What should really happen in Iraq, but wont.

[Doboji]

I think it's time for humanity to unite and clean up it's trash. The whole civilized world should unite and send more military forces into Iraq. Like every country should send 20-30K troops, make this a world war against the terrorist groups. And we need to all commit, and make it clear that noone will withdrawl, noone will give up, until Iraq, and then the whole Middle East, enters the 21st century of human rights. We all need to commit the worlds resources to handling this situation, our scientists, doctors, and soldiers. Yes it's a sacrifice for everyone, but in the end it would mean the betterment of all mankind. A democratic, free, prosperous Middle East, would change the face of the planet for the better.

The United States does not need to take the lead in this... we need only reach a declaration of Iraqi principals, which then guide the rebuilding of the Middle East.

Fact is... for us to ignore the Middle East until there is significant nuclear/biological proliferation, could actually mean armaggedon, and the loss of billions of lives. It's time for us to work as a planet to deal with our own.

But we wont... because the US will inisist on being the Boss, and the EU will insist it's not their problem... and in the end, hundreds of millions of lives will be lost.

And that... just makes me sick.

-Max

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Why not send all those troops to Africa and make this a world war against despotic regimes. The oil on the Dark Continent is rivaled only by the Middle East not to mention the extraordinary mineral wealth. Furthermore, there's little doubt the vast majority of people in Africa (sub-Saharan certainly) would assist in the reclamation of the continent.

Going to Africa makes a lot more sense that putting a greater emphasis on Iraq.

Fact is... for us to ignore the Middle East until there is significant nuclear/biological proliferation, could actually mean armaggedon, and the loss of billions of lives. It's time for us to work as a planet to deal with our own.

We already let that genie out of the bag with Israel. Israel is a nuclear power b/c the US allowed it to happen - if not actively assisted. Saddam with nukes would certainly be bad but I'm not sure the long term prognosis for Musharraf with nukes is any better than Saddam. A nuclear showdown in the Middle East is unlikely b/c only Israel has the capability at the moment and they are likely to attack any nation in the region with nuclear aspirations (you know that whole pre-emptive thing).

The most likely setting for a nuclear showdown and likely the greatest threat for proliferation (past and present) is Pakistan/India (although only Pakistan proliferates). And unlike your reference to the Middle East, literally billions of lives are directly in the balance when it comes to Central/South Asian tensions.

 

[Doboji]

We already let that genie out of the bag with Israel. Israel is a nuclear power b/c the US allowed it to happen - if not actively assisted. Saddam with nukes would certainly be bad but I'm not sure the long term prognosis for Musharraf with nukes is any better than Saddam. A nuclear showdown in the Middle East is unlikely b/c only Israel has the capability at the moment and they are likely to attack any nation in the region with nuclear aspirations (you know that whole pre-emptive thing).

The problem is not Nucs in the hands of Nations.... the problem is Nucs in the hands of terrorists. The only reason I care if Saddam Hussein had Nucs was in reference to his ability to sell them to Al Queda or Hezbullah. Israeli nucs will never be found in the hands of terrorists, nor will the ever be used except for mutual assured destruction. The same is generally true of India. Pakistan, I am far less comfortable with. But that is still a handleable situation. Imagine if Syria had nucs?... Yeah.... scary

Why not send all those troops to Africa and make this a world war against despotic regimes. The oil on the Dark Continent is rivaled only by the Middle East not to mention the extraordinary mineral wealth. Furthermore, there's little doubt the vast majority of people in Africa (sub-Saharan certainly) would assist in the reclamation of the continent.

Going to Africa makes a lot more sense that putting a greater emphasis on Iraq.

I do advocate going into Africa as well... but first we need to handle the Middle East, because they are an IMMINENT THREAT to the us, and the world. And yes I used imminent threat on purpose. Because unlike Africa, the middle east has developed terrorism to the point where it really does effect us. and if you think nuclear/bioligical terrorism isnt less than a decade away... then you are truly naive.

At this point it's going to take a global commitment to save the world. Literally.

-Max

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The only reason I care if Saddam Hussein had Nucs was in reference to his ability to sell them to Al Queda or Hezbullah. Israeli nucs will never be found in the hands of terrorists, nor will the ever be used except for mutual assured destruction. The same is generally true of India. Pakistan, I am far less comfortable with. But that is still a handleable situation. Imagine if Syria had nucs?... Yeah.... scary

Dude, there's nothing of consequence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. Saddam if he had links would GIVE nukes to Al Qaeda or Hezbollah b/c he has OIL he can sell. No offense intended but your musings have the air of Bush ignorance (means not knowing) about these organizations. Hezbollah typically received their goodies from Iran +/- Syria. Al Qaeda likely lacked state support. In the most obvious cases, it was often more likely that Al Qaeda supported states (like Afghanistan) not the other way around. There is no handling Pakistan b/c it has plenty of terrorists (including Osama if you believe US intelligence). And it is generally agreed the DPRK purchased much of its technology from Pakistan. The Bushies and Musharraf will claim that was history . . . then again virtually every claim against Saddam dates from 1978-1998.

I do advocate going into Africa as well... but first we need to handle the Middle East, because they are an IMMINENT THREAT to the us, and the world. And yes I used imminent threat on purpose. Because unlike Africa, the middle east has developed terrorism to the point where it really does effect us. and if you think nuclear/bioligical terrorism isnt less than a decade away... then you are truly naive.

You do realize this THREAT . . . dare I say IMMINENT THREAT was basically born and financed through our great ally Saudi Arabia?! Clinton was FOS on a lot of accounts but the strikes in Sudan (ooooh that's Africa) and Afghanistan (ooooh that's Central Asia) were allegedly against terrorists threats. Bush went back to Afghanistan and I do believe a significant contingent of US forces are acting covertly in Africa - particularly around the Horn.

This conflict will not be won with weapons of warfare. We do not need better weapons or more troops . . . we need more believers. The average Saudi needs to rule their country. The average Egyptian needs to rule their country. The average Pakistani needs to rule their country. I doubt any will chose a representative democracy but that's their perogative not ours.

Truth be told the sole strategic interest in the region is OIL. Despite the Bush BS we are not looking to build democracy for democracy's sake we are looking to build democracy b/c we hope to exploit the region's resource. When we start making the hard choices . . . choosing democracy over convenience (Saudi Arabia/Egypt) or choosing justice over politics (Israel) or choosing progress over grudges (Iran) . . . there's hope for the US developing mutually beneficial relationships with the people of the Middle East. But the US has to start telling the truth and the American people need to wake from their slumber.

 

[Doboji]

Dude, there's nothing of consequence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda.

You totally missed my point here... I was not saying Saddam was linked to Al Queda... I was saying that IF Saddam had managed to create nucs, I was more concerned with him selling them, than I was concerned with him posessing them himself. The same holds true of any nation holding Nucs.

Clinton was FOS on a lot of accounts but the strikes in Sudan (ooooh that's Africa) and Afghanistan (ooooh that's Central Asia) were allegedly against terrorists threats. Bush went back to Afghanistan and I do believe a significant contingent of US forces are acting covertly in Africa - particularly around the Horn.

Well technically speaking the Middle East is a region, and not a continent, so places like Egypt and Somalia are in Africa.... but are also the Middle East... would you feel better if I said the Muslim world?... but that wouldnt really cover everything either. Perhaps you would feel better if I listed ever country I mean?... or Maybe we can skip all that, and you can acknowledge that you KNOW the countries I'm talking about?

This conflict will not be won with weapons of warfare. We do not need better weapons or more troops . . . we need more believers. The average Saudi needs to rule their country. The average Egyptian needs to rule their country. The average Pakistani needs to rule their country. I doubt any will chose a representative democracy but that's their perogative not ours.

People have to reach a certain level of education before they can even begin to understand what democracy even is. And if we're going to accept the Middle East terrorist supporting theocracies, then we will forever be under terrorist attacks, simply because muslim extremists disagree with our ideology.

EDUCATION is how we win this conflict... we fight, we hold our ground, and we teach.... and then eventually we leave. That is the only way out. If we leave them alone, they will kill us..

No offense intended but your musings have the air of Bush ignorance (means not knowing) about these organizations.

I do find that offensive... I have a pretty intensive understanding of terrorist groups... and where they come from... And I think you're wrong about Al Queda support. Countries like Iran, by simply knowingly allowing Al Queda operatives to travel freely, are supporting that organization. By allowing fraudulant charities to be set up to provide financial support to Al Queda... etc.

I have to remind you again that this thread is about what should be, and not what is... because what should be sure as hell isnt happening.

-Max

 

[DT4K]

And let me guess, Saddam didn't know anything about the terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq?

 

[DT4K]

What you are really calling for is WW3.
And I doubt we really have the resources or the international support for that.
We had enough oppostion just going into Iraq. And we at least had a legal argument for that due to the UN resolutions following the first gulf war and Iraq's continued violations of those resolutions. How would we justify invading Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.?

 

[Zebo]

Doesn't freedom also include the freedom to say no to modernity?

 

[VioletAura]

I think it's time for humanity to unite and clean up it's trash. The whole civilized world should unite and send military forces into the US. Like every country should send 20-30K troops, make this a world war against the aggressor nations with imperialistic intentions.

It can go both ways. Be glad no one is willing to gang up on one nation and "clean up it's trash", bush is doing an excellent job of ticking off the whole world. The US has a lot more enemies than friends.

 

[Doboji]

I think it's time for humanity to unite and clean up it's trash. The whole civilized world should unite and send military forces into the US. Like every country should send 20-30K troops, make this a world war against the aggressor nations with imperialistic intentions.

It can go both ways. Be glad no one is willing to gang up on one nation and "clean up it's trash", bush is doing an excellent job of ticking off the whole world. The US has a lot more enemies than friends.

Ummm see you missed the point.... but I would expect as much from a terrorist sympathizer like yourself. The aforementioned countries need to be invaded because they support lovely things like terrorism, and oppose evil things like... free speech, and women's rights.

Doesn't freedom also include the freedom to say no to modernity?

Modernity? You mean like the ability for a woman to drive a car, or own property? Ummm then no... freedom does not include the freedom to infringe on other people's rights.

What you are really calling for is WW3.

Yes I suppose I am. But like the title of the thread says... what I wish would happen, but I know won't.

-Max

 

[Zebo]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't freedom also include the freedom to say no to modernity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Modernity? You mean like the ability for a woman to drive a car, or own property? Ummm then no... freedom does not include the freedom to infringe on other people's rights.


You're talking about western notions which may be incompatiable with thier religion and choice. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. Sounds like you want to put western Christain ideas upon thier political and economic insititutions. You're obviously a TROTSKYITE, who does'nt understand , like Bush, it's impossible to change other cultures "hearts and minds", it must come from within.

 

[VioletAura]

Ummm see you missed the point.... but I would expect as much from a terrorist sympathizer like yourself. The aforementioned countries need to be invaded because they support lovely things like terrorism, and oppose evil things like... free speech, and women's rights.

Terrorist sympathizer? Wow, typical... I watched the Trade Center collapse in real time, live, not on TV like you did Virginia boy. My mother luckily missed a plane that terrorist blew up over the atlantic. Yeah, I've got reasons to sympathize with terrorist. Moron. The closest thing you had to a terrorist attack was turning on the news so STFU. An all out attack on the Middle East will accomplish nothing but create more terrorist and force the existing ones deeper underground making them more dangerous and yes maybe then they will bother to come after a nobody like you and then you really would have something to worry about.

 

[Doboji]

Terrorist sympathizer? Wow, typical... I watched the Trade Center collapse in real time, live, not on TV like you did Virginia boy. My mother luckily missed a plane that terrorist blew up over the atlantic. Yeah, I've got reasons to sympathize with terrorist. Moron. The closest thing you had to a terrorist attack was turning on the news so STFU. An all out attack on the Middle East will accomplish nothing but create more terrorist and force the existing ones deeper underground making them more dangerous and yes maybe then they will bother to come after a nobody like you and then you really would have something to worry about.

Are you really trying to get me into a pissing contest over who's been closer to more terrorist attacks?... How bout we leave it like this.... you don't know me... and you're too stupid to know where the Pentagon is... You are also the one who says things like "Saddam wasn't such bad guy". And prophecize the destruction of American soldiers at the hands of Syrians et all... So yeah I don't give a damn where you were when the towers came down... your political views speak volumes about who you sympathize with, and it sure as hell aint our people.

-Max

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I do find that offensive... I have a pretty intensive understanding of terrorist groups... and where they come from... And I think you're wrong about Al Queda support. Countries like Iran, by simply knowingly allowing Al Queda operatives to travel freely, are supporting that organization. By allowing fraudulant charities to be set up to provide financial support to Al Queda... etc.

I beg to differ on your intensive (maybe you mean extensive) understanding of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda had little influence in Iraq before the war but significant power in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and likely Pakistan. Terrorists come from everywhere and fight for various causes. When limited thinkers (like Bushies) proclaim, "this tair-ists came from fill in the state and they hate us because we represent freedom" . . . that's just more BS. If you ever bother to look at who the State Dept calls a terrorist organization (and where their support comes from) you will see the dribble being advocated by Bushies and parroted by the US media.

The US knows little to nothing about the internal operations of Iran, North Korea, and apparently . . . even Iraq. If you check 3rd sources you will find Iran has arrested, house-detained, and deported alleged Al Qaeda. I don't doubt that some Al Qaeda operatives travel freely in Iran . . . just like they traveled freely in the US in 2000 and continue to do so in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Your argument of support likes any semblance of reason. The US makes policy decisions all the time about organizations/associations that we will tolerate. If you follow the money (and people). . . it still leads back to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

There's little doubt that some of the leadership in Iran not only tolerates but likely supports militant organizations that commit acts of terrorism. IMO, they consider these groups just another form of diplomacy . . . in much the same manner the US considers cruise missiles and Daisy Cutters to be diplomacy. Essentially all conflicts are asymmetrical in one form or another. The discord in the Middle East (or across the globe) is no different.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

As for the topic, it appears the Bushies will propose an expedited process of self-rule in Iraq . . . allegedly following the Afghanistan model. From the results in Afghanistan clearly it is a model for success in the Middle East.

You are certainly right that humanity needs to clean up its mess. But the solution to our problems is not more troops or killing the "right" people. There will always be causes worth dying for . . . but the future of our planet will forever be conflict as long as the few (Bush/Blair) remain convinced they have a right to determine everyone's future. Even more troubling . . . it's a sacred responsibility.

 

[Zebo]

I beg to differ on your intensive (maybe you mean extensive) understanding of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda had little influence in Iraq before the war but significant power in Afghanistan

I don't know about you bali but I'm still waiting for ANY proof Al Qaeda had anything to do with 911. Then we can worry about links to Iraq. There is no evidence to support the Afghanistan incursion, only US allegations. So the existence of any possible ties to Al Queata is entirely moot.

 

[heartsurgeon]

africa is a bottomless pit
the middle east is a bottomless pit.

unfortunately for the entire world (well, less so for the japanese and the french because they generate a large portion of their energy from nuclear)
the middle east has tremendous geopolitical significance. stability and "friendly" relations with countries in the middle east is needed for global energy and
financial stability.

two basic solutions...stabilize the middle east - somehow
or
eliminate the need for energy from those coutries - somehow

i don't see either one happening tomorrow.

as for africa...to bad for them, not really geopolitically as important as the middle east.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Zebo

I beg to differ on your intensive (maybe you mean extensive) understanding of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda had little influence in Iraq before the war but significant power in Afghanistan

I don't know about you bali but I'm still waiting for ANY proof Al Qaeda had anything to do with 911. Then we can worry about links to Iraq. There is no evidence to support the Afghanistan incursion, only US allegations. So the existence of any possible ties to Al Queata is entirely moot.

--Crosses Zebo off the "people you may disagree with but still make arguments worth listening to" list.
LMFAO.

You mean besides all the video of OBL talking about how succesful their attack was?
WTF are you smoking?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
As for the topic, it appears the Bushies will propose an expedited process of self-rule in Iraq . . . allegedly following the Afghanistan model. From the results in Afghanistan clearly it is a model for success in the Middle East.

You are certainly right that humanity needs to clean up its mess. But the solution to our problems is not more troops or killing the "right" people. There will always be causes worth dying for . . . but the future of our planet will forever be conflict as long as the few (Bush/Blair) remain convinced they have a right to determine everyone's future. Even more troubling . . . it's a sacred responsibility.

Yeah, we should just be isolationists. Sit in our own backyard and hope that the murderers next door won't bother us even if they are killing and torturing their own people. Well hell, the guy 10 miles down the road torturing, abusing, then chopping up his helpless child doesn't affect me. As long as I stay away from him, I'll be fine, so why should I do anything to stop it? Glad to see there are people with morals and principles here.

 

[VioletAura]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Are you really trying to get me into a pissing contest over who's been closer to more terrorist attacks?... How bout we leave it like this.... you don't know me... and you're too stupid to know where the Pentagon is... You are also the one who says things like "Saddam wasn't such bad guy". And prophecize the destruction of American soldiers at the hands of Syrians et all... So yeah I don't give a damn where you were when the towers came down... your political views speak volumes about who you sympathize with, and it sure as hell aint our people.

-Max

Siding with the legitimate gov'ts and the sovereign rights of nations is different from siding with terrorist organizations. Grow up all, arabs aren't terrorist. Iraq wasn't a terrorist state, our good allies the Kurds are OBL's buddies and the Iranian Shi'ites Saddam "oppressed" have obvious terrorist ties. Iraq was the one of the few countries in the region where fanatics didn't have the run of things. If the US goes around pushing people someone is going to push back and push back hard whether it be Syrians, Iranians, Chinese, Korean, French or Russian etc. Short sighted, bigot morons like you will be the end of the US since you encourage that kind of policy and this current administration is more than willing to oblige.

You are obviously misinformed about the concept of democracy. Democracy in that region will lead to a multi-national jihad against infidels. Those so called "brutal regimes" are keeping that from happening. The overwhelming majority of the population of the Middle East hate the US and probably would democratically elect Bin Laden or some other religious fanatic as High Sultan Caliph of Greater Arabia, if given the chance, and wage wars of conquest unseen of since the early mohammedan wars. Sure, lets force democracy on all the arab nations, then sit back and enjoy the bloodbath.

 

[Witling]

Man, I couldn't go through the previous stuff. But, let's change the subject to the past tense. What should have happened in Iraq? The U.S. should have left it to the Iraqis to straighten out their mess. Having failed at that, the U.S. should have assembled a meaningful international coalition with U.N. support. AFter that, you get into Doboji's wish list.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Zebo

I beg to differ on your intensive (maybe you mean extensive) understanding of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda had little influence in Iraq before the war but significant power in Afghanistan

I don't know about you bali but I'm still waiting for ANY proof Al Qaeda had anything to do with 911. Then we can worry about links to Iraq. There is no evidence to support the Afghanistan incursion, only US allegations. So the existence of any possible ties to Al Queata is entirely moot.

--Crosses Zebo off the "people you may disagree with but still make arguments worth listening to" list.
LMFAO.

You mean besides all the video of OBL talking about how succesful their attack was?
WTF are you smoking?

Please link that video or a transcript of it and I will immediatly switch my stance because Osama is notorious for taking full credit for his organizations attacks. But I've never seen one. In fact all I've seen is denial from Osama, while being very happy about it in his statements doesn't mean culpability.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Zebo

I beg to differ on your intensive (maybe you mean extensive) understanding of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda had little influence in Iraq before the war but significant power in Afghanistan

I don't know about you bali but I'm still waiting for ANY proof Al Qaeda had anything to do with 911. Then we can worry about links to Iraq. There is no evidence to support the Afghanistan incursion, only US allegations. So the existence of any possible ties to Al Queata is entirely moot.

--Crosses Zebo off the "people you may disagree with but still make arguments worth listening to" list.
LMFAO.

You mean besides all the video of OBL talking about how succesful their attack was?
WTF are you smoking?

Please link that video or a transcript of it and I will immediatly switch my stance because Osama is notorious for taking full credit for his organizations attacks. But I've never seen one. In fact all I've seen is denial from Osama, while being very happy about it in his statements doesn't mean culpability.

Well I don't have a link. There have been several videos aired numerous times showing OBL and his people discussing how succesful the attack was and obviously taking credit for it. I can understand people wanting more proof that Saddam was involved with terrorists (besides the training camps in Iraq I guess), but questioning whether Al Qaeda was responsible? You have to be pretty far out there for that one.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

as for africa...to bad for them, not really geopolitically as important as the middle east.

Dude, there's mad oil in Africa and along the African coast (particularly west coast). Despite the tremendous sucking sound of manufacturing jobs leaving America . . . we do make some things here other than porn and mindless television. As long as that's the case we will need access to Africa's great mineral wealth. I doubt we are floating Egypt $2B a year b/c they are geopolitically irrelevant.

Yeah, we should just be isolationists. Sit in our own backyard and hope that the murderers next door won't bother us even if they are killing and torturing their own people. Well hell, the guy 10 miles down the road torturing, abusing, then chopping up his helpless child doesn't affect me. As long as I stay away from him, I'll be fine, so why should I do anything to stop it? Glad to see there are people with morals and principles here.

I must have missed the memo . . . when did the two options become: 1) spank the monkey and ignore the world or 2) dictate geopolitics throughout the globe?

The people cheering on Bush War 2003 didn't give a poop about Human Rights Watch (Turkey) or Amnesty International Pakistan but now they are all in a huff about protecting the innocent in Iraq. I gave money to both organizations last year plus medecins sans frontieres. But I guess the only way to care for others is to drop a bomb on someone.

 

[DT4K]

Here is the transcript of one of the tapes.

Here is one section:

UBL: we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

This translation has been verified by numerous people and I don't believe there is anyone denying the accuracy.