Should U.S. go after Iraq?

[latingirl]

Okay, I'm hoping for a healthy, at least semi-friendly discussion here. No need to get mad, just state your position and realize that other people might just have a different one (I'm saying a little prayer now).

I'm sort of on the fence on this one. Of course, I don't like war just like the next guy. So many innocent people get hurt. But at the same time...the dude (hussein) is crazy and based on what happened in NY last year, can we afford to allow him to just stay in power?? Maybe we SHOULD be on the offensive instead of having to clean up half the country next time THEY decide that we don't deserve to live or live in peace.

The other thing that I keep hearing is that the horrific things that Saddam has done (experimenting on (with gases)/killing his own innocent people, etc) the U.S. is guilty of itself. I don't doubt at all that our government may have some foul practices with other countries and within our own in the name of greed and power, but as far as doing the same things as Hussein...I'd like to read up on that. Can anyone who holds this position lead me to some factual/reliable sources?

/me runs for cover now and hopes for the best. :D

[jase71]

Personally, I think we should stay out of Iraq. Unless there is a clear, unarguable link drawn between Hussein and 9/11. Right now, that link doesn't exist.

Hussein is a bad guy. One of the worst. No one's arguing that. But what has he done in the last 10 years that makes it necessary for us to take him out NOW? If we didn't do it then, right after Kuwait, what do we gain by doing it now? What message do we send?

I think the sudden focus on Iraq is a personal vendetta of Bush and his staff. He wants to clean up what his father didn't finish. It also nicely distracts the public from the stalled war on terrorism, which still gets big media play, but hasn't produced many tangible results in the last few months that you can point to on a chart.

Again, Hussein's a bad guy... but if we topple him, then we get to stick around to set up the replacement government. That potentially means US troops occupying Bagdhad. Fun. By invading Iraq, we also give rise to a whole new generation of terrorists upset at having their homeland invaded by the Great Satan.

Unless he poses a direct threat to US soil, we should stay out of the region until the other countries in the region ask us to intercede. Even then, we should think twice.

[sbp]

About Iraq: I've been pondering this may be a ploy to get Hussein to behave and allow the inspectors back in. I'm not the only one who is thinking this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27698-2002Sep2.html

I've been reading some things that says Iran has been helping al Qaeda.

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by jase71
Personally, I think we should stay out of Iraq. Unless there is a clear, unarguable link drawn between Hussein and 9/11. Right now, that link doesn't exist.

Hussein is a bad guy. One of the worst. No one's arguing that. But what has he done in the last 10 years that makes it necessary for us to take him out NOW? If we didn't do it then, right after Kuwait, what do we gain by doing it now?

Hey you know what they say right, "better late then never" :hehehmm:

[topane]

http://members.dsli.com/kniemi/images/bennett.jpg

[topane]

Originally posted by Burzhui


Hey you know what they say right, "better late then never" :hehehmm: No, it's "better late than pregnant".

[latingirl]

Originally posted by topane
http://members.dsli.com/kniemi/images/bennett.jpg

Where'd you get that from? :)

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
About Iraq: I've been pondering this may be a ploy to get Hussein to behave and allow the inspectors back in. I'm not the only one who is thinking this.


This is an awfully risky bluff, if that's what it is. If Hussein refuses to play ball, we either back down and lose face, or we're forced to follow through and attack.

I would hope they could be a little more subtle than that... playing diplomatic chicken when the lives of our troops are on the line strikes me as being a little less than wise...

[topane]

Originally posted by latingirl


Where'd you get that from? :) I think someone posted it on the Fark.com forums one day. I'm not quite sure ;).

[Dave_7]

A reason? How about ousting UN weapons inspectors 4 years ago?

They were going there for a reason... to ensure (or at least reasonable assure us) that the Iraq weapons program would not be a threat. Again, the inspection deal was negotiated after Saddam waged AGGRESSIVE war-tactics toward another soverign country, Kuwait.


He needs to go... and go now.





Dave.

[Cantacuzene]

If the government produces proof, I'm all for it. Until then, I'm dead set against it.

When the government says, "Trust us, we know what we're doing," I usually don't.

[NuTs62]

I think jase71 summed it up best. We attempted to take hussein out the first time. Heck, we attempted to take Bin Laden out too. Eventhough we do get through and kill him, the problem will still exist. From what the media and our government has said, from what i've seen, a bit of the Iraqi people are against Hussein. But then again, over the past 10 years, Hussein has I'm sure built a stronger following.

Our nation/government is trigger happy right now. The American people want to see blood, in retribution for what happened a year ago. The American people want answers which our government attempts to, but cannot provide. I think its rather frightening for our country to be in a state of war, especially against countries that have supposed terrorist links. Fighting a war against Iraq, we'll be fighting a war on our soil as well. No doubt when we hit Iraq, they will contact their sleepers to make a hit.

I'm more against the whole thing, but I realize that there is a reason to take the guy out.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by jase71
Personally, I think we should stay out of Iraq. Unless there is a clear, unarguable link drawn between Hussein and 9/11. Right now, that link doesn't exist.

Hussein is a bad guy. One of the worst. No one's arguing that. But what has he done in the last 10 years that makes it necessary for us to take him out NOW? If we didn't do it then, right after Kuwait, what do we gain by doing it now? What message do we send?

I think the sudden focus on Iraq is a personal vendetta of Bush and his staff. He wants to clean up what his father didn't finish. It also nicely distracts the public from the stalled war on terrorism, which still gets big media play, but hasn't produced many tangible results in the last few months that you can point to on a chart.

Again, Hussein's a bad guy... but if we topple him, then we get to stick around to set up the replacement government. That potentially means US troops occupying Bagdhad. Fun. By invading Iraq, we also give rise to a whole new generation of terrorists upset at having their homeland invaded by the Great Satan.

Unless he poses a direct threat to US soil, we should stay out of the region until the other countries in the region ask us to intercede. Even then, we should think twice.

With all due respect, I do disagree with you on a couple of points.

No matter what happens it will be extremely difficult to produce tangible results of a war on terrorism. The closest thing I can think of is that since it began nothing has HAPPENED. Yeah someone tried to use an explosive shoe and someone else tried the "dirty bomb" thing, but nothing has happened. No deaths. No property damage. Now before you jump all over me I will be the first to admit that the same might have been the case had there been no war on terrorism. So it is kind of a push. :shrug:

As for going after Saddam...He and his country gave up certain soverign rights when they launched a war of aggression and lost. Much the way a citizen loses rights when they commit a crime - they go to jail. Saddam sort of put Iraq in country jail :p Through his actions he has demonstrated that he can't be a responsible/civilized member of the world community. What we did 10 years ago set him back quite a bit but I think it is fairly safe to say he has rebuilt much of his power again. We learned that he was developing weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, which for someone with an entire nation's resources at his disposal is not that hard to do, hence the need for the weapons inspectors. In my opinion, this man cannot be allowed to have these weapons. Period.

Yes, war is a terrible thing and we as an enlightened people (no snive remarks because we do try) will attempt to aviod a pre-emptive strike but that course of action holds great danger. With the growing availability of weapons of mass destruction we need to take a much more aggressive stance on who can be allowed to possess these weapons. And yes, nobody needs to point out the irony of that stance on these weapons when our country remains the only one to ever actually use one.

Speaking as someone who lives a mere 15 minutes from the CDC, one of the juciest terrorist targets in the whole wide world, I understand that we no longer live in a world where we can wait for the enemy to act before we move into action.

Saddam needs to go and I for one think we should get down to business.

[sbp]

Originally posted by NuTs62
I think jase71 summed it up best. We attempted to take hussein out the first time. Heck, we attempted to take Bin Laden out too. Eventhough we do get through and kill him, the problem will still exist. From what the media and our government has said, from what i've seen, a bit of the Iraqi people are against Hussein. But then again, over the past 10 years, Hussein has I'm sure built a stronger following.

Our nation/government is trigger happy right now. The American people want to see blood, in retribution for what happened a year ago. The American people want answers which our government attempts to, but cannot provide. I think its rather frightening for our country to be in a state of war, especially against countries that have supposed terrorist links. Fighting a war against Iraq, we'll be fighting a war on our soil as well. No doubt when we hit Iraq, they will contact their sleepers to make a hit.

I'm more against the whole thing, but I realize that there is a reason to take the guy out. The US could have taken Hussein out the first time if we chose too. However, the UN mandates were followed and the Arab states did not want it to happen. And who knows what would have been the result.

If Hussein continues to play games about the inspections then he should be taken out. Will he? Doubtful. The Europeans won't go for it because they have financial interests at stake. And the limp wrists at the UN will still continue to do nothing.

[jase71]

Originally posted by Merlin


No matter what happens it will be extremely difficult to produce tangible results of a war on terrorism. The closest thing I can think of is that since it began nothing has HAPPENED.

That's why it was a bad decision to call it a "war" on terrorism. Nice statement for the media right after the tragic event. Captures our feeling well. But it leads you down a path that really has no ending.

Wars are things with beginnings and endings. Winners and losers. Traditionally, there's a declaration of war, and then a surrender or treaty at the end.

But terrorism has no central organization, thus there can be no "end" to the war. There's no one to surrender, no specific force to defeat, no territory to conquer.

Add to that, with terrorism, there's no Victory over Terrorism day. You never know if you've won, All you know is that nothing's happened lately, and you can't even be sure that's because of your efforts. It could just be your foe had nothing planned.

That's a big part of why I think Bush wants to target Iraq now. It gives him a foe to "defeat". If he takes on Iraq, he can claim a victory over an enemy. A war with Iraq will have a beginning and an end. He'll at least have something to point to as an accomplishment.



As for going after Saddam...He and his country gave up certain soverign rights when they launched a war of aggression and lost.

This would be a valid argument if it were made in '91. But it's been 10 years. 10 years without the invasion of another country.

What's the statute of limitations on action against another country for aggressive behavior? Can we punish another country 10 years later? 20? 50? 100?

I'm not arguing with your basic premise, that an agressor country gives up certain rights when it invades another country. Just the timing. For punishment to be effective, and a deterrent, it needs to be both fair, and swift. If we hit Iraq now, 10 years after bloodying them under Bush Sr.'s campaign, the fairness of it would be questionable, and the swiftness would be a joke. It wouldn't be punishment, it would be revenge. And that's not the way I'd like our foriegn policy to be operated...

[Merlin]

Originally posted by jase71
What's the statute of limitations on action against another country for aggressive behavior? Can we punish another country 10 years later? 20? 50? 100?

I'm not arguing with your basic premise, that an agressor country gives up certain rights when it invades another country. Just the timing. For punishment to be effective, and a deterrent, it needs to be both fair, and swift. If we hit Iraq now, 10 years after bloodying them under Bush Sr.'s campaign, the fairness of it would be questionable, and the swiftness would be a joke. It wouldn't be punishment, it would be revenge. And that's not the way I'd like our foriegn policy to be operated...

I pretty much agree with what you are saying but if you look at it a different way. When they lost the war, Iraq was put on a form of probation. When they expelled the weapons inspectors they violated that probation and now need to be punished. So it is not really 10 years late. But even this rings hollow because they ejected the inspectors a while ago. :shrug:

Another thing to keep in mind is that since we got our nose bloodied last year we are going to be less tolerant/paticient (and rightly so) with potential threats. So we may have been able to look the other way on his shenanigans for a while but no longer can.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by jase71

But terrorism has no central organization, thus there can be no "end" to the war. There's no one to surrender, no specific force to defeat, no territory to conquer.


Yup, kind of like the war on poverty or the war on drugs.

[jase71]

Originally posted by Merlin

Another thing to keep in mind is that since we got our nose bloodied last year we are going to be less tolerant/paticient (and rightly so) with potential threats. So we may have been able to look the other way on his shenanigans for a while but no longer can.

Granted, he should take it into account when he considers his moves... and it's not as if he hasn't earned his reputation.

Still, that leaves us essentially punishing him for the actions of Al Queda. We have less patience with him, because of the actions of a terrorist group with no ties (that we can prove yet) to him?

That strikes me as a little unfair too.

Maybe I've missed something in the news... but other than posturing and making speeches, what has Iraq done in the last, oh say five years, other than kick out the weapons inspectors? I'm probably forgetting something, but I can't recall any aggressive actions against his neighbors...

Just seems like this is all coming to a head now, long after the offensive actions... for no apparent reason. That makes it look personal, and vindictive, rather than just and fair.


Yup, kind of like the war on poverty or the war on drugs.

Ugh.. yeah, those weren't wise calls either. Calling something a "war" is a little too much like delivering an ultimatum.

[MadCool]

Bomb Them before another 9/11 happens.

[coleslaw]

http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/0802/bush_oil.jpg

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by coleslaw
http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/0802/bush_oil.jpg

:heh:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Merlin


Yup, kind of like the war on poverty or the war on drugs.

Both of which failed miserably. Maybe we'll get 1 out of 3.

[sbp]

You might be surprise at what "wars" are engaged in and what places they are done at. Check out this email that was just made up:

"Attention all GotApex members: The war on good beer continues to rage on with the drinking has been hard. We must not and cannot lose this battle. Please take out your mugs to receive the daily allotment of brew and for those of you still in training well you get root beer.

C'mon you apes you wanna stay sober forever?

-The management" :cheers:

[ribitch]

bombs away!!!!

Get rid of that SOB. If we dont invade iraq for unfinished business, then invade them for a humanitarian reason. That man and his sons are the lowest life forms available.

One son raped a girl on her wedding day, and decided she was his. Killed her fiance, and had his way until she was no longer needed.

I believe one had killed parts/all of their soccer team for loosing a game.

there are many more cases like this wwhere these guys are abusing their power, and nobody can stop them. They abuse human life, and therefore need to be stopped.

[jase71]

Originally posted by ribitch
bombs away!!!!

Get rid of that SOB. If we dont invade iraq for unfinished business, then invade them for a humanitarian reason. That man and his sons are the lowest life forms available.

That'd be great and all... nice to bring a little peace and stability to all the people of the world. But are you sure that's a precedent you want to set?

If we invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, does that mean we have to follow up with every other country in the world that has humanitarian problems caused by bad or corrupt leadership? Or do we create a double-standard, and only take out the bad leaders we DON'T like?

If so, we'll quickly be involved in invading 2/3rds of the countries of Africa, much of the rest of the middle east, about half of Asia, including China, and perhaps even some of southern Europe.

Care to pay your taxes for THAT invasion bill?

On a side note: Iran just tested a ballistic missle, and is currently beginning the construction of a 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor. Iran also has a contentious history with the US. Should we add them to the invasion list too?

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp

"Attention all GotApex members: The war on good beer continues to rage on with the drinking has been hard. We must not and cannot lose this battle. Please take out your mugs to receive the daily allotment of brew and for those of you still in training well you get root beer.

C'mon you apes you wanna stay sober forever?


Reporting for duty, General SBP sir!

I'm willing to lay my liver on the line for my country, sir! No beer is gonna get the best of me! Let me at 'em, let me at 'em!

Thank you sir, may I have another?

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by coleslaw
http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/0802/bush_oil.jpg

this thing is soooo old
i had it since about '95

[hapoo]

Here's how i look at it. Saddam is like the bad son in a family, the siblings know it and the parents know it, and while they don't like it anymore than the next person, its their business. Now america the neighbor wants to come on over and kick the boys ass. Well this is going to really piss off the Saddams relatives. An attack will just cause much more trouble than its worth cause i'm pretty sure a lot of countries aren't down with a war with iraq. Its been 10 years since iraqs done anything, and bush is just waiting for an excuse but i think he's just going to get himself into more crap.

I'd go for the more peaceful of the two choices and wait.

[Tse How]

Bush is making the wrong choice. Everyone but Britain is against this. The U.S. government is so damn corrupt. They don't ever reveal the correct reasons they do certain things. You know how many people were jailed unconstitutionally, held without trial and/or bail hearing, after september 11? You know President Bush is being sued?? You know that his attorney said in court, to the judge, something to the extent of "he's the President, he can't be sued." I can't wait until Bush's reign is over. It comes down to this: I DON'T FORSEE ANYTHING GOOD COMING FROM THIS. And I mean good for the world, not just for Bush or the Americans who fall on his side of the fence

[Cantacuzene]

Someday, far in the future, the United States will not be the most powerful country in the world. Hard to believe, but someday it will be true. When that time comes we will be at the mercy of #1 like everyone is to us now. Personally, I'd like the world to remember how generous and benevolent we were as the superpower. Think about your grandchildren here.

[sbp]

That won't happen in our lifetimes. Pax America has not been in effect for too long. And unlike past world powers, we didn't get to where we were by being an empire.

"Personally, I'd like the world to remember how generous and benevolent we were as the superpower." Doubtful. People have short memories.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Someday, far in the future, the United States will not be the most powerful country in the world. Hard to believe, but someday it will be true. When that time comes we will be at the mercy of #1 like everyone is to us now. Personally, I'd like the world to remember how generous and benevolent we were as the superpower. Think about your grandchildren here.

This has been the best argument to do nothing I've heard yet. As for those of you who say there is no reason to go after Iraq now, satilite photos of sites where weapons of mass destuction could be built have been released to the public. If they are able to build (and they may have already) an atomic bomb they can bully their malevolent neigbors into cooperation. This could enable them to become quite powerfull. Also, they could nuke San Diego, which would suck for me. Recently (like within the last couple months) they have been pressuring and shunning the UN's weapon inspectors from checking out this place.

I think this is enough evidence for me to say, yeah, we might want to go to Iraq

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

As for those of you who say there is no reason to go after Iraq now, satilite photos of sites where weapons of mass destuction could be built have been released to the public.

I disagree. Any photos they have released have been inconclusive. There is no proof until there is proof.

[jase71]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing


This has been the best argument to do nothing I've heard yet. As for those of you who say there is no reason to go after Iraq now, satilite photos of sites where weapons of mass destuction could be built have been released to the public. If they are able to build (and they may have already) an atomic bomb they can bully their malevolent neigbors into cooperation. This could enable them to become quite powerfull. Also, they could nuke San Diego, which would suck for me. Recently (like within the last couple months) they have been pressuring and shunning the UN's weapon inspectors from checking out this place.

I think this is enough evidence for me to say, yeah, we might want to go to Iraq

Again, Iran just tested a ballistic missle. Iran is beginning construction of a 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor. If anything, Iran is probably ahead of Iraq in the race for nuclear weapons. Iran is also a more hardline Islamic government than Iraq. Iran also has a long history of enmity towards the United States.

Do we take out Iran too? The same arguments for taking out Iraq can be applied to Iran as well.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by jase71

Do we take out Iran too? The same arguments for taking out Iraq can be applied to Iran as well.

...or North Korea, or Libya, or Algeria, or any of the dozens of countries american citizens arent allowed to, or strongly advised not to, travel to.

[latingirl]

I was just watching this on the news this afternoon and they made a good point. The burden of proof should be on Iraq, not Bush.

If Iraq wants to keep peace, they should allow UN inspectors to go in and see for themselves whether or not they are attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction and allow themselves to be monitored to at least a certain extent (I understand that every country has a right to thier own intelligence).

Why would they not do this? What are they hiding? Of course, we know the answer.

Yes, I think that US should be certain before attacking. But I think its either naive or biased of all these other countries to just say "we don't support an attack on Iraq" without saying "look saddam, you need to come clean".

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by latingirl
I was just watching this on the news this afternoon and they made a good point. The burden of proof should be on Iraq, not Bush.

If Iraq wants to keep peace, they should allow UN inspectors to go in and see for themselves whether or not they are attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction and allow themselves to be monitored to at least a certain extent (I understand that every country has a right to thier own intelligence).

Why would they not do this? What are they hiding? Of course, we know the answer.

Yes, I think that US should be certain before attacking. But I think its either naive or biased of all these other countries to just say "we don't support an attack on Iraq" without saying "look saddam, you need to come clean".
You're totaly right. They have to prove that they are not a threat and we can't prove "this site is creating wepons of mass destruction" if our wepons inspectors aren't allowed to enter. In fact that is evidence that they are.
Secondly, I have no idea why we don't percieve Iran as a threat. Maybe we know something that they don't? Perhaps they are not on probation? Maybe we don't see them as a threat to us. There HAS to be a reason.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Someday, far in the future, the United States will not be the most powerful country in the world. Hard to believe, but someday it will be true. When that time comes we will be at the mercy of #1 like everyone is to us now. Personally, I'd like the world to remember how generous and benevolent we were as the superpower. Think about your grandchildren here.



Nope... first think about Japan's grandchildren... and Germany's grandchildren.

The world's memory is shorter than your nose hair. Does anyone remember that less than 60 years ago a favorite German weapon was the oven?

And Japanese soldiers cutting babies heads in half in China and throughout SE Asia? All this after raping and pillaging, of course.

They are two of the most prosperous nations in the world today... it's a good thing they were so nice when they were so powerful, eh? :rolleyes:

The world's memory is short. Nearly as short as the American-public's.

Removing an aggressive regime ruled by a ruthless dictator is the right thing to do.

The world is not a nice place. Passive, liberal-folk like to believe that it is... but it's not.





Dave.

[sbp]

Study: Iraq could arm nukes quickly

Sept. 9 — Iraq could build a nuclear bomb in a matter of months if it were to obtain radioactive material from abroad, but Saddam Hussein’s regime currently lacks the ability to make its own nuclear material, a leading independent think tank said Monday. The group’s assessment, which also said Iraq was working to develop equipment to make bomb components, will sharpen debate over how to deal with Saddam as President Bush prepares to make a key Iraq policy speech at the United Nations later this week.

more here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp

-----------------------
Wonderful. I say let him build the bomb and nuke his rotten neighbors. :dodgy:

[chrissy]

JAYNA DAVIS, JOURNALIST: ... for sponsorship, there are very compelling indicators. I was working as a reporter for the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City, and one of the first reporters on the scene of the Oklahoma bombing of the federal building. And, one groundbreaking lead to our station led me directly to the doorstep of what several esteemed intelligence experts have told me was a Middle East terrorist cell, Lou, living and operating in the heart of Oklahoma City.

And several witnesses, 22 in all, have signed sworn witness affidavits and positively identified eight Middle Eastern men acting in collusion with McVeigh and Nichols at various stages of the bombing plot. Those Middle Eastern men, the majority of whom are Iraqi soldiers. One soldier in particular, Lou, is Hussein Al-Husani (ph), and he was identified by seven witnesses, tying him to Timothy McVeigh, the Ryder truck, downtown Oklahoma City and the get-away vehicle aggressively pursued by the FBI the morning of the bombing.

DOBBS: You realize, Jayna, that there is great incredulity as we listen to your statements about an Iraqi cell operating in Oklahoma City, being involved in this, because simply the authorities have in no circumstance suggested such a connection. Yet you say that your sources, presumably intelligence sources, are the ones who validated the information that this person was Iraqi, and eight other Iraqis. What has been the response of the federal authorities and local authorities in Oklahoma City, and nationally to what you are suggesting here tonight?

DAVIS: Well, all I can say is this, that this information may have innocently fallen through the cracks of a massive federal investigation, Lou.

However, what I can explain is why the FBI turned me away in 1997, when I tried to surrender the evidence to the Bureau directly. And they told my attorney that the Department of Justice did not want any more documents for discovery to turn over to McVeigh and Nichols defense teams. When the FBI finally took custody of the evidence in 1999, because I repeatedly knocked on the door, they took the 22 sworn witness affidavits about the specific identification of Arab men involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

They did not call one witness, Lou. They did not interview them. And to this day, the man identified by several witnesses, as John Doe 2, cannot provide one witness affidavit to establish his whereabouts for the morning of April 19. And to this day, the Department of Justice has been unable to provide an explanation to the Government Reform Committee investigators who have been looking into this for five months, as to why they never questioned this possible Iraqi John Doe, and why they have never officially cleared him on the record.

DOBBS: Where do you believe John Doe #2, as referred to, and where do you believe he is, and whom do you believe he is? DAVIS: Well, I believe that he is a former Iraqi soldier. I submitted this investigative file to the former chief of human intelligence, to the Defense Intelligence Agency. And this gentleman studied the background of Hussein Al-Husani (ph).

What information we have from this international rescue committee records, and the INS, and also studied a very distinctive military tattoo on his upper left arm. And he came to the conclusion that most likely, Hussein Al-Husani (ph) served in the Republican Guard and was recruited by the elite unit 999 of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. And this is based, this service, is based out of Salmanpac (ph), which is southeast of Baghdad, and is responsible for carrying out clandestine operations at home in the Middle East, and abroad.

Where do I believe he is today? I believe he went on to Boston. I have information that in 1997, four years before the suicide attacks of 9/11, before those hijackings, Hussein Al-Husani (ph) told his psychiatrist in confidence that he was afraid of working at his job at Boston Logan International Airport, because if there was a terrorist strike there, quote, "I would be blamed for it."

DOBBS: What is next for you?

DAVIS: Next for me is I am continuing to work with investigators on the House side and Senate side, and I am hoping the American people will demand answers for these questions in congressional hearings.

DOBBS: Jayna Davis, thank you for sharing your views and raising the questions.

DAVIS: Thank you for having me.


http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/09/mlld.00.html


Not saying that she is right and factual, but I find it plausable.

[Cantacuzene]

snip chrissys post

Thats just latent racism and trying ot shift the blame away from the white anti-government guy to the middle eastern terrorist stereotype guy. Maybe a middle eastern guy DID help McVeigh out, but until thats proven, useless speculation of the sort is racist and stupid.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

Secondly, I have no idea why we don't percieve Iran as a threat. Maybe we know something that they don't?

That requires me to trust the government not to lie to me. I'm fairly sure most Americans no longer trust the government to tell them the truth in most matters.

Iran isnt a threat because they buy stuff from America. As much as they claim to hate americans they buy our crap like nobody's business. Not only our domestic products, but they buy one thing in particular from us, weapons. Iranians dont settle for cheap Russian equipment like the Iraqis do, they buy good old American rocket launchers. The military industrial complex controls way too much government policy. Even Republican President Eisenhower warned against it in his farewell address, but its tentacles are too strong in the government now to fight.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Dave_7

Nope... first think about Japan's grandchildren... and Germany's grandchildren.

The world's memory is shorter than your nose hair. Does anyone remember that less than 60 years ago a favorite German weapon was the oven?

And Japanese soldiers cutting babies heads in half in China and throughout SE Asia? All this after raping and pillaging, of course.

They are two of the most prosperous nations in the world today... it's a good thing they were so nice when they were so powerful, eh? :rolleyes:

The world's memory is short. Nearly as short as the American-public's.

Removing an aggressive regime ruled by a ruthless dictator is the right thing to do.

The world is not a nice place. Passive, liberal-folk like to believe that it is... but it's not.

Dave.

Oh yeah? If the worlds memory is so short, why are there so many anti-nazi laws in Germany today? Why doesnt Germany allow their citizens to play violent video games and watch violent movies? Why was most of Western Europe against german re-unification in 1989 despite the obvious setback it was to the USSR? People in Europe and many in America still fear Germany and the potential it has.

As far as Japan, why is the stereotype that Japanese are sneaky and decietful still abound? Pearl Harbor. We havent forgotten. Why doesnt Japan have a military beyond a national guard? They are still under treaty saying they cant form a military, and the treaty is still being enforced by the United States. We havent forgotten. Ask people in Nanking if they've forgotten.

The only people who "forget" are the uneducated, ignorant elements of teh citizenry. The British Empire in its heyday is now regarded as extremely oppressive, the Spanish empire before that and so on. I dont want people in 200 years to remember how imperialistic and evil we were.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by sbp
[b]Wonderful. I say let him build the bomb and nuke his rotten neighbors. :dodgy:

I think most countries are aware that initiating a nuclear war, even with a non-nuclear country means that your country will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Saddam had chemical weapons in the Gulf, but he didnt use them during the war, because he knew we would go nuclear if it got out of hand. Same thing, he wont nuke Saudi Arabia or Israel because he knows Israel would return the favor ten fold.

Saddam may be a meglomaniacal evil madman, but he isnt an idiot or stupid. He knows what he is doing, and he knows what buttons to push to get what response he wants. As evil as he is, he isnt willing to commit suicide to prove a point. He is far too selfish for that.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I think most countries are aware that initiating a nuclear war, even with a non-nuclear country means that your country will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Saddam had chemical weapons in the Gulf, but he didnt use them during the war, because he knew we would go nuclear if it got out of hand. Same thing, he wont nuke Saudi Arabia or Israel because he knows Israel would return the favor ten fold.

Saddam may be a meglomaniacal evil madman, but he isnt an idiot or stupid. He knows what he is doing, and he knows what buttons to push to get what response he wants. As evil as he is, he isnt willing to commit suicide to prove a point. He is far too selfish for that.

That's a good point.

But then he may be selfish enough to die just to get his way. He may decide to go out with a "bang".

With all these suicide bombers (and granted, they are just pawns for bin laden and probably hussein). I personally wouldn't take the degree of his selfishness for granted.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by DarkFury
But honestly, you KNOW that this country is NEVER gonna nuke the whole area like they did in Japan in WWII... that's just not gonna happen with the "world's eye" on us. Pretty much, it just seems to be a bunch of "posturing" between both sides... kinda like watchin' 2 kids who don't really wanna fight in the playground. :shrug:

Esp with the "speculation" (and I only say speculation because I only briefly heard a report on this and don't know the details nor the conclusion) that america initiated the Pearl Harbor attacks (i.e. the sub they found in the waters of Japan that's supposed to be evidence that america struck first).

Although, it seems kind of funny that they only happened to find this evidence recently. Have they known about this all along and decided to save the information for a convenient time to expose it??

[Cantacuzene]

The submarine thing is ridiculous. Even if we did fire the first shot, which I'm not convinced we did, that is irrelevant. The point is, a massive suprise attack was going to be launched either way and if we got lucky and shot first that doesnt change the fact they were going to attack Pearl Harbor either way.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Oh yeah? :P




Originally posted by Cantacuzene

The only people who "forget" are the uneducated, ignorant elements of teh citizenry.

Agreed... but that's who they ask in every European opinion poll on weather or not they would support actions to remove Saddam's regime.



Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I dont want people in 200 years to remember how imperialistic and evil we were.


The USA is not evil... however much or little you think so. Leading the way on removing Saddam is not an evil act. A loose cannon like Saddam, who both aggressively waged war on independent, sovereign nations and committed acts of war on his own people, is evil. Such a dictator can not be trusted to do ANYTHING rational... even if he is smart. Just because you wouldn't do something if you were in his shoes... is absolutely no reason to trust him.

That's like trusting a burglar not to rape and murder your wife because you trust that he wouldn't do something stupid like that since he could easily escape with what he came into your house for... your TV.

You don't trust him... you shoot him.

Would you ever drop tons of chemical weapons on thousands of your own countrymen? No? Well... the man we're facing would... and did. So you can't make those calls from your Lay-Z-Boy.




Dave.

[sbp]

Originally posted by latingirl
Esp with the "speculation" (and I only say speculation because I only briefly heard a report on this and don't know the details nor the conclusion) that america initiated the Pearl Harbor attacks (i.e. the sub they found in the waters of Japan that's supposed to be evidence that america struck first).

Although, it seems kind of funny that they only happened to find this evidence recently. Have they known about this all along and decided to save the information for a convenient time to expose it?? Actually the U.S. military did report it sunk the sub. Recently finding the sub just outside Pearl Harbor proved this happened and also showed Japan was attempting to conduct the sneak attack.

Sad to say some Japanese still wish to engage in revisionistic history. :rolleyes: :pfft:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020829/ap_on_re_us/pearl_harbor_submarine_5
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020829/ap_wo_en_po/japan_pearl_harbor_submarine_2

[cactus]

I think the question is really about what we want and don't want.

We want to verify/prevent Iraq from acquiring weapon of mass destruction, and kick their ass just for fun (or any other unprofitable reason)

We don't want to spent tax$ or people lives, or to be seen as a bully and be alienated in international community, or hurt any poor innocent civilian in Iraq.

Anything else is irrelevant, and just complicate matter...

Therefore, in summary, to get what we want, we should start a war. There is nothing else we can to get what we want. We tried everything in the last ten years, fruitlessly. Of course, to get what we want, we also have to accept what

[Cantacuzene]

You say 'we' as if everyone wants that. The majority of registered voters doesnt want to attack iraq. the majority of americans do, only because of the opinion of non-registered voters. I dont much care about the opinion of non-voters, and neither should the politicians.

[hang10wannabe]

i say "totally"... i believe that we should wage war with iraq b/c iraq has begun to overstep its boundries... and the US is the strongest military force and i believe it will remain the strongest... to disagree with Cantacuzene... i dont see ANY other nation becomming as strong as or stronger than the US... thats my firm belief... so i think we should take action and i love bush... hes an awesome president (and im not saying that b/c of 9/11)... i thought he was the right pick for president... so... yea... im pro conflict with iraq...

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
You say 'we' as if everyone wants that. The majority of registered voters doesnt want to attack iraq. the majority of americans do, only because of the opinion of non-registered voters. I dont much care about the opinion of non-voters, and neither should the politicians.

im a registered voter :|

[cactus]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
You say 'we' as if everyone wants that. The majority of registered voters doesnt want to attack iraq. the majority of americans do, only because of the opinion of non-registered voters. I dont much care about the opinion of non-voters, and neither should the politicians.

I said we want to stop Iraq from getting nuke/bio/chem weapon. I didn't way we want to attack iraq. But to stop Iraq from getting nuke/bio/chem weapon, the only way is to start a war, because we tried everything else the last ten years.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe
and the US is the strongest military force and i believe it will remain the strongest... to disagree with Cantacuzene... i dont see ANY other nation becomming as strong as or stronger than the US... thats my firm belief...

Are you so ignorant to think that in 100 years nothing has any possible chance of changing?

I hope you all realize that China has an enormous population. That means they have potential the strongest economy in the world. Eventually China WILL fully industrialize. Eventually China WILL give everyone in their country an education. Eventually China WILL have a stronger economy than we do. Its only a matter of time. When that time comes, I hope people like you are still around.

[sbp]

Absolutely China is an up-and-coming power. The real questions are will the government there still be repressive. And will they use the power wisely?

[hapoo]

how about india, their population will surpass china's in about 20 years.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe
and the US is the strongest military force and i believe it will remain the strongest... to disagree with Cantacuzene... i dont see ANY other nation becomming as strong as or stronger than the US... thats my firm belief...
Maybe not in the next 10 years, 20 years, or even on our lifetime, but I don't doubt for a minute that the US will eventually fall from its position as "The World Power".

I remember when I first watched "The Magnificent Seven", these 7 men were hired to protect a small Mexican village. A thought flashed through my head: "These peasants are the descendants of the most powerful empire in the world (in their time) - the nation that started the exploration and colonization of the New World."

Yes, the USA has done some great things. So did Babylon and Rome and Greece and Spain and England and on and on and on...

[Merlin]

Obviously the balance of power will shift over time. Nevertheless, there are some things to consider. Yes one of the key indicators is population. More people means more potential but when you live in a country where people have procreated beyond the lands ability to support them you will be stuck in a cycle of poverty (India). The only real way for us to be surpassed would be if someone else were to match resources with population.

Another thing that is different this time around is that even the smallest of countries will soon possess the ability, through weapons of mass destrustion, be able to destroy the entire world.

So what does this mean? It means that someday a different power will be dominant in the world. But it is most likely generations away.