PDA

View Full Version : What's to be Gained from the War?



Pages : [1] 2

NewsGuy
02-10-2003, 03:41 PM
ok, so let's say that the U.S. takes out Saddam. What's next? What's to be gained?

I am not totally convinced that a Middle East without Saddam Hussein will actually be much less dangerous. Sure, it would be good to be rid of any brutal Arab dictator, but what's truly to be gained in comparison with the price we will all, no doubt, need to pay?

Now, on the other hand, if we were to say that the goal of a war would be to eliminate the Iranian, Syrian, Saudi and the Southern Lebanese terrorist threats, then I could see real benefit to the world. A Pax Americana, if you will.

At the same time, if we were to fully discredit the UN and break away from NATO as a result of seeing that these organizations are nothing but shams, then I would see a real benefit here, as well.

But just to eliminate Saddam at such a huge cost doesn't seem to make sense to me.

What do you think? What will the real gain be from toppling Saddam's regime?

L@mplighterM
02-10-2003, 05:56 PM
One important gain is setting a precedent!

Mao once said that the longest journey begins with one step. If you took the time to review the history of Saddam Hussein then I don’t believe that you would be asking that question. It’s estimated by some that it’ll take 50 years to eliminate Islamic Fundamental terrorism on this planet. It’ll take true grits and a lot of determination to pursue such a task but it can be done. Time is however of the essence and some hard choices has to be made.

I’m surrounded by people drifting to the left in the real world and on forums like this. I wonder if it’s Arab propaganda or something in the air that making people soften their determination to eliminate evil from this planet.

Quite frankly I’m disappointed in some of the opinions that I hear and read.

alexbmn
02-10-2003, 06:35 PM
ok now Israelis DO NOT view the Pals as an existential threat,meaning they believe one day this war will be over.What they do view as a threat is a hostile dictatorship armed with nukes .If in the future there will be one less such threat they will have ne problems with that. And of course imagine the message it will send to other terrorist supporting nuke building scum.Any suspicious move and they are overthrown.

NewsGuy
02-10-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
One important gain is setting a precedent!

That's a valid point. To set a precedent that evil will not be tolerated is fine. But will singling out Saddam Hussein accomplish that?

Recent history says no.

We bombed the heck out of Iraq in '91, and Saddam didn't get the message. We then toppled the Taliban, and Saddam still went about his business undisturbed. We now have troops, destroyers, fleets of bombers surrounding Iraq, and still Iran's Ayatollahs go about their business undeterred. Likewise, Hizbullah and Hamas, and the terrorist-supporting racist Saudi regime are all unfazed.

That's why I don't know if this precedent will be taken as a reaction against evil, or just a Bush family vendetta.

I go back to my point that we need to set a goal of putting an end to ALL Islamic terrorism-supporting regimes and not just a super-expensive strike against only one petty little dictator in Iraq. If that's all we are going to do, it's really not worth it, IMO.

NewsGuy
02-10-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by alexbmn
And of course imagine the message it will send to other terrorist supporting nuke building scum.Any suspicious move and they are overthrown.

Well, that would be nice, but just today, with all our military might parked right in the Ayatolahs' front yard, Iran announced that it has begun work on an enriched uranium plant.

I don't think that so far our display of strength has been very effective as a deterrence, unfortunately. On the other hand, bombing the nuclear facilities built in Iran by Russia, and then overthrowing the Ayatolahs' terrorist Islamic regime, would have the desired effect.

Lowell
02-10-2003, 07:57 PM
Hello NewsGuy, might I contribute my thoughts? Thanks. I think that the goal of removing Saddam is to show other Arab states such as Saudi Arabia that any Arab government can be removed, and any can be replaced.

JustPat
02-10-2003, 09:19 PM
Looking at war with Iraq is difficult if we look only at immediate results of this action. We have to look down the road to the world in which our children and grandchildren will live. We must see the far reaching effects of our action.

If Saddam could be intimidated, like Libya's "Uncle Mo," we'd have seen the end of this with the Gulf War. Either this guy is really stupid, has an ax to grind, or is truly off his nut. Whatever the case, his regime cannot be allowed to continue to rain its evil upon its citizens and neighbors. Putting a stop to it is the responsibility of the Free World. We are up to the challenge and will change the face of Iraq.

Changing the regime in power now will be a valiant task. Surgically removing the vast network of corruption, the intricately weaved fabric of evil that is the government of Iraq will not be without its price. There must be a change of the heart of the beast. Taking out the current Iraqi head is not enough. We must see it as only the first step toward bringing the stability of freedom to the Middle East and thus to the world at large. But it is only the first step.

Our success in battle must be followed by bringing freedom to the Iraqi people, real freedom, tangible freedom that they can demonstrate to the Arab world. They must become the enticement that will bring freedom to the rest of the Islamic peoples of the earth. It must be a freedom that is not freedom to rain evil on your neighbors, but a freedom from evil in all its insidious forms. That is the greater challenge.

Before we strike, there must be a plan in place to take this action and turn it to the good of the world. President Bush seems to have that kind of perspective and vision. He's no Solomon, but we can pray that he and the other leaders of the Free World will have Solomon's wisdom.

The long-term benefit of this imminent action must be the launch pad for the freedom loving people of the world to eradicate the vermin who espouse, facilitate and finance terrorism in the world, anywhere in the world. There can be no tolerance for the likes of Saddam, Amin, and there ilk. There can be no room for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and their brotherhood of terror. We cannot abide the willingness of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many others who are willing to fund these evil schemes. Nor can we lower ourselves to their behavior in the name of freedom.

If we are truly to see lasting benefit we cannot limit our scope to Islamic terrorism. All terrorist organizations, no matter the race or faith, must be stopped. Not held down and controlled, rather, completely eliminated. No seed for the future must be allowed to survive. This is impossible, but if we hold that standard we will at least have hope of a real impact.

As I look at the coming conflict I am reminded of the likes of Moshe Dyan and those who fought for the freedom of Israel. The odds were insumountable, but they rose to the task. The dream seemed unattainable, but they would not be denied. The enemy is daunting, but the belief that G_d is on the side of those whose cause is just gave them courage. The words of Joshua still ring down through the ages, "Be strong and courageous, do not tremble or be afraid of them. Be very strong and courageous."

What benefit? Freedom for those who have not known it. Prosperity to those who are held in poverty by evil despots. Safety and security for the Middle East, the World, for you and me. These are the lofty goals we hold out, the vision that drives our mission. If we who are the guardians of freedom fail in joining hands in this task, we will deserve the death and destruction that will surely come to us as a result.

What greater benefit to fight for than to see others share the freedoms we enjoy?

L@mplighterM
02-10-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy

We bombed the heck out of Iraq in '91, and Saddam didn't get the message.

The conflict in 1991 was to get Hussein out of Kuwait and as far as I recall that was the mandate agreed upon amongst the nations of the NATO alliance. Hussein should have been removed from power at that time but there was no agreement to topple Hussein amongst the NATO alliance.

The message today is quite different it calls for Hussein to obey UN resolution 1441 or face the consequences. It appears that he’s not willing to disarm and therefore he’ll be removed from power along with his two sons. Further the Iraqi government will be replaced with a government of Iraqi exiles. There are 40 nations that support the US in this endeavor and it’ll be accomplished one way or another. I hope Hussein is dead along with his sons by the end of the month and it may very well be so.

One should also bear in mind that Hussein has always supported Arafat to some degree and once he’s gone the Palestinians easier to deal with. There’s also the fact that once Iraq has a government that is friendlier toward the US it’ll be easier to kick Syrian and Lebanese ass.

I suspect that if he (Hussein) handed over the WMD that he has it may very well establish that the anthrax that he has will have an identical fingerprint to the material used in the USA. If that was the case he’s a dead man walking no matter what because he’d be hunted down and exterminated like a mad dog.

It should be quite clear to everyone that the terrorist attacks in Israel cannot be allowed to continue and I’m certain that countries like Syria and Lebanon will get theirs once Iraq is out of the way. Israel was ready to declare war against Syria in the beginning of 2002 and I suspect action along that line will take place in the coming months.

If the US engaged in wars on three fronts it could very well initiate WWW III therefore it has to tackle one nation at the time. Granted there will never be a conflict that ends all war but that doesn’t mean that that you have to give up and do nothing.

Mediocrates
02-11-2003, 04:38 AM
You have to fight the battle your enemy understands. Look at WW2: Ike knew that the Wehrmacht would not give up until it was destroyed and its physical ability to operate was wiped out. But Japan, understood that an invasion of their homeland would neither save them nor would it inflict the kind of casualties that would cause the US to sue for peace. Especially seeing how the US had completed the European war.

At any rate, modern US warfighting is a delicate strategy of communications, technology and tactics. It is designed to achieve tactical military results very quickly. The political concerns are different from that. The political concerns are somewhat more important because you have to achieve a victory that means something to your opponent. Fighting Iraq to a cease fire is meaningless. Fighting Iraq until Saddam leaves is also meaningless. You have to fight the kind of war that means something to them - that leaves no doubt who achieved what. You have to obliterate the infrastructure of the country utterly and completely disassemble its ability to mount any army for the next several decades. Perhaps not occupation per se since realistically Germany was able to run elections as soon as 1949. But in order to have any measurable effect we have to literally pound them into the dirt with jaw dropping power. The effect has to be so overwhelming that their very culture is shifted.

Mediocrates
02-11-2003, 05:45 AM
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=42984#post42984

Mediocrates
02-11-2003, 05:53 AM
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006DC48.htm

Column10 February 2003
Euro-occupation plan for Iraq

by Mick Hume


So now we know the Franco-German alternative to an Anglo-American war against Iraq. It is a plan for the occupation and carve-up of Iraq without a shot being fired.


The German scheme, which has won French support and tacit approval from the Russians, would mean tripling the number of UN weapons inspectors, extending the no-fly zone over the entire country, and sending in thousands of UN troops in what the UK Guardian calls a 'peaceful invasion'.


The UN Security Council (UNSC) would have complete control over Iraqi airspace and soil, and Iraq would be reduced to the status of a protectorate, a bit like Kosovo with an oil pipe attached. Perhaps Iraq will be governed by a UN High Representative, in the same way that failed UK politician Paddy Ashdown rules Bosnia, effectively replacing Saddam Hussein's dictatorship with an absolute monarch appointed by the powers that run the UNSC.


This scheme confirms that Germany and France, supposedly the leading anti-war nations, are not really anti-war or anti-intervention at all. They are perfectly happy to support military intervention if it suits their purposes. The Franco-German plan is simply the latest move in the strategic chess game that these governments are playing with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, designed to boost their international status and their standing at home.


It was striking that, amid all the UK media coverage of the diplomatic row on 10 February 2002, there was no mention of what the Iraqis might think of the latest scheme to carve up their country. It is apparently seen as none of their business, a matter to be sorted out between their betters in Washington, Bonn, Paris and London.


All of this should come as a sharp lesson to the anti-war movement in the West, much of which has tried to hitch its wagon to the powerful Franco-German alliance. Prominent opponents of a war have been keen to contrast these sophisticated European governments with their allegedly hickish neighbours who have signed up to the Bush-Blair campaign. Leading left-wing Labour MP Dianne Abbott described these as a bunch of 'East European basket cases and the Iberian fringe'. So will the critics now sign up to the new sophisticated Euro-occupation plan?


Despite its claims to speak for majority opinion, the anti-war lobby in Britain and elsewhere has been hamstrung from the first by the weakness of its political case. It has not challenged the right of the USA, UN or EU to intervene in Iraqi affairs or dictate how sovereign nations are run. Instead, it has largely accepted the premise of the Bush-Blair campaign, while quibbling over the details of how best to get rid of Saddam, or whether or not there is sufficient evidence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction to justify war just now.


Next weekend in London, thousands will march against a hasty war, but for nothing in particular. Such an abstract notion of peace seems perfectly compatible with the Franco-German plan for a 'peaceful invasion' of Iraq.


Meanwhile, the allegedly anti-war French step up their political and military intervention in the Ivory Coast, their former African colony, cajoling the government into sharing power with rebels, while protesters call on the USA to intervene and save their democracy from being 'assassinated' by French president Jacques Chirac.


Mick Hume is editor of spiked.


Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DC48.htm


spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M

JustPat
02-11-2003, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
Euro-occupation plan for Iraq by Mick Hume

So now we know the Franco-German alternative to an Anglo-American war against Iraq. It is a plan for the occupation and carve-up of Iraq without a shot being fired...
Thousands of peacekeepers, and how many will they supply. Peacekeepers have been the major responsibility of the US, Australia, and the UK. Where will their plan be without the support of our armies?

Mediocrates
02-11-2003, 06:45 AM
It's kind of ironic, almost karmic really that considering the UN, the EU RRF, the French & FFL, and NATO, the ONLY armies of occupation all over the world are those of Europe. I guess old habits die hard.

ibrodsky
02-11-2003, 07:16 AM
I think war against Iraq is nothing less than the first step to resolving the ME conflict once and for all.

Administration officials have hinted that the goal is, in fact, to create a new Middle East.

Eliminating Saddam and promoting democracy and personal freedom will create a model for Arab societies currently under totalitarian regimes.

It will free the US to focus on other terrorist-supporting regimes, such as Syria.

It will neutralize the Arab world's biggest standing army.

It will demoralize Palestinian terrorists who see strong-man Saddam as a hero and model for successfully standing up to the Great Satan.

It takes Israel out of the limelight, permitting more aggressive action against Palestinian terrorists.

There is compelling evidence that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are harbored in/supported by Iraq.


I also used to wonder if Iraq was a Bush family thing... I have concluded that is *not* the motivating factor.

I have no doubt that ever since 9/11/01 the Bush administration has suspected Iraqi involvement. As President Bush said just a few days ago, "He had the motivation."

We still don't know the source of the anthrax attacks. Was it an American inspired by Al Qaeda? I seriously doubt that. It would have been easy to smuggle a small amount of anthrax into the US just before 9/11.

A BBC report last night showed that the alleged chemical weapons plant in Iraq certainly isn't the "media center" that Iraq claims it is. It is surrounded by a barbed wire fence with skull & crossbone signs and protected by Taliban-like forces.

Deposing Saddam will not create new animosity and terrorist recruits as the appeasement camp claims. Actually, the animosity and terrorist recruits are at their peak right now as Al Qaeda sets up shop in Iraq, Lebanon, and Arafatistan.

Saddam has made sure that to depose him we will have to kill thousands of Islamists with whom he has formed a strategic alliance.

To wit, it is a wonderful opportunity and one we should not pass up.

ibrodsky
02-11-2003, 07:34 AM
P.S.: It certainly seems like this is also the first step towards either (1) breaking away from NATO and the UN or (2) forcing NATO and the UN to undergo major changes and reforms.

I'm very heartened that the administration is not letting NATO and UN opposition get in the way.

President Bush warned the UN it could sink into irrelevance. I for one am very glad they seem to be taking him up on the offer.

IMO, the UN has evolved into a dangerous organization providing a sort of worldwide mob rule. It's about time we instigated a "crisis" in our relationship with an organization that puts Libya in charge of human rights, Iran and Iraq in charge of disarmament, and holds conferences against racism that predictably become orgies of racism.

The UN should be disbanded and replaced by a smaller body that limits itself to two legitimate roles: (1) supervising int'l disaster relief and (2) providing a forum for discussions between hostile powers. The UN "peacekeeping force" is one of the silliest and most naive ideas I have ever encountered.

L@mplighterM
02-11-2003, 08:57 AM
Feb. 11, 2003
Israeli expert implicates Iraq in US anthrax attacks


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1044938394743

Jako
02-11-2003, 09:35 AM
I strongly doubt Saddam has anything to do with Al Qaeda, but then again, we are forced to swallow so much U.S. propaganda, it's tough to pick what's valid and what's not.

If Saddam has nuclear weapons, he has them because he NEEDS them, with Israel as a neighbor. Remember 1981 when Israel did a "pre-emptive" invasion into IRAQ? Hmmm... Nah, couldn't be.

I believe NOTHING I hear about Iraq from the Pentagon or the U.S. news media.

It astounds me that all this comes up NOW, why was this not all discussed in the past 12 years? Oh yeah, Sept 11 gives greater leeway to drop bombs on any and all Arabs, I must have forgot that for a second.

As far as I am concerned, if you are FOR the war, shut your mouth and grab a rifle and a plane ticket and go. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.

Will you be happy when you hear how many innocent civilians end up dying in the war? Would you rather be actually dropping the 2000-pound bomb, or placing the rifle against the Iraqi civilians temple?

What gives the U.S. the arrogance to believe that they can force "regime change" on any country? What makes them believe that this will not make them more hated?


Jako

MGB8
02-11-2003, 09:41 AM
I agree with Ibrodsky.

Destroying Saddam is striking a huge blow to the concept of Pan-Arab nationalism, which Saddam fancies himself the leader of.

Moreover, it sets back the development of weapons of mass destruction in at least one arab nation, leaving Iran and Syria to be dealt with.

It also will create an alternative to the Dictatorial-Wahabism model of Saudi Arabia for the Arab people.

Ending the Israel-Arab conflict cannot be accomplished through changes in the Israeli side (short of it ceasing to exist), only through changes to the Arab side.

BTW - anyone who thought that France and Germany were acting on behalf of anything but their own financial interests (read: oil rights already negotiated with the mass-murdered Hussein) is a naive fool.

Eliminating Saddam contributes to the long term stability of the region which will help the world economy, also.

MGB8
02-11-2003, 09:46 AM
LOL, another apologist for a mass-murderer.

Its not like Saddam was elected in OPEN elections...he was the only candidate, and forgetting to vote could get you killed (as can any dissension).

Israel didn't "Invade" - they bombed a nuclear reactor before Saddam could get it running to produce the type of plutonium needed to make a nuclear bomb (btw, why would a country with that much oil need nuclear energy?) and thank G-d he didn't, or else ALL of the Arabian Peninsula would very possibly be Iraqi right now, and MILLIONS would have died.

Make all the excuses you want, but we know what you really have is hate for the US in your heart, and that is what drives you.

Saddam has and had Chemical and Biological Weapons. He does not yet have Nuclear weapons, and we should keep it that way. Strike him before he gets strong (like Hitler did) and he strikes first - because we know he will if he can.

ibrodsky
02-11-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Jako
I strongly doubt Saddam has anything to do with Al Qaeda, but then again, we are forced to swallow so much U.S. propaganda, it's tough to pick what's valid and what's not.

It's reassuring that you doubt Saddam has anything to do with Al Qaeda. However, there is overwhelming evidence that Saddam has allied himself with Islamist terrorists. Why would he have something against Al Qaeda, the group that successfully attacked the US?

You look at the world and see the US government as the main source of propaganda - rather than the Islamists who call America the "Great Satan."

Then you cap it off by saying you aren't sure what to believe!


If Saddam has nuclear weapons, he has them because he NEEDS them, with Israel as a neighbor. Remember 1981 when Israel did a "pre-emptive" invasion into IRAQ? Hmmm... Nah, couldn't be.

Uh huh. He needs them to protect himself against precision Israeli attacks intended solely to prevent him from getting them.

Of course, you trust this thug who raped Kuwait and gassed the Kurds to acquire nukes for purely defensive purposes.


I believe NOTHING I hear about Iraq from the Pentagon or the U.S. news media.

After all, it contradicts what you hear from Saddam and Hamas. Stick with trusted sources.


It astounds me that all this comes up NOW, why was this not all discussed in the past 12 years? Oh yeah, Sept 11 gives greater leeway to drop bombs on any and all Arabs, I must have forgot that for a second.

You are like Al Jazeera TV.

Colin Powell told the US Congress today that there is a tape of bin Laden saying Al Qaeda is allied with Iraq. Al Jazeera immediately denied that it had such a tape. Now they have just announced plans to air the tape they don't have!


As far as I am concerned, if you are FOR the war, shut your mouth and grab a rifle and a plane ticket and go. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.

If you support war against Iraq, as I do, you don't need to circumvent the law.

But if you are determined to defend The Absolute Leader, then you should go to Iraq and volunteer as a human shield.


Will you be happy when you hear how many innocent civilians end up dying in the war? Would you rather be actually dropping the 2000-pound bomb, or placing the rifle against the Iraqi civilians temple?

I'll be happy when Saddam and his henchmen have been removed and 24 million Iraqis liberated.

Since Saddam could avert war and all of the deaths merely by accepting the generous offer of exile, it's interesting that you don't demand one man and his tiny clique step aside to retire in luxury for the good of his people.

I guess your concern for the Iraqi people is exceeded only by your concern that Saddam remain in power.


What gives the U.S. the arrogance to believe that they can force "regime change" on any country? What makes them believe that this will not make them more hated?

Simple: the military might to pull it off.

More hated? Are you suggesting that Islamists don't see the US as the "The Great Satan" but misguided Bush administration policy threatens to spoil everything?

I get it: when they mass murdered 3,000 Americans and tried to destroy our economy it was just a bit of gentle persuasion...

LionOfLoyalty
02-11-2003, 11:41 AM
If Israel had not done that then by now Tel Aviv, Kuwait City and most probably Riyadh would be in mushroom clouds by now. The Iraqi reactor at Osirak represented a clear, imminent and obvious threat. As has been stated before, Iraq had no reason for a reactor other than weapons research, and it's only reason for weapons research was for use against Israel and aggressive conquest. As for the Arab PR machine accusation that this attack radicalized Saddam and caused his positions, well maybe one should look at the many innocent people Saddam had killed before 1981 and see if that doesn't qualify as radicalism. The Osirak reactor bombing was clearly self-defense on Israel's part.

,LionOfLoyalty


Originally posted by Jako
If Saddam has nuclear weapons, he has them because he NEEDS them, with Israel as a neighbor. Remember 1981 when Israel did a "pre-emptive" invasion into IRAQ? Hmmm... Nah, couldn't be.

JustPat
02-11-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Jako
I strongly doubt Saddam has anything to do with Al Qaeda, but then again, we are forced to swallow so much U.S. propaganda, it's tough to pick what's valid and what's not.Perhaps you haven't heard ...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen030211.html

This aired on your favorite Arab sentinel, Al Jazerra

LionOfLoyalty
02-11-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Jako
I strongly doubt Saddam has anything to do with Al Qaeda, but then again, we are forced to swallow so much U.S. propaganda, it's tough to pick what's valid and what's not.
Tell me Jako, are you familiar with a group called Ansar Al-Islam? They're an Islamic terror organization that has managed to set up a Taliban-style rule in a area of Northern Kurdish Iraq, and have been shown to have connections to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as well as having connections with the Iraqi government.


I believe NOTHING I hear about Iraq from the Pentagon or the U.S. news media.

This as confirmed by German Intelligence, not American. You know the Germans? They're the ones whose Chancellor has sworn never to participate in an Iraq war EVEN IF THE UN SANCTIONS IT. So, somehow I think that even for you, they should qualify as a credible source.


Will you be happy when you hear how many innocent civilians end up dying in the war? Would you rather be actually dropping the 2000-pound bomb, or placing the rifle against the Iraqi civilians temple?

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over"
- Union General William T. Sherman said this shortly before beginning his brutal March to the Sea which split the South in half, thereby greatly contributing to the end of the war and by extension slavery


What gives the U.S. the arrogance to believe that they can force "regime change" on any country? What makes them believe that this will not make them more hated?


What gives them that arrogance? The fact that nobody else is willing to do it. I'm no great fan of the Bush Administration, and there are a lot of things that they've done that I'd call boneheaded and dangerous at the least, however here I most definitely back them up. Saddam Huissen is a clear threat to both his own people, who would like to but are not currently capable of overthrowing him, and to the world.

localbrew
02-11-2003, 12:12 PM
Toppling the regime in Iraq will have several important consequences. Not the least of which will be to uncover and destroy their WMD. A significant amount of funds would also instantly dry up for organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and the PA umbrella. We really have no way of knowing to what extent Iraq supports Syria for example monetarily. The benefits seem well worth taking down this government.

In light of UBL’s just released audio tape where he put the leaders of Arab countries that assist US on notice this would be our desert. The leaders of just about every Gulf state would be targets of UBL. How delicious. Sitting on the fence just got a bit harder to do.

I agree the UN is taking itself into irrelevancy and this is a good thing for reasons (ibrodsky) said so well. As far as NATO goes why does the USA have so many troops in Europe now? What are they defending? All they are doing is bolstering the economies over there. We should pull them all out, every single one of them except for a cadre staff at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. Maybe we could send 40,000 of them to Turkey and the rest to S. Korea.

NewsGuy
02-11-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Lowell
I think that the goal of removing Saddam is to show other Arab states such as Saudi Arabia that any Arab government can be removed, and any can be replaced.

That would be a good result.

But in practice, we've already done that exact thing in Afghanistan, and it still did not send a clear message to Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran, all of whom continue sponsor terrorism and harbor terrorists.

Now, in contrast to the Taliban, one could argue that Saddam Hussein is a leader who is accepted internationally as the legitimate leader of a sovereign country. Maybe that's an important difference that won't be lost on the Arabs, as you suggest.

But I am still doubtful that Saddam's removal will make a real difference in the Arab world. The problem of supporting terrorism against the West is much too deep-rooted in Arab culture to be changed overnight.

NewsGuy
02-11-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by JustPat
There must be a change of the heart of the beast. Taking out the current Iraqi head is not enough. We must see it as only the first step toward bringing the stability of freedom to the Middle East and thus to the world at large. But it is only the first step.

Right. A comprehensive solution to Arab terrorism (and threats to our oil supply) are the only goals that would justify the enormous price that we will all pay for this war.

ibrodsky
02-11-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
That would be a good result.

But in practice, we've already done that exact thing in Afghanistan, and it still did not send a clear message to Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran, all of whom continue sponsor terrorism and harbor terrorists.

Yes, and one reason is because they assumed we would drive the Taliban out of power, blow up the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, and gradually lose interest.

Deposing Saddam sends additional messages:

* We are not done.
* Iraq has been violating terms of surrender from the Gulf War for years.
* Saddam has the biggest army; removing him will encourage the others to be more cooperative.
* Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is himself a terrorist.

Look for the US to set up major military bases in post-Saddam Iraq. We will have permanent presence next door to the Ayatollahs, Hezbollah, Hamas, and baby Assad.



Now, in contrast to the Taliban, one could argue that Saddam Hussein is a leader who is accepted internationally as the legitimate leader of a sovereign country. Maybe that's an important difference that won't be lost on the Arabs, as you suggest.

More to the point: he was in power for, what, 20 years?


But I am still doubtful that Saddam's removal will make a real difference in the Arab world. The problem of supporting terrorism against the West is much too deep-rooted in Arab culture to be changed overnight.

Of course. This is just Step #2.

Patience.

NewsGuy
02-11-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Look for the US to set up major military bases in post-Saddam Iraq. We will have permanent presence next door to the Ayatollahs, Hezbollah, Hamas, and baby Assad.

Yes, I wonder what effect that will have on the region, if it turns out that we keep troops there. Certainly keeping troops in Saudi Arabia hasn't deterred that country from sponsoring terrorism and anti-American Wahhabi hatred. And, actually, I now see that the Saudis will ask the U.S. to remove all presence from their country as soon as the Iraq offensive is over.

As for Arafat, there is reason to be optimistic these days. The foreign press is reporting that there is an agreement between Sharon and Bush to get rid of Arafat right after Saddam. So, that might signal that some good developments are underway. Maybe you're right about the U.S. effort to change the Middle East. Too bad it's not being announced publicly.

I think that it would bring a lot more support to the Bush administration, if they were to come to the American people and tell them that we have grown tired of the same Mideast problems and that the U.S. will now embark on cleaning out the region of terrorism to safeguard our oil supply.

LionOfLoyalty
02-11-2003, 04:13 PM
Of course, it might be nice if we at least tried to lower the oil dependency. I mean, without oil, the Arab despots have nothing but fifty trillion barrels of petroleum jelly. No more blackmail. The thought is more than slightly appealing.

NewsGuy
02-11-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Of course, it might be nice if we at least tried to lower the oil dependency. I mean, without oil, the Arab despots have nothing but fifty trillion barrels of petroleum jelly. No more blackmail. The thought is more than slightly appealing.

Sure. That would be the best case scenario, and I see that there is some movement on developing alternate forms of fuel.

But for the next 5-10 years, our economy will be dependent on Arab oil.

cerulean
02-11-2003, 04:19 PM
There are so many things wrong in the Middle East that it does seem difficult to pick just Iraq for cleanup. However, there are a number of reasons it's a good first start. Iraq led by Saddam is probably no more than 25% of the problem in the Middle East, if that. (I'm calling Iraq a problem in the Middle East, which isn't really accurate, since Iraq's WMD programs are actually a threat to the world. Similarly, with Iran and other countries.)

The exclusive focus on Iraq was a mistake in 1991, and we should ensure it's not a mistake made again. The first attack in 1993 on the World Trade Center was not taken seriously enough, as just one example.

It's important not to repeat other mistakes of the past. The Gulf War led to the Madrid Conference, which led to the Oslo Accords, which has exacerbated everything and led us to the present day. No false peace accords this time around, I hope!

LionOfLoyalty
02-11-2003, 04:22 PM
Oil, yes, but not necessarily Arab, I hope. Should Venezuela be stabilized soon we'll have another source, though it is still part of the OPEC Cartel. However, I understand Canada, Mexico and Russia all have substantial oil supplies. We need to try and fix the breaches in relations with the first two (which occured over Iraq and the death penalty, respectively. Frankly I think alienating Mexico by executing a few of their citizens was a bad move. Good diplomatic relations are hard to come by, and I don't think the executions of a few people are worth a breach with such an essential ally as Mexico.) and develop better relations with the third. Bush's scrapping of the ABM Treaty with Russia was a very bad move, and was done in order to build a missile defense system that has been shown to be faulty and is not going to deal with the major threat, terrorism. We need to improve relations with Non-Arab, and where possible non-OPEC countries.

L@mplighterM
02-11-2003, 04:28 PM
Quite frankly I don’t see how the US along with 40 other countries can take on several countries at the same time that would like a world war. One step at a time!

I support the destruction of Islamic countries that support terrorism and Iraq is certainly one of them. These days you’ll find me reading posts made by people that know how to shoot straight arrows that don’t stray to the left and I hope that I don’t get affected by Arab brainwashing.

I trust that Hussein and his sons along with the puppet government will be enjoying their 72 virgins soon. Good riddance when they are gone.

If I were a Christian I might very well turn the other cheek and forgive Hussein for his past evil but I’m not. I hope that when the conflict begins every payload that’s delivered by the allies will hit its mark. Further, I hope that the US will not waver in delivering a nuclear bomb or two should the Iraqis use WMD.

When it’s over Syria and Lebanon will get theirs followed by Iran and perhaps North Korea.

LionOfLoyalty
02-11-2003, 04:33 PM
I would think it unwise to use Nuclear weapons in Iraq, for the following reasons:

A. We have it in our capacity to create equally sufficient destruction without them
B. It sets a precedent, since the bombing of Japan to end the war, no one has ever used Nuclear weapons. They have become a deterrent, something that's talked about but not used. If we use them here we break the unspoken taboo, hence opening up the use of nukes in other conflicts.
C. It looks bad. Alone, this isn't a good reason, but frankly, completely slashing any semblance of good relations with Europe is just an invitation for another Cold War. Why damage relations like that if it's not absolutely necessary?

I support an invasion but the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq is a bad idea that would set an awful precedent.

,LionOfLoyalty

localbrew
02-11-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
I would think it unwise to use Nuclear weapons in Iraq, for the following reasons:

A. We have it in our capacity to create equally sufficient destruction without them
B. It sets a precedent, since the bombing of Japan to end the war, no one has ever used Nuclear weapons. They have become a deterrent, something that's talked about but not used. If we use them here we break the unspoken taboo, hence opening up the use of nukes in other conflicts.
C. It looks bad. Alone, this isn't a good reason, but frankly, completely slashing any semblance of good relations with Europe is just an invitation for another Cold War. Why damage relations like that if it's not absolutely necessary?

I support an invasion but the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq is a bad idea that would set an awful precedent.

,LionOfLoyalty

I agree with you Lion. To a point that is.

Nuking Iraq would be wrong because we can take them conventionally with no problem. Why would we sacrifice millions of innocent Iraqi civilians when it is not necessary?

On the other had why would we sacrifice a million American military men to disarm N. Korea when it is not necessary? Just like in the case of Japan during WWII we have a choice. Do we want to prove a point with a million American lives or do we want to do it with nuclear weapons? This time we have the luxury of using tactical nuclear weapons to marginalize N. Korea on many fronts. We can defeat them with tactical nuclear weapons while imposing minimum civilian causalities.

judicial meanz
02-12-2003, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
One important gain is setting a precedent!

Mao once said that the longest journey begins with one step. If you took the time to review the history of Saddam Hussein then I don’t believe that you would be asking that question. It’s estimated by some that it’ll take 50 years to eliminate Islamic Fundamental terrorism on this planet. It’ll take true grits and a lot of determination to pursue such a task but it can be done. Time is however of the essence and some hard choices has to be made.

I’m surrounded by people drifting to the left in the real world and on forums like this. I wonder if it’s Arab propaganda or something in the air that making people soften their determination to eliminate evil from this planet.

Quite frankly I’m disappointed in some of the opinions that I hear and read.



I am too Lamplighter. Its absolutely disgisting to hear some of the rants on this board, and I have been ignoring them for a while now. My course is set in this conflict, regardless. Its my duty to fight it whether I want to or not. I signed an oath.

Beyond that, I believe Saddam is a danger to the world. His past history and his stated intentions are evidence of his evil. He wants to be the " Sword of Islam" and destroy Israel to become a great Islamic figure.

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out he espouses genocide. Israeli, Arab, American- it doesnt matter to him who he kills. He has killed, will kill, and intends to kill large numbers of people to accomplish his goal. People dont develop weapons they dont intend to use. World history proves that.

Then there is the constant anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti US board comments, maliciously directed and formed with one intent; To hurt.

Every time I come to this forum, the classic anti semites continue on ad nauseum, and it disgusts me too. The anti-semites have added Americans to their lists now in another innovation.

JustPat
02-12-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by judicial meanz
Its absolutely disgisting to hear some of the rants on this board, and I have been ignoring them for a while now. My course is set in this conflict, regardless. Its my duty to fight it whether I want to or not. I signed an oath.

Every time I come to this forum, the classic anti semites continue on ad nauseum, and it disgusts me too. The anti-semites have added Americans to their lists now in another innovation.
Jim,

I share your frustration, but I refuse to let the loud mouthed champions of evil have the forum or the battle. I refuse to ignore them. That is how Germany fell to their insidious control. Had decent people who held to sound moral values withstood the fools, Hitler would never have come to power. Now it is our turn and I will draw a line in the dirt and drill them every time they cross it.

I am a friend of Israel, without apology. I oppose the heinous evil that is represented by the PLO and her sister terrorist organizations. I stand shoulder to shoulder with my friends in battleing despots and nations who keep their people bound and oppressed. If we don't rise to the fight, then who. At least in this forum sanity gets a free voice.

MGB8
02-12-2003, 08:55 AM
Alex,

You are FLAT OUT WRONG.

SOME Israeli's do not view the Pal Arabs as an existential threat. I call them the arrogant left.

On the other hand, realists, who think about the fact that Israel could in fact lose a war, and who respect the Arabs as people and soldiers, who take seriously what many Arabs say about the "plan of stages" Trojan Horse etc. and who think about the military implications of any "peace agreement" also known as a "peice of paper" which can be ripped up at will - THESE PEOPLE KNOW - I repeat, KNOW, that the Pal Arabs ARE an existential threat.

They are a threat demographically, because they have a ridiculously high birth rate, encouraged by their leaders for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF OUTPOPULATING THE JEWS!

They are threatend by ever improving weaponry.

They are threatend by ever more vile talk spewing forth from Egypt and Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Not an existential threat....only for those who believe they are invincible.



Originally posted by alexbmn
ok now Israelis DO NOT view the Pals as an existential threat,meaning they believe one day this war will be over.What they do view as a threat is a hostile dictatorship armed with nukes .If in the future there will be one less such threat they will have ne problems with that. And of course imagine the message it will send to other terrorist supporting nuke building scum.Any suspicious move and they are overthrown.

L@mplighterM
02-12-2003, 10:06 AM
Snip

“Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”

http://www.afip.org/cgi-bin/whatsnew.cgi/current.html?article=115


Note the fingerprint:

This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”

TurgayCoskun
02-12-2003, 11:18 AM
Please don´t use Nuclear weapons in Iraq, we turks are afraid of that. So the nuclear damage comes to turkey too :-(
Turgay

LionOfLoyalty
02-12-2003, 11:22 AM
As I have said before, there is no reason to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, seeing as we have the power and ability to achieve close to their effects with conventional shelling. While some more American lives might be saved in the short run, breaking the nuclear taboo may very likely cause the further use of nuclear weapons in the future, thereby costing many more lives, American, Israeli and otherwise.

,LionOfLoyalty

Jako
02-12-2003, 12:06 PM
Does it not bother anyone that this will KILL lots of innocent civilians? You're discussing a WAR OF INVASION by the United States. What right does ANY country have to invade another one with a pre-emptive strike?

There is NO evidence Saddam and Al Qaeda have any links (show me them). The inspectors have found NO evidence of WMD. NONE of Iraq's neighbors are afraid of an Iraqi attack, yet the U.S. says they are an imminent threat.

There are thousands of starving Iraqis now who depend on UN food rations, and once the 2000 pound bombs start dropping, there will be more, all over the region.

The Gulf of Tonkin was a sham, used to get into the Vietnam War. The claims before the first Gulf War that Saddam's troops pulled babies out of incubators was proved false. The statement that the Iraqi army was poised along the border of Saudi Arabia was proven to be a lie. WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE WHAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE PENTAGON HAS TO SAY, THEY'VE BEEN PROVEN LIARS COUNTLESS TIMES.

May God have mercy on the souls of the murderers who drop those bombs, and may God have mercy on the souls of those who support this INVASION.

Jako

minusthejihad
02-12-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Jako
Does it not bother anyone that this will KILL lots of innocent civilians? You're discussing a WAR OF INVASION by the United States. What right does ANY country have to invade another one with a pre-emptive strike?

There is NO evidence Saddam and Al Qaeda have any links (show me them). The inspectors have found NO evidence of WMD. NONE of Iraq's neighbors are afraid of an Iraqi attack, yet the U.S. says they are an imminent threat.

There are thousands of starving Iraqis now who depend on UN food rations, and once the 2000 pound bombs start dropping, there will be more, all over the region.

The Gulf of Tonkin was a sham, used to get into the Vietnam War. The claims before the first Gulf War that Saddam's troops pulled babies out of incubators was proved false. The statement that the Iraqi army was poised along the border of Saudi Arabia was proven to be a lie. WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE WHAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE PENTAGON HAS TO SAY, THEY'VE BEEN PROVEN LIARS COUNTLESS TIMES.

May God have mercy on the souls of the murderers who drop those bombs, and may God have mercy on the souls of those who support this INVASION.

Jako

Luckily I don't believe in gods, because if I did I'd be very diappointed that you weren't currently burning in hell.

But back to the matter at hand, why don't you prove all the things you said were lies first, then maybe, if anyone actually cares to answer you, they'll list about 20 reasons why Iraq should be invaded. But it really doesn't matter, you see, because its going to happen anyway and there's not a thing you can do about it. So keep writing your warm letters of support to Saddam and Hamas and keep cheering them forward into their own miserable deaths.

localbrew
02-12-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Jako
Does it not bother anyone that this will KILL lots of innocent civilians? You're discussing a WAR OF INVASION by the United States. What right does ANY country have to invade another one with a pre-emptive strike? Jako

Thank God people who think like you do are in a tiny minority. Your wait to be attacked attitude really sickens me not to mention the logic of it all is senseless. Most people believe Saddam must go. The numbers get closer only where many disagree if it needs to be UN sanctioned.

Europe was wrong to appease the Nazi’s in the mid 1930’s and they are wrong again today. Only today this is a much more dangerous world. Millions can be killed with one nuclear bomb and hundreds of thousands can be killed with one biological or chemical attack. Are you willing to bet your own life and those of millions of innocent people on pacifist views? Are you really?

LionOfLoyalty
02-12-2003, 12:43 PM
Frankly, it does bother me, and I believe that anyone who it doesn't bother isn't someone who I'd like to be around very much. However, the question you have to ask yourself is, will more people die if I ignore this than if I deal with it. I don't believe that this war is going to be peaches and cream, but I do believe that the way the evidence is showing, leaving Saddam is much more dangerous than getting rid of him. I can of course, respect and understand the logic for another point of view.
,LionOfLoyalty


Originally posted by Jako
Does it not bother anyone that this will KILL lots of innocent civilians? You're discussing a WAR OF INVASION by the United States. What right does ANY country have to invade another one with a pre-emptive strike?

There is NO evidence Saddam and Al Qaeda have any links (show me them). The inspectors have found NO evidence of WMD. NONE of Iraq's neighbors are afraid of an Iraqi attack, yet the U.S. says they are an imminent threat.

There are thousands of starving Iraqis now who depend on UN food rations, and once the 2000 pound bombs start dropping, there will be more, all over the region.

The Gulf of Tonkin was a sham, used to get into the Vietnam War. The claims before the first Gulf War that Saddam's troops pulled babies out of incubators was proved false. The statement that the Iraqi army was poised along the border of Saudi Arabia was proven to be a lie. WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE WHAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE PENTAGON HAS TO SAY, THEY'VE BEEN PROVEN LIARS COUNTLESS TIMES.

May God have mercy on the souls of the murderers who drop those bombs, and may God have mercy on the souls of those who support this INVASION.

Jako

Jako
02-12-2003, 01:13 PM
minusthejihad: Okay, here. You want proof that it's wrong, that we are being lied to, here you go.

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%7E1726%7E1172137,00.html

"Reasons for war with Iraq don't fly"

http://www.counterpunch.com/sullivan02122003.html

"Manifest Destiny Rides Again"

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

http://www.mediamonitors.net/jamesjdavid18.html

"Israel's Heroism is Terrorism by Anyone Else"

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37235112

"Osama labels Saddam an infidel"

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/home.htm

"Bush's so-called evidence"

http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/11/british.survey/

This is the best one, here's a good quote:

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British public believes the United States and North Korea are bigger threats to world peace than Iraq, a survey released on Tuesday shows.

Despite the global drama surrounding Iraq, three out of four Britons no longer see it as a major danger, according to the Channel 4 News poll.

The percentage of people who see Iraq as a threat has fallen to 23 percent from 40 percent in November. "

Let me know if you want the links for the Gulf Of Tonkin incident, the Saddam baby-incubator story, the Saudi attack farce, the links between the U.S. and Iraq's WMD, it's all out there.


localbrew: "Your wait to be attacked attitude really sickens me not to mention the logic of it all is senseless. Most people believe Saddam must go."

Maybe most people you KNOW believe Saddam should go. Other than that, you're guessing. As for my logic being senseless, care to explain that? Your logic is that Saddam's attack on the free world (read: Israel) is INEVITABLE even though he has not said this, nor any Iraqi spokesperson. So it would seem that it's your logic that is flawed, in fact non-existent. Back up your fears and paranoia with FACTS and maybe I'll listen. As to me sickening you, uh, yeah, whatever.

"Europe was wrong to appease the Nazi’s in the mid 1930’s and they are wrong again today. Only today this is a much more dangerous world. Millions can be killed with one nuclear bomb and hundreds of thousands can be killed with one biological or chemical attack. Are you willing to bet your own life and those of millions of innocent people on pacifist views? Are you really?"

How do the Iraqis and the Nazis have ANYTHING to do with each other? Iraq has a tiny, beaten down army, they've been ground under 12 years of U.S. sanctions, they have no long-range missile capabilities and they have UN inspectors in their country searching for WMD. How this is a parallel to Nazi Germany is pretty astounding.

Am I willing to bet my life that Iraq won't launch a nuclear bomb and kill hundreds of thousands? Yes, considering the IAEA says they have NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS, I would say YES. Would I bet the same that Israel wouldn't nuke any of their neighbors at the least provocation? No way. Not for a second. Israel is by far the biggest threat to human life as a whole in the region (WMD, biological, chemical and nuclear).

LionOfLoyalty: " I don't believe that this war is going to be peaches and cream, but I do believe that the way the evidence is showing, leaving Saddam is much more dangerous than getting rid of him. I can of course, respect and understand the logic for another point of view."

Thank you, Lion. I can and do respect and try to understand other points of view that don't label me and deride my conclusions and call me Anti-Semite and Arabist.

The only difference is that I really don't believe the evidence they are showing. I think the US war machine thinks it needs a larger military presence in the Middle East, and some oil too, and that's why this war is being discussed. Which, to me, is a travesty. Again, only TO ME, and that's all I can claim.

Jako

LionOfLoyalty
02-12-2003, 01:20 PM
To be honest, both of our points on Iraq have validity (though I think your condemnation of Israel's actions is very much incorrect and the sign of one much misinformed), and only time will tell if this war will be a catalyst for democracy in the middle east, or simply a catalyst for further bloodlust. I, for the sake of both of my countries (Israel and the United States) earnestly hope it will be the former and that this tortured region may finally find some peace, even if it requires war to achieve it.

L@mplighterM
02-12-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by TurgayCoskun
Please don´t use Nuclear weapons in Iraq, we turks are afraid of that. So the nuclear damage comes to turkey too :-(
Turgay

I would equate chemical or biological weapons in the same category as nuclear weapons with the latter presenting less danger to humanity if used in a limited manner.

I stated in my earlier post that if Iraq uses WMD (there’s newly released evidence that indicates that they may already have) then the US should deliver a couple of nukes to Iraq.

Furthermore recent elections indicated that Hussein has complete support of his people and one becomes aware of this fact when one sees pro Saddam demonstrations in Iraq. Of course there’s the Kurds in the North that do not support their leader.

I have no doubt that the average Iraqi wouldn’t have a problem with killing Jews and/or Americans. I have no doubt that if Iraq would have been victorious in 1991 then every Jew would have been eliminated in Israel. I have no doubt that if Israel hadn’t eliminated the nuclear reactor in Iraq back in 1981 the ME would be a whole lot different today.

Again I state quite clearly that if the Iraqi military used WMD against the US then retaliation should be swift and severe.

cerulean
02-12-2003, 01:25 PM
The point is that nuclear weapon retaliation to Iraq might harm Israel and Turkey. If Iraq uses such weapons first, I don't know what to do then, though.

LionOfLoyalty
02-12-2003, 01:26 PM
It is a grave mistake to use Nuclear weapons in Iraq, for many different reasons of which I've already stated, but mainly because it's simply not necessary! Why place Turkey at risk, break an established nuclear taboo, destroy what remains of our tattered reputation in the world and open ourselves up to another area of criticism that may very well be valid, when we don't need to!?! It's ludicrous to even consider!

Mediocrates
02-12-2003, 01:56 PM
The Mother of All Battles version 2.0 will take about as much time as it will take for them to surrender. We aren't going to use any nuclear weapons, we aren't going to use any WMD of any kind. The tactics and equipment we have in the front lines today is more than sufficient. Did you know for example that a carrier air wing is bigger than most countries' entire air force? Think about it; we take SATELLITE PICTURES and direct operations in Afghanistan from a building in Florida. We fly bombers from Missouri to Iraq and back again in time for dinner. The last time the Iraqis faced us on the highway of death they were obliterated by HELICOPTERS. We have stuff that is practically science fiction compared to a heavily degraded under trained under funded slowly rusting demoralized Iraqi 'army'. The only planes that can fly will be used by their pilots to defect and escape.

danholo
02-12-2003, 02:24 PM
Jako:

Israel is by far the biggest threat to human life as a whole in the region (WMD, biological,
chemical and nuclear).

Yeah. The evil Jews will use their weapons to kill everyone. That is their goal in the long run.

...Please. I understand if an Arab in an Arab country feels threatened by Israel's nukes but if a westerner seriously believes that Israel is a threat with its WMD (if it has any) is simply ludicrous. Israel hasn't threatened or even mentioned anything about its nuclear program so the threat is non-existant. The "international community" would be demanding inspections in Israel too if they thought Israel would be threat and actually use nukes unprovoked.

In your mind, Israel's every person is a brutal and evil person. That's what I've come to believe from your posts anyway at least. Prove me wrong.

cerulean
02-12-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
The Mother of All Battles version 2.0 will take about as much time as it will take for them to surrender.

Do you foresee low US casualties, then, in the range of what they were in 1991? (Of course one is too many, and I would also wish for as low an Iraqi casualty rate as possible, although Saddam will purposely try to have Iraqis be killed.)

Mediocrates
02-12-2003, 03:06 PM
Yes very low but we should understand that everything in the country is booby trapped with chemical/bio weapons.

Jako
02-12-2003, 05:06 PM
Lion: "To be honest, both of our points on Iraq have validity (though I think your condemnation of Israel's actions is very much incorrect and the sign of one much misinformed), and only time will tell if this war will be a catalyst for democracy in the middle east, or simply a catalyst for further bloodlust. I, for the sake of both of my countries (Israel and the United States) earnestly hope it will be the former and that this tortured region may finally find some peace, even if it requires war to achieve it"

Well said. I hope for the same, but the more I read and learn about the situation and the history, the more I get queasy. (Like I want to learn more about Turkey's reasons for being a staging area for a possible attack on Iraq when they were opposed to it a little while ago. I read a little while ago that one of their concerns is that the Kurds in Northern Iraq might seize the opportunity to grab control of the oil fields of Northern Iraq and start up their own country (15-20% of Turkey is Kurdish as I understand, so it sure is a concern)). That's stuff that's NOT on most TV news shows, not in most newspapers, and I want to know the details, for instance.

But my main problem is pretty simple. I don't believe that you can bring "peace and democracy" to a country by dropping bombs and KILLING PEOPLE. Has the U.S. brought peace and democracy to Afghanistan? To Vietnam? To Korea? To Central America? To South America? Somalia? Is U.S. democracy the model we want to reshape the Middle East into? Shouldn't we let them decide that for themselves rather than carpetbomb suburbs?

Maybe a multi-national force that went in would work (sanctioned by the UN), and I would still feel queasy, but Saddam IS a genocidal maniac, after all. I'm just against the U.S. going it alone, guns blazing. History has shown that they mess it up. And they still are the only country to have ever used the Bomb (twice, and on civilian targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)). An occupying force is always fighting an uphill battle.

I think your average American is a good person, but their government's military and foreign policy decisions seem to suck.

danholo: "In your mind, Israel's every person is a brutal and evil person. That's what I've come to believe from your posts anyway at least. Prove me wrong."

I really believe that your average Israeli is also a good person. We all are. Again, it's the government's policy that I don't find particularly humane, and downright brutal at times.

If your average group of Israeli men, women and children sat down with your average group of Palestinian men, women and children, they could work something out. I firmly believe that. It's THEIR lives that are at stake, THEIR families, THEIR livelihoods, THEIR legacies...

I think the average elected or unelected government official (in Israel, US, Canada, Europe, everywhere) is far more concerned with their own agenda and political and financial gain than me and you. My agenda is putting food on my table and living my life well. We need to be more involved in why decisions are made that end up with innocent people like you and me dead by machinegun fire or landmines or 2000-pound bombs or depleted uranium mortar shells or fanatical maniacs detonating explosives strapped to themselves...

So I guess I'm pessimistic and optimistic at the same time. But not really hateful to your average Joe (or Josephine).

Jako

-you never really realize how fast you type until you finish a post like this and go "what the..."

LionOfLoyalty
02-12-2003, 06:53 PM
Really, you haven't heard of the Kurdish nationalist aspirations? That's odd. The NY Times has done several pieces on it. Perhaps in Canada the priorities for the papers are different? Either way, I was aware of it, though I consider myself more politically astute than most.

People keep on talking about how we don't have the right to overthrow Saddam and such and that despite his numerous homicidal, indeed genocidal, acts only the Iraqi people have the right to depose of him. However, have you ever considered that they can't? I mean, Saddam is not exactly the easiest target for a sniper's rifle. I understand he hasn't gone out in public in many years, and when he has their are suspicions that it is in fact a body double instead of really him. Furthermore, the military and the Elite Republican Guard responsible for his security are given special privileges, as are the people from his home town of Tikrit, thereby lowering the chances of those in the position to kill him to attempt to. Even if I massive uprising should occur, the people of Iraq still remember how, back in '91 directly following the Gulf War, the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south rose against him and recieved in response chemical attacks using gas and other such chemical and biological warfare. Indeed, the few survivors of these atrocities still have horrible disfiguration and defects, as can be seen today in many Kurdish towns.

Furthermore, one notes that one of the main reasons that the United States has not succeeded in installing democracy before with military force is the lack of a substantial post-war occupation. Indeed, in areas where the US has occupied and rebuilt from the ground up (i.e: Germany, Japan etc.) there are currently stable and flourishing democratic governments as well as self-sufficient and even highly admired economic models.

Originally posted by Jako
Well said. I hope for the same, but the more I read and learn about the situation and the history, the more I get queasy. (Like I want to learn more about Turkey's reasons for being a staging area for a possible attack on Iraq when they were opposed to it a little while ago. I read a little while ago that one of their concerns is that the Kurds in Northern Iraq might seize the opportunity to grab control of the oil fields of Northern Iraq and start up their own country (15-20% of Turkey is Kurdish as I understand, so it sure is a concern)). That's stuff that's NOT on most TV news shows, not in most newspapers, and I want to know the details, for instance.

But my main problem is pretty simple. I don't believe that you can bring "peace and democracy" to a country by dropping bombs and KILLING PEOPLE. Has the U.S. brought peace and democracy to Afghanistan? To Vietnam? To Korea? To Central America? To South America? Somalia? Is U.S. democracy the model we want to reshape the Middle East into? Shouldn't we let them decide that for themselves rather than carpetbomb suburbs?

Maybe a multi-national force that went in would work (sanctioned by the UN), and I would still feel queasy, but Saddam IS a genocidal maniac, after all. I'm just against the U.S. going it alone, guns blazing. History has shown that they mess it up. And they still are the only country to have ever used the Bomb (twice, and on civilian targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)). An occupying force is always fighting an uphill battle.

LionOfLoyalty
02-12-2003, 07:06 PM
While a UN sanctioned operation is infinitely preferable, one has to consider something else. The UN is not an infallible, nor totally moral organization. All the UN truly is is a place where nations vote. And how each nation votes is affected by, surprise surprise, it's leaders. And as you said, each leader has their own agenda, of which they look out for far more than the well-being of their people or morality. Germany, of which has shown itself to be the staunchest anti-war country is currently led by Gerhard Schroeder, of whom won a closely contested a political race via his position of no German involvement with a war in Iraq, even if it was sanctioned by the UN, as well as a campaign that at times directly insulted G. W. Bush (someone who I regularly insult, but then again I don't do it for political gain). Furthermore, Russia is owed a extremely larged sum from the current Iraqi regime and holds oil contracts within it as well, and fears that it will not be paid back and lose it's oil interests should Saddam fall. These are all examples of countries whose votes will not necessarily be done by conscience. Now, I'm not kidding myself on President Bush's reasons behind this war. He's doing it not because of disarmnent, but because of oil and perhaps some vendetta inherited from his father (though I doubt the latter, politicians are usually too ruthless to have such base motives. I should know, it's a career I'm considering going into). However, I believe that despite that, there is a very good case, morally and militarily, for going into war with Iraq and deposing of Saddam. I don't care that that's not the reason that Bush is doing it, just as I don't care that the man's a halfwit whose positions are dictated by Cheney and Rumsfield. It's the actions that are done that are important here, not necessarily the reasons behind it.

,Lion

P.S: You're right, it is unnerving once you finish writing something as long as this. Well, I'm going to sleep now. I'll answer tommorrow.



Originally posted by Jako
Maybe a multi-national force that went in would work (sanctioned by the UN), and I would still feel queasy, but Saddam IS a genocidal maniac, after all. I'm just against the U.S. going it alone, guns blazing. History has shown that they mess it up. And they still are the only country to have ever used the Bomb (twice, and on civilian targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)). An occupying force is always fighting an uphill battle.

I think your average American is a good person, but their government's military and foreign policy decisions seem to suck...

...I think the average elected or unelected government official (in Israel, US, Canada, Europe, everywhere) is far more concerned with their own agenda and political and financial gain than me and you. My agenda is putting food on my table and living my life well. We need to be more involved in why decisions are made that end up with innocent people like you and me dead by machinegun fire or landmines or 2000-pound bombs or depleted uranium mortar shells or fanatical maniacs detonating explosives strapped to themselves...

So I guess I'm pessimistic and optimistic at the same time. But not really hateful to your average Joe (or Josephine).

Jako

L@mplighterM
02-12-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by cerulean
The point is that nuclear weapon retaliation to Iraq might harm Israel and Turkey. If Iraq uses such weapons first, I don't know what to do then, though.

Let’s suppose that Hussein sends Scuds into Israel laden with chemical weapons or biological weapons. Should Israel just absorb it and sit back and wait for more incoming missiles? Should the US and the allies take their losses and keep on fighting?

That would be irresponsible and stupid in my opinion. History has shown us how to get madmen to capitulate. In the case of Japan with their Emperor worship two bombs ended the war quickly and they have behaved since.

Jako
02-13-2003, 09:49 AM
Lion: Yeah, I had heard a bit about the Kurdish nationialism issue, but not much in reported in mainstream media. I knew about their troubles, but I didn't really realize it was a sticking point for Turkey to join the Iraqi offensive. It makes me wonder what the Americans have promised Turkey, and what they've promised the Kurds, and which of them will actually get what was promised.

"Furthermore, one notes that one of the main reasons that the United States has not succeeded in installing democracy before with military force is the lack of a substantial post-war occupation"

I disagree with that. Democracy can't be forced. Post-war occupation will only compound the problem, especially if it's just the U.S.

Look at Afghanistan. They call that a "success". There's still warlords, the Loya Jirga was a joke, and Hamid Karzai, the interim leader of the country used to work for UNOCAL, a U.S. oil company. Karzai needs U.S. mercenaries as bodyguards otherwise his own people would kill him.

I can't see the U.S. even WANTING to establish democracy, it's not good for business. In it's entire history, it has NEVER brought "freedom and democracy" to any country. Look at Chile, where they installed Pinochet as a military dictator...

"Now, I'm not kidding myself on President Bush's reasons behind this war. He's doing it not because of disarmnent, but because of oil and perhaps some vendetta inherited from his father (though I doubt the latter, politicians are usually too ruthless to have such base motives. I should know, it's a career I'm considering going into). However, I believe that despite that, there is a very good case, morally and militarily, for going into war with Iraq and deposing of Saddam. I don't care that that's not the reason that Bush is doing it, just as I don't care that the man's a halfwit whose positions are dictated by Cheney and Rumsfield. It's the actions that are done that are important here, not necessarily the reasons behind it."

I hope you're right. The reasons behind it will be seen AFTER the war, if it happens. It'll be the Iraqis and the other countries in the region that suffer if the reasons are unrealistic.

Personally I think it's just a way to expand U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and to eventually reshape it into a pro-U.S. area, which is totally impossible, I feel.

And the real axis of evil is Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, haha. Rummie was actually IN Iraq in the 80's selling weapons and biological agents to Saddam when he was a pal against Iran.

Lamplighter: "In the case of Japan with their Emperor worship two bombs ended the war quickly and they have behaved since."

Actually, the war was already pretty much over bey the time the A-bombs fell. The US knew that Japan was surrendering but they wanted to send a message to the world and figured a few hundred thousand innocent civilian casualties was worth it.

Jako

minusthejihad
02-13-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Jako

And the real axis of evil is Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, haha. Rummie was actually IN Iraq in the 80's selling weapons and biological agents to Saddam when he was a pal against Iran.

Actually, the war was already pretty much over bey the time the A-bombs fell. The US knew that Japan was surrendering but they wanted to send a message to the world and figured a few hundred thousand innocent civilian casualties was worth it.

Jako

The first paragraph is my favorite time in war history. Fund both sides against each other, ease your own problems and make money. Perfect.

The second paragraph - Care to prove it?

L@mplighterM
02-13-2003, 10:32 AM
Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out Nuclear Bomb Against Iraq
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday refused to rule out the U.S. use of nuclear weapons in the possible war with Iraq, but noted atomic weapons have not been unleashed in hostilities since 1945.

"Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked," Rumsfeld said at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20030213%2F130588197.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20030206WX125

L@mplighterM
02-13-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Jako
Actually, the war was already pretty much over bey the time the A-bombs fell. The US knew that Japan was surrendering but they wanted to send a message to the world and figured a few hundred thousand innocent civilian casualties was worth it.

Jako


Actually the Japanese were weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb and were feverishly working on that project but they were forced to surrender before its completion.

The war was not over when the US dropped the first bomb and the fighting continued after the second bomb was dropped. Eventually the Japanese got the message and they surrendered.

LionOfLoyalty
02-13-2003, 12:00 PM
It would indeed be a great mistake if America takes the road of the former British empire's mistakes in the Middle East and promises more than it can give. However, I believe that it is indeed possible to, if done correctly, bring democracy to Iraq, if the US is willing to hang around for the long haul (I've started a thread on that, if you want to go there for a while). Furthermore, Afghanistan is far from a finished project. While I worry that the US is failing to fulfill it's obligations there, the window of opportunity is still open to help Karzai's government succeed. And I think that a large majority of Afghanis are very much thankful for the US for their actions in deposing of the Taliban.

I am aware of the fact, and would very much agree that it was
morally and tactically reprehensible to supply Saddam with weaponry and chemicals back during the Iran-Iraq War, however I see no reason why a past mistake should prevent us from doing a good thing today.

Originally posted by Jako
Lion: Yeah, I had heard a bit about the Kurdish nationialism issue, but not much in reported in mainstream media. I knew about their troubles, but I didn't really realize it was a sticking point for Turkey to join the Iraqi offensive. It makes me wonder what the Americans have promised Turkey, and what they've promised the Kurds, and which of them will actually get what was promised.

"Furthermore, one notes that one of the main reasons that the United States has not succeeded in installing democracy before with military force is the lack of a substantial post-war occupation"

I disagree with that. Democracy can't be forced. Post-war occupation will only compound the problem, especially if it's just the U.S.

Look at Afghanistan. They call that a "success". There's still warlords, the Loya Jirga was a joke, and Hamid Karzai, the interim leader of the country used to work for UNOCAL, a U.S. oil company. Karzai needs U.S. mercenaries as bodyguards otherwise his own people would kill him.

I can't see the U.S. even WANTING to establish democracy, it's not good for business. In it's entire history, it has NEVER brought "freedom and democracy" to any country. Look at Chile, where they installed Pinochet as a military dictator...

"Now, I'm not kidding myself on President Bush's reasons behind this war. He's doing it not because of disarmnent, but because of oil and perhaps some vendetta inherited from his father (though I doubt the latter, politicians are usually too ruthless to have such base motives. I should know, it's a career I'm considering going into). However, I believe that despite that, there is a very good case, morally and militarily, for going into war with Iraq and deposing of Saddam. I don't care that that's not the reason that Bush is doing it, just as I don't care that the man's a halfwit whose positions are dictated by Cheney and Rumsfield. It's the actions that are done that are important here, not necessarily the reasons behind it."

I hope you're right. The reasons behind it will be seen AFTER the war, if it happens. It'll be the Iraqis and the other countries in the region that suffer if the reasons are unrealistic.

Personally I think it's just a way to expand U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and to eventually reshape it into a pro-U.S. area, which is totally impossible, I feel.

And the real axis of evil is Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, haha. Rummie was actually IN Iraq in the 80's selling weapons and biological agents to Saddam when he was a pal against Iran.

Lamplighter: "In the case of Japan with their Emperor worship two bombs ended the war quickly and they have behaved since."

Actually, the war was already pretty much over bey the time the A-bombs fell. The US knew that Japan was surrendering but they wanted to send a message to the world and figured a few hundred thousand innocent civilian casualties was worth it.

Jako

LionOfLoyalty
02-13-2003, 12:09 PM
I highly doubt that the Japanese were weeks away from developing a bomb, though I don't doubt they were working on it.

I would agree with the second paragraph, though. The Japanese were far from surrendering according to the best estimates of the US Intelligence at the time, and an invasion of their home islands would have disastrous casualty rates on both sides, with the US possibly losing over one million soldiers according to some estimates. However, I do not believe that the Iraq situation is comparable, especially considering the fact the the US is quite capable of causing similar or at least sufficient aerial destruction via other conventional means. It would be a grave mistake to use any sort of nuclear device in a war that, while I would agree is necessary, proper and pre-empting a serious threat to US allies and the US (which could be hit by Iraq should it give weaponry to terrorists, a relatively untraceable activity), is admittedly offensive.


Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Actually the Japanese were weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb and were feverishly working on that project but they were forced to surrender before its completion.

The war was not over when the US dropped the first bomb and the fighting continued after the second bomb was dropped. Eventually the Japanese got the message and they surrendered.

L@mplighterM
02-13-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
I highly doubt that the Japanese were days away from developing a bomb, though I don't doubt they were working on it.



Sorry my memory failed me Japan was actually weeks away from testing the bomb.



Snip


Japan was 'days away from test' of A-bomb
By David McNeill in Tokyo

05 August 2002

Japan's secret plans to build its own atom bomb have resurfaced with the uncovering of a dossier smuggled out of the country at the end of the Second World War.

The papers, containing crude diagrams for a small nuclear weapon, were part of a six-year effort by military scientists to make the country the world's first nuclear power.

According to yesterday's Asahi newspaper, the American widow of a Japanese researcher, who fled to the US with the document in 1945, has returned it to the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, where he worked during the war. The researcher, Kazuo Kuroda, who later became a professor at the University of Arkansas, kept the document secret for half a century until his death in America in April last year.
Japan was 'days away from test' of A-bomb


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pacific_rim/story.jsp?story=321619

LionOfLoyalty
02-13-2003, 02:15 PM
Really? I was not aware of that. Thanks for telling me. That's quite interesting. I humbly apologize for dismissing the concept of how urgent the matter was so readily.

MGB8
02-14-2003, 09:19 AM
I'll take the time to list some of the reasons:

1. He has flagrantly violated the terms of his surrender from the 1991 Gulf War - in other words, this isn't a "new" war, its the continuation of the old war, because he violated the cease fire (and has for a long time.)

2. The guy massacred the kurds and shiites in his own nation, using chemical weapons, too.

3. The guy killed his own son after his son defected and then stupidly returned.

4. The guy has violated UN Reso. 1441 by not disclosing all of its weapons (it lets little things drip out peacemeal, 4 warheads here, 10 there, new papers here, etc.) It only recently allowed scientists to talk with inspectors, but they "didn't want to" - ie. they've been told what happens to people who talk.

5. The guy invaded Kuwait and Iran.

6. The guy has sought and is still seeking WMD, including Nukes, Bio and Chem.

7. The Anthrax in the US is the same as that produced in Iraq.

8. The guy right now is vulnerable. When he feels stronger, history indicates he will again pursue aggressive actions. A war is thus inevitable, really, as long as he doesn't misteriously disapear. Except if there's a war later, it will last longer AND THOUSANDS MORE WILL DIE!!! INCLUDING CIVILLIANS.

9. By NOT removing him we are LETTING THOUSANDS OF CIVILLIANS DIE - in terms of him holding up UN food-for-oil, etc.

10. Al-quaida members are currently, with Iraq gov't knowledge, present and training in his country - he's granted them "safe-harbor."


Do you know why the French, German and Russians DON'T want Saddam Hussein gone? Its not because of any humanitarian concerns (after all, he is a bloddy dictator), but because, despite the UN sanctions and the peace deal, the made a deal with Saddam the butcher for OIL RIGHTS!!!!!

That's right, Its FRANCE and GERMANY and RUSSIA that are trading BLOOD (Iraqi blood and blood of the many thousands more that would die if Iraq is allowed to develop weapons of MD) for OIL. Not the US.

In fact, after an Invasion, the US has GUARANTEED that the Iraqi oil fields would belong to the people of Iraq and their government, and I'm sure that their would be open competition for the oil - which would BENEFIT the Iraqi people.

Jako
02-14-2003, 01:18 PM
Minusthejihad: You asked me to prove that the A-bombs dropped on Japan were unnecessary, here you go.

http://shs.sps.lane.edu/trials/hiroshima/

“On August 6, 1945 at 8:15am (JST) the United States dropped the Atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It is estimated to have killed 70,000 people instantly. The total amount of people who are said to have died from effects of the bomb hover around 200,000….
The purpose in dropping the bomb was three-fold.
1) Force Japan to surrender unconditionally while avoiding a prolonged invasion.
2) Obtain revenge for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the mistreatment and torture of US soldiers on Bataan.
3) Demonstrate to Russia that we had a weapon of mass destruction and were not afraid to use it”

"The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/HiroshimaNagasaki.html

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” ...

On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: “Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.” Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: “Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to — and did — relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to conclusion.” "

Just do a google search for Japan Atom Bomb unneccesary or something similar. There isplenty of info.

Lion:"I am aware of the fact, and would very much agree that it was morally and tactically reprehensible to supply Saddam with weaponry and chemicals back during the Iran-Iraq War, however I see no reason why a past mistake should prevent us from doing a good thing today."

I agree, Lion, but I also think that we should address it. Also the fact that bin laden was the recipient of BILLIONS of dollars from the CIA when he was fighting FOR them against the Soviets.

MGB8: "1. He has flagrantly violated the terms of his surrender from the 1991 Gulf War - in other words, this isn't a "new" war, its the continuation of the old war, because he violated the cease fire (and has for a long time.)"

So has Israel, Iran, Turkey, Angola, etc Why not invade one of them?

"7. The Anthrax in the US is the same as that produced in Iraq."

Saddam had the Vollum strain of anthrax, from a company called American Type Culture Collection, based in Rockville, Maryland. The anthrax used in Washington was traced back to the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland. It was the Ames strain, not the Vollum strain. Remember they were looking at a specific doctor before the investigation stalled? So you're incorrect.

"9. By NOT removing him we are LETTING THOUSANDS OF CIVILLIANS DIE - in terms of him holding up UN food-for-oil, etc."

So to stop that we KILL thousands of civilians, and destroy the roads and bridges that the UN uses to bring these people food. There will be a huge famine if there is war. And the U.S. is to blame for the sanctions, not Saddam. The U.s. has never approached him for any concessions.

"10. Al-quaida members are currently, with Iraq gov't knowledge, present and training in his country - he's granted them "safe-harbor.""

What info is this based on? Osama is AGAINST Saddam, his government is secular, not Islamist. The links have been disproven everywhere but the U.s. media, who just doesn't report the gaps.

"In fact, after an Invasion, the US has GUARANTEED that the Iraqi oil fields would belong to the people of Iraq and their government, and I'm sure that their would be open competition for the oil - which would BENEFIT the Iraqi people."

This made me laugh harder than I have in days. As if. Open competition between Exxon, Shell, and Abdullah with the stall in the market? Haha.

Ask Afghanistan, where Unocal's Karzai presides. There is no way the U.S. will not control the oil (they will build the pipelines and they will have the guns).

Jako

ibrodsky
02-14-2003, 02:28 PM
Jako, your suggestion that use of atomic bombs on Japan was "proven unnecessary" is absurd.

Your argument is based on one of the most common logical fallacies: appeal to authority.

The number and source of websites that say it was unnecessary do not "prove" anything, they merely state an opinion.

Your assumption seems to be that the Japanese realized they had lost and would respond in the only logical manner available. Actually, the kamikaze pilots proved that the Japanese had been brainwashed to the point of acting irrationally. Had Japan not been presented with the likelihood of total annihilation, there is good reason to believe they would have fought on.

We face an even worse evil today. The Islamists terrorists are more dangerous than kamikaze pilots. The kamikaze pilots attacked military targets in a fanatical effort to defeat the allies in any way they could. Islamist terrorists attack civilians, taking obvious delight in the mass murder of the innocent, hoping that such brutal acts will cause westerners to choose slavery over death - as the lesser of two evils.

And based on the behavior of the current "peace movement" it appears that the West has millions of people who would not think twice about accepting slavery.

L@mplighterM
02-14-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Jako

Saddam had the Vollum strain of anthrax, from a company called American Type Culture Collection, based in Rockville, Maryland. The anthrax used in Washington was traced back to the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland. It was the Ames strain, not the Vollum strain. Remember they were looking at a specific doctor before the investigation stalled? So you're incorrect.

[B]"

Actually it seems that Iraq is the only country that uses silica to weaponries the anthrax while other countries add aluminum. I’m not certain but it seems to me that silica from Iraq could differ from silica gathered from other places in the world.

There are other factors to be considered one being that one of the 9/11 hijackers exhibited signs of having been exposed to anthrax and there is of course the timing of the attacks.

Based on probability the anthrax came from Iraq considering all the evidence I’m certain that Hussein had a role in this.

HaSakin
02-15-2003, 01:51 AM
If Hitler had been assassinated when he took power, millions upon millions of lives -- Jewish, German, Russian, Polish, American, English, etc. -- would have been saved.

If Saddam Hussein is assassinated today, thousands of Iraqi, American and English (and perhaps Turkish) lives will be saved.

The U.S. should locate the place where Saddam Hussein is staying and rain down all its missiles and bombs at once. It is better to take out at one blow several hundred Iraqi lives -- the leadership -- than start a real war.

JustPat
02-15-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by HaSakin
If Hitler had been assassinated when he took power, millions upon millions of lives -- Jewish, German, Russian, Polish, American, English, etc. -- would have been saved.

If Saddam Hussein is assassinated today, thousands of Iraqi, American and English (and perhaps Turkish) lives will be saved.

The U.S. should locate the place where Saddam Hussein is staying and rain down all its missiles and bombs at once. It is better to take out at one blow several hundred Iraqi lives -- the leadership -- than start a real war.
Here, Here! :D

HaSakin
02-15-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by JustPat
Here, Here! :D

Dear JustPat:

I always thought the Brits said "Hear, hear".

MichaelC
02-15-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Jako
.As far as I am concerned, if you are FOR the war, shut your mouth and grab a rifle and a plane ticket and go. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke. And, as far as I'm concerned and in the very same vein, if you wish to support Saddam in all of his "innocent" activities, I suggest that YOU get yourself a plane ticket, a "No Justice-No Peace" sign, and hie yourself off to Iraq to join those others who have the courage of THEIR misguided convictions and wish to provide a "human shield" against the forces of the West.

Got the nerve, little man?

MichaelC
02-15-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by HaSakin
If Hitler had been assassinated when he took power, millions upon millions of lives -- Jewish, German, Russian, Polish, American, English, etc. -- would have been saved.

If Saddam Hussein is assassinated today, thousands of Iraqi, American and English (and perhaps Turkish) lives will be saved.

The U.S. should locate the place where Saddam Hussein is staying and rain down all its missiles and bombs at once. It is better to take out at one blow several hundred Iraqi lives -- the leadership -- than start a real war. HERE ! HERE ! meaning, right on top of Saddam's head.

L@mplighterM
02-15-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
And based on the behavior of the current "peace movement" it appears that the West has millions of people who would not think twice about accepting slavery.

Demonstrations for peace are taking place throughout the world and apparently Europe had the largest turnout in history.

There comes a time in ones life when one has to realize that the game is lost and I’ve believed that to be the case for some time now. The media and even this forum along with others have gradually shifted to the left.

All the lies and deception forwarded by Iraq in the past has become moot and somehow I’m expected to believe whatever the new reformed Saddam Hussein says. I could write several pages relating to deception perpetrated by Iraq regarding weapons inspections. It seems to me that its come down to an old Swede (Hans Blix) and a Muslim (Mohammad ElBaradei) to decide the destiny of west and that’s plain wrong.

Empires rise and fall so I suppose there’s no reason why ours cant collapse and disappear. I could write several pages why I believe this might happen but that wont stop the 200 million or so young Muslims that have their sights on entering the west.

They have come and they will continue to trickle into the west bringing with them Islam and its Islamic fundamentalism.

The End

MGB8
02-15-2003, 02:37 PM
First, on thye Japan thing, hindsight is 20/20, and the people that you cite aren't exactly unbaised sources. The bottom line is that we don't know if Japan would have surrendered or would have tested their own Nukes or whatnot. What the US did was reasonable for the information they had at the time.


MGB8: "1. He has flagrantly violated the terms of his surrender from the 1991 Gulf War - in other words, this isn't a "new" war, its the continuation of the old war, because he violated the cease fire (and has for a long time.)"

So has Israel, Iran, Turkey, Angola, etc Why not invade one of them?

How has Israel violated the Gulf War armistice?




"7. The Anthrax in the US is the same as that produced in Iraq."

Saddam had the Vollum strain of anthrax, from a company called American Type Culture Collection, based in Rockville, Maryland. The anthrax used in Washington was traced back to the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland. It was the Ames strain, not the Vollum strain. Remember they were looking at a specific doctor before the investigation stalled? So you're incorrect.

There is information to the contrary that is circulating, you may be right, I'm not sure, but I have heard from people with authority that the strain was identical to that produced in Iraq in terms of its composition.



"9. By NOT removing him we are LETTING THOUSANDS OF CIVILLIANS DIE - in terms of him holding up UN food-for-oil, etc."

So to stop that we KILL thousands of civilians, and destroy the roads and bridges that the UN uses to bring these people food. There will be a huge famine if there is war. And the U.S. is to blame for the sanctions, not Saddam. The U.s. has never approached him for any concessions.

Um.... Saddam has held up the food and medicines from "food-for-oil" ... no one else. The food has arrived in Iraq, it just hasn't gotten to its people - its good for Iraq's PR to have his people suffer to try to get concessions from the west, like YOU suggest. Seems that he tricked you easily. Arafat would call you a "usefull fool."



"10. Al-quaida members are currently, with Iraq gov't knowledge, present and training in his country - he's granted them "safe-harbor.""

What info is this based on? Osama is AGAINST Saddam, his government is secular, not Islamist. The links have been disproven everywhere but the U.s. media, who just doesn't report the gaps.
"In fact, after an Invasion, the US has GUARANTEED that the Iraqi oil fields would belong to the people of Iraq and their government, and I'm sure that their would be open competition for the oil - which would BENEFIT the Iraqi people."

US Military intelligence. Israeli military intelligence. British Military intelligence. More reliable than any of your sources.



This made me laugh harder than I have in days. As if. Open competition between Exxon, Shell, and Abdullah with the stall in the market? Haha.

Ask Afghanistan, where Unocal's Karzai presides. There is no way the U.S. will not control the oil (they will build the pipelines and they will have the guns).

That's quite a big inference. Since we have the guns in Germany, do we control all of their natural resources? What about Japans?

Seems that you believe whatever is convinient for you to believe, instead of even TRYING to be at all objective. No surprise. Another "usefull fool."

danholo
02-15-2003, 03:00 PM
The U.S. doesn't even control the oil in Kuwait.

JustPat
02-15-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by HaSakin
Dear JustPat:

I always thought the Brits said "Hear, hear".
I guess you missed the grin.

ibrodsky
02-15-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Demonstrations for peace are taking place throughout the world and apparently Europe had the largest turnout in history.

There comes a time in ones life when one has to realize that the game is lost and I’ve believed that to be the case for some time now. The media and even this forum along with others have gradually shifted to the left.

...

The End

It's a bit premature to throw in the towel.

First, I don't think President Bush will just give in to France and their Arab dictator friends just because a couple million people in countries representing hundreds of millions demonstrated in solidarity with Saddam Hussein and Arab terrorists.

Though admittedly, by going to the UN for permission he walked into a predictable ambush.

And Tony Blair said today that even if a million people demonstrated for Saddam it would still be less than the number of people killed in wars started by Saddam. So Blair doesn't seem to be caving yet.

Yes, I'm worried that our leaders will shrink from fighting these barbarians. And as Charles Krauthammer wrote in his current editorial, if we let these tyrants get WMD then there is a good chance the world will not survive beyond our children's lifetimes.

But I don't plan on going down without a fight. Do you?

ibrodsky
02-15-2003, 04:52 PM
The whole "blood for oil" charge is just infantile leftwing blather.

If GW Bush just wanted oil money, he wouldn't have taken a pay cut to be President. And there is no way a US government official can seize foreign assets for himself - this is just one of the big fat lies that leftists need to convince the gullible and uneducated to join their mob action groups.

There was a sign at the London demo today that said words to the effect "If there is going to be any blood spilled, let it be Blair's."

That is what the peace movement is all about. Immoral, hypocritical, ignorant, and a "united front" with evil.

L@mplighterM
02-15-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
But I don't plan on going down without a fight. Do you?

There’s no way that anyone can convince me that the US and Britain will ever be able to rid the world of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism.

If the US Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Gore I don’t believe for one minute that he would be spearheading an assault on Iraq. Tone Blair may very end up being removed from his position because of his current support for military action against Iraq.

If Bush ends up being bogged down in a lengthy battle that ends up with Americans coming home in body bags his political career will end. I think it would be fair to say that Bush Sen. lost his bid for reelection because of his position on Iraq and the same thing may very well happen to Junior.

Fight? Who am I going to fight? I’m a good shot but my weapons would be no match for an automatic AK-47. I respect the law and I wouldn’t consider doing anything unlawful with my knowledge and/or skills. The government would have to issue an order that its every man and woman for themselves before I fight.

I don’t visualize a Red October kind of scenario to materialize but I’m certainly expecting WMD being unleashed on us by Islamic terrorists and I fully expect it to happen. I don’t think there’s one iota of doubt in your mind that these poisonous agents will be unleashed on us it’s just a matter of time.

The only fighting that you and I can do right now is support the fight to eliminate these evil bastards from the face of this earth.

cerulean
02-15-2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
And as Charles Krauthammer wrote in his current editorial, if we let these tyrants get WMD then there is a good chance the world will not survive beyond our children's lifetimes.

Here is Krauthammer's editorial:
Holiday From History
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 14, 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5709-2003Feb13.html
A few quotes:

We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold.

There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939.
...
This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred -- in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction -- not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children?
He's right, but what he is saying is incredibly sad. I wish it were true that a relatively few righteous men could save the world.

humus_sapiens
02-15-2003, 10:20 PM
I wish it were true that a relatively few righteous men could save the world.

Amen. Unfortunately, the opposite is true: it takes only relatively few evil men to destroy it. :(

ibrodsky
02-16-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
There’s no way that anyone can convince me that the US and Britain will ever be able to rid the world of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism...

...If Bush ends up being bogged down in a lengthy battle that ends up with Americans coming home in body bags his political career will end. I think it would be fair to say that Bush Sen. lost his bid for reelection because of his position on Iraq and the same thing may very well happen to Junior...

...Fight? Who am I going to fight? I’m a good shot but my weapons would be no match for an automatic AK-47. I respect the law and I wouldn’t consider doing anything unlawful with my knowledge and/or skills. The government would have to issue an order that its every man and woman for themselves before I fight...

...The only fighting that you and I can do right now is support the fight to eliminate these evil bastards from the face of this earth.

Did you see Fox News Sunday? Even John McCain argued fervently that we must take action. And Condo Rice made it clear we will take action. If we can rally a bit more int'l support, great, we'll take a few weeks at most and give it a try. But we are going to disarm Iraq either way.

We do have some intelligent leaders, and they do see the ominous parallels between today and the years leading up to WW II.

It isn't necessary or possible to completely rid the world of Islamist terrorists. But what we can do is convince every gov't that they will be held responsible for terrorists operating from their territory; we can stop those who might give WMDs to terrorists; and we can hunt down and kill terrorist leaders -- forcing the rest to live on the run and in constant fear.

When I said fight, I did not necessarily mean pick up a gun (though I strongly urge all Jews to learn how to use firearms), I meant support in every way possible those who understand the problem and know what to do about it.

L@mplighterM
02-16-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by ibrodsky

When I said fight, I did not necessarily mean pick up a gun (though I strongly urge all Jews to learn how to use firearms), I meant support in every way possible those who understand the problem and know what to do about it.

Firing one round from the new Smith and Wesson .50 caliber would most likely break my wrist, its three times more powerful than a .44 Magnum. It’s a good idea to learn how to be a shooter and loose your fear of guns just remembers to buy gunlocks for your weapons, they are relatively inexpensive. I was always a great enjoyment for me to go to the club and target practice.

I understand that the US is not isolated in its endeavor to disarm Iraq but it’s an uphill battle. The world is divided regarding on this issue and even within the US there’s a split of opinions. It appears that the US is willing to hold off the invasion of Iraq and I venture to say that the next peace demonstrations will be even larger.

There appears to be a lack of understanding on the issue of inspections in Iraq. Most people that I talk to think that the role of inspectors is to search for WMD destruction throughout Iraq with a magnifying glass and that is certainly not the case. The inspectors aren’t detectives whose job it is to uncover WMD buried somewhere in the vastness of Iraq a job like that would have to be undertaken by the military through an invasion or by invitation.

Iraqi diplomats have been asking strange questions about anthrax about how to decontaminate anthrax and how to best protect your self against anthrax in Finland, Sweden and I believe also in Norway. The countries in question have refused to provide an answer. The circumstantial evidence to date makes it quite clear that they are in possession of this substance and there are strong indications that they supplied this substance to be used in the US.

I don’t have to touch on the issue of Smallpox because it’s a well-known fact that states around the world have started preparing for such a biological attack. Perhaps this will be all in vain if the Smallpox has been modified. In any event there’s the possibility (I would even say that it’s a given fact) that worse viral agents will be developed during the coming years. Our children will never have a moment’s peace in the future they will have to live with fear.

The mayor of Rome refused to meet with Tareq Aziz on Sunday, canceling their scheduled meeting after Aziz refused to answer a question asked by a correspondent for Israeli newspaper Maariv. The question was whether Iraq intended to launch an attack against Israel in case of war. This was a simple question that required either a yes or no answer. By not answering the answer becomes a yes in my opinion.

L@mplighterM
02-16-2003, 01:48 PM
Someone sent me a good summation regarding the Iraq inspections and/or UN Resolutions.


Snip:

Hans Blix Reports That Iraq Is Not In Compliance With UN 1441
By Rick D.
Since Hans Blix gave his report to the United Nations on Friday, February 14, 2003, the general consensus seems to be that he was reporting basic Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441. I believe the truth is actually the opposite. I also believe that the terrorists are winning the propaganda war because people of good will who want peace are not paying close enough attention to facts, but are being led by their emotions. In that light, I present this web page.
My credentials: I have none other than being a political junky. In the interest of full disclosure, my politics are libertarian-to-conservative. The world is at a crossroads and the wrong choices now could very well prove disastrous for the world.


The pertinent paragraph of UN 1441:
(The United Nations) Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Now, with this paragraph in mind, I have highlighted sections of the Blix report that we would not be seeing if a country had satisfied the demands of a final opportunity to disarm. Had this report been issued at the beginning of the inspection process, that would be a different story.
In the following transcript I have highlighted in red those passages which to me indicate non-cooperation with this final opportunity to comply with UN 1441. I have used blue to indicate passages which I feel show that Mr. Blix is giving Iraq every benefit of the doubt and/or not giving Colin Powell equal treatment. I have made some comments which are in italics.
After reading the Blix report, please read Colin Powell's address to the UN.
Link:

http://www.derer.com/hansblixreport.htm

ibrodsky
02-16-2003, 02:31 PM
L@mplighter, you are too negative. It doesn't matter how big the next demonstrations are.

With demonstrators saying "No blood for oil" and "If any blood is to be spilled, let it be Blair's," and Iraq gloating over the demonstrations, you can be pretty confident the US won't back down.

The "blood for oil" complaint is just politics taken to an infantile level.

The gloating of Iraq shows that while most demonstrators claim they have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein, they have demonstrated on his behalf.

I think if the US acts decisively and finds biological agents, etc. that the "peace movement" will quickly be discredited. Sure, there will always be (for example) British Muslims who want to destroy the US and will exploit naive peaceniks, but the bulk of support will wither as they see their cause is hopeless and Iraqis come forward to denounce Saddam.

And even now, some must be just a bit uncomfortable that Saddam has thanked them and declared victory.

L@mplighterM
02-16-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
L@mplighter, you are too negative. It doesn't matter how big the next demonstrations are.



I thought my wife was the one that was negative but nevertheless you may be correct. I certainly hope so!

All I can say is that the Arabs/Muslims have a well-heeled PR machine. I just watched a mass murderer (Aziz) having a papal audience. Several days ago the Belgium courts announced that they want to try Sharon for war crimes. Where’s the sense?

I see a world that’s been turned upside down and that’s reality.

I think we’ll see Blair fighting for his political survival in the coming weeks and I truly don’t know whether he’ll survive. It seems to me that the coming months will show whether the west has the political will to disarm Islam beginning with Iraq.

HaSakin
02-16-2003, 07:10 PM
The first thing we should remember about demonstrations (unless they are pro-government) is that they are a clear sign of a vibrant and fairly well functioning democracy. So, they should be welcomed. Has anyone heard of such anti-tovernment demonstrations in a dictatorship such as the former Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or even Iraq. Of course there was a major anti-regime demonstration in the capital of Chna a few years ago -- and its bloody aftermath went down in history.

Thus, the present "anti-war" demonstrations should not be taken too seriously. They reflect only the feelings of a small proportion of the population. To counter them we would have to have "pro-war" demonstratons. This is quite inconceivable in any democratic country for the overwhelming majority of the populace is against war. For them war is some times a harsh necessity. War is liking have a tooth pulled out when all other means to save the tooth have failed. Has anyone ever demonstrated in favor of having a tooth pulled out? They accept reality with a certain glumness.

The second thing that should be kept in mind is that the media blows out of all proportion the size of such demonstrations, and their silent supporters. The media thrives on sensations, and the bigger the sensation, the better the "story".

Let me recall a demonstration some 20 years ago in Tel Aviv at the square then called Malkei Yisrael, now called Rabin Square.

The media reported that 400,000 persons demonstrated against the war in the Lebanon. This figure has gone down in history as true. Newspapers, radio stations and TV newscasts, even thoe which claimed they checked and doubled checked their facts, reported this figure of 400,000. Today, it is a historical "fact".

But if we examine the facts we find that this figure is tremendously bloated.

The square in front of the Tel Aviv Municipality (according to the Municipal spokesman at that time) stated categorically that the Square consisted of 30,000 square meters. (A meter is slightly larger than a yard). For 400000 persons to have crowded into that square meant that 13 persons stood on each square meter.

Now, this is a physical impossibility. Measure the room where you are now sitting and try to squeeze 13 persons onto each square meter.

My "john" is about one square meter. I find it hard to squeeze in with the morning paper let alone another twelve persons.

cerulean
02-17-2003, 08:44 AM
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/263923.html
U.S. official to Israel: We'll deal with Syria,
Iran after Iraq war

By Aluf Benn and Sharon Sadeh, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service and Agencies

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings about preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

In a meeting with Bolton on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Israel is concerned about the security threat posed by Iran. It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq, Sharon said. . . .

L@mplighterM
02-17-2003, 09:08 AM
Snip:

WE'LL OUST BLAIR


Feb 17 2003


EXCLUSIVE: MPs PLOT AN ANTI WAR REVOLT TO TOPPLE PM: 'He won't listen..he must go'

By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor


TONY Blair faces a leadership challenge over his plans to attack Iraq.

The Daily Mirror has learned of a plot involving disillusioned MPs, peers and union bosses.

It would be the first such move against the Premier since he swept to power in 1997. One ringleader said: "These are firm proposals."

The Labour MP, who asked not to be named, added: "We have the numbers required to mount a challenge.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12646940&method=full&siteid=50143

minusthejihad
02-17-2003, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by HaSakin
The first thing we should remember about demonstrations (unless they are pro-government) is that they are a clear sign of a vibrant and fairly well functioning democracy. So, they should be welcomed. Has anyone heard of such anti-tovernment demonstrations in a dictatorship such as the former Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or even Iraq. Of course there was a major anti-regime demonstration in the capital of Chna a few years ago -- and its bloody aftermath went down in history.

Thus, the present "anti-war" demonstrations should not be taken too seriously. They reflect only the feelings of a small proportion of the population. To counter them we would have to have "pro-war" demonstratons. This is quite inconceivable in any democratic country for the overwhelming majority of the populace is against war. For them war is some times a harsh necessity. War is liking have a tooth pulled out when all other means to save the tooth have failed. Has anyone ever demonstrated in favor of having a tooth pulled out? They accept reality with a certain glumness.

The second thing that should be kept in mind is that the media blows out of all proportion the size of such demonstrations, and their silent supporters. The media thrives on sensations, and the bigger the sensation, the better the "story".

Let me recall a demonstration some 20 years ago in Tel Aviv at the square then called Malkei Yisrael, now called Rabin Square.

The media reported that 400,000 persons demonstrated against the war in the Lebanon. This figure has gone down in history as true. Newspapers, radio stations and TV newscasts, even thoe which claimed they checked and doubled checked their facts, reported this figure of 400,000. Today, it is a historical "fact".

But if we examine the facts we find that this figure is tremendously bloated.

The square in front of the Tel Aviv Municipality (according to the Municipal spokesman at that time) stated categorically that the Square consisted of 30,000 square meters. (A meter is slightly larger than a yard). For 400000 persons to have crowded into that square meant that 13 persons stood on each square meter.

Now, this is a physical impossibility. Measure the room where you are now sitting and try to squeeze 13 persons onto each square meter.

My "john" is about one square meter. I find it hard to squeeze in with the morning paper let alone another twelve persons.

Very true. Welcome to Israel Forum HaSakin!

Jako
02-17-2003, 10:28 AM
ibrodsky: "Your assumption seems to be that the Japanese realized they had lost and would respond in the only logical manner available. Actually, the kamikaze pilots proved that the Japanese had been brainwashed to the point of acting irrationally. Had Japan not been presented with the likelihood of total annihilation, there is good reason to believe they would have fought on."

"Good reason to believe they would have fought on"? That doesn't seem like much of a certainty. And as to the kamikaze pilots PROVING that the Japanese had been "brainwashed", letme ask you if you've ever spent a second in the military. Soldiers are taught NOT to think for themselves, just to act. It's called bootcamp, otherwise known as brainwashing (same techniques, including sleep and food deprivation and threats of violence).

"That is what the peace movement is all about. Immoral, hypocritical, ignorant, and a "united front" with evil."

If you call me ignorant, it strangely doesn't bother me. Your own astounding ignorance kind of deflects the criticism. And your blood-thirstiness.

Lamplighter : "Based on probability the anthrax came from Iraq considering all the evidence I’m certain that Hussein had a role in this."

Based on probability? Because of the Net we can actually go back in time and READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE ATTACKS. Go to google and look for yourself. The anthrax was found to have been made in the USA. They even name Fort Detrick. They even name the Ames strain. They never mention Iraq, except to say that it's not capable of producing such a high-grade weaponized strain. And always ask "Who benefits?" What would Saddam gain by killing Tom Daschle exactly?

HaSakin: "If Hitler had been assassinated when he took power, millions upon millions of lives -- Jewish, German, Russian, Polish, American, English, etc. -- would have been saved.

If Saddam Hussein is assassinated today, thousands of Iraqi, American and English (and perhaps Turkish) lives will be saved. "

Saddam and Hitler are totally different. Both lunatics, both megalomaniacal, but different people. There is no other parallel you can safely make.

MichaelC: "And, as far as I'm concerned and in the very same vein, if you wish to support Saddam in all of his "innocent" activities, I suggest that YOU get yourself a plane ticket, a "No Justice-No Peace" sign, and hie yourself off to Iraq to join those others who have the courage of THEIR misguided convictions and wish to provide a "human shield" against the forces of the West.

Got the nerve, little man?"

Yes, I actually do. I've been to about 7 anti-war protests in the past 3 months, I've written numerous letters to my government, and I've tried to change public opinion by educating people when I can.

And as to my convictions being "misguided", you can have your opinion, just as I can know your opinion is wrong. If you want to claim WAR IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY then risk your own life instead of getting others to do it for you. People who clamor about war and then do nothing about it themselves are cowards.

MGB8: "Um.... Saddam has held up the food and medicines from "food-for-oil" ... no one else. The food has arrived in Iraq, it just hasn't gotten to its people - its good for Iraq's PR to have his people suffer to try to get concessions from the west, like YOU suggest. Seems that he tricked you easily. Arafat would call you a "usefull fool.""

Prove it. You seem to believe I've been tricked somehow, yet you're the one who is repeating the "safe story". The story that makes it all right to want to kill innocents. Somehow it makes it more acceptable to kill these people if they will somehow be "better off". Show me the story that proves Saddam starves his own population for "western PR".

You're the one who has been duped.

""In fact, after an Invasion, the US has GUARANTEED that the Iraqi oil fields would belong to the people of Iraq and their government, and I'm sure that their would be open competition for the oil - which would BENEFIT the Iraqi people."

US Military intelligence. Israeli military intelligence. British Military intelligence. More reliable than any of your sources."

LOL! Yeah, you're right, US Military Intelligence, British and Israeli Intel have NEVER LIED TO ANYONE. Ahahahaha. You've just mentioned 2 of 3 of the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet, the CIA and Mossad. And the US has yet to guarantee anything in post-war Iraq. Anything.

"That's quite a big inference. Since we have the guns in Germany, do we control all of their natural resources? What about Japans?"

Did the U.S. invade Germany unilaterally? Japan? Did they go in for "regime change"? One of us will be proven correct if it happens, we'll see which.


And as for everyone who derides the millions of people who GOT OFF THEIR BUTTS AND STOOD UP FOR SOMETHING THEY BELIEVED IN:

What moral right do you have to question these people's beliefs? What kind of massive arrogance does it take to say "Oh they're just misguided". I for one felt proud to be marching alongside 150,000 others in Montreal to stand up for what I BELIEVE in. That war is MURDER, and if I live in a real democracy I have a voice that can be heard.

Had the world's citizens protested aginst the German government in the late 30's maybe millions of lives would have been saved. But instead they remained silent and afraid to speak out.

I won't, and if you deride me for exercising my freedom of speech, then you are AGAINST free expression and democracy. Plain and simple. Everyone's opinions are not valid, but everyone has the right to exercise their RIGHT to express their opinions.

No demonstrations in Communist countries, though, so maybe you should start looking for a house.

Jako

danholo
02-17-2003, 10:33 AM
Jako:

You've just mentioned 2 of 3 of the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet, the CIA and Mossad.

Terrorist organisations?

How many people have the CIA killed and how about Mossad?
When did the CIA and Mossad target civilians?

I really don't understand your way of thinking.

Mediocrates
02-17-2003, 11:18 AM
I'm not sure you're supposed to. It's just bloody shirt waving. It's rhetoric not thinking.

L@mplighterM
02-17-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Jako


Lamplighter : "Based on probability the anthrax came from Iraq considering all the evidence I’m certain that Hussein had a role in this."

Based on probability? Because of the Net we can actually go back in time and READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE ATTACKS. Go to google and look for yourself. The anthrax was found to have been made in the USA. They even name Fort Detrick. They even name the Ames strain. They never mention Iraq, except to say that it's not capable of producing such a high-grade weaponized strain. And always ask "Who benefits?" What would Saddam gain by killing Tom Daschle exactly?



It was never firmly established where the anthrax came from but at the moment based on new evidence all fingers point to Iraq. Having followed the anthrax story from the beginning it now appears (based on new evidence) that Iraq supplied the materials.

Based on this new evidence I would say that its 99.9% certain that it came from there.

MichaelC
02-17-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Jako
As far as I am concerned, if you are FOR the war, shut your mouth and grab a rifle and a plane ticket and go. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.


Originally posted by MichaelC
"And, as far as I'm concerned and in the very same vein, if you wish to support Saddam in all of his "innocent" activities, I suggest that YOU get yourself a plane ticket, a "No Justice-No Peace" sign, and hie yourself off to Iraq to join those others who have the courage of THEIR misguided convictions and wish to provide a "human shield" against the forces of the West.

Got the nerve, little man?"


Originally post by Jako
Yes, I actually do. I've been to about 7 anti-war protests in the past 3 months, I've written numerous letters to my government, and I've tried to change public opinion by educating people when I can.

And as to my convictions being "misguided", you can have your opinion, just as I can know your opinion is wrong. If you want to claim WAR IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY then risk your own life instead of getting others to do it for you. People who clamor about war and then do nothing about it themselves are cowards.
So, in your world, attending an anti-war demonstration qualifies as "courage"?

I myself am a Viet Nam Veteran and and I have been to far more anti-war demonstrations than the meager number that you have listed. My protests spanned MANY years, not a scant three months.

Those who fail to grasp the grim and foreboding reality represented by the projection of the grievances of Islam into the heart of America, are inadequate students of history.

My anti-war acquaintances try to tell me that I am not thinking "linearly" when I explain to them my take on the historical activities of the "many" nations who have always been intent not only upon the destruction of Israel but who have now decided to involve the nations of the West in thier "jihads". They cannot figure out how anyone can follow al qaeda from New York to Afghanistan to......Iraq. They want to follow a to b to c to d.........without understanding that they could, if they wish, see the whole damn alphabet at once.

They are right. I do NOT think linearly. I think, for want of a better term, "comprehensively". I see the many nations involved, not just the one upon whom we are currently focusing our attention. I have not forgotten the others, though my friends have.

I have not forgotten 911.

I see the WHOLE. I observe all of the entities coming out of Islam that seek to control the Middle East and to destroy Israel. I understand what they are after.

I see the will of the West wavering in those who do not understand, and who think that that their "hopes and dreams" of a peaceful resolution could ever be embraced by those murderous thugs whose day has, at last, come.

I see quite clearly what is going on. And if it is not stopped NOW , the carnage will only increase.

andak01
02-17-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Lowell
Hello NewsGuy, might I contribute my thoughts? Thanks. I think that the goal of removing Saddam is to show other Arab states such as Saudi Arabia that any Arab government can be removed, and any can be replaced.

Why stop there? Now that America has military and economic superiority over the world, we could spin a wheel and take out anyone we want. Further, we can put in whoever we want. I opt for an American Idol type show where we replace the governments of random foreign nations with contestants chosen by American audiences. Instead of Paula Abdul (right out, cause she's Arabic) and Simon (right out, cause he's gay), we'll have Henry Kissinger and Clarence Thomas on the judges panel.

Clarence: "You have to be the worst excuse for a Chancellor of Germany ever...second worse!"

Henry: "I like Bobby, kaus he has ze right look."

They could have a segment called 'Kiss Our Nike's' where former world leaders have to grovel before all powerful Americans and pump 20 cent per gallon stolen Iraqi gas into our cars.

cerulean
02-17-2003, 02:10 PM
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqi-scuds.cfm
In short, Iraq has Scuds still. It has various chemical payloads to put in them.

Mehmet III
02-17-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
It was never firmly established where the anthrax came from but at the moment based on new evidence all fingers point to Iraq. Having followed the anthrax story from the beginning it now appears (based on new evidence) that Iraq supplied the materials.

Based on this new evidence I would say that its 99.9% certain that it came from there.
wat "new evidence" exactly r u talking about?

L@mplighterM
02-17-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Mehmet III
wat "new evidence" exactly r u talking about?


http://www.afip.org/cgi-bin/whatsne...tml?article=115

minusthejihad
02-17-2003, 04:42 PM
So true:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html

THIS IS A SARCASTIC STORY, FYI -

PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA—As the U.S. continues to inch toward war with Iraq, a jealous and frustrated North Korea is wondering what it has to do to attract American military attention.

"What does it take to get a few F-16s or naval warships deployed to the Yellow Sea?" North Korean president Kim Jong Il asked Monday. "In the past month and a half, we've expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, restarted a mothballed nuclear complex capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, and threatened to resume missile tests. You'd think that would be enough to get a measly Marine division or two on standby in the Pacific, but apparently not."

Kim said his nation is "way more deserving" of B-52 deployment than Iraq.

"Bush says his number one priority is eliminating weapons of mass destruction, but he sure doesn't act that way," Kim said. "Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction and may be developing more. The DPRK, on the other hand, does have weapons of mass destruction and isn't about to stop making them any time soon."

"Can I be any more clear?" Kim continued. "We have nuclear bombs and delivery methods. Kablooey! There goes Anchorage! But does Bush care? Nope—he just goes on about how we're 'a diplomatic issue, not a military one.' If he even mentions us at all, that is."

"It's like I don't even exist," Kim added.

-------------------------------------------

he he

MGB8
02-18-2003, 05:49 AM
Jako, do you believe in UFO's and a secret military cover up of them...that's what you sound like.

The reason the story I'm telling is the "safe" story is because its the one that has been printed in the free western press (as opposed to national presses of Arab countries or pro-Arab political groups.)

As for "wanting" to kill innocents...how dare you suggest that.

What I do know is that the longer Saddam remains in power, the stronger he will get militarily. Eventually he will become strong enough where he feels its safe to resume conquest of the region.

Millions will die as a result of this, and other lunatic ideas of Saddam - he is a proven butcher and murderer - gassing the kurds, killing his own son for defecting...

Its better to take him out now, and do it quickly and with as few casualties as possible, then let the danger continue to escalate.

You, Jako, are the epitome of a "useful fool" - or maybe just a tool.

Jako
02-18-2003, 10:54 AM
danholo: ? You want proof that Mossad and the CIA are terrorist organizations? Okay.

Do a Google search for "CIA Guatemala". Or check out the School of the Americas, located at Fort Benning, Georgia, where the US has trained international terrorists for years. Or look for Document 1, "CIA and Guatemala Assassination Proposals, 1952-1954", CIA History Staff Analysis by Gerald K. Haines, June 1995.

And also look for CIA Chile Allende. Another CIA engineered government coup. It's included in government documents that have been released under the Freedom Of Information Act.

As for Mossad, wow. "Targeted Killing" equals "Murder". If Mossad claims someone is a terrorist that's fine. Then they kill them. No court of law, no facts to the public, no information other than the fact they have killed the "suspected" terrorist. Mossad instills TERROR, thus they are terrorists. Terrorists working for the Israel government, but terrorists nonetheless.

MichaelC: "I see quite clearly what is going on. And if it is not stopped NOW , the carnage will only increase."

As do I, and that's why I try to have my voice heard. And no, don't see going to an anti-war demonstration as being "courageous". I see it as being "democratic" and my duty as a human being to stand up for what I believe in.

"Those who fail to grasp the grim and foreboding reality represented by the projection of the grievances of Islam into the heart of America, are inadequate students of history."

Well put, but many of the grievances of Islam are entirely valid. Not all, of course... The manner in which they are trying to air these grievances (the fundamentalists) is terribly terribly wrong, but that doesn't mean their message is not relevant.


Lamplighter: Your link to the "new" evidence doesn't work. I'm curious too.

MGB8: "What I do know is that the longer Saddam remains in power, the stronger he will get militarily. Eventually he will become strong enough where he feels its safe to resume conquest of the region.

Millions will die as a result of this, and other lunatic ideas of Saddam - he is a proven butcher and murderer - gassing the kurds, killing his own son for defecting...

Its better to take him out now, and do it quickly and with as few casualties as possible, then let the danger continue to escalate."

You seem so sure, yet it's all conjecture. Proven butcher and murderer yes. BUT, he is like all of us, he wants to LIVE. Saddam knows that if he launched an attack against the US his whole country would be blasted into a huge green glass parking lot.

If he and his weapons are so dangerous, why did he use NONE in the Gulf War? Not one! The US still has tons of depleted uranium lying around Iraq from their DU shells, causing cancer and huge health issues.

If he is such an imminent threat why are NONE of his neighbors, except strangely enough Israel, not worried about it?

You seem very willing to bet innocent Iraqi lives on your uneducated guesses, I'm a little more of a humanitarian I suppose.

"You, Jako, are the epitome of a "useful fool" - or maybe just a tool."

Namecalling is the last defense of people who know they have lost the argument. Ask any grade-schooler, which I'm not sure that you're not.

Jako

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 11:19 AM
What is to be gained by doing nothing at all?

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 11:22 AM
Let's hear from the humanitarians their plan for making everything right and better. Better to starve them? Better to forget about them? Let's say it's not about the poor and downtrodden at all; I agree.

And? I'd love to hear your solution, other than whipping up another latte and finding another cause.

danholo
02-18-2003, 11:44 AM
As for Mossad, wow. "Targeted Killing" equals "Murder". If Mossad claims someone is a terrorist that's fine. Then they kill them. No court of law, no facts to the public, no information other than the fact they have killed the "suspected" terrorist. Mossad instills TERROR, thus they are terrorists. Terrorists working for the Israel government, but terrorists nonetheless.

Mossad only kills terrorists have been proven to be what they are. I can't recall a "targeted killing" right now conducted by the Mossad in the recent past. Can you name one? The Mossad captured Eichmann and brought him to trial where he was judged appropriately. But Israel wasn't under threat by that criminal so a trial was the right thing to do.

In war time you don't have to start worrying about legal process when you are under threat by some terrorist bully. Israel is at war with terrorists and if it wants to conduct a strike against the enemy it has all the right to do so.

Killing a known terrorist is worse than murdering a bus load of people? I don't understand your logic behind that way of thinking.

I really don't undestand your sympathy for the terrorists anyway. At least Barghouti was brought to trial in Israel but he doesn't recognize the Israeli Supreme Court, so what can you do?

It's a dirty war and a kill or get killed situation. It really isn't that much of a secret on who is a member of Hamas for the Shin Bet (Israeli equivalent of the FBI). They have spies and informants. When the Hamas terrorist is killed, even Hamas vows revenge for killing their member. So, the suspects have always been guilty of being terrorists and under war the word "suspect" has little meaning. So preventive measures are the way to go and, so far, they have worked. Suicide bombings have decreased dramatically and possible attacks are thwarted almost daily by the IDF, Shin Bet and Israeli Border Police by capturing terrorists who are about to carry out their attack.

L@mplighterM
02-18-2003, 11:45 AM
Try this link.

http://www.afip.org/cgi-bin/whatsnew.cgi/current.html?article=115




Detecting Environmental Terrorism: AFIP's Department of Environmental and Toxicologic Pathology provides critical DoD, Homeland Defense programs
by Christopher C. Kelly
When US Army investigators at Ft Detrick, Md, examined anthrax found in a letter sent to Sen. Thomas Daschle last fall, they discovered that the highly refined spores floated in the air, making them much easier for potential victims to inhale. What made this anthrax so easily aerosolized? A series of sophisticated tests revealed some clues, but the presence of another unidentifiable substance left the investigation incomplete. That?s when Ft Detrick contacted AFIP?s Department of Environmental and Toxicologic Pathology for assistance.

Established in 1976, the department?s combined staff of 22 pathologists, scientists, and administrative personnel conducts studies in environmental, drug-induced, and radiation pathology, and in the development, implementation, and application of toxicological techniques to analyze tissues. They have contributed significant research findings by creating and maintaining specialized registries and databases in a variety of areas, including the effects of Agent Orange, Persian Gulf Illness, and captivity on US service-members.

They are also recognized worldwide for their expertise in the pathology of adverse drug reactions, environmental toxicology, and the pathology and health effects of trace elements and toxic metal ions - all of which impact deployed US forces. Other databases and registries used to assess long-term safety and potential adverse complications from environmental factors include bioimplantable materials (metal fragments from munitions); exposure to chronic arsenosis; and medical geology (the effects of geological and environmental factors on the distribution of health problems in humans and animals).

They are especially focused on programs in response to potential acts of environmental terrorism. In recent months, staff members have participated in a number of Department of Defense (DoD) projects to protect servicemembers and provide support for homeland defense. The recent anthrax study was one of them.

?Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,? said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. ?This was a key component,? Mullick said. ?Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.?

The department is also collaborating with the Soldier?s Biological and Chemical Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and AFIP?s Division of Microbiology, Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Pathology, on the use of infrared and Raman spectroscopy to potentially detect micro-organisms in the environment. Scientists in the Division of Microbiology first culture, isolate, and heat- or radiation-kill microorganisms, and then environmental pathology experts conduct the infrared and Raman characterization. ?The potential exists for this technology to be implemented in the field, in a ?real-time? setting, to provide an immediate characterization of a biological or chemical weapon that could be used against our servicemembers,? Dr. Mullick said. These techniques are also available to aid authorities in identifying unknown and suspicious chemicals found in powders and other substances.

In the area of chemical defense, the department is conducting studies to learn more about the health effects of internalized fragments of depleted uranium in soldiers injured in the battlefield. A special focus of these studies is on Gulf War veterans who were potentially exposed to depleted uranium either by inhalation, ingestion, or embedded shrapnel. ?This really reflects our long-standing work with the US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM),? she pointed out. ?Our scientists deployed to the Persian Gulf during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm with USACHPPM to study potential environmental hazards to our deployed troops, and we continue those studies today.?

DoD is also relying upon AFIP?s environmental pathology expertise in the area of adverse drug reactions. The department has been identified as an integral part of DoD?s Patient Safety Center, also located at AFIP. The center is a focal point for preventing patient-care errors that directly affect servicemembers and their dependents. A database containing over 18,000 cases of adverse drug reactions and medical errors is being developed for use with collaborators to help prevent the occurrence of incidents in the future. ?We are also exploring collaborations with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Science, along with opportunities for involvement in clinical drug trials,? she said.

Mehmet III
02-18-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.
That duznt say anything.
Just bcuz that certain combination was found in Iraq duznt mean it can't also found elsewhere.

danholo
02-18-2003, 12:49 PM
Works for me...

http://www.afip.org/cgi-bin/whatsnew.cgi/current.html?article=115

Mehmet III
02-18-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
What is to be gained by doing nothing at all?
Lives Time Money Energy etc.

And? I'd love to hear your solution, other than whipping up another latte and finding another cause.
Be wary of accusing another of wat they can accuse u of.

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Mehmet III
Lives Time Money Energy etc.

Be wary of accusing another of wat they can accuse u of.

Seriously? Those are non answers.

MGB8
02-18-2003, 01:45 PM
Jako,

Its not name calling as much as calling a spade a spade....

Have you heard of Gulf War syndrome? From chemical warheads.

As for Iraq's neighbors...the fact that he isn't strong enough yet makes them free from worry, but they were worried enough in 1991, when he launched an invasion that he knew he would get his but kicked by the US for (same logic you are applying here.)

As for Chemical and Bioweaponry, first, the US blitzed Saddam. Second, he knew if he did use it, there was ZERO chance of surviving that war, third, he DID use mustard gas, among other things, on the Kurds and Shiites!

But you keep on believing what good old Saddam tells you.

L@mplighterM
02-18-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Mehmet III
That duznt say anything.
Just bcuz that certain combination was found in Iraq duznt mean it can't also found elsewhere.

Were not exactly talking about baking a loaf of bread here. This latest evidence taken in combination with other factors indicate to me that the anthrax came from Iraq.

You say no and I say yes.

Mehmet III
02-18-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
Seriously? Those are non answers.
How is the first one not an answer?
The second one wasnt in reference to a question.

Mediocrates
02-19-2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Mehmet III
How is the first one not an answer?
The second one wasnt in reference to a question.


Because it's not. It's a wish, a feeling, maybe not even that. It takes about 1.3 seconds of thinking to come up with that.

cerulean
02-19-2003, 02:08 PM
It looks like there may be a delay in the start of the war on Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=021920031500

Feb. 19 — Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations said Wednesday that London would likely introduce a new draft resolution on Iraq within a few days that will contain a deadline for Baghdad to show that it is fully cooperating with weapons inspectors. But differences between the United States and Britain on the wording of that resolution, and the subsequent debate on the draft was likely to push back Washington’s timeline for a possible war with Iraq. U.S. talks with Turkey on basing U.S. troops there for the conflict also bogged down over the size of an economic aid package to Ankara. . . .
“We are still talking to allies about the exact timing, the exact wording,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. “It still could be this week. It could be next week. They both are active options,” he said.
Diplomats say the United States and Britain would wait for any vote on a resolution until after the next report by U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix on March 1 in hopes he will deliver criticism of Iraq that would rally support for military action.
...
The Financial Times reported Wednesday that Britain had mounted a behind-the-scenes operation to persuade America to give diplomacy three more weeks before the United Nations is asked to trigger military action against Iraq. London was suggesting that the key U.N. meeting could take place on March 14. According to the report, Britain is arguing that the delay could allow for enough time to persuade France and others who oppose military action at this time that Iraq has failed to cooperate with arms inspections and that a war resolution should be approved.
I can't say whether this delay is good or bad overall.

Mehmet III
02-19-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
Because it's not. It's a wish, a feeling, maybe not even that. It takes about 1.3 seconds of thinking to come up with that.
how was my answer in any way a "wish" or "feeling"? And even so, how was it not still an answer?

LionOfLoyalty
02-19-2003, 02:26 PM
On the contrary, I believe it is indeed an answer, albeit phrased awfully. Should you care to rewrite it to make a complete thought I would gladly engage you in the admirable art of mental fencing known as debating, in order to show our opinions on the topic. There are, of course, excellent arguments on each side, and it shall by my job to attempt to convince you that may argument is better. Upon such time as you clearly present your argument I shall begin.

,LionOfLoyalty

MGB8
02-19-2003, 03:26 PM
Mehmet,

Lives, Time and Money will be LOST long term by not taking action against Saddam.


Lives of the Iraqi people. Lives of the Arab people in the region when Saddam once again makes his efforts to lead a deluded idea of a Pan-Arab revolution. Money in terms of the shock that this will have to the WORLD economy because, instead of just effecting Iraqi oil, it will effect Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iranian, etc.


This war is inevitable, anyway, given Saddam's intentions, as was war with Germany pre WWII. Fighting it NOW SAVES lives, money and energy, not the other way around.

It PREVENTS more development of WMD. It SAVES the Iraqi people from a Brutal dictator.

Just because the status quo is nice for the French doesn't mean that's the way we should go.

Mehmet III
02-19-2003, 06:11 PM
Lives, Time and Money will be LOST long term by not taking action against Saddam.


Lives of the Iraqi people. Lives of the Arab people in the region when Saddam once again makes his efforts to lead a deluded idea of a Pan-Arab revolution.
Let me clarify: Lives, Time, Money, etc. of the USA

Money in terms of the shock that this will have to the WORLD economy because, instead of just effecting Iraqi oil, it will effect Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iranian, etc.
The economy has its ups and downs and in the current international economic system its their own business wat somone else duz with their resources regardless of how it effects the USA.

LionOfLoyalty
02-19-2003, 06:27 PM
The question one has to ask oneself here are, will we lose more of those aforementioned things (lives, time and money) by not acting then if we do? And, having taken in all the evidence, I believe that that is the case. Saddam will not hesitate to use anything he can use while still staying in power against Israel and the US. We need to remove him before he has the chance to attack again.

Communication
02-19-2003, 06:40 PM
This seems to fly in the face of Turkey's latest maneuvers, although Turkey is not an Arab country and they may be bluffing for more aid. It's hard to tell. I would love to hear more stories, especially from Arabic sources on this. There is, btw, an excellent translation site, but they charge a fee after an initial trial:

http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1


Arabs blame Saddam for crisis and prepare for a US victory

BrookesNews.Com
Thursday 20 Feb. 2003

Ibrahim Nafi, editor of the Egyptian government's daily Al-Ahram, launched a stinging attack on Saddam (The Iraqi Regime Drags the Region into a Destructive War 14/2), accusing him of creating the present crisis and of not cooperating with the UN.

The attack was notable by not insisting that any future arrangements should keep Saddam in power. Undoubtedly reflecting the opinion of the Egyptian government, Ibrahim Nafi stated that "the Iraqi regime continues its policy of arrogance and empty obstinacy and does all it can to thwart these efforts." the rest of Ibrahim Nafi's editorial was in the same hard-hitting vein.

President Mohammed Hosni Murbarak has been in close contact with other Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and King Abdallah II of Jordan. Their unofficial consensus is that Saddam must go.

Regardless of the 'opinion' of the Western street and many Western intellectuals, Arab leaders have no objection in principle to President Bush ridding the region of the despotic Saddam.

These leaders only concern was that an American and British invasion of Iraq would spark off severe disturbances that would undermine their own regimes. That fear has gone. Arab leaders are now persuaded that a swift liberation of Iraq will leave their own regimes in place while ridding them of a dangerous and unpredictable enemy.

Moreover, their resolve to quietly support President Bush has been strengthened by reports from Iraq that the people would overwhelming welcome the invasion, provided it did not involve massive civilian casualties. (Reports that the Iraqis have gone on a land and house buying spree since Bush announced he would invade appears to support the view that they expect few civilian casualties and little damage to property).

Briefings by US military experts on tactics and the types of weapons that will be used seems to have satisfied them that this proviso will be fulfilled.

These Arab governments are aware, however, that the eventual replacement of Saddam's regime with a government based on civil values could set a subversive example.

King Abdallah is less bothered by this potential situation than other Arab leaders because he believes that the foundations for such a state have already taken root in Jordan.

There is little doubt in their minds that a stunning victory in Iraq will be followed by welcome regime changes in Syria and Iran.

It is becoming clearer to observers of the Arab political scene that its leaders have decided that it is vital to the region's security, and their own long-term survival, that Saddam be eliminated, and that the Americans are the only ones who can do it.



http://www.brookesnews.com/TMP032002iraq.html

MGB8
02-19-2003, 06:49 PM
In terms of the USA, it helps them because a war now is cheaper in those terms than a war later, stopping Saddam develop WMD helps prevent a worse 9/11, and a more stable, democratic mid-east helps the WORLD and so it helps the US, too.

As for the international economy, what other countries do with their resources certainly effects the US, so its a US interest. If Saddam getting more powerful, or invading Kuwait (and likely SA) again hurts the US (and it does, as well as the rest of the world, it could plunge the world into at minimum a recession) then the US (and the rest of the World) is RIGHT to act on it.



Originally posted by Mehmet III
Let me clarify: Lives, Time, Money, etc. of the USA

The economy has its ups and downs and in the current international economic system its their own business wat somone else duz with their resources regardless of how it effects the USA.

JustPat
02-19-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Jako Had the world's citizens protested aginst the German government in the late 30's maybe millions of lives would have been saved.
And none of them would have been Jews.

JustPat
02-19-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Jako If he and his weapons are so dangerous, why did he use NONE in the Gulf War? Not one! The US still has tons of depleted uranium lying around Iraq from their DU shells, causing cancer and huge health issues.

takeo jr.,
Please do your homework in something other than propaganda rags. For instance, the UN, of all people, reported that DU poses no serious threat to the people of Iraq. Allegations were levied, an investigation was conducted, and you ignore the report. When the facts don't support your position, just ignore them until they go away?

NewsGuy
02-20-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
What is to be gained by doing nothing at all?

1. It would give our economy a chance to rebound from this economic rut.

2. It would avoid American casualties.

3. It might avoid Israeli casualties.

4. We could get back to focusing on countries that really do pose an immediate danger to us, like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And we could concentrate on fighting the worst danger to humanity these days, which is radical Islam.

5. Although I regret any loss of innocent life, I am not exactly a fan of the Shiites in Southern Iraq, and I would not want to sacrifice any American lives to fight Saddam Hussein on their behalf.

6. We would avoid having to pay for expanding Iranian influence over Southern Iraq, as we seem poised to do, by the looks of the replacement government.

L@mplighterM
02-20-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
1. It would give our economy a chance to rebound from this economic rut.

2. It would avoid American casualties.

3. It might avoid Israeli casualties.

4. We could get back to focusing on countries that really do pose an immediate danger to us, like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And we could concentrate on fighting the worst danger to humanity these days, which is radical Islam.

5. Although I regret any loss of innocent life, I am not exactly a fan of the Shiites in Southern Iraq, and I would not want to sacrifice any American lives to fight Saddam Hussein on their behalf.

6. We would avoid having to pay for expanding Iranian influence over Southern Iraq, as we seem poised to do, by the looks of the replacement government.


Inflation is beginning to raise its ugly head and that?s a bad indicator for any economy. Keeping unemployment at high levels and raising interest rates is one way to curtail inflation. I remain steadfast in my opinion that one more major attack on US soil will cause a major depression lasting a decade or more. The markets are behaving rather badly these days because of the uncertainty of the coming situation involving Iraq.

I expect a sharp rise in the markets once the war in Iraq gets under way. I imagine this war will be fought from the air much like the Afghanistan and the one in Serbia. Shiite or Sunny makes no difference to me they all come out the same in the wash. I don?t have any statistics but I imagine that they all create Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists and in any event there?s been a bonding between the two sects.

So if I understand your post you?re advocating that the US and the coalition should withdraw from their current positions and focus their attention elsewhere. Would I be correct to believe that you?re agreeing with the position of France and Germany but for different reasons? Both countries also oppose a war against Iraq but in the end what difference does it make if it all comes out the same.

There hasn?t been a direct loss of Israeli or American lives to date due to what appears to be an upcoming conflict with Iraq.

Inspections and/or sanctions haven?t worked to date and they never will. If the war is prosecuted from the air the air there may in fact be no loss of Israeli and/or American lives. Hussein will be replaced with a government that?s more pro western and then Lebanon and Syria will get theirs.

One thing to keep in mind is that Shiite and Sunny Muslims can?t be divided into two parcels there?s diverse philosophies within both sects.


Snip:
The Labor Department said its producer price index (PPI), a measure of wholesale prices, rose 1.6 percent -- the biggest one-month jump since January 1990 -- after falling 0.1 percent in December, while "core" PPI, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, rose 0.9 percent after falling 0.5 percent in December.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/20/news/economy/economy/index.htm

NewsGuy
02-20-2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
So if I understand your post you?re advocating that the US and the coalition should withdraw from their current positions and focus their attention elsewhere. Would I be correct to believe that you?re agreeing with the position of France and Germany but for different reasons? Both countries also oppose a war against Iraq but in the end what difference does it make if it all comes out the same.

First, I agree with you that a large-scale, or even a medium-scale attack in the U.S. would have a devastating effect on the markets and on the economy, as a whole.

Second, I do oppose the war on Iraq, and wish it were not happening right now because of the reasons I mentioned above. Still, once we go to war, it will be time for me to set my differences aside, because at times of war, all Americans should stand united.

It's interesting for me to see the people all over the world who are protesting the war. From NYC to Paris, millions are against this war. But the interesting thing for me personally, is that when the protesters are interviewed on TV and speak their minds, I really feel nothing in common with them. They are mostly anti-American Leftists, while I am a pro-American capitalist centrist.

At this point, I would not advocate that the U.S. withdraw without some sort of victory, as France and Germany are demanding, because that would cause us untold political damage.

Also, unlike France and Germany, I lay the blame for this current crisis squarely on Saddam Hussein for choosing to bring death and destruction on himself and his people, rather than giving up his chemical weapons.

I guess that I wish that we could conduct a surgical military operation to grab Saddam Hussein personally and bring him to justice here in the U.S., or better yet, just eliminate him on the spot. Then, we can go home as heroes, having defeated our enemy, and we can avoid a war, while teaching a lesson to our enemies.

Then it would be time to deal with France and Germany as adversaries, not an allies. And if North Korea, China or Russia are supplying nukes to Iran, we need to deal with them swiftly. And most importantly, we should refocus on our more immediate radical Islamic enemies, of which there are plenty, before one of those manages to perpetrate another 9/11-style Jihad on America.

I just don't see our ROI on taking out Saddam with a massive military campaign, like we're gearing up for, and I sure don't want to be left paying the bill for rebuilding Iraq and installing an Iranian-puppet Shiite regime in Southern Iraq.

When we armed and supported the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan, we got al Qaeda. When we armed and supported Saddam in the 80s, we got Kuwait. And now, if we arm and support the Shiites in Southern Iraq, not only will we have to pay a fortune in the short term, but it's sure to come back and haunt us soon enough.

L@mplighterM
02-20-2003, 04:11 PM
If the US issued a statement to the effect that they were abandoning the upcoming war on Iraq it would spell the end of America. Hopefully the current US and successive administrations will have learnt from past mistakes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

The trouble is that it’s impossible to foresee the long term consequences of political actions or inactions. What seems like the right move at the moment may take on disastrous consequences down the road. That’s life!

I don’t think it was unreasonable for the US to support Iraq during their war against Iran.
When the US helped one side in Afghanistan to fight the Russians I believe that it was the right action. I believe that many historians believe that the Russian/Afghanistan war led to Perestroika and that was good.

Let’s take the Iran/Iraq war and ask ourselves what might have happened if Iran would have conquered Iraq. I believe if that had happened there’s a possibility that Israel would not exist today. Everything boils down to balance and in the case of countries the weight is always shifting and to maintain equilibrium is impossible.

Overall I think that the US has done a good job at maintaining stability in the world but of course its impossible to second guess situations like that.

JustPat
02-20-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy I guess that I wish that we could conduct a surgical military operation to grab Saddam Hussein personally and bring him to justice here in the U.S., or better yet, just eliminate him on the spot. Then, we can go home as heroes, having defeated our enemy, and we can avoid a war, while teaching a lesson to our enemies.
I too would love to see such a surgical strike and Saddam's demise, but how would we then verify the destruction of his WMD? Unless our troops can put their feet on the soil and search every square inch, every cave and bunker, every palace and mosque, we will never be sure that this problem will not soon raise its ugly head again. If we battle and win, we get to set the terms of Iraq's future in the world community. Bring on the USMC.

NewsGuy
02-20-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by JustPat
I too would love to see such a surgical strike and Saddam's demise, but how would we then verify the destruction of his WMD?
Whoever would replace him would be much more forthcoming with the UN inspectors.

But the truth is that basically most countries of the world have chemical weapons. Who has Saddam used them against so far? Iran. Again, I regret the loss of innocent life, but I'm no fan of Iran, and certainly would not want to see our troops risk their lives in defense of Iran, or any of the brutal Arab dictatorships in that area of the world.

Mehmet III
02-20-2003, 09:18 PM
In terms of the USA, it helps them because a war now is cheaper in those terms than a war later, stopping Saddam develop WMD helps prevent a worse 9/11, and a more stable, democratic mid-east helps the WORLD and so it helps the US, too.
War costs, so non war is cheaper. Cornering Hussein increases the likelihood of his doing somthing stupid (like "9/11") bcuz he will then hav less to lose, and will be angrier at the US for attaking him. A stable mid-east wud help the world, but I dont c how democracy in the mid-east really matters to the rest of the world.

As for the international economy, what other countries do with their resources certainly effects the US, so its a US interest. If Saddam getting more powerful, or invading Kuwait (and likely SA) again hurts the US (and it does, as well as the rest of the world, it could plunge the world into at minimum a recession) then the US (and the rest of the World) is RIGHT to act on it.
Even if it violates another country's national sovernty, integrity, and free will?

OMG r me and NewsGuy actually agreeing on somthing?? Im gonna throw up...

LionOfLoyalty
02-21-2003, 07:22 AM
You don't see how democracy in the middle east will help the world? That's very short-sighted of you. As long as there are corrupt Arab dictatorships who repress their people, there will be terror. The only way to end terror for good is ensure that the Arab world becomes, not only stable, but democratic with a seperation of mosque and state (i.e: Turkey) otherwise we're just going to get more of the same.

LionOfLoyalty
02-21-2003, 07:25 AM
Whover replaced him may or may not be more forthcoming and we have no way of verifing it without entering Iraq. It's similar to the WWI mistake when we failed to conquer and rebuild Germany. Because the structure of the regime was still there, WWII occured and millions died.

Furthermore, Saddam having chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a grave threat to Israel as well, alongst with the rest of the world. Should he develop nuclear devices, which he will unless we move to stop him, he could pass them alongst to terrorists relatively easily and strike Tel Aviv, New York, London or anywhere else.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Whoever would replace him would be much more forthcoming with the UN inspectors.

But the truth is that basically most countries of the world have chemical weapons. Who has Saddam used them against so far? Iran. Again, I regret the loss of innocent life, but I'm no fan of Iran, and certainly would not want to see our troops risk their lives in defense of Iran, or any of the brutal Arab dictatorships in that area of the world.

Mehmet III
02-21-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
You don't see how democracy in the middle east will help the world? That's very short-sighted of you. As long as there are corrupt Arab dictatorships who repress their people, there will be terror. The only way to end terror for good is ensure that the Arab world becomes, not only stable, but democratic with a seperation of mosque and state (i.e: Turkey) otherwise we're just going to get more of the same.
as dictatorships can b corrupt, so can democracies, and changing the style of government duznt necessarily change the peopl's attitudes toward the rest of the world

Mediocrates
02-21-2003, 12:18 PM
Carthago Delenda Est

-or what I learned while reading 'Caliban upon Setebos'

We have dawdled and fumbled and erred over and over again since the end of WW2 until we are at least partially responsible for the creation of this monster. We have allowed Nasserites, the PLO, Saddam, the mullahs, al Qaeda and the usual suspects to kill us, each other and generally run around controlling the world's most strategic asset in a way that serves no one.

Moreover we are not all that keen on a war. Who would be? But I propose that 'war' is not the answer, the outcome of war is. And the outcome were it to offer some semblence of stability, political, economic, resource is really what this is about.

Call it empire, I do and it's about damn time that we're willing to stand up and do the dirty business of imposing imperial order. If that's what it takes. Because, and I think most people understand this if they examine it for a moment, the alternative is not simply terrorism, resistance, high prices. The alternative is a globally destabilized world. A disorganized underdeveloped oil well where 99% of the people are poor, dirty and unsupported, where oil prices change with facts on the ground in Jerusalem, where the world's growing market for covert nuclear and chemical weapons is expanding w/o international knowledge or control. Where each successive generation is less fed and more illiterate than the last. Where Israel faces an existential threat every day.

This isn't a temporary trend brought on by antisemitism, antiamericanism. No it is a long term trend and it is inexorably spiralling down the abattoir's drain. If Israel packed itself up tomorrow for the zionist occupation of Antarctica, if the US turned all of its bases into felafel stands, if we wrote them a check for a hundred billion dollars,

It wouldn't change a goddamn thing.

They are Congo with oil, Cambodia with sand, Russia without the beets. They are broken. And the reasons are well understood: lack of political unity, poor education, corruption, illiteracy, poor post colonial track record, commodity economics, tribal threats, too much money and not enough restraint. We all know this, it's an old boring story so true in most of the world. Blaming the US now isn't going to build a time machine for them and make that better. The only criticial difference is that this place unlike Congo, Cambodia and Russia has something we and everyone else needs a lot of, cheaply and reliably. You can wrap that in every revolutionary flag you wish but it's true. We need oil, so do you so does any country on earth even the poor ones. To say it's about oil and that's a bad thing is simply ignorant about how lightbulbs, stock exchanges and steelmills work. That's the world you live in. What do you think would happen if the US which produces about 40% of the food in the world just stopped or quadrupled the price? Somebody far wiser than I, I think it was Tallyrand, said 'every country is three meals from its next revolution'.

That's what we are facing. Does the west want to simply go in and knock over everything and put up a Walmart? No. But we have to insure some measure of geopolitical stability. And if that requires some imperial ass kicking then fine, let's start there.

NewsGuy
02-21-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Furthermore, Saddam having chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a grave threat to Israel as well, alongst with the rest of the world. Should he develop nuclear devices, which he will unless we move to stop him, he could pass them alongst to terrorists relatively easily and strike Tel Aviv, New York, London or anywhere else.

No, Iraq needs to be monitored for nuclear weapons capability, but we don't need a war to accomplish that.

If Saddam himself was to be removed, there would be no need for war, like I said yesterday. And just today, Colin Powell announced that very same thing:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3667504.html. Maybe he read my posts and was convinced :)

As for Iraq's threat to Israel, let's be honest that since Israel bombed his reactor in 1982, the only Iraqi direct threat to Israel came when the US launched the Gulf War. Other than when under attack, Iraq does not pose a direct threat to Israel, according to IDF spokespeople (payments to suicide bombers not withstanding).

On the other hand... Iran is a direct threat to Israel and it is now putting the finishing touches on a nuclear weapons program with the help of Russia, China, and North Korea. This means that Iran is now a big danger to Israel, and to our oil supply in the Gulf. That's bad news.

That's why I would much rather see a war against Iran, Syria and Lebanon than against Iraq at this point in time.

LionOfLoyalty
02-21-2003, 12:57 PM
I too, would prefer to depose of Iran and Syria's governments than Saddams. But that's not something we have the political momentum for right now. It's not something the Bush Administration or any other country will do. I'm speaking realistically here and while if I got to choose which dictatorship to take out, I'd choose Syria or Iran, I don't. Furthermore, it would be hoped that with the advent of democracy in Iraq, the people of Iran and Syria would rise up to achieve the same.

LionOfLoyalty
02-21-2003, 12:59 PM
True, but democracies are more capable of dealing with and recovering from corruption. As a matter of fact, frequently a controlled sort of corruption can be incorporated into the regular running of a democracy and even improve things. This is not the case with any other form of government.


Originally posted by Mehmet III
as dictatorships can b corrupt, so can democracies, and changing the style of government duznt necessarily change the peopl's attitudes toward the rest of the world

cerulean
02-21-2003, 01:16 PM
Rumsfeld said a few days ago that there are three ways to avoid the war: Saddam leaves voluntarily, Saddam leaves involuntarily, or Saddam complies with the UN resolutions. Plenty of options there.

LionOfLoyalty
02-21-2003, 01:23 PM
Even I, who support the war, am not under any such delusion that this is about disarnment or that Saddam could do anything to stop it. This war will occur, barring some diplomatic/political trick of massive proportions.

L@mplighterM
02-21-2003, 04:39 PM
Picture this scenario.


Hussein agrees to unconditional inspections and all armed forces along with their equipment are brought back home. Saddam still playing his cat and mouse game with the inspectors develops nuclear weapons (that’s what he was working on in the 90’s when he was caught) behind their backs.

Contrary to International Law Bush decides to invade Iran because they are developing nuclear weapons. Wheeling and dealing takes place so that bases can be established for this endeavor. Lets ignore the fact that most likely every (or most) country in the opposes such a move.

In the meantime Iraq has been found to be in violation of some UN resolution once again and Bush (assuming he’s still in power) decides to mobilize against Iraq again. The inspectors have been kicked out of the country once again. Troops and ordinance amass at Iraq’s borders and Hussein and/or his son promise to be good.

Meanwhile any the Iranian project is a failure so it’s decided to take on North Korea (I don’t believe an armistice was ever signed) and at the same time tackle Iraq.

In a show of strength Hussein and/or his son lops a nuclear bomb into Israel wiping out the capital. Iran, Libya, Pakistan (the Islamic Fundamentalist had a coup and controls the armed forces) and North Korea start flexing their muscles.

Incoming intercontinental missiles (all with nuclear warheads) are headed towards the west coast of the US. In the meantime nuclear missiles are launched by Iraq at US bases in the ME casualties are high. The President orders the destruction of Baghdad.

Seattle, San Francisco and San Diego are wiped out by missiles launched in Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Satellites pick up a flash on the east coast and images of a mushroom cloud where New York once stood are being sent to central command. Early indications are that a thermo nuclear devise was launched from a stationary position in NYC.

It’s the beginning of WWWIII and the destruction of humanity as we know it.

Hell I haven’t even gotten to the part where biological weapons had been unleashed weeks before the launching of missiles.

End.

While I respect the opinion of the IDF I disagree that Iraq isn’t a potential danger to Israel’s existence. President Eisenhower once made a statement that he had never seen compelling evidence that Hitler could have been stopped in the early stages. I disagree with the late President Eisenhower.

minusthejihad
02-21-2003, 05:57 PM
Lamp,

You are way too negative. I live in SD and still think I have more of a chance to get hit by a Tsunami, Earthquake, Club Fire, or just by some idiot who doesn't know how to drive. Saty Cool and have a good weekend!

L@mplighterM
02-21-2003, 07:02 PM
Being positive altered the New York skyline and cost 3,000 lives not to mention the lives lost in the Pentagon along with the crash in Pennsylvania.

I live in a world surrounded by insane religious fanatics that want to impose the will of Allah on the world. I live in a world where currently most people are against removing Uncle Hussein from power.

As far as I’m concerned expecting the worst and hoping for the best is the way to go. There’s a time for everything in this world and as far as I’m concerned now is the time to be negative painting the worst case scenario. The next step is doing something about it.

Mehmet III
02-23-2003, 03:56 PM
democracies are more capable of dealing with and recovering from corruption
not necessarily. A corrupt ruler can b assasinated and replaced with a noncorrupt ruler, and thus corruption is rid of within an hour! In democracy, its going to take a lot longer to kill that many politicians. True sometimes democracies can deal with corruption better, but not always, depending on circumstances.


Originally posted by Mediocrates
Carthago Delenda Est
Very gud. One problm. Who the hell is the USA to play imperial God on Earth?

LionOfLoyalty
02-23-2003, 04:03 PM
It is the only nation with the power and resources to do it. I don't say it's moral, nor do I say I necessarily support it doing so in every instance, though I do support the current regime change. However, it is the sad reality that we live in a world where power is 2/3 of the law. I must admit, while I wish the world were a more just place, it is not. And hence I must look out first for the interests of my people (Am Yisrael) and my countries (Israel and the US), both of which will stand to benefit from this war. Should those who you owe your loyalty to not stand to benefit then I can obviously not blame you for your opposition, but instead simply hope that my side will win. It is a horrid world we live in, but we live in it nonetheless, and I intend to continue to do so.

Originally posted by Mehmet III
Very gud. One problm. Who the hell is the USA to play imperial God on Earth?

Mehmet III
02-24-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
It is a horrid world we live in, but we live in it nonetheless, and I intend to continue to do so.
Horrid ppl make for a horrid world.

minusthejihad
02-24-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Being positive altered the New York skyline and cost 3,000 lives not to mention the lives lost in the Pentagon along with the crash in Pennsylvania.

I live in a world surrounded by insane religious fanatics that want to impose the will of Allah on the world. I live in a world where currently most people are against removing Uncle Hussein from power.

As far as I’m concerned expecting the worst and hoping for the best is the way to go. There’s a time for everything in this world and as far as I’m concerned now is the time to be negative painting the worst case scenario. The next step is doing something about it.

Hey, look at it this way:

These people didn't use anything that would remotely resemble technological intelligence or advantages. They took little box cutters and took over planes because Americans were not used to responding properly to terrorists. Now we know.

I know all the doomsday scenarios on the news all day long. In my opinion, this is a way to push Americans toward vigilance and for the government to protect their own ass. Its also a good way to get us prepped for war, IMO.

But, we're dealing with people who can't even figure out how to pump their own oil, provide food for their own people, or even produce any other products besides kids that go boom. I have faith that they lack the proper intelligence (not will) to cause all the damage we are threatened with daily. We all need to keep this in mind when we hear about dirty bombs, chemical dispersing UAVs and all that other garbage and stay positive.

One by one, terrorists are being plucked off the face of this earth. Their infrastructure and organization is consistently being disrupted and we are learning how to deal with various methods of attacks. Everyday, another terrorist apologist, supporter, or appeaser is getting locked up or assasinated and eventually, the only ones left will be 14 year olds with a clear lack of experience to run the show.

In another matter of speaking, do you think the elite of this Western world (the ones with all the money), pushing for globalization to sell products to all these brainwashed people, will let a bunch of fanatics end the future of their profits? I don't think so. There is way too much to be lost, and I guarantee you, those people are concerned and will invest all their money into erradicating terror from this planet. Sure there will always be terror and terrorists, but there will also be buildings that catch fire accidently as well, but I can't focus my energy on worry and pecimism, but on moving forward!

Mediocrates
02-25-2003, 03:56 AM
From the Wilson Quarterly.

An interesting piece on the nature of empire

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.print&essay_id=17298&stoplayout=true


<snip>

The United States also attracts, trains, and commands a predominant share of the world’s intellectual talent, through an array of outstanding graduate schools and institutes of advanced learning and research. Only three non-American universities--Oxford, Cambridge, and London--seriously qualify for any list of the world’s top 20 academic institutions, and thanks to the language, Americans feel at home at all three. Further, the United States has established a unique cultural predominance, not just through the quality of its free principles and constitution but through the seductive power of its entertainments and fashions, from movies to blue jeans to gangsta rap. Never before has there been anything quite like this American domination of the world. Even Rome had always to keep a wary eye on the Parthians and Persians, and one or two of its legions might at any time be swallowed without a trace by the barbarians of the Teutoberger Wald.

djnvcm
03-06-2003, 12:12 PM
This is the good question

No gain at all

Maybe for this administration to win next polls but I doubt

Soviet union fell down 10 years ago. Who's next ?????

LionOfLoyalty
03-06-2003, 12:17 PM
One would hope then, that Pax Americana would also allow Pax Judiaca[i] to occur as a result.


[i]Originally posted by Mediocrates
From the Wilson Quarterly.

An interesting piece on the nature of empire

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.print&essay_id=17298&stoplayout=true


<snip>

The United States also attracts, trains, and commands a predominant share of the world’s intellectual talent, through an array of outstanding graduate schools and institutes of advanced learning and research. Only three non-American universities--Oxford, Cambridge, and London--seriously qualify for any list of the world’s top 20 academic institutions, and thanks to the language, Americans feel at home at all three. Further, the United States has established a unique cultural predominance, not just through the quality of its free principles and constitution but through the seductive power of its entertainments and fashions, from movies to blue jeans to gangsta rap. Never before has there been anything quite like this American domination of the world. Even Rome had always to keep a wary eye on the Parthians and Persians, and one or two of its legions might at any time be swallowed without a trace by the barbarians of the Teutoberger Wald.

MGB8
03-06-2003, 12:20 PM
Wrong.

There is much to be gained by regime change in Iraq, and much to be lost if we don't act now.

Knowing Saddam and what his goals are, he will continue to at least try to be a regional military superpower. If he succeeds, his proximity to the majority of the world's oil can cause a world DEPRESSION or RECESSION - meaning thousands die of cold and hunger, and millions more go to poverty.

Not to mention the high possibility of a major terrorist strike being AIDED by Saddam.

If we ACT, we are making progress towards 3 goals:

(1) A change in the status quo of Middle East Despotism that has created the Islamic Terrorist phenomenon. Its amazing how readily people are to blame Israel (nothing to do with Al-quaida) or US policy for terrorism, and ignore the logical dissonance that they argue when they say that the poverty and despair that "Israel creates" in the PA territories "causes" terrorism.

Why does despair cause terror in Israel, but not in other places?

It is the arab despots who put their populations in such horrible conditions, and condone the brainwashing of their publics, and only democracy in the mid-east will change this.

This helps the Arab people, which helps us.

(2) A strong and "strings-free" presence in the middle east will give us a monitoring point for current terrorists and serve as a strong diincentive on supporting terror for regional states.

(3) We stabalize the region to prevent economic turmoil.



Originally posted by djnvcm
This is the good question

No gain at all

Maybe for this administration to win next polls but I doubt

Soviet union fell down 10 years ago. Who's next ?????

Kapiti
03-10-2003, 02:30 AM
Lionofloyalty You say " Even I, who support the war, am not under any such delusion that this is about disarnment or that Saddam could do anything to stop it. This war will occur, barring some diplomatic/political trick of massive proportions."

I do not support the war but I admire your honesty. You are 100 percent right that this is not about disarmament and that Saddam can do nothing to stop of it (short of going into exile perhaps)

MGB8 - You are one scary dude. You ignore the patently obvious that the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the current aggressive US foreign policy so hypocritically weighted in Israel's favour is a substantial cause of terrorism around the world. I am not saying the only cause by any means but certainly probably the largest cause. Listen to what the Terrorists say and you will learn a bit. Its not the dispair its the illegal occupation which virtually the whole world except you sees, which helps cause the terrorism.

Stoping Terrorism in Israel is not difficult and it is cheap too. You simply remove all the army protection from the illegal settlements in the WB and Gaza. Instantly the innocent Israeli's in Israel will be safe. For the the illegal settlers however it would be very different.

How re-assuring - Your three point plan if I can para-phrase ever so slightly is

1 Take over any governments you don't like.
2 Stick you own puppet government in to rule and intimidate others.
3 Go back to number 1 if the neighbouring governments don't rejoice in having you as their "big brother"

The world was lucky the USA (and the west) won the super power battle but that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything the US wants to do since then.

Saddam tried to be the regional power and tried to take over Iran and Kuwait to achieve this. His time is done. The world has nothing to fear on a government level from Saddam. To suggest otherwise is to reject reality in its entirety.

If stopping Terrorism was the real motivation then there would be a stronger reason to invade Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 September 11 bombers came from.

Mediocrates
03-10-2003, 04:15 AM
Stoping Terrorism in Israel is not difficult and it is cheap too. You simply remove all the army protection from the illegal settlements in the WB and Gaza. Instantly the innocent Israeli's in Israel will be safe. For the the illegal settlers however it would be very different.




So I'm guessing you own a company that manufactures body bags. 250,000 of them is what your peace would require. And ethnic pure Jew Free Palestine is what you dream of.

Mediocrates
03-10-2003, 04:19 AM
If stopping Terrorism was the real motivation then there would be a stronger reason to invade Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 September 11 bombers came from.


The KSA has the 7th largest defense budget in the world. About 18.7 billion per year. More than 3x the defense budget of Israel.

In fact in the last 16 years the KSA has purchased approx 83 billion dollars of military hardware from the US which makes it the largest customer of military gear the US has.

(compare this to the total of approx 113 billion of total military spending in the Mid East in the past 30 years.)

So tell me, who are they afraid of? Who are they protecting themselves from?

MGB8
03-10-2003, 05:50 AM
Kapiti,

Like so many others, you've fallen into the "blame the victim" mode.

There is no state of Palestine. It is a political ambition, something to be achieved. Terrorism is caused not by any "occupation," but is because conventional violence has not worked to achieve this political goal. Recruitment of suicide bombers is caused by a combination of brian-washing (childhood indoctrination) and despair.

But that's a different question.

Terrorism is caused by the confluence of Political Ambitions and people willing to undertake political acts. Al Qauida's political ambitions have nothing to do with Israel whatsoever, but instead have to do with the Islamization of the world. The despair in the region is not caused by the US, but by the brutal dictatorships, some of which the US has supported, and supports (but now with heavy pressure to reform) due to the cold war and oil.

BUT, iraq is a unique threat. He has WMD and he has used them in the past. There are terrorist organizations present in his country. He has great ambitions for a pan Arab conquest. Saddam needs to be stopped from acquiring the ability to destabilize the region.

Also, nowhere did I mention a "puppet" regeim. I think that you are quietly racist against Arabs, even if you are Arab, in that you seem to indicate that Arabs can't handle democracy.

LionOfLoyalty
03-10-2003, 11:38 AM
Ah, but you are operating under a quite common myth, that the "occupation" (and there is much evidence that would place the taking of Judea, Samaria and Gaza as more of a liberation, but I can present my case on that matter later, should you so request) is the cause and terrorism is the result. In fact, it is quite the other way around. As the following resource will show with names, dates and locations, these being facts that cannot be denied, terrorism against Israel existed long before 1967. The only possible manner in which you could claim that Israel has caused terrorism is if you are of the position that Israel does not have the right to exist even under it's pre-1967 borders.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ldc0


Originally posted by Kapiti
You are one scary dude. You ignore the patently obvious that the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the current aggressive US foreign policy so hypocritically weighted in Israel's favour is a substantial cause of terrorism around the world. I am not saying the only cause by any means but certainly probably the largest cause. Listen to what the Terrorists say and you will learn a bit. Its not the dispair its the illegal occupation which virtually the whole world except you sees, which helps cause the terrorism.

Stoping Terrorism in Israel is not difficult and it is cheap too. You simply remove all the army protection from the illegal settlements in the WB and Gaza. Instantly the innocent Israeli's in Israel will be safe. For the the illegal settlers however it would be very different.

L@mplighterM
03-11-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky

And Tony Blair said today that even if a million people demonstrated for Saddam it would still be less than the number of people killed in wars started by Saddam. So Blair doesn't seem to be caving yet.



It seems all but certain that Blair will not be able to support action against Iraq without UN approval. Today Blair’s support reached an all-time low of 19% and even that appears to be slipping.

The PR machine of Islam has run a well-oiled campaign and it appears that they are winning. So in the final analysis it appears that most nations have turned their back on the US in their fight against Global terrorism.

HaSakin
03-11-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
ok, so let's say that the U.S. takes out Saddam. What's next? What's to be gained?

I am not totally convinced that a Middle East without Saddam Hussein will actually be much less dangerous. Sure, it would be good to be rid of any brutal Arab dictator, but what's truly to be gained in comparison with the price we will all, no doubt, need to pay?

Now, on the other hand, if we were to say that the goal of a war would be to eliminate the Iranian, Syrian, Saudi and the Southern Lebanese terrorist threats, then I could see real benefit to the world. A Pax Americana, if you will.

At the same time, if we were to fully discredit the UN and break away from NATO as a result of seeing that these organizations are nothing but shams, then I would see a real benefit here, as well.

But just to eliminate Saddam at such a huge cost doesn't seem to make sense to me.

What do you think? What will the real gain be from toppling Saddam's regime?

Terrorism is like crime and murdering mothers-in-law.
You can never get rid of terrorism or crime completely. All we can try to do is to decrease it as much as possible.

The problem is not toppling Saddam Hussein, or any other regime which supports terrorism. The problem is to set up a fairly stable regime afterwards.

BUT THE DANGER IS THAT ELIMINATING THE PRESENT REGIME MAY LEAD TO THE EXTREME RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS SEIZING POWER. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN IRAN. IF WE HAVE A BLOCK OF SUCH RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THEN THE WORLD IS IN FOR A HUGE UPSURGE IN MILITANT ISLAM.

And this militant is DANGEROUS.

Let us never forget that ISLAM is fighting for its very survival. Western type morality will destroy ISLAM as it is destroying Christianity.

How many Christians are ready to become suicide bombers?
How many Christians are ready to die fighting for their beliefs?

Let's all think not of the next step but of the step after the next one.

wellofvow
03-11-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by HaSakin
The problem is not toppling Saddam Hussein, or any other regime which supports terrorism. The problem is to set up a fairly stable regime afterwards.

BUT THE DANGER IS THAT ELIMINATING THE PRESENT REGIME MAY LEAD TO THE EXTREME RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS SEIZING POWER. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN IRAN. IF WE HAVE A BLOCK OF SUCH RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THEN THE WORLD IS IN FOR A HUGE UPSURGE IN MILITANT ISLAM.

And this militant is DANGEROUS.

Let us never forget that ISLAM is fighting for its very survival. Western type morality will destroy ISLAM as it is destroying Christianity.

How many Christians are ready to become suicide bombers?
How many Christians are ready to die fighting for their beliefs?

Let's all think not of the next step but of the step after the next one.

Unless I am reading this post wrong, I find it a bit bizarre in several places, to say the least.

I do agree that I am less concerned with the immediate results than with the longterm. How long were Americans in Japan after World War II in order to ensure that the was a remodeling of the Japanese mindset and culture, to ensure that it was going to gear itself to become "Westernized" in all aspects of society? Wasn't it several years?

The question in our time now is, how long is America prepared to be in Iraq? IMO, not long. It will not be able to sustain the screeches of "Occupiers!!" very long at all.

But to get back to Hasakin's statement that "Islam is fighting for its very survival. Western type morality will destroy Islam as it is destroying Christianity". What do you mean by this?

Islam is not fighting for survival. It is fighting to control the world. Yes, Western, Christian, morality is antithetical to Islam. But every religion is to some extent antithetical to other religions. A problem only starts when one religion cannot accept the existance of another. There is no room in Islamic belief for a live-and-let-live attitude, as religion completely defines their entire culture.

wellofvow
03-11-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
The conflict in 1991 was to get Hussein out of Kuwait and as far as I recall that was the mandate agreed upon amongst the nations of the NATO alliance. Hussein should have been removed from power at that time but there was no agreement to topple Hussein amongst the NATO alliance.

The message today is quite different it calls for Hussein to obey UN resolution 1441 or face the consequences. It appears that he’s not willing to disarm and therefore he’ll be removed from power along with his two sons. Further the Iraqi government will be replaced with a government of Iraqi exiles. There are 40 nations that support the US in this endeavor and it’ll be accomplished one way or another. I hope Hussein is dead along with his sons by the end of the month and it may very well be so.

One should also bear in mind that Hussein has always supported Arafat to some degree and once he’s gone the Palestinians easier to deal with. There’s also the fact that once Iraq has a government that is friendlier toward the US it’ll be easier to kick Syrian and Lebanese ass.



Hi Lamp. I just found this thread, do not have the time to read all the posts, too many.

I just want to comment on what I and many Israelis think is a faulty rosy "and they all lived happily ever after" once Iraq is "stabilized".

In the first place, I have not seen any sign in the last few decades that America, the UN, or anyone for that matter is willing to "occupy" another country for a considerable period of time in order to ensure stability.

The Brits were in the Middle East in these here parts for 30 years. Can you see the Arab world allowing a 30 year occupation of Iraq? I don't.

America was in post-WWII Japan for how many years in order to ensure that it would be a Westernized democracy? Do you see the American public able to withstand the pro-Arab PR rhetoric of American "atrocities" in occupied Iraq? I don't.

And most important (well, for me at least, since I'm an Israeli), is that you are reading a post-war scenario with the Palestinians COMPLETELY wrong.

The Americans owe Blair bigtime. Blair WILL demand an IMMEDIATE Palestinian state. Yes-Arafat, No-Arafat is simply not an issue for the Brits. Just IMMEDIATE, NOWNOWNOW. No one has ever cared much about Jews or Israel - they are and never were important to the English since Lord Balfour. America and Canada did not allow Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler and certain death to enter their countries.

And I do not blame the Brits only. Israelis were promised a national referendum by RABIN. When did you last hear this? Not since before Oslo! Even Sharon, demonized as a crazed war-mongerer, has stated many times that he is willing to go along with a Palestinian state. Well, goody for him. What happened to a national referendum about committing mass suicide?

yehudi
03-12-2003, 03:13 AM
.

War without the UN seems more and more likely "White House all but concedes U.N. defeat" on cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/12/sprj.irq.main/index.html



This war is likely to be a huge blow to international order - United Nations bashers will be so happy...

ibrodsky
03-12-2003, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by yehudi
.

This war is likely to be a huge blow to international order - United Nations bashers will be so happy...

What "international order"?

First, to those of you who worry deposing Saddam won't help - that what follows could be worse.

Are you paying any attention? There is a very large Iraqi-community-in-exile and they were consulted early on. Iraq is likely to be much more stable, post war, than Afghanistan. Not that Afghanistan is fallen back into the hands of Islamist mass murderers.

It is ridiculus to think that something worse could replace either Saddam or the Taliban - particularly after the US used massive force to drive these regimes out.

What some of you seem not to understand is that the US is at war with 21st century Nazism, a.k.a. Islamism.

We don't have to guarantee the most genteel regime will follow. We just have to show the inhabitants that if they try to put another Islamist regime in power we will come right back and start dropping MOABs (Mother of all Bombs).

But don't worry, the Islamists won't come back. Because there is one and only one US mission is remaining in Iraq. And that will be to continue fighting the Islamist scum. We aren't going to occupy and administer every city. We are just going to maintain a military base or two or three, as in Afghanistan, so we have forces very close by should they be needed to crush Islamist Nazis that rear their ugly heads.

And we will hire a network of informers to be our eyes and ears.

I assure you that after we topple Saddam we won't declare victory and go home. I'm not referring to meddling in Iraq's internal affairs - as long as they don't embrace Islamism - I'm referring to taking care of other terrorist-sponsoring regimes such as in Iran, Syria, and Arafatistan.

As for the UN, it is history. They will continue to put Libya in charge of their "Human Rights Commission" and Iraq and Iran in charge of their "Conference on Disarmament" and hold "Conferences Against Racism" that turn into well organized orgies of anti-semitism.

But the US will not be a party to UN hypocrisy, corruption, and kowtowing to Arab dictators under this President and Congress.

The UN Security Council is unwilling to enforce a resolution that it passed unanimously. Though the US may get 9 votes, France and Russia threaten vetos. It really doesn't matter. Even the inspections are tainted: the inspectors have no business reporting "progress" and urging more time. Their job is merely to inspect and report specific instances of cooperation or non-cooperation.

See Charles Krauthammer's latest column below:

ibrodsky
03-12-2003, 05:39 AM
Call the Vote. Walk Away.

By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21


Walk away, Mr. President. Walk away from the U.N. Security Council. It will not authorize the coming war. You can stand on your head and it won't change the outcome. You can convert to Islam in a Parisian mosque and it won't prevent a French veto.

The French are bent not just on opposing your policy but on destroying it -- and the coalition you built around it. When they send their foreign minister to tour the three African countries on the Security Council in order to turn them against the United States, you know that this is a country with resolve -- more than our side is showing today. And that is a losing proposition for us.

The reason you were able to build support at home and rally the world to at least pretend to care about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is that you showed implacable resolve to disarm Iraq one way or the other. Your wobbles at the United Nations today -- postponing the vote, renegotiating the terms -- are undermining the entire enterprise.

I understand that the wobble is not yours but a secondary, sympathetic wobble to Tony Blair's. Blair is courageous but opposed by a large part of his party and in need of some diplomatic cover.

But, Mr. President, he's not going to get it. Even if you marshal the nine votes on the Security Council by watering down the resolution, delaying the invasion, establishing criteria Hans Blix is sure to muddy and Mohamed ElBaradei is sure to say Saddam Hussein has met, France and Russia will still exercise the veto. You may call it a moral victory. The British left, which is what this little exercise is about, will not. It will not care what you call it but what Kofi Annan calls it, and he has already told us: a failed resolution rendering a war that follows illegitimate.

This, of course, is the rankest hypocrisy. The United Nations did not sanction the Kosovo war, surely a just war, and that did not in any way make it illegitimate. Of the scores of armed conflicts since 1945, exactly two have received Security Council sanction: the Korean War (purely an accident, the Soviets having walked out over another issue) and the Gulf War. The Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, whose terms everybody agrees Hussein has violated. You could very well have gone to war under the original Security Council resolutions of 1991 and been justified.

I understand why you did not. A large segment of American opinion swoons at the words "United Nations" and "international community." That the international community is a fiction and the United Nations a farce hardly matters. People believe in them. It was for them that you went to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002.

And it worked. When you framed the issue as the United Nations enforcing its own edicts, vindicating its own relevance by making Hussein disarm, the intellectual opposition to the war -- always in search of some standard outside the United States' own judgment and interests to justify American action -- fell apart.

Thus Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, bought you two things: domestic support and a window of legitimacy, a time to build up our forces in the region under the umbrella of enforcing the will of the "international community."

Mr. President, the window has closed. Diplomatically, we are today back where we were before Sept. 12. It is America, Britain, Australia, a few Gulf states, some of Old Europe, most of New Europe and other governments still too afraid to say so openly. That's enough. And in any case that is all you are going to get.

Why are we dallying and deferring at the United Nations? In your news conference last week, you said you were going to have people put their cards on the table. I thought it a lousy idea to call a vote we were sure to lose. But having made your decision, you are making it worse by waffling. The world knows you as a cards-on-the-table man. Now you're asking for an extension of time and a reshuffle of the deck.

If, for Blair's sake, you must have a second resolution, why include an ultimatum that Blix will obfuscate and the French will veto? If you must have a second resolution, it should consist of a single sentence: "The Security Council finds Iraq in violation of Resolution 1441, which demanded 'full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions.' "

The new resolution should be a statement not of policy but of fact. The fact is undeniable. You invite the French to cast what will be seen around the world as the most cynical veto in the history of the council, which is saying a lot. They may cast it nonetheless. They are, after all, French. But then they -- not you -- will have to do the explaining.

That's all you need. No need for elaborate compromises, stretching the timetable, or a tortuous checklist for Hussein to dance around. One sentence. One line. Cards on the table.

No more dithering. Every day you wait is an advertisement of hesitation and apprehension. It will not strengthen Tony Blair. It will not strengthen the resolve of our allies in the region. It will only boost the confidence and resolve of the people you are determined to defeat.

If the one-line resolution passes, the violation triggers 1441, which triggers the original resolutions ending the Gulf War. If it fails, you've exposed the United Nations for what it is: the League of Nations, empty, cynical and mendacious. Mr. President: Call the vote and walk away.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

MGB8
03-12-2003, 09:54 AM
Thank you Ibrodsky.

Its like all those fears about what happens after Arafat...will Hamas be in charge? Who cares? If they are, then the war hasn't ended because our enemies are still in power, and we continue fighting. If we did nothing, we'd have both enemies still there.

In terms of Iraq...people need to realize that this is not Vietnam. Unlike Vietnam, which provides a lot of Geographical cover, in Iraq you can see things coming from miles away. You build a few virtually self sustaining bases relatively far away from major population centers with strong overlooks of the region, and you are pretty darn safe.

From there all the Islamist regeims, and the terrorist organizations, face a grave threat. Quick strike teams from the center of the Muslim world taking out say, Nuclear Processing Plants, or Terrorist Training grounds.

Plus, the US forces there make any type of Islamic coup a very difficult thing to achieve indeed.

yehudi
03-12-2003, 10:55 AM
Is the UK starting to back off ?



WITH OR WITHOUT BRITAIN?: U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld raised eyebrows Tuesday by briefly raising the specter that the United States might have to proceed without Britain if the new U.N. resolution on Iraq fails.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.uk.diplomacy/index.html


inside the UK Blair has a hard time resisting popular pressure :
"British leader appears weatherworn over Iraq crisis " London -- His skin has turned pale, and his hair looks thinner and grayer. He seems to be constantly fighting a cold. His tailored suit coats seem to hang from a trim frame turned gaunt. He is working, he says, "night and day."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/12/MN3972.DTL



anyway i'm sure Poland will keep on supporting the US in this "crusade" (for a while at least) ... and Bulgaria too.

minusthejihad
03-12-2003, 12:08 PM
Poland, Bulgaria, France, Sweden, Germany, UK, what's the difference? Really?

Anyway, to something even more laughable:

What's funny about this whole war preparation thing is that it has uncovered the spineless cowards that exist all over the world, but especially in Europe that fear taking action, bend to public opinion (notice the word opinion), and would rather have someone else clean up their mess.

OK, now we draw this line in the sand, if you cross it, we will......wait, you just crossed it.

OK, now we draw this line in the sand, if you cross it, we will......wait, you just crossed it.

OK, now we draw this line in the sand, if you cross it, we will......wait, you just crossed it.

OK, you've had twelve years, but we'll give you another month.

OK, you've had twelve years, but we'll give you another month.

OK, you've had twelve years, but we'll give you another month.


Whatever. We'll have to get it done and done fast, and in my opinion, the USA going to the UN or to our "allies in Europe" for support is like trying to obtain a search warrant from a judge that snorts the cocaine from the drug dealer you are trying to bust.

L@mplighterM
03-12-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by wellofvow
Hi Lamp. I just found this thread, do not have the time to read all the posts, too many.

I just want to comment on what I and many Israelis think is a faulty rosy "and they all lived happily ever after" once Iraq is "stabilized".

In the first place, I have not seen any sign in the last few decades that America, the UN, or anyone for that matter is willing to "occupy" another country for a considerable period of time in order to ensure stability.

The Brits were in the Middle East in these here parts for 30 years. Can you see the Arab world allowing a 30 year occupation of Iraq? I don't.

America was in post-WWII Japan for how many years in order to ensure that it would be a Westernized democracy? Do you see the American public able to withstand the pro-Arab PR rhetoric of American "atrocities" in occupied Iraq? I don't.

And most important (well, for me at least, since I'm an Israeli), is that you are reading a post-war scenario with the Palestinians COMPLETELY wrong.

The Americans owe Blair bigtime. Blair WILL demand an IMMEDIATE Palestinian state. Yes-Arafat, No-Arafat is simply not an issue for the Brits. Just IMMEDIATE, NOWNOWNOW. No one has ever cared much about Jews or Israel - they are and never were important to the English since Lord Balfour. America and Canada did not allow Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler and certain death to enter their countries.

And I do not blame the Brits only. Israelis were promised a national referendum by RABIN. When did you last hear this? Not since before Oslo! Even Sharon, demonized as a crazed war-mongerer, has stated many times that he is willing to go along with a Palestinian state. Well, goody for him. What happened to a national referendum about committing mass suicide?


I used to meditate to relax a Zen Buddhist thought me how but I haven’t done so for awhile.

LionOfLoyalty
03-13-2003, 12:12 PM
That's a possibility to be worried about, except for one thing. I don't believe that Bush will hesitate, once the war is over and England has committed to helping with the reconstruction, to forget about anything Blair has done for him. Blair was stupid. He might have stood a chance of getting something substantial for his efforts had he waited before committing his support, however now that he is committed beyond the turning point, there is no reason that Bush will feel the need to bribe or reward him with anything more than a few oil contracts. There is the worry that it might play out like you envision, but I personally do not think that that's the most likely scenario.


Originally posted by wellofvow
Hi Lamp. I just found this thread, do not have the time to read all the posts, too many.

I just want to comment on what I and many Israelis think is a faulty rosy "and they all lived happily ever after" once Iraq is "stabilized".

In the first place, I have not seen any sign in the last few decades that America, the UN, or anyone for that matter is willing to "occupy" another country for a considerable period of time in order to ensure stability.

The Brits were in the Middle East in these here parts for 30 years. Can you see the Arab world allowing a 30 year occupation of Iraq? I don't.

America was in post-WWII Japan for how many years in order to ensure that it would be a Westernized democracy? Do you see the American public able to withstand the pro-Arab PR rhetoric of American "atrocities" in occupied Iraq? I don't.

And most important (well, for me at least, since I'm an Israeli), is that you are reading a post-war scenario with the Palestinians COMPLETELY wrong.

The Americans owe Blair bigtime. Blair WILL demand an IMMEDIATE Palestinian state. Yes-Arafat, No-Arafat is simply not an issue for the Brits. Just IMMEDIATE, NOWNOWNOW. No one has ever cared much about Jews or Israel - they are and never were important to the English since Lord Balfour. America and Canada did not allow Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler and certain death to enter their countries.

And I do not blame the Brits only. Israelis were promised a national referendum by RABIN. When did you last hear this? Not since before Oslo! Even Sharon, demonized as a crazed war-mongerer, has stated many times that he is willing to go along with a Palestinian state. Well, goody for him. What happened to a national referendum about committing mass suicide?

JustPat
03-13-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
That's a possibility to be worried about, except for one thing. I don't believe that Bush will hesitate, once the war is over and England has committed to helping with the reconstruction, to forget about anything Blair has done for him. Blair was stupid. He might have stood a chance of getting something substantial for his efforts had he waited before committing his support, however now that he is committed beyond the turning point, there is no reason that Bush will feel the need to bribe or reward him with anything more than a few oil contracts. There is the worry that it might play out like you envision, but I personally do not think that that's the most likely scenario.
I think you underestimate the President. For a change, this man seems to operate on principle and with integrity. We will take care of our friends, and as for the French-German-Belgium ... :D

LionOfLoyalty
03-13-2003, 05:05 PM
Perhaps, but I believe that Bush's commitment to Israel will outweigh his gratitude to Britain.


Originally posted by JustPat
I think you underestimate the President. For a change, this man seems to operate on principle and with integrity. We will take care of our friends, and as for the French-German-Belgium ... :D

yehudi
03-17-2003, 12:04 PM
.

What's to be Gained from the War? This is a song by Arno that's i cannot get out of my mind. For a while I though I am the stupid lonesome Zorro on this forum :D .

But, reading the lyrics, I just discovered the song is very good at describing what a "moral/sincere" american could feel today.... and maybe tomorrow if the occupation turns sour.
It's a good view on the fact americans have discovered they have to face terrorism too.




Lonesome Zorro / Arno

You’ve got the will, boy
You’ve got the power now
Ain’t to use to run
Ain’t to use to hide
Take a ride on night life
It’s not a good life
And I hear you screaming inside

Oh boy
You’re a lonesome Zorro
Oh boy
You’re a lonesome Zorro

Don’t act like a Don Juan
Making love like Peter Pan
And I hear you screaming inside

All day has been a high
The next day’s been a low
And I hear you screaming inside

(Oh boy
You’re the lonesome Zorro)
(Oh boy
You’re a lonesome Zorro)
Oh boy
You’re a lonesome Zorro
And I hear you screaming inside


(Arno is a fine belgian singer - if you want to listen immediately to the song you can easily find it with a p2p program).

NewsGuy
03-17-2003, 12:14 PM
ok, I have no idea what the song means, but it looks like the war is now upon us.

Even though I've opposed the war so far, it's time for me to set my differences aside and stand firmly behind our troops, our government, and our country.

I sure hope that we win quickly, with minimum casualties on both sides, and can move on to the real business at hand, which is ridding the Middle East of Arab and Islamic terrorist regimes like Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, etc.

Until the evil forces of Arab and Islamic terrorism are eradicated, there can be no peace in the Middle East, nor anywhere else in the world. I guess we'll start with Saddam and work our way to the others soon enough.

MGB8
03-17-2003, 12:24 PM
Amen.

Let the war be swift, with a minimum of casualties, and the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. Let us hope that Iraq can be the first true Arab democracy, and begin a change in the Arab world...a domino effect in the right direction...as people get a taste of freedom, they tend to like it. A lot.


Originally posted by NewsGuy
ok, I have no idea what the song means, but it looks like the war is now upon us.

Even though I've opposed the war so far, it's time for me to set my differences aside and stand firmly behind our troops, our government, and our country.

I sure hope that we win quickly, with minimum casualties on both sides, and can move on to the real business at hand, which is ridding the Middle East of Arab and Islamic terrorist regimes like Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, etc.

Until the evil forces of Arab and Islamic terrorism are eradicated, there can be no peace in the Middle East, nor anywhere else in the world. I guess we'll start with Saddam and work our way to the others soon enough.

yehudi
03-17-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
ok, I have no idea what the song means, but it looks like the war is now upon us.
It has no meaning in itself, it only echoes what's in your mind.

I mainly see loneliness, paradise lost, suffering and a feeling "you have to face it". I'm against what is being done but good luck anyway.

ibrodsky
03-17-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy


That's why I would much rather see a war against Iran, Syria and Lebanon than against Iraq at this point in time.

I think Iraq is the best first choice for several reasons.

We have entered a new era. In the past, the biggest threats came form the biggest and most powerful states. Now rogue states with motivations and terrorist groups allied with them are the greatest threats.

Iraq has massive stockpiles of chem and bio weapons that can be transferred to terrorists. The terrorists could kill thousands of Americans and/or Israelis, while Iraq pretends it had nothing to do with it.

Iran is probably the biggest threat, but there are reasons not to go there first. Mainly, there is a huge population shift towards youth underway. The fascist Mullahs are very unpopular among Iranian youth. There is a very good chance that Iran will experience major changes in its government within the next five years or so.

Syria has plenty of ill intent, but is extremely weak. Knocking off Saddam will scare baby Asad.

I think we should depose Saddam and then go after Hezbollah. Hezbollah is key to Iran's ability to project terrorism elsewhere.

Clearly, it would be very difficult for any US goverment to directly attack all of the Arab/Muslim states that support terrorism. We have to pick a few key targets and use our successes to convince the others to modify their behavior.

Knocking off Saddam will also help demoralize groups like Hamas that fantasize about Islamists taking over the world with the help of their favorite Arab strongmen.

localbrew
03-17-2003, 12:49 PM
I really hate to say this because I am not one to wish civilian casualties in war. But if Saddam does uses even one WMD shell or missile and we know he is in Baghdad I say waste Baghdad. Make it inhabitable for 10,000 years and maybe the world will learn a lesson. Turn the place from sand into glass.

Obviously the world has learned nothing from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then countries like the USSR, France, UK, India, Israel and Pakistan have made nuclear proliferation a viable option. Maybe the world needs another lesson.

Maybe North Korea and Iran will get the message then.

JustPat
03-17-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by yehudi What's to be Gained from the War? This is a song by Arno that's i cannot get out of my mind. ... But, reading the lyrics, I just discovered the song is very good at describing what a "moral/sincere" american could feel today.... and maybe tomorrow if the occupation turns sour.
...
(Arno is a fine belgian singer - if you want to listen immediately to the song you can easily find it with a p2p program).
Belgian, that explains it. Prefer to be in my right mind, thanks. If you want ot know what a "sincere/moral" American thinks today, pay close attention to the President's speech at 8pm EST.

localbrew
03-17-2003, 01:05 PM
JustPat,

You are so right on. Saddam could end all this right now by leaving and taking with him all his culpable cronies. But he is much like Hitler, he will I think cause as much death and destruction as possible before taking his own life.

The butcher of Baghdad just like Adolph Hitler has no perception of what humanity means. Both are/were completely mad and logic does/did not play into their reasoning. I think we will see not only an ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions but also a loss of life almost unprecedented in a short time.

Still, I believe this butcher must be stopped now. The world can not allow a man like this to continue living and that goes for Kim Jong Ill as well. Saddam and his ilk can depart Iraq but there is no guarantee they will not be hunted down and brought to justice or killed like dogs.

yehudi
03-17-2003, 01:10 PM
you're as full as preconceptions as can be, Pat.

You attitude toward belgians is simple racism. Obviously, you're not the lonesome Zorro type. No risk there.

Johnny Yuma
03-17-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by localbrew
Still, I believe this butcher must be stopped now. The world can not allow a man like this to continue living and that goes for Kim Jong Ill as well. Saddam and his ilk can depart Iraq but there is no guarantee they will not be hunted down and brought to justice or killed like dogs.

Hey... speaking of "Kim Jong Ill"... Did you know his father was "Men Tally Ill"? :D

Johnny "don't hate me 'cause I'm an American" Yuma

LionOfLoyalty
03-17-2003, 02:28 PM
Let's not descend to racism. I'm sure there are many decent people who are Belgium, even if we disagree with the majority right now. We support democracy, remember? Everyone's free to have their own opinion.


Originally posted by JustPat
Belgian, that explains it. Prefer to be in my right mind, thanks. If you want ot know what a "sincere/moral" American thinks today, pay close attention to the President's speech at 8pm EST.

JustPat
03-17-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by yehudi
you're as full as preconceptions as can be, Pat.

You attitude toward belgians is simple racism. Obviously, you're not the lonesome Zorro type. No risk there.
When it comes to Belgians, I have issues. Maybe it is because of the lowlife Belgian doctor who abandoned my great-grandmother with four children. Perhaps it is the way they treat my friends who live there. Or maybe, just maybe, they are all flaming idiots who think they are a gift to the world! At any rate, your poet's Belgian affiliation wasnot a surprise.

yehudi
03-18-2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by JustPat
When it comes to Belgians, I have issues. Maybe it is because of the lowlife Belgian doctor who abandoned my great-grandmother with four children. Bastard !!! And a doctor. I guess his hippocratic oath was theoretical as well...

But you can't judge all Belgians from this. AFAIK all people of this region, are real kind people (but a bit naive actually ;) ).

Belgian colonial history is not good, but I do not know of any colonialism that ends well.
I guess you know some people consider Israel a a colonialist state expelling palestinians from their own land. And allow themselves to condemn all jews for this... All jews are not colonialists, all jews are not racist either (eg Lion). Some are.

Anyway, I'm against any kind of racism, whatever the motivation.
Are you not ?

LionOfLoyalty
03-18-2003, 11:57 AM
I would highly disagree that Israel is an imperialistic state, especially because of the many ties of the Jews to the lands of Judea and Samaria, as well as, though considerably less, the Gaza strip. Furthermore, all of these territories were taken in a defensive war, and Israel has repeatedly offered to return parts of them to the nations that they were taken from, both of which have refused to take them back. I would describe them as disputed instead of occupied. Having said that, I would like to thank you for not counting me in the category of racist.

yehudi
03-18-2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
I would highly disagree that Israel is an imperialistic state, The doctrine of expansion of israel, Eretz Israel we call it, is considered imperialism by palestinians. Is it not ? Imperialism is too weak a word actually.

Put yourself in their place. Some of them are still carrying the key of their former house around their neck. They'll never return to their homes: Whole villages have been razed by israeli bulldozers.





My feeling is: Israelis are not only attempting to wipe out palestinians from this land, but also the very memory they ever existed.
This is probably the most terrible thing, a "slow Shoah".
And it never stops : little by little new colonies are created, existing colonies are enlarged, olive trees are cut to make way for new roads....

Let me make it clear: the Israelis do not want to kill the palestinians, but they simply intend to "wipe them off" as if they never existed.

.

minusthejihad
03-18-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by yehudi
The doctrine of expansion of israel, Eretz Israel we call it, is considered imperialism by palestinians. Is it not ? Imperialism is too weak a word actually.

Put yourself in their place. Some of them are still carrying the key of their former house around their neck. They'll never return to their homes: Whole villages have been razed by israeli bulldozers.





My feeling is: Israelis are not only attempting to wipe out palestinians from this land, but also the very memory they ever existed.
This is probably the most terrible thing, a "slow Shoah".
And it never stops : little by little new colonies are created, existing colonies are enlarged, olive trees are cut to make way for new roads....

Let me make it clear: the Israelis do not want to kill the palestinians, but they simply intend to "wipe them off" as if they never existed.

.

Lies and half truths.

1. There are even more Jews that have been kicked out of their lands by Arabs, usually through much more violent and barbaric means. They have their keys as well. You however, fail to mention that. Just a brief reminder, Jews have existed in the Middle East long before Islam even came to be G money. So why is nearly every Arab country Judenfrie? Why will Palestine be Jew free too? When Israel isn't free of Arabs or Palestinians?

2. Let's make it clear. There has never been a Palestine. Palestinians are actually Jordanians and Southern Syrians, just do the research emotion man. They never existed, except as pawns of a Pan-Arabic dream in order to push the Jews into the sea. They will get there homeland, but it won't even put a dent into their hatred of Jews and their leaders' phased plan to kill us all.

LionOfLoyalty
03-18-2003, 01:48 PM
I'm quite sorry you feel that way because it's quite incorrect. All of Israel's expansions have been done as the result of defensive wars against enemies that did not recognize the right of Israel to exist in any borders. Furthermore, your charges of "a slow shoah" (a claim that I, and many other Jews, would appreciate you not using, as doing so cheapens the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, regardless of your opinion on the nature of Israel's actions) are quite ridiculous. As I have pointed out, many times before, Israel is quite capable of killing the Palestinians should we so choose. It has chosen not to. For further elaboration I direct you to a previous post of mine. ( http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=45315#post45315 and http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=45383#post45383 ) Furthermore there has never been a state called Palestine. When the territory came under British control it was split into two countries, Jordan and the land that was to make up the Jewish State. However, as the Arab nations failed to recognize the presence of a Jewish nation, however small, amongst them, they, in order to destroy the Jewish presence and divert attention from their own failed regimes, created the entity of the Palestinians, a term that until the establishment of Israel, was used to describe the Jews. The proof of this is evident when you consider the 19-year occupation of Judea and Samaria by Jordan and the Gaza Strip by Egypt, where, in all that time neither nation showed the slightest inclination to allow the Palestinians there to establish there own state, and in fact took violent measures to prevent it.

I have taken each element of your argument and provided clear and legitimate counterarguments in addition to further elaboration. Now, according to the generally accepted standards of debate, I invite you to make your best attempts at doing the same to my post.

Originally posted by yehudi
The doctrine of expansion of israel, Eretz Israel we call it, is considered imperialism by palestinians. Is it not ? Imperialism is too weak a word actually.

Put yourself in their place. Some of them are still carrying the key of their former house around their neck. They'll never return to their homes: Whole villages have been razed by israeli bulldozers.





My feeling is: Israelis are not only attempting to wipe out palestinians from this land, but also the very memory they ever existed.
This is probably the most terrible thing, a "slow Shoah".
And it never stops : little by little new colonies are created, existing colonies are enlarged, olive trees are cut to make way for new roads....

Let me make it clear: the Israelis do not want to kill the palestinians, but they simply intend to "wipe them off" as if they never existed.

.

JustPat
03-18-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by minusthejihad
...just do the research emotion man. ...
I think you ask too much of these Arab apologists. Reading outside their circle of propaganda seems to be beyond their scope of understanding. Some people just can't cope with anything that confronts their prejudice.

Fight the good fight!

MichaelC
03-18-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
I'm quite sorry you feel that way because it's quite incorrect. All of Israel's expansions have been done as the result of defensive wars against enemies that did not recognize the right of Israel to exist in any borders. Furthermore, your charges of "a slow shoah" (a claim that I, and many other Jews, would appreciate you not using, as doing so cheapens the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, regardless of your opinion on the nature of Israel's actions) are quite ridiculous. As I have pointed out, many times before, Israel is quite capable of killing the Palestinians should we so choose. It has chosen not to. For further elaboration I direct you to a previous post of mine. ( http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=45315#post45315 and http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=45383#post45383 ) Furthermore there has never been a state called Palestine. When the territory came under British control it was split into two countries, Jordan and the land that was to make up the Jewish State. However, as the Arab nations failed to recognize the presence of a Jewish nation, however small, amongst them, they, in order to destroy the Jewish presence and divert attention from their own failed regimes, created the entity of the Palestinians, a term that until the establishment of Israel, was used to describe the Jews. The proof of this is evident when you consider the 19-year occupation of Judea and Samaria by Jordan and the Gaza Strip by Egypt, where, in all that time neither nation showed the slightest inclination to allow the Palestinians there to establish there own state, and in fact took violent measures to prevent it.

I have taken each element of your argument and provided clear and legitimate counterarguments in addition to further elaboration. Now, according to the generally accepted standards of debate, I invite you to make your best attempts at doing the same to my post. Excellent post, both concerning a non-Jewish person's use of the very loaded term "shoah" and also for your succint explanation of the "so-called occupation" and pal hyperbole.

By the way, and I hope you won't mind me pointing this out, if you click the reply icon "inside" the post window, your reply will contain the name of the person to whom you are replying. You can then delete whatever portion you wish of the post to which you are replying, in the normal fashion, taking care to leave the HTML codes on either side of the post so that it remains highlighted and contained with a "quote" box. The reply icon within the post window is right above the 'general' reply icon which is ' outside' the post window.

I hope that didn't sound like Greek to you.

Johnny Yuma
03-18-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
I'm quite sorry you feel that way because it's quite incorrect. All of Israel's expansions have been done as the result of defensive wars against enemies that did not recognize the right of Israel to exist in any borders. Furthermore, your charges of "a slow shoah" (a claim that I, and many other Jews, would appreciate you not using, as doing so cheapens the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, regardless of your opinion on the nature of Israel's actions) are quite ridiculous. As I have pointed out, many times before, Israel is quite capable of killing the Palestinians should we so choose. It has chosen not to. For further elaboration I direct you to a previous post of mine. ( http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=45315#post45315 and http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=45383#post45383 ) Furthermore there has never been a state called Palestine. When the territory came under British control it was split into two countries, Jordan and the land that was to make up the Jewish State. However, as the Arab nations failed to recognize the presence of a Jewish nation, however small, amongst them, they, in order to destroy the Jewish presence and divert attention from their own failed regimes, created the entity of the Palestinians, a term that until the establishment of Israel, was used to describe the Jews. The proof of this is evident when you consider the 19-year occupation of Judea and Samaria by Jordan and the Gaza Strip by Egypt, where, in all that time neither nation showed the slightest inclination to allow the Palestinians there to establish there own state, and in fact took violent measures to prevent it.

I have taken each element of your argument and provided clear and legitimate counterarguments in addition to further elaboration. Now, according to the generally accepted standards of debate, I invite you to make your best attempts at doing the same to my post.

Bravo, sir! Bravo! I salute you.


Of couse, his attempt will be circular. A reductio ad absurdum is most certainly beyond him.

LionOfLoyalty
03-18-2003, 05:02 PM
Your compliments are very much appreciated gentlemen.

Also, while this may be a bit off topic, Japan has just announced that they back the upcoming Iraq war, so it appears we have a coalition. Wars have been built on less.

MichaelC
03-18-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Your compliments are very much appreciated gentlemen.

Also, while this may be a bit off topic, Japan has just announced that they back the upcoming Iraq war, so it appears we have a coalition. Wars have been built on less. Ah, ya beat me here with that news item. I just saw it on cable news.

andak01
03-19-2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Lowell
Hello NewsGuy, might I contribute my thoughts? Thanks. I think that the goal of removing Saddam is to show other Arab states such as Saudi Arabia that any Arab government can be removed, and any can be replaced.

I'm actually looking forward to doing just that, at the ballot box next election.

yehudi
03-19-2003, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty

your charges of "a slow shoah" (a claim that I, and many other Jews, would appreciate you not using, as doing so cheapens the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, regardless of your opinion on the nature of Israel's actions) are quite ridiculous.
I understand this, hence the quotes

Anyway I am concerned with this as well and maybe more than you.


But I am trying to explain what the palestinians are feeling and living everyday. I do not think this is ridiculous, because plenty of them would recognize the expression.



How could jews turn into "crueller and crueller" persecutors after all they went through ? (rectify "some jews": not all jews are sionist of the extreme kind)

MichaelC
03-19-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by yehudi
I understand this, hence the quotes

Anyway I am concerned with this as well and maybe more than you.


But I am trying to explain what the palestinians are feeling and living everyday. I do not think this is ridiculous, because plenty of them would recognize the expression.



How could jews turn into "crueller and crueller" persecutors after all they went through ? (rectify "some jews": not all jews are sionist of the extreme kind) Nobody on the face of the earth, NOBODY , can match the savage barbarity and mindless ignorance of the pals as they boldly attack women and children and babies held in the arms of parents.

You display your own ignorance and barbarism in totally ignoring such behaviour as you cast aspersions on those thus attacked.

minusthejihad
03-19-2003, 10:06 AM
Yehudi?

This is the 4th time I'm asking you, please don't be coy:

Are you a Jew? If not, then your Username here is inflamatory and should be changed.

yehudi
03-19-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by MichaelC
Nobody on the face of the earth, can match the savage barbarity and mindless ignorance of the pals as they boldly attack women and children and babies held in the arms of parents.
Who do you think turned them into human bombs ? Maybe Israel shouldn't put them into a situation where they are so easily lead to believe they have no better future than to blow themselves up killing innocents.

Why not recognize Israeli strategy turned palestine into a human-bomb factory ?




Originally posted by MichaelC
You display your own ignorance and barbarism No personal attacks please (this one is mild but still) => you're on my ignore list, sorry :(

JustPat
03-19-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by yehudi
Who do you think turned them into human bombs ? Maybe Israel shouldn't put them into a situation where they are so easily lead to believe they have no better future than to blow themselves up killing innocents. Why not recognize Israeli strategy turned palestine into a human-bomb factory ?
To hold such a view is to completely ignore history. I think this whole upside down view to the Palestinian issue is what has kept Israel from being able to solve the problem. If this were any other country we would not have interfered when they sought to arrest, try, and convict these moron bombers. Had Israel been allowed to pursue its plan, there would have been no Arafat to stir the pot. "Peace through strength," as Reagan said. May Israel be given free sway to deal with its problems with the kind of strength that will bring deterence.

minusthejihad
03-19-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by yehudi
Who do you think turned them into human bombs ? Maybe Israel shouldn't put them into a situation where they are so easily lead to believe they have no better future than to blow themselves up killing innocents.

Why not recognize Israeli strategy turned palestine into a human-bomb factory ?

No personal attacks please (this one is mild but still) => you're on my ignore list, sorry :(

Your first two paragraphs show that you are a victim of the "Big Lie" and that reasoning with you beyond this point is futile. Of course, you also don't answer my question if you are a Jew or not.

These 2 points make it easy for me to agree with your last paragraph. You will now be on my ignore list as well. And you'll notice, with stupid, faulty comments like the one above, you'll end up ignoring everyone in here except Takeo, Andak, and Cblanc if he's still around. Nice company! Enjoy. (Actually Andak at least makes decent posts and backs up his claims) Care to back up yours, the one above, but don't answer until you answer whether you are a Jew or not.

yehudi
03-19-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by JustPat
To hold such a view is to completely ignore history. I think this whole upside down view to the Palestinian issue
I see what you mean, but I do not agree.
Causality is no one way, there is not one side responsible for this.

There is a circle of escalation and retaliations. Breaking this circle is extremely hard and retaliating is so easy and logical.

Personnally I think the palestinians do not have the means to break this circle of hate. They have lost nearly everything, even their pride and self-respect.

Israelis are in a situation of power. There are strong enough to do something and "break the circle" (although it would be extremly hard) but they simply do not want to. The Israeli political system makes peace impossible as well.


.

Am Yisrael
03-19-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by yehudi
[B]I see what you mean, but I do not agree.
Causality is no one way, there is not one side responsible for this.
But one side can hold more of the blame then the other right? Listen Palestinians are led to believe that they have no choice but to fight. The truth is, if they werent led to believe this then there would be peace. As far as im concerned they declared war on Israel. When they call off the Intifada THEN there might be a chance for peace.



There is a circle of escalation and retaliations. Breaking this circle is extremely hard and retaliating is so easy and logical.
Well when they are ready for peace we are ready. Actually that is false: We are always ready for peace. Peace can only be achieved by both sides wanting peace. At the moment Palestinians have shown that they would prefer to fight then be peacefull.


Personnally I think the palestinians do not have the means to break this circle of hate.
BS. All they have to do is stop terrorist attacks.


They have lost nearly everything, even their pride and self-respect.
How many Palestinians have you met? As far as I know they are one of the most nationalistic "people" I have met. They love having a Palestinian identity. If anything they have too much pride to be good for them. You are talking nonsense.


Israelis are in a situation of power. There are strong enough to do something and "break the circle" (although it would be extremly hard) but they simply do not want to. The Israeli political system makes peace impossible as well.
Well mr. clever clogs seeing as you have forgot attempts over the last 20 years for peace, and seeing as you ignore mr Sharon (yes Sharon that war mongerer!) speaches calling for peace and not by expulsion or whatever have you, but giving them a homeland, then I have to say that you are one hellava bat :D .

minusthejihad
03-19-2003, 12:08 PM
Still no anser from Yehudi?

Jew or not? (5th time) What are you scared of? If you don't answer this time, I'll assume you are not.

Yehudi means Jew in Arabic by the way, FYI

MGB8
03-19-2003, 12:09 PM
Ah yes, the implicit racism of thinking that Pal Arabs are children, unable to make adult decisions like "breaking the cycle".

Bottom line - the majority of Pal Arabs WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. They may be ammenable to a lesser goal, for now, but their true desire is the annhialation of the Jewish state.

That's been shown over and over and over...in polls, in the popularity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al-aqsa. In how Arab leaders act if they want more popularity- by being MORE against Israel's existence, not less.

The cycle could be ended immediately by the Pal Arab people. They denounce violent resistence. Turn over their weapons and the leaders of terrorist groups. Have new leadership with commitment to peaceful negotiations and ZERO desires for the destruction of Israel lead them, with braod support. Then, do as they ask Israel to do - rely on the West for their "security." Let in peacekeepers and American anti-terrorism forces.

The day that happens, the cycle ends right there.

IT IS THE ARABS who are trying to change the status quo here! THEY are the ones doing the attacking. Sure, Israel is now going in and hunting down the Terrorist leaders and infrastructure - bringing the battlefield to them, so to speak, but that is not because Israel wants to destroy the Arabs. It is because they want to destroy the terrorists. That is exactly the opposite of the Arab goals - they want to kill Jews.



Originally posted by yehudi
I see what you mean, but I do not agree.
Causality is no one way, there is not one side responsible for this.

There is a circle of escalation and retaliations. Breaking this circle is extremely hard and retaliating is so easy and logical.

Personnally I think the palestinians do not have the means to break this circle of hate. They have lost nearly everything, even their pride and self-respect.

Israelis are in a situation of power. There are strong enough to do something and "break the circle" (although it would be extremly hard) but they simply do not want to. The Israeli political system makes peace impossible as well.


.

MichaelC
03-19-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by minusthejihad
Your first two paragraphs show that you are a victim of the "Big Lie" and that reasoning with you beyond this point is futile. Of course, you also don't answer my question if you are a Jew or not.

These 2 points make it easy for me to agree with your last paragraph. You will now be on my ignore list as well. And you'll notice, with stupid, faulty comments like the one above, you'll end up ignoring everyone in here except Takeo, Andak, and Cblanc if he's still around. Nice company! Enjoy. (Actually Andak at least makes decent posts and backs up his claims) Care to back up yours, the one above, but don't answer until you answer whether you are a Jew or not. Hey MTJ, this person is too lightweight to take the heat. He/she obviously has you on ignore also. Isn't it interesting how the cowardly who cannot defend the sewage that comes out of their mouths use the "ignore function" as a pretense for not being able to come up with satisfactory responses.

Living as we do in a society which honors free speech, the choice of blocking the posts of those in the conversation who take strong exception to your views indicates the urge of the blocker to "control" others. People like this should never be in any sort of managerial position.

It makes me wonder why the "post blockers" would come to this board in the first place. To come to a board in which heated exchanges on crucial topics take place and then to limit yourself only to those who kiss your butt is self defeating.

I suspect from the tact taken by the person with the offensive screen name (I do not for a moment believe that one is Jewish) that we are dealing with a pubescent girl from Rachel Corrie's outfit.

JustPat
03-19-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by yehudi I see what you mean, but I do not agree.
Causality is no one way, there is not one side responsible for this.

There is a circle of escalation and retaliations. Breaking this circle is extremely hard and retaliating is so easy and logical.
This cannot be a tit-for-tat vengeful action. In order for deterence to work there must be an intimidation factor that causes the weaker party to feel that the price is too high to continue violence. There must be an understanding that there will be no restraint in using the resources available. The Palestinians are definetely the underdog. They have less resources, less skilled soldiers, and a void of true moral leadership. Unfortunately, the leadership of the PA (PLO) is not concerned with the overall good of the Palestinian people. They willingly sacrifice their young "for the cause." They do not tell their people that "the cause" is their chairman's personal interests. When an olive branch has been offered the PLO has turned it into an arrow and shot it into the heart of the peace process. The circle can end, but it will take an act of will on the part of those involved. Without mutual agreement either Israel will have to pour its wrath on the PA, Hamas, and the like or the Palesinians will have to lay down their bombs and come to the table of peace.


Originally posted by yehudi Personnally I think the palestinians do not have the means to break this circle of hate. They have lost nearly everything, even their pride and self-respect.
Actually, they do. Asa matter of fact, I believe that they truly hold the place of power here. Literally, the PA could begin the process of lasting peace by ending all violence and using severe punishment on anyone of their own who insist on continuing such behavior. Stepping from the past into the present is going to be difficult for the PA, but it can be done. We will see if the new PM is able to provide such leadership.


Originally posted by yehudi Israelis are in a situation of power. There are strong enough to do something and "break the circle" (although it would be extremly hard) but they simply do not want to. The Israeli political system makes peace impossible as well.
I find this difficult to even begin to agree with in principle. If the Israeli Government backs off it is seen and weak and the terrorist attacks proliferate. If they continue to moderate their response to please the global community they merely delay any hope for a solution and continue the process of sacrificing innocent lives on both sides. Unless they respond with the resolve and seriousness of a party at war, they cannot break the cycle. If they do respond as a party at war, then they will likely be in a much larger war than they want ... and own half of the ME. ;)

minusthejihad
03-19-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by MichaelC
Hey MTJ, this person is too lightweight to take the heat. He/she obviously has you on ignore also. Isn't it interesting how the cowardly who cannot defend the sewage that comes out of their mouths use the "ignore function" as a pretense for not being able to come up with satisfactory responses.

Living as we do in a society which honors free speech, the choice of blocking the posts of those in the conversation who take strong exception to your views indicates the urge of the blocker to "control" others. People like this should never be in any sort of managerial position.

It makes me wonder why the "post blockers" would come to this board in the first place. To come to a board in which heated exchanges on crucial topics take place and then to limit yourself only to those who kiss your butt is self defeating.

I suspect from the tact taken by the person with the offensive screen name (I do not for a moment believe that one is Jewish) that we are dealing with a pubescent girl from Rachel Corrie's outfit.

Thanks for backing my assertion!

LionOfLoyalty
03-19-2003, 01:32 PM
Ah, but my friend, you are quite sadly misinformed as a result of the Big Lie that is so commonly believed today, because in fact the truth is that terrorism preceded the "occupation". As the following link will show, with the irrefutable evidence of dates, names and photos, the people who call themselves "palestinians" have been launching guerrilla attacks on Israelis long before the so-called "occupation". ( http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ldc0 ) And how can you possibly claim that these "palestinians" are fighting for only Judea, Samaria and Gaza when they were fighting Israel long before Israeli troops ever stepped foot on these territories?

By the way, I must remind you that you have not taken the time to provide an adequate rebuttal of my previous post. With respect, unless one takes the time to adequately take apart each element of your opponents response and provide an adequate and complete answer to each element a full and complete exchange of views cannot occur.

Furthermore, on that note, I urge you not to place any member of this forum on an "ignore list", seeing as, while I dislike the rhetoric of personal attacks as much as you do, it is essential to keep an open mind, and avoid censoring anyone's views. Should the time come when you, or anyone else who holds similar views to yours, provide me with adequate evidence and reasoning sufficient to convince me that I am in the wrong, I will concede my points, and I honestly hope that you will do the same when I provide you with such evidence. After all, is not the true purpose of our excellent form of mental joust known as debate to bring the carrier of the enemy banner to lay down his burden and come to the ranks of your perspective? (Excuse the elaborate nature of my previous comment, I tend to be overpoetic at times) But to be concise, I urge you to take the time to view each member of this forum's opinions, as I do, even with those who disagree with me, and, unlike you, fail to conduct their conversations with the same respect.
,LionOfLoyalty

P.S: Seeing as you may have him on your ignore list and not have heard him, I feel obligated to repeat minusthejihad's question and ask you if you are Jewish or not, seeing as your screenname is the hebrew word for Jew.

Originally posted by yehudi
Who do you think turned them into human bombs ? Maybe Israel shouldn't put them into a situation where they are so easily lead to believe they have no better future than to blow themselves up killing innocents.

Why not recognize Israeli strategy turned palestine into a human-bomb factory ?



No personal attacks please (this one is mild but still) => you're on my ignore list, sorry :(

yehudi
03-19-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by MGB8
Ah yes, the implicit racism of thinking that Pal Arabs are children, unable to make adult decisions like "breaking the cycle".

You are right, this is what I think, and I do not think that makes me a racist. But you are striking where "it hurts" actually...

I would say mosts of the effort against palestinians have been directed toward suppressing their 'elite'. And I even believe that israelis governments mounted operations to weaken Arafat... by sponsoring Hamas.

So I still think the palestinians are in a situation of considerable weakness and not in a position for any kind of peace.

When I read "peace with palestinians" here, it means "break palestinians" nothing else (at best, peace means 'disapear please').



Originally posted by MGB8
Bottom line - the majority of Pal Arabs WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. They may be ammenable to a lesser goal, for now
I hope they may.
Once again no denying you are right there.

I think the palestinians feel Israel is an aggressor invading their land. As a result they want the Israelis out. I'm not blaming them for this.

And the worst is to come : I am not far from agreeing. It is pretty hard for me to see 'after all this time' what good has come from the creation of Israel. I mean balancing good versus bad things is really not in favor of Israel.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of "destructing Israel". Not at all actually. For many reasons (and you can guess most of them). Believe or not, but when I speak with arabs I turn out an Israel advocate.
There is no need for me to take this role on this forum, actually ;)


For sure I would like Israel to change quite a bit. First thing would be to recognize wrongdoings and seek forgiveness from OT and expelled palestinians. To try to compensate and repair the harm that was done too.




Originally posted by MGB8
IT IS THE ARABS (..) THEY are the ones doing the attacking. I do no believe this unilateral statement. I believe that for extremist zionists, terrorists are a blessing. I believe that when the twin towers collapsed, some were even secretly happy.

(I believe there are such extremists on this very forum btw)

yehudi
03-19-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
my friend, you are quite sadly misinformed
Not so much I think. I do not find all my information on this site actually :p
Tks for the "friend" anyway.


Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Furthermore, on that note, I urge you not to place any member of this forum on an "ignore list"
In the real world there is no "placing anyone on an ignore list" indeed.

But on this forum I prefer to concentrate one people I can share values with. Otherwise I'm not giving attention properly (eg I'm not answering JustPat, not even answering all you ask, Lion).

When I cannot give enough attention to those who are "worth it", why should I ignore them and waste time with what we call "dialogs for the deaf" (dialogues de sourds).



Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Seeing as you may have him on your ignore list and not have heard him, I feel obligated to repeat minusthejihad's question and ask you if you are Jewish or not, seeing as your screenname is the hebrew word for Jew.
Since you are asking I have to answer. (I confess I saw the second question of minus with the 'click here' thing and I mischievously choose not to answer).

A reasonable answer would take a while though, and my answer would look more like a percentage.... anyway
- If I'm a jew I'm put in the "self-hate" box.
- If not, I'm in the "terrorist" box.
So I'm not in a hurry to get classified: at least while you are "looking for the box" I retain some freedom.

Why do we not have an thread were people fully introduce themselves, and only after are allowed to post ? I am certainly willing to introduce myself and know you better as well.
As long as I'm considered as an individual and not a as Jew/Non-Jew binary digit.





Another last thing. The war is now imminent and I prefer to remain silent at least for a while (say in respect for the many victims). I feel talking is actually no use anymore.

I spent quite a lot of time with you on this forum (about a month and a half) and I did learn some things - so thank you -
.

minusthejihad
03-19-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by yehudi
Since you are asking I have to answer. (I confess I saw the second question of minus with the 'click here' thing and I mischievously choose not to answer).

A reasonable answer would take a while though, and my answer would look more like a percentage.... anyway
- If I'm a jew I'm put in the "self-hate" box.
- If not, I'm in the "terrorist" box.
So I'm not in a hurry to get classified: at least while you are "looking for the box" I retain some freedom.


So basically you would rather not identify yourself, nor stand up for your beliefs whatever they are, after identifying yourself. No, you'd actually rather use a Username that blatantly says "Jew" in Arabic and then claim neutrality and hope that you can cast your aspersions or judgement on a situation you claim to or not to be involved in.

Hmmm. Did you say you were from France?

Johnny Yuma
03-19-2003, 04:04 PM
Why did the masochist keep coming back?

Beats me?

minusthejihad
03-19-2003, 04:10 PM
NO. Sorry. I won't let you take the Weasel's Defense and plead the 5th on this one.

Your Username says "Jew" in Arabic, yet you won't say if you are either way.

So basically you want to remain anonymous while taking an anti-Israeli stance, but under the guise and name "Jew", so you can then send out a message to visitors of the Forum who haven't deduced your agenda, that a "Jew" says these bad things against his natural homeland.

This is synonomous with me logging in as:

- Arab and saying "Islam is not a religion of peace, we love violence"

- Blackguy and saying "You white folk are right, we are lazy"

- or our famous I am David and talking the same trash.

I don't know, but is Acute Arrogance Without Consequences taught in French schools, or is it something you pick up naturally?

minusthejihad
03-19-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Why did the masochist keep coming back?

Beats me?

That's tyte! I gotta use that one.

Johnny Yuma
03-19-2003, 04:54 PM
Guys. I've got to tell you. I've been giving it some serious thought and..... Yehudi has a few good points.

I tend to agree with these statements.


There is a circle of escalation and retaliations. Breaking this circle is extremely hard and retaliating is so easy and logical.

Personnally I think the palestinians do not have the means to break this circle of hate. They have lost nearly everything, even their pride and self-respect

.... and these....


I would say mosts of the effort against palestinians have been directed toward suppressing their 'elite'.

So I still think the palestinians are in a situation of considerable weakness and not in a position for any kind of peace.


... and these....



- If I'm a jew I'm put in the "self-hate" box.
- If not, I'm in the "terrorist" box.
So I'm not in a hurry to get classified: at least while you are "looking for the box" I retain some freedom.

... and I'm a little "iffy" on this one but it is more likely to be closer to the truth, than not...


Israelis are in a situation of power. There are strong enough to do something and "break the circle" (although it would be extremly hard) but they simply do not want to. The Israeli political system makes peace impossible as well.

See Yehudi.... I'm not as unapproachable as you may have thought. I'm only slightly hearing impaired. I can hear you, now.

JustPat
03-19-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by yehudi I'm not answering JustPat
Now there's a real shame. I am sorry if I have offended you, there's lots of that to go around. I personnally cannot afford to put anyone on my "ignore list." Without dialogue there is no forward progress. I rarely agree with takeo, but I read his posts. Balaam listened to a donkey, it saved his life, I dare not ignore those who I feel to be obviously wrong. I hope you will adopt the same approach.

MichaelC
03-19-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by JustPat
Now there's a real shame. I am sorry if I have offended you, there's lots of that to go around. I personnally cannot afford to put anyone on my "ignore list." Without dialogue there is no forward progress. I rarely agree with takeo, but I read his posts. Balaam listened to a donkey, it saved his life, I dare not ignore those who I feel to be obviously wrong. I hope you will adopt the same approach. I quite agree with this perspective. There have been some true scumbags posting at this forum who have not been banned by the moderators but have been banned by weak minded readers with ultra thin skin, using the "Ignore" function on their control page.

If one listens only to what they "want" to hear, they will have cut off the interplay and exchange of information by virtue of which comprehensive knowledge is attained.

But of course, I'm preaching to the choir here. The others have "banned" me lest my words offend their sensitive little hearts.

Johnny Yuma
03-20-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by MichaelC
I quite agree with this perspective. There have been some true scumbags posting at this forum who have not been banned by the moderators but have been banned by weak minded readers with ultra thin skin, using the "Ignore" function on their control page.

If one listens only to what they "want" to hear, they will have cut off the interplay and exchange of information by virtue of which comprehensive knowledge is attained.

But of course, I'm preaching to the choir here. The others have "banned" me lest my words offend their sensitive little hearts.

Never mind. Changed my tune, again.

Johnny Yuma
03-20-2003, 04:38 PM
"One day, a real rain is gonna come and wash all the trash off the sidewalks. Thank G_d for the rain that washes the scum off the streets.

Joe Strummer; The Clash

The:

7th Calvary
3rd Mechanized Infantry Division
101st Airborne Division
82nd Airborne Division
1st Marine Expeditionary Force
3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines
and on, and on, and on......

We're coming.......

JustPat
03-20-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
The:

7th Calvary
3rd Mechanized Infantry Division
101st Airborne Division
82nd Airborne Division
1st Marine Expeditionary Force
3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines
and on, and on, and on......

We're coming.......
Let it rain, let it pour.

LionOfLoyalty
03-20-2003, 07:30 PM
Gentlemen, here's to a quick war! And it looks like we may get our wish without having to resort to the "shock and awe" tactic, of which would be rather expensive in both property and lives, and while perhaps acceptable should no other option present itself, not preferable. It appears there is already talk of an Iraqi surrender!

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_US_MILITARY?SITE=NJBRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Northlander
03-21-2003, 04:31 AM
I know what could be gained for the war. Since its very costly for the american taxpayers you could use this war as an excuse not to pay as much money to the thirld world countries.

For example you can refuse to take part in the effort to ship cheap medicine with WTO to the poorer countries in the world.
I mean, other countries can afford it so most people will probably demand that USA take part as well.

If the expenses of war is not enough of an excuse you can always send a few billions to the lousy economy of Israel so that they themselves can afford to build an even bigger army and oppress the palestinians even more. This way you will have no money left and no one will expect you to take part in any humanitarian aid.

Mediocrates
03-21-2003, 05:44 AM
try to at least pretend to make sense sometimes - or if you can't go back and delete those posts.

Northlander
03-21-2003, 07:08 AM
Im talking about the huge sum of money from the USA to Israel to bail out their lousy economy and sponsor the occupation of Palestine.

Im talking about the huge sum of money spent on the Iraq war.

Im talking about the refusal from USA to help WTO export cheap medicin to the developing countries with the excuse that it costs to much.

Get it?

The topic is about what is to be gained from the war and I thought that maybe now you could use all your money on this war and other military things and then its easier to refuse to take part in the humanitarian proposals like the one WTO came up with, because you will have no money. Its a good thing, is it not?

Its well used money in the eyes of the american taxpayers, is it not?

JustPat
03-21-2003, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Im talking about the huge sum of money from the USA to Israel to bail out their lousy economy and sponsor the occupation of Palestine.

Im talking about the huge sum of money spent on the Iraq war.

Im talking about the refusal from USA to help WTO export cheap medicin to the developing countries with the excuse that it costs to much.

Get it?

The topic is about what is to be gained from the war and I thought that maybe now you could use all your money on this war and other military things and then its easier to refuse to take part in the humanitarian proposals like the one WTO came up with, because you will have no money. Its a good thing, is it not?

Its well used money in the eyes of the american taxpayers, is it not?
Well, here is Sweden's chance to shine! Since the bloddy Americans are looking for an out, you can step up and be the savior of the world with your commitment to aid. Care to compare budgets and see who really gives more to humnitarian projects? Care to compare private sector donations and see whose country puts up more for humanitarian aid? Stop spouting your bigotry and start offering real content, please.

MichaelC
03-21-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Im talking about the huge sum of money from the USA to Israel to bail out their lousy economy and sponsor the occupation of Palestine.

Im talking about the huge sum of money spent on the Iraq war.

Im talking about the refusal from USA to help WTO export cheap medicin to the developing countries with the excuse that it costs to much.

Get it?

The topic is about what is to be gained from the war and I thought that maybe now you could use all your money on this war and other military things and then its easier to refuse to take part in the humanitarian proposals like the one WTO came up with, because you will have no money. Its a good thing, is it not?

Its well used money in the eyes of the american taxpayers, is it not? I have always considered your posts shallow and severely uninformed. They now seem to be descending into pathetic whimpering and whining with nothing to offer.

Within the confines of your own narrow mind, you may conceive any image of the world you wish, and even spout whatever nonsensical view you have to whoever is within range.

It has little actual resemblance to the real world.

Mediocrates
03-21-2003, 08:06 AM
It is becoming more apparent now that one of the critical assumptions of mass Iraqi deaths may turn out to be one of the wrongest ones yet. Certainly any number of horrible things may happen but allied forces appear to have operational control over more than a third of the country and key economic assets after 2 days. This could all end with everyone dressed in the their MOPP suits and fighting in close quarters but I tend to think that the forces that have already trained, organized and equipped for urban warfare will prevail over the people who didn't. Last stands are so...Stalingrad. My wish and my expectation is that this war will end sooner than a Junker can say 'un bagette SVP'.

minusthejihad
03-21-2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Im talking about the huge sum of money from the USA to Israel to bail out their lousy economy and sponsor the occupation of Palestine.

Im talking about the huge sum of money spent on the Iraq war.

Im talking about the refusal from USA to help WTO export cheap medicin to the developing countries with the excuse that it costs to much.

Get it?

The topic is about what is to be gained from the war and I thought that maybe now you could use all your money on this war and other military things and then its easier to refuse to take part in the humanitarian proposals like the one WTO came up with, because you will have no money. Its a good thing, is it not?

Its well used money in the eyes of the american taxpayers, is it not?

Numbers and sources please. Not delusions or hopes. Otherwise, shut up, because you're really making yourself look like even a worse debater, and believe me, that's hard to do.

Johnny Yuma
03-21-2003, 08:33 AM
March 21, 2003
F.B.I. Seeks Al Qaeda Suspect in U.S.
By PHILIP SHENON and ERIC LICHTBLAU


WASHINGTON, March 20 — Federal law enforcement officials warned today about new domestic terrorism threats, including an "imminent threat" that might be posed by a suspected Al Qaeda member sought by the F.B.I. The officials also said they were worried about continuing intelligence reports that suggested terrorist attacks linked to the Iraq invasion.

The officials said that National Guard members were sent on Tuesday to a large nuclear power plant in Arizona after intelligence reports suggested that Al Qaeda or its sympathizers might be planning to attack it. The officials said a foreign spy agency had provided information about a threat to the plant, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Tonopah, 50 miles west of Phoenix.

The three-reactor site is classified as the largest nuclear power plant in the United States. The officials would not say which agency had supplied the information. Although he offered few details, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said there had been a "very specific piece of threat information" to suggest that the plant was in danger.

Law enforcement officials said there was not necessarily any connection between that threat and an announcement today by the F.B.I. that it was searching for the suspect from Al Qaeda, Adnan G. el-Shukrijumah, 27, who was born in Saudi Arabia. Residents of Miramar, Fla., said a man who appeared to be Mr. Shukrijumah was living there as recently as last weekend.

The F.B.I. announced the search as it said it was preparing to interview thousands of Iraqi-born residents of the United States in the next several weeks, to develop leads on possible terror attacks.

Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said Mr. Shukrijumah had been identified as a potential terrorist from Al Qaeda by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the senior terrorist leader who was captured this month in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and has been intensively questioned.

The officials said suspicions about Mr. Shukrijumah and his intentions had grown with the discovery that he had flight training in the United States about the same time as several Sept. 11 hijackers, that he had recently traveled on a passport issued by Guyana and that he had used a variety of aliases.

The bulletin said Mr. Shukrijumah might try to cross American borders with a Saudi, Canadian or Trinidadian passport. The bulletin included photographs of the suspect, including one from a Florida driver's license issued in February 2001.

Neighbors in Miramar, south of Fort Lauderdale, said a man who identified himself as Mr. Shukrijumah had lived and had been seen there as recently as last weekend. Orville Campbell, 26, a commercial artist who lives in a nearby apartment complex, said he saw Mr. Shukrijumah barbecuing at 1 a.m. on Sunday with other people.

A senior Bush administration official said the government had evidence to suggest that Mr. Shukrijumah had attended the Airman Flight School in Norman, Okla., one of two schools that Zacarias Moussaoui attended in 2001. Mr. Moussaoui, a Frenchmen, is awaiting trial in Virginia on charges that he conspired with the Sept. 11 hijackers.

But the director of operations at the school, Dale Davis, said a search of its records found no student with any of the six names that Mr. Shukrijumah is believed to have used. In a telephone interview, Mr. Davis said the F.B.I. had not been in contact with the school for months and, to his knowledge, had never asked the school about Mr. Shukrijumah.

The reports of threats to the power plant and the search for Mr. Shukrijumah circulated as law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said they were continuing to see new intelligence to suggest that Al Qaeda, Iraqi intelligence agencies and others would try to carry out terrorist attacks timed to an invasion of Iraq.

The F.B.I. said it was preparing to interview 11,000 Iraqi-born Americans and immigrants in the next few weeks for information that they may have about threats. The program is expected to involve almost 5,000 agents. F.B.I. officials said that the interviews, which they described as voluntary, began months ago but were stepped up this week.

"It's an accelerated process," an official said. "The intensity has picked up. Agents were knocking on doors and saying, `Hey, is there anything you know that could be helpful as we are waging war against your former country?' "

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ibrahim Hooper, said the stepped-up Iraqi interviews and the F.B.I.'s expanded powers to detain illegal immigrants were another effort to single out unfairly Arabs and Arab-Americans in the United States.


...we've got our eye out for this guy...

LionOfLoyalty
03-21-2003, 08:42 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. Northlander, should you wish to make a realistic contribution to this group then you must back up your statements with facts. Difference of opinion is tolerable under the concepts of democracy and free debate (a concept that has flourished in Israel and alien to must of the Arab World, I might remind you) however this must be backed up with substance and be more than just rhetoric.1


Originally posted by minusthejihad
Numbers and sources please. Not delusions or hopes. Otherwise, shut up, because you're really making yourself look like even a worse debater, and believe me, that's hard to do.

Johnny Yuma
03-21-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Im talking about the huge sum of money from the USA to Israel to bail out their lousy economy and sponsor the occupation of Palestine.

Im talking about the huge sum of money spent on the Iraq war.

Im talking about the refusal from USA to help WTO export cheap medicin to the developing countries with the excuse that it costs to much.

Get it?

The topic is about what is to be gained from the war and I thought that maybe now you could use all your money on this war and other military things and then its easier to refuse to take part in the humanitarian proposals like the one WTO came up with, because you will have no money. Its a good thing, is it not?

Its well used money in the eyes of the american taxpayers, is it not?


Listen Pal.... Just where in the heck do you think all that money comes from???

It doesn't come from the US government. Nuh Uh! The US government doesn't create any wealth whatsoever. Every last penny the government spends comes directly out of the pockets of the citizens of this country. In other words, it's money we might otherwise be spending ourselves; the individuals.

Why should I, as a hard working American, be responsible for what goes on in the rest of the world? Why should I support some slob that knows he's going to get a hand-out from me, while he sits on his butt not doing anything himself? Why is it up disproportionately up to me to support him? Why isn't it up to you?

Don't you work? Don't you have an income? Why don't you quit complaining about why we don't send more money and get off your own wallet and match what we send?

We're less than 5% of the population of the world, but you guys seem to think that it's up to us to foot the damn bills. So if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, you need to shut the hell up!

Ralph63
03-21-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Why should I, as a hard working American, be responsible for what goes on in the rest of the world?

The rest of the world currently lends US about 2 extra billion dollars each and every day. At this moment Bush decides to simultaneously cut national incomes by reducing taxes and also start an rogue-state warcrusade, basically on credit. Good timing? Also US citizens have consumed on credit for many years. Sooner or later international banks wants their money back. This decreases the consumption and increases the unemployment.

A snowball starts to roll...

Salim
03-21-2003, 10:55 AM
ANTI-SEMITE!
err, wrong one...
EUROTRASH f+ck off and die!
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-252167-241641,00.html

As I said before, you just have to love them :)

MichaelC
03-21-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Ralph63
The rest of the world currently lends US about 2 extra billion dollars each and every day. At this moment Bush decides to simultaneously cut national incomes by reducing taxes and also start an rogue-state warcrusade, basically on credit. Good timing? Also US citizens have consumed on credit for many years. Sooner or later international banks wants their money back. This decreases the consumption and increases the unemployment.

A snowball starts to roll... Dream on, America hater.

LionOfLoyalty
03-21-2003, 11:10 AM
Actually, it's a quite realistic scenario, if not one that is particularly appealing. It is my hope that the current Bush tax cut does not pass, seeing as if it does, it will make this terrible scenario all the more likely.

Johnny Yuma
03-21-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Ralph63
The rest of the world currently lends US about 2 extra billion dollars each and every day. At this moment Bush decides to simultaneously cut national incomes by reducing taxes and also start an rogue-state warcrusade, basically on credit. Good timing? Also US citizens have consumed on credit for many years. Sooner or later international banks wants their money back. This decreases the consumption and increases the unemployment.

A snowball starts to roll...

Back to your economics lesson....

Let's say for the sake of argument you're right. Two years ago, our budget was a surplus. The world screamed that the dollar was too strong. Now you say we have too much deficit. What do you want this rogue-state to do?

Would you like us to withdraw all our companies from foreign countries, while you stand by and watch all those jobs leave and their currencies plummet?

You see... when that happens, and their currencies fall, they'll still want us to buy those natural resources that our country uses to produce those same manufactured goods, except we'll be able to buy them at a deflated price. Double whammy.

As far as all those European banks wanting their money back, you're dreaming. How do you think they make "their" money? They loan it out and collect interest... So why do you think they'd call in the loans? Is it because of some ideology? If you believe that, you really are naive.

The bankers of this world don't go into meetings and discuss ideology; like religion or politics. They go into meetings with calculators and spreadsheets, to calculate their return on investments.

Do you seriously think they'd screw their way to the bottom, by calling in loans, knowing that the US treasury would simply print more money making what the banks got in return not worth wiping with???

When you mix terms like "rouge-state" and "warcrusade" with "banks", you're showing a complete lack of understanding of the money-grubbing-capitalistic system that is the United States and the bankers of this planet.

But wait a minute... isn't Sweden a welfare state, just like France and Germany?

minusthejihad
03-21-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Back to your economics lesson....

Let's say for the sake of argument you're right. Two years ago, our budget was a surplus. The world screamed that the dollar was too strong. Now you say we have too much deficit. What do you want this rogue-state to do?

Would you like us to withdraw all our companies from foreign countries, while you stand by and watch all those jobs leave and their currencies plummet?

You see... when that happens, and their currencies fall, they'll still want us to buy those natural resources that our country uses to produce those same manufactured goods, except we'll be able to buy them at a deflated price. Double whammy.

As far as all those European banks wanting their money back, you're dreaming. How do you think they make "their" money? They loan it out and collect interest... So why do you think they'd call in the loans? Is it because of some idealogy? If you believe that, you really are naive.

The bankers of this world don't go into meetings and discuss ideology; like religion or politics. They go into meetings with calculators and spreadsheets, to calculate their return on investments.

Do you seriously think they'd screw their way to the bottom, by calling in loans, knowing that the US treasury would simply print more money making what the banks got in return not worth wiping with???

When you mix terms like "rouge-state" and "warcrusade" with "banks", you're showing a complete lack of understanding of the money-grubbing-capitalistic system that is the United States and the bankers of this planet.

But wait a minute... isn't Sweden a welfare state, just like France and Germany?

Word!

MichaelC
03-21-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Back to your economics lesson....

Let's say for the sake of argument you're right. Two years ago, our budget was a surplus. The world screamed that the dollar was too strong. Now you say we have too much deficit. What do you want this rogue-state to do?

Would you like us to withdraw all our companies from foreign countries, while you stand by and watch all those jobs leave and their currencies plummet?

You see... when that happens, and their currencies fall, they'll still want us to buy those natural resources that our country uses to produce those same manufactured goods, except we'll be able to buy them at a deflated price. Double whammy.

As far as all those European banks wanting their money back, you're dreaming. How do you think they make "their" money? They loan it out and collect interest... So why do you think they'd call in the loans? Is it because of some idealogy? If you believe that, you really are naive.

The bankers of this world don't go into meetings and discuss ideology; like religion or politics. They go into meetings with calculators and spreadsheets, to calculate their return on investments.

Do you seriously think they'd screw their way to the bottom, by calling in loans, knowing that the US treasury would simply print more money making what the banks got in return not worth wiping with???

When you mix terms like "rouge-state" and "warcrusade" with "banks", you're showing a complete lack of understanding of the money-grubbing-capitalistic system that is the United States and the bankers of this planet.

But wait a minute... isn't Sweden a welfare state, just like France and Germany? Go Johnny Go!

elke
03-22-2003, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Salim
ANTI-SEMITE!
err, wrong one...
EUROTRASH f+ck off and die!
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-252167-241641,00.html

As I said before, you just have to love them :)

We have an expression in Russian for the types of things you have been posting lately. I will translate it for you:

"Whatever s/he says, it's like s/he farted into a puddle" :rolleyes:

humanitarian
03-22-2003, 04:31 AM
The self-serving tripe that passes for meaningful debate in these forums never ceases to amaze me. Somewhere earlier in this thread, someone posted an erroneous statement to the effect of the European armies being the only occupation forces........ what the hell do you call the Israeli occupation.....benevolent guidance?? Call me a crazy Canuck, but it seems to me that the foreign policy of both the US and Israel (incidentally crafted by rich, white males) is in large part the reason for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. There also appears to be this ridiculous double-standard: retail terrorism is scorned, while wholesale terrorism is lauded. Was not the formation of the state of Israel in large part the result of acts of terrorism? There are some pretty concrete reasons for the disdain with which the majority of the international community regard the racially motivated connivances of both the US government and the Israeli government. Take a long, good look at your own glaring hypocrisy before passing judgement on others.

elke
03-22-2003, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by humanitarian
The self-serving tripe that passes for meaningful debate in these forums never ceases to amaze me. Somewhere earlier in this thread, someone posted an erroneous statement to the effect of the European armies being the only occupation forces........ what the hell do you call the Israeli occupation.....benevolent guidance?? Call me a crazy Canuck, but it seems to me that the foreign policy of both the US and Israel (incidentally crafted by rich, white males) is in large part the reason for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. There also appears to be this ridiculous double-standard: retail terrorism is scorned, while wholesale terrorism is lauded. Was not the formation of the state of Israel in large part the result of acts of terrorism? There are some pretty concrete reasons for the disdain with which the majority of the international community regard the racially motivated connivances of both the US government and the Israeli government. Take a long, good look at your own glaring hypocrisy before passing judgement on others.

Take a long, hard look at the tripe that you have just posted. Israel was crafted by "rich, white males"? That's a hoot! I am sure all those survivors of the Holocaust were "rich" in the DP camps, - as were those fleeing from the MidEast countries, stripped of all they possessed.

"Crazy Canuck?" No, just crazy. There are plenty of those around, not just in Canada. :rolleyes:

Johnny Yuma
03-22-2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by humanitarian
There are some pretty concrete reasons for the disdain with which the majority of the international community regard the racially motivated connivances of both the US government and the Israeli government. Take a long, good look at your own glaring hypocrisy before passing judgement on others.

Hi humanitarian! Thanks for bringing in something other than self-serving tripe.

I'm guessing, when you say connivance, you mean participation or support? Will you tell me what the racially motivated connivances are? I'm a little vague on that issue.

By the way, I went to Vancouver back in '86 for Expo. Beautiful city! Are you from that region or from one of the predominately French speaking regions?

humanitarian
03-22-2003, 06:25 AM
When I said rich, white males, I was referring to the present rather than the past. Take a look at the incomes of the top brass in both the US and Israeli government. One would have to agree that they are at the top of the financial ladder, as opposed to say, lumpen proletariats. Connivance is defined as the act of conniving : knowledge of and active or passive consent to wrongdoing. So, when I say 'racially motivated connivances' I'm referring to what I feel appears to be a very strong desire on the part of domineering caucasians to secure hegemony over what many of them condescendingly refer to as the 'Araboushim.' And this, in my opinion, is a great wrongdoing that only exacerbates the tensions that seem to be mounting in the Middle East.

MichaelC
03-22-2003, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by humanitarian
When I said rich, white males, I was referring to the present rather than the past. Take a look at the incomes of the top brass in both the US and Israeli government. One would have to agree that they are at the top of the financial ladder, as opposed to say, lumpen proletariats. Connivance is defined as the act of conniving : knowledge of and active or passive consent to wrongdoing. So, when I say 'racially motivated connivances' I'm referring to what I feel appears to be a very strong desire on the part of domineering caucasians to secure hegemony over what many of them condescendingly refer to as the 'Araboushim.' And this, in my opinion, is a great wrongdoing that only exacerbates the tensions that seem to be mounting in the Middle East. It is sooooooooooo easy to see you coming! Your posts are loaded with buzzswords and PC lingo. It sounds as if you learned the English language from narrow minded position papers.

Tiny minds must adhere to repetition lest they reveal the paucity of their own individual content.

humanitarian
03-22-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by MichaelC
It is sooooooooooo easy to see you coming! Your posts are loaded with buzzswords and PC lingo. It sounds as if you learned the English language from narrow minded position papers.

Tiny minds must adhere to repetition lest they reveal the paucity of their own individual content.

PC lingo?!! Do you mean Progressive Conservative or politcally correct? Either way, you're way off the mark. Repetitive? In these few short posts, I have not once repeated myself. If however, your tenuous accusations are something you feel that you can substantiate, perhaps you'd care to do just that by quoting snippets of my posts that bare relevance to your absurd claim. What's so small about the content of my statements? You are the one toeing the line and representing the status quo of this forum.
You're right about me learning the English language from narrow minded position papers though. I admire courageous writers like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. How pathetic is that?

MichaelC
03-22-2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by humanitarian
PC lingo?!! Do you mean Progressive Conservative or politcally correct? Either way, you're way off the mark. Repetitive? In these few short posts, I have not once repeated myself. If however, your tenuous accusations are something you feel that you can substantiate, perhaps you'd care to do just that by quoting snippets of my posts that bare relevance to your absurd claim. What's so small about the content of my statements? You are the one toeing the line and representing the status quo of this forum.
You're right about me learning the English language from narrow minded position papers though. I admire courageous writers like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. How pathetic is that? I did not say that you repeated yourself. I said your liberal use of buzzwords and politically correct lingo indicates the parroting of the views of others. Your trite viewpoints are repeated ad nauseam by others of your ilk.

humanitarian
03-22-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by MichaelC
I did not say that you repeated yourself. I said your liberal use of buzzwords and politically correct lingo indicates the parroting of the views of others. Your trite viewpoints are repeated ad nauseam by others of your ilk.

Actually, what you in fact said was 'tiny minds adhere to repetition' which is basically saying that I AM repeating myself. And again, if this is all 'politically correct' as you say, then how is it that it falls well outside of the parameters of acceptable debate? Have you watched CNN lately? You would be hard pressed to find these views expressed in mainstream American media. Obviously, I can't speak for the media in Israel, but I'm willing to wager that it doesn't differ that greatly from American systems of totalitarian indoctrination. Your accusations are riddled with contradictions.

Mediocrates
03-22-2003, 09:38 AM
Last week was Purim. This time next year we'll be able to celebrate Purim in Shushan itself. Moreover in this week's parsha and HafTorah we talk about the destruction of the first temple and the Babylonian exile. How appropriate that Babylon is destroyed this week.