Re Iraq Poll

Politics on a skinsite, very interesting. Tomorrow I might give a European opinion. At the moment I am not sure how to say things in such a way I won't get all the americans rolling over me

It's hard to answer this poll. You could pick a couple of the answers.

Ha, I thought Fuzzy would say he was from GB

Unfortunately, while we would've liked to have taken Saddam out the first time, that wasn't the overall goal of the international coalition (which was to liberate Kuwait). The short answer is that many of the other countries said going into Iraq and taking out Saddam and his regime was a "no no". So we didn't do it.

I voted the first option. I was enraged when we didn't stop him from killing tens of thousands of Kurds in the 90's, and I *still* blame GB Sr. for caving in. I am ashamed that we are puppets to oil, and I personally think that our "allies" in the middle east are easily as bad as Saddam, pumping million of dollars into Hamas and the other 'corporate' terrorist entites.

Saddam had an agreement that left him in power, and never kept that agreement. If the "european opinion" is to give him more opportunities to kill his own people and pay suicide bombers' families $10,000 per attack, then their permission is, frankly, unessential. An agreement has 2, count them, 2 alternatives. You do this, or we will do that. European opinion seems to be that one should say, "Do this, or we will have to renegotiate better terms".

If Hitler had just annexed eastern Europe, I'm sure France would have had "grave misgivings" about war then, too... What a wonderful imperialist mess they made of Viet Nam, and yet how often is that attributed to America...

We've reached a period in history where it is unfashionable to win a war. War factories and infrastructure in Japan and Germany during WW2 were staffed by tens of thousands of civilians. We happily bombed them to oblivion without a whisper from our "allies", and yet now, we have to shed crocodile tears for terrorists who are somehow "civilians". I have no sympathy for them, or their families, or the nations that turn them out into the world with a blind eye. I can't afford to. Terrorism relies upon that sympathy to exist.

My opinion is, in short, kill Saddam Hussein or do nothing. Yes, kill him, and his little dog, too, and 'chimical Ali', and the rest of his family of genocidal maniacs. If containment is the goal, then I say, no containment at all. Let him sodomize that part of the world until they are ready to stop supporting their corrupt, fascist governments. I'll suffer the high prices of oil and other derivative products with a clear concience, for once in my life.

A few unpalatable facts.
The Gulf was not about the 'liberation of Kuwait', it was about retaining the supply of oil to the West under a 'friendly' government.
The Coalition (read 'US') policy was not to remove Hussein as (in the view of US 'strategists'!) this would result in a 'power gap' which it was feared Iran would move to fill.
Of course, Iran were not in a position to be a real threat then and remain so today.
An unwritten policy exists (and has done so for at least 100 years)to the effect that 'Heads of State' are NOT to be targeted for liquidation, despite the US 'Keystone Cops' attempts on Castro over the years.
Last week it was reported that Turkey 'warned' against any attempt by the Kurdish People to establish an independant 'Home State', not a new situation BTW, but as Turkey is part of NATO their persecution of the Kurds has to be OK, while the Iraqi's must be the bad guys?
I'm unimpressed with both sides and it smells as bad as the present situation in Gaza ..... a situation far more dangerous than Iraq.
Hussein is a 'soft' target (speaking metaphorically) and an easy one to attack via the media.
Behind the rhetoric and the John Wayne style bullshit you will find a lot of Iraqi supplied oil entering the US (and other Coalition countries) via Turkey ..... 900+ tankers a week at last count.
A war is always good for the US economy as well, and an excellent way of diverting attention to domestic problems.
It is a strange business, 'War'.
The people who are the first to want it are never the ones who come back in a 'GarBag' ...... they always want to watch it on CNN.(1SAS/7RAR 'Humour')
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Very correct Lecrayon, a skinsite is not the place for politics.
And before I retire to my Level 7 bunker, this Wombat has no enthusiasm for the present Iraqi regime, and equally, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait are not that flash, Turkish policy is one of 'convenience' and I'm saddened to see the disaster that the Palestinian-Israeli 'situation' has become.
And just in case the Brits are feeling overlooked, Mr Blair is not exactly playing with a full deck.
Unpalatable fact #1 .... "The first Casualty of War is Truth".
Unpalatable fact #2, the major casualties of a war are civilians ..... on all sides.

Bakerstreet, unpalatable fact #3, the seeds of the conflict in Vietnam were sown by Churchill and Harry Trueman.
Ho was as much a member of the WW2 Allies as the Maquis and the Polish resistance .... they ended up being screwed as well!

Doh! "Diverting attention FROM domestic problems."

wombat: The seeds of VietNam were sown by French Imperialism in 1859, long before Churchill and Harry Truman were in power. For more than 200 years Europe divided up the remaining world, and when they couldn't hold each bit, they ran, leaving instability and utter poverty in their wake, just like the French did in VietNam when the Japanese invaded. Look at pakistan, afghanistan, and all the thorns in our collective sides, and then trace their history back to a poor attempt at european imperialism...

Believe it or not I agree with you on most points you make, but I think we differ on the perception that these 'truths' are unpalatable, instead of what they are, natural, though grotesque. Everyone acts in their own interest, everything is based upon greed if you look hard enough. The problems begin when people don't have the guts to be self-serving, and don't have the character to be selfless. That should be the textbook definition of politics, in my opinion.

bakerstreet. You understand History and I (might!) understand it as well, the point re 'French Indo China' is only to keep it in the context of 'Modern History'
My 'unpalatable' prefix is relating to the average person (aka 'the bastard public! ) as I know the solution, one that has nothing to do with trying to conduct a 'war' with Tomahawks, Stealth Fighters and every last BUFF that can lurch into the air.
Body bags and the realities of the Human Body vs a Kalashnikov are 'unpalatable' to the average civilian.
MOSSAD used to be very good at 'removing' problems.
In these times, rat cunning, a silenced SiG-Sauer 22 and patience are not good enough for a 'media driven aministration'.

wombat: agreed. That's the problem when necessary, ugly action has to please the concience of the civilian public, at least enough to win the next election. War is business, and to wage it for the public means waging it inefficiently. Kinda like grenades in the movies. They have to make them look like all fiery and festive or people will wonder why the bad guys fell down...

I agree that much could have been done on all sides, long before now.

Another fact is that the US only violated Vichy France sovereignty with the illegal Normandy invasion to secure French wine via a friendly (i.e. non-German dominated) regime.

The subsequent conquest and occupation of Germany only served to destabilize the region for nearly half a century. The American public, nay, the world at large, was duped by Roosevelts lies about "freedom" when all he wanted to do is serve his wine drinking / cheese eating friends with the goods at low costs.

Similarly, as the 70s and 1991/1992 showed, war always helps the economy. The booming economy of the Vietnam era and post-gulf war demonstrated the political calculus used on war which enabled President Bush to win an overwhelming re-election in 1992 over Governor Clinton.

Turkey, whose atrocities are well known to Greeks and Armenians are much like the Americans who won't allow the various native American people to have their own seperate state. We can only assume that such barbarity is condoned by NATO as well. All people everywhere, regardless of method or means should have the right to form their own nation states laying claim to lands and properties claimed by anyone else because anything else is just wrong.

The nice thing about my planet is that it's always 72 degrees all year round. I just wish I didn't have to wear this tin foil cap to keep the radar beams from reading my thoughts.

Damn...looks like I missed the 'tinfoil cap' hand-out.....first it was the free Porsche...now this...

hmmmmm......

it is all a WC ploy to hide the fact that they slow this site down in the afternoons to force people to buy the browser. They probably have stock options in tin foil too!

Starting a war is the most brutal form to get personal gain. Whether it is about controlling land and its resources or about keeping the economy "growing" or shameless personal interest at the "cost" of others. Every 10 years or so, the US seems to need a war. Why? Because then they can rebuild what they damaged by a follow up of the Marshall plan, or because they can control resources to earn from. Capitalism is just as brutal as communism, it has only different faces. The "new economy" doesn't exist. Nobody can eat computers or mobile phones. The fact that sales are slowing down is because almost everyone has bought the stuff.
What happened to Osama? Do we hear mister Bush calling his name lately? Is the terrorist group conquered? Afghanistan is a mess, ruins everywhere, Kabul seems to be the safest place and still there are bomb attacks in that city.
Well, lets get our eyes at Saddam then. He is a sitting duck, there is no proof he has nuclear arms, nor is there proof he has missiles with ugly content to shoot from his country onto the US.
Within one year mister Bush has accomplished to get a shortage on the american budget. His values aren't taken seriously. While people from Enron go to jail, he just stays in power having made some dark sharedeals himself in the past. He has managed to rip a solid coalition apart with his extremistic stance. Most Europenas see him as an ultra right winger. Remember he was elected by 50% of the voters plus a few votes in a state where his brother is governor. To go to war is the last chance he has to get easily re-elected. >

Lecrayon, Bravo mon ami!
I will save a seat for you in the bunker.

I love Australia

OK, the problem is that if the US attack Iraq right now, it will create a precedant in modern history. There is no proof that Iraq is developping mass destruction weapons and Iraq has yet not attacked anybody. Therefore, attacking Iraq would be just that: an attack, an invasion. Not a defensive move. In Afganistan, the US were the victims of 9/11 responding to an attack. In the Gulf War, the US were officially coming to the rescue of an invaded country (although we all know that wasn't the real reason).
So, if the US attacked Iraq now, how would they be different that Iraq was when they invaded Koweit? If Iraq were attacked, how could they not suddenly become the vistim of an unsolicited invasion? Is the fact that we think that maybe he is hidding some weapons in his basement reason enough to go invade Iraq?

Oh, I'm no Saddam fan. But I think that attacking a country that hasn't attacked anybody yet a big historical mistake. And it would then create a precedent: from then on, is the US going to just invade any country just because they feel like it? Is China next?

Now, lets think with our head here for a minute. The problem in Iraq is that we think they are biulding mass destruction weapons. Well, lets send the UN inspectors check it out. If there indeed are mass destruction weapons, then give an ultimatum to destroy them under the threat that if they don't then military action would be taken.

As far as I know there wasnt a peace treaty signed when Bush sr ended the gulf war. Maybe that would entitle the US to invade Iraq without having to comply to UN resolutions. I wouldn't be surprised if that will be a government policy. The real reason behind this, however, will be covered up. One of them might be what I have written already.
If UN inspectors are sent in, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't find nuclear warheads. They will probably find some chemical warfare stuff. Saddam has been proven to be a genius in the cat and mouse game. Planting the seed of doubt in the western world by the Us government will also be a valid point to invade.
There is no doubt in my mind the US is going to. It will set new rules and will contribute to the already instability of the world. The UN will be proven to be a non-instrument. If the US is able to overthrow the Iraqi government, it will install another puppet on a string in the name of freedom and with the help of God that only blesses America. (I have never heard mister Bush saying God bless The World)

Nicely put Lecrayon. Bush seems to be enveloped in a red mist of righteousness. So, as you say, where does this end? Do we invade every country which doesn't fit american ideals? Is Europe next?

Reminds me a lot of events during the 30's...

It only ends when having power is worthless. Then people would stop hunting for it.

There is a bully (Saddam) across town (Iraq). He is brutal and I fear him. Does this give me the right to seek him out and dispose of him because he might have a weapon and seek to harm me or my friends? Am I wise to march into a neighborhood where I am already unliked and attempt to carry out this deed? Won't his friends an allies strive to vindicate his demise? What if I fail on my attempt to dispose of him? What if I only succeed in taking his weapons away?

The US is hated in much of the Arab world, a morally illegitimate attack on Iraq helps this issue how? Whatever the outcome of this proposed "war", I fear it will solidify a growing anti-American mindset and proliferate attacks on our home soil from nationless terrorist groups.

I say let Saddam actually give us cause to attack. Allow him the freedom to reap the world's wrath again and then rid the world of him. To do it now, with manufactured justifications is quite foolish.

Well, I think we should just sit back, with our wine and cheese, and wait for Saddam to hand out a few dirty bombs, or worse...... where did I put my tinfoil hat?

The UN has a long history of watching people hacked to death, mutilated, gassed, etc, while *not* meddling in a nation's internal affairs. 100,000 people were murdered in Rwanda; 40,000 corpses floated down the river to Lake Victoria. How much was left of Sarayevo when they finally decided to do something? Granted, the aid drops made great bait for the snipers. It takes years for the UN just to put war criminals on trial *after* they have had free reign to commit their atrocities.

One grave issue about Iraq isn't weapons inspectors, it's China. They have supplied fiber-optic networking so that his anti-aircraft batteries can coordinate with each other fast enough to shoot down patrolling planes. There is a fear that he could gain far worse technology from corrupt facets of the Chinese governement. To say there is no proof of chemical weapons when we *seized* them is insane. Inspections were to prevent him from resuming his programs, not to find out if there were any.

Lecrayon: The previous, far-left president spent a good deal of time trying to explain his business dealings in Arkansas, and frankly, if you think we had a 'booming' economy when GB came into office, you have a very selective memory. Last I heard, Europe was having a hard time keeping it's right-wingers in the closet as well...

You insult the thousands of Americans that are still in jeopardy in Afghanistan to imply that we have simply abandoned it. When we stay, we are setting up 'puppet regimes', when we leave, we are abandoning 'ruins'.

Where is Europe? Why isn't it rebuilding the 'ruins'? I seem to remember that Afghanistan was a European operation as well. Where is Osama? Why isn't Europe hot on his trail? What do we have to show for your 'support'? We are losing young Americans to this fight on a weekly basis.

I'm not surprised that Europe as a whole is sitting back and saying "What's the big deal?". France has a long history of mulling over what to do about their Algerian terrorists, Britain has 'talks' with their terrorist groups and even gives them political power. History shows us how Europe 'keeps peace'. No one sitting in Europe has any right to call the US self-serving when they so rarely move to help unless they, themselves, are threatened.