AHHAHAAH DOWNLOAD THIS IRAQ INTERVIEW ROFL

[etech]

SnapIT

And once again, even though he DOES know better, from before, he forgets to mention that Irak supports ALL families of killed palestinians, no matter whether they die from suicide bombings or from bullets from the Israelis...

Naturally, it is easy to forget that, because if you do not, you loose the link to terrorism... oh, BTW, your cuddly buddy Pakistan does the same... isn't THAT a bitch? kinda hurts the cause huh? and Saudi Arabia? well, you know the drill by now...

GET THE TERRORISTS, INVADE ehhh... hrm... well, would that be the imaginary terrorists from Canada or, heh, the links that US intelligence don't have (but US officials are happy to state that there are links, even though CIA say there is no link), or would that be the REAL links that are known between terrorists and Iran/Pakistan/Saudi? errr... no... i guess not, but you know what, let's bomb Irak... because... err... well, just BECAUSE...

THE US don't need a reason dammit!

Of course, you like to state and proclaim bullshit and forget half of the truth, that is you e-tech... in a nutshell...

SnapIt, why does Saddam pay the suicide bombers families more than the other families?

From the link I posted earlier.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

BTW, I saved you comments about north Americans that you posted before. Would you like to see them again?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Jahawkin, how will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

He plays de ping pong!

 

[bsobel]

etech owns this argument. Leaving that Saddam in power would show the entire world that the US has no spine.

Feel free to edit your posts down and not keep reposting the same 40 lines for your 2 line comment . Trust us, we'll be able to follow along.
Bill

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech


Yes, and a suicide bomber wondering how his family will survive if he goes and blows himself up now knows that his family will receive what is probably a small fortune in that region if he does. That is directly supporting terrorism and contributing to the unrest in the Middle East.

Leaving Saddam alone and as the apparent winner would IMHO increase the risk of terrorism. He would be seen as the strong leader that stood up to and defied the US. If I understand anything about the culture there that would inflame the masses more than his removal.

I agree there would be a short time of instability in Iraq but once a stable government was formed and the people were doing better than under Saddam it would settle down.

I still don't think paying families of suicide bombers contributes to terrorism. Would these guys be suicide bombers if their families didn't get these payouts?? I think so. There's been suicide bombing for quite some time now, and I would think that Saddam hasn't been supporting the families since the onset of the concept.
I still don't see how the religious fundamentalists (that's what the terrorisits are, no doubt) are going to turn to the self-proclaimed leader of the secular Arab world. The terrorists orgs. will no doubt be pleased that the Great Satan was turned back, but I don't think the average 15yr old will go "Saddam just "won" against the US.....Now where do I sign up for al-Qaeda."

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

It is a direct link to supporting terrorism with money. If you choose to ignore it and try to deflect the issue by bringing up other countries than you may of course do so.

Answer me this then. Would leaving Saddam in power and letting him have a "moral" victory over over the US at this point in time encourage or discorage terrorism? Just your opinion of course.

Its a direct link between supporting the families of terrorists with money. They are not giving money to Hamas or al-Qaeda. They're not harboring training camps (except in the area not under Saddam's control) and providing bases for terrorist orgs.
Leaving Saddam alone would discourage terrorism. Actually I see it as leaving Saddam in power would have no effect one way or another regarding terrorism, but taking him out would encourage an entire generation towards terrorism. First, once the invasion begins you've lost half the Arab population. They will see any effort made by the US as evil. The fractionalization of the Iraqi society from war and subsequent overthrow of the government would lead to conditions ripe for fanaticism and pro-terrorist viewpoints.
Of course that's just my opinion....

Yes, and a suicide bomber wondering how his family will survive if he goes and blows himself up now knows that his family will receive what is probably a small fortune in that region if he does. That is directly supporting terrorism and contributing to the unrest in the Middle East.

Leaving Saddam alone and as the apparent winner would IMHO increase the risk of terrorism. He would be seen as the strong leader that stood up to and defied the US. If I understand anything about the culture there that would inflame the masses more than his removal.

I agree there would be a short time of instability in Iraq but once a stable government was formed and the people were doing better than under Saddam it would settle down.

etech owns this argument. Leaving that Saddam in power would show the entire world that the US has no spine.

That's the same type of logic that got us into and kept us in Vietnam.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Jahawkin, how will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

Answer the question you chirping bird!

 

[etech]

jahawkin

I still don't think paying families of suicide bombers contributes to terrorism. Would these guys be suicide bombers if their families didn't get these payouts?? I think so. There's been suicide bombing for quite some time now, and I would think that Saddam hasn't been supporting the families since the onset of the concept.
I still don't see how the religious fundamentalists (that's what the terrorisits are, no doubt) are going to turn to the self-proclaimed leader of the secular Arab world. The terrorists orgs. will no doubt be pleased that the Great Satan was turned back, but I don't think the average 15yr old will go "Saddam just "won" against the US.....Now where do I sign up for al-Qaeda."

Paying more to the families of the suicide bombers can have only one goal. Increase and encourage suicide bombers. You may debate if that is the only reason there are suicide bombers (I'm sure it isn't.) or how many it encouraged to strap on a load of dynamite and blow up civilians. I believe that the intent and the probable encouragement of some is sufficient to say that Saddam has supported terrorists. If you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree.

I believe that if Saddam stands up to the US successfully that it will encourage the sentiment that the US can be brought down. There are reports that the incident in Somalia encouraged further acts of terrorism because of the US pulling out after it happened. It was seen as a sign of weakness. Pulling back now from Iraq would be seen as such but on a far larger scale.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
e-tech owns nada... he has been spouting the same old stuff for months now...

The US backing off now would show some respect for the will of the world, that and that GW isn't insane...

France does not represent the will of the world.

How will leaving Saddam in power bring peace and justice to Iraq?

 

[Maleficus]

FREAKING HILARIOUS. thanks

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: jahawkin
How do you influence soverign nations in the post Cold War era without attacking them??
That is what this issue boils down to. I've stated that the US and countries around the world have been struggling to answer this question since '91.
Your answer to this question is "we can't influence other nations, we can only attack them."

I think that's a very valid answer. We've tried economic pressure in various places, two examples of which are Cuba and Iraq. That has primarily done nothing except hurt the people of those countries. Saddam and Castro still have money and power, so they aren't affected by it at all. We've also tried the alternative, giving economic assistance to rogue nations. In the case of North Korea, we promised to build nuclear power plants in exchange for a cease of their nuclear weapons program. They have since kicked the inspectors out, restarted the weapons program, and have raised hostilities by test firing missiles in the region. With a dictatorship, I believe that war is the only way to change their political structure. In a democracy, diplomacy works much better. If the world community stands united against a certain country's policies, it is within the grasp of that country's citizens to change those policies. In countries like Iraq and NK, the people have no choice. Saddam can put only himself on the ballot, and who is going to stop him? There is no opposition that can affect change. If the opposition inside the country is repressed, then it takes pressure from the outside to force change.

Finally, one point I have to address is when people state that we should not go into Iraq because there are various other places in the world that are in bad shape too. The US military, while the most potent fighting force in the history of mankind, can not do everything at once. Indeed, they shouldn't do everything at once. However, Saddam has had twelve years to disarm, and he hasn't. Also, the Middle East is an important strategic location today. Taking this into consideration, there is ample reason to go to war. We shouldn't have to police every single country on the face of the earth, but if there is one such as Iraq that has been in defiance for 12 years, holds strategic importance to the US, and is generally considered to be a repressive, cruel nation, why shouldn't we go to war? We can't solve everything at once, but we have the motivation and the ability to start in Iraq.

I'm glad there are some even tempered debates. Unlike the girl and the man, who were both absolutely senseless.

Bringing up north korea is interesting because it really does highlight the fact that there really is more than one side, even when dealing with a largely unethical gov't (more than ours that is). While there's little doubt that DPRK really wants Nuclear weapons, the history of the situation is far from good versus evil. For further analysis (in no particular order):

What does the DPRK want? The same thing they've been asking for, for the last 10 years. A non-aggression pact, assistance to counter the loss of power incurred by using non-nuclear sources, normalalized trade relations. I'm sure they'd like some food aid as well, but that's not really at the top of the list. In essense though, they're looking for some measure of legitimacy and a future akin to big brother china.

The last pact fell through, but it wasn't unilateral. A bit of googling or a trip to zmag.org will remind us that the US failed to make progress consistent with the deal, and that since the first month of the Bush presidency, the DPRK had absolutely no reason to stick to the agreement (as bush labels them member of the axis of evil).

Now, let's not forget that DPRK is an oppresive regime with a crappy human rights record, and a history of spending substantial amounts of money on military techonology while its citizens live in abject poverty. (although it can be argued that the US's constant rejection on non-aggression pacts may percipitate this kind of fiscal policy).

------

I guess my point is that these two minute telephone conversations are polarized opinions that may have some truth to them, but really lack perspective. The question "How does keeping saddam in power insure that civilians won't die" presents the idealistic girl with a false dichotomy. Wars should not be decided on such sophist principles.

 

[Dari]

jahawkin, you've been in a hole for quite a while. Don't dig any deeper. By digging further, you're only exposing your stupidity and inexperience at international politics.

 

[Kitros]

Fine.

Even though I am not supportive of either a) the war solution or b) the anti-war non-solution, I will still state an alternative.

Ninja.

Bring in a ninja to assassinate Saddam and see what happens.

Too hands off for us? Too much uncertainty of the possibility of billowing smoke from oil, resulting in lower yields... oh wait, I mean to save the environment?

Ok, then institute another government - yes, regime change. But let them do it, with UN support. Uh-oh, might not be a democracy! And non-christian at that!

Seems kind of hands off, right?... WAAAY right. Wing that is. Trust me, though... we'd see our country's - no, our PRESIDENT'S - true intentions when at the end, during the regime change, we try to swing a piece of the pie. And guess what kind of pie that'd be?

Dinosaur Pie.

Heck, all we did was hire a ninja.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Jahawkin, how will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

in iraq there is 3 major groups. with saddam ruling with an iron fist has kept those groups from fighting.

with a regime change that is all going to change. the only reason those groups are not fighting right now is because of saddam.

to make it worse i have yet to hear thee US's plan to satisfy those groups so iraq will not errupt itself into a civil war.

 

[crisp82]

So Saddam stops 3 rival groups from fighting.....wow.
Doesn't compare to the links he has with Osama Bin Laden and 9/11.
He refused to abid by laws that were put in place to protect from the kind of thing that is going on. He has been given a deadline to conform to, and he hasn't. And he wouldn't be in this place if hehadn't acted so stupidly 12 years ago.

 

[crisp82]

Oh, funny sh!t BTW

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: Kiyup
She didn't come very well prepared.

Because she's a whiny dumbass.

"You're coming off like my 9 year old neice"
OMG, ROFL!!!!!

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: crisp82
So Saddam stops 3 rival groups from fighting.....wow.
Doesn't compare to the links he has with Osama Bin Laden and 9/11.
He refused to abid by laws that were put in place to protect from the kind of thing that is going on. He has been given a deadline to conform to, and he hasn't. And he wouldn't be in this place if hehadn't acted so stupidly 12 years ago.

last time i checked there were no links between saddam and obl. or were you getting your info from presidnet bush's bogus goverment groups ?

if the US wants to saddam out of office that is something that it has to deal with. but it wont. look at what the US has promised afganistan postwar and it did not follow thru. granted afganistan was a more stable area but that might not be the same as iraq.

granted i dont like him ( saddam ) but you need to add to the death toll of the war and the possible civil war. but with the current administration of the US and their past performance they will not do it.

 

[Gaard]

Whether you're for the war or against it, I think all here would agree that "Saddam achieves a moral victory if we don't attack" isn't a very good reason to go to war.

 

[dew042]

if you guys actaully believe that she was picked because she was a strong well informed advocate - you are mistaken. she was picked for this dialog to be beat up. the slanted nature of this conversation was quite obivious since the host did not even require that the other guest show her the most basic respect - as he was allowed to constantly interupt and call her names. i don't care how much you dislike someone's opinion - calling them 'little girl' is not okay.

this is shameful journalism at it worst.

otoh - it was pretty funny how incompentant she really was

dew.

 

[Corn]

BTW, I saved you comments about north Americans that you posted before. Would you like to see them again?

I sure would!!!! Don't leave us hangin'!

 

[Ferocious]

I do think he needs to be removed from office now and by force if necessary.

But make no mistake......the reason BUSH is doing it is because it will help him politically by restoring some confidence to the consumers of America and therefore boost the economy.

Again make no mistake.....if our economy was booming right now....we wouldn't even be talking about IRAQ.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Dari
jahawkin, you've been in a hole for quite a while. Don't dig any deeper. By digging further, you're only exposing your stupidity and inexperience at international politics.

What in my posting shows stupidity and inexperence at international politics?

 

[outriding]

what is really the reason for going after saddam ??

there are other countries in that area that are violoating weapons agreements.

there are other countries that harm civilians ( the US included )

the president has yet to unvail his rebuidling of iraq plan.

if the president follows thru with the rebuilding of iraq like he said he will do with afgainistan they

will be waiting a long time ( i has yet to happen like he promised )

if the president doesn't follow thru with a rebuild of iraq those people might unite againts the US

now instead of have a looney of a dictator now we will have a whole country pissed at the US.

war is just a quick and easy way out of a complicated mess.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Whether you're for the war or against it, I think all here would agree that "Saddam achieves a moral victory if we don't attack" isn't a very good reason to go to war.

Guess what???
I disagree

The US could still achieve "victory" without going to war. You must admit, the inspections did work to some degree. Saddam played his typical games, but it had a very good chance of acheiving the same type of success the inspections regime in the 90's had before it broke down. Coerced inspections could be used for even more effectiveness.
Besides, like I said before, that type of rhetoric keept us in Vietnam way too long.
Edit: And the US could still claim moral victory if we disarm Saddam. It would be easy for the President to spin it as our victory.

 

[Wolfie]

Ok, I am coming into this thread a little late. But I thought I would throw my three cents into the pot.

First, I think this "Little Girl" should have answered the question.

Second, I don't understand what some of you, (mainly jahawkin) can say that we are attacking the innocent people of Iraq. We are attacking Sadam. Not the innocent people of that country. Listen to what the dude is saying in the clip. The people of Iraq don't like Sadam. They are just afraid of being killed for speaking out. Something you and I don't even think about because we are a free speaking country. I can send an Email to Bush and tell him what I think of him, and really, they can't do a damn thing. That is our right. At least give the innocent people in Iraq that chance by letting us go in there and taking care of the "problem" named Sadam.

Third, jahawkin had said

OK, I've thrown my credibility out the window because I can't answer a question that has been plaguing international politics since the end of the Cold War?? That question being...
How do you influence sovereign nations without attacking them??

Well, do you remember what happened Nov 9th, 1989???? Oh, wait. That was a peace movement. I spose you will tell me we had nothing to do with that right? Oh wait, you have had some issues answering questions...

Oh, wait, how about the UK stepping out of China? Or did you forget that too??? Hell, a lot of things happened since "the cold war". Not to mention what happened after world war II.

Bottom line is this, you take out a dictator and you solve a lot of hate and murdering. This leads to peace. If you haven't already figured that out, just wait till we get done with Sadam. I just wish we would get on with it already.

Wolfie