To my American friends

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Your PM are all belong to us! -- It's not unusual to be picked up by a klingon woman It's not unusual to have fun with a klingon When I see you kicking me around It's not unusual to see me cry, I wanna die

[Lost User]

John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and a few others had submitted a memo to Bill Clinton in 1998 asking him to consider regime change in Iraq. Obviously, it is not a new agenda to the group. If I recall correctly, it was also one of Bush's election campaign items (that Clinton did nothing about Saddam). --- On the lighter side --- When Bush first announced his economic stimulus package, he said something like this. "I plan to remove the unfair double taxation of dividends. 60% of American households own stocks. They will get extra money in their hands. More people will invest in businesses creating jobs for xxx million people over xxx years" When he was saying this, he had that expression of satisfaction, wonder and ecstacy on his face like a school boy who figured out algebra. I still cannot forget that expression. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

[Rob Manderson]

They're all yours!!! ;) Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net

[ColinDavies]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Your PM are all belong to us! You can have them, and if you try to return them we will start a war ! Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

[Michael A Barnhart]

Thomas George wrote: Obviously, it is not a new agenda to the group. Agree here, My comment was tying Saddam to 9/11 and using it as justification for action. My personal feelings are yes the world would be better off with Saddam out of power. Now this includes having a meaningful and stable change of governments with the neighboring countries very much in control. I feel that the "War On Terrorism" and Iraq should be considered independently of each other. As for the lighter side: If we were honest I think we could make observations like that of all of our leaders worldwide. The ones we agree with and disagree with. Maybe we could have Laura Bush make all of the speaches :rolleyes: . "I will find a new sig someday."

[Kevnar]

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: the best (even if it means a threat to the US) is to back off for a while. Pull the troops back and see what happens with the inspectors. I could see the ability of the UN to do anything collapsing. Now I will say if Saddam goes back to reneging on promises (which I personally do expect), I would expect all of the UN member nations to play a much bigger part than is now happening. That's probably the best advice I've heard yet on the whole Iraq situation yet. Let's expose Saddam for the BS artist he really is, and still look like good guys in the process, after we attack. Granted it costs millions if not billions to mobilize an army, to keep moving it back and forth just to play games with Saddam seems kind of silly.

"You only disagree because you're a moron. If you were a man of intelligence you would see that I'm obviously right." - The General Consensus

[Kevnar]

I think Saddam's human rights attrocities are grounds enough for attack. All other arguments asside. Yeah, the Bush adminsitration may be exagerating this that and the other thing, but who cares. The common Iraqi citizen needs to be free to live out their lives free from tyranny and oppression. The peaceniks of the world would have you believe that any attacking nation is the bad guy, dead set on slaughtering civilians, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile the Iraqis themselves are praying daily for somebody, anybody to come in and take Saddam out. If we were to tell them the arguments of the peaceniks that hold back the invasion they would probably weep. Saddam's regime is a cancer destroying the country he is supposed to be leading. Whether it's all about oil, as some claim, or not makes no difference. I say it should be done for the sake of the Iraqi people themselves.

"You only disagree because you're a moron. If you were a man of intelligence you would see that I'm obviously right." - The General Consensus

[Bilal Naveed]

Wo. This was probably the longest, original opinion piece ever on this forum.

[Joe Woodbury]

Kevnar wrote: That's probably the best advice I've heard yet on the whole Iraq situation yet. Let's expose Saddam for the BS artist he really is, and still look like good guys in the process, after we attack. I don't think it's worth the Iraqi lives that will cost. Anyone who doesn't already know Saddam is full of it is lying to themselves or is simply dillusional and nothing will change either mind.

[Lost User]

Kevnar wrote: I think Saddam's human rights attrocities are grounds enough for attack. "Not in my backyard" is the reason why European governments supported Bosnia. They did not want a dictator in Europe, whatever his military strength be. But, when it comes to a place a little far from them, the primary consideration is economy. If Saddam Hussain was a dictator in Mexico with a huge amount of chemical weapons and biological weapons stacked away there, United States would be more than willing to talk. I do not understand one thing. UN made a resolution in 199x, when Kuwait was annexed by Iraq to liberate it. As part of the treaty, everyone agreed that Iraq should not have weapons of mass destruction. Except that USA was the largest military force that went in to set things right, there was no direct conflict between USA and Iraq. How did this bi-lateral hatred come into being? How can anyone other than UN security council allow an attack on Iraq for violation of a UN resolution? I can understand any other ground - human rights, imminent threat to another country etc for going it alone. But, these arguments will now look silly - because US went for an argument that needed to be taken only if they did not have any other credible argument. Bill Clinton took out Milosovic without UN; and he went in fast without giving time for others to prevent NATO intervention. Clinton [or Bush] does not care much about any human rights violations in Iraq, so he was content in keeping him at a safe distance from other countries in the region with the no fly zones (I think this is the correct reason for the no-fly zones. Kurds are an excuse. Kurds are oppressed in Turkey too.) George W. Bush wanted Saddam out. He first went for the the "imminent threat" line, which proved unsustainable. He then went for the "WMD" line, which on an ethical level needs UN security council approval - because there was not violation of any treaty with the US. Now, if he goes for the "human rights" line, it further exposes the "remove Saddam on any premise" conservative American agenda. I believe the best option that Bush had, was to go the human rights way and go it with NATO, if indeed they had proof of gassing Kurds. France and Russia has trade relations with Iraq. They want it protected even if Saddam foes out. I think that this is the sticky point now, and US may be unwilling to relent on this - considering the amount of money that they are spending to get Saddam out. All this is speculation - and

[Lost User]

I could not help it. :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

[Lost User]

I have been thinking about oppression and dictatorship that happens around the world. I am from India. India was occupied by the British. There was large scale freedom movement all throughout that period, in which many people were willing to suffer. The black people in America fought for their freedoms. The black people in South Africa fought for it. When the chinese students were protesting demanding democracy and the Chinese government decided to use force, the whole military and the common people of China decided to support the government by not walking out on the streets in protest. Why? I guess because they had something stable going on - and they did not want to disrupt their peaceful life. They must think that it is not all that bad now - and a freedom of speech to talk against the goverment is not worth scarificing their lives for. Iraq also has a very literate and intelligent population. They are not willing to go the extra step to remove Saddam, because they must have no problems living their lives unless they talk against Saddam - and they must be ok with it. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

[Michael A Barnhart]

Joe Woodbury wrote: I don't think it's worth the Iraqi lives that will cost. I also do not think that it's worth the Iraqi lives lost in waiting. It has not been worth the thousands of Iraqi lives lost waiting these last 12 years. But I have come to the conclusion that enough of the world thinks that it is worth those lives in waiting, that we should not force the issue and become (remain) the "bad guys". If we the US does go it alone what about the retaliation we can expect and what are those lives worth. Secondly my comment about the UN, I feel that this would split the UN to a point that it would be years if not decades before any meaningful work could be done by that body. What about the lives lost in that event. This is not a good situation but I only see it getting worse. "I will find a new sig someday."

[Kevnar]

Joe Woodbury wrote: Anyone who doesn't already know Saddam is full of it is lying to themselves or is simply dillusional and nothing will change either mind. But at least we could prove it beyond a doubt though. I think the best way to win this PR war is to interview the Iraqis themselves. Ask them what's really going on. Any footage we get out of there is all released by government controled media anyway. When you see them smiling and waving flags with Saddams picture, you can be sure there are a bunch of soldiers off camera holding guns to the heads of their wives and children.

"You only disagree because you're a moron. If you were a man of intelligence you would see that I'm obviously right." - The General Consensus

[Brit]

Yeah, I think there are a lot of flawed arguments, and the Bush administration can't seem to put forward a good argument. I cringe whenever they talk about the Al-Queda-Iraq link which can't ever seem to be substantiated and relies on weak arguments. The reason I can see for getting rid of Saddam is because of the WMD threat he poses in the long-term. He has too many ambitions to become a "great leader" (he has compared himself to Nebuchanezar and Saladin) and he believes the Arab world should be united under one government (presumably, under his leadership). Inspectors won't be there forever, and he'll be in power for decades after they leave. He's retaining documentation on how to build WMD - persumably to reconstitute his WMD after inspectors leave (if he doesn't have them right now). And then there is this: "Iraqi defectors and other sources report that Saddam told aides after the war that his greatest mistake was to invade Kuwait before he had a nuclear weapon, because then America would never have dared to oppose him." http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-texte/g-w/n/pollack-saddam.htm[^] Iraq isn't a direct threat to the US. Iraq is a threat to the US only if the US cares about stability in the Middle East. Some people argue that Iraq is weak - and therefore, doesn't threaten its neighbors. But, the situation could be very different in ten years once sanctions have been removed, he reconstitutes his military, secretly builds WMD, ... ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson