war on iraq

[Shaolin Punk]

what would sun tzu say about the white house's approach?

first the us claims disarmament is the goal...saddam gives free reign to unconditional arms checks

now the us is hinting that the goal is a change in regime...which very few countries support.

today i read in the news that gwb is trying to come up with the right combination of words to get approval to use military force towards iraq. rumsfeld said we don't want another smoking gun incident. but there is no evidence whatsoever that saddam was connected to sept. 11. the white house is absolutely convinced that he's a threat to our security and our way of life b/c of their weapons of mass destruction....
is china next on our list?

how supportive are american citizens on this war? are we being bullied into it? if you are a young american, are prepared to go to battle?

the point is, from a strategic point of view, from all that we know and have read about in sun tzu and musashi and martial arts training, is our strategy the best possible plan? are we acting in self-defence with our power? is the jkd principle of the best defence an being offence applicable here?

[@PLUGO]

this thred may quickly deteriate to the usual politicly charged immature name calling fest... This has been the case with most such threds...

It could certainly be said that we Know our enemy as we were so instrumental in supplying him with the start-up resources for these unproven weapons of mass distruction.
Is's interesting that 2 out of 3 of the head UN weapons inspecters insist that there is no proof of such weapons or facilities in Iraq. The Second of which is a former Marine Officer Scott Ritter, (http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/03/19/ritter/index_np.html) who has had alot (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/000731.htm) to say on the subject.

So I would first have to question Bush's motivation for persueing this course of action. History seems full of wars started to instill control of a given nation's own people rather than the protection from a agressor.

Now, as I undestand U.N. security policy every nation has the right to protect itself from an agressor nation. Yet there's no connection between Iraq & the events of 9/11/01. So how exactly has Iraq proven itself to be taking an "agressive" against the U.S.?
In the mean time the U.S. & Brittin has been enforcing an appariently illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm) No Fly Zone.
This, along with the fearce (http://india_resource.tripod.com/Iraq.html) trade (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/iraq-memo.htm) sanctions (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sanctions.html) makes me wonder who is really the agressor.

I remember My sifu telling me once...
"Never start a fight, only finish it." it seems to me that BUSH (http://www.theonion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.html) and company (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020918/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_258) are too eager (http://chicago.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=13541&group=webcast) to prove their martial powers...

:p

[Budokan]

I don't know about you guys, but I believe that if we keep beating this dead horse it really will get up....

[@PLUGO]

sort of a Sado-Necro-Equi-Phelia...

Get IT!!!

Beating a Dead Horse!?!?

ya know Sado- . . .

oh never-mind.:p

[Sifu Bok Se Teung]

When you hear of talk of one making a war upon another you must ask:

If there is not peace in the heart, then there will not be peace in the house.
If there is not peace in the house, then there will be no peace in the nation.
If there is not peace in the nation how then can there be peace in the world?

So we must endeavor to find more ways to preserve, rather than destroy.

[@PLUGO]

Very well Said, Sifu....

[Shaolin Punk]

and now the democrats and republicans are head to head on this issue. so look what the war is doing here at home - it is tearing us apart rather than its intent, which is to have us join together as a nation.

rumsfeld says he found a link between iraq and al qaeda, but won't release it. what does that mean? how does a link like that become a time sensitive issue? a link is a link, IMO.

[@PLUGO]

I think Rumsfield is stalling for time, his "link" is still being manufactored (IMO).

Did anyone hear about TONY BLAIR's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,764197,00.html) new
dossier (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page6117.asp) ?
appariently only the U.S. believes it to be credible.

Based on THAT old Donald it probably trying to work out a much more marketable pitch. In the Mean time, while Barbra Lee's (http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/02Sept18.htm) Proposal has 26 democrats... There are more & more republicans realiseing how War with Iraq is a bad idea. Take TEXAS REPUBLICAN, U.S. REP. RON PAUL (http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020924.html) for instance.

[Radhnoti]

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes, he said, couldn't be higher. Some day, some way, I guarantee you he will use that arsenal." - William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1998
The Repubs were supportive of this statement...as were the Dems.
It's laughable for anyone to act indignant about Bush implying that his opponents are playing politics with national security by changing their mind now.
Moving past that...
Iraq has repeatedly defied all sanctions, and lied about they're willingness to do that which they PLEDGED to do after losing in Desert Storm.
Showing his ruthlessness...
Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds:
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

Does anyone doubt that if he got his hands on weapons of mass destruction and/or biologicals...that he'd use them?
Everyone is saying, "How do we KNOW that he has them?"
My answer would be...why else would he be so worried about weapons inspectors for so many years?

Shaolin Punk, what would Sun Tzu say about Iraq's approach?
"Warfare is the way of deception..."
or
"One who has emissaries come forth with offerings wants to rest for a while."
He certainly would applaud Saddam's attempt to assassinate our President.

;)

[Chang Style Novice]

Clinton was demanding weaopons inspectors be allowed to do their job. Saddam has now unconditionally permitted this, and Bush is pushing for "regime change." Clinton had the support of the United Nations, Bush does not. It's not the same situation at all, Radnohti, and shame on you for suggesting it is.

[Radhnoti]

This isn't the first time Iraq has agreed to allow inspections, in fact they told President Clinton the same thing when he "layed down the law". Unsurprisingly when the time came they said they had changed their mind, but Clinton had already claimed his "victory" and the issue wasn't raised again.
Also, the Saudi who helped broker the deal (some sort of Arab league president in England I believe?) was asked about these "unconditional inspections". Would they include schools, presidental palaces and hospitals? Places Saddam has been known to hide munitions and/or his attempts to manufacture biological/chemical weapons? (Does anyone else remember how Saddam got permission to exclude "presidential palaces" from inspections and he went around declaring hundreds of places the inspectors wanted to go "presidential palaces"? :rolleyes:)
His answer was quick and GLARINGLY omitted from most news sources.
No. Inspections would only be allowed within MILITARY bases, the only place we know he would never put anything important. This is assuming that he doesn't do what he's done numerous times by backing out of ANY inspections.

Clinton had the support of the U.N. because they knew he would never back up his tough talk...so they talked tough (meaningless) talk alongside him. Several European countries said they would ALWAYS back their ally, the U.S., in any military action against Iraq when Clinton was President. The situation has only become more dire...nothing has improved, and where are these one-time allies? Showing what their talk is worth.

Although it doesn't appear so, I'm not entirely decided on this matter. But I AM leaning one way. :D This thread NEEDED the other perspective, everyone agreeing and singing "All we are saying is give peace a chance." together was nauseating.

:p

[SanSoo Student]

I think that Bush should improve our economy first before he decides to go to war with Iraq. I really would like to see people stop worrying about their stocks and money before anymore bloddshed.

[Budokan]

Hey, that dead horse twitched a li'l bit. Hit it harder, fellas, it's gonna hav'ta get up!! Let's keep trying....

:D

Bush says Saddam is a really bad man who tried to kill his daddy. Buddy, if that's good enough reason for ol' Bush then it's good enough for Budokan. And if Bushie Jr. says he has evidence that old mean Saddam has some big bad weapons then I for one believe him. Besides, it's not bad odds that we'll ignite a wider war in the Middle East. Seeing as how I ain't gonna be over there fighting none, jus' like dem chicken hawk Republicans, what do I care?

I mean, it ain't like the Republicans would lie about something like that, now is it? Dem Republicans, dey straight shooters when it comes to telling us unwashed masses de truth. If dey say dey got proof den dey gots de proof. Dey only have our best interests in mind, despite de fact dat many of dem hollerin' the loudest for war ran the fastest during the 'Nam.


But we shouldn't hold dat agin 'em....

[Chang Style Novice]

'E's not dead, 'e's just pinin' for the fjords.

[Radhnoti]

...you'll note someone else is saying Saddam is a bad man now.
Colin Powell. His dissent with the White House was held up as a bright shining example of a principled man when it suited the (mostly) liberal media.
It's funny how "principled" someone seems when they're singing your favorite tune and it's what you want to hear...

I tend to believe a President is telling the truth until he's a proven liar...you know...like the last one. I'd include Nixon in my list of liars, but I'm too young. Oh yeah, Bush Sr. said, "Read my lips...", etc. So he's lied as well. Reagan probably knew all about the Iran/Contra thing, but he was never REALLY caught. Carter had a questionable story about a UFO encounter too, but I ended up believing him. It was too stupid a story to be a lie. Is it possible that the distinguishing characteristic of a President is willingness to lie?

Of what worth is an honest man in a political position? Probably even less than I am imagining...
Well, I'm bummed out now. I'm gonna go before I wax even more philosophic.

:rolleyes:

[Shaolin Punk]

as much as budokan believes that beating a dead horse can bring it back to life, i also believe that my dead car battery will get fixed if i just ignore it.

:D

rad- all politics are based on lies and manipulation. it is about upholding images. how else can one make unpopular decisions and still get approval? how much freedom do you think you really have? where do we get our information from? can we trust those sources? can we trust that those sources are giving us the whole unbiased picture? where do we base this trust?

well, take a listen to the holder of all American "truth":
http://www.bushnews.com/ourfearlessleader.mp3

[The Willow Sword]

Why didnt we kill him in '91 when we invaded? OIL. and the other Arab countries embargoeing OIL to us.

Why are we now wanting to war with Iraq? OIL ,,we are runing out,,why do you think our IDIOT president wants to explore the alaskan wilderness for oil?.

Saddam Hussein is Nothing compared to us and OUR weapons of mass destruction,,,we could blow his country up 10 times over and still have enough to do it another 10 times if needed.
Saddam has only threatened our oil trade,,,nothing more,,,there is NO evidence that supports the thoery that he was connected in some way to 9-11..

Its re-election year kiddies,,strange that this whole "lets go to war,,all for one one for all crap,,coincides with an election year"

I SAY Get out of the middle east,,let them kill each other and fight like they have continued to do so for thousands of years over some religious rite or land dispute. Embargoe trade with the middle east(im sure they will not mind that) and lets go onto to more prosperous relations say like with China,,North Korea(we feed those people,,and they are thankful that we do).

MRTWS

[Radhnoti]

I outright reject the proposition that the first war with Iraq was entirely about oil. Why? We DIDN'T go in and install another government (especially a democratic one) that would completely open the oil reserves up. OPEC decides how much oil to release, regardless of market pressures. A free market system in Iraq would REALLY take advantage of that, which would aid our nation as well. Now, had Bush Sr. gone on in and started "nation-building" I would think that arguement had merit...he didn't, and he's constantly criticized for that decision. But, I suspect that had he gone on in the "it's all about the oil" arguement would be much more prevalent.

It is re-election year, and I'm cynical enough to raise an eyebrow about the timing. HOWEVER, Iraq has been firing at our aircraft which are LEGALLY (according to the agreements signed) patrolling the no-fly zone. I DO think Hussein is working toward serious weaponry that (as things now stand) he'd be very happy to have used on U.S. citizens. He's broken his own agreements for weapons inspection...what?...like 16 times? We know Baghdad has offered monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel. It's an issue that deserves to be addressed.

Foreign policy, to me, IS something we should evaluate when choosing our leaders.

[@PLUGO]

well... it seems the no-fly Zone is not as "legal" (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/civflight/001223.htm) as some (http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1001b.asp) would say... (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/97-0150.htm)

Putting that aside, I still don't see how firing against aggresive air attacks justifies a full on invasion. Especially when it endangers some 50,000 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020808-iraq6.htm) American service men & women

[Radhnoti]

Maybe we should attempt to find common ground...or at least where we differ in opinion here.
Does anyone NOT believe that Saddam Hussein WOULD use "weapons of mass destruction" if he had them?
I think his track record with chemical weapons (that I documented earlier) leads one to believe that he would.
Does anyone here think he ISN'T working toward "weapons of mass destruction"?
I feel his continuous dodging of weapons inspections...which he promised to allow...would indicate that he is doing so.

Anyone who disagrees with either of these two suppositions, please say so and indicate why...and thanks for the opportunity to hear "the other side".
:)

Edit: For the sake of referrance here's a link to UN resolution 687...which Iraq...as I understood it agreed to honor after losing the war.

http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-687.html

Note the inclusion of inspectors...I'll see if I can dig up the legality of the "no fly zone" the link DS put up basically seemed to have Hussein saying the U.S. was bombing Iraq for no reason...
To which I would respond with: his attempts to eradicate certain minorities within his country led to the establishment of a no-fly zone...that's MY understanding, if I'm wrong please set me straight.

[@PLUGO]

wish I could find some of the info I reciently came accross debunking the No-fly Zone... I'll keep searching.

the Gist:
Weapon inspectors where withdrawn rather than kick out... so as to beging the bombing campaign that established the northern No-Fly Zone. There is also word that Al Qiadia (sp?) is using the no-fly Zone as a refuge since Iraqi forces can't get in there to kick 'em out.

On Weapons of Mass distructions:
the U.S. (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fab090202.html) is #1 in the world when it comes to weapons of mass distruction(including illegal tests with weapon grade anthrax) (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/biowar101.html). Colen Powel himself was a part of the US deligation that assisted Sadam with the development of Nerve Gases bought from Germany. Initially targeted at Iran they didn't expect Sadam to turn around and use 'em on his own people...
But then again, the U.S. has been known to mistreat it's own population (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/preCrimeTerr.html) as well... not to mention the ethnic cleansing this nation was founded on... but I digress.

My point is that Saddam is not really that different than most "leaders". Take a look at the events in East Teamore... occupied by Indoniasia and bruttally butchered when they sought independance. Did the US go in there for regime change?
They actually granted the President ALOT of military aid instead... Of course Indonisia id considered an ally so the rules are slightly different.

Again I'm digressing... (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RP091002.html)

Let's consider weapon's inspectors... The US is now insisting that weapon inspectors should NOT go to Iraq. At least not until a new set of inspection "standards" is defined. Could it be that if weapon Inspectors do get there, they will prove what 90% of them have been say all along; Iraq offer no threat?

in Short... the US wants to ignore the UN and invade.... talk about behaving like a rogue state!

[Radhnoti]

The U.N. , to me, quite regularly exceeds it's authority. It should be a forum for discussion. The only reason I want to hold Iraq to the U.N. resolution is because they agreed to do so to stop the war. I do not feel that the U.S., or any other country, should be under any obligation to do as the U.N. orders. They are NOT a governing body...or shouldn't be.
As I said, my understanding is that the no-fly zone was established after Saddam Hussein began his massacre of Kurdish families and (I think) other minorities as well. We have DOCUMENTED evidence of his use of chemical weapons against these people, and that is when the no-fly zone was established. I've not heard any evidence of direct U.S. participation in the production of these weapons. But, I wouldn't be surprised if he used U.S. funding...we do tend to throw money at problems and I remember Iran being one such problem.
But, no one has been worried about ANY U.S. president giving nukes or biological weaponry to terrorist groups.
Well...maybe Reagan. ;)
The U.S. wants unfettered inspection...yesterday. That's the problem. Saddam has agreed to inspections and then revoked them so many times...it's just an obvious play for time. The only way I can see this whole thing being averted would be for the U.N. to agree to an all out assault if/when Saddam kept inspectors from doing their jobs. And the inspectors would have to be in Iraq within days...not months.
It all seems to be about playing for time. And who knows what might be developed in a month...a week...a day. Who wants to be responsible for the trajedy that could result from such a delay?
That's the position President Bush is in, in the end it's on his shoulders. I know that I'm glad to not have such an awesome responsibility.

DS, would you feel an invasion warranted if weapons inspectors are held back from sites they want to visit again? LOL I think you know even more conspiracy-theory type sites then I do! ratical.org? :eek:
;)

[Shadow Dragon]

They way I see it:

Bush is hell-bent on going to war with Iraq and will use anything to further his point & stance.

If you think he is worried about weapons of mass-destruction you are wrong, Iraq lacks the delivery vehicle to hit the USA directly.
Most good ICBM's don't even go that far.
Ever wondered why he doesn't want Weapons Inspectors to head back to IRAQ??

Bush is after control of the middle east to secure Oil and an economical boost via military contracts.
Plus, he would like the Americans to forget about the economic problems back home

The USA recently has shown a tendency to go into places hit them hard and than let the Euorpeans and U.N. take over once the fighting is finished.
Forget about nation building and so on it is not on the US agenda.

Lets see he named 3 Countries the axis of Evil Iraq, Iran & North Korea.

Iraq he is now after , once he got troops there it is easy to go after Iran without having to rely on friendly Arab nations.
Iraq & Iran will give them a nice foothold in Arabia, which also allows them to support Israel.
Plus, than they can start dictating terms to OPEC.
Pity, they messed up in Afghanistan.

Going for North Korea might start WW III with China as being his main opponent.
Plus, they lack the bases for troop movement in the region.
On top of that Japan does NOT allow any form of nuclear weapon/material into it's Territory.

BTW, recent estimates show that 1 month of war in Iraq would cost about 9 Billion Dollar.
With a FULL war estimated at 300 Billion.
Quiet a hefty burden to put on a weak economy and the US Citizens Wallets.

Seeya.

[Chang Style Novice]

I read a couple articles in Harper's Magazine yesterday about this very subject. Now I'm practically suicidal with despair at the US's failure to learn anything from history. Even our own.

[Shadow Dragon]

Never mind that GWB jr. is still mad with Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his Dad.

>>
Straight talk from Bush often rankles political pundits
By Mike Allen
The Washington Post
September 30, 2002

WASHINGTON - Speaking in the marble grandeur of the United Nations this month, President Bush reminded the hushed diplomats that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate "a former American president" in 1993.

On Thursday night, at a Republican fund-raising reception in Houston, Bush dropped the formality and called Saddam Hussein "a guy that tried to kill my dad."

The two phrases had starkly different impacts. Bush's charge in New York was part of a bill of particulars against Hussein that pollsters said was convincing enough to bolster Bush's drooping approval rating and increase public support for an invasion of Iraq.

The raw comment about his father, however, was seen on Capitol Hill as evidence that the administration's march toward war with Iraq is motivated at least partly by a family grudge match.

The contrast in the two statements illustrates what analysts see as a tendency by Bush to oversimplify or exaggerate delicate issues that he has handled with aplomb in formal settings like the UN address, or his speech to Congress as he prepared to attack Afghanistan.

While Bush became well-known during his campaign for slips of the tongue, his off-the-cuff comments as president have often offered jarring glimpses of what he really thinks about matters he has addressed more diplomatically in formal speeches. When Bush was Texas governor, reporters called him "his own worst leak" because, when given the chance, he would give them a franker version of events than his staff preferred.

Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas government professor who has followed Bush's political career, said the "kill my dad" remark revealed how deeply he has personalized the issue.

"These aren't gaffes or Bushisms - they're glandular reactions," Buchanan said.


Bush's bluntness produced a headache for the White House last week, and soured congressional relations. Democrats castigated Bush for his unscripted - but heartfelt - addition to a speech in Trenton, N.J., when he accused the Democratic-controlled Senate of being "not interested in the security of the American people."

The remark, which his critics called a case of needless overreaching when Democrats' opinions about Iraq were moving swiftly in his direction, infuriated the party's congressional leaders and complicated negotiations over the resolution Bush wants authorizing the use of military force in Iraq.

Every indication is that Bush meant what he said. Senior aides said he has no plans to apologize, and the Republican National Committee E-mailed the controversial quotation to more than 2 million party supporters two hours after Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) complained.

Bush, who prides himself on his goal of changing the tone in Washington, had put Iraq policy in a political context the day after his United Nations speech, when he was using a brief exchange with reporters to urge Congress to authorize military force without waiting for the UN to decide on a new resolution

"If I were running for office," he said, "I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people - say, Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act."

The White House press office has a stock response when Bush's remarks rankle one group or another: "The President is a plainspoken man."

His inner circle contends that is a virtue. Karen Hughes, guardian of Bush's image for the past eight years, said people see his essence in unscripted moments.

"The President is a very disciplined person and he says what he intends to say," Hughes said. "When I heard Senator Daschle had gone to the floor to complain about someone politicizing the war, I thought he was talking about Al Gore."
>>

One US-Soldiers reckons that GWB has so many gaffees because he is nervous in front of Cameras.

Oh well.

Seeya.

[Radhnoti]

Iraq can't hit the U.S. with a missle...though we know they can and HAVE hit Israel with rockets. The real fear (for the U.S.) is not an ICBM, but a nuke in a backpack...or worse some sort of biological weapon. The delivery system would be one of thousands of extremists willing to die along with thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of U.S. citizens.
Please name a country the U.S. has gone into with the military after WWII and taken over everything. I can't recall anything like this happening, but I can think of a few countries we "invaded" and then (often after helping to rebuild) left to their own devices.

[@PLUGO]

in answer to your question... how about the Phillipines...

How about Panama, or the Coup in Chili some 30 years ago... or the most recient 3 day coupe in South America endorced by the U.S. 1 day after it occured, then retracted after the president regained control 2 days later.

Support of Isreal is a whole other bag of worms... especially when about 30% of American retirement funds go to funding "illegal" settlements in occupied territories...

Yeah, the thought of some revenge crased fanatic blowing something up is indead chilling... invading Iraq will in no real way stop such an event. It may however inspire a whole new generation towards such an Anti-Amercian stance. For all the technicial advances the U.S. Military has, it's still sloppy at times, Bombing weddings, funerals & cranking (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020801-speed.htm) their fighter pilots (http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-December/007132.html) up on Anphetimines... (http://www.voy.com/60359/4/14289.html)

A Duel (http://salon.com/news/wire/2002/10/03/duel/index.html) between Bush & Saddam should really be the only way. Much to many Children, Women, Elderly and AMERCIAN TROOPS stand to be injured and/or killed for this political vendetta.

[Radhnoti]

"Vendetta"? Didn't Clinton bomb Iraq? Did he not support/endorse regime change? Wasn't he supportive of no-fly zones to protect the Kurds? To re-quote:
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes, he said, couldn't be higher. Some day, some way, I guarantee you he will use that arsenal." - William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1998
To make this out like it's JUST a personal vendetta is, to my mind, intellectually dishonest.

And you're saying that the U.S. government is in charge of natural resources in Panama, Chili, the Phillipines and "South America"? I'd love to see some kind of non-fringe documentation explaining this...please. (Can't figure out how to say that without sounding sarcastic...please accept that was not the spirit in which it was given.) I have a friend who was stationed in the Phillipines for a bit, he said it was fantastic. The locals were EXTREMELY grateful to have Americans there to provide some stability and normalcy to their lives.
And what would the Panamanians have that we would want? We already GAVE them back the canal, to run as they want. (Talk about a shot to national security...NOW we have to maintain a west coast fleet and an east coast fleet...but, I digress.)

And, finally, I probably agree with you about the support of Israel. But, I'm a bit of an isolationist...
Reviewing my stances in this thread, it certainly doesn't look like I'm opposed to "foreign entanglements" does it? :o

[Shadow Dragon]

Personally, I think US vs Iraq is no longer a question of if, but when.
I reckon that the US will have troops and be fighting in Iraq b4 June next year.

The US will move in regardless of World opinion and/or support.

All I can think of doing from here on is just that it won't escalate into a major war involving a few Countries.

But than the changes of this turning into aforementioned major fight or even WW III are high indeed.

The after effects of this war will be felt worldwide for a looong time.

Cheers.

P.S.: Sorry, for all the Families that will loose loved ones and might end up with no breadwinner or worse.

[@PLUGO]

I'm not offended...

so let me clarify, you would like me to point you in the direction of some "non-fringe" documentation that illustraits the U.S.'s alledged tendency to use military force to gain "control" of a nation's resources...

I'll work on that, should be interesting research.

On Vendetta:
Sure he was there when we established a no-fly zone... It still doesn't make Bush's motivations any less personal, He's even implied as such himself (according to one of the above posts)

I don't think "WAR" is inevitable... likely, perhaps... but contrary to popular media there's a growing movement against it... in the US and particularly abroad.

I don't buy the "if we don't do it they will be emboldened" line. Just like I don't buy the "they're gonna nuke us if we don't bomb them first" line... that's paranoid thinking.

One might as well start sucker punching people at bars because once the guys drunk he'll start trouble.

The Israel situation is another complicated mess... definatly entangled.

Best solution, IMO get ourselves unhooked from Oil... first.
At least stop subsidizing the industry so AMERCIANs can begin to understand the costs involved in the dependancy instead of fixating simply on the price.

[HuangKaiVun]

How many of us Americans here on KFO would go fight in Iraq if drafted?

I'll say this - I don't want to go.

This is not like Afghanistan, which was RIGHTEOUS anger. This is Bush's financial empire wishing to take control of Iraqi oil and using our nation's civilians (i.e. ALL OF US GUYS HERE AT KFO) to do it.

And I'd imagine we'd be real happy if Iraq nuked the domestic US or sprayed our country with biological weapons. Families all over the world would all be at serious death risk once the US invades.

Does anybody here realize that WE are the ones who will suffer in this war?

[The Willow Sword]

you believe everything OUR media tells you? hahah Bush has got a good rap going with all the folks out there that think that the bad ole camel jockeys threaten us. welll they caught us with our pants down on 9-11. and as unfortunate as that was it was afghanistan that attacked us NOT saddam Hussein.

if Bush does this and we actually go to war with iraq,,,watch all the other arab nations go to saddams defense and ww3 in our life time kiddies.

i hate it that we are a bunch of war mongers.


I am reminded of the immortal Black babbath song "War Pigs"

[@PLUGO]

Just heard WAR PIGS on the Radio this morning....

I agree... if the U.S. invades Iraq, NOBODY wins.

[Chang Style Novice]

Actually, it wasn't even Afghanistan, it was a ccriminal conspiracy of oil millionaire/religious fundamentalists who happened to be hiding out in Afghanistan, but had it's origins in our nominal ally, Saudi Arabia and which recruits members all over the world - including the US! The attacks of 9-11-01 should have been treated as a criminal act, not an act of war. I've been saying this for about a year now.

[The Willow Sword]

I meant "Black Sabbath" hmm Black babbath,,,,:eek:

[yutyeesam]

Well, I too am against the war. However, I have accepted the fact that we are going to go to war, no matter what. The number of people opposing the war is still in the minority...and let's face it, GWB is a dualistic thinker, who thinks you're either with America or not.

My prediction is that we will invade Iraq, basically take over the country, and we'll be hated by the entire Middle East, except for Israel. Other countries won't be able to do much to us immediately, but you can expect to see a lot more sneak attacks and suicide bombings headed our way in the near future. Isn't that what Palastine is doing to Israel? There's no way the Palestinean army could go head to head with Israel, so they do sneak attacks and sucker punches.

123

[The Willow Sword]

and a dualistic thinker ??? Man i dont know. when i hear him speak i am not too sure that it is HIS thought process and his words. the republicans needed a puppet to speak for all thier HorseSh!t. now i am not a democrat by any stretch ,,to me all a democrat is ,,is a liberal republican,,,and all a republican is ,,,is a conservative democrat.

[Chang Style Novice]

His brain has the all the power of a nookyaler bomb!

[@PLUGO]

for anyone who's interested... the Debate over Bush's War proposal is being broadcast here. (http://www.kpfa.org)

you can use winamp or real player to listen in...

[Shaolin Punk]

very interesting, and not surprising how bush says things like:

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.

but never explains why we became their enemies...what is the source of their hatred towards the usa.

[@PLUGO]

BUSH's Version: Because weer a Freedom Luv'n Peeasful Nation!

Rest of the World:
We kill thousnads of Iraqi children every day with sanctions, and used the CIA etc... to creat them in the first place.

have you checked out the discourse at Congress?

give a listen...

[Shaolin Punk]

i did listen in, but could only for a maximum of 2 minutes, before I started feeling nausea from the smell of all that horse****.

[@PLUGO]

Thankfully there's some rather intelligent comentary, deconstructing the retoric and infusing some actual facts...

give it a shot, perhaps with some Dramamene near by... :p

[@PLUGO]

Check out Bush's 7 most likely Targets (
[url=http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0225.htm[/url) for a NUKE!!!!

what-a-wing-nut!!!
:mad: :rolleyes: :mad:

[Radhnoti]

We supported Iraq when the Soviets supported Iran...it happened all over the world at the time. The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing taken to the nth degree. Iran/Iraq was just another theatre of the Cold War. I humbly submit that the Soviets WERE the greater threat...minimizing their influence was a GOOD thing. Yes, it's a tragic irony that we're now forced to engage ,at the least, a leadership we once supported...but in a world with precious few black and white situations, it's less black than a country who's stated purpose was the destruction of the U.S. Reagen led our country through the Cold War (and won), now...as then...it's our President's responsibility to focus on the greatest external threat. And if it's great enough, to engage it as he can. Everyone privy to those reports marked TOP SECRET is saying we should go. Even Colin Powell, once WIDELY quoted for his reservations to war is saying it's necessary now. (Not that you'll hear him quoted too much NOW that he's changed his tune.)

...and finally, WE didn't impose the sanctions. It's U.N. sanctions...though some will argue, when it suits their purpose, that the U.S. runs the U.N. Not lately, but when we led the U.N. sanctioned coalition into Kuwait/Iraq I certainly heard that sentiment more than once. The world community TRIED to help the regular citizens of Iraq with the "oil for food/medicine" deal, Saddam was said to have used what was gained for his personal gain. I distinctly recall stories of his feasts for his supporters while DS's "thousnads of Iraqi children every day" died. Propaganda? Maybe...but people ARE starving in Iraq and Iraq has been receiving lots of food and medicine. Where IS it going?

Isn't it funny how "world opinion" is against us attacking Iraq...but it isn't "world opinion" keeping the sanctions in place, it's the U.S.? :confused:
This in spite of the fact that both decisions (basically) are from the same source...the U.N.

The VERY best case scenario, in my opinion, would be the U.N. agreeing to put two conditions to the weapons inspections.
1. Inspectors can go ANYWHERE except the ONE place Saddam chooses to live, and they can go there under escort.
2. Failure to comply or to deny inspections results in a U.N. resolution to support the use of force immediately.
If the U.N. threw that in, I'd never support going in before one of those two situations occured...and I think most U.S. citizens would agree.
I don't think there's any way this will happen...the U.N. just seems dead set against it, so I support Bush's current course of action. Does that makes me a "dualistic thinker", or just interested in staying safe? :confused:

[Radhnoti]

DS, you posted your last URL while I was posting.
Why is that news? I've heard of invasion plans...for CANADA. The U.S. military has it's officers submit plans like these all the time as a mental exercise.
I had a ROTC teacher who said he wished the military would have let him keep his invasion plans for East Germany when he retired. He was asked to regularly submit his plans while stationed in West Germany, and felt he worked harder on them than anything else he'd done in the military.
For that site to make out a "Pentagon leak" of invasion plans as a big deal is...silly.

[@PLUGO]

Still, I believe this "TOP Secret" is a little TOOO top secret as it's not even being given to congress how is responsible for delaring WAR.

also a bit convienient that the discussion of WAR has sprung up jsut durring elections time... Notice how the public discourse have ben move from Coperate crime, ecomomy etc...? why now?

I've heard various contradictory stories about the "food for Oil" program.

I've also heard of the U.S. vetoing several attempts to lift the sanction on a whole or in part.

The big problem is the Premptive Strike model. Where does it stop? what give's GWB the soul right to determine the threat?

The U.S. is also currently actively opposing the enterance of Weapons Inspectors... Doesn't it make sence to just get them there first, then expand their ability to inspect...

The world comunity seems quite justified in their stance against the U.S. considering the Ham fisted approche to alot of world affairs, breaking treaties etc...

To date we've only got the word of a handful of Public Lairs (Bush, Blair, Rumsfield & even Powel have been caught making statements that have no credibility as compaired to documented facts) that this invasion is needed. Meanwhile 90% of the U.N. weapon inspectors insist that there is no evidence of this suposed "eminant threat."

By the Way, whatever happen to finding Osama, "Dead or alive?"
Doesn't it make sence to finish one project before starting another.

Also consider, even the CIA believes invading Iraq to be a bad idea whose results could actually stimulate more terrorist attacks on the U.S., destablise the region, unify our various "foes" and cost the lives of THOUSANDS of US citizens.

To me... security would be best based on preventitive measures rather than premptive aggressions.

[@PLUGO]

I was just having fun with that 7 nuked countries post...

sorry . . .:p

PS check out the congressional broadcast if you get a chance... food for thought.

[Radhnoti]

So...the Iraq conflict would be ok if Bush didn't declare war and just made it a "police action". Right? There's a precedent for that... No, I don't like that idea either. :) Congress will declare war, though most will do so "with reservations" to cover their behinds if things go bad. And they'll only do so because those who didn't in the first Iraq war got criticized for not supporting a war when our troops were fighting overseas (echos of Vietnam). And to be honest, I wouldn't give the senators the names of informants...or how we got info, and it's VERY possible that the nature of the information is such that JUST making it public would expose/close off that source.
The Democrats have tried EVERYTHING they could do to push responsibility for these corporate scandals into the Republican's laps. "Kitchen table issues" was the watchword...that's what they wanted to campaign on, they still may do so. Foreign policy has traditionally been the Republican strong suit, it's what they want to campaign on. EVERYONE knows it's not entirely a coincidence (at the very least they haven't postponed things until elections are over), but foreign policy SHOULD be part of the debate, I think.
I think you HAVE to set the parameters BEFORE you send teams in to search for weapons, otherwise you give validation to whatever the group DOESN'T find. Any teams that go now can't visit certain "palaces" (note "palace" is any place Saddam declares to be so) and if they get turned away or find something....SO WHAT? It would go back to the U.N. to AGAIN be endlessly debated. A line has to be drawn and held.
I've not seen Osama popping up in any videos lately...he's either dead or hidden so completely he may as well BE dead. I imagine that if he pops his head above ground again, the U.S. will go after him. I've read "CIA reports" too, but the ones I've seen indicate that Saddam is hated and Iraqi's don't really greatly dislike America. The CIA reports I've seen seem to feel the whole thing could be over in 3 weeks or less, with Iraqi's welcoming freedom from oppression. Destablize the region? I've not heard THAT anywhere. EVERYTHING in that part of the world is controlled by the Saudi royal family. Hussein intended to go against them...every report I've read indicates Iraq to be a destabilizing presence. Now, it's POSSIBLE that the installment of a democratic government in Iraq would be frowned upon by the Saudi's...as the pleasures of and desire for freedom tends to spread beyond borders.

And, finally, regarding preemptive strikes. Does ANYONE else remember President Clinton's strike against a terrorist training camp...targeting a specific man? Not such a bad idea in retrospect. Would 9/11 have happened if they'd caught Osama at home? How about Kennedy's blockade of Cuba or "The Cuban Missle Crisis". They intended to install nukes in Cuba, he brought the world to the brink (maybe...I've heard differing reports) of nuclear war. Why? Preventing (or preemptive for our purposes) stationing of nuclear missles SO close to our borders...which would have brought terror to the U.S. populace. In the end, his stance gave us a tactical advantage (if one can be said to have one when nuclear weapons are involved) and may be the reason no one ever thought a "first strike" would lead to a win in WWIII.
I've heard it said that the best defense is a good offense. The model for the Preemptive Strike has already been set, the main thing keeping Democrats from uniting behind Bush (I think) is the closeness of national elections.

[KC Elbows]

Here's my take:

-Republicans are using the idea of war on Iraq to keep their jobs and trying to downplay economic issues to keep their jobs.

-Democrats are using economic issues to keep their jobs and are hesitant on the Iraq issue to keep their jobs.

-We've never been all that strong on regime building with the sole exception(that I know of) of our experience with Japan.

-We should be taking part in regime building in Afghanistan.

-We're planning(as far as the public knows) on taking part in regime building in Iraq.

-We don't have unlimited economy to work with in order to facilitate war and regime building in an unlimited way.

-We suck at regime building in the middle east.

-We're not especially well liked in the middle east.

-War in the middle east will not make us more popular there.

-We're talking about a war in Iraq, which will probably mostly be urban fighting(according to all the military experts I've seen and read talking about it).

-We've trained our military forces for the last ten years in urban fighting.

-Urban fighting almost nullifies our technological edge, as our technological edge comes from effectiveness at long range and air support, but urban fighting is at short range and choppers and cities don't work well together(Blackhawk Down, anyone?)

-Our military does not have a lot of success stories related to urban warfare, to my knowledge.

-We pulled out of Somalia when urban warfare worked against us.

-Our citizens are expecting a three month war.

-We don't have significant and major successes at full on urban warfare.

-Our citizens are expecting a three month war.

-Our military is made up of the pros, and no draftees to fill out the ranks.

-Our citizens are expecting a three month war.

-The Iraqi generals and republican guard are all complicit of a great many atrocities, like the german officers at the end of WWII, and so aren't likely to surrender unless we protect them, which will erode any relationship we try to make with any regime we put in place in Iraq, unless it is just putting the tyrants back in place without saddam at the head. So, either we destroy our idea of real regime building, or we settle in for a long fight to the end.

-A new regime would be good.

-A regime that we built on good faith and allowed to prosper on its own abilities would definitely help redeem ourselves in the middle east.

-Stability in the middle east would be good.

I'm obviously leaning against war at this juncture, but I think it will probably happen. My fear is that we cannot succeed at our tasks, and defeating saddam without establishing stability in the region is not victory, it is just setting ourselves up for more of the same later. I fear that we're not ready for an urban conflict, I fear that it will take a lot more americans(and thus, a draft) than we think it will, and I fear it will only further complicate the middle eastern issue and make it so that we have worked against peace in the region, and not for it.

At the same time, I can see why others are for it.

I once read that WWI was largely caused by Germany's leadership wishing to rise to be an empire, and England's leadership failing to recognize that they were no longer an empire. I am not comparing Irag to WWI germany, but I wonder how much like pre-WWI England we may be in this scenario.

[KC Elbows]

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/oct/021009.ydstie.html

Could be good news, as I am for anything that allows the UN to function and aid in keeping the peace, and a powerless UN does nothing for that.

[@PLUGO]

from George Tennet's CIA report...

"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions," the letter said. "Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraqi's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW (chemical and biological weapons)."


"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

on Urban Warfair:
Oakland has become the testing ground for Marines to practice "Urban Warfair"... not that nayone was given notice. Eveny the Mayor Jerry Brown, appariently knew nothing of this...
as far south as fremont we could hear the continual Buzzz of choppers...