The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side?
- This topic has 135 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Sorry ADM, I had no idea your brother was over there; that does put a new perspective on things. Sometimes when one is distanced from such events one can get rather coldly academic. BTW, I have admired the restraint of the British forces around Basra, and I do appreciate Blair’s push for meaningful U.N. involvement after the war.
Take care, and I wish your brother godspeed. May he return home quickly and safely.
Take care,
Logan
[quote=”Logan”]Sorry ADM, I had no idea your brother was over there; that does put a new perspective on things. Sometimes when one is distanced from such events one can get rather coldly academic. BTW, I have admired the restraint of the British forces around Basra, and I do appreciate Blair’s push for meaningful U.N. involvement after the war.
Take care, and I wish your brother godspeed. May he return home quickly and safely.
Take care,
Logan[/quote]
Thankyou Logan, for your words, I think people sometimes do need to distance themselves sometimes to get some perspective, and I don’t think there is ever a right or wrong in war, just lot’s of conflicting views.
I see people’s need for peace, I also would like to see peace prevail and it’s good as a whole that the world pursues it with such fervour, but I do think that the initial stages of war come as a shock too many, and this results in anger and bitterness.
But as time goes on we realise that maybe we were hasty in our opinons and then we take a step back and get that perspective.
My brother is looking at it in a remarkably casual way, but I guess the armed forces are trained to always look at things objectively. In a letter I received from him last week he told me what he faced, he apologised about the fact he couldn’t say too much (for obvious reasons), but suffice to say that a lot of what the press has reported isn’t all propaganda.
As brothers always do, we used to argue, but I pray he comes back because I find I’m actually missing those arguments.
But spare a thought for our friends in the US army, my brother tell’s me they’ve been great to ‘our boys’, he describes them as extremely friendly and generous, they are always ready to help out when my brothers attachment is short on provisions, which I think say’s a lot about the American GI’s.
Anyhoo, thanx again for your thoughts Logan.
ADMYou know… Ive sat here, bored stiff at work, and read all the posts. It’s been interesting to say the least.
A-DM taking on everything personally comes across as something I experienced while living in the US. (I lived in… wait for it…. Danville KY for all of a year). Americans, as a whole, and I admit it is never good to generalise, seem to view anything un-American and anti-American.
I think that the world would be a much better place without President Saddam Hussein. I also think that the US should stay the hell out of Iraq. The US has a terrible international reputation when it comes to dealings in the Middle East. The US has had many shady dealings many of them terrorist in there actions. The US should have worked with the UN until such time as an agreement was made.
I don’t care whether 100 Americans die or whether 100 Iraqi’s die. I don’t want anyone innocent to die. Does this make me a bad person. No. Does it make me anti-American. No.
To call someone a coward for not wanting war is pure evil. Ive been to war. I’ve killed. I won’t ever support war unless there is a universal call for it. War is failure. It’s that simple.
I made my views on this whole thing clear on page two, however, I feel I needed to add this post.
I take huge exception to the calling of people not wanting war as cowards. That is a ‘Hitler’ type of viewpoint… it shows fundamentalist stupidity.
Although born and bread in South Africa, I have lived in the US and the UK(for four and a half years) as well as New Zealand for two years. I feel I have somewhat of an unbiased viewpoint. My view, and Im not enforcing it, is that the US and UK have a lot to answer for. History will judge the two.
Just to end off and clear up, world policy isn’t a simple case of choosing between ‘goodies’ and ‘badies’. It is most often a case of choosing the lesser evil. One should always remember that, and think before they judge.
A good friend in the States just emailed this to me when I asked him what he thought of the war. I haven’t asked for his permission to print it, so I’ve omited his name:
[quote]The War? There was a cheeky article in the Sunday newspaper entitled “Thank you for not talking about the war”. It’s not really that controversial here, yet no one is happy about it. With constant coverage on television, it’s sometimes a relief to not talk about it. The only thing that I can say with authority is that if there is a Jesus, he ain’t smiling.
It’s all very remarkable. In the north there is a city called Mosul, which is the site of the ancient city of Nineveh:
“wealth flowed into it from many sources, so that it became the greatest of all ancient cities.”This isn’t some backwater. This is the cradle of civilisation. We all know about Babylon and its greatness 4,500 years ago. The people in Basra, and that region, lower Mesopotamia are descended from an even older culture. Eden.
Like you, I fear a widened conflict. And like you, I have hopes of a better tomorrow and the despair of doubt.
From a US point of view, the War on Terrorism would eliminate a significant Arab/Islamist friction point if the US were to remove its “official” military presence from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – site of Mecca and Medina as we all know.
Iraq must be neutered and turned into a buffer state separating S.A. and Iran before the US can depart Saudi Arabia.
Wouldn’t that be great!I, personally, think that it is time for the US and Iran to normalise relations. No embassy personnel, of course, but something has got to move. Do you know that Iranian kids clog Yahoo! voice chat rooms every night? They are tired of the religious police and a diplomatic breakthrough might give hope to these kids.
Israel/Palestine. Israel/Syria. I have no hope. Though if you are tuned in to US policy, the current president is the first one to articulate the US desire for the creation of “a Palestinian homeland coexisting side-by-side within secure borders alongside Israel”. Even Clinton was too afraid of losing voter support in ‘key states’ to utter those words.
As for the efforts at the UN and Franco-American/ German-American differences of opinion. We’ll give the Germans a break. The French wouldn’t even lift a finger to stop the Serbian wars on European soil. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Two final things on the war.
First: There will be schools named for the British PM and statues of Tony Blair erected in this country someday. You can toss him out of office, but if you do he’ll make millions here, anytime he should choose.
Second: Many of the anti-war protesters focus their anger on George W.Bush. G. Bush really has very little to do with this whole thing. Surprised? check out this US Department of State report from 1999 (under President Clinton)From a State Department paper titled “Saddam Hussein’s Iraq” Prepared by
the U.S. Department of State Released September 13, 1999 (updated
2/23/00) and reproduced at the Federation of American Scientists’ sitehttp://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#warcrimes
“Saddam Hussein and his closest aides have committed a long list of criminal violations of international humanitarian law and the laws and customs of war. Saddam Hussein and his closest aides should be investigated, indicted, and prosecuted for these crimes.”
“The goal of the United States is to see Saddam indicted by an international tribunal. We are gathering our own
evidence against Saddam and providing support to groups working on Iraqi war crimes issues.”The Pres. Bill Clinton/Secretary Madeleine Albright State Department said this.
“The goal of the United States…”
… this seems to imply forcible removal from office once such evidence is gathered so he can be shipped off to the Hague. Forcible removal.Is it possible that 9/11 and the rise of GWB really have nothing to do with what is going on? That, whoever he was to be, Clinton’s successor would necessarily have walked right into this? [/quote]
Oh, and I’ve decided to add a Pole in a separate thread.
Hi All,
All I can say about this war is I wish all our Troupes to come back safe, sound & no more injuries or deaths. I wish we weren’t having this war at all, but no one asked us; so let’s all here just get along & help others as much as we can.A-DM,
I appreciate your point-of-view & hope your brother comes back safe & sound; I do hope he’s not 1 of the POW’s caught in this aweful war. If you need to talk, just e-mail me or send me a private message.
I’ll tell you what I think should’ve happened if you please tell me what’ll happen after World War III (this war) is over & how are we going to liberate the Iraqi people after the war.
No one manipulted me or convinced me of my feelings, except me; these are my views & no one elses.lexxrobotech,
You made a good point about this war & I’m glad you wrote that great post; I’m also glad you brought up some very good points about war that we all tend to forget, `War is death; war kills’.Sadgeezer,
Please let your friend know that I really enjoyed reading his/her article & that he/she made some wonderful points about war.I hope that everyone here doesn’t forget the Lady in NY Harbour (Statue of Liberty) & why the French gave her to us; I just hope they (the French) don’t ask for her back; she our symbol of peace, or at least, I think so. Also we must remember that not all the countries (China, Russia, France, Germany, most Muslem Countries) don’t support this war; they all believe that we Americans are concerers & just want more than just freedom for the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussain. & who knows, Saddam may not be alive; & if he is, it’s likely that he’s injured; & what about his aweful sons; they’re just as bad as their father.
Peace to all, take care & have a nice April.May peace be with you all,
JhevzA-DM,
I appreciate your point-of-view & hope your brother comes back safe & sound; I do hope he’s not 1 of the POW’s caught in this aweful war. If you need to talk, just e-mail me or send me a private message.
I’ll tell you what I think should’ve happened if you please tell me what’ll happen after World War III (this war) is over & how are we going to liberate the Iraqi people after the war.
No one manipulted me or convinced me of my feelings, except me; these are my views & no one elses.Thanks for your thoughts about my brother Jhevz, I know he’s ok, not sure where he’s based at the moment, I’ve been watching out for news of his regiment, but I don’t think he’s in the front line.
As for this being WW3, well it’s not a world war so it doesn’t apply, I don’t understand what you mean by liberating the Iraqi people after the war, when this war is over the Iraqi people will be liberated.
As for what happens after this war, who’s too say, other than the biggest threat since Hitler will have been removed, it may bring some stability, it may not. However, the fact that the US and UK forces going in means that we have not sat idly by while Saddam has the opportunity to stockpile weapons, I feel we all faced a bigger risk if we did nothing.
As Syria and Iran appear to be supplying Iraq with military hardware, I think it shows that Saddam can get hold of what he needs when needed, although it’s not as easy to get nuclear materials there still remains a danger that he might aquire it.
As for the view on ‘cowards’, I will admit that was a sweeping generalisation motivated by anger, but it does appear that large sections of the anti-war brigade are anti-americans just looking for an excuse to attack the US, some supporters of Saddam and his regime, muslims who believe it is an attack on their faith and political groups using this as a means to their ends, looking at it I see the minority being those who oppose war without having any allegiance to the groups above, so for me the majority groups are ‘cowards’, as they are using reasons of their own to oppose this action (perhaps with the exception of muslims), their interest is governed by reasons other than what they claim it to be, they don’t care that Saddam is a danger or that the Iraqi people suffer, their agenda’s have nothing to do with that.
So I don’t agree it is ‘evil’ to say that certain groups can be classed as ‘cowards’, war is a failure, but unfortunately so is diplomacy in this case.
I believe it is cowardly to simply walk away when your loved ones and country are threatened as would have ultimately been the case if Saddam had aquired weapons of mass destruction, it really is a case of it’s either ‘him or us’, I believe it’s cowardly to use the publics strong feelings as a vehicle to enhance your political standing or recognition, I believe it’s cowardly when you look to start a revolt and overthrow a government you dislike, there are many way’s too show cowardice, and for me there is many versions of it at work at the core of the anti-war brigade.
Cowardice is a strong term and shouldn’t be used lightly, which is why I don’t class anyone on this board a coward, they have fears, which we all have and their reasons for being against war are genuine and understandable, the cowards are the ones that may influence you into opposing war for reasons other than your own credible concerns.
But perhaps the biggest source of anger for me comes from the fact that those that lead and organise these demonstrations offer nothing, they don’t offer a solution, they don’t offer a compromise, they denounce war when they know there is no other choice, if they come come up with another way of taking out Saddam Hussein, then I will stop calling them ‘cowards’.
ADM
ADM[quote=”marybeth”]… I have been a little reluctant after our past experience with the terrorism post. 🙁 there were alot of hurt feelings involved then and i really don’t want anyone hurt this time! i do hope that our members and guests will be respectful of each others opinions. 😀 remember everyone is entitled to their opinion and we encourage lively discussions here! 🙂 but we do not allow the peeps to bash each other here at Sadgeezer.com![/quote]
Such good points very well put. I just had to quote it again.
Also, if you are gonna quote other people’s posts, please only quote the relevant bits. It’s hard to keep focus when you are re-reading [b]large[/b] amounts of repeated text.
Other than that, This is a great thread, lots of cool ideas and comments. If you have a view, please don’t be worried about expressing it here.
Some of us have strong personal reasons for our feelings on the war – but it doesn’t mean we are right! [b]Your opinion counts too![/b]
First up, I haven’t read all the posts in the thread yet. I’m still on page 2!!! But I wanted to make a couple of points before I forgot them. So I apologise to any one who has already said this… I’m not trying to steal your thunder.
These are really more ‘replys’ to point made by people in the earlier posts.
The subject of assassination has been raised several times, on and off these boards. I really don’t think that is the solution. Yes we could ‘wack’ him, but as it’s already been said, other worms would appear from the woodwork and step right into his shoes (I think I’m getting my metaphors in a tangle). The regime (sp?) would continue under a new name. Also, I believe that one of the Wests biggest fears was that if he was assassinated, there would be an Eastern upcry. Saddam would have been billed as a martyr and the whole situation could have exploded. I have no doubt that the Iraqi PR machine would have been able to pitch it in just the right way to really wind up the masses. This would not only open up increased hostilities politically, but also invite increased covert ‘terrorist’ attacks against the West. After all, are we not advocating covert acts of internal aggresion by doing one ourselves? That would just invite cries of ‘hypocrisy’ from those seeking ammunition. And of course, if the West are willing to take steps that radical, don’t you think they would like to have a say in who takes over? The only way to do that is to make sure you control the situation when the new ‘choices’ are made. If Mr H was to suddenly and inexplicably pop his clogs, we could have absolutely no input into the new choices. With the current course of action we will probably have the deciding vote.
The comments about ‘it not being about the oil’ irritate me beyond belief. Of course it’s about the oil. Agreed, the humanitarian issue is a good reason. And yes he is a nasty piece of work who terrorises his own people. But if this were the real concern how can we justify other abominable acts that have happened in the modern age that have just been glossed over. Take East Temore (sp?) for example. Genocide on a massive scale and barbaric in it’s execution. We knew that it was going to happen before it all kicked off, and the Western governments reactions? To withdraw all diplomatic personnel and let em get on with it. Why? Cos there was nothing in it for us. Even with the (assumed?) imminent threat from Iraq, we would not have gone in if it were not in our immediate ecconomic interest to do so.
As for ‘Why are the Arab nations so against our [i]assistance[/i]’? They are probably concerned about the same things I am. That once the War is over, that the US will leave a vast number of troops – to assist in stablising the area while the new government settle in, of course – that will end up staying there for an indefinite term. How would you like it if a nation that has had rather turbulent diplomatic relations with your own, suddenly sets up a rather large military encampment just over the border from you? I’d probably be a bit un-nerved too.
And as for France and Germany not wanting to dive into a war. Are you really surprised? Just a few recent memories that are a bit close to the knuckle. One was an invader the other invaded. I’m not surprised they would rather find another way out of it. Hell, I agree with em. But I don’t think there was one. Not in this case. Not that would have worked.
As for the protesters arguments that we would be killing innocents during the war. Yes, we would and let’s face it… are. But Saddams regime has been doing that every day for years. So it’s OK for it to happen, just as long as it’s not us doing it?
Personally I am opposed to War, but recognise it’s validity. Peaceful negotiation can accomplish a lot, as long as both sides want peace and are prepared to make some compromises. I don’t believe that Saddam would ever go for [i]both[/i]. War is an abomination, because it causes great suffering amongst the innocent, but if the innocent are suffering anyway, can we not justify the war in an attempt to stop or at the very least drastically reduce the ongoing, long term suffering?
Pacifism is no defence in the face of an open and unrepentant aggressor. What is it that Robert A. Heinlein said about ‘open aggression’ in Starship Troopers? I may not agree with all the points he made, but he certainly made me think about my beliefs (I’m talking about the book here, not the film. If you’ve not read it, I recommend it. There is relevance to this thread… a bit).
I s’pose what I’m trying to say is… It’s a mess. We can’t ignore a situation like this and hope it goes away. And you are not going to find a solution that will keep everybody happy that would actually achieve anything. I’m not saying our actions are right or wrong, or even if they were made for the right reasons. But I for one can’t think of a course of action that would solve the problem without leading to the point we are now.
One thing I am sure of is this. Whether our boys (and girls) should be out there or not. They [i]are[/i] there. And while they are there I will back them 100%.
Blinkin flip. Sorry ppl didn’t realise I went on that long. And that was me trying to keep it short!
😳One thing about the oil in Iraq- it’s not economically viable to invade iraq just for its oil fields- Iraq only generates 3% of the world’s oil. There may be a large amount of it under Iraq, but the geology means it can’t be extracted efficiently in a major way (and definitely not in a reasonable enough amount to pay the overheads for this war in the short term (and long term’s at least decades).
At the end of British colonialism, Britain left Iraq, keeping its richest oilwells. That region became known as Kuwat. Iraq’s oil production in comparison’s negligible.
Don’t think this one’s over oil- will wait a few yrs for the historians to tell us- it’s not humanitarian, that’s for sure (look all around the world at easier conflicts that the US could have been involved in if it’d been in national intersets eg Zimbabwe, Bali etc)
What I mean by that A-DM is after the US takes over Iraq & liberates the people, who’s going to become President of Iraq & who would want that job; also, since our Troupes have seized Saddam International Airport, there’s no way in knowing how the citizens of Bagdad are going to respond to our Troupes. Hopefully this time, we’ll take Saddam down & not do like 1991 & just leave the Iraqi people hangin’ yet 1 more time.
There’s no arguement that both pro & anti groups are supporting our Troupes oversees & pray they return safely; it’s why they’re there in the 1st place. I support our Troupes in memory of the 3 Vaughn men (Great Uncles Clem & Marion & Granddaddy, G. H. Vaughn) who came back alive from serving World War II; also, I do pray for our Troupes safe return back home, so they can be with their families again.
Here’s what I think should’ve of happened instead us going to war with Iraq: [color=blue]President Bush needed to [b]listen to the UN Officials[/b] & [b]why France, China, Germany & Russia oppose this war[/b], let the UN Officials keep finding these `weapons of mass destructions’ & let them (UN Officials) finish their work they’ve started & finish his work that he started, & still ongoing, in finding the Tallyban in Afghanistan, 1st; [u]this President will be known as the unfinished President, he never finishes what he starts.[/u][/color] This is just my own opinion & also the way I feel about it.
There’s no disagreement that Saddam Hussain is a terrible person & should be oust, but as I said before, who’d take over as President of Iraq, who’d want the job & it would be the toughest job after this war’s over; our job there is not done & I do hope our President doesn’t just leave the Iraqi people hangin’ like his father did, then who knows what will happen.Take care, have a nice April & peace be with you all.
Pray for our Troupes safe return Home,
JhevzVery good post Rag, although like Fluffy Bunny I don’t believe this war is about the oil, yes the end result being that the trade to America and other countries would be of benefit, but to the benefit of the Iraqi people, for too long Saddam has squandered Iraq’s riches in which oil tops the list. But as the US have already said on record that the oilfields are being preserved for the good of the Iraqi people, I believe that back-tracking on that statement would be catastrophic in terms of US relations in Russia and China.
I still say that this war is about the national security of both America and the UK, Saddam being around gives the ammunition to terrorists that would make 9/11 look small in comparison, but we are all not foolish to believe that this war is just about the Iraqi people being freed, I think we all know that in the politicians eyes that is just an added bonus.
And kudo’s for realising that even though you are against war you do read the situation well, you are probably the first person who has posted against war to acknowledge that another solution is not available, because like I said before, even if diplomacy was used at great length, or weapons inspectors were too continue it would still bring us back to war eventually, with it happening now it at least denies Saddam time to get more dangerous weapons.
I don’t know if anyone has seen the news recently, but the dying Iraqi regime is threatening to use ‘uncoventional’ means to get US troops too surrender, I’d have to say that’s the biggest sign that Saddam is ready to deploy his biological and chemical arsenal, and if that’s the case then this war has just become more justified.
Because to Saddam, you and me are just as guilty as our brave soldiers, he doesn’t see us as harmless civilians, we ARE the enemy, every single one of us, and he doesn’t care who rallied for peace, they are as much his enemy as those who feel war was neccessary, and if you don’t think he would have allowed terrorists access to these dreadful weapons, then I’m sorry to say that you need to open your eyes.
All we may have done is brought the world a bit more time, I think we all know what can and just might happen, but make no mistake, war or not, it may prove inevitable, but I really do pray I am wrong.
You truly have to weigh up the pros and cons, yes this war is dangerous and could lead to more trouble, but at the same time doing nothing would most likely be at a higher cost, and we would be the one’s paying that price in our thousands.
Time is always against us on this one, the only hope we truly have is that Arab states recognise that this was an action that needed to be taken, but given the people of these countries dislike the west strongly it will take a lot of faith, America and the UK need to build bridges in the middle wast after this, the problem lies with the fact that the only way this can be done is with money, but all the Arab nations are like warlords who place territory above all else, and if you help one, then another sees it as unfair and it works against you, i.e if you choose to help Syria then Iran sees it as a hostile gesture, more importantly it’s likely that the Arab states may feel they are being ‘bought’ by America’s money and will resent the US even more, it’s a no win situation.
But if there was no greater power out there then they would be throwing everything at each other, take Pakistan and India, they hold back because if either one of them pressed the nuclear trigger, the world is likely to side with the one who didn’t fire the first missile.
The middle east is a hotbed of terrorists and religious fanatics, the world they live in is governed by greed and wealth, ok the west is no different in that respect, only we do it at no cost to human life, we do it by following rules and those who break those rules are punished severely, no such ideals exist in their world, it truly is dog eat dog, but the way they do it is through their religion, they quote the Koran and everybody falls into line because they believe the person they follow will lead them into heaven, same is true of Saddam and of Bin Laden, they have convinced their supporters that they are emissary’s for god and they do his bidding, it is very much like the cults like at Waco but on a much larger scale.
I think the fact that most westerners don’t see religion as a tool to use as a weapon makes it less likely for us to attack our neighbours, although we have faith, many us wouldn’t take up arms if the Pope or whoever had told us too, we know we have another choice and that’s to say no, but places like Iraq are governed by religion and in their world anyone who slights Islam deserves death.
About France and Germany, you might be forgiven for thinking that their past now governs their actions, and to some extent it might, but I don’t believe for a second that to be the major reason. Both are in a position where they could have proved a point to the world, but both missed an opportunity. With France came the chance to show their thanks for saving their butts in WW2, as well as learning from it’s past, sitting back thinking nothing will happen to them if they leave well alone was precisely the same dangerous mistake they made with Hitler, so they have learned little.
With Germany came the chance to show that they are prepared to stand alongside their one time foes, almost sixty years on and they still have yet to show unity amongst in the world, this was their chance, a lot of people who served in WW2 would have forgiven the Germans, but not now. No one would have thought bad of Germany if they had helped in this war, it would’ve proven beyond doubt that they are now truly our allies, yet those of us who have learned of their ways in the past will now that they still have a certain arrogance about them, many in Germany still believe they are the master race, not all and as time goes on the younger generation dispel that myth, but not enough time has gone by to forget it, all it could take is a demoralised country and a leader who instills false belief back into the German people for it all to kick off again, and that’s how the German people felt during the two world wars, they are a proud, but still ultimately a dangerous country.
Obviously the likelihood of either these scenarios being repeated are slim, but the two countries who owe so much to not just the UK and US, but also the rest of the world, backing off in another time of need begins to cast doubt on whether they can ever be trusted to help in the world’s time of need.
It’s like most people, you put them under the spotlight long enough and you will see what they are truly made of, for me the US and the UK have shown the world that their acts during WW2 was part of what these countries and their people are truly all about, and we are again showing that this was no fluke, we are not warmongerers, we are people who wish to ensure freedom for all and will fight to make sure that no one is oppressed, whereas Germany and France do exactly as they did in WW2, France capitulates with relative ease and Germany opposes us.
All in all the French are German people are good neighbours, but when the going get’s tough (and it’s likely to get tougher and they know it), we can’t count on them, because like the anti-war brigade they have no answer to how this situation can be resolved, so at the end of the day they are doing what serves their interests and not the interests of the world as a whole.
ADM[quote=”Jhevz”]What I mean by that A-DM is after the US takes over Iraq & liberates the people, who’s going to become President of Iraq & who would want that job; also, since our Troupes have seized Saddam International Airport, there’s no way in knowing how the citizens of Bagdad are going to respond to our Troupes. Hopefully this time, we’ll take Saddam down & not do like 1991 & just leave the Iraqi people hangin’ yet 1 more time.[/quote]
**That’s a simple question to answer Jhevz, there is an opposition to the Ba’ath (Saddams Rgeime) party, it is an underground movement for obvious reasons, and most are dissedents who have fled Iraq. The same has happened in Afghanistan, the former political bodies who fled have returned to govern that country, the Iraqi people will not fall under the rule of an American president, the US knows that will not work, but the US will insist that democratic elections are part of Iraq’s makeup, this would allow the Iraqi people the same rights we have when electing our leaders.
[quote=”Jhevz”] There’s no arguement that both pro & anti groups are supporting our Troupes oversees & pray they return safely; it’s why they’re there in the 1st place. I support our Troupes in memory of the 3 Vaughn men (Great Uncles Clem & Marion & Granddaddy, G. H. Vaughn) who came back alive from serving World War II; also, I do pray for our Troupes safe return back home, so they can be with their families again.
Here’s what I think should’ve of happened instead us going to war with Iraq: [color=blue]President Bush needed to [b]listen to the UN Officials[/b] & [b]why France, China, Germany & Russia oppose this war[/b], let the UN Officials keep finding these `weapons of mass destructions’ & let them (UN Officials) finish their work they’ve started & finish his work that he started, & still ongoing, in finding the Tallyban in Afghanistan, 1st; [u]this President will be known as the unfinished President, he never finishes what he starts.[/u][/color] This is just my own opinion & also the way I feel about it.[/quote]**The UN officals would never have found it all, Iraq is too big a country for that too succeed, and Saddam is far too clever to allow them to get close enough, he was moving his labs around to avoid weapons inspectors. You have to remember that the creation of biological, chemical and even nuclear devices does not require huge sprawling facilities, the reaction for a nuclear test can be done in a very small confined area, as all that is needed is the knowledge too produce the chain reaction in atoms to know how to get a nuclear weapon to work, and weapons grade plutonium and uranium is like a very fine dust, only visible by it’s radioactive output.
His chemical weapons programme is even easier to conceal, as it only needs a drop of anthrax to kill a hundreds of people, it can be concealed in milk tankers or in just about anything, and unlike radioactive materials, it is virtually untraceable, as many chemical and biological weapons don’t survive in an airborne environment for long, the only real tell tale signs are the use of protective clothing and anti-serums. And even if the weapons inspectors had found the thousands of missing litres of Anthrax, Sarin and mustard gas, all that would happen is that Saddam would be required too destroy them, which he would do, but whilst doing that he would be cooking up another batch elsewhere.
Also, even if enough proof was gained, what would then happen, I’ll tell you, we would be exactly where we are now…at war.
Saddam is very adept at playing cat and mouse games, the time it would’ve have taken to disarm Saddam would have been long, and in that time remains that incredible danger of Saddam slipping it out of the country for use for terrorist organisations like Bin Ladens, in which case he (saddam) can deny all responsibilty for any attack that is made, worst of all is that in that time he can finally get his hands on weapons grade plutonium or uranium, it is too much of a risk to leave Saddam in control, he and Bin Laden could easily have led a worldwide campaign of terror and by the time we realised what he was really up to it would’ve have been too late, do you really feel safe when there is even a remote chance of that happening?, oh and from someone who knows a bit about science, I can tell you it’s not to difficult to place chemical, biological or nuclear materials inside a missile, and that’s why the inspectors concentrated on the destruction of missiles more than anything else, but if you take away his missiles, he still has the capability to deliver these weapons, Bin Laden or any other terrorist could help with that, it could be done in a suitcase or in a hijacked plane, plenty of suicide bombers looking to get to heaven that would happily march into your local McDonalds with an atomic/radioactive/chemical or biological weapon. The fact is, is that weapons inspectors can’t ever hope to trace everything Saddam has, he had the upper hand, if they ever got too close he would kill the scientists involved and even possibly kill the inspectors and then blame it on a terrorist cell, it really is a no-win situation.
As for China and Russia, I do believe they are honourable and wish to see an aversion to war, but they do so because like all of us they fear a possible escalation, France and Germany have other motives, which I believe are not so honourable.[quote=”Jhevz”] There’s no disagreement that Saddam Hussain is a terrible person & should be oust, but as I said before, who’d take over as President of Iraq, who’d want the job & it would be the toughest job after this war’s over; our job there is not done & I do hope our President doesn’t just leave the Iraqi people hangin’ like his father did, then who knows what will happen.[/quote]
**Like I said, there will be an Iraqi government in place, Bush and Blair will not risk the wrath of the rest of the world if they do not adhere to what they have already promised, but the job will be difficult because Saddam’s regime is made up of Sunni muslims, whereas the majority of Iraqi’s are Shia muslims, and along with the Kurds it makes for a very volatile mix of religious groups who don’t get along. If you put a Shia government in place you then have one that sees Iran as a friend and Saudi Arabia (sunni) as an enemy, if you leave the Sunni’s in control you effectively leave Iraq as it is now, the Shia’s won’t accept that, the Kurds can’t take power because they are a minority group that neither the Shia’s or Sunni’s will accept, so yes it will prove very difficult to say the least.
As for us withdrawing troops, yes the bulk will go, but a UN peacekeeping force will remain and it will be quite sizable, as the UN members will commit troops to tour in Iraq.
And yes George Bush Snr should have finished the job, but my guess is that civilian casualties would have been far heavier back then, my guess is that he was advised that next generation precision bombs were being tested at that time but were not ready for deployment, he may have decided that the gulf war then would have been too costly as world opinion was beginning to go against him, and the huge losses inflicted on the Iraqi people would have left America in a very dangerous position at that time.
The fact is, is that the American people also did not have much faith in Bush Snr, they saw him as incompetent, and they don’t have much faith in his son either, I don’t think the American people realised that Bush Jnr would take this path and didn’t see it coming, so now he has been labelled war hungry because Clinton did not get involved in any war like this, it looks bad because of that, both generations of Bush’s taking America too war, it’s an unfortunate coincidence in which people who oppose Bush use to it’s fullest effect. In a way, the only thing Bush Jnr can do is win this war to show that the Bush name does fulfill what it set’s out to do, anything less and Bush Jnr will be derided as much as his father has been, your President has to juggle this with the interest of your own security, he has too look out for you, and he would never have been put in this position if two planes had not slammed into the twin towers, all that has happened since is related to that one incident, and your President knows that Iraq can afford to not only bankroll terrorism but also supply the weapons to make 9/11 pale into insignificance. And although that I agree that America’s involvement in other conflicts has not been handled the best way and will forever come back too haunt the US, it has too be said that Bush Jnr is the President of the United States, it has to be his job to protect you at all costs, if you criticise him for that, then Saddam and his ilk have already won.
ADM
[quote=”Jhevz”]
Take care, have a nice April & peace be with you all.
[/quote]
**You too Jhevz, let’s hope that one day peace will prevail.
[quote=”Jhevz”]
Pray for our Troupes safe return Home,
Jhevz[/quote]This is NOT a personal attack. ADM, I think you don’t have a clear view of current events. To me you seem to be really emotional about this war, and don’t seem to have given the issues at hand clear thought.
First off, to say that the vast majority of people not wanting war are cowards, or muslim or anti-american is silly and untrue. It’s a blantent lie. The majority of people on this planet not wanting the war in Iraq are neither cowards, muslim nor anti-american. Just look at all of Europe and the stand the E.U. has taken on the issue. Look at East Asia. Look at Southern Africa. Look at Southern America. None are Muslim, Anti-American or Cowardly.
Secondly, The U.S. actions are very much like early Nazi Germany.
This may shock you, but the US is not so perfect. It has commited many crimes, like selling gas used for chemical weapons to Saddam himself pre the gulf war or backing Bin Laden. There are other well known aspects to US foreign policy which is why so many good hearted educated people in the world take exception to the current US war-mongering policy.
You can take what ever stance you want on the issue, but be careful of using facts that are untrue, or making statements that can’t be backed up by fact. It is your divine right as a human to make up your own mind… however, stating misstruths will only add fuel to the fire of those not in agreement.
certain parts of your post are troublesome; the us is like early nazi germany? please elaborate, is that in the taking away the rights of jews, homosexuals, communists, gypsies or other political desirables? is it in the appropriation of properties of these unfortunates, or taking the most aryan looking of their children away to be raised by well placed military and political types? perhaps it was in the methodical and long term plan of eventually ridding germany permanently of these sorts? or was it just the general plan to consolidate all of europe into the third reich? whether they wanted to or not? 😉 by the way, have you ever noticed how no german admits to being in the ss? they were all regular german army at worst, and of course no one noticed all the people going missing… no wait, that was in poland wasn’t it…my bad, i guess i am totally blanking on when the us practiced systematic genocide or terrorism…and by the way, most of us in or working with the military have never approved of selling our weapons/technology to anyone; today’s friend is unfortunately tomorrow’s enemy…yeah, the us has made some bad decisions, and personally, i still think all countries should be allowed to fester in their own private hells, so no, i don’t really see why we are in iraq, but that still doesn’t make me or my countrymen nazi’s…but i would like to see bin laden and all of his supporters flayed alive on network tv, hell i ‘ll bring the popcorn and beer, do you think they would be so kind as to turn themselves in to the un? or maybe one of the countries supporting/hiding them will do it? just to be nice you know, not because they are expecting anything out of it 😆
[quote=”lexxrobotech”]This is NOT a personal attack. ADM, I think you don’t have a clear view of current events. To me you seem to be really emotional about this war, and don’t seem to have given the issues at hand clear thought…..[/quote]
**Equally, you have no facts to say what I write is untrue, I don’t need too support any of what I say with facts, you only have too look for yourselves.
A lot of my posts won’t sway anyone, but I’m not blinded with anything other than the one fact that Saddam is the reason this war is happening, and I don’t care who does takes him out so long as someone does, and I know for that too happen war was neccessary, in this instance it is a black and white world, they is no grey, there is no other choice.
But until this war is over and the job is done the accusations thrown at America don’t mean ‘jack’, leave it until after Saddam has gone, at least that way America has bought you more time to throw accusations at them.
ADMI was surprised at your post lexxrobotech :/
I don’t think there has been a dictator like Hitler. Saddam certainly isn’t like the dude. Certainly he’s as evil as Hitler, but he commits his atrocities for completely different reasons. He’s just power crazy. Hitler was a nutter – a powerful nutter…. Hmmmm. Maybe that’s not quite true. Maybe to be a dictator you HAVE to be a nutter? I guess you can have different types of nutter, ones that are racially motivated, money mad or just plain thirsty for killing and mutilation!
How then, can you compare a democracy (two democracies, Brits and Yanks) with Hitler!? Sure they have their consitutional problems (I saw a report today that shows the Brits have one of the highest poverty figures in Europe – and those bloody French didn’t even show up in the figures (I wonder who’s statistics they were!)) and similar problems with the US [i]- Americans are the first to raise such points[/i], hell, every time the President of the US ventures out of the White House he nearly trips over some sort of demo of say a group against the [i]poor treatment of gay japanese immigrant shoe salesmen [/i]or something.
The fact is that if we look hard enough, we can see problems with all our countries, the difference between the US and Nazi Germany, is that people in the US can do something about it. If there is a backlash against Bush after the troupes come home, [b]his ass is toast![/b] ie. [i]someone else will be votes into the Presidency. [/i] Which of course, to a US president (the most powerful geezer in the world) is [b]a fate worse than death![/b]
I suspect the VAST majority of people against this war are actually against the might and force of the US military flexing it’s muscles and making us all feel very meagre. It sure scares the shit outa me and some of my best buddies are Americans.
Some dude on TV tells me that the US is more powerful (militarily speaking) than the NEXT 27 MILITARY POWERS PUT TOGETHER! Strange how most of these nations are against the war (Russia, China, France etc.).
We can mudsling all day, but just bear in mind that whether this war is justified or not, the troops are in there now. We can’t pull them out now without dishonouring those who were killed and injured in action,
For better or for worse, events have been set in motion. Instead of arguing about who is to blame for putting us in this situation, ask for a quick resolution with as little loss of life as possible, and then ask what is the best way to move forward to the future. Quibbling over the past solves nothing.
Perhaps if you reread my earlier posts you would get a clearer understanding.
When I say that “The U.S. actions are very much like early Nazi Germany” I mean that the disregarding of the UN is grounds for trouble further down the road. Early Nazi Germany new that the UN as such was powerless to do anything, thus the taking back of land took place. The US and UK new that they could go with or without the rest of the worlds backing.
This all brings back into what worries me. The US foreign policy has failed often. It tends to be really short sighted. This is what worries the other UN Countries.
Look at the US’s to main enemies. Osam Bin Laden and Saddam. Both were put in power by the US. Again, failed foreign policy.
FX – You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said that Americans were Nazi’s. I could have worded it better, but I am comparing the invasion despite foreign anger.
ADM – Read my posts. I don’t understand why you keep going back to Sadam. I hate the guy just as much as you do. My wish was that diplomacy could have been given a chance. It wasn’t given enough chance to. I have been in battles, which is why I would have liked to have seen diplomacy fully used. War should only be a last measure, and in this case it wasn’t.
SadGeezer – Like I said to FX, it is like Germany Pre World War II ignoring the rest of the world and simply pushing ahead because it suited their agenda and nobody else was prepared to do anything about it. I am not and have never said that the US are Nazi type people or that Bush is a Hitler himself. However, there are certain actions that are undeniably similar.
Fluffy Bunny – I agree with what you said, but history has a tendency to repeat itself, which is why we should look back so as to see where we are going.
All in all, I think there is going to be a terrible backlash to this war.
[quote=”lexxrobotech”]Perhaps if you reread my earlier posts you would get a clearer understanding.
When I say that “The U.S. actions are very much like early Nazi Germany” I mean that the disregarding of the UN is grounds for trouble further down the road. Early Nazi Germany new that the UN as such was powerless to do anything, thus the taking back of land took place. The US and UK new that they could go with or without the rest of the worlds backing.
This all brings back into what worries me. The US foreign policy has failed often. It tends to be really short sighted. This is what worries the other UN Countries.
Look at the US’s to main enemies. Osam Bin Laden and Saddam. Both were put in power by the US. Again, failed foreign policy. [/quote]
Ok so you’ve stated the problem- all very well and good. Now what do you propose we do about it?
Firstly – give diplomacy a full chance at working. (This wasn’t done… the US felt it was taking too long)
Secondly – get the UN backing
Thirdly – attack as a last resort only.
You know, under Apartheid you had two complete opposite sides in an evil national conflict. What happened is that two great men (De Klerk and Mandela) got together, then got both evil factions together and thrashed it out behind closed doors. A peaceful solution was found, and the New South Africa was born. The evil militant blacks and the white racist dictatorship was destroyed and the South African public as a whole was freed. Without war. Without bloodshed. Diplomacy.
I’d just like to add that if you often wonder about true democracy and diplomacy, you should read Nelson Mandela’s “Long Walk To Freedom”.
That book changed a lot of my views on how to solve problems. No matter how strongly you feel about something, there is someone that feels just as strongly against it. It is the ability of mutual tolarance that will lead to peace.
[quote=”lexxrobotech”]I’d just like to add that if you often wonder about true democracy and diplomacy, you should read Nelson Mandela’s “Long Walk To Freedom”.
That book changed a lot of my views on how to solve problems. No matter how strongly you feel about something, there is someone that feels just as strongly against it. It is the ability of mutual tolarance that will lead to peace.[/quote]
i applaud your faith in diplomacy, and your championing of a great man…but let’s not give people the idea that the south africans, particularly the hard core afrikaners , came to the table of their own accord…a lot of countries, including the us, had to get off of their complacent tushes and bring strong protest and economic sanctions to bear on south africa to help get the parties to sit down and talk (you see, all that ‘divest in south africa’ stuff happened while i was in college, about the same time that the shah’s iranian students were at my university staging demonstrations against the shah 😉 )…and there was a lot of unfavorable publicity about the atrocities perpetrated in the townships by the south african government, not to mention the political prisoners such as mandela…although i noticed your listing as south africa, i would not have brought any of this up until you opened the discussion…i say again, although i am not prowar, i think i am tired as an immigrant of hearing countries, including the one of my birth (italy), whining about the evil americans and the horrible things that they have done, while taking american money hand over fist as they scurry to hide the far uglier skeletons in their closets…so while we discuss the war, let us leave out the antiamerican rhetoric, and talk about how, outside of force, we are seriously going to get saddam, or the terrorists, to bow to outside pressure and come to the table and talk…do you seriously think all these suicide bombers are going to say, gee you are right, what was i thinking? reason only works with the reasonable…why haven’t all the socalled peaceful muslims banded together to toss these terrorists out? i am not being contentious, i am simply still waiting for a reasonable answer….
[quote=”FX”]so while we discuss the war, let us leave out the antiamerican rhetoric, and talk about how, outside of force, we are seriously going to get saddam, or the terrorists, to bow to outside pressure and come to the table and talk…do you seriously think all these suicide bombers are going to say, gee you are right, what was i thinking? reason only works with the reasonable…why haven’t all the socalled peaceful muslims banded together to toss these terrorists out? i am not being contentious, i am simply still waiting for a reasonable answer….[/quote]
(1) Bring Hussein up on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Doing so has helped force more than one tyrant out of office.
(2) Use the military we’re currently using to bomb the hell out of Baghdad to support the UN inspection process — [b]which was working already.[/b] (Oh, and news break: [b]there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[/b] British Home Secretery David Blunkett has already admitted that WMD may never be found in Iraq. The closest we’ve come? Pesticide. Yep, Weapons of Mass Insect Destruction. The question of WMD *only* came up at the time that we sought UN approval. It was never mentioned previous to that because *it wasn’t an issue* even though Iraq was known to be the next stop after Afghanistan.)What suicide bombers are we talking about, FX? You mean the ones that came from [b]Saudi Arabia[/b] on behalf of a terrorist organization acting on behalf of a Saudi in hiding in Afghanistan to attack the WTC and the Pentagon? Because they’re not part of the conflict we’re currently discussing, nor are they even [b]remotely connected[/b] to the conflict we’re discussing, and so they should not be considered part of the discussion on Iraq. No evidence links them, any evidence that was cited beforehand linking Iraq and Al Qaeda has been proven to be false, and this connection has just been repeated over and over in order to get people to believe it despite its inaccuracy.
Just curious as to your opinions on this issue:
Should Bush and Blair stand before a war crimes tribunal if no WMD are found? I know many of you will say they will be held accountable by the public, but how many of you would say a war crimes tribunal would be appropriate if nothing was found?
[quote=”fluffy bunny”]Just curious as to your opinions on this issue:
Should Bush and Blair stand before a war crimes tribunal if no WMD are found? I know many of you will say they will be held accountable by the public, but how many of you would say a war crimes tribunal would be appropriate if nothing was found?[/quote]
A tough question to answer, because I don’t know where exactly the cutoff point is for what is considered a “war crime.” If it comes up that there are no WMD found, then at the least I’d hope that someone moves for impeachment.
Hi All,
I believe in a peaceful solution to getting Saddam, if he’s still alive, to reveil all the weapons of mass destruction, then inprison him; I don’t believe in creating World War III, which we’re in right now. By the time this war began, the UN was finding all kinds of things that would make a weapon, not just the Chemical & Bioligical weapons. We should be supporting our soldiers, not the guy who put them them, President Warmogar Bush, or as my parents like to call him, King George; King George is the 1 we should rally against, not the soldiers.
I think that anyone who for this war should read the peaceful, Anti-Bush posts, so that may be there can be an understanding to anyone who’s opposing this war; I also think that if anyone who’s for this war believes that those of us opposing this war is Anti-American, not supporting our Troupes & pro-terrorism, better realize & understand that there are many of us who oppose World War III & are Anti-Bush, but [b]we do support our soldiers[/b]; we’re just Anti-King George, & none of us support terrorism, you just pay way too much attention on those Protestors who make the rest of us who oppose this war like fools. Yes, I’m opposing this war, but I believe there are peaceful solutions to everything; anyway, it’s King George who wanted World War III in the 1st place.
In all the posts I’ve been reading here, I don’t hear or see anyone writing about what’s going happen after this war’s over & the US has conquered & taken over Iraq; no body’s writing about post-war Iraq, it’s all just about the war. I’d like to have something written about what will happen after this war’s over.
Take care, have a nice April & Peace be with you, all.I believe in Peace,
JhevzJhevz – fantastic post!
FX – Your ignorance is staggering. When, in any of my posts, have I given the impression that I am anti-american? I am anti the current US foreign policy. I don’t know what else to say to try and make you see that. Try read my posts. I find it insulting that you call me anti-american, especially when I have American friends and family.
As for the South African bit… yes, all Countries have their skeletons. I have said that already. I agree with you on that. One thing I must add… perhaps you should read up on Apartheid before you judge it. The sanctions damaged the people of SA, not so much the apartheid government. It played right into the Apartheid Governments hands. They were inforcing isolation, the west was just making it easier for them. As for America’s involvement in the ending of Apartheid. That was almost none existent. The US bribed the Apartheid Government in the 80’s to fight the Angolans and wipe out the communist tide sweeping Southern Africa. Although this was disgusting, when the New South Africa was born, the UK and US did the most for South Africa. They helped write our constitution and do many other uplifting tasks. There are many reliable books to read up on this subject. I suggest you read some before you go off on a tangent.
lol- if I go into postwar Iraq, my pessimism comes through. Assuming WMD aren’t found
1) Iran and Syria become insecure with regards to the American troops posted on their doorstep
2) Someone has to pay for the war- chances are it’ll be the Iraqi people. Reparations didn’t do postwar germany (WWI) any good. Iraq may come to hate its so called liberators as well. After all, despite the oil and relative wealth of Saddam, Iraq is a 3rd world country- and reparations could cost Iraq dearly. Iraq stays broke, the people get enlisted as terrorists by slightly wealtier nations in the gulf region not due to religion, but simply due to the benifits money can provide to them and their families in a poverty stricken country.
3) Rise of pan-arabism unifying the arab states in resentment of the States operating in a region that ‘should have been left alone’
4) UN shown to be weak, and more easily bypassed in future conflicts (I still see America going to war with Iran in the next few years)
5) Division of NATO- France and Germany wanting a separate european army to offset American and British dominance at the mo. Distrust and petty infigting—-> what was the cold war about anyway? Arabic countries building their own forces and preparing for Israel and America.
There’s more, but I’m getting hungry
-LaterLexxrobotach wrote:ADM – Read my posts. I don’t understand why you keep going back to Sadam. I hate the guy just as much as you do. My wish was that diplomacy could have been given a chance. It wasn’t given enough chance to. I have been in battles, which is why I would have liked to have seen diplomacy fully used. War should only be a last measure, and in this case it wasn’t.
You don’t understand why I keep going back to Saddam???, what war are you watching?, it’s because it’s about Saddam, it’s not about your gripes over the US’s foreign policy, if you want to go on a US bashing spree then start a new thread, this one is about the war, it has nothing to do with what you feel America has done in the past.
And you’re saying read your posts, well why should I when you’ve clearly not read mine, if you had you’d realise that diplomacy doesn’t work with Saddam, you’re not dealing with other UN countries that recognise diplomacy, you know nothing of Saddam, if you did you’d know that it’s obvious diplomacy is just a tool for him to buy more time for him. While a diplomatic solution is attempted, Saddam is saying what you want to hear, while in reality he has no intent of following anything set down by the west.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Saddam doesn’t come from our culture, he doesn’t follow our rules, telling him to do something is not going to work…ever, the threat of war means nothing to him, whereas an actual war does. And after all the diplomatic avenues have dried up, where will we be?…in Iraq and engaged in war, that’s where, and all that the diplomacy had resulted in, is buying Saddam more time to prepare for it by getting his hands on more weapons, possibly even nukes, so I say again…Diplomacy and UN Inspections mean nothing to Saddam and are as a result doomed to failure.
And as you so inaccurately quoted a likeness to the US and NAzi Germany, here’s another thing you should know. The UN (or league of nations as it was then) did nothing but try to find a diplomatic solution to the impending crisis that led too WW1 and WW2, when they finally realised they could not get the Nazi’s too listen, it was too late.
There is a time a place for diplomacy, this conflict isn’t one of them, for diplomacy too work both parties need to play ball, and Saddam was never going to. Diplomacy is an invention for the west, Saddam has no interest in what we declare morally wrong, he answers only to Allah and not western diplomacy, his beliefs are based on religion, everything he does is governed by the belief that God has wished him too take such action, he rationlises his actions by what he believes God has asked of him, no diplomacy, politics or inspections is going to sway him in that belief, and If you really do think that diplomacy is the answer then I’m afraid you live in a fantasy world.
ADM[quote=”A-DM”]his beliefs are based on religion, everything he does is governed by the belief that God has wished him too take such action, he rationlises his actions by what he believes God has asked of him, no diplomacy, politics or inspections is going to sway him in that belief, and If you really do think that diplomacy is the answer then I’m afraid you live in a fantasy world.
ADM[/quote][url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=615&e=19&u=/nm/20030404/pl_nm/iraq_bush_europe_dc_2]Bush’s Religious Basis for War[/url][/url]
[quote=”lexxrobotech”]Firstly – give diplomacy a full chance at working. (This wasn’t done… the US felt it was taking too long)
Secondly – get the UN backing
Thirdly – attack as a last resort only.
You know, under Apartheid you had two complete opposite sides in an evil national conflict. What happened is that two great men (De Klerk and Mandela) got together, then got both evil factions together and thrashed it out behind closed doors. A peaceful solution was found, and the New South Africa was born. The evil militant blacks and the white racist dictatorship was destroyed and the South African public as a whole was freed. Without war. Without bloodshed. Diplomacy.[/quote]
**South Africa has no bearing in this conflict and there isn’t anything to say that what worked in South Africa will work here.
For starters it took the two main political leaders to resolve their differences, do you honestly think that Saddam is going to sit down with Bush and thrash out a peaceful solution?, this isn’t about two cultures sharing the same country as with SA, you are so way of the mark with this it’s unbelievable, peace was achieved within a country that didn’t threaten the security of the west, it has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict and as a result your attempt to liken your country’s success would never work in this scenario.
Saddam hates the west, diplomacy is an action that only works in the west, Saddam is not going to be told how to behave in a country that he more than runs, in his mind Iraq belongs to him, as do the Iraqi people.
And the US was right, it was not so much taking so long, more so that it would’ve taken longer, and all the while Saddam is given more time to play cat and mouse and either deploy or create more weapons, that simply is not a risk worth taking when everyone knows at the end of the day Saddam is a threat, that if left alone would attack the west.
ADM[quote=”Aleck”][quote=”FX”]so while we discuss the war, let us leave out the antiamerican rhetoric, and talk about how, outside of force, we are seriously going to get saddam, or the terrorists, to bow to outside pressure and come to the table and talk…do you seriously think all these suicide bombers are going to say, gee you are right, what was i thinking? reason only works with the reasonable…why haven’t all the socalled peaceful muslims banded together to toss these terrorists out? i am not being contentious, i am simply still waiting for a reasonable answer….[/quote]
(1) Bring Hussein up on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Doing so has helped force more than one tyrant out of office.
**He’s already up on charges of crimes against humanity, Amnesty international has put forward a strong case in light of his treatment of the kurds, yet oddly he is still in office, secondly, do you honestly think he will answer to a tribunal set by the west?
(2) Use the military we’re currently using to bomb the hell out of Baghdad to support the UN inspection process — [b]which was working already.[/b] (Oh, and news break: [b]there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[/b] British Home Secretery David Blunkett has already admitted that WMD may never be found in Iraq. The closest we’ve come? Pesticide. Yep, Weapons of Mass Insect Destruction. The question of WMD *only* came up at the time that we sought UN approval. It was never mentioned previous to that because *it wasn’t an issue* even though Iraq was known to be the next stop after Afghanistan.)
**Oh so we’re wrong to bomb Iraq, but we’re right to do it while UN inspections go on, and the point of that would be?
And how can you say that the inspection process was working?, Hans Blix already stated he knew Saddam had weapons, but was unable to provide strong enough evidence, I would say that was an abject failure on their part.
**NEWS FLASH** A number of missiles has been found that may have been tipped with chemical and biological agents, Hans Blix had documented evidence of missing chemical weapons, yet Saddam denied their existence.
And the question of WMD did not only come up when seeking UN approval, it was well known after the last gulf war what weaponary Saddam may have possesed, and during the time between that war and this one, weapons inspectors had been sent in, so it has been a mitagating factor all along.
And of course the question of WMD is going to be raised witihin the UN, the UN requires full disclosure from the US as too why they seek a resolution on war, so of course it’s going to be mentioned.What suicide bombers are we talking about, FX? You mean the ones that came from [b]Saudi Arabia[/b] on behalf of a terrorist organization acting on behalf of a Saudi in hiding in Afghanistan to attack the WTC and the Pentagon? Because they’re not part of the conflict we’re currently discussing, nor are they even [b]remotely connected[/b] to the conflict we’re discussing, and so they should not be considered part of the discussion on Iraq. No evidence links them, any evidence that was cited beforehand linking Iraq and Al Qaeda has been proven to be false, and this connection has just been repeated over and over in order to get people to believe it
despite its inaccuracy.[/quote]**Wrong Aleck, the same groups of people that came to assist the Taliban have been reported as active within Iraq, as the Taliban had links too Al Qaeda, so do these people, so FX’s statement is correct. No documented proof linking the Iraqi regime to either the Taliban or Al Qaeda is present, but that in no way means you can rule out a link between them, at the moment Hezbollah are in Iraq supporting Republican Guard, but this has been reported as a visual sighting, and other active cells from terrorist organisations have been spotted. We all know Al Qaeda is lying low, it’s unlikely that it will commit it’s supporters to Iraq while so many US and UK special forces are there, for fear of capture and disclosing information that may lead to the capture of Bin Laden.
But you cannot discount the possibilty of Al Qaeda approaching the Iraqi regime if this war had not taken place, for that matter any terrorist organisation.
And at the nd of the day there is a considerable risk of Saddma linking up with Al Qaeda, but it’s some people will ignore that risk until evidence is provided, by which time they have attacked again and then you’re proof is found amongst the dead of innocent civilians, personally, I would prefer to extinguish any chance of that happening.
ADM[quote=”Aleck”][quote=”A-DM”]his beliefs are based on religion, everything he does is governed by the belief that God has wished him too take such action, he rationlises his actions by what he believes God has asked of him, no diplomacy, politics or inspections is going to sway him in that belief, and If you really do think that diplomacy is the answer then I’m afraid you live in a fantasy world.
ADM[/quote][url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=615&e=19&u=/nm/20030404/pl_nm/iraq_bush_europe_dc_2]Bush’s Religious Basis for War[/url][/quote]
I want to clear up what is a misconception amongst some people (not sure where you heard it): Saddam is not really religious (although he calls on the religion now — jihad — so as to garner support from Arab peoples) — his party’s secularism is one reason why bin Laden hated it so much. He modelled himself after Stalin (even had similar purges after gaining power in a coup), and the Baath Party is secular (not religious), in fact it was originally founded on socialist principles.
As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was…), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.
BTW, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t bad enough! 😯
Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires — they’re both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn’t mean that there are no similarities — and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).
Just something that still bugs me…
BTW, ADM, you’re an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define “coward”?
[quote=”Jhevz”]Hi All,
I believe in a peaceful solution to getting Saddam, if he’s still alive, to reveil all the weapons of mass destruction, then inprison him; I don’t believe in creating World War III, which we’re in right now. By the time this war began, the UN was finding all kinds of things that would make a weapon, not just the Chemical & Bioligical weapons. We should be supporting our soldiers, not the guy who put them them, President Warmogar Bush, or as my parents like to call him, King George; King George is the 1 we should rally against, not the soldiers.
(edited by FX) squish, check your email
Get Saddam to reaveal where his weapons are?, what do you think the UN inspectors have been trying to do for crying out loud, oh, and if he reveals where they are he can then go too prison, wow, what generosity, I’m sure he’ll want to tell all after that offer.
And yes they were finding missiles, but not the large quantities of Sarin and Anthrax that Blix had documented proof on, that was the big target, and they couldn’t find it because a:Saddam catergorically denied it’s existence, and b: they didn’t know where to look.
And for the last bloody time Jhevz, it’s not WW3, you need a world to be involved for that too happen, at at the last count it was three countries, so for christ sake stop calling it WW3.I think that anyone who for this war should read the peaceful, Anti-Bush posts, so that may be there can be an understanding to anyone who’s opposing this war; I also think that if anyone who’s for this war believes that those of us opposing this war is Anti-American, not supporting our Troupes & pro-terrorism, better realize & understand that there are many of us who oppose World War III & are Anti-Bush, but [b]we do support our soldiers[/b]; we’re just Anti-King George, & none of us support terrorism, you just pay way too much attention on those Protestors who make the rest of us who oppose this war like fools. Yes, I’m opposing this war, but I believe there are peaceful solutions to everything; anyway, it’s King George who wanted World War III in the 1st place.
Fair enough it you don’t like Bush, but using that as an excuse to stop a war to rid the world of Saddam is really lame, as most of the anti-war brigade seem to enjoy a bit of Bush bashing over what is more important, i.e the removal of Saddam, I choose to ignore their rants.
And you like everyone else in this merry band of anti war posters has yet to provide a solution, you post and then post some more on how much you hate Bush, blah, blah blah, but not one of you has come up with a viable solution for a peaceful outcome.
So for all your Bush bashing and anti US foreign policy and what the US has done in the past, and let’s hang Bush and Blair becuase their war criminals rubbish, not one has given a solid answer to my request to a peaceful solution that requires not a shed of blood be dropped to rid the world of Saddam…WHY?…because you can’t, and for this reason alone your posts are worthless, and with it comes the conclusion that this war is justified, because at the end of all tyour protestations for peace you have nothing to offer other than your personal dislike for Bush, America and anything else you think might be wrong in the world.In all the posts I’ve been reading here, I don’t hear or see anyone writing about what’s going happen after this war’s over & the US has conquered & taken over Iraq; no body’s writing about post-war Iraq, it’s all just about the war. I’d like to have something written about what will happen after this war’s over.
Take care, have a nice April & Peace be with you, all.**Are you completely blind or do you just have selective reading disorder???, I’ve already posted what’s likely too happen, and the US isn’t conquering Iraq, conquering Iraq means an that it becomes part of the US, and I certainly haven’t heard plans to that effect.
ADM[quote=”FX”] …why haven’t all the socalled peaceful muslims banded together to toss these terrorists out? i am not being contentious, i am simply still waiting for a reasonable answer….[/quote]
Oh come on FX, you know the answer to that! It’s the same reason why the Europeans didn’t stop Hitler before he killed millions, or the same reason many of the African and South American conflicts have been so bloody and miserable.
They all sat back and waited for the United Nations and other beurocratic and stupendously inept attempts at diplomacy before relying on the Americans (sometimes grudgingly) to come and sort it all out for them!
For those of you that are Anti-war and/or anti-US I’d say that it’s my belief that the UN is a breeding ground for a bunch of idiots and petty minded squabblers. I bet the Arab League fully backs the US intervention in this war (at a high level anyway), but they are very worried about US imperialism, belligerence and arrogance.
Why? Because the US has the resources to kick the shit outa anyone who disagrees with them.
For fuck sake! US foreign policy is there to protect the interests of US citizens and allies (less the allies and more the citizens) – it’s as simple as that. We all accept the help of the US when it suits us and argue it when it helps themselves. When the US feels threatened they will bloody well do something about it. [b][color=red]no-one will come to their aid if they don’t![/color][/b].
The rest of the world had it’s chance to sort out Saddam and failed. Not only did they fail, they failed miserably at the cost of thousands of Iraqi lives.
The UN passed a resolution to sort out Saddam if he didn’t come clean. He didn’t, and they all wanted to ignore the first resolution and pass another lest stringent one.
Looking on, I expect the US (worried after the terrible aftermath of 9/11), decided that enough was enough and that they would do something about it.
I feel helpless when a decision like that is made, I feel my country is helpless and that other European countries are also helpless. But we only had ourselves to blame. You, me and everyone else didn’t do anything other than say, “Saddam is a real git isn’t he?” (or words to that effect) and yet some of you bellyache when diplomacy fails – when it fails BIGTIME! (and it was given enough time – years and years and [b]years![/b])
Ok, maybe I’m nieve but I honestly believe that in ten years time iraqis will be anti-American because their foreign policy was far to slow to react to Saddam (ie. they didn’t take him out in the early 90’s) which directly resulted in the deaths of thousands of Arabs at Saddams hands!
[b][i]Lexxrobotech. For goodness sake, if you make inflammatory statements quoting books instead of facts then you should expect inflammatory replies.[/i][/b]
Considering your own diplomatic skills, ADM, I can see why you would be so convinced that a more diplomatic solution was impossible.
Here’s a quote from [i]The Prisoner[/i] (Fall Out) that I just feel like sharing with you just for the hell of it (it’s kind of relevant on a couple of different levels):
[quote=’The President”]
This session is called in a matter of democratic crisis and we are gathered to resolve the question of revolt. We desire that these proceedings be conducted in a civilised manner, but remind ourselves that humanity is not humanised without force, and that errant children must sometimes be brought to boot with a smack on the backside.[/quote]And just for fun, ’cause I don’t give a flying phut: Here’s some more of it…. Feel free to skip it…
[quote=”The President”]
We have just witnessed the two forms of revolt. The first, uncoordinated youth rebelling against nothing it can define. The second, an established, successful, secure member of the Establishment turning upon and biting the hand that feeds him. Well, these attitudes are dangerous, they contribute nothing to our culture and they must be stamped out…We are honoured to have with us a revolutionary of a different calibre. He has revolted, resisted, fought, held fast, maintained, destroyed resistance, overcome coercion. The right to be a person, someone or individual. We applaud his private war, and concede that despite materialistic efforts, he has survived intact and secure! All that remains is recognition of a man. A man of steel…[/quote]
We now return you to your regular harassment…
I want to clear up what is a misconception amongst some people (not sure where you heard it): Saddam is not really religious (although he calls on the religion now — jihad — so as to garner support from Arab peoples) — his party’s secularism is one reason why bin Laden hated it so much. He modelled himself after Stalin (even had similar purges after gaining power in a coup), and the Baath Party is secular (not religious), in fact it was originally founded on socialist principles.
**Yes he is, he belongs to one of the strongest suits of muslim caste their is…Sunni Muslims, he killed the Kurds because of their religious beliefs, and he hates the Shi’te factions in the south and they hate him, it was only his paramilitary forces that kept them in check.
As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was…), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.
**Oh, yes and don’t forget America claiming it’s the master race and that the Jewish people deserved to be wiped out, oh and good choice America to start of your world domination, a third world country, while Nazi Germany was taking over countries bordering it, America decides to start their world domination by invading a dusty, not particularly rich third world country.
Your description of America can be added to any of the top six nations of the world, and of course you going to have increased Xenophobia, especially when two large planes smash into the side on one of your national treasures, your reasoning for linking the US to the Nazi’s is absurd, try to come up with something a little more compelling next time.BTW, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t bad enough! 😯
Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires — they’re both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn’t mean that there are no similarities — and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).
Just something that still bugs me…
BTW, ADM, you’re an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define “coward”?[/quote]
**Do you actually read any of these posts at all?
Ummm to take action despite his beliefs for starters, i.e instead of whining about how the war is wrong, give me the solution that will stop it, and please spare me the diplomacy routine, I want a solution that means no bloodshed.
But my main attack is the cowards that use this war to their own advantage, they are not interested in the War, they use people like you to get another point of view across, look for them at these demonstrations, they are not hard to miss, they will be the ones showing their political allegiance on placards, these are the cowards, they are also the organisers of such demonstrations, and people like you are their mouthpiece.
ADM[quote]FX – Your ignorance is staggering. When, in any of my posts, have I given the impression that I am anti-american? I am anti the current US foreign policy. I don’t know what else to say to try and make you see that. Try read my posts. I find it insulting that you call me anti-american, especially when I have American friends [/quote]and family.
lexxrobotech; may i remind you of the rule about insulting people in the forums? and as far as your feeling insulted about being called antiamerican, to quote you, you are putting words in my mouth…and while we are discussing personal issues, i have family in south africa, and my mother’s family was in a detention camp during world war II for ‘harboring jews’,do we really need to trade victim credibility here? obviously everyone here has some personal stake in any war …having said that, i should have prefaced my weariness about antiamerican rhetoric being an ‘in general’ sentiment at this point, that’s why i brought up other countries in the discussion later on…i am equally offended by the pretexts offered for this war, that is why i keep asking why iraq, why now….and while i agree that you did not call americans nazis in a previous post, you likened them to early nazis; that can be interpreted as inflammatory, which is why i asked you to clarify, and accepted that explanation when you offered it…
on the topic of suicide bombers, aleck, i mean not only the wtc/pentagon bunch, but the ones in israel (i alluded to suicide bombers on buses/marketplaces in a previous post), the ones at the checkpoints in iraq who wave soldiers over and then blow themselves and everyone around them up,in short, the whole concept of suicide bombing…where do you start to talk to people like that? where is the willingness to discuss things in a reasonable fashion when that becomes an acceptable alternative? how do you deal with that sort of mentality?
as far as having some sort of world tribunal decide that saddam should leave, and have the us enforce it, it seems to me that you would still be at war, only without having officially declared it…and again, why iraq ?so many other countries have their hands dirty on the terrorism issue, why are we specifically going after iraq? i will ask again, why don’t the peaceful muslims police themselves (and therefore the rest of the world in the bargain,) why are we having to try to smoke out these vermin at all…i am feeling fairly hopeless about the whole issue, i think that many just don’t care, and so we are more or less stuck with an insoluble problem since we can neither fight nor shame the entire muslim world to give up their support of the terrorists…
[quote=”Logan”]Considering your own diplomatic skills, ADM, I can see why you would be so convinced that a more diplomatic solution was impossible.
Oh, so I need to be a diplomat to post here, oh excuse me I didn’t realise that was a neccessity, I’ll sign up for a course so I can continue posting here…but in the meantime you can go too hell!!!j/k
Seriously, this discussion was never going ot be as light as other topics debated on this board, and nor should it be, I’m not saying we should start throwing insults at each other, but chew on this, if I can’t get you to see my point of view, and you can’t get me to see your’s, then why on earth do you think diplomacy will work on someone (Saddam) who wasn’t listening in the first place???
ADM[b]ADM, your posts are getting increasingly dificult to read, there are some that I just can’t follow.[/b]
[b][color=yellow]Please follow the correct posting etiquet and make sure your quoted text is credited to the correct poster. [/color][/b] This can be done in the following ways:
The [color=cyan]Quote [/color]tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters [b]in a separate box[/b]
For instance:
[code:1][quote="Saddy"]The Quote tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters [b]in a separate box[/b][/quote][/code:1]
would produce:
[quote=”Saddy”]The Quote tag should be used to highlight text quoted by other posters [b]in a separate box[/b][/quote]
The [b]quote=”postername” [/b](encased in square brackets) should be placed at the start of the quoted text and a [b]/quote[/b] tag (encased in square brackets) should be placed at the end of the quoted text.
You should avoid wherever possible quoting too much text as people don’t want to re-read text that they have seen above. Try to just quote the points you are arguing.
I’m sorry if this sounds patronising. I really want to read your posts, but it’s difficult.
wow, i posted and went away, i come back and have to scroll through all the other heated replies to find it 😉
i guess we are all pretty worked up, but several good points have been made so let’s keep trying to come up with a better understanding of each other, if not an innovative solution to this whole mess 8)
saddy god love you for saying what you think! btw, when i ask questions, i am usually just trying to draw people out, i know damn well why the muslims aren’t taking care of this mess themselves…a lot of them agree with it, and ,as you said, even more of them are just keeping their heads down hoping someone else will take care of it…i was just hoping someone else would take the bait 😛
My responses indicated by a yellow Logan, so I guess you’ll be calling me a coward too! LOL, kidding the Logan is in orange.
BTW, apologies that I can’t go into more depth, or spellcheck, but I have to leave shortly.Logan: I want to clear up what is a misconception amongst some people (not sure where you heard it): Saddam is not really religious (although he calls on the religion now — jihad — so as to garner support from Arab peoples) — his party’s secularism is one reason why bin Laden hated it so much. He modelled himself after Stalin (even had similar purges after gaining power in a coup), and the Baath Party is secular (not religious), in fact it was originally founded on socialist principles.
ADM: Yes he is, he belongs to one of the strongest suits of muslim caste their is…Sunni Muslims, he killed the Kurds because of their religious beliefs, and he hates the Shi’te factions in the south and they hate him, it was only his paramilitary forces that kept them in check.
[color=orange]Logan[/color]: No, I mean that I do not believe that he is a particularly religious man– just because you may belong to a religion does not neccesarily make you religious. And the Baath Party is considered to be secular as I said (certainly by Moslem standards) and he is the leader. He only uses religion for his own ends, as I intimated.
For what I’ve read and heard on the news, it was not because of religious beliefs particularly that he killed the Kurds, it was because he saw them as a threat — especially to his party’s control of the oilfields in Northern Iraq. BTW, do you think in Turkey that they’vre been killed the Kurds for religious purposes only — I don’t. Again with the Shiites, they were considered a threat (religion may have been used by some — I don’t know — in the Baath Party to justify these actions. Also, there is a huge Shiite population in Iran and Iraq was fighting them, aso in part due to oil like with the invasion of Kuwait (that was when Iran was the US’s enemy and Iraq was their ally) — I don’t think I need spell out the ramifications. BTW, you do know that Tariq Aziz is a Christian, right?
Logan: As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was…), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.
BTW, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t bad enough! 😯
Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires — they’re both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn’t mean that there are no similarities — and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).
ADM: Oh, yes and don’t forget America claiming it’s the master race and that the Jewish people deserved to be wiped out, oh and good choice America to start of your world domination, a third world country, while Nazi Germany was taking over countries bordering it, America decides to start their world domination by invading a dusty, not particularly rich third world country.
Your description of America can be added to any of the top six nations of the world, and of course you going to have increased Xenophobia, especially when two large planes smash into the side on one of your national treasures, your reasoning for linking the US to the Nazi’s is absurd, try to come up with something a little more compelling next time.[color=orange]Logan[/color]: Ah, I think you missed my point by a long-shot (again). My point was that one can draw parallels (I never said it was a good thing to do so), just as one can find dissimilarities, and I understood what Lexxrobotech was getting at, and I find your atiitude “ungenerous” to him to his argument to say the least. He never said they were the same… I’ll leave it at that.
Logan: Just something that still bugs me…
BTW, ADM, you’re an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define “coward”?[/quote]
ADM: Do you actually read any of these posts at all?
Ummm to take action despite his beliefs for starters, i.e instead of whining about how the war is wrong, give me the solution that will stop it, and please spare me the diplomacy routine, I want a solution that means no bloodshed.
But my main attack is the cowards that use this war to their own advantage, they are not interested in the War, they use people like you to get another point of view across, look for them at these demonstrations, they are not hard to miss, they will be the ones showing their political allegiance on placards, these are the cowards, they are also the organisers of such demonstrations, and people like you are their mouthpiece.
ADM[/quote][color=orange]Logan[/color]: Still looking for clarification…
Do you read my posts? You haven’t answered my question, or if you did I missed it again. A coward is “someone who is easily frightened or intimidated by danger or pain” (OED). So why are they cowards? Specifically cowards. It’s funny that you called them cowards again before even answering my question, and I think I can see a little begging the question in your posts.
[quote=”FX”]on the topic of suicide bombers, aleck, i mean not only the wtc/pentagon bunch, but the ones in israel (i alluded to suicide bombers on buses/marketplaces in a previous post), the ones at the checkpoints in iraq who wave soldiers over and then blow themselves and everyone around them up,in short, the whole concept of suicide bombing…where do you start to talk to people like that? where is the willingness to discuss things in a reasonable fashion when that becomes an acceptable alternative? how do you deal with that sort of mentality?[/quote]
(A) There’s no reason to bring up the WTC/Pentagon bombers because there have been no ties shown to exist between them and Iraq. Iraq is a separate issue.
(B) As far as I know, there hadn’t been suicide bombers in Iraq prior to hostile military attacks on, and occupation of, the country. Fact is, the throngs of citizens welcoming us, the “liberators,” don’t exist. Most don’t want us there. We’re bombing restaurants and markets; we’ve cut off electricity and clean water to civilians; we’re grievously wounding and killing hundreds of civilians — not just armed forces, but innocent civilians. The people we’re supposed to be liberating. You think that’s going to result in us getting hugs and kisses? You think they’re looking forward to post-war Iraq and want us hanging around for however-many years it’s going to take? Of course they’re going to take desparately insane actions like this. All they have to do is look over at our victory in Afghanistan for their potential future — the people left to supervise the reconstruction going unpaid and leaving, chaos reigning supreme, and the people this was supposed to get rid of coming back with no opposition (that’s right, the Taliban is moving to take back Afghanistan because the US [i]failed[/i]). That’s a future I’m sure they’re looking forward to. But then, there’s the control of the oil fields — surely we’re not going to abandon *that*, so we’ll need to install a government that will ensure that nothing silly happens (like switching their oil trade currency standard from the US dollar to the Euro, possibly encouraging OPEC to follow suit and causing turmoil and economic crisis). And I don’t think any reminders need to be made of how successful the US government has been in installing people in places of power overseas. There’s a legacy of *stellar* human rights among those “friendly dictators.” Another something to encourage Iraqi citizens to welcome us with open arms.[quote]as far as having some sort of world tribunal decide that saddam should leave, and have the us enforce it,[/quote]
Where’d I say that we alone would enforce that?
[quote]it seems to me that you would still be at war, only without having officially declared it…[/quote]
Not necessarily. If there was a way to proceed in having Hussein removed [b]without killing everyone in his path[/b], I’m sure that an international coalition sent in to retrieve him would be a hell of a lot more welcomed than the “we’re going to bomb your cities into the stone age [i]just to deliver a message[/i]” approach that was spread around. We surely wouldn’t be facing the resistance that we’re seeing now.
[quote]and again, why iraq ?so many other countries have their hands dirty on the terrorism issue, why are we specifically going after iraq?[/quote]
Don’t you know? It’s because he’s got WMD! Didn’t you see all that Sarin nerve gas? Oh, sure, it *seems* like it’s only pesticides…that’s just what they *want* you to think. Believe me, when your back is turned, *kapow!* it turns into Sarin. Amazing stuff, that.
[quote]i will ask again, why don’t the peaceful muslims police themselves (and therefore the rest of the world in the bargain,) why are we having to try to smoke out these vermin at all…i am feeling fairly hopeless about the whole issue, i think that many just don’t care, and so we are more or less stuck with an insoluble problem since we can neither fight nor shame the entire muslim world to give up their support of the terrorists…[/quote]
Where were the good Catholics during the days of the Crusades and the Inquisition? I mean, sure, PJPII kind of halfway apologized for that a couple years ago, but where was the outrage when it counted? Where were the humanitarian settlers when we were busy committing attempted genocide against those unlucky enough to have been born here before we arrived? Why didn’t more landowners unite and say that it was [b]immoral to own another human being[/b] before the Emancipation Proclamation made it illegal and forced that fact on them? Why couldn’t the Catholics take care of Timothy McVeigh? Can’t they police themselves? (insert your own priest joke here) How many Christians have called for Jerry Falwell’s silence because he claimed that sinners caused the events of 9/11 to be visited upon us because we’d [b]pissed off God?[/b] Can’t they take care of these idiots themselves?
aleck, i am going to take this in the spirit it is offered; you are ranting at me, but the fact is i don’t disagree with what you are saying…we have already had the discussion about bin laden being a saudi, so why iraq, we have already discussed that quatar was also harboring al qaeda, so why saddam and his cronies, etc etc etc…and i for one do not give a hairy rodent’s butt about wmd, or iraq’s oil, or any of that hooey…and i have nagging doubts about bush’s motives as well…so kindly stop berating me 😛
i will point out one teeny tiny issue i don’t believe is germane; the crusades were over 800 years ago… devil’s advocate you may play, but the fact is that behavior is frowned upon by most christians for , oh, say the last 300 years or so…slavery is bad, and lynching is bad, and yes, racism still exists,and jerry falwell is an unmitigated moron but i guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not that is the same evil as holocausts or these terrorist acts… or whether it is even relevant…i happen to believe that systematic, premeditated murder of large numbers of nonmilitary people is the big ultimate evil,no mitigating circumstances… and those who do it should be held accountable for it, and the rest is just so much philosophical meandering…i will go out on a great big limb here and add that if you know about but don’t stop people from committing mass murder, oh say, as in ‘my cousin in afghanistan or wherever, is planning bad things, but it’s not really my problem,’ then you are just about as guilty as the guy who actually does it….so once and for all, as clearly as i can say it, i do not agree with this war, but i do want all the murderers punished, and right now, i have a very jaundiced view about all the muslims who are not turning these creeps in…
[color=blue]I will attempt to do the same as Logan, by highlighting my response in blue, and I apologise Saddy, it does appear jumbled!!![/color]
ADM: Yes he is, he belongs to one of the strongest suits of muslim caste their is…Sunni Muslims, he killed the Kurds because of their religious beliefs, and he hates the Shi’te factions in the south and they hate him, it was only his paramilitary forces that kept them in check.
[color=orange]Logan[/color]: No, I mean that I do not believe that he is a particularly religious man– just because you may belong to a religion does not neccesarily make you religious. And the Baath Party is considered to be secular as I said (certainly by Moslem standards) and he is the leader. He only uses religion for his own ends, as I intimated.
[color=blue]ADM: I do not believe so, he does use religion to his own ends, but we don’t know how strong his belief in his faith is, maybe he does employ an approach that is akin to Stalin, but like so many other’s the middle east, a leader does require a following of religion to guide his actions. I go by his treatment of the other muslim groups in his country which he treats with disdain, his actions towards both Shi’te and Kurd indicate his attacks on them being for religious reasons. [/color][/color]
For what I’ve read and heard on the news, it was not because of religious beliefs particularly that he killed the Kurds, it was because he saw them as a threat — especially to his party’s control of the oilfields in Northern Iraq. BTW, do you think in Turkey that they’vre been killed the Kurds for religious purposes only — I don’t. Again with the Shiites, they were considered a threat (religion may have been used by some — I don’t know — in the Baath Party to justify these actions. Also, there is a huge Shiite population in Iran and Iraq was fighting them, aso in part due to oil like with the invasion of Kuwait (that was when Iran was the US’s enemy and Iraq was their ally) — I don’t think I need spell out the ramifications. BTW, you do know that Tariq Aziz is a Christian, right?
[color=blue]ADM: Again, we can only speculate on how religious he is and to what are we making a comparison too?, I think he would find it difficult too convince suicide bombers to attack the coalition if they didn’t believe in his religious conviction, like Osama, he has said that such people will attain their place in heaven for their actions, but these people would need to know that he is sending them to their deaths with a strong religious belief.[/color]
Logan: As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was…), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.
BTW, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t bad enough! 😯
Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires — they’re both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn’t mean that there are no similarities — and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).
ADM: Oh, yes and don’t forget America claiming it’s the master race and that the Jewish people deserved to be wiped out, oh and good choice America to start of your world domination, a third world country, while Nazi Germany was taking over countries bordering it, America decides to start their world domination by invading a dusty, not particularly rich third world country.
Your description of America can be added to any of the top six nations of the world, and of course you going to have increased Xenophobia, especially when two large planes smash into the side on one of your national treasures, your reasoning for linking the US to the Nazi’s is absurd, try to come up with something a little more compelling next time.[color=orange]Logan[/color]: Ah, I think you missed my point by a long-shot (again). My point was that one can draw parallels (I never said it was a good thing to do so), just as one can find dissimilarities, and I understood what Lexxrobotech was getting at, and I find your atiitude “ungenerous” to him to his argument to say the least. He never said they were the same… I’ll leave it at that.
[color=blue]ADM: My attitude being ‘ungenerous’ is exactly that, I don’t believe that this sort of talk has any merit whatsoever, you can apply the same principles to many countries, but he has obviously singled out America and only America to say such things, you can’t ignore that he is making a comparison between Nazi Germany and the US, but for so many reasons he is wrong, the examples to show a link between the two are not enough to be convincing, like I said these same examples can and do apply to other western countries, but that does not make them akin to Nazi Germany. For instance you can draw a comparison that the American are an intensely proud people, as were the Germans during the time of the nazi’s, but in no way can you assume this makes them the same, it is loosely based at best, and what he say’s serve’s no function but too insult Americans.[/color]
Logan: Just something that still bugs me…
BTW, ADM, you’re an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define “coward”?[/quote]
ADM: Do you actually read any of these posts at all?
Ummm to take action despite his beliefs for starters, i.e instead of whining about how the war is wrong, give me the solution that will stop it, and please spare me the diplomacy routine, I want a solution that means no bloodshed.
But my main attack is the cowards that use this war to their own advantage, they are not interested in the War, they use people like you to get another point of view across, look for them at these demonstrations, they are not hard to miss, they will be the ones showing their political allegiance on placards, these are the cowards, they are also the organisers of such demonstrations, and people like you are their mouthpiece.
ADM[/quote][color=orange]Logan[/color]: Still looking for clarification…
Do you read my posts? You haven’t answered my question, or if you did I missed it again. A coward is “someone who is easily frightened or intimidated by danger or pain” (OED). So why are they cowards? Specifically cowards. It’s funny that you called them cowards again before even answering my question, and I think I can see a little begging the question in your posts.[/quote]
[color=blue]And yet again you pay no heed to my posts, in fact I used your own description of a coward to answer your question, or do you not remember posting the bit about ‘or take any action despite his beliefs’.
You cannot interpret the literal use of the word ‘coward’ to this, my understanding of a coward is for someone to incite disorder whilst not having the guts to admit as much, which is akin to ‘or take any action despite his beliefs’, or someone who is frightened of confrontation when faced with a challenge to their beliefs, both in your own description and in the OED’s explanation can you find why I call these people cowards.
Specifically to use other people’s beliefs and fears, using them as a front for your own beliefs whilst never admitting that this is your intention, for me that is a form of cowardice. An example in it’s simplest form, like a playground bully, the bully starts a fight, he starts to lose the fight, he then uses other people’s agenda’s to get other’s into the fight on his behalf, and then the bully leaves them to fight for him, he has left other’s to make the confrontation for reasons that had originally nothing to do with them[/color].[color=#444444][/color](B) As far as I know, there hadn’t been suicide bombers in Iraq prior to hostile military attacks on, and occupation of, the country. Fact is, the throngs of citizens welcoming us, the “liberators,” don’t exist.
[color=red](Funny how how I’m seeing plenty of pictures of Shi’te muslims in Basra doing exactly what you say does not exist, and I suppose the people pulling down a Saddam statue while Iraqi crowds cheered was my imagination as well, so it’s not a fact Aleck, because you’re not there so you don’t know jack, my brother is there and I know from his recent post that the Iraqi people have been friendly).[/color]
Most don’t want us there. We’re bombing restaurants and markets; we’ve cut off electricity and clean water to civilians; we’re grievously wounding and killing hundreds of civilians — not just armed forces, but innocent civilians. The people we’re supposed to be liberating.(
[color=red]Most do want us there, specifically the Shi’tes and Kurds, and as you don’t seem to keep up with the news, power and water has reconnected by British engineers in Basra. And the hundreds of civilians that you talk of, I don’t suppose those also include the human shields and those shot by Iraqi paramilitaries do they?, no let’s not include them, it’s far easier to pour blame on our soldiers isn’t it. This is a war, you cannot ever guarantee zero deaths among the populace, and those who look to be liberated and even those who are not are not stupid enough to think otherwise. Don’t try to make out that the soldiers are blatantly attempting to harm civilians because
you do not know of what you speak. [/color][/color]You think that’s going to result in us getting hugs and kisses? You think they’re looking forward to post-war Iraq and want us hanging around for however-many years it’s going to take? Of course they’re going to take desparately insane actions like this.
[color=red]Oh right, so we’ve gone into this war expecting gratitude, get real will you, the armed forces have gone in to do a job, they are not looking for ‘hugs and kisses’. And yes they are looking to a post war Iraq, or more specifically an Iraq without Saddam, but by your reasoning they should be happy too continue under that regime.
As for the forces that remain behind, so you’re suggesting we leave them (the iraqi’s) as soon as we’re done then?, well that will send out a good message won’t it, you know as well as I do that the US will eventually be followed by a UN peacekeeping force in the country when it is deemed safe enough, but again by your odd logic the Iraqi people should be happy to see our backs once Saddam is gone, a broken country in need of rebuilding, schools and hospitals to be built, food and international aid, freedom to do as they choose without fear, I’d wan’t those who brought that about out as well, out of all the arguments I have seen on this board, your’s is without a doubt the most ill-informed I have seen. You have absolutely no basis for any of what you have said.[/color]All they have to do is look over at our victory in Afghanistan for their potential future — the people left to supervise the reconstruction going unpaid and leaving, chaos reigning supreme, and the people this was supposed to get rid of coming back with no opposition (that’s right, the Taliban is moving to take back Afghanistan because the US failed).
[color=red]Please tell me where you are getting this nonsense from?, I have yet to see anything that suggests that the Taliban are returning, so I suppose the US and UN are going to allow the Taliban too waltz back into Afghanistan after all the trouble it took to oust them?, and also that we’re going too allow Osama to come back, because if the Taliban do so, then you can be damned sure Osama would be back, doing so is a huge security risk and I don’t know what political lobby you subscribe to, but whoever they are they must be insane to think that this would be the case, so again I say you are posting unfounded rumour and gossip, and no I won’t accept a link from you as definitive proof before you start with that, because it’s most likely that it will be from the same places where this nonsense began.[/color]
That’s a future I’m sure they’re looking forward to. But then, there’s the control of the oil fields — surely we’re not going to abandon *that*, so we’ll need to install a government that will ensure that nothing silly happens (like switching their oil trade currency standard from the US dollar to the Euro, possibly encouraging OPEC to follow suit and causing turmoil and economic crisis). And I don’t think any reminders need to be made of how successful the US government has been in installing people in places of power overseas. There’s a legacy of *stellar* human rights among those “friendly dictators.” Another something to encourage Iraqi citizens to welcome us with open arms.[color=#444444][/color][color=#444444][/color]
[color=red]As has already been stated, the Iraqi oilfields make up for about three percent of the worlds oil trade, and has been stated on public record, the money used for sale of this oil will be used to fund the rebuilding of Iraq, and although the US is sceptical about allowing the UN to oversee it’s rebuilding, it’s most likely this will happen.
And like Afghanistan there will be an interim govenrment, one that attempt to bring some stability until the Iraqi people are in a position to vote for their leaders, but before that happens there needs to be a ‘calming’ down period, in which a makeshift Iraqi government is installed.
And given that everyone knows the US previous bad record, do you honestly believe that America will make another amazing blunder too happen?, the choices have to be left to the Iraqi people, the middle east is too volatile an area for America to ‘americanise or westernise’ a part of it, this is essentially a PR exercise, one that America cannot afford to get wrong, the need to ensure that this region is a success, otherwise it will be viewed negatively by other Arab states, there is already enough anti-american fervour in these Arab states, America needs to make friends out there, and if they get this right then it might be a small step in the right direction. [color=#444444][/color][/color][quote=”A-DM”]Please tell me where you are getting this nonsense from?, I have yet to see anything that suggests that the Taliban are returning, so I suppose the US and UN are going to allow the Taliban too waltz back into Afghanistan after all the trouble it took to oust them?, and also that we’re going too allow Osama to come back, because if the Taliban do so, then you can be damned sure Osama would be back, doing so is a huge security risk and I don’t know what political lobby you subscribe to, but whoever they are they must be insane to think that this would be the case, so again I say you are posting unfounded rumour and gossip, and no I won’t accept a link from you as definitive proof before you start with that, because it’s most likely that it will be from the same places where this nonsense began[/quote]
The Associated Press. That’s where my “nonsense” is coming from. Do some research, please, before you start flying off the handle. Do a search for the headline “Taliban making a largely uncontested comeback in Afghanistan.” Reported from Kandahar, Afghanistan.
[quote=”A-DM”]out of all the arguments I have seen on this board, your’s is without a doubt the most ill-informed I have seen. You have absolutely no basis for any of what you have said.[/quote]
It’s not like you’ve been swimming in evidence of anything besides parroting what the official line has been (or whatever it happens to be at the given moment). You’ve been saying the same ill-informed crap over and over and over. Repetition doesn’t equal accuracy.
[quote=”Aleck”][quote=”A-DM”]out of all the arguments I have seen on this board, your’s is without a doubt the most ill-informed I have seen. You have absolutely no basis for any of what you have said.[/quote]
It’s not like you’ve been swimming in evidence of anything besides parroting what the official line has been (or whatever it happens to be at the given moment). You’ve been saying the same ill-informed crap over and over and over. Repetition doesn’t equal accuracy.[/quote]
Oh and I suppose you’re the inside man are you?, and that offical line is all you get too receive as well, so quit patronising everyone for a change Aleck, it’s tiresome.
And as for the saying the same crap over and over, well that’s because people like you only listen to your own conceited views, and as for repittion doesn’t equal accuracy, well neither does blatant lying…but that doesn’t stop you, does it.
ADM
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.