Slightly Disturbing World News

Post by **Xouqoa** » September 30, 2002, 4:15 pm

Sueven wrote: Xouqoa: Yes, Iraq has sometimes ignored UN resolutions. Of course, they've only ignored about 1/4 of the number of resolutions that Israel has. Additionaly, some Israeli's, both military and civilian, routinely kill and beat Palestinian civilians, and bulldoze Palestinian neighborhoods. But now we want to blow up Saddam because we think that he's building nukes?

Yeah, Israel does some pretty messed up stuff too and unfortunately, we just look the other way. I think after we get the Iraq situation handled, and take care of Al Queda, that our next attention should be focusing on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and trying to stabalize that. While we're making the world a better place (har) we might as well fix everything!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2002, 4:17 pm

You've got valid questions.

First its not the fact that Iraq will soon have nukes that spooks people. Its the fact that the guy running the country can't be trusted to act responsibly with them. He's a vengeful nut.

I don't worry about China having nukes because I know that they'll not peddle one Osama in an attempt to get "back" at the US. You can't say the same about Saddam. In fact history teaches us to expect stuff like that from him.

As far as Iraq and UN resolutions. Those on secondary issues the main threat.

Permit me to simplify.

The US government says that they fear a nuclear threat from Saddam.

Saddam says "Trust me I don't have nor would I use such a weapon."

Like most folks I don't totally trust the US government, and I don't trust Saddam. Given that you can't trust both sides fully, one lulled into inaction.

BUT to not act is playing russian roullette with a nuclear bullet!

So, I chose the side of lesser evil. I think the US Government has good reasons to go to war and we need to kill off a Nuclear Saddam before he has the chance to kill millions of us.

The threat is too great.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 30, 2002, 4:25 pm

sueven, you are right that the nation is more in favor of the war on iraq now than 6 months ago, and "nothing" has really changed.

but this isnt because "the media" has hammered home any message about it.

it is because the government has gone on a successful PR campaign for it.

Everyday, practically, Ari Flescher gives a white house briefing. only a half-cocked news agency won't have a reporter there. JUST IN CASE. so they report what he says.

every weekend, if Donald Rumsfeld or DIck Cheney wants to be on "Meet the Press", "Late Edition", "This Week", whatever...the show producer is going to take them everytime. not because the network is the puppet of the government. but because those people are newsMAKERS. they are great guests and if you dont book them for your show, your competitor will. that is part of the White House's PR strategy on "getting the word out on Iraq".

the government is utilizing the competitive situation of a free and open media to its advantage for part of this. nothing wrong with that either, as long as they aren't misleading people, which is an entirely seperate subject

.

adex: i agree that we cant sit and wait for somebody to bomb us. however, there are many things to consider.

1. will attacking iraq do more to hurt our overall "war on terror"? meaning will contries that are marginally on our side (pakistan) no longer give us as much assistance in tracking down terror networks within their borders? this is tough to weigh, where the dangers lie and what the consequences will be of various courses of action.

2. regime change in iraq = occupation force. As xanupox suggested, there are some serious consequences to Regime change in Iraq. Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites with some very old grudges between them and the power-playing begins.

3. what happens if Musharef is overthrown in Pakistan (on a non-related note)? They already have nukes. If his regime is toppled it would most likely be by people non-sympathetic to the West. Do we then go in and invade them because they have nukes and don't like us that much either?

anyways it is a super sticky situation.

i think it is in our best interest to let the UN try to do weapons inspection, most likely fail, then press for military action under the aegis of the UN.

for starters we may get some financial support from the EU for the operation in this scenario. and that is not trivial in our current economy, meaning who is going to foot the bill?

additionally, it will do worlds of difference for us from a PR standpoint with other countries if this goes through "proper channels". i think it is certainly possible with skilled diplomacy to improve the US' position, if we do in fact attack Iraq, from the hand we are currently holding.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2002, 4:31 pm

I'd also mention that many Democrats "Their former Vice Presidential candidate for instance" also see war as the proper choice.

It isn't just a Republican thing.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 30, 2002, 5:04 pm

Sueven wrote: Xouqoa: Yes, Iraq has sometimes ignored UN resolutions. Of course, they've only ignored about 1/4 of the number of resolutions that Israel has. Additionaly, some Israeli's, both military and civilian, routinely kill and beat Palestinian civilians, and bulldoze Palestinian neighborhoods. But now we want to blow up Saddam because we think that he's building nukes?

Ehh, I don't think so. Of course, when you're surrounded by enemies would take shots and have taken shots at eradicating your very existance, going on the offensive is, sometimes, the only outlet.
What Israel's neighbors have tried to do to Israel greatly pales in comparison to the reverse. The only reasons countries tie Israel's hands is because the people who control the oil hate them and because there is a lot of worldly anti-semitism.

Real bad example.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 30, 2002, 5:13 pm

Sueven wrote:Zamtuk: "They are the ones building fucking nuclear bombs?" Newsflash: We already have fucking nuclear bombs. Hundreds of them. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to consider this a crime worthy of going to war for?

This isn't a newsflash. Yes, US has nukes, and tons of them, but with no intent on using them in anyway. Iraq on the other hand has them with intent on using them. Hypocritical? No the fuck it is not. This just in as of today, Iraq is shooting at US/British planes. Hmmmm....

Oh yeah on a side note to all you Canadiens. It was the story following the plane shooting story. Canada has given the US/Britian support for military action and will help us if needed.

Not bad eh?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 30, 2002, 5:26 pm

First of all, even if Iraq had nuclear capabilities, they have no capabilities for delivering a nuclear device to the US. There is a greater chance of them using it on a country like Israel than of dropping one on us. And yes, Saddam is just ignorant enough to bomb Israel. There are a few nuclear device capable countries in that region and one lunatic could set the entire region into nuclear warfare.

And as usual, Kyoukan is doing nothing more than spouting incredibly ridiculous shit with no reasoning behind it. She is only looking for arguments for some reason. Maybe needs some kind of affirmation because of good ass whippings from her/his? boyfriend.

You peaceniks can live in your own rosy little world, but you better pray that not everyone in the west shares your views. There are many power hungry little shitheads in this world that would love to have pacifist pussies they could over-run and control. It is the blood-thirsty savages that are dying in remote shit-holes so you can sit in your air-conditioned dorm rooms smoking weed and drinking beer with Mary Jane sucking your dick and whine about how we shouldn't hurt all those poor people. When they stop killing people for no reason, we stop killing. It is pretty goddamn simple.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » September 30, 2002, 6:31 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I'd also mention that many Democrats "Their former Vice Presidential candidate for instance" also see war as the proper choice.

It isn't just a Republican thing.

I'm not suprised of course, but you just had to make this about party lines....as always....

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2002, 6:55 pm

I had to counter the mentioning of Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney. Writing that way gives the impression that only Republicans are pushing war as the solution.

BTW Voronwe, I don't think we have time to wait on the UN. Once they finish their hand wringing Saddam will have what he needs.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 30, 2002, 7:14 pm

If anyone thinks that setting one nuke off in the middle of the world, whatever country, isn't going to have very strong odds on causing a nuclear holcaust, yer screwing pigeons. First one goes off and it's finger pointing, then someone will want to do the same to whomever did in in the first place to make them stop doing any more. IF it stops there, big if, then yer still looking at the nuke fallout and smoke that'll trash all sorts of ecosystems, and oh, let's not forget about the radiation and birth defects that a single nuke warhead puts off.

Dups. · Post by **Dups.** » September 30, 2002, 9:07 pm

I wonder how people's views would change about sending USA troops off to war so easily if they knew they were going to be drafted into the army.

Instead of being so quick to say/post "Yes, we need to go to war!" and then go back to their regularly scheduled night of EQ and not worry about a thing.

I'm not targeting anyone..... just .. curious...

noel · Post by **noel** » September 30, 2002, 10:02 pm

I'd go if needed.

Here's some fairly impartial information regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that's worth reading:

The Arab-Israeli war is unresolvable. Well, eventually it will be, I suppose, but only by one party either slaughtering the other or by a society wide paradigm shift. Unfortunately I have more confidence in the former happening. I'll explain why below, and give sources so you can learn why from the principles themselves. The Truth Is Out There.

The Israelis believe that Israel is theirs, and is a Jewish state. A Jewish state, by definition a state defined by ethnicity and religion, cannot tolerate Arabs as more than a small, politically powerless minority. Moderate Israelis believe that this means the West Bank and Gaza must be left to fend for themselves and cut off from Israel completely - not only independent, but removed from the Israeli economy. In practice this would (and does, since this is Israel's current policy by default) result in the collapse of the Palestinian economy.

News sources: Haaretz is Israel's main liberal daily. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/

The right wing in Israel believes that the West Bank and Gaza are part of "Greater Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) - the irony of a Jewish state using the language of Nazi Germany's "Grossdeutschland" being completely lost on them. The more lenient believe that Arabs should be allowed to continue to live in these lands, as second class villeins not allowed to vote, work save at menial tasks or move about freely. The hard right believe that Arabs should be expelled from the West Bank and Gaza completely.

News sources: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ is the English web site of "Arutz 7", a pirate radio station and the main voice of the "settlers" living in the West Bank/Gaza.

The current Israeli government is leaning towards the right, although not nearly as hard right as some in Israel demand.

Now for the Palestinians and their Arab allies. Until recently, the Palestinians refused to even admit Israel exists. In many Arab news stories you'll still to this day find the word "Israel" in quotes, or referred to as "the Zionist entity".

The current Palestinian administration, led by Yasir Arafat, cannot decide whether or not it's willing to settle for the West Bank and Gaza (which would leave it a client state of Israel economically if not militarily) or whether it insists on its formerly rejected share of the 1948 partition of Palestine (which would carve out a good 30% of pre-1967 Israel) or whether they should just kill all the Jews and settle in the remains.

Source: Official Palestine Authority web site: http://www.pna.net/
Palestinian Information Center: http://www.palestine-info.com/index_e.htm

One of the core issues for Palestinians is expressed as "the Right of Return". Boiled down, this implies that the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps throughout the region have the right to return to their homes. Those homes being, mainly, not in the West Bank and Gaza, but in what is now Israel. Needless to say this implies Israel no longer existing, either as a Jewish state or in general.

News source: Story on "Right of Return" from PIC, explicity renouncing refugee return to West Bank/Gaza as a solution: http://www.palestine-info.com/daily_news/return.htm

Arafat's best chance to settle the question once and for all was in 1999, when a politically weak Barak of Israel's left-leaning Labor party was willing to give Arafat's Palestine all of the West Bank and Gaza, some small chunks of Israel to make up for border zones kept by the Israeli military, and, most significantly, most of Arab East Jerusalem. Arafat turned him down. To this day no one really knows why - the consensus is that Arafat knew that accepting ANY peace with Isreal would doom his government among Palestinian hard liners.

Those Palestinian hard liners, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, want to overthrow Arafat and establish an Islamic republic in Palestine. There are currently rumors that Al'Qaeda is in the process of relocating to the occupied territories to fight alongside them.

Sources: Hamas official site: http://www.palestine-info.com/hamas/
Israeli rumor site with AlQaeda story: http://www.debka.com/

Don't take my word for it. Read them in their own words, and then tell me again how to resolve the problem of two people who most want, apparently, to kill each other quickly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The situation has devolved to the point where there are no good choices. Each side chose the path of war - Palestine when they turned down the as-good-as-they-were-ever-gonna-get Clinton/Barak proposals, Israel when they elected Sharon.

Israel DAMN SURE knew what they were getting when they elected him - it would be as if we elected Ollie North President after he campaigned on a platform of nuking China till they glow. They basically voted "screw this negotiations crap, we want a leader who will kill Palestinians if they get out of line." And they got him. Sharon may be reviled everywhere else in the world right now, but Israelis think he's just peachy. Then again, if terrorists starting blowing things up in America we'd probably feel the same way. Oh wait - they did, and we did.

As for Palestine, if I could I'd airdrop a copy of Tuchman's "March of Folly" on Arafat's compound, since he probably doesn't have much else to do. The PA's "negotiating postions" are pretty much the classic example of short term political interests utterly sabotaging long term national needs. A few painful compromises a few years ago and Arafat would be ruler of, well, an IMF charity case of a nation, but at least there wouldn't be friendly IDF snipers waiting outside his office waving hi whenever he went to the bathroom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever happened to the 1994 Agreement?
Who broke it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, both. Israel was supposed to quit colonizing the West Bank/Gaza and they didn't. The Palestinians were supposed to quit killing Israelis and they didn't.

The 1994 agreements (called "Oslo" after where they were signed) were negotiated by Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by an Israeli right wing extremist (at the time, the Israeli right was regularly excoriating Rabin as a traitor to Israel because he agreed to the Oslo accords). He was replaced by his foreign minister, Shimon Peres. Peres has a lot of stature internationally but he's a fairly inept politician. He was thrown out of office by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is a very American politician - very polished, very good on TV, and very conservative in a country that still is pretty much purely socialist (with "kibbutz" communes and everything). He also turned out to be not terribly good in office either and inherited a peace agreement with the Palestinians that he didn't really agree in. While not breaking it he pushed at the edges quite a bit.

Netanyahu then lost his next elections (Israel has a lot of elections) to Ehud Barak. Barak basically decided that his legacy was going to be peace in the Middle East. He pulled the IDF out of Lebanon, signed a peace treaty with Jordan, tried like hell to sign one with Syria (he probably would have eventually, had the Syrian president not died in the midst of the negotiations), and, aided by Clinton, tried to end the Palestinian problem by giving them everything they asked for. The problem was that what Barak couldn't compromise on, Arafat couldn't either - namely full sovereignity over Jerusalem (claimed as the national capital by both Israel and Palestine) and the "right of return", which Palestinians see as the right to return home from wretched refugee camps and which Israelis saw as national death since they were already living in the towns and cities that the Palestinians wanted to return home to and even given the unlikely prospect of a "right of return" not involving the massacre of every Israeli, it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish nation since Jews would be a minority.

While Arafat and the Palestinans thought they were being asked to give up too much, Israel did as well. Barak lost his next elections (you may detect a patten here - since Oslo no incumbent Israeli leader has ever won an election) to Ariel Sharon. Sharon is the Israeli equivalent of Jesse Ventura, assuming Ventura lead the US Army in a successful campaign against several Mexican and Canadian invasions. Voting for Sharon meant, in very obvious and no uncertain terms, voting against peace. Which Israel did.

And there you have it up to today. Netanyahu is making rumblings of a comeback, and Arafat's growing a beard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, it smells a lot like racism. The Israeli's want only their kind of people in their little nation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, it is. The problem is that the Palestinians are exactly the same way. Well, actually worse because the Israelis usually don't advocate actually KILLING all the Palestinians, whereas Palestinian spokespersons advocate killing Jews with an annoying regularity.

Basically these guys can't live together peacefully. They've tried - although there are many exceptions on an individual scale, collectively Jews tend to treat Arabs (even Israeli citizens) as third-class citizens in a fashion African Americans would instantly recognize.

For their part Arabs refuse to admit that Jews have a right to, you know, exist and live and breathe. For the longest time Arab nations refused to even say the word "Israel", referring instead to the splot of map where Palestine was supposed to be as "the Zionist entity". Usually Arabs remember to use "fight Zionism" as a codeword for "kill all the Jews" but occasionally they forget, such as the time recently in the Saudi official state newspaper that wrote about the Jewish Passover vampires who suck blood from honest people as part of the Passover ritual. Alas, I'm not making this up.

Given all of this, a little apartheid would probably be better than what's going on right now, which is, not to mince words, a slaughterhouse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point:
This is where most of my anti-israelic anger comes from and why I can understand the palestinians not wanting to settle for less then the whole promised cake. Every plan proposed by israel after 1994 would have given less land and with less self-control to the palestinians. Isreal didn't remove the settlers and did not return the land to the palestinians in the timeframes given in the Oslo agreement - and the palestinians started killing israelis again. From my perspective it's israels own damn fault.

Of course that doesn't solve anything. And I wholeheartedly agree that Sharon is everything he promised to be and that the israelic voters wanted what they got.

Reply:
That's an overly simplistic view. There are some pretty major Palestinian factions (like Hamas and Islamic Jihad) who never recognized Oslo, never recognized that Israel had any right to exist at all, and kept bombing Israeli civilians from the moment the Oslo accords were signed.

There's plenty of blame to go around - no good guys here.

Keverian FireCry · September 30, 2002, 10:06 pm

God, why don't I just burn insense and sing Jefferson Airplane songs all day?

OMG, thats what im doing RIGHT NOW!

/puts daisy in your rifle barrel

/runs naked through the grass

DOWN WITH CAPITALISM! BUSH IS A FRAUD! FREE MUMIA!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 30, 2002, 11:57 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I had to counter the mentioning of Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney. Writing that way gives the impression that only Republicans are pushing war as the solution.

BTW Voronwe, I don't think we have time to wait on the UN. Once they finish their hand wringing Saddam will have what he needs.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are members of the administration. i was talking about the administration's publicity campaign about iraq. the administration is sending key people to tow the line. why would they send people from outside the administration? nothing in my post had anything to do with partisan politics.

i'm curious how you know that saddam is so close to "having what he needs"

he has a nuclear device and delivery mechanism that can threaten the US shores in a matter of 1-2 months? if he can put together one of those so quickly, why did he wait 10 years do it?

this is a very complicated problem, and it will require a much more sophisticated approach than 'shoot first ask questions later' to achieve the solution that is in the best interest of the US.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2002, 12:52 am

Voronwe: You say:

but this isnt because "the media" has hammered home any message about it.

it is because the government has gone on a successful PR campaign for it.

Everyday, practically, Ari Flescher gives a white house briefing. only a half-cocked news agency won't have a reporter there. JUST IN CASE. so they report what he says.

every weekend, if Donald Rumsfeld or DIck Cheney wants to be on "Meet the Press", "Late Edition", "This Week", whatever...the show producer is going to take them everytime. not because the network is the puppet of the government. but because those people are newsMAKERS. they are great guests and if you dont book them for your show, your competitor will. that is part of the White House's PR strategy on "getting the word out on Iraq".

So to summarize:
1. The United States government is using big media to spread their message.
2. Nothing has changed in Iraq.
3. The American public has shifted their support from anti-war to pro-war.

So basically everything I said is true. The fact that big media are willing accomplices is immaterial.

Chidoro: The point of the example is a specific statistic. I'm not trying to contrast the situations, simply the number of resolutions broken. And, while we seem to be so intent on attacking Iraq based on their "violations of UN resolutions," I find it only fair to point out certain facts. Why don't we admit the real reasons why we're attacking? It could be for oil, it could be a personal vendetta, or it could be something else entirely, I don't know. But the point is, the argument that we're doing it based on Iraq's failure to honor UN resolutions is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Adex: I respect your logic. We simply differ in that I don't feel it morally appropriate to invade a nation based on our impression of their leader. Considering that Iraq hasn't been accused of a terrorist act since the gulf war, I find it difficult to attack based on Saddam's anti-west rhetoric alone.

Zamtuk: Because we have all this convincing evidence that Saddam has nukes, let alone is planning to use them! And all this convincing evidence that we're not! Remember a few months ago when it was revealed that we had nukes aimed at Russia and China? Real reassuring there! In addition, Iraq is trying to shoot down our planes because our planes are busy BOMBING THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. It's called "defense."

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2002, 9:27 am

Well he has been accused of financing palestinian terror factions. He's also been accused of harboring al-qaeda members as well. Both have occured in the time frame between the gulf war and present.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 1, 2002, 9:36 am

Sueven said "," I find it only fair to point out certain facts. Why don't we admit the real reasons why we're attacking? It could be for oil, it could be a personal vendetta, or it could be something else entirely, I don't know"

There is a very very simple lgic behind why the US has ever intervened into the middle east. Oil. Not just oil for the US, but all of the industrialized nations. This is not the 1800's. This is the nuclear age. In years past, it didn't really matter that the middle east would fight non-stop and wipe each other out. If any major fighting broke out over there, the chances of a nuke being used are pretty damn good.

The US sticks its nose in as a deterrent to a major war and now we are directly involved in what could be WW3. Do you realize what would happen if the US (and all the UN nations) just said fuck it and pulled out to never come into the region again? First, Israel would wipe Palestine off the map within 2 days. Afghanistan would implode on itself with fighting among its own tribes. God only knows what Iraq would do....my guess is a return visit to Kuwait and maybe Saudi for their helping the US devil last time. Eventually, Israel would be battling most of the Arab nations until someone detonated a nuke. A nuclear war in that region would cut off an enormous oil supply to the world....not just to the US. So do we stay there and be the police force, or let them go at it until the region is in rubble?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2002, 10:02 am

Chidoro: First of all, neither of those qualifies as a terrorist act. Aiding terrorists? Yes. But terrorism itself? No. And considering how much aid we have supplied to terrorists in the same time period, I again find it hypocritical to attack him for it.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2002, 10:29 am

Aiding terrorists falls under the "for or against" clause. Now that we've both agreed that they are against us, proper action must take place

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 1, 2002, 10:56 am

i certainly think conflict is inevitable.

but i think we can force saddam to make it a much more 'favorable' situation for the US to attack him, by letting him turn away inspectors and do his typical round of stupid things.

in the last few weeks there has been increasing support for the US, and i think a bit more patience from us will get stronger support for military action when that time comes.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 1, 2002, 11:12 am

Funny how the U.N. inspectors are now into the second week of negotiations to get access to "sensitive" storage sites in Iraq.

This is EXACTLY the same song and dance we went through the last time.

If anyone still believes that Saddam can be trusted, you are a goober. The only question now is what his intentions are over the next decade. Judging from his past anti-US stance, I would say something very significant is required to convince us he isn't a potential threat.

Post by **Xouqoa** » October 1, 2002, 11:13 am

Exactly, I'll be very disappointed if we act hastily and don't want for a UN Resolution. Afterall, the whole purpose of all this is because Saddam and Iraq 'undermine the authority of the UN'. It would look bad of us to do the same thing by ignoring them and not being patient enough to wait for Saddam to screw up.

I honestly think he'll buckle under the international pressure, at least initially.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 1, 2002, 11:46 am

I think you are overly optimistic, Xou. He didn't buckle last time, I doubt he will this time.

The problem is trying to get that many countries to agree on anything. Hell, we on this board can't agree on what ONE country should do. Add in head-of-state level cock-waving and this will likely take years to work out.

It will end up being a US initiative, with the backing of possibly four other countries. Watch and see.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 1, 2002, 11:51 am

We don't have enough time.

Pubin · Post by **Pubin** » October 1, 2002, 12:21 pm

I just want to blow up the camel fuckers.

Skunki · Post by **Skunki** » October 1, 2002, 12:35 pm

FIrst off, I dont think U.S. wants another Nagasaki/Hiroshima on their hands. It would be the last measure, and a desperate move. However, all this talk about Saddam not having nukes yet or all this out of time stuff.

How do we know he doesnt already have them?

How do we know that the U.S. doesnt already know this? (and no the media or whatever you hear publicly is not the truth, its a spin sometiems to comfort us or scare the hell out of us, but you do not know the real deal) Come on Voro, you on the inside, be our Cancerman(or is that X? cant remember the 21 jumpstreet dude in xfiles hehe!

It would make sense to me that the Pres knows this. And that Iraq is a clear and present danger!

Clear and present danger, this isnt Harrison Ford folks, this is real.

Did you not see the buildings in flame last year?

did you not see the World brought to their knees in a matter of seconds? (good thing the World has some pretty strong knees, without the US how strong woiuld those knees be?)

Did you see us nuke Afghanistan( i know not much to nuke but rocks) but do you think Iraq is any different? Sure he has palaces and such and may be an easier target than the myth of Osama. But i highly doubt you will see the US lob nukes over at Iraq(thats just silly thinking), unless it was the LAST RESORT.

We will invade, hit military targets, send in special ops and try and remove him from power.

My main question is tho, Why would Saddam be so damn protective of his weapons factories for ten years? If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem letting people in to see right?

If i were a Ruthless Dictator, i sure as hell would hide it from you and have them ready to go before you knew about it. He has the funding and the craziness to do it....

think on that a little bit, i didnt read all the posts here but wonder if that was brought up at all?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2002, 1:08 pm

Chidoro:

That falls under the 'for or against clause?' Are you serious? You honestly believe that the entire world can be defined in black and white? Give me a fucking break. Saying that every nation on earth is either with us or against us is a futile exercise in stupidity. Hell, Canada and Britain aren't completely for us-- they disagree with some of what we do. Likewise, Iraq and North Korea aren't completely against us- they agree with some of what we do. Trying to classify nations in this fashion is just moronic and pointless.

Furthermore, even if we are to assume that Iraq is clearly against us and thus appropriate action must be taken (which we are not), why is it an automatic necessity that "appropriate action" become war?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2002, 1:17 pm

Lots of flaming there, congrats. Do me a huge favor and keep your "moronic" adjectives to yourself. I don't need some poli sci punk to start throwing around misplaced adjectives in my direction.

Iraq's leadership is part of the problem and it is as simple as that.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 1, 2002, 1:41 pm

Chidoro wrote:Iraq's leadership is part of the problem and it is as simple as that.

Even if it were as simple as that, it would not justify us undermining the authority of the UN.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 1, 2002, 1:44 pm

What authority, Truant?

The UN has what authority they are given by their client nations, nothing more.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 1, 2002, 2:26 pm

Truant, consider which countries are on the UN commission for human rights.

China
Croatia
Cuba
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Thailand
Viet Nam

The UN has a credibility problem.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 1, 2002, 3:16 pm

Yes the UN has problems, I'm not dumb.

But you are suggesting to bypass all current procedure and make the US the new world authority without bothering to think of what backlash reactions may come of it.

Is conflict inevitable? yes, barring acts of supernatural beings.

Is it possible to limit the amount of conflict that will arise from above mentioned inevitable conflict? Yes, that's what I want to see happen.

edit, for a country that is supposed to be the shining beacon of democracy for this planet, it sure shows authoritarian zeal in dealing with this matter.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 1, 2002, 3:18 pm

So yeah anyway Saddam deserves to die I just don't agree that the innocent people of Iraq have to die for as well when nothing has changed in the last 10 years in terms of threat-scale from the idiot.

All I want to know is when the US is gonna stop calling it a "War on Terrorism" and just start calling it a "War on Arabs".

Prediction: The US will attack Iraq without UN mandate due to lack of patience and start a cold war with the islamic world that will not end in any of our lifetimes. The US will then continue to pursue it's policy of armed self-interest at the expense of the "axis of evil" nations and anyone else who talks bad about them in the meantime. Eventually their overconfidence will cause the to tread on the toes of China and then we get a good old-fashioned superpower showdown like the 40s->80s and we all remember what fun that was, right kids?

You read it here first.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 1, 2002, 3:24 pm

I like the concept of the UN.

I dislike them being slow when haste is needed.

If they could get their act together quickly that would cause many to respect the UN again.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 1, 2002, 3:27 pm

Hmm, interesting you try to label Americans as racist by making a racist assumption about 275 million people.

/boggle

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 1, 2002, 3:32 pm

My prediction,

We gather our army down there assuming the UN will drop the ball. Just about the time the UN finally gets around enforcing its own resolutions we'll be in position to strike the next day.

All the non committed countries will jump on the bandwagon like heavy metal groupies as soon as they know America is going to win.

Saddam will go, The UN and other groupie countries will take credit.

US troops and other UN members will be stuck in the Iraq for 20 years "keeping the peace."

Meanwhile some group we're not even thinking about right now will dirty bomb the United States when we're not looking.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 1, 2002, 4:28 pm

But you are suggesting to bypass all current procedure and make the US the new world authority without bothering to think of what backlash reactions may come of it.

Oh my. Truant, where have you been?

New world authority? This is nothing new, it's been going on for 70+ years now. No other country in the world will take this shit detail.

Backlash? You have two options when dealing with fundamentalists of any stripe. Stand up or roll over.

Take your pick, because it WILL come to that in the end.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 1, 2002, 4:40 pm

Sueven wrote:Zamtuk: Because we have all this convincing evidence that Saddam has nukes, let alone is planning to use them! And all this convincing evidence that we're not! Remember a few months ago when it was revealed that we had nukes aimed at Russia and China? Real reassuring there! In addition, Iraq is trying to shoot down our planes because our planes are busy BOMBING THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. It's called "defense."

If we really had any intent of using nukes, Sueven, we fucking would have by now. We all witnessed Bush's head first dive into wanting to attack Iraq, regardless of what the UN said. We have no fucking intent to use them unless there is a reason (not sure there really is a good enough reason). And we have had nukes aimed at those countries since the fucking coldwar. (READ: We don't like communist countries) Furthermore, I never mentioned a reason on why Iraq is trying to shoot down our planes, but even if we are there to make that place into a fucking parking lot, our planes getting shot at isn't regarded too highly regardless of the reason.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 1, 2002, 5:17 pm

Congo is a huge worldpower IMO.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2002, 5:39 pm

Zamtuk wrote: (READ: We don't like communist countries)

You don't seem to have a problem trading billions a year with China, even during the cold war. Especially during the cold war. I guess cheap labor and no workplace standards transcends political boundaries.

It seems to me that the US doesn't seem to like communist countries that threaten their position of being the only world superpower, and that is about it. Well that and bullying Cuba around to keep south florida voting GOP.

Skunki · Post by **Skunki** » October 1, 2002, 5:56 pm

Yea but at least we dont bomb the baldwin brothers! =p

hehe hi kyou

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 1, 2002, 6:43 pm

Yea but at least we dont bomb the baldwin brothers! =p

Would that really be a bad thing?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2002, 8:26 pm

Chidoro: I'm an English major. One of the things they teach us is that when someone stops responding to points made in an argument and starts either insulting a person or insulting their method of argument, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.

Zamtuk: You say that we've had nukes aimed at China and Russia since the cold war because we don't like communist countries. You do realize that Russia hasn't been a communist country for more than a decade?

Fallanthas: "shit detail?" You call manipulating foreign policy in order to make our nation billions of dollars a "shit detail?" I call it "exploitation."

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 1, 2002, 9:29 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:It seems to me that the US doesn't seem to like communist countries that threaten their position of being the only world superpower, and that is about it. Well that and bullying Cuba around to keep south florida voting GOP.

Uhm China is a superpower, if not THE superpower. Be grateful they seem less inclined to stick their noses into everything like the US seems to. Or maybe be scared that this 800lb gorilla is so quiet.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2002, 10:22 pm

Sueven wrote:Chidoro: I'm an English major. One of the things they teach us is that when someone stops responding to points made in an argument and starts either insulting a person or insulting their method of argument, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.

That's good to hear, maybe you should reread what you posted before shooting yourself in the foot.

I had a hunch you were still in college. That's all I needed to read.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 1, 2002, 10:41 pm

Captain! we've gone recursive! PULL OUT PULL OUT!

Lets talk about something else we've beat this here horse to a bloody pulp.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 1, 2002, 10:55 pm

Fallanthas wrote:New world authority? This is nothing new, it's been going on for 70+ years now.
...
Backlash? You have two options when dealing with fundamentalists of any stripe. Stand up or roll over.

Take your pick, because it WILL come to that in the end.

Yes it has been going on for a long time. Unjustly. That's why international council was set up. Because the US can only act in it's best economic interests.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is kill anyone that is questionably a threat, because that is the only way to be safe right?

Now I'm not trying to make personal attacks here. But that sounds OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS like Stalin.

EDIT||

Chidoro wrote:I had a hunch you were still in college. That's all I needed to read.

Does that somehow make Sueven's, or my, argument/points suddenly moot?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2002, 10:59 pm

Newsflash: Putting those nasty insulting adjectives in front of actual content (referring to things like "facts" and "logical arguments") does not equate to abandoning all pretense of arguing and just spouting off insults. I did the former, you did the latter.

To illustrate: If, in the post in which I first began insulting you, I removed all the insults, it would read like this:

That falls under the 'for or against clause?' Are you serious? You honestly believe that the entire world can be defined in black and white? Saying that every nation on earth is either with us or against us is a futile exercise. Hell, Canada and Britain aren't completely for us-- they disagree with some of what we do. Likewise, Iraq and North Korea aren't completely against us- they agree with some of what we do. Trying to classify nations in this fashion is not sensible.

Furthermore, even if we are to assume that Iraq is clearly against us and thus appropriate action must be taken (which we are not), why is it an automatic necessity that "appropriate action" become war?

Notice that my post still makes sense, and is still a logical argument pertaining to the facts.

Now, this is the first post in which you started making personal attacks, with said attacks removed:

Iraq's leadership is part of the problem and it is as simple as that.

I don't know about you, but there doesn't really seem to me to be any content or facts there, nor any responses to the points I raised. Clear?

Yes, I'm in college. Brilliant fucking deduction. Now why the hell is it at all pertinent to our discussion?

I have a few deductions of my own: I have more knowledge of the issues than you, I respond like an asshole only if provoked (observe my response to Adex), I did not start insulting you and cursing until you started acting like a little prick with no clue, and you have no fucking argument to stand on. Now either get back to the facts or shut the fuck up.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 1, 2002, 11:09 pm

Yup, we have had them pointed at them since the cold war. The reason we don't point them elsewhere would best be described in a monologue from what other movie than Snatch.

"Boris the Blade?

You mean Boris the sneaky fucking Russian."

You cant trust the Russians, never could, never will. Need another example? The Gulf War ended nearly a decade ago yet we still have ships in the Persian Gulf.

EDIT: Being in college has nothing to do with this subject.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2002, 11:16 pm

Saying that we can't trust the Russians isn't an argument I'll accept, especially since they've been nothing but good to us since their conversion to a democracy.

Furthermore, having ships in the Persian Gulf allows us to respond quickly to any situation through direct military action in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, or Somalia. These countries are viewed as legitimate threats by many. Additionaly, we can take indirect action toward basically any country in the region, from Afghanistan on out. There are a variety of uses for these ships, and they are not necessarily threatening.

Nukes that are aimed toward Russia can serve two purposes: Sitting there or nuking Russia. I don't see the purpose of the analogy.