Hussein info....

[Navaron]

Here's a few things for those of you who don't think we're justified going into Iraq, or that it isn't the moral thing to do.


British PM Brings Back Baghdad Horrors

March 6, 2003


If any of these peace protesters could go talk to Kurds or marsh Arabs under Hussein's thumb - they'd do a complete 180 on the need to remove Saddam by force. Liberal British MP Ann Clwyd underwent such a transformation, and it helped bring about this massive switch in British public opinion which now favors Tony Blair's position by a 3-1 margin.

Ms. Clwyd is a member of the left who has opened her eyes to evil. Read her column and master some of the horror stories, so you can educate everyone who asks about this. She told the UK Guardian of an under-nourished Iraqi teacher who gave birth in prison. She begged for milk to feed the child, but the guards refused. "For three days she held that baby in her arms and would not give the body up," Clwyd said. "After three days due to the 60-degree heat, the body of course started to smell, and [the woman] was taken away and killed."

Remember that New Zealand woman who offered to let Bush crucify her if he'd leave Saddam alone? Clwyd writes of a tortured and crucified a 15-year-old boy: "On the walls were hundreds of photographs of piles of clothing, mass graves and skulls. Saddam's regime is like the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis." Anti-war protesters "scream traitor" at Clwyd, but she won't back down on the truth and now admires Tony Blair for his stance. She's seen the proof which, as I predicted, we'll all find when we liberate that country. That's when the world will ask the Frances of the world, "Why did you sit still and trade with this monster?"


MP backs war after meeting victims of Saddam's torture
By Greg Hurst, Parliamentary Correspondent



THE Labour MP Ann Clwyd told the Commons yesterday how hearing harrowing accounts of Saddam�s torture victims convinced her of the case for military action to overthrow him.
She described visiting Northern Iraq, from which she returned to attend yesterday�s debate, where she was told by former prisoners of mass executions, beatings and the crucifixion of a teenager.

Ms Clwyd asked MPs opposed to war: �Who is to help the victims of Saddam Hussein�s regime unless we do it? �I believe in regime change. I say that without any reservation I will support the Government tonight because I think it is doing a brave thing.�

She accused MPs of overlooking human rights abuses in Iraq and blamed a mistaken belief that these had been halted by the last Gulf War. She had pressed for Britain to indict Saddam for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but became convinced of the need for military action on her most recent visit.

She described how she wept, the first time she had cried in public, when opening a genocide museum in Northern Iraq on finding herself surrounded by victims of Saddam�s regime.

One mother showed her photographs of her husband and her two sons who were tortured and died in the same building.

A man freed from prison in Saddam�s amnesty for political prisoners described in a victim statement almost daily executions. After an attempt to kill Uday Hussein, one of Saddam�s sons, 2,000 prisoners were killed in one day, Ms Clwyd said.

Another account was of a woman who gave birth in jail, but was unable to produce enough milk to breast-feed her baby because of the diet of thin soup and bread. �She begged guards for milk, but they refused and then the baby died. For three days she held that baby in her arms,� she said. �The temperature was very hot, and the body began to smell. They took the woman and the dead baby away. I asked a prisoner what happened to her. He said she was killed.�

A boy of 15 fainted during torture in prison. �They pinned him up to the frame of a window, crucified him,� she said. The boy cried for water, which was refused, and another prisoner who splashed water on his face was taken away and beaten, she said.

She also told MPs of visiting a United Nations camp housing Kurds, who had been given 24 hours to leave their homes. �That is the reality of Saddam�s Iraq,� she said. �When I hear people calling for more time, I say who is going to speak up for those victims?�

Ms Clwyd, MP for Cynon Valley in South Wales, has campaigned for 25 years to stop human rights abuses in Iraq. She was Labour�s spokeswoman for overseas development during the last Gulf War.

[Navaron]

Ann Clwyd: 'I support the government. It's doing a brave thing'

Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Thursday February 27, 2003
The Guardian

Labour leftwinger Ann Clwyd, a long-standing supporter of Kurdish rights in northern Iraq, last night in the Commons recounted individual horror stories of the suffering inflicted on ethnic minorities by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Ms Clwyd told MPs: "I believe in regime change, and I say that without any hesitation at all, and I will support the government tonight because I think it's doing a brave thing."

Returning from Kurdistan this week, she said she had cried after hearing from victims of torture.

Ms Clwyd, MP for Cynon Valley, told of an under-nourished university teacher who had given birth in prison and begged guards for milk to feed her child. The guards refused and the baby died.

"For three days she held that baby in her arms and would not give the body up. After three days due to the 60-degree heat, the body of course started to smell, and [the woman] was taken away and killed."

She also told of a 15-year-old boy tortured and crucified, and pinned against the prison window. When he begged for water a prisoner who came to his aid was beaten up.

She found many refugees had been ethnically cleansed for being Kurds.

"That's the reality of Saddam's Iraq," she said. "When I hear people calling for more time, I say, who is going to speak up for those victims? Who is to help the victims of Saddam's regime unless we do it?"

She said the regime should be indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and it was her great regret that Britain had not led the way to regime change in Iraq when it had the chance during the first Gulf war.

[Navaron]

'Saddam controlled the camp'
The Iraqi connection

As evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to the 11 September hijackers begins to emerge, David Rose gathers testimony from former Baghdad agents and the CIA to reveal the secrets of Saddam's terror training camp

War on Terrorism: Observer special

David Rose
Observer

Sunday November 11, 2001


His friends call him Abu Amin, 'the father of honesty'. At 43, he is one of Iraq's most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special forces veteran who organised killings behind Iranian lines during the first Gulf war, who then went on to a senior post in the unit known as 'M8' - the department for 'special operations', such as sabotage, terrorism and murder. This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre.

Evidence is mounting that this meeting was not an isolated event. The Observer has learnt that Atta's talks with al-Ani were only one of several apparent links between Iraq, the 11 September hijackers and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Senior US intelligence sources say the CIA has 'credible information' that in the spring of this year, at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. They are believed to be Atta's closest associates and co-leaders, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad Jarrah, the other two members of the 'German cell ' who lived with Atta in Hamburg in the late 1990s.

In the strongest official statement to date alleging Iraqi involvement in the new wave of anti-Western terrorism, on Friday night Milos Zeman, the Czech Prime Minister, told reporters and Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, that the Czech authorities believed Atta and al-Ani met expressly to discuss a bombing. He said they were plotting to destroy the Prague-based Radio Free Europe with a truck stuffed with explosives, adding: 'Yes, you cannot exclude also the hypothesis that they discussed football, ice hockey, weather and other topics. But I am not so sure.

In Washington and Whitehall, a furious political battle is raging over the scope of the anti-terrorist war, and whether it should eventually include action against Iraq. According to the Foreign Office, British Ministers have responded to this prospect with 'horror', arguing that an attack on Saddam Hussein would cause terrible civilian casualties and cement anti-Western anger across Middle East.

Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Defence Secretary, heads a clique of determined, powerful hawks, most of them outside the administration - among them James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA. The doves argue that an al-Qaeda-Iraq link is improbable, given the sharp ideological differences between Saddam's secular Baathism and Islamic fundamentalism. They also say that claims of Iraqi involvement are being driven by the agenda of the hawks - a group which has for years been seeking to finish the job left undone at the end of the Gulf war in 1991.

Nevertheless, Saddam does not lack a plausible motive: revenge for his expulsion from Kuwait in 1991, and for the continued sanctions and Western bombing of his country ever since. In this febrile atmosphere, hard information about who ordered the 11 September attacks remains astonishingly scarce.

US investigators have traced the movements of the 19 hijackers going back years, and have amassed a detailed picture of who did what inside the conspiracy. Yet what lay beyond the hijackers is an intelligence black hole. If they had a support network in America, none of its members has been traced, and among the hundreds of telephone records and emails the investigators have recovered, nothing gets close to identifying those ultimately responsible.

It still seems almost certain, intelligence sources say, that parts of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network actively backed the conspiracy: about half of the estimated $500,000 the hijackers used reportedly came from al-Qaeda sources, while some of the terrorists are believed to have passed through bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. At the same time, however, evidence is emerging of direct Iraqi links with the US hijackers in particular, and with radical Islamic terror groups in general.

In the early period after the attacks, Western intelligence agencies said they knew of nothing to suggest an Iraqi connection. That position has now changed. A top US analyst - a serving intelligence official with no connection to the 'hawks' around Wolfowitz - told The Observer: 'You should think of this thing as a spectrum: with zero Iraqi involvement at one end, and 100 per cent Iraqi direction and control at the other. The scenario we now find most plausible is somewhere in the middle range - significant Iraqi assistance and some involvement.'

Last night, Whitehall sources made clear that parts of British intelligence had reached the same conclusion. Uncomfortable as it may be, this reassessment is having a political impact. Last month, when the CIA was still telling him it did not believe Iraq was involved in 11 September, Powell said there were 'no plans' to attack Iraq. Last Thursday, speaking in Kuwait, he abruptly reversed his earlier pronouncements. He promised that after dealing with bin Laden and Afghanistan, 'we will turn our attention to terrorism throughout the world, and nations such as Iraq'.

The FBI is now sure that Atta, the Egyptian who had studied in Germany, was the hijackers' overall leader. He personally handled more than $100,000 of the plot's funds, more than any other conspirator, and he made seven foreign trips in 2000 and 2001 - all of which appear to have had some operational significance. Investigators lay heavy stress on a captured al-Qaeda manual which emphasises the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.

Two of those trips were to meet al-Ani in Prague. The Iraqi's profile has been supplied by defectors from Saddam's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, who are now being guarded by the London-based opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC). CIA sources have confirmed its crucial details. 'There's really no doubt that al-Ani is a very senior Iraqi agent,' one source said.

[Navaron]

The Observer has interviewed two of the defectors. They began to tell their stories at the beginning of October, and have been debriefed extensively by the FBI and the CIA. Al-Ani's experience in covert 'wet jobs' (assassinations), gives his meetings with Atta a special significance: his expertise was killing.

According to the defectors, he has an unusual ability to change his appearance and operate under cover. One defector recalls a meeting in the early 1990s when al-Ani had long, silver hair, and wore jeans, silver chains and sunglasses. Al-Ani explained he was about to undertake a mission which required him to look like a Western hippy. A member of Saddam's Baathist party since his youth, al-Ani also has extensive experience working with radical Islamists such as Mohamed Atta.

Since the 1980s, Saddam has organised numerous Islamic conferences in Baghdad, expressly for the Mukhabarat to find foreign recruits. Al-Ani has been seen at at least two of them. On one occasion, the defectors say, he took on the cover of a Muslim cleric at a fundamentalists' conference in Karachi, presenting himself as a delegate from the Iraqi shrine of the Sufi mystic Abdel-Qadir al-Gaylani, whose followers are numerous in Pakistan.

Last Wednesday, Iraq made its own response to the news of the meetings between al-Ani and Atta. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister, denied Iraq had anything to do with the hijackings, saying: 'Even if that [the meetings] happened, that would mean nothing, for a diplomat could meet many people during his duty, whether he was at a restaurant or elsewhere, and even if he met Mohamed Atta, that would not mean the Iraqi diplomat was involved.'

Yet the striking thing about the meetings is the lengths to which Atta went in order to attend them. In June last year, he flew to Prague from Hamburg, only to be refused entry because he had failed to obtain a visa. Three days later, now equipped with the paperwork, Atta was back for a visit of barely 24 hours. He flew from the Czech Republic to the US, where he began to train as pilot. In early April 2001, when the conspiracy's planning must have been nearing its final stages, Atta was back in Prague for a further brief visit - a journey of considerable inconvenience.

On 17 April, the Czechs expelled al-Ani, who had diplomatic cover, as a hostile spy. Last night, a senior US diplomatic source told The Observer that Atta was not the only suspected al-Qaeda member who met al-Ani and other Iraqi agents in Prague. He said the Czechs monitored at least two further such meetings in the months before 11 September.

The senior US intelligence source said the CIA believed that two other hijackers, al-Shehri and Jarrah, also met known Iraqi intelligence officers outside the US in the run-up to the atrocities. It is understood these meetings took place in the United Arab Emirates - where Iraq maintains its largest 'illegal', or non-diplomatic, cover intelligence operation, most of it devoted to oil exports and busting economic sanctions.

The source added that Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which has now effectively merged with al-Qaeda, maintained regular contacts with Iraq for many years. He confirmed the claims first made by the Iraqi National Congress - that towards the end of 1998, Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and a key member of the Mukhabarat leadership - went to Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he met bin Laden.

The FBI believes many of the 11 hijackers who made up the conspiracy's 'muscle', Saudi Arabians who entered the US at a late stage and whose task was to overpower the aircrafts' passengers and crew, trained at Afghan camps run by al-Qaeda. But they have no details: no times or places where any of these individuals learnt their skills. Meanwhile, it is now becoming clear that al-Qaeda is not the only organisation providing terrorist training for Muslim fundamentalists. Since the early 1990s, courses of this type have also been available in Iraq. At the beginning of October, two INC activists in London travelled to eastern Turkey. They had been told that a Mukhabarat colonel had crossed the border through Kurdistan and was ready to defect. The officer - codenamed Abu Zeinab - had extraordinary information about terrorist training in Iraq. In a safe house in Ankara, the two London-based activists took down Zeinab's story. He had worked at a site which was already well known - Salman Pak, a large camp on a peninsular formed by a loop of the Tigris river south of Baghdad.

However, what Zeinab had to say about the southern part of the camp was new. There, he said, separated from the rest of the facilities by a razor-wire fence, was a barracks used to house Islamic radicals, many of them Saudis from bin Laden's Wahhabi sect, but also Egyptians, Yemenis, and other non-Iraqi Arabs.

Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab said the foreigners' camp was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein. In a telephone interview with The Observer, Zeinab described the culture clash which took place when secular Baathists tried to train fundamentalists: 'It was a nightmare! A very strange experience. These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying.'

Asked whether he believed the foreigners' camp had trained members of al-Qaeda, Zeinab said: 'All I can say is that we had no structure to take on these people inside the regime. The camp was for organisations based abroad.' One of the highlights of the six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. According to Zeinab, women were also trained in these techniques. Like the 11 September hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five.

In Ankara, Zeinab was debriefed by the FBI and CIA for four days. Meanwhile he told the INC that if they wished to corroborate his story, they should speak to a man who had political asylum in Texas - Captain Sabah Khodad, who had worked at Salman Pak in 1994-5. He too has now told his story to US investigators. In an interiew with The Observer, he echoed Zeinab's claims: 'The foreigners' training includes assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking. They were strictly separated from the rest of us. To hijack planes they were taught to use small knives. The method used on 11 September perfectly coincides with the training I saw at the camp. When I saw the twin towers attack, the first thought that came into my head was, "this has been done by graduates of Salman Pak".'

Zeinab and Khodad said the Salman Pak students practised their techniques in a Boeing 707 fuselage parked in the foreigners' part of the camp. Yesterday their story received important corroboration from Charles Duelfer, former vice chairman of Unscom, the UN weapons inspection team.

Duelfer said he visited Salman Pak several times, landing by helicopter. He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counter-terrorist training. 'Of course we automatically took out the word "counter",' he said. 'I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect? Iraq presents a long-term strategic threat. Unfortunately, the US is not very good at recognising long-term strategic threats.'

At the end of September, Donald Rumsfeld, the far from doveish US Defence Secretary, told reporters there was 'no evidence' that Iraq was involved in the atrocities. That judgment is slowly being rewritten.

Many still suspect the anthrax which has so far killed four people in America has an ultimate Iraqi origin: in contrast to recent denials made by senior FBI officials, CIA sources say there simply is not enough material to be sure. However, it does not look likely that the latest anthrax sample, sent to a newspaper in Karachi, can have come from the source recently posited by the FBI - a right-wing US militant. 'The sophistication of the stuff that has been found represents a level of technique and knowledge that in the past has been associated only with governments,' Duelfer said. 'If it's not Iraq, there aren't many alternatives.'

If the emerging evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11 September becomes clearer or more conclusive, the consequences will be immense. In the words of a State Department spokesman after Powell's briefing by the Czech leader on Friday: 'If there is clear evidence connecting the World Trade Centre attacks to Iraq, that would be a very grave development.'

At worst, the anti-terrorist coalition would currently be bombing the wrong country. At best, the world would see that some of President Bush's closest advisers - his father, Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, to name but three - made a catastrophic error in 1991, when they ended the Gulf war without toppling Saddam.

The case for trying to remove him now might well seem unanswerable. In that scenario, the decisions Western leaders have had to make in the past two months would seem like a trivial prelude.

Additional reporting by Ed Vulliamy in New York and Kate Connolly in Berlin.

[Navaron]

�In 1991 Saddam killed 500,000 people when they rose against him. Nobody demonstrated against him then. But now the United States wants to get rid of the dictator, people are demonstrating against it.�
-one of the Iraqi liberation soldiers the U.S. is training at "Camp Freedom" in Hungary

[�io]

Politics again? :banplz:

:D

[Lexington_Steele]

What is the post Saddam plan? What will prevent a worse regime from taking power.

I have not heard much talk about plans for post Saddam Iraq. All I have heard are reasons for or against the removal of Saddam by force.

I think alot of anti war folks would feel more confortable with removing Saddam by force if they knew of and approved the plan for a post Saddam Iraqi government.

[Derfud]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Why have a war when you can make an Assassination, along with politically changing the environment.

[Bighoss]

cuz then we couldn't get our texas tea:D

[mistled]

Originally posted by Derfud
I have said it before and I will say it again. Why have a war when you can make an Assassination, along with politically changing the environment. He's too hard to find. People have tried to assassinate him in the past.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
if they ....approved the plan That's funny Lex. We going to start an online poll on what the anti-war people want??


(I assume you're actually talking about the anti-war countries who are in the UN, but it's fun to pick on you anyway. :))

[Navaron]

While the US obviously won't announce it's post Hussein regime plans (for example if we say Mr. Bin Mustafah will become prime minister - Mr. Mustafah will be taking a dirt nap rather quickly) - we *CAN* look at our most recent example -

Now, It's Business That Booms
With Bombs Mostly Silenced, Commerce and Confidence Are Growing in Kabul

Shops have been restored and opened in otherwise ruined buildings in Kabul, part of a small-business boom seen by some as a sign of better things to come. (Photos Marc Kaufman -- The Washington Post)



_____News From Afghanistan_____

� Young Girls Sold as Brides By Desperate Afghan Poor (The Washington Post, Feb 23, 2003)
� WASHINGTON IN BRIEF (The Washington Post, Feb 22, 2003)
� U.S. Urges NATO to Expand Role in Afghanistan (The Washington Post, Feb 21, 2003)
� More News from Afghanistan




E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

Permission to Republish

Subscribe to The Post





By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page A16


KABUL, Afghanistan -- The day Taliban soldiers fled this capital, Sabir Latifa had $9,000 in savings from his dried fruit exports and a head filled with ideas about how to do business in a changed Afghanistan.

He started small by fixing up some guesthouses for the journalists and aid workers who flocked to Kabul when the Taliban left in November 2001. Then he branched into cars and a hotel and the capital's first private Internet cafe. Fifteen months later, Latifa has a business empire he says is worth $500,000, and he hopes to build a water bottling plant, more hotels outside Kabul, a computer store and even a chain of Internet cafes around the country.

He did it all in the midst of political chaos, with frequent security concerns, without the help of a bank to lend him money, and in an investment climate that can only be described as extremely challenging.

But Latifa, a longtime Kabul resident, says that where others saw unacceptable risks, he saw the opportunity of a lifetime.

"There is so much money to be made in Afghanistan now," he said in English learned in a Pakistani refugee camp. "The country has been held back for 25 years, and now is the time to invest and do business. Afghans are very good at this -- we've been doing it since the time of the Silk Road."

Although countries around the world have promised more than $4 billion in aid to rebuild Afghanistan, there are today very few visible signs of the planned roads and schools and infrastructure projects. There are, however, signs throughout the capital, and in many provinces, of fast and dramatic change as Afghans and some intrepid foreigners open shops, businesses and even factories, quickly put up buildings to house them, and buy enough cars to create daily traffic jams.

In a city that had a handful of shopworn eating places two years ago, a new Chinese or Italian or American hamburger restaurant opens almost weekly, as well as kebab shops by the score. Small hotels have sprung up, and a $40 million Hyatt is on the way. The food bazaars are bustling and there are downtown blocks filled almost entirely with bridal shops. Rebuilt homes are rising from the ruins, and every little storefront seems to be stuffed with bathtubs or fans or with men building and carving things to be sold.

President Hamid Karzai, who will meet President Bush in Washington on Thursday, points to this mini-boom as one of the most important accomplishments of his fledgling administration, a sign that people are voting with their money. "People wouldn't start businesses and rebuild their homes here unless they believed that peace and security were coming to Afghanistan," he said in a recent interview. "This is the most positive sign of all."

Shair Bar Hakemy, the business adviser to Karzai and himself a refugee turned entrepreneur who made a fortune in Texas commercial real estate and hotels, said that the price of real estate in some parts of Kabul is now higher per square foot than in downtown Dallas. "My family and friends back in America have difficulty seeing past all the headlines about troubles here," he said. "But the truth is that Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan are changing quickly for the better."

Many of those perceived troubles are real and worrisome, and nobody would mistake Kabul for a prosperous and peaceful city. Sections are still in ruins, and many of the 600,000 returning refugees who have flooded the city live precariously on the margins. Islamic militants remain determined to destabilize and oust the Karzai government through violence, and periodic attacks continue. There is also concern that the flashier developments could offend conservative Afghan attitudes and create a dangerously wide divide between the relatively rich and the very poor.

But whatever the risks, the Kabul of today is almost unrecognizable as the austere city ruled not long ago by the Taliban -- or as the place where warring Islamic militias demolished neighborhood after neighborhood, or where Soviets presided over a rebellious socialist state.

While the current business mini-boom involves mostly small-scale projects, some see it as a harbinger of bigger investments from abroad.

"Large foreign investors look to local entrepreneurs -- the people on the ground -- for signals on the business environment in a place like this," said William B. Taylor Jr., the special representative for donor assistance at the U.S. Embassy. "And the signal now is pretty positive."

Since last summer, the embassy has held monthly round tables to bring together local and international businessmen and Afghan government leaders to discuss opportunities and problems. American diplomats say the meetings started with five firms, and now could easily draw 100 -- if there were a room large enough to hold them all. Topics include such basics as the absence of banks, the fact that property ownership is often unclear, and a bureaucracy that can be infuriating and corrupt.

"The goal is to show businessmen that while there are obvious challenges here, there is also a government committed to building a private sector," a U.S. diplomat said. As part of the outreach effort, the Afghan government will sponsor, with American assistance, a trade and investment show in Chicago this summer. The United States is also helping with some financing of projects. Before Hyatt agreed to manage a Kabul hotel, for instance, it needed assistance from the Overseas Private Investment Corp., a federal agency that specializes in making loans where other banks won't.

While much of the money being invested today is coming from Afghans here and abroad, U.S. and international military and aid programs are surely making the expansion possible. More than 4,000 foreign troops are now in Kabul and another 9,000 U.S. and allied troops are stationed in Afghanistan, many at the Bagram air base 35 miles north of the capital. Without them, the relative peace in Kabul would not likely last long.

Several thousand diplomats, aid workers and other foreigners also live in Kabul, and the most visible part of the new business caters to their needs. It remains an open question whether the new Kabul can sustain itself when some of those relief workers go home.

But the Afghan government, along with some embassies, is working to keep and expand the international presence. The first big wave of foreigners to arrive after the Taliban fled were journalists, who often paid top dollar for homes and services. Most are now gone, but more permanent businessmen are taking up the slack. According to Commerce Minister Seyyed Mustafa Kazemi, the number of foreign firms setting up shop in Afghanistan is growing fast.

He said that in the past six months, his ministry has approved 2,600 business licenses, compared with 2,045 in the 45 years before. Many were given to foreign firms, he said, or those headed by Afghans living abroad who want to return to their homeland. These licensed businesses are the large ones that will pay all taxes and other government fees; most Afghan businesses still open without registration and beyond the reach of central government tax collectors.

"The markets of the world are saturated now, but Afghanistan is a virgin market," Kazemi said. "Our resources have not been developed, our people are have been forced to buy substandard products, and there are opportunities everywhere. . . . This ministry wants to be a friend to the business community, and that has never really happened before."

Latifa, the hotel and computer pioneer, said he didn't get much help from his government, but neither did it stand in his way. And while he is eager to form joint ventures with foreign investors, the financing he has gotten so far has come the old-fashioned way, from his savings and loans from friends, family and those who worked on his projects.

"When I opened the Internet cafe, my friends thought I was crazy," said Latifa, 33. "But it's been in business about two months now, and it has already paid for itself."

"The government and [international aid organizations] won't make Afghans stand on their own feet," he said. "Businessmen will do it."


� 2003 The Washington Post Company


Now, that's just an example of how it's running, and I've heard of countless examples of how much happier the people are.

[MrVicchio]

Lex, do you read the news?

The post Saddam Iraq looks a little like this:

6 Month military control of Iraq by the USA

After that the Iraqi's "should" be stable and educated, and FREE enough to vote thier own system in place. The USA slowly starts to pull out...

In three years, free Democratic Iraq free to chart its own course.

Or we COULD just let inspections go on, course we'd pull all our troops out of there.. and see what happens...

BTW I like the comment an Isreali defense minister made. IF Saddam is stupid enough to launch Scuds with WMD and hits Isreal causing massive casualties.. 10 minutes later bahgdad will be a smoking hole in the ground.

[Gortha]

Whole world knows this... nothing new.

But there are better solutions to disarm.

[MrVicchio]

Name one Gortha? I am sick of this "better solutions" Line of MULARCKY

Better Solutions???? Like what?

Keep going with inspections?? You think the USA is gonna keep its force there forever? FU man. I KNOW what those guys are doing out there, we in the military don't like sitting around, on EXTENDED deployments so that some wuss idiots in the world can be appeased.

Its real simple, it costs LOTS of money, and its a real strain on the members of the Armed Forces to stay out for more then their schedualed time.

I have been on long deployments, they suck... some of those ships are approaching 9 MONTHS underway. You go tell thier families why Daddy or Mommy cant come home.. You tell them its better that they stay out for months on end so that "inspectors" can do thier thing.. which for 12 years has failed to work.

You people have zero clue about what WE in the military have to put up with. You have no clue how hard it is for us when we are out defending your rights, your freedom only to hear crap like this.

Sure, lets give the inspectors more time...

That says to every man and woman deployed, that their just a tool for wimps unwilling to sacrifice anything, scared of thier own shadows, all the expense of our lives and livelihoods.

MAybe I am abit spun up here, fine good, I DONT CARE.

If we hadn't parked 200k+ troops out side Iraq with clear intentions of invasion and removal of Saddam... THERE WOULD BE NO INSPECTIONS YOU FDIASUT@($#T*^($#!*%#$JGSDPT(?$U%(U#T($#UY_#U(!Y#! H$%U!)GUIEK^YT% BG<O%_Y?% Now Saddam has had his chance, inspections have failed, sit down, shush and let the Proffessional war fighters do thier thing. Cause it won't take long to fight this war, and they can GO HOME.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Gortha
Whole world knows this... nothing new.

But there are better solutions to disarm.

No, there aren't, and it's about time you people pulled your head out of your ass and realized this. If Saddam was serious about disarming, there'd have been no unaccountable materials listed in their weapons summary. If he was serious, there wouldn't be 100 illegal missiles being crushed in Iraq a few a week. If he were serious, the inspectors wouldn't be complaining about poor Iraqi cooperation. But, no, you anti-war people will blindly chew and swallow whatever mass opinion is. It's pathetic, but it also makes me happy in a way. If someone can figure out how to make mass opinion entail having a clue, maybe you people will actually have an opinion someone apart from yourselves cares about sometime in the future.

[NARF]

There ARE NO BETTER SOLUTIONS. A person who can name one reasonable and feasible route, has my undying loyalty and respect. The inspectors are not there to disarm him, they're there to see if he has weapons, WE KNOW HE DOES, all but a few of the inspectors say this, the ones who don't, have reasons not to. If we do not go in very soon, Israel will fall to Iraq, this will cause WORLWIDE PROBLEMS! Israel is the most important place in all the world, 80% of the world holds it as the holiest place in the world. If Israel falls, the entire world turns against itself. The cohesion of all civilization hinges on the soveirnty of the state of Israel, wether you like it or not.

Although Israel is not Saddam's primary goal right now, if we let him have these weapons, it will open up a door to Israel, and THIS, my friends, will be cause for a lot of grief.

[Navaron]

You know, this is just a repeat of the old wars. The same liberals, weak kneed people, praised the virtues and values of the dictators, called them reasonable, and berated those who would stand against them. Lenin called them Usefull Idiots. Apparently it's genetic.

[Arshune]

Heck, Stalin was Time Magazine's man of the year once...

[Navaron]

You know, I'd like to see just one of you anti war people have to balls to argue these FACTS I posted. All I ever hear from these turtlenecked beret wearing hippies are the same 5 lines, with no facts to back it up. It's pathetic how brainwashed they are. Gortha, you're so anti US and anti war, why don't you bring some facts to the table and stop carrying the flag of the blind?

I challenge any of you anti war people to take on any of the articles I posted with fact. We both know you don't posses any.

[Confectrix]

Wow.

Despite all the vulgarity; BOHICA [and Mr. V] is quite the club of scholars.

I'm impressed.

[Lexington_Steele]

Hey Mr V, I did some research and found out what the post war plan is, but I thank you for your reply. :)

It is to have an American administration at the beginning and try to bring in Iraqi officials realtively quickly like you said.

So, with an entirely American administration in Iraq, who is going to get the majority of the oil and construction deals? ;)

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Warborn
No, there aren't, and it's about time you people pulled your head out of your ass and realized this. If Saddam was serious about disarming, there'd have been no unaccountable materials listed in their weapons summary. If he was serious, there wouldn't be 100 illegal missiles being crushed in Iraq a few a week. If he were serious, the inspectors wouldn't be complaining about poor Iraqi cooperation. But, no, you anti-war people will blindly chew and swallow whatever mass opinion is. It's pathetic, but it also makes me happy in a way. If someone can figure out how to make mass opinion entail having a clue, maybe you people will actually have an opinion someone apart from yourselves cares about sometime in the future.

Garbage. Pro-war people have very good points and anti-war people have very good points. Just because you don't agree with them does not mean they are pathetic and don't have a clue.

It should be very interesting to see how the US will deal with Iran now that it seems that they too have been developing WMDs (in violation of the non proliferation agreement). Are we going to to go to war with Iran next? Then NK after that? Heck, lets be at war for the next 10 years or so.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
You know, I'd like to see just one of you anti war people have to balls to argue these FACTS I posted. All I ever hear from these turtlenecked beret wearing hippies are the same 5 lines, with no facts to back it up. It's pathetic how brainwashed they are. Gortha, you're so anti US and anti war, why don't you bring some facts to the table and stop carrying the flag of the blind?

I challenge any of you anti war people to take on any of the articles I posted with fact. We both know you don't posses any.

Argue which facts? Argue the fact that Saddam should not be in power? I think most of the world agrees that they would prefer someone else in power besides Saddam. That is not where the anti war and the pro war folks disagree.

Just because you do not see a non military solution does not mean that such a solution does not exist. I can see why the world would not want to see Iraq with a US administration running it.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
You know, this is just a repeat of the old wars. The same liberals, weak kneed people, praised the virtues and values of the dictators, called them reasonable, and berated those who would stand against them. Lenin called them Usefull Idiots. Apparently it's genetic.

Who is praising Saddam. Gortha called Saddam a son of a bitch. I don't see anyone, liberal or otherwise, praising the job Saddam has done.

PS, remember that I am pro war, and MTX has stated he is pro war (I beleive). Bad mouthing liberals is not going to get you anywhere. :)

[Gortha]

@MrVicchio:

????!!!!Sorry!!!!???? ... hey mrVic did i send out those hords of Soldiers or your stupid BushiMuschi?

There was NEVER a NEED to send so much Troops out to Iraq...
The USA have to pay many i know, and RIGHT so!

The US-Administration is acting like a DiKtator... trying to blackmail other countries or just to say "If they are not WITH us they AGAINST us....blabla Bullshit" <--- This is imperialsitic and fashistic BULLshit!

Gortha

[Gortha]

@{BOHICA}Navaron

sINCE I AM a member of this Forum i posted really enough Reasons and Facts.... just test the Search option......

And i am not anti US i am Anti-Bush and Anti-Wolfowitz(who is a NeoConand one of the biggest Assholes and Kiregstreiber in the World)/Chainy/Rice/Powell lets say Anti-US-Administration. But not anti US... nothing against US-Americans.

Gortha

[MrVicchio]

Gortha,

When a Country Goes to war, Like we did in 1991 and we force the loser to sign an agreement because he go this but kicked, he then HAS to follow it or we gotta finish the job.


Here is the analogy for you:

Your a debt colloction agency, you take everything a man has, but his house, he PROMISES to pay everything back if you DONT take his house...

after 12 years, and you KNOW he has money, he has failed to pay what he owes... what would you, as the debt collection agency do?

A: Keep sending people over trying to FIND his money, even tho he keeps hiding his corevettes and high spped fishing boats and large sums of cash...

B: Take his house.


That simple enough for you?

[MrVicchio]

Lex,

Uhm, read my analogy in the above post.....

Now, using that, whose gonna get the money(oil deals)


Your debt collection agency or the people he's been paying to buy his stuff (France, Germany and russia)


That make it clear enough?

[KoldFusion]

Great job NAV. Nice post Mr. V.

Good discussion all. Gortha.... you posted fact? where? I have never seen it.

I will abstain from this discussion as everyone knows where i stand and i'm not going to rehash it.

[Gortha]

@WRH_KoldFusion:

Normally i would give a shit on this question, cause it is a waste of time to answer your questions....

But, for now i will answer.... WRH_KoldFusion there is a search-function in the Forum, lock at the top.... search after my name and u will find enough.

Gortha

[Navaron]

Gortha,

It would seem you have taken the same route as your country.

Don't try and refutiate any of these facts, just ignore them, and continue to slander the US. So is Iraqi plight just not your problem? Have you no morals? Or is money that important to you?

I'll repeat, I've yet to see you directly take on any fact here, or in 99% of your other posts. You just post little slander columns and posts from other people who don't trouble themselves with facts.

If you guys are so high and mighty, why can't you take on even ONE point out of all these articles I posted? Maybe cause it doesn't benifit your wallet? Or maybe cause you know you can sit back and let the US do the dirty work and then when the war is over step in and take your UN slice of the country- like your country and the french were trying.

[Gortha]

THere is the chance top disarm Iraq/Saddam without War... u can�t say NO.... this is stupid very stupid.... the US never brought a proof if there are weapons... with the proofs the US brought u can�t evidence an egg-thief that e has stolen some eggs.

And than u want to reason a war with those "proofs"....? lol

U know there is the Oil, there are the Weapons.... this all brings Money to someone. Especially the Oil.

There are the Neoconservative ThinkTanks(PNAC f.e.) who forged the Iraq-War/Plans already in 1998..... isn�t it droll, that many of these neoconservative PNAC-Members ("Project for The New American Century") are now Members of the US-Administration???

----------------------------------------
PNAC-Members:

Richard B. Cheney

Lewis Libby is Cheneys Stabschef,

Donald Rumsfeld

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz

Peter W. Rodman

John Bolton

Richard Armitage

Richard Perle, Chef of American Defense Policy Board,

William Kristol, the PNAC-chef, one of Bush�s biggest advisors

Zalmay Khalilzad
---------------------------------------------

And i think the most of u don�t know what in 1992 come out in the "New York Times":

Translatortext:

The 1992 of \"New the York Times \" suggestions, ran out formulated from the today's cabinet members Wolfowitz and Libby, revealed to replace the deterrence doctrine pursued during the cold war by a completely new global strategy.
A goal was the durable preservation of the superpower position of the USA - also opposite Europe, Russia and China.

This purpose should \"Mechanismen \" to serve, which deter
potenzielle competitors from it, \"unsere guidance in question to
place or also only a larger regional or global role to play want \" -
formulations, which admits after their becomes promptly for detuning in the metropolises of Europe and Asia provided. Necessarily, it meant in the Wolfowitz Libby paper, is above all a stable American supremacy in Eurasien. A country, which threatens the interests of the USA approximately by the acquisition of massenvernichtungswaffen, must
count on preventive attacks. The traditional alliances have to be
replaced by \"Ad hoc coalitions \", \"die not longer existence have
than the current crisis persist \". in September 2000 - only few
months before the start of the government Bush - locked the PNAC the work on an updating of the world-political master plan of 1992. This on behalf study written of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Libby (\"Rebuilding America\'s Defenses \") is the question to likewise dedicate, the \"wie global US supremacy upright to keep, the ascent of a rivaling great power prevent and the international safety order in accordance with American principles and interests be arranged can \".

This War is for: Money! Oil! WeaponIndustry! Saddams Death!(only good reason)

Have to work cya ya

Gortha

[KoldFusion]

Gortha,
I know there is a search function. I know how to use it. I was merely saying in a round about (sarcastically/poking fun at) way that you haven't posted anything of REAL relevance. Your last post is a step in the right direction.... (eventhough we will never see eye to eye) I commend you on your effort.

[Warborn]

the US never brought a proof if there are weapons... with the proofs the US brought u can�t evidence an egg-thief that e has stolen some eggs.

The US doesn't need to prove that Iraq has weapons. Iraq needs to prove that they don't have weapons, which even the inspectors have said Iraq has not done (large quantities of VX gas, among other weapons, are unaccounted for).

And no, it's not the job of the inspectors to find the weapons either. They're there to verify that the weapons have been destroyed. For example, when South Africa disarmed, the inspectors were there to prove that South Africa was free of all illegal weaponry. The South African government provided detailed records of all their weapons, free and unfettered access to all sites and personnel related to the weapons, and showed the inspectors that they had disarmed. Iraq has not done that, and will not do that.

Garbage. Pro-war people have very good points and anti-war people have very good points. Just because you don't agree with them does not mean they are pathetic and don't have a clue.

I've yet to hear any respectable anti-war points. All those people keep saying is "war solved nothing" and "there are better solutions" or "the inspectors haven't found any biological weapons so Iraq clearly doesn't have any", all of which are terribly ignorant and ill-conceived points. So, that aside, if you've something to add which I haven't already mentioned, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

[Gortha]

@Warbon:

Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?

[Mtx]

Originally posted by Warborn
The US doesn't need to prove that Iraq has weapons. Iraq needs to prove that they don't have weapons,



Guilty until proven innocent.

It's nice to know at least one of you admit we are acting like Communists. :rolleyes:

[MrVicchio]

MTX Gortha...

First off, the inspectors have had 12 years

Secondly, you forget, he HAD those weapons, and was supposed to SELF DISARM, not BE DISARMED, the inspectors are there to ensure IRAQI COMPLIANCE to play cat and mouse.

[Mtx]

What threat has Iraq been in the last 10+ years that requires an immediate American invasion?

Has he been using these weapons on anyone lately? Where are these weapons? Why can't the most powerful and technologicaly advanced military in the world find one shred of evidence? Oh that's right... because they're being outsmarted by a third world country. :rolleyes:

The economy is in a slump. War always helps an economy... especially when you get some oil out of it.

[Navaron]

"Guilty until proven innocent"

There was no proven to it. He admitted he was guilty, judgement was passed by the world, and he agreed to pay the piper. Then, he sees that there are a bunch of people out there who don't actually mean what they say. So then he broke his agreement.

No one has anything to prove except Hussein. His job was to show people that he had disarmed, this is why the world stopped kicking his ass.

This isn't a court case, it's a the execution of a sentence. There is no question of guilt.

"Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?"

How much more time do they need? They are detectives, they are reporters. The inspectors job is to watch hussein destroy and turn over his weapons.

Hussein has killed millions of his own people. If we were to go in recklessly and kill 500,000 Iraqi civillians, we would still kill less than he has and will in the future, so even in a worse case scenario, war is still the better option.

here's an article:

How Many People Has Hussein Killed?
By JOHN F. BURNS

n the unlit blackness of an October night, it took a flashlight to pick them out: rust-colored butchers' hooks, 20 or more, each four or five feet long, aligned in rows along the ceiling of a large hangar-like building. In the grimmest fortress in Iraq's gulag, on the desert floor 20 miles west of Baghdad, this appeared to be the grimmest corner of all, the place of mass hangings that have been a documented part of life under Saddam Hussein.

At one end of the building at Abu Ghraib prison, a whipping wind gusted through open doors. At the far end, the flashlight picked out a windowed space that appeared to function as a control room. Baggy trousers of the kind worn by many Iraqi men were scattered at the edges of the concrete floor. Some were soiled, as if worn in the last, humiliating moments of a condemned man's life.

The United States is facing a new turning point in its plans to go to war to topple Mr. Hussein, with additional American troops heading for the Persian Gulf, while France and Germany lead the international opposition. But the pressure President Bush has applied already has created chances to peer into the darkest recesses of Iraqi life.

In the past two months, United Nations weapons inspections, mandated by American insistence that Mr. Hussein's pursuit of banned weapons be halted, have ranged widely across the country. But before this became the international community's only goal, Mr. Bush was also attacking Mr. Hussein as a murdering tyrant. It was this accusation that led the Iraqi leader to virtually empty his prisons on Oct. 20, giving Western reporters, admitted that day to Abu Ghraib, a first-hand glimpse of the slaughterhouse the country has become.

In the end, if an American-led invasion ousts Mr. Hussein, and especially if an attack is launched without convincing proof that Iraq is still harboring forbidden arms, history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors.

Reporters who were swept along with tens of thousands of near-hysterical Iraqis through Abu Ghraib's high steel gates were there because Mr. Hussein, stung by Mr. Bush's condemnation, had declared an amnesty for tens of thousands of prisoners, including many who had served long sentences for political crimes. Afterward, it emerged that little of long-term significance had changed that day. Within a month, Iraqis began to speak of wide-scale re-arrests, and officials were whispering that Abu Ghraib, which had held at least 20,000 prisoners, was filling up again.

Like other dictators who wrote bloody chapters in 20th-century history, Mr. Hussein was primed for violence by early childhood. Born into the murderous clan culture of a village that lived off piracy on the Tigris River, he was harshly beaten by a brutal stepfather. In 1959, at age 22, he made his start in politics as one of the gunmen who botched an attempt to assassinate Iraq's first military ruler, Abdel Karim Kassem.

Since then, Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

Where the comparison seems closest is in the regime's mercilessly sadistic character. Iraq has its gulag of prisons, dungeons and torture chambers � some of them acknowledged, like Abu Ghraib, and as many more disguised as hotels, sports centers and other innocent-sounding places. It has its overlapping secret-police agencies, and its culture of betrayal, with family members denouncing each other, and offices and factories becoming hives of perfidy.

"Enemies of the state" are eliminated, and their spouses, adult children and even cousins are often tortured and killed along with them.

[Navaron]

Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."

There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Mr. Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.


The terror is self-compounding, with the state's power reinforced by stories that relatives of the victims pale to tell � of fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking and bucket-drowning. Secret police rape prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations. There are assassinations, in Iraq and abroad, and, ultimately, the gallows, the firing squads and the pistol shots to the head.

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 � surely a gross exaggeration � but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi �migr�s and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.

Just as in Stalin's Russia, the machinery of death is mostly invisible, except for the effects it works on those brushed by it � in the loss of relatives and friends, and in the universal terror that others have of falling into the abyss. If anybody wants to know what terror looks like, its face is visible every day on every street of Iraq.

"Minders," the men who watch visiting reporters day and night, are supposedly drawn from among the regime's harder men. But even they break down, hands shaking, eyes brimming, voices desperate, when reporters ask ordinary Iraqis edgy questions about Mr. Hussein.

"You have killed me, and killed my family," one minder said after a photographer for The New York Times made unauthorized photographs of an exhibition of statues of the Iraqi dictator during a November visit to Baghdad's College of Fine Arts. In recent years, the inexorable nature of Iraq's horrors have been demonstrated by new campaigns bearing the special hallmark of Mr. Hussein. In 1999, a complaint about prison overcrowding led to an instruction from the Iraqi leader for a "prison cleansing" drive. This resulted, according to human rights groups, in hundreds, and possibly thousands, of executions.

Using a satanic arithmetic, prison governors worked out how many prisoners would have to be hanged to bring the numbers down to stipulated levels, even taking into account the time remaining in the inmates' sentences. As 20 and 30 prisoners at a time were executed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, warders trailed through cities like Baghdad, "selling" exemption from execution to shocked families, according to people in Iraq who said they had spoken to relatives of those involved. Bribes of money, furniture, cars and even property titles brought only temporary stays.

MORE recently, according to Iraqis who fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries, scores of women have been executed under a new twist in a "return to faith" campaign proclaimed by Mr. Hussein. Aimed at bolstering his support across the Islamic world, the campaign led early on to a ban on drinking alcohol in public. Then, some time in the last two years, it widened to include the public killing of accused prostitutes.

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein.

-Yet again, we are disarming him, because he CAN NOT hit us here in the US with WMDs. He hates us, but can't deliver it. So what will he do to hit us? He'll get one of the many terrorist groups he sponsers to deliver it for him, right to the heart of NY or Chicago.

[Navaron]

"THere is the chance top disarm Iraq/Saddam without War... u can�t say NO.... this is stupid very stupid.... the US never brought a proof if there are weapons... with the proofs the US brought u can�t evidence an egg-thief that e has stolen some eggs."

Either you turn an intentional blind eye to the facts all over, or you have succumbed to the mass "popular" belief that nothing produced against Iraq is enough to take action.

[Gortha]

Inspectors watched the disarming 12 years this is right.... in this time 95 % of all Weapons of MassDestruction were destroyed!

Now there are 5 % and nobody knows what is with this weapons... because the Iraq kicked the Inspectors out of !their! country.

In the last weeks Iraq works better and better togehter with the Inspectors.

Same Question to u MrVicchio.... Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq or checking if there are weapons istead of killin many People with a War?

[Navaron]

"Inspectors watched the disarming 12 years this is right.... in this time 95 % of all Weapons of MassDestruction were destroyed!"

Not only is this not true, it's a blatent lie and huge piece of propaganda you have gleefully swallowed. I thought you were the fact man?

[Mtx]

And little girls are raped by older men and family members in Brazil.

What's your point?

You steal in Egypt and they'll cut your hand off. It's the middle east. They aren't what most would consider civilized. Saddam is a bit extreme but no less merciless than the rest of those wackos.

[Gortha]

Guys we know, that Hussein isn�t better than any other Dictator.

So what is the sense of these Infos?

It would be funny if really think the US wants to fall Saddam because of HumanRights...

The US/CIA put enough Dictators to power, even Saddam.
They know and not give a damn about what these Dictators do or have done.
This is a fact.
Try to disprove it... i can flood u with facts.

Sounds arrogant, but it's a great pity that it is the truth.

And u think the Human-Rights are just one of the reason for this US-American-War? Or why do u post these true cruelness about Saddam... the most of these cruels everybody knows from TV, Papers, etc. .

But it it is your opinion that Oil is not the reason, money the same.
Bush ruins the US... Clinton made a lot of money.
Bush is flushing it down the Toilet.

Ohh man i am babbling to get into scrape.

Okay three question i really wanted to get answered:

Why do u think is nearly the whole World against this War?
What about the millions of people who protestet?
Do u think this millions of people are totally stupid?

Have to play a Clan-War

Gortha

[MrVicchio]

Gortha...Reagan made the Economic Boom of the 90's, which was just an extension of the 80's.... don't fool yourself either.

It takes 5-8 years for a presidents "actions" to really effect the economy. Notice the economy was tanking BEFORE CLINTON LEFT OFFICE. Now, go take an economics course then come back to that line of bs

[MrVicchio]

PS Gortha...

as for your comment about "millions" of people protesting and not being stupid and all that...

Go look up the number of people prostesting against going to war with Hitler.. that cheered hitler... BEFORE WWII started.

Just cause a Million people think somethings right don't mean SHIT.

[Navaron]

"And little girls are raped by older men and family members in Brazil.

What's your point?

You steal in Egypt and they'll cut your hand off. It's the middle east. They aren't what most would consider civilized. Saddam is a bit extreme but no less merciless than the rest of those wackos"

Different ball game, genocide has never been tolerated, and these people don't do this to hundreds of thousands of people all over their own country.

Gortha, you do not understand economics - or at least US economics. Clinton is the reason we are in a hole, and the reason for the boom of the 90's was Reagan.

"Why do u think is nearly the whole World against this War?"

They are not, the majority of the world is WITH US. Over a dozen Arab countries are with us. Every single neighbor of Iraq has expressed support, and has not objected.


"What about the millions of people who protestet?"
In the US they are less than .04% of the population, there was a rally 10 miles from me with 5,000 people (I live in BFE, so it was alot of people), and the windchill was -2. Didn't hear about those did ya?

"Do u think this millions of people are totally stupid?"

Everyone has their own agenda.

[Navaron]

Here's a little fact I read today,

The post WW2 rebuilding of Japan cost the US 130% of our GDP.

Desert storm Aid for the region (which includes and surpasses Iraq) was less than 1% of the GDP.

As for a war for oil, that's a joke, we only get 30% of our oil from that region (none of which is from Iraq). Let's say it is just for oil, wouldn't it be alot smarter and alot better politically to drill in the hellhole that is ANWAR? We've got 100% of our oil needs for the next 35 years just sitting there.

I've heard alot of people pissed about how much it will cost to rebuild Iraq, and about involving the international community.

Why would the US pay to rebuild Iraq? They are an educated people. They make 20 billion dollars a year now just from their oil sales *this is during the embargo*. Post war economists say the they will make 60-80 billion dollars from oil alone. I'm thinking they can rebuild it themselves. The last thing the Iraqi people need is international control of their country - it didn't work in the 50's.

[KoldFusion]

http://msnbc.com/news/883129.asp?0ql=csp

check it out... case closed.... bye bye Iraq.
If they blow this off then it really shows the the UN is useless.

[Navaron]

BTW

Japan offered support, and to help pay for the US costs of the war.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Warborn

I've yet to hear any respectable anti-war points. All those people keep saying is "war solved nothing" and "there are better solutions" or "the inspectors haven't found any biological weapons so Iraq clearly doesn't have any", all of which are terribly ignorant and ill-conceived points. So, that aside, if you've something to add which I haven't already mentioned, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

How about the fact that war will probably cause 100's of thousands of casulties.

Are you so quick to sign their death warrants?

[Mtx]

If everyone was as arrogent as the US...


*China*

Did you know the US has BC missles that are designed to lay waste to 10 mile area?

OMG... the US could use one of those things on us. We should go invade their country and kill them all. :rolleyes:

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Lex,

Uhm, read my analogy in the above post.....

"Here is the analogy for you:

Your a debt colloction agency, you take everything a man has, but his house, he PROMISES to pay everything back if you DONT take his house...

after 12 years, and you KNOW he has money, he has failed to pay what he owes... what would you, as the debt collection agency do?

A: Keep sending people over trying to FIND his money, even tho he keeps hiding his corevettes and high spped fishing boats and large sums of cash...

B: Take his house.

Your debt collection agency or the people he's been paying to buy his stuff (France, Germany and russia)"

Now, using that, whose gonna get the money(oil deals)

That make it clear enough?
:confused:
Not clear at all. I am not exactly sure what the analogy is analogous to.

When I read your analogy, I read it as the UN was the debt collector and it was weapons that it was going to collect.

Somehow you switch it around to who desever the oild deals. :confused: I am having trouble making it from point A to point B here.

First off the analogy is very dissimilar to the situation. The debt collector (the UN) does not seem interested in kicking the man out of his house.

Secondly, it is not Saddam's house, it is the house of the Iraqi people.

I don't see what you analogy has to do with who is going to get the oil deals? Feel free to clarify this for me. It is very possible that I am missing something here.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Gortha...Reagan made the Economic Boom of the 90's, which was just an extension of the 80's.... don't fool yourself either.

It takes 5-8 years for a presidents "actions" to really effect the economy. Notice the economy was tanking BEFORE CLINTON LEFT OFFICE. Now, go take an economics course then come back to that line of bs

That is your opinion. There are creditable economic analysits who would disagree.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
[BGortha, you do not understand economics - or at least US economics. Clinton is the reason we are in a hole, and the reason for the boom of the 90's was Reagan.
[/B]
Again your opinion, not fact.

[Navaron]

Just a little fact. The UN has only approved 3 military actions ever, Korea, Desert Storm and (Wow, I can't believe I don't remember the last one - blaming it on the flu). Anyway, in everyone of those cases, the French, Germans, and Russians opposed military action AND US led action. So that means that they are consitantly anti US or pro "stay at home and let the other poor bastards die cause nothing bad ever happens to us". So is anyone suprised that they don't support war now?

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
[BThey are not, the majority of the world is WITH US. Over a dozen Arab countries are with us. Every single neighbor of Iraq has expressed support, and has not objected. [/B]

Turkey (who fears Iraq) objected and Iran (Iraqs long standing enemy) objected. If we have so much support, why can't we get the 9 votes for a resolution?

[Navaron]

"Again your opinion, not fact."

Not true, it is fact. I've got the proof somewhere around here. The numbers you see that say otherwise are not in correct context, and are usually in political debates (much like this one), and are contrued to be misleading. I'll try and find the official numbers sometime in the next few days. Besides, we both know that you can twist anything to suit your side.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
As for a war for oil, that's a joke, we only get 30% of our oil from that region (none of which is from Iraq). Let's say it is just for oil, wouldn't it be alot smarter and alot better politically to drill in the hellhole that is ANWAR? We've got 100% of our oil needs for the next 35 years just sitting there.

You know why we get no oil from Iraq? Because of sanctions against Iraq. If there were no sanctions against Iraq, the US would still not recive much oil directly from Iraq, becuase Iraq refuses to give us deals (although there were post sanction deals planned for other countries like France Germany and Russia).

Do you really beleive that the Iraqi government, which will be composed of an entirely American administration, will not give preferential treatment to US companies?

Why don't we drill somewhere else? That is because of how rediculously cheap it is to drill the oil in Iraq and how high quality the oil is. This is the same reason why the Russians are so interesterd in Iraqi oil even though they have lots of oil themselves.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Again your opinion, not fact."

Not true, it is fact. I've got the proof somewhere around here. The numbers you see that say otherwise are not in correct context, and are usually in political debates (much like this one), and are contrued to be misleading. I'll try and find the official numbers sometime in the next few days. Besides, we both know that you can twist anything to suit your side.

The bottom line is that you can find creditable economists that will atribute the economic boom to the Reagan administrtation, and I can find creditable economists that can atribute it to somewhere else; you can find economists that credit the decline to the Clinton administration and and I can find one that attributes it to somewhere else?

How about this question: if the economy takes an upturn in the next 4-6 years, do you plan on crediting Clinton with the upturn?

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Besides, we both know that you can twist anything to suit your side.
That is because I am good at what I do. ;) :evil:

:love: :cheers:-------------------------------- Lex
:ncrocks: :vsrocks: :trsucks: :wantbeta: :banplz:
And most importantly:
:usa:

[Arshune]

My economics teacher always taught us that economic policy's impact is vastly overshadowed by the events of the time. I think that holds water, I mean the ultimate economic control is in the minds of the people, isn't it? So go buy some stock, ya lazy bums!

[Gortha]

Thx @ Lex.... for the opinion-thing

@Navaron:

Let me tell u something.
It was a fault to try to talk about economic with a fan/elector of the conservatives.
It is the same as in germany, the conservatives say: NOOOO the Social Party af Germany did all the fault and made the owing debts and the Socials say: NOOOO the Chrisian German Union made all the depts!!!!!
And so on..... so lets delete the discussion abaut US-Economics out auf this thread.

And to all the Americans who think the most people of the world are with their political course.... NO the most arent.... 80 % of the Europe population are aginst war without UN-Mandate.... the Russians too, nearly whole Asia too, etc...

And u talk about the Muslims/Arabs etc.... they would be the last who will support you. Okay the Saudis... they are bought.

Blairs Government started to collapse... he�ll lose his face.
harhar *freu*

Let�s say u many of u are blind because of your TV.... u believe very thing your Government says... the are washing your head... your TV-Stations making War-Propagande en masse.
They are using September 11 to wash the American brains with patriotism.

Another Lie out of your government:

Saddam never supports Bin Laden, so why so many of u think he has something to do with WTC?

Where is your mojority?
Let me just say ..... vEtO ! ;P
But the Veto isn�t a must.... the US-Government never get those 9 votes.

[Confectrix]

Gortha:

I do not quite understand your lack of understanding in this matter. This preparation for war is not about Iraq's link to terrorism which we both know is evident and dynamic. This proposed war is about the enforcement of United Nations mandates.

I admire Prime Minister Blair for his staunch and steadfast will to continue on his course despite his political career. Your chancellor should model after this great leader. Blair stands for principle; Shroeder does not.

This war will occur with or without UN approval. How can the UN demand Iraq disarm as in SR 1441 but yet never act? France, Germany, and Russia are fast becoming problems for the world. The world is with us; France, Germany and Russia [the big ones] are not. France for some reason thinks it IS the EU. Germany runs elections by going against our policies. Russia is a dump with a decaying military which if not helped by us, Russian WMD would be in the hands of terrorists. I hate to say it; but the EU is dying.

All I know is; we will see how fast France and Gang come up with an excuse when the US uncovers WMD after taking Iraq.

[Gortha]

@Confectrix:


LoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL ;D

U really don�t know many whats goin on in the world.

I know, u know it out of your TV..... rotfl

Contifex u are not accountable whats your Government is doing...

after all only 14 % of the Americans elected Bush and only ~1/3 of the Americans went to the Presidental elections.... the biggest and BAD Joke is, that Gore had more votes than Bush.... so u really can�t anything for your Government.

Blair is a complete Idiot, he�s doning not what his people wants WHO elected him!

*sorryfortheflamesbutidisagreewithyourwisdom*

EDIT:

PS: France and Germany never said Saddam has no WDM�s.... but we want to find them without 100 - thousends of dead people, if there where WDMs.

[Navaron]

Yet again Gortha astounds us with a brilliant display of facts.

[Confectrix]

Gortha:

First off, I watch very little television and do more reading. I live in this nation of which you speak and thus I am very able to accuratly give you a true statement as to the current state of affairs. Your country however has a leader which is against our president and policy because it got him in office. I would try to shift through the crap you see and hear everyday in your own country.

Blair is doing what the people want; just not what all of the people want. Also, many people admire Blair; despite their opinion on the Iraq situation. They want a leader with principle; not a coward who does everything he can to get in and stay in office.

Your numbers are way off. Besides we elect by electorial college so he is legally elected. I have no complaints. Nor did anyone else prior to this election. Seems greed itched its way in this time.

We've spent 12 years trying to find and disarm weapons which sould have never been there to begin with. Saddam should give up those weapons. That's the issue.

Inspectors are to oversee the disarmarment; not chase the weapons down.

What do you think would happen if we pull our 300k troops out?

[Gortha]

Gore hadn�t more votes than bush? ;o
Does everybody telling shit about that�...

Okay, i�ll got berserk again... i will write more harmless in the next posts.

[Confectrix]

Two words:

Electorial College.

Please read up on how we do things. Then we can aruge who's right or wrong.

[Gortha]

I do not undersand your question....

u have 200 k Troops there.... whats the gerat difference if u put 300 k Troops there.
It�s nonsense...

Confectrix pls tell me, why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?

[Gortha]

Now i am confused.... ;P

There are some Books about Bush and many true stories about
Bush�s election.... in all these writings i can read out that Gore had won the Election if they did�t stop counting the votes.

pls explain me "Electorial College"... it seems to be a voting-system...

PS: anyway a voter turnout of 1/3 is poor

[Navaron]

"Confectrix pls tell me, why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?"

What's the point? I've told you, he'll tell you. You're just going to ignore it and post why Bush sucks. For someone with such a huge opinion, you have very little pride because you have not yet directly opposed one fact yet. You constantly say how we are stupid and brainwashed by our news - I can assure you that is not the case. In fact, I am very willing to believe that I check more global news sources than you. You are the one who keeps spouting the same company line, I've yet to hear an idea come from you that I haven't heard before ver batim.

[Confectrix]

Gortha:

It was not questioning the fact if we put more troops there; but rather what would happen if we pulled our troopes out.

We have given the inspectors twelve years and three months. No substanial progress has been made. Iraq has the inherant policy that if something is dragged out long enough; it'll drop below priority status; which has happend before. Pres. Bush and tohers are ensuring this desn't happen again. There are two solutions to this conflict: Saddam disarms or we disarm him.

He is very good at hiding things. Evidence presented at the UN by Colin Powell articulate that. Read up on it if you want to know more. I don't care to keep writing to you about the same stuff in a different way.

Which is better:

Give inspectors the time they want; let the issue subside like the last 12 years has done and then find out in the next ten years that Iraq has WMD and will use them.

OR

Go in now; with US technology there will be limited civilian causalties; and disarm Iraq.

[Gortha]

@{BOHICA}Navaron:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the answer of the question????
Never read it, never saw it, there is no answer!

Pls show it to me, could be i didn�t see it.

[MrVicchio]

Originally posted by Gortha
Now i am confused.... ;P

There are some Books about Bush and many true stories about
Bush�s election.... in all these writings i can read out that Gore had won the Election if they did�t stop counting the votes.

pls explain me "Electorial College"... it seems to be a voting-system...

PS: anyway a voter turnout of 1/3 is poor

Gortha.... Gortha Gortha Gortha,

Al Gore would not have won even if all the votes had been "counted" AFTER the election a group of Newspapers legally got ALL the ballots, and when THEY recounted them... Bush still won.

The reason the counting was stopped? The Supreme Court, despite what rumors and bs are spread by the left, did not stop them. Rather they said "You cannot have one standard in one county, and one standard in another county, that is unconstitutional" Thats when Gore's people quit, CAUSE THEY COULDN'T RIG THE VOTES. If anyone was trying to "steal" the election, it was Gore, and he lost his bid.

[MrVicchio]

Originally posted by Gortha
@{BOHICA}Navaron:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the answer of the question????
Never read it, never saw it, there is no answer!

Pls show it to me, could be i didn�t see it.

I gave it Gortha.

Simple, the only reason there ARE inspectors is because the USA has parked 250K+ troops out side Iraq and are postitioning to take down Saddam. Were we not there, inspections would NOT be occurring. THERE is your answer.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Gortha
Now i am confused.... ;P

There are some Books about Bush and many true stories about
Bush�s election.... in all these writings i can read out that Gore had won the Election if they did�t stop counting the votes.

pls explain me "Electorial College"... it seems to be a voting-system...

The thing is that in the US, the person who gets the most popular votes does not necessarily win the election.

The electoral college is made up of all the members of the house and the senate. Every state has two representatives in the senate and a number of representatives based on the states population in the house.

The elections are done state by state. If the majority of the people in New York state voted for Clinton, Clinton will get the vote of all of the House and Senate Representatives of New York. The votes are not divided percentage wise.

If you have the vote of the most house and senate represenatives, you win the election.

Electoral votes = the number of votes of senators and house representatives

popular votes = the number of votes of American Citizens

Example where a candidate can have the popular vote but lose the election:

If candidate X defeates candidate Y in california by a very small margin (51% to 49%), candidate X would get all of california's electoral votes (california has a large population so therefore is worth alot of electoral votes.)

If candidate Y wins by a landslide (70% to 30%) in New York (which is not worth as many electoral votes as California), Candid Y gets all of New yorks electoral college votes.

In this example, so far Candidate Y has more total popular votes. However Candidate X is winning the elction so far because they have more electoral votes.



Now as far as why Gore lost that gets even fishier. Gore definately had the most popular vote across america, but who had the most electoral votesl came down to the state of florida.

The Election in florida was conducted supiciously and the vote there was so close that they needed to do a recount. The recount there was conducted suspiciously.

Would it suprise you to learn that Jeb Bush (George Bush's brother) is governor of Florida?

At any rate, George dubya Bush is legally president of the united states.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Gortha
@Warbon:

Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?

1) As I said and you apparently did not read, the inspectors are not there to disarm Iraq. They're there to verify that Iraq has disarmed. Iraq has not done so. Already the inspectors have found illegal missiles, empty chemical warheads, numerous illegal items that Iraq has not accounted for, and there's been a distinct lack of cooperation on Iraq's part to help the inspectors do their job. It's laughable that people still believe Iraq has nothing to hide.

2) Aren't you German? I would think Germans of all people would understand why the "nah, we shouldn't go to war, let's give the evil dictator another chance" attitude doesn't solve problems.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
I gave it Gortha.

Simple, the only reason there ARE inspectors is because the USA has parked 250K+ troops out side Iraq and are postitioning to take down Saddam. Were we not there, inspections would NOT be occurring. THERE is your answer.
That doesn't answer why we shouldn't give them more time.

I am not sure what we are requiring Iraq to do by March 17th? Saddam has already agreed to let inspectors return on march 17th.

Gortha is not saying that a little sabre rattling is a bad thing, he is saying war with Iraq is a bad thing.

[Navaron]

"Would it suprise you to learn that Jeb Bush (George Bush's brother) is governor of Florida?"

Lex you and I both know that the recounts were done by democrats, in democratically controlled counties, under democratic electorial commisioners - and the trouble ballot was created by a democrat, and the democrat supreme court was the ones to stop the recount. Not Jeb Bush.

"Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?"

How much more time do they need? They are detectives, they are reporters. The inspectors job is to watch hussein destroy and turn over his weapons.

Hussein has killed millions of his own people. If we were to go in recklessly and kill 500,000 Iraqi civillians, we would still kill less than he has and will in the future, so even in a worse case scenario, war is still the better option."

There's your response Gortha. That also shows why you haven't come up with a rebuttle to one of my articles, because you haven't (apparently) read them.

[Navaron]

"That doesn't answer why we shouldn't give them more time.

I am not sure what we are requiring Iraq to do by March 17th? Saddam has already agreed to let inspectors return on march 17th."

See this is the perfect example, he'll just keep toying with the UN untill the next deadline comes up, then he'll say, oops I did it again, sure you can come back in, then the UN will make yet another resolution, with another useless deadline, that he'll kick everyone out untill. He's done it for over a decade.

Besides, the US can be a part of something as weak as the current UN, when we commit to something, and set a date, that date is when we expect it done by. We can't be weak like these other countries. Like I said earlier, they've all vetoed, abstained or voting against every military resolution except for 3, and the US has led it's own coalition in every time.

[MrVicchio]

Lex, we sent the troops there to show Saddam we ment business. We did not send them there so that Saddam would give tid bits every few weeks or months to the inspectors, he gives all, or he gets dead.

You DO NOT use the military like that, you can't leave teh ships, teh troops.. the equipment there "until Saddam is disarmed by the inspectors" That would wrong, and bad for people and equipment.

HE MU"ST do what he agreed to do, or there will be war. The war will on the hands of SADDAM, not the USA, not the UN.. only Saddam.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Would it suprise you to learn that Jeb Bush (George Bush's brother) is governor of Florida?"

Lex you and I both know that the recounts were done by democrats, in democratically controlled counties, under democratic electorial commisioners - and the trouble ballot was created by a democrat, and the democrat supreme court was the ones to stop the recount. Not Jeb Bush.

"Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?"

How much more time do they need? They are detectives, they are reporters. The inspectors job is to watch hussein destroy and turn over his weapons.

Hussein has killed millions of his own people. If we were to go in recklessly and kill 500,000 Iraqi civillians, we would still kill less than he has and will in the future, so even in a worse case scenario, war is still the better option."
Who ran the election in florida? Are you going to tell me that Kennedy's defeating Nixon wasn't a bit suspicious either? ;) But we are not here to talk about elections.

Saddam's killing Iraqi people does not justify the killing half a million people by the US.

What is so wrong about attempting to spend a bit more time so that half a million more people don't have to die.

Aren't those Iraqi lives worth a little bit more time? :)

[Confectrix]

Nav:

I have to side with Lex on this singular point. One cannot justify the killing of innocent lives to safeguard the lives of the future [or by equating what Saddam did to what we intend to do].

Regards,

[MrVicchio]

A half million wont die.. I would be shocked if the death toll from AMERICAN hits goes over 10k. And most of those will be military.

12 years is long enough. 12 years and how many have died, been tortured... maimed, raped... all for what? To give Saddam time to do that which he has repeastedly given the finger too... disarming.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
12 years is long enough. 12 years and how many have died, been tortured... maimed, raped... all for what? To give Saddam time to do that which he has repeastedly given the finger too... disarming.

The number of years shall be 12 and 12 shall be the number of years.

Why 12 and not 11 or 13? Seems a bit arbitrary doesn't it?

[Confectrix]

The point, Lex, is simply the fact that twelve years is long enough. Don't you agree?

[Lexington_Steele]

Don't look at me, I am for war with Iraq. :)

[Confectrix]

Why the clever remark about dates?

[Lexington_Steele]

Someone needs to argue the antiwar side. If not me than who?

(btw, the correct question to ask me, was how long is enough time ;) )

[Navaron]

"Saddam's killing Iraqi people does not justify the killing half a million people by the US. "

My point was that by our ridding the country of him, less Iraqis would die in the next 10 years - and that's counting the causulties of war.

Plus you also have to take into account the number of weapons he would give to terrorist organizations all over the world and their consequent strikes and fall out.

"One cannot justify the killing of innocent lives to safeguard the lives of the future"

We won't intentionally kill them. We will kill MANY MANY less than we did in the first war due to highly superior technology. But the phrase for the good of the many, a few must suffer applies now. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in. However, the US will do everything in it's power to minimize causualties - and is even talking of dropping pamphlets before attacks begin to tell people to run.

"Aren't those Iraqi lives worth a little bit more time?"

Those few Iraqi civillians who will die are miniscule compared to the terror and greater number of deaths all around the world and in his direct region the next time he goes bankrupt.

[Confectrix]

No; I asked if you agreed to my statement preceeding the question. Which is correct; because that's what I wanted to know.

Your for the war; yet you argue against it. Why? Do you like to keep this thread going?

:evil:

[Navaron]

Lex is one of PSU's master debators.

[Confectrix]

I know. He is very good at what he does.

[Navaron]

I have to say, if it weren't for lex, I would have no real opposition here in the forums. I really like Lex, and even though we often disagree, we have a very ''sparing'' relationship.

[Confectrix]

Lex does give one an interesting read.

[Headrattle]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Saddam's killing Iraqi people does not justify the killing half a million people by the US. "

My point was that by our ridding the country of him, less Iraqis would die in the next 10 years - and that's counting the causulties of war.

I think the actual act of war will kill more civilians then he will kill in the next ten years.
We will be invading him, and he will do anything to keep Bagdad. This includes bombing his own people just because Americans are in that area.

Plus you also have to take into account the number of weapons he would give to terrorist organizations all over the world and their consequent strikes and fall out.

You do have a point here, I won't lie.

"One cannot justify the killing of innocent lives to safeguard the lives of the future"

We won't intentionally kill them. We will kill MANY MANY less than we did in the first war due to highly superior technology. But the phrase for the good of the many, a few must suffer applies now. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in. However, the US will do everything in it's power to minimize causualties - and is even talking of dropping pamphlets before attacks begin to tell people to run.

This is debateable. Remember Afganistan, How many bombs hit incorrect targets there? Quite a few. These weapons aren't as great as most would think. They are still guided by humans. There is still a very large margin of error.

"Aren't those Iraqi lives worth a little bit more time?"

Those few Iraqi civillians who will die are miniscule compared to the terror and greater number of deaths all around the world and in his direct region the next time he goes bankrupt.

I disagree once again. Saddam is going to drag down as many people as he can when he falls. He is going to kill many more people then if he was just left to stew in his own juices. When we attack he WILL shoot missiles at Isreal. He WILL use what ever he has to hit any allies or bases of america.

And if he doesn't then he wasn't able to anyway.

Why do I say this? Because he is an evil man. People just aren't giving him enough credit on how evil and messed up he is. Didn't he kill his first person when he was in his teens? Imagine a LA gang member becoming a leader of a country. It is that level of evil.

And once this does happen. The occurances of violence in the middle east will once again increase.
We might be going there to liberate Iraq, but they see it as conquest.

I had to intervene, Lex. I am not defending you, just putting my opinion outthere.

[Lexington_Steele]

Awww guys, your making me blush. :o

:love: to all of you (especially to Confecterix and Nav). :D

[Confectrix]

Headrattle:

SMART weapons are just that. Laser guided weapons are quite efficent. In Afganastan it was a waste [of money and the manpower to deploy them] simply because if you miss you hit a mountain. If you miss in Iraq you chance hitting a hospital. Consequently, laser guided munitions will be used much more in this conflict. Thereby reducing loss of unintended casualties.

Saddam may want to bring down everyone once he knows it is over; however will his generals carry out his orders knowing they will be charged with war crimes? Furthermore, Saddam knows that if he sends anything to Isreal; Isreal will turn Iraq into swiss cheese; and rightly so.

Once Saddam is gone and a democratic government is installed; Isreal won't be alone. I think tensions might even subside for a time. Besides; no one wants to be next on the list of American targets for terrorism.

[Headrattle]

Originally posted by Confectrix
Headrattle:

1: SMART weapons are just that. Laser guided weapons are quite efficent. In Afganastan it was a waste [of money and the manpower to deploy them] simply because if you miss you hit a mountain. If you miss in Iraq you chance hitting a hospital. Consequently, laser guided munitions will be used much more in this conflict. Thereby reducing loss of unintended casualties.

2: Saddam may want to bring down everyone once he knows it is over; however will his generals carry out his orders knowing they will be charged with war crimes? Furthermore, Saddam knows that if he sends anything to Isreal; Isreal will turn Iraq into swiss cheese; and rightly so.

3: Once Saddam is gone and a democratic government is installed; Isreal won't be alone. I think tensions might even subside for a time. Besides; no one wants to be next on the list of American targets for terrorism.

1: You forget we don't really have anything BUT smart bombs.
But we still mark the wrong target.
In afganistan they still hit buildings that weren't the targets. Sometimes by miles. This is somehting that happens during war. The fact that Saddam has been basing legit targets next to schools and hosbitals only compounds this fact. I hate it when people believe that we can hit with precision 100% of the time. We are accuarate, but we WILL miss. We will kill civilians. This is just something that is bound to happen. Even with the new satalite guided bombs.

2: The followers that have survived thus far are fanatics. They are going to do what ever he says. Because if they didn't he would have killed them. They HAVE gassed, killed, and tortured his own people. The "Republican Guard" are the guys that will do anything he says, and that means take down as many as they can. Think of the SS only more fanatical. These guys have everything to lose if they don't to these things.

3: I am not talking about other countries. in that reguard nothing will change. Not really. The civilians of all of the arab countries will still hate us. The only difference is now the ones that weren't going to do anything about it will feel a little more threatened and decide to strike back. We are doing the thing that the extremists have been accusing us of for 20 years. We are trying to colonize every arab nation in an attempt to stamp out the islamic way of life. That is what they think they are doing. read any manifesto.

I am not for the war. But I am not against it. I would rather have more allies behind us, but that isn't going to happen. I would rather have more time, but if we go back on our threats then fewer nations will take us seriously. We have painted ourself into a corner. We have rattled our sabre too long. We have to pull it out of the scabbard.

And a large part of me wants to get it over with.

[Gortha]

And again: This War is not for HumanRights or WMD... It is to controll Iraqi Oil.... and take control of middle East.... .

Try to find out something about the PNAC - Plans ....
and think about them.

Keep USA big, hold all the others down.
Imperialistic Plans.
Thats the main reasons.

U can�t establish a democracy in Iraq.... it wont work.

In the north of Iraq there will start a War between Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis plus other gruops becouse of the Oilfields there.

And to those who are always saying : Gortha u always say the same.... blabla *wine* f.e Navaron or MrV ..... to you:

U are always saying the same too.


Greetz
Gortha

[Navaron]

See Gortha, you're wrong. I always posts facts, with documented support. You always post hate mail or conspiracy theories. Simple fact is, I don't think you have an arguement that you can base on fact. If you did, you would have made it long ago. You really aren't as keen on facts as you say.

[Gortha]

*zzz*

Navaron u must be one of Bush�s INet-Propaganda-Man. :p

Navaron i posted enough facts, but u say that are no facts... the same i do to your "facts"..... blabla .... Saddam had 12 years... too long....blabla... lets kill him.... not many civil casaulties....he kills his whole population if we don�t kill him within 10 years....blabla

Then u post some articles as i did also, but your articles are all good, my articles are all fakes.
Try to open your eyes... War is no solution.

[MrVicchio]

Gortha,

You base your decisions on feelings, you feel passionate about the thought of dead Iraqi Civilians... you buy into this kooky theroy of WAR FOR OIL! Cause it sounds, on the face of it, like it might be real. So it gives you a "good" feeling to "hate" Dubya.

I don't see why you do.... If it was Algore in office, we'd have been attacked several times by now because, and be honest here, do you REALLY think he would have done what Dubya did and remove the Taliban from power thus send Al-Quada running?

Why War With Iraq Is Not About The Oil

By Gary S. Becker

A number of leaders of the antiwar movement have been loudly proclaiming that a war with Iraq would be all about America's desire to gain control of oil supplies there and elsewhere in the Middle East. In a recent BusinessWeek story, a German Green Party opponent of war was quoted as saying: "Saddam is no saint, but to me the whole thing smells of...oil." This economic argument, popular in Europe, makes little sense. If oil were the driving force behind the Bush Administration's hard line on Iraq, avoiding war would be the most appropriate policy.

Iraq, along with other important producers, must export its oil to gain the resources to buy goods, including weapons. Since oil is sold in a fluid world market, any nation, including the U.S., can get pretty much all the oil it wants by paying world prices. So the U.S. would be better off if it encouraged Iraq to export more, not less, oil because that would lower oil prices. Yet America has not done this. Since the Persian Gulf War, it has led the international community in restricting Iraqi production as a means of pressuring Saddam Hussein to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction.

Outbreak of a war in Iraq would cost the U.S., not save it, large sums of money. Already the runup to war has sent oil prices spiraling upward, imposing, in effect, a large tax on all energy consumers. War would initially cause prices to escalate further, as happened in the early days of the Gulf War. The largest estimates of the cost of a conflict with Iraq--estimates above $150 billion, or 1 1/2% of U.S. gross domestic product--are based on the assumption that oil production facilities in Iraq, and possibly elsewhere in the Middle East, would be destroyed or put out of commission for a considerable period of time.

Even if all Iraqi production capacity were to be destroyed, world oil output for a year would fall by less than 4%. Such a cutback in supply for that year, it is estimated, could raise oil prices by as much as 40%. That would mean a jump in price from about $35 a barrel now to a little less than $50 a barrel--a significant increase but still far smaller than the tripling of prices after the first oil shock in 1973. Oil might spike temporarily to $50 a barrel. I should add, however, that a price very far above $50 a barrel is highly unlikely.

Moreover, in the event of a war, oil is likely to remain below $50 a barrel since much of the war premium has already been priced in. Also, other producers could be expected to expand output to take advantage of the higher prices, and America should use some of its strategic oil reserves to get more oil into the marketplace.

The developed economies are also considerably less dependent on oil today than after previous oil price shocks--when OPEC was formed in the 1970s and when Iraq attacked Iran in the 1980s. These economies have learned to economize on oil and other fossil fuels by developing new technologies, including more efficient automobiles and airplanes. As a result, the share of income spent on oil has declined by more than half in the U.S. and other rich economies. So an upward boost of oil prices of even 50% would have a significantly less disastrous effect on the U.S., Europe, and Japan than similar price jumps have had in previous decades.

Today, Middle Eastern nations are far less important to world oil production than they were immediately after the formation of OPEC. Their share of world oil production has fallen from almost 40% then to less than 30% now. In order to raise the global price of oil, the OPEC cartel, led by Saudi Arabia, had to restrict its members' production. This raised prices, encouraging non-OPEC nations, including Russia, to expand production. Also, oil companies have made greater efforts to find new deposits deep in ocean waters, in the frozen tundra of Siberia, and in China and elsewhere.

Saudi Arabia tries to create the impression that it produces more oil than it would like in order to keep world prices from rising further, and in this way, it curries favor with America and Europe. Indeed, there may be an element of political accommodation. But mainly the Saudis are helping themselves. They know that forcing prices still higher with additional cuts in their production and that of neighboring Persian Gulf states would accelerate the erosion of demand for Mideast oil as other producers expand output and industrial nations further economize on the use of oil.

Consequently, if the major driver of American policy toward Iraq were concern about oil and its cost, it would be best to avoid a Middle East conflict and the risk of much higher prices. A war with Iraq is not about oil. It is about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses to his neighbors, his people, and to nations around the world. Critics might argue against that position, but they only confuse the issue by once again trotting out the oil card.

Gary S. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate, teaches at the University of Chicago and is a Fellow of the Hoover Institution

[Gortha]

http://www.systranlinks.com/systran/cgi?systran_lp=de_en&systran_id=Abacho-de&systran_url=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239559,00.html&systran_f=1047383722


read this page...very interesting.... it is translated.

Update :

Here is Part 2 translated:

http://www.systranlinks.com/systran/cgi?systran_lp=de_en&systran_id=Abacho-de&systran_url=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239559-2,00.html&systran_f=1047384487

[MrVicchio]

They are quoting CYNTHIA McKinney? The same idiot that said

'"we should investigate what bush knew(in reguards to 9/11) and when he knew it, no I don't have any evidence that he let the attacks happen, bu if we investigate we might..."

The SAME idiot that asked for the 20 million dollars Rudy Guilliani refused from that Saudi Prince after the attaks....


The same one ousted in the 2002 elections?


Look, you have to look at the source, and that woman is has been repeatedly discredited for her lack of any semblance of integrity.

[Lexington_Steele]

Viccio, Gary S. Becker obviously has an uninformed opinion, or he is spouting half truths to argue against oil being a motivation for war.

A good portion of the Iraqi oil has already been promised out to oil companies. They have exclusive rights.

GB and the US are the two main countries that have been excluded from these deal.

Yes we could buy Iraqi oil, but we would likely be buying it from French, Russian or German oil companies, not from Iraq.

US Officials have also stated that they are likely to pay for the war with Iraqi oil.

I am not saying that oil is the only reason for war, however it is very easy to make the connection.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio

I don't see why you do.... If it was Algore in office, we'd have been attacked several times by now because, and be honest here, do you REALLY think he would have done what Dubya did and remove the Taliban from power thus send Al-Quada running?


How do you know what Gore would have done? For all you know, Gore might have have captured Bin laden by now.

How do you figure that we would have been attacked many times by now if under Gore? What information are you basing that on?

How can you attack someone for something they didn't do and for things didn't happen?

You don't see me making silly comments like "If Gore was elected president, 9/11 would never have happened."

[MrVicchio]

Algore would have signed the Kyoto accords

Algore would have signed the USA on to the World Court

Algore is much like Clinton in that he had a disdain for the military

Algore was MORE dangerous then Clinton, cause unlike Clinton, Algore actually belived in more then fame and power... that is scary

BTW incase you missed that part:

Gary S. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate, teaches at the University of Chicago and is a Fellow of the Hoover Institution

Yes, I would say he is a very uniformed person with no crediblity at all.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio


Gary S. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate, teaches at the University of Chicago and is a Fellow of the Hoover Institution

Yes, I would say he is a very uniformed person with no crediblity at all.
Then tell me how Professor Becker would refute my points?

btw, he got his nobel prize"for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behavavior."

He is a social scientist that studies human behavior and its effects on the economy.

His award and status do not put political science or macro economics into his domain.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Algore would have signed the Kyoto accords

Algore would have signed the USA on to the World Court

Algore is much like Clinton in that he had a disdain for the military

Algore was MORE dangerous then Clinton, cause unlike Clinton, Algore actually belived in more then fame and power... that is scary
I am not sure that Gore would have signed the Kyoto accords. I am not sure that He would have signed us to the World court.

Even if he did, why does that mean that Gore would have done nothing after 9/11? Why does that mean that Al-Quada would have launched more attacks than they did?

[MrVicchio]

:rolleyes:

Go read "Earth in the Balance"

According to its author (algore) the most dangerous threat to man kind is the internal combustion engine... he stated he WOULD sign the Kyoto accords, that the World Court was "good idea and he fully supported it"

HE would NOT have launched a full scale invasion of Afghanistan.. I just cant see him doing that. Thus Al-Quada would still have a country to operate from, and would have attacked again.. thats just common sense man.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
:rolleyes:

Go read "Earth in the Balance"

According to its author (algore) the most dangerous threat to man kind is the internal combustion engine... he stated he WOULD sign the Kyoto accords, that the World Court was "good idea and he fully supported it"

HE would NOT have launched a full scale invasion of Afghanistan.. I just cant see him doing that. Thus Al-Quada would still have a country to operate from, and would have attacked again.. thats just common sense man.
How do you know he would not have gone into afganistan?

and

He would have needed congress's support to sign the Kyoto accords.

[Navaron]

We don't know that he wouldn't have gone into afghanistan, but we can infer that he would take the same action as his last office did, which was to lob 560 million dollars of tomahawks at nothing. I guess it made it look like retaliation.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
We don't know that he wouldn't have gone into afghanistan, but we can infer that he would take the same action as his last office did, which was to lob 560 million dollars of tomahawks at nothing. I guess it made it look like retaliation.
????? :confused: ?????

I fail to see the concetion from that to responding to the 9/11 incident?

Different actions call for different responses. The Clinton administration did not experience anything like 9/11. How is it that you can infer the action's Gore would have taken when there is nothing similar to compare it to?

[Navaron]

In '98 when Bin Ladin attacked the US embassies in Africa, Clinton fired 560,000,000 dollars worth of cruise missiles into afghanistan (remember one hit pakistan) over 50 days.

[Lexington_Steele]

Are you trying to tell me there was not a big difference between the embasy incident and 9/11?

[MrVicchio]

There was a huge difference, one was on foriegn soil, the other on US Soil, that makes a world of difference.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
There was a huge difference, one was on foriegn soil, the other on US Soil, that makes a world of difference.

And a much greater amount of american lives were lost in 9/11.
And it had a huge impact on the US economy.
And every single American felt the effects of that attack.

There was a world of difference between 9/11 and the bombing of the embassy.

Different incidents require different responses, hence why you can not determine how the Gore administration would have handled 9/11 based on how the Clinton Administration handled the embassy bombing.

[Gortha]

Re Guys...

here is something "funny" for you:

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml


The arcticle which was translated, made it you thoughtfully?

Here is comes the next:

Part1:

http://www.systranlinks.com/systran/cgi?systran_lp=de_en&systran_id=Abacho-de&systran_url=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239721,00.html&systran_f=1047475303

Part2:

http://www.systranlinks.com/systran/cgi?systran_lp=de_en&systran_id=Abacho-de&systran_url=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239721-2,00.html&systran_f=1047475430

Greetz
Gortha

[Gortha]

*piep*