Why US is right
-
Hmmm.. . I was seriously pissed with the views of stupid idiot at the www.Channelnewsasia.com/showdown forum, so i typed this out and tried to post it there, but somehow couldn't work. . . lucky i typed out in notepad, else would have lost the thing. . .dunno why i can't post on the CNA forums. . . decided to post it here:
I am highly in support of the war effort in Iraq and would like to express my opinions.
While many were worried about the Aacademy Awards not being able to reflect the mood of the war, I feel that this should not have been our main concern.
Actors and actresses are by nature outspoken people. And many of them are against the war effort in Iraq. However, is it morally right to oppose the war NOW? At this juncture in time when thousands of US troops are in combat zones in Iraq? How would opposing the war effort do any good? When the acceptance speeches of the various winners are used to criticise the US war effort, I feel it is not doing justice to the fact that US troops are risking their lives in the gulf.
I am also puzzled by the 'No Blood for Oil' slogan, one which has recieved mass appeal among anti-war protestors. We should ask ourselves if the US is actually fighting for more oil. If the countries in the coalition really wanted more oil from Iraq, wouldn't it make more sense, both politically AND economically, to lift UN sanctions on Iraq? Also, if cheaper oil ws available to US consumers, then where would the small-time oil producers in the US find their business? It is also worth noting that many of these small-time producers showed great support for Bush during the elections and that as such, Bush would not want to alienate them.
Slogans such as 'Babies vs. Bombs' also do not make any sense. There is no specific campaign to bomb Iraqi babies that I am aware of. Would we rather that these babies grow up in a hostile and oppressive country with little links to the outside world? Or should we take a chance and give these babies a chance at growing up in a more friendly environment.
People all over the world want peace. I want peace too, despite the fact that I am in support of military action taken against Iraq. However, my idea of peace is very very different from that of the anti-war protestors. My idea of peace is a stable world where WMD do NOT lie in the hands of dictators, and that peace is brought to people on a larger scale. The idea of peace for many anti-war protestors is that of everything continuing as is and with no major wars that will destabilise their precious economy or cause the price of their household items to rise.
For those who question why the US attacked Iraq first instead of North Korea, my opinion is that it is because Iraq is sitting on alot of oil. No the US does not want this oil for itself at ridiculously low prices. However, the fact that Iraq has oil allows it to barter or sell this oil through the black market in return for more weapons. Iraq's ability to build up a powerful armed forces with WMD is much higher than that of Nort Korea's due to Iraq's oil resources.
Many countries and protestors have complained about the US going to war without the backing of the United Nations. My point of view is that is it the entire United Nations or is it a select few with a loud voice, for example France?
Remember that the French were responsible for helping Iraq build the Osirak nuclear facility to produce plutonium and that it was eventually the Israelis who had to bomb this nuclear facility before it went operational. This does not make the French very credible and proves that they are not exactly very discerning. While the US once supplied Iraq with weapons, the French almost gave them the ability to create their own nuclear weapons!
If those out there protesting against the war effort really cared about the Iraqi people, why did they not help the Iraqi masses in the first place through humanitarian aid? Why only now does their 'care' for the Iraqi people show? Is it because in this case, not only do the Iraqis suffer, the protestors themselves stand to lose from higher market prices? Many anti-war protestors have not even thought about why the US is going to war. It is my view that many are simply joining in such protests so that they can FEEL like they're part of something big.
The number of assasination attempts on Saddam, coupled with his few live public appearances, bear testimony to his popularity among the Iraqi people. The tactics that he has used to ensure the survival of his military also shows he lack of concern for his own people. Actions such as using his own civilians to shield his soldiers and placing targets of high military importance in civilian areas play upon the fact that the US government rational and is restrained by many forces, which include that of public opinion, which do not allow them the indiscriminate massacre of civilians. Iraq knows that the US are unlikely to attack their military installations if these are placed in civilian localities, or that the US has a high chance of hitting Iraqi civilians, which will be a publicity boost for the Iraqi government since it puts the US government in bad light.
Those who have read the news will also know that Iraq has claimed that its FARMERS have shot down 2 US AH-64D Longbow Apache choppers. If this were true, doesn't it mean that Iraqi civilians should also qualify as targets? Since they pick up arms and take a hostile action against opposing forces, they shouldn't be protected by the Geneva Convention and therefore are legitimate targets. But can and will the US attack this hostile part of the civilian population? I doubt so because the US government will once again be restrained by politics and public opinion on such an issue.
In conclusion, the US is right in its war effort against Iraq. Their actions will help bring about greater peace than the combined actions of all the anti-war protestors.
PS. Note that I do not consider all peace activists anti-war protestors. There is a difference in being anti-war and wanting peace because there are occasions when war can actually help to conclusively stabilise an unstable region by removing a rogue power. The current situation in Iraq is one good example.
Also, for those who wonder why US is persecuting so many Muslims, read the writings of Dr. Akbar Ahmed, and Islamic scholar and Professor of International Relations. There is no problem with Islam, the problem is the interpretation of Islam by a few sick individuals. -
who gives another country the right to overthrow another the first place?
And number 2, what makes you think that the iraqis support the americans and what makes you so sure the iraqis want to overthrow saddam so readily?
this war should not have happened the first place.the us have just opened their pandora's box by starting this war.could you imagine what would happen if us decides to pull out because the citizens are not happy with the death toll?All the terrorist in this world would find it an excellent opportunity to attack all of us interest at its weakened state.
i never support this war.Howevr i believe us must win this war to clear the mess it started. -
And no lifting sanctions on Iraq wont do the US any good considering the oil industry in Iraq is dominated by Russian and French companies.So the only way to muscle in is either buy out the goverment or remove it!And i am againest the war....but as Centurion said.....the US has to win it for the mess to be cleared....however i do hope that though winning it the US suffers heavily and thus would have to consider heavily on it's next war!!
-
As for the US suffering heavy losses. I think this will be more and more like a Vietnam.
If you cannot differentiate between hostile and friendly Iraqi civilians, it will not be long before the US start to be more trigger happy.
And this is not something that NVG,GPS,Sealth,Super-Bug and all the hi-tech gizmos can resolve. If you cannot tell one Iraqi from the other, how to fight.
One "maintenance company" made the wrong turn at a hightway and ran into a road block manned by two T-55s. How could that happen if the rear areas were secured.
Interesting that the US left two T-55s intact within easy driving range of their lines of communications. Looks like the US is really driving straight for the capital (narrow thrust prinicple).
Now if all the Iraqi hostiles gave up after Saddam fall and if the war is very short all is fine, but if the Iraqi guerillas continue their resistance or if this drag on to be a long war, the US will have a hard time securing all the rear areas under his control.
And all this while N. Korea is making all kinds of noise a couple of time-zones away. -
Coalition Troops Wonder Who Is EnemyOriginally posted by spencer99:As for the US suffering heavy losses. I think this will be more and more like a Vietnam.
If you cannot differentiate between hostile and friendly Iraqi civilians, it will not be long before the US start to be more trigger happy.
And this is not something that NVG,GPS,Sealth,Super-Bug and all the hi-tech gizmos can resolve. If you cannot tell one Iraqi from the other, how to fight.
One "maintenance company" made the wrong turn at a hightway and ran into a road block manned by two T-55s. How could that happen if the rear areas were secured.
Interesting that the US left two T-55s intact within easy driving range of their lines of communications. Looks like the US is really driving straight for the capital (narrow thrust prinicple).
Now if all the Iraqi hostiles gave up after Saddam fall and if the war is very short all is fine, but if the Iraqi guerillas continue their resistance or if this drag on to be a long war, the US will have a hard time securing all the rear areas under his control.
And all this while N. Korea is making all kinds of noise a couple of time-zones away. -
No country is right to attack another...
Against the war i am... Win the war US must though... -
Much of the opposition from the Iraqis to the US war against Iraq stems from the fact that the US failed to deliver in the Gulf War in 1991. In 1991, when many thought that the US would topple Saddam, it pulled out after Kuwait's sovereignity was restored and Iraqi forces retreated. This has created a certain uncertainty among the Iraqis about how far the US is willing to go in their push to topple Saddam this time round.
It is exactly that because that the French have vested interests in Iraqi oil that they do not want the US to butt in destroy this economic oppurtunities for them. It is worth noting that putting more oil on the international market will drive down oil prices and hurt oil producers in the US as well. These are the same oil producers who contributed to Bush's election campaign funds. Iraq needs large amounts of hard currency to rebuild their country after Saddam is toppled. That is where the money from oil is going, rebuilding the Iraqi economy, not serving the own needs of the US.
While lifting UN sanctions may result in US not getting the largest share in Iraqi oil, I believe that the US administration would not want to go to war and face opposition from so many protestors just to get the lion's share in iraqi oil. The economic and political costs do not justify the economic boost that the US may obtain from Iraqi oil.
The US is not exactly suffering heavy losses here. Each and every loss is identified in name by the media. The amount of media coverage for each death for the coalition forces gives the impression that the casualty rate for the coalition forces is very high, however, this is not the case, especially if the compare it to the number of Iraqi military deaths and number of Iraqis taken prisoner.
No this will not be another Vietnam because I do not believe this war will drag for extended preiods of time like in Vietnam.
If Saddam falls, a new leader would have to rise from among the loyalists to the current Iraqi regime for any insurrection to be successful. If a new leader can rise to stage sustained insurrection against US forces, the US would have failed becasue they would have removed Saddam only for him to be replaced by another similar character.
The current objective is Baghdad, civilian and military concentrations are being avoided, largely also to reduce the loss of lives of both forces. I believe support for the current regime will be greatly reduced once the US has taken over control of Baghdad and Iraqis are shown the US intention in invading Iraq.
Yes the invasion of another country is never right. But when the intention for the invasion stems from a want to topple a despotic ruler who has proven in the past that he will not hesitate to seek oppurtunities to expand his own territory for selfish gains (Kuwait), I that the invasion can be suitably justified.
You claim that the invasion of another country is never right, what then, about Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait? Was that right? In any other country, what would have happened had its leaders taken it upon themselves to take carry out an unprovoked invasion against another sovereign country? Would the leaders of the counry which invaded another country be allowed to stay in power? Shouldn't there be any street protests from Iraqis against their leaders decision to invade Kuwait? In a coutnry where people are more outspoken, largely because they are allowed the oppurtunity to do, people have forgotten that people in Iraq are unable to voice their opinions freely. In America, a country which happens to be more democratic than iraq, even a relatively justified move against Iraq resulted in widespread opposition from the American masses. What does the fact that the American masses are allowed to make their voice heard show?
Lastly, consider Saddam's decision in placing military installations in civilian areas. This very fact shows that he also knows that the US would not like to attack civilian targets. Even the human shields wasting their bloody time camping in Iraq, they prey upon the US reluctance at incurring civilian casualties on that opposing side. The fact that people think this strategies work shows that the US is rational and is carrying out a measured attack on Iraq.
If you are complaining about why the US invaded Iraq first instead of North Korea, read my original posting. -
Iraq happens to be strategically placed in the middle of the arab nations...
-
in a guerilla warfare, bodycount does not matter.As long as there is an iraqi opposition, the iraqis will count it as a win.Hence, it is very much like a vietnam war.It may be extended for a very long time.All i hope is that the americans could win the war in one months time, before the odds turn against them.Originally posted by laser51088:The US is not exactly suffering heavy losses here. Each and every loss is identified in name by the media. The amount of media coverage for each death for the coalition forces gives the impression that the casualty rate for the coalition forces is very high, however, this is not the case, especially if the compare it to the number of Iraqi military deaths and number of Iraqis taken prisoner.
No this will not be another Vietnam because I do not believe this war will drag for extended preiods of time like in Vietnam.
. -
I also wonder what is US justification to the war and what is their motive to the war.Frankly, i dun believe they really want to topple saddam for the sake of the iraqi people.I believe they do it because of their own selfish reasons.I believe they want to put a government that is under the united states influence.
-
OMG the day the US fights a war for the greater good over its own selfish interests, I'll eat my hat!
Saddam is a bloodthirsty maniac who should be gotten rid of, no doubts about that, but my main beef with the war(like most people against the war) is
- The unilateralism behind it. Look beyond Iraq and ask what implications this has for the world. The US (or any other state for that matter) can now launch an invasion of another state based on lame excuses(face it, the American case against Iraq; whether on terrorism or WMD is L-A-M-E) without having to justify them in front of the world
- Why push for a regime change now, when there was even better justification in 1988(Halabja) and 1991(Invasion of Kuwait)?
When Bush senior talked about the New World Order in 1990, I don't think his son's method of executing it was what he had in mind. -
The USA was the country that initiated the first League Of Nations which was a failure due to the lack of cooperation between the first few members and the boycott of countrys that went into the war against the advise and support of the other LON members.Japan is one example when it pulled out of the LON after they were called on the redraw their troops from Manchuria. The US initiated the UN for better security and cooperation in all countries of the world, but as the recent Gulf War shows, it only say but do not do.
Many countries have not backed the war, hence the US went into the war without a UN-backed resolution. Isn't this a scenerio of the Japan/Manchuria war? And in that fateful war, Japan also attacked Manchuria for the same purpose, to gain natural resources. Being the world's unrivalled superpower does not give it the right to do whatever it deem fit. Disobeying the wishes of the UN which the US so strongly wanted to form shows the disrespect and the arrongance the US shows.
Reasons for the war includes "mistreatment of civilians" , "weapons of mass destruction", and "collabration with the Al-Qaeda".All these so far have been disbunked except for the case of the "mistreatment of civilians". If this is the case, there is so many other countries ill-treating their civilians, to even worse extent than Iraq. For one example is N.Korea. Weapons of mass destruction. No concrete evidence has been given by the US, only words. Saying they have is not the same as PROVING they have.Again there is no evidence. And once again N.Korea has the WMD, but is under no prosecution by the US. It has regularly intruded into S.Korean airspace and has openly defied the US and the UN. Why is there no action taken against them? Al-Qaeda. again there is no concrete evidence. It's like saying Bush has a mistress,and prosecuted him for it though there is no evidence.
The US has incured the wrath of many people in the world with its arrogance and nonchalent attitude to the wishes of many people in the world. The Iraqi people has put up a brave fight so far. Why? They feel the US is invading them, Saddam has improved since the last Gulf War, and most importantly this IS THEIR LAND. No army has the right to come in and take over it by giving stupid reasons with no real evidence. I wish the Iraqi people the best in their struggle for freedom. The same freedom the US people prides so much on. -
finalli viper52 mention this: new world order
-
lol. But of COURSE the US has its own interests in fighting this war. Among them the removal of one of the thorn in their flesh. Which country does not protect its interests first and foremost? But beyond those interests of the US alone , there is more to why they should attack Iraq. Yes I agree they should have attacked earlier. Look at my original posts, they should have gotten rid of Saddam in 1991, senior Bush screwed up, Clinton did nothing, and so junior Bush is mopping up. . .better late than neverOriginally posted by Viper52:OMG the day the US fights a war for the greater good over its own selfish interests, I'll eat my hat!
Saddam is a bloodthirsty maniac who should be gotten rid of, no doubts about that, but my main beef with the war(like most people against the war) is
- The unilateralism behind it. Look beyond Iraq and ask what implications this has for the world. The US (or any other state for that matter) can now launch an invasion of another state based on lame excuses(face it, the American case against Iraq; whether on terrorism or WMD is L-A-M-E) without having to justify them in front of the world
- Why push for a regime change now, when there was even better justification in 1988(Halabja) and 1991(Invasion of Kuwait)?
When Bush senior talked about the New World Order in 1990, I don't think his son's method of executing it was what he had in mind.
Reasons such as that Iraq has terrorist connections or that they have nukes, are meant to entice Americans to the cause of their govt IMHO, it actually links to the US as possible victim actions by Iraq. Bush cannot go on CNN and say, Saddam is killing his own people, so lets go remove him. LIke americans give a damn whether Iraqis die or not if it has no implications for them. The point is that is attacking Iraq right in this case? Yes I sincerely think so. Given previous opportunities, facts previously known, etc, will this still be the best option. No it is not. But given the current situation, then yes, i think this is about as good as what junior Bush can do already.
And no I have not changed my stand. I still support the US war against Iraq. However, let me rephrase that. It should be the the Iraqi government and its loyalists. Not iraq as a whole.
happen to see this blog in the news on Yahoo website:
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
have a look. . . its an Iraqi fella blogging about the US bombing against Baghdad. He does not support the US war against his country, but then neither does he exactly support the leaders of his country. Its a fresh look from an Iraqi, and I think much of what he says are given sensible justifications -
Yes, of course all countries do things with their own interest in mind. Which is why its nauseating when Bush talks about getting rid of Saddam because its the 'will of the world'. Does he seriously think we're all simple minded rednecks like he is?Originally posted by laser51088:lol. But of COURSE the US has its own interests in fighting this war. Among them the removal of one of the thorn in their flesh. Which country does not protect its interests first and foremost? But beyond those interests of the US alone , there is more to why they should attack Iraq. Yes I agree they should have attacked earlier. Look at my original posts, they should have gotten rid of Saddam in 1991, senior Bush screwed up, Clinton did nothing, and so junior Bush is mopping up. . .better late than never
Reasons such as that Iraq has terrorist connections or that they have nukes, are meant to entice Americans to the cause of their govt IMHO, it actually links to the US as possible victim actions by Iraq. Bush cannot go on CNN and say, Saddam is killing his own people, so lets go remove him. LIke americans give a damn whether Iraqis die or not if it has no implications for them. The point is that is attacking Iraq right in this case? Yes I sincerely think so. Given previous opportunities, facts previously known, etc, will this still be the best option. No it is not. But given the current situation, then yes, i think this is about as good as what junior Bush can do already.
And no I have not changed my stand. I still support the US war against Iraq. However, let me rephrase that. It should be the the Iraqi government and its loyalists. Not iraq as a whole.
happen to see this blog in the news on Yahoo website:
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
have a look. . . its an Iraqi fella blogging about the US bombing against Baghdad. He does not support the US war against his country, but then neither does he exactly support the leaders of his country. Its a fresh look from an Iraqi, and I think much of what he says are given sensible justifications
Iraqi links to terrorism? If you know of any kindly pass the info on the US Embassy in Singapore or the Pentagon. Last I heard they were still clutching at straws trying to prove that. This is the original reason why Bush wanted to invade Iraq soon after the Taliban fell. Problem is: Try as they might, they never proved a definitive link(or even tenuous ones for that matter) between Saddam with Osama and gang.
Nukes? I have but 4 words. North Korea and Israel. A smattering of American hypocrisy there perhaps?
Best option is to go in now? No it is definitely not. The best option would be to give 1441 more time and let the inspectors sort it out as well as to give them teeth and good info(the inspectors have said time and again the American intel they were given was rubbish), then only after they inspectors have given an F for Iraqi cooperation(knowing Saddam that would have been a dead certainty), then go the UNSC and get a consensus for war. None of these was done.
I agree Saddam must be removed but not the way the US pulled the world into this conflict. No consultations, no consensus. They made up their minds, then tried to bully, bribe and threaten other countries in rubber-stamping their decision to give it legitimacy. and when that failed, they went ahead anyway?
They call Saddam a threat to world peace. A case of the Pot calling the Kettle black if there was one. -
hehe.. i agree loh.. i mean if US dun attack iraq now.. wad if iraq uses their weapons of mass destruction first? wun more innocent ppl die?
-
Use on who?Originally posted by |nsane™:hehe.. i agree loh.. i mean if US dun attack iraq now.. wad if iraq uses their weapons of mass destruction first? -
For those who might be interested concerning this topic, 2 contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq has been awarded and one of the firm with the contract had close ties with Cheney(he was on their board).
Also mentioned on BBC, the reason for Blairs present visit at camp David was not only about the war but also to gain some of these reconstruction projects for Bristish contractors.
Also constracts for putting out the oilwell fires and operating the wells there-after have been given out, and guess to who, another company that had close links with VP Cheney.
Looks like a real stinky war to me. -
hmmm.. how long do you intend to wait before initiating a war on iraq? Things like the Iraqi weather will not wait. How much preparation time and time for saddam to hide do u intend to give?Originally posted by Viper52:Yes, of course all countries do things with their own interest in mind. Which is why its nauseating when Bush talks about getting rid of Saddam because its the 'will of the world'. Does he seriously think we're all simple minded rednecks like he is?
Iraqi links to terrorism? If you know of any kindly pass the info on the US Embassy in Singapore or the Pentagon. Last I heard they were still clutching at straws trying to prove that. This is the original reason why Bush wanted to invade Iraq soon after the Taliban fell. Problem is: Try as they might, they never proved a definitive link(or even tenuous ones for that matter) between Saddam with Osama and gang.
Nukes? I have but 4 words. North Korea and Israel. A smattering of American hypocrisy there perhaps?
Best option is to go in now? No it is definitely not. The best option would be to give 1441 more time and let the inspectors sort it out as well as to give them teeth and good info(the inspectors have said time and again the American intel they were given was rubbish), then only after they inspectors have given an F for Iraqi cooperation(knowing Saddam that would have been a dead certainty), then go the UNSC and get a consensus for war. None of these was done.
I agree Saddam must be removed but not the way the US pulled the world into this conflict. No consultations, no consensus. They made up their minds, then tried to bully, bribe and threaten other countries in rubber-stamping their decision to give it legitimacy. and when that failed, they went ahead anyway?
They call Saddam a threat to world peace. A case of the Pot calling the Kettle black if there was one.
And yes, terrorism should NOT be used as a reason for attacking Iraq.
http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2002-02/06/article18.shtml
What US should harp on is Saddam's treatment of his own people, his threat to neighboruing countries. . . stemming from the fact that he holds both total political and military power. The difference between countries having nukes in alot of cases are the way the nukes are handled, whether the said countries have the cash to properly handle this nukes, how the economy of the country is doing, is too much, economically and politically, being sacrificed for the sake of the nukes, and who decides on the use of the nukes. The process through which the decision-maker comes into this position of responsibility is also a factor to be considered.
Iraq's pursuit of building up its military at the expense of its economy is worrying.
Why are France and Russia opposed to the war? They have previous relationships with Iraq, French and Russian hypocrisy?
The war effort has largely been claimed by the oppostion to be about oil. But isn't opposition itself about oil too? France and Russia have the most oil contracts with Iraq through the United Nations Food-for-Oil programme, designed to lower starvation rates within Iraq.
You agree that Saddam should be removed. But tell me how on earth do u remove saddam without fighting Iraq? He has been shown to be a risk taker in the past. He will not step down from power unless u point a gun to his head and ask him to. Even then he may refuse, so u pull the trigger.
Those who want Bush to be removed (and I seriously think will be, America has shown little tolerance for warring presidents in the past) can simply sit and wait till the next presidential elections.
Thats the difference.
And like I said, Kim Jung Ill's possibility of rapidly building up a large military force is much lower than that of iraq's. -
How long? Definitely longer than 3 months. The previous UNSC resolutions and weapons inspections ran for years, and were finally bearing results before Saddam kicked them out in 1998. Answer me this: Do you seriously think the couple of months between resolution 1441/arrival of inspectors and the war is anywhere near enough to properly inspect Iraq?Originally posted by laser51088:hmmm.. how long do you intend to wait before initiating a war on iraq? Things like the Iraqi weather will not wait. How much preparation time and time for saddam to hide do u intend to give?
What US should harp on is Saddam's treatment of his own people, his threat to neighboruing countries. . . stemming from the fact that he holds both total political and military power. The difference between countries having nukes in alot of cases are the way the nukes are handled, whether the said countries have the cash to properly handle this nukes, how the economy of the country is doing, is too much, economically and politically, being sacrificed for the sake of the nukes, and who decides on the use of the nukes. The process through which the decision-maker comes into this position of responsibility is also a factor to be considered.
Iraq's pursuit of building up its military at the expense of its economy is worrying.
Why are France and Russia opposed to the war? They have previous relationships with Iraq, French and Russian hypocrisy?
The war effort has largely been claimed by the oppostion to be about oil. But isn't opposition itself about oil too? France and Russia have the most oil contracts with Iraq through the United Nations Food-for-Oil programme, designed to lower starvation rates within Iraq.
You agree that Saddam should be removed. But tell me how on earth do u remove saddam without fighting Iraq? He has been shown to be a risk taker in the past. He will not step down from power unless u point a gun to his head and ask him to. Even then he may refuse, so u pull the trigger.
Those who want Bush to be removed (and I seriously think will be, America has shown little tolerance for warring presidents in the past) can simply sit and wait till the next presidential elections.
Thats the difference.
And like I said, Kim Jung Ill's possibility of rapidly building up a large military force is much lower than that of iraq's.
No, by allowing money to dictate their their policy of Iraq and admitting as much, France and Russia are showing CONSISTENCY. By talking about morals when your Iraq policy is all about money like the US, thats HYPOCRISY. Do you know the difference in meaning between the 2 words?
Did you actually even read my reasons for opposing this war as it is now? The US went to war WITHOUT a consensus. What kind of precedent are they setting? And whos next? Now anyone with a stronger military can march into their neighbours land on some lame pretext for "regime change" because of the wonderful example set by the US. With this geopolitical implication in mind, whos the real threat to world peace and stability? In case you still don't get it, let me repeat again:
I am opposed to a war against Iraq WITHOUT international consensus and PROPER PROOF of Iraqs wrongdoings. I will happily support a war when the above are adhered to.
And don't try to lecture me on how Saddam has mistreated his people and caused regional instability. I saw the news when he gassed the Revolutionary Guards and Halabja, I saw the newsclips of him invading Kuwait and his men line up Kuwaitis to be shot by the beachfront in Kuwait City. What were you doing then?
You talk about responsibility, spending on public etc etc as a condition for allowing a country to build nukes? So I suppose the good citizens of North Korea are well-fed, rich middle class folk and the government surplus is too high hence the government spends money on nukes?
So North Korea's spending on the military at the expense of its population is perfectly fine with you?
You say "Kim Jung Ill's possibility of rapidly building up a large military force is much lower than that of iraq's".
Really? And how pray tell did you arrive at the conclusion? Lets examine a few facts:
* North Korea's missiles are known to have a range of at least 800 miles, and it is already known that a newer version that can reach 1000. Saddams Al-Samoud(a locally modified SA-2 Guideline SAM) missiles have trouble reaching 200.
* Iraq has been under sanctions since 1991, making it difficult to smuggle weapons in. North Korea has no such problems giving it unfettered access to the market in WMD.
* Iraqs WMD program has been severely damaged in Desert Storm, and set back by a couple more limited military strikes since then, in addition to being subject to constant surveillance by U-2s and American satellites. N Korea's WMD program has been allowed to continued unmolested, save for the occasional satellite pass.
And Iraq's the bigger threat? Whatever it is that you've been smoking, stop before it does some REAL damage to your brain, -
-
The previous UNSC resolutions and weapons inspections ran for years, and were finally bearing results before Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
you cant be more wrong in this........Saddam did not kick them out they left when the US started blasting apart suspected factories which the inspectors were suppose to go take a look at......it was deemed too dangerous for them to still be in country -
Hmmm... so seems that 12 long years is not long enoughOriginally posted by Viper52:How long? Definitely longer than 3 months. The previous UNSC resolutions and weapons inspections ran for years, and were finally bearing results before Saddam kicked them out in 1998. Answer me this: Do you seriously think the couple of months between resolution 1441/arrival of inspectors and the war is anywhere near enough to properly inspect Iraq?
,
-
Ahhh yes, Desert Fox in 1998. The inspectors wanted to look at a certain place, Saddam said no. And the US blasted the place into the dirt.Originally posted by |-|05|:you cant be more wrong in this........Saddam did not kick them out they left when the US started blasting apart suspected factories which the inspectors were suppose to go take a look at......it was deemed too dangerous for them to still be in country
Thanks for the correction.