No ID Card, No Job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arioch

So freedom is messy? And we had no choice? We had a choice to support Saddam or not back in the 80's; we had a choice whether we were going to take him out during Desert Storm, and all through the 90's. We've had a lot of choices along the way, and I think our government has made a lot of poor choices. I'm glad Saddam's out, but I'm sad that things are so "messy" right now. You know what would be really pre-emptive? To quit supporting rightwing dictators before they get out of hand.

---

Agreed, politics again! Saddam didn't only have our support but also the support of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. They were ALL afraid of the new Iranian regimes thoughts of marching across the middle east until they finally reached their directive of pushing Israel out to the sea. Thats where alot of the "disputed debt" comes from with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. What they were giving as "military aid" at the time to Iraq they are NOW calling loans.
Most of the middle east giving Saddam money to buy our weapons to kill hostile Iranians. What a wonderful world!

oops - I'm off the topic of ID cards - root, did you say by law you have to carry some form of ID in Canada? If so, what's the penalty for not having any?

If it come down to it, is there any on this board that would happily accept an ID chip implanted in them?

Desert Storm was a political move also. As you remember, the coallition consisted of not only western countries but middle eastern as well. After Saddam was ousted from Kuwait and the news had dead Iraqis all over it every day; the middle eastern allies stressed that the initiative was to get Saddam out of Kuwait, not overthrow Saddams government and allow "western infidels" to march across some of the most sacred grounds of the middle east. Bush senior said MMMMMK!

We do have a point of agreement here, and I recognize that the decision in Desert Storm was political. Likewise in Serbia. Our Air Force wanted to use surgical strikes against the Serbs, but that was nixed by NATO. The result was massacres in Muslim villages. So it seems like the "collateral damage" was going to happen one way or another. Sounds like the definition of war ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Well, maybe we should have gave Sadamm the nuke he always wanted and his sons some school girls to rape. What is the brink you have to be brought to in order to save, lets say, the Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites from genocide? Or is it a matter as long as France, Germany, Russia, and China are getting theres, who gives a fuck? :confused:

---

For one, it's hypocritical for the country with the most nuclear destructive power to condemn another country for wanting nukes. If we want to stop the deadly potential of nukes, we should start with the countries which currently have them. Maybe when the US government gets rid of its HUMONGOUS collection of weapons of mass destruction, will I take it seriously when it says it wants to eliminate that threat from the planet. There was no evidence of nukes or a nuke about to be made when we went into Iraq. Even in a hypothetical world where he had WMDs, do you think he would actually try to use them, knowing fully well how much the US could kick his ass? And if you think the best way to stop a genocide is by bombing their water and power sources, I don't know what to say. You want to save the Kurds from repression? Generate support for the Kurdistan independence movement, send some snipers over to kill anyone known to be involved with genocide, take violations of international law to the appropriate institutions, but for humanity's sake don't kill innocent people in the name of stopping the killing of innocent people!

P.S. The most successful genocide in history was committed by Americans on American soil (or soil that was stolen for America). Do you think things would have been better if other countries had decided to invade the US, instill fear and terror into the citizenry through a campaign of "shock and awe", destroy our infrastructure, provoke a long and bloody insurrection, place our natural resources under the control of their corporations and replace our government in the name of saving the Native Americans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ermitonto

For one, it's hypocritical for the country with the most nuclear destructive power to condemn another country for wanting nukes. If we want to stop the deadly potential of nukes, we should start with the countries which currently have them. Maybe when the US government gets rid of its HUMONGOUS collection of weapons of mass destruction, will I take it seriously when it says it wants to eliminate that threat from the planet. There was no evidence of nukes or a nuke about to be made when we went into Iraq. Even in a hypothetical world where he had WMDs, do you think he would actually try to use them, knowing fully well how much the US could kick his ass? And if you think the best way to stop a genocide is by bombing their water and power sources, I don't know what to say. You want to save the Kurds from repression? Generate support for the Kurdistan independence movement, send some snipers over to kill anyone known to be involved with genocide, take violations of international law to the appropriate institutions, but for humanity's sake don't kill innocent people in the name of stopping the killing of innocent people!

P.S. The most successful genocide in history was committed by Americans on American soil (or soil that was stolen for America). Do you think things would have been better if other countries had decided to invade the US, instill fear and terror into the citizenry through a campaign of "shock and awe", destroy our infrastructure, provoke a long and bloody insurrection, place our natural resources under the control of their corporations and replace our government in the name of saving the Native Americans?

---

No evidence?

WASHINGTON JUNE 26. A former Iraqi nuclear scientist has provided American authorities parts and documents from Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons programme from over 12 years ago, a U.S. intelligence official said on Wednesday.

The scientist, Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, said he had kept the parts buried in his garden at his Baghdad home on the orders of Mr. Hussein's Government, according to the intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Once sanctions against Iraq ended, the material was to be dug up and used to reconstitute a programme to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon, Mr. Obeidi claimed.

U.S. authorities believe Mr. Obeidi's statements are credible, and they are regarded as evidence that Iraq made an effort to hide parts of its original programmes from U.N. inspectors.

Still, the intelligence official acknowledged the find was not the ``smoking gun'' that U.S. authorities are seeking to prove the Bush administration's claims that Iraq had an active programme to develop a nuclear weapon.

Before the 1991 Gulf War, Mr. Obeidi headed Iraq's programme to make centrifuges that would enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, the official said. Most or all of that programme was dismantled after U.N. inspections in the early 1990s. â?? AP

You saw how scared he was of a U.S. invasion when he refused to abide by U.N. resolutions. His boy Uday said that if we tried, 9-11 would look like a walk in the park. War is hell and innocents die. It amazes me the U.S. is the only country in the world judged on this basis!

Okay, assuming contrary to that very article that this is the "smoking gun that US authorities are seeking to prove the Bush administration's clams that Iraq had an active programme to develop a nuclear weapon", then there is STILL no logical justification for a NUCLEAR POWER to inflict terrorism on another country's citizenry because its government was considering a nuclear program. We need to be punishing nuclear manufacturers (like the militaries of the US, UK, France, China, Israel, Iraq if this is true, etc.) not the people who live under governments whose militaries are making nuclear weapons.

Oh yah, that was called the Food for Oil program. With the U.N. sanctions the funds were to be used for meds, etc. , for the civiliians. To bad France, Germany, Russia, and China thought different! Saddam using the funds to buy scotch for his elite Republican Gaurd units, etc.... So where do you go from there?

Time magazine of all things has a really interesting article about Iraq...

Sir Ivor Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda" was none other than the U.S. President, George W. Bush....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...081392,00.html

Psycho....what about Korea, what about Pakistan they ARE nuclear capable...

WHat about Suadi Arabia that openly trains terrorist? All the "possible weapons" posts in the world does not justify lying to congress and the invasion...when we have so many other "really" dangerous countries to deal with...now we have used valuable resourses and lost the lives of our soldiers....we needed them. Now what?