• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Blood or Oil? The Iraq Dilemma

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
Saddam Hussein, ladies and gentleman (ha!), is a psychopath. He shot and murdered a teacher of his at the age of 14. For nearly thirty years, he has ruled Iraq with his iron fist. He likes to think of himself as Saladin, and his greatest goal is to crush the state of Israel and drive the west out of the Near East by whatever means necessary. Anyone who speaks out against his regime simply dissappears in the night. To illustrate the sickness of this man, let me point out a recent example. A young man refused conscription into the Iraqi Army recently; his father then shot him in the head and killed him. Saddam conferred upon this man Iraq's highest medal of valor--for murdering his own son for disloyalty. Saddam Hussein maintains the largest military in the Gulf, with over one million men at arms. This insane madman has brutalized his people for so long, threatens his neighbors with menacing force, and, might I add, sits atop on of the world's largest oil reserves. We have tried diplomacy repeatedly, and it has failed utterly. And some of you people wish to continue to offer the olive branch? I'm sorry, but this is some of the most convoluted logic I've ever heard. There is a time for war, and that time is now.

Saddam Hussein is something of a Stalinist in his treatment of his people, and he's something of a Hitler when it comes to self-promotion. All over Baghdad and indeed Iraq at large, streets are named after him. A cruise through Baghdad streets will reveal Saddam Boulevard, Hussein Way, etc. Furthermore, it is impossible to escape Saddam's visage. Every home is required by law, on pain of death, to display a portrait of Saddam. Towering ten story paintings and statues lurk around every street corner. Those who disobey, question, or even fail to worship properly Saddam are ruthlessly crushed. Saddam maintains the world's most fearsome complex of torture laboratories in a Presidential Compound just outside of Baghdad. In it are housed some of the most evil devices of torture ever created. All the traditional implements of torture exist there; the rack, oil, electroshock rooms, etc. Saddam, ever the innovator, has one room with a network of pipes in the ceiling. Ever few square inches contains a duct which can be opened. The pipes circulate with nitric acid--acid is randomly dropped around the room. A person is forced to constantly watch the pipes and run around to avoid life-threatening burns. The person is released upon death or confession. This is the "beloved" Saddam who "gently" watches over his people.

Saddam, in addition to his iron fist at home, wields a mailed fist abroad. After seizing power, Saddam began the most aggressive military expansion in the Near East since the days of the Hegira. The Army became, in short time, the fourth largest in the world, equipped with the most modern American and Soviet weapons, trained in Soviet style wave tactics. The unprecedented buildup of Iraqi forces compelled the United States to dispatch soldiers to the Gulf in order to deter a feared Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam, however, was not satisfied with conventional military might. His goal, after all, was Arab Unity and the destruction of the state of Israel. Saddam begin to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (with some help from the USSR and the USA). He wanted nothing short than the destruction of the Jewish race by fire and the union of the Arab World by the sword. Fortunately, Israel recognized this grave threat and bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, dealing a crippling setback to the Iraqi nuclear program. The biochemical program, on the other hand, sped ahead at full steam. Saddam had by now become embroiled in a war with newly-Islamist Iran, hoping to make it the first of many victories. This war, fought from 1980-1988, was the longest conventional war of the Twentieth Century. Nearly a million men on both sides died in this bitter clash. Saddam used chemical weapons--burning weapons of terror not used since the First World War--to advance his position. He settled for a limited victory in 1988 which recognized the status quo and gave Iraq some concessions. Saddam, unsatisfied, would turn his eyes south two years later. In the mean time, he focused his attention on a brutal suppression of the stateless Kurds to the north. Full military force, including chemical weapons, on the luckless Kurds. In 1990, over half a million Iraqi troops invaded the burning Emirate of Kuwait. In a few short weeks Saddam had conquered the state. The combined oil reserves of Iraq and Kuwait were the world's largest, giving Saddam unprecedented control of the world's oil market. The civilized world, finally recognizing the threat of this madman, dispatched a mighty US-led coalition to force the ouster of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. However, we failed to pursue the Iraqi military into Baghdad, and Saddam remained in power.

Iraq, I'd like to add, is one of the world's largest oil producing states. Its oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Due to a UN-US embargo since the conclusion of the Gulf War (which would be lifted if only Saddam would cooperate), Iraqi oil has largely not been seen on the world market (though gasoline in Baghdad costs approximately ten cents a gallon). Approximately one million Iraqis have starved due this embargo and Saddam's actions, and the western world has been deprived of a great source of energy. Were this tapped, oil and gas prices would plummet, thereby aiding economic expansion. Simultaneously, the Iraqi citzenry would see unprecedented prosperity and have enough to eat. Sadly, Saddam's obstinance prevents all of this.

Since the conclusion of the Gulf War, Saddam has violated sixteen UN security council mandates, ultimately failed to cease development on weapons of mass destruction, diverts medical and food aid from his STARVING PEOPLE, and continually fires on US and British aircraft attempting to enforce the peace. He was most uncooperative with UN weapons inspectors and threw them out of Iraq, though he recently allowed them in again (though Presidential Palaces were off-limits without prior notice), fearing another invasion. He is in clear material breech of the UN Security Council, yet the world does nothing. He is a psychotic dictator who terrorizes his own people. He menaces his neighbors and develops deadly weapons that he clearly is not responsible enough to control. He starves his own people and denies us a great source of energy. It is quite clear that Iraq MUST be invaded and Saddam MUST be ousted.


Prior to 1991, he was a "good friend of America", now, he's the new Hitler. Just war time propaganda to feed the sheep.


 
Originally posted by: Kenazo
behold the mighty American Empire. I wonder how long it will be before placing a foreign nationalist upon these toppled thrones will not be enough, and the USA will just retain political control of these countries in the name of world peace.

You're an idiot much like our dear troll friend hagbard.
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Kenazo
behold the mighty American Empire. I wonder how long it will be before placing a foreign nationalist upon these toppled thrones will not be enough, and the USA will just retain political control of these countries in the name of world peace.

You're an idiot much like our dear troll friend hagbard.

No doubt your fellow nazi's feel that way. Keep marching.



 
WELL HERE'S A PIECE OF INFO FOR ETECH AND DAOVONNAEX:


It is true that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, against those who couldn't respond in kind - Iranian soldiers and perhaps most infamously on 17 March 1988 against "his own people" in the Kurdish city of Halabja. Within half an hour of this attack over 5000 men, women and children were dead from chemical weapons containing a range of pathogens which were dropped on them.

If Washington and London are genuinely concerned about Iraq's WMD, why did they continue to supply him with the means to acquire them for 18 months after the attack on Halabja?

Initially, the US blamed Iran for the Halabja attack, a particularly cynical ploy given Saddam had also used chemical weapons against Teheran's forces during their nine-year conflict in the 1980s. In fact Washington continued to treat Saddam as a favoured ally and trading partner long after the attack on Halabja was exposed as his handiwork.

At the time, the Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the Congress and in December 1989, George Bush's father authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record ". Surprisingly, the goal was never reached. In February 1989, eleven months after Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that "you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq".

According to the reports of a Senate Banking Committee, the United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual-use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs. According to the report, this assistance included "chemical warfare-agent precursors; chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings; chemical warfare-filling equipment; biological warfare-related materials; missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment". These technologies were sent to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after Halabja.

If the US is genuinely concerned by Saddam's WMD, why did Donald Rumsfeld (then a presidential envoy for President Reagan, currently President George W. Bush's Defence Secretary) fly to Baghdad in December 1983 to meet Saddam and normalise the US-Iraq relationship, at a time when Washington new Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis against Iran (Washington Post, 30 December, 2002)? Why were no concerns about the use of these weapons raised with Baghdad?
 
Hehe, that's why I always laugh at the proof we have that Iraq has WMD. We have the receipts, but they are classified to protect the guilty, just as the 12000 pages of documents sent to the UN were translated and loacked out by the US. It's not about WND it's about golbal empire American style.
 
Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
Saddam Hussein, ladies and gentleman (ha!), is a psychopath. He shot and murdered a teacher of his at the age of 14. For nearly thirty years, he has ruled Iraq with his iron fist. He likes to think of himself as Saladin, and his greatest goal is to crush the state of Israel and drive the west out of the Near East by whatever means necessary. Anyone who speaks out against his regime simply dissappears in the night. To illustrate the sickness of this man, let me point out a recent example. A young man refused conscription into the Iraqi Army recently; his father then shot him in the head and killed him. Saddam conferred upon this man Iraq's highest medal of valor--for murdering his own son for disloyalty. Saddam Hussein maintains the largest military in the Gulf, with over one million men at arms. This insane madman has brutalized his people for so long, threatens his neighbors with menacing force, and, might I add, sits atop on of the world's largest oil reserves. We have tried diplomacy repeatedly, and it has failed utterly. And some of you people wish to continue to offer the olive branch? I'm sorry, but this is some of the most convoluted logic I've ever heard. There is a time for war, and that time is now.

Saddam Hussein is something of a Stalinist in his treatment of his people, and he's something of a Hitler when it comes to self-promotion. All over Baghdad and indeed Iraq at large, streets are named after him. A cruise through Baghdad streets will reveal Saddam Boulevard, Hussein Way, etc. Furthermore, it is impossible to escape Saddam's visage. Every home is required by law, on pain of death, to display a portrait of Saddam. Towering ten story paintings and statues lurk around every street corner. Those who disobey, question, or even fail to worship properly Saddam are ruthlessly crushed. Saddam maintains the world's most fearsome complex of torture laboratories in a Presidential Compound just outside of Baghdad. In it are housed some of the most evil devices of torture ever created. All the traditional implements of torture exist there; the rack, oil, electroshock rooms, etc. Saddam, ever the innovator, has one room with a network of pipes in the ceiling. Ever few square inches contains a duct which can be opened. The pipes circulate with nitric acid--acid is randomly dropped around the room. A person is forced to constantly watch the pipes and run around to avoid life-threatening burns. The person is released upon death or confession. This is the "beloved" Saddam who "gently" watches over his people.

Saddam, in addition to his iron fist at home, wields a mailed fist abroad. After seizing power, Saddam began the most aggressive military expansion in the Near East since the days of the Hegira. The Army became, in short time, the fourth largest in the world, equipped with the most modern American and Soviet weapons, trained in Soviet style wave tactics. The unprecedented buildup of Iraqi forces compelled the United States to dispatch soldiers to the Gulf in order to deter a feared Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam, however, was not satisfied with conventional military might. His goal, after all, was Arab Unity and the destruction of the state of Israel. Saddam begin to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (with some help from the USSR and the USA). He wanted nothing short than the destruction of the Jewish race by fire and the union of the Arab World by the sword. Fortunately, Israel recognized this grave threat and bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, dealing a crippling setback to the Iraqi nuclear program. The biochemical program, on the other hand, sped ahead at full steam. Saddam had by now become embroiled in a war with newly-Islamist Iran, hoping to make it the first of many victories. This war, fought from 1980-1988, was the longest conventional war of the Twentieth Century. Nearly a million men on both sides died in this bitter clash. Saddam used chemical weapons--burning weapons of terror not used since the First World War--to advance his position. He settled for a limited victory in 1988 which recognized the status quo and gave Iraq some concessions. Saddam, unsatisfied, would turn his eyes south two years later. In the mean time, he focused his attention on a brutal suppression of the stateless Kurds to the north. Full military force, including chemical weapons, on the luckless Kurds. In 1990, over half a million Iraqi troops invaded the burning Emirate of Kuwait. In a few short weeks Saddam had conquered the state. The combined oil reserves of Iraq and Kuwait were the world's largest, giving Saddam unprecedented control of the world's oil market. The civilized world, finally recognizing the threat of this madman, dispatched a mighty US-led coalition to force the ouster of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. However, we failed to pursue the Iraqi military into Baghdad, and Saddam remained in power.

Iraq, I'd like to add, is one of the world's largest oil producing states. Its oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Due to a UN-US embargo since the conclusion of the Gulf War (which would be lifted if only Saddam would cooperate), Iraqi oil has largely not been seen on the world market (though gasoline in Baghdad costs approximately ten cents a gallon). Approximately one million Iraqis have starved due this embargo and Saddam's actions, and the western world has been deprived of a great source of energy. Were this tapped, oil and gas prices would plummet, thereby aiding economic expansion. Simultaneously, the Iraqi citzenry would see unprecedented prosperity and have enough to eat. Sadly, Saddam's obstinance prevents all of this.

Since the conclusion of the Gulf War, Saddam has violated sixteen UN security council mandates, ultimately failed to cease development on weapons of mass destruction, diverts medical and food aid from his STARVING PEOPLE, and continually fires on US and British aircraft attempting to enforce the peace. He was most uncooperative with UN weapons inspectors and threw them out of Iraq, though he recently allowed them in again (though Presidential Palaces were off-limits without prior notice), fearing another invasion. He is in clear material breech of the UN Security Council, yet the world does nothing. He is a psychotic dictator who terrorizes his own people. He menaces his neighbors and develops deadly weapons that he clearly is not responsible enough to control. He starves his own people and denies us a great source of energy. It is quite clear that Iraq MUST be invaded and Saddam MUST be ousted.
nope. No bias in there at all.
 
Saddam doesnt stand a chance against the US's full military assault. Why doesnt he just give up? I predict the war would last a little longer than the 4 day persian gulf. He actually thought he won that war!!!! He suffered probaly one of the biggest one sided wars in the history of man and this guy thinks he won.
 
Originally posted by: majewski9
Saddam doesnt stand a chance against the US's full military assault. Why doesnt he just give up? I predict the war would last a little longer than the 4 day persian gulf. He actually thought he won that war!!!! He suffered probaly one of the biggest one sided wars in the history of man and this guy thinks he won.

He is still in power isn't he?
 
Originally posted by: nord1899
So basically you want his oil and you justify it by stating how bad a person he is?
That's a simplified and twisted version of what I'm saying. I'll sum myself up.

*He is brutal and must be removed so that we uphold human rights
*He threatens his neighbors in an oil rich reason and needs to be contained or eliminated
*His nation has oil which would be beneficial to us; therefore he should be removed

Those are my three main arguments. Is oil a part of it? Yes. Is it the only part? No. Unlike our meatball President, I'm not going to disguise the fact that he sits atop massive amounts of oil that I believe we should exploit. However, I also have a deeply held commitment to human rights that I feel is worth upholding by whatever means necessary.
 
America's partnership with Saddam years ago is no longer relevant. We obviously screwed that up. He's obviously not good company. The past mistakes of the administrations that cozied up with him does not excuse Hussein's present status. He's got to go.

And I'm sure invading Germany killed a good deal of innocents, but that's not an excuse to lie around in wait while more are brutallized over time. War sucks. People always act surprised that there are casualties. But to simplify it with Sheryl Crow's "War is not the answer" is ridiculous we'd still be a british colony with slaves.

And what proof are we going to wait for. We know he's been secretly trying for decades to get WMD's. SECRETLY. The only reason to produce WMD's is for either a deterrent or for bartering aid. If your doing it SECRETLY then the motives are much more sinister. They are being produced for use. So the proof isn't going to come until he uses them. I'm not going to wait for that kind of proof.
 
Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
Originally posted by: nord1899
So basically you want his oil and you justify it by stating how bad a person he is?
That's a simplified and twisted version of what I'm saying. I'll sum myself up.

*He is brutal and must be removed so that we uphold human rights
*He threatens his neighbors in an oil rich reason and needs to be contained or eliminated
*His nation has oil which would be beneficial to us; therefore he should be removed

Those are my three main arguments. Is oil a part of it? Yes. Is it the only part? No. Unlike our meatball President, I'm not going to disguise the fact that he sits atop massive amounts of oil that I believe we should exploit. However, I also have a deeply held commitment to human rights that I feel is worth upholding by whatever means necessary.

While I harbor no good feelings to Saddam and would like to see him removed, there is a bit of hypocrisy here.

The US is also guilty of human rights violations. Many nations out there think the death penalty is a human rights violation. I don't see other countries lining up to take out Pres Bush.

This essentially comes down to:
- Bush Jr. is trying to make up for what Bush Sr. did not do.
- There is tons of oil and it is in the US general interests to have access to it.
- Iraq is a relatively easy target compared to NK.

Are those reasons good enough to risk the lives of young American men (and others from whatever nations decide to assist us)? I'm not really sure. But the current administration has so bungled the PR job, right now I would say no.
 

The US is also guilty of human rights violations. Many nations out there think the death penalty is a human rights violation. I don't see other countries lining up to take out Pres Bush.

While I agree that the death penalty is disguisting and should go. I would hardly compare this to gassing thousands of innocent kurds. At least death row inmates are given a trial.

- Bush Jr. is trying to make up for what Bush Sr. did not do.

This is just an amazing oversimplification of the issues. And even so, George H.W. Bush screwed up in not taking care of this earlier, so good for George W.
 
Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
...and considering that we should have a strong conviction to uphold human rights....

Well, one of the humans rigths is RESPECT and BE RESPECTED. The guy is a maniac, but NO maniac has been loong enough in power, people will eventualy get fed up with him..... and the people of IRAQ are the only ones who have the RIGHT to take him out. period.

Also, to do a good job upholding those human rights, you MUST be critical and look for the answers, not sit down and believe blindly what the goverment/media tells you. I know the people in the USA believe in freedom and values, but if they also believe blindly what their president says, they are complices.

REMEMBER, a goverment should serve the people and the values that the people believe in. If a goverment lies to the people in order to get their approval to proceed with something that goes against the people's values (war to benefit a FEW rich ones), that goverment is NOT serving the majority, only the interest of a few ones.

Power and money corrupts, and no one is exempt from this temptation. The president of the USA has a clear agenda in Iraq, and the benefit of the average USA citizen is not part of it..... Nobody of you are going to see benefit or damage because of the war, but a few will see an inmense benefit....

I am just asking to everyone to be more critical, ask "WHY???" and don't settle easily for what the media tells you. After all, remember, the USA crowned and supported the WORST dictator the continent has ever had: Augusto Pinochet (4 million deads during his regime). The reason??? Copper. I bet only a few of you knew about it, and this is also dute to the job the media did hiding it or taking out importance out of it. Money is the name of the game.

The USA is a unique position of leadership in the world, but leadership is shown ACTING better, and placing REASON above all. A unilateral attack will be brute force alone, and brute force can break, but not bend..... you can beat without convincing. Use the reason!! If the moron of your president has solid evidence, it should be shown, that is giving priority to the reason. Only he knows the evidence??? Well, that makes him no different than hitler, because he is the only one who had "the evidence that the Jewish were bad for Germany...."

Alex

PS. Patrotism is defending your country and doing everything possible to make it better (even critizice your goverment and demand it to do the RIGHT thing). Blind support without asking for the "because" is not patriotism, is fanatism.

 
Alexruiz: I'm fully aware of our often apalling human rights record in Latin America (contras, Shel Lagerud, etc.) and our steadfast adherence to what Wilson called "dollar diplomacy" (or, as Maj. Gen Butler called it, "racketeering for capitalism"). I don't buy into the objectivist-isolationist argument that only the people of a nation have the right to remove whatever government is in power. This affirms the formalized state-system and supreme sovereignty rights, which I generally agree with. However, I think that the conduct of a government such as that of Saddam is such that he is an effectively illegal ruler with no right to sovereignty. As the people of Iraq are clearly unable to resist and rise up, it is the duty of civilized nations such as the United States (yes, I'm aware of our own human rights problems) to act. When our duty has been done, let the people of Iraq create a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. This national should encourage the spread of secular republicanism and full human rights to every nation on Earth.
 
Ruiz

My benefit is knowing that I won't ever have to turn on the evening news and hear that Iraq just nuked another nation, or ethnically cleansed some Kurds out of the way with some more gas. I don't care about the oil or who gets it. I don't care if Bush and some of his "cronies" get rich off of it and I don't. I don't care if the only proof are a bunch of empty Chemical Warheads. That's evidence enough that he's been trying to secure this technology. He's been trying to do it obviously under our noses. He's been doing it against his UN agreement. He's been doing it secretly so that he can launch them. Why else? I'm asking WHY? If you can give me a reason why the UN inspectors just found these empty chemical warheads, if not to use them, then maybe I can begin to understand why we shouldn't go after him. These are weapons that he didn't want to tell us he had. WHY???

I've got friends on a ship right now and I want them back, but I also believe that the world will be one evil dictator safer without Hussein and we're the only ones that are going to be able to do it.
 
Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
Alexruiz: I'm fully aware of our often apalling human rights record in Latin America (contras, Shel Lagerud, etc.) and our steadfast adherence to what Wilson called "dollar diplomacy" (or, as Maj. Gen Butler called it, "racketeering for capitalism"). I don't buy into the objectivist-isolationist argument that only the people of a nation have the right to remove whatever government is in power. This affirms the formalized state-system and supreme sovereignty rights, which I generally agree with. However, I think that the conduct of a government such as that of Saddam is such that he is an effectively illegal ruler with no right to sovereignty. As the people of Iraq are clearly unable to resist and rise up, it is the duty of civilized nations such as the United States (yes, I'm aware of our own human rights problems) to act. When our duty has been done, let the people of Iraq create a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. This national should encourage the spread of secular republicanism and full human rights to every nation on Earth.

Thanks for answering in such a mature way my friend, I hope the thread can stay this way. I still say no because there deeper motives than just human rights. There are several other places in the world RIGHt now suffering human rights violations, but no one seem to care about them (Several countries in Africa, several countries of the former Indochina region and *gulp* the middle East). In fact, the USA is still supporting oppresion and invasion of Palestina, Turkey gassed more kurds than Iraq, and nobody has said anything. Human rights is not the driving factor here.

I agree that something must be done, and reading what you said confirms what I said about the HIGH ethic standards of our American brothers. However, please don't let your president use it as an excuse to convince the people in order to go ahead with his agenda. Keep in mind also that sometimes helping/creating a war can cause more damage than good (you mentioned the good example of the contras).

Despite the fact that the Iraquies haven't revealed yet doesn't mean they won't...... they just need time. Even the soldiers get sick of the bloody treatment.

I am not sure if the media in the USA published a picture of Iraqui women marching with weapons to protect their country. I agree, the guy is a psychotic, but when people have FEAR, they will turn to the leader no matter how bad or idiotic he/she is (Same as the people in the USA after the WTC tragedy) With all respect due, the USA president is a retarded at least, but got inmense support because people turned to the leader in the moments of dirpair. Don't let this trust to be deceived.

Alex
 
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Ruiz

My benefit is knowing that I won't ever have to turn on the evening news and hear that Iraq just nuked another nation, or ethnically cleansed some Kurds out of the way with some more gas. I don't care about the oil or who gets it. I don't care if Bush and some of his "cronies" get rich off of it and I don't. I don't care if the only proof are a bunch of empty Chemical Warheads. That's evidence enough that he's been trying to secure this technology. He's been trying to do it obviously under our noses. He's been doing it against his UN agreement. He's been doing it secretly so that he can launch them. Why else? I'm asking WHY? If you can give me a reason why the UN inspectors just found these empty chemical warheads, if not to use them, then maybe I can begin to understand why we shouldn't go after him. These are weapons that he didn't want to tell us he had. WHY???

I've got friends on a ship right now and I want them back, but I also believe that the world will be one evil dictator safer without Hussein and we're the only ones that are going to be able to do it.

Sorry my friend, but the media brainwashing really affected you. The FEAR in your mind is serving bigger purposes. If a country is likely to nuke another, that is the USA. (prove me wrong) . You obviously didn't attend the class, or even maybe you weren't taught that the USA supported and put in place a much WORSE dictator that Saddam (Again, Pinochet). The media didn't care because there were bigger interests. you talk about violations to the UN resolutions, let's talk about Palestina. The invaders not only are oppresing the people there, they DO have REAL "weapons of mass destruction" (yes, they have real nukes). Has the USA made fuss about it???? NO!!!! Now you answer me: Why do they have those nukes????

In your class of history, you learned that Kuwait and Iraq were part of the same country. Iraq still views Kuwait as part of the country, and the invasion of Kuwait was ONLY based on historic reasons. If you don't mind, turn the TV off and turn a book ON. Think deeeeep!!!

Life should be balance
 
Ruiz

In the interest of keeping this thread mature. Please don't insult my intelligence by dismissing me as "brainwashed" and someone who dosn't read books. Your not helping when you say something along those lines. I'm trying to understand and your not going to prove a point to me by insulting me.

I am disgusted by human rights violations in America and abroad. I am disgusted that only after there are enough alterior motives will we actually hold another country accountable for its actions (i.e. Iraq). But right now we have an opportunity to do so, and I support that motion. When this is said in done, I believe we should move on to the next. I think we are in agreement when I say anyone, including ourselves, should be held accountable for human rights violations.

 
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Ruiz

In the interest of keeping this thread mature. Please don't insult my intelligence by dismissing me as "brainwashed" and someone who dosn't read books. Your not helping when you say something along those lines. I'm trying to understand and your not going to prove a point to me by insulting me.

I am disgusted by human rights violations in America and abroad. I am disgusted that only after there are enough alterior motives will we actually hold another country accountable for its actions (i.e. Iraq). But right now we have an opportunity to do so, and I support that motion. When this is said in done, I believe we should move on to the next. I think we are in agreement when I say anyone, including ourselves, should be held accountable for human rights violations.

I apologize for implying "brainwash" to your post. Sorry.

I agree that if we have the chance to defend human rights, let's do it. I agree that life is balance, and the same way others can be held accountable, YOU can also be. I'll insisit with Chile and Pinochet, and I haven't heard a compelling arguement. Given that logic about accountability, the USA should have been held accountable for the murdering of 4 million people. However, the average citizen isn't aware of it, because the ECONOMIC interests of a minority were granted more importance than the values praised by the majority. Iraq would be a similar case. The first place to put order is Palestina, and that means taking out the invaders and giving the opressed a country... after ALL, the USA was created for the desire of independence and freedom. Others can share the same, and your country has a perfect chance in Palestina, not Iraq. Right cause, wrong place and wrong time.

In fact, fix Palestina and you have fixed most of the possible threats to the USA. I'll insisit about leadership showing reason, not brute force.

Please accept my apologies.
 
I would like to hear more about what you mean behind "Palastina" and "4 million murdered" etc. but I'm afraid that it would deter from the original subject matter of this thread. I've got an open mind in this argument and I will admit that not all sides of an issue are EVER presented by the news media. So PM me or maybe we can start a new thread on "Palastina". We all know that is also a hotly debated issue.

-Conclamo Ludus
 
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I would like to hear more about what you mean behind "Palastina" and "4 million murdered" etc. but I'm afraid that it would deter from the original subject matter of this thread. I've got an open mind in this argument and I will admit that not all sides of an issue are EVER presented by the news media. So PM me or maybe we can start a new thread on "Palastina". We all know that is also a hotly debated issue.

-Conclamo Ludus

Thanks my friend. The 4 million dead refer to the people in Chile murdered under Pinochet's regime. The Palestina, well, it is complex, but oversimplifying I think that the same bluntness shown to Iraq should be shown to Israel in order to allow for the creation of a Palestinian nation.

 
Originally posted by: laFiera
WELL HERE'S A PIECE OF INFO FOR ETECH AND DAOVONNAEX:


It is true that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, against those who couldn't respond in kind - Iranian soldiers and perhaps most infamously on 17 March 1988 against "his own people" in the Kurdish city of Halabja. Within half an hour of this attack over 5000 men, women and children were dead from chemical weapons containing a range of pathogens which were dropped on them.

If Washington and London are genuinely concerned about Iraq's WMD, why did they continue to supply him with the means to acquire them for 18 months after the attack on Halabja?

Initially, the US blamed Iran for the Halabja attack, a particularly cynical ploy given Saddam had also used chemical weapons against Teheran's forces during their nine-year conflict in the 1980s. In fact Washington continued to treat Saddam as a favoured ally and trading partner long after the attack on Halabja was exposed as his handiwork.

At the time, the Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the Congress and in December 1989, George Bush's father authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record ". Surprisingly, the goal was never reached. In February 1989, eleven months after Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that "you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq".

According to the reports of a Senate Banking Committee, the United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual-use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs. According to the report, this assistance included "chemical warfare-agent precursors; chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings; chemical warfare-filling equipment; biological warfare-related materials; missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment". These technologies were sent to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after Halabja.

If the US is genuinely concerned by Saddam's WMD, why did Donald Rumsfeld (then a presidential envoy for President Reagan, currently President George W. Bush's Defence Secretary) fly to Baghdad in December 1983 to meet Saddam and normalise the US-Iraq relationship, at a time when Washington new Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis against Iran (Washington Post, 30 December, 2002)? Why were no concerns about the use of these weapons raised with Baghdad?


The only point to draw out of that is Saddam used chemical weapons on civilians. The current administration is trying to make sure that he doesn't do it again.

The rest of your post ignores a lot of history of the region. I find that is normal when people try to demonize the US. They leave out "The Rest of the Story", in this case Iran and the Islamic fundamentalists which the US perceived as an even worse threat than Saddam at that time.

During WWII the Soviets were American and British allies and we sent them many tons of food and military supplies. Afterwards came the cold war. Politics and allies change my friend depending on what is perceived as the worst threat. Right now, Saddam and Iraq are perceived as the worst threat in the Middle East. I think those tons of nerve gas that he had in 1998 which were not destroyed by the UN inspectors and which did not show up on his declaration of weapons have something to do with it.
 
Back
Top