• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Tim Cooke
  • Paul Clapham
  • Devaka Cooray
  • Bear Bibeault
Sheriffs:
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Knute Snortum
  • Liutauras Vilda
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • salvin francis
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven

Reasons for and Against War with Iraq

 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Herb, is there anything wrong about English teachers or Orwell?
ANYway...
Accuracy in Media:
"Wait for what? Most urge Bush to give the United Nations' inspectors more time to uncover Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. But he has stonewalled UN inspectors for twelve years. More than once inspectors thought they had completed their work, only to learn through defectors that Iraq was still hiding huge caches of documents or buried equipment. Former UN inspectors say that Iraq still hasn't made a full disclosure about its biological or chemical warfare programs. But the Iraqis insist that there are no weapons to declare nor documents to produce."
See "A First Response to Sec. Colin Powell's Presentation Concerning Iraq" for something that at least looks like facts. "Former UN inspectors say"... What are their names? Where did they say it? "Accuracy in Media" - is it a joke?
"By any measure, Iraq suffers badly by comparison with these earlier examples. But that doesn't really matter. No matter how much intelligence the administration releases, the media will demand more. It will then want to know how and where it was obtained. The real point is that no amount of "intelligence" will satisfy opponents of a war on Iraq. It seems that the benefit of the doubt always goes to America's opponents."
I was asking for information, not whining.
Something like this.
All quotes from:
"Making The Case For War"
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid
February 6, 2003
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/02/06.html
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about Map. From Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq:

Phyllis Bennis, author of the just-released book Before & After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis and a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies: "President Bush's speech ignored Congress, and instead was aimed at U.S. public opinion (where his support is dwindling) and international allies in the U.N. (where the U.S. is significantly isolated). It was designed to divert attention from the real reasons for this coming war: oil and empire. It is a war designed to rewrite the political map of the Middle East, and is not dependent on the particular threat posed by a particular dictator. The crimes of the Iraqi regime are serious and longstanding -- back to the days of massive U.S. economic and military support, and U.S. provision of the biological seed stock for the anthrax and other germs President Bush warned us about. But launching a massive bombing campaign against Baghdad, a city of more than 5 million inhabitants-- grandmothers, kindergarten classes, teenagers -- will not secure human rights for those living and dying under those bombs."


That is nothing less than biased and inflammatory editorial comment. It has nothing to do with any facts or factual analysis of what the President was saying, and it certainly isn't "fair and accurate reporting".
Another one from the same piece:


Bush: The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
Comment: As'ad Abukhalil, author of Bin Laden, Islam & America's New 'War on Terrorism' and associate professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus: "The president fails to credit Reagan's and his father's administrations --prominent members of which included Rumsfeld and Cheney-- for their help in the construction of Saddam's arsenal, especially in the area of germ warfare."


What on earth does that comment have to do with in the context of what Bush said? Absolutely nothing. Never mind the fact that the comments themselves aren't supported. This guy is just making a political statement.
Anyway, pretty much the entire "fair and accurate analysis" is like that. This is the kind of liberal anti-Bush (sometimes anti-American) BS you will get on these sites. Which brings me back to my statement about such sites, which is that their purpose is to serve a political agenda, not promote "fair and accurate reporting". Hell it's not even reporting, merely editorial commentary.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"A First Response to Sec. Colin Powell's Presentation Concerning Iraq"
by Glen Rangwala, Lecturer in Politics at Cambridge University
http://www.traprockpeace.org/firstresponse.html


This analysis is also easily dismissed. I will assume that he does not have any expertise in the field of intelligence analysis. Despite this, he insists on providing his own interpretation of what intelligence facts presented by Powell really mean. Additionally, much of his "analysis" seems to cast him in the role of Hussein appologist.
Anyway, this guy is also not objective. He seems to only see what he wants to see, takes much of what Iraq says at face value, presumably lacks the expertise to make many of the interpretations he is making, and further seems to want to interpret thing in the best possible light. But if you have any specific questions about what he is saying, maybe we can address them.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
1. Sorry if I sound too harsh about Herb's link. I am fed up with emotions, that's why.
2. I agree that Phyllis Bennis did not say anything substantive.
"It was designed to divert attention from the real reasons for this coming war: oil and empire" - doesn't count. I can say that "It was designed to divert attention from the real reasons for this coming war: danger of thousand tulips ready to bloom and dangerous Japanese innovation: ORIGAMI, which was designed to exhaust our supply of paper" -- so what?
3. I disagree that the whole paper is like this. For example:
"As'ad Abukhalil, author of Bin Laden, Islam & America's New 'War on Terrorism' and associate professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus: "The president fails to credit Reagan's and his father's administrations --prominent members of which included Rumsfeld and Cheney-- for their help in the construction of Saddam's arsenal, especially in the area of germ warfare."
Toensing: "After being presented with evidence that Iraq had used chemical weapons to attack the Kurds in 1987-88, the Reagan administration blocked a Senate resolution imposing sanctions on Iraq, and continued to pursue good relations with the regime."
-- you may say that this is of no concern *now*. And this is partly true. Whether the USA should change regime in Iraq or not, this doesn't depend on what American officials did in past. However, it would be nice if something was done to prevent American officials to help terrorist regimes to obtain WMD, so the USA wouldn't have to invade other countries in the future.
4. "This analysis is also easily dismissed."- only if you present counter-facts. "I will assume that he does not have any expertise in the field of intelligence analysis" -- proofs needed. "Additionally, much of his "analysis" seems to cast him in the role of Hussein apologist" - this doesn't count. Everybody who will try to disprove official POV will look like Hussein apologists. And if facts *are* to Hussein benefit, then what? (I am not saying they are, because I do not know, but if they were?)
"Anyway, this guy is also not objective. He seems to only see what he wants to see" -- these are feelings. You need to support your claim.
"specific questions" -- I do not have them, but I would like to see counter-facts!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 132
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Democracy in the Middle East should be the reason.
The sheikh states of Kuwait, Qatar etc, the clan state of Syria, the Kemalist dictatorship of Turkey, the Molla regime of Iran, the Baath fascism of Irak..... these all must go away, I guess.
And this must be done under not USA umbrella, but under UN. and I repeat, all other regimes must be on the target.
ps:Although there are enough resources for each of the 6, milliard people from all aspects, some are so so poor; which is the main cause of all evils.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I can't speak for the police in your country. But here in the US, I think they do things right more than half the time. To me, this makes them above average. They don't enforce the laws as much as I would like, but my fellow citizens seem to be happy with their work. I'll bet everyone would agree the police are not perfect.
I've noticed lately that Saddam Hussein and his regime seem more mindful of his agreements and obligations to mankind. I wonder if this has anything to do with the police force gathering on the border?
To those who want to give inspectors more time, do you want to pay for maintaining the police force in a land where non-Muslims are not wanted?
Do you think they should have to live in tents though the next year away from their homes and families?
Do those who want to wait, for months of debates and showmanship at the UN to run its course, want to pay for bringing the police home and getting them back over there?
Cynical it maybe Axel, but the sands in the hour glass are running on George Bush. The dollar meter is running up on constant meddling in the affairs of the rogue state of Iraq. November 2004 is coming up fast and the American people are going to hold GWB and his regime responsible for what their acts and non-acts.
The saying that comes to my mind is - It's time to put the baby to bed.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

I've noticed lately that Saddam Hussein and his regime seem more mindful of his agreements and obligations to mankind. I wonder if this has anything to do with the police force gathering on the border?
To those who want to give inspectors more time, do you want to pay for maintaining the police force in a land where non-Muslims are not wanted?
Do you think they should have to live in tents though the next year away from their homes and families?


Most of us have agreed, (even Mara on another thread) that governments that murder large amounts of their own citizens should seriously be considered for removal. The only thing preventing another genocidal attack on the Kurds in the North is the "police force" that enforces the no-fly zone. Should the US simply enforce the no-fly zone in the North forever without regard to cost?
The issue of terrorist ties and WMD may tilt the cost-benefit analysis towards attack, but there are humanitarian reasons in removing Sadaam whether or not such things can be conclusively proven. Many people are requiring conclusive proof of WMD and/or terrorsit links. However in light of Sadaam's penchent for killing his citizens, in addition to his Kurds, I think a lower standard of proof may be sufficient to tip the scales for attack, again, at least for humanitarian reasons.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
-- you may say that this is of no concern *now*. And this is partly true. Whether the USA should change regime in Iraq or not, this doesn't depend on what American officials did in past. However, it would be nice if something was done to prevent American officials to help terrorist regimes to obtain WMD, so the USA wouldn't have to invade other countries in the future.


First, we did not give them WMDs. Secondly, this has nothing to do with an analysis of Bush's speech. That is my point. They are claiming to analyse the speech but are merely injecting their own political comment.

4. "This analysis is also easily dismissed."- only if you present counter-facts.


However, instead of providing proof of any of those claims, Powell instead produced photos of al-Taji ammunition storage facility that shows a small shed and a truck adjacent to the bunker. Powell claimed that these are "a signature item" for chemical bunkers. This seems on the face of it to be a wholly implausible claim: a picture of a truck and a shed by themselves reveal nothing about the contents of the adjacent bunker.
According to his bio, he doesn't seem to have any expertise in Satellite Imagery analysis, intelligence analysis, or chemical weapons. Therefore he is attempting to debunk the analysis of experts in fields in which he himself has no expertise. He is provinding a laymen's analysis and it has no credibility.
In summary, Powell didn't provide evidence for the stronger claims that he made, instead displaying a satellite photo that reveals very little.
That is it may reveal very little to somebody with no knowledge regarding Iraq military operations, chemical weapons, satellite imagery analysis, and intelligence analysis.
This would indicate that the evidence for the stronger claims is either non-existent or contentious.
Quite a jump to make such a claim. If he doesn't like this particular evidence, another possibility, as indicated by media reports, is that the US is simply unwilling to reveal most of its good intelligence in a public forum. This seems like common sense to me. By what manner could he make the assumption that the US would lay her intelligence bare for people who aren't exactly our allies? Powell could have come to that briefing with a nuclear device that Hussein made with his own hands, a documentary film by a French film crew showing him making the device, and people so inclined would still not believe him. To quote letterman, "the last time the French said they required more evidence, it came rolling through the streets of Paris with a German flag on it".
He continues in this vein for the rest of the document so i woun't bother responding to every claim he makes (unless you have one you particularly like). But here are a couple more of my favorites:
A recording of a conversation of 26/11/02 between two senior officers in which al-Kindi company was said to have been "evacuated". The sound quality of this recording is very poor, and I'm unable to hear the word used, that Powell translates as "evacuated".
So? Because he had difficulty hearing it on television, he thinks that the professionals trained to analyse this kind of information had diificulty? Puh-lease.
The problem for Powell is that there is no evidence that Iraq did, or could, produce dried anthrax. It is known to have produced only wet anthrax agents. There have been allegations that Iraq was researching drying technologies for anthrax. In particular, Bacillus thuringiensis spores - a close relation to anthrax spores - were tested on a spray dryer in December 1989, according to UNSCOM. However, there has been no evidence that anthrax spores were themselves ever dried by Iraq, and it is unclear if Iraq ever obtained suitable drying equipment for itself.
Like this gentleman, I am not an expert on chemical and biological weapons, but it would seem to me that knowing that Iraq possessed anthrax, and that attempts at drying "a close relation of anthrax spores" had occured, isn't this evidence that Iraq could produce dried anthrax? It sure seems to indicate a strong possibility to my laymen's senses, given no further information other than what the good Mr Rangwala himself provided.
But as I said, his "response" is long, and I will be happy to tackle anything he has mentioned if you'd like. Bottom line, and his bio seems to bear this out, he seems to be either an appologist, or sees the situation through rose colored glasses.

"I will assume that he does not have any expertise in the field of intelligence analysis" -- proofs needed.


See his bio.

"Anyway, this guy is also not objective. He seems to only see what he wants to see" -- these are feelings. You need to support your claim.


Well, I read his bio. It looks like the bio of an individual who has invested much into the Iraq situation. Here are links to some of his writings. He has demonstrated a particular political position going back for quite some time before the Powell speech. This would seem to indicate that he was not making an objective analysis of Powell's claims, but merely placing them under the filter of his pre-existing political beliefs.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
War, war, war-war-war... yawn. There will be war. I am proposing a Javaranch War Poll, to see how many believe there will be war. My voice is yes.
Ok, here's some "old" news, summer 2002, with a good map:
http://64.239.13.64/free/ww3/102802_wheels.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/082102_deployment.html
This is something I'd hope our Indian friends can comment on:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0923wealth.htm
LA Times on US vs. France-Germany-Russia opposition:
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-fg-france11feb11.story
Reuters reports what's happened at NATO meeting:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/590860?view=PrinterFriendly
And some naked women in the end:
http://www.wnbc.com/iraq/1963576/detail.html
and, apparently, this wasn't the first time they've done it:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_111802_nakedprotest.html
I find it a lot more interesting what will happen after the war, and what that after the war will be.
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
1. US attacks Iraq
2. A terrorist group releases biological agent in US, poisoning water
3. US retaliates with a small nuclear strike (hopefully, from a plane).
4. Somewhere ballistic missile is launched (either US, Iraq, or Israel)
5. Russian air defence system goes on full alert because of that missile.
6. Because of system failure Russia launches a retaliatory strike agains the offender. Oops, World War 3.
Or:
US attacks Iraq, bullies everybody out, installs democratic government, democracy flourishes in Iraq. :roll:
Why anyone would want to fight a king of the desert? Why do we want desert democracy so bad?
How many other countries posess/develop biological weapons:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htm
From this report - tell me this is not the list of recent war candidates:
"Good guys": US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, Canada,
"Bad Guys": Iran, Iraq, Libya, N.Korea, South Africa, Syria, Yugoslavia.
I find this really ironic :roll:
Shura
 
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jason, it is a very good ol' way of arguing: attack a person instead of his arguments. :roll: Cut the crap. Instead of referring to that person's bio prove the counter-arguments.
I bet Bush has great credentials to be a presindent :roll: Stop judging a person by the color of his suit.
This is getting really old. What's the point of discussing an abstract situation you have no way of changing? Besides academic, I guess...
Shura
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Jason, it is a very good ol' way of arguing: attack a person instead of his arguments.


I believe I did attack his arguments. I attacked his arguments by stating that he lacked the expertise to place judgement on the validity of some of the information, and I backed up my argument by showing that he lacked the expertise. I also touched on a few of his arguments point-by-point with the offer to take up any additional points that I didn't mention but that someone would like addressed.
JM: According to his bio, he doesn't seem to have any expertise in Satellite Imagery analysis, intelligence analysis, or chemical weapons. Therefore he is attempting to debunk the analysis of experts in fields in which he himself has no expertise.
I think that was both straightforward and valid. If I claimed that I disagreed with the diagnosis of a patient made by a team of medical professionals, and then proceeded to provide my own diagnosis, the fact that I know nothing about medicine is just a tad relevant.
Further, when Map requested that I provide proof for my statement tat I felt he wasn't objective, I cited his body of work and organizational involvement as indicative of his objectivity.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
*NOW* there is something I really like! Thank you, Shura!
"NEW YORK -- Thirty women stripped in Central Park Friday morning as part of a protest against a war with Iraq. The women stretched out in the snow spelling "No Bush" with their bodies."
http://www.wnbc.com/iraq/1963576/detail.html
Why is the pic so small???
"Point Reyes Station, Calif-AP, November 18, 2002) — Concerned that war against Iraq is imminent, 50 women took off their clothes in the cold rain and lay end-to-end in the grass to spell out P-E-A-C-E.
The unusual protest was organized in just a few days by artist Donna Sheehan, 72, who wanted to convey the desperation she said women in particular feel about the coming military action.
"I just thought, what can I do? What can we do? It's a desperate feeling. Well, this is what I did," Sheehan said Friday. "And every other woman who was there felt like they were doing something for peace."
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_111802_nakedprotest.html
No pic this time, which can be good, though.
I always knew women should participate in politics more actively! Only we can stop wars! You guys can discuss your boys games (war on Iraq) - these are last days you can do it. We will prevail!
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ok, now when I calmed down, I should say that Jason's objections to to Mr Rangwala text are valid.
To say that the author is not an expert on the issue he commented is not an attack on personality -- it is a valid concern if we are talking about complicated issues such as biological weapons etc. And that Mr Rangwala has been holding certain views on "Iraq problem" for long time should definitely be kept in mind.
Having said that, I went through the text one more time, and if I am not mistaken, the author thoroughly names the sources where he got his information like "The relevant excerpt of the UNMOVIC / IAEA report of 21 January 2003 read" or "Blix made this statement to the Security Council on 9 January 2003. He seemed to revise, and in some ways reverse, this judgement in his statement to the Security Council on 27 January 2003" -- one doesn't have to be an expert to debunk some argument with relevant quotes. That he is biased doesn't undermine validity of his arguments, it only can prove that he certainly could bring up only those facts that he likes. But this way we can be sure that all facts that could disprove an official POV are properly brought up, which is good. In short, I wouldn't rely on him in making my opinion on this issue, but not to have sources like he is much worse than to have them.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The Real Deal
I didnt wanna get into this topic. But couldnt resist myself. Since i am a very open minded person...i am welcome all opinions. Here is my view.
I think we (i think i should say america..since i aint american) should attack Iraq but stop giving reasons that are so crappy that it sounds like a bad Indian movie.
We all know its not abt the people of Iraq who are being oppressed. Coz we left them hanging in 1992 anyways. We know its obviously about America's own safety. And we know oil will play a big part because it did in 1992 too. if anyone has any problems with my oil statement can open any economics text book and lookup america's GDP for 1991 and 1992. How can a country wage a war and still come up with +3.7 GDP ?
So here are my reasons to wage a war against IRAQ :
1.) We made a mistake in 1992. We will correct it....get rid of Saddam. And change our foreign policy which creates Saddams,Osamas,Musharrafs,Sheikhs,Wanna be Maos(abt 1+ million Tibetans have been killed since 1960).
2.) We will help Iraqi and then help countries in Africa which are facing much serious problems with dictators.
I am sure the world will look at Americans in much better light this way.
Any questions are welcome.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rahul Kumar:
..should attack Iraq but stop giving reasons that are so crappy that it sounds like a bad Indian movie.


ROFLMAO!! That was a good one indeed!!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Actually the reasons aren't crappy. He does have and has used chemical weapons.
As for the oil comment, France and Russia opposed. France and Russia billions of dollars in deals with Iraq. So you are right it is about oil for some.
Your arguements weren't very open minded. They are the same old arguements.
 
Pappu Kumar
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Dear Paul...
Thanx for the reply. I will answer your opinions in order :
Actually the reasons aren't crappy. He does have and has used chemical weapons.
So ?? He used it against Kurds in 1992. George Bush Sr. went on TV asking kurds to support Americans against Iraq by overthrowing Saddam. And what happenned...America backed out...kurds got gassed. Thanx Mr. Bush...we will nominate you for Nobel Peace Prize.
As for the oil comment, France and Russia opposed. France and Russia billions of dollars in deals with Iraq. So you are right it is about oil for some.
I totally agree with you on France and Russia....but your "some" also includes America. It was america who brokered oil contracts between Allies and Saudis and Kuwait.
Your arguements weren't very open minded. They are the same old arguements.
Open Minded and old are different things. My arguments are definitely old.....but i am open minded coz i am listening to you and even agrreing to some of your points (like the ones abt France and Russia)
Good job Papi.....throw me another one.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rahul Kumar:
Actually the reasons aren't crappy. He does have and has used chemical weapons.
So ?? He used it against Kurds in 1992. George Bush Sr. went on TV asking kurds to support Americans against Iraq by overthrowing Saddam. And what happenned...America backed out...kurds got gassed. Thanx Mr. Bush...we will nominate you for Nobel Peace Prize.


Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988, at Halabja, not in 1992. Americans, nor anyone else for that matter, did not "back out and the Kurds got gassed". He also used such weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. There is some thought that there was a limited use of these weapons by his forces during the first Gulf war, but the findings are inconclusive.
All of this points to a willingness to use these weapons in any situation, which is why we have such a problem with it. It's not only that he has the weapons, it's that he has the weapons and has no problem using them. There is quite a big difference between the use of WMDs merely for strategic deterrence (e.g. the mutually assured destruction doctrine) and the willingness to actively deploy WMDs in any circumstance against any target (like defenseless civillians).

It was america who brokered oil contracts between Allies and Saudis and Kuwait.


I'm not certain what Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have to do with French and Russian economic ties to Iraq. Perhaps you could elaborate.
[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Pappu Kumar
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here is the white house policy for defending the kurds ''at a time and place of our choosing''.
Take my quoted words and search it anywhere u want.Its phrased as if to say.....we will help u when we want to..not when u need us.
Anyways.....go read my first posting and stop making arguments on stuff which i am in favor of. I am in favor of removing Saddam on the basis of human rights. But i would also like America to do things for countries that dont have oil. like African nations.
Its also true..that Americans had Saddam pinned down in 1992. So where did the feelings abt use of chemical weapon against innocent people go then ? Why wasnt Saddam punished ?
It was a mistake ... so admit and correct it.
My last point is...and its from a personal experience. Anyone who has power abuses it....and those who dont become Gandhis and Buddh. Saddam abuses his power...America has abused its power....so did Russia when it was strong. George Bush Jr.... got low SAT scores and still got into Ivy league college. Bill Clinton ran away from army service and got presidentship(and sucky sucky as perks). And here we are defending or arguing abt the same people.
The fighting will go on forever....we are animals after all.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rahul Kumar:
But i would also like America to do things for countries that dont have oil.

You mean like Bosnia? Or Somalia?
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
George Bush Sr caved to congressional as well as UN pressure to end the war when Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. We are in agreement he should have finished the job then but he caved.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rahul Kumar:
go read my first posting and stop making arguments on stuff which i am in favor of.


I was merely correcting an inaccurate statement. You implied that we let the Kurds get gassed in 1992. This is flat out not true. Now what we didn't do, and probably should have, is support them initially when they, and the Shia in the South, revolted against Hussein's rule. There were reasons we didn't help them, which actually make sense in some light, but my opinion is that it was a mistake and we should have helped them out and done the job then. Again though, the Kurds were attacked with chems in 1988.

I am in favor of removing Saddam on the basis of human rights.


As am I. Personally this is my primary reason for advocating a forceful regime change.

But i would also like America to do things for countries that dont have oil. like African nations.


Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia are the most recent examples that come to mind, but I can go back further if you'd like.

America has abused its power....


There is a fine line between what some would see as "abuse of power" and what others would see as "looking out for one's own best interests".
 
Pappu Kumar
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You mean like Bosnia? Or Somalia?
Mr Professor.....India was in Somalia..so was Pakistan and we were not there for a favor. We were there as UN duty...so was America. Pakistanis lost more people in Somalia than America...but unfortunately Pakis dont have a famous director in Hollywood and unfortunately a paki doesnt own a big media firm.
The work america did in these countries is great.
NO DOUBT abt that.
But i sometimes feel.....if we have choice to save 100 people as compared to 20 people. I know its a moral dillema...but makes more sense to try and save the 100. More life is beter.
 
Pappu Kumar
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Paul....i didnt know abt the congressional pressure on Bush Sr.
Anyways.....what can i say abt politicians...we need a new forum for them.
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rahul Kumar:
Anyways.....what can i say abt politicians...we need a new forum for them.


I could think of a few names for it.
 
Pappu Kumar
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
please do suggest....how abt educated pimps
 
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I should point out two more argument to consider.
1. What if we do go to war, and what if we overthow Saddam, is there people in Iraq who we can put in power, that won't get overthrown by neighboring countries/local tribes within next 3-5 years? Aren't Kurds "the other opposing group"? And if Kurds do come to power, wouldn't they claim a piece of Turkey and Iran being their native land? Or we don't really care about all that?
2. Does this mean anything: 10 million people expected to march in peace rally this saturday
Shura
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

As for the oil comment, France and Russia opposed. France and Russia billions of dollars in deals with Iraq. So you are right it is about oil for some.


For some? Germany isn't on your list oil-associated countries and Germany is against your war. Now let's imagine Germany does has oil interests in Iraq... So what would you say about her motives?
Is it so simple?
If it is, than the only reason for the USA to go in Iraq is oil. Or are there two kinds of logic in this wonderful world, one for You and another for the rest of the world?
Paul, your arguments would be stronger if all countries were on your side, and only France and Russia opposed.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As for chemical weapon, didn't the USA use it in Vietnam?
Here is List of countries that ratificated the Geneva Protocol with dates of ratification. Any ideas why it took the USA 50 years to sign it?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
As for chemical weapon, didn't the USA use it in Vietnam?


No.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
For some? Germany isn't on your list oil-associated countries and Germany is against your war. Now let's imagine Germany does has oil interests in Iraq... So what would you say about her motives?


France has always been selfish, but what's Germany's problem?
Schroeder got himself elected on an anti-American platform. The vast majority of the German population is opposed to US intervention in Iraq, and in fact the majority of Germans think that the US is a nation of warmongers, so he can easily claim that he is merely echoing the voice of his people. Additionally, Germany has tied itself to the French position, although they left themselves less wiggle room with Schroeder's electorally induced statement that he would have no involvement in Iraq no matter what the UN said. I'm sure though that continued business interests play no part in the government stance.

If it is, than the only reason for the USA to go in Iraq is oil.


Although there are many ways to answer this, a recent one is from an extract of a speech given by Lord Conrad Black at the Centre for Policy Studies on February 13th:

The President of the United States said on the evening of 11 September 2001 that his country had been attacked by terrorists and was at war with terrorism, that his government would make no distinction between terrorists and countries that supported terrorists, and that it would judge all countries by their actions whether they were friends or foes in that war.
There is not the slightest doubt that Iraq is an international terrorist-supporting state. It continues to shelter and support terrorist organisations that operate against Iran, Israel and many Western countries. The Iraqi government bankrolled much of the suicide-murder campaign against Israelis, was very probably complicit in the original attack on New York�s World Trade Center, and attempted to assassinate former President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait in 1993.


That's just one reason, there are others. Oil has some bearing in the equation, but not as much as our detractors wish. The legality however is provided by UN resolutions that have been passed, most recently UN 1441, which many of the Security Council members would now like to pretend that they didn't agree to.
[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Any ideas why it took the USA 50 years to sign it?


The site is in error (perhaps a misprint). The US signed the protocol on June 17th, 1925.
[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
German position:
We might be a little unclear with our english in this discussion. A country does not have a position.
Our government has a position.
And there are lots of groups in a country with a position. Its an open discussion.
Seeing US as warmongers is an I think european, maybe an international position. But there are also a lot of europeans who think that US is the only capable for "determined action". And we might need that in face of N.-Korea having the bomb.
Home politics (the elections in 2002) played a very important role in the formation of the current position of the german government.
In TV they show people from all over the world who talk about that our government is very brave. We are wondering a lot, because the general perception is that they are only interested to stay in power and lack any idea of what to do in face of actual economic crisis.
Now. The cleavages in the society are very complicated. There are against war nationalists who want a more specific german position. And the traditional left (Chomsky-readers). But there are also prominent management leaders (traditionally very pro US) who openly speak against the war, because it makes no sense in their view.
On the other hand there are now some left wing people who are pro war (because of moral commitment against Israel).
Its the first time since '45 that Germany has taken a stubborn position in international politics. This position is very contentious. A lot of people critizice the government for manouevering itself in this position, because of home politics (elections of national parlament). For sure the loud no war helped Schroeder in this narrow election. But his party suffered a landslide defeat in 2 elections in bundeslaendern (like US states) 2 weeks ago. This more because of home politics.

This week polls show that the percentage of people against war even with UN resolution diminished from 73 to 64%. So the society is comming closer to british figures. They said that in Spain 80% of the population is against war with UN resolution.
[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/gensig.html
Any ideas why it took the USA 50 years to sign it?
Personally, I'm more intrigued by why the Vatican (listed as "Holy See") apparently didn't sign until 1966. ( !) Or perhaps that's just another typo.
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Aha. The US signed the 1925 Geneva protocol, but did not ratify it until 1975. The site wasn't in error, just Map's summary of it. Here is an overview of the history; dunno yet how biased it may be one way or the other, as I just got it from google - but the dates at least are confirmed from several other sources, including this exhastive list from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Enjoy...
[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:

Personally, I'm more intrigued by why the Vatican (listed as "Holy See") apparently didn't sign until 1966. ( !) Or perhaps that's just another typo.


Maybe frankincense was in the list of prohibited material for psychological warfare.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Aha. The US signed the 1925 Geneva protocol, but did not ratify it until 1975. The site wasn't in error, just Map's summary of it.

Right. But the US has always stated that it wouldn't be the first to use chemical weapons in a war.
 
Pappu Kumar
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes Professor....not use Chemical weapons. But no problems with nuclear.
 
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs.
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic