I know there has been little bits and peices of this around the boards but I figuared I would come up with a new topic for it. Do you believe that the U.S. should declaire war on Iraq and why or why not. Then if you wouldn't mind please state wich country you are from so I have an idea on what might help you think that way.
I personally don't really know I more so think we shouldn't invade, bomb, or declair war on Iraq because the goverment I know hasn't thought it out very through. I am from the U.S.

[ November 26, 2002, 17:58: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

YES, I like to see SAS in action :cool:

:rolleyes: I doubt you ever have and ever will :rolleyes:

IMO Iraq will get massacred, due to its complete technological inferiority. One of the few chances Iraq has is to lure the US into tragic failures such as killing civvies by placing military installation in population areas, mosques and hospitals and making them loose public support.

Alternatively they could use some of their remaining weapons of mass destruction against the US ... or Israel ... especially hoping the latter would attack Iraq - provoking arab support for Iraq and against the US and Israel (and considering the actual government there they have a good chance doing so).

Mind Saddam has not much to loose - he wouldn't care about a few thousand Israelis, neither about a few thousand Iraqis - but an israeli nuke on Baghdad would certainly have serious consequences for the rest of the region and further radicalize the arab terrorists around, 9/11 stuff could become something we'd better get used to.

Whatever happens, it is crucial to take care Iraq doesn't collapse after Saddam is eliminated - the last thing NATO needs is a million of mad kurds in a vacuum of northern ex-irak (an afganistan-to-be) or, less likely, Iran at the jordanian border. Just as unatractive are rebellions in the pro-westernm countries in the region as a result of such a war: There already seems to be a fundamentalist uprising in Jordania and the people in Saudi-Arabia aren't too happy with the US presence either.

The US have to be very careful - eventually there isn't a hardware solution for a mentality conflict with the locals down there.

[ November 26, 2002, 14:41: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

If the U.S. attacks (I do not agree BTW) you think saddam will sit by and watch it from his chair. He will set his oil fields aflame and than it is bye bye oil.

Of course, he could burn his oil and pollute his own country. That's another opportunity for him: Even more attractive since he could claim he did so to deny the US the use of the oilfields - implementing that the US were aiming on occupying them rather than just beeing interested in toppling his criminal regime.

[ November 26, 2002, 15:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Actually Rags, there was live coverage of whgen the SAS went into the Iranian Embassy in London after it was taken by terrorists. We just never knew their identities of course. These guys are like flipping machines, the terrorists never stood a chance in hell.

It seems you really think that the president of Iraq would do such a thing as pollute his own country...

I do not have much insight to the matter, but I think it´s only normal that the strong will 'enslave' the weak. In this case it could be for good... If only US would restrain from air-bombing and other artillery attacks...

If only US would restrain from air-bombing and other artillery attacks... Why?

If Iraq has the weapons that they are purported to have, then they should be disarmed. If they refuse to be disarmed, then attack is the only other option.

The point is not so much that Saddam actually has these weapons (like chemical weapons, missiles to transport them, maybe even nukes)- so do the russians, chinese and many others. Ownership alone is no justification for disarmament of another country. Otherwise the US intervention there would mean to enforce the privilege of certain countries to own them while denying them to others. That can hardly be what this war-to-be is about.

Saddam is not allowed to have missiles or weapons of mass destruction after the armistice following his defeat in the gulf war. He was obligated to support and allow inspections to enforce the conditions. However, Saddam didn't support anything, to the contrary.

If the US do a war now, they do so to enforce the armistice conditions - with the consequent approach to eliminate the factor that has led to the situation today. It was Saddam who ordered to ignore the armistice conditions. Now he'll either have to cooperate or be toppled.

[ November 26, 2002, 16:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

As I said: "US should restrain from artillery attacks." They always cause more civilian casualties and enviromental destruction than anything else. Otherwise it´s same to me if they beat Saddam to the deepest hole or allow him rule.

i dont think that they should be attacked... nukes anyone...

Virne,
what's wrong about artillery to support a ground attack? I'm amazed you consider the destructive power of a artillery shell higher than that of any other munition - like an aircraft delivered bomb. Smart munitions or not, it's all the same: About killing people and destroying things with heat, overpressure and fragments.

Since the only alternative to artillery is to use airpower to supress enemies: What's "surgical" about a 908kg bomb containing approx 450kg high explosives? Why should an aerial observer directing a laser guided bomb be more exact than a ground based observer directing artillery fire? And since even the US don't fire artillery blindly (like: for the sake of muzzle flash or the fun of the "bang") on a target I just do not get any point in your post.

If you're for war you should accept that the US will use all measures to keep their soldiers alive and to kill the enemy quickly. If US artillery kills iraqi civilians then because the iraqis like to be based close to their people.

The US and the UK are taking care when selecting targets. For several years now Saddam's missile men attack allied aircraft - from sites in civilian centers - only to disappear there quickly. In the monthly retaliatory airstrikes against targets in Iraq the US and british aircraft do not target the areas where the Iraqis fired from - lacking the real targets they attack the command centers.

The iraqis are provoking civilian casualties to find a way to accuse the US of committing warcrimes or causing "collateral damage".

[ November 26, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yeah, it's kinda hard not to hit civilians when the Iraqis are throwing them in the way of bombs. He builds the bombs to protect the people, then uses the people to protect the bombs. It's a whole country of meat shields.

Why do the Americans even give a damn? If Iraq wants to be left alone, without anyone to protect them in a disaster, why should we bother them?

See now real reason why the US should invade Iraq. Ok, there is possible that they ate having weapons of masdestruction...Possible but not proved, mant countrys today have NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons and I thinkt its almost as bad if the US for example got NBC weapons as for the iraqi. The USA also claims that the Iraqis are breaking against several UN konvetntions of humanrights, and thats true and should without doubt be handled, but by bombing Iraq to pieces? No. And the US arent the best nation to follow thoes rules themselfs, they have singed 10 of 26 konventions, Cuba for example have singed 17, and they do suport todays greatest murder state, the fascist Israel regime, wich I can nor understand....
Sure, the Iraqies have bombed kurds in the norhtern Iraq (ok, when they used chemical weapons was against armed rebells, but its horrible anyway) but the latest few years the Iraq and the Kurds have developed some kind of coexistance, many kurd leaders sees an US interfearance as a much bigger threat to the peace then Irak them selfs, and the samething says the neighboring nations. I realy doubt that Saddam is working with Al Qaida and its rediculous to say that Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction against the US without any reason, he isnt so stupid, the only possible way that he will use any NBC weapon is if he is pushed and invaded and have nothing left to loose. I think its dangerous for the US and the rest of the world if an invasion of Irak is luanched. Ok, I must admit that you kicked ass last time, the Iraqis were beaten hard, and I think you would win now to, but it will cost more lives, both iraqi and american. And please don't use your stupid "smart missiles" thoes really suck :) I mean it, they miss all the time, atleast last war....

Sigh, while I've personally been swayed to the side that the U.S. should adhere to the current strategy of containment rather than a forced regime change the continued disinformation is appalling.

Turandil, you state that the use of chemical weapons was against armed rebels. While I suppose Iraq hit some as they were bound not to miss them all the genocide of the Kurds in the Anfal was focused on civilians.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

If you want to know about the current regime of murder, rape, and torture that is Iraq go check out the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch webpages. That should be a start if you are actually serious reepnorp or maybe you simply pre-judge everything associated with America in a negative manner like others.

I have my own reasons for thinking intervention is not the best policy, but here is a bit of a challenge for you Turandil and any other Europeans who think war is clearly awful: why is it that the killing of Kosovars was enough to send Europe clammoring for the U.S. to beg for help in a war and the killing of up to 100,000 Kurds isn't?

Saddam is not allowed to have missiles or weapons of mass destruction after the armistice following his defeat in the gulf war. He was obligated to support and allow inspections to enforce the conditions. However, Saddam didn't support anything, to the contrary. How many countries have violeted UN resolutions and have never been forced to obey them? For example, Israel has violeted 68 UN resolutions, Turkey almost 30 (I'm not sure about this number) and no one of these "crusaders" of human rights and world peace seems to care.

BOC,
The point is, Saddam agreed to these conditions to end the war. If he chooses to not follow through on his agreement, the war is back on. It was not a UN resolution, it was part of the Iraqi surrender.

As for the rest of your post, I don't know what it has to do with the situation.

As far as I remember, the allied forces in the gulf war were considered to be UN forces, since the UN gave the authorization of this war. Therefore, the cease fire agreement was between Iraq and UN and not between Iraq and USA or another western country.

I would just like to add one thing that really doesnt have to do with anything but which can maybe atleast make many people see that the US isnt the 'good guys'. There are none in an armed conflict nor in international politics, might makes right and the US is the strongest therefore they are right. The chemicals Saddam so horrible used on his unrested and unwilling subjects in northern Iraq had been supplied by the US, as had the chemicals that was used against Iran. There was a hearing in the US senate about this a while ago so confirmation should be easy to get by. So you cant really judge Saddam for the atrocities he commited against the kurds and the iranians with chemical weapons during the 80's without the same time condemning the supplier of chemical weapons, the United states of America.

The main thing I have against the current war preparation and imminent war against Iraq is the reasons, for it. The main reasons arent that he is a bastardous murderer and dictator that is a liability to the entire world. He has been that for a several decades and he started breaking the peace treaty more or less right away after the Gulf War. The reason the US wants a war so badly now are simply domestic policies, as long as Bush have a conflict, and a successful one he can grasp the reins of power tightly and no one challenge him as could be seen in the recent elections where the republicans won greatly by using war rheotorics and propaganda scaring the populace into voting for a strong leader that could lead them to victory against all the millions of lunatics with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that just waited to drop them over the US. As always there are always more than one reason for wanting a war but that is the main objective, to keep Bush popular and in power. If it hadnt been Iraq it would have been any other state that didnt fit into the western norm of democracy and liberty.

Perhaps the motives of the U.S. are nefarious joacquin. Though I think it rather disingenuous to on the one hand say that motives that might justify intervention have nothing to do with why the U.N. might force a regime change and then pick your own motives to attribute which are contrary to the stated motives. Did that make sense? I'll rephrase -- you and others say that some stated motives should be ignored as being false and that proponents bring them up just to justify a war and then turn around and pick your own motives in an attempt to make the war look unjustified. Where is the difference?

Again though, let me ask: how is it that what Iraq under Hussein has done is not enough for a forced regime change but what happened in Kosovo was enough to send Europe begging to the U.S. for help?

Out of curiosity, Laches, why do you feel the US should contain rather than eliminate?

"The chemicals Saddam so horrible used on his unrested and unwilling subjects in northern Iraq had been supplied by the US, as had the chemicals that was used against Iran. There was a hearing in the US senate about this a while ago so confirmation should be easy to get by. So you cant really judge Saddam for the atrocities he commited against the kurds and the iranians with chemical weapons during the 80's without the same time condemning the supplier of chemical weapons, the United states of America."
That doesn't make much since Joacqin. It would be like someone going out and killing someone with a firearm or any weapon and trying to accuse the person who sold the weapon to the killer of murder. It was Saddam who massacred those people not the US.
The other point I wanted to make (OK, it's my opinion not a point) is that I don't think the US should attack Iraq without probable cause: not letting the UN inspectors do their job and trying to withhold from completing his end of the resolution. If Saddam continues to not allow these inspections and does have weapons of destruction then I say that it's war time (and I'm for most forms of warfare which I won't get in to here on this particular thread.)

Capstone, the reason I think we shouldn't seek a regime change is that the U.S. since the Gulf War has adopted the "Powell doctrine." You now hear our military say things like, "it's our job to blow things up and kill people." It seems to now be accepted that the military should be used to go in only after achieving political support with overwhelming force, achieve a clear objective, and then leave. That's a popular idea in the U.S. today and hence politically as a reaction to the images surrounding the Vietnam War.

The problem as I see it is that sometimes the military can't just go in and leave. After WWII it was the U.S. military that rebuilt Japan. The U.S. military was so involved that military peronnel would be in the classrooms of Japan making sure what was being taught was what they had approved.

I think that to really stabalize the region a similar type of commitment would be necessary today. If such a commitment was made and handled properly the results could be one of the real shining moments in U.S. history; a moment where we could look back in the future and say that the actions of the U.S. truly resulted in a better world.

That commitment would likely take decades and an incredible amount of resources would need to be poured into the region, as we did with Japan.

With the Powell doctrine being the rule of the day though I don't think we are willing to use our military in such a manner. I also think for political reasons the U.S. would be unwilling to spend decades and the resources necessary. Some of those political reasons are domestic. Other political reasons are the complaints and pressure the U.S. would receive from Europeans who have become entrenched in relativism and an anti-U.S. mode of thought; combining the two there were many Europeans who defended the treatment of women in the middle east as "cultural differences" and I'd imagine the same type of arguments would surface.

Since I don't think the U.S. would be willing to make the commitment necessary and since the U.N. is incompetent the likely result would be to set up some type of pseudo-democracy with a hand picked dictator.

The picking would be tricky. Can't be a Kurd or Turkey will throw a fit and destabalize the region. Have to be careful with the Souther tribes of Iraq or you'll send Iran over the edge (Iran is at an VERY delicate time right now where they'll either sink back into oppression or will begin to make real strides toward reform -- there is a HUGE showdown on the horizon between elected reformist politicians and the old guard clergy/judiciary.)

In short, there are too many ways to make things worse if you aren't willing to make a serious long term commitment. While containment allows attrocities to continue (and they are going on right now in Iraq) Hussein has at least been limited. He's only murdering and torturing now by the dozens and hundreds instead of by the hundreds of thousands. If we went in and left without a commitment though I think we could destabalize Iran, Saudi Arabia (they ain't no saints), and possibly Turkey. The ramifications of strengthening the old guard in Iran, fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, and potentially civil war in Turkey would likely make any temporary stability gained in Iraq precarious indeed.

In short, IF the U.S. was willing to make a long term commitment to stabalizing the region following the war as we did with Japan I would whole-heartedly support military intervention. Since I don't think we are willing to do that the margin of error is too narrow and the possible negative consequences outgain the benefits.

A case in point on why I think we aren't willing to make the kind of commitment needed: Afghanistan today.

Saudi Arabia (they ain't no saints) Absolutely, at some occasions there even bad as the Taliban were. like no holidays, not even the birthday of Mohammed. Arabia, being a fundamentalist muslim means you should follow the Koran, not your own heart. :rolleyes: . Thats why I dissaprove with fundamentalist, because of their unreallistic view on the world.

[Wooohoooo!! *me doing boogie*, a new gem!!]

[ November 27, 2002, 07:28: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Actually the chemicals Saddam used came from a couple of developed countries, including germany .... so I clearly remember a company with the name Immhausen to do so (the blessings of beeing old :shake: ). They received their tanks from France and Russia - as well as swedish antitank weapons, their artillery they got froim South-Africa, their communications equipment from the UK, their transport helicopters from the US etc etc. Every western country made good money with Saddam's buildup agaisnt the then "forces of evil", aka fundemantilst Iran.

Saddam is dangerous - he has proven to be so, starting war against Kuwait and Iran as well as cruelly crushing any internal resistance. Not only that, he pumps the money from his oil sales into his forces buildup while his people are suffering, blaming the UN sanctions and namely the US with their deaths due to uinsufficient medical supplies. He refuses to obey to the rule of international law. So if the US enforce his UN obligations that's a good thing, even if this means war.

But when the US do it in a way that makes the UN look like a weak aidee of US war plans that damages the reputation and credibility of then UN - and that it is criminal and the major stupidity of Bush is to be found in the fact that his clumsy Cowboy-rhetorics underline this (wrong) perception.

I'd need a couple of lessons from the history of Iraq and its surroundings and a real accurrate description of the current political conditions there and in the US and all in between. Because I don't have much of either, nor any interest in acquiring it, I'll just say this:

Obviously all this talk of "peace" and what is "humane" is not getting us far. Obviously people do have to be forced to better their ways. Obviously we of the better developed countries too often think we know better than others, that our customs and culture is more civilized and important than those of others.
I don't care wether the war comes or not. None of us really know what all is involved in it, so none of us can really base our opinions on anything realistic. Perhaps a war will come and it will be for the better, or perhaps not and that will prove to be the best solution. But honestly, whatever it is that's going to happen, probably is deserving of the good old phrase "**** happens".
As a sideremark, I can't believe the idiot that is currently acting as the president of the US. I honestly remained quite sure that he can't be as dumb as he looks and sounds and acts for a long time. But over time I learned that obviously some things are as they look, or then he has a serious lack of social skills (which makes you wonder how one such would ever get to be a president since it's a very important skill for one so powerful a political figure).

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm from Finland.

[ November 27, 2002, 10:30: Message edited by: Forashi ]

Okay I'll make this short and quick.

Go to war with Iraq if they provoke, threaten other countries, or if weapons of mass destruction are found by the inspectors etc. and aren't allowed to dismantle them. Also, if the inspectors are suddenly never heard of.

A nuclear strike by the US or Britain would not be necessary. Basically, deploying of troops, specialized troops, gunships and a heafty number of aircraft should prove more then sufficient.

Once Suddam is eliminated, allow either the US or Britain to maintain a 'sphere of influence' over Iraq until a leader of some good reputation comes to power. Once done, the US and British armed forces should leave and let Iraq get on with it. Perhaps the US or Britain could loan Iraq money to help rebuild it. Saying that, other, more financially stable countries like Britain and the US could do the same.

Okay, so I said this would be short and quick but lets admit, once you get into it, you can't really stop now can you? ;) Anyway, I've tried to keep this minimal. I suppose i could go on alittle bit more but i don't want to bore you readers ... yet :p

I know that everyone sold weaponry to Iraq, what got missed out during my rant above was that the chemicals and biological weapons I mean wasnt sold to Iraq by the US, they were given, free of charge. As a show of goodwill or whatever, that is why I think the US has some part of the blame as they gave it away for free with no economical goal. It is very hard to stop states to sell things to eachother as money unquestionable rules this world but when the arms are given away I think you can start to wonder why and if they couldnt imagine them being used.

Laches, I didnt say that all the other reasons are false, I just said that they werent the most important. Hussein hasnt grown any worse this last year than he has been for decades. Why then hasnt someone acted before? Saddam's atrocities and defying of the peace treaty are justification for war, not the reasons. That doesnt mean that they are not true.

BOC,
You are not as thick as you are behaving. You stated that the disarming of Iraq was a UN resolution (meaning it was voted on by the UN and not necessarily agreed to by the other party), then compared it to other UN resolutions that were ignored.
When I pointed out that it was not a resolution, but terms of surrender, you posted:
Therefore, the cease fire agreement was between Iraq and UN and not between Iraq and USA or another western country You correctly state that it is an agreement between the UN and Iraq. That is different from a UN resolution.
It was part of the terms of surrender
Therefore, if Iraq does not abide by the terms, the surrender is void, the war is back on.

Last, I never stated that the agreement was between the US and Iraq. So, again, the rest of you response is meaningless.

I've been beating this drum before joacqin: who cares? Assume that the motives are nefarious for wanting Hussein out. If there are independent reasons (read genocide) which would mean his removal is a good thing then isn't it still a good thing for him to be removed. The only ramifications of Bush not having good motives is he doesn't deserve moral praise for doing the right thing.

It's like if I decided to give to charity only for tax reasons. I wouldn't deserve a moral pat on the back because my reasons weren't altruistic. That doesn't make giving to charity bad though. It's still a good thing to do.

So, once again, since I think it disingenuous for many Europeans to blame the U.S. for not getting involved quickly enough in the war in Kosovo, justified by genocide, and then blame the U.S. for wanting to remove Hussein while they ignore a similar type of genocide and a similar type of regime of torture and murder. If war is justified in one isn't it in the other?

It's not that I think war would be unjustified here, just that what follows might do more harm.

Hussein hasnt grown any worse this last year than he has been for decades. Why then hasnt someone acted before? This is the kind of thinking I don't understand. What makes you think someone hasn't acted before? Is it only acts that are sensational/newsworthy that count? Do you believe there has been no diplomacy such as deal making, compromises, threats or sanctions going on all these years?

When soft methods fail, it is then time for the more sensational/newsworthy hard methods.

[ November 27, 2002, 17:32: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Laches, I hear comments like "I think it disingenuous for many Europeans to blame the U.S. for not getting involved quickly enough in the war in Kosovo" all the time, but I've lived in Europe half my life and the only time I ever hear complaints that Americans don't get sufficiently involved in foreign wars, is from Americans themselves. Who are the "many Europeans" to whom you refer? Certainly most of Europe values United Nations peacekeepers, but contrary to what Americans seem to believe, the average European does not reproach the United States for not getting directly involved in such matters. Quite the contrary.

Saddam is like a bankrobber - he's holding his country and the future of the middle east captive for a couple of years now and over all the negotiations and his playing cat and mice with the UN and the US and the UK we got used to it, so much we no longer care.

Underway and mainly unnoticed in the time after the armistice he again massacred both kurds and shiites in his country using again gas against them (it was the shiites turn this time). Without US presence keeping an eye and the occasional bomb on him be would again bully his smaller neighbours, if not again occupy them.

Even though I'm still sceptical about the general US Iraq policy and Bush's ability to guide it I recognise the need to deal with Saddam. The primary goal is to force him to again accept the UN disarmamanet inspections. However, you never know what he dug in in the vast deserts of his country - the inspections have to be taken seriously, intensively and over a longer period to grant success.

[ November 27, 2002, 17:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

dont complain on the religion... the christian have also been bad before and now... like king Arthur of England and king Gustav Vasa of Sweden...

What does religion have to with anything? Dubya isn't trying to convert anyone, just enforce agreements that have been abused for 10 years. If he can protect the interests of the petroleum companies that are some of his biggest backers, that's just a side benefit. When in doubt, follow the money. Pardon me, my cynical side is showing.

In some ways it's too bad that Saddam and the US haven't maintained the relationship they had during the Iran/Iraq conflict, when he was our best friend over there. Right now Iraq is the most secular state in the Middle East. Seems to me that we all could use a little less violence in the name of religion.

i think that they down there is just wanting the money... darn capitalistic pigs... then they just say "its the religion"...

Sprite, the U.S. didn't want anything to do with the war in Kosovo. The Clinton administration was particularly reluctant to be involved there but the Europeans continually lambasted the U.S. for not getting involved soon enough.

The U.S./NATO's involvement in Kosovo came late and only after tremendous pressure since Clinton didn't want to touch it; you would commonly hear officials in the U.S. say that the Europeans should take care of their own backyard. Under mounting international pressure though the U.S. finally became involved on March 24, 1999. Milosevic came to power in 1987. The U.S. in 1992 under the first Bush warned Milosevic that it would use force if necessary to push the Serbs back if they attacked Kosovo. Bush lost the presidency to Clinton who retracted these statements and took a hands off policy with regards to Kosovo. In October of 1998 the U.S. finally agreed to try to broker a deal. The deal fell through but the U.S. still stongly opposed sending any troops into the region. Under pressure from Europe -- particularly France, Germany, Sweden, and England the U.S. finally agreed to send troops and did so in 1999.

I'm certain if you search long enough you can find old newspaper articles archived back in 1998 and 1999 about the reluctance of the U.S. to become involved and the outcry from Europe.

EDIT -- I also mean the U.S. was being lambasted by European governments and press, the circle of people who you knew then may not have wanted the U.S. involved, I have no idea about that.

[ November 27, 2002, 20:34: Message edited by: Laches ]

What I don't understand is why we have to bomb them for them not letting us inspect there missiles and other millitary based objects the only reason we want to get in there and check it out is because we want to make sure that we have the toughest army suplies at all times if any one is coming close to being strong we bomb them to protect us. I think other countries need there own self defense to. Now once they act upon us with bombing or invading with troops then we should go after them.

Heh, can you imagine how theyre inspecting the weapons..

Inspector points at abonded rocket: Ey whats that over there
Iraqi Soldier: iet ies a olde roacket, we no uses anymore
Inspector writes in his notebook while mumbling: Two rockets with nuclear launch aimed at D.C.

:hahaerr: :hmm: :toofar:

Jack
The ceasefire agreement was a UN resolution. It was resolution 687 on 3 April 1991. If you still doubt about it, check it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/2246037.stm

An inspection conversation would rather look like that:

-Inspector points at abonded rocket: "Ey whats that over there?"
-Iraqi Soldier: "This is a stovepipe."
-Inspector: "With a pointed nose and small stub-wings??!"
-Iraqi: "Aye, somehow we have to get the pipe through the roof, don't we?"
-Inspector: "Hmm, but why is my tricorder :shake: reporting traces of sarin?"
-Iraqi Soldier: "Impossible! ( thinks: IMPOSSIBLE!!! Eventually we have cleaned up here ... we had time enough ) *cough* .... you must be wrong."
-Inspector insists: "This missile has a chemical warhead!"
-Iraqi Soldier: "What missile?"

[ November 27, 2002, 22:26: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

BOC,

Fair enough. It was a UN resolution. But your original comparison is still invalid:

How many countries have violeted UN resolutions and have never been forced to obey them? For example, Israel has violeted 68 UN resolutions, Turkey almost 30 (I'm not sure about this number) and no one of these "crusaders" of human rights and world peace seems to care.Show me where these countries (Israel and Turkey) agreed to UN resolutions as a condition of surrender. Iraq agreed to the resolution to end the war. That is the difference.
Do you see the difference?

[ November 27, 2002, 23:26: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Jack
On 20th July 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus. After 3 days of fighting and 2 UN resolutions (353 on 20th July 1974 and 354 on 23rd July 1974) a ceasefire agreement took place. In UN resolution 355 (1st August 1974)there is the following paragraph:

"Noting that all States have declared their respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus".

I believe that this paragraph proves that all sides have accepted not only the terms of the cease fire agreement but they have accepted the indepedence and and the territorial intergrity of Cyprus, right? Well, on 14th August 1974 Turkey broke the ceasefire agreement and launched a new attack with the code name Attilas II (Attilas was the code name of the first attack)and Cyprus is divided for 28 years.

Well, did Turkey agree with these resolutions in first place?
http://pio.gov.cy/docs/security_counsil/index.htm

I don't have the link to hand, still waiting on it from a friend. But it leads to a page, that I think is a theory, putting forward a case of why the USA wants to go and 'pacify and neutralise' the threat in Iraq. They will go in there, occupy the place, and then go after their real target, Iran.
aha, just got the link, web page (http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_nov10.html)
It is interesting however that a supposedly so dangerous person wasn't taken out of power a few years back isn't it? After all, SAS members were shaking hands with him during the Gulf War, and he is still alive? But then, that was for the stability of the region. Or should we look behind the reason we're told?

We must have lived in very different worlds during the Kosovo crisis Laches, no european politician nor media did ever demand US intervention in Kosovo that I know of. Keep in mind that you are under the influence of one set of propaganda and I am under one. I dont say that the intervention in Kosovo was wrong but I am generally suspicous of everything the US do. Call it paranoia if you will. As far as I know and it may be limited so has Europe not asked for any military help since WW2. There may have been shouts for UN intervention but that is something completely different. Perhaps there was a pressure on US politicians from their european counterparts but that is not something that they would spread among the populace as the general populace view on things is not to have the US running around and acting like heroes while 'protecting' democracy.
So dont use the other cases argument with me as I have never supported the intervention of a single states or alliance intervention in another states affairs, if that is to be done it should be through census in the UN, however hard that is to come by. Where will it end? Kosovo yesterday, Iraq today who knows who will be pointed out as the next threat to world peace or US security?

Secondly I think that reasons are all that matters, if you intend to commit a crime but end up saving someone while you are at I still think you are guilty. Check your law books, intention makes all the difference. The punishment for killing someone with intent is alot higher than if you accidently kill someone.

You must be right Vermillion one article in one Canadian newspaper must mean we are after Iran next.After all if it is a newspaper or on the internet it must be true.First Iraq then Iran soon the world.You will all bow before our mighty capitalist power,nothing will stop the utter global domination of us evil Americans muhahahahah!!!!!!!!

[ November 28, 2002, 03:51: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

BOC,

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. Turky did not agree to the resolutions as terms of surrender, the they agreed to stop attacking. Additionally, the fight was Turkey vs. Cyprus, not Turkey vs. the U.N. (or U.S.).
When a country is losing a war and agrees to terms of surrender, they generally keep to the terms or (if they are still a threat) get attacked again. That is what is happening with Iraq. I think it is obvious that the U.S. feels threatened by the weapons programs of Iraq and we are willing to enforce the resolutions. I also think it's obvious that Bush is only going through the U.N. to try a diplomatic solution and placate the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Turkey and Israel have violated resolutions to which they agreed. Should the U.N. have done something? Perhaps. But does lack of action in those cases mean that U.N. resolutions should never be enforced?
You refuse to acknowledge the difference in these cases. While the points that you are making are interesting and worthy of discussion, I believe that they are not related to the discussion on Iraq.
Perhaps you could start another topic about the uneven behavior of the U.N. History is littered with examples (such as involvement in Kosovo but not Rwanda).

The intervention in Kosovo came after the U.N. had pulled out in large part. It was NATO that began an air war. The U.S. was pressured to commit ground troops as well but was reluctant to be there in the first place let alone commit ground troops. Finally, Clinton under pressure from the U.K., Germany, France, and Italy decided to send in 100,000 American troops to be combined with 75,000 from all of the other NATO nations and Russia -- this was two days before Milosevic blinked and backed down.

This is taken from an article from the Guardian, a somewhat liberal British paper regarding the subject at the time, can't link it, sorry:

America's European allies are girding themselves for a new era in transatlantic relations, with the prospect of a Bush administration refusing to bail them out of crises in the way Washington has done for decades.

"It will not be business as usual," a Nato official said yesterday. General Colin Powell "does not want to engage", he added, in a reference to Mr Bush's secretary of state-elect who as a military leader was reluctant to involve US forces in Bosnia or the Gulf war.
The Guardian article shows how Powell, one of the most influential American foreign policy makers at the time didn't want to become involved.

Here is a brief article mentioning the US' tendencies towards isolationism and mounting international pressure to get involved in Kosovo, written by Dick Morris a Clinton political consultant:
http://www.beachbrowser.com/archives/opinion/internationalist-liberals.htm

See, this was one of Clinton's chief political consultants at the time warning against U.S. involvement, in the face of international pressure, because Americans tend toward isolationist policies.

If you have an online subscription to e-library you can access a number of old articles describing the international pressure on the U.S. regarding Kosovo, I can't link them since a subscription is required (it's 7 day trial but $80.00 a year)

In short, the U.S. wasn't keen to get into the war in Kosovo (with some notable exceptions like Albright)but was pressured into doing so. I can't say how the politicians played this pressure out in Europe since I think a great deal of it came behind the scenes from other Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) members and the like but the pressure was there.

But this is drifting off course I think. I do have a couple of questions joacquin. Was intervention in Kosovo justified? If so, why? If it is justified, please explain how the goings on in Iraq under Hussein don't justify forced regime change. Keep in mind, there has been no unilateral action as of yet, indeed, there has been no action at all.

Regarding your analogy, I'm sorry but I don't think it is relevant and misses the point. Intention is indeed important when it is time to assign moral culpability, I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that, using your example, if someone wanted to commit a crime and saved someone instead, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't save people. It only means that person isn't morally good in this instance for doing the right thing.

This is my point: if there is a strong moral justification for a regime change in Iraq, independent of U.S. actions, then a regime change in Iraq is something that you can support as being justified regardless of what Bush's personal ambitions are. (Insert comment about means and ends here)

I have one last Kosovo question, I'm just genuinely curious. If the U.S. wasn't pressured to go to Kosovo by the international community why was it there? Can't blame it on oil this time. And if the U.S. was there out of a genuine humanitarian concern (and remember Milosevic came to power in the late 80's and had been going strong since then) why are you so quick to dismiss all of the humanitarian reasons listed with regards to Iraq?

Jack
In my opinion it does not matter if it is a condition of surrender or a agreement of stop attacking. It is a UN resolution and that is what matters.

Also, please answer me to this. Why does USA feel that Iraq is a threat for its own security? Even if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (biological, nuclear, chemicals or whatever), does it have the ability to launch them against american soil? I don't think so. I 've read in a newspaper a couple of months ago, that the new missile weapon of Iraq is a modified MIG-21 fighter. Does this have the ability to reach USA soil?

The only thing that could be considered as a threat is the possibility of training and funding terrorist groups, but there isn't a proof about this. On the contrary, there are suspicions that some terrorist groups are getting money from your "allies" in this area (see Saudi Arabia).

Well, there ARE terrorist trainingcamps outside of Bagdad, as proven by satelite.

The proof-function of satellite imagery is pretty overrated. These camps yould as well be used for paramilitary training of police or militia troops or anything. For some reason Saddam likes his people to be combat ready.

Satellite imagery can tell you something about the purpose of a camp - that it actually is a training site with obstacle parcours and shooting range, yes, but it cannot tell you what is in the minds of the people down there - terrorist training somehow looks very similar to normal infantry combat training. So why is it a terrorist camp? Because there is "Osama & Saddam Terror Inc." written on the barracks yard?
Maybe the US have aditional background info from other sources but pics alone are a weak proof.

Think about Photoshop and ask yourself what proof a satellite imagery pic is nowadays.

Even when you see armed people around an aircraft - that could be an anti-terror exercise or a terror exercise. You cannot tell the difference by looking at it from space since even a terrorist can dress military style or a soldier can wear plainclothes. So what does a look on that proove?

Interesting sidenote: IIRC the US are known have *beefed up* some sattelite pics to proove warcrimes in Bosnia and Iraq (like with some bonus mass graves) to make it easier to persuade allies with them - which is one of the reasons why the french insist in having satelites of their own - and do not always agree with US intelligence.

[ November 28, 2002, 15:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I'm skeptical of the terrorist training going on in Iraq as being a direct threat to the U.S.

The imaging came after reports by respected reporters Jeff Goldberg of an al-Qaida/Iraq connection. Goldberg reports, after having gone to Kurdistan, that in eastern Iraq the group Jund-al-Islam which changed its name to Ansar al-Islam has training camps in 10 villages near the Iranian border. They're sort of typical Islamic extremists who want to impose sharia but they are exclusively focused on Free Kurdistan in northern Iraq. As someone pointed out above, Iraq is a secular state and indeed, bin Laden is on the record as detesting Hussein because of that. However, Hussein's intelligence agency reportedly runs these terrorist groups as a way to destabalize Kurdistan particularly now when there is a no-fly zone. Goldberg reported that Hussein's intelligence agency actually controls the group with cooperation from al-Qaida. This last is the part that some people don't believe, I'm not sure what to make of it.

So, I think the terrorist groups in Iraq, and it really is beyond doubt that they exist, are a direct threat to Kurdistan at the moment and not the U.S. I suppose the scare comes from if you believe the report of Goldberg and others of a connection between these groups and al-Qaida, then there is an increased risk of al-Qaida receiving chemical or biological agents from Hussein through these groups as an intermediary and thus becoming a direct threat to the U.S.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of these reports. Jeff Goldberg's integrity as a journalist is beyond reproach but that doesn't mean he can't be mistaken. His article was published in the fairly liberal "New Yorker" magazine if you are interested in reading it yourself.

Mad kurds mainly are a risk for NATO, since Saddam destabilizing his North-Iraq is endangering NATO's southern flank - Turkey. And islamist or not - with the support of Saddam and the iraqi part of Kurdistan as a safeheaven these dudes probably mainly operate into Iran and Turkey, two major regional rivals of Iraq.

I'm not sure about the Al-Quaida connection. Since both, Al-Quaida and Saddam's secret services operate highly conspirative you can't proove nothing - until it perhaps happens. It is known Osama's men were interested in aquiring biological and chemical weapons. Of course you can imagine it is right, but just as well it could be wrong. At least it is a good story.

@Pacman

Theres even a terrorist training camps in the US, Whisc aka SOA

[ November 28, 2002, 17:05: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

religion has nothing to do with it,saddam believes he is doing it for his religion but after studying islam in religious education he is quite clearly going against everything it says in the Qu'ran

I am surprised anyone can seriously think that Saddam has any interest in religion - his overtly beeing muslim is an opportunity to get support from other muslims. His wars against muslim brother countries, namely Kuwait and Iran were to gather more territory, not for a muslim idea - as mentioned before Iraq is a secular country.

Saddam wouldn't even tolerate a serious muslim leader next to him in his country - he is a dictator, interested in nothing but his own power and to remain in power. Beeing seen as the muslim leader of the middle east - the next Nasser - would improve his base of power.

He is an opportunist, probably an atheist, and would it bring him an advantage he would not only go to mosque to pray (ordering the tv there first) but maybe dye his hair green and become buddhist or catholic. Even discussing his potentially religious motivation actually means believing in his propaganda.

Didnt Hitler use that same "I adjust my religion to get power" tactic??

indeed,you have just summed up what i was trying to say

Not really, Hitler wrote his own religion - even before he came to power. Saddam demands a person cult either - but without the pathological racial ideology.

While Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, unscrupulous opportunist - Hitler was a foaming madman.

For Saddam religion is a tool - for Hitler his racial ideology was the goal.

A significant difference IMO, however, without any significance for the general judgement over Saddam Hussein.

[ November 28, 2002, 22:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I do not disbelieve your sources Laches but they are pretty onesided, especially Clinton's advisor. He has a reason for saying that, namely that as you said the US have had a history of isolationist due to its populace not being overly fond of spending resources and lives over seas so they needed a justification for intervening and their allies begging them for help is one. With this I dont say that it isnt true, I am just saying that it is a onesided point of view from a politician who has political and propaganda goals with his every statement. I would like to add though that I can very well see Italy asking for help in the Kosovo affair as they had to deal with tens of thousands of albanian refugees that crossed the adriatic sea and it would only grow worse the longer the conflict lasted. So I do not doubt that Italy wanted to pacify the area.

My problem with the kosovo intervention was that it was a NATO operation, more or less only supported by NATO. Not sanctioned by the UN whose sole reason to exist is to handle situation such as this.
Call me paranoid but I dont like it when one state with allies/cronies completely dominates world politics and dictates what is right and wrong, whom to bomb and whom not to bomb. That is a dangerous scenario in my opinion. USA is the unquestionable hegemon in the world today, no one can stand up to them. NATO and the rest of the western world do the next best thing and follow their lead. The US has absolute power in the world today, the only reason that they even go through UN or atleast try to in most instances is that they profit it on, for now. But they, as opposed to every other nation in this world doesnt *have* to abide by international laws. No one can touch them, as has been shown time and time again as the US refuses to sign vital treaties designed to make a better and safer world. They do as they please, if you look at Iraq that Bush and company lets the weaponinspectors in and supposedly support them is a show as that is what the populace wants. But they did everythin within the boundaries of the UN to stop them and now that they are in the propaganda machine is working for full power trying to discredit the weaponinspections as useless and gullible fools. The US wants their war and they will get it, with or without international support. Probably with as no one wants to get on the bad side of the power. Remember: 'You are either with us or against us'?
That more or less implies that anyone that doesnt support any action the Bush regime takes is a terrorist supportes, as many US journalists and other people have noticed as they have been the target of extensive smearing campaigns if they even question Bush's actions.
I have heard that power corrupts and I am bound to agree with that saying, seeing as the US has more or less absolute power in the world today I wonder what it can lead to but I am not hopeful.

[ November 30, 2002, 19:13: Message edited by: joacqin ]

You're perfectly right Joacqin - as a look at the UN charter can easily show - NATO's attack on serbia was, however necessary it might have been to prevent genocide in Kosovo, an agression. It was no preventive strike, no counterattack and no Chapter VII UN-Charter operation but a willing and determined attack under violation of international law.

However, iirc the claimed reasons for that were that it would not have been possible to obtain the majority necessary to get a UN resolution since russia refused to agree. The lawful option would have been to watch serbia killing kosovars and do nothing. Silly choice, bad thing when the good-doers start off like that - violating international law at need :(

Weird enough our now "no-war-against-iraq - with or without UN" chancellor supported that war in Kosovo, and oh surprise, his popularity then was higher than ever before and after. However, he has always changed his political opinions based on opinion polls and necessity :shake:

That shall only show that some politician's decisions have nothing to do with foreign policy or higher ideals like humanity. An example: Our chancellor's reason to refuse war this time (and to piss off france and the US) were to
ensure support from his social democrat-green party coalition (which has a hairy majority only - the damnation of Bush's war plans likely granted him victory in the last elections) and - since our armed forces are underfinanced and overstretched already anyway - to prevent a debacle when sending them in harm's way.Since we couldn't join the coalition in a war even if we wanted (lacking modern ammo, transports, communications etc etc), it is easier for our government to refuse to participate, masking our inability with demonstrated peacefulness :evil:

[ November 29, 2002, 09:37: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Now that Bush has taken control, the US has become the world's bully. We don't like Afghanistan, so let's beat the **** out of it. We don't like Iraq, so let's beat the **** out of it. This is exactly WHY 9/11 happened in the first place!

You make a big mistake when you think that 9/11 happened because of Bush - he wasn't even in office long enough to do anything serious before the attacks happened. Considering the long preparation time of the attacks (approx 2 years) the terrorists must have started when Clinton was president.

Actually it was Clinton who ordered to bomb the Al Quaida camps in Afganistan after the Kenia and Mombasa embassy bombings - terrorist attacks commited by al Quaida - that killed several hundred people. Considering the now proven support of Al Quaida by the Taliban he even targeted the right baddie.

Terrorists strike and then disappear in the population, borders who's enemy and who's not disappear, everyone is wearing civil clothes - and when the attacked country strikes back they use overwhelming force against people seeming inferior and innocent. By provoking a reaction terrorists justify their action - even when the reaction happens after the strike - the provoked reaction even may be the reason for a terror strike.

Who's the baddie? The one who orders a suicide bomber to drive a lorry loaded with explosives into a hotel, to blow up a bus full of civilians, to shoot down or bomb a civil airliner - or the country that attacks the camp of the suspected terror group right after - perhaps in a foreign country - in retaliation? International law is a beautiful thing - but as long as there are countries offering safehaven for bombers it is flawed, unfortunately. Btw, strikes in retaliation are allowed under international law.

Of course you cannot restrict yourself to military action. Development aid is just as important, as is enforcement of human rights standards. Some people in arab countries are against their pro-western governments because they are corrupt, brutal and unfair. With supporting them we become their enemies too.
The reasons for terror maybe widespread but get used to the fact that arab terrorists not need a necessarily rational reason to hate the west, beeing from a western country is reason enough to get killed by them.

[ November 30, 2002, 10:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The Soul Seeking Forever: I agree with the general principle you seem to be expressing, which is that bombing strikes and high-handed western interference in already-troubled regions often create new generations of angry young men seeking a career in terrorism. But in the case of Osama bin Laden we unfortunately are looking at almost the exact opposite situation. For almost his entire adult life his goal has been to see Taliban-style Islamic extremism implemented across the Middle East and Africa. He is the high-handed interfering one. It is the western moves that have thwarted his evil plans - such as the presence of US troops in Yemen and Somalia, generally for totally unrelated reasons - that he is frothing at the mouth about and which is driving him to terrorism in the free world. He's got no more right to pursue extremist Islamic theocracies on sub-saharan Africa than Hitler had to push Naziism in Poland or France- that's why he has to be stopped, and why it is not "bullying" to try to do so in the case of his particular organisation.

The problem with america is that they are so big that they think noone will mess with them, which is a very unfounded idea, their presence in other countries only antagonises their peoples, america tries to police the world under their own laws and morals, and that doesnt work because around the world we have different beliefs and understandings.
I see the desire for america to attack iraq as hypocritical, america claims that iraq has weapons of mass destruction and the desire to use them.... america has weapons of mass destruction for definate (they got some pretty nasty stuff) and has proven in the past that they will use them, i would personally like to see america disarmed, but of course, noone has the political or millitarial power to disarm america.

i think saddam has to be dealt with, but not at the cost of the people of iraq, killing them will only fuel their anger and after such a war you can look forward to more terrorist attacks.
America has tried for years to assassinate saddam, each time they fail, because they underestimate him, you should never underestimate your foe in war, which is precisely what people are doing here in saying that iraq will be slaughtered, give them a little more credit then that, the somalians were a hell of alot less advanced that the US but their militia slaughtered an american rangers unit, it can happen.
i vote for an indepth covert operation to deal with saddam himself, but this time we'll use forces with more credit, like the SAS, french GIGN, german GSG-9, RAF edge and the RMC, maybe even throw in MI6, i'd give saddam a few days, britain has some of the finest counter insertion units in the world, we rarely miss our goals.

i notice the position of people here to automatically condemn iraq as an evil regime, but what do you actually know about iraq? or are you only going by what you have seen or read in the news?

What do we actually know about Iraq? Hmmm... it sounds like you may want to argue unless we've seen the tortured bodies for ourself we don't have sufficient justification to constitute knowledge.

Here is some of what I think we know, now maybe you'll argue it's prejudiced in some manner:

We know this was said and reflects the Iraqi attitude --
'Ali Hasan al-Majid, Saddam's relative who oversaw the operation, announced in May 1988: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? **** them! The international community, and those who listen to them!" from Iraq's Crime of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds
By Human Rights Watch
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995

We know --

"Since 1975, over 4,000 Kurdish villages had been destroyed; by a conservative estimate more than 100,000 rural Kurds had died in Anfal alone; half of Iraq's productive farmland is believed to have been laid waste.

The Kurdish genocide 'fits Hilberg's paradigm to perfection,' which is summarised in the following key concepts: "definition - concentration (or seizure) - annihilation."

see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

WE know this past July --

In July, two lawyers, Mohammad 'Abd al-Razzaq al-Hadithi and Karim al-Shammari, were reportedly sentenced to death by a special court for alleged anti-government activities. The two were among a group of lawyers interrogated in June about the distribution of leaflets critical of the lack of independence of the judiciary. It was not known whether the sentences were carried out.

If you want to know about Iraq, it is pretty easy to research. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, U.N., etc. not exactly what I'd call U.S. propaganda.

Do we know that the Iraqi government is bad? Yes. And I submit that if you argue otherwise you are naive or blinded by your pre-determined dislike of the U.S.

At Shoshino:
I think you'd better research what happened in Mogadishu a little better when you said that the Rangers there were "slaughtered." It was the other way around, the Rangers only lost 18 men and killed around a thousand. The action that took place then is considered a military victory: the Delta Force operators did capture their targets and they were extracted back to the American base. So, as I stated it was not a slaughter, and the Sumolians paid a terrible price in that exchange.

I would say that the Mogadishu incident was slaughter, but not of any rangers but of ill ecquipped rabble of warlords militia and civilians caught in the middle. As I have stated above so is the US extremely stronger military than any other nation on this planet. They spend a larger percentage on than military almost all other nations in the world, the only one I can come up with that spends a larger percentage than the US is Isreal. And the US has the largest economy in the world. Comparing Saddams forces with Bush is like comparing a few stickwielding cavemen with a modern army division. The only risk the US would take is that one or two soldiers would die, something that they are very reluctant with.

Well, I think it is dangerous to underestimate the risk, particularly if he's backed into a corner.

However, I'm really posting about the claim that the U.S. "has tried for years to assassinate Hussein."

I have never heard that. I've done a quick search on the web and could find nothing to suggest the U.S. has. I would like to see some support out of curiousity.

I also think the claims that the U.S. special forces aren't equal to anyone are laughable. I expect someone to whip out their penis any second now to start the pissing contest.

"In July, two lawyers, Mohammad 'Abd al-Razzaq al-Hadithi and Karim al-Shammari, were reportedly sentenced to death by a special court for alleged anti-government activities. The two were among a group of lawyers interrogated in June about the distribution of leaflets critical of the lack of independence of the judiciary. It was not known whether the sentences were carried out."
uh yeah, your familiar with the concept of treason, america also hes a death penalty for that crime.

"I think you'd better research what happened in Mogadishu a little better when you said that the Rangers there were "slaughtered." It was the other way around, the Rangers only lost 18 men and killed around a thousand"
LMAO, america's millitary records dont even record that, youve been watching too much TV, the somalians, accoring to american spotters lost 3 men and an unknown number of civillians, no rangers survived, they stole the blackhawk and its technology, america pulled out on the basis of a strategic withdrawl

"And the US has the largest economy in the world."
not true; japan

"The only risk the US would take is that one or two soldiers would die, something that they are very reluctant with. "
saddam hussein has been shooting down coilition aircraft for the best part of a decade, im sure civillians dont hear about this because its 'bad news'

"I have never heard that. I've done a quick search on the web and could find nothing to suggest the U.S. has. I would like to see some support out of curiousity."
oh joy, thw web wields nothing, i guess that meands that its false, you know you have to wait between 50 and 75 years for the official publishment of millitary dossiers, for the reason to protect the human rights of anyone involved in the making of that document?

"I also think the claims that the U.S. special forces aren't equal to anyone are laughable. I expect someone to whip out their penis any second now to start the pissing contest. "
NATO rates american counter insertion 5th in the world, america even uses the training guides of foreigh CIU forces to train its own men

Again, the operation in Mogadishu was a *military* victory for Task Force Ranger. I've read all sorts of stuff about the operation (including a very well written book about the whole afair) and all the acounts state that the Sumolians were slaughtered. I pity any country that has to face the full military might of the US (well almost.)

Remarkable.

I've never seen a definition of treason that included distributing leaflets critical of the judiciary.

You're off by at least a factor of 100 when you say 3 Somalis were killed in Mogadishu. And the Rangers survived until a UN armored task force came in and saved them, so no technology was stolen by the Somalis. The number of Rangers killed mentioned above is accurate though many more were wounded.

Japan's GDP is on the order of half of the U.S.'s

Hussein has been shooting at coalition aircraft, not shooting them down.

So the fact that you assert certain information about assassination attempts should be taken at face value? Especially given how accurate your other "information" has been?

[ December 01, 2002, 05:38: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

"Again, the operation in Mogadishu was a *military* victory for Task Force Ranger"
yeah... america are going to admit that they lost arent they

"I've read all sorts of stuff about the operation (including a very well written book about the whole afair) and all the acounts state that the Sumolians were slaughtered"
yep... about as accurate as blackhawk down, what a funny movie, but than any story or movie based on millitary actions made in teh US portreys the US as hero's, according to your country U571 was an american operation

"I've never seen a definition of treason that included distributing leaflets critical of the judiciary."
to the letter of the law that is also treason in the US and the UK, the only difference here is that we dont enforce those laws because the media would eat us alive

"You're off by at least a factor of 100 when you say 3 Somalis were killed in Mogadishu. And the Rangers survived until a UN armored task force came in and saved them, so no technology was stolen by the Somalis."
there was no UN armoured task force, there were no ranger survivors, the UN gave somalia a wide berth at the time

"Japan's GDP is on the order of half of the U.S.'s"
economic strength is not based on GDP, its based on the productivity of the workers, and given the ratio of workers in america to their GDP and the workers in japan and their GDP, japan has a stronger economy

"Hussein has been shooting at coalition aircraft, not shooting them down."
trust me, he's been shooting them down, ive lost 2 friends to SAM's near the no-fly-zone

"So the fact that you assert certain information about assassination attempts should be taken at face value? Especially given how accurate your other "information" has been?"
my information is accurate, the only differnce between mine and yours is that mine didnt come from books or media
at the end of the day i dont care whether you believe me or not, im not going to lose any sleep over it, im just presenting you with some facts you have a mind, believe them or not

[ December 01, 2002, 13:34: Message edited by: Shoshino ]

Indeed, I saw Black Hawk Down too and I was pretty surprised when I surfed the web for more information. After that it looked a little different, less heroic:

The US troops failed to cooperate, actually they made a devastating impression on the other nations, often characterized as beeing arrogant and overbearing. They failed to share informations with the other nations of the UN task force. They also failed to recognize that Aidid received qualified military training at military academies in italy and russia - and especially the russians put an emphasis on urban combat (after their success in Stalingrad). For the US the somalis were just a mob of "slims" - and they overlooked that the mob not only had good leadership but that quite likely the average 17 year old "slim"-fighter had more combat experience than any of the rangers deployed there. They payed for their arrogance.

They also allowed the somalis to get used to their tactic - the famous mission was the 6th of it's kind, almost identical to the previous ones. It was also decided not to use 40mm weapons, which are especially effective in urban combat, because the fragmentation effect could hit non-combattants. On the other hand the US commanders allowed their force .50 cal SMGs which are able to shoot through walls, beeing not less dangerous to civvies :rolleyes: and later went over to use heliborne miniguns as well. It is better to equip a force with *all* the tools it has trained with, if you care for the lives of your soldiers - if you consider them mature enough to risk their lives in combat, you should consider them mature and sensible enough to use their weapons not against civilians.

The US rangers who decided to only use the front armor plate of their flak jackets and got shot in the back suffered double damage as the front plate reflected the bullet back into the body for a second wound (their unit commanders should be court-martialed for tolerating that).

There also happened a couple of silly leadership misdecisions such as Les Aspin's decision not do deploy armor to Somalia. Maybe even worse was that the local commanders accepted that - after calling for it. Also the commander in Somalia decided to send the two AC-130 Gunships under his command back to italy to give Aidid a sign to encourage him to surrender :rolleyes: The result was a serious lack of fire support.

Actually, even theough in the movie only a couple of weird looking, unwilling and incooperative Pakistanis saved the task force, the US rangers owe their lives to malaysian troops, who formed the bulk of the rescue force. The delay of the rescue force was not so much because of lack of cooperation form their side. Unprepared and uninformed about the US operation they weren't even in a state of readiness, so they had to consider the sudden, intense firefight in the city to be one of the usual internal somali fightings. That and *planning* eventually caused the delay (for the *gung-ho* fraction - planning is no sign of cowardice).

For me the failure of Task Force ranger is the second most dilettantic operation of the 1990s - after russias incredible attempt to storm Grozny with the only difference that the russians used poorly trained troops criminally and the US did the same to crack troops (which also explains the lower US number of victims). The US have been lucky, it could have been much worse.

[ December 01, 2002, 17:57: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

First, you ask for some sort of support that Iraq is a bad regime. Then you ignore that little genocide thing in a rush to say imply there is nothing wrong with the murder of lawyers for suggesting that Iraq needs an independent judiciary going so far as to claim it is treason and implying the U.S. would find it to be the same. As a J.D. I'm surprised to hear this since I was unaware that passing out flyers in the U.S. was punishable by death, I'd like it if you could provide some support. Or were you really going to try to compare treason in the U.S. with passing out flyers in Iraq? No, that couldn't be, that would be entirely laughable as it is such a ridiculous comparison and I know you wouldn't use ridiculous comparisions.

Two, apparently coalition aircraft have been being shot down. I would like some support to show the numbers please. Oh, what's that, a giant conspiracy to hide this from us? I'm confused, it wasn't just U.S. aircarft you said coalition aircraft. The conspiracy is widespread indeed then. Illuminati are peeking around the corner I'm sure.

Third, once again you refuse to provide any support that the U.S. has attempted to assassinate Hussein. The U.S. government must have fooled the world and its media on this score but they couldn't fool you could they? You say that the documents verifying this are classified and won't be made public for many years. You've given yourself up though, for you to have seen these classified documents that must make you.....007! I have a few questions Mr. Bond, how did you infiltrate the Pentagon? I imagine it was an exhilirating experience. Also, Mr. Bond, did you discover anything of the cover-ups of the alien landings? Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Bond you have been with numerous beautiful women, who was the most memorable?

Economics is tough. Deciding which economy is the strongest is one of those things that turns on how you want to define it which necessarily becomes circular. It's another pissing contest, but right on cue you've whipped out your penis and put it on display for us all. Thanks for that.

Finally, the one I think you might be able to provide support for, could you show me where NATO belittles the U.S. Special Forces (is it our Special Forces or our Special Operations? Our Special Ops is our elite group not our Special Forces you know, what am I saying, of course you knew that.) I'm just curious to see it.

there is a former MI6 agent spending a good part of the rest of his life in jail for giving information out, I like him am bound by my signiture on a little piece of paper called the national secrets act, i on the other hand like my job and dont want to spend time in jail.

anti-government activities are illigal in both the UK and the US, and there was a day when we used to hang people for speaking out against the government

coalition aircraft is the term used for british and american warplanes, like the planes which patrol the no-fly-zone, like the planes which are not immune to stingers.

as for the ability to read classified documents, well.... it would be a stupid idea not to allow an intelligence operator to read the very documents he has to analyse and catalogue wouldnt it?, maybe your government does that, probably why american intelligence is a mockery.

"Mr. Bond you have been with numerous beautiful women, who was the most memorable?"
well, when i was in columbia there were a few beauties there, they actually came and paraded themselves outside the gates to our base, how could we resist?
most memorable, was a girl i slept with in pargue... she would to anything, and she had some good stamina too.

"It's another pissing contest, but right on cue you've whipped out your penis and put it on display for us all. Thanks for that. "
i got an A for economics at A level, your the one who is inciteing a pissing contest.

NATO doesnt make differences between special forces and special operations, they all fall under a category known as 'counter insertion', usually rated by how often they are deployed and their success to failure ratio,
SAS are #1
belgum's 5th para's are #2
german GSG-9 #3
i dont have the list off hand, but i know that the CIA is 5th, and the seals are 6th

and i didnt say that they belittle them, i said that they dont rate them highly

as much as i love to argue with you, im back in work tomorrow, so i wont be able to reply for sometime, this thread will probably have died by then, though it may be interesting to come back and read the replies

I have to disagree about the GSG-9 - they are good for counter-terrorist use only, actually they excell there. However, the german armed forces KSK is our counterpart to the SAS. Similary structured as the SAS they are operating alongside allied special forces in Afganistan atm. AFAIK they have gained a pretty good reputation during their operations in Kosovo and ex-Jugoslavia. However, they operate under strict secrecy and you don't hear much about what they do - and since they are relatively young they may not yet have made it into the list.

The israelis have pretty good special forces, just as France. However, they are operating very secretly - which on the other hand is an excellent sign of their abilities - and, they are non-NATO ;)

PS: Counter-insertion? Not, perhaps, counter-insurgency?

[ December 01, 2002, 18:37: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Well, you can't argue with someone that refuses to argue. In order to argue you need to offer some support. You refuse to do so. Continuously.

You continue to make silly comparisons. Like comparing passing out pamphlets in Iraq to something which would constitute treason in the U.S. or U.K. That's silly. There is anti-government meetings in the U.S. all of the time. Every day in D.C. there are protests about a potential conflict in Iraq. Your comparisons are incredibly off base. And I noticed the lack of support.

Now you are claiming to have read secret U.S. documents, eh? Well, ok, I've read secret documents too! Did you know the queen of England is actually forming a secret plan to dominate the world along with Hussein? It's because they feel a kindred for each other since they're both transvestites. Yeah! That's the ticket.

See, you can't argue with that. And we can't argue with you.

Oh, and lots of people get high grades in economics. If you did you'll know how debatable the subject is. Pointless.

You once again refuse to support the claim of multiple lost aircraft. Illuminati again?

Oh, and you gloss over that whole genocide thing again.

[ December 01, 2002, 18:39: Message edited by: Laches ]

Hey Shoshino! how about some solid proof about what you are talking about rather than obscure references to people you supposedly know or things you have supposedly read or seen? I'm a man of logic and without logical and strong proof I will discount anything that does not fall under the strong evidence category.
For your information I do not watch much television (though I did see the movie Black Hawk Down) I've seen other documentaries and read books on the subject. What have you read? what have you seen that is creditable and doesn't reek of paranoya? please enlighten me!

"Counter-insertion? Not, perhaps, counter-insurgency?"
counter insertion, meaning that the are deployed to counter a threat, counter insurcency wouldnt make any sense, the police do that in alot of countries

"Now you are claiming to have read secret U.S. documents, eh?"
no, i never said that, ive read british documents, and since our intelligence works together (for the most part) we have alot of the same documentation

"In order to argue you need to offer some support"
im not arguing, you are

"Like comparing passing out pamphlets in Iraq to something which would constitute treason in the U.S. or U.K. That's silly"
its simple diplomacy, the grandiouse of their laws compared to ours, passing out leaflets talking down the government is known as an anti-government activity, which there is punishable by death, here we dont bother with it anymore but in the past that was also punishable by death in the UK and the US

"Oh, and you gloss over that whole genocide thing again."
im avoiding the genocide issue because america has done that in the past too, and so has the UK

"Hey Shoshino! how about some solid proof about what you are talking about rather than obscure references to people you supposedly know or things you have supposedly read or seen? I'm a man of logic and without logical and strong proof I will discount anything that does not fall under the strong evidence category."
if you are a man of logic, then youd know that i wont offer evidence which would break the law for the sake of a debate with people i dont know on a trivial message board

Now you are claiming to have read secret U.S. documents, eh? Well, ok, I've read secret documents too! Did you know the queen of England is actually forming a secret plan to dominate the world along with Hussein? It's because they feel a kindred for each other since they're both transvestites. Yeah! That's the ticket. Huh?? I thought Hussein was in bed with Satan and Elizabeth was busy with her butlers :p

Why counter-insurgency? Because that is the term for the kind of warfare best described as when-soldiers-fight-infiltrating-guerrilas/ terrorists/ other violent, evil and dangerous people. Counter-insurgency is the kind of game the israelis play with Hammas and Hisbollah.

Not quite a policeman's job - however, it *is* a police task when it is all happens within the borders of your own country like with the english police and the IRA. But even then there is a level of danger the police cannot deal with.

I asked because "Insertion" usually means transporting a force into hostile territory, that's why counter-insertion sounds a little odd to my ignorant ears (I know I actually type and read but anyway :1eye: ). The opposite would be "Extraction". So counter-insertion doesn't really makes sense IMO. Most likely I'm just not familiar with your terminology.

passing out leaflets talking down the government is known as an anti-government activity, which there is punishable by death, here we dont bother with it anymore but in the past that was also punishable by death in the UK and the US what the hell kinda history books have YOU been reading? Handing out flyers used to punishable by death in the US? erm, maybe in one of the colonies prior to the forming of the US, but afterwards...no, no, no, no, NO!

Note: if you're going to equate the colonies with the US, don't. That would be as stupid as comparing russia during 1902 with the USSR during 1930

It is never stupid to compare two things, who knows, maybe you surprise yourself and find out something that way, probably the differences :rolleyes:

Please, Shoshino. First, if you really are an intelligence operative, what the holy heck are you doing discussing classified documents on a message board of gaming nerds?

Second, there are plenty of claims that you are making that do NOT involve national secrets. The claim, for instance, that the US has ever had the death penalty for criticizing the government. Absolutely ridiculous! But yet, if you could provide just one link to a creditable source, perhaps we could attach then some belief to your claims.

It seems to me it would be simplicity itself to link to NATO's ranking of special forces and yet you don't. Why? Too lazy? I hate to think that someone in the British Intelligence would spend so much of his time arguing with nameless faces on multinational boards and then not be willing to spend a little more to actually back up his arguments. It really gives me a very poor view of the Brits' intelligence operations.

BOC,

I am not going to continue discussing the difference. I will respectfully disagree with you and move on.
On the resolution, it seems to be a matter of will. The US has the will to do something about the current situation with Iraq. No nation was willing to step up and enforce the resolution that Turkey agreed to.
About your question, how am I supposed to know why the US considers Iraq to be such a big threat? Am I privy to information that you are not?
I think it is naive to point out the limitations of the Iraqi military to say there is no way to deliver weapons of mass destructions. Especiallly biological weapons.

Jack
Since you don't know why Iraq is a threat for USA, then why do you accept this claim? You don't seem to be the kind of person, who agrees with everything your goverment supports without thinking.

As for the resolution, I would say that it is more a matter of motives and deplomatic relationships (Turkey is an ally, Iraq is considered to be an enemy) than a matter of will.

When did I say I agreed or disagreed with any action against Iraq? I am waiting to see what the inspectors find before I draw any conclusions.

As for the resolution, I would say that it is more a matter of motives and deplomatic relationships (Turkey is an ally, Iraq is considered to be an enemy) than a matter of will. Which would either provide the will to do something or not.

Interesting sidenote maybe,

Yesterday I´ve read claims that the Turks(sort of the guard dogs of the no-fly zone) are missusing their freedom and are bombing Kurd villages in the northern no-fly zone. tsk tsk..

This is a rumor, if I found links I´ll post them

..
..
Pilots say U.S. allows Turkey to bomb Kurds (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/us_alow_turk_kurd.html)

We're in Iraq to protect Kurds? (http://www.ngwrc.org/news/content/MonSep100855522001.asp)

[ December 03, 2002, 21:58: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Jack
I think that you misunderstood me. I didn't say that you disagree or agree with any actions against Iraq. I just say that you seem to believe that Iraq is a threat for USA and I was led to this conclusion by your own words.

I think it is obvious that the U.S. feels threatened by the weapons programs of Iraq and we are willing to enforce the resolutions I have not interpreted them right, I apologise.

Well this is a continuiation of the off-topic trend here.
Turkey's treatment of their kurds isnt all that much better than Iraq's treatment of their. The turkish goverment have been waging what can almost be called a genocide against the kurds in northern Turkey. This is one (of many) of the main reasons that Turkey isnt allowed into the EU.

This also comes to show that we in the west is quite arbitrary when we decide on whom to condemn and judge. Sure may not let Turkey into EU but we can have them in NATO and as they are one of our allies we will close our eyes for their atrocities, while we at the same time use Saddam's treatment of the kurds as one of the main reasons and justifications to bomb Iraq to before the stone age.

BOC,

I'm not "the U.S.". Perhaps I should have said "U.S. government".

To be clear, if Iraq does have the chemical/biological/nuclear weapons they are purported to have, then I do think they are a threat to the U.S. as well as any non-Muslim country. Because if Al-Queda, or a similar group, purchases these types of weapons from Iraq, then they will use them.

[ December 03, 2002, 23:36: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Shoshino:
Your response to my question was an evasion and a bad one at that. You still haven't answered the question I've asked. I'm getting my information from published works where are you getting yours?
To everyone else:
I just want to point out that biological weapons are in some ways the most dangerous type of weapon out there. Why? simple: a biological weapon is very difficult to control/direct once deployed and it can't distinguish between friend and foe. It will infect anything that meets its infection requirements (the most dangerous being air born.) Ever read The Hot Zone by Richard Preston? The book isn't about biological weapons persay but outlines some frightening scenarios. That book frightened me more than anything else I've ever read/seen/heard. I just wanted to point out how dangerous these weapons are for the purpose of understanding (certainly not to spark an off-topic debate.)

IIRC Shosino said he wont be coming back for a while

He prob needs to play Mr. Bond again, maybe blow up a space station with thermo-nuclear rockets..

The bad guy is prob be launching those if the UN doenst pay him one Million dollars... erm, onehundred billion dollars
:p

You're probably right Morgoth, our estemed Mr. Shoshino is out "doing covert operations."