The Onion seems to predict the future

[rahvin]

Nemesis and Czar,

Why is Saddam allowing the inspectors back after vowing they would never return? Could it perchance be because the US rattled it's Sabre and scared him into allowing them back?

Why is unreasonable that the US asks that the UN pass a resolution saying that if Iraq doesn't comply with the inspectors that we get to hit him with our Sabre? If the threat of our Sabre got him to let the inspectors back wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that with a resolution saying that we can hit him if he doesn't comply that it would provide the incentive to him to allow the inspectors to remain and do their job unfettered thus avoiding war? Is it unreasonable that we lay out the choice and the consequences beforehand so that he can make the decision which path to follow?

If he doesn't comply with a treaty of unconditional surrendor that he signed then he should be punished again. We are simply asking that it be put in writing that if he doesn't comply that the world agrees he should be punished for not complying.

 

[Corn]

Iraq has broken a law yes, but not shown aggression to the US or its allies.

Really????

This has been going on for years, but I guess that trying to shoot down our, and our allies', planes that are merely enforcing UN resolutions is not deemed "agression", eh Czar?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Let us also forget that Israel is battling for its life, and has shown (IMHO) great restraint in not obliterating the Palestinians (notice I didnt say Arabs or Muslims... I said PALESTINIANS... just so we are clear on that).

Battling for it's life? IDF is superior to any army in the area, Israel is the only country in the area that has nukes, Israel has the unconditional support of US. Battling for their life? hardly.

your kidding right? i guess you are ignorant of all the previous wars they fought. its been damn close sometimes. they maybe tough, but they are few.

as for the US being cozy with iraq, well being on someones side in conflicts does not always mean you are their friend. it just means you think their enemy is even worse. let them weaken each other. politics is dirty, and if you think we live in an idealized world, u are truely dreaming.


as for the europeans, all they do is throw rocks in their glass house. remeber bosnia? they sat on their asses until the US came to clean up their own back yard. how close are they to the poverty in africa eh? some right wing parties in europe are slightly scarier then the republicans even. go figure

True, I condemn attacks against civilians. But Israel has had it share of those too. And they routinely demolish homes of palestinians

last i checked there were no israeli suicide bombers. israelis don't use their children as weapons.

and yes, demolish homes of suicide bombers? oh, so undeserved

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Millenium
If we had pulled Iraqi support(by the time they gassed the kurds and iran, iran was gassing them back) then the iranians would have rolled right through.

So it's OK for Iraq to gas civilians if you happen to need Iraq at that point?

At the time Iran was heavily Soviet backed and Iraq US backed. They BOTH used WMD on each other. The reason because their allies were World Superpowers engaged in a Cold War. Are you really that dumb to not understand why we didn't pull support of Iraq?

Because you didn't condemn the attack then, you have no moral justification to use that attack today as an excuse. Yes it propably was convenient for you to have Iraq fighting your war, but the fact remains that you could have done something, and you did not. If you use that incident as an example how wicked Saddam is, does it also prove how wicked USA is, since they did nothing to stop that incident, even though they could have?

BTW, Finland would not have known how Afganistan would have turned out. I don't think Britain had a small military back in 1776.

So you are saying that it would be smart for a tiny country to try to piss it's huge neighbour off? It's easy for you to say something like that, you weren't the one who lived next to them. And to my understanding, the Red Army intimidated every single army on this planet, including US Army, but you still think that a tiny nation of 5 million (with long and open border with USSR) should have "sticked it to them".

The only reason I am using the Finland/Russia argument is because you can't grasp why WE supported Iraq.

They did some horrible things and you still supported them. NOW that they are on your wrong side, you go around condemning their past actions.

If I was Finnish I would not have tried to fight that Russian Army or look back on it with any lack of respect.

We did just that (fought the Red Army). Twice in fact. After we fought the Russians, we fought the Germans. Thanks to that and to the sacrifices those people did, I can now live in a free country. But just because we did so in the past, doesn't mean that we wanted a "round three". Far from it. We paid huge price for those two wars, we had no interest in another war. That's why we kept low profile.

Just like if you were American you can understand why we would support Iraq back then. It was a horse race back then. The Soviets had Iran and we had Iraq. It was pretty much like picking between cancer and aids. Who did you want? Iran or Iraq. Cancer or Aids.

Yet, the fact that you turned a blind eye to the massacre of the kurds, does not change. If you use gassing of the kurds as an example of Saddams wickedness, then it also proves that USA is wicked since it turned a blind eye to that massacre.

The whole point is that the balance of power could not be given the Iran and the Soviet Union. If we would have what would we have given the Soviets next? Let them come into Western Europe? Then Finland would have been in even more trouble. I have a hard time believing you don't understand why Iraqi support was not pulled. You know good and well why it wasn't pulled. I just explained it for the 50th time.

Sure I understand why you supported Iraq. And it doesn't change the facts (US knew of gassing of the Kurds, and they allowed it to happen).

Give that same credit to the US regarding Iraq. We had to back a horse of the Soviets had the Middle East all sowed up.

I seriously doubt Iraq and then the rest of the ME could have held out versus the Iranians and Soviet Military Muscle and advisors.

Think about it.

Like I said, I understand perfectly why you supported Iraq and I think you had good reasons to do so. But, it still doesn't change the facts (that Iraq killed their own people with WMDs, that Iraq started to use WMD's in the war and US allowed it to happen).

If it was possible to condemn Iraq after the Cold War, why didn't that happen when Iraq-Iran conflict ended? Or when USSR collapsed? Only now you condemn it and use it as an example of Saddams wickedness. You had plenty of time to do so, but you didn't only now when it suits your needs, you decide to condemnd the attack

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Nemesis and Czar,

Why is Saddam allowing the inspectors back after vowing they would never return? Could it perchance be because the US rattled it's Sabre and scared him into allowing them back?

Propably.

Why is unreasonable that the US asks that the UN pass a resolution saying that if Iraq doesn't comply with the inspectors that we get to hit him with our Sabre? If the threat of our Sabre got him to let the inspectors back wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that with a resolution saying that we can hit him if he doesn't comply that it would provide the incentive to him to allow the inspectors to remain and do their job unfettered thus avoiding war? Is it unreasonable that we lay out the choice and the consequences beforehand so that he can make the decision which path to follow?

Absolutely, and that's what they have been doing. But every time Iraq says that they will allow WI's in to the country, USA again says "That's not good enough, we will attack!". What I'm saying is that US and rest of the world waits and lets the WI's do their job. If Iraq denies them access to the country or prevents them from doing their job, THEN attack. But right now it seems that US has already decided to attack and nothing that Iraq or UN does will stop that. Now, I don't know that is that the case, but it sure seems like that.

This stalemate has been going on for years now. Now that there has finally been some progress on the issue, what harm does it bring if you wait for a while and see what the WI's find? If WI's are not allowed to the country, attack. If WI's are prevented from doing their job, attack. If WI's find WMD's and Iraq refuses to destry them, attack.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
your kidding right? i guess you are ignorant of all the previous wars they fought. its been damn close sometimes. they maybe tough, but they are few.

Maybe in the past it was close call sometimes, but right now IDF could take on most of the countries in the region all at once and win. Egypt might pose some problems, but they too would lose in the end. They certainly are not fighting for their lives. They are facing annihilation, far from it. Yes, the terrorist-attacks must be stopped, but they pose no long-term threat to Israel. Israel can't win a war against terrorists by military means, they must find a political agreement.

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rahvin
Nemesis and Czar,

Why is Saddam allowing the inspectors back after vowing they would never return? Could it perchance be because the US rattled it's Sabre and scared him into allowing them back?

Propably.

Why is unreasonable that the US asks that the UN pass a resolution saying that if Iraq doesn't comply with the inspectors that we get to hit him with our Sabre? If the threat of our Sabre got him to let the inspectors back wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that with a resolution saying that we can hit him if he doesn't comply that it would provide the incentive to him to allow the inspectors to remain and do their job unfettered thus avoiding war? Is it unreasonable that we lay out the choice and the consequences beforehand so that he can make the decision which path to follow?

Absolutely, and that's what they have been doing. But every time Iraq says that they will allow WI's in to the country, USA again says "That's not good enough, we will attack!". What I'm saying is that US and rest of the world waits and lets the WI's do their job. If Iraq denies them access to the country or prevents them from doing their job, THEN attack. But right now it seems that US has already decided to attack and nothing that Iraq or UN does will stop that. Now, I don't know that is that the case, but it sure seems like that.

This stalemate has been going on for years now. Now that there has finally been some progress on the issue, what harm does it bring if you wait for a while and see what the WI's find? If WI's are not allowed to the country, attack. If WI's are prevented from doing their job, attack. If WI's find WMD's and Iraq refuses to destry them, attack.

Evidently you are not up-to-date. The latest position I have heard (contained in the authorization of use of force thingy Congress is doing) is that we would like to see weapons inspectors back in, but under our conditions, not Iraq's. You cant possibly think going in under Iraq's conditions is gonna do ANYTHING for us.

They have a very fine line to walk, but there is a chance to avoid military conflict. Our definition of "successful" inspections differs from most other's definitions. Most countries think we succeed if the inspectors arrive on Iraqi soil. We want to see FULL INSPECTIONS OF EVERYTHING AND EVERYWHERE, even if that means inspecting the presidential toilets if we deem it necessary.

Is that really that unreasonable?

 

[wQuay]

that's hilarious

 

[rahvin]

Absolutely, and that's what they have been doing. But every time Iraq says that they will allow WI's in to the country, USA again says "That's not good enough, we will attack!". What I'm saying is that US and rest of the world waits and lets the WI's do their job. If Iraq denies them access to the country or prevents them from doing their job, THEN attack. But right now it seems that US has already decided to attack and nothing that Iraq or UN does will stop that. Now, I don't know that is that the case, but it sure seems like that.

This stalemate has been going on for years now. Now that there has finally been some progress on the issue, what harm does it bring if you wait for a while and see what the WI's find? If WI's are not allowed to the country, attack. If WI's are prevented from doing their job, attack. If WI's find WMD's and Iraq refuses to destry them, attack.

Listen to what the US officials are saying (the actual words, not what is being reported on your local news). It has been reiterated a dozen times, the US will oppose inspections and stall the situation until the security council passes a resolution that says if he doesn't give the inspectors free reign that we get to punish him. Believe it or not I feel the administration would prefer to avoid a conflict, but we are going to be ready if he doesn't comply and we want the international community to tell him to either comply or the US is free to punish you. That's all we (the people anyway) want, a resolution that hangs the sabre over his head so that he will comply or he will be out of power. Bush may want more, but he's not going to go into Iraq without the american peoples support.

 

[gopunk]

read it, it is creepy.