Viewing Thread:
"Why don't we attack the world?"

For having nuclear arms?

Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?

Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair

Hypocrites

I accept that Israel's actions have at times been disgraceful, but the easy option (surely) would be to just bomb whole Palestinian towns indiscriminately and suffer zero casualties to their own side. Helicopter gunships, F16s, and all the rest. However, they don't take that route. Israel employs a policy of targetted assassinations whereby their intelligence agency Mossad pinpoints targets and they get their man. Now the flat block in Gaza wasn't an accident, that was because a very high-ranking terrorist leader behind several suicide bombers (and countless more thwarted ones) was in there at the time. That was the single best time to kill him. I don't see suicide bombers cherry-picking their targets, they don't go, "ooh not him, he doesn't support Israel, or no that one's ok", they don't give a monkey's who they kill. So if a block of flats is razed and its inhabitants killed in their sleep, whilst housing an armed and dangerous terrorist activist, then so be it.

Before you say that two wrongs don't make a right, and a democratic country shouldn't do that, fair play to you, it's just that I live in the real world whereby countries defending themselves try to minimise civilian casualties, working towards a target of 0% innocents, but to achieve such a figure is impossible. And if you study the evidence, Israel's army doesn't run from alley-to-alley in Jenin out of choice, it's because they won't just wholesale destroy entire districts, despite what you may think. Why else would they use groud troops?

And, using your own argument, every single country involved in any conflict since the dawn of time is guilty of improper military conduct. Believe me, Israel going against the grain of textbook modern warfare is saving civilian lives, not raising them. So, to tie up this section of my argument, yes Israel takes controversial decisions, yes there are lots of heart-wrenching stories of innocents killed, but the gross civilian casualties is minimised to the very best of their ability by the Israeli army. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but it's sure as hell better than blowing the whole West Bank up, as they so easily could. And by the way, for every single innocent life taken by error, Israel apologises. You can say that means nothing, doesn't bring their life back etc, but at least it shows that they do not rejoice in the cold-blooded murder of innocents, they regret it deeply. And any appreciation of Judaism tells you that even in the most difficult periods in history, no satisfaction is taken from conflict and even the deaths of enemies- innocent or not- must be mourned as if their own.

Regarding Iraq, we could argue till we're blue in the face about who sold who what, when and for what reason, but we aren't blessed with the ability of hindsight at the present, and each decision must be taken as it appears at the time. That said, I don't believe the US supplied arms to Iraq, and if they did, they sure as hell aren't the ones the have at the moment. In ten years time, we could be having the same argument about decisions taken in 2002- we just don't know. Hindsight is a wonderful gift, just remember what it's there for.

As regards the whole 'bangwagon' issue, there's more important things at stake here, it just appears to me that the 'Have a go at Israel' lobby has become very fashionable to become involved in, and the groups I mentioned are just some that seem to have taken it upon themselves to take the moral high ground. It's a lot harder to stand up for what you believe in, even if no one else does. Put it this way, it's not very hard to support Man United when they're winning leagues, cups and all the rest of it, signing top footballers at the drop of a hat. Try going away to Stoke on a miserable Wednesday night in the middle of December. That's like supporting Israel at the moment.

Fountain of Knowledge wrote:

> I disagree strongly with state terrorism, it's just that- call me
> crazy- I don't see my interests being threatened by israel at the
> moment, but iraq is a different question altogether.

If you consider what actually threatens our (western) interest then Iraq is pretty far down that list, for reasons that have been mentioned by various people, in this topic and others. A higher priority is terrorism, specifically hardline Islamic terror. Iraq has no connections with terrorism, which is why politicians have invented the category of 'rogue states' instead of lumping Iraq in with the war on terror. This isn't controversial: even George W Bush hasn't tried to level this accusation at Iraq. Terrorism is, in fact, one of the few crimes that Saddam is not guilty of.

What we do know about terrorism is that it doesn't exist in a a vaccuum. It needs some level of support, otherwise it's perpetrators are quickly brought to justice. And how do Bin Laden and his like gain such support? By cynically echoing real concerns: US support for corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia; airstrikes against Iraq; and the plight of the Palestinians. Most Arab people detest Bin Laden's methods and ideology, but feel strongly about the issues he feigns concern for. Surprising as it may seem the Arab world is not as indifferent to suffering as we seem to be. There are people there who don't agree that, as Belldandy so charmingly put it, "if a Palestinian throws a stone at a guy with an M16 more fool him." There are people who would rather live in a free and democratic society than a bullying puppet regime. There are people who don't believe that the sins of the Iraqi leader should be visited on his people. It doesn't take many successful converts to terrorism (one in a million would do it) , before we have potential 9/11s on our hands.

That is why I think the neo-imperialism of the US-UK axis, and the colonialism of Israel, are more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. It's been said a million times before: drain the swamp, get rid of the mosquitoes.

> If you look at
> the blow-by-blow account of Israel's military operations, you'll see
> that, hard as it is to believe, the preservation of innocent human
> life is a primary consideration. A blanket bomb is actually far
> simpler than the complicated street-to-street raids Israel's army
> employs, but this incurs a huge civilian penalty. Go and see how many
> other Western countries would be so compassionate in Israel's case.

This is simply not true. The most obvious example is the assassination of Hamas' military commander. Quite apart from the fact that such extrajudical killing is illegal, the attack on a block of flats killed eleven OTHER people, including seven children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,761746,00.html

The violence of the Israeli occupation is well documented. Demolition of houses, destruction of crops, shelling of civilian areas, killings of demonstrators, lethally enforced curfews etc etc. Amnesty report that "Israeli settlers have attacked and killed Palestinians with almost complete impunity." All of this information is uncontroversial: it is reported consistently by every human rights group, whether Israeli, Palestinian or international. The Amnesty document on the intifada - detailing atrocities on both sides - is online:

http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/MDE150832001

If you can read this and retain a rose-tinted view of Israeli military action, then fair play to you.

> I can't see how any of Israel, UK or US would sell Iraq arms, Russia
> and China yes, but I can't see how Britain is to blame for that.

Again it is pretty common knowledge that Saddam Hussein was assisted by the CIA before he became a bogeyman. The US openly provided dual-use technology to Iraq at the time it was developing and using chemical weapons. It passed military information to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, while selling arms to the Iranians.
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm

Britain's record on this is worse still. Ever heard of the Scott Report?

> I was
> rather more referring to the latest studenty/Mark Thomas/leftie 'lets
> have a go at Israel' bandwagon that seems to have been hijacked
> recently. Now you're going to tell me that either none of these
> descriptions befits you, you're different and have no grudge against
> Israel, or that none of this applies to you, isn't that right?

I'm not sure what your point is. Are students' opinions wrong by definition? Are the opinions of the left wrong by definition? Or is it just Mark Thomas? Debate is about the substance of your argument, not about the categories you fall into as a person.

Belldandy wrote:
> Jonman makes a good point, the state of emergency is in effect BUT
> hardly any of the powers it gives have been used.
>
> No matter what it allows in theory, the Bush White House wants what
> every administration wants - another term.
>
> It's not going to get that by playing to the New World Order
> conspiracy nuts....

Very true. I was more pointing to the hypocrisy that seems to permeate the States even more than everywhere else.

The comical thought is that thanks to the Constitutional right to bear arms that they're all so fond of, I think the government might find it more difficult to seize control of citizen's homes or vehicles than they'd like.

"Ah tell you what, gran'ma, no president's gonna take ma truck away"

Jonman makes a good point, the state of emergency is in effect BUT hardly any of the powers it gives have been used.

No matter what it allows in theory, the Bush White House wants what every administration wants - another term.

It's not going to get that by playing to the New World Order conspiracy nuts....

~~Belldandy~~

Goatboy's point about why Saddam would use them is a fair one. Here's how I look at it. There are several ways he could use them once he has developed them - odds are he already has;

1) Israeli and UK intelligence have both publically stated that Saddam maintains links with multiple Palestinian and Islamic terrorists groups. These links vary from money, to sanctuary, weapons, equipment and training. The links are of a nature whereby they plainly exist but actual 100% proof is hard because there are no observers or intelligence assets able to do that inside Iraq. Any of these groups could be given nerve agents, chemicals - Iraq is known to have "lost" several tonnes equivalent of Anthrax in 1999 - or nuclear devices - several Iraqi defectors, most notably a guy from Iraq's nuclear weapons programme, have stated that Iraq purchased the plans and technical knowhow of the old Russian suitcase nukes.

Once any group has these it is childsplay to unleash them in any target they choose, within reason. America would be hard to get at, but Europe would be ridiculously easy unless an intelligence agency somehow gets wind of an attack. Think about it, most of europe has lost control of it's borders, we can't stop illegal immigrants getting into Europe and Britain so we certainly wouldn't be able to stop a trained individual or group.

Tracking back an attack made by these weapons would be difficult and absolute proof impossible.

2) WMDs, once usable, would be able to be used by Saddam to stop any allied attack on him. Once he has enough of them he become's untouchable.

3) Saddam isn't young, intelligence suggests he recently (last 2-3 years) survived some form of cancer. The danger is twofold, he will, whilst dying, order an attack on Israel ( you all should know what would happen in that situation.....) or he dies and power goes to someone even worse.

The overall danger is he is trying to aquire them and develop them - in 1999 Iraqi agents in Russia were doublecrossed by the Russian Mafia after trying to purchase a working suitcase device - you do not try to urgently develop and aquire them unless you have need of them. The USA/UK e.t.c use them as a deterrant against rogue states who could threaten them.

It could be argued that Saddam has little to lose by directly striking the nearest target Israel. The inevitable retaliation would destory much of Iraq but he and his troops/officials would survive in the many hundreds of bunkers the Iraqi's built in the 80's and after the Gulf War. Israel's attack would unite Iran, Syria, Jordan and a pile of other nations against Israel and couonterattack, America and the UK, as well as most of Europe, would have to side with Israel and attack back. Look, if you can find one, at the forces Israel has to withstand any attack. The numbers don't add up when Israel is faced with multiple opponents like the three above....unless Israel uses tactical nukes. In any conflict like this the Middle East effectively becomes a battleground.

If Israel is ever forced to hit Iraq it will not give one though to civilian casualties, it will more than likely be a simple case of nuclear weapons on all major population centres. Game Over.

~~Belldandy~~

Quite right Goatboy.

And the human rights bods might be interested to know that the Bush administration has recently declared a state of national emergency in the States, which brings into play a whole load of Executive Orders, allowing the US government to sieze control of the media, power sources, food & farms, vehicles, and the transport infratstructure (including trains and civilian aircraft), within the US.

Not to mention seizing control of the US financial markets.

Or the ability to pass new Executive Orders at the drop of a hat.

Or the ability to 'relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. '

And the best bit? Once delcared, Congress can't overturn this state of National Emergency for at least 6 months.

Land of the free, my a*se.

Here's what I don't understand and would appreciate someone explaining it to me.

Why, if Hussein does eventually get access to weapons of mass destruction, would he use them? It would ensure his total and utter annihilation at the hands of every single country in the UN, not just America and Britain expressing their desire to get in there.

I'm not debating whether we should or shouldn't be there or go back,just the one simple point.

Why would he use these weapons? He didn't do anything like that during the original Persian Gulf Distraction, yet we were doing it for the exact same reason.
And in the 11 years since, he hasn't used any of these weapons of mass destruction.

"Oh he's a madman". Really? Seems to be leading the UN in a dance, seems perfectly sane to me. I dont like him and agree he probably shouldn't be allowed in charge of a car but he doesn't strike me as insane.
Dangerous, yes.
Stupid? No.

What happened to "The War on Terror" which, Bush said "Would be the very definition of swift justice"?
We're a year down the line and Bin Laden still lives in a cave and Al Queda still operate. Why abandon that (because a non-sucess is bad for moral) and start on Iraq again, when it's been passe for over a decade.
This isn't a dig at America, I see pretty much every country as intrinsically retarded and ever-eager to expand their borders/area of control.

But explain why Hussein would kill himself by launching weapons of mass destruction, seeing as he's been crafty as hell so far in pushing the UN as far as he can.

I don't get it.

Fountain Of Knowledge makes a good point - lots in fact, in fact I agree wiht everything he says ! But, anyway, Israel's much critiscised tactics of military incursion DOES stop massive civilian casualties.

If all the "human rights" brigade would like to see civilian casualties in Iraq lessened (hell, we all would, but you guys are more manic about it than most) then the answer is quite simple;

A complete ground invasion of Iraq by about 1 million troops, units of special forces, armoured divisons, carrier borne fighters, long range bombers, support brigades, engineers e.t.c. This would involve taking nearly every inch of ground on foot, higly possible devestation of all civilian areas containing Iraqi military installations, but at least the Iraqi people would be alive to live in burnt out towns, starve through lack of food and die from exposure/disease. Still at least our bombs wouldn't have killed them....

The above, is completely rubbish and would involve massive western casualties, Vietnam would look like a kid's tea party compared to it.

The only way Iraq can be tackled is massive air power backed by rapid deployment troops like 101st, 82nd, Royal Mrines, Ranger, Delta, Seals, SAS, SBS and the like. Quick, overwhelming pin point strikes that are over in day rather than weeks. Like in the Gulf War, airpower can really demoralise the side without it - ideal first strike in opening stages of a campaign would be to have a flight of B52s hit the largest barracks we can find with incendiary or cluster weapons.

Cruel ? Yes, but this is war and the aim of any war is to win it as fast as possible.

Whilst were on the subject of human rights in Iraq, under Saddam;

600 gulf war prisoners never returned to their homes and Iraq will not detail their fate.
Other prisoners in the Gulf War were not treated in accord with the Geneva convention.
Ethnic minorities are persecuted viciously - the Kurds have lost over 200 000 people in nerve gas attacks on them in 89, 91, 99.
The Oil for food program money has been proven to be diverted to military equipment.

And much more......

The problem with nearly everything today is that there are so many special interest groups that believe they should dictate policy because they know better. Well, I don't care about any of you because I didn't, and cannot, vote for you. You've got some cash and you use it to exploit public opinion through "clever" media use. All these groups are basically people who really need to take off the rose tinted glasses for a second and look at the world as it is. This "no one needs to die/can be killed" attitude is ridiculous. There are a few people in this world who need to be removed by any means necessary, Saddam is one of that group. This needs sorting now, or our children will have one hell of a mess on their hands when he uses his WMD's.

It will happen unless we act now, and we have the power to act - new estimates from the Petagon suggest that a campaign could be over in a week if the military is allowed a gloves off approach.

~~Belldandy~~

unknown kernel wrote:
> Fountain of Knowledge wrote:
> Last point: the guy before who was quoting ariel sharon's flouting
> of
> UN regulations, should remember that by the same rationale, there is
> no debate over the legitimacy of war with iraq, because they have
> breached UN rules (if they even know what they are) immeasurably
> more
> so than israel has. So don't have one rule for one and another rule
> for another. Also, you shouldn't join a bangwagon before you know
> what
> you're talking about.
>
> No. Israel has been consistently and brutally in breach of UN
> resolutions for many decades. If you want a list of these then go see
> www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/UNresolutions.html
>
I disagree strongly with state terrorism, it's just that- call me crazy- I don't see my interests being threatened by israel at the moment, but iraq is a different question altogether. If you look at the blow-by-blow account of Israel's military operations, you'll see that, hard as it is to believe, the preservation of innocent human life is a primary consideration. A blanket bomb is actually far simpler than the complicated street-to-street raids Israel's army employs, but this incurs a huge civilian penalty. Go and see how many other Western countries would be so compassionate in Israel's case.

> But I am not calling for military action against Israel, and nor is
> anyone else. By YOUR rationale we should be bombing both Tel Aviv and
> Baghdad: not by mine. My post was pointing out the double standards
> in US-UK policy, not suggesting war with Israel, Pakistan, China et
> al.
>

No, I'm saying that you guys want action taken against Israel of some form, and look on the negative side of any Israel debate, quoting UN resolution XXX or whatever, but when Iraq flouts UN resolutions, you're an awful lot more hesitant about taking action. I never mentioned bombing Tel Aviv, you did mate.

> As for bandwagon jumping: I believe it was the political left - not
> the warmongers who sold Saddam arms - who first protested about human
> rights abuses in Iraq. Now the same atrocities that were ignored and
> condoned by the West are used as justification for the murder of Iraqi
> civilians.

I can't see how any of Israel, UK or US would sell Iraq arms, Russia and China yes, but I can't see how Britain is to blame for that. I was rather more referring to the latest studenty/Mark Thomas/leftie 'lets have a go at Israel' bandwagon that seems to have been hijacked recently. Now you're going to tell me that either none of these descriptions befits you, you're different and have no grudge against Israel, or that none of this applies to you, isn't that right?

You are the only person in the world that isn't anti-american and anti-bush...

1. I have respect for you're own views etc
2. Are you an ejjit?

:)