War on Iraq

Originally posted by Ziptrx
Contridiction. "It's more than just me supporting this......anyways I disagree."

There is action being taken for the 3000 people that were killed. Hence the so called "War On Terrorism". The action does not and should not be pointed at Iraq, until there is solid evidence proving otherwise.

The CIA, FBI and a majority of the political leaders have admitted that there is no concrete proof linking Iraq to Al Queda. It is all speculation.



So you believe "the CIA, FBI and the majority of political leaders" when they say there is no link between Al Queda and Iraq.

You have accepted what they say as the truth.

Good.

So when the same people tell you that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, naturally you also believe that too?

Mubbers
 
Originally posted by Ziptrx

Noone is trying to change your mind, but please have all the facts. [/B]

What facts? No one in this thread has presented any facts that constitute a credible argument against enforcing resolution 1441. Why was 1441 presented and passed? Because the entire UN security council believed that Iraq posesses WOMD and that it needs to be disarmed.

The only people looking for facts are the Weapons Inspectors and they are being hampered in their efforts at every turn. There can only be two reasons for this: a) Iraq has WOMD they are trying to conceal or Saddam Hussein wants a war with the US / Britain.

I don't know which is more alarming.

Mubbers
 
this is an incredible discussion

THERE IS ONLY ONE HEAD OF STATE THAT IS PUSHING FOR WAR

the resolution mubbers DOES NOT SANCTION A WAR

that is just bushes self serving interperatation

and now the counsil has surely resinded any notion that is sanctions a war.

so even if bush was correct, the reolution is no determined by the cousil to NOT SANCTION WAR

so stop saying they already sanctioned it, cause now they don't


or are you under the opinion that once the un says something, it can't change it's mind

is that your beliefe?

forget that

they are inteligent men, and they will surely change their minds when the they think a desision they made was irresposible

now, as far as you saying tongue in cheek that maybe you should move to iraq

is that your point?

if you can't have war, you might as well surrender?

I would like to live in a country where the people have minds, and they don't follow the pipe playing of a mad man.

if bush is the only head of state that is pushing for war,

WHY ISN'T THIS ALARMING TO YOU

do you think the other countries have less concern for the welfare of their population then bush does?

ha

they see no need for a war, and bush keeps pushing for one regardless

THIS SHOULD GIVE EVERY SINGLE MAN A RESON FOR PAUSE

and a reason to doubt that danger is eminent



ha
 
Originally posted by dealer
this is an incredible discussion

THERE IS ONLY ONE HEAD OF STATE THAT IS PUSHING FOR WAR

the resolution mubbers DOES NOT SANCTION A WAR

that is just bushes self serving interperatation

and now the counsil has surely resinded any notion that is sanctions a war.

so even if bush was correct, the reolution is no determined by the cousil to NOT SANCTION WAR

so stop saying they already sanctioned it, cause now they don't


or are you under the opinion that once the un says something, it can't change it's mind

is that your beliefe?

forget that

they are inteligent men, and they will surely change their minds when the they think a desision they made was irresposible

now, as far as you saying tongue in cheek that maybe you should move to iraq

is that your point?

if you can't have war, you might as well surrender?

I would like to live in a country where the people have minds, and they don't follow the pipe playing of a mad man.

if bush is the only head of state that is pushing for war,

WHY ISN'T THIS ALARMING TO YOU

do you think the other countries have less concern for the welfare of their population then bush does?

ha

they see no need for a war, and bush keeps pushing for one regardless

THIS SHOULD GIVE EVERY SINGLE MAN A RESON FOR PAUSE

and a reason to doubt that danger is eminent



ha

dealer, every time you are pissed at something you start writing in a hilarious manner (hope your not offended m8)
 
shoot...now I can't go back and edit it

hehey

ya, I noticed that too

oh well
 
Originally posted by Benny
dealer, every time you are pissed at something you start writing in a hilarious manner (hope your not offended m8)

:D He he he, now you've gone and spoiled it Benny!

But in answer to one of the points in Dealers post:

I am concerned and alarmed at the prospect of war and what it might precipitate. However I am more concerned about what may happen if we don't do make the stand now.

Mubbers
 
well I have finally made it to this thread.

Someone said that Germany didnt want to go to war because of the crappy euro, might I remind you that the Euro is just as strong as the crappy US Dollar!

I have to agree that Bush is really just going to war for wars sake. If the US was really interested in getting Saddam to disarm then they would have started after the last war to make sure that Saddam was complying with the UN regulations instead of leaving him alone until now. And of course he is going to be pissed off, I mean it was the americans that have made him into the bad guy, he as an ally of the US until he went to get repayment for the Iraq-Iran war loans that were given out to Kuwait and others. The americans claimed to "not be officially interested" then he invaded Kuwait and the US went against him, in his mind the US are traitors.

If the americans want to go after people they believe to have Nuclear weapons then they should have signed the damn SALT agreements ffs. They didnt, while I believe most of the European countries did, so effectively they can legally pass on Nuclear weapons technology.
Also if Bush goes to war without UN approval, I seriously wish that he would be tried as a war criminal in an international court, but that will never happen as the US never signed the agreement allowing Americans to be tried in international court.
If the americans want others to play, then maybe they should join in with some of the other things that are going around. Past examples being SALT 1, SALT 2, the Kyoto Agreement, and the one allowing americans to be internationally tried.

The isolationist nature of america has imposed vast boundries between themselves and the rest of the world, and some of its own people. They need to apologise to the world and start "playing well with others".
 
So what was resolution 1441 about then?

This 2nd resolution only appears to be a comfort blanket to those nations too chicken to stand by the original resolution which they all signed up to.

Mubbers
 
Mubbers. Again you bring up islamic terrorists. So by blowing up another Islamic state (despite what the US say, civilians WILL die) that will stop Islamic Terrorists?

Hey look... US just killed some of our brethren. Lets stop all our terrorist activities. A US led War will just merely strengthen their resolve. Violence begets Violence.

1945. Wait long enough and the Japanese would have surrendered. It just so happened the US were impatient. Japan was on the verge of defeat. The nukes were premature and not necessary.

If all you have left to defend is your own country in a world war, you are not about to win.

Just so we understand, you asked me what my solution to stop islamic terrorism?

Lets start by not electing evangelistic presidents. Bill Clinton was a great president with a few blemishes (oh whoopti dooo... so he cheated on his wife... big WHOOP). Did we concentrate on his PEACE efforts? Yeah for like 3 days.

The reason Islamic terrorists are pissed are because of the sanctions on most Islamic countries or lack of assistance and the lack of tact when dealing with their religion.

If you truly understood the Muslim religion (i won't even pretend to understand it completely). It has many parallels with Christianity but of course it has enough differences and that is why it is a completely different religion.

The Islamic Terrorists are a bunch of rowdy ****ers who have twisted the teachings of Islam to their own desires.

Its like saying the KKK are terrorists that represent true Christian beliefs. They don't and we all know they don't. Yet somehow we associate Islamic Terrorists with true Muslim believers. Get over it.

Do not use terrorists links for a War. The first reason for this is. Unless a link is ACTUALLY evident then there is no smart reason for using that as a reason.

Imagine the oppressed races by the KKK decided to have a war with all Anglo Saxon countries. They would say, We are on a War Against Oppression. We must oppress first before they opress back. Our biggest enemy is the USA, it is the hq of the KKK. We must bomb it back into the stone age. President Bush is a member of the KKK for the mere fact he is christian.

As you can see.. my above paragraph is complete and utter nonsense. But the funny thing is, thats what President Bush is saying. Shame we couldn't have an intelligence test on our would be leaders. Could be a whole new generation of benchmarks. LeaderMark 2003.

I was using the analogy of Pearl Harbour vs 9/11 to see whether or not something like that would be a good reason to go to war

And that is why your analogy is flawed. The US KNEW Japan was responsible for the attack. Not a Japanese Terrorist group. It was the Japanese ordered by their then Emporer.

9/11 is and we KNOW was caused by Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. There is NO link between Bin Laden and Saddam except that they are Muslims (lets kill all christian leaders for any and all christian terrorists now)

They are different situations that do not help your argument.

FYI, read the very first post for my ideas. It was full of invective as i was pointing out holes. 2 paragraphs obviously mean a well thought out idea and execution of reasoning
 
Originally posted by dealer
this is an incredible discussion

now, as far as you saying tongue in cheek that maybe you should move to iraq

is that your point?

if you can't have war, you might as well surrender?


Yeah why not! After all threatening Saddam with war or disarmament hasn't worked so why not just go home. I'm sure he'll get around to it someday.

No chance! But the serious side is this:

If I did what I said and moved to Iraq to set up an opposition to his rule I'd be killed. Simple. I would have absolutely no chance of finding out anything about weapons programmes or anything else in connection with this issue. If by some bizarre twist of fate I did manage to mount a serious popular threat to his rule we'd all probably get bombed, most likely with mustard gas or VX.

So you see what I'm trying to emphasise is that your aparrent desire to resolve this now without war is a dream. Saddam will never disarm or he will never reveal proof that he has no WOMD. Is he really insane enough to bring the world to war when he has no WOMD?

You are right it is so sad. Sad that it has come to this. But don't personalise this against George Bush - he cannot do this alone. He has backing from his cabinet and his country. He has backing from our country and from Spain. And if truth be told he still has backing from the UN. Resolution 1441 was signed by all.

Mubbers
 
talk ing of pearl harbour i read in the paper that they have info on an attempt by al quedia to mess up pearl harbour (seen as a symbolic importance) which would make america seem like a sitting duck.

and let me say something we have had news that war could start within 2 days (and it looks very likely).

and concerning 9/11 the war was bought to them the yanks didnt want war and couldnt have cared less about iraq but now its threatening them. they are doin the natural thing and that is to defend itself

but if iraq was not on the same axis as alquidia and shared simlar interests in destroying america and britain and the same hate against them then im sure us would have let it go
 
Saddam is a “the” de-stabilising influence in the Middle East, his regime is not aligned with fanatical religious/terrorist organisations directly, but it is assumed by many services (Mossad for instance the CIA and MI 5) that he is using some of these organisations for his own benefit by providing third party finance, and has done so for many years. It is well known that most western intelligence agency’s (CIA in particular) don’t have in place the necessary “men on the ground” or spies as they used to be called to either verify or provide any real evidence about anything that goes on in sensitive areas in Iraq or for that matter Iran or even North Korea as they have relied to heavily on “tech” approaches like spy satellites/spy planes to provide evidence. This was the legacy left by President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile crisis. As a result real intelligence information about what’s actually going on is at best only a guess based on the latest defections.

France and Germany have historical and active financial interests in this area, as do the British and Russians. This is a factor to be considered only as a matter of interest in the equation. The French will back down as they have done before, the Germans will follow followed by the Russians whom in fact are in no position to dictate anything to anyone as they are on the verge of bankruptcy and can’t even pay their own military. America is far and away the strongest military power on the planet, this is backed up by the biggest economy and hence financial muscle but it could all end in tears. The reason: -

My Uncle used to work at a place called “Porton Down” in Wiltshire England. This for many of the post war years was the centre for certain agent design and “implementation” development programmes known now as “germ warfare” and indeed I myself when I was in the army was asked to go there as a “volunteer” to measure the effect of these weapons. Anyway the threat considered to be the most dangerous was not Anthrax or Ebola which was know about even then (1974) but the then manipulation of known viruses that effected the genetic structure of males and it’s associated reproductive functions. This was considered to be so dangerous that the then government stopped all further research. Projections undertaken at the time looked like you could remove the entire male population of a given region by introducing a virus specific to that particular population (with no inbuilt immunity) much like happed when the Spanish invaded South America in search of Eldorado. This wiped out a whole race of people both men and women alike but was not a deliberate act.

These methods have been refined over the years and I am sure that if any country has had a programme of investment in this area (IRAQ) that by know, especially in light of DNA understanding, that this could be a potentially devastating weapon as it’s so simple to deliver, can be made race/population specific, and it can’t be detected until it’s to late as it’s airborne straight away.

We are not fighting the Second World War but a war that’s defined by a whole host of unknown variables. This is because we have become complacent and arrogant. Nuclear weapons were obsolete 20 years ago.
 
Originally posted by Mubbers
So what was resolution 1441 about then?

This 2nd resolution only appears to be a comfort blanket to those nations too chicken to stand by the original resolution which they all signed up to.

Mubbers
The other countries are following Americas lead, showing that they dont give a toss

Originally posted by Dave Holbon
Saddam is a “the” de-stabilising influence in the Middle East
I think Israel is "the" destabilising element in the Middle East, from an arabs pov, I think the area was doin OK til the UK and US put Israel in there.
 
it really is amazing to me that people don't give a hoot that bush is the only one that wants this war.

I got to get out of this conversation
 
Originally posted by dealer
it really is amazing to me that people don't give a hoot that bush is the only one that wants this war.

I got to get out of this conversation
blair is semi behind it, but he really wants UN approval before hand
 
Originally posted by dealer
it really is amazing to me that people don't give a hoot that bush is the only one that wants this war.

I got to get out of this conversation

thats one of the reasons I have stayed out since I read some of the other comments posted :)

though the reasons seem valid... it still boggles the mind how much of the propaganda fed is absorbed...
 
Originally posted by dealer
it really is amazing to me that people don't give a hoot that bush is the only one that wants this war.

I got to get out of this conversation

No don't do that!! The whole point of a thread like this is that there are two (or more) points of view.

Try a response in which you do not mention GWB I or II at all. Speak of the moral issues, reply directly to this post.

For example we were reminded today that in 1988 Saddam Hussein ordered mustard gas to be used on a Kurdish city to the north of the country. 5000 of his own 'citizens' were murdered in this action. As an example of his nature this is the best (worst?) but I am sure there are many many more to be found that on a smaller scale are equally as heinous.

This on its own I feel gives us a moral justification for seeking to end his time in power. Combine this and the other issues relating to WOMD & terrorism and I believe this justification becomes an obligation.

The question of how this is done is another point for discussion.

Clearly an assassination would be pointless as the structure and family would remain.

As he will not simply just pack his bags and go there are only three options left. These are:

1) A careful planned war to capture/kill the leaders and destroy the material of the current Iraqi regime. With a victory won and allied troops in place a careful transition to democracy can be achieved.

I would expect that once this has been accomplished we would GTF out of Iraq and leave them alone- obviously assisiting on financial / engineering level with reconstruction.

2) Sponsor a revolution by the Iraqi people, probably lead by the Kurds in the north. Simpley put this would be a bloodbath. Just like any civil war. Like our, like yours and like the Balkans.

It is also highly likely that a stable government could have little chance of evolving from this mess and the country would remain as damaged as it is now.

[Actually this was an option I heard put forward on TV by an Iraqi exile in the UK. This seemingly was preferable to a limited and targeted action to remove the regime...]

3) Continue to plough on with pointless Inspections and pseudo-diplomacy. Let his regime continue to be a threat to world stability and a source (real or imagined) of state sponsored terrorism and WOMD.
His country would continue to suffer under international sanction and his people would remain oppressed. As his son is most likely lined up to replace him this status quo could possibly remain for several decades to come.

I've presented one (of many) reasons why I think this man has to go & three possible courses of action. I personally support the first, effective imediately, but would like to debate all three and others should they be presented.

Mubbers
 
Originally posted by Mubbers
No don't do that!! The whole point of a thread like this is that there are two (or more) points of view.

Try a response in which you do not mention GWB I or II at all. Speak of the moral issues, reply directly to this post.

For example we were reminded today that in 1988 Saddam ordered mustard gas to be used on a Kurdish city to the north of the country. 5000 of his own 'citizens' were murdered in this action. As an example of his nature this is the best (worst?) but I am sure there are many many more to be found that on a smaller scale equally as heinous.

Morally I feel we are justified in seeking to end this mans regime.

The question of how we do this another point for discussion.

Clearly an assassination would be pointless as the structure and family would remain.

As he will not simply just pack his bags and go there are only three options left. These are:

1) A careful planned war to capture/kill the leaders and destroy the material of the current Iraqi regime. With a victory won and allied troops in place a careful transition to democracy can be achieved.

I would expect that once this has been accomplished we would GTF out of Iraq and leave them alone- obviously assisiting on financial / engineering level with reconstruction.

2) Sponsor a revolution by the Iraqi people, probably lead by the Kurds in the north. Simpley put this would be a bloodbath. Just like any civil war. Like our, like yours and like the Balkans.

It is also highly likely that a stable goernment could have little chance of evolving from this mess and the country would remain as damaged as it is now.

[Actually this was an option I heard put forward on TV by an Iraqi exile in the UK. This seemingly was preferable to a limited and targeted action to remove the regime...]

3) Do nothing. Let his regime continue to be a threat to world stability and a source real or imagined of state sponsored terrorism and WOMD. His country would continue to suffer under international sanction and his people would remain oppressed. As his son is most likely lined up to replace him this status quo could possibly remain for several decades to come.

I've presented one (of many) reasons why I think this man has to go & three possible courses of action. I personally support the first, effective imediately, but would like to debate all three and others should they be presented.

Mubbers

mubbers... your ENTIRE reasoning for the war was just shot to crap with that post...

:)

you cannot go into details about this war w/o taking into account dubyah... and his dad if it comes to it...

you seem to forget the us government itself had a knack for testing various devices on its own people... remember tuskeegee ? I mean come on... do not forget also that the kurds are separatists in the country... to saddam they are not going to be considered citizens if he can help it...

now as for your plans... how often has this worked ?

you CANNOT assisinate saddam.. that would make him a martyr and I will NOT feel safer with this knowledge and the legions of new suicide bombers this would breed...

saddam is a product of us 'intervention' in the region and now he is not liked because he has taken his perception of 'control' and 'dominance' too far...

there is a lack of targets for bush after 9/11 and afghanistan... he is therefore taking the most direct course of action... attack saddam... he is easily dislikeable which makes the job easier...

beyond all that... do you REALISE how much it is going to cost in terms of MONEY and MANPOWER to take action v/s iraq and keep a force there... beyond the billions already spent to bribe countries to join the 'coalition' v/s terrorism... ?

I dunno... I just can't see justification for military action v.s iraq in light of what I KNOW and what I KNOW the us goverment should KNOW...

if a war must be fought... it would be better for it to be fought for something more meaningful.. and something that would not paint a gigantic bullseye on our nation...

I think we have long worn out the sympathy garnered from 9/11.. where nations may have stood aside when the us went into afghanistan... the same can't be said for iraq..
 
really glad I dropped out of this stupid arguement awhile back.

mubbers your so hell bent on us going to war then join up and serve your country.

I served for 12 years, I don't regret one minute of it, but at same time I have no desire to be a muppet for some asswipe trying to get his favorable points up.

my last post in this thread, unless I get flamed. then I shall open the can.

cool.gif
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back