Iraq

[Hasty Ent]

thought this was scary -- here's an excerpt -- author Michael Kinsley on Slate:

"According to the Bush administration, the threat posed by Iraq is serious enough to risk the lives of American soldiers, to end the lives of what would undoubtedly be thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and to risk a chemical or biological attack on the American homeland, but not serious enough to interrupt prime-time television. None of the big three broadcast networks carried Bush's case-for-war speech Monday night because, they say, the White House didn't ask. Pre-empting Saddam Hussein is one thing, apparently, but pre-empting Drew Carey is another."

and more:

"The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting. Arguments that stumble into each other like drunks are not serious. Washington is abuzz with the "real reason" this or that subgroup of the administration wants this war. A serious and respectful effort to rally the citizenry would offer the real reasons, would base the conclusion on the evidence rather than vice versa, would admit to the ambiguities and uncertainties, would be frank about the potential cost. A serious effort to take the nation into war would not hesitate to interrupt people while they're watching a sitcom."


if you're interested in the rest of the article:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072211

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
One question, why are you so interested in Britains affairs BeardOfPants?

I'm an anthropologist. I like to be current in world affairs and human idiocy.

[HOBBIT]

well, its not like Bush is all that great a speach giver :P I didn't watch it, but I heard about it (history class, etc). It wasn't that exciting. Nothing new was told. Why should they have broadcast it? :P

[Hasty Ent]

Yes, Hobbit, I agree that Bush is a pitiful public speaker -- I positively cringe at most of what he says. And yet...as citizens, shouldn't we be informed? I listened to the House speeches (broadcast on NPR), and while most seemed to mouth the usual self-serving political nonsense, I still wanted to know what our elected representatives had to say.

The problem with the issue of what to do about Iraq is as much about political grandstanding (what's new? ) as it is about the general public's apathy. Why should they hear these speeches when they have no trust or faith in their leaders? When whatever they spout is simply a pre-election ploy to lure voters? The danger is that these morons (and yes, we did elect them - the horror...the horror...) can do tremendous damage. Claiming a moral high ground for a military strike is the easiest explanation for a public that has neither the patience nor the interest in what is a terribly complex issue.

[webwizard333]

Despite my often leftist views (Green Party forever!), I would support Bush in removing Saddam Hussein from power, though mostly for different reasons that the ones he gives.

1) He's a mass murderer. He's gassed so many people, and according to one article I've read, an ethnicity is slowly dieing from the effects of his gasses, which have caused most of the survivors to be sterile, effectively killing this group. If the UN and US really supports human rights, they should act on these beliefs and use the international justice system they're st up to bring charges against him. What they've done so far, is hurt the people of Iraq, while Saddam stays in power.

2) I've always found Saddam's view of himself particularly disturbing. He believes himself to be the new Saladin and does desire to control the Arab region. Though I doubt a single nuclear weapon would give him instant power, the accumulation of several would allow him to finally take countries such as Kuwait and Iran.

3) In response to Sween's post, you think shooting at people is no big deal?! Threatening lives has always been a major offense, and if its come to be ok to attempt to kill others, then I'm worried. In response to BoP's post, I was under the impression that the pilots were flying on their side of the perimeter. If they weren't, that puts a new spin on things, and though I wouldn't condone the Iraqi shootings, I wouldn't support the pilots' actions either.

4) Will the UN do anything to support its own regulations and decisions? Though I think it has done and continues to do many things that I feel are very good and support it in doing, I feel that in the Middle East it has repeatedly failed to uphold its mission of peace, human rights, and such. If it continues to show it lacks a backbone in the Middle East, then I feel its declining, and either should be replaced or fixed somehow.

[Erawyn]

He's a mass murderer. He's gassed so many people, and according to one article I've read, an ethnicity is slowly dieing from the effects of his gasses, which have caused most of the survivors to be sterile, effectively killing this group.

Exactly. Saddam is an evil guy. Thats why we should get rid of him. Not because Bush wants to protect his family business. I am against america attacking iraq for the reasons it is. They said they would let the weapons inspectors in!!
The US in so hypocritical, THEY put him in power in the first place, then they got all mad at him so they put sanctions on his country, to hurt him, but all it did was hurt the general population

[Cirdan]

My favaorite Bushism was that we need to invade Iraq because Saddam is a threat to peace... *prolonged head scratching*

When did my country become filled with cringing cowards? I lived through the cold war to end up being afraid of this punk? oy...

Why is my president spending all his energy trying to scare his people? Wormtongue lives...

[Millane]

Sween it sounds to me that your American am i right ?
Think about it like this... Saddam shoots down American Planes... ok what would Bush do if Saddams planes were anywhere near america???...
isnt it ironic that the weapons that Afganisthan used to fight america were actually given to them by america to fight the russians? it just seems to me that america thinks they do no wrong and that there enemies are always in the wrong...

[Sween]

Originally posted by Millane
Sween it sounds to me that your American am i right ?
Think about it like this... Saddam shoots down American Planes... ok what would Bush do if Saddams planes were anywhere near america???...
isnt it ironic that the weapons that Afganisthan used to fight america were actually given to them by america to fight the russians? it just seems to me that america thinks they do no wrong and that there enemies are always in the wrong...

No im english born and bread ive never been so insulted in all my life (hehehe only kidding my american chums).

Your new so ill let you off but ive been known to be very critical of amerrica in the past.

It is true that america has provided many countries through out there years with wepons and also stood idley by for long periods of time in the world wars whislt they made mass profits but lets not get into that.

Bush has set himself up as kinda leader of the world. Since september the 11th he has obvoisly seen it as his duty as the leader of the worlds most powerful nation to sort out a few of the worlds problems and in many ways i say good luck to him. But there is also a thin line bettween leadeding the world and dominating it and thats why he is receving so little support.

He is sending out the wrong image of Iraq to the american people hes trying to sell Sadam as a real danger to the american people and they aint buying it. America vs Iraq hmmmmmmmmm that would be a tought one to win.

I feel sadam is an evil evil man (look at the way he treats his football team) and certinal;ly if he thought he could he would try to take over the arab world in a second. this is the message that should be sent out and people would go along with it. Not silly storys he 'could' have wepons of mass destruction and be heading for the USA this does no one good i could have a wepon of mass destruction politics should never involes 'coulds'

[Millane]

America DOES have weapons of mass destruction... sorry to offend you i am new hear and thatll be my excuse...
and as for the America vs Iraq thing that would be a hard one to win... many people forgot that there are two major powers in the world and one hasnt declared any support whatsoever for america. America vs Iraq sounds pretty one-sided but america vs Iraq and China and it gets a whole lot worse for bush...

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Why is my president spending all his energy trying to scare his people? Wormtongue lives...

One word for you:

Oil.

(you knew it anyway)

[osszie]

Originally posted by Dunadan
One word for you:

Oil.

(you knew it anyway)

And a very interesting word it is, it's also the reason why the UN will never fully back America's proposed attack on Iraq.........

Both Russia and France have trade deals worth billions of $'s with Iraq, both countries have waited patiently the UN to lift sanctions on Iraq......the USA now sends $10 billion dollars of aid to Russia per annum as a sort of "apology" to the failing sanctions, yet they send nothing to France ............ naturally France is a little perturbed by this

Saddam's main argument to the weapons inspections has always been that he does not want such a strong American prescense to be part of the inspection, as the inspection is carried out by the UN, why does America feel the need to make it's prescence felt so much during these inspections ................ does America not trust the other countries of the UN to carry out a professional inspection?

The sanctions against Iraq are a joke............as soon as the UN learned that the people of Iraq were dying through malnutrition and inadequete medical care they lifted "some" sanctions to allow Iraq to make enough money for life's neccessities (food, hospitals etc) then they became upset when Saddam built new palaces etc with the money. Did they really think Saddam would build hospitals with this money ............. Saddam whould hardly give aid to his people with money that the UN allowed him to have he has spent a long time brainwashing his people into believing that the western world is evil, he would never give them reason to be grateful to the UN.

America proposes to attack Iraq, and there is little doubt that they would win. But the question remains unanswered "what happens after?".........who gains control of Iraq and its resources? The rest of the middle east is eager to trade with Iraq again, the oil alone used to gernerate billions of $'s for that part of the world. If Saddam is removed then who do they deal with?......as with many things, it boils down to who will controls the money

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emeritz are taking a very "diplomatic" stance, they are asking for answers regarding the future of Iraq in the middle east after any such attacks, and America is giving them none. Naturally this turns suspicion towards America.............do they (or indeed the UN as a whole) see themselves as taking control of the oil resources?

The UN will never gain the kind of support for this attack it recieved after the Gulf War (90-91) simply because Saddam actually did make an aggressive move by invading Kuwait.......at the moment he is using nothing more than insults and crafty diplomacy to attack America. Ok, maybe the odd pot-shot at the occasional plane, but what are they doing there anyway? China shot down an American spy plane not very long ago and that did not lead to war with China.

Personnally I think Bush is using far too much propaganda to support his position against Iraq.................untill Iraq aggressively attacks he has no justification in attacking them.

Saddam is a potential threat of course, but it is only 20yrs since Cl.Gaddafi was going to destroy America............. since that was resolved (with just a few missiles if I remember correctly) Libya has again become a prosperous country and Gaddafi has proven himself to be a very capable leader during peace.

Bush does worry me............... a lot of his statements seem to reek of "the genocide of the Iraq people".

As for Tony Blair.........probably the most popularist politician in history, the man thinks nothing of changing his stance to recieve the most public acclaim, Bush could not have found himself a better lap-dog.

[markedel]

I think invading Iraq could easily inflame the Middle East. That's bad because I have relatives in Israel and gas masks aren't a laughing matter.

[Sween]

i hate Blair he has not got an origional thought in his body. He is a useless public speaker a failed politcian and no leader. He is a voice for other peoples words.

The labour government is a shamble.

soz had to gtet off my chest the only reason they are in power is because the conservatives are such a disgrace (i was watching thgere pary conference they have no idea they were saying they need to run an election like thater did )

Bush is fast beccomming the most unpopular president ever. i dont know how he is seen in america but in england he is seen as an idiot and a shabbles he is in charge of the most powerful country in the world. I fear he could lead us into ruin

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by markedel
That's bad because I have relatives in Israel and gas masks aren't a laughing matter.

You must find this all very worrying. I sincerely hope there isn't an invasion, as Saddam would like as not shoot off his last few SCUDs at Israel to try to broaden the conflict, and Sharon has indicate that he would retaliate.

(BTW - that's something you don't hear given the credit it deserves: Israel's restraint during the Gulf War, when they were being attacked by missiles. I suppose they didn't need to because Uncle Sam went and kicked butt for them.)

You're close, Sween, but it's actually simpler than that. The US isn't that bothered who owns the oil as long as they are prepared to sell it to the US (and the world in general) without too much fuss.

Saddam controls the world's second largest oil reserves. This makes the US particularly dependent on the Saudis. The Saudis walk a very delicate tightrope between making anti-infidel noises (e.g. refusing the US permission to use its bases) and propping up their feudal dynasties with western armaments. However, they also house the most sacred sites in Islam, and there is a lot of resentment towards them in the Arab world. They are perceived as being vulnerable to an Islamic revolution (Bin Laden is a Saudi). This would leave the West's oil supply controlled by a Taliban-style regime in Riyadh and a genocidal nutcase in Baghdad.

So, get rid of Saddam and replace him with a sympathetic (or even just neutral) regime, and you break the Saudis' stranglehold. The ideal candidate would be Saddam as he was 20 years ago when, in fact, he was propped up (and tooled up) by the West to act as a bulwark against fundamentalist Iran.

All the War on Terror, UN and WMD stuff is a rather unconvincing fig leaf for the US's priapic purposes.

Hey ho, twas ever thus

[crickhollow]

I may be the only one here, but I'm glad we have Bush in charge right now. He might not have been my first choice, but hey, we can't always have a George Washington, right? Anyway, he's disciplined, and his actions are well thought out. It's too bad that a guy's leadership ability is judged solely on his public speaking. I'd much rather have Bush and his cabinet than a lazy smut like Clinton in charge of a war.

Judging by the congressional votes the last couple of days (yes, I may be out of the country, but hurrah for internet new organizations), it looks like war is headed our way whether we like it or not. My preference would be to go back in time and alter the objectives that Bush Sr. laid out for the gulf war. My understanding is that because he didn't specifically set out in the first place to remove Saddam from power, congress pulled him up short and told him that it "wasn't part of the planned objectives". Since that's impossible...

Look, I'm not keen on going to war either, but I'd say it's necessary IF Saddam really is this close *holds thumb and forfinger three millimeters apart* to going nuclear. He may never outright attack on American soil, I freely admit that. Israel would probably be his first choice--it would save him from having to shell out money to all the families of the suicide bombers.

[Garina]

The problem that I have with this is:

Apparently Hussein has all these chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that he will use if given a reason.

So America are going to attack Iraq, giving him a reason...

Ok, I'm not the most politcally informed individual, but there seems to be something wrong with this!!!

[Sween]

Originally posted by Garina
The problem that I have with this is:

Apparently Hussein has all these chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that he will use if given a reason.

So America are going to attack Iraq, giving him a reason...

Ok, I'm not the most politcally informed individual, but there seems to be something wrong with this!!!

the pijnt is does he? And if he did have them can he deliver them to america? Probably not. moving a nuclear wepon arounds not that simple. 9/11 came about because no one expected that in there wost nightmares it was unconsived.

And does sadam really hate america i think not he just likes playing dictator.

[jerseydevil]

Currently I don't support or condemn a war with Iraq.

However I want to get some things straight.

America and England are patrolling the NO-FLY zone in order to protect the Kurds. This was a requirement made by the UN when Iraq surrounded after the previous Gulf War. Iraq had accepted this stipulation. By them firing at the patrolling aircraft is a direct affront to the agreement that they signed.

Europe and Japan get far more Middle Eastern oil than America does - we don't need their oil. So to say that we're fighting for "America's" oil is a lie that everyone likes to petite.

Another point is that America has fought repeatedly to have smart sanctions laid against Saddam Hussein. This would alleviate the hardships of the Iraqi people. However, some countries (such as Russia and France) don't like this because it also closes the loopholes that allow them to get things into Iraq.

Everyone says that Saddam has not done anything to warrant an attack. Yet today we question why no one stopped Hitler when there were clear signs of what he was doing. Are we going to question 50 years from now and say – “why didn't anyone do anything against Iraq when they had the chance?”. I know that England tried negotiations with Hitler. They were even guaranteed that Germany was not going to attack other countries. Russia had treaties with Germany. Is Hussein, who has used chemical weapons on his own people, that different from Hitler, who set up concentration camps for his own people?

I am perfectly aware that Hussein will most likely attack the US or supply terrorist groups with weapons to get back at us for any attack. But they already hate us and are just biding their time. The entire Middle East hates us because of the news (propaganda) they listen to.

Iraq will attack - whether we attack first or in a defensive position. I feel that Iraq will launch an attack on the western world once he has his weapons ready.

The question now is which is better to do - take a preventive measure and get him before he does anything? Before he is prepared? Before he has his weapon arsenal back together? Or later - when it's on his terms? After he's unleashed a biological weapon through the London underground or the NY subway?

When is it okay to take action? If America had gone after Bin Laden before 9/11 - people (including in America) would have been questioning why. Do we really need or want an attack as big or bigger than 9/11 from Hussein before the world says - "Okay you can attack Iraq now"? It's what it took for the world to wake up to Hitler.

Also - as I said before, the US is going to do what is in our self interest. All countries pursue their self interests.

How many times can Iraq thumb it’s nose at the UN before they decide to enforce the agreements that Iraq signed? The world says that the US should go through the UN – well we did. We’re waiting for action now from both parties. As Bush said and I agree, this is a time for the UN to prove that it is not an irrelevant body of political windbags. So I paraphrased. But as anyone knows – I have no love for the UN.

[Cirdan]

is true that america has provided many countries through out there years with wepons and also stood idley by for long periods of time in the world wars whislt they made mass profits but lets not get into that.

Just be glad your not speaking german right now.