bomba <
[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>>Do you have a link to further information about that? I was under the impression that even the US
>>>government had dropped that link.
>>
>> Saddam has sending families of suicide bombers $25K each, though he recently reduced that to
>> $10K. There is solid evidence that he has supplied harbor and training to teorrist groups,
>> including AQ.
>
>I'll ask again: Do you have any independtly verified proof of this? Why was terrorism dropped as a
>motive for an imminent war against Iraq by the US government?
There's no doubt at all about the funding for the families of PLO suicide bomber. I'm not sure what
will qualify as "independent" on links to other teorrist organization support, since the only
information is going to come from intelligence organizations belonging to "friendly governments".
Geraldo won't be showing video on the training camps if that's what you mean... ;-)
>I'm
>> not aware of anyone claiming a significant "direct connection" between Saddam and 9/11, but if
>> he's helping train or fund any teorrist activity, he's fair game in my book.
>
>Ironic how people in the US now have this anti-terrorism stance but for years funded dissident
>Irish groups to commit acts of terrorism...
I would agree with you 100% that those who would actually contribute to terrorists in Belfast but
support the war on teorrism in the middle east have to be living in denial.
>> Another US poll that asked the question differently found 71% in favor of using military force to
>> remove and disarm Saddam. I think most of us in the US is pretty fed up with the Security
>> Council's actions and isn't as patient as they may have been a month ago.
>
>Because the US / UK are not getting their own way?
In a word, yes. But don't dismiss "their own way" as the wrong thing.
I'm a simple guy, and I look at this as a simple issue.
1) Iraq has WMD (there is no doubt)
2) Saddam's regime is aggressive, and has used WMD
3) Saddam is openly anti-US (for example, tried to have an ex president assassinated)
4) There's nothing that makes me think he would hesitate to give or sell WMD to those who would use
them on the US or other western culture.
5) I don't want to wait until he DOES have a nuke to have to deal with him.
>> True enough - France said it would veto any resolution calling for force. Hmmmm. I wonder what
>> THEY had in mind to get Saddam to disarm after "only" 12 years and a dozen resolutions being
>> thrown back in the UN's face. Maybe they'd say "pretty please"?
>
>So now the UN is relevant again? Why isn't the US invading Israel for its breaches of UN
>resolutions over the past 40-50 years?
The UN wasn't wrong when it demanded Iraq give up its WMD. The problem is the UN currently has no
teeth, and is little more than a debating society.
The Israel situation is a lot more complex, and has to do with a two-party dance that's been going
on for decades.
In the end, if the UN took firm and forceful actions to back up its resolutions, neither of the
above situations would be a problem today.
>> I've seen a lot of sand thrown in the air over some of the details (like claims of a direct link
>> between Saddam and 9/11 or the forged Nigerian uranium document). Even though neither of these
>> was a reason for what's going on now, they seem to be pointed at as proof that the reason for
>> attacking Iraq is flawed.
>
>I don't think things such as the Nigerian uranium document were proof that the war is flawed, more
>that it showed the lengths that the US and UK were prepared to go to, to justify the war. The point
>is that current justification is flimsy, at best.
There's no proof that the US or UK had anything to do with the documents (they're hardly necessary
to justify war anyway). They would have been much more convincing if they WERE created by the US,
IMHO. The problem is that they were mentioned at all, but it seems that the scrutiny cycle has been
shortened during the UN debate. They would have been discovered as forgeries otherwise.
>> Bottom line, the guy's got WMD, isn't stable enough to be trusted, and isn't going to give them
>> up without a fight. Everything else is just icing on the cake.
>
>Most of your argument hinges on the possibility that Iraq may supply WMD to terrorist groups. To
>launch a war on speculation is setting a dangerous precedent, IMO. In addition, this is not even
>the motive stated by the US and the UK for going to war.
The reason is to disarm Iraq (one and the same to me).
>Again, we'll come back to the argument over whether Iraq poses a real and credible threat to world
>peace. I still don't believe they do, but you obviously do.
Yes I do. Even if there was no chance any Iraqi WMD would make its way to the shores of the US, I'd
still feel the same about the need to disarm Iraq. His stated goal is to control the middle east,
and make Baghdad the seat of power. As hosed up as things are in the middle east, the last thing we
need (as a world) right now is a repeat of Iraq's attack on Iran or Kuwait. Imagine what happens if
he decided to hit Tel Aviv with some sort of WMD and the Israelis pulled off the gloves. Eeeek.
>> Mark "been doin' a lot of reading on the subject" Hickey
>
>Nice to have a debate with someone who has, rather than just dismissing me as a 'coward' or 'having
>my head in the sand'.
Same here. I really wish there was a viable alternative to war, but it's pretty obvious that's the
only reason Saddam will ever disarm. So it doesn't really come down to the question of if there will
be war, but when. We can argue about the timing, but I propose sooner is better than later.
Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
