Hostage crisis in Iraq!

[Seta-San]

Originally Posted by wise_evian

I dont see how raiding a country with no immediate threat to that country a way to spread democracy. Call me crazy but i think that would just tick that country being raided off to the point where it doesnt want anything to do with the attacking country lol

i hate to bashing only your comments but, eh..
Thing is Sadam's scientists told him that they were much more advanced in their chemical and biological weapons then they ever really were. They lied because if they didn't they would have been punished by sadam. Sadam, believeing the lie acted like he did have a large stock pile of weapons. Taking this into account Bush knew as much about Sadam's weapons as Sadam did, even if it were all a lie. How can Bush be expected to know more about Sadam's weapons then he did? He can't. And attacking Iraq was justified for the intellegance given. And it will spread democracy more than not attacking them. Before they had dictatorship. Now they can look forward to electing leaders in free/fair elections. Anyone remember when Sadam got 100% of the vote? That sounded like a free/fair election.

__________________

[Arpanet]

And attacking Iraq was justified for the intellegance given.

No. There was never any intelligence stating for sure that Saddam had WMD. Rumsfeld's pre-invasion comments to the contrary, the administration never had incontrovertible proof of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why? There never were any WMD. We should have been POSITIVE of that fact before using it as justification for invasion. "There are probably WMD over there somewhere" is not enough. And why does what Saddam thought matter? It's not the intelligence community's job to know what Saddam thinks; their job is to know what's *actually there.* There are no WMDs in Iraq. So why are we there?

__________________

-----------------------------------THE|ALCHEMIST-----------------------------------
P4 2.4C @ 3 GHz | 512 MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR400 Dual Channel 2-2-4-5
Asus P4P800 BIOS 1010 | WD800JB SE Caviar | RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR

a.k.a. Asfaloth. Batards unite!

[Seta-San]

Originally Posted by Arpanet

No. There was never any intelligence stating for sure that Saddam had WMD. Rumsfeld's pre-invasion comments to the contrary, the administration never had incontrovertible proof of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why? There never were any WMD. We should have been POSITIVE of that fact before using it as justification for invasion. "There are probably WMD over there somewhere" is not enough. And why does what Saddam thought matter? It's not the intelligence community's job to know what Saddam thinks; their job is to know what's *actually there.* There are no WMDs in Iraq. So why are we there?

lol. even the UNs weapons inspectors said that sadam had them before the war. What about the Gas he used to kill the kurds? Every bit of intellegance pointed to Sadam having WMDs. Why did France veto the resolution for war? Because they had lots of illegal deals with Sadam. and how about that oil for food program. AFAIK the USA hasn't got one once of oil for the war. But before the war France, Russia, Germany and several other countries were, illegally. Bush did the brave thing and put his political future on the line to rid the world of Sadam. I personally would like to see him president again, and i'll vote to that effect.

__________________

[Arpanet]

K, let's get started. This is getting fun

Originally Posted by Seta-San

lol. even the UNs weapons inspectors said that sadam had them before the war.

Nope. The inspectors never said they found anything - that was the US's assumption.

Perricos [acting head of the United Nations weapons inspection program] said recent U.S. inspections have confirmed what U.N. inspectors believed in early 2003 -- that the chemical and biological weapons and components that Iraq once possessed were destroyed, either by Iraqi officials or U.N. teams, after the 1991 Gulf War. An UNMOVIC report to be released today says Iraq most likely had no banned weapons after 1994.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-05.htm

Next.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

What about the Gas he used to kill the kurds?

I believe you're referring to the 1988 incident, in which Iraqi and Iranian armies fought near the town of Halabja. According to Stephen C. Pelletiere, the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the 1980s, the only thing we know for sure is that

Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town ... The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. *But they were not Iraq's main target.*

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1779.htm

Of course, this whole point is entirely academic; this incident took place in 1988, remember, before the first Gulf War, and, therefore, prior to the first WMD roundup. Whether or not he had WMD in 1988 is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not he had WMD in 2003.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

Bush did the brave thing and put his political future on the line to rid the world of Sadam. I personally would like to see him president again, and i'll vote to that effect.

What part about the invasion was brave? Was he out in the desert with his troops? What part involved a risk to his political future? The invasion of Iraq was calculated to improve his reputation as being tough on national security. Bush's approval rating jumped about 15% at the invasion of Iraq (http://www.debris.com/journal/812); it's only now that the whole thing has become such a mess (which was NOT predicted) that his approval rating is tanking.

__________________

-----------------------------------THE|ALCHEMIST-----------------------------------
P4 2.4C @ 3 GHz | 512 MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR400 Dual Channel 2-2-4-5
Asus P4P800 BIOS 1010 | WD800JB SE Caviar | RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR

a.k.a. Asfaloth. Batards unite!

[SC_Steve]

Originally Posted by Arpanet

No. There was never any intelligence stating for sure that Saddam had WMD. Rumsfeld's pre-invasion comments to the contrary, the administration never had incontrovertible proof of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why? There never were any WMD. We should have been POSITIVE of that fact before using it as justification for invasion. "There are probably WMD over there somewhere" is not enough. And why does what Saddam thought matter? It's not the intelligence community's job to know what Saddam thinks; their job is to know what's *actually there.* There are no WMDs in Iraq. So why are we there?

again... read resolution 4114 (the reason we invaded)

__________________
Gigabyte K8N-Pro
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
ATi Radeon 9700 Pro
onboard sound
Cyberhome DL-/+DVD writer
1 Gb ram
PSX Dual shock II
4.1 speaker system
19" ViewSonic moniter
blah... blah... blah...

"horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby

[cloudvii]

Seta-san , no offence but i think u shouldn't build ur opinions on story tales .
i mean that scientist lie thing

__________________

Fekra Online magazine

Fekra Magazine

Fekra Magazine readers Facebook group

[Arpanet]

Originally Posted by SC_Steve

again... read resolution 4114 (the reason we invaded)

I assume you mean 1441? Yes, you must, cause 4114 doesn't exist. 1441 can be found here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/1441.htm

OK. Read it. Don't really see how it's relevant. The US was going to go to war anyway. Remember all of Bush's comments about how the US didn't need UN approval to "defend itself?" Or, in the words of Colin Powell,

If Iraq violates this resolution and fails to comply, then the Council has to take into immediate consideration what should be done about that, while the United States and other like-minded nations might take a judgment about what we might do about it if the Council chooses not to act.

http://www.accuracy.org/un2/

In other words, if the Council decision does not match what the Bush administration has unilaterally decided, Washington will implement its own decision regardless.

The UN resolution was just a feeble gesture on Bush's part to demonstrate "multilateralism" after the massive outcry against acting without UN approval. It was written specifically so that Iraq could not possibly hope to meet its stipulations. The US was going to war anyway; it just wanted to make a show of international cooperation.

__________________

-----------------------------------THE|ALCHEMIST-----------------------------------
P4 2.4C @ 3 GHz | 512 MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR400 Dual Channel 2-2-4-5
Asus P4P800 BIOS 1010 | WD800JB SE Caviar | RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR

a.k.a. Asfaloth. Batards unite!

[RZetlin]

Originally Posted by Arpanet

The invasion of Iraq was calculated to improve his reputation as being tough on national security. Bush's approval rating jumped about 15% at the invasion of Iraq (http://www.debris.com/journal/812); it's only now that the whole thing has become such a mess (which was NOT predicted) that his approval rating is tanking.

Not predicted?

Before the invasion there was a lot of news debates about the consequences of invading Iraq. (Tension between the minority groups, street to street fighting, the increase of terrorism, etc.).

Maybe none of these issues weren't addressed about in America.

One reason other countries didn't want to invade Iraq is because they knew it was going to be a bloody mess to pick up after the invasion.

__________________
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ | 2 GB RAM | XFX Nvidia 6800 GS 256 MB XXX Edition | Win XP Pro SP3
"Asu no Egao no Tame ni!" - So We Can Smile Tomorrow!
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/RZetlin

[RZetlin]

Speaking about hostages:

Bodies of 4 U.S. contractors found in Iraq

__________________
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ | 2 GB RAM | XFX Nvidia 6800 GS 256 MB XXX Edition | Win XP Pro SP3
"Asu no Egao no Tame ni!" - So We Can Smile Tomorrow!
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/RZetlin

[Arpanet]

Originally Posted by RZetlin

Not predicted?

Before the invasion there was a lot of news debates about the consequences of invading Iraq. (Tension between the minority groups, street to street fighting, the increase of terrorism, etc.).

Maybe none of these issues weren't addressed about in America.

One reason other countries didn't want to invade Iraq is because they knew it was going to be a bloody mess to pick up after the invasion.

Perhaps other countries saw the current mess coming, but we didn't. At this point in the occupation, the number of US troops in Iraq was supposed to be reduced to 115,000 (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...g7VCY&refer=us). Instead, General Abizaid has asked to increase the number to about 140,000 (http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040413c.asp). And we were FAR too optimistic about the transfer of political power. Remember that the US is supposed to hand control to a fully-functioning Iraqi government on June 30. Here are some quotes from a great New York Times article on the current situation from April 12, 2004:

With less than three months before the American-led occupation force hands sovereignty to an Iraqi civilian government, the process for a political transition remains unclear. There are no firm plans yet for who the leaders will be on the transfer date of June 30.

"We can beat these guys, and we're proving our resolve," said one military officer. "But unless the political side keeps up, we'll have to do it again after July 1 and maybe in September and again next year and again and again."

Those officials and officers in Washington and the Middle East were equally critical of the emerging Iraqi leadership, and indeed of the Iraqi people, for not moving more forcefully to create a stable democracy after decades of dictatorship.

[L. Paul Bremer III, the American civilian administrator for Iraq] was queried on NBC about the timetable for the transfer of "the keys" to sovereignty on June 30, and was asked specifically to whom they would be turned over. He replied, "Well, that's a good question, and it's an important part of the ongoing crisis we have here now."

Mr. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Never, from the day we began the planning for this operation to today, have we been able to develop an effective method of communicating with the Iraqi people to explain to them how they could benefit or what we were trying to achieve."

Ever hear the saying "look before you leap?"

__________________

-----------------------------------THE|ALCHEMIST-----------------------------------
P4 2.4C @ 3 GHz | 512 MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR400 Dual Channel 2-2-4-5
Asus P4P800 BIOS 1010 | WD800JB SE Caviar | RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR

a.k.a. Asfaloth. Batards unite!

[Seta-San]

Originally Posted by cloudvii

Seta-san , no offence but i think u shouldn't build ur opinions on story tales .
i mean that scientist lie thing

http://www.resellerratings.com/forum/t90537.html you should read from that forum.

__________________

[Arpanet]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

http://www.resellerratings.com/forum/t90537.html you should read from that forum.

Are you going to answer my points or not?

__________________

-----------------------------------THE|ALCHEMIST-----------------------------------
P4 2.4C @ 3 GHz | 512 MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR400 Dual Channel 2-2-4-5
Asus P4P800 BIOS 1010 | WD800JB SE Caviar | RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR

a.k.a. Asfaloth. Batards unite!

[RZetlin]

Let's look at the numbers shall we:

9/11 civilians deaths: 2,998

Kurds gased by Saddam: 5,000

Innocent civilians killed in Iraq: 8865 (Min)


From the looks of it America has killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

__________________
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ | 2 GB RAM | XFX Nvidia 6800 GS 256 MB XXX Edition | Win XP Pro SP3
"Asu no Egao no Tame ni!" - So We Can Smile Tomorrow!
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/RZetlin

[bahamut_2006]

Originally Posted by Arpanet

No. There was never any intelligence stating for sure that Saddam had WMD. Rumsfeld's pre-invasion comments to the contrary, the administration never had incontrovertible proof of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why? There never were any WMD. We should have been POSITIVE of that fact before using it as justification for invasion. "There are probably WMD over there somewhere" is not enough. And why does what Saddam thought matter? It's not the intelligence community's job to know what Saddam thinks; their job is to know what's *actually there.* There are no WMDs in Iraq. So why are we there?

I really think that Saddam got rid of all of his WMD before we invaded, so he wouldnt get busted with it. I mean October (publicly announcing a possiblity of an invasion) to March (the start of the invasion) is 5 months. Thats a very long time, and it is very possible that Saddam got rid of in one way or another, whatever WMD he possessed at the time. If we had kept our mouth shut and got them off guard, it may have been different. But Bush wanted international support, not that it seems to count for much anyway due to all the people protesting. Simple thing is, you aint going to make everyone happy, especially on something like this, and that is what Bush decided to do.

__________________
Primary rig: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600 (2.8 Ghz) Windsor core|2 GB Corsair DDR 800 ram|Abit AN52 Mobo|512 MB ATI HD 3850|Primary HD: 300 GB Seagate| Secondary HD 300 GB Maxtor|Antec Nine Hundred case w/550w Antec PSU|19" Sceptre LCD|Runnin on Windows XP Pro SP2

[aerith099]

Originally Posted by RZetlin

From the looks of it America has killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

And, as I like to say, George W Bush killed more peeps than Hitler ever did.




*BTW, I realize that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews, not to mention millions of European and American soldiers as well...it's called humor, people.

__________________

[Arpanet]

Huh?

__________________

-----------------------------------THE|ALCHEMIST-----------------------------------
P4 2.4C @ 3 GHz | 512 MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR400 Dual Channel 2-2-4-5
Asus P4P800 BIOS 1010 | WD800JB SE Caviar | RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR

a.k.a. Asfaloth. Batards unite!

[aerith099]

*sigh*....nevermind.

__________________

[Arpanet]

OK, either I missed the fine print the first time around or you added it afterwards. In either case, it's 5 AM right now so I think I should be given some slack.

*passes out*

__________________

-----------------------------------THE|ALCHEMIST-----------------------------------
P4 2.4C @ 3 GHz | 512 MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR400 Dual Channel 2-2-4-5
Asus P4P800 BIOS 1010 | WD800JB SE Caviar | RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR

a.k.a. Asfaloth. Batards unite!

[cloudvii]

guys i was watching eljazeera news yesterday while i was playing in the arcade of ngemu
i found a japanese like man talking in an interview but i was putting the head phones so i didn't hear him + i couldn't concentrate in two things
well do u know if there is any development in that hostage problem ??
thanks in advance

__________________

Fekra Online magazine

Fekra Magazine

Fekra Magazine readers Facebook group

[netghost2.0]

Originally Posted by bahamut_2006

I really think that Saddam got rid of all of his WMD before we invaded, so he wouldnt get busted with it. I mean October (publicly announcing a possiblity of an invasion) to March (the start of the invasion) is 5 months. Thats a very long time, and it is very possible that Saddam got rid of in one way or another, whatever WMD he possessed at the time. If we had kept our mouth shut and got them off guard, it may have been different. But Bush wanted international support, not that it seems to count for much anyway due to all the people protesting. Simple thing is, you aint going to make everyone happy, especially on something like this, and that is what Bush decided to do.

Read my post on this thread which was basically a reply to your point about "magical WMD disappearing":

http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showthre...t=50275&page=2

On a side note, I love how pro-war hawks believe in this "reverse domino" theory that Iraq will somehow be a beacon for democracy throughout the Arab world. Never mind the fact that the nation itself was hobbled together by the British in 1932. Never mind the fact that the nation is composed of three distinct ethnic/religious groups at each other's throats. Never mind the fact that Iraq has absolutely no history of democracy unlike Germany or Japan. Democracy cannot be imposed by a foreign power; it has to take root within the people themselves. The development of a culture of civil rights has to be established if a liberal democracy is to succeed. If "democracy" were to occur within Iraq within the next five years, I guarantee it will be some form of Islamic theocracy.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

lol. even the UNs weapons inspectors said that sadam had them before the war. What about the Gas he used to kill the kurds? Every bit of intellegance pointed to Sadam having WMDs. Why did France veto the resolution for war? Because they had lots of illegal deals with Sadam. and how about that oil for food program. AFAIK the USA hasn't got one once of oil for the war. But before the war France, Russia, Germany and several other countries were, illegally. Bush did the brave thing and put his political future on the line to rid the world of Sadam. I personally would like to see him president again, and i'll vote to that effect.

Listen to Scott Ritter, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who has repeatedly stated that Iraq had no WMD long before the onset of war.

The criticism cuts both ways. It's hypocritical to assume that the U.S. has purely altruistic motives while the "evil" French, Germans, and Russians are all in it for the oil. Don't be naive. To all future debaters of the Iraqi war: Let's drop this pretense of morality. It's an extremely arrogant (not to mention, utterly boring and naive) rationale to use to argue for/against war. Every government especially the United States are all in it for themselves. I find it extremely tiresome to hear an American rant on about French oil money while the U.S. government is propping up tinpot Arab dictatorships (ie. Saudi Arabia) to secure their own oil sources.

To his credit, Bush is decisive and determined. However, decisiveness and determination does not automatically equate to being "brave". If he was brave, he would try to create a truly bipartisan cabinet within his administration. Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Republicans in key roles within his cabinet during World War II. FDR reached out to his political opponents and allowed them to share power within his administration (even at the expense of his own political power) in order to secure the support of both parties. If he was brave, he would risk the voters' wrath by raising taxes in order to support the war instead of lowering them to appease a small portion of the population. If he was brave and a bigger man, he would swallow his pride and ask the international community to help shoulder the burden in Iraq. If he was truly brave, Bush would risk the wrath of the Jewish community by forcing Ariel Sharon to sit down with his Palestinian counterpart and hammer out a peace deal. Instead, he tries to appease the Jewish political lobby and the Christian evangelicals by taking a hands-off approach and allowing Sharon to do whatever the hell he wants. That's not leadership; it's politics.

Don't mistake partisan rhetoric and Republican zealousness as being "brave".

Bravery (in the context of politics) means putting your balls on the line... which Bush hasn't really done. To compare Bush to other brave political figures like Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, and Dr. Sun is laughable. All I have seen from this administration is blatant pandering to the religious right and to his party.

__________________
"Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."
-Milton

Shake that booty!