We should not attack Iraq

@XI:

T_6,
I mentioned Clinton’s Foreign Policy indiscretions on this string
in my long post of 9/19 on this string. Doubt you read it as it was
long and toward the end. However, I just thought I’d warn you
WE’RE THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINE.

Ha, God help us. :roll: :wink:

@yanny:

He isn’t even commenting on his failing economy

Tell me, when did the economy start to downturn?

September 11th was the catalyst for the economy. It was already going way down, 9/11 just sped it up by 6 months.

No, I mean at what point (specific month) did the economy start to slow down and downturn?

T_6…the economy started it’s downward spiral during the last couple months of Clinton’s administration.

Although I don’t think he’s doing enough to revive it, I wouldn’t go as far as to blame Bush for it. Most of Bush’s portion was due to 9/11, whereas Clinton’s problem was his politics.

T_6…the economy started it’s downward spiral during the last couple months of Clinton’s administration.

You’re right, though I was more looking in the field of March or May 2000.

You’re correct Yanni, I don’t think he’s doing enough either.

He has done things, but quite obviously, it hasn’t been enough. I think his ratings would soar through the roof if he could boost our economy and defeat Iraq in the process.

@TG:

Both sides had enough missiles to destroy the world many times over. It was about maintaining political power and not to lose face.

Do you really think that the US would allow that? As soon as one country starts a “unifiy to statnd up against the US action”, what would be the USs reaction?

You tell me. If the world hates us so bad, then they will make a stand regardless. Certainly we wouldn’t like it, but we would still have to deal with it.

I find that answer not very satisfying.

Was it Lincoln, or Washington (or which former US president) who said something like:
Who wants to change his freedom for security is not worth any of it!

To this would be choosing absolute freedom for no security? A airpart without metal detectors, without baggage checks, or security guards – you could have all the freedom you ever want. Think about it. What would you choose?

Just because i quote someone who’s mindset is more american than mine doesn’t mean i think he is right.
I come from the land which has a strong history in trading its freedom for security. So, my answer is: You tell me :)

…Don’t think you are very special just because you suffered that horrible attack. …

Would terrorist go out of their way to plant a bomb in Mali? How are we so special? If it showed us anything, we aren’t that special. …

Just what i said.

Again your question asks for implication i didn’t make.
…To answer your question: no

“How does the USA react to this threat: Having noticed that someone could actually harm the US (a thought most unpleasant, but once you get used to it, you start to act and behave differently, more sensible, as you think of what your actions might provoke!) for the first time after Pearl Harbor, the USA reacted in shock (understandibly, the truth can be unpleasant), and a combination of force and denial (like: This must never happen again, therefore we kill everyone who we think could do that).”

Ahhh… but the implication was there - unless you are supporting the US all along. Then tell me, if I don’t get this right (doubtful), then what meaning is this message? Again, I posed this as a question (unless you realllyy hate answering those). It was meant for clarification, not fact.
You assume many things from me, too.

I said:
@F_alk:

Force and denial? So we should just forget everything that happened and go about completely the same as normal?

Again your question asks for implication i didn’t make.
This seems to happen quite often, that you things that i didn’t think of (and from my point of view made clear that i didn’t!)
This is very bad style in an argument.

To answer your question: no

There was no implication that you should lean back, do nothing and return to normal.
The only implication was that i hoped you would learn from 11th Sept., in a sensible way.

No, this didn’t happen…… As soon as anybody said “the terrorists attacks could have been provoked” he is muted by the public.

He? Of course we provoked them - we had a better standard of life and they didn’t.

You take up and drop the “standard of life” argument as you please. Either i haven’t understood your point there, or you use it inconsistently.

i dare you:
quote me on that!

“but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.”

Well actually you did say this - though to me (Posted: 19 Sep 2002 08:31). However, it was meant to be included in the Saudi quote and not for something I was suppose to write. For clear up, treat that comment as it was included in the Saudi quote.

You said on the 18th Sept.:

Jealously and animosity run rampant – deal with it. But ask yourself this, and truthfully, would the average spewer of hate not jump at the opportunity to live an American life – would countries of hate resist for one moment to trade their holdings for the wealth of the States?

But, as you meant to include into the Saudi part, ok.

As for outlet of US goods - even though that country “dislikes us,” why purchase American commodities then? What does this tell us?

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.

What does he have to hide? Maybe not lose his pride?

…

Notice: lose his face/pride. A point you accepted for the cold war, but not for Saddam.

Would you allow UN inspectors to go in and inspect everything of the US, including the white house? If you don’t, why do you expect that others eagerly will?
Pride, not losing your face or humiliation…. just think of that possibility.

How many Whitehouses do you know off? How many “palaces” did Saddam have that the UN inspectors did not have access to before 1998? However, to answer that question, if UN inspectors were so sure of finding illegal bombmaking and chemical facilities, then a tour of the Whitehouse for them would be appropriate.

BTW, the access is not just on the White House, what if I told you couldn’t have access to any school or other civilian building in America? Would you call that fair?

Well, usually dictators and monarchs tend to have more palaces. ANd for the “civilian” buildings. Do you know which buildings in the US belong to the NSA? Would be able to get in there as UN inspector? 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”?

It came up in the Journal of Peace Research, my institut has not subscribed to that one…
took me 5 secs with google btw.

Your institute? Start subscribing! :)

Well, we might have, if we had the millions blown up our bums like an american researcher, who is in the same field and noticed you could use that to detect holes and caves …. :)

… Do you really believe Iraq’s Prime Minister when he says Iraq posses no NBCs whatsoever?. … In fact, I asked you what is to be done, and I still haven’t gotten an answer back.

I don’t think that the Iraq has nuclear weapons. I belive they have chemical and maybe biological weapons. They are much easier to produce.
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.

Well, if that is what you see in what i say, then my english must be pretty crappy.

No, it’s your American.

sure, as i don’t speak american :)

But here’s a question, do you think anyone would bother with trying to keep a check on the weapons of mass destruction Iraq is cooking if not for the current President?

Yes, Israel and the Arab nations as his neighbors would try, though not with this blatant saber rattling.

Would the world feel at ease with only the USSR at the trigger?

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.

@F_alk:

Would the world feel at ease with only the USSR at the trigger?

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.

Choke.
cough,
ahem.
Yikes. It wasn’t long ago that we all had Russian nukes aimed at all of us (Canadians too). And it was very recent that there was nearly another coup in Moscow. The economy, crime, and political situations in the USSR are still lacking stability (even relative to the US).
I may agree, however, the the US is looking more and more like the USSR in their “anything that’s good for the US(SR) is good for the world”.

Re: Economic Downturn

Actually, gentlemen, the downturn began in 1998(cannot recall the month.) Due to the Clinton administration’s cooking the books(revealed by the Bush Administration auditing the books)it will take a while to get the #s out.

Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The government’s view of the economy
could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

• Ronald Reagan, Address, August 15, 1986,
  White House Conference on Small Business.

I find that answer not very satisfying.

You’re expecting me to tell the future - I’m not some psychic with a crystal ball. What I can say based on history is that the US does push smaller countries around. However, if the whole bands together (or 50% as stated), I would expect it to be the other way around.

I come from the land which has a strong history in trading its freedom for security. So, my answer is: You tell me

Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Usually there is a degree of saftey you want. Obviously with America (geographically) isolated, you would think we would need very little. However, times have changed - the world has gotten a whole lot smaller. When you start trading “essential” liberties for safety - you’re in a position to lose. But by trading “essential” safeties, you’re also in the same position. I wonder when Ben said that? Pre-Revolution?

Just what i said.

Sure…

There was no implication that you should lean back, do nothing and return to normal.
The only implication was that i hoped you would learn from 11th Sept., in a sensible way.

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

You take up and drop the “standard of life” argument as you please. Either i haven’t understood your point there, or you use it inconsistently.

I have taken up the “standard of life” comment before, but I don’t think I dropped it.

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.

I was talking about the Saudis.

What does he have to hide? Maybe not lose his pride?

Uh, why quote yourself?

Well, usually dictators and monarchs tend to have more palaces. ANd for the “civilian” buildings. Do you know which buildings in the US belong to the NSA? Would be able to get in there as UN inspector?

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

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, we might have, if we had the millions blown up our bums like an american researcher, who is in the same field and noticed you could use that to detect holes and caves ….

Hey holes and caves can be dangerous! :P

I don’t think that the Iraq has nuclear weapons. I belive they have chemical and maybe biological weapons. They are much easier to produce.
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.

sure, as i don’t speak american

Start.

Yes, Israel and the Arab nations as his neighbors would try, though not with this blatant saber rattling.

Then how come, as of now there have been talks about sending weapon inspectors back to Iraq? What was happening between '98 to '01?

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.

@CC:

I may agree, however, the the US is looking more and more like the USSR in their “anything that’s good for the US(SR) is good for the world”.

The Russians had their time. No thanks to Stalin, they blew it.

“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.

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

On what?

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

@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).

@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?

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))

@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 :)

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)