Freshly free and liberated Iraqis get their guns taken away

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2003, 4:54 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/inter ... ner=GOOGLE

BAGHDAD, May 20 — Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.

The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47's, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government

Iraqis who refuse to comply with the edict will be subject to arrest. Only Iraqis authorized to use military-type weapons because of their police or military duties will be exempt.

"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. "We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

The weapons proclamation, which is to be issued by L. Paul Bremer III, the chief allied administrator for Iraq, and General McKiernan, is part of a broader effort to improve security in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

The need to secure Baghdad and provide security elsewhere in the country is expected to slow the pace of American troop withdrawals from Iraq, allied officials said. The United States has about 165,000 troops in Iraq. It is likely to have 100,000 in the fall, more than American planners had projected just three weeks ago.

Among other steps to strengthen security in Iraq, American forces are deploying a 4,000 strong military police brigade and more Humvees to improve the ability to conduct patrols. They are also repositioning American forces in the capital.

Allied officials are also considering a plan to bring Britain's 16th Air Assault Brigade to Baghdad. If approved by the British government, the British forces would be charged with training the Iraqi police and helping to safeguard the Iraqi capital, allied officials said.

Allied forces, however, do not plan to change the rules of engagement to encourage the shooting of looters, officials said. Allied commanders are eager to avoid an armed confrontation with Iraqi civilians.

There are some circumstances in which looters can be shot under the existing rules, but the main emphasis is to enable American forces to protect themselves against attacks.

Since allied forces toppled Mr. Hussein's government last month, they have struggled to fill the power vacuum in Baghdad and provide security in this capital of 4.5 million people. American military officials insist that the capital is safer than it was a month ago and that progress has been made in restoring essential utilities like electricity and water.

"Looting has gone down and violent crime has gone down," General McKiernan said. "The trend is down."

But robberies, looting, kidnappings and attacks by paramilitary forces are still frequent, prompting allied forces to step up their efforts to secure the country.

The weapons proclamation is an important part of that endeavor. The intention is to reduce attacks against allied forces, reduce crime and stop violent fights among rival Iraqi groups, allied commanders believe.

While General McKiernan talked about the ban in broad terms, other officials provided details.

Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.

Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.

For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license.

Those who do obtain such licenses — security guards, for example — will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

cont-

Oh yeah Iraq contgratulations on your new freedom and liberation. Now if you don't mind were just going to let these looters run rampant all over the city. Oh, and by the way we are taking you out of opec as of tomorrow and are going to flood the united states with dirt cheap plentiful quota-free oil (while charging americans the same exhorbiant prices), also you're not getting paid again this week. and weve decided that you don't deserve to elect your own government yet. Oh, and please give us all your machine guns for.. uh... for your own good!

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » May 21, 2003, 5:03 am

I guess they don't get a constitutional right to bare arms?

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » May 21, 2003, 5:58 am

roooofl

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 21, 2003, 6:18 am

I guess they don't get a constitutional right to bare arms?

That's just the women. Same goes for bare legs and faces.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 21, 2003, 7:13 am

Did we take Iraq out of OPEC?

Post by **Sylvus** » May 21, 2003, 12:39 pm

Come on Kyoukan, don't you think that this is in an effort to preserve life? That's a good thing, in my opinion. AK-47s and RPGs are certainly not necessary for anyone on the street to be able to buy. They say right in the article you posted that they don't want to kill looters; if the looters don't have automatic weapons it's probably a bit easier to stop them without shooting them than it would be with having to worry about them unloading their weapons. I think this is all part of trying to curb the looting and maintain peace without having to resort to unnecessary violence.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 21, 2003, 12:44 pm

And I know pud didnt make this point, but no, they are not covered under our constitution because they are not US citizens, so our constitution does not give them the right to bare arms.

I have no problem whatsoever with this move so long as we continue to improve the quality of policing.

When they have their own government, they can decide for themselves if they want the people to bear arms.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 12:48 pm

When they have their own government

They aren't allowed to have their own government.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 21, 2003, 12:50 pm

Sylvus wrote:Come on Kyoukan, don't you think that this is in an effort to preserve life? That's a good thing, in my opinion. AK-47s and RPGs are certainly not necessary for anyone on the street to be able to buy. They say right in the article you posted that they don't want to kill looters; if the looters don't have automatic weapons it's probably a bit easier to stop them without shooting them than it would be with having to worry about them unloading their weapons. I think this is all part of trying to curb the looting and maintain peace without having to resort to unnecessary violence.

But with all the AK-47's and RPG's off the street the what will that do to the economy?

Post by **Sylvus** » May 21, 2003, 1:02 pm

miir wrote:
When they have their own government
They aren't allowed to have their own government.

They will be allowed to have their own government. All of these things take some time, it's only been a month or so.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 1:05 pm

Sylvus wrote:
miir wrote:
When they have their own government
They aren't allowed to have their own government.
They will be allowed to have their own government. All of these things take some time, it's only been a month or so.

And there will be peace in the middle east and all terrorism will stop.....

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 21, 2003, 1:13 pm

or we could do nothing and watch planes ram into all our buildings, no, I think not.

The problem as I see it is that you have the additude that if we just do nothing, stay at home, don't try to "fix" anything, the world will magically get nicer.

There is no magic, the war was not an optimal situation, but it is THE situation.

We could just let them keep all their weapons, but do you honestly not see the problem with this? How can you possibly argue that it is a good idea to allow this populace to stay armed right now.

Before a government can be setup, the people of Iraq will have to choose leadership. With an armed populace, you would have armed groups all fighting for their candidate. Instead of an orderly process, you would have riots. . .not against Americans, but between rival groups vieing for power.

I just do not see why this is a big deal at all. Try to take a step back and be realistic, there is no way that we were going to allow them to stay armed.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 21, 2003, 1:15 pm

miir wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
miir wrote:
When they have their own government
They aren't allowed to have their own government.
They will be allowed to have their own government. All of these things take some time, it's only been a month or so.
And there will be peace in the middle east and all terrorism will stop.....

and again, a cynical, do nothing attitude will do a lot less than what we are currently trying. It is really easy to criticize without putting forth any viable alternative.

Post by **Sylvus** » May 21, 2003, 1:21 pm

You're a cynic, I'm an optimist.

I certainly don't believe that waging war on Iraq will solve either of those problems, but I do hope that it was a step in the right direction. The fact is that we did get a horrible despot out of power and I believe that life will be better for the Iraqi people. Now "will be" doesn't mean I expected that to happen within 6 weeks, but change on that scale is by no means an easy task.

No, I can't say for certain that the next leader of Iraq will be a saint, perhaps another Saddam could come to power. I genuinely hope that will not be the case, and I like to believe at least some portion of my government had altruistic intentions with going in there. There isn't any singular reason that we went over there. Part was oil, part was "war on terror", part may have been residual cock-fencing from the last war 12 years ago, and part may have been altruism. Whatever the impetus, it is actually possible that some good could come out of the whole thing. I hope that it will. Would you prefer it didn't?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 21, 2003, 1:50 pm

or we could do nothing and watch planes ram into all our buildings

Don't make us explain how Iraq had FUCK ALL to do with 9-11 again.

The problem as I see it is that you have the additude that if we just do nothing, stay at home, don't try to "fix" anything, the world will magically get nicer

It's the US "fixing" stuff that got us in this fucking mess in the first place. So yeah, staying at home and not putting murderous dictators into power or grooming armies of religious fanatics MIGHT JUST make the world a better place.

There is no magic, the war was not an optimal situation, but it is THE situation

I assume you mean solution. Please describe to me what was solved in Iraq without referring to weapons of mass destruction, international terrorists or the safety of the US Fatherland which are all discredited red herrings.

How can you possibly argue that it is a good idea to allow this populace to stay armed right now

How can you argue the same for your own population?

I just do not see why this is a big deal at all

It's an amusing illustration of the much-vaunted "freedom" you promised the Iraqis:
They can have a government. When you say so.
As long as it isn't Islamist. Who cares that that could well be what the majority of Iraqis choose.
And they can spend their oil revenues again!
. . .just as long as it's from selling it to who the US tells them to sell it. Oh yeah, you'll be deciding where to spend the money too. NM that one then. . .
Get the picture?

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 1:56 pm

or we could do nothing and watch planes ram into all our buildings, no, I think not.

What did Iraq have to do with the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center.

Has the 'War on Terror' been effective in reducing terrorist attacks on American interests?

The problem as I see it is that you have the additude that if we just do nothing, stay at home, don't try to "fix" anything, the world will magically get nicer.

It's clear that the best way to curb terrorists is not by hunting down and killing them. Killing breeds animosity. Animosity breeds hatred. Hatred breeds generations of martyrs.

I believe the best way to prevent terrorism is to understand why terrorists do what they do. Heightened security and due dilligence is another way to lessen the chances of attack.
They should have taken a long hard look at American foreign policy and made some drastic changes.

While you my buy into the propaganda your governemnt and media is feeding you, don't expect the muslims in the middle east to be so gullible. They are being fed their own propaganda. CNN has no credibility in the middle east just as Al Jazeera has none in the USA.

We could just let them keep all their weapons, but do you honestly not see the problem with this? How can you possibly argue that it is a good idea to allow this populace to stay armed right now.

So you think it's perfectly ok for America to froce their beliefs on a foreign culture?

If you take away guns from the Iraqi populace, the only people who will have guns are the criminals... and how do you propose the US government go about disarming 24 million people?

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » May 21, 2003, 2:11 pm

So you think it's perfectly ok for America to froce their beliefs on a foreign culture?

this is more of a belief of the british and the commonwealth than of American culture. If we were to force our beliefs upon them, we would b arming the (2nd amendment and all that)

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 2:21 pm

Fizzlewhip wrote:
So you think it's perfectly ok for America to froce their beliefs on a foreign culture?
this is more of a belief of the british and the commonwealth than of American culture. If we were to force our beliefs upon them, we would b arming the (2nd amendment and all that)

I wasn't talking specifically about the guns.
It was more a comment on US foreign policy.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » May 21, 2003, 2:26 pm

my bad

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 21, 2003, 2:41 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
or we could do nothing and watch planes ram into all our buildings
Don't make us explain how Iraq had FUCK ALL to do with 9-11 again.

Please do. Dismantling terrorism means hitting them where it hurts. Iraq supported terrorism. You cannot simply chop off the hand of soemthing you want to kill, you have to go after everything supporting terrorism. If you are going to tell me that paying families of suicide bombers is not supporting terrorism, then I will have to call bullshit.

Saddam Hussein has supported and fostered dissent and violence against the United States and it simply had to end. The only way to stop terrorism on our homefront is to act heavy handed towards anything close to terrorism. I support this 1000%. I will not trade punches with terrorists. If they punch me, I will shoot them and then go after their friends. The world should know that this is how we will react.

The problem as I see it is that you have the additude that if we just do nothing, stay at home, don't try to "fix" anything, the world will magically get nicer
It's the US "fixing" stuff that got us in this fucking mess in the first place. So yeah, staying at home and not putting murderous dictators into power or grooming armies of religious fanatics MIGHT JUST make the world a better place.

9/11 got us in this mess in the first place. Without 9/11, we would never have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq. Please try to justify 9/11.

There is no magic, the war was not an optimal situation, but it is THE situation
I assume you mean solution. Please describe to me what was solved in Iraq without referring to weapons of mass destruction, international terrorists or the safety of the US Fatherland which are all discredited red herrings.

I did not misspeak. it is the situation. It is not optimal, but it is what we are dealing with now.

you statement is moronic. It is like saying please describe why the sky is blue without referring to the sun, the properties of light, or reflection from the surface of the earth. They are only discredited red herrings by people who choose to simply ignore them.

Regardless, I will give it a shot. Saddam Hussein is evil. He murders countless people. . .after torturing them. He has starved a population and lived in a state of luxury matches by few people in the world. His sons are crazy and held the fate of millions of people in their hands. He supported the extinction of Israel. Those reasons alone should be reason enough. We did the same with Milosevic in Bosnia.

How can you possibly argue that it is a good idea to allow this populace to stay armed right now
How can you argue the same for your own population?

Our populace is not in sociary disarray. Are you really so stupid as suggest that Baghdad and NYC are in a similar state right now? I would be happy to let them be armed as soon as the country is stable. That is not the case right now. As far as I am concerned, we are there to make sure the power vaccum is not filled by another crazy man or regime. I don't care if it takes 5 years.

I just do not see why this is a big deal at all
It's an amusing illustration of the much-vaunted "freedom" you promised the Iraqis:
They can have a government. When you say so.
As long as it isn't Islamist. Who cares that that could well be what the majority of Iraqis choose.
And they can spend their oil revenues again!
. . .just as long as it's from selling it to who the US tells them to sell it. Oh yeah, you'll be deciding where to spend the money too. NM that one then. . .
Get the picture?

I got the picture, you are a moron who can't see past his hatred of the United States. That is ok. . .no one hates a loser, get over your penis envy and try to look at the situation rationally. Arguing that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam Hussein is just ridiculous. Time will show that eventually we will leave Iraq and it will be a much better place because of this War.

I truly believe that if Saddam Hussein was left in power there would have been a terrorist attack of massive proportions that may have never been traced back to him. I believe completely that we did the right thing because we have the right to protect ourselves.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 3:01 pm

Nice butchering quotes.

If you are going to tell me that paying families of suicide bombers is not supporting terrorism, then I will have to call bullshit.

Saddam supported Palestinian terrorists.
He openly admitted it.
Virtually all middle eastern contries support Palestine... rest assured, many of them also provide financial rewards to families of martyrs.

What you have to do is get it though your thick fucking skull that Palestinian martyrs are little/no threat to US interests. They have their own war to fight with Israel. Palestinians and Isrealis are slaughtering each other, daily because of terror attacks and Sharon's heavy handed attempt to 'dismantle' palestinian terrorists.

There has been no proof of Saddam supporting or harboring anti american terrorists.

I will not trade punches with terrorists. If they punch me, I will shoot them and then go after their friends. The world should know that this is how we will react.

Good grief, you sound like a fucking neanderthal with comments like that.
A lot more good can come from diplomacy and agreements then from killing.

So you choose not to understand the reason why these terrorists harbor so much ill will towards the USA?
You wonder why so many anti american terrorists come from Saudi Arabia? Do some research on US foreign policy in Saudi Arabia for the past 20-25 years.

I'm not trying to justify the actions of terrorists, but if you look at the situation from their point of view, you might start to understand why they have so much hatred for your country.

9/11 got us in this mess in the first place. Without 9/11, we would never have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq. Please try to justify 9/11.

I bet if someone cracked you on your sagittal crest, peeled back you parietal bones and peeked inside, they would see nothing but an empty cavity.

Your head is so pumped full of shit, you have no room left for rational or intelligent thought. It's pointless to try and discuss this with you, Avestan.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 21, 2003, 3:03 pm

miir wrote:They aren't allowed to have their own government.

You're right miir. We REALLY want to fucking run Iraq for as long as possible.

Tancred wrote:I assume you mean solution. Please describe to me what was solved in Iraq without referring to weapons of mass destruction, international terrorists or the safety of the US Fatherland which are all discredited red herrings.

Discredited?

NY times article here

United States intelligence agencies have concluded that two mysterious trailers found in Iraq were mobile units to produce germs for weapons, but they have found neither biological agents nor evidence that the equipment was used to make such arms, according to senior administration officials.

Iraq had a secret WMD program, I still do not see how anyone could suggest otherwise. Whether we find big stocks of WMDs or they destroyed/hid/moved them remains to be seen. Tell me, even if we hadn't found these trailers, if we'd never found anything suggesting they had a program could you honestly say "Iraq would have never resumed their productions of WMDs" with a straight face? Could you say "Oh well, Saddam learned his lesson, I doubt he'd ever want to try to get his hands on a nuke again." I can assure you, if you could I sure wouldn't have a straight face because I'd be laughing my ass off...

On terrorist connections:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wsad17.xml

The letter, dated April 2001, was signed: "Your Brother, Bekkah Abdul Nassir, Chief of Diplomacy ADF Forces".

Nassir offered to "vet, recruit and send youth to train for the jihad" at a centre in Baghdad, which he described as a "headquarters for international holy warrior network". It was not clear whether the centre was established.

"We should not allow the enemy to focus on Afghanistan and Iraq, but we should attack their international criminal forces inside every base," the letters said.

Also, let's not forget the Al Qaeda meeting that went so well that it was extended for a week and ended with an invitation for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Iraqi regime was a supporter of Al Qaeda. I doubt they helped mastermind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but I think in time we will find more evidence to show that Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda definently did have links.

Tancred wrote:How can you argue the same for your own population?

Because having guns helps deter crime? Nah that can't be it, Dubya's best buddy in Enron must have an inbred uncle who's a member of the NRA who owns some stock in some gun company. And before you say "so in Iraq wouldn't it deter crime?", first try to light a spark in that unused mass of flesh most commonly refferred to as your brain. I'm doing my part in providing the fuel (ie reasonable comments) now you need to just light the spark (ie attempt a reasonable thought), and maybe you can come up with a logical argument...

Tancred wrote:They can have a government. When you say so.

Yeah a month after we defeated a country with military force we should hand over the reins to a government that has absolutely zero real power. How can any of you say stuff like this? If you think the looting is bad now, imagine what it would be like if we withdrew all of our troops and did that. Not only would the looting be worse, but I have a feelng there would be a ton of violence (innocents being killed OMG!!!) in the insuing power struggle. When a credible government is established, we will withdraw. Withdrawing now would most likely mean our soldiers who died would have died for nothing. "But they did die for nothing!!" No, they died for freedom. I don't know if Bush or Rumsfeld's motives were wanting freedom for the Iraqi's, but I do know it was part of the package accompanying our intervention in Iraq and that it was present in the minds of our soldiers.

Tancred wrote:And they can spend their oil revenues again!
. . .just as long as it's from selling it to who the US tells them to sell it. Oh yeah, you'll be deciding where to spend the money too. NM that one then. . .
Get the picture?

There's going to be an international commission monitering how we spend the funds. We've already said everything we do with it will be extremely transparent. It would be political suicide for us to do it any other way, and we know it.

miir wrote:It's clear that the best way to curb terrorists is not by hunting down and killing them. Killing breeds animosity. Animosity breeds hatred. Hatred breeds generations of martyrs.

HAHA we just need to understand them, that's it. I'm just glad that no one in our government buys into this shit. Clinton basically ignored terrorism for years, look what it got us. Sorry man, but if you actually believe this, you're living in a different world than I am.

EDIT: just saw miir's latest post. Un-fucking believable. Avestan, don't waste your time on him, I'm not too sure why I am. It must be because I've always had a soft spot in my heart for those less fortunate than me. Less fortunate in that he lives in Canada and has such a large mental handicap. It gives me a chance to feel like I'm doing some good in the world, sort of like helping to feed the homeless.

Edit again: typed this post really fast, had to change some grammatical errors that were just too damn annoying...

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » May 21, 2003, 3:05 pm

Kooky, what can be said about someone who sees the removal of AUTOMATIC FUCKING WEAPONS as an infringement on freedoms of the Iraqi people.

I see nothing wrong with this. Also IIRC the USA has banned? the ownership of fully automatic assault rifles.

I really liked the segway into the OPEC thing

I see no mention of that in the article. I hear Mel Gibson is looking for a dwarf for comic relief in CONSPIRACY THEORY II "The revenge of Kooky"

Cheers

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 3:13 pm

HAHA we just need to understand them, that's it. I'm just glad that no one in our government buys into this shit. Clinton basically ignored terrorism for years, look what it got us. Sorry man, but if you actually believe this, you're living in a different world than I am.

I wasn't pointing fingers at any specific US president.
US foreign policy has, for the past 20 years needed a serious overhaul.
Bush, like his predecessors, has chosen to ignore it.

I never said that you 'just' need to understand them.
Reviewing foreign policy and trying to understand why these terrorists harbor so much animosity towards the USA might be more effective than killing every fucking arab you suspect has ties with a terrorist organization.

The terrorist attacks against US interests are not stopping.
This should indicate that the Bush administration is failing in it's war against terrorism.

Judging from his (and his administrations) actions and their obvious ignorance of most things non american, I won't hold my breath waiting for the US to re-evaluate their foreign policy.

It's much easier for Bush to pick his target, sell it to the people then start bombing. Wars are great for business!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2003, 3:32 pm

Atokal wrote:Kooky, what can be said about someone who sees the removal of AUTOMATIC FUCKING WEAPONS as an infringement on freedoms of the Iraqi people.

I see nothing wrong with this. Also IIRC the USA has banned? the ownership of fully automatic assault rifles.

It wasn't against the law for an Iraqi to own an assault rifle before. It now is. 4 in 5 Iraqi males are armed. Most of those weapons are AK-47s. It was a freedom that they once had that they now no longer have. Much like the fact that all of their TV stations have been shut down and the only radio station broadcasting within Iraq atm is a US approved americanized arabic propaganda station.

I really liked the segway into the OPEC thing
I see no mention of that in the article. I hear Mel Gibson is looking for a dwarf for comic relief in CONSPIRACY THEORY II "The revenge of Kooky"

Cheers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... May16.html

Sorry. I was once again operating on the assumption that you had at least a tenuous grasp of world events and didn't need headline news from a few days ago spoon fed to you every time I have to bring it up. I will probably continue to make that mistake however, as even my extremely limited faith in humanity still manages to surpass your intellectual capacity.

What I don't understand is why you keep trying.

Post by **Sylvus** » May 21, 2003, 3:38 pm

I won't disagree with you that the US needs some work on our foreign policy. But, I do disagree with:

miir wrote:The terrorist attacks against US interests are not stopping.
This should indicate that the Bush administration is failing in it's war against terrorism.

Again, you keep talking like any of these problems can be solved overnight. Do you agree with my belief that we struck a solid blow against Al Qaeda? What makes you say the administration is "failing"? There certainly haven't been any attacks on US soil since 9/11, that's a good thing. Diplomacy could have been better used in the Iraq situation, yes, but I am not too sure how well it would work with terrorists.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2003, 3:45 pm

Sylvus wrote:Again, you keep talking like any of these problems can be solved overnight. Do you agree with my belief that we struck a solid blow against Al Qaeda? What makes you say the administration is "failing"? There certainly haven't been any attacks on US soil since 9/11, that's a good thing.

There haven't been any major earthquakes in california either.

What will your argument be when there is another attack on US soil? If you are saying it is succeeding now because there haven't been any (when really there has only ever been 2 arab attacks on american homeland ever in the history of the country), then will the war be an abject failure when there is one?

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 4:01 pm

I agree that the military action in Afghanistan was successful in breaking down a good portion of the Al Qaeda infrastructure, but the recent terrorist attacks have shown that we can't expect conventional military tactics to be any kind of long term deterrant, let alone a soloution.

In my opnion, the smartest move made by the US in the 'war on terror' was pulling out some the troops they have ammased in Saudi Arabia.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 4:11 pm

I truly believe that if Saddam Hussein was left in power there would have been a terrorist attack of massive proportions that may have never been traced back to him.

Just like your president believes that Iraq has hundreds of thousands of tons of stockpiled chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction that he won't hesitate to use?

Just like the 'smoking gun' proof that Colin Powell has about ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?

Just like the irrefutable proof provided by the CIA that Saddam tried to purchase several tons of weapons grade plutonium from a few countries in Africa in the 90s?

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 21, 2003, 4:48 pm

Please don't ever say it is pointless to argue with someone, that is akin to giving up.

We obviously have very different ideas of what supporting terrorism entails. Saddam Hussein paid the families of the 9/11 hijackers. I consider that supporting terrorism that has a direct impact on the United States.

In addition, what you consider to be the attitude of a neanderthal, I consider effective. We had 10 years of diplomacy and we achieved dick. It was not working. I don't know how you would have reacted if 9/11 happened to your country, but it pissed the shit out of me.

Waiting for diplomacy to make the Middle East secure was no longer a valid option in my mind.

You have to know that if you fuck with us, it is going to come back tenfold to you. This may be somewhat simplistic, but it is also effective, and it is the only languge many people in this world understand. The sole reason 9/11 ever happened was because Osama was convinced that we would never respond in the scale we did. He said as much in one of his taped recordings. He called us cowards and he called us powerless to stop him. I am convinced that if we had shown ANY resolve in the past to act outside of our borders to pre-emptively stop terrorism, 9/11 would not have happened.

I do not think many people outside of the United States understand how profoundly that day affected us.

It was not simply murder, it also had a huge impact on what personal freedoms we were willing to sacrifice for security. It affected how we do business. . .and where we do business. Above all, many of us had close friends that either died or were directly affected by the bombing. It flipped a switch in my head as to how far I would be willing to go to achieve security.

There will always be differing opinions on politics and war, but had we not gone to war, I am 100% convinced that decision would have come back to haunt us in the form of a larger scale attack on our country. I am not a moron, I simply have different opinions than you, and a different perspective.

You have every right to question my opinions and I have every right to call people who condemn this effort shortsighted and misguided. You won't be tied up and electrocuted in the basement of a police station and buried in a mass grave of 11,000 people for disagreeing with me. I think we are doing a fine job in Iraq right now and quite honestly people are grasping at straws to put us down now (Jessica Lynch, infringing on the "right to bear arms" in a foreign country).

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 21, 2003, 5:11 pm

Avestan wrote:Please don't ever say it is pointless to argue with someone, that is akin to giving up.

We obviously have very different ideas of what supporting terrorism entails. Saddam Hussein paid the families of the 9/11 hijackers. I consider that supporting terrorism that has a direct impact on the United States.

In addition, what you consider to be the attitude of a neanderthal, I consider effective. We had 10 years of diplomacy and we achieved dick. It was not working. I don't know how you would have reacted if 9/11 happened to your country, but it pissed the shit out of me.

Waiting for diplomacy to make the Middle East secure was no longer a valid option in my mind.

You have to know that if you fuck with us, it is going to come back tenfold to you. This may be somewhat simplistic, but it is also effective, and it is the only languge many people in this world understand. The sole reason 9/11 ever happened was because Osama was convinced that we would never respond in the scale we did. He said as much in one of his taped recordings. He called us cowards and he called us powerless to stop him. I am convinced that if we had shown ANY resolve in the past to act outside of our borders to pre-emptively stop terrorism, 9/11 would not have happened.

I do not think many people outside of the United States understand how profoundly that day affected us.

It was not simply murder, it also had a huge impact on what personal freedoms we were willing to sacrifice for security. It affected how we do business. . .and where we do business. Above all, many of us had close friends that either died or were directly affected by the bombing. It flipped a switch in my head as to how far I would be willing to go to achieve security.

There will always be differing opinions on politics and war, but had we not gone to war, I am 100% convinced that decision would have come back to haunt us in the form of a larger scale attack on our country. I am not a moron, I simply have different opinions than you, and a different perspective.

You have every right to question my opinions and I have every right to call people who condemn this effort shortsighted and misguided. You won't be tied up and electrocuted in the basement of a police station and buried in a mass grave of 11,000 people for disagreeing with me. I think we are doing a fine job in Iraq right now and quite honestly people are grasping at straws to put us down now (Jessica Lynch, infringing on the "right to bear arms" in a foreign country).

Post by **Sylvus** » May 21, 2003, 5:27 pm

kyoukan wrote:What will your argument be when there is another attack on US soil? If you are saying it is succeeding now because there haven't been any (when really there has only ever been 2 arab attacks on american homeland ever in the history of the country), then will the war be an abject failure when there is one?

My mind is still open, Kyoukan, I was merely asking Miir why he says that our war on terrorism is failing. I'm not one to ever completely trust or completely mistrust the US government wholesale, I was just looking for the reasoning behind his position. I certainly do not think that we have put an end to all terrorism, ever. Not even close. I don't really believe that is even possible. I do think that anything we can do to lessen the amount of terrorism in the world is a good step.

Lately, reports on the news have said that we have greatly disrupted the Al Qaeda network. That sounds reasonable to me. Before 9/11 I think it was much easier for them to operate around the world. Hell, they orchestrated the most successful modern attack on American soil and would probably have been in a decent position to make more attacks. Was there a plan to have another attack in the past 20 months? I have no fucking clue, but it hasn't happened yet and I see that as positive. My argument if there is another attack on US soil will be that we gave it the old college try and apparently it wasn't enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anything we've done in Iraq is helping the War on Terror. Let me reiterate that I don't believe Iraq has anything to do with Al Qaeda, any ties between the two are tenuous at best. If anything, our occupation of Iraq is only breeding more anti-US sentiment in the Arab world.

Unfortunately I was drawn away from this post into a meeting, so perhaps with other replies the topic has shifted. My apologies.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 5:35 pm

Saddam Hussein paid the families of the 9/11 hijackers

There is not one single shred of evidence that supports that claim.
If there was anything more that questionable, or circumstantial evidence that links Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, I would concede that the invasion of Iraq and ousting of Saddam was somewhat justified.

A non verified document showing that Saddam tried to set up a meeting with Bin Laden does not proove that Saddam had close ties with Al Qaeda.
A deserted 'training camp' in Kurdish controlled Nothern Iraq is not evidence either.

Saddam Hussein publicly offered money to families of palestinian martyrs in Isreal.

Is your mind is too narrow to separate the difference between Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and international, anti-american terrorist groups?
If the two were linked in any fashion, why would Bush not order an all out assault on Palestine and assassinate that lunatic Arafat?

In addition, what you consider to be the attitude of a neanderthal, I consider effective. We had 10 years of diplomacy and we achieved dick. It was not working. I don't know how you would have reacted if 9/11 happened to your country, but it pissed the shit out of me.

13 years of UN imposed sanctions against Iraq had nothing to do with dimpomacy with Al Qaeda, you idiot.

You are obviously too stupid to differentiate between terrorists and dictators. The rest of your post might be relevant if Iraq had anything to do with the Al Qaeda attacks on Sept 11.

Since you have already decided in your tiny mind that Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden all along there really is no point to this conversation.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » May 21, 2003, 5:43 pm

The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47's, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons

Your tring to tell me this is a bad thing to try and take off the streets? I see the need to kill a Camel with a fucking rocket propelled grenade. As it states, military, or police agencys are allowed to have them. Random Iraqi can't. Boo fucking Hoo.

Theres an amount of people still on Saddam's side who would be more than happy to take a few shots at the evil white man.Not to mention ROBBERs who have access to these weapons.

Good job for being dumbasses. I clearly see your understanding. And that is none.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 5:54 pm

you're wrong, Kyoukan is the most intelergint poster on VV...all the other intelergint people told me this, so it must be true!!1!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 21, 2003, 6:02 pm

Your tring to tell me this is a bad thing to try and take off the streets? I see the need to kill a Camel with a fucking rocket propelled grenade. As it states, military, or police agencys are allowed to have them. Random Iraqi can't. Boo fucking Hoo.

Theres an amount of people still on Saddam's side who would be more than happy to take a few shots at the evil white man.Not to mention ROBBERs who have access to these weapons.

Good job for being dumbasses. I clearly see your understanding. And that is none.

You need to stop seeing the world through American eyes and have some empathy for the average Iraqi. Uncertianty, rampant looting, garbage piled up in the streets, no gasoline/power, no government, and you're occupied by a country you fucking hate that has probably killed at least one person close to you at one time or another. Now, that occupying force is rounding you up and taking your guns. You know, the ones that you've had since you can remember and even Saddam let you possess.

Sure, I understand the motivations behind this. However, we're making more enemies and inspiring more hatred and mistrust than we can possibly imagine. Our welcome is already overstayed and our "rules" mean jack fucking shit to the Iraqi people. We are a foriegn power that toppled thier government by force, killing innocents in the process. Currently, the average Iraqi does not like or trust us. We're shitting in thier nest and telling them that we'll clean it up eventually, we just don't know when.

A month isn't long enough to get this shit done? Try explaining that to someone that's been living in that hellhole for the past month that they need to simply calm down and have a little patience. That's fucking laughable.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 21, 2003, 6:52 pm

I have absolutely no problem differenciating between Iraq and Palestine. I support a Pasetinian homeland, and I always have.

What I believe is that Husseins Regime supported Al Qaeda.

I also believe that it is 5000 times more important that we removed an evil person from power than it is that we are helping to defend America. It is very important for me to to have a secure United States, but it is more important to me to see people and regime's like Saddam's destroyed. Not for vengeance, but because it is the right thing to do.

There is no refuting what Saddam did to his people. Directly in the form of torture and murder, and indirectly in the form of starvation and lies. You can take the stance that we did not have the right to go in there, but you cannot deny the fact that the world is a much better place with Saddam Hussein.

The primary reason for going into Iraq was Hussein's inability to do what he agreed to do after the Gulf War. It is abundantly clear that he did not disarm and he only cooperated when there were 250,000 troops at his back door. By the time that happened, he had already blown his last chance and that was clear. The only way to make Hussein disarm was to do it forcibly. If we had stood down at the last minute, nothing would change. He would have gone right back to manufacturing illegal weapons (I didnt say chemical or biological). He would still be torturing his citizens. He would still be a willing party to sell any weapons he did make to terrorist organizations (Palastinian or Anti-American). We had the right to go in because he violated what he agreed to in 1993. It was only made easier by statements like he made after 9/11 praising the actions of the hijackers (yes he did do that).

I am also sorry you feel that the only way you can make your point is by ending every point you make with insults. I have a lot of respect for what the international community thinks and says, but in this case, I believe you are so far off that we had no choice but to act on our own. We are not trying to conquer the world, but I do believe we have a duty to do as much as we can to improve the state of the world. Obviously, we are limited in this and there are those people, even in the US, who disagree wholehartedly with this statement and think we should only worry about what is going on in our back yard, but you have to take the good with the bad. We may be the overbearing assholes of the world, but we are also the largest donor this world has ever seen in terms of money and aid.

We are not our to control the planet, but we will protect ourselves. Iraq was a danger to the United States, and their repeaded disregard for international law (no we did not violate international law, but that is another thread) and human rights, gave us every right to do what we did. I am damned glad we went through with it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2003, 7:27 pm

where is proof that iraq (moderate sunni) funded al'queda (fundamentalist shi'ite) in any way shape or form?

miir · Post by **miir** » May 21, 2003, 8:08 pm

What I believe is that Husseins Regime supported Al Qaeda.

And this belief is based on what?

is abundantly clear that he did not disarm

You mean the chem/bio weapons that he was accused of having but have yet to be found?

I am also sorry you feel that the only way you can make your point is by ending every point you make with insults.

If you based your opinions and beliefs on facts and not unfounded/unproven accusations you would not be so open to insults and criticisms.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 8:18 pm

the US is the only country i know of that will bomb a country to shit and rebuild it when they are done...that is what is taking place right now...it's the rebuilding phase. the war happened, can't change that, however, what the US can do is finish rebuilding. in order to do that, the US will have to take control of certain things for the time being.

if they left now, with unfinished business, it would solve nothing. the US must take control of the situation because Iraq is not capable of doing so bythemselves. it won't be done in a month, so realize that. give it some time, patience is a virtue.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 21, 2003, 8:55 pm

The FACT of the matter is that he violated many many times the agreement that ended the first conflict. The consequence of that violation was forced disarmament. Ignore everything else and refute that FACT. Throw in some aggregious human rights violations on the part of Hussein and I believe we are completely justified if even if you ignore everything else.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2003, 9:38 pm

now you're back pedalling.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » May 21, 2003, 9:39 pm

Spangaloid_PE wrote:the US is the only country i know of that will bomb a country to shit and rebuild it when they are done...that is what is taking place right now...it's the rebuilding phase. the war happened, can't change that, however, what the US can do is finish rebuilding. in order to do that, the US will have to take control of certain things for the time being.

if they left now, with unfinished business, it would solve nothing. the US must take control of the situation because Iraq is not capable of doing so bythemselves. it won't be done in a month, so realize that. give it some time, patience is a virtue.

Well I never majored in anything like History (I didn't really but I have a clue aussi), but I'm pretty sure it has been happening since about -2000 BC. Read some history before you comment, but hay d00d why talk 2 u since u n0 so much!

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 9:41 pm

Salis wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:the US is the only country i know of that will bomb a country to shit and rebuild it when they are done...that is what is taking place right now...it's the rebuilding phase. the war happened, can't change that, however, what the US can do is finish rebuilding. in order to do that, the US will have to take control of certain things for the time being.

if they left now, with unfinished business, it would solve nothing. the US must take control of the situation because Iraq is not capable of doing so bythemselves. it won't be done in a month, so realize that. give it some time, patience is a virtue.
Well I never majored in anything like History (I didn't really but I have a clue aussi), but I'm pretty sure it has been happening since about -2000 BC. Read some history before you comment, but hay d00d why talk 2 u since u n0 so much!

READ: the US is the only country i know of

Salis · Post by **Salis** » May 21, 2003, 9:42 pm

HERE LIES THE PROBLEM

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2003, 9:43 pm

Spangaloid_PE wrote:READ: the US is the only country i know of

so basically every other country in the world

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 9:44 pm

wasn't talking about a country in 2000 BC, i was talking about present day earth...name me another country that will fuck your shit up and then fix it when they are done?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 21, 2003, 10:02 pm

name me another country that will "fuck your shit up" in the first place.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 10:10 pm

Vetiria wrote:name me another country that will "fuck your shit up" in the first place.

there's tons of em...

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 21, 2003, 10:19 pm

That's not the name of a country.