|Posted on Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 10:37 am: |
The mistake people make about Saddam Hussain is that they seem to assume he is an Islamic extremist. He is not. Iran is not an Islamic state, it is a secular, pluralist state where the leader and most of the population happen to be Muslim. Islamic religious leaders have no influence in the government of Iraq. It is no more an Islamic extremist state than Britain is a extremist puritanical Protestant state. It is not like Iran or a Saudi Arabia, Iraq has an almost Western atmosphere (before sanctions) with nightclubs, bars, TV, hamburgers and Churches of all denomination. So Saddam is not motivated by the urge to fight a Holy war against Western infidels. The reason he hates us is because we took sides with a country (that used to be a province of Iraq) when he invaded them and we have been fighting him ever since. He is not from the same bag as Bin Laden, Islamic Jihad or Ayatolah Khomeni.
This man was once our friend, we armed him and backed him in war. It seems that when he was our friend he was a good, forward-thinking, modern, westernising, secular all round decent bloke. Now when we fall out with him he becomes an insane, Islamic extremist, baby killing, incarnation of Satan. He is only a threat because he is our enemy.
Perhaps it's time to start mending a few fences throughout the world as friends pose a lot less threat than enemies.
|Posted on Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 10:22 am: |
The most dangerous threat that the world is facing is the Pakistan-India conflict. The result of this would make scores of simultaneous 9/11 look like a Sunday afternoon picnic. The threat to world peace is not Islamic terrorists, Bin Laden or Sadam Hussain it is a war between India and Pakistan.
To put it in perspective a SMALL scale very limited nuclear engagement between these 2 powerful nations would leave 12 million people dead instantly (compare that to the 9/11 attack). Every single living person, plant and animal in the Kashmir would be dead. Then if the war was to escalate into a medium sized conflict death toll would be many times higher, and then a full scale conflict, well just imagine the carnage.
Are we really naive enough to think that somehow we could stay out of such a conflict even if we wanted to? Look at the nations that border onto Pakistan and India. We have Iran, China and (give or take a 50 mile wide strip of Afghanistan) former members of the USSR which some would argue are now hot-beds of Islamic extremism.
I am still amazed at the attitude that seems to come across from much of the public (and politicians) that India and Pakistan are just a couple of backward, blundering, hick nations run by dim-wits, populated by morons and whose armies are nothing to worry about.
It's about time we woke up. These are 2 major world powers about to go to war and we still seem to think that the main threat to our security is represented by suicide bombers hijacking aeroplanes or by a weak nation like Iran who probably doesn't have any nuclear weapons but we hate him so he must be the real threat.
Our nations are run by a bunch of dim-witted, self-serving morons with over-inflated egos and they're quite happy to see many innocent people die just for the sake of their own egos. Anyway our politicians have got safe nuclear bunkers so they'll be sure not to die, as long as they're safe sod the public. We the public are just a disposable tool in the progress of their own careers and ego. With morons like Bush (and his pip-squeaky little sidekick Tony Blair) at the steering wheel we're as good as doomed.
|Posted on Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 6:51 am: |
You are right about the suicide bombings... That bothers me more on realistic terms witrh whats going on. Maybe we shouldnt be worrying about Iraq vs America in a nuke war but perhaps India & Pakistain blowing one another up over Kashmier. Seems more likely I suppose.
|Posted on Friday, June 7, 2002 - 11:53 pm: |
Nuclear weapons are, simply speaking, hard to make. I'm sure he WANTS them, but he doesn't have the infrastructure to produce them, and we've gone to an awful lot of trouble in the past decade to make sure he doesn't. Yes, we want to inspect his facilities, because we want to keep things the way they are. And he hasn't let the inspector in because, well, they were spying for the US. That's why we wanted them there in the first place.
Regardless, he's not an idiot. Contrary to propeganda, he is not insane, either. He is devious, downright evil even, and is more than willing to, for instance, allow his own people to die if it makes the US look bad and bolsters his support. He is even willing to gas his own people if it is to his advantage. BUT, you will note, he did NOT use chemical weapons against the US in 1991, and he could have. He did not, because he's not suicidal. He knows that we have the power to turn his country into a big glass bowl if we want to.
He wants to provoke us enough to make him look like a big man for standing up to the power of the West. He has way too much too lose to risk pissing us off too badly.
Keep in mind, we left him in power in 1991 for a reason: it was to our advantage to do so. We want a cowed and weakened Hussein to maintain the status quo in the region. A popular uprising in Iraq could easily spill over and destablize the oil suplies even further. Bush Pere (a devious man himself) understood this. Unless Chaney has a REALLY GOOD plan for how to fill the power vacuum in Iraq after attacking them, we'd better keep it in our pants. Especially since our record with replacing governments has been kinda shoddy...
I have pretty much no fear of a nuclear threat at this point. Things like suicide bombers are MUCH more cost-effective for terrorists (the 9-11 attacks probably had the best cost-to-death ratio of any military operation in modern history), and no _state_ would dare strike us in such a way.
|Posted on Friday, June 7, 2002 - 6:16 pm: |
He does have chemical weapons. There are a lot of dead Kurds who could tell you that if they weren't so dead.
Would you mind if I kicked your ass, then demanded to come into your house every week to make sure you weren't up to anything?
|Posted on Friday, June 7, 2002 - 5:54 pm: |
Oh come on, You dont think with all that oil money he is holding he isnt trying to get his grubby little dictator hands on a Nuclear weapon of some sort. If its so unlikely why hasnt he let UN weapons inspectors in Iraq for several years ? Whats he hiding ? Its a safe bet he has nuclear weapons even if its a fucking atomic bomb from the forties. He also probably has chemical weapons as well.
|Posted on Friday, June 7, 2002 - 2:12 pm: |
We are pretty sure he has nuclear capabilites so whats to stop him from sliding one of those nuclear bomb to Bin Laden or some other fanatic who hates America.
Um, we are NOT pretty sure the Iraqis have nuclear capability. In fact, it's pretty unlikely. Regardelss, if you had much understanding of the religious and political issues invovled, you'd understand that Saddam Hussein would have nothing to do with al-Qua'eda, and that bin Laden ESPECIALLY would never associate with what he considers an apostate government in Iraq.
|Posted on Friday, June 7, 2002 - 2:08 pm: |
The U.S. has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than U.S. citizens were killed in 9/11. (As per CNN, not Al Qaeda)
The only report I have seen which attempts to substantiate such a claim does so by piecing togeher scraps of often contradictory reports, primarily from Pakistani and Russian newspapers. I am not saying that there haven't been far too many civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but I do not think the number is nearly that high.