Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dont.wanna.tell · Mar 26, 2003, 04:25 AM

Salve!

There is something I always wonder in all this discussion:

To me it seems that some of you really believe that this war will somehow end terrorism on this world (or at least make America more safe).

Well I wonder, I never understood that. How is this supposed to happen?

I mean, if I where Saddam and I had _any_ A/B/C weapons I would have either fired them by now (no use in sparing them anymore) or I would have given them to the first terror organisation that I know/asked for them.

Is there something wrong with my thinking?

---- But if it's right, how is this gonna stop terrorism in this world?

Wondering,
Martin

Zimphire · Mar 26, 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
I mean, if I where Saddam and I had _any_ A/B/C weapons I would have either fired them by now (no use in sparing them anymore) or I would have given them to the first terror organisation that I know/asked for them.

Saddam wont fire any such weapons until he feels all is lost, and he has no chance left. If Iraq launched them now, he would lose ALL support.

snotnose · Mar 26, 2003, 04:35 AM

yep, he has lied and lied and lied, and he apparently won't use then until he is complete backed into a corner (baghdad) and could possibly use them like last time when iran invaded iraq.

the thing is, we have a president that isn't taking the chance with him. he hates the US as do pretty much everyone in the middle east and we arent chancing anything

SOLIDAge · Mar 26, 2003, 04:46 AM

it won't end it
but it will help with one more dictator gonnne

kvm_mkdb · Mar 26, 2003, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
Is there something wrong with my thinking?

I agree with you 100% - Saddam is a bloody dictator, but not fool or crazy.

---- But if it's right, how is this gonna stop terrorism in this world?

It's not. Just like the 'war on drugs': it's supposed to go on and on forever.

snotnose · Mar 26, 2003, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:

It's not. Just like the 'war on drugs': it's supposed to go on and on forever.

wrong completely. its an attempt to deal with the problem one step at a time.

thats like imagining only being able to cure a disease all at once, instead of doing what you have the capability of doing at a certain time until you do find a complete cure.

Mastrap · Mar 26, 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by snotnose:
could possibly use them like last time when iran invaded iraq.

When was that then exactly?

dont.wanna.tell · Mar 26, 2003, 05:54 AM

wrong completely. its an attempt to deal with the problem one step at a time.

So does this mean that I can rest assured that America will go to every country supporting terrorism and fix things up? (Iran, North Korea, [Israel?] and a whole bunch of others come to mind here)

I mean, I for one seem to see that really many people in this world get really upset at America by this course of action. And wouldn't this mean that there are more people who are willing to become a terrorist?

(Please keep in mind that it doesn't take the support of a state to be a succesfull terrorist, terrrorism is cheap!)

Still wondering,
Martin

Zimphire · Mar 26, 2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
(Please keep in mind that it doesn't take the support of a state to be a succesfull terrorist, terrrorism is cheap!)

Still wondering,
Martin

9/11 was hardly cheap.

Logic · Mar 26, 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
9/11 was hardly cheap.

It wasn't expencive either. Flight training, boxcutters and tickets. Of course it did cost them some. But terrorism isn't all about killing as many as possible. It's more about scare tactics and about destroying monuments etc.

This just in.
Two missiles hit market in residential area. Do you think this will help to reduce terror? 14 dead, several wounded.

Zimphire · Mar 26, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
It wasn't expencive either. Flight training, boxcutters and tickets.

I am not sure if you really know how much all of it costs Logic. It was so much, that there was obviously someone with a large chunk of cash donating to the cause. If you think it costs a couple a thousand dollars, think again. Well over the 6 digit range.

This just in.
Two missiles hit market in residential area. Do you think this will help to reduce terror? 14 dead, several wounded.

I don't think it will effect it either way. Saddam still kills more of his own than we ever will.

theolein · Mar 26, 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by snotnose:
... and could possibly use them like last time when iran invaded iraq.

...

I hate to have to break it to you this way, but it was actually the other way around. Iraq invaded Iran.

It might be difficult to read, but have a go anyway.

boots · Mar 26, 2003, 09:22 AM

Well, I am not a foreign policy expert, but I'll try to lay it out as I understand the arguements.

There is a real fear of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda (and others) getting chemical, biological, or (especially) nuclear weapons (WMD). There are only so many ways that these groups can get WMD.

Primarily, this action (regarding terrorism) is about removing a rogue state with the potential for supplying WMD to terrorist groups. The idea being that only soveriegn states would have the resources to develop weaponized bio- and chemical weapons and nuclear devices. So this won't stop terrorism as a final blow, but is a step in cutting off supply lines.

Also, there are also some bigger picture expectations. If a government could be established in the middle east that would recognize both Isreal and Palestine as soveriegn states, this could go a long way toward changing the political land scape and offer much greater stability in the middle east. I think the US/UK administrations think there will be a domino-effect if this is done properly.

I think there is a lot of big picture stuff that isn't focused on in the media. Sort of not seeing the forest for the trees.

dencamp · Mar 26, 2003, 09:33 AM

______
Saddam still kills more of his own than we ever will.
____

That logic breaks my fricken heart.

What moral abacus do we have to use. Not a flame. Just damn sad that in the midst of Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, a one sentance justification for death of innocents is possible.

Zimphire · Mar 26, 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by dencamp:

That logic breaks my fricken heart.

What moral abacus do we have to use. Not a flame. Just damn sad that in the midst of Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, a one sentance justification for death of innocents is possible.

I was replying to how it will effect terrorism. I said I don't think it will, as Saddam kills many more people (On purpose mind you) than we have. That isn't justifying the death of innocent people. And in no way was I trying to say it did.

kvm_mkdb · Mar 26, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by boots:
Also, there are also some bigger picture expectations. If a government could be established in the middle east that would recognize both Isreal and Palestine as soveriegn states, this could go a long way toward changing the political land scape and offer much greater stability in the middle east. I think the US/UK administrations think there will be a domino-effect if this is done properly.

Last year Crown Prince Abdullah from Saudi Arabia proposed an peace plan with Israel: outlining a full withdrawal by Israel to its June 4, 1967, boundaries (including getting out of East Jerusalem), in accordance with United Nations resolutions. In exchange, Arabs would give Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees between Israel and the 22 Arab League states.
The US praised the plan, but Israel refused.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 26, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
The US praised the plan, but Israel refused.

I seem to recall someone else also refusing. Hmmm. Let's guess what his name is. He's short, has a beard, has several hundred million stashed away in Switzerland . . .

boots · Mar 26, 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Last year Crown Prince Abdullah from Saudi Arabia proposed an peace plan with Israel: outlining a full withdrawal by Israel to its June 4, 1967, boundaries (including getting out of East Jerusalem), in accordance with United Nations resolutions. In exchange, Arabs would give Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees between Israel and the 22 Arab League states.
The US praised the plan, but Israel refused.

Yeah, well....I didn't say it would go as planned....I don't think there is a basis for trust yet. If there was a government that Isreal trusted, the situation might be different. I also think that if we have another base of strong influence in the region, our stance with Isreal will start to change.

deedar · Mar 26, 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:

Is there something wrong with my thinking?

---- But if it's right, how is this gonna stop terrorism in this world?

Wondering,
Martin

No, I don't think that there is anything wrong with your thinking. It baffles me too. Seems to me that if we REALLY wanted to minimize terrorism, we wouldn't be wasting our time and resources with this despot and further fanning the flames of Arab rage. This may, and I say may, get rid of Saddam, but I promise you it will also breed many, many more little Osamas, thus actually increasing terrorism over the long run.

Seems to me that we should:

1. Spend our time, resources and energy tracking down Osama and the rest of al-Qaeda and other known and more acute threats.

2. Do everything in our power to IMPROVE our relationship with the Arab world. This should be, but sadly isn�t, a no-brainer. I'm not sure exactly what this would entail, but bombing Baghdad isn't on the list. Maybe we could consider a more balanced approach in dealing with the Palestinians and Israel, for starters. I don�t advocate abandoning Israel; I think that we need to be tougher with them, though. I realize that our relationship with Israel isn�t the only problem, but it would be a good place to start.

Why we (the US) don't do these things is beyond me.

davesimondotcom · Mar 26, 2003, 10:29 AM

Whether you agree with President Bush's words when he called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the Axis of Evil, it seems to have been fairly on target.

Iraq has continued to evade the UN and hide it's weapons of mass distruction. North Korea has raised a stink and Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons.

This military action may very well cause rebellion that overthrows the Iranian government with no action from the US. There are already millions demonstrating in Iran.

The action may very well deter North Korea - if Kim sees what might be coming, he may tuck his tail and shut up.

Overall, the effect may be to pretty much show that we won't just sit there and be terrorized. We'll work to ensure our safety.

I can understand the arguments that it is preemptive in nature, etc. However, I think that in an era when it only takes one nuke to kill millions, waiting on that event would be rather silly. Even JFK saw a time coming when preemptive action would be required.

Of course, at the very least, it eliminates an evil dictator from power. Which definitely isn't a bad thing.

macvillage.net · Mar 26, 2003, 11:38 AM

I think part of Bush wants this to continue.

While aweful, it's great for politics.

Terrorism is a form of war. People historically keep a leader in office during a time of war, regardless of what happens. Even if Bush is awful at diplomacy, foreign relations, and economics... he can still win another term, just because we are at war.

You really think they waited this long "just because"? The timing of this war was predicted by the general public years ago. And was dead on.

This secures an election for him. If he wants relection... he really has to mess up to not get it.

Mastrap · Mar 26, 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

and hide it's weapons of mass distruction.

Which ones exactly?

davesimondotcom · Mar 26, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Which ones exactly?

The chemicals he obviously intends to use if he can. If not, why would his troups have atropine injectors and biochem suits?

Mastrap · Mar 26, 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The chemicals he obviously intends to use if he can. If not, why would his troups have atropine injectors and biochem suits?

Leftovers from the Iraq-Iran war.

The way you said it made it look as if we knew for a fact that he had WMD hidden somewhere. Fact is, we don't.

theolein · Mar 26, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I seem to recall someone else also refusing. Hmmm. Let's guess what his name is. He's short, has a beard, has several hundred million stashed away in Switzerland . . .

STFU! Who told you to let them know?

theolein · Mar 26, 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Whether you agree with President Bush's words when he called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the Axis of Evil, it seems to have been fairly on target.

Iraq has continued to evade the UN and hide it's weapons of mass distruction. North Korea has raised a stink and Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons.

This military action may very well cause rebellion that overthrows the Iranian government with no action from the US. There are already millions demonstrating in Iran.

The action may very well deter North Korea - if Kim sees what might be coming, he may tuck his tail and shut up.

Overall, the effect may be to pretty much show that we won't just sit there and be terrorized. We'll work to ensure our safety.

I can understand the arguments that it is preemptive in nature, etc. However, I think that in an era when it only takes one nuke to kill millions, waiting on that event would be rather silly. Even JFK saw a time coming when preemptive action would be required.

Of course, at the very least, it eliminates an evil dictator from power. Which definitely isn't a bad thing.

Judging from the way things are going in Iran, the Iranians are very worried that they will be next. The Problem is that the reformist government (you should read up on this you know, you're making some pretty wild statements there) that has been trying to push through reforms will lose support to the conservative religious Judiciary if the country feels threatened. No one, and I mean no one in Iran wants a war. I don't know if you ever get to see documentaries on every day life in Iran, but the country is finding it's own solutions. It's not a question of how long it takes but a question of whether it happens. The Iranians lost around one million soldiers in the war with Iraq that both Iraq and Iran are to blame for. The Iranians were doused with chemical weapons and their cities were rocketed by Iraqi scuds. And to top it all, they basically lost that war. The Iran of today is not the same Iran immediately after the Islamic revolution, and the Government is not run by KHomeini, who'e dead. The country is difficult and the Judiciary uses anything to get opponenets sentenced to death. But it is by far the most democratic Moslem country (apart from Turkey) in that area, and really deserves to sort out it own problems and be left alone.

They are far from Angels, but there are far worse countries in the world.

Powerbook · 01:15 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
This military action may very well cause rebellion that overthrows the Iranian government with no action from the US. There are already millions demonstrating in Iran.

Huh?! No way. http://www.spiegel.de/jahrbuch/0,1518,IRN,00.html#akt

Zimphire · Mar 26, 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Leftovers from the Iraq-Iran war.

Those were very new, for then to be that old. These are the latest "issues" from what has been said.

The way you said it made it look as if we knew for a fact that he had WMD hidden somewhere. Fact is, we don't.

No, fact is YOU don't know. I would never even try to make any comments as to what the Gov knows. Because only the people in charge know what the Gov knows.

finboy · Mar 26, 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
This military action may very well cause rebellion that overthrows the Iranian government with no action from the US. There are already millions demonstrating in Iran.

More importantly, aside from the "protesters" we've seen in Iran in the last few years, there is an active counter-political movement that is growing in popularity among mainstream Iranians. As with Iraq, there is a flourishing middle class there, high levels of education, and a great deal of infrastructure. Regardless of any "protests", our action to stabilize Iraq and promote democracy there will serve as an example to the Iranians and other people's in the region. That's one of the reasons it was opposed as much as it was by the other governments. If Iraq can develop into a moderate state, what's to keep democracy out of The Kingdom, Syria, Jordan (who isn't afraid of it) and other states?

The argument that Bush is doing this for politics amazes me: his father lost an election after a successful war. There is NO WAY anyone can argue that taking this much heat is politically favorable. He has opened himself up for all kinds of political criticism, as we're seeing now (the terms "failure of diplomacy" "man of faith" and "neo-conservative" come to mind as Lefty buzzwords). Even if this war is short, there is no political edge to this -- he's acting on principle. I think the American people, by and large, get this right.

Mastrap · Mar 26, 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, fact is YOU don't know. I would never even try to make any comments as to what the Gov knows. Because only the people in charge know what the Gov knows. [/B]

The US and the UK government as well as the UN have repeatedly stated that there is no way to prove that SH owns WMD.

If you have access to better sources than the US government I'd be delighted to know about them.

christ · Mar 26, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I seem to recall someone else also refusing. Hmmm. Let's guess what his name is. He's short, has a beard, has several hundred million stashed away in Switzerland . . .

Toulouse Lautrec?

christ · Mar 26, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The chemicals he obviously intends to use if he can. If not, why would his troups have atropine injectors and biochem suits?

By that logic, our glorious leaders also intend to use chemical weapons. (As our troops have defences against chemical weapons too)

christ · Mar 26, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
The US and the UK government as well as the UN have repeatedly stated that there is no way to prove that SH owns WMD.

there is a way.

Goad him into using them.

Then 'Hah - Gotcha!'

simonjames · Mar 26, 2003, 04:59 PM

I've got the flame proof suit on so here goes.....

You're assuming that this war is targeting terrorism but it isn't.

It is mainly about controlling one of the largest useable (accessible) oil fields on this planet. Taking over Iraq will (most probably - IMO) increase terrorism. Islamic people see this not as a war on Saddam but a war on Islam - you think they're going to sit quiet from now on?

finboy · Mar 26, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by simonjames:
I've got the flame proof suit on so here goes.....
You're assuming that this war is targeting terrorism but it isn't.

That FUD-stream aside, please stick to the topic of the thread. Thank Allah that the ignore list isn't limited.

This war will contribute to killing some terrorists (they're fighting for Saddam right now) and making the fear of death/capture real to others. In addition, this war has greatly disrupted the global chain of terrorists hostels and summer camps operated in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, etc. It's the elimination of regimes which have found it profitable to allow safe havens in the past that has the most promise to reduce the spread of terrorism.

Folks blame terrorism on the living conditions and political repression around the world -- this will begin to fix that problem in Iraq at least.

simonjames · Mar 26, 2003, 05:23 PM

Finboy - you're a tool

what were the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists?

Iraqi? No

Saudi - Yes

All the war is going to do is get rid of one dictator who doesn't like Yanks and thousands of innocent people. No terrorists - just civilians.

If the war was about terrorism the US would be attacking Riyad now. (excuse spelling)

snotnose · Mar 26, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I hate to have to break it to you this way, but it was actually the other way around. Iraq invaded Iran.

It might be difficult to read, but have a go anyway.

i hate to break it to you, but as i have read in the past, iraq did invade iran and everyone knows that. but after some length of time, iran progressed into iraq and that is supposedly when they used the chemical weapons

i would say around this time was one particular time

The only major ground offensive, involving an estimated 60,000 Iranian troops, occurred in March 1985, near Basra; once again, the assault proved inconclusive except for heavy casualties. In 1986, however, Iraq suffered a major loss in the southern region. On February 9, Iran launched a successful surprise amphibious assault across the Shatt al Arab and captured the abandoned Iraqi oil port of Al Faw. The occupation of Al Faw, a logistical feat, involved 30,000 regular Iranian soldiers who rapidly entrenched themselves. Saddam Hussein vowed to eliminate the bridgehead "at all costs," and in April 1988 the Iraqis succeeded in regaining the Al Faw peninsula.

clod · Mar 26, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by christ:
By that logic, our glorious leaders also intend to use chemical weapons. (As our troops have defences against chemical weapons too)

You should know very well that the US troops are wearing chem/bio suits to protect themselves from an Iraqi chem/bio attack. Not the other way around.

clod · Mar 26, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by simonjames:
If the war was about terrorism the US would be attacking Riyad now. (excuse spelling)

The Saudi Arabian government does not actively support terrorism.

thunderous_funker · Mar 26, 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by clod:
The Saudi Arabian government does not actively support terrorism.

If I agree to that will you agree to saying the same thing about the PLO?

Or are you just using a very stringent definition of "actively"?

finboy · Mar 26, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by simonjames:
Finboy - you're a tool

Welcome to the elite represented in my ignore list. Thanks for the admiration of my tool, though.

christ · Mar 26, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by clod:
You should know very well that the US troops are wearing chem/bio suits to protect themselves from an Iraqi chem/bio attack. Not the other way around.

From your point of view. The previous poster noted that the fact that the Iraqi soldiers were carrying 'atropine injectors and biochem suits' meant that SH intended to use chemical weapons.

This implies that the logic is:

Iraqi carries prophylactic = Iraq to use weapons

but:

Ally carries prophylactic = Iraq to use weapons.

Sounds like 'Heads I win, Tails you lose' to me.

simonjames · Mar 26, 2003, 05:48 PM

This is a genuine question - take it as such.

Why were most of the 9/11 terrorists Saudis? If Osama was working out of Afganistan wouldn't it have been easier to use locals? Or Pakistan nationals? What nationality is Osama? (I forgot)

kvm_mkdb · Mar 26, 2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I seem to recall someone else also refusing. Hmmm. Let's guess what his name is. He's short, has a beard, has several hundred million stashed away in Switzerland . . .

I didn't know that and can't find anything in regard. Could you please provide a link?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 26, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
I didn't know that and can't find anything in regard. Could you please provide a link?

No I can't off hand.

Think about it. In order for there to be a peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians, two sides have to agree. You named one.

mo · Mar 26, 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by christ:
Toulouse Lautrec?

I knew the French were involved, somehow.

kvm_mkdb · Mar 26, 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No I can't off hand.

Think about it. In order for there to be a peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians, two sides have to agree. You named one.

It takes two sides to negotiate a settlement.
It takes one side to reject it.

simonjames · Mar 26, 2003, 06:39 PM

woo hoo - I've been added to finboy's ignore list. Now I won't get any juvenile responses to my posts - this ignore list is friggin excellent!!

Now how do I get added to Spliff's and Zimp's and ......

clod · Mar 26, 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If I agree to that will you agree to saying the same thing about the PLO?

Or are you just using a very stringent definition of "actively"?

Very stringent.

theolein · Mar 26, 2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No I can't off hand.

Think about it. In order for there to be a peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians, two sides have to agree. You named one.

I don't think so. That logic is perhaps a bit flawed. For an agreement to work, both sides have to agree, that is true. But for it to fail only takes one, irrespective of which one that is.