|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-09 14:39:56
Recently I have watched the anti-war movement grow in Canada, and around the world. I am sure that the people in this movement mean well, however, the vast, vast majority of them are quite ignorant and ill informed, and I do include some from these discussions.
After WWI, Germany signed the Versailles Treaty, and were under int'l obligation to follow certain rules. When good ol' Hitler came into power, he broke one condition after another, pushing, and seeing how far he could go before the int'l community said something. Well, as he re-armed, annexed Austria, and invaded the Sudetenland in Czechlslovokia, the UK, France, and everyone else did nothing, because they (understandably) did not want war. They thought he would just stop breaking int'l law, if they appeased him enough. Well, because of this delay (Hitler's army was quite small until the late 30's) 55 million people died, only 9M of those military personnel. He could have been stopped long before 1945, at a much lower cost of life.
The same thing is happening today with Iraq. Hussein defies the UN again, and again. Just today Iraq gave some documents regarding anthrax and VX nerve agents. I thought they had already co-operated fully, and given everything they had? What else do they possess that they haven't shown? Everyone seems to forget that in order to have this peace we cherish, sacrifices need to be made. And while you anti war protesters go on protesting, a small minority will go and ensure that your freedoms and your rights to protest are assured, sacrificing all they have. Only when there is an attack directly on our soil will you be convinced of the painfully obvious. But I don't want to have to say, "I told you so", hopefully that will never happen.
Ignorance of history and the preference to believe in conspiracy theories such as the ridiculous "All about oil" favourite, are the root causes of the anti war movement. I wouldn't care but our government is influened by popular opinion, and when the popular opinion is ignorant and ill informed then we have a very big problem. Hopefully, Canada will be its own entity, and do what is right. Not just follow the UN, or the US. In this situation it just happens to be that what is right is also the position the US is taking.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-02-09 18:53:27
Waterloo
Are you aware that the USA supplied Hitler with Nitrates from Chile and with USA scrap metal until 1942. Does that mean that Canadian boys were being killed with US raw materials?
Are you aware that Israel has been defying UN resolutions for years? Do you know the difference between "small sacrifices and mass murder"? Do you really believe that Iraqu has the ability to attack and survive? Canada will do what is in Canada's best interest and that is not decided by Canada all the time.
Since you are obviously well infirmed,you may be able to clarify my simple questions.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-10 01:07:00
No problem. Yes it does mean Canadian boys were being killed with US raw materials. I fail to see your point. The US has been killed by its own materials. They have a stellar record of taking sides, supporting one side, and then later fighting the group they previously supported. I am not an American cheerleader. I resent very much that they did not enter either World War until later on, and in WWII, only after they were attacked. What does this have to do with Iraq?
Secondly, I never said the sacrifices were small. On the contrary, I do not think there is any greater sacrifice. Please do not put words in my mouth. And of course I know the difference between sacrifices and mass murder. If the US wanted to kill civilians, then the amount of civilians killed by them would be exponentially higher.
Third, Israel does not pose a threat to global stability, Iraq does. Israel has not used WMDs, the current Iraqi government has. It is not enough to attack a country simply because they violate int'l law, and I never said that, they must also pose a threat. War should always be a last resort.
Finally, the Iraqi government doesn't care if its people survive or not. They have proven this again and again. I think even the most ignorant person can think of at least a couple of examples. They do not have the capability to do any real damage to anyone far outside their borders yet, but that is why resolution 1441 was instituted: to make sure that it stays that way. Once Iraq does make either a nuke, or more bio/chemical weapons, then it will be too late. That must be prevented. Hope I helped clarify.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-10 11:52:33
Do you realize that the basis for war is based on outright lies as has been proven this past week when Powell's presentation to the UN was shown to be based on plagiarized 12 year old material? Powell highly praised the UK intelligence sources who put together this material and subsequently used it to try and persuade the world to back the US in a war against Iraq.
NOt only that, but his own material was nothing but a fabrication. here are some examples:
"Al-Baradei put the kibosh on at least one specific charge made
by Washington when he reported that aluminum tubes alleged by U.S.
officials to have been imported by Iraq for use in uranium-enrichment
centrifuges were, in fact, unsuitable for this purpose and had been
used, as Iraq claimed, for missile-engine development." (Tony Karon,
Time Magazine)
Baradei's conclusions were also supported by former UNSCOM inspector
David Albright, who believes it unlikely that these tubes were
destined for Iraq's nuclear program.
The question begs itself: why did Powell contradict the IAEA and
persist that the tubes are a "whimpering gun" when the world's leading
atomic and nuclear institutions conclude the contrary? Why was the
same contradiction voiced during the State of the Union Address just
one day after Baradei's statements?
The pictures, graphics and satellite images of Iraqi sites
are reminiscent of the evidence the U.S. alleged in September when it
claimed that the Tuwaitha site in Iraq had undergone reconstruction to
house nuclear weapons-related centrifuges. UNMOVIC visited this and
other sites in the September report. They came up empty. Vigorous
soil, air, and water samples were taken of Tuwaitha, and other sites,
and analyzed. Any chemical, biological, or nuclear activity leaves
traces and residue that once analyzed could act as irrefutable proof.
Once again, UNMOVIC and IAEA tests came up empty.
Powell provided satellite imagery of the Taji complex near Baghdad and
showed specific areas in Taji where illicit chemical and biological
weapons were being researched and stored.
UNMOVIC inspectors have routinely and persistently visited, revisited,
and re-revisited the Taji complex since early December and have found
nothing to substantiate Powell's allegations. The inspectors have
intruded into people's houses, scaled walls, taken air, water and soil
samples in and around Taji and produced no evidence of illicit
activity.
Do you not ask yourself why they are lying so blatantly?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-10 13:18:40
I have thought about it, and the problem is that plainly obvious facts do not mollify those people who want to work with Saddam Hussein. Many of our self-dubbed "peace" activists have hidden agendas that prevent them from seeing the state of the world - despite the wake up call of 9/11.
Some hidden agendas of the peace movement include:
Attempts to contain the terrorist threat to Americans. As a means of protecting ourselves, we are trying to shift the terrorist risk to the US. By jumping on the anti-American bandwagon, we think we are saving ourselves from the terrorists. This is Osamma's greatest strategic move - its classic divide and conquer.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-10 20:01:30
If our target in joining a US led attack was ObL I wouldn't be hesitating but the proposal isn't to go get ObL. Saddam Hussein is NOT ObL. There are no demonstrated links between ObL and Hussein, in fact there's demonstrated animosity. There are no demonstrated links between Sept11/01 and Hussein. There's only allegations.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-10 20:52:39
Thank goodness you are in the minority, cfallon. Even retired CIA members thinks this war against Iraq is a bad idea. Read on:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- CIA veterans have warned the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq, saying that doing so would further widen the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds and increase the incidence of terrorism.
In a statement sent to media organizations earlier this week, the retired CIA officials also referred to an agency assessment report last fall, which, they said, opposed a military offensive against Iraq.
They urged the Bush administration to "re-read" the CIA report that pointed out: "The forces fueling hatred of the United States and fueling al Qaida recruiting are not being addressed" and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist."
That CIA report cited a Gallup poll last year of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries, in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased."
Terrorism, the CIA veterans said, is like malaria. "You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be swamped with swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a phalanx of security personnel."
The veterans refer to an Oct. 7, 2002 letter the CIA sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in which the agency said that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with weapons of mass destruction or give them to terrorists. That was so unless: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.
In light of such statements, how can any sane person think that bombing Iraq is going to solve that area's problems?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-11 00:05:23
marl, you continually give articles to support your position. News releases are a very poor source of supporting documentation. The media is always incredibly biased. Just as you can give evidence such as the above, I can give you some of CIA agents, current and retired, that support the war, and think Iraq to be a threat. The prevalent view of the CIA and its agents is that Iraq is a threat, you only cite the minority. In short, you display evidence that supports your claims, while ignoring or dismissing all the other evidence that contradicts them.
And might I add that it is more than just bombing Iraq. Allied troops will go in on foot, into street fighting that is sure to have high casualties. Simply bombing Iraq will not solve anyone's problems, least of all the US's. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein will be removed at a high cost, and if our soldiers do go (which I believe VERY strongly they should), then they need our support, not our ingratitude.
Furthermore, it is not about removing Hussein because the US doesn't like him, or even because he has started wars, or used WMDs in the past. It is about ensuring that he does not use them again in the future, and it looks to me that since he wants to be stubborn about it, only through force will this happen. War is an ugly, ugly thing, where there is suffering only comprehensible to the people who live in it. Trust me I don't want it, but neither did our boys in WWI, WWII, or Korea. That didn't stop them, though.
marl, would you have been opposed to the war against Hitler as well? It's a little known fact, but there were anti war protesters then too, in Canada and elsewhere.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-11 10:58:23
I agree that the news media is a very poor source of information. You say that you can give me current CIA agents who support the war. Who are they?
Here's another source who gives many instances of US propaganda to support attacking other countries. Not a news media source:
JOHN QUIGLEY,
Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said today: "When other U.N. member states react to the presentation by Secretary of State Colin Powell, they do so against a background of knowledge that in the past the U.S. has presented information to the Security Council on war and peace issues that later turned out to be false." Some examples:
* On three occasions, it told the Council it was invading other states because U.S. nationals were in danger there: Dominican Republic 1965, Grenada 1983, Panama 1989. In none of these instances were U.S. nationals in danger.
* In 1954, when the elected government of Guatemala was overthrown militarily by Guatemalan military officers, the U.S. was charged before the Council with organizing the coup. It denied to the Council any involvement. In fact it organized the coup.
* In 1964, it told the Council that U.S. vessels had been attacked by Vietnamese vessels in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. This information was based on reports from U.S. vessels that the vessels' commander soon said were in error. Nonetheless, the State Department used the information before the Council and relied on it as a major rationale for a military buildup in Vietnam.
* In 1993, after it launched missiles at the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad, the U.S. government told the Council that the circuitry found in a Renault (vehicle) at the Iraq-Kuwait border was of a type that linked it to the Iraqi intelligence service, and that the Renault was part of a plot to assassinate George Bush, who was then visiting Kuwait. As later analysis showed, the circuitry was not of a type that showed a connection to the Iraqi intelligence service.
* In 1998, the U.S. government told the Council that it had launched missiles against Khartoum, Sudan, because VX nerve gas was being produced at a factory there. In fact, no nerve gas was being produced there, as later acknowledged by administration officials.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-11 18:56:36
No problem: CIA director George Tenet.
And marl, I think everyone understands that the US has made mistakes in the past, and jumped to conclusions rahter quickly; pointing this out is neither useful or informative. The UN has its share of horrifically fatal and catastrophic failures, far worse than the US, but they should not be discredited from now on either. I agree that the US is often far too quick to pull the trigger, however, the situation in Iraq is not one of these times. The evidence is there if one is willing to acknowledge it, and the threat is one far too great to let become uncontainable.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: diana
Date: 2003-02-13 15:35:38
cfallon,
The peace movement doesn't have a hidden agenda, it has a different view of what the solution to the problem of terrorism might be. Bombing other countries will not make the world a safer place, but perhaps changing our foreign policies so that the elimination of global poverty becomes a priority might have other populations feeling less hostile to the ones who are benefiting from their resources and cheap labour. Many people in the peace movement are also involved in the fair trade movement. It's hard to incite people to violence when their human rights are being honoured and their bellies are full. Sounds like a much better way of fighting terrorism to me...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-16 11:37:36
You do realize that Osama Bin Laden is a multimillionaire? I doubt he was starving or being oppressed... Would you agree?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: diana
Date: 2003-02-17 14:23:47
He's not the only terrorist, and I'm sure most terrorists are not multimillionaires. Do you really think attacking Iraq will have the effect of creating fewer terrorist?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-18 23:39:04
Creating fewer terrorists isn't the point. The point is disarming a man who has proven to be capable of using WMDs, as well as lying about having them. More terrorists is a better scenario than less terrorists but having to deal with a WMD threat.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-19 23:21:55
Take a look at Canada's banned terrorist list; you will see they are all well financed, some would say well “oiled”. This idea that only poor people are criminals is utter non-sense, don’t buy into it.
Iraq is at war right now, Saddam's cronies butcher people regularly, IF we support the Iraqi Kurds & Shi'is Muslims to topple Saddam that would be beneficial to all involved. How can we stand by and do nothing? Why are we allowing these people to be butchered over the last 10 years? Is it because it hasn’t being happening in our own back yards? Do you want a Canada that only keeps the peace when it is convenient?
As far as creating terrorist, have you noticed that all these killers are coming from countries that are not democracies? Give that some thought & research first, then I’ll respond further if you like.
Lastly, if we do nothing the next attack will be mushroom clouds, not a simple aircraft, remember these terror organizations have the money and the will power, all that is missing is the resources of Iraq or perhaps N. Korea.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-10 16:25:48
marl, have you spoken to exiled Iraqis lately?
How about current Iraqis who have joined American forces to topple Saddam?
How about the Iraqis who are angered because we didn't finish the job of removing Saddam in 91?
I also recall all the peaceniks saying give sanctions a chance, now those appeasers have blood on their hands because those sanctions have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Admit it, we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. If we proceed at least at some point we can end Saddam's rein of terror, install democracy and see Iraq flourish. The same way, Japan, Germany, and France flourish today after WWII.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-10 12:17:52
A threat to global stability? Perhaps you should think again who really is a threat to global stability. Read on.
John MacArthur, author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, reminds us that both Bush administrations shared many of the same top officials. "These are all the same people who were running it more than ten years ago," he says. "They’ll make up just about anything-- to get their way." It’s the same old crew, all right, the wonderful folks who brought us the too-soon-forgotten Iran-Contra scandal. Obviously, Big Oil is over-represented in Bush Junior’s administration. The Bushistas, including Vice President Dick Cheney (Halliburton Oil), Commerce Secretary Don Evans (Colorado Oil), National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice (Chevron), Secretary of Commerce and State Department official Richard Haas, have served as executives and consultants for international oil firms. They have traded valuable stock in companies that extract, refine, and market petroleum. They have profited from companies that build pipelines, obtain drilling concessions, and provision the industry. Enron used to be busy in all those capacities. [...]
It’s the same old crew, all right, refusing to negotiate, comparing Hussein to Hitler, accusing him of "gassing his own people" although the preponderance of evidence shows that the Iranians gassed the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq War, while the U.S. was supporting the Iraqis. No one should be surprised that the majority of hawks, the men who want to go to war rather than resort to diplomacy, have never seen military service. They managed to avoid the draft during the Vietnam conflict. Vice President Dick Cheney boasts, "I was smart enough to get five deferments." Bush Junior served in the National Guard, went AWOL for most of his enlistment. and somehow avoided imprisonment. Abrams, Card, Perle, Thompson, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Rove, Perle, etc.--none of them served, and all of them are eager to draw blood in Iraq.
The notable exception is Colin Powell, the only Bushista to have credibility in the realm of tactics, strategy, and diplomacy. Unfortunately, he is in the same position he occupied during Bush Senior’s regime when he repeatedly covered up the Iran-Contra crimes. Against what we hope must be his better judgment, he exercises the same function for Bush Junior. How sad, then, we were to see Powell standing before the United Nations Security Council with a pathetic show-and-tell presentation. The incriminating aerial photographs of Hussein’s hidden weapons facilities could have been a Hollywood set or a Bakersfield truck stop as far as the audience was concerned. The photos required, Powell hastened to explain, expert interpretation. Sigh. Maybe the Pentagon should buy its photos from Soyuz Karta, the commercial Russian satellite. [...]
Powell made points when he read earnestly from the thick British intelligence dossier, only to be ridiculed days later when the "intelligence dossier" proved to have been cobbled together from decade-old public sources, such as Jane’s Intelligence Review and an unattributed article from the Middle East Review of International Affairs written by a lecturer at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. No, General Powell. You had your chance and you blew it. Instead of holding up the vial of white powder and announcing that Hussein could do a whole bunch of damage with a teaspoonful of this anthrax stuff, you should have thrown your head back, swallowed it, and declaimed, "It is a far, far better thing I do than I have ever done before." It looks like we’ll be hearing about dead babies pretty soon."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-10 13:45:06
You say, the Iraqi government doesn't care if its people survive or not. Have your really thought about this or is it a result of reading US media propaganda? Please take a moment and read some information about the first Gulf War that may help in your thought processes.
"The propagandists for the Gulf War had to reach back to World War I for the ultimate staged outrage--our evil enemy attacks innocent babies. Here is how it unfolded. Kuwaiti citizen Nijirah al-Sabah, wiped her eyes and described a horrifying scene she saw when she was a volunteer in the Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait City. She had witnessed Iraqi soldiers looting incubators to take back to Baghdad, throwing Kuwaiti babies on "the cold floor to die." This story, told and retold, incensed the public and congress as nothing else had done. The Senate resolution to go to war passed by five votes. Six senators said the baby-incubator story had overcome their reluctance to send troops. Months later, Nayirah was exposed as the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. She had no connection to the Al Adnan hospital, as nurses there would testify. She and several other "witnesses" had been coached by the Hill and Knowlton public relations firm, which had a contract worth over $10,000,000 with the Kuwaiti government.
After the war, Bush’s Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said that the government did not know and probably would never know how many Iraqi casualties resulted from the Gulf War. Beth Osborne Daponte, a Commerce Department demographer, prepared a report estimating that 13,000 civilians were killed by allied forces, 70,000 civilians died from infrastructure damage, and 40,000 troops were killed in battle. Her supervisors dismissed her, confiscated her report, and issued a new one with much lower estimates of Iraqi mortality rates. Later, after Beth Osborne won her appeal and had been reinstated in her job, U.S. officials provided higher estimates: 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed, 300,000 wounded, and 2,500 to 3,000 Iraqi civilians killed by bombing. International organizations estimated that the war created 5,000,000 refugees and that sanctions had killed more than 500,000,000 Iraqi children.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-10 20:53:49
marl, I will reply to your many posts in this one, if I fail to touch on anything you would like me to, let me know.
This is a blatantly obvious use of propaganda, and any idiot can see that. I was not referring to any 'stories' when I said that they don't care about their own people. I was referring to the fact that they used gas on their own people, (as substantiated by the UN); put military installations in residential areas, or near hospitals, (which BTW is Sadamm's fault they died, not anyone else's); and that they continue to defy the int'l community, which results in sanctions. If they really cared, they would do anything to lift the sanctions, and actually use the money for humanitarian aid, not for the army.
"International organizations estimated that the war created 5,000,000 refugees and that sanctions had killed more than 500,000,000 Iraqi children."
Two things: first, throughout every war, casualty rates differ to unbelievable degress depending on who you talk to. Vietnam is a perfect example, where body count was important.
Secondly, 500,000,000 Iraqi children? Iraq doesn't even have close to 500M people. Looks a little like your spreading some propaganda of your own there.
As for the UK bungled intel dossier, you make too much of a big deal about it. The intelligence the US has is immense, and the vast, vast majority comes from its own agencies, and from Iraqi defectors, who I guess are invariably lying. The UK made a stupid mistake, and it hurt theirs, and the US's credibility. Both of them have, in my opinion, handled this whole situation horrifically.
I think I need to clarify some things. I do not base my beliefs on what the media, governments, or any other subjective agency says. I base them on what I have found out on my own, and through logical inferences. I don't really like George W., and would feel much better if Clinton was still around. This is one situation where I have come to the same conclusions as he has, that's all. I am not a Bush enthusiast, and I don't like how he treats Canada. Nonetheless, I agree with him here, and I will not let my feelings toward someone cause me to automatically disagree with them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-11 15:32:51
Thank you for pointing out that error: the number of Iraqui children who have died as a result of sanctions is "only" 500,000 not 500,000,000 as I incorrectly stated. I'm sure we will all feel much better to know that the number was "only" 500,000. Also, as Madeline Albright stated when asked about this number, she said that she was comfortable with the number of casualties and that collateral damage such as this was to be expected.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-09 21:20:49
So here's a voice in favour of Bush's "pre-emptive war" policy.
While this particular situation may have your appetite whetted for this policy have you given any thought to the longer range international consequences of certifying this policy as a rational justification? Put aside the Iraq consideration if you can and just consider the policy itself. We would then have established a new precedent in international relations. One which says that irrespective of international opinion or cooperation one nation is justified in attacking another if the former believes firmly enough that the latter has aggressive intentions toward the former.
Does that sound like a standard we as a global community want to establish?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-10 00:47:10
To answer your first question, yes I have thought about the long term ramifications of such a policy, and I am fully aware that new precedents would be set. However, this is a new era we are in, and now the stakes are much higher. We can no longer afford to wait until we or our allies are attacked, the cost of life would be far too high.
Furthermore, I don't think that the precedent you mentioned would be set. A threat from a country with WMDs is a very different situation than one that has none. It isn't just a threat of being attacked by Iraq, it is the threat of them either attacking with WMDs, or using them to blackmail, such as N. Korea is doing. I think that this situation is unique, and therefore must be dealt with uniquely. Does a country have the right to attack any perceived threat? No. Does a country have the right to attack a country that poses a threat of this magnitude, with plenty of evidence to support the cause of this concern? Absolutely.
To do otherwise is incredibly irresponsible to your own people, naive, and plain old stupid. Look at the situation with Germany in the 30's, why the League of Nations failed, the genocide in Rwanda (the UN was against intervening here too), and you should see what happens when the global community looks the other way. Is this something we as a global community should let repeat itself?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-10 10:58:32
Waterloo, you said, "A threat from a country with WMDs is a very different situation than one that has none. It isn't just a threat of being attacked by Iraq, it is the threat of them either attacking with WMDs, or using them to blackmail, such as N. Korea is doing." And that is precisely the crux of the matter. Because apart from allegations we simply have no proof of Iraq's weaponry. None. We have allegations aplenty. We even have the embarassing specter of a failed PhD thesis being copied and pasted by people at No.10 Downing and passed on to Colin Powell as reliable intelligence...but we have no demonstrable proof.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-10 20:26:56
No proof? Here's proof, and I will use no articles, quotations, or anything else other than basic common sense and good old (although seemingly unpopular) logic.
Iraq makes WMDs, the UN and everyone else acknowledges that IRaq has them. During the 90s, although constantly hindered by the all so innocent Iraqi officials, UNSCOM finds out that Iraq still has some, even though they lied and previously said they didn't. Let's keep in mind we are not dealing with credible people here.
Because UNSCOM has become so unable to do its job (due to deception and interference) they leave in 1998, still with the knowledge that Iraq possesses bio/chemical weaponry. Now, 4 years later, Iraq says (again) that it has none. But what happened to them? Iraq says that they destroyed them all. They have no credible evidence of this, and there is no independent verification of it either, but I guess since they have proven themselves to be such an honest, trustworthy and reliable government, we can sit back safely believing them eh?
Bottom line: we can't just take their word for it. Of course the inspectors can't find anything, it would take complete incompetency not to be able to hide their weapons/programs in a country that size, with that amount of time, and with that sort of 'obedience and loyalty' from the people. Although we will never find anything other than hidden documents, and 'forgotten' empty warheads while Sadamm Hussein is in power, reasonable inferences can be made.
Very, very little in life is certain. We must make the best inferences we can with the evidence we have. Even in the most seemingly obvious murder cases, no one ever knows for certain without multiple eye-witnesses, or a confession. You can bet that while Mr. Hussein is in power, there will be no confessions, and eye-witnesses will be conveniently blind.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-10 04:46:04
First off Bravo Waterloo, very well said.
banquosghost, Yes, when our countries intelligence picture is clearly showing WMD danger we have no other choice, we must take action. To paraphrase, if a bad guy just used a bat to beat down your friend, does this mean you must wait to be struck in the head first? Before you react? Or should you take pre-emptive action and subdue the bad guy?
critictrue1, Saddam does not need Iraq troops to attack America; he merely needs the resources of the Iraqi people. I strongly urge you to realize that Saddam is currently in the process of deferring his weapons to terrorist agents. We would be hard pressed to prove an attack originated by Saddam when he uses various terror cells.
critictrue1, I believe you are fighting past battles such as WWII where there were clean and clear lines to combat and war was conventional for the most part. This is common cold war thinking; essentially we don’t live in that world anymore.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-10 11:43:36
More examples of lies and misinformation being fed to the public as an excuse to take over the rich oilfields of the Middle East.
On the alleged conversation between an Iraqi brigadier general and a soldier that Powell touted to the UN:
"Who were these two men? If they were a brigadier general
and his aide, why were their names not revealed? One would think a
brigadier general is high-ranking enough to be a prominent figure.
The two men mention illicit equipment manufactured in the Al-Kindi
company in northern Iraq. What Powell failed to mention is that 15
IAEA inspectors conducted a radiological survey of the Al-Kindi
premises on December 19th, 2002. According to an IAEA press release,
and subsequent testimony from the inspectors, the IAEA and UNMOVIC
reported that the group had inspected areas of the company that
manufacture products for commercial use and took extensive samples
from a water-treatment plant. UNMOVIC reported that Al-Kindi is a
missile and rocket development site, which also produces electronic
and industrial products for the civil sector.
Secondly, the U.S. is touting the line that the aluminum tubes Iraq
admitted to have imported a few months ago are a crucial part of the
Iraqi nuclear weapons program. That is in striking contradiction to
the findings of the IAEA as revealed by its head, Mohammed al-Baradei,
on January 27th. He told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq's claims
that the tubes were for the U.N.-sanctioned Iraqi missile program were
well-founded and consistent with IAEA research.
"Al-Baradei even put the kibosh on at least one specific charge made
by Washington when he reported that aluminum tubes alleged by U.S.
officials to have been imported by Iraq for use in uranium-enrichment
centrifuges were, in fact, unsuitable for this purpose and had been
used, as Iraq claimed, for missile-engine development." (Tony Karon,
Time Magazine)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-10 11:21:57
Since you have named your discussion "Ignorance and Misinformation' perhaps you would care to read a little about how the U.S. and the U.K. are using those very methods to win support for their war.
Taken from a document entitled, "How the US and UK are Manipulating the Facts on Iraq' from the ICH.
"Mr Graham, a Democrat, is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Last July, baffled by the apparently contradictory assessments on Iraq by America's 13 different intelligence agencies, he asked for a report to be drawn up by the CIA that estimated the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction.
The CIA procrastinated, but finally produced a report after Senator Graham threatened to accuse them of obstruction. The conclusions were so significant that he immediately asked for it to be declassified.
The CIA concluded that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using such weapons was "very low" for the "foreseeable future". The only circumstances in which Iraq would be more likely to use chemical weapons or encourage terrorist attacks would be if it was attacked.
After more arguments, the CIA partly declassified the report. Senator Graham noted that the parts released were those that made the case for war. Those that did not were withheld. He appealed, and the extra material was eventually released. Yet the report has largely been ignored by the US media."
So, before you try to persuade people to support a massacre of the Iraqui people, perhaps you should invest a little more time to see if there is any justification. I am sure you do not want to have the blood of innocent people on your hands.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-10 20:04:48
First of all, please do not put words into my mouth. I do not want a massacre of any people, including the Iraqis. I have spent a lot of time, well before the media picked up on it, researching and studying this situation.
I too believe that Iraq would not use WMDs in the very near future either, but you miss the point and interpret this wrong. When dealing with WMDs, you cannot wait for the moment until the party who holds them will use them. Then it is too late, and you know as well as I do that if that happened, the US would be criticised for not doing enough. However, in the latter situation, the US has untold thousands of its people dead.
One further note: I will never deny that countries (including Canada) use propaganda, and in a sense this is misinforamtion. However, it really is quite simple to see through, and all it takes is a little effort, and the truth will become clear. I encourage 99% of you anti-war people to stop following the current fad, and do some research for yourself. Governments aren't the only groups that use propaganda. The laughable, "all for oil" movement is a prime example.
Trust me, I do not want war, or anyone to die. I am just not so naive as to believe that we can continue to live as we currently do without eliminating certain threats. There's the way things should be, and the way they are. You guys can continue living in your blissful bubbles of ignorance, but I would much rather deal with the situation, as unpleasant as it is.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-10 21:49:00
This situation is a prime example of propaganda at it's 'finest'. Edge, that is. The US and UK only want the Canadian and European support to make the invasion at least palatable to the rest of the world.
For my own quote, to the best of my recollection, "No amount of propaganda can make anything action 'right', but it can make it happen"
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-12 14:10:09
Dear Marl/Waterloo/cfallon and whomever:
Marl/ cfallon
The issue of Iraq, and what motivates current US policy toward it invokes charged and passionate debate from all sides. However, I believe there has been an important element missing from the immense volume of dialogue on Iraq- the recent turn in the direction of US foreign policy strategy concerning the mideast as a whole. It is now the stated objective of the US to attempt to precipitate a democratization of the mideast, in part with an Iraqi model of secular democracy. It is this notion which seems to be creating a veritable panic in countries such as Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular. In fact, the Saudis have reacted by developing a reform package, which if introduced (as most observers believe it will) would result in an elected house (the authority and scope of which remains unclear, although it is clear that women would not vote or participate). This "democratization" of the mideast is certainly part of whats driving the current US policy on Iraq, and of course results in many new questions and concerns. So, I'd be interested in all of your thoughts on the following:
Is the US correct in pursuing this policy in general (exclusive of any Iraq war)?
In the specific case of Iraq, if the country were to emerge as a stable democracy, what would the regional impact be?
Is the emergence of a stable democracy in Iraq (with its Sheite majority and Kurdish and Sunni minorities) wishful thinking in the first place?
What would be the long term impact of a major US military presence in Iraq on countries such as Iran and Syria?
The answers to all these questions seem anything but clear to me, Id be interested in your thoughts.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-15 17:22:05
jwitt, I don't proclaim to have the answers to your questions but I would like to add one of my own if anyone would care to address it. How can the U.S. possibly attempt to introduce "democracy" in other countries when the current administration has been implementing policies which are stripping Americans of their so-called democratic rights, rights which were hard won by earlier citizens. I am referring here, specifically, to the U.S. Patriot Act, which is a misnomer if there ever was one and to the expected revision of that act which will strip Americans of even more civil liberties? Also, it is well documented that the last presidential election was not an "election" so much as it was a stolen grab of power. Many citizens in Florida were not allowed to vote etc. When I look at the mess that the U.S. is in right now, I hardly think they have the right to force their style of government on other sovereign nations, especially when, in order to do so, they feel they have the right to go and bomb the citizenry of that country into oblivion.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-07 23:54:31
Thanks for your efforts marl. I agree with everything you have said. Unfortunately some people are so brain washed by the present American governments propaganda they will not accept the facts. If bush succeeds in attacking Iraq without just cause the result will be more terrorist acts in the USA and probably Canada. It will have a toll on those who are asked to perform this mass murder of innocent civillians. Many of the USA military personnell that served in Vietnam came home with serious problems. There are other ways to control vicious dictators like Saddam. Sanctions do not have to include the necessities of life such as food and medicine. Why cannot sanctions be placed that deny trade except for the necessities of life.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-08 17:38:32
Why cannot sanctions be placed that deny trade except for the necessities of life.
---Because businesses in countries like France skirt the rules and sell to Iraq anyway.
---Because the borders of Iraq can not be sealed without a million troops or more.
---Because other ruthless governments like N. Korea really don’t give a rats butt about our paper sanctions. They do what they want, when they want.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-09 04:04:38
Your answer makes no sense to me at all
Obviously sanctions were in place and Iraq citizens are/ were being severely undernourished. If Complete sanctions work; then so could partial sanctions.
They are not "OUR" sanctions but "UN" sanctions applicable to any UN member.
Where there is need or greed; there will always be smugglers. They could be charged under international law. Why single out France; every country has businesses that are only interested in the bottom line including The USA and Canada
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-17 02:46:41
jwitt, I do not believe the US is correct in 'democratizing' the mideast, or any country/region in the world. Countries govern themselves in different methods. As long as the ruler is not a brutal tyrant, who uses violence as a means to repress dissent, to each his own. The Saudis are not human rights champs by any means, and their legal system seems weird and unfair to me, however, their people are relatively happy. No country should force their beliefs on another.
As for Iraq, with Mr. Hussein in power, it is impossible to establish a democracy. And if he is ousted, and one is established, I don't think the impact would be all that great. The non-threatening non democracies would be left alone to do as they please, eg SA.
A major US presence would incur paranoia, disdain, and acts of hostility from Iran and Syria. Both have already stated that quite clearly.
Democracy seems to be the fairest, most just system of gov't to me, but I was raised here, so my opinions are inevitably biased. The US has no right to force its views on others. A lot of people died in wars earlier on to ensure everyone in the world has the right to live how they choose.
Reply to this message
|
|
