Upcomming War In Iraq

Onuma · February 2003

What about charges of a United Nations Tribunal against Hussein for war crimes? He <i>is</i> a war criminal, and should go through some sort of trial as penance. He will not just willingly turn himself in though - someone's gotta light the fire under his **** - and by <b>fire</b> I mean cruise missile.

[edit]spelling error corrected <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>[/edit]

RyoOhki · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, we all know that people, especially cruel dictators, act in rational logical ways. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, they weren't crazy they were just misunderstood.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Errr...why are you calling these people crazy? Hitler was a very intelligent man, he knew how to manipulate an entire nation and was a political genius. People forget that he was democratically elected along with his party; it was the fault of the crazy German political system that he was able to declare himself Fuhrer. His military campaigns could have been much more successful and better planned but that didn't make him a maniac; he just wasn't a very good general. His policies on the Jews are not justifiable but he certainly didn't do it because he was crazy. Do Americans call their presidents from 1783 to 1900 crazy because they commited genocide against the American Indians? No, they call them misguided. Hitler did mentally break down in the final year of the war, and died not quite sane, but for most of his life he was completly sane. Frightningly sane in fact.
Stalin was quite paranoid through his life, and this impacted on his running of the USSR, but he didn't do anything crazy until the end of his life; Like Hitler he was quite sane. The killing of the kulaks and the purges was Stalin's attempt to consolidate his power base and ensire he wasn't threatened as leader. Millions died yes, but there was rationale behind it, not insanity. In the final years of his life Stalin began to lose it and see plots everywhere but he was getting old anyway. He eventually died like Hitler not entirely sane, but again, for most of his life he was mentally sound.
Saddam certainly isn't an insane dictator for some very simple reasons. 1. When Coalition forces attacked into Kuwait in 1991 Iraq didn't use any of it's stockpiled chemical or biologicial weapons, yet they had every chance to do so. Saddam knew that such an action would result in nuclear retaliation from the US, so he didn't use them. That was the action of a man in logical control. 2. The killing of the Kurds: The Kurds represent an open threat to the Iraqi government and country; they want to break away and form their own nation. Saddam didn't kill them because they "looked at him funny" or anything, he killed them because they were a threat. Another logical action. As a side note the US had no problem with Saddam doing this to the Kurds and Iranians during the 1980 - 1988 Gulf War with Iran. 3. Saddam is co-operating now, because he knows what will happen if he doesn't co-operate with the UN. He's let inspectors go wherever they want, agreed to U2 spy plane flights, agreed to private interviews for Iraqi scientists, in fact he's said yes to everything the UN has requested. Now if he was insane he would never have allowed this; he would have said something along the lines of "HA HA HA Never shall you enter my fortress!!!" There's a marked differance here.
Saddam is not an insane dictator. he's a dictator yes, but he's very rational. He doesn't want to lose his power and see his country renamed "SUV-Fuelistan" so he's co-operating. He's already proved his sanity by his actions thus far.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What about charges of a United Nations Tribunal against Hussein for war crimes? He is a war criminal, and should go through some sort of trial as penance. He will not just willingly turn himself in though - someone's gotta light the fire under his **** - and by fire I mean cruise missile.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Excellent, an ally! Now, after your finished with Saddam, let's pay a visit to Henry Kissinger who is also wanted for war crimes. Once we've "lit a cruise missile under his neather regions YEE-HAW!" let's take a trip to Israel and throw some of our buttock seeking missiles at Prime Minister Arial Sharon, also wanted for war crimes. Let's not stop there though. Why not Big Dubbya himself? Locked in that massive behind already. Why does your leader refuse to allow his troops to be tried in the International Criminal Court? Is it because you like the freedom of letting your soldiers do whatever the hell they want? Oh but of course your soldiers are finely educated and the cream of American society, schooled in the fine arts and experts in Classical teachings. Not an illiterate school-drop out amongst them right? US soldiers would never do anything like get drunk and run over 2 teenage Korean girls. Oh that's right, a US military court aquitted them. Yet I think an International Court may have found differantly. Let's try those pilots who bombed refugees in Kosovo, or the military planners who though the Chinese Embassy was a telephone exchance. But we must go back furthur. Arrest the crews of the American 8th Air Army who bombed Dresden during WWII and killed 80,000 refugees, despite knowing there were no military personnel there. How about the crew of the Enola ****? The crews who firebombed Tokyo and killed 100,000?
Before you start running around prosecuting Saddam, there's a few people closer to home who require your hemmaroidal bbqing.

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

Condensing Ryos second statement:
Yes, it'd be great to bring Hussein in front of a fair International Court. Unfortunately, the US governments sabotaged its forming in Brussels and still do.

Dread · February 2003

Its odd how people mix-up crazy and cruel. You can have IQ over 250 even if you kick dogs.

moultano · February 2003

I just went to a lecture by John Loftus (http://www.john-loftus.com/) tonight . Before I went I was pretty assuredly against the war. The lecture was incredible, and Im reconsidering my stance. I think its indicative of the failings of the American political system that the political proponents of the war can't give us nearly as persuasive an argument. They usually post videos of guest lectures on the campus website. If I find it Ill post a link.

John Loftus was single-handedly responsible for putting the flame under the US governments **** to bring in <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/02/20/professor.arrest/index.html' target='_blank'>this guy.</a> Apparently they've known about him and his dealings for 20 years but haven't done anything to avoid embarassing Saudi Arabia. (according to Loftus, who was getting his information from an intelligence agent using attorney-client privilege to remain anonymous) Sami Al-Aryan was using Saudi Arabian money to recruit terrorists and raise money to fund terrorists. They have him on video at a "charity fund-raiser" asking who in the audience will pay him $200 to kill a jew (among other things . . . many other things.) For years US intelligence has internally stifled any attempts to investigate Saudi-Arabian ties to terrorism, simply because Saudi Arabia has been an economic ally. In the largest class action lawsuit ever, He and several friends are suing the Saudi Royal Family for a trillion dollars for 3,000 counts of negligent homicide (sept 11).

He sees overthrowing Saddam as the most promising way to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The one palestinian in the audience agreed. He predicted that 80% of Saddams army would defect, and that we would see tons of American flags on the streets of Baghdad as soon as we attack. The CIA communicates regularly by cel phone with Saddam's ranking officers, and the officers have been giving permission by Saddam to use chemical and biological agents in the event of an attack. (The CIA informed them that this would violate international law and they said they had no intention of using them)

One of the more inflammatory comments in the lecture (so of course I will put it here <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> ) was that the reason France and Germany are so outspokenly against the war is that they have significant economic investments pending in Iraq. Notably France selling Iraq equipment for constructing nuclear reactors.

Remember, all of his information was obtained by intelligence agents around the world exploiting attorney-client privilege and giving classified information directly to him.

RyoOhki · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, it'd be great to bring Hussein in front of a fair International Court. Unfortunately, the US governments sabotaged its forming in Brussels and still do.

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

yeah, it sucks <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> which was kinda why I was pointing out the Americans and their allies wanted by that court. I'm going a bit far with the WWII stuff but Sharon and Kissinger are recognise war criminals.
And if Bush invades Iraq that will make him one too.

Ph0enix · February 2003

Whilst I realise this is a serious discussion, after reading 19 pages about war, I thought a little bit of light humour was in order. At least its on-topic humour <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

<a href='http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk' target='_blank'>Click</a>

SovietDictator · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 20 2003, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So GW lost your support then?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Bush is a crazy dictator how exactly? Though he isn't the brightest president ever.

Forlorn · February 2003

Okay, after reading many false statements and other useless crap that had little to do with Iraq, I'd thought I would like to shed some light on the situation, by presenting a FACTUAL, INTELLEGENT, and well written article written by the syndacated writer around the nation, George F. Will.

This article is dated from Thurday's Edition of <u>The Eagle-Tribune</u>.

It reads, and I quote:

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>U.N. drifts toward irrelevance</span>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Has France considered the consequences of making the United Nations and NATO redundant evidence of the mortality of organizations? NATO's primary function is no longer colective security, it is to give collective weight to Europeon nations in their dealings with America. The U.N.'s crucial function is to enmesh America in inhibiting procedures. Hence the diminution of NATO and the U.N. will further emancipate America while miniaturizing two stages on which France struts.
Today the U.N., toyed with by France, is making more likely a war that might not be impending if the U.N. had not been so centrally involved in dealing with Iraq 12 yars ago. In Augest 1990, the first President Bush vowed that Iraq's aggression against Kuwait "will not stand." He said that before involving the U.N. in reversing the aggression. Had he organized the reversal of that aggression outside of U.N. auspices - as President Clinton organized the 1999 campaign against Serbia - Iraq's regime might have been changed. On reason Desert Storm did not reach Baghdad was that it was constrained by a U.N. mandate to merely liberate Kuwait.
Now, fast forward to Hans Blix addressing the Security Council last week, continuing the 12-year tutorial of Iraq concerning U.N. unseriousness. Blix - no Pollyanna, he{NOTE FOR EURO READERS: Pollyanna was an old American T.V. show that was quite peaceful... or something like that, I don't remember completely but you get the idea} - acknowleged that Iraq has so far, in his priceless locution, "missed the opportunity" to account for thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents that "many governmental intelligence organizations" believe exist. But this little missed opportunity was less important to Blix than his being able to report:
That "we have obtained a good knowlege of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq."
That Iraq had enacted "legislation" forbidding itself to have weapons of mass destruction. {NOTE: In news just on this thursday, Saddam renegged on those laws... and the ones below that are listed... as well as refuses to coorpirate with the U.N.}
That Saddam Hussein has formed not just one but <i>two</i> commissions, one to search high and low for "for any still existing proscribed items," and the other - with "very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses" - to look "for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programs."
That Iraq has provided inspectors with papers which contained "no new evidence" but "could be indicative of a more active attitude" by Iraq.
And that Iraq remains committed to "encourage" persons that the inspectors want to interview outside the country to comply.
These inanities illustrate why Iraq can feel confident that its comprehensive noncompliance with Resolution 1441 will have no consequences. That resolution, the text of which annouced zero tolerance of Iraqi deviations from it, now stands as proof that the U.N. policy is inexhaustible tolerance.
Resolution 1441, which the Security Council would not have the brass to pass again if challenged to, announced Iraq's final chance to disarm, and concentrated the U.N.'s mind on pushing finality far over the horizon. In 1976, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ending his sentence as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. - it had just declared that Zionism is racism - called the U.N. "a theater of the absurd." Unfair? Having considered Blix's words, remember this:
Moynihan spoke nine years after the U.N. proved its incapacity for important security responsibilites. In 1967, Egypt, preparing for an attack on Israel, ordered U.N. peacekeeping forces on Egyptian territory to depart, which they obediently did.
The U.N.'s most recent dereliction of life-and-death duty resulted in Europe's worst massacre since 1945, the 1995 slaughter of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, where they had gathered because the U.N. assured them it was a "safe area." The massacre occurred while U.N. forces loitered a few miles away.
The U.N.'s serene reception of Blix's most recent report subtracted further from the U.N's dwindling stature.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

(If you had some trouble with the words in this article...<a href='http://www.dictionary.com' target='_blank'>www.dictionary.com</a>.

This document alone explains why the United States should go to war. Will is a superb writer.

Not only does Saddam pose a threat, one that is being ignored, but the only people ready to lead the way in stopping maddness in the middle east are the America's, who, desipte the riduclue they receive for doing so, continue onwards to do the right thing.

Basically, it comes down to two arguments for attacking Iraq:

Contain them,

or take the initiative and be offensive, after all it is the best defense.

Much of Europe believes in the former, and yet if 19/11 happened to them, I doubt that they would sit around waiting to be struck again.

While some may argue that violence breeds more violence; it is also true that force controls force, and unfortionatly this is the case. The middle-eastener's have brought war upon themselves, first by disregarding all attempts to work with them, and next by attacking us in unimangainible ways.

19/11 proves containtment doesn't work.

Now, America's have to take one of two risks right now:

Try to contain a threat, letting the future out of their hands;
Try to control the threat, putting the future into their hands.

Both ways are probably filled with violence and disaster, but, given one of two choices I would much rather perfer the latter.

As to why many of the Europeon's choose the former; it's beyond me.

Let's face it, there is simply no other way around this, due to the U.N's uselessness, the middle-east's noncomplience, and the U.S's need to defend itself.

It's funny that out of all the three things to blame, people choose the U.S. the most.

Well, not me.

Dread · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 21 2003, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Not only does Saddam pose a threat, one that is being ignored, but the only people ready to lead the way in stopping maddness in the middle east are the America's, who, desipte the riduclue they receive for doing so, continue onwards to do the right thing.

Basically, it comes down to two arguments for attacking Iraq:

Contain them,

or take the initiative and be offensive, after all it is the best defense.

Much of Europe believes in the former, and yet if 19/11 happened to them, I doubt that they would sit around waiting to be struck again.

While some may argue that violence breeds more violence; it is also true that force controls force, and unfortionatly this is the case. The middle-eastener's have brought war upon themselves, first by disregarding all attempts to work with them, and next by attacking us in unimangainible ways.

19/11 proves containtment doesn't work.

Now, America's have to take one of two risks right now:

Try to contain a threat, letting the future out of their hands;
Try to control the threat, putting the future into their hands. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Firstly, WTC strike happened 9/11
Secondly, as stated before: Saddam is not stupid. His WOMs(if he has any) are for defencive purposes, to scare the crap out of attackers. He wouldn't risk his comfortable position by attacking.
Thirdly, why don't you do something about Russias, Chinas or North-Koreas nuclear weapons/human rights violations? *cough*you would get your butt whooped*cough*
Fourthly, you are making rough generalizations there. Not all middle-eastern are terrorist.
Fifthly, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, im not sure if Afghanistan had anything to do with it. All proofs seemed quite made up for me. Just wanted to find someone to blame, and after moving troops to Afghanistan, they decided to go for Iraq as well.

Spooge · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Firstly, WTC strike happened 9/11</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Trust me, he knows this. I'm sure it's just a typo.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Secondly, as stated before: Saddam is not stupid. His WOMs(if he has any) are for defencive purposes, to scare the crap out of attackers. He wouldn't risk his comfortable position by attacking.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

What would be scary about weapons that don't exist? hmm.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thirdly, why don't you do something about Russias, Chinas or North-Koreas nuclear weapons/human rights violations? *cough*you would get your butt whooped*cough*</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This pretty much covers the last point.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Fourthly, you are making rough generalizations there. Not all middle-eastern are terrorist. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Possibly a translation problem but "The" and "All" do not have exactly the same meaning.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Fifthly, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, im not sure if Afghanistan had anything to do with it. All proofs seemed quite made up for me. Just wanted to find someone to blame, and after moving troops to Afghanistan, they decided to go for Iraq as well. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

"Anyone see that pink elephant walk through the room?"
"Nope not me."
"Me neither."

RyoOhki · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Anyone see that pink elephant walk through the room?"
"Nope not me."
"Me neither." </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Firstly, the US attacked Afghanistan because they wouldn't hand over Bin Laden, and the US didnt have evidence that Bin Laden did mastermind Sept 11, they only suspected him.
Secondly, 15 of the Sept 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn't the US attack them? Most of Bin Laden's fighters are from Saudi Arabia, as is Bin Laden himself. Yet the absolute dictator that rules Saudi Arabia didn't even get a slap on the wrist.
I smell double standerds...*cough* oil *cough*

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

Am I the only one who feels this discussion is going in circles?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[...] "Clearly, the Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and will use them at any given moment now." - "No, nothing has been found."

...

...

...

...

"Obviously, the whole war is about oil." - "No, it is not."

...

...

...

...

"Clearly, the Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and will use them at any given moment now." [...]</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

New arguments are mostly simply ignored. Couldn't we stop repeating ourselves and start talking again?

Forlorn · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 22 2003, 05:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Anyone see that pink elephant walk through the room?"
"Nope not me."
"Me neither." </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Firstly, the US attacked Afghanistan because they wouldn't hand over Bin Laden, and the US didnt have evidence that Bin Laden did mastermind Sept 11, they only suspected him.
Secondly, 15 of the Sept 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn't the US attack them? Most of Bin Laden's fighters are from Saudi Arabia, as is Bin Laden himself. Yet the absolute dictator that rules Saudi Arabia didn't even get a slap on the wrist.
I smell double standerds...*cough* oil *cough*  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
You obviously do not understand the US's stance on foriegn affairs. The US is imperialistic, not expansionistic.

Why attack Iraq, when Saudi Arabia has oil as well, not to mention a ton of terrorists?

Well, if you really want to know:

The US is interested in oil. Very true. We are also interested in keeping the US safe from other countries. We do not go about this by controlling people. There is no way to do that.

The US CAN NOT CONTROL PEOPLE.

We realize that we can not take over other countries without their consent, it's folly to do so. The US after all, was a country that was under another country's control, and the US believed that they were unfairly treated, and revolted.

When we held cuba, after the spanish-america war, and we also held the philipienes, we at first tried to take them over. However, after many revolts by the cubans, and by the philipenes, we realized we couldn't control them, and it was stupid to do so. So, usuing the puppet government's we created for them, we set them up with a stable society, and then basically left them on their own.

Now, this set up the precident of setting up puppet governments to control the peoples of other countries for us, and then realeasing them when we saw it fit.

However, the US took it a step further.

We intentionally set up puppet governments not only to make the countries stable and safe for the peoples of the US, but we also set it up so that their governments, when fully functional, would boost our economy at home.

Prime examples of this? Look no further than Japan, and Germany to some extent. Both are among the leading industrial nations of the world and are huge economic powers, yet both have weak mililtaries. (Well, Japan more so than Germany.)

You see, we intentionally created puppet governments at first, setting up a stable society, making sure they would no threat to the US and yet remain super effecient economically wise to the US.

You might think the US are a bunch of greedy **** for doing this, but I beg to differ. Even though under our system we make sure we can keep control of the countries we eventually "release", the countries aren't actually being trashed in the process. In fact, they grow to become incredibly strong, and valuable allies to the US.

If you look at it objectivly, everyone gets what they want in the end, and prospers.

Thus, the United States tries to control GOVERNMENTS, not people. You could argue that the governments control the people, and since the governments are controled by the US we are indirectly controling the people. However, this isn't true, as the United States isn't as stupid as some may call it, as the U.S. knows if it gets *too* pushy then they might loose control.

However, we also believe in letting countries that had our puppet governemts to give their citizens the same privilages that American's enjoy today, such as those listed within the Bill of Rights.

Of course, this process we do can seriously backfire. The greatest example? Vietnam. That war, some might call a pointless war, but it was really a political war. Demoncracy(of sorts) vs. Communism. Of course we couldn't win that war, we bit off far more than we could chew. What pretty much happened during Vietnam was that we couldn't control the people through it's own government, and so we tried to control the people, but obviously that didn't work and we got maimed for trying so. We pulled out, lesson re-learned.(It was first learned in Cuba/Philipenes)

For more proof of governments trying to control people through a failed government, look at the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan. They lost the governmential battle, and therefore lost the rest of the war.

The mistake we made with Afghanistan was that we didn't set up a puppet government to restore order, something that was drasictally needed after the Soviets pulled out. Instead, we left, and created a monster in the process. Also know as the Taliban.

So, when the WTC was brought down, we used the tried and true tatic of controlling the governments to control the people and protect the U.S.

Unfortionatly for the U.S., Afghanistan was far from our control, as well as much of the middle east and the rest of the world.

America lost some of it's imperilistic grip on the world, and look what happened? We get attacked in one of the worst disasters in history.

While American Imperilism may not be the best thing to do, I will say this:

It's far more friendly than other Imperilistic nations in the past.

The U.N. today is to be peacekeeping force in the world, and it's orginal goal was to prevent the U.S. from having to exercise it's imperialism policy's...

Unfortionatly, the U.N. is pointless, and once again the U.S. (Can anyone else name a time when the had to fix a HUGE blunder that the "U.N." of the time {Leauge of Nations} didn't care to fix? HINT: It came after WWI) must make strides on it's own if nesseary, leading the way.

So, why is the US attacking those countries instead of other bigger perpatraitors like (Don't blame the Arabians, the race to correctly describe the Terrorists that attack the WTC is muslum extreamists, which means they could be anywhere, but the only get their tools to cause harm from certain countries, like the ones we are attacking)Saudia Arabia?

We have good control of the Saudia Arabians, where as in the countries we are attacking, such as those listed in the "Axis of Evil", we have no control over their governments what so ever.

The US is being pressured to attack, as these countries:

A.) Hate America
B.) Have means to hurt america, without putting blame on themselves. (I.E. Terrorists)

"Evil men only succeed when good men do nothing." - Unknown
"Pacifists are nothing more than useful idoits." - Joesph Stalin

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 22 2003, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you look at it objectivly, everyone gets what they want in the end, and prospers.
 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Except for a small group called "the working class"

But that's another agrument.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 22 2003, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Even though under our system we make sure we can keep control of the countries we eventually "release", the countries aren't actually being trashed in the process. In fact, they grow to become incredibly strong, and valuable allies to the US.

If you look at it objectivly, everyone gets what they want in the end, and prospers.
....

However, we also believe in letting countries that had our puppet governemts to give their citizens the same privilages that American's enjoy today, such as those listed within the Bill of Rights.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
How does the Shah of Iran fit into this. We literally stole democracy from those people.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>New arguments are mostly simply ignored. Couldn't we stop repeating ourselves and start talking again?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> I was hoping people would respond to what I wrote before. So far no one has.

RyoOhki · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We realize that we can not take over other countries without their consent, it's folly to do so. The US after all, was a country that was under another country's control, and the US believed that they were unfairly treated, and revolted.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Firstly, the US was NOT a country under another countries control, you were a collection of colonies under British rule; the nation of The United States Of America was only formed with the revolution. You weren't conquored by Britain and neither were you "unfairly treated" as a student of the American Revolution I can say there was really no need to rebel. What, you thought the British were going to pay for the troops protecting you? Come on, you had to start paying taxes sometime <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>
Secondly, if that is the case, why in the name of Flayra are you attacking Iraq? You are going to take them over, the government has already clearly stated this. You are going to install a puppet government and make Iraq into a virtual colony.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When we held cuba, after the spanish-america war, and we also held the philipienes, we at first tried to take them over. However, after many revolts by the cubans, and by the philipenes, we realized we couldn't control them, and it was stupid to do so. So, usuing the puppet government's we created for them, we set them up with a stable society, and then basically left them on their own.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You call the government of General Batista (spelling?) in Cuba a "stable government"? If by stable you mean one guy sucking all the money out of the cuban people and feeding it into his off-shore bank accounts while American corperations bought up every peice of Cuban industry and infratructure. Meanwhile the people of Cuba, who you claim seem to have been better off under this "stable government" were dirt poor and oppressed, unable to speak out politically. That's why Castro managed such immense success, he came over to Cuba with a rag-tag force of a couple of dozen fighters. Yet after a few years he controlled thousands of troops and was able to drive Batista out. And what did the US do now that the Cuban people had actually chosen a government and leader? Slapped a massive embargo on Cuba that still exists today. Castro presented a draft constitution allowing full democracy and multi-party elections which was almost a direct copy of the American constitution (Ho Chi Minh did the same thing btw) and the US turned him down. Castro was then forced to turn to the USSR and Che Guevara, both of whom were able to strongly influence Castro towards communism.
I can't comment on the Phillipines, never researched them.

Then you can turn to Chile or Iraq, both governments set up by the US, both of whom have caused massive slaughters of their own people and endless misery. Yes, Japan and Germany did rather well, but thats not just because of the US. Neither country needed much of a military budget, if any, and as such could devote their entire spending to trade and industry. Both were allowed full democratic governments, and as such those in power were not dictators, as was so often the case everywhere else the US set up puppet governments. The German and Japanese economic revival did have a lot to do with the US, but the US was also interested in making these nations strong as a buffer to the Soviet Union. Go to the countries where this wasn't as issue and you see the true face of US imperialism.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Unfortionatly, the U.N. is pointless, and once again the U.S. (Can anyone else name a time when the had to fix a HUGE blunder that the "U.N." of the time {Leauge of Nations} didn't care to fix? HINT: It came after WWI) must make strides on it's own if nesseary, leading the way.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hey wait a sec, something's coming back to me now, oh that's right, there's a reason the League of Nations was so weak: The US wasn't part of it. That's right, you just didn't want to join. So how could you expect that orgainisation to solve these problems without the support of the world's most powerful country? The League did everything in it's puny power to stop WWII, but it couldn't do anything. Need I also reminded you that the US quite happily sat on the sidelines during that war before it actually was attacked.
You preach democracy. Good, democracy is a fairly worthwhile force. So why, why WHY are you blatently ignoring it? When the UN was set up it was set up with democracy at it's core: the world's nations meeting a deciding as an international body what the best course of action was. As a side note, "Best course of action" does not equal "What the US wants". The world's nations have spoken: they don't want the war. When only 3 countries have pledged to support this war (US, Britain, Australia) compared to the overwhelming majority saying they don't want war, how can you go against this when your whole government is supposed to be based around the principles of democracy. It's not just France, or Russia, or China, these nations have only been singled out because they have vetos on the security council, something that the US insisted on when the UN was formed. Reep what you sow US, you set the UN up, now abide by it.

Dread · February 2003

Extremely well said Ryo-Ohki. I really dislike the USA's attitude towards democracy and UN. It seems that USA obeys the rules they set themselves, as long as they fit their purpose. If the rules are against the will of the USA, just ignore them. Still US expects other nations to obey these rules.

Big_Game_Hunter · February 2003

I would like to submit a couple articles that eloquently sum up the case for war in Iraq, backed up by FACTS, something that is sorely lacking in most discussions of war.

The first is a declassified report from 2001 from the Director of the CIA to Congress, it details many things not normally mentioned in the news, and is a must read if you wish to have an informed opinion. Keep in mind this is declassified from 2 years ago (they are declassified every year), and current events are not reflected in it.

<a href='http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_jan_2003.htm#4' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_jan_2003.htm#4</a>

The second is an editorial piece that is much broader in scope, but unfortunately also in length. Skim down to the bold type for the important points.

<a href='http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000027.html' target='_blank'>http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000027.html</a>

And additionally, a 1998 report detailing Iraq's lack of cooperation with inspections.

<a href='http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/whitepap.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/whitepap.htm</a>

I hope after reading these you will see the obvious truth that THERE IS NO QUESTION OF IRAQ'S POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Absolutely no question!

To address a point made earlier:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Saddam is not stupid. His WOMs(if he has any) are for defencive purposes, to scare the crap out of attackers. He wouldn't risk his comfortable position by attacking.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The primary concern of the US isn't that Saddam will launch ICBM's at the US, nobody thinks he will do that because it WILL mean massive retribution on our part. The problem is that he and any other country with malevolence toward the US has access to the perfect delivery system, Al Qaeda. Iraq would be able to strike against it's enemies without getting it's hands dirty, and Al Qaeda would gain access to massive resources and infrastructure. This is what we consider the threat, not a conventional attack.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 22 2003, 11:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The world's nations have spoken: they don't want the war.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I understand America bashing is quite a popular sport in the UN.
The function of the modern UN is to allow countries to make radical claims and demands to appease the leftist voters back home because they know the US will never call their bluff.

As Big Game Hunter stated, there is absolutely no question that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the only reasons why we don't have lasting peace in Israel. I have yet to hear anyone give a good reason why it wouldn't be to everyone's benefit to overthrow Saddam. If there are any, by all means . . .

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 23 2003, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the only reasons why we don't have lasting peace in Israel.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Excuse me whilest I wet myself laughing.

CanadianWolverine · February 2003

I'm glad to see that some others have decided to brave this thread's waters despite Nemisis Zero and AllUrHiveRBelong2Us, amongst others. I stopped reading this thread for a while when I just couldn't take the aforementioned repetitions when I tried to have a Yes side in this debate. I'm glad we aren't all sticking our collective heads in the sand. So, I'm going to try to enter the fray with one of my lenghty rambling and ranting posts once more, since apparent repetitiveness is not beyond either side.

<i>Way back when, maybe several post pages earlier, this was an issue being brought up discussing war...</i>

Will we, the human race, bring about our own demise? Heh, I don't exactly see alot of love going around for having lots of different types of views.

Just to cite some generalizations of two opposing yet similar views:
"Chritianity is the only true religion, join and love us or die!"
Or perhaps...
"Islam is the only true religion, join and love us or die!"

Well, isn't religion a fun thing, even pacifist religions don't hold much water since I once read "All evil men need to prosper is for good men to stand by and do nothing."

If I weigh into this with my opinion, again, it would have to be with going in and ripping Sadam Husien's Iraq a new one. I also once read "War is Hell." and "All plans are perfect until the first shot is fired." Some people express a feeling of remorse and regret at having not done something sooner about Adolf Hitler type folks, who just love final solutions. Let's face it, alot of final solutions sit in our various pasts, just take a look at all the "lost" civilizations and the could have beens surrounding inhumane treatment of many of the world's "native" populations. It seems to me we have a big chance of averting alot of final solutions, especially the ones aimed at us and our allied independent countries, if we just take down one oppressive dictator and regime at a time. Take careful notice of "one ... at a time" because it would be unrealistic to expect say, have the USA lead an attack against Iraq AND North Korea at the same time and expect any kind of focused attack that is quick and controlled. Another interesting thing that occurs to me is that folks are asking for just a lil'more time for peace when you look at quite a considerable number things:

The attack had already begun against USA and its allies a quite a few years ago for its support of Israel when it was attacked by an Arab league of nations. The response before 09/11/2001 was to respond in kind, the "if you bomb us, we bomb you" approach to naked aggression by groups that had political ties and only a few direct ties to established and recognized Middle East leaders and their governments. 09/11/2001 showed the futility of this approach to not only the USA but much of the world as well. With this ego shaking event came a change in policy towards others showing naked aggression, in that nations aiding these aggressive groups would be seen as in league with the aggressive groups by association and come under great scrutiny for the possibility of open war. And with good reason, considering much cheaper chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction were finding their way into possible mass production, since the knowledge of how to produce specifically violent and aggressive toxins and biological agents was becoming more common knowledge to the world scientific community. But that doesn't rule out finding new ways to use the good ol'fashioned ways of killing each other.

End result seems to be that battle fields have expanded across the globe, making it possible that even as gun powder changed the nature of war as infantry know it, attacks on opposing countries citizenry has forever changed with the introduction of extremely violent new technology and folks out there willing to use these new weapons, let alone the old ones. Wake up and smell the napalm, peace lovers, the war has terribly been brought to your doorstep and you continue ignoring it at very possibly not just your own peril but to the peril of everyone you have ever met within several hundred square kilometers.

So, it seems to me, that even if the USA doesn't attack, Canadian troops should be sent in to do what they do best, put their lives on the line for others less willing or able in the hopes that we might remove a good number of "Sadam Husien"s from power to the point where it comes full circle and we are forced to re-evaluate how our government has held up its end of humanity's stewardship. Don't be terrorized into in-action, or we just might be facing a decision of becoming an extremist Islamic world at gun point, just as we faced becoming part of a "perfect race" world at one time in WWII.

And then I see a report on the local news about support waning here in Canada for war with Iraq, and I can't help but think that we really don't value our idependence from tyranny all that much.

Its just too bad that the United Nations seems alot like a playground with no teacher/guardian in sight, where a bunch of kids are always talking about the bully and his gang, but everyone is so scared that all they do it talk. If there was another way to have someone who has professed deep rooted hatred for you and all those you love, turn around and take back all the nasty, cruel, and evil intentions without violence, so help me God, I would support that all the way. But diplomats to the UN talking for 12 years (or has it been longer?) while the threats and acts of violence continue by known groups is inexcusable. We've seen what happens with inaction with regards to World War II and the League of Nations, how is that different than this? The end of the world only has to start with one person making a decision to destroy, so I would say we have faced the end of the world many times now. We need to stand up together and face it again and then again when the cycle repeats itself. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one way out of the cycle; when the world no longer has the freedom to choose between good and evil.

Oh, and just in case you think I wear a big t-shirt that says "Love America OR DIE", check out <a href='http://www.rootingoutevil.org/index.php3/Intelligence' target='_blank'>this webpage</a> that pretty much sums up how I feel about America when it comes to their owning WoMD while opposing others getting WoMD. WoMD just suck, period.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"Evil men only succeed when good men do nothing." - Unknown
"Pacifists are nothing more than useful idoits." - Joesph Stalin
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

*sniff*Wait, do you smell that? Its smells alot like burning rubber... Wake up and smell the napalm! We have been under attack, we are under attack, and we will most assuredly be under attack in the future. And I don't mean the US of A either. As if Europe isn't gonna feel the heat from various extremist groups just because a USA lead coalition doesn't attack.

Ugh, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not helping the cause I'm trying to champion in this debate because I sometimes tend to be over dramatic ... or is it?

*Ominous music goes "Dum dum duh dum..." and the writer's imaginary screen fades to black...*

<i>PostScript aka PS</i>

Shout out to Soviet~Dictator, Guardian, moultano, Forlorn, Spooge, and Big Game Hunter. Thanks for weighing in despite the fact that the "No" side of this debate has a forum administrator. Hmm, I wonder if I can be considered "Mulder" level delusional paranoid if I'm not alone...

Special thanks to - Phoenix - and supernorn for the hilarious bits of satirical comedy. Hehe, I get a kick out of political cartoons, don't you?

Forlorn · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 23 2003, 04:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We realize that we can not take over other countries without their consent, it's folly to do so. The US after all, was a country that was under another country's control, and the US believed that they were unfairly treated, and revolted.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Firstly, the US was NOT a country under another countries control, you were a collection of colonies under British rule; the nation of The United States Of America was only formed with the revolution. You weren't conquored by Britain and neither were you "unfairly treated" as a student of the American Revolution I can say there was really no need to rebel. What, you thought the British were going to pay for the troops protecting you? Come on, you had to start paying taxes sometime <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>
Secondly, if that is the case, why in the name of Flayra are you attacking Iraq? You are going to take them over, the government has already clearly stated this. You are going to install a puppet government and make Iraq into a virtual colony.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When we held cuba, after the spanish-america war, and we also held the philipienes, we at first tried to take them over. However, after many revolts by the cubans, and by the philipenes, we realized we couldn't control them, and it was stupid to do so. So, usuing the puppet government's we created for them, we set them up with a stable society, and then basically left them on their own.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You call the government of General Batista (spelling?) in Cuba a "stable government"? If by stable you mean one guy sucking all the money out of the cuban people and feeding it into his off-shore bank accounts while American corperations bought up every peice of Cuban industry and infratructure. Meanwhile the people of Cuba, who you claim seem to have been better off under this "stable government" were dirt poor and oppressed, unable to speak out politically. That's why Castro managed such immense success, he came over to Cuba with a rag-tag force of a couple of dozen fighters. Yet after a few years he controlled thousands of troops and was able to drive Batista out. And what did the US do now that the Cuban people had actually chosen a government and leader? Slapped a massive embargo on Cuba that still exists today. Castro presented a draft constitution allowing full democracy and multi-party elections which was almost a direct copy of the American constitution (Ho Chi Minh did the same thing btw) and the US turned him down. Castro was then forced to turn to the USSR and Che Guevara, both of whom were able to strongly influence Castro towards communism.
I can't comment on the Phillipines, never researched them.

Then you can turn to Chile or Iraq, both governments set up by the US, both of whom have caused massive slaughters of their own people and endless misery. Yes, Japan and Germany did rather well, but thats not just because of the US. Neither country needed much of a military budget, if any, and as such could devote their entire spending to trade and industry. Both were allowed full democratic governments, and as such those in power were not dictators, as was so often the case everywhere else the US set up puppet governments. The German and Japanese economic revival did have a lot to do with the US, but the US was also interested in making these nations strong as a buffer to the Soviet Union. Go to the countries where this wasn't as issue and you see the true face of US imperialism.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Unfortionatly, the U.N. is pointless, and once again the U.S. (Can anyone else name a time when the had to fix a HUGE blunder that the "U.N." of the time {Leauge of Nations} didn't care to fix? HINT: It came after WWI) must make strides on it's own if nesseary, leading the way.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hey wait a sec, something's coming back to me now, oh that's right, there's a reason the League of Nations was so weak: The US wasn't part of it. That's right, you just didn't want to join. So how could you expect that orgainisation to solve these problems without the support of the world's most powerful country? The League did everything in it's puny power to stop WWII, but it couldn't do anything. Need I also reminded you that the US quite happily sat on the sidelines during that war before it actually was attacked.
You preach democracy. Good, democracy is a fairly worthwhile force. So why, why WHY are you blatently ignoring it? When the UN was set up it was set up with democracy at it's core: the world's nations meeting a deciding as an international body what the best course of action was. As a side note, "Best course of action" does not equal "What the US wants". The world's nations have spoken: they don't want the war. When only 3 countries have pledged to support this war (US, Britain, Australia) compared to the overwhelming majority saying they don't want war, how can you go against this when your whole government is supposed to be based around the principles of democracy. It's not just France, or Russia, or China, these nations have only been singled out because they have vetos on the security council, something that the US insisted on when the UN was formed. Reep what you sow US, you set the UN up, now abide by it.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
For your first point: Okay, stop playing on my typo's. Address the general idea's, this isn't english class.

And we WERE unfairly treated; we never voted for any of our taxes, and yet we got them. We BEGGED Britian to let us have some kind of voting system, and yet they never let us. And on top of that, it was them that caused the colonies to rebel, right before the war we sent them a petition, upon which they ignored.

Also, the colonies couldn't make their own goods, Britian forced them to be completly dependent on themself.

The colonies wanted to be a part of great britian, not be the abused red-headed step child underneath it.

Now, about Cuba; it was our first go of course the government we set up wouldn't last, but the point is that we DID setup a somewhat stable government. It was a future precident of things to go. Even if the government only lasted about 20 years or so, it was still a government which the cuban's never had aside from Spain.

Also, the Cuban's life was improved desite what you think. It was far from perfect, but better than what they had before.

Iraq and chile had their government's setup by the US? When?

And about the league of nations: Well no **** we didn't want to join, we wanted a more U.N. type of leauge of nations, not one that was a weak piece of poo. You seem to forget that what Woodrow Wilson proposed was never passed, it was radically changed by the Europeans.

And the reason we just sat there when WW2 broke out was because of Isolationist Pacifists that are just like the ones in Europe today. It's funny, because Hitler could have stopped by France(it had 3 times the army Germany did) and yet Britian and France both felt it was better to appease rather than directly get involved. Real smart move. It was a smart then, and I am sure it would be a smart move today.

And unto your last point of the U.N.:

Admit it, it's useless. The U.N. doesn't even enforce it's own resolutions.

In addition, just because the majority of U.N. wants to avoid war, that makes it right?

Here's a good quote for you:

"Democracy will prevail when the kiss of Judas was as valid as Jesus's life."

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

Looks like SOMEONE is waxing abit philosophical today, eh? /me looks at wolvorine

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>End result seems to be that battle fields have expanded across the globe, making it possible that even as gun powder changed the nature of war as infantry know it, attacks on opposing countries citizenry has forever changed with the introduction of extremely violent new technology and folks out there willing to use these new weapons, let alone the old ones. Wake up and smell the napalm, peace lovers, the war has terribly been brought to your doorstep and you continue ignoring it at very possibly not just your own peril but to the peril of everyone you have ever met within several hundred square kilometers.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Lemme get this straight. You think Total Warfare is NEW?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>*sniff*Wait, do you smell that? Its smells alot like burning rubber... Wake up and smell the napalm! We have been under attack, we are under attack, and we will most assuredly be under attack in the future. And I don't mean the US of A either. As if Europe isn't gonna feel the heat from various extremist groups just because a USA lead coalition doesn't attack.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
YES! Because we: THE US will save Europe from teh evil Arab Boogyman! If we do nothing, all others will die because we're the only nation good enough to defend ourselves! I agree totally.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Shout out to Soviet~Dictator, Guardian, moultano, Forlorn, Spooge, and Big Game Hunter. Thanks for weighing in despite the fact that the "No" side of this debate has a forum administrator. Hmm, I wonder if I can be considered "Mulder" level delusional paranoid if I'm not alone...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I think Nem has been MORE than fair in the modding department. I myself have been modded by him several times in these topics where I side with him, and he's usually very lenient when dealing with flames.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now, about Cuba; it was our first go of course the government we set up wouldn't last, but the point is that we DID setup a somewhat stable government. It was a future precident of things to go. Even if the government only lasted about 20 years or so, it was still a government which the cuban's never had aside from Spain.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Yeah we set up a government, but it's not as if we needed to. Cuba has shown that it can set up it's own government without the help of teh omnipotent US. I have no doubt it could have done the same without us providing any sort of help.

CanadianWolverine · February 2003

KnitPickersRUs, here we go!
3...
2...
1...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 23 2003, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Looks like SOMEONE is waxing abit philosophical today, eh? /me looks at wolvorine
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

OMG, do I not have permission to ramble and rant... BTW, it is CanadianWolverine ---> WOLVERINE. Looks like someone else is possibly rambling if they don't take the time to spell a word correctly that is right in front of them. If you must shorten it, CW seems to be commonly used.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Lemme get this straight. You think Total Warfare is NEW?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hmm, lets see here, just running through my posts here... Don't see where I typed that out at all, strange. And here I thought since you were an intellectually elite communist, you might have noticed that. Well, since it appears you do need "straightening out", let me reitterate and continue the popular trend of redundancy. Total Warfare has been new since, well, about the beginning of written history, and just on a geuss, probably before then too. Weapons that can be the size of a suitcase (to the best of my knowledge it is the smallest delivery device size for WoMD, yet) and exchanged between hands of groups of people with small possibility of detection and has the capabilities to destroy material and people many times its size, that is is new. Ahh yes, weapons that can be deployed by small groups of determined people in densely populated areas and you'll know its there when it goes off. Such an old concept, eh? They don't even have to be all that small, Timothy McVey demonstrated that in Okalhoma City.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
YES! Because we: THE US will save Europe from teh evil Arab Boogyman! If we do nothing, all others will die because we're the only nation good enough to defend ourselves! I agree totally.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'> That's right, Japanese subways were boogymen, Israeli restaurants/nightclubs/wedding halls/buses/olympics were boogymen, all of the hijacked/bombed/crashed airliners over the years were boogymen, market places in South East Asia were boogymen, mob masacres in India and various African countries were all boogymen, and so on ad naseum. Besides, who said "we: THE US"? I can only speak as a Canadian citizen, and I leave it up to citizens in their respective european countries to decide if they want to protect themselves and other countries. Frankly, I'm amazed that europeans in general are not more vocal against places like Iraq because of all the various aggressive middle eastern groups that have commited crimes against them in the past. Its not easy to forget the news of various targets (read: civilians) in France getting waxed in the past, at least not for me.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I think Nem has been MORE than fair in the modding department. I myself have been modded by him several times in these topics where I side with him, and he's usually very lenient when dealing with flames.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Its not that he is a bad forum moderator, it just has to be a bit intimidating when you have an opposing view from the moderator's. So what you post might be construed as a flamer because debates tend to focus on specific points and generalize at the same time. Bringing up credibility of an opposing view when the person with the opposing view can drop an [edit] on you for being seen as unconstructive, when being constructive can be terribly vague, is just _slightly_ intimidating. What, you didn't think that the "Yes" side has seen less posting in this debate than the "No" side just because there might be more of you in this region of cyberspace, did you?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Yeah we set up a government, but it's not as if we needed to. Cuba has shown that it can set up it's own government without the help of teh omnipotent US. I have no doubt it could have done the same without us providing any sort of help. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Did you even read the entire post, or just jump straight to the communist "Cuba" flag? He typed out that Castro's Cuba only turned to communism after the USA refused to help set him up. Oops, did the "omnipotent" Soviet Union _help_ out then? Yeah, Cuba just set up all by its lonesome, right... Looks like you need to read something other than your red book, AllUrHiveRBelong2Us.

Oh wait, did I just go "eye for eye" with his "ripping"ly good post, my bad...

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 23 2003, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 23 2003, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the only reasons why we don't have lasting peace in Israel. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Excuse me whilest I wet myself laughing. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
If you would like to discuss this, it deserves its own topic. From your post, it doesn't sound like you do. (Edit: I should have said 'primary' rather than 'only' to be more accurate.)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think Nem has been MORE than fair in the modding department. I myself have been modded by him several times in these topics where I side with him, and he's usually very lenient when dealing with flames.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Nem's mod status hasn't influenced me at all. He does a great job.

My only problem with this thread is that we've been skirting the real question for most of it. I may be overly pragmatic, but I personally dont think that a nation's motivation for doing something has anything to do with whether or not it is worthy of our support. We should be arguing about whether the effects of the war would be positive or negative, not whether the US's motivations are spotless.

I don't think that in the modern era we can hope for any government to operate with a purely moral motivation. The best we can do choose which of the economically motivated actions will happen to coincide with what's best for the world. The UN is no less of a political body than any other. My idealism would like to say otherwise but it has been proven wrong time and time again.

Back to my original question. Can anyone give a good reason why it wouldn't be to everyone's benefit to overthrow Saddam? (and the additional question: Do the possible gains justify the violence?)

CanadianWolverine · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 23 2003, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Back to my original question. Can anyone give a good reason why it wouldn't be to everyone's benefit to overthrow Saddam? (and the additional question: Do the possible gains justify the violence?)  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
<b>Regarding: Can anyone give a good reason why it wouldn't be to everyone's benefit to overthrow Saddam?</b>

Er, how about that he supports agressive islamic extremist groups against countries like Israel, USA, and UK? I'm sure those with a seriously extreme hard on regarding a beef against the "western world" would not benefit from a source of intelligence, supplies and man power, aka Saddam, being overthrown. Unless you meant something else by your definition of everyone, as in more a select group of countries from the total international pool.

<b>Regarding: Do the possible gains justify the violence?</b>

Hmm, I'd go with nothing will justify the violence. I think I read once, or perhaps heard, this regarding military actions and the individual soldier: "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it." It occurs to me when you are already trying to defend yourself, it pretty much behooves you to go on the offensive or risk being pushed back to the point where you can no longer defend yourself. The only gains of offensive violence is the hope of sapping the will and strength of your opponent to the point where he can no longer effectively produce violence against you. At that point, an opponent becomes nuetral, much like an unconcious man. When that opponent "gets back up", it would be up to them to remain neutral, try to extend the hand of friendship or take an aggresive stance again. The ending of the cycle of violence only happens when the defeated accepts the position of the victor as final. That is why the middle east has never known much peace, they started fighting a long time ago, and neither side has accepted or conceded defeat. God, why are we so freaking stubborn?

My own personal conclusion: The human race sucks, I'll try to enjoy life while I have this gift and go explore games of all kinds, take an interest in human space exploration, enjoy fantasy/science fiction media while I can, and show love to others as best I can.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 23 2003, 11:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Unless you meant something else by your definition of everyone, as in more a select group of countries from the total international pool.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
bah! semantics! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

bubbleblower · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Back to my original question. Can anyone give a good reason why it wouldn't be to everyone's benefit to overthrow Saddam? (and the additional question: Do the possible gains justify the violence?) </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I think it IS to everyone's benefit if Saddam were overthrown and replaced with a regime that is more pragmatic, but I don't think that is the issue that actually has everyone so upset. I think the Iraq situation is serving as a very visible subject with which to discuss some of the following issues:

1) The United States has more of a lopsided military advantage than any other country has had in history.

2) Bush's willingness to go it alone only reinforces how powerful the United States really is- it doesn't actually NEED anybody's help to win in Iraq, nor even in North Korea, nor even at the same time. (Although the more difficult it proves to be for the US, the less discretion they will use towards civilians.)

3) Bush is clearly a man of average intelligence, unlike most of his predecessors, who showed a little more upstairs, with the exception of Reagan. Most intelligent people, regardless of their political views, are forced to question whether Bush has a consistent, intellectual approach to interpreting reality, or if he is simply acting on childlike confidence. Also, one of the strongest voices closest to Bush is Rumseld, who is incredibly aggressive, and who is someone that Cheney luoked UP to for his whole life, not DOWN. At the risk of oversimplification, there is probably a high degree of Bush defers to Cheney (who is clearly smarter), and Cheney defers to Rumsfeld (Read up on him, you'll see why.)

4) The United States' willingness to go it alone not only signifies the scope of its military might, but also signifies a powerlessness of all the other nations to do much about it. Bush is conveying a near total lack of caring about the opinions of other nations, even key allies.

5) That brings up the question of, if the US is unstoppable, and does not care what we think, is that a good thing? Rightly so, that fills a lot of people with fear regarding what the US might do in ten years.

I am an American. I think that it is is very likely that the world would benefit from removing Saddam, and I think in time that will be undeniable. I also think it should be done simply for the benefit of the Iraqis, who are going to continue to be caught in the crossfire between everyone else and their despot. The coalition forces of the gulf war even have an obligation to clean up some of the mess and help rebuild from the last war, and they can't do it while he's there. But it isn't necessary to do it right this minute, and the convenience of taking advantage of the winter over there for the war seems to be heavily outweighed by the political ramifications of extending the middle finger to everyone else. I personally think most of the rest of them will come around, and I think it is worth waiting.

Most Americans do not see themselves as imperialists, or being harmful to the rest of the world. It takes a certain amount of digging to be able to see the skeletons in the closet. But we're pretty far from being a pre-WWII Germany, and that needs to be conveyed to the rest of the world. I don't know how to do that. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd replace Bush with someone with an IQ above 105, and slap the pharmaceutical companies who want to bleed Africa dry for AIDS medications. But that kind of crap is far beyond the day-to-day themes of America, and takes place in dark smoky rooms in sky scrapers and golf clubs. Most of us just want to watch more lame TV, and travel to other countries to eat cheese and chocolate, and would fight any open plans to plunder the third world. People pleasantly bumble off to church, don't vote, and we definitely couldn't give less of a **** about Israel, much less know where it was. Ignorance and sloth, yes, war-like fascism, no.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bubbleblower @ Feb 23 2003, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But it isn't necessary to do it right this minute, and the convenience of taking advantage of the winter over there for the war seems to be heavily outweighed by the political ramifications of extending the middle finger to everyone else. I personally think most of the rest of them will come around, and I think it is worth waiting.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
The rationale for going in right now is that the rainy season will make Iraq's chemical and biological weapons almost useless.

Upcomming War In Iraq

Comments