Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Iraq?

This is topic Iraq? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/632.html

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

...Why are we bombing Baghdad this time?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 16, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I didn't know until you told me. So I started my netscape messenger and the netscape news window popped up.

"The facilities targeted were outside the no-fly zone, which was set up by U.S. and British forces at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 but is not recognized by Iraq.

Pentagon officials said that intelligence indicated that anti-aircraft attacks carried out by the Iraqis against allied patrolling the no-fly zone have been directed from control centers north of the 33rd parallel.

The United States has claimed the right to strike facilities outside the no-fly zone.

Iraqis celebrating the end of the week in Baghdad were
interrupted by the wail of air raid sirens, although they were told at first the sirens were a test.

Some 10 minutes later, however, anti-aircraft fire erupted to the south and west of the city and several large explosions were heard. Iraqi television changed from its regular programming to military music.

Television also aired an image of a wounded Iraqi soldier."

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited February 16, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"anti-aircraft attacks carried out by the Iraqis against allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone have been directed from control centers north of the 33rd parallel."

"A Western defense official familiar with the operation told Reuters that "in the past few weeks the firing at our planes has increased at least tenfold."
"All the targets mainly have to do with command-and-control that are in charge of the recently increased firing against us," the official added.
The White House said President Bush authorized the strikes on Thursday, and described them as "routine."
The strikes did not appear to mark a departure from U.S. policy toward Iraq. The Clinton administration said any military target in Iraq that threatened allied planes enforcing no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq were fair game."

In other words, they're shooting at us when we told them not to. So we shot back. Aww. Big, bad us. And the Dems can't moan because Clinton did the same thing. Winners all around!

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 16, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Except for dead Iraqi Soldiers!

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Oy. Here we go AGAIN with the bombings...

Didn't Clinton do something like this in his first 100 days in office?

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Yeah, Clinton ordered a bombing on Iraq for some reason or another early in his presidency. I can't remember what for, though.

As a slight hijack, when I first heard the story on the news and Bush's comments about ordering the strike, I was half asleep. My mind must have been playing some tricks on me because I swear I heard Bush say, "My daddy done fought that Saddum ten years ago. My daddy said Saddum a bad man, so I say to ol' Dick, 'Let's kick their cotton-theiving asses!'"

My suitemate found this hysterical when I told him.

Hijack over, please continue debating.

------------------
Nic: She's not a practicing lesbian. We need PRACTICING lesbians!
Me: I have a camcorder.
Nic: But no lesbians.
Me: Ahhh... no.
Nic: DAMN IT MAN! WE NEED LESBIANS! LOTS AND LOTS OF LESBIANS!

ICQ Conversation From January 23, 2001.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Er ... I just wanted to know why we were bombing. I don't recall assigning blame. Besides, doesn't this also mean Republicans can't scream about when Clinton did it because Bush (both of 'em!) have done it too?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

We've been in pretty much a constant state of open conflict with Iraq since the Gulf War.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

It was interesting to watch what happened with the stock market when word of the attack hit. Some stocks rose sharply, then dropped back down; some dropped sharply, then rose back up. On the whole, we ended down, but up for the week.

The bull may be returning, but he isn't in a hurry.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Looks like Tony Blair wanted the strikes, and worked out a "scratch my back, I'll scratch your back" deal with Bush to get the strikes.

Supposedly, Blair will support the Star Wars plan ...

Great, well, now we'll get nuked ...

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Would it be overly cynical to suggest the President Double U found the first opportunity to flex his foreign mussles by bombing the available bad boy.

No. No, that would not be it because now I'm starting to sound like the people who bashed Clinton when he bombed something.

Foreign policy is best conducted at the explosive end of a dumb bomb I always say.

------------------
"One reason I like to highlight reading is, reading is the beginnings of the ability to be a good student. And if you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams, it's going to be hard to go to college. So when your teachers say, read--you ought to listen to her."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

As in 1998, after 'Operation Desert Fox', the Iraqis (read: Saddam Husayn*, and Hashim Jabburi Tai) are declaring that they will not stand for these Allied strikes, and are contemplating Military retaliation if another of such strikes occur.

(Why does the Media misspell his name? The Iraqi news may refer to your country as Disbelieving American Infidel Pigs, but I don't think they call POTUS, George Borsh.)

I assume it's a good thing that you Americans (And British, to an extent) are content with picking on an enemy with little or no actual offensive capabilities. Destroying Iraqi radar sites is like hitting the kid who has just lost his glasses in the face with a Dodge Ball in 4th grade gym class.

Someday, however, when your policies of 'World Policemen' aren't satisfied with the petty country of Iraq, and your attention draws toward a country with a much lower level of tolerance and the ability to act on this lack of tolerance, wether it be through organized military resistance, or through 'Home Soil Guerrila Attacks', you may find yourself with some dead Americans.

You are far less respected outside your borders than you may think.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited February 18, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

No, it is more like taking the kids glasses...

Then punching him...

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

All thier bases are belong to US.

quote:

You are far less respected outside your borders than you may think.

We know. We see it on the news everyday. I learned some of the reasons, being around you guys, online.

------------------
I DO NOT ENJOY BOTH GENDERS!!!
Ultra Magnus

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

It's weird that Blair did it though. I know there's an election coming up, but it's not really a vote grapping move over here. "Oh dear George. It seems that ol' Tony's gone and dropped one on Saddam again."

"Really Harry? That's most unfortunate. Pass the sugar."

He'd get far more votes if he just dropped the early pub closing law...

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

England has Tony Blair. Australia has John Howard. Both are arse suckers for supporting strikes against Iraq.

First old chap, you quoted something along the lines of "iraqi fire against US planes has increased 10 fold". No shit. If you were occupying my country and starving my children to death with your policies I'd be firing at you too.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, then, why aren't the Iraqi people shooting at Sadaam Housein (or however the heck it's spelled)? You think they were any better off before the sanctions? He's a dictator, and a whacko one at that. Effectively, HE is occupying their country, and HE is starving their children. If he actually cared about his country, don't you think he'd step down?

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

Obviously Hussein (whatever) doesn't give a rat's ass about Iraq beyond keeping himself in power.

At the same time, the people with the guns are loyal to Hussein.

So really there's not much the average Joe-Schmoe on the streets of Baghdad can do about the situation (although, IIRC, the CIA did provide arms to some rebel groups -- then withdrew support and let 'em all die the BASTARDS!).

Besides which, the media in Iraq is completely controlled by "Big Brother", in this case, Saddam. The people believe what they're told, and they're told that the US, Britain, etc., are the "devil" essentially.

And who can blame them for believing that? With a little bit of spin, it's essentially true. For the last ten years, their lack of food has been because of the US, UK, etc. They have been bombed on more than one occasion. Why should the people of Iraq find Saddam to be responsible for their situation and not the Western Powers?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)[/small]
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
[small]"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families."
--Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"If you were occupying my country and starving my children to death with your policies I'd be firing at you too."

Well, except that it isn't the people who are doing the shooting. It's the military, under orders from SH, and we can pretty well guess he doesn't exactly have the Iraqi people's best interests at heart...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Many analysts conclude that it is better to carry out military strikes than impose sanctions and embargoes, as the military strikes are more direct in hurting the dictator, while the sanctions affect the civilians. The leaders can often benefit from embargoes as they become involved in lucrative black market trade.

------------------
*Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone*
*Bed made from solid stone explodes*
Fist of the North Star

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Aside from the whole "killing the soldiers" & "Collateral Damage" & "Perfect Propoganda Opportunities" aspect of Military Action.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You know, I think there is probably one solution that would fix this once and for all, that doesn't involve the complete destruction of a major city. We just say, "We declare Sadaam Housein to be out of power. Your new government will be based around the US Constitution. Democratic elections will be held one month from today. Anyone may run for office, except any member of the Housein family. Resistance is futile." And it would be. What's the guy going to do? He only breathes at our discretion, and he has no military to work with.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

He only breathes at our discretion

Eh ... yeah, and we've got an Executive Order to stop us from taking him out.

Seriously, though, if Hussein was to be taken out of power, the time to do it was the Gulf War. The coalition dropped the ball on that one, and frankly, considering the international reaction the US/UK strike stirred up, if an assassination was tried, we'd be in deep doo-doo.

Actually, he only breathes at the discretion of his people. "Rule of Consent" (or "Consent to Rule?"). Basicly, the theory is that (this was in England, IIRC), if the poor and unarmed want to kick the king out, all the king's men can't stop 'em (although they could kill a lot of them). I believe it was used to pass some basic rights of the common people...

Er, anyway, if 10 years of sanctions haven't pushed the people to that point, (certainly some have been), we might as well give up. Or get 'em into another war with Iran. Might as well get some payback for our weapons they've got ...

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families."
--Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 19, 2001).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

We tried to kill Saddam during the war, but Krusty the Klown messed it up.

"Dubya set up us the bomb!"
-Saddam Hussein, 16-Feb-2001

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

quote:
You know, I think there is probably one solution that would fix this once and for all, that doesn't involve the complete destruction of a major city. We just say, "We declare Sadaam Housein to be out of power. Your new government will be based around the US Constitution. Democratic elections will be held one month from today. Anyone may run for office, except any member of the Housein family. Resistance is futile." And it would be. What's the guy going to do? He only breathes at our discretion, and he has no military to work with.

Sure, other than the fact that the US has no power of this kind, no right to impose your values on anyone else, and that - this may be difficult for you Americans - NOT EVERYONE WANTS A US CONSTITUTION.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Not completely without precedent, however -- look at the Japanese Constitution.

Did anyone else find Disney's "Three Musketeers" to be very ... American? Especially the King's speech at the end? Dude, the Musketeers are the king's bodyguards not do-gooders! Yeeesh.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

he only breathes at the discretion of his people. "Rule of Consent"

There can be no rule by consent without free elections.

Er, anyway, if 10 years of sanctions haven't pushed the people to that point, (certainly some have been), we might as well give up

They have been lied to, and simply don't hold Sadaam responsible for their plight. You don't seem to grasp the concept that people's reactions are determined by what they're told. If they're lied to, they act on false information. Stalin and Mao, for examples. The two greatest mass murderers in history, and yet their people love(d) them. Why? Because they were lied to.

the US has no power of this kind, no right to impose your values on anyone else

Please, tell me, how can one impose what is by definition the lack of imposition? One can not impose freedom. Freedom is a natural state. All other conditions are impositions.

look at the Japanese Constitution.

Exactly my point. Look at Japan.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

"Rule of Consent" isn't dependent on free elections. The peoples of England were in a monarchy -- they didn't elect the king. The point was, that the king was threatened to give them more rights, or they would overthrow them. Essentially it's "the many will kill the few, even if the few have lotsa' weapons and can kill us." But, the majority of the people don't think/believe/feel that Saddam is the problem -- they think that we (the US and the UK, mostly) are.

Actually, Omega, I do understand that, and the point I was trying to make is that starving the Iraqi people doesn't push them to the point to see beyond Saddam's lies, probably nothing will. Please scroll up and read some of my earlier posts about Saddam & Co. controlling the media.

Exactly my point. Look at Japan.

Sure, except we defeated and conquored Japan after a war. On the contrast, we defeated but did not conquor Iraq. If someone was going to take Saddam out, the time to do it was in 1991 during Desert Storm, when there was actually support for such an action. Today, such support doesn't exist, so we can't really do anything about it. The ball was dropped, and we're paying the consequences for it.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

starving the Iraqi people doesn't push them to the point to see beyond Saddam's lies, probably nothing will. Please scroll up and read some of my earlier posts about Saddam & Co. controlling the media.

Thus, we take Saddam out of the game, and set up free media. The truth will set you free.

As for your little theory about Saddam's possibility of being overthrown by his people, where would they get the weaponry? Where would they get the will? Saddam controls the media, after all. He does NOT rule by consent, because the people do not know the truth, and even if they did, would have no chance to get rid of him.

Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :

What truth is that? That he's an evil maniac who's dictator of the country, or that he's standing up to the tyranny of the West? I don't like Saddam and think that Iraq will be better without him.

However he has been supported in power by the West, he was kept in power by the West, even when he started killing the Kurds. Now the IRAQI PEOPLE are being punished for the mistakes of the West. Justice? Tyranny would fit the bill much better.

As has been mentioned many times earlier, if the governments wanted, they could easily get rid of him. He's an easy pawn though. Keeping him in power, the US or Britain can always go and bomb him when they want to divert attention away from problems at home.

Bush is still being lambasted for the troubles surrounding his election. Bomb Iraq and divert attention. Tony Blair has got major problems at home with Mandelson, Vaz and now Lord Irvine. I know, lets bomb Iraq and divert attention. This is just a cynical ploy which has got nothing to do with foreign policy but everything to do with domestic policy. If it was carried out by anyone else, it would be condemned by Britain and US as a criminal act. It's hypocracy of the highest degree.

------------------
The Worlds Ten Greatest 'Fucks' #2

That's not a real fucking gun! - John Lennon

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

What truth is that? That he's an evil maniac who's dictator of the country

Well, there you go.

or that he's standing up to the tyranny of the West?

No, this is what he tells people is the truth. It ain't tyrany if you beat the snot out of someone for starting a war of agression. That'd be like saying that Germany was subject to allied tyrany after WW2.

Now the IRAQI PEOPLE are being punished for the mistakes of the West. Justice?

Of course not. This is why we should kick him out of office, as suggested.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

How exactly do you propose kicking him out of office? There's an Executive Order prohibiting the US from assassinating another nation's leader. And we don't have the support to build up a military presense in the Gulf to invade again.

And in case you forget, we did ARM him! And then we armed the resistance groups during the Gulf War -- and abandoned them. The fault with Saddam being in power resides completely with George Bush and the coalition. There's nothing we can do about taking him out now -- the time to do that was in '91.

"Rule of Consent" basicly means that the vast numbers of ordinary citizens could overwhelm the military. If you'll notice, I did say a lot of them would be killed. Granted, "Rule of Consent" came about in an age when the military was armed with swords and shields. However, you'll notice that it was the ordinary soldiers in the Soviet army who turned the tide during the coup against Gorbachev, siding with the citizens. It's very possible the same could happen in Iraq if there was an uprising.

BUT, the people aren't likely to see Saddam as anything but a good guy as long as he can blame the sanctions for the horrible living conditions. After all, the way he tells it, he's just standing up to the tyranny of the West.

So, it's pretty pointless to talk about taking him out. While it can be done (in the simple manner that it probably wouldn't be too hard to do if we could figure out where he was and send in a guided missile or five), it still is impossible to do as such would create a huge international incident aimed squarely at the US, the UK, and probably Israel. Also, it would give those Islamic fundamentalists a whole NEW reason to want to blow us to pieces.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"There's an Executive Order prohibiting the US from assassinating another nation's leader."

We can fix that... *erase erase*
Or, of course, somebody smart could hire an unsanctioned, the-secretary-disavows-all-knowledge-of-your-existence individual/s to handle it.

The problem with releasing the sanctions is that it's NOT going to make Saddam look any worse in his people's eyes if they suddenly start getting fed, because he'll just tell them that he WON! (Since he told them he beat the coalition army after his butt-kicking back in '91, he'l probably tell them Iraq has conquered the Earth, or something.) And they'll support him more for standing tall all that time.

People, y'see, are dumb that way.

Oh, and since someone mentioned 'diversionary tactics' and 'wag the dog,' let's recall in our textbooks the attack on the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which turned out to be making only aspirin, and the odd timing to coincide with Monica's hitting the front page.
Didja know the previous administration quietly paid the owner of the factory all he needed to rebuild after the attack? (Except for the people who got fragged, of course.)

I mean, we can SHOW that the Iraqi radar was locking on planes. But nobody EVER showed that that plant was making chemical weapons. So which is more dog-wagging?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Aye-yi-yi ... for your information, First, the CIA said that the factory was producing the chemical weapons and, thus, it was attacked. The CIA fucked up. CIA needs more funding, because it looks like they don't even have up-to-date maps. Which is why we blew up the Chinese Embassy. End of story.

If Saddam is assassinated, the US/UK will get the blame (even if we weren't involved). Face it, folks, the only time it would've been possible to take him out was during the Gulf War. The Gulf War is now over, and he's going to be staying in power no matter what we do about it.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"That'd be like saying that Germany was subject to allied tyrany after WW2."

*cough*East Germany*cough*

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Anyone who says that "we should get rid of Saddam Husayn" is either ignorant, stupid or both.

Say if a lone assasin, a Rambo, if you will, manages to Pop a cap in the back o' Mr. Husayn's head, what good will that serve?

"Hooray! Saddam Husayn is dead! Tyranny is over!

What? The Military's still in charge of the country, and Saddam's Son, Uday (the same man who was apparently sadistic enough to have his Soccer team's feet whipped after they lost, mind you) is now the highest Military official, as declared by Husayn's posthumous orders? And Uday is followed by Hikmat Azzizi, Ahmed Salih (Think bin Laden. But worse), Arshad Zibari , Sadi Abbas & Myasta Zivvi?

Well, better get started on those 900 some assasination attempts then."

Even your US State Department realizes that for every Iraqi Saddam Husayn, three are lurking in the shadows.

The US/Iraq policy by the State Department is outlined here.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Truth.

We should help THEM get rid of Hussein and Co. and install a more democratic government, by whatever means possible. This is where Bush Sr. really dropped the ball. Although possibly he learned a bit about US-backed puppet governments from CIA days. (Pinochet, anyone?)

The problem with that is that whatever regime overthrows Saddam will probably, at least in the beginning, have to be almost as despotic as he was to retain control. Although possibly not, if they're smart, and do such things as giving the Kurds a bit more autonomy (and ceasing trying to wipe them out would probably be a good start.)

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I think 'Executive Orders' is the only Novel by any author to actually attempt tackling the removal of Husayn from power. And Clancy opts to cop out by having every one of the Military Oligarchy flee the country.

Any Governmental change in Iraq will ultimately be of the Iraqis own volition. Has a foreign-enforced, non colony Government ever worked? I can't recall any offhand. Either the people do something, or one of the next Dictators decides to change it.

No, I think that the US needs to realize, that despite the fact that conditions are indeed awful over there, there's nothing the Americans do to change it.

(Although, I'm wondering if a sanction lifing will actually help the people at least a little bit. Of course, Husayn will hoarde all the good stuff, and so on, he'd play it as a Propaganda victory, and to even further cement his popular opinion, he'd share, albiet very little of, the newfound resources. But the people would still get more.)

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"Has a foreign-enforced, non colony Government ever worked? I can't recall any offhand."

Post-WWII West Germany and Japan. But that required:

1. Bombing the respective countries to smithereens.
2. An ocupying force.
and 3. The occupiers rebuilding the country to pretty much where it was before, or farther.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Cool!!

Now we are advocating assassination as a means of foreign policy!! Not only will that increase our our ability to be arrogant and self-righteous all over the world, but damned if it won't take foreign policy back to the 50's.

Can anyone say CIA assassinations?

But this, oh this...thing, this quote, is the icing on the cake:

quote:
We just say, "We declare Sadaam Housein to be out of power. Your new government will be based around the US Constitution. Democratic elections will be held one month from today. Anyone may run for office, except any member of the Housein family. Resistance is futile.

Aside from the delicious fact that you turned the United States into the Borg to accomplish your goals of spreading US hegemony around the world, you want to, and get this, turn Iraq into a constututional republic by force using the United States Constitution as a model. That is grand!

We had better change the preamble of which to read:

quote:
We the people of the United States in order to secure the blessings of cheap oil for ourselves and our posterity, do declare all bad people holding large oil reserves to be bad and subject to our mighty wrath.

At which point we impose our "freedom loving" Constitution on them and have them shot in the head.

Leaving all the rest of the dictators in the world to their own devices because they have no oil deposits.

------------------
I should've known you were the only one stupid enough to kidnap you! Now get down here so I can spank you in front of this gawking rabble
~ C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Although, in this 2001 day-and-age:

1. Bombing anything is bad PR, and people get upset at explosions on CNN. Approval rating slips.
2. With all your cutbacks, do you even have enough personnel to maintain your reserves? Plus, people get upset at military involvement in anything, and the fact that you're not worrying about America as much as you're worrying about Not-America. Approval Rating slips.
3. Helping less fortunate Iraqis find proper home, food, and shelter is not as important as American interests, like making sure your Christian charity funds are funded up, and that Yellowston national park should have no pollution. Approval rating slips.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

How exactly do you propose kicking him out of office?

Exactly as I said. Simply say, "OK, Saddam is no longer in office. Elections will be held." Crush him if he resists. Who needs to kill him? Let him sit in his little bunker and give orders. Who cares? And there's also the idea of simply revoking the executive order that prevents us from shooting him with another executive order. OR, we could have him indicted and brought before a war crimes tribunal for his actions against the Kurds, and when he doesn't show, go in and get him. There are all manner of possibilities.

I've personally always liked Clancy's "Ryan Doctrine". It said that if you, as a chief of state, start a war of agression, not only will we destroy your army, you, personally, are now fair game. To demonstrate as he was making this announcement, he had a live satelite feed displayed of a smart bomb blowing up the Ayatolah's resdence.

"Rule of Consent" basicly means that the vast numbers of ordinary citizens could overwhelm the military.

And thus it doesn't apply to this situation. The people over there have no weapon better than a pitchfork. This is against chemical and biological weapons. I seriously doubt that that whacko would have any problem with wiping out half his country.

Also, it would give those Islamic fundamentalists a whole NEW reason to want to blow us to pieces.

You mean like those in Iran? The ones that want to kill the guy anyway?

Has a foreign-enforced, non colony Government ever worked?

West Germany. Japan, IIRC.

*reads next post*

Oh, well, Rob beat me to that, didn't he? Darn you!

Leaving all the rest of the dictators in the world to their own devices because they have no oil deposits.

They haven't started wars of agression against us or our allies. We beat the snot out of their military, and thus effectively own Iraq, and can do whatever we darned well please with it. Please, I really would love to see N. Korea try to invade S. Korea, just so we can have an excuse to oust THAT guy. Minus the loss of life required, of course.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

quote:
Simply say, "OK, Saddam is no longer in office. Elections will be held." Crush him if he resists. Who needs to kill him? Let him sit in his little bunker and give orders. Who cares? And there's also the idea of simply revoking the executive order that prevents us from shooting him with another executive order. OR, we could have him indicted and brought before a war crimes tribunal for his actions against the Kurds, and when he doesn't show, go in and get him. There are all manner of possibilities.

Never before have I read a quote which exemplifies ignorance, unwarranted nationalism and the experience of living in a make-believe fantasy world* such as this. I commend you Omega, for either wasting a chunk of my non-important life, or for showing me first hand what dementia can do to someone.

* aside from 99.999999999999999% of ANY type of fan-fiction out there. Sex with Starscream? For fuck sakes.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Any time you want to come out of "la-la-land", Omega ...

Essentially, you want us to invade Iraq, 'cuz that's the only way I could see us "declaring free elections."

Do you honestly think this stuff is possible? And people call me irrational.

Oh, yeah ... the Ryan Doctrine is ... FICTION! It's about as realistic as thinking that Dr. Henry Jones was a real honest to god archeologist.

It's even better that you like to talk about military actions but feel squeamish about the loss of life. People die, Omega, by the hundreds and thousands. War is bad for precisely that reason. And your plan of operation against Iraq would cost lives -- American, British, Israeli, etc.

And as much as Iran might dislike Iraq, I think they hate the US more.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

.

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

The sad fact is, as has been pointed out, the mistakes made in the Middle East over the course of the 20th century cannot be repaired easily. Hussein did not wave his hands and magically produce anti-American and anti-Western sentiments throughout Iraq. Those sentiments already existed, and have existed since...well, probably since some Pope got the bright idea to send the armies of Europe to capture the Holy Land. Hussein has taken those sentiments and molded them, focused them, and in general employed them towards his own ends. But removing him does not remove that antipathy towards the West.

It is foolish to assume that all people everywhere will choose to be friends of the United States if only they could be allowed to choose. We have seen Middle Eastern nations throw off undemocratic regimes before. Iran, for instance. As you may have noticed, the U.S. isn't very popular there.

The entire area, in other words, is a mess. And it's one that I fear we are powerless to clean up.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Right on :

Tom Clancy?

People are looking to Tom Clancy for polticial guidance? This speaks volume for the faith placed in the President if you go to an AUTHOR for political policy.

------------------
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abraham Lincoln

"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity." - Anonymous

"Our bombs are smarter than [George W. Bush]. At least they can find Kuwait." - A. Whitney Brown

[This message has been edited by Right (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

CATS: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
CAPTAIN: THIS SPEAKS VOLUME!
CATS: YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME.
CAPTAIN: MOVE SIG. RIGHT SIG EXCESSIVE.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Very true Sol, very true.

------------------
I should've known you were the only one stupid enough to kidnap you! Now get down here so I can spank you in front of this gawking rabble
~ C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I'm Canadian, and we don't have porn here. I sometimes read Tom Clancy, but as I'm Canadian, and because of my Canadian birth, I don't get the joke. (I'm Canadian). Would someone mind telling me (Canadian) what the joke is? (Because I don't get, and I'm Canadian.)

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I don't speak Canadian.

------------------
I should've known you were the only one stupid enough to kidnap you! Now get down here so I can spank you in front of this gawking rabble
~ C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I speak some Canadian. Hockey is great, eh? J'aime beer et poutine!

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I picked up a magic 8-ball the other day and it said 'Outlook not so good.' I said 'Sure, but Microsoft still ships it.'" - ancient proverb

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Shadow: it's BIERE, not beer you *insert sucky insult here*

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I knew that, actually, from Babelfish, but I wanted all the non-Deviltongue speakers to know what I was talking about.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I picked up a magic 8-ball the other day and it said 'Outlook not so good.' I said 'Sure, but Microsoft still ships it.'" - ancient proverb

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I speak Canadian.

Well, most of the language seems to consist of the phrase "We're NOT the United States!" repeated over and over hysterically until the speaker passes out from a frenzy-induced ministroke.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

And mispronouncing the word "about", with hilarious results.

Still, at least they can say "aluminium", without sounding like twats.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Simple effective "non-bad" concept for removal of any anti-American person of power: Contact gangmembers. Infrom them that they will have clemency if they agree to work for the "gubb'ment." When they agree, pack them up, ship them to [INSERT TARGET NATION DU JOUR HERE]. Point out image of [INSERT NAME OF NAUGHTY LEADER OF TARGET NATION DU JOUR HERE]. Tell them he wants to move in on their turf or some other such nonsense that enrages gangmembers. Hilarity & "democratic processes" ensue.

On a highly different tangent, remember when a nation simply invaded another nation without having to rationalize, quantify, & explain their so-called "good intentions" to the rest of the world? I miss the simple heady days of "Hey, we're the Romans! We're really cool & funky & bitchin' & wouldn't you like to join up with us? Because if you say no, we'll overrun your ass anyway, but we'll be a whole less nicer about it."

Now it's "Oh, well...we bombed/invaded/insurrected because of a mandate from [INSERT NAME OF OPPRESSED GROUP DU JOUR HERE]. Yes, I know they've never heard of us & they just want to farm. But someone needs to blow things up for them because despite all work to the contrary, cows & sheep are still non-explosive."

------------------
"Gee, the public whipping didn't quite convey their fascist culture, I need something more straightforward. Ah, leather hats!" --Nimrod, on National Socialism fashion design.