Iran plans anti-Hussein rebellion in Iraq

[Darth Viscera]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/iraq.iran/index.html

Apparently Iran is preparing for the U.S. invasion of Iraq by funneling money into the Iraqi rebels who tried, at President Bush's request and unsuccessfully, to rise up against Saddam Hussein in 1991. While Saddam's army is off being routed and taken prisoner at Mosul and Basra by our army and hopefully with some help from the british & french in spring of 2003, the folks at home may have the resources to rise up and put Saddam in his place-a coffin. :)

Speaks well for Iran, I think.

[ReaperFett]

I still thing they've gone about this all wrong

[Darth Viscera]

Who has?

[ReaperFett]

Those who are going at Iraq

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You know...I'm reading a Tom Clancy book right now...and its eerie how many things are similar. Well, not COMPLETELY similar, but enough so that I can recognize it. "Executive Orders."

I read "The Bear and the Dragon" last year when all that stuff with China was going on...*shivers*

Thats it! I'm not reading anymore Clancy!

:)

[Jedi Master Carr]

From what I can see there it looks Iran has its own agenda, they hate Iraq pretty badly, so I don't think it shows anything else. I am against an invasion right now, I don't think our allies in the middle east will go along with it, and it worries me it will blow up in our faces. Really Saddam is nothing but a 3rd rate dictator who is absolutely meaningless in the long term, more than likely he will be killed by another faction, maybe the Iranians and I think it would be better to fund these groups and let them take care of them for us.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Are we going to train them to fight and give them guns? I'm hesitant to agree with you there, Carr, simply because we dont have a very good track record of continued peace with those we've helped like that.

[Admiral Lebron]

I agree with Carr and LD. Saddam is a POS dictator when it comes to dictators. I wouldn't surprised if one of his human shields--erm family members shot him. And training people for for guerilla warfare is not smart not at all.

An invasion that has low death rate on the US's side is very thesable these days. Although we can't expect anything until about 2003 seeing how America's depleted a fair share of its missles in Afghan and any invasion always calls for maximum efficinecy and stockpile.

[Jedi Master Carr]

True but if we invade who takes power after Saddam is gone? It is the same mess maybe even worse. Our problem has been in the past that once these groups get in power we cut them off and no longer helped them like in Afghanastan and that is why they start to hate us.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I just read this from the NY Times

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=68&e=2&u=/nyt/20020730/ts_nyt/profound_effect_on_u_s__economy_seen_in_a_war_on_i raq

A lot of economist think that a war with Iraq could really hurt the economy because we would be doing this alone, so far are allies want no part of it. Most European nations are against, though the UK has remained silent which way it would go, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan all have said they want no part of it and a few of them are relunctant to even allow us to use their land for an invasion, that is my problem with it really, if most of the world is against it than why do it? Its going to make the U.S look bad in my opinion.

[Admiral Lebron]

Kill Saddam let them fight it out. :)

[ReaperFett]

Oh dont worry, the UK will go while Blair is in power

[Jedi Master Carr]

whoops the link didn't come out all the way

.http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=68&e=2&u=/nyt/20020730/ts_nyt/profound_effect_on_u_s__economy_seen_in_a_war_on_i raq



Lebron, I would be okay with that if we get somebody else to do, it we can't assissnate world leaders ourselves we signed that thing back in the 70's that said we wouldn't

[Admiral Lebron]

We don't have to assassinate him. . . Just drop a large bomb near him. :D

[Anbira Hicchoru]

We betrayed the Kurdish rebels when we mysteriously abandoned support of their rebellion. I see no reason why they should trust us again. :\

Its not something I'm proud of at all.

[Admiral Lebron]

Who are/were the Kurdish rebels?

[ReaperFett]

I believe it's the ones who fought against Saddam with us in '91, yeah?

[Anbira Hicchoru]

They are an ethnic minority in northern iraq, whom we aided in a rebellion, until Saudi Arabia decided that they wanted no part of an extended operation in Iraq. We then abandoned them, letting Saddam mow them down like grass with attack helicopters and then gas the survivors with mustard gas.

A damn tragedy

[Admiral Lebron]

Oh . . . :(

[JediBoricua]

Sorry as it is, the attack will happen. How do you expect 'W' to maintain his 75% approval rate. He's just running the same wave his father did, fight some dictador while the economy is in shambles, and while top officials of his government and the president himself is being questioned of inside trading and other wall street scandals. Wag the dog...

[JonathanLB]

Anyone have any advice for a munitions company that trades publicly that I can buy some stock in?! ;)

[Jedieb]

In hindsight, it seems obvious that we should have "marched into Baghdad unopposed" and taken out Saddam. For a variety of reasons, it was decided to stop with the Iraqi withdrawal. Some of those reasons included a fear of the power vacuum that Saddam's removal would have created. Some in the administration believed that members of the coalition would not support that drastic an action. Then, IMO, we tried to have our cake and eat it too. We withdrew, but gave enough assistance to the Kurds to see if they could remove Saddam. Eventually it was obvious they could not succeed without further U.S. aid. Saddam ruthlessly crushed the opposition the Kurds presented and we were no where to be found. By the time the plot to assasinate Bush was uncovered the war was so far removed that there was not enough support to go in and take out Saddam.

Today, we in much the same situation. Support for a "war on terroism" is one thing, but support for another invasion of Iraq is quite another. The coalition support the U.S. for one major reason, no one wanted Saddam to have that much oil. THAT'S IT. None of those nations gave a rat's butt about the freedom loving Kuwaitis. That expression is a joke in and of itself. The Kuwaitis don't love freedom. From what I saw and heard it was a country in which less than 15% of the population had any say in their government. OIL, the war was about oil, and not letting Saddam have too much of it.

Right now, Iran would be the last country I'd trust. Since their decade long war with Iraq in the 80's they've been dying to stick it to Saddam. They'd use ANY excuse to hurt Iraq. I don't think we'd fine the support to invade Iraq again, it's just not there. Contrary to what some may think, we can't just set up shop wherever we want in the middle east and launch a military operation against Iraq. The only action against Saddam that I can see succeeding is a covert assasination. But a Desert Storm type of scenario is highly improbable.

[Admiral Lebron]

I see us attacking Iran some time in the Bush administation.

[CMJ]

Yep...I agree Jedieb. If we'd taken Hussein out back then the USA woulda looked bad. It looked(at the time) like he was gonna be overthrown anyways.

In hindsight we shoulda taken him out. Of course the Gulf War did destroy much of his power. He's been reduced to a relative shadow of himself(control wise).

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't attack Iran they have nukes and nobody knows how far they can launch them. But I bet they would launch them at Israel at least if we attacked. Also we have no reason to attack them, they haven't done anything in a while.

And Jedieb you are completely right about the situation, also about the Kurds, I think something else to consider is Turkey. They are worried if the Kurds get there own country that the Kurds in Turkey could revolt and cause a civil war. It is probably one reason why they are so reluctant to get involved this time.

[JonathanLB]

Well, opinions aside, it is pretty clear that the U.S. is going to invade Iraq.

Regardless of what anyone thinks is "probable" or "doable" or whatever else, and regardless of what anyone thinks we SHOULD do, Bush will take out Iraq before this administration is over. It's unfinished business and that is a terrorist state. They have not allowed UN Weapons inspectors into the country now for quite some time and for all we know they are building deadly chemical or even nuclear weapons. That cannot be allowed.

I don't care about the support of these other nations, that's just not an issue. We are the most powerful nation on Earth. We'll do what we want to do with or without their support. Anyway, the support of other militaries is just not useful. Ours is sufficient to meet any threat and the other nations just complicate matters.

We should go straight into Iraq and overthrow Saddam and all of his military and make absolutely sure they cannot and have not produced weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to nuclear weapons.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The question is how? If Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait all refuse to let us use their land then there is no way we could invade, hey if 3 of them said no it would be about impossible. What are we suppose to do go in and invade the countries that don't agree with us? That would make us real popular real quick people will compare us to Nazi German and the Soviet Union, if we took those kind of tactics. Plus there is no proof that Sadaam is making Nukes besides Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and India all have nukes and I don't see us invading those nations to keep them from having them. I really think we should do nothing, if he tries something sure go for it because we will have allied support but we can't go in alone, mainly as I said it is impossible, and second it would make us very unpopular.

[Darth Viscera]

Well as far as invading Iraq, it will be very difficult. In essence, we'll have to land a sufficient force through a 25 mile stretch of the Persian gulf via U.S. Navy amphibious landing ships, as well as air drop the 82nd and 101 airborne divisions at the highway juncture northwest of Al Basrah in order to create a temporary and highly unstable gap between Baghdad and the beaches south of Al Basrah. Meanwhile, fighter squadrons from the CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center in Saudi Arabia, a pentagon-built structure that requires Saudi permission to use) would provide air superiority. No bombers, because the Al-Sauds won't let us put bombers on the CAOC, just fighters.

The problem is, if I were Saddam Hussein, I'd put half my army just on that 25 mile beach to oppose the landings.

I've attached an image to illustrate what I mean, and colored it in so it'd be clearer. FYI, the red country is iraq, the brown one iran, the purple one kuwait, and the green one saudi arabia. You see what I mean when I say there's next to no room to land on the beaches south of al basrah.

[Jedieb]

I don't care about the support of these other nations, that's just not an issue. We are the most powerful nation on Earth. We'll do what we want to do with or without their support. Anyway, the support of other militaries is just not useful. Ours is sufficient to meet any threat and the other nations just complicate matters.
See the Vietnam War, and the Russian war in Afghanistan. This isn't a game of Risk or Stratego. International politics don't work that way. We'd have to invade other nations just to accomplish what you're saying. Then what, we occupy three or four nations in the Middle East until everyone stops hating us?

U.S. "We need to use those airbases again. This time we're going to station whatever kind of equipment we want and you'll have no say in the matter."
Saudi "We protest!"
U.S. "Then we'll be invading you TOO and anyone else who gets in our way!"
:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

That's a very good assessment of the situation in Saudi, Viscera. The bombers could easily be suppplemented by A-10's and similiar types of bomber fighters as before. I don't know where our B-52's flew from in Desert Storm (Turkey perhaps?), but they did make several runs over Iraqi battalians. That's one of the reasons you saw soldiers surrendering to drones, they'd been carpet bombed for weeks and wanted nothing but the noise to stop. But that first air campaign wasn't soley a U.S. effort. There were other nations participating. That will not happen this time. It's not simply the lack of military resources that concerns me, it's the political support those nations provided. Plus, this will be a DIFFERENT mission. The first mission was to remove an invading army from an occuppied territory. And contrary to what some may think, many of Saddam's best Republican Guard troops were WITHDRAWN before U.S. ground forces began their actions. Saddam kept them in reserve to protect against the Kurds and actions against Baghdad. This would be a different kind of operation. Tactically, the result would eventually result in a U.S. occupation of Baghdad, but for how long? At what cost in military and civilian casualties? What guarauntee would we have that we'd even get to Saddam? Then you'd have to deal with a situation that could make Checnya(sp?) look like a vacation. U.S. soldiers being killed by snipers or suicide bombers. People will be screaming Jihad left and right and we've already seen the willingness of some of these fanatics to accomplish their goals. How much more willing will they be if we're not only occupying Baghdad, but 2 or 3 other nations who were silly enough not to give us their "support."

[Jedi Master Carr]

Exactly Jedieb that is why I don't why they are even considering it, there are so many problems with doing it. Also on CNN this morning they talked about how an invasion could put the economy into a recession, I guess he wants to follow his father on both another gulf war and a recession, and then probably get voted out of office.

[Jedieb]

I can get into partisan politics as much as anyone, but I tend to think that W. can't be THAT foolish. Maybe I'm just being foolishly optimistic, but I would like to think that the motivation behind removing Saddam would come from legitimate evidence that proves he's been supporting terroists. A Wag the Dog scenario just makes me sick to my stomach. This can't just be about creating political capital to help win a reelection or divert attention from a sagging economy. Or worse, some notion of finishing Daddy's war. Please let me be right about that...

If Saddam has to be removed then it has to be with knife, not a bomb. A targeted strike or covert operation, not a full scale invasion.

[Jedi Master Carr]

If he is thinking that then he is dumber than I ever though and has the worst advisors ever, I'd say that becaue I think it will hurt him worse than help him because the economy will go into the crapper and that will cost him any chance at reelection.

[JMK]

Why don't they just go play some Megadeth or Iron Maiden all over the Middle East and drive him out like they did to Noriega? :p

[Jedieb]

:lol If only it were that simple.

[Darth Viscera]

And then there's The Bomb. Any day now (or 6 months from now, if you believe the weapons inspectors expelled from Iraq), Saddam will have The Bomb. The first thing that he'll do with it is launch the weapon, probably through a SCUD which they have plenty of, at Israel. A target as big as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem will ensure that the SCUD won't miss, even though it's a wildly inaccurate (2+km) weapon.

(Another option is they'll hold Israel hostage with those nukes, which would prevent us from invading at any time, thereby giving Iraq a strategic deterrent. And then, Iraq is at the head of list of nations that wish to donate nukes to Al Qaeda and Hamas. I'd say at this point that we can't afford not to invade Iraq.)

Jerusalem will declare war on Iraq, launch back, completely annhialating Iraq, will clumsily violate Syria's neutrality by passing through their terrority in order to occupy Iraq, and the next thing you know Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, North Yemen, South Yemen and Egypt will declare war on Israel. Why? Because no middle eastern country wants to be perceived as being on Israel's side against the Arabs. It was for this reason that Israel was not allowed to declare war on Iraq during the Gulf War when it was bombarded by Iraqi SCUDs. Had Israel joined in against Iraq, the entire middle east would have switched sides, and they would have perceived it as a war to preserve their muslim nations.


So no. If Iraq gets a nuclear capability, the entire region will be MASSIVELY destabilized, and we will be able to do NOTHING. We would no longer hold any sway in the Middle East, Israel will be in a precarious situation (understatement of the millenium), and we'll suffer an energy crisis that will make 1973 look like a blown fuse in the basement.

Sitting back while Baghdad splits the atom is not an option.

[ReaperFett]

Better to do it in a more discreet way than put them on a list of "evil" nations and then keep threatening them publicly

[Sean Piett]

If Hussein croaks all of a sudden, I wonder where everyone's going to look to?

[ReaperFett]

ANy one of his many enemies

[Admiral Lebron]

Well...there are a lot of people who could kill him and most people would suspect the US. Someone could do it and blame it on us.

[ReaperFett]

My point is, you'd have the element of suprise. Iraq hasnt had to panic in recent years. Now, they're being publicly told they're a target. So they speed up the process. Thus making it worse

[Jedieb]

.

[Jedieb]

I for one think the LAST thing Saddam would do if he had a nuke is send it flying toward Israel. He knows very well he'd be turning Baghdad into a sheet of glass. Israeil would nuke the living daylights out of Baghdad. They almost did during Desert Storm when SCUD's started falling on them. It took a phone call from Bush himself to restrain the Israelis. It's much more likely that Iraq would try to deploy a Nuke in a fashion that would not directly implicate them. But then again, he's proven in the past that rational decisions aren't always the kind he makes so who knows. I just don't see what he would hope to accomplish. You know, Iran doesn't want to see Iraq with nukes either. They probably figure they'd be one of their first targets.

[Darth Viscera]

Saddam Hussein is not a prudent or tactful man. He's already SCUD bombed Israel, I have no doubt that if he has a nuke, he'll use it on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. He is, without a doubt, a madman.

What's the sense in that? Well, I don't know. What was the sense in Hitler's Gottendommerung in early 1945?

[Jedi Master Carr]

In Hitler's case he knew the war was over and was willing to do anything, his whole philosophy was either he would have the world or Germany would be reduced to rubble (and that came pretty close) Saddam hasn't reached that point for starters he is no Hitler, heck he is no Mussolini which is saying something because Mussolini wasn't good for nothing, Saddam would have to be insane to launch a nuke at Israel like Jedieb said what good would it do. Finally if that is the reason to prevents nuclear war than we should invade Pakistan and India that situation IMO is more violtale and dangerous and could kill way more people than Saddam ever could.

[Admiral Lebron]

Let Pakistan and India duke it out. Or in this case, nuke it out! (Insert Austin Powers cheesy laugh). Really, If it weren't for the fact that the radiation could possibly travel into my food, I'm all for letting them blow each other up. Cuts down on world population & gets rid of the maniacs who want to use them.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't want to see it, it would be the largest death toll ever, making the Holocaust look like a picnic, your looking at anywhere from 30-100 million dead (I am talking about over a period of 5 years) maybe even more since the population of that area from Afghanatan to Bangladesh is over 2 Billion (India is a billion, Pakistan a half billion and Bangladesh is over a half a billion) consider these are poor countries Nuclear war would kill 50%-60% of the populations 10-15 years later sure the world population would go down by a billion but that is not the way to do it, plus cancer rates would go up every where even here eventually plus the world economy could even go in depression because it could effect the oil shippments, that is my point, India and Pakistan is more worisome to me than Saddam but I don't advicate that we invade either country to stop them from using Nukes.

[Darth Viscera]

India-1,047,074,600
Pakistan-149,277,300
Bangladesh-136,433,600
Afghanistan-24,405,000


Saddam is easily as volatile as Adolf Hitler was. I would say from talking to Iraqis and Iranians (they come over here for parties, my mom is Iranian) that Saddam is genuinely insane. The things I've heard about him from Iraqis would quite simply freeze anyone's blood.

Imagine Saddam's gottendommerung when he has a nuclear weapon. He's already been defeated in 1991 and again in 1998, and now the U.S. Air Force is over Baghdad again, and in the next season there'll be half a million U.S. troops on Iraqi soil. It's at this point, I think, that Tel Aviv gets glassed.

[Khan Surak]

If Saddam went out, one of his sons would take the throne. I forgot his name, but one of them would make Saddam look like an angel.

Iraq wouldn't nuke Israel. It's such a smal counyry that although, yes, it would destroy the Jewish state there, the fallout would devestate the nearby Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Sinai Egyptian populations. They'd be expelled from the Arab League, yadda yadda yadda. Unless he went even further insane, if that's possible, then I doubt it.

However.. Chemical, and Biological WMD are another issue. We know little about the Iraqi BW Program, and that just goes to show how important it is to Saddam. The evidence is that he guards it so well. If we take that into account, then it is obvious that he sees it as an important, cheap, and easily refinable alternative to nuclear weapons. The way in which he deploys it, factors incredibly. From a possible zero-effect anthrax attack, to a nuclear effect attack, Iraqi weapons designers have not done the best job in deployment.

Iraq's military is nothing to laugh at. Across the board, the Iraqi military is smaller - down 618,000 from a 1990 high of 1 million active-duty forces; down 2,800 main battle tanks from 5,500 in 1990; down 1,500 towed artillery pieces, half the 1990 number; and down 197 fighters and fighter-bombers from 507 in 1990. Despite these serious number differences, Iraq remains of of the most powerful Middle Eastern nations.


How do you expect 'W' to maintain his 75% approval rate. He's just running the same wave his father did, fight some dictador while the economy is in shambles, and while top officials of his government and the president himself is being questioned of inside trading and other wall street scandals. Wag the dog...

I couldn't agree more.


I don't care about the support of these other nations, that's just not an issue. We are the most powerful nation on Earth. We'll do what we want to do with or without their support. Anyway, the support of other militaries is just not useful. Ours is sufficient to meet any threat and the other nations just complicate matters.

I couldn't disagree more. :lol The support of neighboring nations is absolutely critical to a succesful, low friendly casualties war against Iraq. With what you're saying, all we'd have would be the Persian gulf to stage an air war. The Gulf War cost 61 billion dollars. The US paid 7 billion. The rest was taken care of by Korea, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. Imagine the toll it would take on our economy to go through with this alone.

Granted, there must be "regime change", but it must be done correctly. The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world that don't have their own nation. Saddam is a product of what Iraq's society is like now. We need to do this correctly, and it will take time and foreign support.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I thought for sure Pakistan and Bangladesh had more people in it, I guess I just overestimated them.
Also I agree with you about trying to go in this alone it would be nuts to do so and if the Saudis and the others tell us they won't let us use there land than it is impossible, unless we want to invade them too, which is nuts the whole world would hate us and we might have a huge mess on our hands. Really there are other means do this, I don't have problems with covert tactics and find ways to undermind Saddam's regime but invasion to me would be a bad idea, especially since none of our allies want to help.

[JediBoricua]

I was a big critic on how the US was handling the Palestine situation, and I thought that they would go all yankee on them and have the israeli army slaughter the Palestinian State, thankfully that has not happen yet. But the US and the UK are pressuring Arafat for open elections and for a new leadership. That IMO is a good move. Let's see what the people really think, then act.

Of course pledging for elections on Iraq wont accomplish anything, but will gain some support for the US. Maybe give an ultimatum of some sorts, thus gaining international acceptance and when public opinion and international support is on this side the US could move in. I just fear that 'W' is a happy trigger war hawk that will shoot first then ask, I hope I'm wrong as I was with the Palestine situation. There are a lot of options, you could infiltrate agents in the whole country who could bring proof of the atrocities Saddam has commited against his own people, proof of nuclear, chemical weapons, etc.

An Invasion in the foreseable really has no logic, unless they are wagging the dog. It's a shame, but using the terrorism fear the government can easily manipulate the US public, expressions like "We are the most powerful country in the world" yadda yadda, just prove my point.

It all makes me remember a t-shirt Homer Simpson once weared with Uncle Sam taking a bite out of the world and saying, "TRY AND STOP US"

[Darth Viscera]

@Boricua

You, sir, should be tarred and feathered.

[JediBoricua]

huh?

[Jedieb]

For what ?:huh

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
I was a big critic on how the US was handling the Palestine situation, and I thought that they would go all yankee on them and have the israeli army slaughter the Palestinian State, thankfully that has not happen yet. But the US and the UK are pressuring Arafat for open elections and for a new leadership. That IMO is a good move. Let's see what the people really think, then act.

Of course pledging for elections on Iraq wont accomplish anything, but will gain some support for the US. Maybe give an ultimatum of some sorts, thus gaining international acceptance and when public opinion and international support is on this side the US could move in. I just fear that 'W' is a happy trigger war hawk that will shoot first then ask, I hope I'm wrong as I was with the Palestine situation. There are a lot of options, you could infiltrate agents in the whole country who could bring proof of the atrocities Saddam has commited against his own people, proof of nuclear, chemical weapons, etc.

An Invasion in the foreseable really has no logic, unless they are wagging the dog. It's a shame, but using the terrorism fear the government can easily manipulate the US public, expressions like "We are the most powerful country in the world" yadda yadda, just prove my point.

It all makes me remember a t-shirt Homer Simpson once weared with Uncle Sam taking a bite out of the world and saying, "TRY AND STOP US"

Those things offend me. You're implying that the U.S. is a country of murderers with a president who feels likewise and is content to wage countless wars of aggression. And the U.S. truly is the most powerful country on the planet. Wagging the dog simply doesn't enter into that. The Russians are out of cash and in the same situation that led them into the 1917 revolution, the Chinese are more than willing to sacrifice their own population for....anything.

Anyhow, I disagree with your anti-American, conspiracy theorist views. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my appointment to go mass murder 1,000 citizens of Kenya. :rolleyes

[ReaperFett]

I dont trust Dubya with weaponary. To me, naming countries who they see as evil is just asking for a fight.


My main annoyance is with their conduct in certain incidents, but that's another thing.

[Darth Viscera]

IMHO, better we get it out in the open than just glaring at them from across the room like we've been doing since the beginning of time. George Bush is one kosher cat, and he doesn't have time for the usual political BS. He got up on that podium, looked those 3 countries in the eye and told them what his beef was.

No doubt about it, the governments of those 3 countries are evil, and they're just plain using their population to perpetuate themselves and their assbackwords political views. North Korea keeps a 1 million man army supplied and fed, then kicks its civilian population in the scrotum just for the fun of it. The same Iraqis and Iranians who are currently burning U.S. flags would become productive U.S. citizens in a second if you offered them a free plane ticket, 1 year of free housing and 6 months of free food in any U.S. state.

When it comes down to it, that's really all that is involved. Every day before the Iranian revolution the crowd (mob is a better word) that had gathered outside the U.S. embassy was as large, if not larger, than the ones at Saigon in 1975. They didn't want to burn the place down. They wanted to come to America, or to Great Britain, or to Canada, or to Australia, or Puerto Rico, or Germany. They wanted to have the same chance at living a good life that you and I have, and we IGNORED them.

Shame on us. Shame on us for not helping these people out during their crisis, and for allowing their radicals to manipulate their hopes and dreams, and mend them to their evil ways.

Those evil governments need to be taken down, the people liberated. The governments that can't see the necessity in taking down Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khamenei are just showing off their cowardice, because for the good of humanity those evil bastards must be put in a place where they can't do anymore harm.

sorry for my rant, one rant led to another, and well...the result is this string of rants. my bad :(

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think there "evil" I don't look at things that way, things are just not that black and white. Second if we attack those countries two of them have nukes and believe me if their leadership thought they were going down they use them in a heartbeat that would mean that North Korea would launch nukes at Japan and South Korea and Iran would launch them at Israel the results would mean millions and millions dead which would be a nightmare, the whole world would hate us and Bush would be comparred to Hitler and Stalin. Do I think that will happen, no I am sure our military advisors went nuts when he made that statement because we can't and won't back it up, that is why it was stupid to say such things because there is no way we could attack those two countries in particular. And I don't think its our job to go around overthrowing goverments, what next China (of course that would be WW III and the world would be dominated by the cockroaches after that is through), I just think we need to worry about our own affairs and not try to solve all the world's problems.

[Darth Viscera]

I just think we need to worry about our own affairs and not try to solve all the world's problems.

We tried that. Two big buildings fell down. I think that means it doesn't work :(

[ReaperFett]

But the reason for that was foreign affairs

[Jedieb]

No, the reason for that is that there are maniacs willinging to pervert their religion, kill themselves, and murder innocent civilians in the process. While I'm sure our support of Israel and actions in the Gulf War are some of the things that motivated those terroists, there are no rational excuses for their actions. NONE.


Anyhow, I disagree with your anti-American, conspiracy theorist views.
Whoa, whoa, those aren't anti-Amercan views. It sounds to me like he just voiced the opnions of someone from Puerto Rico who happens to show some support for the Palestinians. Maybe it was the word "Yankee" that threw you off, but that's just a common phrase used in many Latin American countries. Sometimes as an insult, sometimes not. While I don't agree with Boricua, nothing he said sounded like America bashing to me. You know, there are plenty of people in the U.S. that have been put off by Israel's actions in the last couple of years. Are they anti-American too?

Again, we can't simply impose our will, our style of government, or our culture anywhere we want. The cultures of many of these countries are so DIFFERENT from our own that it would be ridiculous to think that we could just set up elections and everything would be okay. It doesn't work that way. I can't even begin to imagine what would happen if the all the governments on Bush's "evil" list were suddenly toppled. For us to think that they'd all be replaced with something warm and fuzzy is naive.

Foreign policy is a complex and messy affair. Sometimes you have to support a government you wouldn't normally support. Sometimes you have to turn your back on a situation which demands attention. Sometimes you have to get involved when people at home don't want you to. Cuba, Iraq, South Korea, China, all are DIFFERENT and UNIQUE. I could go on and on about Cuba and China, but that's a whole other matter. We can't just think that we can fix everything that's wrong with the world. But we also can't abandon allies like Israel, even if it causes us problems in the future.

[JediBoricua]

I know the term yankee could be an offensive one, and I'm sorry for that. I just wrote and did not proof read. I apologize for that.

But please don't consider me anti-american. The fact is that I am biased, I admit it. I have been living in a country that has been a US colonly for 100 years, forget our current 'commonwealth' status it's only a name to hide reality, the fact is that the US holds our sovereignity and I think with all the feeling of my being this has to come to an end. But I'm in no way anti-american. In fact I believe that once Puerto Rico has achieved it's independence the first thing we should sign are free trade treaties with the US.

The thing is this, I have been witness to many injustices commited by the USA in the name of security and liberty. The US Navy has the biggest base outside the US mainland in our eastern shore, and they do not pay a penny for it. They use water from our reservoirs, energy from our plants and the Federal Court says they don't have to pay a penny for them. Our young are drafted to their wars and ostracized in the armed forces, in fact, proportionally, more spanish speaking puertoricans died in Vietnam than any other ethnic group in the war. And with what they pay us? Oh with 13 billion dollars of federal aid each year (which is less than what they send Israel), which about 4 to 5 billion are social security and military pensions that our citizens have earned. In total the US gains from us abut 10 to 15 times that each year (we are one of the top 10 markets for US good, us a country us 4 million ppl!) and are forced by congresional law to export all native good using an american ship. While the average incone of the US is at 35K, our people have to live with a mere 8K a year. Oh yes it's a lot more than in many latin american countries, but is it dignified? And let us not forget that many latin countries suffer another type of colonialism, the economic one. So I may have some unjustified prejudicies against the US, I think is a subconscient thing.

I hope I am not insulting any of you when I say this, but the average american does not have a clue about what is happening outside your borders. A high percentage of american never leave us territory in their whole lifetimes, the richest people in the world don't travel! 45% participation in presidential elections! That's an outrage in a democracy, it means the minority choses your leaders and the majority simply doesn't care. You have been taught that your ways are right, and the ways of others are wrong. And don't get me wrong, I find it fabulous that your children can grow well-fed, have a top notch education and make an honest living while suffering no necesities. That's how it should be for everyone. My complaint is that your leaders, at least Bush, is trying to say that we are on top and everything you say is wrong unless we approve. No. In life there are very few truly bad and good things. We as a human race must accept differences and try to reach compromise before sending a 500 pound missile down your roof. I fully agree that Saddam is a tyrant, he should be brought down. But invade a whole country, endanger innocents not to mention the lives of your soldiers to promote a political agenda, it's an awful waste.

[Darth Viscera]

It has nothing to do with the term yankee. I use that term all the time when I make fun of the damnyankees. Hell, we invented that term and used it far better than anyone else could have, and the international community screwed it up and misconprehended it until 5.7 billion people started thinking that a yankee was simply someone from the U.S.A.

No, my problem with what he wrote was this:


I thought that they would go all yankee on them and have the israeli army slaughter the Palestinian State

Americans (I presume you meant this word rather than the derogotary yankee, which describes a damnyankee from the north) do not slaughter people. We do not engage in ethnic cleansing. Erase that thought from your head this instant.


You know, there are plenty of people in the U.S. that have been put off by Israel's actions in the last couple of years. Are they anti-American too?

I should hope not, because I am one of them. The Israeli government, at this point, is acting in a near-Russian manner with regards to flushing human rights down the toilet, and how do we punish them? With 7.9 cents a minute long distance phone plans, while it costs 20 cents a minute to contact south america, a place which is not obstructed by two dozen oceans. If an Israeli army officer showed up at my door, I'd sooner spit on him than shake his hand. If, 2 years from now (gotta finish college first), the USA decided to raise a volunteer army division to go to Palestine and defend it from Sharon and his like, I'd likely sign up. No, I support Palestine and its accompanying 6 million soon-to-be-repatriated refugees 95%.

Boricua, I think that Puerto Rico would be better off as the 51st state than as a separate country for various reasons. Defense, economy, etc. Overall, I think that Puerto Rico would be a lot safer should the bullets start whizzing by if it still had the U.S. armed forces and whatnot giving their all to protect it. We took Hawaii by not-so-democratic means as well, and it turned out fine when it became a state.

[Sanis Prent]

Melai (sp) Massacre ring a bell?

I too...am disgusted with Israel. I think what has been done to Palestine is a seriously bad thing. Nobodys an angel over there...but Israel is redefining the term heavy-handed, and it all makes me ill.

[JediBoricua]

It sounded wrong, I agree that americans will not led nor approve any ethnic cleansing, in fact they have wage wars against those, I simply wanted to say that I thought that the Bush administration would have been afraid to put a stop to Sharon, sorry again.

Anyway the 51st state wont happen. It's a dream, actually it's an ideal. We have been 100 years under american rule and there hasn't been the slightest initiative by the federal government to let us into the union. Bush father said he supported statehood, and other members of congress also, most of them have received thousands of dollars for their political campaing by the pro-statehood party. But all attempts to define our status have met stiff resistance in the senate because of the propposed statehood. It's a complicated topic, wont get into it.

The fact is that I believe our potential as an idenpendent country are better. We are fully bilingual, have an established infrastructure and an educated work force. We also have a blessed geographic position between north and south america, europe and south america, etc. We are the leading country in teh Caribbean, and we could further push the economic development of the whole country. But most important we are another nation, at least culturally speaking. We have adopted some american habits, but we are not americans. I just can see the majority of puertoricans voting for statehood.

[Khan Surak]

Alright, here we go.

Vis, I agree that Sharon is the wrong person to be leading Israel right now. He is a hard-liner war hawk who is finally in the spotlight after years of dedicated service. He wants to be the one who puts an end to this recent intifada by whatever means necessary.

If people like Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, and David Ben-Gurion(to name a few) were still around, things would be different. It would be like having America's founding fathers(after getting caught up in modern culture) lead the country again. However, there would be discrepancy, because America has not faced terrorism the way that Israel has; in an every-day kind of manner, such that you begin expecting it. Not that Americans don't expect it, just that it doesn't happen several times a week.

Sanis, Vis.. I respect you both as intelligent, rational people. I'm going to ask you both what you would do.. or what you would want Sharon to do, in this crisis.

[Enol Dryad]

redefine "acceptable loss of civilian life", for one.

[Darth Viscera]

I want Sharon to die and be replaced by someone who minds civilian casualties.

[Jedieb]

If an Israeli army officer showed up at my door, I'd sooner spit on him than shake his hand. If, 2 years from now (gotta finish college first), the USA decided to raise a volunteer army division to go to Palestine and defend it from Sharon and his like, I'd likely sign up. No, I support Palestine and its accompanying 6 million soon-to-be-repatriated refugees 95%.
That statement is much more brutal than ANYTHING boricua said about the U.S. But it's 'okay' because it's about Israel? If he said that about an American soldier how would that make you feel? Look at what we're doing in response to the destruction of 2 buildings. What do you think American soldiers would be doing if we our country were being attack on an almost daily basis like Israel has been for the last 18 months? We'd be doing exactly what Israeli soldiers are doing, if not worse. Just look at what we've done in the past. (Vietnam, the Philippines) The fact is, Israel is SURROUNDED by nations that would like to see it and its people WIPED off the face of the Earth. If not for U.S. support, it would have been years ago. While I feel sympathy for citizens on both sides, I feel disgust and contempt for most Palestinian leaders. They're murderous zealots who applaud and revel in suicide bombings. They could have had their peace and their Palestinian state YEARS ago. Arafat CAN'T make a deal because he knows the second he shakes Sheron's hands he's a dead man. And it'll be his OWN Palestinian brothers who will kill him. Both sides have citizens who've been targeted and basically murdered. But if I have to choose sides, I'll choose sides with the Israelis. Their mission in life isn't to wipe out those surrounding them. Many of the Palestinians organizing these bombing and handcuffing Arafat want exactly that. You didn't see Israeli children celebrating the desctruction of the TWC did you? But you can bet that it brought a few smiles to many Palestinians. You can go ahead fight to save them, just don't turn your back on them.


Boricua, I think that Puerto Rico would be better off as the 51st state than as a separate country for various reasons. Defense, economy, etc. Overall, I think that Puerto Rico would be a lot safer should the bullets start whizzing by if it still had the U.S. armed forces and whatnot giving their all to protect it. We took Hawaii by not-so-democratic means as well, and it turned out fine when it became a state.
You're not Puerto Rican and neither am I. Even though I'm Cuban and grew up around tons of Peurto Ricans, that still doesn't give me a dead on idea of what it's like to live in Puerto Rico under U.S. rule. If Puerto Ricans wanted statehood, they would have gotten years ago. While some support for statehood is there, the majority of Puerto Ricans DON'T want to become the 51st state. Taking the Imperialistic attitude of 'we'll do it because it's good for them, even if they don't like' is rather appalling. By your rational, Native Americans and Hawains should be thanking us for we did to them everyday. I mean, look how good it turned out for US!


I want Sharon to die and be replaced by someone who minds civilian casualties.
Well, there's a message of peace that makes ya warm and fuzzy! Let me get this straight, you want Sheron dead. He's done nothing to you, or anyone in your family. He's never attacked your city, state, or country. He's never laid a finger on your armed forces. In fact, he's one of your country's staunchest allies. You've been trading and selling him arms for DECADES. Most of the weapons he's using right now against the Palestinians were sold to him by YOUR government. And you want him DEAD?! Damn, I wonder what you'd do if he were sending people into your local cafes, discos, bus stops, or crowded shopping centers, and ordering them to blow themselves up and kill as many American men, women, and children as possible. You'd probably be REALLY pissed off then. You'd probably take it out on not only Sheron, but anyone who stood with him. So now, how are you DIFFERENT from him? Or were you just kidding about wanting him dead?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well personally I dislike both sides, I think they have both done some awful things IMO, and could care less at this point what happens there, I think they are digging there own graves and if they want to keep digging let them. I just have no sympathy for either side, I guess its because I got my hopes dashed, I was so elated when they signed the Oslo Peace accord back in 93 and I thought peace would happen in the middle east, well my hopes were dashed and now I don't care what happens, and I don't support either side. I am not sure if I see any hope for peace either but who knows maybe in another decade when the older guys like Sharron and Arfat are both gone then maybe something can get worked out.

[Darth Viscera]

No, I'm not kidding about wanting him dead. I believe that, had Israel not behaved so atrociously towards Palestine, those 3,000 people might still be alive.

[Jedieb]

Are you serious?! The people who took down those buildings have a few things in common;
They hate Jews and they hate Americans. In other words, they HATE YOU. They tried to blow up TWC YEARS ago. Sheron wasn't in power then was he? The plans to take down TWC, the Pentagon, and the White House didn't magically materialize when the Israelis began REATALIATING for Palestinian suicide attacks 18 months ago. You can trace them back to the days when we INFIDELS had the audacity to support a Jewish state after WWII. There has been a LONG history of extremist muslim hatred towards BOTH the U.S. and Israel. This isn't something new. These people hate YOUR guts Viscera. We're infidels and the Jews have been declared dogs by none other than GOD himself. Do you know where you can find some of these lovely quotes? Just check your latest issue of Newsweek. They've got a lovely article in there about a Muslim religous leader saying God has labeled the Jews as dogs in a TELEVISED addressed. And do you where this took place? On Saudi TV. That's right, one of our ALLIES major religous leaders was just sharing the love. Can you imagine what goes around some Hamas dinner tables?


Well personally I dislike both sides, I think they have both done some awful things IMO, and could care less at this point what happens there, I think they are digging there own graves and if they want to keep digging let them.
I agree JMC, they've BOTH done awful things. But the truth is that only one side's greatest desire is to see the other COMPLETELY wiped out. I want to see peace there. I think land needs to be set aside for a Palestinian state eventually and Israel is going to have to give some occupied land back to make it happen. But even then, that won't be the end of it. Blood will keep getting spilled even after that state is created, mark my words.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I would like to see peace too, but I am not sure if I expect it anytime soon, too bad they couldn't copy the peace plan in northern Ireland, the Irish and British hate each other almost as much as the Jews and arabs and that goes back even farther, probably almost a thousand years when Edward I conquered Ireland, of course the Palestine situation is only 60 years old and if it takes as long as the Irish situation to work out it will be a long time.

[Darth Viscera]

The Jews should not have been allowed to invade Palestine in the first place. George Marshall was against it completely and shared his thoughts with Harry Truman, who did not listen, and it set into motion violence that may never end, violence that did not have to happen.

We should extricate the Israelis from that (untenable) position while we still can. How long until the nukes start falling and there are 6,413,800 more dead Jews? Even if it's a result that occurs in the long-term, we should prevent it by whatever means necessary.

Is the Holy Land really worth it?

[Jedieb]

How exactly are we going to "extricate" them? That territory wasn't seized or captured by the Jews. It was taken by the BRITISH from the Turks. After a long and contentious process, the victorious nations of WWII hammered out the details. The sentiment for Israel was obvious. The U.S. and the Russians were the first to recognize Israel. The idea of a Jewish state had been floating around for over 2,000 years. So now where do they go? Are you going to put them in U-Hauls and bring them over here? Are you really saying that Jews have NO right to live in Jeruselum? Is it Israel's fault that they won the 6 day war? Did they start it? And I still haven't heard your opinion of the rampant America bashing that many of those poor Palestinians take part in. You didn't see Jews dancing in the streets when the TWC fell, but there were more than a few Palestinians doing a jig. So you rip Boricua for saying FAR less, but the poor Palestinians get a free pass?

The Israelis have as much a right to a nation as the Palestinians do. But the sad truth is, that even when a Palestinian state is created you will not see the end of anti-semetic OR anti-American violence. It'll just be a temporary release. And the "extrication" of Jews from Israel is.., well I don't even know what to call that idea. It's just ridiculous. I'd love to see the particulars of that plan. I bet there's a few in some Hamas briefcases or maybe some Klan literature. I'm not saying that you are anti-semitic. If you think that then I apologize. I'm just saying that Israel has a right to succeed. Your suggestion of the dissolution of the Jewish state is one shared by some of the more disgusting people on the planet.

[Darth Viscera]

Not dissolution, redeployment. There's plenty of relatively unoccupied space on this planet where they can settle in without fear of being bombed. It may not be holy, but I'm sure the weather is better than it is in Israel. Heck, just off the top of my head, Iowa, right here in the U.S., is largely vacant. If I remember correctly, the U.S. Homestead program is still active in Iowa because it's as sparsely populated as a scottish pay toilet, which means that you can get from the government 5 acres and a mule to make a home.

[Khan Surak]

Vis, I seriously hope you're joking. Even if you are, it's not funny. I am very disappointed that you would even make a suggestion such as that. The Jews didn't care about the weather when they immigrated there after WWII. They wanted to live in their homeland after 2,000 years, and they did all the work to make Israel actually have agriculture. The Palestinians and the Israelis both have their rights to their homelands, and just because the world recognizes Israel's mistakes over the grievous Palestinian atrocities, is no reason to even suggest relocating either of them in another area. This can be worked out, though it will be very difficult with the current leaders of the two sides.

[Jedieb]

Iowa?! WTF?:huh

Khan, is correct. Right now, the jobs and food in the area come overwhelmingly from the Israelis. So after developing their reclaimed homeland and living their for over half a century, they're suppose to pack up and move to Iowa or ANY other location. Anyway...

More violence yesterday, more to come I'm sure. The Palestinians have accepted a provisional Israeli plan to withdraw troops from the Gaza strip. 20 months of this, and still the end is months, if not years away.