Anti War Protestors

[icallmedan]

I don't know if you agree with me but I think all of these anti-war protestors, are getting more people mad at them. All of the protestor practicing civil disobiedience by blocking intersections and highway on ramps. I think they are upsetting a lot of people. Do you agree with me?

[whargoul]

What do they hope to accomplish, besides annoy? It's not like Allied forces are just gonna pull out because some people thing it is an "unjust war", I even heard some guy on the radio talking to about the Christian values of Bush and the United States, about "Thou shalt not kill" and stuff. Maybe it makes them feel good about themselves, maybe they think they are doing some good. But really, what are they doing? Standing around like a bunch of bums. Remember those human shields that were in Iraq? Where are they now? Running away once the crap hits the fan. But, hey, they did there part right? At least they tried. Give me a break.

Now don't get me wrong, I for one don't like war at all. But you know what, sometimes, sadly, it is a necessary evil. When it is all said and done, all those Kurds that Saddam has gassed may just rest a little more easy in their graves. You know that the ones still living will be at ease, not fearing death or being run out their homes.

I would like to quote a message I saw somewhere else.

"Personally I think that if the anti-war protesters think we are wrong to take Saddam down, then we should send them all there to live under his regime and see what they think of him then."

[TMAN]

The large majority of the movement, the part not reported- it just doesn't make good news to show sane law abiding demonstrators on either side- are protesting not for the sake of Saddam but because the use of force has not been justified. Well thats a broad and overreaching blanket statement but it is basically what I get from talking to a bunch of demonstrators and from listening to what other antiwar activists have said and are saying. Of course there are those who see no reason to go to war given any conceivable circumstance but these are the minority and they are heard because they take the tremendous effort to be heard and by virtue that it would make people insanely angry to see such gross dissent. No one loves Saddam. It's simply an evil moustache that even a mother despises Thats my 2c.

[shazam]

back in the early 50 s. I heared Billy Graham once say, when a women asked him if he and his wife ever fought. His reply was "madam if two people agree on everything You do not need one of them" I hope I made my point.

[Xayd]

hehe, and a good point it is.


"Personally I think that if the anti-war protesters think we are wrong to take Saddam down, then we should send them all there to live under his regime and see what they think of him then."


I don't think it has anything to do with Saddam, I think it has to do with who of the Texas companies that have supported the past Bush family political campaigns are already negotiating contracts to drill Iraqi oil.

To answer the complaints about war protests and the people who dismiss the arguments against countries that impose their government upon foreign lands based on military action, there was this little thing called the War for American Independence that was fought a couple hundred years back that you might want to read about.

We also tried to impose a government in Vietnam once, history seems to consider that attempt a failure.

I see no reason to think that we would have an easier time imposing a government in Iraq either.

[not important]

It is perfectly legal for anyone to protest anything.

[icallmedan]

True, but it pisses people off. Especially because I heard on the news that anti war protestors were blocking on ramps and stuff.

[Karel]

This "war" is supposed to be setting the Iraqi people FREE from oppression (cfr. GW Bush). To give it the same freedoms the American democratic society enjoys. (BTW, will they also enjoy the freedom to carry arms?)

If you support this war, you are bound to support its goals.

If so, why would you deny your own people one of the essential freedoms you claim they deserve?

[glc]

It's not a point of denying people freedom - demonstrations that are kept within the law and the scope of the permit are fine, but when it turns into civil disobedience that impacts on public safety I have a problem with that.

It's a requirement that anyone wanting to have a parade or demonstration in a city needs to obtain a permit, and the city is required to grant the permit. The ground rules are defined in the permit to preserve public safety - hence everyone else's freedoms. You have the right to protest, demonstrate, etc. but you do NOT have the right to block a major expressway in rush hour without approval of the people responsible for the expressway.

[doctorgonzo]

It is stupid to block freeways and ramps, but as TMAN said, the majority of protestors are doing no such thing. Of course, when the local nightly news comes on, which story do you think they will lead with? "Two thousand anti-war protestors march peacefully to the Capitol," or "One hundred anti-war protestors block the freeway."

Around here, by far most of the protests have done nothing to harm public safety. I don't know of any efforts to purposely block traffic, even though local law enforcement officials labeled anti-war groups as terrorist groups and threw them in the same basket as groups like the Posse Comitatus. So far, however, nothing has happened.

[Karel]

No argument from me about the required permit (as long as public safety is the only criterium considered...).

But who decides whether any action is to be considered civil disobedience?

Civil disobedience has often led to the true freeing of nations.

[Hot Rod]

Originally posted by Xayd

To answer the complaints about war protests and the people who dismiss the arguments against countries that impose their government upon foreign lands based on military action, there was this little thing called the War for American Independence that was fought a couple hundred years back that you might want to read about.

We also tried to impose a government in Vietnam once, history seems to consider that attempt a failure.

I see no reason to think that we would have an easier time imposing a government in Iraq either.

The thing that really concerns me is that I read a story about the plan that Bush has in place once the war is over. They want to put an American in charge of Iraq for a minimum of 2 years so they can transition the government over.

That just really makes me uneasy. I understand the reasoning...so it is a smooth transition. But, it can become something that we just don't want to let go of. It's a little too like colonization in my book. That failed for the Roman Empire and it failed for Britain. I think doing that will be overstepping our bounds.

[doctorgonzo]

Colonialism has failed in the past, and I doubt this will be any different. Especially given that new reports are that the U.S. will be running Iraq alone, with a civilian administration under the direct control of the military. Unilateralism again.

There is no question that the world will be better off without Saddam. But at what cost will that come? Is it worth destroying U.S. alliances, enraging tens of millions in the Middle East (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/20030324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_arabs_iraq_7), trashing cooperative international bodies, and damaging U.S. credibility with our bizarre and sometimes laughable lies to get rid of Saddam? That seems like fixing a leaky roof by burning down your house.

[Karel]

Hot Rod, doctorgonzo,

Both your remarks are grim, and accurate.

I want to add to your remarks my fear for escalation (the allegations of Russian technological aid to the Iraqi regime are only a small but telling sign on the wall). Do we really think that this train will stay on the tracks that Bush and Blair have theoretically laid out for it? Are there all of a sudden only three countries in this world? Do the leaders of these countries really expect all the others to sit back and just watch TV? The arrogance of it all...

[corosus]

first of all, do not dislike america in anny way, manny of my closse friends live there, and thoug i might diagree strongly with a friend of mine that still does not mean he is not my friend. furthermore do not wish to insult, or disrespect the people who are fighting for what they believe in.

Originally posted by whargoul
When it is all said and done, all those Kurds that Saddam has gassed may just rest a little more easy in their graves. You know that the ones still living will be at ease, not fearing death or being run out their homes.

I would like to quote a message I saw somewhere else.

"Personally I think that if the anti-war protesters think we are wrong to take Saddam down, then we should send them all there to live under his regime and see what they think of him then."

first of all, the tuks did the same thng to the curds, are they next on the list of country's to invade ??????

do not think annyone approves of sadam, just that there are better ways than open war to get rid of him. annyway i do not see annnyone in iraq who s happy to see the us marines. I think that for the people who lve there this seems like a occupation rather than a liberation (esp. if an american will be put in charge), i am not saying that it is, but just the faxt that it seems this way to them will result n further conflict.
and that is the only substantial change that this war will bring, further alienating the easteern and western world. in the long run there will be a new dictator. have a look at the list of country's where the us interviend militairy ( not the un ) since 1950 and try to find one where a democratic regime that respected human rights was the result of that intervention

iran 1953
Guatemala, 1953-1990s
Middle East, 1956-58
Indonesia, 1957-58
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64
Vietnam, 1950-73
Cambodia, 1955-73
......
Panama, 1989
........
none, not even one

i am not saying that all these country's where good country's to live in before the us intervention, i am just saying that the situation had not improved, so the only result was a lot of people dead.

if you are wondering http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

bush's way of talking and his actions remind me of a song dylan made about the cold war "god on our side" http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html

i am not saying I have an answer i am only saying that history teatches that it's not war. But i guess man has to hit his head into the same wall agian and again hoping too find a soft spot.

as i sayd i do not have answers but this war, for me it raises the fundamental question, can one impose democrate on a people , even if they do not want it. (kindof reminds me of rightwing regimes in other parts of the world if they where legaly elected, can a people make a democratinc desision to abbolisch democratie????)
i've poderd these questions for manny nights and have yet to find an answer, and i suspect that when i do it will be a personal one.

[TMAN]

You forgot Afghanistan or should I say the city of Kabbul (2k2). I believe conflict CAN be necessary as it most definately was in Afghanistan. Oh, and remember the French have committed 5K troops and 2K bombers. Too bad we haven't really followed through. I don't believe THIS has proven to be the necessary time for war.

[Karel]

[corosus, from Brussels? Where? French or Flemish? Both?]

[Tiretool]

Xayd, your attempt at relating this Iraqi war to that of Vietnam is like comparing apples to oranges.

We also tried to impose a government in Vietnam once, history seems to consider that attempt a failure.

I see no reason to think that we would have an easier time imposing a government in Iraq either.

In Vietnam, you had an entire southern half of a country that was trying their hardest to be a free Democracy, and a very stubborn Communistic northern half that was determined not to let that happen. That is a very different situation than what we have in Iraq at current.
Iraq is full of people who rarely, if ever, buck the system in place. You don't hear of alot of uprisings (until today in Basra) between people or parties that want to change the style of government there. You don't have half of Iraq openly wanting a Democracy. They don't dare try this because of the merciless dictator that rules them. If they dare attempt to disobey his wishes, he has them tortured, raped, uses them as chemical and biological guinea pigs, and even kills them executioner style.

The US will win this war, because it's a just cause. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen because we have the right people in the driver's seat running our country, the right people planning the war strategies, and an overwhelming majority of opressed people in Iraq who are sick and tired of living under an evil dictator. My belief is that the public uprising in Basra today was just a beginning. As soon as word spreads around Iraq that civilians have finally stepped up, it will spread like wildfire. It will make our soldiers' jobs easier beyond belief, and we will be able to get on with the lengthy task of helping these people get re-established under a democracy of some type or another.

[drisley]

The keyword is "imposing". I don't think the plan is to impose a gov't on anyone.The goal is to put Iraqis themselves in charge and let them form their own gov't. I would imagine that as long as the new gov;t is not terroristic or problematic, nobody will get in the way.

Plus, parallels to Vietnam are unwarranted. I just shake my head at people who are saying this is another Vietnam, when only 5 days have done by here and we're practically on Baghdad's doorstep.

[Hot Rod]

drisley, what makes me nervous is that the Bush administration has said that they plan to put an American in control of Iraq for a minimum of 2 years. That sounds like a slippery slope to colonization to me. I support getting Saddam out of there....but not for us to take over the country.

Now I heard on the news last night that Halliburton was awarded the contract on the oil business in Iraq after the war has ended. Halliburton's former CEO was Dick Cheney...who I'm sure still owns a lot of stock in them.

I support the war but how far are we going to go after the war in ruling this country.

[doctorgonzo]

Iraqis may want freedom, but they don't want the U.S. around for any length of time. The problem I see is that the U.S. is once again refusing to let the U.N. have much say in what happens afterwards. There is a world of difference between the invading country sticking around for a couple years and an international group of people coming in later to rebuild.

[drisley]

Hot Rod, it is inevitable that a foreigner will need to control Iraq temporarily after this. I see no way around that, but I think claims of imperialisn are unfounded. This country has never been interested in imperialism. We will rule Iraq temporarily out of necessity, because not doing so would lead to chaos.

BTW, I think Cheney dumped all his Halliburton stock before assuming office so as not to introduce a conflict of interest. I may be wrong, but I think that's the case.

Gonzo, actually, I think you got it wrong. Powell is working on pushing resolutions through the UN to help with post-Saddam Iraq, and the same old players are opposing the resolutions. So, its not the US refusing the UN - it is France and Russia mainly.

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, I have yet to hear any stories about how France and Russia are blocking U.N. involvment after Saddam is gone, but I have read stories about how we have people waiting in Kuwait, such as Barbara Bodine, to take over when the fighting stops. I would like to see those stories that say France and Russia will block reconstruction.

[drisley]

France, Russia, China and Germany are opposing a UN resolution to rework and reimplement the oil-for-food program, thereby speeding the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Iraqi people and transferring authoritative power to Koffi Annan. Annan is for it, but these four countries are opposing it for one reason - the US is proposing it. and they are pissed at us.

There is no reason for them to oppose this. It gives the US no power over the region. It only gets supplies to the people. Yet, these countries are opposing it.

go figure.

[corosus]

as i understand it, they are not exactly opposing the plan, they just have a poblem with the us bombing the crap out of people and everyboddy else paying for the rebuild, and yes i know the us will pay part. I think they are feeling kind of like "you break it, you fix it"
the us started this opperation hpping that when placed for a "fait accompli" (= something that has been done and can no longer be changed ) the rest of the world would support the us. Mot country's seem to realise this and want no part of it, so i can understand thier unwllingness to accosate them with the us.

[doctorgonzo]

After reading about it, I don't think that the attitudes France, Russia, China, and Germany can be dismissed with a "go figure." You are right: this does look like a simple way to get humanitarian aid flowing again. But I also understand their concerns about taking any actions that will make it look like the U.N. is legitimizing this war. Under international law, this is a tricky situation.

Edit: if the U.S. does what I just read it will do -- cut its dues to the U.N. -- then the arguments that France, Germany, Russia, and China have about paying for a war the U.S. started will have even more merit.

[corosus]

indeed it would have been a whole lot simpler if bush had just waited for the inspectors to do thier job, and then, IF sadam did not cooperate, (even if you are sure he will not, you still could have waited a couple of months) work within the UN, instead of this unilateral action.
if he had waited the war would have been an intervention instead of the nvasion it is now. (according to international law)

[drisley]

(1) This is not unilateral by a long shot, corosus.

(2) I do dismiss it with a "go figure". The main reason these countries are opposing this is because they do not want the US to be seen as taking a leading role in providing humanitarian aid. They, instead, wish for the world to see us as an invading force. Its simple anti-Americanism, and it is all about "how it seems", not about actually getting aid to the people of that country. It is vain and selfish.

I can get into it more with you if you go to FC. ;)

[corosus]

it is unilateral as it is not a concencus in the un,
i agree that it's not inly the us who are invading iraq, but the amount of nations that are is limited.
there is NO UN concencus therefor these actions are unilateral.

[drisley]

"uni" means "one". It is not one nation doing this. It is more around 40 or so. Therefore, its not unilateral.

[corosus]

ok let's not dicust simantics here, my choice of words might have been wrong, I meanth one as in the one group of nations, not the one nation
the point is stll that there is no UN mandate

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, under international law, the "coalition" forces are an invading force. That puts limits on the extent that the U.N. can get involved with this situation. And if the U.S. does come out and say that we are going to significantly cut our U.N. dues, it is no surprise that other U.N. members are going to be quite upset.

[drisley]

No no no....there is no limitation to resuming oil-for-food. It was only placed on pause to get out of our way for the war. We'd like to resume it now, with the UN Secretary General in charge. Seems very reasonable. These four countries are opposing it out of spite for our handling of the 18th resolution.

Corosus, yes, "unilateral" is not correct, and really, I could debate you on whether there is a true UN mandate. I'm sure you'd disagree though. I repect your viewpoint.

[corosus]

yes but in your own word, the oil for food program was paused because it was inconvenient for the war; i'd hate to have the suplyroutes i depend on for survival to be inconveniant. So humanitairan programs are only allowed f it's convenient????
these country's simply do not want to play this game, and tend to agree.
and wheter or not there is a mandate against iraq there is no mandate for an invasion (sais not I, Sais cofee anan

[drisley]

Its not a matter of convenience (that wasn't my words). It was a matter of not getting a bomb dropped on their heads. Same reason the inspectors were pulled out. For safety reasons. But, as we remove the regime from certain cities, we want to get humanitarian aid in there quickly. Seems to me that should be priority number one. Not wanting to play the so-called "game" should be way down the list, as that is just petty political stuff.

[corosus]

yes but it's the same sad story all over agian: the us is imposing it's will on the rest of the world, and simply expects everyboddy to agree with ther way of doing things, in europe most people i know are sick of this attitude.
this form of action has never resulted in an improvement of the situation. does annyone remember how sadam came to power and who helped him?????????

[drisley]

Still seems trivial when compared to feeding Iraqi people, which is the only thing at issue with this. If the US is willing to do this and other countries are willing to veto it, then that really says something.

[corosus]

if the only issue is to feed the iraqi poeple why drop bombs on thier heads???????
it'sto simple a question i know, but there are better ways to get rid of sadam than open warfare

[Tiretool]

the point is stll that there is no UN mandate

The US, or any other country for that matter, doesn't require a UN mandate to protect itself. After 9/11, our tactics towards national security changed drastically. Allowing a regime like Iraq, who has such ties to terror to form a nuclear program is just unacceptable. It would risk our national security and therefore, we were well within our rights to force a change of the ruling government in Iraq, even if we hadn't said a single word to the UN.

[corosus]

well what if i concider the current us administration a threat to my security?????(actually i do but that's besides the point)
this is political quicksand and the reason we have an ogenzation known as the UN

[drisley]

Corosus, the issue with the current UN resoltution that the "big four" are opposing has only to do with oil-for-food. It has nothing to do with the decision to engage in war or not, as that decision has been made. You seem to be making the same mistake these folks do - confusing the current drive to feed these Iraqi people wiht the war issue. They are different issues. It seems to me it is quite easy for somebody like yourself to be against the war and still in favor of re-implementing oil-for-food, which is all the US is trying to do in this case.

It is unfortunate that people use the Iraqi people as a politcal pawn for bashing the US role in the world, but that is exactly what the "big four" are doing by opposing oil-for-food all of a sudden as they are.

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, if you want to be honest, you have to admit that the U.S. is using this oil-for-food ploy politically also. After all, there is absolutely nothing that is keeping the U.S. right now from starting its own humanitarian aid. We could pay for the food ourselves and get it to Iraq. The oil-for-food program just means we don't foot the bill.

[Mac Medic]

There are UN Mandates, a number of them, 1441 being the most recent with a unanimous vote. So over 40 nations decided to enforce the mandate and do what it called for.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Tiretool
The US, or any other country for that matter, doesn't require a UN mandate to protect itself. After 9/11, our tactics towards national security changed drastically. Allowing a regime like Iraq, who has such ties to terror to form a nuclear program is just unacceptable. It would risk our national security and therefore, we were well within our rights to force a change of the ruling government in Iraq, even if we hadn't said a single word to the UN.

Yes, but under our own rules of war, the ones which WE created and hold other nations to, say that war is only legal if it is done either with a UN mandate, or if we are attacked first. Until Iraq directly attacks the US (which they don't even possess the capability of doing) we can't use the "self-defense" clause, anymore than I can walk up to a guy in a bar, punch him in the face, and claim that he might have wanted to attack me so I acted in self-defense.

[corosus]

i never said agree with thier resaoning, i jus understand.
and yes i agree that it's the iraqi people who suffer, again....
it's always the little people who get hurt.
have you sen the people who where taken prisoner by the iraqi's???
they are not exactly sons and daughters of senators. what was the war record of bush again????
annyway this dicussion is going nowhere.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

i strongly sugest you read this together with the link i suply earlyer in this thread

[doctorgonzo]

There is evidence that North Korea is preparing for a longe-range missile test this week. North Korea has said that Japan's launch of spy satellites on Friday is a threat to North Korea, and if Japan goes forward with the launch, Japan will "bring destruction upon itself." North Korea has chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, along with missiles that are probably able to deliver them to U.S. soil.

In the long run, I think it does not help our security to open the door to pre-emptive "defensive" military action.

[drisley]

Gonzo, we went into this saying openly we planned on getting the UN involved post-war. We went without the UN reluctantly, but we want the UN to be actively engaged post-war. So, yeah, I guess this could be used as a political issue by the US, this is something that the UN MUST do, otherwise face total failure as an organization. If they cannot even come together to feed people, they're screwed. And I take no pleasure in saying that, because I am one conservative who sees real value in the United Nations, but damn, they have to get off their butts and do things when necessary. If there is really a huge political battle to be fought in the UN over feeding Iraqis, then that organization has real issues.

Corosus, most political debate gets nowhere. :) Kinda funny actually.

[corosus]

agree dr gonzo.

[corosus]

Originally posted by drisley
[B]Gonzo, we went into this saying openly we planned on getting the UN involved post-war. We went without the UN reluctantly, but we want the UN to be actively engaged post-war.
B]

the problem here is that the us made a dissigion givving everyone a whooping big headache from the problems they caused. it's not their(or you if you will) place to decide what the UN has to do; and by staringthe war they (you) did.
it's like a kid in school, who hits a second kid, cause "he was gonna hit me" and blaims the teacher for not punischng the second kid.
the US governement is not (legaly) placed above the UN

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. We haven't even been at war for a week, and we are nowhere close to being done with this. There are still battles going on everywhere. It is a bit too early to say about the U.N., "If they cannot even come together to feed people, they're screwed." One thing I haven't seen in any of these articles is what would actually happen if the food-for-oil program were restarted. If the U.N. voted for it today, would Iraqis be getting food tomorrow? I seriously doubt it. Exactly how soon would this program be up and running again? How would the food be transported to war zones? How would the money from the oil be dealt with? I don't even know how it works now, or to what extent the government of Iraq has to be involved.

If we were two months after taking control of the country and the U.N. still hadn't decided anything, then it would be an issue. But right now, while there is still heavy fighting and while there is no evidence that restarting the food-for-oil program would help more immediately than other options, I don't see this as any more than a way for the U.S. to try to paint France, Germany, Russia, and China as hating starving Iraqis. It is simply way too soon.

[drisley]

Point taken, gonz. But, it doesn't seem hard to paint the "big four" in such a light when they are openly opposing oil-for-food and making no bones about it. I don't accept that we're trying to hit them over the head with this issue. They are bring it on themselves. If they just be quiet or say they want to wait until the conflict is resolved, it would do them much better PR-wise then to go on the record now saying they oppose it.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by corosus

the US governement is not (legaly) placed above the UN [/B]

Since when did THAT stop us? We make the rules, but we won't follow them.

I think that's the reason the UN will fall -- the founding members of the UN openly disregard its rules, and the US is one of the worst of all. The UN will be as worthless as the League of Nations if its own founders refuse to comply with its rules.

[homer15]

it's too late to protest the war. now you have to show support for your country and your troops.

[corosus]

Originally posted by homer15
it's too late to protest the war. now you have to show support for your country and your troops.
this dirrectly adresses my pont, IMHO it's not because someone made a decicion to go to war that we all have to put our capacatie for moral judgement aside and support the war "cause they are "our" troops and they need our support."

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by homer15
it's too late to protest the war. now you have to show support for your country and your troops.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

In a democracy, the military serves at the discretion of the people, not vice versa. If the people decide that they don't want a war, they make the call, not the military brass. It doesn't hurt troops to peacefully protest the actions of the government.

[corosus]

this is what i meanth, i should have made this more clear

[Tiretool]

well what if i concider the current us administration a threat to my security?????(actually i do but that's besides the point)

How could you possibly consider the US's current administration a threat to your security? Do you forsee us performing acts of terrorism upon Brussels? I doubt it.

Yes, but under our own rules of war, the ones which WE created and hold other nations to, say that war is only legal if it is done either with a UN mandate, or if we are attacked first. Until Iraq directly attacks the US (which they don't even possess the capability of doing) we can't use the "self-defense" clause, anymore than I can walk up to a guy in a bar, punch him in the face, and claim that he might have wanted to attack me so I acted in self-defense.

As far as our government knows, and I believe it too, Iraq contributes financially to the terrorists that took down two very large buildings in New York. I find it interesting that everyone who opposes the war in Iraq conveniently forgets about September 11 when supporting their point of view.

A country who willingly contributes to terrorism, be it financially, with training, with actual people, or in any way, is just as guilty as the person who actually does the act of terrorism.

We were attacked on September 11. We took the war to Afghanistan, now we're taking it to Iraq. It's not that hard to draw a line between terrorism and Iraq's devilish regime called Saddam Hussein.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I do admit, I'm not one in favor of the United Nations. There are too many differing cultures represented there. As a proud American, I don't agree with sending American military troops to a war wearing a UN patch. American soldiers, airmen, navymen and marines are AMERICAN military men and women, not UN military members. When we sign up for the military, we take an oath to defend the United States against all aggressors, foreign and domestic, and that is what we are doing now. The oath doesn't say anything about allegiance to the UN and I for one wish it were dissolved.

I'm sure I'll receive some nice comments on that! ;)

[grasshopperbe]

How could you possibly consider the US's current administration a threat to your security? Do you forsee us performing acts of terrorism upon Brussels? I doubt it.

dont be too sure buddy, although belgium
(where i live too) is against the current 'developments' . we did keep our part of the un agreement and shipped US tanks, supply vehicles, and on and on trough our harbour.(stationed in belgium and germany btw) our army helped securing the harbours.
our taxes paid for this.
next, on about 50 km from here. there's a military compound which carries nuclear rockets (not oficially but its been a public secret for ages) , under the control of american soldiers. nice target for some mad idiots, no?
also, the us has this nice thingie called
'echelon' (they can see pretty much all communication, even from other governments)

As far as our government knows, and I believe it too, Iraq contributes financially to the terrorists that took down two very large buildings in New York. I find it interesting that everyone who opposes the war in Iraq conveniently forgets about September 11 when supporting their point of view.


i do absolutely not agree with this
for religious freaks like bin laden, saddam is almost as bad as us 'white people'. (saddam doenst have a beard, know what i mean? )
The only reason saddam uses religion to control his people even more.
so im not too sure about those connections.
and we did not forget about 9 11
just like every normal person, i found it horrible what happened then . but we cannot lower ourselves to those madmen. I agree that saddam must be disabled, just like the taliban regime, which was even worse than saddam.
but the way the bush administration handled this has not been wise.
if they had waited untill it had been defenitely proven that saddam breaks international laws (which they would have found soon) , the un would certainly have sent troops.
as this must according to un laws.
This would have solved a huge heap of problems.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by Tiretool
As far as our government knows, and I believe it too, Iraq contributes financially to the terrorists that took down two very large buildings in New York. I find it interesting that everyone who opposes the war in Iraq conveniently forgets about September 11 when supporting their point of view.

I don't think it has ever been proven that Saddam wrote out a big check to bin Laden. That simply didn't happen. Yes, Saddam has financed some terrorist groups that have connections to al-Qaeda, but that is playing "Six Degrees of bin Laden" a bit too far. It is far easier to connect Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda in general and the 9/11 attacks in particular. The government of Saudi Arabia finances terrorists as well, but that obviously isn't sufficient enough to invade Saudi Arabia.

[Tiretool]

Let me ask you a question.

If you have evidence that a person is going to poison your brother, do you sit and wait for it to happen or do you take him out before the law enforcement officials can respond after making 4 or 5 calls to them?

Chemical Suits Found (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82242,00.html)

The US has intelligence that Iraq is in posession of chemical weapons. This is against the UN Resolutions, but the UN didn't want to act upon it, constantly dragging their feet. The US takes charge and is working on putting an end to this madness.

We will find WMDs and everyone will stand back and take a second look at this matter, and those who were against it will eat alot of crow. Even at that point, I won't stand and point and say I told you so. You'll know.

[Mac Medic]

WMD, Killing Kurds, Human Rights Violations, Kicking Inspectors out of the country, Invading Kwuait, Using Chem Weapons on His own cizitens and neighbors. Which of these is NOT a violation of international law and a violation of 1 UN resolution or another. For christ sake, face reality.


How much more would he have to do to be comdemned by the UN. The only reason the UN didn't adopt the newest resolution is because the Krauts, Commies and Frogs are scared shi*less of what we will find of their violations after the war, so we withdrew the damn thing. Rember this is the same UN that disarmed the citizens in Kosovo then stood back to watch them get slaughtered. What do you expect these cowards to do. It's an insult that these arrogant bastards expect us to answer to them while defending our own way of life and our freedom. Screw them. And now they're scrambling around trying to justify their existence by insisting they will still have an important role to play after the war. AFTER THE WAR !!. Are they kidding me?. Who the hell want their help after the damn war. How about supporting us now to overthrow this maniac for the reasons stated above?. But no, too cowardly.

[doctorgonzo]

Tiretool, who cares that chemical suits were found? I am sure that our military has thousands of chemical suits as well. Does that mean we are going to use chemical weapons? I don't think so. Those chemical suits mean nothing. If I found a gun in a house, would that mean that the owner was going to use it in a crime?

oem_guy, apart from your other comments, I would respectfully ask that you do not use terms such as "Kraut" or "Frog" in your posts. My wife is German, and I do not appreciate it one bit.

[glc]

Moderator comment:

oem: Comments like that will accomplish 2 things - thread closure and official warnings. The forum rules are NOT suspended in this forum.

This is the last "unofficial" warning to everyone. Please don't make me start closing threads and issue official warnings. If you want to carry on a *heated* debate, do so at Forumclick, not here.

[Tiretool]

doctorgonzo, I would hope that you know better than to assume that the Iraqis had those chemical suits for anything other than to protect their soldiers when "they" unleashed chemical weapons upon coalition soldiers. I can think of no one that they would have had chemical protective gear to protect them from other than themselves.

If I found a gun in a house, would that mean that the owner was going to use it in a crime?

If you were on probation, and weren't supposed to have guns in your house... absolutely. Iraq is on probation. We are their probie officer. They have violated their probation and are now paying the price.

[doctorgonzo]

Until we have facts, I can't jump to any conclusions during this fog of war. The facts so far are that Iraq has not used chemical or biological weapons, nor has our military found them, nor have any inspectors found any. Sure, it is probable that they have the suits because they have weapons. But perhaps this is a pyschological stunt of Saddam's. He has done it before.

I don't think that finding weapons or, God forbid, Saddam using them is suddenly going to vindicate us. Again, toppling Saddam is not the end. Again, getting rid of Saddam will not automatically make the world safer. It will make things better for Iraqis, probably, but not necessarily the rest of the world. So the question still remains, at what price?

Relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world have not been this bad in literally decades. If we are going to fight the war on terrorism, we can't do it alone. We need the help of other countries. When will the sour relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world lead to less coordination between law enforcement agencies? It is probably inevitable, and that will make the world less safe.

International diplomacy got trashed and our allies have been insulted because our administration thinks that Iraq had to be invaded right now. It will take a lot to prove that this is the case. If we go in there and all we find are a dozen rusting artillery shells with some anthrax in them, I don't think the world will be impressed.

I don't think anybody ever declared the U.S. to be Iraq's probation officer. The U.S. is not a vigilante.

[jessho]

I don't think anybody ever declared the U.S. to be Iraq's probation officer. The U.S. is not a vigilante.

The U.S. and other countries removed Sadam in the Gulf War because of criminal actions. His troops pillaged, raped, and murdered citizens of another country. Neither he or his troops were brought to justice for these actions. Sadam has payed rewards to the families of terrorists that commited sucide while taking the lives of innocent people. Sadam has refused to account for the weapons and chemicals he swore to destroy after the Gulf War - some of these chemicals were used to kill thousands of innocent people in his own country. These actions were criminal, yet the only assembled body of countries in the World failed miserably to stop Sadam.

Meanwhile, the U.S. was attacked by terrorist, innocent people were again murdered and Sadam is linked to these actions. The attempts to get the U.N. to stop him led to months of wasted time and revelations that some members helped Sadam and reaped economic rewards.

How can you call this a vigilante action when numerous countries in the world are helping to win this war against Sadam? Sadam is not on probation. He is a criminal barricaded in his country, refusing to surrender to justice and if not stopped, will again ruthlessly kill innocent people.

Some may feel that war is not the answer, but as horrendous as it is, it is the only recourse at this time. Negotions have failed over the last twelve years and the U.N. has proven it doesn't have the ability to act as a World organization.

I don't think that finding weapons or, God forbid, Saddam using them is suddenly going to vindicate us. Again, toppling Saddam is not the end. Again, getting rid of Saddam will not automatically make the world safer. It will make things better for Iraqis, probably, but not necessarily the rest of the world. So the question still remains, at what price?

The war is not an effort to arrive at vindication and it's result will not guarantee a safer world. It will guarantee the removal of a terrorist and his followers.

[Mac Medic]

I apologize, it was inappropriate to say the least. From now on I will keep my opinions of these "allies” to myself.

As for being justified in our actions, I believe the reasons I gave above offer plenty of justification for acting against Saddam Hussein, the least of which are numerous United Nations resolutions the latest of which being 1441 that were passed unanimously by the council authorizing force against Iraq if it didn't come into compliance. Not that we need a United Nations resolution in order to act in our own national defense, but the fact that we do have some only serves to strengthen our case for action. The fact that we withdrew our last resolution from the Security Council simply because three enemies of the United States opposed us means nothing, as the existing resolutions already authorized the use of force. But regardless of that the mere fact that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, under the rules of war, means that we are free to once again engage. I do believe international law would consider firing upon United States aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone to be a violation of the terms of the cease-fire, with or without another United Nations resolution. Prime Minister Blair even offered one more final ultimatum to the man, which France rejected first, followed shortly after by Iraq's rejection. I believe we've shown plenty of restraint over the last 12 years and it was about time for action.

Naturally we will not make friends amongst these countries as they will oppose us every step of the way any chance they get, no matter how we act, as they have their own United Nations sanctions violations to try to hide from the free world exposing how they have put coalition troops into harms way for profit, but when it comes to defending the liberty of oppressed people's we have a responsibility to act, regardless of what the United Nations decides it wants to do.

The United Nations has done itself a great disservice in this matter, it has shown once again that its resolutions mean absolutely nothing as they don't have the fortitude to back them up with force. This sends a strong message to tyrants all over the world, no matter what the United Nations tells you, just keep playing games with them and they'll give you as much time is you desire. Not only is this irresponsible it's extremely dangerous, and yet another reason for the United States to act.

Saddam Hussein was presented with every one of these resolutions that were unanimously passed, he agreed to every one of them including 1441, he understood the consequences of noncompliance but he made the mistake of thinking the United States would not act because his allies in the United Nations would protect him. I'd say it was bad judgment call and now it's time to pay for his actions. He has only himself to blame, after all it's not the United States that invaded Kuwait, it's not the United States that use chemical weapons on its neighbors or citizens, it's not the United States that rape torture and murder, and is not the United States the harbor terrorists. It's the United States that will prevent all of these things from happening under a Saddam Hussein regime.

[Paul Victorey]

Saddam was NOT linked to Al Quaida. Our governments best "proof" was that some people in the Iraqi military have at some point supported Al Quaida, and that some Al Quaida members have been inside Iraq. By those definitions, half the world supports Al Quaida.

In point of fact, Saddam has tried hard to eradicate Al Quaida, and Al Quaida have tried to assassinate Saddam -- not things firends would do. In fact, last year one of Al Quaida's top agents committed suicide before he could be captured by the Republican Guard.

The only nation that might be able to claim direct harm from Saddam's personal terrorist ties would be Israel, so let them lead this war if that's the reason. Saddam's singular actually known tie to terrorists would be that he pays money to the families of any Palestinian who is killed in Israel, including (but not limited to) those who are killed during an attack on Israelis.

And if we knew Saddam had chemical weapons, we could present evidence before the UN, not rumor, conjecture, and forged documents. If the US intelligence actually had real proof, Powell would have presented real proof before the UN, instead of the non-evidence he did bring.

[Tiretool]

I don't think anybody ever declared the U.S. to be Iraq's probation officer. The U.S. is not a vigilante.

My comment wasn't meant literally. But you saying that just because a man has a gun in his house, doesn't mean he's going to use it doesn't relate at all to Iraq. The more correct way to put your statement would have been "If I found a gun in a house, would that mean that the owner (who just happened to be, on multiple occasions, a convicted felon) was going to use it in a crime?" Had you worded your comment that way, then the answer would be, "absolutely".

Saddam has proven his way of doing things many many times.

And if we knew Saddam had chemical weapons, we could present evidence before the UN, not rumor, conjecture, and forged documents. If the US intelligence actually had real proof, Powell would have presented real proof before the UN, instead of the non-evidence he did bring.

Not if he was trying to keep the "cat in the bag" to keep Saddam from cleaning up any chemical/biological weapons factories before we had a chance to come in first hand and show them to the world.

[Paul Victorey]

'Tool, then we could have brought the inspectors there, and satellite images of them emptying a facility would be worth nearly as much as an inspection.

We actually HAD been giving info to inspectors where we thought WMDs were, and they were not finding any of them when they looked.

[Mac Medic]

The United States presented the United Nations will list of over 400 locations suspected of the production of weapons of mass destruction. The weapons inspectors actually inspected a total of 15 percent of these sites. These locations were provided based on information from our intelligence services, and information was quite obviously ignored by the United Nations. As for rumor, conjecture, and forged documents, I would like to see evidence where Colin Powell presented these to the United Nations. But, let me tell you what would have happened had we laid all of our cards out on the table. The Iraqi representative would've gone back home with a list of the sites we had identified, reported these to Saddam Hussein and he would've promptly made arrangements to cover it up. Obviously proof would then not exist. So why not to keep this information close to your heart and away from our enemies to be used in future prosecutions.

[icallmedan]

Originally posted by Tiretool
to keep Saddam from cleaning up any chemical/biological weapons factories before we had a chance to come in first hand and show them to the world.

I agree with tiretool, think of it this way. Since Saddam knew when the UN inspectors were coming, he knew when not to have his weapons, at the sites that were being inspected. Or maybe this would be easier for some to understand....Your 16, and you smoke weed, your parents suspect this, so they tell you in two weeks they are coming in your room to check for weed, and if they find any, they are going to take action. I guarentee you that there will be no weed in that room in two weeks.

[Mac Medic]

It is also being reported that Saddam's henchmen and are dressing up in American uniforms and murdering troops that are trying to surrender to them. Other reports indicate that his Goons are killing his own civilian population, attacking them with mortars and such the like. Now I have heard a lot of protests regarding the actions of the United States here, but where's the condemnation of this man who is still murdering his own civilian population. I propose we won't hear any condemnation, as the peace activists are only waiting for the United States to kill civilians, and believe me then we will hear from them. Just try to stop their protests then.

[Paul Victorey]

Saddam DIDN'T know where inspections were going to happen, or when. That would be defeating the point. Nobody in Iraq knew where the inspections were happening until they happened.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

That talks about the forged documents that were the ONLY reason the US believed that Saddam was looking for nuclear material. Their "evidence" of his nuclear program were those documents, and the word of one expatriate, who was shown to be a liar, and who hasn't been in Iraq since 1991 (yet somehow knows about their current status of nuclear projects?)

[Mac Medic]

The Los Angeles Times has evidence from here in America that Saddam's grip on power is loosening:

As Iraqi Americans reach out to their relatives in Baghdad and Basra, in Kirkuk and Irbil, some are hearing words they never thought possible: Iraqis are speaking ill of Saddam Hussein.

They're criticizing him out loud, on the telephone, seemingly undeterred by fear of the Iraqi intelligence service and its tactics of torture for those disloyal to the Baath Party regime.

"I was shocked," said Zainab Al-Suwaij, executive director of the American Islamic Congress, a nonprofit group in Cambridge, Mass., that promotes interfaith and interethnic understanding. "It's very dangerous. All the phones are tapped. But they are so excited."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003247

Nah, they don't want our help.

[Mac Medic]

Five days after the first allied ground troops moved into Iraq, the Los Angeles Times' Robert Scheer complains that they have been "unable to produce any real evidence of weapons of mass destruction." Then he says:

If the U.S. fails to unearth weapons of mass destruction that U.N. inspectors might have been able to discover--if they had been given sufficient time--the imperial designs of this administration will stand exposed as the true cause of the war.

So let's see if we have this straight: Twelve years was not "sufficient time" for the U.N., but Scheer throws a tantrum because the allies, in the midst of a shooting war, haven't turned up the goods in five days?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Scotsman reports the British soldiers discovered "grey-painted rockets, about 23ft long," in a chemical plant outside Basra. The missiles may be scuds, illegal under U.N. sanctions. The Jerusalem Post reports an inspection of a plant at Najaf found "no evidence of chemical agents to support suspicions that the plant was producing or storing illegal nonconventional weapons." The inspectors did find an ample supply of (apparently legal) conventional weapons. But the Post notes they looked at only five of the complex's 100 bunkers. And the New York Post reports that some captured Iraqi soldiers had "2002 gas masks, chemical decontamination kits and atropine--an antidote for nerve gas," according to an embedded CBS reports.

Same source as above.

[doctorgonzo]

I don't believe this whole "we know where it is, but we just aren't telling" bit for a second. It's ludicrous, and if that actually is the case, that is disgusting. To think that America would put lives at risk so they could unearth the weapons when they wanted to, for maximum effect...that is despicable.

If we had proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and we didn't give out ALL the information to the inspectors, then we are being accessories to Saddam. If that story got our, nobody would ever trust the U.S. again, and neither would I.

I don't think we have evidence. Look at the history of what we have been saying. We were wrong about the alleged meeting in Prague between Atta and Saddam's henchmen. We were wrong about the aluminum tubes. We were wrong about the satellite images showing activity at alleged weapons sites (turned out to be firetrucks). The documents showing that Saddam tried to buy uranium were forged. The dossier was plagiarized from the work of a grad student. The "chemical weapons factory" we just discovered hasn't been used in years. If the U.S. really had solid information, would we be putting forward all of these rumors that turn out to be wrong?

Bush thinks Saddam has the weapons. I am not buying it, even considering the old joke (Q: How does the U.S. know Saddam has WMD? A: We saved the receipts). The people who were in Iraq, the inspectors, don't think so. A lot of those inspectors went in to Iraq certain that they would find evidence, and afterwards, they turned around 180 degrees. After seeing the pitiful equipment and knowledge that was there, they couldn't see any way that Iraq could have maintained, much less grown, an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

The proof is still long off, but right now, there isn't much evidence of any weapons of mass destruction.

oem_guy, why aren't people protesting Saddam? Because he is a dictator! Do dictators care one bit about protests against them in another country? Of course not! Nobody likes Saddam. He knows that everyone in the world, even in the Arab world, hates him. Would it do one bit of good to protest him? Protesting the government of a foreign dictator is a colossal waste of time. I will worry about my own government, thank you. At least the U.S. is a democracy, and so my opinions may make a difference.

[Mac Medic]

March 26, 2003

Human shields-turned-hawks


They arrived as Saddam apologists willing to die for the despot—but they left Iraq weeks later with changed hearts and a determination that Saddam must go. Many of the human shields who had arrived with much fanfare to “stop” the United States and Britain were swayed by the strongest supporters of Saddam’s ouster: the Iraqi people.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20030326.shtml

[Mac Medic]

Doc, I'm asking why the activists here don't protest him, but instead insist on protesting againt our own country. Is it because they hate their own land and what we stand for?.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002
Doc, I'm asking why the activists here don't protest him, but instead insist on protesting againt our own country. Is it because they hate their own land and what we stand for?.

That is a ridiculously loaded question, like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" Protesters do not hate the U.S. They do not hate what the U.S. stands for. If they did, would they use one of the cornerstones of America, free speech, to bash the U.S.?

Protesters are protesting against the policies of the government. They want to see the policies changed. That is all. It is no different from the thousands of groups around this country that protest daily to get things changed. It is part of our democratic process. I fail to see how protesting can be equated with hating the country.

[Mac Medic]

So the policy of helping an opressed people should be changed. Thats a bit heartless. The people want our help, and as Americans we ought to give them what theydeserve.

[icallmedan]

I still think he had some idea when they were going to happen.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002
So the policy of helping an opressed people should be changed. Thats a bit heartless. The people want our help, and as Americans we ought to give them what theydeserve.

Again, that is ridiculously oversimplified. Yes, Saddam should be out of power. But the question is how? At what point does the cure become worse than the disease? It is all well and good to say that we want to eliminate evil. But not all solutions are good. I hate kidnapping, so should we eliminate it by installing GPS tracking devices in kids when they are newborns? Should we eliminate gun violence by banning guns? Should we eliminate theft by placing cameras everywhere, even in private residences? Saying that I am turning my back on the "oppressed people" because I don't support this war is like saying I am dooming kids to kidnapping because I don't support massive surveillance. I'm sorry, but that is an illogical argument.

Besides, the U.S. doesn't exactly have a good record when it comes to helping "oppressed people." We didn't care about the oppressed Iraqis when we supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. We aren't doing much for oppressed people in China, or Iran, or in dozens of other countries where dictators rule. Saying we are doing this for the people of Iraq sounds warm and fuzzy, but that is not the main reason we are there. That is an added bonus.

[Paul Victorey]

Yeah, but what good would it do to protest him?

And again, we shouldn't take him out unless we absolutely need to, or until we can come up with a better way of ruling Iraq. We're not doing them any favors to stop one person from killing them only to have them killed by another.

Everyone talks about Saddam and him repressing Kurds and Shi'ites, but this isn't just something Saddam decided to do out of the blue -- each group, Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd, wants to be the rulers of Iraq, and each group wants the others dead. Saddam's methods, while certainly brutal and inhumane, are realistically about the only things that can be used in situations where ethnic hatreds are as high as that.

Honestly, Israel has more chance of coming to peaceful terms with the Palestinians than the three groups in Iraq coexisting peacefully.

[Mac Medic]

Besides, the U.S. doesn't exactly have a good record when it comes to helping "oppressed people." We didn't care about the oppressed Iraqis when we supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. We aren't doing much for oppressed people in China, or Iran, or in dozens of other countries where dictators rule. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree, and I think it's disgusting. If the people want our help, like the Iraqi people do, then we are bound to help them. It doesn't matter one bit to me who the administration is, it may to you, we have an obligation to liberate the oppressed. I was one of the few conservatives i knew who supported Clinton and his action in Kosovo because it needed to be done and now the oppressor will be dealt with accordingly. But to disagree with an action to save lives and to protest your own nation and troops just because you disagree with an administration is disgusting. We have many valid reasons for this action, but the USA haters just don't care.

[doctorgonzo]

If you think that protesters are USA haters, then nothing I say or anybody else is going to change your mind. I just don't get it.

The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives people the right "to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That is what protesters are doing. The policy to wage a war is no different from a policy to provide price support for milk, or to name a highway, or to raise a tax. You may think that the U.S. has many valid reasons to be in Iraq. Not everybody agrees with you, and they have just as much a right to ask the government to listen to them as you have to ask the government to listen to you.

[Paul Victorey]

oem_guy, I am offended by the implications. People can be against the war for other reasons than because they hate the USA. Maybe people, like myself, think that this war will end up causing far more harm than good to the Iraqi people. Maybe people think that the US deciding, on its own, which governments deserve to exist and which don't is setting the US up as the "dictator of the world" -- where we can arbitrarily remove any government we don't like, and we can decide how other nations should be governed, and their own citizens have no say in this. Maybe people feel that creating a power vacuum in the heart of a region with severe ethnic problems will cause a war that will engulf the whole Middle East.

[Mac Medic]

It's not a matter of deciding who will exist paul, give me one example where the US did that, this is about enforcing UN resolutions that have been in place for the last 12 years. It has nothing to do with the politics of our nation. Personally I dislike Bush, he's a socialist, but I do agree with this action. The Iraqi people want our help, and i belive it's our obligation to help them.

[doctorgonzo]

The U.S. has decided many times which governments exist and which do not, such as in Panama and Vietnam. We have supported military coups many, many times over the past fifty years or so. We have also turned our backs on people seeking freedom, such as in East Timor. We regularly support one oppressor over another, such as when we support Iraq over Iran, and when we supported bin Laden over the Soviet Union. We are a superpower, and as such we stick our fingers in everybody's pie.

If you think Bush is a socialist, I have to wonder exactly who you see as a political leader.

[Paul Victorey]

Let the UN enforce its resolutions, or let it die, but the US enforcing UN resolutions is counterproductive for both the US and UN.

And I'm sure some of the Iraqi people want Saddam gone. How many people have to dislike their government before we change it? If all the war protestors asked a foreign government to attack and overthrow Bush, should they? A lot of people in Britain hate Blair's desire to help the US in Iraq, should we "liberate" Britain next? What about the Palestinians?

[Mac Medic]

Vietnam was about defeating the Communist North Vietnamese army, it was neither an objective nor our intention to replace a government.

Either way I think we agree to disagree, the wonderful thing about it is that we live in a nation that allows us the opportunity to have debates of this nature without the threat of murder. Although considering the freedoms President Bush has been taking away from us lately it may be us asking for help as an oppressed nation one day, I just hope that there someone in the world brave enough to heed the call. Protesters obviously, are free to do what they do, again and that's another benefit of living in the U.S. and obviously not all of them hate the United States, unfortunately the radical left-wingers tend to taint the pool for the rest of them.

[Tiretool]

Although considering the freedoms President Bush has been taking away from us lately

Which freedoms might these be? Not nearly the amount of freedoms we lost under Clinton. How many firearms were banned under that sleezebag Democratic president?

[jessho]

Which freedoms might these be? Not nearly the amount of freedoms we lost under Clinton. How many firearms were banned under that sleezebag Democratic president?

I think the freedom to lay down in traffic and protest has been banned, although I can't find any reson for this to happen except to prevent the mentally impaired from causing themselves harm.:D

[drisley]

There are definite links between Iraq and terrorism and Al Queda. In fact, gonz, I began to post some info on it at FC a couple weeks ago and noticed you failed to reply to it. :) There is evidence in fact, confirmed by some in the CIA and former director Woosely, of actual 9/11 planning taking place at the terrorist camp of Salman Pak just outside of Baghdad. They had a 707 aircraft and performed mock hijackings with small arms like box cutters. Hello?!

I don't care what the UN says they didn't find. They inspected only a small portion of the sites we gave them info on, and honestly, the UN truly did not want to find anything. If they were serious about this job, they would have been far more aggressive than expecting a little over hundred guys to go around playing Sherlock Holmes. They had the authority to remove scientists and take them from the country for interviews. TMK, they didn't even do it once.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Tiretool
Which freedoms might these be? Not nearly the amount of freedoms we lost under Clinton. How many firearms were banned under that sleezebag Democratic president?

Well, the freedom to be safe from government spying without a court order, the freedom to be charged as a criminal and face a trial instead of being held indefinately without lawyers, for two. They are also considering (or introducing, depending on how far it got) legislation that will again make it legal for the government to strip away one's citizenship as a punishment for crimes, even for people who were born here and have never been a citizen of any other nation.

The government may also monitor people without suspicion of a crime and seize property without a warrant, under new laws.

I think these are a lot more important freedoms than any we've lost under Clinton.

And Dris, the hijackers operating in Baghdad is not at all proof of anything -- Al Quaida operates in practically every nation on earth. The hijackers were also planning their attacks within the US, within Britain, etc., does that mean Blair and Bush knew of the attack?

The simple fact that Al Quaida members are routinely killed by the Republican Guard, that Al Quaida members are willing to commit suicide rather than be captured by Saddam, and the fact that they have tried to assassinate him is proof enough. In fact, Bin Laden's most recent message, while expressing solidarity with Iraqis, called Saddam's Ba'ath party "infidels".

[doctorgonzo]

I didn't respond to your facts because they don't matter, drisley. As Paul pointed out, terrorist activity taking place inside Iraq does not mean Saddam and al-Qaeda are linked. That simply means terrorists were in Iraq, as they have been in dozens of countries. Removing Saddam may make it easier for terrorists to operate in Iraq by creating temporary anarchy.

It is a stretch to say that if I pick up some box cutters and pretend to hijack planes, President Bush is therefore supporting terrorism and needs to be taken out. The fact that it happens in Iraq does not mean Saddam and al-Qaeda are in bed together.

I think it is presumptuous of you to say that the inspectors didn't want to do their jobs. Every interview I have read with those actual scientists who were inspectors show that they were not there on a lark. They were there because they vehemently believed that Saddam was hiding stuff and they wanted to find it. After working there for a few weeks, however, they started to realize that Iraq was is such a pathetic state that it was unlikely Saddam had much of anything anymore. It is pretty insulting to insinuate that these inspectors didn't care.

[Hot Rod]

I believe I read somewhere that inspectors on several occassions asked the United States to give them information on where to look. The US either refused to give them information or only gave them partial information that was of no help.

[grasshopperbe]

Which freedoms might these be? Not nearly the amount of freedoms we lost under Clinton. How many firearms were banned under that sleezebag Democratic president?

If something like the 'patriot act' was done of here it would be civil war.
i find this a total violation of human rights. they can take simply anyone off the street and emprison them as long as they want , without even acknowledging this person is being held.

and how can you be against proper firearm laws . Every righteous person knows that weapons do much more harm than they do good. Ask the parents whose little kids found a weapon and wanted to 'play' cowboy with it. or all the people who have been killed in robberies, gangs, and so much more. madmen like that sniper in washington. the only way this can be solved is by very strict gun laws and control of these laws. guns can only kill, and i think only very trained people should handle such devices.
in begium we have FN which is a major weapons producer. and the only reason it hasnt been closed yet are a few old rich politicians, there constantly problems with it.
gun laws over here are much more strict , and we have much less problems
with unregisterd weapons

[glc]

grass: It would take a Constitutional amendment to take guns out of the hands of citizens here - the right to bear arms is in our Constitution.

[drisley]

Gonz and Paul, you guys obviously did not read up on the claim. Salman Pak is a Saddam-controlled park. It comprised almost 20 sq. km. just outside of Baghdad and even has a villa for Saddam Hussain to sleep in. The camp, according to intelligence reports, has been used to production of bio agents. The UN has visited the camp and Iraq told them a cute story as to what it is. But, defectors report otherwise. And intelligence reports that members of Saddam's Fedayeen are trained at this camp, and Islamic extremists have been trained there over the course of the 90's.

So, this is not just a spot in the woods, guys. This is a fairly substantial and built-up camp under Saddam's control and used by his regime. The fact that 9/11 planning is reported to have taken place there cannot be dismissed as casually as you are attempting to do. In fact, doing that shows you really didn't even read up on it before replying. It would be like us training terrorist at Camp David and then trying to dismiss it as "well, you can't hold the US responsible for what might happen within its borders".

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by drisley
The fact that 9/11 planning is reported to have taken place there cannot be dismissed as casually as you are attempting to do.

Let's see some proof of that.

[drisley]

Wow, you're just like a French man. ;) Won't open your eyes and look for yourself, just say there is no proof. Do some looking on your own. I did.

To start your search, do a search for Salman Pak at Google.

[Paul Victorey]

Yes, but information coming from expatriates is nearly worthless, there is a serious tendency to lie to try to bring public support against the nation you hate. People who are either expelled from Iraq or defect have every reason to lie, because if the US believes their lies, then the US might attack the nation they hate.

Also, the fact that this information was not presented by Powell when he made his case in front of the UN on Iraq's terrorist links suggests that even the US doesn't believe these rumors.

Further, the facts that Al Quaida has tried to kill Saddam, that he HAS killed many Al Quaida members and that they commit suicide rather than face capture, would lead one to believe that they are not on friendly terms.

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, I found a couple stories at NewsMax.com (which I certainly do not think is a reliable source of information), about how three defectors said that 9/11 training went on at Salman Pak. The only proof is their word. Excuse me, but do you honestly think that we should take the word of Iraqi defectors without a grain of salt? These people obviously don't like Saddam, and I don't think it is surprising that they would try to say anything to paint him in a dark light.

I need a bit more proof than the words of a few defectors. This is an interesting story, but as far as being a "conclusive link" between Saddam and 9/11, it is just silly. Show me proof that the actual 9/11 hijackers were at Salman Pak, and you may have something. But not this.

[drisley]

Of the 13,600 search results, you pick out the two Newsmax stories? And, a little reading would show there is tons of intelligence on Salman Pak. These two defectors just provided some more entertaining info on it since they used to work there and all, and they were interviewed by our media. And the 9/11 link is by far not the only "smoking guns" to be had in relation to this location in Iraq. Also, these defectors did not introduce much of this info, they simply confirmed info that was already in the pipeline. You could read for hours on Salman Pak online, yet you spend 3 minutes, see two NewsMax stories and move to discount the whole thing?

You want so bad to refute anything I post that you cannot properly evaluate the info. Sometimes, trying to be right means you turn the blind eye, and I think that's whats happening here.

[Tiretool]

Yes, but information coming from expatriates is nearly worthless, there is a serious tendency to lie to try to bring public support against the nation you hate. People who are either expelled from Iraq or defect have every reason to lie, because if the US believes their lies, then the US might attack the nation they hate.

Expatriates from Iraq have a heck of a lot less to lie about when they're out of Iraq and a whole lot more to come clean about. Sorry Paul, your comment didn't make much sense. A government who is hiding mass destruction weapons has a whole lot more to lie about than an expatriate.

And what kind of country uses the children as leverage to convince their parents to defend itself? See for yourself! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82310,00.html)

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, no, I'm not going to spend hours looking at these stories. For one thing, I noticed that the top ones repeated each other verbatim in many spots, leading me to believe that there isn't a bunch of variety in terms of sources when it comes to this info. Why read three dozen stories that pretty much have the same info?

Second, I am assuming that there are people in the CIA whose job it is to look into this kind of stuff, and I am assuming that they are competent. If they have been working on this stuff and they haven't been able to come up with anything more than the contents of a couple stories on Google, I am going to start believing that whatever link that exists is pretty weak. You said before that you trust the government because being wrong would be too costly. Why doesn't this extend to Salman Pak? If there were something definite, then this administration would be all over it. Maybe the CIA dropped the ball on this one, but if so, that's a whole other issue.

I am not denying that Salman Pak exists, or that terrorist training went on there. The intelligence for that is pretty sound. What I do doubt is the link to 9/11 terrorists, and the intelligence for that seems to come from a handful of people. I do not want so badly to refute your posts that I will turn a blind eye to facts. The problem is that there is a dearth of facts. The words of a couple defectors is not worth a whole lot without corroborating info. I find it hard to believe that if the situation were reversed, you would believe what a couple defectors had to say.

Tiretool, defectors don't lie to cover up. They lie to make their former oppressors look bad. Remember the stories from the Gulf War about Iraqis taking babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die? Very potent propaganda, until it was revealed that the person who said that was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, somebody who obviously wanted to make Iraqis look bad. The same thing happens with defectors. If people who have been vehemently opposed to Bush suddenly came out and said that Bush eats infants for lunch, would you believe it?

[drisley]

(1) The stories are not all duplicate. The data ranges from the likes of NewsMax to the Dept. of State.

(2) I also assume the people in the CIA know what they're going. But, I don't relate that to Google, because quite frankly, anything that makes its way to Google is something they don't mind declassifying. I assume what we see on Google is a small portion of what may be known in a classified setting abotu Salman Pak. I also think it is incorrect to assume that this administration is so wanting to be right that they will willy-nilly "be all over it" and start releasing info to the public.

(3) Well, there is progress here. You now say the intelligence showing terrorist ties and training is pretty sound. That's an improvement over your past statements at FC denying such a link existed at all. But, as for the 9/11 thing, it seems a little common sense would dictate a connection here. Salman Pak is no airfield, so a 707 aircraft sitting there is pretty out of the ordinary. Secondly, the stories of these defectors was blended with intelligence we already knew to form a picture. Whether any of the 19 hijackers were there, I don't know. But, I think its pretty clear that there was small arms training taking place there aimed at hijacking a civilian airliner.

[grasshopperbe]

lets be realistic . Every party in this conflict has 'ministery of information' and such
this is simply war propaganda.
i was watching cnn a few days ago, and how they are reporting now, man this is friggin big brother show or something.
And most of the journalists seem like they are in a tv show rather than reporting on a war.
None of us "normal pple" (by which i mean 99% of the world pop.) doesnt know what is really going on and what the real goals of all these parties are.

[doctorgonzo]

There was training at Salman Pak, certainly for the Fedayeen (which I don't consider to be a terrorist group, but a guerilla group). Saddam has found terrorists useful when they further his aims. I have always admitted as much. But that is still a long way from al-Qaeda, still a long way from 9/11. The testimony I read, including an interview of one of those defectors, did not mention al-Qaeda at all. Just non-Iraqis, "with dark skin, maybe from around Yemen." Could be anybody. That's not much of a link.

As for the CIA knowing more but not saying so, exactly why would they do that? What could possibly be gained by keeping this information secret? Please tell me exactly why the CIA would keep this a secrect. The only reason that I can think of is that they knew this before 9/11, and by admitting so they will be admitting that they screwed up royally. In that case, of course, it will further harm the U.S. to keep this information secret, because if the CIA is blowing things this badly, it needs to be changed.

But I don't believe that. I'm not a conspiracy person. I believe in Occam's Razor. Without more information, the questions boils down to which being more likely: that the CIA and all our other intelligence organs pored over this stuff for a long time and found nothing, or that a few defectors are completely telling the truth about what they saw there and have no other motives for their words. Call me a rube, but I think that the former is more likely. And if the CIA does know about this, but isn't telling the U.S. public, didn't tell the U.N., and didn't tell the inspectors, then that would be one of the most heinous betrayals of trust by the government in our country's history.

[drisley]

Well, as for reasoning, I wouldn't know, but I tend to think that our gov't knows a LOT more about the situation in Iraq than they have released to the press wires. One obvious reason I can think of off hand would be that releasing said info would jeopardize our sources and that the risk of doing so is too high. I would imagine that intelligence of this nature is not the kind of thing you want to release on the wires just for the sake of looking right to those who are skeptical.

Just my view.

[Mac Medic]

1. McCain Feingold
2. The Patriot Act
3. Homeland Security (KGB)
4. Total Information Act ( or somthing like that, due to be debated soon, my representative, another supposeded conservative told me he doesnt know what to think of it yet, the idiot)

All actions of a socialist, not a supposed conservative.

[icallmedan]

Your right Drisley. I mean you can tell....When you watch the news the Associated Press people on MSNBC or CNN, sometimes they say something and they have to stop themselves to not give away information that could be vital to a mission.

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, if, after the war, the U.S. comes out and says, "Oh, by the way, we had proof of conclusive links between Iraq and al-Qaeda all along," I would be positively outraged, as would 90% of the population, I am sure. The CIA is not the KGB. In a democracy, the government has the duty to inform its citizens. That is why the CIA exists. If our government misled the world, threw the U.N. into turmoil, damaged our country's credibility by putting forth stories that were discredited, and kept information from its own citizens because it wanted to protect a couple of sources....then the U.S. wouldn't last much longer, I am afraid. This information, if it exists, is absolutely vital to protecting U.S. lives. With it, our coalition would have certainly been much larger, meaning more troops. Of which a fewer percentage would be American, leading to fewer U.S. casualties. As well as a northern front.

Again, Occam's Razor. We don't need to protect sources in a country that will not exist even a few months hence. Even if we did, this information would simply be far, far too important to the U.S. case to keep bottled up. It is impossible for me to believe that our government would so thoroughly disregard the principles of democracy, and the lives of the people in our military, in order to keep this information secret if they had it. If our government is willing to do so, then the dangers that would represent would dwarf the dangers that Saddam or al-Qaeda represent.

You don't honestly believe that the CIA would hold back on such vital information to protect a couple of sources that will be superfluous in a matter of weeks anyway, do you? Even if you do, do you think that in a democracy, the government is right to keep such vital information away from its citizens?

[drisley]

Yes, I do, gonzo. We live in a republic (a form of democracy), yes, but that does not mean the gov't should share EVERYTHING with the public. I mean, in an ideal world, that would be great, but in the real world, to broadcast our intelligence through the press wires like its a American Idol score sheet is idiotic. Intelligence like this, especially human intelligence, is such that if released and the target can ascertain the source, that source dies or the target will make changes to render that intelligence useless.

If you're now going to say they need to tell us, the dumb public, every little thing their sources tell them, then you're attacking the very heart of what intelligence is.

> "This information, if it exists, is absolutely vital to protecting U.S. lives."

Damn right, which is why you protect it by not putting it out in the press. Seems as obvious as the sky being blue to me.

[Tiretool]

And to me.

[drisley]

BTW, I don't think you're right to assume that not telling the world everythign we know led to any of the things you mention. One of the major reasons we are at war now is because the UN failed to show a unified front against Saddam. If they did and showed that sign they were serious, Saddam would likely have complied and war would be averted. Same with Turkey - their failure to allow the strong northern front cost Iraqi lives that they claim to care about. Additionally, if you think the US is the only country on this planet with intelligence sources, think again. There is a not a country on this planet that tells the UN everything it knows, because quite frankly, telling the UN is about the same as publishing it in the NY Times. They won't keep it private.

BTW, its news to me that the CIA exists to keep the citizens informed. When did that start? :)

oem, I agree with you in that those four items you listed were bad ideas, all of them. But, still, I hardly call Bush a socialist.

[Hot Rod]

I agree that the government has to keep some infromation secret for awhile. But to mislead the public is another thing all together. Now the question is whether they withheld info or gave us misleading info.

We would be at war whether the UN showed a unified front or not. Bush's goal from the beginning was not to disarm Saddam but to behead Saddam. Not totally bad I must say....but if we were mislead by the information they gave out to get us to hasten our attack...then that would be a grievous crime to me. Withholding and misleading are two different things. The Government works for us....not the other way around. Or at least that is how it is supposed to be.

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, let me be clear: this information made public is vital to saving U.S. lives. It saves no lives if it is kept private.

I know that some information needs to be kept private. I am not an idiot. What I am talking about, however, is this particular piece of information: that there are conclusive links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Part of the reason we don't have a real coalition is because the rest of the world wasn't convinced. Worse, whenever we tried to make an argument, it turned out to be wrong, thus damaging our credibility and any future arguments we will make. I don't know about anybody else here, but I think that if this information existed and was shown to the public, we would have had far more support around the world. It would have changed the perception of this war from being one to oust Saddam to being one to hobble al-Qaeda. We have far more support around the world for the latter; pretty much total support, as a matter of fact. If we had this information and made it public, it is not far off to say history would have been changed.

You still haven't told me why we should have kept this particular piece of information private if we have it. The "protecting our sources" doesn't cut it, when hundreds of lives could be saved. No, we should not tell the U.N., or the world, everything that we know. But holding this information back is no different from holding vital information back about the guilt or innocence of a person on trial for murder. When the information is that important, you don't hold it back.

No, the CIA doesn't exist to inform citizens. It exists to give the government the information it needs, and we make up the government. We do not live in a totalitarian state. The CIA does not have the ability to decide what it will allow to be disseminated to the teeming masses. Logical exceptions are made to protect sources to the extent possible, but when it comes to information of this magnitude, it goes out. This particular information, if it exists, is no less important than foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks would have been, and if the CIA held back on that information if it had it to "protect its sources," I think there would have been riots, and probably worse.

We are not the "dumb public," drisley. We are the public that consents to be governed, the public that signs the paychecks of these people in the CIA, and the public that has every right to throw them all out on their rear ends if they foul up. The CIA serves at my discretion, and they better remember that.

[drisley]

You misinterpretted what I meant by "dumb public", but that's ok.

Its a little hard to debate this with you because we have such a different take on things. I do not think other countries being "convinced" was the problem at all. To some, I'm sure it was. But, the countries like France know very well what the truth is and had ulterior motives for opposing it, IMO. In the case of France, they were more concerned with being a counter-weight to US dominance - they don't care what the issue is. Russia, well they have been supplying Iraq with military equipment for some time and they need the money, so they are not going to support us as long as they have somebody like France to hide behind. Long story short, the idea that this was a simple matter of convincing the unbelivers is a false notion, IMO.

It takes those who are responsible for this information to make a judgement call on how to best use and protect it. You do not have the knowledge to make a blanket call that it should have gone out. Neither do I.

But, I am convinced that there are solid links between Iraq and Al-Queda. In fact, the Saddam-Bin Laden links seem to go back into the 80's with some money funnelling that was going on.

If you want to remain unconvinced and think the administration has totally botched it all or, worse, lied, then that's fine. I'll still like you. ;)

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Tiretool
Expatriates from Iraq have a heck of a lot less to lie about when they're out of Iraq and a whole lot more to come clean about. Sorry Paul, your comment didn't make much sense. A government who is hiding mass destruction weapons has a whole lot more to lie about than an expatriate.


Expatriates lie to make the people they hate look bad. Hell, you remember how the USA had an "inside source" on how close Iraq was to having nuclear weapons? Their source claimed to be a "nuclear engineer", he ended up actually being a computer programmer, for a company that wasn't involved with any government programs, and he had been living in the US for 10 years, thus making this knowledge of "Iraq is 3 months away from having nukes" a LITTLE suspect.

Expatriates often lie. If a government is so bad that you're driven out of the nation, you're not exactly going to like them, and if you can lie to harm them, most people would.

[shazam]

I would like to comment on who is paying the bills. After ww2 we rebuilt Europe not the U.N. There was no U.N.After the Korean war the U.S. rebuilt S Korea. With the U.N doing the heavy looking on. An lest we not forget the U.S. supplies 62% of all forgien aid in the world. We supply the military[most of] in Korea. No one pays us for that protection. We also have troops thru out the world protecting other nations and we have to pay them to stay there. Enough.

[doctorgonzo]

It's good to know that you will still like me. :)

I do think that the failure to convince the rest of the world was the problem. You may talk about French and Russian business concerns, and that it certainly a big part of it. But like here in the U.S., it is the government that carries the water for big business. The mass public doesn't care much about business concerns. They generally have more idealistic concerns.

That is why this information would be so crucial. It is one thing for the French and Russian governments to be against this for business reasons while their populations were for it; however, that is not the case. The public is massively opposed to this war everywhere, even the citizens of our "coalition partners." I believe that if the U.S. made a clear connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, then the citizens of these countries would not be so against this war, and their leaders would follow suit. At the very least Turkey would be on our side, and probably many, many more countries.

No, I don't have all the information available to make the call as to whether this should be out. But I think this is an easy case. If our intelligence services knew that 9/11 would happen beforehand, it should have been made public. This information is just as important, not only for the war, but for the long-term credibility of the U.S. and our foreign relations. This war will be over in a few months. The damage that has been caused to our foreign relations will last far, far longer.

I don't think our country has out and out lied to us, but I think there are people in our government who are approaching this with preconceived notions are are trying to do all they can to push them. That's fine when it comes to some armchair diplomat or a talking head on the TV, but it worries me when it goes higher up.

[shazam]

If you all do not calm down you are going to drive your selfes insane.

[Tiretool]

I don't believe that as much of the mass public is against this war as the media would have you to believe.

Just like the war footage we've been continuously seeing 24/7, we're only getting a tiny slice of the action pie that's going on in Iraq. I believe the same holds true with the world's public opinion. We're only seeing protests on the news because they are the "squeaky wheel getting the oil". The vast majority of the world public is in support or at least tolerating the war effort in my opinion while a slim minority of the world's public is showing up to the marches and public protests and even breaking laws to gain attention to their cause.
And while we're on that subject,these idiotic people laying in the street to stop traffic as their forum of protest just plainly pisses me off. If I lived where these people were doing this, I think their way of protest would anger me to the point where I "accidently" hit the gas instead of the brakes upon encountering them and their "protests". These tactics are just stupid at best.

[drisley]

Did you say "if", shazam? ;)

Gonz, yeah, your's and my basic disagreement on that is that I don't think these other countries were sitting there with pure hearts waiting to be convinced. And I think the chief problem was france, because quite frankly, if France did not openly vow to veto anything and everything we put forth, then the pressure would have been on Russia and China to a larger degree and they either would have voted for it or abstained (more than likely abstain). But, with France out front vowing to veto, these others could hide behind France. and I think that's exactly what happened.

See, you think the burden was on the US to convince the world. I see it the other way around. I think the likes of France had a much harder case to prove because their claim flew right in the face of intelligence that all of these countries knew and had on their own. Bush was willing to get rid of the problem, and these countries were trying to convince HIM not to, not the other way around. Just as you could say we should have shown all our cards (much of these cards these other countries have already seen), they could just as easily have shown us intelligence to the contrary if they had it.

> "I think there are people in our government who are approaching this with preconceived notions are are trying to do all they can to push them."

Well, duh. And you think our government is the only one with a viewpoint to push? You don't think france had a preconceived notion going into this? This from the country that declared Iraq totally disarmed in the mid 90's, even though its not too far off to suspect France might have been helping Iraq develop the very weapons they say they don't have?

[Paul Victorey]

Dris, of course the burden of proof lies on the US, as the UN operates just like our courts -- innocent until proven guilty. And, in fact, even our best "proof" of Saddam's WMDs was pitiful, so if our intelligence can't get any more concrete proof than that, why do you think other nations would have intelligence that said Iraw had WMDs?

Also, as to supplying Iraq, France did supply a lot of resources to Iraq, but not nearly as much as Britain and the US. Most of the biological weapons we destoryed in 1991 were from resources given to him by the US.

[Mac Medic]

I fail to see how the burden was on anyone, we are forgetting we have three UN resolution authorizing force, three of them. I think thats more than enough seeing as we only need one, if that.

[Paul Victorey]

They authorized the use of force *if Iraq is declared noncompliant*. Until the Security Council votes to declare Iraq in Material Breach, they are compliant, so force cannot be used.

The resolutions aren't an open invitation for any force to attack Iraq.

[Tiretool]

Until the Security Council votes to declare Iraq in Material Breach, they are compliant, so force cannot be used.

I disagree... Just because the UN hasn't voted yet doesn't make Iraq innocent. If for no other reason, they're not compliant for entering into the no-fly zones and engaging US aircraft hundreds of times since it was established. To me... that alone is enough to warrant an ousting of Saddam and his regime, let alone the threat of WMDs, slaughter of his own people, etc. An aggressive act towards any US aircraft is an aggressive act towards the US itself. It's just as bad as a terroristic act.

[corosus]

Originally posted by Tiretool
I disagree... Just because the UN hasn't voted yet doesn't make Iraq innocent.

have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty, the judge here is the un and untill they voted sadam is ( legaly , i can not stress this enoug) innocent. even if later to be found guiltyin anny context good and bad are far to personal things to base desisions that influence milions on. this is why we have laws kindof as a concencus as towhat is propper behavior.

[jessho]

have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty, the judge here is the un and untill they voted sadam is ( legaly , i can not stress this enoug) innocent. even if later to be found guiltyin anny context good and bad are far to personal things to base desisions that influence milions on. this is why we have laws kindof as a concencus as towhat is propper behavior.

One of the premises of establishing the lack of guilt is the willingness to allow investigation. If you haven't done anything wrong, why are you avoiding any efforts to prove your innocence? After 12 years, numerous witnesses that will testify and a complete disregard of the free world, Saddam has left no other recourse than war.

BTW, if you can persuade Saddam and his buddies to surrender peacefully and allow full inspection of their country, you have the potential of a terrific job. :D

[drisley]

Paul, 1441 declared Iraq in material breach. So, this is not a matter of "until the Security Council votes to declare Iraq in Material Breach" - that's already happened.

Quote:

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);"

Looks to me like Saddam was declared guity, but he was given one last chance to fully comply. He didn't.

[suitcase]

Originally posted by Hot Rod
The thing that really concerns me is that I read a story about the plan that Bush has in place once the war is over. They want to put an American in charge of Iraq for a minimum of 2 years so they can transition the government over.

That just really makes me uneasy. I understand the reasoning...so it is a smooth transition. But, it can become something that we just don't want to let go of. It's a little too like colonization in my book. That failed for the Roman Empire and it failed for Britain. I think doing that will be overstepping our bounds.

And the name of the American in charge of Afganistan right now is?? And the American who was charge of Germany was?? And the American who was in charge of Korea was???? Give me a break!

[icallmedan]

Yeah, your right suitcase....But I can still see where Hot Rod is coming from, but I believe suitcase more.

[drisley]

I see no reason why anyone would assume the US would have a desire to take over Iraq and colonize it. A temporary, post-war rule is in no way even resembling colonization. It is quite customary in these kinds of circumstances, actually. I imagine we'll be flying out of there at the first realistic opportunity.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
They authorized the use of force *if Iraq is declared noncompliant*. Until the Security Council votes to declare Iraq in Material Breach, they are compliant, so force cannot be used. Resolution 1441 found Iraq to be in material breach. Besides all that, folks, I hate to inform some of you that the UN is useless, non-deserving of this high regard and plummeting down the chasm of Irrelevancy- sort of like the League of Nations.

[Hot Rod]

suitcase....you act like I made up that story. I got the story from MSN about a week or two ago. He planned on putting an American Statesman in charge of Iraq for a minimum of 2 years. What I am concerned about is this extending into 3, 4, 5 years. Once the money starts flowing in from the oil and we see that we have easy access to oil....who knows what will happen. I'm just concerned about the possibilities. One of the things Tony Blair said today is that he is concerned about the US taking charge of Iraq after the war...that it needs to be some other country or include the UN again.

I'll look for a link if I can find one for you.