There seems to be a whole lot of 'may' and 'could' in there.

Just to be devils advocate, do you really consider it worth killing possibly millions of iraqis, with the certainty of many of them being civilians. Plus risking inflaming the whole region, on the strength of a whole pile of Mays?

The real issue is do we want to go to war just to enforce UN mandates? It would set an interesting precedent, and one which I hope we can live up to.

Do you really think that Saddam is stupid enough to use any of those weapons? I think not, but if those weapons do excist in Iraq and Saddam is willing to sell them to 'terrorist' (american trained) then we should worry. I happen to think this issue is primarily about the United States interest in the oil in the region. Well it's ALL about oil, Russia and China don't want to go into Iraq because they have investments in their oil, and they know if the U.S. goes in, it's going to have a monopoly over it. But why does the U.S. really care? They took over Afghanistan already and now the rights to the oil in Caspian Sea are still being disputed. So Bush must be thinking, "War will give us the monopoly over everything."

Read this and think it over, I read yours.

THE DIRTIEST OF DIRTY WARS

Just for a moment, let's stop the beating of the war drum and take a look at the facts. Iraq hasn't done anything to anyone that justifies Bush's desired invasion. Even the US Government has now admitted it had no basis for the claim that Iraq  had any connection with 9-11. Why then the constant attempt to subvert anger and indignation for 9-11 towards a war in Iraq, especially when evidence does exist (classified by the US Government) that points in another direction? There is no proof that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. The ones the US gave Saddam to use on Iran are gone. There is no proof that Iraq would actually use weapons of mass destruction in a non-defensive role even if they exist, with both the US and Israel major nuclear powers, and the US historically proven as willing to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations. Is defiance of the UN alone justification for invasion? If so, then why not invade Israel, which has defined far more UN resolutions than Iraq ever has, and invaded far more of its neighbors than Iraq ever has while concealing its own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Why is there no demand for the UN inspectors to examine the arsenals of all aggressor nations equally?

The reason is simple. Weapons inspections are just an excuse, a pretext, for an invasion. The reality is that decades of bad economic policy have placed the US Government on the edge of bankruptcy. The interest on the Federal Debt now exceeds the total income tax paid by every American tax payer.  The balance deficit stands at record highs. Taken together, these truths must eventually drive the value of the dollar down. When that happens, that portion of the government debt held by foreign interests will explode as the exchange rates shift. Where today the US Government owes a million, tomorrow it will be three million, or five, or worse. Barely able to meet the interest payments now, and with a finite upper limit on tax revenues from a population already forced to accept lower paying jobs with each passing week, the US Government will default on its loans. 

Rather than admit moral and financial bankruptcy and follow the USSR into history, the US Government has decided upon a desperate strategy to save itself. By conquering what remains of the world's oil, the US Government hopes to erase the trade deficit problem by turning oil from an import to an export product, and by virtue of having its hand on the pipeline valves, coercing holders of the foreign debt into being a little less demanding of payment. That is the real goal, a desperate one, and the fact that the DC boys see this as the last hope to prolong their rule is why Bush is going to go ahead with the invasion of Iraq even though the rest of the world, the US Congress,  and the American people, recognize that Iraq has committed no overt act of aggression against us. Once the war in Iraq is underway, it will spread to all other nations under which lies vast oil resources, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Behind the constant media propaganda lies a simple and stark truth: This coming war in the Mideast is the worst form of war there is, a war for profit, a war to steal the wealth of another nation and place it into the hands of the wealthy and powerful in the United States, a war that trades blood for dollars. And We The People, who will pay for this war with our taxes and our children's blood, will have to look at ourselves in the mirror every morning, and wonder why we did not stop this atrocity when we had the chance..

there is the obvious and there is what has been re-iterated over and over and over and over and over. therefore, the latter must be true.

the obvious is that the evil villians in control of this country could give a rat's ass about iraq's wmd or that saddam is an evil man or that he gassed his own people or that he invaded a soveriegn nation.

what if it were repeated over and over and over and over the ties of the bush administration to the oil industry (should i list them all here?) then what would people think (now remember, it doesn't work unless its been repeated over and over and over and over -- eventually, one person will start to believe it. then two...)

do people really think that the administration really cares about people like they pretend to. does anyone really believe that bush loses sleep because iraq has chemical weapons, or that he's an evil man. does anyone really think that bush cares about the kurds. because he has such a big heart? because he's so righteous? because he's such a nice guy?

by the way, ms, did you know that the u.s. has wmd? along with a whole bunch of other nations and not all of them have what we would consider, uh... hmmm.

i was going to say something along the lines of 'moral leadership' but that's pretty fu@#in' vague, isn't it? maybe you could explain to me exactly what criteria make it ok for a particular nation to have wmd and what criteria make it not ok.

seems to me it has to do with how powerful they are (no regime change for china or russia) and how much oil they have.



[Edited on 15-9-2002 by The General]

[Edited on 15-9-2002 by The General]

Hussein has proven that he will use, and has already used biological and chemical weapons. Let's not try and rewrite history. Hussein has invaded another country not to long ago; I'm sure most of you are old enough to remember that. Maybe you don't remember the photos of Kurds that were gassed, the women and children lying in the streets, having suffered horrific deaths. The Kuwaitis might remember their belongings being stolen, their women raped and their men shot, until the Iraqis ran like cowards as the liberators forced them out.

The information of what evidence the world, not just the U.S. has on how Hussein is deeply in bed with terrorism is obviously either out of date or intentionally innaccurate as there is plenty of evidence now.

Speaking of evidence, I see words painting Israel as an invader, but I do not recall any of these horrific incidents. I do seem to recall Israel being being attacked a few times since 1948, parts of its land being taken, and after being retaken by the Israelis, the neighbors still claim it to be theirs and call it "occupied territory." While mainstream media may regurgitate this misinformation fed to it by the Islamic world, some know the facts.

As far as the the other writings of that cut/paste, the author is apparently ignoring that we have been bankrupt for decades, owned by the world banks, and each American citizen is chattel property with a lein on it, holding a "birth certificate" to show for it. The aggression for oil and pipelines idea is just that - an idea, but without any proof to give it merit.

Back to the original post. On only the face value of the cut/paste, I am with Kano, there are alot of "May"s in there.

[Edited on 15-9-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

I to was struck by the amount of mays and coulds in this report.It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
As for the first section on nuclear weapons,If they could get plutonium/uranium they could produce weapons in several years(if a couple is 2 and a few is 3 just how many years is several 4/5/7/10?)This surely could refer to any country who doesn't already have them.

read the list again and compare it to the u.s. compare it to britain even. i certainly compared it to the u.s. and found that in pretty much every regard the u.s. was 'worse' in my opinion:

Nuclear:
With sufficient black-market uranium or plutonium, Iraq probably could fabricate a nuclear weapon.
- the same for the u.s., except that they breed their own weapons grade material.

If undetected and unobstructed, could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.
- as above, the u.s. already does it.

Engaged in clandestine procurement of special nuclear weapon-related equipment.
- the u.s. doesn't have to, its 'holier than thou' attitude allows it to do it openly.

Retains large and experienced pool of nuclear scientists and technicians.
- america has more.

etc etc ....

- qo.

Once again Quiet one, and this time I'll say it slower for the learning impaired,
America and Britain are nations of laws , not nations ruled by a dictator that has proven the flippant will to gas people and invade neighbors . Once again , I have weapons , but that does not make me the same as robber as I too live by rule of law , whereas the mugger does not.

TC,The gas that was used was Mustard Gas used in the First World War by civilized nations of law.
The first time Iraq is known to have used it was during the Iraq/Iran War.At this time Iran was perceived to be an enemy of the west and so the US and other western countries backed Iraq.What form this support took I can't say,however think it is fair to say that the west helped to make Iraq the regional power it is today.I secretly suspect that the US were very interested to see the effect of chemical weapons use in modern warfare.
As for the attack on the Kurds you will never find me trying to justify this,but I would say that the US did nothing at the time.It appeared to me that only the media took an active interest in that atocity. It was only when world oil supply was threatened that action was taken.
TC,You have to admit that we created the monster from the seeds of a culture we didn't understand.

Once again Quiet one, and this time I'll say it slower for the learning impaired,
America and Britain are nations of laws , not nations ruled by a dictator that has proven the flippant will to gas people and invade neighbors .

er well actually, the U.S. does gass people, infact it holds public executions, a barbaric state of affairs.

we may not like saddam but Q.O.'s point holds true, we indeed have far more nuclear material and weapons than saddam and, whats more, we've actually used weapons of mass destruction on huge numbers of civilians whilst he has not.

no amount of "talking slowly" Thomas, is going t disguise the vast hypocrisy we are currently exhibiting in the middle east.

I think its shocking Bush and Blair having the blatant audacity to say that they're allowed to have all these weapons and Iraq isn't. As for attacking Iraq it's an easy target for the US and UK to bomb to pieces without much loss. It's as if they're scrambling for a victory against terroristsand its also a good diversion before Afghanistan turns into another Vietnam.

There's a lot of "mays" and "mights" and so forth there. What about all the other countries with dictators who have similar capability (Pakistan, for instance)...

We don't arrest people on the basis of "they MIGHT commit a crime!" or "they just went to a gun show and they MAY have a house full of guns." I see no reason to go take out someone because of what they "might" do.

What next -- Bush doesn't like Fidel Castro's taste in clothing so he sends an invasionary army to Cuba? Or a team of assassins?

No. I don't see any compelling argument there to run out and toast him. If he started after Kuwait or Iran or any other nearby country, then I'd be the first to say "toast him." But "Might" and "could" and "may" aren't reasons in my book... any more than "might" and "could" and "may" are reasons for arresting gun owners.


(for the record, I'm for registering guns, don't own a gun, don't want a gun in or near my house, and I'm a liberal.)

A quick question for the few christians out there I've noticed advocating invading iraq.

You realise that by attacking Iraq it is most likely signing a death warrent for a great number of iraqi soldiers, many of whom are probably enlisted because they had to, or because its the only way to feed their families etc. As well as probably a great number of civilian casualties (what was the final tally in Afghanistan? did it end up totalling more than sept 11?). Just because theres a chance saddam may use wmd against people. It is highly improbably his target will be america, or indeed anywhere except israel if he does so anyway.

Now dont get me wrong, I'm not against removing Hussein from power, even if its purely because he continues to defy the UN, over such important matters. A precedent which I hope could help other world leaders think twice about ignoring the int'l community.

But isn't it a little, well, un-christian of you to advocate removing Hussein from power by the use of force, long before all peaceful measures have been used up? Wouldn't it be in everyones interest to avoid War at all costs? Hussein isnt threatening anyone, he's mighty pissed off at many people, and not completely unjustly so, he's been trapped squirming under the thumb of the west for over a decade now, while he may have asked for it, its not the sort of thing he, or his country, is going to be happy about.

So endeth the rant.

nice angle kano ....

"(what was the final tally in Afghanistan? did it end up totalling more than sept 11?)."

try DOUBLE the death toll on sep 11th. 6000 in afghanistan vs some 3000 on sep 11th. and those are the conservative estimates.

"But isn't it a little, well, un-christian of you to advocate removing Hussein from power by the use of force, long before all peaceful measures have been used up?"

not to mention un-lawful. other posts above have gone on about the u.s. being a law abiding country. 'we're law abiding, so its ok if we have WMDs...', and yet bush is threatening unilateral action if the UN does not follow through with his wishes.
is that lawful? hell no.
doesn't it smack of international dictatorship? hell yes.

"Wouldn't it be in everyones interest to avoid War at all costs?"

yes, yes it would. it would do wonders for the american economy to avoid war and spending billions of dollars on weapons. not to mention preventing the loss of american (and coalition) lives.

- qo.

"(what was the final tally in Afghanistan? did it end up totalling more than sept 11?). "

undisclosed.
but most people agree it was somwhere in the region of 4000 at christmas during the most intense indescriminate carpet bombing and that this had risen to 6000 by June. we're now winto the big numbers however as I'm sure plenty of people will start dying of starvation and disease in the refugee camps.

judging simply by what tends to happen when you drop several hundred killatons of explosive material on heavily populated citys, I suspect the final figure of those civillians dead either because we blew up their wedding, dropped a bomb on their old persons home or simply starved to death, being conservative, the final civillian death toll for the afghanistan campaign will probably be in the region of 20 - 30,000.

plus 3000 americans.

Yer Bob,But Dr Khidir Hamza deffected in 1994 perhaps he goes home on weekends or perhaps his psychic abilities should be discussed on the paranormal pages.