Guest

Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 1:25 am

This is why the US and UK need to destroy the Iraqi dictator:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-373053,00.html

Why can apologize for this? Why can gleefully celebrate a Swiss embassy after reading this? Who can deride a US embargo after reading this?

This argument is finnished. Goodbye.

TNNH
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 2:01 am

Russell, given that the US has desperately been trying to get UN approval of its planned invasion, don't you think that if this information was kosher then they would have presented it to the Security Council? Instead, the report is full of "suspected", "believed" and "could". Nothing definite or proven at all.
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 2:13 am

The guy has pretty much kept himself to himself for the last few years, so why not just leave it at that, He'll be dead soon anyway, isn't he in his 70's now ??. He's also agreed to hold talks again with the UN weapons inspectors, the guy ain't stoopid, he knows the US are serious and would kick his a$$ from here to eternity.

Personally tho', I think that they should concentrate on the real reason that Saddam and Osama hate the US/West and make Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, that's what most of their anger is about, I'm sure that would have much more of an effect than blasting Iraq from here to kingdom come, as doing that is only going to incite other Moslem nations to join with him, and before you know it WW3 will kick off.

Just my 2p worth.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 2:39 am

"Real" reason Saddamn and Osama hate the U.S.

SAS, defending anything against the U.S. and Israel.

Face it, no matter what, Saddamn is a menace. Because he has "kept to himself" (which is a load of garbage) the last few years means he not funding and arming Palestinian terrorists? Please. His dirty work could get done, and best of all for him, he wouldn't even have to do it. Just pay for it to be done. Time to make Iraq a parking lot.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 3:06 am

He has been trying to start a regional wide war in that area since 1991.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 3:13 am

All he's interested in is survival. He isn't going to start a regional war. In what way is the fact that he has kept to himself "garbage"? I don't recall Iraq invading anywhere lately. Why would you want to make Iraq a parking lot? And kill tens of millions of innocent Iraqis? KROC, you sound like Hitler or worse. Keep your unpleasant attitudes quiet.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 4:20 am

The only reason that Dubya wants to go after Saddam is because Saddam tried to have his old man assassinated. Personal conflicts should not interfere with affairs of state!

The Americans, with all the resources of the CIA (plus those of the Mossad via their Israeli allies) at their disposal, have not been able to put any conclusive proof in front of the UN Security Council that Saddam is indeed developing any weapons of mass destruction.

The problem is that without a UN Resolution in place giving them a mandate to invade Iraq, the Americans will be reduced to the same position as Al Qu'aida or Iraq when it invaded Kuwait ... that of an aggressor invading another sovereign state without cause; a state guilty of international terrorism against Iraqi civilians. Right now, the Americans still occupy a small amount of moral high ground (though that is being rapidly eroded with their illegal detention of foreign nationals in Camp X Ray) - but an escapade like this would destroy all credibility they have, especially in the Middle East.

Of course, Israel is very keen for the Americans to go in and finish off Saddam, thereby destabilising the region and hoping that the Iranians will turn their attentions on Iraq and away from them.

KROC - the US government is arming and funding (to the tune of US$6.7 billion last year) Israeli state terrorism against Palestinian civilians. Is it any wonder at all that in many militant Islamic eyes, the United States or "Great Satan" is held to blame for the woes of their Muslim brothers in Palestine?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 5:27 am

"Wag the dog" will be on ZDF TV in an hour.

Coincidence? Or just a sarcastic commentary?

It seems nothing short of a major invasion could save Dubja from his personal corporate quagmire.

Maybe someone should check Dubya´s weapons of mass distraction, while we´re at it...  Wink/being sarcastic
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 5:41 am

Saddam is not, in my opinion, a direct menace to the world. But the US want to replace him, so they try to prove to their allies that Saddam has already the possibility to use mass destruction weapons.

This kind of strategy is not new: in 1956, France, the UK and Israel simulated an attack from the egyptians to justify their invasion of the Sinaï desert and their occupation Suez.

 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 6:16 am

"illegal detention of foreign nationals "

First we have every right to hold them until the War/ hostilities end, that's in the Geneva convention.

And second they are not US citizens, they are not in the US. Thus they are not protected under the US Constitution, they are on a US Military installation outside the US. They are being detained as enemy combatants, in human conditions.

If you want to cry for them , knock yourself out pal.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 7:58 am

The argument isn't about if Saddam is a bad guy, and that the world would be a better place without him. That's self-evident.
Trouble is, you can think of plenty of leaders the world would be a better place without, plenty of them if not allies, are certainly not enemies either, rather they are trading partners, like that homicidal bunch in China.
Iraq's tragedy is that it should be an advanced nation, Ba'ath Party rule since the 1960's, and worse Saddam's Stalin-esque rule since 1979, has retarded the nation.
Most Iraqis just want what most people want, so the idea of turning them 'into a carpark' is pretty sick.
And before some of you get off on some kind of John Wayne/Rambo trip, just think how US public opinion will change if the body bags coming home reaches 3 figures fairly quickly.
Now that would not be a concern if there was proof that Saddam had a hand in Sept 11th, if he had, he'd be gone by now, whatever it took.
An attack would have real legitimacy, the rest of NATO, the EU, all would back it.
But there is no proof, despite some pretty lame attempts by some in the Bush administration last year to point the finger.
If the British Prime Minister, virtually impregnable at home, wants to risk destroying his career like some latter-day Anthony Eden, (the last PM to go into a military adventure without clear majority public support), that's his lookout.
However, if evidence that Saddam is really a clear and present danger can be presented, and it's accepted by bodies such as the UN, (or at least general Western allies in the UN) and EU, then I'll stand corrected.
Some cobbled together half-truths and rumours to satisfy the seemingly compliant US mainstream media won't do.
I wonder if the military planners in the Pentagon, who have the unenviable task of planning some kind of action that has a good chance of working, without turning the region into a chemical/biological battleground, with mass civilian deaths, potential heavy US casualties, potentially disastrous political fall-out, economic dangers from mid-east instability and much more besides, are quite as gung-ho as the civilians in the administration and parts of the media?


 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:11 am

Cedarjet. KROC, you sound like Hitler or worse. Keep your unpleasant attitudes quiet

I am sounding like Hitler? LMAO.

In what way is the fact that he has kept to himself "garbage"? I don't recall Iraq invading anywhere lately. Why would you want to make Iraq a parking lot? And kill tens of millions of innocent Iraqis?

Do you think because the BBC or CNN hasn't said anything, that Saddam is just "surviving"? As for Killing innocent Iraqi's. Let me rephase. The Parking Lot scenario in to an educated person obviously an unrealistic goal, and is said more out of frustration with the situation. Let me say this though, if Saddam is so innocent and "trying to survive", why is he arming Palestinian terrorists with weapons to use against the U.S.? Answer that one hotrod. How about a little Darwinism for you. Survival Of The Fittest. If he plans on attacking the U.S. in any manor, we should stop him first.

Oh, and SAS, you can mention all you want about the U.S. arming and funding Israel. You can even call them a terrorist state (to which I will chuckle), but until you admit that Palestine is a haven for terrorist groups, and that Saddam is supporting them with his money, your point will go nowhere to anyone with a rational though in there head.
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:14 am

Good post GDB.
Like Chirac and Schroeder said last week, a military operation against Irak must recieve support from the UN.
And before the planning of such a giant and very risky operation, the US must show evidences that Saddam is a serious danger for the stability of the middle east, to justify an invasion of Iraq.
You can't invade a country as you want. In the international law, only defensive war is accepted. The 1990-1991 conflict was a defensive one. This time its not the case.

If the US are not able to gain a clear support from the UN and from their allies, there is a risk to see a developping kind of solidarity from other arab countries towards Irak, who would have a role of victim. Then, the end of such a general conflict would perhaps be dramatic.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:18 am

I am slightly confused, some are saying the US needs a UN mandate before any strike against Iraq, whereas only today i read an article in the newspapaper where the writer says that US doesn't need any official UN backing.

So does it or not?
In Arsene we trust!!
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:21 am

The US doesn't need any UN backing to strike Iraq, but it would be far better if they could have one. Otherwise, it could be considered by some countries as an aggression.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:30 am

OK, let's imagine the US does strike Iraq, Saddam Hussain is almost toppled and he knows it, and that moment he decides to have the final say and launches some of the WMD/biological/chemical weapons that he probably has at either the US or Israel as a counter strike resulting in mass casualties, then what happens?
In Arsene we trust!!
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:35 am

If the U.S. wants to attack Iraq, they will. The thing is, they will do so with the support of allied nations and with probable cause. Remember, we are nothing but a bunch of keyboard politicians and generals, and nothing is as cut and dry as we would like to think it is.
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:37 am

A terrible death toll...
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:38 am

I hope you're right KROC..
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:43 am

Cyril B. I'm being totally serious. It is very easy for me, you, and others to sit back and judge things. We might know about 10 percent of any given issue just because. America is also not the big bully we are portrayed to be. any American military action will have probably cause, if not justifiable proof. And for the record, loss of life on any side is terrible, but when we know Saddam is funding Palestinian terrorists for strikes against the U.S., then it becomes a matter of we need to get them, before they get us. It's a situation where nobody can possibly win.
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:51 am

I'm serious KROC. A war is always something serious.
From a personnal point of view, I think it would be a good thing te remove Saddam, 'cause Iraq and perhaps the middle east would be in a better shape without him.

But a war in this part of the world, its like an "elephant in a glass store", and the US needs to be very careful.

 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 8:55 am

Here in the UK, the government has been presented with a legal opinion that its position would be legally untenable should it participate in any attack on Iraq without a legitimate mandate from the UN Security Council; or if Iraq attacked a country with which the UK has a defence pact (such as Oman, the UAE or Bahrain).

Given that, and given the increasing opposition from most Britons to any attack, Tony Blair is currently trying to do a fast U turn on his earlier position; as evidenced by his recent talks with King Abdullah of Jordan.

KROC - what Palestinian attacks against the US? Can you point to any evidence that this has happened? Sure, Iraq has allegedly paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers US$10,000 a pop; but that's an Israeli problem and not an American one. Don't confuse the issues, dear boy!

It is clear that on the current lack of any justification or evidence presented by the US, any attack would be not just wholly illegal but would alienate further the Arab world against the US; and provide clear evidence of the US acting unilaterally as a global bully-boy.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 9:01 am

Cyril B. But a war in this part of the world, its like an "elephant in a glass store", and the US needs to be very careful

Do you think that any country takes the possibility of war lightly? Many people make it out like the U.S. just acts on impulse when it comes to war. Believe me, any action the U.S. 'might' take will have been thought over, planned, and discussed with allied nations. And I am dead positive the U.S. knows the worst case consequences to middle eastern actions.

SAS. I am referring to the reports that Saddam has helped fund Al-Quada as well as the fact he could be funding Palestinian terrorists for actions against Israel and the U.S. If that can be confirmed, that is when I say "get him, before he gets us".
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 12:03 pm

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have just declared that they are firmly opposed to an attack on Iraq.

Chancellor Schröder has repeated his September 11th statement: The USA have our full solidarity, but we´ll not take part in any "adventures".

Without a clear political strategy with regards to the middle east, Germany will not participate in a war against Iraq. Nor would it lend support of any kind to such an undertaking under these circumstances.

With Israel/Palestine burning violently (and with the Bush administration basically leaving the problem to Ariel Sharon´s "capable" hands), opening yet another front right next door is probably the stupidest thing imaginable.

Bush has really succeeded in wrecking most of the "coalition against terrorism", that much is certain.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 12:34 pm

The US has the right under international law to go into "hot persuit" of enemies which have struck at us and may do so again.

The Stated US policy in the days after 9-11 is to not distinguish from the terrorists and the countries/regimes/organizations that harbor or give aide to them.

A direct connection between Iraq and 9-11 might be hard (for a reason), Iraqi intelligence was directly tied to Ramsey Yussef and the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993. Later Ramsey Yusef was captured in the Philipines attempting to blow up simualtaniously many US airliners over the Pacific (Mode of operation sound fimiliar) .

And those terrorists from 1993 have direct links to Al Qaeda and UBL.

So a direct link from UBL to Sadam might be hard to prove (for a reason), however they both hangout with the same people.

Czech Republic's intelligence agency monitored last Summer a meeting between the Iraqi Intelligence leader and Mohamed Atta in Prague, this information is from the Czechs not the CIA.

So draw your on conclusions, there's no direct evidence. But there's a hell of alot of supporting evidence, if it quacks like a duck...

UBL and his network like Ramsey Yusef before him are just hired thugs, they needed training, support, and experience you can't get in the Afghanistan desert.

I believe the US has enough evidence to point to Sadam Hussein as being heavily involved in the 9-11 attacks.

Sadam Hussein and UBL have the same goals, drive the US out of Saudi Arabia.

All this Israeli -Palestinian stuff is just a distraction. And it's been working, Sadam tried to get Israel to react the way they are now back in '91 when he was lobbing Scud missles into Tel Aviv hoping to drag Israel into the war to distract the moderate Arab States from supporting the US led campaign.

They failed in ' 91, they're doing a better job today that's for sure.

Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 5:50 pm

We can debate the justification for attacking Iraq for almost ever. Personally, I think there are more pressing troubles in the Middle East which would be better off solved rather than Iraq - but I've laid that out in previous threads.

Can we actually debate the 'How' of any attack on Iraq? Aside from the asinine suggestion of turning it into a car park.

Here's what I think. Saddam does not care about his people. He has shown this when he gassed his own civilians back in the 80s. Therefore, you can kill one Iraqi, you can kill a million Iraqis, and he won't care. As long as he is safe in his bunker he will not surrender. In fact, in all likelyhood he would flee Baghdad, retreating to his family stronghold of Tikrit. So, you have a scenario of the US/UK forces heading to Baghdad, when the target is not actually there.

This brings another point. Having watched 'Black Hawk Down' last night (BTW very good flick) it struck me that they should show this film to Bush/Blair etc before they think of attacking Iraq. Why? It'll be like BHD but worse. As long as the Iraqi people are loyal to Saddam (which is a difficult quantity to judge) you will have to take Iraq street by street. Simply carpet-bombing Baghdad will not solve the primary objective (which is to kill Saddam) and it will turn world opinion against you very swiftly. Invading a country to kill a man who has spent his whole political career dodging assasination attempt after assasination attempt will result in massive US casualties. The question is, will the US population be able to stomach them? Much has been said about an ingrained fear in the American pschye of black-body-bags after Vietnam. Any assault on Iraq will not be the turkey-shoot of '91. It will bring the body-bags back.
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 7:01 pm

Eg777er is spot on: there are indeed many more pressing issues in the region - Tony Blair has said to Bush that he wants the Israeli/Palestinian issue resolved before any action is taken against Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$PJKJNUAAAD4G1QFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2002/08/04/wiraq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/08/04/ixnewstop.html

STT757 - both the CIA and Britain's SIS have completely discounted claims of the alleged meeting between Atta and the Iraqui intelligence officer. Equally, if you are looking at circumstantial evidence you can make a really good case for Israeli involvement in 9/11 plus of course it's fact that Bin Laden was originally launched on his career by the CIA!

KROC - there's absolutely no evidence that has been produced to show that Saddam has funded Al Qaeda. If there had been, that would have given Bush the smoking gun he so desperately needs - yet US government officials are on the record saying that Iraq was definitely not involved with 9/11.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 7:49 pm

There´s a growing suspicion that Bush is just trying to mask his failures in several areas (among them their shrugging off of the Israel/Palestine conflict) for domestic popularity gains.

"Screw the world, we´ve got midterm elections coming up!"
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 10:11 pm

Well this hasnt surprised me one bit, saddam is an menance to the world.

Arguements to counteract any plan to remove him such as, 'oh well he hasnt started a war recentley' or' action will be against international law' are simply the reactions of a section that has buried its head in the sands and hoped for the best.

It is little more than appeasement, simple appeasement and is no better than people in the 1930s who didnt want action against hitler.

Saddam Hussien has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.Saddam hussien started two regional wars.Saddam Hussien funds terrorists. Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction in order to wreak terror. he sees himself as a modern day saladin, the unifier of islam.Anyone who can see that is simply dismissing plain, simple fact.

No-one cannot support military action if it is for the greater good.We arent talking about the mass death and destruction of iraq.The favoured plan is a strike against baghdad, minimlising civilain death.

The problem is that we are so humanity and human rights aware that we forget basic facts and ideas. The world should live in harmony and peace, countries should be democratic and people should be free. We are so concerned with this that the picture has been distorted. we are so frighterned of civilain deaths(well apart from sas23 who isnt sacred to say all israelis are legitimate targets!) and so frighterned of war that we dont realise that inaction now will lead to greater death and destruction later.

Throughout history, when the world fails to react and waits and waits the larger the death and the greater the destruction and reaction.

Napelon could have been stopped sooner
ww1 could have been stopped sooner
hitler could have been stopped a lot sooner
We could have reacted against terrorists sooner, sept 11 need not happen.
We could have reacted against saddam sooner.

For those who didnt want war against hitler, we ended up with death on a mass scale and the dropping of two h-bonmbs and the death of 10 million in a holocaust.

For those who didnt want action against terrorists and their supporters we got sept 11.It could have been even worse, but the people of afghanistan now have peace, they dont live in a culture of human rights abuse.

for those who dont want action against saddamm? God knows

We most protect humanity, that doesnt mean we have peace at all costs.

SAS23-the usa and the uk say there is a link between saddam and al-queda, though they dont know what scale, whether it was informal links or funding or what. But saddam does fund palestinain terrorists.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 10:24 pm

Go Canada! - most of what you said is perfectly true. Saddam is bad news - especially for his own people. However, the problem is that would his removal (by whatever means) improve things on a regional basis or make them worse? Given that he has bumped off all of his viable successors, the biggest question is who would take over from him. The next question is: would Iran move into the power vaccum created by his demise? If so, what effect would that have on regional stability?

Tom Clancy wrote a great book about this scenario. Perhaps you should read it as it seems to be coming eerily true!
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 10:41 pm

Perhaps you could read Forsyth's "the fist of god" then?

Saddams removal will improve things,not only on a regional basis but an international one.

Saddams removal will see israel, turkey and the arab states feel safer for his removal.Despite saddams little propaganda piece in saying he doesnt want to invade kuwait again, its a load of bullshit.As is the statement regarding weapons inspectors, its playing games.

Saddams removal will cut any link, no matter how small with al-queda, it also cust funding to palestinain terrorist groups.

Regarding who will take from him, simple you have the iraqi national congress in control as an intermin goverment, backed with peacekeepers and you then let the iraqi people decide, you let them have democracy.Iraqis dont have a choice, they suffer abuses every day because of saddam.

Regarding iran, im slightly surprised that you seem to feel that iran is a threat to the world, part of a axis of terror. I have to agree that iran is dangerous, it funds terrorists and would be more than happy to have weapons of mass destruction. However with a number of moderates being in iran there is hope that it will move into a more free society.I am pleased though that you recognise that iran could be dangerous.

Saying that though the removal of saddam and the replacement with democracy will mean a return to the old iraq, a fairly western ish state. Add iraq to afghanistan and you have two countries that will have undemocratic terror regimes that threatern the world removed.

It would serve as a harsh warning to iran.but thats not the main thing, the main thing is saving the iraq people and the region from destruction because you have to agree that if action isnt taken then its only a matter of time before saddam moves further against israel by supplying the terrorists and against the usa/uk.

if that happens you have to agree that israel wont stand for saddam supplying terrorists and would make a raid against his weapons of mass destruction. All hell could break lose.

the further we wait, the bigger the task and response.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 10:43 pm

Saddam is funding the Palestinians to fight the Israeli's who are funded by the US. That's what it's all about. If the US stopped helping to arm the Israelis so they could keep invading Palestinian territory, and the Israeli's left the occupied territories, then Saddam and Osama would no longer pose a threat, they are only trying to help out their fellow Moslems, to stop them being persecuted by the Israeli's. The Palestinians were after all forced to give up what was their land to create Israel in the first place, then Israel armed itself to the teeth, and invaded even more of the Palestinian territory.

Did you know that the Palestinians are persecuted even more by the Israeli's than what the Blacks were under Apartheid in South Africa ?, and that in the occupied territories the Israeli's have 95% of the water for 5% of the population, leaving the remaining 95% of Palestinians to survive on 5% of the available water ?. Or that the Palestinians have to have a badge on their vehicles/person that identifies them as Palestinians, just like Hitler made the Jew's wear a star of david in WW2 ?. That's why the Palestinians are standing up for themselves, and they don't have an army with the latest hi-tech gadgets to fight their battles, so are forced to use terrorism to pose any threat to the Israeli's. How would the US feel if for example Canada decided to take Michigan or Illinois and the people there were so poor they hardly had enough money to eat, never mind buy weapons ?, would those people not be entitled to defend what is rightfully theirs ?.

If this war on terrorism was a genuine war on terrorism, then why have the US not invaded Northern Ireland to stop terrorism there ??? or Invaded Northern Spain to stop ETA ?. After all, are these not terrorist groups too ???, or is the US only concerend with terrorist groups that pose a threat to themselves and stuff everyone else ?

"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

SAS23

Sun Aug 04, 2002 10:51 pm

Tom Clancy wrote a great book about this scenario. Perhaps you should read it as it seems to be coming eerily true!

What is the book called ?, I usually like those sorts of books and would be obliged if you could let me know the title

regards

Jeremy
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 11:07 pm

"If this war on terrorism was a genuine war on terrorism, then why have the US not invaded Northern Ireland to stop terrorism there ??? or Invaded Northern Spain to stop ETA ?. After all, are these not terrorist groups too ???, or is the US only concerend with terrorist groups that pose a threat to themselves and stuff everyone else ?"

invade northern ireland? and how exactly? and who do you target?

surely invading ireland and the uk as well then?

The fact is that the irish and the uk fight terrorism, spain fights eta.

Saddam and the taliban support terror.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 11:07 pm

I think there would be a lot more support for action if Bush reigned-in Sharon.
It's do-able, threaten to cut the cash and weapons, no more almost unconditional support in the UN.
Before it's said that Sharon is merely fighting terrorism, remember that every Israeli leader has had to.
But using F-16's in one of the most densely populated areas of the world?
It's not that Israel is short of special forces troops for this sort of thing after all.
But Sharon is just a cynical old thug, with a very dubious record, he helped provoke the current troubles in September 2000.
But when you have a US Democratic senator saying 'we are all Likud now', you know of bunch of important people seem to have taken leave of their senses.
Going into Iraq with Sharon rampant is just asking for trouble, why risk it?
And if the UK joins in, there will be a lot of people, me included, who will be very uneasy, not out protesting, most people will support the troops who didn't ask to be there, it's the least they deserve.
But if it goes wrong, and remember that no military plan survives contact with the enemy, US and British politicians will pay at the ballot box-though the UK Tory opposition are potential Bush poodle's, more so than Blair.
Without US pressure forcing Sharon to get serious about a peace plan, doing something about the illegal settlements that are the running sore in all this, dropping his personal obsession with the actually rather ineffectual Arafat and responding to the still sadly inevitable attacks in a measured, surgical way, any attack on Iraq, even if proof of their involvement is produced, is like putting petrol on a fire.
Maybe Bush, Blair and co have something like this in mind.
Somehow I doubt Bush has, and that should be a concern to all US citizens.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 11:09 pm

there needs to be peace for both palestinian and israeli but this shouldnt stop us removing saddam
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
G-KIRAN
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2000 1:55 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 11:17 pm

The USA can go it alone as they have the capability to do it.It can be said that they only want other nations to join in so that it appeasrs that it is some internationally backed action not America acting as the bad boy.Either way the US will provide more or less 85% of the troops,aircraft,navy vessals etc.

Blair might not go ahead since he is more or less hellbent on retiring or selling off carriers and destroyers.If he does go ahead and the whole fiasco turns out to be a disaster then spin-doctoring may not as GDB put it,prevent him from becoming Sir Antony Eden II.
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Sun Aug 04, 2002 11:20 pm

Imagine if the UK reponded to terrorist attacks by the IRA, by sending in helicopter gunships and fighter a/c to bomb Belfast.....there would be uproar about that and it would not be tolerated especially by the US, so why do they tolerate the Israeli's blasting the $h!t out of the Palestinians without doing anything constuctive about it ?.


"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 12:21 am

Don't forget that the majority of funding for the IRA came from the USA!!
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 12:44 am

sas23, it didnt, a significant proportion did, but not the majority.The ira often funded their attacks through crimial activities.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:30 am

Folks this whole Al Qaeda and Sadam are just trying to help the Palestiinians is a bunch of shit.

Al Qaeda could care less about them.

Is Israel the reason they blew up the US barracks in Saudi Arabia back in '96, is Israel the reason they blew up the US Embassys in Africa, is Israel the reason they bombed the US Cole, is Israel the reason why they bombed the WTC in '93.

No this started after the Gulf War, Sadam and Osama were mad as hell that the Saudi Royal family brought American's into the Muslim Holy land to wage war on Iraq. And not only that but the US embarassed Iraq through such a overwhelming victory. The Islamic militants in Saudi Arabia shit there pants when they saw American WOMEN fighting against Arab men and kicking ass.

They don't like these proud American Women who drive cars, wear makeup and could probably bench press Osama walking around Saudi Arabia making the insecure men look bad and giving the veiled Female population dreams of liberation.

This whole situation arose from the Gulf War, the WTC bombing in '93 was their first attempt. They also tried to bombed the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels but were captured before they could do so. The Ramsey Yousef tried to bomb several US airliners over the Pacific in '94/'95, he was captured before he could do so. Then the US Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia were bombed in '96, then the US Embassys in Africa were bombed in '98, then several members of Al Qaeda were captured trying to cross from Canada into the US to bomb LAX and possibly Seattle during the Millienium celebration. The the USS Cole was bombed in Yeman.

All this from the same folks for the same reasons, it has nothing to do with Israel. Al Qaeda and Iraq try to leverage the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict for their own will, and to try to draw support from moderates who like the West but hate Israel.

So to try say that these terrorist attacks against the US begining in "93 to the present day are because of Israel is totally false.

That's just propaganda which unfortunately many folks in the Arab world and in Europe are buying Hook, Line and Sinker.

If they're so mad at Israel, why not stop sending kids with bombs tied to their backs into cafes.

Where's Al Qaeda's strike agianst Israel, Iran and Syria are supporting Hamas etc against Israel.

Al Qaeda could care less, they just manipulate the situation for their own means to try and drive the US out of Saudi Arabia so Al Qaeda can set up their Militant Islamic Republic and have Sadam as their Chief of State. With Sadam's Military funded by the Saudi's money hiding behind the Militant's Islamic laws they have dreams of dominating the enitre region.

Again Al Qaeda could care less about Israel, Yassar Arafat was scared shit when 9-11 happened. Because without the US he has no hope of ever seeing a Palestinian State.

And for folks sitting on the fence, remember people from around the World (all religions) were killed in the WTC attacks.

More Brits died on 9-11 then the IRA ever killed.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:44 am

That may be true, but it's not how those in the mid East see it, and the US is proposing to fight in their neck of the woods, not downtown USA.
Reigning-in Sharon is good politics, good military planning.
Remember how Saddam tried to bring Israel into the Gulf War? Why do his propaganda job for him.
If the US adopted a rather more even-handed attitude in the region, you might just get more co-operation, which will be vital, from more Gulf States.
No, the IRA did not kill as many UK citizens in one go as in the WTC, but the war was over 25 years.
What Leezyjet said is true, if we had used anything like the force against the IRA that Israel cheerfully uses against the Palestinians, you would have had a major rupturing of US-UK relations.
Anyway, doing such a thing wouldn't have worked, it would have been totally counter-productive as well as immoral.
Don't lecture us about terrorism, we were standing up to it while Reagan was cutting deals with Iran, and later Iranian sponsored hostage takers.
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:56 am

Hmmm, so STT757 did some 2,000 Brits (including citizens of Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK) die on 9/11 then?  Insane And as for your claim that Al Qa'eda has no interest in Israel - Bin Laden said that they will continue their offensive until the Palestinians are freed from the yoke of Israeli oppression.

If the States wants to carry out its (mis)adventure into Iraq, if they do not get a permanent settlement for the Palestinians, they will have no support from other countries in the Middle East; and little, if any, support from other members of the 'Coalition Against Terror'.

GDB is right - use of excessive force is always counter productive as it just results in further violence. Precisely what is happening in Israel, in fact!
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:56 am

The initial underlying problem is the USA's funding of the Israeli's, thats why Saddam and Osama are p!$$ed, but they also do not actually like each other.

The Gulf war was not just about freeing Kuwait, it had more to do with keeping the oil flowing to the good ol' US of A, as they could not risk Saddam cutting the supplies which would have meant the crude prices would have increased dramatically. The Kuwaiti people would have been no worse off under Saddams rule, than they are under their own King's rule. Same thing with Afgahnistan, yeah sure going after Al Q'uida was a priority, along with toppling the Taliban, but that was because the Taliban refused to allow the US to build an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan down thru Afgahnistan into Pakistan to allow the oil from Uzbekistan to be shipped off to satisfy the US's appetite for consuming 25% of the worlds oil with only 1/5 of the worlds population.
If you just scratch beneath the surface, and find stuff out for yourself rather than listening to the propaganda that the media spouts off, it's amazing what you can find out.


"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:59 am

I am going to lecture you, Im personally effected. Many residents from my town , including a poor guy from the literally around the corner from me was kiled.

And I like many Americans take personal offense at such statements like "the US could have prevented 9-11 if they were nice to Palestine and others" is crap.

Our "allies' who think that way can shove it.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 3:27 am

no sas, no sas, no sas.wrong again. for all bin ladens talk did you see al-queda attack israel???

no...why?

because 1)he wouldnt dare 2) as normal with the arabs they dont give a shit about palestine. they stopped a palestinian state at every turn, jordan and egypt never wanted to give up their land for a palestinain state.No arab nation did. They expected everone else to sort out their own problems.

Syria is apparently a brother to the palestinains but at the last un-backed attempt for a palestinain state, it didnt vote for it.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 3:49 am

Go Canada - so Jordan isn't an Arab state then?  Big grin

More on the Israeli weapons of mass destruction here: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm

Some highlights:

With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publically recognized as such. Since the Gulf War in 1991, while much attention has been lavished on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored. Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons of mass destruction and represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. The Israeli nuclear program represents a serious impediment to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation and, with India and Pakistan, is a potential nuclear flashpoint (prospects of meaningful non-proliferation are a delusion so long as the nuclear weapons states insist on maintaining their arsenals). Citizens concerned about sanctions against Iraq, peace with justice in the Middle East, and nuclear disarmament have an obligation to speak out forcefully against the Israeli nuclear program.

...Israel also possesses a comprehensive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. According to the Sunday Times, Israel has produced both chemical and biological weapons with a sophisticated delivery system, quoting a senior Israeli intelligence official, "There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon . . .which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona Biological Institute.")(20) The same report described F- 16 fighter jets specially designed for chemical and biological payloads, with crews trained to load the weapons on a moments notice. In 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel, using research obtained from South Africa, was developing an "ethno bomb; "In developing their "ethno-bomb", Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive a gene carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus... The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes." Dedi Zucker, a leftist Member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research saying, "Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied."

In popular imagination, the Israeli bomb is a "weapon of last resort," to be used only at the last minute to avoid annihilation, and many well intentioned but misled supporters of Israel still believe that to be the case. Whatever truth this formulation may have had in the minds of the early Israeli nuclear strategists, today the Israeli nuclear arsenal is inextricably linked to and integrated with overall Israeli military and political strategy. As Seymour Hersh says in classic understatement ; "The Samson Option is no longer the only nuclear option available to Israel."(22) Israel has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations and against the Soviet Union (and by extension Russia since the end of the Cold War). One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli Prime Minister "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."(23) (In 1983 Sharon proposed to India that it join with Israel to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities; in the late 70s he proposed sending Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to prop up the Shah; and in 1982 he called for expanding Israel's security influence to stretch from "Mauritania to Afghanistan.") In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992, "...we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us."(24) According to Israel Shahak, "The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is." and "Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states.... Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East..., without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones."(25)

Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of deterrence" or of direct war fighting, but in other more subtle but no less important ways. For example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction can be a powerful lever to maintain the status quo, or to influence events to Israel's perceived advantage, such as to protect the so called moderate Arab states from internal insurrection, or to intervene in inter-Arab warfare. (26) In Israeli strategic jargon this concept is called "nonconventional compellence" and is exemplified by a quote from Shimon Peres; "acquiring a superior weapons system(read nuclear) would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes- that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed."(27) From a slightly different perspective, Robert Tuckerr asked in a Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes, "What would prevent Israel... from pursuing a hawkish policy employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?"(28) Possessing an overwhelming nuclear superiority allows Israel to act with impunity even in the face world wide opposition. A case in point might be the invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Beirut in 1982, led by Ariel Sharon, which resulted in 20,000 deaths, most civilian. Despite the annihilation of a neighboring Arab state, not to mention the utter destruction of the Syrian Air Force, Israel was able to carry out the war for months at least partially due to its nuclear threat.

Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel's favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests. As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project wrote "We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, 'If you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'"(29) During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time, "If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and...we will have to draw very serious conclusions..."(30) Just one example of this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said "If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large... To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid."(31) Since then Israel's nuclear arsenal has expanded exponentially, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while the U.S. money spigots remain wide open.

The Israeli nuclear arsenal has profound implications for the future of peace in the Middle East, and indeed, for the entire planet. It is clear from Israel Shahak that Israel has no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms, and has absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith to curtail its nuclear program or discuss seriously a nuclear-free Middle East, "Israel's insistence on the independent use of its nuclear weapons can be seen as the foundation on which Israeli grand strategy rests."(34) According to Seymour Hersh, "the size and sophistication of Israel's nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force."(35) General Amnon Shahak-Lipkin, former Israeli Chief of Staff is quoted "It is never possible to talk to Iraq about no matter what; It is never possible to talk to Iran about no matter what. Certainly about nuclearization. With Syria we cannot really talk either."(36) Ze'ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in Haaretz said, "Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons... is day dreaming,"(37) and Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994, "The moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of Vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states."(38)

As Israeli society becomes more and more polarized, the influence of the radical right becomes stronger. According to Shahak, "The prospect of Gush Emunim, or some secular right-wing Israeli fanatics, or some some of the delerious Israeli Army generals, seizing control of Israeli nuclear weapons...cannot be precluded. ...while israeli jewish society undergoes a steady polarization, the Israeli security system increasingly relies on the recruitment of cohorts from the ranks of the extreme right."(39) The Arab states, long aware of Israel's nuclear program, bitterly resent its coercive intent, and perceive its existence as the paramount threat to peace in the region, requiring their own weapons of mass destruction. During a future Middle Eastern war (a distinct possibility given the ascension of Ariel Sharon, an unindicted war criminal with a bloody record stretching from the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Quibya in 1953, to the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and beyond) the possible Israeli use of nuclear weapons should not be discounted. According to Shahak, "In Israeli terminology, the launching of missiles on to Israeli territory is regarded as 'nonconventional' regardless of whether they are equipped with explosives or poison gas."(40) (Which requires a "nonconventional" response, a perhaps unique exception being the Iraqi SCUD attacks during the Gulf War.)

A final quote: "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." Ariel Sharon

 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 3:59 am

i made a response but somehow its not on here so ill post again, i assure all it wasnt rude in the slightest.

there is a difference between iraq and israel.israel wont strike unless it is attacked, iraq however has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and wont hesitate to give them to terror organisations.

and of course its a typical article by the author. and it fail to addrss the fact that when iraq attack israel..israel didnt use it weapons...if israel is such a devil..hellbent on destruction it would have down.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 8:07 am

SAS23, a rhetorical question for you: what if it is proved that Saddam is trying to instigate regional warfare with the use of biological or chemical weapons? And, knowing that Israel would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon if Saddam attacked them in such a manner-then what is your opinion of Britian and the U.S. taking this guy out? Or would you find some other excuse to oppose going after this criminal?

And why would you even fault Israel for using such a weapon if it felt it's very existence threatened? They contemplated it in the '73 war, when Syria had broken through Israel's last line of defense, but that crisis passed. ANY nation with their back against the wall like that will lash out that way-which is why the Pakistani/Indian problem has been such a concern.

Fact, is, maybe he's "kept to himself" for a little while-he really had no choice since he lost a good 60% of his firepower in the "mother of all battles" back in 1991. But he's shown himself to be a constant menace in the region since he got there: the Iran/Iraq war; using biological weapons on his own people; the invasion of Kuwait. I mean, how long can some of you keep your heads buried in the sand? He's a menace to the entire Middle East! And George Orwell would be proud of you, SAS23-not wanting to get rid of him because it might destabalize the place-that was called "your enemy as necessity" by Orwell. Pretty smart guy, he was.

In any case, it seems more and more likely that war with Iraq will probably take place sometime in 2003. It may not be the cakewalk 1991 was, but the outcome will not be in doubt. And, as far as I'm concerned, it would be good riddance. Saddam Hussein is a butcher-more than you think Ariel Sharon ever has been, SAS23, but you rationalize to not go after Saddam to degrees that are truly amazing. That, again, shows your bias against one state in that region.
 
Guest

RE: Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War

Mon Aug 05, 2002 8:22 am

Alpha 1 - I have absolutely no problem at all with Saddam being taken out. The problem I do have is that if we in the West are trying to maintain the moral high ground, then we have to play by certain rules - and those rules include not invading a country (no matter how despotic its leader might be) without legitimate reason and proper mandate. Not to do so reduces the invader to the level of an aggressor or terrorist state.

As I have said before, the Americans are desperate to find any proof that Saddam has been rebuilding his stocks of chemical and/or biological weapons in order to legitimise their planned attack. That they have not been able to do so tends to indicate that it probably does not exist; certainly most if not all the stocks were destroyed during Desert Storm together with its manufacturing capabilities.

Since you're so smart, Alpha 1 - answer this. Who, exactly, should take over when Saddam is deposed?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BartSimpson, seb146 and 28 guests