Uneducated Actors

[T4 Primera]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


That was good post. Although nobody stepped in to stop what was going on in Iraq before doesn't mean that it should never happen. The vast majority screaming of people about the innocent civilians in this conflict were nowhere to be heard before now. Its incredible to hear the Arab nations speak out for the civilians being hurt, but they never said a damn thing when the Kurds were murdered. Or when Iranians were dieing by the bushells in the 80s....

More selective memory - anybody care to remember who was supporting Saddam when the Kurds were gassed?, and the Iraninans?, and who supported the Talibans rise to power while chasing the Russians out of Afghanistan?

Originally posted by YogsVR4
There is documented oppresion and murder all over the middle east against arabs by arabs. Not one peep out of them. To them its not a matter of innocent civillians getting killed - its which ones and by whom it matters. (not to all, but its a damn large piece of duplicity on their governments parts)

It would seem that the Arabs are not the only ones who think that way - especially in the light of who was supporting who when all this happened with training money and weapons to fight wars by proxy. Duplicity? - you bet. The only difference this time around (Afghanistan and Iraq) is that these people will have some of their own blood spilled. I don't condone terrorism, but was it so surprising given the history here?

[T4 Primera]

Originally posted by YogsVR4
So what diplomatic tool would you use to force Saddam to disarm? If you don't want war and you don't want sanctions what do you have left? Don't say inspectors, they only work if your employing another form of action.

Now hang on a minute - the reasons given for going to war in the first place were those of disarmament. None were found that weren't undergoing the process of being disabled and destroyed. If the weapons inspectors had found that Iraq was unco-operative under UN Resolution 1441 they would have said so. Had that been the case, the use of force would probably have been sanctioned by the UN. So in answer to your first question - the UN.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
The whole "oil for food" program was to help the Iraqi people, but of course Saddam kept what he wanted and left his people with little to nothing.

Do you see any emaciated Iraqi's? - no. In fact, in the months leading up to the war, the food ration was doubled and each home was encouraged to accumulate a 6 month supply of food - which they did. As the coalition moves through they find warehouses of food stocks in the cities towns and villages of Southern Iraq - supposedly the most discriminated against population in the country. When you see them coming out to collect food from the coalition - they are merely stocking up more in preparation for a long protracted war.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
For some reason a lot of people think that if sanctions were lifted that all would be just peachy keen and Saddam would turn into this nice and reasonable fellow.

Unfortunately we will never get to find out now will we?...Nobody to my knowledge has said that Saddam would turn into a nice guy, but as far as dictators go - prior to the sanctions being imposed there were others far less benevolent than him. Lifted sanctions also means that as trade and industry flourish, international influence begins to take hold in Iraq, the people and government are exposed to alternative cultures and ideas and their horizons are broadened as a result. Education begins to replace ignorance and attitudes begin to change. Many countries are well on the way to being reformed in this way - but this is not an overnight process. However it is a process that has far more promise for lasting peace than to try to enforce it overnight.

[tomlong]

T4

After giving Suddam over a decade to comply with UN Sanctions I would also like to know what your thoughts would be on how to proceed. If not war? What!

[T4 Primera]

Originally posted by tomlong
T4

After giving Suddam over a decade to comply with UN Sanctions I would also like to know what your thoughts would be on how to proceed. If not war? What!

Sanctions are IMPOSED by the UN on Iraq to prevent access to weapons and as a punishment. Iraq is required to comply with RESOLUTIONS in order to get the sanctions lifted.

After Iraq complied with resolution 1441, which I believe they did by allowing the weapons inspectors free reign, along with the destruction/disabling of non-compliant missiles under the supervision of the weapons inspectors, then the sanctions should have been lifted. The rest is in my previous post.

[tomlong]

I believe that world opinion will change after this is all over. They will see that we are trying to help.

[Milliardo]

Help what? Let's see....2 weeks of war and the U.S. still has to uncover any solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq. It seems people have forgotten that point by America, and now focus solely on getting Saddam. The true reason for going to war--to unseat Saddam and put in a puppet government?

T4 is right--Iraqis aren't starving. Our mediamen had access to Iraqis not afforded to Western (and particularly American) media. What they found was in stark contrast to what American media claims: there's food, lots of food, in Iraq. In fact, Iraqis are so generous to foreigners and visitors to their homes. Food was in abundance, not the starving Iraq that American media tried to convey. Iraqis were, contrary to Western media again, quite open in talking about Saddam. There were those who were against him, but are also against the U.S. war; they see it as an invasion. Iraqis want to solve their problem their way, not have some foreign force come in. Now they are armed--to fight against their "liberators". They see the war as an intrusion, an act of invasion, not "liberation".

[Pick]

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Sanctions are IMPOSED by the UN on Iraq to prevent access to weapons and as a punishment. Iraq is required to comply with RESOLUTIONS in order to get the sanctions lifted.

After Iraq complied with resolution 1441, which I believe they did by allowing the weapons inspectors free reign, along with the destruction/disabling of non-compliant missiles under the supervision of the weapons inspectors, then the sanctions should have been lifted. The rest is in my previous post.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that Saddam should be removed?

[Prelewd]

Originally posted by Milliardo
Help what? Let's see....2 weeks of war and the U.S. still has to uncover any solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq. It seems people have forgotten that point by America, and now focus solely on getting Saddam. The true reason for going to war--to unseat Saddam and put in a puppet government?

Yea.. 2 weeks! Not a very long time when you are concentrating on fighting a war and not focusing on finding WMDs. Not to mention the difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found. Also not to mention that there are places that we haven't even been to yet, say Baghdad.. where all that shit probably is.

[tomlong]

T4 is right--Iraqis aren't starving. Our mediamen had access to Iraqis not afforded to Western (and particularly American) media. What they found was in stark contrast to what American media claims: there's food, lots of food, in Iraq. In fact, Iraqis are so generous to foreigners and visitors to their homes. Food was in abundance, not the starving Iraq that American media tried to convey. Iraqis were, contrary to Western media again, quite open in talking about Saddam. There were those who were against him, but are also against the U.S. war; they see it as an invasion. Iraqis want to solve their problem their way, not have some foreign force come in. Now they are armed--to fight against their "liberators". They see the war as an intrusion, an act of invasion, not "liberation".

What type of proof do you have that Iraqis are not starving, because we see reports every day that they are. I am not talking about somebody saying it I am talking video after video of Iraqis fighting over a simple bottle of water.

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by tomlong


What type of proof do you have that Iraqis are not starving, because we see reports every day that they are. I am not talking about somebody saying it I am talking video after video of Iraqis fighting over a simple bottle of water.

I heard from somewhere (I'll try looking for source) that before the war started 60% of the Iraqi population were completely dependent on food from the oil-for-food program for sustainance and 72% of the children of Iraq suffered from malnutrition......so I don't think there's "lots of food" in Iraq. However, one could easily argue that this starvation was caused by the UN Sanctions imposed during the 90's. According to UNICEF, 6000 infants and young children in Iraq die of starvation every month as a direct result of these sanctions and since the first Gulf War, 1.8 million Iraqi citizens have died from starvation and malnutrition.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by Prelewd
Yea.. 2 weeks! Not a very long time when you are concentrating on fighting a war and not focusing on finding WMDs. Not to mention the difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found. Also not to mention that there are places that we haven't even been to yet, say Baghdad.. where all that shit probably is.

That was the same excuse given last week. Initially, American experts claimed that WMDs will be found "soon". American military officials claim to have 40% or so of Iraq out of Saddam's control. I guess they've bombed so much of Iraq to oblivion that the supposed WMDs and their factories went up in smoke, or are now rubble. I doubt Saddam would be dumb to put his WMDs in a very crowded area like a city. Unless he is totally clueless, he'd put his chemicals and bios in remote, sparsely populated areas.

[Prelewd]

Originally posted by Milliardo


That was the same excuse given last week. Initially, American experts claimed that WMDs will be found "soon". American military officials claim to have 40% or so of Iraq out of Saddam's control. I guess they've bombed so much of Iraq to oblivion that the supposed WMDs and their factories went up in smoke, or are now rubble. I doubt Saddam would be dumb to put his WMDs in a very crowded area like a city. Unless he is totally clueless, he'd put his chemicals and bios in remote, sparsely populated areas.

Just like his soldiers and munitions... uh huh.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Prelewd


Yea.. 2 weeks! Not a very long time when you are concentrating on fighting a war and not focusing on finding WMDs. Not to mention the difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found. Also not to mention that there are places that we haven't even been to yet, say Baghdad.. where all that shit probably is.

If Saddam has these weapons,and is as evil as some in this forum would have us believe,he would have deployed them by now.The difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found is nothing compared to the difficulty in finding something that most likely doesn't exist.I'm sure that the powers that be would dearly love to find chemical and/or nuclear weapons that the U.N. inspectors couldn't,but it hasn't happened yet,and there have been none deployed.

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by T4 Primera
It would seem that the Arabs are not the only ones who think that way - especially in the light of who was supporting who when all this happened with training money and weapons to fight wars by proxy. Duplicity? - you bet. The only difference this time around (Afghanistan and Iraq) is that these people will have some of their own blood spilled. I don't condone terrorism, but was it so surprising given the history here?

So? Are you saying that because a bad decision was done in the past, that the right one can't be made now? Isn't that being shortsighted? Following your line of logic then we should never have fought Germany in WWII because US companies supplied goods and materials that were used to wage war in Poland.

[tomlong]

If Saddam has these weapons,and is as evil as some in this forum would have us believe,he would have deployed them by now.The difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found is nothing compared to the difficulty in finding something that most likely doesn't exist.I'm sure that the powers that be would dearly love to find chemical and/or nuclear weapons that the U.N. inspectors couldn't,but it hasn't happened yet,and there have been none deployed.

I believe the reason he has not deployed them is the same reason he did not destroy the Dam he had wired with explosives, or the bridges he had wired to blow, or for that matter appear on T.V. live. Because he is DEAD! I do not think that his second in command has the balls or maybe even the knowledge of everything Saddam was doing.