war on Iraq?
 

The Following was my responce to a chain letter, I figured I'd post if because I want to see what other people like or unlike me would think about it

<b> please note, this post has been edited in that the sources of facts have been listed next to them within parenthesis begining with an asterix</b>
------------------------------------------------------------


I understand that a lot of people don't support war on Iraq, but It's innevetable. We've been bombing Iraq (*ColonelJ.T Russel, my Senior Army Instructor) and maintaining a no-fly zone over Kurdish territory for the last couple of years (*New York Times) because we're affraid of the weapons Sadam's building (that's why the UN sends weapons inspectors there). The irony is that we taught him how to build those weapons in hopes he'd use them on Iran(*AP US History class, and Military Science class). Much in the same way we trained Osama, with the "School of the Americas" which despite political pressures still exists, just under a different name. (*National Public Radio)

Knowing all of this I still support my country on its way to war not because of youthful naivity. On the contrary, I believe it is naive to oppose this war just because you oppose war in general. Doing so is like flushing a history book down the toilet for it overlooks an integral part of what humanity is. Nor do I feel exuberant patriotism. Rather I support this:

The Dept. of Defense is the largest employer in America (*First Seargent Juman, and government printed textbook for Military Science class). War means jobs, and economic infusions (*Professor William Dollard: war is a great industry for the US). I think that this kind of publicized war is a step in the right direction. At least we know what's going on through media coverage. The US has been involved in 500-some-odd military conflicts (*US Press Secretary Ari Fleischer) . The number of those that have been declared "war" and opened to the public for any form of scrutiny is pretty small. I'm certainly a fan of OVERT politics and ethics discussions rather than COVERT operations that used to be the norm for agencies like the CIA to carry out. It was those sort of COVERT missions that backfired, bringing the advent of Osama, and the Iraque conflicts.



In critisizm of the below quoted chain letter: I don't think a war today would cost 200 thousand lives (If anyone can post how many lives lost in Afghanistan I'd appreciate it a lot). And what of the $60 Billion? That's the kind of money we send Israel as a weekly allowance so that they can kill Palestinians. (*Rhetorical. I am informed that in fact we send $3 billion a year to Israel) . I'm sure that Islamic fundamentalists will reavaluate their qualms with the US If we stop funding Sharons genocide campaign (*when I watch CNN I see Israeli's with automatic weapons and palestinians with stones). And mailing post cards didn't seem to work against our recent campaigns in Bosnia, Rwanda, or Afghanistan. However isn't errata what democracy is all about, so If you have an oppinion about this war, by all means; support the US postal service!


----> >----------------
> > In a message dated 8/12/02 10:34:34 AM,
> .... @lehman.cuny.edu writes:
> >
> > <<
> >
> > President Bush is considering starting a war by
> invading Iraq. Many of
> us do not believe that this the right thing to do.
> (the cost would be an unknown
> > numbers of lives, two hundred thousand American
> troops and sixty billion
> > dollars.) In an effort to make our point of view
> heard, I am suggesting
> that
> > as many citizens as possible mail a post card to
> the white House asking
> him not to start another war.
> > So I am asking you to forward this e mail to as
> many people as you can...
...blah blah blah

For what it's worth, I fully support a war on Iraq. Even if I didn't support such an act against Iraq, I would support my country if it came down war.

Some may say that the United States put itself in this position, this may be true. But how are you able to tell that someone will turn on you or use your training and previous help against you?

Crap
 

Anyone who doesn't support a war on Iraq either shoots two arguments out there. One is the standard "War bad, peace good" argument. The second is the "American joe, you mean, not world cop!" argument. In either case, both arguments come from parties that are badly misinformed. Then again, I can't say much for most of the people who support the war.

-Rudey
--Just attack them so the sissies who wear Birkenstocks can go back to crying about Tibet.

Re: war on Iraq?
 

Your posts are ignorant and I do not appreciate them. However, it is more than likely that you simply do not understand how you're presenting your words. As a concerned GC member, I would ask that you reconsider what you say before you post.

-Rudey
--No flaming.

I don't know, it's a tough call.

International law is against overthrowing a sovreign head of state by another country. In fact, any kind of intervention in a sovreign country is technically illegal but that hasn't stopped us in the past.

I agree that Sadaam Hussein needs to go, he is a monster and he has ruined his country over the time of his reign. He is an absolute dictator who has commited many human rights violations over his time.

Unfortunatly, overthrowing Hussein will not bring instant democracy to Iraq. His regime has put out so much anti-American/pro-Hussein propaganda that it will take alot of effort to change things. There was an appeal by Hussein recently calling for his citizens to serve as his human shields in case of war. Thousands of people applied to serve as martyrs so that Hussein wouldn't be hurt. Despite his brutal record, people are lining up to protect him. That is the mindset that we are dealing with here. People with very little education and know of no other way of life than blindly following an evil dictator.

War may help the situation. I hope Hussein is overthrown, either by his own people or by outside force. But it is important to realize that you can't just go in and overthrow their leader and think that the Iraqi people will be eternally grateful and become an instant democratic state.

I'll edit this later to add evidence/names of treaties etc... but I don't have the energy to thik too hard at 8:15 in the morning.

If the US is prepared to take the role of state building, which mean funnelling in billions of dollars. Also the US must prepared for the flactuation of petrol price, cause those SUV will need to be fed.

BTW, overthrowing of a leader, no matter how brutal he or she is, is against every international laws in the book. Plus history will defiantely be agianst us. Remmember Shah of Iran, Pinochete, Suharto, Marcos, Noriega, Fujimoro, countless of Latin AMerican leaders, Africa is also another story. USSR didn't have a good record either. Propping government is bad, and will result in the reaction which many of us are not going to enjoy.

Re: Re: war on Iraq?
 

What does Isreal do for the USA that makes them worth the effort to defend?

I think we would be better off without Isreal.

Isreal is the reason all the Arab nations hate us.

Re: Re: Re: war on Iraq?
 

I fully agree with that statement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: war on Iraq?
 

And what exactly is it that makes you believe that?

-Rudey
--The school bell is ringing!

Isreal is a democrocy among Nations that are Run By Despots Who rule by Power! What the hell is Iraq some country that has a damn maniac running it! Hell I cringe when I see these monoic asswholes shoot a weapon in the air! Da the bullit comes down and kills some poor asshwole who is trying to scrape a living! Is that alright or is it bedfaus of the infidels!

Is war good NO, I have been there in this country! It sucks!

Is religion the reason No we all profess a one God!

Is Ireland the religion that keeps them killing, yes killing people! No it is the Polotics of who gets the jobs and that those who live in abject poverity or those that live a subsistnce life!

Is this conversation mute to people who no yes, but to those whom dont know it is opem for debate!

It is too Sad! The Palestenians could have a home land but not blowing people up! Is that sane!

Reach into your heart and ask!

Someone
 

Source: FLAME

Israel and Egypt are the two largest recipients of U.S. aid. For its "participation" in the Gulf War, Egypt was forgiven its indebtedness of $9 billion. Israel pays its bills. It receives $3 billion every year. Of that amount, $1.8 billion is for military aid and $1.2 billion for economic aid. It's fair to ask whether this is a good deal for the American taxpayer.

What are the facts?

The only democratic country in the Middle East. Israel is the only genuinely democratic state in the Middle East. It is committed to freedom and equality, and the rule of law. It embodies the fundamental values that are in tune with those of America and that America has traditionally supported.

Israel's military and political importance in the Middle East and its strategic position stabilize the entire area, including the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. During the Cold War, it was America's indispensable rampart against the inroads and expansionist ambitions of the Soviet Union. It is now a western bulwark against the aggressive intents of Iran, Iraq, and other bellicose nations that threaten the interests of the United States. It is a most reliable partner in the promotion of Western strategic interests and in the stabilization of the Middle East. 25% to 30% of its budget goes for defense, compared to 7% in the U.S. and less than 1% in Japan. Israel has one of the best armies in the world. Its navy and air force are the major deterrent forces in the eastern Mediterranean.

Israel effectively secures NATO's southeastern flank, without having a single American soldier stationed in its territory. Still, the superb military installations, the air and sea lift capabilities, the equipment and food storage capacity, and the trained manpower to maintain and repair sophisticated U.S. equipment are instantly at hand in Israel. It is the only country in the area that makes itself available to the United States, in any contingency.

Only fraction of aid stays in Israel. There is no other country in the Middle East except Israel that can be considered to have a stable government or populace friendly to the United States. There is much danger that any military aid to Arab countries, and military equipment given or sold to them, will suffer the same fate as the untold billions of dollars and priceless military secrets that were lost to our enemies in the debacle of Iran. Is Saudi Arabia more stable? Egypt? Jordan? Kuwait? Judge for yourself!

Only a fraction of the aid given stays in Israel. By far the largest share remains with American defense contractors. Peter McPherson, former administrator of the Agency for International Development, estimated that every billion dollars of aid to Israel creates 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the United States.

Compared to the $1.8 billion yearly military aid to Israel, the U.S. contributes more than $130 billion(!) every year to the defense of Europe and more than $30 billion to the defense of Japan, Korea, and the Far East. Over 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed with NATO and over 30,000 U.S. troops in the Far East. In contrast, not one single U.S. soldier needs to be stationed and put at risk in Israel. U.S. military analysts estimate that the U.S. would have to spend the equivalent of $150 billion a year in the Middle East to maintain a force equivalent to Israel's.

There are many other benefits that the U.S. military derives from Israel. Israel is the only country that has gained battlefield experience with U.S. weapons. This experience is immediately conveyed to the U.S. Enormous quantities of captured Soviet weapons and defense systems were turned over to the U.S. military for analysis. Israel, in the light of its experience, continually modifies U.S. weapons systems. For instance, Israeli scientists have made over 200 improvements in the F-15 alone and similar improvements, mostly in avionics, in later-generation planes. It would be more in line with reality if military aid to Israel were classified as part of the defense budget, rather than as "aid". Israel is truly America's unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Former President Reagan put it well: "The fall of Iran has increased Israel's value as perhaps the only remaining strategic asset in the region on which the United States can fully rely." American aid to Israel is a two-way street. Aid to Israel is America's greatest defense bargain.

-Rudey
--Blah blah

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: war on Iraq?
 

First, what school bell? Are you trying to teach something...I missed that, sorry.


Second, what exactly makes me believe that? I would say that it is primarily based upon what I feel and believe. I have never agreed to the U.S. support for Israel. In all honesty, I don't feel it is the position of the U.S. to be involved in a deeply rooted religious battle.

The main reason I object to U.S. support of Israel would be the 9/11 attack. I feel that Americans were targeted in this attack and many others in the recent past because of our hardline stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Agreed, there could be other reasons that indirectly led to some of these terrorist attack. Yet, when I hear objections by Osama Bin Laden, commanding the U.S. to withdraw support from Isreal and to convince Israel to "leave the holy land," I tend to form my primary reason(s).


**edit**
There is a time and a place for everthing and I feel that for the safety and welfare of American soldiers, American citizens and American money, we leave this conflict alone. I feel that sometimes the United States spreads forces and aid out to more places that is needed/is accepted.

Hell, I won't even go into the debate of U.S. aid that was given to various European countries during WWII. France for one hasn't even strated to pay the INTEREST that it owes to the U.S. government. We help countries out and it feels that we get taken advantage of more times than not. And when all else fails, blame the Americans, they were here, they did anything but help.

We could go on and on about how Americans are viewed in certain countries but that could get long and very tiresome.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: war on Iraq?
 

I am not here to attack your feelings and beliefs, and you are free to believe anything you want. However in regards to 9/11, this wasn't something that was planned in the current situation. This was something that took many years of planning - back to when Israel and the PLO agreed to the Oslo Accords.

-Rudey
--Bring me an apple next time.

**Edited to add**
Dude, clean out your mailbox. I was going to send you a pm. Peace.

Ok, cleaned that bad boy all out.

Re: war on Iraq?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hendrixski
[B],...but It's innevetable. ... affraid ... Sadam's...naivity.... Iraque... bosnia,...oppinion

Spellchecker is our friend.......sorry - just a pet peeve of mine.

I do like your argument to the effect of "those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - this is something that must be done for the security of the region - Saddam is very adept at working on the opinions of the world - while hiding true ambitions.

A few thoughts from history on this - this is very similar to the position that England found herself in the late 1930's - does anyone recall Chamberlain's visit with Hitler, and "peace in our time?" The true outcome was WWII.

Also, Japan's build up in the 1930's - "we're building refrigerator's while our enemies build bombs"

Aamco commercials - remember these? "You can pay me now, or, you can pay me later" - we're in a quandary that we will sooner or later have to go to war with Iraq - the question is, is the United States going to do this proactively or reactively, and, which path is less costly in American lives?

Yes, and propping up government has a bad history of bitting us back in the ass. Remmember Iran?

Do you really think the conflict in the Middle East is rooted in religion?

Honestly, most likely it wasn't.

It began as an economic issue, and I'll contend to this day that it exists in the same way. (Look waaaaay back to the '30s . . .)

US support for Isreal is fine - but even Rudey will agree that the point of US funds to Israel is to "stabilize the region" (and, via this, create lower oil prices for the US).

Let's not lie and pretend it is what it is not. The US has provided great economic (and MILITARY) opportunities for Israel, and it HAS DEFINITELY HELPED THE US. Issues between Palistine (sic) and Israel (sic again) will exist w/ or w/out US support for either side. There's no way for the US to 'bail' on Israel right now w/out being as hypocritical as possible (and killing thousands) . . . however, that doesn't give Israeli foreign policy free reign to suck.

What a fantastic situation for us all to have worked into . . . I'll openly boo both sides for using the other in a near-sighted manner.

Yes, I feel that it is partly religious, but I do also feel that it is partly economic, but not one or the other by itself.

You guys should read the works of Homer-Dixon. He argued that most conflicts in the world has to do with resources. Israel-palestine is about Land and Water. Gulf War was about Oil and land. The Rwandan genocide has to do with land. It's a shame that the media does not go deeper into conflict, instead going more for the quick news. Kinda like a cheap thrill.

One of my fave quote:
"If you only listen to the news, you don't know anything."

Good point, Arya - from the end of the 19th century to today, I'll argue that the conflict over the Israeli land mass ends up being based in economic opportunities, as well, which for all intents and purposes is a resource.

The first wave of Jewish 'zionists' (before the name was coined) started about that time. At this time, the area was less than 1/4 Jewish, and the existing (Arab) peoples controlled the agriculture etc through a quasi-feudal system of rich owning the land, and poor working it.

The Jewish settlers began taking the agriculture jobs from the poor inhabitants, and that truly began the issues in the area, IIRC - the racial/religious aspect to it comes into play purely as consequence (obviously it's a point of contention, but not the root of the problem).

The interesting part is how it mirrors (partly) the plight of settlers in the US in the mid-1800's - Irish, Polish, etc - but obviously has reached entirely new proportions.

My post
 

Iran was a different situation. The US was more than right in supporting the Shah's government in my opinion (I'm Iranian). However, the US wasn't the only global player in the region. Ask me and any other Iranian how we feel about the French or, even more, about the British.

And yes K Sig, the US isn't in the business of handing out money without having their own interests first. Every single country in the world is like that. The fact is that Israel (please spell the name of the country correctly as it makes me feel whomever spells it "Isreal" doesn't know what they're talking about) is one of America's greatest assets and serves their military and economic interests.

Israel was the first country to destroy Iraq's nuclear capabilities through a raid via their elite air force. Scientists all over claimed that Iraq would have another 8 years before having a functional nuclear warhead. The Israeli Mossad (intelligence) showed otherwise, and, in the midst of peace negotiations with Egypt, Israel ran a full raid destroying everything Iraq had built up. Almost immediately Israel hurt diplomatically around the world - including with the US.

In Operation Desert Storm, it was US officials that were grateful to Israel for knocking out Iraqi nuclear capabilities. And it was the US that learned they cannot wait and allow nuclear proliferation in hostile nations. Currently scientists say Iraq will be nuclear capable within 5 years - once again, intelligence shows a different story (Janes Defense article on this) and that's why battle operations will be exercised in the region.

The only reason America hasn't attacked Iraq this year is the fact that elections are coming up and it's best to wait after election time. Once again it's personal interest that comes to play. The fact is that Iraq also contains many biological and chemical weapons. What our generation has been brainwashed into believing is that these weapons are nothing compared to nuclear weapons - many of them are just as powerful. Iraq has a record of war crimes in targetting innocent population areas within the Iranian borders, the Kurdish regions, Kuwait, and Israel so it's not questioned whether they will use these weapons offensively as opposed to defensively.

This time there is no longer a slew of Arab allies to support America. Tensions are too high for that, so Israel is the ONLY friend it will have in this war. The goal is to destroy the ability of Iraq to use these weapons within the first stages of the war. The latter stages will involve the overthrow of the government to make sure such weapons are not developed again.

But the question that begs to be asked is what to do with nations like Russia and China. They are essentially like the British 50 years ago. It is their technology in Iraq. It is their technology building nuclear "energy plants" in Iran - a country with vast oil reserves that needn't even consider alternative forms of energy at this point.

-Rudey
--An even bigger question we should ask is whether or not to outlaw camel racing in the region.

Ok, just to get on the same page, I don't think that I made myself all that clear.

I believe that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a battle rooted in religion and a claim to land/water and whatnot.

I also agree that U.S. support of Israel is Economical/Political. I like the views of ksig rc, rudey and arya, you all have valid arguments.

But the question is, do other arab countries in the region view the U.S. support of Israel as an economical approach or a religious approach? I tend to view them taking favor to a religious backing over an economical backing. That can be up for argument either way.

To get back on track, should the U.S. go to war with Iraq once again? I believe yes for a few reasons. Hussein is a threat not only to our country but also to Isreal and since we are an ally to Israel we have that responsibility to help protect them, do we not? He may soon have the capability to use nuclear weapons not only on us, not only on Israel, but also on other countries that we call our allies. Not to mention the extreme danger that will come to a nuclear war in such a small region.

There is also the tactics of Hussein to pay suicide bombers and their families to plan and execute terrorist attacks. If we have an active campaign in Afghanistan/Pakistan, should we not also widen the campaign to include the prevention of terrorism in Isreal - I think yes.

You know, I was thinking and I wonder why it is that threads like these hardly get replied to, but when kate spade comes up, there will be 200, 300, 400 replies?

MENSA!
 

The Palestinian problem is the biggest horse arab nations have to ride.

When Iraq feels threatened, what does it do?
It sends $25,000 to the family's of suicide murderers and then goes and complains to the UN about those nasty little sanctions that leave its people poor...all the while there are 5 year olds raised in the west bank talking about how great Saddam is.

When Iran feels threatened what does it do?
It sends millions of dollars in illegal weaponry to Hamas and Hizbollah and sets up camps all across the middle east for training to spread its influence even deeper.

When Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, and Pakistan feel their dictatorial and brutal regimes are threatend what do they do?
They have words of hate broadcasted throughout mosques and schools (as if there was a difference). It is this hate that makes the people forget about their own troubles.

And what about Arafat, what does he do when he feels threatened?
Arafat steals from his people and tells them it's the Israelis that are keeping them poor. Arafat invites Iran to send millions of dollars to the PA where 50% goes to him, 25% goes to his other cronies in the terrorist Palestinian Authority, and the remaining 25% go to weaponry the likes of which was found on the massive Karine A ship. But hate alone won't keep people quiet you see. So he gives Hamas and the Islamic Jihad free reign. They distribute food purchased with their own terrorist funds to buy the loyalty of the Arabs. When Arafat is feeling threatened about where his people's loyalty is, he sanctions terrorist actions through his own paramilitary, Fatah. Currently Arafat alone is worth $1.3 BILLION (US dollars).

So what should America do?
Topple Iraq's government and install a democratic government that is non-violent and finds no need to rely on hate. Tell the EU, Russia, and China to put up or shutup - it is their meddling in the region that is causing a lot of the problems. Iran's will fall on its own and might need some pushing to bring it about but it's already on the verge of collapse. The rest of the middle east is also just as unstable as Iran.

-Rudey
--Damasa, I told you we're in MENSA!

Not quite
 

What you provided isn't exactly true. The reason I say that is because you use the term "area". There really never was a sovereign nation called Palestine. There was definitely an Ottoman empire, a Trans-Jordan, and a British mandate in the middle east. You have to define the area first before you make a statement using a number. In many cities of "current Israel", Jews were the majority.

Also, the Jews and Arabs did not work side by side. There was no "taking of jobs". The early zionists set up camp in desert land and swamp marshes. They took the land that NOBODY wanted...not even the poorest of the poor.

-Rudey

Re: MENSA!
 

Good question...

Keep up this thread though...this subject is very interesting

Re: Re: MENSA!
 

In the end they are terrorist groups. There are also charities around the world that support Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda also funneled a lot of money into "education". They are one and the same.

That's approach is simplistic at best and violating international law at it's worst. You may be able to get by under the "Torture Treaty" (I don't remember the full name of the treaty) but it was hard to justify trying Pinochet, it'll be harder to justifiy killing Hussein.
And what will America do? Not attack Iraq? Not change the government? The fact is that International Law is a joke. It doesn't exist as each country has tried to twist it into their own version.

-Rudey

When I posted this thread I didn't expect any responces, let alone 2 pages of them. Thanks a lot guys, GC rules!

wow Rudey, you certainly don't want any misunderstanding of your position so you wrote us a book. Very informative, thank you. Though I do not draw these facts to many of the same conclusions as you do. I also enjoy your little quips at the end of your arguments. the one about the camel racing was pretty funny.

I understand that Israel plays a role in the middle east as our chief ally, which I suppose keeps oil prices down. Is it justified to have our jewish puppets dance in a battle field just so that we can drive our SUV's comfortably in this country? I drive a Honda Civic, and I don't own oil stock so I don't force myself to justify this.
I'm not an anti-semite for not supporting Israel. Palestinians are more racially Semetic than most jews (who are mostly slavic) and I support their right to a state of Palestine.

Most importantly I see from this thread that there is much support for the war against iraq amongst the youth (greek youth: THE LEADERS OF TOMMOROW).

Also thanks to the moderator who pointed out my spelling mistakes. Yes, I need to get in the habit of using a spell checker; I hope the point still got across as well (PS, I'm still not usin' a spell checker)

definately not Kosher
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rudey


You know absolutely not one iota of information in regards to Israel nor international relations/politics so please keep your ignorant posts to yourself. Work on possibly doing some more reading rather than pretending your hard-earned fifth tier education gave you the right to speak on GreekChat.

-Rudey [/QUOTE

I resent that. Even if I didn't know anything about Israel I'd be able to recognize that Sharon is a fascist and Oil prices are a shody excuse for involvement with such regimes.
Don't Critisize my education either. I attend one of the top 5 Institutes of Technology in the country with a 3.2 GPA, and went to one of the best private High Schools in the Northeast. So suck my balls!

------------------------------
My god this is gonna turn into some 5'th graders discussion over who's dumber. I think we're both pretty smart people with a lot to contribute to GC; as long as we realize that just because someone has a different oppinion doesn't make them dumber/smarter!


no hard feelings

Re: definately not Kosher
 

I love statements that start out with "Even if I didn't know anything about Israel I'd be able to recognize that..."

You made a bunch of comments in regards to the middle east (It's not simply about oil and SUV's). Then you extended it with a nice little attack on Israel and Sharon. You're free to think whatever you want, but perhaps you should realize there is a difference between fact and presenting false facts in the name of "opinion".

-Rudey
--Now I would like to talk about Iraq so if you have an opinion on Israel I would be more than happy to discuss it over PM with you in a mature way. Cool?

Ah, I was waiting for the flame war to start. But back to the topic and sub-topic at hand.

Hamas was funded and supported by the Israel government in the 80s to off-set the growing power of the PLO. I'll try to find the source as soon as possible. So it's the dog comming back to bite the master arses.

The problem with the current Israel-Palestine problem is the lack of leadership on both camp. Both leaders are of the old school of fighting. Arafat was a good revolutionary leader, and Sharon was a good war general. Neither know a single thing about state-building or peace negotiation. I just read a study about Hamas and its pattern of violance. It's violance goes hand in hand when a negotiated peace is gaining steam. So the fight in many way is against those that want peace (Sharon is not one of them, neither is Arafat), and those that would like to stay in power through haterd and violance (plenty of those on both side, don't kid yourself if you think only the Palestinian are perpetrating violance.)

Not quite
 

Listen I have only responded in an ill manner towards one person. Read his posts. You know what he says is very different from what you and anyone else has said.

1. How exactly was Arafat a good revolutionary leader?

2. Your assumption that Sharon knows nothing about state-building or peace negotiations is wrong. Being a top general does not mean you can't be a good leader. Most Israeli leaders were generals. Sharon was involved with state building for a long time as part of the Knesset under Likud, Labor, and his own camp, Shlomzion (Peaceful Zionists). Sharon was an essential element of both the military campaign to quiet down hostile Egyptians in the Sinai as well as the negotiations team afterwards which returned the Sinai in full. It was Sharon that ordered the settlements in the Sinai evacuated and destroyed in the name of peace. It was Sharon that courted the Egyptians and did a massive amount of the negotiations to achieve peace. It was Sharon that upset the Likud by agreeing to a Palestinian state next to Israel.

3. The funding of Hamas by Israel is a claim that never gained much steam. Sources were never reliable and most people do not believe that theory. However, the PA was funded and supported through the Oslo Accords by Israel to make the Hamas problem go away.

Either way, this topic is about Iraq, no?

-Rudey

A note from your moderator.......
 

Ladies and Gentleman,

Good discussion! However.....

If you have flames in your post, please take the opportunity NOW to edit them, so that they are flame free. I would hate to delete posts that are otherwise good posts just because of a few misplaced flames. I'm only giving you this opportunity because I don't have the time or energy at the moment to edit out just the flames. So, if you would like your post to stand please edit it yourself or I will be pulling out the fire extinguisher (deleting it) later.

Thanks & Carry On-
ZetaAce

Re: Re: MENSA!
 

"Illegal weaponry" What makes the Palestinian weaponry any more illegal than the weapons that Israel has?

1. As per the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians were allocated only certain types of weaponry and only in a certain amount. They have more than twice that amount currently (and did before the second "intifada") and much of their weaponry is offensive rather than defensive.

What is your idea of a democratic government?
A pro Israeli government that is hand picked by Israel?

2. No my idea is not one that is hand picked by Israel. You will not see Israelis objecting to the new government in Afghanistan which is not pro-Israel but also is not a hostile nation that continuously makes threats against Israel.

Israel preaches democracy but at the same time they don't even want Arafat or Saddam to even be able to run for elected office. How is that a democracy?

3. Don't spread lies. It is Israel that pushed to have the PA cleaned up before elections and negotiations were held. It is Israel that pushed an international initiative to have the PA restructured and monitored so it does not ABUSE their own people. It was, however, the PA's response that Israel has no right to tell them to pursue a Democratic government. It was the PA that wanted to delay such changes, saying they will not pursue them until Israel moves back to undefendable borders. And it was the PA that responded to international pressure by initiating cosmetic changes that did not increase their trust among their people. And Saddam is a different case. This is a man that has massacred his own people to stop any form of opposition.

I think Israel is instigates half of the problems over there and they are not as democratic or Americanized as Rudey makes them out to be. Israel murders suspected criminals without trials. They blow up radio and TV stations simply because they are not pro Israel.

Israel liquidates high-level terrorists not to judge them for their past, but through a precise formula that assesses their danger and takes into account strong intelligence reports that state said terrorist will be commiting a large scale act of horror. You cannnot judge Israel for this as a crime as you do not deal with the same "ticking time-bomb" situation daily. It is however the Palestinians that execute Arabs after 1-hour "trials" for every crime including "collaboration". Other countries in the Middle East lack the most basic elements of human rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free elections, equality for women, freedom of religion, freedom of association. Why don't you question their actions, or is Israel the only nation you choose to scrutinize?

Your claim that Israel destroys radio and tv stations because they are not Pro-Israel is also a lie. There are many media outlets in Israel that continually attack the actions of the government on a daily basis. There are still just as many media outlets in the West Bank and Gaza that do the same and just as many mosques that broadcast their words through their loud speakers. Israel attacked PA property, not the media. It was however the PA that ordered all journalists be locked up in a hotel room during the massive celebrations after Sep. 11.

The fact is that Israel is NOT a perfect nation. I will never say it is. I will never say Israel is an innocent lamb that has been under attack by hungry wolves on a daily basis. I will never defend to you each and every action of Israel in the name of politics. However, give me ten minutes and I will list to you all the so called "modern" nations in the world and list the horrible things they've done, from France in Algeria to Russia in Chechnya. And the issue here is that Israel has the right to exist in full peace, nothing more and nothing less.

And perhaps this will be better written than my words above (Source: FLAME):
The Arabs of Israel
Are they a "persecuted minority?

The world is once again confronted with violence in Israel and its administered territories. On the pretext of one of Israel's ministers visiting the Temple Mount, the Palestinians erupted in bloody rioting, which has not yet ended and in which hundreds so far have died. Most distressing, Israeli Arabs, citizens of the country, have joined in the rioting and have suffered and caused many casualties.

What are the facts?

Israel is a Democratic Country. Israel is an open, pluralistic, and egalitarian society. Different religions, cultures, and social traditions co-exist. Protection of such diversity is embedded in Israel's traditions and confirmed by the government. About 20% of the population (over one million people) are non-Jews, most of them Arabs, and some Druze. Like all other Israeli citizens, they have full rights to vote and to hold elective office. Both Arabs and Druze hold seats in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Every Knesset, since the founding of the State in 1948, has had Arab and Druze members. All transactions in the Knesset are simultaneously translated into Arabic, and Arab members may address the Knesset in Arabic.

It is official policy of the Israeli government to foster the language, culture, and traditions of the Arab minority, in the educational system and in daily life. Arabic is an official language in Israel, together with Hebrew. Israel's Arabic press is the most vibrant and independent of any country in the region. There are more than 20 Arabic periodicals. They publish what they please, subject only to the same military censorship as Jewish publications. There are daily TV and radio programs in Arabic, Arabic is taught in Jewish secondary schools. Israeli universities are renowned centers of learning in the history and literature of the Arab Middle East.

Education and literacy of the Arab population in Israel is as high as and probably higher than in any Arab country. The literacy rate among Israeli Arabs is 95%, virtually the same as for Israeli Jews. There are close to 1,000 Arab educational institutions in Israel, with about 300,000 students -- more than 200 times as many as in 1948, when the State of Israel was created. Ninety percent of Arab children attend school, probably the highest ratio of any Arab population anywhere. Israeli universities and technical institutions are freely available to the Arabs. About 5,000 Arab students attend such schools.

Israeli Arabs Enjoy Full Equality in Law and in Fact. All religious communities in Israel enjoy the full protection of the State. Israeli Arabs -- Moslems, as well as many Christian denominations -- are free to exercise their faiths, to observe their own weekly day of rest and holidays and to administer their own internal affairs. Each community has its own religious councils and courts, and has full jurisdiction over religious affairs, including matters of personal status, such as marriage and divorce. The holy sites of all religions are administered by their own authorities and protected by the government

In contrast to the non-Israeli Arab world, Arab women in Israel enjoy the same status as men. Israeli law grants women equal rights, including the right to vote and to be elected to public office, prohibits polygamy, child marriage, and the barbarity of female sexual mutilation. It has thus vastly changed the status of women, to far above that of any country in the region. Israeli health standards are by far the highest in the Middle East. Israeli health institutions are freely open to all Arabs, on the same basis as they are to Jews.

There is, however, one difference between the "rights" of Arabs and Jews in Israel. Israeli and Druze men are required to do three years of military service and then serve one month every year until they are 50. Arabs are exempted from military duty and are not required to perform any compensating civilian service. Since the surrounding Arab states are the avowed enemies of Israel and dedicated to its destruction (there is "peace" with Egypt and Jordan), this exemption is granted by the Israeli government to its Arab citizens, so as to spare them conflicts of loyalty and conscience.

Contrary to propaganda and to what many believe, the Arabs in Israel are full-fledged citizens, enjoy every right, have the same status in law as Jewish Israelis, and can freely move all over the country without fear of being harassed, attacked, or killed. That's quite in contrast to the mortal dangers to which Jews are subjected when they venture into predominately Arab areas even within Israel proper. In summary, they enjoy the highest standards of living and liberty of any Arabs in the Middle East. In a recent poll, 70% of Israel's Arabs declared that they identified with and felt loyalty to the Palestinians, and not to the state of Israel. Significantly, however, the same percentage (70%) declared that they would much prefer to live in Israel than in any other country in the area. And who can blame them? Life is so much better for them, so much more prosperous than it would be any place else. It is instructive and sobering to compare the condition of the approximately one million Arabs in Israel with that of the pitiful remnants of Jewry in Arab countries. Jews have been living in Arab countries for almost 2,000 years. Under Arab dominance, they were always third-class citizens and subject to harassment and persecution. There were about 900,000 Jews in Arab countries in 1946 -- now there are fewer than 25,000. But there are now over one million Arabs in Israel, many more than after the exodus in 1948 -- a manifold increase. That alone would seem to prove that things can not be all that bad for Arabs in Israel.

-Rudey
--This was a discussion on Iraq.

As an aside to start, I was using the US economic link to Israel (before was a typo, anything intentional will be (sic)'ed, whoops) as illustrative of my opinion that whether or not someone supports a Jewish state in the area, it has to be seen that Israel existing certainly has economic benefits for the US, and any other view doesn't fly (IMO).

I have no problem with Israel as an entity - I look at it as a quasi-symbiotic relationship with the US, whereby both benefit in different ways. The US keeps a presence in the area, and Israel gets more support (not to mention F-14s).

Anyway . . . back to Iraq:

Any sort of formal declaration of war would be bizarre, to me - hard to justify a war against a nation which hasn't been aggressive toward you directly. W/out that, international law is pretty clear - and whether or not it is followed generally, there at least exists some sort of honor requirement to follow agreements we made.

Toppling Hussein is a great theory; however, diplomatic backlash could be a bitch (not that US foreign policy has ever really been deeply rooted in caring for others' opinions). I don't see it as the cure-all that Rudey does, as I have doubts about the long-term stability of any US-propped government installed (see: nearly every other time it's been done). However, your thought process makes sense to me, so I could see it going either way.

I think the concept of heightened US involvement in Iraq is more attractive than most of the potential outcomes - however, if what Rudey says about Iraq's nascent nuclear capabilities is correct (cite?), than there enters a higher level of necessity for somebody to do something. Whether that "somebody" in the cliche is the US government, well that's the argument - and I'm still not sure which side of the fence I sit quite yet . . . so convince me I guess.

Iraq
 

I don't see an attack on Iraq as a cure for all the problems in the middle east. Sometimes, I believe the problems in the middle east to be too great for any one nation, including the US, to take on. In fact I consider the problems in the middle east something the UN will be unable to handle as well.

Change comes from the ground up. It is people that must rule themselves, and anyone who believes the political systems of most of the Muslim countries are not outdated, is only kidding themselves.

However, the threat exists from Iraq to not only attack US Interests (Israel mainly) but also the US itself. The Iranian missile technology is almost close to completion so that it can reach the US. Their Shehab missiles, based on N. Korea's No Dong rockets and China's Telemetry equipment has been becoming more and more potent with time. The Iraqis already have massive biological and chemical weapons and are well on their way to developing a full nuclear arsenal. For sources, you can visit Jane's Information Group (formerly Jane's Defence) at Janes.com.

It is not even questioned whether Saddam will use the weaponry. Time and time again, he has been brutal in the usage of such weapons.

The question then becomes, when do we attack? Do we play a waiting game? When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear arsenal, it was clearly proven that the waiting game wouldn't work. Iraq mobilized its forces into Kuwait a few years after and the only Arab leader to support Saddam was Arafat in his own little ploy.

And again, the dangers are there. The economy is not stable right now. No matter what anyone's 8th grade teacher taught them, war is not beneficial for the economy, specially since the only countries that would pay for this war would be the US and possibly Britain and Israel. The second risk is that the governments in the mid east are highly unstable and could become even weaker with American intervention. The Saudi government is weak and the Hashemites are a gamble in Jordan.

The diplomatic arena is not one in which the US has been lately concerned about. There are many reasons for this but mainly it's because the EU has no power diplomatically because of its desire to downgrade its military power (See Atlantic Monthly August Edition). China and Russia are there to make money but more importantly to expand their influence.

Kissinger recently published an article prior to meeting with state department officials stating that a war must not be rushed into unless full thought has been given to the aftermath. That is the truth, so the balancing game comes into play. When do we attack? Have we given enough thought to this? What do we do after? Do we install a Hashemite Prince in Iraq? How long will that last? Etc.

Jane's did address some of these issues in a recent article by saying:
"After Saddam is defeated: a confidential American projection of a new Middle East

If the Western media and armchair generals are to be believed, the impending war against Iraq will be disastrous. The world oil price will rise and financial markets will remain wobbly. The backlash against the US and its allies will be huge, perhaps toppling pro-Western monarchies and governments in the Gulf and Middle East.

This is the received wisdom of the critics. Foreign Report has had access to the thinking of advocates in the Bush administration about the US intervention in Iraq. Although the risks inherent in any war cannot be overlooked, the critics may exaggerate the dangers and underestimate the advantages for the entire Middle East should the operation go well.

At the outset, remember who the critics are. They are the people who predicted Armageddon in all recent conflicts. The critics claimed a decade ago that the war to remove Saddam from Kuwait would last 'for decades'; its most intensive phase lasted less than a month. They also said that 'huge numbers' of Western soldiers would be killed. In fact, hundreds died. They predicted that Saddam's Republican Guards would 'fight to the end'; in fact, they ran away.

Could the critics be wrong again?

Saddam Hussein is not Bin Laden. He is a classic dictator, dependent on the apparatus of a state, a disciplined security service and a small clan of his own people, the Takritis, who are despised by most ordinary Iraqis, not to speak of other Arabs in the Middle East. When his regime begins to collapse, he will be finished.

The West failed them

When Saddam was evicted from Kuwait and the people were less fearful, spontaneous rebellions against him started throughout Iraq. These failed because the West failed to give them any support; now, with the West eager to help when such rebellions start, they may well prove fatal for the Iraqi dictator.

True, the price of oil will go up, and political uncertainty will affect financial markets. But the US is now hugely expanding its strategic oil reserves, and Opec, with low world prices, can do little to block it. Moreover, Russia is being friendly because it wants to sell more oil to America.

True, the opposition in Iraq is divided and ineffective. But this was even more the case in Afghanistan, yet a government of sorts was put together very quickly, and it is still holding together. The conjuring trick can be repeated.

A new government will not deliver the 'full Monty' and will probably not be stable. But it will be infinitely better than the present regime. And US planners are much more attracted by the enormous boosts to the entire region that will take place should Saddam Hussein be removed from the scene."

For the full version of this article, visit http://www.janes.com/security/intern...814_1_n.shtml. Jane's is really expensive to have a subscription to, and I'm lucky to have one through my own source, but see if your school has a subscription. You'll love it.

-Rudey
--I'm not here to convince you, but only to present my views based on the facts that I know. If this is something you care to be informed on, I would recommend reading the Atlantic Monthly or the New Republic...not my words. And if you care to see domestic politics at work, check out Meet The Press on Tv.

Thanks ZetaAce
I realize these are heated topics because people take strong oppinions to them. I love the responce it's gotten so far and I think it's awesome that GC supports a thread of this caliber, disturbing it may take away from the prestige.


Rudey, Where do you get on off on pickin' on other people? Calm down bro. I might send you a PM about this an' other political topics sometime (because obviously you have good sources), but I'll wait 'till you chill out a bit.


No, Attacking Iraq isn't a panacea for all of our mid-east problems. And I agree with Rudy Wholeheartedly that it is beyond us to resolve; I mean, it's been an ongoing battle for a long time (trying to resolve it outranks the futility of seaking peace in Yugoslavia, or in Ireland) But the war is one of the current options we are facing in taking out the terrorist threat from abroad. Granted: the threat of terrorism from abroad is only a small percentage of the terrorism we face in the US, and the US has nowhere near the highest rate of terrorism (Sri Lanka is #1 I believe). Still, I feel it is our right as citizens to not live in fear of terrorism from abraod and to know that there is something being done about it.

goodnight :)

Hendrix, if I'm not mistaken, i beileve Latin America has the highest terrorist activities in the world. I'm not sure bout that though. Don't quote me. Back to Iraq, I don't know if it's a good idea to believe these "opposition" forces. Sure they talk about democracy and all that. I don't know enough about these "opposition" to know what they are really about. After all, the Northern Alliance were as bad as the Taliban, but with enough spin doctor and the media making them out to be the next George Washingotn, they don't look so bad. Tell's you that when you listen to just the media, you don't know anything.

Dude
 

I don't know how else to say this to you. You make horribly wrong statements that you try to pass off as facts. The very first post you made in this thread is full of wrong "facts" - lies if you actually knew that wasn't the case, but for you I will instead assume ignorance because you didn't know and chose not to know. I'm not attacking your "opinions" on anything but actually your presenting of these "opinions" as facts.

I want to point out where it is in each of your posts where you've made these errors but I don't have the time, or desire, to do that. My time right now is worth way more than that and it is not my job to come on and correct you. I simply have no idea why you post half of the things you said. This is not a flame but a questioning on your intentions.

You make this out to be a "heated topic" because of "strong opinions". You don't get that there was a rational discussion occuring and how your posts differed from mine or anyone else's and how your understanding of this discussion is wrong.

-Rudey
--Right now it's 3AM and I just had the most disgusting Taco Bell meal in my life after the most awful plane ride of my life.

Actually
 

Why is the Northern Alliance as bad as the Taliban? By the way, the Loya Jirga encompasses the Northern Alliance into the government and is not simply the Norther Alliance. The Taliban was a govt...see the difference?

I want to argue with you on two levels. The first is your remark on the media. Your assumption is that there is some untainted form of media out there. I do not know you and I am not going to assume you're one of those anti-war/anti-golbalization/anti-everything's who reads the mailings off the user groups he joins and the editorials which pass for fact gathering on certain "grassroots" websites. However, all media has an inherent bias in it. I don't think you can make a point by telling people not to listen to the media - unless you can specifically tell me what it is that you do your learning from, how you're sure it's unbiased, etc.

Second, I would say that Afghanistan is much better off right now. Most people who disagree constantly talk about the Northern Alliance being just as brutal (mistaking that the Northern Alliance is not the new government). The fact is that the current situation is much less oppressive and allows for greater human rights (although not anywhere near perfect). The one significant problem in the new government is the corrupt factionalism which has even taken its toll on the US government through false intelligence which allows one group to use the US to attack another. This is similar in some aspects to the corruptness in Russia right now.

I do not have a solution for it and believe, perhaps, time will be the only solution to this as the country develops and the people become fairly represented in their government. But what I do know is that Afghanistan is better without the Taliban for the Afghanis themselves as well as for the international community.

Also, regardless of the cause, it is clearly shown that across the world terrorists are linked together from the IRA to the Palestinians to the rebels in Columbia. For example, it was the "Jackal" who wrote a nice little letter to the media on behalf of an Arab terrorist from his jail cell even though he had no connection to the region whatsoever.

-Rudey
--I'm so tired right now so if my post lacked clarity please allow me the opportunity to apologize in advance. I'm off to bed listening to the Roots and Bjork. Peace.