For All Who Oppose the War

[Mouse]

Originally posted by MagiK: Soldiers in Civilian Clothes = Terrorists, and Geneva Convention Criminals.

And here's me thinking that the French Resistance in WWII were freedom fighters - I now stand corrected [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-17-2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by skywalker: Can someone please explain to me, in easy to understand words, the direct connection between the events on 9/11/01 and Saddam's Iraq? Please be lucid and provide links and sources.

It has been pointed out that WoMD was the primary reasoning for the War on Iraq. President Bush has mentioned in some of his speeches that there is a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but he never implied that this link was the reason for attacking Iraq. As for "concrete evidence", none has been offered (to the best of my knowledge). I (for one) have considered the link between Saddam and Osama to be tenuous at best. That is not to say that America has "forgotten" about Bin Laden. We are still looking for him. One of the highest ranking members of Osama's "inner circle" was captured just a few days before the War with Iraq began. The War on Terrorism doesn't get much media coverage anymore because - unlike Saddam Hussein - Osama bin Laden has no permanent address for us to focus on. We aren't fighting his forces on a daily basis, so there is nothing for the news cameras to send back to us on that front.

I firmly support our troops and I believe removing Saddam Hussein from power was the "right" thing to do...but I believe that (in reality) it had very little to do with the attacks of 9/11. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Thoran]

I think it had a LOT to do with 9/11... but not in the way that most people think it did.

9/11 changed the US, essentially putting us on notice that we ARE at war... like it or not. Forces centered in the middle east are acting to inflict damage on the US, but they're doing it in a way that does not provide a traditional target for response (a country to attack).

This sense of being under assault but with no clear attacker has changed the way the US Government approaches conflict. In the past the US (and most other nations) REACTED to attacks, current Bush doctrine has moved to proactive strikes in order to mitigate risk of future attack.

The "Proof" of Saddam's cooperation with terrorists (if it even exists) is irrelevant given this new decision matrix. The executive branch came to the conclusion that the risk posed by terrorists combining effort with a potentially WOMD equipped Saddam was too great to allow to stand. I tend to think that once this decision was made, they went about finding a reason to attack Saddam... which wasn't difficult given his actions over the past 12+ years.

I'm of the opinion that countries that support Islamic terrorists or that have the potential of placing WOMD level armaments into the hands of terrorist will find life very difficult over the next few years. They will have to balance the pressures of citizens that often support the behavior of terrorists against US pressure to root them out and eradicate them. As long as Bush is in power in the US, failure to distance themselves from WOMD and Terrorism (the two things that pose the greatest threat to the US) will result in action that will potentially include PREEMPTIVE application of force. This is the true legacy of 9/11.

[ 04-17-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thoran: I think it had a LOT to do with 9/11... but not in the way that most people think it did. 9/11 changed the US, essentially putting us on notice that we ARE at war... like it or not. Forces centered in the middle east are acting to inflict damage on the US, but they're doing it in a way that does not provide a traditional target for response (a country to attack). This sense of being under assault but with no clear attacker has changed the way the US Government approaches conflict. In the past the US (and most other nations) REACTED to attacks, current Bush doctrine has moved to proactive strikes in order to mitigate risk of future attack. The "Proof" of Saddam's cooperation with terrorists (if it even exists) is irrelevant given this new decision matrix. The executive branch came to the conclusion that the risk posed by terrorists combining effort with a potentially WOMD equipped Saddam was too great to allow to stand. I tend to think that once this decision was made, they went about finding a reason to attack Saddam... which wasn't difficult given his actions over the past 12+ years. I'm of the opinion that countries that support Islamic terrorists or that have the potential of placing WOMD level armaments into the hands of terrorist will find life very difficult over the next few years. They will have to balance the pressures of citizens that often support the behavior of terrorists against US pressure to root them out and eradicate them. As long as Bush is in power in the US, failure to distance themselves from WOMD and Terrorism (the two things that pose the greatest threat to the US) will result in action that will potentially include PREEMPTIVE application of force. This is the true legacy of 9/11.

Really now! So then why are we pretty much ignoring NK. Which has a long history of selling arms to anyone with hard currency and has public restarted it's nuclear program. Instead we have the administration trading barbs with Syria *boggle*

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Really now! So then why are we pretty much ignoring NK. Which has a long history of selling arms to anyone with hard currency and has public restarted it's nuclear program. Instead we have the administration trading barbs with Syria *boggle*

, Bah... North Korea is no threat to the US (they are a regional threat however). IMO the administration is dealing with them correctly, they need help in order to survive, eventually they'll do what they need to do to get it. If they continue on this path IMO they'll self destruct before they become a threat to us.

They may soon have Nukes but they're not going to sell something it's taken decades for them to acquire, and Chem/Bio doesn't appear to interest them. They also have not shown any interest in using terrorist tactics to get what they want, which means they're of limited importance (threat wise). They're a starving bully who is threatening his neighbors in order to get a hand out.

[pritchke]

Did you actually think Iraq was a threat to the US?

Please educate me were terrorist tactics were used by Iraq to get what they want.

All I can see is a two sided coin in which what is good for the Gander isn't good for the goose.

[ 04-17-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Rokenn]

I'm not concerned that NK will use a nuc. But they could sell a couple to Al-Quada for a few hundred million, which would give them money for buying food or videos for Kim's collection [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Scholarcs]

Originally posted by pritchke: Did you actually think Iraq was a threat to the US? Please educate me were terrorist tactics were used by Iraq to get what they want. All I can see is a two sided coin in which what is good for the Gander isn't good for the goose.

You`re right there. Iraq had missles which had a range that disobeyed UN resolutions. So these missiles could reach another country, say Kuwait. But could these missiles reach america? no...

[Skunk]

You`re right there. Iraq had missles which had a range that disobeyed UN resolutions. So these missiles could reach another country, say Kuwait. But could these missiles reach america? no...

And even that was dodgy.
The missiles had a weapons range of approximately 15km without the essential navigational equipment. The Iraqis argued (fairly in my opinion) that once the navigational system was installed, the additional weight would bring the range back to within the 90km limit.

We saw just how effective those missiles were without the navigational stuff - most fell into the desert. And the extra 15km was, in any event, a trifle.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Really now! So then why are we pretty much ignoring NK. Which has a long history of selling arms to anyone with hard currency and has public restarted it's nuclear program. Instead we have the administration trading barbs with Syria *boggle*

The are many reasons we are "pretty much ignoring NK" right now, Rokenn. First and foremost is that we simply don't have the military personnel to conduct two "operations" at one time any more. Secondly, there are other countries with powerful military capabilities that are much closer to NK than we are (China is the most obvious) and it would be in thier best interest to "address" the NK situation rather than waiting for the U.S. to do it (but we'll see if that actually happens). Third, the U.S. doesn't have a vested, personal interest in NK like we did in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, we have no major export products coming to us from NK.

Those are some of the obvious reasons...but I think there is a more subtle reasoning as to why the U.S. focused on Iraq first - rather than NK....and that is the difference between the two leaders.

To put it plainly, Kim may be every bit as vile and evil as Saddam, but he is also predictable. ALL Kim wants is several million dollars and he will go back to being a contented little dictator. This "nuclear saber rattling" he is doing is a tried and true tactic that has been used by North Korea since the end of the Korean War. The only time NK makes any noise about creating and using nuclear weapons is when they want a big check from the U.S.A. Many people aren't aware that Kim did EXACTLY THE SAME THING back in 1993!!! He threatened to pull out of the Nuclear Arms Treaty and begin firing up his nuclear plants again unless the U.S. sent "relief funds" equalling several million dollars. After initial resistance, President Clinton capitulated and sent NK the money. That kept Kim quiet for 10 years.

The U.S. didn't have the same luxury with Saddam Hussein. He is/was highly UNpredictable. He was also very "dodgy" about the amount and capability of any WoMD he may or may not have had. There was no way for the U.S. to know for sure exactly WHAT Saddam "had up his sleeve". Kim - on the other hand - made NO secret about his weapons, their capabilities, and their locations. See, we KNOW where NK's nuclear plants are..so we can monitor them through various means.

Pritchke wanted to know what terrorist tactics Iraq had used to get what they want. The answer is none - at least not directly! But Iraq has been a "safe haven" for numerous terrorists of almost every stripe. Thier ties to Al-Qaeda may not have been firmly established (or the documentation may still be classified - as suggested by Night Stalker), but their ties to many other terrorist groups are well documented. The fact is, the U.S. couldn't be sure WHO Saddam might decide to supply with any WoMD he had. Before 9/11, this was not enough justification to initiate military action against him...but after 9/11, Saddam represented a far more dangerous and unpredictable threat than Kim.

Also, keep in mind that NK didn't make ANY noise about their nuclear capabilities until the War with Iraq was imminent. If they had taken these same actions a year earlier, the U.S. may well have decided to go ahead and eliminate THAT threat first, instead of Iraq. Instead, Kim waited until the U.S. was committed to dealing with Saddam Hussein, then he made his move by demanding "relief funds" and threatened to pull out of the Nuclear Arms Treaty if his demands weren't met. Unfortunately for him, President Bush did not react the same way President Clinton did. Bush flat-out refused to send any more money to him. That's when Kim had to "fire up" his nuclear weapons factory. When THAT didn't persuade Bush to give in, Kim became even more daring and actually fired a missile into the ocean. It was obviously nothing more than a "nuclear warning shot" meant to intimidate and/or worry the U.S. - but it was a self-defeating effort.

The implication from NK is that "We have these weapons and we WILL use them". Of course, if they ever actually DID use them on a neighboring country, then they WILL be faced with an immediate (and overwhelming) response from China and/or a new grouping of Coalition Forces.

Why aren't we attacking NK? Quite simply - because we don't have to. If they do carry through with their threats, they will face retaliation from other countries. If they try to sell their weapons to terrorists, there is a good chance we will know about it, because they ARE being watched closely.

And of course, there is also the fact that all the people who are now asking "What about North Korea?" will be the very first ones to condemn any action that we actually take.