Home | Community | Message Board


Original Seeds Store - Cannabis Seeds
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!

Shop: PureVPN PureVPN   NordVPN NordVPN   Original Seeds Store Cannabis Seeds   Amazon Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,243
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 4 months, 15 days
It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq.
    #904522 - 09/24/02 02:36 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Here's why...

1) An unprovoked invasion of Iraq and the removal of its leader by force would only sow more seeds of anti-American sentiment among the populations of the Middle East and inspire more acts of terrorism against innocent Americans. This view was recently voiced by experts who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late July and early August 2002.

2) The American economy is steadily deteriorating: The trade deficit and the budget deficit are both increasing, the tax base is declining, personal and corporate bankruptcies are on the rise at a staggering rate, consumer confidence is plummeting, investor confidence has all but disappeared, the stock market just recently hit new lows not seen since 1998, millions of Americans are without health insurance, unemployment is rising, affordable housing is almost nonexistent, the U.S. dollar is losing value (which could eventually result in inflation and rising interest rates), state governments - with California in the lead ? are under severe financial duress, and the very existence of Social Security and Medicare is at peril. An expensive war will only exacerbate these problems. Is this the time to spend billions of dollars to invade a third world country clear across the globe?

3) The proposed war against Iraq has nothing to do with the government?s purported objective of ridding the world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Rather the real motive behind removing Saddam Hussein from power and imposing a U.S.-friendly government is, as Henry Kissinger admitted in an op-ed piece published by The Washington Post, ?essentially geopolitical.? By this he meant that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to American citizens, but rather a threat to the profits of American oil corporations who are covetous of the huge amounts of oil that are inconveniently located in a country ruled by a leader who is not pro-American. It also means that establishing American hegemony in that oil-rich country is fundamental to the long term strategic -interests of multinational corporations (you know, the ones that have cheated investors out of billions of dollars) who want to increase their influence elsewhere in the world in order to hedge against the possibility of a total economic collapse in the U.S.

4)The U.S. currently has no credible evidence to substantiate its claims that Iraq is a threat to America.

5) Outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, informed incoming President George Bush in January of 2000: ?Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.?

6) The administration has admitted that it has no evidence. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, recently told reporters that in closed sessions in Sept. 2002, administration officials had been asked several times whether they had evidence of an imminent threat from Hussein against U.S. citizens. ?They said ?no,? ? she said, ?Not ?no, but? or ?maybe,? but ?no.? I was stunned. Not shocked. Not surprised. Stunned.?

7) There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein supports militant Islamist groups.

8) The February 6 edition of the New York Times stated, ?The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.? The NYT reiterated this view in a recent editorial that was published on August 3 2002.

9) The 2002 annual state department report on state-sponsored terrorism admitted that Saddam Hussein?s regime has few links with Islamic fundamentalists.

10) On August 15 2002, Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party?s most respected foreign policy ?experts? wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he stated, ?[T]here is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address.?

11) There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein represents a nuclear threat.

12) In January of 2002, the International Atomic Energy agency sent inspectors into Iraq and found no evidence of nuclear weapons.

13) In 1999, a committee under the UN Security Council concluded that Iraq?s primary biological weapons facility ?had been destroyed and rendered harmless.?

14) Hans von Sponneck, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, wrote in 2001, ?Iraq today is no longer a military threat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence.?

15) In late Aug. 2002, MSNBC reported, ?Military officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence that Iraq has produced or obtained any nuclear fuel, clashing with the Bush administration?s official statements that Saddam Hussein is close to developing a nuclear weapon.? Numerous other U.S. military, intelligence and administration officials have made similar statements to CNN, Knight Ridder, and the Washington Post.

16) David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team told The Washington Post that ?government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.? This strongly suggests the Bush administration is lying to the American people.

17) A report published by The Institute for Science and International Security in September 2002, challenged the Bush administration?s recent assertion that Iraq?s alleged importing of aluminum tubes was proof that Iraq is an imminent ?nuclear threat.? The Washington Post, summarizing the document, reported that the administration did not ?provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational? The report further noted, according to the WP, that ?the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.?

18) Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector who describes himself as a staunch Republican recently stated, ?The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.?
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein is developing and planning to use biological and chemical weapons.

19) Numerous experts have challenged the so-called ?evidence? that has recently been released by the Bush administration asserting that Iraq is developing biological and chemical weapons. Experts who have spoken out include: Scott Ritter, a former UNCOM chief weapons inspector; Hans Blix, current UNMOVIC chief weapons inspector; Count Hans von Sponeck, former UN under-secretary general; Meir Stieglitz, an Israeli military analyst, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and numerous other experts quoted by reputable mainstream presses, including the conservative Washington Times.

20) Western journalists have made recent visits to several of the purported weapons facilities and have found no evidence suggesting that they are being used to produce chemical or biological weapons.

21) An attack on Iraq could provoke Saddam Hussein into invading Israel thus drawing the region?s most resented state into the conflict. A joint U.S./Israeli war against Muslim Iraq would likely inspire uncontrollable popular uprisings in neighboring Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.

22) A U.S. attack on Iraq would be viewed upon by many in the Arab world as an unprovoked act by Western imperialists. Many fear that the pro-Western governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordon, which are already breaking at the seams, would experience massive social unrest as a result of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

23) Saddam Hussein?s military is much stronger and loyal than the former Taliban?s rag tag army of hungry conscripts. The Iraqi dictator commands an army consisting of 350,000 men, 2,700 tanks, 90 jets, 100 helicopters, and 300 mobile anti-aircraft missile launchers. Experts agree that his extremely loyal and well-trained elite republican guard would present a considerable challenge to American troops fighting on the ground. Even Colin Powell admitted, ?The Taliban neither consolidated its hold nor built regular armed forces. Iraq, on the other hand, has a strong state apparatus and a sizeable professional military.?

24) A U.S. ground invasion of Iraq would require a large commitment of American soldiers because unlike in Afghanistan, where the U.S. relied heavily on the Northern Alliance as a proxy army, there are no Iraqi opposition groups powerful enough to confront Saddam?s military forces. U.S. military strategists believe a ground force of up to 250,000 American soldiers would be necessary to defeat Saddam Hussein?s army. They concede that a large number American casualties would be inevitable.

25) Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is densely populated. Civilian casualties would consequently be much worse

26) An attack on Iraq would likely provoke Saddam Hussein into using whatever destructive weapons he actually has. The Observer (London) reported, ?The planners [in the Pentagon] have decided they will have 48 hours to find and kill or capture Saddam before he tries to deploy any nuclear, biological or major conventional weapons he may have.? And former Iraqi intelligence officer Wafiq al-Samarrai similarly stated: ?The US should know that Saddam will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction on American military groupings. Diplomacy is the only choice for the United States.?

28) Even if the proposed military operation were to succeed in ousting Saddam Hussein from power, who would replace him? The U.S. currently has no clear plan for a post-Saddam government. The various departments within the U.S. government are at odds with one another over who would be a suitable leader. And even if the U.S. could decide on a successor to Saddam Hussein, it?s certain that the Iraqis themselves, representing several different ethnic groups, would not readily accept a leader imposed upon them by a foreign power. Experts almost unanimously agree that U.S. plans to invade Iraq lack considerable foresight and hold the potential to make an already bad situation in the Middle East even worse. As Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution said, ?Removing Saddam will be opening a Pandora's box, and there might not be any easy way to close it back up.?
Almost no one supports the United States? plan to invade Iraq.

29) The Joint Chiefs of Staff (comprised of high ranking military officers) have stated their opposition to invading Iraq. On July 22, Electronic Intelligence Weekly reported that according to a ?senior retired U.S. military official? whom the intelligence newsletter interviewed on July 15, ?there is total unity among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the regional Commanders-in-Chief, in opposition to an Iraq invasion.? The source named the new Commander of the Pacific Command as one of the more vocal critics of Washington?s war plans, ?noting that the Pacific Command is the key support for all U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.? On July 29 The Washington Post published a similar article in which it was reported: ?Despite President Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat.? The Post quoted one officer who actually questioned the president's motives, saying, ?I'm not aware of any linkage to al Qaeda or terrorism, so I have to wonder if this has something to do with his father being targeted by Saddam.?

30) Most of the international community opposes the U.S. plan to illegally invade Iraq and forcefully dispose of Saddam Hussein. Countries that have expressed serious concerns over the Bush administration?s ambitions include: Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

31) Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told David Corn (11-30-2002), Washington editor for The Nation, ?They [the hawks] have no reasonable plan, no magic button to push. They want to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but the only way to do that is put U.S. ground forces in Iraq. That would be a bloody mess and we would have no support whatsoever from other countries.?

32) Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponneck, former UN humanitarian coordinators for Iraq, have authored numerous op-ed pieces in major newspapers denouncing U.S. plans for war against Iraq. The two men had resigned from their positions in the U.N. in protest of the U.N. sanctions on Iraq which they argue are genocidal because of the more than one million innocent people that have died as a direct result of the policy.

33) Several former government officials have spoken against the Bush administration?s current war plans, including Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state; Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor; James Baker, former secretary of state; Jack Kemp; Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former secretary of state; Jack Binns, former ambassador to Honduras; Madeline Albright, former secretary of State; former President Jimmy Carter; and James Webb, former assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the Navy.

34) Even the Iraqi ?opposition? groups are against U.S. plans to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein. Ayatollah Mohammad Bakr al-Hakkim of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq told one reporter, ?There is no need to send troops from outside to Iraq. It could be seen as an invasion and could create new problems. . . . . The best thing the US can do is force the regime not to use its heavy weapons against the people, like they did in Kosovo. Then the Iraqi people can bring change--it must be done by the Iraqis themselves.? Massoud Barzani of the Kurdish Democratic Party stated back in February, ?We will not be ordered by America or any others. We will not be a bargaining chip or tool of pressure to be used against Iraq.? And Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan declared on August 7, ?We are not for blindly participating in any attack or in any plan. . . . We are not in favor of having a new dictatorship replacing the old one.?

Is that enough reasons yet? Does anybody dispute any of the above?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/24/02 02:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: It is not in Americas interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Rono]
    #904542 - 09/24/02 02:51 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

i disagree with the thesis.

its pretty much understood among the educated that this war in iraq has nothing to do with saddam being a threat

unless of course, by "threat" you are not not referring to terrorism, but rather the fact that he doesnt plan to allow american corporations to have access to iraqi oil


if you look at the big picture, you can definitely see how it is in our "interest" to grab these resources now

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

--> "democratisation" kekeke

pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.




--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson


Edited by Lallafa (09/24/02 02:53 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,243
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 4 months, 15 days
Re: It is not in Americas interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Lallafa]
    #904547 - 09/24/02 02:54 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

I completely agree that oil has EVERYTHING to do with the Iraq war...Soon I will post a very comprehensive timeline complete with easily referenced links by reputable news sources for the doubters...it just takes some time.

But until I post the proof, I think the above reasons should be enough...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: It is not in America’s interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Rono]
    #904558 - 09/24/02 03:02 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

but dont you see

it IS in our interest!


11) There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein represents a nuclear threat.

why is that a reason not to steal iraqs natural resources?

The proposed war against Iraq has nothing to do with the governments purported objective of ridding the world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Rather the real motive behind removing Saddam Hussein from power and imposing a U.S.-friendly government is, as Henry Kissinger admitted in an op-ed piece published by The Washington Post, "essentially geopolitical." By this he meant that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to American citizens, but rather a threat to the profits of American oil corporations who are covetous of the huge amounts of oil that are inconveniently located in a country ruled by a leader who is not pro-American. It also means that establishing American hegemony in that oil-rich country is fundamental to the long term strategic -interests of multinational corporations




--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson


Edited by Lallafa (09/24/02 03:03 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,243
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 4 months, 15 days
Re: It is not in America’s interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Lallafa]
    #904589 - 09/24/02 03:14 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

It is in the American Oil companies best interest..not America in general.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRevelation

 User Gallery

Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 6,134
Loc: heart cave
Re: It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Rono]
    #904590 - 09/24/02 03:14 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

I agree with what you are saying although I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. One thing that's been on my mind is, would the US be threating Iraq with war if they believed that saddam had both the intent and the means to launch a nuclear attack? I don't think so..


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleChronicPride
Opening my boxof meows

Registered: 11/27/00
Posts: 304
Loc: Seoul, South Korea
Re: It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Rono]
    #904619 - 09/24/02 03:20 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Having a president in the White House that has strong ties to the benefacting US oil community and also has personal vendetta on his mind, after a failed assassination attempt on his daddy from the accused, greed/protection of votes and emotion are probably prime motivators for all this Iraq jazz.

And a deposed Saddam in 2003 (which the US administration will likely try to keep in the news for as long as possible) will bang the re-election drum for 2004 elections. The only thing first-term administrations really care about is a second-term and the PR involved to get there. This is just PR, but on a more broader scale and at the expense of thousands of lives (but as long as they're not lives that vote, right?)


--------------------
At this stage of human evolution,the truth about the meaning of life is too unattainably simple for us to comprehend,as contemporary thought is too bogged down with the notion that the answer to the riddle is so elusively complex. - Tonya Harding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehtownkid28
pimpin' ain'teasy

Registered: 07/02/02
Posts: 191
Loc: in hell! aahhh!!!!!
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: It is not in America’s interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Rono]
    #906264 - 09/25/02 03:04 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

well, let me first give you props on your post. it is obvious that you feel strongly about this topic and it is also obvious that you did your research. you listed many good arguements and i don't know if i'll be able to respond to them all but i'll give it my best shot.

i guess the point i'd like to make, is that i feel it IS in the U.S's best interest to remove saddam. according to alot of polls i've seen, most americans are in favor of ousting saddam. at the same time most citizens of other countries don't share that view. but, i submit, as americans we have to look out for our country. we cant expect or trust other nations to do our police work for us. those were our buildings that got knocked down, not england's, not germany's, and not canada's. were the roles reversed and one of those countries homelands had been attacked to that extent, maybe they would be wanting to the same thing we're doing and maybe we would be urging them not to.

as a result of what happened on sept. 11th, this country entered into a war on terrorism that was understood by all that it would take time. the enemy was faceless, flagless, and countryless. it wasn't going to be as simple as declaring war on a single nation and defeating them. it was going to be a war waged on many different soils against many different terror camps and organizations. unfortunately, as time goes by, and sept. 11th fades farther and farther into the past, the focus and goals we are trying to acheive get more and more blurred.

back to the iraq issue. as far as i'm concerned, we are well within our right to do whatever it takes to rid iraq of their current leader and make sure they no longer pose a threat to their neighbors and the rest of the world. what is my reasoning? well, when they lost the gulf war they signed a treaty. in that treaty were demands that they turn over whatever WMD's they had and allow inspectors into their country to make sure of that. however, iraq never lived up to their end of the bargain and really had no intention to. for whatever reason we allowed that to go on without any action being taken for the last decade. had we taken care of the problem then like we should have, then we wouldn't be discussing it now.
but rather than play the blame game and dwell on past mistakes, we need to take care of the problem before it is too late.

now alot of people are trying to say that he poses no threat and that there are no links to iraq and al-qaeda. and you can find politicians and experts to support both sides of the arquement equally. i admit that i dont really believe that iraq had a direct hand in the sept. 11 attacks. however, i find it hard to believe that saddam didnt support, cooperate, or fund their terroristic endevors against the U.S. over the past decade. as far as his current threat status goes, from what i have read, most experts would agree that he has had plenty of time and opportunity to create and stockpile WMD. i'm sure the journalists and inspectors that have been in the country here recently and report that they have not seen any evidence of WMD's undoubtedly had greatly restricted access and were only shown areas where iraq's leaders were certain that nothing would be found. whether or not he has gotten his hands on nuclear weapons i'm pretty confident that he doesn't have them. however, some experts' reports that i have read say that in the time since the last UN inspectors were there, iraq would have had ample time to make preparations for when they do get their hands on some radioactive material. they could be operational inside of 6 months conceivably. so that just stresses the reason why it is time to go in there and stop him while there is still time. why take a chance when we have the power and opportunity to nip the problem in the bud?

as far as his military goes, it is definitely not as strong as it was before the gulf war. then people were predicting a long drawn out ground assault with many thousand american casualties. we all know how that turned out. now facing a weaker iraqi military, even without support of other forces, it should be fairly easy going. i served over 8 years in the US military and i can speak from first hand experience that our military is more than adequately prepared to handle whatever they can throw at us.

lastly, i hear alot about the fact that our economy is sputtering right now and that a war would only worsen our condition. the economy was already on the downslide before all this talk. and im sure it probably may have more to do with what has happened over the past year then what is in front of us at the moment. with the sept 11 attacks, the corporate scandals, the airline industry struggling, and having to reconfigure the budget for all the added security across the nation has taken its toll on the economy. but, i think it makes more sense to continue with the war on terror and do everything we can to ensure that the country is safe from whatever sinister plots are being hatched right now against our nation. not that i believe that a war on iraq would hurt the economy, but let's just say it would. what would you rather have, a strong economy but having to live in fear of another attack, or a slightly more sluggish economy where you felt safe to leave the house everyday?
besides things are not that bad here. i mean, every weekend the malls are packed, restaurants are packed, tourist attractions are packed, and construction is booming. so it cant be near as bad as people would have you belive. it is a far cry from the great depression.

well, that is my argument. im sure i didnt touch on everything you posted before but i figure this should keep the discussion going. besides, my fingers are getting sore! :crazy: 


--------------------
"in your pockets with red hot rockets!"

"I love it when a plan comes together!"



Edited by htownkid28 (09/25/02 04:23 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLOBO
Vagabond

Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 655
Loc: NY
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Rono]
    #906789 - 09/25/02 09:32 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Very good post Rono I agree 100% it is so evident.
I feel we are going into a collision course, and the unseen repercussions would be catastrophic.
I am so sick about the whole thing, that I have lost faith in humanity


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


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: 2 years, 5 months
Re: It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq [Re: Rono]
    #910863 - 09/26/02 11:10 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

1) An unprovoked invasion of Iraq and the removal of its leader by force...

Depends on one's definition of "unprovoked", doesn't it?

2) The American economy is steadily deteriorating...

Then this MUST be the time for a war, right? Almost every anti-American who posts in this forum is convinced that "war is good for business". I've seen many here say the only reason the US keeps "starting" wars is to keep its economy from collapsing.

3) ...the real motive behind removing Saddam Hussein from power and imposing a U.S.-friendly government is, as Henry Kissinger admitted...

Kissinger is not a member of the US government and hasn't been for a very long time. Anyone who speaks of "real motives" is speculating, nothing more.

4)The U.S. currently has no credible evidence to substantiate its claims that Iraq is a threat to America.

In the sense that Iraq cannot directly invade mainland America, true. In the sense that Iraq could not plan, supply, and fund a terrorist attack against the US, false.

5) Outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, informed incoming President George Bush in January of 2000: ?Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.?

Really? Check the size of its military (point #23), its history of waging war against its neighbors, and the fact that there haven't been UN weapons inspectors allowed within its borders for 4 years, then rethink that statement, Mr. Cohen.

6) Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, recently told reporters that in closed sessions in Sept. 2002, administration officials had been asked several times whether they had evidence of an imminent threat from Hussein against U.S. citizens. ?They said ?no..."

Which officials were asked? How imminent is "imminent"? What is the level of Ms. Ashoo's security clearance?

7) There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein supports militant Islamist groups.

What of the reports from numerous sources that he rewards the families of homicide bombers? Is this not support?

8) The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.

The CIA has erred in assessments of threats on more than one occasion.

10)  He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address.

A touchingly naive point of view. If Saddam is as "shrewd" as everyone keeps claiming he is, it would be pretty easy to make sure his tracks were well covered. Hell, since everyone seems so convinced he HAS no WMD, then any terrorist group who used them COULDN'T have gotten them from him, right? *sarcasm*

11) There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein represents a nuclear threat.

This is disputed by many, MANY sources, including members of the UNSCOM team and the IAEA.

12) In January of 2002, the International Atomic Energy agency sent inspectors into Iraq and found no evidence of nuclear weapons.

This team had even less access than the pre-1998 UNSCOM team. Their findings mean exactly nothing.

13) In 1999, a committee under the UN Security Council concluded that Iraq?s primary biological weapons facility ?had been destroyed and rendered harmless.?

That committee obviously never read any of the UNSCOM reports.

14) Hans von Sponneck, the UN humanitarian coordinator...

He may know a lot about delivering aid, but his specialty is not military preparedness.

15) In late Aug. 2002, MSNBC reported, ?Military officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence...

Which officials? How can they make such a statement when there have been no inspectors in Iraq for four years?

16) ....This strongly suggests the Bush administration is lying to the American people.

Or that it is not yet prepared to release sensitive information which may compromise agents in place.

17) ...the administration did not ?provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational? -- BUT -- Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges.

So, it is known that Iraq has attempted to build centrifuges, but now we are certain that these attempts have stopped. Uh-huh.

18) Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector who describes himself as a staunch Republican recently stated, ?The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.?

This is bullshit. Properly shielded facilities emit no gamma rays which can be detected even on the ground, much less by satellite.

19) Numerous experts have challenged the so-called ?evidence? ...

And numerous experts have supported it.

20) Western journalists have made recent visits...

Oh, sure. Hussein gave JOURNALISTS greater access to his weapons sites than he gave to the UNSCOM team. *sarcasm*

21) An attack on Iraq could provoke Saddam Hussein into invading Israel...

Agreed.

22) A U.S. attack on Iraq would be viewed upon by many in the Arab world as an unprovoked act by Western imperialists.

Agreed.

23) Saddam Hussein?s military is much stronger and loyal...

Yet he can provide neither food nor water to his civilian population. If it is so strong, how is it that he is "not a threat to his neighbors?"

24) A U.S. ground invasion of Iraq would require a large commitment of American soldiers...

Sounds exactly like what I read before the start of the Gulf War.

25) Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is densely populated. Civilian casualties would consequently be much worse

A definite possibility, for sure.

26) An attack on Iraq would likely provoke Saddam Hussein into using whatever destructive weapons he actually has. The Observer (London) reported, ?The planners [in the Pentagon] have decided they will have 48 hours to find and kill or capture Saddam before he tries to deploy any nuclear, biological or major conventional weapons he may have.? And former Iraqi intelligence officer Wafiq al-Samarrai similarly stated: ?The US should know that Saddam will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction on American military groupings.?

But wait a minute. Didn't we just wade through a whole BUNCH of people claiming he HAS no WMD? Which is it?

27)

There is no 27)

28) Even if the proposed military operation were to succeed in ousting Saddam Hussein from power, who would replace him?...it?s certain that the Iraqis themselves, representing several different ethnic groups, would not readily accept a leader imposed upon them by a foreign power.

Let the Iraqis choose their next government in UN - supervised elections.

29) The Joint Chiefs of Staff (comprised of high ranking military officers) have stated their opposition to invading Iraq.

This is interesting. I'd like to hear more about it.

30) Countries that have expressed serious concerns over the Bush administration?s ambitions include: Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

Gee... what a surprise to see Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on that list. As far as the United Kingdom being opposed... check your facts, son.

31) They want to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but the only way to do that is put U.S. ground forces in Iraq.

Said not by a military man, but an ex-counter-terrorism director. Stick to what you know, Vince.

32) Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponneck...

Neither of whom know a thing about Hussein's WMD programs. They are opposed to the sanctions, and feel the best way to deal with Hussein's decade-long record of non-compliance is just to give up.

33) Several former government officials have spoken against the Bush administration?s current war plans...

The key word here being "former". None of these people have access to current classified information.

34) ...the Iraqi people can bring change--it must be done by the Iraqis themselves.?

The Iraqi people have had remarkably little success so far.

pinky
 


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. [Re: Rono]
    #910957 - 09/26/02 11:44 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Even if it is all about the oil it is still in our interests. We rely of fossil fuels way too much not to take an interest in mid Eastern politics. Right of wrong this counrt relies on that oil.

We should lift sanctions and then tell the Iraqi people that if S.H. does not comply the UN resolutions will be inposed again and offer any assistance they need to make it happen including helping them remove S.H.

Anyway about oil I got an e-mail from a friend. I have not checkled the info but if it is correct it makes sense to me. Apparently there are oil companies that do not import oil from the middle east. below is the e-mail. Probably BS but if someone could prove or disprove it, it would be nice.

Subject: Saudi Oil

FREEDOM IS A CHOICE!

INTRODUCING THE GREAT AMERICA OIL EMBARGO

Did you know that where you buy gasoline could support terrorism? This is
interesting and I want to share it with everyone I know. To know that when I
fill my car up with gasoline, I can AVOID putting MORE money into the
coffers of Saudis, who support terrorism, I will make the RIGHT choice. From
now on, I choose to buy my gas from companies which do NOT import their oil
from the Saudis.

Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the
tank, I am sending my money to people who wish to kill me, my
family, and my friends. Below are the companies that import oil from the
Middle East.

Shell . . . . . . . . . ...205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco . . . 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon/Mobil . . . . . .130,082,000 barrels
Marathon . . . . . . .. . 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco . . . . . . . . . .62,231,000 barrels

Do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18
BILLION!

NOW......here are some large companies that do NOT import Middle Eastern
oil:

Citgo . . . . . . .. 0 barrels
Sunoco . . . . .. .0 barrels
Conoco . . . . .. 0 barrels
Sinclair . . . . .. 0 barrels
BP/Phillips . . .0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and
can be easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to
state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They must
report this on a monthly basis.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Edited by mntlfngrs (09/27/02 12:16 AM)


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: 2 years, 5 months
Re: It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #910973 - 09/26/02 11:52 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

That information is correct. I have a friend in California that does just that... only fills up at stations that don't import Gulf Oil. That list looks pretty similar to the one she sent me once.

Only about 12% of the annual US oil consumption is obtained from the Persian Gulf... some years less than 12%.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq [Re: Phred]
    #911274 - 09/27/02 02:03 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

I already said this. America, Russia, UK, and Israel need to overrun the muslim countries in the middle east. Kill kill kill, just kill em.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Shop: PureVPN PureVPN   NordVPN NordVPN   Original Seeds Store Cannabis Seeds   Amazon Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Iraq 'ended nuclear aims in 1991' st0nedphucker 536 5 08/12/04 06:42 PM
by GazzBut
* If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... Zahid 1,637 18 06/19/04 10:55 PM
by Stein
* Logical reasoning for invading IRAQ
( 1 2 all )
cb9fl
1,614 23 01/08/06 08:06 AM
by kotik
* why did we invade iraq, again?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
afoaf 2,887 82 06/19/04 07:45 AM
by CJay
* Why should the US invade Iraq?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
PGF 3,343 73 10/05/02 11:24 AM
by T0aD
* Another Bloody Day for the Invaders
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Zahid 2,148 85 09/24/04 10:00 PM
by Learyfan
* America -9 Trillion Iraq +80 Billion Coaster 401 1 08/10/08 12:44 PM
by Coaster
* George Bush Sr: Reasons Not to Invade Iraq Swami 597 3 04/10/04 01:43 PM
by Learyfan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,583 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.042 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.