An analogy by my wife...

Tin Foil HatTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 12:27

In a discussion my wife and I were having about Iraq, she made an interesting analogy that I though I'd bring up here.

The most common argument for us not to go into Iraq is that Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11 and that Iraq doesn't pose an immediate threat.

My wife pointed out that after Pearl Harbor, you could say the same thing about Germany. They didn't perpetrate Pearl Harbor and the likelyhood that they would threaten America while they were at war on several different fronts was less than the likelyhood of Saddam attacking us now.

Using the same logic as some people, we should have ignored Germany until we had completely defeated Japan first.

-pheirce

HamNEggs

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-16 13:09

Good point your wife made. It was that idealogy that almost lost us WW2, in TWO ways. First by Churchill to not stop Hitler early, and then by the US wanting to stay 'neutral'.

Churchill was hesitant in part because his allies pressured him not to, much like ours do now. Britian is backing us, and I say forget the rest of our 'allies'. France? Psht. They're always backing out of wars. Russia? Can't be much of an ally OR an enemy, they're still in turmoil from change of government. I've heard some mention "China". China, an ally... right. The main problem I see, and I don't know if it's been brought up in any of these threads, is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia wants Iraq there as a buffer zone, between them and the extremists of Iran. Hussein already fought them off (with our help), and I would argue that Iraq is the only thing stopping Iran from forming the next Persia.

Saudi Arabia, while not an 'ally' by any means, is a somewhat friendly Arab nation, with a good economy (comparitively), and with some of our bases there. I'd be preemptive about either ticking them off, or leaving them to the whim of the Iranians. Bad juju.

Still, we need to deal with the obvious threat that is Iraq. Tough decisions. Glad I'm not President.

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 14:49

Check your history- Iraq attacked Iran, not the other way around. Therefore Hussein did not fight them off. He did get battlefield intelligence from the US, while we were selling arms to Iran.........

My non-political signature goes here

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 14:53

Originally posted by: HamNEggs

Good point your wife made. It was that idealogy that almost lost us WW2, in TWO ways. First by Churchill to not stop Hitler early, and then by the US wanting to stay 'neutral'.

Churchill was hesitant in part because his allies pressured him not to, much like ours do now. Britian is backing us, and I say forget the rest of our 'allies'. France? Psht. They're always backing out of wars. Russia? Can't be much of an ally OR an enemy, they're still in turmoil from change of government. I've heard some mention "China". China, an ally... right. The main problem I see, and I don't know if it's been brought up in any of these threads, is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia wants Iraq there as a buffer zone, between them and the extremists of Iran. Hussein already fought them off (with our help), and I would argue that Iraq is the only thing stopping Iran from forming the next Persia.

Saudi Arabia, while not an 'ally' by any means, is a somewhat friendly Arab nation, with a good economy (comparitively), and with some of our bases there. I'd be preemptive about either ticking them off, or leaving them to the whim of the Iranians. Bad juju.

Still, we need to deal with the obvious threat that is Iraq. Tough decisions. Glad I'm not President.

The obvious threat is Al Queda, not Iraq:
Al-Queda attacked the USS Cole, the two embassies in Africa, the world trade center, the pentagon, the US embassy in pakistan, and probably more that I cannot remember.

Iraq has attacked the US.........never.

Going to war with Iraq and taking over their country is not the answer. It will only produce more hatred and violence against the US. Right now, Iraq is contained, and Saddam won't live forever. It is only a matter of time before one of his generals overthrows him anyways.

My non-political signature goes here

Trap¥

Teamwarfare Vet

2002-10-16 15:02

i know i'll get flamed in advance but heres what i see goin on

Bush destroys Alquaeda HQ. 1point
Al Quaeda regroups into super cells: 1 point
Al Quaeda takes nerve gas and develpoes bio wepon bombs: 1 point
Al Quaeda BinLadin escapes Bush's grasp: 1 point
Bush threatens Iraq for bio wepons with no proof: -1 point
Bush vows to stop Suddam for evil not proven again: -1 point
Al Quaeda recruits local militaries in many countries: 1 point
Al Quaeda causes world wide terrorism: 1 point

score at half time:
Bush: -1
Al Quaeda: 6
................................
Trap¥
Teamwarfare Retired Mechwarrior4 Mercenaries Admin

Sekdar

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-16 15:28

also, it's more likely than not that Saddam helps fund anti-us terrorist groups.

Respice

Teamwarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 15:31

Originally posted by: Trap¥

i know i'll get flamed in advance but heres what i see goin on

Bush destroys Alquaeda HQ. 1point
Al Quaeda regroups into super cells: 1 point
Al Quaeda takes nerve gas and develpoes bio wepon bombs: 1 point
Al Quaeda BinLadin escapes Bush's grasp: 1 point
Bush threatens Iraq for bio wepons with no proof: -1 point
Bush vows to stop Suddam for evil not proven again: -1 point
Al Quaeda recruits local militaries in many countries: 1 point
Al Quaeda causes world wide terrorism: 1 point

score at half time:
Bush: -1
Al Quaeda: 6

There is as much speculation in your post as any I've seen stemming from any analysis of an Iraq threat.

cimat - The analogy does not imply that Iraq ever attacked the US. Iraq in this case is analagous to Germany. Al Queda to Japan. Saddam has shown aggression towards his neighbors in Iran and Kuwait. He has re-built facilities bombed by US Warplanes thought to have weapons of mass destruction. The threat is there. No doubt this is an extremely difficult situation to handle. You could put every leader from every country of the last 100 years in the White House and ask them to respond and every one of them would recieve criticism.

The repurcussions of attacking Iraq are unclear. They may not be the "obvious" threat but they are a potential threat. If they DO manufacture weapons of mass destruction and it is somehow used on American soil, what then? We've learned that waiting for threats to matererlize is a costly course of action.

pheirce

Tin Foil HatTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 15:37

Originally posted by: Trap¥

Bush threatens Iraq for bio wepons with no proof: -1 point
Bush vows to stop Suddam for evil not proven again: -1 point

What do you have to say about the British Dossier or the CIA's report on Iraq?

To keep this discussion on topic, I could easily draw up an enumerated list of arbitrary points that shows that when the US invaded an expaded Germany on D-day, they were behind at half by 30 points.

FDR threatens Hitler for agression with no proof: -1 point
FDR vows to stop Hitler for evil not proven again: -1 point

-pheirce

EDIT: And cimat, I say the obvious threat is people who have the capacity and inclination to attack us. Hussein has shown that he fits this bill (WMD including nukes, Assassination attempt on Bush, real ties to the first WTC bombing attempt, etc.).

-pheirce
Post edited by pheirce at 10/16/2002 3:41:31 PM

Trap¥

Teamwarfare Vet

2002-10-16 15:45

forgot about the dossier
damn, got own3d again
................................
Trap¥
Teamwarfare Retired Mechwarrior4 Mercenaries Admin

-Nautica-

Drake

2002-10-16 16:26

Jesus there are some dense people.. We have enough proof to attack Iraq.. it's as simple as this; They refused to let UN inspectors into their country? Lets break that down..

If someone wants to search you're house for drugs (searching Iraq for WOMD) and you refuse (As they did for a long time) even though they have a legal right to search you're home (Many countries, including US and Iraq signed a contract after some war - forgot the name - where they had to at any time let UN inspectors into their country to search for WOMD) then you are guilty. I mean, you won't let them look for drugs - which means you have something to hide. You can't tell the drug inspectors to come back tommorow (Iraq waited about 3 months before finnaly allowing them to come in), because you could have hidden the drugs by then. Get it? What more proof do we need?

"But no countries would support us!"
--Bullshit, we don't need their support. We are the strongest structured country and the face of the planet, not to mention we have the largest military in the world and we could kill everyone on the planet six times. Plus, Britian would defiantly support us.

-Naut

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 16:50

Attacking Iraq is a huge mistake, not to mention, the Bushies are doing it for oil, no more, no less.

The US is hated in the world because we do whatever we want, to whoever we want, whenever we want. If we go in without a UN mandate, we have violated the UN charter, which we signed, and will have committed a war crime. Period.

Saddam is a dictator. His number one job is to stay a dictator. He knows if he uses WMD against anyone, he will be destroyed. Since he wants to be a dictator forever, he will not do this.

Also, it is high time we get violence out of our foreign policy. The military is being used and abused by successive administrations by bailing them out of every bad foreign policy they implement.

No war in Iraq. No blood for oil. Ever.

My non-political signature goes here

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 16:58

Originally posted by: -Nautica-

Jesus there are some dense people.. We have enough proof to attack Iraq.. it's as simple as this; They refused to let UN inspectors into their country? Lets break that down..

If someone wants to search you're house for drugs (searching Iraq for WOMD) and you refuse (As they did for a long time) even though they have a legal right to search you're home (Many countries, including US and Iraq signed a contract after some war - forgot the name - where they had to at any time let UN inspectors into their country to search for WOMD) then you are guilty. I mean, you won't let them look for drugs - which means you have something to hide. You can't tell the drug inspectors to come back tommorow (Iraq waited about 3 months before finnaly allowing them to come in), because you could have hidden the drugs by then. Get it? What more proof do we need?

"But no countries would support us!"
--Bullshit, we don't need their support. We are the strongest structured country and the face of the planet, not to mention we have the largest military in the world and we could kill everyone on the planet six times. Plus, Britian would defiantly support us.

-Naut

First of all- the US needs to obey international law. The UN inspection resolutions do not allow armed attacks in the event of non-compliance.
Second of all- Iraq has not attacked the US, or anyone else, since 1990.
Third-if the US overthrows Hussein and conquers Iraq, we will be stuck with the reconstruction bill. We would be fools to count on the europeans to help with the $$. Also, the US economy would suffer. In gulf war 1, the allies paid for 2/3rds of the cost of military action.
Fourth-everytime the US flexes its military muscles in the middle east, and drops bombs, and hurts civilians, more and more people will hate our country and become terrorists. It is time for peaceful solutions. Not more war.
Fifth- most of the info coming out of the goverment about Iraq is propaganda and cannot be trusted.

My non-political signature goes here

pheirce

Tin Foil HatTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 17:36

Originally posted by: cimat1984

the Bushies are doing it for oil, no more, no less.

Ok cimat. You keep saying this over and over and over and over again. I'm going to assume that you are not insane or psychic. The British and the US have stated their reasons for why they are going to attack Iraq. Those reasons seem pretty clear and acceptible for most people. You, however, dismiss these reasons and provide your own.

Do you have a pamphlet or anything that would corroborate your statement? Anything that I can sink my teeth into and might have the possibilty of convincing me?

-pheirce

-Nautica-

Drake

2002-10-16 17:37

Bushies are doing it for oil, no more, no less.
--The United States has one of the largest oil supplies in the entire world. While sure we could always use more, we are not about to spend 90+ billion dollars to get 30-40 billion dollars worth of oil.

The US is hated in the world because we do whatever we want, to whoever we want, whenever we want
--The United States is not hated in the world, as you put it. We are a neutral country in most situation. We step in and flex our muscels when it is the human thing to do. Let stake attacking Iraq for example; They post a threat to humanity by creating weapons of mass destruct ions, capable of killing millions of innocent men, woman, and children. To not step in and stop this act of horror would be in-humane.

If we go in without a UN mandate, we have violated the UN charter, which we signed, and will have committed a war crime. Period.
--Why the hell are we asking the United Nations to enforce their own policy then. We could have, without warning or permisiion, destroyed Iraq months ago.. the only reason we have not is to honor the UN mandate. In that mandate, all the countries that signed it (US, Iraq, etc) agree not to create weapons of mass descruction Iraq had we are giving the UN a chance to enforce their own policy, and have offered support if they attack Iraq. We have made it clear that if they do not enforce the mandate, we will. We are honoring the mandate, and giving them a chance to act. What you stated was total bullshit.

Saddam is a dictator. His number one job is to stay a dictator. He knows if he uses WMD against anyone, he will be destroyed. Since he wants to be a dictator forever, he will not do this.
--Then why has he created the weapons?

Also, it is high time we get violence out of our foreign policy.
--Again, we act solely when forced to by humane obligations. While ever country on the planet has made mistakes, and committed war crimes, including the United States we are by far one of the most neutral, but most powerful countries in existence.

The military is being used and abused by successive administrations
--They joined the army voluntarily, to fight for their country. There have been no drafts in this war yet, and they are fighting for the lives of everyone, in every country, in the world by attacking someone who is creating weapons of mass destruction.

(This line edited)

-Naut

Post edited by -Nautica- at 10/16/2002 5:55:28 PM

-ULTRA LITE-

Have owie. Need bandaid.

2002-10-16 17:40

Originally posted by: -Nautica-

Jesus there are some dense people.. We have enough proof to attack Iraq.. it's as simple as this; They refused to let UN inspectors into their country? Lets break that down..

If someone wants to search you're house for drugs (searching Iraq for WOMD) and you refuse (As they did for a long time) even though they have a legal right to search you're home (Many countries, including US and Iraq signed a contract after some war - forgot the name - where they had to at any time let UN inspectors into their country to search for WOMD) then you are guilty. I mean, you won't let them look for drugs - which means you have something to hide. You can't tell the drug inspectors to come back tommorow (Iraq waited about 3 months before finnaly allowing them to come in), because you could have hidden the drugs by then. Get it? What more proof do we need?

"But no countries would support us!"
--Bullshit, we don't need their support. We are the strongest structured country and the face of the planet, not to mention we have the largest military in the world and we could kill everyone on the planet six times. Plus, Britian would defiantly support us.

-Naut

I honestly think you have a point... they have something to hide, and if we dont do anything about it soon, then it might just become to late.

Its not always easy knowing whats best for a country, sometimes things just have to be done. Sometimes you gotta do what ya gotta do. Theres allot of ppl who want to blow the shit out of iraq, and theres others who want to try and make peace, we wont really know whats best untill after the event has happend. What happens, happens. you cant always be right, mistakes happen, lets just hope what the U.S does is no mistake...

Post edited by -ULTRA LITE- at 10/16/2002 5:44:44 PM

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 17:43

Originally posted by: -Nautica-

“Bushies are doing it for oil, no more, no less.”
--The United States has one of the largest oil supplies in the entire world. While sure we could always use more, we are not about to spend 90+ billion dollars to get 30-40 billion dollars worth of oil.

“The US is hated in the world because we do whatever we want, to whoever we want, whenever we want”
--The United States is not hated in the world, as you put it. We are a neutral country in most situation. We step in and flex our muscels when it is the human thing to do. Let stake attacking Iraq for example; They post a threat to humanity by creating weapons of mass destruct ions, capable of killing millions of innocent men, woman, and children. To not step in and stop this act of horror would be in-humane.

“If we go in without a UN mandate, we have violated the UN charter, which we signed, and will have committed a war crime. Period.”
--Why the hell are we asking the United Nations to enforce their own policy then. We could have, without warning or permisiion, destroyed Iraq months ago.. the only reason we have not is to honor the UN mandate. In that mandate, all the countries that signed it (US, Iraq, etc) agree not to create weapons of mass descruction – Iraq had – we are giving the UN a chance to enforce their own policy, and have offered support if they attack Iraq. We have made it clear that if they do not enforce the mandate, we will. We are honoring the mandate, and giving them a chance to act. What you stated was total bullshit.

“Saddam is a dictator. His number one job is to stay a dictator. He knows if he uses WMD against anyone, he will be destroyed. Since he wants to be a dictator forever, he will not do this.”
--Then why has he created the weapons?

”Also, it is high time we get violence out of our foreign policy.”
--Again, we act solely when forced to by humane obligations. While ever country on the planet has made mistakes, and committed war crimes, including the United States – we are by far one of the most neutral, but most powerful countries in existence.

“The military is being used and abused by successive administrations”
--They joined the army voluntarily, to fight for their country. There have been no drafts in this war yet, and they are fighting for the lives of everyone, in every country, in the world by attacking someone who is creating weapons of mass destruction.

Go back to Afghanistan.

-Naut

I respected, but did not agree with your arguments, until your last sentence. I'm not from Afghanistan, moron, I'm an American. I love my country, but our president is leading down the road to perpetual war, and I will not stand for it.

If you want to attack Iraq, go get a rifle, and go right ahead.

My non-political signature goes here

[HEL]Jawa

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-16 17:44

I may be dreadging up an old post from this thread....

But in response to the USAs actions during WWII

You have to understand..that our neutral then would have been considered war now.

The US actively sent support troops, tanks, planes, equipment over seas. While sending these things over seas we gave...yes...gave the brits 10 underclassed destroyers to escort the ships to the brits. Our Naval forces protectec the merchant ships till somwhere around iceland.

The main reason the US got into the war as early as it did was the fact that we saw that if the brits fell (which without our industry backing they would have) We..the US would have to face two enemies on two fronts in two oceans. Our Navy was not up to task for that at the time. They were understaffed, underpowered, and ill prepared for a Naval War on two fronts.

Most people dont realize that the US was on the verge of WAR with Japan anyway. Pearl Harbor was just the attack that sealed the deal. There had already been 7 "accidental" attacks on US forces across the pacific.

It was the best decision the US could have made to bring the fight against hitler to the ground. This freed our Naval forces to focus their intent on the pacific where the largest Naval force ever assembled in history was poised to conquer 1/2 the globe (japan if you didnt catch on)

Had we stayed neutral during the war....You'd all be speaking German by now probaly.

-Nautica-

Drake

2002-10-16 17:54

cimat1984, I respected you're post until you accused our president of killing thousands of people to get some oil. Until you accused the United States of telling lies to all the citizens, and using propaganda to tarnish Iraq. I respected you're opinion until you disrespected the US.

Anyway, aside from my last sentence.. I ripped apart everything you said in you're post. Everything you said was wrong.. you really need to rethink you're opinion about the US... or get the hell out of our country. Thanks.

-Naut

-Nautica-

Drake

2002-10-16 17:58

cimate, really though.. I want to see where you are coming from. You honestly beleive all the crap you are posting.. do us all a favor and reply personally to each section of my post, like I did to you're post, so that we can get a more clear view..

-Naut

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 18:12

Originally posted by: cimat1984

Originally posted by: -Nautica-

“Bushies are doing it for oil, no more, no less.”
--The United States has one of the largest oil supplies in the entire world. While sure we could always use more, we are not about to spend 90+ billion dollars to get 30-40 billion dollars worth of oil.

Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the middle east, besides Saudi Arabia. The reserves in the middle east dwarf the rest of the world, with the possible exception of russia. However, russia's oil fields are not as developed, and the oil is harder to get at.

“The US is hated in the world because we do whatever we want, to whoever we want, whenever we want”
--The United States is not hated in the world, as you put it. We are a neutral country in most situation. We step in and flex our muscels when it is the human thing to do. Let stake attacking Iraq for example; They post a threat to humanity by creating weapons of mass destruct ions, capable of killing millions of innocent men, woman, and children. To not step in and stop this act of horror would be in-humane.

The US is not switzerland. We look out for our own interests, no matter if that is good or bad. If creation of WMD is a your criteria for attack, we might as well attack about dozen other countries while we're at it.

“If we go in without a UN mandate, we have violated the UN charter, which we signed, and will have committed a war crime. Period.”
--Why the hell are we asking the United Nations to enforce their own policy then. We could have, without warning or permisiion, destroyed Iraq months ago.. the only reason we have not is to honor the UN mandate. In that mandate, all the countries that signed it (US, Iraq, etc) agree not to create weapons of mass descruction – Iraq had – we are giving the UN a chance to enforce their own policy, and have offered support if they attack Iraq. We have made it clear that if they do not enforce the mandate, we will. We are honoring the mandate, and giving them a chance to act. What you stated was total bullshit.

It is true that the parties signed and agreement to disarm Iraq, but there was no military force provision in it. If we attack Iraq without the permission of the security council, it is a war crime, and a violation of the UN treaty, which we signed.

“Saddam is a dictator. His number one job is to stay a dictator. He knows if he uses WMD against anyone, he will be destroyed. Since he wants to be a dictator forever, he will not do this.”
--Then why has he created the weapons?

Why does anyone create WMD? Primarily to intimidate their neighbors. Yes Saddam did use them against Iran and his own people. Yes, that is evil and wrong.

”Also, it is high time we get violence out of our foreign policy.”
--Again, we act solely when forced to by humane obligations. While ever country on the planet has made mistakes, and committed war crimes, including the United States – we are by far one of the most neutral, but most powerful countries in existence.

Again- the US is not switzerland, we act in our own self interest. The US has systematically refused to be held accountable for war crimes, and will not participate in the international court of justice, even though we demand other war criminals be held accountable. Am I saying the US is a war criminal, no. I am saying that the US holds itself to a different standard than what it holds the rest of the world to.

“The military is being used and abused by successive administrations”
--They joined the army voluntarily, to fight for their country. There have been no drafts in this war yet, and they are fighting for the lives of everyone, in every country, in the world by attacking someone who is creating weapons of mass destruction.

Just because someone volunteered to serve their country does not give the goverment the right to use them to fight for oil, or overthrow uncooperative dictators (noriega, hussein). The troops are used to bail us out of a spectacularly bad foreign policy that turns the world against us.

Go back to Afghanistan.

-Naut

I respected, but did not agree with your arguments, until your last sentence. I'm not from Afghanistan, moron, I'm an American. I love my country, but our president is leading down the road to perpetual war, and I will not stand for it.

If you want to attack Iraq, go get a rifle, and go right ahead.

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 18:16

Originally posted by: -Nautica-

cimat1984, I respected you're post until you accused our president of killing thousands of people to get some oil. Until you accused the United States of telling lies to all the citizens, and using propaganda to tarnish Iraq. I respected you're opinion until you disrespected the US.

Anyway, aside from my last sentence.. I ripped apart everything you said in you're post. Everything you said was wrong.. you really need to rethink you're opinion about the US... or get the hell out of our country. Thanks.

-Naut

Nautica- do not question my patriotism. I love my country, I think the US embodies the worlds best example of democracy and tolerant society. What I do not support is the actions of our goverment. The goverment is not the same as the country. Bush and his cronies are greedy, militaristic, and confrontational, and are putting our country at risk of further terrorist attacks by not attacking the root causes of terrorism: poverty, oppression, hopelessness.

Dissent is not treason. I love my country and am doing what I believe is right to make it a better place, and the world a better place. You can disagree with me all day and night, and that's fine with me. But, do not question my patiotism.

My motto: America, Love it, or fix what you think is wrong.

My non-political signature goes here

-Nautica-

Drake

2002-10-16 19:01

"The reserves in the middle east dwarf the rest of the world"
--I'll do my homework afterwhile, but I'm afraid you are wrong on that one. All I remember is that the United States has one of the largest supply of oil in the world - and we have used less than 20% of it. Why would we go and kill thousands of people, just to get a little more?

"We look out for our own interests, no matter if that is good or bad."
--That's not true, at all. We have spent hundres of billions of dollars on foreign affairs, in which we lost money and lost lives. We have in most cases throughout history been a neutral country, on occasion kicking some ass for the benefit of the rest of the world.

"If creation of WMD is a your criteria for attack, we might as well attack about dozen other countries while we're at it."
--Have those countries lied about having WPD? Have those countries refused to follow mandates that they agreed to? Have those countries been telling the UN to shove their mandate up their ass for the last six years? Have those countries acted hostile towards their neighbors? Have those countries used weapons of mass descruction before? Have those countries used chemical weapons ON THEIR ON CITIZENS before? Have those countries starved to death about 8% of their population before? No. Iraq on the other hand has done everything I just mentioned.

"It is true that the parties signed and agreement to disarm Iraq, but there was no military force provision in it. If we attack Iraq without the permission of the security council, it is a war crime, and a violation of the UN treaty, which we signed."
--We have asked them to destroy the WPD - they refused. We have warned them that if they do not, they will be attacked. How else are we supposed to disarm them? It is NOT a war crime to attack a country that is building weapons of mass descruction. We are giving the UN a chance to enforce their own treaty - if they do not, we will.

"Why does anyone create WMD? Primarily to intimidate their neighbors. Yes Saddam did use them against Iran and his own people. Yes, that is evil and wrong."
--I was hoping you would have a reply like that :-]

"Again- the US is not switzerland, we act in our own self interest. The US has systematically refused to be held accountable for war crimes, and will not participate in the international court of justice, even though we demand other war criminals be held accountable. Am I saying the US is a war criminal, no. I am saying that the US holds itself to a different standard than what it holds the rest of the world to."
--Thats not true.. we have prosecuted a number of people using the systimatical justice system. We have, as all countries have, done war crimes. We have never denied it, and it was the wrong thing to do.. but every country has made the same mistake, and also vowed not to do war crimes. Again, attacking a country building WPD is not a war crime, it is for the good of all humanity.

"Just because someone volunteered to serve their country does not give the goverment the right to use them to fight for oil, or overthrow uncooperative dictators (noriega, hussein)."
--Again, that is bullshit. We are not going into the war for oil.

"troops are used to bail us out of a spectacularly bad foreign policy that turns the world against us."
--The world is not against us bud, you will be very surprised with the amount of support we will get if we do infact attack Iraq. While sure, quite a few countries would love to see us crumble, we still have the majority of the world supporting us on most issues.

-Naut
Post edited by -Nautica- at 10/16/2002 7:02:57 PM

pheirce

Tin Foil HatTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 19:08

I'm confused Nautica, what post are you replying to?

-Nautica-

Drake

2002-10-16 19:19

You know what, I'm not exactly sure lol.

Edit: I'm responding to his responces to my post. The stuff in quotes were his responce, the stuff following the -- are my replies to his replies.
Post edited by -Nautica- at 10/16/2002 7:19:51 PM

pheirce

Tin Foil HatTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 19:21

Originally posted by: pheirce

Originally posted by: cimat1984

the Bushies are doing it for oil, no more, no less.

Ok cimat. You keep saying this over and over and over and over again. I'm going to assume that you are not insane or psychic. The British and the US have stated their reasons for why they are going to attack Iraq. Those reasons seem pretty clear and acceptible for most people. You, however, dismiss these reasons and provide your own.

Do you have a pamphlet or anything that would corroborate your statement? Anything that I can sink my teeth into and might have the possibilty of convincing me?

-pheirce

and to try to use this to extend the analogy, there are people who are convinced that FDR's motives for getting us involved in WWII were economincally related (among other nefarious claims).

-pheirce

EDIT: Is it possible he deleted the posts?
Post edited by pheirce at 10/16/2002 7:21:57 PM

pheirce

Tin Foil HatTWL Contributor

2002-10-16 19:23

Another thing to extend the analogy.

Germany was racing to build a nuclear bomb (just like Iraq). This was another fact that we used as justification to invading their country.

-pheirce

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-17 07:25

Although the analogy in the very first post was interesting and insightful, it is not valid in the Iraq case

Iraq does not have an axis member to back it up. Iran hates Iraq- they won't fight cooperatively. North Korea is too far away from both countries, other than to sell them weapons under the table (which they will do for anyone with cash-or a sandwich). Al-Queda and Iraq are not linked. In fact, Al-Queda would be happy destroying the Iraq regime too-as they want to install radical muslim goverments (Afghan-Taliban style). Saddam is about as muslim as the pope, so he falls into the "corrupt regime" catagory that Al-Queda hates.

Therefore, if we really have our panties in a bind over Iraq, we can contain Iraq while destroying Al-Queda. Remember, Al-Queda has attacked the US homeland, and our interests overseas MULTIPLE TIMES. Iraq has attacked our country NOT ONCE. Who is the bigger threat? Al-Queda.

My non-political signature goes here

HamNEggs

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-17 10:35

About a month ago I had this wasp nest by my front door, right above the mailbox. They hadn't stung me yet, and are by no means powerful enough to kill me or do serious damage, but they can sure hurt, so one night I went out and sprayed the nest.

No more fear of being stung when I step outside. Cool.

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-17 10:56

What a great analogy- so you are saying we should spray VX nerve gas all over Iraq, and kill every man, woman, and child, because the people living their have no more value than a small insect? Or are you trying to say something else?

My non-political signature goes here

HamNEggs

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-17 11:11

You're right, bad analogy. No, we don't destroy the country, we destroy the regime. Take lives to save more.

HamNEggs

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-17 11:21

I knew you or someone were going to say just that, after I posted it. =/ And no it wasn't my point, my comment was in reference to your post directly before it. You pointed out Iraq can't do what Germany did, and you're right. WW1 and WW2 both were all about alliances. Iraq is not in a position for world takeover any time soon, in the same respect that a wasp nest couldn't kill me. But they could both really hurt.

edit: I'll stop making analogies. When I do it, it always sounds stupid, and noone understands it. =/
Post edited by HamNEggs at 10/17/2002 11:21:54 AM

mikebo2

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-17 11:28

Very interesting posts from both sides of the fence.

I was against us (America) forceing Iraq out of Kuwait (spelling) before we went. Once the President made the decision to send our troops in I supported everything we did over there, including stopping when we did.

My reasoning is this: I have my own ideas about how things should be handled. I DO NOT have the information available to me that the President of the United States has access too. Therefore, (unless blatently wrong) (such as Nazism) I must Trust the person that we elected as President to be doing the right thing.

The current situation right now, I find myself hoping we do not go to war against Iraq. I hope there is some other way. But If our leaders think it is necassary then at that point I will support the action.

Waiting for the U.N. to handle the situation is not a good idea. There would not be inspectors trying to go back into Iraq if the United States had not pushed them.

The analogy of WWII is a pretty good one. The U.S. did not want to go to war but we were pulled into it. Had we not entered the war when we did the outcome would have been devistating.

Everyone agrees that, left unchecked, Sadam will eventually have weapons of mass destruction. Most people think he will use them when he does get them. I fear that if we don't do something NOW, that we will have an even larger problem in the future.

Just my 2.5 cents

Mikebo

NATO_Thydron

555-ou812

2002-10-19 14:00

Originally posted by: HamNEggs

Good point your wife made. It was that idealogy that almost lost us WW2, in TWO ways. First by Churchill to not stop Hitler early, and then by the US wanting to stay 'neutral'.

Churchill was hesitant in part because his allies pressured him not to, much like ours do now. Britian is backing us, and I say forget the rest of our 'allies'. .

not true - it was the PM b4 churchill that didnt want war, until someone stood up in parliment and shout 'for gods sake leave' and the old PM left and Churchill took over, and he immediatly started gearing for war.

-we're studing this in histroy
-----------------

I Am A Signature Virus.
Please Put Me In Your Signature So I Can Continue To Replicate.

cimat1984

But it's organic poop!TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-19 14:13

Neville Chamberlain=appeasement

My non-political signature goes here

Alphamale

Evolutionary ThrowbackTeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-19 15:20

As Mikebo pointed out, there are some very good points made on both sides of this issue.

I tend to agree with alot of what Cimat says, mainly that (In my own humble opinion), Bush is interested in attacking Iraq for 3 main reasons.

1) I think cimat has it right when he says that a BIG motivation for Bush is oil related and also for political gain. Its harder to criticize a war-time president.

2) I believe that Bush is looking for a bit of a scapegoat in Iraq, mainly because the original objective was to root out Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden. He has not been successful in that endeavor with respect to the still existing terrorist cells and the fact that we dont know if Bin laden is alive or not. True, he did well in getting rid of the Taliban, and the cells in Afghanistan but there are still plenty to go after. Yes some of them might be in Iraq or supported by the Iraqi government, but I have not yet seen compelling evidence of this.

3) My question about why would we go after Iraq for non-compliance to UN resolutions now, rather than pursue serious enforcement throughout the last 10 years is one that troubles me. Futher, how can we go after Iraq for ignoring the UN resolutions, when we ourselves are prepared to defy the UN?

I do, however, agree that we need to do something about Iraq. Just not for the reasons that I believe Bush has in his mind. Do I think that we should take action against Iraq for non-compliance? Yes, with the backing of the UN. Do I think that Bush has alterior motives for attacking Iraq, you bet.

I am open to other viewpoints. I just need to see some convincing evidence.

Alpha

HamNEggs

TeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-19 17:56

Originally posted by: NATO_Thydron

Originally posted by: HamNEggs

Good point your wife made. It was that idealogy that almost lost us WW2, in TWO ways. First by Churchill to not stop Hitler early, and then by the US wanting to stay 'neutral'.

Churchill was hesitant in part because his allies pressured him not to, much like ours do now. Britian is backing us, and I say forget the rest of our 'allies'. .

not true - it was the PM b4 churchill that didnt want war, until someone stood up in parliment and shout 'for gods sake leave' and the old PM left and Churchill took over, and he immediatly started gearing for war.

-we're studing this in histroy

Oops. =P Got the person wrong, but the same idea. =/

pheirce

Tin Foil HatTWL Contributor

2002-10-20 03:15

Originally posted by: Alphamale

1) I think cimat has it right when he says that a BIG motivation for Bush is oil related and also for political gain. Its harder to criticize a war-time president.

Just because there are political benefits to Bush for this action does not mean it's the main reason. Every military action has political benefits. Heck, the attack on the WTC had political benefits to Bush and Guliani, but that doesn't mean they perpetrated it.

The problem with this view, is that we would never be able to take any action in the region because these motivations will always exist.

Originally posted by: Alphamale

2) I believe that Bush is looking for a bit of a scapegoat in Iraq, mainly because the original objective was to root out Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden. He has not been successful in that endeavor with respect to the still existing terrorist cells and the fact that we dont know if Bin laden is alive or not. True, he did well in getting rid of the Taliban, and the cells in Afghanistan but there are still plenty to go after. Yes some of them might be in Iraq or supported by the Iraqi government, but I have not yet seen compelling evidence of this.

Actually, from the beginning there have always been two fronts to the War on Terror. If you recall, the war started with going after al-Queda and the Taliban at the same time.

Most military historians agreed that going after Al-Queda was going to be a lengthy process and I'm sure that Bush knew this (although I believe the Israeli Intelligence that says bin Laden is dead).

The first front of the war on terror ended in late December, 2001 and Bush gave his Axis of Evil speech, naming Iraq specifically, one month later.

Originally posted by: Alphamale

3) My question about why would we go after Iraq for non-compliance to UN resolutions now, rather than pursue serious enforcement throughout the last 10 years is one that troubles me. Futher, how can we go after Iraq for ignoring the UN resolutions, when we ourselves are prepared to defy the UN?

As I've said in other discussions, 9-11 necessarily changed the way we viewed American safety. We were given a harsh lesson as to how vulnerable we were. It showed us that we needed to go after those people/countries who have the capacity and inclination to attack us.

Saddam fits that bill.

He had real ties to the first WTC bombing attempt, he has WOM and is vigorously pursuing atomic WOM (plus he has proven that he has little qualms about using them), and he attempted to assasinate former President Bush.

As far as the UN is concerned, I don't trust those guys. They are all lifelong politicians

Originally posted by: Alphamale

I am open to other viewpoints. I just need to see some convincing evidence

The only way I can show you evidence, is to show you the above. I think that Bush's and the British's motives are just as they say. They want to make a safer Middle East, a safer world and a safer America.

It would be impossible for me to give you convincing evidence that Bush's motives are not what you say. It's a logical impossibilty to prove a negative. As such, the burden of proof actually rests on your shoulders to prove that Bush's motives are as you say.

-pheirce

P.S. I hope there can be a resolution that results in both no war and a safer world. I pray for it daily.

-pheirce
---
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" --Hillary MarxClinton
"the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry, Democratic Primary Debate, 5/03/03

Alphamale

Evolutionary ThrowbackTeamWarfare Vet

2002-10-20 13:14

I will admit that I am VERY biased in my dislike and distrust of GW Bush. Frankly, the man scares the living hell out of me. You make some very good points in your rebuttal. While I agree that it is *easy* for me to blame Bush for having alterior motives, I also believe that his motivations are less than fully disclosed with regard to his political agenda. I formed this opinion on his oil ties, particularly with respect to his desire to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, even though the vast majority of scientists have shown that the amount of oil to be gained would not be worth the cost (both financially and environmentally) to extract it. However, there were a few intermediary companies that would have benefited, most of which were personal friends and big contributors to his campaign. (There is a very in depth article in Scientific American Magazine May 2001 issue, that will support my above claims.)

*By the way, I am a noob at being able to post links.. Im not well versed in how to use UBB code*

I dont mean to change the subject away from Foreign policy to environment, this was to shed some light on what I believe to be his principle motives. I dont argue that something decisive needs to be done to remediate the threat that Iraq poses. I do think Bush is a little TOO trigger happy and that if it weren't for the prospect of advancing our oil interests, I have reservations about believing that he would be as determined to go after Iraq as he is now. I cling to the notion that the UN can be swayed in a timely manner to enforce the UN resolutions.

I do understand that Bush is aware that the war on Terrorisme will be a lengthy one. He did name Iraq in his "war on terror" speech, and he also named North Korea, who, if I am not mistaken has recently admitted to having nuclear weapons and an active nuclear weapons program. I read the links you posted and I am more convinced that you are correct about Iraq's MOD program.

Has N. Korea been implicated in involvment with terrorist activities? I don't know. If they have, then I would expect our focus would prioritize North Korea over Iraq as our most immediate threat.

With respect to the UN, I don't trust them either. However, If we do not gain the support of the UN in this matter, then we should consider withdrawing from the UN. If they dont act and give "world credibility" to our position, and Iraq DOES continue to defy its resolutions, then I would consider the UN an inneffective organization and question our continued membership.

The links you posted have done much to ease my mind about the reasons why we should do something.

I would think that a deadline be set for weapons inspectors to begin. This puts a timetable on the UN and its intentions.

You make a good point about the burden of proof being on me to show evidence of Bush's motives. I will diligently look for some supporting materials.

From a different viewpoint, I think that the MAJOR reason we need to garner the support of other nations is that I believe that if we act alone, we will provoke more terrorism and may start a much larger conflict. With the support of other countries, I think this is less likely. Just my opinion there.

Thanks Pheirce, you have caused me to consider things more deeply with regard to our policy on Iraq. I agree that Iraq is a threat, but I also dont think they are any MORE of a threat now than they were prior to 9-11. I would like to see more information regarding Iraq's direct involvement in terrorist activities. I saw the link about the first WTC bombing attempt. I would like to see some more recent connections too.
Post edited by Alphamale at 10/20/2002 1:41:16 PM

WreakHavoc

TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2002-10-20 23:11

Just be thankful that Clinton isn't in there.

39 posts recovered