Bush's Ultimatum: War Begins on 3/19/03?

Remove all ads!

Dapaara - I would like to see the evidence of which you speak regarding Saddam. What evidence is there that he has committed terrorist attacks against America? There is evidence that he has carried out attacks on the Kurds and his own people, but I know of nothing that he has done on American soil. If we are attacking him because of crimes committed against humanity, that is one thing; if you are saying that he has attacked us directly then prove it, just don't make accusations and say that we are justified in attacking an entire country.

[ March 22, 2003, 03:24: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Welll, I was screaming to Bin Laden after 9/11 as well...

And I cut for 9/11, too.

(With her dad, now... *happy*)

 

I've never said he's attacked the US directly, but he is a financier of terrorism worldwide. There's plenty of articles out there on that, you've seen them as well as I have. On that basis, and given their well known hatred of the Great Satan America, i think a pre-emptive strike in self defense is completely appropriate and justified.

The crimes against humanity point also validates this action in my eyes.

PS -- It's considered good taste to at least try to spell people's names correctly!

 

Ironically, the US has lost more people in this war than Iraq. See this story. Of course, it doesn't seem due to hostile fire.

I wonder though what US public opinion will be if the war becomes protracted or troop casualties begin to mount.

 

Blackthorne says.

"What I am saying is that he was then and is now a known threat to the region, and his ambitions are at the very least an indirect threat to the US and its allies, and at worst a direct threat."

Recently senior Syrian officials stated that the idea of Saddam being a threat to the region was crazy since they don't see Saddam as more of a threat than Israel. How can the US feel Saddam more of a threat than the Syrians do? (This is not my opinion, it is theirs).

How are Saddam's "ambitions" more dangerous than those of the US? Is it the US or is it Iraq that has military bases in every continent? Is it the US or is it Iraq that bullies nearly every other nation on earth?

When I heard the accusation that Saddam "wants to take over the world" I laughed out loud in shock! That describes Bush better than Saddam, not that I view them as being any different one from the other...

 

Then you also call an massive SCUD launch on American troops justified

 

Darkwolf, No one has said that we shouldn't do something about terrorism. I do believe more than a 100 countries around the world subscribed to that when the war against terrorism was launched.

(Not quoted from Darkwolf btw)

And for what it's worth, it's worthless in any context other than from Syria's own point of view.

The facts are that Sadam and the Bath party of Iraq has had a stated aim of re-uniting the Arab peninsula under one country, and guess who the intended leader of that enlarged unit would be? I bet it doesn't take more than one guess. I think for the region that could be conceived as fairly de-stabilising.

Two failed attempts at invading neighbours should speak enough for the truth of this.

[ March 21, 2003, 13:34: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

All i want to say is that you are forgeting who pushed Saddam as the Iraq's President. the usa put him there and the usa provided him with the chemical and biological weapons he used against the kurds. also england helped him build the factories they want now to destroy. it's ironic that now he has no use because he gave the oil-wells to companies of french interests they want him dead. or does anyone thinks that france and germany goverments would be so strongly against war if they had no possible profits from the peacefull solution of this crisis. and one question do you think that if the iraqi people couldn't tolerate saddam's goverment wouldn't bring him down; noone has asked them and none of our goverments cares what happens to them. and do you know what is going on in afganistan now. do you know that the heroin production in afganistan now is larger than ever and the women are in the same or even worse situation than they were with the taliban goverment; do you know that if shaddam falls there will be a massacre between the different cultural bands in iraq; i am strongly against any outside interference in any nation in the world and this is one. and one other question how everybody feels for the total disregardness of the un by the usa; i don't think that's good the 1st ww started in a similar way i'm sorry if anyone feels offended but i'm only expressing my opinion and i surely don't inted to offend anyone but this my point of view and i'm always open to new opinions.

[Text converted to all small caps. Another violation of forum rules which you should have read upon registering will get you the IoTW plaque.] -Tal

[ March 21, 2003, 11:45: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Erm... If you knock the caps off, I'll be "happy" to read your post

 

An aspect brought up earlier: That the 9/11 was one of the most outrageous atrocities ever done to mankind .... well, really?

The US watched Saddam gassing the Iranians and killing them in thousands, happy he would keep the Iranians busy. They watched him firing scuds at Teheran, again killing thousands. Look at the pro-US regimes killing thousands in argentina and chile. Look at the firestroms over germany and japan aimed on killing civvies in polulation centres? How about Pol Pot's genocide in cambodia (with some puny three million dead) ? Or the ethnic cleansing in the Balcans? Or the ethnic cleansing in Israel. Or the japanese excesses in china since 1935, namely the Nanking massacre/ mass-rape. Remember the genocide on the indians in south- and north-america. The concentration camps with some 4-7 million killed. All peanuts? Well, for sure it didn't hurt half as much as 9/11 and the hurt national pride.
Greatest atrocity in human history ....

9/11 was a joke compared to that. The only remarkable thing about 9/11 were: (a) that it was live on tv, (b) the high number of casualties in one act and (c) that it was committed by "freelancers" and not by nations. The last time before that war had reached US territory was a bomber alert in New York when a german recce plane came along and when the japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.
The US can only take war overseas so easy as they obviously have forgotten how it is to have war in their own country - the civil war is long gone and all glory today.

 

Mithrandir,

Please do not forget that Iraq under Saddam has already attacked two other countries in the region and committed mass murder on his own people on a grand scale, and when I say grand we are talking in thousands upon thousands.

Also I'm not sure if the 300,000 young women in Afghanistan who are now allowed an education would agree with you that they are worse off than they were.

I'd also like you to look closer to home regarding the recent conflict in Kosovo. Were we wrong to take part? Were we wrong to try to stop the bloodshed? I ask you since you live a lot closer than me and obviously have a better idea of what has been going on. But I assume you don't think we should have interfered since everything was going swimmingly?

 

I must also post in response to the previous thread that quoted the Daily Mail article about attitudes towards the US following 9/11. Firstly, it's argument seems to be that we should all be nice to America because of 9/11 and that it is shamefull not to be so.

The thing is (and what so many of you seem to have forgotten) is that a huge part of the world was extremely sorry for the US after 9/11 and it made a lot of Europeans, who were previously mildly anti-american, become pro-american. It also resulted in one of the largest coalitions in recent history and we all joined together in the war against terroism (yes even the French for those who seem to have convienently forgot). So the question is, how did this coalition fall apart so quickly? Is it the fault of all of the allies apart from America? Are they all wrong(evil)? Or is more due to the bad American diplomacy that drove those allies away?

Anyway, back to the article. For non-UK people, you might like to know something about the Daily Mirror. In this country it is one of the main tabloid 'newspapers'. It's primary aim is to entertain not to provide rigourously impartial information and comment. In fact, a common joke is that tabloid 'journalists' never let the facts get in the way of a good story. So please remember this when reading the article.

You might also notice that the date was September 2002. Since then the paper's attitude has changed considerable. For example, a few months ago they launched a major campaign urging all of their readers to send a letter to Parliment saying that there should be no war without UN approval. They even provided a cut-out form for their readers to use. So, if you think the Daily Mirror still thinks 9/11 justifies any US actions, sorry but you're wrong.

If you want a more informed view of UK politics, American diplomacy and it's handling of the post 9/11 coalition, you really should read Cook's resignation speech. It is so good it has been posted twice on this board and Ragusa also put highlights in an early post in this thread. That is written by someone who knows the facts as a senior member of Government and former Foreign Secretary. I think it is safe to assume his version might be more reliable than that of some hack from a tabloid trying to sell more papers.

PS reagrding the accuracy of info, which is a common debate here. It is interesting to note that Cook said he had not seen any evidence to justify war on Iraq. Today Blair who is still trying to convince the country to support him amid anti-war protests around the country, is still relying on the - I've seen the evidence but you'll just have to trust me - line of argument. Does anyone really believe him anymore. If he has such evidence why not make it public? The war has started what has he got to loose. More importantly, why hadn't one of his most Senior Cabinet members (Cook) been allowed to see this evidence. Of course by evidence, he might just mean gut feeling...

 

Viking

The problem is that international community intervenes only when it believes that the intervention will serve its interest or only when it believes that it is not going to meet serious military opposition. Also, the intervention is always onesided (good albanians vs bad serbs). The situation in Kossovo was similar with the situation in Chechenya or with the situation of the Kurds in Turkey but international community never went there to stop the bloodshed and it always said that these were internal pbloblems of these countries. Morever, while Albanians were presented as freedom fighters, Kurds and Chechens were considered terrorists.

PS. The fact that I am closer to Kossovo that you doesn't mean that I have a better view on this particular case. During this period the Greek media politicians and church tried to brainwash us with the doctrine "serbs are our brothers" because we are both orthodox and they tried to present the whole yugoslavian issue as a conspiracy against the orthodox nations.

[ March 21, 2003, 14:37: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

The trouble is that Saddam dreams of taking over the world, which is rightfully the US's place

 

I want to apologize for the caps i was in a hurry and didn't even crossed my mind. Saddam attacked two other countries in the region; Do you mean Iraq which attacked first and is the main reason for Saddam has now these chemicals and biological weapons supplied by the USA. Or do you mean Kuweit. I know that with Kuweit there is a difference with their borders do you know that; I don;t mean that Saddam is a saint he is a dictator and with many sins on his back. But this does not justifies an assault. You think that he is a threat why don't you ask the palaistinians what they feel about him and what they feel about Israel. Does anyone Knows that there is a 30 years old decision of The Security Counsil for the withdraw of Israeli troops from the Palaistinian territory and what's the outcome nothing the troops are still where they shouldn't be. The decision for the disarm of Iraq is 3 months old give or take. What the difference; Iraq is the fifth country in oil production and the oil wells are not controled by USA companies.The only product palaistinians have is olives and olive oil. Please don't take everything they give you without questions. And can you tell how is possible the CIA to control and munipulate many goverments and cannot overthrow a goverment that is not accepted by the people. Something smells funny; And waging a war against a country does not f***** its goverment but its people. Aren't those the ones who are supposed to be protected. And one more the Iraq goverment had started to cooperate with the UN. Why shouldn't we try this solution first.

 

Hey, as far as I'm concerned the Iraqis can defend themselves if they wish! It won't make much of a difference. I agree that U.S. has some bullying tendencies, but to use that as an excuse for Saddam's atrocities is unreasonable and illogical. I'm also not keen knowing that the U.S. props up corruption when it suits them, but I'd rather have 1 / 100 dictators removed than 0 / 100. Every little bit helps! It is also worth noting that the U.S. and citizen's groups within it place diplomatic pressure on allies to respect human rights. And diplomatic pressure is what liberals like, right? Sadly, as BTA has illustrated, such diplomatic pressures did not work on the present regime in Iraq. So, the U.S. did it the hard way.

Oh, yeah, they'd disarmed, right? That's what they claimed, right? So where the F*** did they get the missiles to fire at Kuwait City? The inspections were working my butt. And no, folks, the U.S. didn't fire rockets at Kuwait City to make it look like the Iraqis had missiles.

 

Slightly of topic, but great none the less:

PRESIDENT BUSH AGREES TO MORE INSPECTORS . . .

President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq.
The President has announced that as of today, he is agreeing to additional
inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq.

We will be sending 250,000 additional inspectors into Iraq. The additional
inspectors will include:
* 24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
* 15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
* 15,000 members of the 82d Airborne Division
* More than 5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "M1-A1
all-terrain vehicles"
* Additional U.S. Army personnel, as needed for inspections
* A variety of U.S. Air Force personnel for aerial recon missions and other
"surveillance" activities
* A significant number of United States Marines to aid with inspections
* United States Coast Guard personnel to inspect coastlines
* An undisclosed number of Rangers, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Recon Marines,
Delta Force, and other Special Operations personnel to inspect Iraqi
"hide-aways"
* Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft
from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln and
USS Enterprise.

The President stated, "With these additional inspectors, the inspections
should be completed in a few weeks."

 

Missiles with capability to strike at Kuwait was not part of the disarmament agreement. It was only missiles capable of going more than X, dont have the exact number but capable to strike at Israel from Iraq. You can shell Kuwait with normal artillery pieces from Iraq so that argument doesnt really fly.