Gulf War Part Deux

Hey DR…have you been watching CNN? That live action Armoured Recce on the advance is outstanding. You must be green with envy!

Who isn't watching this? First live invasion ever on TV.

Do we have a choice……

Yes we do have a choice. Whether or not you think this war is right, Ted Turner, the guy who makes tons of money from CNN, has been pushing this war through his media, and he publicly stated he is for the war. This is wrong in so many ways because most people unfortunately develop their opinions from what they are told on TV (whether they realize it or not). As such media is supposed to be impartial. So if you are going to watch this "war" then I am suggesting that you do not contribute to sick and distorted media practices by watching CNN.

As a side note, is it really a "war" when your resistance is for example one T-55 tank versus an American Division. It would be like calling kicking the ass of the a six year-old child a fight.

Sure the entertainment is great on the surface but I can't get over the fact that some inocent people are going to DIE.
If the school bulie has a gun you don't destroy the school.The first time they bombed iraq they hit the power supply which destroyed the water and sewage treatment.Peole of all ages died as a result. I know that uptill now that hasen't been done so far as I know. I also heard that sadam gave his people up to 6 months of food so they have water and food they just have to hope they don't get blown to smitherenes. Basically I hate the idea that people are going to die because theres a cowboy in the whitehouse.Sorry to all cowboys.

Today they said on CNN that the american troops were "a column 10 miles wide and 20 miles long" I thought that was pretty impressive. All media is propaganda….the only way you really know what's going on is if you go and see it yourself.

I find all the opinions expressed so far very interesting! However,(there's always that)I find the lack of moral fiber showen by our own leaders to be the most disgusting form of back stabing I have ever witnessed! If we did not have the quiet and voical backing of the US for all these years we would not have this great country we have! We certinaly don't have the resourses or man power to protect it! If that means bowing down to our neighbors from time to time then so be it!! As for the media, well we all have our own agendas.At lest the US is doing it openly this time, unlike the bungling in Central America of the 70's and 80's. Don't get me wrong I am not pro American, I'm just not in favor of the sniveling winers we have in office right now!!

The excuse of not going to war because innocent people will die is weak at best. What about the hundreds of thousands of innocent people Saddam has already killed when he's been left alone…and all the thousands more who would die every year if nothing is done? Remember he's used chemical weapons against the Iranians and against his own people. After the first gulf war, when people in the south around Basra rose up in revolt, he sent the Republican Guard in and slaughtered thousands. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the north because they tried to oppose him as well. Let's not forget he was paying $25,000US to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. What about those innocent Israeli people?

There was an article in todays Saskatoon newspaper about a guy who happened to look similar to Saddam's son. He was asked to get an operation to make him an absolute double. When he refused, he was imprisoned and tortured until he accepted…and yet he had grown up with Saddams son, and was a friend. If they do this to friends, can you imagine what they do to their enemies?

Saddam is no better than Stalin and his gulag. There exists a personality cult similar to Stalin's because the people live in fear of him. Like Stalin, Saddam has had people killed simply because they stopped clapping for him too soon at Baath Party gatherings.

People who oppose the war are no better than sympathizers of Saddam's oppression. Yes, unfortunately innocent people will be killed in this war, but far less than if we left him alone. But because it is a morally difficult choice, some people think we should let the larger number die, because it is easy…not our problem.

(Wanna talk about the French?)

I guess where I am coming from is I cannot handle hypocracy. No one gave a crap about what happened in Rwanda. The US would not even contribute 50 personel carriers to help, yet half a MILLION people had already been murdered, and in the end it was 800,000 people in 100 days. The world has never seen genocide on this scale, and in the modern age of all times when people knew what was happening. Oh, but it doesn't make good news stories, so no one heard about it, and I bet most people today still have no idea.

That Saddam needs to go is true, that is should have been done sooner so that military action is almost the only choice remaining is sad. The system continues to fail us. I think everyone agrees he must go, it just the way this is happening that is disturbing, and that the "war" is covered like it is a baseball game or something is shocking.

T-rev I could not have said better myself so I won't even try. ty

Ok, Gulf War II. Not needed, as all wars aren't usually needed. But, Bush, Sr. could of blown the crap out of Saddam back in '91, but he was to stupid. Yes, people are dying in this war, but so far, I only hear that 1 Iraqi civilian has been killed.

But why attack Iraq? What have they done to the rest of the world? Sure he's gassed people, but hes just another crazed Middle Eastern dictator. Wait 10 more years, and he'll be dead. Sure, more people could die, but he wouldn't use gas again. No that stupid. Why is Bush attacking him? They(Iraqi's) have never done anything against Bush. So, Bush should of left the Gulf, and just spread propaganda in the region. Let the Israeli's deal with it, or the Saudi's. Bush has no legal right to be in that Gulf.

Whats all this crap against French? Freedom Fries?!? Why? Because Chirac knows that Saddam hasn't done anything to him, or Bush, or the world, and never will have the power. Sure, he might have nukes, but how could he launch them without NATO, NORAD, the US, or even Israel from stopping it before it leaves the ground/plane? The Americans just want to attack the French, because they don't follow the stupid President they got. In all, France is the smarter of the two.

The WH guy said that the "Coalition of the Willing" contains app. 45 countries, and 1.18 billion people, on every continent. Well, China, whos against this, has 1.3 billion people. That alone beats out all the freaks with the Yanks. And why not report about the fools who are with Bush, than the countries who aren't?

Thats all I have to say, for now.

There is still time to become a HUMAN SHIELD. Admit it, you really don't care about iraq. If you did, you would be in iraq right now fighting America. Sit down, have a beer, watch a hockey game. Someone else will do the hard work.——-iraq is armed with french Mirage jets. Does anyone know if the iragis got good value for their money buying french equipment?

Sarge "People who oppose the war are no better than sypathizers of Saddan's oppression" . what are you saying, are you agreeing with bush "if your not with us your against us" those kinds of remarks stink of fashisom. the people of Iraque can't speak freely but we can. So far as I know saddam hasent been persacuting his population like he used to after the U.S.of A put him there.My point it peole should be incouraged to express their opinions. We don't have to agree but I think it's inportant to try to understand where the other guy is comming from. Sadam wasen't at war with anyone. Inocent people didn't have to die. In 1991 the U.S propaganda stated that the bombs were smart and the civil casualties were minimal. in hidesite of that they were lying the bombs kept missing there targets. lots of normal iraques died. This time I Question any facts coming at me from the media. I don't trust u.s. propoganda.

Vandal you gonna join the Us troops

For me, my opinion has evolved painfully and slowly. At the base of it is a question of credibility; looking at past behaviors compared to recent rhetoric. The United Nations loses big time here, ex. Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo. Pax Americana has problems if I focus only on the personalities of their present leadership; I don't like them or respect them. If I broaden my views then I think US is taking the right course. Their ultimate credibility will be to discover large supplies of chemicals and nerve gas etc. Not only should Saddam be held accountable for mass murder, he should be answerable to the huge contribution he made to world pollution when he set the wells on fire in the last Gulf War. I don't like war but I do know that freedom has always come with a cost. Now, if the US puts in their usual half-hearted attempt at post-war recovery there will be big problems. It truly would be a tragedy if the entire region destabilizes and moves into civil wars.

Great…someone took the bait.

Let's talk about France. Western Europe's terrorist state.

1. The French Oil consortium, TotalFinaELF, which the French Gov't has a controlling interest, has a contract worth over $120 BILLION Cdn to develop new oil fields in Iraq, which would effectively give France TOTAL control of 23% of Iraq's oil reserves. They couldn't act on the contract until sanctions were lifted, and any leader who replaces Saddam would not be obliged to recognize the contract, hence the major reason why France doesn't want war and would rather have the sanctions lifted. Interesting to note: The top three dealers in Iraqi oil in the last three years - France, Russia, China. (Hmmm…which security council members oppossed the war?) Source - Wall Street Journal, last November

2. Parts for the French-built Mirage jets that Iraq has have been getting into Iraq for at least 5 years through 3-party companies (aka: fronts) in order to smuggle the parts into Iraq, and covering up French gov't involvement. (It's not a big deal, if the Iraqi jets even get off the ground, they will have a short, exciting war experience.)

3. From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports. (German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.)

4. How many of you knew that France is currently involved in it's own dirty little war in the Ivory Coast? It didn't even try to seek UN approval to get involved there, they just went ahead and did it. Those people who are complaining about the 'illegal' US war should add that little war in the Ivory Coast to the argument.

5. Following an independence riot in the French Pacific colony of New Caledonia/Kanaky, TV pictures showed french police beating up independence campaigners. Chirac’s response was to say he was shocked at the importance ascribed to such a ‘banal event’. Remember Rodney King in L.A.? That was a big deal!

6. In the 80's and 90's the French were testing nuclear weapons in French Polynesia/Te Ao Maohi, despite world-wide outrage, and nuclear test bans. A group of 25 Danish schoolchildren who went to the Gare du Nord in Paris to protest were surrounded by police officers and ordered to strip off their T-shirts, which were printed with anti-nuclear symbols and the words ‘Chirac No’.

7. France is a terrorist state. In 1985, it bombed and sank Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior in a New Zealand harbour (violating international boundries in doing so). The French military and secret service agents who did it were eventually captured and charged by New Zealand police, and put in prison. France introduced economic sanctions against New Zealand while demanding the agents be released. They eventually agreed that the agents serve out their ten year sentence in a french pacific colony, but secretly transferred them within three years to France and then released them. Some are still serving in high ranking positions in the French military. One of them, Colonel Jean-Claude Lesquer, was head of the action unit that conducted the bombing. He lost his post over it but was later promoted to brigadier-general after the 1st Gulf War. In February, 1995, he was promoted to major-general.

8. Judging at international Figure Skating competitions. Need I say more?

holy cow! I had no idea France was so diabolical and underhanded…well..I guess they have to make up for all their military shortcomings over the years somewhere…LOL…"can I join the French army? I've got my own white flag"

I have to talk about Libya. The Colonel there (can't remember his name), has been in dictorial power since the 60's. And he's one of them Islamic extremists, wanting to unify Africa. Even so, he is very good, diplomaticaly. Well, the US has boycotted his oil, all 23 billion barrels of it. That don't matter. Europe buys it.

Heres the catch. Libia is home to more oil than most of the Middle East. The Europeans know that, and are only paying as little as $1/barrel. And Libya hasn't even gone into the huge deposits in the Sahara. Theres also gas. Thought to be unlimited. And he hasn't even started getting that.

So, forget Iraq, Kuwait, the entire Middle East. Go to Libya and get oil thats freaking cheap. The gas will never run out, seriously. And they have miscalculated the amounts of oil. Theres much, much, much more. More than we can comprehend.

But he can't get it. Since all his refineries were American built, he can't get spare parts for them, with the US embargo.

Hey I'm not saying that france is the good guys.Nor am I saying that sadam should stay.I'm just saying that to bomb the guy before he starts a fight is sad because a lot of good decent people are going to DIE! They put up with sadam for so long just so they could get blown up by their liberators. Oh lets not forget the entertainment value. Sooner or later the world will find a more peacefull way to take care of such leaders.

Premature peace in 1991 resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths: among the people of the Safwan region (Basra), who rebelled against Saddam and were then crushed by the Republican Guard; Kurdish people in the north who did the same; the thousands Saddam did not trust; and the thousands of children who died because Saddam spent money on missiles instead of food and medicine.

The US did "give peace a chance" for twelve years, but playing games in the UN with France and the other weasels allowed Saddam to rearm, and to punish his people.

So let me ask you VirgoDragon..

How would you get rid of Saddam…close your eyes and click your heels together three times?

he's got to go but I don't think it will be the cakewalk many pundits predicted. Think of Afghanistan and the fighting that continues there to this day. What are your thoughts on the immense task of trying to rebuild a country which has artificially constructed colonial borders which did not take into account the different tribal regions? This is going to be tough and it is in a very critical area from a global perspective, not like Afghanistan. The concern of some peaceniks I think is will it get worse after the war..

Sarge, I don't disagree that what you suggested France had done is likely true. But you could come up with a rap sheet like that for most major countries, and the one for the US would be the worst of all. Just something to think about.

As for Serotonin's suggestions of what the future holds. That really is my big concern out of all of this. Look at the situation developing in Turkey. When one sets a precedent such as the US has done by attacking Iraq essentially unilateraly, this is what happens. Turkey's involvement is likely just one of the many difficulties in rebuilding that will occur.

Another example of the danger of this kind of precedent can be seen from Russian and Chechnya. When the US decided they should attack Afghanistan, to little world notice Russia decided it was now fine to label Chechnyans terrorists and take extreme meassure. Maybe they were right, but the issue is it reduces checks and balances, making it easier for wrongs to be committed. So all together the danger is where else this action taken be the US and Britain will lead us. That is what I find shocking. Yes, one bad guy down, but what next?

"How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

This question comes from a Seattle radio exerpt that Sarge sent me. The peace protester being interviewed either could not or would not answer it. This could be listened to on several levels, an honest question, a 'setup', a riddle, or a conundrum.

I don't have a link for it, although Sarge might. It's 2.4MB in size, so I can send it to anyone who might be interested in listening to it.

Just anon email me with your address if you don't have mine handy.

Hello has any one read the bible lately! I personaly am not a religious person, that is I don't attend church. I have however read the bible several times (it's a realy good story) and the Book of Genisis talks a lot about the four horse men and this is following the pattern layed out in that book as well as other religous texts of other denominations! Thats all I have to say on GOD!

The peace protestor could have answered it with this:

a) it could prevent the potential massive civil war
b) it could (as I mentioned in my last post) prevent the destabilization of the region

Yeah, I think it was a setup. Has anyone ever been to one these major protests. I had a very intelligent roommate who went to the WTO protest in Seattle. Almost the only people who CNN (and remember Ted Turner makes big bucks from world trade) and most other networks CHOSE to show on TV were the minority of dope show trouble makers. Clearly "gatekeeping" by the media is at its worst in these kind of on the street interviews.