View Full Version : US vs Saddam
Tue, 25th Feb '03, 7:12pm
I didn't see a topic like this on the front page, so I went on ahead...
I have been hearing more and more about this on the news. It's absolutly hilarious that they keep using terms like "the possible war". The news agencies must think we have lumps of coal in our heads.
Any way, I don't support what is going on over there and wanted to see what other people in different places around felt about it.
[EDIT]: Maybe that is why... new forum... sorry Tal, please move this if you will... :o
[ February 25, 2003, 19:16: Message edited by: jack-of-all-trades ]
Wed, 26th Feb '03, 1:03pm
I'd say that it's more Bush vs Saddam.
Wed, 26th Feb '03, 4:50pm
You might say that, but you'd be wrong. The Clinton administration attempted to put pressure on Iraq as well, but just as now received resistance from the UN security council. The Bush administration is just much less timid in their foreign policy than the Clinton administration.
[ February 26, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]
Wed, 26th Feb '03, 5:28pm
I wish the United States would just leave Iraq alone.
They haven't done anything. This is just all about oil.
Wed, 26th Feb '03, 8:14pm
They have done a ****load of things, but I just dont think it justifies a war. War is the ultimate horror and terror and should never be used really.
Thu, 27th Feb '03, 12:46am
Except from the legal situation as depicted extensively in other threads I wonder about the sudden urge with which the Bush administration handle Iraq.
After 9/11 the major threat was Al Quaida and Bin Laden. This search eventually led into the invasion of Afganistan and the defeat of Al Quaida and Taliban forces in Afganistan. The key figure, Bin Laden, was never found.
Now, suddenly the US focus switches on Saddam .... who was believed to be an Al Quaida supporter. The british evidence for that was proven to be forged.
First of all, Iraq is no sovereign country - its rights are restricted by the treaty made after the defeat of Iraq after the second Gulf war (the first was against Iraq vs. Iran).
Sure, Iraq has kicked out the UN inspectors - as a result of US spies beeing among them undercover ....
Generally I welcome any efforts to increase pressure on Iraq to fullfill its treaty obligations - and is has to be clear that without the US pressure the inspectors most likely wouldn't be in Iraq today. But why the sudden haste?
Why not give inspectors time and tools to turn Iraq upside down? The US stressing Saddam's use of "stealth" WMDs and their admitted inability to locate them could be a well thought cover for having no intel at all - except for aerial recce and satellites. :1eye:
The US accuse Iraq to have WMDs and demand that Iraq shows them and destroys them. Well, it is logically impossible to proof you haven't something that doesn't exist.
That kinda reminds me on the austrian demands on serbia after the Sarajevo assassination - they were designed to be refused by serbia and to give austria a reason for war against them.
Aside from all antipathy against Saddam, who is a criminal no matter what, what are you fighting? The axis of evil? Why did you start fighting and who did you start to fight? :wave:
Thu, 27th Feb '03, 1:42am
I guess one of the major issues is when is enough, enough? Why the haste? First off, what haste? It's not like we are currently bombing Iraq. Once again, after almost 13 years, we are still waiting for Iraq to do what it promised to do when the gulf war cease fire was called. What is it now...13 un resolutions and he still hasn't complied. Even Hans Blick is repeadly saying they are still not fully complying. How long should we wait? Weeks? Months? 13 more years? The real question is why has it taken so long for the world to force Iraq to live up to its obligations? HOW MUCH LONGER SHOULD THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ SUFFER UNDER THE TRADE IMBARGO WHICH IS STILL IN EFFECT B/C THEY HAVEN'T FUFFILED THEIR OBLIGATIONS?
War is terribler business....but don't lose sight of the reason we are in this situation today. Iraq, for the second time, invaded a neighboring country. The US and other countries sent well over 500,000 to fight them and won. They lost. They agreed to do certin things(disarmerment one of these things), and they still haven't done it. They were the aggressors, they agred to pay the price, and they still haven't lived up to their promises. Do we have an obligation to force their hand? Should we just sit back and say, oh well, he hasn't complied but that's ok....he's not a real threat to anyone right now. Isn't that what France, Belgium, Brittan, the United States, and the rest of the WWI allies said when Germany stopped living up to it's commitments after the first world war (Ironicially the War to end all wars) and began rearming? Did anyone in the early 1930's really think that their appeasement would lead to the deaths of 40,000,000 people? It did.
What does that say for the UN commitment to its own princibles? It's own resoulations?
Thu, 27th Feb '03, 7:39am
There's all this talk about how we've suddenly focused our attention on Saddam. Like we've just given up on bin Laden and changed our focus.
If any of you remember after 9/11 when Bush addressed the nation. He didn't say it was going to be a war on Bin Laden, he said it was going to be a war on terrorism. He mentioned Laden, Saddam, North Korea to name a few.
We haven't just given up on Bin Laden either. For the moment we've hampered his efforts. So we didn't find him, we will. Do you not think that there are CIA operatives or some special forces units still looking Bin Laden? Come on folks, this has been the whole plan all along in the War on Terrorism.
Thu, 27th Feb '03, 6:18pm
Here's some logic for you -- Iraq is not some innocent being picked on by the international bully -- this excerpt from an editorial says it all:
Increasing the size of the inspectorate with a few thousand extra snoops is pointless unless your purpose is to prevent action. Even when 7,000 UN inspectors combed Iraq in the 1990s, they failed to find illegal weapons. The weapons were there; Baghdad admitted to them later when a high-level defector disclosed their presence. The key point though is that even a huge inspectorate cannot find them.
The UN is no good at hide-and-seek. It can only verify voluntary disarmament. If Iraq hands over hardware and documents, the inspectors can tell whether the disclosure is honest or a crock like all the previous ones. And the inspectors have already said Saddam isn't disarming. A formal declaration is hardly necessary; the world has heard Iraqi military officers on tape discussing their "nerve agents" and "prohibited vehicles."
So we come to the final inconsistency. We know Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction and hiding them. We know it harbours terrorists, and pays for their suicide operations. The evidence suggests Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. We know it plotted to assassinate the first president Bush. And, we also know beyond peradventure that the Islamofacists would happily nuke New York.
Inspection doesn't work. Appeasement doesn't work. Sanctions that starve the population and not the war machine do not work. As unpleasant as it may be, force is the only thing that will work with this guy.
Fri, 28th Feb '03, 2:40am
Lots of good points, but none of them seem to point to war in my eyes.
No, we did not just suddenly change targets...
Yes, for some reason the Bush administration is pushing to hard for this war...
And my list could go on, but it is just redundant.
To me, I would be more worried about North Korea, the one who admits to have a nuclear weapon that can reach our coasts... Although it is untested, they admit to having WMDs, Iraq can't proove they do or they don't.
Fri, 28th Feb '03, 7:53pm
Incidentally, here's the thought that has moved my stance on the issue towards increased inspections rather than war:
Increasing the size of the inspectorate with a few thousand extra snoops is pointless unless your purpose is to prevent action.Frankly, I think that is specifically what our purpose should be: preventing action. And I do think that continuing the inspection process will be enough to keep Saddam from using any illegal weaponry he might have. For one thing, he'll be too busy hiding it. And, of course, any use of such weaponry while the inspections continue would immediately bring the harshest of consequences (at least, one should hope...).
At this point in time, it just seems to me that a war in Iraq is going to be far too costly, and not very likely to accomplish anything beyond neutralizing Saddam. A laudable aim, but right now Saddam is fairly neutralized anyway. Furthermore, our involvement in the region increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks by vengeful Muslims many times. I am not saying, however, that we should not get involved in the region. What I am saying is that with our economy the way it is and the international mood the way it is, why can't we wait and simply make sure that Saddam is contained for now?
Fri, 28th Feb '03, 8:20pm
I don't believe that's such a bad idea, but in my opinion, it's just not workable.
In my opinion, the only reason we are getting the cooperation we are (limited as it is) is because the US and Britain are on Iraq's doorstep with battering ram in hand.
As soon as that threat is gone (and it can't be maintained indefinitely) and things have cooled down a bit, I believe things will go right back to the way they were. If the inspectors become a problem, they will be thrown out.
In my opinion, Iraq has been given more than enough opportunity to show that they intend to comply with UN resolution 687 from way back in 1991, and they simply haven't.
Fri, 28th Feb '03, 8:24pm
True enough. I have no illusions that Saddam's (at least partial) cooperation will last forever. I just think that postponement given the current state of our economy is a good idea. I think we should keep up the pressure, but also focus on repairing our domestic affairs. Sooner or later Saddam will crack, violating the resolutions in a manner that will make his intentions clear to the entire world. And when that time comes, we will be in a better shape to start a war.
A flip side just occurred to me again. If we wait, who's to say who will be president then and what policy he will follow? No doubt Bush intends the Iraq war to be the primary accomplishment of this term in office.
Sat, 1st Mar '03, 1:26am
Just for the record so wasnt the inspectors thrown out back in 97, atleast not officially. The UN withdrew them by themselves, according to the then leader of the inspectors Rolf Ekeus it was because the US kept on planting spies among the inspectors. Now if the inspectos were withdrawn because the UN did not like that or if Saddam would have thrown them out either way I dont know but they were withdrawn by the UN.
The battering ram of the US and the UK has been effective and it can keep on being effective. The only drawback is if Saddam actually has dismantled everything he has had and tried to get rid of it, then there is nothing to find. There has been no solid proof either and I do not think you can justify a war that are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people for a mere suspicioun.
Sat, 1st Mar '03, 2:35am
My understanding of their withdrawal in '98 was that the US threatened military action because Iraq would not cooperate with the inspectors.
The problem I have with your view is that why do you think Iraq is cooperating now? In my opinion it is because of the threat of military action. Twelve years of sanctions have done nothing. So. What do you think is going to happen once the pressure is off? Like I said the pressure cannot be maintained indefinitely.
One final thing is that the inspectors are not there to "find" anything. They are there to verify Iraq's intent to comply with UN resolutions starting with 687. Does Iraq have any intent to comply? I would say no, the only compliance we see is when they are forced to through threat of military action, and then only in a limited fashion.
Sat, 1st Mar '03, 12:29pm
I recollect something about that playing into the inspecters being recalled as well BTA. It just shows that everything always has more than one cause.
I agree with you on that without the looming threat of military measures we would not have seen much of anything in terms of compliance. But still it has not been verified that Saddam has not complied with the terms, I would not be surprised if much of his uncompliance is bluster to save face so to speak. I also think that the pressure can be kept if not indefinetely atleast for another year. For a war to be justified I think that Saddam needs to pull some extraordinary stunt not only slithering like a snake and the war must be sanctioned by the UN or else it loses all legitamacy and we are back in the international world that we had before the WW's. If you think it is the law of the jungle now imagine what it will be like withuot even the ill working safety vent of the UN?
Wed, 19th Mar '03, 1:45pm
There was a little more, not quite undisputed, however, check my post here: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000193
Besides, a very interesting interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,794759,00.html) in the Guardian with this Scott Ritter who worked as a leading UN inspector in Iraq for 7 years. It is kinda sceptical about the US line of argument about Iraq. Not that it really matters anymore.
And I have to agree with the final conclusion: The US want a regime change. They don't care about the WMDs Saddam supposedly has or hasn't. They want to get rid of Saddam, IMO for economical and geo-strategic reasons.
Undisputed, the US want to get rid of the old troublemaker, Saddam. But I also think that there are some more benefits in the coming war: The US want a counterweight against the saudi oil (just in case the saudis topple their repressive and feudal gvt and become a fundamentalist ruled country). They want cheap iraqi oil on the marked to fuel the worlds and the US economy. They like the option to have a pipeline to the NATO protected mediterranean sea (via syria or turkey, or maybe even israel), untroubled by dangerous, fanatic infected littoral waters like the red and arabian sea and the persian gulf, mind the Cole and the Limburg (a french vessel) incidents.
After all, I think the Iraq war is part of the second BIG GAME (everyone read Kipling here? ;) ), the run for central asia and it's resources - a game between the US, china and russia - as it was a race between imperial russia and the british empire in Queen Victoria's days.
Maybe it's easier to explain the average US citizen why to fight iraq than why to go by bike, or why to switch off the electric garage door and the air condition. The american way of life is a holy cow. Seen that way the war against Iraq and the refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty are perfectly in-line to form a fluent policy.
Statisticians lie a lot; maybe the US still feed their thirst of oil by US, canadian and mexican sources, but how long will the US oil fields be sufficient to meet the demand of self-sufficiency? 5 years, 15 years, 25 years? That's not that long. Reportedly the texan fields for example have long left their golden days behind for a while. Oil production has been sinking and became more expensive. What are the alternatives? To save fuel? Or to import it?
Another aspect is the growing wealth in countries like china; with more and more people seeking the blessings of a western lifestyle their need for fuel explodes, be it only to heat their houses, and of course, to fuel their cars - and the resources and access are limited. More wars preprogrammed? Seemingly; just my two cents however.
[ March 19, 2003, 14:33: Message edited by: Ragusa ]
Thu, 20th Mar '03, 8:06am
Yes I am sarcastic and cynical, how can you not be when Good Ole Uncle Sam is about to destroy another country...again....
Today in a local paper a journalist tried to point out that it is alright for the US (the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons) and its allies (such as Israel and the UK) to have "weapons of mass destruction" (I thought that that was a MOAB?) and that Iraq can't have them. Why? Because the Iraqi government it trying to take over the world and the US is not...
I suppose that explains all the Iraqi military bases scattered across every continent of the world suring up their "security" and the latest Iraqi "Star Wars" defence programmes...
Someone also mentioned the way that the US is obsessed with their own Security. That's fine, every nation wants to ensure its security. It's just that the US can't care less that it only achieves its own perfect security through the insecurity of all other nations. I think that a lot of people outside the US are feeling very insecure over US actions. I know I am.
I don't think that there is a single person alive who truly likes Saddam and really wants him, but how come it takes the US nearly 12 to decide to get rid of the man that they made?
All the US rhetoric over the Kurds... I am amazed that they US managed to ignore them for so long and now they "want to come to their rescue"?
Also the Shiite people of southern Iraq. Since when have they been free of the repeated and almost unending bombings and flyovers that have gone on for the last 11 years or so?
Since when was it the truly caring US government wanting to free the Iraqi people? Since the time that they used Uranium depleted shells to massacre a retreating army. The radiation will only last a few generations.... That'll learn ya!
If the US was truly genuine in wanting to "free the Iraqi people from a tyrant" then why are special forces not sent in to assassinate the problem and then problem solved?
I know, because Saddam is not the real issue. It's much simpler, blood is thicker than oil, and since it is only Iraqi blood it's worth less than the blood of a single American.
But Saddam could give weapons of mass destruction technology to terrorists! and so could an American traitor, or the Chinese, or the Israelis or anyone else that could be bothered to.
I wait for the day when the US invades my nation going to war because of the possibility of somebody here giving terrorists weapons of mass destruction.
Perhaps the US should grow up and stop using double standards, first of all destroying their own weapons of mass destruction and then getting their allies to do the same.
When the US applies all the "UN resolutions" (recycled toilet paper) on itself first before bullying other nations into "the American Way" (death and destruction) then I may be able to have some respect for it. At the moment I can quote a friend who calls the USA, the "United States of Arrogance"...
The bigger they are the harder they fall. I don't want to see what happens when the most powerfully dangerous and arrogant nation that the Earth has probable evey seen falls over.
Yes, the US will destroy Saddam, but at what cost to "freedom and justice and mercy"?
I know it's alright, it's only Iraq...(damn wogs!)
Cook sums it up for me.
Thu, 20th Mar '03, 8:58am
This article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20030319/cm_usatoday/4961531) is an interesting read. I guess some here will say that they won't change their opinion. Will there be those who will?
Fri, 21st Mar '03, 2:38am
Well, I wouldn't quite say that the "war" is a joke or anything, but I think that more people will die in car accidents during the period of war than in the actual war itself. I think some people friek out a little too much; they buy gasmasks, plastic and ducktape, guns... ( None of these things would do them a bit of good even if the war came close to where they live) As usual, just my opinion though.
Fri, 21st Mar '03, 3:39am
Kovelis is right, a lot of the attacks have been aimed at Baghdad, an civilian center. The people there don't want to have anything to do with this war, they just want to keep up there jobs and provide for there loved ones.