o/t Iraq Opinions

[Serpent]

Just out of interest, answer the poll above. You can comment here if you like, but I was just interested in getting an overall anonymous opinion as we have a fairly international user group here. Sure, the majority is probably American, but what can I do? It's a kung fu forum for goodness sake! ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Serpent.

I voted option 3, but feel that there is little difference between Option 1 & 3 at this moment.

Cheers.

[freedom76]

I don't like the idea of the US being the judge, jury, and executioner. However, I don't have all the information regarding the situation with Iraq and the MIddle East. There have been a lot of talking heads and the story and reasons for this war keep changing...get rid of Saddam, not get rid Saddam, but disarm, enforce UN resolutions, do it to keep the UN strong even though it is contrary to the UN's wishes. Who's to say? There is ALWAYS an alternative to conflict. (sometimes that means you get your butt kicked though :) ) Why can the US do whatever it feels is necessary to Iraq, but the US only wants Israel to defend itself in certain ways? Why doesn't the US destroy its stockpile of "weapons of mass destruction"? The US, after all, is the only country to use nuclear weapons on other people. Why now are all the "patriots" in this country want people that are against this war to "love it (the US) or leave it"? What ever happened to the 1st amendment? Or for that matter the 4th also? Why don't people that are not US nationals have the same God-given rights that those in this country have? I remember something like "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Except for in the US Constitution where slaves were only considered 3/5ths a person...how is that equal?) I know Hussein is a dictator, and has done horrible things and I firmly beleive that it would be better for the world if people like that weren't in power, but is it the US's place to force those changes? What if another country intevened in the Revolutionary on behalf of England or if perhaps England and France had recognized the South in the US Civil War? Where would we be now? The other side says: what if Hitler was stopped in Poland? Who knows? One day an ally, the next an enemy. It's a tough call.
Blah, blah, blah.
For the record: I voted for Bush.

[Watchman]

I voted number two.

The UN has no real authority, and the last time I checked the US was a sovereign nation.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Watchman
I voted number two.

The UN has no real authority, and the last time I checked the US was a sovereign nation.

And you really believe that Iraq is a direct threat to that nation?

[Watchman]

And you really believe that Iraq is a direct threat to that nation?

I honestly have no idea. I put as much faith in what I read and see in the news as I do telemarketers; which is none. I don't believe the pitch.

However, the poll questions asked if the US should only proceed with UN "approval", or proceed anyway without.

The US is a sovereign nation, and the UN has absolutely no real authority - that's the stance that I voted from.

[Serpent]

Wow. Fair enough.

I think you're totally wrong, and something of an elitist, national-centric person for saying that, but fair enough if that's your opinion.

[Watchman]

Big S,

I'm actually quibbling over a pretty minor point in your thread.

I personally don't think the brewing conflict over Iraq is worth the resources in lives and money that the US is throwing at it, and I certainly don't believe the hype that my elected officials are spewing.

However, as far as the UN goes, it literally has no real legal authority.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Watchman

However, as far as the UN goes, it literally has no real legal authority.

Glad not too many people feel like that.

I reckon if we didn't have the U.N. we would have seen a lot more conflicts(wars), human rights abuses, etc. in the last 50yrs.

I also think that the new I.C.C. has been badly needed for some time.

Cheers.

[Chang Style Novice]

I'd really like to hear some elaboration on your position about the UN's lack of authority, Watchman. You don't have to do the heavy lifting, neccesarily. A link would be fine.

The reason I ask is that all legal authority basically happens for one (or both) of two reasons. Either the might exists to enofrce the will of the authority, or the governed willingly submit. The former is broadly considered dictatorship, the latter is broadly considered democracy. It looks to me, without going into detail, like the second criterion applies to the UN (although many if not most member nations don't have effective democracy in their own governments.)

In any case, none of the options in the poll really reflects my position, which is that the threat of war seems to be causing pressure that the official sanctions are enforced, and I must grudgingly admit that Bush's actions have caused positive action in that regard (although his alienation of our allies in the process shows a disgraceful lack of diplomacy, and the pretext under which he has called for war is unconvincing.) I'd like for the pressure to continue until Iraq is effectively disarmed without military action, but I'm not certain that is possible. If military action is needed, I would hope it would be multilateral, including the forces of many allied nations - although not neccesarily UN troops.

[Merryprankster]

Not to speak for Watchman, but...

What he's trying to get at is that the member states of the UN are all soveriegn nations. They can (and frequently do) do as they please regardless of the UN stance on things.

The UN is a wonderful DIPLOMATIC body and a great international forum. That said, it is not a true legislative body in the sense that majority consensus does not necessarily become the "law of the land." If the UN drafts a treaty, we have to SIGN UP before we're held to it. By contrast, a true legislative body's output becomes statute regardless of whether or not you sign up. States in the U.S. can't just ignore federal law without legal consequence.

Part and parcel to that is the UN's lack of indigenous enforcement power - it relies on what amount to manpower and equipment donations from member states if/when it chooses to enforce one of its resolutions. It doesn't have a capable standing force under direct UN control used to ensure member states comply with its edicts. Basically, the UN as it stands right now, is not a government and does not have the powers it would require to be one.

So, regardless of whether or not you consider his response hubristic and nationalistic, his point is that ANY nation in the UN has the authority to act without UN sanction. Consequently, the United States doesn't actually NEED a UN sanction to send troops to Iraq. We can do it on our own and there's nothing "illegal," per se, about it.

As I see it, that is really the crux of the UN issue. For years its main purpose was to provide a forum for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to conduct diplomacy. It was largely emasculated as an "governmental" entity because the these two blocs vetoed each other on the security council regularly, ensuring only the most milquetoast sorts of resolutions ever got passed. Now though, you've got two possible pathways the UN can take--something more like a global government with enforcement powers and the ability to create binding international law through majority consensus of a council, OR, the UN continues to be just a happy place where people can gather and exercise their mouths, and occasionally do some really cool humanitarian things. I think the UN is struggling with that identity crisis.

I liken the situation very much to the United States under the Articles of Confederation vice the Constitution. In the Articles of Confederation, individual states could and frequently did ignore the Federal Government: Their laws took precedence, and the Federal Government relied upon the states for funding (no power to tax!!) and manpower. Small wonder things didn't work too well. Under the Constitution though the Federal Government was considerably strengthened. It had the power to tax, and federal law (thanks to some timely clarification in the Supreme Court as well as the document itself) superceded other laws--you had to AT LEAST live up to the federal standard.

Clearly, the UN is more of the Articles of Confederation--and I hesitate to even go that far. It has no power to tax, the products of the deliberative body are NOT binding to all members of that body regardless of the members' degree of agreement, and they have no LE capability. Not much of a government at all.

[Chang Style Novice]

Okay, well then what it comes down to is whether we recognize the UN's authority in matters of international import or we don't. One of the most frustrating contractictions in this whole mess is that Bush wants to use Iraq's failure to conform to UN resolutions as a justification for war, but appears willing to circumvent UN authority as regards actually going to war. Having it both ways makes the US position hypocritical. In any case, unless Ari and Rummy are BSing (which I'm sure would never happen :rolleyes: ) Bush will shortly have UN permission to act.

Then we get to the question of whether the deficits we're going to end up running in bribe-oriented aid packages and massive troop and equipment movement expenses is going to be worth the added security (or if it will add any security.) An especially important question as we slide from recession towards depression.

[Marky]

The poll is an interesting one (though I realize it's impossible to narrow the thoughts of the world's people into three opinions!). I considered these things when I tried to answer it:

1. Resolution 1441 was voted on so that Saddam would be disarmed forceably after a certain period of time if he did not comply with a certain set of rules that would allow him to disarm peacefully. This resolution was unanimously supported within the UN Security Council.

2. When Resolution 1441 was breached, the US sent its troops to prepare to carry out the resolution. While they did this, the other nations of the UNSC complained about the prospect of war, because they had assumed Saddam would disarm in the time alloted. Now, Saddam slowly builds his defenses and prepares atrocities against his own country, and the bickering in the UN will change nothing, other than bring about the deaths of more Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and US soldiers than there would have been.

3. When it was time to declare a new Chief Weapons Inspector for the UNSC, a very strict man was decided on months in advance. Only several days before his inauguration, three countries argued against his presence, claiming that he would "be too confrontational with Saddam". For that reason, Hans Blix was chosen. The three countries who promoted him were China, Russia, and France. The United States did not support Blix, but they were overruled by the rest of the UNSC, who really didn't see a difference. It is now known that, at that time, France was selling nuclear fissible material to Iraq.

4. When the British layed out their latest amended resolution, France rejected it before Iraq did! Frances arguement was that they "would veto any resolution put forth". It has become obvious that Chirac is not anti-war, he is anti-American. Russia has stated that "they will not agree on a resolution that directly or indirectly leads to war". By this logic, Saddam has NO INCENTIVE to disarm, except to be a nice guy.

5. For restatement, these "anti-war" (as if anyone in the world is PRO-WAR) nations all voted IN FAVOR OF Resolution 1441. It should not be the United States' job to explain why we SHOULD go to war, it is the job of the rest of the nations on the UNSC to explain their own indecisiveness.

6. War never fixed anything, aside from fascism, communism, and slavery.

7. Even Hitler was supported by the Pope, and his beginning negative actions were not acted against because the world thought he should be given "more time" to turn himself around. The United States remained neutral. If the US HAD fought Hitler at that point, imagine how angry the European nations might have been!

8. Bill Clinton had missiles fired on five countries during his time as President. He did not ask for approval from the United Nations, and the United Nations did not question his actions.

9. Chirac is called a "White Knight of Peace" even as he continues to sell replacement helicopter and missile components to Saddam. He's playing both sides of the fence, and his actions will not make peace, they will only make more dead Americans (whom he cares nothing about).

10. Everyday, more Iraqi civilians are dying because of Saddam, and while the US soldiers will ultimately kill some civilians, that is not their goal. That IS, however, the goal of Saddam.


And then I ask myself:

1. Is the word of the United Nations really worth anything?

2. Does the United Nations have the interests of the whole world in mind, or are the individual nations more concerned with themselves?

3. If they ARE more concerned with their own motives, why should the US be any different?

4. Does the UN really care about peace? The Iraqi people lead an existence that is far from peaceful.


So I don't believe that any of the three poll questions accurately portrays the situation. Although I KNOW I don't have all the facts either. I don't believe any of us do, but I prefer to RESEARCH THE PAST instead of listening to the opinions of other people/countries.

[Marky]

Hi Freedom 76,

"Why don't people that are not US nationals have the same God-given rights that those in this country have?" F76

Good question!

"Hussein is a dictator, and has done horrible things and I firmly beleive that it would be better for the world if people like that weren't in power" F76

And there's your answer!

"What if another country intevened in the Revolutionary on behalf of England" F76

The Germans did exactly that. They helped the English to try and defeat soon-to-be Americans. If you're saying we should NOT INTERVENE... well, the Iraqi's aren't exactly in a revolution. That boat sailed years ago! Even the Iraqi soldiers hate Saddam, and many are already negotiating their surrender.

"or if perhaps England and France had recognized the South in the US Civil War? Where would we be now?" F76

They did recognize the South, and the English sent officers to help them defeat the Union. The French had planned to do the same thing, but much like the American Revolution, they didn't do anything until the war was over.


Hi Laughin Cow,

"I reckon if we didn't have the U.N. we would have seen a lot more conflicts(wars), human rights abuses, etc. in the last 50yrs." LC

Can you name 10 of those "many more conflicts?". Can you name 5? Where was the UN when Saddam took power? Where was the UN while China has (and continues to) suck Tibet dry? The countries that are willing to cause trouble DON'T CARE ABOUT THE UN! This is not to say that all countries who don't care about the UN are troublemakers.


Hi CSN,

"although his alienation of our allies in the process shows a disgraceful lack of diplomacy"

Bush could hop on one foot and sing the French national anthem. He could convert to Islam in a Russian Mosque. Face it, other countries don't like us, for whatever reasons they choose. I don't mind that other countries "hate" the US, but I don't like that so many governments lie about their reasoning.

[Chang Style Novice]

If

"Bush could hop on one foot and sing the French national anthem. He could convert to Islam in a Russian Mosque. Face it, other countries don't like us, for whatever reasons they choose. I don't mind that other countries "hate" the US, but I don't like that so many governments lie about their reasoning."

then how come

"Bill Clinton had missiles fired on five countries during his time as President. He did not ask for approval from the United Nations, and the United Nations did not question his actions."

?

My answer is that Bush is acting like a f@#$ing pr!ck, and his BS is harming our status in the international community.

edit - or put another way, either the first statement is untrue or it has become too late for his diplomatic actions to have their effect, because first impressions are the most important.

Also, I am concerned that other nations hate us. Often there are pretty solid reasons for such a thing. Maybe a little self-examination is called for, hm?

[Black Jack]

Nice. Good post Marky.

[red5angel]

Fukk the UN its become a near useless organization for ex-high school debaters and politicians who can't make it as anything else.

Just an interesting note here as well since there is all the love going around for France...When Britian proposed their ammendments to the sanctions and to the possibility of war, France, said they would vetoe the ammendmant without having to look at it, and they said they would vote it down before even the Iraqi members had decided yeah or neah!


oops, marky got to it before I did, nice post Marky....

[Chang Style Novice]

"politicians who can't make it as anything else."

George H. W. Bush, former US ambassador to the UN. So, good point!:D

[fa_jing]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-031103A

[jesper]

In 1939 25% of americans was for going to war against Hitler.
In 1940 19% was for a war.

Sometimes the masses doesnt have all the answers

[Marky]

Hi CSN,

"If

"Bush could hop on one foot and sing the French national anthem. He could convert to Islam in a Russian Mosque. Face it, other countries don't like us, for whatever reasons they choose. I don't mind that other countries "hate" the US, but I don't like that so many governments lie about their reasoning."

then how come

"Bill Clinton had missiles fired on five countries during his time as President. He did not ask for approval from the United Nations, and the United Nations did not question his actions."

?

My answer is that Bush is acting like a f@#$ing pr!ck, and his BS is harming our status in the international community." CSN

My answer would be that Clinton did not attack countries that the French or Russians were buying oil from or selling weapons to. Furthermore, I was pointing out the seemingly pointless and day-to-day fluctuation in the opinion of the UN. If you hate the US decision now, were you protesting when Bill Clinton was attacking people? M

"edit - or put another way, either the first statement is untrue or it has become too late for his diplomatic actions to have their effect, because first impressions are the most important." CSN

When you give billions of dollars a year to a country who actually PRIDES ITSELF ON ITS PRIDE, it's only a matter of time before they resent you. Don't forget, they voted IN FAVOR OF Resolution 1441... again pointing out the indecisiveness of the UNSC. M

"Also, I am concerned that other nations hate us." CSN

I take pride in that fact, and I hope it's really true! M

"Often there are pretty solid reasons for such a thing. " CSN

"You're a bunch of yankees" is not a solid reason, and that's the only one I've heard. They fluff it up with words like "elitist", but I judge by actions, not insults. And if you look at who's doing what, you'll see that the United States (and Britain) are the only countries that kept their word. Oh, except when France vowed they would eternally disagree with the US. M

"Maybe a little self-examination is called for, hm?" CSN

For you, or for me? I examine my thoughts every day by reading about the history of these events and keeping up with the news. I don't feed my ego by talking to like-minded people, if that's what you're getting at. What I've posted are FACTS; I've used them to form my opinion, while many prefer to choose facts that fit their pre-conceived opinions. M

[Chang Style Novice]

A - The interventions in the Clinton regime were a totally different animal than what we have here. Whether you favor them or not, the primary reason for going to Kosovo, et al. was to stabilize regions of civil war, not to protect ourselves from an alleged threat. So any objections I may have had at that time (and yes, I wasn't always convinced we were making wise moves) are not relevant to the current situation.

B - You didn't specify which nation is receiving "billions of dollars a year", so I'll answer as if you mean France, but my response applies regardless. If we keep giving the French money, why would they want to risk cutting off the gravy train by taking a stand against the US? If they truly resent it, why keep taking it? I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.

C - Why in the world would you WANT people to hate us? Do you want more terrorist attacks? Fewer allies? This position strikes me as simply insane.

D - I've heard the term elitist thrown at the French by Americans much more than the other way around. Of course, I live in America and not France. The rest of your response doesn't address my statement, so I'll return the favor.

E - Self-examination is always called for by everyone. But I was speaking of US foreign policy, not individuals.

[Marky]

Hi CSN,

A-- Clinton lobbed missiles at 5 different countries on 5 different occasions. Kosovo makes one. I'll look up the others.

B-- We give billions of dollars a year to EVERY major country in the UN, and we give at least millions to every country. Furthermore, although there are 197 countries in the UN, we pay 25% of the bill. France knows the US isn't going to stop giving money to their government. We give money to countries that dislike us much more than France.

Why do they (the French) keep taking it? It's billions of dollars! The US has no stipulation that they have to like us in order to take out money. The question I have (rhetorical, of course) is, WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO GIVE IT?!

C-- I don't care if countries hate us. If they don't want to hate us, I'm not going to ask them to do so. In addition, the people who would attack us out of hatred, will hate us no matter how we act. They hate us because we have the title AMERICANS. As far as allies are concerned... it should be obvious by now that we have no allies. We have foreign countries and people that want to legally control our military, and keep us from using it for ourselves... those aren't allies.

D-- Oh, skipping this one.

E-- In what way has our foreign policy not been to your liking? I do mean this as a serious question, by the way. However, if we are in disagreement, I will propose counter-arguements and contradictions to your answer if at all possible.

[Watchman]

Chang,

Sorry for not responding sooner. Business keeps me away from the computer a lot now.

Merryprankster made my exact point in nearly the exact wordage I would have used.

That's also kind of spooky. I wasn't aware BJJ training afforded mind-reading capabilities, MP. I thought it was just us kooky kung fu guys with all the mystical powers. :D

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Marky

"I reckon if we didn't have the U.N. we would have seen a lot more conflicts(wars), human rights abuses, etc. in the last 50yrs." LC

Can you name 10 of those "many more conflicts?". Can you name 5? Where was the UN when Saddam took power? Where was the UN while China has (and continues to) suck Tibet dry? The countries that are willing to cause trouble DON'T CARE ABOUT THE UN! This is not to say that all countries who don't care about the UN are troublemakers.


Every time you introduce a set of rules there will be peple follwoing them and some that don't, this does neither invalidate the rules nor make them obsolete.

As for your examples:
Where was the US and the rest of the world when those happened??

As for naming conflicts that didn't happen, how would I do that??
I reckon Beirut would have been worse, I actually have friends that served in Beirut, Cyprus under UN command.

MANY changes happened in MANY countries due to the U.N. Capital punishment was reduced, Apartheid and segregation was reduced, etc.

Those are due to the U.N. so should we forget about those, because one or two countries don't get from the U.N. what they want or desire?

The U.N. is about resolving conflicts preferably peacefully, setting guidelines and rules, etc and not there to serve the interests of a few.

Cheers.

[Merryprankster]

CSN,

I might point out that this whole argument has changed, and I'd like to know why. You asked watchman why he thought we didn't need the UN's permission...and being a nosy little *******, I answered for him. Somehow, this all turned into being about whether or not a person agrees with what the current administration is doing.

These are two ENTIRELY seperate issues. This is something I really hate that happens a lot on here. If you argue against one point, it's automatically assumed you hold certain positions on others. A great example is the recent thread on capital punishment. Kung Lek posted a link to an ACLU website as "information," on the death penalty, which is like posting a link to the NRA as "information," on the 2nd amendment. This struck me as being disingenuous and I explained why--while it is indeed information, it's information with an agenda and has no balance. Suddenly, according to others, I was clearly in favor of the death penalty and was immediately attacked for it. This is a position I never ONCE mentioned in that thread, and nobody even asked where I stood.

Ready, Fire, Aim.

I would like to say this isn't really directed at you, I'm just venting. Although to give you an example of how resolutions in the UN are only respected when it's convenient, look precisely at Russia and France's continued trade with Iraq, which goes WELL BEYOND what is allowed by the official economic sanctions, I believe.

Watchman--BJJ is all about feel bro. They say Helio can communicate with BJJers world wide in the blink of an eye. :D

[yenhoi]

MP got here first.

Only 1 power holds states to the United Nations 'authority' - United States economic, diplomatic, and military power. Not the West's, not the West's + Russia and China. The United States. Europe is a fairly minor world power except for when it comes to mouth-boxing at the UN or infront of cameras. Europe has also fallen for the Bush Administrations efforts.

France/Germany fell for the bait so quickly, so easily, that they might have blown their political clout wad, way too soon, and the battle for europe hasent even really started yet ( or has it.)

Good luck ever getting the United States to submit to a super-national body that it didnt create and craft in such a manner to specifically favor the United States and its little western buddies.

Not one Nation on earth except South Africa does things in the interest of the World.

:confused:

[Marky]

Hi LC,

I have arguements with some of your points, agreements on others.

"Every time you introduce a set of rules there will be peple follwoing them and some that don't, this does neither invalidate the rules nor make them obsolete." LC

If people won't follow the rules, what's the point to having them? If a couple groups can claim they don't want to follow the rules, and we say it's OKAY (as we are saying to Saddam right now!), then the rules aren't being upheld equally for all nations and they become invalidated (in my opinion). M

"Where was the US and the rest of the world when those happened??" LC

They were in the UN! M

"As for naming conflicts that didn't happen, how would I do that??
I reckon Beirut would have been worse, I actually have friends that served in Beirut, Cyprus under UN command." LC

Agreed, my apologies. M

"Those are due to the U.N. so should we forget about those, because one or two countries don't get from the U.N. what they want or desire?" LC

We certainly should not forget about what good things the UN has done. But if the purpose of the United States in the UN is to provide a military to be directed by the UN, and to be held back from using that military for themselves, then why should the US stay there? This question is not rhetorical; should the US provide a military for the UN just to "be nice guys", and pay one fourth of the bill ON TOP OF THAT? If you haven't notice, the United States has become the punching bag of the world, despite all the good they have enacted and continue to enact (although admittedly, no country enacts ONLY GOOD!). M

"MANY changes happened in MANY countries due to the U.N. Capital punishment was reduced, Apartheid and segregation was reduced, etc." LC

Do you believe that if the US came forward with the goal of fixing these kinds of troubles WITHIN THE US, is there ANY COUNTRY IN THE UN that wouldn't say "fix it yourself"? Personally, I don't think a single nation would help us. However, I do agree that within other countries the UN has fixed these issues and that is commendable. M

"The U.N. is about resolving conflicts preferably peacefully, setting guidelines and rules, etc and not there to serve the interests of a few" LC

The guidelines and rules were set in regard to Iraq, it has hoped the conflict would be resolved peacefully, and Iraq chose to laugh at us. How can you say that France, Russia, China, Germany, and the US are not serving their own interests in the UN? The difference is, the United States can serve it's own ends WITHOUT the UN. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, and whether they should do this, is a matter of opinion.

[Laughing Cow]

Marky.

I am not saying that the U.N. is to end all fights.

But it is a DEMOCRATIC body/organisation and thus needs a consensus by the majority of members to sanction it's actions.

If there is no majority or a dis-agreement as right now it needs to be resolved, by all the members that AGREED to abide by it's rules and guidelines.

THE U.N. is NOT a form of goverment as so many people think it is, it is a diplomatic body/organisation that sets rules and regulations that it's Members have AGREED upon, those will be enfored by diplomatic means or force as am absolute last resort.

Yes, parts of the U.N. are outdated and need to be rvised as the world has changed in the last 50yrs.
Among those are the Veto powers which IMO should lie with the EU now and not individual european countries.

At the moment there is talk within the EU that they canot provide aid for Iraq's reconstrcution if the US attacks unilaterally as the aid-fund is linked with the U.N.

The U.N. has also many smaller organisations under it like UNESCO and similar.

In the end the U.N. is only as good and effective as the support it can get from it's Members.

Cheers.

[Laughing Cow]

BTW, my Opinion is that if the US doesn't want to be in the U.N. than they should get the HELL out of it and ALL of it's other bodies.

This of course would have repercussions good and bad on both sides, but nobody is being forced to remain in the U.N.

[Marky]

Hi Laughing Cow,

I hear ya, and have been enlightened on several points. Thanks!

But when you say these things:

"it is a DEMOCRATIC body/organisation and thus needs a consensus by the majority of members to sanction it's actions."

"it is a diplomatic body/organisation that sets rules and regulations that it's Members have AGREED upon, those will be enfored by diplomatic means or force as am absolute last resort."

It brings the discussion back to Resolution 1441, which is the cornerstone of my entire opinion! Although you said that force is an absolute last resort, in the case of Resolution 1441, force was to be used if Iraq did not comply by the specified date! MY OPINION on this is that the United States is holding true to the Resolution, as are Britain and Spain, while the other nations on the Security Council are breaking there word IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.

And if the UN can unanimously vote on a resolution, then haphazardly "change their minds", it brings me back to the question I asked myself: Is the word of the UNSC worth anything?

[Marky]

"BTW, my Opinion is that if the US doesn't want to be in the U.N. than they should get the HELL out of it and ALL of it's other bodies.

This of course would have repercussions good and bad on both sides, but nobody is being forced to remain in the U.N." LC

Agreed on all points. M

[Chang Style Novice]

MP-

I think you will find the answer to when the argument changed in the first of Marky's posts on this thread. Marky, you will note, continually contradicts himself about what is relevant, flipping and flopping to whatever position suits his rhetorical purposes at the time, ie:


"Also, I am concerned that other nations hate us." CSN

I take pride in that fact, and I hope it's really true! M

And shortly later:


C-- I don't care if countries hate us. If they don't want to hate us, I'm not going to ask them to do so. In addition, the people who would attack us out of hatred, will hate us no matter how we act. They hate us because we have the title AMERICANS. As far as allies are concerned... it should be obvious by now that we have no allies. We have foreign countries and people that want to legally control our military, and keep us from using it for ourselves... those aren't allies.

What these quotes have in common, you'll notice, is that they are paranoid, xenophobic, and isolationist to the extreme.

You're getting filtered, Marky. Bye!

[Marky]

Hi all,

"What these quotes have in common, you'll notice, is that they are paranoid, xenophobic, and isolationist to the extreme." CSN

Maybe your right, but it has nothing to do with MerryPrankster's post or his question. You made it obvious that you don't agree with me, but that's no reason to use my words as a shield. So don't do it again.

[chen zhen]

A question: How many UN resolutions was it again that Iraq had ignored? 'Cos the last time I checked, Israel had broken more than 500. Iraq has some serious competition in the resolution-breaking business!

And another: The US is saying that the UN's authority will be irrelevant if it votes against a resolution on Iraq. The US is also saying that it will attack Iraq even if the UN is voting against the war. Then who is making the UN irrelevant? Who's breaking the resolution?

[Marky]

Hi Chen Zhen,

"A question: How many UN resolutions was it again that Iraq had ignored? 'Cos the last time I checked, Israel had broken more than 500. Iraq has some serious competition in the resolution-breaking business!" CZ

Good point! I honestly don't know what the deal is, I don't have the facts, but as presented here, you're right that it's very sketchy business. M

"And another: The US is saying that the UN's authority will be irrelevant if it votes against a resolution on Iraq. The US is also saying that it will attack Iraq even if the UN is voting against the war. Then who is making the UN irrelevant? Who's breaking the resolution?" CZ

You've taken these facts out of context. Consider that the US already gained UN approval (and aid) with Resolution 1441. Given that fact, it is the rest of the UN Security council that is makeing the UN irrelevant (it suggests that they are permitted to change their mind on a major decision on a whim, even months after having a hunanimous agreement on said position), and it's the UN that has broken it's own resolution (Resolution 1441)! The UN is driven further into irrelevance by Chirac everytime he claims he will veto ANY resolution put forth by the US (especially since Resolution 1441 authorized military force, and France voted "YES"). M

[logic]

boom

[ZIM]

Resolution 1441 did indeed state that 'serious repercussions' would follow BUT later included language to the effect that these repercussions would occur as a result of UN deliberation- in other words, 'do this, or we'll talk about you using personal remarks'.

So, France is focusing on one part of the language while the USA is focusing on another. All legal, all agreed to previously.

Second:
We certainly should not forget about what good things the UN has done. But if the purpose of the United States in the UN is to provide a military to be directed by the UN, and to be held back from using that military for themselves, then why should the US stay there? Thats not the purpose of US involvement in the UN, and other countries have contributed armies or monies to enforce UN decisions more frequently than the US has- its just that the US tends to take on the bigger actions and at their choice... we certainly turned a blind eye to Rwanda, Biafra, other genocidal situations, when other countries did not choose to do so. We tend to blow off any number of things. Sometimes thats due to unpopularity of the 'cause', sometimes its arrogance- just not in our interest to be involved.

The major players tend to be [IIRC]: Belgium, Swizterland, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Pakistan. Germany has not previously been allowed to operate outside of it's own borders. Japan tends to contribute funds only.

Last, several departments of the UN have done good work- the world health organization, human rights declarations, etc. But it only works if we agree for it to work. The US does not, overall- though there are some valid, some not-so valid reasons for that.

[jesper]

Denmark has the largest contingent of troops stationed under UN compared to its size.

Just wanted to mention that :)

GO DENMARK

[Marky]

Hi ZIM,

Got this info. on Res. 1441 (I pasted the parts that were relevant to the section we're discussing):

"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."

And Iraq's Serious Consequence of the Day is: MORE TIME?!

The claims of France and Russia that they will veto ANY resolution that may SOMEDAY lead to physical conflict (can anyone name a serious consequence to Saddam that DOESN'T include physical conflict in some way?) means (as I see it) they're abusing a LOOPHOLE that only exists because they've decided to define "serious consequences" as "letting an insane and murderous dictator destroy his weapons at a slower pace than he's making them". Using this logic, a country could make the equally strange claim that it defines "physical removal of an enemy" as "a picnic". Now we're not going to war, we're going to a picnic.

The point to that very silly example is this: If we're not all using the same dictionary, how can order be maintained? How do others who read this thread define "serious consequences" to a regime that breaches UN mandate in regard to weapons inspection/disposal?

By the way ZIM, I truly respect your opinion and anyone's that is based on concrete facts. Of course, it's only natural for us to interpret the facts in different ways! If that weren't so, there'd be nothing to talk about!

[Third Degree]

Before I begin I must say that most people, in Britain at least, dislike American policy. It is nothing personal against American people as such, just a dislike for US foreign policy (Obviously both overlap but for arguments sake..).

The USA is very short sighted in terms of policy making. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s they financed and supported most of the people they are waging war upon. They helped and supported Saddam Hussein, they helped and supported Osama Bin Laden. They supported the Taliban. They supported and supplied money to Muslim groups to de-stable the old USSR. To make if even more comical, Osama Bin Laden's older brother invested in George W. Bush's oil company in the 1980s. Bin Laden's family were also given the contract to rebuild the US Embassy which Osama Bin Laden bombed in 1998.

George W. Bush mentioned the fact that books written for Afghani children were full of images of war and religious zeal and the US would help write books that omitted these inflammatory images. What he failed to mention was that the US Govt helped publish these books in the 1980s as a tool of propaganda against the invading Russians!!

The shift of emphasis from Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is almost laughable The shift of the reasons on the war with Iraq is laughable. If the US and George Bush were so concerned about an "undemocratically elected leader", a leader who oppresses his people then why did Bush and the US Government agree a multi-billion arms deal with Colombia?!? Colombia has an atrocious human rights record and behind Israel and Egypt, are the biggest arms buyer from the US.

If the USA are so concerned about countries hiding or helping terrorists, then why haven't they waged war on Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Pakistan will inevitably be one of the next targets as their links to Al Qaeda are the strongest of any nation. The Pakistani secret service, Inter Service Intelligence, have supplied cash by the bucket load to Al-Qaeda. The only reason why Bush has left Pakistan alone is because Pakistan has nuclear weapons - a proper weapon of mass destruction.

The USA know Iraq are weak, that is why they are so intent on war. "Iraq has possible links with Al Qaeda" says Bush despite evidence overwhelmingly saying the contrary.

Everyone suspects this war with Iraq, the war in Afghanistan was due to oil. British Petroleum is already arguing over who will have control of the Iraqi oil fields so don't try to tell me oil isn't a major factor in this.

Sep 11 has triggered all of this but the circumstances surrounding Sep 11 are not clear cut as there are too many holes in the officially presented version.

Third Degree.

[ZIM]

from an article:
03-12-2003

The Korean Crisis: China Maneuvers behind the Scenes



By Tom Knowlton



History teaches us that small wars are invariable precursors to much larger conflicts. The path to the cataclysmic First and Second World Wars can be found in the smaller Boer War, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish Civil War, and Italian-Ethiopian War.



It is a credit to the governments of the United States and the former Soviet Union that none of the post-Second World War conflicts erupted into a full-blown conflagration between the two superpowers.



The dangers posed by Iraq and the saber-rattling North Korea likely herald the beginning rather than an end to new cycle of warfare. While the arsenals and maniacal leaders of both nations pose a global threat, neither nation can be construed as a global power.



The same, however, cannot be said for the nation that has been operating behind the scenes as a macabre puppet master instigating the brinkmanship of both Iraq and North Korea – communist China.



China has long believed that it possessed a manifest destiny to establish a political and economic hegemony over all of eastern Asia. In the mind of many Chinese policymakers, China’s “rightful place” as overlord of Asia has been hindered by foreign powers dating back to the 19th century, when Japan, the United States and the Western colonial powers divided China into “spheres of influence” and later crushed the nationalist Boxer Rebellion in 1900.



American, Japanese and European interests in Asia are still viewed by the Chinese communist leadership to be major stumbling blocks in the road to China’s domination of the subcontinent.



While many American policymakers falsely believe that China’s relationship with the West is steadily improving, the reality of the situation is that China has continued to arm and prepare for a large-scale military confrontation with the United States and our allies (see “Will Iraqi War Tempt China to Invade Taiwan?” DefenseWatch, Nov. 20 2002). http://www.sftt.org/dwa/2002/11/20/2.html

China’s role in the unfolding Iraqi conflict and North Korean crisis, while covert, is unmistakable.



The surprise Chinese support for U.N. Resolution 1441 (China had abstained from Resolution 678 in November 1990, which authorized U.N. action to remove Iraq from Kuwait) removed key political roadblocks to the United States likely invasion and occupation of Iraq.



In response to the resolution, Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, sent a letter to the Iraqi National Assembly criticizing the U.N. Security Council, stating, “Some states that [voted for the resolution] ... are the same countries that pretended that they would use the veto against resolution 1441 of 2002.”



I believe that Uday’s comments are indicative of China’s covert encouragement of Iraq’s brazen posturing against the United States in the weeks leading up to the U.N. Security Council vote on Resolution 1441, and assurances that China would veto the resolution.



By November 2002, China had successfully maneuvered Iraqi President Saddam Hussein into a position to substantially lose face with his Arab neighbors if he conceded to American demands – a veritable point of no return. To appear weak in the eyes of the Arab world was an abhorrent thought to the egotistical Iraqi tyrant, and virtually guaranteed that war would be inevitable.



Now, China potentially stands to gain substantially, politically and economically from a U.S.-Iraqi war.



An American invasion of Iraq will polarize the Arab world and ignite an unrivaled wave of anti-Americanism in the world’s Islamic community. Those Arab nations that do not choose to align themselves with the United States will quickly seek to bolster their national defenses and anti-access weaponry to ward off attack. Likewise, Islamic terrorist organizations will seek to arm themselves to unleash attacks against U.S. and Western interests worldwide.



China may well be counting on reaping the profits of a massive arms race in the aftermath of the liberation of Iraq.



There is little doubt that the Anglo-American military machine will turn the Iraqi defenses into piles of smoldering metal. A great deal of Iraq’s military hardware and technology has been purchased, often covertly, from France, Germany and Russia. The utter failure of French, German, and Russian weaponry in the face of superior American and British hardware will sound the death knell for those nations’ military exports to the Middle East - an issue firmly underlying their attempts to prevent a confrontation in Iraq.



Similar to the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat gravitating out of the Soviet sphere of influence after the repeated wartime defeat of Egypt’s Soviet-made military hardware, China may be strategizing that America’s Middle Eastern enemies will turn to Chinese weaponry.



China was a major arms supplier to the Muslim forces in Afghanistan during and after the Soviet-Afghan War. Chinese weapons, including advanced missile technology, have been a staple of the Iranian arsenal for many years, and it has been reputed that al Qaeda has had close and cordial dealings with the Chinese government as recently as the post-9/11 fall of 2001.



A Libyan national who served as a liaison officer for al Qaeda elements in Italy has reportedly characterized the relationship between bin Laden and the Chinese, as “He [Bin Laden] works a great deal with China. He's got good relations with them,”



In February 2003, China announced that up to 100 Chinese news correspondents would be sent to the Persian Gulf to cover a U.S.-Iraqi war first-hand, marking the first time China has sent nationals to report on a conflict. Many of these correspondents have applied to join the press corps following U.S. troops, and one must question whether they are being sent to report back on the conflict or to gather information on the workings of the American military machine.



It is likewise utopian to believe that North Korea’s threatening overtures to the United States are being made without at least the tacit approval, if not encouragement, of China.



In January 2003, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted a weeklong military maneuver on the North Korean border simulating Chinese intervention in case of an invasion of North Korea.



North Korea exists almost as a subsidiary of Communist China. Economically, the North Korean government would collapse without China’s financial aid and shipments of oil and natural resources. Moreover, U.S. intelligence agencies have extensively documented substantial transfers to North Korea of Chinese weapons and military technology, including materials integral to the development of a nuclear weapons program. It would be virtually impossible for North Korea to act in any fashion contrary to the wishes of the Chinese government.



The rumblings of the North Korean war machine at the same moment that the United States is preparing to engage Iraq, is not intended to test the American military’s ability to implement its plans for engaging in near simultaneous Major Theater Warfare on two fronts.



Rather, it is most likely being staged to send a message to the nations of Asia and the Middle East that only China can protect them from the United States. The brazenly hostile actions of North Korea will likely not result in American military action, an issue China will seek to propagandize as the result of an American reluctance to engage China.



Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian has expressed on more than one occasion his sentiments that war between China and the United States is “inevitable”- a view apparently espoused by many senior Chinese officials. While the Chinese military preparations for this “inevitable” war are still ten to twenty years from fruition, China is actively geopolitically positioning itself for this conflict today.



Despite the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has placed the recruitment of Chinese-American analysts and case officers as a “very high priority,” U.S. intelligence efforts in the region were severely hamstrung by eight years of the former Clinton administration’s institutional indifference to Chinese military developments - creating a major intelligence lag against a nation actively seeking to challenge us.



Tom Knowlton is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at TKnowlton[nospamok?]DW@aol.com.
-----------------------------------------
Sorry so long, but I thought this was interesting... sftt.org is a very good site for info, if you want more.

Also interesting, now that I think of it- we'd "have to" buddy up with India if it came to open war with China.

2nd edit: Marky- thanks for the reply- it was thoughtful & good.

[ZIM]

Also- to those who say its about OIL: its not! Its about the DOLLAR!

"Not long ago, the Iraqi government made it official policy that Iraqi oil, two-thirds of which is purchased by American oil companies, had to be paid for in euros. "

...

"If the euro were to increasingly become the alternative international currency of choice in competition with the dollar, the global demand for greenbacks would fall, the value of the dollar would decline, and the U.S. government would find it far more difficult both to export inflation and to finance its budget deficits. The financial clout and muscle of the American government would be dramatically undermined over time with the dollar increasingly no longer the only global reserve currency in town. "

Hey why not? (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303a.asp)

[chen zhen]

Jesper: "Denmark has the largest contingent of soldiers in the UN..."

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?:) I don't know...

and Marky- If the counsil votes against a war- then there has been a democratic election. and that will mean: No war! If the USA invades Iraq anyway- then that will be an action defying the authority of the UN, and be a great blow to the concept of world democracy and unity.
And you can also consider the fact that everytime a resolution has been posed against Israel, the US has used it's veto, often being the ONLY country voting against the resolution, resulting in the resolution being rejected.

Third degree- Bin-Laden is NOT shi'ite. If he was, then he would definately be a puppet of Iran, the largest shi'ite country in the world. And we know that isn't the fact.
The cause of different is that saddam is a secular president, 20 years ago he was almost anti-religious. Bin Laden have actually called him an "Infidel"!

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by chen zhen

Third degree- Bin-Laden is NOT shi'ite. If he was, then he would definately be a puppet of Iran, the largest shi'ite country in the world. And we know that isn't the fact.
The cause of different is that saddam is a secular president, 20 years ago he was almost anti-religious. Bin Laden have actually called him an "Infidel"!



Fair point. Dunno why I thought this but I knew it was either your reason or my incorrect one as to why they don't like each other. I swear I read that Saddam allege that Bin Laden was a puppet of Iran. I either dreamt this I'm going mad!

Anyway, war is looming large on the horizon. Just watched the press conference from the Azores and I knew George Bush would mention the Halabja chemical attack allegedly perpertrated on the Kurds by Saddam Hussein. Evidence suggests that the chemicals used at Halabja were not Iraqi but infact Iranian.

The US Govt had evidence to support this view that it was Iranian chemical weapons that were used at Halabja. Strange how suddenly since the US-Iraq relations turned sour, the US stance is that Iraq is to blame for the Kurdish deaths at Halabja.

Anyway, these talks in the Azores. If Bush and Blair were serious about finding a peaceful solution then why are they talking amongst themselves and not in New York with the United Nations?!?!

Third Degree

[Marky]

Don't worry, Chen Zhen, humans existed for millions of years before the UN came around. And if I recall, there have been a few wars during that time.

Also, the UN is not a democracy, because there's no such thing as a "world community". A community is a group of people who share similar values, goals, and dreams. The entire world and all it's nations will NEVER be a community... if it were, there would be no need for countries.

[chen zhen]

Touché, I agree with your points marky.;)
Maybe I overreactet at some points with the "world community"...

[dezhen2001]

Third degree- Bin-Laden is NOT shi'ite. sorry to highlight the point again :D But ibn Laden is frm Saudi and *most* of the country are officially Sunni Muslim. There *are* some shia there. Most of the people - especially the ones in power and general control follow a sect called Wahabbi which is very extreme.

But not all the general people are this. infact most of the Saudi people i have spoken to are against what OBL did and disagree with the Taliban and Wahabbism.

So all this "Saudi hates USA" stuff isnt *exactly* true.

just mentioning something i know from my own experience and not wanting to get dragged in to all this cr@p again :D

dawood

[ZIM]

Point 1: Israel is not building any intercontinental missiles filled with plague or portable H-bombs etc. They are trying to stay alive in a network of countries and people filled with hateful destruction towards them (yourself included).

Israel could potentially have produced a few dozen nuclear warheads in the period 1970-1980, and might have possessed 100 to 200 warheads by the mid-1990s. In 1986 descriptions and photographs of Israeli nuclear warheads were published in the London Sunday Times of a purported underground bomb factory. The photographs were taken by Mordechai Vanunu, a dismissed Israeli nuclear technician. His information led some experts to conclude that Israel had a stockpile of 100 to 200 nuclear devices at that time. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html)

Edit: I suppose you could write to Saddam, if you think that would help. (http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/epage1.htm)

[David Jamieson]

can anybody tell me what immediate threat saddam poses to the usa?

This one is still unanswered.

as for the us going it alone...well, that's illegal. Why would the USA want to be yet another terrorist country by taking aggresive unilateral action against a country that poses no immediate threat.

I'm am very much enjoying watching Tony Blair squirm under the weight of the people readying to throw him out of office for his stance on Iraq.

I would very much like to see George Bush impeached for his role in this fiasco of his own making.

Can anybody honestly say that if you faced a tyrant like Bush telling you to disarm and at the same time amassing against you on your borders, you would put away your weapons?

I wouldn't blame Iraq for hanging onto some of those weapons, he's gonna need them to defend his country from the invasion forces coming to steal his oilfields and install a puppet regime for the American and British oil interests.

A democratic arab nation? Is there such a thing outside of those smallish arab countries controlled by the west?

I think that if Saddam leaves office, then Bush should agree to do the same.

That would be fair.

cheers

[ZIM]

Hey, glad you got something out of it!

We've had friends that've got out of hand though, of course....

[red5angel]

kung lek, what the hell is your problem? Seriously man, lets look at your last post:

"can anybody tell me what immediate threat saddam poses to the usa?

This one is still unanswered."

So you haven't been paying any attention to all teh other threads where this was discussed before? How about the news, watch the news lately?


"as for the us going it alone...well, that's illegal."

According to whose laws? Just because the UN doesn't back the action doesn't make it illegal, there is no lawful way to wage war.



"I'm am very much enjoying watching Tony Blair squirm under the weight of the people readying to throw him out of office for his stance on Iraq."


You should be blushing in embarrassment because atleast the guy has the ballz to stand up for what he belives in at all costs. I don't see you volunteering to help the Iraqi people or government from the american opressors.


"Can anybody honestly say that if you faced a tyrant like Bush telling you to disarm and at the same time amassing against you on your borders, you would put away your weapons?"


Would any Tyrant honestly put away his weapons regardless of who he is facing? If you cared about your people you would do something, ANYTHING to stay away from war and the destruction it causes instead of half truths and evasive behaviour to buy time.


" wouldn't blame Iraq for hanging onto some of those weapons, he's gonna need them to defend his country from the invasion forces coming to steal his oilfields and install a puppet regime for the American and British oil interests."

Do you really deep down in your heart believe that we are waging war strictly to gain access to Iraqs oil fields? why not Saudi Arabia then? They have more of it and they aren't necesarily nice guys either?


"I think that if Saddam leaves office, then Bush should agree to do the same."

My suggestion is to stay tucked away in an apathetic country that would apparently rather see the world go to hell in a handbasket piecemail then take an active part in what is going on around.;)

[Black Jack]

Kung Lek there is not enough viagra in the world to make your statements stand up.

What a f@ckin dellusional man. F@ckin waste:rolleyes:

It' called the War on Terror and you might want to pick up a newspaper and read about it. If you missed it there was a terrorist attack back on 9/11 that killed over 3,000 people. America is a independent nation and the UN has no control over our right to protect its citizens, our freedoms and to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Lets just skip over the fact that Saddam has broken the U.N. resolution called 1441 and has thumbed his nose at its council for over 12 years. Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsers of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibts Saddam from committing or supporting terrorism or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Provisions just like 1441 which he continues to violate.

Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front, which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. It shelters the terrorist group known as the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in over 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other western nations, it also shelters the Mujahedin-e-Khalg (MKO) which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970's was responsible for killing several U.S. military personal and civilians.

Each of these groups, including Al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam, have offices in Baghdad and recieve training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq, connections with Al-Qaeda, though not needed, are clear.

In 1993 your buddy Saddam, I call him your buddy in reference to the vile post above, had the Iraqi Intelligence Serivce direct and pursue an attempt to assassinate, through use of a car bomb, former U.S. president George Bush Sr. and the Emir of Kuwait, Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 agents including two Iraqi nationals.

Former Iraqi officals according to the White House have described a secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Park, where terrorist groups receive training on hijacking planes and trains, explosives, sabotage and assassination skills which may of played a part in the WTC 1993 bombings.

In April of 2002, Saddam increased from $10,000 to $25,000 (something you questioned me on before) the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for disablement, wounds or death as a "martyr" abd $25,000 for a suicide bombers. One of the representatives on the west bank caught handing out the money was a Palestinian named Mahoud Besharat.

The man is a mass murderer, he has used chemcial weapons and pursued genocide in the past on his own people, the "Anfal" campaign in 1987 caused the "disapperances" of over 100,000 to 180,000 Kurds, from which in August 2001, Amnesty International reported that Saddam has the worlds worst record for numbers of persons who have disappeared and remain unacconted for, in 1988 in Halabja he used mustard gas and nappalm which killed over 5,000 civilians.....and thats just the start.

Did you know that he had the children of certain disidents captured, had their eye's gouged out, and returned the children alive as a lesson? Does that even matter to you?

Lets also not forget his WMD nuclear and biological weapon programs. Let's not forget the abuse of 1441. Evidence of which has been showcased numerous times on KFO before by other posters and by Colin Powell on the U.N. address.

Take whatever evidence you need. It's all their for those who do not have other agendas and reasons for the haterd on a Iraq war. You need to come down to earth and get a reality check on who and what the enemy is.

Keeerist.

[red5angel]

come on BJ, what about all those other bad guys out there? Everyone "knows" he has destoryed all his WMD, he has said so himself on numerous occasions and being the non oppressive american regime, he must be telling th truth right? Killing hundreds of thousands of people is just a drop in the bucket anyway and besides he has promised to try not to do it anymore. Clearly the guy is sane, and as long as he is tucked away in his little corner of the world what do we really have to worry?
Seriously who would think a little country like Iraq could do much of anything against us, the American giant?! Afghanistan couldn't do it...oh wait. Well vietnam couldn't...um...Well, Panama couldn't... Well you get the point he has sanctions on him so the UN must be watching him like a hawk and France and Germany and Russia must really just want peace. They know we are just oil hungry bullies looking to get free oil feilds for our countries.

sheez black jack, where do you get your info? I mean everyone knows the US is in the wrong here! ;)

[David Jamieson]

It' called the War on Terror and you might want to pick up a newspaper and read about it.

thanks, but i don't care much for american propoganda :D

what sort of open media do you get down there in the states anyway?

war on terror? hahahahahahahaha, whatever, sounds like an excuse to kick ass for no apparent reason other than to rip off some other sovereign nation.

the us didn't give a squat about iraq when they zapped the kurds with the gas the u.s gave em.

i wonder if the u.s would attack iraq if all they had was potatoes.

So, you think the u.s should make the laws then for the whole world? no thanks, the u.s can hardly control it's own citizenry.

how many did mcveigh wipe out? you have your own problems with your gun culture, your militia groups, your hate groups. why not spread it around eh? in a big shiny suv?

whatever, you guys that want this war are not getting reliable info.

I do not support the war on Iraq and I certainly don't support the tyrant Bush family. they are as bad as or worse than saddam.

to me, there is no difference in the big book of political scumbags.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

Kung Lek,


...you guys that want this war are not getting reliable info.

Hmm. Interesting. Do you have access to information that other people don't? Or are you simply taking the same information and drawing different conclusions? I'm betting it's the latter, in which case you have what's called a different opinion, which makes you neither more nor less inherently informed than other people who disagree with you.

Both you and LC have become steadily more irrational in the past few months. I refer not to your stances on the issues but your justification processes and tendency to completely jump the gun by making rather massive assumptions.

Like that people who are for war must just be simply misinformed, or, barring that, not very bright puppets. It's very similar to talking to fundies--you either see the light of the holy bible in their words or you're somehow in denial.

[Laughing Cow]

Hmmm.

Still don't know what the war in the Gulf will be about:

1.) War on Terror (logially impossible)
2.) Regime change.
3.) Enforcing compliance with res. 1441
4.) pre-emtpive strike to protect the USA
5.) Securing Oil-Reserves
6.) Imperialistic tendencies

Seems like nobody can really agree on what reason to give for the conflict.

BTW, really enjoyed this mornings newspaper with a pic of a pro-war rally in boston showing 6yr old Kids carrying guns while their mommies carried their little tots and shouted slogans.

Sorry, images like that upset me regardless if they come from the USA or the middle-east. DON'T involve your kids in your political agenda and rallies are NOT places for kids to attend.

Sorry, just needed to get that of my chest.

[Merryprankster]

BTW, really enjoyed this mornings newspaper with a pic of a pro-war rally in boston showing 6yr old Kids carrying guns while their mommies carried their little tots and shouted slogans.

Yeah, this bugs the crap out of me too. I hate when I see pro-life/pro-choice protestors with their kids. Like a 5 year old grasps the intricacies.

[David Jamieson]

well...I don't think an aversion to Bushes war here is "irrational".

I also don't think that being in complete disagreement with the Bush family and what they mean to america and the rest of the world is irrational either.

By the way, the UN has pulled out, they've had enough. If the US invades Iraq, by international law, it is considered illegal.

How can you have "pre-emptive self defense"? That is yet another bushism for the books kids.

Thankfully, Canada will not support an invasion of Iraq and we have given notice officially that without the UN resolution declaring that a military option is approved, that we are not going to support it.

MerryP, I think that support of war in general as a solution to any problem is an error in thinking on the part of the person who decides that war is the only option and the only solution.

as for the "war on terror" , is that like the war on drugs that has been waged oh these so many years? Just another spin doctor spin if ya ask me.

You want to wage a war on terror? Give people a fair shake and a helping hand when they are in need and they will not be resentful towards you for using their natural resources.

What terror is it when one country can pick and choose who they think should be in the seat of government of other sovereign nations, dictators or not?

What terror is it when that same country sits idle while another country goes ahead and develops nuclear weapons (granted, they are a nuclear lightweight, but there you have it (I'm talkin Korea here).

What is it that makes people think the attack on the WTC was strictly an attack on the US? People from all over the world died in that attack and it was an attrocity, but I can't seem to find the connection to Iraq. Can you enlighten me as to how Iraq and Saddam Hussien are connected to that?

It's all bad. That's all I can say and the U.S is making a huge mistake in invading if they do. The triggers will be going off all over the place.

Your President has isolated your country from the world and this war will isolate your country even further. The damage to the U.S credibility on the world stage is massive now and it can only get worse so long as Bush controls the White House.

I say this, because normally my country would support the US 100%, there is good reason we do not.

Normally I support the US, now I do not. The only solution is for Bush to back down and chill out and try to not lose face so that maybe, just maybe some repairs can be made to the broken down image of the US that the rest of the world is holding.

dollar diplomacy isn't working and you can bet that gunboat diplomacy isn't gonna go over either.

now git to looking for Osama and his henchman, frying that flea I can wholly support. :D

cheers

[Merryprankster]

[QUOTE]well...I don't think an aversion to Bushes war here is "irrational".

I also don't think that being in complete disagreement with the Bush family and what they mean to america and the rest of the world is irrational either.

By the way, the UN has pulled out, they've had enough. If the US invades Iraq, by international law, it is considered illegal.QUOTE]

Nobody sane thinks "gosh a war is a great idea today, lets go have one," as if they are off to a picnic.

I didn't say an aversion to war was irrational. I didn't say that strongly held feelings and opinions were irrational. I said that making assumptions like "those who believe in this war must not be getting reliable information," is irrational. As I pointed out, it's like talking to a Fundie--either you see their truth or you are getting bad information.

I reiterate my original statement: You have no basis for deciding whether or not the people who disagree with you are getting unreliable information. They disagree with you, sure, but that doesn't mean they're missing information. They are very likely interpreting the same body of information a different way.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Black Jack

It' called the War on Terror and you might want to pick up a newspaper and read about it. If you missed it there was a terrorist attack back on 9/11 that killed over 3,000 people..........

1988 in Halabja he used mustard gas and nappalm which killed over 5,000 civilians.....and thats just the start.





America got repeated warnings from reliable allies like Britain, France, Germany and Italy about the possible attack yet ignored them for some reason.

Even on Sep 11, the events of that day leave too many questions as to why the hijacked aeroplanes were not shot down despite security measures which ensure that if a plane deviates from it's flight path by more than 15 degrees, jet fighter planes are sent. The jet fighters were sent but only after a delay of 30-60 minutes.

The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 yet I failed to see any debris from the plane from the pictures at the time. The black box flight recorders in each plane which crashed, a total of 8, were damaged or destroyed. Funny how 2 passports of the terrorists were found at the Pentagon crash site managed to remain intact. I think another passport of one of the terrorists was found 3 or 4 blocks away from the WTC. Strange place to find a passport, did one of the terrorist throw it away out of the cokpit window?

Hands up if you have heard of Saeed Sheikh? He was the guy who managed Al Qaeda's money and was part of the Pakistani Secret Service (ISI) and obviously is a big-wig for Al-Qaeda.

Saeed Sheikh was put on trial in a Kangaroo court in Pakistan and was found guilty and executed. This never really made the news in Britain or I gather in the USA. Why? Saeed Sheikh could have implicated the involvement of the CIA with the ISI (the CIA has a close working relationship with the ISI that started in the 1980s) or even the Pakistani Govt. Basically, Saeed Sheikh needed to be kept quiet and what better way than to put him on trial in an underground bunker in a prison and finding him guilty and then executing him.

The recently arrested mastermind, Khalid Mohammed, also is very suspicious. The pictures of his ransacked lodgings were broadcast around the world yet the people in that building said Khalid Mohammed wasn't there at the time. This might lead to the fact that Khalid Mohammed was arrested weeks before and was only revealed to the public to suit the needs of the USA in their propaganda war.

There are too many holes in the events of Sep 11 and the subsequent events afterwards. The copying of an old PhD dissertation which was used by Colin Powell. If the USA were so sure of Iraq's WMD, then why use an old report. Surely they would have had up-to-date files?

The fabrication of documents stating that Iraq purchased nuclear material from Niger. Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

It is well known that America used depleted uranium against innocent Iraqi civilians during the last Gulf War. Iraq wanted to clean-up the depleted uranium contamination but which nation refused them access at the Sanctions Committee? The USA. So the USA is denying the Iraqi people medical health care and letting Iraqi kids develop horrific mutilations and yet is pushing forward the idea of helping the Iraqi people with this forthcoming war.

Onto the Halabja attacks..........The majority of the Halabja attack victims died from a cyanide-based gas. Iran was known to use cyanide-based gases whilst Iraq favours mustard gas which was given to them by the French. The deaths caused by mustard gas however were due to Iraqi weapons as Iran has never been known to possess mustard gas.

The argument of pre-emptive striking is a funny argument conceived by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. Recently the argument of "we should have stopped the Nazis earlier in the 1930s" as an example why we should attack Iraq has cropped up. Funny people should mention the Nazis as the USA has adopted several Nazi-like tactics. First of all the demonising of Iraq and claiming Iraq are a threat to security. Rewind back to the 1930s and the Nazis demonised the Jews and made the claim that Poland was going to attack Germany.

Third Degree

[Merryprankster]

America got repeated warnings from reliable allies like Britain, France, Germany and Italy about the possible attack yet ignored them for some reason.

Even on Sep 11, the events of that day leave too many questions as to why the hijacked aeroplanes were not shot down despite security measures which ensure that if a plane deviates from it's flight path by more than 15 degrees, jet fighter planes are sent. The jet fighters were sent but only after a delay of 30-60 minutes.

The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 yet I failed to see any debris from the plane from the pictures at the time. The black box flight recorders in each plane which crashed, a total of 8, were damaged or destroyed. Funny how 2 passports of the terrorists were found at the Pentagon crash site managed to remain intact. I think another passport of one of the terrorists was found 3 or 4 blocks away from the WTC. Strange place to find a passport, did one of the terrorist throw it away out of the cokpit window?

No, no--the short bus is over there.

I'll address this point by point later even though I suspect it'll be futile. In the meantime, you enjoy your chocky bar and fingerpaints.

[David Jamieson]

What I would like to see is the neo conservative manifesto of war that was drawn up in the U.S pre 9/11.

I would really like to know exactly what is in that document or collection of documents. There has been some hints about it in the media and that it is likely one of the foundational thinking pilots to the Bush administrations actions since 9/11 and pre.

stumble- I fully understand that my views are not shared by all Canadians, but I am happy that my views are shared by my prime minister.

I have to reiterate that I do not support Saddam Hussein at all, but then, I do not support Kim il Jung and any number of other foreign leaders who rule their people under the gun.

I do have pity for the Iraqi people who are pawns in this war and who are the ones who will pay the real price of it and have been paying the price for years now. Especially the last 12 where they have had to endure the sanctions imposed by the UN and the first coallition governments.

If we look at the facts about what Hussein did against his countrymen and for his countrymen then it really is a 2 sided coin. It's moot now to discuss all the schools and highways and infrastructure that Saddam set up in Iraq and how that was all dashed to pieces in the first Gulf war.

I am not comfortable with Bush at the helm of the american military looking to play captain righteous against the world. There is something wrong with that picture.

the American people? What is the will of the people in the states? I think it is likely divided the same as here in Canada or anywhere.

People don't want war. People know that the leaders who start wars and order troops in never have to see the horrors of the reality of it. People know that they are the ones who pay for the actions of their leaders.

Here is a distorted view I heard this morning, and I'm gonna paraphrase this quote:

"the United states is our only trading partner and if it wasn't for them we would be nazis or communists right now".

This is essentially the view of one part of the Canadian people.
Any of you Canucks agree with this statement?

In summary, war is bad umkay, and don't kill for money umkay. And 1 persons views are not shared by all and should not be the impetus for the deaths of thousands of people.

cheers

[SLC]

War is bad. Peace is good. Dead people suck. Perhaps we can all agree on that.

On the other hand, 9/11 created a new world for the US. It proved that there are clever people out there that will do ANYTHING (including killing themselves) to kill us. They declared war on us. One simple fact is that these people can NOT get any more ****ed at us than they already are. They will do ANYTHING to kill us. So... trying to be nice is not really a very effective strategy. And call us silly if you like, we are not interested in playing nice. Removing their capability to hurt us is what's left. Going into Iraq is trying to do that.

"Yeah, but Saddam didn't participate in 9/11."

Fine. This is not an action of punishment. It will be an action of prevention. Saddam has (I am convinced enough to be totally in favor of this war) enough bad sh1t (bugs and chems) to scare hell out of us. It would be VERY desirable stuff to terrorists. Saddam has played a shell game with their accountability for years. There are enough link between Iraq and terrorists to make me believe that ultimately:

Saddam with WMD = Terrorists with WMD = more dead Americans.

So, there it is. Saddam has been asked, pleaded with and begged to account for all that stuff and he has dodged it for years. As long as he has it, he is a knife at our throat. I see no choice. If I was President, I would do the same thing.

What is odd to me though, is how a martial arts board (you'd think filled with people that have some understanding of self defense) can't or refuse to see this.

[David Jamieson]

What is odd to me though, is how a martial arts board (you'd think filled with people that have some understanding of self defense) can't or refuse to see this.

I don't understand how invading Iraq and Bush having his own little family feud is even remotely related to the question of self defence?

secondly, have you ever asked yourself "why" are these people willing to end their lives to cause harm on the united states?

the logic you are using runs something like this in my p.o.v slc,

Keep a dog chained in your yard and hit it with a stick without warning every now and then. Keep it hungry and keep it dirty. Then after 12 years of this treatment, make an attempt to have it obey your commands and somehow make it not try to bite you when you approach.

Do you understand where I'm going with this?

Why shouldn't the States and other european and eastern europeans know what Saddam has in his arsenal? They gave it all to him and the ways and means to develop some of it on his own.

So, the only answer is to terminate the dog right? And maybe try again with another dog? Maybe even try this same exercise in someone elses yard?

I again will ask, what is the immediate threat that Saddam poses to the United states and the rest of the world?

cheers

p.s, i also have to add that if any of you are wondering why i participate in these debates as a moderator, then i can only say it is because people insist on posting these issues here on the kungfu board, i have an opinion and moderator or not i will participate. I will not delete your views based on a difference of opinion.

[SLC]

"I again will ask, what is the immediate threat that Saddam poses to the United states and the rest of the world?"

And, I again will say, concerning the United States/Allies:

"Saddam with WMD = Terrorists with WMD = more dead Americans."

That is not acceptable to me.

As far as the "rest of the world" goes, they will be judged by history and each other, as will we judge and be judged.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


No, no--the short bus is over there.

I'll address this point by point later even though I suspect it'll be futile. In the meantime, you enjoy your chocky bar and fingerpaints.

I'd welcome you to make a point by point argument. It will make interesting reading whilst I eat my chocolate bar and simultaneously play with my assortment of fingerpaints.

The American view is always going to be influenced by what their own agencies peddle to them.

An example is the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. The American news agencies all lauded the victory of American policy over the policies of Communist Russia. On the surface of it, it looked like the Americans had backed the Russians into a decision of removing all their nuclear warheads from Cuba. A humiliating defeat for the Russians.

In reality it was a "victory" for both sides as the Americans kept secret the fact that the Russians forced the Americans to remove all nuclear weapons from Turkey as well. The American public wouldn't stand for the fact that the Russians had bargained with the US over the missile crisis.

Now if something as big as this was kept quiet, why not the real details of Sep 11?

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by SLC

"Yeah, but Saddam didn't participate in 9/11."

Fine. This is not an action of punishment. It will be an action of prevention. Saddam has (I am convinced enough to be totally in favor of this war) enough bad sh1t (bugs and chems) to scare hell out of us. . . .
[/B]

ROFL

Nevermind that the arms dealer responsible for 9/11 was Home Depot.

[SLC]

Good stuff Stumblefist.

Omar: "Never mind that the arms dealer responsible for 9/11 was Home Depot."

Yeah.. that was done with box cutters.

Now replay the footage of the two towers coming down... and think what the result would have been if those guys had smuggled several gallons of dispersable anthrax or smallpox aboard the two planes.

[David Jamieson]

stumble, my p.o.v says your view is distorted.


me paraphrasing what i heard this morning -"the United states is our only trading partner and if it wasn't for them we would be nazis or communists right now". -

you in response -"It's quite true. I guess you've forgotten WW2 or who won the cold war."


Now that's a distortion.

Secondly, I don't believe any wmds were found in Iraq in the last 12 years. Not to say there aren't any there, maybe there are, but is it worth 1000's of lives on a "maybe"?

There is no connection between Saddam and the Terrorism that was 9/11. Osama and Hussein are decidedly divided on their goals and agendas.

There are many terrorist acts carried out in the world today by countries against their own people and against other countries.
What is being done about these acts?

The Bush/Hussein issue is showing more and more to be a personal beef between the two families and Bushes gross act of abusing his power as president of the United states to serve his own agendas.

He is a mad as Saddam on any given sunday.

The U.S administration had ample opprtunity to gather facts and present them to the world to justify their position on Iraq.
The U.S failed to make their case. they withdrew their final resolution attempt with spain and britain knowing that it was not supported. Even now, it is looking like they are going to have to go it alone on the invasion.

Canada will be there to rebuild Iraq, and they will be there to rebuild afghanistan.

What is Bush and his administration commited to do for these countries? Are there any sound plans for reconstruction on the table or is it all about getting in there, changing the regime and controling the oil fields and then to heck with the people.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The U.S has backed itself into a political faux pas corner that they are going to have difficulty getting out of in the future.
Their credibility as a peaceful and helpful nation has waned to the point where they may not be viewed as such ever again.

It is unfortunate.

Perhaps if there is a more thoughtful and intelligent president installed in the United States and the American people refuse to tolerate the warmonger attitudes such as are shown in the Bush family then there is hope yet.

cheers

[dwid]

Now replay the footage of the two towers coming down... and think what the result would have been if those guys had smuggled several gallons of dispersable anthrax or smallpox aboard the two planes.

I'm not sure a flying firebomb is the best way to disperse biological agents.

I'm guessing the stuff would have been mostly incinerated.

But I get your point...

[SLC]

Kung Lek,

You are speculating that there are no WMD's in Iraq. I am speculating that they ARE there. Even the inspectors tend to indicate that they ARE there.

Further, given their existance, you are speculating that they would never be made available to people that would use them against us. Yet, if they do exist, they would be no further than a hand shake from being in the possession of terrorists.

The United States has already seen what clever men can do with nothing but box cutters.

"...is it worth 1000's of lives on a "maybe"?"

Actually, that question cuts both ways. We have already forfieted the thousands of lives for NOT taking this stuff seriously enough (9/11). Do you truely expect us to base our future safety just on WISHING, now? NOW, we HAVE to know. No more maybe's.

You say "He (Bush) is a(s) mad as Saddam on any given sunday." Kung Lec, that is simply not true and I am quite sure you know this or you are much less astute than you appear in all other things.

Is he a hero or fool, only time will decide that now.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Stumblefist


You've got to be kidding? You mean like ther commies in China have all their schools (for those that can pay) where the population is not only brainwashed but their basic thinking processes are virtually crippled. Where they learn to be slaves? Where they learn never to discuss cetain things , such as politics
etc., only to repeat what someone says?




The majority of people believe what their government tells them.

Americans seem to think they have some sort of role as world peace maker but if you look at the facts, most of the instabilities in the Middle East, Africa and Asia are caused by the US to start with. Which nation has been in the most military conflicts since World War 2? The USA.

The arrogance and ignorance of the people of the USA comes from the Government. The conditioning of the US mind would make Ivan Pavlov proud!

The war in Afghanistan killed thousands of people yet it was "the cost of war." The 3,000 lives lost on Sep 11 seem to be valued more than the thousands of innocents who have died in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US Govt tries to soften people up by saying they dropped food aid from aeroplanes but this would be like the Sep 11 terrorist dropping food aid on New York.

The use of depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan and the subsequent generations of Iraqi and Afghani children suffering from the effects of depleted uranium is equally if not more evil than what Saddam has ever done.

Talking about Afghanistan, where is the promised US support in this country after the war to liberate the people? It very much looks like the US has done a runner. Change has to come from within, from the people of that nation. America shouldn't on it's own decide what needs to be changed for people that they care little about. No doubt the proposed rebuilding of Iraq will hardly see the light of day!

The recent ultimatum by Bush on Saddam Hussein to walk away in 48 hours is another example of a total disregard for international law. I have not seen, to my knowledge, where the issuing of such an ultimatum (which leads to military action) is valid, regardless whether or not the leader of a nation is a dictator.

Every country is an ally as long as they agree with Americans and submit to their desires. Otherwise, they are less important, and better yet, irrelevant.

Third Degree

[Black Jack]

Kung Lek-

"He is a mad as Saddam on any given Sunday."

That has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard. Congrats.

btw- I have friends that will pay PRIMO American dough...which means even more as you live in Canada...for whatever you are smoking that makes you see things in such a ludicrous fashion.:D

Just think about all the French fries you could buy. Don't they cover them in mayo up there?

[SLC]

Double post... I think???

[Merryprankster]

America got repeated warnings from reliable allies like Britain, France, Germany and Italy about the possible attack yet ignored them for some reason.

What they got was threat reporting. For the umpteenthousandth time, let me tell everybody what intelligence is and isn't good for. Intelligence is good for giving policy makers an idea of what sorts of things might happen. It's great for trend analysis and operational planning. Intelligence is STRATEGIC in nature. You analyze the threat reporting to determine what sorts of things might happen, like maybe what kinds of targets Al Qaida might attack next, or what they might be researching. It's crappy at predicting and preventing specific events because of the number of elements you have to get right in order to catch the guys. It's like trying to determine who what when where and why BEFORE the murder happens.

We can't waste our resources responding to every single threat that comes along. It's not a cost issue--it's just physically impossible. Our embassies receive threats daily overseas. Every day, some ******* calls a government office somewhere with a bomb threat or a threat to blow up (insert tourist attraction, city, or other large object here). The threats have to be lined up and analyzed to see how they might be linked (or not). They also have to be analyzed for credibility.

The fundamental difficulty here is that different organizations had different pieces of the puzzle. What that means is that there wasn't a single analyst out there with the full picture. Maybe one guy knew Atta had a terrorist link. Maybe another knew that there were some suspicious activities going on with a lot of Arabic men taking flying lessons but not seeming very interested in things like landing. Maybe another guy knew the WTC was a possible target for a bombing. But nobody had the full picture--different people had different pieces, including foreign agencies.

It's easy to put it all together now. That's more like a detective or a lawyer putting together a case. Pretty simple by comparison. Take that same detective and tell him he's got to prevent the next murder in town. Oh.... not so easy all of a sudden is it?

Intel is like putting together a 5000 piece puzzle without a boxtop to guide you.

Now, why didn't these analysts talk to each other? Well, first, they didn't necessarily know what questions to ask or who might have the information if they happen to know what question to ask. Secondly, intel doesn't belong to the analyst. It belongs to the collector. What that means is that the collecting agency disseminates the information how it sees fit. If you aren't part of that dissemination list, tough luck getting the info.

It sounds stupid, but it's for good reason--to protect sources and methods. When your sources start dying because you opened your big fat mouth, or your methods are being countered, it can take YEARS to find a way back in.

So, to counter your first point, the information wasn't ignored, unless you like conspiracy theories--nobody even knew it was very important. We get THOUSANDS of threat reports every day. An IRA member once said "You have to be right all the time--we only have to be right once." The odds are in their favor, unless we begin executing vertical takedowns like we are doing to KSM.

I'd also like to point out one more thing--guess who receives information and analyzes info from sources? It ain't your top executives bucko--not your inner circle members--those guys are policy makers...it's your grunts. You're trying to tell me that several thousand salary earning folks were all in on a giant conspiracy to cover up CIA involvement and attacks on the WTC? Get real.

[Merryprankster]

Part 2.


The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 yet I failed to see any debris from the plane from the pictures at the time. The black box flight recorders in each plane which crashed, a total of 8, were damaged or destroyed. Funny how 2 passports of the terrorists were found at the Pentagon crash site managed to remain intact. I think another passport of one of the terrorists was found 3 or 4 blocks away from the WTC. Strange place to find a passport, did one of the terrorist throw it away out of the cokpit window?

I'm sorry you didn't see any debris. Check where I'm located. There was tons of debris. I know because I saw it when I drove by the Pentagon on 395 on my way to the chiropractor. Big gaping hole in the Pentagon with aluminum plane parts laying around.

Now, on to explosions. You don't know much about fire OR explosions. We'll talk about something called a flash-burn. When vapor fuel flashes off, it produces something called a flash burn on unprotected flesh. This is why shipboard firefighters wear flash gear. Regular cotton pants, denim, flannel, etc, will all protect your skin from a flash burn. It's also why shipboard personnel are prohibited from wearing the normal polyester uniforms shipside--they melt and stick to you. Natural fibers will be destroyed in the process of protecting you, but you will not get burned. This is, of course, just for the initial flash. You're going to be fried right quick if something more permanent, like an oil pool or chair, catches fire.

Now, lets talk about what an explosion is--an explosion is nothing more than rapidly expanding gas that slams into gas at rest producing a concussive shock wave. There are high explosives and low explosives. Low explosives tend to push more then rend. Gun cotton, for instance, is a low explosive and is used to push projectiles out of a gun barrel. C-4 is used to destroy things. Jet fuel is a low explosive.

So, there are two possible scenarios--Let's look first at one in which the jet fuel (JP-4, 5 or 8, most likely) was already spread throughout the cabin. This would have flashed off upon impact with a shockwave from the explosion to follow. If a terrorist had a wallet or a passport in a bag, or in his pocket, it could have been protected from the flash by his clothing, and the resultant low explosive shockwave could have propelled the passport out away from the building. Given the debris radius from the WTC attacks, 3-4 blocks isn't unlikely.

Now, lets look at the other possibility--lets say the vapor had no outlet, and began to flash in the tanks. The tanks would have blown open, dispersing the fuel. The fuel would have ignited, producing a flash and a secondary shockwave. In this scenario, proximity to the tanks might have thrown bits and pieces of the terrorist quite a ways off, thus preserving the passport. Alternately, assuming the terrorist bits were in the flash, again, the passports could have been protected by the clothing and dispersed by the low explosive (not high explosive) shockwave.

On to the flight recorders. The flight recorders probably survived the initial fireball and explosion. What they probably didn't survive was the heat generated in each case that was strong enough to melt structural steel and bring down the WTC. The flight recorders are part of plane. I rather doubt they were thrown any distance. They were probably melted, and or useless.

I have presented you with a rational, lengthy argument, backed by some pretty good data. You've got conspiracy on your side.

I'll respond to your comments about the jet fighters later. I'm tired and need some sleep.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
How can you have "pre-emptive self defense"? That is yet another bushism for the books kids.

"The United States will do what we must to defend our vital interests including, when necessary and appropriate, using our military unilaterally and decisively." - United States National Security Strategy, Bill Clinton, 1999

"Terrorists must have no doubt that in the face of their threat, America will protect its citizens... Today, I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security... [and because] these groups have executed attacks against Americans in the past" - Bill Clinton, August 20th, 1998


Originally posted by Kung Lek
Secondly, I don't believe any wmds were found in Iraq in the last 12 years.

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided..complete disclosure..of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations..." - UN Resolution 1441*


Originally posted by Third Degree
The recent ultimatum by Bush on Saddam Hussein to walk away in 48 hours is another example of a total disregard for international law. I have not seen, to my knowledge, where the issuing of such an ultimatum (which leads to military action) is valid.

"...Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration ... [or] face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" - UN Resolution 1441*


Originally posted by Third Degree
The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 yet I failed to see any debris from the plane from the pictures at the time.

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Odd%20Pics%202/Images/Pentagon.jpg

* UN Resolution 1441 was signed by China, France, Russia, UK, US, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria; and opposed by noone.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Black Jack
I find you original post very well researched and objective. Of course no one wants a war...Chamberlin did not want war...so he appeased Hitler and we all know what happened after...world war 2 and 50 million dead...and if the US had not stepped in...England and all of Europe would have been taken over. If Japan had not attacked the USA...the US may not have stepped in due to their isolationist policy at the time. Lucky for all the Allies, they did participate to make a major contribution to the Allies winning the war.
Learn lessons from the past or you are doomed to repeat the past. In 90. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world...with advanced weaponry, he essentially did what Hitler did with Poland when he invaded Kuwait and so having learned the lesson the US and the Allies stepped in. Now the greatest threat to the democratic and free world is terrosim and it must be dealt with effectively...that is make impotent those who support terrorism. The allies have a mandate to wage an attack on Iraq due to Iraq not complying with the reslolution in 90-91...it still stands and Iraq has not complied with it.
Deal with the greatest threat at the moment, which is those who support and fund terrorism...because if you do not...the outcome will be much worse than 9/11. If in the future we have to deal with China and parts of Asia to keep the world free. then that will have to be.
Sure the US is not perfect...neither is any country...but it is one heck of a lot better than Iraq. I do not see anyone clamouring to live in Iraq.

GHD

[SLC]

Third Degree: "The use of depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan and the subsequent generations of Iraqi and Afghani children suffering from the effects of depleted uranium is equally if not more evil than what Saddam has ever done."

Now where did that come from? Did you make it up?

Depleted uranium is used in armor piercing projectiles. It's effect is pure kinetic energy and it is considered safe (even for the crews that carry and fire the ammo)... you know, like on their tanks, maybe 50-100 rounds.... to shoot other tanks.... on the desert battle fields like "73 Easting" and "Medina Ridge".... not local Iraqi playgrounds.

1. The rounds are considered safe
2. The rounds were expended in remote desert battlefields
3. They were hardly expended in such quantity as to cause a problem

This is the "equally if not more evil than what Saddam has ever done." :confused: :confused:

Can't you just follow the stereotype and whine about landmines.

[Black Jack]

Thanks GHD:)

Kung Lek- I must of misunderstood. Pre-emptive action in a (martial) self defense enviroment in one of key importance. One which many of the top public men in the field speak off as a main aspect of survival in a violent altercation. We have spoken about it on KFO plenty of times.

I know most of a lot of my own martial philosophy is centered around the concept.

Just take the martial aspect of it and apply it on a broader military level. Same principles apply.

[David Jamieson]

nope, you misunderstood nothing blackjack.

I really meant it when I asked "what the heck is pre-emptive self defense"?

There is no such thing. It is an offensive attack period.

Saddam is a **** to be sure, but so are many world "leaders".

I view Bush as one of these also. However, I have a newfound admiration for my own prime minister who is not so quick to jump to war on a "maybe".

Who says Iraq supports terrorism? where is that coming from but from some convoluted thinking.

Whatever. This war stinks, Saddam is not Hitler and 90% of what is said about the middle east is propoganda spewed by those who would move in and take what they want from what is percieved to be just a "bunch of crazy arabs".

The world has changed a lot since world war two. Nobody on this board has an inkling of that war and I can't but wonder why this keeps getting brought up.

Drawing comparisons from then to now is sophism and inane. It is also a very weak argument to support US hegemony.

A war against a country pressed down by sanctions is immoral and wrong. THat is my view and I'm sticking to it. You may have yours and keep it. I will not hold it against you. But I will not see it that way.

This whole thing is myopic in scope and the evidence of wmds and everything else is as flimsy as an autumn leaf.

There is nothing in buddhist martial arts (or other "arts") that indicates first strike tactics. To think so is to *******ize and deteriorate the truth that is held in them. Think about it.

the gung ho attitude about going to war against a country as weak and tattered as Iraq is is sickening and in itself depraved in my opinion. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

peace and love are the greatest weapons you can ever possess.

Putting hate on now will only lead to further hate being pperpetuated and will only lead to more terrorist actions being taken in the future.

People are suffocating in their homes for gods sake out of fear of chemiical attacks that need never come if not for this ****ed saber rattling BS that is going on.

This is a dangerous game.

The US is not acting in self defense, they are aggressing in self interest, not unlike Hitler or Mao Tse tung or Saddam, or...well, take your pick.

war is a complete and utter failure of humanity in any form, especially in this current form where there are openings to a solution through time and diplomacy.

If you cut the head of a snake the body dies. THere is a message there that speaks volumes when weighed against the imminent deaths of thousands of innocent people.

And you call yourself Kungfu men!???

I can't be moderate under this banner. Attitudes favouring this maddness reflect this madness.

peace! peace! peace!

[Gold Horse Dragon]

To know history, study history, speak with those who were there and experienced it if possible. The lessons of history apply today...learn them and apply them in the context of today or weep after not applying them. Kung Fu does indeed teach a pre-emptive strike, it is also held up in court.
War is terrible evil, but a neccessity sometimes in order to prevent a greater evil...just speak to a world war 2 vet...many have spoken out in Canada and most hold the view, the Allies need to go into Iraq.
Anyone who thinks that history does not apply to the present has a myopic and unrealistic view.

Sometimes Peace must be fought for.

GHD

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Who says Iraq supports terrorism?

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism" - UN Resolution 1441*


Originally posted by Kung Lek
the evidence of wmds and everything else is as flimsy as an autumn leaf.

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq...

Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);" - UN Resolution 1441*

* signed by China, France, Russia, UK, US, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria; opposed by noone.

[Merryprankster]

A war against a country pressed down by sanctions is immoral and wrong. That is my view and I'm sticking to it. You may have yours and keep it. I will not hold it against you. But I will not see it that way.

Kung Lek to Logic Translator:

I vehemently believe that war is wrong, and we can hold a giant love-in to change people who just don't care at all about anybody else. Because of this, there is no possible justification for any war ever, and certainly not in Iraq. When I ask specific questions and I am provided with evidence contrary to my opinion, I will ignore it or, alternately, suggest to the world-at-large that the person who finds the evidence persuasive is a guillible fool in the hands of a giant conspiracist propaganda machine. At no time will I actually provide any counter-arguments beyond the above, other than to repeat (tiredly) my opposition to war.

[SLC]

Kung Lek,

You said, "I really meant it when I asked "what the heck is pre-emptive self defense"?

There is no such thing. It is an offensive attack period."

The art I study is Karate and I am only three years into it so much of it is yet to come.

There most certainly is within it, however, the concept and even technique of pre-emptive self defense. Please forgive my sketchy knowledge of the terms (and anyone knowing this more please help).

Sin = Basic block an attack and counter.

No sin = Observing the instant of attack but beating it with your counter.

Sin no sin = reading the instant intent from your opponent and countering just before the attack launches.

[David Jamieson]

stumble-

this is hardly a credible venue to "lose" anything in. it is essentially a tally of one rant after another, including mine and including yours and everybody elses. My rant is on the side of sanity and peace and against being pressed down and forced to tow the line to a government that is seeking war for self interest.

merry and ghd- you are both losing site of the causality of the current situation.

There has been no aggression by Iraq against the United States. This is completely an initiative created by and pushed forward by the American government in an attempt to establish themselves as some form of world constabulary wherein they will decide who does and who does not lead other sovereign nations.

There is no proof after 12 years that Iraq possesses any of the attrocious weapons the Bush administration would have you believe they do.

The inspection teams have found, have had ordinance handed over and have overseen the destruction of ordinance. The Iraqi governemnt kicked out the inspectors at one point because they felt tha american government was using the teams as a vehicle to spy. They may have been correct in that assessment, maybe not, but they did return to the center and continue the process.

Whatever you may like or dislike about bush, he has wanted this war from the get go. If you have not read the Bush doctrine or the political philosophies of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-conservative then perhaps you should.

Maybe if when you are finished reading the Bush doctrine you will understand what is wrong with the thinking that is driving this "war".

I am a proponent of peace and I believe in the need to defend peace and to defend ones nation.

I do not believe in an unprovoked pre-emptive strike based on the right wing paranoia of a small group of men who are in a position of great power.

This war is indicative of the weak will and weak minds of the Bush administration. IE: they are not intelligent enough to resolve the situation or to stay the course on the solutions that were in play.

The US has a more likely threat within its own borders with the continued errosion on civil liberties that are being imposed because of the shadowy and unclear threat that is being sold to the people.

Forgive my vehemence in regards to the need for peaceful solutions, but war sickens me and tells me that humans are incapable of learning from their past and will repeat and repeat again this sickness of violence against violence.

before you get caught up in the fervor to head to war, keep an image in your mind of those who are going to die, no just iraqi people and soldiers, but the offending soldiers, the backlash from the surrounding countries and ultimately the continued terrorism that is going to occur in those countries that participate in this great failure.

oh, and for the chalkboard:

Observing the instant of attack but beating it with your counter

this is not pre-emption, it is a method of defense when one is already in a violent situation.

there are no pre-emptive strikes in martial arts, if there was, that would mean you go out and hurt people on the suspicion that they are going to hurt you. this is not taught in buddhist martial arts or taoist or japanese or what have. they are predominantly defensive by their very nature and the design of them is defensive.

being quicker to the punch when you are already in a fight is not pre-emption, it is simply being quicker to the punch when you are already in a violent situation.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

For all you yahoos who say there is no evidence Iraq has supported terrorists:

Abu Nidal Organization

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/abunidal.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ano.htm

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/ano.cfm


Mujahedeen e-Khalq

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/mujahedeen.html#Q3

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/18/1045330603364.html


PLF AKA Abu Abbas Organization

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/palestine_liberation_front.html


There's a bit more on Abu Abbas, but I have a short attention span.

FWIW, it's not just the U.S. that thinks these are terrorist organizations...

http://www.dfat.gov.au/icat/persons_entities/2_proscribed_entities_10dec2001.pdf


Also, FWIW, I did try to stay away from stuff that was a straight rehash of the U.S. State Deparment's annual report on Global Terrorism. That didn't actually seem fair, somehow. I know there is a navy link--feel free to disregard that, if you choose. A good bit of it is actually from some policy analysis groups. Nice stuff and well balanced. They tend to look at it more as academics than politicians.

[Merryprankster]

Maybe if when you are finished reading the Bush doctrine you will understand what is wrong with the thinking that is driving this "war".

Ahh...there we go again. "Either you'll agree with me or you're a sheeple."

[Merryprankster]

There is no proof after 12 years that Iraq possesses any of the attrocious weapons the Bush administration would have you believe they do.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

excerpts from the above:


Chemical weapons


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 tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of 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 weaponised. 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.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.



Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.


I'm sorry, you were saying?

[Merryprankster]

FWIW, thiodiglycol is a schedule 2 chemical under the chemical weapons convention: Chemicals that can be used to produce chemical weapons, but have commercial uses and are not produced in large quantities.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Well, since you wish to address me personally...
KL...
you make statements not backed up by solid research and facts, it is you who do not comprehend the causality of the present situation. Do not live like the Ostrich who sticks his head in the sand at a sign of danger, hoping it will go away. And if you cannot see the parallels in Hitler and Poland to Sad H and Kuwait...then you have your mind closed.
You do not really understand kung fu and martial arts if you do not realize that kung fu and any other martial art has pre-emptive strikes...and I say this knowing you personally...and I know the level you attained and about where you are at now, judging from the concepts you portray in your posts...it is clear you do not really understand. If you are going to say it is I who do not understand...ask yourself one question...Who has the understanding and insight into the art of kung fu...the student or the Sifu? Your honor in addressing me personally in this thread...well I already had to address that in another thread when you went on the attack before, no point in going there again.

GHD

[Black Jack]

Merry-

I hope that translation is wrong as the love-in thing sounds like one of those nasty grandpa fat swinger conventions you see on HBO's Real Sex series......so on that idea I will pass:D

Kung Lek- No evidence of Iraq supporting Terrorism. I listed a bunch and Merry even posted links.

As for your views on martial defense.....why waste my time on the pre-emptive thing when you seem to peg everybody here as a buddhist martial artist. We don't agree at all and I would wager that all the facts or huffying and puffying in the world still would not change your viewpoint one percent. I don't even consider myself a martial artist. I don't like that term as I find it limiting to the issue of self defense, self understanding and by its very nature it seems to dance on the borderline of arrogance.

[David Jamieson]

gentlemen-

The links and "evidence" you have posted is subject matter that may very well be speculation and conjecture.

ghd- I have no doubt that your insight to martial practice is greater than mine, I am not questioning that. However, it doesn't add up to me that attacking someone based on suspicion without absolute and solid ground is inclusive in asian martial arts or otherwise.

I am opposed to war as a solution to the situation in Iraq, especially when it is based in highly questionable stances and monetary interests.

There is reems of hard evidence indicating that this situation has been brewing for some time. There is also hard evidence that the causality of the situation has a lot to do with the hegemony practiced by the United States and implemented through their foreign policies.

I do not support Tyrants and I certainly don't think much of Saddam.

I do think that a re-examination of the policies being implemented that will ultimately lead to the deaths of many innocents and soldiers alike.

It is most likely this war will not be quick and bloodless, there will be tremendous loss because of the fact that Bush has left no alternative.

the lip service to the UN, the lip service to the rest of the world.

This war is precedent setting. There has never been a drive to war quite like this historically. It is the first case of attacking another sovereign nation out of suspicion.

Who's next on the hit list? What are the grounds for getting on the US hit list?

Is everyone here comfortable with the whole concept of the US being the world's police and using an american value system and ideology to determine who is right and who is wrong?

The freedoms in the US are erroding away and it in itself is turning into a police state. It is only a matter of time before it gets worse, and it will get worse.

there will be resentment from many arab nations and others, there already is. There will be retaliation that will directly effect americans on their home ground. This cycle of violence will continue and we will have to face the issues of what we will do to solve the situation of terrorist actions being taken in our schools and transportation systems and public places by the peoples here in north america now.

And then there is the question of the subversive groups that exist that will use this time to forward their own particular brand of terrorism (a la the tim mcveigh building destruction)

violence begets violence.

stumble - chill out man, it's just a debate for pete's sake. I'm for peace and you're not, clearly. That's ok, neither of us is facing being shot in the next 24 hrs and we likely aren't going to lose any family members to US bombing raids in the next 24 as well.

Frankly, when saddam attacked Kuwait, I saw the action taken by the coallition at that time as righteous and justified.

But now, it's not so clear as to what the heck Bush is doing besides oppressing an oppressor based on a value system that is quite alien to that corner of the globe.

A surgical strike assassination would have made much more sense, and even then it would be unjustifiable from a moral standpoint and it would be rooted in the same fear and suspicion that is driving to heavier casualities for both sides.

Your average fighting soldier there is 18-20 years old and has barely had the air touch his skin. The great majority of the population of Iraq is 15 years old and under.

It will undoubtedly be a shameful slaughter and I am not even certain they (the US) will prevail without huge losses and never mind the repercussions of this action that will take place for years to come.

cheers

[red5angel]

KL - your so emotionally invested in an anti-war sentiment that I don't htink you are seeing all the facts here.

The war on Iraq is convenient to be sure, it is oil rich and would give us a foot hold and an ally in the middle east, maybe. Bu tit isn't just about the oil, or the morality of it.
As a matte ro fact what sort of qeustionable morality are you talking about? You mean determining that someone who is willing to use WMD against not only his own people but others as well is bad morality? Probably in the name of all that is properly muslim according to those perpetrating it. You say you don't support tyranny but you can slap blinders on to the evil this man is capable of while he is in power? Sorry brother but sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils and a war to unseat saddam hussein is much less evil then the destruction the man can cause if he is allowed to continue to reign.


"It is most likely this war will not be quick and bloodless,"

Thats an opinion that smacks more of being media and bleeding heart driven then actual fact. We drove Iraq out of kuwait in practically no time flat and with little real resistance. That was at a time when Iraq was much more prepared to fight us then they are now. But my guess is you also believed a war in Afghanistan would be long and drawn out?

"This war is precedent setting. There has never been a drive to war quite like this historically. It is the first case of attacking another sovereign nation out of suspicion."


Absolutely pure BS here KL. Sorry but what exactly do you think sets this precedent and stands it apart from any other reason to go to war? Land? Money? Glory?

[David Jamieson]

A Letter to George W. Bush on the Eve of War

By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com
March 17, 2003

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC


Dear Governor Bush:


So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:


1. There is virtually no one in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are passionate about wanting to kill Iraqis. You won't find them! Why? 'Cause no Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!


2. The majority of Americans – the ones who never elected you – are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives – and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: Two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars – the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.


3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.


4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.


5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't think so? Well, hey, guess what – we don't think so either!


6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty **** annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. – spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do – tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit ****ing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.


Well, cheer up – there is good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner – and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!


But, hey, who knows – maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like that! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis – they got our oil!!


Yours,


Michael Moore

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

As for being emotional about war...why the heck not? yeesh, how can you not be emotional about the impending deaths of many many people, or even just one.

cheers

[Rockwood]

"This war is precedent setting. There has never been a drive to war quite like this historically. It is the first case of attacking another sovereign nation out of suspicion."

-kung lek

Of course there is precedent for this, silly, the german army blitzkrieg against Poland that kicked off WWII. After all the Poles were a vicious dictatorship that needed overthrowing, isn't it obvious? They were as much a threat to germany as Iraq is to us. Now the question is, what will our blitzkrieg kick off?

-Jess O

[red5angel]

I am not saying it is bad to be emotional, I am saying it is bad to make decision policy ro anything else emotionally, and in your case to support a cause fervently, based on 'feelings'.

that last post doesn't help your cause any, the letter sounds like it is typed by you not Michael Moore (not saying it is, just saying it's the same stuff coming from you, with the same lack of real validity or explanation other then it seems wrong.).

[rogue]

There is virtually no one in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are passionate about wanting to kill Iraqis. Killing Iraqis is the point of this? Then heck that makes this thing easy.:rolleyes:


You won't find them! Why? 'Cause no Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. The man has to read moer.


The majority of Americans – the ones who never elected you – are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction.
The election was a virtual tie so that majority isn't very large and most of it stands behind the elected President.


We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives – and none of them begin with I or end in Q.Before 9/11 these same people didn't think there was an issue with someone named bin Laden.


Here's what threatens us: Two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, Started during the Clinton administration.

the stock market having become a cruel joke,[quote] The stock market is what the stock market is.[quote]no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars – the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve. Wow if the world is really that simple why do we need any president?

I'll stop as Moore is now using the Dixie Chicks as a representation of America.

[wushu chik]

You know, I don't agree with a lot that's going on. I don't agree with killing a million people. And I don't agree with fukwits putting down our country as a whole because of what is going on.

The reason nobody's backing us is because of the vested interest they have in Iraq, and because of FEAR.

Ehh, we only have a few hours until we find out what time it is! Have a great day all!

~Wen~

[NYerRoman]

Rogue,
For a person with no time to respond to others' questions b/c, as you said, you work and have a family and...blah blah blah....you do a lot of writing and criticizing.

Hmmm.....

That letter by Michael Moore was a good letter. It sums up many people's frustration.

Oh, by the way, the popular vote was not "almost a tie" Rogue.
The electoral vote....Florida which was recounted in its entirety and it was discovered GW lost the State in November 2001...was what was close dipweed.

The electoral vote is not representational of majority/minority votes.

People....sides are being taken. Think with your heads and chose wisely.

[SLC]

The letter is bull$hit. GO to the Michael Moore site and take a look at it. Pure Hollywood Hype. Same with the letter. Foriegn policy by Martin Sheen and Sean Penn.

"1. There is virtually no one in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war."

That is a true statement, yet completley misunderstands the perspective of millions of Americans.

We are not "gung-ho to go to war". That's sick. This is a dirty job that is to be regretted yet can not be avoided. That sure doesn't make us excited about it. Do people really feel it is necessary? Absolutely. Lot's of people I talk to feel the same way. We are scared of the possible bad outcome... but we are more scared of doing nothing.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

There are no absolutes in life. But in this situation there is certainly solid ground (of evidence) but you refuse to see it. The only lip service has been for the past 12 years. Diplomatic operations have been ongoing for 12 years...to no avail. Terroists attacks have taken place over this time and still diplomacy went on...time to take fruitful action...even though at a high cost. SH could have prevented it all years ago.

GHD

[rogue]

Ohhh Roman all the name calling, it hurts.


That letter by Michael Moore was a good letter. It sums up many people's frustration. It also sums up that many people are incredibly stupid.

By the way...
Popular Vote
Gore 49,738,138
Bush 49,530,305

Percentage of vote 48% to 48%

Electoral Vote
Gore 266
Bush 271

[red5angel]

"People....sides are being taken. Think with your heads and chose wisely."

Yep, you can choose to support terrorism and those that support it or you can choose to support those looking to get rid of terrorism and its supporters.

[David Jamieson]

stumble fist-

you completely misunderstand my position on war.

I fully understand the reasons for war. I do not support an army that attacks without provocation.

I do not support an army that attacks on flimsy non existant and speculative evidence of impending attacks. What crock.

War is a defensive measure to be taken on behalf of your own nation or another nation that cannot defend itself and asks to be defended. (IE: Kuwait)

Self defence is completely acceptable to me. IE: if someone comes at me with intent to do harm I will do my best to put that person to the ground and not be able to do me harm or harm to a person who cannot protect themself.

No argument there.

War as a self defence measure is also acceptable to me and I support what went on in Afghanistan and the efforts to destroy the talban and AlQuieda.

This attack on Iraq is so far removed from the positions of the former that is really is frightening.

here is what I see happening:

a) the US and the coallition of the willing go into Iraq, destroy it and it's army and find the weapons the American administration claims is there.

Bush is a hero, I eat crow.

b)the US and coalition of the willing go into Iraq, destroy it and it's army and DO NOT find the weapons the american administration claims is there.

Bush says "oh well, saddam was a baddy who tried to kill my daddy" and I and millions of other people are incensed that all those people died because of a paranoid whim.


I think a lot of the worlds problems could be solved without the big brother attitude of the Bush administration.

Wendy- nobodies dissing the people of the US. I am questioning the validity of the president's motivations for attacking Iraq and seeking regime changes in sovereign nations that do not share the american value system.

To not question these things and to not point out the inadequacies and debate them with pro and con views is undemocratic.

Your stance is totalitarian in nature with the whole "either your with us or your against us" ideal. Sounds familiar too. :D

have yourself a good day.

cheers

[KC Elbows]

"We are not "gung-ho to go to war"."

Define we. Does we include the fat guy at home whose one goal in life is to have corn chips on hand when they start showing the bombing footage?

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by red5angel
"People....sides are being taken. Think with your heads and chose wisely."

Yep, you can choose to support terrorism and those that support it or you can choose to support those looking to get rid of terrorism and its supporters.

You can only say that if you can demonstrate that the action will not promote terrorism. In otherwords, no, this will not curtail terrorism, for further information, see: war on drugs.

You can never kill all the warlords. As long as life is unbearable, some will choose defiance over life. Until life is bearable in the middle east, the middle east will produce fanatics. Now, I support the military, I hope they have a quick victory. However, if the politicians flub this, and just go on with business as usual, and don't have the vision to stand behind a greater middle east, no matter the cost, then **** them, and **** everyone who follows them. We once set a man on the moon. We have vision. We need to use it again, or we need to step back from our imperial plans.

[SLC]

Ahhh. Semantic "tag". :)

"As long as life is unbearable, some will choose defiance over life."

Define "unbearable".

We have fanatics right here in the USofA. Does that mean life is unbearable?

you're it

[wushu chik]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
stumble fist-

you completely misunderstand my position on war.

I fully understand the reasons for war. I do not support an army that attacks without provocation.

I do not support an army that attacks on flimsy non existant and speculative evidence of impending attacks. What crock.

War is a defensive measure to be taken on behalf of your own nation or another nation that cannot defend itself and asks to be defended. (IE: Kuwait)

Self defence is completely acceptable to me. IE: if someone comes at me with intent to do harm I will do my best to put that person to the ground and not be able to do me harm or harm to a person who cannot protect themself.

No argument there.

War as a self defence measure is also acceptable to me and I support what went on in Afghanistan and the efforts to destroy the talban and AlQuieda.

This attack on Iraq is so far removed from the positions of the former that is really is frightening.

here is what I see happening:

a) the US and the coallition of the willing go into Iraq, destroy it and it's army and find the weapons the American administration claims is there.

Bush is a hero, I eat crow.

b)the US and coalition of the willing go into Iraq, destroy it and it's army and DO NOT find the weapons the american administration claims is there.

Bush says "oh well, saddam was a baddy who tried to kill my daddy" and I and millions of other people are incensed that all those people died because of a paranoid whim.


I think a lot of the worlds problems could be solved without the big brother attitude of the Bush administration.

Wendy- nobodies dissing the people of the US. I am questioning the validity of the president's motivations for attacking Iraq and seeking regime changes in sovereign nations that do not share the american value system.

To not question these things and to not point out the inadequacies and debate them with pro and con views is undemocratic.

Your stance is totalitarian in nature with the whole "either your with us or your against us" ideal. Sounds familiar too. :D

have yourself a good day.

cheers

First off, "without provocation"? You'd rather us sit around with out thumbs up our asses and wait for them to just bomb the hell out of us?? Lets say the shoe were on the other foot. If they were going after Canada, what would you say then?? You'd expect us to sit Idly by and let them bomb you? KNOWING that after they took you, we'd be next. Because, WE KNOW they'd take Canada.

Second, I don't agree with Bush on a lot of stuff. I don't agree with Bush on the fact that we're sending a massive army over there to do this, yet I can kinda see the reasoning. I'm not for war, never have been, never will be. But, the one thing I do LOVE about this country is that my boys will grow up being able to be what they want, have the right to live how they want (in a matter of speaking) and be able to have what they want in life without the government telling them they have to do this or that even if they dont want to. And they don't have to live under the banner of FEAR that most other countries do....LIKE IRAQ.

To tell me you're not dissing the American people by making ignorant statements such as these...


Originally posted by Kung Lek
nope, you misunderstood nothing blackjack.

I really meant it when I asked "what the heck is pre-emptive self defense"?

There is no such thing. It is an offensive attack period.

Saddam is a **** to be sure, but so are many world "leaders".

I view Bush as one of these also. However, I have a newfound admiration for my own prime minister who is not so quick to jump to war on a "maybe".

Who says Iraq supports terrorism? where is that coming from but from some convoluted thinking.

Whatever. This war stinks, Saddam is not Hitler and 90% of what is said about the middle east is propoganda spewed by those who would move in and take what they want from what is percieved to be just a "bunch of crazy arabs".

The world has changed a lot since world war two...........

A war against a country pressed down by sanctions is immoral and wrong. THat is my view and I'm sticking to it. You may have yours and keep it. I will not hold it against you. But I will not see it that way.

This whole thing is myopic in scope and the evidence of wmds and everything else is as flimsy as an autumn leaf.

There is nothing in buddhist martial arts (or other "arts") that indicates first strike tactics. To think so is to *******ize and deteriorate the truth that is held in them. Think about it.

the gung ho attitude about going to war against a country as weak and tattered as Iraq is is sickening and in itself depraved in my opinion. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

peace and love are the greatest weapons you can ever possess.

Putting hate on now will only lead to further hate being pperpetuated and will only lead to more terrorist actions being taken in the future.

People are suffocating in their homes for gods sake out of fear of chemiical attacks that need never come if not for this ****ed saber rattling BS that is going on.

This is a dangerous game.

The US is not acting in self defense, they are aggressing in self interest, not unlike Hitler or Mao Tse tung or Saddam, or...well, take your pick...........

And you call yourself Kungfu men!???

I can't be moderate under this banner. Attitudes favouring this maddness reflect this madness.

peace! peace! peace!

This has to be the gayest excuse for an argument that I've ever heard. You know, it's attitudes like yours that are going to get the world bombed by someone as small as New Jersey one day...and we'll all die. And while we die, we'll be thinking "if only we NEVER listened to KL".

There's a difference between Peace, and self preservation. If you want peace, then crawl into a hole. I don't agree with this whole thing, but I think you've got to be the biggest moron I've ever met.

Why is Iraq tattered and opressed?? Hmm, Because he's killing them off to test his chemicals and weapons. They're too afraid to oust him out of fear for their own lives.

~Wen~

[red5angel]

you forgot C.) Where all those who claim it is all about oil and just one big attempt at America to gain power start whining about all those chenical weapons we find being "planted" on Iraq to make our leadership look good. :rolleyes:


But I tell you what KC, Lets send everyone who thinks that keeping to their own business is the only way to do things, move them all to say Canada and let them handle things their own way while the rest of the world gets on with the business of doing what it does. Cause I tell you what, I hope someone as passive as yourself never gets into a position of real control anywhere in america. I don't want to see every pisant dictator walk over us and the rest of the world because war is not the solution. War is sometimes the answer whether you like it or not brother, and sometimes only war will get what you want done. 12 years is enough, now its time to pay the piper....

[Black Jack]

I think I might have Chicago style deep dish pizza. Best pizza in the world baby.......with a cold coke.....some hot wings as a starter with ranch dressing.....maybe some fried mushrooms to.

For dessert.........pu$$y sounds good.

[Merryprankster]

The links and "evidence" you have posted is subject matter that may very well be speculation and conjecture.

Ah yes. Speculation and conjecture. Like when Abu Nidal moved to Iraq because Libya kicked him out? Of course, he paid for that with his life. The Iraqi's claim he committed suicide...apparently by shooting himself in the head...Four times.

Amazing to me, Kung Lek, is the fact that you keep using what the UN thinks as the gold standard for veracity, and when I SHOW YOU the groups Iraq sponsors are considered terrorist organizations, and Christopher M SHOWS YOU that the UN believes Iraq sponsors terrorist organizations, you just wash your hands of it.

Hell, even Blix thinks they've got a lot of unanswered questions about their WMD inventory and you have the gall to say there's "no evidence."

We've convicted felons on less.

[CrippledAvenger]

Originally posted by Black Jack
I think I might have Chicago style deep dish pizza. Best pizza in the world baby.......with a cold coke.....some hot wings as a starter with ranch dressing.....maybe some fried mushrooms to.

For dessert.........pu$$y sounds good.

The question on everybody's mind is...

"Is it from Geno's East"?

Best pizza I've found in four years of searching.

[Black Jack]

Geno's East rules!!!!!

I also like Rosati's on occasion and Giordano's. Pizza is king...thin crust....deep dish....chicago style....stuffed:D

Let's also not forget the baked Calzones or the Italian cheezy beefs!!

[CrippledAvenger]

Giordano's is fantastic, too! There's one about 6 blocks down the street from me, on 53rd....

what about strombolis? Those are some MIGHTY fine hunks of cheese, dough and sausage.

[David Jamieson]

Do you honestly think that Iraq is in any position to drop a bomb on the states?

I know that those of you who belive that this is the right thing will not be swayed.

It's too bad really , from my p.o.v. It is good to hear the you "don't like war" though.

The position of thinking that might is right and the american way is the best is just a tad arrogant and not accepted by the rest of the world for the most part.

cheers

[red5angel]

"Do you honestly think that Iraq is in any position to drop a bomb on the states?"

KL, you need to start realy paying attention here, Iraq qill not be dropping any bombs on America, but do you think that just because the Iraqi military establishment doesn't have the capapbility to directly deliver a bomb or a chemical or a biological on ths US that this can't be done, with the help of Iraq?! You can't possibly believe that just because their missiles won't fly that far or their planes can't go the distance, that they cannot do any damage here on our own soil. Would you have said that about the Taliban or Al Quaeda before 9/11?
Listen to MP, he has some important things to say, and some very real things to point out for why this administration has chosen to do what they are doing.
It's easy to say from canada isn't it? Why don't you come down and spend a couple of months in an apartment by something important like the pentagon, or NYC and then lets talk about how Iraq can't do any damage?

[old jong]

There we are!....The importance contest has begun!...:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
There is no proof after 12 years that Iraq possesses any of the attrocious weapons the Bush administration would have you believe they do.

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided..complete disclosure..of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations..." - UN Resolution 1441 signed by China, France, Russia, UK, US, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria; opposed by noone.


Originally posted by Kung Lek
I do not believe in an unprovoked pre-emptive strike based on the right wing paranoia

"The United States will do what we must to defend our vital interests including, when necessary and appropriate, using our military unilaterally and decisively." - United States National Security Strategy, Bill Clinton, 1999

"Terrorists must have no doubt that in the face of their threat, America will protect its citizens... Today, I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security... [and because] these groups have executed attacks against Americans in the past" - Bill Clinton, August 20th, 1998

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by red5angel
you forgot C.) Where all those who claim it is all about oil and just one big attempt at America to gain power start whining about all those chenical weapons we find being "planted" on Iraq to make our leadership look good. :rolleyes:


But I tell you what KC, Lets send everyone who thinks that keeping to their own business is the only way to do things, move them all to say Canada and let them handle things their own way while the rest of the world gets on with the business of doing what it does. Cause I tell you what, I hope someone as passive as yourself never gets into a position of real control anywhere in america. I don't want to see every pisant dictator walk over us and the rest of the world because war is not the solution. War is sometimes the answer whether you like it or not brother, and sometimes only war will get what you want done. 12 years is enough, now its time to pay the piper....

That's funny, Red5. That doesn't relate to much that I just said. I understand the causes and need for war, which I've told you before, I just have questions about the aftermath of this one. I'm hoping those questions are immaterial in the end. If you define passive as 'resistant to building an empire that only serves a priviledged and inbred few', then you are correct. However, I was civil to you enough. Good day.


SLC,

Well let's see, who has more terrorists, the middle east, or us? And who has less resources? Haves? Have nots? Think there could be a link?


In general,
I just piped in to say that if we take the middle east by storm, we should do something productive with it. I didn't come in to argue the war. Sorry to commit the unforgivable crime of not agreeing with everyone. I'm not part of some movement, just me.
I don't even have the same opinion of the war I did a few weeks back, and my opinion of the soldiers was always one of respect, but a few idiots can't shut their rhetoric long enough to figure that out. I'm not arguing against the war. I suggested that it was bullocks that some weren't just into the idea of bombing people, and I suggested that taking out Sadam only means something if we do something good with the place once he's gone, something remarkable. Good god, what am I saying? ****ing wanks.

And, btw, I've been craving Roberto's pizza for a while now.

[miniteman]

Can someone tell me why the US is invading Iraq..? Why is America so willing to start war with a bunch of crazy arabs sitting on a pot of black gold..

It is amusing that president bush is a mad oil baron.. definitely no vested interests there..

The arms of the american ppl r getting rusty so lets shoot em off and make some new and shiny ones.. 2 results there 1: other nations tremble and fear .. and 2: the bonus "we can rebuild u better stronger faster.." we will also discover.. invent make bribe annoy a new enemy..

As far as I know america is a democratic society.. which in effect means the majority rules.. they r also part of the united nations.. where democracy also rules.. so y r the americans so willing to go alone.. ?

[Serpent]

No, America is a Republic. Beyond that, the man in charge of all this sh!t wasn't democratically elected, so why would he respond to democratic pressures now?

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Christopher M

"Terrorists must have no doubt that in the face of their threat, America will protect its citizens... Today, I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security... [and because] these groups have executed attacks against Americans in the past" - Bill Clinton, August 20th, 1998


Wasn't this so called terrorist-related facility in Sudan nothing more than a pharmaceutical plant producing vital medicines? I know America apologised for it later but this shows what this pre-emptive striking brings. With this type of attack, it makes a lot of people angry and makes angry people even angrier with US policies.

Even after the Sudanese mess, the British Labour government refused requests to resupply the medicines destroyed in the Cruise missile attacks whilst the Sudanese could rebuild their pharmaceutical production.

Third Degree

[Third Degree]

Hermann Goering's quote on war and the people.......

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.

Goerring was about to be put to death, so he could be frank and honest about how people are so easily manipulated by their governments.

Third Degree

[Merryprankster]

It is amusing that president bush is a mad oil baron.. definitely no vested interests there..

You obviously don't understand how the oil market works. The futures trade drives pricing and the sheer volume of said trade ensures that there is just about nothing any single entity can do to change that, short of exceptionally drastic OPEC action... and even that is mitigated by nascent oil industries in places like Russia.

Third Degree--

So, ignoring the responses to your ridiculous points or was it too tedious after the fingerpainting?

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Third Degree--

So, ignoring the responses to your ridiculous points or was it too tedious after the fingerpainting?


Ad Hominem.

[Merryprankster]

Mea Culpa.

But that doesn't invalidate the data I provided. Refute it. Provide me with pictures from all angles of the Pentagon that "mysteriously," have no debris. Show me my understanding of vapor fires and explosions is incorrect and that the passports (and purses and shoes and other odd things they found) couldn't possibly have survived.)

Or are you too busy fingerpainting?

I love your type. Amuse the hell out of me. All bluster and suspicion and conspiracy. Smack 'em in the face with some factual evidence and they clam up.

[SLC]

Third Degree,

Goering's comments are pretty accurate. People are often easily manipulated by their governments.

The problem is that you are NOW going through your life assuming that EVERYTHING the President tells us is intentionally misleading... so you listen to nothing. If "manipulated" means closing down your thoughtful consideration of information, ultimately, I guess, you have been manipulated anyway.... just by the "other side". :)

It is a lazy way out of having to weigh the evidence from both sides by simply saying that one side is always naturally wrong and manipulative.... after all, it's the government - it must be lying.

Isn't it rather silly to just assume that in every case?

[red5angel]

KC, Actually I think that comment was for Kung Lek, sorry bud. I always shorten his screen name to KL so just a little mistype.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Provide me with pictures from all angles of the Pentagon that "mysteriously," have no debris.



5 or 6 pages back on this thread I did say - "The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 yet I failed to see any debris from the plane from the pictures at the time."

"at the time" was way back in late 2001. "at the time" Donald Rumsfeld a month later after Sep 11 mentioned about "the missile" hitting the Pentagon - http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html. A strange use of the word "missile", why not "plane" or "aircraft" but back then I didn't see pictures which showed parts of the aircraft so I was a bit suspicious.

I've seen pictures which showed parts of the plane at the Pentagon site quite a while back.

I simply failed to state that I had seen different in that thread 5 or 6 pages back, which is a mistake on my part as I did intend to do so at that time.

I'm sure some people are like me - when you write a reply, ideas come into your head, you quickly type it in to make sure you expand on that point later on and thus losing the train of thought on your current paragraph or sentence.

Reason why I have not replied to your points fully is because the thread had advanced 3 pages by the time I looked at your reply and so I deemed it a bit out-of-date to reply to something 3 or 4 pages back. The thread had heavily focussed on the Iraq conflict and not our little discussion on Sep 11 so I left it.

I could reply back if you want but we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Any others who can be bothered to contribute their views on the events of Sep 11, please stand up!

Third Degree

[David Jamieson]

polls polls polls...:)

anyway, from another perspective:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/21/usprotests_030321


gotta keep up both sides, because that is what a democratic and free country is about right?

(props to the nam vet in the last paragraph)

cheers

[Rockwood]

Dear Rambo,

You must've loved 9/11 so much that you want to inflict it on someone else. All those tears over 9/11 will be shed on someone else's shore. I guess those women are the Enemy and must die. You coward.

I guess Israel is having so much fun in the Occupied Territory that we want to get in on the action. Occupying a city of 5 million (minus the collateral damage) is going to be lots of fun isn't it? More women (Enemy) must be shot down. You coward.

Murdering civilians is terrorism, regardless of whether it's done with boxcutters or MOABs.

When a cruise missile hits an ambulance and a hospital in Iraq I guess it's ok because they're the enemy.

Why don't you get out of the fantasy world that Faux News is portraying. This isn't a "fight for freedom". It's a massacre.

Bombs away Rambo. You f-ing coward.

-Jess O

[red5angel]

Rockwood, your gotta get over this whole murdering of civilians thing man. People are going to get hurt during this thing, no one is denying that. What you are failing to see is that the Iraqis want this even more then we do. Sure maybe some of the Ba' ath party might be chewing at the bit to kill some americans but they want Saddam gone as much if not more as we do. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

[Rockwood]

red-I'm sorry to keep buggin you, but I won't "get over" 9/11. And I won't get over this massacre. How can I, those are my guns firing, I paid to spill this blood.

And Bechtel gets the profits? Halliburton makes billions? They're laughing all the way to the bank at how naive you guys are.

Killing innocent people is one thing. Doing it to make big $$$ is another. Don't sugar coat it with the "free Iraq" bs. No one could possibly be that stupid.

This is about money for murder, simple and plain. They are looting our Treasury for the military industrial complex. They spent a trillion already, right into the pockets of Bu$h's campaign donors.

Yet you idealists keep on talking about liberation and freedom. What a cruel joke.

That egg thing was Mussolini's idea. Nothing he liked better than firing missiles at guys with spears.

Reminds me of Bu$h's massacre. This ain't no war.

See ya soon,

-Jess O

[David Jamieson]

precision eh?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/21/Baghdad_030321

yes, those 100's of tomahawk cruise missiles will destroy things with precision.

apparently, the entire city of bagdhad is a "precision" target.

how many civs in bagdhad? are they eggs?

gotta keep the right perspective on what is justified and what is not guys.

we will see how justified this is.

[Rockwood]

Sorry Kung Lek, but there is no such thing as justification for preempitive war. Unless you want to argue on the losing side of the Nuremburg trials. In which case you, and other war criminals might find yourself in a "justified" noose.

-Jess O

Stumble, maybe this can be your new signature:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.... No grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

--Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, a U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials at the close of World War II.

[Rockwood]

Sorry Kung Lek, but there is no such thing as justification for preempitive war. Unless you want to argue on the losing side of the Nuremburg trials. In which case you might find yourself alongside the war criminals hanging in a "justified" noose.

-Jess O

Stumble, maybe this can be your new signature:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.... No grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

--Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, a U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials at the close of World War II.

[red5angel]

"And Bechtel gets the profits? Halliburton makes billions? They're laughing all the way to the bank at how naive you guys are."

No, naive we aren't, as well as narrow minded. I have already stated that there are a multitude of reasons, however I doubt very highly that Money is at the very top of the list like you insist. too much conspiracy theory and paranoia.

"Don't sugar coat it with the "free Iraq" bs."

You can bet your sweet ass I am not going to sugarcoat war. haven't this whole time. I am also not going to buy into some paranoid conspiracy ideas about why we are going to war. I have already stated that of course the US is going to benefit from better access to IRaqs oil but what is really more important to you Rockwood, nows the time to ask yourself. You want the Iraqi people to continue to live in fear so your so called "ring of power" don't get what they want as well or are you going to take the bad with ath good? You willing to scarifice the lives of more Iraqis to a cruel and cold regime? Don't let your idealism get in the way on this either you and I are on the same ground as far as innocents getting killed.


"Yet you idealists keep on talking about liberation and freedom. What a cruel joke."

No the cruel joke is people like you trying to fight it for the sake some fukked up morality YOU want to impose on the world. You would rather see people oppressed then a few people make out on a military campaign that would free millions? Give me a freakin break. You can stand right next to Jessie Fukking Jackson as he pushes away the old Iraqi woman because her ACTUAL information and EXPERIENCE in Iraq would blow your desire for peace and excuses for why we shouldnt' go to war out of the water. Instead of screaming about who is getting money why don't you start listening to the screams of those in countries like Iraq who die at the hands of People in Saddams regime daily. Fukk your money. Whats a matter rockwood, can't handle seeing someone make more money then you? Is that what this is about? Can't see past your own jealous desire to see our country dragged down into a neo communist system so that guys at the top stop making money?
I bet you sound pretty good on your soapbox and while your screaming your propoganda at the thousands of wailing college kids and ex hippies who are trashing the nearest street. I bet you wouldn't sound half as good standing on that soapbox in Iraq or the countless other countries we shouldn't help out because someone might make a buck off of it.
Makes me sick to think your paranoia has so blinded you that you won't even bother to look at the benefits that will arise out of this for the Iraqi people, thats not good enough for people like you because there has to be something evil out there and you have to stop it right? Gotta be someone paying someone off for something otherwise why would anything happen in this world.

Your fukkin done dude, your argument is crap because while you are screaming about the money being spent you aren't considering the lives being lost in the real world. Wake up Rockwood, spend the money on a plane ticket and take a walk through a couple of these countries before you start yapping again.

[GreyMystik]

Unauthorized Entry
The Bush Doctrine: War without anyone's permission.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 12:51 PM PT



Bush: Iron fist, iron glove

Until this week, the president's personal authority to use America's military might was subject to two opposite historical trends. On the one hand, there is the biggest scandal in constitutional law: the gradual disappearance of the congressional Declaration of War. Has there ever been a war more suited to a formal declaration—started more deliberately, more publicly, with less urgency and at more leisure—than the U.S. war on Iraq? Right or wrong, Gulf War II resembles the imperial forays of earlier centuries more than the nuclear standoffs and furtive terrorist hunts of the 20th and 21st. Yet Bush, like all recent presidents, claims for his person the sovereign right to launch such a war. Like his predecessors, he condescends only to accept blank-check resolutions from legislators cowed by fear of appearing disloyal to troops already dispatched.


On the other hand, since the end of World War II, the United States has at least formally agreed to international constraints on the right of any nation, including itself, to start a war. These constraints were often evaded, but rarely just ignored. And evasion has its limits, enforced by the sanction of embarrassment. This gave these international rules at least some real bite.

But George W. Bush defied embarrassment and slew it with a series of Orwellian flourishes. If the United Nations wants to be "relevant," he said, it must do exactly as I say. In other words, in order to be relevant, it must become irrelevant. When that didn't work, he said: I am ignoring the wishes of the Security Council and violating the U.N. Charter in order to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution. No, no, don't thank me! My pleasure!!

By Monday night, though, in his 48-hour-warning speech, the references to international law and the United Nations had become vestigial. Bush's defense of his decision to make war on Iraq was basic: "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security." He did not claim that Iraq is a present threat to America's own national security but suggested that "in one year or five years" it could be such a threat. In the 20th century, threats from murderous dictators were foolishly ignored until it was too late. In this century, "terrorists and terrorist states" do not play the game of war by the traditional rules. They "do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations." Therefore, "Responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide."

What is wrong with Bush's case? Sovereign nations do have the right to act in their own self defense, and they will use that right no matter what the U.N. Charter says or how the Security Council votes. Waiting for an enemy to strike first can indeed be suicidal. So?

So first of all, the right Bush is asserting really has no limits because the special circumstances he claims aren't really special. Striking first in order to pre-empt an enemy that has troops massing along your border is one thing. Striking first against a nation that has never even explicitly threatened your sovereign territory, except in response to your own threats, because you believe that this nation may have weapons that could threaten you in five years, is something very different.

Bush's suggestion that the furtive nature of war in this new century somehow changes the equation is also dubious, and it contradicts his assertion that the threat from Iraq is "clear." Even in traditional warfare, striking first has often been considered an advantage. And even before this century, nations rarely counted on receiving an enemy's official notice of intention to attack five years in advance. Bush may be right that the threat from Iraq is real, but he is obviously wrong that it is "clear," or other nations as interested in self-preservation as we are (and almost as self-interested in the preservation of the United States as we are) would see it as we do, which most do not.

Putting all this together, Bush is asserting the right of the United States to attack any country that may be a threat to it in five years. And the right of the United States to evaluate that risk and respond in its sole discretion. And the right of the president to make that decision on behalf of the United States in his sole discretion. In short, the president can start a war against anyone at any time, and no one has the right to stop him. And presumably other nations and future presidents have that same right. All formal constraints on war-making are officially defunct.

Well, so what? Isn't this the way the world works anyway? Isn't it naive and ultimately dangerous to deny that might makes right? Actually, no. Might is important, probably most important, but there are good, practical reasons for even might and right together to defer sometimes to procedure, law, and the judgment of others. Uncertainty is one. If we knew which babies would turn out to be murderous dictators, we could smother them in their cribs. If we knew which babies would turn out to be wise and judicious leaders, we could crown them dictator. In terms of the power he now claims, without significant challenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world. He claims to see the future as clearly as the past. Let's hope he's right.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Stumblefist

These people have not had the real experience under a terrorist regime.


And I guess YOU and many pro-war advocates in the states and similar got that experience and knowledge.

Pls, name country and time when you experienced it.

If you can't than your argument is null and void.

[red5angel]

You might call me pro-war LC, some would anyway. I've been to somalia in 93', Kuwait in 91-92, Guatemala in 88'. I've seen what oppressive regimes can do to people. However I don't think it's necessary to have been to these countries or to have lived in these countries to understand their pain.
For those violently opposed to peace protestors, I am willing to bet most of them haven't experienced it, yet they are ok with forcing their opinions on the world and the governments who have to make hard decisions like going to war. I have seen a couple of interesting articles posted today, and over the last 24 hours seen some pretty good interviews with Iraqi citizens. Sure some of it has a political bent, but could you really believe that these people don't at the very least want to be free from Saddam?
It doesn't take much looking to know that no matter why else we are going to war, we are doing the Iraqis a favor. Lets jus hope the intent is as good as it sounds and that we help to build a better Iraq when the time comes.

[old jong]

This whole propanda about liberating the people of Irak brings this question to my mind: Why chose to help this country above all the others that are under a bad regime?...They have no oil in the others?...

[Laughing Cow]

r5a.

No problems with your viewpoint and your experiences.

My problem is with the guys that never been outside their own borders but talk big about issues they only got 2nd & 3rd hand information on.

Being an European that traveled a lot and lived in foreign countries I know very well what oppresives goverments can do.

I have experienced peaceful protests and others where the protesters went looting, and killing people who disagreed with them.

[red5angel]

Old Jong, oil of course, you have to pick your battles. war is expensive so how do you pay for it all afterwards? There are other things too. We should go after N. Korea bu we can't, because on their way out they can take a lot more people with them then Iraq can. If it comes down to war with a country that does have nuclear weapons, its a totally other ballpark.

LC - unfortunately a whole lot of people on boths sides here in the US have very little experience outside of their own countries. I tend to be able to pick out those with a wider range of experiences because if you pay attention closely, although they may be rooting for one side or the other their own beliefs swing towards the middle.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by GreyMystik
On the other hand, since the end of World War II, the United States has at least formally agreed to international constraints on the right of any nation, including itself, to start a war... I am ignoring the wishes of the Security Council and violating the U.N. Charter in order to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution.... Sovereign nations do have the right to act in their own self defense, and they will use that right no matter what the U.N. Charter says or how the Security Council votes.


Originally posted by old jong
Why chose to help this country above all the others that are under a bad regime?

"...Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration ... [or] face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" - UN Resolution 1441; signed by China, France, Russia, UK, US, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria; and opposed by noone; 8 Nov 2002.

[Rockwood]

stumble fist,

I think it's time for you to face this real world. Not a bruce willis, save the day bs movie, but real life. Where all your talk about saving the iraqis is a smokescreen for fortunes being made by some very crafty individuals.

Being their pawn might make you feel all warm and fuzzy as two thousand pound bombs pummell an undefended civilian population.

But to pretend that you are doing it for their good is nothing but a farce.

Maybe you sincerely like Iraqi people and want the best for them.

The Bu$h administration is taking advantage of your kind heartedness and making off with our entire Treasury.

Wake up and smell the napalm, pie in the sky fantasies about liberation through slaughter is a dream.

What you aren't noticing about the quote from Justice Jackson is that when the Nazis butchered the Poles they had all kinds of excuses. Whether the Poles had WMD or not is not the issue. He rejected a preempitve strike as unexcusable and hung 'em high, just like they deserved. Read it again, there is No Excuse!

We blitzkrieged Iraq, not the other way around. We struck first and in the future war crimes tribunal, no excuses will be accepted.

Sounds like you would've let the Nazi's off scott free. All for "the sake some fukked up morality YOU want to impose on the world."


-Jess O

[ZIM]

"He is a man driven by a manic need for self-esteem — to feel that he is a ‘somebody.’ He is obsessed by the question of ‘losing face,’ so he will never, under any circumstances, admit that he might be in the wrong. . . . the Right Man is an ‘idealist’ — that is, he lives in his own mental world and does his best to ignore aspects of reality that conflict with it. Like the Communists’ rewriting of history, reality can always be ‘adjusted’ later to fit his
glorified picture of himself. . . . The Right Man hates losing face; if he suspects that his threats are not being taken seriously, he is capable of carrying them out, purely for the sake of appearances.. the central characteristic of the Right Man is the decision to be out of control, in some particular area. We all have to learn self-control to deal with the real world and other people. But with some particular person...we may decide that this effort is not necessary and allow ourselves to explode. But — and here we come to the very heart of the matter — this decision creates,
so to speak, a permanent weak-point in the boiler, the point at which it always bursts. . . . What is so interesting here is the way the Right Man’s violent emotion reinforces his sense of being justified, and his sense of justification increases his rage. He is locked into a kind of vicious spiral, and he cannot escape until he has spent his fury. . . . The Right Man feels that his rage is a
storm that has to be allowed to blow itself out, no matter what damage it causes. But this also means that he is the slave of an impulse he cannot control; his property, even the lives of those he loves, are at the mercy of his emotions."
— Colin Wilson (paraphrasing A. E. Van Vogt), from A Criminal History of Mankind (pp. 67-70)

Which all, you know...sounds like the guy we're fighting.

[Rockwood]

Bunglefist,

Fyi I get plenty of ***** and me & my Dad get along fine.

You have such concern about others, what a nice young fellow you are.

Between me and those Iraqis you are just a bundle of lovey doveyness.

Just so you know, Bu$h was launching cruize missiles into a densely populated city yesterday, so **** the meathooks.

"never again" means that no more civilians should die from terrorist attacks.

unfortunately, never just happened. It's 9/11 all over again in Iraq. Do you feel better now? Got your rocks off? Something tells me the Bu$h crew just got started, so you've got lots more 9/11 smiles to come!

Just another day of big money for Bu$h's backers, all the payback they ever dreamed of and more. It might be blood soaked, but its still money!!! :)

Have a good weekend, you and the meanies.

-Jess O

[rogue]

Picture 2 (http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030321/capt.1048263567.iraq_us_military_war_reb109.jpg)

Another Rich middle-aged white guy giving his worthless opinion! (http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252167,00.jpg)


This whole propanda about liberating the people of Irak brings this question to my mind: Why chose to help this country above all the others that are under a bad regime?...They have no oil in the others?... Don't worry OJ, we'll liberate you Canucks soon as we're done over there.

[Christopher M]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20030322/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_turkey_troops

[old jong]

Good idea Rogue!;)

[rogue]

Glad you like it. One question OJ. Which way is Canada? I'm an American and we're clueless about the rest of the world.:confused:



:D :D :D

[old jong]

Just follow the poutine scent!...:D

For r5a...Poutine is a meal not Russia's president!;)

[rogue]

I thought about captioning that picture "Will Surrender for Food".
I love how casual they are, like they're waiting for a bus. Which tells me they know something about the Americans that some other people don't.

I will free both the French and English Canadians from the Evil Nova Scotians!

BTW I hope Crimson doesn't take it wrong. It's that slimy, moron Jacques Chirac I have a problem with not the French.