'Islamising' the war ? [Archive]

View Full Version : 'Islamising' the war ?

pascal

31-Mar-2003, 13:56

Will it happens?
Now Syria and Iran are being treated by US http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2901689.stmPowell warns Syria and Iran

Jihad is sending its suicide bombers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,926333,00.htmlThe Palestinian Islamic Jihad group yesterday issued a statement announcing "the good news" that the first of its suicide bombers had arrived in Baghdad. Because of the extremely tight security in Israel, American and British troops in Iraq are likely to become an easier and more attractive target for the foreseeable future.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2901495.stm
Iraqi resistance 'restores Arab honour'

By Martin Asser
BBC News Online Correspondent in Jordan

It pains them as they watch the latest shocking images of bloodshed from Iraq, beamed to their homes without hesitation or censorship by Arabic satellite TV.

I really worry that this war will turn in some "WAR on Islam", the consequences will be tragic.

edited, one more link: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1678842

chavvdarrr

31-Mar-2003, 14:35

unfortunately this could happen, and the possibility rises with every day of war in Iraq. Right now the only hopes for escaping such development are:
1) SH dead and riot in Baghdad
2) very fast victory for US army
3) withdrawal of US forces
IMHO 3 is impossible and undesirable, maybe even worst scenario
2 is questionable, and I hardly believe possible.
1 is best scenario (SH dead), although his death can make him "holy victim" and symbol for arabs.

Sxotty

31-Mar-2003, 14:39

Well the islamic countries are trying to turn it into a war on islam, but that does not necessarily mean it will happen.

When I say that of course not all countries are trying to do it, the middle east makes its money selling oil to the West so the leaders want the west to stil be doing business with the west to pad their pockets, they just want the west to be knocked off their high horse so that they can do what they want w/o worry of intervention.

pascal

01-Apr-2003, 12:21

More Islam coming: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926960,00.htmlNo precise figures are available about the number of foreign Arabs or Muslims seeking to fight in Iraq.

But 36 Lebanese, Palestinians and Egyptians left Beirut yesterday en route for Syria to take up arms in Iraq. Hundreds more have applied for visas. "We are going to fight the Americans, the British and the Zionists who want to take over our land - Arab and Muslim land," Nourredine al-Sayyed, a 24-year-old shopkeeper, told Reuters.

Last week Iraq's embassy in Algeria said more than 100 volunteers had offered to go into battle.

"This is a war for oil and Zionism. We want to help Iraqis, not Saddam," said Amr, a student volunteer from Cairo. "I know I might die. I don't want to kill people but I will if I have to, to protect people like those children with their heads missing."

pax

01-Apr-2003, 14:16

I was amazed at how quickly the US has started to make dangerous decalrations towards Syria and Iran. Its already such a problem trying to keep peoples form other muslim nations from getting involved and making this thing more complicated.

I dont see why Syria has to be warned off because it morally supports the Iraqi people (carefully worded to avoid offering moral support to Saddam). The night vision stuff found on the ground in Iraq was made in Japan and the US. Its obviously grey\black market. Syria isnt so stupid as to blatantly offer military support to Iraq with the US army knocking at its door. Im having even more serious doubts about the US administrations ability to deal with this issue at any level.

Syria and Iran both fought Saddam in the past. Why the US now thinks they would help him is beyond me. Oh I suppose more secret intelligence we cant know about???

K.I.L.E.R

01-Apr-2003, 14:25

The administration probably knows far more than it's letting on. It wouldn't be the first time either.

Sxotty

01-Apr-2003, 14:45

Syria and Iran are not against making money by selling to Iraq, and the countries in the middle east are desperate that we fail, because if we actuallly suceeded in creating a democratic country that spread the incredible oil wealth around, what do you think the people in other arab countries would suddenly want?

And then all the super rich princes and such would have to share their billions, which would be a real shame. :p

chavvdarrr

01-Apr-2003, 15:23

And then all the super rich princes and such would have to share their billions, which would be a real shame. :p
Huh, you think USA will enforce "socialism-alike" democracy?
:)

Sharkfood

02-Apr-2003, 00:04

"I don't want to kill people but I will if I have to, to protect people like those children with their heads missing."

That tells the whole story right there.

It goes to show who the real victims are- it's not the Iraqi people or even the Coalition forces.. it's the folks in Beirut/Syria that are getting media blitzed with propaganda of reports of marines running around chopping off the heads of poor, helpless children... and actually believing it.

Heck, if I was bombarded with fictional and constant reports of marines running around chopping off the heads of Iraqi children, I'd probably do the same. Thus lies the benefit of an open and free press to allow the extremist and propaganda houses be counter-checked with realistic reports.

Sabastian

02-Apr-2003, 01:00

Well the islamic countries are trying to turn it into a war on islam, but that does not necessarily mean it will happen.

Exactly.. but it is more then that. This has been building up for years. The Jihad is a war against western culture and the US is seen as the "head of a snake" and the embodiment of evil. Islam has gone too far with its accusations of the west. Years ago while attending a university anthropology class I learned of the Islamic Jihad movement, it was then I realized that some day this would come to a head. How and when I did not know. Their hatred of western culture is the drive behind their wanting to turn this into a war on Islam. Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result. I am one to think that it also springs from the fact that their once very esteemed culture which is now playing a very much less desirable place in the world then it used to, much of their hatred is incited via cultural jealousy.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 01:34

Joe DeFuria

02-Apr-2003, 01:50

Certainly more enlightening than your "solutions" presented to date, pascal, which, if my memory serves, amounts completely to:

"let's learn to be friends!"

Very....very insightful.

:roll:

I find it ironic that you, the preacher of friendship, to make posts like your last one that do little more than personally insult, where no insult was thrown your own way.

With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 02:48

Certainoly more enlightening than your "solutions" presented to date, pascal, which, if my memory serves, amounts completely to:

"let's learn to be friends!"

Very....very insightful.

:roll:
First, to be a friend is not agree with everything someone say.

I find it ironic that you, the preacher of firnedship, to make posts like your last one that do little more than personally insult, where no insult was thrown your own way.
Yes it is ironic, but things like "Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result." doesnt sound right in many senses to me. My initial intention was not to personally insult him, if Sabastian feels that way then my apologies.

With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?
Joe, you are very direct and I like that, but if you have more to say than say now. Probably this is not because what I said to Sabastian but because you probably dont like my general position. Tell me how I am your "friend"? Because I dont agree? Because I keep remind you that there is a WAR with people dieng there? Because I keep remind you the many dangers of the actions in course? Because I keep trying to break your rose coloured glasses?

No, you want a silent pseudofriend, just ask and I can do that for you because I know you since 1998, and I still consider you a friend.

Joe DeFuria

02-Apr-2003, 04:29

Sabastian

02-Apr-2003, 05:33

I moved this post from the other thread. It seems more appropriate here.

Funny how you must attack the US at every turn on this. You f*cking hypocrite. When the US is responsible for something you crucify them when it is someone else you are mostly ... indifferent. Its all attached to your political bias Pascal, isn't it?
What do you know about me? Is this about me or the war?
This is what I call a VERY DIRECT PERSONALL INSULT.

I am not indifferent. Nobody said that Sadam is a saint here. I was showing a picture and YOU come with comments then I had to react.

The reason I made my comments is because I precieved hypocrisy in your constant critique of the coalition action in Iraq. I am not wrong with that preception AFAICT.

We also can't have the pictures of all the people that would have died at the hands of Saddam in the future can we? To point out this one poor sole as if the US did it on purpose. Lets talk about the millions of people of Iraq whom died under Saddams regime intensionally. You seem to make some sort of pathetic moral equivalence between the millions of people whom have died under his rule and the hundreds of civilians that will die in the Liberation of Iraq. Further the deaths of civilians is being avoided as much as possible by the US and UK the same cannot be said about Saddams efforts.
No I dont do any moral equivalence. You are completelly wrong.

Nice rebuttal, how insightful. :roll: I would like to pick a little harder here. If this is the case then if they are not morally equivalent then how, may I ask, are they different? Meaning which is worse in your judgement? Are the protestors justified in their support of the Saddam regime? If so why is it that Iraq is better off with Saddam in control rather then the coalition?

If you don't draw a moral equivalence then in your opinion whom is the better choice for the Iraqi people, the coalition and a new government or the continuance of Saddams socialist Baath party?

You ignore the atrocities committed by Saddam and focus on the liberators of Iraq to the point where you are suggesting they are worse and that the Iraqi people would be better off under Saddam.

Now lets see you tear a rip out of Saddams oppressive regime and point out all the wrongs committed by him. You won't though because you think the Iraqi were better off with him or what? lol ... hypocrisy. :roll:

I am not suggesting anything. Are you disturbed by the picture of the man above? Maybe you still have hope.

Yes you are saying things with your picture and comments about liberation. It is antagonistic. Now I want to know why it is that you think that I am the one who needs "hope" when you are the one whom is convently forgetting the massive incursions on the people of Iraq by Saddam..

Hypocrisy is saying you are going there to liberate Iraq.

How so? While they are liberating the people of Iraq they are also acheiving other objectives. To say that this is the only reason is hypocrisy. I nore have anyone else made such a claim. Hypocrisy is to defend Saddam and his oppressive regime over the coalition even though he is a far worse destiny for the people of Iraq.

Hypocrisy is say that all possible peacefull means were used to disarm him.

This is not hypocrisy. While they have let Iraq get away with throwing the UN inspectors out of Iraq multiple times and mislead the inspectors for 12 years no less it is not hypocritical to say that all possible peaceful diplomatic means, that actually had a chance of working, were actually exhausted. AFAIK there has never been such an exception ever. Saddam would just keep playing his games in order to stay in power till the day he died. Further the removal of such a bad government and its military is a great thing. There are plenty of good arguments for his removal and very few good arguments to salvage the SOB.

Hypocrisy is say "Poor sole..... " for the human tragedy.

I don't understand. The real human tragedy was to let him rule for so long and terrorize his own country with torture, chemical weapons terroristic death squads. That is the real human tragedy that you and the people whom are protesting the war should be worried about. Not the US and UK taking action and this BTW is where you are hypocritical. Type it out " the US and the UK are doing a good thing by removing Saddam and his regime".... then expalian why they are doing the right thing and you bloody well know it. What is even more shameful is that the UN lead by France, Germany, Russia and China was perfectly willing to let the dictator continue his rule and favor yet the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country.

Hypocrisy is other things...

Hypocrisy is defending an unjust government such as Saddams regime is over something that will clearly be a better thing for the Iraqi people simply because the US is involved. That is hypocrisy.

Sabastian

02-Apr-2003, 05:36

kyleb

02-Apr-2003, 07:41

The administration probably knows far more than it's letting on. It wouldn't be the first time either.

or it is sletting on far more than it's knows. it wouldn't be the first time either. :wink:

jvd

02-Apr-2003, 07:57

unless of course the u.s wants them to attack or break laws set by the u.n to let us attack. It can all be a ruse . We have such a small force in iraq , Its taking a very long time to win. We are still letting them use tvs and letting saddam speak to the people . We may just be playing with iraq waiting for other arab nations to make mistakes so we can go in and liberate them.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 13:02

First, to be a friend is not agree with everything someone say.

Point? To be friendly means not insulting others by posting sarcastic comments that have no other substance behind it. You are always preaching how we should all just "learn to be friends", yet you don't take courses of action that indicate you are serious about it.

You're hypocritical.

Yes I am serious about it, the fact that I was sarcastic with Sabastian was a mistake. I did because I was tired yesterday to write something significative, then I wrote this quick sarcastic reply.

But then call me hypocritical is too much and THAT is insulting. The fact is you disagree with my "courses of action" as I can see below.

Yes it is ironic, but things like "Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result." doesnt sound right in many senses to me. My initial intention was not to personally insult him, if Sabastian feels that way then my apologies.

You didn't think making sarcastic comments about his "elightening" comments was insulting?
No, just sarcastic but not insulting. It is insulting for people who read it as insulting. Looks like you do. Insulting is "You f*cking hypocrite".

Joe, you are very direct and I like that, but if you have more to say than say now. Probably this is not because what I said to Sabastian but because you probably dont like my general position.

Both.
Then my reply to Sabastian act like a trigger for you.

Tell me how I am your "friend"? Because I dont agree? Because I keep remind you that there is a WAR with people dieng there?

No, because you insulted him at the same time that you are preaching "friends'.

The fact that you feel the need to post every propaganda link and photo from the guardian you can think of...the fact that you feel some need to "remind" us all of what we already know, is just annoying and frankly, childish.

So how are things I post propaganda? And the other post are not? Then you are using double standard here. The photos were from guardian, stopwar, BBC and CNN. Did I showed mutilated people? No just a crying child, some pacific demonstration and a poor man desesperete and crying.
Those are pictures of war, not propaganda.

If I were posting propaganda then it could be very different. epicstruggle
posted the picture of a injured child, do you think it is propaganda?

The war is annoying, hiding from it is childish.

Because I keep remind you the many dangers of the actions in course?

Because we aren't well aware of them?Are you sure?

Because I keep trying to break your rose coloured glasses?

What rose colored glasses are those, pascal? The ones that believe that loss of life is unfortunate, but war is sometimes justified? That we can believe that THIS specific war is justified?

Seems to me, those who believe that war is sometimes necessary, are the last people to be wearing rose colored glasses.

On the other hand, I'd love to wear those rose colored glasses of yours where we (nations of the world) can just "learn to be friends" and that's considered a "solution." And I'd like to wear whatever goggles you are donning that actually thinks people such as myself are not aware of the casualties of war.No, the one that believe that this specific premptive war without international consensus is the way to go.

See the consequences of war now. As example look Sabastian post and how he probably think in some way that the Muslin world is the enemy. See how the Arab and Muslim world internally react to what is happening. See how Russia and other countries are suspicious about US actions. See how the transatlantic relations deteriorated and the possible consequences of your actions. See how the world relations already deteriorated.

Now I ask you, do you want me to be your friend or to be friendlly? Probably you know they are different positions. The multibillion bribed Turkey is your friend but the long old French are not anymore?

The human tragedy that comes with war is inevtable and we cannot negate that. I could have mentioned some disturbing causalities incidents but I didnt, I just posted the picture of an incredbilly poor man.

Sxotty

02-Apr-2003, 13:52

The french are as much our friend as they ever were pascal, you should use Germany for an example instead, but that situation will clear up.

Joe DeFuria

02-Apr-2003, 14:57

RussSchultz

02-Apr-2003, 15:00

At the time of this writing, there are Iraqi paramilitary troops in a Mosque in Basra firing at us and we are not firing back. The US and Coalition has said this is not against "Islam", is not against the IRaqi people, and our ACTIONS prove that out.

I believe you're talking about the Ali Mosque in Najaf. At the Iraqi press conference, the information minister accused the US of targetting the mosque (Of course the US Brig. Gen. Brooks claimed we did not return fire).

Its apparently one of the most holy Shi-ite sites and the Iraqi regime is attempting to get the Shi-ites to forget about the years of oppression.

Sadly, it will work for some portion of the population.

chavvdarrr

02-Apr-2003, 15:23

See how Russia and other countries are suspicious about US actions. See how the transatlantic relations deteriorated and the possible consequences of your actions. See how the world relations already deteriorated. Where has world relations deteriorated to any material extent at this point.. I have seen ZERO evidence thus far of anything of the sort. All I've seen is a lot of beurocrats bitching and moaning, misguided "product boycots" that don't mean squat, and the typical leftist "peace protests" that destroy propertry.
You should wake up.
Russian forums for example are full with people who believe in 10 years USA will try to "instill" US-type of democracy there.
Writing there that not all americans are evil is best way to be called fool or moron.
I admit even before pro-USA people were minority there, but I'm shocked by the anti-US tone there now. Especially by the tone, not of the "anti-" .
Honestly I don't know european country where pro-US moods are more than anti- .
With power USA can rule the world.
With arrogant behaviour USA can't lead .

Gollum

02-Apr-2003, 15:40

Its apparently one of the most holy Shi-ite sites and the Iraqi regime is attempting to get the Shi-ites to forget about the years of oppression.

Sadly, it will work for some portion of the population.
I don't think they will forget the years of opression, just don't expect them to run to the coalition forces with open arms. Why? Because they also didn't forget that the coalition of the first gulf war refused to help them when they revolted against Saddam, causing them to get slaughtered by his republican guard in the long run. We didn't help them back then so they are still doubtfull, I personally don't blame them...

Sabastian

02-Apr-2003, 15:53

You should wake up.
Russian forums for example are full with people who believe in 10 years USA will try to "instill" US-type of democracy there.
Writing there that not all americans are evil is best way to be called fool or moron.
I admit even before pro-USA people were minority there, but I'm shocked by the anti-US tone there now. Especially by the tone, not of the "anti-" .
Honestly I don't know european country where pro-US moods are more than anti- .
With power USA can rule the world.
With arrogant behaviour USA can't lead .

In 10 years? That is ridiculous. Further I saw one pole out of Russia that found that the vast majority of the people in Russia believe the US is trying to take over the world.... an even more preposterous conclusion. Just speaks volumes of the ignorance that seems to be prevailing. I don't recall massive protest against the Russian slaughter house in Chechnia.

More left wing hypocrisy. The only focus of their politic is the US and it is pathetic. Never mind the US is a far more just country then most any other in the world. I am not shocked by the anti-US tone, it has always been there to a degree. The left wing organized protest against the war effort in Iraq is pathetic and it ignores the injustices done to the Iraqi people by Saddam and his regime.

The countries of France, Germany, Russia and China are not concerned with the people of Iraq and all this anti war protest is more about the spread of Capitalism, Democracy and the fall of yet another Socialist government that Saddams Baath party was.

The US and UK are doing a fine job in Iraq and soon all this protest will fade to shame. Shame in that they were defending Saddam and his regime. Shame in that the people of Iraq will be better off under a new democratic government. Shame that the UK and US did the right thing. Shame in that the UN was attempting to salvage Saddam and his regime and preferred the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country of Iraq. When the US and the UK bring out all the facts on just how brutal the old Iraqi government really was. The fact that Saddam was harbouring terrorist training camps and preaching hate towards the US. The production and use of chemical weapons ....... on and on. If their is not shame then it will be because the left wing protestors cannot see past their bias and shallow thinking.

There will be only one conclusion IMO that in the end and that is that the US and UK absolutely did the right thing in removing the Saddam regime and that all the opposition to the removal was not based on concern for the well being of the Iraqi people but of less then altruistic motives. There will be some revelations come the end of Saddams government and I believe that they will be very positive with regards to the US and UK removal of the old Iraqi government.

On the matter of the US ruling the world... just where the hell does that come from? The only organization that I see trying to rule the world in the UN. Further on the matter of leading.. the US and UK have shown great leadership in the face of adversity here this is a marked characteristic of leaders.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 15:57

I did because I was tired yesterday to write something significative, then I wrote this quick sarcastic reply.

But that's not what friends do, right, pascal? You're a miserable failure at diplomacy. Sabastian and I share no responsibility in the matter about how your words are perceived. Perception is reality. There is no excuse for your insulting language. At least, that's what you feel about the Bush adminstration, and "diplomacy" right? Unless, of course, you're just being hypocritical.

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

Again you are making a storm in a cup of water. I was sarcastic and I have already asked his apology, then I am not contradicting myself.

I really disagree with his view of the world. Hypocrisy would be close my eyes or simple agree with you and pretend everything is fine.

So how are things I post propaganda? And the other post are not? Then you are using double standard here. The photos were from guardian, stopwar, BBC and CNN...

First of all, it's not all about the photos. It's about threads like this one where the implications are being made that the U.S. is turning this into "War on Islam" because of how we are "treating" certain nations.

The treating is a fact. The result is further radicalization and more hate and exploitation by the others.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war? The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Hello? We have amreican soldiers in Iraq. And we will do what we can to protect them. WHOEVER we feel is aiding and abiding our "enemy" will be called on it.

We pointed out NATIONS. Not MUSLIMS.

Saddam, on the other hand, is calling for Jihad in his last "statement" read by the Information Ministry.

If there is in any way some real "War on Islam", it would be an "Islam war on the U.S."Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?
Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?

At the time of this writing, there are Iraqi paramilitary troops in a Mosque in Basra firing at us and we are not firing back. The US and Coalition has said this is not against "Islam", is not against the IRaqi people, and our ACTIONS prove that out.

You should be fuming at those who encourage "Islam" to rise up against the U.S. What is fuming? Anyway are not US actions treating some islam countries? Are you surprised by their reaction?

No, the one that believe that this specific premptive war without international consensus is the way to go.

So, how does harping on casualties of war, when we are well aware of them, further make that point for you? It doesn't.What is harping? Where did I have done that with casualities of war? IIRC I complained about 100 deads in one night and one hospital. Is this harping or whatever?

As example look Sabastian post and how he probably think in some way that the Muslin world is the enemy.

When MUSLIMS DECLARE WAR ON THE U.S. IN THE NAME OF ISLAMIC JIHAD, is it surprising?
Then, do you believe the same thing?

See how the Arab and Muslim world internally react to what is happening.

Is it because we declared war on Islam? That hasn't happened last time I checked.It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

See how Russia and other countries are suspicious about US actions. See how the transatlantic relations deteriorated and the possible consequences of your actions. See how the world relations already deteriorated.

Where has world relations deteriorated to any material extent at this point.. I have seen ZERO evidence thus far of anything of the sort. All I've seen is a lot of beurocrats bitching and moaning, misguided "product boycots" that don't mean squat, and the typical leftist "peace protests" that destroy propertry.

What else is new.First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.

The product boycot and bureocrat moaning may go more than that as time pass. The fact that Russia will rethink its security is enough to see how things deteriorated.

Now I ask you, do you want me to be your friend or to be friendlly?

I just want you to be non hypocritical in your position, or at least offer an alternative to the war on Iraq. Something more tangible than "let's all be friends!"
On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.
The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means. IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

The multibillion bribed Turkey is your friend..

Yup...we must bribe people to be our friends. Go it.
Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

but the long old French are not anymore?

Since when HAVE they been any more a friend than they are now?What do mean by that? It is not the same as "since when have they been less friend than before".

The human tragedy that comes with war is inevtable and we cannot negate that.

And no one is trying to. Though you seem to turn a blind eye to the human tragedy to Iraqis that is inevitible by letting Sadam's regime to continue.
And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

I could have mentioned some disturbing causalities incidents but I didnt, I just posted the picture of an incredbilly poor man.

Again, this is not so much about the pictures you posted, but your continual rhetorical bashing of the U.S.
This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

Sabastian

02-Apr-2003, 16:16

Pascal I am still very much waiting for a response to my questions. Frends don't ignore one another. Oh wait, I understand now you ignore the questions just like you ignore the acts of Saddam and his regime and only focus on the actions of the US to find the devil.

Anyhow my post is here. http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=100497&highlight=#100497

I expect some good answers to the questions frend.

Gollum

02-Apr-2003, 17:04

In 10 years? That is ridiculous. Further I saw one pole out of Russia that found that the vast majority of the people in Russia believe the US is trying to take over the world.... an even more preposterous conclusion. Just speaks volumes of the ignorance that seems to be prevailing. I don't recall massive protest against the Russian slaughter house in Chechnia.
Chechenia is a very different situation than Iraq and you can't compare the two even remotely. Only the most glaring difference: one is the military invasion/occupation of a foreign souvereign country, the other is military intervention against rebel factions and terrorists on your own territory. What is going on in Chechenia is maybe comparable to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but even then you need to be simplyfying both situations to draw a direct comparison.

More left wing hypocrisy. The only focus of their politic is the US and it is pathetic. Never mind the US is a far more just country then most any other in the world. I am not shocked by the anti-US tone, it has always been there to a degree. The left wing organized protest against the war effort in Iraq is pathetic and it ignores the injustices done to the Iraqi people by Saddam and his regime.
Pfff, LOL! Sorry, but just what do you think you know about Russian politics dude? Maybe you should spend less time being shocked about the opinions of others and more time trying to understand where those opinions come from? That's really the whole problem here, a lack of empathy towards the feelings of people elsewhere in the world. Oh my, why don't they like us? But we're such nice guys, what's there not to love about us? Dang, must they be ignorant fools, I am shocked!

The countries of France, Germany, Russia and China are not concerned with the people of Iraq and all this anti war protest is more about the spread of Capitalism, Democracy and the fall of yet another Socialist government that Saddams Baath party was.
Now stop right there, you just managed to insult like 1.5 billion people in one sentence, that's quite an accomplishment! If that doesn't go down as "most offensive comment this year yet" on these boards then I don't know what will! Its so easy to just throw all people and countries that are against this war into one bowl and make up some negative things about them to feel and say, yes? Much easier than spending any effort thinking about that there might be some very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US. Only a little while ago and in some cases for dozens of years, several of these these countries have pretty much completely backed the US policy. Did you ever stop to think that yes, there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why suddenly they disagree this time? And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas. If that is what you need to think to keep yourself happy then be free to do so, just spare the rest of us with it as you're beeing insulting.

The US and UK are doing a fine job in Iraq and soon all this protest will fade to shame. Shame in that they were defending Saddam and his regime.
Shame that you don't understand that protesting this war does NOT equal defeninding Saddam's regime, thank you very much Sir!

Shame in that the people of Iraq will be better off under a new democratic government. Shame that the UK and US did the right thing. Shame in that the UN was attempting to salvage Saddam and his regime and preferred the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country of Iraq.
Shame that the oil for food program was one of the few postive actions initiated over the past decade, I guess what you mean are the other sanctions, those and Saddam impoverished the country, you find me in full agreement with that.

When the US and the UK bring out all the facts on just how brutal the old Iraqi government really was. The fact that Saddam was harbouring terrorist training camps and preaching hate towards the US. The production and use of chemical weapons ....... on and on. If their is not shame then it will be because the left wing protestors cannot see past their bias and shallow thinking.
I think we all know what a brutal regime Saddam had, we don't need to "expose" that first. If anobody needs to feel ashamed of anything, then its France and the US, who have for a very long time worked together with Saddam, providing him with both military equipment and resources for the creation of biological and chemical weapons for decades! Hipocrisy seems to be a popular word these days, IMO it his hipocrisy to sell WDM to Saddam or help him produce them and then complain he is in posession of them. It is hipocrisy to not say anything against him using them against the people of Iran and his own, as long as it was still in the interest of the US during the late 80ies. I could go on with this list, but you can find out about all that if you spend some time reading about the Iran/Iraq and Gulf War. No conspiracy theories involved, just plain and simple facts...

There will be only one conclusion IMO that in the end and that is that the US and UK absolutely did the right thing in removing the Saddam regime and that all the opposition to the removal was not based on concern for the well being of the Iraqi people but of less then altruistic motives. There will be some revelations come the end of Saddams government and I believe that they will be very positive with regards to the US and UK removal of the old Iraqi government.
Removing the Saddam regime is an entirely good thing, I think that despite your thinking otherwise, you will find few people who will disagree with that. The time, circumstances and means of doing so are an entirely different matter though, and worth of debate...

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 17:43

Sorry Sabastian :(

Just Joe response got a lot of precious time.

The reason I made my comments is because I precieved hypocrisy in your constant critique of the coalition action in Iraq. I am not wrong with that preception AFAICT.
How do you know you are not wrong? Yes critique in a open forum the existence of this war the way is has been done. I critique the possibility of send people to Guatanamo Bay without proper trial. I critique the actions that may contribute to the possible Islamizing of the war. I ask the world concerns about the future US actions.

What is wrong with that Sabastian? Is this a free world or not? Or this "liberation" talk is just pure talk?

Nice rebuttal, how insightful. :roll: I would like to pick a little harder here. If this is the case then if they are not morally equivalent then how, may I ask, are they different? Meaning which is worse in your judgement? Are the protestors justified in their support of the Saddam regime? If so why is it that Iraq is better off with Saddam in control rather then the coalition?

If you don't draw a moral equivalence then in your opinion whom is the better choice for the Iraqi people, the coalition and a new government or the continuance of Saddams socialist Baath party?
Which protestors are really supportting Sadam? They are against the war which is different.

Also you excluded a third possibility that was possible before the war started. IMHO now we have gone after the return point. Now I am concerned with the development of the war.

Yes you are saying things with your picture and comments about liberation. It is antagonistic. Now I want to know why it is that you think that I am the one who needs "hope" when you are the one whom is convently forgetting the massive incursions on the people of Iraq by Saddam.. I stated a fact with the picture "Man with all his family killed", this you cannot deny. The picture IMHO is very touching and show part of the war that we should not hide below the carpet. Then you come with a sarcastic comment about the poor man.

Hypocrisy is saying you are going there to liberate Iraq.

How so? While they are liberating the people of Iraq they are also acheiving other objectives. To say that this is the only reason is hypocrisy. I nore have anyone else made such a claim. Hypocrisy is to defend Saddam and his oppressive regime over the coalition even though he is a far worse destiny for the people of Iraq.
Again, nobody is defending Sadam. IIRC US has gone to disarm Iraq from WMD.

Hypocrisy is say that all possible peacefull means were used to disarm him.

This is not hypocrisy. While they have let Iraq get away with throwing the UN inspectors out of Iraq multiple times and mislead the inspectors for 12 years no less it is not hypocritical to say that all possible peaceful diplomatic means, that actually had a chance of working, were actually exhausted. AFAIK there has never been such an exception ever. Saddam would just keep playing his games in order to stay in power till the day he died. Further the removal of such a bad government and its military is a great thing. There are plenty of good arguments for his removal and very few good arguments to salvage the SOB.
This is not what UN, its inspectors and many countries around the world think. Dont mix the morality of depose Sadam to the morality of preemptive war in an unstable region of the world.

Hypocrisy is say "Poor sole..... " for the human tragedy.

I don't understand. The real human tragedy was to let him rule for so long and terrorize his own country with torture, chemical weapons terroristic death squads. That is the real human tragedy that you and the people whom are protesting the war should be worried about. Not the US and UK taking action and this BTW is where you are hypocritical. Type it out " the US and the UK are doing a good thing by removing Saddam and his regime".... then expalian why they are doing the right thing and you bloody well know it. What is even more shameful is that the UN lead by France, Germany, Russia and China was perfectly willing to let the dictator continue his rule and favor yet the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country.
IMHO you was sarcastic when you made your comments. Long term Embargo can also be seen as favouring human tragedy.
Nobody was willing to let the dictator continue to rule, but US imposed the war to the world.

Hypocrisy is other things...

Hypocrisy is defending an unjust government such as Saddams regime is over something that will clearly be a better thing for the Iraqi people simply because the US is involved. That is hypocrisy.
Again, again, again and again. Nobody is defending this asshole.
Just STOP trying to put words in my mouth.

Sabastian

02-Apr-2003, 17:57

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

Again you are making a storm in a cup of water. I was sarcastic and I have already asked his apology, then I am not contradicting myself.

I really disagree with his view of the world. Hypocrisy would be close my eyes or simple agree with you and pretend everything is fine.

No you are right. You are nothing but a drop in the bucket. I won't apologize because you are being hypocritical overall with your efforts to find the devil in every US activity.

Just where do you disagree exactly? Maybe we can hash this out. Give me some more evidence that my views are absolutely incorrect. Give me some real arguments as of yet you have not done so.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war? The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Well the Jihad against the US has been on for years now. Islam has adopted more and more hatred of the US based on religious rhetoric. The attack on the World Trade Center amongst numerous other US targets outside of the US over the past 20 or so years now could be seen as the real preemptive war. Terrorism and the mentalities that support it ought to be stood up too. The only destabilization that is being perpetuated is happening in the Arab countries by their governments and radical movements such as Jihad. Hrm, I don't think Joe could be on topic any better really.

Saddam, on the other hand, is calling for Jihad in his last "statement" read by the Information Ministry.

If there is in any way some real "War on Islam", it would be an "Islam war on the U.S."

Exactly.

Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?
Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?.

You should be fuming at those who encourage "Islam" to rise up against the U.S.

What is fuming? Anyway are not US actions treating some islam countries? Are you surprised by their reaction?

Well it is the Islamic Jihad that has declared war on the US AFAIK the US has never nor would ever declare a war on a religion. lol what happened to the left wing desperation to separate religion and state... oh that must have only been for the Christians. More left wing hypocrisy. From what I have seen the west not standing up to the Islamic Jihad has only created a sense that what the Islamic Jihad stands for is right. There is very little in the way of internal critisism from withing Islam about the motives of the Jihad or if it is wrong. Opposition to the brainwashing that the Jihad requires is needed at this point. It must be shut down somehow because it is wrong. It is Islam that must do some sole searching at this point.

As example look Sabastian post and how he probably think in some way that the Muslin world is the enemy.

When MUSLIMS DECLARE WAR ON THE U.S. IN THE NAME OF ISLAMIC JIHAD, is it surprising?

No, not from what I have learned of their movement. It is a particularly violent movement that teaches its followers to become suicide bombers and hate Americans and westerners in general. They are upset about the plight of their Islamic countries less then favorable position in the world and are jealous of the west and their success. The movement is responsible for planning and attacking America via terroristic implements. America should defend itself against this terrorism to do otherwise only gives them the impression that their actions are justifiable.

It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

Here ... while Iraq was reputed as being a secular state now because they are an Arab state this is some sort of war on Islam? Or terrorism? Both? Oh I see now... it is a war on a race. :roll: It has little to do with race, unless of course the Arab nation makes it one. So the Arabs are the racists? Hrm, you defend the dictator found in Saddam, you defend the mix of religion and state for Islam, you defend racism, by defending Islam BTW you defend the subordination of women on mass in the Islamic culture. You defend terrorism by perpetuating your anti American bias. You defend hate mongering by the Islamic Jihad. Your a hypocrite.

First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.

No you are wrong these protest are organized by the left on a massive scale. They are loosely associated but they were able to stage demonstrations simultaneously accrossed Europe. The protest are predominantly left wingers and it is obvious that they are not interested in the well being of the Iraqi people but rather attacking the US lead action. Their were no massive protest to the war in Chechnia and the slaughter there was far more brutal there with the Russian military attacking the civilian population heavily...... funny that? more hypocrisy.

Now I ask you, do you want me to be your friend or to be friendlly?

I would like to see better rational for your anti US bias overall.

On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.

Sometimes the truth is more hurtful I guess. Your view of the US is hypocritical thats all.

The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means. IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

The alternative to war has been effective for the past 12 years no less. France with its insistence that the threat of war not be used to disarm Saddams regime would simply see the continuance but this would have went on and on until the UN gave up.

The human tragedy that comes with war is inevtable and we cannot negate that.

It was so because Saddam was not going to give up his weapons of mass destruction. It was so because they train terrorist in Iraq. It was because Saddam refused to step down as their leader. It was because the Iraqi people should be liberated from his horrible rule. There are plenty of reasons why the war was necessary. The real human tragedy come from the fact that him and his Socialist Baath party had ruend the lives of millions and if he was still in power in that country it possibly would have been millions more. Again I will add that the UN supported his regime and the oil for food bartering program that did nothing for the country but impoverish the people.

And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

While the war is not over it will be interesting to see just how much collateral damage was actually inflicted by the coalition military action and just how much was committed by the Baath party regime. There is far more evidence to suggest that collateral damage to the country was already in place with Saddam as the countries ruler with the third world impoverishment of its people and the massive deaths of children under his rule to the tune of 500 000 over the past decade.

This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

The disagreement is more then simply a disagreement. It is about the truth and what is the right thing to do. That is why there is a problem. My problem is that I believe very much so that the coalition is doing the right thing and it is based on a variety of reasons while yours seems to be based on pacifism and left wing political agenda of which I think is inherently wrong and flawed. The hypocrisy is real.

Joe DeFuria

02-Apr-2003, 18:00

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

There, you are wrong.

Because you, and everyone else who makes implications about motives and agendas of, me, the president, etc., is exactly affecting their perception.

The treating is a fact.

No, "treatment" is by definition a subjective term. And this is your problem. You treat subjective things as facts.

The FACTS are simply what was said. How this is interpreted as some poor or disrespectful "treatment" is subjective.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war?

So, you are saying this is a pre-emptive war against Islam?

Is there ANY justification for that type or argument? Or fo you think that if "it happens", it's actually because of "Islam" doing things like you are doing: making implications that and wrong conclusions about what this war is about, and who it's against.

The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Sure, anything's possible. Topic closed then?

Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?

Yes, you are a diplomacy failure.

If you can't understand LOUD AND CLEAR that I don't care WHO YOU ARE...MUSLIM, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, ETC. If you are aiding the Iraqi resistance in any way, we don't like it, because our troops are out there!

If Muslims take that as a personal affront to ISLAM, then they have a problem.

If it's RADICALS that you are concerned with....then your suggestion then is to what? Not make relevant statements because we are afraid of them? You mean, give credibility to their terroristic ways and threats?

Sorry, I don't want to live like that.

To be clear. I'd RATHER live with some "threat" of terrorism, than to have those terroristic threats influence what we think is right.

Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?

That's the way you make it sound...that's what Saddam wants too.

Then, do you believe the same thing?

I believe that the RADICALS are trying to MAKE THIS A WAR OF ISLAM. Despite our efforts and actions to the contrary. Whether or not it will be of any serious consequence beyond protests in the street remains to be seen.

It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

No, it's it because it is perceived as such a war by arab radicals, and then propagandized to the arab masses that way.

First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.

Point?

The product boycot and bureocrat moaning may go more than that as time pass. The fact that Russia will rethink its security is enough to see how things deteriorated.

Yeah, and as time passes we might actually get a "thank you" too depending on how the war goes, what is found out, etc.

Anything is possible.

On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.

It should be.

The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means.

What alternative?!

IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

Pascal, you continually fail to appreciate this as an issue of our nation's soverign right to defend itself, vs. going along with "international consesus."

It is a valid argument that has two sides to it.

We simply feel that while there ARE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES by going to war without UN Approval, those risks are outweighed by the risks of not going.

I wish you would acknowledge that we ARE AWARE of possible negative conseqences, "strained relations" (whatever that means in material terms), etc. We just see it as better than the alternative, which is letting Sadam go on with business as usual.

Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

We are offering to pay them, as we should. Any time a nation lends us it's resources, and puts ITSELF at some risk be allowing us to use it's land, etc., they should EXPECT something in return, and the U.S. was willing, and should be willing, to pay for the risks we are asking them to take.

That's not a BRIBE. That's common sense.

What do mean by that? It is not the same as "since when have they been less friend than before".

I mean what exactly has changed between us and the French in terms of our relationship?

And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

Sigh. NO ONE IS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO ANYTHING.

This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

No, agreement is not a prerequisite to being my friend or not. However, misrepresenting my views is a sure way to not become my friend.

Sabastian

02-Apr-2003, 18:26

Chechenia is a very different situation than Iraq and you can't compare the two even remotely. Only the most glaring difference: one is the military invasion/occupation of a foreign souvereign country, the other is military intervention against rebel factions and terrorists on your own territory. What is going on in Chechenia is maybe comparable to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but even then you need to be simplyfying both situations to draw a direct comparison.

I am not comparing the two wars directly. What I am saying is that there were not massively organized pacifist protest to the slaughter in Chechnia and to protest the US action based on pacifism is hypocrisy.

Pfff, LOL! Sorry, but just what do you think you know about Russian politics dude? Maybe you should spend less time being shocked about the opinions of others and more time trying to understand where those opinions come from? That's really the whole problem here, a lack of empathy towards the feelings of people elsewhere in the world. Oh my, why don't they like us? But we're such nice guys, what's there not to love about us? Dang, must they be ignorant fools, I am shocked!

Hey "dude" that portion of my post was not necessarily an analysis of Russian politics. It was however an implication of left wing hypocrisy.

Now stop right there, you just managed to insult like 1.5 billion people in one sentence, that's quite an accomplishment! If that doesn't go down as "most offensive comment this year yet" on these boards then I don't know what will! Its so easy to just throw all people and countries that are against this war into one bowl and make up some negative things about them to feel and say, yes? Much easier than spending any effort thinking about that there might be some very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US. Only a little while ago and in some cases for dozens of years, several of these these countries have pretty much completely backed the US policy. Did you ever stop to think that yes, there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why suddenly they disagree this time? And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas. If that is what you need to think to keep yourself happy then be free to do so, just spare the rest of us with it as you're beeing insulting.

The implication was directed at the governments not the people directly. You ought to get a little sharper with your reading comprehension. To dismiss the vast incursions of significant others and to focus on the US is hypocritical. The fact that they supported US military action before shows that it is not a matter of concern for life but rather that this time they have something to loose. If you think for a second that the states opposing the military action in Iraq are doing so because of altruistic concern for the well being of the Iraqi people you are fooling yourself.

Shame that you don't understand that protesting this war does NOT equal defeninding Saddam's regime, thank you very much Sir!

Nice rebuttal.. I would like for you to explain just how it is not. Since there would be no removal of his regime without this action. That is ... a very bad argument you got going there. Lets hope this reply causes you to be more ... thoughtful with you next reply.

Shame that the oil for food program was one of the few postive actions initiated over the past decade, I guess what you mean are the other sanctions, those and Saddam impoverished the country, you find me in full agreement with that.

Shame on how you don't realize that the oil for food program is in place only because of Saddams control of the country as a part of the UN embargo. Shame that you don't realize that it is a total rip off of the Iraqi people.

I think we all know what a brutal regime Saddam had, we don't need to "expose" that first. If anobody needs to feel ashamed of anything, then its France and the US, who have for a very long time worked together with Saddam, providing him with both military equipment and resources for the creation of biological and chemical weapons for decades! Hipocrisy seems to be a popular word these days, IMO it his hipocrisy to sell WDM to Saddam or help him produce them and then complain he is in posession of them. It is hipocrisy to not say anything against him using them against the people of Iran and his own, as long as it was still in the interest of the US during the late 80ies. I could go on with this list, but you can find out about all that if you spend some time reading about the Iran/Iraq and Gulf War. No conspiracy theories involved, just plain and simple facts...

While I would agree that we do know that his regime was brutal I think that the coalition will uncover much more... soon hence my supposition that we will find out how bad it was in the immediate future. While the US did supply these weapons at one time to help them with Iran whom was constantly threatening the US.(Once taking a mass of hostages.) The US did not compel them to do so later. Further I would suggest to you that this is why the US knows how much that the Iraqi government is hiding from the UN weapons inspectors. Certainly it seems fitting that the US be responsible for putting their once upon a time Frankenstein to rest. Obviously the US no longer supports the Saddam regime and has not for well over a decade.

Removing the Saddam regime is an entirely good thing, I think that despite your thinking otherwise, you will find few people who will disagree with that. The time, circumstances and means of doing so are an entirely different matter though, and worth of debate...

My sakes ..... thanks for that.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 18:54

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

There, you are wrong.

Because you, and everyone else who makes implications about motives and agendas of, me, the president, etc., is exactly affecting their perception.

Wrong, I have NEVER questioned your motives or agenda.
I have questioned US administration´s agenda and I have discussed some possible reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, did I started the preemptive war?

The treating is a fact.

No, "treatment" is by definition a subjective term. And this is your problem. You treat subjective things as facts.

The FACTS are simply what was said. How this is interpreted as some poor or disrespectful "treatment" is subjective.
Sorry I mean a threat. Lets call it a warning, and that really happened and evrybody is concerned of what will happens next.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war?

So, you are saying this is a pre-emptive war against Islam?

Is there ANY justification for that type or argument? Or fo you think that if "it happens", it's actually because of "Islam" doing things like you are doing: making implications that and wrong conclusions about what this war is about, and who it's against.Again, I am not implying anything. What US and the Islam world perceive or mutually understand is not my problem, as I see it is an undesirable scallation of mutual ofense, disagreement and hate. The final result is something that everyone should be concerned around the world, then I really worry about. Blindlly negate the scallation of hate and its effects is naive.

All this hate is the fuel of terrorism.

The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Sure, anything's possible. Topic closed then?
Why, do you want to close the topic? Nobody can discuss it here?

Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?

Yes, you are a diplomacy failure.

If you can't understand LOUD AND CLEAR that I don't care WHO YOU ARE...MUSLIM, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, ETC. If you are aiding the Iraqi resistance in any way, we don't like it, because our troops are out there!

If Muslims take that as a personal affront to ISLAM, then they have a problem.

If it's RADICALS that you are concerned with....then your suggestion then is to what? Not make relevant statements because we are afraid of them? You mean, give credibility to their terroristic ways and threats?

Sorry, I don't want to live like that.

To be clear. I'd RATHER live with some "threat" of terrorism, than to have those terroristic threats influence what we think is right.
Thanks for your compliment. This is your choice. Give your support to whatever you believe. I simply cant believe that continually threat other countries will solve anything in the long term but cause more problems.

Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?

That's the way you make it sound...that's what Saddam wants too.
No, I am not making it sound anything.

Then, do you believe the same thing?

I believe that the RADICALS are trying to MAKE THIS A WAR OF ISLAM. Despite our efforts and actions to the contrary. Whether or not it will be of any serious consequence beyond protests in the street remains to be seen.And you dont believe you are giving than more fuel to burn?

It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

No, it's it because it is perceived as such a war by arab radicals, and then propagandized to the arab masses that way.
And this war is not given than any fuel or incentive?

First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.
Point?
Point is correct some perception. Someone stated that civil disorder and lefitism is a caracteristic of the protests which is a wrong perception.

The product boycot and bureocrat moaning may go more than that as time pass. The fact that Russia will rethink its security is enough to see how things deteriorated.

Yeah, and as time passes we might actually get a "thank you" too depending on how the war goes, what is found out, etc.

Anything is possible.
Yes, anything is possible.

On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.

It should be.No I am not hypocrit, and I see no point to continue to discuss with someone who explicity intention is ofend in a personal level.

The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means.

What alternative?!
The UN alternative of disarming him and some previous international work.

IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

Pascal, you continually fail to appreciate this as an issue of our nation's soverign right to defend itself, vs. going along with "international consesus."

It is a valid argument that has two sides to it.

We simply feel that while there ARE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES by going to war without UN Approval, those risks are outweighed by the risks of not going.

I wish you would acknowledge that we ARE AWARE of possible negative conseqences, "strained relations" (whatever that means in material terms), etc. We just see it as better than the alternative, which is letting Sadam go on with business as usual.
I acknowledge that you are aware of what can happen, then IMHO it makes things worse.

Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

We are offering to pay them, as we should. Any time a nation lends us it's resources, and puts ITSELF at some risk be allowing us to use it's land, etc., they should EXPECT something in return, and the U.S. was willing, and should be willing, to pay for the risks we are asking them to take.

That's not a BRIBE. That's common sense.
You can call it whatever you want.

What do mean by that? It is not the same as "since when have they been less friend than before".

I mean what exactly has changed between us and the French in terms of our relationship?
See the French pool about the war. See has some radicals in both sides are just making mutual ofense.

And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

Sigh. NO ONE IS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO ANYTHING.

This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

No, agreement is not a prerequisite to being my friend or not. However, misrepresenting my views is a sure way to not become my friend.
What your views have I misrepresented?
Joe, I really dont wish to turn this in some endless discussion.
Again I see no point continue it any further.
I will continue to expose opinions and concerns.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 19:08

Now come the British with some damage control (one more guardian link :wink: )http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,928010,00.htmlStraw: UK will not attack Syria or Iran

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 19:16

More about the threats (guardian again): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927660,00.htmlWidening regional destabilisation was one of the reasons why so many people and nations opposed this foolish war. By issuing such provocative threats, even if they are essentially pre-emptive, the US behaves recklessly. The Iraqi regime must be delighted. It is already doing its level best to portray the conflict as one between the entire Arab "nation" and the US, between Islam and the west, between the righteous and the "Zionists". Its call for Arab volunteers appears to be having some success. Its resort to suicide bombings, or "martyrdom operations", creates an entirely deliberate, emotive association with the Palestinian intifada. This is what I call giving fuel to the enemy.

Silent_One

02-Apr-2003, 19:28

pascal wrote:
Joe DeFuria wrote:

No, the one that believe that this specific premptive war without international consensus is the way to go.

So, how does harping on casualties of war, when we are well aware of them, further make that point for you? It doesn't.
What is harping? Where did I have done that with casualities of war? IIRC I complained about 100 deads in one night and one hospital. Is this harping or whatever?

Harping: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=97507&highlight=#97507Yeah people are going to the shoping, movies, theather, etc...
Nothing is happening, just a mass bombing

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=97482&highlight=#97482The action taken by other countries will depend on the civilians casualities which IMHO is high now with all this bombing.
100 is not high.In one night, one hospital?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93652&highlight=#93652I am thinking about a mad and worst scenario when Sadam forces may use human shield or some part of the population as hostage or people trapped by the situation. I really worry about the urban side because it could be extremelly bloody.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93652&highlight=#93652Many innocent people (and many are really innocent people) will die from both sides specially Iraq. If we can avoid it then we should.
- The innocent people that will suffer and die during this war

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4774&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=60We are really advancing, killing lots of people with a preemptive war. Maybe ethical groups erradication could be good thing, right?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93628&highlight=#93628I worry about that too. Think about a hostage situation but in a much, much larger scalle in an urban area.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42412&highlight=#42412the war is not big deal. Just:
- spend 40 billions dolars
- shake the entire international finance community
- kill many americans
- kill much more iraquians
- risk the midle east´s stability

Is not much better try some inspections first?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34944&highlight=#34944 Continue to spread the misconception that a new crusade to free the entire world has to be done costing multibillions dolars directlly (plus many indirect international economic and finance costs), many americans lifes, much more Iraquians lifes and risk the middleast stability. Maybe do it again every 10 years

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 19:37

Harping: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on. Me tedious? :lol:

I talked two times about the real casualities of the war. The rest were about possibilities and part of a context.

Joe DeFuria

02-Apr-2003, 19:47

By issuing such provocative threats, even if they are essentially pre-emptive, the US behaves recklessly.

Pascal,

FOR ONCE. Instead of assuming the portrayal of things as "provocative threats" is a valid and right one, "because the guardian says it, so it must be true"....

Did you ever actually hear the statements that are being talked about, in their full context?

This is your major problem, and why you are accused of being a propaganda agent.

Here's a thought: Instead of getting your news from a 2nd hand source...why not actually listen to the people making the comments, and in the context they are being made. Instead of always reading through a propaganda filter as if it is a first hand source.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 20:28

This is your major problem, and why you are accused of being a propaganda agent.Me a proganda agent? You must be out of your mind and are going to far. I can say the same of you.

Filter the article and start to search some related info. The guardian is a good place to start fast find some information. No see what I highlighted.

See another link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2902943.stmHe made specific demands. "Syria faces a critical choice," he said.

"(It) can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein or it can embark on a different and more helpful course."

And his message to Iran went further. Not only did he say that "Iran (must) end its support for terrorism", but he added: "Tehran must stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them."

By "terrorist groups", Mr Powell means the Lebanese Hizbollah and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

His comments followed warnings from the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said last Friday that military equipment including night-vision goggles had been getting to Iraq from Syria, and that the Syrian Government would be held "accountable for such shipments." Syria has denied any responsibility.

Mr Rumsfeld also told Iran that Iranian trained Shia fighters opposed to Saddam Hussein, some of whom have entered Iraq, would be treated as "combatants" if they posed a threat to US forces.

So there is no doubt of the concerted nature of the American statements. Is this specific enough for you?
edited: now see more the British position http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2908839.stm

Silent_One

02-Apr-2003, 21:15

Joe DeFuria wrote:

Quote:
Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

We are offering to pay them, as we should. Any time a nation lends us it's resources, and puts ITSELF at some risk be allowing us to use it's land, etc., they should EXPECT something in return, and the U.S. was willing, and should be willing, to pay for the risks we are asking them to take.

That's not a BRIBE. That's common sense.

You can call it whatever you want.

Pascal,
You do realize that the French did the same thing when French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin began a three-day tour of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea -- the three African members of the U.N. Security Council to persuade them not to vote in favor of the US position at the UN? You do realize that this form of diplomacy has been going on for centuries, that it's not uncommon. Why is it that some people act as if the US alone in this practice? Why no condemnation of other countries? Joe is correct. This is how the world works

Joe DeFuria

02-Apr-2003, 21:29

Me a proganda agent? You must be out of your mind and are going to far.

That's just my honest opinion of you on these matters pascal.

As I said...you read the news "sources", and their presentation of the comments with their slant. (And the SAME news sources again and again.) Have you actuallay witnessed those comments being made first hand?

Because it's quite shocking to me, how every time I get to personally hear such comments being made....and then see the "press write-up" of those comments, the tone and context is significantly different.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 21:47

Pascal,
You do realize that the French did the same thing when French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin began a three-day tour of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea -- the three African members of the U.N. Security Council to persuade them not to vote in favor of the US position at the UN? You do realize that this form of diplomacy has been going on for centuries, that it's not uncommon. Why is it that some people act as if the US alone in this practice? Why no condemnation of other countries? Joe is correct. This is how the world worksI agree and I am not denying it. In fact I used this info to show what is a friend and a "friend".

Silent_One

02-Apr-2003, 22:06

I agree and I am not denying it. In fact I used this info to show what is a friend and a "friend".

the point is that you portray the US as "wrong" to influence countries in this manner yet don't mention any other countrys whom do the same. Again, why no condemnation of other countries?

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 22:15

That's just my honest opinion of you on these matters pascal.

As I said...you read the news "sources", and their presentation of the comments with their slant. (And the SAME news sources again and again.) Have you actuallay witnessed those comments being made first hand?

Because it's quite shocking to me, how every time I get to personally hear such comments being made....and then see the "press write-up" of those comments, the tone and context is significantly different.Then I advise you to rethink your position.

The guardian article is an editorial, it has a line of thinking about the danger of some actions. In same way it is pertinent to the subject of this thread.

Using Google you can find the Powell words quoted everywhere. CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, USA Today etc... just chose the site and see the quotes are the same. See this one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-powell-iran-syria_x.htmIn a strongly worded speech to a pro-Israel lobby, Powell bracketed Iran and Syria with Iraq as promoters of terrorism and suggested they faced grave consequences.

His tough words matched those last week of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and served to signal unity within the Bush administration on the anti-terror front.

Both Iran and Syria have shown no inclination to bend to the Bush administration's growing rhetorical campaign against them.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said Sunday that "Syria has a national interest in the expulsion of the invaders from Iraq."

Rumsfeld on Friday accused Syria of supplying military technology to Iraq, a charge Syria denied. He also said the United States would hold Iran responsible for the entrance of Iran-sponsored forces into Iraq.

Carrying the threat a step forward, Powell on Sunday demanded Iran "stop its support for terrorism against Israel" and said Tehran also "must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them."

Turning to the regime in Damascus, Powell said "Syria now faces a critical choice" of whether to "continue its direct support for terrorism in the dying days" of President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq.

"Syria bears responsibility for its choices and consequences," Powell said sternly at the 44th annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Yes I read the full text of Powell speech somewhere. He additionally talked about a Palestinian state, etc... But the message to Syria and Iran was loud and clear. Now you are in the begining of a war with some Islamic countries and then you do this message/warning twice (Powell and Rumsfeld)?? IMHO is like giving fuel to the enemy and make things worse.

pascal

02-Apr-2003, 22:27

the point is that you portray the US as "wrong" to influence countries in this manner yet don't mention any other countrys whom do the same. Again, why no condemnation of other countries?In this specific case what other countries are doing? And I was not condening it but showing the diference of friends and "friends". How much money are the French asking from you to go to war if Sadam use any WMD? AFAIK nothing.

Do you want some French porblems to feel better? Than see this about French oil executives. It is not related but maybe you will feel better: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,917932,00.html

Joe DeFuria

02-Apr-2003, 22:29

Then I advise you to rethink your position.

Rethought it...hasn't changed.

The guardian article is an editorial, it has a line of thinking about the danger of some actions.

Correct. The article is not a news source that can be "trusted" to give an objective and simply factual look at the comments.

Using Google you can find the Powell words quoted everywhere. CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, USA Today etc... just chose the site and see the quotes are the same.

Right...because senbsationalism sells. How boring it is to just post the contents of the speach...pick and choose the few comments than can be blown out of proportion.

<snip the press snippings of quotes>

Yes I read the full text of Powell speech somewhere. He additionally talked about a Palestinian state, etc... But the message to Syria and Iran was loud and clear.

Right. They have choices to make. And if they make the wrong ones, there will be consequences. Problem? Hopefully, they believe we are serious now about the war on terror.

...and then you do this message/warning twice (Powell and Rumsfeld)?? IMHO is like giving fuel to the enemy and make things worse.

As opposed to what, telling the enemy that "everything's OK....just keep what you're doing?"

Some people just have issues hearing the truth? Oh yeah...."diplomacy" again, right? F*ck the truth...

Nagorak

03-Apr-2003, 00:13

In referance to the cultural disparities between the West and Islam .. I would like you to point out just where it is exactly that they are not hateful of the West.... I can find plenty of information to say that indeed they are hostile towards the Western culture. Islam and Western culture are like oil and water. They don't mix well.

The point is this sort of xenophobic bullshit is what the problem is on both sides? What do you suggest, just nuking the middle east?

Even Bush isn't so blunt and naive to think that would work.

Joe:

The problem with your viewpoint is you just support everything the US is doing, and assume we're "the good guys". The truth is, (except in George W. Bush's eyes), nothing is black and white.

You don't try to see the other side at all. You don't try to understand why other countries might oppose the war. You don't try to understand the different cultures involved at all. That's what diplomacy is, realizing that not everyone agrees on everything, and just because they disagree that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. A skilled diplomat doesn't have to sacrifice his morals, he just has to speak more carefully so that he can convince others to go along with him, rather than just charging in and pissing everyone off.

It's like if there's a bomb in someone's house. The police can either a) kick the door down, grab the people and wrestle them out of the house. Or b) ring the door bell (or call on the phone) and let them know there's a bomb, in which case they'd leave on their own. Case b) might seem like it would take more time, but the truth is the people would probably put up a fight if you just grabbed them and tried to drag them off, so a) really wouldn't be any faster. But, in the case of b) the people would be happy, and in the case of a) they'd be mad as hell.

Especially when there's a situation that isn't as urgent as a bomb (like Iraq), it doesn't make sense not to ring the doorbell. Unless you're not sure there is a bomb, but you want to go in anyway.

I have to ask, how many countries will we have to invade before you start to grow tired of it? By the way, if you're so gung-ho to liberate the Iraqis, why the hell aren't you over there fighting? That goes for everyone who is so gung-ho for this war?

It's easy to send someone else to fight for you, and put their life on the line, isn't it? Have you actually served in Vietnam or the first Gulf War? If not, why not put your money (and life's blood) where your mouth is.

Sabastian

03-Apr-2003, 00:46

In referance to the cultural disparities between the West and Islam .. I would like you to point out just where it is exactly that they are not hateful of the West.... I can find plenty of information to say that indeed they are hostile towards the Western culture. Islam and Western culture are like oil and water. They don't mix well.

The point is this sort of xenophobic bullshit is what the problem is on both sides? What do you suggest, just nuking the middle east?

Even Bush isn't so blunt and naive to think that would work.

Hrm, yeah thats it nuke em..... :roll: No one said anything about a nuclear solution but you. What is naive is to suggest that we ought not to do anything about terrorism. lol xenophobic, I can assure you that it has little or nothing to do with any fear. It is simply an observation. My suggestion is that Islam has some real sole searching to do. Only an idiot could not see that the real problem stems from the Islamic Jihad movement since there is no such social mechanism in western culture that produces hate the way that Islamic Jihad does. Just shove your head back into the sand on this point as you don't have a leg to stand on. The fault of Islamic Jihad and terrorism is really an internal issue.

Not to cut in on your bone with Joe but the US military seems more then adequate for the liberation of Iraq. You assume that the US in this matter are not the "good guys" .... how are they not? Why do you have such a phobia of the US military activities in Iraq? Certainly you imply that those over in Iraq do not have faith in their own participation in the war on Iraq, where do you get this sense? While I support the military action I am not a US citizen, I suppose that makes it even easier for me? I think only a coward would want to not do anything and if the military would have taken me as a soldier (they won't because I have a back injury BTW) I would be there.

I currently have a brother in the UAE as a part of the Canadian Air force. Canada is supporting the US by relieving US military from other duties also we do have "some" forces in Iraq. To do nothing about Saddam and his regime is absolutely a poor choice. But you don't really want to send everyone whom thinks Saddam is a bad leader for Iraq there to liberate the Iraqi people. Soon you will start to see that the Iraqi people really didn't like Saddam and that the coalition solution of a free democratic government is a far better choice. As we speak the dieing Baath party is kiking out Al Jeezera journalist whom would report the jubilance of the people of Iraq to the rest of the Islamic nation and stifling Jihad movement against the coalition. It is sad when intelligent men defend the removal of such a monster. Sad and sickening.

Silent_One

03-Apr-2003, 01:20

Sabastian wrote:
......the real problem stems from the Islamic Jihad movement since there is no such social mechanism in western culture that produces hate the way that Islamic Jihad does.

In an interesting article written in The New York Times Magiazine on March 23, 2003, "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror" the author Paul Berman wrote of the etiology of the current terrorists philosophy. The philosopher, named Sayyid Qutb, wrote, while in Egyptian prison, what has come to be the guide, if you will, of Al Qaeda: he is their Karl Marx.

Sayyid Qutb wrote that his social idea for muslims was "Islamist". He wanted to turn Islam into a political movement to create a new society to be based upon ancient Koranic Principals. This is the "social mechanism" that the Islamic Jihad and others operate by. There is a differance between Islam, the religion, and the Islamist, which is a political movement. The religion is peacefull. The Islamist is not.

Joe DeFuria

03-Apr-2003, 02:37

Joe:

The problem with your viewpoint is you just support everything the US is doing, and assume we're "the good guys". The truth is, (except in George W. Bush's eyes), nothing is black and white.

1) Since when do I just support everything the US or Bush does? I do support this war.
2) Correct, nothing is black and white. Tell that to Pascal.

You don't try to see the other side at all.

Yes I do, I just don't agree with it.

You don't try to understand why other countries might oppose the war.

I know why other countries say the oppose the war, and why Pascal says he opposes the war. I disagree with it, and I see many arguments as hypocritical and just as "self serving" as the accusations are put on the "pro war" folks.

You don't try to understand the different cultures involved at all.

I don't need to understand the other cultures. I can respect other cultures without fully understanding them

and just because they disagree that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

Agreed.

A skilled diplomat doesn't have to sacrifice his morals, he just has to speak more carefully so that he can convince others to go along with him, rather than just charging in and pissing everyone off.

As I've said before, this goes both ways. A skilled diplomat on the other end doesn't have to sacrifice his own morals to go along with someone else, rather than just bitching and moaning.

It's like if there's a bomb in someone's house. The police can either a) kick the door down, grab the people and wrestle them out of the house. Or b) ring the door bell (or call on the phone) and let them know there's a bomb, in which case they'd leave on their own. Case b) might seem like it would take more time, but the truth is the people would probably put up a fight if you just grabbed them and tried to drag them off, so a) really wouldn't be any faster. But, in the case of b) the people would be happy, and in the case of a) they'd be mad as hell.

Unless, haven taken course b for 12 years, the people say "yeah, another crank call...no bomb here, we'll stay, thanks.", after which point they blow up. I'd say that's worse off than being as mad as hell.

Especially when there's a situation that isn't as urgent as a bomb (like Iraq), it doesn't make sense not to ring the doorbell. Unless you're not sure there is a bomb, but you want to go in anyway.

Right...you know better than U.S. intelligence how "urgent" something is. How "urgent" would it have been to aggressivle go after Al Qaeda on say, Sept 1.

I have to ask, how many countries will we have to invade before you start to grow tired of it?

??

I don't grow "tired" of any conflict I feel is justified. I don't go looking for fights. But I don't back down from them either.

How many 9/11's are you willing to put up with before you grow tired of it? How many stories of Sadam's opression are you willing to ignore before you grow tired of it?

By the way, if you're so gung-ho to liberate the Iraqis, why the hell aren't you over there fighting? That goes for everyone who is so gung-ho for this war?

Um, because we have a military (that I willingly pay for) to protect our freedoms on our behalf. I can say this though: if the government instituted a draft and I was eligible, I would not be dodging it.

It's easy to send someone else to fight for you, and put their life on the line, isn't it?

It's even easier to not be grateful for the men and women dying for our freedom, while at the same time taking full advantage of that freedom that they are protecting. See "peaceniks."

Have you actually served in Vietnam or the first Gulf War?

Nope. Have you ever lived under Sadam's regime?

If not, why not put your money

I do...it's called taxes.

(and life's blood) where your mouth is.

If you are so opposed to the U.S. liberating Iraq....why don't YOU go over and stand with the Republican guard as Sadam asks, and fight the "infidels" that is the coalition.

Put your money where your mouth is indeed. Get real.

Sabastian

03-Apr-2003, 03:26

Gollum

03-Apr-2003, 03:42

I am not comparing the two wars directly. What I am saying is that there were not massively organized pacifist protest to the slaughter in Chechnia and to protest the US action based on pacifism is hypocrisy.
Re-read what I wrote, I tried to point out for you how dramatic the difference between these two situation is. If you need me to spell it out: you didn't see a huge outcry about Chechenia because the two conflicts are on an entirely different scale of international impact. Iraq is not only much larger than Chechenia, it is also much more widely known, a lot more people live there, many countries (in fact an entire region) are directly affected by this war and it is its own souvereign country. Chechenia is a part of Russia, its much more of an internal affair, a much smaller area, fewer people are affected and no nation's rights of souvereignity are violated. Last but not least, who the heck constantly claims that people are demonstrating against the war purely for pacifistic reasons?

The implication was directed at the governments not the people directly. You ought to get a little sharper with your reading comprehension.
To dismiss the vast incursions of significant others and to focus on the US is hypocritical. The fact that they supported US military action before shows that it is not a matter of concern for life but rather that this time they have something to loose. If you think for a second that the states opposing the military action in Iraq are doing so because of altruistic concern for the well being of the Iraqi people you are fooling yourself.
I never said there were altruistic motives behind the governments who are against a war, same goes for your government I might add. I took it for granted that everybody in this discusion knew that self interest plays a vital part in any country's foreign politics.

To give you only a few examples. One major point would probably be less than enthusiasm for Wolfowitz' neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, which seems to be the basis for many of the new trends and recent actions in American foreign policy. Since it primarily focuses on how to re-arrange the geo-political worldmap to serve the future interests of the US of A you might understand why some goverments outside the US are not too fond of "some" of its doctrine. Others are probably remaining economical interests, although they are probably too small to risk angering your most important strategic and economic allies over (at least in case of Germany these interests are pretty negligable, can't say for sure if that's the case for France or Russia). Another example could be simply that despite Saddam's obvious viciousness, invasion of a souvereign country and removal of its regime by war are not exactly your everyday politics and not something you want to become common practice. Additionally, it may lead down a dangerous road for the entire region; the war's legality in light of international law is still questionable; political means were posibly not fully exploited; some people are just plain pacifists.... note that those are only a couple examples and they do not neccesarily all represent my opinion.

Nice rebuttal.. I would like for you to explain just how it is not. Since there would be no removal of his regime without this action. That is ... a very bad argument you got going there. Lets hope this reply causes you to be more ... thoughtful with you next reply.
Oh okay, so I suppose since you are not actively pressing for a removal of the dozens of other dictators around this world, you are actually a supporter of theirs right? Congratulations, you have become the perfect binary thinker! Black and white, with us or against us, you seem to dig this stuff eh? Now, with this smokescreen of yours out of the way let me elaborate my position quickly (4am here, I should be sleeping!). I was and still am opposed to this war, it never should have happened. The reasons for that could fill an entire thread and I don't have the time nor the will to elaborate them here. I have to say though that now that this war has started, I do hope that coalition forces win this war as fast and with as few casuaties as possible. Like I said before, the end result - Saddam out of power - is desirable, that doesn't mean I agree with the means, timing or circumstances of this removal.

Obviously the US no longer supports the Saddam regime and has not for well over a decade.
Obviously. :)

My sakes ..... thanks for that.
Cheers... now I need some sleep!

Sabastian

03-Apr-2003, 06:17

Re-read what I wrote, I tried to point out for you how dramatic the difference between these two situation is. If you need me to spell it out: you didn't see a huge outcry about Chechenia because the two conflicts are on an entirely different scale of international impact. Iraq is not only much larger than Chechenia, it is also much more widely known, a lot more people live there, many countries (in fact an entire region) are directly affected by this war and it is its own souvereign country. Chechenia is a part of Russia, its much more of an internal affair, a much smaller area, fewer people are affected and no nation's rights of souvereignity are violated. Last but not least, who the heck constantly claims that people are demonstrating against the war purely for pacifistic reasons?

What a pile of crap. The simple matter I am addressing is that the Russian military directly targeted the civilian population and it was a massive slaughter. It does not matter that it was an "internal matter" or anything of the sort. The fact of the matter is that it was a war and massive civilian casualties were suffered. You keep going into the logistics of it all. The peace protestors were not concerned with the slaughter going on there. They are more interested in attacking the US because it stands for capitalism.

The war protest in Europe were organised by loosely associated left wing groups for the most part and their protest amounts to hypocrisy considering all the other wars and loss of civilian life as a result. They focus on protesting the US military activity and turn a blind eye to others and my case in point is Chechnia. War is War - Death is Death there is no reason to be discrimanent about it, such as you suggest, if that is what you are protesting. It amounts to unadulterated hypocrisy.

I never said there were altruistic motives behind the governments who are against a war, same goes for your government I might add. I took it for granted that everybody in this discusion knew that self interest plays a vital part in any country's foreign politics.

lol OK. First you make the moronic implication that I am insulting 1.5 billion people and that I ought to get some sort of award for it... I want you to elaborate on the "very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US" are you talking about governments or people? Just what are these "very specific and good reasons"? It seems that all you do in that is suggest there might be some reasons. Sounds a bit more like you are talking out your ass. Further more garbage implications in this line here. "And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas." Then what the hell is it then? Come on now explain this mistery out to everyone so that we can understand exactly why France supported Saddams regime.

To give you only a few examples. One major point would probably be less than enthusiasm for Wolfowitz' neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, which seems to be the basis for many of the new trends and recent actions in American foreign policy. Since it primarily focuses on how to re-arrange the geo-political worldmap to serve the future interests of the US of A you might understand why some goverments outside the US are not too fond of "some" of its doctrine.

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Others are probably remaining economical interests, although they are probably too small to risk angering your most important strategic and economic allies over (at least in case of Germany these interests are pretty negligable, can't say for sure if that's the case for France or Russia).

Yeah the oil for food scam. I don't know what the numbers are on it but it likely was the single largest UN legitimized pork barreling scam ever.

Another example could be simply that despite Saddam's obvious viciousness, invasion of a souvereign country and removal of its regime by war are not exactly your everyday politics and not something you want to become common practice. Additionally, it may lead down a dangerous road for the entire region; the war's legality in light of international law is still questionable; political means were posibly not fully exploited; some people are just plain pacifists....

What about a countries "right" to defend itself? Clearly in the wake of 9/11 there are forces that were aligned against the US. But it is more then just that one instance and the US has suffered attacks from the same organisation over and over for the last decade. There is a perfectly good defencist agument that will work with regards to the legality of the war. Particularly where the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist would potentially kill millions of people in a city like NY. Unfortunately for the terrorist they didn't realise that everything can change in a New York minite.

http://www.rengel.net/wtc_images/thumb/IM000334.jpg

Oh okay, so I suppose since you are not actively pressing for a removal of the dozens of other dictators around this world, you are actually a supporter of theirs right? Congratulations, you have become the perfect binary thinker! Black and white, with us or against us, you seem to dig this stuff eh? Now, with this smokescreen of yours out of the way let me elaborate my position quickly (4am here, I should be sleeping!).

I will thank you for the computer analogy. I am curious about this smoke screen thingy you are talking about could have sworn I just cleared the air you clogged up.

I was and still am opposed to this war, it never should have happened. The reasons for that could fill an entire thread and I don't have the time nor the will to elaborate them here. I have to say though that now that this war has started, I do hope that coalition forces win this war as fast and with as few casuaties as possible. Like I said before, the end result - Saddam out of power - is desirable, that doesn't mean I agree with the means, timing or circumstances of this removal.

Great.... while you are all for the removal of his government you offer no other solution. Indeed it really does look as though this military action is the only way to remove him and his war machine that was aiding terrorist activities. Thus you support the regime to remain intact indirectly.

There was one other solution I thought would do the job just great. Europe could pack up all of their social activitist as some sort of UN action and send them down to Iraq. It wouldn't be long before there was all out war in Iraq. This would have been a great boon to the world in one foul swipe we could rid ourselves of many of these social enginers and remove Saddam. I figured the casualities would be extremely high but the shear numbers of left wing socialites would be overwelming even for the republican guard. Then the Iraqi people once they realise that these European invaders sent by the UN are a bunch of nut bars the Iraqi people would finally rise up and form their own government.

My sakes ..... thanks for that.
Cheers... now I need some sleep!

Dido.

Saem

03-Apr-2003, 06:27

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Who is providing this "evidence" and why should we trust the source?

pascal

03-Apr-2003, 15:41

See this one: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/index.htmlEx-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 3:18 AM EST (0818 GMT)

Former CIA director James Woolsey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA director James Woolsey said Wednesday that the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.

Are Egyptian and Saudi Arabia on target too?

Joe DeFuria

03-Apr-2003, 15:55

See this one:

I saw that one already, and overall it makes pretty much complete sense, and similar to what the administration has been saying.

The war on "terrorisim" is much more like the cold war, ("World War III") than other traditional "wars." It will be a long fight, not without its own risks.

Gollum

03-Apr-2003, 17:14

What a pile of crap. The simple matter I am addressing is that the Russian military directly targeted the civilian population and it was a massive slaughter. It does not matter that it was an "internal matter" or anything of the sort. The fact of the matter is that it was a war and massive civilian casualties were suffered. You keep going into the logistics of it all. The peace protestors were not concerned with the slaughter going on there. They are more interested in attacking the US because it stands for capitalism.

I don't belive this, you can't seem to wrap your brain around the simple concept of differentiation, can you? I'm not trying to make up excuses for the russian military here you know. I don't know how it was where you live, but here there were quite a lot of people upset about what happened (and is still going on to a degree) in Chechenia. It was quite a topic of discussion and protest in media and in public, it just wasn't on the same scale. As for the governemnts, there is only so much you can do. You claim there is no difference wether its an internal matter or not when that is simply not true. Internal affairs are the matters of the goverment of that souvereign country, outsiders have no direct say on what this goverment does. Oh they can protest (which several did) and in extremely serious cases threaten with sanctions or the like, but in the end that's it unless you go to war.

I explained the most glaring differences compared to the current conflict to you. I also explained some of the other motivations against this war. Together these should begin to paint you a picture why we have a much larger amount of people protesting on the streets now all over the world, at least if you are willing to be just a little bit more open minded about this. Don't like it? Fine, that's your opinion, just stop acting so offended over it and balming everyone left and right based on some commie-scare level paranoia of left wing socialists.

The war protest in Europe were organised by loosely associated left wing groups for the most part and their protest amounts to hypocrisy considering all the other wars and loss of civilian life as a result. They focus on protesting the US military activity and turn a blind eye to others and my case in point is Chechnia. War is War - Death is Death there is no reason to be discrimanent about it, such as you suggest, if that is what you are protesting. It amounts to unadulterated hypocrisy.

Thanks for letting me know who organized what over here, I'm sure from your little spot overseas you have a much better view over what is going on here than we do. Sure there are protests organized by left wing activists, but that's not all there is to it. Event he right wing here is surprisingly anti war. But oh I forgot, every European government is solialist left wing in your world, right...

The problem with your hypocrisy argument is that you keep implying that the only motivation for a peace protestor is pacifism. Well, if that were indeed the case, you might be right, but as I explained in my last posts there are many different motivations besides pacifism why people are against the war. Just because YOU don't agree with or understand them doesn't make them any less valid for THEM! Would you please take a step back and stop putting them all in the same mental drawer?

As for War is War and Death is Death, that's certainly true to a certain degree, but as you should know perfectly well there are still different levels of atrocities, different scales of conflicts and different kinds of suffering. Simplifying things for the sake of an argument every now and then is fine, just don't let it cloud your judgement.

You seem to be so eager to find hypocrisy in the ranks of the opposition, why don't you turn your attention towards your own side of the argument for a second? A people needs to be liberated from its opressive dictator right? Well there are probably a couple dozen countries out there that need "liberation" just as much as the Iraqi people, why isn't the US showing the slightest intention of "liberating" any of them? Help, hypocrisy! As long as you insist on this kind of one-eyed argumentation we'll be forever caught up in circular arguments and not accomplish anything.

lol OK. First you make the moronic implication that I am insulting 1.5 billion people and that I ought to get some sort of award for it... I want you to elaborate on the "very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US" are you talking about governments or people? Just what are these "very specific and good reasons"? It seems that all you do in that is suggest there might be some reasons. Sounds a bit more like you are talking out your ass. Further more garbage implications in this line here. "And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas." Then what the hell is it then? Come on now explain this mistery out to everyone so that we can understand exactly why France supported Saddams regime.

I could swear I did just that a little further down my post ... <re-reading my post> ... oh yes I did, you just don't seem to want to get it, do you?

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Saem already questioned this comment of yours. The issue is that the case linking Saddam to the global terrorist network has been extremely weak in many respects. There is proof linking Saddam to the palestinian terrorist movement, but proof linking Saddam to Al Quaeda or other global terror organizations is still very weak. You posted a picture of the twin towers, nice PR spin, just that it has nothing to do with Iraq. Even leaked CIA papers say that no link between Saddam and 9/11 could be found, even that any such link would be unlikely. This is confirmed by an overwhelming majority of interational experts. If any regime should be targeted for 9/11 besides Afghanistan it should probably be Saudi Arabia. This is not a war on Terrorism, it is a war on Iraq, or rather a war on Saddam...

As for that "roadmap", its nothing mysterious you know, its not like its a top-secret government agency. Just head over to http://www.newamericancentury.org and do a search on the net for yourself to learn more on this topic, don't constantly ask me to babysit you through every step of the process of finding information. I think there's a lot of stuff on that site alone that you will like very much, especially if you're a Reagan fan. But maybe you will understand that others are not so enthusiastic about the visions of these neo-conservatives. Signing members include Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, L. Lewis Libby, Jeb Bush and many more. A rough outline of some of their goals:
- significant increase in defense spending (short term at least 3,8% of GDP, long term higher)
- termination of demobilisation treaties
- Star Wars or comparable missile defence system
- maintain nucler superiority
- complete military control of space
- regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nordkorea, Libya
- shape a world favorable to American principles and interests

What about a countries "right" to defend itself? Clearly in the wake of 9/11 there are forces that were aligned against the US. But it is more then just that one instance and the US has suffered attacks from the same organisation over and over for the last decade. There is a perfectly good defencist agument that will work with regards to the legality of the war. Particularly where the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist would potentially kill millions of people in a city like NY. Unfortunately for the terrorist they didn't realise that everything can change in a New York minite.
The right to defend yourself is a given, but no matter how you twist it, never since the first Gulf war Iraq has presented a danger to the US. Maybe to US interests, but certainly not to the US territory or people. Could you people please make up your mind as to why exactly you want this war? Is it because of WDM? To kill Saddam? Or because of self defence? Or is it to liberate the people, which is by far the best reason? Why didn't the administration use that from the beginning, it would probably have been FAR more successful in gathering allies and sympathy than anything else! These constantly changing reasons for the war, along with the obvious position of the Bush administration that this war has already been decided upon long before ever going back to the UN security council, is one of the primary reason why so many people are pissed off at the moment....

I will thank you for the computer analogy. I am curious about this smoke screen thingy you are talking about could have sworn I just cleared the air you clogged up.
You confuse me with the GeForce FX I guess. ;)

Great.... while you are all for the removal of his government you offer no other solution. Indeed it really does look as though this military action is the only way to remove him and his war machine that was aiding terrorist activities. Thus you support the regime to remain intact indirectly.
Duh, my point was that with that kind of logic you end up with everybody "indirectly" supporting anything you want. Example: I take that by not actively fighting or at least protesting against the dictatorships and puppet goverments in central america, you are in "indirect" support of them yes? Come on, at least offer me a solution of removing them and liberating their people, I mean other than ignoring their atrocities, doing business with or even installing them. See, anybody can bend the truth until it fits the picture they'd like to present, only if you stop doing this can we continue a discussion.

As for offering solutions, you know perfectly well that depends on what the problem is. The initially claimed goal of disarmament and/or containment could very well have been met by political means instead of war, there just wasn't enough patience. Heck we had a decade of half-hearted efforts, we could have waited another 3 months for Blix to finish his inspections. But then the climate would have hindered the war, so we had to rush into it anyway. Your popular argument of "liberation" of an opressed people has hardly been used other than in recent months before and after the beginning of the war. If you constantly re-define your goals it is hard to really find an alternate solution...

There was one other solution I thought would do the job just great. Europe could pack up all of their social activitist as some sort of UN action and send them down to Iraq. It wouldn't be long before there was all out war in Iraq. This would have been a great boon to the world in one foul swipe we could rid ourselves of many of these social enginers and remove Saddam. I figured the casualities would be extremely high but the shear numbers of left wing socialites would be overwelming even for the republican guard. Then the Iraqi people once they realise that these European invaders sent by the UN are a bunch of nut bars the Iraqi people would finally rise up and form their own government.
Aaaalright... I know this is supposed to be some kind of humor, but this and other examples just confirmy my impression that you are caught up in a serious case of paranoia, blaming socialists and anything left wing for everything you don't like. Add to that your anti-islamic rants from another thread here and your hurling insults around at me ("What a pile of crap", "moronic", "talking out your ass"), I begin to wonder why I even bother to continue discussing with you. I am sure you feel the same way, so why don't we just end it here...

pascal

03-Apr-2003, 19:52

Now I remenber where I saw the full text of Powell speech. In the "second class" journalist source: guardian :lol: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,926276,00.html

Joe DeFuria

03-Apr-2003, 20:10

Right, thanks for proving my point.

Now, read that full text, and look at the singular "sound bites" taken out of that speech and the presentation by the bbc. And notably, quotes that were NOT reported on by BBC, such as:

These are sobering issues and sobering realities. We live in difficult and sobering times. But I am an eternal optimist. And as I think about the challenges, as I think about these crises, I also try to take time each day to think about the soaring opportunities that we see throughout the world to bring liberty and fresh hope to men, women, and children on every continent.

The spread of democratic and economic freedoms, combined with breathtaking advances in technology, opens unprecedented opportunities to lift millions out of misery - to help people put roofs over their heads, good food on their tables, and clean water on their parched lips.

Just a year ago, President Bush saw the need to come forward with a bold new initiative and to capitalize on these opportunities to kindle hope in people's hearts. He called it the Millennium Challenge Account, the most exciting thing we've done in foreign assistance in many years.

It will put large funds of American money behind those countries that make a real commitment to democracy, to ruling justly, to investing in people, and embracing economic freedom -- use our assistance to spur economic growth, and attract not more aid, but attract investment that is needed to further these nations along the road to prosperity.

As we move ahead, we must not lose sight of why we are doing this. We are working so hard for peace because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken too many lives - Jewish, Muslim, and Christian - and ruined far too many more. We must find a way to ensure that Israeli children, Palestinian children can grow up in peace and dignity and live in mutual respect of each other. We must recommit ourselves to making a better future for men, women, children, and generations yet unborn.

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 15:37

Sorry for the belated response Gollum I have been working..

I don't belive this, you can't seem to wrap your brain around the simple concept of differentiation, can you? I'm not trying to make up excuses for the russian military here you know. I don't know how it was where you live, but here there were quite a lot of people upset about what happened (and is still going on to a degree) in Chechenia. It was quite a topic of discussion and protest in media and in public, it just wasn't on the same scale. As for the governemnts, there is only so much you can do. You claim there is no difference wether its an internal matter or not when that is simply not true. Internal affairs are the matters of the goverment of that souvereign country, outsiders have no direct say on what this goverment does. Oh they can protest (which several did) and in extremely serious cases threaten with sanctions or the like, but in the end that's it unless you go to war.

I explained the most glaring differences compared to the current conflict to you. I also explained some of the other motivations against this war. Together these should begin to paint you a picture why we have a much larger amount of people protesting on the streets now all over the world, at least if you are willing to be just a little bit more open minded about this. Don't like it? Fine, that's your opinion, just stop acting so offended over it and balming everyone left and right based on some commie-scare level paranoia of left wing socialists.

Well Gollum, why you still don't understand the point I make is perplexing. Really it isn't nearly as complex as you make it out to be. My example of the Russian slaughter house that Chechnia is just that. Why was the protest "not on the same scale"? If it was the US conducting some sort of internal slaughter, which BTW is a totally preposterous suggestion but for the sake of argument, there would be massive protest, yes even in Europe. lol I am not acting "offended" what I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left wing pacifist movement and their focus on US activities when the Russians got away with far worse activities right in their own back yard. I am also curious just how many civilians were killed in Chechnia and why there are not massive protest against this Russian action?

Now we have the US taking out an unjust regime in Iraq and the left organizes protest across the world. Also their are elements from within the left that fully and outwardly supported Saddam. Further the Muslim protests largely supported Saddam.. They are two very unlikely allies. What it amounts to is hypocrisy in that the protestors for the most part were just anti war/pacifist, but ask them what their politics are and for the most part you would have found a considerably higher number of left wing thinkers but they are not protesting the ongoing slaughter in Chechnia.

What if the US were to turn its military on ..... the state of Main killing civilians and any whom fight back indiscriminately slaughtering tens of thousands of people? The world would have condemned its leader and no one would support that president. But we get not only a dash of hypocrisy with Putin and his leadership. There are not millions of pacifist or anti war protestors opposing the slaughter in Chechnia non here in North America scant protest in Europe and absolutely no protest anywhere else. So why is it that the US and UK receive such harsh critique for removing Saddam and his regime at considerably less cost to the civilian population for a considerably better cause that being the liberation of the Iraqi people from a regime that refuses to give up any WMD, uses chemical weapons on its own people, threatens and attacks its neighbors on and on...While the military action is not an internal slaughter such as we have in Chechnia it is most certainly a considerably more noble cause then the Russian action was. No I don't understand why the US gets the bum rap here while Russia gets off scot free for the most part. Your explanation of why is not really good enough, to simply say that it "just wasn't on the same scale." is not good enough. The loss of civilian life was on a much larger scale there compared to what will amount to a considerably smaller number in Iraqi civilian casualties. Chechnia looks far worse yet. This is a result of hypocrisy on the left, not of the protestors in general but the organizers of the events. Here are a few references just for example. It is fu*king hypocrisy.

http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/Iraq20030321.html

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/news/internationalmillions.htm

http://www.isreview.org/issues/23/editorial.shtml

Thanks for letting me know who organized what over here, I'm sure from your little spot overseas you have a much better view over what is going on here than we do. Sure there are protests organized by left wing activists, but that's not all there is to it. Event he right wing here is surprisingly anti war. But oh I forgot, every European government is solialist left wing in your world, right...

The progressive nature of the welfare state pulls very hard on the right to move to the left. This is not a silly argument but rather simply a matter of fact. As the state implements government programs that employ the populous it forces the all parties to support the government employment role. But it is far more distructive to the political process then that. After the government becomes responsible for the employment of the people it breaks down the options of cutting government spending. It creates a heavy tax burden and forces the government to keep spending high.... oh, I really don't want to explain all of this again and I am sure you are not interested in that theory. But it is logical and seems that it corresponds to what we see, particularly with a number of Socialist European countries.

The problem with your hypocrisy argument is that you keep implying that the only motivation for a peace protestor is pacifism. Well, if that were indeed the case, you might be right, but as I explained in my last posts there are many different motivations besides pacifism why people are against the war. Just because YOU don't agree with or understand them doesn't make them any less valid for THEM! Would you please take a step back and stop putting them all in the same mental drawer?

Well what other reasons are there? Please explain the mentalities of these protestors please as for the most part they do really seem to fit the boot of leftist pacifist. I suppose there are some whom joined in for the free pot and so on but that doesn't really jive with the rest. Also consider the massive Muslim support for Saddam elsewhere in the world. For the most part we could simply write off these as being a part of the religious movement that irrationally feels threatened by the West. I can't really say that they were all leftist protestors that would certainly be... a bit much but for the most part I do believe that the protest were organized by left wing thinkers and organizations, which really isn't the stretch you make it out to be.

As for War is War and Death is Death, that's certainly true to a certain degree, but as you should know perfectly well there are still different levels of atrocities, different scales of conflicts and different kinds of suffering. Simplifying things for the sake of an argument every now and then is fine, just don't let it cloud your judgement.

I am afraid the kinds of atrocities that the Russian government passed on the people of Chechnia are quite... bad and it looks as though the coalition effort in Iraq will not be as miserable a predicament. BTW my judgement is not clouded. You are the one making excuses for the protestors for the most part ignoring the Russian slaughter you shouldn't let the simplicity of my argument cloud your judgement???!

You seem to be so eager to find hypocrisy in the ranks of the opposition, why don't you turn your attention towards your own side of the argument for a second? A people needs to be liberated from its opressive dictator right? Well there are probably a couple dozen countries out there that need "liberation" just as much as the Iraqi people, why isn't the US showing the slightest intention of "liberating" any of them? Help, hypocrisy! As long as you insist on this kind of one-eyed argumentation we'll be forever caught up in circular arguments and not accomplish anything.

lol, well if Wolfowitz gets his way over Powell then there would not be any real problem with this. First you say that it they are being hypocritical by not taking out these other oppressive state then later on you attack these same ideals as something that is undesirable. Hrm let me see here seems you are the one willing to make any sort of argument no matter if you are contradicting yourself. Some sort of inner struggle going on there.

I could swear I did just that a little further down my post ... <re-reading my post> ... oh yes I did, you just don't seem to want to get it, do you?

Oh ... these were your reasons? My sakes man I thought you were holding back something the way you were going on. I did address them BTW but let me pick at them a little harder this time.

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Saem already questioned this comment of yours. The issue is that the case linking Saddam to the global terrorist network has been extremely weak in many respects. There is proof linking Saddam to the palestinian terrorist movement, but proof linking Saddam to Al Quaeda or other global terror organizations is still very weak. You posted a picture of the twin towers, nice PR spin, just that it has nothing to do with Iraq. Even leaked CIA papers say that no link between Saddam and 9/11 could be found, even that any such link would be unlikely. This is confirmed by an overwhelming majority of interational experts. If any regime should be targeted for 9/11 besides Afghanistan it should probably be Saudi Arabia. This is not a war on Terrorism, it is a war on Iraq, or rather a war on Saddam...

OK lets get this straight.. you are saying that while he is training terrorists he is not interested in attacking American interest? I would suggest to you that indeed he does have an interest in causing as much grief for the US as possible. Also, while I can't prove that he is responsible for anything, it does make sense that he would be allied with Osama Bin Ladin. They had a common enemy. Given the proximity of these countries and the common goal of causing serious collateral damage to the US it makes sense, indeed good sense, that they did share reasorses. It was highly suspected by Wolfowitz that Osama watched the collapse of the World Trade Center from within Iraq. I would suggest that this is not such an outlandish conclusion. Wolfowitz is a fairly brilliant man IMO. I don't know if indeed he was right or not all I do know is that the conclusion that Saddam and Osama worked together in the past is not such a stretch of imagination.

I beg to differ on your assumption that it is not a war on terrorism. Clearly he was involved in the training of terrorist. While the prospect of removing the piss ant from power is far more impressive and desirable then removing some training camps I would suggest to you that it was the threat of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam could provide to the terrorist that was the real concern. While it was a war on Saddam it was also a war on terrorism surely a devastating blow to mid east terrorist over all.

Now the US can figuritely hang Saddam in the town square and put some real teeth behind what they say with regards to aiding terrorism... that most definitely includes Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. But lets hope that this does not go to the point where the US must go into these other states to remove terrorist. Possibly the Muslim world will begin to do some real sole searching with this wake up call. The suicide bombers coming into Iraq are really not much a worry to the coalition right now as it is not likely they will be live to see Baghdad.

It seems that no matter if they coalition forces find some WMD or not it looks as though the paranoia towards the US will override the matter and people will dismiss any findings as something other then legitimate. That figures. What is worse is that this is symptomatic of the left wing paranoia directed towards the US. I live in Canada often when you bring up matters of the US when there are liberals in the company you will hear the most outrageous suggestions. Stuff like "America just wants to rule the world" or "Sometime the Americans will invade Canada and just take over" stupid comments in general but when you confront these same people they become irate and irrational because they really can't back up their conclusions. When I attended a Liberal Arts University I was able to witness the left wing parinioa first hand. I would suggest to you the ignorance and parioia in Europe could only be worse and wide spread. I am not impressed by this and think the US is being pigeon holed by the left on a massive scale. Not surprising really but it is pathetic.

As for that "roadmap", its nothing mysterious you know, its not like its a top-secret government agency. Just head over to http://www.newamericancentury.org and do a search on the net for yourself to learn more on this topic, don't constantly ask me to babysit you through every step of the process of finding information. I think there's a lot of stuff on that site alone that you will like very much, especially if you're a Reagan fan. But maybe you will understand that others are not so enthusiastic about the visions of these neo-conservatives. Signing members include Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, L. Lewis Libby, Jeb Bush and many more.[/qoute]

Well I think in light of the 9/11 attacks these sorts of planing and works need to be done. After all you are only talking about the US military administration. I guess that it is good to see they are doing their job in a sense. It appears their convictions are there.

[qoute]A rough outline of some of their goals:
- significant increase in defense spending (short term at least 3,8% of GDP, long term higher)
- termination of demobilisation treaties
- Star Wars or comparable missile defence system
- maintain nucler superiority
- complete military control of space
- regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nordkorea, Libya
- shape a world favorable to American principles and interests

-Considering the scope of removing the terrorist threat to the US that doesn't seem overly extravagant. Granted if I actually knew how much the GDP of the US at present it is likely some substantial contribution.

-The termination of the demobilization treaties makes sense particularly if they are going to increase spending on military.

-The missile defence system ought to be put in place, nothing wrong with a good defence.

-Nuclear weapons have really changed. For example the US now has "low yield" nuclear weapons that leave an area intact but its inhabitants die. They already have nuclear superiority.

-Control of space... that is ambitious. ;)

-While I do agree that these countries are in need of change simply because they are recommended does not necessarily mean they will particularly if Powell has anything to say about things. AFAICT though it does seem that Wolfowitz has got his way for now. I think now though it is Powells at bat.

It sounds as though these countries (France, Germany etc..) in question don't like the idea or the action of the US against terroristic states. They don't want the US to defend itself against terrorism by the US taking on these countries. In doing so what has happened is that countries are exposing themselves as less then compassionate towards the US. Indeed it sounds as if they are interested in seeing the US fail and not lead. Russia and China are particularly upset with this development. China wants to take back Tiawan and god knows why they have not been more helpful with North Korea seems they are sympathetic to the North Korean government.. Russia is actively working in Iran to cause as much grief for the US as possible. Russia was giving the Iraq regime high technology during the course of this war... What else was Russia doing that is not in the interest of West? What other technologies are they selling to terrorist organizations? Again you sight these guys from the defence department and while some of what they have worked on has come true I wouldn't necessarily conclude that they will get just what they want exactly they are doing their jobs and it seems they are doing it quiet well. The US is already the most advanced military in the world what are you worried about? The continuance of that?

The right to defend yourself is a given, but no matter how you twist it, never since the first Gulf war Iraq has presented a danger to the US. Maybe to US interests, but certainly not to the US territory or people. Could you people please make up your mind as to why exactly you want this war? Is it because of WDM? To kill Saddam? Or because of self defence? Or is it to liberate the people, which is by far the best reason? Why didn't the administration use that from the beginning, it would probably have been FAR more successful in gathering allies and sympathy than anything else! These constantly changing reasons for the war, along with the obvious position of the Bush administration that this war has already been decided upon long before ever going back to the UN security council, is one of the primary reason why so many people are pissed off at the moment....

There is no way that you can prove that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US. There are many good reasons for the removal of Saddam and his regime. I don't think it really matters which one he would have tried to capitalize on with regards to garnering support from the opponents of the US, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference. France would not approve of the action no matter what. The action in Iraq is to do all the above and more. The defencist argument will give licence for the war this talk of the war being illegal is ridiculous.

I will thank you for the computer analogy. I am curious about this smoke screen thingy you are talking about could have sworn I just cleared the air you clogged up.
You confuse me with the GeForce FX I guess. ;)

heh .. GEEK JOKE! begins laughing through nose, pocket protector falls out of front pocket of shirt, fixes glasses. ;)

As for offering solutions, you know perfectly well that depends on what the problem is. The initially claimed goal of disarmament and/or containment could very well have been met by political means instead of war, there just wasn't enough patience. Heck we had a decade of half-hearted efforts, we could have waited another 3 months for Blix to finish his inspections. But then the climate would have hindered the war, so we had to rush into it anyway. Your popular argument of "liberation" of an opressed people has hardly been used other than in recent months before and after the beginning of the war. If you constantly re-define your goals it is hard to really find an alternate solution...

Aaaalright... I know this is supposed to be some kind of humor, but this and other examples just confirmy my impression that you are caught up in a serious case of paranoia, blaming socialists and anything left wing for everything you don't like. Add to that your anti-islamic rants from another thread here and your hurling insults around at me ("What a pile of crap", "moronic", "talking out your ass"), I begin to wonder why I even bother to continue discussing with you. I am sure you feel the same way, so why don't we just end it here...

I am not so sure about the possibility of Saddam complying fully .....ever. 12 year is a long time and other countries whom have indulged in this sort of disarmament don't frig around normally it is a simple process. The simple fact of the matter is that there are multiple good reasons for the removal of Saddam and his regime which ones the president uses to get approval from the people of the US or the European block are not really important as I believe that the president was willing to act unilaterally from the beginning. I don't blame socialist for everything I don't like stop elaborating. My anti Islamic Jihad "rants" were reasonable. The insults come as the table turns..... one good turn deserves another.

Oh okay, so I suppose since you are not actively pressing for a removal of the dozens of other dictators around this world, you are actually a supporter of theirs right? Congratulations, you have become the perfect binary thinker! Black and white, with us or against us, you seem to dig this stuff eh? Now, with this smokescreen of yours out of the way let me elaborate my position quickly

Your paranoia of the US is rather disconcerting and it seems symptomatic of matters I suggested before. The US is not an evil country nor are its leaders and all this anti-Americanism is founded mostly on paranoia coming from left wing "intellectuals" whom are less then interested in seeing the US lead the world into the 21 century and would rather their favorite political mechanism usurp that leadership on a global scale..

Good day to you.

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 16:04

In an interesting article written in The New York Times Magiazine on March 23, 2003, "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror" the author Paul Berman wrote of the etiology of the current terrorists philosophy. The philosopher, named Sayyid Qutb, wrote, while in Egyptian prison, what has come to be the guide, if you will, of Al Qaeda: he is their Karl Marx.

Sayyid Qutb wrote that his social idea for muslims was "Islamist". He wanted to turn Islam into a political movement to create a new society to be based upon ancient Koranic Principals. This is the "social mechanism" that the Islamic Jihad and others operate by. There is a differance between Islam, the religion, and the Islamist, which is a political movement. The religion is peacefull. The Islamist is not.

Hrm that is interesting. I don't think I would dissagree with that sort of conclusion. The formation of Fundamentalist Islamic States is a very anti democratic mentality AFAICT.

Here is an excellent source of info on the Islamic Jihad. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005TPOO/ref=ase_pedalcarscom/102-2108043-6402506

Here are some 48 points about the Jihad from the book. "Terrorist Among Us - The Jihad in America (2001)." Shocking really.

1) Within the borders of the United States, terrorist agents raise money, train, plot and plan their international networks of Islamic extremists committed to Jihad in America. It's threat is more relevant and pressing than ever.

2) The terrorists wish a holy war or armed struggle to defeat the non-believers (infidels) and establish their ultimate goal, an Islamic empire across the face of the Earth.

3) In 1981 Islamic militants assasinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, America's closest Arab ally. This gave the radicals the confidence that they can strike their enemies at will.

4) Sheik Abdullah Azzam (a Palestinian who fought against regimes he believed were puppets of the US and Israel) oversaw the American headquarters at the Al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, N.Y. The literal translation of their letterhead from Arabic means, "Office of Services to the Holy Warriors." From the AKRC, a sophisticated network of centers in 38 cities across the U.S.A. has been organized, supporting Jihad around the world and recruiting members for Jihad. From these centers they raised money, recruited thousands of muslim fighters for Afganisthan and later this network was transformed into an international Jihad network. At a recruiting meeting in Brooklyn, Sheik Abdullah Azzam spoke as follows:

"Oh brothers. After Afganistan (it's liberation) nothing in the world is impossible anymore. There are no superpowers or minipowers. What matters is the willpower that springs from our religious beliefs. There is no turning back from this tone to the blissful, to the Uzi, to the Karnam, to the RPG. And then you can expect Allah's ultimate victory."

5) "Anti-American militants found that the U.S.A. was the best place to produce films, videos, collect funds, disseminate propaganda and build their political organization, which extends around the world."
[Oliver B. Revell, Former F.B.I. Official & Counter Terrorism Expert]

6) Tamin Al-Adnani (A Palestinian Sheik, a vigorous fundraiser and recruiter of fighting members and Azzam's top aide) stated in Kansas in 1988:

"We solve our problems in the trenches, not in the hotels... [By] fighting... Best thing is continued Jihad. Nothing but Jihad. Even after liberation of Afganisthan, continue Jihad in [all the other countries]... We will not stop. We have promised Allah we will liberate Palestine. If anybody steps in the way, Oh my God, I will step on him... We will smash them. If any ruler will not let us go, we will go by force."

7) At the First conference on Jihad held in Brooklyn, N.Y. Azzam urged attendees to wage Jihad everywhere. In his words: " The word Jihad means fighting only... fighting with the sword. "

8 ) Azzam was assassinated in 1989 in Pakisthan, making him a martyr to radical Muslims everywhere. Azzam's cousin Fayiz Azzam called even louder in Atlanta in 1990 for Jihad, words which we sadly see being put into action.

"Allah's religion be praised ... must offer martyrs. Blood must flow. There must be widows and there must be orphans. Hands and limbs must be cut and the limbs and flood must be spread everywhere in order that Allahs religion stand on it's feet."

9) Sheik Tamim Al-Adnani in Brooklyn urged attendees to a conference to prepare for the holy war. A number of attendees were later suspects in the WTC bombing. He encouraged shooting practice and stated,

"Brothers, I encourage you to attend the shooting practice. There is nothing greater than the power of the shot... He who has begun learning how to shoot and did not go through with the training is not one of us. And from here we move on to the true shooting, against the enemies of Allah..."

10) Sayyed Nosair (An Egyptian immigrant, left) was arrested in November, 1990, for the murder of activist Rabbi Meir Kahane (founder of the Jewish Defense League, who advocated the expulsion of the Arabs from Israel, right). The judge in the trial, Alvin Schlesinger stated that never in his life had he seen "such raw, red, hatred, that existed between any groups or persons... it was the kind of hatred that went far beyond any doctrine or cause. It was raw, red and violent."

Among Nosair's personal possessions (one of the largest collection of terrorist materials ever found in the U.S., which were overlooked until after the WTC bombing) were plans for blowing up U.S. skyscrapers, formulas for bomb making, detailed aircraft attack plans, assassination targets and classified military documents. The papers also revealed that Nosair was at the heart of a worldwide terrorist network, headquartered in the U.S.A.

Nosair had spelled out his plans in a notebook,

"We have to thoroughly demoralize the enemies of God, by means of destroying and blowing up the towers that constitute the pillars of their civilization, such as the tourist attractions they are so proud of, and the high buildings they are proud of."

11) Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman (the leader of the militant Egyptian movement) took control of the Jihad movement in the U.S.A. in 1990. The killing of Rabbi Meir Kahane was one of the first acts of terrorism alledgedly attributed to Rahman. It is also well known that he helped entice radicals to kill Anwar Sadat.

12) Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman actively recruited followers across the United States. He has since been convicted for his involvement in the East African Embassy attacks and is serving time in a US prison. He spoke in Detroit in 1991 as follows:

"The obligation of Allah is upon us to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah. It is one of the obligations which we must undoubtedly fulfill... And we conquer the land of the infidels, and we spread Islam, by calling the infidels to Allah. And if they stand in our way, then we wage Jihad for the sake of Allah."

13) Saif Ashmawy, a non-violent Muslim, who publishes "Voice of Peace" an Arabic newspaper, stated:

"Now they have worse than Ayatullah Khomeini after the WTC."

14) The Jihad movement in the U.S.A. has attracted Islamic followers "willing to put words into action," such as the convicted conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. Mach Mudd and Mohammad Alu-Alima ( charged four years later as conspirators in the WTC bombing) were seen at a 1989 Brooklyn Jihad rally.

15) Siddiq Ali (Sudanese) recruited followers in N.J. in 1992, months before the 1993 WTC bombing. He is accused of being an architect of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman's campaign of terror.

"The sword is to be absolutely used and implemented. This is as a principle." [Siddiq Ali]

16) Clement Rodney Hampton-El, (who allegedly helped plan the killing of Rabbi Meir Kahane) spoke in 1988 in NY:

"Jihad is something that has to be implemented. Jihad is not a thing
we speak of. It is a thing we do."

17) Nosair (the alledged killer of Kahane) met with World Trade Center bombing conspirators while in prison, helping plan the bombing and continually pushed for the movement to move forward, to take strident action.

The plan (1993 World Trade Center bombing) didn't shift into high gear until the arrival in the US of Akman Ajjaj and Ramzi Yousef five months before the bombing. Akman Ajjaj was imprisoned for having false passports. He had in his possession a vast collection of bomb making instructions and videos. His partner Ramzi Yousef managed to enter the country and built the bomb in a New Jersey safe house. He spoke regularly with Ajjaj in prison. Ramzi Yousef escaped hours after the WTC blast and was later extradited from Pakistan and is now in prison in the US.

18 ) In the summer of 1993, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and 14 followers were indicted for the bombing of the WTC, and accused for plotting bombings of the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the United Nations building and also planning the assassinations of prominent Americans. Later, in April 1994 in the first of a series of trials, four followers of Sheik Rahman, Mohammad Salima, Makhmud Abu Halima, Niyow Ayad and Akhman Ajjaj were sentenced to 240 years each.

19) But they are not alone. They are only one of several radical groups who have set up networks throughout the United States to support international terrorism. This networks include two of the most notorious terrorist organizations in the world.

As Oliver B. Revell, former F.B.I. official stated, "The Hisbollah and the Hamas are very active in the United States."

Oliver B. Revell further stated that these groups have carried out military training, firearms practice, construction of explosive devices and are putting together arsenals, all within the U.S.A.!!!

20) Sheik Abdul Wali Zindani of Brooklyns Al-Kifah Refugee Center, denies involvement in terrorist bombings and assassinations attributed to his center. He was however revealed by his words at a Brooklyn gathering as a leading Islamic holy warrior,

"Allah, the most high and exaulted, ordered us to kill the idol worshippers, the enemies of Allah... Fight the idol worshippers wherever you find them. Pursue them and finish them off."

21) Located in the suburb of Dallas, Richardson Texas is Hamas' principal U.S. support group, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which publishes Hamas books and leaflets, found in scores of branches in the U.S.A.

22) Editor Mohammad Al-Hassam of the Muslim World Monitor, published by IAP, also publishes directives urging Muslims to die in the holy war against Jews, calling them "enemies of humanity, "the blood suckers," and "killers of the prophets." The IAP regularly publishes anti-semitic literature, labeling them "America's Greatest Enemy, the Jew."

23) Aqsa Vision (an IAP group) produces informational videos and has produced a Hamas video, where credit is taken for executions, torture and terrorist operations in Palestine.

24) Research by Steven Emerson has uncovered more than thirty tax-exempt groups in the U.S.A. which fund radical Islamic activities.

"They are collecting money not for humanitarian aspects, but munitions, weapons and military capabilities... If you listen to what they are really saying, this is not just aimed at the Israelis... Their goals are completely and totally to eradicate any opposition to Hamas and Islam and to move against the U.S. ultimately." [Oliver B. Revell, former F.B.I. official]

25) A 1989 early Islamic Radical Conference in Kansas City, Missouri was attended by some of the most radical and influential terrorists:

Sheik Mohammad Shiyam (leader of Hamas from Palestine)
Abdullah Amas (leader of the Algerian Islamic Front)
Rashid Danushi (head of the Radical Tunisian Fundamentalist Group called Al-Mada)
Tofi Kustaffa (a leader of the Muslim Liberation Party based in Jordan)
Mussafa Kadowi (a Militant Muslim leader, originally from Egypt)

It was a secret meeting to expand Jihad networks and terrorist operations.

26) Freedom of speech and religion allows terrorist organizations to function and organize themselves freely.

"It poses a real threat to us that they can come to full potential. We really don't know their capabilities and intentions until we actually see them in action." [Oliver B. Revell, FBI]

27) Dozens of conferences have been documented in the USA where militant leaders from around the world have praised acts of terrorism, urging their followers to wage Jihad,

"If you take the kind of speeches that Sheik Rahman was giving before the attack in the WTC bombing, it is sort of the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. Words have consequences. And when you go every Friday to the mosque and give this kind of stem-winding, blood curdling speech, at some point you have to be responsible for the consequences."
[Paul Bremer, a former State Department official]

28 ) "In the hour of judgement the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them." [Yousef Al-Qaradhwi]

29) "We ought to listen to what they say and what they intend to do. It is their own words, their own actions, and their own deeds that are the key to our understanding of their intentions." [Oliver B. Revell, FBI]

30) "We want the small Muslim community to server as a dagger in the center of this civilization." (Sami Dhafar of the Islamic Charity Project International.)

31) "And their intentions are to harm the United States in very significant ways and to reduce their ability to oppose their international agenda." [Oliver B. Revell, FBI]

32) Kamal Hillbawi of the Muslim Brotherhood (in 1990 Kansas City) stated: "Open the borders of Jordon to the Muslim youth so they may confront the Jews and the Americans at once."

33) At a 1993 New Jersey Hamas rally of IAP they festively sang songs with such lyrics, translated, as "We solve our problems with the Kalashnikov (a Russian semi-automatic rifle)" and "We buy paradise with the blood of the Jews."

34) Literature preaching hatred and intolerance is increasingly found in Islamic bookstores throughout the United States, demonizing Judiasm and attacking Christianity.

35) Islamic summer camps encourage youth to embrace radical ideals, a culture of violence for armed struggle and terrorism.

36) Sheik Mohammad Al-Asi of the Islamic Education Center in Potomic Maryland, claims that the U.S. government is "under a Zionist cloud" and urged to "strike against American interests there." He routinely calls for the destruction of Israel, Egypt and any regime allied with the United States.

Sheik Al-Asi spoke at a conference sponsored by the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) based in Tampa Florida and which is labeled a charitable organization, yet is supports the terrorist group Islamic Jihad, which is responsible for some of the bloodiest terrorist acts of the last ten years.

37) Sami Al-Arian, Professor of Engineering at the University of South Florida in Tampa, hosts the cable TV show "Peace Be Upon You" and is president of the ICP.

According to law enforcement officials, ICP is the primary support group in the U.S.A. for Islamic Jihad, promoting Islamic Jihad in the U.S.A. and the middle east. Islamic Jihad's agenda is to establish a fundamental Islamic state upon Israel, destroying Israel.

38 ) Dr. Al-Arian denies terrorist links, yet has written in a speech published by the ICP,

"We assemble today to ... pay respects to the march of the martyrs... and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish, from butchery to butchery, and from martyrdom to martyrdom, from Jihad to Jihad."

39) A frequent visitor and contributor at the Masjid Al-Qassam is Sheik Al-Asis Uda (spiritual leader of Islamic Jihad and uninvited co-conspiritor of the WTC bombing). At an ICP sponsored Islamic speech in Chicago's McCormick Center Hotel in 1990, Uda spoke:

"Now Allah is bringing the Jews back to Palestine in large groups from all over the world to their big graveyard, where the promise will be realized upon them, and what was destined will be carried out."

40) Paul Bremer, a former State Department official, stated that Uda's frequent trips in and out of the U.S.A. indicate that immigration procedures dealing with terrorists are lax and shocking,

"What it means in effect is that it is easier to come to the U.S. as a terrorist than as a refugee."
They get in through groups such as the non-profit organization Islamic Charity Project International (ICPI), which brings radical extremists into the U.S. Law enforcement officials say ICPI money goes to Jihad activities.

41) At an ICPI conference, Ahmad Nofal spoke of the killing of Rabbi Kahane and the bus hijacking and destruction in Israel. Who is behind it? These lessons speak for themselves. Sheik Nofal is a known recruiter of Hamas terrorists.

42) ICPI's most prominent member is Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman.

"Sheik Rahman is the leader, is the organizer, is the impetus for the foot soldiers to strike at America as the Great Satan, and to damage America, to try and unnerve America, and sap the will of America by terrorist attacks." [Michael Cherkasky, Manhattan D.A. ]

43)
"If you listen to what they are saying. Israel, Egypt and Jordon are surrogates for the United States. That they are puppets and we are the puppeteer, and the way to strike at [them] is thru the United States, because without the U.S. they could not exist. We are the ultimate. We are the Great Satan, that is their primary and ultimate target." [Oliver Revell, FBI]

44) As the activities of Muslim radicals expand in the United States, future attacks seem inevitable. Combating these groups within the boundaries of the constitution will be the greatest challenge to law enforcement since organized crime.

45) They believe that all the westerners are the enemies of Islam and that all the Christian and Jewish groups are enemies of Islam.

46)
"Democracy means something different to them. Hitler came to power in a democratic means. Moussolini came to power in a democratic means. Those people are using democracy just to reach power. Once they have the power, there will be no democracy. I heard it over and over and over from many of them. They are saying there is no democracy in Islam." [Seif Aswami, moderate Muslim]
US Constitution

47) "The very freedoms that allow them to function and operate are what they despise and it is a paradox that we have not come to grips with it as a nation." [Oliver B. Revell, FBI]

48 ) Though some militant organizations may portray themselves as moderates, it is in fact that it is moderate Muslims who are most threatened. The militant's agenda demands confrontation with any group that disagrees with their radical vision. Although the militants claim to speak on behalf of all Muslims, Islam as a religion does not condone violence. The radicals represent only themselves, an extremist and violent fringe.

Silent_One

04-Apr-2003, 16:55

Interesting info you have there Sabastian.
Heres some I think you'll find these very interesting too.

Regarding Saddam and Terrorists-

Abu Nidal murder trail leads directly to Iraqi regime
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml

The Iraqi connection
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html

Middle-Eastern States Supporting Terrorism - IRAQ
http://www.teror.gen.tr/english/middleeast/states/iraq.html

Abu Nidal 'suicide' mystery deepens
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$M5VCRPJPVVIIRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2002/08/21/wnidal21.xml

Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F25%2Fwnidal25 .xml

PBS Frontline - Interview with Laurie Mylroie
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters
(this ties in with a lot of what you posted above)
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Regarding terrorism in general:

Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/mb.htm

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/hamas/introduction.html

TERRORISM
http://www.teror.gen.tr/english/index.html

Encyclopaedia of the Orient: The only encyclopaedia for Africa and the Middle East
http://i-cias.com/e.o/index.htm

Regarding Sayyid Qutb and Al Qaeda-

Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,584478,00.html

SAYYID QUTB AND HIS INFLUENCE
Interview with Professor Ibrahim Abu-Rabi
http://www.religioscope.com/info/dossiers/textislamism/qutb_aburabi.htm

Sayyid Qutb
Profile and Biography
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_qutb.htm

Sayyid Qutb's Vision
http://www.indyflicks.com/danielle/papers/paper15.htm

Don't get me started on protecters and their organizations :evil:

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 17:15

Thanks for that list Silent one. There really is an abundance of evidance to suggest that the Islamic Jihad movement has set back Middle East - Western relations.

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 17:16

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 17:21

Thanks for that list Silent one. There really is an abundance of evidance to suggest that the Islamic Jihad movement has set back Middle East - Western relations.

Don't be silly. We all know that "Cowboy Bush" is to blame for any "relations" degredation of any kind. :roll:

LOL, I hear someone say something similiar last night. My response was "that cowboy is most definitely acting in Americas best interest, like it or not.". lol, Bush ought to star in a cowboy movie or something seems he makes a good one. hehe. Bushes actions are not degrading relations the dedradation was always there and latent IMO only when the US stands up to do something important do the knives come out.

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 17:32

"Iraqi Information Minister says U.S. forces will face "something that is not conventional" tonight"

Time for the desperate last acts of a dying regime.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/04/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 17:33

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 17:37

Well, he's lied about everything else so far. (Saying yesterday that the US was not within 100 miles of Baghdad, etc.) We can only hope this is either just another lie/bluff, or they lack the means to carry it out...

Yeah no question the information minister is absolutely full of crap. Total denial of any coalition gains in fact he said they were about to have victory over the coalition forces and that they were not even close to Baghdad and it was a total illusion that the coalition was trying to force on the people of Iraq... pathetic. One has to wonder just how many civialians actually believe what he has to say at this point.

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 19:09

Don't get me started on protecters and their organizations :evil:Please, lets be democratic. To start I will post one :wink:
http://www.haguepeace.org/

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 19:12

Don't get me started on protecters and their organizations :evil:Please, lets be democratic. To start I will post one :wink:
http://www.haguepeace.org/

Lovely, at the top of the page a banner claims that Peace is a human right. lol.

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 19:13

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 19:14

Lovely, at the top of the page a banner claims that Peace is a human right. lol.Maybe They should have written that WAR is a human right :lol:

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 19:16

OK Pascal,

So what is Haugepeace's "solution" to Iraq? This is all that I can garner:

"* We believe the use of the billions of dollars that will be required for carrying out the destruction of Iraq and the $20 billion per year projected for post-war expenditures, would be better allocated to cleaning up the swamp of poverty, disease and illiteracy that gives
rise to despotic rule and terrorism."

In other words: give them money. Is that the solution to "peace"? Just give money to to folks that are under "despotic rule?"

Brilliant plan....

Sabastian

04-Apr-2003, 19:20

Lovely, at the top of the page a banner claims that Peace is a human right. lol.Maybe They should have written that WAR is a human right :lol:

lol.... It makes sense that to defend oneself from terrorist groups like the Islamic Jihad should be a "right". ;)

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 19:25

Is that the solution to "peace"? Just give money to to folks that are under "despotic rule?"
Please, dont be simplistic. Off course it is not the idea to give money this way to folks that are under "despotic rule".

Have you ever tried to think in a peacefull solution to the overall situation?

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 19:33

Please, dont be simplistic. Off course it is not the idea to give money this way to folks that are under "despotic rule".

Um, pascal, I'M not the one being simplistic. I asked a guestion. What is their solution to the specific problem in Iraq? That blurb is the only thing in a way of a "solution" that I can find in their "official statement" on the conflict.

So I'm asking you, if you could elaborate on their proposed solution to the problem. Because "simplicity" is all I see from them. So please, instead of dodging the question, I request that you address it.

Have you ever tried to think in a peacefull solution to the overall situation?

What "overall situation?"

I'm talking about Iraq.

I'm all for "non-violent" and otherwise diplomatic approaches. Probably many of those approaches would be the same as yours. It's when they have been tried and FAILED, that action can become necessary.

If course, I know that you believe "all non-violent means have not yet been exhausted" in Iraq. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 19:37

lol.... It makes sense that to defend oneself from terrorist groups like the Islamic Jihad should be a "right". ;)
You are right! But are you really defending yourself or making things worse? You cannot combat a idea/concept with weapons, specially this one based on the premisse that western are evil.

IMHO this war is cosmetic and the real one are in the hearts and minds of many people. War is just a effort to keep it under control but not really erradicate it.

Incredible how can we, human beings, design some very advanced technology but dont understand the human mind.

Maybe you should put some very good salesman in some leadership position. IMHO Looks like you have mostlly operations/production people leading key positions.

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 20:00

What "overall situation?"

I'm talking about Iraq.

I'm all for "non-violent" and otherwise diplomatic approaches. Probably many of those approaches would be the same as yours. It's when they have been tried and FAILED, that action can become necessary.

If course, I know that you believe "all non-violent means have not yet been exhausted" in Iraq. We will have to agree to disagree on that.And I am talking about Iraq, war on terrorism, etc..

The Iraq war is beyond the return point, just hope it will end fast and with few casualities. Some developments are arguable but I will not discuss it now.

The point is that the idea of war is old. See this one: http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr021898.html

What I try to say is that probably no serious work has been done to avoid the war.

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 20:04

Pascal,

Again, I respectfully ask how you solve the problems in Iraq. The problems being

1) Continued defiance, lack of complete cooperation, and non-compliance with the UN "peaceful" approaches to disarmament.

2) Opression of Iraqi people.

If you say "no seroius work" has been done to avaoid the war, then you must really think the UN's "diplomatic efforts" for the past 12 years were little more than a complete joke. (So maybe there is hope for you after all. ;))

Silent_One

04-Apr-2003, 20:09

You cannot combat a idea/concept with weapons, specially this one based on the premisse that western are evil.

Well this "concept", this "one" is using weapons against our concept of freedom, our concept of "rights", our concept of Separation of Church and State.

IMHO this war is cosmetic and the real one are in the hearts and minds of many people. War is just a effort to keep it under control but not really erradicate it.

Disagree. If sucessfull this war will change the leadership that promotes this "idea/concept". The eradication of this idea comes after the war, like de-nazification of Germany after WW2. That involved reeducation and rebuilding of that country. You may not eliminate all who believe in the "idea", just like those in Germany who still believe the Holocaust did not happen, but it can work.

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 20:16

You cannot combat a idea/concept with weapons, specially this one based on the premisse that western are evil.

Well this "concept", this "one" is using weapons against our concept of freedom, our concept of "rights", our concept of Separation of Church and State.

No, the concept/idea is promoting the use of weapons.

IMHO this war is cosmetic and the real one are in the hearts and minds of many people. War is just a effort to keep it under control but not really erradicate it.

Disagree. If sucessfull this war will change the leadership that promotes this "idea/concept". The eradication of this idea comes after the war, like de-nazification of Germany after WW2. That involved reeducation and rebuilding of that country. You may not eliminate all who believe in the "idea", just like those in Germany who still believe the Holocaust did not happen, but it can work.
And I disagree. The Nazi was a political based concept, the islamic Jihad is religious based, then they have diferents nature and mechanism of work.

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 20:29

If you say "no seroius work" has been done to avaoid the war, then you must really think the UN's "diplomatic efforts" for the past 12 years were little more than a complete joke. (So maybe there is hope for you after all. ;))Have you ever considered that maybe some viable options were blocked? As I said the idea of war is old.

As example just use google and the words "Bustani OPCW Iraq". My guess the path conducting to war was inevtable because some desired/belivied/worked for it to be inevtable.

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 20:36

As I said the idea of war is old.

There's a reason for that. That's because it works.

Third time's a charm: WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ PROBLEM.

I don't give a damn if you think this was was "pre-ordained" or not. That doesn't answer the question.

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 20:46

I don't give a damn if you think this was was "pre-ordained" or not.And I dont give a damn to your choice of words. The ones probably capable to solve this situation were blocked to work and this is ALL I say.

ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION COULD BE GIVE SPACE TO THOSE CAPABLE PEOPLE TO WORK.

Neutrality

04-Apr-2003, 20:46

There's a reason for that. That's because it works.

Third time's a charm: WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ PROBLEM.

I don't give a damn if you think this was was "pre-ordained" or not. That doesn't answer the question.

You really expect people to come up with a viable alternative to the war?

You will be waiting forever.............

Personally I havent got much respect for those who keep on insisting that there are alternatives to the war when they clearly have no realistic and viable idea of what that alternative might be.

-Neutrality-

pax

04-Apr-2003, 20:47

Your asking of pascal for a solution other than war doesnt take into account that war may indeed be the answer but the way or the when it should have been fought are debatable. What about the other 50 odd dictators in the world some far more brutal than Saddams. When are they gonna be liberated... Oh of course some of them also happen to be our very good friends. Guess we cant take em out then eh?

Asking him for another solution is like asking him how the war should be fought as if he were a career general. These types of questions are unfair because they put an end to the discussion. They dont so much display the lack of knowledge on one part as the on the part of the one asking. 3\4 of the world had a solution which was working before the US went in and attacked. It was slow but it was working. Forceful diplomacy. Oddly enough it was the US that initiated that. If you think you can call forceful diplomacy war your mistaken. Diplomacy has gradients. War is all or nothing. We'll never know now if it couldnt have worked in Iraq but it was working till the war started...

Now we have to live with 50 odd regimes who are feverously attempting to get nukes as that has been indicated as the one line the US wont cross no matter how bad the regime.

Neutrality

04-Apr-2003, 20:52

Silent_One

04-Apr-2003, 20:56

And I disagree. The Nazi was a political based concept, the islamic Jihad is religious based, then they have diferents nature and mechanism of work.

Are we discussing the war in Iraq or the islamic Jihad??? If were discussing the islamic Jihad then we can talk about the difference between that social/political movement and Islam religion. If we are discussing the war in Iraq then we can talk about the Ba'ath party and the Islam religion.

pax

04-Apr-2003, 20:58

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 21:03

Are we discussing the war in Iraq or the islamic Jihad??? If were discussing the islamic Jihad then we can talk about the difference between that social/political movement and Islam religion. If we are discussing the war in Iraq then we can talk about the Ba'ath party and the Islam religion.Following the idea of this thread and the questions of Sabastian and my subsequent response to him, then were are talking about the Islamic Jihad.

I agree that the social/political movement is diferent but it try to use the Islam religion as its base, then in some extent it trys to borrow some attributs of religion.

Neutrality

04-Apr-2003, 21:04

Your asking of pascal for a solution other than war doesnt take into account that war may indeed be the answer but the way or the when it should have been fought are debatable. What about the other 50 odd dictators in the world some far more brutal than Saddams. When are they gonna be liberated... Oh of course some of them also happen to be our very good friends. Guess we cant take em out then eh?

He asked about a solution to the IRAQ problem..........................

-Neutrality-

Um ya I meant Iraq as that is the context...

Um, yeah I know that. But that fact that you mentioned other dictatorships is irrelevant when it comes to answering the question.

People who start bringing up the : "What about the other 50 odd dictators in the world some far more brutal than Saddams. When are they gonna be liberated... Oh of course some of them also happen to be our very good friends. Guess we cant take em out then eh?" crap usually do so because they really dont want to(cant) answer the damn question and instead want to turn it into a discussion about those dictatorships instead. Have seen this before on other forums when I have asked people to come up with something thats a viable alternative to war.

If people really believe there is a viable alternative to the war then for the love of God lets hear it. How hard can it be?

-Neutrality-

Silent_One

04-Apr-2003, 21:10

........it try to use the Islam religion as its base, then in some extent it trys to borrow some attributs of religion.

Agreed. (see there are some thing we can agree on) :)

Now if the Ba'ath party in Iraq can be removed from power we (the world/ coalition / UN / NATO / whoever/ect...) can hopefull reeducate the citizens that we are not an enemy of them or their religion. Agreed?

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 21:13

Neutrality

04-Apr-2003, 21:19

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 21:19

You really expect people to come up with a viable alternative to the war?

No, but I do expect them to come up with at least non-viable alternatives, like "give them money", or "let's just be friends!" ;)

Or...

ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION COULD BE GIVE SPACE TO THOSE CAPABLE PEOPLE TO WORK.

Can you be a little more vauge, please?

Give space to whom, and what "work" is to be done?

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 21:24

........it try to use the Islam religion as its base, then in some extent it trys to borrow some attributs of religion.

Agreed. (see there are some thing we can agree on) :)
Great :wink:

Now if the Ba'ath party in Iraq can be removed from power we (the world/ coalition / UN / NATO / whoever/ect...) can hopefull reeducate the citizens that we are not an enemy of them or their religion. Agreed?It helps but doesnt solve it. IIRC from some articles (like from James Woolsey) Iraq is very complex with many internal tensions. In fact it could sucumb to its internal tensions dividing the country and putting democracy at risk.

I dont know how strong are those internal tensions and how much exposure is needed to MTV, Coca-Cola and other things to change their minds :lol:

The sex videos atack will not help because the basic Islam religion will not permit it :lol:

This issue of country rebuild is very complex and I am not familiar with it. I am not prepared to discuss it.

Natoma

04-Apr-2003, 21:27

Let's get one point clear. Saddam Hussein's regime has been violating UN resolutions "under-the-radar" for over a decade now.

The fact that he is in breach is not in question imo. It's the way in which our diplomats handled the rest of the world in trying to get them to comply that made the situation far worse, and far more protracted than it should have been.

You don't get people to listen to you when you're threatening and insulting them, and unfortunately that is what we did to even our staunchest allies, such as Mexico and Canada, to name the most public examples. Let alone the things we said about people we were trying to convince.

You don't get people to come to your side of things by talking *at* them, but not listening in return. One way streets don't work in any relationship.

That is what we should be debating imo. The failure of our diplomats to effectively sell *why* the war in Iraq should happen. Imo it was an open and closed case, but this administration made it so murky that it was easy for those who would have opposed us anyways (france as a huge example) to take that and muck up the entire argument, then get most of the world against us.

Clarity is a wonderful thing in diplomacy, and we had none whatsoever over the past year.

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 21:35

It's the way in which our diplomats handled the rest of the world in trying to get them to comply that made the situation far worse, and far more protracted than it should have been.

Nope, it just brought it to head. Better sooner than later.

You don't get people to listen to you when you're threatening and insulting them,

OK...I'll ask you. How do you get Sadam to listen to you? Pascal won't answer, maybe you can.

That is what we should be debating imo.

You dabate whatever you want. (Another Bush bashing diatribe). I want to know how to solve the Iraq problem without using force.

Silent_One

04-Apr-2003, 21:35

Natoma wrote:
That is what we should be debating imo. The failure of our diplomats to effectively sell *why* the war in Iraq should happen. Imo it was an open and closed case, but this administration made it so murky that it was easy for those who would have opposed us anyways (france as a huge example) to take that and muck up the entire argument, then get most of the world against us.

1.) Start a new thread - "The failure of our diplomats to effectively sell *why* the war in Iraq should happen" :)

2.) "Imo it was an open and closed case". Glad to hear it. Help us convince some others around here.

Natoma

04-Apr-2003, 21:42

Silent_One:

You understood what I was writing right? It seems to be that way. So why is Joe saying that I don't think force was necessary to depose Saddam?

Why did he take my words and say

OK...I'll ask you. How do you get Sadam to listen to you? Pascal won't answer, maybe you can.

when I wasn't even talking about Saddam? I was talking about how we relate to our *Allies* and that talking to our *Allies* that way won't engender any good will for us to push our policies around.

You understood that it seems. Why does Joe seem to only see my name and automatically assume what I'm writing instead of reading everything *in context*?

God that is what is so infuriating when trying to talk to him about anything.

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 21:49

Silent_One

04-Apr-2003, 21:56

Iraq is very complex with many internal tensions. In fact it could sucumb to its internal tensions dividing the country and putting democracy at risk.

Agreed.

I dont know how strong are those internal tensions and how much exposure is needed to MTV, Coca-Cola and other things to change their minds :lol:

MTV? A few days :lol:

This issue of country rebuild is very complex and I am not familiar with it. I am not prepared to discuss it.

Yes, it is very complex. And the most important part of the whole effort. Getting rid of WMD, getting rid of Saddam and his cronies are just a part of the overall picture. We can win the battle but lose the war if we don't win over the people.

Here are a few links regarding rebuilding after the war:
Indipendent Task Force Reports
http://cfr.org/pdf/Iraq_DayAfter_TF.pdf

Guiding Principles for U.S. Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq
http://cfr.org/pdf/Post-War_Iraq.pdf

Silent_One

04-Apr-2003, 22:03

Natoma-
I think Joe answered you. I don't think he meant to confuse you on purpose.
God that is what is so infuriating when trying to talk to him about anything.

Ah, but you have fun don't ya! :lol:

pascal

04-Apr-2003, 22:10

Here are a few links regarding rebuilding after the war:
Indipendent Task Force Reports
http://cfr.org/pdf/Iraq_DayAfter_TF.pdf

Guiding Principles for U.S. Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq
http://cfr.org/pdf/Post-War_Iraq.pdf
Thanks Silent_One, lots of pages
I will do some search later.
I going home now :wink:

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 22:11

Iraq is very complex with many internal tensions. In fact it could sucumb to its internal tensions dividing the country and putting democracy at risk.

Agreed.

I agree as well. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried (speaking to pascal). That's similar to agruments about Iraqi or other nations "not ready to handle freedom."

That's a pretty arogant position to take, IMO. Who are we to say they don't deserve freedom or democracy, when we feel we deserve it?

I beleive everyone has a right to freedom. I believe it is human nautre. However, just as the U.S. did, Iraq will ultimately have to determine their own destiny with respect to how freedom shapes their nation.

Less than 100 years after the U.S. declared our independence, we pretty much sucumbed to our own similar internal tensions, in a very horrific way: the Civil War.

Our differences probably looked pretty similar to the differences between Iraqi parties / regions: so different...can they really co-exist?

And to be clear...no outside party stepping in to try and "solve" the problem in the 1850's would have likely been successful. We just had to go through it, and heal the wounds. And I can imagine how the "old world" was laughing at us during that war and saying "see...they can't survive on their own without us!"

But we did survive, and in a big way.

It's similar to dealing with a child. You can try and help and assist, and "protect him from himself." But uiltimately, at some point he will have to do things on his own. He will make mistakes, he will probably hurt himself along the way by doing "stupid childish things that I could have prevented if I stepped in."

But nothing quite educates someone as going through the ordeal and learning from experience.

The U.S. survied the Civil war. And so, I believe, will Iraq survive internal tensions. Though they will be facing a rough road, and they will more or less have to find their own way.

Natoma

04-Apr-2003, 22:18

OK...I'll ask you. How do you get Sadam to listen to you? Pascal won't answer, maybe you can.

when I wasn't even talking about Saddam? I was talking about how we relate to our *Allies* and that talking to our *Allies* that way won't engender any good will for us to push our policies around.

Yes, I know what you are asking, but I'm turning it around to the topic at hand: convincing Sadam in a similar manner.

(I didn't ask you why you tried to derail the topic, I just tried to use your comments to illustrate a point to Pascal.)

To clarify: You seem to think that we could have easily made the case and brought folks like France and Germany with us on this action.

On the other hand, you DON'T believe that we could have done the same with Iraq. (We would never convnice them to peacfully disarm...)

Why?

Sigh.

That is what we should be debating imo. The failure of our diplomats to effectively sell *why* the war in Iraq should happen. Imo it was an open and closed case, but this administration made it so murky that it was easy for those who would have opposed us anyways (france as a huge example) to take that and muck up the entire argument, then get most of the world against us.

I answered your assertion that I believe we could have brought countries like France and Germany on board easily. As I stated, they would have opposed us anyway. But when they're able to convince much of the "fence sitters" of the world to their side, and we're not, that's what I'd call a total diplomatic failure.

Let's get one point clear. Saddam Hussein's regime has been violating UN resolutions "under-the-radar" for over a decade now.

I answered the reason why I think convincing Saddam was pretty futile. However, you don't go to the UN publicly grumbling "Well this isn't going to work anyways. So why are we doing it??" That does nothing but engender distrust and ill-will with the very people we can seriously bring to our cause.

As for the topic, I didn't derail anything. The topic on the page that I got to was talking about Saddam Hussein and the use of force being necessary, not the islamicizing of this war. I addressed what was currently being discussed. I had nothing to add to the original discussion, so I did not chime in. But it shifted and I felt I had something to add to the conversation, thus I did so.

Just because traditionally, we agree on many things with France / Germany and are "allies?" Does that mean we are bound to always reach an amicable agreement on how to proceed? Has it dawned on you that no matter what we argued, or how we argue it, we might just end up agreeing to disagree? (Like we do with Sadam?)

See above Joe.

God that is what is so infuriating when trying to talk to him about anything.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer. And it is infuriating to be chastized instead of just being asked for a clarification. :roll:

The point is Joe, you went in the complete opposite direction that I was going. You asked questions that I had already answered and made assertions that were completely false, and you would have seen if you had simply read.

*That* is what infuriates me. That I have to say things two, three, four times before you finally see what's being said, if ever.

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 22:36

Natoma

04-Apr-2003, 22:58

As I stated, they would have opposed us anyway. But when they're able to convince much of the "fence sitters" of the world to their side, and we're not, that's what I'd call a total diplomatic failure.
said, if ever.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that France is a better bullshit artist than the U.S. is. Yay France. I agree with you too.

In any case, it seems to me that one of the "reasons" why a good portion of the world is "ganging up on us", is because we don't have U.N. support.

If France would have opposed us anyway, we would not have UN support. Security council veto=no UN backing of force.

Bit of a problem, wouldn't you say? Why do you see this as so clear cut?

Clinton subverted the UN when we went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda I believe. Why didn't the UN get up in arms about those instances? Why didn't the world at large oppose us?

Because we handled the matter diplomatically. We had the UN's *implicit* approval, and thus there was no uproar. Whether or not France and Germany would have vetoed us is moot. If we had gone to the UN from the very beginning and floated, clearly, concisely, and without bias why Saddam Hussein's time is up, then the court of public opinion would have more than likely swayed to our side.

But no, instead we used "Evil doer" and "Well he's a terrorist and harbors weapons of mass destruction and kills his own people!" as our argument. Gee, there are a lot of other dictators that do that around the world as well, but we're not going after them. See the diametrically opposed policies toward Iraq and North Korea as a prime example.

*That* is the opening that the people that would have opposed us anyways took. They were able to articulate their "reasons" far better than we were, and in the end it ended up as a complete diplomatic failure for us because they mucked up the debate and got it off course from what it should have been. Instead of a discussion on the evils of saddam hussein and what he's done, it became a discussion on the evils of america and how we need to be kept in check.

If that's not a diplomatic failure, I don't know what is.

The point is Joe, you went in the complete opposite direction that I was going. You asked questions that I had already answered and made assertions that were completely false, and you would have seen if you had simply read.

Unfortunately, I was reading in the context of the topic at hand. Sue me. Next time I'll heed the warning when you explicitly state what YOU feel "this topic should be about," rather than what it's was, um, actually about. :roll:

And that's the point Joe. I made a few statements regarding the topic at hand, and I interjected my opinion, as *everyone* has done on this thread. Yet you seem to take it personally (hence the uppercasing of YOU in the sentence "I'll heed the warning when you explicitly state what YOU feel "this topic should be about," rather than what it's was, um, actually about."). As if I'm trying to order people around, or walk about as some high-falutin character instead of just talking about things, and giving my opinion in a concise, calm manner.

Please don't tell me that you're that tunnel visioned that you never are able to segue into other discussions without getting the two mixed up.

To address a specific point of your, less I be subjected to your wrath of not responding to every sentence:

However, you don't go to the UN publicly grumbling "Well this isn't going to work anyways. So why are we doing it??"

When someone goes to the UN, despite the fact that we didn't have to, just like past presidents didn't when taking action, you don't thumb your nose and say "we're not going to listen, no matter what you have to say."

The bottom line is "diplomatic failures" are TWO WAY STREETS.

It wasn't a failure to not bring France and Germany along with us. They were most likely going to be intransigent anyways (see france's attempts over the past decade+ to undermine every single resolution that was put forth as terms of the cease fire in 1991).

The diplomatic failure was us not convincing the fence sitters, the rest of the world, of our position. The court of global public opinion is far stronger than the UN. Clinton's administration had it when he went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda. That's why no one complained at the time. He had made the case to the american public, and the world.

The diplomats this time around most certainly have not, and it cost us.

Joe DeFuria

04-Apr-2003, 23:37

Clinton subverted the UN when we went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda I believe. Why didn't the UN get up in arms about those instances? Why didn't the world at large oppose us?

Because we handled the matter diplomatically. We had the UN's *implicit* approval, and thus there was no uproar.

That's a new one. "Implicit" approval? So that's OK not because there was diploatic success....but no diplomacy at all.

I would have preferred that as well. ;)

Whether or not France and Germany would have vetoed us is moot.

As is the case with Iraq. They did veto us. And it's moot.

If we had gone to the UN from the very beginning and floated, clearly, concisely, and without bias why Saddam Hussein's time is up, then the court of public opinion would have more than likely swayed to our side.

No matter how we approached the UN, it's more than likely that public opinion wouldn't be swayed to our side. Next.

But no, instead we used "Evil doer" and "Well he's a terrorist and harbors weapons of mass destruction and kills his own people!" as our argument.

Yes, truth be damned.

Gee, there are a lot of other dictators that do that around the world as well, but we're not going after them. See the diametrically opposed policies toward Iraq and North Korea as a prime example.

Different situations, which have been discussed thoroughly onthis board before.

*That* is the opening that the people that would have opposed us anyways took. They were able to articulate their "reasons" far better than we were...

Someone else asked it. YOU, Natoma, please "articulate those reasons as the administration should have", such that everyone just magically falls in line.

...and in the end it ended up as a complete diplomatic failure for us because they mucked up the debate and got it off course from what it should have been. Instead of a discussion on the evils of saddam hussein and what he's done, it became a discussion on the evils of america and how we need to be kept in check.

I agree that's the result of the diplomatic failure, but I believe we would be in the same position no matter what approach we took. The UN would not sanction this action, the Arab street certainly would not like this action.

If that's not a diplomatic failure, I don't know what is.

Any time an agreement is not reached, it's a "diplomatic failure" by definition. This is no exception. You seem to assert that diplomatic success is dependent on one side of the table though.

[snip furhter pettiness about "the topic at hand" in interests of civility]

It wasn't a failure to not bring France and Germany along with us. They were most likely going to be intransigent anyways (see france's attempts over the past decade+ to undermine every single resolution that was put forth as terms of the cease fire in 1991).

Agreed.

The diplomatic failure was us not convincing the fence sitters,

Who are these FENCE SITTERS that you keep talking about?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html

As I see it, we have a good portion of the fence sitters. Some we do, some we dont. Do you expect the Arab street to go along with us? Where is the list of "Anti-Coalition" countries? (As opposed to the "abstaining" countries?)

the rest of the world, of our position. The court of global public opinion is far stronger than the UN.

Oh, do you mean "fence sitters" as just "public" opinion and not UN countries?

Clinton's administration had it when he went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda.

Because Clinton is a leftist. Of course he has Euro support "by default." Conservative = direct threat! Watch out for this guy! in the eyes of most "non Americans" (and Half of Americans for that matter.)

That's why no one complained at the time. He had made the case to the american public, and the world.

I disagree. He made much less of a case to the American public and the world than Bush did before action was taken. There was MUCH more debate in fact and public airing of views before action was taken in the Iraq case. (And given the continued support for the action by the American public, I'd say American's are convinced of the case, wouldn't you?)

It's not that he hasn't stated his case. It's that he is inherently distrusted by "the popular world" because he is a conservative. There is no "implicit agreement", because he's not a liberal.

It's just that we have a conservative leader at this time, so he is by default labeled as such things as a "Cowboy" etc., before he is even given a chance to explain his view. He's been labeled that way since before his election by "the public stage."

Not really fair.

The diplomats this time around most certainly have not, and it cost us.

Cost us what, exactly?

pax

07-Apr-2003, 06:38

Asking him for another solution is like asking him how the war should be fought as if he were a career general. These types of questions are unfair because they put an end to the discussion. They dont so much display the lack of knowledge on one part as the on the part of the one asking. 3\4 of the world had a solution which was working before the US went in and attacked. It was slow but it was working. Forceful diplomacy. Oddly enough it was the US that initiated that. If you think you can call forceful diplomacy war your mistaken. Diplomacy has gradients. War is all or nothing. We'll never know now if it couldnt have worked in Iraq but it was working till the war started...

Now we have to live with 50 odd regimes who are feverously attempting to get nukes as that has been indicated as the one line the US wont cross no matter how bad the regime.Very well said. Now the logic of war and mighty will prevail around the world.

The effects are perceptibe only in the long term. Probably many nations are reconsidering their position. Few like Russia will openlly express it.

Dont think you guys really know how freaking easy it is to hide chemical and bioligical weapons in Iraq.

1/ Go to desert
2/ Dig huge hole
3/ Build bunker
4/ Put some of your WMD there
5/ Cover with sand
6/ Voilá! No one will ever find your WMD UNLESS you tell the inspectors where that bunker is and the likelyhood of that is as close to nil as it can get.

-Neutrality-

Been gone the weekend and guess I missed quite a bit of the discussion... Looks like it went pretty well ...

Heres what even easier to do:
1\ develop bio\chem\nuke programs for 20+ years
2\ hide most of that program from the public
3\ hide the most important part of the program after losing gulf war '91 (bio program) while giving up as much as possible to satisfy the winner of the war (chem and nuclear)
4\ gamble with inspectors and diplomacy... (and get lazy in the process thinking it could last forever)
5\ upon failure and invasion make vague threats of total war on enemy (which could be misconstrued as propaganda for arab and domestic purposes)
6\ near endgame give your best bio weapon to a terrorist...

Personally im crossing my fingers over the next year or 2... after that Ill be breathing slightly easier year after year...