[political] Clear me on WMD arithmetics

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:

If Pakistan acted like Iraq, Uncle sam would have issues...

I would agree if you said:
If Pakistan acted like Iraq against US interests.
Of course US can't care about anything. They see India/Pakistan as regional conflict, so they should care for themselves to solve their terrorist problem.

Originally posted by gautham kasinath:

- well.. as I remember, in the olden days, if you lost you were slaved!! ( not saved )
May be thats what uncle sam is going to make of Iraq. Ofcourse, not as blantantly as the olden days.. but if you look @ oil export/import/pricing policies.. a new flavor of slavery would emerge, perhaps.

again: I think a lot of the south asians think that Iraq is big business. I see this completly different: Its H.U.G.E. costs for the US taxpayers for a lot of years.
Winning a war can be very costly. Nearly 13 years ago there were german re-unification. West won cold war. We took over +30% teritory of ex-GDR.
And what? Are we richer today? More holidays? More beer? Better sex?
No. Its bad economy, less holidays, less beer sales, less babies.

[gautham kasinath]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

No. Its bad economy, less holidays, less beer sales, less babies.

- hhmm well that sure has left me thinking. Lemme think and write back.
Cheers
Lupo

[John Dunn]

AJ And what? Are we richer today?
More holidays? More beer? Better sex?
Well I guess there is truth to the statement:
To the victor goes the spoils...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:

he was "wrong":
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_23_200_uday.jpg
So was he:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_45_100_qusay.jpg

if the leaders of a group of people can be soo wrong.. how many of their follower's beliefs can also be wrong? After all, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king....
[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]
[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]

Quoting my quote and then showing dead bodies of Saddam's son's ??
Are you OK ??
OK Now I repeat your process..
US is wrong..
if the leaders of a group of people can be soo wrong.. how many of their follower's beliefs can also be wrong? After all, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king....
Should I give link to US soldiers dead body pics??
BTW I still dont understand why did you post this

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Quoting my quote and then showing dead bodies of Saddam's son's ??
Are you OK ??
OK Now I repeat your process..
US is wrong..
if the leaders of a group of people can be soo wrong.. how many of their follower's beliefs can also be wrong? After all, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king....
Should I give link to US soldiers dead body pics??
BTW I still dont understand why did you post this

Just showing you "consequence" of people who are wrong.... In the grand scheme of things, soldiers are peons... many die in wars... Saddams sons are not peons... In Iraq they are worshipped as Gods (by some) or all powerful tyrants by others... They control the media, dictate what can and cannot be done. In all respects, they are the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind... If they can be so wrong, how many of there followers are also wrong?

Please do "repeat" my "process".... How many US leaders have been so wrong as too have lost their own life in the current mideast situation??? Post links, like I did. I would be very interested.....
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp <-- what cha know... they now even have video... it's not enough that they lost their lives because they were wrong... now the whole world gets to see their dead carcasss... the humility...
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_23_200_uday.jpg
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_45_100_qusay.jpg
[ July 25, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]

[Jason Menard]

My brother-in-law is in defence, right now posted in Jhansi after being in Kashmir for 2 yrs.
My grandfather is ex-armyman.
I'm happy for them. However the point is that the motivations for military people is different depending on their circumstances. Members of an all-volunteer military have different motivations than members of a conscript military. Conscripts of a western democratic nation have far different motivations than conscripts of a brutal regime that will likely kill them if they don't perform properly. You give the members of the Iraqi military far too much credit. Most of them were pressed into service for extremely long periods of service, poorly trained, ill-equipped, and often brutalized. Troops motivated to defend the homeland don't abandon their positions leaving their uniforms and weapons behind.
I hope after reading this you will never repeat above words because everyday I am not free to counter your baseless beliefs
I would note that your link does not address most of your own assumptions over the motivations for various nations joining with us. Most of it isn't even worth commenting on, but I will point out a couple of things.
Poland already is, and has been, a member of NATO. The other Eastern European countries you mention are NATO partners as members of the EAPC. Italy is sending 3000 troops to Iraq. You failed to invent reason why the UK, Australia, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands. If you are interested in what some of the nations involved actually had to say on the matter, here is a link. I suppose I could also build a similar list for the reasons various nations joined the "coalition of the unwilling", but while it might be fun, it would be as pointless as this list.
An aside... Many nations in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, are very proud of the role they have played. The reason for vast Eastern European support was summed up well by the Prime Minister of Albania:

As a new democracy, Albania is proud to stand with the United States, the United Kingdom, and others in the coalition of the willing to rid Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction and bring about freedom to the long-suffering Iraqi people.
We Albanians are a nation of freedom fighters who know something about living under oppression. That is why we wholeheartedly support the American-led effort to free the people of Iraq. And though we are a small country with a small military, we are proud to stand side by side with our allies in the fight to end the reign of terror in Baghdad. Now that the fighting has begun, we expect the Albanian commandos we have sent to aid in the fighting will acquit themselves well. Also, we are proud to have pledged our unconditional support in terms of additional troops, ports, bases and air fields.
History is old. The only new thing about history is the United States. America is the only country in the world that exports freedom. When the historical occasion has called for it, the United States of America has been willing to pay the price in order to free the oppressed, even in states that have sought its harm.
It brought freedom and democracy to Japan and Germany after defeating both in World War II. It rebuilt their societies and taught them about liberty. It helped bring down the Berlin Wall hastening the process of freedom in Central and Eastern Europe. It rarely asked anything in return.
Now the United States and its Coalition of the Willing will bring liberty to Iraq. And when the coalition of the willing completes its work, it will be time for the coalition of builders to repair, restore and rebuild Iraq under the name of freedom. We are proud to be in the company of the free.

JM: Do you have specific information about which oil companies have received all oil contracts
RK:Looks like you dont folow the links.
AW for you again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2884701.stm
from the page
Earlier this month, USAID invited five US engineering giants to submit bids for Iraq reconstruction work expected to be worth up to $900m.
Umm... That link says nothing about any oil contracts. The closest it even gets is to some company who has been awarded a contract to help rebuild some of the infrastructure that was damgaed or destroyed, and that company isn't an oil company. Try again.
I would have been more happy if you yourself tried to find out which companies got contract and what is the name them and to which country they belong.
Nah... I grow tired of doing others' homework for them. Occasionally it is nice to see someone actually be able to substantiate one of their claims though.
JM: I have no idea if the US offered economic incentives to any countries in exchange for supporting them.
RK: Is lying to oneself help to close eyes.
If you have no idea then just simply google and come to know about it. Dont act like ostrich. Closing eyes dont help.
You miss the point. You made the accusation. Try backing it up for once.
JM: Do you have any evidence either way, or is this just more supposition.
RK: Why dont you yourself look in to other side.
Search by yourself.
Again, I'm not going to go looking for you. If you want to make an accusation, be prepared to back it up. If you can't back it up, then the assumption is that the accusation is baseless.
Regarding the google search you pointed to, I can only hazard a guess that you are referring to the article that states we will help Bulgaria recover some of the debt Iraq owes it. What you fail to do is provide any substantial link between the US agreeing to help Bulgaria in this instance, and Bulgaria choosing to side with the US. Would Bulgaria have sided with us if we didn't agree to do this? Nobody has anyway of knowing. I guess if one's natural inclinations leaned in a certain direction, they might assume the worse of the US in absolutely every situation. What do you think? In any event, is there some kind of problem with the US helping out people who help us? It seems like common sense to me.
[ July 25, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

In CZECH REPUBLIC public support to the war felt from 50-50 in August, 2002 down to 12% without the backing of the UN Security Council and 22% with UN support.
Ref: http://www.radio.cz/en/article/38587
According to Reuters: "A TNS-OBOP survey showed 63 percent of POLES opposed sending troops to join any action against Iraq but 52 percent thought the country should give political backing to the United States for any such action." Polish public opinion is still very pro-American in its general views but it might change in America would be seen as a country imposing its laws on others. Pope John Paul II is a moral authority for Poles and he expressed strong opinion against the war. Poles are waiting to hear about smoking gun, if the weapons of mass destruction will be found Polish public opinion will forgive pres. Bush's attack to Iraq.
According to Reuters: "A Gallup poll In HUNGARY published on January 27 showed 82 percent of Hungarians opposed military action under any circumstances. The remaining 18 percent said they would support a war but of those, two thirds said that support would be conditional on U.N. approval."
Ref: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30567527 (this link is not active anymore)
http://www.bellaonline.com/ArticlesP/art9173.asp
As war loomed with Saddam's rejection of a Bush ultimatum giving him until tomorrow night (1200 AEDT Thursday) to leave Iraq or face attack, at least two dozen countries were standing firm behind the United States with offers of moral or military support despite strident public opposition.
"I'm sure Saddam is a bad guy, but you don't need an army to swat a fly," said Peter Illes, 49, a parking ticket inspector in Hungary, where three in four people say they are against an American-led war and their government's pledge to help.
Italy has continuously expressed its solidarity, though it has no plans to send troops and surveys suggest 75 per cent of Italians oppose a war.
Spain's unshaken pro-US stance has proved deeply unpopular. All opposition parties oppose a war, and recent polls show more than 80 per cent of Spaniards do, too.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6151852%255E1702,00.html

[Mapraputa Is]

The reason for vast Eastern European support was summed up well by the Prime Minister of Albania:
Here is an alternative POV:
"It's a tidy notion, but as an American who's lived east of the former Iron Curtain for more than six years, I can attest that it's quite false. Despite the pro-U.S. statements their leaders have signed, polls show the general public in these countries oppose the war by a wide margin.
Conservative pundits are largely responsible for the myth-mongering, which posits a new continental divide closely approximating the former Iron Curtain. Europe is divided between "old" and "new," they say, between those who view Europe as a counterweight to American military adventurism and those who recognize American power as the guardian of democracy and freedom. John C. Hulsman of the Heritage Foundation wrote, "The dirty little secret in alliance politics is that the farther east one goes in Europe, the more pro-American you find both the political elites and public opinion. ... The Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians know that it is American military, economic, and political might that safeguards the world, not debating societies like the United Nations."
Really? How is it, then, that 82 percent of Hungarians oppose war under any circumstances? This shows a greater level of opposition than in Germany or France, where polls show 70 to 80 percent against war. Neoconservatives hailing the emergence of democracy in the region might do well to pay attention to what the people in these countries, rather than political elites, have to say about the matter of Iraq.
In Prague, outgoing president Vaclav Havel signed the statement of solidarity with the United States, but Czech polls showed 76 percent of respondents oppose a war without a second U.N. resolution�€”and 67 percent oppose it even with one. (The Czech government has distanced itself from Havel; Prime Minister Vladmir Spidla was asked to sign the statement and refused. The prime minister and his Cabinet, not the president, hold most political power in the Czech Republic.) In one of the few media stories to focus on popular opposition to the war in "new Europe," the Associated Press reported that Slovakian support for an Iraq attack without U.N. approval is almost nonexistent.
The average Pole is perhaps the closest the United States has to a model post-Communist ally, with 52 percent saying the country should give political backing to the United States in the event of an invasion of Iraq, according to a January poll. Yet despite a stronger military tradition than most of its neighbors, 63 percent of Poles oppose sending troops to join the action�€”hardly a ringing endorsement. The Poles' is perhaps the shrewdest position of all: "Regime change? We're on board. Go ahead, you first." (A poll released Tuesday, moreover, indicated Polish opposition to war had risen to 75 percent.)"
http://www.cdi.org/russia/245-10.cfm

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
As per this link US is going to pay debt own by Iraq to Bulgaria in 4 years.

Look again. The link doesn't say anything of the kind. It says the debt will be repaid in four years and that the delay is because of the trade situation in Iraq. If the US was going to repay the debt then what difference would it make what the trade situation in Iraq was? The Iraqis will be repaying the debt... over four years.

[Thomas Paul]

If debt is going to be paid by Iraq then what is the need for US to say that it will be paid in 4 yrs
Like this US could have also announced that payment of debt will be new Iraqi Govt responsibility.
So let's try to imagine what happened. The Bulgarians are worried about the money they are owed. They ask the US when they can expect repayment. The US takes a look at the situation in Iraq and says that Bulgaria will be paid back over four years. They could have said go screw yourselves and ask the new Iraqi government but then you would have complained about that.
Is US giving such statements for all countries whose debt is over Iraq ??
NO, why only Bulgaria ??
The article was from a Bulgarian web site. They are reporting on what they were told about Bulgaria. I would assume that all debtor nations were told the same thing.
Then how come US govt will help Bulgaria to receive its debt ??
Read this article: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=24550
Bulgaria is suffering because such a large percent of their GDP is tied up in the debt owed to them by Iraq. Should the US ignore that fact and let the people of Bulgaria suffer?
Iraq has taken debt also from Turkey, Jordan, Morocco, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Egypt etc.
Why US[as per you iraq] is intrested only in repaying debt of Bulgaria ??
The US isn't repaying the debt owed to Bulgaria. The Iraqis will. This is a Bulgarian web site reporting about news that effects Bulgaria. Do your local newspapers report on how every bit of news will effect each and every country on the planet?
isnt something fishy abt it ??
Only to people who are anti-American and read everything with an anti-American bias.
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Thomas Paul]

Give me proof.
Its your home work. I wont do your home-work. Now its your turn to give me link that US has said similar things to other nations also.

You have made the accusation so you supply the proof. I won't do your homework for you.
AW here is link what US told Russia.
For your ease I C&P from the page:
but he said the new Iraqi government, when it comes into office, will "take into account" its debt obligations to Moscow.
That article was more than two months old.
PS: Its not necessary to post if you dont have anything to say.
It's never stopped you.
By the way, the debt owed to Bulgaria represents 12.5% of their GDP. That is why the US has taken an interest in helping them.
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
PS: Its not necessary to post if you dont have anything to say.
Silence is gold and especially when you cant prove what you believe.

Sometimes people choose to remain silent because it's just pointless and not always worth the effort to continue in some situations.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
AW before I forget.

Is this from some Japanese adult movie or something?

[R K Singh]

You have made the accusation so you supply the proof. I won't do your homework for you.
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Show me the deleted thread ..
when US has not said to any other country then how can I show you a link that US is saying that it will not pay debt of x,y,z,a,b,c countries debt.
You are saying:
I would assume that all debtor nations were told the same thing.
So you give me proof .. .. its your job.
You have to proof this.

That article was more than two months old.
Agian your home-work. Show me that US has said Russia that it/Iraq will pay its debt in so & so time period.
That is why the US has taken an interest in helping them.
But you said Iraq will pay its debt
Make your mind and then tell me who is going to pay Bulgaria's debt? US or Iraq.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
That is why the US has taken an interest in helping them.
But you said Iraq will pay its debt
Make your mind and then tell me who is going to pay Bulgaria's debt? US or Iraq.

The US will help to insure that Bulgaria is paid first and that when the debts owed by Iraq are reduced (as they will be in a month or two) Bulgaria will lose as little as possible. Ravish, I realize that you read everything through "I despise America" glasses but go find something more serious than the US helping out a poverty stricken country collect its debts. :roll:

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Ravish, I realize that you read everything through "I despise America" glasses but go find something more serious than the US helping out a poverty stricken country collect its debts. :roll:

No Thomas, I know US helps lot of poor countries, which includes India also.
But here we are not talking about it. We are talking abt ligitimacy of Iraq-war.
If you search net, Iraq war is termed more as "Bush-War" than "US-War".
Here I am saying US has manipulated international politics and its own people to attack on Iraq.
Cant you see that there was no soild proof before war ?
Cant you see how it got support of international community ?
Cant you see now US wants to make money out of this war ?
PS: I dont despise US. I admire what it is today.
Today US is an icon for democarcy and freedom.
But freedom cant be given in charity. It has to be deserved/earned with hardwork/fight.
No one should fight for you.. atleast not without request.

[Axel Janssen]

The Albanian president says:

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[b]
As a new democracy, Albania is proud to stand with the United States, the Unit[...]

For me its kind of schizophrenic way of thinking to suspect political manipulation, second intentions, etc. in nearly everything which happens in UN. And then believing that such a speech - coming directly from the immaculous, brave, newly democratized heart of the president of Albania- summes up what "east europeans really feel".
Sorry no. Can't be serious.
Of course they are grateful for american help for their relatives in Kosovo. Of course they expect at least some extra-help for support.
Check book diplomacy is as old as war. When tribe A attacked tribe B and had to pass territory of tribe C, they offered them some coconuts.
Albania hadn't supported if they wouldn't had seen some just cause in the war (against a terrible dictator).
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Joe Pluta]

I try to stay out of these political discussions because I'm obviously biased and there are a number of issues in play here. However, I am absolutely convinced that Saddam Hussein's government supported terrorism, including the following:
WARNING! Terrible imagery of the World Trade Center attack.
Do I have direct proof? No. But do any of you actually believe that he would NOT have supported this attack? It is my belief that even if he was not part of the direct planning and funding of the attack itself, that he aided and abetted organizations that made it possible.
And while I was pretty much a pacifist all my life, my feelings were irrevocably changed on that day. Yes, there are undoubtedly political considerations, business dealings, and all manner of typical global socio-economic malarky going on, but I truly believe removing Saddam Hussein's regime helps the United States.
And you know what? That's good enough for me.
It may not be good enough for you. But in general, there has never been a country that has been so forgiving after war, so helpful during peace, so willing to help the downtrodden, so ready to defend the weak. Of course there are selfish interests - we are not saints. But at the same time, I'm pretty willing to put the record of the United States up against any other nation. To the rest of the world, we're awfully benevolent. And that being the case, it sure would be nice to get some support from the people that are willing to take our support.
If you come from a country that has never benefited from any US aid, then the above paragraph doesn't apply to you. And in any event, you can still complain, of course. I'm unlikely to change your view, but I just want you to know why I have mine.
I think the US is a GOOD country, with GOOD values and GOOD people and that, all in all, we make the world a better place. I believe Saddam Hussein was an EVIL man and that he supported those who attacked us most egregiously just two short years ago. I fully support my President and my countrymen in their actions to end that man's rule. I wish we lived in a world where this was not necessary, but until you can guarantee that nobody will attack the citizens of this country in their own homeland, then I cannot in good conscience recommend that we not wage war against those we deem dangerous.
And don't ask me to justify my position any more than this. I really do understand that many non-Americans don't want to see us throw our weight around, and that our way of life threatens some of your traditional values and mores. But at the same time, if we didn't throw our weight around in the 1910's and 1940's, the world would be a very different place today, wouldn't it? I don't have a good answer for you, and I don't expect you to take my word for all of this. You have your own mind and the God given right to your own thoughts and your own conscience. But I tell you this: I sleep better at night knowing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. I would hope that you do too.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe Pluta: And don't ask me to justify my position any more than this.
Jason Menard: In any event, is there some kind of problem with the US helping out people who help us? It seems like common sense to me.
I do see anything particularly wrong about this either. It's only when you start to insult other countries for precisely what you find so natural for yourself, then some of us start to dig quotes and throw them in your face. Then we are perceived as anti-American. Is it anti-American to point out what we see as double standard and ask for clarification? If so, say it, so we can carry our "anti-American" stigma with pride.
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Axel Janssen]

1.

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

1910's and 1940's, the world would be a very different place today, wouldn't it?

The germans would have lost both world wars without US support for allied forces. It would have taken much, much longer.
Germans were stoped by french army in 1915. Britains ruled the sea.
In 2nd world war germans were stoped in Russia. On the western front they knew they weren't able to start invasion of England, because they ruled the sea.
There were more and more successful guerrilla style attacks in occupied countries like Serbia, Greece, France, etc.
2. The problem, in my view, is that
- germans think that world should learn from our culturally now deeply rooted pacifism.
- french think that world would be better if they were taken as important power as they think are.
- indians think that world would be better if we only were acknoledging 100% their materialistic theory of war (land, women, money, nothing more).

[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Mapraputa Is]

From Tom's link:
"Bulgaria's young finance minister Milen Veltchev spent much of June in New York and Washington trying to cash in on his country's recent support in the UN Security Council of the United States' Iraq invasion. Of course, there was the obligatory FDI pitch for friendly Bulgaria, but the 37-year-old Veltchev also had bigger fish to fry on this trip. The US-educated former Merrill Lynch investment banker wants to know how the Americans plan to deliver on secretary of state Colin Powell's promise to move US military bases to Bulgaria. Veltchev knows answers won't come quickly, but he's going to make sure the Americans don't forget the Bulgarians' recent loyalty."
Well, again, nothing particularly wrong with it. I only cannot understand, why this position is perceieved by some as highly moral, while those countries who acted against their visible national interest in not supporting the US are perceived as immoral, and evil, and the search for their supposed hidden agenda starts, and these "hidden interests" are being "exposed" with all noble disdain...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I think the US is a GOOD country, with GOOD values and GOOD people and that, all in all, we make the world a better place.
I believe Saddam Hussein was an EVIL man and that he supported those who attacked us most egregiously just two short years ago.
I fully support my President and my countrymen in their actions to end that man's rule.

I am agree with you ...
with all due respect we are talking here practicality not sentiments.

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Joe Pluta: And don't ask me to justify my position any more than this.
I do see anything particularly wrong about this either. It's only when you start to insult other countries for precisely what you find so natural for yourself, then some of us start to dig quotes and throw them in your face. Then we are perceived as anti-American. Is it anti-American to point out what we see as double standard and ask for clarification? If so, say it, so we can carry our "anti-American" stigma with pride.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Don't wipe me with that broad brush you're wielding. Who did I insult? The only thing I put forth was my own opinion, offered as nothing more than an example of how this particular American citizen feels. You are welcome to your opposing viewpoint. My point is simply this: I am glad Saddam is out of power, and I have no qualms with how we did it. Yes, it's a horrible thing and I hate that innocent civilians died and treasures were lost. But all I need to reassure myself is to look at those film clips, because I am absolutely certain Hussein was in league with those who would do such things. And all I need for proof is how he treated his own people. And my biggest regret is that we didn't do it a long time ago.
If you disagree, that's your choice.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I am agree with you ...
with all due respect we are talking here practicality not sentiments.

What do you mean?

[Mapraputa Is]

Um, sorry. I did not mean you personally!!!
We have been fighting this "Americans vs. anti-Americans" war for long time and now there is a lot of history of who said what and who reacted how; so, for example, Ravish's post can be seen as purposefully anti-American, when he, in my understanding, simply reacts at something he sees as unfair (Ravish will correct me if I am wrong).
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Joe Pluta]

Thanks, Map. And thanks everyone. I really think I'll bow out (although you never know, I may be back ). I just wanted to provide a rational viewpoint. Hopefully I've shown that a thoughtful, reasonable person can come to the conclusion that it was just to wipe out Saddam Hussein's regime. Whether you agree with me or not is not the issue. What is at issue is whether someone can honestly review all the issues surrounding the conflict and in good conscience agree with American actions in Iraq. And I am here to say that I absolutely can.
You may not agree, and that's fine. I may disagree with your opinion, but I believe absolutely in your right to have it. Thank you all for your insights.
Joe

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Is this from some Japanese adult movie or something?

I wish it to be movie but sad its real.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Well, again, nothing particularly wrong with it. I only cannot understand, why this position is perceieved by some as highly moral, while those countries who acted against their visible national interest in not supporting the US are perceived as immoral, and evil, and the search for their supposed hidden agenda starts, and these "hidden interests" are being "exposed" with all noble disdain...

Since the anti-US side seems to keep forgetting, I will make sure to remind that Hussein was responsible for the deaths of 2 million people. I will also remind that he was a supporter of international terrorism. And we should also not forget that the Iraqi regime was the most brutal and oppressive on the planet. Therefore, removing Saddam Hussein from power was the moral thing to do in this case. Whether or not it was done for moral reasons is quite beside the point, removing him was still the moral thing to do.
If we can accept that removing somebody from power who is responsible for the deaths of 2 million people, supports terrorism, and ruled over the most brutal regime and oppressive regime on the planet is a moral thing, then what is the converse? What is the morality of doing everything within one's power to keep this regime in power? If removing him is moral, then surely the converse is immoral.
Now morality is a relative thing and not something absolute. We can accept that there are shades of grey and varying degrees within differnt circumstances. So since we are speaknig of this specific case, and Map specifically wishes to address the morality of this specific case, we must ask ourselves where the greater good lies. Is there greater good in the continued existance of a regime that has killed 2 million, supports international terrorism, and is the most brutal and oppressive on the planet? Or does the greater good lie in ending the existance of this regime?
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Joe said: >> I believe Saddam Hussein was an EVIL man
Ravish said: what is the reason for this belief ??

I find it difficult to discuss this without getting completely frustrated. That's usualy because a discussion like this has to be based on some level of agreement between individuals. I sense a certain disagreement, so I will ask a question.
Do you consider Saddam Hussein to be an evil man or not? When I say evil, I say someone along the lines of Adolph Hitler and Idi Amin. I personally believe, based on everything I've read and seen and heard about Iraqi life (my daughter-in-law is Iraqi), that Hussein deserves to be in that category.
Either you believe that or not. If so, then you should be able to see my viewpoint - it was correct to overthrow his government. If not, if you don't believe that Saddam Hussein was probably the most vicious dictator of the fledgling 21st century, then we have very little common ground on which to continue a discussion. At that point, it's best that we just stop.
So please answer: was Hussein an evil man?
Joe

[R K Singh]

I will make sure to remind that Hussein was responsible for the deaths of 2 million people.
He killed these people more than 10 yrs ago. It is a statement to cash sentiments of people.
I will also remind that he was a supporter of international terrorism.
If this would have been case, I am with you.
But again sorry, I dont believe in your belief.
And we should also not forget that the Iraqi regime was the most brutal and oppressive on the planet.
same thing... to cash senti...
He was the same brutal and oppressive on the earth in 1980 also, 1990 also...
AW if I am not wrong, war was for WMD and links with international terrorism.

[Jason Menard]

Ravish, you persist in this fantasy that there is some overarching world body responsible for dishing out justice in this world, and to whom all nations of the world must subject themselves. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no such organization. If there were such an organization, it would have to be able to do things like consistantly and fairly interpret issues based on facts, and it would have to have the power to enforce any decisions it makes.
Repeat this three times slowly... No Such Organization Exists. Certainly not the UN as it has little capacity to make decisions, and no capacity to carry out those decisions. There is no international body on the face of the lpanet capable or willing to enforce any rules/laws/resolutions it manages to come up with. I should say that it is not capable or willing to enforce anyhing unless the United States steps in and does it for them (this is historical fact, not a boast). So, since no such organization exists, complaining about who gives the US permission to do what it does is silly and pointless. That's just the way it is. You can cry about the injustice of it all, but that does not change reality.
But who asks us to serve as the world police you have asked ad nauseum? Everybody. You want recent examples? How about the UN and the people of Liberia begging us to send a force into that nation? How about the Palestinian Authority looking to us to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They're not expecting anything from the EU, the UN, the Arab League, Russia, or China. They believe that only the US can effectively mediate the situation. Bosnia? The UN screwed it up and got people killed. Europe wouldn't do anything unless the US led the effort. Same with Kosovo. In 1992 the UN urged the United States to lead a military/humanitarian effort in Somalia. You have stated in the past that the Iraqis did not ask us to go and depose Saddam Hussein. There are several Iraqi dissident groups who sought that very thing.
Somebody didn't specifically ask for our help (in your eyes)? Too bad. If a situation intersects with a vital interest of ours, we will interceed as our interests dictate. You believe that we should subject ourselves to the whims of the UN. Why? The UN is toothless without us. They can do very little enforcement of their resolutions unless we do it for them. At best most member countries will not participate in major enforcement actions unless we lead the effort.
So again, there is no all powerful international body whose laws we are breaking. If, as some actually believe, that body were the UN and they felt that our war was illegal, they would have spoken up, right? However UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1490 effectively give UN sanction to our actions in Iraq. Therefore any whining about legality is pointless.
So we can drop all discussion of legality as moot. The UN has recognized our actions in Iraq. We can drop all discussion about "what gives us the right to serve as the world's policeman" as that responsibility has been thrust upon us by the UN and the rest of the world. It's no use crying when we do act in some instances and don't act in others, as we are usually the only ones with the capabilities to act at all (barring a few other select countries like the UK and Australia who also have decent force projection capabilities).

[Jason Menard]

He killed these people more than 10 yrs ago.
Actually his regime continued its murderous ways right up until we deposed it. You seem to be making the logical fallacy that because something wasn't immediately done about all those deaths that therefore something should never be done about those deaths. There is no statute of limitations on murder.
If this would have been case, I am with you.
But again sorry, I dont believe in your belief.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not sure anyone can. I have presented the facts about his dealings with international terrorists in previous messages. Ignoring facts, or as you so often say "burying your head in the sand" does not change those facts.
He was the same brutal and oppressive on the earth in 1980 also, 1990 also...
So because he was brutal in the 80's and after, nothing should be done about it today. That would be another logical fallacy.
AW if I am not wrong, war was for WMD and links with international terrorism.
The war was because Saddam Hussein continued to defy the UN resolutions, and even if those trying desparately to keep Hussein in power continued to obstruct things, we were still going to take care of business. Many of those resolutions he was in violation of dealt with WMDs. He did not do as was required and destroy all his weapons under UN supervision. He was not able to account for weapons the UN knew he had but had suddenly gone missing. Of course I guess if, as many now suspect, that he sent most of them off to Syria (kind of like he sent his air force to Iran in the first Gulf War), he would have a hard time producing them for the UN. Aside from the UN issues, our reasons did in part have to do with his support for international terrorism, which everybody (except for yourself apparently) was aware of. The icing on the cake is that we get to free the population from his grip. While that in itself justifies the entire action, t was not the primary reason for undertaking it.

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Good, Now you are becoming rational.
Thats good start.

I don't believe you are actually trying to be condescending, but statements like this are probably unnecessary and in fact are unlikely to achieve a useful dialog. I'm not sure what your history is with the other posters, but since I've been nothing but civil, I'd appreciate you giving me the respect I've given you. I have been nothing but rational, even if you choose to disagree with my statements. So, let's try to avoid comments about rationality or lack thereof. Thanks for your attention to this.
And now on to the fun!

Joe wrote: So please answer: was Hussein an evil man?[/b]
Ravish wrote: Yes, he is/was evil.
Now please give me answer for your other beliefs.

Very well. There are really only two other points I made. First, that Saddam Hussein supports terrorism. Note I said that I believe that... and I firmly do. I have no firm proof, only circumstantial evidence and my own convictions. However, the circumstantial evidence is pretty solid - the stories about Salman Pak are particularly intriguing. Regardless, though, it is my conviction that Hussein supported terrorism, and would have been thrilled to either directly or indirectly participate in the September 11th acts of war on the United States.
Simple question: is it your assertion that Hussein did NOT support terrorism?
Second, I say that the United States is basically a good country. You have to forgive me if I hold that opinion. We have come to the aid of the free world on numerous occasions. We have provided more aid to countries throughout the world than any other country in history. Do we screw up? Certainly. And there are times when our military-industrial complex goes bonkers and causes problems throughout the world - Viet Nam was a gross example of that.
But over the years, it is my belief that without the contributions of the United States to the art, science, literature, peace, health, safety and liberty of the world, that the world would be a poorer place. Now, you may disagree, but before you do, please tell me how you would replace the work done by (just to name a few):
CARE
The Red Cross
The Peace Corp
The Salvation Army
The International Medical Corp
Church World Services
The United Way
World Relief
The International Rescue Committee
US Fund for UNICEF
This doesn't even take into account the billions of dollars of direct AMerican aid for countries around the world. And let's not forget that the United States spearheaded the creation of the United Nations, which was organized in San Francisco, California, USA. On the whole, I believe the world would be in a much worse place without the United States.
My opinion. Tell me what specific things we've done that outweigh the good that all of those organizations do, and perhaps I'll listen, but you've got a long way to go.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Joe Said: it is my belief that without the contributions of the United States to the art, science, literature, peace, health, safety and liberty of the world, that the world would be a poorer place.
Ravish said: There was a guy, who was very nice. He was wanted in all parties as he had lot of jokes and was suppose to be charm of all parties. One day, he started thinking that there could not be a party without him in a city and from that day his fall begun. Parties were still there in city but there was no that 'party guy'.]

Ravish, this is not even a response. Please respond to my question: what would you do to replace this aid? What, in effect, would you do to replace the United States if, as you seem to desire, we ceased to exist?

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
AW giving so much charity, helping poor countries or whatever good deeds US has done or will do; does not give US right to blow away a country on its belief.

Actually, Ravish, the strong make the rules. Be thankful it is a country such as ours that is doing so. How long do you think you would survive under a Hitlerite regime? Perhaps you think the world would be a better place if Hussein ran it? It's my feeling that the United States, if at times a bit despotic, has been a pretty benevolant despot. Thank your stars that the USSR did not win the cold war, or that the Axis nations did not prevail in WWII.

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Joe said: Simple question: is it your assertion that Hussein did NOT support terrorism?
Ravish said: Its not about assertion.

Actually, yes it is. Since there are rarely smoking guns in the real world, Ravish, it is up to reasonable people to draw reasonable conclusions from circumstances. I don't know if you know this, a significant number of criiminal cases are tried and won or lost based on circumstantial evidence. And in this case, I find enough evidence to convict.
Anyway, you're right, this has run its course. If I understand yourposition, it is that the United States needs to additional justification (in addition to UN resolutions) to end the regime of a monster who killed millions of his own citizens. I do not. My only problem with it is we didn't do it long ago.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

It seems more than 80% world is like me. [which everybody (except for yourself apparently) was aware of. ]
Ravish, in case you do not realize, statements like this do sound condescending, as well as the one you made before (which was already pointed out). It's a good idea to apologize, or if you are to take a break.
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
It seems more than 80% world is like me.

Have you polled them, or is that just some statistic you just came up with?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
>> I believe Saddam Hussein was an EVIL man
what is the reason for this belief ??

2 million dead Iranians and Iraqis? I can't believe that anyone is willing to question that Saddam was evil!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I will make sure to remind that Hussein was responsible for the deaths of 2 million people.
He killed these people more than 10 yrs ago. It is a statement to cash sentiments of people.

I really don't get this. If Hitler had been found in South America in 1960 alive and well should we have said forget it, that was more than 10 years since he was repsonsible for killing 50 million people? So how many years can go by before the time limit runs out on removing murderous dictators?
By the way, the premise is wrong. Saddam and his sons were involved in the murder of civilians right up until the invasion. If there hadn't been American planes flying over parts of Iraq, there is little question that Saddam would have been more than happy to kill more Kurds.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: Since the anti-US side seems to keep forgetting, I will make sure to remind that Hussein was responsible for the deaths of 2 million people. I will also remind that he was a supporter of international terrorism. And we should also not forget that the Iraqi regime was the most brutal and oppressive on the planet. Therefore, removing Saddam Hussein from power was the moral thing to do in this case. Whether or not it was done for moral reasons is quite beside the point, removing him was still the moral thing to do.
So if, say (only as an illustration), one gangster killed another bloody murderer, it would be a moral thing to do? Regardless of what his intentions were? And those who did not want to participate are amoral? This is a dubious analogy, I admit, even insulting, but this is close enough to how many of those who opposed USA actions see the situation. At least Russians I talked to, and from all I read, people of other nations also. The main concern here is illegality, rather than moral equality of both sides. I stretched the analogy in "equality" direction to highlight the problem part.
If we can accept that removing somebody from power who is responsible for the deaths of 2 million people, supports terrorism, and ruled over the most brutal regime and oppressive regime on the planet is a moral thing, then what is the converse? What is the morality of doing everything within one's power to keep this regime in power? If removing him is moral, then surely the converse is immoral.
Your approach is too black-and-white to me. But Ok, just to ensure we speak the same language and use the same words to name things, admit that keeping him in power for so long was an immoral thing for the US to do, and I'll agree that opposing this war was immoral.
Whether or not it was done for moral reasons is quite beside the point, removing him was still the moral thing to do.
I can sympathize with your extreme position, but the sad fact is, the image of the USA did not become better after this war, in many countries it became worse. I can only explain it by how Buch administration sold this war. I wasn't particularly anti-Bush before and I still do not have anything against him. But watching all this massive media campaign that preceded the war... I couldn't think about anything but "propaganda". It was so obvious for me, that the US wants to use anything that would confirm that there are mountains of WMD in Iraq which are ready to be used any minute, and ignore any contradictory evidence... Well, I have no idea why US population lapped it up, but I believe people in other countries felt being fooled, and this is what caused resentment. You will say that no amount of evidence will be considered by those who do not want to believe, but people on the European streets aren't pro-Saddam, I would think. I would rather see them as disinterested unbiased observers. I certainly felt being manipulated, and I couldn't understand why manipulation, if the reason for war is as noble as to remove a bloody dictator from power.
[ July 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

To prove that I am not being paranoid (or at least that it's not ony me who is being paranoid).
"A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public.
"The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq. These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world — that such work should be nonpolitical — and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists.
"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."
The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."
"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."
Ray McGovern, a retired C.I.A. analyst who briefed President Bush's father in the White House in the 1980's, said that people in the agency were now "totally demoralized." He says, and others back him up, that the Pentagon took dubious accounts from �migr�s close to Ahmad Chalabi and gave these tales credibility they did not deserve.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/30/nyt.kristof/index.html