|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 13:01:27 GMT -5
What's good for the goose is good for the gander: - launching a missile into southwestern Iran is always an attention getter
- having 10,000 armed Iraqi Muslim fundamentalists lined up on the Iranian side of the border, wating for their chance adds spice
- allowing Turkish troops to cross the border and mingle with their close buddies, the Kurds, couldn't possibly be a bad idea
- vehement anti-American demonstrations in the region, where public protest is generally good for an automatic go to jail card at best
- shooting down an RAF jet
- underestimating armed resistance
- more self-inflicted casualties than those caused by the enemy
And it's just early days, the fun's barely begun. The actual occupation, if and when it occurs, ought to be a morass to rival Vietnam. But hey, in the Nintendoland (courtesy Japan Inc) of North America, who thinks ahead that far realistically (and then decides on what course of action to take)? The silver bullet is a myth. America now is not what America was (despite the unconscious and sometimes legal absorption of past experience). The question is: "What are you doing to me now (and how will it affect *my* [insert appropriate region of the world] future)?" It is fascinating, and frightening, to see the Oedipal saga of father and son Bush played out on the world stage. Beware ancient Greek playwrights  . And, oh yeah, God Bless America, and may Allah protect all Muslims. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 13:40:10 GMT -5
Young man, Saddam wants YOU to die for him.  Or else you will look like this after Saddam gasses you. But hey, don't worry, it only hurts a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 13:43:39 GMT -5
You didn't make it clear whether that (stock photo image) represented death at hands of Amercan forces or not.
What *does* a dead American (or coalition) soldier look like?
What will plunging the region into chaos and destruction, and inviting more terrorist activity on this side of the Atlantic look like? Guess we'll just have to stay tuned.
With American military intervention you cannot guarantee any degree of future stability.
Following the UN suggestion of continued and persistent inspection there would have been a better chance of maintaining peace.
Now, Yankee, go kill some more. Thought the PTSD was bad after the Gulf War? Wait 'til these boys get home. They've started something they won't be able to finish. Bad planning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 14:08:29 GMT -5
The Peace Movement appeases and seeks peace with the Dictators. After all, they are not bad people, they are just misunderstood man with poison gas. In 1938 the Peace Movement said it's only about land. Why fight?  In 2003 the Peace Movement said that it's only about oil. Why fight?  |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 15:16:54 GMT -5
Without military intervention there can be no hope of future freedom for the Iraqi people.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 15:18:47 GMT -5
Unworthy oversimplifications and parodic statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 15:31:59 GMT -5
Without military intervention there can be no hope of future freedom for the Iraqi people. Wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 15:34:47 GMT -5
Care to provide some amount of reasonable proof/logic to your argument, or are we to simply assume you're right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 15:48:05 GMT -5
NO ONE in the so call “peace movement” cares to justify their support for appeasing Saddam. It’s always about the Ugly American rather then the murderous Dictator.
Anytime one wants to explain how Saddam is different from Hitler, I will await their opinion with abated breadth. And while they are at it, please explain how one poison gas differs from another.
The "peace movement" is always about catchy phrases but where is the substance about appeasing Saddam and his actions? They never defend their position, they only complain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mustard Gas
What is mustard gas?
A potentially deadly chemical agent that attacks the skin and eyes—and one of the best known and most potent chemical weapons. Mustard gas causes severe blisters and, if inhaled, can also damage the lungs and other organs. It is usually disabling—sometimes gruesomely so—but not fatal. Unlike the symptoms of exposure to other chemical agents which usually appear immediately, the symptoms of exposure to mustard gas appear one to six hours or more later. This makes mustard gas especially insidious, since victims can suffer tissue damage before they even realize they need treatment. Mustard gas also attacks a cell’s DNA, so it can cause cancer and birth defects.
Does mustard gas have anything to do with mustard?
No. In some forms it is yellowish and reputedly smells like mustard, but its aroma has also been likened to the smell of horseradish, garlic, and apples. At room temperature, it’s actually a liquid rather than a gas, but the name “mustard gas” has stuck since it was used in notorious gas attacks during World War I.
How difficult is it to make mustard gas?
Making mustard gas is easier than making nerve gases but harder than “weaponizing” industrial chemicals such as chlorine, experts say. Without special equipment, an individual probably couldn’t make enough mustard gas to kill large numbers of people.
Have terrorists ever used mustard gas?
No. But there are unconfirmed reports that groups linked to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network tried to obtain the ingredients to make mustard gas in Afghan labs.
How does mustard gas compare with other deadly chemicals such as sarin and VX?
Mustard gas is a blister agent, less likely to kill large numbers of people than such nerve agents as sarin and VX. It would take vastly more mustard gas than nerve gas to kill the same number of people, limiting mustard gas’ appeal to terrorists. But depending on the level of exposure, mustard gas could leave victims with more lasting injuries than nerve gases. Dr. Jean Pascal Zanders of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says that terrorists might consider using mustard gas to cause economic or social disruption—for example, by contaminating a transportation route—than to try to cause mass casualties.
Has mustard gas been used against civilians?
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein used mustard gas on Kurds in northern Iraq during a 1987-88 campaign known as the Anfal. The worst attack occurred in March 1988 in the Kurdish village of Halabja; a combination of chemical agents including mustard gas, sarin, and possibly VX killed 5,000 people and left 65,000 others facing severe skin and respiratory diseases, abnormal rates of cancer and birth defects, and a devastated environment. Experts say Saddam also launched about 280 smaller-scale chemical attacks against the Kurds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saddam? He is just misunderstood and not reallly a mass murderer like Hitler.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 23, 2003 15:58:50 GMT -5
Care to provide some amount of reasonable proof/logic to your argument, or are we to simply assume you're right? Mr bozo has a point. The correct statement is 'Without military intervention there can be no reasonable hope of future freedom for the Iraqi people.' There's greater a chance of our Habs still making the playoffs, but there's always hope.  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 16:51:04 GMT -5
I think you went kinda soft on the Americans on this one....
Even without going to the extent of making up stuff and making broad generalisations that have little basis in fact (ie - think of the French-bashing ) we can find plenty of dirty, nasty things the US has done - either by doing something wrong, or by kicking back and taking it easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 18:13:01 GMT -5
Consider the option that not supporting US aggression in Iraq does not necessarily mean that one supports Saddam. One can, with no contradiction, be both against Bush's war mongering and Saddam's brutality.
The war is bad enough, but the worst is yet to come, as its consequences multiply
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 18:31:11 GMT -5
Care to provide some amount of reasonable proof/logic to your argument, or are we to simply assume you're right? That would be nice, but I can't claim that. The first comment of mine that you quoted was in reference to HA's colourful fascist collage. The second was directed to your, I must say unsupported and unsupportable claim, that the only hope of freedom for the Iraqi people is military intervention. My response should have been a little more expansive: I am convinced that you are wrong, and events which will follow from this war in Iraq will bear me out. Iraq (and the region) is in the process of being delivered into a number of internal, and possibly external, conflicts which could well make Bush's bully-boy invasion look like small potatoes. As for proof, the best either of us can do is to say, "Wait and see." |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 18:49:13 GMT -5
So tell me - what do you think the odds are if we take back the last week or so and don't go into Iraq that Saddam, Uday or Xscray (or whatever his other sons name is) spontainously lay down the reigns of power and free the Iraqi people from his oppressive regime?
It may be a risk Mr B. (in the efforts of being polite I will refrain from using your name bozo as it sounds like an insult), but without risk there can be no change.
I'm aware of that - I'm asking you why his statements were oversimplified and a parody?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 19:06:49 GMT -5
Instead of a stand, instead of a solution, I see one line rhetoric and fuzz.
No one in the peace movement can defend inaction, but condem action.
--I am still waiting to enter a debate on how Saddam is going to be removed and by whom.
--I am still waiting to enter a debate on I assertion that Saddam is no better then Hitler.
All I hear is Ugly-American rhetoric but I see no substance whatsoever on concrete action. No solutions. Noise, just noise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 19:10:32 GMT -5
Don't worry TNG, you will NEVER get them ot offer a concrete solution. NEVER!!
But you might as well bring a shovel to go through the Ugly American rhetoric.
Some live by the code of Live Free or Die and are willing to sacrifice their life for others to have that. Some people run around and bash heroes on the head with placards because they dared to have a code like that. What can I say?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 19:59:57 GMT -5
I agree. But you have to give them a chance. It's one of the nice things about being Canadian. You get the right to call your government idiots. If my opponents (and I use the term here only to denote those who hold an opposing point of view) were to say, try to march through down town Bagdhad in protest of the internet being cut off and not being able to access their hockey website... well... we wouldn't have their words to ring in our ears anymore.
They have a right to believe what they do because they are free. I am just asking them, if they can, to justify their beliefs with reason or fact, as I admit I am not omnipotent and can not see every possible idea. I have yet to find one that fits with my views of the world, but the point is that they may try if they wish.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 23, 2003 20:15:17 GMT -5
They have a right to believe what they do because they are free. I am just asking them, if they can, to justify their beliefs with reason or fact There is OIL in Iraq! Isn't that reason enough? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 20:27:04 GMT -5
Don't worry TNG, you will NEVER get a solution. NEVER!! But you might as well bring a shovel to go through the Ugly American rhetoric. Well, I agree, the American rhetoric is quite ugly. And they are delivering it with selective, targeted precision (for the most part). The first post in this thread listed a series of facts which were meant to be an indication of things starting to go wrong on the aggressor's side, and an harbinger of worse yet to come as the war drags on; and especially after the last American missile is fired. Btw, I agreed with the UN position of continued inspections. Still do. "Even successful wars at length become misfortunes to those who unjustly commence them." - Ben Franklin (definitely not a handsome American). If one wants to remove Saddam, do it from within, encourage and *support* uprising. Don't encourage and *abandon* uprising as the Americans did a decade ago. My other conerns on this issue and its outcome appear in a handful of threads and a number of posts over the past two or three days. As for the use of my name being an insult to me, not to worry; we're all bozos on this bus. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some death and destruction to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 20:38:29 GMT -5
Btw, I agreed with the UN position of continued inspections. Still do. Can you back it up with history? Tell me who is going to do it? Tell me how? If one wants to remove Saddam, do it from within, encourage and *support* uprising. Tell me how it is going to happen. Give some evidence. If, maybe..... don't count. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 20:56:38 GMT -5
Can you back it up with history? Tell me who is going to do it? Tell me how? Tell me how it is going to happen. Give some evidence. If, maybe..... don't count. It was happening via the UN before the US became a loose cannon and went off to pursue their own agenda. The US encouraged insurgence in Iraq, and then left the true freedom fighters in in the lurch. Possibly because they didn't like the face that the new régime would likely have had. I don't trust or like American interventionism abroad. And I'm talking about Yankee administrations post-Kennedy. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 21:04:57 GMT -5
You might want to change item #1 on the list. Tehran has announced that it was an Iraqi missile. Not a Yankee or British one.
Which is not suprising given that Iran was nice to Iraq and let them keep their MiG's etc. on Iranian airstrips during the first war, and then didn't give them back.
(-:
And reportedly there's been a facility discovered in Southern Iraq. No word on what the 'facility' is, but it appears to be 'facility' with quotes and therefore newsworthy. Just to keep the doves up to date.
Oh - and I'm still waiting for reasons as to why we can't equate Hussien to Hitler. The only real difference I can think of is that the Iraqi's don't quite have the same military force that Germany has. But since it no longer takes thousands of bombs and hundreds of pilots and planes to level a city, and instead take but twenty people with some technical know how and a single bomb, size of forces is kind of different.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 21:12:27 GMT -5
You might want to change item #1 on the list. Tehran has announced that it was an Iraqi missile. Not a Yankee or British one. Which is not suprising given that Iran was nice to Iraq and let them keep their MiG's etc. on Iranian airstrips during the first war, and then didn't give them back. (-: And reportedly there's been a facility discovered in Southern Iraq. No word on what the 'facility' is, but it appears to be 'facility' with quotes and therefore newsworthy. Just to keep the doves up to date. Oh - and I'm still waiting for reasons as to why we can't equate Hussien to Hitler. The only real difference I can think of is that the Iraqi's don't quite have the same military force that Germany has. But since it no longer takes thousands of bombs and hundreds of pilots and planes to level a city, and instead take but twenty people with some technical know how and a single bomb, size of forces is kind of different. Later Once I get verification I'll amend item #1. Maybe the "facility" is a Turkish Delight factory. No-one is stopping anyone from making any equations; they're flying around thicker and more furious than those on a post-grad physics class blackboard. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 23, 2003 21:13:26 GMT -5
Instead of a stand, instead of a solution, I see one line rhetoric and fuzz. No one in the peace movement can defend inaction, but condem action. --I am still waiting to enter a debate on how Saddam is going to be removed and by whom. --I am still waiting to enter a debate on I assertion that Saddam is no better then Hitler. All I hear is Ugly-American rhetoric but I see no substance whatsoever on concrete action. No solutions. Noise, just noise. Thats both simplistic, insulting, and naive, all at the same time. Nobody in the peace movement is defending inaction, they are protesting this action. People have proposed many different solutions, ranging from assissination, to continued weapons inspections and disarmament, to funded insurrection, to continued sanctions. To suggest that those in the anti-Iraqi war coalition are merely American bashing, rhetoric lovers is to ignore everything that has been written here. As for Saddam being no better than Hitler, that's just rheteric in and of itself. Hitler designed a state infrastructure geared totally towards eliminating a race of people. It was systematic, carefully designed, bureacratic in its nature. Hussein "merely" kills people when it is politically convienent for him to do so. That puts him in the same class of about a dozen or so other countries in the world, including Nigeria (5th largest supplier of oil to the US, with Shell and Chevron being the two largest companies). Nigeria of course, is the country that is attempting to stone to death a 31 year old single mother, and whose government soldiers just recently massacred upwards of 200 peasants, and levelled a town of 20,000 people. Where is the planned invasion of Nigeria? But I digress. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propoganda minister, once said that "if the Jews did not exist, we would have to invent them." Hitler's massacres were a matter of policy, Hussein's is a matter of personal safety. There are no railroad tracks leading to, and stopping at, concentration camps in Iraq. There are no manufacturing plants whose sole purpose is to design better and cheaper gasses to be used in executions. Did you know that Jews were initially shot to death, but it was to expensive, and it used up too many bullets? So they contracted out to companies to supply better and easier ways to massacre large numbers of people. There was never any intent to use those gasses on the battlefield (as there is in Iraq), they were designed solely to kill people in showers. To compare that to Hussein who gassed a bunch of people who were threatening rebellion is ludicrous. There are no lists of Kurds in Iraqi office buildings, with names to be checked off as they board the death trains. Kurds do not have to register to be executed. They just are, in a haphazard, maniacle way. Again, as they are in dozens of countries around the world. Don't you remember that line in Shindler's List? Where Shindler pulls the guy off the train, and the soldier says "for me, it doesn't matter, but for the paperwork..." That's Hitler. There is nothing even remotely close to that in Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 23, 2003 21:36:07 GMT -5
Some live by the code of Live Free or Die and are willing to sacrifice their life for others to have that. Some people run around and bash heroes on the head with placards because they dared to have a code like that. What can I say? And some prefer a reasoned, well-considered approach to problems, not charging off in all directions at once. An evolutionary attitude. Sometimes a whack on the head with a placard brings enlightenment. Sometimes a gun is useful. Choosing when to, and in what combination, to use either or both is an art and a science. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 22:04:35 GMT -5
Thats both simplistic, insulting, and naive, all at the same time. Nobody in the peace movement is defending inaction, they are protesting this action. People have proposed many different solutions, ranging from assissination, to continued weapons inspections and disarmament, to funded insurrection, to continued sanctions. To suggest that those in the anti-Iraqi war coalition are merely American bashing, rhetoric lovers is to ignore everything that has been written here. As for Saddam being no better than Hitler, that's just rheteric in and of itself. Hitler designed a state infrastructure geared totally towards eliminating a race of people. It was systematic, carefully designed, bureacratic in its nature. Hussein "merely" kills people when it is politically convienent for him to do so. That puts him in the same class of about a dozen or so other countries in the world, including Nigeria (5th largest supplier of oil to the US, with Shell and Chevron being the two largest companies). Nigeria of course, is the country that is attempting to stone to death a 31 year old single mother, and whose government soldiers just recently massacred upwards of 200 peasants, and levelled a town of 20,000 people. Where is the planned invasion of Nigeria? But I digress. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propoganda minister, once said that "if the Jews did not exist, we would have to invent them." Hitler's massacres were a matter of policy, Hussein's is a matter of personal safety. There are no railroad tracks leading to, and stopping at, concentration camps in Iraq. There are no manufacturing plants whose sole purpose is to design better and cheaper gasses to be used in executions. Did you know that Jews were initially shot to death, but it was to expensive, and it used up too many bullets? So they contracted out to companies to supply better and easier ways to massacre large numbers of people. There was never any intent to use those gasses on the battlefield (as there is in Iraq), they were designed solely to kill people in showers. To compare that to Hussein who gassed a bunch of people who were threatening rebellion is ludicrous. There are no lists of Kurds in Iraqi office buildings, with names to be checked off as they board the death trains. Kurds do not have to register to be executed. They just are, in a haphazard, maniacle way. Again, as they are in dozens of countries around the world. Don't you remember that line in Shindler's List? Where Shindler pulls the guy off the train, and the soldier says "for me, it doesn't matter, but for the paperwork..." That's Hitler. There is nothing even remotely close to that in Iraq. To suggest Saddam is different from Hitler because he did not build a railroads, create paperwork and gas chambers with plumbing is, ahh, no, I wont say simplistic and naïve. The common threads between the two run rampant (if one cares to see it). They center themselves on a policy of racial superiority.
They have taken systematic policy of eliminating their enemies.
They have taken expansion as a centerpiece of their agenda.
They have taken to inhuman means to eliminate their enemies.
They are willing to sacrifice their country for their own survival.
They have seeked weapons of mass destruction without regard to their effects.
They center themselves as the center of regional domination. It would be world domination if they had the means.But I thought you knew all this? Nobody in the peace movement is defending inaction, they are protesting this action. People have proposed many different solutions, ranging from assassination, to continued weapons inspections and disarmament, to funded insurrection, to continued sanctions. To suggest that those in the anti-Iraqi war coalition are merely American bashing, rhetoric lovers is to ignore everything that has been written here.So I ask a simple question as to how that would be achieved but no one cares to answer. It’s not convenient. Assassination is a wet dream. The man has surrounded himself and ruthlessly eliminates his enemies. Weapons inspection are futile because Saddam has a whole history of avoidance and duplicity. Further, the same Ugly American bashers are expecting the US to provide muscle to do this. Unless of course one is naïve enough and ignore the fact that Russia, France, Germany and China have self interest for weapons inspection NOT to work. Funded insurrection? Who? Name names. His entire clan surrounds him and is fed from him. They are ALL in position of power. Continued Sanctions? Three countries are crying wolf because they had thought they had exclusive deals with Saddam and now they are useless. For starters, study the TotalElfFn contract. It’s the worst contract signed by anyone in the history of business but it gives legitimacy to Saddam and makes TotalElfFn a very, VERY rich company. Would you like to discuss how much of the Jordanian GNP depends on continued sanctions of Iraq? While we are at it, would you like to discuss who gets hurt the most these sanctions? Please don’t tell me it’s Saddam. *cries and laughs* I am still awaiting a reasonable, in depth post on how one is going to remove Saddam without the Ugly American doing iot the hard way. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 23, 2003 22:12:15 GMT -5
Hopefully, someone will write that post, but I don't think it will be me because I haven't got the time or the energy.
My take on the Saddam-Hitler thing: sure Saddam is a terrible guy but he simply hasn't done anything nearly as bad as what Hitler did (or at least not on nearly as massive a scale). Maybe it's because he doesn't have the means, but so what, he still hasn't done them.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 23, 2003 22:38:52 GMT -5
They center themselves on a policy of racial superiority.
Actually, no. Iraq, as far as Middle Eastern countries goes, is a fairly secular country. Much more so than American allies Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, or even Israel. Saddam has always been an equal opportunity massacrer, and doesn't really differentiate between race. Unlike Hitler, or for that matter, leaders of Hutu, Tutsi, Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian militaries. Or a host of other countries.
They have taken systematic policy of eliminating their enemies.
Which puts Hussein in the same boat as about a dozen to two dozen other despots. Are they all Hitlers too? And if so, where are the battle plans to eliminate them? Ever try voicing a dissenting opinion in China? Ooops, they did...
They have taken expansion as a centerpiece of their agenda.
Again, see a dozen to two dozen other despots.
They have taken to inhuman means to eliminate their enemies.
Pretty re-occuring theme we have here.
They are willing to sacrifice their country for their own survival.
Same argument. Pick an African country.
They have seeked weapons of mass destruction without regard to their effects.
Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Indonesia, China, Russia... All Hitlers?
They center themselves as the center of regional domination. It would be world domination if they had the means.
Heck, if the desire to be a regional power implies Hitler-ism, what does that say about Bush? Wasn't that the point of your whole Pax Americana post?
So I ask a simple question as to how that would be achieved but no one cares to answer. It’s not convenient.
Did you want operational specifics? I am not at liberty to discuss those matters.
Assassination is a wet dream. The man has surrounded himself and ruthlessly eliminates his enemies.
Actually, they seemed to have a pretty good idea of where he was on that opening day of the war, didn't they? How long do you think Hussein would last if Bush said "we will not bomb any military targets, or invade the country, but we will level any house we suspect Hussein is in... so don't stand next to him...?" As for ruthlessly eliminating his enemies, Al-Quaeda's number two man was arrested based on information handed over after a promise of $27 million dollars. And that's from a die-hard, religious fanatic, who believes killing Americans is god's will. How hard would it be to subvert an Iraqi general, who may or may not believe he is next on the "Hussein's to-eliminate list?" How hard would it be to convince Hussein General A is about to off him, and then offer General A $50 million and a way out? The Bush administration does not like the assissination option, because that way they can't control who replaces him. Only a full-scale invasion can do that.
Weapons inspection are futile because Saddam has a whole history of avoidance and duplicity. Further, the same Ugly American bashers are expecting the US to provide muscle to do this. Unless of course one is naïve enough and ignore the fact that Russia, France, Germany and China have self interest for weapons inspection NOT to work.
Of course that's true. But why now, after 12 years? What was the trigger, the catalyst? To "free the Iraqi people" certainly isn't it, because there are lots of oppressed people around the world. Why not expand the war to Iran? Or Syria? Both those countries are virtual mirror images of Iraq, and if its just a line on a map... Where is the bleating that weapons inspections aren't working for those countries? I agree that weapons inspections weren't working in Iraq, but to say THAT is the reason for invasion... Why didn't the Americans supply the muscle from the get-go?
Funded insurrection? Who? Name names. His entire clan surrounds him and is fed from him. They are ALL in position of power.
Oh god, that's an easy one. Kurds in the north (who live in virtual autonomy anyways) and Shiite Muslims in the south, who rebelled (after Bush 1 urging) and who could have toppled Saddam had they been backed then. The Ba'ath clan is actually a small one, by Iraqi clan standards, and not overly well liked outside of their own little circle. They hold power now - ruthlessly - but there is no shortage of people who would gladly take his place. There is an entire Iraqi government in exile already.
Continued Sanctions? Three countries are crying wolf because they had thought they had exclusive deals with Saddam and now they are useless. For starters, study the TotalElfFn contract. It’s the worst contract signed by anyone in the history of business but it gives legitimacy to Saddam and makes TotalElfFn a very, VERY rich company. Would you like to discuss how much of the Jordanian GNP depends on continued sanctions of Iraq? While we are at it, would you like to discuss who gets hurt the most these sanctions? Please don’t tell me it’s Saddam. *cries and laughs*
I am not a big fan of sanctions myself, but you stated that nobody has provided any alternatives. People have. Just because you disagree with them, does not make them "unreasonable."
I am still awaiting a reasonable, in depth post on how one is going to remove Saddam without the Ugly American doing iot the hard way.
And I'm still awaiting a reasonable, in depth post on why here, why now. Your Pax Americana post - while contradicting a lot of your above reasoning - still doesn't explain why Iraq, why now. The "well, they happen to be in the neighborhood" answer is not a good one. Why not Iran? Why not Syria? Why not Chechyna? Why not Nigeria? Why Iraq, an oil-rich country? Why not Cuba, a poor, destitute, non-oil country? Isn't Cuba much more "in the neighborhood?"
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2003 23:16:38 GMT -5
Go and check out how many jews live in Iraq. Or how many Synagouges there are. Or pick up a history book and leaf to the section on WWII. Then come answer this question again.
Saddam is an anti-semite of the highest order. However, his country did not have a lot of Jewish people to begin with, and since he slaughtered almost all of them for the most part when he took power, it really hasn't been an issue. He's content to pay suicide bombers (or rather, their families) and lob missiles at Israel whenever he gets a chance.
Just a quick note. The last list does not intersect with the rest of the list. Except China, but more on that in a second. The point HA is making is that Saddam compares to Hitler in a lot of ways that no one else does. Sure, a couple of them have a couple similarities, but few have so much common ground. Do you really think Pakistan wants to rule the world? Or do they just want to recapture the kashmir and make the lives of the indians bad. And vice versa for india. Has Israel shown any intent on ruling the middle east? No.
Now, as for the matter of China or Russia, at the time that they "started", for arguments sake, becoming Hitler-esque (and Russia was for a long time under Stalin, as bad or worse than Hitler). You can not compare them to the other countries - they are from a different time.
You've got to be kidding me right? Excluding the problem with body doubles among other things, I don't think anyone wants Uday or Xnay (or whatever the other ones name is) to take over from Saddam. That changes NOTHING. Or let me correct myself. That can only make things worth. Xnay is the head of the Iraqi secret police in charge of such fun things as torture, military operations, opressing the population and deploying such officers as "Chemical" Ali to regions to 'eliminate' problems. Uday is the head of the "communications" (read: propoganda) of the country of Iraq, is the guy who likely authorized those gruesome and despicably POW videos, is the head of the Iraqi Olympic Committe (which has done such wonderful things as imprisoning and torturing the Iraqi Soccer team when they lost a match, and is a serial rapist too boot.
But yeah - lets let one of those two take control. Or better yet, let's let them split the country and fight over it.
Bush I didn't eliminate Saddam because hethought diplomacy would work.
He was wrong.
Why now? Because the time is right. Troops are in region. The threat posed by the Iraqi and other terrorist organization is so high. North Korea (out of region) is also posing a threat to world security, thus creating a real problem should both act up at the same time.
I won't touch the problems that would cause. But I assure you, funding indiscriminate tribal warfare is not a good idea.
Iran - much less a threat than you would believe. Although a member of the AoE, they are like the little brother that just barely made the team
Syria - Odds of Syria developing WMD? Very low risk.
Chechnya - See Syria, only more so.
Nigeria - See Chechnya.
Cuba - Because if Cuba gets uppity, it costs almost nothing for the US to sweep over the island. Of all the countries listed, Cuba is minimal threat. Nothing big (like weapons) can get into or out of Cuba
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 23:19:39 GMT -5
And reportedly there's been a facility discovered in Southern Iraq. No word on what the 'facility' is, but it appears to be 'facility' with quotes and therefore newsworthy. Just to keep the doves up to date. Wait a couple of years to know what the facility really is. Right now the US wants to find WMD, and they'll find them - whether they are there or not. I wouldn't beleive any ally of Saddam's who claimed it wasn't a WMD factory, either, BTW. In 5 years on the back pages of some paper, there might just be a story about how that facility was just a lawn fertilizer plant that closed in 1972... |
|
. 
