I don't recall nearly this much debate and anguish when the United States unilaterally invaded Panama to replace the regime there.

But I agree, going after Iraq would be unprecedented...Iraq is spelled very differently than Panama.

Sure, Iraq regularly fired on US planes flying over the UN authorized no-fly zone. And sure, he violated most of the cease fire provisions. And sure, there's lots of evidence to show that he is pursuing weapons of mass destruction (another thing he agreed to not pursue in exchnage for the cease fire).

I say, let's wait until after Iraq announces it has nuclear weapons or at the very least wait until New York or some other large coastal city gets vaporized in nuclear death. Of course, in the latter's case, we won't be able to prove exactly who did it so we won't be able to justifiably do anything about it. So maybe we should just keep waiting even then.

Oops, the space ship has arrived, time to go.

Oh, I seem to have made a mistake.

Just because we're not in the armed forces doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about our own countries foreign policy. The Army exists to protect the citizens, not for it's own sense of self. I'm grateful that it exists personally, but I think my favorite Winnie the Pooh character says it best "God gave me a tail to swat the flies, but I'd rather have no tail and no flies."

Just like you said Brad, yep. Lets wait till then. I have a weird neighbour and I'll wait also until he does something before I go kill him.

No, really. As I said before. The idea is to get the UN together on this and to continue to put military pressure on him until he finaly accepts to let the UN inspectors do their job, without any condition whatsoever.

There is no proof that Iraq indeed has mass destruction weapons. It's possible, but not a fact. The head of the UN inspector delegations said it himself. I don't know where you guys get your proof, but I've heard of none. And since when does Iraq "regularely" fires US planes? I've heard of none at all. Only once in August 2001, a US spy plane (with no pilot) was shot down. That's more than a year ago and no one was killed other than the 3 Iraki and the 15 wounded from the US/UK attack that followed that incident.

Sorry this post is so much later than my previous one, but I had to do some research about that plane crash, just to be sure I wasn't wrong.

I think you like to exagerate a bit, Brad, as usual, huh?

The price we pay to be on the 'right' side in a war....that's 'WAR' of the formally declared variety, not some petty squabble as so many have been of late...is to actually be, and be seen to be, the VICTIM.
If there's a victim that is not ourselves, but we sympathize with them, we can say 'we, too are victims'.

Makes sound, valid justification for the likes of the US, Australia, UK, etc going into Afghanistan.

If, however it's a matter of remonstrating with a 'nuisance', then I for one would be 100% behind a decision of the majority of potentially affected/threatened countries to intervene...and that means UN OK.

I would NEVER be behind one self-serving determination of one individual president/party/faction/whatever...where motives are at best hidden and unclear, at worst down-right dangerous.

Instigating a war makes you the Oppressor, not the righteous, no matter how much erotic delight you get admiring your flag.

Australia deployed half of its entire SAS force to Afghanistan [OK, so you never notice them...but that's intended], and still has ships in the middle east policing movements.
The head of the UN inspectors was an Aussie...he's not impressed with the US/Bush direction, either.

Sad thing is, all this discussion is meaningless.
Enlightening to some, but neither Saddam, nor Bush are likely to read and take heed...

Hopefully Bush won't fake a terrorist attack on the US to justify his actions....

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this is any different than Panama.

Iraq has been shooting at US/UK planes for months btw.

"Sure, my crazy neighbor shoots at me but he keeps missing so I'll just wait until he blasts out my spleen!"

The US went to war with Spain over a single US ship in Havana harbor blowing up (likely an accident).

World War I the US declared war on Germany because of the concept of "unrestricted submarine warfare" (apparently if it's on the side of France/Belgium/UK the requirement for going to war is lowered several notches).

There is the aforementioned Panama where we just didn't like Noriega.

And we bombed Yugoslavia because we didn't like the way the leader of that country was treating his people. Mind you, Saddam has gassed his people to death but Milosevec, Mr. Ethnica cleansing apparently didn't have as good a PR firm as Saddam has.

I'm not arguing for war here, but I am pointing out that there is nothing unprecedented going on. The US has gone to war for far fewer reasons in the past. I think many people already feel that the violations of the cease fire terms alone are cause enough to topple Saddam.

Looking at war historically, the "Right" side is rarely as clear as it seems. The winning side seems to always be the right side.

If someone wants to make the case that toppling Saddam is a bad thing, I think the first step is to move away from the argument that it's unprecedented to preeemptively replace a regime because it's been done many times before and for far less of a reason.

This is different than Panama because the Iraqis won't be as suseptable to loud music during the final seige, so we'll probably have to resort to really big fingernails on a really big chalkboard, or maybe Jerry Lewis movies. I figure he'll just go into his bunker and shoot himself in the head, anyway. If only this was more like the Falkland Islands. Now THAT was a war in the chic European style...

I'll reiterate that if we can't get a firm coalition of middle east nations, we should simply stop wasting the time and money containing Saddam Hussein. He would be far too busy with his neighbors to bother with the US. Russia would be more than happy to sell us oil if they didn't have to negotiate terms with the Arab oil racketeers, and when he was finally an obvious, horrific threat to nay-sayers we could nuke him with little or no opposition and set up puppet governments all over the middle east. Then we could move on to Asia...

Make the world America, I say. When we own everything I want a little house wherever Lecrayon lives. It is so peaceful there...

(can you tell I have ceased to give a crap? Frogboy just decided to lay in wait this time so he could get the last word when everyone was sick of talking about it, the big stinker... )

politics on a skinning site? I saw the poll and was shocked to see it. Politics and money start the most heated arguments. Well it seems out of place, but for a poll it does make skinners and other downloaders think about world events. (as oppossed to just draining away on thier computers thinking of nothing else but art)


I think the bottom line is this: Hussain broke most if not 90% of the UN peace treaty rules, specifically not letting the UN inspecters back for 4 years. 4 YEARS

When they were there they were steadily removing weapons of destruction up until 4 years ago. Now for some reason we should trust him? For whatever reason after 4 years we should say "ok no presidential palaces". I do not like bulling counties around but he lost the war and while his country should be respected he should not be. Inspecters return will be unconditional to all places at any time. He acts as if he has a choice. He agree to the terms and should at least follow through most of them including the important ones (inspectors).


I think the main reason why so mny think the US will go in no matter what is because Saddam has no credential. He is wrong. He broke the rules.

As for the politics in all of this..... and other theroies... we can come up with all sorts of things, and be right; but the botom line still is, whether he has them or not, no one can offered to play the game of cat and mouse here. We need to know if he has them or not now. If the inspecters and not allowed into all places then war will happen.

Not afgan war, or desert storm war, but real 5000 soldiers dieing war. We can't afford terroists getting there hands on those weapons. Saddam can not be trusted. It is my hopes that somehow it won't happen. I would rather have a world wide consciencist on this. I would rather the US to pull back and flex to world opinion; but there are not allot of options here when you have a successful group of terrorists out to get you.

You're right. The U.S. shouldn't be invading Irag. We should just turn it into a radioactive wasteland, and be done with it.

Instigating a war makes you the Oppressor, not the righteous, no matter how much erotic delight you get admiring your flag.

jafo


That is them main problem for me. as much as the case for war has its merits, it would still be instigating a war. They (Saddam) have not done anything directly against us that would justify a attack. At the very least he would attack nieghboring nations and THEN we would attack him. being more of a rescuer. I feel that if we are suppossed to represent the good guys then usually the "good guys" wait for a action. this time it would be a mushroom cloud (or the smoking gun). That is when we are suppossed to do something.

I think what bush failed to do is make a case that says they started it. A hard case to prove but not proving it could have dire consiquences. Saddam can not be allowed to make, get, try to biuld, try to get, even want to get these weapons. His country is unstable, he is unstable. If he was to fall under a coup then who would have the weapons? Why trust him? What would he do with them?

As I said efore this is no afgan, desert storm, war. This will be a big one with many dieing... I am not sure if Bush is doing the totally right thing. Maybe this will be a Cuban Missle crisis scenirio... everybody gets into a fighting stance and realizes that war is not a good thing and backs away.

!??!?! "bush failed to do is make a case that says they started it".

Maybe you forgot. There was a war with Iraq a little over ten years ago, after he invaded Kuwait and attacked Israel. Saddam Hussein negotiated a cease fire under specific conditions, and he didn't keep them. Weapons of mass destruction need not enter into it. The simple act of not allowing inspectors unfettered access, buying and deploying banned equipment from China, and firing on coalition planes is plenty enough excuse already. So now the cease fire is over, or should be...

The string has reached the length that people are going to continually wander in, bloviate, and be too lazy to read all that has come before, so we'll just see the same arguments over, and over, and over...

I have to bow out at this point. I was trying to lighten the mood, and I simply can't weather some of this stuff and not answer, so I guess I'll just not look in. Or someone could pull a devart and close the string

g'night, I'll see you all at next month's abortion or gun-control poll discussion... *shudder*

Exactly, like he said. Except I say it from the other side of the fence.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread after these last words.
Frogboy, you're right. I had forgotted about those. The Panama invasion and the many assassinations in South America. Well, yes, you're right. Unjustified attack from the USA is not unprecedented. But I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with that reminder. I don't know how it was reported from within the US, but from the outside, you were the bad guys in Panama. Just like you were always the bad guys every time you intervened in South/Central American politics. Chile isn't too fond of the US either. But that's no surprise; since the Monroe policy, the whole world knows what to expect in the Americas.

Anyway. That was it. I will always fail to understand how people always seem to be blood thirsty and jump on the gun at the first occasion. In Iraq just like everywhere else, everything has to be tried before the actual war solution is envisioned. People will get killed. Innocent people.

I still say, for the humpfth time, continue tight negociations. Continue to put pressure, Saddam will bend. He has no choice. He doesn't war, he knows he'll be destroyed. War CAN be avoided.

The end for me.

Bakerstreet, for your information, I live in a country where, if you go 100 km north or west you have to swim, and if you go 100 km east or 200 south you have to speak another language. On that small piece of land live 16,000,000 people. Our society deals with compromises on a daily basis.
I agree with you Paxx. Although "chamberlain" politics need to be avoided.
My wish would be to have a button and press upon it in order to get rid of all weaponry that exists.
Capitalism and greed is a good motive to sell your weapons. Somebody on this thread loved the Falkland war...Remember the English had to fight French weaponry. It's so silly. Who built that supergun in Iraq again? The list goes on and on. And there is so much sorrow just because of using that damned stuff. On ALL sides.
On a personal note: I have watched the Gulf war from behind the TV screen, and painted a whole lot of gruesome, not to ever being published paintings, some I have destroyed. I have cried and have been filled with anger, so much innocent blood, so many people getting sick of radio-active crap. The end of the series was a total dismay of all that has to do with greed, right or wrong, smacking people when you don't get your way...And I painted flowers....

The first step in such a discussion is to remove the assertion that such acts are unprecedented. I think we've established that regime change in Iraq would be par for the course.

The next step would be murkier. What justifies military intervention.

That is a much tougher discussion since it relies more on opinion than facts.

I guess one approach would be to argue whether the first Gulf war was justified or not. If you feel it was wrong for the allies to liberate Kuwait then there's no point in continuing.

IF you feel that the first gulf war was justified then one can make the case that since Iraq has violated the terms of the cease-fire then military action is simply the resumption of hostilities. Shooting at US/UK planes on a regular basis is certainly a considerable provocation. Evidence showing that he is attempting to build nuclear weapons (whether he has a nuclear weapon or not is of course debateable but what isn't debateable is that he is trying to get a nuclear capability). The terms and conditions of him beig able to stay in power was that he was to swear off trying to get weapons of mass destruction. That he is violating this agreement makes a pretty powerful legal case for resumption of hostilities.

That said, I don't think most Americans look at it that way. They look at it as more of not wanting to be the target of weapons of mass destruction and if Iraq gets nuclear weapons it vastly increases the odds that Americans will die from them either from terrorists getting access to them or some other mechanism. Whereas someone in Denmark hsa little to worry about Iraq and terrorists because they wouldn't be likely targets.

As someone who has been in the World Trade Center, I can tell you that September 11th really brought these threats home.

So it comes down to which is worse? Doing nothing and vastly increasing the chances of a much more volatile world and nuclear death to millions or replacing the regime of Iraq now at the cost of perhaps as few as a few thousands lives.

If Nazi Germany had been thwarted when it attempted to get Czech, imagine how many millions of lives might have been saved. I don't see much difference between Hitler and Saddam except Saddam doesn't have the means to kill millions -- yet.

The nastiest weapon that Saddam could use in the near future is an airliner type aicraft (Boeing 737, etc) equipped with massive tanks onboard like the Air Force refueling tankers. Just fill the tank with liquid sarin instead of JP4 fuel. File a legitimate flight plan. Fly in looking totally legitimate. Open the offload valves. What happens if you release 180,000 lbs of liquid nerve gas over a metro center at low altitude? Isn't it amazing how the countries that Saddam has no interest in attacking are so vocal, holy, and righteous in decrying American aggressiveness. Isn't that a great surprise!
I'm leaving this thread and will not open it again under any circumstances, so you won't be bored with any more diatribes from me.

Wasn't it a Canadian who built that super cannon? Saw a documentary about it, but can't recall. Anyhow, missed all the fun.

/me loves options four and six

Leave the Gas line alone

It was a Canadian engineer who designed the so-called "Super Cannon", which the Iraqis may or may not have been attempting to build.
The design was really obselete in concept and as a weapon it was plain stupid .... a huge structure in a fixed position.
The Israelis decided that it was not a good idea, MOSSAD 'removed' the Canadian gent in Paris (I think, can't be bothered checking the reports) with the well used and effective 22 Mag Sig-Sauer to the back of the skull...
Llloyd, I'm with you, this has become counter productive.
"Who Dares Wins" >

Yeah, I just kinda found out, we're not sharing ideas, were just kinda posting our own opinions.

what the hell is a "super canon"?

I have come to the conclusion that I don't like war.

I have also come to the conclusion that the USA will attack Iraq unless the inspectors get total access to all Iraq sites in the next 10 or 15 days. We are just days away..... I have read a report that said it would take 3 months for the inspectors to know what excactly is going on over there. How would that work? This just sounds bad....


I like skinning!!! Don't quite like the term "skinning" but whatever. I need to get back to work. So much to do...

hey how come you guys don't have a current desktop on your profile?

sure you can post stuff like this... but a current desktop for the profile?? nooooooo....

Cause our desktop is boring and not worth showing.

If someone would just create an alternate energy source all of our oil dependency problems would be gone. Or doesn't everyone know that water can be broken back down into flammable components (hydrogen and oxygen) and used to control combustion. But, the big American oil companies wouldn't go for that - too much money at stake. Now, if we could just find a way to rid ourselves of greed...

Brian, Brian you're dreaming again! Hurry, wake up!!