strike on iraq

If the U.N. were smart, the would send in about 3,000 weapons inspectors to stay in Iraq for the next couple of years....I am sure Saddam would prefer that to destruction.

Bush would never bomb a country and kill 3,000 innocent civilians, would he?
 
Originally posted by aphexcoil


You Wrote:

I don't think it is so much that they view us as being "soft" -- rather, they simply dislike us to an extreme.
------------------------------

Rather than soft, I think I should say that we are not viewed as being SWIFT, FIRM, and COMPLETE in our actions. We are not perceived as being able to do things in a timely fashion. And in most cases, that is true.

-------------------------------

You wrote:

Even the Labor Party is divided about Tony Blair's support for U.S. military action. Germany has made its views very clear as well -- they don't think military action is warranted. Now, we have Russia and France who are strongly opposed to military action due to a lack of evidence.
---------------------------------

And in the event that something does happen or need to be addressed, which of these stalwarts is really capable of taking any kind of military action? When isn't the Labor Party divided? Have you ever watched these braintrusts debate, scream and argue to get their views out? I've been abused in just watching them try to decide about their own internal policies. I couldn't imagine them being asked to devise a competent international policy with world managing implications.

---------------------------------

You wrote:

If we attack Iraq, we're going to lose a lot support from allies. This, in my opinion, is all a political mistake on our part. If Bush really wanted Saddam out, he would have acted against Iraq shortly after the September 11th attacks. We could have easily played off the worldwide sympathy at that time and used any number of sneaky CIA tricks to "frame" Iraq for whatever reason -- even if the evidence was not there.
-----------------------------------

Is this support the seven planes and fifty military advisors that each intend to send for show purposes to any conflict that may arise. Just how much hardware was destroyed and how many many casualties counted collectively with theses allies during Desert Storm again? With the exception of the British, most American support is in token fist waving and cheerleading. Always quick they are to complain, yet never first to develop a credible solution to the problems.
------------------------------------

You wrote:

However, we just can't start a war with Iraq without solid evidence that they are indeed a threat. Evidence like that needs to be outright obvious and made public -- the government can't work in secrecy about this and, at the same time, expect the US public to just "go along" with the military action.
-------------------------------------

Solid evidence? You mean in the areas that Sadamn has graciously provided the timetable for searching in. Don't be swayed into thinking that this search of the territory will truly be unconditional. And for you, what does solid mean? Does it have to be an actual warhead, tested, on a delivery platform capable of covering XX amount of miles? How about if we find the plans and the infrastructure capability, inside a school building? Under an off limits (under the search agreement proposed) hospital? There are plenty of logical reasons for the capacity to develop such items should you choose to hear them that way. And yes, the Sadamn proposal WILL include some search/no search stipulations. That's why they need two to three weeks to prepare to be searched.
-----------------------------

You wrote:

Even if they are building weapons, that still does not give us a right to attack them. They are under UN sanctions and regulations and must be dealt with according to an agreement among nations that make up the UN.
------------------------------

Here you are sadly mistaken. Losing the war included the agreement to totally stop that production. That in itself is a violation. Or are you saying that these weapons must be proven to be able to kill masses BEFORE we decide that we have a problem with them?

--------------------------------

You wrote:

Attacking Iraq may be the right thing to do, but we cannot start a war based merely on conjecture. If we are wrong, the implications down the road are huge. We need to work with foreign countries and respect THEIR views. Most of the world already views this country (The United States) as an overbearing elite worldwide police force. We're not winning brownie points by going in gung-ho despite opposition from other countries. We need to worry about our national security, but we also have to weigh in the concerns of other nations as well.
---------------------------------

And if it is the right thing to do, what then? There is always the possibility of being wrong. But you never make the decision to go to war in the fear of being wrong. Either you are acting with conviction, or you don't go to war. The country is not in a beauty contest nor should it be trying to win brownie points. That is not the goal of the country. Nor are our desires the main concern of the world. These postures will seat themselves.
----------------------------------

You wrote:

I don't like Saddam either, but a power vacuum isn't going to solve any problems for the long-term. It is just going to create short-term "band-aid" solutions to a wound that requires stitches.
------------------------------------

We should not be trying to appease the interests of the world when debating war. We must live with the decisions that we commit to. That might have us alone on one side of the table, and the world and its differing opinions on the other. But you should never decide to right an injustice JUST because there are ten of you and three of them. Nor should you expect the understanding of the less-informed to fully grasp the implications of complex decisions. The Iraqi peoples are not informed. But in the lack of understanding, they are not alone.

I agree with the concept that this action is a "band-aid" solution, and this surgery will require a high degree of precision. In this instance, there truly is only one surgeon qualified. It is time for the world to work on correcting the level of knowledge of those in poverty with helping them and not their leaders to see the light. To destroy an evil pyramid of power, you really do need to start at the base of people that it rests upon. :)
 
Originally posted by rs7
They and the citizens are not our enemies. Saddam is our enemy. We need to find a way short of war to not only oust him, but to oust him in a way that will not have the collateral effect of raising the level of hatred towards the US in the arab world.

We all know that the terrorists use cowardice as a strategy. Strike, run, hide. Hide among the noncombatants. Iraq has used this strategy as well on a larger scale. The Palestinians on a scale of their own. Apparently the arab world doesn't play by the rules of "civilized war" (how is that for an oxymoron?).

What we need is to stop spending so many tax dollars on the development of obsolete weapons systems, and put the money into our intelligence resources. It is shameful that a country the size of Israel can have a better and more effective intelligence and security system than we. It is time to meet the present and be prepared for the future.

And in the meantime, if we can't find a way (in a realistic a timeframe like, the past eight years), what do you suggest? I am all for the alternative but I don't think that there is much interest in bringing it to light.

You see, it would involve teaching the worlds' poor the painful history of the concept of the birth of a nation. Teaching about a olden day tea party would provide a great start. Or possibly, explaining why slavery HAD to end. Naw, the rulers of a lot of our so-called allies might not be too pleased with that.

The cry of "Give me Liberty or Give me death!" has an answer in many of these locales. And it ain't liberty. Too many of the hotspots of the world would happily provide the opposition with a bullet to answer their wishes.

We have to understand that the peoples of the world need to develop a backbone and die for their true freedom in their own lands. Until then, they will never be free and they will always have a problem with those who openly practice the trade. This country had men, women, children die for the freedoms that we now enjoy. They arose in defiance for something as minor in the scheme of things as taxes, and those concepts that they fought for need to be planted again.

Think about it, the Iraqi and many other impoverished peoples would rather go into battle against a vastly superior force, knowing that they will be killed - swiftly, rather than die in objection to their own leaders to take control of their own countries. He, Sadamn, has killed (and will kill more) his own people when they have objected to his rule. And now I am supposed to be alarmed that we will kill his people? Isn't he doing that very thing. Where are the screams of Sadamn's injustice from those allies of ours again?

And then we are told that we should feel ashamed that we will kill them for fighting against us and not their own leaders. The last time I checked, dead meant dead. So why not die fighting for their own liberties? That's where we need to start the education process. The hostage holder here, Sadamn, should be removed from this equation with an extreme and swift prejudice. He will hide amongst women and children and cry foul should we hurt any of them. In the process, we should and WILL kill his staunchest defenders. End of story!

Or maybe we can tazer the whole crowd until we get to him! Stunned into submission we will not have killed one innocent civilian. Stun, capture, hold until we are done. While we hold them, teach them how to overthrow their own if and when this happens again. Catch Sadamn, spend $10,000,000 leveling the central palace, go home. While actively waging this war, build four water desalination plants, two power generating facilities and leave the plans for the public to be able to duplicate the process.

Take some of our newly captured POW's and train them to run the new utilities. Make them toil in eight hour shifts for five days, then give them two days off. For being active POW's, pay them a wage commensurate to their efforts.

At the same time, leave the phone numbers to the companies that manufacture those types of facilities as the POW's just might want to open a few more when we leave. The cost of this little excursion has to be less than a full fledged war, and it might have a lasting effect. Hmm, true commerce might break out yet! :)
 
Originally posted by Madison


Aren't these two points related? and isn't that exactly the problem - that there is no unified lust for Iraqi blood outside of those advising the President, there are no screams for war from the American or international population? And, evidently, no legitimate justification. If there were, they (the administration hawks) wouldn't have to try so hard to SELL it, to convince people of a need to destroy, and to destroy right now?

Please understand, I don't think the administration wants Iraqi blood. I really don't think they want any blood in this operation. I think they truly just want Sadamn's regime removed. They also would like those that believe in suppression of the masses to openly allow dissension and change should the masses desire it. At that point all else will level.

Now, since Sadamn will not do so openly. And since he and his regime will kill their own before allowing any change. And since he will violate the U.N. agreements to continue his control and expansion of his own convoluted interests. And then hide behind women and children when confronted, war is an answer. :)
 
Regime change in Iraq is in the best interests of the U.S. and Israel, it is plain as the nose on your face. The fact of the matter is that some people are just taking a tougher stance than others, and some people have more emotional conflicts than others. Apparently RS7 was a vietnam war protestor and some of that emotion has stuck with him after all these years. I just hope that he realizes that this isn't a vietnam situation, just like the first gulf war and afghanistan were not vietnam situations. Also the people being sent over to fight are Professionals who are involved by choice, and you don't see any of THEM protesting or talking trash about their country.

Then there are the TraderFut types, who simply don't give a crap what is good for the U.S. or Israel. I am actually happy that TraderFut has decided to post his BS on this board so that we can see what kind of twisted mentality we are up against. He has certainly helped to solidify my opinions.
 
Originally posted by 5R08Astang


(writer's note: Added [Bush] & [The World] to his quote)

canyonman00: I have respect for your support and defense of others on this board when it comes to their trading platforms. But as far as your judgement on world affairs, you'd be more comfortable in a dictatorship.

Last time I checked, we lived in a Republic with a President, House, and Senate. You are preaching absolute power and that scares me to death.

Iraq is not a threat to us militarily or economically. Currently, they are not a political threat, nor are any of the "TERRORISTS!" linked to Iraq. If we take them on unilaterally and they become martyrs against us, think of the long-term consequences. Then they will be a great political threat. And, if we act alone, and the world looks down upon us as bullies, to whom do we look to when our REAL darkest hour comes.

Unilateral action will promote terrorism, not prevent it.

A dictatorship, that's what Sadamn has established and I have a major problem with. While we do live in a republic, and there are distinctions of powers between the President, the senate and the congress, they do operate in a sequence. On wartime decisions, the President has the call, first. You being scared to death is the correct posture when understanding the power of the Office of the President of the United States of America. So you do understand, great!

This office is unlike any other in the free world. It has power and control unmatched anywhere else. That is the scope of understanding that all too few Americans exhibit when elections for the office rolls around every four years and voter apathy set in.

Neither Tony Blair, nor Putin, nor any other leader you can conceive wields a power close to the office we speak of. In an instant, he can call to action a devastating force and send it wherever he deems. Sure, a few days later he will answer to congress, the senate and the public for his action, but that is also after-the-fact.

Iraq has practiced illegal policies against the order of the U.N. A body to which we belong. We have now told the U.N. either the organization means business, or we do. We should not be a party to a group who can not stand by its convictions and decisions while expecting us to. You govern and lead best from a position of strength, not fear. If we fear Sadamn and his kind, and that is enough to cause inaction when they break the commitments, then we have a deeper problem than is being stated.

Also as to your statement of help in our darkest hour. It is my hope we will be able to look within our own country and its diverse peoples for the fortitude and strength to get us through. For you see, that is the fuel that has created the resolve of this country all along. We are not great based upon the accolades and cheers of those from outside our borders. Our greatness comes from each individual's ambitions and freedoms being pursued, exercised and protected here at home. :)
 
--------------------
Josh:

I used to believe that, too, evil media. I was an engineering major and my buddy was a journalism major. He claimed that my cynicism was unfounded because a journalist could make a bigger story by uncovering a slick slime-ball than the slime-ball could make by promoting sound bites and being slick.

Isn't that still a part of the media's check and balance system? Or am I living in the past? Or did the past ever exist?

---------------------

The more things change the more they seem to stay the same..

The quote I posted earlier was from 1953, about 40 years ago. But a dozen years ago again, some of the writen facts on media spin and purpose it serves:

are we being led down the same path again?

...before his seizure of Kuwait, the Iraqi dictator was regarded by many politicians and journalists as merely another unpleasant Third World strongman, for whom US foreign policy establishment had a necessary affinity...

...on the heels of the Iranian kidnapping of the US embassy in Tehran, guaranteed at the very least official us neutrality in the Iran Iraq war.
In this case however, neutrality rapidly metamorphosed into quiet backing for Iraq, which eventually led to military support...

... In her famous meeting with Hussein on July 25 1990, U.S. ambasdor April Glaspie tried her bestto help out with the dictator's reputation....She also noted wistfully that if George Bush "had control over the media, his job would be much easier"...

the media spin and lies coming out to fool the public:

...The most notorious of these Iraqi massacres occurred at Halbja, in March 1988. There according to human rights monitors, about four thousand Kurdish civilians, including women, children and elderly. were killed in a chemical attack, allegedly ordered by Iraqi forcesto punish Kurds for helping Iran. BUT in spring 1990, Pentagon leakers appeared to convey another perspective: they said the victims were killed in crossfire of Iraqi and Iranian gas...

Later in the summer, the Bush administration would cynically beat back attempts by members of Congress, disturbed by Hussein's Violent conduct...
and in July 25th meeting between ambassador Glaspie and Hussein, the U.S. strongly suggested it would not intervene in a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.
But on August 2, when Hussein grabbed Kuwait he crossed the line....

Suddenly more was required than manipulationby leak. Convincing Americans to fight a war to liberate a tine Arab sheikdom ruled by a family oligarchy would require the demonization of Hussein in ways never contemplated by human rights groups...

...In August 1990, the Bush administration's task was to sell two images-an ugly one of Hussein-and a handsome one of Kuwait. For this task the Administration required the best press money can buy.

So we formed the CFK Citizens for Free Kuwait. First move of CFK was to hire Hill and Knowlton (H&K), one of the largest and most politically connected public relations firms in America.

...Quality work costs money. First 90 daysH&K racked up fees of 2.9 million end expenses of 2.7 million (sounds like Arthur Anderson?) By end of war it had collected nearly 10.8 million from the Kuwaitis.

...And of all the accusations made against the dictator, none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about the Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from the incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City...

....So the initial forum for public discussion in Congress was the Human Rights Caucus...

...H&K sent a fifteen year old girl named "Nayirah" allegedly a Kuwaiti with first hand knowledge of the situation in her tortured land....

parts of he testimony in Congress:
While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns andgo itno the room where 15 babies were in incubators. they took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators and left the babies on the cold floor to die.

Congress was unaware that she was the Kuwait's ambassador's daughter and not a disinterested witness.

...Maryam Elani told me months later that Nayrah's lurid tale was the first she had heard the baby incubator story...

But it was enough to tip the vote for war back then. Media spin got the numbers to the low 300.. ggg

...After the war, Middle East Watch said it was shown death certificates for 30 kuwait babies who were buried on August 24th 1990. Nineteen had died before the Iraqi invasion. 11 died during occupation. None of the 30 were shown to have been removed from the incubators.
(Dr. Behbehani also backed off his story of "supervising" the burials of 120 babies) He was another "witness produced by the H&K group....

from second chapter, Selling Babies

Book: Second Front by John R. Macarthur

as in stocks, buyer beware do you own due diligence, we need know some of the facts before we act. War is not to be taken lightly. at least in the market we have some chance to rebuilt if we lose. But in War, the mistakes are final.


Josh

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=7621&perpage=6&pagenumber=10
 
NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — Iraq rejected U.S. efforts to secure a U.N. resolution threatening war Saturday, with Iraqi state-run radio announcing that Baghdad would not abide by “unfavorable new resolutions” adopted by the U.N. Security Council.

THE IRAQI RADIO announcement said the decision to reject new U.N. measures was made during a meeting involving President Saddam Hussein, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and other senior officials. It did not say when the meeting took place.

“The American officials are trying, according to the media, to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council. Iraq declares it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the U.N. Secretary General,” the brief announcement said.
-----------------------------------------

Why am I not surprised? :)
 
Originally posted by canyonman00
NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — Iraq rejected U.S. efforts to secure a U.N. resolution threatening war Saturday, with Iraqi state-run radio announcing that Baghdad would not abide by “unfavorable new resolutions” adopted by the U.N. Security Council.

THE IRAQI RADIO announcement said the decision to reject new U.N. measures was made during a meeting involving President Saddam Hussein, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and other senior officials. It did not say when the meeting took place.

“The American officials are trying, according to the media, to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council. Iraq declares it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the U.N. Secretary General,” the brief announcement said.
-----------------------------------------

Why am I not surprised? :)

If the USA can push through new UN resolutions, fine... if the US cannot push through new UN resolutions, it will be commiting war crimes should it unilatarelly and illegally attack Iraq... people keep on asking themselves, "Why do people hate the USA so much, why did the evil ones have to attack us the way they did on September 11?"... the answer lies in US foreign policy, and the terrorism of September 11 was nothing but a mirror reflection of what the USA has been doing on a daily basis for the last few decades.... as they say 'what goes around, comes around'... the path to global peace lies within, not without... and the "leadership" of Dubya and his extremist hawks ain't helping matters... if Junior goes ahead with an illegal attack on Iraq resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in order to steal Iraqi oil, Junior will be exposing the US civilian to the wrath of global anger, and the responsibility of further September 11ths will lie squarely with Junior... God Bless America and may God protect innocent American civilians from the repercussions of insane American foreign policy...
 
Originally posted by canyonman00
NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — Iraq rejected U.S. efforts to secure a U.N. resolution threatening war Saturday, with Iraqi state-run radio announcing that Baghdad would not abide by “unfavorable new resolutions” adopted by the U.N. Security Council.

THE IRAQI RADIO announcement said the decision to reject new U.N. measures was made during a meeting involving President Saddam Hussein, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and other senior officials. It did not say when the meeting took place.

“The American officials are trying, according to the media, to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council. Iraq declares it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the U.N. Secretary General,” the brief announcement said.
-----------------------------------------

Why am I not surprised? :)


let's see...iraq agrees to UN resolutions and then the US wants to add to these resolutions after a deal is made. you are kidding about being surprised aren't you. let's stick to the deal and let the inspectors do their job.... we need to quit appeasing the chickenhawks with their hidden agenda's who are putting us all at risk.
 
Back
Top