Iraq

[Earniel]

When the massacre in Rwanda occurred - Americans didn't want to go in because of what had occurred in Somalia. Why didn't any other country go in and help them? Why does every one say "Why didn't America go in there and protect them?" Why was it our responsibility to begin with?

*polite cough* The genocide in '94? We were there. We lost about ten soldiers and three aid-workers.


Nearly 5 pages in one day! I had to spend nearly 2 hours just reading up on it. I can see this is a hot topic. Also noticed JD got his american pride avatar back. I wonder why that would be.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
We? Were you there? Bush did revoke it and Russia was against ending the treaty.

I know that Russia didn't want to leave the treaty - but they accepted that we wanted to. Again they didn't have to. Were you there?

So that is a justification? It's acceptable because its been done before? Brilliant.

I feel that the potential threat can be a justification.

The world is grey? I always thought it way blue and tan and white. So who is going to make this claim that the US planted a Nuke? Are they going to sneak it in to Iraq in their pants? That is the silliest thing you've said yet.

Who are these crazy people you keep talking about and what could possibly be your point here... that some people make wild accusations? And that means what?

We're not talking about Iraq building ICBMs here. They could find small nuclear devices. Yeah - and that is about as stupid as the Arab countries claiming that 4,000 jews were told to stay home by Israel because they attacked the Twin Towers.


Just because you say it's so doesn't mean it happened.

The biggest threat to world peace sits in the US white house. You keep repeating that bilge about Saddam being a threat to world peace. Under what scenario is world peace threatened? Do you not see the flaw in the logic of saying that we must wage a war to have peace? You compare SH to Hilter and say he is crazy. Crazier than Kim of N. Korea? And he actually does have nukes. We know that because of intelligence. The truth is that the administration tried out several different justification stories and picked the one that the polls showed the public responded to the most. Why didn't they START with the UN and then say it was hopeless and we needed to go it alone? Were you worried about WMDs a year ago or was it just pounded into your head by shear repetition?

No I do not see the flaw in this logic. A lot of times you must take preemptive measures to prevent a larger disaster. Also - as I've stated repeatedly - I'm not for or against the war. I WANT to see how the weapons inspectors are treated in Iraq. I just don't think they will be allowed to do their jobs. I also feel that if Iraq does have these weapons - then they must be removed. I've argued that for a long time. I got into an argument with a friend of mine in Portland when we were bombing Iraq for kicking out the inspectors. So my stance on what to do about Iraq has not changed since then and has not changed with Bush being in the White House. I had felt we should have taken him out when he kicked out the inspectors the first time and refused to comply with the UN.

When asked whether they support the war in the context of the cost in terms of human life, money and regional stability, most americans are against the war. It is normal when asked a generic question about support to want to be patriotic and say one supports it.

Would it not be simpler and more effective to let Hussein know as a matter of policy that any use of WNDs by terrorist would bring a retaliatory strike against Iraq? This was used during the gulf war and he didn't use them against US troops. Someone should step up and state what would be the required steps for getting disarmament AND the removal of sanctions so that at least we tried to have real peace and bring home our troops.

We weren't trying to depose him. He knew that if he used them at that time that he would have received a full retaliatory strike. However it does not mean that he wouldn't once he has enough of these weapons. People keep saying that I shouldn't use the past to back up my arguments on how Hussein will react - but you use the past to back up your arguments. Just because he hasn't used them - doesn't mean he won't use them in the future. But of course if we just let him continue to build without doing ANYTHING then it will be too late once he decides to attack the west or his neighbors with them. or supply terrorist groups with them so they can take out the London underground or the NY subway.

I believe the UN has stated what the requirements are for santions to be lifted against Iraq are. Let the weapons inspectors in and full disarmement and elimination of their biological, chimical and nuclear weapons programs.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah, but a non-American can't say it for fear of retribution from a certain Jersey Devil....

You can say it - if that is your belief. But I disagree with the statement.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
*polite cough* The genocide in '94? We were there. We lost about ten soldiers and three aid-workers.

Well then why wasn't more done without complaining about the US not being there? Couldn't Europe have sent in more troops to protect people? Constantly in the world community people complain that the US did not come to the aid Rwanda.

Nearly 5 pages in one day! I had to spend nearly 2 hours just reading up on it. I can see this is a hot topic. Also noticed JD got his american pride avatar back. I wonder why that would be.

Yeah my avatar is back.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
If you mean, "Are we all going to get killed?" Yes.
Clearly, Field Marshal Bush is about to make yet another gargantuan effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches
closer to Bagdad.

Yeah with the help of lower lieutenant Blair.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
I accept that you are a proud US citizen that i can respect i am proud to be english. BUt i do not take the we are right and you are wrong attitude that you seem to accustomed to.

Yes you do - because if you didn't think i was wrong then you wouldn't be having this argument. I don't think you're wrong in a lot of what you say - but I don't think you're right in a lot either. I also don't think that just because Hussein hasn't used the weapons doesn't mean he won't. I also think that he is a larger threat than a lot of the other dictators around the world. Obviously you think my arguments and beliefs are wrong.

He has repeatedly tested the resolve of the world community - and right now he is very happy that he has you guys convinced he won't do anything.

You have not once provided in your argueements one peice of soild evidence that sadam is a threat to you. I can understand why he doesnt want UN inspectors in Iraq. Its been over ten years now since the war ended. Isnt he entitled to a bit of peace? Has he done anything wrong to any coutry in that time?

He has not openly done anything because we have kept the pressure on him. He is still able to continue work on his weapons, coming up with new chemical agents, perfecting them and their delivery methods.

As for paying the US back after the marshal plan that was done more out of stablising the world economy rather out of pure good will. If we hadnt had support we would of surely still be struggling to recover even to this day.

Well at least you admit it. Now why can't the world take the lead and do something similar?

[Sween]

indeed the world powers should make more of an effort to help the poorer countries esspeciall the g7 countries.

Indeed the UN has kept the pressure on him and it has kept him on his toes. But in realtion to america i have never felt he cared much for you. You were never part of his plan he isnt hittler he does not want to rule the world.

America is of little conquence to him. He is not like Osama bin lardin a religious extremist (most dangerous people in the world) and killing a load of US citizens then sealing his own doom does not strike me as something that would give him what hes allways wanted.

He wants overule of the Arab world allways has allways will.

But what pray tell has this got to do with america. Well if you do decalre war then im affraid that all bets are off. He will defintally go into production of WMD and will use them on you.

I firmly believe that sadam will not make an attack on you and talk of war on him will only cause in IMHO more suffering for everyone.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
America is of little conquence to him. He is not like Osama bin lardin a religious extremist (most dangerous people in the world) and killing a load of US citizens then sealing his own doom does not strike me as something that would give him what hes allways wanted.

He wants overule of the Arab world allways has allways will.

But what pray tell has this got to do with america. Well if you do decalre war then im affraid that all bets are off. He will defintally go into production of WMD and will use them on you.

I firmly believe that sadam will not make an attack on you and talk of war on him will only cause in IMHO more suffering for everyone.

So the overthrow of the the Arab world is okay then? If that is his plans - we're supposed to just let him build up his arsenal until he does launch an invasion? Or do we let him take over some countries just to make sure that IS his plan first? Maybe we should just let him take over a couple of countries to make sure that we are right about him wanting to rule the arab world. We may be wrong after all - he may just love his neighbords so much that he just wants to be closer to them.

And as I said - if you think he has NOT continued his weapons programs then you live in fantasy world. Why would he stop once he got what he wanted - which was the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and the world off his back?

Talk of war is what got him to so far agree to weapons inspections. War is not guaranteed at this point - although I think it is more likely than not. I do not think he will cooperate with the inspectors and as it stands right now - the ball is in his court.

Concerning the 100% vote that he received

Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Saddam Hussein won another seven-year term as Iraq's president in a referendum in which he was the sole candidate, taking 100 percent of the vote, the Iraqi leader's right-hand man announced Wednesday.

All 11,445,638 of the eligible voters cast ballots, said Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council that is Iraq's key decision-making body.

"This is a unique manifestation of democracy which is superior to all other forms of democracies even in these countries which are besieging Iraq and trying to suffocate it," Ibrahim said at a news conference in Baghdad, apparently referring to the United States........

That statement is too funny for words.

[osszie]

Anyone have any thoughts as to why Bush would choose today to sign the Iraqi war resolution?

The very day Iraq is "celebrating" it's "elections" (so funny, 100% support, no oppostion, ballots marked in blood, those poor people).

The same day that the UN Security Council starts it's debate on Iraq at the behest of dozens of non-Council nations who oppose an attack on Baghdad

"Those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear. Every nation that shares the benefits of peace also shares the duty of defending the peace" - President George W Bush

This guy is the biggest contradiction in history, like as not he'll be recorded as the man who preached peace but caused war

http://www.itv.com/news/Front782933.html

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Anyone have any thoughts as to why Bush would choose today to sign the Iraqi war resolution?

The very day Iraq is "celebrating" it's "elections" (so funny, 100% support, no oppostion, ballots marked in blood, those poor people).

The same day that the UN Security Council starts it's debate on Iraq at the behest of dozens of non-Council nations who oppose an attack on Baghdad

So we're supposed to revolve our government around the UN then? The debates in the UN will be going on for awhile? SAre we supposed to stop everything until they get it together? Does England or any government stop it's government if it runs in conflict with what others in the outside world are doing at that time?

Most likely Bush did it to send a message to Iraq and the UN that we are serious. But even if it is the reason - does it matter when it is signed? It was going to be signed anyway.

[jerseydevil]

You left this part out -

International reaction to the election result was one of condemnation. British officials immediately branded the result "a travesty of democracy".

The Foreign Office said Saddam's brutality and intimidation of his own people made a truly democratic poll was impossible.

"You can't have free elections when the electorate goes to the polls in the knowledge that they have only one candidate for president," said the spokesman.

"That candidate has a history of using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, that candidate routinely murders and tortures opponents of the regime.

"The penalty for slandering that sole candidate is to have one's tongue cut out."

This is coming from the British government on what Saddam Hussein does ot his own people. We did go into Bosnia because of what miloshivic was doing to his people. I don't think he had dreams of world domination either.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So we're supposed to revolve our government around the UN then? The debates in the UN will be going on for awhile? SAre we supposed to stop everything until they get it together? Does England or any government stop it's government if it runs in conflict with what others in the outside world are doing at that time?

Most likely Bush did it to send a message to Iraq and the UN that we are serious. But even if it is the reason - does it matter when it is signed? It was going to be signed anyway.

Well if the USA considers itself a part of the UN then surely it would be prudent to allow the UN to do as it proposed, the investigations.......signing today when UN has starting a debate at the request of the countries who OPPOSE an attack on Iraq surely shows America's disdain at such a debate........America is making it quite clear that it will attack with or without support from the rest of the UN..........perhaps it should remove itself from the organisation (somehow I'm not expecting a very strong argument from you on that JD).

IMO signing this today will only cause even more hatred of the western world in Iraq, to interupt their electorial "celebrations" with world dominating headlines of the USA's war intentions can do no good whatsoever ........... with these open acts of intent I would be very surprised if the UN inspection team are not shot the minute they arrive on Iraqi soil...........not by the military but by civilians brainwashed into believing them to be evil

Yes the UN debate will be going on for a while, what has changed regarding the situation in Iraq to justify America wanting to hurry the next investigation.................has Saddam rolled out nuclear missiles that no-one but America knows about?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You left this part out

I didn't "leave it out" I added the link so anyone interested can read the WHOLE article

No Miloshovic was engaging in genocide of a whole religious culture..............100% pure murder.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Well if the USA considers itself a part of the UN then surely it would be prudent to allow the UN to do as it proposed, the investigations.......signing today when UN has starting a debate at the request of the countries who OPPOSE an attack on Iraq surely shows America's disdain at such a debate........America is making it quite clear that it will attack with or without support from the rest of the UN..........perhaps it should remove itself from the organisation (somehow I'm not expecting a very strong argument from you on that JD).

You won't. But I think it doesn't matter much when it was signed - since it was going to be signed anyway. Are we supposed to wait for 100% support form the world also?

IMO signing this today will only cause even more hatred of the western world in Iraq, to interupt their electorial "celebrations" with world dominating headlines of the USA's war intentions can do no good whatsoever ........... with these open acts of intent I would be very surprised if the UN inspection team are not shot the minute they arrive on Iraqi soil...........not by the military but by civilians brainwashed into believing them to be evil

Like they need an excuse to go out and march against the west. We could sneeze and Iraq and many in the Arab world would turn into that it's against them. They give their citizens an excuse to hate us so they won't look inward at their own governments. I seriously doubt that much is different in their country with the signing in Washington. Yeah - it'll get headlines - but if it wasn't that it would have been any number of things.

Yes the UN debate will be going on for a while, what has changed regarding the situation in Iraq to justify America wanting to hurry the next investigation.................has Saddam rolled out nuclear missiles that no-one but America knows about?

Blair seems convinced that Saddam Hussein poses a threat. But I know - he sits on America's lap as we spoon feed him. By the way - I think if that IS the case - you need a new Prime Minister.

We want to get inspectors in there as soon as possible before Hussein has time to organise his hiding places and preparedness for the inspectors. Whether we will rush the inspectors once they are there is pure conjecture.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No Miloshovic was engaging in genocide of a whole religious culture..............100% pure murder.

Oh yeah - I forgot - Hussein just kills and tortures the people that don't support him. *Must make note for talking over world: Okay to kill and torture none supporters - bad to just kill. Also okay to test chemical weaponary on innocent civilians.*

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh yeah - I forgot - Hussein just kills and tortures the people that don't support him. *Must make note for talking over world: Okay to kill and torture none supporters - bad to just kill. Also okay to test chemical weaponary on innocent civilians.*

Did I say he didn't ............. in fact I said several times that he did ................ The fact is that we entered Bosia at the request of the people

So by the above rational you feel that we should have removed Saddam already?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Did I say he didn't ............. in fact I said several times that he did ................ The fact is that we entered Bosia at the request of the people

But we didn't have the support of ALL the people. And at this time we do have the support of SOME Iraqis also. Also - I never stated that you didn't say he tortured his own people. But you did make a distinction between what Hussein does to his people and what Milosevich did to his.

So by the above rational you feel that we should have removed Saddam already?

Yes I do think we should have taken him out before. Too bad the Gulf War was restricted to just getting him out of Kuwait.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You won't. But I think it doesn't matter much when it was signed - since it was going to be signed anyway. Are we supposed to wait for 100% support form the world also?


Like they need an excuse to go out and march against the west. We could sneeze and Iraq and many in the Arab world would turn into that it's against them. They give their citizens an excuse to hate us so they won't look inward at their own governments. I seriously doubt that much is different in their country with the signing in Washington. Yeah - it'll get headlines - but if it wasn't that it would have been any number of things.


Blair seems convinced that Saddam Hussein poses a threat. But I know - he sits on America's lap as we spoon feed him. By the way - I think if that IS the case - you need a new Prime Minister.

We want to get inspectors in there as soon as possible before Hussein has time to organise his hiding places and preparedness for the inspectors. Whether we will rush the inspectors once they are there is pure conjecture.

March against the west? your in a dreamland JD...........Iraq did not have military power to hold Kuwait!!

Really it is up to the US if it wants 100% support form the world, it either works with the world or against parts of it this of course will lead to further conflict with other countries in the future.

Yes Blair has many faults, hopefully this will be the action that causes his downfall

So what are these "any number of things" the west has done today to antagonise Saddam?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
March against the west? your in a dreamland JD...........Iraq did not have military power to hold Kuwait!!

I didn't mean "march against the west" in terms of military action. I was using it as symonym for demonstrating.

Really it is up to the US if it wants 100% support form the world, it either works with the world or against parts of it this of course will lead to further conflict with other countries in the future.

So we shouldn't do ANYTHING if 100% of the world doesn't agree? You must be living IN Iraq - I think it's the ONLY country that has had 100% support of a leader. Britain must get nothing done if they wait around for 100% support on a decision for they do something.

So what are these "any number of things" the west has done today to antagonise Saddam?

I was saying that Saddam Hussein would USE any number of things to get his people to DEMONSTRATE against the west. It doesn't have to be true or anything. It just needs to be printed in the paper or be shown on TV. He has organised marches, sorry demonstrations, in the streets of Iraq against the west.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But we didn't have the support of ALL the people. And at this time we do have the support of SOME Iraqis also. Also - I never stated that you didn't say he tortured his own people. But you did make a distinction between what Hussein does to his people and what Milosevich did to his.

Yes I do think we should have taken him out before. Too bad the Gulf War was restricted to just getting him out of Kuwait.

So you don't have the support of ALL the Iraqi people but you did have the support of SOME of the Bosnian ........... and the distiction would be?

Yes I think the world would like to know why Bush Snr did not take the Gulf War offensive into Baghdad and eliminate Saddam.........I'm just having a wild guess here, but maybe it was because the next government (Saddams opposition) had not been suficiently groomed for takeover