Brian's Brain

Well, i'm not going to flame you over this, but personaly i think we're dealing with a whole lot more than a couple of harmless cans of gas. You are somewhat correct though, he hasn't used them on US yet, but there is plenty of proof that he has used them on his own citizens, or heck, look back at iran, he used em there too. If thats not enough, he hates the USA, threatens us, and IS an international terrorist, isn't that enough reason to pave iraq? We started this mess a decade ago, and it should've been finished then and there, the powers that be should never agreed to the disarmament BS, Stormin' Norman should have finished it then.BUT, we didn't, and now there is a mess that needs cleaned up, complements of the same jack off that started the mess in kuaite(not sure on spelling) thats me thoughts

Thanks for your comments on my rant. Although (and don't take this personally) the fact that you can't spell kuwait, combined with the fact that your comments are basically a word-for-word recap of everything Bush has been saying tells me you are getting your facts from the American media. News.google.com has proved a fantastic source for getting the opinions and facts from world sources rather than those that simply echo the American politicians. I'm not a conspiracy a theorist -- but it's definitely true that the non-American/British press shares a completely different set of facts than we, as americans, seem to have adopted.

As far as Iraq's proven track record for using the "big guns" I'd like to point out that during the Iran/Iraq wars, it was the Americans supplying him with these weapons and encouraging their use. Furthermore, one thing that bothers me tremendously is that nobody ever seems to ask the question of "Why did Iraq take military action against Kuwait? What was their motivation? The general consensus seems to be that Saddam is an evil war-monger who loves to pick on small countries. Saddam may be evil, but he's not an idiot. Are you aware that nearly every press outside of the Western World has been reporting for years that Kuwait steals oil from Iraq? (http://www.rense.com/general3/slant.htm) They finally got sick of it in 1990, after repeated warnings, and took military action -- Just like the US would in similar circumstances. The word "on the street" is that Kuwait continues to steal their oil but Iraq no longer has the military presence to do anything about it.

Just to re-cap... Kuwait slant-drills into Iraq to steal oil. Iraq issues repeated warnings to cease or military action will be taken. Military action is taken. The world comes to the rescue of Kuwait because some big evil country is picking on them. Sanctions are placed on Iraq (for what? protecting their own national interests?) and we place military troops around their borders. Makes sense to me -- Except the US would go ballistic if we were in Iraq's situation. Then again, Iraq's not exactly happy about the way they're getting treated.

Of course, they're evil. They deserve this.

Face it, we're hypocrites. I don't think the world is the victim here. If we left them alone, I firmly believe they would leave us alone as well. That includes withdrawing our $11b/yr we send to Israel. But that's a completely different topic.

Interesting point of view?

Unfortunately you are most incorrect. Saddam is a terrorist and has already used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. This guy can not be trusted with such weapons.
If he has used them on his own people ? what will keep him from using them on anyone else he damn well wants?

Nothing.

He would. Brian, your a smart fellow. I am surprised your are so naïve on this subject.

Let?s put this on a personal perspective.

Say you live next door to some Hells Angles who are raising a pack of pit bulls. Now they are in a fence? a tall one and you can?t see in. But you can hear them and you can smell them.

Then one day the guy next door let?s the dogs loose on the post man. Kills the post man.

Not only does he let his dogs kill the postman? but he also makes threats to let the dogs loose on you, your wife, and your kids.

You call the police, but he has moved the dogs? they don?t see dogs. They see the dogs have been there? but when asked ?Oh, We got rid of them.? Where did you get rid of them at? How did you get rid of them? Oh, and look there ? is that a puppy? ?Well, we just got rid of them and yeah, but it?s just a wee little puppy.? So the police leave. There are more threats and at night you can hear all the dogs again.

How would you feel living next to that? This guy is going to unleash his dogs on you or someone else. It's just a matter of time. Now, just put this on a much bigger scale? a global scale. Because that is what this is about.

Once again, I appreciate your comments.. Just a few things to add (it's nice when it's your own blog and you get to post rebuttals!)

Your point is well taken. However, a few corrections. 1> Saddam has never used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, or anyone else for that matter. He's never had them (unless he's got them now, which is beside the point I was trying to make). And if he's never had them, he's never used them -- against his own people or anyone else.

Now, if you're referring to the rumors that he's tortured his own people -- they may be true, they may not. There's absolutely no direct evidence of this (other than comments from the white-house -- and they refuse to provide proof of any accusations they make against Iraq). However, let's assume for the moment that it IS true. Let's assume that Saddam is mean to his people -- he tortures them, he even kills them when they don't do what he wants them to. Does this mean the U.S. should be taking on any country that A> has the potential for weapons of mass destruction and B> tortures and/or kills their own people? If so, I hope we're prepared to wage war on China. The only problem with that is that the Chinese wouldn't hesitate to nuke L.A (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021211-27417625.htm ) if we threatened them.

I guess we only pick on countries we can bully around.

WOMD - Can also mean Chemical and Biological weapons... not just Nukes. And it is a fact that he DID use chemical weapons on an entire village in Iraq. Rumors of Torture? It's been subject of many reports by Amnesty International.
Come on Brian... Open your eyes.
Oh, and I totally agree about China and North Korea.
http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/China_special_report.htm

I don't know what you're talking about! We passed with a "B"! You crazy Americans can't figure out what to shoot at. Go find Osama... then bomb Korea. After the aftermath and the smoke settles, I'll buy you a steak dinner.

It's not that we don't want any other country to have nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. For instance we haven't made any attempts to disarm Pakistan or India, though there are significant chances that they will nuke each other someday. We need to make sure countries like Iraq don't have weapons of mass destruction because these weapons are in the hands of one man, not like the pseudo democracies of Pakistan, India, France, etc. If Iraq has these weapons then they are soley in the hands of Pres. Hussein and therefore there are no checks or balances on his use of them.

i like cheese. i have a vagina.

there is no justice in people judging someone for their political beliefs. and as this whole 'luke-warm-war' ,war of slander and empty threats, that is what it is all about. political beliefs. your point is well made, and it is funny how many times you must repeat yourself. but i'm glad you said it, more people need to. it seems as though the surrent government administration is trying to scare middle america even more than they already are, defcon 5 or condition fuscia, or whatever. buy your duct tape so you can sit in a room, but dont worry about drinking water, latrines and what not, it wont last more than that. i can remember people telling kids during the cold war that 'crouching under their desks' would save them from nuclear attacks. we haven't progressed much.

oh and, on a side note, congrats on your marriage, and i was happy to see another one of those mormon guys speaking his mind.

excuse my grammar and spelling. it sucks. plus i don't really care it is late.

I respect your opnion, but I disagree (as you know by now).

>What gives us the right, as Americans, to tell >another sovereign nation they can't
>have something (in this case, a nuclear weapon) >based on the sole argument that
>"they might use it!".

Thr right for us to protect our national interests -- in this case, from a potentially dangerous enemy.

>Please understand that I hate nukes as much as >the next guy, but only one country
>in the entire history of the world has ever used >a nuclear weapon. Those of you
>who went to elementary school should know the >answer to this... That's right, it's
>the United States. Remember when we dropped two >of them on Japan?

By "used" I assume you meant in battle. And yes, I do remember reading about the action, but I also remember which country slaughtered 6 million Jews (and did so without WOMD, I might add). The whole "we're the only ones who've used..." argument is the most fallacious one I've ever heard on the matter. The nukes we used marked the beginning of the end of the war, saved lives (in the long run), and ousted the bad guys who were attempting to literally dominate the world.

>Hey, Iraq, we know we have hundreds of these >warheads.. Russia has some, Pakistan's
>got them, India has them, and China is loaded >with them -- but we've all talked about
>it, and you guys can't be in the club. Oh, and >don't give us that face when we tell
>you that we want full access to every facility >and document in your country. That
>only proves you're guilty of..... having weapons >like ours.

The difference between the U.S./Pakistan/India and China/Iraq/N. Korea is the aforementioned trio don't have a history of international agressive violence since obtaining the weapons. Furthermore, Hussein has a demonstrated history of his willingness to use said weapons (he used them multiple times during the 80's -- on the Iranians, on his own people, etc). Furthermore, he is in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War by having them. He agreed to it, he must stick to it.

>If another country went to the UN and said "We >need to form an inspections team to
>go into the United States because we have >substantial evidence that they're
>planning on building a device capable of killing >10x as many people as their
>current nuclear arsenal is capable" they would >get laughed out of the room.

...And rightfully so. The U.S. does not have a history of attempting to rule over any other nation. The U.S. does not act militarily unless it or one of its allies are provoked, or if it is defending the oppressed. The U.S. has no aspirations of world domination, people domination, or sexual domination. (okay... i just *had* to throw that last one in there ;-) ) And lastly, the U.S. didn't sign a cease-fire agreement and then break the promises it made in that agreement. Why would he break the promises he made if he didn't intend on using the weapons??

>We, as a sovereign nation, would never allow >anyone to enter our borders for the
>sole purpose of investigating our top secret >defense programs, REGARDLESS of how much
>merit there was to their claim. In fact, the >very attempt to do so would likely be
>considered an act of war -- but gosh darnit, >don't give us any crap if we want to do
>it to you! What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine!

This is absolutely true, however it's a fallacoius point (see my notes above).

>Scenario: Let's say you live in a quiet >neighborhood and you have lots of nice things
>(you've got the big screen TV, the leather >couches, and a porsche in the driveway.
>You've worked hard for these things.) but you >found out your neighbor MIGHT have a can
>of gasoline in his basement and he MIGHT want to >use that gasoline to come over to your
>house when you're not looking and light your >porsche on fire. Your first reaction, of
>course, should be to call the police and demand >they break into his home, look for
>anything your neighbor might own that could >damage your stuff (forks, knives, hammers,
>and especially the gasoline you've heard so many
>rumors about) and not only demand they
>take it away, but put your neighbor in jail for >owning such things. Granted, you have the
>same things -- but you're civilized.

Hopefully the neighbor would be in prison for doing just that to the neighbor down the street who, in your scenario, would be analagous to Kuwait. However, in this case we'll assume he got a slap on the wrist, just for the sake of arguement. In this case, you could say the gas can is analagous to a tank, a SAM site, or an AK-47 (all of which Saddam still has). However, since arson is a felony and the "bad neighbor" burned the house down the street down, he would no longer be able to purchase or carry guns as per U.S. code. In this case, the gun would be analagous to a WOMD, since the gun could hurt more than just your property as the gas can would. As I mentioned above, part of the cease-fire agreement was that Hussein had to disarm.

>Obviously, this would go against all of the >democratic ideals and constitutional
>rights we hold dear. What makes it right for you >to justify your actions based
>solely on rumors -- even worse, how can your >actions be justified on "historical
>characteristics" about your neighbor?

If the police didn't do anything about it (analagous to the U.N.), and the "bad neighbor" continued his threatening behavior, I would gather a coilition of willing neighbors and execute vigilante justice on the villain. This sort of behavior still occurs in the U.S. and often, if the police are powerless or simply refuse to act, juries will find in favor of the vigilanties--and rightfully so.

>Oh, you've heard he's into things like
>that. You've heard he's evil. You've heard he >cheated on the MCAT.

Actually, I have evidence -- the "good neighbor" had to rebuild his home. Kuwait had to deal with the aftermath of invasion.

>Then there was the incident several years ago >when you and your neighbor got into a fight
>over something and you punched him in the face. >You're sure he's out to get you now because you >REALLY made him mad.

Actually, not only did I punch him in the face, but I gave him a semi-thourough ass-whooping (I say semi-thourough, because the good members of the neighborhood should have banded together and finished throwing him out of the neighborhood). Unfortunately, the "good members" of the neighborhood didn't finish the job in the first place.

>Should those things make it right for you
>to break into his home and strip him of his >right to own anything that could be
>used to harm you? Not only would that be >cowardly, but hopefully you enjoy your
>OWN freedoms more than that. Hopefully you >recognize that your rights are
>equally as important as his and that unless he >actually attacks you, he's done nothing wrong.

Actually, if the police refuse to act, YES -- it DOES make it right, so that I can protect my family. I refuse to allow my neighbor to put himself in a position to harm my family. And he may have done nothing to ME personally (yet), he *has* done something to other neighbors as well as members of his own family. When do you suggest he be stopped? Once he has already built himself a nice arsenal inside his home, where he can use his sniper rifles to pick off passers-by without fear of retribution?

The similarities between Hussein and Hitler are frightening. The world took a similar "Let's wait for him to actually do something to *us*" stance in the 30's. You know the rest of the story.

>Are we to begin prosecuting people for what we >think they MIGHT do if they maybe
>had the tools to do it?

Continuing with the analgy -- Hussein has repeatedly broken his parole (cease-fire agreement), which *HE* agreed to!

>"Throw Jim in the slammer.. if he had a stick, >he'd probably start beating people with it. Oh.. >break into his home.. make sure he
>doesn't have any sticks. Yes, yes.. I know, we >don't know for sure he's got any
>sticks -- and heaven knows he's never used one >on anybody (we did though,
>remember that? Boy, I'm sure glad we still have >our stick!) but just the same,
>he just LOOKS like the kind of guy who might >have one, or worse, use one! Don't
>you hate those kind of people? Oh, and if he >tries to stop you from breaking
>into his house, kill him."

Using sticks in the arguement is fallacious, for what I think are obvious reasons. Guns, however, would be a more accurate analogy. And yes, the U.S. govt. will prohibit you from acquiring more (or any, such as the case may be) guns if you've had a history of violence. This is a just procedure under certain circumstances (this would be one of those circumstances). I think you know it's very hard for me to admit this, considering my staunch support for the 2nd ammendment. ;)

>Grow up, America. Iraq has done nothing wrong.

Besides trying to take over more than one neighboring country, he has repeatedly broken the cease-fire agreements.

>Even if the UN inspectors FIND
>NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Iraq has done nothing wrong.

Except break international law.

>we have no case against them until
>they USE THEM. People will die if they do and it >will be very sad. It might even
>be Americans that die if they do. That's just the way it is.

Would you feel that way if your wife or children are numbered among the tragedies? Would you stare at their burned carcasses thinking to yourself, "Well, that sucks." And then walk off as if it's just part of life?

>We look like
>hypocritical fools when we don't stand by the >very ideals that define our own
>rights. Are we the only people in the world >entitled to these basic protections
>of our freedoms?

Considering we've been allowing him to break the law (International Law, to say the least) for 12 years without retribution, I consider it hypocritical to refrain from action. Would you allow your bad neighbor who has a history of violence to build up an arsenal that could eliminate your family, your neighbors, and anyone else he sees fit? Wouldn't you be angry with officials if they stood idly by and commented that "well, until he actually KILLS your daughter, your neighbor's daughter, or anyone else, we can't act on his threats?" (keep in mind that threats are not constitutionally-protected free speech). The U.N. has imposed sanctions on Iraq, and Iraq has not complied with them for TWELVE YEARS. The law is meaningless unless it is enforced. Keep in mind that the entire U.N. has agreed on these sanctions, not just the U.S.

>Many are using the argument that Saddam is an >evil dictator who is guilty of
>multiple human rights violations and, that for >the security of the world, a man
>like that should never be allowed to have >weapons of mass destruction. To that I
>would first like to point out that MOST of the >allegations that Saddam has
>killed and tortured his own people are >unsubstantiated (and probably false).
>However, there are proven cases where this has >happened. Let's keep in mind,
>however, that if we, as a world, are going to >make a policy of keeping weapons
>of mass destruction out of the hands of >countries guilty of human rights
>violations and killing their own people, we had >better be prepared to wage war
>on China -- the country with the largest >military in the world. So much for
>using Saddam's history of human rights >violations as an excuse for military
>intervention.

China hasn't, in recent years, attacked another nation. Iraq has (12 years is recent in world history). This is not to say that China, N. Korea, and Iran do not have to be dealt with. Furthermore, Iraq has terrorist traning camps within its borders, it's an easier target, and there are allegations that they have Al Quaida ties (I will concede, however, that these are only allegations as far as I know). Either way, their ties to terrorism are valid.

>Another interesting development in this scenario >is that ever since Bush's
>popularity rating on the Iraq invasion has >plummeted, suddenly he's presenting
>new evidence that Iraq is involved with Al-Queda.

Actually since day one, there have been allegations that Al Quaida met with Iraqi operatives before and regarding 9/11. This is nothing new.

>Almost as if he's grasping at straws -- anything >to get people to listen to him. If they are >linked, why
>wasn't this brought to our attention before? >Your timing is impeccable, Mr.
>Bush. Take your propaganda elsewhere.

Whether or not they are involved with Al Quaida is mute. They have long-since been listed as a terrorist-supporting state (they were removed from the list during Carter's administration, but later added back to the list).

>Grow up, America. It's time to mind our own >business and start treating other
>people (read: countries) the way we (read: us) >expect to be treated.

For the most part, we already do. We're the most philanthropic nation on the planet.

>There are dangerous people in this world -- it's >not our job to kill them so much as learn
>to treat them with the respect they deserve so >that they don't harm us.

Would you feel the same way if Charles Manson lived next door to you? What if he did, he threatened you, and the police refused to help? Furthermore, they'd harm us anyway. That's how evil works.

>Why is
>it that 99% of Americans have NO IDEA why most >of the Middle Eastern countries
>hate America so bad?

Because America is filled with people who can name the entire cast of "Friends," but who cannot name their vice president. 'nuff said there.

>It's time for us to come out from under our >rocks and realize that the way we treat people >in this world has consequences.

Moreso, it's time for Saddam to do the same thing.

And that's not even mentioning France, Germany, etc.

Where have you been for the past 25 years under a rock?
Kuwait never touched Iraqi oil, why would they, they have more oil than to know what to do with, for your information kuwait was giving iraq money not stealing from it

saddam invaded kuwait out of greed not to stop kuwait from stealing oil ! he had plans to go all the way to saudia arabia I guess they were stealing from him too !
I have an Idea for you, instead of sitting there talking about things you have no clue about why dont you go to kuwait and Iraq after the war is over and find out what really happened.

or you can go now and maybe meet saddam and find out how what a nice man he is !

Where have you been for the past 25 years under a rock?

Thank you for your unfinformed and completely uneducated opinion. Learn the facts, then post. That is the order of things.

t

whoooooooooooo