Anti-war people don't want to hear from actual Iraqi people

[Frank Hipper]

The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

You are a fucking idiot. No one here should ever forget that you wrote this, you gaping cunt. Unforgiveable.

[Vympel]

This thread is running away. To bring it back on topic

As I said before, the original article makes the bullshit assertion that the Iraqi people want to be 'liberated', using exiles in the West as some sort of proof. Not only does it fail to mention the anti-Saddam, anti-War Iraqis, and yes, even the pro-Saddam Iraqis that we see at protests, it fails to draw any connection between these exiles and the actual people in Iraq.

In addition, a few people on this thread deployed a false analogies to try and make the case that the Iraqis want to be 'liberated', including 1944 France, 1950s South Korea, etc etc.

Forgetting of course that these were countries invaded by a foreign power, being under the yoke for some 4 years at most, NOT the dictator's home country which he has controlled for over 2 decades, propagandized his population, survived in power after a catastrophic military defeat, etc etc. Saddam didn't march in and take Iraq over by force of arms. He lives there. And some people actually like him. And after the half-truths/ outright lies they've been fed about the West for over a decade, you can bet your balls that they're not at home begging for a war to liberate them from evil Saddam.

[Sam Or I]

But the point of the original message is that the anti-war protestors did not want an actual Iraqi to speak. Even if she was displaced, she has more knoweldge about Iraq than 95% of the protestors there.

[Vympel]

But the point of the original message is that the anti-war protestors did not want an actual Iraqi to speak. Even if she was displaced, she has more knoweldge about Iraq than 95% of the protestors there.

The reason they didn't want them to speak, right or wrong, was because they were pro-war protesters crashing an anti-war protest. And the point of the original article was clearly trying to assert that 'real' Iraqis are pro-war.

[Thirdfain]

Saddam's regime is based around a certain ethnic group, the Tikrit tribe. The vast majority of Saddam's government consists of Tikrits, who are Sunni muslims. This Sunni minority exercises control over the Shi'a population (55-65%) and the Kurdish population (15-20%.) Another 5% of the population is of different ethnic background.

Basically, Saddam's Ba'ath Party, the Tikrit figurehead, took power through namilitary coup, and proceeded to oppress the Shi'a and Kurdish populace. In order to gain firmer control over the oil-rich Kirkuk region, inhabited largely by Kurds, Saddam's Tikrit cronies began the forced migration of tens of thousands of Kurds onto worse land. When leaders of the minor kurdish and turkman political parties in the area protested, they were shot. Such beheading of local government is one of Saddam's favorite tactidcs- Iraq has the highest rate of dissapearances in the world today.

Here is a description of Saddam's program of "arabization" in Kirkuk:

1. The destruction of the Kurdish villages near the city of Kirkuk, in particular those near the oil fields. This amounted to thirteen villages, viz: Sona Goli, Yarwali, Panja Ali, Wali Pasha, Qizilqaya, Cheeman Gawra, Cheeman Bechuk, Jawl Bor, Hanjeera, Qutan, Qushqaya, Shoraw and Bajwan.
2. The expulsion of all the Kurds living in the villages which were under the jurisdiction of the sub-district of Dubz- now the district of Al-Dibiss- and the resettling of those villages with Arab tribes under the leadership of one ‘Aw’as Sadeed from the Al-Delem tribe. This operation involved the following villages: Qaradara, Amsha, Mar’i, Qala ‘Arbat, Kitka, Qutani Khalifa, Qutani Kurdakan, Sekaniyan, Gurga Chal, Shekhan, Nadirawa, Dirkay Kurdakan, Qara-Haybat, ‘AlaGher, Mama, Sheernaw, Taqtaq, Kuna Rewi, Chakhmakha, and Malha.
3. The campaign to drive out the Kurds and then Arabize their villages covered the following villages also: Jastana, Darband, Sarbashakh, Parkana, ‘Awla Khan, Saralu, Shinagha, Dirkay Gawra, Dirkay Bechuk, Chawt, Kesma, Tal-Halala, Gazumishan, Garaw, and others.
4. The dismissal of large numbers of the oil company’s Kurdish workers or their transfer to facilities outside the Governorate. Many low-ranking civil servants, including elementary and secondary schoolteachers were transferred to southern and central Iraq.
5. The hiring of large numbers of Arabs as local police or workers in the oil company despite their lack of any previous experience as most of them were tribal people.
6. The establishment of numerous military observation posts on the hills and high ground around the city and in areas near the oil facilities, and the designation of these places as "security zones" barred from approach after having been planted with mines.
7. The arming of Arab tribes brought in to be resettled in the Kurdish villages. Irregular units were formed from the Al-Obeid and Al-Juboor and other Arab tribes to support the army in its attacks on the Peshmarga and the residents of the Kurdish villages in the area.
8. The changing of names of schools and streets of Kirkuk and the forcing of owners of business establishments to use Arabic names for their businesses in accordance with the Arabization policy which was being practiced openly.
9. The conducting of a large military campaign against most of the villages of the Governorate so as to terrorize their inhabitants and force them to abandon their villages in order to settle Arabs in their place.

Vympel said:
Saddam didn't march in and take Iraq over by force of arms. He lives there.

That looks a hell of a lot like "Marching in and taking over by force of arms."

[Coyote]

As I said before, the original article makes the bullshit assertion that the Iraqi people want to be 'liberated'...it fails to draw any connection between these exiles and the actual people in Iraq.

Hold on, Vympel-- what "bullshit assertion"? How do you know? Those Iraqis were there and clearly had an opinion.. but is it "bullshit" just because it doesn't fit what you have come to accept? How do you know what the 'real people' of Iraq want? Are you an expert, did you go there and interview them?

Why is it that a political viewpoint that disagrees with yours is disregarded, but the assertions of a bunch of ignorant Westerners who've never met an Iraqi in their lives is inscribed in gold? People are saying that "100,000 Iraqi civilians will die"? Based on what? An extrapolation of World War Two data?

Those people are Iraqi exiles. I'd say that they have a slightly better comprehension about Iraq and what it means ot live there than some Liberal Arts student waving a placard in Berkeley-- or Sydney, for that matter.

In addition, a few people on this thread deployed a false analogies to try and make the case that the Iraqis want to be 'liberated', including 1944 France, 1950s South Korea, etc etc.

You know for a fact that they don't? Are you any more qualified to 'know' what they want and to speak on their silent behalf as we? This is the same arrogance you accuse us of.

Saddam didn't march in and take Iraq over by force of arms. He lives there. And some people actually like him.

Well, considering that almost half of his country is Kurdish and Shi'ite, and we know what he's done to them... and the Republican Guards and their commanders are all Takriti tribe members... just because he lives there is not an automatic guarantee of love and affection. You are being just as presumptious as those saying that everyone wants ot be liberated.

What if they do want to be liberated? Would you want them to continue ot suffer, be tortured, gassed, shot, and subject to secret-police arrest and brutality just to salve your conscious?

[Vympel]

That looks a hell of a lot like "Marching in and taking over by force of arms."

Totally ignores how long ago this happened and the effects of propaganda since then.

Hold on, Vympel-- what "bullshit assertion"? How do you know? Those Iraqis were there and clearly had an opinion.. but is it "bullshit" just because it doesn't fit what you have come to accept? How do you know what the 'real people' of Iraq want? Are you an expert, did you go there and interview them?

If you read what I was saying instead of what you thought I was saying, you would notice that I said that they were exiles, not Iraqis in Iraq, and the article TOTALLY IGNORES pro-Saddam and anti-Saddam anti-war Iraqi protestors that I have personally seen on news reports covering the world-wide protests.

I was challenging the BULLSHIT ASSERTION that Iraqis are in 'unanimous prayers' for liberation.

Why is it that a political viewpoint that disagrees with yours is disregarded, but the assertions of a bunch of ignorant Westerners who've never met an Iraqi in their lives is inscribed in gold? People are saying that "100,000 Iraqi civilians will die"? Based on what ? An extrapolation of World War Two data?

Strawman. Where did I say 100,000 civilians will die, or that a bunch of 'ignorant' Westerners know more?

Those people are Iraqi exiles. I'd say that they have a slightly better comprehension about Iraq and what it means ot live there than some Liberal Arts student waving a placard in Berkeley-- or Sydney, for that matter.

Please explain the pro and anti-Saddam Iraqi anti-war protesters, then.

[Shinova]

To Vympel: We don't actually hear from Iraqis in Iraq probably cause of course, poitical dissent gets ended rather quickly under Saddam's rule.

[Vympel]

You know for a fact that they don't? Are you any more qualified to 'know' what they want and to speak on their silent behalf as we? This is the same arrogance you accuse us of.

No, I know for a fact that the analogies were false and that there is no evidence that any significant section of the Iraqi people in Iraq want to be liberated, and good reasons to think that they won't like America going in there, right or wrong.

Well, considering that almost half of his country is Kurdish and Shi'ite, and we know what he's done to them... and the Republican Guards and their commanders are all Takriti tribe members... just because he lives there is not an automatic guarantee of love and affection. You are being just as presumptious as those saying that everyone wants ot be liberated.

If you keep on perpetrating the strawman that I said that all Iraqis don't want to be liberating, I will get angry.

What if they do want to be liberated? Would you want them to continue ot suffer, be tortured, gassed, shot, and subject to secret-police arrest and brutality just to salve your conscious?

And what if the average Russian did want to be liberated in the Cold War- regardless of any threat the Soviet Union represented or was thought to represent to the West? The Soviet Union was contained, collapsed, and now the country's a fledging democracy- all without the millions of deaths a war would have produced? I don't think it's justified to sentence people to death now over our presumptious, uninformed notions of whether it's worth it, especially considering that Iraq is hardly a threat to anyone and that it is contained. Keep the shithole in a box.

[Thirdfain]

Totally ignores how long ago this happened and the effects of propaganda since then

the effects of propoganda can't have been to extreme, seeing as large portions of the Iraqi population are in open revolt. We have also heard from a number of Iraqi exiles, none of whom seem too enamoured with the current government.

[Vympel]

To Vympel: We don't actually hear from Iraqis in Iraq probably cause of course, poitical dissent gets ended rather quickly under Saddam's rule.

Actually, you do hear from Iraqis in Iraq- some are quite scared shitless of what's going to happen, especially in Baghdad- and they refuse to go into the shelters, after 400+ people were accidentally killed back in 91.

Regardless, the article putting up pro-war Iraqis and some sort of proof, is, as I have said repeatedly, meaningless, considering that other Iraqi expatriates like Saddam, and others still don't like him but still don't want war.

[Vympel]

the effects of propoganda can't have been to extreme, seeing as large portions of the Iraqi population are in open revolt. We have also heard from a number of Iraqi exiles, none of whom seem too enamoured with the current government.

Anti-Saddam sentiment from portions of the population and desire for an American invasion to change things are two entirely different things.

[Coyote]

If you read what I was saying instead of what you thought I was saying, you would notice that I said that they were exiles, not Iraqis in Iraq...

But even as exiles, they have a right to speak. It really sounds like you are disregarding their opionion because they weren't Iraqis in the proper political mould that you expected.

... and the article TOTALLY IGNORES pro-Saddam and anti-Saddam anti-war Iraqi protestors that I have personally seen on news reports covering the world-wide protests.

You will probably be hard pressed to find an Iraqi in Iraq who will say anything against Saddam. Pro-Saddam Iraqis living outside are interesting and I'd like to know what they hell they support him for... But still, why are you leaning towards a position that pro-Saddam or anti-War Iraqis are the only ones whose opinions are worth hearing? This really does seem to be the position you're taking.

I was challenging the BULLSHIT ASSERTION that Iraqis are in 'unanimous prayers' for liberation.

Then that I did misunderstand. I never believe anyone when they say that "everyone in my country feels that..."

Why is it that ... the assertions of a bunch of ignorant Westerners who've never met an Iraqi in their lives is inscribed in gold? People are saying that "100,000 Iraqi civilians will die"?...

Strawman. Where did I say 100,000 civilians will die, or that a bunch of 'ignorant' Westerners know more?

You didn't, "people" have. In this thread, Enlightenment specifically used that number; I have heard other protesters bounce around similar numbers pulled form the air. In this case, Enlightenment said it was a number extrapolated from WW2 data. These are the 'ignorant Westerners who've never been to Iraq or met an Iraqi' I'm referring to. Comfy Westerners in their living rooms or dorms swallowing left-wing propaganda founded in anti-Bush hatred rather than serious contemplation of all the possibilities.

Those people are Iraqi exiles. I'd say that they have a slightly better comprehension about Iraq and what it means ot live there than some Liberal Arts student waving a placard in Berkeley-- or Sydney, for that matter.

Please explain the pro and anti-Saddam Iraqi anti-war protesters, then.

They may be Takriti tribals who have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power for family gain; or they may actually dislike Saddam but fear speaking their mind because they don't ant their families in Iraq roughed up or silenced for good. They may just be anti-war n general, or they may just feel that anything the West (especially the US) does is evil. They may not be for Saddam but anti-US/West/Bush/etc. Or they may, for whatever personal reason, really dig the guy or buy his propaganda.

But I don't just wave off their views as pointless and say they have no voice because they don't fit my political expectations...

[Enlightenment]

Globbing several replies together here. Apologies in advance if I happen to screw up any attributions. There have been a lot of posts made to this thread since I last looked at it.

That doesn't mean we dismiss large-scale massacres as trivial.

Right. The holocaust, Stalin's purges, Pol Pot, and the Rwandan Genocide weren't trivial events. These were all major events that resulted in the loss of 1/8th or more of the effected area's population. Hitler wiped out nearly all of the jews in some parts of Europe. That's by no means trivial and I never said otherwise.

that doesn't mean we can turn a blind eye to it.

As I said upthread, there are a lot of good reasons to get rid of Saddam (he is, after all, a murderous thug) but the moral argument is utterly vacuous. If the objective is to save lives for moral reasons then there are a lot of correctable problems that will save more lives sooner and at lower risk. At the rate Saddam kills people, Iraq is well down on the list of countries that should be conquored for the benefit of their domestic population.


[1] Assuming the Iraqi's did it. Enough question marks have come to light lately to suggest otherwise.

Most protestors are today motivated by (A) a craven hatred of President Bush the man, and by extension, all of his policies no matter how dangerous such opposition might be, (B) the desire that their dissenting voice is heard and heeded on any topic - again no matter the cost, and (C) an idealistic notion of geopolicy’s inner workings that defies reality.

There's a lot more to the protest groups than that. There are a substantial number of pacifist nutcases who believe that war isn't morally justifiable for any reason. There are Islamic religious nuts who don't believe in attacking Islamic countries regardless of the justification. There are probably also a fair number of people (albeit probably not among the protesters per say) who support in principle the idea of getting rid of Saddam but have grave reservations about American motivations, the way the Americans are setting the stage now and what they're going to do afterwards. I fall into the latter category.

As for Ted’s insistence that war will come with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? I doubt that quite highly given (A) the size, deployment, and temerity of Hussein’s fighting forces, (B) the high degree of accuracy for so many of the Coalition weapons in question, and (C) the limited areas in which “heavy” engagement will be taking place.

There are way too many unknowns to make a judgement on the number of civilian casualties the conquest of Iraq will inflict. If the Iraqi armed forces repeat their GWII performance of surrendering at the earliest opportunity then casualties will be minimal. If they stand and fight in urban areas then 100,000 dead is going to be a low-end estimate.

Keep in mind the Iraqi willingness to use the domestic population as human shields. If they put light AA on the top of hospitals or station snipers in apartment buildings the Americans and/or British are under no legal or moral compulsion not to use whatever force is necessary to remove the threat.

Furthermore, Iraq is more or less the NRA's idea of paradise: damn near everyone in the ethnic groups that support Saddam has a firearm. How these people are going to react is anyones guess. If the population rises up against the invaders, the battle of Baghdad will be recorded in history alongside Stalingrad as one of the world's bloodiest urban battles.

Finally, the worst case scenario would involve Iraq launching WMD against Israel (or the US). The return nuclear counterattack would kill millions.

It is by no means certain that the Iraqi campaign will be relatively bloodless.

But bear in mind the thousands (literally thousands, possibly up to 1.2 million in the article) that have died over years and years and years of Iraqi Republican Guard/Saddam Hussein rule.

Even taking the 1.2 million figure at face value it's still peanuts given the Iraqi population and population growth rate.

Is "six million" the threshhold of concern? I can safely kill 5.9 million people before anyone cares?

It's not about numbers, it's about population percentage and replenshment rate. Wiping out 0.01% of a population is nowhere near as big a deal as wiping out 50%+. Wiping out ten million Chinese (out of two billion) would be a drop in the bucket but wiping out ten million Canadians (out of thirty million) would be a major loss.

That's his basic problem; have you ever seen him say anything good about anyone or anything?.

I'm by no means narcisistic enough to think that anyone out there gives a damn about what I happen to like so I simply keep my mouth shut most of the time. It's much easier than fighting off a greater number of accusations that I'm arrogant and condescending.

Narcissisitic to the nth degre, unmoved by the suffering of other. Provided he doesn't know them personally.

You'd be surprised. I'm just as much of a heartless bastard in real life as I am online. Don't think I give you lot special treatment.

Yes you're right, I can't remember a single post from this overeducated cynic, that wasn't condesending, smug, and dripping with contempt for those of us who disagree with him.

That's because I am normally bother only to bitch about things that are so grossly wrong that anyone who has bothered to learn about the subject in question wouldn't take such a blatently stupid position.

I don't bother posting AOLish 'me toos' in response to things that I agree with because there's just no point.

[Vympel]

But even as exiles, they have a right to speak. It really sounds like you are disregarding their opionion because they weren't Iraqis in the proper political mould that you expected.

Sure, they can speak at a pro-war rally. But I don't see why they have a right to speak at an anti-war rally.

You will probably be hard pressed to find an Iraqi in Iraq who will say anything against Saddam. Pro-Saddam Iraqis living outside are interesting and I'd like to know what they hell they support him for... But still, why are you leaning towards a position that pro-Saddam or anti-War Iraqis are the only ones whose opinions are worth hearing? This really does seem to be the position you're taking.

I'm not leaning either way- I was just pointing out that the article was presenting Iraqi exiles as a homogenous, pro-war group.

Then that I did misunderstand. I never believe anyone when they say that "everyone in my country feels that..."

Cool, then we understand each other.

You didn't, "people" have. In this thread, Enlightenment specifically used that number; I have heard other protesters bounce around similar numbers pulled form the air. In this case, Enlightenment said it was a number extrapolated from WW2 data. These are the 'ignorant Westerners who've never been to Iraq or met an Iraqi' I'm referring to. Comfy Westerners in their living rooms or dorms swallowing left-wing propaganda founded in anti-Bush hatred rather than serious contemplation of all the possibilities.

Ok then.

They may be Takriti tribals who have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power for family gain; or they may actually dislike Saddam but fear speaking their mind because they don't ant their families in Iraq roughed up or silenced for good. They may just be anti-war n general, or they may just feel that anything the West (especially the US) does is evil. They may not be for Saddam but anti-US/West/Bush/etc. Or they may, for whatever personal reason, really dig the guy or buy his propaganda.

Sure- but are their motives any better, or any worse, than pro-war Iraqis? Does it make a difference? I wasn't really asking you to expalin, I was justpointing out that comprehension on Iraq by expatriate Iraqis is not universal. My friend knows an Iraqi man who's anti-war because while he got out, he has family there.

But I don't just wave off their views as pointless and say they have no voice because they don't fit my political expectations...

I never said shut them up- but I don't see why they have a right to speak at an anti-war demonstration when their message is pro-war.

[Enlightenment]

And you, moron, I saved for last.

The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

The reason that people at the time cared about the holocaust, jackass, had nothing to do with 'jewish money' and everything to do with the fact that scenes from Auchwitz and Dachau were graphic enough to overwhelm even the prevailant antisemetic feelings of the day. Clever propaganda has a lot to do with why people accept the holocaust as an excuse or justification for Israel's contemporary behavior but this is a new phenomenon. Asserting that this was true in 1945 is nothing but historical revisionism at its most vile.

[Coyote]

... just because he lives there is not an automatic guarantee of love and affection. You are being just as presumptious as those saying that everyone wants ot be liberated.

If you keep on perpetrating the strawman that I said that all Iraqis don't want to be liberating, I will get angry.

Not intentional on my part; I was more pointing to the assumptions of those saying that "all" Iraqis want to be liberated. Sorry 'bout that.

The Soviet Union was contained, collapsed, and now the country's a fledging democracy- all without the millions of deaths a war would have produced?

But there was 50 years of Cold War and all the costs and anxieties that caused. Is Europe ready for debates on stationing missiles in Crete, Malta, Gibraltar... more US bases, more terrorism... the 60's and 70's all over again. You know that once one Arab state has nukes, all the others have to have "parity".

Yes, containment and standoff worked, and kept the peace... but it also kept Europe as an armed camp and diverted the economies of the West to armaments. Do we really want to repeat this? Idealogical brushfire wars all over the planet again?

I don't think it's justified to sentence people to death now over our presumptious, uninformed notions of whether it's worth it, especially considering that Iraq is hardly a threat to anyone and that it is contained

They have been a demonstrated threat to millions. Kuwait, Iran, Kurds, Shi'ites, Israel... and they've acted on those threats and used WMDs to do it. They will, if left unimpeded, build nukes and either use them or share them with other Arab states. If not now, then when Saddam dies and a pan-Arabist or Muslim Brotherhood type or other wanna-be Nasser takes over. Or a rogue general hands them to a terrorist.

I think this war is a neccessary evil, and a chance to nip in the bud a nascent nuclear power with demonstrated bloodthirsty paranoid leadership.

[Enlightenment]

You didn't, "people" have. In this thread, Enlightenment specifically used that number; I have heard other protesters bounce around similar numbers pulled form the air. In this case, Enlightenment said it was a number extrapolated from WW2 data.

I might be wrong here but I don't believe I estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian dead. I certainly didn't do an extrapolation from WWII data to derive an estimate. In the past few pages of this thread the person who appears to have used the phrase "100,000" first was Ted rather than I.

My best guess of how many civilian dead will result from Gulf War III is anywhere between 5,000 (if the Iraqi army folds quickly) up to perhaps 50 million if the WMD come out.

[Coyote]

Sure, they can speak at a pro-war rally. But I don't see why they have a right to speak at an anti-war rally...

...I never said shut them up- but I don't see why they have a right to speak at an anti-war demonstration when their message is pro-war.

Yeah, they went to the wrong audience... but after skimming the article again, weren't they invited to speak there? Or some just showed up on the periphery bearing the unexpected messages?

Either the parties misunderstood one anothers' intentions, or the pro-war Iraqis wanted to crash the party and make a 'statement'...

[Vympel]

Not intentional on my part; I was more pointing to the assumptions of those saying that "all" Iraqis want to be liberated. Sorry 'bout that.

That's fine.

But there was 50 years of Cold War and all the costs and anxieties that caused. Is Europe ready for debates on stationing missiles in Crete, Malta, Gibraltar... more US bases, more terrorism... the 60's and 70's all over again. You know that once one Arab state has nukes, all the others have to have "parity".

Yes, containment and standoff worked, and kept the peace... but it also kept Europe as an armed camp and diverted the economies of the West to armaments. Do we really want to repeat this? Idealogical brushfire wars all over the planet again?

I think the money is less important than the saved lives. And also, while I was using the Cold War as the penultimate example, Iraq could hardly provoke such a situation. As for WMD- sometimes I actually think they're a good thing. After all- they did keep the peace. War became so terrible- we wouldn't even contemplate it.

They have been a demonstrated threat to millions. Kuwait, Iran, Kurds, Shi'ites, Israel... and they've acted on those threats and used WMDs to do it. They will, if left unimpeded, build nukes and either use them or share them with other Arab states. If not now, then when Saddam dies and a pan-Arabist or Muslim Brotherhood type or other wanna-be Nasser takes over. Or a rogue general hands them to a terrorist.

I've argued against the notion of the Iraqi threat quite a few times on the board. Just to be short, I don't think they're a threat. There's no reason to think that Iraq would ever use WMD unless, as the CIA said, 'Saddam's back was against the wall' (when any state would use them). Of course, allowing that they could even develop and deploy a WMD capability at all. Some pan-Arabist could take over. Or there could be a coup by an idealistic young democrat. Or some dictator would take over and be returned into the international fold by a greatful West.

I think this war is a neccessary evil, and a chance to nip in the bud a nascent nuclear power with demonstrated bloodthirsty paranoid leadership.

Just sets too many bad precedents and too many ill-thought out consequences fo rme.

[Coyote]

Well, maybe Iraq by itself can be contained, but my thought is that once Iraq demonstrates nukes, then Syria will feel that it must have them, as well as Iran (two countries that Iraq has problems with).

And of course, at that point, you cannot be taken seriously as an Arab power without them. Egypt will definitely want them, as the most populous and traditionally the Arab leader... Libya will follow suit... I think that it is the nature of these things to spiral out of control.

And while I do kinda agree with you-- I doubt that these Arab powers would go off their nuts and start nuking Europe-- we'd be back in another nervous arms race. And these Arab states have the resources and economies to do it.

But then again... I'd have job security, Israel would be the new West Berlin, and we'd have a very good reaosn to invest heavily in Russia as an oil and gas supplier to act as an OPEC counterweight... This could actually be interesting, in a sort of cynical way...

[Vympel]

Well, maybe Iraq by itself can be contained, but my thought is that once Iraq demonstrates nukes, then Syria will feel that it must have them, as well as Iran (two countries that Iraq has problems with).

And of course, at that point, you cannot be taken seriously as an Arab power without them. Egypt will definitely want them, as the most populous and traditionally the Arab leader... Libya will follow suit... I think that it is the nature of these things to spiral out of control.

And while I do kinda agree with you-- I doubt that these Arab powers would go off their nuts and start nuking Europe-- we'd be back in another nervous arms race. And these Arab states have the resources and economies to do it.

But then again... I'd have job security, Israel would be the new West Berlin, and we'd have a very good reaosn to invest heavily in Russia as an oil and gas supplier to act as an OPEC counterweight... This could actually be interesting, in a sort of cynical way...

While the WMD proliferation argument may have merit- since Israel got nukes before any of them, isn't it moot? After all- don't some of them already have a nuclear program?

[Coyote]

Everybody wants 'em, they're the latest thing... worse than Pokemon Pogs..

Yeah, the Arabs all have nuke programs, but only a couple of them have come cloe to acquiring them, and Iraq is the #1 contender. It is feared that once one has 'em, then it'll spread quickly. Either someone will pull a "Rosenberg" or the tech will be stolen, probably by cross-border ideology groups. Everyone over there wants to be the next Nasser.

There'll be a lot of presure to share/use them, especially against Israel-- Arab unity in the face of Imperialist/Zionist yaddayadda....

The only thing is, there is that wild card chance that a religious fantic will stage a coup or come to power and send a half-dozen nukes into Israel. Even if the rest of the world turns him and his country into glass, he'l go down in history as the guy that dealt the death blow to the Zionist infidels. And got martyred by the Crusader Zionist Puppets for it-- the eternal martyr, casting a shadow greater than any other Arab leader in history. I could see that happening in place like that, with the Muslim Brothers or the Takfir al-Hijrah running amok...

[Raptor 597]

True, but then again Iraq cut itself off in 1991 by taking Kuwait. The Head of the Iraqi Nuclear Program which defected in 1995 said that the new reactor, imported uranium, and some other vital pieces of hardware. He said right before he was leaving Iraq the INP was trying too hash out deals with the French.

[Darth Wong]

And you, moron, I saved for last.

The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

The reason that people at the time cared about the holocaust, jackass, had nothing to do with 'jewish money' and everything to do with the fact that scenes from Auchwitz and Dachau were graphic enough to overwhelm even the prevailant antisemetic feelings of the day. Clever propaganda has a lot to do with why people accept the holocaust as an excuse or justification for Israel's contemporary behavior but this is a new phenomenon. Asserting that this was true in 1945 is nothing but historical revisionism at its most vile.

Not to get between you two, but you're both right and wrong. Yes, people were upset about the inhumanity of Auschwitz and Dachau. However, the fact that the Nazis also killed 5 million Slavs in those same camps is one of the most obscure facts in history. As much as I hate to support an inflammatory statement obviously made by Ted in an attempt to troll, publicity efforts do have a great deal to do with the one-sided prominence of the Jewish holocaust over the parallel Slavic one.