The Big Joke

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Does anyone really believe that the parliment in Iraq voted not to accept the UN resolution ( admitting inspectors) with out the approval of the Bagdad butcher, Saddam. This deal is cut and dried. Saddam tells parliment not to accept the resolution. Then by Friday Saddam overrules the parliment and Agrees to let in the inspectors. Now Saddam believes the world will view him as a "peace maker", sure right away. That might fool a ten year old, but anyone with any common sense can see right through this one.

[JamesI]

As long as Saddam truely accepts and we can avoid this war, I don't care what show he makes of it.

[Craig S.]

I'm sure that any pronouncement made by the Iraqi parliament is cleared first by Mr. Hussein.

I hope you're right in that you believe he'll agree to let the inspectors back in the country.

[poorme]

how can you talk about our pending war with Iraq and not get into politics?

[sweaver]

It's all about "spin." As long as it ends up avoiding war, I can live with it.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Craig S.
I'm sure that any pronouncement made by the Iraqi parliament is cleared first by Mr. Hussein. that may or may not be true. In Swaziland, for example, parliament recently rejected a proposal to buy a $45 million private jet for the King. However, the King simply said 'we're moving on with the purchase anyways'. The parliament may be semi-independent, but in some cases, it doesn't matter.

[moose]

NDF views this thread as unacceptable, boring, and highly likely to offend or otherwise introduce "garbage time" posts into the mix. We should probably close it.

[Duque]

Originally posted by gyb13
that may or may not be true.

We know it's not true. Just like the 100% election turnout, it's a show - the requisite for being in parliament is swearing ultimate allegiance to Saddam.

The Reichstag still operated under Hitler, after all.

[SmedIndy]

Would YOU have wanted to vote to allow inspectors into Iraq if you were in its parliament.

I mean, no one in the whole dang country voted against him.

One thing we naive Americans don't do is pay attention to the rest of the world - Iraq isn't the only country with a despot and a farcical parliament. They just happen to sit in a precious and precarious area.

Personally, I'm more afraid of North Korea becoming unhinged than Saddam. And I'm against bloodshed for any reason. But that region MUST be more secure and stable, and a more benign Iraq is a great place to start.

[Gosfgiants]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
But that region MUST be more secure and stable, and a more benign Iraq is a great place to start.

Taking out Iraq would destabilze the region more than stabilze it. Saddam keeps control over several ethnic minorities in the region, most notably is a large Kurdish population. The Kurds are oppressed in both Iraq and Turkey. Many policy believe that if the Kurds in Iraq become a politcal force it will lead to a Kurdish uprising in Turkey. This would destabilze Turkey, which is having a minor political crises of its own. So instead of making the region more stable, it will have the opposite effect.

Nevermind the fact that the war is really a cover for the oil companies that own this adminstration lock, stock, barrell. There's no oil in North Korea, that's why were not calling for Kim-jong Il's head. Oh, the hypocrisy.

[Duque]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


I mean, no one in the whole dang country voted against him.


Technically true - but, Shi'a Muslims (who are the majority in Iraq), and Kurds were not allowed to vote. As if it would have mattered.

[Duque]

Originally posted by Gosfgiants


Nevermind the fact that the war is really a cover for the oil companies that own this adminstration lock, stock, barrell. There's no oil in North Korea, that's why were not calling for Kim-jong Il's head. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Well, if you're looking at it from a purely economic standpoint, North Korea poses a direct threat to two of the U.S.'s biggest trading partners in S. Korea and Japan. The U.S. gets very little of its oil from the Middle East anyways.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Gosfgiants
Taking out Iraq would destabilze the region more than stabilze it. Saddam keeps control over several ethnic minorities in the region, most notably is a large Kurdish population. The Kurds are oppressed in both Iraq and Turkey. Many policy believe that if the Kurds in Iraq become a politcal force it will lead to a Kurdish uprising in Turkey. This would destabilze Turkey, which is having a minor political crises of its own. So instead of making the region more stable, it will have the opposite effect.



Taking Saddam out would not ensure stability - if we want regime change we must also build a new regime. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The ultimate goal is a stable, non-threatening Iraq. I just jumped ahead a few years.

[VNV Nation]

I wonder what I would really like to say about this.

[tortured angel]

I guess I'm just getting used to it but I ignore everything the Arabs do publically. They like to make a big show of everything then it gets settled behind closed doors and the public is none the wiser.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Would YOU have wanted to vote to allow inspectors into Iraq if you were in its parliament.

I mean, no one in the whole dang country voted against him.

One thing we naive Americans don't do is pay attention to the rest of the world - Iraq isn't the only country with a despot and a farcical parliament. They just happen to sit in a precious and precarious area.

P.

No I would not have voted yes if in thier position. In the first place no one votes thier mind in Iraq, most who did not agree with Saddam are dead or in a prison cell. The point I was trying to get accross is that the no vote was just a prelude to Saddam the "peace maker" pretending to overrule his parliment, just to keep the peace. Your correct, there are some other terrible so called "governments" in the world. It's not just that some see him as a threat to the USA, true or not, but his location has much to do with it. Who would risk a mad man taking over some neighbor countries and then being in a position to control so much of the worlds oil supply.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Originally posted by Gosfgiants

Nevermind the fact that the war is really a cover for the oil companies that own this adminstration lock, stock, barrell. There's no oil in North Korea, that's why were not calling for Kim-jong Il's head. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Pardon my partial deletion. Ther is no hypocrisy in this case. I think we all know the rich oil fields are the big factor in Iraq's case. Where you and I differ is on why the oil fields are the issue. It appears to me that you believe because the Bush family and some other oil barons deal in oil that they are going to risk a war, just to keep from losing millions of dollars. I don't see it that way. I think the US government really believes that Saddam if strong enough can take over much of that region and can cause problems for the whole world in the future. Are we going back to the 1960s, the hippie generation when every move the government makes is dictated by the oil barons. I'm not that blind to the fact that the big money people do have an influence on many government issues, home and abroad. I just find it hard to believe that Bush will wage war and risk American lives because he tows the line for the oil barons.

[Gosfgiants]

Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
I think the US government really believes that Saddam if strong enough can take over much of that region and can cause problems for the whole world in the future.

I think the Bush administration believes it, but has not backed up these claims. The fact is that the Iraqi miltary is much weaker than it was 11 years ago during the Gulf War. Iraq has been operating under U.N. Sanctions for several years now. The only money they receive from oil sales goes to food. Saddam simply does not have the money for conventional forces. He may have chemical or biological agents at his disposal. However, they are just a nuisance if tries to take over a neighbor., and there is no proof that he has a nuclear weapons program.

I do not want Americans fighting and dying in a war based on propaganda of this administration. Saddam has not taken overt step towards any of his neighbors since the Gulf War.

The precendent in international relations that this war will set is exteremly dangerous. The soverignty of nations is a 400 year old policy that dates back to the end 30 years war. For the U.S. to engage in this sort of activity opens up a whole series of regime change invasions through out the world.

[spitball]

Same political debate. Different posters.
"Bush sucks." " No he doesn't ."
Anyone see the difference ? If you do, tell me.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Seems to me, they'd vote "no" just to get RID of Saddam.

His own son begged him to accept the UN resolution -- correct? If he had any sense, he would accept the resolution -- correct? Everyone has a pretty good idea what will happen if he doesn't accept the resolution -- correct?

So, by voting "no", his council is likely hoping that WE'LL get rid of him. Which we probably will.

This isn't about Bush specifically, it's about Saddam and the UN resolution. We're just the enforcers of such resolutions.

[Duque]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
Seems to me, they'd vote "no" just to get RID of Saddam.

His own son begged him to accept the UN resolution -- correct?


Apparently - though this is the same son (Uday) he tried to have assassinated.

[Duque]

Originally posted by Gosfgiants
The only money they receive from oil sales goes to food. Saddam simply does not have the money for conventional forces. He may have chemical or biological agents at his disposal. However, they are just a nuisance if tries to take over a neighbor., and there is no proof that he has a nuclear weapons program.

I do not want Americans fighting and dying in a war based on propaganda of this administration. Saddam has not taken overt step towards any of his neighbors since the Gulf War.


That is all fine and good, but the money Saddam gets is not going to food, it's going to building his presidential palaces and producing WMD.

The threat Saddam poses to his neighbors is, of course, very subjective. He has threatened Israel, and blatantly violated the no-fly zones. He has tried to assassinate a former U.S. president.

We underestimate Saddam by assuming he is merely a crazy dictatorial thug. He knows exactly what buttons to push, and has been manipulating the U.N for over a decade now.

[VNV Nation]

Trying to step delicately here....

You know, I wonder if some important guy somewhere and his affiliated dudes and the people who make up his place to store kitchen utensils would be in a career crisis if some aforementioned foreign folk were to acquiesce to the written demands made by some well-known international organization based in a big city in some country.

[moose]

i dont understand how this isn't politics

[Max Power]

Originally posted by moose
i dont understand how this isn't politics

I think it started as a Foreign affairs/UN resolution thing. Which is news. But, you're right, it's drifting towards a debate or sharing of opinions on elections, pol parties, etc. That is not what this forum is about.

News. That's things like the sniper being caught, the top cars report, plane crashes, etc.

Now, a politician caught with an intern, a Mayor murders his step-mother, or something like that is news too. And, that's OK here.

But, any time it becomes a debate or sharing opinions on elections, pol parties, the right to choose v. the right to life, etc., that's not what this forum is about. It's NG here.

Use this as a rule of thumb - - - if it's close to politics or religion, don't do it. If you really think it's not, but are not sure, drop me a note at curator@netshrine.com and ask me - - - before you start the threat. Thanks.