14-03-2003 08:54									#91
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

yah we have never ever meddled in arab-arab conflicts. cuz like they aren't our business. like we had no position on iraq-iran war. we just stayed out of that. oh and the afghanistan thing, not us dawg.

I think its pretty obvious that if u listened to that quote and invaded and occupied a country based on it. well I don't know if there's a word good enuff for how low ur IQ would have to be.

	14-03-2003 08:56									#92
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by yavoon cuz we supported him to stalemate iran. my point is he wasn't given assurances that he could occupy kuwait.

Saddam didn't know we were also playing Iran against him. For all he knew, we were supporting in the hopes that he would drive out the Ayatollah like we claimed we wanted. Remember we were quite chummy-chummy with Iraq back then.

quote: u repeat ur crap just as much as me. so dont point fingers.

The difference is I am disagreeing with you without calling your statements "crap."

quote: its not that we liked saddam nemore than we liked the freedom fighters in afghanistan. we were just picking sides of convenience, its not like "we had saddams back."

Again, Saddam didn't necessarily have any reason to believe this. In his view, the thread of fundamentalist Iran was what was of most concern to the U.S., and he was the friend of the U.S. because he opposed it. Surely, if Kuwait was stealing his oil and refusing to stop, his friend the U.S. wouldn't mind him making his point by force?

quote: so I don't think he was so stupid that when it becomes abhorently against our interests to let him do something that we'll let it slide just cuz u know, we friends dawg.

I don't think Hussein felt U.S. interests were that critical over Kuwait. Remember that he is an egomaniac, so U.S. approval in the past likely had convinced him that the most important thing was that he was there to keep Iran in check and be the bastion of secular government in an increasingly fundamentalist ME.

	14-03-2003 08:56									#93
	Full PM-box? Change here!

If we're going to war to improve the status of women, shouldn't we start by going to a country where girls are forced back into a burning building because their faces became uncovered in their escape--like Saudi Arabia--as opposed to Iraq, where women can walk alone, head uncovered, go to work, go to coed colleges, and generally have more rights than in other nations in the region?

Just throwing that out there, silly question, I know.

	14-03-2003 08:56									#94
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Sadam has invaded two countries in his reign. Are you supposing he just wants them to have them and not to use them?

As we learned in the thread started by the rather conservative DinoDoc, Iran started things with Iraq by sending guerillas into Iraq's south and assassintng Iraqi officials, etc. Next, as Boris just pointed out, Iraq asked the US if they could invade Kuwait, and got an answer that sure seems like "yes."

Granted, the US wasn't thinking that Iraq would take the whole thing, but the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil and deliberately overproducing oil, which was driving down oil prices, which hurt Iraq's economy, at the same time that they were screwing Iraq on war loans they had made. Considering that if Iraq had fallen to Iran, that Kuwait would have been next, Iraq was pretty justified in being furious with Kuwait. Does that justify an invasion, no? But to pretend that Hussein is some wannabe world conqueror is just ignoring the historical facts.

	14-03-2003 08:56									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov For an Iraqi dictator fishing for assurances of there being no U.S. repercussions, I can't see how Hussein could have been any less delighted with such a statement. That the statement did or didn't have approval from Washington I don't know...nor will we ever know.

So we had a dictator "fishing for assurances" and the US is somehow responsible for his 2nd invasion of a foriegn country?

	14-03-2003 08:57									#96
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 lcweb2.loc.gov Library of Congress data. You are correct in your statement that his 1st invasion of a foriegn country (1 year after taking power) started the colapse of the Iraqi economy.

An invasion formented by the U.S. And the collapse of global oil prices hurt Iraq immensely, since it was a one-product economy (well before Hussein took control). That economic disaster was hardly his doing.

	14-03-2003 08:59									#97
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Does that make GWB into an honest person who tells nothing but the truth? How?

What I am saying is that the delay is because Chirac apparently is listening to the heavy criticism out of Britain and has softened his stance on a new resolution. This is why there is a delay. It has nothing to do with Bush, except that Bush, like Blair, is willing to go the extra mile to reach consensus in the UN.

	14-03-2003 08:59									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Anyway, enough of this threadjack. This isn't about Iraq, this is about stopping the war!

	14-03-2003 08:59									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 So we had a dictator "fishing for assurances" and the US is somehow responsible for his 2nd invasion of a foriegn country?

I did not say were responsible, merely that we have no right to be so outraged and shocked over something we knew Saddam was planning and then said "Well, we won't stop you."

	14-03-2003 09:00									#100
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

ok to clarify for everyone about the woman's rights thing.

it is not saying "bush should invade iraq or ne place else cuz of how woman have it."

it is saying tho that the feminist protests of a possible overthrow of a long hated dictator in a region that could bring about greatly increased womans rights is at the very least short sighted.

I mean surely they can be against that method, but the real fact is they are a very inept group, and now something comes along that by pure coincidence could help them greatly. and they go into knee jerk liberal reaction mode.

	14-03-2003 09:01									#101
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ned, on ABC's World News Tonight they made the statement that Bush is backing off his demand for a UN vote this week as well as the March 17ty deadline because Blair told him that if Bush went ahead unilaterally it would bring down his government.




and CBEAST!

	14-03-2003 09:04									#102
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If a feminist--or anyone--opposes aggressive wars out of principle, especially ones where no adequate casus belli is readily apparent, it makes little sense to support one to support a particular agenda.

For instance, I abhor the treatment of gays in Saudi Arabia. It's probably among the most barbaric treatment of human beings in the world.

I don't, however, support invading SA and installing our regime. I'd rather us withdraw our troops, slap them with sanctions a la South Africa and try to bring about a peaceful change in their ways.

We have, however, no right to invade a nation unless they are threatening us or our allies directly.

	14-03-2003 09:05									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov An invasion formented by the U.S. And the collapse of global oil prices hurt Iraq immensely, since it was a one-product economy (well before Hussein took control). That economic disaster was hardly his doing.

Boris! Even after the war the data that I posted shows you that he was only able to create a 1.7% increase in the reduced level of GNP even after the war. And this with what may be the most valuable commodity in the world! The man just can't manage an economy. Even now, the revenue he gets does not go to improving the economy. It goes to increase his personal luxury!

Surely it is easy to infer that a western led rebuilding of Iraq's economy will help them regain the type of standard of living they had pre-1980.

	14-03-2003 09:05									#104
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It demanded that Hussein admit that he has bio/chem weapons (which has yet to be proven, even if it is probably true) and that he declare his UAVs, even if they aren't covered by the UNSC resolution. #1 is the clincher though, as it guarantees war, since there's no way Hussein will ever admit it.

Che even Chirac won't try to say Iraq doesn't have WoMD. Chirac avoids talking about Iraq possessing WoMD like the plague because he knows they have them he just doesn't think it is in France's interests to see Saddam disarmed; at least not militarially disarmed. He'd much rather keep getting contracts from a Saddam which is pissed off with the U.S./U.K. and pretend there is no problem. That Saddam has a WoMD program is as clear and as certain as the sun rising tommorrow.

Blair proposal is very fair. It calls off the war if Saddam promises to do six things proven he will reform and cease hording WoMD. It will totally binds the U.S. & U.K. to not attacking Iraq if Saddam does six easy steps which would prove his desire to disarm. It is as level headed an offer as any which has ever been made but Saddam won't take it because Saddam has been convinced, if Iraqi news releases are any clue, that the west is so divided they will never force him to disarm.

That is the downside to anti-Bushism.

	14-03-2003 09:07									#105
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov We have, however, no right to invade a nation unless they are threatening us or our allies directly.

This is not unreasonable. What would you define as a threat?

	14-03-2003 09:10									#106
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Boris! Even after the war the data that I posted shows you that he was only able to create a 1.7% increase in the reduced level of GNP even after the war. And this with what may be the most valuable commodity in the world! The man just can't manage an economy. Even now, the revenue he gets does not go to improving the economy. It goes to increase his personal luxury!

As I said, Iraq was contending with a global oil oversupply that caused a disasterous drop in prices. That, more than anything else, was what crushed their economic growth in the 1980s. That, and the huge military build up, which was also a part of the war (yes, even after).

I'm not saying that Hussein is an economic genius, just that, to a considerable degree, the drop in GDP was not within his control.

But the fact remains that Iraq's GDP dropped by 2/3rds between 1990 and 1991. No such dramatic drop had occured before that. Its GDP has been in the toilet since thanks to the sanctions (never minding whether they are justified or not).

quote: Surely it is easy to infer that a western led rebuilding of Iraq's economy will help them regain the type of standard of living they had pre-1980.

I wouldn't necessarily say that would be the case, but it certainly could happen. But that doesn't remotely justify a war. Why don't we invade every poor country to raise their standard of living?

Congo, here we come!

	14-03-2003 09:12									#107
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Ned, on ABC's World News Tonight they made the statement that Bush is backing off his demand for a UN vote this week as well as the March 17ty deadline because Blair told him that if Bush went ahead unilaterally it would bring down his government.

Bush would not wait if there was no hope of getting a resolution. He is waiting because they are making progress.

	14-03-2003 09:13									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

iraq has been under sanctions for a very long time. nothing we want to accomplish is gna be accomplished w/o war. he has proven that he has the balls to kick inspectors out and that he has the fortitude to withstand sanctions.

it is down to two options, let him be. invade him. this idea that somehow an extra year of his ppl starving while he diverts what lil sanctioned funds he has is going to do anything is naive.

and on the feminist thing. yes if u r a feminist and u feel strongly about iraq, then go protest against it. but FEMINISM AS AN ORGANIZATION is protesting the war on iraq. which is an entirely different thing. and the reason they are doing it is simply cuz they are knee jerk liberals(Hey I've said that!).

I know you all might not want to hear this, but there are more than a few ppl in america who would agree with this line of thought. we knew afghanistan was a screwed up place, we knew they harbored terrorists, killed ppl on public display in football stadiums, etc. but like u said, they were no direct threat.

then two planes rammed into the WTC. now we know we can't go around and invade everyone. but when we look at the list of ppl who shared similarities w/ afghanistan. we come upon iraq. hey they kicked inspectors out right? they've already invaded one country, they have a horrible human rights record, they are still under completely inept sanction by the UN.

so on the idea that we now understand the places that are crapholes and coddle hatred no longer need to be a direct threat to cause us great damage. and we have a chance to try and do something. we attempt to take it.

and thus every liberal protestor in the world who would rather be indirectly responsible for millions of lives then directly responsible for a dozen comes out of the wood work in a concerted effort based on some insane slippery slope logic among other things.

	14-03-2003 09:14									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Boris, I am certainly not advocating this as a sole reson to invade. In fact, I'm not advocating it as a reason to invade at all. It is just another in a long line of benefits that could arise from the invasion. I have been repeating the reasons for invasion repeatedly in threads that you have been in. I'll spare you reading them again, but I stand by them.

	14-03-2003 09:14									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 This is not unreasonable. What would you define as a threat?

Invading borders, unprovoked attacks, and the like.

Iraq is not now, nor has it really ever been, a threat to the U.S. They never attacked us, nor our allies, and is it stands they don't have the means to wage even the most minor of wars.

	14-03-2003 09:16									#111
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned What I am saying is that the delay is because Chirac apparently is listening to the heavy criticism out of Britain and has softened his stance on a new resolution. This is why there is a delay. It has nothing to do with Bush, except that Bush, like Blair, is willing to go the extra mile to reach consensus in the UN.

On the contrary, Ned, GWB has everything to do with it. He started this whole mess with that Axis of Evil thing he pulled out of his rectum. Then the US started making noises about how bad Saddam is, and that lapdog Blair started to froth at the mouth as well.

Other countries are just responding to this whole silliness under an established framework.

	14-03-2003 09:17									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yavoon: Let's not forget that Sadam has publically supported terrorist with hard cash.

	14-03-2003 09:20									#113
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Che even Chirac won't try to say Iraq doesn't have WoMD.

Snooze.

Isn't this bit all worn out and torn?

	14-03-2003 09:21									#114
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Invading borders, unprovoked attacks, and the like. Iraq is not now, nor has it really ever been, a threat to the U.S. They never attacked us, nor our allies, and is it stands they don't have the means to wage even the most minor of wars.

Would attempted assasination of a former US President qualify as a provoked or unprovoked attack?

Would firing on UN authorized aircraft in the No Fly zones be classified as provoked?

Would paying the families of homicide bombers in one of our Allies countries be provoked or unprovoked?

What's it going to take Boris? You are one of the few liberals that I see posting here that is logical enough to get it.

	14-03-2003 09:22									#115
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Snooze. Isn't this bit all worn out and torn?

Hey UR. Worn out, but still the truth. And also one of the cruxes of the matter.

Calling it boring won't make it go away.

	14-03-2003 09:23									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Yavoon: Let's not forget that Sadam has publically supported terrorist with hard cash.

Or, one could say Saddam has supported insurgent groups against regional foes. After all, his support has been for secular dissident groups in Iran, Turkey and Israel.

I don't see all that much difference between his supporting such groups and the U.S. supporting the Contras or other insurgent groups against governments we don't like.

It's not like Hussein pays money to the families of terrorist suicide bombers, like, oh, Saudi Arabia was doing.

	14-03-2003 09:26									#117
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Hey UR. Worn out, but still the truth. And also one of the cruxes of the matter. Calling it boring won't make it go away.

Sorry, I am not a three year old kid who hasn't gone around the block at least once.

Lots of other countries have CBN weapons, GWB has made nothing about their situation. No threatening noises, no condemnations, not even comments.

So what makes Iraq having CBN weapons such a big deal?

	14-03-2003 09:26									#118
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Or, one could say Saddam has supported insurgent groups against regional foes. After all, his support has been for secular dissident groups in Iran, Turkey and Israel. I don't see all that much difference between his supporting such groups and the U.S. supporting the Contras or other insurgent groups against governments we don't like. It's not like Hussein pays money to the families of terrorist suicide bombers, like, oh, Saudi Arabia was doing.

Boris, he pays $25000 to families of the homicide bombers.

	14-03-2003 09:28									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Would attempted assasination of a former US President qualify as a provoked or unprovoked attack?

A report by Kuwaiti sources that was NEVER verified.

quote: Would firing on UN authorized aircraft in the No Fly zones be classified as provoked?

UN authorized? Whoa. Where did the UN authorize the No-Fly zones? They didn't. The U.S. imposed them after the Gulf War unilaterally, and they were not a part of the ceasefire agreement.

Last year Koffi Annan stated that Iraq was justified in firing on US aircraft in the zones, as it is sovereign Iraqi airspace.

quote: Would paying the families of homicide bombers in one of our Allies countries be provoked or unprovoked?

IIRC, Hussein has given money to Hamas, but not directly to families of suicide bombers (that is an as-yet unsubstantiated Israeli claim). Saudi Arabia has, btw, given money for such purposes.

quote: What's it going to take Boris? You are one of the few liberals that I see posting here that is logical enough to get it.

It's going to take a direct threat from Iraq against the U.S. or our allies, and that does not now, nor has it ever, existed. North Korea is posing much more of a threat, and even they haven't done remotely enough to warrant an invasion.

	14-03-2003 09:28									#120
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger On the contrary, Ned, GWB has everything to do with it. He started this whole mess with that Axis of Evil thing he pulled out of his rectum. Then the US started making noises about how bad Saddam is, and that lapdog Blair started to froth at the mouth as well. Other countries are just responding to this whole silliness under an established framework.

Really, I understand the powers that be are calling for a world summit on the issue to see if a compromise can be worked out.

Bush is considering it.

There is no doubt that Bush and Blair have been the main proponents of taking action. I believe the only reason that we are seeing action is that Bush has promised to do something if the UN fails to act. However, he did make a commitment to Congress and to Blair to do everything in his power to get the UN to take a stand before he would resort to war. He is living up to that commitment as of now.

I do not think the left should take credit for Bush's actions. They can take credit, I beleive, for the extremism shown by Germany and France.