Why is Iraq considered dangerous?

[SunWuKong]

why is iraq considered dangerous? that's an honest question. i really haven't been paying too close attention to the situation. i just finished reading colin powell's address to the UN. the bulk of it is about how iraq has weapons of mass destruction. but, at least to me, that doesn't necessarily mean that iraq is dangerous. after all, the US is the one that has the most advanced military in the world, and it is the country that is threatening war. isn't the US way more dangerous that iraq?

[Shuriken]

Iraq is "dangerous" because George W. Bush wants to wage a war in order to distract us from the flagging economy and to prop up his pals in the U.S. weapons industries. He also wants to finish what his father started back in 1990-91. During the '92 election, I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Saddam Hussein still has his job. Do you still have yours?" For that, Bush wants Hussein out of power.

Now, it's clear that North Korea poses the bigger threat to the U.S., but if we were to go to war with the irrational, off-kilter Kim Jong-Il, he would probably lash out against South Korea and destroy Seoul, a developed metropolis, in the process. If we were to go to war with Iraq, it would probably be relatively easy (in a moment of candor, one Defense Department official described a prospective war with Iraq as a "cakewalk," a remark that he later had to retract), and no comparable economically developed city would be destroyed (most damage would be done in the desert, far from the West's prying eyes). This is why the Bush Adminstration is poised to go to war with Iraq.

Now, I'm willing to believe that a case can be made for going to war against Hussein. Maybe he is indeed an imminent threat to this country. But I haven't seen the case made for this yet. As for his human-rights abuses, he committed many of them back in the years when the U.S. was giving him monetary aid for his war against Iran. Furthermore, the U.S. has supported regimes with human-rights record just as bad. So, the idea that we need to go to war against Hussein because of his human rights abuses, to me, seems cynical at best.

[SunWuKong]

what exactly are their arguments that iraq is dangerous? other than possessing weapons of mass destruction? colin powell went over what they know about links between saddam hussein and al qaeda in his address, but it seems kind of weak to me.

[Shuriken]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 6 2003, 06:56 PM
what exactly are their arguments that iraq is dangerous? other than possessing weapons of mass destruction? colin powell went over what they know about links between saddam hussein and al qaeda in his address, but it seems kind of weak to me.
My advice would be to read Powell's address and see what you think. I agree: the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that have come to light so far seem tenuous at best.

[achtungbaby]

Reasons:

1. The UN Resolution, agreed to by Iraq after the Gulf War, that prohibits them from possessing any "weapons of mass destruction";

2. The documented history of Hussein's use of chemical weapons on his own people and the Kurds in northern Iraq;

3. The possibility, as Dubyah put it, of just one of those lil' Iraqi bastards sneakin' in to the country and "passing (deadly) gas";

4. The possible possible possible link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Stupid fucking reasons so far? Yes.

Do we know that Hussein is dangerous? Sure. Is that a compelling reason to go now? Nope. In fact, have their been any purported attacks that Iraq has engineered against the U.S. in the past couple of years? None that the U.S. can prove.

Is there a link between Al Qaeda and Bagdad? None. The only damn link they have is some Al Qaeda agent getting operated on in Iraq after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. He got operated on there and had his leg amputated -- that is the crux of their smoking gun.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Feb 6 2003, 02:13 PM
My advice would be to read Powell's address and see what you think. I agree: the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that have come to light so far seem tenuous at best.
yeah i read the address. that's why i'm asking what people think their arguments are. because, at least to me, the fact that they have weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that iraq is dangerous, and it's links to al qaeda are weak at best. hell, the US had much stronger links to osama in the past.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Feb 6 2003, 11:13 AM
My advice would be to read Powell's address and see what you think. I agree: the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that have come to light so far seem tenuous at best.
For me, the question as to whether they have weapons of mass destruction is obviously the wrong question to ask right now. I think we've always been aware that Hussein has been up to no good; he's not some U.N lapdog wanting to kiss our asses...!

The thing that's very suspicious about Dubyah's intent is simply -- as people from his own party have been asking -- "Why now?"

It's kind of akin to calling in the national guard to enforce jaywalking or something. I mean, jaywalking potentially saves lives. And if those damn pedestrians dont stop jaywalking themselves, well, we'll just have to go in and put a stop to them! Cuz we're tired of the them pussyfooting around, deceiving, lying, delaying...

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 6 2003, 11:17 AM
hell, the US had much stronger links to osama in the past.
That's yet another point: Osama bin Laden has no love for Hussein whatsoever.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 6 2003, 02:22 PM
That's yet another point: Osama bin Laden has no love for Hussein whatsoever.
really? i was not aware of this.

[rakovlam]

really? i was not aware of this.

AB must be a go-between.... j/k


Also, it's been over a year since the talk of war with Iraq started. Any perception of a rush to war is gone by now.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 6 2003, 03:36 PM

AB must be a go-between.... j/k


Also, it's been over a year since the talk of war with Iraq started. Any perception of a rush to war is gone by now.
well i'm not asking whether it's a "rush" or not. i'm wondering why they think iraq is dangerous.

[rakovlam]

Is there a link between Al Qaeda and Bagdad? None. The only damn link they have is some Al Qaeda agent getting operated on in Iraq after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. He got operated on there and had his leg amputated -- that is the crux of their smoking gun.

But wait, there's more. According to Powell, while Zarqawi was recovering in Baghdad for 2 months, Al-Qaeda affiliates based their operations there. Who is Zarqawi? He's the head of Jund al-Shams, an Islamic group affiliated with Al-Qaeda that was reported to moved operations into Ansar al-Islam, Northern Iraq, which now contains an explosives and poison training camp run by Zarqawi's lieutenents.

I know that many of you won't believe that the US needs to go war until some sort of a terrorist attack occurs at the west coast. But every intellegence agency in the world says that Iraq has WoMD and the point of the UN resolutions was to let Iraq disarm one last time. He broke the UN resolutions again. Is that not enough context for action?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 6 2003, 03:54 PM

But wait, there's more. According to Powell, while Zarqawi was recovering in Baghdad for 2 months, Al-Qaeda affiliates based their operations there. Who is Zarqawi? He's the head of Jund al-Shams, an Islamic group affiliated with Al-Qaeda that was reported to moved operations into Ansar al-Islam, Northern Iraq, which now contains an explosives and poison training camp run by Zarqawi's lieutenents.

I know that many of you won't believe that the US needs to go war until some sort of a terrorist attack occurs at the west coast. But every intellegence agency in the world says that Iraq has WoMD and the point of the UN resolutions was to let Iraq disarm one last time. He broke the UN resolutions again. Is that not enough context for action?
under that ethical logic, doesn't it mean that the US should also disarm? iraq is not even threatening anybody. it's the US that's threatening to attack. and it's the US that has the most advanced and destructive force on earth.

[rakovlam]

under that ethical logic, doesn't it mean that the US should also disarm? iraq is not even threatening anybody. it's the US that's threatening to attack. and it's the US that has the most advanced and destructive force on earth.

We don't have a UN resolution that applies to the US. I didn't make the law... a bunch of unelected representatives from every walks of life did.

[sandra]

one of the reasons (per powell): less than a teaspoon of anthrax shut down the entire senate. iraq has thousands upon thousands of teaspoons of anthrax (approx. 2,500 liters verified). that sounded pretty scary to me.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 6 2003, 04:05 PM

We don't have a UN resolution that applies to the US. I didn't make the law... a bunch of unelected representatives from every walks of life did.
then maybe we should have a resolution that applies to the US? and every other country that has a permanent seat on the security council... yeah... right... <_<

[tapestrybabe]

just curious if ppl could tell me...
the population of iraq compared to the U.S...
and how much the U.S spends on its military vs. iraq...

i personally dont know myself...
but they just seem kinda important questions to answer...
when it comes to considering how much iraq is really dangerous...

[rakovlam]

just curious if ppl could tell me...
the population of iraq compared to the U.S...
and how much the U.S spends on its military vs. iraq...

i personally dont know myself...
but they just seem kinda important questions to answer...
when it comes to considering how much iraq is really dangerous...

Al-Qaeda doesn't spend as much militarily as the US, but according to percentages the majority of their (Al-Qaeda's) money goes to terrorism. A majority of Iraq's money goes to either Saddam's palaces or his weapons. We can easily destroy Saddam's regime and much of Al-Qaeda but they are capable to give cheap shots like 911. And no way in hell I'm letting that happen again.

[kangal]

I think this may have been brought up before, but Iraq poses a serious threat because of the Hussein regime. After Saddam is gone, his son, Uday, is a crazy mo-fo. I think VVongba can back me up on the fact that the son is worse than the father. Also, in watching the Rather interviews, I find it funny that Saddam claims facts like how the people unanimously support him. That, to me, is a telling fact of his delusion of grandeur and threat to stability. No leader can ever have 99% approval. Also, the rest of the world all agree that Iraq is a threat. They just differ in the way to respond to him. I think even France, our hated enemy, has admitted that war is an option, but just not at this point.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by tapestrybabe@Mar 2 2003, 11:30 AM
just curious if ppl could tell me...
the population of iraq compared to the U.S...
and how much the U.S spends on its military vs. iraq...

i personally dont know myself...
but they just seem kinda important questions to answer...
when it comes to considering how much iraq is really dangerous...
US - $355 billion
iraq - $1.3 billion
link (http://www.panix.com/~hncl/HectorsJournal/archives/000077.html)

[rakovlam]

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Who made that statement? None other than President Clinton in 1998 during operation Desert Fox. Where was the objection back then?

[Green_Circle]

The danger in first, 'preemptive' strikes is that it can always be used, again and again whenever and wherever, all over the world. Other countries, wanting to emulate the US, will want to employ these same tactics. Strike first before we get struck. Sounds good to me. What if we teach our children the same thing in the schoolyard or in the street? What if we show them a good example by assaulting people who may be dangerous to us? I'd love to but I'm concerned about getting slammed in the slammer if I were to be found guilty of assault.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Mar 2 2003, 01:15 PM
"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Who made that statement? None other than President Clinton in 1998 during operation Desert Fox. Where was the objection back then?
there's a difference there. clinton did not want an all-out war - especially at a time when attention should be placed squarely on fixing the economy.

[pfc beansprout]

Originally posted by Green_Circle@Mar 2 2003, 02:19 PM
The danger in first, 'preemptive' strikes is that it can always be used, again and again whenever and wherever, all over the world. Other countries, wanting to emulate the US, will want to employ these same tactics. Strike first before we get struck. Sounds good to me. What if we teach our children the same thing in the schoolyard or in the street? What if we show them a good example by assaulting people who may be dangerous to us? I'd love to but I'm concerned about getting slammed in the slammer if I were to be found guilty of assault.
EXACTLY...and now does N.Korea feel we are a "threat" so they may launch a "preemptive" strike on us? hey, we are using the logic on iraq....

[kitty]

ah, but swk, you assume that we all consider iraq a threat. I don't.

[angelwiththesword]

in my humble opinion, the war on terrorism ended the same day them planes decided to impale the two rather large buildings in new york.

think about this logically. the definition of terrorist, is one who enstills terror in the hearts of people.
they did JUST that.
if you look at their point of view, they've already accomplished their mission.

the only reason we are in this mess in the first place is because the stupid yankee 'mericans decided they hadn't nuked anything in a while, and are just itching to push the shiney red button.

[airborneranger]

I want to make internet confession as I had always done

I admire people like lee kuan yu, saddam, milosovich, hitler, chiang kaisek, mao, stalin, hun sen, suharto, idi amin, pinoche, ho chi min, marcos, khomeini and other people like them that I want to become

These people came from near nothing and yet they become bosses
But at the current fuel's high price I don't care who
somebody somewhere in the world has to die

End of confession

[kitty]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Mar 3 2003, 04:31 AM
I want to make internet confession as I had always done

I admire people like lee kuan yu, saddam, milosovich, hitler, chiang kaisek, mao, stalin, hun sen, suharto, idi amin, pinoche, ho chi min, marcos, khomeini and other people like them that I want to become

These people came from near nothing and yet they become bosses
But at the current fuel's high price I don't care who
somebody somewhere in the world has to die

End of confession
w/out the random killing, I hope?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Mar 2 2003, 11:31 PM
I want to make internet confession as I had always done

I admire people like lee kuan yu, saddam, milosovich, hitler, chiang kaisek, mao, stalin, hun sen, suharto, idi amin, pinoche, ho chi min, marcos, khomeini and other people like them that I want to become

These people came from near nothing and yet they become bosses
But at the current fuel's high price I don't care who
somebody somewhere in the world has to die

End of confession
well actually lee kuan yu's family is fairly affluent. plus he was educated in england.