There's a great article in one of the UKs daily papers...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/n...teid=50143

This same attitude has filled miles of news print in most british papers over the last few weeks.

Also there is a great book out "Why Do People Hate America?" by Merryl Davies and Ziauddin Sardar.
It talks about how US foreign policy is percieved by the rest of the world, which is something thats tricky to understand when the media doen't expose you to the whole truth.
(Note its 'America' and not 'Americans'... I'm not bring this up as a racial statement but it is a worrying situation.)

While I do not agree with attacking Iraq, I believe that you will find that the story linked in the original post is inaccurate and is based on speculation and not on hard data or evidence. This report is just as believable as reports saying that Saddam Hussein has trained nuclear attack penguins swimming from the arctic to sites on the American coastline.

In my opinion, America should not attack ANYONE without provocation and an attack on Iraq is not only unprovoked, but it will only serve to heighten tensions in the middle east. In short... it is a horrible idea.

IceNine said:

It's not actually that bad an article in comparison to other UK tabloid journalism.

I echo your overall sentiments though, the truth lays somewhere imbetween. Who actually DOES believe attacking Iraq is a good move aside from Bush?

The superiority complex and "Big Brother" knowing what's best for a foreign countries governorship always carries a sinister weight of days of yore IMO. No matter how seemingly bad a leader/party. It's a tough one...

I dont quite see what you are saying Icenine... that this article is based on speculation and doesnt rely on hard evidence? But thats the point of the article! That there is no hard evidence of Iraq's weapon accumulation.

IceNine said:

Right on, Ice!!!


Peace,
JD

DROP THE BIG ONE!!!
turn the whole desert into a plate of glass!!!

i am hoping that someone close to georgie stops him before he can carry out this utterly fucked-up plan of his.

he's a moron. don't the people around him know this??!!! it's plain to see.

he is sworn to protect our best intersts and he is not doing so. imo that's grounds for termination.

why can't the american public stand up and impeach him for his obviously unbalanced approach to foreign policy?

what if he declared war and no one obeyed him?

now THAT would be cool.

XxAxX said:

in a criminal society... yoou got ta be jokin!!!
the people around bush are just as shady as he is,
as a matter of fact it's his daddy doin all the shit.
Sr. is gettin payback for when regan had a yard of dick up in him, when he was suposed to be pres.
THESE PEOPLE ARE WAR MONGERS!!!
and we the people let them steal a presidency,
either by not participating (in the vote)
or by allowing them to do as they please (the count had to be good... his brother wouldnt cheat for him)
SO FUCK IT!!! let him bomb the shit out of them fools.
then see who get reparations then...
watch as they open us up to some real live BULLSHIT...
money has always been made on the BACKS OF THE DEAD
think about it.
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 17:50:34 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]

"SO FUCK IT!!! let him bomb the shit out of them fools.
then see who get reparations then...
watch as they open us up to some real live BULLSHIT...
money has always been made on the BACKS OF THE DEAD
think about it."

wow! you're RIGHT!!! absolutely the best idea i've heard in a while, 00796BAD

what could i have been thinking to suggest that we, the people, try to stop this bullshit before hussein turns america into a nuclear wasteland.

Am I the only one on this site that says, "Go get, Iraq?"

I'm the only George Bush fan too, aren't I? Dammit.

IceNine said:

I think it's too late for that. Normally, I'm not for going around and starting up wars around the world. Peace-keeping missions, yes. But this is something we started when we were at odds with Iran and then again in the early 90's. This is a mess we created that we have to fix. If Europe and the rest of the world doesn't like it, so be it. They can either help us out with this, if we do it, or if we don't, they can deal with the aftermath.

Sitting around saying "we should stay out of it" is all well and good until some major shit goes down. Like September 11. Or Anthrax. Or possibly the arrival of West Nile virus in the US. Some chemical or nuclear attacks go down, launched from Iraq. Then the world will point at us and ask why we didn't do anything to stop it. Or will be looking for emergency relief funds to fix the fallout from the catastrophe.

All over the world, people hate us for sticking our noses in where it doesn't belong (Kosovo). And when we don't, they ask us where were we (Rwanda, I believe?)? That if we aren't going to help one group of people, we shouldn't help anyone else. That's bullshit. We shouldn't help these people over here who are in trouble just because we dropped the ball with these others? Two wrongs suddenly make a right?

And how about WWII? A rather common argument is that the US got involved too late. We were doing then exactly what they want us to do now. "Stay out of it." 40-50-60 years later, they're saying we should have gotten involved earlier. This is a repeat of WWII. All this handwringing about whether we should leave Saddam alone. Let him invade Kuwait, let's keep out of it. Let him build an arsenal, let's keep out of it. Didn't Europe basically just turn a blind eye to Hitler for quite some time? Sacrificing certain countries to him just so they wouldn't have to face a war? Until it went so far that there was no turning back? And he was right in their backyards? Saddam is in your back yard. After Isreal, where do you think the next place he'll aim missiles will be? The US? Don't think so. Too far away. Heads up Europe. I hope you don't talk us into staying out of Iraq like you tried so long to talk yourselves out of going up against Hitler. You might not recover from this one. Will you still want us to stay out of it when it's time to clean up from the total destruction of your countries? Like last time?

Which do you want? Go ahead, say we're evil. Think we're evil. Hate our foreign policy. I don't care. But ask yourselves who'll be the first person your countries run to when your chips are down.



Edited because I have more to say.....
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 19:38:12 PDT 2002 by Aaron]

Aaron said:

I loved your entire post. Very good, Aaron. I am in agreement!

yeah, me too Battier.

a war like this will provide the planet with some welcome relief from the human over-population problem.

there's always a bright side, hey?

Aaron said:

What exactly is it that we have to "fix"? The fact that the leader of a foreign nation *may* have the ability to manufacture "weapons of mass destruction"? Well, let's go down the list and see who else has weapons of mass destruction... Israel, Britain, France, China, Russia, America, India, Pakistan, and the list goes on.

WHO is to say who should and should not possess these weapons? India and Pakistan are more likely to launch a nuclear attack on each other than Saddam is.



Hmm, isn't it interesting that the FBI investigation into the source of last year's anthrax attacks have led them to an American scientist who once worked at the Fort Detrick lab where that strain of the virus was developed. So please don't put that one on Iraq.



I know you are not putting this on Iraq. If you want to blame West Nile on Iraq, then we might as well blame AIDS on America, crack on Reagan/Bush, etc., in which case I'm more concerned with the devastation that America has wreaked within its own borders. Who's gonna protect us from US?



Isn't that what you're arguing for here? America built Saddam's war machine, and as long as it was turned on his own people and other Muslims in Iran, they turned and looked the other way. That was WRONG but no one stopped it. So now in order to correct that WRONG, America should invade a sovereign nation because they don't like its leader?



Before you say you don't care, think about how a war on Iraq will radicalize a whole new generation of people who hate America for its imperialism and military bullying abroad... a whole new generation of potential terrorists. This is not a war that can be won with might, but RIGHT. Do wrong and the United States will only create fertile ground for more Osamas.

Aaron said:

theC
They may be running from us.As we ignore the rest of the world and start our own agenda we start to come across alot like germany in the second world war.We will do preemptive strikes instead of blitzkrieg(sp).We will take on the world.Either they are with us or against us(what does this sound like to the rest of the world).And by attacking Iraq with no evidence or support will tell the rest of the world if you ain't with us you get this too(bully).And we all know what happens to bullies in the end.We can keep picking on little countries and eventually they will gang up and we will have a MAJOR problem.Attacking Iraq is the first step in assuring these countries unite against us.

NuPwrSoul said:

I agree that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself however it wishes. Where we differ, is when that ability threatens the sovereignty of other nations. When the person in charge is a lunatic who'll gladly gas his own people. For kicks.



Indeed. I'm not necessarily talking about the Anthrax letters from last fall. If you think Saddam doesn't have Anthrax and isn't willing to use it in this country, you're deluded.



Actually, some of the bio-warfar we gave Saddam way back when when he was being a thorn in Iran's side was ... guess. West Nile virus. And it coincidentally shows up in the US months after the inspectors are pulled out of Iraq? I'm not into conspiracies. However, if it turns out that this is the case, his ass is fried. He knows it, you know it. And it is deserved.



No, what I'm saying is that it is wrong for us to continue to look the other way any longer. When we go into Iraq, we won't be only protecting our own asses and intersts. We'll be protecting the asses and interests of pretty much every other sane nation out there.



You misunderstand the situation then. No Islamic nation or person is going to be up in arms because we oust Saddam. Iraq is the most secularized nation in the region. Islamic nations are going to be mad because we remove a guy that's killing devout Muslims? No Islamic nation wants him in charge of Iraq. They're shaking in their boots every time he looks their way funny.

As I understand it, having listened to several people who are actually FROM Iraq, the people of that country are ready for him to be gone. They're looking for inspiration to replace him. We can be that inspiration. If we've got the balls to go back and fix our mistakes. We're owning up to them. Give us some credit for that at least.

I'm more afraid of a world where Saddam Hussein is allowed to reign over Iraq than I am of a world where we have to go to war with him and put him down like the mad dog he is.
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 19:52:53 PDT 2002 by Aaron]

BattierBeMyDaddy said:

I will say this. I'd be much more comfortable with a war if Bush was not in charge. I don't believe he's an idiot, like most Bush-bashers do. He's politically very devious, which is my beef with him. He is a disgusting human being. Read Mark Crispen Miller's book. I don't recall the title, but it's just been published (updated) in paperback. Bush makes me ill.

Would Gore be any better in a war? I have no idea. I believe so. He is at least a thinker. Bush is no idiot. But he is NOT a thinker in the slightest. Gore, I believe would at least have a plan. And being who he is, would weigh the pros and cons of going in there with something other than Bush's all-out warfare agenda.

Despite what I've said previously, I'm not completely decided on whether or not we should invade Iraq. At least not in the way that I think we're going to. I do believe it is inevitable that we will and NEED to go there. But I have very little faith that Bush is the man for the job.

However, despite my very liberal leanings, I'm no hippie. I see the value in war. It is a necessary evil, and human nature. Without war, there can be no peace.

After all, when somebody shoots a nuclear weapon at you, who are you going to call? A hippie?
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 20:18:36 PDT 2002 by Aaron]

Aaron said:

Sure, many from Iraq want to get rid of Saddam. But who is to replace him? A younger more bitter and hateful person for sure...*And*, its not just the people of Iraq that we need to consider. Just today the government of Egypt denounced *any* plans for the US to invade and overtake Iraq. Other Muslim nations have voiced oposition as well..

And do you really think that by overtaking Iraq we will end the problem? It will require years and years of resources and money to stabilize the nation...More money and attention spent somewhere else while the Mulsim people stew in their hatred of us for controlling another nation. So, whats it going to take? Us militarily controling all of the Middle East? And we arent going to look like the bad guys? Just like Russia did during the 80's.

We should be spending our money investing in finding alternatives to oil and get the hell out of that entire nation. Try a less hpyocritical approach and *really* preach peace...only then will this perpetual cycle of *terror* will end.

XxAxX said:

i can understand your stance on give peace a chance
and i do agree,
but that dont mean shit, what i think,what you think,
it Dont Mean Shit!!!
the us. has been in need of a reason to correct their previous FUCK UP, of put sudaam
in power in the first place, to over power a religious leader (komani or whutdafuck)
so watch this.
instead of mindin their fuckin bizzness, they FUCKED UP
now dude is fuckin them on the oil thang, shit been fuckin 'em, and they want their money, BY ANY MEANS NESSISARY!!!
so now whut???
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 21:49:34 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]

00769BAD said:

Bad, we are homies, so I can say this. I can't read a bit of that and make proper sense of it.

Aaron said:

That's actually been disputed by reputable independent, objective sources.



He probably does have anthrax. And if YOU think that America does not have the same, or worse, and that it is not willing to use it then you're deluded. Or maybe they'll just stick to bombing factories that manufacture baby's milk.



West Nile has been in the country for years now, but if you wanna talk interesting timing... there are numerous conspiracies about who was really behind 9/11, who knew about it in advance, and the strange coincidence of oil companies seeking to lay oil pipelines in Afghanistan right where those "caves" were bombed.



America has never really been concerned, and now you want to convince me that it has been overtaken with some sense of morality in its decision making with regard to third world countries? Please.



No it's YOU who misunderstand the situation. No Arab or Muslim country is in support of an American war on Iraq. Saudi Arabia, which hosted and paid for the last Gulf party has absolutely refused the use of its bases for such a purpose and America has had to move its troops and equipment to Qatar, the only country that seems willing. All of America's nearby allies, including Iran (Iraq's former foe), Egypt, and Jordan are opposed to this war.

NuPwrSoul said:

... yes, since we were already talking about things that have been disputed by reputable, independent, objective sources, i'm glad you brought that up



I don't dispute that. That's been fairly obvious to anyone who put down their flag after Sept. 11 long enough to suss it out.




I didn't say that at all. I was talking about saving our own asses and the rest of the world's too.





Saudi Arabia is another matter altogether. And if Bush was the great leader he pretended to be after September 11, he'd have listed them with the other "axis of evil" () countries. And now you're listing Iran as our ally? You really do misunderstand the situation, as I said before. The enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend. Same goes for Egypt. You think the first chance they get when all this shit goes down, they won't be marching toward Israel again?
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 21:28:56 PDT 2002 by Aaron]

I'm baffled by the Saddam Hussein sympathizers who frequent this site. He is a tyrant. Duh! To compare our government's action, not all of which I agree with, to those of his regime is ludicrous.

Try the following exercise in free speech and get back to me:

Take a trip to Washington DC, stand in front of the White House, and shout "George Bush is a murdering fool!" Hmmm, no big deal. What's up with those menacing Americans?! Next, catch a flight to Baghdad, find a busy street, and repeat the message using the name "Saddam Hussein." Chances are, we'll never hear from you again.

Now I've never been foolish or angry enough to try this myself, but I'm sure that one of our org Saddam-sympathizers would be assured of fair treatment in both cities.

If we have the chance, we should provide a service to rest of the civilized world. Take him out. You'll thank us later.

___

Nobody is sympathizing with Saddam The Max...however, i think some of us here *do* understand the complexity of what Bush is proposing and the ramifications of these actions on our society as it is...


Bush is too much of a simpleton and he is surrounded by great military advisors and thats it..has anyone seen 13Days or studied the Cuban missle crisis ? Can you imagine what would have happened if JKF *only* listened to his military advisors?

Bush came out after Sept 11 screaming REVENGE..and the American public ran with that emotion...now, peoples hatred, frustrations and anger are clouding their judgement and we are about to allow a madman to change our lives and our children's lives and their childrens lives for the worse...

BattierBeMyDaddy said:

does this give you a better understanding of my BAD TERMS???
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 22:09:49 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 22:14:44 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 22:36:49 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 22:39:16 PDT 2002 by 00769BAD]

Aaron said:

Personally I think that Europe's collective voice as being more evolved/morally superior to US etc (which you hear all the time on this site) has more to do with being so close to the situation rather than actually being a moderate voice. If Europe as a whole rallied against the trouble states in the middle east, they would pay the price. There would be 9/11s left and right.

Europeans underestimate the American public's ability to understand complex issues like our foreign policy and how it is like creating Frankensteins. Nobody I know is blindly following the government's stance. I strongly agree that one thing our nation needs to learn is that when you lie with dogs you get fleas. Pestilence, in the form of nations we now oppose that we once supported (Iran, Afghanistan). Unfortunately the Bush administration is charging full steam ahead with their agenda with or without input from the other branches of government, let alone the people.

I'm not in favor of just going in and blowing up Iraq. But something does need to be done. What happens when we leave the situation alone and suddenly Saddam detonates their first nuclear weapon in the Iraqi desert? How could you possibly reign him in at that point?
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 22:33:41 PDT 2002 by SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy]

A few points of clarification:

1) I am completely unimpressed with both "Bushes," especially the current one. He's an embarrassment.

2) I'm not interested in a "war" with anyone. On the other hand, a "surgical strike" to remove Saddam Hussein from the face of the Earth sounds completely reasonable to me.

3) We've been attacked. I am completely okay with vigorous self-defense. In my opinion, the Bin Ladens and Husseins of the world should pick their fights a little more carefully. But they haven't. The reason: they rely on our restraint. If we were half the aggressors that the sympathizers here have suggested (repeatedly), we'd be talking about the middle east in the past tense.

___

I know that a major part of our engaging in Desert Storm had to do with protecting our interests, but let me point out that OUR interests are YOUR interests too.

Let's look at the early 90s scenario. Saddam took over Kuwait. He then had his eyes on Saudi Arabia, who owns the largest oil reserves. So say we stayed out of it completely and Saudi Arabia is taken over by Iraq. Iraq's reserves along with their ill gotten gain in Saudi Arabia makes them the top owner of oil. Now America is held hostage because of our need for this oil. Without our ability to function on normal levels, we are unable to sustain our status as a world power, not militarily but ECONOMICALLY. Where does that leave the rest of the world that so depends on our help, millitarily & economically? Would Europe be there to pick up the pieces?

So now Saddam is able to wield incredible power due to his control of the oil market, do you really think that he'd stop at controlling the middle east?? He'd be in Europe's backyard before they even knew what hit em.

That's something to think about when deciding whether or not it's a good idea to oust Saddam. Again, I'm not in full favor of war but we need to think about the consequences of "staying out of it".

President Bush has full authorization to attack Iraq from a a joint resolution PASSED by Congress on Sept 14, 2001. It gives the President sole power to decide to go to war against a country aiding the terrorists, Al Qaeda. This was also mentioned in many of his speeches, which is the Bush Doctrine. "To terrorist nations, you are either for us or against us."

They've been given a choice. The majority American people are behind the ousting of Saddam in opinion polls. He has U.S. support at home. The Europeans (politicos) in general are candyasses who like to think the world's a rosy peach. Historic precedant has already been made in their failure to deal with real threats. We don't need their support, going after Saddam is the right thing to do. He's a psychopath that poses an immediate threat to the U.S. (not to mention Israel) with nuclear weapons. Why is this such a big surprise??? He disobeyed the U.N. sanctions, he kicked out the inspectors 10 years ago. What did the U.N. do? What did the incompetent Clinton administration do? Jack squat. Many knew this was inevitable years ago, I was wondering myself what the heck is going on! Isn't anyone watching this guy! And now, years later, we've got this crap to deal with.

The game has already begun people. This is going to happen. The psy-ops are already happening, with disinformation coming out in the press. What do you really make of all these U.S. press leaks about how the military is in disagreement about going in, we have no plan...etc?
Hmm... And what of all these former Republicans wanting proof and questioning the attack? Hmmm... The waters are getting murky for a purpose -- to confuse Saddam. We'll be going in Sept-Nov. It will probably be happening before we know it, and the regime change will bring some STABILITY to the region for once. The Iraqi people are not happy. The Iranian regime is getting scared, like Jordan and it's puppet state Lebanon. Change is a coming and it's about time for this troubled region. It's time the participated in the world's economy and enjoyed the fruits of freedom.

bonojr said:

This region will continue to be unstable with or without Sadaam's departure. It isn't until TRUE equality among peoples is acheived, regardles of class, sex or ethnic origin. As long as dictatorships flourish in that region there will always be trouble. And as long as we support these regimes, even if they are our ally today, that part of the world will never stop hating us.