Iraqi crisis explained...

[Tea]

I wish people would stop pretending that Iraq has anything to do with 911. NO-ONE falls for that line.

Except Americans, of course. I have no idea why.

 

[Howell]

Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. The fellers who flew the aluminum birds into WTC were terrorists. Bush has said that state sponsors of terrorism will not be allowed to stand. There's a lot of "anything".

 

[Tea]

NO-ONE has seen any credible evidence of ANY connection between Iraq and 911. NO-ONE. If anyone had, you could be very, very certain that Shrub and his lapdogs would be shouting it from the rooftops long and loud and often. That single fact (which isn't a fact because it doesn't exist) would be sufficient all by itself to turn world opinion from near-united against the United States to all-united for the USA.

Please, let's stop talking rubbish here. If there was evidence, even Shrub has enough brains to tell us about it. And he hasn't. Blair hasn't. Howard hasn't. Ergo it doesn't exist.

 

[Mercutio]

Tea, I find you guilty of presupposing Shrub has brains to begin with.

Iraq is a secular state in the Arab world. There aren't many of those, and given bin Laden's predilection to fundamentalism and what I've read on the subject, I don't think Saddam would be bestest pals with bin Laden, either.

And yes, like Ms. Walking Carpet said, if there was any actual evidence worth repeating, it'd be on the front page of every newspaper from Washington to Ballarat in the time it takes to send an email.

As far as Iraq = terrorist, well, they are all Arabs, and, well, most people in the US probably couldn't tell the visible difference between them anyway, any more than most Americans can tell the difference between British and Aussie accents. Arabs are Arabs.

 

[Howell]

Iraq supports Palestinian terrorism. This makes it a state sponsor of terrorism. Isn't that enough? What more do you wnat?

 

[zx]

Iraq supports Palestinian terrorism. This makes it a state sponsor of terrorism. Isn't that enough? What more do you wnat?

That's new...

I know that Arafat supported Irak (we're talking moral support here) during the gulf war. That's about all i can tell about the relation between the palestinians and Irak. Evidence would be much appreciated.

Also, I hear often the argument that Irak could start selling their weapons to terrorists. Well, why not bother North Korea instead?. They have much more weapons of mass destruction than Irak. They have a nut at the head of their country. What makes you think that Irak will sell weapons of mass distruction to terrorists and not north korea?

Of course, you heard that north Korea over and over again. You may ask yourself why we (those who oppose the war in the current state of things), keep reminding you that it's totally ridiculous to absolutely attack Irak without doing nothing about north korea.

Basically, all that Irak and north korea have in common has been stated as a reason to go to war against Irak. An evil dictator? both have one. Weapons of mass destruction? Korea has much more and there is no inspector to know how many they have. Violated international law? Both have done it so far. Coorperate with terrorists? Both can do it.

So to try to convince that Irak must be invaded, you must also have some sort of plans to invade north korea. THAT would make sence.

 

[Howell]

Also, I hear often the argument that Irak could start selling their weapons to terrorists. Well, why not bother North Korea instead?. They have much more weapons of mass destruction than Irak. They have a nut at the head of their country. What makes you think that Irak will sell weapons of mass distruction to terrorists and not north korea?

Of course, you heard that north Korea over and over again. You may ask yourself why we (those who oppose the war in the current state of things), keep reminding you that it's totally ridiculous to absolutely attack Irak without doing nothing about north korea.

Basically, all that Irak and north korea have in common has been stated as a reason to go to war against Irak. An evil dictator? both have one. Weapons of mass destruction? Korea has much more and there is no inspector to know how many they have. Violated international law? Both have done it so far. Coorperate with terrorists? Both can do it.

So to try to convince that Irak must be invaded, you must also have some sort of plans to invade north korea. THAT would make sence.

Different countries require different approaches. Iran, Iraq and N. Korea are the three "axis of evil" countries. Even if we believe that the correct approach to Iraq is war; it would be incorect to assume that the same approach is appropriate for Iran. As state sponsors of terrorism, this activity is led from the top and the cessation of such activity will only come about through regime change. Iran is ripe for a revolution. It's populace is tired of its government (I don't need to support this with links do I.) The correct approach to Iran is to lend moral support to the revolution. N. Korea requires another approach entirely.

More on the rest of your post later.

 

[Howell]

Links regarding Iraqi sponsorship of terror and links about the news source organizations.

Council on Foreign Relations |About

DEBKAfile
DEBKAfile |About

FOX News
FOX News

Sydney Morning Herald

CBS News - 60 Minutes

Embassy of Israel |About

Israel Defense Force |About

 

[James]

This is traditional 'just war doctrine'. Traditional just war doctrine is based in the supposition that soveriegn states will operate under certain predictable rules. These days are unprecedented. You can not apply just war doctrine to a state who refuses to play by the 'rules' much less an entity which has no state (Al-Q). Additionally just war doctrine lays the onus at the feet of the aggressor and defender, not their friends.

I disagree vehemently on a whole pile of levels.

Suffice it to look at a couple. First of all, I don't agree that "these days are unprecedented." Terrorism, state sponsored and otherwise, has been going on for decades - the only difference as far as the US is concerned is it has recently started happening on your own soil. Until September 11 the biggest terrorist action on US soil was done by an American. Does this mean you'll start pre-emptive strikes against the US midwest as well?

By throwing all the rules of international diplomacy out the window you are creating anarchy, and an environment in which terrorism will thrive. As far as I am concerned North Korea has just as much right to a pre-emptive first strike to protect its ideals and way of life as the US does. Or are we heading towards a world where there's one set of rules for the US and its friends, backed up with threat of war, and one for everyone else?

And then there's the question - what's the solution you're advocating here anyway? And how would it prevent another September 11th or Oklahoma City (neither of which were done with weapons of mass destruction)? If the US view is that terrorism is just going to get worse (and use more and more sophisticated weapons) then how does going to war against Iraq fix this?

Why are those countries most likely to be affected by Hussein's weapons of mass destruction not in favour of a US attack on Iraq?

Does the fact that your own diplomats are leaving their jobs in protest, and people like Norman Schwartzkopf disagree with the current course of action, and millions of people are protesting across the world not indicate in some subtle way that maybe the US isn't following the best course of action?

 

[James]

Iraq supports Palestinian terrorism. This makes it a state sponsor of terrorism. Isn't that enough? What more do you wnat?

But the US supports Israeli state terrorism. The US helped train Osama bin Laden. The US used to support Hussein, even in the full knowledge that he was terrorising the Kurds. The US supported Russia when they brutally crushed Chechnya, a nation looking for self-determinism. The US deposed a democratically elected government in Chile and put in a ruthless dictator who killed thousands - in order to secure a phone deal for a US company. The US shot down a civilian airliner and killed 290 people, "in a proper defensive action" according to the president of the time, then without admitting responsibility, paid compensation only to the families of non-Iranian passengers.

I'm confused. Or was that before and it's all different now?

 

[jtr1962]

Although I fully supported the attacks on Afghanistan following 9/11 because we were going after those directly responsible I really can't make up my mind one way or another about Iraq. To be sure, Iraq sponsors terrorism and Iraq may acquire WMD in the future if nothing is done. Saddam will not use those weapons on US soil, period, as he knows what the result will be in his country(Hiroshima x1000). I highly doubt he would sell the weapons to those who would, either. The end result for Iraq would probably be the same as if he had used them himself. So in the final analysis, Saddam is a threat, but not a larger one than Iran or North Korea. Granted, I would be quite happy to see him gone, but I'd much rather we get rid of Muslim fundamentalists first.

On the other side of the coin, I question the right of the US to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. Furthermore, I detect a note of hypocrisy here. It is fine for Israel to have WMD, some even provided by the USA, and to receive some $3 billion annually, also from the USA, which basically makes possible it's continued state sponsored terrorism of the Palestinian people. Why the double standard? If Iraq can't have WMD neither should Israel or for that matter the US.

While conquering Iraq will be fairly easy, the larger problem here is what to do with it afterwards. The US is currently running huge budget deficits, and I don't want the billions spent annually that it will cost to ensure that somebody worse than Saddam doesn't come to power afterwards. For that matter I want the $3 billion sent to Israel every year stopped as well. As it is Afghanistan will cost us a small fortune. We don't need more Afghanistans, and we certainly don't need to continue the huge amount of military spending needed for the type of gunship diplomacy we are engaged in.

There are more cost effective means of protecting against terrorism, starting with sealing our borders and adopting a policy of isolationism. Politically and financially, America can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. Some states are experiencing unemployment levels unmatched since the Great Depression. New York's Chinatown has 40% unemployment. Many states and localities face huge budget deficits(NYC is currently $4 billion in the hole). The US cannot spend money it doesn't have on questionable ventures. In my opinion the best way to stop terrorism is to stop doing things that piss other people off. End support for Israel, and let them sink or swim on their own. Pull our troops out of the Middle East, Europe, Japan, Korea, and wherever else they may be. End our use of fossil fuels both so that we have no stake in what goes on the Middle East, and also to set an better example to the world than we have in this area. Finally, make known to any nation sponsoring terrorism(or hosting terrorists) against the United States that if there are ever any future acts of terror on US soil they will be revisited on the host country 1000x over, and any WMD used against the US, whether they be chemical, biological, nuclear, or airliners used as bombs, will result in the immediate and utterly annihilation of the host country via thermonuclear bombardment. I believe this policy will cost-effectively end terrorism against the US for all time without our actively interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations.

P.S. Sorry if I've touched on topics already said by others in this thread, but I haven't read most of it. It seems everybody here has very strong opinions on the situation, one way or another. The quickest way to start arguments has always been to talk politics, taxes, or sports.

 

[The Grammar Police]

You mean sport. ""Sports" is an illiterate Americanisim.


(Oh dear. I think I just found a fourth way to start an argument!)

 

[zx]

Howell, thatks for taking the time to find some links.

But let me comment on the articles you linked.

First, both Fox news articles. The first is an AP article, titled "Israel: Iraq Aids Palestinian Terror, But No Links to Al Qaeda".

Families of suicide bombers -- there have been 90 since September 2000 -- are entitled to $25,000 each, a small fortune in the impoverished Palestinian areas. Relatives of those killed in clashes with troops are paid $10,000. Militants whose homes are demolished by Israel as a deterrent against future violence receive $5,000.

Israel contends the Iraqi money is intended to encourage attacks on Israelis.

The families of suicide bombers do need aid. Don't forget that they just lost the main paycheck the household. Plus, many get their homes destroyed by the Israeli army, so basically, they are poor as hell. And it may be not their fault that the man is a murderer. That being said, the fact that Saddam Hussein signs the check makes be agree with the Israelis on this. However, please consider that, at least, that we are not talking about direct aid to fundamentalist groups.

According to a dossier by Israel's Shin Bet security service, "over the past few months, Iraq has given substantial financial and military aid to terrorist organizations (in the West Bank and Gaza) operating under its purview."

Don't forget that Israel and the palestinians are in a war here. I will never believe information that comes to the palestinian authority. Why would I believe something that comes from Israel? That's what's funny about the american press when it come to the middle-east conflict. They all get their info from the Israelis! Do you expect the Israeli gouvernment to be unbiased when it comes to a "state" they are at war with? I don't. The same applies for the palestinians, by the way. This AP article only quotes Israelis sources as the base of the facts they are reporting.

The second article is an editorial about what the first one was talking about...I don't agree and don't even respect the author, as he does nothing for trying to convince me of Hussein's evilness (not that I am already convinced). It do not feel like an intelligent person while reading this, although many linked articles are interesting, and portray how evil this man is...

Enough for now...

 

[zx]

A small conclusion on this...Howell, you did prove me wrong, as I did not know Saddam Hussein offered other than moral support to the palestinians. However, the evidence presented is not enough to start a war. Many of it is not official and needs to be confirmed. In other words, it's enough to investigate, but not to start a war over it. And we are already investigating. We need to find better proof about all the accusations on Irak. I mean Saddam Hussein is an evil man, that I know. But that's not enough to go to war.

The connection between Irak and the palestinians is clear. But the terrorists you elude to (palestinians) are there because of the conflict. If a peace agreement is reached, most of them will be gone. If there is no more money coming from Irak, don't worry, they will find another way. Terror attacks will continue until there is a peace agreement or when one will crush the other. I can't see both happening soon.

Plus, I think that the more agressive you are with somebody, the more he will become more agressive. If Saddam knows he will be dethroned, why will he retain himself from using WMD's? The fact that he uses his WMD's is far worse than the fact that he has WMD's. In that case, I think the containment policy used right now is working fine.

As much as I'd like to see Saddam gone (and replaced by a good government), I fear that war could bring the worse in him. Plus, there are going to be many Iraki victims. We can't go to war without a better reason.

However, I think America's government deserve much credit right now. Since they started howling on Irak, weapons are being destroyed, and Saddam know now more than never that the slightest bad move could cost his life.

 

[Howell]

It is fine for Israel to have WMD, some even provided by the USA, and to receive some $3 billion annually, also from the USA, which basically makes possible it's continued state sponsored terrorism of the Palestinian people.

You do not know the definition of terrorism and therefore state-sponsored terrorism.

 

[Howell]

Iraq supports Palestinian terrorism. This makes it a state sponsor of terrorism. Isn't that enough? What more do you wnat?

But the US supports Israeli state terrorism.

You do not know the definition of terrorism. At least part of it, is targetting civilians. What happened in '67 (?) is irrelevant at this juncture.

 

[Howell]

This is traditional 'just war doctrine'. Traditional just war doctrine is based in the supposition that soveriegn states will operate under certain predictable rules. These days are unprecedented. You can not apply just war doctrine to a state who refuses to play by the 'rules' much less an entity which has no state (Al-Q). Additionally just war doctrine lays the onus at the feet of the aggressor and defender, not their friends.

I don't agree that "these days are unprecedented." Terrorism, state sponsored and otherwise, has been going on for decades - the only difference as far as the US is concerned is it has recently started happening on your own soil.

I don't disagree that terrorism has existed for a while. However, terrorism has been primarily in the name of a country or a revolution of a country. The new phenomena is terrorism in the name of an idea. An idea which has no home. Which crosses boundries and ethnic groups. An idea whos goal is the extermination of everything that is not "it". There are no realistic goals for this terrorism.

By throwing all the rules of international diplomacy out the window you are creating anarchy, and an environment in which terrorism will thrive. As far as I am concerned North Korea has just as much right to a pre-emptive first strike to protect its ideals and way of life as the US does. Or are we heading towards a world where there's one set of rules for the US and its friends, backed up with threat of war, and one for everyone else?

Diplomacy worked. Resolution 1441 passed. Now some countries want to pull the teeth from the UN. The UN will not be an effective body without teeth. What happened in the twelve years the UN has been gumming Iraq. The analogy to the danger of the UN becoming archaic is astounding. Only since the US has threatened force have any of the UNs mandates on Iraq not been sent to the circular file by Saddam.

And then there's the question - what's the solution you're advocating here anyway? And how would it prevent another September 11th or Oklahoma City (neither of which were done with weapons of mass destruction)? If the US view is that terrorism is just going to get worse (and use more and more sophisticated weapons) then how does going to war against Iraq fix this?

Ridding the world of state sponsors of terror will fix this. Iraq is step two. Step three is probably Iran. N. Korea, SA, Syria are probably next.

Why are those countries most likely to be affected by Hussein's weapons of mass destruction not in favour of a US attack on Iraq?

Because they know they may be next. Besides, many of the countries in the region are helping with logistics support and intelligence, not to meantion oil infrastructure.

Does the fact that your own diplomats are leaving their jobs in protest, and people like Norman Schwartzkopf disagree with the current course of action, and millions of people are protesting across the world not indicate in some subtle way that maybe the US isn't following the best course of action?

Millions of people across the world are protesting because they are supporting their governments. It is those governments who have been irresponsible.

 

[Howell]

Saddam will not use those weapons on US soil, period, as he knows what the result will be in his country(Hiroshima x1000).

I think it would be a mistake to assume that a determined individual or group will not eventually be able to either sneak something in or construct something in-country. Especially if we have any intension of living as a free society. Stealing a bunch of jets took more logistics.

 

[Howell]

zx, For kicks, do some research on Saddam's quest to become a modern day Nebuchadnezzar. This is really what has the other Arab countries frearful of him.

 

[jtr1962]

It is fine for Israel to have WMD, some even provided by the USA, and to receive some $3 billion annually, also from the USA, which basically makes possible it's continued state sponsored terrorism of the Palestinian people.

You do not know the definition of terrorism and therefore state-sponsored terrorism.

I found I very long list of hits when I searched for "Israel" and "war crimes", so rather than bore everyone with hundreds of links I just picked two more or less at random.

http://www.sis.gov.eg/online/deno/html/deno2.htm

Nice list, isn't it?

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/04/16/27644.html

Stories start to leak out of summary executions, without trial, totally unacceptable in any country which terms itself as a state of law. Others, wounded, were not allowed to leave their houses to seek hospital treatment and ambulances were not allowed to circulate. Some were even fired on and in one case, reported in the international press, a doctor and nurse who had been wounded when IDF soldiers sprayed their ambulance with automatic fire, bled to death outside a hospital as IDF snipers took aim at the doctors and nurses who tried to come outside to save them.

Let's see, summary executions, targeting innocent civilians, preventing the wounded from getting treatment. It these actions were caused by some lone Isreali terrorist group then they are not state-sponsored terrorism, but look who is responsible-IDF soldiers. Sure sounds like state-sponsored terrorism to me. To be sure, the Palestinians are just as guilty of such state-sponsored terrorism, but two wrongs don't make a right. Without $3 billion from the US to bolster Israel's economy they would be forced to live with the Palestinians, so the US is in some sense an accomplice. I also seem to remember a UN resolution condemning Israel for war crimes, and I also seem to remember the US conspicuously not signing on.

I want to end terrorism is the US, but we first need to stop giving terrorists reasons to attack us. IMO, the biggest reason is our continued mindless support of an Israeli government that is no better than that of Arafat. If we want to start effecting regime change, let's get rid of Saddam, Arafat, and Sharon. They're three of a kind who can't see past their own stupid idealogy.

In my opinion, the biggest threat still comes from Muslim fundamentalists. Unlike the Palestininans or even Saddam, they don't have any demands. They just want to wipe us off the face of the earth so that they can run a religious theocracy straight out of the Middle Ages. If we have proof that Saddam is supporting these fundamentalists, then let's show it. This would be sufficient grounds for effecting a regime change even if the US does it unilaterally. Call it self-defense. We were attacked several times at home and abroad by these fundamentalists. They will not hesitate to use WMD against us. In the absence of such proof, however, the reasons for not going to war outweigh the reasons for going to war. As I said earlier I still haven't made up my mind one way or the other. Inaction can be dangerous, but so can acting without reasonale provocation.

It is really quite simple to prevent countries from sponsoring these fundamentalists. Enumerate the policy I mentioned in my last post, and then follow it to the letter. No nation can complain as they had sufficient warning. A pipe bomb kills a few people in the US, we go to said nation harboring Muslim fundamentalists and take out a town. A bus blows up we take out a small city. An airliner is destroyed we take out a large city. The WTC or something similar is taken out we annihilate the entire country. Easy, simple to understand. I'm willing to bet after we make one example(hopefully only a small town), Muslim fundamentalists will not be welcome anywhere except Antarctica.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that a determined individual or group will not eventually be able to either sneak something in or construct something in-country. Especially if we have any intension of living as a free society. Stealing a bunch of jets took more logistics.

It's not that Saddam couldn't do this if he wanted to and had WMD. It's that the consequences for Iraq would be so horrific if it were traced back to him that he wouldn't. He may be Hilter revisited, but he's not stupid or insane. There are others currently in circulation who are a bigger threat. OBL is just plain nuts, as are many of his top lieutenants. He would be happy to set off a nuke in New York harbor, and would even do the act personally.

 

[Mercutio]

Our support of Israel isn't "mindless". The problem is there's a couple of lines in the Bible about the state of Israel needing to exist for the Christian Rapture to occur, and there's a lot of nutjobs - large swathes of the Republican party - who believe that crap. There's something really scary about one's government being convinced, even in part, that the end of the world is coming real-soon-now, and I'll bet if you talked to about half the "born agains" in Washington D.C., that's what they'd tell you.

On the other side of the aisle, Jews are normally a pretty solid voting bloc for democrats, and since the existance of the state of Israel is a popular idea among Jews, democrats turn out for it as well.

In short, we can't do a damn thing, and Israel is going to continue to oppress non-Jews in its territory (heck, in Israel, you can actually get more rights depending on what kind of Jew you are. Reformed and Ethiopian Jews are treated like crap, f'r instance).

 

[Clocker]

Well, it looks like the war will start in about 80 hours. Personally, I'm glad to see it come.

People like to complain about the potential for 1,000's to die as a result of the war we will be going through to enforce the UN resolutions Saddam has been ignoring for the past 10+ years. I agree that war is not the most appetizing solution but when I consider the alternative, 1,000s of Iraqi poor and children dieing of neglect and starvation at the hands of Saddam, I see it more as a liberation of the Iraqi people.

Saddam has been hoarding and stealing the money & food his country gets in the UN Food for Oil program and killing his own people in the process. He needs to be out of there. I could care less about whether or not a connection exists between Saddam and terrorism in the Western world. He is terrorizing his own people and needs to be killed or stand trial for his crimes against humanity (including using WMD against his own people). Too bad the members of the UN are too goddam stubborn to see Saddam's crimes against his own people and understand it is justification for his removal all by istelf.

I saw on the news yesterday that it was the anniversary of when Saddam unleashed biological weapons on his own people. Apparently, thousands gathered to commemorate the moment. Too bad diplomacy prevented us from starting the war then, it would have been poetic.

Just like in Yugoslavia, the rest of the world sits on its ass while the US tows the line.

C

 

[zx]

zx, For kicks, do some research on Saddam's quest to become a modern day Nebuchadnezzar. This is really what has the other Arab countries frearful of him.

I did not have to do much research. One of the links you gave me already linked another article talking about that.

But like I said, I don't need to be convinced that Saddam is evil. That I already know.

I don't agree and don't even respect the author, as he does nothing for trying to convince me of Hussein's evilness (not that I am already convinced).

I made a typo there. I should read "not that i'm not already convinced". To make it more simple, it should read "I am already convinced".

 

[slo crostic]

Slightly off topic I know, but I like your new avatar Clocker.
I wouldn't have thought there would be any Holden fans in Michigan.

 

[Tea]

You are in the wrong thread, Zlo. If you want to talk about cars in general or Holdenz in particular, you should go to the computers forum, and look for a thread called Ever wanted to know how a fan sounds before you buy? I should have thought that was obviouz.

 

[Howell]

But like I said, I don't need to be convinced that Saddam is evil. That I already know.

I gathered that. What I see is the intentional perpetuation by Saddam of the Israel-Palestinian crisis. And why would he care? Some would explain his interest as Islamic "all for one and one for all".

I submit that Saddam would like to use the tool of Muslim unification to reunite the lands of ancient Babylon and rule the area himself. Not as a Muslim leader but as a neo- Nebuchadnezzer. I further submit that the tactics Saddam will attempt to use in this war will be to further that end.

I make a wild prediction that he will do what he can to unite muslims by provoking Isreal to get involved. I bet that he will then try to disappear.

Do you see the same or at least follow my logic?

 

[ihsan]

I make a wild prediction that he will do what he can to unite muslims by provoking Isreal to get involved. I bet that he will then try to disappear.

Do you see the same or at least follow my logic?

I must say that Muslims do not see this as a war to oust Saddam. Many Muslim friends, I myself is one, don't hold any love for him. In fact, I personally and many others I know would like to see him off.

I've an intuition that this is a war against Islam. The facts aren't there but the feeling is, and it's very strong and growing.

 

[Howell]

I've an intuition that this is a war against Islam. The facts aren't there but the feeling is, and it's very strong and growing.

I can understand your waryness. There is bound to be some suspicion. I feel that although Saddam himself is secular he would use this trigger you meantion to unit muslims for his own ends.

I won't lie to you. There is fear that the muslim world will unite in a cause larger than any one nation. However, there is hope that the rational elements will prevail and allow others to live in peace and harmony and disagreement.

There is not something fundemental in Islam that would keep this from happening is there. In essence, what do I/we who are not muslim need to be aware of so that we are not frightened into over-reaction.

 

[jtr1962]

Since it looks like war is inevitable at this time, I suggest everybody, especially Americans against the war, put aside their personal feelings and unite to make sure the troops over there get all the support necessary to get the job done as quickly as possible. We don't need this to turn into another Vietnam where the war drags on for years because the troops aren't given the manpower or equipment to do the job.

I have a greater fear that this is going to turn into something bigger this time around, but I hope those fears prove unfounded. If Saddam uses biological or chemical weapons on Israel, and Israel retaliates with nukes, I'm venturing to guess we'll have about 3 billion dead eventually as things quickly spiral out of control. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

There's something really scary about one's government being convinced, even in part, that the end of the world is coming real-soon-now, and I'll bet if you talked to about half the "born agains" in Washington D.C., that's what they'd tell you.

This is exactly what scares the living daylights out of me. People, especially powerful leaders, have a way of making "predictions" a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[zx]

Yes....war is inevitable right now and we can't do anything about it.

I'll just hope for the best. A short clean war. I hope that the many predictions the pentagon made are right (that Iraki generals will defect). That way we can have a short war without to much bloodshed.

 

[P5-133XL]

I ran into this on another forum by Slightcrazed (You may know him from old SR) and I thought it was cute so I am copying it here.

News Flash - Bush agrees to more inspectors

(AP) Dateline: Washington DC, Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:30 AM

President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq.

The President has announced that, as of today, he is agreeing to additional inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq.

We will be sending 250,000 additional inspectors into Iraq. The additional inspectors will include:

24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
15,000 members of the 82d Airborne Division
More than 5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "M1-A1all-terrain vehicles"
Additional U.S. Army personnel, as needed for inspections
A variety of U.S. Air Force personnel for aerial recon missions and other "surveillance" activities
A significant number of United States Marines to aid with inspections
United States Coast Guard personnel to inspect coastlines
An undisclosed number of Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Recon Marines, Delta Force, and other Special Operations personnel to inspect Iraqi "hide-aways"
Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise.

The President stated: "With these additional inspectors, the inspections should be completed in a few weeks.[/b]

 

[.Nut]

I must say that Muslims do not see this as a war to oust Saddam. Many Muslim friends, I myself is one, don't hold any love for him. In fact, I personally and many others I know would like to see him off...

My take is that IRAN will benefit greatly from this war. Iraq will become Iran #2 over a period of time, though a "kinder and gentler" version of what Iran is now.


For the following yummy story on Hussein family member pastimes, I hope none of you are queasy:

• ...It was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

 

[SteveC]

It's started. The President is going to be speaking in a half hour.

 

[Mercutio]

Hoorah for tyranny.

 

[timwhit]

Found this on /. and thought you guys might like it.

To the tune of "if your'e happy & you know it"

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me,
'Cos it's all the proof I need to
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corp'rate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

 

[Clocker]

Looks like we probably missed Saddam on the initial targeted attack. Hopefully, at least some of the Iraqi leadership who have contributed to Saddam's tyanny on the people of Iraq have assumed their rightful place in hell.

I'm excited for the good Iraqi people. Soon they'll be liberated and Iraq will be a better place.

C

 

[Jake the Dog]

Soon they'll be liberated and Iraq will be a better place.

presuming of course that thay want to be liberated.

 

[fool]

Soon they'll be liberated and Iraq will be a better place.

Well yes, in so far as death is freedom.

 

[Jake the Dog]

you know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war...

 

[Clocker]

Soon they'll be liberated and Iraq will be a better place.

presuming of course that thay want to be liberated.

Yes, that is my assumption. I believe that is true. Based on Hussein's track record, I don't see how it could not be true.

C