The Cellar - View Single Post

snagglefish · 09-29-2002, 05:00 AM

so.

at the risk of adding to an ever lengthening post, let me weigh in with some thoughts.

one.

the US proposal to attack Iraq has little to do with removing a big bad dictator. it has more to do with

*politics ("he tried to kill my daddy"),

*oil (the US government is deeply aligned with both the Oil Industry [Cheney of Haliburton fame] and car industry (all references to Global warming were *removed* in the US' most recent 'state of the environment' report)

*perceived threat (Iraq has not had weapons inspectors since, what, 1994 - and all of a sudden they are *now* a threat that has to be dealt with within the week?) ;

Saddam is a survivalist and would not be silly enough to do something (pre-emptive strike on Israeli or US targets) that would lead to US bombs being rained down on his head. This is one of the reasons that there have been NO conclusive links made between the Sept 11 Al Qaeda attack and Iraq.

Additionally, Scott Ridder (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) has said that he finds it highly unlikely that Iraq has either chemical or biological weapons, much less Nuclear ones. He (and many other allied nations - Germany, France, Canada, etc) and many others think it would be a BIG MISTAKE to attack Iraq. However, judging from this quote in the Savannah Now (http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/091202/LOCvox.shtml) not all Americans feel that way: "I'd like to know who's paying this Scott Ridder guy, the ex-U.N. inspector, to be such a traitor to America now. I think we should revoke his citizenship."

Ok.

And while we are on the subject of Chemical weapons and whatnot let's talk about Saddam and Rumsfeld. Start by reading this article here (http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1...-1783387c.html) - Rumsfeld was a special envoy to Iraq in 1983, when the US was supporting Saddam and Co. against Iran. This was about the same time that Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and "Rumsfeld warned that Saddam's use of chemical weapons might "inhibit" U.S. aid.

Right.

So this meanders back into talk of US Foreign Policy which always seems to come back and bite it in the ass. Saddam supported by the US in the proxy war against Iran. Bin Laden originally supported by the US in the proxy war against the Russians.

Etc etc.

If this was about peace, and getting rid of dicators and all that good stuff then the US and UN should get rid of Mugabe who is starving his nation. They should move against countless nations. They should force Israel to agree to UN monitors.

But guess what?

None of this is going to happen.

A man with the brain capacity of an over-ripened Texas tomato is going to lead the US (and possibly other poor allies) into a war with Iraq.

And guess what?

You think that this just *might* further inflame anti-western sentiment not just in Iraq, but in other Middle Eastern countries as well?

You think that this might be the sort of foreign policy that will come back for that nice bite in the ass?

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

And above all don't learn from the past.

*(apologies for length of post, meandering thoughts, and nothing to do with a picture of a plane getting blown up)*

09-29-2002, 05:00 AM	#10
snagglefish Cantankerous Incantonator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: vancouver, canada Posts: 54	at the risk of adding to a lengthening post so. at the risk of adding to an ever lengthening post, let me weigh in with some thoughts. one. the US proposal to attack Iraq has little to do with removing a big bad dictator. it has more to do with politics ("he tried to kill my daddy"), oil (the US government is deeply aligned with both the Oil Industry [Cheney of Haliburton fame] and car industry (all references to Global warming were removed in the US' most recent 'state of the environment' report) perceived threat (Iraq has not had weapons inspectors since, what, 1994 - and all of a sudden they are now* a threat that has to be dealt with within the week?) ; Saddam is a survivalist and would not be silly enough to do something (pre-emptive strike on Israeli or US targets) that would lead to US bombs being rained down on his head. This is one of the reasons that there have been NO conclusive links made between the Sept 11 Al Qaeda attack and Iraq. Additionally, Scott Ridder (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) has said that he finds it highly unlikely that Iraq has either chemical or biological weapons, much less Nuclear ones. He (and many other allied nations - Germany, France, Canada, etc) and many others think it would be a BIG MISTAKE to attack Iraq. However, judging from this quote in the Savannah Now (http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/091202/LOCvox.shtml) not all Americans feel that way: "I'd like to know who's paying this Scott Ridder guy, the ex-U.N. inspector, to be such a traitor to America now. I think we should revoke his citizenship." Ok. And while we are on the subject of Chemical weapons and whatnot let's talk about Saddam and Rumsfeld. Start by reading this article here (http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1...-1783387c.html) - Rumsfeld was a special envoy to Iraq in 1983, when the US was supporting Saddam and Co. against Iran. This was about the same time that Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and "Rumsfeld warned that Saddam's use of chemical weapons might "inhibit" U.S. aid. Right. So this meanders back into talk of US Foreign Policy which always seems to come back and bite it in the ass. Saddam supported by the US in the proxy war against Iran. Bin Laden originally supported by the US in the proxy war against the Russians. Etc etc. If this was about peace, and getting rid of dicators and all that good stuff then the US and UN should get rid of Mugabe who is starving his nation. They should move against countless nations. They should force Israel to agree to UN monitors. But guess what? None of this is going to happen. A man with the brain capacity of an over-ripened Texas tomato is going to lead the US (and possibly other poor allies) into a war with Iraq. And guess what? You think that this just might further inflame anti-western sentiment not just in Iraq, but in other Middle Eastern countries as well? You think that this might be the sort of foreign policy that will come back for that nice bite in the ass? Wash. Rinse. Repeat. And above all don't learn from the past. (apologies for length of post, meandering thoughts, and nothing to do with a picture of a plane getting blown up)