Iraq

[Cirdan]

The characature of Hussein straining to attack his neighbors is ironic. The circumstance under which Kuwait was invaded seems to be lost in the rhetoric here. He encouraged SH's invasion of Iran. We knew about the massing of troops on the Kuwaiti border. Everything he did up until that time was done with the blessing of the US administration. After the gulf war there has been little of no movement in this area because the US changed its policy to one one containment. This is the same policy we us e for all other dictators with little dreams of empire. There is only one reason why Taiwan is independent and we are not at war with China; the US deterrence. This is a successful approach.

"Perfecting them and their delivery methods" with regards to WMDs. You are just resorting to hyperbole now. Aside from what was given to them by the US and Russia, Iraq has nothing in the was of any more than the most rudimentary technology. Is it dangerous? Of course, but perfecting it...? please!

If your threshold for invasion is how the citizens have been trested in any country then we have a whole lot of countries to invade. I don't think we invaded Serbia, we only bombed the crap out of it. This was during a full scale miltary operation against a minority province. No such activity is occuring in Iraq at this time or in recent years.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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.

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.

Oh no, in Britain we value our place in the UN..........when we act it is in the common good or in self defence/the defence of others at their request.............we know that we are a military, and more importantly, nuclear power and we practice caution when we exert either the power itself, or the threat of power. The UK's international relations have never been better as a result

And I was pointing out that todays actions in the US merely provided them with amunition TO demonstrate against the west

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
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?

Well you said that we entered Bosnia at the request of the people. We didn't have the request from ALL the people. And there are Iraqis that want us to go in there. So - you can't use the "we entered Bosnia at the request of the people" argument to say that we shouldn't enter Iraq. Many Iraqis are requesting that we depose Saddam Hussein.

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

There are a number of resons. Congress had only given him authorisation to free Kuwait. The other would have been because the coalition would have fallen apart. The coalition was built to drive Hussein from Kuwait - not to depose him and overthrow his government. Also - over course if you're oging to overthrow a government - you do want someone in place to take over. If not - then you are left with anarchy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The characature of Hussein straining to attack his neighbors is ironic. The circumstance under which Kuwait was invaded seems to be lost in the rhetoric here. He encouraged SH's invasion of Iran. We knew about the massing of troops on the Kuwaiti border. Everything he did up until that time was done with the blessing of the US administration. After the gulf war there has been little of no movement in this area because the US changed its policy to one one containment. This is the same policy we us e for all other dictators with little dreams of empire. There is only one reason why Taiwan is independent and we are not at war with China; the US deterrence. This is a successful approach.

I am aware of the US attitude toward Iraq prior to the Gulf War.

"Perfecting them and their delivery methods" with regards to WMDs. You are just resorting to hyperbole now. Aside from what was given to them by the US and Russia, Iraq has nothing in the was of any more than the most rudimentary technology. Is it dangerous? Of course, but perfecting it...? please!

Are you there in the middle east and inparticular Iraq to know what Hussein is doing or what supplies he is getting. We have satelite photos of rail lines tat have been built from Syria right into Baghdad. Satelite photos though can't see through boxes, box cars or walls. So we won't know what Hussein has unless he allows unfettered access to the inspectors. Which I highly doubt he will.

If your threshold for invasion is how the citizens have been trested in any country then we have a whole lot of countries to invade. I don't think we invaded Serbia, we only bombed the crap out of it. This was during a full scale miltary operation against a minority province. No such activity is occuring in Iraq at this time or in recent years.

I wasn't using it as a guide. But it was the main reason for Bosnia - they didn't have any oil or anything that people claim is the only reason we get involved in the Middle East. Of course the other reason we got involved was because we were afraid it would have spilled over their borders. So if those arguments were good enough for Bosnia - then why not Iraq?

[osszie]

Your right, I did say that about Bosnia and you have clearly stated that you feel this is a valid reason for invading Iraq and of course because some Iraqi's ask the west to remove Saddam then we should have already invaded....................so you are pro-war

Yes someone to take over the running of a country is an absolute........it's a shame there is none for Iraq really

Oh a little light entertainment for you all here

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1166331

Orwell was only off by about 22yrs

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Your right, I did say that about Bosnia and you have clearly stated that you feel this is a valid reason for invading Iraq and of course because some Iraqi's ask the west to remove Saddam then we should have already invaded....................so you are pro-war

I'm not pro or anti war. I weigh the options. As I said - I would rather not see an all out war. But I do support this war if it comes to it.

[Cirdan]

Actually the coalition did not topple SH at the request of the moderate arab allied coutries. It was part of the agreement to use bases, airspace, etc.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

Oh a little light entertainment for you all here

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1166331

Orwell was only off by about 22yrs

He was giving that speech in terms of the war on terrorism. I believe the world is out fighting terrorism all over the place right now - not just the US. I do however disagree with many things in terms of the "Homeland Security" agency. Also the Homeland Security Office is an internal government agency that the American people must deal with. It has nothing to do with the outside world - other than if you come to visit the US. But that has nothing to do with Iraq. If he was effectively declaring -

permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya.

Then I guess he wouldn't have to go through Congress or anything. And I guess we've declared war on the world. I guess Europe should start spending some money on military.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Oh no, in Britain we value our place in the UN..........when we act it is in the common good or in self defence/the defence of others at their request.............we know that we are a military, and more importantly, nuclear power and we practice caution when we exert either the power itself, or the threat of power. The UK's international relations have never been better as a result

yeah - I forgot about the Faulklands.

And I was pointing out that todays actions in the US merely provided them with amunition TO demonstrate against the west

An as I said - like they need ammunition to demonstrate against the west. The arab countries keep their citizen hating the west for any reason in order to keep them from revolting against their real problem - which is their own governments.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
An as I said - like they need ammunition to demonstrate against the west. The arab countries keep their citizen hating the west for any reason in order to keep them from revolting against their real problem - which is their own governments.

Right, JD they are all alike, aren't they?

[BeardofPants]

How does it feel to know that if Saddam has WMD it is because the US armed him?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Right, JD they are all alike, aren't they?

I guess I should go about listing all the Arab countries seperately that set up demonstrations against the west. I forgot - if I'm too general then you think I feel that everyone is like that. No I DO NOT FEEL ALL the Arab countries do that. For one thing Jordan doesn't and neither does Saudi Arabia. Iran does, the Palestinians do, Iraq absolutely does. I bet Saudia Arabia would if they didn't need the west so much because they have many problems with their own citizenry.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yeah - I forgot about the Faulklands.

An as I said - like they need ammunition to demonstrate against the west. The arab countries keep their citizen hating the west for any reason in order to keep them from revolting against their real problem - which is their own governments.

Oh yes the Falklands (wondered how long it would be before that was dragged up ) a foreign country invaded OUR soverign territory and we removed them, there were casualities on both sides, no nuclear weapons were used, no depleted uranium that would kill thousands of innocents........the Falklands returned to British rule and we did not even bother to punish Argentina for its pathetic attemp at a show of power......if we had we would certainly not have waited for over a decade to do so

And how nice it was of the US to provide so much ammunition for propaganda in Iraq, on the day of the Iraqi elections no less

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
How does it feel to know that if Saddam has WMD it is because the US armed him?

It doesn't feel like anything. That was the past and there were reasons for it. Whether it was a good decision we can never know because it's easy to judge the past in the eyes of today. Who knjows what would have been the situation in the Middle East if we hadn't supported them in the war against Iran.

[osszie]

Supported yes, how did it feel when Saddam stabbed America in the back?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Oh yes the Falklands (wondered how long it would be before that was dragged up ) a foreign country invaded OUR soverign territory and we removed them, there were casualities on both sides, no nuclear weapons were used, no depleted uranium that would kill thousands of innocents........the Falklands returned to British rule and we did not even bother to punish Argentina for its pathetic attemp at a show of power......if we had we would certainly not have waited for over a decade to do so

The only reason I brought up the Falklands is because you said that you manage your military and only fight in self defense. But I could have just as easily have brought up Ireland.

You really can't take the moral high ground in this. No European country can.

And how nice it was of the US to provide so much ammunition for propaganda in Iraq, on the day of the Iraqi elections no less

Oh - i guess now we're supposed to revolve the management of our government around Iraq.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Supported yes, how did it feel when Saddam stabbed America in the back?

How did he stab us in the back? You're whole argument yesterday was that he never did anything to the US. He sank US ships and I suppose that is what you are getting at maybe. He invaded Kuwait. Of course his attack on US ships also nullifies your argument that he has never attacked the US - IF it was on purpose.

[BeardofPants]

JD:
You're whole argument yesterday was that he never did anything to the US.

No. I specifically stated yesterday that he sunk a couple of US ships prior to the gulf war.

Our arguments have been that Saddam hasn't done anything against the US since he got slapped on the hand AFTER the gulf war.

Geez, JD, quit putting words into peoples mouths.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No. I specifically stated yesterday that he sunk a couple of US ships prior to the gulf war.

Our arguments have been that Saddam hasn't done anything against the US since he got slapped on the hand AFTER the gulf war.

Geez, JD, quit putting words into peoples mouths.

READ ABOVE - I was editing my statement as you were posting.

[BeardofPants]

So? I'll say it again. Saddam doesn't appear to have moved against the US since the gulf war. Heck, he's been isolated in Iraq!

You have yet to prove that he's moved against the US. You have yet to answer why this war is justified. All you have provided is speculation. Not good enough. SHOW ME THE MONEY!