Re Iraq Poll
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 by Fuzzy Logic | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I voted for option 3. However, Saddam should have been sorted out during the gulf war. We had the chance to chop his ass into tiny pieces right then. Problem sorted. Because that route wasn't taken then we have the situation now whereby either action or inaction is unacceptable. Plus the additional suffering caused to the people of Iraq by Saddam over the intervening period since the gulf war and the almost immediate butchering of the Kurds. We really left them with their flies open.
All too late and all too frantic. This is not going to end well for anyone.
All too late and all too frantic. This is not going to end well for anyone.
 |
|
Page 2 of 13 | |
|
|---|
Lecrayon
Reply #22 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 8:48 AM
Reply #22 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 8:48 AM
It only ends when having power is worthless. Then people would stop hunting for it.
Dangeruss
Reply #23 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:14 AM
Reply #23 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:14 AM
There is a bully (Saddam) across town (Iraq). He is brutal and I fear him. Does this give me the right to seek him out and dispose of him because he might have a weapon and seek to harm me or my friends? Am I wise to march into a neighborhood where I am already unliked and attempt to carry out this deed? Won't his friends an allies strive to vindicate his demise? What if I fail on my attempt to dispose of him? What if I only succeed in taking his weapons away?
The US is hated in much of the Arab world, a morally illegitimate attack on Iraq helps this issue how? Whatever the outcome of this proposed "war", I fear it will solidify a growing anti-American mindset and proliferate attacks on our home soil from nationless terrorist groups.
I say let Saddam actually give us cause to attack. Allow him the freedom to reap the world's wrath again and then rid the world of him. To do it now, with manufactured justifications is quite foolish.
The US is hated in much of the Arab world, a morally illegitimate attack on Iraq helps this issue how? Whatever the outcome of this proposed "war", I fear it will solidify a growing anti-American mindset and proliferate attacks on our home soil from nationless terrorist groups.
I say let Saddam actually give us cause to attack. Allow him the freedom to reap the world's wrath again and then rid the world of him. To do it now, with manufactured justifications is quite foolish.
Koasati
Reply #24 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:18 AM
Reply #24 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:18 AM
Well, I think we should just sit back, with our wine and cheese, and wait for Saddam to hand out a few dirty bombs, or worse...... where did I put my tinfoil hat?
bakerstreet
Reply #25 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:36 AM
Reply #25 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:36 AM
The UN has a long history of watching people hacked to death, mutilated, gassed, etc, while *not* meddling in a nation's internal affairs. 100,000 people were murdered in Rwanda; 40,000 corpses floated down the river to Lake Victoria. How much was left of Sarayevo when they finally decided to do something? Granted, the aid drops made great bait for the snipers. It takes years for the UN just to put war criminals on trial *after* they have had free reign to commit their atrocities.
One grave issue about Iraq isn't weapons inspectors, it's China. They have supplied fiber-optic networking so that his anti-aircraft batteries can coordinate with each other fast enough to shoot down patrolling planes. There is a fear that he could gain far worse technology from corrupt facets of the Chinese governement. To say there is no proof of chemical weapons when we *seized* them is insane. Inspections were to prevent him from resuming his programs, not to find out if there were any.
Lecrayon: The previous, far-left president spent a good deal of time trying to explain his business dealings in Arkansas, and frankly, if you think we had a 'booming' economy when GB came into office, you have a very selective memory. Last I heard, Europe was having a hard time keeping it's right-wingers in the closet as well...
You insult the thousands of Americans that are still in jeopardy in Afghanistan to imply that we have simply abandoned it. When we stay, we are setting up 'puppet regimes', when we leave, we are abandoning 'ruins'.
Where is Europe? Why isn't it rebuilding the 'ruins'? I seem to remember that Afghanistan was a European operation as well. Where is Osama? Why isn't Europe hot on his trail? What do we have to show for your 'support'? We are losing young Americans to this fight on a weekly basis.
I'm not surprised that Europe as a whole is sitting back and saying "What's the big deal?". France has a long history of mulling over what to do about their Algerian terrorists, Britain has 'talks' with their terrorist groups and even gives them political power. History shows us how Europe 'keeps peace'. No one sitting in Europe has any right to call the US self-serving when they so rarely move to help unless they, themselves, are threatened.
One grave issue about Iraq isn't weapons inspectors, it's China. They have supplied fiber-optic networking so that his anti-aircraft batteries can coordinate with each other fast enough to shoot down patrolling planes. There is a fear that he could gain far worse technology from corrupt facets of the Chinese governement. To say there is no proof of chemical weapons when we *seized* them is insane. Inspections were to prevent him from resuming his programs, not to find out if there were any.
Lecrayon: The previous, far-left president spent a good deal of time trying to explain his business dealings in Arkansas, and frankly, if you think we had a 'booming' economy when GB came into office, you have a very selective memory. Last I heard, Europe was having a hard time keeping it's right-wingers in the closet as well...
You insult the thousands of Americans that are still in jeopardy in Afghanistan to imply that we have simply abandoned it. When we stay, we are setting up 'puppet regimes', when we leave, we are abandoning 'ruins'.
Where is Europe? Why isn't it rebuilding the 'ruins'? I seem to remember that Afghanistan was a European operation as well. Where is Osama? Why isn't Europe hot on his trail? What do we have to show for your 'support'? We are losing young Americans to this fight on a weekly basis.
I'm not surprised that Europe as a whole is sitting back and saying "What's the big deal?". France has a long history of mulling over what to do about their Algerian terrorists, Britain has 'talks' with their terrorist groups and even gives them political power. History shows us how Europe 'keeps peace'. No one sitting in Europe has any right to call the US self-serving when they so rarely move to help unless they, themselves, are threatened.
Lecrayon
Reply #26 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:57 AM
Reply #26 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:57 AM
Sorry about insulting you and thousands of Americans Bakerstreet. I don't think I have a selected memory. As I recall the whole of Europe stood as one man behind GB in grabbing Osama. The Taliban is chased back, and UN troops are in Afghanistan, not only from America but from western european countries too. We helped. The Us wanted to lead. Don't blame us for not grabbing Osama, while your agencies haven't a clue where he is.
As for Iraq, it just shows you the culture difference between one US and a whole lot of countries in Europe. I don't buy the phrase: If you aren't with us you are against us. Where was America when the IRA was fighting a civil war in Ireland, where were they when ETA struck Spain, where were they when the RAF was operational in Germany I can ask you. Our Europe is far more instable than your United States. We have neighbours, we are small, we have to cooperate. I have nothing against the US, and frankly Europe was just as shocked as the US on 9/11. That Europe leads more liberal policies is democraticly chosen.
BC, although a crook too, tried to solve the civil war in Ireland, he tried to deal out a peaceful solution between Arafat and Rabin. And later with Barak and Arafat. Pity Arafat wanted war. Otherwise BC would have succeeded.
That you come up with the insult phrase, or someone else for that matter, is just what I feared. Sorry I gave a few comments on this thread.
As for Iraq, it just shows you the culture difference between one US and a whole lot of countries in Europe. I don't buy the phrase: If you aren't with us you are against us. Where was America when the IRA was fighting a civil war in Ireland, where were they when ETA struck Spain, where were they when the RAF was operational in Germany I can ask you. Our Europe is far more instable than your United States. We have neighbours, we are small, we have to cooperate. I have nothing against the US, and frankly Europe was just as shocked as the US on 9/11. That Europe leads more liberal policies is democraticly chosen.
BC, although a crook too, tried to solve the civil war in Ireland, he tried to deal out a peaceful solution between Arafat and Rabin. And later with Barak and Arafat. Pity Arafat wanted war. Otherwise BC would have succeeded.
That you come up with the insult phrase, or someone else for that matter, is just what I feared. Sorry I gave a few comments on this thread.
paxx
Reply #28 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 10:39 AM
Reply #28 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 10:39 AM
Bush just wants to show his father that he can finish what he didn't.
It's been Bush's dream to go into Iraq way before 9/11.
This is not about the good or bad Americans people. It's about a president that only wants to prove himself better than his dad. Sorry to the Americans, I love you and I mean no disrespect to you. I just think your president has some personal problems.
So far, Iraq has done nothing to justify an invasion. Don't be fooled by media brainwashing and polital mumbo-jumbo. Let the UN take care of it. Send the inspectors. See what they find. Destroy the weapons if any are found.
It's been Bush's dream to go into Iraq way before 9/11.
This is not about the good or bad Americans people. It's about a president that only wants to prove himself better than his dad. Sorry to the Americans, I love you and I mean no disrespect to you. I just think your president has some personal problems.
So far, Iraq has done nothing to justify an invasion. Don't be fooled by media brainwashing and polital mumbo-jumbo. Let the UN take care of it. Send the inspectors. See what they find. Destroy the weapons if any are found.
datarat
Reply #29 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 10:54 AM
Reply #29 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 10:54 AM
I think some of you are missing some very salient points here.
Desert Storm could not be completed because the "Coalition" wouldn't support removing Saddam SPECIFICALLY.
The UN created the sanctions that have killed 500,000 Iraqi children in the last 10 years, and Saddam has shown no sign of complying with UN resolutions. Ask me again who is showing the United Nations to be irrelevant.
People, this is not some "woke up on Tuesday and decided to invade a Middle Eastern Country" situation. 4 years ago Saddam Hussein patently refused to let the UN inspectors do their jobs. What is he trying to hide? If he complies with the inspections the sanctions will be dropped. That's pretty simple, and it gets food for his people.
Oh yeah. Food for Oil. That's another UN program. And to sweeten the pot there's documentation that Iraq's been turning that food around and selling it to buy guns. What about the Iraqi People???
Which Europeans are currently helping to keep the peace and stabilize the government in Afghanistan, besides the UK? I know the answer, 2 points to you if you do also. One million points if you can tell who volunteered combat forces.
I'm still trying to figure out where you got the crap about the IRA. Do you honestly thing that Britain would have appreciated us landing troops on their soil to handle a problem they were dealing with already? The IRA didn't attack us, and Britain didn't ask for help, so we've kept our noses out of it.
Bosnia asked for help. Do we need to go into that fiasco?
Regardless, I've come to the conclusion that the Middle East hates the US because of what we are, and the numerous US citizens and EU citizens hate us because of what they were. It's a simplistic attitude, I admit, but if you make a few cuts with Occam's Razor that's what it boils down to.
Desert Storm could not be completed because the "Coalition" wouldn't support removing Saddam SPECIFICALLY.
The UN created the sanctions that have killed 500,000 Iraqi children in the last 10 years, and Saddam has shown no sign of complying with UN resolutions. Ask me again who is showing the United Nations to be irrelevant.
People, this is not some "woke up on Tuesday and decided to invade a Middle Eastern Country" situation. 4 years ago Saddam Hussein patently refused to let the UN inspectors do their jobs. What is he trying to hide? If he complies with the inspections the sanctions will be dropped. That's pretty simple, and it gets food for his people.
Oh yeah. Food for Oil. That's another UN program. And to sweeten the pot there's documentation that Iraq's been turning that food around and selling it to buy guns. What about the Iraqi People???
Which Europeans are currently helping to keep the peace and stabilize the government in Afghanistan, besides the UK? I know the answer, 2 points to you if you do also. One million points if you can tell who volunteered combat forces.
I'm still trying to figure out where you got the crap about the IRA. Do you honestly thing that Britain would have appreciated us landing troops on their soil to handle a problem they were dealing with already? The IRA didn't attack us, and Britain didn't ask for help, so we've kept our noses out of it.
Bosnia asked for help. Do we need to go into that fiasco?
Regardless, I've come to the conclusion that the Middle East hates the US because of what we are, and the numerous US citizens and EU citizens hate us because of what they were. It's a simplistic attitude, I admit, but if you make a few cuts with Occam's Razor that's what it boils down to.
datarat
Reply #30 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:01 AM
Reply #30 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:01 AM
Pax, that's got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. Prove himself?
Iraq has defied the UN and shown them to be ineffective for 10 years. Until the inspectors were thrown out 4 years ago, they were very busy seizing WMD's.
You should note that the inpsectors, who've been on the ground and tried to work in Iraq, have supported Military intervention, because they are effectively hamstrung by the Iraqi government.
That's what this is all about. Hussein refuses to allow the inspectors access to several places, places that constitute 11 square miles of Iraq.
So don't believe media hype. Saddam has refused to comply with UN resolutions, and ignore's the sanctions despite the situation of his own people.
Iraq has defied the UN and shown them to be ineffective for 10 years. Until the inspectors were thrown out 4 years ago, they were very busy seizing WMD's.
You should note that the inpsectors, who've been on the ground and tried to work in Iraq, have supported Military intervention, because they are effectively hamstrung by the Iraqi government.
That's what this is all about. Hussein refuses to allow the inspectors access to several places, places that constitute 11 square miles of Iraq.
So don't believe media hype. Saddam has refused to comply with UN resolutions, and ignore's the sanctions despite the situation of his own people.
Griffinme
Reply #31 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:06 AM
Reply #31 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:06 AM
Lets back up here. I seem to see several misconceptions.
First, why do we need more UN resolutions? He has been flouting ones passed at the end of Desert Storm that allowed him to stay in power for almost 10 years. It was not a peace treaty, it was terms of surrender. What makes anyone think this will change?
Second, he is working to build weapons of mass destruction. Should we wait until he blows one up? I think not. That would be like handing killers a gun as they walk out of prison, telling them to behave and then being surprised when they use it.
Third, we still are in Afghanistan with no plans on leaving any time soon.
Fourth, "An unwritten policy exists (and has done so for at least 100 years)to the effect that 'Heads of State' are NOT to be targeted for liquidation, despite the US 'Keystone Cops' attempts on Castro over the years." I was listening to one of Bill Clinton's Security Council advisers the other day say that the US, Israel and other countries had been targeting Saddam since the beginning of the Gulf War. He is a very slippery and paranoid character.
Fifth, Several of his neighbors are with us on attacking him, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey. The UK and Israel are also with us. This makes it not a single nation attacking him. It is a group of nations that agree he should be gone. Since this doesn't include France and Germany we are being made out to be a loose cannon.
Sixth, I think it hurts our standing much more in that part of the world to claim to be angry and powerful but do nothing then to be angry, powerful and kicking butt. To do nothing appears weak willed and open to attack.
Seventh, We did not remove Saddam the first time around because our Arab and European allies thought that was improper. Many of the same ones that still want to try yet more resolutions.
Eighth, Setting a precedent for attacking other nations. I think history is full of such precedents.
First, why do we need more UN resolutions? He has been flouting ones passed at the end of Desert Storm that allowed him to stay in power for almost 10 years. It was not a peace treaty, it was terms of surrender. What makes anyone think this will change?
Second, he is working to build weapons of mass destruction. Should we wait until he blows one up? I think not. That would be like handing killers a gun as they walk out of prison, telling them to behave and then being surprised when they use it.
Third, we still are in Afghanistan with no plans on leaving any time soon.
Fourth, "An unwritten policy exists (and has done so for at least 100 years)to the effect that 'Heads of State' are NOT to be targeted for liquidation, despite the US 'Keystone Cops' attempts on Castro over the years." I was listening to one of Bill Clinton's Security Council advisers the other day say that the US, Israel and other countries had been targeting Saddam since the beginning of the Gulf War. He is a very slippery and paranoid character.
Fifth, Several of his neighbors are with us on attacking him, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey. The UK and Israel are also with us. This makes it not a single nation attacking him. It is a group of nations that agree he should be gone. Since this doesn't include France and Germany we are being made out to be a loose cannon.
Sixth, I think it hurts our standing much more in that part of the world to claim to be angry and powerful but do nothing then to be angry, powerful and kicking butt. To do nothing appears weak willed and open to attack.
Seventh, We did not remove Saddam the first time around because our Arab and European allies thought that was improper. Many of the same ones that still want to try yet more resolutions.
Eighth, Setting a precedent for attacking other nations. I think history is full of such precedents.
paxx
Reply #32 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:30 AM
Reply #32 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:30 AM
datarat, I'd agree with you if Saddam didn't turn around and accepted the return of UN inspectors without condition. That's what it was all about to begin with. Why now that Saddam complies, is it still question of invading Iraq?
I don't like Saddam, nor do I like his government. But in accordance with international law, one country canot attack another sovereign country without provocation. Doing so, you stop being a victim and start being the bullie yourself.
I don't like Saddam, nor do I like his government. But in accordance with international law, one country canot attack another sovereign country without provocation. Doing so, you stop being a victim and start being the bullie yourself.
datarat
Reply #33 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:44 AM
Reply #33 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:44 AM
But that's my point. He didn't accept them without condition. If you read the letter that was sent to the UN carefully, it says that they will unconditionally discuss the return.
In subsequent statements (like last week)Saddam reiterated that Iraq's sovereignty must be respected, and that the inspectors will not be allowed in places that he deems inappropriate. Namely the Presidential Palaces.
Which puts us right back were we were a year ago...
In subsequent statements (like last week)Saddam reiterated that Iraq's sovereignty must be respected, and that the inspectors will not be allowed in places that he deems inappropriate. Namely the Presidential Palaces.
Which puts us right back were we were a year ago...
wombat_1
Reply #34 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:06 PM
Reply #34 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:06 PM
Lecrayon, you put the European point well, a very valuable contribution.
I doubt you can lay blame at the feet of Mr Bush, a political party makes policy, the elected representative presents that policy via an address, scripted with care.
To be fair, the Clinton/Rabin/Arafat agreement was making progress, at the risk of getting dumped on I must point out the fact that Mr Rabin was assasinated by one of his own, and in light of the present Gaza policy his death has a distinct smell of a Star Chamber Conspiricy about it.
Bakerstreet, Clinton "far left"?????
Mate, you should check out the previous Prime Minister of Oz, one Paul Keating ....
More left wings than a Staffel of Fokker Triplanes!
As for the 'thousands of Americans in harms way in Afghanistan', it is just another part of the job in the Green Machine.
Given your remarks it would appear that the Australian and British special forces along with the French Paras are sunning themselves and having an all round break from the monotony of training, or perhaps it could be the lack of CNN coverage on troops other than US????
Believe me, if troops in the field are 'visible' then they are not doing their job correctly.
One very good way of getting the UN off it's butt as well as giving the US some real credibility would be for Uncle Sam to pay the rather large and very long overdue funds it owes the UN!
Maybe said organisation would have to get its act together.
My general view of the United Nations is jaundiced at best, a flawed concept in the beginning and now rife with political correctness and no small amount of corruption.
Any organisation that is intent on fielding an operation (as in the former Jugoslavia) that is placed on a 'watching brief' armed with nothing more than sidearms deserves to be treated with disdain.
UN Weapons Inspection teams are a first concession and can only be seen in that way, however, they might keep Iraqi attention diverted for a short time if covert ops were to be instigated, and then only for a team of 'unofficial investigators' who would be charged with finding some hard evidence.
La Belle France can hardly be charged with inaction re the Algerian crisis, today's 'terrorist' is tomorrow's 'freedom fighter', and if memory serves me, many Algerian Nationals were French Citizens at the time, this during the reign of CDG, aka Napolean the Greatest!
Lecrayon might care to correct me on this.
Dangeruss, right!
One can only wait for an unjustified strike to mount an appropriate and deadly response, real life is not a video game.
BTW, would you be the same 'Russ' who built some of the very best bike models (as portrayed in SAE) I have ever seen?
I doubt you can lay blame at the feet of Mr Bush, a political party makes policy, the elected representative presents that policy via an address, scripted with care.
To be fair, the Clinton/Rabin/Arafat agreement was making progress, at the risk of getting dumped on I must point out the fact that Mr Rabin was assasinated by one of his own, and in light of the present Gaza policy his death has a distinct smell of a Star Chamber Conspiricy about it.
Bakerstreet, Clinton "far left"?????
Mate, you should check out the previous Prime Minister of Oz, one Paul Keating ....
More left wings than a Staffel of Fokker Triplanes!
As for the 'thousands of Americans in harms way in Afghanistan', it is just another part of the job in the Green Machine.
Given your remarks it would appear that the Australian and British special forces along with the French Paras are sunning themselves and having an all round break from the monotony of training, or perhaps it could be the lack of CNN coverage on troops other than US????
Believe me, if troops in the field are 'visible' then they are not doing their job correctly.
One very good way of getting the UN off it's butt as well as giving the US some real credibility would be for Uncle Sam to pay the rather large and very long overdue funds it owes the UN!
Maybe said organisation would have to get its act together.
My general view of the United Nations is jaundiced at best, a flawed concept in the beginning and now rife with political correctness and no small amount of corruption.
Any organisation that is intent on fielding an operation (as in the former Jugoslavia) that is placed on a 'watching brief' armed with nothing more than sidearms deserves to be treated with disdain.
UN Weapons Inspection teams are a first concession and can only be seen in that way, however, they might keep Iraqi attention diverted for a short time if covert ops were to be instigated, and then only for a team of 'unofficial investigators' who would be charged with finding some hard evidence.
La Belle France can hardly be charged with inaction re the Algerian crisis, today's 'terrorist' is tomorrow's 'freedom fighter', and if memory serves me, many Algerian Nationals were French Citizens at the time, this during the reign of CDG, aka Napolean the Greatest!
Lecrayon might care to correct me on this.
Dangeruss, right!
One can only wait for an unjustified strike to mount an appropriate and deadly response, real life is not a video game.
BTW, would you be the same 'Russ' who built some of the very best bike models (as portrayed in SAE) I have ever seen?
datarat
Reply #35 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:25 PM
Reply #35 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:25 PM
"One can only wait for an unjustified strike to mount an appropriate and deadly response, real life is not a video game"
Are you seriously suggesting that we need to wait until a nuclear bomb goes off in an American city before we can respond? Or did I just read that wrong?
Are you seriously suggesting that we need to wait until a nuclear bomb goes off in an American city before we can respond? Or did I just read that wrong?
Carlitus
Reply #36 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:50 PM
Reply #36 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:50 PM
i'm not according to the POLL. There's a site about customization, and i don't like to see politic polls on the start page!
I don't agree the 'cowboy' and i don't agree the 'radicalist' too!
And i don't like to se your president (and the president of all the world, due to 'collateral effects) actuating like a children. The XXI century will be more civilizated.
ANd a note for all US people (Or all world people): The terrorism not started at sept 11. We (in SPain and in other countries) are living terrorism any day or any week (i lived a terrorist act, and my town isn't a special politic or strategic place for terrorism). Don't use the Arabian culture for having more armamentistic inversions and reasons for attack other countries.
I don't agree the 'cowboy' and i don't agree the 'radicalist' too!
And i don't like to se your president (and the president of all the world, due to 'collateral effects) actuating like a children. The XXI century will be more civilizated.
ANd a note for all US people (Or all world people): The terrorism not started at sept 11. We (in SPain and in other countries) are living terrorism any day or any week (i lived a terrorist act, and my town isn't a special politic or strategic place for terrorism). Don't use the Arabian culture for having more armamentistic inversions and reasons for attack other countries.
Kinrik
Reply #37 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:55 PM
Reply #37 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 12:55 PM
i have just one question...how many active duty personnel are on this board?
everyone except them should shut the hell up, because they are the ONLY ones with the possibility of being in direct action. everyone spouting their fanatic opinion is just flapping their yap in the breeze. words accomplish jack and !@#$ when uttered by those with a lack of authority. quit getting your skirt in a ruffle and either do something about it or shut up and go skin something.
history is written by those who win, the truth is never completely visible, and no one cares what your personal opinion is.
go skin something. this site shouldn't be a place to turn people against each other for moral, political, racial, religious, whatever, reasons. go skin something and drop it, already.
everyone except them should shut the hell up, because they are the ONLY ones with the possibility of being in direct action. everyone spouting their fanatic opinion is just flapping their yap in the breeze. words accomplish jack and !@#$ when uttered by those with a lack of authority. quit getting your skirt in a ruffle and either do something about it or shut up and go skin something.
history is written by those who win, the truth is never completely visible, and no one cares what your personal opinion is.
go skin something. this site shouldn't be a place to turn people against each other for moral, political, racial, religious, whatever, reasons. go skin something and drop it, already.
wombat_1
Reply #38 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 1:02 PM
Reply #38 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 1:02 PM
Griffinme, #1, Agreed, no contest. #2, Assumed, possible, even probable but unproven. #3, I believe that is what the Russians assumed, and was this to be "Liberation" not "Occupation"? #4, Interesting, the US, Israel and 'other countries'? See #7. #5, You don't think Iraq's "neighbours" might be a tad keen on extending their boundaries at all? #6, This is about keeping up appearances? Really??? #7, see #4 .... au contraire? #8, Sure, Granada, Panama come readily to mind.
datarat, 'Food for Oil', a flawed concept indeed, but one can only guess where the bulk of the oil ends up, not that it would take much imagination.
The UN did not 'kill 500,000 Iraqi children', the Iraqi regime can claim credit for that.
I'll take the points thank you, when are you departing for Afghanistan as a matter of interest?
The IRA, certainly the Brits would be unhappy with an expeditionary force landing in the Emrald Isle, however, perhaps they would have appreciated less Trans-Atlantic funding of the opposition.
Bosnia was a typical example of the usual late arrival routine allied to the video game approach.
"Damn! They looked like troops on that bridge!!"
One point that I find illuminating, and I would be keen to know if this is indeed true, the Gulf War CinC has been notable for his (apparant) silence ... one man who's opinion I would value.
datarat, 'Food for Oil', a flawed concept indeed, but one can only guess where the bulk of the oil ends up, not that it would take much imagination.
The UN did not 'kill 500,000 Iraqi children', the Iraqi regime can claim credit for that.
I'll take the points thank you, when are you departing for Afghanistan as a matter of interest?
The IRA, certainly the Brits would be unhappy with an expeditionary force landing in the Emrald Isle, however, perhaps they would have appreciated less Trans-Atlantic funding of the opposition.
Bosnia was a typical example of the usual late arrival routine allied to the video game approach.
"Damn! They looked like troops on that bridge!!"
One point that I find illuminating, and I would be keen to know if this is indeed true, the Gulf War CinC has been notable for his (apparant) silence ... one man who's opinion I would value.
Dangeruss
Reply #39 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 1:04 PM
Reply #39 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 1:04 PM
Wombat1 - yes I am indeed the very same fellow 
Aleatoric
Reply #40 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 1:23 PM
Reply #40 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 1:23 PM
"No person or group or society or government has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against anyone. We have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense". (Ayn Rand)
Honored more in the breach than in the keeping, to be honest.
That being said, I agree most with Dangeruss on this. From an ETHICAL standpoint, we have no justification to initiate a military attack against Iraq. The fact that Saddam *might* use a WMD against any target is no more valid an excuse than if I were to kill someone because I don't like the way they look and I think they *might* pull a knife on me. The fact that this person may actually have a knife on him does not sufficiently justify the initiation of violence.
Granted, we cannot accept that U.N. inspections, etc., will be of any meaningful value. Whatever it started out to become, the U.N. is currently a mostly ineffective body in terms of actual accomplishment. The internal corruption, politicking, and bias guarantee that inaction is the only likely result of U.N. involvement, especially in this case.
If we're going to use the rhetoric of the possibility of being attacked with a WMD as justification for initiating our own attack, we have plenty of targets to choose from, not the least of which is China. While an attack from China is a very low probability, we know, FOR A FACT, that they not only possess these weapons, but they are actually aimed at us. While Saddam would probably be much more likely to attempt to use these types of weapons, we have much less certainty about the existence and capabilities of such weapons in his possession.
My personal opinion is that we probably should have taken him out in 1991, even given the likelihood of negative reactions from some coalition members. If we attempt to do so now, we risk a greater negative reaction that will hinder us in legitimate pursuits, and we risk it with much less justification than we had then.
Honored more in the breach than in the keeping, to be honest.
That being said, I agree most with Dangeruss on this. From an ETHICAL standpoint, we have no justification to initiate a military attack against Iraq. The fact that Saddam *might* use a WMD against any target is no more valid an excuse than if I were to kill someone because I don't like the way they look and I think they *might* pull a knife on me. The fact that this person may actually have a knife on him does not sufficiently justify the initiation of violence.
Granted, we cannot accept that U.N. inspections, etc., will be of any meaningful value. Whatever it started out to become, the U.N. is currently a mostly ineffective body in terms of actual accomplishment. The internal corruption, politicking, and bias guarantee that inaction is the only likely result of U.N. involvement, especially in this case.
If we're going to use the rhetoric of the possibility of being attacked with a WMD as justification for initiating our own attack, we have plenty of targets to choose from, not the least of which is China. While an attack from China is a very low probability, we know, FOR A FACT, that they not only possess these weapons, but they are actually aimed at us. While Saddam would probably be much more likely to attempt to use these types of weapons, we have much less certainty about the existence and capabilities of such weapons in his possession.
My personal opinion is that we probably should have taken him out in 1991, even given the likelihood of negative reactions from some coalition members. If we attempt to do so now, we risk a greater negative reaction that will hinder us in legitimate pursuits, and we risk it with much less justification than we had then.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 13 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 7:53 AM
Reminds me a lot of events during the 30's...