Stupid Quotes

If you must...One of the most shameful displays of American power in history.

So either you're denying that Hitler butchered millions, or you're not getting my point. All of the dictators I listed before (and I could go on) were genocidal maniacs. Just because Saddam wasn't invading the US or Great Britain doesn't mean he had any right to massacre thousands. Both Saddam and Hitler waged war on the civilian populations of their own and neighboring countries; you're not contesting this.

Basically you're saying that they have every right to do that as long as they're not directly threatening the United States or Britain. If that logic were followed throughout history, there's a very good chance that the Nazis would have triumphed, Bosnia would be a province of Serbia, Bolshevism would've enveloped all of Germany, and everything within a thousand miles of Mesopotamia would be owned by Saddam Hussein.

It's certainly a practical idea. The US has made a grave mistake of not sending in the UN & hasn't handled post-Baath Iraq very well, but I maintain it's an improvement over Saddam's rule.

The situation itself is still very young, and I think that if the United States allows the UN to regulate the rebuilding of Iraq (or at the very least, ups the humanitarian aid by about a billion dollars ) everything should be fine in a fairly short amount of time. I'm still waiting it out.

Since when is race-murder unimportant?

Amen to that. What do you smoke?

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Saddam is a complete psychotic nutter. He is in the same league in this scale.

In most others he's way off the boil. Hitler, for a start, wound up dealing death to millions of others. Stalin did the same to his own people (and modern russia seems to be continually attacking a certain race-minority. Care to go and stop them?) Saddam hasn't done anything like that. I know your argument is that "one day he would have" but i remain completely unconvinced on this point.

Despite being a race-persecuting power fiend, look how ineffective his previous expansion attempts were (by being caught early or sneakily opposed by the States and others. That's the point. We've learned from history and we can stop aggressive expansionism in most of its forms. That's if "we" can keep the UN operating as a mechanism now the US has completely under-mined it of course )

I am not in any way saying that. Coming to the aid of neighbours who ask for it should saddam try and expand etc is exactly what the WORLD community should do (thru the UN). That's what "we" should have done in WWII. The US playing Minority-Report predictive-detective is undermining the very "rules" of civilised world order that you are insisting should be operating.

I am saying that: (a) the british and US public had it suggested to them that they were in some sort of danger (i don't know how you felt there, but i'm pretty sure most people here didn't believe it. Although the polls evened out at about 45% "for" through-out the war, for what that's worth)
...and (b) the "intelligence" used to "predict" Saddam's future actions have been mis-represented. In fact, on current evidence, and lack of it in Iraq, it seems that there was no concrete or valid set of "intelligence" that prompted this war. We went coz certain people wanted to go.


Erm, i actually disagree completely with the idea that the populace of iraq are better off now than under saddam. Currently they are living in a practically lawless, un-serviced land. A different type of terror has come to their door. Under saddam they at least had regular water and electricity. High levels of literacy/education aren't as useful with no lights to practice them after dark

And the US won't let the UN in until they're prepared to divvy up the pie. This is a fairly established diplomatic fact i'd say (in the same sense that russian and french opposition before seemed to stem from oil interests being compromised - now they won't come dig u out unless the deal is sweetened. -If you want power, you get politics- )

A far more practical approach is: waiting for saddam to actually attack someone, or having some "world-convincing" evidence that he is going to, so that then the UN can go in and Saddam can get no help from interior-nationalism etc. Any meaningful and stable change must come mainly from grass-roots movements with international aid - for everyone's benefit. Not top-down control for suspicious reasons. You can't force democracy on someone for a start. They have to want it too

As it is, we're ****ed on that front. If a peaceful resolution comes about in Afghanistan, for example, over the next three years, i will be very very very very very very very very very very pleasantly surprised.

If there's no UN intervention, we won't see peace in Iraq for a much longer time than that i'd say. History has taught us that.

Thank god we've got the technology to improve on history these days eh .


Since forever as far as governments are concerned, coz it goes on all the time, and countries like the US and britain feed it on a regular basis with indiscriminate arms sales.

Umm, yes, too much

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I didn't say everyone accepted it as gospel...merely that I've run into entire slews of anti-war people who do.


You've misunderstood (and judging by the reputation I've received, so has someone else ). I see the irony in what you're describing; but only because you've clarified what you said earlier (which was considerably vaguer).

That said, it's not really that ironic, anymore than it's ironic that both Hitler and Patton were great public speakers. It's rather inevitable for the leader of any state, I'd imagine, and as such drawing parallels with negative implications seems misguided, in my mind.


Why? You don't think the ideology that would have us leave Hussein in power indicates a certain wishful thinking, or naivete, that is ultimately only protected by the fact that others do not share those traits? You don't think a number of Americans who opposed this action did so because it was easier to shut their eyes to the actions being committed over there, focusing instead on our petty domestic concerns?


Supporting without asking questions is bad, but so is condemning without having answers. And, as you well know, there are still a number of unresolved matters.


I have read some. If nothing else, they certainly show how illiterate we as a people are today in comparison to our early 20th century counterparts. That said, the fact that someone might be somewhat burnt out on pride for their country after a long, difficult war isn't much of a reason to condemn the notion.

Both overzealous patriotism and naive pacifism have a number of marks in the "wasteful stupidities" column. I stand by the quote.


So, you're telling me that being a demonstratable threat to the US or Britain is the only justifiable reason either would have for taking action against them?


If you want some irony, here it is for you: you imply that we've no reason to invade Iraq, seeing as how they have no means of delivery for any weapons they might have...yet at the same time, the attacks of 2 years ago, as you'll surely remember, did not require any such means. Delivery is clearly of secondary importance.

Tell me this: do you believe Saddam has failed to attack us out of altruism, or incapability? Moreover, do you deny that he was in the process of (or attempting to) develop said capability?


Seems like some mistakes were made, yes. This should hardly come as a shock to anyone, however, unless the mistakes were the pillar on which the action stood; which I don't believe they were.


You'll have to be a lot more specific than "our leaders," though no matter who you list, I'm rather undecided on the issue. As you've surely noticed, there seems to be some disagreement about just who knew what, and when.


Far too soon to say, but it's hardly an absurd notion. Self-preservation can outweigh vengeance.

And if the UN fails to act, then what?You might as well argue that it's not worthwhile to have your house fumigated because it requires that you check in to a rundown motel for a few days. We're right in the middle of restructuring a country, for crying out loud.I'm sure everyone would agree with that...OTHER than the people who we wait for him to attack.

Heh.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Erm did the UN fail to act in Kosovo? In practical situations it will act. Iraq invading another country could be dealt with.

Yes of course there would always be massive upheavals in "regime-change". My point is we have done it in the worst possible way - in a way which will almost certainly fail. Hence these probs will continue because people will keep attacking the electricity lines etc because they are opposed to the occupying force, pre-dispoed to be anti-american anuway, have even more reason to be anti-american in some ways (you can deny this if you wish) coz of the way in which american soldiers are handling occupation etc etc

this biggest thing tho is we've let the people down in the past, we haven't won them round this time so things are not going to get any better. no amount of arms, war skills or technology can change that. Unfortunately, those are the only things we seem to have sorted out the logistics for. But again, better planning (which at least would have communicated that this was an important aim to the occupiers) would have made things a little bit better.

The UN seems to have been doing a perfectly good job of limitng and preventing the build up of WMDs and nuclear capabilities in iraq. Saddam was pretty much screwed for money - so how has he suposedly replenished things

okay, no time...much more to say....

do you agree with the ideas i posted earlier about decption and dubiousness of "intelligence" etc?

laters...

edit: i'm gonna be late - just saw other post -will respond in a few hours

You said: they repeat it "as if the fact that a dead person said it makes it gospel truth". Which was spurious and off point (as you're fond of pointing out of others )

Well, the original was clear enough to anyone who believes that the reasons given for this war are probably spurious too. If the war is enacted for the wrong reasons then corresponding enforcement of these ideals and actions through over-patriotism is "wrong" and therefore ironic in the way described. See later for back up for this claim (about which we centrally disagree and don't have enough facts to convince each other - but let's use what little we have. Absence of concrete knowledge is another vital tool in the manipulative-politican's "arsenal")

I do think that pure-pascifists are daft to be honest (but i don't think suddenly calling all internal politics petty is a very balanced argument - again another "side-effect" of war is to focus attention else-where. Traditional sleight-of-hand. Not always deliberately, but part of the issue here.)

As i've said, war can be an inevitable representation of inevitable power struggles etc. Let's do everything we can to avoid things getting to that point. Not out of fear, but out of bravery and conviction that some things can be done better (i see from the Evolution2 thread that you believe in the idea of controlling our base "chemical" natures - so this idea should appeal to you )

This will always be the case. Personally i don't plan on waiting 50 years for the official secrets act to reveal, yet again, that everyone was lying thru their teeth I don't want to hear some other Kissinger mumble about how they don't re-call. So unsatisfying to address current actions 50 years down the line don't you think?

However, there is strong evidence of deception, which i will get to.

Merely the other side of the "coin" (as Bealey would have it). Will you feel guilty for such sentiments if it is proved demonstrably that our politicans have manipulated us and that the reasons for going to war were far more nefarious than those stated? You're a good man, i suspect you would. Please try to see that it is the "with-me-or-against-me" polarisations and simplifications that make that quote so infuriating and blinkard. You can't just dedicate a country to war and then say "anything that goes wrong doesn't exist. Or at least, don't mention it". Sounds a bit communist-state-ish doesn't it? Doesn't sound like free speech at any rate

Agreed. But personally i don't feel i am representing naive pacifism. I would like to think i represent partially informed, partially-historically-educated, partially-politically-aware, realistic pascifism. So let's get on with the nitty gritty about why i've made the choice of standpoint that i have (or, to be fair, why i made and have continued supporting my predictions as they all seem to be coming true, no matter how much i try to read both sides)

Oh dear, Steve made this jump too. I'll answer in the same way. No! That is not in any way what i'm saying. I am saying (a) it was suggested to us, deceptively, by our leaders that this was the case to increase support for war. And (b) this type of pre-emptive action damages the only genuine mechanism we have for stopping expantionist invasions i.e. th UN (the only practical way of stopping a crime we have at the moment is to address it heavily after it happens. If you want to predict a crime, you have to have incredibly strong evidence, of not only how the person/country was, but how it is now and the changes it is going through. My assertion is that we didn't. If they had clear reasons for going they could of told us by now. They can't coz they don't, in my opinon.)

I believe i'm being practical in this. If you want to get rid of saddam, you wait til he attacks someone again (as you seem convinced he was going to. Where was he going to get the funds for this/the nescessary re-building etc? He was pretty strapped for cash as i understand it)
Hence we learn from wars of the past, re-act quickly when nescessary (and despite your claim otherwise in the second little post, the UN has demonstrably done this), and also have a much better chance of locally-supported regime change (the only type that can work without just becoming another oligarchy/repressive state etc)


Oh PLEASE!. Show me the connections between Saddam and Al Queda!!!! I assume that's what you're talking about. Where are the connections?? That is such a flimsy argument. American troops on the ground weren't discouraged from believing this. Outrageous! Now that certainly fits the term "propoganda".

Tell me what Saddam would have gained from this (yes he hates america, for not helping him build his ego-empire, after helping him and others over-throw the last/only internally-selected governing body in Iraq. But that's not enough. He's demonstrably secular, except in times of desperation. He has no interest in fatwas/religious-extremism except for internal control, i suspect. He funds palestinians apparently, but that's just him trying to keep a hold on that region/un-balance his potential enemies nearby. What would he gain from angering the States like that?)

Are you just going to rely on a string of unsubstantiated accusations from politicans who have shown themselves to lie in public for their own interests? TELL ME WHY SADDAM AND AL QAEDA (sp) ARE CONNECTED!!!

And how has invading lessened this threat then? If you believe this threat can eminate from Iraq, how does going in solve the problem? It just angers them more surely! It just makes them more desperate and gives them more reason to strike out. [just adding to the list of why-yanks-are-unpopular-abroad. There's more "motivations" on the "iffy" list i believe.]

They've got enough to worry about with all the "depleted uranium" tested out in the last war causing cancer and preparing to sit around for the next million years or so. Saddam's never going to convince "educated" people to fly out on suicide missions (they're too busy mopping up all the problems, constantly), and anyone else would get spotted most likely - i.e. how did they get the money for all the travelling etc. Alright, these are the suppositions of an angry man. But PLEASE! Your argument concerning this is very close to non-sensical.

I don't deny that he would like to if it could establish him as an untouchable power (like N Korea etc apparently is. i.e. sufficiently powerful that others like america etc have to negotiate with them rather than incinerate them )

What i deny is that he had acheived a significant re-build. Again, uncertainty cuts both ways, and there was/is no way for the inspectors to declare absolutely that all weapons had been controlled and manufacture impeeded or stopped. Some pointers for why he probably hadn't re-built:

-the trade embargo means he MUST have been strapped for cash. It would have been difficult to get operations up to past levels, especially with the inspectors on his back constantly. But i'm sure he tried.

-Dr David Kelly (the bioweapons expert apparently harried into suicide by all the power-politics and tangible lying going on. A man who loved scientific truth but who could extend his love to cover the applications us foolish humans put them to - as so many others can't seem to do. He was passionate about not seeing the thing he loved used for terrorisation etc etc) He and other esteemed members had become as convinced as they could be that the bioweapon program had been muzzled and was not getting back on its feet. This is the man who managed to get Saddam to admit to 4 years of lying about his bio program. This is the man who actually got petrified scientists to talk. This is the man Saddam persecuted and desperately wanted removed from the country, above all the other inspectors. Why do you think that was? Coz he was damn good at his job)

-as suggested above, if he HAD rebuilt, it seems more likely he would have used the weapons as a bargaining tool to insure his entry into the economics/political world

So, i don't deny he wanted to, i just deny that had acheived it, and indeed that we had any proof that he had. What's he gonna do? Send some guy out with some imaginary-Niger-uranium under his coat?

My argument is:

-If they had a solid "pillar" of evidence, why hasn't it lead to finds?
-we should be surprised by multiple mistakes and low-quality in "intelligence" and its representation when it is the only reason given for war.
-why would politicans bang on about things they knew to be false unless to cover for the flimsiness of most of their rationalisations for war. (Niger - bush and friends knew man. Either that or he's part of the decision making process without knowing the facts. That doesn't inspire confidence. Not to mention the bio-trucks, which blair certainly kept pushing as such after he knew they weren't, and my memories of the chronology are that Bush carried on stating that after blair had fallen silent. Again, not good. Our "suicide" friend had to risk his neck again to make sure the public knew and wasn't mislead again. He's dead. Let's hope there are some more heroes out there) (all hard to prove, but plenty of reason to be suspicious. Do more experts need to be hounded to death before "fact" triumphs over "spin"?)

Oh come on. Suicide bombing is only prevelant in desperate and destroyed societies (admittadly Muslim countries normally). Super-power interference in afghanistan and "palestine" societies have caused the desperation which we see inacted when a mother/father sends their son/daughter to die. It is desperation and degradation that lead to extremism seizing control of a country. If the iraqis were going to bomb anyone it would be their own insane leader. I really don't think there'd be any reason for the average iraqi to suicide-attack america (well, at least, there wasn't).

Self-preservation outweighs vengance in palesteine, but they have been pushed so far that even "nescessity" has been redefined. If this is your dream result for iraq, well then, the dream is coming true even as we speak. Maybe the UN'll come in and pick up the pieces - telling you off for biting off more than you can chew? (and i do say "you" - the US. The brits are just there as an attempted placation of world-opinion for these outrageous actions. And of course that doesn't work. We just get dragged along with you when-ever we try and bridge the europe-US divide etc or try to slow you down thru our "special relationship". I doubt you'd claim that the brits were het up about iraq and wanted to invade. We wnt to make you guys look less unilateral, arrogant and misguided. I know these words will seem bitter, "ungrateful", misguided, hateful and many other things to many americans reading this, but unfortunately you need to know what the world thinks of you sometimes. And, just occasionally, the world can be right you know. I'm not claiming to speak for all of it, but even amongst the privaliged international learners that i teach, i find the sentiments i am expressing reflected)

Trust me, these actions are not making any friends and have almost certainly increased the chance of britain and the US being on the receiving end of "terrorist" attacks. You can't punch a made-up-generalisation in the mouth. So sorry. Isn't life frustrating

Ahhh, the end (until you reply )

here's Clare Short talking about regime-change (and legality)

[former "international development secretary" and ex-member of Tony's cabinet, she resigned over the way in which we went to war. She is very aware of the international scene - and she also seems to concur with my humble opinions ]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...008495,00.html

Sure it could; but if history is any indicator, that doesn't mean it WILL be. My question was not wholly rhetorical: what are we to do if the UN does not take care of these things? I suspect that you're a reasonable fellow, and therefore willing to acknowledge that we should not go along with the UN's action (or lack thereof) unequivocally, and as such the gripe is not about us going against the UN, but about going against the UN without, in your mind, adequate justification. A subtle, but important, distinction.
And what way is that? You seem thoroughly displeased with the way we're currently handling things, but I recall hearing much in the way of elaboration on this point.
I point it out because you poke fun at yourself for it. You only accept self-inflicted wounds? Regardless, I maintain that people give quotations weight for silly reasons,"If you want people to believe something, tell them Benjamin Franklin said it."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Abscence of concrete knowledge is also a vital tool (nay, the ONLY tool) in the conspiracy theorist's arsenal, as full disclosure would be the death of their ideology. That said, yes, let's use what we have.
But I'm doing the exact opposite...I'm pulling attention away from domestic issues and planting them firmly in foreign soil. Anyway, I certainly did not say that "all international politics" are petty...but I don't think I should have to explain why our income tax rate isn't quite akin in severity to, say, someone being tortured and raped under a despotic regime.
The fact that I think we are not total slaves to our internal biology in no way implies that I should simultaneously advocate a more pacifist view than I do, but yes, we should stop things from getting the point they got with Saddam when it's at all plausible.
No disagreement there. But last I'd heard we hadn't even searched the majority of potential weapons sites. I don't think we're far enough along to play the "well, we don't know everything, but will we EVER?" card. Let's at least wait until we know MOST of what we will.
I think you're revising the quote in your mind with each subsequent post. A quick refresher:"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill

I see nothing no "with me or against me" equivalent there, but rather, one simple point: there are things worse than war, and the people who do not see that are routinely protected by those who do. The people who speak out against most military actions are frequently people whose very ability to speak out has similar actions to thank for it.

And yes, it'd bother me if I found that the sentiment expressed in the quote above (which I've no problem with whatsoever, and stand by unhesitatingly) were being abused...but the abuse of a thing does not invalidate the thing itself, anymore than an abortion clinic bomber can invalidate his religion.
You're not a hopelessly naive pacifist, and I'm not a blood-lusting warmonger. Glad we cleared that up.
You seem to be presupposing that we won't find any WMDs. Given the beating the White House has taken over sketchy intelligence (for which Bush has taken personal responsibility as of today, by the way), I wouldn't be shocked if they'd found something already, and were merely determined to make absolutely sure that they have what they think they do. Clearly, they're smart enough to know that they cannot afford another debacle, so I think it's reasonable to expect them to exercise a certain level of caution from here on out.
Having done it before, and reliably doing it, are two different things. The UN does not have a reliable, sturdy record in terms of military effectiveness. Granted, it's a step-up from the League of Nations, but they're by no means a paragon of swift resolutions.
Your assumption is mistaken.I didn't say there was any such connection. I was reminding you that "traditional" delivery methods are clearly not necessary to do a significant amount of damage. Saddam's threat comes not so much from the idea that he'll sit in one of his palace's pressing dangerous red buttons, but that he'll build something deadly and turn the "distribution" over to someone else.
Well, firstly, hating America (speaking of which, did you see the September 11th mural painted on the walls of one of his buildings?) is certainly reason to suspect that he might aid someone in dealing us a blow. Secondly, I don't see why his secularity would matter; he doesn't have to worship Allah to enjoy the events of two years ago. Third, he's already angered us before and come out the other end with his mustache intact.You can state that you don't think he'd be able to do it, but I seriously doubt his motivation to cause us harm is really all that suspect.
See above. I'm not saying that they're definitely connected, despite the alleged training camps in Iraq containing Al Qaeda training manuals and equipment, and despite the testimony of former Sabah Khodada (Captain in the Iraqi military for a decade) just a month after the attacks took place (which, if true, is more than reason enough to have gone into Iraq).
You can't have it both ways. You're right when you say we can't know for sure, and therefore need to make decisions based on what we have...and as such, it seems rather contradictory to turn around and imply that this inevitably uncertainty alone was reason enough to stop us from taking any action.
Are you telling me this lack of cash is a fact, or what you consider to be a reasonable deduction? Because I think it's a bit speculative for my blood.
I believe it. But I also believe that it's easier to hide things than it is to hide them. You say they became "as convinced as they could," and that may very well be true...but in a country the size of Wisconsin, I see no reason to believe those findings are definitively conclusive.
But was he CAPABLE? If he's CAPABLE and DESIROUS, you could make a rather compelling case that that makes him a threat, albeit not an imminent one. Mr. Mustache is sort of on probation anyway, as it were, and as such I don't know that, given his track record, it's all that sensible to expect a nuke to be powering his ballroom chandelier before we move in.


You might as well as "if you're sure your keys are in the living room, how come you haven't found them yet?" The answer is that it's not always instantaneous.
I believe I said the same thing above. But I don't believe it WAS the only reason given for war.


First thing's first: there's no way for the President (or even most high-ranking officials) to personally verify all the facts, period. That's not a personal shortcoming. As for the Niger claim, last I'd heard Blair was standing by it. Have I missed something since then?
Other than, oh, I dunno, the threat of being lowered into a shredder, or of watching your entire family die in front of you? When you are as morally and ideologically neutral as Saddam...when you sole aim is the goals you set, and not the methods you use to reach them, persuasion becomes less of an issue.Anyway, you could use that argument against any military action. Any show of force could inevitably create people who hate us, whether they ought to or not. It's an inevitable downside which should be taken into consideration, but in my mind should not be given the vast amount of weight you seem to be giving it.


Given what I've heard of the UN's record in regards to peacekeeping operations, I'm not quite sure where you abundant confidence in them is coming from.A military action doesn't always have to make friends. Sometimes unmaking enemies if enough.

Whew

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I believe they were taking care of it adequetly. I trust the process and the experts involved and their successes along the way. Yes i agree the UN is regularly rubbish (i have many probs with the UN, but lets not digress). And yes, i thought i made that distinction b4? The fact that you couldn't convince this world forum that war was nescessary etc is worrying. As you know, i'm not convinced there is/has been enough justification.

um, if i understand u right (), my point is we shouldn't be there (Thougt we might as well get down to brass tacks )

EDIT: But i've said in other areas what i think is preferable: having the locals on side for a start, which you don't (well, i don't trust some of these "polls" knocking around that suggest you do to an extent - i'd like to see how they were structured b4 i'll believe they are genuine fact-finding attempts and un-spun etc.) All the iraqis interviewed on tv over here either want the US out, or want them to do a better job, and then get out (i have no idea what pap your press is putting out - it seems to conflict with ours completely from what i've seen and heard - and we're nearer And we seem to have a lot more independants on the ground - not imbedded idiots)

yes indeed, i am guilty of tangentalness etc, but u also accuse others of it when it is not nescessarily warrented. T'was that i talked of

And this quote thing: it's not because he's "famous"....it's because he's Herman Goering that that quote is important!

This one's cyclic argument. Let us not dally there

um, u must have misread. I said "internal" not international

Well stop selling arms to oppressive regimes then

Ok. i'll wait. That's quite probably true. But in the meantime i'm gonna pick holes in all the other stuff

So what u're saying in relation to iraq war is...We're going to war to keep ourselves free etc i.e. that Saddam was going to attack you. Howwhatwhenwhere? As u know, i am not convinced of this broad-blanket terrorism definition under which so much is getting swept.

Aha, so it's an absolute of some sort is it? This sentiment of pure patriotism. It can be "absolute" in an abstract realm, but here on the ground it can take on many forms. Are you saying above that if u found out the bush admin had manipulated via this public pride of which we are talking you'd be bothered?

Whoa, don't blink people. How did you manage to turn that from we haven't got anything to show you ---to---> and so therefore you'll have to wait a while longer. Wishful thinking me thinks. They'd announce they'd found "something" but declare categorically they didn't know what it was yet. Then people'd just buzz as normal talkng bout it etc.

EDIT: (04 Aug 03): yup, that's what happening. They've found stuff they say, but can't tell us what it is

Agreed, they are often pants. But world action in these terror-bull cases is better than unilateral.

What is his motivation? What is Saddam's motivation for taking you on? Or even attacking you sneakily thru others for that matter? The only strong Al Qaeda/Taliban link in Iraq these days is Kurdish. D'you think Saddys up there now doing a deal with 'em?

What's this bit about? He escaped you before so now he'll attack you? How does that work? The others points were fair enough perhaps, but still not enough.

The camp in question is the kurdish one silly . Nothing to do with Saddam.
I have not read exactly what he said (but captain doesn't seem that high up ) EDIT: Ok, intriguing. Unfortunately, i find it a little convenient, and certainly not strong enough on it's own. This guy gets a great bargaining chip by claiming he's been to a secret base, in a secret car, and it must be vewy vewy far coz he can't remember where, it seems. He certainly plays to all the prejudices.

Um, if Mount Vesuvius has angered me, coz i believe she has been over-heating my coffee via underground thermals, and i weigh up the evidence (hot volcano, thermals exist) and my lack of evidence (i have no proof, but i still reckon she is...)... you can see how i'd have to favour my evidence and act on my belief. The bush-admin etc decided
to go to war. That is my belief

That is one of my wild assessments

Again, my belief (ain't that infuriating? is that he is, to all extents and purposes, neither.

What were the other reasons aside from supposed new or mounting inteligence of his threat?

He doesn't have to VERIFY the facts. He has to be AWARE of the core ones! What are you telling me, there are things they can't tell the president? Important things. How are he and others supposed to make executive decisions. Come on.

And blair's bull****ting pretty much (or at least, that would be no surprise considering his current record). They won't even declare the source, which isn't british. And it's different info from the one that had been proved forged before it was proclaimed.

r u suggesting saddam could make suicide bombers etc in this way?? Oh please. That really doesn't seem to be how it happens at all.

unfortunately it's not just the war. And the reason i give it so much weight is coz, unfortunately, it's not just me saying it (and on many of the points, thinking it too i'm afraid - of your politicians and your industries. Sorry)


No confidence as such. Just more than in what's going on now to be honest.

So, you've "unmade" an enemy eh? (What're you gonna do with the clay? Heheheh, sorry, but that is a very simplistic way of thinking surely. Please tell me this was all a typo )

oh well, fun nattering with you. it's way past my bed time

buenas noches

He already murdered thousands of Kurds with the cover of the Iraq-Iran wars!!!!! The only thing preventing him from doing it again were the no-fly zones!

...

Actually, Vladimir Putin, butcher of Chechnya, is one of the reasons I didn't want the UN involved in the Iraq invasion - what kind of message would that have sent to the Arab world, Putin on our side?

They were unsuccessful on military terms, but they still resulted in the indiscriminate murder of thousands of innocents. It took a long time for the UN to act on Slobodan Milosevic, and by then he was already well underway with his ethnic cleansing policies.

The UN proved itself inadequate on the Iraq question when Saddam first kicked out the weapons inspectors and they did nothing. The US was following the guidelines of resolution 1441; the United Nations wasn't.

A)I think the US was in danger, because Saddam had a secret police force. As everyone knows, it's a secret police force's job to establish connections with shady groups. So, no I don't know if there was concrete evidence but the risk was most likely there. That isn't the main reason I supported the action, though.

B) Ok, so what? The truth is, we saved thousands of lives by dismantling the regime.

I hardly think 3 months of utility problems is worse than 25 years of torture, rape, and murder.

That’s probably true, but you’re assuming this is just another form of colonialism. I don’t think that’s the case, since the US has been pretty choosy about who to shoot and how to quell the uprisings. If it were a colony the guerillas would be bombed and everyone who supported them would be shot.

Saddam already has attacked people, mostly innocents. And nobody did anything.

Any government the Iraqi people select will be better than a military regime.

Afghanistan is no longer under strict Islamist rule, al Qaeda lost its operating base, and women can walk the streets with a substantially smaller amount of fear than before. Afghanistan is better off, too.

Which is why the UN should be sent in.

Nobody said that should continue, either. Israel in particular needs to be completely cut off.

This sure is a wordy thread. I'll toss in my 2 cents.




Ok, well. America should not be the one to go around saving all the people's of the world, throwing money here, throwing money there, and then forgetting that we have to save ourselves at some points. I'm not saying that I think Saddam should have stayed in power. This should have been handled by the UN, of course not the current UN. The UN itself should be completely restructured, along with NATO being completely disbanded. America itself should take a hands-off foreign policy, while the new UN can use funding from the US and other countries so we do not have to carry the world on our own shoulders.

Furthermore, the only argument that holds any water, really, is the humanitarian side. These people did need help from us. However, something about the whole thing just doesn't strike me as us going in with saving these people on the front of our minds. The whole WMD thing did not make much sense to me from the beginning, and I think I could have been more for the war had they brought the humanitarian reasons up to the forefront, as opposed to the WMD lies. It begs the question, is it okay for someone to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons?

On another note, I'm getting a little sick of all the Democrats speaking up against the war now that it is more acceptable. Back when we were in the thick of it, they all kept their mouths shut afraid of going against the popular opinion.


Keep in mind that I have a natural bias towards Democrats and Republicans, so that probably clouds my vision slightly. Now that the war is over, however, I sure as hell hope that Bush can do something right and help these people out of the mess they have been in for the past 10 years.

This is it. These actions should be undertaken under an international "umbrella" (and as you say - the current ones need a lot of work. But they represent ideals that can be both practical and civilised in their influence occasionally.). Like i said to yodes, wars like these (dubious/unnescessary ones) often take loads of attention away from public debates/issues at home. It's happening here, i'm sure it's happening in the US.


This is the blair-dilemma we have over here. Has he done "the right thing" for the wrong reasons. It all depends on how "regime-building" pans out (and i'm cynical - it obviously wasn't a high priority going in. It's also illegal under international law how we're doing this).

i will state categorically that: We did not go in for humanitarian reasons. If anyone thinks this is in any way a major motivation they don't pay attention to normal international practice. I'd love to believe it was motivating people like Blair tho.

I agree. They've been chicken****s from what i can see. They need to provide some sort of rigourous opposition.

Erm the war isn't over. As i said, Bush n co have gone in unprepared, untrained, and with the obvious intention of masterminding regime change (which won't work in the favour of the people - and will also anger them and make the whole process so much less likely to be sustainable. The clash between the UN and the big financial/economic bodies VS the US will the be the most interesting power clash for a long time - when they try to resolve this)

Glad you feel how you feel overall Henry. Unfortunately, i believe the bush-admin will keep sticking their noses into international situations, at the tax-payers expense in most situations, to ensure industrial contracts and sustenance of their world-wide power initiatives (this sounds like conspiracy, but your economy is based on many of these international factors. Your home market really isn't that pretty right now as i understand it) Beware this pseudo imperialism. The rest of the world hates you for it, hates the spin surrounding it (coz it's often quite transparent i.e. America has gone into Iraq for various self-interest reasons. If "defending" itself was the only one, and it could be backed up that would be fine. But that is very hard to believe at the moment)

Yes, exactly, the UN structured no-fly zones. They had the race-killing and the WMDs under control as much as possible.

Erm, Putin and friends were very friendly with Iraq etc - what are you saying? They have a bigger prob with the US being there i'm afraid. Putin etc were setting up trade with Iraq etc + trying to establish an alternative world market for oil outside the ridiculous and internationally-incredible petrodollars system which aids one country with every purchase - America.


Yes, it was totally screwed up. I'm gonna get round to reading Chomsky's take on the linguistic games of "new humanism". Should be interesting. The point is - ethnic cleansing is going on all over the world (often in countries america and britain sell arms to i.e. directly to the offical oppressive regimes.) Noteably in africa. Why don't we go in and help them if the reasons for this war were humanitarian. Humanitarianism has got next to nothing to do with these actions. It certainly wasn't the motivating factor for america.


Erm there are so many resolutions both iraq and israel have broken i've lost track. The weapons inspectors did go back in and seem to have done an exceptional job. What are you talking about?

That is such an amazing simplification. EVERY country has a secret police force. I'm glad that's not your main reason, coz to be honest, it's ****e.

that entirely remains to be seen. If "you" (coz the brits are entirely out of the decision-making-loop which we endorse and aid by making it seem less unilateral) **** up te regime-change (and i'm afraid, historically, that looks near-inevitable ESPECIALLY when done in this way i.e. without the locals on your side or internationl law and support. And in a country where you are generally despised). If regime-change government falls away (after it's served it's purpose perhaps we'll probably see anarchy and religious intolerence like in afghanistan (still )

This is just the beginning. And you haven't ended those things coz you're going about this the wrong way. i.e. an internally-organised populace/power-group-led revolt is nescesary in these situations, with symbiotic international help.



Yes, but it's a country, and it's not that easy. Looks easy on a map from a distance, but it's not. Your technology does allow a very "civillised" type of selectiveness (like killing journalists ). You haven't been "choosy" in who you shoot recently - you have angered the locals further by not being trained in containing crowds etc and just shooting into them. Multiple smaller incidents of badly handled "no-casualities-for-us" strategies means your not coming forward to meet them in the middle. Your just ****ting on them from a height from their perspective.



Again, that's happening all over the world. Why are you selling them arms. Why aren't you helping them

Plus, the iraqi people aren't choosing the government. THe US is. Please pay attention

Bull****. In the capital that's just about true. But Al Qaeda can just move a few hundred kms down the road to what is still afghanistan on a map but is in now way under control. NOWHERE outside the capital is under control. And there's no money/invetment for rebuilding. THe desired pipelines for international oil trade are being built, but not much else.



Well if the US didn't always try to use the UN as a rubber stamp then maybe that might happen. You should withdraw your support from israel - or even better - continue some of the vague hints of positive action happening their. I'm cynical again i think it's all for show, but any attempts at resolution must be explored.

Sorry for any offense caused, but i'm in a rush and i'm very angry about all this.

Ciao, Tom

What the hell happened to the quotes?!

"Our Lyrics are very different, I guess I didn't have quite the same relationship with my mother" Abba's Bjorn Ulvaeus approches songrwriting from a different angle to Eminem.