Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Debate On Iraq Is A Bad Joke  
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4318 posts, RR: 11
Posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

I've just about had it with this situation with Iraq, I've got to vent out.

I always knew that the governments of the richest nations were not much if any better than those of most 2nd world nations, and not very superior to 3rd and 4th world crackpot states, and the war with Iraq 'debate' proves it.

I'm sick and tired of governments on both sides of the atlantic actually believing we underlings in the real world have no brains. Are they trully this stupid and disconnected? Have they become so elitist that they forgot the people's they govern actually got some intellect? (at least most)

There is no such thing as a position on Iraq any longer by anyone. The United States (Bush) just wants to finish off the job they should have finished 11 years ago, but it can't be that way and they know it yet they ingore the fact. On the other hand, Europe, led by Germany and France are confronting the US in a ridiculous manner not because they disagree with a war on Iraq, but just to ruffle the USA and nothing more like they have increasingly done one every opportunity they get.

In short, both sides are playing a game of bravadist machismo to see who can back the other down first. They (the US and Europe governments), don't care about Iraq, it's people or anything else for that matter outside their silly little worlds. It's sickening.

They expect me to believe them when they say 'oh, we are against war because it's an admission of failure of humanity' or 'oh, we will attack Iraq to procect our allies'... such a level of sanctimonium makes me laugh.

The only losers here are you and me, the longer this little game your politians play, the longer oil prices will be high, the longer your economies will suffer, the longer it will take to bring unemployment in all countries down, the more terrorism and hate will foster, the longer the Iraqi people will suffer, the more bitterness between what should be a world community respectful of each other there will be.



A


My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

France and germany disagre on this war not because it is the US.
The fact is that there are things more urgent to do to imporove the safety of the US and of the world .
Who has made the Sep 11 attack? Saddam hussein? No !!! Bin Laden. Has the international community finished the work with Bin Laden ? No . We have just changed the Afgahn government (which should have been done even earlier) , and signed the contract for the oil pipeline.
Saddam hussein is a very bad person, but not a supporter of Al Qaeda.

Who is activevely developping Nuclear bombs? North Korea. Who has the bnomb and really wants to use it ? India and Pakistan. Saddam can only dream of it, because in the 80s, Israel has already solved the issue by destroying the only Nuclear powerplant able to produce military nukes.

Apart Saddam (and they started before him0, there are a lot of other countries not complying with UN resolutions.. Israel , for instance.

And to conclude, we all want to get rid off Sadam. However, if there is an attack, who is going to be killed? Sadam? No .. It will be thousand of innocent people, already suffering from the embargo and the current regime. The Iraki people is a victim, then let's kill them...

In fact, despite my hope to see a new regime in Irak, and as long as Bush and Blair do no show the world the evidences they claim having, I think the world has more urgent issues to deal with
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineEmiratesLover From Malta, joined Dec 2000, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

Time and time again I hear about the US whining about how Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction against its people and it's neighbours.

This is ironic...the United States developed atomic weapons and used them twice in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.It used chemical weapons (napalm and Agent Orange ) in Vietnam, and had moreweapons of all sorts including atomic ones than all the other countries in the world.Also, the economic sanctions it has imposed on Iraq have created a humanitarian crisis that has killed more people than all the WMD put together.

With a record like that calling for Iraq to be disarmed and telling it is a threat to world peace is a lot like a pot telling a kettle it is black.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

Israel has already solved the issue by destroying the only Nuclear powerplant able to produce military nukes.

You touch on an interesting parallel, Teva. Back in '81, Israel was roundly critisized by the world for having attacked Iraq. It was a preventative strike. A short, quick fight now in return for a much less likelyhood of a bigger, costlier conflict later.

That sounds rather familiar...

Charles


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

The only losers here are you and me, the longer this little game your politians play, the longer oil prices will be high

Ahhh....you've exposed the *real* reason you want this resolved. And why the US is even interested in Iraq....


User currently onlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8379 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

The US used atomic weapons and chemicle weapons against enemy nations that were killing thousands of our people. Sadaam uses them against completetly innocent people. Your logic is flawed, EmiratesLover.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

When Saddam used chemical weapons against Curdish people and Iranian soldiers your proud State Department said that any US reaction to that would be "unproductive". You see, Saddam was at the time fighting against the evil Persians, he was your "friend".

Now that US changed its mind Saddam is an enemy and "Hurray Hurray! He killed his own people! Lets bomb him!!"

Pathetic

Kostas





User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13254 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

You want decent debate, or some good reporting?

The excellent Andrew Rawsley in the UK Sunday paper, The Observer;

http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,882467,00.html

http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,873008,00.html

From a BBC correspondent;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/2694885.stm


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Charles,
Israel has been criticized at that time. That's true.
But what I just wanted to say is:
1) When Israel has destroyed the nuclear plant, it is all they did. They didn't kill thousands of innocent people like the "chirurgical" strikes of the first gulf war.

2) Because of this attack, even if Saddam is still dreaming of it, he cannot have nuclear bombs.

3) Saddam is bad . But Bush will attack the Iraki people. Not directly Saddam. Hasn't he been offered the possibility to resign?

Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

1) When Israel has destroyed the nuclear plant, it is all they did. They didn't kill thousands of innocent people like the "chirurgical" strikes of the first gulf war.

Israel was relatively lucky. Saddam was nowhere as concerned at the time about hiding his facilities as he is now. 20 years ago he hardly dreamed that anyone would actually dare to try to take it out. Israel had a clear target. Now, the only way to get at them is to search them out on the ground.

2) Because of this attack, even if Saddam is still dreaming of it, he cannot have nuclear bombs.

I'm not so sure about that. 20 years have past. Since the fall of the USSR nuclear materials have been available on the black market - he doesn't really need his own reactor.

3) Saddam is bad . But Bush will attack the Iraki people. Not directly Saddam. Hasn't he been offered the possibility to resign?

Do you know Bush's war plans? I don't. But I'm willing to bet that the first night of cruise missile attacks will wipe out many or all of Saddam's palaces rather than civilian areas. Intentional attacks on civilians is not an acceptable tactic to western countries (unlike certain others). The scary bit will be when Saddam uses human shields - intentionally placing civilians in front of a military target, just as he did during the Gulf War - truely a dispicable tactic.

Charles


User currently offlineDc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Emirateslover the US was fully justified in dropping the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Napalm is not a chemical weapon. Agent Orange was a defoliant not a battlefield chemical weapon. We can't touch North Korea because they have the bomb already.

User currently offlineScootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

EmiratesLover:

First a technical point: Neither napalm or agent orange were/are "chemical weapons" as you asserted, nor are they weapons of mass destruction. Napalm is a gelatnous burning substance meant to spread high temperature burning fuel over the target area. Agent Orange was a chemical defoliant used (very unsuccessfully) to thin the Vietnamese jungle, the theory being to deny the VC a place to hide. Agent Orange has probably injured more U.S. Air Force personel than it did Vietnamese non-combatants. Do make sure you know what in the hell you are talking about next time. The United States has not used, nor has it participated in a conflict in which chemical weapons have been used since WWI.

Now, as for your comment regarding the United States' use of nuclear weapons during WWII, I cannot believe you can logically draw parallels between that and Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran. The use of nuclear weapons in Japan, as horrific as those weapons were, SAVED Japanese lives as well as untold numbers of American servicemen who would have perished during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. An invasion of that sort would have resulted in hundereds of thousands of Allied casualties, and historians unanimously agree that the Japenese deaths would have number in the millions. The A-Bombs brought a more rapid end to the bloodiest conflict in recorded history and assured you... yes, you... a more peaceful world to live in. I think, sir, that if Harry Truman where alive today you would owe it to him to kiss his backside in appreciation.

Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, started an unwarrented war of aggression against Iran, gassed innocent civilians and then invaded Kuwait because of some ambigious border dispute. His actions had nothing in common with U.S. or Allied actions in WWII or with the American debacle in Vietnam.

So, If you are going to comment, I would suggest that you base your opinions in something resembling fact, especially when using historical events as examples.


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1783 times:

Charles, about Bush, I was just refering to official speeches, offering Saddam a chance to leave the Country

Scootertrash, are you really sure that the aggression against Iran was only Saddam's idea? What was doing Mr Donald Rumsfeld in Irak at that time, sent by Reagan and Bush father ?

And for everyone, do you know that Prsident Truman has signed a Treaty in 1945 about Saudian oil ? This treaty has been signed in 1945 and it's a 60 years long .... Time for the governemnt to find another source, isn't it? Especially with the current relationship between the US and Saudia....
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Time and time again I hear about the US whining about how Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction against its people and it's neighbours.

EmiratesLover, maybe your point would be even more valid, if you ask the question about what impact Reagan and Bush Sr. had in the development of those WMDs and the use of them by Saddam against the Kurds in the late 1980s.

The fact is, America basically handed Saddam that program on a platter. There is no disputing that.

Also, it would be interesting for someone who is anti-Saddam and pro-Reagan/Bush Sr., to post the information on what the line from Washington was upon learning of the attacks against the Kurds by Saddam in 1988 in the Kurdish village of Halabjah. It was basically indifference.

Some massive explanations are owed to the Kurds by those in power in Washington, both now and in the past.

The reason the American government wants to go to war with Iraq today, is the exact same reason they explicitly supported the Iraqis in the 1980s.

And if it isn't for that reason, I would challenge Bush to ensure that all contracts for Iraqi oil which are now in place with other countries are to remain in tact. I bet they won't however.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

The fact is, America basically handed Saddam that program on a platter. There is no disputing that.

What's your source for this? It is a matter of record that Saddam's nuclear program was with French assistance, and his chemical and biological base was Soviet.

Charles


User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Charles, I guess you could add this to the record now  Laugh out loud

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html

Saddam might have gotten some assistance from the Soviets and the French, but it seems that the anthrax and bubonic plague was "imported" from the Americans, either directly, or through front companies.

And these facts are not something which has only been known in the last few weeks, but for many years.

But of course, it wouldn't be in the interest of the "WAR" to promote these facts to the American public?


User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

From Washington Post

"The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague"

Cfalk. Speechless?

Aviatsiya. Excellent. I used the same article in another thread and sat back to see the reaction. Guess what. Noone bothered to answer. You see, US fellas love to think of their great country as the "Land of the Brave" when it's in fact the "Land of the Weapon Sellers to Anyone can Pay". (as long as he's their friend of coyrse).  Smile

Kostas


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

Another quote from the same very interesting article in the Washington Post.

"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons
on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. "

What is Rumsfeld job today?
And before that , wasn't he working for oil companies ?
(As other top members of the current administration?)
teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

Teva

I just wonder what exactly will we read in 20-30 years from now when the today's classified papers go public. The level of hypocrisy of US administration is pathetic some times. They keep being exposed but they keep telling us that they're the "Crusaders of the Good" and they are fighting solely for the well being of the world and the Peace. Peace my a**

Kostas


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

Cfalk. Speechless?

No. I don't spend all day on the net. I just read the article.

Interesting article. Also interesting is how some of you people seem to ignore the parts of the story that you don't like. Like the fact that Iran was considered a far greater threat at the time. You talk with hindsight. Think of what we knew back in the early and mid-80s. Khomeini was still alive, and had visions of uniting all of the Muslim world under a single entity. Had he beaten Iraq, it's quite possible that Iran and Iraq's combined forces (Iraq is largely Shiite, like Iran) would have had enough critical mass to go after the Arabian Peninsula. At the time, Iraq was the better of two evils. Now we know what a son-of-a-bitch he is, but back then, we saw an option between letting Iran win, possible leading to a fundamental shift of the entire Middle East toward radical Islam, or supporting a dictator who had bitten off more than he could chew.

Also note that once the extent of Saddam's liking for chemical warfare became known, his ability to acquire aid and materials from the U.S. suffered.

In hindsight, we can easily say that the U.S. should have dumped his ass long before, but the level of treachery Saddam was capable of was not so apparent compared to the fear of a dominant Iran, until the end of the Iran-Iraq war and Saddam's attempt to grab Kuwait's oil reserves for himself.

So sure, mistakes were made. In hindsight, the U.S. (and France, Britain, Russia, Germany, among others) sold Saddam the rope that he would later try to hang us with (see - I've read Lenin too). But you cannot judge actions with hindsight. Chamberlain's Munich Pact with Hitler was hailed as a victory by many people, and those like Churchill, who did not want to deal with Hitler but to immediately crush him, were derided as warmongers. Even Franklin Roosevelt tried to step in and negotiate a peaceful resolution to WWII, early in the war. Eventually, the realization came that such noble hopes were foolish.

There is no question that Reagan (and to a lesser extent Bush Sr.) were completely fooled by Saddam. Their fear of a powerful Iran overwhelmed their clear vision of the Iraqi dictator, and they foolishly allowed this fear to smooth over what were some clear indications that Saddam was in the long run just as dangerous as Iran, if not more. We know that know, but how easy was it to know it then?

Your arguments seem to indicate that since the U.S. and other Western countries helped Saddam at one time, that it voids the argument about removing those weapons from him. That's like saying that the state, having at one time granted you a driver's license, should not have the right to take your license away after you developed a habit of running over pedestrians on a regular basis.

After over 20 years in power, I think we are safe to assume that we have enough evidence of what Saddam is really like, and the nations of the world have decided that, regardless of earlier, false opinions of Saddam, that he could no longer be trusted with weapons of mass destruction of any kind - he likes to use them way too often. Yesterday's presentation by the UN inspection team clearly indicates that Saddam is still hiding some. Why are you so opposed to taking them away from him?

Charles


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The War On Iraq - *MONEY*. posted Tue Mar 25 2003 10:01:23 by Mx5_boy
Debate On A Radio Station On The Iraq Conflict posted Fri Mar 21 2003 16:20:07 by MidnightMike
In The Shadow Of War On Iraq: OBL Is Safe posted Sat Feb 15 2003 17:50:28 by NoUFO
The Iraq Debate: On A.net And In NATO/UN posted Sat Feb 15 2003 04:55:40 by Alpha 1
And The Most Beautiful Place On Earth Is... posted Fri Oct 27 2006 18:14:44 by Thom@s
A Marine's Report On The War In Iraq posted Thu Nov 17 2005 04:47:22 by PROSA
Whose Money Is Funding The Occupation Of Iraq? posted Sat Jul 17 2004 14:14:34 by Indianguy
The War In Iraq And What You Dont See On Foxnews posted Fri Feb 27 2004 20:49:58 by Zak
The Battle Of Baghdad Is On posted Wed Apr 2 2003 06:42:05 by Alpha 1
Iraq Is Not The Danger posted Thu Mar 20 2003 16:44:36 by Wardialer