Quake3World

Sigh.

Team America World Police?

OK please do link me to something to read. Because I really am just not understanding how so many ppl can have these views. Like I said in the 3rd post of this thread, I don't understand it so there must be something that I'm missing. However none of you have been able to provide anything in the way of evidence to sway my position. All I hear is stuff about how the U.S. are imperialist thugs, how we start wars for any old reason regardless of world opinion, that we are not helping the Iraqi people, etc. but I see nothing backing up those claims, even while I provide my opinions on those things which seem to counter all of them. I'm not asking anyone to even provide facts or whatever, just give your opinion or your understanding of things, but with some kind of logical backup to it. That's what I have done.

MidnightQ4 wrote:OK please do link me to something to read. Because I really am just not understanding how so many ppl can have these views. Like I said in the 3rd post of this thread, I don't understand it so there must be something that I'm missing. However none of you have been able to provide anything in the way of evidence to sway my position. All I hear is stuff about how the U.S. are imperialist thugs, how we start wars for any old reason regardless of world opinion, that we are not helping the Iraqi people, etc. but I see nothing backing up those claims, even while I provide my opinions on those things which seem to counter all of them. I'm not asking anyone to even provide facts or whatever, just give your opinion or your understanding of things, but with some kind of logical backup to it. That's what I have done.

we people (remember the MILLIONS who protested even before the war started?) think this way because we live outside the US media bubble and had access to information which showed how much the case for war was utter bullshit. many of us are old enough to have seen and or studied other wars and understand how just plain BAD they are and how they are often fought under false pretexts. Anyhow I'll throw together some links for you to read. But read them and try to understand.

warning graphic content of what war really means
http://www.marchforjustice.com/shock&awe.php

U.S. uses chemical wmd's
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e10907.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

background on the war
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le8757.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le9111.htm

on targeted sanctions (for dumbass)
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/ ... archID=371


more to come later

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le3450.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... windex.htm
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2970

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 354269.stm

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/feb2004/sharma0204.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2470

oil (and arms sales)

who profits from war?
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/who-profits.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd02152003.html

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845
an important one

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
on targeted sanctions (for dumbass)
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/ ... archID=371

After reading that I am even less in agreement with using sanctions.

The success rate of targeted sanctions, in the 20 cases where they were imposed outside of comprehensive embargoes, is relatively low. Only 5 of the 20 cases can be judged partially successful, a rate of about 25 percent. This is slightly below than the success rate of 34 percent for economic sanctions in general during the twentieth century. In two of the success cases (Libya, Egypt) the goal was relatively limited and well-defined. AS a general proposition, targeted measures might have the most success when modest goals are sought.

Ok so even given that they were aiming low, they still were not really successful. The 5/20 cases were only partially successful, and of those 2 had admittedly limited goals.

I guess using targeted sanctions is a lot better than overall sanctions, but neither option seems to really do a whole lot of good. However I can see why sanctions are used, because invading a country is a last resort, as was the case in Iraq where we gave them every chance and thensome to not start a war.

I will continue reading though. Thanks for providing links. Hopefully I will find something to get a better understanding of the other point of view.

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? ... altop.html

hey guess what noone wants an occcupying force in their country. you'd resist too.

and this is a fantastic read on the broader issue. definitely check this out.

http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/Fore ... cy/id2.htm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845
an important one

A good read. However:

The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished.

Doesn't that seem a bit like they can't be trusted? And who knows if years later since 1991 if Iraq had started making these weapons again? After all they knew how to do it. How long does it take to cook up some chemicals in a lab?

Besides that, it was never proven that Saddam didn't have these kinds of weapons. In all fairness it is entirely possible that his noncompliance with inspectors was simply and purposefully to give him time to bury or otherwise hide the chemicals. The simple fact that he did not comply with inspections would draw to that conclusion. Innocent people do not try to hide things from inspectors. Why would he have done that given the bad name he was painting for himself?

Again, it is easy to sit back now and in hindsight say that there was no reason to invade. But the risk in that case was deemed to be extreme if we were wrong.

Nightshade wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Your first sentence is confusing. You referring to Iran seeking nuclear weapons?

No, developing nuclear power.

If they can produce nuclear power, they could produce nuclear weapons and would be subject to regular inspection by the U.N.

What if Iran (with nuclear power) gives the big FU to U.N. weapons inspectors and absolutely refuses to let them in, even after months and months of negotiations?

Erm, that's a bit tricky. I don't see how the US has the right to tell any nation that it can't develop a nuclear program or possess nuclear weapons. I'm not saying that every nation should be given a tactical nuke when they open a bank account, just that there's no small difficulty in determining who can have them and who can not. I honestly can't answer this question, because I do think that there's a risk that Iran might develop nuclear weapons, and that they might hand one of them over to Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah. But, I think that any nation has the right to seek to provide energy for its citizens.
See, this whole assumption of one nation having the right to tell another what it can do is the height of arrogance. Hell, I still think the entire concept of borders is fucking ridiculous. I realize that maybe Iran shouldn't have any sort of nuclear technologies, but sovereign nations should be able to do as they wish, as long as it's peaceful.
If they do develop a nuclear power program under UN oversight and they tell the UN to fuck off, well, it's clobberin' time.

All these issues are far more complicated than fucking dolts like Midnight make them out to be. But, I guess if you're that simple, you must see the world simply.

Why am I not surprised? NS is the only one with an objective view. Dude, I applaud you for being honest. I only wanted everyone to examine both sides of the situation and look at the alternatives.

Also, I do not see a thing wrong with any country having nuclear power for their citizens and also think it would be wrong to restrict it as long has they are following guidelines similar to the NRC. Furthermore, I don't think it would be right for one nation to control such endeavors. The U.N. should regulate the development, usage, storage and disposal of nuclear by-products to ensure the safety of everyone world wide.

GL world. You're gonna need it.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Gramps I get the picture that we are the only Americans in this forum. These people's views are jaded as they have been brainwashed by the idea that we are fighting with Iraq only to benefit our country. Ya we are spending close to a trillion dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters so that we can get oil savings worth nothing even remotely close to that. Right? Ya that's it. And of course so that we can occupy Iraq for the next 100 years and appoint our puppets in their government. :icon32:

I spent six fucking years serving this country, you fucking douchebag. You're not fit to lick my boots, let alone tell me I'm not an American.
So, genius, where's your evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US?
And here's yet another reason why you're a complete retard. Saddam DID have chemical weapons when he invaded Kuwait.

Yep. Have to agree with gramps yet again. NS for once made a post that considers both sides of the equation, how refreshing. However you didn't really address the question that has been posed many times now, which is what do we do if we have another situation like Iraq? Where Iran refuses inspections and we are pretty sure they have nukes? Say 30 years from now or something. Surely by then they would have nukes. What do you do? Judging from your post we wait till they use one on somebody, then we go "clobber" them. Sorry but that isn't an acceptable solution in my opinion.

Remember, a lot of these "rulers" don't care about winning a war or whatever. They just want to inflict some pain on their enemies before they go. Just look at Saddam. He couldn't possibly have thought he would get away with invading Kuwait, yet he did it anyway.

MidnightQ4 wrote: Because I really am just not understanding how so many ppl can have these views. Like I said in the 3rd post of this thread, I don't understand it so there must be something that I'm missing.

What you're missing is a functioning brain.

Right back at ya bud.

Nightshade wrote:
I spent six fucking years serving this country, you fucking douchebag. You're not fit to lick my boots, let alone tell me I'm not an American.

actually talking to me like that I don't give you any credit for being a human being, much less an American. Thanks for serving our country I appreciate that, however your intelligence doesn't impress me in the least. Probably why you opted to go into the military.

So, genius, where's your evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US?

Already said this many times, go back and reread.

And here's yet another reason why you're a complete retard. Saddam DID have chemical weapons when he invaded Kuwait.

Duh, that's why we made him destroy them. Which doesn't mean that he didn't rebuild his stockpiles.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Yep. Have to agree with gramps yet again. NS for once made a post that considers both sides of the equation, how refreshing. However you didn't really address the question that has been posed many times now, which is what do we do if we have another situation like Iraq? Where Iran refuses inspections and we are pretty sure they have nukes? Say 30 years from now or something. Surely by then they would have nukes. What do you do? Judging from your post we wait till they use one on somebody, then we go "clobber" them. Sorry but that isn't an acceptable solution in my opinion.

Remember, a lot of these "rulers" don't care about winning a war or whatever. They just want to inflict some pain on their enemies before they go. Just look at Saddam. He couldn't possibly have thought he would get away with invading Kuwait, yet he did it anyway.

Look, we all understand that you can't really read and have your head so far up your ass you're about to vanish. Stop proving it.

Nightshade wrote:Look, we all understand that you can't really read and have your head so far up your ass you're about to vanish. Stop proving it.

Way to avoid the question yet again. I guess that's the best you can do, in which case I'm done with this nonsense. You guys have failed. I gave you the chance to share your views and this is the crap that you choose to post. Nice job.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: I am talking about something different known as targeted sanctions. Understand now? They weren't tried even though they've proven very effective.

Also your assertions about sanctions not stopping nuclear development are silly. Care to back it up somehow? As well, sanctions could be imposed on a nuclear power. Do you even understand the concept of a sanction?

Finally the point is that wars of aggression are a no-no. The U.S. is not exempt from this no matter how much they claim to fear a country like Iraq which has never attacked the U.S.A. and never could.

You really should have been paying more attention in the political threads here over the last few years gramps. You'd probably sound a lot less like the spastic cunt you're coming off as now.

1. Sanctions didn't work on Iraq.
2. You can't prove that they would have worked.
3. The development of nuclear weapons by a sanctioned country would be easier to do if that country already had nuclear by-products. Sanctions wouldn't prevent the black market purchase of design technologies, guidance systems and the misuse of uranium.
4. The U.S. never feared Iraq for any reason and this isn't a war of aggression.

Please pull your cynical head out of your ass and wake up.

I called this like 5 pages ago

You're in the wrong reality.

You're in the wrong thread.

Foo wrote:You're in the wrong reality.

You wouldn't know reality.

YourGrandpa wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: I am talking about something different known as targeted sanctions. Understand now? They weren't tried even though they've proven very effective.

Also your assertions about sanctions not stopping nuclear development are silly. Care to back it up somehow? As well, sanctions could be imposed on a nuclear power. Do you even understand the concept of a sanction?

Finally the point is that wars of aggression are a no-no. The U.S. is not exempt from this no matter how much they claim to fear a country like Iraq which has never attacked the U.S.A. and never could.

You really should have been paying more attention in the political threads here over the last few years gramps. You'd probably sound a lot less like the spastic cunt you're coming off as now.

1. Sanctions didn't work on Iraq.
2. You can't prove that they would have worked.
3. The development of nuclear weapons by a sanctioned country would be easier to do if that country already had nuclear by-products. Sanctions wouldn't prevent the black market purchase of design technologies, guidance systems and the misuse of uranium.

the sanctions were inhumane.

Colin Powell said this about the sanctions

The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...




but wait there's more...

Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Several kind readers with access to Lexis-Nexis sent me the full transcript of the questions-and-answers portion of Powell's testimony. Here's the relevant extract:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime.


But Powell wasn't the only senior administration official telling the truth before the truth became highly inconvenient. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer (an anonymous reader sent me the full transcript from Lexis-Nexis). Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

King doesn't think to ask Rice, if Hussein hasn't been getting arms and his forces weren't rebuilt after the 1991 Gulf War, why Bush considers him a threat.

There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Let me get this straight. You are now picking and choosing which U.S. government official you are going to believe?

And why didn't Saddam let the inspectors investigate if he didn't have any WMDs?

Why haven't you answered my original question?

WHY?