The problem with the peace movement

And why I think we need to remove Saddam.

http://www.tucko.com/hippypwnd/ listen to this (airchick).

Don't post it on a site with a lot of traffic because it would kill my bandwith.

Poor girl only wants for everyone to be happy and no one to ever cry or get hurt. Then the world will be a perfect place with lots of love and no misery, ever. All we have to do is plant flowers in bagdad, that will make Sadam understand we only want to love, not fight.

Was a good listen, thanks for the link!

Did I miss the vote where we made her ""Representive Of The Peace Movement""? The arguments against war have nothing to do with this.

I agree with you on that one Elysium. The only reason they let her speak on the topic was because they knew the guy they had on the line was going to eat her alive.

It is easy when you are in control of the airwaves to set up an argument so that the side you want to win, wins.

Even though it is a serious topic on the air"… I kind of found it to be funny! Poor girl, such abuse"…

"Elysium" wrote:

Did I miss the vote where we made her ""Representive Of The Peace Movement""? The arguments against war have nothing to do with this.

I''m not talking about people who are anti-war but the orginized peace movement.

"Elysium" wrote:

Did I miss the vote where we made her ""Representive Of The Peace Movement""? The arguments against war have nothing to do with this.

How would you answer that guy? He''s an Iraqi and wants us to free his people. Why don''t you think his countrymen are worthy of freedom? Why do we free white people but not the brown people? We bombed the Balkins for 78 days killing thousands of innocent people for their freedom. Why should the Middle East be any different?

I want the peace movement to answer those questions.

The Daily Show did a bit about the protesters and it was: Bush could say he wants to go to Iraq and give people hugs and people would protest it. The Peace Movement (not people who are not for the war but the nut cases who go out and carry signs about how evil Bush is and don''t bring any signs about how Saddam has killed 2 million people) hates Bush. It''s so dishonest and I can''t respect that movement. (Not the people who are against the war but the nut bags who were marching)

Not all of the marchers are this way but the people who set up the marches are.

Not to dodge the question, but how would you answer a child from Sierra Leone whose arms were cut off by government thugs, who was forced to watch their parents murder, who was raped, when they ask us to liberate their country?

As for the nutbag Peace Movement, of which I agree there are many, why so much attention on a minority of dissenters? Just because a few college kids with no real world experience aren''t for war, they are suddenly the poster child for anti-war sentiment. I agree, who cares what they think? I discard them as easily I do people who say things like ''we should nuke ''em'', people so hateful and stupid that it''s an embarrassment to have ever known them. They''re a minority, an ill informed, poorly organized splinter group, and most of the people protesting the war have nothing to do with them.

""Not to dodge the question, but how would you answer a child from Sierra Leone whose arms were cut off by government thugs, who was forced to watch their parents murder, who was raped, when they ask us to liberate their country?""

I would ask for him to forgive us.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Elysium" wrote:

Did I miss the vote where we made her ""Representive Of The Peace Movement""? The arguments against war have nothing to do with this.

How would you answer that guy? He''s an Iraqi and wants us to free his people. Why don''t you think his countrymen are worthy of freedom? Why do we free white people but not the brown people? We bombed the Balkins for 78 days killing thousands of innocent people for their freedom. Why should the Middle East be any different?

I want the peace movement to answer those questions.

What Iraqi is he? Kurd, Shiit, or from an ethnic minority? See the problem is that liberating his people is not as easy as throwing Saddam out, leave some ISAF forces there for some years and afterwards its all fine and well. Take a look at Afghanistan the situation is comparable. We are nowhere near establishing a democracy there in the next 10 years. The current ""president"" Karzai is a protege of the oil industry. The whole state knows that. He''ll be dead the second his american bodyguards leave the country. Currently the Afghan gov consists mainly of Paschtunes the ethnic minority in the country. The fundamentalists of the other ethnic groups are trying to overthrow this government to establish their own forces again. The ISAF forces are under steady missile attack. On the human rights front - the Burqa is still the clothing of choice of the women and they still have single to no rights on the countryside. We are about to loose Afghanistan to the fundamentalists and are already on the next front again without a detailed plan of how to deal with the ethnic and religious differences in Iraq after we have overthrown their government.
Sure liberating these people is a noble cause, but do we really liberate these people with run and gun tactics your gov is currently running? As it currently looks we just run them in the arms of the next dictator. That one will not only be a ruthless brutal monster, but he will also be a fundamentalist which makes things even worse.

So instead of trying to overthrow a ruthless murderous dictator we should just throw our hands in the air and say ""there will be another one like him or worse anyways, why bother""? The world would be ruled by the likes of Nazis, Japanese Imperials, Communists and the like if everyone thought the same as you. Thankfully we don''t.

Everything has priorities. Although there are many injustices around the world, the US just isn''t capable to wage multiple wars across the globe effectively. Not to mention the public and political outcry if the gov''t decides to do that (see Vietnam and now Iraq). And the anti American sentiment that will rise (see UN). So instead we first take out the ones that are a threat to us and the world for security reasons and can justify to whiners.

I saw this on Fox cable news today. Apparently the anti war organizations, A.N.S.W.E.R., Not in Our Name, etc, that recently sprung up and are paying for most if not all of the major peace rallies ($50,000 to $200,000 depending on size) have not so scrupulous ties. These new organizations are formed by some old organizations, whose names I can''t remember, that are sympathetic to Communists/Cuba, have close relation to that professor in Florida that was arrest for raising money for terrorists, or something else.

After Sept. 11 people were asking ""why didn''t gov''t see this coming?"" ""why didn''t CIA stop this?"" Well, now Pres. Bush is trying to do things that would help prevent something like Sept. 11 from happening again and we get all these ""peace activitists"", go figure.

After Sept. 11 people were asking ""why didn''t gov''t see this coming?"" ""why didn''t CIA stop this?"" Well, now Pres. Bush is trying to do things that would help prevent something like Sept. 11 from happening again and we get all these ""peace activitists"", go figure.

This has nothing to do with Sept. 11. nothing The President really and very truly wants you to believe that, but nobody has proven a thing. There is no proven link between Iraq and Sept. 11, and when youre talking about war, you''d better be damn sure what you''re talking about.

Which is typical of this whole war movement, no proof, but take the President''s word for it.

I didn''t mean to say Iraq had something to do with Sept. 11. But this war has alot to do with Sept. 11.

Before Sept. 11 did you think those terrorists training in Afgan had anything to do with us? Did you think their supporters using whatever means possible to raise millions of dollars and channeling to terrorist groups in Middle East had anything to do with us?

What about a country, that is known to hate US, stockpiling weapons of mass destruction now?

No proof? Saddam''s stockpile of chemical and biological weapons just magically disappeared? Or maybe he destoryed them out of the goodness of his heart? No proof is right. No proof of him disarming. And he isn''t going to voluntarily. 12 years of waiting tells you that.

It''s what the peace movement that''s typical. They are chanting peace, but these activitists don''t even know what''s the meaning of peace. Peace does not mean the absence of visible conflict. No war doesn''t equal peace.

So instead we first take out the ones that are a threat to us and the world for security reasons

Like North Korea? I''ll state again my belief that this country is a lot more dangerous to european and american interests than Iraq

What about a country, that is known to hate US, stockpiling weapons of mass destruction now?

Like North Korea? They have a lot more WOMD than Iraq.If it weren''t for the fact that China borders North korea and that North Korea also has nukes (but no oil) We''d be seriously thinking of invading there.

Like North Korea? I''ll state again my belief that this country is a lot more dangerous to european and american interests than Iraq

Don''t you understand why we must take Iraq out? The Military option with North Korea is messy and would kill millions of people. We can''t let Iraq become North Korea. Inspectors were in North Korea and they developed a nuclear weapon.

Don''t you understand why we must take Iraq out?

Yes I do but I''m also trying to point out that the longer we don''t do something about other countries like North Korea the worse it''s going to be for us all (or our kids) in the future. Unfortunately poeple often fail to realise that if we don''t remove certain threats that they''ll just take advantage of what they percieve as weakness. I think that North Korea''s leader (in his own private world) may percieve the the US and Europe as weak as all we are doing is appeasing them at the moment. But again, what to do?

I probably sound like I''m obssesing with Korea but there are a lot of other countries too that need a regime change. I still think but that once we open this pandoras box of wanting to remove security threats to our nations and their interests using military means without agreement with the UN where do we draw a line? America cannot police the world. No single nation has the means to do that (Much as I wish the US did)

and just spotted this article on both CNN and the BBC

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc...

"Locke" wrote:

So instead of trying to overthrow a ruthless murderous dictator we should just throw our hands in the air and say ""there will be another one like him or worse anyways, why bother""? The world would be ruled by the likes of Nazis, Japanese Imperials, Communists and the like if everyone thought the same as you. Thankfully we don''t.

You missed my point. I am no pacifist. What bothers me is the absence of any detailed plan on how to stabilize the region after we throw out Saddam. Tell me what is the plan of the US gov to stabilize the region after they bomb iraq to dust? The only known plan is that they were thinking about establishing a general as head of the state for the time being. Alternative was giving the head of the state to one of the ethnic groups there which was dropped already. The first was refused by the Shiits in the region. They even threatened to revolt against the US protectorat. That''d mean civil war.
The other option is not a very good option as well. Either way you will upset one of the major ethnic groups in the region and they already said they will claim back what they think is theirs.
Sorry, but you can''t convince me that going in Iraq, bombing the region and lets see what happens if the leave our troops there is a good plan.

Everything has priorities. Although there are many injustices around the world, the US just isn''t capable to wage multiple wars across the globe effectively. Not to mention the public and political outcry if the gov''t decides to do that (see Vietnam and now Iraq). And the anti American sentiment that will rise (see UN). So instead we first take out the ones that are a threat to us and the world for security reasons and can justify to whiners.

So everyone who puts more thought into the conflict is a whiner, eh? Great judging there. Also that the Iraq is a threat to the US or the world at this point is a blatant lie set up by your government to get the agreement of the people for invasion without UN sanction.

I saw this on Fox cable news today. Apparently the anti war organizations, A.N.S.W.E.R., Not in Our Name, etc, that recently sprung up and are paying for most if not all of the major peace rallies ($50,000 to $200,000 depending on size) have not so scrupulous ties. These new organizations are formed by some old organizations, whose names I can''t remember, that are sympathetic to Communists/Cuba, have close relation to that professor in Florida that was arrest for raising money for terrorists, or something else.

When anything fails its always nice to call someone communist, right? I thought the McCarthy era was over.

After Sept. 11 people were asking ""why didn''t gov''t see this coming?"" ""why didn''t CIA stop this?"" Well, now Pres. Bush is trying to do things that would help prevent something like Sept. 11 from happening again and we get all these ""peace activitists"", go figure.

As others said already, Iraq and terrorism have nothing to do with each other at this point. Look it up. All the terrorist groups that pose a threat to the US would never work together with Iraq. Hussein is seen as a blasphemer by these people.
And regarding the CIA. Maybe you look up who formed the Taleban or El Qaeda in the first place.
With bombing Iraq at this time your president prevents no terrorism, but he is strenghening the terrorists arguments that turn civilans into living bombs each day.

You missed my point. I am no pacifist. What bothers me is the absence of any detailed plan on how to stabilize the region after we throw out Saddam. Tell me what is the plan of the US gov to stabilize the region after they bomb iraq to dust? The only known plan is that they were thinking about establishing a general as head of the state for the time being. Alternative was giving the head of the state to one of the ethnic groups there which was dropped already. The first was refused by the Shiits in the region. They even threatened to revolt against the US protectorat. That''d mean civil war.

There wasn''t a plan for post-war Germany, France, and Japan until after we one. Peace follows victory. We need to achive victory first.

When anything fails its always nice to call someone communist, right? I thought the McCarthy era was over.

McCarthyism is long over. Most people with a tinge of intelect know that using a communist reference as an insult only serves to show how much of a neanderthal the insultor is.

However, you are just as guilty with your insinuations that American policy is creating suicide bombers.

People make not like American foreign policy. Foreign zealots may increase their standing by challenging and defying America. These zealots may encourage oppressed, grieving, low self esteem followers into becoming martyrs. These martyrs are given access to bombs/grenades.

However, just because A+B+C+D+E=F doesnt mean A is the direct cause of F. Thats like saying cars cause drunk driving. Cars allow you to drive to a bar. Bars allow you to buy drinks. Drinking too much impairs your driving ability. Being drunk doesnt prevent you from attempting to operate a car.

"Ulairi" wrote:

There wasn''t a plan for post-war Germany, France, and Japan until after we one. Peace follows victory. We need to achive victory first.

Not comparable. The last time I checked the Iraq is not going for world domination and actively invading other countries, so we have no time for planning like back then. This war is planned and thus what happens afterwards should be planned, too. There was more than enough time to plan it. Give me a good reason why they should not have to given the instability of the middle east region.

McCarthyism is long over. Most people with a tinge of intelect know that using a communist reference as an insult only serves to show how much of a neanderthal the insultor is.

thanks for calling me dumb, but then explain to me what it meant to bring these rumors about getting the peace movement into context with communism and terrorism supporters here other then for putting the peace movement down.

However, you are just as guilty with your insinuations that American policy is creating suicide bombers.

Wrong. I was not generalising. I was talking about this special case. The american gov is about to invade Iraq without any planning as detailed above. Also I did not say it is creating suicide bombers, but that is it strenghening the fundamentalist propaganda, that America and the western civilisations in general just act for their own good and to keep the middle east''s profile low. Without UN sanction you exactly act like these fanatic people ever could hope for. Do you really think people still care that you are trying to liberate them from this dictator once one of your nice MOABs rips their family apart? Especially since we have no voice in that region to bring our argument to the people there. What they are forced to hear all the time on the natinal radio/TV is fundamentalist propaganda about the evil west. Your analogy does not fit.

Im not calling you dumb. I was calling Locke or whoever it was, that thought that calling someone a communist was an insult, was equivalent to a neanderthal.

Put yourself in Americas shoes for a bit. I dont even think if the United States bombed Israel, the fundamentalist propaganda would be weakened. The authors of the fundamentalist propaganda would deem it some Hollywood trick. Possibly, they would even use it as an example of how the evil America betrays its allies. We could do nothing. We could paint pretty pictures. We could send food and equiptment to assist in finding water supplies. The result is still the same. If America suddenly ceased to exist, it would still be used to incite hatred and fear.

Not comparable. The last time I checked the Iraq is not going for world domination and actively invading other countries, so we have no time for planning like back then.

You do know about the first Gulf War right? Granted Kuwait is not the world but hey you gotta start somewhere. Also, at the end of the war Saddam signed a treaty, and guess what, he agreed to disarm.

When anything fails its always nice to call someone communist, right? I thought the McCarthy era was over.

McCarthyism is long over. Most people with a tinge of intelect know that using a communist reference as an insult only serves to show how much of a neanderthal the insultor is.

What has failed?
A creditable news source (I know some people don''t think much of Fox cable news =p) reported it and unless you can come up with evidence otherwise I''m sticking with it. On top of that you probably don''t even know who A.N.S.W.E.R and Not in Our Name are and yet you are equating me to neanderthal. These are groups with actual, known ties to groups that have something to gain by hurting American interests. And pointing out their actual known publicized ties is insulting them? Dumb? I guess when anything fails you know what to do.

I wasn''t equating these oranizations with the whole peace movement. I said the groups that foot the bill for these rallies. It''d be funny if these peace activists know who''s paying the bill for their rallies.

Also that the Iraq is a threat to the US or the world at this point is a blatant lie set up by your government to get the agreement of the people for invasion without UN sanction.

We are still talking about rumors, right?
A country hiding weapons of mass destruction which it has used in the past on its enemies and its own citizens is no threat. Wow go you! You Einstine you get A+++.

Iraq and terrorism have nothing to do with each other at this point. Look it up. All the terrorist groups that pose a threat to the US would never work together with Iraq.

It''s called prevention. Read my previous post.
Never heard of fighting against a common enemy? Is it that far fetched to see Iraq selling terrortists chemical/biological weapons?

The US has already went into great lengths to focus on Iraq right now. Diverting public attention to North Korea right now would not be a good idea. I believe North Korea will be dealt with afterwards.

Locke and Ulairi have summarized my current position on this issue. I couldn''t agree with them more. I''m starting to tune out the bleeding-heart Europeans that are ignoring the whole in-1991-Iraq-agreed-to-disarm-thing. There seems to be a pretty distinct double standard: You claim America is waging this war for the sake of oil interests, and yet I see the French threatening to veto it for the very same reason. Imagine that.

Next you''ll all be singing ""Give Saddam a Chance.""

Wow go you! You Einstine you get A+++.

I''d characterize this as borderline. I understand this is a passionate topic, but I''d like to see the flame rhetoric from several posters toned down a notch. Argue points, but there are a thousand other places on the net where you guys can call each other names. Not here.

(I know some people don''t think much of Fox cable news =p)

You do know though that Fox as well as the New York Post and a bunch of British yellow press news papers and tv channels and other media outlets are property of Rupert Murdoch, who''s known to be ''very pro-war''? (Since war sells.) Don''t expect them to report too many positive things on the peace movement.

"JD" wrote:
(I know some people don''t think much of Fox cable news =p)

You do know though that Fox as well as the New York Post and a bunch of British yellow press news papers and tv channels and other media outlets are property of Rupert Murdoch, who''s known to be ''very pro-war''? (Since war sells.) Don''t expect them to report too many positive things on the peace movement.

There isn''t much to report about the peace movement. The people who run it are nut bags and the majority of the people who march are nut bags. They won''t put a normal person on because they aren''t good TV. So they get these Marxist morons on and they make a fool of them selves. Plus, Fox News (and all the cable news shows) are all pro-war.

Yes unfortunately papers owned by one person especially anything owned by Rupert Murdoch are heavily leaned on to tow the party line, i.e. Rupert Murdoch,s point of view.

Editorial policy is also dictated by the papers main readership group (after all you don''t want to annoy your main buying public.)

Oddly enough most of the time war does (and will) sell more papers, but at the moment papers that are anti-war are selling very well as they resosnate with the majority of the populace and people often like to buy papers that echo their own beliefs and views.

This often has the unfortunate effect of making employees of certain papers targets for others who think that because they work for the paper they must agree with it''s editorial direction.
(I wish sometimes that they''d put a disclaimer in saying that the views of the paper do not always reflect that of it''s employees.) Mind you most intelligent people are able to make this distinction but you''d be surprised at the number of people who just don''t get it.

Put yourself in Americas shoes for a bit. I dont even think if the United States bombed Israel, the fundamentalist propaganda would be weakened. The authors of the fundamentalist propaganda would deem it some Hollywood trick. Possibly, they would even use it as an example of how the evil America betrays its allies. We could do nothing. We could paint pretty pictures. We could send food and equiptment to assist in finding water supplies. The result is still the same. If America suddenly ceased to exist, it would still be used to incite hatred and fear.

I agree on this. That is why I think we need to get a foot in that region to bring our point across. But with bombing that nation at this point (that is without UN sanction and without the inspectors nodding to this) this is doomed to failure right from the start.

Im not calling you dumb. I was calling Locke or whoever it was, that thought that calling someone a communist was an insult, was equivalent to a neanderthal.

I apologize. I got you wrong here.

"Locke" wrote:

You do know about the first Gulf War right? Granted Kuwait is not the world but hey you gotta start somewhere. Also, at the end of the war Saddam signed a treaty, and guess what, he agreed to disarm.

That was 12 years ago. The majority of his arsenal is destroyed. What is left will be found by the inspectors or has to be moved around the country 24/7 to evade them. How exactly is he going to prepare a war that way? And how should he get the troops for ground invasion? Nearly 50% of the Iraq population consists of minors aged 14 or less. The other half consists of women and old people as well. So where is his huge army exactly? That leaves only the B+C weaponary. The largest rockets he has reach 180 kilometers. That is 30 kilometers above the allowed range. You are willing to start a war for this? We know that a good portin of his B+C basis destroys itself over time. He won''t sell the rest to terrorists like El Qaeda because they would never deal with each other from the fundamenatlists side. The only way I currently see where he would desperatly try to sell his stuff is when he is cornered, like he is now. So where exactly does the current situation do any good?
You don''t find it suspicious at all that for 12 years Saddam is no threat at all to the US (and in 98 the inspectors left the country because they were on the IA payroll, that makes it four additional years without any controls where he posed no theat to the US). And now all out of a sudden he may sell his B+C weaponary to terrorists? Whatever interests the US gov may have with the invasion it is certainly not safekeeping of US citizens from the monster in Iraq.

What has failed?

When I look at the US media atm, persuading the people for this war by legit means.

A creditable news source (I know some people don''t think much of Fox cable news =p) reported it and unless you can come up with evidence otherwise I''m sticking with it.

I do not have evidence against this, but here is a report about how Fox and in general the Rupert Murdoch Media empire acts in this crisis:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...
I am sorry it is in German, but I did not find any other english source, yet. It paraphrases a fox moderator with:
""When the war starts, we expect from every American to be for the army or to shut up altogether. Americans and foreign allies that take an opposite position shall be treated as enemies to the state.""
What a creditable news source.

On top of that you probably don''t even know who A.N.S.W.E.R and Not in Our Name are and yet you are equating me to neanderthal. These are groups with actual, known ties to groups that have something to gain by hurting American interests. And pointing out their actual known publicized ties is insulting them? Dumb? I guess when anything fails you know what to do.

Since when is a communist movement hurting Americas interest? Maybe you finally get rid of that old communist = evil idea. These people have another idea about their way of life than you have. Does that make them evil? Or are people only any good as long as they don''t portray an opinion opposite to the government one?

I wasn''t equating these oranizations with the whole peace movement. I said the groups that foot the bill for these rallies. It''d be funny if these peace activists know who''s paying the bill for their rallies.

You are indeed correct on this. Most peace activists have no clue who fund them, which makes it even worse. OTOH maybe you take a look at who is funding the gov position. That does not look bright either.

We are still talking about rumors, right? A country hiding weapons of mass destruction which it has used in the past on its enemies and its own citizens is no threat. Wow go you! You Einstine you get A+++.

Sad you have to rely on insults here. Back then the US/NATO gave Saddam a carté blanche for his operation against his own people. If the intentions of the US gov was real, they would have stopped him back then. Ironically the same people that were in office back then are in office now and portray the opposite of their opinion back then.

It''s called prevention. Read my previous post.
Never heard of fighting against a common enemy? Is it that far fetched to see Iraq selling terrortists chemical/biological weapons?

IIRC prevention is to minimize the threat. What your gov is currently risking is setting the region on fire. And currently it is far fetched that he sells his weapons. Everyone with good knowledge about the middle east will acknowledge this. At least until the invasion starts. That is when he may decide that if he won''t be in power any longer, that he has no need for his arsenal anymore.

The US has already went into great lengths to focus on Iraq right now. Diverting public attention to North Korea right now would not be a good idea. I believe North Korea will be dealt with afterwards.

And you still do not think it is suspicous when they go for Iraq at this time when there are far greater threats around. And NK posed a threat not only for the last 3 weeks. Sure NK has a greater arsenal of weapons. But how about not using force as the first solution?

I''m starting to tune out the bleeding-heart Europeans that are ignoring the whole in-1991-Iraq-agreed-to-disarm-thing. There seems to be a pretty distinct double standard: You claim America is waging this war for the sake of oil interests, and yet I see the French threatening to veto it for the very same reason. Imagine that.
Next you''ll all be singing ""Give Saddam a Chance.""

Ignorance is bliss ;). But nobody is ignoring the 1991 agreement. What we cannot agree on is bombing Iraq without UN sanction. I do not know what the French are up to, but I do know that the Germans always see invasion as the last resort. And currently it is not. It is that simple.

Quote:
Wow go you! You Einstine you get A+++.

I''d characterize this as borderline. I understand this is a passionate topic, but I''d like to see the flame rhetoric from several posters toned down a notch.

Sorry I went down that road, but I don''t like give out insults just as much as I hate receiving them. Unless being called Neanderthal or McCarthy don''t count. In that case, you are a Neanderthal!! ;p

The majority of his arsenal is destroyed. What is left will be found by the inspectors or has to be moved around the country 24/7 to evade them.

You know this how? From that sad excuse of an inspector Hans Blix? You can''t really know how much weapons he has since he kicked out the last round of inspectors and they were ineffective to begin with. And you can''t be more wrong if you think inspectors are actually gonna find anything. 6000 strong they were and they can''t find anything, nothing! until defectors told them where to look. You honestly think 100 or so inspectors are gonna do anything this time around? On top of that the inspection team is lead by Blix. Iraq rejected many Head Inspector candidates until France and Russia hand picked Hans Blix and Iraq didn''t put up a whine. Blix is impotent, not just incompetent.

How exactly is he going to prepare a war that way? And how should he get the troops for ground invasion? Nearly 50% of the Iraq population consists of minors aged 14 or less. The other half consists of women and old people as well. So where is his huge army exactly? That leaves only the B+C weaponary. The largest rockets he has reach 180 kilometers. That is 30 kilometers above the allowed range. You are willing to start a war for this? We know that a good portin of his B+C basis destroys itself over time.

Saddam is willing to start a war by holding on to the small amount of weapons that he has and weapons that will destroy itself over time? If it''s that troublesome to hide them and he can''t muster up enough force to invade people, why is he still hiding those weapons? Why not comply if you have no ill intensions? And how do you know he hasn''t been rebuilding after he kicked out the inspectors or even when they were there? All Saddam has to do to avoid a war is to disarm. It''s that simple. Why is all this pressure on Bush and US not to start a war and not on Saddam to disarm? He has no business owning those weapons period.

I do not have evidence against this, but here is a report about how Fox and in general the Rupert Murdoch Media empire acts in this crisis:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...
It paraphrases a fox moderator with:
""When the war starts, we expect from every American to be for the army or to shut up altogether. Americans and foreign allies that take an opposite position shall be treated as enemies to the state.""
What a creditable news source.

They may be biased and only report news that are pro war, but I don''t think they would make up balant lies so that still make them creditable on things they report. Crediable, not unbiased.
I also don''t see what''s so wrong with that parapharse. If Germany is in a war with England and US sides with England does that not make US Germany''s enemy?

Since when is a communist movement hurting Americas interest? Maybe you finally get rid of that old communist = evil idea.

Since this particular organization try to divide American opinion and undermine American interests. I don''t think communism is evil, for one thing it''s failed and no longer a threat. But there are groups with different ideologies out there that envy and hate US for its capitalism and success. These groups take pleasure seeing US stumble. This particular group just happens to lean towards communism.

Sad you have to rely on insults here. Back then the US/NATO gave Saddam a carté blanche for his operation against his own people. If the intentions of the US gov was real, they would have stopped him back then.

Sorry my insult should have been more direct towards fangblackbone. Different presidents see thing differently. The times were different too. You can''t say becuase US didn''t act in the past so it can''t do anything right now.

Ironically the same people that were in office back then are in office now and portray the opposite of their opinion back then.

Who are you referring to?

What your gov is currently risking is setting the region on fire. And currently it is far fetched that he sells his weapons. Everyone with good knowledge about the middle east will acknowledge this.

Set the region on fire? I thought Hussein is seen as a blasphemer?
Are you more comfortable letting Hussein have his way?

And you still do not think it is suspicous when they go for Iraq at this time when there are far greater threats around. And NK posed a threat not only for the last 3 weeks. Sure NK has a greater arsenal of weapons. But how about not using force as the first solution?

No, I don''t think it''s suspicous. NK came out with its nuclear plan while US and UN are in process of dealing with Iraq. Why do you think it''s suspicous?
Force is not the first solution. UN passed how many resolutions for Iraq to disarm in the span of how many years?

I do know that the Germans always see invasion as the last resort.

LOL! I''m sorry, I just find that funny =] When is it last resort for you? Clearly Iraq is not disarming, what do you propose we do? Please don''t say more inspectors or give them more time.

"Locke" wrote:

Sorry I went down that road, but I don''t like give out insults just as much as I hate receiving them. Unless being called Neanderthal or McCarthy don''t count. In that case, you are a Neanderthal!! ;p

I did not mean to call you McCarthy. What I meant was that trying to bring communism in as an argument to defy the peace movement reminded me of the McCarthy era. If that did not get over I apologize.

You know this how? From that sad excuse of an inspector Hans Blix? You can''t really know how much weapons he has since he kicked out the last round of inspectors and they were ineffective to begin with. And you can''t be more wrong if you think inspectors are actually gonna find anything. 6000 strong they were and they can''t find anything, nothing! until defectors told them where to look. You honestly think 100 or so inspectors are gonna do anything this time around? On top of that the inspection team is lead by Blix. Iraq rejected many Head Inspector candidates until France and Russia hand picked Hans Blix and Iraq didn''t put up a whine. Blix is impotent, not just incompetent.

From the defector you mentioned. He ordered and supervised the destruction of most of the material before he left, and told the inspectors where to look for the rest of it. But it is indeed true that we do not know how much has been produced since the inspectors left in 98. But we do know that he at least cannot gain new material by legit means, which limits the amount he may have produced a lot. Whatever he has got, I''D rather have it we get this at least piece by piece, before we invade and get nothing but it gets into the hands of the Kurds or the Shiits in Iraq. I am not saying that I am satisfied with how the disarm process is going. I am just saying that I do not see the point where we have to invade NOW.

Saddam is willing to start a war by holding on to the small amount of weapons that he has and weapons that will destroy itself over time? If it''s that troublesome to hide them and he can''t muster up enough force to invade people, why is he still hiding those weapons? Why not comply if you have no ill intensions? And how do you know he hasn''t been rebuilding after he kicked out the inspectors or even when they were there? All Saddam has to do to avoid a war is to disarm. It''s that simple. Why is all this pressure on Bush and US not to start a war and not on Saddam to disarm? He has no business owning those weapons period.

Because he thinks he can get away with it. That aside they are disarming, but way too slowly. Putting pressure on him is fine, invading for the same reason is not. The pressure is on Bush because he talked of regime change way before he adressed the UN and talked about disarming. Additionally the demands he has to the disarm process cannot be fulfilled even if the Iraqis wanted to. How can a country fully disarm within 72 hours? And when the outcome is that you get invaded anyway, why disarm in the first place?

They may be biased and only report news that are pro war, but I don''t think they would make up balant lies so that still make them creditable on things they report. Crediable, not unbiased.
I also don''t see what''s so wrong with that parapharse. If Germany is in a war with England and US sides with England does that not make US Germany''s enemy?

No they would not make these up themselves, but they surely buy them from your homeland security office without further questions.
So basically anyone who is your friend, but comes up with a view other than yours becomes your enemy? Nobody will hinder support of your troops, but what this reporter wanted was stopping critical voiced altogether. That is not what democracy is about.

Since this particular organization try to divide American opinion and undermine American interests. I don''t think communism is evil, for one thing it''s failed and no longer a threat. But there are groups with different ideologies out there that envy and hate US for its capitalism and success. These groups take pleasure seeing US stumble. This particular group just happens to lean towards communism.

Since when is stating opinions different from the norm dividing Americas opinion. You live in a democracy. It is desired people have other opinions about a subject. That is the only way to stay reasonable. And don''t tell me a peace organisation, even if it may be funded by communists, can undermine Americas interest. After all the people who arrive to the demonstrations
are there on their own decision.
Also communism never was a threat to the US. The Sovjet Union was, but not communism.

Different presidents see thing differently. The times were different too. You can''t say becuase US didn''t act in the past so it can''t do anything right now.

No but I find it strange that the same people act differently now.

Who are you referring to?

Without looking up documents, Rumsfeld comes to mind, who met Saddam when he still was a friend of the US. I''ll see if I can find some links about that. I have only written documents here. I know thats too vague, I am not satisfied with this answer either :(.

Set the region on fire? I thought Hussein is seen as a blasphemer?

He is, but the fundamentalists hate us even more than they hate him. That''s why the concern is that it may get out of control. What will you do for example if Turkey decides to attack the Kurds. Strike back at them and attack a NATO ally?
Or what will you do if Hussein in his madness decides to shoot the rockets he has left at Israel and they respond with their A arsenal weaponary, because that is what they proclaimed to do already.

Are you more comfortable letting Hussein have his way?

No but I am also not comfortable with risking stability in the middle east for rockets that fly 30 km further than allowed.

No, I don''t think it''s suspicous. NK came out with its nuclear plan while US and UN are in process of dealing with Iraq. Why do you think it''s suspicous?
Force is not the first solution. UN passed how many resolutions for Iraq to disarm in the span of how many years?

I find it suspicous when the US ignores the issue for 12 years and even more if they ignore it for 5 years after Hussein expelled the inspectors. And all out of a sudden he becomes the biggest threat in the world. That does not add up. And I get even more suspicous when I see the faked ""proofs"" Powell presented at the security council. That gives me a very uneasy feeling about the whole thing. And while NK came up with the nuclear weapon plans just now, they have the fourth biggest army on the planet for quite a while now, and are run by a madman.

LOL! I''m sorry, I just find that funny =] When is it last resort for you? Clearly Iraq is not disarming, what do you propose we do? Please don''t say more inspectors or give them more time.

Then why not ask the Arabian league for increasing pressure on Iraq? They sure have a bigger influence than we have. But we did not even ask them. All we currently to is saying ""disarm or we will invade"" and an hour later ""ah well disarm, but we will invade anyway"". You don''t really believe Bush will just retreat the 200k men he gathered around Iraq even if Saddam disarms completely?