Iraq

[samwiselvr2008]

The power of words! JD, you are doing a pritty good job, because I use to be stuck imbatween going or not, 50/50, and now there is only one thing holding me back. Brother.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
He's not saying that Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he's saying there's simply no PROOF of this.

I can't believe that this is going again: haven't we covered this already?

We probally have, but read JD's last post. At least it convinced me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Do you'll get no news over where you are? How can you sit there and say that they don't have any weapons? I am personally not very up-to-date on this, so maybe I shouldn't be arguing with you, but for all I know, I think that it is clear that they do have weapons. JD, didn't they only let them inspect PART of there places? Or am I just with all of the old news?

They gave them the run around on a lot of the palace inspections as well as other areas that they needed to inspect. I'll have to look up the exact episodes - but I feel there is enough that has been coming out for the US to be pushing for military action.

It seems as if European news is only giving so much about what is going on. That is one of the reasons why I guess it may never have been reported about the Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

After hearing that the weapons inspectors have given iraq a "B" in cooperation - I have even less confidence in the weapons inspectors and them actually working to find weapons. I think they're main goal is to attempt to stall the US long enough to prevent us from attacking. I think them, the UN and Europe is hoping that by draggin this out - that the situation will be dropped and everyone can go about their business and not deal with the hard reality of the situation.

[Coney]

I can't believe that this is going again: haven't we covered this already?

Yup, but I'm determined to get JD's typing speed up to at least 80wpm before war is declared

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
He's not saying that Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he's saying there's simply no PROOF of this.

yeah and Hans Blinx was in charge of the weapons inspections in north Korea and declared them completely clean too.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They gave them the run around on a lot of the palace inspections as well as other areas that they needed to inspect. I'll have to look up the exact episodes - but I feel there is enough that has been coming out for the US to be pushing for military action.

It seems as if European news is only giving so much about what is going on. That is one of the reasons why I guess it may never have been reported about the Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

After hearing that the weapons inspectors have given iraq a "B" in cooperation - I have even less confidence in the weapons inspectors and them actually working to find weapons. I think they're main goal is to attempt to stall the US long enough to prevent us from attacking. I think them, the UN and Europe is hoping that by draggin this out - that the situation will be dropped and everyone can go about their business and not deal with the hard reality of the situation.

A "B" in cooperation? Dose that word means what I think it dose?? I think that I have the rong meaning to this word, PLEASE tell me what it means again, because I HAVE to have the rong meaning to it if what you say is treu!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Yup, but I'm determined to get JD's typing speed up to at least 80wpm before war is declared

Well if I'm not up to 80wpm already then I guess I better work at so we can declare war. Although - it will most likely not be a declared war under US terms anyway. The US hasn't been in a declared war since World War II.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
A "B" in cooperation? Dose that word means what I think it dose?? I think that I have the rong meaning to this word, PLEASE tell me what it means again, because I HAVE to have the rong meaning to it if what you say is treu!

It means that the Hans Blix and the weapons inpsectors feel that Iraq has given above average cooperation with the inspections.

Cooperate -
1. To work or act together toward a common end or purpose.
2. To acquiesce willingly; be compliant

[samwiselvr2008]

JD, I'm speechless. A "B"???? How can that be? (Wow! that rymed! Go me!)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
JD, I'm speechless. A "B"???? How can that be? (Wow! that rymed! Go me!)

Yeah - that was what CNN had reported on Friday. Blix has given Iraq a "B" on cooperation with weapon inspections. The official report comes out tomorrow and then Bush gives the State of the Union speech on Tuesday.

It seems strange because Blix keeps saying that the cooperation has been insufficient - but they said that they feel that overall Iraq has been cooperating.

It's is strange how a dictatorship can not get it's scienctists to speak with the weapons inspectors in private too. They seem to have no problem getting their citizens to do anything else they want.

Search for alliances, criticism of '12,200-page lie'
• WOLFOWITZ: SCIENTISTS TUTORED: U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ordered that any scientists who cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors be killed along with their families. "Furthermore," Wolfowitz said in a speech, "we know that scientists are being tutored on what to say to the U.N. inspectors and that Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as scientists to be interviewed by the inspectors." Iraqi officials have said there are no orders to prevent Iraqi scientists from cooperating with inspectors.

This goes back to those people who are going to Baghdad as human shields...

'Human shields' being used - U.S.
"I would rather die in defense of justice and peace than 'prosper' in complicity with mass murder and war," he said.

It would be nice if they could have been so heroic and put themselves out there like that while Iraqis killed their own citizens. I think they have been pretty "complicit" in that regard.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It would be nice if they could have been so heroic and put themselves out there like that while Iraqis killed their own citizens. I think they have been pretty "complicit" in that regard.

Not as complicit as those who tooled up Saddam in the first place so he could carry out his repression. Remind me, who was that again?

But, hey, let's not kid ourselves that the US/UK could give a toss about repressed Iraqis. This war is NOT about alleviating repression.

cheers

d.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Not as complicit as those who tooled up Saddam in the first place so he could carry out his repression. Remind me, who was that again?

Can't deny the fact that we did - but you might also recall under what circumstances. Iran and Iraq were in a war - having either one of them win the war would have been disasterous. The US was also not the only one that was supporting Iraq.

But, hey, let's not kid ourselves that the US/UK could give a toss about repressed Iraqis. This war is NOT about alleviating repression.

No you're right - it's about protecting the interests of the US. But with that will be the freedom of the Iraqi citizens. It's not by simple luck that the Kurds have a much higher standard of living than the Iraqis do - even though they live in the same country. It's just the Kurds are protected by the US and Britain - and Saddam Hussein can't repress them currently

All governments by the way, as well as people, as I stated before in past threads, concern themselves with their self interest first. Why is it that France and Russia are against military action - it's because they currently have financial ties with Iraq and are concerned about losing that. Turkey is leary about military action because of possible Kurdish rebellion in their own country, same thing with Iran. The surrounding Middle Eastern countries have also stated that would like to see Saddam Hussein eliminated - but they have problems with public opinion. So - you see - everyone is looking after their own self interest.

[Finmandos12]

All governments by the way, as well as people, as I stated before in past threads, concern themselves with their self interest first.

Thats absolutely right. And there is nothing wrong with that: after all, we pay taxes and elect our officials to govern ourselves, not to be police of the world. What I can't understand is that some people supported US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, and oppose a war with Iraq. According to this logic, we should only go to war if it won't help us at all. Military action in self-defense is bad, according to them.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
According to this logic, we should only go to war if it won't help us at all. Military action in self-defense is bad, according to them.

Of course, very few people (pacifists, maybe) would object to military action in self-defence. The point here is whether Iraq actually is the threat it's made out to be. In my view, it's not, and the arguments concerning WMDs, UN resolutions and terrorist connections are being made to cover up the real reasons.

Those real reasons are the state of the US economy, its increasing reliance on dodgy states for oil supplies, the desire to boost Bush's domestic political popularity, an excuse to pump government money into defence contracts, and maybe even revenge for the Gulf War.

Whether or not you agree with those views, a war in Iraq is a massive gamble. While many of the Arab states will secretly welcome Saddam's demise, what kind of situation will there be afterwards?

Whatever happens, thousands of innocent civilians will be killed. Saddam may torch the oil fields, like he did in Kuwait, causing an environmental disaster. He may provoke Israel into escalating the conflict. A US-led invasion will provide the perfect recruitment material for the likes of Al-Q'aida. Saudi Arabia, which already has a pretty precarious regime, will be destabilised. (How do you fancy having some fundamentalist Islamists controlling their oil reserves?)

Even if you agree with the principle of going to war, it's a hugely irresponsible gamble.

cheers

d.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Of course, very few people (pacifists, maybe) would object to military action in self-defence. The point here is whether Iraq actually is the threat it's made out to be. In my view, it's not, and the arguments concerning WMDs, UN resolutions and terrorist connections are being made to cover up the real reasons.

Those real reasons are the state of the US economy, its increasing reliance on dodgy states for oil supplies, the desire to boost Bush's domestic political popularity, an excuse to pump government money into defence contracts, and maybe even revenge for the Gulf War.

Whether or not you agree with those views, a war in Iraq is a massive gamble. While many of the Arab states will secretly welcome Saddam's demise, what kind of situation will there be afterwards?

Whatever happens, thousands of innocent civilians will be killed. Saddam may torch the oil fields, like he did in Kuwait, causing an environmental disaster. He may provoke Israel into escalating the conflict. A US-led invasion will provide the perfect recruitment material for the likes of Al-Q'aida. Saudi Arabia, which already has a pretty precarious regime, will be destabilised. (How do you fancy having some fundamentalist Islamists controlling their oil reserves?)

Even if you agree with the principle of going to war, it's a hugely irresponsible gamble.

The fear of Al Qaeda is the worst argument for not going against Iraq. If we were going to base foreign policy on what they might do - then we might as well fold up our democracy and declare them the winners.

As for the US relying on middle eastern oil - it's EUROPE that gets most of it's oil form these "dodgy states". The US only gets a fraction of our oil from them. EUROPE however gets over 50% of it's oil from the Middle East and Japan gets 70%.

The question isn't whether we will go to war with Iraq - it's whether we'll be going in there and taking Hussein out now - or if we'll be going in there in a couple of years when Saddam Hussein has the Middle East held hostage with his biological and chemical weapons.

A country no longer needs large tanks and military to easily wipe out 100.000 or even a million people. All they need to do is just have bio labs - which are extremely small and can be well hidden.

Transcript of Blix's remarks
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
-Hans Blix

When Iraq uses or supplies these undeclared and hidden weapons to terrorts and they are released in the London Underground - let me know if you still think Iraq is a danger. He kills his own people and his own sons - I don't think he'd have much problem with killing 10's of thousands of people innocently going to work.

Also - our econonmy is actually not that bad. The stock market has gone down - but the unemployement rate is still only around 6 - 7%. It's lower than what Europes has been for years and years. Most European countries have an unemployment rate around 9%. The economy feels so bad because we had over 10 years of economic growth.

So what kind of situation will the world be if we just stick our head in the sand and pretend that Iraq isn't doing anything or won't attempt to do any with it's biological and chemical weapons? Hitler was allowed by Europe to take the Rhine valley, Austria and part of Czechloslovakia (under agreement by Europe no less). Europe did not become outraged until he moved against Poland. I guess you guys just want to wait until he actually has the Middle East under his thumb or maybe kills 100,000 people.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The fear of Al Qaeda is the worst argument for not going against Iraq.

So you accept that one of the consequences of invading Iraq will be that it will strengthen the position of Bin Laden and his cronies?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
So you accept that one of the consequences of invading Iraq will be that it will strengthen the position of Bin Laden and his cronies?

No. Bin Ladin has already declared that he wants the destruction of the west - people refusing to acknowledge this fact does not make it go away. Believe me - being only 40 minutes from New York I am perfectly aware of what Osama Bin Ladin can do and is willing to do.

I think during the war that they may try something and they may even succeed. But they're going to continue doing stuff regardless of Iraq. Taking out Hussein will eliminate one of their areas of refuge. I think that taking out Iraq will actually weaken them in the long run.

[Dunadan]

Run that by me again. How exactly does invading Iraq make it less likely that Islamic extremists will want to attack the West using terrorism?

[Hasty Ent]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Those real reasons are the state of the US economy, its increasing reliance on dodgy states for oil supplies, the desire to boost Bush's domestic political popularity, an excuse to pump government money into defence contracts, and maybe even revenge for the Gulf War.

Must say, Dunadan, I agree with you 100%.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Run that by me again. How exactly does invading Iraq make it less likely that Islamic extremists will want to attack the West using terrorism?

I didn't say they would be less likely to want to - but they'd have one less powerful ally on their side. One less place to hide out. One less place to get supplies and a place to train. You said that it wil strengthen Bin Ladin's position - and I don't think it will, it'll weaken his position.

The Islamic Extremists will always want to attack the west. Unless woman in the west want to give up driving, be covered, not talk to strange men, and everyone is will to convert to islam - they will always want to destroy the west.