Full Version: Pro War Arguments
1. Pro War Argument #1 – Iraq is a perceived threat.
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
jjirout
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
jjirout
I think any could be argued against easily.
There is no proof that Iraq has developed any new weapons programs since 1998 that could potentially produce nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. If Iraq did have those weapons, and were proven to have them, than it is possible that Saddam could order them used in case of attack.
Even if Saddam is a hitler, or a potential hitler, there are always ways of dealing with horrid political leaders other than through war.
Last....the US has a history of invading countries and setting up what?
NOT DEMOCRACIES....
There is no proof that Iraq has developed any new weapons programs since 1998 that could potentially produce nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. If Iraq did have those weapons, and were proven to have them, than it is possible that Saddam could order them used in case of attack.
Even if Saddam is a hitler, or a potential hitler, there are always ways of dealing with horrid political leaders other than through war.
Last....the US has a history of invading countries and setting up what?
NOT DEMOCRACIES....
1) this is easy: no, perception of a threat is not enough to justify invasion. for one, the UN charter says that you must actually be attacked before you can defend your self. if it were so, several countries would be justified in invading the US.
2)none. bush is more comparable to hitler, but even that is a bit of a stretch. saddam has actually only invaded another country once, but you must remember, Iraq and kuwait have had a long standing feud with each other, and they (iraq) considers kuwait part of them. this preceeds saddam though.
3) liberation of the Iraqi people? no, won't happen. we will install yet another dictatorship in husseuns place (remember, we helped saddam get the power he now has) and even if the Iraqis are allowed to make their own government, it will come at a large price. bush and co plan on using revenues from Iraqi oil to pay for this war (some "liberation" you have to pay to be freed. that sounds more like conquering)
2)none. bush is more comparable to hitler, but even that is a bit of a stretch. saddam has actually only invaded another country once, but you must remember, Iraq and kuwait have had a long standing feud with each other, and they (iraq) considers kuwait part of them. this preceeds saddam though.
3) liberation of the Iraqi people? no, won't happen. we will install yet another dictatorship in husseuns place (remember, we helped saddam get the power he now has) and even if the Iraqis are allowed to make their own government, it will come at a large price. bush and co plan on using revenues from Iraqi oil to pay for this war (some "liberation" you have to pay to be freed. that sounds more like conquering)
QUOTE
Last....the US has a history of invading countries and setting up what?
NOT DEMOCRACIES....
NOT DEMOCRACIES....
Yeah, those failure called France, Germany, Japan and Taiwan...
Come on...that argument stinks...
QUOTE
3) liberation of the Iraqi people? no, won't happen. we will install yet another dictatorship in husseuns place (remember, we helped saddam get the power he now has) and even if the Iraqis are allowed to make their own government, it will come at a large price. bush and co plan on using revenues from Iraqi oil to pay for this war (some "liberation" you have to pay to be freed. that sounds more like conquering)
I have heard no expectation of payment from the White House, have you? Sure some pundits might suggest it, it would probably be the right idea, but the US has never expected payment for liberation or its own defense.
How come people do not understand that the world is different post 9/11? What will happen when 10,000 people are killed by terrorists, using weapons supplied by some wannabe dictator? I know what will happen, people will blame Bush because he didn't do enough to protect us...even if he removes Saddam, captures Bin Laden and cures cancer.
Face it, YOU do not have the information that the administration has...
Think about the Tony Blair angle...why would a liberal Labor party member blindly follow conservative George Bush against his party's wishes and those of the majority of the UK populace? Answer : because he KNOWS it is the right thing to do. When it comes down to finally acting, you need to do what's right, not what expedient or popular...
QUOTE(jjirout @ Mar 18 2003, 10:40 PM)
1. Pro War Argument #1 – Iraq is a perceived threat.
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
Perceived threat?
It is curious that France is offering to join in, if Sadam uses the chemical and biological weapons that France seems to think Iraq doesn't have?
QUOTE(amlord @ Mar 19 2003, 02:35 PM)
Yeah, those failure called France, Germany, Japan and Taiwan...
Come on...that argument stinks...
Come on...that argument stinks...
Counting three hits and ignoring dozens of misses? There's an argument that really stinks. It even has a name: cherry picking.
QUOTE(amlord @ Mar 19 2003, 07:35 PM)
How come people do not understand that the world is different post 9/11? What will happen when 10,000 people are killed by terrorists, using weapons supplied by some wannabe dictator?
Wow! There is no connection between any large terrorist organizations (save the Iraqi government itself) and Iraq. Not to mention...can you count the amount of deaths caused by the greatest terrorist in all the world....THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
People always forget that while our casualties only numbered around a couple hundred in the Gulf War, the Iraqi's had something like 20,000, thousands of which were civilian.
QUOTE(Kropotkin @ Mar 19 2003, 11:12 PM)
Wow! There is no connection between any large terrorist organizations (save the Iraqi government itself) and Iraq. Not to mention...can you count the amount of deaths caused by the greatest terrorist in all the world....THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
People always forget that while our casualties only numbered around a couple hundred in the Gulf War, the Iraqi's had something like 20,000, thousands of which were civilian.
People always forget that while our casualties only numbered around a couple hundred in the Gulf War, the Iraqi's had something like 20,000, thousands of which were civilian.
Sources, please.
QUOTE(Kropotkin @ Mar 19 2003, 11:12 PM)
There is no connection between any large terrorist organizations (save the Iraqi government itself) and Iraq. Not to mention...can you count the amount of deaths caused by the greatest terrorist in all the world....THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Yes, as Jaime asked, sources please. And I find it very hard to swallow that the US is the biggest terrorist in the world, but each unto his own. If you are going to make statements like that, it is best to try and back it up. I personally feel that the admin. has a lot more info than someone can post here that they "found" on a web link. Iraq was considered a clear danger to US and world security by this admin. and it was evident that the UN was not going to back up its own resolutions. George Bush swore an oath to the US constitution not to the UN Charter, and he is doing what is necessary to protect US security. I still find it odd that you never see anyone demanding Saddam comply with the UN, only people bashing the US. And considering I heard on the radio on the way home from work that Reuters has learned that 2 divisions (close to 25,000) of Iraqi soldiers are discussing a surrender with Coalition forces; It appears that many of them feel that Saddam is evil as well.
I also don't understand why people keep saying the US is going in unilaterally when we have over 30 countries who are in the coalition with us. It is apparent that many other countries see the threat as well.
Over 30 Nations in Coalition
If you're using this alleged "coalition" as a reason for being in favor of this "war", then your argument is pretty tepid. Only three of those countries are supplying any troops - plus a fourth (Denmark) who is putting up a few "military advisors". Not what I'd call mobilization. The "willingness" of others to allow us to camp out on their land - or merely fly over it without being shot down - could just as easily be motivated by a fear of Bush as by a fear of Hussein. Maybe, like our psychic Commander-in-Chief, you have the ability to look into the hearts of foreign heads of state and determine what they do or do not find "evil", but "if you are going to make statements like that, it is best to try and back it up".
To back up Kropotkin's point, I would refer you to a few excerpts from Edward Herman's The Real Terror Network for a start - especially the section on U.S. Sponsorship and Support of the System of National Security States, which focuses mostly on our support of Latin American terror. Other sections go into a bit more detail on our support of Greek terror, Indonesian terror, etc. For more on our sponsorship of Israeli state terror, check this item in CounterPunch; and here is an item on NATO's support of terror in Kosovo; and here is an item on our support of Algerian terror; and, for a devastating assessment of our participation in genocide - of the people of East Timor, e.g., the two volumes of Noam Chomsky's The Political Economy of Human Rights are exhaustively and impeccably researched - but you have to buy it. For a really creepy look at US-sponsored terror, though, take a look at this item from the Indian magazine, Frontline, in which our support of Islamic Fundamentalist terror is discussed.
I wouldn't say that the US is by any means a major practitioner of terror, but we are most certainly the biggest underwriter of terrorism the world has ever known. Read some post-war twentieth century history (that wasn't sponsored by the US government).
To back up Kropotkin's point, I would refer you to a few excerpts from Edward Herman's The Real Terror Network for a start - especially the section on U.S. Sponsorship and Support of the System of National Security States, which focuses mostly on our support of Latin American terror. Other sections go into a bit more detail on our support of Greek terror, Indonesian terror, etc. For more on our sponsorship of Israeli state terror, check this item in CounterPunch; and here is an item on NATO's support of terror in Kosovo; and here is an item on our support of Algerian terror; and, for a devastating assessment of our participation in genocide - of the people of East Timor, e.g., the two volumes of Noam Chomsky's The Political Economy of Human Rights are exhaustively and impeccably researched - but you have to buy it. For a really creepy look at US-sponsored terror, though, take a look at this item from the Indian magazine, Frontline, in which our support of Islamic Fundamentalist terror is discussed.
I wouldn't say that the US is by any means a major practitioner of terror, but we are most certainly the biggest underwriter of terrorism the world has ever known. Read some post-war twentieth century history (that wasn't sponsored by the US government).
That is a common argument, that Bush is "bullying" countries into going with us or they are "afraid" of us. It is impossible to tell their true motivations. And I don't consider supplying troops to be a sign of only half hearted membership in the coalition, because when it comes to actual troops, we do not need them. Many countries are simply showing their support but not actually sending troops. The main point I was asking to back up was the quote "The United States is the Biggest Terrorist in the world." Being an American, I find that very offensive, but I do agree the US gov't has engaged in seedy and underhanded things that I do not agree with.
Wertz
Military advisors?
Actually, the Danish force is a missile cruiser, a submarine and a field hospital.
QUOTE
plus a fourth (Denmark) who is putting up a few "military advisors".
Military advisors?
Actually, the Danish force is a missile cruiser, a submarine and a field hospital.
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 20 2003, 10:53 AM)
Wertz
Military advisors? Actually, the Danish force is a missile cruiser, a submarine and a field hospital.
QUOTE
plus a fourth (Denmark) who is putting up a few "military advisors".
Military advisors?
Actually, the Danish force is a missile cruiser, a submarine and a field hospital. Thank you Moif.
Moif: "Offering 50-100 special operations troops" was how it was originally reported in USA Today - though they may be manning the cruiser and the sub, rather than (as was originally reported) acting in "a technical capacity". Apologies, Moif, for "technical" having translated to "advisory" in my recollection of the article - and further apologies for actually using USA Today as a source. More fool me. 
Stotty: Exactly the point I was making. It is every bit as impossible for you to determine that any member of this "coalition" might "feel that Saddam is evil" or that they "see the threat as well" as it is to prove that they feel George W Bush is evil and see him as a threat. Well, actually, there's a bit more evidence of the latter, but that's the stuff of another thread...
What I find offensive is that those who accuse the United States of being a major terrorist nation can actually make a pretty reasonable case to support their position. Offensive, embarrassing, and sickeningly depressing.
Stotty: Exactly the point I was making. It is every bit as impossible for you to determine that any member of this "coalition" might "feel that Saddam is evil" or that they "see the threat as well" as it is to prove that they feel George W Bush is evil and see him as a threat. Well, actually, there's a bit more evidence of the latter, but that's the stuff of another thread...
What I find offensive is that those who accuse the United States of being a major terrorist nation can actually make a pretty reasonable case to support their position. Offensive, embarrassing, and sickeningly depressing.
Its fine Wertz, No worries. We're used to it being such a tiny country.Cheers stotty, (hopefully we won't be needing that field hospital!
)
jjirout Posted: Mar 18 2003, 10:40 PM
I don't think comparisons of Suddam to Hitler are in the world war category. It's more of a comparison to Hitler's ethnic cleansing.
QUOTE
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
I don't think comparisons of Suddam to Hitler are in the world war category. It's more of a comparison to Hitler's ethnic cleansing.
QUOTE
1. Pro War Argument #1 – Iraq is a perceived threat.
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
To me after viewing a 'Frontline' special on Saddam and his ruthless ways, the percieved part is more than enough for me. Mainly because I hate to find out the hard way like the Iranians or Kurds did.
QUOTE
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
I hate to compare anyone to Hitler. But his tactics are very brutal and gestapo like. Also if he is firing SCUD missiles at coalition forces currently (Note: as of now, the type of missiles are only thought to be SCUD), then he violated UN rules from the get-go.
QUOTE
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
The Iraqi people will benefit from this. Mainly because sanctions will be lifted once Saddam is out. Ironic, but still they will gain.
My only question is, do we have the right to dictate to these people WHAT type of government is right for them? Ie a Democratic government??
QUOTE(Hercules @ Mar 20 2003, 05:40 PM)
QUOTE
1. Pro War Argument #1 – Iraq is a perceived threat.
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
To me after viewing a 'Frontline' special on Saddam and his ruthless ways, the percieved part is more than enough for me. Mainly because I hate to find out the hard way like the Iranians or Kurds did.
QUOTE
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
I hate to compare anyone to Hitler. But his tactics are very brutal and gestapo like. Also if he is firing SCUD missiles at coalition forces currently (Note: as of now, the type of missiles are only thought to be SCUD), then he violated UN rules from the get-go.
QUOTE
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
The Iraqi people will benefit from this. Mainly because sanctions will be lifted once Saddam is out. Ironic, but still they will gain.
My only question is, do we have the right to dictate to these people WHAT type of government is right for them? Ie a Democratic government??
A perceived threat may be fine for you; but I don't think it's sufficient justification for "shock-and-awe"-ing 5 million civilians in Baghdad into oblivion. Is Iraq really perceived as a threat? There is no evidence of this. The documentation that the U.S. used to try and convince the world that Iraq IS a threat was demonstrated to be a fabrication.
So Iraq is violating the U.N. resolutions. So is the U.S. by leading this attack. The pot and kettle dynamic is amusing.
Will the Iraqi people benefit? You seem fairly certain that they will. What are you basing that on? Iraq was by far the least fundamentalist state in the M.E. outside Israel... creating a large power vacuum might not be the best way to improve their standard of living. I can tell you one thing, women in Iraq are in a position to lose everything over this conflict.
Stotty, as other people have pointed out all over this forum, America has participated (in some degree or another) in "terrorist acts" all over the World. Here's a short list:
Iran Contra
East Timor
Nicaragua
Here is a pertinent passage:
QUOTE
But the open American hostility towards the Sandinistas, led to a dirty war orchestrated from Washington. The Reagan Administration used terrorism on an unprecedented scale against the tiny Central American country. The American trained 40,000 Contras as they were called, created chaos and mayhem on an unprecedented scale in Nicaragua and the region.
To finance the terrorists, the US administration had generated illicit funds. The "Contragate" scandal which engulfed the Reagan Administration is testimony to that. The Americans had gone to the extent of mining Nicaragua’s ports. The International Court in the Hague had pronounced the US guilty of infringing Nicaragua’s sovereignty. In the US-sponsored terrorist campaign waged at Washington’s behest, 50,000 people were killed.
To finance the terrorists, the US administration had generated illicit funds. The "Contragate" scandal which engulfed the Reagan Administration is testimony to that. The Americans had gone to the extent of mining Nicaragua’s ports. The International Court in the Hague had pronounced the US guilty of infringing Nicaragua’s sovereignty. In the US-sponsored terrorist campaign waged at Washington’s behest, 50,000 people were killed.
Shall I proceed? I have more.
QUOTE
So Iraq is violating the U.N. resolutions. So is the U.S. by leading this attack. The pot and kettle dynamic is amusing.
--UltimatejoeIt may be amusing unless you consider the motives of the pot and the kettle. The Pot's motives were to develop WMD illegally. The Kettle's motives were because the three countries blocking UN approval, Russia, German and France, were direct partners with the Pot's illegal operations. In a fair world, Russia, Germany and France would also be under UN scrutiny for their violating the UN resolutions and they would not be permitted to vote against the Kettle. The Kettle had no choice.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 05:54 PM)
A perceived threat may be fine for you; but I don't think it's sufficient justification for "shock-and-awe"-ing 5 million civilians in Baghdad into oblivion.
Kinda of a deep statement, don't 'cha think? To the best of my knoweledge we did not even send that many to "Oblivion" in the first gulf war.
Iraqi citizens constantly complain of the shortage of food and medicine. As I said they will gain in that area only because the sanctions will be lifted once Saddam is gone. I never said their life would be all pink and rosie right from the start.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Mar 19 2003, 11:49 PM)
QUOTE(Kropotkin @ Mar 19 2003, 11:12 PM)
People always forget that while our casualties only numbered around a couple hundred in the Gulf War, the Iraqi's had something like 20,000, thousands of which were civilian.
Sources, please.
A quick Google search, which anyone else could have done as easily as I did, turned up quite a few sites saying that "estimates of Iraqi civilian death range from 100 to 35,000". Here's one example. The wording is so consistent that it seems likely that the various reports are quoting from the same source, but I wasn't able to find the original version. Another page says "Original figures listed 100,000 Iraqi military dead, but more recent estimates place Iraqi dead at 20,000 military and 2,300 civilian" but, again, the original source is not cited. A third page (also published in Salon) claims that the official US estimate is 13,000 civilian casualties.
I think that claiming "something like 20,000" is not out of line considering these other estimates. Does anyone have a better estimate? It's always good when a consistent standard of proof is applied to both sides in a debate.
Another good site concerning colateral damage. Interesting reading. No real hard numbers though because of propaganda on both sides. Just FYI
Civilian casualties from 1st gulf war
Civilian casualties from 1st gulf war
PRO War Argument #3 – Perceived Threat
The US had not attacked anyone. We did not perceive a threat. Yet, we have 8,000 civilian casualties and millions of $ in damage from 9/11.
Anti-Americanism initiated the attack, which was motivated by religion (and/or US support of Israel), and organized by a tyrannical leader.
Iraq is anti-American. The anti-Americanism is motivated by religion (and/or US support of Israel), and a tyrant is leading the country.
To prevent another 9/11 – isn’t it necessary for us to disarm countries that flagrantly display these characteristics?
Perceiving this threat years ago could have allowed us to prevent the attack.
At this point, why shouldn't we act aggressively against countries that are blatantly intolerant of us?
jjirout
The US had not attacked anyone. We did not perceive a threat. Yet, we have 8,000 civilian casualties and millions of $ in damage from 9/11.
Anti-Americanism initiated the attack, which was motivated by religion (and/or US support of Israel), and organized by a tyrannical leader.
Iraq is anti-American. The anti-Americanism is motivated by religion (and/or US support of Israel), and a tyrant is leading the country.
To prevent another 9/11 – isn’t it necessary for us to disarm countries that flagrantly display these characteristics?
Perceiving this threat years ago could have allowed us to prevent the attack.
At this point, why shouldn't we act aggressively against countries that are blatantly intolerant of us?
jjirout
Because a country didn't attack America because of it's "anti-Americanism"... a terrorist group did.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 04:56 PM)
Because a country didn't attack America because of it's "anti-Americanism"... a terrorist group did.
Ok - but how dissimiliar are they? Bin Laden's terrorist group is tyrannical. Whatever anti-American propaganda machine they are using - it is serving both. They are both funded by the Saudis.
Bin Laden did not fall far from the tree.
Can you imagine a terrorist group of Canadians killing 7,000 people in another country because of their religion? You can't - the culture does not suggest it. American culture does not suggest that independent religious and political groups conduct violent attacks on civilians in other countries. We have PEDA and Pro lifers engaging in attacks on our own people - but our culture and our neighbor's culture are similar. We don't condone independent attacks on foreign civilians.
They do.
The Iraqis celebrated. They danced on our graves.
Doesn't that justify a threat?
jjirout
Not really. If I were to hate my neighbour could I be locked up and eventually executed for it? No.
I don't understand at all. This doesn't make any sense.
No, it only suggests blowing up civilians within the country? Now the standard counter to this is that terrorists like McVeigh et al., represent an extremist faction of a splinter group of American culture. Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
QUOTE
Ok - but how dissimiliar are they? Bin Laden's terrorist group is tyrannical. Whatever anti-American propaganda machine they are using - it is serving both. They are both funded by the Saudis.
I don't understand at all. This doesn't make any sense.
QUOTE
American culture does not suggest that independent religious and political groups conduct violent attacks on civilians in other countries.
No, it only suggests blowing up civilians within the country? Now the standard counter to this is that terrorists like McVeigh et al., represent an extremist faction of a splinter group of American culture. Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 05:40 PM)
If I were to hate my neighbour could I be locked up and eventually executed for it? No.
Hate whomever you want. My point revolves around groups of people attacking foreign counties. Do American citizens celebrate when the Russians endure a tragedy? A widespread American celebration would suggest that the US was a threat to them.
QUOTE
Now the standard counter to this is that terrorists like McVeigh et al., represent an extremist faction of a splinter group of American culture. Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
Your analogy is flawed because Muslim terrorists are attacking other countries. McVeigh affects domestic policy. Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists affect foreign policy. Citizens attacking their own people are another matter entirely, and I already stated this.
jjirout
QUOTE(jjirout @ Mar 18 2003, 10:40 PM)
1. Pro War Argument #1 – Iraq is a perceived threat.
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
jjirout
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
jjirout
1. First off, we were attacked (you know that whole sept 11 thing?) second Iraq is more than a percieved threat, He has WMD(Germany and Franch sold them to Iraq!) and he is willing to use them. *The reason we don't attack other countries with the same capablility is we have a Mutual Acceptance of Destruction with other countries, unlike say a state funded terrorist group*
2. I belive someone that would murder mass amounts of people with no regret could be comparable to Hitler, In fact I remember that is what alot of people thought of him as in the Gulf war
, I guess he change 
3. I belive we will liberate the Iraqi people, as of today the united states has never conquered, we only liberate.As a result the people of Iraq(hopefully) will benefit from not having to live under an oppressive dictator.
The only thing I am conserned about in getting involved with Iraq is NK trying to take a potshot while we are focused on Saddam that and of course terrorism in the US.
QUOTE(jjirout @ Mar 20 2003, 10:56 PM)
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 05:40 PM)
If I were to hate my neighbour could I be locked up and eventually executed for it? No.
Hate whomever you want. My point revolves around groups of people attacking foreign counties. Do American citizens celebrate when the Russians endure a tragedy? A widespread American celebration would suggest that the US was a threat to them.
QUOTE
Now the standard counter to this is that terrorists like McVeigh et al., represent an extremist faction of a splinter group of American culture. Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
Your analogy is flawed because Muslim terrorists are attacking other countries. McVeigh affects domestic policy. Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists affect foreign policy. Citizens attacking their own people are another matter entirely, and I already stated this.
jjirout
And what does this have to do with war? Correct me if I'm wrong but Iraq didn't fly 4 jets into the WTC. Iran didn't blow a hole in the U.S.S. Cole and Syria didn't torch any embassies. You missed the real meat of my point. I will restate it for you.
Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
That was the point of my reference to McVeigh. We don't declare war on Montana do we? No, because guys like McVeigh represent only a tiny minority of the group. The same can be said for the Islamic Terrorists which you seem to think exist on all shores. They do NOT represent even close to a reasonable proportion of the Muslim population of the world.
QUOTE(jjirout @ Mar 18 2003, 10:40 PM)
1. Pro War Argument #1 – Iraq is a perceived threat.
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
Perceived being the key word . Is a “preceived” threat enough to justify military action? Did AQ attack the US because of a “perceived” threat? How do we distinguish between what is a rational or irrational “perception”?
2. Pro War Argument #2 – Suddam as potential Hitler
As a leader, does Suddam have the potential to ignite a World War? What actions has Suddam taken that would validate or illegitimize this comparison?
3. Pro War Argument #3 – Liberating the Iraqi people
Is the US going to liberate the Iraqi people? Will the Iraqi people benefit from this war? Does the US want another military presence in the Middle East?
I registered on this site with the full intention of getting stuck in with debate but then my life got very very busy and I won't be free for weeks. The reason I 'm saying this is that I'll quickly jot down my view and then be unable to back it up or come back on return posts......... just so you know.
Anyway I would add a fourth point that takes percentages of all the other three. In perceviced threat I would add that the threat come from wepons being sold to terrorists rather than direct from Saddam.
I take a very long term (next 100 years) view, the earth is pretty much screwed and the gobal population is way out of control. Capitalism is the only way to get off the mud ball and gobal markets need to be expanded for this to happen.
Also the UN is a toothless insitution and needs to be shaken up violently (as it has been) and needs complete rethink about how it operates to support long term world good.
The only way to acheive anything in the world at the moment is with the Americans but there is a distinct danger of them splitting away from the UN and other countries (especially under Bush) which is why Blair has been so important. I would also say that American global dominance and hyper super power status is a problem. I understand about Amercian christian westen centric imperialism (been taking to an asian freind today) and this has to be changed by full inclusion in the UN or a new version of the UN.
Well I'm glad I've made my virgin post, even if it was a bit rushed and I can't come back on it. (feel free to ignore it if it didn't make much sense, I've just been knocked about abit in karate tonight).
Btw (Hi Jon, U Joe, Moif and Vikki and rest of buddies)
Also although its extreamly irritating, I support the french spoiling tactics as the US/UK thing shouldn't be allowed to get too strong and dominate Europe.
P.s did I say I support the war? I hope it will be as quick as it is hoped
P.s did I say I support the war? I hope it will be as quick as it is hoped
Today I listened to Tony Blair's speech to his nation. He makes the case for this war and makes it well. My admiration for him grows by the day. He has faced down tremendous opposition in his country and taken action that he believes necessary. He has chosen to lead his nation, rather than be led by it.
I can make no better reply to the topic of this thread than to provide you with a link to the text of his speech. There's also a video link there for those who want to capture the full flavor of his words.
So, join me here
and have your doubts and questions erased.
I can make no better reply to the topic of this thread than to provide you with a link to the text of his speech. There's also a video link there for those who want to capture the full flavor of his words.
So, join me here
and have your doubts and questions erased.
Jester:
This comparison may work when we're trying to work up a sweat about an enemy du jour, but what about "friends" like Suharto? Or pick your US-propped up South American despot of choice? Heck, we didn't even enter WWII because of Hitler, it was Japan.
Never conquered? Are you serious? Only liberated? What about, off the top of my head, Texas? Hawaii? Phillipines? Saipan? How about every part of the current US that was west of the 13 colonies? You need to look at some history. Your statement is not even "spin," it's just plain false.
We weren't attacked on 9/11 by Iraq. And you left the United States off of that list, by the way. We sold them a whole lotta chemicals. This is from the US Senate Hearing report 103-900, and shows the transfer to Iraq of various agents:
QUOTE
2. I belive someone that would murder mass amounts of people with no regret could be comparable to Hitler, In fact I remember that is what alot of people thought of him as in the Gulf war , I guess he change
This comparison may work when we're trying to work up a sweat about an enemy du jour, but what about "friends" like Suharto? Or pick your US-propped up South American despot of choice? Heck, we didn't even enter WWII because of Hitler, it was Japan.
QUOTE
3. I belive we will liberate the Iraqi people, as of today the united states has never conquered, we only liberate.As a result the people of Iraq(hopefully) will benefit from not having to live under an oppressive dictator.
Never conquered? Are you serious? Only liberated? What about, off the top of my head, Texas? Hawaii? Phillipines? Saipan? How about every part of the current US that was west of the 13 colonies? You need to look at some history. Your statement is not even "spin," it's just plain false.
QUOTE
1. First off, we were attacked (you know that whole sept 11 thing?) second Iraq is more than a percieved threat, He has WMD(Germany and Franch sold them to Iraq!) and he is willing to use them. *The reason we don't attack other countries with the same capablility is we have a Mutual Acceptance of Destruction with other countries, unlike say a state funded terrorist group*
We weren't attacked on 9/11 by Iraq. And you left the United States off of that list, by the way. We sold them a whole lotta chemicals. This is from the US Senate Hearing report 103-900, and shows the transfer to Iraq of various agents:
QUOTE
CDC Shipments to Iraq October 1, 1984 through Present
4/26/85--Minister of Health, Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq
8 Vials antigen and antisera, (R. rickettsii and R. typhi)
to diagnose rickettsial infections (non-infectious).
5/21/85--Dr. Mahammad Imad, Al-Dean M. Mahmud, Dept. of Microbiology,
College of Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq
Etiologic Agents:--lyophilized arbovirus seed;
West Nile Fever Virus, Lyophilized cultures of avirulant
yersinia pestis and Y. pseudotuberculosis ((strain r);
0.5 m1 Bhania Virus (Iq 690);
0.5 m1 Dongua Virus type 2 (New Guinea C);
0.5 m1 Dongua Virus type 3 (H-97);
0.5 m1 Hazara Virus (Pak IC 280);
0.5 m1 Kemeroud Virus (rio);
0.5 m1 Langat Virus (TP 21);
0.5 m1 Sandfly Fever/Naples Virus (original);
0.5 m1 Sandfly Fever/Sicilian Virus (original);
0.5 m1 Sindbis Virus (Egar 339);
0.5 m1 Tahyna Virus (Bardos 92);
0.5 m1 Thgoto Virus (II A).
Diagnostic Reagents and Associated Materials:
2. vials each Y. pestis FA (+ & -) conjugates;
2 vials Y. pestis Fraction 1 antigen;
10 vials Y. pestis bacteriophage impregnated paper strips;
5 plague-infected mouse tissue smears (fixed);
Various protocols for diagnostic bacteriology tests;
23 X 0.5 m1 Bhanja (Ig 690) antigen;
22 X 0.5 m1 Dengue Type 2 (New Guinea C) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Dengue type 3 (H-69) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Hazara (Pak IC 290) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Kemarovo (Rio) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Langat (IF 21) antigen,
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Naples (original) antigen;
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Sicilian (original) antigen;
Diagnostic Reagents and Associated Materials:
2 vials each Y. pestis PA (+6-) conjugates;
2 vials Y. pestis Fraction 2 antigen;
10 vials Y. pestis bacteriophage impregnated paper stripe;
5 plague-infected mouse tissue smears (fixed);
Various protocols for diagnostic bacteriology tests;
23 X 0.5 ml Bhanja (Ig 690) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Dengue Type 2 (New Guinea C) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Dengue Type 3 (H-67) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Hazara (Pak IC 280) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Kemorovo (Rio) antigen;
21 X 0.5 ml Langat (TP 21) antigen;
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Maples (original) antigen;
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Sicilian (original) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Sindbis (EgAr 339) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Tahyna (Bardos 92) antigen;
20 X 0.5 ml Thogoto (II A) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Bhanja (Ig 690) antigen;
21 X 0.5 ml West Nile (Eg 101) antigen;
20 X 0.5 ml Normal SMB antigen;
10 X 0.5 ml Normal SML antigen;
5 X 1.0 ml Bhanja (Ig 690) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Dengue Type 2 (New Guinea C) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Dengue Type 3 (H-87) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Hazara (Pak IC 280) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Xemerovo (Rio) antibody;
5 X 2.0 ml Langat (TP 21) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Sandfly Fever/Naples (original) antibody;
5 X 2.0 ml Sandfly Fever/Sicilian (original) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Sindbis (EgAr 339) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Tahyna (Bardos 92) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Thogoto (II A) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml West Nile (Eg 101) antibody;
3 X 1.0 ml Normal MHIAF (SMB) antibody;
3 X 1.0 ml Normal MHIAF (SML) antibody;
1.0 ml A polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml AIYA, etc. polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml B polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml BUN polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml BWA polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml C-1 polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml C-2 polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml CAL polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml CAP polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml CON polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml GMA polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml KEM polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml PAL polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml PAT polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml PHL polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml ORF polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml Rabies, etc. polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml STM polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml TCR polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml VSV polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml polyvalent 1;
1.0 ml polyvalent 2;
1.0 ml polyvalent 3;
1.0 ml polyvalent 4;
1.0 ml polyvalent 5;
1.0 ml polyvalent 6;
1.0 ml polyvalent 7;
1.0 ml polyvalent 8;
1.0 ml polyvalent 9;
1.0 ml polyvalent 10;
1.0 ml polyvalent 12;
1.0 ml Group B1 reagent;
1.0 ml Bluetongue reagent;
4 X 0.5 ml Dengue 1-4 set monoclonal antibodies;
1.0 ml St. Louis Enc. (MSI-7) monoclonal antibody;
1.0 ml Western Eq. Enc. (McMillian) monoclonal antibody.
6/26/85--
Dr. Mohammed S. Khidar, University of Baghdad, College of
Medicine, Department of Microbiology, Baghdad, Iraq 3 yeast
cultures Candida sp. (etiologic).
3/10/86
Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, M.B.CH.B.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq. 1 vial Botulinum Toxiod # A-2 (non-
infectious).
4/21/56--Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, N.B. Cir. D.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthana, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 23/r, Baghdad,
Iraq
1 vial Botulinum toxin (non-infections).
7/21/88--Dr. Faqid Alfarhood, Mahela 887, Zikak 54, House 97, Hay
Aljihad, Kerk, Baghdad, Iraq
teaching supplies (non-infectious); CDC procedures manuals.
7/27/88--Dr. Fagid Alfarhood, Mahela 887, Zikak 54, House 97, Hay
Aljihad, Kerk, Baghdad, Iraq
teaching supplies (non-infectious); CDC procedure manuals.
11/28/89--Dr. Nadeal T. Al Hadithi, University of Basrah, College of
Science, Department of Biology, Basrah, Iraq
5.0 mls Enterococcus faecalis;
5.0 mls Enterococcus faccium;
5.0 mls Enterococcus avium;
5.0 mls Enterococcus raffinosus;
5.0 mls Enterococcus gallinarum;
[[Page S8996]]
5.0 mls Enterococcus durans;
5.0 mls Enterococcus hirac;
5.0 mls Streptococcus bovis (cciologic).
From U.S. Senate Hearing Report 103-900
4/26/85--Minister of Health, Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq
8 Vials antigen and antisera, (R. rickettsii and R. typhi)
to diagnose rickettsial infections (non-infectious).
5/21/85--Dr. Mahammad Imad, Al-Dean M. Mahmud, Dept. of Microbiology,
College of Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq
Etiologic Agents:--lyophilized arbovirus seed;
West Nile Fever Virus, Lyophilized cultures of avirulant
yersinia pestis and Y. pseudotuberculosis ((strain r);
0.5 m1 Bhania Virus (Iq 690);
0.5 m1 Dongua Virus type 2 (New Guinea C);
0.5 m1 Dongua Virus type 3 (H-97);
0.5 m1 Hazara Virus (Pak IC 280);
0.5 m1 Kemeroud Virus (rio);
0.5 m1 Langat Virus (TP 21);
0.5 m1 Sandfly Fever/Naples Virus (original);
0.5 m1 Sandfly Fever/Sicilian Virus (original);
0.5 m1 Sindbis Virus (Egar 339);
0.5 m1 Tahyna Virus (Bardos 92);
0.5 m1 Thgoto Virus (II A).
Diagnostic Reagents and Associated Materials:
2. vials each Y. pestis FA (+ & -) conjugates;
2 vials Y. pestis Fraction 1 antigen;
10 vials Y. pestis bacteriophage impregnated paper strips;
5 plague-infected mouse tissue smears (fixed);
Various protocols for diagnostic bacteriology tests;
23 X 0.5 m1 Bhanja (Ig 690) antigen;
22 X 0.5 m1 Dengue Type 2 (New Guinea C) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Dengue type 3 (H-69) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Hazara (Pak IC 290) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Kemarovo (Rio) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Langat (IF 21) antigen,
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Naples (original) antigen;
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Sicilian (original) antigen;
Diagnostic Reagents and Associated Materials:
2 vials each Y. pestis PA (+6-) conjugates;
2 vials Y. pestis Fraction 2 antigen;
10 vials Y. pestis bacteriophage impregnated paper stripe;
5 plague-infected mouse tissue smears (fixed);
Various protocols for diagnostic bacteriology tests;
23 X 0.5 ml Bhanja (Ig 690) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Dengue Type 2 (New Guinea C) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Dengue Type 3 (H-67) antigen;
22 X 0.5 ml Hazara (Pak IC 280) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Kemorovo (Rio) antigen;
21 X 0.5 ml Langat (TP 21) antigen;
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Maples (original) antigen;
24 X 0.5 ml Sandfly Fever/Sicilian (original) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Sindbis (EgAr 339) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Tahyna (Bardos 92) antigen;
20 X 0.5 ml Thogoto (II A) antigen;
23 X 0.5 ml Bhanja (Ig 690) antigen;
21 X 0.5 ml West Nile (Eg 101) antigen;
20 X 0.5 ml Normal SMB antigen;
10 X 0.5 ml Normal SML antigen;
5 X 1.0 ml Bhanja (Ig 690) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Dengue Type 2 (New Guinea C) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Dengue Type 3 (H-87) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Hazara (Pak IC 280) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Xemerovo (Rio) antibody;
5 X 2.0 ml Langat (TP 21) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Sandfly Fever/Naples (original) antibody;
5 X 2.0 ml Sandfly Fever/Sicilian (original) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Sindbis (EgAr 339) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Tahyna (Bardos 92) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml Thogoto (II A) antibody;
5 X 1.0 ml West Nile (Eg 101) antibody;
3 X 1.0 ml Normal MHIAF (SMB) antibody;
3 X 1.0 ml Normal MHIAF (SML) antibody;
1.0 ml A polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml AIYA, etc. polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml B polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml BUN polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml BWA polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml C-1 polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml C-2 polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml CAL polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml CAP polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml CON polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml GMA polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml KEM polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml PAL polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml PAT polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml PHL polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml ORF polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml Rabies, etc. polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml STM polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml TCR polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml VSV polyvalent grouping fluid;
1.0 ml polyvalent 1;
1.0 ml polyvalent 2;
1.0 ml polyvalent 3;
1.0 ml polyvalent 4;
1.0 ml polyvalent 5;
1.0 ml polyvalent 6;
1.0 ml polyvalent 7;
1.0 ml polyvalent 8;
1.0 ml polyvalent 9;
1.0 ml polyvalent 10;
1.0 ml polyvalent 12;
1.0 ml Group B1 reagent;
1.0 ml Bluetongue reagent;
4 X 0.5 ml Dengue 1-4 set monoclonal antibodies;
1.0 ml St. Louis Enc. (MSI-7) monoclonal antibody;
1.0 ml Western Eq. Enc. (McMillian) monoclonal antibody.
6/26/85--
Dr. Mohammed S. Khidar, University of Baghdad, College of
Medicine, Department of Microbiology, Baghdad, Iraq 3 yeast
cultures Candida sp. (etiologic).
3/10/86
Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, M.B.CH.B.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq. 1 vial Botulinum Toxiod # A-2 (non-
infectious).
4/21/56--Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, N.B. Cir. D.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthana, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 23/r, Baghdad,
Iraq
1 vial Botulinum toxin (non-infections).
7/21/88--Dr. Faqid Alfarhood, Mahela 887, Zikak 54, House 97, Hay
Aljihad, Kerk, Baghdad, Iraq
teaching supplies (non-infectious); CDC procedures manuals.
7/27/88--Dr. Fagid Alfarhood, Mahela 887, Zikak 54, House 97, Hay
Aljihad, Kerk, Baghdad, Iraq
teaching supplies (non-infectious); CDC procedure manuals.
11/28/89--Dr. Nadeal T. Al Hadithi, University of Basrah, College of
Science, Department of Biology, Basrah, Iraq
5.0 mls Enterococcus faecalis;
5.0 mls Enterococcus faccium;
5.0 mls Enterococcus avium;
5.0 mls Enterococcus raffinosus;
5.0 mls Enterococcus gallinarum;
[[Page S8996]]
5.0 mls Enterococcus durans;
5.0 mls Enterococcus hirac;
5.0 mls Streptococcus bovis (cciologic).
From U.S. Senate Hearing Report 103-900
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 11:31 PM)
That was the point of my reference to McVeigh. We don't declare war on Montana do we? No, because guys like McVeigh represent only a tiny minority of the group. The same can be said for the Islamic Terrorists which you seem to think exist on all shores. They do NOT represent even close to a reasonable proportion of the Muslim population of the world.
Montana doesn't sponsor terrorism, it just had a terrorist living there.
Iraq sponsors terrorism, pays $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/...orld/main505316
So far Iraq has been firing scud missiles, which it 'didn't have' and torching oil wells which it 'wouldn't do'.
I fear the only reason the BCWs have yet to appear is that they have been readied in the areas of Tikrit and Baghdad. Hopefully we will be able to prevent their use.
I fear the only reason the BCWs have yet to appear is that they have been readied in the areas of Tikrit and Baghdad. Hopefully we will be able to prevent their use.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 06:31 PM)
Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
No, because guys like McVeigh represent only a tiny minority of the group. The same can be said for the Islamic Terrorists which you seem to think exist on all shores. They do NOT represent even close to a reasonable proportion of the Muslim population of the world.
No, because guys like McVeigh represent only a tiny minority of the group. The same can be said for the Islamic Terrorists which you seem to think exist on all shores. They do NOT represent even close to a reasonable proportion of the Muslim population of the world.
I am not suggesting that we look at this war in terms of religion. I am pointing out that a large portion of the population in The Middle East -
1. Hates America
2. Uses extreme religious views to justify that hatred
3. Is led by tryants
They may be Muslims. Them may not be Muslims. It is beside the point.
The point is that these ingrediants initiated 9/11 and have the potential to initate another 9/11.
A true Muslim could not support such measures. Some do, some don't, who cares. Fact - there is a l a r g e population with the above components.
jjirout
QUOTE(Jester @ Mar 20 2003, 06:11 PM)
The reason we don't attack other countries with the same capablility is we have a Mutual Acceptance of Destruction with other countries, unlike say a state funded terrorist group
The term you're looking for is Mutual Assured Destruction, and it's not some sort of signed agreement. It's not something you can "have one of" at all. It's merely a strategy, developed by John von Neumann and others at the RAND Corporation working for the government in the 1950s as part of their work on game theory. As a strategy, it works equally well with any opponent. It doesn't matter whether we're dealing with a nation or a terrorist group, except to the extent that we can assure that destruction would indeed be mutual. If a terrorist group believed that we would, absolutely, destroy them or something of great value to them (e.g. Mecca) then MAD would be just as effective with them as it was with the Soviet Union.
Yes, there are quirks, such as the fact that if one party decides to attack anyway the threat of counterattack immediately loses its effectiveness. I suggest you read some of von Neumann's work, or Nash's, or most especially Axelrod's, before assuming that such quirks make MAD inapplicable. It's all quite fascinating stuff in its own right.
Quark head
Do you have any links which document those CDC Shipments to Iraq? I'd like to look at the originals if they are available.
Do you have any links which document those CDC Shipments to Iraq? I'd like to look at the originals if they are available.
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 21 2003, 09:51 AM)
Quark head
Do you have any links which document those CDC Shipments to Iraq? I'd like to look at the originals if they are available.
Do you have any links which document those CDC Shipments to Iraq? I'd like to look at the originals if they are available.
I'll try, moif. I got it out of a congressional record, link here.
I'll see if I can find any cross references for ya.
Thanks for that link Q Thats a long article!! but I shall certainly read the whole of it.
BTW, I love your sig!
Thats a long article!! but I shall certainly read the whole of it.BTW, I love your sig!
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 11:31 PM)
[qoute] And what does this have to do with war? Correct me if I'm wrong but Iraq didn't fly 4 jets into the WTC. Iran didn't blow a hole in the U.S.S. Cole and Syria didn't torch any embassies. You missed the real meat of my point. I will restate it for you.
Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
That was the point of my reference to McVeigh. We don't declare war on Montana do we? No, because guys like McVeigh represent only a tiny minority of the group. The same can be said for the Islamic Terrorists which you seem to think exist on all shores. They do NOT represent even close to a reasonable proportion of the Muslim population of the world. [/qoute]
Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists exist in the same relationship to greater Muslim faith. They represent an extremist element of a largely peaceful religion.
That was the point of my reference to McVeigh. We don't declare war on Montana do we? No, because guys like McVeigh represent only a tiny minority of the group. The same can be said for the Islamic Terrorists which you seem to think exist on all shores. They do NOT represent even close to a reasonable proportion of the Muslim population of the world. [/qoute]
I think you are not getting the point, Mcviegh was not funded or trained by the state of Wyoming, where as Al Quada was linked to Iraq, If we found out that the governor of Wyoming was sponsoring Mcviegh we would forcefully route him out of office, find any others involved and send them to the mercy of the people to be tried for their crimes. unfortunatly we can't do that in Iraq with out sending in an army.
Iraq didn't have to fly jets into the WTC or blow a hole in the U.S.S Cole, especially when they can do all of that without anyone knowing it was them. After all they didn't want a direct confrontation with the U.S they just wanted to cripple us.
[QUOTE=quarkhead,Mar 21 2003, 12:42 AM]Jester:
[QUOTE]2. I belive someone that would murder mass amounts of people with no regret could be comparable to Hitler, In fact I remember that is what alot of people thought of him as in the Gulf war , I guess he change [/QUOTE]
This comparison may work when we're trying to work up a sweat about an enemy du jour, but what about "friends" like Suharto? Or pick your US-propped up South American despot of choice? Heck, we didn't even enter WWII because of Hitler, it was Japan.
[QUOTE]3. I belive we will liberate the Iraqi people, as of today the united states has never conquered, we only liberate.As a result the people of Iraq(hopefully) will benefit from not having to live under an oppressive dictator.[/QUOTE]
Never conquered? Are you serious? Only liberated? What about, off the top of my head, Texas? Hawaii? Phillipines? Saipan? How about every part of the current US that was west of the 13 colonies? You need to look at some history. Your statement is not even "spin," it's just plain false.
[QUOTE]1. First off, we were attacked (you know that whole sept 11 thing?) second Iraq is more than a percieved threat, He has WMD(Germany and Franch sold them to Iraq!) and he is willing to use them. *The reason we don't attack other countries with the same capablility is we have a Mutual Acceptance of Destruction with other countries, unlike say a state funded terrorist group*[/QUOTE]
We weren't attacked on 9/11 by Iraq. And you left the United States off of that list, by the way. We sold them a whole lotta chemicals. This is from the US Senate Hearing report 103-900, and shows the transfer to Iraq of various agents:
From U.S. Senate Hearing Report 103-900[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well I didn't say we should go to war with Iraq because Saddam was comparable to Hitler, but because of the fact that he had WMD and was willing to use them.
. Okay I only looked back to WWI on that, but people are trying to make us out t be emperialists.( Sorry I'll try to watch what I post 
)
I did leave out the US, I shouldn't have but I think that their is a point in time were you should stop banging your head on the wall. The point was that France, Germany and Russia are still doing alot of business with Iraq. Sure, Iraq didn't attack us, terrorist attacked us but they were sponsored by somebody and we have found llinks with al queda and Iraq. Whats the point of digging the weed out when you don't get the roots? We may kill all of the top al queda officials we want however, terrorist com at a dime a dozen.
[QUOTE]2. I belive someone that would murder mass amounts of people with no regret could be comparable to Hitler, In fact I remember that is what alot of people thought of him as in the Gulf war , I guess he change [/QUOTE]
This comparison may work when we're trying to work up a sweat about an enemy du jour, but what about "friends" like Suharto? Or pick your US-propped up South American despot of choice? Heck, we didn't even enter WWII because of Hitler, it was Japan.
[QUOTE]3. I belive we will liberate the Iraqi people, as of today the united states has never conquered, we only liberate.As a result the people of Iraq(hopefully) will benefit from not having to live under an oppressive dictator.[/QUOTE]
Never conquered? Are you serious? Only liberated? What about, off the top of my head, Texas? Hawaii? Phillipines? Saipan? How about every part of the current US that was west of the 13 colonies? You need to look at some history. Your statement is not even "spin," it's just plain false.
[QUOTE]1. First off, we were attacked (you know that whole sept 11 thing?) second Iraq is more than a percieved threat, He has WMD(Germany and Franch sold them to Iraq!) and he is willing to use them. *The reason we don't attack other countries with the same capablility is we have a Mutual Acceptance of Destruction with other countries, unlike say a state funded terrorist group*[/QUOTE]
We weren't attacked on 9/11 by Iraq. And you left the United States off of that list, by the way. We sold them a whole lotta chemicals. This is from the US Senate Hearing report 103-900, and shows the transfer to Iraq of various agents:
From U.S. Senate Hearing Report 103-900[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well I didn't say we should go to war with Iraq because Saddam was comparable to Hitler, but because of the fact that he had WMD and was willing to use them.
. Okay I only looked back to WWI on that, but people are trying to make us out t be emperialists.( Sorry I'll try to watch what I post )I did leave out the US, I shouldn't have but I think that their is a point in time were you should stop banging your head on the wall. The point was that France, Germany and Russia are still doing alot of business with Iraq. Sure, Iraq didn't attack us, terrorist attacked us but they were sponsored by somebody and we have found llinks with al queda and Iraq. Whats the point of digging the weed out when you don't get the roots? We may kill all of the top al queda officials we want however, terrorist com at a dime a dozen.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.