Bush says, "Saddam, you've got 48 hours pilgrim!"

[GomiGirl]

There's no question in my mind that Saddam should fall. I only question the legitimacy of the use of immediate force.

Absolutely!! The approach has been wrong from the start but now there is too much at stake - power and the appearance of power. There is no way now to back down from the use of force without looking silly or god-forbid weak. This is not a good enough reason to move forward. IMHO

But then why let countries make their own mistakes when you can show them the true and righteous path through force.

Again I agree with you..

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."----------
Samuel P. Huntington

As a "westerner" this rings true - and it is not a pleasant thought.

[GomiGirl]

so what's your fucking solution. Let these dictators stand. Sorry sweetie. That era is over. Think Genius, think. You are trying to apply democratic principles to a dictator. He laughs at this shit. The West's blind youth are truly disturbing.

Sweetie, I am not talking about Saddam, I am talking about the way that the situation has been handled by the "Dick and Bush show"...

[ramchop]

As for the guy who said Australia/New Zealand only has suffered one terrorist attack that is not really true. A huge number of Australians got it in Kuta (sp?). We are not save anywhere when these piss pot dictators can set up terrorist training camps within their borders while the West wrings its hands about whether this is fair or not.

That's not what I said, but you're right. New Zealanders were lost in Bali. But is that the issue here?

New Zealand special forces (go on laugh, I know you want to) are engaged alongside Americans in Afghanistan fighting terrorists. But because we're against immediate action against Iraq, that means we're suddenly on the side of the enemy?

Saddam is evil. That is clear cut. What is not clear cut, is whether immediate force is the best course of action.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly...

We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to
Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.

Excuse moi, but where the fuck was the UN security counsel resolution when we knocked the bejeezus out of Milosevic and his ilk. Who was complaining. And Hussein is many times more dangerous to himself, his people and us.

We're going towage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war.

No, we are going to wage war now to save more lives in the end. We are also going to send a message to every other dictator out there in his rent a tux that we will not be fucked with by them and particularly not by the French. Beware of our wrath. This will work by the way. Qaddafi has been a nice little boy for years now that he knows we have his location down pretty well and can eliminate him and his family (actually, one son was taken from this Lockerbie Scotland pipebombing son of a bitch). Guess what. He learned. Big and small. Bullies have the same M.O.

The paramountprincipal is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have
to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then, by gum, we will.
Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this
right?

No, you are completely fucking this up. Try to think long term. As in we should do what it takes to save the most lives long term. Particularly when those lives are our own. Getting the picture? Probably not.

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the
democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that,
too, because democracy as we define it is too important to be stopped
by a little thing like democracy as they define it.

Unfortunately you are putting too much stock in the Security Counsel. When so many nations who think so differently and have such different goals/alliances it wonders why is ever works at all. For issues such as this it simply does not work. France will not vote with us and puts their economic interests first. The UN is a conglomeration of pig headed nations yours truly's is included.

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot
afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against
Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are
sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that
might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does.

You clowns can dissent all you want. I will just demonstrate to you that you are morons. Eventually, you will hopefully learn something if that public education hasn't totally rendered you braindead.

And
we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us
oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in
power a dictator who ignores his own people, and if our people, and
people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that then we have no
choice but to ignore them.

Yep, that just about sums up the siuation.

The US is negotiating with its allies. I agree with you this is absurd. To get Mexico's support we will probably have to grant 3 million illegal aliens with the ability to only mow lawns permanent residency and give them and their 15 kids and papasita and mamasita free medical care for live. The South Americans will take cash and buckets of it. Yeah, you're right. Our negation style is unfair. To America that is. If I were President our allies would snap in line or get their heads snapped off.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

so what's your fucking solution. Let these dictators stand. Sorry sweetie. That era is over. Think Genius, think. You are trying to apply democratic principles to a dictator. He laughs at this shit. The West's blind youth are truly disturbing.

Sweetie, I am not talking about Saddam, I am talking about the way that the situation has been handled by the "Dick and Bush show"...

Let's face it. You are not even listening to the message. You dislike the men who deliver and that's enough for you. Poor, poor Saddam

[Marvin Feltcher]

Gaisara's got a few decent points.
As of Sept. 11, 2001, any country or individual that threatened the United States was a prime target and, considering what happened that day, rightly so.
I like the way the U.S. wages war...it doesn't launch sneak attacks, it spends a fortune refining weaponry to limit civilian casualties and does what it can to avoid putting its troops in mortal danger until it absolutely needs to. If you get attacked by the U.S., it's almost guaranteed you've been given plenty of time to prepare and do what you can to avoid it (Grenadans may beg to differ).
What the U.S. is doing in Iraq is what it has said all along it would do if the threat against it was not reduced. It can't really be blamed and nobody would deny Saddam would love to have a go at the U.S. if he could, so why let him hang around to get that chance?
He, and anybody else advocating hatred or threatening the lifestyle of peace-loving peoples, should be wiped off the face of the earth immediately regardless of whether they have UN support.

[GomiGirl]

True. And I find there is a common thread among those who don't think Saddam needs to be removed.

Who has said that Saddam is a good guy and is doing a great job of leading his people? I know that I haven't and neither have the people you have been attacking.

I just don't see the urgent urgent urgent need to turn a city full of people into a moonscape because we disagree with the leaders politics. Sure it is going to make great TV with all of the journos actially accompanying the troops and reporting back in real time. But this is not entertainment for the masses of armchair generals. War should be the last resort and defence forces used for defence and not for invasion.

Interesting that none of your categories apply to me.. I come from a milliary family.

The sad thing is that all of this "War on Terror" has actually put the "west" in alot more danger from terrorism than before the build-up on the borders of Iraq.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Gaisara's got a few decent points.
As of Sept. 11, 2001, any country or individual that threatened the United States was a prime target and, considering what happened that day, rightly so.
I like the way the U.S. wages war...it doesn't launch sneak attacks, it spends a fortune refining weaponry to limit civilian casualties and does what it can to avoid putting its troops in mortal danger until it absolutely needs to. If you get attacked by the U.S., it's almost guaranteed you've been given plenty of time to prepare and do what you can to avoid it (Grenadans may beg to differ).
What the U.S. is doing in Iraq is what it has said all along it would do if the threat against it was not reduced. It can't really be blamed and nobody would deny Saddam would love to have a go at the U.S. if he could, so why let him hang around to get that chance?
He, and anybody else advocating hatred or threatening the lifestyle of peace-loving peoples, should be wiped off the face of the earth immediately regardless of whether they have UN support.

Somebody actually agreed with me so I am now going to shit and go blind at the same time. OMG@!

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

The sad thing is that all of this "War on Terror" has actually put the "west" in alot more danger from terrorism than before the build-up on the borders of Iraq.

Short term yes. Long term any government that is even remotely linked to terrorism will come in for a summary blasting to kingdom come. The American people have had it with the UN waffling. When we have evidence we will attack mightily.

Any terrorist agency, after seeing what we did in Afghanistan and soon to be Iraq (the 51st star on our flag) will think twice about screwing with us. We are finding that they do have dedicated young men who are willing to die. However, funny thing about the leadership. They have families and don't show any real willingness to die as they get older. When we get our hands on Bin Laden this son of a bitch is going to rue the day he was born. He will be paraded and made a laughingstock and then he will be executed in cheap clothes and white sneakers made in China. He will be buried, beardless in Walmart garb for all the Arab wannabe matyrs to see. After the demo we give them they won't wannabe anymore.

[GomiGirl]

Long term any government that is even remotely linked to terrorism will come in for a summary blasting to kingdom come.

This sort of attitute encourages terrorists..

It takes courage to agree to disagree and bullies that resort to violence when disagrements occur. That goes on both sides...

[cstaylor]

They would not make a united stand. They began to lose badly and the US was obliged to step in. This is a repeat. The weak Europeans stare moral victory in the face and turn tail and run.

Well, there was one Englishman that understood Hitler from the very beginning, but even his eloquence failed to change hearts among the general populace.

[Marvin Feltcher]

Clinton is an asshole. A power grabbing, pants dropping Arkie with no sense of dignity.

Winston delighted in cigars, too.

[cstaylor]

Clinton is an asshole. A power grabbing, pants dropping Arkie with no sense of dignity.

Winston delighted in cigars, too.

And that's where the similarity between those two end... the world really has had a dearth of strong leadership in the latter part of the 20th century. I just can't imagine Clinton, either Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, or Reagan (who had the best delivery of the bunch) saying:
[quote="Winston Churchill"]We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us]

[Marvin Feltcher]

Fair point and one to which I totally agree.
But could you imagine fat, bald, smoking Winston get anywhere in politics with blanket TV coverage? He spent most of his time in bed.
We're way to image conscious instead of looking for substance (as tubbies like me always attest!!).

[Steve Bildermann]

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Fair point and one to which I totally agree.
But could you imagine fat, bald, smoking Winston get anywhere in politics with blanket TV coverage? He spent most of his time in bed.
We're way to image conscious instead of looking for substance (as tubbies like me always attest!!).

Churchill's mother was American.

[GomiGirl]

[quote="Winston Churchill"]We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us]

What a quote!! I haven't seen this one before. Was this before or during the blitz? Why is that important? Well the people of England were suffering nightly air-raids and were scared witless...

not empty paranoia being whipped up to fever pitch by an overzealous and ratings competing media.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

[/quote="Gaisaradatsuraku!"]True. And I find there is a common thread among those who don't think Saddam needs to be removed.

Who has said that Saddam is a good guy and is doing a great job of leading his people? I know that I haven't and neither have the people you have been attacking.

I just don't see the urgent urgent urgent need to turn a city full of people into a moonscape because we disagree with the leaders politics.

It has to happen some time. We don't just disagree with Saddam. He wants to kill us and we want to kill him. We disagree with France, we have a war to fight with Saddam. You cannot describe the relations between the US and Iraq over the past 12 years as a disagreement. It is life or death and he is now very weak.

Sure it is going to make great TV with all of the journos actially accompanying the troops and reporting back in real time. But this is not entertainment for the masses of armchair generals. War should be the last resort and defence forces used for defence and not for invasion.

Best defense is a good offense. Particularly since a good defense requires us to build skyscapers that can withstand direct jet strikes.

Interesting that none of your categories apply to me.. I come from a milliary family.

Then you really should know better.

The sad thing is that all of this "War on Terror" has actually put the "west" in alot more danger from terrorism than before the build-up on the borders of Iraq.

Disagree entirely. Being unprepared led us to having several planes hijacked under our nose by pilots trained by us.

[cstaylor]

If your father was Labour, I can sum it up in one word: "Tonypandy".

[Big Booger]

I knew this topic would stir up some doo doo

I just hope and pray that innocent lives will be spared. I mean it is after all, the Iraqi citizens that have deal with this. I pitty them. It is like being caught with your pants down and your penis on the chopping block.. with two swords about to slice it off.. Either way you turn, you're still going to be dickless in the end..

I really pitty them, and I hope that our military make a concentrated effort to spare as many lives as possible. They should just send in an elite team like the British Special ops to take out Saddam and his henchmen.. then liberate the country, and start afresh.

It would have been better to have the UN's approval, but I think they sort of failed after 11 or more years of negotiations.. having the inspectors booted out in the late 90's and then find out he has more chemical and biological weapons.. The UN is a joke.. I read in the paper today Iraq was going to be appointed over the disarming committee of the UN and that Libya was going to handle int'l human rights committee.. LIBYA people, home of the little BIN LADEN wannabe's

If the UN had just given in the resolution that would give a BACKBONE to their decisions, and prove their POWER, then I think most of this could have been resolved...

And I think the French have a right to object to the war... but I think they should have not objected to the resolution that gave the UN sanctions a little meat on the gristle... Without allowing for an immediate threat to Iraq for not adhering to the policies of DISARM now, then all it is, is an empty sanction or just that a threat... Saddam knows that there will be no reprecussions for abjugating from the deal that he made back in 1991 after he got his ass kicked in Kuwait...

Bush and Blair should have waited it out. I mean seriously, let Saddam do his evilest deeds, and then the UK and the US can point the blame right at the fucking UN!!! That would in essence be a better option IMHO.

But one thing most people are forgetting is the loon in NK, that has the nukes, and is launching test missles at Japan.. why are they going in after Saddam while seemingly ignoring that quack over in North Korea?

[cstaylor]

after he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, he pushed for bigger and bigger budgets, spreading wild rumors of the growing strength of the German Navy, just as he did in the 1930s about the buildup of the German Air Force

What do you expect from a Yank that can't understand Britain's need for complete naval superiority? Nowhere does Professor Raico even point out the most critical quote Winston made about the Kaiser's navy, that it was a "luxury" (read "toy").

The German navy was quite strong during the first World War, but due to the Kaiser's meddling it never exercised its full strength. Most of it was scuttled after the end of the war.

Now, would that be the 1,000 plane strong Luftwaffe professor Raico is talking about? The one that dropped paratroopers over Poland? Bombed the RAF into submission? Nah... the Germans didn't have an airforce worth arguing over, especially since Labour's Ramsey MacDonald was cutting armament budgets to the bone during his stay at 10 Downing Street.

Sounds like this professor likes picking on great dead men who can't defend themselves from the grave.

[cstaylor]

But one thing most people are forgetting is the loon in NK, that has the nukes, and is launching test missles at Japan.. why are they going in after Saddam while seemingly ignoring that quack over in North Korea?

From the tunes you hear coming out of Koizumi and crew, I think Powell must have told them that NK will be next on the list?

[devicenull]

proof that if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes truth....

*sigh* i really do detest bush

[GuyJean]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/18/aus.opera/index.html
Cool shot. Is it possible to just walk up there?

It's interesting to me that there's probably a larger percentage, per capita, of people OUTSIDE Iraq opposed to this war than INSIDE.. Does everyone realize Saddam's ruling party 'sect', or race, or whatever you call it, makes up only 15% of the total population of Iraq?

Sixty-five percent are Sunnis (I believe), in the south, and they fucking hate Saddam! And the chemical-guinea-pig-Kurds in the north, I'm sure, wouldn't lose any sleep over Saddam's demise.

Whenever there's conflict, I always try to understand the desires of the majority of people WITHIN that conflict. I think the Iraqi people, or most of them, would welcome change. It's seems it's the protesters that want to keep the status quo.. Kind o' ironic, aint it?

GJ

[Resolute Optimist]

The blog from Bagdad that Gomigirl referred to, "Where is Raed", would give you a better insight into how people in Iraq are feeling right now... He says that they would welcome a change in regime, but that they do not want to go through a war... Its so much easier to have an opinion on whether a war would be beneficial or not when you can switch your computer off afterwards and get back to your everyday life without losing too much sleep. I'm no different.
I don't know what effect the blog will have on you, but as far as I'm concerned, it made me feel like I had no right to be so sure about this whole ordeal...
I especially liked the bit about the human shields in the first part of the archives... very funny and at the same time left me with a bitter taste...

[GuyJean]

The blog from Bagdad that Gomigirl referred to, "Where is Raed", would give you a better insight into how people in Iraq are feeling right now.

I see what you mean, but do you think one blogger from your country correctly summarizes the pulse of your entire nation?

I thought it was good to read though. Don't get me wrong.. But, to me, bloggers are generally the sub-culture, not THE culture.. I still love 'em though!

He says that they would welcome a change in regime, but that they do not want to go through a war...

I thought it was a woman, but I'm probably wrong.. And what was his solution for regime change? Was he personally going to assisinate Saddam and his family?.. It's easy to complain, and point out the problems, but it's usually quite a task to SOLVE those problems. I didn't read any solutions in there.

easier to have an opinion on whether a war would be beneficial or not when you can switch your computer off afterwards and get back to your everyday life without losing too much sleep.

I'm basing my opinion on two, very close Iranian friends (not Iraqi, but they also understand a brutal government), interviews with many Iraqis on NHK, and the evidence that Saddam has, more than likely, alienated 80% of his population by torturing, excluding, and testing chemicals on them. BTW, my Iranian friends hope Iran is next!

it made me feel like I had no right to be so sure about this whole ordeal.

So, you're basing this on a blogger that probably lives in Baghdad, is part of Saddam's 'minority', and has never been gassed by him.

I read some of the blog the other day, and I really enjoyed the new perspective. But I also realized that most Iraqis who've been brutalized by Saddam, probably don't own computers connected to the Internet.

I especially liked the bit about the human shields in the first part of the archives..

Me too! It's always funny to hear about whining upper-class hippies..

It's tough to swallow, but sometimes a sudden, tragic jolt is better than a long, drawn-out spiral into the abyss. Look at the Japanese economy!..

Also, do you know how many Iraqi children die each year due to SANCTIONS against Iraq? Those sanctions would be lifted with a new leader...

Some thoughts...

GJ

[StickyRiceLover]

Like I've said before, the situation is too complex to give a simple opinion on. Still...

I agree with Gaisaradatsuraku!.

Love to all the F*cked Gaijin that keep me in laughter and thought,

SRL

[Resolute Optimist]

I've read your post and I think you're quite right... I was musing the very fact that he (or she?!) had a computer while I was writing... For me it just made me wonder how I'd feel if I was preparing for war...
I don't want to play the "I've got a such and such friend too" game, but I do a have a good friend from Syria (he's part of the christian minority; he came to France 13 years ago, pays his taxes and runs a restaurant and he still hasn't got papers!!! Sorry, that was my little rant.) who was saying that even in Syria, there is a secret desire amongst the youth to turn towards western values and culture. I started writing to an egyptian boy when I was 15 and he was very "western propaganda" paranoid (I did notice that my questions about homosexuals in cages during trials went unanswered...); now 8 years down the line his last letter was explaining how unless you were the son of some great person you had no chance of building yourself a better future than the social rank into which you were born. I'm not suggesting that arab countries will become western countries, but the unspoken desire to take the best aspects and fit them into their own identity is there in some young people's hearts. Well. In two person's at least!
Strange to think that while war preparation reports are screening on the TV directly behind me, I'm pondering what shade of nail varnish to use and whether I'll ever manage to learn japanese... Life goes on and that's the way it should be. While we can afford it...
In french, the "upper class whining hippies" as you call them are called Bobos (bourgeois bohemes). They are THE gangrene that is eating out french society. It's their laxist attitude since the 70's that has put kids in the position of "enfant roi", where discipline is non-existent; it dosen't take much psychology to realise that doing that creates generations of spoilt thugs that France dosen't know how to handle. AND they are completely opposed to anything that would push France forward... I'll cut this off right now, its my rant subject and you must be bored to tears. Despite the fact that this forum is about Japan not France. Sorry!!!

[American Oyaji]

Let them meet Allah with a grimace on their face.

I LIKE that quote.

And when they meet Allah, they will find he is a demon.

And now for some more hypocrisy

Russia Wants U.N. at Head of Iraq Crisis

[GuyJean]

In french, the "upper class whining hippies" as you call them are called Bobos (bourgeois bohemes).

Actually, I wasn't just talking about the French. I was thinking of the British 'human shields' who drove their environmentally friendly, double-decker bus all the way to Iraq, only to be shocked that they would, GASP!, 'actually have to be human shields'.. They turned around in a couple days..

I'll cut this off right now, its my rant subject and you must be bored to tears.

Not really. I thought it was interesting..

GJ