Speaking my brains...

[Justin Owen]

A'ight, I realize this may be opening a can of worms but I've read all the other posts on the matter and being as I've got a few minutes of free time I couldn't help but throw in my two cents, as this is something I feel very strongly about.

Some of the things some of you folks have said have, plainly put, pissed me off. I don't know where you get your information or where you get off lumping a million folks like me into your view of Americans, but I'm here to set MY record straight.

There was a wake-up call in the western world on September 11, 2001. In case anyone missed what I saw, what I learned was that when you have a fanatic with the MEANS to effect an action along the lines of "true belief," the end result is either an inevitable OR a probable tragedy.

Basically, a pissed off fanatic is an unpredictable danger. Now give that fanatic weapons of mass destruction or the free reign to plow seeds and grow 'em, and you've got a surrealistic nightmare on your hands.

Let me make myself very clear. Before Sept. 11, I would have "wished" Saddam would get booted from power, but I would never have supported a storm-in-for-the-sake-of-doing-it approach. But then again, no one ever saw something like 9/11 coming. Did we consider that Saddam, whom we know is still working on weapons, might just plop one in front of a New York daycare just for the hell of it? Nope. Did we consider that some rich fool out in Afghanistan with a personal vendetta against he US would sponsor a massive attack such as we saw? Nope. After Sept. 11th, however, I am certain without a shadow of a doubt that these things are not only POSSIBLE, but PROBABLE...let me repeat: PROBABLE...and buddy, when faced with that, I say THROW THE FIRST PUNCH. If you gave me good reason to feel somewhere down the road you might break into my house and slaughter my family, you think I'd wait 'til you did it to fight back? Gimme a break.

What about if that person had done it to others? You're saying you'd find excuses not to protect those you love in advance of seeing them scissored and gutted???

The removal of Saddam is necessary and prudent...and to do otherwise (as we have been doing regarding him and others like him for years) is a greivous error in judgement. It's a shame that it took something like the twin towers collapsing to force SOME of the world to realize that these kinds of people simply can't be allowed to exist in a manner that provides them with the opportunities they need to take out their frustrations on whomever they please. But if any good will come out of it, it will be that.

A man with Saddam's temperament, total lack of conscience and disregard for anything beyone his own, and violent tendencies CAN NOT, and I repeat CAN NOT be allowed to sit in a position of power such that he is capable of unleashing considerable destructive force at his own whim. He has demonstrated throughout his own history that he has no qualms whatsoever regarding the ordering of ghastly and gruesome deeds...he has painted quite clearly a history of aggression with his neighbors and has totally flipped his finger at the peoples of the world and their wishes for years. His temper tantrum in the wake of getting his butt whooped as he FLEED Kuwait (remember? He invaded...what about the oil???) is proof-positive the way his warped mind works. ALLOWING THIS MAN TO REIGN IN ANY WAY IS NOT AN OPTION.

Now I'm gonna toot my horn for a minute. For all the Anti-American crap I've seen regarding this issue, I have a hard time believing some of you folks could possibly be the idiots you make yourselves out to be regarding motives, etc. There is no nation on Earth as GIVING as the U.S. And in history, there has NEVER been as dominant a power who has simply PASSED on flexing that muscle. That's not to say mistakes haven't been made and that things haven't happened that make me sick to my stomach...but I'm proud to be one of a country who liberated countries and gone home after. I'm proud to be a citizen of a country who has the means to change the world for the better. I'm ultra-proud to know that we are not and have never been a country that "conquers." And I am VERY proud of our President for having the courage to do what IS NECESSARY in the wake of the undeserving treatment he (and the rest of us along the way) get at the hands of those who just want to hate.

Whatever your own feelings may be, seeing the other side of the coin is certainly not something that seems to be going on. Every time I see someone make an argument similar to my own, the retorts are things like, "oh yeah right I'm SUUURE that's the real reason they're doing it" or "oh yeah right I'm SUUURE Dubya isn't just being a typical gung-ho crazy Texan" blah-blah-blah. The truth is, what I'm saying is LOGICAL. It's not rooted in a desire to bomb the **** out of someone I don't know nor is it rooted in a desire to lower gas prices nor is it rooted in a desire to plant our flag on newly acquired desert territory. And if you come back with anything other than simple disagreement with my conclusions, you have missed the target.

Some scream "it's the oil"...others scream "it's the arrogance." Y'know what, I basically don't give a rat's ass what it is...because it doesn't change the facts. Kind of like in a Paintball game...you may have meant to play on or you may not have known you were hit, but it doesn't change the circumstances from that point on. The bottom line is that Saddam Hussain is a ticking timb bomb on the world stage and it is NOT WORTH IT to sit around and see if his circuits degenerate before zero time...the risk is just not worth it. He MUST be removed from power. If he steps down, great. If he's exiled, great. No war. I would LOVE that. If he refuses, he must be removed. Failure to act on the possibilities that failure to act creates is so illogical it scares the hell out of me. And that, my friends, is the creamy filling of how I see it.

Now my hope is that this follows through. Either Saddam is removed (I don't see a last-minute coup as by any means out of the realm of reasonable probability), or he's removed. No, that's not a typo. But if by chance the nay-sayers have their way, I hope the error of their ways is not shown by the scraping of their child's flesh off a steel beam...by the fall of a rose from their hands to the cover of a wife's or a husband's coffin, far removed from the front, but who happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time when a person we decided not to stop in advance enacted their ultimate fantasy. Because that's the way it was with September 11th. It didn't have to be...our error was that we simply assumed it never would.

But do I think it's the oil? Or the money? Or whatever??? Not by a light year.

As always, my humble opinion.

~Justin Owen~

 

[Justin Owen]

WHEW!

Man I needed that! Feel better now.

All that being said, I still love all my Paintball brothers and sisters. But those of you intent on dragging me down and those of us who feel the way we do, you might try giving us a bit more credit than we've been getting.

On other notes, I played today! Woo-hoo!
~J~

 

[Crazy]

Why go to war now?

I beleive Saddam should be "removed" and support my countrys (Australia)Army,Navy and Airforce stance in supporting the US led efforts to do so.
My query is why now do we go to war and not in the 10 years since the last gulf war?
Did the evidence only just come to light about the weapons or is president Bush riding the "terrorist" call and using it to get the public behind the idea?
You might say "But Saddam helped osama" true but do we invade every country that helped the terrorist or supported them in other ways we'd never finish the job.
Why?
Because either through jealousy or preceived threat America will always have enemys as being one of the most powerful nations in the world people will want to knock you off the top and countries may work through these extremists.

I would like nothing better than to see Saddam and Bin laden sent to their makers and as I said at the beginning I'll behind all efforts to do so it's just the timing that gets me.

I beleive the US would have fared better if they just had one ultimatum and then went in as it's the dragging out that has seen the other countries cease their support.

To the men and women of the forces sent to do the job I wish you well and come home safe.

 

[Buddha 3]

We're getting to the point where we might as well change the name of these boards into talkingpolitics.com....

Right, here's how I feel (I usually try to stay away from political threads, but often bud in when people get historic facts wrong...).
At this point in time I think that Saddam takes the cookie when it comes to a "who's the biggest nutcase to run a country" contest. For this reason I would not shed a single tear if tomorrow the news would say that he sadly passed on in a freak pogo stick accident. Or met his demise any other way.
What worries me is the way that this whole war is being sold. It just proves that propaganda is still as strong as it was in WW2. I get some information from a number of very good American friends and I combine that with other sources and things I already know. At this point in time, it seems the people in the US are fed an incredible amount of BS. Sealing of a room and all that yahoo. Consider this: If terrorists were as resourcefull as they are said to be, they would not employ such crude tactics as a van stacked full of DIY explosives. They would not use such crude weapons as a plane, which is the most desperate attempt at a guided missile (the terrible results of september 11th are fully to blame on the perpetrators, but were partially caused by severe design flaws in the buildings). Terrorists have always used low tech weaponry. I fully understand going after terrorists that are threatening your people. Saddam is a madman, but his primary goal in life is not the destruction of the US. His goal has been domination of the Arabic world, and more specifically the oil fields of the Arabian subcontinent, something his actions have proven in the past. The only reason the US became his enemy is because they foiled his attempt at seizing Kuwait. He has weapons of mass destruction, but has very limited means for delivering ordnance on target. He has no long range weapons, and his medium range delivery systems are innacurate at best. He has no way of striking at the US. There are no ties between him and Osama's gang, it is even well known they strongly dislike eachother, but those that are trying to sell you the war want you to believe otherwise. Also, a lot of the so called evidence that's been presented to the UN is plain rubbish. The footage of the Mig 23 spraying gas is from 1994 at the latest, as is a lot of the other stuff. No I strongly believe that Saddam is hiding things, but he is a local danger not a world wide one. Am I in favor of a UN endorsed ousting of a mad dictator? Yes. The problem is that the UN lately has been a bit spineless, and will never back the ousting of a regime because they are a bunch of not at all nice. The US government, whatever they're motives may be (none of us can look in their heads), is now trying to sell this war the "used car salesman" way, with BS and by instilling fear in their own population. A lot of people have fallen for this propaganda, but that makes sense, because only a one sided view is presented to them (in the same way that the Iraqi people are shown a one sided view, just a little more subtle). I'll never call anyone, or any nation stupid over that, people can only go by the information available to them.
The real threat to the US is not Saddam, he's a threat to his own people, and neighbours. The real threat are more terrorists, who hate the US for whatever reason. And they will not attack with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, but with simple things that will go kaboom.
Let's all just hope that it'll be over quick, and as quick as can be. One thing that I do believe is that the US military will do their best to avoid civilian casualties. But unfortunately, they are bound to happen.
Can we stop bickering over this please? We can shout about it all we want, but it's going to happen, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Peace.

 

[TROG_1]

Well said, Buddha.

 

[Tom Tom]

OK. Having tried to keep abreast of all this has made my head spin.

I agree with points made by all but also disagree with some as well.

As Budda said Get rid of Saddam and Osma BUT they are not together. Osma has backed Saddam ONLY because of his hate for the US.

As already pointed out why was Saddam not taken out the last time the world was in their with the Gulf war. He was just as big a threat then and just as crazy so why leave him in power. Answer (At a best a an educated guess) He was stopped when he tried to get the oil from Kuwait and so Oil prices again remained low (for the US have you seen UK petrol prices?) He has always had weapons of mass destruction but none of them are close to being any where near able to directly affect the US only the surronding countries (who house all the oil).

I am all for as I mentioned the world at peace and mad men like Saddam need to be stopped but I think a lot of spin is thrown at us to try to make us see past the real reasons.

Sept 11th opend the eyes of some Americans to the fact that they do have enemies. Something I am not sure they never realised before. Yes they would help in other conflicts but none were on there front door step. So day to day life was more or less the same.

Compare photos from Sept 11th to some from the middle east. People covered in dust and smoke and fire from "missles or bombs" and they are not that different. Its just that happens more in the Middle East because of the dangerous rulers that inhabit some of the countries.

Terrorism in a world concept happened to others not the US. After Sept 11th America was out to stop all terrorsit regiemes. Up and till that point they had been funding one just across the water. The IRA. Lost of American money had gone to help their Irish brothers. Again poor information to the public and you think you are helping people when really the money is going to the wrong people. London has been bombed many times and Warrington near manchester was bombed by the IRA. The rest of the world before Sept 11th realised the threat possed by terrorism, that is not say the US didn't realise there was terrorism but it did not affect them like Sept 11th.

I think I am losing any points I was trying to make. But to finish I am for getting rid of Saddam I am just questioning the timing from all those happy to go so urgently now.

 

[manike]

I usually try to avoid political threads since it's not as if I don't have enough opinions on paintball...

I agree with going after Saddam, I also agree the US propoganda is scary and is different to what we are 'fed' here (after a recent business trip I took to the US)... but what I really wanted to do was to point out the French concerns in all of this...

 

[stongle]

2 p worth.

The whole issue is exceedingly complex and not understood by 99% of us here. Sure we all have an opinion either way (I'll justify mine with the evidence as presented to me) , but some of the more vociferous amongst us seem to get a kick posting inane and contentious B.S. and more specifically targeting the US for abuse. Sure they have made foreign policy mistakes (I mean selling Stingers to the Mujahadeen hardly seems a great idea with the benefit of hindsight, but then no-one thought the Berlin Wall was going to come done either), however with regard to the current Iraqi situation the stand taken by both the US and UK governments is correct and just. I'm getting sick and tired of certain idiots here and on the TV who should know better than to be spouting inaccurate nonsense, verging on bigotry. I watched Tony Benn with disgust last week spouting absolute B.S. on national TV, and whilst I'm pro-freedom of speech such zealous w*nkers, should not be allowed on air. Some of the pretty frequent arguments thrown up the pro-Saddam lobby are based in fantasy la la land. Whilst the boundary between truth and lie is pretty difficult to determine at times, I base my opinions on the following facts and evidence as presented to me in the wider media i.e. not just the Sun and Daily Mirror (hey if anybody can come up with facts and evidence to the contrary, and show me as a vicious war monger feel free to post, it is a forum after all) :

The whole UN and Security Council knew exactly the underlying meaning of "severe consequences" within resolution 1441. Saddam's had plenty of time to comply, and only since he got 24 hours notice has gone into overdrive and offering something up on the table just this morning.
Claire Short and Robin Cook are a disgrace. Their attempts at scoring PR victories with the populace is both untimely and against the spirit of collective responsibility. Besides you can bet if Tony (I better look good and nice for the press) Blair, is contemplating political suicide in the eyes of the media, you can bet he's doing it because he knows stuff we don't (either that or the CIA's got photos of him Cherie, Prince Charles, tubes of toilet paper and a couple of hamsters).
The French view point is wholly based upon anti-Americanism and protection of already agreed Oil exploitation agreements with the Iraqi government (as the Russians also have in place). These have been in-operational due to current UN restrictions, but the French have campaigned (at times) for the liftening of such sanctions to "help the Iraqi people". In fact "big up" the French for basically torpedoing any form of diplomatic solution with their "Veto" power.
Saddam was never the target of the 1991 Gulf war, the whole purpose was to liberate Kuwait, that was it end off. Implementation of the UN resolutions was an attempt to with strain a mad-dictator and hopefully lead to a relatively bloodless internal re-organisation and re-entry of Iraq onto the world stage. Also Saddam remaining in power for so long has helped maintain some stability in the mid-east (although we might by reaping the whirlwind on that one now)
Saddam is known to fund terrorist groups such as Hamas (48,000,000 USD just after 9/11 alone). Furthermore Iraqi intelligence officers were known to have dealings with Al-Quaida prior to 9/11. OK so Saddam and Osama may be ideologically opposed, but they do have a common enemy not really too difficult a leap to think that they may be putting aside their differences to pull a sucker punch on the Great Satan's is it????.
The argument oft used by the pro-peace lobby is that this is all about oil. Untruth. Iraq's oil industry would not be able to increase production for many many years (a minimum decade to double production). Busting Opec's dominance of the world oil markets would be next to impossible as Iraqi oil production is only 3% of the global total and declining due to lack of investment and bad infrastructure. Even the poo the peaceniks quoted about the 91 gulf war being about oil is dog dirt. 11 years since (and despite the Kuwaitis promising to open up their oil industry to outside interests), the Kuwaiti oil industry is guess what???? Free from foreign investment / involvement. Even if the Iraqis were somehow to up Oil production form it's current 2.8 million barrels a day (pre 1980 it was 3.1m, so declining all the time) )to say 5.5m which will affect global oil prices (and is equivalent to that of the US, Saudi and Russia), it's hardly in their national interests to sell of their family silver cheap is it? (oh and that would only cost a mere 20bn USD and not be possible before 2010 anyway). If you think George Dubya's backers have got that much spare cash lying around to invest in the highly risky Mid-east oil industry you really are quite mad.
Oh and eco weenies the main growth in demand for oil is from emerging countries predominantly China and India, not the US. Ok so the American's like their SUVs etc, but the real push for additional oil is in the emerging states.
Saddam has been killing and persecuting his own people on a whim for years fact. Infact, it's such a paranoid place he executed some of his most loyal internal security people just cos they had hidden away his stocks of VX gas, rather than let then be questioned by UN inspectors (kind of Stalinist management policy going on there).
Collateral Damage. Regrettably and tragically inevitable. But come on, claims of 500,000 to 1m dead because of allied bombing??? we're not talking Dresden here, B52's are not going to be carpet bombing Baghdad for the sake of it. Any air-assault will be a mix of precision and dumb ordinance. Sure carpet bombing of Republican guard units is to be expected (if they don't like it have a coup), but in residential areas, the use of GPS / Laser guided munitions whilst not 100% perfect is going to be the case. Bush and Blair are not going to commit political suicide by allowing the same tactics used in WW2 and Vietnam etc to be used.

Going to war is a sad fact, and a last resort, however the world is a different place and such regimes need to be dealt with. No longer is it acceptable for such regimes to exist and if making an example of Iraq kicks people into line then so be it.

If any conspiracy theory exists, I would say US Foreign policy is being dictated by the future aspirations and expansionist aims of China. Ok they maybe decades behind the west in times of military might and ability, but they are expansionist and eyeing the western world with envy. It is entirely possible that the US is trying to shore up the free world before having to deal with China. It all sounds a bit Tom Clancy, but with virtually all the US air-power in the gulf, whose keeping an eye on Taiwan?

Well that's my 2pence worth, sorry if I'm ranting just getting pi$$ed of with certain people. Now on the subject of Paintball............

 

[Mark/Static]

Ok, here is the **** I've been seeing over and over, and over again, and my responses to them:

Why now?
1) Saddam has a lust for WMD that terrorist groups would wet there pants to obtain, and we'd rather not trust his judgment there.
2) Saddam has demonstrated his willingness to invade his neighbors without provocation.
3) Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own citizens.
4) Saddam has had dealings with al-Qaeda and other terror groups.
5) Saddam has systematically violated resolution after resolution, each of which promised action that never came.
6) Saddam leads one of the most brutally oppressive governments in history.
7) 9/11 has brought us to the point where we can no longer afford a nation-state like Iraq to continue to do 1-6.
This is the question that pisses me off the most! Why now? As opposed to ANOTHER 12 years?

Why don't they focus on al-Qaeda or North Korea?
1) Who the hell says they aren't?
2) Our military, diplomatic and intelligence communities have the ability to do both, as the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed proves.
3) When Clinton paid North Korea to stop producing nuclear weapons (even though they started another secret program almost immediately) this gave the North Koreans positive reinforcement. They learned that the squeaky wheel gets the oil or aid in this case. Perhaps Bush is letting them squeak.
5) In one the biggest examples of hypocrisy in this whole affair, everyone wants us to deal unilaterally with North Korea, but only multilaterally with Iraq.

The US is just doing this for cheap oil.
1) In August of 1990 Saddam offered the US ambassador to Iraq all the cheap oil the US could use if we allowed their occupation of Kuwait to stand. We attacked 5 months later.
2) If the US was truly after cheap Iraqi oil we would:
a) Be an impediment to true Iraqi disarmament.
b) Oppose any form of Iraqi regime change.
c) Flatly oppose any time-table for the use of force.
d) Use our veto on the security council as a weapon of politics.
Or simply do what France is doing.

Bush is a warmonger!
I didn't hear that about Clinton when he bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Africa, and got good men killed in Mogadishu, none of which had UN support.

What about all those people who demonstrated against a possible war with Iraq?
1) You mean the one organized by the Workers World Party?
2) What about the 4 million Iraqis living in the US and Europe that took no part in any of the demonstrations supposedly held to save the lives of their fellow countrymen.
3) It shouldn't be what they did, but rather what they said that should be studied:
http://brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html

If we attack Iraq, the terrorists will retaliate by attacking us.
1) Then who did we attack just prior to 9/11?
2) We are in a war on terror. If they CAN attack us they WILL, whether we've liberated the Iraqi people or not.

What gives us the right to attack another country that hasn't directly attacked us?
"Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security..." JFK
"Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say: 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack" FDR
"We will maintain a strong military presence in the area, and we will remain ready to use it if Saddam tries to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction." Bill Clinton
In a word, self defense.

We gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons.
1) We sold Iraq chemicals and biological cultures, but Saddam's people made them into weapons. This is no excuse of course for our governments' short-sightedness. I guess then the only honorable thing to do is to allow Saddam to use these weapons on his neighbors or to give them to a terrorist group seeking to kill Americans and Europeans, right?
2) In reality the conventional weapons that Russia, France, and China sold to Iraq have killed far more people.
3) France sold Iraq a nuclear power plant that the Israelis promptly destroyed. This garnered condemnation from around the world, including the US. But know one bothered to ask: Why does a nation, with 20% of the worlds oil, need with nuclear power?

 

[headrock6]

Nice to see the calvary finally arrived

-6