StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Inspectors Find Undeclared Iraq Warheads

By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, January 16, 2003; 2:04 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq –– U.N. inspectors on Thursday found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported. They had not previously been declared by Iraq.

A 12th warhead, also of a 122 mm, was found that requires further evaluation, according to the statement by Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad.

"It was a discovery. They were not declared," Ueki told The Associated Press.

© 2003 The Associated Press

The key word, used by the UN spokesman, is Undeclared.

so why are we in favor of war again? the iraqi people don't hate us (any more than any of those other readicalized yahoos in the ME), and they're not really trying to kill us. It ain't Nazi Germany. We have been placing puppets in power over there for 50 years, and shifting alliances and playing them against one another for our benefit. So what's wrong with continuing this vein? Idealistically, patriots join the military to defend our interests. This particular set of interests has been promoted with diplomacy before, so why not now? We've always had controlling interest in the Gulf region, so is it necessary to jump into Iraq? This would be a joke war, a spit in the face of men and women who join up out of love for their country. The outcome would be strictly imperialistic--a land grab giving us a huge base right in the middle of Asia. What was once a buffer state (between Russia and our oil) becomes a colony, we become the largest single presence, in a position to extend our empire throughout Asia. We take Iraq and Afghanistan and lean on NK. India and Pakistan will pbly nuke each other, and all our ships and troops will be in just the right place to get between them and China and take over this new wasteland. If they don't nuke each other soon enough, then just as in the ME, we might engineer a little coup d'etat, complete with elections, and take what we want anyway. Taking Iraq will set us up for 200 more years of asskicking, while the people have no effective voice. Meanwhile we continue to let ourselves be defined by our enemies. The end of the Cold War was supposed to signal a change from that WW2 mentality. We shouldn't have any enemies. We are in a better position now to make friends than we've ever been, and look at us. Ridiculous.

Malecoda wrote:so why are we in favor of war again? the iraqi people don't hate us (any more than any of those other readicalized yahoos in the ME), and they're not really trying to kill us. It ain't Nazi Germany. We have been placing puppets in power over there for 50 years, and shifting alliances and playing them against one another for our benefit. So what's wrong with continuing this vein? Idealistically, patriots join the military to defend our interests. This particular set of interests has been promoted with diplomacy before, so why not now? We've always had controlling interest in the Gulf region, so is it necessary to jump into Iraq? This would be a joke war, a spit in the face of men and women who join up out of love for their country. The outcome would be strictly imperialistic--a land grab giving us a huge base right in the middle of Asia. What was once a buffer state (between Russia and our oil) becomes a colony, we become the largest single presence, in a position to extend our empire throughout Asia. We take Iraq and Afghanistan and lean on NK. India and Pakistan will pbly nuke each other, and all our ships and troops will be in just the right place to get between them and China and take over this new wasteland. If they don't nuke each other soon enough, then just as in the ME, we might engineer a little coup d'etat, complete with elections, and take what we want anyway. Taking Iraq will set us up for 200 more years of asskicking, while the people have no effective voice. Meanwhile we continue to let ourselves be defined by our enemies. The end of the Cold War was supposed to signal a change from that WW2 mentality. We shouldn't have any enemies. We are in a better position now to make friends than we've ever been, and look at us. Ridiculous.

Yeah, like Germany became our puppet after occupation and the people were kept down for centuries, like Japan became our puppet and we brutally repressed them under our capitalist bootheel, like Grenada became our puppet after we ousted an illegal communist takeover, like Panama became a puppet after we invaded and ousted a drug dealing corrupt dictator and they have no voice, like Yugoslavia became our puppet after we helped oust a presient and a people that were supporting and carrying out ethnic cleansing. Like South Korea, I really HATE the way we oppressed them and kept them down and treated them like a colony.

Get over yourself. None of this has happened or will happen.

Depsite what you may believe, this isn't about colonialism.

Because if any of them call him on it , they lose their press credentials needed to get into the White House. Instant career death for a Washington reporter........so they all smile and nod and swallow the bullshit whole.

Stravo wrote:[

Yeah, like Germany became our puppet after occupation and the people were kept down for centuries, like Japan became our puppet and we brutally repressed them under our capitalist bootheel, like Grenada became our puppet after we ousted an illegal communist takeover, like Panama became a puppet after we invaded and ousted a drug dealing corrupt dictator and they have no voice, like Yugoslavia became our puppet after we helped oust a presient and a people that were supporting and carrying out ethnic cleansing. Like South Korea, I really HATE the way we oppressed them and kept them down and treated them like a colony.

Get over yourself. None of this has happened or will happen.

Try reading The Road to the Gulf. I think the navy publishes it. Or, just study the things I brought up, and somehow try to keep from clouding the issue with a bunch of things I wasn't talking abt. You brought up a bunch of examples that have nothing to do with what I said. Know who United Fruit was? Do you remember the tanker war? Do you know why we fought in Central America, or who Mossadegh was? If you do, then pray tell me how what you said in any way addresses what I said, or how I was in error. I am not sure that we had nothing to do with Yom Kippur War. I suggest that you get over yourself. But it's not necessarily untrue that that's not impossible. Don't burn the bridge that you can use to back out on. Be gracious, that way you won't look like an asshole when shown wrong. I may be wrong abt all this. Hell, my predicting the future? Who the hell knows. That was to get you talking. Tell me it's not impossible for India and Pakistan to escalate. Tell me that if it does, we won't be there to beat China to the spoils. It's your opinion that this isn't abt colonialism, but the facts are in the paper. Read em.

Malecoda wrote:

Stravo wrote:[

Yeah, like Germany became our puppet after occupation and the people were kept down for centuries, like Japan became our puppet and we brutally repressed them under our capitalist bootheel, like Grenada became our puppet after we ousted an illegal communist takeover, like Panama became a puppet after we invaded and ousted a drug dealing corrupt dictator and they have no voice, like Yugoslavia became our puppet after we helped oust a presient and a people that were supporting and carrying out ethnic cleansing. Like South Korea, I really HATE the way we oppressed them and kept them down and treated them like a colony.

Get over yourself. None of this has happened or will happen.

Try reading The Road to the Gulf. I think the navy publishes it. Or, just study the things I brought up, and somehow try to keep from clouding the issue with a bunch of things I wasn't talking abt. You brought up a bunch of examples that have nothing to do with what I said. Know who United Fruit was? Do you remember the tanker war? Do you know why we fought in Central America, or who Mossadegh was? If you do, then pray tell me how what you said in any way addresses what I said, or how I was in error. I am not sure that we had nothing to do with Yom Kippur War. I suggest that you get over yourself. But it's not necessarily untrue that that's not impossible. Don't burn the bridge that you can use to back out on. Be gracious, that way you won't look like an asshole when shown wrong. I may be wrong abt all this. Hell, my predicting the future? Who the hell knows. That was to get you talking. Tell me it's not impossible for India and Pakistan to escalate. Tell me that if it does, we won't be there to beat China to the spoils. It's your opinion that this isn't abt colonialism, but the facts are in the paper. Read em.

You're assuming that the war in Iraq is about colonialism and seizing terriroty, that greater issues like our safety and stability of teh region are not in question. My litany of other occupations is precsiely placed to show our track record when it comes to OCCUPYING territory that we have conquered. The US is probably the most gracious conqueror this world has ever seen. Hell we help the people rebuild the very nations we helped destroy. Ask the Europeans where the hell they would be if not for the Marshall Plan, the greatest single welfare check this nation has ever cut.

United Fruit and the other examples you give is of covert ops and not so covert ops and actions of destabilzation undertaken by this nation during the Cold War, acts that the Soviets our enemies were undertaking as well. Funny thing is that the US is taken to task for actions that our mortal enemy was committing as well. These actions do not take place in a vacuum nor are they indications of an inherent evil. The US is a Great Power and guess what Great Powers play these games to maintain their position. Any pathetic attempt to link morality to government is asking for trouble.

I am NOT predicting the future when I say that the US WILL NOT seize Iraq as a colony because it is not in our interest. We are eliminating a threat.


Yom Kippur war was an independent Arab action. The Soviets and ourselves were caught off guard by this war. Just WHY we would want the Arabs to crush our sole true ally in the region is beyond me. And the Soviets were trying their best to stop the war as well. Another fallacy is to believe that every major event in the world is somehow part of the Great power games. Sometimes a war is just a war.

BTW These are YOUR words:

This would be a joke war, a spit in the face of men and women who join up out of love for their country. The outcome would be strictly imperialistic--a land grab giving us a huge base right in the middle of Asia. What was once a buffer state (between Russia and our oil) becomes a colony, we become the largest single presence, in a position to extend our empire throughout Asia. We take Iraq and Afghanistan and lean on NK. India and Pakistan will pbly nuke each other, and all our ships and troops will be in just the right place to get between them and China and take over this new wasteland. If they don't nuke each other soon enough, then just as in the ME, we might engineer a little coup d'etat, complete with elections, and take what we want anyway. Taking Iraq will set us up for 200 more years of asskicking, while the people have no effective voice. Meanwhile we continue to let ourselves be defined by our enemies. The end of the Cold War was supposed to signal a change from that WW2 mentality. We shouldn't have any enemies. We are in a better position now to make friends than we've ever been, and look at us. Ridiculous.

Sounds to me like someone was making a pretty clear statement about our intentions AND trhe future. Don't scurry away from the stance. It's what you said, I called you on it. As far as I'm concerned this is a civil discourse, no flames but I have been very adamant about my stance.

Ted wrote:

irishmick79 wrote:Declared or not, the warheads are simply not supposed to be in Iraq. Just the fact that Iraq has them is a material breach.

They are EMPTY WARHEADS meaning that there is no NBC. It is a 122mm shell with a hollow tip where you could put NBC, or plain old HE in it.

The shell configuration for a chemical-warhead agent will be different from an explosive payload in all likelyhood, Ted. You don't simply cram a hollow shell inteded for explosives with chemical agents (esp. if they're binary) and expect it to work!

Ted wrote:

ArthurDent wrote:No doubt that these warheads were not documented in the 12,000 page document like they should have been. This, ladies and gentlemen, is "material breach."

You have to remember that the UN gave the US the ONLY COPIES of the document to translate and SEND COPIES TO OTHER MEMBERS.

So, if you dont find those warheads listed in that 12,000 page document, who knows, the US may have removed that page from the document.

Bringing up conspriacy theories now, aren't we? "Oh, it isn't in the document so the [evil/hegemonistic/[adjective]] US must have removed it!"


That said, I have heard that Iraq is claiming that it is indeed in the dossier. Hearsay at the moment; no links.

phongn wrote:

Ted wrote:

irishmick79 wrote:Declared or not, the warheads are simply not supposed to be in Iraq. Just the fact that Iraq has them is a material breach.

They are EMPTY WARHEADS meaning that there is no NBC. It is a 122mm shell with a hollow tip where you could put NBC, or plain old HE in it.

The shell configuration for a chemical-warhead agent will be different from an explosive payload in all likelyhood, Ted. You don't simply cram a hollow shell inteded for explosives with chemical agents (esp. if they're binary) and expect it to work!

it is pretty clear that these warheads have the exclusive purpose of carrying chemical weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan16.html

"By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, January 16, 2003; 2:45 PM


BAGHDAD, Iraq –– The United Nations said it discovered empty chemical warheads south of Baghdad Thursday and the weapons had not been reported by Iraq. An Iraqi official said the weapons were old artillery shells listed in its December declaration.

The inspectors said they found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported. They had not previously been declared by Iraq, the spokesman said."

Malecoda wrote:The end of the Cold War was supposed to signal a change from that WW2 mentality. We shouldn't have any enemies. We are in a better position now to make friends than we've ever been, and look at us. Ridiculous.

Overly idealistic, don't you think? Nations are always trying to expand their power base and their prestige in the international community, and it goes without saying that the competition is fierce. The US has simply played the game better than anybody else has in the past 100 years, and it should be expected that America will make enemies in the process.

Stravo wrote:

Malecoda wrote:

Stravo wrote:[

Yeah, like Germany became our puppet after occupation and the people were kept down for centuries, like Japan became our puppet and we brutally repressed them under our capitalist bootheel, like Grenada became our puppet after we ousted an illegal communist takeover, like Panama became a puppet after we invaded and ousted a drug dealing corrupt dictator and they have no voice, like Yugoslavia became our puppet after we helped oust a presient and a people that were supporting and carrying out ethnic cleansing. Like South Korea, I really HATE the way we oppressed them and kept them down and treated them like a colony.

Get over yourself. None of this has happened or will happen.

Try reading The Road to the Gulf. I think the navy publishes it. Or, just study the things I brought up, and somehow try to keep from clouding the issue with a bunch of things I wasn't talking abt. You brought up a bunch of examples that have nothing to do with what I said. Know who United Fruit was? Do you remember the tanker war? Do you know why we fought in Central America, or who Mossadegh was? If you do, then pray tell me how what you said in any way addresses what I said, or how I was in error. I am not sure that we had nothing to do with Yom Kippur War. I suggest that you get over yourself. But it's not necessarily untrue that that's not impossible. Don't burn the bridge that you can use to back out on. Be gracious, that way you won't look like an asshole when shown wrong. I may be wrong abt all this. Hell, my predicting the future? Who the hell knows. That was to get you talking. Tell me it's not impossible for India and Pakistan to escalate. Tell me that if it does, we won't be there to beat China to the spoils. It's your opinion that this isn't abt colonialism, but the facts are in the paper. Read em.

You're assuming that the war in Iraq is about colonialism and seizing terriroty, that greater issues like our safety and stability of teh region are not in question. My litany of other occupations is precsiely placed to show our track record when it comes to OCCUPYING territory that we have conquered. The US is probably the most gracious conqueror this world has ever seen. Hell we help the people rebuild the very nations we helped destroy. Ask the Europeans where the hell they would be if not for the Marshall Plan, the greatest single welfare check this nation has ever cut.

United Fruit and the other examples you give is of covert ops and not so covert ops and actions of destabilzation undertaken by this nation during the Cold War, acts that the Soviets our enemies were undertaking as well. Funny thing is that the US is taken to task for actions that our mortal enemy was committing as well. These actions do not take place in a vacuum nor are they indications of an inherent evil. The US is a Great Power and guess what Great Powers play these games to maintain their position. Any pathetic attempt to link morality to government is asking for trouble.

I am NOT predicting the future when I say that the US WILL NOT seize Iraq as a colony because it is not in our interest. We are eliminating a threat.


Yom Kippur war was an independent Arab action. The Soviets and ourselves were caught off guard by this war. Just WHY we would want the Arabs to crush our sole true ally in the region is beyond me. And the Soviets were trying their best to stop the war as well. Another fallacy is to believe that every major event in the world is somehow part of the Great power games. Sometimes a war is just a war.

BTW These are YOUR words:

This would be a joke war, a spit in the face of men and women who join up out of love for their country. The outcome would be strictly imperialistic--a land grab giving us a huge base right in the middle of Asia. What was once a buffer state (between Russia and our oil) becomes a colony, we become the largest single presence, in a position to extend our empire throughout Asia. We take Iraq and Afghanistan and lean on NK. India and Pakistan will pbly nuke each other, and all our ships and troops will be in just the right place to get between them and China and take over this new wasteland. If they don't nuke each other soon enough, then just as in the ME, we might engineer a little coup d'etat, complete with elections, and take what we want anyway. Taking Iraq will set us up for 200 more years of asskicking, while the people have no effective voice. Meanwhile we continue to let ourselves be defined by our enemies. The end of the Cold War was supposed to signal a change from that WW2 mentality. We shouldn't have any enemies. We are in a better position now to make friends than we've ever been, and look at us. Ridiculous.

Sounds to me like someone was making a pretty clear statement about our intentions AND trhe future. Don't scurry away from the stance. It's what you said, I called you on it. As far as I'm concerned this is a civil discourse, no flames but I have been very adamant about my stance.

Go get him Stravo.

Stravo said everything I was gonna say....

Awww

But anyway Dent has it exactly right, The legalise is right Wong, When we first moved into Iraq one of the things the US managed to finagle the Secruity Concuil into doing was making Husian have to prove that he had no weapons and they where destroyed along with the methods of production instead of making the US prove that he did not and still had em

(Which of course works in The US of A's favor and so far Husian has not held up his part of the baragian)

Stravo wrote:

Malecoda wrote:

Stravo wrote:[

Yeah, like Germany became our puppet after occupation and the people were kept down for centuries, like Japan became our puppet and we brutally repressed them under our capitalist bootheel, like Grenada became our puppet after we ousted an illegal communist takeover, like Panama became a puppet after we invaded and ousted a drug dealing corrupt dictator and they have no voice, like Yugoslavia became our puppet after we helped oust a presient and a people that were supporting and carrying out ethnic cleansing. Like South Korea, I really HATE the way we oppressed them and kept them down and treated them like a colony.

Get over yourself. None of this has happened or will happen.

Try reading The Road to the Gulf. I think the navy publishes it. Or, just study the things I brought up, and somehow try to keep from clouding the issue with a bunch of things I wasn't talking abt. You brought up a bunch of examples that have nothing to do with what I said. Know who United Fruit was? Do you remember the tanker war? Do you know why we fought in Central America, or who Mossadegh was? If you do, then pray tell me how what you said in any way addresses what I said, or how I was in error. I am not sure that we had nothing to do with Yom Kippur War. I suggest that you get over yourself. But it's not necessarily untrue that that's not impossible. Don't burn the bridge that you can use to back out on. Be gracious, that way you won't look like an asshole when shown wrong. I may be wrong abt all this. Hell, my predicting the future? Who the hell knows. That was to get you talking. Tell me it's not impossible for India and Pakistan to escalate. Tell me that if it does, we won't be there to beat China to the spoils. It's your opinion that this isn't abt colonialism, but the facts are in the paper. Read em.

You're assuming that the war in Iraq is about colonialism and seizing terriroty, that greater issues like our safety and stability of teh region are not in question. My litany of other occupations is precsiely placed to show our track record when it comes to OCCUPYING territory that we have conquered. The US is probably the most gracious conqueror this world has ever seen. Hell we help the people rebuild the very nations we helped destroy. Ask the Europeans where the hell they would be if not for the Marshall Plan, the greatest single welfare check this nation has ever cut.

Whether we say it's a colony or not is irrelevant. When we undertake nation building, this will be a big one. You act like we have no interest in controlling that land, but we do. I said nothing, nothing at all abt how gracious we are as conquerors. How nice of you to make a rebuttal with something that I agree with.

United Fruit and the other examples you give is of covert ops and not so covert ops and actions of destabilzation undertaken by this nation during the Cold War, acts that the Soviets our enemies were undertaking as well. Funny thing is that the US is taken to task for actions that our mortal enemy was committing as well. These actions do not take place in a vacuum nor are they indications of an inherent evil. The US is a Great Power and guess what Great Powers play these games to maintain their position. Any pathetic attempt to link morality to government is asking for trouble.

I don't care if it was covert or overt. I didn't make the distinction, bec I don't nmeed to. That was us, meddling in other countrys' affairs, and for why? You say it's silly to bring morality into an argument abt war. Hmm. BTW, again I must remind you that you are defending against things I didn't bring up. Who the hell said the USSR was the innocent bystander? You CAN recognize when someone is being bad, even when the other side is being bad too, can't you? My whole point is just what you said, this doesn't take place in a vacuum. You have yet to address the fact that, as I said, we have been playing power games in the ME for a long time, we have oil, we had buffer states, and if we make our presence permanent, then, bing! I mean, what's so hard abt that? It's all true. If we do it, we do it. You don't bring up "Well, we didn't make puppets of France and Germany" in an argument abt how we had puppets in Central America and SE Asia. Oh wait, you do. But it's irrelevant. If we take on nation building in Iraq, then we'll have a huge military presence. Your failure to acknowledge this obvious fact is stunning. Almost as stunning as you acting like we're doing it out of altruism and that we'll just ignore the price of oil.

I am NOT predicting the future when I say that the US WILL NOT seize Iraq as a colony because it is not in our interest. We are eliminating a threat.

What threat! the WHOLE question! Iraq is a threat? Oh, gee, then install a fucking puppet, and secure our interests the good old-fashioned American way. Steal. Y'know, Iran was a threat too, and that's what we did, until the Iranians killed him. You are denying, then, that S Vietnam was controlled by a royalist puppet of the US, in spite of the fact that they wanted democracy, until it was taken by the north, and we just wrote it off? I am still not sure why you are in favor of the war. Point number one was, the Iraqis don't hate us. They can't reach out and touch us the way NK can, and they are not trying to kill us. Why fight? Bec they may have WMD? What are you, brainwashed? We have so many options and we're so powerful, we don't have to do that. Unless... Oh yeah, the oil. Tha natural gas in Aghaniland. Come on, Stravo. Are you in the military? Do you have kids? Why would any sane parent want to see their kids go to war? Maybe if the US really was threatened and we had no choice. But, see, being as big as we are, we DO have choices. Right now, we can't say boo abt securing the terrorist threat, bec we fucking sanction dictatorships. We want the oil. We want the ores. If we do this thing, then what I said is true--we WILL be in a position to kick ass indefinitely. And you deny this?? Wow.

Yom Kippur war was an independent Arab action. The Soviets and ourselves were caught off guard by this war. Just WHY we would want the Arabs to crush our sole true ally in the region is beyond me. And the Soviets were trying their best to stop the war as well. Another fallacy is to believe that every major event in the world is somehow part of the Great power games. Sometimes a war is just a war.

Oh, and they just decided to attack Israel bec they could. the fact that we were Saudi allies then toyed with them to fix the price of oil and give aid to Israel had nothing to do with it. Sorry, you're right.

BTW These are YOUR words:

This would be a joke war, a spit in the face of men and women who join up out of love for their country. The outcome would be strictly imperialistic--a land grab giving us a huge base right in the middle of Asia. What was once a buffer state (between Russia and our oil) becomes a colony, we become the largest single presence, in a position to extend our empire throughout Asia. We take Iraq and Afghanistan and lean on NK. India and Pakistan will pbly nuke each other, and all our ships and troops will be in just the right place to get between them and China and take over this new wasteland. If they don't nuke each other soon enough, then just as in the ME, we might engineer a little coup d'etat, complete with elections, and take what we want anyway. Taking Iraq will set us up for 200 more years of asskicking, while the people have no effective voice. Meanwhile we continue to let ourselves be defined by our enemies. The end of the Cold War was supposed to signal a change from that WW2 mentality. We shouldn't have any enemies. We are in a better position now to make friends than we've ever been, and look at us. Ridiculous.

Sounds to me like someone was making a pretty clear statement about our intentions AND trhe future. Don't scurry away from the stance. It's what you said, I called you on it. As far as I'm concerned this is a civil discourse, no flames but I have been very adamant about my stance.

[/quote]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious to most people what Bush wants. And why shouldn't I "scurry away" fm an idea if I don't like it? Maybe you talked me out of it. Isn't persuasion at least a little part of argument? Why would you address me and tell me I'm wrong and then, if I change my mind, call me a coward? Jeeze. But at any rate, I'm not scurrying away from it. I still like my ideas. Just bec I acknowledge I'm not infallible, that I may be wrong, you take it on as cowardice. What's wrong with you? I'm telling you, it's pretty clear that we have a past of gaming with other countries, and just bec this war is nominally abt terrorism, that fact will not change. The CIA will always be busy, and if I'm wrong abt India and Pakistan nuking it out, so what? It's a prediction.

Think for yourself.

irishmick79 wrote:

Malecoda wrote:The end of the Cold War was supposed to signal a change from that WW2 mentality. We shouldn't have any enemies. We are in a better position now to make friends than we've ever been, and look at us. Ridiculous.

Overly idealistic, don't you think? Nations are always trying to expand their power base and their prestige in the international community, and it goes without saying that the competition is fierce. The US has simply played the game better than anybody else has in the past 100 years, and it should be expected that America will make enemies in the process.

Agreed on all points. I never said that it wasn't idealistic. I am not in favor of a war, but hell, if we take over Iraq, good for us. I'm torn, I like us being this powerful but a war just to oust one guy is stupid.

Saddam Hussein is not just one guy. Just take a look at the human rights record under his regime. That alone should at least make you consider pursuing military action to oust him.

irishmick79 wrote:Saddam Hussein is not just one guy. Just take a look at the human rights record under his regime. That alone should at least make you consider pursuing military action to oust him.

I take back the "just one guy" comment--but compared to the rest of his country, that's just one guy. Of course we should consider military action. But considering doesn't mean "blindly pursuing". Why are the generals the doves here? Why do we see every so often that the hawks are those who have limited or no military background, and that the longtimers are more wary of war than they are? So Iraq doesn't treat its people well. It would be kind of hard to do that when you've been under embargo for the last 15 years. But nevermind that, so what if they don't treat their people well? What's the argument here, their terrorist ties, or their civil rights record? I'm simply asking, "why go to war when we're rich and powerful enough to pursue diplomacy?" Where's the answer? "Oh, we should go to war bec of terrorism"? Hello, the mainstream Iraqi isn't a terrorist. Want me to repeat myself? OK: They are not against us.

Or was it "we should go to war bec of their civil rights record"? NO, I mean who cares abt that? If that were the case, we would be against half of Africa, against China, against about 100 other countries that run sweatshops. But we won't, be those are our sweatshops! China is richer than Iraq and they have a lot more people to abuse. Including Tibet. They're not as powerful as we are. Gee, we should go to war with them. Shit.

Everyone knows this is about oil. When is one of you going to pull his head out of the sand and acknowledge that we have something to gain by a war, and it ain't homeland security, and it ain't civil rights. It' s the ability to control the region. If it were civil rights, we should declare war on ourselves.

There's a good reason why the generals are doves and the politicians hawks. The politicians know the political feel of the country is primarily in favor of war right now, so they don't dare try to put down the brakes, or else the constituency will vote them out. The generals know everything will be fine and good until we suffer our first casualty, at which point the American public will begin screaming "military incompetence," never realizing that a low number of casualties is inevitable in a war. Most civilians (myself included) have no place in judging whether a contemporary military action was proper or not; I won't touch anything later than WWII because I realize I don't properly understand modern combat techniques. Most civilians seem to believe in the bloodless war theory, a dangerous and potentially destabilizing idea that is irresponsible in its naivete.

irishmick79 wrote:Saddam Hussein is not just one guy. Just take a look at the human rights record under his regime. That alone should at least make you consider pursuing military action to oust him.

Then why hasn't the states marched into Rwanda to stop the attrocities there...whoops, they have no oil!

The Dark wrote:There's a good reason why the generals are doves and the politicians hawks. The politicians know the political feel of the country is primarily in favor of war right now, so they don't dare try to put down the brakes, or else the constituency will vote them out. The generals know everything will be fine and good until we suffer our first casualty, at which point the American public will begin screaming "military incompetence," never realizing that a low number of casualties is inevitable in a war. Most civilians (myself included) have no place in judging whether a contemporary military action was proper or not; I won't touch anything later than WWII because I realize I don't properly understand modern combat techniques. Most civilians seem to believe in the bloodless war theory, a dangerous and potentially destabilizing idea that is irresponsible in its naivete.

Mmmm, hmm. and right now, Stravo sounds like one of the civilians not in the know. How the hell could you be in favor of this stupid war. They don't treat their civilians right? OK, let's go put them out of their misery! Criminy. All I want is to know why. I'm not saying a lot, I'm just pointing out the obvious and asking why, and the rebuttals, hah hah, nobody is saying why.

Fuck, people, you can be in favor of the war, just fucking be honest. You know what I think? I don't care either way. If we take over the oilfields and install a puppet governor in Iraq, then good for us. I want us to kick ass. BUT, I don't want to see us go to war against a populace who's not evil, who's not against us, who are just pawns. If we care so much about THEM and not the oilfields, we can solve the problem with a Hellfire into a motorcade. I'm in favor of war as far as our material interests go. The last time we practiced isolationism, Japan bit us on the ass. Shit, if we need the oil and they're assholes, take their oil. But don't pretend it's for some high and mighty moral reason! And we can fry bigger fish than Iraq.

Next of Kin wrote:Then why hasn't the states marched into Rwanda to stop the attrocities there...whoops, they have no oil!

One, they have abetted.

Two, of course there's oil, which puts Saddam right in our crosshairs. We live in a society driven by the consumption of energy. Oil plays a HUGE role in that consumption. Increases in the price of that oil can and do affect our entire economic system. When oil gets more expensive, then the price of fuel goes up, which hits everyone right in the pocketbook. It is in our best interests to safeguard our supply of oil to keep the price stable.

ArthurDent wrote:

Next of Kin wrote:Then why hasn't the states marched into Rwanda to stop the attrocities there...whoops, they have no oil!

One, they have abetted.

When they were slaughtering each other of course.

There is so much going back and forth Im gonna sum up my thoughts:

1) Grenada - Not a threat to the US, but to be honest it did help restore some morale to the US military.
2) Panama - Holy shit, invade another country because the leader is a drug dealer? I had zero support for this one.
3) Iraq (1991) - Did not think Iraq was the threat Bush Sr made him out to be, but Bush Sr did it right by going to the UN and building a coalition. I also will not criticize him for not going to Baghdad. It is far to easy in hindsight to criticize him.
4) Yugoslavia - Again I think not much of a threat to the US but a coalition was built and the proper actions were done. I just hate it when Presidents say it will be over quickly. Never, ever tell us that.
5) Rwanda - It is shameful that the west did not help, but there are some real problem. In places like Yugo, Iraq, etc, there are targets for us to attack. In Rwanda they whacked each other to hamburger with machette's, not an easy target for airpower.
6) N Korea - I see them as a realistic threat, but I doubt they will attack the US. Have not made up my mind how to deal with them.
7) Iraq today - totally contained, an evil dictator to be sure, but I dont believe in a war at this time.
- Afghanistan - Im glad the Taliban is gone. They were supporters of Al Queda and thus a danger to the West. However, I think that place needs a Martial Plan to prevent it from going back to what it was.

That's the problem, all we have is Martial Plans. What we need is a Marshall Plan!

ArthurDent wrote:Two, of course there's oil, which puts Saddam right in our crosshairs. We live in a society driven by the consumption of energy. Oil plays a HUGE role in that consumption. Increases in the price of that oil can and do affect our entire economic system. When oil gets more expensive, then the price of fuel goes up, which hits everyone right in the pocketbook. It is in our best interests to safeguard our supply of oil to keep the price stable.

You are saying that it is best for America if you invade Iraq and monopolize the oil industry. Yet, the fact is, you already do monopolize the oil industry with OPEC.