|
Post by RacerX on Feb 6, 2003 12:16:46 GMT -5
DB,
I read the article...the guy might have misfigured one thing...I quote: "...once the Americans pull out."
What makes him thnk they'll ever leave once they gain control of an area containing the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world?
I mean seriously, if we're only going there for the Oil (I really do believe this has ALOT to do with it), then what makes him think the US will ever leave?
Just thinking aloud, RacerX
|
|
|
Post by glendo on Feb 6, 2003 12:48:43 GMT -5
i do wish i had more access to a PC, as i would be here daily, and would be able to keep up with you all.
i receive US media coverage as well as my own australian news coverage, and my god the US media is SO BIAS.
did you guys receive the news that iraq validly issued a protest that the US had ctually broken the "holy" UN resolution itself. the resolution which: does not allow countries to withold information of terrorism from the world is indeed assisting terrorist....
the US should of released this information weeks/mnonths ago. contributed to instant proof that iraq is/is not lying. that fact that they take this bullshit approach of giving as liuttle info as possible, almost demanding we believe/ support them almost instantly is make them the aggressor, hence the true enemy.
i personally believe that most of this "new evidence is actually FABRICATED, hence the US delay in releasing it.
world war 3 is coming.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Feb 6, 2003 13:07:24 GMT -5
As for Canada being against the US...LOL, last I added...20% plus 40% = 60% out of a 100%! ;-) lol Just having fun with numbers... Well the 20% who would go, even without the UN obviously end up in the 40% that would go with UN backing. So it is still 40% out of a 100%. And again were does it stop? Smoking Gun, your country should nuke Islamabad: you have good reasons too and to be honest, I think Pakistan is more of a "clear and present danger" to India then Iraq on anyone else... After all, Japan did it 50 years ago and Americans called it "a day that will live in infamy"..should we call it "the day Pearl Harbour suffered a justified pre-emptive strike?" The USS cole was a pre-emptive strike by al-quaida... And if you think about it, Saddam only applied this theory to Koweit...Dangerous buggers those Koweiti... Lynching blacks in the 50s before they could sweet talk to Lucy-Joe...Pre-emptive strike... Huttus killing tutsi kids before they matured into soldiers...pre-emptive strike... Let us not play on words: pre-emptive striker = attacker. And if the US becomes known as an "attacker", eveything will then be fair game, in the name of the sacro-saint "pre-emptive strike" S...h
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Feb 6, 2003 13:48:31 GMT -5
I always end up saying this whenever we get involved in a heavy debate at SC, and I'll say it again: I really appreciate the input from everyone at this forum. Sure our opinions differ, but people respect those differences and the subject remains friendly and even-tempered. From my side, I've taken no offence to anything said by anyone (relax Racer) and hopefully I haven't pissed anyone off either.
TANGENT (ignore if you're not into quasi-philosophical ramblings): Imagine having had communications facilities like this during the 1930's. The idea of German, US, British etc citizens, being given an open forum to discuss their views is amazing. Imagine how much war propaganda (on both sides) could have been neutralised, just by letting the people themselves speak to each other.
I'm not saying that the US is as bad as WW2 or pre-WW2 Germany, but there are similarities, like the way that so many people around the world are against what it's doing right now... at least now, though, we can talk about things openly - maybe change attitudes from within the States, provide (a tiny bit of) impetus to the anti-war movement Stateside. SC has been a great place for me to shed stereotypes and prejudices I may have had (like that of the ignorant Yank) and see things from the viewpoints of different people around the world. THANK YOU EVERYONE AT SHAMU CROAKS ;D
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 6, 2003 15:20:45 GMT -5
The one thing that pisses me off about the inspections is that it makes me feel like i am being played a fool. Saddam thinks that he will never be stopped and plays these games. So bascially he is laughing at us everytime an inspector shows up. I dont like knowing this guy is moving stuff just to keep it. If i was an inspector i would feel like a dumbass knowing he has done all this.
Intel is always withheld from others, that is a way of life. Glendo i have seen that story about Iraq saying that the USA is withholding intel from the inspectors. WHat is funny is that Iraq with that statement is basically admitting that they have these weapons. Why should the US give its intel to the inspectors if the Iraqis are going to listen in and move the stuff? Holding back info is a must.
One good reason to hold back is from a military angle. If i know the location of a few bombs, i better not tell anyone becuase that would mean that Iraq could find out and move them. If the USA bombs Iraq, all they have to do is make a one night plan of all these targets. Then drop bombs on them and have the satisfaction knowing that a big lot of Saddam's arsenal is gone.
Holding back is in some ways a preemptive measure
As for Iraq now allowing scientists to be questioned i find it really funny. They are trying to throw a bone and appease a few people to make themselves look good.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Feb 6, 2003 16:15:39 GMT -5
Question: how many people who voted "yes - even without UN backing" AREN'T from the US? Just as a matter of interest, and if you don't mind saying what you voted...
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Feb 6, 2003 16:16:47 GMT -5
So if understand this well, the five people who voted YES(without the UN), think that if Saddam decided to strike at the US or its soldiers stationned in the Gulf first, he would not only be right from a strategic point of view, but also from a moral perspective ? Hence Saddam should use all the weapons at his disposal against american targets as soon as possible...and that would be legitimate...
N.Korea and the US seem to share the same battle ethos...
S....
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Feb 6, 2003 16:23:46 GMT -5
My first opinion was to not vote at all, but I have since changed that opinion and I voted Yes but only with UN backing. There needs to be proof and there needs to be international agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 6, 2003 16:25:30 GMT -5
Srrh- no Saddam is wrong because he is obligated to a conditional surrender. He has had 10 years to get this right and still has not complied. He will never be right until he opens the doors and lets us destroy all this weapons. Also if the US did strike Iraq it would not be preemptive, because we would be enforcing the surrender. Another reason this is not preemptive is that we already bomb Iraq everyday for breaking the no fly zone.
N. Korea is wrong becuase they signed a treaty saying that they would not build any nukes. They signed that treaty and a few months later started production. N. Korea today mentioned preemptive strike on the USA for putting a aircraft carrier off thier coast. This will trigger war.
|
|
|
Post by glendo on Feb 6, 2003 23:58:17 GMT -5
TC:
you are saying that saddam is playing games hiding the weapons, and that you felt that he was making a fool of the inspectors... hence you personally believe that iraq does have these weapons...
so far, the evidence (of inspectors on the ground) has so far shown NO evidence yet. only the US has so-called evidence.
just as my view on religion, i will wait until i see detailed raw, visual evidence that it actually exists. until then, it is one against the other on hearsay, except that iraq is actually co-operating more than the americans would like it be believed. it is actually the americans that6 need to behave a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 6, 2003 23:59:55 GMT -5
Saddam's Bombmaker
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. Co-author of the book "Saddam's Bombmaker," Hamza defected to the United States in 1995, and testified before Congress on the vast scope of Saddam Hussein's biological, chemical and nuclear programs.
The following excerpted interview took place on "The Larry Elder Show" on Dec. 19, 2002:
Elder: Colin Powell says we ought to commence interviewing Iraqi scientists.
Hamza: I was one of those who suggested originally in the Senate and the House testimonies, that the scientists should be taken out with their families. It would be the only way we could get some information on what's going on inside Iraq.
Elder: It appears, Dr. Hamza, that the American and U.K. position is that he is right now – before anything else happens – in material breach.
Hamza: Yes, he is.
Elder: The rest of this is about convincing the other members of the United Nations Security Council.
Hamza: Exactly, because the reports are so far just a compilation of the old reports, and they have not answered all the outstanding questions that remained when the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998.
Elder: Dr. Hamza, Saddam Hussein is betting what? That there'll be enough people who don't want to go to war on the U.N. Security Council, that there'll be pressure on the United States and Great Britain not to take action?
Hamza: He's betting on this. He's not going to let the scientists out, not all of the scientists. In 1993, he let three scientists out to talk to inspectors in Vienna. So he'll do the same. He'll allow a very small group of scientists that will be interviewed outside Iraq. His bet is that, even if he is declared in violation, and there is a possibility of invasion, the invasion will not be fully supported by the international community unless there is evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 7, 2003 0:00:21 GMT -5
Elder: Members of the U.N., Syria and the Iraqi deputy prime minister say provide the intelligence information (about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction). What should the U.S. do now?
Hamza: The United States cannot reveal the critical pieces of information because some of it is from inside Iraq. The U.S. government is in a position to reveal some information so that inspectors can do their job. But no critical information to other members of the Security Council, because they jeopardize sources and methods. That is why Secretary Powell today insisted that the next step would be interviewing the scientists, because this is the next card to play, and it is a major one, and it could be the end of the whole game Saddam is playing.
Elder: Dr. Hamza, Pentagon sources speaking anonymously are saying that what Saddam Hussein is going to do is a "scorched earth policy." Destroy his own oilfields, destroy his food supplies, make a humanitarian crisis so widespread, so vulgar, that it'll turn international opinion against this country.
Hamza: Surely they did well by saying it now so that it alerts the Arab world, the media, and it alerts the Iraqis to the possibility of a future that awaits them when Saddam loses this war which assuredly he will. [Saddam] destroyed most of Kuwait before he left. He is vengeful, he is evil and he is capable of doing all this. But by saying it, that means the U.S. is giving careful consideration to this. Those who will participate in it will be criminalized and punished to the maximum, both by the future Iraqi government and by U.S. forces who will be there, and this will be announced and made very clear.
Elder: Dr. Hamza, do you anticipate that somebody close to him will rise up and assassinate him?
Hamza: There is no such possibility. They might want to, many people would like to, even around him, but the system is so hermetically sealed in his favor that it is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 7, 2003 0:00:42 GMT -5
Elder: Are there ties between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida?
Hamza: Yes, I believe there are. I don't know if you can get proof good enough in court, but there are many connections that, yes, Saddam is connected to al-Qaida in many ways. For example, if you will look at Sept. 11 hijackers, nobody managed to point to any training to a precisely orchestrated operation. You cannot get five guys with practically no weapons into a plane and get them to take over more than 100 people on board in such a precise, well-orchestrated manner. They are extensively trained, and the operation itself became second nature to them. Nobody could find such a place in Afghanistan, and the only intelligence reports so far, three Iraqi intelligence officers who escaped, not knowing each other, who reported such a training in the south of Baghdad.
(To see the entire transcript, log on to http://www.larryelder.com)
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 7, 2003 0:04:42 GMT -5
He has the weapons, everyone in the UN security council knows it.
Hen- you and I wanted an example of someone who has seen the stuff first hand. I found one. Plus he has a book we can read. I might buy it i am debating it, but if a good spy novel comes up i will get that instead.
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Feb 7, 2003 0:09:26 GMT -5
Elder: Are there ties between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida? Hamza: Yes, I believe there are. I don't know if you can get proof good enough in court, but there are many connections that, yes, Saddam is connected to al-Qaida in many ways. For example, if you will look at Sept. 11 hijackers, nobody managed to point to any training to a precisely orchestrated operation. You cannot get five guys with practically no weapons into a plane and get them to take over more than 100 people on board in such a precise, well-orchestrated manner. They are extensively trained, and the operation itself became second nature to them. Nobody could find such a place in Afghanistan, and the only intelligence reports so far, three Iraqi intelligence officers who escaped, not knowing each other, who reported such a training in the south of Baghdad. (To see the entire transcript, log on to http://www.larryelder.com) and there goes his credibility. imore than half of iraq is in the no fly zone. i doubt it has an airforce or civillian airline. it's airfields were destroyed. al-queda is primarily based in afghanistan and pakistan. hell the pakis airlifted some of them with the permission of the us. why not blame the floods and the earthquakes also on saddam??
|
|