No other dictatorial regime (Pakistan, North Korea) is in a position that Iraq is in. Iraq agreed to a ceasefire and all the conditions that went along with it. From the very first day after signing that cease fire it has been breaking its word. Neither Pakistan nor North Korea have done what Iraq has done in its recent history. Also both those countries have taken steps recently that are aligning themselves with the rest of the civilized world. I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the recent NK actions but I believe in about 5 years they will be something like China. Pakistan has also cracked down on terrorism with an iron fist (or did you not catch the capture of two high ranking Al-Qaeda terrorists on TV by US and Pakistani forces?). To compare them is to not understand the unique complicated situation in Iraq and the middle east. I'll state it again, a proposed containment: 1] means the continuation of innocent Iraqi deaths (especially children) and also goes against the spirit of the UN sanctions because they were meant as temporary measures 2] is not practical as Iraq has the ability to acquire anything it desires (it is only a matter of time and money) we already see this through declassified information (aluminum casings, weapons/equipment from outside, etc.)
Well, I happen to disagree. Imo we're back at doing what we do best: support dictators like Musharraf, sending out the totally wrong signals to the rest of the world, and then suffering the consequences, just like what we did with Saddam Hussein. EXCERPTS from the following: Read what Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, put in the Congressional Record concerning the United States government's export of biological weapons ingredients to Iraq more than a decade ago. When asked by Byrd about this history as recounted in a recent Newsweek article, the current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who met with Saddam Hussein as an envoy for prior administrations, declined to directly answer Byrd's questions: Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998 HOW SADDAM HAPPENED Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I asked a question of the Secretary of Defense. I referred to a Newsweek article that will appear in the September 23, 2002, edition. That article reads as follows. It is not overly lengthy. I shall read it. Beginning on page 35 of Newsweek, here is what the article says: America helped make a monster. What to do with him--and what happens after he is gone--has haunted us for a quarter century. The article is written by Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas. It reads as follows: The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment. Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions. The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacterial cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds. The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. There was only token official protest at the time. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- And, as ever, we must not forget: The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors. http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The suspicion will not die that the Bush administration turned to Iraq for relief from a sharp decline in its domestic political prospects. The news had been dominated for months by corporate scandals and the fall of the stock market, and the November elections were shaping up as a referendum on the Republican's handling of domestic social and economic issues. Bush is reversing a half-century of strategic doctrine on the grounds that the new enemies America faces are not like the risk-averse Soviet Union. But at the time George Kennan and others formulated the theory of deterrence, the Soviet ruler had long been Joseph Stalin, not known for being risk-averse. There is no evidence that any of the countries in Bush's axis of evil -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- are not deterrable according to the same logic that worked with the Soviets. In making war against Iraq, Bush is risking not just American lives but America's good name. His high-handed attitude toward our allies has already earned the United States unnecessary ill will. Unlike the Gulf War, however, the United States is going into this conflict with little international legitimacy or support. http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/19/editors.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The way many see it, a U.S. war on Iraq could well pull Israel into the conflict, and as a result, unwillingly force other Arab countries into the battle. This, many fear, would provide fuel to the Islamist fundamentalists' anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Western stance, and place Arab regimes currently friendly toward the United States in a very precarious situation. "This is exactly what someone like bin Laden wants," said one veteran diplomat. "In the eyes of many people in the region, this would give a certain degree of legitimacy to the likes of (Osama) bin Laden and his al Qaida terrorist organization," said the diplomat. "This is not something we want to see occur." http://www.emedicine.com/cgi-bin/fo...19-09434300-BC-IRAQ-PANDORA-ANALYSIS-TEXT.TXT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Said one former American ambassador to the Middle East: "Saddam does not pose a real threat to the U.S. Even if he did posses weapons of mass destruction, he does not have the delivery capability to target American cities." http://www.emedicine.com/cgi-bin/fo...19-09434300-BC-IRAQ-PANDORA-ANALYSIS-TEXT.TXT
Third time you've posted the Osama poster. And you claim that everyone else is the propaganda machine. But here's a response to your pal OBL: "Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge." Jeezy peezy Ossi, where do you get this 'new recruit' stuff from? The seasoned ones will do the job just fine. Wait, your advisors didn't tell you that your "troops" were winning battles, did they? As far as hatred, frankly most of us could care less, we're going to root every last one of you out over the next decade. "Americans wonât be safe anywhere." Uh, gosh Mr. B., but why haven't you retaliated by now against Americans. I mean just because we wiped out about 97% of the Al-Quaeda infrastructure, don't you think it would behoove you to do something threatening to stop this Iraqi thing? "Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda." Osster, don't make me laugh; we can chew gum and walk. After all we did an entire Pacific and European World War before. Uh, by the way, Binny, how much of Al-Qaeda is left for the US military to be distracted from? Aren't all of your remaining coward cells the domain of the international police community? "Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region." Destabilize the region? Surely you jest. How can it be destabilized anymore than you and your imbecile "rulers" already have? The international community is already rooting out your Al-Quaeda cells. And the world is certainly going to sleep better at night after Saddam's bio-terror and nuclear toys have been taken away. "Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons." You don't really think that 700,000 Pakistani troops are just going to become Al-Quaeda, do you? Otherwise, hey, I mean, what's stopping you? Why have you waited this long? Could it be that the Pakistani troops have a slight numerical advantage, say about 700,000 men to your, how many? Or maybe it's the Pakistani $2.4 billion yearly military budget that might be a detriment. "Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect! So please -- invade Iraq. Make my day." Saddam strike first? C'mon, Ossi, you know better. And as far as "making your day," how come we haven't seen you on Al-Jeezera lately? Are doing a Sopranos thing and getting a late start on the season? Bad move, you won't be eligible for an Emmy until next year. Or perhaps your fooling around with those virgins you ragheads keep ragging on about. Osama? Hello . . . are you there?
Here is another very salient interview with a Gulf War POW: A War Waiting for a Pretext A Persian Gulf War POW accuses the United States and Britain of being hypocritical about Saddam NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE Sept. 27 â John Nichol knows all about the brutality of Saddam Husseinâs Iraq. As a 27-year-old navigator for Britainâs Royal Air Force during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he was shot down over the Iraqi desert during the first low-level daylight raid of the war. HE AND HIS PILOT ejected safely, but were captured by the Iraqis. During the next seven weeks, he was beaten, tortured and paraded before the television cameras to denounce his countryâs attack on Saddam. Since leaving the RAF in 1996, Nichol has launched a second career as a writer. He now has six books in print; a seventh, âThe Last Escape,â is to be published in Britain next month. As the debate over an attack on Iraq gains urgencyâ100,000 protestors are expected to join an antiwar march in London this weekendâNichol has emerged as a forthright critic of a U.S.-British strike against Saddam. He spoke to NEWSWEEKâs William Underhill in London: NEWSWEEK: You were held captive and tortured by agents of Saddam Husseinâs regime. Why do you now oppose military intervention to secure his overthrow? John Nichol: One reason why the West, and Britain and the United States in particular, are in such a difficult position is that they seem to think that they can cherry-pick regimes that are bad and need to be changed. We deal with bad regimes on a daily basis: we deal with Iran, we deal with Saudi Arabia, which has a truly appalling record on human rights, but we donât talk about regime change there. America and Britain canât set themselves up as the world policemen without a mandate from the world. Would you agree to an intervention if it were sanctioned by the United Nations? If it were sanctioned and supported. There is a very real difference between the two. A huge amount of bribery, arm-twisting and coercion goes on at the U.N. I am not naive enough to think that doesnât have to happen, but there is a difference between Britain and the U.S. forcing through a resolution and the rest of the world actually agreeing to it. What would turn the issue for me is if the Arab countries of the region said, âWe feel threatened by Saddam Hussein, could you help us?ââwhich is what they did in 1991. Prime Minister Tony Blair this week produced a dossier of evidence to support the case for military action. Why werenât you persuaded? It did reinforce the notion that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime have an appalling record for human rights, that he has weapons of mass destruction and seeks more weapons of mass destruction. But I could name 10 other countries in the region whose names you could substitute for Iraqâs in that dossier. Iraq is a war waiting for a pretext and that is what the dossier is trying to provide. There was nothing new in it. There was evidence for all those allegations five, 10 or 15 years agoâwhen we were still doing business with Iraq. Is that why you have accused Britain and America of hypocrisy in their attitude to Iraq? Many countries have shown a degree of hypocrisy. But Britain and America are particularly bad. We trained Iraqi armed forces. Our special forces were in Baghdad training their special forces. We trained pilots in the Royal Air Force to fly aircraft and drop bombs. We gave Saddam Hussein the technology and the material to produce his weapons of mass destruction, and itâs simply not good enough to say: âWell, we have changed our mind about this.â It is that duplicity which puts us in such a difficult position. The classic example is the attack at Halabjah in 1988 when 5,000 Kurds were killed [in a chemical attack by Iraqi forces]. Every single politician from [President] Bush and [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld to Blair stands up on television and says âSaddam Hussein gassed his own people and is a disgrace to the world.â But America sent representatives from [major U.S. companies] for a personal audience with Saddam Hussein one year after the attack. Do you feel any animosity towards the people of Iraq after your experiences as a POW? I feel absolutely no animosity towards the Iraqis. War is an appalling, brutal experience which I have been through on a couple of occasions. Members of the general public and even politicians seem to forget that. They think that war can be waged by computer, by cruise missile, by laser-guided bomb. It canât be. Yes, I had some brutal treatment at the hands of some Iraqi people. I was kept in a tiny concrete cell with no bed, no cups, nothing. You were just alone there with your thoughts. But these things happen in war and, more important, 99.9 percent of Iraqis are good honest people. I went back to Iraq 18 months ago and was welcomed by everybody there. As an ex-serviceman, how do you think the armed forces will react to being sent to fight in Iraq without the full support of the public? The members of our armed forces are professional people. They will do exactly what their commanders in chief tell them to do because that is their job. Thatâs doesnât mean some of them wonât have misgivings. The views of the armed forces are just the same as you will read in every newspaper or hear in every TV show. But there is something really important here. Politicians say we canât criticize our armed forces when they are in action, but that doesnât means we canât criticize the policies that put them in that position. I particularly remember when I was flying over Bosnia being shot at by all three sidesâSerbs, Muslims and Croatsâand wanting someone to question the government policy on what we are doing. What has been the lasting effect of your captivity? People always look at an appalling experience and say, âMy God I couldnât go though that.â But it was only seven weeks. It was a horrible seven weeks, a brutal seven weeksâbut only seven weeks. I came home and tragically some of my friends didnât come home. So in that way I am incredibly lucky. I suppose what the gulf war showed meâas it was my first warâwas the brutal reality of war. That doesnât mean war isnât sometimes necessary, but when you see it at first hand you view with suspicion politicians who are so ready to wield the military stick. © 2002 Newsweek, Inc. http://www.msnbc.com/news/814085.asp
I accuse TigerO and lefties in general of being hypocritical about war. Where were you TigerO when Clinton was carpet bombing Serbia ?
What, I'm I picking on you? Hey, c'mon, whaddya want from me? You're the one flashing "Uncle oSAMa Says: I Want YOU To Invade Iraq" posters; stay out of the kitchen if . . . etc., etc.