So I guess it's just a matter of 'when' the US is going to war

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Who was moaning this forum was getting boring 😀 }> 😀

Hi ya sauron – brave defence your making and I have to admit I agree with you and everyone else on one bit :-

Saddam is an evil SOB that is really bad – he is screwing over the Iraqi people, etc, etc

Anyone disagree with that ???

Now here is where we have some problems

1) Why should the USA act now?

2) There is NO link between Iraq and al quieda

3) You don’t need the oil

4) As you point out America could sort its oil out itself by cutting SUV usage and scrapping your 10 mpg cars !!! I know for a fact the Chrysler is at the forefront of research in alternatives and with the Daimler diesel engines you yanks will now get diesels at last (I digress…)

5) Democracy is bad for Iraq – democracy is not the amazingly good thing we all make it out to be – in Iraq’s case you’ll get huge civil war, etc, etc and piss your allies off

6) The problem in the Middle East is Israel – Palestine

7) This is getting a long post and I’ll have to spell check in word so you can all read it

8) Is anyone sure this is the right militarily thing to do – can we invade Iraq successfully, can we fight a Stalingrad, we will get chemed or bioed by him

9) What’s wrong with him having WMD’s ??? Lots of other countries have why not Iraq ??? If you believe that people acquiring WMDs is bad then go beat up North Korea

10) What’s your future for Iraq – if you can’t offer a better alternative (a McArthur is going to be impossible to do today, esp. with an Arab nation) then why say you are

11) Who appointed it up to America to sort out the worlds problem – sure this planet has innumerable problems but why America. America never liked it when the UK blocked your trade with France in the Napoleonic wars did you. Remember how that felt 😉 you would like us showing up off the Florida cost because you can’t organise an election }> }> }>

but at the end of the day i think that war with Saddam is 90% inevitable and we’ve got to think how were going to sort out the mess once we’ve won (assuming this doesn’t turn into Vietnam mk II)

rabie :9

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Well Nikumba I don’t want to nit pick, but as long as I seem to be the principle defender of the US (for the moment at least) let me just make a point or two.

Let me say that the US foreign policy is not always perfect, but..

This constant restatement of the US being the reason for Iraq’s development and use of chemical weapons is based on what facts? Just another bit of CIA work? Their are those here who rant about ‘facts’ all the time.

This bit about ‘its always about oil’ is getting thin – Korea, Afghanistan? As we both agree, the US is not the major user of ME oil. Perhaps it’s really more about European and Japanse oil? Hey! maybe the US plan is to steel Iraq’s oil and give it to the Koreans 🙂
.
I don’t think the Chechns consider themselves Russian nor do I believe the Russians are using chemical weapons on them. However, if the Russians are guilty of something, perhaps we should talk about it direcly and leave the US out of it. The Russians are big boys.

Finally, the US is not the sole representative of the so called ‘west’. If you have an issue with the US, my advice would be to skip the ‘West’ part. Your likey to get all the lift wingers in the rest of the ‘West’ pissed at you. They sure as hell don’t want to share in the blame for any of the worlds problems. It makes them cranky. 🙂

Regards

Sauron

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

I have to say the west is very hypocritical. The US for many years supplied Iraq with chemicals for the purpose of making chemical weapons. Chenny himself was the director of the company that was selling the chemicals to Iraq.

Granted SH may not have been the most pleasent to his people but then in the past other coutries have done the same.

What about Chechyna? That is a situation where Russia is attach its own people using chemical weapons and the Chechns using the same type of weapon back, but yet the US does nothing about this, why? Becasue there is no oil to be gained from it.

Its also another fact the US does not rely on ME oil as much as Asia and Europe do.

Whatever happens if the US invades a LOT of people will die on both sides and a lot of civilians could get just as hurt or killed.

Nikumba

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Well Garry it would be a good place to start. SA hasn’t attacked its neighbours recently and dosn’t appear to be trying to get the ‘bomb’. Thats one important distinction between Iraq and SA. I think a case could be made that even by middle east standards, SH is somewhat of an aberration, while SA is more typical and therefore less abhorrent. Not a very satisfying distinction I admit and one the US isn’t very happy about either.

Very few things in this world are black and white. There have always been a host of bad guys to choose from but it usually becomes clear which ones are the most dangerous. I think SH’s track record speaks for itself and left alone, he will get the bomb an we will be dealing with another megalomaniac with the nuclear option like the ‘Great Leader’ Kim ding-dong.

SH’s removal by force or by other means, will not make the other dictatorships go away but it will be a start. I believe there is good evidence to suggest, that dealing with the worst cases pays off in the long run.

Regards

Sauron

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

“He would have become the only leader who has managed to confront the USA and live to tell the story; “

I disagree with Janes here… Castro seems to have outlasted 7 or 8 US presidents.

Sauron
Why do you think the Iraqi people deserve release from oppression more than the Saudi people, or any of the many other groups of oppressed people in the world. I think Kosovo showed pretty clearly that when one group is oppressed and is released from that oppression then as a new regime it can be as oppressive or even more so in revenge. Should the US go in and change governments every 5-10 years to make sure each side gets a regular go?
The US has already made clear in its military doctorine and policies that it considers itself as the most powerful and advanced country in the world and that its economic, military, and political power should be used to maintain these advantages… could destabilising the ME on a regular basis be a good way to keep a minerally rich region down?

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Sauron

You forgot to mention Soccer moms and Hollywood liberals, although I think Hollywood liberals would be driving Rolls’ and Bentleys.

Actually, thanks to a tax code mistake, more and more people can purchase an SUV. Originally intended for small business owners, the tax break says that anyone who purchases an SUV can count it as a tax deductible amount. But, pretty much anyone can exploit it.

I agree, fuel efficiency is one way to go.

google

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

EU backs Iraq cooperation demand
Thursday, January 16, 2003 Posted: 1150 GMT

BRUSSELS, Belgium — The European Union has joined the chief U.N. weapons inspectors in calling for more Iraqi cooperation if Baghdad wants to avert war.

After talks in Brussels on Thursday with Hans Blix, the EU’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana expressed his solidarity with the chief weapons inspector.

Solana told reporters: “He (Blix) has conveyed to me his concern that the cooperation with Saddam Hussein, the cooperation with Iraq, is not sufficient.

“We are demanding a more pro-active cooperation from the regime of Saddam Hussein so that the world, the Security Council, the inspectors, are convinced that he has disarmed from all weapons of mass destruction.”

Solana said he and Blix agreed that time was running out. “He has told me very clearly the time is not very long that he has in front of him.”

“The time is not infinite,” said Solana. However he said: “The war in Iraq can be averted and the responsibility is basically on the side of Saddam Hussein.”

Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency reiterated the message of cooperate or face the threat of military action.

At a news conference in Brussels, Blix said: “Everyone wants to see a credible and verified disarmament of Iraq.

“We feel Iraq must do more than it has so far in order to make inspections a credible avenue (to disarmament).

“The other major avenue is in the form of armed action against Iraq. For my part we are trying our best to make inspections effective so we can have a peaceful solution.”

ElBaradei, who is in charge of searching for Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, also said Iraq must do more to dispel doubts that it held weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking in Moscow, after two days of talks with Russian officials, ElBaradei said: “Iraq should understand that if we continue to report that there are open questions and we cannot exclude the possibility that they still have some weapons of mass destruction, that will not satisfy the Security Council.”

U.N. weapons inspectors on Thursday made their first search of a private home — owned by an Iraqi nuclear scientist — in the hunt for evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi officials said. (Full story)

ElBaradei is due to visit Iraq next week with Blix ahead of their report to the U.N. Security Council on January 27. Blix plans to tell Iraq to submit new weapons evidence or face possible war.

As he left U.N. headquarters in New York for Brussels, Blix said he would tell Iraq the situation was “very dangerous.”

On Friday, Blix and ElBaradei are due to hold talks with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in London.

Blair will travel to Camp David near Washington for talks with U.S. President George W. Bush on January 31, the White House has announced.

Blix met U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice at the United Nations on Tuesday and said Rice focused on the importance of Iraqi cooperation and the January 27 report.

Sources tell CNN that Rice also pressed Blix and other senior U.N. officials to demand that Iraq allow certain scientists and their families for travel outside the country for interviews about weapons of mass destruction programs.

The move would reflect a more muscular interpretation of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, which said that inspectors “may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, (and) may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq.”

To date, U.N. weapons inspectors have only asked Iraqi scientists whether they would be willing to be interviewed outside of the country, or interviewed without the presence of Iraqi government representatives. None have agreed so far, U.N. officials say.

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

JAG

You got me.

I never mentioned the Kurds and know nothing about the CIA or any US forces training the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey or anywhere less. Sorry.

Maybe some else knows all about it.

Sauron

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Google

I agree with you that the US along with the UK, France, Russia and other have meddled in ME affairs at times and you may be correct about the CIA’s involment in Iran. As far as the bio-warfare issue, I think there are more likey candidates, but who knows?

I believe US imports of ME oil currently run at about 20% of its dependancey on outside supplies. Europe and Japan are likey the biggest users. As I said elsewhere, the US is interested in supply not ownership. I agree that pre capita energy consumption in the US should be reduced. How to do it is another matter. Perhaps the Hollywood liberals could give up their SUVs.

Regards

Sauron

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

An onther question for Sauron.. You mentioned Kurds and US agents (mainly CIA opperative and Green Berrets) training them as a ressistance force. This is because they are oppressed and deserve self rule.. RIGHT?? Then would you please explain to me why arnet they US agents training Kurds in Turkey ?? Hlaf of the Kurdistan is in There, and kurds there have been no less passionete about free kurdistan.. When SH first came in power he went long way to appease Kurdish leaders in exchange for peace.. something u could not say 4 turkey.. Yet USA only saw fit to inciate revolts with Kurds on Iraqs side of Kurdistan,,, Can u explain that one to me??

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Sauron,

Good points, but I think that the governments in the ME are largely due to US policies.

Take Iran- their democratically elected PM Mossadeq was ousted in a CIA operation run by Kermit Roosevelt, and the Shah was put in his place. The Shah grew increasingly repressive, and still the US supported him, despite the fact that he formed his repressive secret police, the Savak, notorious for its human rights abuses. So after the Shah was deposed by Khomeni, the US sought a balancing force in the form of Saddam Hussein. And during the Iran-Iraq war, the US had no problems selling the Iraqis all kinds of biological strains for their BC warfare program.

Saudi Arabia’s government may not have been created by the US, but the Saud family has been able to stay in power because of the strong backing of the US. Where else is the US going to get all of its oil?

Lastly, after the US war in Iraq (the upcoming one), she will force Israel to withdraw from Palestinian controlled territories and form a Palestinian state in order to give concessions to the Arabs in a sense of appeasement.

Now, who is to say that the US is not involved in shaping and creating governments in the ME?

Perhaps if we developed solar power or some alternate form of energy to oil, we could avoid all of this! 😛

google

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Mr Sauron indeed!

Guys

The Janes report is one person’s opinion. I see nothing in that piece that hasn’t been said before nor would I expect anyone here to change their opinion, one way or the other, based on what it does say.

Facts? Todays fact are often tomorrows misconceptions. I can’t prove SH hasn’t so called WMD anymore than another here can prove he hasn’t. However, I think it likely he has some and that he wants the bomb. Based on his past record, I believe it is prudent to settle the issue soon. It is a ‘fact’ that the chief weapons inspector of the UN has stated that Iraq is holding out and that its recent declaration its incomplete. Its a ‘fact that SH has ignored the UN for 12 years.

It’s a ‘fact’ that many Iraqis have fled their country. They have that in common, however their opinions on the future may differ. Do they all oppose his removal by force? Not likey.

Its a ‘fact’ that NK has the ability to produce the bomb if it hasn’t already, and thus a ‘fact’ that this diminishes the options the UN has. Do we want to replicate this situation in Iraq by waiting until he has that advantage?

It’s a ‘fact’ that SH has waged aggressive war on his nieghbours. Its a ‘fact’ that he would be in control of most of the oil in the ME if he had been successful. It a ‘fact’ that if the US and the UK hadn’t forced the issue in 1990/91 the UN would have sat on its hands and he would have certainly have the bomb bt now.

The failure to finish off SH in 1991 was a mistake. This mistake was followed closely by the mistake of (at least) not aiding the opposition forces within Iraq. For that the US must carry most of the blame because it listened to and believed the gloom and doom merchants (both within and outside the US) that said to do so would enflame the region and cause massive upheavals throughout the middle east. Looking back, this now seems very unlikely, however it is never-the-less a ‘fact’ that the no-fly zones are protecting many Iraqis who would otherwise be at SH’s mercy.

It is a ‘fact’ that Iraq’s and NK’s nieghbourhoods are vastly different which dictates different solutions. Its a ‘fact’ that the interests and influences of SK, China, Japan and Russia with respect to NK are significantly different than the relationship between Iraq and the rest of the middle east. (Where Israel is the only dependable influence in town).

It’s a ‘fact’ that the people of Iraq will continue to suffer until he goes.

It not a fact that that the governments in the middle east are what they are, due to US policy. This claim is absurd, as is the claim that the US would steal Iraq’s oil.

Regards

Sauron

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Some good thoughts on Iraq from Jane’s Foreign Report, Jan. 15 2003, yes, just more ‘lame facts’ for Mr. Sauron.
—————————————————————–
“Iraq and Bin Laden

There is still no evidence that Saddam Hussein has assisted the Al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, there is evidence that Bin Laden’s agenda is not that of Saddam Hussein; the Iraqi leader is a secular man who still claims to be a socialist. He may enjoy the prospect of overthrowing the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia and creating havoc with US interests throughout the Middle East, but he is hardly likely to be taken by Bin Laden’s crazy ideas of an Islamic revival, or the creation of a Muslim theocracy throughout the region. But, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, this is hardly the point; people in the White House are worried about completely different things.

One is the persistent defiance of Saddam Hussein. The policy of isolating Iraq was not succeeding and had no chance of doing so. Either the Iraqi dictator was eliminated, or the sanction regime fell and Saddam would would have triumphed. He would have become the only leader who has managed to confront the USA and live to tell the story; he would have become the anointed leader of all the extremist anti-American elements throughout the Arab world. No peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians would be possible if Saddam remained the leader of the extremists; his survival would have cast a shadow over neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. In short, the spokesman for the Arab world would have been Saddam Hussein. Faced with such an option, it is not surprising that Washington chose war

The Saudi state is in deep crisis, and the survival of its regime is now in doubt. Sooner of later, the USA may have to face a new Saudi regime, which will be even more hostile to Western interests. This does not necessarily mean that the flow of oil would stop (after all, the Saudis cannot drink their oil, they still need to export the product in order to survive). Nevertheless, the prospect of a less-pliant Saudi regime means that the USA must look to Iraq as a potential ally in the future, a counter-balance to the rest of the Middle East. Iraq is uniquely placed to play this balance; this is the reason why Saddam himself was initially considered a Western ally. Now, the only way Iraq can return to its pivotal role as a Western ally is after the removal of its current dictator.”

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Kev,

You should remember that the Iraqi dissidents started a massive uprising in March 1991. Bush Sr asked them to, and suggested US aid in their attempt of toppling Iraq. Unfortunately for the rebels the US did nothing but provide two aerial playgrounds for US and British aircraft (the no-fly zones of course) which didn’t really stop Saddam from gassing/killing/torturing/eradicating the in-country resistance.

Fun huh?

After this uprising, Saddam’s regime became even more opressive. There are a whole bunch of expatriate dissident Iraqis in more flavours than you can find in a Turkish spice market, but those are very divided (apart from the fact that the majority does NOT want the US to invade) and only minimally active in Iraq.

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Well,Kev35, I think that there are Kurds in N. Iraq who are being organized into a resistance movement by US SpecOps there. However, I do not know how successful such an organization will be, afterall, Bush Senior abandoned the Kurds in 1991 and left them to be slaughtered, and we give arms and F-16s to the Turks to napalm Kurdish villages.

But I wonder why the Iraqi army is still loyal to Saddam- certainly they fear the retribution of Saddam, but I guess they hate the US even more for killing most of their friends.

google

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Sauron.

“Lame stuff.”

Why is it lame? Have you made any attempt to support your arguments with evidence? Google has. Or is it just that you don’t like what he has written? Provide concrete justification as to why America should invade Iraq. Give us the evidence as to the whereabouts of his weapons of mass destruction. Show us how close he is to producing such weapons with the intention of using them and you’ll find many people would then agree with America’s intentions.

As for the Iraqi people, if they are so dissatisfied under the present regime why don’t they rebel? Is there any kind of resistance movement currently opposing Saddam’s regime? I would have thought that if you wanted someone to fight with you or on your behalf, first you must fight for yourself.

Regards,

kev35

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Sauron,

Lame stuff eh? Since you offer no rebuttal, I assume you concede that those facts are accurate.

Cheers,

google

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Google

Lame stuff.

You do have a point about the SH’s popularity, however. The won the last election fair and square – 100% 🙂

Regards

Sauron

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

No facts you say?

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon DOES NOT EXIST. “There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency” the Washington Times(Sep. 30, 2002) reported Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman, saying.
The Washington Times, an extremely conservative paper, reported this.

Even the CIA under huge pressure from the White House, could not come up with anything respectable. They say Iraq might be able to use nukes by 2010. As for the President Bush’s concern over Iraq developing UAV bombers, the CIA says their max range is 100 miles or so. “It doesn’t make any sense to me if he meant United States territory,” said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at the Washington-based Centre for Defense Information.

What about the supposed link between Al-Qaida and SH?

Although its a good ghost story, everyone knows the decidedly secular ruling Baath party and the Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda have long been in vehement opposition to one another.

GWB is making up lies to support his war that he hasn’t even bothered to prove in public. If the US invades Iraq, it will only cause more Arabs to hate the US, and undoubtedly another repeat of 9/11. All this for what? We should aim to be a respected and integrous country, not some country always declaring war on pitiful non-nuclear states.

RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war

Sauron,

First of all, how do you know that the Iraqi people do not like living under SH? Did you take a poll of all Iraq? IMO, they would prefer to live under SH than being invaded by the US. Afterall, how many civilians died in the last Gulf War?

Second, where is the evidence that Iraq possesses WMD? Why is it a problem if he has WMD? The US has WMD, so does Israel. The US used it before, they used sarin gas in Vietnam and the A-bomb over Japan, and quite possibly biochemical agents in Korea. The Western powers used chlorine gas in WWI, and Churchill advocated using gas and other means against the Kurds. The West is no stranger to WMD, I don’t see why they point fingers.

I think Iraq does deserve better, and it would have been better had the US not supported SH until he invaded Kuwait. Why is it that the US always supports the dictator even when he is clearly against democracy? The Shah, Castillo, Ngo Dien Diem, Park, Chiang Kai Shek to name a few.

We haven’t even finished our job in Afghanistan, and GWB wants to distract attention from our @#^%#@ economy with a war in Iraq that will deal some serious damage to our economy.

Regards,

google