To everyone clamoring for an invasion of Iraq...

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Mister T

Originally posted by: reitz
...do a google search for "April Glaspie," and read about the diplomatic fsck up that gave Saddam the impression that he had a green light from the US to invade Kuwait.

Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

O wise one, I have some questions:

1). Should there be consequences to Sadam's defiance of UN resolutions, now in the 11th year?
2). Should the UN be just a "think tank" with no enforcement?
3). Should the Iraqi people continue to suffer because their dictator defies the will of UN? If no, what should be done about this?
4). Do you TRUST Saddam?
5). Is the middle east more or less stable with an IRAQ dictator that has WMD compared to a democratic IRAQ with UN peacekeeper post Saddam?

I have more questions, but thats a start 🙂

5) Who are we to make that decision for them?

I reiterate, and I don't think I've ever gotten a response on this: show me one country that has been freed from a dictator (like Iraq) by another country (like the US) and prospered.

Germany (at least West Germany, until the Berlin Wall came down).

I don't know if that's really the greatest example since they had a large and already prospering economy to become a part of (former west germany). The former DDR would would be in no better shape than some of the former soviet republics if not for that fact, IMO.

The question asked to name a country that was freed from a dictator and prospered. It did not mention whether the country prospered before hand or not.

True, but I was pointing out that the germany thing was kind of a unique situation and not applicable to any other countries that were "relieved" of their dictator by outside forces. This also holds true for the Iraq situation. I think everyone agrees that Hussein is a murderous moron, but no one seems to be very focused on the aftermath if we do indeed force a regime change. We as a nation are going to look doubly bad if we boot Saddam out under the pretense of doing what is best for the Iraqi people and they're all starving 5 years later.

 

[StageLeft]

What's this incubator fraud, moonbeam? Do tell.

 

[rubix]

what i don't understand is why are people so intent finding new reasons or weird ones for justification against saddam? who cares if he does or doesn't have ties with al qaeda. who cares if he invaded kuwait. the fact that he is truly a f'd up person who killed 1000s of his own people is a good enough reason alone. all else is irrelevent. not to mention it's a fact he has chemical weapons and will use them eventually against someone.

 

[reitz]

Also, regardless of whether Saddam is thinking he has a green light or not, he must be pretty dense to think he can still be in imbicile and get away with it... you know, the whole Desert Storm thing.

How does that make him an imbecile? He thought he was given the OK by the American ambassador to invade...from his POV there was nothing to "get away with".

O wise one, I have some questions:

1). Should there be consequences to Sadam's defiance of UN resolutions, now in the 11th year?

Yes. Iraq should abide by all of the terms of the cease-fire, and subsequent resolutions. It appears now that Saddam is doing this. Do I trust a ruthless dictator? Of course not, but in the interest of diplomacy and world stability, we must try at least one more time to get the UN weapons inspectors in to do their job. If Saddam balks again, then the bombs should fall.

2). Should the UN be just a "think tank" with no enforcement?

No. Watch the news; Iraq is in the process of complying with all of the past 11 years' resolutions. If Iraq complies, what is there to "enforce"?

3). Should the Iraqi people continue to suffer because their dictator defies the will of UN? If no, what should be done about this?

It is up to the Iraqi people to overthrow their dictator, not the United States. Iraq is a sovereign nation; no country has the right to step in just because it does not like a leader.

4). Do you TRUST Saddam?

No, see above.

5). Is the middle east more or less stable with an IRAQ dictator that has WMD compared to a democratic IRAQ with UN peacekeeper post Saddam?

The Middle East would likely be more stable with a democratic government in Iraq. Is that up to the United States, acting unilaterally, to decide? I think not. Which is more stable: a disarmed Iraq, with no WMD as verified by UN inspectors and a stable economy with no sanctions; or GW Bush spouting daily about the "dangers" Saddam poses to the world, giving fodder to the terrorists and extremists, and angering our historic allies?

I have more questions, but thats a start 🙂

Bring 'em on! Actually, I have a few questions for you:

1). Is the United States the world's policeman? Should we risk American lives and shed American blood over internal struggles in other nations? Should we get involved in every international conflict?

2). If yes to above, then how do we proceed with:
a). Removing Mugabe from power in Zimbabwe
b). Ending the civil war in the Ivory Coast
c). Ending the war and restoring stability to the Congo
d). Liberating the people of Iran and other repressive Islamist regimes
e). Ending the Chinese occupation and subjugation of Tibet
f). Liberating the people of North Korea, and ending the ongoing state of war on the Korean Peninsula

3). Has a credible link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism ever been shown?

4). How is Saddam a thread to peace in the Middle East? (keeping in mind that if it weren't for the incompetence of Ambassador Glaspie, he never would have invaded Kuwait)

5). Is it the responsibility of the United States to topple any regime that develops WMDs?

6). If yes, then please explain why no actions were ever taken against any of the following countries that all either had WMD programs in the past, or are continuing with them now?
a). Argentina
b). Brazil
c). Cuba
d). Soviet Union (and now Russia)
e). North Korea
f). Iran
g). South Africa
h). Romania

7). If war is supposed to be the last resort of civilized nations, then why has Bushlite balked at every single suggestion to resolve the issues surrounding Iraq without going to war?

8). Do you trust GW Bush? With all of the special interest money in politics these days, do you honestly believe that he has your best interests in mind?

appeasement until the bitter end, just like Great Brittain in WW2.

Appeasement...how? Try to formulate a real argument, instead of just throwing out a term you appear to not even understand.

 

[JellyBaby]

Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US.

Right but if the Bush administration says it often enough and it's never challenged, that will become de facto truth. That's how they (feds.) get away with so much B.S.

Regardless of what you think, Saddam is still an imbicile and needs to be dethroned.

Yeah? Some feel Bush is an imbicile and needs to be dethroned. How would you like another country to come in and do that? Didn't think so.

THe latest venture in Afgahistan is going decently.

Is it? Truth from that part of the world is tough to come by. The bad news is often suppressed. It's hard to know what's really going on.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: rubix
what i don't understand is why are people so intent finding new reasons or weird ones for justification against saddam? who cares if he does or doesn't have ties with al qaeda. who cares if he invaded kuwait. the fact that he is truly a f'd up person who killed 1000s of his own people is a good enough reason alone. all else is irrelevent. not to mention it's a fact he has chemical weapons and will use them eventually against someone.

The problem with that argument is that it could be applied to a bunch of other regimes that we never seem to be interested in.....China.....N. Korea.....Zimbabwe.....etc. All examples of citizens being repressed, outright killed, or allowed to starve by those who are supposed to be their leaders.

 

[reitz]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: reitz
...do a google search for "April Glaspie," and read about the diplomatic fsck up that gave Saddam the impression that he had a green light from the US to invade Kuwait.

Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

So one person verbal faux pax makes it ok to take over another country?

No, one faux pax does not make it ok to take over another country. It is, however, very significant. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was not the act of a crazed, expanionist dictator, a la Adolf Hitler. Iraq asked permission to invade Kuwait! The coalition that was formed to liberate Kuwait was not fighting off the next Hitler, it was undoing an invasion that never should have happened in the first place. The difference is extraordinary, and it blows to hell the argument that Saddam is a crazed, power hungry maniac. Remove that argument, and what justifications are left for a new invasion of Iraq?

In that scenario...I heard from a friend, who heard from a friend, who heard from their sister, who heard from her cousin that Saddam gave the go ahead for a US invasion....

Now that's just stupid.

 

[Gaard]

If Iraq is wrong for not doing as the UN says, is America wrong for attacking Iraq even though the UN says not to?

 

[rubix]

yes it could. and we could be honest and say we are specifically picking saddam because we hate him more than those others and everything is taken on a case by case basis.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Mister T

Originally posted by: reitz
...do a google search for "April Glaspie," and read about the diplomatic fsck up that gave Saddam the impression that he had a green light from the US to invade Kuwait.

Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

O wise one, I have some questions:

1). Should there be consequences to Sadam's defiance of UN resolutions, now in the 11th year?
2). Should the UN be just a "think tank" with no enforcement?
3). Should the Iraqi people continue to suffer because their dictator defies the will of UN? If no, what should be done about this?
4). Do you TRUST Saddam?
5). Is the middle east more or less stable with an IRAQ dictator that has WMD compared to a democratic IRAQ with UN peacekeeper post Saddam?

I have more questions, but thats a start 🙂

5) Who are we to make that decision for them?

I reiterate, and I don't think I've ever gotten a response on this: show me one country that has been freed from a dictator (like Iraq) by another country (like the US) and prospered.

Germany (at least West Germany, until the Berlin Wall came down).

I don't know if that's really the greatest example since they had a large and already prospering economy to become a part of (former west germany). The former DDR would would be in no better shape than some of the former soviet republics if not for that fact, IMO.

The question asked to name a country that was freed from a dictator and prospered. It did not mention whether the country prospered before hand or not.

True, but I was pointing out that the germany thing was kind of a unique situation and not applicable to any other countries that were "relieved" of their dictator by outside forces. This also holds true for the Iraq situation. I think everyone agrees that Hussein is a murderous moron, but no one seems to be very focused on the aftermath if we do indeed force a regime change. We as a nation are going to look doubly bad if we boot Saddam out under the pretense of doing what is best for the Iraqi people and they're all starving 5 years later.

here i thought CPA was referring to hitler... "at least west germany" would be the US stewardship of post WWII germany...

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Mister T

Originally posted by: reitz
...do a google search for "April Glaspie," and read about the diplomatic fsck up that gave Saddam the impression that he had a green light from the US to invade Kuwait.

Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

O wise one, I have some questions:

1). Should there be consequences to Sadam's defiance of UN resolutions, now in the 11th year?
2). Should the UN be just a "think tank" with no enforcement?
3). Should the Iraqi people continue to suffer because their dictator defies the will of UN? If no, what should be done about this?
4). Do you TRUST Saddam?
5). Is the middle east more or less stable with an IRAQ dictator that has WMD compared to a democratic IRAQ with UN peacekeeper post Saddam?

I have more questions, but thats a start 🙂

5) Who are we to make that decision for them?

I reiterate, and I don't think I've ever gotten a response on this: show me one country that has been freed from a dictator (like Iraq) by another country (like the US) and prospered.

Germany (at least West Germany, until the Berlin Wall came down).

I don't know if that's really the greatest example since they had a large and already prospering economy to become a part of (former west germany). The former DDR would would be in no better shape than some of the former soviet republics if not for that fact, IMO.

The question asked to name a country that was freed from a dictator and prospered. It did not mention whether the country prospered before hand or not.

True, but I was pointing out that the germany thing was kind of a unique situation and not applicable to any other countries that were "relieved" of their dictator by outside forces. This also holds true for the Iraq situation. I think everyone agrees that Hussein is a murderous moron, but no one seems to be very focused on the aftermath if we do indeed force a regime change. We as a nation are going to look doubly bad if we boot Saddam out under the pretense of doing what is best for the Iraqi people and they're all starving 5 years later.

here i thought CPA was referring to hitler... "at least west germany" would be the US stewardship of post WWII germany...

Not to mention the Germans didn't have any desire to be "freed" of Hitler. They were all about taking over western Europe under his regime.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: rubix
what i don't understand is why are people so intent finding new reasons or weird ones for justification against saddam? who cares if he does or doesn't have ties with al qaeda. who cares if he invaded kuwait. the fact that he is truly a f'd up person who killed 1000s of his own people is a good enough reason alone. all else is irrelevent. not to mention it's a fact he has chemical weapons and will use them eventually against someone.

As a few have pointed out, there are plenty of other regimes that would meet this criterea yet the US (or the UN) has not done anything more severe than econimic sanctions.

Lets get Iraq back into the inspection routine and go from there.

I personally would rather spend the billions of dollars a war with Iraq would cost on improving our everyday lives (better schools, better social programs, fixing Soc Sec., better police/fire, improved health care policy, environment).

If war is going to be waged, then I say we wait for them to throw the first punch. I don't think they will. But if they do will be easier to win in the long run because we will have solidarity and most likely, the UN behind us.

cheers and beers.

 

[prontospyder]

Hmmm...I learn something every day:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990 four days later, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Mister T

Originally posted by: reitz
...do a google search for "April Glaspie," and read about the diplomatic fsck up that gave Saddam the impression that he had a green light from the US to invade Kuwait.

Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

O wise one, I have some questions:

1). Should there be consequences to Sadam's defiance of UN resolutions, now in the 11th year?
2). Should the UN be just a "think tank" with no enforcement?
3). Should the Iraqi people continue to suffer because their dictator defies the will of UN? If no, what should be done about this?
4). Do you TRUST Saddam?
5). Is the middle east more or less stable with an IRAQ dictator that has WMD compared to a democratic IRAQ with UN peacekeeper post Saddam?

I have more questions, but thats a start 🙂

5) Who are we to make that decision for them?

I reiterate, and I don't think I've ever gotten a response on this: show me one country that has been freed from a dictator (like Iraq) by another country (like the US) and prospered.

Germany (at least West Germany, until the Berlin Wall came down).

I don't know if that's really the greatest example since they had a large and already prospering economy to become a part of (former west germany). The former DDR would would be in no better shape than some of the former soviet republics if not for that fact, IMO.

The question asked to name a country that was freed from a dictator and prospered. It did not mention whether the country prospered before hand or not.

True, but I was pointing out that the germany thing was kind of a unique situation and not applicable to any other countries that were "relieved" of their dictator by outside forces. This also holds true for the Iraq situation. I think everyone agrees that Hussein is a murderous moron, but no one seems to be very focused on the aftermath if we do indeed force a regime change. We as a nation are going to look doubly bad if we boot Saddam out under the pretense of doing what is best for the Iraqi people and they're all starving 5 years later.

here i thought CPA was referring to hitler... "at least west germany" would be the US stewardship of post WWII germany...

Not to mention the Germans didn't have any desire to be "freed" of Hitler. They were all about taking over western Europe under his regime.

because Hitler created an enemy, thats why leaders get so popular in war, the us vs. them syndrome
we obviosly need more peaceful us vs. them ways, like more sport events 🙂

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: reitz
Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

iraq hit Israel with missiles during the last gulf war

you don't think they are a threat to Israel if their new missiles have non-conventional warheads??? :Q

 

[zzzz]

Originally posted by: rubix
yes it could. and we could be honest and say we are specifically picking saddam because we hate him more than those others and everything is taken on a case by case basis.

more like "on a barrel by barrel basis."

 

[reitz]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: reitz
Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

iraq hit Israel with missiles during the last gulf war

you don't think they are a threat to Israel if their new missiles have non-conventional warheads??? :Q

What new missiles? What new warheads?

The missile attacks against Isreal were part of a strategy designed to draw Israel into the war, thereby disrupting the coalition and ending Arab support for the war. It would likely have worked, had the US not kept Israel out of the war.

Good military strategy is not necessarily indicative of a threat to regional stability, however. Try again!

 

[Moonbeam]

As per requests, the incubator fraud.

If that link, geocities, gets a 'bandwith thingi' you can do a google search on incubators and the Iraq War for others.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm going to assume that Moonie's sig

The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion (and,or) may include subtleties of sufficient rarity as to appear to the unsuspecting like total gibberish.

means he doesn't care if I burn down Reitz' house. Thanks for the go ahead Moonie!

Look out Reitz, here I come.

 

[JellyBaby]

iraq hit Israel with missiles during the last gulf war

Israel's air power destroyed an Iraqi nuclear facility in the early 80s so it was probably also a reprisal for that action.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: reitz

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: reitz
Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the security or interests of the US. Bush v2.0 is the real threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

iraq hit Israel with missiles during the last gulf war

you don't think they are a threat to Israel if their new missiles have non-conventional warheads??? :Q

What new missiles? What new warheads?

The missile attacks against Isreal were part of a strategy designed to draw Israel into the war, thereby disrupting the coalition and ending Arab support for the war. It would likely have worked, had the US not kept Israel out of the war.

Good military strategy is not necessarily indicative of a threat to regional stability, however. Try again!

Saddam has purchased on the world market the parts for soviet medium range ballistic missles. Before the gulf war he had none of these missles. It is believed that at this point he has aquired enough parts to construct at least one medium range ballistic missle that would be capable of striking a NATO nation and potentially US millitary personnel stationed in those countries. With the construction of such a missle and the use of a WMD he has the ability to directly attack the interests and property of the US. With his continued attempts to purchase fissionable material on the world market it would appear that he presents a clear and present danger to the US.

Saddam is a Stalin wannabe. Had we the opportunity to do something similar to Stalin I have no doubt we would have.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bober, if you can equate those two things, I wouldn't dream of trying to dissuade you with a rational argument. You'd definitely be one for animal control. 😀

reitz, do you have your shots?

 

[reitz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bober, if you can equate those two things, I wouldn't dream of trying to dissuade you with a rational argument. You'd definitely be one for animal control. 😀

reitz, do you have your shots?

Only rabies, but I've been meaning to get my distemper shot.

 

[JellyBaby]

It is believed that at this point he has aquired enough parts to construct at least one medium range ballistic missle that would be capable of striking a NATO nation and potentially US millitary personnel stationed in those countries. With the construction of such a missle and the use of a WMD he has the ability to directly attack the interests and property of the US. With his continued attempts to purchase fissionable material on the world market it would appear that he presents a clear and present danger to the US.

Iraq knows they face utter destruction should they mess up again. Why would Saddum lob a missile at a western ally? Out of spite? No, he's no madman. Someone who stays in power for 20+ years is no madman.

Lots of countries I would never call my "friend" (but the U.S. government does, go figure), have the ability to hit our "interests" in the region. But they don't and we're not worried about them.

Iraq may be rearming and violating surrender terms but if so it's likely to defend against aggressors, not to wage another war. The world community does not tolerate border violatations (at least where oil is at stake) and Mid East governments know it.

btw, does anyone know if the UN resolutions forbidding Iraq from arming are indefinite or have an expiry date?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bober, if you can equate those two things, I wouldn't dream of trying to dissuade you with a rational argument. You'd definitely be one for animal control. 😀

Yet you find it perfectly reasonable for Hussein to equate

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait."

with

"Feel free to burn pillage and raze Kuwait"

and I'm the irrational one? Whatever you say Moonie. Rational people will understand the point I was making, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't get it.

Also, one does not execute an invasion in 4 days. He was ready to invade Kuwait long before that meeting.