PDA

View Full Version : Question on the "Final Solution" of Iraq



nAz
02-14-2003, 04:12 PM
Most Agree with Dubya Iraq Has WMD He says we have Proof. Chems, Bio and maybe Nukes, so we go in to get him before he can use it on us right? nothing to do with oil. What if we get in there and a year goes buy and we find nothing. six more months and nothing, do you think it will look like we went in there for the oil or WORSE we went in there becuase were against Islam?
wont that piss of a lot of already pissed off people.

Wally_in_Cincy
02-14-2003, 04:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Most Agree with Dubya Iraq Has WMD He says we have Proof. Chems, Bio and maybe Nukes, so we go in to get him before he can use it on us right? nothing to do with oil. What if we get in there and a year goes buy and we find nothing. six more months and nothing,

<font color="blue">They have shipped a lot of stuff to Syria. We'll find things for sure though, including torture chambers and mass graves. </font color>

do you think it will look like we went in there for the oil or WORSE we went in there becuase were against Islam?
wont that piss of a lot of already pissed off people.

<font color="blue">They hate us anyway so what's the difference? What could they do that could be worse than what they did right across the river from your home? </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

nAz
02-14-2003, 04:47 PM
"We'll find things for sure though, including torture chambers and mass graves."
that dont bother me every country has it or has done it.


"They hate us anyway so what's the difference? What could they do that could be worse than what they did right across the river from your home?"

hmm they hate us partly cuase of our unending backing of Isreal among other things.
i dont wanna even think of something worse... ever watch " the sum of all fears"? scared the shiet out of me when that bomb went off

Fran Crimi
02-14-2003, 04:58 PM
Powel made a pretty good case today before the U.N. Iraq is sandbagging and they'll continue to push the envelope until they finally believe force will be used against them. I'm not dead in favor of bombing the guy but he needs to get scared.

What time is it? (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf)

02-14-2003, 05:28 PM
Iraq,IMO, seem to be doing just enough to not have NATO totally against them. They gave up a couple of scientists for questioning. They sort have allowed those surveilance planes. They have not stood in utter defiance of the UN but they have not been in complete compliance either. Cat and Mouse.
Houssein is a criminal, period. But I firmly believe that we must have the entire UN on the same page with the U.S. or else there could be problems. Especially with this thing about North Korea having nukes and Russia and China not really taking sides. That worries me a little. It also worries me that Bush seems hellbent on war with Iraq. Whatever happens, we're in for a long summer.
God Bless America

Popcorn
02-14-2003, 10:02 PM
Nothing is without risk. You can "what if" forever. It is a no win deal for the decision makers. They have to act in what they feel is the best interest of America and let the chips fall where the may. If you remember, after 9/11 they held hearings trying to blame someone. They can't be worrying about "What i's." I just hope they know what they are doing.

Tom_In_Cincy
02-14-2003, 10:15 PM
Why don't you sign up and become a part of this? If your talking isn't getting the job done.. envolve yourself and become part of the solution..

I already have family in the middle east, that will be in harm's way.. They've been there since the first of Jan.

Tired of all the talking.. something needs to be DONE... and Talking isn't doing it. ACTION.. NOW..

If Sadam.. is a madman..and is a danger to the world.. why is it taking so long to do something about him?

The UN needs to move to France.. and let the french people pick up the bills for supporting the world leaders and their decision making policies.

eg8r
02-14-2003, 11:17 PM
Although I am going to try to not post a million times on this, France has the largest oil investment in Iraq. There is no country out there with more of a chance to lose than France.

eg8r

eg8r
02-14-2003, 11:24 PM
Hey Tom, I agree. Something needs to happen soon, one way or the other. One factor for not moving just yet is the veto by Germany, Belgium, and France (what a surprise). Since Turkey has allowed the US and UK to use their military to stage attacks on Iraq, the UN wants to make sure Turkey is protected from the SCUDs launched by Iraq. Well, Germany and the other two decided to veto this move of defense.

I guess we will continue waiting......

eg8r

Vapros
02-15-2003, 12:23 AM
I'm with Dubya. We have to go to Baghdad and do what someone should have done with Hitler in about 1935. Haven't we learned anything yet?

Gayle in MD
02-15-2003, 07:12 AM
I just hope that Bush can hold on for a couple more weeks until Powell can unite the UNSC to back us completely, if that is possible. What's a few more weeks, if it will prevent war. Problem is that even if they give us complete compliance with 1440, we still have to get that maniac out of there in order to give the people of Iraq the opportunity for freedom and democracy, and protect them from him. Seems to me we might have been wiser to have named the removal of Saddam as our original goal instead of the WMD, since there is much more proof of his crimes against humanity, which cannot be hidden away, readily available to the scrutiny of the UN. I really think there should be more focus on his inhumane treatment of his people as our reason for occupation of Iraq than all this hide and seek BS about WMD's, not that that isn't important, but in the interest of promoting good diplomacy around the world, and as a means of getting him out altogether. If the job of the UNSC is to avoid the horrible consequences of war whenever possible, then one could see yesterdays events as a positive. The French should be held accountable for whatever supplies for WMD's they have sold to Iraq, also, and any other country's which have done so. Many will demonstrate for peace today, all around the world, but they should be demonstrating instead for the removal of Saddam, Iraqi's deserve peace too...It is scarey when you listen to how much hatred there is around the world against the US of America.
Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
02-15-2003, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>... One factor for not moving just yet is the veto by Germany, Belgium, and France (what a surprise).... <hr /></blockquote>

Why did the French (rifle droppers) plant trees along the Champs de Elysee (sp? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )?

So the Nazis could march in the shade /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

nAz
02-15-2003, 06:34 PM
all i asked was a question. everyone knows Sadam is a mad man this country help put where he is now. what i wanted to know was...

Most Agree with Dubya Iraq Has WMD He says we have Proof. Chems, Bio and maybe Nukes, so we go in to get him before he can use it on us right? nothing to do with oil. What if we get in there and a year goes buy and we find nothing. six more months and nothing, do you think it will look like we went in there for the oil or WORSE we went in there becuase were against Islam?
wont that piss of a lot of already pissed off people.

nAz
02-15-2003, 06:41 PM
so does the Russians, anyways French they are just worried that they will lose out on the $40+ billion in oil contracts they signed with sadam and also they want to be sure that there is a fair deal struck in the Palestinian question, which is Damn nice to know someone cares about those people. they will fall in line just before the war start so they can try to get concessions.

nAz
02-15-2003, 06:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Powel made a pretty good case today before the U.N. Iraq is sandbagging and they'll continue to push the envelope until they finally believe force will be used against them. I'm not dead in favor of bombing the guy but he needs to get scared.

What time is it? (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf) <hr /></blockquote>


True Fran he needs to go, but Does anyone here wonder how much the price of oil would be right now if we would have left Sadam take Kuwait? $1.50 a gallon.
damn he might have been a great Allies against Islamic fundamentalist and we could have made Billions selling him weapons!


BY the way read this a little history on the gulf war, news media didnt cover this much huh???...


April in July
On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war. The transcript of this meeting is as follows:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I have lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"

Saddam Hussein:

"As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we [the Iraqis] meet [with the Kuwaitis] and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"What solutions would be acceptable?"

Saddam Hussein:

"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"

(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

(Saddam smiles.)

Fran Crimi
02-15-2003, 07:55 PM
Actually the story you copied was talked about quite a bit after the first war with Iraq.

There are two reasons why this country would go to war: The first is because the leaders of our nation perceive a physical threat against us, and the second is because they perceive an economic threat. Those are the two ways an enemy can take us down and reduce us to rubble.

Everyone understands physical threats but understanding economic threats is much more difficult for the average person who doesn't see the big picture of what makes this country prosper. Most of us don't see it because it's way too complicated. It's too complicated for me to understand, but I know it's there.

If we set Saddam up the first time around, then the powers that be in this country saw a very real threat. Who knows...maybe oil at $1.50 a gallon could have devestating effects on the stability of our economy...or maybe our operatives in Iraq were passing information on what Saddam's plans were once he completed building his arsenal. But whatever the reason was, maybe we needed an "excuse" to nip it in the bud before he started WW III, or before he drove the world into a serious economic depression.

If it turns out that special interest groups benefit from an action we take, then they will benefit, but I don't think our country is low enough to go to war for the simple reason of benefiting special interest groups, which is what the implication is here. You've got to give our leaders a little more credit than that.

Fran

HOWARD
02-17-2003, 06:27 PM
Naz,

I wish you had chosen some other words other than "Final
Solution" I believe another country and leader in another time chose those words with a chilling result.

I believe both sides in this debate have valid points.

However, I would not waste a drop of American blood on theory - only facts. Although there are many theories here
I would not base choices on the theories only facts will do.

Why are we (U.S.A.) the policeman, judge, jury, and jailor of the world. There many countries that can be pointed at right now with mass graves, political prisoners, making weapons of mass destruction.

Now if we go after Osama bin Laden - that is a fact and anyone that hides him becomes our enemy.

Howard

eg8r
02-18-2003, 07:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why are we (U.S.A.) the policeman, judge, jury, and jailor of the world. <hr /></blockquote> Why shouldn't we be, we are already the mother, father, and forgetful lendor. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-18-2003, 08:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I just hope that Bush can hold on for a couple more weeks until Powell can unite the UNSC to back us completely, if that is possible. <hr /></blockquote> I am willing to bet this will be absolutely impossible. Iraq is the second in command on the Security board. No way, will he vote for a bombing. If I am correct, I believe Iran is also on that board.

I do think Bush is waiting until the UN as a whole makes a decision one way or the other.

It was a bit scary for me this weekend...I was down in San Antonio and saw more young men and women in military uniforms than ever before. I guess they all just finished boot camp and were out on the town one last time with their families. It is a bit scary knowing they might be headed for war.

eg8r

sliprock
02-18-2003, 09:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

It was a bit scary for me this weekend...I was down in San Antonio and saw more young men and women in military uniforms than ever before. I guess they all just finished boot camp and were out on the town one last time with their families. It is a bit scary knowing they might be headed for war.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Actually, San Antonio is home to the Air Force's only Boot Camp. What you witnessed is one of the proudest days in many of these young peoples lives(At least it was for me). It was the town pass. The only day that the Air Force allows you off the base unsupervised during your training. It was my public debut as a member of the U.S. military. After Basic Training most of these young people will go to another base for job related training. They could eventually go overseas to war, but luckilly for them and their families, the job they do, will more than likely be a role of support far away from the front lines. The only combatants in the Air Force (to my knowledge) are the pilots.

TomBrooklyn
02-18-2003, 09:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vapros:</font><hr> We have to go to Baghdad and do what someone should have done with Hitler in about 1935. Haven't we learned anything yet? <hr /></blockquote>Saddam's military capabilities give him only a slightly better chance of taking over the world as I have. These kinds of analogies and arguments are indicative of how some people are getting worked up more than then the facts and reality warrant. =Tom

eg8r
02-18-2003, 12:17 PM
We did see plenty of Air Force, but there was strong showing from the other branches.

You say this was your proudest moment...Well I can not think of anything better than finishing something that I have started. I was watching Discovery last night and they are showing a "boot camp" for Navy Seals. OMG if I went through that training and somehow made it out alive and graduate, I would be ecstatic.

eg8r

nAz
02-18-2003, 01:27 PM
Hmm new scenario at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day Sadam will and his top lackeys will broker a deal that will let them leave the country with their huge Swiss bank accounts and live in maybe Syria immune to any war crime commission.
what ya think

Vapros
02-18-2003, 06:20 PM
I believe you have missed the point of all this, Tom. Nobody is afraid Saddam will take over the world, but we're scared to death that he intends to kill a helluva lot of people with some terrible weapons. I thought this was common knowledge.

TomBrooklyn
02-18-2003, 07:58 PM
Hi V.
Well, he's definately a threat to his own people, but that doesn't, or at least shouldn't concern the US any. He was a threat to Iran for quite a while. We stayed out of that mess, and rightly so. He went into Kuwait, and we said whoa. Ok, I was for protecting our oil interests. But he hasn't been definatively linked to any terrorists operating in the US. And we can't find any of these alledged weapons of mass destruction.

Suppossedly he's not cooperating with Resolution 1440 guidelines, but that is not so clear to me either. The Inspectors report to the UN last Friday didn't complain much if at all that I know of about lack of cooperation. The US has had a tendency in the last 40 years of acting like a world police force. I don't want to be a world cop. Those countries are not paying taxes to us to support our police efforts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

snipershot
02-18-2003, 11:01 PM
IMO, I don't think that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction or else they would've been found by now, with the shape your economy is in now spending billions on war might not be such a good idea, how about spending it on healthcare, something you could use down there anyways.

nAz
02-19-2003, 01:35 AM
Health care that would be awesome ala Canada?

dude as Americas Economy goes so does the rest of the World /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Ross
02-19-2003, 02:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I just hope that Bush can hold on for a couple more weeks until Powell can unite the UNSC to back us completely, if that is possible. What's a few more weeks, if it will prevent war. Problem is that even if they give us complete compliance with 1440, we still have to get that maniac out of there in order to give the people of Iraq the opportunity for freedom and democracy, and protect them from him. Seems to me we might have been wiser to have named the removal of Saddam as our original goal instead of the WMD, since there is much more proof of his crimes against humanity, which cannot be hidden away, readily available to the scrutiny of the UN. I really think there should be more focus on his inhumane treatment of his people as our reason for occupation of Iraq than all this hide and seek BS about WMD's, not that that isn't important, but in the interest of promoting good diplomacy around the world, and as a means of getting him out altogether. If the job of the UNSC is to avoid the horrible consequences of war whenever possible, then one could see yesterdays events as a positive. The French should be held accountable for whatever supplies for WMD's they have sold to Iraq, also, and any other country's which have done so. Many will demonstrate for peace today, all around the world, but they should be demonstrating instead for the removal of Saddam, Iraqi's deserve peace too...It is scarey when you listen to how much hatred there is around the world against the US of America.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks, Gayle. Few people are saying this, and I agree with you completely. Saddam should go because of his cruelty to his own people as much as because he is a threat to others.

During the Vietnam war I marched in the peace movement , but I don't understand the current "peace" movement. How can "peace" lovers be OK with leaving a despot in power that starves, tortures, and kills his own people? If there were some way to remove him short of war, that would be great. But I know he won't step down until he is forced out, and apparently his control is so iron-fisted that no one has been able to create an internal uprising against him. So, it appears there will have to be war before there will be peace. Just as the use of military force against Noriega in Panama and Milosevic and others in Bosnia both lead to a greater long-term peace.

As you say, if the US had made the overthrow of a cruel despot a major part of our foreign policy toward Iraq, then we wouldn't be looking a bit dodgy about the WMD issue. As it is now, we are in the weird position of saying, "Well we can't find anything, but we know it is there, so that is proof you are lying." The weapons inspections look to the world like a kangaroo court, which they are. You're guilty if we find them, and you're guilty if we don't.

I know many believe that we should not worry about the oppression of people if it doesn't directly affect US interests. To me that is both immoral and, ultimately, short-sighted. Countries where misery, lack of education, poverty, and rule by "men with guns" lead to desparate people who are ready to go to war for power hungry leaders armed with half-baked ideologies whether they are Taliban, Tutsis, Hamas, radical Israeli's, or the Kim Chong-il's of the world. And the violence that follows ultimately affect us all, in one way or another. True we can't fix everything - there are human rights abuses everywhere from China to Saudi Arabia. But when we can do something, and the situation is so bad it can't be ignored, and the time is right (like it was in Panama and Bosnia) the US needs to do what it can to replace cruel regimes with more humanitarian ones. Such a policy IS in the US's long-term interest.

snipershot
02-19-2003, 08:54 PM
How about free healthcare! The U.S. is also are biggest trading partner (oil), your economy does effect everyone elses, will it ruin them? not ours, but it will certainly hurt it.

L.S. Dennis
02-24-2003, 10:59 PM
Well the answer is that Saddam isn't the danger in the middle that our president woulld like everyone to beleive.
excellent proof of that is that if he were, Israel would have already taken him out in a nano second. They haven't and that I think speaks volumes.

I think going over there to envade is a huge mistake, but it's going to happen. Bush won't have a good nights sleep until he does this thing.

All I can say is God help the United States from the terrorism that will surely follow in this country because of Bush's insatiable desires!