If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Not quite. True Muslims respect Christianity because the Christian Church gave Mohammed sanctuary from his persecutors when he started the religion. The Christian Old Testament parallels the Koran, to the point where the same people are in both. Some chapters are word for word the same. In Saudi Arabia, the Koran is referred to as the "Last Testament".
US Government. My professor was actually one of the top men at the CIA for many years, with many connections in the government. One of the guest lecturers we had was the previous head of the NSA. He had all sorts of interesting stories to tell about the truth behind the history, using U-2's during the 73 Arab war, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.
What he had to say was that there were huge rifts between the military leaders and civilian leaders during the final portion of the war. The no-fly zone, for example, was not supposed to allow helicopters as well as planes, but the military negotiators forgot to include this. Hence, thousands of Kurds that the US incited to revolt against Iraq were killed by helicopter gunships. The civilian leaders, mainly the intelligence community, convinced the political leaders that the risk of instability was not worth the possible gains by removing Saddam. Saddam's Ba'ath Party was mostly composed of a religious minority (I can't remember if it was Sh'ite or Sunni) that was very unpopular with the rest of the country, thus there was the risk of internal power struggles as well. The legitimacy of whatever regime took his place was also a factor. They decided that the status quo, with a drastically weaker Iraqi military, would be better than the uncertainty. I can't remember all the reasons but there were a lot.
I guess you can say that was short-sighted. The military wanted to finish the job. Who knows, maybe the local commanders took license to continue to pass out the books, I don't know in what timeframe you were doing this.
Thanatos,
Try reading sources other than USA Today to get your info. This is common knowledge to anyone who read between the lines in Washington Post at the time, or scholarly journals like International Security and the like.
Revisionist history my ass, I support removing Hussein at the time of the Gulf War. I just see that it wasn't an open and shut case likel you'd like to believe. It suprises me to see that someone like you, who saw firsthand how political concerns could affect wartime decisions, could be so naive. Soldiers at the front, last time I checked, aren't sitting at the same table as the people who tell them what to do.
Emotionalism. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Try reality.
OK, I admit it. I did read the sports section of USA today a couple of times to get the sports scores... The rest of it? Wiped my ass with it.
Abu boy: Your objections have been noted. We will not short-change you by depleting the uranium before we send it to you in the future. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> You can have the full dose.
Yes, there were great rifts between the military leaders. General Powell undermined General Schwarzkopf by convincing the President and Congress to halt the war. General Schwarzkopf wanted to push the Iraqi army clear back to Bagdad. He wanted the Iraqi Army disabled so it would no longer be a threat to the region. General Powell was more politcal than General Schwarzkopf. He didn't think Saddam would be a problem and was more concerned about what the world would think about the US destroying the Iraqi military.
I was in the region from October of '90 through March of '91. I was passing those booklets out from Feb of '91 until I left in March. Someone else took over because I had to leave due to injuries.
I woulld have thought that a person of your age & experience should feel ashamed to utter childish obscenities.
Justification of US policies in the middle east is an insult to every human being...
Combined effect of US usage of DU and 11 years of sanctions
War planes targeting Iraqi civilians
What are you talking about Thanatos? Abu is from Bahrain, not Iraq. Why would we nuke him????
Nice one, thanatos and diesel. You've just confirmed yourselves finally and irrevocably as psychopaths who noone with an ounce of sense could possibly take seriously. I think, thanatos, that your comment which several people have quoted, is the sickest, most disturbing thing i've read on this board.
Also, Diesel, you kind of betray your weird bloodlust by calling this the most 'exciting' period of history thanks to the proliferation of weapons... if violence gets you all excited you're pretty tragic.
Hey, sorry if I've offended you... but
Why, thank yew!
A man's gotta do whut he does bestest, but it's always nice ta be appreciated fer his efforts! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
My compliments... you HAVE been paying attention. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
For a start, this quote which started the thread from Madeline Albright was in 1996. The world has changed in those 6 years. The Middle East focus is on the shatterbelt of Israel (Cohen, 1973). This has long been a source of tension, even identified as the rim land by Mackinder in 1919 and earlier.
It is political dynamite; there is vast resource differentiation, and religious difference and history compound that fact.
Relating to Iraq specifically, I think we seem to have forgotten that the innocent children are part of a State which has become increasingly belligerent, whilst appearing more friendly. Let's not forget the Gulf War. Let's not forget the April Fools' jokes of bread ration increases?
And let's not kid ourselves that the people of Iraq can do nothing. We are talking about one man, one family, maybe? The Americans threw off what was at that time the most powerful army in the world. For centuries, people have risen against their oppressors if they truly did not support them.
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I don't think so.
If Iraq wants to be welcomed in to the global community, then it should comply with the UN Inspectorate requests, and turn over details of and chemical or biological weaponry. The USA and other UN countries do not possess these weapons, but they are weapons of mass destruction. Hence, the US, in particular, regards their use as equivalent to that of a nuclear weapon.
If Iraq has nothing to hide - turn over details? By increasingly resisting, then we have the dangerous combination of a man who has an ego problem, with a country in despair, and who knows what in his arsenal, who is growing disassociated and dissatisfied with the global community. Arab leaders will open arms for oil, but have they stated that they will not tolerate the use of weapons.
If you judge Thanatos and Diesel for being a little belligerent, and saying that nuclear weapons should be used, then remember the mass destruction weapons which Iraq might have.
And, having considered the options, I believe that evidence of such weaponry a just causus belli, and I would have no hesitation in ordering a strike, be it precision, spec-ops or nuclear in order to remove those weapons.
The threat to the world posed by Iraq is not one to be underestimated, and should be treated with due process.
You want to call me sociopathic? Fine. But I have considered and researched this opinion. And I stand by it, come what may.
Be serious, what are the chances of overthrowing Saddam from the inside, the man has a massive army and the will to use them agaionst his people, he also has a massive web of informers and spys within the general populace and complete control over the media. How would you go about overthrowing him?
What right have we to persecute the people of Iraq for having a leader that we don't like and who is so well entrenched largely because of our support for him and failures during the Gulf War?
Interesting viewpoint.
Are you suggesting that every soldier and officer in the army supports him? In every single civil war in history there have been elements of the army which are loyal and those which want change. The same is undoubtedly the same in Iraq. The (already established) resistance groups need to make contact with the army officers that dont like seeing the Iraqi people ground into the floor.
You ask what chance the Iraqi people have against Saddam....What chance do the Palestinians have against Israel? Zero and yet they still fight.
This isn't "strictly" true; it was a Russian Orthodox Monastery on Sinai - which still stands, despite all the conflict in the area. It is a mark of the respect which the Muslims afford those who protected Mohammed.
Hence, Muslims and Russian Orthodox get on very well, Christians, not necessarily so!!
According to the above bbs anything that is not islamic is satanic...lots of viewpoints about the subject too.
Monks on a mountain aren't much of a 'threat' to anyone...as for the Russian Orthodox Church and moslems...they are both dutifuly trying to kill each other off in what is left of the old soviet union!
Maybe next year when we go to Moscow, St. Petersburg & Kiev on vacation I can get a first hand impression to share with you. Really looking foreward to the trip1
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The Protestants and Caltholics of Northern Ireland are Christian too?
The umbrella of Christianity implies a false unity - that the groups are united by. In many cases, especially here, but in Prot./RC also, the differences are far more than the centripetal force of Christianity which hold them together.
But we're straying from the point...
Strange... you seem to understand that Iraq is not going to depose Hussein, but then you condemn the self-preservation based necessity to depose him from the outside.
Curious.
And you wonder why you are called a sheep? <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Let us try this:
A man is barricaded within his home. He is known to have powerful poisons, and has tested them upon his own children, killing them. He is known to have the capability to destroy the neighborhood, if not the whole city. You are standing outside, while he is holding the vials containing the poisons, and the thought is that if he escapes, the water supply system will be his target.
What do you do?
You would simply hide from reality, allow him to get his act together, prefering to believe that he cannot really be that evil...
Right.
Left to stupidity as yours, the world would end.
What a powerful epitaph that would be. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Perhaps, when you grow up, you night aspire to the clarity of thought, the power of discernment exhibited by DJP...
Me? Call the fire department, because the son of a bitch is toast... I will burn the house down before I will let the animal destroy my world.
{btw} DJP... check your private messages...
[ 24-05-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
The problem with your (unnecessary) metaphor is that
a)there is no chance of him "escaping"
b) what DJP is suggesting is to wipe out the whole neighbourhood anyway.....
you always quick to critiscise others for not readin your posts properly but I explicitly said that he IS a villain on this very thread
I assume than that you have adjudged the people of Iraq to be as guilty as their appointed leader and should thus take the punishment for him.......
I recommended a precision strike, against the production complexes and the facilities. Nothing to do with the country, nothing to do with what you suggest.
I'm not talking using multiple targetting of thermonuclear MIRVs? I'm referring to a precise application of tactical nuclear weapons.
Read carefully.
If that is the case why not use normal missiles?
(1) This is based on the assumption that we have sufficiently incontravertible evidence to identify the targets.
(2) Why would you locate a bio-warfare factory amongst a civilian population? Are you suggesting that Hussein is that evil?
(3) My military knowledge is lacking. Someone can correct my knowledge of tactical nuclear weaponry, I'm sure. I think it might be B-83s?
(4) When you wish to completely eradicate a viral threat, one of the ways is by gamma radiation, correct? You irradiate an area, and kill the virus. This is the principle of targeted radiotherapy, right? Therefore, nuclear wepons will aid in the destruction of the physical infrastructure, as would a munition missile, but they will also be able to irradiate the local area of the virus. I don't know enough about neutron bombs to postulate here, but they could be a option, I don't know.
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
You really worry me sometimes mate.
There is a reason why pretty much every major military base/facility in the US and the UK are in the middle of nowhere...Thats because WE DONT USE OUR CITIZENS AS HUMAN SHIELDS.
I know Saddam does the human shield thing and that is wrong but surely their arte dangerous facilites near population centres in Britain, not deliberately, there just are....... (off-topic again)
DJP would you still use the nuke if their would be civillian casualties?