Did we score a victory?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Boris! Even after the war the data that I posted shows you that he was only able to create a 1.7% increase in the reduced level of GNP even after the war. And this with what may be the most valuable commodity in the world! The man just can't manage an economy. Even now, the revenue he gets does not go to improving the economy. It goes to increase his personal luxury!

As I said, Iraq was contending with a global oil oversupply that caused a disasterous drop in prices. That, more than anything else, was what crushed their economic growth in the 1980s. That, and the huge military build up, which was also a part of the war (yes, even after).

I'm not saying that Hussein is an economic genius, just that, to a considerable degree, the drop in GDP was not within his control.

But the fact remains that Iraq's GDP dropped by 2/3rds between 1990 and 1991. No such dramatic drop had occured before that. Its GDP has been in the toilet since thanks to the sanctions (never minding whether they are justified or not).

Surely it is easy to infer that a western led rebuilding of Iraq's economy will help them regain the type of standard of living they had pre-1980.

I wouldn't necessarily say that would be the case, but it certainly could happen. But that doesn't remotely justify a war. Why don't we invade every poor country to raise their standard of living?

Congo, here we come!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, on ABC's World News Tonight they made the statement that Bush is backing off his demand for a UN vote this week as well as the March 17ty deadline because Blair told him that if Bush went ahead unilaterally it would bring down his government.

Bush would not wait if there was no hope of getting a resolution. He is waiting because they are making progress.

[yavoon]

iraq has been under sanctions for a very long time. nothing we want to accomplish is gna be accomplished w/o war. he has proven that he has the balls to kick inspectors out and that he has the fortitude to withstand sanctions.

it is down to two options, let him be. invade him. this idea that somehow an extra year of his ppl starving while he diverts what lil sanctioned funds he has is going to do anything is naive.

and on the feminist thing. yes if u r a feminist and u feel strongly about iraq, then go protest against it. but FEMINISM AS AN ORGANIZATION is protesting the war on iraq. which is an entirely different thing. and the reason they are doing it is simply cuz they are knee jerk liberals(Hey I've said that!).

I know you all might not want to hear this, but there are more than a few ppl in america who would agree with this line of thought. we knew afghanistan was a screwed up place, we knew they harbored terrorists, killed ppl on public display in football stadiums, etc. but like u said, they were no direct threat.

then two planes rammed into the WTC. now we know we can't go around and invade everyone. but when we look at the list of ppl who shared similarities w/ afghanistan. we come upon iraq. hey they kicked inspectors out right? they've already invaded one country, they have a horrible human rights record, they are still under completely inept sanction by the UN.

so on the idea that we now understand the places that are crapholes and coddle hatred no longer need to be a direct threat to cause us great damage. and we have a chance to try and do something. we attempt to take it.

and thus every liberal protestor in the world who would rather be indirectly responsible for millions of lives then directly responsible for a dozen comes out of the wood work in a concerted effort based on some insane slippery slope logic among other things.

[PLATO]

Boris, I am certainly not advocating this as a sole reson to invade. In fact, I'm not advocating it as a reason to invade at all. It is just another in a long line of benefits that could arise from the invasion. I have been repeating the reasons for invasion repeatedly in threads that you have been in. I'll spare you reading them again, but I stand by them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
This is not unreasonable. What would you define as a threat?

Invading borders, unprovoked attacks, and the like.

Iraq is not now, nor has it really ever been, a threat to the U.S. They never attacked us, nor our allies, and is it stands they don't have the means to wage even the most minor of wars.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
What I am saying is that the delay is because Chirac apparently is listening to the heavy criticism out of Britain and has softened his stance on a new resolution. This is why there is a delay. It has nothing to do with Bush, except that Bush, like Blair, is willing to go the extra mile to reach consensus in the UN.

On the contrary, Ned, GWB has everything to do with it. He started this whole mess with that Axis of Evil thing he pulled out of his rectum. Then the US started making noises about how bad Saddam is, and that lapdog Blair started to froth at the mouth as well.

Other countries are just responding to this whole silliness under an established framework.

[PLATO]

Yavoon: Let's not forget that Sadam has publically supported terrorist with hard cash.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Che even Chirac won't try to say Iraq doesn't have WoMD.

Snooze.

Isn't this bit all worn out and torn?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Invading borders, unprovoked attacks, and the like.

Iraq is not now, nor has it really ever been, a threat to the U.S. They never attacked us, nor our allies, and is it stands they don't have the means to wage even the most minor of wars.

Would attempted assasination of a former US President qualify as a provoked or unprovoked attack?

Would firing on UN authorized aircraft in the No Fly zones be classified as provoked?

Would paying the families of homicide bombers in one of our Allies countries be provoked or unprovoked?

What's it going to take Boris? You are one of the few liberals that I see posting here that is logical enough to get it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Snooze.

Isn't this bit all worn out and torn?

Hey UR. Worn out, but still the truth. And also one of the cruxes of the matter.

Calling it boring won't make it go away.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Yavoon: Let's not forget that Sadam has publically supported terrorist with hard cash.

Or, one could say Saddam has supported insurgent groups against regional foes. After all, his support has been for secular dissident groups in Iran, Turkey and Israel.

I don't see all that much difference between his supporting such groups and the U.S. supporting the Contras or other insurgent groups against governments we don't like.

It's not like Hussein pays money to the families of terrorist suicide bombers, like, oh, Saudi Arabia was doing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Hey UR. Worn out, but still the truth. And also one of the cruxes of the matter.

Calling it boring won't make it go away.

Sorry, I am not a three year old kid who hasn't gone around the block at least once.

Lots of other countries have CBN weapons, GWB has made nothing about their situation. No threatening noises, no condemnations, not even comments.

So what makes Iraq having CBN weapons such a big deal?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Or, one could say Saddam has supported insurgent groups against regional foes. After all, his support has been for secular dissident groups in Iran, Turkey and Israel.

I don't see all that much difference between his supporting such groups and the U.S. supporting the Contras or other insurgent groups against governments we don't like.

It's not like Hussein pays money to the families of terrorist suicide bombers, like, oh, Saudi Arabia was doing.

Boris, he pays $25000 to families of the homicide bombers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Would attempted assasination of a former US President qualify as a provoked or unprovoked attack?

A report by Kuwaiti sources that was NEVER verified.

Would firing on UN authorized aircraft in the No Fly zones be classified as provoked?

UN authorized? Whoa. Where did the UN authorize the No-Fly zones? They didn't. The U.S. imposed them after the Gulf War unilaterally, and they were not a part of the ceasefire agreement.

Last year Koffi Annan stated that Iraq was justified in firing on US aircraft in the zones, as it is sovereign Iraqi airspace.

Would paying the families of homicide bombers in one of our Allies countries be provoked or unprovoked?

IIRC, Hussein has given money to Hamas, but not directly to families of suicide bombers (that is an as-yet unsubstantiated Israeli claim). Saudi Arabia has, btw, given money for such purposes.

What's it going to take Boris? You are one of the few liberals that I see posting here that is logical enough to get it.

It's going to take a direct threat from Iraq against the U.S. or our allies, and that does not now, nor has it ever, existed. North Korea is posing much more of a threat, and even they haven't done remotely enough to warrant an invasion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


On the contrary, Ned, GWB has everything to do with it. He started this whole mess with that Axis of Evil thing he pulled out of his rectum. Then the US started making noises about how bad Saddam is, and that lapdog Blair started to froth at the mouth as well.

Other countries are just responding to this whole silliness under an established framework.

Really, I understand the powers that be are calling for a world summit on the issue to see if a compromise can be worked out.

Bush is considering it.

There is no doubt that Bush and Blair have been the main proponents of taking action. I believe the only reason that we are seeing action is that Bush has promised to do something if the UN fails to act. However, he did make a commitment to Congress and to Blair to do everything in his power to get the UN to take a stand before he would resort to war. He is living up to that commitment as of now.

I do not think the left should take credit for Bush's actions. They can take credit, I beleive, for the extremism shown by Germany and France.