Posted by iceburn on 4/1/2003, 3:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Threat of Iraq" I really am sorry - as you can see from my reply to your first half. : 1) That Iraq and Germany are valid I don't see anything wrong with comparing any two regimes, especially not these too. Germany didn't have the United States or UN breathing down its neck at every turn. In fact, the British encouraged Germany to build up to a modest strength and agreed that the Versailles treaty was a bit too harsh, as evidenced by the massive Depression that hit Germany post-war. You're right. Germany had a much better chance of being a world player. We never gave Iraq that chance, and the UN and post-war U.S. were set up to prevent any such regime from ever gaining power again. They both differ in military Such entities did exist in Nazi Germany, although since they were based in Nazi Germany, they were kept as secret as possible (again, I believe that the council you are talking about is located in London and Salahuddin - which has been under the protection of UN planes for a dozen years). The last conspiracy to kill Hitler was actually a pretty large organization that was able to operate without Hitler's knowledge up until the explosion. You claimed that Again, I believe that this is only absolutely possible because of the political thinking of today's politicians as compared to those of pre-World War II. : 2) That because Iraq is a Iraq doesn't have such a Declaration of Independence. On a note that you may not like, the Iraqi National Congress operates under the United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which demands the end of the repression of the Iraqi people, not an actual declaration by the Iraqi people. Of course, them officially basing their opposition on such a document must mean that at least some of the Iraqi people desire such a declaration. Sure the plea We've tried that. We and Saudi Arabia have supported numerous coups and revolts. We were not able to support the most serious one, the one that actually took place at the end of the Gulf War, because of political pressure from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Bush administration didn't go forward, and here we are now. I found a few quotes by Schwarzkopf that definitely support your opinion (especially number 2). I by no means am saying that your opinion is not justified, and in fact, my first reply to your message noted that everything the American public has been asking deserves an answer. A lot of people feel that way. : 3) That the United Nations ruling sanctions It should have been, but some members of the United Nations chose not to stand by what they had agreed to put in front of the Iraqi regime. I believe we are all well aware of your stance on the UN. Nothing I could say would ever change your mind about the UN. : 4) That in light of not even shutting down Al Qaeda is a different kind of enemy, and the efforts in Afghanistan are still ongoing. We haven't diverted our full military force to the Gulf region, nor will we probably have to. I've already touched on the economy thing. You really don't have anything major to worry about. Business is still happening in America. The company I work for was worried about the war stopping our customers, but instead, two major software engineering contracts have gone down, and IBM just made two major multi-billion dollar IT service contracts happen. The economy is fine, and U.S. businesses are still trying to find qualified employees. : 5) That Saddam is capable of any serious and Bush's stance is that he doesn't want to sit back idly and wait. I understand that. Like I said earlier, I believe it's mostly a political mask, but removing Saddam's regime is a step towards a better Middle East, not just for the U.S.
24.196.62.85
: (continued, your board doesn't let posts be too
: long)
: comparisons.
: stance, land posturing, proven
: effectiveness in military aims, and
: dominance over civilians (you wouldn't
: think that an Iraqi National Congress
: would exist to unite various opposition
: forces if it wasn't for heavy domestic
: resistance - such an entity would NOT have
: existed in Nazi Germany).
: the German army developed from nothing
: into a massive war engine, which, while
: true, probably had more to do with it
: experiencing a low point after World War I
: moreso than armies having the ability to
: spontaneously constitute themselves. There
: is no sign that Iraq will meet the weapons
: development curve of other nations
: surrounding it, like Israel, Palestine,
: India, and the idea of it growing past
: Russia or China or Egypt is a joke. Iraq's
: power struggles are modest compared to
: Nazi ones.
: "percieved" threat that it's any
: more our responsibility to respond to it
: than it is for others for whom it is a
: "real" threat. I abide by the
: principles of the Declaration of
: Independence, which declare it's the right
: and responsibility for those oppressed to
: defend their own rights.
: exists to "save" the Iraqis. I
: don't see a compelling reason to believe
: it should be us doing the saving. Let
: resistance groups and neighboring nations
: who actually have to deal with Iraqi armed
: invasions worry about that, since it's
: their right and responsibility to deal
: with it, not ours.
: or mitigating treaties is somehow a
: justification for this war.
: our last target, Al Qaeda, that this war
: is a good idea, considering it's
: likeliness of in increasing terrorism
: while spending more tax dollars than our
: economy can afford to have spent.
: imminent harm to the U.S., thus justifying
: a pre-emptive strike. You countered this
: argument by saying that we should not
: "sit back idly and wait". I
: don't see a good justification for that.
: On the same token, why don't we expand all
: military aims towards being pro-active by
: assaulting every nation in the world that
: is anti-democratic and anti-American and
: downright mean?
Message Thread:
« Back to thread