We should not attack Iraq

[EmuGod]

“Well, you probably don’t sell a lot of Quran-forbidden stuff to them, do you? Or does it say in the Quran “thou shall not wear levi’s jeans?”
I said they were fundamentalist muslims.”

LOL. That’s almosat as funny as the irony of a Nazi wearing jeans.

[Xi]

T_6, thanks for the clarification. - Xi
–--------------------------------------------------
“Hello, my name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father.
Prepare to die”! - Inigo Montoya(Mandy Patinkin)in 'The Princess Bride.

A great movie comedy and a character with purpose. - Xi

[TG Moses VI]

On what?

[Xi]

So now the UN will convene and say, “Saddam, do this.”
Saddam will say, “Okay!”
Then when the inspectors arrive for inspections, in 2-3 months, Saddam will say , “Not here.” And he will play the Not Now Game.
The UN will reconvene to discuss how to say, “Pretty please, Saddam! Allow us to inspect all of your facilities.”
Saddam will say, “Yes.” The inspectors will proceed but will be hampered at every turn.
Then the UN will reconvene and say, “Saddam, If you do not allow inspections we will reconvene and decide what to do.”
Saddam will say. “Fine.” The inspectors will proceed but after a while will be misdirected often.

I think you get the idea.

Why not have…
The UN meets and agrees that Saddam,his representatives, the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Republican Guard, and his people will cooperate completely or …

In other words… Saddam if you do A, then X,Y and Z will happen and things will be good for you and yours. However, Saddam, if you do B, then C, D, E, F, and so on will happen, and things will go pooorly for you and yours. That is, until and unless, you change your ways and do A, and A only.

But, no, the UN cannot do that.
They cannot plan ahead for alternatives. - Xi

“All human actions have one or more of these
seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions,
habit, reason, passion, desire.” - Aristotle

OW! By Jove, I think he’s got it. - Xi

[Guest]

@TG:

You’re expecting me to tell the future - I’m not some psychic with a crystal ball.

Me neither :)

I have a hard time deciphering what you mean by “sensible.”

I guess that is where most of the misunderstandings and problems stem from: different definitions of sensible.
And as we all know that the US is not thinking sensibly, i have to be right in my definition :) :) :)

I said they were fundamentalist muslims.

I was talking about the Saudis.

Did you ever have a look at the laws in Saudi Arabia? They are fundamentalists! If you are a thief there, your hand will be hacked off, etc.

Uh, why quote yourself?

Just to reduce the chance to misunderstand things by not making clear the context in which i sate stuff.

US buildings that belong to NSA? A lot. What is a UN inspector doing in NSA?

searching for secret weapon labs of course :), and nothing else. Of course they would not try to spy on your other secrets, just on the weapons :)

Would you (as dictator) add some innocent buildings to the list, so that the inspectors can’t make a precise list of “secrecy areas”, but only of “suspicious buildings”?

Why, what’s there to hide? If Saddam was righting in saying “we posses no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons” - why all the secrecy and suspicion? And if those buildings were marked off - what access would we have to them?

Well, why do the US have one of the (if not the one) greatest espionage
efforts running, even before septembre last year, even against allies and friends? I though you were friendly and peaceful? Why do you need that then? ….
Noone who has anything to hide likes to show everything to others. And even if you don’t have things in secrecy the othrs would blame you for, would you deliberately give up all your secrets?

For the “what to do”, i think i answered that, well, maybe not explicitly:
Send in inspectors, see how the Iraq cooperates or not, see what they find.

Maybe this will work, we’ll see.

Yup, we will see.

Well, that was a “two-gun” situation, with on barrel and one trigger for each. That has changed, and it seems like the US just wants to be the only one with a gun. Your question: yes.

Ha, it seems as if the USSR is the only responsible one.

Kind of, because they let themselves be pushed by Reagan into the armament spiral they couldn’t afford, and which was just adding a few overkills (and therefore was pretty nuch non-sense).

[Guest]

@Xi:

…
I think you get the idea.
…
In other words… Saddam if you do A, then X,Y and Z will happen and things will be good for you and yours. However, Saddam, if you do B, then C, D, E, F, and so on will happen, and things will go pooorly for you and yours. That is, until and unless, you change your ways and do A, and A only.

But, no, the UN cannot do that.
They cannot plan ahead for alternatives.

I also wonder why the UN does not take up that stance, as that would be the only sensible thing.
For the planning ahead… I think the UN does more planning ahead than the US. Or who would be the next president in the Iraq, how would you stabilize the area after losing a major power there?

[TG Moses VI]

Me neither

Again, I cannot tell the future - only make reasonable assessments on what has happened in the past.

And as we all know that the US is not thinking sensibly, i have to be right in my definition

And as we all know the US is thinking sensibly. :wink: :P

Did you ever have a look at the laws in Saudi Arabia? They are fundamentalists! If you are a thief there, your hand will be hacked off, etc.

Well I’m not mad at all Saudis. I may not agree with some of their laws such as the banning of dance clubs and movie theaters and their laws against women, but something tells me they have a good chance to becoming a modernized, Occidental country.

Just to reduce the chance to misunderstand things by not making clear the context in which i sate stuff.

Heh, I already forgot what you were talking about. :)

searching for secret weapon labs of course , and nothing else. Of course they would not try to spy on your other secrets, just on the weapons

Good. And what major scientific advancements have the Iraqis given us in the past 10 years?

Well, why do the US have one of the (if not the one) greatest espionage
efforts running, even before septembre last year, even against allies and friends? I though you were friendly and peaceful? Why do you need that then? ….

Yep, we call those the bureaucrats and the bourgeoisie. Maybe they know something vital we don’t and are not willing to share with us?

Noone who has anything to hide likes to show everything to others. And even if you don’t have things in secrecy the othrs would blame you for, would you deliberately give up all your secrets?

Then again we don’t we don’t have UN Sanctions and concessions prohibiting what we do/can have. And that is why we need to have tougher efforts on Iraq - Saddam will never be easy on the inspectors.

Yup, we will see.

What I will say is that Bush fails to get the resolution he calls forth from the United Nations - then, I’ll have to accept it [possible return of inspectors]. I may not like it and call it a huge mistake, but I’ll take my orders like a soldier and live with it.

Kind of, because they let themselves be pushed by Reagan into the armament spiral they couldn’t afford, and which was just adding a few overkills (and therefore was pretty nuch non-sense).

And without it, how long would you think the Soviet Union had before it collapsed?

Or who would be the next president in the Iraq, how would you stabilize the area after losing a major power there?

Hahaha, smart F_alk. You are finally asking questions that have to be answered before any armed intervention is to be made. :)

(I think the Iraqi National Congress will probably take power - or maybe, just maybe the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, Iraqi Communist and Progressive Organizations, and Iraqi Communist Party can band together and make a breakthrough 8))

[Guest]

@TG:

Well I’m not mad at all Saudis. I may not agree with some of their laws such as the banning of dance clubs and movie theaters and their laws against women, but something tells me they have a good chance to becoming a modernized, Occidental country.

Well, if you look where the america-hating fundamentalists get their funding from, then i would surely bet against you, that the Saudis turn occidental.

Then again we don’t we don’t have UN Sanctions and concessions prohibiting what we do/can have. And that is why we need to have tougher efforts on Iraq - Saddam will never be easy on the inspectors.
…
What I will say is that Bush fails to get the resolution he calls forth from the United Nations - then, I’ll have to accept it [possible return of inspectors]. I may not like it and call it a huge mistake, but I’ll take my orders like a soldier and live with it.

True for the first one, but the resolutions don’t cover everything. It still needs a lot of persuasion and fingertips for the inspectors, so that the Iraqis don’t think they just come to see their women naked in the bathrooms. Saddam will not be easy, but he clearly is not on the demanding position, so i expect his “camouflage actions” to be less obvious and more important less actions in number.

And i must say: i hope that Bush fails to get the resolution the way he wants it. We must first see how this situation (with inspectors returning) develops, before further action is taken. That does not exclude that further possible actions are discussed: i think that would be sensible, to make “plans” for what happens if the Iraq cooperates well or if it doesn’t.

… they let themselves be pushed by Reagan into the armament spiral they couldn’t afford…

And without it, how long would you think the Soviet Union had before it collapsed?

I have no idea. But they would not have wasted a lot of precious ressources, which they could have used in the times of Glasnost and Perestoika to keep the country stable.

Hahaha, smart F_alk. You are finally asking questions that have to be answered before any armed intervention is to be made. :)

i must admit: i thought that this was too obvious to mention :)

(I think the Iraqi National Congress will probably take power - or maybe, just maybe the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, Iraqi Communist and Progressive Organizations, and Iraqi Communist Party can band together and make a breakthrough 8))

lol that sounds like “life of brian”… i don’t think that the peoples liberation front will cooperate :)

[TG Moses VI]

Well, if you look where the america-hating fundamentalists get their funding from, then i would surely bet against you, that the Saudis turn occidental.

I call it the love-hate relationship between Abdullah. The problem is the corruption ruling the 30,000 person Saudi Royal family. Government reform is needed, many restive and jobles young Suadis have nowhere to turn in an antidemocratic society governed by puritanical social norms.

And i must say: i hope that Bush fails to get the resolution the way he wants it. We must first see how this situation (with inspectors returning) develops, before further action is taken. That does not exclude that further possible actions are discussed: i think that would be sensible, to make “plans” for what happens if the Iraq cooperates well or if it doesn’t.

I’m not happy with the current UN Negotiations either. IMO, they are too lenient on Saddam and will most likely result in a repeat of ’98. It doesn’t do enough in terms of disarment, terrorism, and violation of previous Sanctions. Nor does it ask for an reform on part of the Iraq government. Both sides can learn from Secretary of State Colin Powell.

I have no idea. But they would not have wasted a lot of precious ressources, which they could have used in the times of Glasnost and Perestoika to keep the country stable.

I doubt that Glasnost or Perestoika would’ve done much good. It seemed more like a empty promise and I doubt if the old Soviet Council would’ve followed through with it. I would much rather of had Stalinism fall now then let the people endure more suffering under despotism and exploitation.

lol that sounds like “life of brian”… i don’t think that the peoples liberation front will cooperate

Maybe… too early to tell. But Iraq turning from a dictatorship to a communist country [in the Middle East of all places] - that would really be something. 8)

[Yanny]

John Stewart (having a pretty serious conversation for his show), gave his own personal opinion on the Iraqi war. I don’t really believe in it, but heres what he said (its interesting).

I don’t think Iraq is really the target here. Iraq is the second largest oil reserve in the Middle East, second to Saudi Arabia. Now, Saudi Arabia funds all these islaamic fundalmentalist schools, and most of the Hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. Maybe Bush is going after Iraq to secure the Oil until he can go after the bigger fish, Saudi Arabia. I don’t think this is a political move, rather a sly strategic move thought up by someone… else (then he shows a clip with Dick Cheney controlling Bush’s mind :))

Also, let me quote someone, who no matter who you are here, is from a person you respect. George Washington, in 1775, before the Second Continental Congress, said:

“War should always be a last resort”

I would like to know what Bush thinks about that. Although I hate Gore, almost as much as I hate Bush, I am glad he stood up and finally started saying he was opposed to this war. It got some Democrats fighting.

Bush, a week ago, and unfortunately, in my home state of NJ, gave a fierce speech. In this speech, he claimed that Congress was not looking out for the security of the American people, refering to anyone opposed to his Homeland Security Bill. President Bush is saying that he does not want to have to deal with Unions in his Homeland Security Department (which every single other department has to deal with), and wants the ability to freely fire anyone without being threatened with a Strike. Good luck to him trying to get that through.

Answer this for me war supporters, is Saddam going to be any more dangerous 6 months from now than he is now? If not, why not wait 6 months and try Diplomatic Solutions, and if he doesn’t completely comply, well then we may have to resort to war. But “War should never be the last resort”.

[TG Moses VI]

“War should always be a last resort”

He also said to keep out of any entangling alliances and generally keep out of foreign affairs - I guess were not doing much of either.

Answer this for me war supporters, is Saddam going to be any more dangerous 6 months from now than he is now?

Gives more time for Saddam to hide his NBC projects and conceal any incriminating documents or other evidence. Allows Saddam more time to prepare for a possible strike and dig in.

[Yanny]

He’s had 12 years as warmongers are so quick to point out. 6 Months is a 1/24th of an increase in time. Is that going to make much of a difference?

Before you sign the death warrants of thousands of people, I’d think you might want to give it some thought.

[Guest]

@TG:

I have no idea. But they would not have wasted a lot of precious ressources, which they could have used in the times of Glasnost and Perestoika to keep the country stable.

I doubt that Glasnost or Perestoika would’ve done much good. It seemed more like a empty promise and I doubt if the old Soviet Council would’ve followed through with it. I would much rather of had Stalinism fall now then let the people endure more suffering under despotism and exploitation.

Well, they have done “some good”, freedom on the cost of total social security. ANd from my point of view, it at least was a try to establish a “reformed communism”. The Soviet Council had no other choice IMHO than to follow it, or go into such an oppression that civil war would have been inevitable.

But, the will for changes is much higher when you are absolutely down, that is true.

lol that sounds like “life of brian”… i don’t think that the peoples liberation front will cooperate

Maybe… too early to tell. But Iraq turning from a dictatorship to a communist country [in the Middle East of all places] - that would really be something. 8)

I am extremely sure that GWB will not allow that !

[Guest]

Anyone here in trading cards?

Then have a look at:

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/cards.html

and for those who can’t take a joke: the real life doesn’t seem to be much better:

http://www.topps.com/Entertainment/Flashback/DesertStorm/desertstorm.html

(a link taken from the first site)

And for all of us strategists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html

Falk

[Mr Ghoul]

@Yanny:

He’s had 12 years as warmongers are so quick to point out. 6 Months is a 1/24th of an increase in time. Is that going to make much of a difference?

Before you sign the death warrants of thousands of people, I’d think you might want to give it some thought.

He’s had 12 years, or whatever, to comply, so in the next 6 months everything will just fall together?

How much time should you crybaby liberals give him?

About your " oh the poor American flag burning Iraqis" stance, do you want a tissue?

[Yanny]

So every country that defies the UN we should attack? Well, Israel is screwed.

Going after Saddam is distracting us from the real war. The real war is to go after those people that brought down the World Trade Center. And Saddam may be a bad man, but he had no role in 9/11. It would be like Japan Bombing us during Pearl Harbor, so we retailiate against Mexico.

[EmuGod]

It would be more likes this: The Japanese attack America at Pearl Harbor, so America retaliates not only against Japan, but against Germany, Japan’s ally. Saddam is Al Qaeda’s ally.

[Yanny]

Give me one shred of proof Saddam even consorted with Al-Quaeda.

And we attacked Germany because they declared war on us ) Originally I believe (for 3 days at least) we were only going after Japan.

[Mr Ghoul]

@Yanny:

So every country that defies the UN we should attack? Well, Israel is screwed.

Going after Saddam is distracting us from the real war. The real war is to go after those people that brought down the World Trade Center. And Saddam may be a bad man, but he had no role in 9/11. It would be like Japan Bombing us during Pearl Harbor, so we retailiate against Mexico.

Its the fact that he’s defies the UN time and time and time and time and time again.
And he does pose a threat to the world, the US.
What more proof do you need?

Besides that, UN democracy is, in some cases, this being one of them, a farce.
Every country has its own politcal agendas.
Their decisions are not made on grounds of high morality and what’s in the best interest of the world.

How about Russia’s stance and refusal to countenace military action to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo?
They backed him to the bitter end.
Some people claim that NATO’s intervention there was illegal, since it lacked explicit UN endorsement.
Yet 19 of the world’s strongest democracies were surely right to act where the UN, divided, could not.

[Yanny]

Well, the reason I think Nato went into the Balkans is they were concerned about such a large region on their continent being destabilized.