What's to be Gained from the War?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[NewsGuy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=42984#post42984

[Mediocrates]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[LionOfLoyalty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes very low but we should understand that everything in the country is booby trapped with chemical/bio weapons.

[Jako]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by JustPat
Here, Here! :D

Dear JustPat:

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

[MichaelC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The U.S. doesn't even control the oil in Kuwait.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by HaSakin
Dear JustPat:

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

[ibrodsky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 su