Posted: 2002-08-29 07:01pm
Of course, when he says "we", he means people like him.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
No, he only means himself.Howedar wrote: Of course, when he says "we", he means people like him.
You need to balance that against the cost of maintaining the sanctions and the no-fly zones, and regular attacks on air defence sites. But in the wake of 9/11 the US defence budget has been increased from about 3% GPD to 5% GPD. This should be more than enough.Mr. B wrote:Keeping our forces in Iraq for however many years is going to be expensive. How will we pay for it, with the budget currently in defecit.
I don't (know that the current opposition are up to it), but I do know that they'll be better than the current administration when viewed from Washington.Mr. B wrote: How do you know that the current opposition will be up to it. How do you know that they won't just turn into a bunch of fueding warlords. Or that they will sharepower with another, or that the Kurds will get their ind. state.
You can suppress the Muslim fundies all you want, I have no love for them. But in the long term it may well create more sympathy for them amongst the Arab electorate, and make them more dangerous, not less. So I'd advise a 'kinder and gentler' strategy, with the objective of making them a political joke rather than a political force.Mr. B wrote: Maybe not all of them, but there are a number of them. And why shouldn't we, they are the ones spewing the anti-america rhetoric. And their message of hate will grow in the more impoverished regions even if they are not in the gov't.
By glaring at the offending nations, pointing out how undemocratic they are, and suggesting that a change in the ruling administration might benefit both the US, Iraq and the populations of the affected nations. But even so, it's still a less serious problem than a terrorist campaign supported by Saddams' Iraq.Mr. B wrote: How do you deal with it later, this money will help the radical fundies get on their feet.
I believe he was supporting the terrorists becuase;Mr. B wrote: How do you know he is supporting terrorists? There is no proof of Iraqi involvement in terrorism against the US.
But the US troops will be an occupying force. And the more radical elements will not like this, they will see it as more US imperialism.
Secular maybe but still extreme-nationist/facist, ie not 'good' in any way. See previous answer for why I believe in a link between Saddam and the fundimentalists.Mr. B wrote: A United Secular Arab state. With HIM on top. Just becasue it is Arab doesn't make it a fundie state. Again how do you know he is a friend of people like Osama bin Laden. He is just as much a threat to Saddams power as he is to the US.
Getting rid of poverty would be a real trick. It sounds like a plan to use the fundimentalist threat to blackmail the west into giving more charity. Frankly they can fuck themselves, if they want to vote the fundies into power in their respective countries, I say let them.Mr. B wrote: The real way is to get rid of poverty in nations. That is why the fundies are going in Iran, it is becoming more prosperous. And if you let those people in power the only way to get them out is to shoot them or to let them die out.
I am not talking about the military budget. I am talking about the national budget. It is in a deficit. The increased spending and tax cuts will only serve for a higher deficit.You need to balance that against the cost of maintaining the sanctions and the no-fly zones, and regular attacks on air defence sites. But in the wake of 9/11 the US defence budget has been increased from about 3% GPD to 5% GPD. This should be more than enough.
Where is the evidence for these meetings, and how do you know that it means he is supporting them. I could go meet the KKK but that doesn't make me a racist.I believe he was supporting the terrorists becuase;
a) meetings between Saddam and Al Qaeda were reported several times during the 90's.
b) reported contact between one of the terrorist pilots and an Iraqi embassy in europe (I forget where)
c) the Iraqi air force went to an unusually level of alert just hours before the atrocity of 9/11, which suggests (but does not prove) that they at least knew about the attack.
d) he has the motivation and the means.
e) supporting the terrorists is a logical move for him, as it's the only way for him to strike back against the US.
Of course I do recognise that there is no 'smoking gun' proof in the public domain that would stand up in court. But this is not just a legal matter, but a matter of national security for the US, and maybe the UK as well. Legalities should not be allowed to stand in the way if civilian lives can be saved, that would not be the 'moral' choice in this case.
I find it amusing that you regard the budget deficit as being as important as national security, at a time when the US is under threat from murderous fundementalist terrorists (whether supported by Iraq or not). I would suggest you take a long hard look at your priorities.Mr. B wrote: I am not talking about the military budget. I am talking about the national budget. It is in a deficit. The increased spending and tax cuts will only serve for a higher deficit.
As I readily admit it is circumstantial it's not worth debating, but whatever weight you put on it, it is still evidence.Mr. B wrote: Where is the evidence for these meetings, and how do you know that it means he is supporting them. I could go meet the KKK but that doesn't make me a racist.
Same thing about the meeting at the embassy.
The air force alert is circumstantial at best, it could mean anything from a US air raid to a drill.
Not to anything like the same extent as Iraq.Mr. B wrote: A lot of countries had the motives and the means to help the terrorists, including Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others.
He's been doing that for years without any weakening on the US position, what makes you think he'd just continue a failing policy? Do you recall Saddam calling on 'all arabs to attack US and Israeli interests around the world' back in 2000?Mr. B wrote:
It would only worsen his situation to help the terrorists. His best move to strike back would be his continued defiance of US policies. This makes him look like the victim of US imperialism.
I agree, the politicians have a duty to make the case for war, if they are planning to take us into one.Mr. B wrote: There is no smoking gun and the lack of proof for any terrorists makes the public skeptical. If the govt were to put forward any real proof other than "we say so" people would be all for it.
Any innocent Iraqi civilians who die have my sympathy, but as long as the US 'tries' to avoid killing them their lives should not be allowed to stand in the way of a military campaign.Mr. B wrote:
And what about the innocent Iraqi civilians who might die in a invasion. Their deaths would only hinder the war effort and our image from around the globe. Not to mention our own military personel. And the UKs.
Oh you find it amusing that our national debt is going back up and that this could mean bankruptcy for the US if we defaulted on it. (it's possible)I find it amusing that you regard the budget deficit as being as important as national security, at a time when the US is under threat from murderous fundementalist terrorists (whether supported by Iraq or not). I would suggest you take a long hard look at your priorities.
It has worked. There were talks for lifting the sanctions before now. And it was for the benefir of other nations, to show them that he could continue to defy the US with little response.He's been doing that for years without any weakening on the US position, what makes you think he'd just continue a failing policy? Do you recall Saddam calling on 'all arabs to attack US and Israeli interests around the world' back in 2000?
It's similar to Vietnam, the politicians got into the war by faking the attack and the soldiers had to fight it regardless of whether or not we won or lost.I agree, the politicians have a duty to make the case for war, if they are planning to take us into one.
Providing security for 10-15 years to Iraq is not going to cost nearly enough to bankrupt the US, deficit or no. You've had troops stationed in S.Korea and Europe for how long? Why not just pull the remaining troops out of the EU and station them in Iraq?Mr. B wrote: Oh you find it amusing that our national debt is going back up and that this could mean bankruptcy for the US if we defaulted on it. (it's possible)
If the US economy collapsed so would the worlds, this is of vital importance to national security.
You call completely failing to move the US and UK position on lifting sanctions 'working'???Mr. B wrote: It has worked. There were talks for lifting the sanctions before now. And it was for the benefir of other nations, to show them that he could continue to defy the US with little response.
The all arabs attack calling, almost every middle eastern leader has made that threat. The only one we took seriously was Osama bin Ladens, mostly becasue he had the ability to run succesful operations.
Militarily the rest of the world has little to bring to the table, so the US is going to have to shoulder the military burden whether they have international political support or not. However I would ideally prefer them to spend time building support for the attack, for the public relations side of things if nothing else. But as that support is unlikly to be forthcoming, (unless a video diary showing Saddam and OBL planning the attack can be provided as evidenceMr. B wrote: But the other question I have is whether or not the US will have to do it alone without the support of the world. I don't think Bush is serious about starting another coalition, that he thinks we could actually go it alone with only Turkey and Kuwait, and Bahrain for bases.
It's a very difficult question. Let's look at Dubya's potential reasons for wanting war with Iraq:weemadando wrote:Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?
But the inititial costs of any war are sure to blow the military budget. And they still have to recover the losses of all the munitions used in Afg. We spent 30 billion on Afg. How much will we spend on the invasion, bombardment, and occupation of Iraq.Providing security for 10-15 years to Iraq is not going to cost nearly enough to bankrupt the US, deficit or no. You've had troops stationed in S.Korea and Europe for how long? Why not just pull the remaining troops out of the EU and station them in Iraq?
I said it was working up till now. Before 9/11 there was talk about lifting or changing the embargo in Iraq becasue it was ineffective. Or to expand the oil for food program.You call completely failing to move the US and UK position on lifting sanctions 'working'???
The first statement, that the world already thinks the US bullies Iraq, is not technically true (not as clear cut as it seems). Many countries, like France, are saying that the United States needs to back off of Iraq because they are receiving illegal oil shipments from the Iraqis. I think it is fairly telling how much support Iraq has in Western Europe compared to its support in the Middle East itself. And the real reasons that ANY of the Arab countries back Iraq are these:GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Reasons not to prosecute a war in Iraq:
-The world already thinks that the U.S. bullies Iraq. We don't have anywhere near the support we had 10 years ago.
-Since the terrorists know how to best hit us back, a war with Iraq will bring them out of the woodwork in droves.
I agree that popular support is desireable.USAF Ace wrote:However, the reason I can't support a war right now is two fold:
1) The U.S. is too divided on the issue. Unpopular wars never turn out to be a good thing. If we go to war without overwhelming support at home, we are very possibly imbarking down a road to defeat.
I also find the assumption of an easy victory rather short-sighted (though there are possible ways of achieving this if local supporters can be found); you should NEVER go into a war in the belief that only the enemy will suffer.USAF Ace wrote: 2) Most of the people who would support a war have unrealistic expectations of the outcome. People say that if we invade and take Bagdad, Saddam would be ousted and the Iraqi people would be happy and openly imbrace democracy. That could happen, but I find it unlikely. My take on the war is this: America will launch a ground and air assault. Saddam is not idiot, he will sent his aircraft and most of his armor to Iran. He knows that confronting the US on open ground will lead to a massacre. There will be no air to air combat or tank battles this time. The road to Bagdad will be an easy drive because instead of engaging us, Saddam will instead pull his forces into the city, and start guerilla attacks once US soldiers enter. Finding that man in a city of millions of his own followers will be terribly difficult. The Iraqi citizens would not welcome us at all. All Saddam has to do is tell them we're here to convert them from Islam to Christianity and they'll all go ape shit yelling Jihad. We would probably end up in the same situation that we were in while in Somalia, trying to apprehend a man in the middle of his own turf. But this time it would be worse. Don't get me wrong, we could capture Saddam, but at great loss of American lives, and astronomical loss of civilian lives. The American public, remembering how "sterile" the Gulf War was, will expect this to be another "push button" war. They will be in for a very rude awakening. Public support for the war would drop even more forcing politions to bring the boys back home. Saddam will declare triumph over the "great evil" and the US ends up with a smaller scale version of Vietnam.
I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops. Vietnam was a far more challenging war, but America fought that alone as well (yes, they lost, but that had nothing to do with the number of troops).GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Reasons not to prosecute a war in Iraq:weemadando wrote:Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?
-The world already thinks that the U.S. bullies Iraq. We don't have anywhere near the support we had 10 years ago.
-The U.S. isn't really ready for another major war. We expended all the military ordinace collected in the Reagan and George I years on airstrikes, all those peacekeeping missions, and military budget cuts Clinton subjected us all to.
-Since the terrorists know how to best hit us back, a war with Iraq will bring them out of the woodwork in droves.
I'd nominally support it . . . but not unconditionally. There's too many things involved to make a strong case for invading Iraq.
I must disagree. In Somalia, the Americans were welcomed in by the local population. After all, they were starving and we were protecting the food they needed. Everywhere U.S. marines and soldiers went, the Somalias were literally jumping for joy. But as you all know, things changed rather quickly. Adide used his propoganda machine very effectively to turn pro US and UN sentiment into antisentiment. Even the Packistani soldiers, who were brought in specifficaly because they were Muslims, were killed. What happened to them was even worse than what happened to the U.S. soldiers. The rest of course, is history.Akm72 wrote:But I think you're wrong about Saddam being able to forment a popular uprising with ease. The US is very likly to be hated by the Iraqis, but my impression (from reading the news and an Iraqi kid I knew at school) is that Saddam is hated more
I trhink Iraq should be left uninvaded, simply because I do not think that Bush et al ,have thought through the international concequences of this action. Some thought of the future would be helpful instead of this myopic Rambo fest.IRG CommandoJoe wrote:You people can't come up with real reasons why not to invade Iraq. You are just voting no because you don't like Bush. That would be like Congress not letting FDR enter World War II because they don't like him, therefore don't support the war.
America fought Veitnam alone? I dont think so, unless the Koreans, Aussies, New Zealanders who were there are just figments of my imagination.Si tacet wrote:I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops. Vietnam was a far more challenging war, but America fought that alone as well (yes, they lost, but that had nothing to do with the number of troops).GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Reasons not to prosecute a war in Iraq:weemadando wrote:Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?
-The world already thinks that the U.S. bullies Iraq. We don't have anywhere near the support we had 10 years ago.
-The U.S. isn't really ready for another major war. We expended all the military ordinace collected in the Reagan and George I years on airstrikes, all those peacekeeping missions, and military budget cuts Clinton subjected us all to.
-Since the terrorists know how to best hit us back, a war with Iraq will bring them out of the woodwork in droves.
I'd nominally support it . . . but not unconditionally. There's too many things involved to make a strong case for invading Iraq.