America's Role.

CommanderJohnson · July 12, 2002

50 people just points out how unsupported it is.

The fact he's a weapons inspector, etc (it did cite he was a Republican too), doesn't mean it's not leftist ****.

The high school debate junk that I refer to is similar BS, but to a different extent. "WE must disarm all nuclear weapons for world peace", "Saddam is a nice guy", etc.

My source is an actual 60 minutes interview with the chief diplomat or negotiator from Iraq. The reason why I *KNOW* it's true is because he's the one talking....on screen....directly answering questions....and specifically saying what I am. As much as the media screws with stuff, you can't screw up direct answers to direct questions on film.

Fine, thosands of IRAQI people die. Not Americans. It's still for our best interests.

Iraq can take over countries or at least use them for economic advantage, especially against Israel, where a detonation would be devestating.

Attacking Afghanistan is different from attacking Iraq. Iraq has been EMPIRICALLY PROVEN to be an easy win, Afghanistan isn't. We'd win quickly, minimal loss of US life, get the oil, etc. Look at the cost-benefit analysis, it's a good idea, at least for the US, which is what matters.

Lotharr · July 12, 2002

quote:

Fine, thosands of IRAQI people die. Not Americans. It's still for our best interests.

You sound like an imperialist. Imperialists always fall. Usually hard.

Wake up. People are people. Two towers fell and people died because they were AMERICANS. You make labels and you decide who is expendable. I piss on that whole way of thinking. Should I say urinate?

quote:

Attacking Afghanistan is different from attacking Iraq. Iraq has been EMPIRICALLY PROVEN to be an easy win, Afghanistan isn't. We'd win quickly, minimal loss of US life, get the oil, etc. Look at the cost-benefit analysis, it's a good idea, at least for the US, which is what matters.

Just like the peasants in Vietnam. Yes very different situations...but everyone wrote them off just like you want to do with Iraq.

And since I'm in the Army I may have to go over and kill some poor fool because you think it's an easy win....and what do you really know? Join the Marines and make Major and we'll talk more.

quote:

1. Is it really our responsibility to decide how they should behave?

AND

2. How much of the "mistreatment" and "abuse" we hear about and see in movies is merely propaganda designed to develop support for an unpopular war, and to give focus as to why we are fighting (to save people) while drawing focus away from what those we claim to save see us really saving (the oil) ?

1) I don't think so. I think the international community needs to do that and not be regulated by a control counsel....er...security counsel.

However, "democracy" is real touch-and-go at this point so I'm not sure.

2) People see what they want to. With positioning they can see things that a small group want them to. And I think we/they thank them...for not having to face certain truths.

quote:

The world community would find us a dangerous enemy, just as much so as they have found a very beneficial partner. I'm saying we shouldn't turn our backs to our allies, merely restrict exactly what kind of aid we do give them.

I bet....if things turned against us I bet the world would see a true "rogue nation"

quote:

While I do support what happened in World War 2 with us joining in, I do disagree that we should have focused on Germany.

Japan was our enemy at the time, but we allowed "international alliances" to bind us to attack Germany, which regardless of what they did, we had no quarrel with them.

Hitler stupidly declared war against us which valididated our actions regardless

They slaughtered innocent people and we stopped them. They were a true enemy....an enemy of humanity.

Check this out. It's about the possibility of war and came from a MSN link.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067896

[ 07-12-2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

July 12, 2002

The standard for judging a countries validity as a target you propose Dredd is that if they:

1.)Have nuclear weapons/Are working to aquire them

2.)Hate the USA

3.)Aren't a "Democracy"

We should attack them before they attack us.

How many countries fit that description, and is it really worth going to war over?

If someone hates us (Many people in the world do, boo hoo) there is little we can do to change that if we continue on the same course of action that leads them to hate us in the first place (The Oil issue and our Mid East foreign policy)

While I rarely agree with Menchise in political issues, he has a point here.

If someone carries on lots of rhetoric about the USA, perhaps there are valid reasons behind it.

You don't think that everyone in the world who hates us, hates us because they "hate our freedom and democratic ways" do you?

A majority of those who do not like the United States, do not like us because of our meddling foreign policy that seeks to establish American hedgemony over the middle east. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, those are all sovereign nations with the same rights in the international community that we have.

For instance, if New York, being the most populated and perhaps richest state in the United States, sought to have legal control over say, Texas - how do you think Texas would react?

Each of our states in the Union is sovereign, and our relationship with each other in the United States is little different that the United States relationship with other countries.

We may be the most powerful nation in the world, but we have no right whatsoever to try and compel a nation through force to accept our point of view, or to capitulate to us.

If Iraq is a Republic, Socialist Dictatorship, Islamic Fundamentalist Dictatorship, Democracy, Libertarian National Socialistic Green Party, it is Iraq's business, and the citizens of Iraq who should determine it.

The question should be, is it our right to step in and force democracy onto people who are unwilling, or unprepared to live in a democracy?

We should be more mindful of where exactly we step in, and to what extent. Too much meddling is beyond our mandate, and we have no right to force a wedge with our name on it into international affairs.

And I think the UN sucks, but if other nations want to work together, I have no problem with that. I'd much rather see sovereign nations, respectful of each others rights and priveledges, working together as a group of individual nations, not as one giant intangible "international community".

I am not seeking to debate on your view Dredd, but I do view them as oversimplistic in regards to our foreign policies.

"Evil", "The Bad Guys", "Enemies", are terms thrown around so lightly lately, and to attack someone's country because we disagree with their way of life, is no different than someone attacking our country because they disagree with ours.

As Julius Ceasar once said:

""Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - - Julius Caesar"

Epsilon 5 · July 12, 2002

quote:

""Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - - Julius Caesar"

Why do I feel this is what is happening in the US?

quote:

1. 9/11. "The terrorists aren't attack us yet, we'll leave them alone."

2. World War II. "Germany is ignoring international agreements in regards to troops/arms buildups and invasions, but we'll leave them alone."

3. I walk toward you saying "Yo, ****er, i'm going to beat your ****ing *** into the ****ing ground" In response, you don't move a muscle, and wait for me to hit you with the baseball bat i'm carrying.

Statement 3 is invalid, as it's not the same as the two first. Statement 3 should look that way instead:

3 . I walk into a store and buy 8 baseball bats, althought I've been expelled from the baseball team. You look at me, and i give you a mean face.

quote:

Also, REGARDLESS of all of the stuff i've just said, the article still doesn't point out why we should not attack Iraq. It gives the United States power over oil in the region. THANK YOU!

That's not called restoring the peace, that's a pure invasion. go in and take what you want/need by force.

quote:

Fine, thosands of IRAQI people die. Not Americans. It's still for our best interests.

Imperialist and self-centered.

quote:

You don't think that everyone in the world who hates us, hates us because they "hate our freedom and democratic ways" do you?

No. Other countries hate the US because The US wants to impose their ways to the world

CommanderJohnson · July 12, 2002

quote:

You sound like an imperialist. Imperialists always fall. Usually hard.

Wake up. People are people. Two towers fell and people died because they were AMERICANS. You make labels and you decide who is expendable. I piss on that whole way of thinking. Should I say urinate?

What i'm saying is that it is in the United States, and it's citizens, best interests to attack Iraq and the Iraqis. Sure, it may not be the best thing in the world to label people as THEM vs US, but in the end, that's what it comes down to. We're talking about US interests here, and there is no BENEFIT for the United States to declare "every human life is valuable and should not be expendable". Operating under that mindset prevents any sort of military retaliation for 9/11, and any sort of REASONABLE pre-emptive strikes against hostile countries. That mindset would make us trust that Saddam isn't going to USE weapons of mass destruction, even if we KNOW he is builidng them and breaking arms treaties, notably the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

They are Iraqis, we are Americans. The United Stated Constitution causes the government to do the best it can to benefit AMERICANS, not Iraqis and not the human race. If the people of the United States disagree with that policy, they can vote for change, but it isn't happening in any significant degree.

quote:

Just like the peasants in Vietnam. Yes very different situations...but everyone wrote them off just like you want to do with Iraq.

And since I'm in the Army I may have to go over and kill some poor fool because you think it's an easy win....and what do you really know? Join the Marines and make Major and we'll talk more.

Last I checked, Vietnam had no clear "benefit" in the cost-benefit analysis except protecting democracy. Besides, my opinion on Vietnam is we should have been committed to the troops there and WON the war, as opposed to the political BS that went on at home, if your going to get involved in a fight, win it. Also, Vietnam was a radically new type of warfare for the troops there, and that's why US suffered casualties, in addition to degregation of the Armed Forces and lack of homeland support. We've already taken over Iraq once and just didnt take Baghdad, forces rebuilt or not, it should be easier if not just as easy to do it again, and thus time take Baghdad. Not to mention we've had practice in Afghanistan.

Also, I may not be in the military, but I know former military officers, and in a few years i'm planning on joining the Air Force as a pilot, and I know that my opinion wouldn't change in that situation either.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world community would find us a dangerous enemy, just as much so as they have found a very beneficial partner. I'm saying we shouldn't turn our backs to our allies, merely restrict exactly what kind of aid we do give them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet....if things turned against us I bet the world would see a true "rogue nation"

The US wouldn't be considered a rogue nation unless we become militant toward significant military powers AND we stopped supplying the other significant military powers with a large portion of their trade and continued economy, and even then, the worst that would happen to the US is sanctions, which wouldn't be too bad since we have most of the natural resorces we need.

quote:

The standard for judging a countries validity as a target you propose Dredd is that if they:

1.)Have nuclear weapons/Are working to aquire them

2.)Hate the USA

3.)Aren't a "Democracy"

We should attack them before they attack us.

How many countries fit that description, and is it really worth going to war over?

If someone hates us (Many people in the world do, boo hoo) there is little we can do to change that if we continue on the same course of action that leads them to hate us in the first place (The Oil issue and our Mid East foreign policy)

First, I would like to change #1 to a "effective pursuit of weapons of mass destruction", and with that, maybe two or three nations. Iraq, North Korea, maybe Iran. I'd also like to add a #4 that they are a threat to international instability (which is thus a threat to our economic and international political interests). Iraq obviously is due to their proximity to the oil, and Korea is due to their proximity with Japan. Even without that, they are a threat because of their ability to sell those weapons to other groups that will use them. We may be able to nuke Iraq to hell if they attack us, but we can't nuke a couple dead terrorists that have no distinct "harboring country".

There is no clear way out of the things that we are doing that other countries hate. If we change our policy, the group that likes us now will support us, and if we go isolationist they'll all accuse us of not doing anything to help!

More importantly in regards to our foreign policy, changing it so other countries dont hate us is the same as giving up *US INTERESTS* due to fear. Our leaders dont just flip coins to determine their global alliances. We have alliances and agreements with various countries because they BENEFIT the UNITED STATES. If other countries dont like it, TOUGH FOR THEM. They need to back down because *THEY ARE WEAKER*. If we back down, it just makes *US WEAKER*, and that would *NEVER* be in the interests of the United States. If our government has to bully everyone into doing what we want so we can "have the cake and eat it to", so be it. That's what OUR GOVERNMENT IS THERE FOR. To help US, not to care about how bad it looks to other countries when they are helping us.

quote:

You don't think that everyone in the world who hates us, hates us because they "hate our freedom and democratic ways" do you?

Nope, I dont think that at all.

quote:

A majority of those who do not like the United States, do not like us because of our meddling foreign policy that seeks to establish American hedgemony over the middle east. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, those are all sovereign nations with the same rights in the international community that we have.

Yeah, they have the same right as any other country to act stupid toward a more powerful nation and get bombed to hell. Think of it in real world terms. If someone 10 times your size has a gun, points it at you, and tells you to give him all of your money, you'd give him the money then ***** about it to the police. You wouldn't say "No", because then your likely to get beaten to a pulp. That's the exact same thing that Iraq is doing. They won't let in the weapons inspectors and stop trying to get WMDs, so they are going to get bombed.

Also, what's wrong with establishing US hedge? If it's in the US's best interest, then it should be done, and they should have to deal with it. What, do you expect United States elected officials to say that we should let THEIR countries be happier at the expense of our own? C'mon, stop living in Menchise's socialist dream world, good for us=good and what our government should do. It's what our CONSTITUTION says the government should do, help OUR citizens, not everyone else's.

quote:

For instance, if New York, being the most populated and perhaps richest state in the United States, sought to have legal control over say, Texas - how do you think Texas would react?

The analogy sort of makes sense, but the only problem is the federal government has control over both. Yes, federalism went out the window.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/777869.asp

Pay special attention to the points about congress OVERRIDING a state governor's veto.

quote:

The question should be, is it our right to step in and force democracy onto people who are unwilling, or unprepared to live in a democracy?

We should be more mindful of where exactly we step in, and to what extent. Too much meddling is beyond our mandate, and we have no right to force a wedge with our name on it into international affairs.

I don't think we should force DEMOCRACY on people who are unwilling, but I think that if countries defy the high power and might of the United States when they are a threat to our interests (Iraq is a threat, even under Menchise's article), that they are basically asking to get attacked, and when we are done we should set up a democracy for the simple fact that it offers the most long lasting freddom...if it works correctly. I don't think we should go after every non-democractic country (ex. I don't think we should go after Cuba, or Libya, China, etc), or every country that dislikes the US. I just think we should when they pose any threat.

The US should mind it's own business unless it's interests are at stake.

quote:

"Evil", "The Bad Guys", "Enemies", are terms thrown around so lightly lately, and to attack someone's country because we disagree with their way of life, is no different than someone attacking our country because they disagree with ours.

I'm not saying we should attack countries because of their way of life. I'm saying we should attack them because of the threat their governments pose to lives of American citizens. If Iraq and North Korea would let in weapons inspectors, or they would change to democracies, or they would enter into normal relations with the US, I would have no problem with them. If they stopped brainwashing their citizens and made public statements that they are committed to peace in the world and have no military ambition, I would have no problem with them. As it is though, the countries are a threat, they meet all of the criteria, and they either need to back down or face the consequences. We've been giving Iraq warnings for the past 10 years. 9/11 is just the catalyst that stopped people from being afraid of war.

July 13, 2002

Our disagreement stems simply over our belief as to the extent that we should get involved in the world.

I do not disagree so far as if someone poses a provably credible threat to our country, has the ability and the intention to attack our country, we should strike first.

If Iraq has the ability to attack our country, and makes noises to the effect that they would, then we would first remind them where they stand on the totem pole, and if they didn't back down, then we would attack.

If Iraq is over there with the ability to attack our country, but has no intention of attacking our country, we have no right to strike first.

Your belief centers on the fact that American interests come first and if we want oil we should just barge in and take it, and only pay if it pleases us. That is I would have to say "Imperialist" (Never thought you'd hear that huh Menchise?).

We have no right whatsoever to invade even Ethiopia, much less Iraq. Any sovereign country that is recognized internationally has the same rights as we do. If we trample onto other's sovereign territory - how can we not expect them to push back?

Even the bully finds someone to stand up to him eventually.

I'm not against war, when it accomplishes something.

How exactly is attacking Iraq in our best interests if Sadam is content to sit where he is?

We've let him sit for 10 years and he hasn't bothered us. He's building up his military, so what? He still doesn't pose a threat to us, and like I said before, if he were to kill America citizens, his country would be flattened within a month.

He isn't stupid. As to this excerpt from your post:

quote:

Yeah, they have the same right as any other country to act stupid toward a more powerful nation and get bombed to hell. Think of it in real world terms. If someone 10 times your size has a gun, points it at you, and tells you to give him all of your money, you'd give him the money then ***** about it to the police. You wouldn't say "No", because then your likely to get beaten to a pulp. That's the exact same thing that Iraq is doing. They won't let in the weapons inspectors and stop trying to get WMDs, so they are going to get bombed.

You acknowledge that Sadam is threatening the "big guy" but what right do we have to force compliance over a treaty that ended a war that wasn't about helping Iraq's people anyway?

If we attack first, Iraq has every right to fight back, although not against our citizens. If we attack Iraqi military, they have a right to fight back (or run away as they usually do.. )

quote:

They are Iraqis, we are Americans. The United Stated Constitution causes the government to do the best it can to benefit AMERICANS, not Iraqis and not the human race. If the people of the United States disagree with that policy, they can vote for change, but it isn't happening in any significant degree.

As the Constitution embraces, ALL men are endowed by their creator with certain rights. These rights are not monopolized by America, but these rights are recognized as having existed *before* the constitution. Every man is created equal. We have no more of a "right" to attack another country than those of our ancestors felt they had a "right" to enslave other men. The Constitution is not just for America, it is for everyone who loves freedom, and the ability to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Iraqi's are just as much men as the citizens of America. I agree we should look after America's interests first, but we should not do so at the expense of others wherever we can help it.

CommanderJohnson · July 13, 2002

Ok, I think I better clarify since I admit i'm probably coming across a little too strong, probably from being caught up in the argument.

I don't believe we should invade Iraq for their oil.

I do believe though that Iraq has an obligation to honor weapons inspectors and to not directly interefere with US interests by artificially screwing up oil prices. I also believe that Iraq has an obligation to follow all sanctions imposed by the victorious countries as a result of the Gulf War. THAT is a typical idea of soverign nations. If you lose a war, you do what the winner(s) say according to the agreements. At BEST, Iraq is violating the trade restrictions by SMUGGLING IN military equipment. At WORST, they are building WMDs, as shown by their inability to let in weapons inspectors. Iraq with EITHER of these is in violation of international treaties, is a slap in the face toward US hedgemony (which is critical to maintaining stability in many regions), is a threat to our allies in the Middle East, and is a threat to the OIL SUPPLIES that the United States *depends* on. That's directly interefering with US interests. So, in essence, I believe that unless Iraq follows it's obligations to the international community and the United States, they should be invaded for the safety of all parties involved, including the United States. We can not stand by as Saddam gets weapons and gets into a position to threaten us when it's very likely it's coming.

My reasoning, is not based on the flawed principle of "Every life is valuable". My reasoning is based on the simple fact that if Iraq continues to ignore all warnings, it increases the probability of danger to such an extent that we need to attack. It's the same principle you live with in your everyday life, if you fail to submit to a breathalizer test, they take your drivers license away. If you plead the 5th amendment, they lock you up for contempt of court. If you refuse to be searched at an airport, they won't let you on the plane. If Iraq refuses to let in weapons inspectors, the post-war agreement is rendering null and void and we start attacking them again. Simple as that. I highly doubt anyone can justify "Letting Iraq back out of international agreements with the UN and the United States" as being in the *UNITED STATES* best interests. And that's what it comes down to.

Menchise · July 13, 2002

quote:

50 people just points out how unsupported it is.

At most it would indicate low activity in Boston, not a lack of support in Boston. It's not like these rallies are advertised on billboards: people have to look for the relevant info.

quote:

The fact he's a weapons inspector, etc (it did cite he was a Republican too), doesn't mean it's not leftist ****.

Doesn't mean it is either.

quote:

The high school debate junk that I refer to is similar BS, but to a different extent. "WE must disarm all nuclear weapons for world peace", "Saddam is a nice guy", etc.

Show me one single sentence in that article that remotely implies such things.

quote:

My source is an actual 60 minutes interview with the chief diplomat or negotiator from Iraq. The reason why I *KNOW* it's true is because he's the one talking....on screen....directly answering questions....and specifically saying what I am. As much as the media screws with stuff, you can't screw up direct answers to direct questions on film.

When was the interview? What was the person's name? What was the person's title? Did this person explain why?

quote:

(Never thought you'd hear that huh Menchise?).

Heh.

quote:

I do believe though that Iraq has an obligation to honor weapons inspectors and to not directly interefere with US interests by artificially screwing up oil prices.

Saudi Arabia screws with oil prices, and they're one of America's biggest allies in the region. Try again.

quote:

I also believe that Iraq has an obligation to follow all sanctions imposed by the victorious countries as a result of the Gulf War. THAT is a typical idea of soverign nations. If you lose a war, you do what the winner(s) say according to the agreements.

It is because of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that at least 200,000 civilians have died from starvation and preventable diseases.

Anyone who has studied the inter-war period of the 1920s and 1930s would know what an effect this has on the politics of a country. It was the harsh reparations imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles that directly contributed to the conditions in which Nazism thrived.

The economic sanctions on Iraq only strengthen Saddam's popularity. If these facts still don't convince you of that, just think back to how popular Bush became on 9/11. He had the population eating out of his hand before he mentioned any plans for retaliation.

[ 07-13-2002, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Menchise · July 13, 2002

Here is an article written by Scott Ritter on 23 January 2002 about Iraq.

quote:

Iraq: The Phantom Threat

At this very moment, US intelligence personnel are poring over documents, uncovering the depth of the anti-American plotting of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. Al Qaeda prisoners are being interrogated in an effort to unlock past secrets and interdict future threats to the United States and the world. As this investigation proceeds, the web of terrorist networks forged by Mr. bin Laden in his struggle against the West is becoming clear.

Some of the exposed links are not surprising - including Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Notably absent is Iraq. Given the spate of post-Sept. 11 media reports linking Iraq with bin Laden, one would expect a flood of evidence coming from Afghanistan confirming such a relationship.

Even the alleged meetings between Mohammed Atta - a suspected leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers - and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague are inconclusive. The Czech government has sent conflicting reports concerning this meeting and, even if the meeting took place, the supposed topic of discussion - an attack on a Radio Free Europe radio transmitter used to broadcast anti-Hussein programming - is a far cry from the 9/11 attacks.

The lack of documentation of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in this intelligence trove should lead to the questioning of the original source of such speculation, as well as the motivations of those who continue to peddle the "Iraqi connection" theory. Foremost among them are opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress and his American sponsors, in particular Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and former Undersecretary of State Richard Perle.

During my service as a UN weapons inspector, I had responsibility for liaison with Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress to gather "intelligence information" derived from Chalabi's erstwhile network of defectors and in-country sources. This information turned out to be more flash than substance. For example, there was the "engineer" who allegedly worked on Saddam Hussein's palaces who spoke of a network of underground tunnels where crates of documents were allegedly hidden during inspections. Inspectors did find a drainage tunnel. However, despite the fact that no documents were discovered, Chalabi took the tunnel's existence as confirmation that documents also existed, and spoke as if they were an established fact.

In the same manner, when Mr. Wolfowitz and company needed a link between Iraq and the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, Chalabi dutifully trotted out a series of heretofore "undiscovered" defectors who have "information" about the training of "Arab" hijackers by Iraqi intelligence at a facility near the Iraqi town of Salman Pak. The site is reported to be fully equipped with, among other things, a commercial airliner upon which the trainees can practice their trade, conveniently enough, in "groups of five" and "armed only with knives and their bare hands." The facility at Salman Pak does exist; its use as an Al Qaeda training camp is unsubstantiated.

More recently, following President Bush's demand that Iraq permit the return of UN weapons inspectors or else "suffer the consequences," Chalabi conveniently produced another "defector" who allegedly had access to Saddam's secret plans to hide underground biological and chemical weapons facilities from international detection. I spent more than six years investigating the organizations the defector claimed to work for, and although elements of his story ring true, the details used to embellish his tale on weapons of mass destruction are impossible to pin down or, in some cases, just plain wrong.

The UN stopped using Chalabi's information as a basis for conducting inspections once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the mainstream US media, which give prominent coverage to sources of information that, had they not been related to Hussein's Iraq, would normally be immediately dismissed.

This media coverage serves policy figures gunning for a wider war. It generates a frenzy of speculation concerning Iraq in the public arena, which accepts at face value this information despite the fact that almost none of what Chalabi has purveyed to the media about Iraq has turned out to be accurate. There is a substantial lack of clarity and credible sources on the actual nature of the Iraqi threat to the US. A wider debate on US policy toward Iraq is imperative, especially in light of the increasing war talk out of Washington. Rather than relying on information from dubious sources, let's put all the facts on the table. The conclusions drawn from such a debate could pull us back from the brink of an unnecessary and costly war.

*Scott Ritter is former chief of the Concealment Investigations Unit for the UN Special Commission on Iraq.

[ 07-13-2002, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Epsilon 5 · July 13, 2002

Very nice article Menchise

CommanderJohnson · July 13, 2002

quote:

Show me one single sentence in that article that remotely implies such things.

The sentences referring to all of the people dying cause of sanctions. There's a little thing called the "oil for food program". It allows money from oil sales to go to Iraq to buy aid goods. The fact the people are dying is not OUR PROBLEM, but the fault of the Iraqi leadership for not taking care of the population and getting into the war in the first place. The whole idea that WE are killing people is debatish, leftist, ****.

quote:

When was the interview? What was the person's name? What was the person's title? Did this person explain why?

I saw it on 60 minutes about a month or two ago, it might have been a re-run. It was post weapons inspectors being kicked out and i'm pretty sure it was post 9/11. I think it was the ambassador, but i'm not sure. You may want to do a search for it, i'm sure someone on here saw it. The person kept babbling about how the US is evil and "has no right", etc etc. Even if you disregard that, listen to some of Saddam's speeches, he doesn't care about weapons inspectors, he just wants to be a pain to the US. It's like he WANTS to get attacked.

quote:

Saudi Arabia screws with oil prices, and they're one of America's biggest allies in the region. Try again.

Saudi Arabia didn't start an aggressive war with other US allies. YOU try again. All of the factors combine to make it in the US's interest to attack. "Oil" isn't the ONLY one, which is why in my last post I pointed out all of the different ways, in combination, that if Iraq's current stance doesn't change, attacking is the only smart thing to do.

quote:

It is because of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that at least 200,000 civilians have died from starvation and preventable diseases.

No, it's because of Saddam that they have died. Not because of the sanctions. The sanctions would be gone if he complied with the agreements. Also, if that was the issue, he wouldn't be BUYING MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM RUSSIA. He might be buying "dual-use goods", which are what your referring to. And i'm pretty sure that they are now allowing Iraq to buy those "dual use goods", or if not, they were considering it in the UN before Iraq became belligerant....again.

quote:

Anyone who has studied the inter-war period of the 1920s and 1930s would know what an effect this has on the politics of a country. It was the harsh reparations imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles that directly contributed to the conditions in which Nazism thrived.

Oh, and not having sanctions would solve the problem of Saddam better? Oh...wait...no...cause it didnt help THE FIRST TIME. The "harsh reparations" only had the effect they did because of the GLOBAL ECONOMY at the time. The reparations, in themselves, didn't cause the problem.

quote:

The economic sanctions on Iraq only strengthen Saddam's popularity. If these facts still don't convince you of that, just think back to how popular Bush became on 9/11. He had the population eating out of his hand before he mentioned any plans for retaliation.

I'm sorry if you dont know this, but the country is run by a DICTATOR. That means that if you DONT like Saddam, you get shot. Killed. Dead. His popularity will always be or seem high for that reason.

However, I personally don't advocate sanctions on Iraq. I advocate getting weapons inspectors back in and then removing the sanctions (WHICH THE UN PROPOSED TO BEGIN WITH!!!). If that doesn't happen, I advocate INVADING IRAQ, getting rid of all of their WMDs, getting weapons inspectors back in, then removing sanctions. I think sanctions are the least effective form of containment, but they shouldn't be removed without a better idea.

Also, just re-read my last post for the more on-topic info, mainly why invading Iraq would be in our best interests as AMERICANS.

EDITL

Oh yeah, and in response to that last article. It doesn't contradict my reasoning given in the last post for attacking Iraq, since i've never given Bin Laden terrorism as a justification for it, and Ritter is hardly a perfect source. If that article was true, the entire international community would be pressuring the US to not undertake ANY negative action toward Iraq, and to remove sanctions. Not to mention that some part of the media would be pointing it out. Also, wasn't Ritter fired from his job as chief weapons inspector? Or replaced? That can lead to bias. Sure "mainstream media" might be bad, but so is "leftist ****". I typically take the most believable parts of info such as history, the facets of dictatorship, the logical motivation behind actions Saddam is accused of, etc and i don't believe most of Bush's hype. Ritter's stuff is just as bad as CNN.

[ 07-13-2002, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Menchise · July 13, 2002

quote:

Also, wasn't Ritter fired from his job as chief weapons inspector? Or replaced? That can lead to bias.

He resigned.

Menchise · July 13, 2002

quote:

The sentences referring to all of the people dying cause of sanctions. There's a little thing called the "oil for food program". It allows money from oil sales to go to Iraq to buy aid goods. The fact the people are dying is not OUR PROBLEM, but the fault of the Iraqi leadership for not taking care of the population and getting into the war in the first place. The whole idea that WE are killing people is debatish, leftist, ****.

The people are dying despite the program. The aid goods that the Iraqis receive are in proportion to the oil that it exports. Even a country as oil-rich as Iraq cannot feed the population on oil exports alone. The allegation that the Iraqi leadership is using the export revenues to buy items other than aid goods is also false since the trade contracts must be approved in advance by the UN.

Blaming the deaths on aggression in the Gulf War is also false, because the economic sanctions have no negative effect on Saddam's dictatorial position, and it was Saddam who ordered the invasion; the sanctions do the most damage to the well-being of Iraqi civilians, who were not responsible in any way for the invasion of Kuwait.

I will not deny that this is leftist, but it's not ****, no matter how often you make that assertion.

[ 07-13-2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Menchise · July 13, 2002

quote:

I saw it on 60 minutes about a month or two ago, it might have been a re-run. It was post weapons inspectors being kicked out and i'm pretty sure it was post 9/11. I think it was the ambassador, but i'm not sure. You may want to do a search for it, i'm sure someone on here saw it. The person kept babbling about how the US is evil and "has no right", etc etc.

I haven't been able to find any reference to it.

quote:

The "harsh reparations" only had the effect they did because of the GLOBAL ECONOMY at the time. The reparations, in themselves, didn't cause the problem.

The German government's attempts to pay the reparations led to a hyperinflation crisis in the mid 1920s that made German currency worthless. It was not due to the world economy, which was booming at the time.

quote:

I'm sorry if you dont know this, but the country is run by a DICTATOR. That means that if you DONT like Saddam, you get shot. Killed. Dead. His popularity will always be or seem high for that reason.

It's not that hard to determine how popular a dictator really is. Saddam is relatively popular because of the bombings and economic sanctions that have brought most of the country to stone age conditions, thus providing Saddam with someone to blame on a silver platter.

[ 07-13-2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Menchise · July 13, 2002

Regarding the issue of weapons inspections, here is an excerpt from another article with some parts that may explain Iraq's current reluctance to let them in.

quote:

MYTH: Iraq ÔÇ£has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programsÔÇØ or complied with weapons inspections. Iraqi economic sanctions ÔÇ£prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destructionÔÇØ (U.S. State Department, March 2000).

FACT: Interestingly enough, the State Department fails to address its role in helping Iraq develop its weapons programs. ÔÇ£...throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the government of Iraq, which was the government of the Baath party led by Saddam Hussein, was an ally of the United States. Iraq was a recipient of massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, most notably biological weapons stocksÔÇØ (May 1999 National Catholic Reporter).

Yet despite this omission of history, the State Department proclaims that ÔÇ£Saddam HusseinÔÇÖs priorities are clearÔÇØ based mainly on seized shipments of baby milk, baby bottles, and baby powder leaving Iraq. It seems especially unusual to state that if Hussein had greater control of baby products, he would use them to rebuild his weapons programs, especially considering that the seized items were not even directly linked to Hussein.

The truth is that Iraq has been, by and large, disarmed. ÔÇ£Following the Gulf War, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military might has been considerably diminished by the work of UNSCOM. Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler said that ÔÇÿif Iraqi disarmament were a 5-lap race, we would be three-quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.ÔÇÖ IraqÔÇÖs neighbors have said that Iraq no longer poses any threat. Even an Israeli military analyst has said that IraqÔÇÖs biological weapons program was over-hypedÔÇØ (Education for Peace in Iraq Center).

As for UNSCOM inspections, the lack of success lies mainly with the United States governmentÔÇÖs hidden agenda. UNSCOM had eight years of virtually unrestricted inspections. Former UN Weapons Inspector Raymond Zilinskas stated that ÔÇ£95 percent of [uNSCOMÔÇÖs] work proceeds unhinderedÔÇØ (ÔÇ£PBS NewshourÔÇØ with Jim Lehrer, February 1998). But contrary to the UN goal of weapons inspections, the United States government has sought to use the inspections as intelligence gathering missions. Halliday states, ÔÇ£[T]he difficulty with UNSCOM has been the inclusion of espionage, of spies, of various intelligence organizations which, under the UN auspices, is something that is appalling to all of us. Now as it happens, UNSCOM staff, including Butler, are not staff members of the organization. They are hired from other organizations, but nevertheless we expect them to behave in a manner consistent of a civil servant, and that clearly was not done. And the CIA and others have owned up to what they did, in fact, that they used the UN as a cover for espionage, which is a very unfortunate thing and what, of course, the Iraqis had been saying for many years and the UN had denied for many years. They were right; we, obviously, were wrongÔÇØ (The Fire This Time, April 1999).

Further evidence of this comes directly from former UN Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter. ÔÇ£Fingers point at the United States primarily in using the weapons inspection process not so much as a vehicle for disarming Iraq, but rather as a vehicle for containing Saddam and for gathering information that could be used to remove Saddam. The US perverted the system; not the weapons inspectorsÔÇØ (June 1999 FOR interview). Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because of this perversion.

- Jeff Lindemyer, Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact

[ 07-13-2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

July 13, 2002

I'm gonna take a little dip in this, get my feet wet so to speak.

Bush Sr, did NOT go into Baghdad because the UN would not let us and the coalition would have fallen apart. We got Iraq out of Kuwait, and that was all the UN and the Coalition thought we should do.

Saddam is doing his darnedest to get weapons of mass destruction, germ warfare, chemical warfare(which he already has and has already used), and of course the grandaddy of them all, Nuclear weapons.

What you guys have missed with this whole situation is the fact that Congress has given Bush the power to do whatever he feels is necessary to fight the war on terrorism. They have done it, it is finished. Bush can pretty much do whatever he wants.

Iraq and Saddam are a very destabalizing force in the middle east, he finances a lot of the terrorists over there. He is paying the families of suicide bombers, along with Saudi Arabia, which you don't hear about of course.

Al Quaeda is financed through a number of different countries, main ones being again, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Iraq, we can deal with him, but Saudi, 7% of our Oil comes from Saudi Arabia. Who do you think financed the Eco guys who convinced congress to vote no on drilling in Anwar, Saudi Arabia. They have a BIG stick over our head, called OIL. Iraq on the other hand is a trouble maker, and will do what it can to destabalize the region. Because if it can, the US will suffer economically, oil is the lifeblood of our economy.

Destroying Saddams Regime is very much in our interest, economically, politically, and the war on terrorism. He is one of their main financiers, and if he is taken out of the picture, it puts a big hole where Al Quaeda's pocket book was, as well as the Palestinians pocketbook. Taking out Saddam will settle the middle east down to a point where they can actually find peace, and we can actually sit back and relax for a bit.

Saddam of course threatens to use whatever means are at his disposal to make sure that we do NOT attack him, mother of all battles, rhetoric of all sorts. He's a whimp, we can take him out just as we did 10 years ago. He has the same tek that he had then and we are now 10 years further along then we were then, so it is not a case of Pit bull against pit bull, it is pit bull, the US, against a terrier. Iraq does NOT have a chance, we just have to take care of it.

Attacking Iraq IS in our best interest, is in the best interest of ALL the middle eastern countries and the west. Saddam is a trouble maker and a bully and must be taken out of the picture.

And FYI, we are not laden down in Afghanistan, we kicked the heck out the Al Quaeda and the Taliban, yeah, they still want to fight, but most are hiding. Special forces are not what I would call being laden down. We DO NOT have divisions in Afghanistan, and never will. Once the Afghanistan police and military is trained, we will remove ourselves and they will take care of themselves.

Turkey is helping greatly in this regard, hopefully Afghanistan can take the model of the Turkish secular government and make it their own.

It IS in our best interest to take out Saddam, to take out the Taliban, to take out Syria, North Korea, etc. And someday it will probably be in our best interest to take out China, although economically, China is going to be forced into democracy kicking and screaming all on her own.

The founding fathers never pictured the US as the one true superpower of the world, they considered the US a country where people could come and live and not be afraid of the government, they never dreamed that it would be so successful.

We do what we have to do to keep our allies and ourselves safe. Saddam is a major problem, and instigator of much of it, he MUST be taken down, with any means necessary.

Epsilon 5 · July 13, 2002

quote:

What you guys have missed with this whole situation is the fact that Congress has given Bush the power to do whatever he feels is necessary to fight the war on terrorism. They have done it, it is finished. Bush can pretty much do whatever he wants.

No. the people don't want this war. Bush should listen to the people.

Tell me, I always wanted to ask you that. you support democracy, right? In a democracy, what is right and what is wrong is determined by the majority.

Tell me. Why at the G8 EVERY COUNTRY LEADER was against Bush plans to topple Arafat AND attack Iraq? That's 7 vs 1 (Canada has a hard time to admit, but that's another story). If the United States are alone in their corner, what make then right?

quote:

Iraq and Saddam are a very destabalizing force in the middle east, he finances a lot of the terrorists over there. He is paying the families of suicide bombers, along with Saudi Arabia, which you don't hear about of course.

Proof?

quote:

Destroying Saddams Regime is very much in our interest, economically, politically, and the war on terrorism. He is one of their main financiers, and if he is taken out of the picture, it puts a big hole where Al Quaeda's pocket book was, as well as the Palestinians pocketbook. Taking out Saddam will settle the middle east down to a point where they can actually find peace, and we can actually sit back and relax for a bit.

On the contrary. I think it'll only make things worse. It will show the arab natons once again that the United States think they can impose their decisions to the world.

quote:

Saddam of course threatens to use whatever means are at his disposal to make sure that we do NOT attack him, mother of all battles, rhetoric of all sorts. He's a whimp, we can take him out just as we did 10 years ago. He has the same tek that he had then and we are now 10 years further along then we were then, so it is not a case of Pit bull against pit bull, it is pit bull, the US, against a terrier. Iraq does NOT have a chance, we just have to take care of it.

How can you be sure he doesn't have better technology? and even then, if he had MDWs as you say, what does it matter?

quote:

And FYI, we are not laden down in Afghanistan, we kicked the heck out the Al Quaeda and the Taliban, yeah, they still want to fight, but most are hiding. Special forces are not what I would call being laden down. We DO NOT have divisions in Afghanistan, and never will. Once the Afghanistan police and military is trained, we will remove ourselves and they will take care of themselves.

Somehow I doubt that.

quote:

And someday it will probably be in our best interest to take out China, although economically, China is going to be forced into democracy kicking and screaming all on her own.

WTF do you have against China?? China isn't bad, you, along with all you republicans, think that communism is evil, so communism must be destroyed.

And how do you think China can be taken out? They are not hardboring terrorists, they are not planning invasions, and I didn't heard of government oppression. (enlighten me if you have), so why would the US need to show THEY are the bully?

July 13, 2002

Poor EP, you need to understand one thing, what the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter a hill of beans. The AMERICAN people are what matter, and they are behind bush by over 74% in the last poll.

What the other countries at the G-8 or the UN think doesn't matter. Got that yet. What you think doesn't matter. The us is a soveriegn nation, we have been attacked, our ally Israel continues to be attacked. Saddam is a major finacier of it, if he is taken out, the terrorist incidents will decrease expotentially.

China wishes to invade Taiwan, the only thing they have a problem with is sinking a US carrier, and they are getting close to being able to do that. China is EVIL, whether you like it or not, they kill their own people for body parts.

The Chinese leadership is aging though, hopefully the new generation will figure out that it is in it's own best interest not to invade Taiwan and that Democracy and free enterprise is what it will take to join the rest of the world.

Again, what the international community thinks, does NOT matter a hill of beans. Bush has the backing of the American people. That is ALL he needs.

CommanderJohnson · July 13, 2002

quote:

The people are dying despite the program. The aid goods that the Iraqis receive are in proportion to the oil that it exports. Even a country as oil-rich as Iraq cannot feed the population on oil exports alone. The allegation that the Iraqi leadership is using the export revenues to buy items other than aid goods is also false since the trade contracts must be approved in advance by the UN.

Saddam has no problem allocating the resources in such a way that "his people" are good, and everyone else has to fight for food or starve. Also, if you've kept up on news, there are trades going on between other countries (I think Russia is one of them), without UN authorization, and that's for weapon material.

Another thing Saddam is using his money for is PAYING THE FAMILIES OF ISRAELI SUICIDE BOMBERS. I just remembered that after Jaguar's post. That's sort of straightforward: Money goes to suicide bombers. Not a stretch to say probably to their organizations too.

quote:

Blaming the deaths on aggression in the Gulf War is also false, because the economic sanctions have no negative effect on Saddam's dictatorial position, and it was Saddam who ordered the invasion; the sanctions do the most damage to the well-being of Iraqi civilians, who were not responsible in any way for the invasion of Kuwait.

No effect on Saddam's dictatorial position? It helps stop the MILITARY from rebuilding, and the MILITARY is *CRITICAL* to any dictatorship! The people were responsible for the invasion by supporting Saddam during it and after it, and even if they ARENT responsible for it, Saddam is responsible for the sanctions by not complying with UN weapons insepctions. It doesn't matter if there was spying going on or not. If he wanted the sanctions ended, he would simply NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE. If he has something to hide from us, it's probably something bad that justifies an attack.

The 60 minutes article was centered around an Iraqi high-up official talking about how the US wouldn't accept a known terrorist from their prisons and wouldn't sign a contract on it, but he also talked about weapons inspectors.

quote:

The German government's attempts to pay the reparations led to a hyperinflation crisis in the mid 1920s that made German currency worthless. It was not due to the world economy, which was booming at the time.

At the time, the world economy was horrible. Western europe was paying back loans to the US, Germany was playing reparations to Western Europe, and the United States was MAKING loans to Germany. The entire world economy was screwed up. Then the US economy fell flat on it's face because of how the US was centered on manufacturing cars and couldn't shift to a better production ideal. It wasn't because of the reparations Germany was in shambles, it was cause of the world economy in combination with it. If the world economy was better, the loans wouldnt have been taking place, and we probably would have stopped Germany before they started attacks.

quote:

It's not that hard to determine how popular a dictator really is. Saddam is relatively popular because of the bombings and economic sanctions that have brought most of the country to stone age conditions, thus providing Saddam with someone to blame on a silver platter.

Now your ascribing intenetions to the Iraqi people, and it's illogical. Saddam attacks Kuwait. UN beats Saddam, imposes sanctions. People blame the UN for the sanctions? The LOGICAL thing, and the thing that should be assumed, is they blame SADDAM/Their Government, for the sanctions. Saddam may be able to rant and rave about it being the US's fault, but your never going to know the truth since it's a DICTATORSHIP.

In response to your final article, it is obviously biased lefist ****, moreso than most of the other stuff. You blame the main-stream media for being biased, but it's a LOT less biased than that. "Education for Peace in Iraq center"?!??! Gee whiz, I wonder how credible that is. Also, all of the evidence cited in there is at least 2-3 years ago, before some things, such as hiring suicide bombers was found. Also, they could have rebuilt since then, and they weren't totally disarmed at the time of that article either. It doesn't matter who armed them either. I don't care if we GAVE them nuclear weapons, and now we want them back. They aren't going to have them now, and if we have to bomb them to hell and invade to get them back, we should.

quote:

Tell me. Why at the G8 EVERY COUNTRY LEADER was against Bush plans to topple Arafat AND attack Iraq? That's 7 vs 1 (Canada has a hard time to admit, but that's another story). If the United States are alone in their corner, what make then right?

Cause most countries are full of peace loving liberals, probably because of the perception that any fighting is closer to THEM than the US. Nuclear disarmament protests first caught on to a significant degree in England. Also, this is a democratic country. If you pay attention to the original premise of the thread (the US constitution and what actions would be in our best interests), that pretty much covers it. It's about US interests/ideas, not the world's. If the US people want something, we should do it. We aren't under a "world democracy".

quote:

On the contrary. I think it'll only make things worse. It will show the arab natons once again that the United States think they can impose their decisions to the world.

They already think that. And we CAN impose our decisions on the world if it's in our best interests, and we should. ESPECIALLY when we, and they, are at danger from Saddam. Just because they don't admit it publically doesn't mean it isn't true. I bet that some arab nations are going to let us use their territory and airbases, and THAT shows if they want us there or not. If they don't we'll only be using aircraft carriers.

quote:

How can you be sure he doesn't have better technology? and even then, if he had MDWs as you say, what does it matter?

Because RUSSIA doesn't have better tech, and that's where he's probably getting supplied from. Also, if he DOES have better tech, even a BETTER reason to attack him, so he doesn't destroy US when he gets MORE of it and decides to take over the middle east again.

quote:

WTF do you have against China?? China isn't bad, you, along with all you republicans, think that communism is evil, so communism must be destroyed.

And how do you think China can be taken out? They are not hardboring terrorists, they are not planning invasions, and I didn't heard of government oppression. (enlighten me if you have), so why would the US need to show THEY are the bully?

They are a threat to Taiwan, they are trying to compete with the US militarily, they are modernizing their forces, they can destabilize asia. I do not believe we need to "take them out" though, since eventually they are going to become a democracy because of popular demand and how tired they are going to get of the poor human rights.

We should only militarily attack China if they attack Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea.

Menchise · July 14, 2002

quote:

Saddam is doing his darnedest to get weapons of mass destruction, germ warfare, chemical warfare(which he already has and has already used), and of course the grandaddy of them all, Nuclear weapons.

He may be doing his darnedest to get them, but he is not getting them! Iraq's WMD program is crippled and has been crippled for years! There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary unless you count the dubious sources that the media portrays as fact.

quote:

Iraq and Saddam are a very destabalizing force in the middle east, he finances a lot of the terrorists over there. He is paying the families of suicide bombers, along with Saudi Arabia, which you don't hear about of course.

Again, the facts say otherwise. Information gathered from the invasion of Afghanistan points to many countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. They found NO evidence of an Iraqi connection! The only sources have been from so-called "defectors" that appear out of nowhere at the most convenient moments through Chalabi's back door.

quote:

Attacking Iraq IS in our best interest, is in the best interest of ALL the middle eastern countries and the west. Saddam is a trouble maker and a bully and must be taken out of the picture.

I agree, but it must be done by the Iraqi people, not the US government. US intervention has been, at best, a series of blunders. They gave the WMD to Saddam in the first place, they assisted the Taliban's rise to power, and the thin veil of democracy in Afghanistan's interim government is already showing a few holes. If the USA topples Saddam, odds are 2:1 that the replacement will be Chalabi, and history has already shown that he is not trustworthy.

For the people to stand up to Saddam, the economic sanctions need to be lifted, because at the moment, the people in Saddam's sphere of influence (south and central Iraq) are completely dependant on handouts from the Oil for Food program which are distributed by the Iraqi authorities. They cannot revolt in such conditions.

Menchise · July 14, 2002

quote:

Saddam has no problem allocating the resources in such a way that "his people" are good, and everyone else has to fight for food or starve.

Again, the facts say otherwise.

Here is a page from an FAQ on sanctions:

quote:

7. Isn't the problem that the Iraqi regime doesnÔÇÖt distribute the supplies it receives?

The UK government has persistently claimed that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is caused in large part because the Government of Iraq diverts resources that it imports under the "oil for food" scheme, either for supplementing the wealth of a small elite, or to sustain poverty for propagandistic reasons. This is an explanation that has been consistently challenged by UN agencies and personnel working within Iraq.

Most recently, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in its report of September 2000 characterises the Government of Iraq's food rationing system as "

effective

". It notes that the availability of "cereal imports since 1997/98 under the oil-for-food deal has led to significant improvements in the food supply situation" (p. 31). Nevertheless, a major problem is that "food rations do not provide a nutritionally adequate and varied diet" (p. 33). The potential solution to this, complementing the ration with locally produced goods, is made difficult by the fact that "two consecutive years of severe drought and inadequate supply of essential agricultural equipment and inputs, including spare parts, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, have gravely affected the Iraqi agriculture sector" (pp.14, 31). In addition, poverty compounds this problem: "with the decline in household income, a significant number of Iraqis are not in a position to adequately complement the ration" (p. 14).

Tun Myat, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, made similar comments in his first press conference on 19 October 2000. He said that the food distribution system in Iraq under the "oil for food" programme was "

second to none

", but that "in order to affect the overall livelihood and nutrition state of the people, of the children, you need more than food, of course". Unless the basics ÔÇô housing, electricity, water, and sanitation ÔÇô were restored, the overall well-being of the people would not improve. In addition to the collapse of such infrastructure, he said, the major problem was poverty.

The Security CouncilÔÇÖs Humanitarian Panel report of 30 March 1999 commented directly on the question of Iraqi cooperation with "oil for food" (┬º37):

"While there is agreement that the Government could do more to make the "oil for food" programme work in a better and more timely fashion, it was not clear to what extent the problems encountered could be attributed to deliberate action or inaction on the part of the Iraqi Government. It is generally recognized that certain sectors such as electricity work smoothly while drug supplies suffer from delays in distribution. But mismanagement, funding shortages (absence of the so called "cash component") and a general lack of motivation might also explain such delays. While food and medicine had been explicitly exempted by Security Council resolution 661, controls imposed by resolution 986 had, at times, created obstacles to their timely supply."

The "cash component" bears explanation. In the areas of Iraq under governmental control, the government is not given cash in return for oil sales under the "oil for food" scheme, but only receives delivery of goods. As a result it is constrained in its ability to, for example, hire a lorry to make a delivery if it does not have one available at the time.

- CASI (Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq)

So much for the 'hoarding' theory.

quote:

Also, if you've kept up on news, there are trades going on between other countries (I think Russia is one of them), without UN authorization, and that's for weapon material.

Give me a source.

quote:

Another thing Saddam is using his money for is PAYING THE FAMILIES OF ISRAELI SUICIDE BOMBERS. I just remembered that after Jaguar's post. That's sort of straightforward: Money goes to suicide bombers. Not a stretch to say probably to their organizations too.

Give me a source.

quote:

No effect on Saddam's dictatorial position? It helps stop the MILITARY from rebuilding, and the MILITARY is *CRITICAL* to any dictatorship!

Military sanctions do that, not economic sanctions. His control over the populace is actually tightening as a result of the economic sanctions, because now the people are completely dependant on him for the necessities. If Iraq's economy was allowed to recover while the military sanctions were maintained and/or tightened, the people would be in a position to oppose Saddam.

quote:

Saddam is responsible for the sanctions by not complying with UN weapons insepctions. It doesn't matter if there was spying going on or not.

It matters a hell of a lot that there was espionage last time, especially now that there is talk of a full-scale invasion plan! Read between the lines, Dredd.

quote:

In response to your final article, it is obviously biased lefist ****, moreso than most of the other stuff. You blame the main-stream media for being biased, but it's a LOT less biased than that. "Education for Peace in Iraq center"?!??! Gee whiz, I wonder how credible that is.

Now you're being unreasonable. Just because an organization is anti-war doesn't mean that it's not credible. The people in that group are anti-war because of the facts, not vice versa! The mere fact that they use facts makes them more credible than the mainstream media, which depends on sound bytes more than anything else.

Epsilon 5 · July 14, 2002

quote:

they are trying to compete with the US militarily, they are modernizing their forces

Jealous?

CommanderJohnson · July 14, 2002

quote:

He may be doing his darnedest to get them, but he is not getting them! Iraq's WMD program is crippled and has been crippled for years! There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary unless you count the dubious sources that the media portrays as fact.

Umm, your first article said at least 5% of WMD capability was left. Also, I maintain that he is getting them, and we just don't know about it because of the lack of inspections. Besides, him TRYING to get them is a good enough reason to get rid of him. Are we supposed to wait until he succeeds? Same type of thinking that led to 9/11 to begin with. "They hate us but can't do anything to us....still can't do anything....holy ****, there went the WTC towers!!"

quote:

Again, the facts say otherwise. Information gathered from the invasion of Afghanistan points to many countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. They found NO evidence of an Iraqi connection! The only sources have been from so-called "defectors" that appear out of nowhere at the most convenient moments through Chalabi's back door.

The facts say Iraq PAYS suicide bombers families. It was a big deal a few months ago, check just about EVERY news service and it'll be there. That's my source. Just go into google and type in "Iraq" AND "suicide bombers". Bet at least 3 news services will come up talking about the situation.

quote:

I agree, but it must be done by the Iraqi people, not the US government. US intervention has been, at best, a series of blunders. They gave the WMD to Saddam in the first place, they assisted the Taliban's rise to power, and the thin veil of democracy in Afghanistan's interim government is already showing a few holes. If the USA topples Saddam, odds are 2:1 that the replacement will be Chalabi, and history has already shown that he is not trustworthy.

If you watched today's INTERVIEWS with the exiled generals from Iraq, they state that the only feasible and quick way of getting Saddam out of power is US military support. They also say he's (Saddam) is weak now.

quote:

For the people to stand up to Saddam, the economic sanctions need to be lifted, because at the moment, the people in Saddam's sphere of influence (south and central Iraq) are completely dependant on handouts from the Oil for Food program which are distributed by the Iraqi authorities. They cannot revolt in such conditions.

Uhh, so it's better if we lift the sanctions and Saddam makes more weapons to suppress a rebellion? That really doesn't make sense. And if we remove the sanctions, do you really think they will be any LESS under his control? It's a DICTATORSHIP, you go against him, you get KILLED. He has COMPLETE control over EVERYTHING. Media, transportation, production, the military.

quote:

Again, the facts say otherwise.

Here is a page from an FAQ on sanctions:

Ok, other than the fact one of the things your article cites is a "lack of motivation", that can easily be contributed to Saddam. So can the utility and distribution problems. Just because he SAYS he's trying to fix it, doesn't mean he is. And again, it's a dictatorship, he has complete control.

Your last article merely says that they can't say that it's the Iraqi government's fault. That article never refutes the fact that if Saddam WANTED the problems that exist now to happen, that the oil-for-food program would somehow get around that. Your source is clearly operating under the premise that "Saddam thinks human life is valuable". Thus, they say that "the problem is there is no cash to get some stuff delivered, and there's no way to get spare parts." Your authors never ASSUME that he IS trying to most of his people in poverty, and argue against the premise. They assume Saddam is trying his best, thus sanctions should be lifted. If he wanted them lifted, he'd comply with the weapons inspectors. How much more simple does it get? The UN was going to lift em till he became beliggerant.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, if you've kept up on news, there are trades going on between other countries (I think Russia is one of them), without UN authorization, and that's for weapon material.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give me a source.

You seem to have a problem reading daily news, such as msnbc.com, or watching TV news programs. I think that one was from 60 minutes AND MSNBC, so it should have been on just about anything you could have read. Same thing for the suicide bomber one, but that one was big news everywhere.

quote:

Military sanctions do that, not economic sanctions. His control over the populace is actually tightening as a result of the economic sanctions, because now the people are completely dependant on him for the necessities. If Iraq's economy was allowed to recover while the military sanctions were maintained and/or tightened, the people would be in a position to oppose Saddam.

What goods exactly are being restricted then? Last I heard it was only dual-use goods and military use goods that can be used to build WMDs or military equipment.

quote:

It matters a hell of a lot that there was espionage last time, especially now that there is talk of a full-scale invasion plan! Read between the lines, Dredd.

They kicked the weapons inspectors out years ago before there were any "invasion plans". You keep saying, in essence "they need to be given a chance, it's wrong that the US is going to invade and the US shouldn't do it". They've been given a chance since they kicked the inspectors out to begin with until the invasion plans which came out around December. If Iraq was smart, they would have let in weapons inspectors/spies, whatever you want to call them, immediately after 9/11. It's not our fault that they were morons. There would be no way the US would invade if Iraq would just give in to the US/UN demands.

quote:

Now you're being unreasonable. Just because an organization is anti-war doesn't mean that it's not credible. The people in that group are anti-war because of the facts, not vice versa! The mere fact that they use facts makes them more credible than the mainstream media, which depends on sound bytes more than anything else.

Actually, the people in those groups, as their logic dictates, are anti-war because of the number of people dying. Then after they point out the HUGE "humanitarian disaster", they point out all the so called "facts" that say sanctions are evil and should be removed, and how invasion would cost MORE lives or isn't needed. They ignore the idea that maybe it's the government's fault.

The mainstream media is always going to be more credible because at least the sound bytes are meant to inform, not persuade. Sure, the way they are presented can sort of persuade, but when you watch interviews and read or listen to answers to direct questions, or watch notable parts of speeches, that is FACT.

quote:

Jealous?

They arent going to be able to surpass us, and I live comfortably knowing we could nuke them off the planet with only minimal casualties in the US, compartively speaking.

Menchise · July 14, 2002

quote:

Umm, your first article said at least 5% of WMD capability was left.

That first article and articles that followed also included statements indicating that whatever is left is inadequate to produce a threat.

quote:

Also, I maintain that he is getting them, and we just don't know about it because of the lack of inspections.

It doesn't take drug inspections to know that the US receives narcotics from Colombia, or that Australia receives narcotics from Thailand. In the early 1990s, it was logical to conclude that Iraq had WMD, not because they were found by weapons inspectors, but because it was known that the US and UK governments were the suppliers. There is more than one way to trace items; if evidence of WMD has not been discovered by other means, then 9 times out of 10 it won't be discovered by weapons inspections either.

quote:

Besides, him TRYING to get them is a good enough reason to get rid of him.

No evidence has been brought to my attention that he is trying to get them either.

quote:

Are we supposed to wait until he succeeds? Same type of thinking that led to 9/11 to begin with. "They hate us but can't do anything to us....still can't do anything....holy ****, there went the WTC towers!!"

9/11 was not caused by complacency. Before that tragedy, such schemes existed only in the imaginations of Tom Clancy and other fiction writers. Nobody realistically conceived of such a thing. Even the terrorists who planned the attack were surprised by the effect!

quote:

The facts say Iraq PAYS suicide bombers families. It was a big deal a few months ago, check just about EVERY news service and it'll be there. That's my source. Just go into google and type in "Iraq" AND "suicide bombers". Bet at least 3 news services will come up talking about the situation.

I'll do that, but in the meantime I have a question. If Iraq is funding Palestinian terrorism, then why isn't Israel planning an attack?

quote:

If you watched today's INTERVIEWS with the exiled generals from Iraq, they state that the only feasible and quick way of getting Saddam out of power is US military support. They also say he's (Saddam) is weak now.

I'll look into it.

quote:

Your last article merely says that they can't say that it's the Iraqi government's fault. That article never refutes the fact that if Saddam WANTED the problems that exist now to happen, that the oil-for-food program would somehow get around that. Your source is clearly operating under the premise that "Saddam thinks human life is valuable". Thus, they say that "the problem is there is no cash to get some stuff delivered, and there's no way to get spare parts." Your authors never ASSUME that he IS trying to most of his people in poverty, and argue against the premise.

Apparently you ignored the other two sources in that article, describing the Iraqi distribution as effective and second to none, and in the source that you mentioned, they only said that there could be room for improvement.

quote:

You seem to have a problem reading daily news, such as msnbc.com, or watching TV news programs. I think that one was from 60 minutes AND MSNBC, so it should have been on just about anything you could have read. Same thing for the suicide bomber one, but that one was big news everywhere.

I'll look into it.

quote:

What goods exactly are being restricted then? Last I heard it was only dual-use goods and military use goods that can be used to build WMDs or military equipment.

A lot of the grounds for "dual-use" definition are just plain ridiculous when you look at some of the blocked items (e.g. pencils, chlorinators etc.).

quote:

Actually, the people in those groups, as their logic dictates, are anti-war because of the number of people dying. Then after they point out the HUGE "humanitarian disaster", they point out all the so called "facts" that say sanctions are evil and should be removed, and how invasion would cost MORE lives or isn't needed. They ignore the idea that maybe it's the government's fault.

They don't ignore the idea; they dismiss it after looking at the facts!

quote:

The mainstream media is always going to be more credible because at least the sound bytes are meant to inform, not persuade. Sure, the way they are presented can sort of persuade, but when you watch interviews and read or listen to answers to direct questions, or watch notable parts of speeches, that is FACT.

They only include the answers that comply with the sound bytes. In many cases they cut in the middle of answers, or present them out of context.

A lot of people assume that mainstream media is more credible than alternative media because it doesn't report the news in terms of a political agenda, but the truth is that mainstream media is inherently more lacking in credibility because it follows a commercial agenda. Its primary function is not to inform or even to persuade people; it's to sell audience to advertisers. In terms of commercialism, portraying a phantom threat as a real threat is what gets the ratings up, so that's what they do.

Menchise · July 14, 2002

OK, I've looked into it.

RE: Suicide bomber 'salaries'.

The toppling of Saddam will only marginally reduce terrorism in Palestine, since most of the suicide bombers are not doing it for the money, and many of the families who received such payments were unaware of them beforehand.

RE: Exiled Officers

The statements made by exiled Iraqi officers that a military option is the best option are questionable at best when one considers the personal ambitions of the more visible personalities within the group. Another article:

quote:

Magnificent Seventy gun for Saddam

Eyeing each other and their US friends, exiled officers gather in London to clear the path for democracy in Iraq

Brian Whitaker

Friday July 12, 2002

The Guardian

Exiled Iraqi officers are gathering in London today for the most public plot ever hatched against Saddam Hussein, but without their most senior member.

General Nizar al-Khazraji, the highest ranking defector from President Saddam's army, is staying away, for reasons that some believe are to do with his own political ambitions.

Nevertheless, about 70 officers are expected, the organisers say. After an open meeting tonight, which the many Iraqi opposition parties will attend or boycott according to their inclinations, the Magnificent Seventy will spend the weekend gunning for Saddam Hussein behind closed doors.

The White House, the Pentagon and the state department, which do not always see eye to eye on Iraq, are sending representatives to watch the proceedings, and possibly each other.

Although all the participants want to rid the world of President Saddam, there is a wariness about the intentions of the US and their fellow officers to overcome. But the organisers, Major- General Tawfiq al-Yasiri and Brigadier Saad al-Obaidy, are encouraged by the response.

"Our aim is to collect many officers and discuss strategy," said Brig Obaidy, who was formerly in charge of Saddam's psychological warfare. "We'll discuss how to change the regime, and the role of the army and democracy in the future of Iraq."

The key purpose of the meeting, according to opposition sources, is to secure the officers' agreement to step back and allow democratic government to develop if President Saddam is overthrown.

But Gen Khazraji has already shown his eagerness to take over the leadership. In a newspaper interview earlier this year he described it as an honour and "a sacred duty" - a remark that has left many in the opposition suspicious of his ambitions.

More recently he has been linked in the Arab press to an alternative plan for a ruling military council of between seven and 10 senior officers.

Gen Khazraji, who was chief of staff and led the army through the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait, now lives in Denmark, where a Kurdish group has sought to have him prosecuted for war crimes.

This relates to his alleged role in the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988.

Gen Khazraji says the allegation was invented by Iraqi intelligence, and the London meeting organisers say they have no dispute with him.

"He is our friend, we have good relations with him," said Brig Obaidy. But Gen Khazraji said by telephone "I don't attend such conferences," and declined to discuss it further.

Major-General Wafiq al-Samara'i, former head of an Iraqi military intelligence unit, who now lives in London, is also understood to have reservations about the meeting, though it is unclear whether he will attend. He is close to Gen Khazraji and both are regarded as politically close to Saudi Arabia.

"It's a very small minority who are not happy with this meeting," an expert on the Iraqi opposition said, asking not to be identified. "It will send a very strong message that the army should not fill the vacuum or have any role in the government after Saddam Hussein."

About 1,500 Iraqi officers are believed to be living in exile, but not all are politically active. The identity of some who plan to attend the meeting is being kept secret but observers say the composition leans heavily towards the Sunnis, who account for about a third of Iraq's population.

The organisers, known as the Iraqi Military Alliance, are anxious to play down links with the US, which could damage their credibility in the eyes of other Iraqis.

They insist that the meeting is entirely financed by Iraqis.

Among those confirmed as attending is Brigadier-General Najib al-Salihi, 50, who defected from Iraq in 1995 and runs a group in the US called the Free Officers Movement.

He avoids giving the impression of being hungry for power, but earlier this year he was front-runner in an aborted internet poll organised by Iraq.net to find whom Iraqis would most like to lead a transitional government.

Is it any wonder that the high-rankers claim a military option as best?

RE: Smuggling

I have found some reports of oil smuggling to Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, but nothing about weapons shipments to Iraq.

What's interesting about this issue is that the West makes no serious attempt to do anything about it because such action would lead to more opposition to the economic sanctions.

Sign In

America's Role.

Recommended Posts

CommanderJohnson

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Lotharr

Guest $iLk

Epsilon 5

CommanderJohnson

Guest $iLk

CommanderJohnson

Menchise

Menchise

Epsilon 5

CommanderJohnson

Menchise

Menchise

Menchise

Menchise

Guest

Epsilon 5

Guest

CommanderJohnson

Menchise

Menchise

Epsilon 5

CommanderJohnson

Menchise

Menchise

Please sign in to comment

Browse

Activity