RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Sarin found.....soldiers bit....(90 posts)

Sarin found.....soldiers bit....ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 7:06 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp
chemical missiles found...ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 8:05 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html
better link...eyebob
Apr 7, 2003 11:02 AM
I did some searching on the net because I was astounded that this wasn't a bigger story. Nothing on CNN.com, nothing on BBC, but msnbc.com had a good story on it.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392_asp.htm?0cv=CA01

BT
So, to all those who disparaged US for bucking the rest of thepurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 9:21 AM
world, I say...

TOLD YOU SO.

Now, where's Janeane Garafolo's apology?
Oh phleeeeseHoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 9:42 AM
So who's going to invade the US and the UK then - they also have banned chemical weapons?
No they don't.purplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 9:44 AM
Evidence, please.

I guess it's too much to expect some people to admit they were wrong. That's okay. We just proved it in spite of you.
Hang on - I think - yesHoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 9:48 AM
I really think you are serious!

Hahahahahhehehehehohohohohohoho!
Hang on - what you think doesn't matter.purplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 9:53 AM
As was already stated, our having substances that are banned in Iraq doesn't mean they're banned here. Is that too much for you to understand?
Now that you have explainedHoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 9:58 AM
with your great insight, knowledge and powers of expression, I think I am just beginning to understand the complexity of your argument.

So leeme recap - bombing the sh1te out of all those innocent civilians, conscripted soldiers, and allied troops etc is fine now, coz someone's discovered some sarin. Oh right, I geddit now...
Just admit it!!!hycobob
Apr 7, 2003 10:10 AM
You won't ever GET IT. To you this is wrong and and that's all you know. All the "protests" are easy to remember...they're ryming slogans. Well here's one for you now. Sarin, VX, Mustard Gas...Give them up or we'll bomb your a$$.
What exactlyHoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 10:15 AM
are you on?

Wrong about what? I am precisely right - I said we (the coalition) have chemical weapons, and we do. Live with it.

I haven't even said the war's wrong - I very carefully have said nothing one way or the other, though you clearly have your head in such a state about it that you can't even reason throught stage one.

All I said was that finding some sarin doesn't make a convincing reason for turning 1/2 of Irag and the civilians in it to glass, no matter how much the hawks try to jump on it as some form of total vindication.
No, you said that the coalition had "banned chem. weapons" (nm)TJeanloz
Apr 7, 2003 10:19 AM
And so they doHoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 10:22 AM
18 years in the military - I'm saying no more. Get on the internet - you'll be surprised what (even offical) stuff you can find.
They don't...TJeanloz
Apr 7, 2003 10:27 AM
There is nothing BANNED about the United State's chemical weapons. If Syria, for example, had a nuclear device, it would be a "banned" nuclear device (I believe the are signers of the Non-proliferation treaty); the US' nuclear stockpile is not banned.

The United States acknowledges that it legally has chemical weapons, of virtually all varieties, and is disposing of them in a safe manner or using them for research, with no intent to use them on the battlefield. US possession of such weapons is not illegal, and these weapons are not banned in the US -- they are simply chemical weapons.
Double standards. Heck of a way to run the planet. nmczardonic
Apr 7, 2003 11:06 AM
Complaining here won't do any good.No_sprint
Apr 7, 2003 12:42 PM
In the heart of the issue, there's no double standard going on by whoever is *running the planet* as you say.

Saddam used his chemical weapons on Iran. He then tried to gain complete control of another neighbor. He then makes an agreement with the world not to have them anymore because he obviously is a danger to all. He didn't uphold his end of his agreement.

Very often, agreements are made on top of *standards*. Here at this University there are University wide standards. In my department the chairs agreed to adopt more stringent budgetary controls than that.
Trust meHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 1:34 AM
you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about.

Have a look under "Porton Down". You'll have to do the jigsaw, but the pieces are right there for you.
Okay Saddam.purplepaul
Apr 8, 2003 8:52 AM
Others have offered arguments based on information in the public domain.

You reply, "Trust me."

I guess you're just a troll.
Yes that's right (yawn). nmHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 8:53 AM
Lighten up Francis...nmhycobob
Apr 7, 2003 12:36 PM
No, that wasn't my argumentpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 12:19 PM
I believe that bombing the sh1te out of all those innocent civilians, conscripted soldiers, and allied troops etc is fine now just because it pisses you off.
Don't let your momHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 1:33 AM
know you are using dad's PC - you'll be in trouble again.
We do have chemical weapons ... the only difference issacheson
Apr 7, 2003 10:01 AM
we:

a) have them with no intention of using them as a weapon of war. We use them for research and to keep up with vaccines to combat against those who do.

b) do not have UN resolutions passed against our country banning us for having them (although I admit I gather this from what I have read ... correct me if I'm wrong).
Who'sHoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 10:06 AM
"We"?

A lot of Americans had "no intention" of bombing anywhere either - and look what happened.

b) - correct.

Let's just remember why this war started, and not retro-fit handy arguments to justify it after, that's all.
Why, according to you, did this war start?TJeanloz
Apr 7, 2003 10:09 AM
I thought it was pretty clear:

Remove WMD from Iraq -- isn't this what the current discussion is regarding?
Then why's it called Operation Iraqi Freedom? nmczardonic
Apr 7, 2003 10:12 AM
It has been mostly Iraqis on the business end of SH's WMD (nm)TJeanloz
Apr 7, 2003 10:15 AM
Thought it was mostly Iranians. nmczardonic
Apr 7, 2003 10:25 AM
also Kurds nmClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 10:26 AM
nm
Depends where you pick up the threadHoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 10:17 AM
we have been from "take out the causes of terrorism" and "take out the those who harbour those responsible for 9/11" to "fight the axis of evil" right to "bomb them coz they have sarin".

So, N Korea next week? Russia the next? India? Pakistan? Isreal? Should be an intersting month....
personallly..I would ....ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 10:22 AM
get rid of california.....so many whackos out there..they are dangerous!
No kidding!empacher6seat
Apr 7, 2003 4:07 PM
Sure there's some whackos on the other side of the planet tinkering in a lab...

But there's also people in our own backyard who will kill/rape/rob/assault you for no apparent reason!
So the whole weapons inspector bit...TJeanloz
Apr 7, 2003 10:23 AM
There is no doubt that over the last 12 years, there have been a lot of motives for going to war with Iraq, spanning two Administrations. But the mandate to start the war, which failed at the UN, was in response to the failure of SH to disarm. The crux of the UN debate was whether or not SH had disarmed, remember the weapons inspectors; Hans Blix, et. al.? It is hardly a flip-flop to say now that the war was about WMD. I would buy your cynicism if we found no WMD, and then said: "all along, this war was about freeing the Iraqi people."
Right. The flip-flop is the pretense of liberation.czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 10:50 AM
Which is the tag line of the current Administration's propa. . .excuse me, marketing campaign. Of course, that kind of PR was only necessary because the Bush Administration could not prove to the world's satisfaction that Iraq could not be contained and/or gradually disarmed through inspections. True, Saddam was dragging his feet. But that was a technicality hardly worth going to war for.

To say that failure to Saddam to disarm is the justification of this war is to beg the questions: Why now? Why not when he gassed the Kurds? Why not in support of the uprisings that followed the first Gulf War?
Right. The flip-flop is the pretense of liberation.ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 10:54 AM
a simplified answer is that 9/11 changed the equation. The powers to be in the US made the decision that rather being reactive to threats, they would become proactive. Should we wait til 1000 lbs of anthrax was mailed all over the US? or should we do something about it in advance.....plus, you do get the side benefits of liberating 25,000,000 people and erradicating a mini-Hitler..
Ah, another self-serving rationalization.czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 11:01 AM
Rather than wait for a potential war to be brought to us, we'll take real war to other people's countries and pat ourselves on the back for liberating those lucky enough to survive the experience.
Now you're understanding53T
Apr 7, 2003 12:50 PM
That's what being proactive is all about. I'll see your potential threat and raise you a preemptive strike. It's called the Israel Doctrine (at least by me it is). It's also the sole reason that Israel still exists. A majority of Americans think that post-9/11 it is the best doctrine to ensure the continued viability of the US. Once you have a majority of Americans on board, resistance is futile. By the way count me in.

It truly is a great day for us hawks. Chemical Ali is probably dead, there is a US battalion in Baghdad in the background of the daily briefings from the Iraqi Minister of Information, and Saddam has been caught with Sarin missiles. If you apologize early and often, we might have some political mercy on you liberal panty-waists (not a personal slur, but a political sub-faction)
and I thank Israel for ...ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 12:54 PM
preemptive strike on the Iraqi nuke plant in 1981..which incidently was being built with the help of France.
Why don't you move?czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 1:08 PM
That is, if you are so enamored of the idea of living in a garrison state that is plauged by constant terrorism and reviled by the civilized world for its indiscriminate retaliatory policies.

The "continued viability" of the US was never in question. That is, until it adopted a policy of imperial military adventurism that pitted its perpetual supremacy against the entire planets right of self-determination. Its never worked in the past, but maybe Bush can pull it off.

And all this because certain panty-waists can't deal with the uncertainty that some of us refer to as the "real world".
And the rest of us refer to as "fantasy land."purplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 1:18 PM
Really, czardonic, you're sounding an awful lot like those blasted "America: Love it or leave it" types.

You certainly hate this war, but can you admit that nothing good has come of it?
Don't get me wrong, he's welcome to stay.czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 1:34 PM
Even if he hates America and its concepts of jutice.

Nothing good has come of it yet, no, just a lot of dead people and no democracy yet. When Iraq is a liberal democracy, I will say that something good has come of it.
Thank's for letting me stay53T
Apr 7, 2003 4:53 PM
I hope you get to vote against me someday. I'll still win, but I like that fact that it will drive you crazy.

What I can't understand is that you can look at your TV and see the twin towers crumbling (some of us didn't need TV) and suggest that the viability of the US is to be taken for granted?

This is your que to tell me that 9/11 was never linked to Iraq, continuing your pathetic circular argument that Saddam deserves to stay in power. I'll make this simple: Taliban, out; binLaden, out; Saddam, out; Kim J-I, out; Arrafat, out; Peter Arnett, out.

God Bless America!
No need to thank me.czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 5:16 PM
The Founding Fathers saw fit to reserve a place in America even for people such as yourself who despise the princples of justice and due process upon which they founded this country.

Fortunately, they also had the wisdom to ensure that fear-addled paranoids such as yourself can only lead this country so far astray before you are exposed for the danger to freedom that you really are.
You may be mistaken53T
Apr 9, 2003 7:57 AM
My views are very similar to Cheney's and Bush's. How far did they get? How "far astray" have they managed to take the country? Get ready, things are going to get real annoying for you liberals.
Doubt it. Sucess is the ideologue's worst enemy.czardonic
Apr 9, 2003 11:53 AM
People don't want a conservatives establishing a theocratic police state. Republicans can only succeed as a one-note tax cut party. When circumstances prevent them from delivering on that (like the last Republican recession), or when they try to further their right-wing ideology (like Contract with America) they're out on their backsides (like the last Bush).
self-determination? Huh?Live Steam
Apr 7, 2003 2:39 PM
Do you want to explain this term and what it's relevance is to this thread?

I don't think you mean self-determination is a license to act with disregard for humanity or civility, do you? I find it funny that all of you leftists believe that the US is imposing it's will on the World, rather than seeing the Iraqi Regime is suffering the consequences of it's defiance of the UN, which you pay so much homage to. You also turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy that France and the rest of the dissenters exhibited regarding this action.

Your left wing arguments hold no water and have lost credibility. I am happy that the left has tried to force their views down our collective throats. It has pushed moderates further to the right of center and thus increased the electoral base of the right.

I find it tragically ironic that the left believes it is OK to wear a peace symbol and burn an American flag in the name of freedom of expression, but it is not tolerated by them to wear or display the flag proudly. Such hypocrisy. You have all lost your voice, as far as I am concerned.
Got Strawmen? (nm)czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 2:45 PM
Got Strawmen? (nm) The band?Live Steam
Apr 7, 2003 2:49 PM
Why now? Is a great question...TJeanloz
Apr 7, 2003 11:00 AM
There's no doubt that the "Why now?" question is probably the most challenging for hawks to answer. And I think the response has something to do with the motive of the responder.

For me, a war now prevents further suffering of the Iraqi people, short term pain bringing long term peace.

The people on the terror/fear/WMD side of the argument would bring to the table that now is better than after chemical weapons are used. I have to agree with them on this one; I'd rather not wait until there's another 10,000 Kurds dead.

The flipside of the question: "Why not now?", is only answerable by things that seem to be pie-in-the-sky hopes. Maybe SH will lose power (we've been waiting 12 years for that...); maybe he won't ever use his WMD (I'm not sure that's a risk worth taking); "containment" is hardly a long term solution to any problem, especially when the only way to contain is by exposing the lives of millions of civilians to horrendous living conditions.
Pie-in-the-sky-hopes brought down the Soviet Union. nmczardonic
Apr 7, 2003 11:05 AM
and....ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 11:07 AM
a gigantic buildup in military arms that literally caused the Soviet economy to go into ruins..a build up in arms that liberals fought if memory serves...
I though it was Communism that ruined the Soviet economy.czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 11:15 AM
Was the US economy also driven in to ruins by the arms race?
Communism ruined their economypurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 11:53 AM
But our military strength caused their collapse. After all, if they could have responded to our build up without inflicting undue pain on their citizens, they would have. Had we not made it so painful for them to try to keep up with us, they'd probably still be a power today.
So why wouldn't Iraq collapse?czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 11:59 AM
It's a centrally planned state that purportedly spends most of its money on weapons. It's citizens are deprived. Isn't its collapse pretty much assured by your interpretation of the Cold War?
Two words: The Frenchpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 12:07 PM
I'm only half joking. Had they not supported Saddam, watered down the sanctions and whined every time we tried to enforce them, he probably would have been assassinated long ago. Instead, he was able to put away enough money to sustain himself. The Soviets just ran out of money.
1/2 way thereHoopes of glory
Apr 8, 2003 1:42 AM
I have heard numberous - and I mean daily - US and UK military and political spokespeople saying that this war is about freeing the people, and marginalising the WMD issue, presumably just in case they don't turn up.

Shame the can't hold the same view about, say, Zimbabwe.
The U.S. does, sort of,TJeanloz
Apr 7, 2003 9:50 AM
The United States has chemical weapons, but I don't believe they have any "banned" chemical weapons. We can't use them in combat, but merely owning them is not a crime. Iraq, in the terms of the GW1 cease-fire, agreed to destroy all WMD -- so chemical weapons are "banned" for them.
So why does this exist then?Hoopes of glory
Apr 7, 2003 9:51 AM
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19962503_en_1.htm
Yes, we do....more....ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 9:54 AM
We do have chemical weapons..and we have agreed under international law to dispose of them..that is currently underway.... check out Tooele Army Depot, Bluegrass Army Depot, Anniston Army Depot, etc...those sites are inspected routinely by outside sources and the disposal is monitored.
Also Johnston Islandsn69
Apr 7, 2003 10:30 AM
These things no longer exist in our active armories/inventories. What we have is old and, like you said, is in the process of being destroyed. It takes a while, though. The stuff is nasty and poses some tough challenges to destroy (including the devices in which it was stored).
In previous posts ...sacheson
Apr 7, 2003 9:28 AM
... I've repeatedly made the point that I disagree with the US/Britain's actions because they didn't show evidence that Iraq had such weapons.

If these reports are true, I repeal anything I've said and have 100% backing of the actions we've (we, as a Nation) have taken in the Middle East.

You can say I told you so if you want ...
In previous posts ...purplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 9:42 AM
It's a sticky issue, to be sure. Unable to prove that Saddam had WMD without invading, it wasn't crazy to be against the war. The problem I had was with people believing Saddam so readily when he said he didn't have them. My father was in that camp. I strongly disagreed with him as he did with me. I thought he was naive and, I don't even know what he thought of me.

Oh well. Let's just hope this takes the wind out of some terrorist's sails. And France's.
Yeah ...sacheson
Apr 7, 2003 9:57 AM
... I always got a little *too* defensive when people put me in the "believe Sadaam" group. I never thought that guy was anything less than a worthless piece of crap.

Anyway, I agree with you. I hope the findings do give France some grounds for supporting us ...
WMD possession vs. UN SanctionJon Billheimer
Apr 7, 2003 10:16 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any serious doubt about whether Iraq had WMDs or not. Blix and his team documented the huge discrepancies in original inventories and subsequent inventories as well as lack of documentation relating to U.N. ordered disarming. The issue at the U.N. was "containment" and ultimate disarmament of Iraq through a continued inspections process as opposed to immediately going to war.

The major problem the rest of the world has with this war is U.S. unilateralism and statements by the neo-con group running foreign policy that this is only Step 1 in a greater U.S. strategy for worldwide hegemony and domination, with the exception of course of Arab opinion which will oppose any U.S. intervention at all for any reason.
WMD possession vs. UN Sanctionpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 11:50 AM
I do believe you are incorrect. The arguments made by many of those opposed to war, and like I said above, my father is one of them (so I heard a lot of them), was that Saddam posed no threat to us because they simply didn't believe he had WMD.

Furthermore, accusations that Bush and his administration are evil were thrown around quite freely. Well, regardless of your feelings on that one, I can't imagine most people aren't relieved that WMD will be neutralized in Iraq.
Agree with youeurochien
Apr 7, 2003 11:53 AM
The issue has not been whether Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and such. THe issue was to let the UN inspectors do their job and avoid war as much as possible. With increased pressure and increased numbers of inspectors, who knows how many lives could have been saved? And the US could have relied on more allies if the inspectors had submitted a report indicating non compliance. But Bush and the hawks had to go NOW. Oh well, Iraq is now "liberated", the "regime" is dying. All's well. Who's next?
I hope Syria, Iran, N Korea are next, one way or anotherContinental
Apr 7, 2003 12:08 PM
I hope we have the fortitude to continue to eliminate evil regimes. I hope war is not required to do it, but all of these scum governments, and several others, need to be removed from the face of the earth. Being absolutely ruthless with them is the most compassionate approach that is available.
Scum governements ...sacheson
Apr 7, 2003 12:19 PM
... erm ... I think there are more than a few that can argue the depth of scum in our government ...
You can't be seriousContinental
Apr 7, 2003 1:15 PM
To use an adjective to describe our government in juxtaposition with the same adjective describing the goevernments of Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea could be construed as comparing or equating the governments. However, no person with any degree of rational thought could make any such comparison. It can only be, therefor, a weak and incredibly cynical attempt at sarcasm.
not necessarily.rufus
Apr 7, 2003 1:41 PM
those other governments remain in power and enrich themselves at the expense of their people by the use of sheer brutality.

our political and corporate leaders achieve the same ends, but are much more subtle about the means.
But at least most citizens benefit. nmpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 1:49 PM
i think the ones who'll benefit are the ones the u.s.rufus
Apr 7, 2003 2:02 PM
wants to benefit. meaning, the ones friendly to the u.s.
Uh, yeah. nmpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 2:08 PM
Where did I say the US government is scum?sacheson
Apr 7, 2003 2:06 PM
To say any government in this world is scum is to extend your personal values to said government. Whereas I agree, the United States government can not be compared to the current administrations in Iraq, et.al. for humanitarian reasons, it doesn't mean the US government is without fault, nor without its valid critics.

There is scum in our government. There are officials elected to offices that use their tenure as nothing more than a springboard for their own agenda, and have little regard for their constituents. True, they aren't gassing us, but there's more than one way to damage individuals in a society.

From that I say there is scum in the government (as I said before) ... so, correct me ... where am I wrong?
There's self serving scum in every groupContinental
Apr 7, 2003 5:56 PM
I proudly extend my personal values to declare that rule by murder and terror is evil. I agree that our Government has faults and valid critics. I won't be killed or tortured for agreeing with you.

The Red Cross, Unicef, Boy Scouts and the US government all have scum. That doesn't mean the organizations damage and victimize individuals. Do you think it's goverment's responsibility to insure that every citizen has a happy, meaningful life? I don't want such a government. I want government to insure domestic tranquilty, liberty, and provide for the common defense. While the government does that, I'm finding a way to have a happy, meaningful life.
lest you forget.....rufus
Apr 7, 2003 12:21 PM
the u.s. has in the past, and probably will in the future, been responsible for the creation of quite a few of those "scum governments" that you rail against so. i'm sure the innocent people of those countries sincerely thank us for the assistance.
Who forgot?purplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 12:25 PM
But just because we f-ed up seriously, we can't "correct" our mistakes?

I think (and hope) that we have learned to not install puppet governments that do not serve their citizens well.
from everything i've heard...rufus
Apr 7, 2003 12:33 PM
that seems to be what the pentagon has in mind for iraq.
What are your sources? nmpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 12:38 PM
this, for one.rufus
Apr 7, 2003 2:00 PM
http://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20030402/iraqusafuturedc.html

while no definitive decision has been made, it appears the pentagon is leaning hard toward a government made up of american ex-military and espionage personnel. as well as iraqi-americans living comfortably in exile. what about the iraqi's who actually live in iraq? shouldn't they be the ones who make the decisions about their own country, perhaps with input from american advisors?

ex-cia running the iraqi government? yeah, great idea, lucky that one got enough negative response they know better than to even attempt to try to get away with it. i just have a hard time believing that this will end up the free and open democracy that bush and the neo-cons are trumpeting. especially if their first course of action is to remove western influence from their democratically elected government.
I agree, butpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 2:15 PM
I don't think the ultimate democracy will be possible in Iraq immediately. For the region, they are well educated, though. So there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to elect people who are representative of their disparate beliefs at some point in the future. I'm not competent to argue as to when that will be.
I agree as well.rufus
Apr 7, 2003 2:40 PM
the whole history of tribe, clan and sect infighting in that country is going to make it an almost impossible tak for any democratic government to succeed in that region, in my opinion. it just seems to me that the prevalent wish of the pentagon, even after the necessary military short term rule, is to bring in a bunch of iraqis who have been living safely and luxuriously(by iraqi standards) in other countries, and install them as the new democratic government of iraq. probably not the best way to go about winning legitimacy for your government in the minds of the iraqi citizenry, and not too highly representative either.
I agree as well.purplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 2:54 PM
I can't speak for each and every Iraqi ex-patriot, but one reason why they left Iraq in the first place is that they rose up against Saddam after the Gulf War and then had to flee in order to not be killed.

I don't think that represents someone who will necessarily be rejected by those who stayed in Iraq and suffered.
I agree as well.Live Steam
Apr 7, 2003 3:25 PM
I agree with you that we should stay in Iraq and run the government for them, as you so aptly pointed out that they probably can't do it for themselves.
Who's next?sacheson
Apr 7, 2003 12:17 PM
The freaking French. They do above ground nuclear testing, you know ... ;-) (I'm kidding here ... if anyone uses this argument to support their views, I will personally go to their house and kick their a$$)

As for Sadaam - sorry man, I have to disagree with you. He apparently had the WMD and Blix wasn't able to find them. He is a lying bully who no one, no matter how long, would have rationalized with. He had the weapons inspectors completely snowballed, and now proof has been uncovered.

And how many lives would have been saved by avoiding war? How many are being saved by removing his regime from power? I think if you look at the numbers, more people died during his reign than will die during this conflict.

Death sucks. I feel a lot of pain for those caught in the middle of this ... but the Ba'ath regime is not a peace loving group that has benefitted from treating their civilians with respect, and is now being overthrown by some militant group. Standing by idle while he preached his rhetoric to the world, while committing horrible attrocities to his own people would have been the wrong thing to do.

He lied. Someone obviously knew it. He could have prevented this war by telling the truth and disposing of the weapons when he was asked to. I agree that the unilateral and forceful approach the US took in this matter is questionable, but I now argue that it was necessary.

Also, since you are pretty educated in this subject (especially from the French perspective), tell me - what's this crap about France not wanting to support the war because the billions of dollars in contracts and/or payments they were expecting from the Iraqis? Honestly, I can't find anything about it ... but people use it in arguments here. Thanks.
Who's next?eurochien
Apr 7, 2003 12:29 PM
Hi sam
I agree, like most everybody against the war who has given it some thought, that Saddam Hussein needed to go. The French position was to support the inspectors until they would have made it official that the inspections weren't working. This war has lasted over two weeks, the Baath party has been in power for 30 years, so the number of victims is like comparing apples to oranges.
French contracts: as far as I know there has been no trade, other than oil through the food for oil UN program, between France and Iraq since 1991. I'm sure France wants a piece of the action now with the reconstruction, I've no doubt that the motives are not humanitarian-related.
As far as removing "regimes" - man am I sick of hearing that word, that the US doesn't like. Phew, the list would be long and possibly endless. Where does it really stop as more and more countries might make the list because of US attitude? How about really working at the root of the middle east problem for starters: the Arab (Palestinian)-Israeli situation?
the Arab (Palestinian)-Israeli situationpurplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 12:36 PM
Oh please. Arabs don't give two sh!ts about the Palestinians. They're just using them to justify their hatred against us. Otherwise, they would do more (actually, they would do SOMETHING) to help the Palestinians. Instead, they turned their collective backs and just ignored them.

I think the root of the problem is fundamentalist Islam being the primary education source for poor Muslims. Get some non-religious education in there and things are bound to change for the better.
Food for oil ...sacheson
Apr 7, 2003 1:07 PM
... I guess I should support the French position as I get my paycheck from the majorly profitting company, correct?

I think Sadaam could have kept the inspectors going for a while with out jumping through their hoops. My point is that the primary reason we apparently went to war, and most of my objection to the war, has now been found. Sadaam never said - "hey Hans, wait, there's these short range missles I have that are loaded with Sarin, let's get rid of these!" In my opinion, regardless of the unilateral approach Bush has taken, Sadaam had a lot of power to avoid the conflict and didn't.

And I use the word regime to describe a political power that has either forced themselves to power, or uses their power to remain in control of the country, not because the US disagrees with their policies. Please take note, I was the first to argue my disagreement with Iraqi policy being a justified reason to go to war.

Also, don't you think the Iraq invasion will have any repurcussions to the Israeli-Palestine conflict? I remember reading a couple of weeks ago that Sadaam pays any Palestine family who has lost a martyr in a Jihad against Israel $25,000 US as a thank you. I'm not arguing any justification for Israel's actions, but if a fund that supports terrorism stops, maybe there will be fewer terrorist actions, and maybe some talks can get under way.
oil contracts...ClydeTri
Apr 7, 2003 12:30 PM
the major french oil company had the contracts with iraq on the oil for food program..only the money went to saddam, not for food
Time to get serious - send in the EPAmoneyman
Apr 7, 2003 12:37 PM
Can you believe the Iraqi's were allowed to store things like this? Where are the EarthFirst!ers when you need them.

I'll bet this makes Christie Todd Whitman furious!

$$