It's nice to know that lives and resources that could be used to help fight terrorism or help repair the economy are being used to fight out a Bush clan squabble.
throwing "dissidents" into commercial plastic shredders
Really? It doesn't surprise me that much, but when did that happen? Link please (to a reputable news site).
attacking Iraqi Kurds with VX Nerve Gas
Saddam doesn't have Vx. Vx is rather hard to get, and about the nastiest of the current gasses. He used tabun and something else (which I forget) against them.
think that this is all about OIL
Think? I'd say *know*. We ignore human rights violations on the part of Turkey. Hell, lots of the nations on the "30 countries list" are egregious human rights violators.
There's one reason Iraq is so interesting to us (as opposed to a nation off in the middle of nowhere to ignore). Oil.
And Rumsfield threatening Iraq *not* to light any of their oil wells just drives the point home even more.
Oh, I forgot that only the French and German opinion counts. Silly me. The terrorist training camps and money he spends to stir up terrorism against American interests has nothing to do with this war. That's right. It's all about oil, right?
You're thinking of bin Laden, buddy. Feel free to identify some terrorism that Saddam has "stirred up" against the United States. Oh, wait. You can't.
As for constantly *criticizing* the United States, I hardly think that it's surprising, given that we have banned him from his own airspace (including civilian planes), destroyed his economy, killed many people, have vastly advantageous to us oil-for-food deals going...
So an attack against an enemy head of state using a weapon of war is assassination, and shouldn't be condoned, but we're not going to hold Saddam accountable for trying to assassinate one of our leaders?
So we villify Saddam for doing that, then promptly do the same thing ourselves?
We're attacking a country on the grounds that it's violated international law, yet our attack is a violation of international law, and we start it off with an illegal assassination attempt?
Wake up. A head of state is a legitimate target in war. Period.
Well, that may be your opinion, but most of the rest of the world disagrees with you.
Re:What, with a 70% approval rating?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
The countries we just claimed to be with us are included under ridiculously thin criteria.
First of all, most of the people of countries *don't* support it, but the governments have no reason not to throw their hat in at the last minute, though they refused up until the last day, when war was assured anyway. They aren't responsible for performing fighting at all. Bulgaria, Spain, and the UK are the only countries that have consistently and long-term been backing us on this. Second of all, this has nothing to do with what the majority of the people in a country say, just what its government's final decision regarding this list is. It has no requirements, and you get some brownie points with the US govt.
Let's take a short look at the list, shall we?
Afghanistan
Holy shit, the puppet government we just set up supports us. *There* a surprise. I have a very hard time believing that there's popular support for the US bombing the shit out of another country with jack in the way of ability to fight back, though. Too many people dead here from the same thing.
Yay third world countries for whom this entire conflict represents the possiblity to say something nice about the US and get more foreign aid. Their inclusion on this list has about as much to do with supporting combat in Iraq as Scientology does with religion. Uzbekistan's diplomants even were blunt enough to say that there is not popular support for the war, though the government is willing to be on the list.
Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua
The US has very little popular support for this in Central and South America. Nor have these countries been supporting the US's actions up they could get thrown on a list with zero obligation and the knowledge that the US was going to war anyway. It's actually impressive that Columbia hasn't been with us earlier, given all the military hardware we've been handing out free to them.
Japan (post conflict)
Japan is an opponent of US action. Putting them on here is an exercise in desperation to get US support. They only said they'd provide humanitarian aid to Iraq if something happens, after the fighting is over. I can't figure out how you can call that "supporting" the US attack.
Britain, Bulgaria, Spain
These guys were in for the long haul. They're the only ones serious about this on here. I don't know about Bulgaria or Spain, but polls in Britain are showing a majority of people against the war (matter of fact, I've seen speculation on how much political damage this is going to do to Blair), though the government is.
Australia
Didn't hear about them earlier, but not too surprising. They're pretty consistent in backing US military action.
I don't know enough about what's going on in these countries to say. I do have point out that these are mostly non-influential countries, and that they jumped on at the last minute.
Turkey
Turkey voted material support down, despite the top tiers trying to push it through. They don't need a vote to be on this list, though, so they can do that much. Keep in mind that this is *after* Powell tried to buy them off with several billion dollars in aid.
France, China, Russia, and the USSR, the big players, are all opposed. Japan's opposed to the conflict, though we managed to include them anyway. Neither India nor Pakistan are on there. For Chrissake, *Israel* wasn't willing to back us!
You'll also notice the absence of even Canada and Mexico on here, who *always* back us.
just forking for the sake of it just splits the developer base, and the new fork usually gets bad press and poor support.
I think I'm going to cry. Keith has done the most amazing stuff -- Xft, the modern font architecture -- all the really good features that I've played with recently. If he splits off, XFree86 is going to take a very serious hit.
Please, please, *PLEASE* try to work this out with Keith, XFree core. If you need to maintain more stability, think about a more unstable devel versions, or even a second "really unstable" devel tree that patches can at least enter the tree. Anything, just don't end up hating each other and refusing to share your code with each other.
Either side of such a fork would have a much weaker team. We need XFree86 so much right now, with 3d becoming important to mainstream Linux users. I appreciate all that the XFree folks have done, and asking for more seems ungrateful -- but please try to work it out without ultimatums. *Please*. The mplayer folks hang together, even though A'rpi's abrasive, because he's a really great coder, and everyone would be worse off if he wasn't involved.
Man. I feel almost as bad as when Bungie was purchased by Microsoft. The world *needs* Keith and XFree core being friends, not adversaries.
This and a war in Iraq, and it isn't even 1:00 yet. What a awful day.:-(
Re:Actually...Saddam's threats are varied...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Clinton didn't stay in power long enough for them to complete their development of nuclear weapons.
Yeah, I'm sure that, given another year, we would have been cringing in the face of a nuclear ICBM-armed Iraq. Yup. That doesn't come off as CNN alarmist BS at all.
Hmmm... well I may be just another member of the great gullible masses- but I thaught it was so they could avoid having a big war.
Ya, well, war is the legal way to do things instead of assassination on the international stage. [shrug] Probably because it's easy to assassinate someone, and otherwise there'd just be constant open season on world leaders. It's a little harder and more obvious to fight a conventional war.
Yes, with Iraq having a substantially higher probability of exporting such weapons than, say, Paraguay.
So you consider "possibility of exporting weapons in the future which may be used against the United States" as grounds for *war*? I'll bet every country in the world with arms manufacturers (*including* the United States) has supplied enemies of the United States with weaponry.
Well, that's not your job. But I prefer that our leaders take notice of psychopaths with nuclear weapons (and not assist them in development of said weapons, as our previous administration did).
It's lovely how every world leader that we have friction with ends up being branded as a psychopath. I'm sorry, but there's not that much correlation with insanity. Kim Jong Il is eccentric, perhaps, but hardly a psychopath.
As for assisting with nuclear weapons production, that's bullshit, and I strongly suspect that you're aware of it. Assisting a country in building clean energy sources is very much legitimate, *especially* when the reactors being built are useless for producing weapons-grade matter (unlike the existing reactors that they are replacing). If you can believe that Bush didn't know that Kim had a nuclear weapons program for years, I don't see how you find Clinton not knowing being entirely implausible.
And by "not paying attention" I mean that North Korea is hardly any kind of immediate threat to the United States, and branding it as a member of an "axis of evil" is just stupid.
As in they unanimously agreed that Saddam had blatantly violated the terms of the cease-fire and numerous resolutions, and not only refused to do anything about it, but (tried to) refuse to let us and our allies do anything about it.
Okay, first of all, this is hardly abnormal. The UN stance is that war is a last-ditch effort.
Saddam violated international law as regards us? Take a look at this facinating document, where someone went to the trouble of documenting all of *our* violations of international law as regards Iraq here.
What if the UN enforced international law the way you want them to, by declaring open season on violators? They say "Hell, anyone who wants to take potshots at the United States is free to go for it?" I'm using your own criteria...
The stated goal of the United Nations is to try to work toward peace. Nobody wanted a World War III. The United Nations is at least aiming for a pretty obviously good goal.
Irrelevant. Yes, we helped some unsavory characters in the past because of our struggle against communism. Just like at one time we allied with Stalin. (Hopefully skirting the edge of Godwin there). Maybe in retrospect it was a mistake, but the fact is that it's done and we have to deal with the present.
So why is it irrelevant when *we* are involved with terrorism, and should be judged innocent after the fact, and not anyone else?
Some of the people here are struggling against secular capitalist government, which they view as dangerous and morally bankrupt, and something that spreads easily. Very much the same way we viewed communism. Why does this carte blanche to do anything to fight against opposing ideologies only apply to us, and not to them?
Uh...that Iraq is any kind of a serious danger to the United States?
That attacking him will help the "War On Terror"?
That the targeted strike this night against Saddam (definitely assassination, and not kosher by international convention) wasn't just revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to knock off his dad?
I think it's been a while since people really loved a president. There are some people that dislike Dems more, simply on party-based grounds. A few religious right/authoritarian types approve of Ashcroft.
You're definitely right about the economy, especially since he doesn't seem to have any interest in fixing it.
Re:What, with a 70% approval rating?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Sixty some percent of US citizens only support a war with Iraq if we have broad international support. Which we don't have.
And this is a president moving ground troops in to occupy a country where we're hated and a large chunk of the civilian population is willing to fight back. That's asking for casualties.
The last time we tried that, it was Vietnam. Didn't do wonders for presidential popularity.
Note to self: Check out what data recovery firm is doing work for NASA on the flight recorder. Keep in mind for any future problems. Anyone that can resurrect a recording device that's been blasted from an exploding spacecraft into the top of the atmosphere, subjected to incredible, rock-melting heat, and then slammed into the ground at terminal velocity can probably handle anything.
True, but chemical and biological weapons can be sold to the highest bidder and smuggled into the US.
By any number of countries. There are lots of ways to kill someone, and the United States is the largest arms exporter in the world. Funny, that.
I'm not saying they are. Iran and North Korea are also on the "axis of evil" list, so don't think we're ignoring them.
You mean "Bush ignoring them". I sure as hell wasn't paying any attention to North Korea before Bush decided to play cowboy.
Correct, the UN has pretty well established its irrelevance.
As in "they failed to cave in to US demands, despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world"? That makes it irrelevant, eh?
But then you're taking the chance that these weapons will not find their way into the US (or other countries) and be used against civilians.
You know, if we weren't an enormous arms producer, and hadn't trained and equipped terrorists in the *past* against other countries -- bin Laden was assisted by the United States against the USSR, remember -- it might be easier to take this more seriously.
Re:Actually...Saddam's threats are varied...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
why did he want Kuwait? Oil. He already is sitting on one of the largest supplies of it in the world.
Yes. Much like the US. Except our approach is, instead of annexing a country, to simply install a puppet government (Iran, and the fact that the only reason the current Saudi government is in power is because the US props them up are both examples BORDERING Iraq), and *then* take their natural resources at cut-rate prices. Much more convenient if you decide you want to pull out.
Dare we forget, he has always been working on chem and bio weapons, and back in the era of the Kuwait invasion, he was uncomfortably close to nuclear weapons.
"close" to nuclear weapons? Okay, *that* comes off as propaganda...
However, we *have* nuclear weapons and have used them against another country. Twice. Beat that.
He hasn't played by the rules at all...he's defied the UN many times
*snort* And you consider the US a country that *doesn't* defy the UN? Heck, in *attacking* Iraq "for defying a UN mandate", we ourselves are violating a UN mandate.
because America's actions are currently unpopular, it doesn't make them wrong
I say America should do what's in her best interests. Which does not include attacking a country that has little to no ability or history of attacking it or in angering people across the world who will lose relatives and now consider taking part in terrorism.
All I see here is Bush's ego and a guy who tried to knock off his old man. And a hell of a lot of misuse of power.
I didn't see Iraq attacking the US through the Clinton years, somehow, despite the lack of war.
You don't have to support the war. Just don't stand in the way.
Why not? I don't agree with it. None of the people I've talked to at my university agree with it. The professors I've talked to are strongly against it. I don't see why I should support something that, as far as I can tell, is only supported by the stupid propaganda-influenced in the country.
Support the troops, the last thing they want is to put their life on the line to save your sorry ass who thinks they're job is meaningless...
Supporting the troops means wanting them not to be hurt, not wanting us to continue fighting or to crush Iraq.
Anyone thinking Saddam would comply with a peace offer is on crack! History has already proven he wouldn't...
No -- Saddam wants very much to be at peace. He simply doesn't want to be so under onorous conditions. If we pulled out and simply said "We're willing to stop fighting if you are as well", Saddam would most certainly stop.
He wasn't supposed to have ANY. And what about the unreported drones? Ah, that's just dirt we can dust under the rug.
Do tell? We aren't supposed to be flying armed unmanned drones into countries that don't want us there controlled by non-military intelligence elements, and simply murder people (along with innocents that were in the wrong place at the wrong time) because we *think* (sans trial) that they are a member of an organization that has members that crashed a plane into a US office building. You can't say the US is taking some sort of moral high ground in this, because they aren't.
Tell that to the victims of 9/11... Who would have thought on 9/10/2001 that terrorists from across the globe would be killing thousands of people in the US tomorrow?
Funny how said terrorists aren't from Iraq, aren't associated with Iraq, and were mostly from the strongest US ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. Gee, could be because of the puppet government we keep propped up there...nah.
Do you mind if I quote you if an Iraqi led terrorist attack on US soil occurs?
Now? After we just made a massive unprovoked attack on the Iraqi people which they have no remote chance of responding to via conventional warfare? Hell, no. See my posts above -- we're bringing problems on *ourselves* by running out and attacking countries.
Re:It's about damn time
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 5, Funny
And how long, I wonder, before the next dictator and his thugs are in place.
Actually, Bush is likely to lose re-election at this point.
Are you *daft*?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
So now we're supposed to support Bush's War because there's a higher scale of the same bombing going on that's been going on for seven years?
Hell, no. You really want to support the soldiers? Pull them *out* of Iraq where they aren't going to get *killed*. Make peace -- anyone who thinks that Iraq is stupid enough to not accept a peace offer is on crack -- and then do the damn inspections. What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads, and now there are people *dying* because of it?
Beating the shit out of someone else until they're willing to do anything to avoid being hurt even more is really *not* the only way to resolve a conflict.
And people that try to associate patriotism with believing that Bush's War should go on are full of it. Patriotism is doing what's best for your *country*, not blithely following through what your leader spouts (if that were the case, Iraqis would be in the same boat, but the opposite way).
Finally, "protecting your family"? Yeah, Iraq is such a terribly nasty threat to your family. Christ. I can just see it now "January 2007 -- Iraq Invades United States!"
"odds with", not "ends with"
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
"odds with", not "ends with". Oops. Sigh.
Re:About time.
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
"For keeps", eh?
So what, specifically, is "Bush's War" going to do differently from the Gulf War that's going to suddenly eliminate the hatred of the United States in the country? You can't commit genocide in Iraq. You knock off the leader and install your own puppet government, you just produce a lot more hatred (think how we'd feel if China did that to us). So now you've killed one man that's fairly representative of national feeling in Iraq. We've spent lots of money profiling and monitoring him, so we throw out all that work, and we now have the same number of people who hate the US.
Saddam the man is not dangerous. If Iraqis disagreed about the United States, he wouldn't be an issue. Saddam is only nasty because the Iraqi people feel the same way he does about the United States. That being said, killing Saddam will, in my estimation, do nothing but produce more anti-US sentiment.
"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Saddam and Bin Laden are different people with different goals.
<sarcasm>Ah, but the Bush clan has had a long-term agenda with Saddam. Bin Laden only killed off a few Americans.</sarcasm>
I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism. I see attacking countries, occupying them, and setting up puppet goverments as having exactly the same effect it's had every time we've done it for the *last* fifty years, which is to piss people off much, much more and produce more people with dead parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/sons/daughters who are willing to die to strike at the United States. People don't just say, entirely unprovoked, "Gee, it's a rainy Saturday. I think I'll go blow myself up on a bus or crash a plane into a building." Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.
I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice to know that lives and resources that could be used to help fight terrorism or help repair the economy are being used to fight out a Bush clan squabble.
On top of that, why did it take the U.S so long to adopt democracy? The Greeks invented it more than 200 years ago, thats for damn sure!
If the US was a democracy, Bush wouldn't be in office at the moment -- thanks a lot, electoral college. We're a republic.
throwing "dissidents" into commercial plastic shredders
Really? It doesn't surprise me that much, but when did that happen? Link please (to a reputable news site).
attacking Iraqi Kurds with VX Nerve Gas
Saddam doesn't have Vx. Vx is rather hard to get, and about the nastiest of the current gasses. He used tabun and something else (which I forget) against them.
think that this is all about OIL
Think? I'd say *know*. We ignore human rights violations on the part of Turkey. Hell, lots of the nations on the "30 countries list" are egregious human rights violators.
There's one reason Iraq is so interesting to us (as opposed to a nation off in the middle of nowhere to ignore). Oil.
And Rumsfield threatening Iraq *not* to light any of their oil wells just drives the point home even more.
This is probably news to you too, but there were no Iraqis in the 9/11 planes.
There were, however Saudis. Which are one of our allies against Iraq. Funny, isn't it?
Bush's War and the War Against Terror are quite different beasts.
Mind your own business and maybe the world will stop hating your guts.
Nah, we'll always have jerks like him generating hatred. Heck, it's gonna probably take a long time for us to live down *this* stupid attack.
It seems to have been promptly taken down.
Oh, I forgot that only the French and German opinion counts. Silly me. The terrorist training camps and money he spends to stir up terrorism against American interests has nothing to do with this war. That's right. It's all about oil, right?
You're thinking of bin Laden, buddy. Feel free to identify some terrorism that Saddam has "stirred up" against the United States. Oh, wait. You can't.
As for constantly *criticizing* the United States, I hardly think that it's surprising, given that we have banned him from his own airspace (including civilian planes), destroyed his economy, killed many people, have vastly advantageous to us oil-for-food deals going...
So an attack against an enemy head of state using a weapon of war is assassination, and shouldn't be condoned, but we're not going to hold Saddam accountable for trying to assassinate one of our leaders?
So we villify Saddam for doing that, then promptly do the same thing ourselves?
We're attacking a country on the grounds that it's violated international law, yet our attack is a violation of international law, and we start it off with an illegal assassination attempt?
Wake up. A head of state is a legitimate target in war. Period.
Well, that may be your opinion, but most of the rest of the world disagrees with you.
The countries we just claimed to be with us are included under ridiculously thin criteria.
First of all, most of the people of countries *don't* support it, but the governments have no reason not to throw their hat in at the last minute, though they refused up until the last day, when war was assured anyway. They aren't responsible for performing fighting at all. Bulgaria, Spain, and the UK are the only countries that have consistently and long-term been backing us on this. Second of all, this has nothing to do with what the majority of the people in a country say, just what its government's final decision regarding this list is. It has no requirements, and you get some brownie points with the US govt.
Let's take a short look at the list, shall we?
Afghanistan
Holy shit, the puppet government we just set up supports us. *There* a surprise. I have a very hard time believing that there's popular support for the US bombing the shit out of another country with jack in the way of ability to fight back, though. Too many people dead here from the same thing.
Albania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan.
Yay third world countries for whom this entire conflict represents the possiblity to say something nice about the US and get more foreign aid. Their inclusion on this list has about as much to do with supporting combat in Iraq as Scientology does with religion. Uzbekistan's diplomants even were blunt enough to say that there is not popular support for the war, though the government is willing to be on the list.
Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua
The US has very little popular support for this in Central and South America. Nor have these countries been supporting the US's actions up they could get thrown on a list with zero obligation and the knowledge that the US was going to war anyway. It's actually impressive that Columbia hasn't been with us earlier, given all the military hardware we've been handing out free to them.
Japan (post conflict)
Japan is an opponent of US action. Putting them on here is an exercise in desperation to get US support. They only said they'd provide humanitarian aid to Iraq if something happens, after the fighting is over. I can't figure out how you can call that "supporting" the US attack.
Britain, Bulgaria, Spain
These guys were in for the long haul. They're the only ones serious about this on here. I don't know about Bulgaria or Spain, but polls in Britain are showing a majority of people against the war (matter of fact, I've seen speculation on how much political damage this is going to do to Blair), though the government is.
Australia
Didn't hear about them earlier, but not too surprising. They're pretty consistent in backing US military action.
Czech Republic, Denmark, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Macedonia, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Romania
I don't know enough about what's going on in these countries to say. I do have point out that these are mostly non-influential countries, and that they jumped on at the last minute.
Turkey
Turkey voted material support down, despite the top tiers trying to push it through. They don't need a vote to be on this list, though, so they can do that much. Keep in mind that this is *after* Powell tried to buy them off with several billion dollars in aid.
France, China, Russia, and the USSR, the big players, are all opposed. Japan's opposed to the conflict, though we managed to include them anyway. Neither India nor Pakistan are on there. For Chrissake, *Israel* wasn't willing to back us!
You'll also notice the absence of even Canada and Mexico on here, who *always* back us.
Take a look at this.
Maybe also because Saddam hasn't killed a million people while he has been in power?
In addition, in the past hundred years, the US has killed far, far more people than Iraq has. Mortality numbers are against you.
Uh...I think I'd bet against it.
just forking for the sake of it just splits the developer base, and the new fork usually gets bad press and poor support.
:-(
I think I'm going to cry. Keith has done the most amazing stuff -- Xft, the modern font architecture -- all the really good features that I've played with recently. If he splits off, XFree86 is going to take a very serious hit.
Please, please, *PLEASE* try to work this out with Keith, XFree core. If you need to maintain more stability, think about a more unstable devel versions, or even a second "really unstable" devel tree that patches can at least enter the tree. Anything, just don't end up hating each other and refusing to share your code with each other.
Either side of such a fork would have a much weaker team. We need XFree86 so much right now, with 3d becoming important to mainstream Linux users. I appreciate all that the XFree folks have done, and asking for more seems ungrateful -- but please try to work it out without ultimatums. *Please*. The mplayer folks hang together, even though A'rpi's abrasive, because he's a really great coder, and everyone would be worse off if he wasn't involved.
Man. I feel almost as bad as when Bungie was purchased by Microsoft. The world *needs* Keith and XFree core being friends, not adversaries.
This and a war in Iraq, and it isn't even 1:00 yet. What a awful day.
Clinton didn't stay in power long enough for them to complete their development of nuclear weapons.
Yeah, I'm sure that, given another year, we would have been cringing in the face of a nuclear ICBM-armed Iraq. Yup. That doesn't come off as CNN alarmist BS at all.
Hmmm... well I may be just another member of the great gullible masses- but I thaught it was so they could avoid having a big war.
Ya, well, war is the legal way to do things instead of assassination on the international stage. [shrug] Probably because it's easy to assassinate someone, and otherwise there'd just be constant open season on world leaders. It's a little harder and more obvious to fight a conventional war.
Yes, with Iraq having a substantially higher probability of
exporting such weapons than, say, Paraguay.
So you consider "possibility of exporting weapons in the future which
may be used against the United States" as grounds for *war*? I'll bet
every country in the world with arms manufacturers (*including* the
United States) has supplied enemies of the United States with
weaponry.
Well, that's not your job. But I prefer that our leaders take
notice of psychopaths with nuclear weapons (and not assist them in
development of said weapons, as our previous administration did).
It's lovely how every world leader that we have friction with ends up
being branded as a psychopath. I'm sorry, but there's not that much
correlation with insanity. Kim Jong Il is eccentric, perhaps, but
hardly a psychopath.
As for assisting with nuclear weapons production, that's bullshit, and
I strongly suspect that you're aware of it. Assisting a country in
building clean energy sources is very much legitimate, *especially*
when the reactors being built are useless for producing weapons-grade
matter (unlike the existing reactors that they are replacing). If you
can believe that Bush didn't know that Kim had a nuclear weapons
program for years, I don't see how you find Clinton not knowing being
entirely implausible.
And by "not paying attention" I mean that North Korea is hardly any
kind of immediate threat to the United States, and branding it as a
member of an "axis of evil" is just stupid.
As in they unanimously agreed that Saddam had blatantly violated
the terms of the cease-fire and numerous resolutions, and not only
refused to do anything about it, but (tried to) refuse to let us and
our allies do anything about it.
Okay, first of all, this is hardly abnormal. The UN stance is that
war is a last-ditch effort.
Saddam violated international law as regards us? Take a look at this
facinating document, where someone went to the trouble of documenting
all of *our* violations of international law as regards Iraq here.
What if the UN enforced international law the way you want them to, by
declaring open season on violators? They say "Hell, anyone who wants
to take potshots at the United States is free to go for it?" I'm
using your own criteria...
The stated goal of the United Nations is to try to work toward peace.
Nobody wanted a World War III. The United Nations is at least aiming
for a pretty obviously good goal.
Irrelevant. Yes, we helped some unsavory characters in the past
because of our struggle against communism. Just like at one time we
allied with Stalin. (Hopefully skirting the edge of Godwin
there). Maybe in retrospect it was a mistake, but the fact is that
it's done and we have to deal with the present.
So why is it irrelevant when *we* are involved with terrorism, and
should be judged innocent after the fact, and not anyone else?
Some of the people here are struggling against secular capitalist
government, which they view as dangerous and morally bankrupt, and
something that spreads easily. Very much the same way we viewed
communism. Why does this carte blanche to do anything to fight
against opposing ideologies only apply to us, and not to them?
Do you think anybody is lying about Saddam?
What a fool!
Uh...that Iraq is any kind of a serious danger to the United States?
That attacking him will help the "War On Terror"?
That the targeted strike this night against Saddam (definitely assassination, and not kosher by international convention) wasn't just revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to knock off his dad?
Sounds like a bunch of lies to *me*.
I think it's been a while since people really loved a president. There are some people that dislike Dems more, simply on party-based grounds. A few religious right/authoritarian types approve of Ashcroft.
You're definitely right about the economy, especially since he doesn't seem to have any interest in fixing it.
Sixty some percent of US citizens only support a war with Iraq if we have broad international support. Which we don't have.
And this is a president moving ground troops in to occupy a country where we're hated and a large chunk of the civilian population is willing to fight back. That's asking for casualties.
The last time we tried that, it was Vietnam. Didn't do wonders for presidential popularity.
Note to self: Check out what data recovery firm is doing work for NASA on the flight recorder. Keep in mind for any future problems. Anyone that can resurrect a recording device that's been blasted from an exploding spacecraft into the top of the atmosphere, subjected to incredible, rock-melting heat, and then slammed into the ground at terminal velocity can probably handle anything.
True, but chemical and biological weapons can be sold to the highest bidder and smuggled into the US.
By any number of countries. There are lots of ways to kill someone, and the United States is the largest arms exporter in the world. Funny, that.
I'm not saying they are. Iran and North Korea are also on the "axis of evil" list, so don't think we're ignoring them.
You mean "Bush ignoring them". I sure as hell wasn't paying any attention to North Korea before Bush decided to play cowboy.
Correct, the UN has pretty well established its irrelevance.
As in "they failed to cave in to US demands, despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world"? That makes it irrelevant, eh?
But then you're taking the chance that these weapons will not find their way into the US (or other countries) and be used against civilians.
You know, if we weren't an enormous arms producer, and hadn't trained and equipped terrorists in the *past* against other countries -- bin Laden was assisted by the United States against the USSR, remember -- it might be easier to take this more seriously.
why did he want Kuwait? Oil. He already is sitting on one of the largest supplies of it in the world.
Yes. Much like the US. Except our approach is, instead of annexing a country, to simply install a puppet government (Iran, and the fact that the only reason the current Saudi government is in power is because the US props them up are both examples BORDERING Iraq), and *then* take their natural resources at cut-rate prices. Much more convenient if you decide you want to pull out.
Dare we forget, he has always been working on chem and bio weapons, and back in the era of the Kuwait invasion, he was uncomfortably close to nuclear weapons.
"close" to nuclear weapons? Okay, *that* comes off as propaganda...
However, we *have* nuclear weapons and have used them against another country. Twice. Beat that.
He hasn't played by the rules at all...he's defied the UN many times
*snort* And you consider the US a country that *doesn't* defy the UN? Heck, in *attacking* Iraq "for defying a UN mandate", we ourselves are violating a UN mandate.
because America's actions are currently unpopular, it doesn't make them wrong
I say America should do what's in her best interests. Which does not include attacking a country that has little to no ability or history of attacking it or in angering people across the world who will lose relatives and now consider taking part in terrorism.
All I see here is Bush's ego and a guy who tried to knock off his old man. And a hell of a lot of misuse of power.
I didn't see Iraq attacking the US through the Clinton years, somehow, despite the lack of war.
You don't have to support the war. Just don't stand in the way.
Why not? I don't agree with it. None of the people I've talked to at my university agree with it. The professors I've talked to are strongly against it. I don't see why I should support something that, as far as I can tell, is only supported by the stupid propaganda-influenced in the country.
Support the troops, the last thing they want is to put their life on the line to save your sorry ass who thinks they're job is meaningless...
Supporting the troops means wanting them not to be hurt, not wanting us to continue fighting or to crush Iraq.
Anyone thinking Saddam would comply with a peace offer is on crack! History has already proven he wouldn't...
No -- Saddam wants very much to be at peace. He simply doesn't want to be so under onorous conditions. If we pulled out and simply said "We're willing to stop fighting if you are as well", Saddam would most certainly stop.
He wasn't supposed to have ANY. And what about the unreported drones? Ah, that's just dirt we can dust under the rug.
Do tell? We aren't supposed to be flying armed unmanned drones into countries that don't want us there controlled by non-military intelligence elements, and simply murder people (along with innocents that were in the wrong place at the wrong time) because we *think* (sans trial) that they are a member of an organization that has members that crashed a plane into a US office building. You can't say the US is taking some sort of moral high ground in this, because they aren't.
Tell that to the victims of 9/11... Who would have thought on 9/10/2001 that terrorists from across the globe would be killing thousands of people in the US tomorrow?
Funny how said terrorists aren't from Iraq, aren't associated with Iraq, and were mostly from the strongest US ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. Gee, could be because of the puppet government we keep propped up there...nah.
Do you mind if I quote you if an Iraqi led terrorist attack on US soil occurs?
Now? After we just made a massive unprovoked attack on the Iraqi people which they have no remote chance of responding to via conventional warfare? Hell, no. See my posts above -- we're bringing problems on *ourselves* by running out and attacking countries.
And how long, I wonder, before the next dictator and his thugs are in place.
Actually, Bush is likely to lose re-election at this point.
So now we're supposed to support Bush's War because there's a higher scale of the same bombing going on that's been going on for seven years?
Hell, no. You really want to support the soldiers? Pull them *out* of Iraq where they aren't going to get *killed*. Make peace -- anyone who thinks that Iraq is stupid enough to not accept a peace offer is on crack -- and then do the damn inspections. What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads, and now there are people *dying* because of it?
Beating the shit out of someone else until they're willing to do anything to avoid being hurt even more is really *not* the only way to resolve a conflict.
And people that try to associate patriotism with believing that Bush's War should go on are full of it. Patriotism is doing what's best for your *country*, not blithely following through what your leader spouts (if that were the case, Iraqis would be in the same boat, but the opposite way).
Finally, "protecting your family"? Yeah, Iraq is such a terribly nasty threat to your family. Christ. I can just see it now "January 2007 -- Iraq Invades United States!"
"odds with", not "ends with". Oops. Sigh.
"For keeps", eh?
So what, specifically, is "Bush's War" going to do differently from the Gulf War that's going to suddenly eliminate the hatred of the United States in the country? You can't commit genocide in Iraq. You knock off the leader and install your own puppet government, you just produce a lot more hatred (think how we'd feel if China did that to us). So now you've killed one man that's fairly representative of national feeling in Iraq. We've spent lots of money profiling and monitoring him, so we throw out all that work, and we now have the same number of people who hate the US.
Saddam the man is not dangerous. If Iraqis disagreed about the United States, he wouldn't be an issue. Saddam is only nasty because the Iraqi people feel the same way he does about the United States. That being said, killing Saddam will, in my estimation, do nothing but produce more anti-US sentiment.
Saddam and Bin Laden are different people with different goals.
<sarcasm>Ah, but the Bush clan has had a long-term agenda with Saddam. Bin Laden only killed off a few Americans.</sarcasm>
I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism. I see attacking countries, occupying them, and setting up puppet goverments as having exactly the same effect it's had every time we've done it for the *last* fifty years, which is to piss people off much, much more and produce more people with dead parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/sons/daughters who are willing to die to strike at the United States. People don't just say, entirely unprovoked, "Gee, it's a rainy Saturday. I think I'll go blow myself up on a bus or crash a plane into a building." Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.
I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.