OT: George Bush and Iraq

Try to look at it without taking sides.

-There isnt any conspiracy.
-Nor im joining any parties.

However I have a clue that babek knows what he is talking about. His roots are at middle-east area. He knows his history well.

So babeks opinions simply weight more in my basket than you emotional ranting.

 

I haven't heard anything like that and I'm watching news daily. However, this is not the business of the Kurds. As you know, we also had key players of 9/11 in Hamburg, though I would think it's not german business.

US troops didn't occupy Iraq in 1991, so they had no controll about things happening short time after the war before the establishement of the no-fly zones. I rather tend to accuse Saddam for that instead the US...

From the report which I saw (on phoenix), Kurds were going along pretty fine in Northern Iraq. When interviewed about a possible war however, they said it would be good on the one hand to get rid of Saddam, but on the other hand they were very much afraid of getting anihilated by Iraq during the lasting of a war.

So, for what else are they in place then? They are protection zones. Though, these are no-FLY zones, targeted against iraqi actions. Of course the relation with the Turks is something more complicated. I would guess there wasn't even any intel, or even expection of such action by the Turks.

VX, antrax and other agents, as well as delivery systems like SCUDS I'd consider a threat, at least for the region.

Well, while I have my doubts that you would agree with a pushing US policy against NK like it's now the case with Iraq, I think one shouldn't do so right from the start. The difference between NK and Iraq is that the Iraq issue is already going on for 11 years. NK issue is now going on for a month or so.

I have no problem with critism on the hardline policy the current Israeli government is conducting. But I have a problem with comparisons you draw, critism just focused on those.

This is a misunderstanding. I should have left the term "very" out. I was NOT in Afghanistan. What I meant was that you can see it multiple time in the media, US as well as German. I could see it and I could hear the interviews the people gave to the press. And that clearly was different from what you "see".

Does that mean one should not even begin with? Or any move towards that is to be blaimed?

In the long run I'm pretty sure that Germany has won "something", even though of Dresden, Hamburg etc.

It's a difference between "delivering parts for chemical warfare", which is mainly done not by a government but by companies, and transforming and actually utilizing those weapons against civilians, which did not the US, but Saddam himself.

I know that, and it was ridiculous, not only because of itself, but because there wasn't even any "need" for that propaganda, because the facts were pretty obvious: Iraqi army sitting in Kuwait, the complete UN condaming that, and a good 5 months time frame from invasion in August until January 16th for Iraqi retreat, unhurt. But why you mention it? You think it was an US arangement? For above reasons, rather not. To me that looks just like some pretty dumb made up BS by some rather dumb person.

I do, it's legitime as a last option to end some unacceptable situation. So, in case of Iraq, I give full trust to the UN inspectors to decide if the situation is unacceptable. If they ask for more time, it should be given to them. I would not be happy about the US attacking Iraq before things are fully cleared up.

@sebbo: It's not just about 12 warheads. At least Hans Blix doesn't think so.

Why all the Nazi terms? Because I consider the "normal" people with revisionistic and anti-semitic views, which were more or less covered, but begin to get tolerated and uncover more and more since some years, in my country as a far more serious threat than some stupid skin-heads rumbling in the streets. Those are just dumbasses. The Nazis which brought us the darkest period in our history in the 30s also weren't stupid - but they were mad.

heartc

 

As much as i disagree with the Israeli policy in the occupied territories, equating them to the Nazis by references to the SS is way out of line.

Were hundreds of innocent German civilians being blown up every year by the Jews throughout the world? Daily attacks on innocent civilians, buses being bombed, suicide bombers, etc, etc, etc? In a word, NO!

Israeli tactics leave alot to be desired. But then, the Palestinians are no better. If one of you has a picture of a Palestinian being shot for no reason, I bet you could trawl the net and find hundreds of pictures of hundreds of civilians being blown up or maimed for no reason, by Palestinian 'freedom fighters'.

I used to have sympathy for them and their like. That sympathy is fast running out when every day that goes by we hear of them committing yet another atrocity. Im sorry, my heart no longer bleeds for them and as far as i am concerned, Israel is acting like the wounded animal trying to protect itself.

Both are now as bad as each other, but comparisons like those made are wrong wrong wrong!

-glas-

 

Exactly.

 

I see this other way around.

Israeli people can expect good life and good future.
Young palestinians have very limited options, what can they do?
They cant look to the future with much confidence.


To me palestinian actions seem more desperate than Israeli ones. Or what do you think about man who blows himself up in the bus compared to army-man who shoots civial in the back of his head without a trial.

I dont accept killing by any side in Israel. Again its not black and white. Yes its Israel vs. palestinians. But not palestinians vs. Israel. IMO.

Palestinians dont have united leadership and Israel seems to do its best to keep it that way. Main difference is that killing by Israel is at responsibility of isreali govenment and so its people. Palestinian actions are more improvised and made by several groups which in no way represent Palestinia/palestinans as whole.

 

I appreciate your point illo, it can be taken from both sides of the coin.

Perhaps things are reported differently where you are, but afaik most of the strikes from Israel have been retaliatory strikes, hitting back after another atrocity has been commited. Perhaps you view the 'retaliatory' strikes as being the atrocity, but that is a political point i have no wish to argue about.

I also agree your point that Israelis have infinitely more opportunities, better education, security and healthcare than most Palestinians. However your assertion that it is the Israeli government causing the problems on the Israeli side but only a small minority on the Palestinian side has no relevance. By the same token, there are many ordinary Israelis who attack their Govt for their actions and would like to see peace. It doesnt stop them becoming victims of the 'martyrs' willing to kill defenceless people indiscriminately.

On one side you have the Israeli govt, on the other you have a hardcore group of Palestinians trading under different banners but all with a common cause, to kill and maim as many people as they can. Both of them have their faults, and both also have their reasons for taking the actions they do. Neither side is justified tho.

I dont agree with this. It is Israel vs Palestine because the Israelis want to claim more land and oppress the Palestinian people. But on the other hand, you would be foolhardy to believe that the only thing groups like Hamas want is an end to Israeli occupation. There is too much money involved in terrorism these days, and the people involved are not just going to let all that slip away if Israel was to pullout and attempt to build a lasting peace. The attacks would simply continue and, in all probability escalate as Israel would then be seen as 'going soft'.

All imo of course. Regardless i stand by my original point. Equating Israel to the SS or Nazis or whatever is completely wrong. It was a different place, time and the circumstances were infinitely different.

-glas-

 

1st : I think its a minor mistake to compare the hiding terrorists of 9/11 in Hamburg (before they took action and the world was behind them) and the Al´Quaida terrorists, who the USA accuse the Iraq to hide in northern Iraq.

2nd: It was an official US-accusation against Iraq and even today the papers are reporting about it. If I am right I read an article about this in the FOCUS or SPIEGEL which made a chronology of eleder US-accusations against Iraq.
So maybe just change your daily news I can strongly recommend the BBC news in internet - and its surely not an anti-american station.

I think you know what happened in these days . if not here the story.

In the end phase of Gulf War Nr. 2 the iraqui army was kicked out of Kuwait and the whole Irak became unstable.
While Saddam - protected by his guard units could keep control in the middle and the west part of his contry the north and the south with their kurdish / shiite population were ready for a revolution.

But they didnt started this revolution before Mr. Bush sr., president of the USA, asked them to do so and promised to help then.

So the uprisings began - and improtant cities like Basra in the south were out of Saddams control.

But then something in the US-policy must have changed. Maybe they decided that a weak Saddam is better than an shiite religious leader.

And so they just sit and watched how Saddams forces butchered the kurds in the north and the shiites in the south.
I rememberall these solidarity speaches here in the west - in London they made a nice concert for the poor poor kurds ("The simple truth"-concert in Wembley stadion if I am right) but this was nonsense.
In the same time Saddam could make one massacre after the other. Tenthousands of kurds and shiites fled in panic to iranian territory where they were put into refugee camps.

You said that it is unfair that I blame the USA for the misery of the kurds.

I must say that it is extreme unfair to ask people to make a revolution and to promise help and then to sit and wait until they have been beaten - and then establish nice no-fly-zones.

Dont think that these people have forgotten this.
Even if they smile happily in the cameras of the reporters who visit happy kurds in their happy zones.

I dont doubt that there are many many people who want to see Saddam and his junta burning alive to death.
But the key question remains: What will come after this?

The kurds in your nice phoenix report will kill each other after they got off Saddam. There are mighty kurdish clans which have fought each others for centuries. They will not make peace or work together or accept a sunnite arab on their side.

Three nations (beside Iraq itself) have a strong interest that there is no kurdish automomy or more rights for them in the region: Iran, Turkey and Syria.
All these nations have their loyal kurdish clans - which are in most cases not on their territory.
For example Iran has control of some iraqi kusdish clans which will fight against other iraqi kurds if Teheran orders them to do.

There is no kurdish group acting as one.
Maybe they will fight together to overthorw Saddam, but the minute after this event they will fight each other.

And the turkish situation with its large kurdish minority in the border region makes the whole situation much complicated.

Turkish military demanded a "security-zone of northern iraqi territory, where the turkish military can restore law and order.
I dont know if Phoenix has shown reports how it looks like when turkish military had established law and order on their own territoy. But maybe they will have to show such a report in future on iraqui territory...

Then again my question.
Why are all the neighbors of Iraq so strictly against an US-attack against Iraq?

Why there was a meeting of the neighbors of Iraq in Ankara last weekend where the NATO-partner Turkey has invited also "bad" contries like Syria and Iran to discuss how the war could be avoided ?

If they really fear Iraq and Saddam they should support the USA and be thankful instead of opposing the war.

The truth is, that Iraq is no danger anymore. Its a battered contry and its neighbors have much more powerful military and also biological and chemical weapons.

I dont think that the mad dictator of NK is ruling since a month. I also dont think that the missile test of the missile which flew over Japan happened a month ago.
I also dont think that millions of north koreans dies of hunger or were killed by the terroristic regime in the last 30 days.

Northkorea is a centre of terror and inhumanity.

If someone blame Iraq (which is right) he shouldnt search for excuses for a similiar fascistoid contry like NorthKorea.

I used the most drastical insult I have. For me Nazis and SS-people are the worst creatures I can imagine.
And I indeed compare criminals like Sharon or the ruler of NK (what the hell was his name again ) or Saddam with this worst examples of human beings.

Nice. But my cousin, who is an officer in the army of the Islamic Republic of Iran was there. He "visited" Herat and has seen the people living in the region outside the city.
Nothing has changed. The women had to wear the blue Burkas, are not allow to go to school.
So I strongly differ between the pictures which are shown in our media and a report from someone who I know and who was right there.

It means that such a great task - to rebuild Afghanistan - is not possible, if the puppet of the USA is someone like General Dostum, who is also one of the criminals I would compare with a SS-Nazi.

Its not possible if countries like Pakistan are allowed to equip their pro-pakistan-clans ( which had used the name Taliban before).

It would be necessary to occupy Afghanistan in order to restore order. But thats not possible. There is no force in this world which was able to occupy and control Afghanistan.
Alexander the Great failed, the persian dynasties after him also, the british failed, also the soviets - and now the next foreigners are there to learn the lesson.

Its frustrating for me that I cant see any solution for Afghanistan and so I dont want that the same happens with another country - like Iraq.
There the population is similiar complicated than in Afghanistan. The hate between the groups has nearly the same old and tragic tradition.

Again not a good comparison.
The germans were united - the felt as one people.
In Iraq the people feel as kurds, shiites and sunnites - considering the other 2 groups as enemies.
And also within these groups there is old hate.

So - you cant compare the german people after WW2 with the iraqia after Gulf War 3.

Its a little bit disappointing to read this statement.
So you really think that the US-government wasnt informed about these deliveries?
And surely the satelite photos delivered by US-representatives to Saddams military during Gulf War 1 were only sent to get nice pictures of topography and not how and where gas attacks could be used with a maximum efficiency.

Have you ever seen the results of those who were an under gas attack?
I dont speak about those who were lucky to die but of those who were condemned to live on.

Try to imagine their reactions when someone says "Hey guys - sorry to see you suffering, but it's a difference between "delivering parts for chemical warfare" and transforming and actually utilizing those weapons against civilians, which did not the US, but Saddam himself. So please dont blame us who gave the monster the weapons and blame the monster itself."

Absolutely. Propaganda is used to raise emotions. It is much easier for "normal" people to hate others if they can associate a face and a story which make them sad and angry.
And what could be better than a nice, pretty and helpless brave girl who tells a barbaric story of Nazi-SS-Iraqis smashing nice little helpless babies against walls?

Today many propaganda films are ridiculous - but that is not the point. The point is, how effective a story is in the moment it is used.

 

Why? Why would you connect possible Al Quaida terrorists in Northern Iraq with the Kurds there? I do not see a point for that connection.

I will look closer into that, as I have a feeling to have just been presented with ONE side of the story. However I knew about this already. As a matter of fact, they don't have a misery NOW.

What makes you so sure about it? Maybe attitudes have changed over time now and they'd take the chance with support of the US? I think the US after a possible third gulf war would be VERY interested to establish peace in that region now, learning from their mistakes in the past. They won't get rid off Saddam just to let some other battles enraging in this country. This would be paradox.

This is not true. Israel and Kuwait are not against it. Kuwaiti people would be happy if that would also finally solve the question what has happened to some 300 POW taken by Iraq.

Of course either Iran, or Syria or Turkey do rather fear the results of a war, for the reasons you described above. Iran and Syria are rather allies of Iraq now instead of enemies, with commen enemy Israel, and the Iran/Iraq war being over for more than a decade now.

As far as biological and chemical weapons are concerned, numbers are not what counts.

Neither me, nor the US do search for excuses for the regime in NK. US did already threaten with sanctions (Defense Secretary mentioning US military capability of fighting two wars at the same time) and Powell did adress the NK issue as well in his speech one or two days ago in Swiss. But the point is that Iraq commited himself to several UN resolutions after the gulf war, which he obviously failed to meet and now after 11 years and America's concern for security for their own country and their areas of interest things are getting tight for Saddam. Of course the US do have more interests in the Gulf area, having two major military, ideological and/or economic partners there, Israel and Kuwait.

Naturally not every person would change his attitudes from one day to the other, if raised under a fundamentalistic regime. But it is a beginning, or let's say a chance for a beginning. I don't think your cousin can judge the situation in the whole country in the long run by seeing some individuals. Just as you deny me the possibility to do so from watching the media. Our media is free. There is no propaganda. I don't know from where you come up with this. There is negativ and positiv press on Afghanistan by different reporters, and I doubt only the negativ ones do have points.

Right now there is a force in Afghanistan which I'd say does just that - controlling Afghanistan, at least in the main spots. Soviets didn't even come close to that. It almost sounds like you'd wish them to fail, so it would suit your anti-am... oh, I've almost said the bad word again.

OK, take the Balkan. Rather peacefull now, isn't it? Of course you'll need some kind of occupy/controll/police-force in any of those cases, just like Germany was also occupied, but overtime I see the chance for an established system to keep in power.

Why would you know US government was well informed? And why would you think that satelite photos are only suited during a war to find out how and where gas attacks could be used with maximum efficiency? That's ridiculous. That's like blaming one for giving someone, say, a donut, which that guy takes, poisens it and kills a third guy.

OK, you believe it was made up by the US, I do not. We might never know, but I repeat that I couldn't see any neccessity for that ridiculous stuff when the situation was as clear as in 1991.

Ok, go on and blame the US for actions Saddam took, but the original topic was the situation of 2003.
I didn't want to argue about american policy over the last 50 years, nor am I as expertise on middle east ethnic troubles as you are, as one can easily figure out.
The main point where we do not agree about the current issue is that you don't see a threat in Iraq, while I do. Maybe one would call it not "immenent". But when is the threat immenent? By the time Iraq has raised a massive WMD supply, even nuclear? By that time, it would already be too late. He would have had any opportunity to do so if the inspectors wouldn't be back in Iraq now for the first time since 1998. And inspectors are ONLY back in Iraq because of the massive military build-up by the US and UK. And as far as it looks, Hans Blix is not so happy about the cooperation from Iraq. Questions remain open. I say give them more time to clarify on those open issues. But it's a fact that Iraq is in violation of 1441 by not allowing U2 a/c over Iraq, by shooting down Predator drones, by opening up on a/c in the no-fly zones. Those are the violations which are clear and need no further evaluation. The open issues are chemical warheads found, 3000 page document about enriching uranium found in the housing of an Iraqi scientist, discrepancies on the amount of anthrax and many other things you could learn from Blix today. The point is that Saddam is obviously not willing to really cooperate on "substance", like Blix called it (cooperation on process, by giving access, is improved to 100%, but not new, nor enough), and I say better get rid of him if he continues that way, because what would happen if he continues to not fully cooperate with the UN? Should inspectors stay in Iraq forever? I doubt Saddam would agree to that. So, just leave Iraq again and let him alone? You really think he wouldn't support terrorism against the US/Israel and develope WMDs, even nukes over time?
On the one hand you are enraged about NK pissing off the world by its current actions towards a nuclear build-up, yet you would let another mad man prevail with the same? Better one less of them, I'd say.

heartc

 

Ok - obviously my english is not so good - sorry for that - so I try to describe the point I see in this.

1st: The US-government accused the Iraq that Al´Qaida terrorist hide in northern Iraq.
2nd: The region is a protectorate-zone of the USA where the iraqui kurds live.
Kurds who are thankful that the USA and their auxiliaries protect them.
So I came to point nr. 3:
How could Al´Quaida terrorists hide in a territory where they could be identify easily by the kurds?
Kurds are no arabs - there are ethnical differences. Also the clan-structures are making every stranger in the area like he has been painted with red color on his face.

And I came to the conclusion that either the US-statement is wrong or that the Kurds must protect the terrorists.

I think that the US-government wanted to get another reason to show why Saddam is the bad guy and that there are no Al´Qaida terrorist in N-iraq.
It also makes no sense for these terrorists to be there - they could hide far better in countries with arab people or in countries with very good hiding possibilities - like Pakistan or Jemen.

That was the link between Kurds and Al´Qaida I wanted to mad: To show that such a cooperation is absurd and so its unlikely that the terrorists are there (OK - When tomorrow BinLaden is arrested in N-Iraq I will have to eliminate this statement )

1st : In all its history - and the kurds have a very long and proud history - they never managed to avoid fighting and betraying each other. I think its unlikely that such old and tradional enemies could work together.

And about the region itself.
I take again Iran as an example to show you why I think that US-foreign policy is not productive.

In the last years a political movement in Iran around the president Khatami got stronger and stronger. These people demand that they get more rights and that the allmighty power of the conservative mullahs with all their irrational hate against the USA and others has to be reduced.
Because of the complicated political balance within Iran these reform movement had to act very cautios, but they had constant successes.
They showed that the USA is not the natural enemy of Iran and in the middle of this process Mr. Bush jr. - president of the USA - had nothing better to do than to call Iran as a member of the axis of evil.
And so the radicals could say: "Look - We told you. You cant trust them - they want to attack and kill us."
This was a massive setback of the reform forces in Iran.

Have a look in Saudi Arabia. The relationship to the USA has been damaged in the last years.

The persian gulf and its countries are an extremely complicated region. You cant find easy solutions.
And to be frankly: I dont expect that the actual US-government, which calls their long-year allies France and Germany "the (bad) old europe" is capable to find a effective policy for the gulf states.

Call me a pessimist - but I fear the effects of US policy - even if its meant by the best way.

I define neighbors countries with a direct border - so I didnt count Israel as a neighbor of Iraq.

If I remember right even Kuwait didnt agreed with an military attack against Iraq - but I have to recheck this.

I tried to describe it in my first post here. Iran considers no arab state as an ally. It uses them for its own sake but the mistrust between iranians and arabs is always present.

During the 1st Gulf War Syria helped Iran against Iraq because of the rivality between Saddam and Assad.

And in the same time Iran and Syria were rivals in the internal political battle in Lebanon.

Its not the easy - "Israel is our common enemy - so we fight them together" story.

There is a fundamental mistrust between all these states in the region. Combined with racial and religious differences.

Even paradox situations are the result of these political needs.

Example 1:
During GulfWar1 it was Israel which delivered Iran the needed spareparts for its F4-Phantoms. Also in the air force military academy in Isfahan israeli instructors with fake identities teached iranian pilots.

Why ? Because Israel wanted to be sure that the war was going on. As long as these two powers were in war they couldnt endanger ISrael.

Example 2:
The nation which supported the christian Armenia against the islamic Azerbeidjan with weapons, instructors and logistic was....
The Islamic Republic of Iran.

Why ? Because Iran had lost the political fight of the control of Azerbeidjan against the turks before. So by supporting their armenian enemies they could help the armenians to get military successes and so they destabilized the pro-turkish azerbeijan government and could get some of their pro -iranian politicians into higher positions.

As I said: The policy in this region - one of the oldest of mankind - is extremely complicated. There are no easy or fast solutions.

A fast victory against Iraq does not mean that things could get better. In contrary - such a result could also destroy the fragile balance in the region with very bad consequences.

And as always innocent civilians will have to pay this price.

So we have to be far more concerned.
How many states in this world are today able to produce such weapons? How many of them are ruled by despots, dictators or other kind of mad men ?
Are we able to fight all of them ? Or should we trust in the example the cold war showed us - that even if they possess these weapons they dont dare to use them. Even Hitler didnt used his chemical weapons during WW2 - fearing the retaliation of such an action.

Is it really Saddam who endangers the USA ? I think there are much dangerous organisations or enemies.

But dont misunderstand me. I have no sympathy for Saddam.

I have to constate that we are running in an automatic process we cant stop. A process which accepts and finally demands a war as an legitime political instrument. And when the point of no return is reached this war will happen - as a legitime political argument.

This is the shocking point for me. A war becomes a legitime political instrument. Not a defensíve war but an offensive one.

And thats whats so unacceptable for me.

Example for propaganda shown in our TV:
There were reports where nice little afghan girls wer going to school and didnt have to wear the burka.
The people get the impression that everywhere in Afghanistan this becomes reality.
But thats wrong. Its only a show for the camera. Throughout Afghanistan there are no such schools or rights for women.

Thats what I call propaganda.

When my cousin reports what he has seen by travelling to Herat and passingthrough the small villages its a reliable inormation for me.

But there is an easy way for you to check: Just look during reports from Kabul at the background. Check the percentage men : women you see. Then check how many of the women are wearing the Burka. And then make the conclusion how the situation in the land outside must be, when you see so many Burka-women even in the protected Kabul.

I am not anti-american. I am against stupid policy of special governments - and I am convinced that the actual government of the USA is not acting wisely. But that does not mean that I am against americans.
I am also not against russians, germans, french or mongols.

I just demand the right for myself to criticise a policy which can change the interaction of governments and people in the future in a very negative way.

And Afghanistan is absolutely not under control. Only a few cities. The rest is controlled by clans and warlords. And most of them are such "nice" guys like Saddam or Osama and have their criminal energy. Surely not a base to reform and rebuild a battered country.

And thats where we agree. If Afghanistan gets far more occupation troops, which disarm the clans (which they wouldnt do without fighting) then you can establish a base for reforms. But thsi would cause an extreme loss and risk of troops - and so it will not happen.

In consequence try to put this analysis in an Iraq after the victory.

Can you understand my fear now better ?

First: I dont like donuts - they are defect and have a hole in the middle

Second: During the GulfWar1 iranian troops managed to break through iraqi defense position despite the massive hightech weapon deliveries to Saddam. These successes of iran were combined with heavy losses of soldiers but the advance was going on. Iranian troops even managed to reach the kuwaiti border.

Saddam answered with massive use of chemical weapons. He also got satelite reports from the USA which had extreme accurate datas. Datas which also allowed to calculate the best effect of the chemical weapons.

I dont think that the satelite reports were sent to Saddam without the knowledge how the mad man of Badgad would use them.

Again. Look from the point of view as a normal US-american or european.
Without the whining show of the girl we would think "Bad iraqi had marched into small kuwait. Where the hell is that Kuwait ? And why should I care for some millionaire fat sheikh in the Kuwait far far away."

With thepropaganda show the thoughts would be "Oh my god. This poor nice looking and brave girl. And the monsters killed babies. Smashed them against the wall ! Monsters ! We must fight them."

Now - do you see the difference ? Still ridiculous or a brilliant move to raise feelings in the way they wished ?

Please check what I wrote. I didnt blamed exclusively the US-policy but also the policy of France, England, USSR and many other nations.

The point is that many problems of today and of the future are a direct result of wrong policies of the past.
Wrong policy done by the USA, USSR, England, France and whoever used governments or colonies in this region for its own political power.

To ignore this and only look at the actual situation will condemn us to repeat mistakes done in the past.

I eliminated the sentences in your last passage where we both agree (yes - I think we agree in more points than it seems )

1st: Actually Iraq is not a threat for its neighbors. The major neighbor nations would retaliate in a much harder way than Iraq could do.

2nd: There are many other nations who support terrorism much more than Iraq ever had done. And even if Iraq would be nuked away (please understand this only as a hypothetical example) the terrorism would not fade away. A war against Iraq will raise terroristic actions. So I expect other and intelligent solutions instead of a - what I define as - stupid first strike. Especially if you condider the consequences for the time after the war.

3rd: North Korea. I also dont want that NK is attacked by a first strike. There must be political solutions. If not we fall back into a more primitive level of policy.

And that would be a great setback.

 

another brilliant argument on the side of babek

Score:
Babek 2
The World: 0

 

Yea ,wise and diplomatic thoughts presented here by babek imo too ..

 

One remark, though:

What is more important? A couple of custom made UN-resolutions or International traties like the Geneva Convention, the Non-proliferation treaty and the likes?

I think a nation which doesn't live up to the second set is more of a danger.

 

@ Dustin: LOL! Great pic! Goes to show that, despite the proof otherwise, many US-citizens still think Saddam is a direct threat!

 

I'm not saying this did not happen, but the supposed guncam video we were being shown here in Australia of the recent attempts to shoot down US planes in the no-fly zone was 4 year old film, and on all occasions, it was the same film.

Now, conspiracy theorists would suggest this was just an attempt by the US to drum up support for a UN led attack on Iraq. Don't know if they would be far off track either.

The biggest problem I have with the whole situation is that the US is saying in one breath that Iraq can not have WMD, but in the next breath, they say that they are prepared to use TNWs to destroy deep underground bunkers. HELLO...isn't that just a little bit hypocritical.

This whole BS is not about getting Saddam, rather it is about who has the biggest gun and who can make the most noise. If it was about getting rid of Saddam, they would send in a small team undetected, and assassinate him. Let's face it, win or lose, Saddam will be a hero to the Iraqis because he stood up to the American Infidel.......or mb not.

Time will tell.

Just my opinion, don't burn me too hot.
Regards, Oz

 

Given the revelation of today by the UN inspection team (unless your an Iraqi, you will have heard that they have grave misgivings about Iraq with chemical weapons, etc) I wonder what people in here think about them?

Do you trust them to do their job? Do you think they speak the truth? Do you agree with them that Iraq is shielding stuff and not letting people speak openly?

The report by the inspection team now and in February will go a long way to determining if this war goes ahead or not. I have to be honest and say that i thought they would have finished their inspection by insisting Iraq posed no danger and had co-operated. But they havent, and i believe Hans Blix is impartial and doing the job to the best of his abilities.

If Hussein has nothing to hide, then he should have nothing to fear. By acting in the way he is right now, he is only fuelling the suspicion of those who wish to take action regardless of the inspectors report or UN resolutions. I dont think the USA will have too difficult a job convincing those countries who support them that military action without a UN mandate is necessary. I just hope the UK isnt one of them.

Remember, if you feel he has something to fear because US will attack regardless of evidence, then it would be in his best interests to shout out loud the truth and provide EVERY bit of evidence to the world that they are doing nothing wrong. In the face of that, i believe even the US wouldnt have a choice but to back down. But he hasnt done that, he has blocked interviews and used many 'dirty tricks' to delay the inspection team. He cant be doing that for no reason!

-glas-

 

According to Hans Blix, the UN-teams were not misled or refused access to any facilities. The Iraqi government was occasionally reluctant with handing out certain information.

It would seem that there's going to be a war anyway.

 

It's sounds like:

If you have no syphilis, then you should have nothing to scare to be raped by (i.e. american) sordier. But if you scared yet, so it means that at least you have syphilis, and probably AIDS too. And also, you had never visited to venerolog in you life, so it proov for 100% that you have to have all that acquired diseases.

So.. lay back and spread you legs, Saddam...

 

Doesnt sound like that to me Tpak, maybe you misunderstood me, or i misunderstood you.

The point i made was that Saddam has got an obligation to allow a UN inspection team to have an in-depth look. The problem isnt just going to dissapear for Iraq, America is hell-bent on starting this war. Therefore, there would be nothing better for Saddam Hussein to be able to provide all the necessary evidence and be seen to be going out of his way to accomodate the UN, at which point he can then stick his 2 fingers up to the USA and tell them to f*ck off out of his back-yard, which he would no doubt love to do!

So why doesnt he do that? Only reason i can think is simply because he cannot, because he does have at least some form of banned weapons.

@ Bas: Some of the reports i have read today about Hans Blix, including hundreds of rocket engines being smuggled in to Iraq, 6500 chemical bombs unaccounted for and 'strong indications' that anthrax has been stockpiled. The recent chemical warhead find could be 'the tip of an iceberg'.

In addition to this, inspectors have been delayed from entering sites because of faked car-crashes on the highways leading to the sites (why delay them if nothing to hide??) and, despite assurances to the contrary from the Iraqis, scientists are being monitored for everything they tell the inspectors by minders who follow their every move.

Sorry, but if you honestly believe that Iraq has got 'nothing' and poses 'no threat' then your mistaken. Otherwise, there would be no need for all the attempts to stop the inspectors doing their job.

-glas-

 

But you did say it was an unofficial accusation, didn't you? So, who exactly said that? The whole US government, or just some persons? However, there may be Al Quaida terrorists in northern Iraq, but I don't see why that would necessariliy mean Kurds are providing cover for them. Perhaps they just don't care about every single individual, your manny specific claims on certain aspects of the cultures, like the hard faced Kurd community, making any stranger look like santa clause himself who can either only be lynched or supported, I cannot verify, and I do not know if you're not only painting the wall that black in every aspect to suit your "NO" to war. Because this is the bottom line, you stated that war is unacceptable for you to be a legitime measure as a last option in general, and I've got the feeling that you use anything you can, including your knowledge of ethnical situation there, to create dramatic potential armageddon scenarios only to build a wall around that "NO". In the same time you have to show that war can never be a solution even if it was so in 1945, in 1991 for Kuwait, in the 90s for Balkan and 2002 in Afghanistan, you pull out the Burka stuff, claim western media as propagandic and call only anecdotes of your cousin reliable and nothing else.

*In all its history - and the europeans have a very long and proud history - they never managed to avoid fighting and betraying each other. I think its unlikely that such old and tradional enemies could work together.* In what hopeless hell of a world do you live? On the one hand you say "NO" to any war as you think there is always another way, and on the other hand you say war is unavoidable and almost natural because of "traditional enemies"? Maybe their leaders are just dumb then and need a big brother watching them, which will be the case after a possible 3. gulf war.
I think you're ignoring history again. And I think this is again to harden your strange and unrealistic assumption, in contrast with actual history, that war is never able to solve problems.

I didn't consider that speech as very intelligent either. However, Bush didn't attack the Iranian people, but the current regimes, and this was short after 9/11. Of course Iranian propaganda machine can turn that in anything it wants and I bet they spared the parts when Bush mentioned the surpression of those countries' own people, one point for that "evilness".

Well, as long as they don't fall down to the bottom with their diplomatic "skills" like Germany did by saying your "NO! Whatever!", working right into the hands of Saddam, damaging the credibility of a determined UN, and thus making an US strike actually more possible because of an unimpressed Saddam, they'll do rather fine I'm sure.

I didn't know SCUDS care about how many boarders they're crossing.

Well, isn't that cool? Better than having your enemies united and get attacked by the whole arab world again. From what I heard Arabs already achieved a pretty good union when battling Israel.

But it also could get better. You don't know either. But it's VERY reasonable that not only the US, but the whole UN will do everything possible towards the better, because this is a major part of the whole idea. About the innocent civilians. What about the innocent civlians threatened by a WMD owning Iraq? Do you first regret them when they are gassed, or what has to happen to make them innocent civilians? And what about the innocent civilians in Iraq suffering from the sanctions, which only Saddam Hussein himself is responsible for, while he rather spends the money he has on SAMs for the no-fly zones, re-build of the military and re-build of facilities which have been destroyed by inspectors before 1998, like Blix told you.

Just a qick reminder, Saddam already used them. But there was no fear of retaliation you'll say, ok. However, I wouldn't consider a "Cold War" in the middle east as the ideal "solution". Remember that in the cold war the world did come close to an end several times not only during the Cuban crises, and often luck was involved in prevention. I really don't want to see a cold nuclear war between Israel and the Arabs in the heat of the middle east.

Yes, that's the point. And yes, it is shocking. It is shocking because innocent people will die. It doesn't even matter if those "smart weapons" or "dumb iron bombs" dropped from "smart airplanes" are that precise or not, because with one civilian casultie one too many has died. But the only one who'd be responsible for that is Iraq. That again doesn't matter though. Gone is gone, no matter who's responsible for. And of course if you don't see a threat in Iraq, not even in the future, there isn't any reason at all. But I see that threat. A threat which yet again other innocent civilianes are faced with. And, again by contrast to you, I see hope for actual improvement in that region in the long run, but at least for the Iraqi people after they got rid of that dictatorship AND of the sanctions therefore.

I don't see how wearing the Burka does mean that there was no improvement at all over the former situation under the Taliban.

No, because I'm really sure that in Iraq the situation after a war will be very similar to that in Germany after the war in terms of occupation forces AND political system build-up, as any more limited measures to controll the developement in Iraq would be completely paradox to the goals of a possible war.

Still ridiculous and highly to be suspicous about, just like with Sharping's serbian concentration camps in the football stadion of Belgrad and elsewhere. Especially if that "calling-for-propaganda"-news come from only once source and cannot be varified.

Is Germany, which did also send material into Iraq,
included amongst those "other nations"?

Again, Germany not named. You think we didn't benefit from that as an important economic partner of those countries you list? As long as you do not act, but only benefit, it's allright?

So, as far as this goes, your only alternative, which is meant to be considered more intelligent, was a Cold War in the middle east .

How about a cold war over there as well? Over time, we maybe manage to have the whole world back in a cold war . No, seriously: I agree that one should go for political solutions, but sometimes, with no compliance, something must be done, and primitive regimes are in danger to also face a primitve level of policy then.

Yes.

Regards
heartc