Castration of USA

[Gloer]

well, well, well

It might be that USA will feel quite castrated if they don't go to war. They have to go to war. They have no choice. US has played all the cards... and damn. The bluff failed.

It is like telling an eager youngster that the lady he is after in the bar...is in fact a man. Embarrasing.

But maybe if you go all the way and tell everybody with a convincing voice that you were right then...
:D

The French or the Germans can not stop USA but... they're making a mistake. They have more experience on these matters after all.

As Talleyrand would put it: "It's not a crime. It's worse. It is a mistake."

[Gandalf White]

I take it that you think America should not go to war. Do you also not believe that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? I mean come on, the guy's a lunatic, and needs to leave, so we'll just help him along!

[Gloer]

Why did USA claim that Saddam has a program to make abc-weapons?

He did have that before 1991 war, yes. But I don't believe he has anything going on anymore. and he has probably destroyed anything that he might have had going on.

the real aim is to get Saddam out, because that is the only way to topple the threat of Iraq to USA.

"Guns do not kill, people do."

Saddam is the threat, not his weapons. It was unneccessary to tie this thing to the imaginary weapons programme. There has been no presented proof of any weapons programme by USA or the britts, yet. Blix is sure to find nothing unless there already is proof gathered by USA.

USA should have made a direct claim that Saddams government should be changed because of the attack to Kuwait 1991 and later breach of peace accords by not co-operating with inspectors in 1997.

The reason why Saddam was allowed to stay in power was that he agreed to terms that would make his government trustworthy.
He failed in 1997 and is not trustworthy and as such his government is not legitimate. 1991 war is on again.

[Thorin]

Please understand that when I say "US" I am in no way slamming the citizens of that country but the political government and ideologies governing certain actions . ;)

The US is shooting itself in the foot while trying to preserve itself.
Think about it.

Who does Iraq hate? Germany? France? England?
Nope. The whole Asian Muslim world hates America and the US knows that should these weapons of mass destruction be used, it will be used on THEM, hence the desperate need to dig in and try and topple Hussein.

Meanwhile, the US is shooting itself in the foot and feeding the flames by trying to be the sole "liberator" of a country that hates them by challenging Saddam to war without virtually any support from the countries that Iraq doesn't even have a problem with. Why? Because this "gung-ho" attitude can only lead to worse problems and the rest of the free thinking world understands that. Apparently, the US feels that it and it alone is responsible for all the peace that has been kept in the world all these centuries and that we'll be sorry unless they step in. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the rest of the world could very well suffer (especially Canada and Mexico next door) by the results of years of arrogance and bully tactics in the name of sanctimony that the US has generated.

Does Saddam need to go? Perhaps, but no more than other dictators need to go. Why Iraq? Because they are a direct threat to the US and nobody else. And the US has no one to thank for that but themselves.

[Legolam]

For once, I agree with you Thorin!

The report from Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors is out in 3 days time, so it's nearly D-day for the US and Britain. There are three scenarios:

1. Blix finds concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction or cover-ups. Another UN resolution is passed and war ensues.

2. Blix finds no evidence either way

3. Blix can conclusively say that there are no weapons in Iraq. This is impossible to prove.

So, options 2 and 3 are the most likely. What's the US going to do? Most of Europe isn't going to support a war without scenario 1, so we've got a problem on our hands. Do we go to war anyway, just because our bluff has been called, as Gloer says? Or do we do the proper thing, and back down gracefully (or disgracefully) and try and change the regime in Iraq carefully and peacefully?

[Gloer]

if that was the aim with the military build up. He won't run and I think US must anticipate this.

The mistake is to tie this operation to alledged current weapons programme. It is an excuse alá those that Stalin and Hitler made 1939.

Iraq government led by Saddam Hussein is a threat to USA no matter how good Saddam behaves, because anytime he might change his policy and strike with devastating consequences. USA just can't have him in power after 9.11. events. It is too risky.

The problem is how to get him out without multiplying possible threat of terrorist sentiment and action by 10.

The major point is that USA should make the rest of the world feel that their point of view and interest are considered before the war.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Legolam
For once, I agree with you Thorin!

The report from Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors is out in 3 days time, so it's nearly D-day for the US and Britain. There are three scenarios:

1. Blix finds concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction or cover-ups. Another UN resolution is passed and war ensues.

2. Blix finds no evidence either way

3. Blix can conclusively say that there are no weapons in Iraq. This is impossible to prove.

So, options 2 and 3 are the most likely. What's the US going to do? Most of Europe isn't going to support a war without scenario 1, so we've got a problem on our hands. Do we go to war anyway, just because our bluff has been called, as Gloer says? Or do we do the proper thing, and back down gracefully (or disgracefully) and try and change the regime in Iraq carefully and peacefully?

You say option 3 is impossible and yet "most likely"? :confused:

I am not convinced this war is the answer either but I notice that there seems to be a glaring lack of meaningful alternatives.

"War Bad, Bad, Bad! Peace Good! :) Well thank you very much Deep Thinkers, how many semesters of philosophy were required to come to that startling conclusion?

I think even the most hawkish amongst us would prefer that we "change the regime in Iraq carefully and peacefully"; but, Pollyannaish platitudes aside, how do we get from A to Z? Iraq has endured harsh trade santions for some 12 years now, the effect being that children starve to death while Saddam continues to build palaces and and line his own pockets thru perversion of the "food for oil" program. Due to his utter ruthlessness there is no meaningful political opposition in the country, so an internal overthrow is highly unlikely. What are you left with?


War is not the answer? Convince me; what the heck is (with at least a passing effort at specifics please)?

[Gandalf White]

You say option 3 is impossible and yet "most likely"? No, it's not an impossible event, it's impossible to prove that Iraq has no weapons, yet this is one of the two most likely declarations.
So Gloer and Thorin, do you agree that Saddam needs to go, but the US is going about it wrong? Or do you think Saddam should just stay put?

[Gloer]

Saddam is better gone, but then he is better than religious fanatics.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
No, it's not an impossible event, it's impossible to prove that Iraq has no weapons, yet this is one of the two most likely declarations.

Uhhh..... if it's impossible to prove what makes it a more likely declaration? Legolam was right when she said it is impossible to prove conclusively, therefore there are two scenarios; we find proof, or we do not.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Parrot
Iraq has endured harsh trade santions for some 12 years now, the effect being that children starve to death while Saddam continues to build palaces and and line his own pockets thru perversion of the "food for oil" program. Due to his utter ruthlessness there is no meaningful political opposition in the country, so an internal overthrow is highly unlikely. What are you left with?

War is not the answer? Convince me; what the heck is (with at least a passing effort at specifics please)?

And there aren't dozens of similar situations throughout the world, some with even worse dictators then Saddam? Why isn't the US chomping at the bit to end those dictatorships?

No, it is Iraq that gnaws on Bush's thoughts. He wants to finish what daddy started. For what reasons? Revenge, oil, prestige and position? Who knows. However the "free the people from tyranny" argument is a smokescreen. The fact that Iraq could have weapons scares them silly. They want him out for their own good. Otherwise, the US would put its trust in the UN and the free world to carry out whatever justice is needed. Isn't that why the inspectors went in to begin with?

[Gandalf White]

No, it is Iraq that gnaws on Bush's thoughts. He wants to finish what daddy started. For what reasons? Revenge, oil, prestige and position? Who knows. However the "free the people from tyranny" argument is a smokescreen. The fact that Iraq could have weapons scares them silly. They want him out for their own good. Otherwise, the US would put its trust in the UN and the free world to carry out whatever justice is needed. Isn't that why the inspectors went in to begin with? Of course it's a smokescreen, it's his weapons we're after! What's your problem, you don't think it's wise that the US is worried about Saddam's weapons? Is your problem with the fact that we don't out and say, "We are worried"? And that line about "putting our trust in the UN" is a total joke.:rolleyes: I wouldn't put my trust in the UN for anything, look who they just elected to the Human Rights chair.... Libya! Support from the UN would be very nice, but they are so anti-US, it ain't gonna happen, so we'll have to do it without them.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Of course it's a smokescreen, it's his weapons we're after! What's your problem, you don't think it's wise that the US is worried about Saddam's weapons? Is your problem with the fact that we don't out and say, "We are worried"?

Then maybe your government should stop trying to sweet talk the American public to get thier support for war (which, by the way, doesn't seem to be happening from what I'm seeing) by saying that the Iraqi people need to be freed from this dictator. Horse-pucky!

Tell them the truth! "We don't really care too much about the Iraqi people, after all, a war will only devestate them further! Look at Afghanistan for a good example! But hey, we dropped food for them so, anway...The fact is, is that we've ticked them off for so long and now that we know they may have weapons, we gotta clear them out! This is true because the rest of the UN isn't sweating it! They know who's the real target!"

Tell the truth and then go in gung-ho and suffer the results. Bush will get slaughtered. They barely made Desert Storm. You don't think Saddam has gotten more powerful? What are they going to do, carpet bomb? They've been doing that for years and only ticked off more the people they are supposedly trying to help. Ground troops? That didn't work in Afghanistan, never mind Iraq.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Gloer
The French or the Germans can not stop USA but... they're making a mistake. They have more experience on these matters after all.

As Talleyrand would put it: "It's not a crime. It's worse. It is a mistake." [/B]

I´m German and I´m interested in knowing, which mistake do you mean.

[Gandalf White]

Then maybe your government should stop trying to sweet talk the American public to get thier support for war (which, by the way, doesn't seem to be happening from what I'm seeing) by saying that the Iraqi people need to be freed from this dictator. Horse-pucky! I don't know what you're talking about. I've never even heard that the war is to free the Iraqi people, although that would be a benefit. It's always been about Saddam's weapons.

Bush will get slaughtered. They barely made Desert Storm. Yeah, you wish.

You are obviously as anti-US as Saddam! :D BTW, what country are you from?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
I don't know what you're talking about. I've never even heard that the war is to free the Iraqi people, although that would be a benefit. It's always been about Saddam's weapons.

Yeah, you wish.

You are obviously as anti-US as Saddam! :D BTW, what country are you from?

I'm from Canada, "The US's attic", as some rude American once put it to me. I would like to think that the US is Canada's cellar. :D

I am not anti-US, though I think that there are many things wrong with it (as there is in Canada and other countries) and I think that Bush feels that he has something to prove and I'm afraid that he is going forward without thinking straight, especially when not only other countries, but even in his own government is questioning what he is doing.

I ask again, why Iraq? I believe it is for nothing more than self-preservation.

[Thorin]

I'm from Canada, "The US's attic", as some rude American once put it to me. I would like to think that the US is Canada's cellar. :D I am not anti-US, though I think that ona whole, the US is more rude and arrogant and ignorant then most countries and they have made no qualms on presenting themselves directly or indirectly to the world.

However every country has problems. I think that Bush feels that he has something to prove and I'm afraid that he is going forward without thinking straight, especially when not only other countries, but even in his own government is questioning what he is doing.

I ask again, why Iraq? I believe it is for nothing more than self-preservation.
And as for Desert Storm, Saddam is probably twice as powerful as he was back then. What did it accomplish? And considering the problems with Afghanistan in sending troops in, do you honestly think the Taliban was stronger than Iraq is? I doubt it. It will be a slaughter and short of nuking the whole country, I can't see what Bush will be able to do. Especially on their own.

[Gloer]

yes, are the german and french making a mistake or united states... intentional heheh

My view: Bush is making a mistake. He should knew those Europeans will act on the basis of international agreements. They will demand UN resolution. And he should know that Germany has constitutional clauses that prevent germany from taking part of invasion. Germany is not even allowed to send troops.

Why is this? Because Hitler used legitimation for his aggression it was made unconstitutional to send troops.
The spirit of German constitution makes it impossible for Germany to support aggression without UN backing. And even there Germany can not vote in favour of UN backing if there is no proof. from USA that Iraq is threathening.

US mistake is that they should prove something that they know is not true. There is no weapons programme in Iraq. But there is Saddam. Bush needs to make sure he is out because out of all the dictators in the world Saddam is the one who has reason to use terrorist attack tactics. Those tactics have greatly increased their appeal after 9-11 example. It is very easy to base USA aggression on these grounds.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Gloer
yes, are the german and french making a mistake or united states... intentional heheh

My view: Bush is making a mistake. He should knew those Europeans will act on the basis of international agreements. They will demand UN resolution. And he should know that Germany has constitutional clauses that prevent germany from taking part of invasion. Germany is not even allowed to send troops.

Why is this? Because Hitler used legitimation for his aggression it was made unconstitutional to send troops.
The spirit of German constitution makes it impossible for Germany to support aggression without UN backing. And even there Germany can not vote in favour of UN backing if there is no proof. from USA that Iraq is threathening.

US mistake is that they should prove something that they know is not true. There is no weapons programme in Iraq. But there is Saddam. Bush needs to make sure he is out because out of all the dictators in the world Saddam is the one who has reason to use terrorist attack tactics. Those tactics have greatly increased their appeal after 9-11 example. It is very easy to base USA aggression on these grounds.

You can be sure, that Bush and Schröder spoke about Iraq and Saddam Hussein at Bush´s visit in Berlin last may or june. There are rumors, that there was a agreement between them, that the U.S.A. don´t publish their plans about Iraq before the German election in September.

But then Rumsfeld and Cheney published their plans about Iraq just two or three weeks before the German election, and so Schröder and Fischer didn´t stick to the agreement anymore, too. The Iraq politics were brought into the rallies of the parties, which was very good for Schröder and Fischer, because Stoiber (the opponent) was in the lead.

On the other hand the critic of Schröder was very undiplomatic and to harsh and he brought Germany in a very difficult situation, when he declared this week, that Germany will vote with NO, because he disregards the "verdict" of UN-inspectors. In turn Bush does the same, because he seems to be not really interested in this "verdict" of the UN-inspectors, otherwise he would extent the inspections. A very terrible situation.

You are right about Hitler. It is unbelievable for Germans to take part in a "preventive" war at the moment - maybe sometimes in the far future.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Thorin
Tell the truth and then go in gung-ho and suffer the results. Bush will get slaughtered. They barely made Desert Storm.
Thorin, what are you talking about - “barely made Desert Storm”? As military operations go, Desert Storm was as close to a cake-walk as it gets and went much smoother than even the most optimistic American military minds dared predict. Even Schwarzkopf, the mastermind, is on record as being stunned by how easy the victory was; actions that were expected to take days or even weeks were accomplished in a matter of hours. I don’t have exact numbers but I remember reading that more US soldiers died from non-combat injuries and friendly fire than at the hands of the Iraqis.


You don't think Saddam has gotten more powerful? What are they going to do, carpet bomb? They've been doing that for years and only ticked off more the people they are supposedly trying to help. Ground troops? That didn't work in Afghanistan, never mind Iraq.
Actually I believe the prevailing wisdom is that the years of harsh sanctions have greatly weakened his arsenal and ability to make war. I would think that engagement tactics would mirror those we have used in other recent engagements; precision tactical bombings aimed at key military and industrial pressure-points and infrastructure, taking every pain to avoid civilian casualties. Why would we resort to carpet bombing? Of course ground-troops will be necessary, that is a given, but by what means do you gauge that ground troops “didn’t work” in Afghanistan? Is the Taliban still running the country? No. Those who haven’t been killed or escaped to Pakistan have taken to hiding in tunnels and keeping a markedly lower profile. U.N. force’s casualties have been very light in respect to the scope of the fighting. Women actually go to school and hold jobs! Everyone said from the beginning that it was going to be a drawn out operation requiring long-term commitments of aid and peacekeeping duties, so how can you pronounce it a failure after what, one year?

Also, if the Gulf War was any indicator, there is a big difference in fighting spirit between the average Taliban zealot and the conscripted Iraqi foot-soldier. In the Gulf War, the Iraqi soldiers surrendered in droves and I don’t know of anything to indicate that morale is any better after 10 more years of hardship. If it comes to it, there almost certainly will be more protracted fighting this time, but owing more to the nature of the mission than to any Iraqi military gains. The Iraqis have already indicated that they will concentrate their forces in populated areas and fight within the cities, knowing they have no chance in the open desert and also knowing that we will try to avoid civilian casualties. If the Republican Guard holds together and chooses to fight in Baghdad or some other city, this will probably present the greatest military challenge I would guess. Will it be more bloody than Desert Storm? Probably. Will the Americans “get slaughtered” or will this be "another Vietnam", as some have suggested? Highly doubtful.

In the past you have been pretty fond of accusing Americans of egregious ignorance, well this kind of misinformation and disinformation doesn’t help the situation. I respect that you have your beefs with America and this war, that is your right; but I would expect more sound support for your positions than the stuff quoted here. You’re reaching pal.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Parrot
Thorin, what are you talking about - “barely made Desert Storm”? As military operations go, Desert Storm was as close to a cake-walk as it gets and went much smoother than even the most optimistic American military minds dared predict. Even Schwarzkopf, the mastermind, is on record as being stunned by how easy the victory was; actions that were expected to take days or even weeks were accomplished in a matter of hours....Also, if the Gulf War was any indicator, there is a big difference in fighting spirit between the average Taliban zealot and the conscripted Iraqi foot-soldier. ....The Iraqis have already indicated that they will concentrate their forces in populated areas and fight within the cities, knowing they have no chance in the open desert and also knowing that we will try to avoid civilian casualties. .....In the past you have been pretty fond of accusing Americans of egregious ignorance, well this kind of misinformation and disinformation doesn’t help the situation. I respect that you have your beefs with America and this war, that is your right; but I would expect more sound support for your positions than the stuff quoted here. You’re reaching pal.

Okay, I will admit that maybe I'm reaching and am speaking ignorantly. I apologize (but at least I know where 3/4 of the states are on a map of the US :D)

I just don't recall the Gulf War being a great success and Saddam's still in power. The fighting in Aghanistan showed that when foreigners are fighting on another's ground, they are at a serious disadvantage. As far as I'm concerned, the Taliban kept them on the run and made them chase their tale. And the Americans think that the trained Iraqi soldiers (who you claim will probably stay out of the desert) will not be at a serious advantage on their own turf?

Civilians will be killed for the US to do anything substantial. I just believe that they will be at more of a serious disadvantage then they were even in Afghanistan. And they will only continue the saga of hate against the Americans.

For a war to really work, the rest of the free world must be in on it. The US going alone will only cause more problems for them and for the rest of the world.

[Parrot]

Speak of the devil;
Schwarzkopf's views on Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html)
- maybe not what everyone might expect.

[Gloer]

--
"He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it." That, Schwarzkopf admonishes, is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war.
--


Well at least he was right on Europe:

Spain, Portugal, Italy, United Kingdom, Hungary, Denmark, Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark

These eight countries are with US (locate these countries on the map).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2708877.stm

France and Germany have recently found each other again. This dynamic-duo used to lead the European integration. Now their initiatives hae not been seen as very productive in many member states. French and Germany are influential but not the core of EU. In this Rumsfeld I hope is right.

The core of EU must be the European Comission and the Parliament.

[Parrot]

THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

[Rogue666666]

Ok, I haven't been following the whole thread, but from what I have seen, this discussion follows along the same lines of other such discussions around the forum.

First, this, Who does Iraq hate? Germany? France? England?

Guess. Saddam hates Germany, France, and England, and Holland, and Belgium, and Sweden, and Norway, and the Check Republic, and Italy, and Spain, and Poland... The list goes on.

The U.S is this Madmans biggest threat, and he isn't stupid enough not to see it. He IS stupid enough to deny weapons of mass destruction, that we have proof of. Of course, for a terrorist who is out of options and doesnt whant to give up his regime, maybe its his only defense.

The game is over.

We are going into Iraq with or without France and Germany. Just becuase there leaders are cowards ( yes, cowards) who would hate to lose public face. Our president cares more about his people then his next election. MANY Americans stand against him. But in the face of terror he isn't going to cringe.

On September 11lth four different aircraft were hijacked by a terrorist group which we have proven has economic links to Saddam. He supports terror, he kills innocents, he threatens to take over the economy of the planet, and he will kill, torture, and destroy anyone who gets in his way. If no one esle is going to anything about it then the responsibility once again falls to us.

Some Americans, I have heard, object to the war by saying ' what has iraq ever done to us?' Besides that bieng a selfish comment, it reeks of stupidity. 3000 dead on september 11lth is what he did to us. If that isnt enough, he DOES have weapons that will cuase many many more to suffer. Not only are his own people and his neighbors under threat of his wrath but so is the rest of the world. Terror's reach is global.

Many think that America is going to gain control of oil and eventually take over the world. Tell me, if Saddam takes over Kuwait and controls the worlds oil supply, whose head do you think he will be holding a gun to? Not just Americas, but most of europe and many other nations as well.

You see, I think that many despise America becuase of how powerfull we are. They also despise Bush because they believe he is going to make us even more powerfull. Think about it. Already if the goverment of America were to fall to pieces, then many other goverments economic situations would do so as well. When our Star Wars nuclear defense program is complete, then we could conceivebly declare nuclear war on Earth and suffer no retaliation.

Already much of Europe is lead by cowards. Do you think you could stand up to us? Do you think that the world would band together and invade the United States, when you don't have the courage to disarm an iraqi dicatator? We are not omnipotent, but we are unchallanged. And you don't like that?

One piece of advice,


Get over it.

[Rogue666666]

One more thing.

Someone pointed out that Germany has restrictions against goig to war. So if Poland was invaded by Russia, and then began to prepare to invade germany, do you think Germany would do nothing?

I already pointed out that the threat is global, not Americas, so if germany says this or that about having to have the UN's approval or bla bla bla, then its an excuse, nothing else.

[gilgalad]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that Germany are telling America not to go to war? The two World Wars always come to my mind when i hear that.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by gilgalad
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that Germany are telling America not to go to war? The two World Wars always come to my mind when i hear that.

FYI:

These two World Wars are the reasons, why the German constitution prohibit an attack.

[Samweis]

I have to add, that I don´t agree with Schröder´s Iraq-politics.

[gilgalad]

I find that interesting. What does the German constitution say with regard to launching an attack???

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
We are going into Iraq with or without France and Germany. Just becuase there leaders are cowards ( yes, cowards) who would hate to lose public face. Our president cares more about his people then his next election. MANY Americans stand against him. But in the face of terror he isn't going to cringe.
.....Some Americans, I have heard, object to the war by saying ' what has iraq ever done to us?' Besides that bieng a selfish comment, it reeks of stupidity. 3000 dead on september 11lth is what he did to us. If that isnt enough, he DOES have weapons that will cuase many many more to suffer. Not only are his own people and his neighbors under threat of his wrath but so is the rest of the world. Terror's reach is global.

Hee hee. Spoken in typical Americanish bravado...

First of all, to use Al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attacks as an excuse to attack Iraq is ludicrous at best. Al-Qaeda went in on their own and will continue to do so. Focusing all America's attention on Iraq is the best thing that could happen to them. While America uses the excuse that more terrorism will ensue unless Hussein is taken down, Osama and his cronies are gearing up for the next major attack. When it happens, which country is America going to blame next?

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Already much of Europe is lead by cowards. Do you think you could stand up to us? Do you think that the world would band together and invade the United States, when you don't have the courage to disarm an iraqi dicatator? We are not omnipotent, but we are unchallanged. And you don't like that?
....One piece of advice,
Get over it.

Only now is Colin Powell finally coming around now that more evidence is coming in. Is he a coward? Is hesitation in the face of possible global war by our countries potential action cowardice? I have no problems going in and cleaning house if Saddam is breaking the law. However, wait until the facts. If America wants to go in and blow everything to hell before the facts just to show how "powerful" they are when all they are going to do is tick off the rest of the Arab world (again), I'll take the side of the "cowards" as you so call them.

Reign in the "patriotic" horomones, Rogue. Its "gung ho" attitudes like yours that bring the scorn of the rest of the world down on America....But America doesn't care does it what anybody thinks of them do they? Because they are soooo powerful! And the most important country in alllll the world! :rolleyes:

[Samweis]

Originally posted by gilgalad
I find that interesting. What does the German constitution say with regard to launching an attack???

Here is a link to the GERMAN BASIC LAW (http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/law/GG/gg0.htm) .

[Rogue666666]

Hahaha.

Of course, I NORMALLY don't go around like this, knowing that its going to tick off people. But I got sick of people's ridiculuos comments about America, so I decided to be a little rude.

You Thorin, responded only slightly better than most would. You of course complain about what I say wihtout pointing facts disclaiming its truth.

You DID try a slight argument about al-quida not bieng reason enough to attack, but mostly you just complained. Complaining is not going to help. Prove that what I have said is wrong, using well known facts, and then I will concede the point.

Now, to adress your al-quida comment.

The terrorists group under Bin Laden is only ONE of the reasons to remove Saddam. Our main reason is the weapons of mass destruction that he has, but I pointed all this out before.

Saddam funds terrorits, including al-qiuda, thats one of the ways his reach is more than just local.

NOW, if you will please try to disprove what I stated in my " Arrogant" ( Which it most definetly was) post, then I would be happy to debate with you.

[Rogue666666]

P.S. Try to deny all of it, don't just pick out of little piece. If you can't deny all of it, then I consider the discussion closed.

[Samweis]

I think there is no reason to disprove or deny your previous posts, because it´s your opinion - and everybody has the right to have one.

[Rogue666666]

Don't deny MY opinoin. Just prove that what I said was wrong.

Or am I right? Everything I pointed out is true and everyone admits it. Is that the case?

:rolleyes:

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Don't deny MY opinoin. Just prove that what I said was wrong.

Or am I right? Everything I pointed out is true and everyone admits it. Is that the case?

:rolleyes:

I don´t deny YOUR OPINION.

But I get "tick off", because there is a difference between an opinion and the truth. Nobody can claim to have the "absolute truth" - and of course I don´t have the "absolute truth", too.

:)

[Arvedui]

Saddam funds terrorits, including al-qiuda, thats one of the ways his reach is more than just local.

Actually, Saddam does not fund Al-Quaeda. Saddam's interest is purely regional. He had no reason to take the risk of funding Bin-Laden & co and risk to bring the anger of US and Europe on Iraq.

Not that it helped him, though.....

He does help funding other terrorists, so he is not exactly innocent.
We are going into Iraq with or without France and Germany. Just becuase there leaders are cowards ( yes, cowards) who would hate to lose public face. Our president cares more about his people then his next election. MANY Americans stand against him. But in the face of terror he isn't going to cringe.
I just wonder, in the light of recent developings in international diplomacy, who is afraid of loosing face. The sudden arrival of the French-German proposal made Rumsfelder go through the roof with anger. Why was that?
Was it because the US were not informed up front? Or was it because it would make it harder to find a reason to go to war? Or was there a third reason that I can't figure out?

I'm not saying that the actions of the French/Germans were very clever. Actually, I haven't made up my mind yet.

Rogue will probably help me make up my mind... ;)

[Morgoth]

If we go to war, we will suffer terrorism. America will suffer greatly, as well as Britain. Let the inspectors do their job. If we dont, as the group Amen said: We are all Americans
We are born Americans
We are dead Americans

[Ataralas]

i just sat here and read this entire thread.
Do any of you live near DC? i sure as hell don't, but my friend just went on a trip there. On Thursday or Friday(I can't remember) in Washington DC they declared a code red. The only problem with my friends story is no one else in the US heard about this day. i also have another friend who has boyfriend who goes to a military school/ is in the military. he was on the phone with her and all the sudden someone came screaming into the room that we were in war. Natually, my friend turned on the tv, seeing nothing out of the ordinary. her bofriend told her he had to go, and that he loved her a lot and that he was fighting for the US. the line went dead after that.
i personally think bush is being a cowboy about this entire thing. i also dont believe in this point of this war. if bush is so worried about the attack here, why doesn't he protect here, before sending troops there.
the point of the first paragraph was to prove the point that we, american citizens dont know a thing about what is happening in the gov't.

[Gandalf White]

We are going into Iraq with or without France and Germany. Just becuase there leaders are cowards ( yes, cowards) who would hate to lose public face Actually France and Germany do MAJOR trade with Iraq, to the tune of billions, and France sold parts to Iraq, so the ulterior motive for the French not to go to war is obvious.
If we go to war, we will suffer terrorism And if we don't, we won't suffer terrorism? That is extremely far-fetched.
if bush is so worried about the attack here, why doesn't he protect here, before sending troops there. Yes, and what do you suggest? That we wait here for a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack. Wouldn't it be better to go in and destroy the weapons before there is a chance for their use?
Do any of you live near DC? i sure as hell don't, but my friend just went on a trip there. On Thursday or Friday(I can't remember) in Washington DC they declared a code red. The only problem with my friends story is no one else in the US heard about this day. i also have another friend who has boyfriend who goes to a military school/ is in the military. he was on the phone with her and all the sudden someone came screaming into the room that we were in war. Natually, my friend turned on the tv, seeing nothing out of the ordinary. her bofriend told her he had to go, and that he loved her a lot and that he was fighting for the US. the line went dead after that. I was under the impression that declaring a code red revealed what was happening in the gov't. But that may be just me! :rolleyes: I know that the code orange in New York was fully explained to the nation.
And do you really believe the US could be at war without its' citizens knowing???
I will admit I am looking at myself more and more as a jingoist, so if my views seem radical, that is why. We know that Saddam funds terrorism. We know he has biological and chemical weapons, and used/uses them on his OWN people. We know he hates the US. Do not these three things together warrant our concern? Could they not be disastrous? We have tried weapons inspectors, but Saddam has played game after game with them, and the UN does nothing. Time is up.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
I AM NOT WILLING FOR THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN! Saddam is the logical next step in rooting out terrorism, and if I have to, I will join the army when I am 18, so help me God.

And do you honestly think that going in and making it difficult for the Iraqi people is going to stop Bin Laden and cohorts? Do you honestly think they were holding Saddam's hand when they attacked New York and the Pentagon?

Do you not think that while all this hoopla is going on, Al-Qaeda is not plotting it's next move with other supporters? As far as terrorism is concerned, Iraq is not the biggest threat. It is Bin Laden and his following that will come down on the US, not Saddam. And by going in and kicking Iraq's door down, the US will only create more terrorism amongst the people towards the US where once there was none.

Let's fuel the fire. That will make us more safe. :rolleyes:

[Gandalf White]

And do you honestly think that going in and making it difficult for the Iraqi people is going to stop Bin Laden and cohorts? Ok, maybe not. But what do you mean "making it difficult for the Iraqui people."
I guess being killed and mutilated by your leader isn't a difficulty!:rolleyes: You don't think the Iraqi's people would be glad to get rid of Hussein?

Do you not think that while all this hoopla is going on, Al-Qaeda is not plotting it's next move with other supporters? As far as terrorism is concerned, Iraq is not the biggest threat. It is Bin Laden and his following that will come down on the US, not Saddam. And by going in and kicking Iraq's door down, the US will only create more terrorism amongst the people towards the US where once there was none. I am aware that several Al-Qaeda threats have been stopped, and if Al-Queda is the biggest threat, what do we do about it? All you do is create more problems, no solutions. And do you really think there is no terrorism in and around Iraq????:confused: You have got to be kidding me! :rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Ok, maybe not. But what do you mean "making it difficult for the Iraqui people."
I guess being killed and mutilated by your leader isn't a difficulty!:rolleyes: You don't think the Iraqi's people would be glad to get rid of Hussein?

You honestly think so? Apparently you don't seem to understand the power of religion in the Islamic countries. There are many people who praise Saddam and burn flags of America in the streets. It is an "Islam against the Infidel" mentality over there and to take sides with America against Saddam is unthinkable for probably most of the people there regardless of whether or not Saddam persecutes his own people. Over here in the Americas we are nothing short of contradictory concerning religion and use it only when convenient. Over there it is a whole other story.

It is nothing short of egomania for the US to think that the people of Iraq will welcome them with open arms. Especially when the only way to fight them is to destroy their cities and homes with carpet bombs and ground troops. That ought to endear them to the invading infidel Americans.

Originally posted by Gandalf White
And do you really think there is no terrorism in and around Iraq????:confused: You have got to be kidding me! :rolleyes:

And going in there is going to do nothing more but create thousands of more terrorists against the US and Canada. There are probably terrorists EVERYWHERE. Why isn't America going gung ho against all the other tolitarian countries? I go back to what I said before. Iraq is a threat to America due to its constant persecution of the Middle East (in there opinion at least) and that is the only reason to attack. All this, "Ooh, there's terrorism there" and "We must liberate the people from Saddam" is illogical bunk.

[Gandalf White]

You honestly think so? Apparently you don't seem to understand the power of religion in the Islamic countries. There are many people who praise Saddam and burn flags of America in the streets. It is an "Islam against the Infidel" mentality over there and to take sides with America against Saddam is unthinkable for probably most of the people there regardless of whether or not Saddam persecutes his own people. Over here in the Americas we are nothing short of contradictory concerning religion and use it only when convenient. Over there it is a whole other story. It is nothing short of egomania for the US to think that the people of Iraq will welcome them with open arms. Especially when the only way to fight them is to destroy their cities and homes with carpet bombs and ground troops. That ought to endear them to the invading infidel Americans. You present a good argument. All I have to say is "we shall see what we shall see"
Why isn't America going gung ho against all the other tolitarian countries? I go back to what I said before. Iraq is a threat to America due to its constant persecution of the Middle East (in there opinion at least) and that is the only reason to attack. All this, "Ooh, there's terrorism there" and "We must liberate the people from Saddam" is illogical bunk. Here we go again. Let me repeat one more time, the reason is because of Saddam's WEAPONS!!! Ending a terroristic threat and liberating people from Saddam are side issues, good things that will follow, but the MAIN REASON are his WEAPONS! That is the reasoning.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
You present a good argument. All I have to say is "we shall see what we shall see"

Here we go again. Let me repeat one more time, the reason is because of Saddam's WEAPONS!!! Ending a terroristic threat and liberating people from Saddam are side issues, good things that will follow, but the MAIN REASON are his WEAPONS! That is the reasoning.

I hope, that it will become a very short war, because of the lifes of the US-soldiers and the Iraqi civilians.

Ending a terroristic threat? I fear that the attack on a muslim state, like the Iraq, will implicate, that terrorists groups ("god fighters" in their view) will be more en vogue than before for many muslims.

I believe for a fight against terrorism you require more than a conventional war.

[Gandalf White]

Ending a terroristic threat? I fear that the attack on a muslim state, like the Iraq, will implicate, that terrorists groups ("god fighters" in their view) will be more en vogue than before for many muslims. True, but actually I was referring more to preventing Saddam from giving terrorists technology, parts, etc. to make a bio, chemical, or nuclear bomb. I don't know if the area can get any more anti-US! :rolleyes:

[Rogue666666]

Thorin, I believe you mentioned something about carpet bombing their cities? Uh huh, and we should probably nuke Baghdad and gas the survivors while were at it. Or do you think that the U.S spent BILLIONS developing pin-point accurate cruise missles so we could go into war and carpet bomb people?

No, the Iraqi people aren't exactly FOR the U.S, but they most definitly do NOT support their leader. Anyone living under the conditions he imposes, no matter the religion, would not whant him as their leader. He is worse then Hitler, in that he doesn't even care about his own. In fact, the other arab countries mainly don't like us getting involved becuase they would prefer U.S troops to stay away from their borders. But I can also tell you this, the Arab nations do not like Saddam more than we do. No one would like having a Hitler type figure living next door, with weapons that would cuase seroius destruction.


Yes, invading Iraq might create more terrorism, but which is worse? An terrotist with an ak-47, (or a 747) or a mad dictator with nuclear bombs and who will do ANYTHING do ensure his survival?

[Thorin]

Then by all means, as Ciryahir has pointed out, force and aid a coup from within Iraq. Help the other Arab countries who understand this isn't about Islam vs the Infidel to overthrow Saddam and put a reasonable Muslim in power. It will at least endear America to Islam in a more positive light then they've been potrayed in the past. I can tell you that America wouldn't have succeeded in Afghanistan had they not aided the rebels within rather than just go in and wipe everyone out without their support.

If the support to overthrow Saddam seems so prominent with the Iraqi people, in your opinion, why not take this route? Why does it seem that the US is so gung ho to go in their alone with cruise missles and whatnot and make more misery for the Iraqi people?

Does that not tell you that #1) America knows the people don't really want them there, and #2) America is only worried about itself, not the liberation of the Iraqi citizens?

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Thorin

If the support to overthrow Saddam seems so prominent with the Iraqi people, in your opinion, why not take this route? Why does it seem that the US is so gung ho to go in their alone with cruise missles and whatnot and make more misery for the Iraqi people?

Does that not tell you that #1) America knows the people don't really want them there, and #2) America is only worried about itself, not the liberation of the Iraqi citizens?

It does not tell me any such thing. I am confident that we would gladly aid an internal coup if the party forwarding the coup seemed a major improvement over Saddam. The problem is that there are no other major players to SERIOUSLY attempt this coup, as any possible threats to his power, including members of his own family, are executed before they might begin to consolidate any kind of backing. Such is the depth of his stranglehold on the country. One of Saddam's first moves when he assumed power was to set up a ministry with a desk in literally every Gov't office which would report directly to him. Iraqi exiles have reported that he also has many planted agents who's job it is to pretend to be a dissenter in order to smoke out the underground movements. Hard to get much real resistance going in that kind of environment. Even if you could put something together it's not like you just walk up to Hussein and put a bullet behind his ear, he's not an easy guy to get close to. You think there weren't thousands of Germans who wanted Hitler dead? Yet he committed suicide, so what does that tell you?

As for the views of the Iraqi people, here are some links dealing with just that issue;

Voice of Iraqis (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp)

If antiwar protesters succeed (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html)


I happened to have an Iraqi calculus professor during the Gulf War and he was very unabashed in his support for the effort and expressed hope that we would take Saddam out then. He also indicated that this view was widely held by his countrymen still in Iraq. Anecdotal maybe, but I have never forgotten his passion on the issue.

On terrorism; I can understand people thinking this type of action will only lead to more, but I am not totally convinced. One of Al Qaeda sales pitches to new recruits has long been that the West and the U.S. specifically are corrupt, lazy, and essentially weak at their core. They don't have the will or the guts to fight and that is why they will fall. I believe our actions in Afghanistan have probably gone a long way toward stemming this idea; do you really think in dreaming up 9/11, UBL and his boys envisioned a response anything close to the level they received? Do you think they planned to see Apaches and C-130 gunships cruising their turf just months after their supposed "great victory"? I don't; and I think they are probably saying to themselves "it wasn't supposed to go like this, maybe Usama is full of ****". (I think he may be full of worms and maggots but that is a topic for a different thread)


Even if we do accept that this may cause more terrorism, and whatever your view of the Iraq situation, I would hope that we could all agree that you cannot allow the threat of terror to deter us from things that truly need to be done or we will be validating terrorism as an effective policy tool. Once that happens we will see more terrorism than ever. I think we have begun to show them the futility of their cause and we need to stay that course.

Heed Sir Winston's wisdom;
Danger -- if you meet it promptly and without flinching -- you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!

Btw Thorin, if "the US is so gung ho to go in their alone", why have we wasted months trying to build an international coalition?

[Parrot]

One last link on the plight of the Iraqi people and the logistics of internal result and I will abide by the moratorium;

The Horrors of "Peace" (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/314yltit.asp)

[Parrot]

Okay, I lied; a powerful article on the plight of Iraqis......
washingtonpost.com
Deadlier Than War


By Walter Russell Mead

Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21



Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative -- a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box.

They are wrong.

Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.

In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.

The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.

Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.

Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals.

Wrong.

The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.

But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.

The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.

Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.

Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.

The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.

The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.

But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.

This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.

So that is our cost.

And what have we bought?

We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for the American people.

We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.

What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime.

Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy. Containment can be tweaked -- made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile -- but the basic equations don't change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror -- with no end in sight.

This is disaster, not policy.

It is time for a change.

Walter Russell Mead is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."