Iraq

[BeardofPants]

Not that this is on topic, but America went into WWI because Germany was trying to make an alliance with Mexico, thus causing havoc on home soil so to speak.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Not that this is on topic, but America went into WWI because Germany was trying to make an alliance with Mexico, thus causing havoc on home soil so to speak.

True and we weren't as strong of allies with Europe at the time of WW I as we are now. During the Civil War, which was just about 50 years earlier - England was supporting the south - hoping that the US would destroy itself and it would be able to reclaim North America. And in 1812 they set the Whitehouse on fire and invaded the US. Before that it was the Revolution. We had a long history of conflict with England prior to becoming allies. And the other European countries weren't much better. Even France only helped us during the Revolution because it was in their self interest, They waited to get involved until they knew we could win.

[osszie]

...................... JD when, and if, you finally make a decision where you stand on this be sure to let me know

Khamul asked yesterday to let it drop and I said I would until the news changes, it did and I added some posts, are you still talking about Iraq or are you just trying to defend any stance that the USA takes.

As you said yesterday "I'll drop it if they will" personally I would love to hear from another american who shares your point of view ........actually I would love to hear from ANYONE who shares your point of view..................let me know when you find someone because, to be frank you repeat and then contradict yourself over and over again ....................... this is a personal critisicm, as I'm sure your aware, pls don't forget the pm service for any remarks you may have on this

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Not that this is on topic, but America went into WWI because Germany was trying to make an alliance with Mexico, thus causing havoc on home soil so to speak.

Read "The Zimmerman Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman for a amusing telling of the three stooges-like episode of american history.

On topic: How is it we knew the count, type and location of the Soviet weapons yet we have such a hard time getting hard info on Irag? Is it because they have very little to hide?

Well, if it does come to war we can at least hope they fold quickly. It won't be much of a fight anyway.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
...................... JD when, and if, you finally make a decision where you stand on this be sure to let me know

Khamul asked yesterday to let it drop and I said I would until the news changes, it did and I added some posts, are you still talking about Iraq or are you just trying to defend any stance that the USA takes.

No I'm not trying to defend any action that the US takes. I have supported the tough stance the US has taken with Iraq. As I said though - when it was proposed that we attack Iraq, which was A YEAR ago, I was against war with Iraq.

As you said yesterday "I'll drop it if they will" personally I would love to hear from another american who shares your point of view ........actually I would love to hear from ANYONE who shares your point of view..................let me know when you find someone because, to be frank you repeat and then contradict yourself over and over again ....................... this is a personal critisicm, as I'm sure your aware, pls don't forget the pm service for any remarks you may have on this

Well I think Khamul does support the same view (hopefully he will state his opinions when he gets on) and I know many others that do. Even my friend in Canada supports this view on Iraq - none of them, except Khamul, are on Entmoot though.

You obviously don't understand you think that the whole issue is black and white. Again you say that I don't support invasion of Iraq if they have WMD - and that isn't true. I said that we would have to look at the situation. If they were able to lob an ICBM and nuke London - then I think we'd have to reconcider the situation. if they had WMD that weren't that powerful - but refused to dismantle and stop production - then yes I do support war (But again I'd have to see the situation when the time came). There are a lot of variables to determine and things that can change. For one thing the situation with North Korea changes some things, the support of allies changes some things, the reception of weapons inspectors in Iraq changes some things, future terrorist attacks changes some things, the feelings of Arab countries changes some things, etc etc. Surely you can understand that everything must be weighed. Right now weapons inspectors are supposed to go into Iraq - so am I for invading Iraq right this minute? No I'm not. I think we should wait for the weapons inspectors. I have said this repeatedly but you keep wanting me to reword it so you can understand.

I had ALSO said in this thread that I would prefer to take Hussein out in the heart of darkness than have an all out war. These are ALL true. They do not contradict one another.

And I'm not going to PM you because I can careless if you personally attack me. It doesn't affect my life what so ever what you think of me or my opinions. You are more than capable of PMing me if you want to take this "offline".

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
On topic: How is it we knew the count, type and location of the Soviet weapons yet we have such a hard time getting hard info on Irag? Is it because they have very little to hide?

It is harder to hide the movement and manufacture of ICBMs than the maufacture of microscopic biological agents or chemical weapons. Even the manufacture of suitcase size nuclear weapons can take place inside a garage. Not to mention the huge spy network that the Soviet Union and the US were using to gather information on each other.

There was a lot of stuff that came out after the cold war that the US was surprised at. Even during the Cuba Missile Crisis - it just came out that the subs we were firing on carried nuclear weapons. At that time US did not think that the Soviet Union had armed their subs with nuclear weapons.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is harder to hide the movement and manufacture of ICBMs than the maufacture of microscopic biological agents or chemical weapons. Even the manufacture of suitcase size nuclear weapons can take place inside a garage.

Not quite true. While the finished product can be smaller than what we normally think it would be, the equipment to build these weapons is very difficult to hide. Microbiological weapons require a significantly large culture area to create enough to be anything like a WMD. There are more ways than just visual to detect these thing as well.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Not quite true. While the finished product can be smaller than what we normally think it would be, the equipment to build these weapons is very difficult to hide. Microbiological weapons require a significantly large culture area to create enough to be anything like a WMD. There are more ways than just visual to detect these thing as well.

How are we supposed to detect these from the air and also - he supposedly has a lot of underground complexes.

[BeardofPants]

Ah, going back into speculative territory are we?

[osszie]

My dear JD I have absolutely no interest in attacking you

However the endless tirade of referrences to WW2, America attacking Europe etc were becoming a little tiresome

Ah, again you misunderstand me, I never claimed that the problem of Iraq was "black and white" in fact I think you will find if you re-read my posts I was discussing that it was exactly the opposite, that there are many questions still regarding Iraq and that America, by threatening war, was reducing the problem of Iraq to a "black and white" choice..........I will say this yet again DO NOT TRY TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!...........you are beyond contempt JD.

You have constantly shifted your opinion (take a good look at your posts) you try to justify this by making, in your eyes, a distinction between your personal opinion and that of your government.

My point in this discussion has alway been HOW IS AMERICA BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTUSTIFEID BY THREATENING IRAQ WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE?............the question remains.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
At that time US did not think that the Soviet Union had armed their subs with nuclear weapons.

Would these be the same thinkers that think that Saddam has WMD? Noooo because even the CIA does not think he has them ................ they beleive that he may soon and that is why the UN are going to carryout investigations.........thank gods the US government has been pressurised into complying with the UN

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
My dear JD I have absolutely no interest in attacking you

However the endless tirade of referrences to WW2, America attacking Europe etc were becoming a little tiresome

Ah, again you misunderstand me, I never claimed that the problem of Iraq was "black and white" in fact I think you will find if you re-read my posts I was discussing that it was exactly the opposite, that there are many questions still regarding Iraq and that America, by threatening war, was reducing the problem of Iraq to a "black and white" choice..........I will say this yet again DO NOT TRY TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!...........you are beyond contempt JD.

You have constantly shifted your opinion (take a good look at your posts) you try to justify this by making, in your eyes, a distinction between your personal opinion and that of your government.

My point in this discussion has alway been HOW IS AMERICA BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTUSTIFEID BY THREATENING IRAQ WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE?............the question remains.

By threatening them got the possibillity of inspectors back in. After that it is a wait in see attitude. Capisce?

[Erawyn]

The same goes for Canada. Instead obviously you only look at your own needs so you can supply YOUR country with high living standards.

Sorry this was along time ago!!
Yes we do look after our own country. I do not mean to say that other countries shouldn't do that at all! But one of the differences between Canada and the US is that the US is hugely militaristic and while the US spends about 280 billion on their military a year Canada spends about 8 billion a year. Most of what Canada's military does is peacekeeping anyways.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Would these be the same thinkers that think that Saddam has WMD? Noooo because even the CIA does not think he has them ................ they beleive that he may soon and that is why the UN are going to carryout investigations.........thank gods the US government has been pressurised into complying with the UN

okay - twist the facts around. How werre we pressured into COMPLYING with the UN? We were trying to get a resolution through the UN that said that if Iraq had weapons or hindered the inspectors that military action would be used. It obviously was not going to win support - it's not an issue of complying. We ARE currently working on a NEW resolution. It has nothing to do with the US complying with the UN.

Do think the only reason Hussein has agreed to weapons inspectors is because of fear of invation and now this gives him stalling time so he can prepare and hide his weapons and equipment. Also - so he can produce some signs in ENGLISH that say "hospital" and "Baby Food Factory" on them.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By threatening them got the possibillity of inspectors back in. After that it is a wait in see attitude. Capisce?

Capisce? Definitely I understand that everyone from Iraq, North Korea to militant and religious fanatics have just strengthened their resolve (not to mention armaments) against the threat of America ............"comply with us or suffer the our wrath" is not an invite it is a declaration................so who next in the "axis of evil" is going to have to either comply or resist this statement...........North Korea maybe?...........would America dare tempt a nuclear holocaust?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
okay - twist the facts around. How werre we pressured into COMPLYING with the UN?

Because the UN did not wholly support America .........are you saying the change is solely down to Bush's change of heart............if so then why?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
How are we supposed to detect these from the air and also - he supposedly has a lot of underground complexes.

Actually it was a trick. We didn't have real numbers about the Soviets. They we speculative and overinflated; designed to justify inflated military budgets and wars against "dominoes".

Intelligence can be massaged to get the desired answer. If you see a new building in a complex it could be a weapons factory or a machine shop, depending on what one wants to see..

[osszie]

Originally posted by osszie
Would these be the same thinkers that think that Saddam has WMD? Noooo because even the CIA does not think he has them ................ they beleive that he may soon and that is why the UN are going to carryout investigations.........thank gods the US government has been pressurised into complying with the UN

Which of these facts was I actually twisting around JD?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by osszie
...HOW IS AMERICA BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTUSTIFEID BY THREATENING IRAQ WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE?....

Morality has very little to do with it. It's purely strategic, in the eyes of the government. That question is unaswered as well,; that is: Is it a good strategic move to start a war in the Middle East? If Iraq attacks Israel and they retaliate blah, blah, blah and war breaks out in the entire area, then what? Can you say 60$ a barrel?

[osszie]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Morality has very little to do with it. It's purely strategic, in the eyes of the government. That question is unaswered as well,; that is: Is it a good strategic move to start a war in the Middle East? If Iraq attacks Israel and they retaliate blah, blah, blah and war breaks out in the entire area, then what? Can you say 60$ a barrel?

Well, I have a little trouble speaking in an american accent, but at that price I would whistle dixie