so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[Chyran]

futuro, I am very glad that in the US, there are people who think themselves about the things happening, too. That's why I usually try to avoid speaking of 'America', but rather of the 'US', because this term represents (at least for me) more the government than the people. So, fortunately, you don't necessarily have to go outside of the US to find clear thinking people :) It just seems in these times that here in Europe, they are a bit easier to find. Though you can get the opposite here too. There are quite some people here who don't think about what they hear, and who hate 'all Americans' now. Well, I don't, I only hate Bush and the administration. Yes, when he was elected, I was only sad, but not I really hate him for what he does.

Speaking of elections - were not there some problems with the way the votes were counted? And, after recounting, I thought it was determined that in reality, not Bush won these election, but Gore did? And still, Bush is president.

Here in Germany, you probably didn't hear about this, Schroeder (the current Bundeskanzler, I think it's prime minister in English, or head of state?) won the elections just barely. He is not that good in domestic policy, but in foreign policy, he is. I think that he only won the last elections because he said he is definitely against a war in the Iraq, and that German troops will never participate therein.

You are right, I won't have to drive more than half an hour to show you a building here built much more than 500, maybe 1000 years ago. The people here in Europe hat wars during thousands of years, the worst ones just in the last century. And that's where they should stay. Today, I am glad that I am able to say "I am proud to be a German", although it still has a bit of a bad taste (yes, Nazi Germany is still quite active in people's minds, even nearly 60 years after it). Germany didn't do very well in the 'colonization' thing, and maybe our ancestors tried to compensate this by trying to conquer Europe in WW1 and WW2. There are still many people who lived in this time, and they still remember too vividly how total war is spelled. Who is there in the USA who remembers how it is to be in a war? How it feels to be bombed? There are some people brave (or stupid, depends how you's see it) enough to serve in the army, who know and will know what war means. But this is such a small percentage that it doesn't really matter.

What I can't believe - I really can't! - is that 1/2 of America's people do really believe that god created the world 6000 years ago. I mean, sure, it's Religion, and quite some people believe in god and Religion, but we KNOW that THIS is just not true. There may even have been a freat flood that resulted in the stories in the bible, but there surely was not one man who saved two of each animal race in his Arche Noah. Go and ask anybody here (over 8 years old) and he will tell you this, even if he is Religious.

Most of Americans being Protestant has surely a historical reason. They were the ones not accepted by the catholics, and they were the ones to leave for a better life. But in this particular cast I have to say that I am a bit sad that the pope doesn't have any influence in the USA. I often disagree with him, but in the last time there have been more and more occasions where he jumped over his own shadow, and even the shadow of the big church in Rome (forgot the name).

Many people here ask themselves why so many Americans seem to be blinded by what their government and media tells them. There is so many evidence of horrific things done by the CIA and the US government, how can anybody possibly believe that ALL of this is lies??

I don't know who said it, but it was an American official. He said shortly before the war: "Even it Saddam would leave the country now, we will attack it nevertheless". That's how things go. This whole "Saddam, leave the country in 48 hours"-bullshit was just to blind the American people, and the rest of the world just couldn't believe how Bush could think that his own people are THAT stupid.

Also, about this quote:
Lining up behind your president and approve his action no matter what you think is exactly what the German citizens did when Hitler invaded Austira, Checkoslovakia. Poland ....

That's not really true. 1939, when Hitler invaded these countries, there was nearly no resistance left in Germany. The people lined up behind him way before these actions. The economic sutuation in the early 1930's was VERY bad, and Hitler took one minority he blamed it on: the jews. It was easy, because many jews WERE rich, because they were allowed to give credits out with interests, and protestants and catholics were not, because of their religion. We all know that you can make great profit this way. So there were they, and all poor people were angry and had no hope, so they believed Hitler. It was easy, and it was convenient. In the years from 1933 till 1939, Hitler made the people think that things got better. They really looked better. In fact, the country was going down the drain. He had to start the war, otherwise Germany would have collapsed. And by the time the war started, people were already so blinded and betrayed that they could never possibly go back.

And wow! How this war was great for the economy! After it was over, everything that was left were ruins, and the amount of people able to work to rebuild the country was way too small. Everybody got work, we even invited people from other countries and gave them money for working here. Yes, a war is really god for the economy. And Bush is even slyer: He destroys not his own country, but another country, and then sends his countries corporations to rebuild it. What a trick!

Chyran, a bit sad that he would be too peaceful to shoot if he'd stand in front of Bush with a gun in his hands.

[Borscht]

I have to say that I can't understand why a person that didn't even win an election can rule a country
Bush won the election, which is why he is President now. President's don't "rule".

The US Supreme Court's role in the election was a rare one, no doubt. However, it is the role prescribed by our laws, and therefore our President was elected within the framework of US law and election process.

Also, and this is my personal view, I think that this war is all about oil.
Yet another tired, lame refrain. If we wanted Iraqi oil, we could have taken it in the Kuwait conflict. If it was about oil, we could simply drop our economic sanctions and purchase Iraqi oil. If America needs oil, we can drill for our own.

Northern Corea has more dangerous weapons than the Irak, why doesn't Bush attack North Corea?
This is a straw man argument. That we aren't attacking Korea suggests a great number of possibilities, as any thinking person realizes. Your logic that "Not attacking Korea" = "Not really interested in weapons" is specious.

It already costed(sp?) a reasonable amount of soldiers their lives, and it will cost a much larger number of them theirs too. How can it be worth this?
You should be thankful we didn't apply your reasoning while we were contemplating saving your parents and grandparents from Hitler.

You Europeans have a dismal record when it comes to self-defense. Basically, you're incapable of defending yourselves. You should be thankful we didn't have accountants determining your liberty.

As far as I know, poverty is not an unknown think in the United States.
Actually, American "poor" average slightly more than one car and almost two televisions per household. Our defense budget consumes approximately 3.5% of our GDP. Entitlement spending in all forms in the US dwarfs that figure.

People like you don't quite understand exactly how much money we have. The state of California alone has a GDP greater than France. California + Texas generates more wealth than your entire country.

Spewing the stock leftist line won't work for you. It merely demonstrates how completely out of touch with reality you are.

[puppet]

Chyran, a bit sad that he would be too peaceful to shoot if he'd stand in front of Bush with a gun in his hands.

This is the type of guy that is on your "side" Futuro, a guy that is sad that he would not be able to assassinate the President of the United States.

I don’t agree with everything the US has ever done, and I don’t agree with everything this Administration is done but I do believe we have enough reasons to remove Saddam. And the vast majority of Americans agree with me (I think 76% at last poll)

To question the government is very American but now is the time to support our troops and our leaders.



I didn't read all this now. Just to tell some of the still reading persons what somebody from Germany thinks about this

You admit you did not even bother to read what others have wrote. You just want to come here and post your limited view. You are the very thing that you accuse many Americans of being, you are just a tool of propaganda.

People like you (and Germany) will not be allowed to decide American policy any longer. Goodbye and good riddance to the UN.

Ps. You know that nice building next to the 500 year old one, the one that was built after the War using aid from countries outside of Germany. Your welcome

[Geekylad]

written before war started.....

*** It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about the US and Europe going
head-to-head on world economic dominance. ***

by Geoffrey Heard

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his
administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you
consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with
Iraq.
The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on economic
leadership of the world.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position
with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with
billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading
Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act
in
breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade
Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the biggest one
is
hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used to trade oil and
consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable
future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its
euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic
power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America
will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to
the US bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would
like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of
international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to
grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can
share
the leadership rewards.

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue,
although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent slide in the
value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to
be
afraid there will not be war.

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is
developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many
articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic
on
the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics, and
W.
Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic
and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been published by the
'Sierra
Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US
dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about
exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying
the
impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could
collapse economically.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971
(after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de
facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard
dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too.
This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the
dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's
economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in
international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro --
there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in
Britain
-- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard
dollars
to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's
dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to
trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had
just
made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm
bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given
itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil
producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by
bartering
oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is
seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious
market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in
general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this
immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire
capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for
millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at
the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those
cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the
owners
of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only
your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they
can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they
use
them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop
owner
swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the
fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some
flour
with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the
bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting

a
free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge
subsidy
from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed
more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an
economic
powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's
cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this
spreads,
people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying
home
to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the
cheques,
very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy
who
can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse, you
can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates
into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the
euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell
large
quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs to
become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations would
have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start
to
fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's real
economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most
debt-ridden
nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of it's 280
million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of Indonesia
when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently, that of
Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very
nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various
contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties
would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that
would
do two things immediately: * Increase the attractiveness to EU members of
joining the 'eurozone', which in turn would make the euro stronger and make
it
more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other nations as

a
general trading currency. * Start the US dollars flying home demanding value
when there isn't enough in the bank to cover them. * The markets would
over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's value would be
spiralling
down.

[Borscht]

written before war started.....
If I wanted leftist editorialism, I'd read the Times. Cut-and-paste ain't making it here, brother. Welcome to that quiet place where Jeeves and Futuro live.

[nerfherder]

Well... As a member of the Moderates....

You know the 85% of americans that:

1) Work for a living
2) Raise kids
3) Don't rely on social programs
4) Don't have trust funds

I thing the "conspiracy idiots" (extreme left) and the "nuke-em-all nazi's" (extreme right) are really quite amusing in their delusions. I derive a great deal of entertainment from listening to these mental midgets bicker with thier skewed personality disorders.

It was interesting watching MSNBC, CNN, and FOX yesterday during the sandstorm. The networks were all at an absolute loss since they had no video to show. All they did was put up talking heads. More often than not it was under the guise of presenting both sides as if there were only two sides to this issue. The "No Spin Zone" was particularly amusing when O'Reilly introduced his two guests as the "liberal" and the "conservative". Both of these talking heads puffed up with indignation when assigned these titles.

I don't like the so called conservatives because they fail to see the root causes of problems and I think the so called liberals are living in a fantasy land.

Again who speaks for the middle?

[Borscht]

I thing the "conspiracy idiots" (extreme left) and the "nuke-em-all nazi's" (extreme right) are really quite amusing in their delusions.
ROFLMAO!!!! Here is the clearest illustraton of the selfish motivations of those who describe themselves as "moderates", "centrists", or "the middle".

These are people who lack any coherent or consistent principles or convictions.

And they congratulate themselves for "rising above" and "standing outside" of the petty arguments of others. Ah, so sage and wise compared to all of us heathens.

The rest of us don't have jobs, don't raise kids, rely on social programs or trust funds for our income. We are either "conspiratorialists" or "nazis", unlike the refined and perceptive "moderate".

Again who speaks for the middle?
Well, you could have. But instead you chose to pat yourself on the back and insult everyone else. Very typically "middle".

Why don't you speak for the "middle". First, provide us a list of the ten Greatest Moderates.

Then illuminate us on the unique perspective of the "middle" on the salient issues of this war. By all means, speak for the "middle".

About 80% of the American people support the war, we can assume the left comprises the remaining 20%. And that Conservative support is pretty much unanimous. So how does the "middle" factor in there?

Pretty much like us "nuke-em-all" conservatives?

[nerfherder]

Borscht, I actually tend to agree with you.

You seem to be saying that with out us extremists (ie people with strong opinions) there would be no opinions.

That is the same as saying the extremes define the middle.

Very true. I am philosophically centrist except when I want to nuke someone or kiss lepers.

Thanks for the amusement in advance.

[Borscht]

That is the same as saying the extremes define the middle.
Not at all. I'm saying that there is no "middle", in the sense that you use it. There is no "third way".

People's sympathies may wobble between the two distinct threads of human thought that have existed since the dawn of history. But this is reflective of the individual. His incomplete understanding of the philosophies, or lack of personal conviction.

The moderate is one who is either ignorant or incoherent. But most typically, the authentic moderates in America are merely those with a deep aversion to conflict and an associated desire to belong to what they perceive as the popular opinion.

Without concern for whether that opinion is correct or incorrect, moral or immoral. Thinking is difficult, going with the flow is easy. And if you can find a way to congratulate yourself for being stupid or lazy, more the better.

Now, this is a thread concerning people's views of the Iraqi conflict. You have presented no views so far, but only smarmy self-congratulation of your moderate (sage and wise) inclination. With associated smug insults, etc.

We're still waiting for the "middle" to state something regarding a war, and a view.

[wimp]

Originally posted by Borscht

Not at all. I'm saying that there is no "middle", in the sense that you use it. There is no "third way".

People's sympathies may wobble between the two distinct threads of human thought that have existed since the dawn of history. But this is reflective of the individual. His incomplete understanding of the philosophies, or lack of personal conviction.

Wrong! There is a third view.

Let me speak for the moderates by demonstrating a likely common morning rutine.

First we want to get a quicky weather glimse and see what the world is up to so we head on over to the nytimes
www.nytimes.com - War:Iraq

That time again huh?

Then, We want to get an "Outside" view to make sure the NY times isn't giving us fluff. So we head over to the BBC
news.bbc.co.uk - War:Iraq

Yep, it's true.

Next, we head over to checkout the strongbad e-mail
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail.html

Ahh. Refreshing.

A:> Everquest.exe

[Borscht]

so we head on over to the nytimes

to make sure the NY times isn't giving us fluff. So we head over to the BBC
Heh heh! I can't tell if you're being serious, or if this is some very high-altitude sarcasm :)

If it's sarcasm, then I salute you!

Because indeed, the typical moderate would start with America's most far left journal of opinion-disguised-as-news, and then for "perspective" jump over to the far-left BBC.

The BBC is so slanted, that one of its own folks just blasted it today for the horridly biased reporting concerning the effectiveness and prospects of Britain's soldiers.

Having then consumed liberal doses of liberalism from two nations, said Moderate would assume lotus and levitate slightly off the ground in profound sagacity at his own moderation and elevation above the fray.

Then talk and vote like a liberal. For that which is not explicitly Conservative, always ends up advancing liberalism.

[nerfherder]

So its not abnormal to read the english translation of Pravda and listen to Rush Limbaugh at the same time?

[Chyran]

Originally posted by Borscht
President's don't "rule".As I see it, Bush does. Or how would you define "rule"?

Originally posted by Borscht
If it was about oil, we could simply drop our economic sanctions and purchase Iraqi oil.So why don't you do it and drop these silly sanction that prevents the Iraq from importing many different medicines that the people there would need urgently, or medical instruments? These sanction that prevent Organizations willing to help the Iraqi PEOPLE for going into the Iraq and do it for more than a year? The American government says "This is not a way against Iraqi people". It is not? Why are there then all these reports in TV stating that thousands will die from the impacts of this war? What is the US's prime focus? Well, the war costs 2.500.000.000 $ a day. And, according to reports, the US are going to spend 100.000.000 $ for humanitarian help. All in all. Wow, how grateful.

Originally posted by Borscht
You should be thankful we didn't apply your reasoning while we were contemplating saving your parents and grandparents from Hitler.If you don't realize that this situation is entirely different, then there is no help for you left.

Originally posted by Borscht
It merely demonstrates how completely out of touch with reality you are.I can give that compliment back. If you are not aware of poverty in your OWN country, and think that poverty is defined by not having two TVs and a car, you must really be blind. Did you know that in a small suburb with 1.000 people, when there are ten guys (1%) earning 1.000.000 $ per year, and all other 9.990 (99%) earning nothing, every person earns 10.000 $ a year in average. In a country where some people have more money than we all can emagine, and many people have absolutely nothing or even less, don't come and tell me about averages.

Originally posted by puppet
You admit you did not even bother to read what others have wrote. You just want to come here and post your limited view. You are the very thing that you accuse many Americans of being, you are just a tool of propaganda.I did not read what everybody else here had to say, because I didn't have the time. Does that imply that I don't know of any facts about the situation? For you, apparently, yes. For me, this implies that you yourself are subject to a limited view. I came here to let you know what I think, based on the material I read and heard, and let me assure you, this was not a small amount. And as I stated in my post, I do not accuse many Americans of being, if you would have read it, I am concentrating my anger towards the government. Based on your statements, I would suggest you think about the possibility of your being a "puppet" of propaganda yourself, repeating what the TV stations want all Americans to believe is the only truth.

Originally posted by puppet
Ps. You know that nice building next to the 500 year old one, the one that was built after the War using aid from countries outside of Germany.Did you know that America was helping Germany not because being nice to Germany, but to create an outpost against the Russians? Oh and another fact, that you were probably not aware of: After WW2, on March 10 1945, Eisenhower enacted the order that German captives held on German ground are no longer to be treated as prisoners of war. This meant that they didn't have to be looked after and fed any more. The international Red Cross was not allowed to enter the internment camps. And although the food depots were full, this food was not given to German captives. They died like the flies. Thanks.

Originally posted by puppet
Your welcome

[puppet]

Why don’t you tell us what you think should be done with Iraq. I listen to so many people bitch about what we are doing but they never mention what they believe should happen.



So why don't you do it and drop these silly sanction that prevents the Iraq from importing many different medicines that the people there would need urgently


The Sanctions are UN sanctions, not the United States. I believe if you look up the specific resolutions you will see that your government voted for them also. Has the US been the prime supporter of these sanctions, yes.

You might also want to read up on the oil for food program that was instituted by the UN. This program was designed to sell Iraqi oil at a fair price to supply Iraq with humanitarian aid. You might want to read some of the reports by Human Rights groups (and the UN) that state that Saddam has taken much of the supplies from this program and stockpiled it or used it to build more palaces.

I am not saying I agree with the sanctions since they obviously don’t seem to work but I don’t know what else to do. They were tried to force Saddam into compliance with the UN resolutions but he does not care that his people starve and die. The responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq rest solely on Saddam’s shoulders.



Why are there then all these reports in TV stating that thousands will die from the impacts of this war?


Thousands will die in this war, and everyone is a tragedy. But we are hoping that from this tragedy that hope and freedom will be born for the people of Iraq. Will thins happen, who knows but we cant sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Also remember that Saddam is directly responsible for the death of thousands of his own people. Before you mention the fact that you don’t think people should die over oil. You might want to research Kosovo and Somalia. We took military action in both places to try and stop brutal killings of innocents, they had no oil. Of course the outcome in both places was less that stellar but we do try to do the right things.




Did you know that America was helping Germany not because being nice to Germany, but to create an outpost against the Russians?


I am sure that was part of the reason. But how many things do you know of that have only one reason. Just like the War in Iraq has many separate reason. And even if we were just helping Germany to stop the spread of communism, what do you care we still helped you



This meant that they didn't have to be looked after and fed any more. The international Red Cross was not allowed to enter the internment camps. And although the food depots were full, this food was not given to German captives. They died like the flies.


I have never heard of this, if you would not mind please give me a few sources of the information. If this is true then it is a terrible action and has no excuse today. But I know a few veterans of the War and even today they hate Germany because of what they saw first hand. Two wrongs don’t make a right but I think this is minor compared to your actions in WWII, don’t you agree.

[puppet]

As a side note you might want to read about the lifestyle differences between the Northern Iraqi\Kurds and the people under Saddam’s direct control (those nearest Baghdad) The Sate of Iraq is broken up into 3 sections for the purpose of distributing Aid.

“Infant mortality in northern Iraq dropped by about one-fifth and child mortality by about one-third from the 1984-89 to the 1994-99 period.
In short, nutrition and health care were declining in government-controlled Iraq, but improving in the northern autonomous zone.”

In an effort to look into why the people of Iraq were experiencing a shortage of supply’s this was what was reported.

“The executive director of the Office of the Iraq Program (set up by the Security Council to manage the sanctions regime) said that more than half of the $570 million in medicines and medical supplies Iraq imported under the oil-for-food program, remained in "overflowing" government warehouses, causing shortages in clinics and hospitals throughout the country”

Here is the full report

Report (http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/mideast/2000/iraq.htm)

[Chyran]

Originally posted by puppet
The responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq rest solely on Saddam’s shoulders.I agree with you that Saddam is a bad guy, and that he doesn't care much about his people. He certainly is responsible for the humanitarian crisis, too.

Originally posted by puppet
But we are hoping that from this tragedy that hope and freedom will be born for the people of Iraq.This is so much like the one in TV who said this, while you could see the pictures and the sounds of bombs exploding on the other side of the screen... how can anybody think bringing pain and suffering to people in the name of democracy will make them like it.

I won't talk here about WW2 and Hitler any more because that's more than 50 years ago. I hate what happened, but I can't change it and I have not even been part of this.
Also there were presidents of the USA that were not so bad as Bush between not and then.

To the reports that you quoted. Here is what I have found (after searching for two minutes):
"In 1989, the last full year before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Ministry of Health spent $500 million on medicines and medical supplies for the nation's public hospitals.
In the four years since the oil-for-food program began, the committee has allowed Iraq to import $980.4 million in health-related goods and is holding requests for $189 million more. The committee has held up orders for heart and lung machines, syringes and thermometers, ambulances and refrigerated trucks."
(http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm)

And what do you think of the way the American troops fight their wars:
"Austrian medic Dr Eva-Maria Hobiger, whose aid project at the hospital is supported by DEA, reports that in Basra, 80 per cent of children suffering from leukemia die within a few weeks of being diagnosed due to the lack of proper medicine.

Hobiger reports alarming statistics: every third child born at the hospital in Basra is either physically disabled or severely ill; cases of cancer for Basra and the rest of southern Iraq have increased fivefold since 1990.

Dr Fathallah blames the high incidents of cancer-related illnesses experienced by the population on the use of depleted uranium by the Allied Forces during the Gulf War, which he says has polluted the soil and groundwater over the last decade. According to him, this has a severe effect on the health of the people who are experiencing increased rates of cancers."

(http://www.cwmission.org.uk/features/default.cfm?FeatureID=1091)

[Borscht]

on the use of depleted uranium
*yawn*

The war is on, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Coalition forces will win, and liberate Iraq from a tyrant just as we liberated Germany from a tyrant.

If you can't see the obvious parallels, then you are blind.

France and Germany will fade into the obscurity they have chosen for themselves. Once great nations now rendered irrelevant, having placed mercenary trade arrangements with Saddam above any moral concerns.

How many centuries has your people and your culture had to develop real freedom and wealth for its people? And yet look at you, dependent on a nation not even 300 years old for your defense and to prop up your sickly economy through the dollars our military boys spend in your country.

Your mutual envy-fest of American hatred seals your fate, for it is America that leads the world into the future. That establishes and upholds the moral tone of the entire planet. That sets the example of courage and fortitude against which all other nations and peoples are judged.

Sadly, Germany and France just don't have the stomach to be relevant on the global stage. Perhaps you will find solace with Syria, Iran, and the other 4th rate nations in the UN.

You can all swap lies about how horrible America is, while your best and brightest quietly apply for citizenship here.

[futuro]

Originally posted by Borscht

*yawn*

Sure, someone concerned about people's health bores you. That's nice, isn't it. You're so concerned with the US throwing around it's muscle, you don't care what the consequences are.


The war is on, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Coalition forces will win, and liberate Iraq from a tyrant just as we liberated Germany from a tyrant.

Right!!! The most powerful nation on earth decided that we are going to invade another country that hasn't invaded ours, and we're going to kill hundreds, if not thousands or more of them to "liberate" them. Then we're going to ignore them, and when the next government comes along that we don't like, we'll liberate them, too. And about the WW II "parallels" see below...


If you can't see the obvious parallels, then you are blind.

If you see parallels, then you are deluded. Germany had built up one the most powerful, if not the most powerful army in the world. He "annexed" several countries, and was aiming for much more. He had taken by force more territory than the Roman Empire. He had the most modern tactics (Blitzkrieg) and an industrial base to rival any of the world's. Saddam invaded one country, was beaten easily, and has been quiet for 12 years. His military is 1/10 of ours. He has 20 year old tanks and arms. He has virtually no industrial base. He's a third world dictator. He's no threat to anyboy, let alone the US.

Not to mention, Germany declared war on the US on 12/7/1941, right after Pearl Harbor, and before we started open hostilities against Germany. Iraq hasn't declared war against us, and if you use that tired and false "he did on 9/11/2001", you're an idiot.


France and Germany will fade into the obscurity they have chosen for themselves. Once great nations now rendered irrelevant, having placed mercenary trade arrangements with Saddam above any moral concerns.

Shall I list all the "mercenary trade arragements" the US has had with many terrible dictators, including Saddam Hussein?

After all, they haven't used bio or chem weapons for over 12 years, and at time time they were using them, they were an agent for the US against Iran. We supported and aided them during that period, and also aided Iran with arms sales. What "moral concerns" do we have?


How many centuries has your people and your culture had to develop real freedom and wealth for its people? And yet look at you, dependent on a nation not even 300 years old for your defense and to prop up your sickly economy through the dollars our military boys spend in your country.

That's right Borscht, make more enemies for the US. Flail your "US is best and you suck" whip at them. Piss them all off, untill one day all our technology, all our military superiority, all our disappering industrial base will not be a match for the will of the rest of the world that want's to throw the yoke of American Imperialism off their shoulders.

Perhaps you forogt : The bigger they are, the harder they fall.


Your mutual envy-fest of American hatred seals your fate, for it is America that leads the world into the future. That establishes and upholds the moral tone of the entire planet. That sets the example of courage and fortitude against which all other nations and peoples are judged.

Is it me, or does this sound somehat similar to several speechs by ... oh what what his name.... Adolph Schickelgruber?


Sadly, Germany and France just don't have the stomach to be relevant on the global stage. Perhaps you will find solace with Syria, Iran, and the other 4th rate nations in the UN.

Keep putting them down, Borscht. That's right, make more enemies for the US. Then you can find an exuse to invade them, too.


You can all swap lies about how horrible America is, while your best and brightest quietly apply for citizenship here.

They're not lies. You've been blinded by the government as to what kinds of nasty stuff they've been engaged in for the past 40 years. The kind of stuff that makes enemies. The kind of stuff that makes even people who are oppressed by a dictator fight back tooth and nail. Rumsfeld was in Iraq in 1983, shaking Husseins hand and offering all sorts of aid for him. And now we're trying to "change his regiem", the same way we did with Norriega. Support and aid the dictators, then "change their regime". How long do you think we can do that and still have the trust and respect of the rest of the world?

Answer : it's too late, already...

[puppet]

how can anybody think bringing pain and suffering to people in the name of democracy will make them like it.


The Revolutionary War brought pain and suffering, we are happy with the outcome. Go ask the people of Afghanistan if they are more\less happy since the Taliban have been removed. Send an e-mail to someone in Kosovo and ask them to compare their live before and after. I don’t know how the people of Iraq will view us after the War. It is entirely possible that they will hate us (most Arabs do). But the only way to hope to erase that hate is with education. We know that many Arabs hate us for the War in Iraq but we will not sit on the side and do nothing.



To the reports that you quoted. Here is what I have found (after searching for two minutes):


First off you should have taken more than “2 minutes” of searching. I can search for “2 minutes” and find an article that would support any bizarre claim I would have made. You might want to read a little bit about the source you are quoting.

Let me say this one more time. 100% of the effects of the sanctions are on Saddam’s shoulders. The UN is stuck between a rock and a hard place now that they have the sanctions in place and they have proven ineffective. If they keep the sanctions in place then the people suffer. If they remove them it gives another signal to Saddam that he can ignore the will of the global community and get away with it. It would also allow Saddam to import equipment to start to re-build his military.



And what do you think of the way the American troops fight their wars:


You might want to look at who uses Depleted Uranium bullets (hint: many nations do, Germany has the same bullets) Depleted Uranium is used for a reason, it gives the bullets greater strength to puncture armor. Nothing in international law makes the use of depleted uranium illegal. I support our troops using legal means to protect themselves. But again, we would not be firing the weapons if it were not for Saddam. Every death that may be caused by this weapon rests squarely on Saddam.

Can you tell me why you are angry about the use of depleted uranium bullets but don’t seem to care that Saddam has used chemical weapon on his own people. This is a serious question, do you really believe that the USA poses a greater threat to the people of Iraq than Saddam does.

I am also waiting for the sources you mention concerning the German POW’s who were left to die.

[Alwayslost]

Futuro,

/boggle

/boggle
/boggle


PS /boggle

I will admit, I have gotten one hell of a good laugh at what you concider to be a serious position, not to mention your obvious skill at selective vision, and you mastery of avoiding any grasp of reality.

You also are possibly more paranoid and more convinced of conspiracy than ANY SINGLE LIVING PERSON ON THE PLANET.

/em prays to God, Allah, Shiva, Odin, Ra, Poseidon and Budda that Futuro never reproduces, then realizes that with all those interesting things spouting out Futuro's yap that there is little chance of reproduction anyhow.

[cryptorad]

Hey Futuro I have a question for you.

1) There are reports from Iraqi's that have surrendered that Al Qaeda operatives are in Basrah causing all that trouble.

2) There is another report that Iraqi's in full chemical suits were filmed while unloading 55 gallon drums from trucks today near some military positions south of Baghdad. Gotta love zoom lenses.


Are you ready to delete the "Futuro" moniker and create a new account? I'm just curious if you will cut and run, or if you have the guts to stand behind all your posts and accept the 'forum' abuse, I think you are going to get, when this all solidifies EXACTLY as you have been told it would.


Just a curious question.. after all.. it's not internationally accepted yet. Just rumors. Sorta like your "inpections were working" post. Just rumors.


:D

[puppet]

Chyran

If you care to expand your knowledge here are a few link you might find interesting. I tried to find a few links that were scientific in nature (3 of 4) that may give a few details on the affects of depleted Uranium. I was not able to find one scientific study that established that depleted uranium significantly increases the chances of cancer. If you have one that does please forward the information.

You might also want to research what you believe to be true a little more thorough. It does not do anyone any good to come to the board and shout out untruthful information just because it helps your argument. If you don’t believe the War is un-just, that is fine but it does not help your argument to use false information. I think the current Administration had to learn the same lesson.


http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/health.shtml

http://www.cancerpage.com/cancernews/cancernews4302.htm

http://www.srp-uk.org/servdu.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/


also:

Can you tell me why you are angry about the use of depleted uranium bullets but don’t seem to care that Saddam has used chemical weapon on his own people. This is a serious question, do you really believe that the USA poses a greater threat to the people of Iraq than Saddam does.

I am also waiting for the sources you mention concerning the German POW’s who were left to die.

*edit* had to change just to un-just. /bonk

[Alwayslost]

Cryptoad,

Didn't you know that the US has been secretly making Iraqi uniforms? Those are actually US soldiers creating False evidence. It's all staged.

Don't forget, the US is a big bunch of mean bullies, it's just EVIL of us to actually kill a civilian that Saddam had stand in front of a SAM targeting Radar. We should have waited till the Civy went to the can or something. Oh, the Civy is chained there? Well, that changes everything... now we just have to ignore that SAM site untill the ground forces get there first to cut him free. Ok, marines cut him free, but he's not moving... must have been the nerve gas tha the US launched on Bafhdad to speed up the war.


(how's that Futuro? sufficiently paranoid and full of enough conspiracy? Damn, I forgot the irrelevant and obviously Biased links and innane half facts...)

[Borscht]

the affects of depleted Uranium
Don't ya love this one? There's always some dopey loon who brings this into play, banking on the scariness of the word 'Uranium'. I'm glad you brought it to his attention, as I've shot this one down once too often and it's just too tedious anymore.

Makes for a nice, dense projectile that doesn't bounce off of stuff.

But the ninnies always seem to overlook the fact that for every round of depleted Uranium fired, there hasta be a bazillion rounds of conventional ammo fired.

Conventional ammo = lead. Hello????

Don't hear much about all that lead poisoning, among all those children who are somehow wandering around out in the old battlefields in the middle of the desert. Eating the sand, apparently.

I guess they have some racial immunity to lead poisoning, and it's just the depleted uranium that gets 'em.

[Chyran]

Well, it seems very easy for you all to just ignore the effects of DU. Unsurprisingly, puppet, your sources are all concentrating on the effect of DU on the soldiers. And even your sources say that there is already a small increase in cancer. The soldiers are exposed to the DU not quite as long as the people who live in the Iraq where all those bullets lie in the sand since the first gulf war. Of course you have never seen the pictures of their faces, of these mutations in TV. And you will probably never see them in American TV. It's sad, but true. But you could not have proven me that my opinion about you is right in a better way: you only care about the American soldiers. I, instead, care more about the people in the Iraq. Your soldiers have chose to be soldiers, I am sorry for them, but it was their choice. The people in Iraq never had a choice. These are the people you should care for. And not by bringing even more pain to them by fighting Saddam.

For you all accusing me of lying, and telling me to search longer for my information. You don't have to search long before you find what I quote. But you probably have to search a bit longer to find sources trying to say what your opinion is. Sadly, you don't seem to activate your common sense to analyze what you are reading. It can be very interesting to read between the lines, or to ask about things that were not mentioned in those reports (an example you might understand: a company reports that their gross revenues have doubled. Wow, great, this firm is really doing great you might think. So what could you ask? You could ask: "And how much profit did that firm make?" Yes, the information given in the first statement can be very misleading, if the company actually made losses). Of course, that is not what you do, because it will lead you to the kind of information you do not want to find.

About the sources of the Eisenhower order: I am sorry, but they are written in German. I could point you to them, puppet, but I am sure you won't understand them. As a person living in the greatest country that ever existed, you don't have to care about speaking other languages: you just expect people to speak English. Of course, in your eyes, it's the language. Well, it's of course an important language, but did you know that there are much more people speaking Chinese as their mother tongue than English? Wow. But China is, in your eyes, unworthy of existance, as all the other communist countries - no wait, as all other countries. Except glorious America. Sadly, futuro is very right: America is becoming a bit too pleased with itself. Give me a reason why America is so magnificent? You don't have any history older than 500 years. In fact, you did what you can to destroy any history older than 500 years ago. You are not wealthier than other countries. In fact, Americas depts are greater than those of many other countries, and this war will not reduce them. Your country is fighting in so many wars. Does this make it great? In my eyes, it just shows how poor America really is. The poorest of all are those who have to use force on the outside to distract from their poverty and fear in the inside.

Luckily, here in Europe, most people have learned finally that violence in not a way to make things right (sadly, there are still people holding might and ignoring their people who didn't learn this, what we see in Great Britain). This is why we are in fact more evolved that most people in America. You are, in your minds, where Europe was in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Only you have so much power that you are much more dangerous than we were these times.

I am pretty sad that so many people here just get rid of things they don't like to hear from others as lies or paranoia. If you would just read what America has done, and could look at it from an outside point of view, and accept it as it is, you could understand the position of the rest of the world. Comments like "Didn't you know that the US has been secretly making Iraqi uniforms? Those are actually US soldiers creating False evidence. It's all staged." are absolutely possible to become truth. I could tell you as soon as the US troops started to invade the Iraq that they will find weapons of mass destruction, ready to be used against the rest of the world. Not because they were there, but because they need to be found to subsequently justify this war. And it will be like always: American people will see this in TV, and believe it. When it finally comes out some decades later that these weapons were placed there by Americans, nobody in America will get to know it. And if so, nobody will care any more. And we can read the same story again and again. It has for the past 50 years been like this, and I don't know when it will stop. It makes me so sad that there are people willingly blinding others in such a way to achieve the deaths of thousands and millions other human beings, and it makes me even more sad that the blinded people are struggling by all means when you try to open their eyes.

Truth is what you make of what you think to know.

Nuff said.

[Borscht]

I, instead, care more about the people in the Iraq.
Then you should be quite pleased that America is finally liberating them from the man who's murdered about 100,000 of them over the past 12 years.

Last week he cut one's tongue out, tied him to a stake in the town square, and let him bleed to death. At least he won't be suffering uranium poisoning. That's a plus, right?

The people in Iraq never had a choice.
The did before Saddam took over and nationalized all their private property and enterprises. And they will again, once they are liberated.

Saddam chose their destiny, by attempting to invade and conquer Kuwait. This led to bullets, some of which were made of harmless depleted uranium. Of the sort every modern military force uses, including Iraq.

but they are written in German. I could point you to them, puppet, but I am sure you won't understand them.
Nope. Thanks to America, only Germans have to speak German.

you could understand the position of the rest of the world
You are not the rest of the world. You are but a single mindless propagandist displaying your irrational hatred of America. Yet we still understand *your* position. We call it by its common definition...."sour grapes".

Truth is what you make of what you think to know
No, truth is what *is*. And truth is something you obviously have no real grip on.

I have one piece of advice for you though, Chyran:

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

Nuff said.

[cryptorad]

Chyran,

Did you say mutations?? From DU?

Care to back that up... my science education seems to place doubt on your statement.

[z26o]

The people in Iraq never had a choice. And they never will as long as Saddam is there. So unless someone stands up to him, they will be without choice on a great many things.

[puppet]

Imagine that Chyran, you can’t back one of your statements up with facts. And you did not bother to give me an acceptable answer to even one of my questions. You my German friend are a tool. I am sure that german report you mentioned, if it exists at all is on some respectable site like www.germansWhoHateAmerica.com



I could tell you as soon as the US troops started to invade the Iraq that they will find weapons of mass destruction, ready to be used against the rest of the world. Not because they were there, but because they need to be found to subsequently justify this war.


I bet you will be surprised how many tools like Chyran say this after the War. I have been trying to think of what excuse they will use if Saddam use’s WMD during this war.

[Borscht]

I have been trying to think of what excuse they will use if Saddam use’s WMD during this war.
Oh, I think there are two things that we can easily predict about their excuses.

One would be, "Well with big bullies like America attacking, you can't blame them for using the only thing they have that stands a chance. If America was in their position, they'd obviously do the same thing. After all, America dropped nuclear weapons on Japan." There will be several variations of this reasoning.

They will likely also tend to portray the Iraqis as "progressives" fighting the good fight. Seeking that "worker's paradise" by revolution against the oppressive and dehumanizing forces of American capitalism.

It's the same old song and dance with these losers.

[Mr. Suspicious]

Thank god the founding fathers weren't liberals! Oh wait... they were...

Someone rename this thread to "post for those that refuse to use their own brain and believe only what the media feed them".

One of the few people using their brains here is Futuro.

[cryptorad]

So..

We can assume that Futuro and Suspicious are two who use their brains.. unlike the rest of us who just listen to what we're told. Sounds incredibly ironic to me.

Also sounds like a baseless character assassination. Typical.


i-ro-ny - The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.


Let's just wait and see. Won't be much longer and we'll see who was right and who was wrong. But it's obvious your opinions won't be swayed by the 'lies' of the mainstream press whenever they report anything that proves you wrong.

Like the chemical suits.
Or the rockets.
Or the use of civilians dress.
Or the terrorist style attacks.
Or the terrorists themselves.
Or the chemical plants they already found with Scud missles inside them... etc, etc, etc..

After all, I'm sure you can prove the Iraqi's use Scuds to spray their fields for locusts. It's probably in the Quran somewhere.


If everything that is contrary to your believes is 'lies', then I guess you can never be wrong. Good position guys. Still.. I think you will be OVERWHELMINGLY proven wrong. Even YOU won't be able to deny the facts. It's already borderline and I can't wait for the huge pile of facts about Saddam from the Iraqi people themselves that will come out after they take Baghdad.

Better prepare for it now Futuro, Suspicious, Chyran. It's coming. And then I want to make sure you realize that your positions, your INCORRECT positions, was a huge contribution, if not the cause of the deaths of those people. All you HAD to do was back up the president and it wouldn't have gotten to this point. Saddam would have been forced to back down. But your rhetoric turned this into a hugely dangerous 'game'.

Yes. I am blaming YOU. Because it's true.


Don't take it personal.. after all.. the facts aren't all in yet. Sure as hell is playing out EXACTLY as predicted though. Not too hard to see where it's going to end up.

[Borscht]

Thank god the founding fathers weren't liberals! Oh wait... they were...
Heh heh, this is rich. Conservative and Liberal are relative terms, which have no objective definition outside the context of application.

Had the Founders been Conservative in the context of their time, they would have fought to preserve monarchy and the traditions associated with it. These being the mainstream traditions of their ancestral cultures.

In the context of *our* age, Conservatives conserve the progressive (in the historical context of *their* time) principles of the Founding Fathers. I.E. limited government, the God-given right to self-determination, the primacy of the rule of law.

Modern liberalism seeks to "progressively" move beyond these assumptions, and attain equality of outcome through the force and control of a powerful central government. Which ironically is a move back in the direction of monarchy; hardly progressive in the context of all human history.

Modern liberals also embrace the idea that morality is purely subjective...and that any belief or culture has identical moral weight as any other. Thereby rejecting the rule of law; law being merely the codification of commonly held moral beliefs.

By making this ludicrous statement, you reveal that you are totally without clue. But anyone who would defend the clueless is obviously one of their number.

You must think that a Soviet conservative and an American conservative hold identical beliefs. When in fact they would, while both being conservative, hold diametrically opposite views. For each seeks to conserve the opposite of the other.

A Soviet conservative, and an American liberal, share identical sympathies.

One of the few people using their brains here is Futuro.
Unfortunately, he's using them to dilate his anus. Which is where he keeps his head, most days.

[Mr. Suspicious]

Like the chemical suits.
Or the rockets.
Or the use of civilians dress.
Or the terrorist style attacks.
Or the terrorists themselves.
Or the chemical plants they already found with Scud missles inside them... etc, etc, etc..


There you go again, believing "rumours" spread via the media that simply aren't true. These rumours are being spread in the morning, keep getting repeated and repeated during the day and after midnight somewhere around 2am, a small rectification is being released stating the previous statements were either not true or cannot be confirmed.



Like the chemical suits.


Not confirmed



Or the rockets.


US: 3.000 rockets daily for the past week, Iraqi: 6 in the same timeframe. (You must be forgetting that THEY are being invaded and are simply defending themselves)



Or the use of civilians dress.


Unconfirmed



Or the terrorist style attacks.


It's called: "underground resistance", where civilians resort to violence to fight the invader (read your history, in your own words, the founding fathers would be "terrorists" viewed from the kingdom's point of view)



Or the terrorists themselves.


You mean the cell in North Iraqi, the ones Saddam was using chemical weapons on? The ones the US forces now are also fighting? Please review the data there and see that there is NO link between terrorists and Saddam.



Or the chemical plants they already found with Scud missles inside them... etc, etc, etc..


Rumor, non proven, denied official by all military spokespeople. There haven't been found any chemical plants and most likely there never will be any found (simply because there aren't any left after 1992)

It's so silly to see people that believe everything they have been lied about and even defend those lies... makes you wonder about the future of humanity.

Simply put, you are not using your own brain, but simply digest whatever the media is feeding you (a very small subset of information, heavilly colorred by Propaganda), and take it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even if it is such simply and transparant lies.

[cryptorad]

Suspicious..

I was gonna let it go.. but I just couldn't. Here's a point for point for you.

Chemical suits.

Confirmed and broadcast live on TV.

Rockets.

Their rockets have flown OVER Kuwait and INTO the gulf. Much farther then they were supposed to. Call 'em any damn thing you like but don't call 'em legal by UN rules.. okie?

Civilian dress.

They've caught 'em red handed. And hundreds of people, including reporters, have seen the 'civilians' shooting at them. The ones captured had their uniforms under their civvies. The stacks of uniforms they found in 'hospitals' and the like must mean they were warm and wanted to streak to you.

Terroist style attacks.

Car bombing, attacking civilians, using civilians as shields, wearing civilian clothes while fighting, pretending surrender to trick US soldiers into range and ambushing, pretending to need help and then ambushing and execution of POW's (Yes.. I know execution isn't confirmed officially, but I saw the tape myself. If you 'use your brain', and have any real world experience, you realize that you can't hit someone between the eyes except one lucky shot in 10,000. Of course.. I'm sure to 'your brain' the Iraqi's are just the best shots in the history of warfare. To my brain, that's ridiculous and they did what they always do, executions.) Total violation of Geneva convention rules. Period.

Terrorist themselves.

Saddam has been training / threatening terrorist attacks against enemies for 15 years now. Jesus.. do some homework, HE says this.. not us. We just report it.

Chemical plants with rockets.

Chemical plants ARE proven and were found. They just haven't been proven / confirmed to be chemical WEAPONS plants. Of course, to anyone using their brain, why would you have rockets inside a regular chemical plant? I suppose when you 'use your suspicious brain' you conclude the Iraqi's use missles to treat their crops. I conclude something else.

And I suppose Saddams' son in law who defected with the proof of the VX development in 1995 (slightly after your 1992 believes) who subsequently returned to Iraq and his family and was KILLED. That was just lies and rumors too. So sayeth the left wing gods you worship. God.. your gullible.

And the atropine injectors were for.. er.. cardiac problems.. YEAH.. that's it.. cardiac problems!!

More lies and rumors right?? I suppose you didn't see the live broadcast of those either.. right??

Simply put.. you have your head and 'brain' in the sand Mr. Suspicious. You really need to change your moniker to Mr. Gullible if you can see all of this reported by ALL our news organizations live and STILL deny it. All the while creating an environment that emboldens tyrants to continue their lies and oppression of their people because they have folks like you marching around supporting them. Makes me wonder about the future of humanity.

Difference between us is that it also emboldens me to be MORE careful.. and more observant because people like you are around. And you are a danger to yourself and my family. So .. I just HAVE to reply to you in hopes that when you are undeniably totally proven wrong so there is NO POSSIBLILITY to deny it as 'lies' and 'rumors' and 'propaganda' .. I just hope that then some of my words will burn in you and maybe.. JUST maybe... make you WAKE up.

I have no help for you Suspicious.. like I said. Wait for it. It's coming. Anyone using their brain can see it; to quote someone from this thread.


G'day mate! ;)

[Borscht]

There you go again, believing "rumours" spread via the media that simply aren't true.
Like the NASA moon landing...that never really happened either, it was all a big media conspiracy and really was staged on a Hollywood set in Burbank.

Heh heh, right.

But *you* know the real truth, right? You have some special source to the real truth, that the pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-Republican, pro-Conservative world media is hiding from us.

*yawn*

Where the hell do all these pinheads come from?

[Borscht]

Of course, to anyone using their brain, why would you have rockets inside a regular chemical plant?
Exactly right. Not to mention the military unit surrounding the heavily camaflouged installation. And the General inside it.

Just like here in the States. Go to any DuPont chemical plant, we always have Generals running them, and army platoons outside, right?

You really need to change your moniker to Mr. Gullible if you can see all of this reported by ALL our news organizations live
And not just our news organizations, but also the BBC, Canadian Television, and other organizations not known for their pro-American or pro-war positions.

There is no use though in arguing with "True Believers" like Mr. Suspicious. Based on the things he's writing, he has long ago given up any semblence of objective thought. There's no profit in arguing with fools.

Moronic losers like him criticized America for not "connecting the dots" and predicting or preventing the 911 attack. And now they, in their obtuse partisan refusal, cannot even connect the most obvious relationships.

[Lyroschen]

Since you brought up 911.....

What if?....

...the FBI knew about the inteded hijackings?
...they knew about the intended targets?
...they let the 2 planes hit the twin towers?
...they shot down the plane intended for the White House?

Then...

...they would already know where to pick up the culprits, and would have them in-hand in a matter of hours, but not want the press to know they'd already caught them.
...they'd have no trouble finding a car containing Arabic flight manuals in a huge airport parking lot in a matter of minutes, and without searching any other vehicles.
...they could monitor the cell phones of those folks during the plan to hijack, before the planes left the ground, and would know who and where in Florida was orchestrating everything.
...the debate in Congress about what to do with the social security surplus would be ended.
...there would be sufficient support for the President to "declare war on terrorism".
...the president would have sufficient "activity" during his term to leverage himself for re-election.
...hostility towards their whole race would help smoothe over opposition against a police action (or war) in Iraq.

In short, allowing all of those deaths and fear into the US as a result of the 911 incident empowered our government on many levels. They gained support for actions they could never get in the past. Preventing the bombing of the World Trade Center many years earlier didn't generate the kind of fear and hostility that allowing the towers to be destroyed accomplished.

but, I'm just playing devil's advocate. <g>

[cryptorad]

Here.. I can't say it any better then this.

<snip>

March 28, 2003 7:30 a.m.
History or Hysteria?


Instantly televised images are broadcast with no in-depth analysis. A national television audience sighs and cheers second-to-second — not unlike the mercurial Athenians lined up on the shore of the Great Harbor at Syracuse, who in dejection and euphoria watched their fleet lose, win, and lose in the sea battle against the Sicilians.

But rather than trying to digest and analyze the tempo of battle, our vulture pundits instead regurgitate rumor and buzz — which are usually refuted by the next minute’s events. The subtext throughout seems to be disappointment that the war so far has lasted seven rather than two days.

Reporters at the beginning of the week were hysterically railing that Basra — cut off and surrounded — was not yet taken. A voice on NPR told us that after three days there would be “no food or water” — as if we had not cut off the power, water, and bridges at Baghdad in 1991 for 44 days, as if Marines getting shot at had electricity in the field. Things happen in war. Surely a temporary interruption in service is not so high a price to pay for lasting freedom.

I flipped the channel. Another pundit was lamenting that we were outnumbered by the Republican Guard; 1,000 planes with the best pilots in the world apparently don’t compute in his strategic calculus. Yet another philosopher worried that we “were angering the Arab street” — as if anger does not naturally rise in war. He should have asked why a German public that hated us in 1941 did not do so in 1945. Not to be outdone, another expert — wrong in the past on everything in Afghanistan — smugly announced that in five days of war “everything has gone wrong!”

Have these people any intelligence or shame?

Casualties, POWs, and skyrocketing costs blanket the airwaves; rarely mentioned is the simple military fact that in a single week, a resolute American pincer column has driven across Iraq and is now systematically surrounding Baghdad — and with far fewer killed than were lost in a single day in Lebanon. When American soldiers move decisively against terrorists and killers in the Middle East, they have a far greater chance of surviving than they do sitting in their barracks as living targets under “rules of engagement.”

In disgust at the hysteria, I took a drive to Washington to the National Cathedral on Sunday. Big mistake. All except one of the entrances were closed due to security concerns. I walked in under the wonderful sculptures of Frederick Hart, an authentic American genius who almost single-handedly restored classical realism to American sculpture. A small statue of a kneeling Lincoln, who sent thousands into battle to eradicate slavery, was in the corner. A plaque of quotations from Churchill, about the need for sacrifice in war, was on the wall. So I was feeling somewhat good again — until I heard the pious sermon on “shock and awe.” In pompous tones the minister was deprecating the war effort, calling down calumnies upon the administration, and alleging the immoral nature of our nation at war.

Such a strange man at such a strange time, I thought. His entire congregation, by its own admission, is in danger from foreign terrorists (why else bar the gates?). His church is itself a monument to the utility of force for moral purposes. His own existence as a free-speaking, freely worshiping man of God is possible only thanks to the United States military — whose present mission he was openly deriding at the country’s national shrine.

All these people need to calm down, take a deep breath, and read their history — computing the logistics of fighting 7,000 miles away and considering the hurdles of vast space, unpredictable weather, and enemies without uniforms. And? In just a week, the United States military has surrounded one of history’s most sadistic and nasty regimes. It has overrun 80 percent of the countryside and has daily pulverized the Republican Guard, achieving more in five days than the Iranians did in eight years.

Twenty-four hours a day, thousands of tankers and supply trucks barrel down long, vulnerable supply lines, quickly and efficiently. There is no bridge too far for these long columns. One-hundred percent air superiority is ours. There is not a single Iraqi airplane in the sky. Enemy tanks either stay put or are bombed. Kurds and Shiites really will soon start to be heard. Seven oil wells are on fire (with firefighters on the scene) — no oil slicks, no attacks on Israel. Kuwait City is not aflame. “Millions” of refugees fleeing into Syria and Jordan have not materialized. Even Peter Arnett is no longer parroting the Iraqi government claims of ten million starving and has moved on to explain why the Iraqis were equipped with chemical suits — to protect Saddam’s killers from our WMDs!

Few, if any, major bridges in Iraq have been blown; there are no mass uprisings in Saddam’s favor. The Tikrit mafia fights as the SS did in the craters of Berlin, facing as it does — and within weeks — either a mob’s noose, a firing squad, or a dungeon. Through 20,000 air sorties, no jets have been shot down; there is nothing to stop them from flying another 100,000. They fly in sand, in lightning, high, low, day, night, anywhere, anytime. Supplies are pouring in. Saddam’s regime is cut off and its weapons will not be replenished. This is not North Vietnam, with Chinese and Russian ships with daily re-supply in the harbor of Haiphong. British and Americans, with courageous Australians as well, are fighting as a team without even the petty rivalry of a Montgomery and Bradley.

Our media talks of Saddam’s thugs and terrorists as if they were some sort of Iraqi SAS. Meanwhile, the real thing — scary American, British, and Australian Special Forces — is causing havoc to Saddam’s rear guard. In short, for all the tragedy of a fragging, Iraqi atrocities, misdirected cruise missiles, and the usual cowardly antics inherent to our enemy’s way of war, the real story is not being reported: A phenomenal march against overwhelming logistical, material, and geographical odds in under seven days has reached and surrounded Saddam Hussein’s capital.

At home there have been none of the promised terrorist attacks. A supportive public — stunned by initial losses, now angered by atrocities — is growing more, not less, fervent, determined not merely to defeat but to destroy utterly the Baathists. The Arab world snickers that we cannot take casualties; the American public is instead growing impatient to inflict more of them — and is probably already well to the right of the Bush administration. We are a calm and forgiving people, but executing prisoners, fighting in civilian clothes, and using human shields will soon draw a response too terrible to contemplate.

Just as unusual has been American ad hoc logistical flexibility. Saudi Arabia caved early on — and we moved to other Gulf states. Turkey caved late — and we went ahead with a single thrust. France connived both early and late — and they are quiet. Russia, as the Soviets of old, proved duplicitous in ways that we are just learning — and it made no difference. Indeed, their night-vision equipment and GPS jammers will help Saddam no more than did the German-built bunker he was bombed in.

We should recall that in the first Gulf War we bombed for over 44 days. Critics in 1991 by day 10 were complaining because after the first few nights’ pyrotechnics, Saddam’s army had not crumbled. In turn, earlier swaggering air-advocates had promised victory in three weeks — only to be unjustly slandered that they had failed to end the war in six. Gulf War I is considered a great victory; it required 48 days of air and ground attacks by an enormous coalition to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Our present attempt, with half the force, seeks to end Saddam Hussein altogether — and on day 7 already had him cut off, trapped, and besieged.

In the campaign against Belgrade, the ebullience was gone by day 10 when Milosevic remained defiant. By the fifth week, criticism was fierce and calls for an end to the bombing widespread. On day 77, Milosevic capitulated — and no critics stepped forward to confess that their gloom and doom had been misplaced. Does anyone recall the term “quagmire,” used of Afghanistan after the third week — and how prophets of doom promised enervating stasis, only days later to see a chain of Afghan cities fall? Yet no armchair doom-and-gloom generals were to be found when the Taliban ran and utterly confounded their pessimism. Our talking heads remind me of the volatility of the Athenian assembly, ready to laud or execute at a moment’s notice.

The commentators need to listen to history. By any fair standard of even the most dazzling charges in military history — the German blast through the Ardennes in spring 1940, or Patton’s romp in July — the present race to Baghdad is unprecedented in its speed and daring, and in the lightness of its causalities. We can nit-pick about the need for another armored division, pockets of irregulars, a need to mop up here and there, plenty of hard fighting ahead, this and that. But the fact remains that, so far, the campaign has been historically unprecedented in getting so many tens of thousands of soldiers so quickly to Baghdad without losses — and its logistics will be studied for decades.

Indeed, the only wrinkle is that our present military faces cultural obstacles never envisioned by an Epaminondas, Caesar, Marlborough, Sherman — or any of the other great marchers. A globally televised and therapeutic culture puts an onus on American soldiers that could never have been envisioned by any of the early captains. We treat prisoners justly; our enemy executes them. We protect Iraqi bridges, oil, and dams — from Iraqi saboteurs. We must treat Iraqi civilians better than do their own men, who are trying to kill them. Our generals and leaders take questions; theirs give taped propaganda speeches. Shock and awe — designed not to kill but to stun, and therefore to save civilians — are slurred as Hamburg and Dresden. The force needed to crush Saddam’s killers is deemed too much for the fragile surrounding human landscape. Marines who raise the Stars and Stripes are reprimanded for being too chauvinistic. And on, and on, and on.

When this is all over — and I expect it will be soon — besides a great moral accounting, I hope that there will deep introspection and sober public discussion about the peculiar ignorance and deductive pessimism on the part of our elites. In the meantime, all we can insist on is absolute and unconditional surrender — no peace process, no exit strategy, no U.N. votes, no Arab League parley, no EU expressions of concern, no French, no anything but our absolute victory and Saddam’s utter ruin. Unlike in 1991, commanders in the field must be given explicit instructions from the White House about negotiations: There are to be absolutely none — other than the acceptance of unconditional surrender.

Victor Davis Hanson

[futuro]

Originally posted by cryptorad
Hey Futuro I have a question for you.

1) There are reports from Iraqi's that have surrendered that Al Qaeda operatives are in Basrah causing all that trouble.

First of all, I'd shy away from "reports" until they're actually documented as true. People make up a lot of shit.

Anyway, let's assume they are. What does this prove? Does it prove Al Queda is there with the approval of Saddam or that they'd be there anyway, for an opportunity to pinprick Uncle Sam? Does it prove that AQ is there for this express purpose of supporting Saddam or would they off him, given a clean shot? Does it prove that Saddma asked them to come or are they there in spite of Saddam's wishes? You can't draw any conclusions from their presence, can you?

It certainly doesn't prove a link to 9/11/01, does it?


2) There is another report that Iraqi's in full chemical suits were filmed while unloading 55 gallon drums from trucks today near some military positions south of Baghdad. Gotta love zoom lenses.

"reports, reports, reports..." They trumpet the "report", then later, quietly they report that the "report" turned out to be "pre-mature".


Are you ready to delete the "Futuro" moniker and create a new account? I'm just curious if you will cut and run, or if you have the guts to stand behind all your posts and accept the 'forum' abuse, I think you are going to get, when this all solidifies EXACTLY as you have been told it would.

Abuse? What abuse? :D

And when did you see the future? You've very confident that the US can succeed in this invasion. Where you that confident about Viet Nam in 1963? It's one thing to kick a country's army out of another country. It's quite another to invade a country. Even people who hate their leader, but defend their homes. I'd be willing to bet that had Russia invaded in 1998 to oust Clinton, you'd be pretty pissed at them, and might have taken up arms against them.

[Cryonic]

I don't think Vietnam is a good comparison (especially using 1963 as the year) since we initially only sent advisors into the country to help one regime over the communists/rebels. It took quite a few years to build up to our peak of 500,000 troops. It also didn't help that we had politicians making military decisions (like leaving Hanoi and other cities alone) since that let the N Vietnamese build-up and stockpile weapons for the army.

[cryptorad]

Jeez Futuro,

Well.. I'll bet you a thousand dollars we win Iraq. Winning equals occupying Baghdad, Basra and the smaller cities and reducing the dissidents to just one sniping/terrorist attack a day or so. Hell... I'll even throw in a requirement for me that the Iraqi's have to have ONE genuine celebration for our troops when Saddam and company are gone for good. Just let me know if you are in. That's how sure I am I can 'predict THIS future'.

Nam.. let's not go there. But I find it interesting you'd compare the two. That just proves, to me, you don't know what your talking about here. ;) But I think if we had wanted to defeat N. Vietnam.. SERIOUSLY.. we could have. We wouldn't have ended the terrorist attacks for a long, long time but the large scale military actions we could have stopped by cutting off their supplies. Something we NEVER ever did. And it would have been something we would have done if we were really at war. Find me a military historian that disagrees and I might reconsider. Our biggest problem with Vietnam was the protestors here at home. Which, coincidentally, is my problem with your opinions so you see the similarities there I hope. Let's put it this way. After Nixon said enough is enough at the end... several weeks of B 52 bombing made the leadership of N. Vietnam do a 180 on their position. That was the ONLY time the gloves were off where those bombers were concerned. And it had immediate and dire consequences for the N. Vietnamese. We just had SOO many tools at our disposal and we never used them. Hell.. we never even really fought in a way that made sense at all. Total waste of good troops by political dickheads.. is my opinion.

Well.. your right about the 'reports' though. We'll just have to wait and see. Although.. I suspect I can predict the future of this one. And so can you.. I suspect. Suffice it to say we both know Saddam is guilty of all the charges. You want undeniable proof before you admit to anything (and even then you deny some of it.. I think) and I know that out of the 100 or so various charges against the regime.. enough will be proven to be more then I need for justification for this action against him.

Keep watching the news .. but some people will not be swayed no matter what. Look at Peter Arnett. LOL. Now there is a career down the drain if I ever saw one. Well.. not true. I suspect he can find work at any number of left wing countries. Maybe even a few Arab states will have him now. Al Jazeerah needs a new Wall Street reporter I hear. ;)

[board Lizard]

It's quite another to invade a country. Even people who hate their leader, but defend their homes.

Yeah.. with us having about 50% control of the country there sure are a lot of civilians rising up to fight us and all..

idiot.

[Borscht]

with us having about 50% control of the country there sure are a lot of civilians rising up to fight us and all
Quite right! In fact, of the civilians "rising up" that I've seen it was primarily scuffling over who was going to be first to get the water shipment. That US military troops were delivering to them.

No surprise, considering that since Saddam's takeover and nationalization of Iraq's former capitalist concerns, over 60% of the population requires food assistance.

It used to be difficult to comprehend where Futuro, Chyran, et al were coming from. How people could actually embrace such delusions. But recently it all comes clear to me.

These are not "predictions" they are making, or lucid analysis of existing facts.

These are the things they *want* to happen, that they *wish* to see. Because these things would fit their leftist fantasy of how the world *should* be.

Millions of civilians are not dying due to our attack, but the *oughtta* be. They are not rising up against us, but they *should* be. We may not be bogged down in our efforts, but we *should* be if it was a just world.

Leftists cannot let go their fantasy, their utopian impossibility, that "worker's paradise" where they can slouch around like union slackers but enjoy the same lifestyle as a 100 hour a week corporate executive.

When you realize that they are merely fleshing out that hallucinatory fantasy of theirs, and not analyzing fact and truth, it becomes less abrasive when you read their prattle.

[Kimbler]

I'd be willing to bet that had Russia invaded in 1998 to oust Clinton,you'd be pretty pissed at them

Heck No and besides they would not have had to invade....just assemble a couple babes and box of cigars and he would follow them back to Moscow....so far he and his minions have not been able to rewrite history .....if they don't he will in time go down as the worst US President in history and the greatest asset the conservatives ever had. Well he is already the greatest asset to the conservatives.....no single individual did more to help our side...I hope he stays around and continues to talk his trash.

[Borscht]

I'd be willing to bet that had Russia invaded in 1998 to oust Clinton,you'd be pretty pissed at them
Heh heh. Whenever I see these flawed analogies stretched beyond all comprehension, I just laugh.

But I started thinking about this one. What if we take it, stupid as it is, and frame it within the actual reality of the Iraqi conflict?

<puts on the Karaoke version of John Lennon's "Imagine" for background ambience>

The Russians, moral authority of the planet and only global superpower, connect Democratic National Committee operatives with the development and deployment of Weapons of Mass Obstruction.

Citing their use of these weapons on their very own citizens (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, etc.) in the past, they now condemn the Senate's continued use of WMO's against current judges and others.

They also cite the vicious repression of private property through anti-smoking propaganda, anti-religious expression ordinances, and the pervasive character assassination campaigns through the state-sponsored media...particularly ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.

In the first assault, a bunker-buster bomb is dropped on a small building on the outskirts of DC, killing Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Bonyer, and former president Carter. The ladies-of-the-night nearby were shaken but unscathed.

Decimating the Anti-Republican Guard forces stationed throughout New York and other major media centers, freedom is returned to the American airwaves. The entire Democratic party apparatus is arrested, tried for war crimes, and sentenced. Peter Arnett, the CNN executive staff, and various ABC execs are executed for sedition and war crimes.

Although American opinion was hostile during the first stages of the invasion, several years later after the rebuilding of the American Media with the assistance of Fox News Network; and the restoration of traditional Constitutional Principles, the people hail Russia as a liberator.

The Dow broke 20,000 this morning. Unemployment is virtually non-existent, and the nation is at peace for the first time since the early sixties.

Roe-v-Wade has been overturned, and the abortion issue returned to the various state legislatures where it belongs, ending decades of divisive internal contention.

Imagine....

[Grae1]

Honestly,

I have NO doubts we will win, hell its like a German shepard (Sorry FREEDOM Shepard to all those newly anti-europe crusaders out there, and I'm not making that up BTW, I actually saw it advertised where I live.) vs. a pug.

Its a forgone conclusion..

But do I think we should be there doing it?

No.

There are NO proven links between Iraqi leadership and good ol AQ.

The AQ leadership is VERY anti Saddam, however... they are even MORE Anti USA.

I simply don't see what this is going to get us..

It doesn't "increase saftey" at all.
It doesn't "Increase the stabilty of the Middle East."

Do I think Saddam is a good man? HELL NO
Do I think Saddam should be removed from power? HELL YES.

But not by us.. the tools are there, the Kurds, the Other muslim groups that DON'T like Saddam at all. We failed them back when they rose up and we did nothing..

We could have funded them, hell we did it in Central America.. but instead we invade?

Sorry.. something stinks here..

The Conservative people sit around and point out how we are winning, how great our military is, how this prooves everything our president says, etc.

The liberals sit around and bemoan the fact we ARE winning, see the end of whatever it is they see, etc.


All I see is a damn sad situation a man I don't like much got us into.

Who wants to make a bet that Iraq won't be the end of this? any notice the comments about Syria and Iran lately?

Hrmm.. US wins in Iraq, controls the 2nd largest Oil fields in the ME. Which means, that if there WAS an Opec embargo, we would be barely effected by it due to the Iraqi oil. and 2 more targets in Bushs sights...


I'm prolly talking out my ass here.. But it worries me.. alot.

[Alwayslost]

Grae1,

I can very much sympathize with what you are saying. But the only way that the people of Iraq COULD rise up and successfully overthrow Saddam's regeime, would be to have a repeat of the problems in Afganistan. We would have to supply EVERY possible freedom fighter with chem suits and training, and armaments, etc. Even then, the numbers of pointless deaths would be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, not to mention even MORE civilian deaths, ALONG with the political ramifications.

Remember, the people trying to fight for their own freedom is WHY Saddam used WMD on his own people. He has spent about 30 years doing NOTHING BUT fortifying his power and personal wealth. Trying to take him out of power in ANY way other than simple brute force will prove about as successful as the sanctions did at preventing French, Chineese, Syrian, and Russian military sales to Saddam's regeime.

Yes, war sucks. But there are times when it really is the last option. No, I don't EVER see Saddam and Osama Bin Laden ever in the same room shaking hands and talking about sports scores. But BOTH are more than happy to deal with arms dealers if the price is right and their individual goals/Ideals are met.

If Saddam was let off the hook at any point, then he would have gotten to the point of surplus, at which point he would have begun to trade those WMD on the Black market to get OTHER items he wanted...

Before anyone starts asking for proof and what not... Yes this is conjecture, but history has a REAL nasty habit of repeating itself... Saddam has already PROVEN without a doubt that he patterns himself and his rise to power to that of Stalin, an expansionist that was MORE than ruthless in his ambitions and goals. The attempted taking of Kuwait was just the beginning of Saddam's ambitions. This was obvious to the rest of the world, which is why the global reaction (UN) was instantaneous.

Now, with the existance of the UN Security council having 3 of the 5 veto votes on the (effective) PAYROLL of Saddam, there is no way that ANY resolution approving force would EVER have happened. Saddam KNEW this and had planned for it. China, France, and Russia (not to mention N.Korea) all NEED the deep pockets of Saddam Hussein, with him gone they will not (well, France and Russia) sell their military surplus at excessive prices to support their governments.

With the economy of Iraq in the hands of a Representative (of the people, for the people) government, they are FAR more likely to spend their money on civil improvements and Civil DEFENSE, and the individual population will have more money for luxury goods. Neither of which will Russia or France benefit from... China... we'll see.

For all those that just -Choose- to ignore the simple truth that "Great power comes with great responsability" I can only say this: It is brutally obvious that you have led a pampered life and have never had the "LUXURY" of your choices endangered. You seem convinced that SOMEONE ELSE (some other country) will fight to protect your freedom... Well let me help you out with a little clue. If you don't support those that are willing to, or are not willing to fight for your own freedom, you don't deserve that freedom.

[puppet]

Grae1

I think you are getting caught up in the propaganda that is being distributed (both sides do it of course) Alwayslost address one point very well. Even if the people of Iraq did raise up against Saddam the losses would be staggering. The battle would be as one sided as the current conflict between the US military and Saddam. And just like most recent wars the civilians casualties would probably outnumber the military deaths.

I think the Administration did itself a great disservice by trying to tie Saddam to AQ. I often wonder if they have more intelligence about this link than they are making public. But even if that was the case they should not have made such a big stance on this link if they could not provide the evidence. However it is beyond doubt that Saddam supports Terrorist. You can look at his regime for starters, they use terrorist methods. You can also look at the money (25K I think) that he provides to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber. I do believe once the War is over that more evidence will be found that tie Saddam to AQ. Also don’t rely to much on the argument that Bin Laden would not associate with Saddam since Bin Laden believes Saddam to be an infidel. Bin Laden hates the US more than anyone but he had no problems dealing with us for support when they were fighting against Russia.

I think you are 100% correct, Iraq wont be the end of this but we had to do something. Please don’t think this is about Oil. It was not about Oil when we went into Central America, it was not about Oil when we went into Somalia. And it most defiantly was not about Oil when we sent our troops into Kosovo to help the Muslims there. And America will not control the Oil fields in Iraq, in fact contrary to your statement it is likely that Iraq will join OPEC. You might also want to research how the UN dropped the ball in Kosovo also. You might want to read about how we acted in Kosovo without UN approval at first.



All I see is a damn sad situation a man I don't like much got us into.


Don’t let partisan politics sway your mind here. I understand if you don’t like George Bush but don’t let your dislike of him cloud your vision. The current President of the USA did not start this War, this is just a continuation of Desert Storm. Also don’t let the Democratic party’s anti-war stance confuse you, they are only playing politics. Can you tell me who the following quotes are from below.

“Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”


Full article can be found here (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/12/17/70745)


"Look, we have exhausted, virtually, our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?"

Full article can be found here (http://kyl.senate.gov/c091302.htm)



The first quote is from a Presidential Address given by William Clinton in 1998. The second is a statement by Mr. Daschle in 1998 while a Democrat was in office. You will notice that both seem to be pro-war at this time and Clinton even mentions “Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs”.

The links I gave you were just the first ones that I found. If you would like to you can search the government archives and find the address mentioned. And just to prove one other point, some people believe that William Clinton was waging the War in Iraq in order to obtain Oil, silly huh?

Clintons War for Oil (http://www.flash.net/~comvoice/DWV18.html)

*edit* had to change the dates

[Grae1]

You have to admit, theres a fair amout of diffrence between bombing suspected sites, and invading a country with the stated goal of overthrowing its government. *heH*

I guess I just haven't been "sold" on this war.. and yes.. I do FEEL I need to be. I'm just one of those people..*shrug* I rarely trust anyone I don't know well.. so that pretty much rules out 99.9% of the politicans on both sides.

Bush has always annoyed me for reasons I can't put my finger on.. its just one of those personal things. Sorta like that guy in class I never wanted to hang around with cause he just annoyed the hell out of me..

What bothers me the most about this war though.. is the effect its having on World Opinion of the US.

Now I know, I can hear some of you thinking "Who gives a damn! USA ALL THE WAY! We don't need them!"


Your wrong though.. the world is a MUCH more global place than you may think, and economic ties run deep.. and in many ways we NEED the rest of the world.

I see a small but growing anti-americanism feeling growing in many many parts of the world. It MAY not amount to anything, but whats got me more worried is if it does.

Just to say it, (since I'm sure some have already decided this.) I'm a regestered Republican. But as time goes on I'm leaning more and more independant. I've become rather unhappy with the Republican partys super conservative bent as of late.

"USA love it or get out!"
"If your Anti-War your Anti American!"


Um.. no..

Patriotism does not equal blind obediance

I'm an American.. and one of my rights is to free will, and to freely express those ideas, and thoughts. You may think I'm wrong, you MAY think I'm going to hell cause I disagree with the President (And yes, I've actually been told that as well btw *heH*)

So yeah.. I don't like this war, and yeah.. Saddam is a bad guy no arguement there..

But...

There are many many other tyrants out there..
Many of those Tyrants have murdered as many or more of thier own people than Saddam.
We have never even blinked at them before.. so why Iraq.. why now? You can call it "liberation".. but for me.. it doesn't add up right..

[puppet]

You have to admit, theres a fair amout of diffrence between bombing suspected sites, and invading a country with the stated goal of overthrowing its government.”


Of course there is a large difference. But you have to remember that 5 years have passed since then and Saddam is still in breach of the UN resolution 1441. Things have gotten worse in Iraq vs better. I don’t really see any option that is left open.



I guess I just haven't been "sold" on this war.. and yes.. I do FEEL I need to be. I'm just one of those people..*shrug* I rarely trust anyone I don't know well.. so that pretty much rules out 99.9% of the politicans on both sides.


If you rarely trust anyone you don’t know then no amount of information of facts will change that.



What bothers me the most about this war though.. is the effect its having on World Opinion of the US.


Look at the worlds opinion about the USA before the War in Iraq. Many countries hate us, we had a small break after the 9-11 attacks but those type of movements never last. I believe that we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t. If the USA did nothing and Iraq was able to invade another country or launch an attack on us our allies the USA would be blamed for doing nothing. Look at the people who blamed the government for 9-11, they said the government was not protecting us.

You should also look at the reasons other governments might have for not going to War. Do you really think France, Germany, Russia and China oppose this war based on principles. Or do you think they are the ones who are willing to let civilians die for money. You have said yourself that Saddam is a bad guy, if you believe that then you probably know many of the atrocities that he has committed. Would you stand on the sidelines and do nothing while a country is raped from the inside. I am not naïve enough to think that America is perfect, and I know that we even supported Saddam during his War with Iran. And I don’t pretend to understand global politics but I feel that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do.

I also supported our President when we went into Kosovo without UN support. I remember reading the doom and gloom stories about Bosnia and I remember the condemnation that other countries hurled at us. Kosovo was not a popular action when it first started but I believe we did the right thing.



I see a small but growing anti-americanism feeling growing in many many parts of the world. It MAY not amount to anything, but whats got me more worried is if it does.


I believe that the people who hate America will continue to Hate us even after the War in Iraq. I firmly believe that some of the people in Iraq will thank the USA for a short time after the War. But as long as we support Israel I believe the Arab people will hate us. And I don’t believe we will ever abandon Israel (nor should we)



Patriotism does not equal blind obediance

I'm an American.. and one of my rights is to free will, and to freely express those ideas, and thoughts. You may think I'm wrong, you MAY think I'm going to hell cause I disagree with the President (And yes, I've actually been told that as well btw *heH*)


As an American your right if not your duty is to question the Government. This War brings to the surface very deep feelings. I have seen people on both sides say some very questionable things, but always try to take a step back and understand where they are coming from. I do believe that now that our troops are in harms way it should not matter if you are anti-war or pro-war, you should do everything to ensure that they know we support them. I have seen to many Anti-War protestors blaming our troops and even calling them murders. I think the Anti-War movement has gotten a black eye since most of the people protesting have no idea what’s going on. Every anti-war protest that I have seen does a few interviews and the vast majority of the people are complete crack heads. Of course the pro-war people have their village fools also, just like you said.




There are many many other tyrants out there..
Many of those Tyrants have murdered as many or more of thier own people than Saddam.
We have never even blinked at them before.. so why Iraq.. why now? You can call it "liberation".. but for me.. it doesn't add up right..


Name another Tyrant in power now, who has done everything that Saddam has and to the same extent as he has. It seems many people have already forgot the lesson that 9-11 taught us. The world has changed, we are no longer safe just because we are the worlds only superpower. And if you believe we have never “blinked” at tyrants before you should defiantly do some research. You can lookup a few South America tyrants, a few Warlords in Somalia, And a tyrant in Kosovo who was doing a little ethnic cleansing.

I would write more but I am going home now, have a nice evening. I would be interested to read what you think we should do.

[Joe Blow]

Gee... I wonder if the fact that France, Russia, and China have been selling Iraq weapons and equipment has anything to do with their anti-war stance.

[hhh]

> Also, I might point out that US citizens in general are quite suseptible to fantasy. We're the world capital of "creationism" something that you probably don't have mush experience with. I'd bet you'd be surpised that almost 1/2 of the US population thinks that some mysterious sky daddy created the world 6,000 years ago, and "destroyed" it with a flood. Yes, really, they think that's true!.... Amazing, isn't it?<

You know futuero, I wasn't gonna respond to this... but

Surely your not taking a shot at our very own ancesters who came to this country for what reason? THATS RIGHT Freedom of religion!

BTW.. when it comes to religion, its really very simple. There are those people who "get it", and those who dont. It will be very clear to tell the difference at some unforseen time in the future.

[Yueh]

Surely your not taking a shot at our very own ancesters who came to this country for what reason? THATS RIGHT Freedom of religion!

BTW.. when it comes to religion, its really very simple. There are those people who "get it", and those who dont. It will be very clear to tell the difference at some unforseen time in the future.


I hope you aren't referring to the puritans. As with all history, you have to make sure the facts aren't completely occluded by revisions of the historical account. The puritans came to America to remove themselves from the religious influence of England. They believed in an absolute hard line version of Christianity that pretty much required isolation to maintain a following. The Mormons did essentially the same thing some time later. Religious freedom was far from their mind. It was more accurately religious consolidation.

[Borscht]

Who wants to make a bet that Iraq won't be the end of this? any notice the comments about Syria and Iran lately?
That would be a sucker's bet. We're definitely going after Syria and Iran, and North Korea.

If you recall Bush's address to the nation post-911 this is exactly what he said.

We're not in a war with Iraq, we're in a war to exterminate terrorist groups with global reach and those regimes which fund and harbor them.

Iraq is simply battle number two in this war, and not the war itself.

[Lyroschen]

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

Edit: Just a warning... it's long.

[puppet]

That article is one of the most interesting articles I have ever read. It looks at our current situation in a way that I had never thought of, in fact that is the point of the article. It does not appear that the article was written for the average layperson since it covers concepts that I was not very familiar with but thank you for the link

[Yueh]

That article is awesome, thank you!

I think this particular quote from the end sums up his argument well (and vastly oversimplifies of course) as applicable to this thread:



Until they are willing to play by our rules, we must be prepared to play by theirs.


Please read the article before getting into an argument about who 'they' and 'we' are :)

[Lyroschen]

True, Yueh to an extent.

The article seems to center more on the idea that Iraq hasn't undergone the growth and development that leads to the development and creation of a viable state, and as such their potential threat dramatically exceeds any sense of responsibility or reality. In the past, their actions would have had them quickly destroyed, or at least occupied by neighbors with superior military might. But, our current global mentality about respecting the borders of recognized states has given them a sense of invulnerability.

Because of this sense, they are willing to do things that would normally be considered ludicrous. Allowing them to "get away" with such things would only encourage their illusions, and lead to even greater events of irrational behavior. However, any action taken is in direct opposition to our constructs of "polite society".

So, in order to address this "threat" we'll need to redefine our global policy as it pertains to such an entity. By doing so, we'll be defying many of the structures we already have in place -- as they pertain to this type of issue. Thus, we'd have to play by different rules. The quote about playing by their rules doesn't imply that we should use their tactics, only that we need to understand the irrationality of their environment and be willing to gain a victory in that environment. An example is that in Desert Storm, when we let Sadaam live, the fact that we devastated them militarily was not seen as a defeat in their eyes. It only served to foster Sadaam's sense of invulnerability, and make him even more zealot in his irrationality. In the article, the author indicates that our goal should be to bring Iraq closer to a sense of realism. At least that's how I read that part.

In a post in this thread, I mentioned that many nations see this event as a lead-in to the US becoming the world police. This article states that the US is the only entity currently in the world that could act alone in such a capacity. Additionally, it indicated that we would have to act in this capacity ONLY in such a fashion as to deter any new entrants into the "Nuclear Club", and to end any efforts by existing nuclear powers to misuse such power, or give it to current non-members. Regardless, it is apparent to me that some folks have found a loophole in the current political climate and have shown a willingness to exploit it. I suspect a world police will be the next major change in our foreign policy, but can only guess at the reach such a thing will gain.

I like analogies for helping to understand topics, and I've equated the following points to EQ. (hehe, Hay, at least it brings this thread into the scope of this forum.)

Iraq gaining WMD is much like someone buying their character on ebay. They have some powerful abilities, but no idea of when and where they should be used. The temptation to use them just to see what they can do is too great.

The security of having borders respected by the UN is not unlike power-levelling for your whole carreer. You never gain a true sense of your mortality or the consequences of your actions.

Iraq's appeal to the UN to save them sounds like a level 12 Ranger asking for a click-stick rez in Unrest 'cause he got too bold. "But I sold some high-quality bear skins and got this sword of skyfire. I should have been okay!"

Could prolly think of some more, but this post is too long, already. \\=^ )

p.s. I don't like to proof-read or run spell-checkers on my posts, so what you see is what you get. \\=^ )

[cryptorad]

This collapse of the well-ordered liberal system has come about exclusively from the side of the Islamic world. No other party has contributed to it. And the cause of this disruption is the lack of a sense of the realistic on the part of certain elements in the Islamic world. This is not a cultural judgment, but a fact - at least as much a fact as any such judgment can ever be. And this is the common thread that unites Iraq, Al Qaeda, and Palestinian terrorism.

Yet it would be to facile to reduce this lack of a sense of the realistic to some inherent flaw in Islam, either as a culture or a religion, or in Arabs as a race or as an ethnos. It arises from an altogether different source, and in order to understand the source of the problem, we need to go back to the writings of Karl Marx.


I have to totally disagree. I'm fairly certain that it IS Islam's inflexibility that has led to Arab conflict with modern world today. I could go on for hours about this very subject, and in fact I have just lately, but I don't feel it would do any good to try to write about it here. The information to be covered far exceeds what is possible to write here.

[Lyroschen]

I suspect the author was leading to the idea that any religion, culture, ethnos, or race presented with a similar circumstance would be as likely to contract a failed sense of the realistic. I can see where Islamic rigidity could be brought into play, but believe the end result would be the same regardless.

[johnbarbarian]

Well, all the discussion so far has been an interesting read.

Lets look at what has already happened and at another issue.....

Statements:
U.S. and British troops have decimated most of the Iraqi military force.
Those forces are now within sight of the capital.
The Iraqi plans to get the rest of the middle east into the fight have failed.
Iraq has absolutely no chance to stop the fall of the "regime".

Why do the political leaders of Iraq continue to push the military to delay what is inevitable? What are they doing with the small amount of time that the lives of their people are buying?

My thoughts are that they are either destroying evidence of crimes against humanity in order to keep what power they can. Or...
They are buying time to get themselves out of the country with as much money as possible.

Of course I could be wrong....

[Grae1]

I wouldn't say its Islam itself, you could very easyly throw the American Born Again Christian Movement in there as well.

I would say ANY "Polarized" religous movement can be put in there simply because religous faith is one thing that people can seem to convince themselves that nothing else matters.

And yes for the record I'm actually a practicing Catholic 8p
I honestly don't care if anyone belives what I belive, because hey.. they aren't me.

[Ataal]

....and we're going to hell anyway right?

[Lyroschen]

You're implying we're not already there, Ataal.

Personally, I believe there is value in religion, but current "organized" religious groups are a perversion of the intent they preach. But, maybe religion should be it's own off-topic thread.

\\=^ )

[Grae1]

Um.. no.. I never said anyone is going to hell.. Thats the higher power I choose to name God to decide 8) Not mine.

But yeah.. religon has some but not a lot to do with the current world situation.

[cryptorad]

Well.. I believe Ataal was very subtlely referring to something else. Something that I find as one of the major flaw's in Islam belief.

The fact that ALL non believers (Infidels.. IE.. all of us non Islam) are destined for hell. This has been determined and pre ordained and there is no chance for any of us to do anything other then go to hell.. regardless of our actions on this planet. We were placed on this planet by Allah, already destined for hell, to be a trial and tribulation for 'true believers'. To boil it down even further ... we are here for them to defeat and prove their 'worth' according to quite a few clerics of great influence.

Now granted only the extremist Muslim's are actually violently motivated by their 'clerics', but that number is sufficient to be a problem. And the fact that there is no ability to debate the situation with them because the believe is that we are little more then animals anyhow. With no place among the 'believers'.

Combine that with the blantant bold outright lies we witness on their official 'news' stations and it is EASY to see why there is a problem.

Remember.. Bin Laden declared war on the US partly because (according to HIS declaration of war) of the US atrocities of 'slaughtering innocent Muslims' in Kosovo. Isn't it ironic that in ALL the world and in all the UN... ONLY the United States was willing to actually go in and STOP that slaughter of Muslims. As soon as the issue was no longer in doubt.. the UN came roaring in to 'take over control' and 'ensure the peoples safety'. Yet Bin Laden declares war on us and blames us for the slaughter.

I'd laugh.. if it wasn't so sad and about to happen again.

I see the UN roaring into Iraq shortly to 'take over control' and 'ensure the Iraqi peoples safety'. I'm also sure there will be a whole rash of 'war declarations' on us for the atrocities we committed against the Iraqi people. And in reality, we were pretty much the ONLY ones who insisted on disarming the dictator/ tyrant and freeing the Iraqi people. Thank god some of our allies backed us up or we'd have probably been invaded by the rest of the world for this since it was SOOO evil.

Gee... history DOES repeat itself.

Of course.. I've actually wound up predicting. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.

[board Lizard]

But, maybe religion should be it's own off-topic thread

It is!! :)

http://seq.sourceforge.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3115

[Lyroschen]

Forgot about that thread. \\=^ )

[StarZman]

Getting back to the subject at hand..

http://troops.netbotics.com/

[Lyroschen]

Pretty cool. Thanks for the link. \\=^ )

[Ataal]

My going to hell comment was supposed to be kind of a poor attempt at humor. My appologies if it was taken in any other way.

[Lyroschen]

Nope, not Ataal.

[Joe Blow]

Why is it that when Europe can't handle problems like Kosovo, Bosnia, etc they have to escalate it to NATO to get the US involved? But when the US asks for help it causes a big division in Europe? Could the fact that France has been selling Iraq weapons and equipment have anything to do with their strong pro-Saddam stance? Of course not. My co-worker who is a French-Morrocan told me that France is afraid the world will find out how much business they've been doing with Iraq. We all already know Russia and China have been violating UN sanctions for some time. Those sneaky frogs try to turn their misdoings in their favor. What's up with Chirac's statement regarding eastern European nations seeking EU membership against them speaking their mind. He says, "They missed a good opportunity to be quiet". What the heck is this, a mafia? Now that's the most un-democratic statement I've heard in a while. I would expect a statement like that from Saddam Hussien or Kim Jong Il but not from a leader of the free world.

P.S. I also saw the statement from him regarding the defacing the graves of soldiers who invaded Normandy. He only made an apology that the graves of British soldiers were defaced even though it was Americans that bore the brunt of that fight. I really don't like this Chirac. He reminds me too much of DeGalle who tried to break up the alliance during WWII. The invasion of Normandy was called off at one point but Winston Churchill was able to patch things up just in time. Even after the war, DeGalle was still Anti-American only giving credit to the British for saving France.

Anyway, just my 2cp

[Lyroschen]

Keep in mind, many folks hold grudges for a looooong time. Grudges are handed down from father to son, father to son. Most of this generation don't feel the guilt of the actions of our forefathers, though. Slavery was rampant, but not something I'm proud to call my heritage. What we did with the American Indians doesn't bolster my pride either. There are other references, but I'm sure you get the idea. For us, those days are "long past", and not really high on our guilt list. For others, that's all they know about America, other than we're now the most powerful single force in the world. Perhaps those in Europe still consider themselve the most significant part of the world, and everywhere else is just a sattelite country revolving around them. I can't speak for them, but it's easy to see how they would not like the idea of someone else outgrowing them, then using that growth to make world-wide decisions. For us in the US, it's a great to be able to take action when the rest of the world is sitting on their thumb. 'course it's also an act of defiance, whether we intend it to be or not. At any rate, if we're going to do stereo-typing of countries, let's take them all over, and put countries in charge of their "stereo-typical specialty". China can be in charge of all greasy take out food. Germany can become the barbers of the world.

In short, they're older, but we're bigger, and that makes them unhappy. More-over, we don't need them to take action, and that scares them. France doesn't want to help us get Saddam out of Iraq. Should we be surprised? France didn't help us get Hitler out of France!

[Yueh]

I tend to agree Lyroschen, if there is one thing I've learned from this international experience, it's that Americans (and Blair) and the rest of the world see things very differently. We (Americans) are looking toward the future and what our children will inherit. A lot of the rest of the world seems to be more concerned about who will be talking about them when they are dead.

[Lyroschen]

How about in the next War, the loser gets France?

[hhh]

To the liberals:

How does it make you feel to see Iraqi's cheering in the streets because they are free?

[Yueh]

How about all the comments from random Arabs in other middleast countries honestly wondering how Iraq could have possibly fallen so easily. They don't get it, they just don't get it.

Until there is a common understanding of each other between the Islamic world and the West, toppling dictators isn't going to fix the problem. Don't get me wrong though, it's a hell of a start but the education effort had better be incredible.