# OT: interesting read RE: anti war protestors



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

http://assyrianchristians.com./i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm



_I labeled this OT - please make sure all threads related to the war are labeled OT. Thanks - Blazer Outsider._


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*WOW*

simply said....wow
thanks for sharing this


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*This is not a surprise,*

if you've been watching any interviews of Iraqis in the US.

Freedom comes with a price tag. It will be paid with the blood of coalition soldiers, and yes, some Iraqi civilians.

It wasn't bloodless for the US to rid itself of British rule either. We're just lucky it happened long before our time.

I hope quertyu reads your link, Tommyboy, and thanks for providing it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

That seriously brought a tear to my eye. It has now been printed and is circulating the office as a must read.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

what a story. reminds me of the book "Shah of Shahs," which is about the last shah of Iran. The shah had a secret police force who would vanish people without notice, not telling family where the person had been taken to die. The Ayatolla Khomeini (who Americans reviled) is the outcome of the revolution against that Shah. 

As it happens, the Shah and his secret police's biggest supporter worldwide just happens to have been the United States. We paid off the Shah for being "anti-communism." Small wonder people in Iran hated us so much. 

Now we're going to war in Iraq to free a people from a regime very much resembling a regime we were supporting only 25 years ago. Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> what a story. reminds me of the book "Shah of Shahs," which is about the last shah of Iran. The shah had a secret police force who would vanish people without notice, not telling family where the person had been taken to die. The Ayatolla Khomeini (who Americans reviled) is the outcome of the revolution against that Shah.
> 
> As it happens, the Shah and his secret police's biggest supporter worldwide just happens to have been the United States. We paid off the Shah for being "anti-communism." Small wonder people in Iran hated us so much.
> ...


The Cold War made many a strange bed-fellow.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Now we're going to war in Iraq to free a people from a regime very much resembling a regime we were supporting only 25 years ago. Ironic, isn't it?


Not just very much resembling a regime we supported. We're fighting a regime we *did* support. The US armed Saddam Hussein to allow him to launch a war against Iran.

Osama bin Laden is another former US employee. As is Pinochet. Manuel Noriega was an actual employee of the CIA.

We arm the monsters and then, after they've done the damage we wanted them to do, are shocked and appalled when they damage us as well.

US foreign policy is more of a menace to US citizens then any country in the world.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

We supported the USSR against the Nazis, then we supported Afganis against the USSR, then we took out an Afgani regime.

There are precious few "good guys" in the world. Supporting one bad guy against another, worse, bad guy is often necessary and it's not necessarily hypocritical to turn against individuals and regimes that once did work consistent with the interests of the U.S.

U.S. foreign policy isn't pretty, but to say that it's more of a menace than any country in the world isn't something I agree with at all.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, you make it sound like the US supported one bad guy against another for the good of the world, which would have an ethical basis and would, indeed, grant justification.

But when the US killed Chile's democratically-elected leader, Allende, and installed Pinochet, one of the bloodiest dictators of the century, they did it purely because Allende was not friendly to US corporate interests in his country, and the US wanted a leader in Chile who would do what they wanted. If that leader also killed many of his citizens, that's a price the US was willing to pay.

When they trained up and armed Osama bin Laden and company, it was to fight the USSR in a global game of world supremacy, for US interests, not for the benefit of the world. That power struggle was portrayed, in the interests of brain-washing, as "Democracy vs. Communism," but the US has never stood for democracy outside it's own borders. They've, in fact, been quite inimical to it, because democracies generate leaders the people want, which is unpredictable, while the US wants leaders that they know they can control.

When the US supported Saddam Hussein, it was in order to have him to do the dirty work of prosecuting a war against Iran, a Middle East power that was quite anti-American, which isn't something the US was prepared to tolerate in their mission to get US corporate interests solidly ensconced in the Middle East and, of course, the always-desire to have some control over Middel Eastern oil reserves.

The US has supported bad guys in order to ruthlessly pursue it's own self-interests, not to protect the world from even worse guys. They haven't cared how much death and misery their moves have caused, so long as each move benefited the US. That being the case, is it any wonder that there are people with enough hatred of the US to attempt to carry out horrific terrorist attacks? It seems rather natural to me. Essentially, the US has engaged in its own terrorism to further its agenda, and now people are striking back with *their* own terrorism. That is why I say US foreign policy is more of a menace to US citizens than any other country is a threat to US citizens. For as long as the US chooses to do these types of things, various organizations will try to strike back. Many will fail, but, as 9/11 showed, each one that gets through will be quite a tragedy.

This type of foreign policy has been furthered under all US Presidents for quite some time, so it's not a liberal or conservative issue. It's a problem propogated by both parties.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Well, you make it sound like the US supported one bad guy against another for the good of the world, which would have an ethical basis and would, indeed, grant justification.


Protecting our interests creates more wealth for our country and that's what our foreign policy is SUPPOSED to do. I don't things can be simplified enough to make an objective moral determination of what's good or bad morally.



> But when the US killed Chile's democratically-elected leader, Allende, and installed Pinochet, one of the bloodiest dictators of the century, they did it purely because Allende was not friendly to US corporate interests in his country, and the US wanted a leader in Chile who would do what they wanted. If that leader also killed many of his citizens, that's a price the US was willing to pay.


Nasty stuff, indeed. But why is this nasty stuff a threat to US citizens? I don't see many Chileans, or even South Americans, being much of a threat to us in spite of this action.

And it's arguable (if not even probable) that if Allende had been able to keep power, purges a la the USSR and Cuba would have taken place... killing many Chilean citizens (albeit, probably DIFFERENT citizens). And the odds of Chile being a democracy today were probably increased by the death of Allende. Whether the ends justify the means, etc. etc., is certainly debateable, but so is the level of the U.S.'s moral culpability for their actions in Chile.



> When they trained up and armed Osama bin Laden and company, it was to fight the USSR in a global game of world supremacy, for US interests, not for the benefit of the world. That power struggle was portrayed, in the interests of brain-washing, as "Democracy vs. Communism," but the US has never stood for democracy outside it's own borders. They've, in fact, been quite inimical to it, because democracies generate leaders the people want, which is unpredictable, while the US wants leaders that they know they can control.


I don't want to argue the world-vs-U.S. interests things, because I've already stated that the our foreign policy should serve OUR interests, not the world's at large.

I would argue, though, that the U.S. is not against Democracy outside of its borders. They're not in favor of it to a fault, but to say that the U.S. was NOT opposed to Stalinism (or Socialism/Communism) and that it was just a brainwashing effort to perpetuate U.S. corporate interests is inconsistent with almost everything I've read and studied and that I believe to be true.

What corporate interests were being served by going into Korea? Or Vietnam? The Industrial Military Complex had to be fed? 



> When the US supported Saddam Hussein, it was in order to have him to do the dirty work of prosecuting a war against Iran, a Middle East power that was quite anti-American, which isn't something the US was prepared to tolerate in their mission to get US corporate interests solidly ensconced in the Middle East and, of course, the always-desire to have some control over Middel Eastern oil reserves.


The U.S. supporting Hussein as a Sunni, basically secular, regime against Iran, an extremist Shiite state that had just finished a violent revolution in which they kidnapped and held American citizens, doesn't require mere perpetuation of American corporate interests to explain it. Of course corporate interests are part of American interests generally, but American consumers require (or demand, maybe, since we'd probably eventually adapt to the absence of) cheap oil but don't want to endanger wildlife to get to our own reserves, and many Americans support Israel as an entity. An extended war between Iran and Iraq was useful to the U.S., and therefore we chose to support the lesser of the two evils by helping prop Hussein up against the Iranian gains.



> The US has supported bad guys in order to ruthlessly pursue it's own self-interests, not to protect the world from even worse guys. They haven't cared how much death and misery their moves have caused, so long as each move benefited the US.


That's not necessarily true. By minimizing peripheral damage (including death and misery to civilians) it actually helps U.S. interests. Would death and misery STOP them from doing something? Probably not. But death and misery are just a fact of life, especially during times of change and strife where the U.S. has to decide which side to take... there's very few ways that the U.S. could avoid contributing to bad things unless they withdrew completely (and, even then, in some ways a failure to act when harm is being done can be just as bad as an affirmative act that causes harm).

There are very few objectively "bad guys", just as I'd said previously there are precious few "good guys". "Bad guys" are, to me, almost always guys who are bad guys in terms of American interests, because I think that the U.S. is more capable of leading the world to a better place than any other state.

We have a different take in terms of what drives the United States than I do. From this basic disagreement it's easy to come to different takes on almost everything with respect to politics, diplomacy and war.



> That being the case, is it any wonder that there are people with enough hatred of the US to attempt to carry out horrific terrorist attacks? It seems rather natural to me.


It seems natural for uneducated people who rely on people who give them guns to also give them food and hope to hate the U.S. That doesn't mean that they're objectively right or acting admirably.



> Essentially, the US has engaged in its own terrorism to further its agenda, and now people are striking back with *their* own terrorism. That is why I say US foreign policy is more of a menace to US citizens than any other country is a threat to US citizens. For as long as the US chooses to do these types of things, various organizations will try to strike back. Many will fail, but, as 9/11 showed, each one that gets through will be quite a tragedy.


Would the U.S. be better off if Iraq had nuclear arms? If they had nukes when they invaded Kuwait in the early '90's? This could have easily happened if Israel hadn't bombed the Osirak facility in 1981.

Would the U.S. be better off if Central and South America were dominated by Stalinist states, each seeking out the bomb like North Korea is doing now? This could have easily happened if the U.S. had not aided Pinochet and isolated Cuba.

Would the U.S. be better off to just sit back and let the world do what they will, until another global conflict reaches our shores and we have to send an entire generation of young men off to help save our allies? This is what we did (outside of our hemisphere, particularly) until the horrors of World War II brought most Americans out of the paradigm of isolationism.

The U.S. does some nasty things. Some things that, either in a vacuum or even considering context, very few Americans would be proud of. But even accounting for the inevitable mistakes and miscalculations, I am confident that the U.S. is much better off today than it would be if we had pursued the same laissez faire foreign policy that we did before we won World War II.



> This type of foreign policy has been furthered under all US Presidents for quite some time, so it's not a liberal or conservative issue. It's a problem propogated by both parties.


I don't see it as a problem, but I agree it's non-partisan.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey Ed? IF you don't think our foreign policy has blow back in dealings with South America come to Miami sometime and I'll show you a world that only a drug lord could love! Our foreign policy just doesn't benefit us I can tell ya that right now, we sell our souls all the time to the highest bidder and they get to make alot of rules right here in the US.

Here's an "objective moral determination" for you Ed, the CIA allows four hundred pounds of Bolivias finest marching powder into US waters a week through south Florida. They take 200 pounds of it off the drug runners and sell it on the streets through the DEA, who inturn sells it to local drug dealers for a set cost. The money that is made from the sales is then re- invested into non tracable accounts in the islands that show up in some future candidates election campaign. Now what of the other 200 pounds of pick me up that wasn't taken? Well that gets sold without any police problems to regional dealers who mainline it all over the country. You know to places like the northwest, where your kids will buy it for 100% mark up. So when you hear of kids driving around killing each other over drug territory and wonder why your leaders and president wont do a thing, remember that strong foreign policy that's all about the US.  

One more thing to think about, the US has burned so many bridges now with its great "Foreign Policy" that Iran is sending weapons into Iraq to help their sworn enemy. What does that tell ya? What's best for the US is beginning to backfire is what it's saying to me and judging by the rest of the global polls it's saying that to the rest of the world too.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Tommyboy, the truth about politics is every country is dirty to some extent when it comes to foreign policy. The US is no different but being a super power or the only super power left our laundry hangs out to dry the largest and longest. 

What you said about Iran is true cause I grew up in that time when they took our hostages and remember Carter looking exhausted. Russia was using Iran as a puppet for them against us and Cuba too. Castro on the other hand has always been on the take from our government. If we wanted him gone he would be. He's our necessary evil so to speak!  It's sort of like Saddam, would you rather have him in office or that crazy kid Uda of his? Yikes that kid makes his dad look like a gentle man. 

So when I hear that Iran is now sending weapons to Iraq it really bothers me cause they are sworn enemies but they'll ban together to fight us? That's our foreign policy going south!

My final point is that if bin Laden or Saddem had a 401 billion dollar a year military budget that they may very well be at our doorstep with a huge army looking for a little payback, but because theirs is only 1 billion our planes were their army on 9-11. Terrorism is a broke countries revenge, don't ya think?


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

no I don't think. I think if the Saudis (which contributed most of the 9/11 terrorists) weren't such a corrupt and oppressive gov't to their own people, they wouldn't lash out at us. 

I also like to hold individuals accountable for their own actions. The fact is, 19 people chose to committ suicide and destroy the lives of 3800 other innocent civilians and 2 of the worlds largest buildings because of personal religious and political radicalism. That is the bottom line. You can try to justify it away, rationalize it, mold it into whatever sick idea you want, but that is the bottom line truth.

That is no different than when Jimmy Jones led 900+ people to kill themselves with cyanide and killed a US congressman and some French Guyanan military/police in the process. No different than when Ma Anad Sheila and the Rajneeshes poisoned the drinking water of The Dalles with biological weapons in the 80's because of their political and religious differences with the gov't of Wasco County.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Hey Ed? IF you don't think our foreign policy has blow back in dealings with South America come to Miami sometime and I'll show you a world that only a drug lord could love! Our foreign policy just doesn't benefit us I can tell ya that right now, we sell our souls all the time to the highest bidder and they get to make alot of rules right here in the US.


That's just silly. All of it. I think you forgot to mention that several members of the administration are actually alien visitors controlling all of us through subliminal TV messages.



> Here's an "objective moral determination" for you Ed, the CIA allows four hundred pounds of Bolivias finest marching powder into US waters a week through south Florida. They take 200 pounds of it off the drug runners and sell it on the streets through the DEA, who inturn sells it to local drug dealers for a set cost. The money that is made from the sales is then re- invested into non tracable accounts in the islands that show up in some future candidates election campaign. Now what of the other 200 pounds of pick me up that wasn't taken? Well that gets sold without any police problems to regional dealers who mainline it all over the country. You know to places like the northwest, where your kids will buy it for 100% mark up. So when you hear of kids driving around killing each other over drug territory and wonder why your leaders and president wont do a thing, remember that strong foreign policy that's all about the US.


Umm. If this is any indication of your worldview, your constant negativity about the Blazers makes a bit more sense now. You just don't pay attention or actual facts go into your head and get all messed up somehow.



> One more thing to think about, the US has burned so many bridges now with its great "Foreign Policy" that Iran is sending weapons into Iraq to help their sworn enemy. What does that tell ya? What's best for the US is beginning to backfire is what it's saying to me and judging by the rest of the global polls it's saying that to the rest of the world too.


Were you HONESTLY trying to make a point with your post, or just to bait? If you had any inkling of the situation between Iran and Iraq you'd know that it's not merely country vs. country, Shia vs. Sunni or Persian vs. Arab. There's a mixing pot involved and when you factor in that Iran is NOT friendly to the U.S. even before this conflict (let alone when we win: we'll have presences in three neighboring countries in Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq) it would be shocking if Iran did NOT send aid to Iraq.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Protecting our interests creates more wealth for our country and that's what our foreign policy is SUPPOSED to do. I don't things can be simplified enough to make an objective moral determination of what's good or bad morally.


Well, that's certainly a position to take, that foreign policy is supposed to simply advance our agenda, regardless of whether we act morally or not. However, you can also argue for terrorists the same way...why dub them "bad" or "evil"? They are simply pursuing their agendas, regardless of morality. You can go after them, as you choose, but labelling them as evil or suggesting that what they did was bad seems hypocritical *if* you remove morality from the equation in what the US does.



> Nasty stuff, indeed. But why is this nasty stuff a threat to US citizens? I don't see many Chileans, or even South Americans, being much of a threat to us in spite of this action.


Well, each of those examples wasn't meant to be a precise example of explaining the enemies we have attacking us. They were all supposed to be examples of the types of decisions we've been making around the world, with little thought to who gets hurt. When the US acts like that, it's only increasing the chances that some of the people will work to strike back.



> I would argue, though, that the U.S. is not against Democracy outside of its borders. They're not in favor of it to a fault, but to say that the U.S. was NOT opposed to Stalinism (or Socialism/Communism) and that it was just a brainwashing effort to perpetuate U.S. corporate interests is inconsistent with almost everything I've read and studied and that I believe to be true.


I think that even if Stalin had been a President of a democracy, but been equally hostile to the US, the Cold War would have still existed. The US didn't *really* fight the USSR to bring democracy throughout the world, in my opinion, but rather because a competing superpower put their world leadership, economically and militarily, at risk.

The "Red Scare" and the horror of dictatorships and communism strikes me as a nice tool to rally the troops, home and abroad. If the US *really* detested such totalitarianism, why did they put in power such a frightening dictator as Pinochet?



> There are very few objectively "bad guys", just as I'd said previously there are precious few "good guys". "Bad guys" are, to me, almost always guys who are bad guys in terms of American interests, because I think that the U.S. is more capable of leading the world to a better place than any other state.


I genuinely find this curious. What type of "better place" do you refer to? Do you mean an economically "better place" or some sort of enlightened "better place" like a more evolved society? And why do you believe the US is better-equipped to do so?



> We have a different take in terms of what drives the United States than I do. From this basic disagreement it's easy to come to different takes on almost everything with respect to politics, diplomacy and war.


I agree.



> It seems natural for uneducated people who rely on people who give them guns to also give them food and hope to hate the U.S. That doesn't mean that they're objectively right or acting admirably.


To clarify, I'm not saying the terrorists acted "admirably," nor do I believe in an "objective right." I'm just saying that it strikes me as "natural" that causing a lot of misery around the world will lead to various people acting aggressively against the US.



> Would the U.S. be better off if Iraq had nuclear arms? If they had nukes when they invaded Kuwait in the early '90's? This could have easily happened if Israel hadn't bombed the Osirak facility in 1981.


Really we're back, then, to justifying terrorism as long as it serves one's own interests. Which is a valid position to take, just one I disagree with...because I'm sure Al-Queda would say that the 9/11 attack served their interests. It leads to a dangerous world when people feel justified in doing whatever serves their purposes. Just as it would lead to a dangerous society, domestically, if any citizen were allowed to do whatever he wanted to serve his own interests.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> this is a lie at worst or shows an incredible lack of knowledge of US history at best.
> 
> Again, you fail in the history dept.
> ...


Sure, Tommyboy.

Let me know when you're prepared to discuss or argue like a mature adult. I can play the same game you are, but I refuse to be pulled into a war of insults. At this point in life, it simply isn't worth it. I hope you reach that point in life yourself, someday, where a civil discussion is what you find worthwhile over close-minded flaming.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed, be it that I live in Miami I'd say I know just a little more about our South American relations than some guy hanging out in Seattle trying to sound extra knowledgeable to a bunch of guys on an internet board. Get a clue guy our foreign policy has always bent to the highest bidder and it wont change until we can seperate big business from politics. That wont happen cause they work so well together. 

Tell me Ed when was the last time you were in south Florida? Do you know that most of the best multi million dollar hotels are owned by drug lords not to mention blocks of real estate and even yes schools! Most of the profitable night life scene in south beach that makes about 10 million a night and that's just the beginning. DO you have a clue on how much money that is and where it gets invested? Don't want to go there is just easier to say I'm wrong!

Yeah I don't pay attention, so instead of debating you just attack me and say I have no knowledge. Sure your right Ed, cause you say I'm wrong makes it so!

:laugh:

BTW- I hold an MBA, my facts are just fine, I don't appreciate your 
tying "your" difference of opinion into my ability to process information. Thank You! You take rude to an art form as usual Ed O.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> US foreign policy is more of a menace to US citizens then any country in the world.


 I had to double check to see if that was really you saying that absurb over generalization.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> 
> I had to double check to see if that was really you saying that absurb over generalization.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> I had to double check to see if that was really you saying that absurb over generalization.


*sigh* You know, when people around the world call Americans "obnoxious," it's probably because so many Americans can't take viewpoints they disagree with without resorting to insults.

I expected better of you, RG. I guess you're just another person who can't talk these types of things over without insulting the person you disagree with.

It's instructive to note that I've disagreed entirely with a lot of opinions on world politics and the war that are currently floating around on this board, but I haven't resorted to calling what people said, "absurd," nor have I called them "idiots," or the like. It's fascinating, then, that people are determined to insult me.

I don't care very much, as I'm used to discussion forums being a fertile bed for flamers, so I have a very thick skin and don't take any of this off the board. It's just disappointing to me, as I had generally considered the people on this board more reasonable and intelligent. And, actually, I guess most are, as only a few are choosing to go this insulting route. I simply find surprising the ones who chose to.

Kudos. I'm sure you'll find enlightenment on your road of insults.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

I didn't call you absurd, and I certainly didn't try to insult you. I just found that statement to be absurd, sorry I didn't live up to your expectations of me. You chose to put that thought into writing, did you not expect some comments? Did you really think people would just be OK with that? I didn't read it as though you were stating it as a viewpoint, I read it as you were stating it as fact.

That was a lot to say, and assume for someone claiming thick skin.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Thick skin refers to the fact that nothing I read on the board affects my disposition. There are types of people who do actually get angry, and generally that shows on the board in a hail of insults.

And, no, I never claimed anything in my opinion on US foreign policy as a "fact." It's rather understood on a discussion forum that what people write is their opinion, unless it really *is* unarguables like statistics.

Finally, I have no problem with people arguing my opinions. For example, Ed O. did that, and did it civilly. And I responded civilly. That's how mature discussion tends to work. I didn't and haven't taken various people's arguments on this board and called those arguments "absurd," even if I thought they were. The reasons for that is because *A.* it serves no more purpose than saying, "I disagree (completely)," *B.* it often ratchets up the hostility levels of the discussion, *C.* amazingly, one could actually be wrong, no matter how much one thinks they are right, and thus it's never a good idea to dismiss out of hand others' ideas.

Finally, it makes for a nice community when people can argue without the insults (whether to the person or to the opinion). It doesn't *have* to be nice, but then if I want loud, insult-laden opinions on politics, there are a dozen mass news channels to tune to. It's a shame that some people bring that mentality to a board.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Terrible, I think you have seen and understood things that most Americans haven't seen and would have trouble admitting the truth of. It's a difference between theoretical knowledge and actual hands-on knowledge. 

The country has been self-indulging in the thought that one person's opinion is just as good as another person's opinion. Therefore, whatever one thinks, is just as good as what another person thinks. Unfortunately, this ignores the idea that real experience has value. In specific situations, there can be somethings called truth and more accurate descriptions of the way things are operating. Tolerance might allow for a better understanding of this, but it is a time of "My way or the highway!"


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

ive given up talking to americans about war , their patriotism hits fanatical levels in these times and there is basically zero chance of having a calm debate without it getting personal or into pathetic attempt at keyboard bravado and tough talking. its admirable minstrel but its like pushing *bleep* up hill. 

quick quiz though
whats a bigger headline on cnn?
a) 2 usa marine uniforms found
b) 30+ iraqi civilians dead when a rocket hits a market


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*I Don’t Really Give A Rip…*

...What our past foreign policy history is. I believe that our interests happen to coincide with the interests of the Iraqi people in this instance. There is no question in my mind that the people of Iraq will be better off when Saddam is removed from power. There’s damned little question in my mind that he has plenty of weapons of mass destruction, and it is in our interests to disarm them.

We know that Iraq has admitted they had 2,500 gallons of anthrax as recently as 2 years ago. His chief bomb maker, who defected to the US, said that they were about a year from having a nuclear bomb when the Persian Gulf War started. We know that he had chemical weapons when he fought Iran, and when he was testing them on his own people in the last ten years. We know that he is a hater of our country. We know that he has no morals about killing anyone who stands in his way.

I don’t know, or particularly care, if oil is part of the equation…because I believe that Iraq is, or will soon be, a threat to the US. I further believe that to put off disarming that animal is to defer the problem to our children and grandchildren, and they may have to deal with him on US soil. I also acknowledge that is pretty damned easy for me to say, since I’m not over there dressed in a rubber suit with people shooting at me.

Here’s the crux of it, for me. Do you believe that Iraq has declared all of their weapons of mass destruction? If Saddam has, or will have WMD, he most certainly will be a threat to us by doing one or more of the following:

Attacking the US directly.
Attacking the US through a terrorist organization
Attacking Israel, thereby drawing the US into a much larger war than the one we’re in now.
Invading his neighbors again, drawing the US into a war similar to the one we’re in now, only he’ll definately have WMD at that time.

Those of you who argue against the war, what say you? Do you believe Saddam has no WMD programs? Do you believe he has no WMD stockpiles? If you believe he does have WMD, do you believe that the best course of action is inaction.... to cross our fingers that Saddam won’t do anything to harm us?

Go Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Coast Guard, and don’t forget the BRITS, the one county we can always count on!!!! KICK ARSS AND TAKE NAMES!


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Below are some remarks by an experienced professional in the field. Its not that he is 100% correct, but he is likely to know much more than the average American. It is not about patriotism, it is about understanding what is going on. 


Shorter Version:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1048770098290210.xml

In Depth Version (better, I think):
http://www.oregonlive.com/special/iraq/index.ssf?/special/iraq/0327mcpeak.html


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

which country has the most WMD?


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*Clearly, the US has the Most WMD*

but if they were inclinded to use them this war would be over, and most of Iraq would be wasteland.

Let's Go Blazers!!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Clearly, the US has the Most WMD*



> Originally posted by <b>CatchNRelease</b>!
> but if they were inclinded to use them this war would be over, and most of Iraq would be wasteland.
> 
> Let's Go Blazers!!!


it's sorta like the (imho) stupid bumper sticker that says (in essence) "it will be a great day when the military has a bake sale, and all the money the gov't spends goes to schools"

Well, it's not that simple. The two are not the same, and losing one will not improve the other, and improving one will not mean the other isn't needed.

Also, because the US has the most "WOMD" (I hope in 2004 thats one of the terms we "get rid of"...) does not justify, verify, clarify, or vindicate the wrongness of the "war" in Iraq. Again, it's not the same issue. Sure, the US has made boneheaded moves, but anyone who tries to further their opinion by saying that we're "just as bad" because we have those same weapons, or what not, either has no clue, or doesn't understand things very well.

If the US was REALLY a dictatorship, or a facist or into using them for our advantage, I hate to break it to yah...we'd run the planet. 

If this was a conventional war (in the sense like WW1 and WW2) we'd be bombing willy nilly, and civilians be damned.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

So its ok for the USA to have all the nukes , cause they wont use em? kinda ironic. they justify war cause there is 'a chance' iraq might have them and are a real viable threat to the USA. Ok he's a dictator in his country , and people say he's aided people in attacks on the USA , the USA has backed people in attacks on other countrys , funnily enough afghanistan and iraq. Its apples and oranges , people use the same points to justify and disprove. do u really think anyone in the world wants usa to be the only nuke powered nation ? 
actually heres another question

anyone here believe that blair or bush will be re-elected ?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BlayZa</b>!
> So its ok for the USA to have all the nukes, cause they wont use em? kinda ironic. they justify war cause there is 'a chance' iraq might have them and are a real viable threat to the USA.


I never said it was "ok" for the US to have it. But to compare our having it, to them having it (potentially) isnt' the same.



> Ok he's a dictator in his country,


personally, I think should be the reason to oust someone, not that he might or might not have nukes. 

Should have done it earlier with Slobidon..in Somolia, and the other incidences of genocide that has happened across the globe that the UN did nothing about.


However, knowing what he's done to his own people, and neighbors (including the belief that Kuwait was part of Iraq) and how the gov't of Iraq hasn't complied with the resolutions, is a good reason to fear what he'd do if he has them.



> and people say he's aided people in attacks on the USA , the USA has backed people in attacks on other countrys , funnily enough afghanistan and iraq.


yah, during the cold war. as I said before (maybe even in this thread?) the cold war made strange bedfellows.



> Its apples and oranges , people use the same points to justify and disprove. do u really think anyone in the world wants usa to be the only nuke powered nation?


there's a difference in being responsible with your nukes, and not being responsible. 


> actually heres another question
> 
> anyone here believe that blair or bush will be re-elected ?


I think Blair comes off a lot smoother in press conferences, so I think he stands a better chance at being re-elected AS THINGS STAND CURRENTLY. Who knows how things will be after (if) the war ends.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*C’mon BlayZa,*

You know that the US doesn’t have all the nukes. China, Russia, North Korea are three countries that immediately come to mind that also have nukes, and that’s only the start of the list. I, for one, am damned glad that we not only have nukes, but have the best of the nukes. If we didn’t, the three I named above would be be on their way to ruling the world. And, NO I wouldn’t feel liberated if North Korea were to come here for that purpose.

The fact is, we’ve had nukes for 50 years and haven’t used them. Like it or not, we’ve been thrust into the role of peacekeepers of the world. I don’t like the role, and I especially don’t like paying the bill. But it is what it is, and that role is going to make enemies that we will have to deal with…on their ground or on ours. I vote for dealing with it 'over there'.

On page two of this thread I asked several questions for those who oppose the war. I’m not baiting, and I’m not looking to attack anyone that doesn’t attack me. But, I’d really like to better understand your position, as well as those of Minstrel and Terrible.

I do think that Bush will be re-elected, and I’m not a Bush fan nor did I vote for him last time. I’m afraid that Blair may be in trouble for backing the US, but I hope I’m wrong. It will probably depend on whether we find WOMD, what kind and how many.

Go Armed Forces!
Go Britain!
KICK ARSS AND TAKE NAMES!!!!


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

Is it safe to assume that the USA will be moving on anyone pre-emptively if they deem them to be a threat, with or without global backing?
I still yet havent seen anything solid of saddam being directly behind a move on the USA, or maybe ive missed something.

Catch, has the USA declared its biochemical capabilities ? how many nukes it has? they are both cat and mouse and like the declaration meant anything anyways. It was a catch22 from the get go, they sau YES they do - invade / the say NO they dont - they are liars - invade. Anyone that believed the decision to go in was to be determined by the UN on a global consensus level is kidding themselves. UK govt plays lapdog to USA again and its people know it , IMO neither blair nor bush have any chance of being re-elected whatsoever.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure, Tommyboy.
> ...



Might I suggest then, that the next time you want to jot down 5 or 6 paragraphs on US history, at least get your facts straight. And furthermore, when you accuse the US of engaging in terrorism, I suggest you grow a thicker skin than the one you already allegedly have because people are going to call you on that one. 


And one final note, I never once flamed you, I flamed your words.
You wrote them down, I just called them exactly what they were. They were wrong. Do some research.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*BlayZa,*

I was hoping that you would answer some practical questions: 

Do you believe the Saddam destroyed his stockpile of bio and chemical weapons?

Do you think Saddam would disarm if we continue to play the inspection charade?

Do you think Hussain will soon have a nuclear weapon, if left alone?

Do you think the people of Iraq will be better off when Saddam is removed from power?

Do you believe that it would be better to defer the problem to our children and/or grandchildren, perhaps deal with him on US soil?

I am the first to admit that some of the US foreign policy in the past has sucked. That was then, this is now. I have a hard time understanding where you’re coming from without knowing what you believe to be the truth about the current situation. It seems like you're pretty hacked off about US foreign policy in general. I'm more interested in the specific issue of Iraq.

Let’s Go Blazers!!!!


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*Sorry BlayZa,*

I guess it’s only fair that I answer your questions, if I’m asking you to answer mine.

I’d answer your first questions by example of North Korea. The NK government has made it clear that any attempt by the US to gain UN support for any kind of sanctions against them would be the same as a declaration of war. They have nukes, that is not in dispute. They also have the capability to deliver them to the US. So, if they determine we’ve declared war by trying to gain world support for disarming them, or if they declare war on the US for trying to gain world support, then YES I would absolutely support a pre-emptive strike of whatever magnitude necessary to keep them from nuking the US. Wouldn’t you? (Global backing would be of no consequence to me at that point.)

I guess that I don’t know that anyone has asked the US to declare their WOMD. I know that there was an accounting of how many and what type of nukes we had about 10 years ago, when we were working with the USSR to destroy a large portion of the world’s stockpile of those weapons. I don’t recall anyone questioning the veracity of the accounting we provided. I know that there has been quite a bit discussed about the amount and types of chem./bio weapons currently slated for destruction in Umatilla, OR. Whether we’ve given a complete inventory or not, what we’ve declared is a far cry from denying that we have ANY WOMD whatsoever. Wouldn’t you agree?

I disagree that there was a catch 22 in the Iraqi situation. If they had declared everything they had, and showed it to the inspectors, then agreed to destroy them (as agreed at the end of the Persian Gulf War), I think that’s what would have happened. I don’t believe that we would have gone against world opinion, if Saddam had done what he agreed to do in the first place. After that was good enough for us at the end of the last war, right? I also think that would have been a tragedy for the citizens of Iraq.

I respect your opinion about whether Bush and Blair will be re-elected or not…I guess we’ll see. I would never discount the value of having a friend that will watch your back, right or wrong, though.

Let’s Go Blazers!!!!


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: BlayZa,*



> Originally posted by <b>CatchNRelease</b>!
> I was hoping that you would answer some practical questions:
> 
> Do you believe the Saddam destroyed his stockpile of bio and chemical weapons?
> ...


1. who knows for sure, not me . not you
2. we'll never know , but it seemed like it was making some progress just not as fast as usa wanted
3. no proof either way , he might . n.korea definately will. which is a bigger threat?
4. in a western sense of being better off ? yes. Is in USA's job? No. 
5. the 'problem' is the thing most up for contention. like i asked b4 , where is the links of saddam to difrect attacks on USA ?

now if you'd like to respond to my points regarding the declaration on stockpiles of WOMD , has USA said what it has ? what chem/bio capabilities? why is everyone else being asked to account for themselves when the country with the largest stock seems to never mention theirs. The usual point I hear is this , usa etc has them in defence , the rest have them for offence. 

As for the specific issue of Iraq as you say , its just gonna become a bloody and long drawn out gorilla style war on saddams part. This will not be a cakewalk as some people suggest, my main point is does everyone really think the political/diplomatical/global negotiations with Iraq were really exhausted? Or just not as fast as USA and Brit wanted.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

ok i agree there is a large difference between saying you have none and saying you have them but not giving any numbers. but from all accounts ive heard its more than likely USA has the most, which seems quite ironic considering they are forcing countrys to disarm. USA will never totally disarm cause of the 'what if' factor, why should anyone else then ? Im not saying everyone should be armed to the teeth but it seems quite 2 faced to me


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

holy crap i just hit veteran status =]


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BlayZa</b>!
> holy crap i just hit veteran status =]


congrats, you old timer.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> http://assyrianchristians.com./i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm
> 
> 
> ...


That is a good read. You should really post that on EBB too.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*Congrats, Ya ‘ol vet!*

Well, I Guess I Was asking for your opinion, not what either of us know as fact. I don’t have to know, beyond a doubt to form an opinion about whether we’re doing the right thing.

IMO, the evidence says he does have them. They were clearly jerking around the first UN inspectors. When those inspectors found files documenting the Iraqi nuclear program, they were stuck in the parking lot of the building the documents were discovered in, until we made it clear that we would attack if the inspectors weren’t allowed to leave with those documents. The head bomb maker for Saddam, after his defection, says they were a year away from having the bomb at the time of the Gulf War. They were denied access to many sites they wanted to inspect. They finally had to give up due to the lack of support from the UN. No, this is not proof, but this and countless other incidents is clearly evidence that Saddam had no intention of disarming.

If he did not disarm, we have every right to go back and do it for him. Disarmament was a condition of their surrender. If they did not comply, they did not surrender, and I have no problem with the US going back and finishing the job.

On the other hand, there is NO evidence that he destroyed anything, except his say-so. I’m not comfortable with gambling my kids’ future on the word of an animal like Saddam.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road, for me. If I’m wrong, at least the citizens of Iraq will be rid of a murderous tyrant. If you’re wrong, we’ll leave it to our kids to deal with this guy, perhaps on US soil. Even if we assume that the US is not attacked directly, Saddam has shown that he considers Kuwait a part of Iraq. If we allow him to further develop WOMD, particularly nukes, we may be unable to kick his arss out next time. He has stated his hatred for Israel, and his support for Palestine on many occasions. Do you have any doubt that he would attack Israel, once he believes he’s powerful enough to do so? A WOMD strike on Israel would generate a nuclear retaliation, and probably all out war in the middle east.

One couple more questions for you. Do you think the best course of action at this time is to do nothing, and hope that Iraq will not do anything to hurt the US? Do you think we should also disarm, or allow someone else to have the most and best WOMD? What do you think we should do if North Korea begins preparations to launch a nuke? Do you think the US should renounce the role of world police? Are you an isolationist?

I don’t think we just admit we have some nukes, I believe we’ve given a count of what we have. I know that we’ve given numbers on the chem./bio weapons we intend to destroy. I personally find comfort, not two-faced-ness in the fact that we have the most and the best.

Let’s Go Armed Forces!
Let’s Go Brits!


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

The response has been almost as if he HAS attacked the US , we better get him before etc what indication is there that he was ever planning to attack the USA ? there are many past enemys of the the USA that possess damaging weapons but there is no knocking on their doors. I guess it just comes down to a percieved threat , key word being percieved. 
NK is a different story, they have mentioned war and are in no way scared of the USA, they are imo far more likely to attack than iraq ever was/is . But honestly i can see the USA et al doing everything (far and beyond that of Iraq negotiations) to sort NK out peacefully. 

As far as Israel and Palestine that has always been a mess and will continue to devide the middle east, there is no realistic way to fix it that i can see. 

Does the everyday american really feel a threat from Iraq? 

I just dont like the urgency that bush placed on this and the bypassing the fundamentals of the UN , its earned him a lot of ire in most countrys , the relative threat didnt warrant the action that was taken. Just 2cents on it


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*Clearly, there are a lot of ways to look at it.*

The difference, IMO, is that US intelligence says that Iraq has violated the surrender agreement by not disarming. Most of the evidence seems to support that, IMO. Disarming was a condition that Saddam agreed to in order to get the US to stop prosecuting the war. No other enemies, real or perceived, are in that same circumstance.

BTW, thanks for the civil discussion. Topics like these can get sideways in a hurry, as witnessed above. 

Go Armed Forces!
Go Brits!


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

*Hey Tommyboy!*

Do you get the feeling we just aren't aware of who gets to define what is a civil engagement? And that calling us flamers and such is a part of that civility?

You may disagree with me, but if you do _I'll_ let you know how to do it properly. :naughty:


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

CatchNRelease, I'm only "against" this war if the following things happen as a result,

1) Saddam is not taken out of power and is allowed to remain with a whole new treaty to abide by. If so what was this war for? 

2) That we don't protect the Iraqi people like last time and they are slaughtered by Saddams clan for going against him.

3) We allow Turkey, Iran or any other country for that matter to use this war as a reason to invade Iraq after we leave, or take land away from the innocent Iraqies just trying to survive.

4)The US tries to make Iraq a play ball country suited for our business interest down the road rather than saving them as it was clearly laid out at the off set of this war. If our intentions are to make a better place for Iraq than we should and leave the sales pitches to China, France and Russia. 

As for the war that we are in. I support our troops and know that Saddam is a crazy man that has allready lied about a 100 different parts of the treaty he previously signed. He must be taken out quickley. I just hope our military experts will fully understand that every day this war is tried on TV around the world Saddam gains strength as a martyr and more support from the anti US groups. Thus also making our country a much bigger target. 

Now as for our military planning it should be noted the huge scandel brewing about our top military advisers also being top sales reps for weapons manufacturing companies. This is a huge conflict of interest and one that will make the White House look yet again like this war has a double objective. Something to keep on the back burner to see how it develops.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

i know this could be another thread but how long do people think this war will last ? some of the top brass are already saying the US is undermaned for this war. 

from the time the first bombs hit

1) 0 - 1 month
2) 1 - 2 months
3) 3 - 6 months
4) 6+

im feeling 3, with a possibility of 4 with all the gorilla tactics saddam will be using


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> Might I suggest then, that the next time you want to jot down 5 or 6 paragraphs on US history, at least get your facts straight.
> 
> ...


Sorry, Tommyboy. All you know is US party line. I've not only read lots about US history from American history books, I've also read world history and US history from the perspectives of other countries.

My opinions are perfectly well researched, your "facts" are simply cloistered, provincial party line. Along the lines of, "The US stands for all that's beautiful and good, and they are champions of justice all the time. Anyone who disagrees is just jealous." Simplistic words. Far be it from me to point out that that's typical social brainwashing being manifested in your words...

Hey, you're right. Calling it exactly as it is works nicely. I think you'll be eligible to join this discussion in any meaningful way once "your words" reflect more than simply parroting government party line. I know it's hard to think critically, rather than just write what you're told to write, but one day "your words" will sound smarter and less like a product of a propaganda machine.


----------



## JayBlazerFan (Jan 3, 2003)

*Iraqi Freedom - Moral and FISCAL Costs*

MISPLACED PRIORITIES?

Changing the topic... 

with all of Oregon fiscal problems... *I have an impossible time trying to justify the cost of this war.* Moral reasons will be debated long after this conflict comes to whatever conclusion. However, we have PROBLEMS right here in America. How do we address these.. economy, social, environment, education, health care, ....

Specifically, We are experiencing an educational funding crisis in Portland possibly requiring a combination of instructional weeks removed from the school year, teacher layoffs, reduction in health benefits, and/or pay cuts. 
Crisis = $28 Million annual deficit. 
---

A $$$ number is being mentioned in various web sources as the operational cost of the Iraq war. Manpower, fuel, transportation, consumables (not including the replacement cost of munitions and weapons hardware.) 

*$50 Million per Hour.*
---
It seems unbelievable, yet the US congress is prepared to rubber stamp a $63 Billion supplemental allocation for a 30-day war. 

$50 Million per Hour. (~ 1 Billion/Day)

[1 Billion = 1,000 Million] $50 Million per Hour. Unbelievable.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

well its only going to be worse, there is no way short of killing saddam 2moro that this war is done with in 30days


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel, that last post to Tommyboy was ALL personal and hardly written with the civility you call for. Anymore of those and this will be closed, someone can start a new one without the condescending "I'm smarter than you" are stuff. You want to discuss this, I suggest a PM.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Minstrel, that last post to Tommyboy was ALL personal and hardly written with the civility you call for. Anymore of those and this will be closed, someone can start a new one without the condescending "I'm smarter than you" are stuff. You want to discuss this, I suggest a PM.


I agree with RG on this. This thread is starting to get way too personal. 

The bottom line is we all have different opinions - that doesn't make one person any smarter than the other person. 

PLEASE - argue your point but PLEASE refrain from insulting someone because they have a different opinion than yours.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Hey Tommyboy!*



> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Do you get the feeling we just aren't aware of who gets to define what is a civil engagement? And that calling us flamers and such is a part of that civility?
> 
> You may disagree with me, but if you do _I'll_ let you know how to do it properly. :naughty:


a little bit. 

maybe I should warn people in advance, if they want to talk US history and the politics of the current war, I am an expert on that topic and I can post link after link after link to support what I say. I have spent months studying this stuff.

one little tidbit I'd like to share with people, which is a fact and cannot be refuted: President Clinton twice circumvented the UN when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for 4 days for them not conforming to UN inspections and again when he organized a NATO coalition (because the UN would not agree) to go into Kosovo and dislodge Milosovic.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I told you to use PM, now check yours.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

You know the Germans used the SHOCK and AWE campaign against Britain and it didn't work in the great World War to take them out, why should we be so confident with this plan against Iraq?

Does anyone else have a concern about our top military advisors also repping the weapons they are infact telling us to use? Do you guys see a conflict of interest? Each one of these smart bombs would pay for a year of college for your kids and mine.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Is this a joke? I purposely wrote it exactly as Tommyboy did, attacking "his words" and never him.
> ...


My post was directed to everyone here - not just you.

The personal insults are not acceptable.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> You know the Germans used the SHOCK and AWE campaign against Britain and it didn't work in the great World War to take them out, why should we be so confident with this plan against Iraq?


ugh...



> Does anyone else have a concern about our top military advisors also repping the weapons they are infact telling us to use? Do you guys see a conflict of interest? Each one of these smart bombs would pay for a year of college for your kids and mine.


I hope you're not suggesting we should get rid of the bombs in order to pay for schooling. Thats an old argument that has no grounds for logic behind it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Outsider</b>!
> 
> 
> My post was directed to everyone here - not just you.
> ...


My post was referring to RG's post, not yours.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

No what I'm saying is this war will have an over 70 billion dollar price tag hooked to it and a good chunk of it will come from the many thousand dollars a pop bombs we are using like water. My concern than goes to the advisors handing out the bombing game plans at the same time taking orders for more to be built. The conflict lies in the suppliers being the advisors.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Is this a joke? I purposely wrote it exactly as Tommyboy did, attacking "his words" and never him.
> ...


actually what you wrote in the 2nd sentence of your post was:

*All you know is US party line* which is a personal comment. 

whatever, Hey Minstrel, I'm sorry for getting negative on your original post. I do want you to take a step back though and try to get some perspective because when you accuse the US of terrorism, I think that is a very serious accusation and you might want to rethink that position. Just a suggestion. I mean, of course you might think I'm just some brainwashed US pompom waving gov't lackey so you'll disregard whatever I suggest but I will post some links for you later on of things you might want to check out for a little different perspective.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> actually what you wrote in the 2nd sentence of your post was:
> ...


basically it comes down to this.

My party line doesn't agree with your party line.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Now throw in die hard bordering "fanatic" religion and we see the problem in the middle east.

Do you guys know that Saddam is paying 30 thousand US a head for suicide bombers?


----------



## JayBlazerFan (Jan 3, 2003)

*Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?*

Article written Feb 15, 2003. 
Powell Doctrine examined... interesting conclusions. History has many lessons - has the Bush administration ignored them all?
---

February 15, 2003

*Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?*
Colin...Read Your White Paper
By RICH PROCTER

Anybody remember the 90's? Rember our "Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity," when pundits loved to bash Bill Clinton's foreign policy by citing "the Powell Doctrine"? This was the Doctrine that was going to keep us from entangling ourselves in another Vietnam. Haven't heard much about the "Powell Doctrine" recently, especially from its author, Colin Powell. I believe Mr. Powell is too busy wielding his awesome "street cred" to prop up the Bushies "War Right This Very Second!!!" program.

Just for the heck of it, why don't we examine the Powell Doctrine, and see how it applies to the invasion...er, that is the "liberation" of Iraq. Powell said that six questions MUST be answered before US forces could be committed to combat abroad. Locked, loaded and cocked? Here we go...

1) *Is A Vital US Interest At Stake?* -- Is Saddam massing troops on his borders, threatening one of our allies? No. Has he developed weapons of mass destruction that he might use on Israel or Kuwait? Not that the UN has discovered. Is he acting belligerent toward our friends? Ahhhhhh...no. So the Powell Doctrine votes "NO" on number one.

2)* Will We Commit Sufficient Resources To Win?* Yes, I know the plan is to rain terror from the sky on Iraq with hundreds of smart bombs in a Dresden-like campaign of horror and demoralization. The hope is that Saddam will realize we mean business, and he'll give up, and Bush II will have a nice, short, low (US) casualty, telegenic war ending in high-fives all around and a swell coffee table book, available for a $500 donation to the RNC. But most (non-Bush) experts believe there's an excellent chance the war will get bogged down in block-by-block fighting in Baghdad, where smart bombs are useless and it's pretty much M-16 versus AK-47. This could lead to a long, nasty, bloody war -- and this is NOT the war Bush is selling the American people. The answer to this is a conditonal "Yes, but..." as in yes, but when Bush's popularity goes below 30%, look for a quick "declaration of victory" and let's get the hell out of there no matter what the circumstance.

3) *Are Our Objectives Clearly Defined?* Well, kinda sorta. We want to find and destroy their weapons...if they have any. We want to destroy Saddam...unless he agrees to go into exile. We want Iraq to become a new bastion of Democracy in the Middle East...but Islamic extremists might capture free elections, so that won't happen in our lifetime. We want to "safeguard" their oil fields (Bwaa Haa Haa!) The Defense Department clearly wants to kick Saddam's *** and scram. The State Department wants us to stick around a few decades to re-make the Middle East as a vassal state of the Republican Party. So the answer to #3 is no.

4) *Will We Sustain the Commitment?* See #2. Bush begins running for re-election next summer. Most likely, the economy will still be in the dumper. If the evening news is a montage of stacked body bags, gleeful al-Jazeera bin Laden tapes and "concerned Defense Officials" looking everywhere for the "light at the end of the tunnel," the answer is an emphatic NO.

5)* Is There A Reasonable Expectation that the Public and Congress Will Support the Operation?* Bush is clearly promising the American public "War Lite" -- a hailstorm of smart bombs, a lightning troop sweep, and a Victory Parade featuring the Grateful Iraqui Public welcoming their Liberators. If the war lasts longer than a month and we seem to be bogging down, expect public support to plummet. And since every Congressman and 1/3 of our Senators are running for re-election next year, expect them to run for cover. An resounding NO on this one.

6)* Have we exhausted our other options?* The only folks who believe we've exhausted our options are the Bushies. The UN doesn't believe it. The Pope doesn't believe it. Our NATO allies don't believe it. Most of the public doesn't believe it. Bush says he believes it, but he can't seem to muster the proof, beyond some fuzzy photographs and some ginned up "evidence" designed to keep the true believers in line. NO to this one.

So there you have it, sports fans. Five NOs and one "Yes, but..." Ouch! If Colin were taking this test at a State University, his grade would be "F -- See Me." Of course, Colin Powell will never be grilled on applying his own Doctrine, because the "liberal" press won't bring it up. And the man who created a Doctrine designed to insure that America would never suffer another Vietnam will go along with Bush to plunge America into a war based on an elaborate web of deliberate lies (like Vietnam), with squishy public support (like Vietnam), creating what could turn into a catastrophic debacle with huge loss of life (like Vietnam).


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*a response to Powell Doctrine*

There are many who would answer these questions differently.


----------



## JayBlazerFan (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: a response to Powell Doctrine*



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> There are many who would answer these questions differently.


Screw the questions - *where are the ANSWERS?*

Powell wrote it. What would he say... 

Bush has no opinion. Couldn't form one without a paper given to him with one-syllable words and large print.

After Rumsfeld and the rest of the think tank ex-CEOs express yet another doomsday rant about Syria or Iran... who do want to believe?

Let me make it easy for you - economy, environment, education, corporate corruption, health care, AND now a War in Iraq. End-of-discussion! Period.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: a response to Powell Doctrine*



> Originally posted by <b>JayBlazerFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Let me make it easy for you - economy, environment, education, corporate corruption, health care, AND now a War in Iraq. End-of-discussion! Period.


thanks for the enlightenment-I never would have realized had you not pointed it out so charmingly.

Tell me-do you wear shoes?


----------



## JayBlazerFan (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: a response to Powell Doctrine*



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> Tell me-do you wear shoes?


Only until the Bush economy takes another nosedive.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: a response to Powell Doctrine*



> Originally posted by <b>JayBlazerFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Only until the Bush economy takes another nosedive.


We cool-I can appreciate a person with a different perspective, just don't beat me up for mine.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Terrible,*

My bad. 

In going back over what you’ve posted, I don’t know why I thought you were ‘against’ the war. You clearly are upset with much of past and present foreign policy, and while we don’t agree on every specific, I’m with you in general. Leaving the Kurds and ****es twisting in the wind, after encouraging them to rebel during the Gulf War, was a despicable thing for Bush I to do. It cost the lives of 200,000 people, when the rebellions were crushed by Saddam.

I agree with the parameters you set out for calling the war a success. On your #4, though, that’s going to be in the eye of the beholder. The US will want a stable government in place. Some will perceive that as the US installing a ‘play ball’ government. 

RG, 

I hope you weren’t referring to my comment thanking BlayZa for having a civil discussion. I wasn’t passing judgment on anyone, merely pointing out that emotions run high on this issue and discussions can turn, um, less than civil.

Go US!
Go Brits!


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

Usually people get most annoyed when other posters go thru their posts with a fine toothed comb and disect every point and take as much care as they can to cover up that in their response they are basically calling them idiots. I dont think anyone here is going to change anyone elses mind to the contrary so that really shouldnt be the point of posting. Everyones got their own beliefs and yadda yadda but lets not get it twisted , snide halfpint attacks are not the answer. Even though me and CatchNRelease dont see eye to eye on this issue it never turned personal and id think some of your older posters (on both sides of the argument) could do more to keep this copacetic and civil.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

*Why so many people against War?*

Wow, six whole pages devoted to anti-War?

Why are so many people against War? In my opinion, War was the one of best, most underrated bands of the 70's. Songs like Why Can't We Be Friends, Low Rider, Spill The Wine, and Cisco Kid all remain classic songs.

Ole well, just my opinion.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

*various diff't links for anyone to read*

these links pertain to various subjects regarding Iraq, the UN, and the US.

Iraq chairs UN disarmament committee 

Iraqi athletes tortured 

Senior Iraqi scientist defects and talks about WMD programs 



same Iraqi scientist writes about France & German support of Iraq 

an article about SH gassing the Kurds 

an article about Saddams son 

these are just some of the many I will provide. I had posted many of these on a different messageboard over the last 2 months and I have to do a lengthy search for all of them.

anyhow, I'll post more later....


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I believe that once the US and Britain have done all the dirty work our countries in some ways should sit back and let the "UN"  do theirs. The main reason is to see just who these countries and dare I say UN truly is. Iraq's future business opportunities will not make or break our economy that's for sure. However it will certainly show us what UN countries should be trusted down the road and which ones to make our strategic allies.

The fall of Iraq will answer a lot of questions for the US about the strength of the UN by who shows up firts to pick the bones once it over.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice
someone ever gave me. He told me about the *KISS* method ("Keep it Simple, Stupid"). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get this whole war thing. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts.

*Here are 9 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this
important issue:*

1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein... Believe it or not...Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind:
-They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and
-Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee.
Do your own math here.

3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories,"
your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"(try this, It is interesting) I tried this...but it didn't work

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school
district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education that you deserved.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden
wants you dead, too.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the
danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

9) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out.
*We all need to support them without reservation.*


I hope this helps. :yes:


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice
> someone ever gave me. He told me about the *KISS* method ("Keep it Simple, Stupid"). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get this whole war thing. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts.
> 
> ...



Dennis Miller at his best :yes:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Vintage ~ You can move to the head of the class!!!!!


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> Vintage ~ You can move to the head of the class!!!!!


WOOHOOO!!!!!!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis Miller at his best :yes:


well, Dennis Miller is a lot of things (i like him personally) but one thing he's not, is the author of that letter.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/miller.php


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

More interesting links (at least I thought they were)


These are from PBS Frontline, which is very well respected.

PBS-Frontline on Saddam 

PBS-Frontline about UNSCOM and IRAQ 

PBS-Frontline "Gunning for Saddam" 

PBS-Frontline interview with Saddam biographer


this is an opinion piece from an Iranian that I got a chuckle out of and tend to agree with in principle:

Theory behind PEACE movement


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

*this is a copy of a post I made about a month ago:*

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

(note Hussein Kamel was a high ranking Iraqi scientist that defected in 1995)

_this is what Hussein Kamel said about Iraq's nuclear program: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/iraq_defector/ 
Here are excerpts from Sadler's interview. This historic discussion will be shown on CNN at 8:30 p.m. EDT (5:30 p.m. PDT) Thursday (0030 GMT Friday).

BRENT SADLER, CNN: How close was Iraq in your knowledge to producing a deliverable nuclear weapon?

HUSSEIN KAMEL: First we had enriched French uranium that was ready for a bomb and highly enriched Russian uranium as well.

SADLER: Did Saddam Hussein ever ask his atomic scientists whether it was feasible to deliver some kind of nuclear device at the time of the gulf war (51K AIFF sound or 51K WAV sound)?

HUSSEIN KAMEL: We designed the shell of the weapons. Our first design was for 12 tons and then it went down to six tons, and we wanted a very small bomb with a 500 kilogram warhead or even 300 kilos so it could easily be carried by missile or warplanes. It would be more powerful. Iraq was working very quickly on this. We wanted the missiles to carry the nuclear weapons. But that's all in the past. Now Iraq is not going to repeat that (289K AIFF sound or 289K WAV sound). _


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

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


The New York Times
September 16, 2002, p. A21


Many voices are now calling for renewed United Nations inspections in Iraq. Some belong to critics of the Bush administration who are opposed to war. Others belong to those who favor war but see inspections — which they fully expect to fail — as the needed triggering event for war. Still other Iraq experts believe that Saddam Hussein himself will invite the inspectors back as a means of forestalling invasion if troops begin to move in his direction. 

Whatever one's stance on how best to handle Saddam Hussein, it is crucial to understand one thing: United Nations inspections, as they are currently constituted, will never work. 

There are several reasons for this. Consider the record of the United Nations Special Commission, an agency that was charged with inspecting Iraq's weapons programs from 1991 to 1998. While Unscom did manage to destroy tons of missiles and chemical and biological weapons, it could not complete the job. Iraqi obfuscations prevented it from ever getting a full picture of the entire weapons production effort. The commission's replacement, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which has not yet been allowed to enter Iraq, will have even less success given its structure and policies.

Unscom was staffed mainly by officials on loan from national governments who did not owe their jobs to the United Nations; Unmovic personnel, on the other hand, are United Nations employees who are likely to be hobbled by the United Nations' notoriously inefficient bureaucracy.

These inspectors are not set up to make effective use of intelligence information. In the 1990's, American intelligence officials supplied secret information to selected Unscom inspectors, knowing that the information would be protected and be used to uncover hidden Iraqi weapons facilities. At Unmovic, however, no inspector will be allowed to receive intelligence information on a privileged basis, a policy that increases the risk of leaks to the Iraqis. Unmovic has also declared that it will not allow any information gathered from its inspections to flow back to national intelligence agencies. This eliminates the main incentive for intelligence sources to provide Unmovic with useful information in the first place.

Even if it is allowed into Iraq, Unmovic will run up against obstacles at least as formidable as those that stymied Unscom. After years of practice, Unscom became adept at launching surprise visits to weapons sites, yet Iraq's intelligence operatives defeated it more often than not. It was a rare inspection when the Iraqis did not know what the inspectors were looking for before they arrived. Most Unmovic inspectors have little experience in Iraq and even less in handling intelligence information.

Compounding this handicap is the fact that Iraq has taken considerable pains to make its weapons programs mobile. Laboratories, components and materials are ready to hit the road at a moment's notice. Once, as an experiment, Unscom had photos taken from a U2 spy plane of a site that it was about to inspect. First the photos showed no activity, then large numbers of Iraqi vehicles leaving the site, then no activity, then the inspectors' vehicles arriving.

Unmovic is also stuck with a deal the United Nations made in 1998 on "presidential sites." Iraq is allowed to designate vast swaths of land (big enough to contain entire factories) that the inspectors can visit only after announcing the visit in advance, disclosing the composition of the inspection team (nuclear or biological experts, for example) and taking along a special group of diplomats. This loophole creates refuges for mobile items and could defeat virtually any inspection effort.

New inspections will occur under the threat of imminent American military action. Any announcement that Iraq is not cooperating could be a casus belli. Such a risk might encourage Unmovic to monitor what is already known rather than aggressively try to find what is hidden. This could mean that the goal of inspections — the disarmament of Iraq — might never be achieved. Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Inspections can only do one thing well: verify that a country's declarations about a weapons program are honest and complete. It is feasible for inspectors to look at sites and equipment to see whether the official story about their use is accurate. Inspectors can rely on scientific principles, intelligence information and surprise visits to known weapons production sites to test what they are told. It is a different proposition altogether to wander about a country looking for what has been deliberately concealed. That is a task with no end.

For inspectors to do their job, they have to have the truth, which can only come from the Iraqis. As President Bush told the United Nations last week, the world needs an Iraqi government that will stop lying and surrender the weapons programs. That is not likely to happen as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. 

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

as to his rise to power and plans:


Interview of Saddam's biographer from PBS-Frontline

the relevant quote from that interview is:

*Q: And he had to be the one in charge?

A: Without any doubt. You know during the war with Iran, I remember telling someone Khomeini isn't the only person who talks to god. Saddam Hussein thinks he talks to god. He has a message--he has to lead Iraq, make it a model for the Arab countries and then attract the rest of the Arab countries and become the sole Arab leader of modern times. *


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

this is a website for anyone interested in Iraq and WMD

Iraq


----------

