Who wants the U.S. to invade Iraq?

[Disorder]

On the other hand, Iraq keeps ignoring UN-resolutions, shouldn't we be punishing Iraq in a non-violent way for this? We shouldn't let them get away with everything. I'm afraid Bush doesn't care about this at all though, he just wants the oil. He doesn't mind the chemical weapons..

[gatewatcher]

Disorder said:

he just wants the oil. He doesn't mind the chemical weapons..

In this case I think it's the other way arround. America can survive an oil shortage, Americans attacked by a biological weapon won't survive. Oil is just an added bonus.

[fodders]

It's oil revenue not oil quantity at stake here.
As to the UN resolutions being ignored? Sure punish Iraq if you intend to also punish Israel for ignoring resolutions, or is it one law for one, and one law for another?

[dsm]

Someone please kill Bush. He's done nothing but cause trouble since he was...hmm..."elected" (more like put on his "throne" by the rich lobbyists rather than democratically elected).

[gatewatcher]

dsm said:

Someone please kill Bush. He's done nothing but cause trouble since he was...hmm..."elected" (more like put on his "throne" by the rich lobbyists rather than democratically elected).

He's caused trouble? What the hell do you call 3,000 civillians murdered by terrorists? I call that causing trouble. Eliminating terrorists and terrorist states isn't making trouble either, that's trying to prevent it. If you want to blame someone for trouble, blame Osama and his buddies, not Bush, because he is only doing what your Tony Blair would do if london was attacked.

[Spike]

Hmm. US threatening to invade Iraq due to their manufacturing of weapons that the aforementioned US government already posess.

Life is funny.

[Spike]

gatewatcher said:

because he is only doing what your Tony Blair would do if london was attacked.

Who said that DSM was British?

[Lord FlatHead]

gatewatcher said:

He's caused trouble? What the hell do you call 3,000 civillians murdered by terrorists? I call that causing trouble.

How about all the Afghani civilians who were blown to shreds because the US military can't be bothered to actually think before bombarding something.

[Wobbo]

^^^^ Or the millions of refugees that will now starve because the UN cant give them food during a bombing?

And once again, how can the country with the *biggest supply of weapons of mass destruction* invade another country for having them? Especially a dictator whom THAT COUNTRY PUT IN POWER?

[gatewatcher]

Xian said:

^^^^ Or the millions of refugees that will now starve because the UN cant give them food during a bombing?

Or is it that some guy looking for a profit scoops up all the MRE's, dropped to civillians by the US, then charges a ridiculous ammount for them to other refugees?

And once again, how can the country with the *biggest supply of weapons of mass destruction* invade another country for having them? Especially a dictator whom THAT COUNTRY PUT IN POWER?

Well, we may have the biggest supply of mass destructive weapons, but it's safe to assume we won't sell any to the Kurds and say "here you go, unleash hell on Baghdad". Also, yes, we put Sadaam in power. At the time, he was the better of the choices, and afaik no one knew what his intentions were. We made a mistake, and now we're trying to correct it.

[fodders]

I suppose America would *never* use these weapons of mass destruction? Oh sorry I forgot, America has used them, more than once.

[gatewatcher]

fodders said:

I suppose America would *never* use these weapons of mass destruction? Oh sorry I forgot, America has used them, more than once.

Fodders, you're one of the dw members I respect most, but if you're reffering to Japan I'll be sadly dissapointed. Say it isn't so...

[IMJack]

There's news: The Senate is telling Shrub to back down. The House is playing along with Shrub, but is trying to talk him into trying diplomacy before invading.

When the government is split, the fun really begins.

[Wobbo]

gatewatcher said:

Well, we may have the biggest supply of mass destructive weapons, but it's safe to assume we won't sell any to the Kurds and say "here you go, unleash hell on Baghdad". Also, yes, we put Sadaam in power. At the time, he was the better of the choices, and afaik no one knew what his intentions were. We made a mistake, and now we're trying to correct it.

Actually WE SOLD THE WAEPONS TO SADDAM. WE SOLD THE WEAPONS TO TURKEY. We *USED* them in other places. Saddam's invasion duplicates what we had done less than a year ago to Panama.

[gatewatcher]

Xian said:

Actually WE SOLD THE WAEPONS TO SADDAM. WE SOLD THE WEAPONS TO TURKEY. We *USED* them in other places. Saddam's invasion duplicates what we had done less than a year ago to Panama.

I don't know about the US selling weapons to Iraq and Turkey bit you're pushing, maybe you could link something for me to read about that. And as for us using weapons, I'd also like you to show me something that can prove it.

This all sounds like the forrest song, on Toxicity, to me ;)

[fodders]

gatewatcher said:

I don't know about the US selling weapons to Iraq and Turkey bit you're pushing, maybe you could link something for me to read about that. And as for us using weapons, I'd also like you to show me something that can prove it.

hmmm
oh dear
seems official
Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate)
Page S8987-S8998 had enough?

[fodders]

gatewatcher said:

Fodders, you're one of the dw members I respect most, but if you're reffering to Japan I'll be sadly dissapointed. Say it isn't so...

And why wouldn't/shouldn't I be refering to Japan? Surely you are not one of the many fools believing the "It was to save American lives" arguement? If so, I can point you to history that proves that is false.

[IMJack]

fodders said:

And why wouldn't/shouldn't I be refering to Japan? Surely you are not one of the many fools believing the "It was to save American lives" arguement? If so, I can point you to history that proves that is false.

Actually, I think he's talking about how it happened a half a century ago when they weren't sure the bomb would go off or not, or what it would do in terms of the war.

[IMJack]

0H GN0!!! TEH ARMY IS BUYING SUNTAN OIL BY TEH TONN! WE IS GOING TO TEH WAR!!!

[Major Grit]

I think no matter what America is going to fight back because you can say what you want America feels 9/11 as a slap in the face rather than a loss.

[SyntherAugustus]

No C-SPAN + No Bush + No Saddam = GOOD

[fodders]

IMJack said:

Actually, I think he's talking about how it happened a half a century ago when they weren't sure the bomb would go off or not, or what it would do in terms of the war.

They knew alright, if not before the 1st bomb, they sure knew after the second. Pretty shitty way to test something anyway, in my opinion, and now they protest about "Animal Testing"?

[drav35]

RailGunner said:

No C-SPAN + No Bush + No Saddam = GOOD

That would sure rule no more gay goverment!

[gatewatcher]

RailGunner said:

No C-SPAN + No Bush + No Saddam = GOOD

This is a real discussion, so go away.

And why wouldn't/shouldn't I be refering to Japan? Surely you are not one of the many fools believing the "It was to save American lives" arguement? If so, I can point you to history that proves that is false.

Not only did it save the lives of our allies, it saved nearly the entire nation of Japan. People seem to forget that the Soviet Union was ready to take it's piece of Japan, or I should say the whole country. Can you imagine what they would have done to Japan if they had been first to invade? "WELCOME TO RED HELL" comes to mind. And I don't think soviets at that time were a very humane bunch of people. I think you all know where this is going.

[myk]

* myk salutes fodders for doing well at the Venerated Art of "losing gatewatcher's respect."

[fodders]

Not this old chestnut? Why do some people still believe 50 year old propaganda that is now shown to be false by released papers now in the public domain?

Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. Many other "peace feelers" had preceded this move.

Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.

THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB:
PART I
In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .


In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary:

"It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:


The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . the scientists had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.
July 1945- Japan's peace messages:

July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".

July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).

July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).

July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53).
Truman broke all international laws governing war on civilians by his order to target the cities, not military personnel
In July Japan was totally helpless and was being shelled from sea and air. Japan had been bombed back to the stone age. Its population was facing imminent starvation. Much of the Japanese Army was stranded in China or scattered across islands like the Philippines or New Britain. The Japanese Navy had, capable of unaided movement, two aircraft carriers (one damaged) with no planes, three damaged cruisers, 41 destroyers, most damaged to some degree, and 59 submarines. There were 829 vessels incapable of movement, some lying on the bottom in shallow water, some floating upside down, some listing, others awash

[dsm]

gatewatcher said:

He's caused trouble? What the hell do you call 3,000 civillians murdered by terrorists? I call that causing trouble. Eliminating terrorists and terrorist states isn't making trouble either, that's trying to prevent it. If you want to blame someone for trouble, blame Osama and his buddies, not Bush, because he is only doing what your Tony Blair would do if london was attacked.

He had the chance to prevent it from happening - CIA had snooped up that a bunch of muslems were up to something (that was during the Clinton administration), they prepared a plan of action to apprehend these suckers, but then Bush was put into power by the rich lobbyists and Bush didn't want to use a plan thought up by Clinton's people, so they wanted them to waste time reformulating the fucking plan - result: They lost precious time, that could otherwise have been used to piece together the puzzle in time, which could've prevented a meaningless loss of many human lives, American as well as British, Asian etc.

Furthermore, before that twat Bush came into power, Microsoft was about to face justice for breaking the rules. What happens? Bush was put into power just before the tribunal and guess what? He didn't give a hoot about Microsoft breaking the rules so the case was closed - this is quite likely because Microsoft made Bush a favour and in return, Bush caused the case to close. Lobbyism, people lobbyfuckingism.

[Castlevania]

ill just be glad when there's one less self-serving dictator on the planet.

[Major Grit]

Hey dsm don't go playing that thing on clinton because you can say what you want to say clinton was the best damn president we ever had on the real.

[Doom-Child]

Hey dsm don't go playing that thing on clinton because you can say what you want to say clinton was the best damn president we ever had on the real.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH**cough**cough**HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA...

Ahhh..hee hee hee...whew.

That sort of thing cracks me up. And makes me vomit.

DC