. The general consensus here in Britain is that if Bush whistles, Blair will come running no matter what the consequences.

That seems like an interesting organisation, although I'm not sure if it does any good in the real world.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Not pushing the organization so much as the ideals and proposed solutions to world problems in their newsletters. They are more or less a lobbying group.

[Gloer]

USa should go in, occupy Iraq and impose free elections.
West needs a powerbase right in the middle of islamic world. From there we can contain Iranians and guard the gulf oil.

With an extensive Marshal Plan, money and direct investments there would be popular support in Iraq for pro western government.

[DGoeij]

You really believe that is going to work? The major reason those planes killed thousands of innnocent people is the already active involvement of the US in the Islamic world. Relentless support of the Israelic government for one thing. Supporting fanatic militias, who later on used their training and financial assest for a lot of nasty things.

A pro-western government? Right, like the ones in Vietnam, Central America and Saudi Arabia? Despotic regimes, hundreds of political prisoners, freedom of speech limited to sneezing silently, a lot of angry people that look upon the US as the protectors of their surpressors. Great idea.

[Legolam]

West needs a powerbase right in the middle of islamic world
You're kidding right? Attitudes like those are the whole reason that America got attacked in the first place

contain Iranians
My best friend is Iranian and, believe me, they're really not that bad. And they certainly don't want "containing"!

[Hirila]

USA should go in, occupy Iraq and impose free elections.
You're sure that would solve the problem? Ok, try to imagine there are free elections in Iraq: whom shall people elect? Some puppet whose strings are pulled by the USA? Or some Arabic guy who tells people that they can get rid of those imperialist Americans who interfere with what they have no right to interfer? I know who'll win and I know what would happen. Can you guess what I mean?


USA has a budget deficit, USA has a foreign trade deficit.
So have all European countries. But do they threaten peace on earth with war? No, they try to solve their problems peacefully. The US has always had war whenever they had economical problems. That way people are content that "the Great USA" wins wars and doesn't complain about the intern situation.

But this cannot go on! Does Bush want to win the next election with blood on his hands? He knows he only is the most famous president since Kennedy because of September 11th. Where would he be without "help" from the terrorists. The only way to keep this hightide up is to lead another war against some other bad guys. Who would be better than Saddam, the most beloved enemy of his father. (Not to mention his thus securing the oil trade. He's emptiing the Iraq so Texas' oil can be spared.)
And have you ever thought of that not all Arabians are terrorists?
"Bomb Bagdad with neucs" some of you say. But that wouldn't only hit Saddam's palace (where he surely wouldn't be. America would miss him by some hundred miles, that's for sure). It would hit a whole area around this place and kill hundreds, no thousands of people who simply try to survive in their poverty and with the hate the western world brings up against them. And those people, living peacefully where they are only because they cannot move because it wouldn't better anywhere else shall not applaude to terrorists who try to keep this danger away from them? (I am NOT defending terrorists. I am defending hundreds of civilists who would suffer from this war as no real terrorist would suffer.)

I know there is a peaceful way to calm the whole area (including Iran, Israel etc.) down. Aren't Israel and Jordania planning a channel to water the Dead Sea? See, Israeli and Arabs CAN work together if they only see the necessity. What we have to do is make them see what most parts of the world alredy see: That war leads to suffering. Not of the bad guys. No, of the innocent people. And this would only help the fanatics in all, remember, ALL, religions of this world.
The Arabs are only the first. Next are Jewish, then Christian terrorists. You don't believe me? Then attack Iraq!

[Eledhwen]

Kidding or not, the propaganda begins. BBC news this evening reports that an Iraqi store of chemicals needed to make nerve gasses has mysteriously disappered, and Iraq isn't co-operating. It's like they're priming us for accepting an invasion.

[Eledhwen]

You beat me to the post, Hirila, by 3 minutes. Well said.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I had a nagging fear that not all of us would be around long enough to see TTT and ROTK. Sept 11 is almost back around again and passions will be high.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Hirila

So have all European countries.

This needs commenting:
Finland has a foreign trade surplus. That is the single important thing in our economy: we are getting more in than out.
The government budget is on surplus. Just don't spend if you don't earn. And if you earn extra then pay of old debts to lower the financial costs.

[Gloer]

would happen if Iraq was occupied. one has to take responsible action after the war is won. not something as half witted as what Powell and Bush and the rest did 1991. Let Saddam stay in power! Why? Because of Iran I suppose. But Iran is not really any threat to any one. Islam in Iran is pretty mainstream and reasonable these days compared to taleban and the rest.

Ok. First you need to legitimize the attack and your own position as the liberator alá soviet Russia in the Eastern Europe. They did liberate the Eastern Europe, but they cheated because those elections were more or less staged affairs to gain control.

I mean that Iraq people should be first suffering the war and fatigue and then they should get a chance to vote freely baath and Saddam, the fundamentalist or any one else. If they hate the foreign attacker they vote Saddam, but I doubt it.

Then those people wil get first limited autonomous power with US troops just like in Japan after WWII. USA should let the people rule themselves and retain those powers clearly for herself that US needs. The Soviets did exact opposite: they told that the people were complitely free and then told them indirectly what to do.
There is a difference.

Now. If USA did not go in Iraq. What then? How do you proceed? forget about it, after all there is nothing that bothers us right now? It is even unlikely that Saddam has much to do with islamist terrorism anyway.

[Ciryaher]

Hussein supports terrorists, plain and simple. He even gives rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and doubtlessly he has direct connections to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.

I think that removing Saddam *could* work...but the problem is being sure that the new government isn't worse. Perhaps something like the Afghani setup would work.

[Dengen-Goroth]

There’s a few opinions I hold which many here may disagree with. One being that Bush, in a vain effort to maintain support (despite the fact that he enjoys taking month long vacations in the “western white house” during troubled times) has decided to begin this operation. Much of Iraq’s military capabilities, at least in the biological “realm”, have been disassembled. In fact a former weapon’s inspector testified before congress recently to that effect. Can anyone provide citation of what I’ve read here about Iraq possessing Nuclear Arsenals, for as far as I have hear they do not whatsoever. In general I do not strongly agree with America’s recent actions around the world, but that is not at all relevant to the current issue. Sadam is a problem, but then we should ask ourselves, if we terminate him as well as his regime who will take over. As far as I’ve seen the rest of the bunch aren’t much better at all. Also I would like proof beyond hypothesis that Al-Queda have ties with the Iraqi government, Hussein in particular. As I have heard the Bush administration said there were such ties, but did not deliver any evidence. These actions are near to why America is detested within the world. If America does move against Iraq I agree with Gloer on what should be done. America has a knack for making some trouble and then disappearing from radar. For instance the Reagan admin. Supplied the Mudjahadin (sp?) in Afghanistan with such weaponry as stingers to make sure the Soviets wouldn’t get in there. Then when the USSR pulled out, so did America, leaving the Afghanis to their civil wars which led into all that many of us have heard thrown out by the news agencies.
As for the Byzantine analogy, the “empire” reached its highest point under the rule of Justinian the great somewhere around 500-600 a.c.e. (Don’t quite have the strength to look up the exact date;))when the Byzantines managed to regain sections of North Africa, the Italian Peninsula, and most of the remaining Western Roman Empire. Then a certain Charlamegne came along, as did harassment from lombards, etc. and before you know it Byzantine is basically Greece and Asia Minor. By the time the “franj” arrived and waged their holy war to recapture the Holy Land Byzantine remained but a faint shdow of what it had been. In the third crusade, or fourth, the crusaders grew weary of Jerusalem and sacked Constantinople. Afterwards the Byzantine Empire collapsed, and only about seventy years later did it return, though it was barely a state within itself. It didn’t do well at all within the second millennium. And this Christian holy war set of the Jihad, some fifty years after the fall of Jerusalem. So if we look at all of this as a parallel of sorts to what is happening now, the future isn’t pretty for the US (I do not harbor any such theory). To conclude this ramble, I do not believe America should attack Iraq. Excuse the fragmented nature of the post.:)

[Tar-Ancalime]

Although normally I do not agree with you on most issues ;) ;) , I do agree with overthrowing saddam. But maybe not through air raids as dear clinton thought would work. A full scale infiltration, giving the citizens confidence to rebel against their opressive leader.

[DGoeij]

And which citizens would you prefer to rebel? There are over ten different religious or ethnic factions that would fight for control of the land. Who are you going to support? The Kurds? That would surely upset the Turkish government, allies of Israel, and buyers of US weaponary. The religious majority that also has ties with Iran (being from the same background and such), or the minority from which Saddam's Ba'th party originated?

You'd simply be funding a new Ho Chi Mihn or Usama Bin Laden.

[Hirila]

That's exactly what I say: however the US overthrow Saddam's regime -> you don't know who'S following!

And: noone has shown real proof that Saddam has connections to these terrorist organizations (Al-Qaida, Hamas...). Blair claims he has proof but he also told he had proof of omething after September 11th 2001.

But, friends, I fear we can now see how a war is being prepared. Didn't papers tell (at least my newspaper did) that Bush wants to inform the world of his plans by next week? I'm really growing afraid of what's going on and I wish I knew of some anti-war demonstration somewhere near me. I wish I could do something against this.

No, I'm not loosing my friendship towards the US-ambassador Coats thinks. The US has doubts as to the tightness of the German-American relations? They should: most of the Germans wouldn't support them in war-matters. But whose fault is this?

(I'm sorry, I know I'm emotional, but that's the only way I can express myself.)

[Tar-Ancalime]

War was bound to happen:ever since the creation of an Israeli state in 1948 the muslim's have more or less hated the US (which is odd because it was not our idea)

[Gloer]

1. History: I was refering to an era of Byzantine Empire 600 - 700 A.D.
Justinian established the Bysantine Empire during the 6th century and he was followed by relatively capable successors. Bysantine empire was set to survive and prosper. The problem was that it's eastern border was threathened by the New Persian empire that seeked to expand to the area of anticent Persia under Darios and Xerxes that fell when Alexander the great conquered it (333 B.C.). So Bysantine had to go to a war that depleted the reserves of both Persians and the Romans. The Romans won and conquered the Mesopotamia, but it was a useless victory because a third party took all the benefits: the arabs and islam. The lesson: do it once, do it well. romans had their chance to establish themselves in Mesopotamia 117 A.D. but Hadrian passed the opportunity and that led to Bysantine/Persian downfall and the rise of Islam.

2. I think many more western citizens like swedes have more connections to Al Qaida than the iraqi people. Iraq is led by a secular nationalist/fascist party. Saddam is not at all liked by the fundamentalists. A similar divide is present within the Palestinian people: fatah and PLO are nationalist, but the suicide bombers are led by Hamas that is fundamentalist islamic. Those two are competitors.

3. I do not think we need any new reasons to invide: Iraq and it's leader Saddam Hussein are quity of war crimes, they attacked Iran and Kuwait. and later broke clauses of the peace treaty that handles weapons inspections. It should be seen as what it is: a mere continuation of the Gulf War.

4. Why do they hate USA? first I must correct one thing: arab world loved USA until the 70's. USA was admired. American oil companies brought opportunities to gain wealth. Israel was not an american idea. It was a Brittish idea. During 1956 war on suez channel. It was the French and the Brittish that occupied the channel with the Israeli forces. Americans were the ones who diplomatically forced it's allies and Israel out of Sinai. USSR was going to aid Nasser's Egypt with the Bomb. We didn't and still don't want arabs to have bomb do we?

One explanation why they hate: In the USA there is a very strong fundamental christian faction that supports Israel indiscriminately and also a pretty influencial jewish population. On the otherhand USA hardly has any domestic power bases that would present the other side of the coin. There is no domestic debate over the issue in US and it shows. all politicians while speaking on foreign affairs also tend to addres their domestic voters - and simultaniously enrage the foreign audience even when they are filtering domestic policy from the speaches. "Axis of evil", give me a break.

[Anamatar IV]

saddam has had enough chances. Hes had 2 already. This topic hits home with me because my family is from isreal. Hes bombed isreal already (unsuccesfully thank god). In fact i was there when he did. I was a baby and had to be put in a plastic container. Back to topic-you dont let people go on conquests even once. Hes done it twice. Dictators shoudlnt be allowed to rule at all. Its inhuman. But since were not gonna take out every dictator in the world then ill be happy with just huisen. We know that he has made nuclear weapons. They are not a nuclear state. That is a serious offense in the united nations. If iraq is taken out yes we lose support from many countries but if they turn enemies with america first thats just stupid and second they dont face danger. They dont have allies that might get nuked. We may lose oil from saudi arabia but really. So we'll pay a bit more at the gas station. It is VERY important that bush descides to attack soon before saddam can build up a defense to seriously hurt us.

[Tar-Ancalime]

really the guy must go...he's a threat to democracy!

[Eliot]

I also say that the UN is stupid.
Down with the UN! So many nations could solve their problems except that a brick wall keep's reappearing in they're way. That brick wall is aka UN.

[Tar-Ancalime]

wasnt' it made to make sure commies don't conquer the world???

[Anamatar IV]

if hes only a threat to democracy then ants are controlling my brain. democracy is already dead. Its like numenorean blood. Its very precious but very scarce. Only in a few grand contries is there a strong democracy. Saddams a mad-man. My step-dad is iraqi and he told me that once hussein thought that iraq had too big a population so he had soldiers go to the poorest households and just murder them. Bang bang. Its aweful. Heart wrentching photos i have seen. A mother and baby lying dead in the street covered with a white liquid. they were sprayed with poison. I tell you, if i were old enough id join the army just to fight against those peices of moldy food scum.

[Tar-Ancalime]

democracy is not dead...yet anyway. It is in it's ruin, however.I personally think that the middle east is the next western front of the third world war. Tensions thier have been building for so long, it seems improbable that it would occur nowhere else. and it's awful what they do isn't it obvious the haneos crimes against humanity they commit all the time..and those who deny them are blind. Ignorant from truth. From what you just said, A..IV. The world should rid the world of such scum.

[Anamatar IV]

you see the chinese had the right idea. Build a great wall. Right on the borders of palenstine. Theyd have to waste 5 car bombs just to get through the wall.

[Tar-Ancalime]

I dunno, it seems like a tad like an isolationsim thing...were trying to block out saddam scum, not the innocents suffering at his whim of "justice'

[Anamatar IV]

i was actually talking about the real mid east war isreal and palestine. You cant box in a mad man. But i doubt taking hussein out would make a difference. He has been in power long enough to dilute the peoples minds. He has thousands of followers. If he dies another would step up and lead a campaigne for vengeance.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Oh you my WW3 theory

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Tar-Ancalime
wasnt' it made to make sure commies don't conquer the world???



That, my friend is NATO. I'm a supporter of that, but you can already see that it's deteriorating on the inside. The UN is really cheap.

[Anamatar IV]

ah well...its not just the un falling. My mom used to tell me nothing in this world falls alone. Literacy rates are falling, food is falling, oil is falling, everything is falling. But yes the un is cheap.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Thats it: i make a nice statement WE'RE ALL DOOMED

[Gloer]

Now let's everybody wrap it up:

WE ARE DOOMED. We are. Just like that. Believe it. There is nothing to do about it. Everything falling, everything. Just lay down and pull a blanket over your head and wait until it gets you.

[Ciryaher]

Hussein a threat to democracy? America is more of a threat to itself than Hussein is a threat to democracy. He is a tyrant in a little land, and until he backs up his big talk with some big bombs, I'm not going to take him seriously. The United Nations has failed in its policy of detaining war criminals, as they did Slobodan Milosevic. Hussein's crimes against his own people has gone basically unhindered by the "Pious West".

Hussein himself should be tried for his attempts at genocide, but this will never happen because the UN is just like every other commitee in the world: they're more interested in keeping everyone nice and happy (mainly the Doves) while tiptoeing around and trying not to be too mean to murdering dictators.

[Ciryaher]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
ah well...its not just the un falling. My mom used to tell me nothing in this world falls alone. Literacy rates are falling, food is falling, oil is falling, everything is falling. But yes the un is cheap.

Show me the numbers that literacy is falling and not increasing. Food production is as high as it's ever been. In the US, we produce too much, and so the government pays farmers NOT to plant their crops. Millions are starving in Africa and Asia because local warlords control the regions and nobody will just do the job right and shoot them. There is no oil shortage; in fact, there would be more than enough oil if environmentalists were not so anally protective of the Alaskan middle-of-nowhere (on another note, it is the fault of environmentalists that western American forests are not allowed to be logged, which would have prevented most of the monstrous forest-fires we've been having).

The only thing in the world that is falling is common sense.

[Anamatar IV]

literacy rates in pakistan have dropped 1.8 % in each of the last 3 years. Thank you Mrs. Hartunian. In africa kids are dying of malnuitrition and you tell me theres enough food in the world?

youre right though-hussein cant back up his talk. His "nuclear weapons" are probably shaken up soda cans. :p

[Ciryaher]

There is more than enough food in the world. The US alone could almost feed all 6 billion inhabitants of this planet. The problem is what I said: The people who need the food can't get it because they are being suppressed by their rag-tag governments.

And to be very blunt, I don't give a flying **** about the literacy rates in Pakistan. When you have a military junta ruling a country, it tends to put education on the back burner.

[Thorin]

As nice as it would be to oust Saddam out of power, I think that Hussein is smarter than the Islamic terrorists. I think that he knows if he used nuclear bombs, he would be trounced by the rest of the world, and Iraq would officially be wiped off the map. The terrorists, in their blind religious devotion where dying by killing the infidel is an honor, couldn't care less.

I think Bush's slavering need for revenge and desire to crush Saddam may be clouding his judgement on keeping the emphasis on where it needs to be: in totally wiping out Bin-Laden, Al-Qaida (or however you spell it), and all the other Islamic fundamentalists who couldn't care less about the global ramifications of blowing up an American nuclear power plant, or creating biological/chemical warfare....They are still the reason for 9/11 and are still the world's greatest threat....The US shouldn't allow anything to distract them from that....And the rest of the world needs to get off their butts and work with them to that effect....

The only concern I would have about Saddam having nuclear weapons is selling one to the wealthy Al-Qaida....I don't think that there is really any concrete proof yet, anyway....

[Anamatar IV]

of course theres enough food in the world. You can eat ANYTHING you want. But half the people cant get it. and if they learned to read maybe theyd be smart enough not to commit acts of terrorism.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
of course theres enough food in the world. You can eat ANYTHING you want. But half the people cant get it. and if they learned to read maybe theyd be smart enough not to commit acts of terrorism.

Most 'terrorists' are actually quite educated. You need to if you wish to read a flight manual for instance.
But a family living in poverty or opression is usually a good motivator, catalysed by some selfproclaimed religious madman.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Originally posted by DGoeij


Most 'terrorists' are actually quite educated. You need to if you wish to read a flight manual for instance.
But a family living in poverty or opression is usually a good motivator, catalysed by some selfproclaimed religious madman.

whats up with the quotes on terrorists???

[Ciryaher]

If I'm not mistaken, bin Ladin own(ed) a construction company, which pointed to him being the likely mastermind of the WTC attacks...

But back on the topic of Iraq, I don't think we should attack them. Send in inspectors, look for weapons, destroy any they have, and let the country get back on its economic feet by lifting sanctions.

[Anamatar IV]

let me tell you everything wrong with that.

1-its a country. Its not like a building where you search it room by room. Hussein knows the country better than we do. Even if he is a madman he is smart. He prabably hides them in a secret location.

2-send in inspectors and subject them to possible imprisonment. Unlikely but it could happen.

3-how would you destroy them? You couldnt just set it off. Youd have to get some bomb specialists there aswell.

[Gloer]

1. even if it was just a house, so he knows it better than the police. he has probably hidden the weapons somewhere if we can not find them. He is guilty and needs to prove himself innocent - and we know he can not do that! How could he...

2. Send in inspectors. They do their job well and Saddam has all to gain if they have nice time, find nothing and return EMBARRASING mr. Bush.
Oh well we need not to heed any inspectors blind observations, do we now?

3. no no no. just celebrate if something is found! Iraq and Saddam can now legitimately annihilated (again). That is the primary goal. the ultimate goal is to create a new popular government that supports US and is a NATO member ... i hope.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Didn't we send in countless inspectors who were shooed out. And Saddam Hussien has done murder to innocents and political enemies alike. If we are indeed the worlds police, lets act like we care about more than oil

[LadyGaladriel]

I would just like to say that I am sooooo against it . England have absoutly no business being there .
The prime minister is just trying to keep in with Bush its sickening . I thought thsis was democratic society but obviosulsy not as something like 80% of the people dont want and still its going ahead . I am wondering what other countries are doing..... yeh thats right staying out of it and staying alive another day.

[Tar-Ancalime]

live..indeed..to watch others die..Innocents killed because of population boom. Saddams regieme has to be ousted. He has killed so many. He is Tyrant.I mean lets leave out neucs, oil, and all the other things...what about the people who live out on the whim of him, who fear for their life. What of them? Do they matter? Do you care if an infant is poisoned? I suppose not. As long as your alive, and your well fed and healthy what does the troubles of others matter to you?

[Anamatar IV]

that sounds like a quote right out of tolkien. Dictators should be ousted. Saddam is more than a dictartor though. He is a sadistic freak! The us tried to kill him once by slipping poisonous toothpaste i his bathroom but ...

[Tar-Ancalime]

I mean theirs other cause to our greivances with Saddam, but should he not be ousted just by how he treats the people he means to rule.

[Ciryaher]

If we put in a figurehead government, we are going to be hit by so many terrorist attacks it will no longer be something that can be borne. If we hadn't tried to put in figurehead governments in other countries, we might not have had 9-11.

And weapons inspectors would work in conjunction with intelligence (which includes satellites which can see through the ground and detect radiation and chemical spectra) to find and destroy the weapons (they know how to do it, because they did it last time). Even US intel sources say that Hussein does not have an arsenal.

[Tar-Ancalime]

but regardless of missles, isn't the fact that he's a sadistic murder enough to attack him or do we not want to meddle with the lives of other nations in the 3rd world, are they not worthy of our involvment

[Anamatar IV]

arsenal or not hes dangerous. Noone here can deny it. NO ONE. if he had it hed launch war like that.

[Tar-Ancalime]

or is it that we cannot have another "Black Hawk Down". What has happend to valour and honor. What has happend to the idea of humanity?

[Ciryaher]

The problem is that NOBODY is on our side, and we're going to do more HARM than GOOD if we attack him. Besides, he doesn't have the bite to back up his bark, and for now, the most he should get is a trial.

[Tar-Ancalime]

The most, how can you say that???He kills innocents! That should get him death! But you know much more....I mean to save lives a perfectly good waste of time if you don't win.

[Anamatar IV]

the canadiens, british, isreali, russians (:rolleyes: ), tons of countries are on our side. Isreal has a big enough force to take out the entire middle east. America has enough force to take over the enitre world. Its in the karan (sp) to hate americans. It has deluded their minds to war. Its their own folly to start a war with us. Pity seems to be at an all time high if you think a sadis that has launched an invasion twice and kills people to lower the population should be tried.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Exactly, If he does or if he doesn't have neucs...That doesn't matter...that he has the will to kill innocents. I mean hitler was much the same...and Europe went up against him because the french were attacked. The world is bound on an inevitable course to war, maybe just maybe if we remove what destroys are desired peace we won't end up in an endless nuclear winter

[Ciryaher]

The Russians are against military action in Iraq, the only Briton who is on our side is Tony Blair, and the Canadians aren't in favor of going to war. Israel is on our side because they're the only nation in SCUD missile range that Iraq would attack.

[Tar-Ancalime]

One thing cannot be denied...he is a cruel sadistic man.Those starving children, possibly thier parents have died...If you are what your signature says Cir, why do you not support a choice to lead others to liberty...for he's even a threat to our own victory

[Anamatar IV]

exactly. Iraq is a threat. It is a htreat to isreal. It is a threat to civilians. It is a threat to the good world. If america decides to go for war canada and blair will give alllegniance. If they are against it doesnt mean that they wont aid us. "A friendship with [america] is not easily thrown aside." hitler imprisoned and killed many inoccents. He went for world domination. Saddam isnt crazy enough to commit suicide but its the same case. Hussein wont be ousted unless we take action. In wwII we took action and hitler couldnt take it. Saddam will fight and iraq will fall.

[Tar-Ancalime]

But AMIV their are those who claim that war is avoidable...when In fact were heading for it...everyone is..one day we'll be thinking...saddam won't dare touch us and we won't wake up the folowing morning on earth

[Anamatar IV]

dont say stuff like that. I am serious. There will be a third world war. We are beyond talking now. Its inevitable. Isreal and palestine will fight a bloody battle for control, USA and Iraq will fight a gruesome and horrific war. Alqueda and the taliban will try to reclaim afghanistan. The world will be divided into 2. USA, isreal, afghanistan+any allies against palestine, "so-damn in-sane" :p alqueda, taliban, iran, many countries. Bombs will fall by the hundreds. millions will lose their lives. I predict the war to end all wars. It has already began. Isreal and palestine fight the war everyday. The world will slip into an unexcapable void of war that will show people how horrible war is.

[Tar-Ancalime]

I am also serious on what I said!

[Ciryaher]

That's a load of bull. America won't be fighting any bloody wars with Iraq, because we could carpet bomb that country into rubble. There isn't a nation in this world that could stand up to the US. Now, terrorist organizations and large groups of nations would pose a serious threat, but not a single nation.

And if these repressed people want their liberty, they should ask for guns and fight their own war, like we did. You don't appreciate your freedom unless you have to fight for it (and I plan on going into the military, so don't say I won't be fighting for mine).

[Tar-Ancalime]

US is like the best, but what of europe who is as not militarily strong, what about them,and although their is no proof of his involvment in Terrorsim....how he treats his people is evidence enough..and for that give rise to another al-queda who says america is full of infidels..lets prove those jackasses wrong.

[Anamatar IV]

yes we did fight for freedom but they cannot fight! about all the men in iraq are drafted. If you wanna give women and children guns and try to overthrow an army so be it. Theyd be dead faster then you could say it. America will fight a bloody war if the world falls into WWIII. hussein does not have the capability to hit us with missiles. in 91 he tried to hit ISREAL! the closest enemy to him! He missed just about all of the targets. Have yoiu noticed the big thing of water between us and iraq (;) ) thats so he cant hit us.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Us is too powerful to just stay isolated it does all prosperous nations wrong

[Anamatar IV]

america is not gonna use nukes though. Nuclear weapons are an intimidation factor really.

[Ciryaher]

Read this closely: Nobody in the world, except Isreal, wants to attack Iraq. They are not afraid; they simply see it as overkill, and not what is needed in the situation.

[Tar-Ancalime]

I understand...some nations want to attack iraq others doesn't. But still something needs to be done about saddam. He's a bad man that doesn't belong in power

[Anamatar IV]

saddam deserves nothing less than improsonment for life! Well maybe 20 years. Thats the charge for murder in the 2nd degree.

[Tar-Ancalime]

He's one heck of a Madman. i don't see how saddam can claim status as a nation in the UN personally

[Anamatar IV]

wait-i have that wrong-2nd degree is unintentional. 3rd degree is through someone. Mudrer in the 3rd degree. Hell yeah hes crazy. People love him because he tells them to.

[Tar-Ancalime]

So why can he claim Iraq as a nation from which the world prospers by accepting into the UN

[Kat]

the propaganda seems to have worked...The reason why he can claim this is because he is a leader of a sovereign nation. Nations should have the right to conduct themselves within their own borders. If and when they move outside those borders and threaten other sovereign nations is when those nations have a right to do something.

what right does the worlds greatest schoolyard bullies have in dictating the conduct of nations?? The reason why we are all so interested in what happens in the Middle East is because of that black stuff we all need to maintain our way of life and our wealth. Other nations with nuclear weapons have not been threatened with pre-emptive strikes because of weapon development. If Bush et al were interested in a moral crusade against 'weapons of mass destruction', why don't the leaders of the 'civilised' world issue such threats to other nations with similar weapons China, India, Pakistan etc etc, (who are more likely to use these weapons, even if it is against each other), and to show good faith, get rid of some of their own. To date the US is the ONLY state to have used such evil weapons, how can they support such rhetoric?

Until nations such as the US and its friends stop with the 'I can have them, but you can't and we'll take them off you', and show leadership by reducing its own masses of hideous nuclear and biological weapons, and stop interfering with the internal sovreignty of other nations, will other nations begin to take them and their hollow rhetoric of peace and freedom seriously.

[Tar-Ancalime]

hmph! Cant we put aside Nuecs and just see that he's a dictator who needs to be overthrown.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Tar-Ancalime
hmph! Cant we put aside Nuecs and just see that he's a dictator who needs to be overthrown.

Only this one? There are so much dictators out there, it looks like it's more a kind of 'looking for an easy enemy' than actually having to do with freeing the world of dictators. Unless you're going for the rest of the Middle-east next. And don't forget Asia.
I think Amnsety International can provide you with a list.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Kat

what right does the worlds greatest schoolyard bullies have in dictating the conduct of nations?? The reason why we are all so interested in what happens in the Middle East is because of that black stuff we all need to maintain our way of life and our wealth. Other nations with nuclear weapons have not been threatened with pre-emptive strikes because of weapon development. If Bush et al were interested in a moral crusade against 'weapons of mass destruction', why don't the leaders of the 'civilised' world issue such threats to other nations with similar weapons China, India, Pakistan etc etc, (who are more likely to use these weapons, even if it is against each other), and to show good faith, get rid of some of their own. To date the US is the ONLY state to have used such evil weapons, how can they support such rhetoric?

The reason why China et.al is probably not high on US list is for a number of reasons:
1) The US wants to finish what they started against Saddam
2) Those countries (as a government) don't hate the US much as Iraq and are not crazy enough to challenge them like Iraq
3) Iraq probably does have ties to known terrorists and is probably only a step away from Islamic fanaticism that has fueled the rage of terrorists against the US. I could see Saddam using this religious fervor for political purposes under the facade of "Fighting the Great Satan in the name of Allah".

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Thorin
The reason why China et.al is probably not high on US list is for a number of reasons:
1) The US wants to finish what they started against Saddam
2) Those countries (as a government) don't hate the US much as Iraq and are not crazy enough to challenge them like Iraq
3) Iraq probably does have ties to known terrorists and is probably only a step away from Islamic fanaticism that has fueled the rage of terrorists against the US. I could see Saddam using this religious fervor for political purposes under the facade of "Fighting the Great Satan in the name of Allah".

1) The Gulf War was finished. Iraq had been kicked out of Kuwait, an independent state that was occupied by Iraq and had not been left as was ordered by the Security Council. After which the world had the right to use force. Currently I see no reason to attack Iraq, unless the UN sets an ultimatum. But this time there's no country that needs help. If it's for the people of Iraq, the world (including the US) should commit itself to fre all people under opression.
2)Has Iraq challenged the US? What did 'they' say? Catch me if you can? I only see that the economic consequences of a conflict with China would be more serious for the US than a conflict with Iraq.
3)'Probably' is no proof. And the religious card was played in the Gulf war. Nothing happened. Islamic terrorists blame the US for the situation in which the Palestines must live. They couldn't care less about Saddam's Iraq.

[Parrot]

Posted by Kat
Nations should have the right to conduct themselves within their own borders.

So, following this logic, Hitler should have been unopposed had he continued to only gas Jews within his own borders? I'm not necessarily in favor of a unilateral American military action simply because of the inevitable repurcussions it would bring, but I think it is ironic that many, if not most, Iraqi civilians would applaud such an action, much like our ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan, even while the rest of the world would be condemning us. Guy mercilessly oppresses his own people and executes those who dare oppose him, he needs to go, somehow. If that makes him just one in a long line, let him be the example and move on from there.

[Eliot]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kat
[B] To date the US is the ONLY state to have used such evil weapons, how can they support such rhetoric?

Well, duh! We had to use it! Otherwise, millions more would have died in the battle for Japan! Think about it for a little while. Maybe you'll figure it out soon.

[Ciryaher]

Here is President Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) on 12 September, 2002.

[Anamatar IV]

come ON! The us has not used nuclear weapons. the atomic bomb and the daisy cutter are both ENTIRELY different weapons then a nuke. Iraq has not proposed to be a nuclear state before the UN. Most other countries have. Youre asking why we stick our head in the troubles of the middle east? Because it is trouble. people are living in fear. IN isreal people dont go to public places anymore. They lock their doors during the day and stay in the farthest place inside. They buy guns for the adults and even the children! The kids go to school with handguns in their pockets. At least those who still are brave enough to go to school. What do you call us if we just sit back and watch the show? If we feel nothing then were no better that hussein. Only sadistic freaks like hearing about that. HAve you heard the stories? Its not just war over there. It is a battle between good and evil. A classic battle straight from story books. If youve noticed isreal has done nothing but retalliation. Isrealis are blown up everyday. Palestine will form a stronger army then isreal one day. Though isreal has the smallest Mid. East army they have the strongest. What happens when palestinians get trained? The wage war and are we supposed to watch as palestinians raid houses and shoot down kids? when it gets to that WE will bomb them. WE will kill arafta.

[Ciryaher]

Alright, your arguments are completely untrue. An atom bomb relies on a fission reaction, just as a nuclear (a.k.a.: NUKE, not nuec; nuclear refers to the nucleus of an atom) weapon does; therefore, the US is the ONLY nation to have ever used a nuclear weapon on another nation. Most countries are NOT nuclear powers, btw. Only the US, England, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, and a few others have nuclear weapons in their arsenals.

People in Israel do NOT stay inside all day long and carry guns to school. The idea that the Palestinians will EVER have a comparable army to Israel is utterly ridiculous. Besides that, more Palestinians are killed by Israeli military strikes than Palestinian terrorists kill Israelis (Palestine has no *official* military force). Arafat is the only Palestinian that isn't totally cracked and bent on killing every Jew in the Middle-East.

Anamatar IV, I suggest you know the slightest bit about what you are babbling on about before you say it.

[Anamatar IV]

i do know a bit of what im talking about. I just came from a month in isreal. Kids carry guns around with them. At this rate palestine will outnumber isreals population 3-1 by 2010. Assuming that every guy 18 and older wants to kill isreal there that means that about a 3rd of the people will get guns. They can already make bombs.

A bombs are VERY similar to nukes but they are not the same things. A bombs work by splitting the atoms on impact basically. They do not spread radiation. They simply blow up half the world on contact ;) . Nukes though blow up as destructivly as a bombs but they spread radiation. Nuclear does not just refer to the nucleus. i guess you could say that an a bomb is a type of nuke but if we carpet bomb a country with a bombs you dont say we nuked their asses off.

[Ciryaher]

You are again incorrect. Go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tell me that A-Bombs don't produce radiation. And the atom bombs used on those two cities were detonated several thousand feet in the air (as are ALL nuclear weapons used in war...it's called "airburst" and it causes more damage because the various waves in the explosion travel downwards and flatten everything below it).

Atom bombs are nuclear; they rely on the process of nuclear fission which is caused by a release of neutrons through the core material of the bomb (in the case of an A-bomb, this material is uranium because of it's dense nucleus) which tear through the nucleus and rip it apart, releasing a tremendous amount of energy. This also releases various forms of radiation, which transmits to particles of dust, rock, etc and creates nuclear fallout. ALL nuclear reactions (whether it's a bomb, or inside the nuclear reactor at electric-generating stations) produce radiation (alpha, beta, and gamma particles).

[Ciryaher]

In general, Jews and Muslims are separated in Israel. They do NOT stay inside their houses all day, and they are NOT afraid to go out. Israeli teenagers go out to spend time with their friends when their not in school, adults go to buy groceries and go to work, children still play outside. Now all Israelis are required to serve in the military for a time, so they are armed then, but in general, it is not Israelis that carry around guns (although, as in America, many of them do).

[Anamatar IV]

okay---ill contact world war II experts and get answers. Inching back on topic (inching mind you) they RARELY use those bombs anyways. If its just war vs. Iraq they wont use nukes. Now back on topic-who here does not think suddein should go. I mean honostly. Who here wants hussein to stay in power.

[Ciryaher]

Nobody ever *uses* nukes, and we wouldn't use nukes unless we got nuked multiple times.

Now, I think Saddam Hussein should go if he won't comply with UN's mandates.

[Tar-Ancalime]

First, he's proven he doesn't give if we give him mandates...they arent from heaven are they?So naturally he does a slimy thing...smiles says I will and gets drunk and shoots civilians.

Second,Is not the fact is a tyrant and madman enough to get him out...or is it just that the lives one, one person in a third world country matter little, were america...the few the proud the brave who won't attack Iraq cause I friends don't want to either...contraidicting isn't it

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
That's a load of bull. America won't be fighting any bloody wars with Iraq, because we could carpet bomb that country into rubble.

saturation bombing, also called carpet bombing, will not and moreover can not be depended upon to insure military victory. First, saturation bombing has a very poor record in demoralizing and detering the enemy. Good examples of this can be found in the fire-bombing of Dresden, the London Blitz, the Christmas bombings of Cambodia, et al. Second, acheiving victory of a theater wide area requires that the "good guys" occupy and control the ground as well as the air. All bombing can accomplish is to either completely eliminate the local population, or act as support for ground forces. As powerful as the US arsenal is, a tactical nuke is no replacement for a infantry soldier.

Plus, unless the US military is willing to resort to a full out bombing campaign of leveling every building and road in Iraq, I fear that bombings would hinder more than help us in the cause. Did we not just bomb a group of Canadians who so galantly volunteered to help fight for us?

Just as a note to those who have never served in a combat situation. Do not be quick to assume that technological superiority will insure victory. If an obsolete weapon can still kill, it is not obsolete.

RD

[Ciryaher]

I was exagerrating, RD, but you're right. Leveling a country wouldn't do much to demoralize them as much as enrage every Muslim in the world.

The point is, looking at our last war with Iraq--where they lost forces in the tens of thousands, and we lost a few hundreds (most to friendly fire)--and it's quite plain that they don't stand a serious chance against a Coalition force.

[Dengen-Goroth]

As I’ve sat here reading what has been written by you fine members of this guild, or some that is, I’ve come near to breaking the keyboard so if this comes out sounding like a mad rant excuse me, but my emotions have taken over and I only hope the keyboard does not break;) Now then, Tar you say that because Saddam is a “madman”, with his genocides as evidence, he should be ousted by America. Sure, why not. I mean, come on, America rules the world and whatever the farmer president says goes, right. Hey, why not while we’re at it romp through the Middle East, actually no let’s not. Let’s not focus on Iran and Somalia which have proven ties with terrorists. Why should we, there’s no fun in that. Heck, we say that there’s genocide and crimes there, but we chose to avoid other areas such as China. Not fun to attack a country that will pose to great a threat, and more importantly has the bomb. So forget all of their crimes, irrelevant. Back to our favored madman. We have no link between him and terrorists, we have no link between him and the bomb. But, by golly, it sure would be a kick to take him out. Nothing beats feeding the radical’s perceptions of the West as attempting to destroy Islam for no reason. The Crusades are still going on by some of their perceptions. In fact many consider Israel a Crusader State. Don’t forget Baghdad, the former near capitol of the Islamic world is in Iraq. Many fundamentalists will take the west’s (or just America) occupation of this as near, if not, sacrilege. Tar, you said we fear going in because of another “black Hawk Down”, I must disagree. No one is supporting America assailing Iraq, I don’t think any of the countries who have veto power in the U.N. are. Russia has no need to do so, it has just recently signed a 4 billion agreement (or around there) with Iraq. And Russia is not the C.C.C.P. with another name. Russia is a nation attempting its best to recover from a horrible economic collapse, to become accustomed to capitalism, etc. The Yeltsin presidency was basically run by Oligarchs or the mob. Read “Godfather of the Kremlin” by Paul Klebnikov for more on what really happened. And can you clarify on why the U.N. is so bad. I am really curious, is it simply because it doesn’t seem to agree with an assault on Iraq, or failures in carrying out resolutions. And I believe Bush’s speech to the U.N. will do very little to aid the situation. Will Afghanistan become democratic, when a few days ago Kharzaid(sp?) was nearly assassinated. What will America impose in Iraq if it does fall. And will a government exist in Palestine that will appease both the Palestinians and the West. America’s problem over the eyars has been its lack of interest in the deed after it was done. In Afghanistan the Reagan admin. gave the mujahadin stingers and funding, and after the Soviets left what did they do, left them alone. It can not be done this way in Iraq, yet how much can U.S. do there? It is viewed as at best an outside force at worst a the Western Infidels come to finish what was left undone for a millennium. As for your statements about the Quaran preaching violence against the West, I would like a specific entry AnamatarIV, because I sure as hell don’t think it exists. Muhammad preached that the best Jihad was one with oneself, and also preached that killing another was a detested crime never to be committed. If anything the Islamic fundamentalist’s mind is shaped by what Christendom committed near to a millennium ago, in which hoard upon hoard of men came in the name of God yet in the end simply pillaged, rapped, and burned their way through Asia Minor as well as Europe itself. Even then it took fifty years for a jihad to be called to counter-act Christendom’s own holy war. And it was those wars that brought about the sack of Constantinople because Jerusalem was to well defended, it was through this that it may be argued the Byzantine Empire finally fell and the Turkish Empire was established, and with that Empire’s fall at what many consider a fault of the West we have at last the fruit from the seed sown long ago. My basic point, why attack Iraq when there is no link with terrorists with the Iraqi regime, however there are such ties in Iran and Somalia. And if we go along the same mindset why not strike Chine, there have been grave atrocities committed there. Why attack Iraq if it will only enflame the current religious tensions to its apogee, and if it is done so will what comes after Sadam be any better? Excuse the completely unorganized format. (And what’s this whole smiling then getting drunk and killing people thing?)

[Ciryaher]

Actually, it has been proven that Iraq has been rewarding the families of suicide-bombers in Palestine. And since suicide-bombers want to make their families proud by 'giving their lives' for Allah, knowing that your family will get a hefty check from the account of Saddam Hussein is great incentive for strapping on several pounds of plastique and blowing the hell out of some Jews, right?

I am against *immediate* action against Iraq, but like our "farmer president" (who is a better leader than you damn people with your close minds think) insists, we should give him an ultamatum to reach, and then strike him when/if he fails to meet them.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Dengen-Goroth
As for your statements about the Quaran preaching violence against the West, I would like a specific entry AnamatarIV, because I sure as hell don’t think it exists. Muhammad preached that the best Jihad was one with oneself, and also preached that killing another was a detested crime never to be committed.

It is true that Mohammad preached peace and tolerance at first, but as he consolidated his power, his attitude changed to warfare and his writings show this transition.

quotes from the Koran:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it.
But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and
that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye
know not (2:216)."

"But when the forbidden months are past, then
fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them,
beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);
but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice
regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is
Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful (9:5)."

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight
you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where
they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than
slaughter."

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the
message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the believers. I will
instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above
their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. This because
they contended against God and His Apostle. If any contend against
God and his Apostle, God is strict in punishment ... O ye who
believe! When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn
your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day
-unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his
own) - he draws on himself the wrath of God, and his abode is hell, -
an evil refuge (indeed)! It is not ye who slew them; it was God."

"Truly God loves
those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid
cemented structure ... that ye believe in God and His Apostle, and
that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of God, with your property
and your persons. That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will
forgive you your sins, and admit you to gardens [Paradise] beneath
which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in gardens of eternity.
That is indeed the supreme achievement. And another (favor will He
bestow), which ye do love-help from God and a speedy victory. So give
the glad tidings to the believers."

"Fight those who
believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which
hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the
religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book
[Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [tribute] with
willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call Uzair
[Ezra] a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God
... God's curse be on them."

"The punishment of those
who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and
main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or
the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from
the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy
punishment is theirs in the hereafter, except for those who repent
before they fall into your power. In that case, know that God is
oft-forgiving, most merciful. O ye who believe! Do your duty to God.
Seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and main
in His cause, that ye may prosper."

"A single endeavour (of fighting) in Allah's
cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world
and whatever is in it" (4:50). Again he said, "Know that Paradise is
under the shades of swords." (4:73 ). For Muhammad fighting for the
cause of Allah was a way of life. He said, "My livelihood is under
the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be
humiliated by paying Jizya" ( 4:162b). (The "Jizya" is the poll tax paid by subjugated peoples in return for their right to exist).

"I have been ordered
to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be
worshiped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be
worshiped but Allah,'
__________________________________________________ ___________
Why are there contradictory statements in the Koran concerning peace and warfare? Because it represents the progressive revelation Mohammed "received" according to his circumstances. In his book Jihad: The
Origin of Holy War in Islam, published by Oxford University Press in
1999, Reuven Firestone, writes: "Muslim scholars came to the
conclusion that the scriptural verses regarding war were revealed in
direct relation to the historic needs of Muhammad during his
prophetic mission. At the beginning of his prophetic career in Mecca
when he was weak and his followers few, the divine revelations
encouraged avoidance of physical conflict."
"After the intense persecutions that caused Muhammad and his
followers to emigrate to Medina, however, they were given leave to
engage in defensive warfare. As the Muslim community grew in
strength, further revelations broadened the conditions under which
war could be waged, until it was concluded that war against
non-Muslims could be waged virtually at any time, without pretext,
and in any place" (p. 50).

There is ample enough historical evidence that Mohammad preached and enacted the spread of Islam through the sword...

[DGoeij]

Sounds exactly like the bible to me. Take it too literally, and you'll and up being very nasty to people disagreeing with you.

[LadyGaladriel]

For One Hiroshama has still got radiation . People are still getting extremly rare cases of cancer because of it .

For 2 Musilms In my country have been celebrating on 11/9 because of the suicide bombers and the only party that had enough guts to stand up was the National party.

[Tar-Ancalime]

I know bush is not the best their was, but he is a republican nonetheless.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by DGoeij
Sounds exactly like the bible to me. Take it too literally, and you'll and up being very nasty to people disagreeing with you.

Actually, DG, it is not the same...Though there are instances of Israel fighting against an army in God's name, it is honest warfare and that was the way things were done back in the OT. Divide, conquer, protect and fight were common place and God worked according to that. It was not just one sided either. As a matter of fact, God allowed and sometimes delivered His own people into their enemies' hands due to disobedience...

The difference between the two however, is that God never encouraged any sort of ongoing 'jihad' against the pagans in terms of proselytization (Despite the Crusades which was not Biblically mandated but the result of a corrupt and powerful church). As a matter of religious tolerance and conversion, the Bible makes it plain that love is the underlying factor....

If there were Christian's killing other people, and they claimed that the Bible showed them that this was okay, or that Jesus said to do it, they would be utterly false and fanatic...However, the Islamic fundamentalists DO have the justification to do what they do according to the Koran.

[Dengen-Goroth]

I stand corrected. Thank you for the quotes Thorin. However, I have just recently heard this quote though I have had no luck in finding it, in the Book of Dueteronomy (sp?) I believe it states something to the like that any kingdom which is against God should be destroyed(again I do not have the quote but am working on it. And I am not confusing this with the quote of murdering any who attempt to sway one from God).

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Dengen-Goroth
However, I have just recently heard this quote though I have had no luck in finding it, in the Book of Dueteronomy (sp?) I believe it states something to the like that any kingdom which is against God should be destroyed(again I do not have the quote but am working on it

Also, keep in mind DG, that the quotes from the Bible about destroying the enemies of God were relevant to their time. The enemies of God in OT times were enemies of the nations. The enemies of God and the people of God were at constant warfare. It was just as much political as it was religious. To take any scripture from the Bible that mentions OT warfare and make it refer to God saying that His people need to fight and destroy any enemies of God today is taking it out of the historical context it was set in...

According to the Koran, the enemies of God are those who do not believe in the Islamic way, or serve Allah. Hence, the command to destroy the infidel applies to today as much as it did back then because the definition hasn't changed and it never was a political war, but a religious war....

Anyway, getting way off topic here...Sorry for that. My only concern with Iraq is Saddam selling off any weapons of mass destruction to these terrorists. Saddam isn't stupid enough to use them...However, if he can get these terrorists to do his dirty work, then that is the way he will do it.

[Kat]

I've been away for a few days, and this thread has really heated up!! I have to take back the discussion a bit, and repond to an earlier comment from Eliot...

"Well, duh! We had to use it! Otherwise, millions more would have died in the battle for Japan! Think about it for a little while. Maybe you'll figure it out soon." [/B][/QUOTE]

As a postgrad student in political and military history, figuring this one out is no biggie!!
There is ample evidence to illustrate that the use of nuclear weapons by the United States against Japan in 1945 was not necessary in achieving any glorious war aims or global security. Sure, many American soldiers would have died in an invasion of the Japanese home islands, an Okinawa battle on a grander scale...

However, this loss of life would also have been unnecessary, as the Japanese at the time were essentially defeated and prepared to surrender. In the leadup to the 'drop', the japanese were attempting to negotiate and end to hostilities, and offered a conditional surrender, rejected by the US, who instead chose to send a message to their imminent cold war enemy. The subsequent surrender of japan was made with the exact conditions the japanese were seeking before the bombs were used.

Therefore, one can conclude that the use of these weapons was not to secure a purely military victory, but to achieve post war foreign policy aims. There are many books and documentary sources which pan this out, and describe the US use of these weapons as atomic diplomacy, pure theatre for their breakdown in cooperative relations with the Soviets. The most compelling book on this subject is by Gar Alperovitz called, surprisingly enough, Atomic Diplomacy. Check it out, maybe it will help you figure it out:p

[Eliot]

Not just American soldiers would have died, but many,many more Japanese civilians would have died if the U.S. did not drop it!
Though the losses were horrible, If we hadn't used it more people would have died. But I do respect you for being a post-grad student because I'm just an 8th grader:)

[Kat]

Thats cool! You are a very knowledgable eighthgrader. It's good to see politically active youngins!!

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Thorin
If there were Christian's killing other people, and they claimed that the Bible showed them that this was okay, or that Jesus said to do it, they would be utterly false and fanatic...However, the Islamic fundamentalists DO have the justification to do what they do according to the Koran.

You mean, they can find justifications in the Koran, like rabid christians can find them in the bible. You claim those christians would be false and fanatic, I think they see that otherwise, like musmil fundamentalist do. A lot of Islamic scholars say the same thing about the fanatics of their own religion, explaining that those people rely on false interpretations.
You must admit that both religious texts have enough room for the 'bad guys' out there to 'justify' their actions, being either christian or muslim.

I do see Saddam as a dreadful man, but I also see more of them in the world today. The fact that his weapons off mass destruction could fall in the hands of terrorists would justify the occupation of all the ocuntries in the former Soviet Union. That is the most likely place were a nuclear weapon could fall in the hands of the same terrorists.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Hey I"m a politically active 9th grader...LOL. And anyone can find justification of they anylyze a document in hopes of proving a point.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by DGoeij


You mean, they can find justifications in the Koran, like rabid christians can find them in the bible. You claim those christians would be false and fanatic, I think they see that otherwise, like musmil fundamentalist do. A lot of Islamic scholars say the same thing about the fanatics of their own religion, explaining that those people rely on false interpretations.
You must admit that both religious texts have enough room for the 'bad guys' out there to 'justify' their actions, being either christian or muslim

I disagree. The message of the Koran and Mohammad has always been making all nations be ruled under Islam. It is woven in the very existence of the religion itself...The Bible does not promote a holy war against pagans or other religions....Yes people can take some things out of context. However, by comparing the text to the life of Christ, you can see what ambiguous texts are really saying. In text, the Koran agrees with what Mohammad preached and lived. His followers have been following the true meaning of "jihad" against the infidel throughout the ages, since and including the life of Mohammad....Were they all misguided Islamic fanatics?
Perhaps they understood exactly what the Koran was requiring of a faithful Muslim of Allah and the do gooders of Islam who claim it is all misinterpretation are watering it down to conform to the standards of today's society.

[Tar-Ancalime]

But we didn't attack them...well yes we may have try like a millinea ago...but I mean does that justify the slaying of thousands of innocents.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Tar-Ancalime
But we didn't attack them...well yes we may have try like a millinea ago...but I mean does that justify the slaying of thousands of innocents.

But keep in mind Tar, that politics and religion are melded together in the Islamic state. An attack on the state is not a just a political attack, but an attack against Islam itself. They hate America because they embody everything that is against the will of Allah and Islam. Incredible wealth and prosperity squandered on thrills, entertainment and indulgent lifestyles. They see sexuality and morality run rampant they see political America praying to God when the going gets tough, and then in the next instant, see them trying to get 'God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. To the Muslim (and to some Christians, mind you), that is blasphemy and hypocrisy at its worse...They believe that if they kick God aside, God will kick you aside...Now incorporate that belief with the idea of 'jihad' against the infidel and you can see where America falls in their eyes.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Thorin


I disagree. The message of the Koran and Mohammad has always been making all nations be ruled under Islam. It is woven in the very existence of the religion itself...The Bible does not promote a holy war against pagans or other religions....Yes people can take some things out of context. However, by comparing the text to the life of Christ, you can see what ambiguous texts are really saying. In text, the Koran agrees with what Mohammad preached and lived. His followers have been following the true meaning of "jihad" against the infidel throughout the ages, since and including the life of Mohammad....Were they all misguided Islamic fanatics?
Perhaps they understood exactly what the Koran was requiring of a faithful Muslim of Allah and the do gooders of Islam who claim it is all misinterpretation are watering it down to conform to the standards of today's society.


Interesting theory, but not quite accurate. The main fallacy is the concept that the term Jihad is the same as Holy War. Jihad means simply Holy Endeavour or Holy Effort. The concept of Jihad as conflict against the Infidel did not come into effect until the Ottoman Empire lost the Balkans to the Austro-Hungarian's. In it's original meaning, Jihad could refer from anything from open warfare to the building of new schools, even the teaching of the ignorant could be seen as a form of Jihad.

As for the concept that all Islamic nations are required to be Oligarchial Theocracies, this again arose out of the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire and the First World War. With the end of the Empire, the area fell into two distict modes of thought. The Whabbi model, followed by Saduia Arabia and the area of the Hadjramoot; and the more western philosophies of Kamal Attaturk, Gamal Abdul Nasser and Anwar al-Sadat who were instrumental in the creations of the democratic republics of Turkey and Egypt.

RD

[Tar-Ancalime]

What do you mean? Some christain groups...catholicism in the time of the crusades fought the muslims over the influence of the Pope, not the bible.

[Rangerdave]

OK Everybody sing along with RD
I know Grond knows this one :p

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He’s got himself in a terrible jam
Just like in ole Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun:
We’re gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it’s one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me, you'll just make me mad,
Next stop; Downtown Baghdad.
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! We all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let’s move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get old Saddam-
The only good Iraqi is the one under a bomb.
And you know that peace can only be won
When we’ve blown ‘em all to all kingdom come.

And it’s one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me, you'll just make me mad,
Next stop; Downtown Baghdad.
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! We all gonna die.
Huh!

Well, come on Wall Street, don’t move slow,
Why man is war au-go-go.
There’s plenty good money to be made
By supplyin' the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray if they drop the bomb,
The Air Force don't steer it wrong.

And it’s one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
George's gotta a woody for that Saddam
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! We all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off east of Iran.
Come on fathers, don’t hesitate,
Send them off before is too late.
Be the first one in your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it’s one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me, you'll just make me mad,
Next stop; Downtown Baghdad.
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! We all gonna die.

Now wasn't that fun?

RD

[Thorin]

Country Joe and the Fish!

[daisy]

"I don't think there is much doubt as to whether Saddam Hussein is evil or not. He has killed thousands of his own people, invaded neighbouring countries and is probably stockpiling weapons of mass destruction as we speak " - I don't remember which forum member said this but there are many leaders in the world that could be described this way. And do you people really believe the impending war with Iraq is really about justice and democracy for all? Please. When your major trading partner is China? Also a regime which opresses its people. kills its people and has many weapons of destruction....or North Korea as someone mentioned...or India for that matter. Come on, it's about the oil people! It's about controlling the middle east! Do you honestly think that the American government has not killed 'innocents'? I can name four Canadians who fit into that category. And Canada, for the most part, including our leader, DOES NOT support military action against Iraq. What makes the American military think they can invade a sovereign country just because they want to? And against the wishes of the U.N, which is supposed to be the symbolic joining of the countries of the world into a community? And the U.N. being cheap? Why don't you check and see which country has or until recently had ( I am not sure if Ted Turner paid the bill yet) has the largest unpaid bills in the U.N.'s monies owing column? God, it is so easy to hide behind the cowboy, isn't it? And not really look at how most of the world views the United States, and the motivations of your leaders? Get a clue!!!
And by the way,I am fond of the States and feel obviously supportive of the 'war on terrorism' and democracy etc. But I am also able to be objective, or at least try to not have the blinders on! And Americans are nuts if they support their president in this action. This could open a can of worms that even the American powerhaus cannot put the lid back on.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Daisy your points are most valid but in the end a confrontation is inevitable. Today bush made a speach in AR. He said something to the affect of."Give Saddam Hussien a chance to let us check his nuclear/mass destruction arsenol. If he refuses, we attack. If he allows it we delay an attack." Although there is some truth to this statement, still we need to oust his regieme. It's just necessary.He's a two faced liar, he's broken so many un resolutions its not even funny. And yet people let him live on for some demented reason. UN has to do thier job, to ignore saddam is like ignoring their entire purpose. World peace, he and many other nations are a threat. Iraq is just part of a plan. Thier are other nations which will be attacked...not just iraq.And accidents do happen. Sometimes to achieve peace we must go to war.

[Thorin]

But do you think Saddam is stupid enough to allow UN inspectors to come in and look when he has them? If he allows them to come in (and I heard that he said they could and Bush called it "stall tactics"), do you not think he will hide them somewhere and fool the government? An invite, or planned inspection gives them time to hide.

If someone said to your business "Hi, we're the photocopy police! We're going to come in next week and check to see if you have any illegal photocopies of stuff." Do you honestly think that when those photocopy police come they will find anything? Inspection is useless because it can be worked around....I think that Bush is using this more as a stall tactic to get his agenda of ousting Saddam in force. I really think he couldn't care less about inspection. The fact that he thinks Saddam's invitiation is bunk tells you that.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Of course its a stall tactic on the part of Iraq and America! WE'LL ALL EVENTULY BE FIGHTING THEM ANYWAY!!!!

[Dengen-Goroth]

Tar, you sound like a true republican;) I agree wholeheartedly with Daisy, Bush is pushing his rhetoric with ever greater determination. However Sadam has said the U.N. can come in, so let them go. Now your latest statement, we'll all be fighting them eventually, holds little merit. What proof do you have of this, unless of course you could argue that Bush is so bent on war that he won't care if Irq does or doesn't let the U.N. in or if it has any harmful weapons. Because you may very well be correct, Bush is a president who has little comment sense. In the last week what's he done internationally? Well, he's brought US-German relations to the worst point in decades (I believe Shroeder's party won in an election a week ago or so by stating they appose the war on Iraq). Good stuff isn't it, who should we enrage next, France, Spain, Italy? A jolly old time this is. As Daisy said, how can he claim that Sadam should be taken out because he is a tyrant and destroys liberty when China does the same? As my esteemed former World History teacher stated, it's not fun to pick on strong countries. Let's face the facts, Bush wants war because it helps his ratings. Americans like winning wars, his popularity rating has gone back to 70%. And as I stated earlier, this proposed attack should have nothing to do with a war on terror. Countries with proven links to terrorists are left peacefully resting.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Well Dengen what can I say! I am a republican..and that other stuff....stupid liberal;)

[Tar-Elenion]

Actually Saddam Hussien did not say he would allow unfettered inspections. As was reported in the Evening Standard just after it was announced that he would allow the return of inspectors, the inspectors would only be allowed on military sites. "Civilian" sites (hospitals, schools, presidential palaces etc.) would be off limits. Of course the "civilian" sites are where WMD are produced and hidden (Saddam at one point designated a military base a 'presdintial palace' and made it off limits).
I jusy saw a late breaking report on the news today that Saddam has now said he will not allow inspectors in at all.

[Snaga]

I dont usually post in these threads, but they are sometimes interesting to read. In this case, can I just ask this question...

Can anyone name me a country that is within range of Saddam Hussein's weapons, who is in support of Bush's position?

[daisy]

Israel - remember the scud missile attacks of the Gulf War courtesy of Iraq...

[Ciryaher]

Turkey and Saudi Arabia are in range of SCUD attacks, and they support the US (so far as to allow Coalition/American forces to station there).

And, Dengen, Spain and Italy of fairly strong supporters of the US in this matter...the problem is China and Russia.

[Snaga]

Actually, both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have expressed strong reservations. Both have longstanding US military bases, but both have refused their use unless there is a firm UN mandate.

Turkey is concerned above all to maintain the stability of Iraq, because it does not want the Kurds getting any form of independence, since it has its own Kurdish minority who want succession.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand, is in enough trouble from its own people for allowing US troops on its soil in the first place. Discontent with that decision has led to a rise in Islamic militancy.

Israel is in fact the correct answer.

As Daisy points out Iraq scudded Israel in the Gulf War. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear power station in 1982 (I think). Israel has nuclear weapons. Both have invaded and occupied their neighbours. Both are in violation of numerous UN resolutions.

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by snaga1
Actually, both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have expressed strong reservations. Both have longstanding US military bases, but both have refused their use unless there is a firm UN mandate.

Kuwait, Iraq is still holding many Kuwaitis prisoner (and Qatar or Bahrain, I misremember which, has expressed support).
Saudi Arabia is 'coming around' (or putting on a public front for its populace).



As Daisy points out Iraq scudded Israel in the Gulf War. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear power station in 1982 (I think). Israel has nuclear weapons. Both have invaded and occupied their neighbours. Both are in violation of numerous UN resolutions.

Only one has done so unprovoked. Iraq agreed to the UN resolutions.

[Snaga]

Here's a good break down of the various positions of various governments, provided by the good ol' BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2240570.stm None of the states you mention are in favour of a unilateral military action, that bypasses the UN.

Can you explain your last point Tar-Elenion. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Thanks:)

[daisy]

There are many countries who are acting against U.N. resolutions, including the U.S., if they attack Iraq.I for one am a little confused about my government's support for an attack on Iraq when the majority of the country and many opposition politicians are against this act....

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by snaga1
None of the states you mention are in favour of a unilateral military action, that bypasses the UN.

Your question was: "Can anyone name me a country that is within range of Saddam Hussein's weapons, who is in support of Bush's position?"

Your question was not "...name me a country that is within range of Saddam Hussein's weapons in favour of a unilateral military action, that bypasses the UN..."

Mr. Bush has not 'bypassed' the UN (though he did out manoeuvre it with his speech the other week), and any military action even if he did bypass the UN would not be unilateral since: "Mr Blair seems determined to commit British troops to any operations against Iraq" (from the article you linked above).



Can you explain your last point Tar-Elenion. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Thanks:)

Israel was attacked by its 'neighbors' and occupied some of their lands in responce (the third time in '67, the first two times it was attacked it did not occupy its 'neighbors' territories despite defeating them). After the '67 war Israel occupied the Sinai (Egyptian territory) and the Golan Heights (Syria). The Sinai was returned to Egypt when Egypt made peace and recognized Israel in the Camp David accords in the later 70's. It is unlikely the Golan Heights will ever be returned to Syria, which has not made peace with Israel, since the Heights are very important strategically to Israel's security (they command Israel and had been used to launch attacks against Israel by Syrian supported forces), and IIRC have been by made part of sovereign Israeli territory. Israel also occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip which previously had been occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.
Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, which had not attacked Iraq.

Iraq lost the resulting war and in its defeat made certain agreements, including weapons inspections etc. It has not kept those agreements.

Israel did not start a war, did not lose, and did not agree to various resolutions made against it by the UN (which is notoriously biased against Israel in any event).

[Snaga]

Ah, but Bush's position is precisely that he is going to change the regime in Iraq, with or without the UN.

On your points about Israel, you are factually not correct (leaving aside the 'bias against Israel' statement which is a matter of opinion). The 1967 War was initiated, in an interesting parallel, by a pre-emptive strike by Israel. In this case, Israel did have a credible threat on its borders which is something that the US cannot claim in this case.

You thoughts on UN resolutions are interesting to explore. Do you feel that UN resolutions are only bi