Smoking Gun

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Quarto
Even now, notice that it's Al Qaida that claims to support him, while he continues to completely ignore them. It may turn out one day that you're in fact absolutely right, but there really isn't any evidence to support that right now.

A few weeks ago, there was confessions from a terrorist in Iraq who would gain from Saddam and his military, and use what they get to support Binladen. This terrorist denied, however, that there was a direct link to Saddam, or there was a link between Saddam and Binladen. I could get the information if you want.

Originally posted by Quarto
Hitler wanted to fight to the death, but most of his troops and commanders ignored that wish. America has spelled out what the consequences will be if Iraq uses non-conventional weapons against them. Saddam Hussein may give the order to use WMDs, but will it be obeyed?

On that note, if war does break out, then it might turn out that a lot of Iraqis choose to surrender. If loyalty to Saddam is as bad as claimed, them I think they'd welcome the chance to walk towards American soldiers, their arms raised, rifles on their backs muzzle down, their ammunition expelled.

Originally posted by Quarto
I simply don't like it when people try to come up with reasons why Hussein is a threat when the evidence is non-existent - such arguments are counter-productive, because they're relatively easy to dismiss. That's why for the last few months, we've been hearing the same debate on the news every day, while the whole thing could have been over and done with by now.

I agree. Frankly, why should someone like Belgium help America fight this war if America lied to them? Why should many countries who are being blacklisted by America, such as France and Germany, have to fight if they owe America nothing? For Australia, we are oblidged to fight because of World War Two. If it wasn't for America, Australia would be in the hands of the Japanese. Now, that might not be such a bad thing, but in any event, Australia feels they still have a debt to pay to America. Even after Vietnam. Even after the Gulf War. But for countries who owe America nothing and have been lied to, should they do what America feels is the right thing to do? Especially considering that America, by rights, should be able to crush Saddam on their own.

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
I agree. Frankly, why should someone like Belgium help America fight this war if America lied to them?

Lied?

Why should many countries who are being blacklisted by America, such as France and Germany, have to fight if they owe America nothing?

And why did the USA send so many troops and so much material accross the sea to liberate France from German occupation? What did the US owe France then? Germany owes half of their entire country to the USA, for they would not have it now if the USSR had not been driven to collapse by the US's steadfast opposition. They should both fight because it's in the best interests of the citizens of the world. They object because knee-jerk anti-Americanism is fashionable.

Especially considering that America, by rights, should be able to crush Saddam on their own.

We don't need anyone, but everyone feels we need them. To stifle cries of "UNILATERALISM!" we try to persuade our allies to help us, but we will do what we feel we must, even if it means going alone.

The USA is not the bad guys, and never has been. Try to get some perspective. Do you deny that the assured easy victory in this war will be beneficial for the entire world? Of course you don't.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Frosty
Lied?

Well, yes, according to some they have lied about reasons to take out Saddam.

Originally posted by Frosty
And why did the USA send so many troops and so much material accross the sea to liberate France from German occupation? What did the US owe France then? Germany owes half of their entire country to the USA, for they would not have it now if the USSR had not been driven to collapse by the US's steadfast opposition. They should both fight because it's in the best interests of the citizens of the world.

Okay, France and Germany are bad examples, but other countries who owe America nothing. Certainly, unite in fighting terrorism. Certainly, push for action to be taken if action has to be taken, even if this time next year war is pushed on Iraq because they have some AK-47's, but to use an analogy, why use the nuke when the sniper will do the job just as well? Or why use a billion when a million will do the job just as well? This is not a war that the world has to go to.

Originally posted by Frosty
They should both fight because it's in the best interests of the citizens of the world.

Maybe so, but to be honest I no longer care who started the conflict with Saddam. It's time to get him out of power, not disarm him, but actually put him out of power and bury it.

Originally posted by Frosty
They object because knee-jerk anti-Americanism is fashionable

Fashionable you say? Being anti American isn't my idea of fashion. More like suicide.

Originally posted by Frosty
To stifle cries of "UNILATERALISM!" we try to persuade our allies to help us, but we will do what we feel we must, even if it means going alone.

Which I have no problem with. Just the same though, I'd feel a lot better if they had UN backing. I mean, who would go up and opposed, I mean, who other than Pauline Hanson would opposed the UN?

Originally posted by Frosty
The USA is not the bad guys, and never has been.

No, they're not. They may, may have lied. They may have been unscrupolous. They may have done things that have cause unintended suffering to innocent people. But America has always I feel as the world's superpower fought for what they believed was right and benevolent to the world.

Originally posted by Frosty
Do you deny that the assured easy victory in this war will be beneficial for the entire world? Of course you don't.

No, I do not deny that an easy victory will be benificial to the world. But a war would be a prime oppotunity for terrorism to strike when the military is off fighting war. Why make it so much easier for them by leaving so many countries vulnerable?

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka

No, I do not deny that an easy victory will be benificial to the world. But a war would be a prime oppotunity for terrorism to strike when the military is off fighting war. Why make it so much easier for them by leaving so many countries vulnerable?

Its not as if they'll need every single person in he military, police, fbi, cia etc to fight Iraq.

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Well, yes, according to some they have lied about reasons to take out Saddam.

And according to me, it's those guys who're the liars.

This is not a war that the world has to go to.

We're not asking the world to go to war. We're simply asking the world to recognize that we must go to war, and they're welcome to join us.

It's time to get him out of power, not disarm him, but actually put him out of power and bury it.

Such is our objective.

Which I have no problem with. Just the same though, I'd feel a lot better if they had UN backing.

The UN is a decadent beauracracy which has outlived its usefulness and proven so by refusing to pass judgement and take action against a bloodthirsty murderer who occupies a position of great power in an extremely important region of the world.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by steampunk
Its not as if they'll need every single person in he military, police, fbi, cia etc to fight Iraq.

No. But September 11 proved that America, like the rest of the world, is very much at risk. And as good as security became after it, it is still fallible. A few weeks after September 11 I was able to sneak weapons past airport security. And if war is launched in Iraq, a lot of attention will be focused on that, and I believe that a lot of the fight against terrorism is deterrence. If the country is at full strength, then terrorists are less confident in striking against it than they would be if it did not have all of it's resources to respond to it. Look at the situation in Israel and Palestine.

Originally posted by Frosty
And according to me, it's those guys who're the liars.

Really? There is a lot of disinformation being spread about, and it is difficult to tell who to believe.

Originally posted by Frosty
We're not asking the world to go to war. We're simply asking the world to recognize that we must go to war, and they're welcome to join us.

Hmmmmm, so why the black listing of countries such as France and Germany if they refuse to go to war?

Originally posted by Frosty
Such is our objective.

No. America's objective, so I keep hearing, is to fully disarm Saddam with force. I'm not saying that America has not used every other option, but I am asking if America has used every other option.

Originally posted by Frosty
The UN is a decadent beauracracy which has outlived its usefulness and proven so by refusing to pass judgement and take action against a bloodthirsty murderer who occupies a position of great power in an extremely important region of the world.

If that is so, someone ought to turn around and kick it in the chops. We can not have one country, not even America, be in utter control of the whole world. Not until the world's conflicts have been resolved at least. As long as there are diffirent races and cultures there can be no one form of government and power. Which is why I am firmly behind the idea of something like the UN, where those who support the idea of peace will be represented without fear or favor. Of course this usually ends up in bickering and petty feuds, which goes back to the one power ideal. But I still believe that there should not be one power that rules the world. Instead I feel there should be a united effort to control the world.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
If you replace "Hussein" for "Hitler" this could be a speech from Chamberlain in the 30's.

It's pretty sad that you would make such comments without actually reading what I said. I would think that if you take the time to come up with such clever little jibes, you should at least take the time to read what you're responding to.
I don't recall Chamberlain talking about how the focus on "Hitler as a threat" is clouding the already completely-obvious case for a just war based on Hitler's treatment of his own people. Get it? I'm saying that even though Hussein is not a threat, there already is a case for war. However, without convincing proof, coming up with reasons why Hussein is a threat simply weakens Bush's position. It opens him up to the "war is immoral" attacks, which could have easily been prevented had Bush from day one focussed on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator.

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Hmmmmm, so why the black listing of countries such as France and Germany if they refuse to go to war?

Because they are rude.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
It's pretty sad that you would make such comments without actually reading what I said. I would think that if you take the time to come up with such clever little jibes, you should at least take the time to read what you're responding to.

I read your entire message. I quoted the entire relevant text, and noted a similarity with a certain historical event. I was not taking a position. You'll know when I'm taking a position.

I don't recall Chamberlain talking about how the focus on "Hitler as a threat" is clouding the already completely-obvious case for a just war based on Hitler's treatment of his own people. Get it? I'm saying that even though Hussein is not a threat, there already is a case for war. However, without convincing proof, coming up with reasons why Hussein is a threat simply weakens Bush's position. It opens him up to the "war is immoral" attacks, which could have easily been prevented had Bush from day one focussed on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator.

But you have to agree Charberlein also thought war was avoidable, that diplomacy was the best way to go, and that there was no "convincing proof" that would justify a war with Germany. Of course it's not exactly the same case now, but there are similarities. I understood what you were trying to say, but it's not entirely different from what was said in the 30's about peace with germany.

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
No, I do not deny that an easy victory will be benificial to the world. But a war would be a prime oppotunity for terrorism to strike when the military is off fighting war. Why make it so much easier for them by leaving so many countries vulnerable?

This comment shows a great misunderstanding on your part of the role of the military in the US. The military is specifically prohibited from carrying out a wide range of activities on US soil, particularly those relating to the capture and arrest of criminal suspects. The reason for this is undoubtedly to prevent the military being turned into a tool of an authoritarian government, but the upshot is that it means that the majority of anti-criminal work in the US, including the pursuit and capture of terrorists, is unaffected by whether or not the military is currently at home, or off invading another country.
The sole exception to this would be the Coast Guard, which by definition patrols domestic waters for criminal activity, but last time I checked, the Coast Guard wasn't getting sent overseas.

Originally posted by Quarto
agree about one thing - cornered, he is not behaving rationally ("is" instead of "will", because he's already politically cornered and acting irrationally). However, he is one man, not the whole country. Hitler wanted to fight to the death, but most of his troops and commanders ignored that wish. America has spelled out what the consequences will be if Iraq uses non-conventional weapons against them. Saddam Hussein may give the order to use WMDs, but will it be obeyed?

What little evidence there is suggests that the majority of Iraqi troops are indeed as unsuicidal as one would guess. Reportedly, Iraqi soldiers keep contacting people in the autonomous regions and asking when the US is going to attack?
Why?
They want to know exactly when its safe to desert.
Desert too soon, and expect reprisals from Saddam - either by attacking the deserters directly, or harming their families. Desert too late and get plastered by American troops in a war that most Iraqis are probably already convinced they're going to lose (and for a cause that many of them probably aren't interested in fighting for)
The big exception to this is the Republican Guard units which, in addition to their elite status, often draw more heavily from those parts of the population that are particularly loyal to Saddam. Reportedly, the Guard units have been relocated to areas around Baghdad while the regular military units are positioned in the outer parts of the country.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Mmmm hmmm. I see what you're saying, how the military would not take part in fighting terrorism the same way as the FBI and such would on American soil. Yeah, that's acceptable.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
I read your entire message. I quoted the entire relevant text, and noted a similarity with a certain historical event. I was not taking a position. You'll know when I'm taking a position.

Eh? You stated that my post resembles something Chamberlain would have said. In stating this, you are taking a position - an utterly illogical position, I might add.

But you have to agree Charberlein also thought war was avoidable, that diplomacy was the best way to go, and that there was no "convincing proof" that would justify a war with Germany. Of course it's not exactly the same case now, but there are similarities. I understood what you were trying to say, but it's not entirely different from what was said in the 30's about peace with germany.

Where does this "also" come from? It implies that I'm saying the same thing... why are you putting words in my mouth? Because I'm not saying war is avoidable and that diplomacy is the best way to go and that there is no "convincing proof" that would justify a war with Iraq.
I'm saying that a) war is long overdue, and b) The proof of his crimes against his own people is so overwhelmingly convincing that there's simply no need to blabber on about how he's a threat to the world, when there's far more evidence to argue against that position than for it. Diplomacy, which I never even mentioned, is a fair way to go, of course, but given the clear failure of diplomacy in getting Saddam Hussein to choose exile, diplomacy is not an option.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
Eh? You stated that my post resembles something Chamberlain would have said. In stating this, you are taking a position - an utterly illogical position, I might add.

Not your entire post, just the part I quoted. That's why the rest of the post, which you complained didn't quote, wasn't quoted. It is not such a terrible complex concept to grasp.

why are you putting words in my mouth?

Interesting that first you say I didn't quote your entire message, now you say I didn't quote enough. Make your mind. And please understand my comment was about that part of your post, not the entire thing.

I didn't accuse you of saying any the stuff you are defending yourself from, so, there's no point in rebating your defense.

 

[Quarto]

This has gone from slightly odd to utterly bizarre... now you're saying I'm complaining about you not quoting enough of my post? I don't think I even need to explain how that qualifies as putting words into my mouth. But, just for the sake of clarity, I will explain anyway - I never said any such thing.

Oh, and by the way, had I complained about you not quoting my entire message and then about you not quoting enough, there would be nothing to make my mind up about - both amount to the same thing.

 

[Delance]

WTF? Boy, let’s return to the original message… It was a verbatim quote. And you complained I didn’t respond to the rest of your message, even thought my post had nothing to do with it. And then you defended yourself from things I never said, and now say it’s bizarre, a statement for which I agree! But whatever, let it rest, I don’t even know what this is about anymore…

 

[Quarto]

I complained that you didn't read my post. A complaint that you've repeatedly proven as justified . But indeed, we shall drop it.

 

[redwolf]

And why did the USA send so many troops and so much material accross the sea to liberate France from German occupation? What did the US owe France then?

Actually the US owed its existance to France. During the War of 1812 with Britain, the only ally the US had was France. France supplied the US with many materials during the years after the American Revolution.

Therefore, the favour was returned, and now France owes the US nothing. Learn some history Frosty.

 

[Skyfire]

Actually, I'd tend to disagree with that. The French didn't supply as much as people believe during the Revolution. They were just fighting the British in the meantime, so the enemy of my enemy played out to make us stronger allies. And in any event, the war of 1812 didn't have the French giving us a whole lot of support either, as we'd been embroiled in the "quasi-war" with them, so I'd daresay your theory that it was "all resolved" is flawed. While they did provide us with some support, I agree there, I don't think it was (directly) as much as your thinking.

 

[redwolf]

You're probably right. France was at war with just about everyone at that time.

Taking another spin on things, the enemy of my enemy is my friend also applies to the US in WWII. All of France was occupied for over a year before the US even declared war on Japan. Also, I believe, it was the Germans that declared war on the US, not vice versa, due to Germany's alliance with Japan.

Therefore, the help in WWII was also overplayed. The US may have wanted to get to continental Europe before the USSR stormed through.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by redwolf
Taking another spin on things, the enemy of my enemy is my friend also applies to the US in WWII. All of France was occupied for over a year before the US even declared war on Japan. Also, I believe, it was the Germans that declared war on the US, not vice versa, due to Germany's alliance with Japan.

yes, Germany declared war on the US Dec 11, IIRC. but remember, the lend lease program was going on before japan bombed pearl harbor

Therefore, the help in WWII was also overplayed. The US may have wanted to get to continental Europe before the USSR stormed through.

our help was overplayed? how is liberating their fucking country overplaying our help. and as for the US wanting to get to continental Europe before the USSR came through, you have to remember, untill dec 1941, the russians were getting the shit kicked out of them, and if it wasn't for the supplies that were sent by the US, germany would have taken them out. and if it wasn't for US help (in the form of lend lease and US military forces) it is almost certain that germany would have won the war (i say almost certain because nothing is absolutely certain in war, other than the fact that people will die). so, in conclusion, i really don't think that the US's help to the world in WW2 was overplayed