Show me the PROOF Bushy !!!

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
And that DUTY was owed to the American people, Iraq’s neighbors, freedom loving people in general and future generations.

[/QUOTE]

We are going on the well-beaten path. What has Iraq done in the last 4 years against USA? Iraq's neighbors are balking at the concept of taking part in this war (except maybe Kuwait), so that argument is not workable. Freedom loving people do not seem too excited about killing a few thousand more human beings. And future generations have not chipped in yet with their thoughts.

22

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
We are going on the well-beaten path. What has Iraq done in the last 4 years against USA? Iraq's neighbors are balking at the concept of taking part in this war (except maybe Kuwait), so that argument is not workable. Freedom loving people do not seem too excited about killing a few thousand more human beings. And future generations have not chipped in yet with their thoughts.
[/QUOTE]

Faisal: My point in that post was not to argue whether the US owes a DUTY to anyone. Reasonable minds certainly differ and such a debate here will merely be a recantation of stuff said in a lot of other threads.

I simply detected a different emphasis from the administration. It is now clear to me that the emphasis to persuade Americans and the international community to support military action will be on a DUTY. I have heard many opponents speak in terms of whether the US has a RIGHT under international law to move against Iraq without UN Security Council approval. That discussion is being trumped by playing the DUTY card.

I think it's a good strategy and I think it will play well to the American people and some of our allies. Early polls show a 10% increase in support for military action against Iraq following Bush's speech.

23

Just a couple of thoughts.

We have heard very little about the Iraqi declaration, as this one was no better than the previous “Full and Complete” disclosures. (which of course turned out to be anything but full and complete with the help of some defectors). This latest disclosure did name the names of suppliers, some of which may not have been known previously. Presumably there may be some new disclosures that could be pieced together from these companies. (mostly companies from our friendly German allies).

Like most Americans I am torn on the issue of Iraq. I think that the US put itself in a nasty little box by betting all the chips on the issue of WMD. Far more damning for me was the information on the ANFAL campaigns against the Kurds. The Human Rights Watch Report desribed the “evidence” as follows:

"In the March 1991 popular uprising in northern Iraq, Kurdish civilians and members of the Kurdish political parties stormed and took control of offices of the Iraqi government and its agencies, including the various intelligence agencies. Several of these buildings were heavily damaged, or even burned to the ground, but others survived unscathed. The Kurds thus came into possession of the inventories of many of these facilities. Matters taken include large quantities of documents, logs and registers, as well as audiotapes, videotapes, films and photographs.

In the days before the uprising was crushed by advancing Iraqi troops, the Kurdish parties succeeded in removing the majority of the documents they had captured from the towns to strongholds in the mountains. In the spring of 1992, one of the two largest parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), agreed to a tripartite arrangement in which Middle East Watch and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee were the other two partners. Under this arrangement, the PUK agreed to send the documents in its possession to the United States for research and analysis; the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed to turn the documents into official records of the U.S. Congress and store them in the facilities of the U.S. National Archives; and Middle East Watch agreed to conduct research on the documents for human rights purposes, including the pursuit of a genocide case before the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The PUK cache consists of fourteen tons of documents contained in 847 boxes. The total number of pages has been estimated at over four million. In May 1992, the PUK placed these documents in the temporary custody of Middle East Watch and they were then flown, in the presence of the director of Middle East Watch, to the United States. In Washington, D.C., the documents were then handed over to the U.S. National Archives and placed in its storage facilities, while remaining under the joint custody of the PUK and Middle East Watch."

It seems utterly ironic to me that the Iraqis would create 14 TONS of documents regarding these campaigns, yet they would have no documents to validate the destruction of 16,000 chemical warheads. Additionally this huge cache of documents was obtained only after the gulf war. Only eyewitness information on the slaughter of the Kurds was available before the Gulf War freed up access to the Kurdish areas where these docments were found.

So, screw the WMD. My mind was made up based on 14 tons of documents describing the murder of at least 100,000 Muslims. Good enough for me. Millions of documents describing genocide should be as powerful as toxins in bringing the end to a regime of terror.

24

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Here's the problem with you anti-Bush folks. The UN Security Council, the weapons inspectors and the rest of the world did not send the inspectors into Iraq to hunt for WMD. They sent them there to oversee the voluntary disarmament of Iraq.

The inspectors have clearly reported that Iraq just doesn't seem to get it. They are frustrated. The Russians have commented upon the Iraqi intransigence following Blix's report and have said their patience is wearing thin.

The Iraqis don't get it nor do you anti-Bushies.

The type of evidence the US will show is evidence of Iraqi cover-up, not stashes of weapons. Non-believers will think those trucks leaving compounds and sites just ahead of the arrival of UN inspectors are simply delivering powdered milk to sick Iraqi infants.

Regardless of the rhetoric, Iraq's neighbors certainly still believe he has WMD or they wouldn't be so worried about him using them in the coming military conflict and getting gas masks delivered to their citizens. I seriously doubt the US would be vacinating all its troops in the Gulf and issuing them multiple uniforms to protect them against bio and chemical attack if the government and military planners didn't believe Iraq possessed and might use such weapons. And I seriously doubt Saddam would be importing vaccines and equiping his own soldiers with protective gear and clothing unless he had bio and chemical weapons. No one of sound mind can actually believe the drivel coming out of some mouths that Saddam is worried about a bio or chemical attack by US or UK troops. With all its high tech weaponsry, the US doesn't need to drop mustard gas on Iraqi troops or let loose the small pox virus to defeat Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

I think you are not the last but maybe the least person to understand that your government contradicts itself many times. It happened in every war they have fought.
This is not the first time! Finding excuses and making different issues propagate over the news networks is just a way to let the ppl prepare for the wars they were planned and prepared for them years before.
Wars are not planned in one month or some weeks. This is all covered up. US first aim was/is to attack IRAQ be the price double as high as that in Afghanistan. Be the body count of 1000s more than those in Afghanistan. WMDs, disarments and Sadam himself are just excuses. Iraq was always a target and now it's gonna be reality.

Questions like those rise in Europe:
Why should one country disarm the other keep producing weapons in masses?

There is a way to get rid off SADDAM the US knows it the world know it. But this way is way too "easy" and will not provide the US the major access to the OIL nor will it help the US economy to "stabilize".

Back to Bin Laden and Co.
Who cares if Bin Laden did it or not? Let me agree with America and say he did it! But then go and get him go and get his fellows and only then I will admit your Government not being the rogue state nr. 1 on this earth.
Developing pipelines before helping the ppl of Afghanistan is just one of the many reasons why Anti-Americanism is growing day by day and not coz of the propaganda of Dictators like Sadam and similiar regimes.
I felt ashamed of myself when Pakistan and Afghanistan shaked hands and agreed on the pipe lining project.

Did you ever felt ashamed of anything your Government has done in past?? NO, you never did! Coz the only thing you see is America.

25

ok, maybe Fraudia didn't voice anything, wutever.

myvoice, are u asking that how do we know that there will be a lot of civilian casualties if America invades Iraq?

if this is wut you are asking?

i dont' know. isn't what war does? if America invades Iraq, everybody know that its going to be a house to house, city to city fighting. thas why Britsh troops (i dont know their special name) are there, these troops are especially trained in house to house fighting because they have experience from house to house figthings in Scottland. Saddam is not gonna let it go that easily. I AM NOT SAYNG ANYTHING IN SADDAM's FAVOUR. he is the biggest jakass in that country. All im saying that war is only going to bring more pain and suffering for the people of Iraq.

Now abt the right or duty. I dont' think America has either. why is it America's DUTY to save people of Iraq from a "hitler"? what abt Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Rawanda, Nigeria, Niger and i can go on and on. for some reason, thats country's internal affairs, but when its middle east, its mighty America's duty to save the poor people of Iraq.

and what abt all other countries that have "weapons of mass destruction"? forget everybody, America itself has more weapons of mass destruction than the whole world put together, what abt that? wuld America be fine with UN inspections to their labratories?

England used Anthrax in the war against the Falklands. what abt them??
dont' forget Israel, France, China, India, Russia and let me say Pakistan (not saying for a second that America should go against Pakistan, just making a point) have nuclear bombs.

America has the power and the technology to kill Saddam from anywhere, if they know where the arsenal is, they can just simply destroy it, or point to it which i hope they do soon, but they are bent toward waging a war. which in the end offcourse mighty America will win, but on what price? a lot of civilian deaths and it doesn't even matter who kills those civilians, let it be Saddam, but my point is that A LOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL DIE and thats all i care about.

myvoice: i dont mean to be rude, just speaking my mind. if i sounded like an ass, srry abt that :)

26

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
In listening to Bush’s speech last night, it seemed to me that he was not making a case that we had the RIGHT to disarm Saddam. What he seemed to be saying is that we had the DUTY to do so. And that DUTY was owed to the American people, Iraq’s neighbors, freedom loving people in general and future generations. There is an important distinction between RIGHTS and DUTIES. A RIGHT is something you have that you may choose to exercise or not exercise. A DUTY, on the other hand, is something that you are obligated and required to perform.
[/QUOTE]

First of all, I already gave a response why I think that "duty owed to.." argument is such a bullcrap. Secondly, this argument of DUTY is itself a fallacy of the first class. Can I say "I have a duty to slap my neighbor, and I owe it to my future generations". Nah! That is stupid and that is wrong. There is due process of taking care of every problem. What US is doing is merely saying "We want to disarm Iraq, and if UN does not agree, we will lead a coalition of the willing". There is no DUTY or RIGHT involved. Its merely MIGHT is RIGHT mentality.

27

England used Anthrax in the war against the Falklands. what abt them??

I dont suppose you would like to prove that,maybe show us a link,that England used anthrax.

Just by saying that England used anthrax in the Falklands,shows how much notice you took of the Falklands,i mean was it just the English?or maybe Wales or Scotland used it too,anyway it would be nice to see a link to this info.

28

I really think a win-win situation is if saddam just goes into exile and Iraq can move forward with a diff government. A government which is more apt to disarm and more likely to thus provide its people with a better lifestyle.

would resolve the regional instability isues that the neigbouring countries are worried about, would save iraqi soldiers, many of whom are unwilling to fight, and iraqi civilians who will come into the crossfire.

If you were a leader and you knew that the best for your country and your people was for you to step aside, would you or would you not do it?

At this point, I am very unsure about war, not for it, not against it, i just dont know enough to have a real opinion. However, if it is shown in anyway that Iraq had links with OBL's gang then i think that its best that he be disposed off as swiftly as possible. I dont want his biological weapons hitting my city, or the cities of my family and friends.

I do think that we have to see evidence of links, or at minimum possession of such WMDs.

29

unfortunately, i can't find any online mentioning of anthrax attack on Falklands by Briton. I heard it on a show on cbc (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) called "The National". they don't have any mention to it on the net. sorry

30

I wanted england (not Uk but england) to throw whatever they had on Argentina after that troll's "hand of god" goal.

you sure the program you were listening to did not have lyndon larouche as its speaker? Not quite sure why that guy is so anti-UK, maybe its because he is totally nuts.

31

Shahzadqu:
You don’t sound rude nor do you sound like an ass so there’s no reason to apologize on that score.

My problem with your posts in this thread is your proclivity to say things like “everyone knows” these things will occur. Everyone does not know those things.

Everyone does not know that there will be more civilian casualties this time than the last time. Everyone does not know that there will be house to house fighting in the streets of Bagdad. Those are possible scenarios to be sure. But they are not the only scenarios.

I think your statement that “America has the power and the technology to kill Saddam from anywhere” is flat out wrong and naïve. If it proves to be that easy to hit a command and control center where Saddam is and kill him in the first hour, it will be a very short war and there will NOT be bunches of civilian casualties. This is a possible scenario but I think Saddam will bury himself so deep in some hole that it is unlikely he will personally be disposed of that quickly. Anyone who suggests that the US would desire and/or intend on killing as many Iraqi people as possible doesn’t really deserve any responsive debate at all.

You write: “All im saying that war is only going to bring more pain and suffering for the people of Iraq.” My question for you is: more pain and suffering than what? What you fail to consider is that the Iraqi people face more pain and suffering no matter whether there is war or no war. Will their pain and suffering be qualitatively and quantitatively more in a future with a war that removes Saddam and his henchmen from power than it would be in a future without war where Saddam remains in power and is succeeded by his even more psychotic son.

I respectfully suggest that a future without Saddam will be far better and have less pain and suffering inflicted than a future with him.

Faisal: I understand your sentiment on the DUTY thing. But you are not the audience that the argument is intended for. It is primarily intended for consumption by the American public. Then the UK public. Then the public of a few more countries that could be persuaded to help in the effort. It resonates real well and will probably persuade a large majority of people to support a military operation in Iraq without UN Security Council blessings.

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
[/QUOTE]

Everyone does not know that there will be more civilian casualties this time than the last time.

The last time the Iraqi Defence Force were routed and chased agross the desert. The US forces stopped prior to entering the cities. This time round they WILL have to enter the cities with troups in trying to accomplish their goals: disarm forcably and oust Saddam Logic and experience dictates that there will be more casualties and more distruction.

*I respectfully suggest that a future without Saddam will be far better and have less pain and suffering inflicted than a future with him. *

Absolutely correct.

As to proof....I expect nothing, the dice has been cast and the decision made. Any proof should have been given to Blix by now if any existed. If the USA wilfully kept info from the inspectors, they are as responsible for the failure of the inspectors as Iraq. Bush promised irrefutable proof before invading Afganistan, nothing materialised except vague indications of OBL being responsible. One year later and a number of people are still being kept hostage without any recourse to the law.....

33

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *

Everyone does not know that there will be more civilian casualties this time than the last time.

The last time the Iraqi Defence Force were routed and chased agross the desert. The US forces stopped prior to entering the cities. This time round they WILL have to enter the cities with troups in trying to accomplish their goals: disarm forcably and oust Saddam Logic and experience dictates that there will be more casualties and more distruction.

*I respectfully suggest that a future without Saddam will be far better and have less pain and suffering inflicted than a future with him. *

Absolutely correct.

As to proof....I expect nothing, the dice has been cast and the decision made. Any proof should have been given to Blix by now if any existed. If the USA wilfully kept info from the inspectors, they are as responsible for the failure of the inspectors as Iraq. Bush promised irrefutable proof before invading Afganistan, nothing materialised except vague indications of OBL being responsible. One year later and a number of people are still being kept hostage without any recourse to the law.....
[/QUOTE]

r U BLIND? de ignorance of dis world is amazing.dont u get it. america is inhumane and a proper terrorist country.to them its only "dem dem n dem" dey go into a war saying we're doing it for our freedom ,we;re doin it to help afghani ppl..AS IF! to dem da one killing of a gora is NOT ACCCEPTABLE. but the killing of million of muslims is fine. muslim b;loood cums cheap as far as dey r concerned!
yes mayb da world wud b a bettter place for widout saddam...but wat da hell has da US got tpooo do wid it,,,i think dat de iraqi ppl shud deal wid deir own problem.rise like the muslims in india did be4 1947, against da bruttality of deir leader. da US hoever hass nuffin to do wid it esapacially since deir is no proof of iraq( a sanctioned poor country) 4 having weapons of mass destruction!!!!!
oh wiat considering da averge IQ OF AN AMERICAN and of BUSH WHICH HAPPENS TO B 72. DEY;d probably thing that da fact that "iraq" and "al qaeda" both has a Q in it is proof enuf to switch da muslim blood tap on!(and just inacse ne of u r wondering,de average IQ of a normal human is 90,lol, DA US presdient has 72!.lol)

34

Wow Silver Streak,you must feel a lot feel better for getting off that your chest.I must say that your argument is an old one but i have never heard it put quite so succinctly.

I would love to hear what a proper terrorist country is though and if you think the world would be a better place without Saddam,how do you propose we get there without the US and Britain and Spain and Australia and Check Republic and Italy and Poland and Denmark and many other nations that have already said they would disarm him.

35

Braveheart it isn't about forming a posse.. the UN is there for a reason... heck it was the US in the first place which told the world they needed a UN.. there is a security council which is meant to resolve international disputes and select courses of action using DEMOCRATIC procedures..(minus the veto option).. something the US holds so dear..

why is the US hell bent on abandoning the principles that it set out to 'defend'?

36

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Braveheart it isn't about forming a posse.. the UN is there for a reason... heck it was the US in the first place which told the world they needed a UN.. there is a security council which is meant to resolve international disputes and select courses of action using DEMOCRATIC procedures..(minus the veto option).. something the US holds so dear..

why is the US hell bent on abandoning the principles that it set out to 'defend'?
[/QUOTE]

If the UN had lived up to its promise and taken meaningful measures to force compliance with its resolutions on Iraq over the last 12 years, the US would not need to step in and fill the void. The League of Nations failed because it was a debating society that had no tools of enforcement. If the UN becomes nothing more than a debating society because it is unable or unwilling to force compliance with its resolutions upon member states, then it is irrelevant.

37

Thank you MV,my point exactly.

38

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

If the UN had lived up to its promise and taken meaningful measures to force compliance with its resolutions on Iraq over the last 12 years, the US would not need to step in and fill the void. The League of Nations failed because it was a debating society that had no tools of enforcement. If the UN becomes nothing more than a debating society because it is unable or unwilling to force compliance with its resolutions upon member states, then it is irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]

The void is being filled for many reasons. Wmds and disarming is not the core issue.

Myvoice I never understood the way a democracy works. Nor did I understand the real influence of the ppl who voted for a party since the politicians always did what they wanted to do.
Be the majority against it or not. So waz the use of such democracies? Isnt it better to rename it to dictatorship or monarchy?

39

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *
Myvoice I never understood the way a democracy works. Nor did I understand the real influence of the ppl who voted for a party since the politicians always did what they wanted to do.
Be the majority against it or not. So waz the use of such democracies? Isnt it better to rename it to dictatorship or monarchy?
[/QUOTE]

In the case of the US, you ought to call it what it is. A Republic that practices representative democracy.

40

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

If the UN had lived up to its promise and taken meaningful measures

[/QUOTE]
blah blah..

here you go again.. guess thats one thing u have learned so brilliantly from american media.. how to bend truth and create grey areas when they are not there.. in other words.. if u cant convince them confuse them.. BRAVO !! who cares about right n wrong.. i must've been living in a cave or somthing.. since american govt claims itself 'civilized' and is out to mass-murder another few million iraqis with its civilized weapons as opposed to weapons of mass-destruction??.. and people like you would simply call such massacre, 'the effort'.. my oh my how noble..

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
Then the public of a few more countries that could be persuaded to help in **the effort*.
[/QUOTE]

Now here is my question about your comment.. How the hell UN should show any balls or as u/media puts it 'UN had lived up its promise'.. when US/Israel are the ones that have crippled UN long time ago.. for example: just from 1/10/2001 - 28/3/2002, Israel committed 1191 violations against palestinian people, thats matter of 6 months and i'm not even counting all the violations commited against lebanon by Israel.. forget about violations that USA has commited against other people.. and continues to do so..