The Republicans now have full control...

PHB

I don't agree at all. Most people will recognise a countries right to defend themselves. I don't think that bombing Al'Quaeda training camps in Afghanistan was terrorism. It was self defense.

What would you have liked them to do. Wait for the next attack

I recognise a countrys right to defend itself, but that justifys a lot of things if you look at it from this point of view.
If you look at it from that point of view the UK would be justified in invading Ireland to neutralise the terrorist threat in boarding counties.

I hardly think you can say that invading an entire country, replacing its government with a puppet government, not doing it quite so effectivly, and hence moving onto a better know "evil" such as Iraq, to repeat the pattern once again, can all be called in the name of self defense.

Bush is doing this all to get re-elected. The economic situation in america has been blamed on clinton, somehow, and he is distracting his people from the real issues by fighting international "enemies" to increase popular vote.
I think once election time comes around again, Bin Laden will suddenly get captured, or be killed. I think the war on Iraq will be timed so as its victory is around election time.
If Bush gets re-elected it will be interesting to see if he continues his war on terror. If not, whoever takes his place is going to have a hellof a lot of cleaning up to do.
Bush is doign what his father did, but hes doing it a hell of a lot better than his father did.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by daveirl
The government of Afghanistan were supportive of the terrorists in their country. They made no effort to cooperate with the US. Our police force actively took on the paramilitary threat so the British couldn't have justified the war. There were other Al'Quaeda strongholds - Yemen - but their governments don't want them so took them on themselves.

Well the Taliban did offer to hand Bin Laden over to a third country (ie not the US), an offer the US rebuffed, perferring instead to topple the regime.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

True, though I don't know that they'd have been capable of shutting them down to the US's satisfaction. My overall take on it is that once the US had decided on regime change in Afghanistan nothing the Taliban actually did would have swayed them from that course. Similar to their attitude towards Iraq today - though it's not guaranteed they'll get their way this time.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

I think that David Quinn has a very good article in todays Sunday Times about Iraq. The US are right to be sceptical of Saddam. He could sell all the oil he wanted to buy medicine & food for his people.

He has not.

The ordinary Iraqi people are suffering because of this.

DiscoStu

That's not going to make any one feel safer. Blowing up terrorist training camps will though.

so does more bobbies on the beat but figures show it does not cause a significant drop in crime.

in the last couple of weeks the rhetoric coming from pyongyang is an awful lot more disturbing than anything that has come from iraq yet does the us stand to gain anything economically from an invasion of north korea? no. not in the slightest. so a diplomatic approach is what the us want. tbh the world would be an awful lot safer place if north korea was disarmed and a new administration was in place there. do we see any inclination on the us for that to happen?

The rejection of bush's lust for war does not come from any anti-us sentiment or for a wish of a lack of democracy in iraq but the fact that it has nothing to do with the moral standpoint that they claim and a purley self serving economic standpoint on behalf of the united states.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Cork
I think that David Quinn has a very good article in todays Sunday Times about Iraq. The US are right to be sceptical of Saddam. He could sell all the oil he wanted to buy medicine & food for his people.

He has not.

The ordinary Iraqi people are suffering because of this.

How would you like to be told what u can export?
And that only thing is what is your countries greatest limited resource... What if Iraq created an Arms industry 1 tenth the size of the US? Why not?
How about Iraq being aloud export Microsoft products? They have a highly educated population.

Cork

How would you like to be told what u can export

If a country has natural resources amd if their people have no food or health treatment - why not sell some oil?

How has Saddam funded his palaces?

And that only thing is what is your countries greatest limited resource...

why were so many wells in Kuwait burnt?

If only for the US - Afghanistan would still be under the taliban.

I think Iraq deserves more than the likes of Saddam.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
If a country has natural resources amd if their people have no food or health treatment - why not sell some oil?

The words are "internationally imposed economic sanctions"

The import review list was expanded to 300 pages by the UN Security Council today (about 2 hours ago) in a 13-0 vote (2 abstentions). The UN have stated quite a few times that the export (and import) sanctions will not be lifted until the UN inspectors state that the country is free of weapons of mass destruction. Which could take forever when you can hide 2000 kilos of plutonium under a child's bed. Theoretically they can now sell as much oil as they want as long as the money is used for non-military purposes, in practice the UN hold the money and they're also subject to OPEC agreements.

How has Saddam funded his palaces?

By being an evil dictator who will shoot people if they don't do what he says. Easy to get people to work for you when you have a gun to their heads. That's cheap labour. Cheap materials too - most Iraqi buildings are still made of mud and stone. Mud (in particular) and stone are two things that Iraq has quite some amount of.

why were so many wells in Kuwait burnt?

Few reasons. The Iraqis took great delight in firing things at them. Then on their way out, they took some time out while being chased by US troops to set as many as they could on fire.

If only for the US - Afghanistan would still be under the taliban.

It's also true to say that but for the Russian invasion and later American interference in a laissez-faire manner (odd and contradictory as that seems), as well as the initial funding of Taliban operations by the CIA the Taliban would never have had control over much of the country in the first place. You reap what you sow and all that. See also Angola, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Mozambique, etc.

I think Iraq deserves more than the likes of Saddam.

Absolutely.

Cork

You reap what you sow and all that. See also Angola, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Mozambique, etc.

Thats fine.

But I think Saddam is not doing Iraq any favours.

I think that sanctions have not harmed his regime.

I think he should go.

But dictators often don't go - unless they are pushed.

PHB

Yes and when you start toppling government because you think that they are wrong, what does that make you?

Yes the dictatorship is a bad thing, I agree, but I dont think the US going in and setting up another government is going to fix anything again, they will just let the local warlord in again, what they need to do is encourage the people to rise up, but that won't happen while saddem is able to blame all of his problems on the US, since most of them are caused by the Sanctions.

The Sanctions make the people in Iraq hate the rest of the world and hence they dont think rising up againist sadam is a good idea, US are just running in cirlces.

Cork

The Sanctions make the people in Iraq hate the rest of the world and hence they dont think rising up againist sadam is a good idea, US are just running in cirlces.

Did sanctions make the people of South Africia hate the West during the Apartaid days?

Saddam can buy all the food and medicine he wants for his people by exporting oil.

Their hatred should be directed aganist him.

OH - He got 100% of the popular vote.

This evil dictator should go - before he gets back to his old habits of using chemical weapons on his own people.

PHB

Should is correct, however the real situation is not as it should be.

You can't just solve the problem with violence, you have to look at what caused the damm problem in the first place, otherwise history will repeat itself all over again, with Bill Bush or whoever

Cork

You can't just solve the problem with violence, you have to look at what caused the damm problem in the first place, otherwise history will repeat itself all over again, with Bill Bush or whoever

I am afraid that sometimes violence is the only answer. How can you reason with a dictator?

They tried it with Hitler - it failed.

I think that the way Saddam has treated his own people should be an eye opener. They are living in misery while Saddamcould easily import medication & food.

Who is the victims here: Saddam or the Iraqi people?

The people of Afghanistan are delighted that the US toppled the Taliban.

I think the average iraqi would also be grateful to rid themselves of Saddam.

I know war will be ugly but I think Saddam should go.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I am afraid that sometimes violence is the only answer. How can you reason with a dictator?

They tried it with Hitler - it failed.

That's a bit of a bad (and unfortunately oft-relied upon by governments) example.

The problem with Hitler was the use of appeasement as a final tactic. It didn't work. With hindsight it was never going to work. Steps (not necessarily involving invasion) could have been taken in 1935 that would have halted (or at least delayed) what heppened in 1936-1939 and beyond. The weakness of the League of Nations, particularly in 1933 was also a major factor here.

Because appeasement didn't work in the 1930s there's been a tendency since for governments to ignore any solutions other than war. For example appeasement (perhaps with a military presence) would have been the perfect tactic in the Sudan in 1956. Anthony Eden was conscious of the problems caused by the tactic twenty years before and just decided to invade. Big mistake at the time.

I'm not going to discuss (at least not yet) whether sometimes violence is the only answer - it is however the final answer. The issue, as some people have already highlighted, is, after toppling Hussein, who or what to replace him with. The last time the Americans were involved in a post-war occupation where they played a fair game (and got the hell out when self-governing structures were put in place) was in Japan in the 1950s. That's a piss-poor record considering the number of invasions they've been involved in since. On their past record, they're not trustable to put the best interests of the people of the occupied territory before the interests of their own.

Typedef

Just on the Hitler point.

The Treaty of Versailles was one of the principal 'weapons' Hitler had to drum up the German public against soft targets like the Jews.

One might just as easily argue, that had France not been so vain as to try and redeem itself from loosing a war to the tiny German State of Prussia, by imposing an unjust Treaty of Versailles, that the entire Second World War may never have happened.

Cork

The Treaty of Versailles

I think Saddam by invading kuwait, using chemical weapons on his own countrymen & by not importing either food or medicine for his people will be the author of his own downfall.

He has nobody else to blame.

Typedef

Cork
I think Saddam by invading kuwait, using chemical weapons on his own countrymen & by not importing either food or medicine for his people will be the author of his own downfall.

He has nobody else to blame.

Except for the Americans who
A) Supplied Saddam with the components to make Chemical weapons and
supplied intellegence regarding Iranian troop movements to help Iraq win the Iran-Iraq war.

But wait, that was ok, because the Americans are infallable.
Obviously if the US helped Saddam acquire and use chemical weapons, it's only Saddam Hussein who is culpable in that act.

Never mind the US knew full well that Saddam was using Chemical weapons on a regular basis during the Iran-Iraq war hmm?

Similarly, even though the USA gives over ten billion dollars a year to Israel (six billion dollars of which is military aid), it's really the Israelis who are to blame for the Israel-Palestine situation, never mind that Israel simply wouldn't be able to afford the occupation without direct American funding of the same right?

How far would zealots like Ariel Sharon get, if Israel didn't have the ten billion dollars of American military aid with which to fund Israeli occupation and annexation of Palestine?

No, no, I'm sure you have an adequate answer.

Really though, I'd like to know, who died and made the USA the arbitrary infallable judge of moral fortitude?
Kuwaiti oil perhaps? Was that the God that was felled to suddenly make Iraq so evil?

I think so, but perhaps someone, somewhere can justify how it's ok for the US to support Saddam Hussein in chemical war against Iran only to turn around and deride the regieme the USA helped to create on the basis that it (Iraq) harbours weapons the Americans helped Iraq acquire?

Let's just state that again shall we?
The Americans helped Iraq acquire it's chemical weapons.

Is it possible 'perhaps' that the lexicon of former oil company employees who are running the current US administration are perhaps after Iraqi oil, seeing as how Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world?

'Has the penny dropped yet'?

But lets call a spade a spade shall we?
Our American friends have a great saying : "Might is right". So, by that logic, since the USA has the military strength to simply arbitrarily reverse foreign policy decisions at whim, without any tangable possibility of some bloc 'forcing' the US to see whatever that bloc defines as 'reason', the logic is the US is in fact entitled to change it's mind at whim, because simply put, nobody, no bloc and no grouping can stop it (the US).

Or to put it another way. The USA can dictate global policy, for right or for wrong.
However just because the USA can do that, doesn't mean that 'everybody' must simply bend down on one knee and blindly swallow the stupid justifications the US comes up with for it's selfish foreign policy.

I get quite enough mindless pro-US propaganda watching the television, I really don't need it in the news or the pseudo-news where pseudo-news is really an appendage of pro-US propaganda.

Hello, the war is about oil.

Cork

Oil is an issue. But I think a dictator like Saddam has to go. In all fairness - dictators are usually gotten rid of not by negottiation.

I would not trust Saddam as far as I could throw him.

The Iraqi people are in fear of their lives of him.

For the sake of the ordinary Iraqi - Saddam has to go.

Sand

For the sake of the ordinary Iraqi - Saddam has to go.

Agreed, but Type isnt attacking the issue of toppling Saddam, hes attacking Americas foreign policy during the Cold War (yawn ).

But wait, that was ok, because the Americans are infallable.

No it wasnt okay...but it does not make it okay to not topple dictatorships such as Saddams which is seemingly your position.

No, no, I'm sure you have an adequate answer.

Its good you recognise that, saves a lot of time:)

Really though, I'd like to know, who died and made the USA the arbitrary infallable judge of moral fortitude?

No one did, they just happen to be doing a good thing by toppling saddam and should be supported in that. Mind you, for some theyll never be doing the right thing. Whether theyre toppling or raising dictatorships----does it matter? Theyre still evil and wrong and corrupt.

Our American friends have a great saying : "Might is right".

ROFLMAO - Okay:)

So, by that logic, since the USA has the military strength to simply arbitrarily reverse foreign policy decisions at whim, without any tangable possibility of some bloc 'forcing' the US to see whatever that bloc defines as 'reason', the logic is the US is in fact entitled to change it's mind at whim, because simply put, nobody, no bloc and no grouping can stop it (the US).

Ill think youll find any nation is able to revise its foreign policy should it wish to, and 9/11 certainly created a revision in foreign policy and the birth of the war on terror - your arguments about the US changing its mind are a slight bit late in any case, the US changed its mind nearly 12 years ago for the Gulf War, its foreign policy since re:Iraq has been fairly straightforward if varying in conviction.

I get quite enough mindless pro-US propaganda watching the television, I really don't need it in the news or the pseudo-news where pseudo-news is really an appendage of pro-US propaganda.

Heh, perhaps they should bring in hammer and sickle backdrops and make the anchors refer to each other as Comrade as opposed to Dale or Chuck?:)

dathi1

I think Pyongyang is playing great chess at the moment and I love the spectre of the yanks dilly dallying after former Nixon advisor Rumsfeild said he could fight a war on two fronts...maybe that could be five??
Afghanistan
War on terror
Iraq
Chavez/ Venezuela..oil platform usa invasion?
2 million N Korean troops decide to follow their cult leaders orders and run across the border.....
and they thought the Somalia debacle was bad.

Cork

Nixon advisor Rumsfeild said he could fight a war on two fronts...maybe that could be five??

If the US has to fight terror in 5555 fronts - I think it would be applauded.

Are we all not aganist terrorisim & evil?

Look at the doctors in Yeman and the night club in Bali.

The people / organisations that plan this evil need stopping.

DiscoStu

9/11 certainly created a revision in foreign policy

sorry but bush was already tearing up ABM treaties, environmental treaties and generally pissing off the rest of the world well before 9/11. all we have had since then is a hardening of the policies in place long before 9/11(its actually 11/9).

If the US has to fight terror in 5555 fronts - I think it would be applauded.

Are we all not aganist terrorisim & evil?

Look at the doctors in Yeman and the night club in Bali.

The people / organisations that plan this evil need stopping.

and where does iraq fit into all this? "he tried to kill pappy" does not cut it as evidence of support of terrorisim. but wait if terrorisim is doing anything against the vested interests of america then it's fine(hypothetically like sitting on top of the worlds second largest oil reserve and american companies not getting a lick at it).

Supporting dictators is right if they play ball.
Killing dictators is right if they dont play ball.

[edit]messed up that last bit whoops. fixed now[/edit]

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
If the US has to fight terror in 5555 fronts - I think it would be applauded.

Are we all not aganist terrorisim & evil?

Look at the doctors in Yeman and the night club in Bali.

The people / organisations that plan this evil need stopping.

It's an old logical fallacy you've fallen into there:

"We must do something.
That is something
Let's do that"

If you can make a connection between either Bali or Yemen (edit: and Iraq/Hussain (now the sentence makes sense)) the argument might have some small amount of weight to it.

Cork

Originally posted by dathi1
I think Pyongyang is playing great chess at the moment and I love the spectre of the yanks dilly dallying after former Nixon advisor Rumsfeild said he could fight a war on two fronts...maybe that could be five??
Afghanistan
War on terror
Iraq
Chavez/ Venezuela..oil platform usa invasion?
2 million N Korean troops decide to follow their cult leaders orders and run across the border.....
and they thought the Somalia debacle was bad.

I was sort of replying to the above that terrorism is worth fighting aganist whether it is in New York, Washington, Balli or Yeman.

Saddam really deserves to be deposed. His people are living in fear of him.

I

PHB

Cork, you're missign the point.
Nearly all agree with you, Saddem needs to be gone, but the reasons the US are doing it are not just ones.

They aren't doing it for the good of the world, they are doing it for their own good.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

I agree with you. George Bush is now talking about liberating the Iraqis. The US have other motives and agendas.

I know violence begets violence. I know thar war creates martyrs. I know that war seldom solves anything.

But without war - we'd have the Nazis today and without war the Iraqis will have Saddam in future years.

I am no fan of war. I know there are other countrys with dictators & weapons.

But the lot of the average Iraqi has got be be improved. Over the last number of years we had a constant stream of "do gooders" going on about the effect sanctions was having on the average Iraqi.

Saddam has not imported medicine or food for the average Iraqi.

Sanctions are not working.

How should the global community get rid of him?