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

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Some1:
Another question. Does the US want a democracy in Iraq? Or just a regime that supports the US better then this one? Does anyone think that the US would allow a democratic regime that doesn't support the US and its politics?

Yes. As long as that opposition doesn't take the form of developing WMD and having ties to terrorist organisations. The US tolerates, has relations with, is even friends with many governments that oppose our policies. Why would a free democratic and peaceful Iraq be any different?

Geoschmo

---

I may have agreed with you here a couple of years ago but at the moment I have my doubts. Its difficult for me to be sure, as I really don't understand what happens in South America as much as I'de like to, but the goings on in Venezuela seem to to have some US involvement.

Askan

[Some1]

Yes. As long as that opposition doesn't take the form of developing WMD and having ties to terrorist organisations. The US tolerates, has relations with, is even friends with many governments that oppose our policies. Why would a free democratic and peaceful Iraq be any different?

A lot IMO. the US has to many interests in the region (Oil for example), to be it not US friendly.

And another thing, a democratic regime is in no way a stable regime. I just can't see with all the goodwill in the world, the US want that.

i take an example: the US:
first we have a regime that wants to destroy nuclear weapons in the world.(and its own weapons)
4 years later we have a regime that cancels the treaty and produces even more WMD.
And this was just an example, every democracy is like that. (not only USA)

And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them?
So, does that mean that only US supporters can have WMD?

And Last, there were no ties proven with terrorist organisations. And its also very objective, US is known to support everyone in their cause, also terrorists... ally to you is terrorist to another.

R.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Some1:
And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them?

R.

The Israeli Nuclear Program was and still is the best keeped secret in the world. What is known was "leaked" to deter the Arabs from launching a conventional or unconventional war against Israel. That's why Israel keep a "triada" defense system (Missiles, planes and subs), to make sure that if one or two of the defense systems are destroyed the rest can still fire back. The way is seen in Israel is that without nukes Israel would have had been overrun by Arabs already, and the jewish population exterminated like the Arabs leaders have promised to their people and as the Arab propaganda machine have been putting in their people minds since the creation of the Jewish State. For Israel nukes are a question of survival.

But the most important argument is that Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, and have never used them.

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Some1:
And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them?
So, does that mean that only US supporters can have WMD?

Well at the end of the day its almost impossible to stop the profileration of WMDs to the governments that really want them.
Its more of a question about domestic politics and international pressure, with international pressure only going so far.
For example, Indonesia could build them if they wanted to. Australia could easily do it, in fact our chief scientist during the 60s was a huge supporter of chemical, bioligical and nuclear weapons (none of which were -ve words back then). We even starting building a reactor capable of making weapons grade fissile material, but after the foundation was layed it was abandonded because of lack of support in the domestic politics of the day (change of government).

Askan

[PsychoTechFreak]

Axis of Evil

Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the 'Axis of Evil', Libya, China and Syria today announced they had formed the 'Axis of Just As Evil', which they said would be 'eviller than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union Address.' Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really silly name.

'Oh, right. They are just as evil, are they? In their dreams!' declared North Korean leader Kim Jongle. 'Everybody knows we're the best at being evil... we're the tops.'

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they had asked if they could join the Axis of Evil.

'They told us it was full,' said Syrian President Basher Assad.

'An Axis can't have more than three countries,' explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. 'This is tradition. In World War II there were Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three.'

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift. Within minutes, France unilaterally surrendered to everybody.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical musical chairs. Rhodesia, Sudan and Serbia said they had formed the 'Axis of Truly Evil'.

Somalia joined with Cuba and Burma in the 'Axis of Occasionally Evil', while South Africa, Indonesia and Russia established the 'Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Bloody Unpleasant'.

With the criteria suddenly expanding and all the desirable clubs filling up, Turkey, El Salvador and Rwanda applied to be called the 'Axis of Countries That Aren't That Bad But Certainly Won't Ever Be Asked To Host the Olympics.'

The European Union announced a twelve-strong 'Axis of Nations That Pretend To Be Quite Nice But In Fact Hate America.'

France, Israel and Belgium formed the 'Axis of Countries Who Won't Complain About The Axis of Evil Because We Have Weapons To Sell Them.'

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

President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Powell sitting over there?"

The barman says, "Yep, that's them."

So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?"

Bush says, "We're planning WW III ".

And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"

Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis this time and one blonde with big tits.

The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?

Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart ***, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!"

[Aloofi]

The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?

Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart ***, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!"

Hehe, this is the funniest joke of the week.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Some1:
And Last, there were no ties proven with terrorist organisations.

Is it not a public Iraqi policy to give money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? Sounds like a ties to me.

[Andrés]

I don't think anyone has insisted this in this thread but since you asked if you post things like "The more you try to convince me Hussein is a demon the more baseless your accusations sound." this sort of implies that you don't think Saddam is a bad guy. Or when you post things like "Any mass destruction Iraq has had was to defend themselves from those who whant to steal the oil that is rightfully theirs." you imply that those 5000 gassed Kurds were evil villains trying to steal Saddams oil.

I still think that most accusations against Saddam are biased and exaggerated. In every war there’s a need to demonize your enemy to legitimate your position.
I’m not saying he’s a good guy, or that I’d like to live under his regime. But no dictator Lasts that long if he doesn’t count with some support from his people.
Kurds were seen as seditious traitors to the country and fighting them was a way to show the loyal Iraqis they were protecting them. How’s that different than bombing Iraqis to “protect” Americans?
Also don’t Americans agree that Kurds have no right to fight for their independence?

[phaet2112]

But palestinians attacking israel doesn't affect us, it affects israelies. With israeli firepower, there is no excuse for us to fight their battles. As usual, if you wanted to target the real criminals who fund terrorist attacks *against the US* then you target the financiers in saudi arabia, not iraq.

[Aloofi]

This from Reuters:

Reuters web page

Tue March 25, 2003 08:22 AM ET

By Luke Baker
NEAR NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces are finding it only takes a handful of guerrillas to unnerve a fighting force. Sometimes, just shadows in the night will do.

"Up, up, up," sentries screamed as they ran through a dusty engineers' camp at dead of night. "We're on 100 percent security."

That meant: everyone to defensive positions at the camp near Najaf in central Iraq -- everyone, rather than the one in four already ordered to stay up all night to watch for danger.

Soldiers who had been slumped over steering wheels, lying on the ground or on top of vehicles -- sleeping, or desperately trying to -- raced to man the artificial earth mounds, up to 15 feet high, that ring the desert camp.

A score of militants armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were prowling the area less than half a mile away, scouts had reported.

Some of the 200 soldiers here have already seen the hit-and-run raids by small militia Groups, some in civilian dress, which have emerged as a key Iraqi tactic in the 6-day-old war.

Danger now looms everywhere, not just in obvious armed formations. Troops are on edge and are taking no chances -- but that brings its own risk. Fear and nerves might wear them down, depriving them of sleep and dulling their responses.

For four hours, from midnight until before dawn, they waited, squinting in the hazy, faint moonlight to detect anything suspicious moving through the sand whipped up by strong winds.

In the end, it was a false alarm. Had someone panicked by calling out the whole camp?

"We have got to be careful and make sure we respond properly to our intelligence, that we don't overreact," Lt. Col. Paul Grosskruger, commander of the 94th Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division, told his officers.

ANYTHING MOVING IS A THREAT

Scouts no longer look for obvious armed units but for a threat from any quarter, and anything that moves in the desert scrub and the shabby irrigated fields is potentially hostile.

Soldiers were up much of the night and were left exhausted, meaning missions ended up being delayed the next day.

"This is the sort of thing that terrifies me. Your adrenaline starts pumping but you are tired and you are scared and you can't get back to sleep," soldier James Canaday, 22, from Oklahoma City, said as he returned from guard duty.

Commanders are trying to find the balance between complacency and being alert to a very real danger.

In the past 48 hours, U.S. forces around Najaf, about 90 miles south of Baghdad, have faced sniper attacks, assaults by small militant bands using mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, and false surrenders that turn into attacks.

"It puts everyone on edge," Grosskruger said.

"It's a tactic that can take its toll on soldiers. You have to stay alert and awake all the time, and you're always worried that the threat is there," said Lt. Mark Pietrak of the 535th Engineers Company.

He said he and a group of soldiers went only a few miles from camp on Sunday evening to find water. A grenade was thrown at their vehicles and they had to take cover in the scrub. It was eight hours before they got back.

Farmers, goatherds and other civilians cautiously watch the invading forces from the fields or from brick hovels, sometimes crowding round their vehicles begging. That now scares soldiers, many of whom had expected a heroes' welcome.