Why US is right
-
1991-1998 is 7 years actually, and oh yes like I've said the inspections were beginning to bear fruit as Saddams long range missile and WMD plan was facing severe setbacks as they were too busy running and hiding evidence to do much work. Which is why the inspectors were removed.Originally posted by Ding:Hmmm... so seems that 12 long years is not long enough
Difference this time is that the report cards Iraq got was mainly positive in terms of cooperation, but the US focused in the little bits that were negative, for example trying to highlight the discovery of an Al-Samoud as a big deal, when in fact under the terms of the 91 ceasefire, the Al Samoud was a weapon the Iraqis were allowed to keep -
I disagree. I think there'll be no end to this Saddam nonsense. He sense that the UN will not take action against him hence the delays and playing punk.
Real action is needed to stop him. -
Sigh, yet another who doesn't read the original posts carefully before replying. Let me reiterate what I've posted before, in bold this time:Originally posted by Ding:I disagree. I think there'll be no end to this Saddam nonsense. He sense that the UN will not take action against him hence the delays and playing punk.
Real action is needed to stop him.
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.
I don't doubt that Saddam will continue playing punk and defying the UN to develop WMD. And I agree fully that he must be stopped. BUT I do not agree with the US attempts to pass off dubious and ambiguous information of of Iraq's wrongdoings as proof to hoodwink, then bribe, threaten and force the world into going along with their agenda. And then going it alone to violate the UN Charter when its obvious that the world would not bend over for them. Geddit? -
Originally posted by Viper52:
No. US did not violate any UN regulations. The coalition forces just enforced the many regulations(1441 etc).
Sigh, yet another who doesn't read the original posts carefully before replying. Let me reiterate what I've posted before, in bold this time:
[b]
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.
I don't doubt that Saddam will continue playing punk and defying the UN to develop WMD. And I agree fully that he must be stopped. BUT I do not agree with the US attempts to pass off dubious and ambiguous information of of Iraq's wrongdoings as proof to hoodwink, then bribe, threaten and force the world into going along with their agenda. And then going it alone to violate the UN Charter when its obvious that the world would not bend over for them. Geddit?[/b]
No point saying this and that but no real action and determination to back the regulations up. Hence IMO, Saddam is trying to play punk and delay time......
BTW, full international consensus will not happen so what will you do? Wait till the cow comes home
This world needs people who can make things happen
-
Originally 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?
Yah like you said, the thing ran for years. . .
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? Admitting? France and Russia admitted and openly declared their actual reason for opposing war? And the point is that France and Russia is accusing US when it is in effect doing the same thing, thinking about money, now is that hypocrisy?
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. Right. Its the US fault for not waiting till the rest of the world supports it. Hmmmm, isn;t the rest of the world at fault for NOT supporting the US in this case?
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? LOL, can't remember , but i think I was doing what any 3 year old would be doing. . .
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? Nope, the part about responsibility was why countries like US and UK got nukes, North Korea is explained in the part u attacked below. . .
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. North Korea also happens to not have started a war in 50 years, or maybe thats cos they never formally ended the Korean War, but anyway, they have not conducted any large scale military operation in 50 years. Though yes, they have counducted terrorists strikes against SKorea. Who said North Korea has been allowed to continue as they wish? What was the US surveilliance plane that was almost shot down by the NKoreans doing there? US and other countries have also attempted to close NKorea's reactor by promising them oil shipments and help with nuclear reactors that do not produce weapons-grade nuclear material.
And Iraq's the bigger threat? Whatever it is that you've been smoking, stop before it does some REAL damage to your brain, LOLOLOLOL, Hey, i haven't said anything about YOUR brain, so you dun start saying anything personal, or else YOU gotta close down this thread as well because of a flame war YOU started! -
Not exactly, Saddam knows UN will eventually do something to him. The point is that Saddam has ALWAYS been a risk taker. Look at how he came to power, his invasion of Iraq, kiling his son in laws, etc...Originally posted by Ding:I disagree. I think there'll be no end to this Saddam nonsense. He sense that the UN will not take action against him hence the delays and playing punk.
Real action is needed to stop him.
but yes real action is needed to stop him, DEFINITELY -
well..i can c another American Dog here barking again...oh u think its rite just to invade other country??Originally posted by Ding:No. US did not violate any UN regulations. The coalition forces just enforced the many regulations(1441 etc).
No point saying this and that but no real action and determination to back the regulations up. Hence IMO, Saddam is trying to play punk and delay time......
BTW, full international consensus will not happen so what will you do? Wait till the cow comes home
This world needs people who can make things happen
yea..nothing wrong rite..cos its not ur own country...u like ur own country to be BOMB?
heh..some American wannabe..tsk tsk -
Haha, sorry but you need to check your facts again. No post-Desert Storm UNSC resolution on Iraq's WMD authorises the use of force should Iraq not cooperate. US tried to get a "use of force" clause added to 1441 but was shouted down by most of the UNSC who insisted that such a clause must be voted on in a SEPARATE resolution, which the US tried to bribe, beg, threaten and browbeat the UNSC into voting on one using the rubbish it calls proof of Iraq's non-compliance. Unfortunately the UNSC refused to, and reduced the US into violating the UN Charter to carry out Dubya's agenda.Originally posted by Ding:No. US did not violate any UN regulations. The coalition forces just enforced the many regulations(1441 etc).
No point saying this and that but no real action and determination to back the regulations up. Hence IMO, Saddam is trying to play punk and delay time......
BTW, full international consensus will not happen so what will you do? Wait till the cow comes home
This world needs people who can make things happen
If theres clear, undeniable proof of Iraq's non-compliance, which I'm sure would have been discovered had the inspectors been given more time given Saddams track record, what makes you think consensus from the UNSC would not been forthcoming?
Yes, the world needs people who make things happen, but not a brain-dead, stubborn Texas redneck cowboy masquerading as one -
Yah like you said, the thing ran for years. . . ...and was bearing results till Saddam panicked and found a way to get rid of the inspectors, making it perfectly legit for Desert Fox in 1998. Compare it with 2003, the US makes a show of allowing the inspectors into Iraq, yet hardly gives them time to warm their butts into their job before starting the bombing. See the difference? BTW you've failed to answer the question I posed: 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?
Right. Its the US fault for not waiting till the rest of the world supports it. Hmmmm, isn;t the rest of the world at fault for NOT supporting the US in this case? Did you ever think that thats because the case the US tried to browbeat the world into accepting was full of outright lies, half-truths, deception and speculation?
North Korea also happens to not have started a war in 50 years, or maybe thats cos they never formally ended the Korean War, but anyway, they have not conducted any large scale military operation in 50 years. Though yes, they have counducted terrorists strikes against SKorea. Yeah you're right, they didn't really do much to qualify as a threat to stability. After all, all they did was set their commandos amok in Seoul killing about a hundred civilians, capture a foreign ship in international waters and hold their crew for more than 10 years, set off repeated naval clashes in the Sea of Japan and insert commandos to kidnap civilians into S Korea and Japan via ship, submarine and helicopter for 40 years, get their soldiers to hack to death with axes 2 American soldiers trimming trees on the DMZ, blow up a S Korean Airliner over Burma killing 115. Heck, whats wrong with letting such a country develop nukes? After all, it didn't launch major military strikes in 50 years right?
Who said North Korea has been allowed to continue as they wish? What was the US surveilliance plane that was almost shot down by the N Koreans doing there? US and other countries have also attempted to close NKorea's reactor by promising them oil shipments and help with nuclear reactors that do not produce weapons-grade nuclear material. Ok I stand corrected. The US has just tried REAL hard to stop North Koreas WMD program. I'm sure the occasional RC-135 flight and irregular satellite passes are keeping the North Koreans on their toes and causing major disruptions in their nuke program. Right, give oil shipments and a "safe" reactor after the Reds promise to be good little Red boys and not build nuclear weapons. N-A-I-V-E. BTW I'm also waiting eagerly to see how you back up the claim that "Kim Jung Ill's possibility of rapidly building up a large military force is much lower than that of iraq's".
[/b] -
So you are calling our ministers and that includes PM Goh "American Dog".Originally posted by NathanG5:well..i can c another American Dog here barking again...oh u think its rite just to invade other country??
yea..nothing wrong rite..cos its not ur own country...u like ur own country to be BOMB?
heh..some American wannabe..tsk tsk
So in your way of argument, you're an Iraqi Dog
Please, stop your naive labelling of people. Can't people stand up/speak up for what they believe in
I didn't label you an Iraqi Dog hence I want you to take back your personal attacks too
Lastly, I can see no linkage between S'pore and Iraq. We don't attack other countries like them(Iran & Kuwait) and don't practise dictatorship(murder opponents, gas rebellions, use force on own citizen etc)
If you wanna argue, prove your case here -
The Frenchs and Germans have reasons against the war against Iraq, but there are by far due to concerns about the UN Resolutions nor on the welfare of the "innocent" civilian victims.
The US and Brits gave WMD and liberation of the Iraqi people as reasons for the aggression, but do you really believe this to be the case?
Actions from these nations over the years have shown that double standards is the norm.
What counts is the benefits that they can reap. If no one benefits economically, do you think either of these nations give a hoot about the conflict?
Think about it, its not just as simple as that....
If N.Korea has certain resources or economic advantage that could be reap, i believe you will see military actions heading that way...
-
I know it is a bit strong but I find most "PEACE" lovers are senseless and are demonstrating for the sake of demonstrating.
No signs of terrorist in Iraq? So Saddam who invaded Kuwait for no good reason, Saddam who caused so much misery for the Kurds and Irana is NOT a terrorist? Someone who invaded Kuwait is not a terrorist? And so when USA invaded Iraq, it is a bully? What kind of logic is that?
Do not forget that after Saddam invaded Kuwait and was defeated, he was given 12 LONG YEARS to abide by sanctions but for 12 LONG YEARS, even the UN could not be 100% sure the SADDAM has abided by the sanctions? He was given a 2nd chance but did SADDAM even want it? For 12 long years, he outrightly defied the UN sanctions and though there may not be proof that he has links to Osama or any terrorists, how good can a man be when he praises the work of the terrorists in the 911 incident?
Strangely enough, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, there were not so many PEACE LOVERS and DEMONSTRATORS who "RAN" to Kuwait and be a Human Shield there? Why now USA attack IRAQ, these "PEACE" lovers are so quick to condemn USA? Is it about the war or is it because it is USA?
THere could really be a agenda to Bush attacking USA but hey, at least this war is gonna bring some positive to humans in Iraq esp the women rather than letting them suffer under Saddam.
Saddam was the one who killed the civilians in this war, not Bush. Who was the ONE who brought the war into the urban areas? Who was the ONE who surrounded themselves with civilians? SADDAM did, because he knows that if bombs come in, it will kill civilians and thus USA will be labelled 'EVIL', 'KILLER' and many more...IF SADDAM truly loves his people would he bring the war into an area where there are so many civilians? He is the true KILLER. Unfortunately, many 'BRAINLESS' peace lovers again fell into the trap and shouted for "DOWN WITH USA" because the bomb fired is by USA but they forgot who put the civilians there to be bombed.
I appeal to peace lovers out there, that no war is a win-win situation. It is always lose-lose. But it doesnt mean that if there is no war, the situation would be win-win in fact in Iraq's case, it could even be an extremely lose-lose situation if Saddam continues to be in power.
Use your common sense before you appeal for NO WAR. I know its in fashion to shout "PEACE" and shouting for war makes you an evil man in the eyes of these legalistic "PEACE" lovers. But as we all know, being fashionable is not always right. -
If one always had to have entirely pure, true-to-rethoric motives for waging war, we would see no wars and despots like saddam or stalin rising up to terrorise the world because everybody is obessed with the leagalistic moral high ground rather then getting down to doing something.
How many american G.Is in WW2 could be said to be fighting for the sole reasons of liberating concentration camps? No! As a matter of fact most of them are happy-go-lucky just fight a war and loot on the way, but some good (in fact a lot of better good) came from that then letting them nazis go on their merry way. -
It's a choice of the lesser evil
-
And the geopolitical repercussions of the US's unilateral actions in Iraq starts. I've predicted this in my earlier posts in this thread before, now any country can see the US action in Iraq w/o UNSC approval as carte blanche to do as and when they please. Only this time its between 2 certified nuclear powers who have not signed the NPT and have not made a "no first use" of their nuclear arsenal.
Not a good sign of things to come,
---------------------------------------------------------------
India warns it may strike first as Pakistan is like Iraq
Islamabad's nuclear arms and support for Kashmiri guerillas make it a better case for intervention than Baghdad, says Delhi
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,182731,00.html?
NEW DELHI - Asserting the same right of pre-emptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir.
They also warned that India may be forced to take limited military action against its nuclear-armed neighbour.
In a series of recent public statements, Indian officials have stepped up accusations that, contrary to assurances he gave the US last spring, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has been giving free rein to militants fighting to end Indian rule in the disputed Himalayan region.
While India has made such charges before, it has lately begun to draw parallels to the US-led invasion of Iraq.
Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha told Parliament on Wednesday that Pakistan's nuclear capability and alleged support for the Kashmir groups make it a 'fitter case' for intervention than Iraq.
Indian officials said that following a brief crackdown on militant groups last summer, Pakistan is now permitting the operation of up to 120 training camps for the fighters and is once again helping them cross the ceasefire line - called the Line of Control - that separates Pakistani and Indian forces in Kashmir.
Moreover, they said, intercepted messages provide strong circumstantial evidence that two of Pakistan's largest militant organisations - Lashkar-i-Taiba and Hizb ul-Mujahidden - collaborated in the March 23 massacre of 24 Hindus in the Kashmiri village of Nadimarg.
A senior official in India's Home Ministry, which handles internal security, said in an interview this week that at least 3,000 'trained Pakistani cadre' are currently operating in Indian-held Kashmir.
India regards these people as terrorists. Pakistan said its assistance to those it describes as 'freedom fighters' is limited to diplomatic, political and moral support.
It has condemned the Nadimarg massacre and called for an independent third-party inquiry into it.
'This is creating the impression that the United States is unable to put sufficient pressure on Pakistan,' Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said in an interview.
'If these terrorist attacks on a large scale continue, then at some stage in terms of our public opinion, the government will find it very difficult to continue to absorb this.'
Mr Sibal said that comparisons between Pakistan and Iraq were rhetorical in nature and were not intended as 'advance indication for any kind of imminent action' against Pakistan.
Nevertheless, Western diplomats both here and in Islamabad are worried about the potential for military conflict later this spring, when mountain snows recede and militant infiltration typically increase.
They fear that India, which nearly launched a war on Pakistan last year following terrorist attacks against the Indian Parliament and other targets, may feel it has no option but to take action if there is another incident on the scale of the Nadimarg massacre.
While such a response would likely be limited to air strikes on training camps or army posts on Pakistan's side of the Line of Control, diplomats worry that the situation could escalate out of control.
Both countries have small nuclear arsenals.
Western diplomats assert that the case against Pakistan is not as clear-cut as Indian officials claim, but they have been dismayed by what they regard as Mr Musharraf's failure to fulfil the promise he made last spring to permanently end militant incursions into Kashmir.
They said they generally concur with the Indian assessment that after dropping sharply in June and July, infiltrations increased - by how much is unclear - in the latter half of last year before trailing off in February due to heavy snowfalls. -- The Washington Post[/b] -
If India does follow the US actions and launches a unilateral strike into Pakistan over Kashmir which degenerates into a full-blown nuclear war(a very real possibility), is that really a choice of lesser evil in geopolitical terms?Originally posted by Ding:It's a choice of the lesser evil -
NO matter what I had against USA last time, tis time they are right to invade Iraq. As for those who shouted so loudly that it is wrong to invade a country like Iraq, where were you all huh when Iraq invaded Kuwait? How come never see u all shout so loud to Saddam huh? tsk tsk, Iraqis wannabes.
-
cause-effect situation, which in hand cause a major ripple effect ard the world, wif arab hit the most
-
hohoho, so from now on whoever starts a war and just BLAME in on USA, it means that is the TRUTH? THen I might as well ask Singapore to start a war and BLAME it on Germany cos last time they attack their neighbours so we follow suit. Be more objecive lahOriginally posted by Viper52:If India does follow the US actions and launches a unilateral strike into Pakistan over Kashmir which degenerates into a full-blown nuclear war(a very real possibility), is that really a choice of lesser evil in geopolitical terms? -
Ahhh...the typical neo-conservative hawk, when their stand is disagreed with by someone else, call the other side names. Such as Liberal do-gooder/Terrorist sympathiser/Osama lover/Saddam supporter/Al-Qaida fanatic/Bleeding heart. Anything I missed?Originally posted by gasband:NO matter what I had against USA last time, tis time they are right to invade Iraq. As for those who shouted so loudly that it is wrong to invade a country like Iraq, where were you all huh when Iraq invaded Kuwait? How come never see u all shout so loud to Saddam huh? tsk tsk, Iraqis wannabes.
Seems CNN/FoxNews et al have been real successful at exporting this breed to where their trash masquerading as news have penetrated the market.
Despite what the pro-war lobby here and elsewhere have ranted and raved repeatedly, I've yet to see a credible argument as to why the US's unilateral action against Iraq is preferable to giving 1441 more time to establish Saddams guilt before going the UNSC for a resolution for action which would easily pass.
Let me reiterate one final time, I'm neither pro-war or anti-war. I believe Saddam has to be gotten rid off, and am one hell of a glad he is(or on the way to be at least). But I still don't see the logic behind the US violation to the UN Charter to do so. -
Well, the Indians have said so themselves didn't they? Before you say anything about the writer of the story being anti-US, look at the source of the story at the end, "The Washsington Post"Originally posted by gasband:hohoho, so from now on whoever starts a war and just BLAME in on USA, it means that is the TRUTH? THen I might as well ask Singapore to start a war and BLAME it on Germany cos last time they attack their neighbours so we follow suit. Be more objecive lah
"Asserting the same right of pre-emptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir.
" -
btw if u did not notice, once the fall of iraq, the israel inner attacks are back again, north korea news poping up in UNSC etc, arabs in questions, this is the ripple effect
fall of the Ba'ath Party is great but on the other hand ppl ard some parts of the world did not have the education that we have, hence the confuson n chaos -
Originally posted by Viper52:
anyway, i was calling NathanG5 the iraqi wannabe cos in a few posts earlier he called some pple American wannabe, it was not directed at you but if you consider yourself one, i cant really help it.
Ahhh...the typical neo-conservative hawk, when their stand is disagreed with by someone else, call the other side names. Such as Liberal do-gooder/Terrorist sympathiser/Osama lover/Saddam supporter/Al-Qaida fanatic/Bleeding heart. Anything I missed?
Seems CNN/FoxNews et al have been real successful at exporting this breed to where their trash masquerading as news have penetrated the market.
Despite what the pro-war lobby here and elsewhere have ranted and raved repeatedly, I've yet to see a credible argument as to why the US's unilateral action against Iraq is preferable to giving 1441 more time to establish Saddams guilt before going the UNSC for a resolution for action which would easily pass.
Let me reiterate one final time, [b]I'm neither pro-war or anti-war. I believe Saddam has to be gotten rid off, and am one hell of a glad he is(or on the way to be at least). But I still don't see the logic behind the US violation to the UN Charter to do so. [/b]
neither pro war nor anti war..hmm ok...and you agree that Saddam should be taken out? hmm ok...so now USA propose to take out Saddam...but then UN dun agree....then HOW AH? then must wait how long for a solution? It has been YEARS u noe? and u noe that France, Russia and China and all those selfish people with hidden agendas just like the Americans will never AGREE to it..so how to take out SADDAM ah like that? -
As i said, just because the Indians say its all USA fault lor, thats why I must attack Pakistan, just because they say so, u believe ah?Originally posted by Viper52:Well, the Indians have said so themselves didn't they? Before you say anything about the writer of the story being anti-US, look at the source of the story at the end, "The Washsington Post"
"Asserting the same right of pre-emptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir.
"
So next time i do anything bad, i just blame it on anyone who may have done it b4, is that fair and objective? -
america also have their hidden agenda, exceppt tt for nw is not clear for us to get it, go read their homeland security system, patriot act I and II