You are so weak...its not even funny....I never passed out any lie ( I was just commenting on what I heard last night on The Factor) and if u refer to my original post I stated that it may or may not be true....but if u bother to read what tigerO just posted, then maybe the info would smack u right in the head...just scroll back a few....
Make Love Not War
- Thread starter Babak
- Start date
You are so weak...its not even funny....I never passed out any lie ( I was just commenting on what I heard last night on The Factor) and if u refer to my original post I stated that it may or may not be true....but if u bother to read what tigerO just posted, then maybe the info would smack u right in the head...just scroll back a few....
Actually right now in the world it is only us and our puppy who see a need to do anything much apart from containing him, as indeed we perfectly managed to contain the USSR over decades.
Top 10 Reasons Not to "Do" Iraq
Although President Bush has not formally decided to invade Iraq, the emotional chest pounding in the press by anonymous high-level civilian hawks in his administration has reached a crescendo. And while the hawks have made it seem unpatriotic to raise questions about such an invasion since Sept. 11, a careful analysis suggests that such a high-testosterone response should be avoided for 10 reasons:
High casualties may result at home or abroad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admits that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons. Faced with destruction of his regime (and possibly his own death), Hussein would have every incentive to use them against U.S. forces, Israel, oil fields, or even the U.S. homeland. If rag-tag al Qaeda terrorists can operate on U.S. soil undetected over a number of years, then more highly trained Iraqi intelligence agents might be able to smuggle in chemical or biological weapons (and may be already doing so). The U.S. military has been unenthusiastic about undertaking an invasion of Iraq because of fears of high casualties from urban fighting or from such Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists. We should remember the worldwide mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq would play right into al Qaeda's hands. Terrorists hope for an excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so that they can recruit more supporters.
Invading and occupying Iraq would distract the U.S. government from the vital task of destroying an enemy that has actually attacked the U.S. homeland--al Qaeda. U.S. intelligence agencies apparently have no hard evidence that links Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. How is an unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq, without international support, is relevant to the legitimate war against America's terrorist adversaries.
***The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors. ***
The terrorists groups that Iraq supports do not focus their attacks on the United States. Such groups concentrate their attacks on targets in the Middle East.
Although unsatisfying, the U.S.-led containment policy has worked. If the United States could successfully contain a superpower (USSR) for more than 40 years until it fell from within, it can continue to contain the dictator of a small, poor nation until he dies or is overthrown.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq could destabilize or topple friendly governments in Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Enflamed Islamic populations could rise up against those regimes, which are closely aligned with the United States.
The United States might be isolated diplomatically or have to expend large amounts of diplomatic capital to gain support for the invasion. The aforementioned friendly Islamic nations -- many of whose territories would be needed to launch any invasion -- and the European allies are almost universally unenthusiastic about such a military operation. The United States had to offer Turkey about $5 billion in debt forgiveness and other financial inducements to obtain even reluctant Turkish support for a U.S. attack on Iraq.
At a time of economic sluggishness and of red ink for the U.S. government, an invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could cost billions of dollars, bust the budget and throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin. The Gulf War Cost $80 billion (in 2002 dollars). Because the United States would probably be faced with a long occupation of Iraq to stabilize the country after the invasion, the cost is likely to be higher this time around. And unlike the Gulf War, no financial support from other nations can be expected to defray the costs.
The threat of war in the Middle East or a loss of production from actual combat could cause the world price of oil to skyrocket. Fighting in Iraq could reduce oil production there, as could any Iraqi attack on the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields using missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.
After sober analysis, one must conclude that the civilian political appointees in the administration should stop the tub-thumping for war and listen to counsels of restraint by those in the military who would have to fight and die in such a war. Hussein's survival in the 11 years after the Gulf War--combined with his demonization by three U.S. administrations--has led many to overstate the threat that despot presents and understate the costs of scrapping the containment policy that has contained him effectively.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html
ok I don't know how much clearer to make this:
I don't want to hear about all the reasons (10,11 or 1 million) why we shouldn't attack Iraq.
I want to hear about how those who are against the attack, propose the world deal with Saddam and his drive for WMD.
Christ! That's all I am asking.
I don't want to hear about all the reasons (10,11 or 1 million) why we shouldn't attack Iraq.
I want to hear about how those who are against the attack, propose the world deal with Saddam and his drive for WMD.
Christ! That's all I am asking.
Well.
Like I said. And like all the rest of the whole wide world are saying, apart from our puppy Blair.
The exclusively only leaders who all of a sudden invented all these reasons to have to do sthg are Bush, and Blair just jumped up on the wagon. Luckily the rest of the world isn't dumb enough to fall for our propaganda, which is why we are in this all alone.
Do the same we're doing with Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Nothing.
Just contain them.
***The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors. ***
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html
Like I said. And like all the rest of the whole wide world are saying, apart from our puppy Blair.
The exclusively only leaders who all of a sudden invented all these reasons to have to do sthg are Bush, and Blair just jumped up on the wagon. Luckily the rest of the world isn't dumb enough to fall for our propaganda, which is why we are in this all alone.
Do the same we're doing with Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Nothing.
Just contain them.
***The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors. ***
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html
Babak -- are there analogies between Saddam and the regimes of the despots named above? if so, anything to draw from that? Naturally, there are significant dissimilarities, some obvious, some less than, and some hidden - how important are those?
Btw, thanks everyone for your comments - some very interesting and thought-provoking posts... and the cartoons are great.
I'm going to have to run in a minute, so I might not be able to continue today or maybe even until Monday.
Let me just say this:
There is lots of injustice in the world, and lot's that we simply cannot do anything about.
There are many innocent people suffering in Kashmir, due to a dictatorial regime that we are supporting, Pakistan.
Hundreds of thousands were killed in Africa, in the strife between the Hutu and the Tutsis, and absolutely nobody was willing to intervene in one of the most barbaric recent cases of genocide.
As horrible as those calamities were, I'm not sure that we currently have the international means, or, more concisely, the will to effectively do much about them.
Israel is constantly in violation of UN resolutions, and nobody is complaining.
I am by no means saying that we should just ignore all of those problems indefinitely, I am just saying that we should not be hypocrites, and claim that we are fighting the good cause when in reality we are just inventing dangers that no other state recognizes, and where we are probably just on a detraction plan from extremely pressing national issues like an economy in shambles etc, and where the Bush family sees an opportunity to correct perceived humiliations to themselves. It's not like Bush suddenly declared an international move to democratize rogue regimes, or free the world from despots, or anything like that. This is just him against Saddam, and, again, a stance that apart from our puppy in chief Blair no other state is buying,and, that frankly, we simply cannot afford financially.
And, whatever happens, we shouldn't contemplate becoming a pariah state ourselves, by operating outside of international law.
No offense taken.
Do you really think that the people of Iraq would object to being freed from a sadistic monster because of suspect motivations?
C'mon! I know Bush is no saint. No one is Washington is. However, by removing Saddam from power and creating a democracy (basically pulling an Afghanistan), the people of Iraq will finally be given a reprive after years of suffering.
Yes, the motivation is suspect. It most probably (99%) is not done out of the goodness of their heart. But does that matter?
Does it matter to the thousands of children that will not die because of lack of medicine and food and running water that the real reason they are free to live a normal life is (insert your own conspiracy theory here)?
I don't think so. You may disagree. That's fine. Just remember that people in Iraq don't have the luxury that you do in making up your own mind and expressing it without negative repercussions.
I would much rather remove Saddam than let this horrible situation fester any longer.
Also someone mentioned other places and other injustices. Well you know what? You are completely right. The world stinks. But wouldn't it be just a tiny bit better with Saddam gone? It wouldn't solve everything but it would go a long ways in rescuing millions of people from a horrible life.
Just because the world doesn't rescue everyone who is suffering under injustice does not mean that we turn our backs and do nothing for a small portion of those suffering from injustice.
I'm not pro war. I've stated this several times. Its just that I have yet to hear or read about a viable alternative. That's why I started this thread!!
If you know of one, please let me know. That instant I will change my mind.
Do you really think that the people of Iraq would object to being freed from a sadistic monster because of suspect motivations?
C'mon! I know Bush is no saint. No one is Washington is. However, by removing Saddam from power and creating a democracy (basically pulling an Afghanistan), the people of Iraq will finally be given a reprive after years of suffering.
Yes, the motivation is suspect. It most probably (99%) is not done out of the goodness of their heart. But does that matter?
Does it matter to the thousands of children that will not die because of lack of medicine and food and running water that the real reason they are free to live a normal life is (insert your own conspiracy theory here)?
I don't think so. You may disagree. That's fine. Just remember that people in Iraq don't have the luxury that you do in making up your own mind and expressing it without negative repercussions.
I would much rather remove Saddam than let this horrible situation fester any longer.
Also someone mentioned other places and other injustices. Well you know what? You are completely right. The world stinks. But wouldn't it be just a tiny bit better with Saddam gone? It wouldn't solve everything but it would go a long ways in rescuing millions of people from a horrible life.
Just because the world doesn't rescue everyone who is suffering under injustice does not mean that we turn our backs and do nothing for a small portion of those suffering from injustice.
I'm not pro war. I've stated this several times. Its just that I have yet to hear or read about a viable alternative. That's why I started this thread!!
If you know of one, please let me know. That instant I will change my mind.