|
|
Post by DeadCat on Feb 5, 2003 16:05:08 GMT -5
Rx,
On your comment:
“Do you think for an instant he wouldn't use nuclear weapons”
Can I ask the question as to the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon in anger? (The first one killed 150,000 people, the second killed another 120,000)
(DeadCat)
I take it if the person in the glass house has all the stones then he can throw them whereever he likes….
|
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Feb 5, 2003 16:19:21 GMT -5
Not that I condone the use of nuclear weapons but you have to put into context the use of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they ended that War with Japan. Japan declared War against the United States, the US gave them an ultimatum which they ignored, within that ultimatum was the threat of the use of nuclear weapons, Japan ignored those ultimatums and suffered the consequences of that war.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadCat on Feb 5, 2003 16:25:09 GMT -5
Sorry for the low cut comments Rx but I just find it ironic that the country with the most “Weapons of mass destruction” (namely 50,000 nuclear warheads) feels that it is under threat and must declare war on a nation that has been sanctioned for the past 10 years….
|
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Feb 5, 2003 16:27:28 GMT -5
DeadCat...
I don't get the point...
Are you saying it's OK for Saddam to Nuke isreal, or the USA because the US dropped an atomic bomb fifty years ago?
Do you think we learned NOTHING from such an event? Why do you think there are people like me that fear someone like Osama, or Saddam, should get Nuclear capabilities?
I've read a few books on what took place in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. As an American, I'm far from proud of that fact.....on the other hand, it quite possibly saved lives of many others. Also, why did the US have to drop TWO bombs? Ever wonder about that one? What a freaking tragedy, what a waste...both partys can share blame there.
Wuff,
RacerX
|
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Feb 5, 2003 16:43:26 GMT -5
Another good point DeadCat...Why sanctions for ten years? AND they still aren't doing the job intended! The only ones that seem to be suffering are the innocent!
Granted, I haven't been to Iraq, but from the news I see: it sure ain't the people of Iraq that are partying in Saddam's palaces...Wuff.
The guy needs to go away...and with any luck, he'll do so BEFORE Bush and company make him go away.
Later,
RacerX
P.S. Don't apologize for the "low cut"...it's quite possibly how you/someone really feel towards this (my) country! No problem...it seems to me we're both on the same side. In NO WAY am I saying this country (USA) is innocent...we have our share of crap to clean up, that's for sure! I apologize if some of my ramblings came off unsensitive. They weren't ment to be, and maybe I didn't think them out well enough...either way, I enjoyed the conversation. You got my gears turning...LOL! (That means I'm thinking...LOL, something I don't do enough of!)
|
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Feb 5, 2003 21:56:24 GMT -5
Wuff...more info to digest:
On the way home tonight, I listened to a talk radio show. The show's guest tonight was a man from Iraq, who'd escaped with his family, but not his father.
His father was executed by Saddam. He acknowledged this several times.
This man stated that the people of Iraq are suffering because of the UN sanctions. He also brought out something I haven't thought about. A very distressing thought...
He could only speak on experience from the Gulf War, but this is what he said about Saddam. Saddam's Royal guard basically armed almost half of the "capable" population of Iraq. (I assume that means those capable of using a fire arm.)
Many of these people were taken to the front, forced to fight, or be executed by the so called "Death Squads"....HIS term. He said it was not uncommon for these death squads to kill many for not fighting, or moving to the front.
He said after many months of the bombing campaing, many of the people would be scared to death & want to leave. They were executed (made an example of) by these so called Death Squads.
This man is now claiming that he's convinced this same policy would be inforced if the U.S. should strike Iraq now. He was basically begging to the people of the radio station, for the U.S. NOT to go to war with Iraq, for fear that many, many more would die: either fighting the U.S. Army, or by Saddam's Death Squads.
This man said the sanctions should be lifted, so the people could live...
...and that the U.S. AND U.N. should just continue to keep heavy pressure on Saddam, and watch his every move.
This Saddam guy is a work of art...
Wuff,
RacerX
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Feb 5, 2003 22:23:40 GMT -5
RacerX said; As for the comment about Bush enjoys having people killed? I would ask you to show me his record, of where he has had people killed.
Texas was the legal killing capital of the US whilst bush was govener. RacerX do you think Rubin Carter would be alive today if George Bush was the govener of New York/Jersey, whilst he was in prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Feb 6, 2003 2:43:09 GMT -5
Can't leave this topic alone!
Okay, first thing. Has anybody else found something on the stuff Topcontender posted regarding Saddam's bodyguard? I have searched the net and found nothing. If that is true, then why are the US not using that as evidence?
Second, I find it interesting how different people get different opinions from the same speech. Personally I don't think Powell really presented anything new yesterday, and certainly not anything conclusive. All the satellite photos presented don't really show anything much, and we have no real idea as to when they were actually made. The same goes for the tape recording. In discussing this with a friend, he pointed out that he really didn't think the US would fabricate something like that. Well, I'm not as concinced as he is. To me (and it seems this morning also the majority of the European media) nothing new or conclusive was presented, and I was actually disappointed.
Then there was the Al-Qaeda links. I would say that what was presented does not provide any clear proof of Iraq's links to the terrorist organization. Actually some of the "proof" related to incidents going way back in time. In fact, by using the same arguments, one can easily show how the US provided financial assistance to Ossama Bin Laden at one point. Should we therefore claim that the US supports terrorist organizations, and consequently start a war on them?
The last point goes back to the point Powell made about Iraq continuing to ignore the UN resolutions, and so they must now suffer the consequences of this. As I have asked on several occasions in the past, why do they not apply the same principle with regards to Israel?
What is clear is that the US wants to start a war with Iraq, and nothing is going to stop them from doing that. I agree 100% that Saddam should go and a democratically elected government should take over the running of Iraq. However, I do not agree that a war should be started with a country for these reasons, and I agree even less with the possibility that this war is being started primarily for economical reasons, and a way for the US to gain control over the oil in the area. I don't know if that is the case (and I couldn't provide any proof that points this out), but there are enough indications available to make the thought plausible.
Last point (for now anyway). If Saddam would obtain a nuclear weapon, I honestly don't think he would use it on Israel or the US unless he is provoked. He may be a madman, but I am sure that he understands that if he does so, there will be no more Iraq the following morning. I am sure there is something about those 50'000 odd nuclear warheads the US have in their arsenal, as well as their superior weapons technology, that convinces him of this. However, if he is provoked....by say an attack by the US army....
|
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Feb 6, 2003 4:17:16 GMT -5
living in the sub continent, even i take the references colin powell made to iraq and al-queda as a joke. seen from the outside, powell is considered more level headed than dubya and is trusted more for being able to make a balanced decision. that reference that he made for sure has put some holes in his reputation. sure he cannot say anything to embarras the president, but comeon there has to be a limit to a joke.
it is a known fact that the two countries that have aided and abetted al-queda the most are the US and pakistan. i am glad that at least now the US is hunting down the terrorists, but for sure if there is a country that today is guilty of supporting terrorists now that the taliban are no more in power, than that country is pakistan. iraq just happens to have an embassy over there. personally i find it amusing that the US administration chooses to acknowledge the connection between Pakistan and al-queda only when it suits them to do so. saddam is a madman, but he is not a fundamentalist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Feb 6, 2003 6:51:44 GMT -5
Just wanted to add another little thing.
The US are saying that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, that he is trying to develope nuclear weapons, that Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and that they refuse to follow UN resolutions. As a result, and since Iraq is a clear threat to the American citizens, they must attack them and remove Saddam from power.
Now, if we look at North Korea and Kim Jong-Il. They have weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. They sell weapons to whoever is willing to pay, including terrorist organizations, they refuse to follow UN resolutions. On paper North Korea seems like a bigger threat to the citizens of America than Iraq, yet there it is better to continue diplomatic relations.
Why is there such a difference in treating the two cases?
Both Saddam and Kim Jong-Il are madmen, but it seems to me that Kim is probably the crazier of the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 6, 2003 7:59:25 GMT -5
Hen- good point on the photos, the really don't mean shit to someone like you and me. However, i listened to a UN inspector today and he said that those photos show something that prooves to him what powell was saying. Plus, He also commented that the Powell will only show dumbed down photos to the public to protect his sources. This was later confirmed by a Senator from Georgia on the intel commitee. the Senator said he had much better intel then what was shown but didn't want to give up his sources.
On my article, the Iraqis kind of hinted to this guy. In there rebuttal the Iraqis commented that intel given from "defectors" is not good evidence becuase they lie. Maybe, the government has a few people defecting, thus slowing the media from confirming who said what. However, I wish Powell (if that story is true) would have sat him next to him at the security council yesterday and let the man talk. That would have been the nail in Saddam's coffin so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 6, 2003 8:01:46 GMT -5
On the topic of more weapons inspectors to contain Saddam, the UN inspector this morning said it wouldn't matter how many people you had. the Iraqis can play shaddow games all day long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Feb 6, 2003 8:04:15 GMT -5
Hell yeah TC! The kind of info you presented would have been compelling!
I just found Powell's "proof" to be severely lacking. He is a very good talker, and I can clearly see that the pro-war faction would have heard him loud and clear yesterday. They certainly will not need any more convincing. But as for me, I just didn't see any new substance.
Back to the info in your article. Why don't they just send the UN inspectors to the sites he mentioned. Seemed to be some very detailed info there, and if, as you said, 10% of that is true, they are bound to find some very compelling evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 6, 2003 8:24:57 GMT -5
The inspector said that in 1991 the US did give the inspectors info and the "parking lot" photo was confirmed by the inspectors.
However, the inspector said the iraqis have got very smart. They now carry info on every inspector. So if a Chemical team comes to town the Iraqis know what team is there and move everything that they will know that the inspectors are looking for days before they get there.
The inspector said that the U2 spy plane talk wouldn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Feb 6, 2003 10:19:28 GMT -5
Henrik,
The US has been dealing with Saddam for over 12 years. They have had 3 months to deal with this situation with Kim. What would you have the US do? Do you realise that their are more children starving in North Korea than any individual African nation? Kim spends all NK's money on military buildup, he will be dealt with.
Furthermore, you say you doubt that Saddam would nuke Israel for fear of retaliation from the US, I'm sure you wont mind me disagreeing with you based on the history of terrorists strapping explosives to their waists. One of Saddam's main objectives is to rid the region of Israel and I'm sure that if he could complete that objective he wouldn't mind dying a "martyrs" death himself.
That said, I think all of this should have been finished the first time around.
I for one think the US does an admiral job of acting as the world's policeman, some here don't think they should get involved but I don't believe indifference to other nations is a good policy. Everyone wants a handout but no one wants to be told what to do with it, well I'm sorry it doesn't work that way.
|
|
Don't Die Before You Live...