Typhoon: I was referring to 93wickedTA. He is Bobby as well.

Sandeep: Although I agree that there is a loss of soverenty issue with respect to haveing "inspectors", Sadam was not in a realistic position to object, nor, as 93WickedTA pointed out, did he have the "right" to object.

Sadam's own self interest would be to have allowed the UN access as they wanted rather then being difficult.

I must confess that I do not know Iraq's reserves but "controlling" Iraq's oil, I would say, is a modest fringe benefit. Lets think clearly here. Sadam is a dictator. He oppresses his people and lives like a God. He has a huge asset at his disposal yet he relentlessly picks a fight with the one country in the world that you don't want to intimidate.

If he just sat there quietly bullying, dominating and murdering his own people - like dozens and dozens of other evil tyrants - then chances are the US, like all the other nations, just turn a blind eye and adopt the position that the population will have to figure it out for themselves.

But NO, he wants to be a war monger, a hate monger, a terrorist. He invades a neighbouring country, aggressively tries to destabalize Israel and finances and harbours terrorists. Put it all together and the US is going to conclude that there is not going to be any "good" time to take him out and that it is just a matter of time before Sadam unleashes - probably at the US directly - a truly breathtaking act of one type or another.

Sadam had PLENTY of opportunity to avert the attack and although he may have had to swallow his pride, he could have appeased the world with the UN rather then ultimately going toe to toe with the US.

It is of course easy with hindsight, and we have already forgotten why this war started, but after 9/11 there was no way the US is about to practise a policy of appeasement with nutbars who are publically threatening them. How can they?

Europe appeased Hitler and of course the result was inevitable. What if Al Gore was president on 9/11? You think a less aggressive reaction would have been more likely? I think it would have been?

What if the US did not go to Afgahnistan and Iraq and today the water system of Southern California and the North East USA was poisioned with Anthrax? Would the opposition to the war then chnage there mind? What would have to happen for the US to justify cracking some heads open? Not personal attack Sandeep, but what ARE the circumstances that would justify US reaction? Whatever they are, the US was not going to wait to become a victim again.

Again, my own opinion that this war was not about "oil". The US has no problem paying Sadam, or the Saudis or anyone else for a barrel of oil. The cost and supply of oil is not significantly affected by Iraq either way. Again, if control of oil was a primary motive I would ask how it is that oil is $42 a barrel which is certianly NOT what the Americans would prefer to see.

Take the Saudi's? There is another corrupt POS regime, but they play the game right. Keep a low profile and don't p*** of the big guy. Of course, I think the Saudies are another hot bed of Islamic fundamentalism that could easily get out of control. Should there be a civil revolution in Saudi Arabia, LOOK out. The implications to the US could be REALLY significant. But for the moment, they don't atagonize the US so the US lets them be, violationg civil rights and all. In other words, you can be evil if you want, just don't threaten the US.

 

Agreed, and I am not totally educated on the Japan and German concessions, so I'll take your word for it. However, I was just trying to show why Saddam refused the US. I started wondering why when the US was armeing themselves for chemical and biological warfare, nothing was happening on Saddams side. The US might have won that battle, however it was quite the touche on Saddams part when no WMD appeared. He made bush's actions look ridiculous, and started making the world question the US's actions. That I must admit is pretty impressive. The world will not easily forget a screw up like that.

I also agree with this. However, I think there are other approaches that have not been discussed when it come to the US makeing an early exit and leaving a more stable region at the same time.
As well, I read over my first post and I dont see where i said the US should exit. They have a duty to fulfill and they should not leave until it has. I was only trying to show why the people in IRaq might feel the way they do.

This I will have to wait and see. I was also wondering Bobby, Have you ever looked at the Social programs that Saddam had for "his people"? There was a high degree of education that he provided. Unfortuneatly. it only went to want he called "his people". That is what was sh!tty.

 

Sorry Shaun, maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't it the USA that turned their scopes in that direction after 9/11 and called Iraq part of the axis of evil? And Bush Sr, attacked Iraq not because he invaded kuwait, but because of the oil that was there. And I dont think he picked a fight, I think the US picked a fight. Saddam just didn't back down. Who in this world doesn't know how powerful the US is? Everyone knew that Iraq didnt stand a chance. Osama Bin Laden also hates Saddam, he has been quoted calling Saddam an Infidel, etc. But as history has shown, the US helped both Osama and Saddam when they needed help and when it benefited the US.

Yes he invaded Kuwait, but for what reason..OIL. As for destabilizing Israel, if that was a reason to attack him then why doesn't the US go in and "stabilize" Palestine? As for harboring terrorists, there is not a country in the world that doesnt do that. We all have terrorists of some kind or another in our countries. Canada harboured (unknowinglying of course) the Sikh terrorists for the Air India Bombing, should the US attack us for that, saying that we should have been more aware?? As for a breathtaking attack, you can question US Foreign Policy about that one. It is funny how opinons differ throughout the US about this. I have talked to people who are all for it and think Bush is gods gift to the World. I have also talked to people in the US who are for the war, but say that the US got what was coming to them because of their foreign policy.

Didn't he try to appease the world/US with the UN? I know there were times where he gave them the runaround but I think the US wasn't going to be please anyways until they saw it for themselves and did their own "interviews"

So is the US, or should the US keep going on this campaign against the axis of evil? Do they stand a chance against Iran/North Korea, etc? Or is the US/Bush turning into a democratic more polite Germany? Is the UN actually now appeasing the US so that THEY dont get pissed off?

And yes I think if AL Gore was in power, it would have been a less aggresive and violent response. I think Al Gore would have gone in and out quietly. He would have used his intel and gone after the snakes head. Not saying he was smart enough to do that, but somehow I dont think that he would have ignore the threat of attack the way Bush did. Bush thinks of the US, Texan style. Rough & tough, the big boyz. He was confident in being superior, and probably never dreamt that he would be attacked on home soil. Gore probably would have been having nightmares and would have probably acted on the warnings and may have succeeded in stopping the 9/11 events.

This a frustrating topic, and I will say that whether you are for or against the US being in Iraq, you are neither right nor wrong. I think the way we feel, think and are raised has a lot to do with what is right and what is wrong. Both sides have valid points for justifying what is happenign or what shouldn't be happening. I for one could never say what it is like to fight in the army, or what it is like to be in the front lines like some people on this board. I envy them for the experience and for their knowledge that they have gained, however I also pity them for the weight they now have to carry on their shoulders and the emotional "baggage" that they have to keep in their minds.


I would like to say that this has been a very good discussion so far.

 

While not completely familiar with them, I do not consider Iraq a third world country by any means. That is the whole problem I have with the media's story on this. They make Iraq out to be this **** poor third world country with peasants in huts and crap and the US is "on a mission to Bring them prosperity and education and crap." There are doctors, lawyers, succesful business men, Professors etc. BUT like you said that is for the "chosen" people. Everyone else is repressed. And while you can say the same to a certian extent about the US, every person in the US has the means (physically an mentally able) to but 3 meals on the table and afford shelter. You yourself say that the average person works all day for JUST ONE MEAL!!!


You have a country with ENORMOUS economic potential and all of it is going to one man and what he chooses to do with it. The same main who practices genicide. Shoot he didn't just wipe people out he ALTERED the environment to make it like they never existed.

The Axis powers of WWII basically could only develop a military for self defense (minimal) and was overseen by the Allies, also why the US has bases in Japan and Germany.


Plus I believe you are incorrect (with my limited first hand knowledge on the subject) Sadam wasn't co-operating with UN inspectors. He was letting them see what he wanted and making excuses for not giving over all the information. Again HE LOST A WAR HE STARTED, he signed an international treaty. Then he got it in his mind that he no longer had to follow it except under his terms. Sadam was calling the US bluff, I honestly think he thought they were going to back down just like they had in the past, and what would have happened if we did??????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????

You know again I go back and forth wether we should have been in there or not in the first place, I would have liked to have seen the UN handle it, even if it ended up the same result. But even if that was the case then we still would have been the bad guy.

I will agree that the US has made some F*^(*&d up choices in foreign policy in the region. Especially always having Isereals back. Funny to me that Isralies forget how they got the country in the first place and get mad because the former inhabitants are pissed. But that is a WHOLE other issue.

Man then Iran, WOW that is a WHOLE OTHER story. Whats funny about Iran is my company does alot of business in that country. You talk to the business men there, Iranians, and they are VERY professional, VERY modern (even more so then alot of larger US companies. Yet there business is always in uncertainty because of the instability. Its hard to get funding for investments because of it. Just always strikes me as a wierd way of life. And again makes me realize how little I really understand it all

I also agree that is the best "board" conversation I have seen on this topic and all of us are recognizing that there is no right or wrong with any of this. Just limited educated opinions

 

BTW I can't stand Bush, I'm embarrased that he is the president but at least he backs what he says which is more than the past Democrats have (I'm more democrate then repubican but sometimes the Dem are wussies)

Unfortunately in this world so much is dependant on the balances of power the basis of the cold war. Sure everyone knows that if a country were to attack the US they would get demolished. IF Iran claimed responsibilty for 9/11 as an act of war. (instead of individual terriost party) I wouldn't be suprised if a laser came down from a old "Starwars" satillite and destroyed every military and government structure they have.

But Countries also know that the US is the big bad bully of the world an use that to thier advantage. The amount of US funds that is given is astronomical in foriegn policy. Granted there is almost ALWAY a hidden agenda but it takes two to make those kinda of agreements.

Also to say that Sadam didn't have research on some crazy crap I think is Niave as well. How much did he put into it? Who knows? You only need one big bomb or two airplanes to have an effect....

 

I lived in the middle east for 7 years, its important to remember the mantality of the people. I was all for the war, but now I wish we would just leave. The thing is, I was out of the Middle East too long, (3 years since i left), the mantality of the people not to be racist, is lazy!!! Nobody steps up to take initiative, and there is no such thing as sacrificing urself for the good of other people, (unless your blowing yourslef up and killing innocent ppl). Iraqis couldnt step up and fight for their own freedom, becuase they all said they didnt have a chance and couldnt stand up to saddam. They basically gave up before they even started. Look at the American mantality, we were opressed by the british, bascially a seemingly omnipotent power at the time, and we got a bunch of farmers, intelects, and good hearted people, and fought for our own freedom. Now that American soldiers died for Iraqis freedom, they wont even step up to do the easy stuff, like build up infrastructure. Rather they would rather sit back and say, why dont I have electricity? Why dont I have water? Why dont we have a bus system? Well are you going to work in the power plant? be a teacher? drive a bus? And sadly the answer is no. Rather they choose to complain, and in the worst cases kill American soldiers who are sacrificing so much for the Iraqi people. I lived in the middle east and witnessed this mantality first hand, EVERYONE, even if you are poor has a maid, usually from the Phillipines or India. They pay the maids/servants almost slave wages to do all the dirty work in their homes so they dont have to. The same goes for their infrastructure, they dont work the factories, utilities, or any other basic jobs, rather they pay horrible wages to poor Asians to do the work for them. Statistically in almost all Arab countries the Phillipino/Indian/Sri Lankan population is at least as large as the Arab population! So why does Iraq have so many problems? Not enough people to do the work for them, because they dont want to take the initiative. Its the sad truth. Just thought people should now that and hear it from someone who knows FIRST HAND.

 

Many people die every day of natural causes and strange cancers/dieses. I'd bet Saddam's been exposed to some pretty natsy chemicals while hiding in underground bunkers like a coward and visiting chemical production plants throughout his life.

Three letters: C. I. A.

 

No, it's not. the UN is a sock puppet for dictators, communists, and facists to condem western philosophies under the banner of "international voice". It was started with good intentions, but there is little good being done by it, and frankly, the US funds the whole operation anyway... it was and attempt at peace to prevent WWIII... personally I don't see it helping much except to give the facisits a nice seat at the table.

Quote:

i too dont believe everything on cnn, bbc is better for providign both sides of the story. if you have satelite then you get to see how the two news stations potray a story.

I totally agree. CNN is clearly anti-bush in their coverage and the CBC and BBC are probably more neutral.

The REALLY sad part about all of this is that the torchure/beheading of Nick Berg, the murder and mutilation of 4 american CIVILIANS, the discovery of Sarin gas (WMD) in Iraq today, and the assasination of the Iraqi council head is all proof of WHY we need to be there... not excuses for us to run and hide.

Grow a damn backbone and do the right thing! This is plain stupid, who could possibily watch the discovery of established torture chambers, the hateful actions of Iraqi resistance / AlQ. and even have the gaul to suggest pulling out? I'd be asshamed to suggest such a thing and would honestly question my moral center if I did.

Some research on WWII wouldn't hurt this discussion at all. What happens in one area of the world DOES impact everyone... sooner or later. Sadly, we're faced with a similar situation as Hitler... he was ignored for too long and became powerful enough that millions had to die to correct our oversight early on. Islam has been ignored for 40 years since Israel was estabilished... now we (as in the Western World.. NOT just America, although as luck has it, the USA has been a poster-boy for Isreal support) have to deal with fixing our Arab-world image while simultaneously killing off the terrorists such an image bred.

There is A LOT more going on here than just "kill the terrorists" or "Bills out to get Sadam/oil". Anyone who tells you differently is ignorant or bias.

If Gore was elected 9-11 still would have happened, as would the following 100's of attempts since then that the FBI/CIA/CSIS have intercepted. Thinking that the figure head of a victium's country changes anything is rediculous. Likewise, Spain is in for a awefully bad reality check the next time terrorism hits.

 

That part of the convention tries to limit mental abuse and humiliation that runs as far back as Roman times. Being caught was bad enough, but being trudged through the streets for thousands to glare, spit, and cuss at you wasn't considered "honorable" when they drafted up the convention a few decades back. In all honesty the convention itself isn't much of an authority or law... but everyone wants to pride themselves on being on the "right side" when it comes to honorable combat.

Quote:

i dont care what the US soldiers do to the prisioners. if i caught someone who not to long ago was trying to shoot me i would have done alot worse then humiliate them.

yep... just like Nick found out. You've got to draw the line somewhere, and I'd like to think we can do it at POW treatment. The tough part though is that this war is more difficult than those past. Inteligence community needs to take up the slack of reconisince (there IS NO "front line" to scount on terrorism) with better interogation techniques... and if you havn't noticed by now, getting Islam-fanatics to talk before facing death isn't as easy as wars past. Putting prisoners likely to have strong intellegence through physical and mental strain can help get the information that saves lives and puts an end to this madness quickly is ok in my book. It's not the "nice" thing to do, but I doubt we'll find anyone willing to discuss their jahad plans over crumpets and tea like James Bond could.

Thousands have already died... and if the mutilated bodies of american contractors (civilians) and the video-taped "trophy kill" of Nick wasn't enough convincing picture what's gonna happen to the millions in the region that get in the way of tyrany in the future? Sadam regularly torchured and butuchered his own people... even used chemical weapons and blister agents. There is no worse way to die... or survive. If you think Sadam, Stallion, or Hitler were "exceptions" to human behavior consider how many serial killers we actually catch in North America... this isn't new, some people are naturally evil and should NOT be in power. Its up to the rest of to try and keep it from happening.

Sorry for the soap-box speach, but it's honestly sickening to hear people even suggest that the US & UK pull out of Iraq, Afganistan, South Korea, or any place else we've stationed troops to stabilize the region. I'm not saying the US should be "everywhere", but in areas where things are not contained you have 2 choices:

a) ignore the problem and hope the "lazy" locals (who are being tortured and cower for their lives) fix "their" own problem

or b) remove the problem and help the locals build a better system.

Choose a too many times and you'll find Hitler or Saddam smiling and waving from a palace... then it takes a lot of blood to find a solution. The longer you wait, the worse it gets.

The US's reputation in the Arab world has been ignored for decades and sadly, was the main reason Bush Sr. couldn't remove Saddam the first time... things havn't gotten much better but enough was enough from the moment the first bomb dropped we could see this day comming. 9-11 changed everything forever... this is one of those changes.

For those that havn't noticed, North Korea has agreed to nuke program inspections/changes, and Syria is trying damn hard to get out of the dog house with it's own terrorism work (hard to belive but true). If anyone doubts the impression the Afgan and Iraq wars have had on the political scene just watch what happens over the next 20 years. Calling a bluff can really put the fear of god in a dictator...

 

repost from another site:


http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/lifecynical.php

kinda thoughtful vid. no not the nick berg vid.

 

Great thread gentlemen.

Lets add Libia to the list of countries swayed by a renewed resolve of the US to not tolerate rogue countries.

I guess I look at this very simplistically. There exist evil men who get in a position to dominate their country. They commit sins against humanity. The WORLD has a responsability to stand up and say "No More".

The UN lacks the spine to do it. The US has stepped up to the plate and put their resources and citizens lifes on the line to give oppressed people the chance to create a democratic society because they genuinely believe it is the "right" thing to do.

One can readily argue that US foreign policy has also brought the US to this problem, but that policy was crafted in a world of two super powers, where, rightly or wrongly, other countries conflicts became pawns for the super powers. During those times, the 'enemy' was the Soviet Union and foreign policy reflected that priority.

 

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article....icleID=1613376

I am looking forward to seeing this film.