|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2002 : 13:27:33 [Permalink]
|
I don't think the issue is just Iraq. The issue is that US administration has a new shoot first, ask questions later policy regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. It's what they are doing to maintain the status quo(US top dog) rather than reform or change anything. Yes Saddam is a threat but a government that will do whatever it wants to whatever country no matter what anyone else thinks is more dangerous in my opinion that a small band of dedicated religious fanatics and we saw what they could do. The US is not so big and powerful that it can go against the rest of the world yet George Jr seems determined to give it a go. It didn't work for Hitler and I don't think we can do it either. I would rather not see us go that route. So we can oust a petty dictator and end up with the entire world despising us including (ex)allies or we can work with the world(at least try which Bush does not even have in his playbook). Saddam is not the threat the administration is portraying him as. Even if he had a nuke it would be so big that there is no way it could be delivered to the US. A nuke is a threat to the mideast sure but that is their problem. That may sound cynical but they don't seem to want to go after Saddam and I could care less what happens to them if they have that attitude. I just don't see that getting rid of Saddam is worth the inevitable reprecussions and I don't want to see the US become a nation that atacks others for no good reason and that's the way I see it. Half the countries in the world could argue we should attacked for the same damn reasons Dubya and Cheney use to argue to attack Iraq. We could end up with all the world's nations having a reason to attack us.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2002 : 15:15:10 [Permalink]
|
Even if he had a nuke it would be so big that there is no way it could be delivered to the US.
If they got their hands on one of the tactical nukes from the Ukraine that would be about the size of a washing machine.
The Western idea of a delivery system always has safe guards for the person using the weapon. Radiation shielding is pretty heavy, then you need a long range bomber or an ICBM capable of lifting and transporting the bomb the shielding and all the computer support to keep the bomb active while the bomber got to a safe distance.
However if you have people who don't mind dying, who would consider it an honor to be killed, that simplifies things considerably. All you would need then is a trunk. Ship the bomb to North America in a couple of containers on a RORO ship. Just like Dr Bull did with his "space cannon." Bring it in, say in Nova Scotia or BC. Cross the border by commercial trucking with the hardware. Bring the fuel over by private car--say at Niagara Falls--unshielded. If the border guards see it they won't know what they are looking at, they don't use Geiger counters. The transporter will die, but that's okay, he doesn't mind and he won't die till after his job is done. Put the parts together state side, load it in the back of a van and drive it to where ever you please. The states that do check you at the borders-like California--are only concerned about fruits and vegetables.
Every one on the delivery team would die, even if they get away from the blast. But the mere fact that they are willing to die means you can do without most of the technology and expense you would normally need with any nuke. You have people happy to die to kill a few dancers at a Tel Aviv disco. Imagine how thrilled they would be to die while killing every Jew in Chicago.
Nukes were scary enough when sane people had charge of them. It's a whole new ball game now.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2002 : 15:28:49 [Permalink]
|
Slater, while what you say is true there is no way to protect anyone from that. Getting rid of Saddam does nothing to deter fundamentalists. If we use this sort of reason as an excuse to go attack people we don't agree with then we will be ambarking down a road where all nations are our enemies and we will need to take them all out. What we would be better off doing is putting pressure on nations that help people like Saddam build these weapons but that is the battlefield Dubya doesn't have the guts to fight on because that would mean upsetting real powers. Bush just picks the weaker nations rather than go after the big boys that enable others to become dangerous. And when pointing that finger it is going to come right back around and point at us.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2002 : 02:15:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think the issue is just Iraq. The issue is that US administration has a new shoot first, ask questions later policy regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. It's what they are doing to maintain the status quo(US top dog) rather than reform or change anything. Yes Saddam is a threat but a government that will do whatever it wants to whatever country no matter what anyone else thinks is more dangerous in my opinion that a small band of dedicated religious fanatics and we saw what they could do. The US is not so big and powerful that it can go against the rest of the world yet George Jr seems determined to give it a go. It didn't work for Hitler and I don't think we can do it either. I would rather not see us go that route. So we can oust a petty dictator and end up with the entire world despising us including (ex)allies or we can work with the world(at least try which Bush does not even have in his playbook). Saddam is not the threat the administration is portraying him as. Even if he had a nuke it would be so big that there is no way it could be delivered to the US. A nuke is a threat to the mideast sure but that is their problem. That may sound cynical but they don't seem to want to go after Saddam and I could care less what happens to them if they have that attitude. I just don't see that getting rid of Saddam is worth the inevitable reprecussions and I don't want to see the US become a nation that atacks others for no good reason and that's the way I see it. Half the countries in the world could argue we should attacked for the same damn reasons Dubya and Cheney use to argue to attack Iraq. We could end up with all the world's nations having a reason to attack us.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Slater, while what you say is true there is no way to protect anyone from that. Getting rid of Saddam does nothing to deter fundamentalists. If we use this sort of reason as an excuse to go attack people we don't agree with then we will be ambarking down a road where all nations are our enemies and we will need to take them all out. What we would be better off doing is putting pressure on nations that help people like Saddam build these weapons but that is the battlefield Dubya doesn't have the guts to fight on because that would mean upsetting real powers. Bush just picks the weaker nations rather than go after the big boys that enable others to become dangerous. And when pointing that finger it is going to come right back around and point at us.
A big hug for @. Everything he says about this makes sense.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
www.CuriousCreations.com
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2002 : 09:16:17 [Permalink]
|
Worldwide proliferation of WMD is a threat to the US and it's interests. Setting off WMD anywhere in the world has potential ramification for the entire world. The Chernobyl explosion screwed up the livestock industry for most of Europe all the way to the Atlantic. So just the ability to drop slime, or a nuke is cause for concern.
Getting a weapon into America is no harder than getting hundreds of TONS of cocaine or heroin here. That happens all the time. Worse, since a goodly supply of the world's opium comes out of the middle east, there are no shortage of smuggling experts for terrorists to employ.
quote:
while what you say is true there is no way to protect anyone from that. Getting rid of Saddam does nothing to deter fundamentalists
--It may not deter attacks, but taking out Iraq would prevent the possibility that fundies would get WMD ffrom that source (which is currently the leading contender).
Saddam is no friend to muslim exteremists, but it certainly wouldn't stop him from selling some WMD (or the precursor elements) for some quick cash and a chance to support our enemies.
Saddam's program is also in jeopardy of being hijacked or otherwise stolen. Being a secret project, one that the world is specifically worried about- Saddam would have to keep the project small and mobile, especially if UN inspectors are on the ground.
So he can't have a large, well defended complex like the CDC or Los Alamos. A large guard force, emergency equipments and support, etc are all indicators that he must avoid. No records of how much of what is where. If something did go wrong, they couldn't just call Saddam up to tell him. No massive mobilization to recover it would be possible. So his actual physical control over his WMD program is inherently open to theft or hijacking. That is a greater threat than him suddenly chumming up with fundamentalists.
quote:
The issue is that US administration has a new shoot first, ask questions later policy regardless of what the rest of the world thinks
-- Yes, and.... It's our country we are worried about being attacked, or an interest of ours. So China's opinion, for example, isn't terribly important. Given the choice between the safety of the US and the opinion of other countries, you'd choose to remain the popular kid in class?
Just looking back at America's 20th century policy of isolationism should give clear evidence that it doesn't work anyway. We always end up being fragged into the fight, after far too much uneeded suffering.
As for shoot first; uh, in the game of WMD, there isn't a second shot. The whole point of the weapons is to provide a crippling first shot. We took the 'ask questions first' approach with Bin Laden. He got in the first (well, several really) hit. Gee, that was so fun, let's do that again.....
It ought to be clear that hesitation on our part will end badly. It's not like we're jumping the gun here, folks. Saddam has stood open to attack from at least '98 by any international standard. Technically since '91 because he has never actually complied with the resolutions. But nobody was more surprised in '98 than Saddam himself, when he completely defied the world- AND NOTHING HAPPENED!
quote:
It didn't work for Hitler and I don't think we can do it either. I would rather not see us go that route
--The old nazi argument. Look at the details of our 'conquest' compared to the nazis. We oust genuine assholes- genocidal maniacs, butchers. We don't threaten the Bahamas. We're not taking on peaceful, democratic nations. The US would much rather trade with you than fight you.
Bosnia is a good example. It is no puppet government of the US. We keep a eye on the place, but after we stopped the horrors that were going on there (no thanks to the UN) we all but left. Saddam could have joined the rest of the civilized world any time in the past 11 years and we would have welcomed another oil-rich country to keep competition strong and prices low. All he had to do was comply with the resolutions. They were strictly military, except for reparations to Kuwait. Nothing that was required by the resolutions was inhuman. Saddam is.
I think the comparison to Hitler is a red herring.
quote:
The debate is, how should "we" take over the world? Should "we" start by "taking out Saddam"
--Again, show me where we are threatening any democratic, or even communist country. Show me where we have toppled a shining example of humanity in the past century? This 'take ever the world' conspiracy crap ignores the fact that it would include attacking, say Italy. Or Kenya. Or the Caymen Islands. Not bloodly likely to happen.
Saddam is a real life bad guy. We do the world a favor by removing him. We do an especially big favor to his people. Without him, and a reasonable government in place, there are no need for sanctions, which undeniably hurt the citizens and not Saddam.
The US liked Iraq in the first place because it was largely secular. It's Sunni leaders were very moderate. It could be more valuable to us than Saudi Arabia. But we're not going to annex it. We may install a friendly government, but it will still be a sovreign nation just like any other. Our dealings with it will bolster it's economy just like it does every other.
quote:
Aren't we already in a "war," did we win it?
--Present tense. Saddam has not once honored the cease fire from '91. Therefore the war has not ended (much like the two Koreas). By all laws of war, he is not only open to limited reprisals, but the original full shooting match never ended. Violating a surrender (shooting after waving a white flag) is a war crime. Violation of the Geneva convention. Iraq has done this in essence by argreeing to surrender terms, then defying them constantly. Hitler did this with the treaty of Versaille. Except at least Hitler could claim HE never signed the surrender. Saddam himself put his Abdul Hancock on the surrender.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2002 : 12:08:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--It may not deter attacks, but taking out Iraq would prevent the possibility that fundies would get WMD ffrom that source (which is currently the leading contender).
I disagree. I would say that Russia or former Soviet states are the leading contenders by a wide margin.
quote:
So he can't have a large, well defended complex like the CDC or Los Alamos. A large guard force, emergency equipments and support, etc are all indicators that he must avoid. No records of how much of what is where. If something did go wrong, they couldn't just call Saddam up to tell him. No massive mobilization to recover it would be possible. So his actual physical control over his WMD program is inherently open to theft or hijacking. That is a greater threat than him suddenly chumming up with fundamentalists.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Our labs were so well defended that spies got in and were able to leak the technology to the Soviets and then they to China. Yeah, we're the safe ones all right. Give me a break.
quote:
-- Yes, and.... It's our country we are worried about being attacked, or an interest of ours. So China's opinion, for example, isn't terribly important. Given the choice between the safety of the US and the opinion of other countries, you'd choose to remain the popular kid in class?
Coudn't Saddam use this same reasoning? Or Stalin or Hitler or you fill in the blank demagogue? You are not getting something very important. It's the unpopularity of US policies that make us a target of attack and these people have very legitimate beefs. We will never, ever be safe unless we remove legitimate reasons for other countries to hate us. Even then there is no guarantee of safety but we will have more friends and therefore a better opportunity to stop terrorists. Every time we alienate a people we open the doors for more terrorist safe houses etc. If we keep going as we are we will find that the other countrues will not assist us in our hunt as we [i[become the bad guys.[/i] We have done plenty of bad things in the past and in my opinion our President is taking us down a road we should not go. Yes I really believe that. I am becoming ashamed of my country.
quote:
Just looking back at America's 20th century policy of isolationism should give clear evidence that it doesn't work anyway. We always end up being fragged into the fight, after far too much uneeded suffering.
This doesn't explain the gulf war. It was our arming and support of Saddam that led to the Gulf War in the first place and we only went there to protect oil interests. It wasn't to save anyone's ass but the oil companies and profits.
quote:
As for shoot first; uh, in the game of WMD, there isn't a second shot. The whole point of the weapons is to provide a crippling first shot. We took the 'ask questions first' approach with Bin Laden. He got in the first (well, several really) hit. Gee, that was so fun, let's do that again.....
It ought to be clear that hesitation on our part will end badly. It's not like we're jumping the gun here, folks. Saddam has stood open to attack from at least '98 by any international standard. Technically since '91 because he has never actually complied with the resolutions.
You just don't get it. This policy is wrong morally and besides that it will not succeed. What it will succeed in doing is creating new alliances to stand against us. How goddamn safe will we be then? My question about us goijng against the world like Hitler is hardly a red herring. Not everyone agrees with who we hate. Iran for instance is not the big bad guy Bush claims they are. Till a year ago we were making a lot of progress with them but Bush threw it away out of ignorance. Korea is also making some initial moves towards joining the rest of the world. It has a ways to go but it's not going to help if we exert muscle to make sure they don't. I'm sorry but I just don't agree iwth your "the status quo has worked in the past so let's keep going" argument. it hasn't worked at all and a hole in New York City is a monument to those failed policies.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2002 : 06:25:35 [Permalink]
|
Isolationism? Attacking just about every third world country in this hemisphere, destroying half of Southeast Asia, supporting Israel's crimes, participation in WWI and WWII for right or wrong, all of this and leadership in destructive programs like the IMF and World Bank, all of this is isolationism?
quote:
Just looking back at America's 20th century policy of isolationism should give clear evidence that it doesn't work anyway.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2002 : 09:09:04 [Permalink]
|
He said the 20th century. He could only have meant prior to 1941.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2002 : 17:51:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I disagree. I would say that Russia or former Soviet states are the leading contenders by a wide margin
--Except that the Soviets still have massive defenses surrounding their stockpile, with millions of US dollars going to ensure it's safety. Or did you overlook that program?
quote:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Our labs were so well defended that spies got in and were able to leak the technology to the Soviets and then they to China. Yeah, we're the safe ones all right. Give me a break
--Yes, safe. I defy you to get into and out of one of those two facilities. The spies came from within (as may the Anthrax mailer, we'll see) and there is just no defense fir that. Anyone having access to our stockpile will have undergone a detailed background investigation. It takes a real spy with real backing, or a US turncoat, to get that stuff. It's extremely unlikely that terrorists would have much luck. The same cannot be said of Saddam's stockpile and labs. Both the Soviets and America have acknowledged programs running and SEVERE restrictions on access to it. Saddam must keep his hidden, which makes it that much more open to theft or hi-jacking.
quote:
It's the unpopularity of US policies that make us a target of attack and these people have very legitimate beefs
--Alot of the things we do that make us unpopular are in support of the UN. Not US interests. The UN is just too chickenshit to stand by it's high and mighty proclomations and hides behind the US. The sanctions are UN, yet the US is solely responsible for their enforcement. See my other thread about dissolving the League of....I mean, United Nations.
Legit beef? Who has a "legitimate" beef with the US? Would it be all those countries we pour millions of dollars in aid into? Exactly what is legitimate about their puny power struggles? All those countries like Saudi talk alot of smack about us to keep all the fanatics in thier countries happy. Anything anti-US is good PR for them. But when it comes to oil deals, trade agreements and all that, they all line up to be our buddies. Show me a country in the Middle East (other than Iraq)that doesn't benefit from economic dealing with the US. The reason the deficit is so high is because we don't profit from these exchanges much overseas, the foreign deficit is (supposed to be) made up for by the taxes we pay on items. Which leads to....
quote:
This doesn't explain the gulf war. It was our arming and support of Saddam that led to the Gulf War in the first place and we only went there to protect oil interests. It wasn't to save anyone's ass but the oil companies and profits
--Yeah. Oil is a weapon. Maybe you never noticed but we pay less for gas than people do in Saudi Arabia. Orders of magnitude less. Ever wonder why there are no Chevy Tahoe sized vehicles made in the UK? It just might have something to do gas being about $5 a gallon.
In Colorado there is a .40 cent tax on every gallon of gas. SO GAS IS CHEAPER THAN MILK! Under a dollar a gallon. Can't buy bottled WATER for that price. The price of oil out of the middle east is moot. Fully a third of the current cost of gas is self-inflicted as tax. The arabs could DOUBLE the cost of oil and we'd still pay less than most of the planet.
We get a trickle of oil from Kuwait compared to Saudi. And if we let Saddam invade, you can bet it would have included a payoff in the form of oil. Back then, Saddam still had ties in the US, especially in the CIA. If ever there was an agression we could get behind, it could have been this one. No, we chose to support a peaceful nation over a despot. Oil prices may very well be LOWER today had we turned a blind eye in '90.
quote:
This policy is wrong morally and besides that it will not succeed. What it will succeed in doing is creating new alliances to stand against
--1) it's the UN's policy, we just enforce it- go bitch to them.
2) it may not succeed. But it beats the hell out of burying our heads in the sand. The the world isn't going to go away. We trade globally. We have interests worldwide that need to be protected. There is always going to be some piss pea that wants to crash the party. Every country that terrorists come from have denounced them in favor of the US and global economy.
Saudi is a good example. The Saudi royal family owes us it's ass. Thier country is enormously wealthy with a solid infrastructure. They have excellent education systems there. ----All bought with petro-dollars. And guess who thier biggest customer is?
The people that have a 'beef' with us are the radical few that will always pop up. I don't even argue that we don't play fair, inviting some of that hatred. But even the countries that are now critisizing us will side with the US and it's example of leadership, over Saddam when it comes down to it.
quote:
I'm sorry but I just don't agree iwth your "the status quo has worked in the past so let's keep going" argument
--I'm not the one arguing for UN inspectors or negotiations. I say smoke his ass now. Get this thorn out of the side of the world and let's move on. Saddam is a festering scab left over from '91.
For 11 years we've tried the UN's way. We allowed him to constantly violate the cease fire because the UN wanted to pretend it was doing something. Of course when it came down to actually enforcing those resolutions- the UN left it to the US to do the dirty work. 11 years and all he had to do was comply with the UN. He chose not to. No sympathy for the devil.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2002 : 18:04:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes I really believe that. I am becoming ashamed of my country.
--Then get the fuck out. I buried far too many damn fine men who served this country for your 'shame' to be our reward. You'll never know what sacrifices people are willing to make to support freedom.
If you're ashamed to be American, then you're a hypocrite if you stay. Every the tax on every pack of gum is supporting that which shames you. So piss off somewhere else. Or are you just running your mouth? You won't go anywhere.
And I'll bet you don't even see the incredible irony of being able to run that mouth exactly because of this country is about freedom. Some of us have EARNED that freedom. Some men, who I an HONORED to have known, died earning freedom. Whatever evil conspiracy you think the military serves, me and my friends were there supporting freedom. I handed out food and medical supplies. I helped dig wells. We made sure aid convoys got thru. Just what exactly did YOU do, oh critical one?
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2002 : 18:07:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm sorry but I just don't agree iwth your "the status quo has worked in the past so let's keep going" argument. it hasn't worked at all and a hole in New York City is a monument to those failed policies.
The policy that the United Staes has that caused the WTC to be destroyed is that we tolerate Jews.
We are on friendly terms with Israel, just as we also try to be on friendly terms with the Arab nations.
The first bombing of the WTC was originally intended for the Williamsbourgh section of Brooklyn according to the New York Times. The terrorists changed plans because they thought that they could kill more Jews if the knocked over one of the twin towers.
The first attempt more or less failed. But the racist hatred of these terrorists bastards didn't let them give up.
If tolerance is your idea of failed US policy, if you want us to be friends with these mad men...then this thread is getting too surreal to continue.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 00:31:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Yes I really believe that. I am becoming ashamed of my country.
--Then get the fuck out. I buried far too many damn fine men who served this country for your 'shame' to be our reward. You'll never know what sacrifices people are willing to make to support freedom.
If you're ashamed to be American, then you're a hypocrite if you stay. Every the tax on every pack of gum is supporting that which shames you. So piss off somewhere else. Or are you just running your mouth? You won't go anywhere
Nor should anyone go anywhere. That's the point, WE CAN 'run off at the mouth'. Why should someone go. We should stay and change what we don't like. Isn't that the point of this country? Not to agree is our right. Love it or leave it, sounded good but it's as rigid as being a Communist or living in the Middle East.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
www.CuriousCreations.com
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 04:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Interesting to note that sedition laws were finally put to rest in the 1960's. This of course had nothing to do with the U.S. supporting torture in Latin America, or genocide in East Timor, or supporting Siad Barre in Somalia.
Israel gets a full quarter of all U.S. foreign aid, which is largely about military aid. A study was done regarding U.S. foreign aid to Latin America that showed that aid (which is usually military) went disproportionately to those that tortured their citizens. Not poverty or country size, but torture.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/24/2002 04:23:49
Edited by - gorgo on 09/24/2002 04:24:38 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 08:37:18 [Permalink]
|
That's the point, WE CAN 'run off at the mouth'
Interesting to note that sedition laws were finally put to rest in the 1960's.
And again Solly's point is missed. Niether of you is dim, so I must assume you are missing it on purpose.
The right to run off at the mouth was paid for. All your rights were paid for, and they don't come cheap.
But they weren't paid for by you.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 08:47:26 [Permalink]
|
Again, our rights were certainly not paid for by attacking Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Cuba....
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/24/2002 08:47:49 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
