[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by elipsis This thread can only end in tragedy. Or extreme comedy.

I sometimes think this is true of every Head-Fi thread. I'm trying though, as much as people suggest I'm not. This one doesn't HAVE to become a political debate. We'll see if everyone has the ability to resist.

 

[andrzejpw]

Quote:

Originally posted by elipsis This thread can only end in tragedy. Or extreme comedy.

It'll be fun to watch though.

Seriously though, this doesn't have to get ugly. . . right? Guys?

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I sometimes think this is true of every Head-Fi thread. I'm trying though, as much as people suggest I'm not. This one doesn't HAVE to become a political debate. We'll see if everyone has the ability to resist.

LOL...give me a break, Kelly. You know all too well where this stuff goes. Why didn't you have the ability to "resist" starting this thread?

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by RickG LOL...give me a break, Kelly. You know all too well where this stuff goes. Why didn't you have the ability to "resist" starting this thread?

I thought it was pretty relevant news no matter which side of any political stance you find yourself standing on.

"There is no monopoly of common sense on either side of the political fence."

Anyway, 00940 has made the thread interesting and educational for me even if it does deteriorate and you guys close it later.

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I sometimes think this is true of every Head-Fi thread. I'm trying though, as much as people suggest I'm not. This one doesn't HAVE to become a political debate. We'll see if everyone has the ability to resist.

Well, in many things you and I are probably polar opposites politically, but I have to agree, war does, at least at the moment, appear to be imminent.

 

[Todd R]

Hey! Weren't we supposed to be hunting down Bin Laden?

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by Todd R Hey! Weren't we supposed to be hunting down Bin Laden?

This recent "proven authentic" tape from him has failed to convince me that he didn't die face down in the Afghani mud some time within the last year.

 

[kerelybonto]

February, boys. We're still looking at February before we get to see the white nights of Baghdad again.

This kind of thing happens all the time. In fact, the article notes that "Iraq has fired on coalition aircraft more than a dozen times since last Friday." Every now and then the US makes the event a bit more newsworthy by talking about it, just to remind us that it's happening.

By the way, if the US turned the Iraqi desert into glass tomorrow, it wouldn't be illegal (as if such things even matter). Recall that the Gulf War was ended with a ceasefire, an explicit provision of which was all-access UNSCOM weapons inspectors. Iraq unequivocally violated the cease fire in 1998, which ostensibly, legally, means Iraqi-American relations stand at what they were eleven years ago. If 1998 hadn't been during the tenure of a president with an affinity for playing around with cruise missiles and other cylindrical, flaming objects, we would not have this problem right now. Just as a cigar was not the right tool for the job, neither were cruise missiles.

Really, this could be interesting. February.

kerely

PS: In more relevent news, Pee Wee's back at it.

 

[kelly]

kerelybonto
I got the cigar reference but not the cruise missle one. Can you elaborate?

 

[00940]

Quote:

Originally posted by Todd R Hey! Weren't we supposed to be hunting down Bin Laden?

Hum, that's the job of the CIA now. You cannot justify a foreign politic focused in an one man hunt.

Saddam is so much interesting. As a leader of a country, you can justify an assault by the good of his own population. He's also known as a "bad guy" (what he is, i won't contest it in any ways). And he doesn't hide himself.

Too much noise around a Al-Quaeda chase could make it more difficult and also radicalize the Saoudians who don't like people going to deep in their internal affairs. Nobody supports Saddam.

Btw, i am still confused on this war on iraq. It seems such a gamble.

What you get from it :
- you keep a hand on enough oil to be more critical towards Saoudi Arabia
- you justify before the public opinion the money spent in military expenses
- you remind to everyone who's the boss
- you stop a man shouting stupid things to the world (for the moment, it s the most part of his action, far before the development of biological weapons which can be stopped more easily)
- you take control of new military bases, the Turkish and Saoudian slowly being not so useful

The dangers :
- the way the USA are seen in the Muslim countries is already not good but afterwards...
- who wants to be stuck in Irak once Saddam removed ? the Kurdish revenge could be bloody.
- how many killed GI's will be needed before a loss of support in the US public opinion ? 10 was enough to stop the operation in Somalia during the ninenteenth's. september 11th give the administration a stronger support but who knows where's the limit ? If it turns to a street fight (big IF, it will depend of the reaction of the unities of the republican guard), I would be sceptical about a mid-term support.
- if there is an unilateral action, it would certainly not reinforce the "transatlantic community" preached by the Secretary of State in any occasion.
- the world market don't seem happy to see a war in view; the relief constated the day Iraq accepted the resolution is a good sign.

Another point : my point of view on this war is everything but political. Am I wrong or did the Democrats gave war powers to the pdt ?

 

[markl]

If Sadaam Hussein truly has weapons of mass destruction, we would not be going after him. The proof that he has no such weapons (no Nukes and no biological weapons) is the fact that we're willing to send our troops into certain death if he in fact has them.

We would never attack a nation with nukes whether they deserved a "regime change" or not. Pakistan and North Korea both have nukes, and they're both as unstable as Iraq. Why aren't we targeting them? because they'll blow up thousands of our troops with their WOMD. I'm willing to bet Iraq has no such weapons, but that won't stop us...

That said, it's hard to justify Sadam's continuing existence on this planet. I think that going to war with him as a war of "liberation" for the people of Iraq, would be a good thing. I support the 3 week effort it will take to rid the world of this horrible dictator.

The real question is, what do we do about the other Islamist dictators that hold power in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and so on? While we have the chance, we should get rid of them all.

Mark

 

[kelly]

00940
I'll sidestep your question about party politics but you must understand that there is ALWAYS room for debate on such things.

Regarding the value of the invasion, you make some good points but miss the big one -- or the big one that is being touted anyway (whether you believe it or not is another debate): that is, the US and UK are claiming Iraq has or is constructing weapons of mass destruction. The big "justification" for this action is that they are claiming a war with Iraq will prevent them from being able to launch a nuclear or biological attack against us in the future.

I would say that the occupation itself is also of general importance to the US. Even if Iraq had a change of regime there is no promise of stability and with the wealth of their natural resources behind them another tyrany could become just as threatening. Long term, the US has a stake in establishing the new government of Iraq.

I'd also say our governments are concerned with the stability of Saudi Arabia. If the US became less involved in the middle east, a Saudi invasion by neighboring countries would be guaranteed. The Saudis know this and despite not enjoying our military presence have been more supportive toward our efforts recently because the alternative for them is so grave.

Of course, we could debate how much of this is about peace and human life and how much is about oil and wealth, but I'd rather not. Please do exercise some restraint in an attempt to have a civil conversation, guys.

 

[markl]

One other thing--

We chastize Sadaam Hussein for being willing to use WOD (chemical warfare) on his own people as an example of why he should not be trusted and should be disposed of.

Look back at history-- which is the only nation on the planet Earth that has been willing and able to use nukes on its enemies? Why none other than the U.S. in Japan during WW2. Should the other nations of the earth have insisted that Truman be held accountable for war crimes, and toppled as a threat to the rest of the world?

Who is "allowed" to have WOMD (we have enough nukes and biological weapons to wipe out the human race a thousand times over), and how can we seek the moral high-ground given our history and our capabilities?

IMO, recent event prove that no nation, not even the U.S. should be allowed to have WOMD. What do you think?

Mark

 

[kelly]

Mark
This is exactly the direction I didn't want the thread to take. The events happening now are not hypothetical ones. Is there any way I could convince you to edit your last post and not ask for that debate in this thread?

 

[markl]

Why, is this irrelevant to the discussion? If other folks object, I'll edit my post, but this thread just begs for a full discussion, IMO.

Hey, I'm all for kicking Sadaam's ass and all other evil dictators of the world. I'm as jingo-istic as the next guy!

Mark