*moved* What's up with the weak U.S.?

[powertoad5000]

This post is in response to KorpDeath's continued argument for war against Iraq.

I'm not saying the U.S should go to war for any nother reason than the entire civilized world has already unanimously agreed 12 freakin' years ago that "severe consequences" will be had if SoDamn Insane doesn't disarm.....Has he disarmed? Has he layed out all of his weapons and systematically destroyed them for the world to see? No. Just so you don't think I'm actually asking you a question, I'll answer it for myself.

I don't like war, just like I don't condone violence of any kind. However, when faced with the fact that this guy means absolutely nothing but death, destruction, rape, carnage, I mean for God's sake he imprisoned Iraq's soccer team and coach for losing in the Olympics. Before you people go off and tell me what a bad person I am, and what a horrible country I live in try to understand the person you stand behind. Because if you don't back resolution 1441, then you back Sodom.

Think of the iraqi children that are gassed on whim by they're dictator. Saddam Hussein's son rapes and kills when he feels "upset." They're was a russian ballerina Saddam's son raped, what about her justice? Think of the iraqi soccer team who was imprisoned and tortured for they're loss in the olympics, where is they're justice? Saddam is a monster who needs to be rooted (out? ) before things turn worse.

Hold on one second. Anyone who supports a war, please, stop arguing the moral standpoint, for it is complete bullshit. Saddam has been doing terrible things for a long, long time now. No major superpower really gave a ****, because they're all looking out for number one, e.g. During the Iran Iraq war, Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians:

Late, in March 1986, the UN secretary general, Javier Perez de Cuellar, formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran...Iraq attempted to deny using chemicals, but the evidence, in the form of many badly burned casualties flown to European hospitals for treatment, was overwhelming.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

The US didn't do anything about it then (obviously). It was playing both sides for its own best interests. There is a web page here that goes into greater detail on this issue.

One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."

From the previously mentioned web page. Even when Saddam used chemical weapons on his own citizens, the US didn't do anything. It's a baseless argument.

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes...In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an “open letter” to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate “the threat posed by Saddam.” It urged Clinton to “provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

No slight on the US or Rumsfeld, I'm just going insane with people thinking that a fundamental part of the push for war is the way Saddam treats his citizens.

OK, here are my arguments for not supporting this war. Please, if I'm wrong or have presented incorrect evidence, tell me. If you think my arguments are irrational, tell me. I'm perfectly open to opposing but rational arguments.

Here are some basic facts:

• Saddam is a pretty bad guy. No argument.
  No-one really wants Saddam to be in possession of WMD.
  Although it is thus far unproven, there is a chance that he does have in his possession WMD.
  It's possible that he provides/has provided weapons to fanatical groups, who may possibly use them on civilian targets/allied interests/US interests.

These are all valid reasons for the disarmament of Iraq. What they do not validate, however, is a US-led coalition raining death and destruction upon the Iraqi people. Especially considering the argument is only with Saddam. The single valid reason for war is to relieve Iraq of its WMD. It is not the US' job to institute occupation afterwards, and the US should have absolutely no part in deciding who will run the country or how the country should be run after Saddam has been deposed and relieved of his WMD. These things should be done by the UN, or at the very least by a body who does not have a conflict of interest regarding who will run Iraq or the way Iraq should be run. However, it is looking more and more likely that the US will play a great part in the way Iraq is run after the war is over. This is where my opposition to the war lies.

Believe it or not KorpDeath, oil is a pretty important commodity, and it is probably one of the reasons that the US is going to war with Iraq. If the US occupies Iraq afterwards, and there are oilfields intact, who is going to stop the US and her allies doing whatever it will with the oil? The temptation would be too great, especially considering the importance the US has placed on Middle East oil in the past.

Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out countries like India, which is engaged in developing oil fields in that country.

Analysts said Iraq -- with proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, next only to Saudi Arabia -- could throw the global oil market into a tailspin by resuming full-fledged production if U.N. sanctions against it were lifted.

Besides India, countries like France, Russia, China, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria have signed or sought to sign agreements to develop Iraqi oil fields, rebuild refineries and undertake exploration activities.

Iraq is permitted to produce 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil a day under a U.N. oil-for-food programme, but actual production is about 1.5 to 2 million barrels.

This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies....The source noted that U.S. President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have strong links with the oil industry and alleged that the threat to attack Iraq was aimed at helping American oil companies.

In 1973, Iraq nationalised all oil companies. By displacing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime, U.S. and British companies would be able to re-enter the country and get a major share of its oil industry.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/020923/43/1viab.html

Here are some more points to ponder:

• It is doubtful that Saddam would use WMD unprovoked. Simply because it's obvious that he enjoys his reign, and if he were to use them, his country would be obliterated.
  These missing WMD need to be accounted for before any war begins. A war with Iraq would be a great reason for a fanatical group to launch an attack, assuming Iraq has passed weapons on to said groups.
  North Korea is a nation which is an actual, clear threat to the US and her allies, yet 'diplomacy' is the answer to that problem, while 'war' is the answer to Iraq.
  UN approval would not make any difference, it was easy enough to get for 1441, and that link bascally demonstrates why the UN is losing relevance (not revelance )

So in short, my opposition to a US-led coalition waging war on Iraq is mainly because of the implications of this war, and also because of the conflicts of interest presented by the primary nations responsible for this war. UN approval matters neither way, for it is something that can be coerced out of nations, and therefore has little overall significance.

<edit>
"too long of a post to read"

Just making it an extra bit longer for this special person
</edit>

[KorpDeath]

So just dispense with the diatribe adn line up with "no war for oil" protestors, Powertoad***..

I don't condone the mass killing of innocent civilians you short sighted.... whatever. You fail to address then if the world was not prepared for "serious conseq1uences" why did it unnanimously pass resolution 1441? This might be about oil for the franco-prussian alliance, but I don't see other than they how oil plays in to the politics...

If we wanted oil we would've kept all the Kuwaitis's had offered after we expelled the AGGRESSOR SoDamn Insane, or is that too far back for you?

While you are mixing apples and oranges Nortyh Korea has not been in direct difiance of one of the most important U.N resolutions passed. ( that is not to say all of those resolutions passed against Israel have merit but that's atotally different story.)

You are ignorant to believe that if the U.S goes to enforce a U.N. passed resolution then it will be able to do willy-nilly with whatever it pleases in Iraq. If that were true we would've annexed France in WWII and sold it ro our own real estate brokers..... Just because we disarm Iraq does not mean we can control all that goes on in that country.

Once again, the war for oil argument is plain crap unless you are accusing the Franco-Prussian alliance. They are the ones with the vested interest in Iraq. They are the ones sunk chin deep in Iraqi interest. No wonder they are dragging their feet and dying fo more time for inspectors. Promising destabilization of the region if the U.S. steps in and does anything. Sounds like extortion to me.



P.S. I've been trying for a long time to get the U.S. to do something, is it my fault they woke up? You're right nothing new here.....Maybe it took the changing of a president or two but better late than never. Once again, great argument for siting on your hands.......powertoad500. Keep those incredibly intelligent justifications for not standing up for what you've said. I pity your children.

[powertoad5000]

You fail to address then if the world was not prepared for "serious conseq1uences" why did it unnanimously pass resolution 1441?

Firstly, 'serious consequences' is not a clear-cut expression, like say, 'military invasion and forceful disarmament'. Secondly, and if you'd read the link to Mahakaal's post you'd know where I'm coming from, that UN resolution was passed 'unanimously' due to the wide influence that the US has over the nations that it provides aid to. Read the content in his post.

You are ignorant to believe that if the U.S goes to enforce a U.N. passed resolution then it will be able to do willy-nilly with whatever it pleases in Iraq.

The US has been doing 'willy-nilly with whatever it pleases' irrespective of any organised body or nation in the Middle East for a long time. Look at the Iran-Iraq war. No-one is going to stop the US instituting a new regime and controlling the oil towards its own best interests.

If we wanted oil we would've kept all the Kuwaitis's had offered after we expelled the AGGRESSOR SoDamn Insane, or is that too far back for you?

Well that was early 90's, and a large part of my post was about the Iran-Iraq war, which seems to be too far back for you to even acknowledge. This isn't about accepting oil for the US itself, it is about controlling the oil market as a whole. Control of this oil is in the US' best interests.

This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies....

Do you understand yet? I'm not talking about the US taking all the oil and watching the price for petrol plummet as it is released upon the market - merely controlling it and thus ensuring the current price of oil is maintained. Of course, if it ever needed the oil for anything, it's all there for the taking...

While you are mixing apples and oranges Nortyh Korea has not been in direct difiance of one of the most important U.N resolutions passed. ( that is not to say all of those resolutions passed against Israel have merit but that's atotally different story.)

You're right, North (sp?) Korea has not been in direct defiance (sp?) of resolution 1441. However:

For the first time, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has confirmed that Pyongyang has the capability of hitting the western United States with nuclear-tipped missiles.

The announcement was made yesterday by CIA Director George Tenet during a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee...Tenet said the North Koreans probably have one or two "plutonium-based devices" today.

Pyongyang has...expelled United Nations nuclear inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, restarted the mothballed Yongbyon nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium to make nuclear bombs, and threatened to resume missile tests.

Yesterday in Vienna, the IAEA governing board declared North Korea in breach of global atomic safeguards, a ruling that sends the issue to the UN Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2003170136.asp

The argument is that it is a world issue, not a bilateral issue between the US and North Korea.

"We promised not to test-fire long-range missiles during the duration of talks on the missile issue, but we cannot do so indefinitely."

"The new U.S. foreign and security team is making a fuss by saying that it will take a hard-line stance on us," the North Korean statement continued.

"But," the North Korean statement went on, "this is an attempt to reverse the past course of conciliatory and cooperative relations between us and the United States, and break our will with force."

Mentioning the Clinton deal to help with nuclear reactors in return for North Korea's suspension of long-range missile tests, the foreign office said:

"If the United States continues to fail to honor the agreement, we don't feel that we should cling to it."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/101931.shtml

Quite frankly, if that's not a bilateral issue, I don't know what is. But the US will persist with its argument that this is a world issue. Iraq as a nation poses no threat to the US (although it may possibly towards its immediate neighbours and other Arab nations), while North Korea makes threatening moves indicating its hostility towards America and also openly restarts its nuclear weapons program... of course, North Korea is the more immediate issue.


<edit>

Once again, great argument for siting on your hands.......powertoad500. Keep those incredibly intelligent justifications for not standing up for what you've said. I pity your children.

Sitting on my hands? I'm talking about the US-led coalition. As I stated, I've no problem with the disarmament of Iraq. But, this needs to be performed by a neutral body which has no conflict of interest in the Middle East itself. A UN peacekeeping force, or more extensive inspections. This would negate the need for an overtly violent solution, and once Iraq has the 'all-clear' that it possesses no WMD, then it's done. Life could (hopefully) return to some state of normality. But it is doubtful that this would occur, because if the embargoes on Iraq are lifted, US interests suffer. Another reason why they're pushing this war.

Also, I'm guessing it's a good thing that you think I'm old enough to have kids, considering I'm only 17 . And hey, I pity your children .
</edit>

[trailboss44]

I jsut joined this site about a month ago, and now just found my way here. I am very surprised that some of you are so hard on bush and the USA. Its funny how you people can bash the USA so much, but it is the result of wars and serviceman that have given their lives so your ignorant ass can pollute this site. It sounds like there needs to be some chlorine thrown in the gene pool. I am a very proud Marine, currently out, who was willing to die for this country. The USA has become soft and that is evident by some of your writings, we need to detroy this dictotor in Iraq. I have several friends who are Kurds and had to flee iraq and they are pissed that we haven't taken him out yet. North Korea teaching us a lesson put the pipe down dipshit. Anyway i love this site talk to ya later

[SodaMoca5]

/* Warning this post is tongue in cheek to bring some levity to this thread. Take seriously at your own risk /*

I believe the US is probably making a mistake attacking Iraq. I believe the true danger to America lies much closer and is much more insidious in its nature than anything out of Iraq or North Korea. There is one country that has been used as a stronghold against America or what is now American soil in many different wars. One country that has allied themselves overtly with our enemies on at least two occassions. One country that has lulled us into a false sense of security while actually having the ability to cripple our economy upon a whim. Yes you all know that I am talking about the Evil Empire Canada. Now they are being openly critical of our policies and calling us warmongers. This is a clearly overt and aggressive act. Finally I believe that there is clear cut evidence that they have BMI's (Beers of Mass Inebriation) which could cripple our capability to prosecute a war against them.

These BMI's could be transported over the world's least secure national border (a sign of just how much they have lulled us with their hypocritical posturing as a kind and friendly northern neighbor). Then they could be easily placed on any unsuspecting college campus in America and be spread by contact throughout the entire fraternity and sorority community. The effects are not just inebriation but could lead to wet t-shirt contests, stupid pranks, and unsafe sex.

I want to be very clear that these BMI's are not the same as the beers brewed in America which are practically tasteless and mostly harmless. These are beers with flavor and character that are sure to shock and entrap an unsuspecting American collegiate population.

Obviously this gives a strong argument for attacking and controlling Canada. The fact that they are the number one exporter of oil to the US and have some of the largest oil reserves in the western hemisphere is not an underlying factor in this decision at all.

/* Tongue in cheek humor has ended, you may now resume your regular reading of this post /*

While I am politically very conservative I am still unconvinced that war with Iraq is entirely necessary. Whether we go to war or not I support the men in uniform 100% but that is not the same as supporting the administration or the policy that sends them. I honor anyone who is willing to risk their life for my freedom and this country. That does not mean I must honor those who may use them improperly or unnecessarily.

We may need to go to war with Iraq. I have seen no post here and no evidence that makes that a given though and I believe that is why the debate continues. I also cannot believe that anyone can deny that oil has a part in this. I agree that Saddam is a monster, a murderer, and a tyrant and I would love to see him (and others who are as bad or worse) out of power or even assuming room temperature. This does not alter that fact that oil resources are still one of the most important economic strengths any country can have. Control is almost as good as possession. Is this the driving factor? I am not convinced it is, but to think it is not a significant factor seems extremely naive.

I think Powertoad has echoed many of my thoughts with one main exception, UN peace keeping forces have always been a misnomer since they use member countries armed forces. In every UN peace keeping effort the US has supplied approx. 80% of the troops, assets and funding. I see no difference between a US led coalition and a UN Peacekeeping force except that the first has proven effective (WW-II and the Gulf War) and the latter has proven singularly ineffective (Korea, Bosnia, Ethiopia, etc.) Does this mean a US led coalition would again be successful, that is not a given but it has a better chance IMO. Powertoad that is my one disagreement. Other than that I feel that we are concerned with many of the same issues.

It scares me deeply that questioning the actions of a president (even one I voted for) is beginning to be called unpatriotic. I am probably as right wing conservative as you can get without owning a gun and the worst thing the left ever did was replace debate with name calling. Are we going to stoop to their level? I certainly hope not. I still support Bush and think he is a good president but I have not had my questions answered to my satisfaction. That does not make me unpatriotic it makes me a citizen who is trying to be informed.

PS
I hope you enjoyed my little humor, wait until I comment on why we need to invade those rock hugging Fosters chugging Aussies.

[KPATTE456]

There were some valid arguements in the statement itself, but as Korp stated,they wouldnt carry much weight because of the author and his actions.
I grew up in the post Vietnam era, I knew some people that gave thier lives there, basicly for nothing. All the loss of life, equipment and money and the people there VOTE in a Comunist government, what a waste. There is nothing more sobering than a visit to the Vietnam Memorial in DC, the seemingly endless list of names etched in stone to make you think twice about going to war especially another non declared war in a foreign land.
I dont agree with all the things that our government does either, but i have to agree with Korp , stooping to the criminal tactics of the terrorist as Mc Veigh did put him in the same class with world terrorist organizations and statements made by him no matter how true are basicly treated as rantings of a psyco killer and loose all merit.

[bugsthecat]

Go powertoad ,go powertoad your a smart cookie for 17 , what do they put in that british water ? ---Please dont kill us lowly canadians we will sell you all all the strong beer and kindbuds you want, remeber Celine Dion , Shania Twain and Avril lavigne--- ,ahh well maybe you should bomb us on second thought , also why does an argument loose merit depending on who makes it ?(credibilty in some peoples eyes ,i can see ) but its the same arguement regardless of where the words come from ,if a statement is valid or false its still remains so (the crazy ,strange and outcast make the best art and tend to see things normal people dont )

[bugsthecat]

to whom ever antipointed me and said f@@@ you in there message ,grow up (i couldnt care less about the points but the words were childish and rude )

[E5C4P3]

look it all comes down to this
"walk softly and carry a big stick"
that quote is what we americans live by

[fourdc]

The quote was Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

I wish Bush would follow that advice. Shut his mouth, stage the troops await the UN decision. If it then comes to it wipe the jerk off of the face of the earth. However he continues to run his mouth banging the war drum.