the new war in the gulf

[ChrisReid]

Originally posted by Chris Mungo
Saddam is evil - no discussion. But why attack the USA Saddam now? iraq is a threat for USA? no, of course not. 1447? Hey, the US wait 12 years and now they think, 2 weeks are too short?
stupid.

I'll say something: the USA have foundet the UN, accepted the un-carta and now, the USA attack a country that is no threat for the usa.

Think about it.

Obviously September 11 accelerated everything and changed the landscape for war. "Twelve years, then two weeks" is ignoring that major issue. Saddam Hussein has openly stated that the family of any suicide bomber that "martyrs" himself against US or Israeli interests will get thousands of dollars from his personal coffers. Since September 11, Hussein has done more to accelerate terrorism than Osama bin Laden. If he isn't a target in the global war on terrorism, who the hell is? Just that alone is enough to take him out, regardless of the potential hazards of an instable and despotic regime possessing powerful weapons.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Chris Mungo
Saddam is evil - no discussion. But why attack the USA Saddam now? iraq is a threat for USA? no, of course not. 1447? Hey, the US wait 12 years and now they think, 2 weeks are too short?
stupid.

I'll say something: the USA have foundet the UN, accepted the un-carta and now, the USA attack a country that is no threat for the usa.

Think about it.

(1) Why now? how about because 12 years is far too long to wait, and it's about time to take Saddam out to the woodshed?... And to any who think that he's no threat to the US, can anyone seriously doubt that he and Bin Laden are in cahoots to one degree or another?... Remember that old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I haven't the slightest doubt that Saddam has given financial and no doubt other sorts of aid to Bin Laden over the years, and likely *especially* since 9-11...

(2) I have thought about it, and here's what I came up with: You conveniently ignore the fact that the UN "got tough" with Saddam in terms of words, but when he dragged his feet (as we all knew he would), they shrink back from enforcing the "consequences" they promised him. THAT's why the US is acting, and acting pretty much alone here. When a threat/warning is issued, and same is ignored by the warn-ee, and the issuing authority fails to back up their words with the promised actions, the "authority" becomes toothless; a paper tiger. As a result, the warn-ee becomes bold, insolent, and arrogant, realizing that they can get away with doing whatever they want. Any of us who are parents (esp. of a teenager) realize that...

In short, the UN is "wimping out", and we (like a good parent) are *insisting* on enforcing the promised consequences, even if we are forced to go it (nearly) alone. When authority becomes flabby and lazy, and fails to enfoce itself when needed, it has become corrupt and therefore useless. In that situation, it is altogether right and just that those who still know right from wrong take action, even though they face the scorn of their neighbor.

Originally posted by Bobbo1701
...as a matter of fact I was out protesting this war today at my college campus. You probably not gong to see it on CNN because there were very few of us and we're in the middle of butt fuck no where, but the point is i did it. However that does not mean that i think we should pull out now that we are committed...that there are thos in this country who believe taht this war is wrong and dangerous and there is no way we can walk out of it looking good.

Good for you; you have somewhat redeemed yourself here. However, you seem stuck on this point about "how we look". Damn it, man; if you think it's wrong, DO something about it, instead of just going along.

It's great that you protested the war, but then you turn right around and negate your protest by saying that you don't believe we should pull out cuz of how we "look". Looks aren't what this is about; it's about what's right and what's wrong: "Looks" be damned... I get whiplash trying to follow your logic.

Originally posted by ChrisReid
"Do what you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone" is an absurdly simplified generalization of the utilitarian concept suggested long ago by the political theorist John Stuart Mill.... Concidentally, Mill also espoused a theory where it is the just responsibility of civilized nations to coerce barbarians and corrupt nations to freedom.

Interesting. In medicine, one of the first things we learn is the ancient Latin phrase "Primum non necere", which means "first, do no harm". This shows up in the Hippocratic oath. (which, ironically, is one reason why abortion is a prime violation of a doctor's sworn responsibilities under said oath...)

I'm down with your second point about Mills philosophy, too.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Preacher
(1) Why now? how about because 12 years is far too long to wait, and it's about time to take Saddam out to the woodshed?... And to any who think that he's no threat to the US, can anyone seriously doubt that he and Bin Laden are in cahoots to one degree or another?... Remember that old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I haven't the slightest doubt that Saddam has given financial and no doubt other sorts of aid to Bin Laden over the years, and likely *especially* since 9-11...

(2) I've" thought about it", and you conveniently ignore the fact that the UN "got tough" with Saddam in terms of words, but when he dragged his feet (as we all knew he would), they shrink back from enforcing the "consequences" they promised him. THAT's why the US is acting, and acting pretty much alone here. When a threat/warning is issued, and same is ignored by the warn-ee, and the issuing authority fails to back up their words with the promised actions, the "authority" becomes toothless; a paper tiger. As a result, the warn-ee becomes bold, insolent, and arrogant, realizing that they can get away with doing whatever they want. Any of us who are parents (esp. of a teenager) realize that...

In short, the UN is "wimping out", and we (like a good parent) are *insisting* on enforcing the promised consequences, even if we are forced to go it (nearly) alone. When authority becomes flabby and lazy, and fails to enfoce itself when needed, it has become corrupt and therefore useless. In that situation, it is altogether right and just that those who still know right from wrong take action, even though they face the scorn of their neighbor.

well said

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Quarto
You know better than that . War on Howard is just a figure of speech, it's not the sort of war where people die.

Yeah I know better. John Laws was the one who said this one actually. But consider the logic. They say they don't want war, so they're going to wage war.

Originally posted by Chris Mungo
Saddam is evil - no discussion. But why attack the USA Saddam now? iraq is a threat for USA? no, of course not. 1447? Hey, the US wait 12 years and now they think, 2 weeks are too short?
stupid.

I'll say something: the USA have foundet the UN, accepted the un-carta and now, the USA attack a country that is no threat for the usa.

Think about it.

This has nothing to do with the war on terror and the world massecring devices Saddam is meant to have. It's all about shuffling him off the mortal coil and freeing the people of Iraq.

Originally posted by ChrisReid
Obviously September 11 accelerated everything and changed the landscape for war. "Twelve years, then two weeks" is ignoring that major issue. Saddam Hussein has openly stated that the family of any suicide bomber that "martyrs" himself against US or Israeli interests will get thousands of dollars from his personal coffers. Since September 11, Hussein has done more to accelerate terrorism than Osama bin Laden. If he isn't a target in the global war on terrorism, who the hell is? Just that alone is enough to take him out, regardless of the potential hazards of an instable and despotic regime possessing powerful weapons.

If that is true, then there is every reason to get rid of him. But the last I heard the only link to Iraq and terrorism is through terrorists that fight against the Kurds, and will buy weapons and things such as maps and get information from Iraqi soldiers.

Originally posted by Preacher
(1) Why now? how about because 12 years is far too long to wait, and it's about time to take Saddam out to the woodshed?... And to any who think that he's no threat to the US, can anyone seriously doubt that he and Bin Laden are in cahoots to one degree or another?...

Wasn't it proven that he wasn't? Still, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I mean, we know Saddam has a love interest in Saten and Binladen loves goats, so...

Originally posted by Preacher
Remember that old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I haven't the slightest doubt that Saddam has given financial and no doubt other sorts of aid to Bin Laden over the years, and likely *especially* since 9-11...

Well certainly it's not impossible. It may seem as inconceivible as that these terrorists bought every Flight Simulator game they could and practiced on them; like it was speculated after September 11, but certainly nothing is impossible, and if the Taliban had outside help, then certainly Saddam is a suspect whether or not they have come up with any evidence.

Originally posted by Preacher
(2) I have thought about it, and here's what I came up with: You conveniently ignore the fact that the UN "got tough" with Saddam in terms of words, but when he dragged his feet (as we all knew he would), they shrink back from enforcing the "consequences" they promised him. THAT's why the US is acting, and acting pretty much alone here. When a threat/warning is issued, and same is ignored by the warn-ee, and the issuing authority fails to back up their words with the promised actions, the "authority" becomes toothless; a paper tiger. As a result, the warn-ee becomes bold, insolent, and arrogant, realizing that they can get away with doing whatever they want. Any of us who are parents (esp. of a teenager) realize that...

Yup, that's right. You only have to look at the juninile justice system for a prime example. It's virtually a revolving door.

Originally posted by Preacher
In short, the UN is "wimping out", and we (like a good parent) are *insisting* on enforcing the promised consequences, even if we are forced to go it (nearly) alone. When authority becomes flabby and lazy, and fails to enfoce itself when needed, it has become corrupt and therefore useless. In that situation, it is altogether right and just that those who still know right from wrong take action, even though they face the scorn of their neighbor.

And really, it is fair that action is taken. How? If Saddam is allowed to get away with what he's done, then there's every chance that, say, Binladen will say that it's unfair how he was bombed and Saddam wasn't and some such. What would be fair would be to have someone I know interrogate them. No, not like that Trace Dahlgren butcher, a shooter. Applying submission moves such as, say, an ankle lock I think would be a great way to make someone talk.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Yeah I know better. John Laws was the one who said this one actually. But consider the logic. They say they don't want war, so they're going to wage war.

Ah, you're being silly . You know that they don't mean an actual war. It's illogical to claim that they're being illogical.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

But hippies can't be *illogical*! It'd betray the ancient teachings of Surak!

Oh, wait, no.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Philip Tanaka
Yup, that's right. You only have to look at the juvenile justice system for a prime example. It's virtually a revolving door.

Originally posted by Aries
well said

Thanx.

I speak from some personal experience there (the second point I'd made): My stepson was a case illustration of both concepts referred to. He would push the envelope, and I/my wife'd threaten him. When he pushed it again, she'd back right down from enforcing the threats. And I (of course) wasn't "allowed" to unilaterally enforce the rules we'd place him under. Then repeat ad nauseum x ~5 years.

Net result?: Drugs brought into our home, me nearly putting him through the wall once, countless police visits to our house, a sabotaged computer and other property damage, at least two arrests, a restraining order, one foreclosed mortgage, some community service as a "punishment" (Ha!), and another one of that generation lost to the culture of sewage and "anything goes" that we now live in.

 

[Bobbo1701]

Preacher, the thing about wars is that is always political. Politics is perception. That is why I make a big deal on how we look. Also, if we pulled out, we look weak. Thus we are an easy target.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Preacher
Thanx.

I speak from some personal experience there (the second point I'd made): My stepson was a case illustration of both concepts referred to. He would push the envelope, and I/my wife'd threaten him. When he pushed it again, she'd back right down from enforcing the threats. And I (of course) wasn't "allowed" to unilaterally enforce the rules we'd place him under. Then repeat ad nauseum x ~5 years.

Net result?: Drugs brought into our home, me nearly putting him through the wall once, countless police visits to our house, a sabotaged computer and other property damage, at least two arrests, a restraining order, one foreclosed mortgage, some community service as a "punishment" (Ha!), and another one of that generation lost to the culture of sewage and "anything goes" that we now live in.

As an uncle I sympathise. My neice is a very special girl, having just completed treatment for cancer. And we do everything we possibly can for her. But definetly sometimes it's hard. I always find it hard to not intervene when she misbehaves or is demanding. As her uncle I'm not allowed to do this, but whenever she is in my care I try to enforce the rules, basocally if she has to be told three times she's not allowed to play games or watch TV. But it can be hard because you don't want to upset her, especially when you don't know whether it's an act to get her own way or not.

 

[Chris Mungo]

Hey, the CIA didn't have any proof that saddam and osama, two different guys with different targets, philosophies and so on, working together.
The US had the chance to show the facts, and have failed. they show pictures of trucks - but they didn't have any mobile biologic-weapon plant. its impossible to have these mobile plants.
The iraqies have the ability to build nuclear weapons - but the only plant that has this ability was destroyed by the israels in the 80s.
They played a record of the conversion of two iraqies officers - but the important sentence never said by these guys - Powell sad it.
And now and the and there the 'may be' facts were exposed as fakes, the us starts the war.


From Phillip Tanaka:
This has nothing to do with the war on terror and the world massecring devices Saddam is meant to have. It's all about shuffling him off the mortal coil and freeing the people of Iraq.

From Preacher:
(1) Why now? how about because 12 years is far too long to wait, and it's about time to take Saddam out to the woodshed?... And to any who think that he's no threat to the US, can anyone seriously doubt that he and Bin Laden are in cahoots to one degree or another?... Remember that old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I haven't the slightest doubt that Saddam has given financial and no doubt other sorts of aid to Bin Laden over the years, and likely *especially* since 9-11...
2) I have thought about it, and here's what I came up with: You conveniently ignore the fact that the UN "got tough" with Saddam in terms of words, but when he dragged his feet (as we all knew he would), they shrink back from enforcing the "consequences" they promised him. THAT's why the US is acting, and acting pretty much alone here. When a threat/warning is issued, and same is ignored by the warn-ee, and the issuing authority fails to back up their words with the promised actions, the "authority" becomes toothless; a paper tiger. As a result, the warn-ee becomes bold, insolent, and arrogant, realizing that they can get away with doing whatever they want. Any of us who are parents (esp. of a teenager) realize that...

The US ignore international law and you legitimate terrorism. thats realy paradox if i think about the 11th september.

 

[redwolf]

I just hope the war can be pulled off without too many casualties and all the best to the Coalition troops over in the Middle East and to the civilians.

Now a big "I told you so...."

The US captures the southern oilfields in Iraq, surprisingly the oil price goes down. Now, it COLLAPSES. Co-incidence? I think not. This will be great for a lagging world and US economy. Once again, co-incidence? No.

"Crude oil prices skidded nearly $10 this week to $26.85 per barrel, also on hopes of a swift war. There were reports that some of Iraq's oil wells were set ablaze, while British and U.S. troops were capturing key oil fields." Quoted from BusinessWeek Online.

What did I predict last week in the "protester arrested" post? Exactly what happened. I was right!

Now the way I look at it, yes its great to get rid of Saddam Hussein for the people of Iraq but don't ever for one moment think it was to search for WMD or to rescue the people of Iraq from villainy. The US had 12 years to do that, why did they wait for a time of global economic gloom. Get real guys!

By the way Preacher, why the comment about abortion? There was no need for it.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Chris Mungo
The US ignore international law and you legitimate terrorism. thats realy paradox if i think about the 11th september.

You think what's happening in Iraq is terrorism? I don't know if you've been watching the news, but I have, and I saw Iraqis celebrating in cities that the coalition have liberated. They willingly helped tear down the posters of Saddam, they were hugging and kissing coalition soldiers and they were dancing in the streets. Considering what the purpose of terrorism is, I have to say that these people looked absolutely terrified.

Originally posted by redwolf
I just hope the war can be pulled off without too many casualties and all the best to the Coalition troops over in the Middle East and to the civilians.

Here here. May Saddam be squashed like a bug as soon as possible so our brave men and women can go home to their loved ones.

Originally posted by redwolf
Now a big "I told you so...."

Snip.

Okay, it's great that you're blowing your own horn and all, but there's just one flaw in your reasoning. The plans to oust Saddam from power were in motion a long time ago. Numorous attempts have been tried, by the Iraqi people as well, I add for those who were asking why the Iraqi people haven't tried to overthrow him. They all failed.

Originally posted by redwolf
Now the way I look at it, yes its great to get rid of Saddam Hussein for the people of Iraq but don't ever for one moment think it was to search for WMD or to rescue the people of Iraq from villainy. The US had 12 years to do that, why did they wait for a time of global economic gloom. Get real guys!

I would also like to mention, guys back me up if you can find a source for this okay, that America has said that all oil profits will go into buulding a new Iraq free of Saddam's tyranny.

 

[Manic]

There are three constants in this world...

1. Death comes to us all. We can't escape it. You can be cryogenically frozen for decades, but when you're thawed, you will still die eventually.

2. In war, innocent people will always die. It's just a matter of being in the wrong place when the blast comes. It can't be avoided, nor should it be condoned.

3. Someone will not like you. No matter how hard you try, someone will not like you anyway. Or, possibly, because of your efforts to sway them to do so.

I believe all three apply to this current "plight."
I do not condone this war, but I don't hate those brought to fight it. Nor do I hate the war. War is always a useless endeavor, but those who seek war, who seek power, only can be brought down by power, and war. It sucks, but it's a fact. The tank won't stop rolling simply because you said "please."

 

[Chris Mungo]

You think what's happening in Iraq is terrorism? I don't know if you've been watching the news, but I have, and I saw Iraqis celebrating in cities that the coalition have liberated. They willingly helped tear down the posters of Saddam, they were hugging and kissing coalition soldiers and they were dancing in the streets. Considering what the purpose of terrorism is, I have to say that these people looked absolutely terrified.

Yes, after International Law. And nothing makes crime less criminal.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

What's your point? You say the coalition legitimises terrorism.

Originally posted by Chris Mungo
The US ignore international law and you legitimate terrorism. thats realy paradox if i think about the 11th september.

Could you please explain how what the coalition is doing in Iraq is terrorism?

 

[Chris Mungo]

Attacking a country without mandate.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

So, your story, overthrowing Saddam Hussain, a tyrant to his people, is terrorism simply because there is no mandate?

 

[Quarto]

Redwolf, read the rules. Phillip, you too - telling people what they did wrong is in itself a violation of the rules.

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
But hippies can't be *illogical*! It'd betray the ancient teachings of Surak!

Oh, wait, no.

Bah, I meant in this specific case, not in general.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Oil prices went down because OPEC announced that they wouldn't be raising oil prices in the event of war. As of right now, there's *no* oil coming out of Iraq, as the UN is redeveloping the oil-for-food program.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Originally posted by redwolf
Now a big "I told you so...."

Thats awefull fast. We haven't even finished.

The US captures the southern oilfields in Iraq, surprisingly the oil price goes down. Now, it COLLAPSES. Co-incidence? I think not. This will be great for a lagging world and US economy. Once again, co-incidence? No.

Econimicc response to a sound tactic is never coincidence. Last time we tango'ed with Saddam he burnt every oil field his troops retreated past. This created a horribly thick black cloud above the battlefield. Day was like night, and aircraft couldn't fly though it safely. It hindered the military advance, albiet not by much. Not to mention the pain-in-the-ass task of having to put them out sometime. But according to your logic, preventing the enemy from burning oil fields, which would prevent air sorties from bases we just captured and intend to use, is all about the money, huh?

What did I predict last week in the "protester arrested" post? Exactly what happened. I was right!

You forgot to predict that Saddam would actualy try to burn them, though. We're there to end his silly tyrany. To simply *ignore* oil fields and let him burn them is just because the press has their eye on military actions right now, is utter nonesense.

Now the way I look at it, yes its great to get rid of Saddam Hussein for the people of Iraq but don't ever for one moment think it was to search for WMD or to rescue the people of Iraq from villainy. The US had 12 years to do that, why did they wait for a time of global economic gloom. Get real guys!

Because of homeland politics. Bush senior wanted to get re-elected, and called off the war on Saddam's doorstep. Clinton didn't have it in his political interests, being reactionist he was. It's very simple for those in charge to simple *ignore* something wrong just because it doesn't fit their agenda. The examples of this statement are endless, and many can be found in current affairs if you look beyond the spin.

P.S. It's in Bush's agenda to get his father to stop yammering about how he should have taken down Saddam while he was in office.