War In Iraq

[Nostradamus]

Oh, and do you have any reference as to the horrors of the Iraq regime? I saw the state of the union, but I've never actually seen any other reference to these acts other than the "gassing of the kurds" you always hear about. I'd like to know that the state of the union wasn't just propaganda, but I've never seen any other reference to it. Do you know of any articles on it? Thanks.

The Kurds did get gassed, but not by the Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein did not gas his own people.

Supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College, Stephen Pelletier & colleague)

That was from http://www.truthaboutwar.org/1brutal.shtml

[starbug]

Has used Chemical weapons in war? Check!
Has invaded other countries? Check!
Has funded suicide attacks? Check!
Rapes Wives and Daughters in front of fathers? Check!
Dips people in acid? Check!
Has Olympic athletes beaten? Check!

What exactly are you looking for to justify the need to remove him?

None of those reasons you give above are the reasons your government or anyone else's is giving for getting rid of him. The current basis of any attack would be to disarm him of WMDs (a specific list of weapons) in accordance with 1441. Not, as you suggest, because he is a complete bastard (which I would agree with).

Look, there are many many many leaders in the world, past and present, who have done what you've described above. What are you going to do? Wipe out all of them and give them all democracy and a nice fluffy leader? Laudable aims, I suppose, but millions of people would die in the process. And at the end of the process, you would stand accused of mass imperialism. It remains true that you can't just march into a country and depose a leader because you don't like how they run their country. There are diplomatic and persuasive ways of dealing with people but war is not generally the one people queue up to support.

Quote:
your nation risks being held responsible for mass civilian casualties


How so?

Because it's a war. People die. Civilians die. OK, depending on the US's military strategy, 'mass' might have been a bit much. But I have to say, more allied soldiers died in the last gulf war at the hands of 'friendly' American fire, than were killed in combat by opposing forces. OK, maybe they weren't civilians, but do you take my point that military operations go wrong? Forgive me if I don't have confidence that large numbers of civilians won't die. Or be made homeless, or lose their livelihoods etc.

And you would be held responsible if you chose to fight this war on your own.

You fail to see the difference between the 91' Gulf war and what we are doing in Afghanistan.

Look, quite honestly, our media in the UK has been full of stories about the terrible situation in Afghanistan, and how it is getting worse again as the Taliban make their resurgence. Afghanistan is far far from over but the international perception is that the US led the attack but when it came to nation rebuilding, were nowhere to be seen. The fear is, that this is what will happen in Iraq too. It's another reason that people are reluctant to join the war.

Seriously, all we've been hearing over here is how the rebuilding of Afghanistan is failing.

We've been trying to work this out for ten years. How long is long enough?

Long enough to show the world the evidence it is looking for.

First off the leader of Korea is a much more stable individual. Second There's a reason that they are facing a food and energy shortage and that’s because China isn't giving them these resources because they don't want them having Nukes anymore than we do. Third, being that they are short on resources they have no logistical backing to conduct any sort of hostilities.

But yes, once we are done with Iraq we will deal with N. Korea.

See this is exactly what worries me. You state that Kim Jong-Il is more stable than Saddam. I'd beg to differ, but OK. You then state that he will be dealt with after Iraq. What worries me is high or low the USA is going to draw the line of judging people's 'stability' in possession of weapons. I'm sorry to say this, but if GW is judging by his own standards of stability, I think the world has got much to be concerned about.

Or should we take the chance to stop that evil now before it leads to a bomb in NY or London?

You forget that the people of London suffered 30 years of terrorism at the hands of the IRA (and that until recently the IRA received much funding from bodies in the USA). Bombs went off in buildings, people were killed. We suffer almost daily security threats on the underground, major transport links and at our airports tanks have been camping out for the last week. You won't find any bins in transport stations. Why? Because a terrorist planted a bomb in a bin and it went off, killing people.

EDIT: London is a city constantly under threat, yet on the whole public opinion is against the war. We are afraid for our city and the people who live in it but it is important that fear doesn't cloud judgment about a war in Iraq.

All I'm saying is that it is sometimes possible to diffuse a crisis with talks not weapons, and this is one of those times I think the world should try a little bit harder to avoid war.

As an endnote, I would like to echo Lance's and mglenn's sentiments here. It is refreshing to have a political debate without it degenerating into a personal insult festival resulting in hatred.

[starbug]

Found this in today's news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 50,00.html

Apparently, Bush is going to be working making some nuclear weapons himself.

[mglenn]

First off I'll address the N. Korea issue to get it outta they way. And I'll state that this is a subject that one of my friend and I disagree on and he has served in the Air Force and is in the Air Force Reserves.

N. Korea is attempting to position itself as a threat in an attempt to get the International community and the US specificly to come to the table and offer it aid in exchange to backdown. The reasons for this is mainly due to the fact that China has stopped shipping in resources to maintain its failing economy. N. Korea turned to the US who it had a deal with for fuel oil and said that if we didn't pony up they would begin their nuke research and power plant development again. Bush, in my opinion, not wanting to be bullied stop the fuel oil shipments. This has caused the continued exscalation of threats from the North to try and get us back to the table. But its not working. The problem is that China has no desire for the North to have nukes. And as such N. Korea and China are in diplomatic discussions on the topic and the rep from NK has stated that there should be a diplomatic solution.

What NK is truely worried about is the UN Security Council enacting trade embargos against them and thus dealing a death blow to there economy. This is the only thing I'm worried about because it forces NK into a corner where he may believe his only option is to lauch a nuke to get us to the table. But I also believe that the Chinese will not let this happen because they do not want the US in a conflict right next door and very possibly establishing more of a presence in the area than we already have.

So I believe that with both the US and China applying pressure to them, that the NK will back down and this will be worked out.

[K-man]

And what is the moral of the story????? Communism doesn't work. N Korea could/should take a cue from the U.S.S.R.

[fnordboy]

Found this in today's news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 50,00.html

Apparently, Bush is going to be working making some nuclear weapons himself.

Great link, thanks Starbug

If you want to laugh check out http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com a few funny things on there.

[fnordboy]

Just so you can see why we will win in Iraq. With such military brilliance as this how can we go wrong?

[lance]

Thank you all for a very insightful, informative, and respectiful thread.

Is that a new Bushism?

Come on , I couldn't resist that one....

LOL!

Dang LD, I knew what I was typing. My fingers though, who knows.

Lance Man

[lance]

First off I'll address the N. Korea issue to get it outta they way. And I'll state that this is a subject that one of my friend and I disagree on and he has served in the Air Force and is in the Air Force Reserves.

N. Korea is attempting to position itself as a threat in an attempt to get the International community and the US specificly to come to the table and offer it aid in exchange to backdown. The reasons for this is mainly due to the fact that China has stopped shipping in resources to maintain its failing economy. N. Korea turned to the US who it had a deal with for fuel oil and said that if we didn't pony up they would begin their nuke research and power plant development again. Bush, in my opinion, not wanting to be bullied stop the fuel oil shipments. This has caused the continued exscalation of threats from the North to try and get us back to the table. But its not working. The problem is that China has no desire for the North to have nukes. And as such N. Korea and China are in diplomatic discussions on the topic and the rep from NK has stated that there should be a diplomatic solution.

What NK is truely worried about is the UN Security Council enacting trade embargos against them and thus dealing a death blow to there economy. This is the only thing I'm worried about because it forces NK into a corner where he may believe his only option is to lauch a nuke to get us to the table. But I also believe that the Chinese will not let this happen because they do not want the US in a conflict right next door and very possibly establishing more of a presence in the area than we already have.

So I believe that with both the US and China applying pressure to them, that the NK will back down and this will be worked out.

Interesting,

Yeah I go back and forth my with my bro, retired Captain and inactive army reserve, about various issues of the day. Question: How much is the Bush Administration willing to stake that this is just a bluff? Several sources have already confirmed that North Korea is a nuclear power with missiles capable of hitting the west coast of the continental US.

So with a mad hatter threatening in the Pacific is it really the best move to start an entirely different conflict in the middle east? Technically I believe Mr. Rumsfield is quoted as saying that the U.S. can fight a two front war. Okay, but why would you want to?

More thoughts to chew on.

Lance Man

[starbug]

Just so you can see why we will win in Iraq. With such military brilliance as this how can we go wrong?

Hehehe Yeah, that photo went round on email a while ago but it still makes me laugh.... and then cry.

[mglenn]

In GW's defense, those are fourth generation night vision binocs. And as you can see its daylight out. Theres a very small hole in the covers that lets in light for daylight use. You'd burn out the optics otherwise. Why would you use them in daylight you ask?

Well fourth gen is a comination of starlight and FLIR technology. The FLIR (or Forward Looking InfeRed) can pick up heat differences so its good for picking out people and equipment that are different temps than their surroundings, even during the day.

[mglenn]

Besides this hardly makes Gore look any better.



Actually being an avid shooter I think its far worse. Remember kids always treat every gun as if it were loaded!!!

[lance]

In Gore's defense,

He did volunteer to go to Vietnam. Dubya, on the other hand, was reported as being AWOL from his national guard unit.

Lance Man

[fnordboy]

Besides this hardly makes Gore look any better.

<snip>

Actually being an avid shooter I think its far worse. Remember kids always treat every gun as if it were loaded!!!

Actually, this is the one thing we would agree on politically . The left pisses me off with their gun policies.

[Sammi]

Oh, and do you have any reference as to the horrors of the Iraq regime? I saw the state of the union, but I've never actually seen any other reference to these acts other than the "gassing of the kurds" you always hear about. I'd like to know that the state of the union wasn't just propaganda, but I've never seen any other reference to it. Do you know of any articles on it? Thanks.

Here is a good history channel show that I watched about it. Quite informative: Saddam's Arsenal it airs on Tuesday , February 25 from 08:00 PM - 09:00 PM on the history channel.

Oh and about the use of the term bushisms, even if you don't like President Bush please don't try to attack him by addressing his speech and word choice, please critique him based on his actions. I may be the only one is the forum, but I happen to like President Bush. He was a great govenor of Texas and I think he is a great president.