Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, the Iraqis keep much better records than they are given credit for. For some reason, sadistic dictators seem to enjoy having records of all the insignificant puny little insects they've successfully stomped, in gruesome detail. They also have kept nice records of their WMD tests. (Oops, I just said WMD--*smacks self in head repeatedly*) Maybe all dictators are obsessive-compulsive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Kinda like I have both spreadsheet and database records of every expenditure in the SE4byCommittee game, including location, cost per month, etc.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If still got one "opinion" on my mind.

I think that the propaganda of the USA is a lot better then the iraqi propaganda, because more people believe it to be true(also people in other countries, opposed to iraqi propaganda, that looks just plain "sad" imo). It is supposed to be freedom of press, but is it??
Thats why i think a lot of people believe in dubya and his "cause"...

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Primitive said
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... but how much time is reasonable Primitive?UN checks over the period of several months is likely required for a good investigation, but does anyone think that the current government of Iraq would have cooperated over a period of months without the ready and apparent threat of force? Was GDubbyaB "unwilling to give this much time", or is it just too flipping expensive to give that much time when a lot of time had already been given i.e. about a decade.

1) Can anyone honestly believe that diplomacy could have worked without threat of force?

2) Does anyone honestly believe that Sadam's regime would disarm through diplomacy alone, given the prior track record?

If so, why does anyone believe 1) or 2)? Give me some reasons that are sound, not just more anti-American rhetoric about international law. I for one am willing to believe that there was another way, but I can not (yet) see any other way from my perspective.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The thing is, there was nowhere near the amount of international pressure on saddam to disarm in the past 10 years. And, there haven't been inspectors inside iraq since the 1991 war. To say that he has been actively defying the UN isn't as accuarte as saying, well, the world has been ignoring the area, besides keeping sanctions in place. Once the focus was brought back upon them, the inspectors had nowhere near theamount of time necessary to evaluate the country.

There is an enormous difference between the *threat* of force and the *use* of such force. I dont really understand your position- most people (I believe) who are against the war are for disarmament through diplomatic means, not as we bomb civilians and pummel their country. So what are you saying, that you support the war as it is currently as the only solution?

I guess my question is solution to what? Disarming him? Or removing him from power? Or freeing the iraqi people? Or preventing "WMD" from falling into the hands of terrorists? Or payback for 9/11? I think another reason I am against the war, and other people, is that there seems to be a dozen reasons that people are using to defend the war itself, and instead of defending one reason, they cite another. The worst reason in my opinion, but the one that is used *most often* here in the US is that the war is to combat terrorism and to directly protect american lives after 9.11.

Problem is that this is the least defensible reason, since the majority of hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and there hasn't been one shred of credible evidence linking saddam to 9/11. Whether he would aid terrorists- he gives money to families of palestinian suicide bombers, that is all the evidence there is. ANd that is israel's problem, not ours (in that israel has its own military and can deal with it by stopping the bombers...I doubt the money is the incentive for palestinians to kill israelies...)

As for wmd- well at this point we dont know. Maybe they'll find it and maybe they wont, but it still doesnt change the fact that the inspectors were not given enough time to determine whether he had any, and what state the program was in. There have been numerous refutations of claims iraq has nuclear weapons.

Iraqi freedom? If you believe that then I'd like to sell you some prime real estate, rightoutside of basra. Real prime location, too. The military has already admitted it'll have to have an occupying force of tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand, and cannot see putting the extremely religious shi'ites back into power, or it would turn iraq into iran. This is what the world sees- the americans as invaders trying to force out saddam to take control of the oil. haliburton already has gotten the contracts to rebuild iraq, before the war is a week old.

Removing him from power is a terrible excuse- we don't like someone ruling a country so we try to kill him? Oh wait, we did support that coup in venezuala, too bad it failed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif So who else should we remove? What about Germany- they don't support us? Why not just overthrow every government we come across we don't like? And why is it america that decides? Cause we have the biggest army. Gee...what ancient power does that make us?

If us americans were at *least* given the respect that blair gives the british, then MAYBE more people would support the war. Blair argues that iraq could be the first step in transforming the whole region, but that isn't what bush argues. Our leaders are still focused on non-existant WMD and 9/11.

[ March 26, 2003, 22:57: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Jimbob:
The amount of time that was reasonable would be the excact amount of time the people conducting the investigation (Blix & Co.) thougth they would need. If GWB was unwilling to give this time, why bother with inspections in the first place ?

1) I have never claimed I was against using "threat of force". Just missusing it.

2) If he have any WMDs (and for the record, I believe he has something (not nukes) stashed away somewere), he probably would have given them up if the pressure was big enough. He would never have dissarmed totaly as that would have been suicide in a country like Iraq.

The trouble is not to find good reasons NOT to go to war, but to find good reasons to go to war. When in doubt, war should be your Last choice.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

"And, there haven't been inspectors inside iraq since the 1991 war."

Err..no. They were kicked out in 98, and I think a few times before that. But they were there.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Totally and completely agree. That is why I am upset, and I think a lot of others in america, at least more left leaning thinkers, believe- that there hasn't been a convincing case to go to war, only the scattershot reasons without much substantive support.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

So they haven't found anything in 8 years of looking.

Why then the assumption they have the wmd?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

It seems to me that if Iraq supports terrorists in Israel it is not a great leap of the imagination to assume that he is quite likely to support them in other countries. Although perhaps not so publicly. So I don't buy that argument that it is a problem just for Isreal.

As far as WMD's are concerened isn't it a fact that although he may not have them he has certainly tried to get them in the Last 10 years?
As far as the weapons inspectors are concerned were they not kicked out about 3 years ago? (not as mentioned in a previous post in 1991)

I think the main problem is that sanctions against Iraq were/are killing 1000's of people. I haven't read all the details on this but as I understand it each side blames the other for this. So how do you end this problem? Maintining the status quo clearly isn't good enough. War is one way. Obviously a crappy solution due to the obvious reasons. But a solution that has the potential to result in a much improved Iraq in a few years. The only other solution I can see would be to lift the sanctions. Thus allowing the cash to start flowing into Iraq. Except do you think this cash will go to help the people or into Saddams pocket and his military. A Saddam with unlimited cash flow is a scary thought.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think there are other reasons but here is one: Because they were kicked out.

[ March 26, 2003, 23:26: Message edited by: DavidG ]