Log in

View Full Version : Saddam Must Go - The State of the World Depends on It



Stormin Norman
19th September 2002, 11:25
Why the U.S. Must Dispose of Saddam Hussein and the Current Iraqi Regime

The situation in Iraq is disturbing. In 1990 Iraqi forces attacked Kuwait in an attempt to gain control of the oil resources of that country. This spawned the largest conglomeration of coalition forces in recent history. After a campaign comprised of mostly air sorties and a massive onslaught by U.S. armored divisions, likened to the German Blitzkrieg, Saddam agreed to a cease fire.

This agreement allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to evaluate and destroy Iraqi weapons that violated the Geneva Convention. For years Saddam's government has been pursuing weapons of mass destruction in direct violation to this world-renowned treaty. The sophistication of his weapons program continues to baffle even the most experienced onlookers. Not only does Hussein place importance on becoming another nuclear power, but he is also in pursuit of some of the world's most deadly biological agents. The ability of a rouge nation, under the control of a severe degenerate, to produce such vile weapons poses a certain threat any nation in that region or beyond.

Part of the cease fire agreement, drafted by the U.N., placed sanctions on the government until certain measures were met in full. The cooperation of Saddam in helping to destroy his deadly arsenal was a crucial element, and represents the main area of Iraq resistance to comply. Further compounding international relations, Saddam made a move to eliminate resistance groups in the north, mainly the Kurdish rebels. These efforts resulted in a brazen disregard for the fact the world's eyes were focused on him. Obviously, this blood bath should be recognized as Saddam's belief that he can carry out such operations with pure impunity. He was testing the waters to see if the U.N. resolutions held any coercive promise. The international community faltered in its resolve to deal with the difficulties this tyrant poses. In addition, Saddam deliberately withheld evidence and hid his top-level scientists in an effort to undermine UNSCOM. The extent of Iraq resistance to submit to inspection was so effective that UNSCOM had no choice but to leave. They concluded that their efforts were severely undermined and the extent of his program is still unknown.

What is known; is that Iraq has Vx, Mustard, and other nerve gasses. Not only does he possess such weapons, but he has armed some of his intermediate range missiles with these elements. He also had an extensive biological weapons program that sought after Botulinum, small pox, camel pox, and hemmoragic agents. The main advantage these weapons have over their nuclear and chemical counterparts is their micro-nature. They can be hidden with relative ease, and deployed in small and large doses, producing catastrophic results.

Recently, an Iraqi defector that headed up Iraq's nuclear weapons program has offered insight into the extent of Saddam's capability. He claims that they have all the technology and necessary components for producing a nuclear weapon. The only missing ingredient is the fissile material.

Another troubling world event remains the press release by the Ukraine government regarding the amount of nuclear material missing from their stockpile. Ukraine has been unable to account for roughly 200 warheads. If Saddam acquires these materials, the nature of the game changes. He will have a particularly large bargaining chip by which to deal with the world.

I have compiled some background on Iraq's history and weapons programs. When looking over the facts, I ask you to question whether or not the U.S. should allow such a man to continue to rule his people and pose an imminent threat to the world at large. Consider his record and his desire to obtain these weapons. What do you believe his motives to be? Should the U.S. turn the other way and allow him to heighten the extent of his power, or should we eliminate the possibility, considering the current threats we are facing?


From the State Department:

"Iraq enjoyed a strong economy until Saddam Hussein took power and launched attacks against his neighbors — Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990 — with devastating results for Iraq. It took 5 years for Saddam to accept the oil-for-food program. Saddam also has failed to implement policies that would boost economic growth and generate job opportunities to improve the population's living standards."

"Iraq's oil exports are approaching pre-war levels. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq was exporting about 2.6 million barrels per day of crude oil. Its current crude oil exports have averaged about 2.2 million barrels per day in recent months, and the regime said it plans to increase exports to about 2.7 million barrels per day by yearend, which is higher than pre-war exports. In addition, Iraq is smuggling 2.8 million barrels of oil per month through the Persian Gulf."

"Oil-for-food has made significant improvements in the lives of the Iraqis and will continue to do so. The increase in revenue under the oil-for-food program from $4 billion in the first year of the program to a projected $20.4 billion this year means there is a tremendous amount of money available for humanitarian goods. The government of Iraq must choose to make that happen. In northern Iraq, where the UN controls the humanitarian relief programs, child mortality rates are lower than they were before the Gulf War. However, in southern and central Iraq, where the Iraqi Government controls the oil-for-food program, mortality rates have doubled."

"More than 13 million metric tons of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq since the first deliveries of the oil-for-food program began in 1997. In fact, Baghdad has been caught exporting dates, corn, and grain outside of Iraq while claiming the Iraqi people are starving."

"Iraq has not complied with UN Security Council Resolutions that call for dismantling weapons of mass destruction programs, and returning Kuwaiti and other nations' missing persons and POWs and Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War."

"Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988 was one of the largest chemical weapon attacks ever waged against a civilian population. Even today, Saddam continues to practice systematic torture, executions, forced displacement, and repression against the Iraqi people. The U.S. is currently seeking an indictment of senior regime officials for these atrocities."

"As a result of its refusal to cooperate with the UN disarmament regime, Iraq maintains the capacity to produce missiles and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The absence of UN inspectors from Iraq has afforded Saddam the opportunity to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has already launched two bloody wars; one against Iran in 1980 and the other against Kuwait in 1990. In the last couple of years, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly issued public threats against his neighbors, including calls for the overthrow of a number of regimes."

source:State Department myths and facts about Iraq (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/factsheet.htm)

Australia Analysis Based on UNSCOM Reports:

"4,000 tonnes of chemical weapons raw materials are unaccounted for, which would provide a capability of producing hundreds of tonnes of chemical weapons agents to fill thousands of munitions. Indeed 31,000 chemical weapons munitions remain unaccounted for."

"Some 600 tonnes of raw materials for the deadly VX nerve agent are not accounted for, which would provide a capability of making 200 tonnes of VX...

...200 tonnes of VX could theoretically obliterate the entire global population."

"17 tonnes of growth media for biological weapons agents are unaccounted for. These media could produce at least three times the quantity of anthrax which Iraq has admitted it produced. Iraq has also not fully disclosed field trials it conducted of aerial bombs filled with botulinum toxin, simulant B or aflatoxin. These biological weapons are designed to incapacitate and kill...

...Botulinum toxin is the most poisonous substance known. "

"One ounce of anthrax in an air conditioning system in a sports stadium could infect 70,000 people in one hour."

"It has been calculated that a missile warhead filled with 30 kg of anthrax used against unprotected civilians in a large city would result in between 20,000 and 80,000 fatalities."

"UNSCOM has repeatedly reported on Iraq's systematic concealment activities in proscribed weapons areas. Despite Iraq's obligations to provide full, final and complete declarations (FFCD) in the missile, chemical and biological fields in 1991, Iraq submitted such declarations five to six years later, and some of these have been inadequate. UNSCOM has particularly grave concerns about the inadequacy of information relating to Iraq's biological warfare program."

source:materials unaccounted for (http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/releases/foreign/1998/fa014_a_98.html)


Hamza's (Former Head of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program) Testimony before congress

"Citing German intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq had more than 10 tons of uranium and one ton of slightly enriched uranium. Hamza said that could give Iraq enough weapons-grade uranium to build three nuclear weapons within three years.

In addition, Hamza said, Iraq is trying to extend the range of its missiles in order to reach Israel."

Source:CNN (http://europe.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/senate.iraq.hearing/)

Chemical and Biological Weapon Facts

"Nerve Agents -- These agents disrupt normal functioning of the central nervous system. They are colorless, tasteless, and odorless. Sarin is delivered as an aerosol and evaporates rather rapidly. Inhalation of 100 milligrams is lethal. VX is a persistent agent (effective for days or weeks depending upon climactic conditions) absorbed through the skin, 5- 10 milligrams are lethal. Exposure to nerve agents results in nausea, diarrhea, pulmonary edema, and convulsions leading to death by respiratory arrest in within one to fifteen minutes, depending on the concentration"

"Mustard Gas" -- "Mustard gas" is actually an oily brownish liquid with a smell similar to garlic. It is a vesicant or blister agent. It is generally severely incapacitating rather than lethal, though intense or prolonged exposure can lead to fatal pulmonary edema. An incapacitating dose is about 200 milligrams, and 1,500 milligrams inhaled is sufficient to kill. Mustard gas damages any tissue it contacts, causing extensive and large blisters which last several weeks. Permanent damage to the lungs and eyes can result.


"Agent-15" -- The British government recently asserted that Iraq developed large stocks of an incapacitant gas dubbed "Agent- 15". It is apparently a glycollate similar in effect to the agent BZ, an incapacitant once produced by the United States. If this is correct, exposure to about 100 milligrams in aerosolized form would be sufficient to incapacitate. Symptoms, which begin within 30 minutes of exposure and may last several days, include dizziness, vomiting, confusion, stupor, hallucinations, and irrational behavior. The U.S. Army considered BZ to be too unpredictable in its effectiveness to be useful on the battlefield, and all U.S. stocks were destroyed."

"Botulinum Toxin -- Botulinum, produced by the clostridium botulinum bacteria, causes the food-poisoning "botulism". In pure form, it is a white crystalline substance, that is readily dissolvable in water, but decays rapidly in the open air. The symptoms of botulism begin 12-72 hours after exposure depending upon whether it is inhaled or ingested. Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, paralysis of the throat, and convulsions, followed by death due to respiratory arrest. Vaccines are available, but again, their efficacy against abnormally high toxin dosages is uncertain. Early diagnosis and palliative treatment can
prevent fatality."

"Anthrax -- Anthrax is a disease caused by the bacillus Anthracis. Infection can result from inhalation, ingestion, or absorption through the skin. Most effectively dispersed as an aerosol, anthrax spores decay in a matter of days in sunlight, but can contaminate soil for
decades. 10,000 to 20,000 spores is a lethal dose -- "something smaller than a speck of dust," according to a DOD biological warfare expert. Symptom onset occurs 3-4 days after exposure, and initially resembles that of a common cold. Symptoms do not become identifiable
as anthrax until the fatal phase of the disease, when vomiting, severe head and joint aches, and respiratory distress lead to death within 1-3 days. Vaccines are available against some forms of anthrax, but their efficacy against abnormally high concentrations of the bacteria is uncertain. Antibiotic treatment can be effective, but only if administered prior to the onset of symptoms, otherwise the fatality rate can exceed 90%."

Source:Iraqi Chemical and Biological Weapons (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html)

Report from Dec. 2000

"SADDAM HUSSEIN has ordered his scientists to resume work on a programme aimed at making a nuclear bomb, a defector warned yesterday."

source:London Sunday Times (http://www.nci.org/s/sad-new-bomb-st-122400.htm)

Nuclear weapons could be up and running in a matter of months:

source:NPR (http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/transcripts/2002/sep/020914.simon.html)

'Loose Nukes' from former Soviet Republics

source:CNN (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/nukes/)

Recent news suggests that we may have bigger problems than we first expected. Take a look.

source:Ukraine missing 200 warheads? Who bought them? Where did they go? (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm)

In light of the mountains of evidence and the overwhelming uncertainty regarding the Iraqi weapons capability, I ask that you consider the recent news and what is known about Hussein and his regime. Do any of you doubt that Al Quada could be working closely with elements of certain enemy nations in order to bring the U.S. to its knees? Is it a legitimate possibility that such weapons could be used on civilian populations in Europe and the United States? Since the amount of devastation that such weapons could cause is enormous, shouldn't we move to eliminate what can be considered a clear and present danger? What is more likely; Bush and the upper echelon of DOD officials believes Iraq to pose a serious danger to the safety of the people they took an oath to defend; or that he wants to maliciously control the oil of that region so he and his buddies can sit back and drink whine with the profits reaped by squandering Iraq's oil? Get real. Do any of you doubt that the murders of 9-11-01 would have used such methods if they had the chance?

To conclude my presentation of the situation I will interject my own conclusions regarding this issue. Please consider them, for they are valid and backed with the facts.


Hussein has had a nuclear weapons program since the 1970's. How long did it take Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project to delivery nuclear weapons during World War II? Fact remains that Saddam Hussein has employed knowledgeable people to develop these capabilities for him. His regime does not have to start from scratch, as the work has already been completed by other developed nations. He has the blueprints, but lacks the materials. So we think.

When the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990's one of the greatest concerns was the lack of security surrounding their arsenal. In the following economic instability many practical men in the U.S. intelligence community questioned whether or not fissile materials would make it to the black market. The Soviet biological weapons program was also of vital interest to the men who 'watch' these sorts of events. However, there is no declassified evidence linking Iraq to the Soviet’s loose weapons of mass destruction. This conclusion is hardly 100%. Many starving scientists from the old communist regimes chose to work for rouge nations, developing their weapons programs. Whose to say that some Uranium-235 did not fall into the wrong hands?

Nastradamus is considered by many to be some type of profit with a high degree of accuracy. Some analysts say that he foresaw the emergence of a man from the Middle East that use nuclear destruction in order to spawn World War III. This man was considered by him to be the third 'anti-Christ', the first two being Napoleon and Adolph Hitler. Of course, I don't place much credibility on the workings of a mystic. However, the events that he spoke of seem to be a possibility in this New World of former Soviet breakaway states. If such a disaster could be averted, we should seek to do so.

No one can doubt the pure evil nature of Saddam. His record speaks for itself. People who claim that the U.S. has no right to defend itself against such an attack often sight the sovereignty of Iraq as a nation-state. This is a claim that grants the legitimacy of such a tyrant. Anyone who rules through such tactics lacks legitimacy in my mind and should be shot on sight. This is a man who threatens the safety and sovereignty of neighboring states and the world as a whole. Saddam's son is worse than he is; therefore we can not simply wait until Saddam dies in hopes of a change. His son will be his successor. Everyone at the top of this regime should be toppled, violently in necessary. The people through free and fair elections should replace Saddam’s dictatorship. The newly elected representatives will then be tasked with the job of drafting a constitution that will provide a backbone to enable success of democratic ideals.

Obviously, there are some changes in the political environment. Italy, Spain, and, after the election, Germany with join us in our fight. England has already claimed unwavering support. The United Arab Emirates has guaranteed use of the bases to stage from, and Saudi Arabia says they will back us if we have U.N. support. The climate is changing, which would indicate that the powers that be know something that the general public does not know. Could Saddam already have developed nuclear weapons? Regardless of what Scott Ritter says the answer is yes. It is entirely possible that Iraq has these weapons. He had enough time and the minds needed to obtain his goal. This has all the makings of World War III. Were do you stand in all of this? Are you still defending Saddam Hussein, or will you stand on the side of the just?

More sources that you should look into:

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/index.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/cns/dc/02rtable.htm

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 8:02 pm on Sep. 20, 2002)

Anonymous
19th September 2002, 13:38
I just had a vision! amerikkka kils sadam! YYYYEEEESSSS!
other dictator goes to power!!!! but this is a good dictature! it only kills iraquians and lets the amerikkkan petroil alone!

U$A wont jsut finish with a dictator, it will kill one to put another fully controled by them in power! its all about the black gold!!! Blessed the day Petroil reservs run dry! we would certenly starv and see a western stock fall, yet it will teach mankind (expecially cappies) a lesson "Greed kills"

Pinko
19th September 2002, 16:05
The Draheim Report; The Wreckage of Interventionism.

"US troops had fought an army that was largely the creation of the US government, to help Iraq fight Iran, and to serve as a force for "stability". Yet in Iran, the religious fanatics took power in understandable reaction against a corrupt monarchy that was installed by the CIA (which had helped overthrow the relatively democratic Mossadegh in the 1950’s)."
Would you like to know more? (http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr980222.htm)

Moskitto
19th September 2002, 16:49
Should get rid of him and held elections for a new leadership. Bombing military installation to turn the military against him and cause a popular uprising, but no one's going to do any of that are they.

Stormin Norman
19th September 2002, 20:35
Did any of you hear Rumsfeld's testimony before the joint arms commitee, today? My sentiments exactly. If there were trading cards of all those involved in Bush's cabinet. Rumsfeld's card would be the most valuable. What a great man. Truly somebody that I admire.

Stormin Norman
19th September 2002, 22:18
Here I have presented a logical case for the extermination of Saddam Hussein. Largely, it has been ignored. Why is this? Is it simply because you know I am right and refuse to let you petty little egos acknowledge that fact. If everything I have presented to you is simply bullshit, prove me wrong. Your turn. I have held to the burden of proof. I made the assertion and backed it with facts from a wide variety of places. I notice this tactic is not used by the liberals here. Most of the reports that I have seen presented by the left are from a maximum of three different sources, "The Guardian" being the most prevalent. I challenge the communists here to return a rebuttal that is equal to the original claim.

Rumsfeld stated today; if we had had the amount of knowledge regarding Al Quada before the 11th, the response would have been the same. Enough with this bullshit liberal rant, "I want to know what the government knew and when they knew it". Now they are giving us this information and still the liberals choose to ignore it. The threat level warnings have come under criticism for being to vague, yet if something happened and the they had failed to tell us. We would be attacking the intelligence community for not alerting us to the fact. All of this nonsense promulgated by the very liberals who cut the defense and intelligence budgets and placed restrictions on the ability to gather intelligence. I submit to you that it is these people who have become irrelevant in the aftermath of the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The ideas presented by the liberals are suicidal, at best. Such weapons should not be ignored especially in the hands of such a man. Imagine how the Tom Dascles of the world would scratch their heads in confusion when their stupidity costs the lives of tens of thousands of people. In this event, there would be no question of "what we knew and when we knew it". It would be obvious to anyone left alive in such an event. The facts were presented in detail and ignored by the masses and their representatives.


P.S. I am aware of the glaring grammatical errors that exist in the original post. It was 4:00 in the morning and my synapsis may have been firing slower than normal. However, I think you get the idea. I will edit them later. Please keep your rebuttal of the argument to the points and not spelling or grammar errors. Thanks.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:31 am on Sep. 20, 2002)

abstractmentality
20th September 2002, 00:10
SN:

this Hamza story is definetly changing my spot on the Iraq situation. prior to him coming out, all that you could find (or at least me) were a few people saying Iraq had them, and a few saying they didnt.

iraq recentley invited weapons inspectors to come back in, and they should go. i think that with all of the talk worldwide about iraq and what to do in this case, iraq will (if they have any sense) let the inspectors back in and not have many restrictions on them. but, if this happens, then the sanctions on iraq should cease.

the source that im not to sure if we can trust is Hamza. for some reason, i just have a feeling about it, maybe something he may be trying to get out of the situation, i dont know, its just a feeling i have.

the question that also makes me wonder is something similar to what anarchist brought up. if iraq still played our tune, would we even care what he did with his country? i dont think so.

also, about the whole attack on kuwait, the US knew about it before it happend, and iraq basically asked us if it was ok for them to do it, and we basically told them that we would turn the cheek if it happend. information about that and other war crimes the US committed can be found in
War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq by Ramsey Clark (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0944624154/qid=1032476871/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-9723911-2209725?v=glance&s=books)

josh

Field Marshal
20th September 2002, 00:19
Well, if violence can not be aborted, then I would support a coup against Saddamn, or an assasination (I know it's illegal, so I'll go with the coup).

I, however, do not, and never will, support a full scale attack on an entire country when we are only after one man.

Hattori Hanzo
20th September 2002, 00:43
Yo *****!

Remember me?

Yeah, I'm back!

Ok, here's the thing, until Iraq can develop democracy (without Saddam), which it won't if the US takes over, it is better off not trading one crazy dictator for another. It just keeps things more peaceful that way. Unless there is a revolution that starts without help from the CIA (it has to START independent of the CIA), nothing would change.

Hattori Hanzo
20th September 2002, 00:45
oh, and Saddam is a horrible leader, he sux

El Brujo
20th September 2002, 02:19
Sadaam would not be a threat to the world if AMERICA didn't support him in the 80's and provide him with nuclear weapons. At any rate, the people of Iraq suffer more from the embargo imposed by the "world police"(U.$.) than by Sadaam Hussein's dictatorship. Yes, I agree that he should be deposed but he should be replaced by a leader that the IRAQUIS want, not a yankee-imposed puppet dictator ala-Pinochet.

Bush couldn't give a fuck less about the state of the people in Iraq and it being a brutal dictatorship, he's just acting out of his war-fetish because he believes putting the people in the U.S. in an alarming situation will stupify them and make them brainlessly flock behind him (and you believe it ISN'T a totalitarian government, heh).

Mazdak
20th September 2002, 02:21
The US ios so bloodthirsty that they are trying to get in to Iraq before the inspectors do!! Little boy George needs to fix papa's mistake.

I dont support Saddamm 100%, but against America, i support him 300%.

Michael De Panama
20th September 2002, 03:04
I'd just like to say how fitting it is that someone named "Stormin Norman" finally can get around to talking about homicide on the Iraqi people.

Fuck. I'm sick of politics.

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 9:05 pm on Sep. 19, 2002)

rebel with a cause
20th September 2002, 07:29
Is It Not True?
Questions On Iraq From A GOP Congressman

Ron Paul is an M.D. and a Republican Member of Congress from Texas

Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002.


Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war:

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed Al Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of Al Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses?"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may again attack the United States -- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the United Nations for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 U.S. soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

(If we wanna go after the world's greatest violator as far as U.N. resolutions and human rights, we would have to bomb ourselves!)

20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the United States. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate U.S. policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II, Congress has not declared war and -- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted… The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein." - Samuel Gejdenson

chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq"

Exploited Class
20th September 2002, 08:05
Well if Saddam has to go then Bush and his friends needs to go, if they need to go then Tony Blair needs to go and if he needs to go well then fill in the next head of state here and so on. What do we get folks? Anyone? Anyone? That's right a society free of a ruling class.

Why does Saddam need to go? Why does Osama and he hate the United States? Probably because they have dealt with our finest more than any one else in the world. The United States C.I.A. They have seen our best, one was taught how to keep out the Russians and was given instructions on what kind of tactics to use, the most inhumane.

The other, he was given biological weapons, taught how to make them and told to use them, by whom? Any one? Anyone? Yes by the United States and the wonderful CIA. In the 80's when he gassed his own people who did reagan say it was? That's correct Iran, because why? Because The United States hated Iran. And what did we do in the United States to both of them, sold them both weapons to wipe eachother out faster. Yah, we ain't making friends over there.

Your best friends get to know you the best, and they were very good friends with us. That is why they now hate all of us. Will we go down, probably, when you piss off, N. Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba, S. America every other Tuesday, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China.... and you no longer listen to your allies, Germany, Portugal, France, Mexico, Canada, you set yourself up to lose. When you have a questionably elected dictator, in a country that is backasswards from the rest of the world, poor education, huge military, missle defense shields giving you unlimited defense while still having enoug nukes to deystroy the world, THE REST OF THE WORLD GETS FREAKED OUT.

think about it.

Brian
20th September 2002, 13:13
Iraq has agreed to let UN inspectors back in, Bush wants oil and the Pentagon wants to play in wars.Simple fact!



Dear Secretary-General,

I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.

I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). T this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.

I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.

Dr. Naji Sabri

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Republic of Iraq




(Edited by Brian at 7:14 am on Sep. 20, 2002)

Capitalist Imperial
20th September 2002, 15:15
Quote: from Brian on 1:13 pm on Sep. 20, 2002
Iraq has agreed to let UN inspectors back in, Bush wants oil and the Pentagon wants to play in wars.Simple fact!



Dear Secretary-General,

I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.

I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). T this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.

I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.

Dr. Naji Sabri

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Republic of Iraq




(Edited by Brian at 7:14 am on Sep. 20, 2002)




you are buying that game of rope-a dope he has been playing the last 7 years?

he lets them in, then hicks them out, lets them in, kicks them out, in,out, in, out

se a pattern here?

Guest
20th September 2002, 15:39
Quote: from Field Marshal on 12:19 am on Sep. 20, 2002
Well, if violence can not be aborted, then I would support a coup against Saddamn, or an assasination (I know it's illegal, so I'll go with the coup).

I, however, do not, and never will, support a full scale attack on an entire country when we are only after one man.


I agree with everything there,but not with your last line.
your never after just one man.
As much as I hate to admit it saddam,hitler,stalin ect... would never have been in power if they didn't have support.

Moskitto
20th September 2002, 17:00
I just re-read what I posted and it doesn't make sense. Sorry about that.

What I basically meant was that I think Saddam should have been removed in 1990 instead of just sending him out of Kuwait and then holding elections for new leadership (or letting Iraq break up and holding elections in those 3 regions. But trying to get the military to turn against him and lead a popular uprising is also a good idea.

Pinko
20th September 2002, 20:25
Quote: from El Brujo on 2:19 am on Sep. 20, 2002
Sadaam would not be a threat to the world if AMERICA didn't support him in the 80's and provide him with nuclear weapons. At any rate, the people of Iraq suffer more from the embargo imposed by the "world police"(U.$.) than by Sadaam Hussein's dictatorship. Yes, I agree that he should be deposed but he should be replaced by a leader that the IRAQUIS want, not a yankee-imposed puppet dictator ala-Pinochet.

Bush couldn't give a fuck less about the state of the people in Iraq and it being a brutal dictatorship, he's just acting out of his war-fetish because he believes putting the people in the U.S. in an alarming situation will stupify them and make them brainlessly flock behind him (and you believe it ISN'T a totalitarian government, heh).


There are a couple of mistakes in that post I would like to address.
1) The US has not provided Iraq with nuclear weapons. Many conventional weapons yes, but not nuclear. The US provided nuclear weapons to Israel.
2) The sanctions were imposed by the UN, the US has the biggest hand in enforcing them but they are UN sanctions.

Appart from that I agree with you.


Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 3:15 pm on Sep. 20, 2002
you are buying that game of rope-a dope he has been playing the last 7 years?

he lets them in, then hicks them out, lets them in, kicks them out, in,out, in, out

se a pattern here?

You keep comming out with this bullshit but every time, but fail to respond to the accusations of people like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter when they claim that the US sabbotaged the weapons inspection mission with deliberate confrontation and spying.

Stormin Norman
22nd September 2002, 22:34
Scott Ritter's credibility is shot. It has been shown and acknowledged by Ritter that he is currently taking money from an Iraqi. This appears to be motivation for the hard line anti-American stance that he is taking. Next time he makes a trip over to Iraq to address their assembly, the U.S. should use national security reasons in order to pull the man's passport. When Louis Farakan was taking money from the Lybian's I said the same thing. People who side with the enemy out to be treated as the enemy. Especially when they have had as much contact as Ritter. Whose to say that he wouldn't be the one to release a biological agent into our population. If he likes Iraq so much, let him live there.

peaccenicked
22nd September 2002, 22:35
Anyone who says this war is about democracy is simply a fucking sick liar.

Stormin Norman
22nd September 2002, 22:43
Before you site Scott Ritter as a source, consider the fact that he was paid $400, 000 dollars by an Iraqi_American in order to finance his documentary. Saddam's government has also been more than willing to aide him in anyway. The theme behind his movie is to "de-demonize" Iraq. This link, from the Washington Times, will support these facts:

I think Ritter is as scummy as Peacenicked (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020918-239312.htm)

vox
23rd September 2002, 03:47
Of course, the Washington Times, started by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, is not a credible source. It has a record of mischaracterization (http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/lynxgate.html) and sometimes outright fabrication:

"In one typical case, Edmund Jacoby, a former Times national security writer, described how in 1988 he was assigned to interview Soviet dissident Mikhail Makarenko who told an apparently fabricated first-person account about Soviet slave labor camps. Jacoby reported that the Times editors pushed him to write a favorable article about Makarenko and were annoyed when he debunked much of the dissident's tale. Jacoby discovered later that the Unification Church was secretly supporting Makarenko through CAUSA International."

(Source (http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon4.html))

Indeed, it's interesting to see Moon's connection with the Bush family (http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html), but not surprising for a paper that lacks credibility.

vox

Supermodel
23rd September 2002, 04:06
My read on the current situation (I change my mind daily) is that USA is not going to war against IRAQ. Basically it's just a sabre rattling thing.

Given the lack of support by US allies and US citizens, I think Bush is just threatenting Saddam and trying to get thru to Saddam's people that there is support for a revolution if anyone has the balls for it.

Where the hell is Che when you need him? I mean if the CIA had not bumped him off in the 60's, he could have been rapelled into Baghdad with millions of US dollars to overthrow the sicko gangster government of Iraq and put someone rational, like himelf, in charge.

It's the porn star moustache, Saddam, that's why we hate you so......that and a few million deaths....

peaccenicked
23rd September 2002, 04:20
I dont like hatred, especially when it is based on lies.
Lie no 1. The US admin cares about the Kurds
Lie no 2. The US admin cares about democracy in the
middle east.
Lie no3. The US actually believes that Iraq is a military
threat.


This all pure bullshit. Anybody who knows the real history of the region and who is not a liar will tell you this.


The US imperialists want to control the oil, and continue with its aggressive plans for the region.
Remember we have been promised a perpetual war.
This means perpetual expansion.
Think it through!

peaccenicked
23rd September 2002, 04:27
In addition there is no war against terrorism, all the US admin has being doing is provoking terrorism.

Stormin Norman
23rd September 2002, 06:42
The facts presented by this editorial are correct. I believe some other news source broke the story, but since Ritter has been so outspoken, every other red blooded American news agency has severely criticized this man. I am sure that the Washington Times is less credible than The Guardian.

vox
23rd September 2002, 06:45
Feel free to link other news sources that don't cite the WT. You can be "sure" of anything you want, SN, but you're the one quoting the paper controlled by a religious cult, not me.

vox

peaccenicked
23rd September 2002, 06:49
SN you are fucking outrageous liar.
I resent a moron like you trying to pull the wool over my eyes or anybody elses.
The most corupt people in the world run your country and you shamelessly defend them.
You have not an ounce of morality in your soul.

Stormin Norman
23rd September 2002, 07:15
Here's one that mentions the fact that Ritter came under investigation for espionage.

Subversive? (http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2002/09/20.html)

Here's one that was published in the Wall Street Journal. I suppose Vox views the Journal as a conservative rag with no credibility. Here it is anyway. The author is a writer for the Weekly Standard. Here it appears in Frontpage, an online news source.

Similar editorial (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3191)

This article aknowledges the same fact, but presents a differing explanation for Ritter's behavior.

NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/18/202656.shtml)

Would you accept the BBC's word?

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446656.stm[url=http://BBC)

If that is not enough to convince you of the truth, how about the fact that I heard Ritter admit to this on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News agencies. I also heard sound bites from NPR, Rush Limbaugh, and CBS radio. I guess somebodies own words are still not enough to convince you. Fact is, the credibility of Ritter's documentary would be undermined if he were to take a different stance on this issue. His opinion is mired with self interest. Surely, any objective observer would admit that such a revelation presents a conflict of interest and his remarks should be sticken from the record, or viewed as tainted.

What more do you want? Find another outspoken critic to use as your posterboy. Ritter's name incites laughter, and accusations of treason.

peaccenicked
23rd September 2002, 07:29
Why not leave Iraq alone and concentrate on your own problems. No one believes Sadam is a threat. Not even
the military, only those seeking an excuse to dupe the public. Sucker.
Here is something that the US should through some real money at.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm



(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:32 am on Sep. 23, 2002)

vox
23rd September 2002, 07:36
Hee! SN, that was fun. I never said the story wasn't true, nor did I say it was true. I just said the WT isn't a credible paper, and linked to examples of its lies.

Yes, this was, indeed, good clean vox fun. :)

vox

IHP
23rd September 2002, 10:48
if the U$ is saying that a revolution is possible, and they will back them, then that is absolute fucking bullshit.

Like the Iraquis are going to the Yanks after they told them that they were going to back them, then shamelessly tucked their tail between their legs and backed off.

If the U$ disliked the whole iraq situation, then why would they turn the biggest fuckin blind eye to the oil transport (by transport i mean smuggling) to the kurds in the northern no-fly zone? thereby helping the iraqis econimically.

And as if the iraqi people would hold any good faith towards the U$ after the sanctions that are starving the populace?

--IHP

Stormin Norman
23rd September 2002, 11:03
Vox,

You have a hell of a lot of nerve criticizing my sources, fucko. I can't remember the last time you presented me with a source that wasn't contrived by some liberal 'groupthink' tank. The Guardian, Z-magazine, and Noam Chomsky hardly count as sources. At least my sources present a variety of views, which is more than I can say for yours. Freaken liberals, always the hypocrits.

Stormin Norman
31st January 2003, 11:45
Hey Queen of Diamonds,

Read the starting post in this thread. This information has been well established. We know Iraq had all of the weapons that I listed, and we have a good idea about the amounts. Under resolution 1441 the burden of proof for the destruction of these weapons lies on Iraq. Saddam has submitted a report that claims all his weapons magically vanished somehow, without providing evidence of their destruction. Under 1441, this blatant lie constitutes material breach. We know he has these wepaons from previous inspections, and the fact that he has used them before on the Kurdish and Iranian populations. He has violated nearly twenty U.N. resolutions since the cease fire agreement. He claims these materials no longer exist. I suggest that we have enough proof that he has the weapons, and is obviously lying to the world community. the troubling thing is that people like you, Chirac, Schrodder, Putnin, Zemin, and all the Hollywood lefists and hippies don't seem to care. The ostrich approach to safety will no longer work when a 20 micron airborne virus renders you extinct. Your position on the Iraqi threat is not only foolish, it is suicidal.