> If you would know the real background of the > story you should be slightly more calm. Last time > it was the West to mobilise two opposition > groups and PROMISED support. They did keep > their promise but the US didnt. And how did my post deny any of this? Groups like the "Constitutional Monarchy Movement" are two guys with nice suits and a PO Box. They are worthless in helping us overthrow the current government. > Those opposition were terribly slaugthered by > Saddam and are now under costant surpression. The opposition Shiite and Kurds are not now under constant suppression. The KDP is allied with Bagdad and the Shiites are left alone. And I assure you that they don't want the US's help. The Shiites hate the US more than Saddam - first for leaving them in the lurch when they started a civil war, and second for poisoning their land and causing a terrible increase in cancer and birth defects. > I wonder what what you guys learn at school? > Only the 2004433 presidents and then you can go home? Me fail english? That's upossible.
Where where the French, Germans, Spanish, Irish, Italians, Swiss, Austrians, Canadians when the Kurds needed help? Don't just blame the US.
I take the blame, (even though the idea to support internal countermovements was initiated by the CIA). All I am saying is, dont blame them. They got the right to never trust us again, whatever their motives were/are!
Well half half, kind of was! But since this forum is 80% american I thought I use the occasion to address them as well!
Who cares who takes over for Sadam Hussein? Did we worry about who was going to succeed Hitler? Should we just let the genocide continue, look the other way, and risk the inevitable suitcase nuke in your backyard just because of the uncertainty of the next Iraqi ruler?
"Did we worry about who was going to succeed Hitler?" Er, actually yeah. We didn't want those damn commies taking over.
> Should we just let the genocide continue, look > the other way, What genocide? And in what way are we looking away that we didn't under Reagan? If you are talking about the Kurds, try looking at how many were killed by Turkey, a nation we are friends with. > and risk the inevitable suitcase nuke in your > backyard just because of the uncertainty of the > next Iraqi ruler? Iraq has no nukes. If they had a nuke, it would not be a suitcase nuke. If they had a suitcase nuke, they would not use it against the US because Saddam does not want to be nuked himself. Nothing you say makes sense. If you want to make up a fake threat why don't you lie about some other country that is easier to take over, like Trinidad? War against Iraq is going to be very expensive.
I'm glad you're the expert on whether Iraq has nukes since weapons inspectors haven't been able to take a look in over four years. Maybe you should pass on your insight to the UN. Iraq is busily arming itself quote: It took UN weapons inspectors four years to discover Hussein's biological weapons, which had been well hidden. Inspectors also discovered hundreds of chemical weapons and established that Hussein was very close to producing a nuclear weapon when he invaded Kuwait. Now there have been no weapons inspections for four years. Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons and soon – within two or three years – will have nuclear weapons. This is clear from his active acquisition of fissile material, the building block of nuclear weapons, and from defector testimony.
Ohh yea and you forgot to mention that over 20,000 Turks were killed, most of them civilians, by the Kurdish terrorists before we captured their leader Ocalan.
I'll check my history books again but I think we weren't the only thing keeping Hitler from European domination. Do the initials R.A.F. mean anything? C14
> I'm glad you're the expert on whether Iraq has > nukes since weapons inspectors haven't been > able to take a look in over four years. Then why isn't the US government claiming they have nukes? Then why aren't we asking to go back in? Nothing you say makes sense. They cannot build nukes until they have certain parts that are way beyond their ability to manufacture. We keep track of the western manufacturers of such parts (and in fact intercepted such parts before the Gulf War happened). We also have the ability to search any ship entering Iraq. You are the one that wants to invade. You are the one that has to supply proof that Iraq has nukes and that Iraq has the ability and desire to attack our nation. You have not done so.
Right. Like he can make nuclear bombs in his basement. Sure, he can just make some VX in the family kitchen. Who the hell is he, Steve Urkel? Please. Even former UN Weapons Inspector and Marine Scott Ritter said that in order to produce weapons of "mass destruction" (like weapons do anything other than destroy) Saddam would need massive industrial facilities that would be pretty eye-catching with our satellites and whatever spy planes we have hovering around Iraq. If the indisputable proof is there, show it, before we go bombing legit pharmacies again. What's there to hide?
You know, Scott Ritter is the only current or former UN Weapons Inspector that has said those things. Just about every single other inspector (including former chief inspector Richard Butler) has come out and said that Iraq is a dangerous nation capable of building weapons of "mass destruction", and may be in the process of doing so. But for some reason, certain people on this board only want to listen to Ritter. Hmmmm....
Hehehehe. Yeah you didn't know, just give me some uranium, plutonium and I will make you a weapon of mass destruction in my kitchen in a week.
Yeah, thanks oodles for the assist. Great Patriotic Scoreboard Sincerely, Stalingrad Dan and my 20 million dead pals
Maybe it's because Ritter is the only one with enough balls to speak out. One minute the US is ready to go to war with Iraq over not letting him inspect, and now he's an inconsequential figure. The weapons of mass destruction or the fact that Saddam is an evil bastard isn't even the real issue here with the US. If it were, then why is it that we're the only nation (the UK excluded) that is so worried about this that we're all of a sudden ready to go to war over this? Funny how Saudi Arabia or France or China aren't going along with this. Sure Saddam is an evil bitch, but it's funny how the gov't pulls all the stuff out about how he gassed Kurds and his own people and how he sits on his fat ass all day while his people starve when it's convenient. The whole reason for this WMD ploy is a front to put in a "friendlier regime", ie one that gives us oil for free and doesn't get sassy with us, not to save the lives of millions of Iraqis. Let's not kid ourselves here. Quoth Chomsky:"In these and many other cases, the criterion that distinguishes friend from enemy is obedience, not crime."
Yes, I'm sure that's it. You stick with Ritter, I'll stick with nearly every other inspector. I hope you're making a joke here. Saudi Arabia would find itself in an awfully tight spot if Saddam were toppled, and replaced with a pro-U.S. regime. Perhaps then we would stop overlooking the Saudis implicit and explicit support for terror operations. And since when have France and China ever been in line with U.S. policy? If France doesn't let F-111s pass over their airspace on the way to drop a few payloads on Libya, I seriously doubt they'd be with us on any effort in Iraq. Hey, when you're talking fringe benefits, I think saving millions of lives is right up there. Apparently you don't. That's super.
>Perhaps then we would stop overlooking the Saudis implicit and explicit support for terror operations. You should have thought of that before 9/11.
This has nothing to do with inspectors. If it was, we would be asking for them to be put back in. It is clear that having inspectors put in Iraq does not fit with what our real goals are. And the whole discussion about weapons of mass destruction is silly. Chemical and biological weapons are vastly overrated. If Saddam really wanted to damage the US, he could have done it a long time ago with normal weapons. A ship full of explosives going off could block up a harbor by taking down a bridge, or blow up a refinery which are usually placed by the water. Agents using car bombs could instill some real panic in our population, and be very hard to catch. But Saddam has not done any of these. He is content to let us continue waging a limited war on him while doing nothing because it suits his purposes.