[Outdoor Man]

Bush wants to invade Irak, also because the make Mass destruction arms.

How many mass destruction arms do the US have?

Peter.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Man Bush wants to invade Irak, also because the make Mass destruction arms. How many mass destruction arms do the US have? Peter.

Nukes? We have like a thousand or so....but we dont plan on blowing up Amsterdam. You got to let this sink in:

if your not an Arab, Saddam hates you....easy huh?

I got a question, what do the people of Amsterdam and your media think of the possible invasion of Iraq?

 

[kerelybonto]

You know, this really is interesting, because it looks pretty much certain that we're going to invade Iraq sometime in the forseeable future, whether the rest of the world wants us to or not. That'll definitely be an interesting scenario.

Outdoor Man, what reasons are there for not deposing Saddam Hussein, other than the normal European aversion to war and the possible violation of pacifist UN-status-quo-maintaining international law? (Which, of course, is a crock anyway since Iraq violated the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire by expelling the UN weapons inspectors in, what?, 1998.)

kerelybonto

 

[radrd]

My solution for peace in the Middle East involves us using nuclear weapons.

Pretty ironic isn't it.

(Don't bother flaming me, I'm not serious.

)

Still, we need to get rid of Sadam pretty quickly.

 

[wab]

Quote:

Nukes? We have like a thousand or so....but we dont plan on blowing up Amsterdam.

Are you sure about this? The US government recently passed a bill that makes it possible to invade the Netherlands using military force. The bill is officially called the American Services Members' Protection Act and is designed to prevent the International Criminal Court in The Hague from trialing US war criminals.
Quote:

You got to let this sink in: if your not an Arab, Saddam hates you....easy huh?

You got to let this sink in:

If you don't suport the US in it's "War Against Terrorism", Bush hates you and considers you a terrorist and enemy.

 

[lini]

Another interesting thing: It was always criticized, that the Irak wouldn't let UN weapon inspectors in. Now it turned up, that the Irak has already invited the inspectors for a while - but they're not coming...

lini

 

[disturbed]

Quote:

Originally posted by radrd My solution for peace in the Middle East involves us using nuclear weapons. Pretty ironic isn't it. (Don't bother flaming me, I'm not serious. ) Still, we need to get rid of Sadam pretty quickly.

HEY thats a large area you mentioned. I live in the middle east and in a very prosperous, modern area. Not to mention safe ... I could wear all the jewelery I like and I wouldnt be mugged. Even in school I remeber this guy left a lot of money on his table went away for a few hours and guess what? no one took it.

Do you want to lose a head-fier? *inflicts psychological damage*

Well my opinon is Saddam should be taken out. He is an idiot. Though nuking doesn't sound good to me. Neither does any other weapons of mass destruction. Sheesh ... sniper rifles are the way.

 

[jopi]

I think this threat is very dangerous and I've got only one point to make.

I was born and have lived in Germany most of my life and moved over to the States six years ago and have lifed here happy ever since.
I'm reading the Wall Street Journal every single day and although the Journal does a good job of covering the rest of the world I try to stay on top of what's going on in Europe by reading web articles from some major German magazines and newspapers (all in German).

Guys, you wouldn't believe how different the media in Germany and the US portrays exactly the same event. If you think, you're reading, hearing or watching the truth, think again.
It's not only how events are covered, it's also which events are covered at all and which events make the front page.

The news media is a business, which must and likes to make money and there's nothing wrong with that. But that's why they try to push your hot buttons to keep you interested.

After living in the US for so many years now I can safely say this: The difference between living in the US and living in Europe is as big as the difference between living in say California and New York or between living in Germany and Italy. The difference between the two continents isn't all that great and there are some bigger differences from State to State in the US or country to country in Europe.

It's more like brothers and sisters, you like to quarrel with them because you are so much alike. US and Europe is a good example, but there are others: What about US and Canada? Or Germany and Netherlands? Or Germany and Austria? I also have a friend in Norway and he says the same goes for Norway and Sweden? And in above examples it gets worse the closer you live to the border! What's up with that?

Peace.

 

[john_jcb]

If an invasion were to take place and Saddam was eliminated who would take his place? The only way we can achieve what Bush wants is to invade and occupy Iraq. Then we would be in for years of bloddy fighting much like that that goes on between Isreal and Palestine. While I do believe Saddam needs to go it should be done with caution. The chance was there and we didn't take it during the Gulf War now we stand to further alienate the entire Arab world if we invade now. A no win situation either way.

 

[gloco]

Originally posted by wab
Are you sure about this? The US government recently passed a bill that makes it possible to invade the Netherlands using military force. The bill is officially called the American Services Members' Protection Act and is designed to prevent the International Criminal Court in The Hague from trialing US war criminals.

Can you pass me on a reputable url? I'd like to read up on this one. Oh, does this have anything to do with that son of a bitch Kissinger? I know a judge in France would like to have a little chat with him.

Quote:

Originally posted by wab If you don't suport the US in it's "War Against Terrorism", Bush hates you and considers you a terrorist and enemy.

Well, yeah, if you dont support the war on terrorism, then who are you supporting? The terrorists.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by john_jcb If an invasion were to take place and Saddam was eliminated who would take his place? The only way we can achieve what Bush wants is to invade and occupy Iraq. Then we would be in for years of bloddy fighting much like that that goes on between Isreal and Palestine. While I do believe Saddam needs to go it should be done with caution. The chance was there and we didn't take it during the Gulf War now we stand to further alienate the entire Arab world if we invade now. A no win situation either way.

Unfortunately i agree with you. Damned if we do, Damned if we don't. Well, if we leave the person in power he'll eventually attack someone with nukes. Although their are some Iraqi's in power that have fled seeking refuge in other countries who may play a role in ruling Iraq if Saddamn is overthrown.

 

[radrd]

Quote:

HEY thats a large area you mentioned. I live in the middle east and in a very prosperous, modern area. Not to mention safe

I know there are a lot of places in the Middle East where there is peace. I was just being extreme, kinda like the way our news media presents virtually the entire Middle East as a bunch of terrorists who hate Israel and the US. I know it's not true.

If our government ever suggested nuking the entire Middle East, I would be the first one out to protest.

 

[kerelybonto]

wab, the minute the US doesn't have to play child-care provider to half the world, you can whine about the ICC. But when there are hundreds of thousands of Americans sitting in the Balkans, Middle East, east Africa, and central Asia, doing what the rest of the world can't and doesn't want to do, no one's going to tell them they can get shipped off to the Hague when some crackpot warlord decides to play the international law game. The Court's been a joke from the beginning -- the US is the only nation capable of enforcing its orders, yet it was set up in a way that makes it all too easy to be abused at the expense of American troops the world over.
Quote:

Originally posted by lini It was always criticized, that the Irak wouldn't let UN weapon inspectors in. Now it turned up, that the Irak has already invited the inspectors for a while - but they're not coming...

lini, get real. The inspectors' stays in Iraq have been about as revelatory as a guided tour of the CIA complex: they get too close to anything, and out they go. Saddam's played that game from the moment the last M1A1 left his godforsaken sand, and no one (except you, apparently) expects anything different this time around.

The US is going to invade Iraq. Congress has been seriously considering whether to debate the logistics of a war or to leave Bush the initiative. Basically we're just waiting for something that will let the Democrats feel like this is their war, too, then it's off to Baghdad. Look for a 1991 redux within a year and half.

Now, things are more complicated than that, of course -- for instance, none of Iraq's neighbors will allow the US to use their soil for a staging ground, not even Kuwait (which, nevertheless, fully supports the deposement of Saddam). I suppose we'll have to see some sort of "international coalition" (i.e., the geopolitical version of a cheering section) before anything really gets rolling. But roll it will.

As for afterward -- lots of people are already planning the new Iraq (another indication that there will be one). The president of the Iraqi National Congress is in Washington right now, if that's any indication. A post-Saddam Iraq really could be a mess, though -- there really isn't anyone like a Hamid Karzai to throw up as temporary head-of-state, and then there are lots of other issues, too -- no one wants a Kurdistan, for sure.

But anyway. I'd still like to hear from some of you Europeans (or other non-North Americans) why the US should not go to war with Iraq.

kerelybonto

 

[wab]

Quote:

wab, the minute the US doesn't have to play child-care provider to half the world, you can whine about the ICC. But when there are hundreds of thousands of Americans sitting in the Balkans, Middle East, east Africa, and central Asia, doing what the rest of the world can't and doesn't want to do, no one's going to tell them they can get shipped off to the Hague when some crackpot warlord decides to play the international law game. The Court's been a joke from the beginning -- the US is the only nation capable of enforcing its orders, yet it was set up in a way that makes it all too easy to be abused at the expense of American troops the world over.

I think I will leave this thread now.

 

[neil]

When I was listening to NPR the other day, a debate was stirring regarding the invasion of Iraq. One historian compared the Iraq "weapons of mass destruction" cache building with Germany. Well before World War II, it was known throughout Europe that Germany was building their munitions and army, which, at the time, was illegal according to international laws or treaties/pacts (unfortunately, I cannot cite which laws/treaties/pacts these are -- maybe someone can help me on this one). However, no serious action was taken to stop the activity.

One might ask what the inevitabilities are if Iraq is not forced to stop building such weapons (i.e. Iraq's future military moves against surrounding countries). And one might ask what the inevitabilities are if Iraq is forced to stop building such weapons (i.e. how the Iraqi civilians, government, and economy will be effected, as well as the involvement and response from non-participating and non-concurring countries). The key word here is forced.