Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign?
    #1300733 - 02/11/03 07:34 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Fiend writes (in the thread titled "What will it be like"):

Saddam has done everything we've asked.

Actually, no he hasn't. Everyone focuses on the inspections and forgets the other unfulfilled terms of the surrender agreement. Someone once posted a link to those terms (Lord Morham, I think?) and Bush listed them in one of his speeches a few months back. I can't remember all of them, but I know one of the issues was the return of POWs (or their remains) to Kuwaitis, another was reparations.

The only thing he could possibly do to avert war is go into exile. There isn't a thing he can do short of that to stop a war the US wants to have.

I find it interesting that no one focuses on this more. I have been reading for months here about how the US is a bully and is plunging the globe into World War III and stirring up the Islamists who will use action against Iraq as an excuse to launch more terrorist attacks... blah blah blah. No one ever mentions how easily this whole situation can be resolved:

Why doesn't Hussein just resign?

He's the one who started all this with his armed invasion of Kuwait. If he hadn't decided to settle his disputes with his neighbor through the use of force, there would have been no UN sanctions, no "No Fly Zones", no Gulf War, no enormous plumes of pollutants from burning oil wells, no need for threats to depose him now.

In reality, it is not the US who is the bad guy in this situation, it is one man: a man who has held absolute power for over two decades, a man who brutalizes his own people, a man who has undoubtedly tucked at least several hundreds of millions of dollars safely away in offshore bank accounts -- certainly enough to live out the rest of his life in luxury. This one man considers his continuing grasp of power to be more important than the fate of millions of others.

What does he lose by stepping down from power, calling for internationally-supervised free democratic elections in Iraq, and accepting the offer the US made him recently to retire (with his family if he so chooses) in exile in any country he can persuade to take him? He loses nothing but his power as Absolute Ruler over the people of Iraq -- that's all -- and he's had a pretty good run at that, hasn't he? Over two decades worth. Isn't it time to let it go for the good of himself, his family, the Iraqi people, the world? Hell, even Richard Nixon had the grace to resign rather than put his country through the ordeal of an impeachment trial -- an ordeal much less nasty than an invasion.

If he resigns and free elections are held, what defensible reasons for an invasion would be left? A new democratically-elected government would quickly comply with the remaining terms of the surrender agreement (they would have no possible excuse for not doing so), the sanctions would be lifted, US troops would go home, the oil infrastructure and public services infrastructure would be rebuilt, oil dollars would once again start pouring into Iraq -- crisis averted. Everybody wins, even Hussein himself, because now he doesn't have to keep wondering when a cruise missile will land on whatever palace he is sleeping in on a given night.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (02/11/03 08:06 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1300746 - 02/11/03 07:41 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Hey man, I agree, now we can only hope he posts on the shroomery so he'll read this, hmm....I wonder who he is?


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1300756 - 02/11/03 07:50 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Bush listed them in one of his speeches a few months back

Golly, if Bush is listing them we must take them seriously!

He's the one who started all this with his armed invasion of Iraq.

Kuwait, not Iraq. Remember the US had supported, funded, armed and sold him chemical weapons during his 8 year invasion of Iran. They then told him they had "no interest" in arab-arab conflicts. This is the background to the invasion of Kuwait. I imagine Saddam was as shocked as anyone when the US suddenly turned on him after supporting his last invasion so completly.

a man who has held absolute power for over two decades

Thanks in large part to the US supporting and arming him. And backing sanctions that have massively increased his hold on power. Whilst slaughtering 700,000 children under five.

If he resigns and free elections are held, what defensible reasons for an invasion would be left?

In the short term none. If however the democratically elected leader the Iraqi's choose isn't to Bush's liking no doubt in a few years we will have to go through this all again.

Why doesn't Hussein just resign?

Telling people you don't like to resign doesn't usually work. It's cloud cuckoo land. I'm amazed the media are so submissive to Bush that they seriously put this forward as an option.

If Bin laden said "If Bush resigns, and you have a leader we like in power we will stop terrorist attacks". Would you be happy to see him resign? To have Bin Laden pick your next leader for you?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1300791 - 02/11/03 08:15 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

good post.

and al... it's crazy how you're mind is just on one track. really, it is. your post is completely irrelevant.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1300819 - 02/11/03 08:31 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Golly, if Bush is listing them we must take them seriously!

Bush didn't invent the conditions, nor did he misrepresent them. When he read them off in his speech not a single reporter anywhere took issue with them -- not even the anti-America websites made any comment on them. Why didn't they? Because those conditions exist. There is undoubtedly a full text of the agreement at the UN website somewhere, but as anyone who has ever visited that site will tell you, it is a pain in the ass to navigate.

Kuwait, not Iraq.

Oops. You are right -- thanks for pointing that out. I have edited the original post to correct that.

Remember the US had supported, funded, armed and sold him chemical weapons during his 8 year invasion of Iran.

Hmmm. Add "invading Iran" to my list of his bad deeds, then.

They then told him they had "no interest" in arab-arab conflicts.

Uh huh. This justifies the use of force against a neighboring country? "Gee, I guess it's okay to invade Kuwait, since the US has indicated they will do nothing to stop me. Who cares that it is against international law?"

Telling people you don't like to resign doesn't usually work.

Who would be upset if Hussein resigns? Is there a single nation out there which actually LIKES Hussein? The reason it doesn't often work is that people of Hussein's ilk love power too much to give it up, regardless of what consequences for the rest of the world their stance entails. That doesn't change the fact that it is in everyone's best interests for him to resign.

I'm amazed the media are so submissive to Bush that they seriously put this forward as an option.

If they didn't report it, you would be screaming "censorship", and claiming that the corporate media was deliberately not disseminating the option of resignation because if Hussein resigned there could be no war and no chance for America to bomb millions of little brown people from 15,000 feet.

If Bin laden said "If Bush resigns, and you have a leader we like in power we will stop terrorist attacks". Would you be happy to see him resign?

I would be happy to see him resign regardless of who the Iraqi people eventually chose as their next leader. If the voters of Iraq then choose to elect a fundamentalist Islamic government, so be it. It's THEIR choice, not mine.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTwIg
Pariah
Male

Registered: 08/13/99
Posts: 275
Loc: IL USA
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1300940 - 02/11/03 09:58 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

To this I only have to say ..

I think Saddam Hussein is the Antichrist, literally.

Read the Book of Revelations, it's him, i know it!

~TwIg~


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 28 days
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1300945 - 02/11/03 10:04 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

So Sadaam hasnt fully complied with the surrender treaty I agree. I would like to see the part in the surrender document which said that the US & UK were allowed to continue the bombing of Iraq after peace had been declared....I doubt whether that is in there though. Bombing in peacetime? Hmmm. sounds like terrorism to me.

Quote:

He's the one who started all this with his armed invasion of Kuwait. If he hadn't decided to settle his disputes with his neighbor through the use of force, there would have been no UN sanctions, no "No Fly Zones", no Gulf War, no enormous plumes of pollutants from burning oil wells, no need for threats to depose him now.





As Al;ex mentioned the US ambassador declared America's non-interest in the kuwait situation. Perhaps if the Kuwaitis hadnt been slant drilling Iraqi oil fields and messing with the price of oil then he may not have attacked.

Quote:

Why doesn't Hussein just resign?





Try understanding of the psychology of those who seek power, not just "madmen" like Hussein but "saviours" like Bush too. Then you might see how pointless that question is.

To say Hussein is the only bad guy in all this is ridiculous. Do those who fund and perpetuate a bad guy not have to shoulder some of the blame?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1301081 - 02/12/03 12:01 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

I would like to see the part in the surrender document which said that the US & UK were allowed to continue the bombing of Iraq after peace had been declared....I doubt whether that is in there though. Bombing in peacetime? Hmmm. sounds like terrorism to me.

There is a strong argument to be made that peace hasn't been declared. If a cessation of hostilities is conditional on agreed-upon terms being met, and those terms haven't been met (and they haven't -- no one is denying that ), then is the war really over?

Further, as you are well aware, it's not as if the British and American planes overflying Iraq are bombing randomly. Someone here recently posted the number of sorties flown per year, and the number of times the planes were attacked by anti-aircraft fire, and the number of times they then attacked the missile sites. In one particular year, the total number of incidents was a low as 14. Did the United Nations ever officially approve the so-called "No Fly Zones?" Nope. Would there be a need for the "No Fly Zones" if Hussein were to resign (which is the topic of the thread, remember)? Nope.

However, none of that alters the fact that if he had tried to resolve his differences with Kuwait through diplomatic means rather than by conquest, there never would have been a need for those flights in the first place.

Perhaps if the Kuwaitis hadnt been slant drilling Iraqi oil fields and messing with the price of oil then he may not have attacked.

That's an odd position to take for someone who professes to favor diplomatic solutions over going to war. Why in the world didn't Hussein thrash it out in an OPEC meeting? And if he didn't get satisfaction in the OPEC forum, why didn't he then take his grievance to the UN? Are you saying a country's legitimate first reaction to an alleged transgression by a neighboring country is to take it over by force? It sure sounds like that is what you are saying, but maybe I am misinterpreting your position. Are you certain you don't want to restate your position? Let's face it, if the US invaded Canada because the Canadians were "messing with the price of lumber" or fishing too close to what the US claims as its territorial waters, you'd burst a blood vessel in apoplexy. Why is it that you don't apply the same standards to a dictator?

Try understanding of the psychology of those who seek power, not just "madmen" like Hussein but "saviours" like Bush too. Then you might see how pointless that question is.

Oh, I understand the psychology of both, thank you. Anyone who actively seeks the position of head of state in ANY country obviously places a very high value on the possession of personal power over the lives of others. However, there have been times when politicians have voluntarily relinquished their power to avert a crisis. My point is:

Why the hell is everyone foaming at the mouth and expending so much energy on the wrong thing? If even a tiny fraction of the pressure and public outrage that is being directed at Bush were instead directed at Hussein (as it should be), maybe -- just maybe -- his advisors would persuade him to bail out. Or, noticing how unpopular he is and how much jeopardy he is placing them and their country in, they might take matters into their own hands. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a dictator was removed by those closest to him.

To say Hussein is the only bad guy in all this is ridiculous. Do those who fund and perpetuate a bad guy not have to shoulder some of the blame?

Okay, for the sake of argument let's presume that the entire thing is the fault of successive US governments. Let's assume Hussein would never have been able to seize power without some unspecified CIA manipulation of Iraq's political process. Let's further assume that it was the fault of the US that Hussein decided to go to war with both Iran and Kuwait. Does it not therefore follow that if the US created this Frankenstein's monster, they bear the responsibility for removing it?

But to return to the point of this thread, regardless of who did business with Hussein during his time in power (and note that DOZENS of countries bought his oil, thus giving him the funds to buy weaponry from yet other countries), regardless of what might have been done differently twenty years ago or twelve years ago, is it not true that if Hussein were to step down tomorrow EVERYONE would breathe a sigh of relief? Is it not true that he could literally solve this crisis singlehandedly tomorrow? Hell, he'd probably be given the freakin' Nobel Peace Prize and be Time Magazine's "Man of the Year"!

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 28 days
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1301188 - 02/12/03 02:13 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

There is a strong argument to be made that peace hasn't been declared.




If that is the case why moan about Sadaam not complying to the terms of surrender?? Make you mind up! you cant have it both ways.

Quote:

That's an odd position to take for someone who professes to favor diplomatic solutions over going to war. Why in the world didn't Hussein thrash it out in an OPEC meeting?




Of course I prefer diplomatic means but I know Sadaam doesnt operate like that. All im saying is you can trot out the attack of Kuwait as many times as you like but many wars and attrocities have been carried out over less provocation. Im not condoning it, but thats just the way it is.

Quote:

If even a tiny fraction of the pressure and public outrage that is being directed at Bush were instead directed at Hussein (as it should be), maybe -- just maybe -- his advisors would persuade him to bail out. Or, noticing how unpopular he is and how much jeopardy he is placing them and their country in, they might take matters into their own hands. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a dictator was removed by those closest to him.
 




Do you seriously think Western public opinion is going to sway Iraqi's?? Gimme a break!

Quote:

Okay, for the sake of argument let's presume that the entire thing is the fault of successive US governments. Let's assume Hussein would never have been able to seize power without some unspecified CIA manipulation of Iraq's political process. Let's further assume that it was the fault of the US that Hussein decided to go to war with both Iran and Kuwait. Does it not therefore follow that if the US created this Frankenstein's monster, they bear the responsibility for removing it? 




Their first responsibility would be to own up and come clean before the brainwashed masses who swallow what they hear on CNN whole without even thinking. Then their next responsibility would be to resolve the problem without inflicting any further hardship on the Iraqi people.

If Sadaam were to step down things would be ok as long as the US can get the level of control over the oil fields that they need. Otherwise they would have to start all over again, fabricating a pack of lies to depose/attack the new incumbent.

I forget where you stand on this Pinky, are you of the opinion that this whole affair has nothing to do with oil? Its so hard to keep up these days! :grin:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1301295 - 02/12/03 03:38 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Gazzbut writes:

If that is the case why moan about Sadaam not complying to the terms of surrender?? Make you mind up! you cant have it both ways.

The war is not yet over because the surrender agreement remains unfulfilled. Get it? Once the terms are met (either by Hussein or by a new government), the war is over, and the need to act is gone. Remember that Hussein himself has declared on more than one occasion that in his mind his country is still at war (although he of course is looking at the situation differently), which is how he justifies his efforts to re-arm and his firing at the overflights.

Of course I prefer diplomatic means but I know Sadaam doesnt operate like that.

If you know Hussein ignores diplomacy, why then do you object to other measures?

Do you seriously think Western public opinion is going to sway Iraqi's?? Gimme a break!

Not necessarily sway them in the sense that they suddenly "see the light of righteousness", but more that certain key people would use the perceived swell of international support for Hussein's removal as an excuse to get away with it. It might be enough to bolster the courage of a critical member of a cabal who was wavering, or enough to dissuade some Hussein "loyalists" from interfering with a group who took action. The ones who ousted him would proclaim themselves heroic liberators of the Iraqi people and more -- heroes of the WORLD -- pointing to the international consensus as justification for "betraying" Hussein.

Then their next responsibility would be to resolve the problem without inflicting any further hardship on the Iraqi people.

And I ask you, just as I have asked EVERYONE who trots out the usual vague suggestion to "resolve the problem without inflicting any further hardship on the Iraqi people," give me some specifics. Exactly how, short of forceful removal of Hussein from power, can anyone "resolve the problem without inflicting any further hardship on the Iraqi people"? No one has yet to answer this question, so don't feel ashamed that you can't either.

Look, Hussein has been holding the Iraqi people hostage. He knows that the only thing holding other countries back is the negative publicity they will have to endure if Iraqi non-combatants are killed. He is counting on this factor -- as a matter of fact, is his only ace in the hole. He knows he can't possibly win militarily, all he can do is let his opponents work themselves into a frenzy of indecision over the possibility that there will be mass civilian casualties. That's why he sets his anti-aircraft launchers on top of apartment buildings and beside mosques. He holds his citizens in lower esteem than do his opponents.

If Sadaam were to step down things would be ok as long as the US can get the level of control over the oil fields that they need.

Why is that a precondition to success? I certainly couldn't care less if the US gets ahold of Iraq's oilfields, and I find it puzzling that you do. Clearly it is up to the next democratically-elected government of Iraq to decide what Iraq should do with Iraq's oilfields.

Otherwise they would have to start all over again, fabricating a pack of lies to depose/attack the new incumbent.

What are they lying about today? Has he or has he not fulfilled the terms of the agreement he signed? Did he or did he not invade Kuwait and destroy their oilwells as he retreated? Has he or has he not ignored the crumbling infrastructure of Iraq while spending every available dollar on weaponry?

And why would they need to depose a new government? For oil? Give me a break. The US imports roughly 10% of their oil from the Middle East, and even before the Gulf War, Iraq supplied only a part of that 10%. If for whatever reason the new Iraqi government decided not to sell any oil at all to the US, the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Iranians and all the other OPEC members will quite happily take up the slack.

I forget where you stand on this Pinky, are you of the opinion that this whole affair has nothing to do with oil?

As I pointed out a few months back, it has everything to do with oil as far as France and Russia are concerned. It is a matter of public record that both countries have sweetheart deals negotiated with the existing Iraqi government that might not be honored if Hussein were to step down and a new government were to assume power. But as far as the US is concerned, they don't NEED Iraqi oil. They have NEVER needed Iraqi oil -- the Saudis alone will quite happily sell them all they want.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 28 days
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1301316 - 02/12/03 03:55 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

And I ask you, just as I have asked EVERYONE who trots out the usual vague suggestion to "resolve the problem without inflicting any further hardship on the Iraqi people," give me some specifics. Exactly how, short of forceful removal of Hussein from power, can anyone "resolve the problem without inflicting any further hardship on the Iraqi people"? No one has yet to answer this question, so don't feel ashamed that you can't either




If we loaned the money to Iraq that we are spending on destroying Iraq I dont think there would be much chance of Sadaam aposing any threat to the US. Come to think of it, can you give any examples of when Iraq has truly threatened America? Dont feel ashamed if you cant......
But lets face it, Its a Bush family fued and Iraq wont deal with their oil the way the US want.
Remove the greed for oil and there is no problem. You have to realise this is the main reason for the conflict.

Quote:

But as far as the US is concerned, they don't NEED Iraqi oil. They have NEVER needed Iraqi oil -- the Saudis alone will quite happily sell them all they want




The Saudis sell at the Saudis prices. USA dont like being dictated to. There are huge reserves of oil in Iraq, whoever gains control of them will be in very good shape. They'll just need to get it across to the lovely new pipeline in Afghanistan (cor! that was a lucky coincidence wasnt it) With that in mind its easy to see why Iran will be next in line for the define as evil and then destroy technique. I really cant understand how you cant see this! Practically the whole of the Bush government have massive interests in the oil industry and would stand to make huge amounts of money through exploiting the Iraqi oil and you think its just a coincidence and its not even on their mind!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1301425 - 02/12/03 04:50 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Gazzbut writes:

If we loaned the money to Iraq that we are spending on destroying Iraq I dont think there would be much chance of Sadaam aposing any threat to the US.

Let me make sure I understand your suggestion clearly. You are saying that the way to get Hussein to live up to the terms of the agreement he signed is to pay him to do so?

Come to think of it, can you give any examples of when Iraq has truly threatened America?

America? Nope. That's why I have stated in this forum, over and over again that the US does not have the obligation to enforce the terms of the agreement. I have also stated, over and over that I am not convinced that invading Iraq at this time is the correct thing to do. I have merely pointed out, over and over, that if the US doesn't take action, no one will, in which case Hussein will have pulled off the biggest coup in peace "negotiations" on behalf of a losing aggressor in recent history. He will have gotten away -- literally -- with mass murder with nothing more than a verbal slap on the wrist from the UN. What a precedent to set for others to emulate. Not only that, but if we follow your suggestion, he will even get PAID for it! How can you tell your children "crime doesn't pay," when it is apparent for all the world to see that it does in fact pay -- and very well at that.

Remove the greed for oil and there is no problem. You have to realise this is the main reason for the conflict.

Some people say so, with nothing but speculation to back them up -- not an iota of proof. If the US wanted Iraq's oil, they had a perfect opportunity to grab it twelve years ago, when Hussein was defenseless and the entire UN was backing the effort to eject him. International consensus was on the side of the US then, remember?

Let's face it, if Iraq had no oil, but lots of gold, you'd be saying "It's all about the gold". If Iraq had no oil or gold, but lots of uranium, you'd be saying, "It's all about the uranium". If they had no resources at all; nothing but a bunch of poor people, you'd be saying, "It's all about the right to set up Nike sweatshops and exploit the Iraqi poor".

The Saudis sell at the Saudis prices.

Well, duh! And if the Saudi price is too high, the buyers shop around. There is no shortage of people selling oil, and when there is no shortage, suppliers are willing to bargain. I remind you that you were the one who pointed out that Kuwait was selling their oil for less than Hussein was selling his, thus leaving him no option but to conquer their country.

They'll just need to get it across to the lovely new pipeline in Afghanistan (cor! that was a lucky coincidence wasnt it)

So sorry, but that proposed pipeline goes nowhere near Iraq. It will run from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to a Pakistani port on the Arabian Sea a thousand miles away from Iraq. Check an atlas.

Practically the whole of the Bush government have massive interests in the oil industry and would stand to make huge amounts of money through exploiting the Iraqi oil and you think its just a coincidence and its not even on their mind!

And what connection did the Clinton government have with the oil industry? For eight years Clinton was calling for Iraq to abide by the terms they agreed to. Clinton's delegates supported all the UN resolutions against Iraq. Clinton supported the maintenance of the sanctions, and the continued overflights. Clinton ordered the cruise missile attack on the plant that turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant.

I honestly fail to understand this monomania with oil exhibited by so many here. It quite literally blinds you all to the possibility that the reason for taking action is the same reason the UN has passed resolution after resolution (which do nothing) and the same reason the UN instituted sanctions (which also do nothing) in the first place. Are you trying to tell me that the United Nations is doing all that so they can grab Iraq's oil?

You seem to find it baffling that I find the oil angle such a small part of it. I find it baffling that anyone would ignore the multitude of sins Hussein has committed and instead chant like some memorized mantra, "It's all about the oil, man, it's all about the oil."

Back to the topic at hand -- I think we are both agreed that the least painful resolution to the whole Iraq quagmire is for Hussein to step down and hold free elections. You believe he is unlikely to do so, and think that the next best alternative is not to force him out, but instead to lift sanctions, stop pestering him about his re-armament program, hand him money and hope he will use it to rebuild his country rather than to spend it on more weaponry. Am I misrepresenting your position here?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: GazzBut]
    #1301506 - 02/12/03 05:28 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Come to think of it, can you give any examples of when Iraq has truly threatened America?


America, no, but the Kurds, Isreal, Iran, Kuwait, etc..... he posed a big threat to all of them.
Quote:

If we loaned the money to Iraq that we are spending on destroying Iraq I dont think there would be much chance of Sadaam aposing any threat to the US.


Ahahaha, oh man, Pinky pointed it out, but how in the hell are you suggesting that we just pay him to abide by the terms of surrender. Are you retarded, or retarded? Seriously man, I think you are pretty intelligent (most of the time), but that comment was not your shinning example.


Besides if Sadaam ever posed a true threat to the US, do you think we would wait around to get UN backing? Shit, Baghdad would be carpet bombed before you could say "its all about the oil".


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 28 days
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1301553 - 02/12/03 05:52 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Let me make sure I understand your suggestion clearly. You are saying that the way to get Hussein to live up to the terms of the agreement he signed is to pay him to do so?





Well he was paid to mass murder Iranians by, amongst others, the US, so whats the big difference? Will you consider it mass murder when US bombs start killing countless Iraqi's?
What about American mass murder in Vietnam and Cambodia? Leaving a country riddled with landmines with generations still feeling the effects of Agent Orange.
Basically, If the US had a whiter than white history I might be able to stomach all this moral posturing but when held up against their own tainted history it just makes me sick.

I admit it is strange that Bush Snr didnt complete the job in Iraq the first time, thus taking control of the oil then. This is hardly evidence that the war is not about oil though. I would speculate that these things take time and there are many conditions that have to be met for it to be the most beneficial time to stage the take over.

Quote:

Let's face it, if Iraq had no oil, but lots of gold, you'd be saying "It's all about the gold". If Iraq had no oil or gold, but lots of uranium, you'd be saying, "It's all about the uranium". If they had no resources at all; nothing but a bunch of poor people, you'd be saying, "It's all about the right to set up Nike sweatshops and exploit the Iraqi poor".





This is my point. If they didnt have the oil there would be no war so I wouldnt be saying any of the above.

Quote:

Well, duh! And if the Saudi price is too high, the buyers shop around. There is no shortage of people selling oil, and when there is no shortage, suppliers are willing to bargain. I remind you that you were the one who pointed out that Kuwait was selling their oil for less than Hussein was selling his, thus leaving him no option but to conquer their country.




As you well know, OPEC are the main players in the Oil market. The US would love to break their stranglehold by being in control of the one country in OPEC with more untapped oil at its disposal than any other. The US consumes more oil than anyother country. Along with the arms industry it is the lifeblood of the economy.

Quote:

So sorry, but that proposed pipeline goes nowhere near Iraq. It will run from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to a Pakistani port on the Arabian Sea a thousand miles away from Iraq. Check an atlas.





The worlds a very big place you know. It may be a long distance from Iraq to Afghanistan but if some of the oil from Iraq is destined for that area of the world the line could come in very handy.

Sadaams so called sins which you keep repeating like a memorised mantra have been trumped up beyond belief. Sadly its time for me to leave work now (What do I mean sadly??) so I will have to give you my take on that later.

before I go...

As for the UN and the US desire to see through all their resolutions why does this not count in Israels case? Just curious..


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1301566 - 02/12/03 05:57 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Bush didn't invent the conditions, nor did he misrepresent them.

That must be a first then pink! Last week his representive Powell was calling a plagarised document copied by spin doctors "an exquisite depiction of Iraqi deciet". Perhaps he chooses to misrepresent on some days and tells the truth on others.

When he read them off in his speech not a single reporter anywhere took issue with them

Are you sure about this? You know the view of "every single reporter"? That's a lot of reporters man.

Add "invading Iran" to my list of his bad deeds, then.

So why did the US support him in this conflict? Why not invade Iraq then? Your argument falls apart because of this. It's not a minor point.

Who cares that it is against international law?"

I don't recall the invasion of Iran being approved by international law. The americans wholeheartedly supported it all the same. I know you don't like the thorny subject of Israel raising but they've been breaking UN resolutions (supported by the US) for decades. Never been invaded yet. Where is your logic?

Is there a single nation out there which actually LIKES Hussein?

15 years ago he was so close to Washington it was dubbed "the love affair".

If they didn't report it, you would be screaming "censorship",

No, reporting what Bush says is fine. Pushing it for weeks as a ludicrous "option" while you build up to an illegal and utterly unjustified war is the submissive part.

I would be happy to see him resign regardless of who the Iraqi people eventually chose as their next leader

Good, I'm proud of you pink. Unfortunately Bush wouldn't. This was why his father allowed Saddam to slaughter the Shi'ites under the noses of american forces in 1991. What if the iraqi's vote for a fundamentalist muslim who supports Bin Laden? You really think Bush will say "That's the choice of the Iraqi people and we must abide by it"? I've got my doubts pink...



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1301650 - 02/12/03 06:40 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Alex 123 writes:

That must be a first then pink!

So you agree that Bush described the unmet terms of the agreement accurately. Good. Let's get back to the topic of the thread.

Are you sure about this? You know the view of "every single reporter"? That's a lot of reporters man.

No reporter has yet challenged in print Bush's recitation of the unmet demands. How could they? The terms of the agreement are a matter of public record. If any of them had made such a challenge, doubtless you or some other Hussein supporter would have trumpeted it all over this forum by now. We both know the only reason no such challenge has been made is because no such challenge CAN be made. You have already conceded that Bush's description was accurate. Let's get back to the topic of the thread.

Why not invade Iraq then? Your argument falls apart because of this. It's not a minor point.

Sigh. The US was one of the signatories to the surrender agreement with Iraq in 1991. It was not one of the signatories to the Iraq/Iran agreement -- this is not a minor point. Further, Iran has nothing to do with the current crisis. Let's get back to the topic of the thread.

I don't recall the invasion of Iran being approved by international law.

Then that makes twice that Hussein has flouted it -- Iran and Kuwait.

I know you don't like the thorny subject of Israel raising but they've been breaking UN resolutions (supported by the US) for decades.

As you are well aware, I don't give two shits about the UN resolutions. I care about surrender agreements. When you show me where Israel has surrendered, then failed to abide by the terms of their surrender, we can discuss it -- in a separate thread. Let's get back to to the topic of this thread.

15 years ago he was so close to Washington it was dubbed "the love affair".

For the third time in the last fortnight, Alex, what is the recurring difficulty you have with your mother tongue? How is it you find it impossible to distinguish between "is" and "was"? Let's get back to the topic of this thread.

No, reporting what Bush says is fine. Pushing it for weeks as a ludicrous "option" while you build up to an illegal and utterly unjustified war is the submissive part.

Yet mindlessly chanting "it's all about the oil" for months is a legitimate tactic? Let's get back to the topic of this thread -- do you or do you not agree that the best solution for this crisis is for Hussein to step down and call for internationally supervised free democratic elections? If not, why not?

What if the iraqi's vote for a fundamentalist muslim who supports Bin Laden? You really think Bush will say "That's the choice of the Iraqi people and we must abide by it"?

If a fundamentalist muslim candidate runs on that platform, and the majority of the Iraqi voters are convinced that having such a man as their new leader is a good idea and prove it by voting him into office, then they will have received the leadership they deserve, right? That's what democracy is about, is it not? If the new regime then follows through on their campaign promise to allow bin Laden to base his operations out of Iraq, and provide to him the same kind of sanctuary that the Taliban did, the Iraqi voters will at least have the satisfaction of knowing they deliberately chose to place themselves at risk rather than having a dictator do it without their permission.

Let me make sure I am not misrepresenting your position here -- you feel it's a bad idea for Hussein to step down and for a democratically elected government to assume power because a new government may choose to shelter, support and encourage bin Laden?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1301897 - 02/12/03 09:04 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

So you agree that Bush described the unmet terms of the agreement accurately

No, I said if he was telling the truth it would be a first.

How could they?

If we were interested enough we'd have to look at precisely what Bush said and the UN resolutions.

You have already conceded that Bush's description was accurate.

No, I said it would be a first if he was telling the truth. He is a proven liar on many, many other things. Was he lying this time? We'd need a little more evidence. We can assume he's telling the truth if you'd like.

Then that makes twice that Hussein has flouted it -- Iran and Kuwait.

Once with massive american support...

Further, Iran has nothing to do with the current crisis.

It has everything to do with it. You are trying to say that Saddam should be removed because he broke international law by invading Kuwait. Why therefore did the US arm and fund him when he broke international law by invading Iran? Your argument is as ludicrous as saying murder is legal for one person and illegal for the next. The principle either applies in all cases or it is a worthless propaganda ruse.

When you show me where Israel has surrendered

It has yet to be invaded so there is no surrender agreement (amazingly enough). Despite flouting international law in exactly the same way as Saddam it has recieved nothing but support from the US.

is it you find it impossible to distinguish between "is" and "was"?

Sorry, but morals are a little more permanent than that in my world pink. If you and your mate go out murdering women through the 80's and he falls out with you in 1991 that does not make it right for him to sit in judgement of you in 2003.

do you or do you not agree that the best solution for this crisis is for Hussein to step down and call for internationally supervised free democratic elections? If not, why not?

The best solution is for aliens to land and teach us all the meaning of peace and love. I doubt it's going to happen. So for now lets concentrate on resolving the situation peacefully instead of slaughtering thousands of innocents. Real people are going to die here pink - just like you, your mother and your father. Would you risk your families death because the inspectors can't produce results fast enough for Dubya's liking?

If the new regime then follows through on their campaign promise to allow bin Laden to base his operations out of Iraq

No need for them to allow Bin Laden to base his operations there. He's doing just fine in Afghanistan or wherever he is now.

In other words your position is regardless of who the Iraqi people choose to lead them if they are not to Dubya's liking they will be bombed.

Let me make sure I am not misrepresenting your position

You're getting a habit of this pink. You concentrate on explaining your position and let me explain mine.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,183
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Phred]
    #1301983 - 02/12/03 09:40 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Asking Saddam to resign is like asking a lion to become a vegetarian.

http://cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/correspondents_murray030211.html



--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1302004 - 02/12/03 09:48 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

You are trying to say that Saddam should be removed because he broke international law by invading Kuwait.


Not just because he invaded Kuwait, but also because he was defeated in a war, signed a surrender agreement, and has failed to live up to the agreement.
Quote:

If you and your mate go out murdering women through the 80's and he falls out with you in 1991 that does not make it right for him to sit in judgement of you in 2003.




I honestly don't know enough about the Iran/Iraq war and the US involvement, but lets just say that your idea of the US's involvement is correct. Does the US have the same leader today as we did in the 80's? Does Iraq have the same leader?


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefalcon
In the green

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 6,832
Last seen: 12 hours, 4 minutes
Re: Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign? [Re: Skikid16]
    #1303278 - 02/12/03 06:13 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

When our diplomat told Saddam's in '90 that we would not interfere and noone picked up the phone and called Saddam and said just kidding, the rules forever went out the window. Not only that we baited him, but that we treated Kuwait as a tethered goat. Oh, you may say it was a slip of the tongue. I say it was fishing.


Edited by falcon (02/13/03 01:37 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Saddam Hussein Had Bought off the United Nations Great_Satan 502 3 10/10/04 10:29 AM
by Great_Satan
* Saddam Hussein
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 2,168 60 07/23/03 02:55 PM
by Anonymous
* Saddam Hussein Al Qaeda link Luddite 935 10 03/25/08 06:33 PM
by Luddite
* Documents from Saddam Hussein's regime
( 1 2 all )
Los_Pepes 2,112 21 01/07/06 12:45 AM
by Land_Crab
* What happened to Saddam Hussein? Freeker 1,797 18 06/21/05 05:07 AM
by butterflydawn
* saddam hussein vs. us security Anonymous 417 4 06/29/04 11:59 AM
by Xlea321
* Left wing support of Saddam Hussein Los_Pepes 714 16 11/12/05 09:29 PM
by DirtMcgirt
* A 1999 Video by ABC News linking Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. lonestar2004 503 2 12/06/05 11:12 AM
by Alex213

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,783 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.201 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.