29-01-2003 22:29									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV Would this be similar to the satellite photos of Mig 17's on the runway at Kabul airport quoted as part of the Taleban's defence capability that turned out not to have moved since the Russians left Afghanistan? Then again, even Adolf Hitler felt he needed a pretext to invade Poland.

A: we think saddam has WMD

B. We need EVIDENCE

A: We have the word of defectors, etc

B: They could be lying. We need PHOTOGRAPHS

A: we will present photographs

B: Photographs dont prove anything

A: Why am i bothring trying to convince you????

	29-01-2003 22:36									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay >>>>A man who has been in power for as long as hussein would have very little to gain and everything to lose by going this route. Do you know how he defines gains and losses??? What did he have to gain by trying to execute Bush Sr?? >> Now, with the entire Western Intelligence apparatus with eyes on him, he's even more likely to go this route?? Western intellegince is difficult to come by in Iraq, and is widely discounted, as shown in the current debate. >>And why single hussein out for this potential threat when there are many, many countries that are capable of the same thing.? A trumped-up, speculatory threat. Which ones have WMD and are run by megalomaniacs with Saddams hisotry of risk taking. >>>If If If If. You could apply this same rationale to about 4 or five other countries at the moment. Name them >>>He also made a gross miscalculation when he thought the US wouldn't respond to his Kuwait invasion. Why would he suddenly think the US wouldn't play ball in the same manner against a greater threat? We stared down someone much bigger and badder in Cuba. Uh because we dont want to start a war with 2 billion muslims. The grand strategic situation is far different than the cold war. Even now its unlikely we'd really use nukes against him if he used WMD, for precisly those reasons. And he might misjudge for the same reasons hes done so in the past - the nature of his regime precldues him form getting dissenting, and thus accurate information >Speculation with no hard evidence in terms of his intelligence profile, or past behaviour, to back this up. You raised the question, I responded with how it would play out. The burden of proof is on you to show his intelligence profile, since you are saying we should gamble our secuirty on his state of mind - that is a matter of considerable disagreement.

	29-01-2003 22:39									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST Hitler had the capabilities to produce Chemical Weapons AFAIK and his Minions butchered a lot of people with Zyklon B which can also be used on the battlefield. What kept Hitler from using them on Allied Troops? The same what propably will Saddam keep from using them, i.e. the fear of retaliation.

IIUC WW2 era chem munitions were fairly ineffective on the battlefield, with a tendency to blow back in the faces of the using troops. We're talking delivery by Scuds (more effective than V weapons) or by terrorist infiltraton.

	30-01-2003 00:06									#34
	Re: Powell to Present Iraq Evidence to UN... Finally! Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 To all those who have said or at least think that supporting an invasion of Iraq is nothing but blindly following the government like Orwellian zombies without any need for hard facts: did it ever occur to you that at some point the evidence against Iraq (or at least most of it) would of course be released? Did you think we'd actually go to war without it? The material we have will apparently prove not only that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but also that they have extensive ties to Al-Qaeda. If it is indeed a smoking gun on both of these counts, what will you have left to say? That it was a forgery?

It won't be a 'smoking gun', certainly not on both accounts.

quote: You could make the case that Saddam Hussein having WMD is acceptable since he wouldn't use them, but who would make the case that it'd be acceptable if he has indeed actively supported Al-Qaeda in the past?

I would NEVER make the case that Saddam's possesion of WoMD is acceptable

There will be no proof whatsoever that Saddam has supported al-Qaeda actively in the past. Saddam and Osama are adversaries by nature.
Remember the hoax about the supposed meeting between Mohammed Atta and a alledged Iraqi secret agent in Budapest(?)?

I would indeed be very surprised if they worked together. If ANY cooperation has occured, it will certainly have NOT been before the US defacto declaration of war to Iraq a year ago.

Saddam is much too much the stupid proud man that would search for alliances under the terms "my enemies enemy is my friend". Al-Qaeda poses a direct threat to his regime, he will not support them.

	30-01-2003 00:51									#35
	Re: Re: Powell to Present Iraq Evidence to UN... Finally! Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

It's a bit more complicated than 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Let's put it this way:

Al-Qaeda's ambition = destruction of Israel, removal of the U.S. from the Middle East and/or its outright destruction, and fundamentalist government of Muslim nations.

Saddam Hussein's ambition = domination of the Middle East

The U.S. is the ONLY thing that stands in the way of his dream, and massive terrorist attacks on the US with WMD would help him realize this dream. Al-Qaeda would just be a FedEx for his weapons, not an 'ally'.

Also I've always been cynical of this "it's secular regimes like his that Al-Qaeda hates so much" line, because his regime is not thoroughly secular. Read a transcript of any of his speeches. Here are just a few lively highlights:

quote: In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the Most Merciful; This is going to be a glorious day. The Iraqi people will, in the name of Allah, add to their honorable record. It will be a day when the cowardly aggressors will be condemned by both history and the whole world, having been condemned by Allah the Almighty. Allah the Almighty wishes you to take your pride of place under the sun Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of Allah, any of the aggressors' planes It will not be shaken by the winds of evil; neither will it be frightened, God willing, by the hiss of vipers. Allah foiled the aggression and the aggressors and, thanks be to Allah, we only suffered light losses in the failed attack. May Allah bless the souls of our honorable martyrs. Allah is greater, Allah is greater. In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful Allah always helps the faithful and their just cause to prevail over injustice. Allah Almighty shall extend of the means of strength provided by the faithful on the basis of His Divine instruction: "Extend to them all the strength you can provide…". Thus, we relied on Allah, and took the position required under the circumstance Iraq, the land of Jihad Allah, the omni-powerful is above all power and shall repel the schemes of the unjust. threats which will make those who have lost all ties with God the Compassionate, and all trust in their people, tremble and shiver Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great.. Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great.. Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great.. Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Attacking ... defending ... advancing and charging forward deep in enemy territory, chasing evil to defeat it Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... the call of the spirit carrying the body to the destination determined by Allah, to be pure, secure, aromatic, and rosy, as he is a witness to the will of Allah, or a living martyr, so destined by Allah Almighty, whose command is irrevocable, praised He be for all He wills and all He wants. Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... There is no God but Allah. Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Praise be to Allah The dear chant is raised, as if the men are circumambulating around the Ka'ba, or returning to the place from which Prophet Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah, ascended to God on that Blessed Night, after they cleanse the land of Palestine from Zionist desecration. Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... Allah is Great ... with millions of gun-barrels, exchanging places on the battle-fronts, or being stationed where they ought to be from the start of the battle until Allah grants His final victory. the faithful who prayed for Iraq to be granted Allah's victory, which the Almighty graced Iraq with. With victory, came the first expressions of gratitude to Allah, praying to Allah the omni-powerful, the Almighty, to spare us any such hatred or any hatred which we don't know. break the spikes that others want to use against your people and thus defeat the unjust aggressors, in the name of Allah. we extend our greetings to you as we live your dear days one by one, and to every living soul and every soul that has a place in heaven, blessed by Allah, the Almighty. Allah is Great Allah is Great Allah is Great There is no God but Allah Allah is Great Praise be to Allah

Does this stuff sound like it would piss off Osama? Give me a friggin break.

While I have seen no evidence in the speeches or writings of OBL that he detests Saddam Hussein's regime, let's just say hypothetically that he does. Even if Osama hated Saddam, he'd still be ecstatic to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction or at least the means to produce them. Enough so to perhaps ignore any problems he has with Saddam's so-called secularism. Does this sound at least plausible to you?

I know you're probably going to type 'oh he's just using religion to gain support, bla bla bla', but the fact remains that just by doing that he is not secular.

	30-01-2003 00:57									#36
	Suffering from ads?

Blah, blah, blah. Can't you see Saddam is only saying that to get support from the religous Iraqi's

	30-01-2003 01:04									#37
	Suffering from ads?

Yes, I expected that kneejerk response (and predicted it in the post), but that still means that he by definition is not a purely secular leader.

Also, if he did it to get support from religious Iraqis, wouldn't it also logically serve to get support (or at least less opposition) from radicals such as OBL? Your last statement just damaged your own argument that OBL dislikes Saddam to a point that they would never cooperate.

Plus I still have yet to see any statement by OBL in any medium that condemns Saddam Hussein. I only hear this as speculation from people who find it convenient in debates about Iraq and terrorism. Does anyone have a damn quote?

	30-01-2003 01:16									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

I certainly DO consider Nazi-Germany a secular state, yet every soldier carried the text "Gott mit Uns" (= God with us) on his uniform belt, similar to the medal below.

Saddams rethoric doesn't mean much, and it certainly does NOT mean he has any support of Osama's ambition to found a islamic fundamentalist Middle-East.

If you are that easily fooled by some rethoric, there is little hope that you will be able to take Powel's words at its value. You should read something on Iraq, the Ba'ath party etc.

Attachment: gottmituns.jpg
This has been downloaded 36 time(s).

Last edited by germanos on 30-01-2003 at 01:23

	30-01-2003 01:18									#39
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Yes, I expected that kneejerk response (and predicted it in the post

	30-01-2003 01:23									#40
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by germanos Saddams rethoric doesn't mean much, and it certainly does NOT mean he has any support of Osama's ambition to found a islamic fundamentalist Middle-East.

I NEVER said that Saddam supports OBL, or that Saddam is even a devout Muslim; you're putting words in my mouth. I only meant to say that Saddam blatantly exploits religion to stay in power, and therefore is not completely secular in my book (do you have a different definition of 'secular'?). I went further to say that therefore Osama Bin Laden likely doesn't detest him enough to refuse mass destruction weapons if offered.

I also that while Saddam doesn't support OBL and OBL does not support Saddam, I have seen NO concrete evidence that Al-Qaeda is vehemently anti-Saddam and will continue to be cynical of opportunistic speculations by internet posters on Osama Bin Laden's mindset. Only what he has actually said is worth a damn to me. So do you have any sort of facts or quotes, or are you indeed speculating?

	30-01-2003 01:37									#41
	Support Apolyton

Even Schwarzkopf is demanding proof of Iraq's capabilities before supporting a war.

The real question is, if the US really was interested in disarming Hussein, why wait until after the inspections are over to release evidence of such weapons, rather than giving the information to the inspectors so they could verfiy it.

Either the Administration wanted Iraq to fail so it could have a war (which it does) or it was afraid that the inspectors might prove that the evidence wasn't up to snuff, which would pull the rug out from under the war mongers' plans.

We've been told several times we're gonna see the evidence, and it's all been smoke and mirrors. Until they show proof, this government is lying.

	30-01-2003 01:40									#42
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Does this stuff sound like it would piss off Osama? Give me a friggin break.

Most important American political speeches have rhetoric involving "God" in them. I guess that makes the US a theocracy.

Look at the LAWS in Iraq, and compare them to, say, Saudi Arabia. Saddam is not implementing sharia. Saddam is secular.

	30-01-2003 01:43									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 I NEVER said that Saddam supports OBL, that's putting words in my mouth. I only say 1) that Saddam uses religion to stay in power, and therefore is not completely secular in my book and 2) that while Saddam doesn't support OBL and OBL does not support Saddam, I have seen no concrete evidence that Al-Qaeda is anti-Saddam and will continue to be cynical about opportunistic speculations by internet posters on the mindset of Osama Bin Laden. Only what he has actually said is worth a damn to me. So do you have any sort of facts or are you indeed speculating?

Well, certainly YOU never said that Saddam supports al-Qaeda, but this thread was what the 'paranoid' (sic!) whateveryoucalledthem would say when Powel would present the irrefutible evidence that Saddam does. I am responding to THAT.

Question: do you consider the USA a secular state? I do, for the fact that 'state' and 'religion' are seperated, by law (constitution). The same is the case in Iraq.
But if you argue that the USA isn't secular, since you pledge allegance (sp?) to the flag by saying the words: "one nation, under God", then I have misunderstood your meaning of 'secular'.

I don't read arabic well enough to dig through Osama-speaches to supply you with quotes, and even so, it would be very hard to find the name of Saddam in them. You can rest assured that in the many speaches he made, and of which in the US media only the highlights against the US/West would be broadcasted, he has with equal strength condamned ALL nations in the Middle-East for not living up to the Prophets words. Hell man, he hates the Saudi Royals, and you can hardly call THEM not being fundamentalistic!

But was is truly amazing about this thread developing: Instead of Powel going to put forward evidence of the Iraq/al-Qaeda link, now it is going in the way it has to be proven Saddam and Osama condamn eachother publicly?

	30-01-2003 01:44									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The real question is, if the US really was interested in disarming Hussein, why wait until after the inspections are over to release evidence of such weapons, rather than giving the information to the inspectors so they could verfiy it.

U.S.: Iraqis know inspection sites Intelligence shows advance cleanups

quote: Either the Administration wanted Iraq to fail so it could have a war

The Iraqis are failing independent of the US sharing info.

	30-01-2003 01:52									#45
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I've seen that info, Dino, and I'm willing to accept it as true. However, this has only come out recently. So what was their excuse for the previous two months? This seems like an after-the-fact excuse (albeit a very good one).

	30-01-2003 01:55									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 I went further to say that therefore Osama Bin Laden likely doesn't detest him enough to refuse mass destruction weapons if offered. So do you have any sort of facts or quotes, or are you indeed speculating?

I'm not talking about what Osama would do if he got them offered, I am saying not a hair in Saddams mostache is thinking about giving them to al-Qaeda.

Speculating, offcourse. I'm not a secret al-Qaeda operative, nor an agent of the Iraqi mukhabarat.
I have been giving ample arguments to support my case though. So far I have seen only speculation on the US side, and they have not been avle to put a single piece of evidence to support their case.
The best reasoning I have heard so far is: Saddam is our enemy + Osama is our enemy = they work together.

	30-01-2003 01:56									#47
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Most important American political speeches have rhetoric involving "God" in them. I guess that makes the US a theocracy. Look at the LAWS in Iraq, and compare them to, say, Saudi Arabia. Saddam is not implementing sharia. Saddam is secular.

IIUC Iraq does partially implement sharia - for example muslims are not allowed to buy alcohol, but non-muslims are. And mosques are built with state funds. This make Iraq "unsecular" in western terms, but i admit is par for the course in the islamic world and is nothing like Saudi. It is not mistaken to call Saddams regim secular.

Of course secular Syria has managed to ally with Shiite fundie Iran and Hezbollah. Shiite Hezbollah and Iran have manged to ally with Sunni fundamentalist Hamas. Secular Iraq has provided support to Sunni fundametalist Hamas.
I see no reason a priori to rule out an alliance of convenience between secular Iraq and Sunni Fundamentalist (wahabi/salafi) Al qaeeda. I will wait and see what evidence is presented.

	30-01-2003 01:57									#48
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by germanos Well, certainly YOU never said that Saddam supports al-Qaeda, but this thread was what the 'paranoid' (sic!) whateveryoucalledthem would say when Powel would present the irrefutible evidence that Saddam does. I am responding to THAT.

You used the words "support of Osama's ambition to found a islamic fundamentalist Middle-East", not "support of Al-Qaeda". There's a HUGE difference. Giving finanical aid, training, intelligence, safe harbor, and/or weaponry to Al-Qaeda for the purpose of weakening the U.S. does not necessarily imply support of OBL's ideology.

quote: Originally posted by germanos Question: do you consider the USA a secular state? I do, for the fact that 'state' and 'religion' are seperated, by law (constitution). The same is the case in Iraq. But if you argue that the USA isn't secular, since you pledge allegance (sp?) to the flag by saying the words: "one nation, under God", then I have misunderstood your meaning of 'secular'.

Having the word's 'under God' in the pledge of Allegiance or saying that our inalienable rights are endowed by the Creator, etc. are a FAR cry away from the lengths Hussein goes to, so it's an invalid comparison.

quote: Originally posted by germanos I don't read arabic well enough to dig through Osama-speaches to supply you with quotes, and even so, it would be very hard to find the name of Saddam in them.

All of his publicly released videos are translated. Come to me with something real.

quote: Originally posted by germanos Hell man, he hates the Saudi Royals, and you can hardly call THEM not being fundamentalistic!

Well I could easily say he hates the Saudis for their alliance to the U.S. and not that their government isn't fundamentalist. This could be extended to say that he wouldn't hate Iraq because of their belligerence towards the U.S.

quote: Originally posted by germanos But was is truly amazing about this thread developing: Instead of Powel going to put forward evidence of the Iraq/al-Qaeda link, now it is going in the way it has to be proven Saddam and Osama condamn eachother publicly?

It's not getting off-topic; you spoke of how Osama hates Saddam because he is secular, and I ask for evidence instead of speculation.

quote: Originally posted by germanos I'm not talking about what Osama would do if he got them offered, I am saying not a hair in Saddams mostache is thinking about giving them to al-Qaeda.

[Hypothetically] if it was proven that he has provided conventional assistance to them, would you admit then that he would probably be willing to give them WMD?

	30-01-2003 02:18									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I've seen that info, Dino, and I'm willing to accept it as true. However, this has only come out recently. So what was their excuse for the previous two months?

Some things that come to my mind are:

- possibly the intelligence services were spending that amount of time to make sure that the sources of the intelligence were safe and secure from any possible retaliation from Saddam?

- Or possibly he was waiting for the last minute (ie, after going through the whole UN rigamarol, building up the case, preparing the nation for war, getting troops into the region), and once everything was set up and the stakes were high enough, then showing his hand in a geopolitical game of poker?

	30-01-2003 02:20									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Edan - Or possibly he was waiting for the last minute (ie, after going through the whole UN rigamarol, building up the case, preparing the nation for war, getting troops into the region), and once everything was set up and the stakes were high enough, then showing his hand in a geopolitical game of poker?

I think this is the case. The pot, however, is war. That's all Bush has wanted all along and he's just playing the game so he'll be allowed to have it. He's not interested in actually disarming Iraq.

	30-01-2003 02:21									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 You used the words "support of Osama's ambition to found a islamic fundamentalist Middle-East", not "support of Al-Qaeda". There's a HUGE difference. Giving finanical aid, training, intelligence, safe harbor, and/or weaponry to Al-Qaeda for the purpose of weakening the U.S. does not necessarily imply support of OBL's ideology.

Yes, to some that is a huge difference, but not to everybody. F.e., the US has supported the Aghani mujaheddin , propably with the same reasoning in mind. We all know how that has backfired on the US. The same goes for Israeli support of Hamas, when it was still weak and a threat for Arafat. I wouldn't bet that Saddam is doing the same.

quote: Having the word's 'under God' in the pledge of Allegiance or saying that our inalienable rights are endowed by the Creator, etc. are a FAR cry away from the lengths Hussein goes to, so it's an invalid comparison.

The arabic langauge is often very elaborate and speaches drown in words, analogies etc. Some consider it a poetic language. Take a look for instance a your quote: the endless repetative of Allahu Akbhar. It is indeed difficult to compare two languages, cultures. To you it might seem a far cry, it does not necessarry mean that THAT is the FACT.

And who says Saddam is not refering to the Creator in general as well? It is rather ethnocentric to say that the american use of God is refering to the Creator 9neutral), but as soon as it is Allah, it isn't. For Christsake, the Iraqi deputy-president (Tareq Aziz) is a christian!

quote: All of his publicly released videos are translated. Come to me with something real.

I can't be bothered, read them yourself and you will see: Osama hates all that is not with him, nor a religeous zealot.

quote: It's not getting off-topic; you spoke of how Osama hates Saddam because he is secular, and I ask for evidence instead of speculation.

Point taken: I'll just wait for Powel NOT being able to provide any evidence Saddam is supporting al-Qaeda.

	30-01-2003 02:27									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I think this is the case. The pot, however, is war. That's all Bush has wanted all along and he's just playing the game so he'll be allowed to have it. He's not interested in actually disarming Iraq.

Well, Iraq certainly isn't which is the whole point.

If the US had shown locations of WMDs befor the inspection process, Saddam would have either cleaned it up, or if the proof was overwhelming, admitted to it, but show that he was willing to have it destroyed. Which would do nothing to secure my confidence that he was going to willingly disarm all that WMD technology that the US doesn't have intelligence about.

Saddam had a chance to fully comply and show the inspectors they were serious about disarmament. They failed to do so. And, at this point, I don't see much hope of any inspections being fruitful in showing that Iraq has disarmed.

	30-01-2003 02:30									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I think this is the case. The pot, however, is war. That's all Bush has wanted all along and he's just playing the game so he'll be allowed to have it. He's not interested in actually disarming Iraq.

War presents numerous side benefits in terms of strategic position between Iran and Saudi, liberating the Iraqi people, and removing a bitter enemy of the United States, which disarmament alone does not. However Iraq'a WMD's ARE a big concern. The US has been aware from the beginning that if Iraq disarmed we would not go to war, and we would have to find another way to deal with the other issues. Our motivations include but go beyond the formal casus belli - that hardly invalidates the casus belli, which is quite real (unless you believe that Saddam has disarmed, as Iraq claims)

	30-01-2003 03:08									#54
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay The only time he's used WMD's was against targets who couldn't respond in kind. Why would he suddenly do otherwise knowing full well that his regime and country would be instantly annihilated? Even bush's own intelligence apparatus indicated that Hussein wouldn't bring the house down around him.

I cannot conceive of the United States nuking Baghdad even if somehow he were able to set off a Nuke in NYC. I think our days of mass slaughter of civilians is OVER!

I think Saddam knows this.

I am not sure, though, about the Israeli's. They might respond in kind.

	30-01-2003 03:22									#55
	Increase Your PM Length

Israel has already indicated they're not above a WMD retaliation. And I cannot conceive of the United States doing anything BUT nuking Baghdad in the same scenario. Saddam knows this. He's sadistic and sociopathic, but he's not stupid. That's why he didnt use any WMDs against the US or israel in the first war.

	30-01-2003 03:22									#56
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark War presents numerous side benefits in terms of strategic position between Iran and Saudi, liberating the Iraqi people,

Don't even bring them into it. The US has shown its contempt for the Iraqi people since the 1960s. If it gave a damn about them we never would have helped the Ba'athists and Hussein to power in the first place, we wouldn't have supported and armed Hussein, given him chemical and biological weapons, tricked them into invading their neigher, starved them, and then sat back and allowed the Iraqi people to be slaughtered when they revolted at the end of the last war. The Iraqi people mean exactly ZERO to this administration except as a statistical problem.

quote: and removing a bitter enemy of the United States, which disarmament alone does not.

An enemy which can do nothing to harm us.

quote: However Iraq'a WMD's ARE a big concern.

Why?

quote: The US has been aware from the beginning that if Iraq disarmed we would not go to war,

Bullshit. From the very begining we've said we were going to attack no matter what.

quote: Our motivations include but go beyond the formal casus belli - that hardly invalidates the casus belli, which is quite real (unless you believe that Saddam has disarmed, as Iraq claims)

Our motivations have nothing to do with Iraq except as as easy target. It's just a continuation of establishing global hegemony.

	30-01-2003 03:23									#57
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned I cannot conceive of the United States nuking Baghdad even if somehow he were able to set off a Nuke in NYC. I think our days of mass slaughter of civilians is OVER!

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	30-01-2003 03:29									#58
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay He also made a gross miscalculation when he thought the US wouldn't respond to his Kuwait invasion. Why would he suddenly think the US wouldn't play ball in the same manner against a greater threat? We stared down someone much bigger and badder in Cuba.

Jac, Did you know he asked us first about Kuwait? We said that we would not get involved in Arab-Arab disputes.

Saddam's mistake was putting 9 divisions on the border with Saudi Arabia. That caused the Saudi's to call in their cards with the US.

He later did invade Saudi Arabia, but not in force. The Saudi's defeated him.

But the point here is that Saddam probably would have taken Saudi Arabia had we not acted promptly was we did. The Arab-Arab non interference statement was "overbroad." The US Ambassador did not limit the "permission" to Kuwait alone.

Later, after having received US "permission" to take Kuwait, he may have been surprised at Bush's insistance that he leave. But, given that the demand was limited to Kuwait, Saddam had no good reason not to simply stay and fight it out. His regime, after all, was not threatened. Had our objectives not been so limited, Saddam may have peacefully withdrawn.

The goes to show you just how bad limited objective wars can be. It is a wonder that we repeated the fundamental mistakes of both Korea and Vietnam.

This Bush seems to have learned the lesson of Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War I.

	30-01-2003 04:06									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Che, what we would do is go after Saddam personally. We would not, repeat, not nuke Baghdad.

BTW, does anyone know whether Saddam is earmarked for war crime trials? What would be the charges?

	30-01-2003 21:01									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Edan If the US had shown locations of WMDs befor the inspection process, Saddam would have either cleaned it up, or if the proof was overwhelming, admitted to it, but show that he was willing to have it destroyed. Which would do nothing to secure my confidence that he was going to willingly disarm all that WMD technology that the US doesn't have intelligence about.

Not giving relevant information with regards to Iraqi BCN weapons (look, neither chemical nor biological weapons cause mass destruction) to the UN is a direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.