 |
| |
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Lord Merciless:
Al qaeda is not a state!
|
Who cares? Does it make a difference?
quote:
"Hurting the US" is not a common aim of the same category. What the hell does Saddam gain, other than being vaporized, from simply hurting the US? Does he get US troops of his case? and end to the sanctions regime? No, an attack against the US with WMD gains Saddam none of the things he wants at this moment , or even in the future. There is no rational reason, or even a possiblly rationalized hope that Saddam could have to aid a bunch of fanatics (who don't like him anyway) do somehting that gives him to immidtate or long-term benefit.
|
I see that you are not evil enough to be a dictator. I also see that you are a reasonable person and think powerhungry tyrants are just as reasonable as you. I'd like to know you someday.
quote:
As for selling nukes: if you have just one, you don't sell. Ten you have none and you are trully screwed. The N.koreans sell missiles cause they can make them in large quantity. Maybe, if and wen the N.Koreans get to biulding many nukes a year, we should worry about them selling nukes (though a group like Al Qaeda could hardly afford the probable asking price) but the notion that Iraq, with one solitary little nuke, would do so? No. |
If you can produce 1 nuke, how about producing more? Why do you think that Iraq is restricted to having only 1 nuke?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
"MONEY" is the reason for France's veto besides being the asswipe country of the world. Their economy is in shambles and if they agree to the attack on Iraq the USA will come calling for financial help with the war bill. They don't want to pay or be financially involved. Russia votes no because Iraq owe's them something like 70 million and would like to be repaid and figure if the current Iraqi gov't is destroyed the bill becomes chapter 11. China would vote yes but have problems with the USA - Tawain issue. Always follow the money trail.
You have to remember in Bush's platform to become President he said he would lower taxes and remove an evil from the Iraq. We voted him in on that platform, now you are accusing him of fulfilling his promise, how hypocritical.
As for Saddam, he has tried to invade two countries, suceeded with one and was thrown out without direct responsibility held accountable directly to him. He should have been removed then. He has gased men, women and children in Kurd territory, he used chemical and biological weapons in his war with Iran. He launched 39 scuds into Israel who played no military part in the Gulf war, he threw out the inspectors in 1998, he has starved his people in the OIL for FOOD program and used the proceeds to try and buy illegal weapons and then turned around and said the USA is starving his people by continuing the embargo, he has said he will do whatever he can to end Israel's existance in the Middle East. Even if he isn't now allied with Al Queda politics make strange bedfellows. Afghanistan was no enemy to the USA prior to Sept'11 either but geeee what happened and the people responsible were located there. We are the enemy of both Iraq gov't and Al Queda, how long before they do work together against the USA, especially if they go uncheked. The USA and Britain are the only major powers confining Iraq now at a great cost but the cost would be much greater if let loose, given Iraq's past history.
If unchecked or not removed and he gains military power and technology, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind he would launch and attack on another neighbor again or Israel. He his determined to be the undisputer leader of the Middle East and he would nuke Israel in the hopes of instigating a full fledged war against the Zionists including the USA. We know it is futile but he doesn't and that's the danger and we need to void him the weapons to do it or remove him.
If you think you can just leave him alone and he will go away you are sadly mistaken and could pay dearly for it and in the process possibly hurt innocent people in the world and they could be my children. I guarantee you if the USA is hit again, especially with a nuke, and it could have been prevented, God save the world, because the USA will tear the world a new ass.
Use your common sense and lets settle this now so that horrible avenue is not a possibility. I strongly believe that Iraq's generals will say screw it and turn over their division's when confronted with the USA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Hurting the US" is not a common aim of the same category. What the hell does Saddam gain, other than being vaporized, from simply hurting the US? "
--the esteemed GePap
I don't know. What did Bin Laden get? |
His name in all the papers of the world, huge crowds of followers, immortality, and he is still alive cause we can't find him!
Saddam has a state to plunder. He has a fixed local. Lets just say that Saddam is like a home owner with a mortage, while Osama is a punk kid without even a credit card. Osama has lots to gain, little to loose. Saddam has a hell of a lot to lose, and very little to gain. Men who were the end of their state, and/or legacy are hardly ever remembered fondly.
quote:
It seems that some people here are writing off the idea that al Qaeda and Saddam would cooperate in an effort againt its common enemy. I don't really understand why? So they hate each other, but they still should cooperate against a common enemy. |
The US may be a common enemy of both, but for very different reasons. Iraq does not want to overthrow in a bloody revolution the world order: he would be fine living in that order, as long as he held a nice post in it. The notion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not as obvious as everyone seems to think. For example Gore and Nader had common archenemies, no? Bush & Co? Did they work together? No, because in the end, the differences between both these groups were so large that a common emnity was not enough to keep them together. Back in 1990, Saddam basically offered to be OUR (the US's) local thug, like the Shah used to be. For various reasons,we did not want him in that role, so the US anbd Iraq became Enemies. If the US wanted, it could always offer to make Saddam our local thug after all, and all the anti-US talk from Baghdad would end. I am not saying thast we should or we will, but there are many ways in which the US and Iraq could (if all went that way) become semi-allies, as they were in the 1980's. We can't return to the 1980's with Osama was well. Now that the SU is gone, we have nothign to offer Osama. We have become the sole pillars of the system, so it no longer makes sense for a revolutionary like himself to work with us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Gepap, you say what does Saddam get, but your assuming Saddam is rational, when his entire history is irrational. |
Sorry Chris62, but the majority of his actions seem extremely rational, or at least, ones one can rationalize.
Lets go down the list:
Being evil: you have to be, to have total power.
Invading Iran in 1980: The new Iranian revoltuionaries were formenting revolts within his state, trying to assasinate members of his government. Plus the revoltuion had greatly weakened what had, until then, been a vastly more powerful military than his own. So he invaded to get Iran of his case, and end various border disputes to favor Iraq.
Using WMD against Iran: Iran is bigger and has more people and resources than Iraq. Why not use weapons that equalize this situation, specially when you know the world community won't care, since the guy you are hitting has become the world's No 1 badguy?
Using WMD on the Kurds: Kurds were trying to bring down his rule, his army had already gotten used to using chemical weapons on the battlefield, and using them against the kurds would be both cheaper than going in with conventional forces, and be of great psychilogical impact against his enemies.
Invading Kuwait: if he succedded, he owuld greatly imporve his finantial situation by erasing billions of billions of dollars in debt,a nd gain a better hand at keeping oiul prices steadily high so he could pay of the rest of what he owed and maintain his grip on power. Since the US was unclear about what it weould do gievn his act, he gabled.
One might say, he war irrational in not pulling back from Kuwait before the gulf war begun, but, you could say the same about the US not getting out of vietnam sooner, couldn't you? Saddam had too much to loose, and most people did not expect the war to be so quick (remember talk of 10,000 US casualties coming from inside the US itself.) And as for not giving up all hiw WMD after the guf war: he took a gable that he would outlast his persuers, and until 9/11 and Osama gave the Neo-cons. in the US the perfect cover to act, he was right: after all,the inspectors were gone, and yet talk in the UN about loosening the sactions regime was coming about, even in the Bush white house.
I fail to see the "irrational" actions you speak of.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Saddam is rational; I agree with Gepap on that."
Yes. You and David Floyd and all the rational people do.  |
DF might be annoying, and may hold very radical notion's that 99% of people on Poly might disagree with, but he is logically consistent based on his assumptions.
You may not agree with what DF says, but he is a better debater than most people here: of course it seems that many people on Poly can't differentiate between beliefs and abilities. How sad.
Azazel, Drake:
Saddam has taken one crazy risk in his whole carrer, the invasion of Kuwait. Had things been a little different, it would have payed of. Yes, Saddam is immensely paranoid, but so was Uncle Joe, and yet Uncle Joe never pushed the button. Hell, even Mao, who kept saying that nuclear war is no big deal, never did anythign particularly crazy with nukes. Can either of you give me any evidence that we could trust Saddam with nukes less than Uncle Joe or Mao?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Not to hit this to hard, but rational people don't put their picture everywhere, give continous coverage of everything they do, and think that gassing and killing is the best way to hold power.
That may be pragmatic, but it's not rational. |
Someone who is irrational can't be pragmatic: how can one judge correctly what will and won't be practical, if one is unable to reason and make good cost-benefit annalysis?
Moral people may not want to put their picture everywhere, and gas and kill thousands, but if your aim is to be the absolute ruler of a place, then you do such things. Quibble and argue all you want about Saddam's basic premises, but if I can assume, that once I know his basic premise, his basic values, I can judge with great accuracy what he will do, then the man is Rational. He may be an immoral, narcissitic, paranoid son of a *****, but that does not make one a raving lunatic that would do anyting.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2003 01:13
|