And What About North Korea?

Quote:

---

What is my point? I understand what you are saying Rat Faced, but I politely disagree. The idea that the arab street will rise up is flawed. Infact, there is unlikely to be much of any regional backlash. Why? Because they hate Saddam as much as they hate us, and when they see liberated Iraqis cheering as American tanks roll by, the arab street will not be able to claim Americans are in the wrong. Really, there is no question about Saddam's hampering of inspections to hide WMD. If you can admit that Saddam will use his chemical weapons, possibly on Israel or American troops, are you not admitting that the inspections failed? That Saddam failed to destroy prohibited weapons, per the peace agreement he signed. The peace agreement that the UN brokered as the solution to the gulf wars finality. Didn't the UN say "riding into bahgdad" was a bad idea. It certainly seems like the UN made a mistake it is unwilling to fix.

The world is at a turning point. The UN: an international body, claims to be a neutrality in international affairs. Yet, in many ways is an insult to international cooperation. What good is an organization that makes rules which it cannot enforce? What good is an organization that claims to support human rights, and than slaps the US in the face by chairing Libya on the human rights commission. And the people responsible for its failures, are infact the same ones who hamper US multilateral action. I might remind you of Bosnia. A human rights catastrophe in your backyard. The UN was so mucked up in politics it couldnt handle a simple, black and white affair. It took the US standing up to the UN to get the right thing done. This is not different in that respect. Iraq has broken resolutions of the peace agreement, and again the US has to stand up for an organization that doesnt appreciate itself. I must ask you, what is the point of the UN? There are indications that it is becoming an organization whose focus is to oppose American action worldwide. The humour lies in the fact that the US shoulders the majority of that bill.

Lastly, rat faced. I think your ideas about terrorism are a bit irrational. By this I mean, you believe they have the capability to do what you spoke of. 20 terrorists in every major city. Well, if they could do it, they would have done it. Al Qaeda has been hurt, it no longer has an openly supportive regime to supply it. The Taliban's power, shattered. Remember the international critisism of US plans to attack Afghanistan? How it would ignite the arab street, be a horribly long war, huge civilian casualties etc.? None of this happened. Those ideas are just tactics of fear mongering by irrelevant political bodies. If you cant understand what the defeat of the Taliban, what the defeat of the Iraq signals to American enemies, I question your ability to debate. No government wants to be associated with terrorism that attacks America. Why? Because it is guaranteed destruction, much like American and Russian nukes deterrence of all out war between two hostile nations. If your government doesnt support military action against terrorism. You (Western countries) really dont understand appeasement is your own peril. Because when september 11th comes to your country, those terrorists will not fear retribution. But they will fear a US reaction, because I promise you this: America will be there to help.

---

I appreciate, and do try to understand your point.

But can i point out I said IF, Iraq does have NBC capability, and that the 20 terrorists in every city would be as a result of an attack....merely because it will, in my opinion, increase Fundamentalism, and the influence of this.

Islam, is not a bad religion...it has much in common with Christianity, they even acknowledge Christ as a prophet. I dont claim to be a christian, however if they acknowledge Christ as a prophet, they must agree, in general with his teachings etc.

Fundamentalism in ANY religion is dangerous...it just so happens that the situation today is a massive increase in Islamic Fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam preaches that it is okay to kill anyone that is not Islamic, if they are aware of Islam. In this world of hi tech communications, this can be interpretted as anyone.

I never claimed to be a passifist (its late, forgive my spelling)...but I believe wholeheartedly that this war is not in the best interests of any country. In fact I honestly believe the only ones to benefit (apart from the arms industry obviously) are the oil companies and their shareholders....and the ones that come to mind spend their time in the whitehouse.

Im not antiAmerican by any means and have pointed out a number of positives to come out of the USA in other threads, but living in a country that has lived with terrorism my entire life I honestly predict a huge increase in Terrorism on the US Mainland and here in the UK.

I dont claim to be clever, ambitious, bastard, desperate or a nutter...all of which Hussain is...but if i was him, IF i had NBC they would already be at their point of use and ready to use. And that point of use would NOT be in Iraq. As i said, Biological and Chemical Agents are very easy to smuggle and Transport. A few grams of Ricin (which is what was used in the Tokio Underground a few years ago) has already been discovered on UK soil....how much have we missed? Its not manufactured a few grams at a time.

Quote:

---

But can i point out I said IF, Iraq does have NBC capability, and that the 20 terrorists in every city would be as a result of an attack....merely because it will, in my opinion, increase Fundamentalism, and the influence of this.

Islam, is not a bad religion...it has much in common with Christianity, they even acknowledge Christ as a prophet. I dont claim to be a christian, however if they acknowledge Christ as a prophet, they must agree, in general with his teachings etc.

Fundamentalism in ANY religion is dangerous...it just so happens that the situation today is a massive increase in Islamic Fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam preaches that it is okay to kill anyone that is not Islamic, if they are aware of Islam. In this world of hi tech communications, this can be interpretted as anyone.

---

I completely agree that fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous. I'm pretty sure I said that in a previous post. I also agree that Islam is not an evil religion as a whole.

However, I am not sure that I agree with your position on rise of fundamentalism due to an attack. There was very little protest to American action in Afghanistan as soon as Al Jazeera (sp?) released the footage of happy liberated Afghans. I don't believe Iraq will be any different. What is difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, that would significantly change the reaction of the muslims in the region?

Quote:

---

I never claimed to be a passifist (its late, forgive my spelling)...but I believe wholeheartedly that this war is not in the best interests of any country. In fact I honestly believe the only ones to benefit (apart from the arms industry obviously) are the oil companies and their shareholders....and the ones that come to mind spend their time in the whitehouse.

Im not antiAmerican by any means and have pointed out a number of positives to come out of the USA in other threads, but living in a country that has lived with terrorism my entire life I honestly predict a huge increase in Terrorism on the US Mainland and here in the UK.

I dont claim to be clever, ambitious, bastard, desperate or a nutter...all of which Hussain is...but if i was him, IF i had NBC they would already be at their point of use and ready to use. And that point of use would NOT be in Iraq. As i said, Biological and Chemical Agents are very easy to smuggle and Transport. A few grams of Ricin (which is what was used in the Tokio Underground a few years ago) has already been discovered on UK soil....how much have we missed? Its not manufactured a few grams at a time.

---

I think its fine that your of this opinion, but can you explain yourself a bit more. When is it time to go to war? What is to be done about Iraq's failures to comply with UN resolutions? What does "Serious Consequences" mean to you? Why do you think Saddam is rational (in response to your thinking that he will only use his NBC as a last resort, IE defensively)? Can you answer those questions for me, Im just unclear as to where you are coming from.

What about north Korea??, i say blow them up too!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programm...ages/prog1.jpg
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapimage...orth_korea.gif

Quote:

---

However, I am not sure that I agree with your position on rise of fundamentalism due to an attack. There was very little protest to American action in Afghanistan as soon as Al Jazeera (sp?) released the footage of happy liberated Afghans. I don't believe Iraq will be any different. What is difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, that would significantly change the reaction of the muslims in the region?

---

Its actually very simply put. Islamic Law REQUIRES revenge...ie An eye for an eye.

As soon as the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, most of the Islamic world expected you to get him...with every right, in their eyes to do so. It is only the Fundamentalists that objected, and those that thought USA/UK used a sledgehammer to smash a nut. Im of the opinion that SF from US/UK could have done a better job without all the crap of an invasion, and Bin Laden wouldnt have got away if they'd done that....but thats just my opinion. The basic premis...that you had THE RIGHT to an eye for an eye, holds true.

Iraq is different.

There is no evidence linking Al Queda with Hussain, indeed all evidence shows that they hate each other with a passion matched by Al Queda/USA. The only attempt to link the 2 (By Mossad, last year) was disproved out of hand by the CIA. Now the CIA is using half truths to try and link them in the minds of US citizens...ie 12 cells operating in and aound Iraq (without mentioning that they are blowing things up in that country, ie terrorists against Hussain)

That being the case...the 'eye fo an eye' doesnt hold true.

We would have got away with it as a continuation of Desert Storm, but things change. He is now seen by most in the Middle East as the 'victim', due to the sanctions of US/UK, and bombing that we have both inflicted on him over the last decade. It makes it look like the USA/UK, in THEIR eyes, are attacking ISLAM...first Afganistan which they accept, now Iraq.

Added to this, they see the systematic withdrawal of aid from those countries that object...such as the Philephines, with its high proportion of Muslims. This may have happened anyway, i dont know. But it happening at the same time as they voice concern over an attack on Iraq is not seen as a co-incidence by the Islamic world.

I've given you examples of Black Propaganda....you have to remember that these same techniques are used by the people that oppose you, so they too get a slanted view of the situation....but slanted the other way.


The war with Iraq will be over very quickly, I think....but the aftermath will take decades.

And I have yet to hear a workable solution to what you are going to put in Saddams place. Iraq's borders were an 'Administrative' legacy of when the British were there, and has no bearing on the peoples within these borders....they HATE each other. The peoples are; politically speaking a various mix of Fundamentalist and secular factions.

The only 'solutions' would be to either:

1/ Break the country up into its original component 'parts': Messopotamia etc...this would give the Kurds their own homeland (which they've been after for years), however that will start a lot of trouble in Turkey...as the Kurdish 'Homeland' is partly within that country (and have their own problems with Kurds at times)... I cant see Turkey accepting this option, or the USA as these new 'countries' could be very Fundamentalist and anti-USA. That defeats the object.

2/ Install another 'strong' leader ie Bastard, to rule with fear...this would be unacceptable to the world at large, given the reasons being used to attack in the first place.

3/ A 'Democracy'. If this option is taken, I will give it 5 years tops, before an all out civil war. And a brutal regime of terrorism from the various factions until then...financed by the various 'Factions' of the Fundamentalist Islamic countries, and terrorist organisations.


This being the result of the victory, I see any 'celibration of liberation' being very short lived.


Personally, I think we should re-direct our efforts back into the hunting of Terrorists, which has world wide backing.

At the same time, the USA should critically examin its Foreign Policy (especially in the Middle East), as this is the main cause of anti-USA feeling in the area.....ie Israel can do no wrong, but Pallestinians are all killers/terrorists. An acknowledgement that BOTH side have caused attrociaties and forcing Israel to implement UN resolutions against it, would probably change sentiment to so Pro-USA that you could walk into Iraq with little or few repercussions (except: what do you do with the country now?)........but this isnt going to happen.

Just bringing this back to the top.....coz im not upto a nice long post on the 'I oppose this war thread', I feel shit today :(

Maybe later. :blink:

Just thought I'd bring this topic back up as there have been further developements.

1.) North Korea threatens to leave the 1953 Armistice Agreement, which would return the US and North Korea to a state of war, essentially. Also, there's a strong possibility that North Korea will conduct a live fire missile test, similar to the one, 5 years ago, that flew over Japan.

2.) Debate has started in Japan on whether or not to start producing nuclear weapons. Japanese Self-Defense forces have begun deploying along the western coast, from their long held positions on Japan's northern main island. Japanese Special Forces have stepped up training exercises.
Japan will launch 2 spy satellites for the purpose of collecting intelligence on North Korea, next month. The Japanese Defense minister has stated that any missile launch toward Japan would entitle them to go to war.

@ El Jefe

I take it China is still staying out of it?

I wish they would take some responsibility for their neck of the woods, much as my posts seem to come out anti-american (im not)....The USA isnt the only ones to have played games all over the world.

Korea is, at least in part, the fault of China....and I think they are the only ones that can clear this house up.