Ahem, where did I turn the argument in another direction? I said that Israel should obey the UN and give up the West Bank, but I don;t think they should commit national suicide by not getting guarantees of security. Do you think Israel should allow itself to be destroyed?
I know nothing about Turkey’s disobedience of UN resolutions. Some info please?
Your lives? In Australia?
Sugar, I live and work in the Metro DC area, which is a fucking bullseye, you ignorant bitch! My office is only a few blocks from the White House–if a suitcase nuke goes off, I’m dead.
You in Melbourne fucking AUSTRALIA have the audacity to say, “And as such, we are probably equal or greater targets than your good self?”
Fuck you sideways, honey
OK, since you’re not privy to any classified information, could you give us an example of what this information could be and why it can’t be revealed? Thanks so much
The reasons to attack now are fairly straightforward:
#1 He has already violated the terms of the U.N resolution which required, for those who don’t know or chose to ignore inconvienent facts, that he provide proof that he has destroyed the WMD that he posseses. He has not even come close to doing so.
#2 The people of Iraq, who seem so near and dear to the hearts of the anti-war crowd, are suffering now. Shortages of basic supplies because of sanctions, the threat of arbitrary arrest and/or execution, large scale reprisals against civilians in areas that don’t toe the Government line…all of these are daily occurances in Iraq. That’s not going to change if we do nothing.
#3 Sadaam is a desabilizing force in the ME. He has shown for decades that he is a master of doing as much as he can get away with-and then just a little bit more. He’s shot Scuds at Israel and gassed civilians. He’s actively persuing nuclear weapons. He pays off the families of suicide bombers. None of these things will stop untile he is removed from power, and hopefully from the planet. He will push and push and push as far as he thinks he can get away with. He’s gotten away with it for 11 years after he lost the last war. Enough is enough.
The people of the ME generally think of Hussein as a U.S. puppet even now. Bringing him down is not going to signifigantly raise Al Qaeda’s stock in the region ( Source: a neighbor and new friend who recently emmigrated from the ME, in response to me when I posed the same question to him. I must say I was suprised to say the least, but have since had it confirmed by 2 other people, one from Pakistan and one from Iran, who I posed the question to, so I am willing to-conditionally-accept it as a reflection of ME attitudes.) If Hussein is brought down and replaced with a stable governmet which benefits the people of Iraq, ( and that’s a big “IF”, I know. It is, in fact, the part of all this that worries me the most. I want to see a credible exit strategy from the U.S. government and military.) Al Qauda’s position will be weakened with reguards to recruiting et al.
Oh. OK. It is ONLY the US who is under threat. SO WHY THE SCREAMING FUCK HAS OUR P.M. SENT TROOPS OVER TO THE GULF??
You have just re-confirmed that our involvement in this war is stupid. Could you please send a e-telegram to inform our PM of this situation…with a CC to Tony Blair? I mean, I thought the whole world was at risk from Saddams stupidity, but if it is only the US who are being threatened, then…
Firstly, you still refuse to condemn O’Reilly for exactly the same type of behaviour that you’re accusing kambuckta of. That’s your right, of course, but your lambasting of k sounds a little hollow as a result.
Secondly, i was wondering if you would mind lending me the device you use to determine which Dopers are politically biased and which are not? I presume that you would place yourself in the second category, being such an impartial, non-partisan, objective poster, and all. And of course, anyone who thinks like you must also, by definition, fit into the second category. I presume that those who disagree with you politically will generally be placed in category 1, unless they show some willingness to submit to your point of view.
Give me a break, will you? We all have certain political biases and predispositions, which are often reflected in our posts on this Board. Some hide them better than others, and some are more willing to distort evidence to serve their prejudices than others. But to even imply that anyone demonstrates complete objectivity is asinine.
Thirdly, i was wondering when it became verboten to “tell [someone] about matters” when that person is “far more knowledgeable.” If you’re going to implement such a rule, then maybe we should shut these Boards down altogether, because only the most knowledgeable person on any particular issue would be allowed to post.
Also, given your reference to kambuckta’s location, are we now to assume that only those who are actually going to Iraq have a right to speak on the issue? And, moreover, only Americans? I know Australia might seem at the other end of the world, but the Australian government is also sending troops on this American-led enterprise, in the face of considerable public opposition.
And, as far as ridiculing Lucretia’s fears, i thought that kambuckta made it pretty clear that s/he was actually sympathetic to the fears of everyone related to a service person. Why is it that someone who opposes sending service people off to fight an unjust war can then be accused of ridiculing the fears of those same people and their families. Many who oppose war, including me, do so specifically because we see no need for American lives to be lost; it’s not just about the Iraqis, you know.
…odd, I thought terrorism was an international problem…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/bali/
This is a boat we are all in-and we should all have a say in how to deal with it. We don’t sleep easy at night, our people have died, New Zealand have troops in Iraq at this moment,
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,155438-1-7,00.html .
We have every right to say our piece.
Thanks Banquet Bear. I was going to head back to ‘G’Dope’ to ask our main resident Kiwi, IceWolf, whether youse guys had deployed troops as well, but you’ve answered the question for me!!
CHEERS!!
Oh, this is too funny. Uh, you do realize that it’s countries like the United States that are imposing the sanctions, not Hussein, right? I guess you think they’d be better off dead at the hands of U.S. troops than suffering at the hands of Hussein. Whatever.
[quote]
Oh. OK. It is ONLY the US who is under threat. SO WHY THE SCREAMING FUCK HAS OUR P.M. SENT TROOPS OVER TO THE GULF??
[quote]
How would I know, he’s your prime minister. You attempted to pass yourself off as more threatened than I because of your PM’s involvement in the Iraqi crisis, and I proved you wrong. Deal.
Mhendo, I’m too sleepy to give your post the thought it derserves, but if it’s any comfort, I think O’Reilly is a jerk. I didn’t see the show in question, so it would be stupid of me to comment on the content.
If you bothered to read GD, you would know that Stoid is wildly biased against Bush and the GOP. We all have our biases, you and me included, but she is the poster child for political myopia. Read the 2000 election threads if you doubt me.
Give ME a break. Kambucta was telling Lucretia about risks to the military. If you can’t see the stupidity and the overweening gall of such a comment, then you are denser than I thought.
In regards to Kambucta’s location, hell, no, she has no right to say that she is “probably equal or greater target” than those of us who live in one of the two targets of 9/11, and who are in the sights of terrorists as we speak. Which is more at risk of a retaliatory attack, Washington, DC or Melbourne, Australia? Take your time, I’m sure it’s a tough problem for you.
Anyway, I’m going to bed. I’ll fight with you tomorrow–with the snow coming in it doesn’t look like I’m going anywhere.
Don’t worry, my friends down under, I live in Manhattan, very close to many terrorist targets, so my opinion is valid. In fact, we beat out DC as a likely terrorist target, so now gobear has to shut up! 
BanquetBear. do you live and work in Bali? No? Well, I and many other Dopers live and work in DC. You risk far less than we.
What, you think only officers are privy to this stuff? I’m guessing, based solely on the enlisted to officer ratio (many more enlisted than officers in the military), that there are more enlisted people who have Top Secret clearances than there are officers. I will say, though, that (regarding Iraq) I’m an officer with no direct knowledge of anything beyond what Powell put forth.
AFAIK, resolutions passed against Israel have been passed by the General Assembly. They are not binding, and the use of force is not authorized to enforce them. The Iraqi resolutions were passed by the Security Council. They are binding, and the use of force is authorized to enforce them. Please correct me if my information is wrong or incomplete.
Look at Churchill’s decision with Coventry. Apparently the people did not have the right to know (yes, I’m taking the liberty of equating “democracy” with “free people.”) I don’t think it’s really fair for a citizen to expect its government to protect him/her, but then protest when the means it uses for that protection are hidden due to their sensitive nature. At the same time, it’s an understandable gripe, and I have no answer for it. Even I have a hard time saying “Trust your government” with a straight face.
#1 is a given, but does not require a war response. There are lots of nuts out there with weapons that we are not threatening: China, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. It may feel good to go on about Hussein’s failure to comply with UN resolutions, but that provides a rationaliztion, not a reason to go to war, now.
#2 is pretty much a given–in the same way that any number of U.S. allies are generally hostile to their own citizens without any complaint from the U.S. I’m sure that the citizens of Guatemala, Chile, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a few more locations are very touched by the concern that the U.S. is showing toward the Iraqis, today. (Heck, Bush is has lumped the government of Iran into his silly “axis” and they had a revolution to get rid of the U.S. puppet. And despite either Bush’s rhetoric or the religious police, the Iranian people are safer in their homes, today, than they were under the U.S. supported Shah.)
#3 is arguable, but I have seen no evidence to support your contention. Hussein has never attacked when he believed he was less than assured of victory. He was twice mistaken, but he seems shrewd enough to realize that the U.S. (especially under Bush II) is not going to let him attack anyone at this time. As for your friend, I’ll put him up against my co-worker. Hussein is hated and feared in the region. However, he is not more hated and feared than Uncle Sam. Any action against him that is not clearly defensive will provide al Qaeda more recruits.
Gee. I have always considered gobear a reasonably intelligent and informed poster. I have been disappointed by his comments in this thread.
I’m no WWII expert, but there are some major differences. Great Britain didn’t attack Germany unprovoked. By the time they found themselves in a war, the British people had an idea that Germany posed a threat.
Yes, you did say that Israel should obey the UN. But why, in the minds of so many pro-war folk, is Saddam’s violations of Security Council resolutions such a key reason to invade, yet the same people never make the same connection regarding Israel? Why aren’t we invading Tel Aviv in response to Israel’s willingness to thumb its nose at world opinion? (Note: i don’t advocate such a course. I’m simply pointing out the apparent inconsistencies in the justifications currently being used by the US and its supporters.)
And flyboy88, you might want to take a look at this:
For information on Turkey, and other violators of Security Council (see that, flyboy?) resolutions, go here. This web page details the ongoing resolutions currently being violated by various countries. If you want further details of the specifics of each resolution, i suggest a trip to the UN website. If my count is correct, Israel is currently in violation of 32 ongoing resolutions, with Turkey in second place with 24 (let me know if i’ve counted wrong; it’s getting late). Other frequent occurences include: Morocco; Russia, Armenia; Croatia; Sudan; Cyprus.
The site makes the point:
Also, it points out:
…no problems. 
Our government has made it quite clear that we will not support a war without a United Nations resolution, and the general populace (newspaper and television polls) generally support this. However we are doing our part to help the inspections-we have medical troops supporting the Inspectors at the moment.
…to those with security clearences-up to October last year I was Functions Manager at Parliament-employed through an outside contractor to manage the catering requirements of the Function venues at the Beehive, Old Parliament Buildings and Bowen House. Currently I am still employed there part-time. I have signed a security clearence-as part of my job means that at times I am privy to conversations that may or may not contain information that is available for public consumption.
I would be in breach of that security agreement if I made the implications that “I know stuff that could win me this arguement, but I won’t post it because it’s classified.” I know that I don’t come near to the NSA or the Air Force when it comes to Government Intelligence, but I find your responses surprising. Do the NSA and the United States Airforce really have that lax security clearence that you can get away with the “implied” stuff you are expressing? On a public message board? Obviously your allowed to express your opinion-but aren’t some of your statements possible breaches of contract?
…why no, but presently I am posting from the Executive Wing of Parliament Buildings, commonly known as the Beehive…
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/home.cfm
…and if the boss catches me, well, a security breach would be the last of my worries!!! Off home, catch you later…
…but on topic-are you saying that you have more rights to be concerned than I? Because of your location? That is what is disturbing-it is an irrational thought. Nobody thought that Bali would be a target-noone really knows what the next target could be. 88 Australians died at Bali, as well as many other nationalities, including British, Americans,and New Zealanders. The fact that you are apparently (from your posts-excuse me if I am wrong) living in fear of terrorist actions means that the terrorists have won the battle over you, I am afraid.
chula, my intent was to show there are times when a leader is compelled to limit information which, if acted upon, would compromise not only the source, but other lives as well. In Churchill’s case he would have compromised the Allied breaking and exploiting of the Enigma, and risked unforseen casualties due to the Germans realizing their problem and developing a new code which may not have been breakable.
For all I know, Bush may be wrestling with the same problem.
mhendo, good site. I’ll have to plow through it tomorrow, but after a quick look it would appear my info is indeed incomplete.