PDA

View Full Version : George W. Bush



Osiris
21st January 03, 10:03 PM
Maybe its me, but does this guy seem at least tad bit shady to anyone else? Could someone please tell me what the fuck he's doing?

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

PeedeeShaolin
21st January 03, 10:12 PM
I don even want to say anything here.

Let me correct myself, I DO want to say ALOT here but I will hold back.

I'll only go halfway and say that Bush is the most HORRIBLE president in U.S. history and would kill ANY amount of innocents just to get his FILTHY RICH hands on some more OIL for his SCUM family.

This fuck has been involved in every dirty act of gov't since taking office. Have you ever seen the video of Palestine right after 9/11 where the Palestinians were jumping up and down and cheering an hour after he towers went down? Well here a little bit of info about how the WEALTHY control the media and MANIPULATE you and me:

In the video it was DAYTIME. It is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to be both daytime HERE and daytime in Palestine. That video was from a WHILE ago and it was USED to gather anti arab feelings from the public.

Hmmmmm.....I WONDER why.......

Osiris
21st January 03, 10:28 PM
Yeh. hes a homicidal maniac. Regardless of what the US has been guilty of in the past and its legacy, Bush is by far the most vile official to take office in US history. Just as we were beginning to rise above the racist, imperialistic legacy of the US Bush took us right back. Since by their logic I have ties with Al Qaeda (I dont) I find it very disturbing that the CIA can kill me without trial. Isn't assassination illegal? The past is what it is, but what future does Bush have planned for us. I dont think that anyone has tried this hard to start a World War since Hitler. This maniac is choosing his enemies and calling his allies to prepare for this conflict. My views on race and class are known here, but this is above all of that. The man is a maniac based on just the war on terror alone. When the IAO and other rather suspect agencies are considered, one can see that Bush isnt a threat to just a few disgruntled minorities or Arabs or whatever. Hes a threat to the world. He's busy playing chess with Saddam and Bin Laden while we move as pawns.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Vargas
21st January 03, 10:41 PM
Well, let's see, Israel is +2 hour from GMT, New York is -5 hours. That's 7 hours time difference. Sunset is usually, what, 7:30 PM in Sept? So the towers got hit around 8:30 AM EST. That's 3:30 PM Israel time. Add a couple hours, it's 5:30 PM when they show the crowds rejoicing. Sounds within the realm of possibility to me.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm far from a Bush fan. I have an uncle and aunt that are rabid Republicans and I want to throttle them every time they open their mouths. They gave me a Rush Limbaugh book for one Christmas and I had to fight not to laugh in their faces. Losers.



Edited by - Vargas on January 21 2003 21:42:23

The Wastrel
21st January 03, 10:44 PM
Thanks Vargas.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

I Give BJJs
21st January 03, 11:34 PM
who woulda guessed Peedee was some pussified tree-hugging liberal pansy........

ME!!!!

I Give BJJs
21st January 03, 11:34 PM
oh yeah, the rest of you are too

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 12:04 AM
IGiveBJJs, have you seen the tree-hugging demonstration on the Hapkido thread?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 12:29 AM
Bunch of fluffly cloud, bleeding heart liberals, the whole lot of you.....

Vargas
22nd January 03, 12:32 AM
Yeah, but chicks dig us :)

elipson
22nd January 03, 12:48 AM
Finally!!! I'm so glad people in the states are starting to realise how much of an asshole and how dangerous this idiot is!!!
I'm the most pro-military person I know, and even I think he's going too far.
If this guy attacks iraq Without UN support, I am totally gonna go protest somewhere, and I fucken hate protesters!!!! Most of them deserve to be pepper sprayed and tear gassed, but if bush goes ahead with all this nonsense, then I'm gonna be making more noise then any treehugging, peaceloving hippy wannabe ever could!! Show those sissies what it means to protest!!!

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

elipson
22nd January 03, 12:51 AM
And another thing that really pisses me off.
In a recent american pole, people were asked which person they wanted to be like, and Goerge W won!!! he got like 70% of the votes!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!!!!!

AAARRRRGGG!!!!!

Man I hate this guy, I cant even stand watching him on tv anymore!!!

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 01:05 AM
"In a recent american pole, people were asked which person they wanted to be like, and Goerge W won!!! he got like 70% of the votes!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I can find no explanation for this. I'm so sorry. If it helps any, here's a short list of people that I would like to be like, if I couldn't be myself. I'm an American.

1. Diogenes the Cynic-At a social gathering, someone made the comment to Diogenes that it was nice to see him behaving. He spit in his face.

2. Giacomo Casanova-If you think you know about this guy, think again. Poet, spy, philosopher, duelist, con man, prison escapee. A great man all around.

3. Marcus Aurelius-You may think that most Americans think he is a character in a movie with Russell Crowe, but it's not true. I keep a copy of his "Meditations" wherever I go.

4. General Matthew Ridgeway or General Chesty Puller: Both of these guys put MacArthur to shame.

5. Colonel Dreyfus

6. Daniel Ellsberg

7. Kim Dae-Jung

Now I'm tired...

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 01:20 AM
Epsilon: would you rather see saddam release bio/chem weapons on israel, or would you rather see the usa go in with the british?

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 01:26 AM
Yeh. hes a homicidal maniac. Regardless of what the US has been guilty of in the past and its legacy, Bush is by far the most vile official to take office in US history.


Bull... Andrew Jackson was way worse.

elipson
22nd January 03, 01:37 AM
I would like to see some actual proof before everybody starts preping for war!! Is that so hard? Just some real proof that he's actually planning that. I would be all for it if he could prove saddam is an actual threat. And 11 small, EMPTY chemical artillery rounds are not weapons of mass destruction. small chemical rounds are used by dozens of countries, including the states and britian. A large wharehouse of these things would get me worried, factories making them would also, but less then a dozen empty containers? And dont give me that bull about hiding stuff, the inspectors have UNLIMITED access to iraq. If there is anything real to find, they will find it. You can't just hide ALL this stuff without leaving a trace of some kind. Especially considering how inept the iraq authorities are. And if the states have all this evidence to where things are being hidden, why aren't they sharing it? And you can't give the same old propaganda that it would "reveal too much about the US surveillance abilities". All they have to do is say, "search there!" and if they're right, they'll find something. Bush is going to war under false pretenses, saying iraq is a threat to the western world. Why can't he just tell it like it is? He hates Saddam and wants his oil!! Or how about that the war on terrorism has gone dry, but he needs to make it look like he's doing something? He needs to tell the public that he's winning the war on terrorism, even though the real threat, Osama, has dissappeared.

As a side note, I kinda like this guy during afganistan, but he's gone too far with iraq.

And wheres Groganer!! He was defending bush a few weeks ago.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 02:05 AM
The "war for oil" thing is pretty facile. I think the truth is much more complicated, and maybe at the same time far more banal. We could shift oil dependency to a nation like the Republic of Sao Tome in an instant.

Brandeissansoo,
Sure, Jackson was pretty bad, and Coolidge was no treat, but this guy is something special. He's made a number of outrageous blunders, and I'm not talking about grammatical errors. How about the fact that he appears to have no idea what a bluff is, or that he has no concept of brinksmanship, and also no concern for the consequences of any policy that arise sometime long after he will no longer be seeking elective office. Did you get a chance to read this?

http://www.ronsuskind.com/writing/esquire/esq_rove_0103.html

or this?

http://www.ronsuskind.com/writing/esquire/esq_rove_0103.html

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Sheol
22nd January 03, 02:11 AM
Do you folks understand the adage of fighting fire with fire?

1. Iraq is one of major supporters of terrorism and Muslim extremists.

2. Iraq HAS made and used WMDs.

3. Iraq was once more on track to manufacture and, quite possibly, sell WMDs (Do you actually think that those biochem weapons are made and sold in small quantities?). Dirty nukes would also be a possibility.

4. Combined with SCUD launch vehicles, Iraq would then have leverage to use on neighboring countries. (Upsetting the existing power structure.)

5. Iraq would also have massive strike capability against Israel, which IS a nuclear power.

6. At that stage, a war would be devastating to the Middle East in terms of loss of life and possibly result in the contamination of much of the world's oil supply.

7. Loss of that oil supply would cripple the economies of every developed country and cause massive loss of life in the Third World.

8. Loss of fossil fuels as a plentiful and reliable source of power will result in new nuclear power plants and ramping up of domestic fuel production, including coal.

Neutralization of Saddam means that, at least for a while longer, the existing balance of power in the Middle East will remain and the oil trade will continue to be reliable.

Q: Will U.S. companies will take over Iraqi oil fields?

A: Not bloody likely. This would not be tolerated by OPEC and would further inflame Muslem extremists in the Middle East. Note that the Gulf War did not result in the establishment of U.S. oil companies in the Middle East. Further, look for Saudi Arabia and allied neighboring countries to benefit from Saddam's ouster. The U.S. will ensure a stable flow of oil from the Middle East and the stability of 'friendly' governments. This will further isolate Iran and other non-friendly governments.

Something has to give, folks. Frankly, I would prefer that the U.S. and it's allies (the British in particular) put "Mad Dog" Saddam Hussein to sleep. The 'peace' protestors are, by and large, idiots, in my opinion, because they haven't a clue.

Sheol
22nd January 03, 02:15 AM
The Wastrel:

Regarding the shift of oil dependency, I believe that it would be a nightmare, both logistically and production-wise. There's a lot that goes into taking oil out of the ground and putting it into tankers. It's no mean feat to build that kind of infrastructure. Even then, the economic reprecussions will be long-lasting. Few nations have the kind of oil reserve that the United States has.



Edited by - Sheol on January 22 2003 01:24:07

I Give BJJs
22nd January 03, 02:21 AM
You people bitching about Bush are the same fuckers that bitched about the government doing NOTHING when it had information about Bin Laden being up to something, and look what happened.

As much of a dolt as Bush is, he IS more informed about this situation than any of us.

So stop bitching, you don't know what you're talking about. Just let Bush kill and pillage all he wants, hopefully it'll drive gas prices down.....that's all I really care about.....that and not being the victim of chemical warfare at the hands of Saddam.

silentdog
22nd January 03, 04:12 AM
So stop bitching, you don't know what you're talking about. Just let Bush kill and pillage all he wants, hopefully it'll drive gas prices down.....that's all I really care about

man, either you're sarcastic or a fucking asshole.

i'm speechless.

Choke
22nd January 03, 04:39 AM
Well said Sheol.

Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.

SamHarber
22nd January 03, 06:49 AM
I have difficulty believing that Bush will go to war before the UN inspectors have completed their task, but I have difficulty believing in all sorts of really stupid things that people do.

Also, will you americans stop whining about the price of gas? Petrol in the UK costs 75p a litre, which I think works out at about $4/gallon.

Sheesh.. you guys....

Osiris
22nd January 03, 08:54 AM
"Bull... Andrew Jackson was way worse."

Nah, he was foul, but he kept it local. Bush is taking this shit world wide.

Sheol, most of that info applies to US as well. I dont think we should bomb us.


"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Osiris
22nd January 03, 08:57 AM
BTW, how do we get off being able to kill people we dont like BEFORE they do any damage? Thats how Saddam ended up in power in the first place. And thats how Bin Laden became a threat. "Those who do not learn their history..." Or something like that.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Vargas
22nd January 03, 09:29 AM
Two points -


1) The U.S. was happy to let Iraq have free rein as long as they pounded the living crap out of Iran. Hell, they would have had a nuclear reactor at Osirak back in the 80s if it wasn't for the IAF. U.S. leaders knew that Saddam was an asshole but they thought he was our asshole. Whoops. So I guess if it's anyone's mess to clean up, it's ours. However, there is some unfinished business. And I refuse to use the phrase 'War on Terror'. Terrorism is a tactic, not a group (not unless we feel like chasing down every political group that kills civilians).

2) The war on Al Quaeda isn't even close to being complete. I was forward deployed seven weeks ago. There is a lot of work left that the puplic has no idea about. Remember that Predator that took out the car full of Yemenis? Tip of the iceberg, folks. Plus, think about this. When I first started flying special ops in 1996, we got briefings left and right about this guy Bin Laden that no one had ever heard of. The U.S. has had this guy in it's sights for a long time and, to be frank, we fucked it up. CIA, Pentagon, FBI, whoever, we were getting briefed on this fucker since at least '95 and we botched it. My prediction is that Al Quaeda will use some kind of WMD in a U.S. city (my bet? Bio. It's easy to smuggle and almost impossible to detect initially.) Maybe we'll get serious after that. Right now, we're not serious. I know, I was in a prime position to take the fight to the enemy and I and my crew just sat on our asses playing cards. So forgive me if my enthusiasm for taking on Iraq and maybe N.K. before we finish off Osama and his underlings is a little muted. I think we've lost focus and need to finish business in Afghanistan and elsewhere. One dickhead at a time, that's my motto.



Edited by - Vargas on January 22 2003 08:31:38

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 09:47 AM
Nah, he was foul, but he kept it local. Bush is taking this shit world wide.


He did invade florida, which was held by the spanish(1818).

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 09:59 AM
Sheol,
My point about oil dependency was that I don't buy the war for oil argument, and that was one of the reasons.

"As much of a dolt as Bush is, he IS more informed about this situation than any of us."

Never count on that. Anyway, the fact is that Hussein invaded Kuwait and the terms of his surrender included disarmament. It's not something we can fault to Bush if his predecessors followed a different tactic. That said, I have deep worries about Bush. He has practically handed the North Koreans an excuse to develop their nuclear arsenal, watch him flail as they continue. I'm not saying that they weren't already, what I'm saying is that he has made it impossible to condemn. He has no position of leverage for negotiation, at all. Afghanistan might end up being one of those places that we send troops for the next 30 years-and they're talking about reinstating a draft (God help us). I don't trust him to wage a war in Iraq competently, and I know he will use it to his maximum political advantage, possibly at the expense of human lives, and that is something I'll be feeling right here at home.
Beyond that, I despise in principle. He is dull and incompetent. He's essentially never worked a day in his life. During his very tumultuous era, he failed to engage himself on either side of the major political issues of his time. He supported the war in Vietnam in a vague and facile way, and slunk off to a phony national guard position. He never even really owned the Texas Rnagers. He pillaged the UT fund to enrich himself and some business associates. He embraces ignorance quite willfully and defiantly. He is an utter hypocrite. I for one consider it a great failing of the Republican party to have denied John McCain the nomination.
I support toppling Saddam Hussein, but I cannot support Bush. He is the worst example of the kind of shit we get if we allow families like his to grow fat off of the government sector. Public servants? MAYBE his father...


**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Edited by - The Wastrel on January 22 2003 09:17:17

Gezere
22nd January 03, 10:06 AM
>Never count on that

I'd go with Wastrel on this one, trust me.

>He is the worst example of the kind of shit we get if we allow families like his to grow fat off of the government sector

I wish I could publicly says stuff like that.

I think I can talk about his brother, sadly my govenor. I could go on for a LOOOOOOONG time.

______
Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invinsible Asia) Emporer of Baji!!! THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED AUSSIE FRONT!!


"I love you Asia" - I Give BJJs Posted - December 25 2002 : 10:40:09

Osiris
22nd January 03, 11:18 AM
I think that upon examination of Bush's policies and actions since being "elected" you can see how evil the man is. Even as he strives for another world war to fatten his pockets, he's quickly turning the US into a police state. The poor already have to deal with that shit, now he's creeping up on the middle class using the "war on terror" as a disguise. While we look out for "evildoers", the IAO is looking at US. What the fuck? Have you seen their symbol? And since when could the CIA assassinate people and PUT IT IN THE PAPER THE NEXT DAY. Assassinations illegal. I understand it goes on, but its generally been kept on the low.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

sanchin
22nd January 03, 11:26 AM
I can't understand why smarmy, inanely grinning Tony Blair is leading the UK into all this . Bush is in it for the oil, what's Blair doing it for?

SamHarber
22nd January 03, 11:35 AM
Assassinations illegal. I understand it goes on, but its generally been kept on the low.I'm fairly sure that a month or two ago Bush publicly gave the green light for the CIA to assasinate Saddam Hussein, overturning the 30 odd year old ban on assassinating heads of state.
I don't know about you, but isn't this a rather provocative thing to say, especially when the rest of the world is trying to say that war isn't inevitable.

PeedeeShaolin
22nd January 03, 11:37 AM
Take a look at how many countrues are protesting.

Take a look at how the PEOPLE of other countries are protesting.

People reallt should educate themselves as to WHY that might be instead of being bullshitted by your govt into believing any question of its actions is "anti-american".

SamHarber
22nd January 03, 11:54 AM
For an explanation of George Bush Snr and his behaviour, and quite possibly that of his son as well, have a look at http://www.thisistherealtruth.com/biggestsecret.htm

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 12:43 PM
A large wharehouse of these things would get me worried, factories making them would also, but less then a dozen empty containers? And dont give me that bull about hiding stuff, the inspectors have UNLIMITED access to iraq. If there is anything real to find, they will find it.


Actually, the UN estimates Saddam has 30,000 of those missiles ready to go.

Also, Hans Blix was in charge of inspections of iraq before the last war. He had certified that iraq had no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Then Saddam gassed the kurds, and the us found their nuclear program, etc once the war started.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76163,00.html

I Give BJJs
22nd January 03, 12:44 PM
man, either you're sarcastic or a fucking asshole

why? because I don't pretend to care about these people?

You tree-hugging assholes all of a sudden care about the Iraqi people when it's the "in" thing to do. Why no protests concerning the human rights violations in Iraq, or China, or any of the other shit-hole countries in the world? No, you just see an opportunity to bitch about something, and you use your "sympathy" for the Iraqi people as an excuse. Give me a fucking break, get lives.

Osiris
22nd January 03, 12:54 PM
"Actually, the UN estimates Saddam has 30,000 of those missiles ready to go."

Where do you hide 30,000 missles?

IGBJJs, you seem to have lost your damn mind. There are tons of human rights violations RIGHT HERE. Why dont we bomb the people robbing the homeless? Take a wild guess who that is. The world is a fucked up place and the US is just as guilty as anyone else. So why get all righteous all of a sudden? Hmm, oil maybe? Youre not as safe as you think. When Bush destroys our liberty and the world turns on the US, all WILL be touched. Joke from the end of your computer then. Go give a bjj.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 12:59 PM
I'm fairly sure that a month or two ago Bush publicly gave the green light for the CIA to assasinate Saddam Hussein, overturning the 30 odd year old ban on assassinating heads of state.


The ban on assasinating foreign leaders is not based in US law. It's part of the UN charter:
“in peacetime, the citizens of a nation, whether they are political officials or private individuals, are supposed to be immune from intentional acts of violence by citizens, agents or military forces of another nation.”

He gave the green light to eliminate al-Qaeda targets, not foreign leaders.

Bolverk
22nd January 03, 01:31 PM
In the video it was DAYTIME. It is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to be both daytime HERE and daytime in Palestine. That video was from a WHILE ago and it was USED to gather anti arab feelings from the public.

Hmmmmm.....I WONDER why.......


Again ignorance rears its ugly head. The World Trade Center attacks occured at 8:45 am for the North Tower and 9:02 am for the South Tower. There is seven hours difference from New York to Palistine. That means it was 3:45 pm and 4:02 pm there when the attacks occured. Seems to me the sun would have been out at that time of day in September.



Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

PeedeeShaolin
22nd January 03, 01:38 PM
Europe is totally aginst a war with Iraq and France may even Veto. Germany will not support any action either. Nato will not back us. Read REAL news and not American propoganda:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2683409.stm

If the U.S. attacks another country AGAINST the U.N. it will be the start of something very bad. There will be no difference between this and Iraq attacking Kuwait. A nation will be attacking another nation against the voice of the world. A terrible thing could be set in motion by this action.

PeedeeShaolin
22nd January 03, 01:40 PM
Ummmm everyone KNOWS the video was NOT from that day. The BBC have a copy of the same video from a celebration in Palestine.

I Give BJJs
22nd January 03, 02:10 PM
There are tons of human rights violations RIGHT HERE

Thank you for proving my point, you dumbasses are protesting on behalf of the human rights that the U.S. will "supposedly" be violating with a war in Iraq, but don't do shit for the thousands of people starving in America. Why? because it's not the popular thing to do right now.

Bush is not going to war to stop human rights violations in Iraq, he's going to war to prevent an obviously crazy fucker (Saddam) from venting his craziness on the US in the form of weapons of mass destruction. The oil is just a sweet little addendum.

Speaking of oil, everyone thinks how evil it would be for us to take thier precious oil that they bend us over and rape us for while they live like kings. Fuck em, kill em, take their oil, burn it to the ground. The Middle East is nothing but a wasteland anyway. You're all thinking it, I'm just typing it.

elipson
22nd January 03, 02:17 PM
Come on guys, Bush is on a witch hunt! If he were to find some stable verifiable proof of Iraqi wrong doing, then I'd say lets go get him. But they havent found any proof!! It's all been accusations so far. Would accusations hold up in court? Hell no! Maybe in the 1800's! Bush is trying to distract ppl from the fact that he has NO proof! It's a damn witch hunt.

And do you ppl really think Saddam is stupid enough to launch overt WMD attacks against other countries? Come on!! He knows he would be dead in the blink of an eye. His military is a mess, moreso then in '91. Saddam has realised how dangerous the US and its allies are, the last thing he wants to do is provoke a major attack.
And as for supporting terrorism, we can just add him to the list!!! Starting with Arafat.

If Iraq is hiding all these undeclared weapons, where the hell are they!!!! Show us something!

And even if the states are justified in attacking Iraq, Bush is still a moron for alienating the rest of world.


The ban on assasinating foreign leaders is not based in US law. It's part of the UN charter:
“in peacetime, the citizens of a nation, whether they are political officials or private individuals, are supposed to be immune from intentional acts of violence by citizens, agents or military forces of another nation.”
You think he gives a shit about the U.N.? He doesn't; he proved that when he refused to give al-queda prisoners POW status, throwing it in the face of UN objections.
And Canada has declared that we won't go to war without a UN resolution, so that's one less ally for the states (not that we would be much use anyways:) ). How many countries actually support this war agian? Britian and who else? Besides Kuwait of course.

If bush goes to war without UN approval, this war isn't gonna stop in Iraq, I gaunantee it.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 02:48 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ban on assasinating foreign leaders is not based in US law. It's part of the UN charter:
“in peacetime, the citizens of a nation, whether they are political officials or private individuals, are supposed to be immune from intentional acts of violence by citizens, agents or military forces of another nation.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That didn't stop JFK from assassinating the Diem brothers, either.


**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Kempocos
22nd January 03, 02:50 PM
One thing that does not get mentioned is the 1993 bomb attack that failed to drop the WTC, I was there it sucked. Also every year since US embassey's and ships were attacked resulting in thousnads of injuries and deaths. Pres. Clinton did nothing but they still happened. The members of the U.N. always looks to the US to act then we are accused of acting on our own. This is not an idea that Bush came up with it has been decades in the making.

Of course this hurts, after all it is not basket weaving.

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 03:06 PM
I'm no Clintonite, but the idea that his administration did nothing is incorrect. I knew and worked with people who had been and were personally involved in operations aimed directly at OBL. When I joined the army in 1997, he was a serious topic in the intel community. I can think of at least one declassified program that was started under Clinton that was cancelled under Bush, I'm sure you could find reference to it in the NY Times archive. This "nothing" is a creation of the Bush camp. What is clear is that he did not start a war; whether or not that will prove to be effective is still in doubt.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Fisting Kittens
22nd January 03, 03:15 PM
I am baffled by everyone's seeminngly complete ignorance of how the american political system works. Apparently you fools think that Bush is the emperor supreme avatar of the highest deity and America goes where he points. Newsflash guys: Congress supports Iraqi action. Yes many democrats in congress ALSO support this. Britain is behind this. And whatever you guys want to pretend, if we decide to move against Iraq the U.N. WILL endorse it, and not because they support us, but because they can't afford a rift that big. It would pretty much destroy the concept of the U.N. if they condemn Britain and the U.S. A) it would prove the absolute inefficacy of the U.N. to adjudicate ANYTHING. B)The U.N. can't DO anything without america. Economic Sanctions mean nothing without american support. ANY military action the U.N. takes is predominated by U.S. and British Troops. Whatever you guys want to think, the backbone of the U.N. is Britain and America. Right now the U.N. is trying to arbitrate this whole mess. When that fails, they WILL give us their support to keep their infrastructure functional. Don't pretend that george bush COULD even try and do this alone. and don't pretend that the MAJORITY of american people aren't behind it. ANd don't pretend that the U.N. won't roll over on its fucking back (like it does about fucking everything). If america really wants a war it'll happen.

Choke
22nd January 03, 03:15 PM
Clinton was less than pro active however. He gutted our intelligence agencies and reduced our military. These problems have been brewing long before Clinton however and he was just following the trends and precedents that preceded him.

Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.

Kempocos
22nd January 03, 03:19 PM
Good point I was not aware he did anything execpt call it crimminal, I am not a Bush or Clinton fan to me both have issues. I just think a time comes when things need to get stepped up, not saying war. I feel the whole U.N. needs to address that it is driving this and not just the U.S., we are expected to act weither it means sending money, food, troops. This region has been at war for thousands of years and will stay at war far more years trhan we will be around.

Of course this hurts, after all it is not basket weaving.

Choke
22nd January 03, 03:23 PM
Why should the U.S. listen to the rest of the world? What has the world ever done for the U.S.? What does the U.S. owe the world? The European Union our biggest critics are the ones who owe us the most. The U.S. has bailed out Europe in two World Wars (That were started by them), has protected Europe from Russian missles for over 50 years and on top of that the EU owes us trillions of dollars. The world should let us take care of our own interests and just quit whining.

Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.

Justme
22nd January 03, 03:34 PM
I like Bush. However, I hope we are justified if we go to war. I do believe Irag is a threat. Do we have proof? I don't know. I do believe that 911 was an attack on us. A war declared on us that we don't deserve. Say what you want, I know my tax dollars have been used in large quantities outside the US to help other countries. And thats great. I think we should. But we were attacked and there are people out their who still want my family and me dead just because we are Americans. I don't believe this war is just for oil rights. Maybe I am wrong. I know if I had to go, I would be going to prevent another 911.

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 03:41 PM
Maybe, Justme. I still think that this administration is more concerned with doing what is highly visible and can be manipulated to political advantage, than what is quiet and effective. They NEVER should have publicized that CIA op in Yemen.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Justme
22nd January 03, 03:47 PM
Wastrel - Agreed. There are alot of things going on hard for a grunt to understand. My wife works with the Coast Guard. She had a co-worker who worked ground zero. EVERY TIME I THINK ABOUT THE THINGS HE TOLD ME!!!! I GET REALLY PISSED!!!!!

Fuck you Jihad.

Sorry, lost it.

Bolverk
22nd January 03, 03:59 PM
I'm no Clintonite, but the idea that his administration did nothing is incorrect. I knew and worked with people who had been and were personally involved in operations aimed directly at OBL. When I joined the army in 1997, he was a serious topic in the intel community. I can think of at least one declassified program that was started under Clinton that was cancelled under Bush, I'm sure you could find reference to it in the NY Times archive. This "nothing" is a creation of the Bush camp. What is clear is that he did not start a war; whether or not that will prove to be effective is still in doubt.


What about Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo? Was Clinton not President for these? He did inherit Somolia, but he bungled that one. And he was never serious about getting OBL, and refused extridition when it was offered. Aside from firing missles that killed a few camels, he never seriously entertained getting OBL. And what did he do about the U.S.S. Cole? Send in the FBI, big deal.


Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Bolverk
22nd January 03, 04:03 PM
I still think that this administration is more concerned with doing what is highly visible and can be manipulated to political advantage, than what is quiet and effective. They NEVER should have publicized that CIA op in Yemen.


What politician these days does not play up to the political aspects of their decisions? Again, we have William Jefferson Clinton to thank for this. He used the media way better then any politician before him, and now it is part of the system. Bush is only following the play card that the democratic party has layed out when it comes to political gain.


Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Bolverk
22nd January 03, 04:06 PM
Read this article if you want a good idea of what this country is facing. It lays things out very nicely, and offers comparisons from history to give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/20/214702.shtml

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 04:32 PM
Bolverk, I said he didn't start a war to catch OBL. He didn't bungle Somalia, the Admiral who decided that waging genocidal war on the Habr Gidr did. Again, I am no Clinton supporter. What I said should not be taken as total advocation.

"What politician these days does not play up to the political aspects of their decisions?"

I'm not talking about "playing it up"; I'm talking about making a decision purely for those reasons. Media has been a part of politics since forever. If we're talking TV, then it's JFK. Reagan was a master at media, and please don't say he was the greatest president ever or something like that. We have the political system we deserve, and in some way designed. For the record, I support "a" war against Saddam. But this is an utter bungling. I do not trust Bush at all. I think he is an incompetent opportunist who happens to be surrounded by some very ruthless people. Those people will only get him so far.

I read the article. Sorry, but it's rather pointless. An understanding the situation we're in now is not going to come from any number of threadbare analogies and comparisons with the past. As for what appears to be the thesis, big deal, does he really think that what that editor wrote was an "act of terrorism"? That's ridiculous.
I depsise all forms of religious "fundamentalism", and any ideology that holds itself more important than human lives. I think it's pathetic that the American left has become the apologists for violent criminals in a defense of the muddled doctrine of "diversity" and "tolerance". People living in the Middle East don't need that shit. They need money, science, liberality. I simply refuse to believe that Bush is going to improve anything. However, I do not oppose a coming war. It's the right war for the wrong reasons. But this facile and fatuous hero worship of a cowardly moron who rose to the top position in the US through nepotism is un-American in the extreme! What happened to us?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Freddy
22nd January 03, 04:49 PM
"1. Iraq is one of major supporters of terrorism and Muslim extremists."
I believe Iran and Libya are the main supporters of terroirsm not Iraq.

"2. Iraq HAS made and used WMDs."
Which is true (chemical weopons that is). At the same time the West stood pretty silent when those Kurds were gassed. In fact when the Kurds and Shiite Muslim rose up against Saddam Husein allied forces let the Iraqis put down the uprising.
"4. Combined with SCUD launch vehicles, Iraq would then have leverage to use on neighboring countries. (Upsetting the existing power structure.)"
Which is true. Iraq only has a limited supply of scud missiles though. Far less than before the Persian Gulf War. Syria on the other hand has scud c missiles which have much greater ranges and capable of carrying chemical/biological
weopons.
"5. Iraq would also have massive strike capability against Israel, which IS a nuclear power."
I'm no fan of Saddam but I do think a balance of power in the middle east isnt such a bad idea. I dont know how sane the Isreali military are either??
"7. Loss of that oil supply would cripple the economies of every developed country and cause massive loss of life in the Third World."
I agree the loss of oil supply would effect the world's economy. I'm not sure how it would effect the Third World in term of loss of life???
Q: Will U.S. companies will take over Iraqi oil fields?

"A: Not bloody likely. This would not be tolerated by OPEC and would further inflame Muslem extremists in the Middle East. Note that the Gulf War did not result in the establishment of U.S. oil companies in the Middle East. Further, look for Saudi Arabia and allied neighboring countries to benefit from Saddam's ouster. The U.S. will ensure a stable flow of oil from the Middle East and the stability of 'friendly' governments. This will further isolate Iran and other non-friendly governments."
I dont know for sure if that will happen? Maybe a puppet government might be put up in Iraq like the former Shah of Iran.









"3. Iraq was once more on track to manufacture and, quite possibly, sell WMDs (Do you actually think that those biochem weapons are made and sold in small quantities?). Dirty nukes would also be a possibility."
This is a possibilty. So could North Korea and Iran with chemical weopns and a few other countries.





PEACE!

Freddy
22nd January 03, 04:55 PM
Sanchin- "Bush is in it for the oil, what's Blair doing it for?" Maybe Blair is on it to cash in on it as well?

PEACE!

Freddy
22nd January 03, 05:00 PM
IGBB -"You tree-hugging assholes all of a sudden care about the Iraqi people when it's the "in" thing to do. Why no protests concerning the human rights violations in Iraq, or China, or any of the other shit-hole countries in the world? No, you just see an opportunity to bitch about something, and you use your "sympathy" for the Iraqi people as an excuse. Give me a fucking break, get lives."
Are these the same protestors???? There are people protesting agaisnt human right abuses in China and other shit holes already.



PEACE!

Freddy
22nd January 03, 05:06 PM
IGBB-"Bush is not going to war to stop human rights violations in Iraq, he's going to war to prevent an obviously crazy fucker (Saddam) from venting his craziness on the US in the form of weapons of mass destruction. The oil is just a sweet little addendum."
I doubt Bush is going to put a stop to human right abuses in Iraq. The Shah of Iran who was backed bt the CIA commited thousands of human rigtht abuses. As for crazziness. Sadam was supported by the west agaisnt Iran. HE is very much a product of the West so was the Taliban a.k.a. Mujahadeen. Iraq is probably as menacing as Isreal and other countries with WMDD.



PEACE!

Freddy
22nd January 03, 05:09 PM
The Wastrel -"That didn't stop JFK from assassinating the Diem brothers, either."
I think the assasination charter from the UN was a more recent thing. After the 1960's or so.


PEACE!

Freddy
22nd January 03, 05:20 PM
Why should the U.S. listen to the rest of the world? What has the world ever done for the U.S.? What does the U.S. owe the world? The European Choke-"Union our biggest critics are the ones who owe us the most. The U.S. has bailed out Europe in two World Wars (That were started by them), has protected Europe from Russian missles for over 50 years and on top of that the EU owes us trillions of dollars. The world should let us take care of our own interests and just quit whining."
The U.S. isnt an Island its economy is very dependent on other countries. Most country arnt so independent (maybe North Korea or Cuba but they are basket cases). It was Canada who were the first few nations to involved themselves in WW1 and in WW2 Canada had the third largest navy. Various NATO countries has assisted the U.S. emensely. I dont know if its a FACT the EU owes the U.S. trillions of dollars. The U.S. do owe the U.N. millions of dollars though.
America is very dependent on other countries. No country is a total Island.

PEACE!

SamHarber
22nd January 03, 06:12 PM
The UK public tend towards supporting war under a UN charter, as opposed to going it alone with the US. As to why Blair is supporting Bush, I have no idea yet.

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 06:20 PM
Refugees?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

I Give BJJs
22nd January 03, 07:32 PM
koom-ba-ya, give peace a chance, make love not war

If I wanted to hear pussy talk, I'd download audio clips of queafs.

You're all QUEAFS!!!!!!!!

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 07:37 PM
How is the U.S. going it alone if Blair and the British are on our side and willing to go in?



Edited by - brandeissansoo on January 22 2003 18:38:27

jing shen gou
22nd January 03, 07:43 PM
I pesonally think Bush is a racist basterd. Am I against the war? yes if it's from Bush's aproach.
I would like iredeemable proof that Iraq has what bush says.
Personally I think If we had really wanted to get rid od Saam it would have been done when daddy was in office.
Am I a tree hugging whinning basterd? You bet.
I am anti nuk and believ that serious examination of alternate non polluting fules should be done in this country.
I'm openly pagan and have isolationist veiws. So I'm not at all popular.
So overall, to end this before you all fall asleep, I am adamently against the war without proof.

the world you live in is just a sugar coated toping. beneath it is another world. The real world. and to survive there you must learn to pull the trigger!!!-Blade

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 08:03 PM
Jing: would 29,000 missiles unaccounted for do the trick?

The Wastrel
22nd January 03, 08:08 PM
How can you be anti-nuke and an isolationist?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

J Zen
22nd January 03, 09:07 PM
---"1. Iraq is one of major supporters of terrorism and Muslim extremists."---

That's funny, Iraq is the only secular (i.e. non-religious) Arabic state in the middle east if you don't count Israel. Saddam hates Muslim extremists and regularly hunt them down with extreme prejudice. His regime and governing philosophy & policies are anything but Islamic. Neither does Bin Laden nor his gang like to see Saddam in power either. In fact, one of the goals of Bin Laden is actually to remove Saddam and install an Islamic state in Iraq instead. The only possibility that will lead to the two some how cooperating with one another would be out of dire desparation or simply attempting to exploit one another before screwing their partner given the first oppotunity, after their common threat is dealt with.

Personally, I don't think remove Saddam is the answer. What it will do is simply creating another power vacuum in Iraq which will only lead to another Shiai leader to get in power and repeat the whole process again. There's too much focus on Saddam portraying him as "the man" whose removal will solve all the problems, while in reality he's hardly the main machine behind Iraq, the tribal structure and politics are the real underlying social dynamic that dictates what goes on in Iraq. The man may be crazy, but he's not stupid for sure, all he's trying to do is just to survive and WMD is just an equalizer against Iran and Israel whose militaries will whip Iraq's ass in a frontal engagement, not yet to mention Israel's nuclear capability. As far as the power struggle is concerned, Saddam is on a tight rope here. If you want to look for the real threat and the real supporters & sympathizers of Islamic fundamentalism, look no further than North Korea, Palestine, Iran, Libya and Pakistan. Iraq is just a soft target that the Bush administration wants to exploit by attacking and removing him and thereby sending message to the world that the US does what it wants and will get what it wants, and screw the world.

Deadpan Scientist
22nd January 03, 09:27 PM
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

Osiris
22nd January 03, 09:28 PM
Blair is a US dickrider.

"Why no protests concerning the human rights violations in Iraq, or China, or any of the other shit-hole countries in the world?" I stay complaining about shit that happens HERE. Look at the "fraud" thread. Im not just looking for a cause. Bush wants money. He could start a world war going on like that. Do you want that?

And why the hell do you keep refering to you guys? Wastrel, Vargas and I were just aguing a few weeks ago on different sides. Our politics are not the same.

"Sadam was supported by the west agaisnt Iran."

Theu US keeps bringing pits to the fight and standing by while they takes chunks out of everyones ass. Now they're trying to put the dogs back in the basement.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Edited by - osiris on January 23 2003 08:36:19

Mercurius
23rd January 03, 12:22 AM
It should've been done right the first time. Next thing you know, THIS President Bush will leave Iraqi resistance to get slaughtered after deciding he didn't really want Saddam Hussein out of power after all. Then, when our public comprised of bandwagon patriots (the worst kind, you know) elects his brother Jeb to office (after seeing the job he did with Floriduh's educational system), the cycle begins again.

Time flows like a river, and history repeats... Who said life wasn't like Secret of Mana?

-------------------------
Clap your hands everybody,
if you got what it takes
'Cause I'm Kurtis Blow
and I want you to know
that these are the breaks!

elipson
23rd January 03, 01:16 AM
The world should let us take care of our own interests and just quit whining. Choke, you can't say "mind your own business" when you're invading another country and killing its people!!!!!

That's how WW2 started jackass.

Brandeissansoo:

would 29,000 missiles unaccounted for do the trick?
It would if they could actually find any!!! Since when did acusations become enough to start a war and get people killed???
You keep coming back to these missiles, yet they can't find them. Maybe you should double check all that propaganda you keep reading.
And as for the US going it alone, that is reffering to going without UN support. One country is not a coalition.
And your link doesn't work.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Deadpan Scientist
23rd January 03, 03:38 AM
It would if they could actually find any!!! Since when did acusations become enough to start a war and get people killed???
You keep coming back to these missiles, yet they can't find them. Maybe you should double check all that propaganda you keep reading.


The whole point is that they had them before, and now they all dissapeared with no record of where they are. Don't take my word for it, read it here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_212)

"inspectors have said Iraq has failed to account for nearly 30,000 shells"



And as for the US going it alone, that is reffering to going without UN support. One country is not a coalition.
And your link doesn't work.


If the US and Great Britain are both going in, that is not going in alone. Not to mention there's really no need for them to go, from an operational standpoint. The US military is quite capable of crushing Iraq without help.

Here's some more propaganda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/iraq/53125.stm) for you to debunk.

SamHarber
23rd January 03, 04:52 AM
I just heard on the radio this morning - paraphrased, not quoted - "Colin Powell has stated that US forces will remain in Iraq after Saddams defeat long enough for a stable government to be installed. During that time, oil revenue will be held in trust for the Iraqi people"
It was also mentioned that oil revenue may be equally split between the oil companies. No conflict of interest is there?

grandloupmechant
23rd January 03, 05:23 AM
I would to add a "french" point of view to the trhread. The whole point is economic. I don't think that our officials (us and europeans) care a lot about what could happen to a farmer who lives miles away from their offices. So the human rights are not an issue for them, at least it's just a medium. What I want to point out is that we've got an alliance between us and uk, while the rest of europe stay shy about the subject, especially france and germany. Actually, Mr Chirac the french president is often laughed at because he deliberately doesn't seem to show what he wants war or peace in Iraq. But at the moment( and I don't know if you have acces to those news in the usa) french army is involved daily in skirmishes with "rebels" in Ivory Coast. I never heard the U.N. talk about it but my opinion is that this is war. That's why I don't understand my country's actions : spreading war somewhere while trying to prevent it somewhere else.
Now I would guess that France and Iraq had economic relationships in the past and certainly still have.
So Saddam is just a puppett, he won't be killed anyway. As for Bin Laden, he was with the CIA some years before and now he plays another game... Well it looks like we've got a renew of the haschisharins (an assassin sect manipulating people whith religious promises of paradise to kill themselves during middle age, but I know you knew it).Now I'm asking, who's going to win the biggest amount of money after the war/peace ?

Commitment... why ?!?!

Vargas
23rd January 03, 01:30 PM
"Remember the Maine!"

Just thought I'd throw a little more gas on the fire :)

Deadpan Scientist
23rd January 03, 03:17 PM
According to the department of Energy:
Oil imported to U.S. from Iraq= 215,000 barrels per day.

Total U.S. oil imports= 9.491 MILLION barrels per day!

The value per BBL of oil * the 215,000 BBL imported from Iraq is less than it will cost the U.S. to send one Aircraft Group to the Persian gulf!

War for oil doesn't make economic sense. Sorry.

Osiris
23rd January 03, 03:32 PM
"War for oil doesn't make economic sense. Sorry."

Always world domination. No one really believes that Saddam has a huge arsenal hidden somewhere. The US wants an excuse to control more territory so they say he does. 911 was to Bush just what he was looking for. As America becomes a police state he is conquering other territory. The man is a psycho.


"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Deadpan Scientist
23rd January 03, 04:08 PM
Actually, I thik it's well documented that he has weapons hiding somewhere. The UN says iraq is not cooperating like they should be. Iraq shoots at UN planes that patrol the no-fly zone. They constantly disregard the UN resolutions. When does it stop? It stops when someone isn't too pussified to lay down the law for fear of "WWIII". Get real. WWIII will not be over some stupid-ass little country whose ruler abuses his own people, kills his own family, and uses chemical weapons on his own people.

You think the people really like him? Saddam is an asshole. He won the election unanimously last year, so they must.

elipson
23rd January 03, 04:33 PM
I don't really buy the war for oil thing, there's lots of oil in other places then Iraq. Like russia, venzuala, and Canada. I think Bush is just trying to stake his claim as ruler of the planet, can anyone say Manifest Destiny? It's like that on a global scale.

Brand, if there are soooooo many chemical warheads, why can't they find them? Just answer me that. If they could find mass stockpiles of weapons, thereby proving that he's a danger to other nations of the world, I would support this. So why can't they find them? And SUSPICION of chemical warheads is not proof, so don't tell me someone just thinks they have WMD. If there proof, bring it forward. And 16 chemical artillery rounds do not equal mass stockpiles of chemical weapons, arty rounds are tactical, not strategical.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Freddy
23rd January 03, 04:45 PM
Jing Shen Gou- "I'm openly pagan and have isolationist veiws. So I'm not at all popular."
So you too huh! I woudnt say I'm openly pagan though. Lol!



PEACE!

Freddy
23rd January 03, 04:55 PM
Brandeissanso-"Iraq shoots at UN planes that patrol the no-fly zone. They constantly disregard the UN resolutions."
So when did the UN have planes flying over Iraq? Wasnt it not too long ago the U.S. secretary of State said they are willing to defy the UN for their interest in the region. If yoou want a country that continues to defy the UN look no farther than Isreal. It was they who attacked and killed UN troops in thier invasion of Lebanon. I dont even want to get into the Palestinian situation...etc.

PEACE!

ksmythe
23rd January 03, 06:19 PM
Here's a nice article I thought you all would enjoy

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/012103.asp

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/images/eurofaggots.jpg


"Gentlemen! No fighting in here! This is the War Room."

Osiris
23rd January 03, 06:51 PM
"I don't really buy the war for oil thing, there's lots of oil in other places then Iraq. Like russia, venzuala, and Canada. I think Bush is just trying to stake his claim as ruler of the planet, can anyone say Manifest Destiny? It's like that on a global scale."

Yeh. Hes an imperialist clown. He does want that oil though. Thing is that that isnt where it stops. The never ending war on terror is a mask for his true goals.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

ksmythe
23rd January 03, 07:14 PM
What's even more hypocritical is the SOB weaseled his way out of military service during Vietnam by having his "Diddy" get him to the head of a two year waiting list for a cushy Texas ANG position, got himself taken off flying status and and then he even went AWOL for period.

Osiris
23rd January 03, 07:21 PM
"REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME."

Nice. Unfoortunately I have a feeling well be dealing with him for another 4 years after this. Look how much chaos hes caused already.

"WWIII will not be over some stupid-ass little country whose ruler abuses his own people, kills his own family, and uses chemical weapons on his own people."

Remeber who started ww1? Didnt think so. The middle east is ready to blow up. the US doesnt have as many allies as people think.

"Saddam is an asshole. He won the election unanimously last year, so they must."

At least he was elected.


"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

J Zen
23rd January 03, 08:37 PM
---At least he was elected.---

If you call: an election ballot that has question asking: "Do you ackowledge Saddam Hussein as you leader?", with soilders armed with guns at the booth and a secret room behind it, a legitimate election then I guess, you could also say that Bush got elected by the American majority too...

I personally don't see oil as the primary motive behind the push for war, though I don't doubt for a second that there are certainly people in the administration or those who have influence in there would certainly want to benefit from the Iraqi oil. I think this rush to war has more to do with the push for global economic and military power expansion so as to gain overwhelming leverage and control over other nations (yeh, as if the US needs any more such advantage...), i.e. a quasi-imperialistic policy. I am not too surprised or shocked by this motive though, every great empires in the past had tried to do this and ultimately led to their own downfall and I see the US as no exception. Afterall, you can't make every one love you but you can sure as hell make them fear you. Though I was appalled and disgusted by Bush's exploitation of the anger and impulse of the people around the 1st aniversary of the 9/11 last year. Notice how he tried hard to push for war around that time period hoping he could manipulate the people's emotions into supporting his political agenda. That to me, is a low thing to do and paid no respect for the people who died that day. I just don't buy into this whole Iraq & Saddam = terrorists rhetoric. Saddam is a dangerous dictator I will give him that, but he and his regime has no clear connection to the Islamic fundamentalists nor has shown any willingness to cooperate with them, yet, at least for the time being. Attacking Iraq would certainly give him reasons to consider such option and he may even decide to go out with a bang by blowing up all the oil fields or worse, use any nuclear or biological weapons he "may" have hidden. Further more there are far more dangerous threats like North Korea, Iran, Libya, Saudi-Arabia, etc. that we know for a fact has WMD (NK) and are known to harbor terrorists and even sympathize with them. Why aren't these being dealt with first? Because, Iraq is a soft target and the easiest to demonize.

Osiris
23rd January 03, 08:40 PM
I was half joking about Saddams election. Niether one was elected.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Deadpan Scientist
23rd January 03, 10:03 PM
Brand, if there are soooooo many chemical warheads, why can't they find them? Just answer me that.


You idiot. That's the whole point! They have them, but are hiding them and bringing out small amounts to the un inspectors. Saddam is like, "Oh, I was cleaning my room and found these totally empty warheads under my bed, sure it's a strange number to have just lying around somewhere, but we don't have any more, honest!"

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.evidence/

"In 1996, after years of denials, Baghdad effectively admitted stockpiling about 4,000 tons of chemical weapons precursors and more than 100,000 empty munitions casings -- none of which have been accounted for by the inspection teams."

You can't really trust Hans Blix to be competent either:
"A decade earlier, on August 6, 1991, the Washington Post ran a story headlined "Baghdad Surreptitiously Extracted Plutonium; International Monitoring Apparently Failed." The story, and several subsequent reports, revealed that Saddam had put together a massive and sophisticated nuclear-weapons program virtually under the nose of one Hans Blix, who was then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the group charged with monitoring compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In the years leading up to 1991, Blix gave Saddam high marks for abiding by the treaty; the nuclear program was discovered in 1991 only after an Iraqi defector told authorities about it. Blix was stunned. "The system was not designed to pick this up," he told the Post."http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york100102.asp

Total ineptitude.

Osiris
23rd January 03, 10:08 PM
Yeh, im sure he can hide thousands of weapons in a closet somewhere. Where the hell do you hide that many bombs? Bush is bullshit. Hes obviously begging for a war.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Deadpan Scientist
23rd January 03, 10:55 PM
Yeh, im sure he can hide thousands of weapons in a closet somewhere. Where the hell do you hide that many bombs?


He does have an entire goddamn country...(437,072 sq km ) to be exact.

Vargas
23rd January 03, 11:30 PM
Man, you guys are getting fired up over this issue. Since it's kind of amusing, I'll try not to spoil too much of the fun, but here's a couple of nuggets that will help the debate:


- Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. I can vouch for this statement 100%. And no, I can't tell you how I know, just believe me. I wouldn't bullshit about something like this.

- He will use them if attacked. Again, consider it the next best thing to Gospel. It goes a long way towards explaining the caution we're seeing. If Iraq is attacked, they will launch some WMD at Israel. Bank on it.

- Al Qaida is far from dead. For that matter, Afghanistan is far from a done deal either. There are a lot of loose ends flapping around right now. Pakistan/India is still a mess waiting to happen, Yemen is still a basket full of vipers, Somalia and the Sudan are crawling with extremist camps, the list goes on.


The next few months are going to be pretty hairy no matter how you cut it. I've got a lot of friends at the pointy end right now, so I'm trying not to let my imagination run away from me. I'm just sitting tight, watching and waiting. I appreciate you guys debating this, I think a lot a people are just stumbling through their daily routine and failing to really think about what is going on. While I don't completely agree with some of what is posted, I commend everyone for caring enough to post in the first place.

Take it easy and flame on!

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 12:09 AM
I second that. Iraq certainly has chemical and biological weapons. I can't tell you more than Vargas can, but think of it this way: They had them last time, they were never forced to disarm and destroy them, therefore...they still do. They're supposed to be providing evidence that they destroyed weapons that we already know they have. There are good anti-war arguments, but the "no evidence" argument is not one of them.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

elipson
24th January 03, 01:09 AM
I like vargas, he's like the uncle who was in Nom and corrects all the history books we bring home :)

I just don't understand why we can't find all these weapons if they're there. And dont just say they're hiding that stuff, the inspectors have unlimited access, and you just know the CIA has every inch of that country covered by spy satellites. Hiding these mass stockpiles of weapons is no slight-of-hand trick. There would be some trail leading back, some enlisted soldier who spilled the beans when his superiors weren't looking. And remember that weapons declared by Iraq in its WMD report don't count, he's not hiding those.

If Iraq is attacked, they will launch some WMD at Israel. Bank on it.
Ya I'd bet on that too, but the real question should be would Iraq launch at Israel if we DIDN'T attack? Isn't that the main reason behind a pre-emptive attack?

And brande, if, hypothetically, Saddam did have WMD, do you really think thats why Bush is going to war? Saddam is to chicken shit to do anything with them.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Deadpan Scientist
24th January 03, 02:37 AM
I think Saddam was just waiting until he had nukes, or perhaps we got tipped off that he was passing stuff on to other unsavory people. I think he has proven that he will use WMD on us and his people. There are plenty of soldiers with Gulf war syndrome, or some papiloma virus no one knows anything about. He has used chem/bio weapons on human beings before, ergo he is not a chickenshit! Bush is looking out for the self interest of the US and her allies, as he should be.

It is not in our best interest to see Israel destroyed and a huge muslim state coalition start devouring countries.

It is not in our best interest to let WMD sit around in places where terrorists could steal them(or be given them). This is why we also helped Russia re-inventory their nuclear stockpiles.

Perhaps we know where they are. Maybe we are waiting to tell the inspectors. Waiting until our forces are in the area and ready to storm the capital/take out WMD launch sites. Inspectors get tipped off, take a helicopter ride out of the area(with some evidence of course), and the armed forces go in and do what has to be done.

Justme
24th January 03, 08:40 AM
Bush could go down as great a president as Lincoln. He has similar issues. Lincoln had to try to hold the Union together. Bush has to hold together this international coalition. Many thought Lincoln was an imbecile. He was not, and I don't think Bush is either. These are very trying times. Granted, I am putting alot of faith in this current group to do THE RIGHT THING. Maybe I am wrong. I think we need to be aware that there is a lot at stake.

Vargas, I just wanted you to know I truely respect and admire guys who are serving like you are serving. God Bless you. This could be a very trying year.

Osiris
24th January 03, 09:02 AM
God, Justme. Oh shit. You must be the most clueless person Ive ever seen.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Justme
24th January 03, 09:13 AM
"God, Justme. Oh shit. You must be the most clueless person Ive ever seen."

Because I don't believe what you do.



Edited by - justme on January 24 2003 08:14:49

Justme
24th January 03, 09:20 AM
Hey Osiris, besides being a yes man... what makes you think you "know" and have "a clue". Common asshole tell me. What a fucking punk!

Osiris
24th January 03, 11:18 AM
"Bush could go down as great a president as Lincoln."
No.

"These are very trying times."
No they're not. You kill your current enemies and let the rest be. You dont go kill past and future enemies. Thats ridiculous and morally reprehensible.

"Common asshole tell me. What a fucking punk!"

Ok. Bush is involved in all types of interesting things. First of all, he represents the United States of America. We have a history of imperialism and isolationism. Its been one or the other. Think about which this is. Politicians are corrupt by nature. They have needas and desires as well. Theyre human.

Bush is interesting because:

1. He stole the election.
2. He activated the shadow government.
3. He gave the go ahead for the assassination of Americans.
4. IAO.
5. Northern Command.
6. A shitload of other shady offices.
7. Secret trials.
8. War agains "terrorism" that knows no borders. Who is "terrorism" and how will we know whemn e win?
9. The axis of evil speach.
10. Trying to end affirmative action as if he isnt a product of it.
11. Homeland security

I dont claim I have more knowledge than you. Im just saying that you cant add shit up. Are you familiar with a game called "chess"?


"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Justme
24th January 03, 11:27 AM
Osiris - I don't know how to respond. I couldn't type enough words. Lets just say we disagree. However, Bush didn't steal the election. He won according to the Constitution. We could argue this all day. So I will let it drop here. I could ask you have you served! If so when and where. I have. But that probably unfair and not to the point.

You and I'd better hope they are working for OUR collective best interest.

Like Vargas hinted at. There is alot, ALOT at stake.

Osiris
24th January 03, 11:49 AM
"I could ask you have you served!"

You meen you just didnt? No, I havent served for obvious reasons. BTW how am I a yes man? Only issues Ive hit a 180 on are tkd and bjj. And that was beaten into me.

"However, Bush didn't steal the election."
A minor and played out issue.


"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Freddy
24th January 03, 11:50 AM
Brandeisansoo-"papiloma virus no one knows anything about."
Hey isnt that what women gets??? That papiloma thing??

PEACE!

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 11:58 AM
Freddy,
HPV is just warts. Everyone gets it. Women are more likely to have outward signs of certain varieties of genital warts, but the varieties that are associated with cervical cancer do not typically have any outward signs at all.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 12:03 PM
Osiris and Justme,

The election thing is very complicated. Justme, I would ask whether you think an electoral system that selects a politician with a minority of the popular vote is a good one, and whether you think the electoral college isn't a thoroughly outmoded institution.
Bush has had many opportunities to do great things, and he has lost them. He keeps walking into these diplomatic tiger traps. But so long as he thinks he can solve those problems by sending your children to die, he won't need to be more clever.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Justme
24th January 03, 12:56 PM
Actually I do think the electoral college is a good thing. I hope he is really considering all options before sending anyone to die. The problem is people are already dead, and we need to prevent more attacks on us.

I defer to you guys. I really can't deal with this discussion today. Sorry.

Justme
24th January 03, 01:00 PM
"But so long as he thinks he can solve those problems by sending your children to die, he won't need to be more clever."


I would serve in a minute if I could. Vargas, I need a helicopter, I want to rope in. Set me up. I'll bring my own weapons. Just need the transport.

J Zen
24th January 03, 01:01 PM
Saddam is not likely to allow his WMD falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, remember they are hated enemies and besides Saddam needs to have WMD as a matter of his regime survival. Attacking Iraq however will give him all the incentives to consider such option. Also, he's not stupid enough to try using it on say Israel for the mere fact that he knows the moment he pushes the button, the US and its allies can retaliate and nuke his ass to oblivion. If anything, he should be scared of Isreal. Israel has a far superior WMD capability than Iraq and will love nothing more than to try find excuses to nuke Iraq, seeing how Israel willingness to violate the UN resolutions despite the internatinal community's protest over the past decades. Heck, with Iraq's current military capability, it's not even likely that he can stand up to Iran in a SCUD missiles duel (geographic advantage in Iran's part) nor in a conventional military engagement (superior number). It seems the pro-war media exaggerates the level of threat that Iraq represents and is misleading the public via gross oversimplification of the scope of the problems and the whole Iraq = terroristic state, rhetoric. Small rouge nations aren't ones who are likely to use WMD for fear of retaliation, it's the superpowers who we should be worried and afraid of for they can unleash WMD and quite easily get away with it.

Osiris
24th January 03, 01:32 PM
"The problem is people are already dead, and we need to prevent more attacks on us."

So if I get beat up in the hood, I should kill all of the creckheads and everyone who talks shit? (since you dont want to talk today dont answer)

"The election thing is very complicated."

Yeh. Ill leave that one alone.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 02:41 PM
Osiris,
I really don't like the American electoral system.
Justme,
I hope you have a nice, relaxing day. On principle, I don't believe in deifying presidents. I don't trust that guy at all.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Justme
24th January 03, 02:48 PM
Thanks.
I trust him for know. But, I know what you mean. I just hope he/we do the right thing. Not necessarily the easy thing. Irregardless, I hate to be him. This war on terrorism, trying to do whats best in the middle-east is sure a tough nut to crack. I tell ya, as iffy as George can be, I like Daschel less. For example, I remember him talking about because we haven't got Bin Laden yet we were losing the war. I remember Bush warning us this would be a long drawn out thing. I think Daschel was trying to goat him into action for political gain. In my opinion, that would have cost the lives of our soldiers. For political not military gain. I don't trust guys like Dachel. In my opinion,we need to take this slow and watch carefully what comes from our actions. Timing is vital in this war. I care about our guys and or allies troops.



Edited by - justme on January 24 2003 13:50:44

Osiris
24th January 03, 03:05 PM
"In my opinion,we need to take this slow and watch carefully what comes from our actions."

I agree.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 03:28 PM
I'm very cynical about all politicians. Hell, I'm a political scientist! Of course I am. I don't know about Daschle, but there are some good points to be made about stalemate in Afghanistan. However, I believe that the Afghanis do appear to be better off. Whether or not that will turn out to be just because a certain tribe is happy to overthrow and then destroy another remains to be seen. Truth is, any operation against a terrorist organization is going to take a lot more than a highly visible invasion. I don't like our military being used as police; they're not good at catching individuals, they're good at winning wars.
What I see is a lot of stuff brought home. Personally, our intelligence organizations did not fail because of an inability to detain or investigate people, they failed because they didn't really try. What's the phrase? A "failure of imagination"? I think this triple engagement is a bad idea, and is extremely incautious. NK will utilize Bush's rhetoric to their full advantage, and with two major deployments, they are home free. Not that any military solution in NK exists. Anyway, if Saddam falls, that is only the beginning, just as toppling the Taliban was only the beginning. It isn't too attractive for a power like us to trumpet too loudly over such partial victories. That was the easy part.


**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Justme
24th January 03, 03:38 PM
I remember seeing "Under the Veil" and they showed some guy in a village. They skinned his head!!!! Now why would you skin his head.

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 03:43 PM
What do you mean? Maybe he was training in "Nightcrawler".

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Justme
24th January 03, 04:30 PM
hmmmm..... Commander Akida (or whatever his name is ) raises his ugly head!! I'll bet he was the youngest of 5 brothers.

Freddy
24th January 03, 05:13 PM
The Wastrel- "Freddy,
HPV is just warts. Everyone gets it. Women are more likely to have outward signs of certain varieties of genital warts, but the varieties that are associated with cervical cancer do not typically have any outward signs at all."

Thanks for the info. Just trying to make light of things.

PEACE!

Freddy
24th January 03, 05:17 PM
I think I had it with this talk of politics. As long as someone doesnt bring up religion we'll be okay. No politics No religion. Sheeeesh! The two major taboos to talk about.
Maybe the Bullshido forum is running out of things to talk about and we needed something to flame for the sake of flamming!???

PEACE!

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 05:19 PM
Agreed.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

ksmythe
24th January 03, 06:09 PM
"You see Elvis.... Henry said it was the Jews... but I say it's those pot smoking, karate choppin', jiu-jitsu faggots at Bullshido that are gonna lose the war for us! It's all right here! It's aaaallllll ..... right here." http://www.archives.gov/nixon/images/12_20_70_2.gif





Edited by - ksmythe on January 24 2003 17:16:43

elipson
24th January 03, 07:56 PM
OK, for the sake of arguement, lets say the war is justified. Bush is STILL a moron for the way he's nearly screwed up this entire campaign. I think it started with the axis of evil speach. Why not just give out a list of ppl he plans to attack?? He totally tipped off the rest of the world that he wasn't gonna stop in Afganistan, or even Iraq for that matter. The only message he sent with that speach is that everyone should get ready for war. That is NOT the smartest thing to do!! If he wanted war, he should have shown peace. But instead he's givin all his enemies ample warning about his intentions. There goes the element of suprise. Someone send this guy a copy of "the art of war".

Iraq isn't stupid enough to launch WMD on another country. Think about it for a second, Saddam will do anything to stay in power, and he knows that he can't stand up to another international coalition, let alone the US. He knows it would be his end, and he does NOT have a death wish like Al-Queda members. He wants to live, he wouldn't risk another war. Even if he had a nuke, I very much doubt he would use one for the same reason. He wants to stay in power, an attack on another country would be his end. You think he would sacrifice himself to get rid of Isreal or the States? Ya right!! He's not that noble, he's too much of a chicken.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

The Wastrel
24th January 03, 07:58 PM
Exactly my point. That speech was so "the Amurkun people" could see how tough he was. Did you know that the addition of NK to that speech was a last minute thing? His FP advisors tried to dissuade him, but no.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Vargas
24th January 03, 09:19 PM
The reason people get upset talking about this stuff is because it matters, unlike most of the topics around here. I'm glad to see people who actually give a shit discussing something besides "TMA vs MMA", "Sport vs Reality" and all the other tired old topics. Sure, I might have my differences of opinion with people on this forum, but I'm just happy that people here have the ability to say what they want at any time and place. Think the President is an asshole? Walk out on the street and yell it as loud as you can. They are a lot of places you can't do that and remain a free man. Never think that political debates are tiring or silly. That kind of stuff is taken for granted by a lot of people and not appreciated nearly as much as it should be.

As for this who WMD thing, believe me, if I could wave a magic wand and get rid of all the WMD in the world (including ours), I'd do it in a heartbeat. However, Pandora's Box is open and you can't just close your eyes and make it go away. I hope no one on this forum has to experience the effects of anyone using a nuke, chem or bio weapon on a U.S. city. Sadly, I think it's just a matter of time. I hope I'm wrong, but that's all it is at this point, just hope.

Deadpan Scientist
24th January 03, 11:09 PM
Iraq isn't stupid enough to launch WMD on another country. Think about it for a second, Saddam will do anything to stay in power


Seems like you're starting to come around.

elipson
25th January 03, 02:12 PM
My point there band is that he's not a threat to other countries, especially the states. He knows it would be suicide.

But if everyone invades, then he's got nothing to loose. Some where deep down I'm hoping that Bush is actually smarter then we give him credit for and this is all just a bluff to get the UN into Iraq, but I kinda doubt it :)

I'm also glad this thread is still going, the old "BJJ rocks, no it doesnt" threads are getting so lame.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Deadpan Scientist
25th January 03, 03:19 PM
At what point does the iraqi people's suffering come into play? If we just leave him to himself, what happens when they actually do develop nukes? You can't just flying armbar him, especially if there are multiple nuslim countries all around, it'd be suicide!!

Osiris
25th January 03, 04:06 PM
"At what point does the iraqi people's suffering come into play?"

It doesnt.

"If we just leave him to himself, what happens when they actually do develop nukes?"

He still wont do shit because he knows that if he nukes someone he'll be annialated (sp?).

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Osiris
25th January 03, 04:09 PM
"I'm also glad this thread is still going, the old "BJJ rocks, no it doesnt" threads are getting so lame."

True.


"Never think that political debates are tiring or silly."

Political debates are like challenge matches. Thats how you find out if your shit holds up.


"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

J Zen
25th January 03, 05:27 PM
---At what point does the iraqi people's suffering come into play? If we just leave him to himself, what happens when they actually do develop nukes? You can't just flying armbar him, especially if there are multiple nuslim countries all around, it'd be suicide!!---

The suffering of the Iraqis people is not, was not and will never be the primary concern of the US going in to topple Saddam. When he gassed his own people, the US intentionally turned a blind eye on the issue for the hope of not upsetting their Saddam who was the US's ally- that's the reality of modern world politics. Yet the media likes to paint the image of the US as the white knight in shinning armor and Saddam as the crazy psycho terrorist to boost morale and manipulate the uninformed American public into supporting the war agenda. Any informed citizens and those moderately knowledgable about politics and the mideast will know that these are misleading images meant to manipulate.

I also don't believe that anyone here propose to leave him alone to develop WMD, that would be equally stupid. The point is to disarm Iraq, but war isn't the most appropriate solution right now. Iraq is no immediate threat, isn't a supporter of Islamic terrorists, doesn't represent immediate threat to Israel nor the US, probably will never be big enough a threat to warrant invasion as the solution. I say we support the UN and rely on the inspectors to do their jobs to disarm him. Up until 1998 when the inspectors got kicked out, Iraq's WMD capability was estimated to have been destroyed by 98%, whether if this was a correct estimate is another debate, but at least it shows that UN inspectors' efforts did work to reduce WMD in Iraq. If you want to remove Saddam to create a stable Iraq, war isn't an appropriate solution. With Saddam gone, democracy will not happen you can count on that, the US won't allow the fate of Iraq to be democratically decided. The Sunnis who populate the majority of Iraq are mostly sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism. I can only see the US installing a puppet government, most probably controlled by a Shiai tribe and the whole power struggle and a rise of new dictatorship will occur again. If the US needs to change Iraq, they must do so at a sociopolitical level by changing the social dynamics that govern Iraq, e.g. weakening and changing the current tribal structures, increase political power of the ordinary middle class people. The last thing you want to do now is to attack and kill Iraqi civillians (whom Saddam will undoubtedly use as human shields, but they won't really know that) and all the anger will be directed at the US to Saddam's advantage. The manipulation of the Iraqis people anger towards the west is Saddam's last pillar of power that controls his population, making sure that they don't revolt against him. Remove such incentives to hate the west and you can bet their angers will be directed at him and his regime.

patfromlogan
25th January 03, 06:31 PM
3. Marcus Aurelius-jeeeaafoooeee/W, are you a intellectual or what? Hit dogpile, a multi search engine with the subject bush crime and cry. Meanwhile, i'm in hawaii at a cafe and got to work out with Universal Kempo Karate Schools (tons of fun sez big haole) and will give them a plug later, BUT the thing we noticed in the Honolulu Advertiser was the justiposition of an article that said W's old claims re. sadam were crap, right next to an article about W's new claims about Sadam. My somewhat conservative bro' and I agreed that that was no mistake, read the paper and one can't help but notice what a lying fuckin war mongering asshollllllll ack ack the feds are charging in and.............

>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

jing shen gou
25th January 03, 07:32 PM
damn, seven pages for W? what have we come too?
And Elvis rocks!

the world you live in is just a sugar coated toping. beneath it is another world. The real world. and to survive there you must learn to pull the trigger!!!-Blade

elipson
25th January 03, 07:37 PM
Right on J Zen, you nailed it.

Brand: If this were a war to relieve the Iraqi people, then it be a different story. Then it would be a noble goal. But thats not why Bush wants to go in. Whatever his reasons are, humanitarian issues are not among them. If they were, then why does he ignore all the other humanitarian issues? Including the ones in his own country. The humanity thing is just an ecuse by him to rally public support, same with the lie that he's a real threat. Can we all agree that he poses no serious threat to the western world?
Who is the real threat?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/25/spain.arrests/index.html

Notice in this article that most of the men are from Algeria. And just of the top of my head, I cant recall any major terrorist being from Iraq, but don't quote me on that cuz im not sure. My point is there are much more dangerous threats out there, like algeria, libya, palestine(!!!), syria and Saudi Arabia. Bush is attacking Iraq cuz its the easiest, he can get away with it, and the oil is just a sweet bonus.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

J Zen
25th January 03, 09:07 PM
Sorry, corrections on my part:

Shiai - the Islamic majority of Iraq who would love to see Saddam get overthrown.

Sunni - the few elite ruling class - the source of Saddam's support

Damn, I always get these two groups confused with one another.

ksmythe
27th January 03, 03:33 PM
Anyone know who gave Sadam the chemical weapons technology he used against Iran ?

The Wastrel
27th January 03, 03:45 PM
Uh....US?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

ksmythe
27th January 03, 03:49 PM
Isn't it amazing how the little dictators the US government supports always come back and bite 'em in the ass.

Freddy
27th January 03, 04:35 PM
Sort of like Osama Bin Laden? (The Mr.former Mujahadeen fighter).

PEACE!

The Wastrel
27th January 03, 04:41 PM
Yeah, but there's a fallacy in using this as an argument. If and when that is the case, don't American administrations bear a GREATER responsibility for the problem. Additionally, there is no policy continuity by which current administration can be taken to task for what has happened in the past. Keep in mind, I'm no Bushie, but that's just a poor argument.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Bolverk
27th January 03, 05:04 PM
Oops, Where Did That Poison Gas and Anthrax Go?

Blix said Iraq was unable to account for its cache of VX poison gas or its stockpile of anthrax. The VX gas, Blix told the panel, appeared to have been "weaponized." In addition there were concerned about the fate of VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq told inspectors were lost in the Gulf War bombing or destroyed by Iraq.

Iraq declared that it had destroyed its store of 8,500 liters of anthrax in 1991, but Blix said no "convincing evidence" existed of its destruction.

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist," Blix said.

29,984 Chemical Warheads Missing

The U.N. report issued at the end of the 1990s found that Iraq possessed 30,000 chemical warheads, Fleischer said. But in the past eight weeks since inspectors have been back, they had found only 16 chemical warheads.

"At the pace that Iraq is cooperating with the inspectors, it will take the inspectors another almost 300 years to find the remaining weapons that the United Nations says Saddam Hussein possesses," Flesicher said.



Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

ksmythe
27th January 03, 05:41 PM
Wastrel,
It's not an argument but rather just an observation.

Freddy
28th January 03, 02:39 PM
Its interesting that the U.S. military cant account for some of their own military hardware. Including a fair amount of missing uranium. Not to mention missing weopons and explosives. I doubt (and fearfully) doubt that any government have all their weopons in order and safely stocked. I wouldn't be surprise the amount of nuclear material that is missing in the former USSR. Its scary and incredible where weopons or components of weopon systems end up.

PEACE!

PeedeeShaolin
28th January 03, 02:58 PM
Its even scarier when you realize that Bush was not elected by the people. He was PLACED in power by his fathers wealthy friends and his corrupt kin, Jeb Bush, who GAVE him Florida.

No one really spoke up too loud when this took place but NOW we have a blatant IDIOT sitting in our countries highest office looking to start a war AGAINST the UN and against the voice of the world.

If you don't think thats serious I dont know what to tell you.

Deadpan Scientist
28th January 03, 04:47 PM
Its interesting that the U.S. military cant account for some of their own military hardware. Including a fair amount of missing uranium. Not to mention missing weopons and explosives. I doubt (and fearfully) doubt that any government have all their weopons in order and safely stocked. I wouldn't be surprise the amount of nuclear material that is missing in the former USSR. Its scary and incredible where weopons or components of weopon systems end up.

PEACE!


Care to site a source for this gem?

Freddy
28th January 03, 06:24 PM
I actually got it from watching CNN. Theres also a book on the "Islamic Bomb" that also mentions it. Its a fact there missing uranium from the US military. There was an interesting case in Germany where some guys tried to smuggled some uranium from Russia but got caught at the German border. The missing uranium from the US military is believed to have been smuggled to Isreal to make there bombs. It was just last year there was a good "60 Minute" episode on how Jewish Americans are (alledge) being single out by the CIA because of spying and weopon smuggling of the MOSSAD from America. It was the Isreali who stoled nuclear weopon detonators (aka commercialy as "kryons")from the US. Interesting isnt it?
I remember watching this documentry about Russia where the Russian mafia on a number of occasion were cauoght smuggling parts for atomic weopns . In this case they caought this guy who had a bag of berylium pellets used in atomic devices. I dont know if anyone saw that show or not?

PEACE!

Freddy
28th January 03, 06:41 PM
There are about 30,000 or so site on missing uranium here is two of them.
www.inq7.net/wnw/2002/aug/25/wnw-5-1.htm

www.newsminute.com/plutoniumissing.htm
(Some info from the Washington Post).

Theres plenty of good info on missing military hardwhare from "60 Minute". I'm not sure how you get re-runs of that journalism show. They had a pretty good one years ago about Fort Brag in North Carolina and how a substancial amount of C 4 explosive is missing etc. There was also a good episode on how civilians were ending up with military components (ie. a rocket launch system) from the various miliary surplus outlets in the country. ETC. Its out there if you look for it. You could find plenty of info over the web on missing military equipment. It shouldnt be a surprise to anyone. Things goes missing with governments all the time. There are literally millions of items any military institute have in its inventory. Weather its Russia, China, Canada or the U.S. etc. it doesnt matter. Its really mind blowing to me if you ask me.

PEACE!

Freddy
28th January 03, 06:43 PM
What the heck? I cant seem to get that uranium site now?? Its probably better if you check with your serach engine look under "missing uranium in the U.S." or what ever suits you. Theres plenty of info.

PEACE!

Osiris
28th January 03, 06:44 PM
lol. Now Britain is talking about bioterrorists in Trinidad. Its quite convinient how "terror" keeps appearing where oil is. Also, the FBI is counting mosques in the US so they know how many investigations and warrants can be expected. Is anyone else starting to notice a disturbing pattern about the actions of this administration and the events that have taken place under it?

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

elipson
28th January 03, 06:54 PM
When was the last time anyone heard of an Iraqi terrorist blowing something up? I cant remember any, they're all saudi/algerian/palestinian.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

ksmythe
28th January 03, 06:58 PM
Well I'll bet dollars to dougnuts Bush tries to use Iraq, Al-Quaeda and 911 in the same sentence tonight. Let's see if he can pull it off without a grammatical fuk-up.











Edited by - ksmythe on January 28 2003 18:11:55

Osiris
28th January 03, 10:26 PM
Heard the adress. LOL. Like Saddams evil and he's not. He kills people for power, we kill for power. Wow. What a coincidence. I like the way he repeated all of the same rhetoric. Going on and on about how Iraq could suddenly attack and how he hasnt proved that he's disarmed. Agreed, Saddam is quite evil, but by those standards so are many of our "allies" such as China, Russia and Israel. So is Bush really against "evil"? No. That is not the issue. There are only 3 issues in Bush's foreign policy. The first is territory. Manifest Destiny is still alive and until there is a major change in the character of America it will not die. The war on terror used in conjunction with the precedent that a preemptive attack on Iraq creates creates powerful oppurtunities for the United States of America to attack almost ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Enemies will be labeled as EVIL and Al Qaeda cell will all of a sudden appear in their territory. The second issue is Bush's personal hatred towards Saddam. Saddam challenged him to a fight and his bitch ass should have accepted. Its not our fight, its his. I have NO interest what-so-ever in Iraq. Niether do my friends who serve. The final issue is oil. How much blood is it worth? A gallon of oil for my friends life? Fuck Bush.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Fatality Dragon
28th January 03, 11:14 PM
I thinks we should make Bush and Saddam wear Vale Tudo short and put them in the ring and make them fight eachother bare hands. IGBJJ can rape the loser of this match.

"I would rather admit I am a lousy student than say I am the best, because once you think you are the best, there is no reason to continue learning."

Deadpan Scientist
28th January 03, 11:27 PM
I thinks we should make Bush and Saddam wear Vale Tudo short and put them in the ring and make them fight eachother bare hands. IGBJJ can rape the loser of this match.


He was already challenged, but GW would have to fight Saddam, and Cheny would have to fight the iraqi VP. GW might be up to it, but Cheny's not.

Greese
29th January 03, 02:01 AM
Wow, talk about some uninformed people.
Osiris, there was no UN Mandate that said China or Israel had to disarm. There was one about Saddam. Remember the Gulf War? Saddam invading Kuwait? Oil Fires? Saddam being the first person in history to use chemical weapons on his own countrymen? The UN's resolution said that if Saddam did not provide evidence and cooperate fully and allow flyovers then it would be a material breach. To this day he has done jack and shit. If the UN is to have any kind of credibility, it has to back up what it says. It is unfortunate that Germany and France are so in bed with Iraq when it comes to oil that they would go against the country that saved their ass in WW2.
As for oil, if this were just about oil, we could have taken what we wanted when we where there the first time.
Saddam is dangerous and needs to be eliminated. Oil is important. Our whole economy runs on it. It is kind of hypocritical to type on your plastic keyboard and bitch about how we should not be willing to commit our troops to defend the lifeblood of our economy. Do you really want a mad man controlling that?
Now, Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is a hell of a lot better than Gore.
GW has a Harvard MBA, Gore flunked out of divinity school. Also, do not give me the standard BS about GW's dad buying the degree. Everyone knows that money will get you into Harvard, but it will not get you a degree.
The people did get shafted in 2004. We had two poor choices for president who were born with millions of dollars whose fathers had ungodly connections.

SamHarber
29th January 03, 05:39 AM
Just some random points - Israel and China are both in breach of several UN resolutions.
Harping on about how the USA saved everyones ass 60 years ago is not a usefull arguement.
Iraq only controls a small proportion of the available oil, the fact that the US economy is on the edge because of that tells me that the US economy needs to reduce its dependence on oil.

grandloupmechant
29th January 03, 06:29 AM
Anyway we're in the fucking shit because while we're discussing about htis stuff, i'm sure that Bush at the moment is phoning Saddam in order to plan the upcoming strikes while remembering their last holidays together along with Rumsfeld(who knows Saddam well) and Chirac(who is friend with Tarek aziz) in Mauritius or trinidad.
Those guys play games we don't even guess i'm sure.
Now as people on those forum belong to the army (or they say so anyway)let's blow away the "top secret defense" stuff and begin some serious talks.
Without good info it's useless to rely on guesses.

Osiris
29th January 03, 09:23 AM
"there was no UN Mandate that said China or Israel had to disarm."

I know.

"Germany and France are so in bed with Iraq when it comes to oil that they would go against the country that saved their ass in WW2."

Out of pure self interest. We only joined after we were bombed.

"As for oil, if this were just about oil, we could have taken what we wanted when we where there the first time."

Oil was the last issue on my list.

"Saddam is dangerous and needs to be eliminated."

Bullshit. No one cared when we SUPPORTED HIM.

"bitch about how we should not be willing to commit our troops to defend the lifeblood of our economy. Do you really want a mad man controlling that?"

Its his. We cant change that. You dont just take what you want. Thats what money is for.

"Saddam being the first person in history to use chemical weapons on his own countrymen?"

Doesnt the US have a history of attacking it's "own people"? Oh, wait, it still does.

"Remember the Gulf War? Saddam invading Kuwait?"

So? That was the same thing. Who the fuck cares about Kuwait?

Did you read anything I wrote? This is Manifest Destiny rearing its ugly head. This is the return of Imperialism.

"Take up the White Man's burden
Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives needs;
To wait in heave harness
On fluttered folk and wild
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child"

All this bullshit has been said before to justify imperialistic wars and slaughter. Fucking arrogant asshole thinks his ass is superior. Fuck Bush.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

J Zen
29th January 03, 11:38 AM
---"Saddam is dangerous and needs to be eliminated."---

I couldn't stress enough but this particular rhetoric keeps popping up in every news channels and debate forums. I will say it again: SADDAM ISN'T THE SOLE PROBLEM IN IRAQ. Eliminating Saddam won't solve Iraq's political and social crisis. There's too much talk and focus on the seconadry core of the problem (Saddam) while ignoring the fundamental root of the problem altogether: Iraq's sociopolitical make-up of tribal politics that make it a spawning ground for potential dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism. Removing Saddam will NOT lead to democracy, that much is certain, yet that is how the media is portraying the situation, decieving the public into thinking the US is some kind of guardian of democracy and that this war is about eliminating terrorism - I say BS! This war is about furthering global political & economic control over the globe and eliminating an enemy who doesn't share the same ideology. Yes, Saddam needs to be gone, but military assualt on Iraq and forced removal of the regime will not bring the desired result. Iraq needs revolution from below i.e. uprising of the working & middleclass against the current regime and sociopolitcal change to create a social environment unfit as spawning ground for future dictatorship and fringe groups like Islamic fundamentalism.

---"Saddam being the first person in history to use chemical weapons on his own countrymen?"---

Don't forget also that the US was the first and the only power to have shown the willingless and eagerness to use WMD, not only once but twice and got away with it. One could make a case that such act was perhaps the one of the greatest acts of terrorism in the modern world, surpassed by perhaps only the Dresden/Tokyo Carpet Bombings or the Japanese Rape of Nanking. Rogue states aren't likely to use WMD on other countries - the reason they have such weapon isn't for the purpose of agression - it's for leverage and deterrance, whereas empires and superpowers obtain WMD for the purpose of threat and agression - they are the ones who have far more incentive to use and most likely to get away with it. We should be more scared of super powers with WMD than rogue states like Iraq.

Deadpan Scientist
29th January 03, 01:03 PM
The only reason nukes are a deterrant is because they are a threat

J Zen
29th January 03, 01:25 PM
---The only reason nukes are a deterrant is because they are a threat---

Absolutely, but one must ask whether if the country/group who holds WMD has incentive to be agressive or willingness to pre-emptively attack another power? I believe that Saddam has little to no such incentive considering the retaliation he would face - he would be digging his own grave. Saddam is no Hitler, he's way smarter and less crazier than Hitler. Saddam's primary objective right now is to hold on to his power, not world domination nor the eradication of the US - he's no Islamic terrorist bent on suicide and destruction, he's calculated and smart dictator who has managed to survive all these decades in a region where the political environment doesn't allow much room for error - the smallest mistake on his part and judgement can easily bring him down and kill him.

Freddy
29th January 03, 03:03 PM
Well said J Zen.

PEACE!

fragbot
29th January 03, 05:03 PM
For an explanation of George Bush Snr and his behaviour, and quite possibly that of his son as well, have a look at http://www.thisistherealtruth.com/biggestsecret.htm

"Sorry, did I say that out loud?"


Just found this thread. . .what fun.

In any case, aren't you the least bit skeptical about a place calling itself "this is the real truth" and an article named "biggest secret?"

It boggles the mind.

fragbot
29th January 03, 05:12 PM
IGBJJs, you seem to have lost your damn mind. There are tons of human rights violations RIGHT HERE. Why dont we bomb the people robbing the homeless? Take a wild guess who that is.


Stupid damn criminals those are, since homeless people don't have anything worth stealing.

Oh, I always forget. Some people think cuts in taxpayer-funded social services are stealing from the homeless.




The world is a fucked up place and the US is just as guilty as anyone else. So why get all righteous all of a sudden? Hmm, oil maybe?


A quick question for the "it's all about oil" people. Explain how. Be specific.

I'll grant you we wouldn't care if Saddam was a menace in some central African hellhole, instead of a strategically important part of the world, but that's a far cry from "it's the oil, man."



You're not as safe as you think. When Bush destroys our liberty and the world turns on the uS, all WILL be touched.


We probably aren't as safe as I think. OTOH, things aren't as drastic as you think.

As far as liberty goes, since 9/11, I've lost the ability to do one thing I routinely did--carry a folder onto an airplane.

When they start rounding up college professors and union organizers, lemme know.

fragbot
29th January 03, 05:19 PM
According to the department of Energy:
Oil imported to U.S. from Iraq= 215,000 barrels per day.

Total U.S. oil imports= 9.491 MILLION barrels per day!

The value per BBL of oil * the 215,000 BBL imported from Iraq is less than it will cost the U.S. to send one Aircraft Group to the Persian gulf!

War for oil doesn't make economic sense. Sorry.


Sshhh, you're interrupting masturbatory groupthink.

fragbot
29th January 03, 05:26 PM
God, Justme. Oh shit. You must be the most clueless person Ive ever seen.



Y'all get my vote for best "pot calling the kettle black" post of the year. Such delicious irony. . .

Deadpan Scientist
29th January 03, 05:38 PM
Absolutely, but one must ask whether if the country/group who holds WMD has incentive to be agressive or willingness to pre-emptively attack another power?

The US has an incentive to attck before he has nukes. He does things we don't like, such as associating with terrorists, and invading other countries.



I believe that Saddam has little to no such incentive considering the retaliation he would face - he would be digging his own grave.

Saddam wants to keep power, just as you say he does. The most powerful country in the world wants him out. The only way he can stay there is if he builds a nuke and threatens to use it.



- he's no Islamic terrorist bent on suicide and destruction,


No, seems to me that paying suicide bombers families for each family member that died blowing up innocent israeli citizens would be something that someone who supports terrorism would do.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

He does get points for challenging Bush and Cheny to a duel though... But that's not good enough to keep him around.

fragbot
29th January 03, 05:43 PM
The election thing is very complicated. Justme, I would ask whether you think an electoral system that selects a politician with a minority of the popular vote is a good one, and whether you think the electoral college isn't a thoroughly outmoded institution.


I'm not justme, but I'll chime in.

Whether or not the electoral college system is outmoded, depends, I suppose on where you live. If you live in some place like WY you benefit more from the system than if you live in CA, FL, or TX.

In the interest of electoral fairness, I'd say it's a reasonable compromise--less populous states get a tad more influence on the outcome.

FWIW, you can fix the electoral college issue somewhat by using Vermont's (NH?) model--you take the state, you get the 2 senator votes and then you get a vote for every congressional district you win. Compared to a constitutional amendment, you have a relatively simple change while remaining true to the implied founders' intent.



Bush has had many opportunities to do great things, and he has lost them. He keeps walking into these diplomatic tiger traps. But so long as he thinks he can solve those problems by sending your children to die, he won't need to be more clever.


If Iraq's the problem, what besides violent regime change is the answer? We gave "sanctions a chance" and they didn't do anything but impoverish (it used to be fashionable for left-wing agitprop to promote the idea the sanctions killed 500000; amazing how that criticism has disappeared) his population.

A cynical answer to my question: it's not our problem to solve. I can see that, but it's pretty obvious we helped strengthen him when we were wigged out by Iran, so it is our mess. Will ____ Iraqis die? Undoubtedly. That being said, how long will it take Saddam and his son (assuming 1 of the sons takes over when he dies; probably the more ruthless, sexually sadistic one) to catchup and pull ahead?

Maybe I'm just an uncreative lout, but I don't see any diplomatic way of solving a problem like Saddam (or, for that matter, Kim Jong Il; personally, I think China oughta step up and solve that problem, but I suspect that's a pretty lonely viewpoint).

fragbot
29th January 03, 05:59 PM
Brand: If this were a war to relieve the Iraqi people, then it be a different story. Then it would be a noble goal. But thats not why Bush wants to go in. Whatever his reasons are, humanitarian issues are not among them.


I agree. It's not about humanitarian issues. Remarkably, after N months (pick any reasonable N you'd like), the primary beneficiary of another government would, presumably*, be the Iraqi people.

*assumption: the installed government would be significantly better than the current one. You tell me if you think this assumption is reasonable. Given the European interest in the issue, I suspect it's a useful assumption.



If they were, then why does he ignore all the other humanitarian issues? Including the ones in his own country. The humanity thing is just an ecuse by him to rally public support, same with the lie that he's a real threat. Can we all agree that he poses no serious threat to the western world?


Depends on what you mean by serious threat. In any case, I suspect the correct answer depends on your answer to the following question:

Does he pose a serious threat to Israel?

stuff about other Middle Eastern countries elided...

Yeah, there are other troublesome places. However, he has the fortune of being the one Bush'n'crew are most irritated with. Neh, he should've thought twice about sending a team after an ex-president.

========OB: meta-discussion========

Watching these discussions, I get the feeling we'd be having a much different discussion if we were talking about deposing Pinochet in the 1970s. Guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Osiris
29th January 03, 06:42 PM
"Oh, I always forget. Some people think cuts in taxpayer-funded social services are stealing from the homeless."

No thats not what I was referring to. The police literally take their shit all the time. A friend of a friend is a rapper and was attempting to sell copies of his CDs. Police took his shit just like that.

"A quick question for the "it's all about oil" people. Explain how. Be specific."

Pay attention. After the adress I posted a list of reasons for the war. Oil is just a bonus.

"We probably aren't as safe as I think. OTOH, things aren't as drastic as you think.

As far as liberty goes, since 9/11, I've lost the ability to do one thing I routinely did--carry a folder onto an airplane."

Its like frogs in boiling water. You know the story.

"Maybe I'm just an uncreative lout, but I don't see any diplomatic way of solving a problem like Saddam (or, for that matter, Kim Jong Il; personally, I think China oughta step up and solve that problem, but I suspect that's a pretty lonely viewpoint)."

How is Saddam a problem? He's not. He was chilling until Bush opened his fucking mouth. I dont care how many bombs he has. HE KNOWS THAT HE CANNOT DEFEAT THE US. His goal is to keep power, correct? He cant do that if he gets annihalated after nuking the US. So you can conclude that he will not nuke the US.

"*assumption: the installed government would be significantly better than the current one. You tell me if you think this assumption is reasonable. Given the European interest in the issue, I suspect it's a useful assumption."

But who cares?

"No, seems to me that paying suicide bombers families for each family member that died blowing up innocent israeli citizens would be something that someone who supports terrorism would do."

Oooh the poor Israelis. When the Palestinians want to kill they have to either blow themselves up too or get shot after spraying the place while Israelis sit in tanks and wreck entire fucking neighborhoods. ITS NOT THEIR LAND. Israel has NO RIGHT TO EXIST. They were defeated 2 millenia ago and had not been heard of until they were recreated after WW2.









"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Freddy
29th January 03, 06:50 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"According to the department of Energy:
Oil imported to U.S. from Iraq= 215,000 barrels per day.

Total U.S. oil imports= 9.491 MILLION barrels per day!

The value per BBL of oil * the 215,000 BBL imported from Iraq is less than it will cost the U.S. to send one Aircraft Group to the Persian gulf!

War for oil doesn't make economic sense. Sorry."

I'm curiuos when was this report made?
Lets see most of the advance economic countries in the world is dependent on oil and we live in a capitalist society and capitalism is based on competition and Europe and Asia happens to be American capitalism biggest economic rivals. Imagine controlling the oil supply of Europe and Asia.. your biggest economic rival. hymmmm?


PEACE!

Osiris
29th January 03, 06:55 PM
Verse 2

Take up the White Man's burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple'
An hundred times made plain,
To seek anothers profit,
And work anothers gain.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

fragbot
29th January 03, 07:25 PM
No thats not what I was referring to. The police literally take their shit all the time. A friend of a friend is a rapper and was attempting to sell copies of his CDs. Police took his shit just like that.


Ahhh, a homeless rapper. That's pretty funny. In the winter, he could call himself Ice Cube.

Occam's razor: did they just take his CDs for fun and profit? Or is there more to the story than you know (AKA he's in violation of his copyright or he was supplementing his product mix with counterfeits; a favorite pastime of CD street vendors in the Northeast)? It's never quite as simple as "the man's keepin' me down." Yeah, like the man wants to see his grubby butt shuffling down the street every day.



"A quick question for the "it's all about oil" people. Explain how. Be specific."

Pay attention. After the adress I posted a list of reasons for the war. Oil is just a bonus.


Ah, I see. So the original post I responded to with your words "maybe oil" was fluff. I appreciate that you've clarified your position.

Oil is a bonus. As far as that goes, eventual troop reductions in Muslim-revered Saudi Arabia would also be a bonus. As an additional bonus, I'd happily fill my pantry with Iraqi apricots, pistachios and olives. Come to think of it, there are a myriad of additional bonuses--better intelligence on Iran and Syria, closer relations with Turkey, and even a small beach on the Persian Gulf that would be perfect for, er, hotels.



"We probably aren't as safe as I think. OTOH, things aren't as drastic as you think.

As far as liberty goes, since 9/11, I've lost the ability to do one thing I routinely did--carry a folder onto an airplane."

Its like frogs in boiling water. You know the story.


Well, I'm not sure about y'all, but I'm not an amphibian. Less snarkily, slippery slope arguments are unpersuasive and logically fallacious.



"Maybe I'm just an uncreative lout, but I don't see any diplomatic way of solving a problem like Saddam (or, for that matter, Kim Jong Il; personally, I think China oughta step up and solve that problem, but I suspect that's a pretty lonely viewpoint)."

How is Saddam a problem? He's not. He was chilling until Bush opened his fucking mouth. I dont care how many bombs he has. HE KNOWS THAT HE CANNOT DEFEAT THE US. His goal is to keep power, correct? He cant do that if he gets annihalated after nuking the US. So you can conclude that he will not nuke the US.


Saddam's a problem for a multitude of reasons (none of which are necessarily unique, ya gotta pick your battles). Pick whichever one suits your fancy:

1) he's a despotic leader who'd rather build palaces than feed his own people (as an aside, I enjoyed a previous poster, not you, who worried about millions of starving Americans; at first, I was worried bulimia and anorexia had reached epidemic proportions then I realized it was a virulent strain of hyperbolus maximus).

2) he's already used poison gas (nerve agent) on his Kurdish minority as well as (I believe) the Arab's historical enemy (AKA Iran). While the cynical might point out he was "our guy" when he did this, I'd simply point out that the world changes sometimes and allies sometimes turn into enemies. . .especially, if your common enemy (ibid.) becomes alot less threatening.

3) he's in violation of the cease fire agreement he signed at the end of DaGulf v1.0. Out of curiousity, do any of the "but there's no proof" people actually believe he hasn't continued his weapons program.



"*assumption: the installed government would be significantly better than the current one. You tell me if you think this assumption is reasonable. Given the European interest in the issue, I suspect it's a useful assumption."

But who cares?


Someone who'd prefer to participate in an adult conversation instead of a freeper-style rant fest.

fragbot
29th January 03, 07:29 PM
Verse 2

Take up the White Man's burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple'
An hundred times made plain,
To seek anothers profit,
And work anothers gain.


I wouldn't have picked you to be a Rudyard Kipling fan. *chuckle*



Edited by - fragbot on January 29 2003 18:31:04

Osiris
29th January 03, 07:36 PM
"Someone who'd prefer to participate in an adult conversation instead of a freeper-style rant fest."

LOL. My point is that I dont care about the condition of the Iraqi people. If they want revolution its on them. As for the freestyle comment. Are you referring to the poem? Thats not rap. Thats Rudyard Kipling. Its called "The White Man's Burden".

"Saddam's a problem for a multitude of reasons"

True. But he's no threat to us.

"Or is there more to the story than you know (AKA he's in violation of his copyright or he was supplementing his product mix with counterfeits; a favorite pastime of CD street vendors in the Northeast)?"

Nah. Hes just trying to make some cash. All of his CD's were legit. He had no reason to lie to me, as he was leaving town the next day. Police in the hood were locking everthing down. Shutdown an Afrocentric temple as well. Man was selling a few products and they took him away. Police are not our friends.


"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

Fatality Dragon
29th January 03, 07:55 PM
Osiris, you seems to have so much hates toward that poor idiot Bush and we understand that... But be careful... Or Bush may will end up sending someone to assassin you... That will break my heart. lol

"I would rather admit I am a lousy student than say I am the best, because once you think you are the best, there is no reason to continue learning."

Osiris
29th January 03, 08:03 PM
"I wouldn't have picked you to be a Rudyard Kipling fan. *chuckle*"

The first verse (should be stanza?) is a page or 2 back. Point is is that this has been said before an we all know how that turned out. Instead of the "white man's" burden, it is now the Americans burden.



"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

fragbot
29th January 03, 08:26 PM
"I wouldn't have picked you to be a Rudyard Kipling fan. *chuckle*"

The first verse (should be stanza?) is a page or 2 back. Point is is that this has been said before an we all know how that turned out. Instead of the "white man's" burden, it is now the Americans burden.


Either verse or stanza is correct (tho' verse is more often used to reference music).

I didn't see the original post you're referencing, but I think you're assuming facts not in evidence--Iraq won't end up like Guam or the Virgin Islands nor will end up like Rhodesia or the Congo or, continuing with the Kipling theme, India. It's apples and oranges.

As an aside, I've always thought the best question that could be asked by the people who don't want to depose Saddam is "why now?" In other words, after years of allowing him to remain in power, what straw broke the, er, camel's back?

My probably inadequate answer: there's no particular straw. Instead, for 8 years, American leaders had a different philosophy so it only seems like a dramatic policy shift. Even though GWB41 still had a coupla years, we were grudgingly prancing down the "give sanctions a chance" route.

In discussions like these, it's always fun to suggest authors for our compadres. Being the generous guy I am, I'll suggest Ralph Peters' non-fiction stuff.





Edited by - fragbot on January 29 2003 19:29:47

Osiris
29th January 03, 08:59 PM
"Iraq won't end up like Guam or the Virgin Islands nor will end up like Rhodesia or the Congo or, continuing with the Kipling theme, India. It's apples and oranges."

Sure. Imperialism always hides behind a noble cause. If you dont know history... Damn I hate using corny quotes, but they come in handy.

"Being the generous guy I am, I'll suggest Ralph Peters' non-fiction stuff."

Read Machiavelli. Politicians arent who they say they are and theyre not what they say theyre about.

"I didn't see the original post you're referencing"

What original post? Verse 1? Page 8, 3rd from the bottom.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

J Zen
29th January 03, 10:47 PM
---The US has an incentive to attack before he has nukes. He does things we don't like, such as associating with terrorists, and invading other countries.---

That's kinda hypocritical to say considering the US has had its fair share of associating with terrorists and unjustly invading another country, even removing democratic regime and installing dictatorship for the sake of economic benefits. This whole "if they do things we don't like, they must be terrorists" is a really dangerous thing. At what point do we draw the line? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism aren't specific groups, it's the employment of certain tactics.

---Saddam wants to keep power, just as you say he does. The most powerful country in the world wants him out. The only way he can stay there is if he builds a nuke and threatens to use it.---

Even if he has nukes, he still has no technology to deliver them effectively. He can't threaten to use the nuke on the US soil via long range ballistic, only via tactical deployment in local battlefield which he will probably do so should an invasion occur, that's assuming he has full nuclear capability. Besides, if he wants to keep himself in power, the last thing he wants to do is to push the US to the edge by nuking American cities. Not only will he face the wrath of the US but most probably the wrath of all the US allies as well. Remember, right now, Saddam is not relying on the threat of its "potential" WMD capability to deter US invasion, he's relying on the "Imperialist US is bullying us Iraqi despite the consensus of the international community" rhetoric and hope that the UN will side with him, thereby making themselves look innocent and the US guilty. If he's not suicidal (which I assure, he's far from it), so he will leave the US alone unless he's desperate.

---No, seems to me that paying suicide bombers families for each family member that died blowing up innocent israeli citizens would be something that someone who supports terrorism would do.---

That still doesn't change the fact that he's no friend of Islamic terrorists. Saddam's Iraq is not a place where Islamic terrorists want to be. Though I have no doubt that he is more than willing to use the terrorists to do the dirty work for him, but as of now there's no cooperation between the two, only hostility. Saddam is well known for his "playing both sides" strategy, like what he did during the Cold War and managed to fool the US and the Soviet. The reason he donated such fund, I would wager, is to boost his PR in the middle east and a political ploy to exploit the situation, whether the fund would be used to support terrorism is beyond his control and so one can't really say he's an Islamic terrorist. Besides, nations such as Saudi Arabia and Libya are known to "harbor" and give financial support (Saudis royal family anyone?) to terrorists groups. Why not take them out or even give them a slap in the hands - they are much more of a candidate than Iraq. Heck, there are Americans, British and other western powers who donated and provided tactical & logistical support for the terrorists and present much more of a threat than Iraq.

J Zen
29th January 03, 11:05 PM
---If Iraq's the problem, what besides violent regime change is the answer? We gave "sanctions a chance" and they didn't do anything but impoverish (it used to be fashionable for left-wing agitprop to promote the idea the sanctions killed 500000; amazing how that criticism has disappeared) his population.---

Violent regime removal would be the easiest and quickest solution, but the result will be only a short-term benefits and there's large potential that such action would cause further violent chain reactions that would worsen the crisis and the US relationship with the mideast. The more appropriate, but more difficult to pull would be to instigate a revolution from below and change Iraq's internal social dynamic that makes its environment a suitable breeding ground for dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism. I think the sanctioned did worsened the situation in Iraq by the Iraqis into supporting Saddam even more. Saddam has been cleverly channelling the pain and anger of the Iraqis toward the US. Without the sanction, less Iraqis would most likely hold such grudge against the west and more would be pissed off with Saddam's regime. The US should try to exploit this and engage in more clandestine efforts to oust Saddam, working to undermine his regime from the inside rather than take chances with the riskier & less effective option of full frontal invasion.

Fatality Dragon
29th January 03, 11:36 PM
Osiris, why don't you go into political? That is the way you can play god :-)

"I would rather admit I am a lousy student than say I am the best, because once you think you are the best, there is no reason to continue learning."

elipson
30th January 03, 01:35 AM
Osiris, you dont seem like the machiavelli reader type. Every world leader should read up on this guy, he rocks.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Greese
30th January 03, 01:48 AM
Osiris, how is a constant build up and development of chemical and nuclear weapons "chillen?"
Did your friend have a business or vendor's liscense? If not then he shouldn't be allowed to sell his stuff on the street.
It is ilogical to assume that Sadam is soley content with remaing in power. If he that were his main concern he would have abided by the UN resolution and he would have been left alone with his 9 billion dollars. Think about it, if you were in his position, would you work on building weapons that you knew would get you killed? Or hell, all he had to now was cooperate with weapon inspectors and he would not be in hot water. He is not trying to just remain in power. If he was not concerned with expanding, why did he invade Kuwait?
I am much more comfortable with N. Korea having nukes than Saddam. We have been down this road before with North Korea, they start a nuke program, we give them money to stop it. Rinse and repeat. Saddam has shown a willingness to use whatever he has.

SLJ
30th January 03, 04:37 AM
I think... oh fuck it it's all too complicated for me.

----------------------------------------------------------
”He (Master Bristol) was like a slippery fish. There was no way I could hold on to him.” -- Tomas Shurrman, Judo Expert




Edited by - slj on January 30 2003 03:48:34

SamHarber
30th January 03, 06:05 AM
Just a quick note on Iraqs oil exports... They are currently limited by international sanctions, to provide just enough imcome to stop the iraqi people starving to death (or whatever). Iraqs potential oil production capabilities are much greater than that. Therefore it would be economic to send troops to iraq.

grandloupmechant
30th January 03, 07:52 AM
Most of Europe is now with the USA, Bush will have his war after all...

SamHarber
30th January 03, 09:00 AM
Wonder what sort of leverage he used to get them to swing that way.

Osiris
30th January 03, 09:32 AM
"Osiris, why don't you go into political? That is the way you can play god :-)"

lol

"Did your friend have a business or vendor's liscense? If not then he shouldn't be allowed to sell his stuff on the street."

He's going to get one how? However you look at it, its generally wrong to take from those who have nothing. Besides when everyone and their mama started selling flags and such, I dont think to many got ALL thier property taken. LOL You think they all had license? I sure didnt hear about a shitload of middle-class whites being hauled off the block.

"If he was not concerned with expanding, why did he invade Kuwait?"

I didnt say that he WASNT concerned with expanding. He ISNT concerned with expanding.

"Think about it, if you were in his position, would you work on building weapons that you knew would get you killed?"

Yes. Just in case an angry son attacks out of the blue.



"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light" - The RZA

J Zen
30th January 03, 09:57 AM
---It is ilogical to assume that Sadam is soley content with remaing in power. If he that were his main concern he would have abided by the UN resolution and he would have been left alone with his 9 billion dollars. Think about it, if you were in his position, would you work on building weapons that you knew would get you killed?---

Saddam is an arrogant dictator and he by no means respect the UN, US or democratic ideology. Certainly, he wants to hold on to his power as long as possible, but his pride and arrogance will not allow himself to be the laughing stock of the middle east by submissively abide by the UN - after all, he doesn't recognize nor feel that the UN is a legitimate world governing power. He will probably want to expand and dominate if he has the capability to do so, no doubt about that, but reality isn't in his favour here so he hasn't really got a choice but to stay put, at least for now. What most people don't seem to understand however, is the fact that "at the current state of Iraq", WMD for Saddam is first and foremost the mean to for his regime to survive. If you observe closely you will see that he is hated or unappreciated by just about every other countries and Islamic fundamentalist groups in the region. Notably, his greatest local threats are Iran and Israel, whose military mights Iraq has no chance of defeating (geographic advantage, superior number & technology, and the disarmament & destruction of a large part of Iraq's conventional military force after the Gulf War). This is when developing WMD will give him a great equalizer, especially against Israel who undoubtedly are itching to find excuses to attack and remove Saddam, given the first oppotunity available.

There's this widespread misconception that we the anti-war protesters are somehow anti-American, pro-terrorism, pro-Saddam, etc. who insist on leaving Iraq and their development of WMD alone. This is BS and without any substance, none of us here are ignoring the fact that if given enough time Saddam will eventually become a real imminent threat - no doubt about that. That's why we must disarm him and if possible, remove his regime and create a stable Iraq. What the pro-wars and anti-wars differ is only in the methods of achieving such objective. Personally, I have often found those who shout the "anti-war = pro-terrorism/Saddam" rhetorics or how we deserve to be shot on spot for questioning the words of emperor Bush, are by large ignorant idiots without a clue - sheep easily manipulated by what the media feeds them and can see nothing but violent resolution as the only mean of solving problems, but that's just my opinion.

fragbot
30th January 03, 12:19 PM
There's this widespread misconception that we the anti-war protesters are somehow anti-American, pro-terrorism, pro-Saddam, etc. who insist on leaving Iraq and their development of WMD alone. This is BS and without any substance, none of us here are ignoring the fact that if given enough time Saddam will eventually become a real imminent threat - no doubt about that. That's why we must disarm him and if possible, remove his regime and create a stable Iraq. What the pro-wars and anti-wars differ is only in the methods of achieving such objective. Personally, I have often found those who shout the "anti-war = pro-terrorism/Saddam" rhetorics or how we deserve to be shot on spot for questioning the words of emperor Bush, are by large ignorant idiots without a clue - sheep easily manipulated by what the media feeds them and can see nothing but violent resolution as the only mean of solving problems, but that's just my opinion.


Sheesh, like the rhetoric of those who oppose the war is any less facile. How many times have you heard "it's all about the oil" when that's clearly inadequate?

Furthermore, the so-called "free-thinkers" are just as bound by their groupthink. They've just a different group of shepherds.

I always enjoy it when people throw out blanket statements that can just as easily be used to describe their ideological compadres.



Edited by - fragbot on January 30 2003 11:45:25

fragbot
30th January 03, 12:44 PM
Violent regime removal would be the easiest and quickest solution, but the result will be only a short-term benefits and there's large potential that such action would cause further violent chain reactions that would worsen the crisis and the US relationship with the mideast.


While I agree it's the easiest and quicket solution, you are assuming it has "only short-term benefits." You have no evidence one way or the other.



The more appropriate, but more difficult to pull would be to instigate a revolution from below and change Iraq's internal social dynamic that makes its environment a suitable breeding ground for dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism.


For the last ten years, American policy has agreed with you. Hell, Rumsfeld talked about an internal coup months ago.

WRT the social structure of Iraq, what can anyone in the West do? The common answer I'm given "promote representative democracy and stop supporting repressive regimes" rings hollow since, if given a choice, much of the region would consistently vote itself an equally oppressive theocracy (the new boss is the same as the old boss). Likewise, beyond simple containment, there's not a damn thing the West can do about the ancient tribal/clannish animousities that flare up periodically.



I think the sanctioned did worsened the situation in Iraq by the Iraqis into supporting Saddam even more. Saddam has been cleverly channelling the pain and anger of the Iraqis toward the US.


Honestly, does it matter what Joe Sixpack in Baghdad thinks? Like any other well-sewn up dictatorship, they don't really have much input into their situation. . .power coming from the barrel of a gun and all.



Without the sanction, less Iraqis would most likely hold such grudge against the west and more would be pissed off with Saddam's regime.


Again, you have one reasonable statement and one unreasonable one. If sanctions were gone, you're correct they wouldn't have a grudge against the west. That being said, this isn't a zero-sum game and it's unreasonable to assume they'd turn their anger on Saddam.

Put another way, it's equally likely they'd just be happy to go about their business quietly.



The US should try to exploit this and engage in more clandestine efforts to oust Saddam, working to undermine his regime from the inside rather than take chances with the riskier & less effective option of full frontal invasion.


Unless I'm missing something, you've just restated policy since the end of GulfWar v1.0.

fragbot
30th January 03, 12:55 PM
"Iraq won't end up like Guam or the Virgin Islands nor will end up like Rhodesia or the Congo or, continuing with the Kipling theme, India. It's apples and oranges."

Sure. Imperialism always hides behind a noble cause. If you dont know history... Damn I hate using corny quotes, but they come in handy.


Personally, I like bumper sticker sayings more than corny quotes.



"Being the generous guy I am, I'll suggest Ralph Peters' non-fiction stuff."

Read Machiavelli. Politicians arent who they say they are and theyre not what they say theyre about.


Neither am I and neither are you. Yeah, people have their stated reasons for doing things and often their real reason for acting. It's only mildly relevant.

Bottom line: if you agree with the stated goal, why does the motivation matter?



"I didn't see the original post you're referencing"

What original post? Verse 1? Page 8, 3rd from the bottom.


Ah, that'd be the one.

J Zen
30th January 03, 04:43 PM
---Sheesh, like the rhetoric of those who oppose the war is any less facile. How many times have you heard "it's all about the oil" when that's clearly inadequate?---

---I always enjoy it when people throw out blanket statements that can just as easily be used to describe their ideological compadres.---

Can you identify yourself as one of the following:

1.) You believe that it's un-American & un-patriotic to speak against the current decision of the president.

2.) You believe that to not support war is to support Saddam/terrorism or should be branded as Saddam/terrorist sympathizers.

3.) You brand all anti-war as self-hating bleeding heart liberals who insist that the US should do nothing about Iraq and Saddam and just take it up the ass.

If not then you are no "easily manipulated sheep" nor an "ignorant idiot". Neither do I see much sense or substance in the "it's ALL about oil" rhetoric, so you are accusing a wrong person here.

Frankly, I threw that last particular offensive statement of mine out just to see how many of those I percieve to be "ignorant idiots" would show up and start flaming about how I should move to Iraq and blow Saddam's private part. A debate is always exciting with a little flame, controversy and a healthy degree of idiocy.

---While I agree it's the easiest and quicket solution, you are assuming it has "only short-term benefits." You have no evidence one way or the other.---

Yes it's all hypothetical, there's never a sure way to conclude such, but I see it's just as hypothetical, if not IMHO, delusional to believe that invasion and removal of Saddam would lead to a long term democracy or stability, without somehow taking into account the social environment in Iraq. It seems to me that the people in the administration haven't presented a clear plan as to what they would do in Iraq after Saddam's regime is gone, so I don't really trust their decisions and judgement at this point and it looks like as if though they are going to screw it up like their decisions to intervene with Iran's affair despite opposition from middle east and Iran scholars & experts whom agreed otherwise that it was a bad idea.

---WRT the social structure of Iraq, what can anyone in the West do? The common answer I'm given "promote representative democracy and stop supporting repressive regimes" rings hollow since, if given a choice, much of the region would consistently vote itself an equally oppressive theocracy (the new boss is the same as the old boss). Likewise, beyond simple containment, there's not a damn thing the West can do about the ancient tribal/clannish animousities that flare up periodically.---

Neither will military invasion change that, if anything it could make it worse. Occupation isn't an option either, you don't want to be like the Soviet in Afghanistan nor turn this into another Vietnam. You can't simply apply the American or western model of democratic development to a different culture whose historical and ethnic make-ups are so vastly different than ours. To each his own, and the middle east will need a unique path or solution that will change their society. Granted, difficult, but it can be done. Modern Iran is a good example and is slowly moving towards the right direction - blending Islam and democracy, if still somewhat in theory. None the less, it's a model that the other middle east nations could follow.

One thing for sure, revolution through forced politics and military overthrow hasn't been successful in establishing longterm stability. The US should have learned that by looking at its past foreign policies involving various 3rd world countries.

Having said that, I will offer a theoratical solution from my perspective which may or may not work, but I believe should worth a try.

If you look back at some of the most signifant revolutions that broke down the barriers preventing democracy and freedom you would see that change in social economics are often the primary factor (e.g. the market revolution --> the end of feudalism), this is what we should concentrate on - to change oppressive society, one must first and foremost correct or change things at the socio-political/economic level, i.e. focus on the economics rather than the military. For a "bottom-up revolution" to succeed in Iraq, there needs to be a "unifying feature" that breaks down the religious, tribal & ethnic concepts (the roots of the problem) - economic is such unifying feature. If the middle class Iraqi (who mostly happens to be the Shiites whose tribes most of Saddam's support come from) can be strengthened, perhaps using Islam as the vehicle of empowerment (like in case of modern Iranian revolution), it is possible to instigate a revolution in which people are more likely to opt for a less oppressive regime and more democracy-friendly form of government. Remember, the majority of Iraqis who are Sunnis do not like Saddam - they are devout Islams and Saddam's regime is not that Islam-friendly. Right now, the reason they hate the west is because they view Saddam as the lesser of the 2 evils, not neccessarily because they like or are content with his rule. Like how Saddam channel the Iraqis anger toward the west to create his pillar of power & support, we must do the opposite and re-channel people's anger and hardship towards Saddam. With the current way he's governing his people, he won't be able to keep the oppressed majority content for long. If they can identify Saddam's regime as the source of their hardship, the local tribes whose support and troops Saddam draw his from, will likely turn on him and oust him out. Contrary, to what may seem like a common perception about Iraq, Saddam is not the main machine behind what goes on in Iraq. He doesn't neccessarily have the authoritarian command structure that allows him to dictate everything that goes on in Iraq - another reason why I am bothered by the general media portraying Iraq's probelm lies solely in the existence of Saddam and that removing him will solve everything. In fact, he's just as much a part of the Iraqi tribal system that obligates him to look after the interests of the tribes that supply him with the much needed troops and support. Without such tribal support, his regime can not survive.

fragbot
30th January 03, 05:19 PM
---Sheesh, like the rhetoric of those who oppose the war is any less facile. How many times have you heard "it's all about the oil" when that's clearly inadequate?---

---I always enjoy it when people throw out blanket statements that can just as easily be used to describe their ideological compadres.---

Can you identify yourself as one of the following:

1.) You believe that it's un-American & un-patriotic to speak against the current decision of the president.


Un-American or un-patriotic, nah.

Unpersuasive and kneejerk, yeah.




2.) You believe that to not support war is to support Saddam/terrorism or should be branded as Saddam/terrorist sympathizers.


Depends on whether or not you want to be judged by your actions or the results of your actions. Who's the primary beneficiary if the "No Iraq War" people are successful?

If you send Saddam your address, he'll happily send you a gift basket next Christmas.

That being said, do I believe they'd self-identify as Saddam sympathizers? Nah.



3.) You brand all anti-war as self-hating bleeding heart liberals who insist that the US should do nothing about Iraq and Saddam and just take it up the ass.


It's curious how you worded the previous statement. Says more about you than it does me.

In any case, some people are truly pacifists. They people, while naive, are consistent. From where I sit, most of the anti-war sentiment has little to do with Iraq per se and more to do with Bush bashing. While Bush bashing must be as fun for the left as Clinton bashing was for the right, it's an unpersuasive argument.



Frankly, I threw that last particular offensive statement of mine out just to see how many of those I percieve to be "ignorant idiots" would show up and start flaming about how I should move to Iraq and blow Saddam's private part. A debate is always exciting with a little flame, controversy and a healthy degree of idiocy.


I think y'all have issues.


---While I agree it's the easiest and quicket solution, you are assuming it has "only short-term benefits." You have no evidence one way or the other.---



Yes it's all hypothetical, there's never a sure way to conclude such
but I see it's just as hypothetical, if not IMHO, delusional to believe that invasion and removal of Saddam would lead to a long term democracy or stability, without somehow taking into account the social environment in Iraq.


Is long-term stability the ultimate goal? Of course. OTOH, if we only get to deal with someone less problematic for 10-15 years, that's okay as well. . .the perfect is the enemy of the good.

It's like waiting for the perfect time to have a baby.



It seems to me that the people in the administration haven't presented a clear plan as to what they would do in Iraq after Saddam's regime is gone.


I agree. That being said, there are a myriad of good reasons for them to keep their mouth shut about this strategy (e.g. it'll upset allies like, say, Turkey, it provides good human shield choices, it provides valuable negotiating information going forward).

---WRT the social structure of Iraq, what can anyone in the West do? The common answer I'm given "promote representative democracy and stop supporting repressive regimes" rings hollow since, if given a choice, much of the region would consistently vote itself an equally oppressive theocracy (the new boss is the same as the old boss). Likewise, beyond simple containment, there's not a damn thing the West can do about the ancient tribal/clannish animousities that flare up periodically.---



Neither will military invasion change that, if anything it could make it worse. Occupation isn't an option either, you don't want to be like the Soviet in Afghanistan nor turn this into another Vietnam. You can't simply apply the American or western model of democratic development to a different culture whose historical and ethnic make-ups are so vastly different than ours. To each his own, and the middle east will need a unique path or solution that will change their society. Granted, difficult, but it can be done.


Thanks for acknowledging that worrying about Iraq's broken "social structure" is a red herring.



Modern Iran is a good example and is slowly moving towards the right direction - blending Islam and democracy, if still somewhat in theory. None the less, it's a model that the other middle east nations could follow.


Assuming the cultural difference between Persians and Arabs aren't that great. It's unclear if that's a reasonable assumption.



One thing for sure, revolution through forced politics and military overthrow hasn't been successful in establishing longterm stability. The US should have learned that by looking at its past foreign policies involving various 3rd world countries.


You're correct. Of course, the only places approaching long term stability are all Western-style democracies or Asian-style benevolent dictatorships. Even within the Asian-style benevolent dictators, they have the luxury of having largely homogenous populations (FWIW, outside the US, most Western-style democracies do as well).



If you look back at some of the most signifant revolutions that broke down the barriers preventing democracy and freedom you would see that change in social economics are often the primary factor (e.g. the market revolution --> the end of feudalism), this is what we should concentrate on - to change oppressive society, one must first and foremost correct or change things at the socio-political/economic level, i.e. focus on the economics rather than the military.


Neh, I see. Focus on the economic situation. We've been doing that for a decade. It's a strategy that only affects people at the bottom. Using your logic, we should make the sanctions even tighter to spur their discontent along.



For a "bottom-up revolution" to succeed in Iraq, there needs to be a "unifying feature" that breaks down the religious, tribal & ethnic concepts (the roots of the problem) - economic is such unifying feature. If the middle class Iraqi (who mostly happens to be the Shiites whose tribes most of Saddam's support come from) can be strengthened, perhaps using Islam as the vehicle of empowerment (like in case of modern Iranian revolution), it is possible to instigate a revolution in which people are more likely to opt for a less oppressive regime and more democracy-friendly form of government. Remember, the majority of Iraqis who are Sunnis do not like Saddam - they are devout Islams and Saddam's regime is not that Islam-friendly. Right now, the reason they hate the west is because they view Saddam as the lesser of the 2 evils, not neccessarily because they like or are content with his rule.


Well, a small quibble but his support comes from the Sunni majority while the Shi'a in the south are largely protected by the southern no-fly zone (similarly, the Kurds are protected by the northern no-fly zone).



Like how Saddam channel the Iraqis anger toward the west to create his pillar of power & support, we must do the opposite and re-channel people's anger and hardship towards Saddam.


Aikido's not really my thing.



With the current way he's governing his people, he won't be able to keep the oppressed majority content for long. If they can identify Saddam's regime as the source of their hardship, the local tribes whose support and troops Saddam draw his from, will likely turn on him and oust him out. Contrary, to what may seem like a common perception about Iraq, Saddam is not the main machine behind what goes on in Iraq.


Well, if this is the case then it's absurd to believe their anger will turn on him. After all, he's really not in charge.



He doesn't neccessarily have the authoritarian command structure that allows him to dictate everything that goes on in Iraq - another reason why I am bothered by the general media portraying Iraq's probelm lies solely in the existence of Saddam and that removing him will solve everything.


Well, it wouldn't just be him. Last I checked, there were about 100 key members of the current government that would be removed.

I will agree on one thing--his soldiers didn't want to die for him in GulfWar v1.0 and they're even less likely to want to die for in TheMotherOfAllBattles v2.0. So his control is somewhat illusory.



In fact, he's just as much a part of the Iraqi tribal system that obligates him to look after the interests of the tribes that supply him with the much needed troops and support. Without such tribal support, his regime can not survive.


While that's fascinating, it's academic to the overall discussion (AKA of course he needs some amount of committed supporters, Amin, Duvalier, and Pol Pot had supporters as well). As long as the B'ath party is in place, he (or, presumably, his sons) will be their goto guy. . .not that this has anything to do with a go/nogo decision on military action in Iraq. It's simply a political consideration for AfterTheSmokeClears v3.0.

Freddy
30th January 03, 05:23 PM
No matter what happens I doubt the people of Iraq will really benifit from any regime change. Its only the rise of the Iraqi people as a whole like the French Revolution or American Revolution will serve there interest more favourably. History of Colonialism has shown external forces (imperialistic forces) has rarely benifit any developing nation. Look at South Africa and the Boer wars, look at China at her Opium War and Boxer Rebellion. Look at the history North and South America. Look at Australia and New Zealand. Has the Native population really benifited from colonial conquest. The fate of Iraq should be determine by the Iraqi people themselves.

PEACE!

Freddy
30th January 03, 05:31 PM
"(AKA of course he needs some amount of committed supporters, Amin, Duvalier, and Pol Pot had supporters as well)."
What does this have to do with anything?

PEACE!

fragbot
30th January 03, 06:24 PM
"(AKA of course he needs some amount of committed supporters, Amin, Duvalier, and Pol Pot had supporters as well)."
What does this have to do with anything?


Hell if I know, ask J Zen. He brought it up. If you re-read the context of my response, you'll understand that's why I responded the way I did. That Saddam has support from the Sunni minority is a fascinating irrelevancy. Everybody's got support from somewhere.

Christ, and we're the ignorant sheep. . .

J Zen
30th January 03, 11:35 PM
---I think y'all have issues.---

Since the idiot KFss has been rather quiet in debate lately, it has been somewhat dull without some degree of stupidity to laugh and redicule at, I guess I really do have issues...

---Neh, I see. Focus on the economic situation. We've been doing that for a decade. It's a strategy that only affects people at the bottom. Using your logic, we should make the sanctions even tighter to spur their discontent along.---

Actually, on the contrary, my logic would suggest that the sanction should eased or lifted to eliminate the Iraqis' hatred of the "western murdurous (sp?) economic sanction". It would remove Saddam's excuse to channel the people's hatred toward the west while at the same time allowing economic empowerment of the middle class Iraqi who will be a neccessary component for the "bottom-up revolution" in Iraq.

---(who mostly happens to be the Shiites whose tribes most of Saddam's support come from) can be strengthened, perhaps using Islam as the vehicle of empowerment (like in case of modern Iranian revolution), it is possible to instigate a revolution in which people are more likely to opt for a less oppressive regime and more democracy-friendly form of government. Remember, the majority of Iraqis who are Sunnis do not like Saddam - they are devout Islams and Saddam's regime is not that Islam-friendly.---

God damn it, I somehow will always manage to get this Sunni & Shiite confused and mixed up! Replace the above paragraph with the following:

"(who mostly happens to be the SUNNIS whose tribes most of Saddam's support come from) can be strengthened, perhaps using Islam as the vehicle of empowerment (like in case of modern Iranian revolution), it is possible to instigate a revolution in which people are more likely to opt for a less oppressive regime and more democracy-friendly form of government. Remember, the majority of Iraqis who are SHIITES do not like Saddam - they are devout Islams and Saddam's regime is not that Islam-friendly."

---Well, if this is the case then it's absurd to believe their anger will turn on him. After all, he's really not in charge.---

None the less, his regime is supposed to represent their interests, well more specifically the interests of the tribes whose loyatly they have pledged to Saddam.

---That Saddam has support from the Sunni minority is a fascinating irrelevancy. Everybody's got support from somewhere.---

That is why Saddam is a dictator - his support doesn't come from the majority of the Iraqis, only the tribes that control the inner working of Iraq's local politics. The Sunnis are the ruling class whose interest Saddam is supposed to represent and take care of first and foremost. The Sunni tribes are the source of Saddam's regime loyal support and troops, the majority Shiites don't particularly like Saddam, but are content to leave him in power because a lot of them percieve the west as the greater threat.

ksmythe
31st January 03, 06:34 PM
http://www.lazygranch.com/images/nosepic/sosec.jpg

Freddy
31st January 03, 07:32 PM
Too funny Ksmythe!

PEACE!

WarPhalange
3rd December 06, 01:30 AM
http://www.lazygranch.com/images/nosepic/sosec.jpg

lol

Sun Wukong
3rd December 06, 04:24 AM
I'm sure this is part of poop loops plot to shock us all with reviving ancient threads, but it's actually very interesting to look in this old thread and read some of the things people were posting back in Jan. '03 about the Iraq war...

Man, it's a good thing Greese didn't bet any money on the war. Also, Osiris and the Wastrel totally called this shit.

Shawarma
3rd December 06, 08:54 AM
I remember one thing in particular: The way the pro-war crowd always said "Oh yeah, just you wait until we find that huge pile of WMDs that Saddam is planning to use on your next backyard barbecue!"

Needless to say, no WMDs, links to 9/11 or Al-Queda were ever found.

Now, I naively thought "Woah, some people are gonna eat a whole truckload of crow now for being so damn wrong." But no, now the original reason for invading Iraq was to liberate the poor widdle Iwaqis whom everyone has such GREAT LOVE for and HATE seeing live under an oppressor. When the originally stated reason for starting the war turned out to be entirely made-up, people just assumed it wasn't ever the real reason.

And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Thinkchair
3rd December 06, 10:36 AM
oh yeah, the rest of you are too

I am not "a pussy tree hugging liberal pansy" but I think George Bush is one of the most incompetent presidents we have ever had. In Boston we even have a rightwing radio host here calling for his impeachment. The biggest problem I have with this administration is that it just does not recognize the realities on the ground in Iraq. They are so wrapped up in a flawed foreign policy that they cannot adapt to a changing situation.

Shawarma
3rd December 06, 10:43 AM
I Give BJJs hasn't posted in years. Which is a sad, sad thing, because he was the funniest troll ever observed on any message board in the history of the internets.

ICY
3rd December 06, 10:45 AM
*Called it

*Also supported Bush at the time

*LOLed at EVERYONE