Please help me figure something out! LONG

[TIME TO MAKE $$$]

I've never understood something! This Whole bomb Iraq thing has me a bit confused!

So I have a few questions and I hope someone can give me logical answers to them.

Let me start with what I know and understand.

Back in the 80's Iraq and Iran were in a 7-year war, to which Former President Bush was the C.I.A. Director and was head of the Iran Contra affair.

During this 7-year war Iraq was fighting, Kuwait decided to declare their own Independence and become their own country. So after fighting this war, the Iraqi gov't decided to bring Kuwait back to being a part of Iraq, or infact become involved in a "civil war" with Kuwait. To which Former President Bush decided to help liberate Kuwait.

I know at the same time the Gulf war started was in about the same time that leases were expiring for companies such as Texaco, Shell, Exxon and other major oil companies. I also know that both counties of Iraq and Kuwait had know intentions of re-newing the leases. But at the end of the Gulf war, Kuwait was thankful and in ruins and needed help rebuilding and the leases were re-newed. Cool for the us!

Then came the Clinton era and No "Major" problems with Iraq appeared to be present.

Now with Bush in office and a war on Terrorism raging. But this is were I start to get confused. It's obvious that the Bush administration wants to go after Saddam, for the reason of developing weapons of mass Destruction. But what I'm confused about is this and let me put them in Question form.

1. Saddam has offered to let U.N. chief inspector in and to allow U.S. Congressmen to come over and inspect for weapons. But the U.S. has declined without a second thought. Why?

2. The U.S. stands alone in attacking Iraq?

3. Why doesn't Europe stand with us if there is such evidence of the Iraqi gov't producing these weapons? Not even England is behind us

4. If Saddam is such a tyrant, then why is he still in power? Why doesn't his own country over throw him? Do they not have guns?

5. Why is there such Muslim extremist who are willing to blow themselves up to make a point or revenge the death of a leader, But yet not one of them are able to sacrifice themselves to revenge the gassing of these supposed millions?

6. Why is it that if Iraq is SUCH a threat that counties such as Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi not back a U.S. Attack? Hell if his weapons of mess destruction threaten anyone it's those counties.

I can fully understand the U.S. going after Iraq for supporting Terrorism and paying the suicide bombers.

I hope someone can help me and answer my questions


THANKS

 

[THE KOD]

Re: Please help me figure something out! LONG

Time - Here are my short answer observations.

1. Saddam has offered to let U.N. chief inspector in and to allow U.S. Congressmen to come over and inspect for weapons. But the U.S. has declined without a second thought. Why?

There is no way the UN inspectors would find what Saddam has to hide. He is way to smart for that. It is a delay tactic on Iraqs part. The US congressman on entering Iraq, would be kidnapped and held hostage for about ten years.

2. The U.S. stands alone in attacking Iraq?

No one else wants to deal with this nut.


3. Why doesn't Europe stand with us if there is such evidence of the Iraqi gov't producing these weapons? Not even England is behind us .

No one has the military force to be of real use. Britians public does not want another war with Iraq.

4. If Saddam is such a tyrant, then why is he still in power? Why doesn't his own country over throw him? Do they not have guns?

This one is easy. Saddam is a ruthless dictator. If you even breathe a threat towards him you are jailed and your whole family is killed. The people are very afraid of him and have good reason to be. He has killed his own family over crap and used gas to exterminate many thousands of the kurds. He has a elite military force with him and no one could get to Saddam without inside help and that is not forthcoming in the immediate future.

5. Why is there such Muslim extremist who are willing to blow themselves up to make a point or revenge the death of a leader, But yet not one of them are able to sacrifice themselves to revenge the gassing of these supposed millions?

See above.

6. Why is it that if Iraq is SUCH a threat that counties such as Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi not back a U.S. Attack? Hell if his weapons of mess destruction threaten anyone it's those counties.

The US is the country with the most to worry about. Saddam will nuke Isreal as soon as he can. He will continue to give terrorists money and biological weapons to use against the US and he will sit back and laugh. He has big revenge towards us lets face it.

The toughest part for me to swallow, is if he knows we are coming he will go and hide in the mountains somewhere and we wont be able to find him and he will run his own terrorist plans against us. He has money and the means. Does Osama ring a bell here ? If we dont get him , in the next 5 years expect at least a dirty nuke to go off in a major US city. This guy is a nut .


THANKS

Scott-Atlanta

 

[ferdville]

1. Just last week Iraq said they will allow NO NEW INSPECTORS whether they are from the United Nations or United States. You should remember that several years back, Iraq kicked out all weapons inspectors. Most experts believe that their weapon facilities now are mobile.

2. Well, if alone doesn't include Israel. If you take a close look at many of the countries you have mentioned including the Europeans, you will note that they are either governed by Monarchies or are Socialist governments.

3.The European countries have problems of their own- problems they have never had before. Massive amounts of Muslim immigrants are a cause for concern in Europe. There have been several demonstrations in European countires asking governments to stop the flow of illegal Muslim immigration. Thee have been predictions that by 2025 the population of the United States may be 20% Muslim - so maybe we should worry about the potential impact on our culture. Of course, if there are any major problems, the European countries will do what they have always done - come whining and sniveling to the United States for help.

4. You could also wonder why the German people didn't overthorw Hitler. When Hitler came to power in the late '30's in Germany, one of the first things he did was to confiscate as many private weapons as he could, Then he proceeded to kill any and all dissenters. Iraq has followed the same path - speak out and die. There have been numerous attempts to overthrow Saddam, but he holds all the cards (guns, militia, etc).

5. In the Muslim world, the text books in school don't even acknowledge Israel as a country. The young are taught at the earliest age that Israel and the United States are evil, wealthy nations of decadence - that being the reason they are so poor. You cannot attack or speak out against anything Saddam says or does without risking execution.

6. At this stage, you can't count out Turkey just yet. Keep in mind that there is only one democracy in the Middle East - Israel. Israel does have Muslims in their parliament as well. The other countries are run by monarchies, dictators or other "ruthless" types. Their regimes are fragile and these countries are forced to adopt an attitude of "lets help whoever is our biggest threat now".

A few other points worth considering. You mentioned that there weren't any "problems" with the Clinton administration. Let me mention a few "problems" to refresh your memory - embassy bombings; USS Cole bombing; World Trade Center bombing #1l- all directly attributed to Al-Queda and Bin Laden. In the late 90's, the Sudan offered up Osama to the United States on a silver platter; the Clinton administration turned it down. Had they taken him, would 9/11 ever happened? Remember it was also the Clinton adminstration that bombed the aspirin factory and shot up Afghanistan with missles. I am not a huge supported of "W. Bush", but things weren't all strawberries and cream when the Clinton adminstrateion was in power.
Another thing to consider is a flashback to WWII. Remember Erwin Rommel, the "Desert Fox." He was running wild across Northern Africa. The Arabs nor the British had any hope of stopping his military machine. Two things saved their countries - American military and American blood. If not for that I doubt they would be praying to Mecca. They would more likely be saying "Heil Hitler." Then somebody would say - "Why don't we just overthrow him?" and back we go to the beginning.
I hope you found this interesting and helpful. This is simply how I see it.

 

[TIME TO MAKE $$$]

Thanks for the response Fervdille, I am not a US citizen, but I find politics very interesting adn i just learned a few things.

 

[loophole]

time to make $$$, i don't really have much to offer in the way of answers to your questions, as any answers would necessarily be matters of opinion, and i learned a long time ago to keep personal opinions about religion and politics to myself.

however, some of your factual representations have me a little confused. where did you get the idea that kuwait decided to "declare their independence" from iraq in the eighties during the iraq-iran war? my recollection is that kuwait has existed as a sovereign entity since the mid-eighteenth century. they were a british protectorate from the beginning of the twentieth century until the early sixties, when they were admitted to the united nations. at that time, all member nations of the u.n., including iraq, would have necessarily recognized kuwait as a sovereign nation.

my recollection of the events leading up to the iraqi invasion are a little different also. i seem to recall that opec, the arab-controlled oil cartel, was holding its members to strict quotas in order to dictate higher demand, and thereby prices, for gasoline. iraq wanted a bigger piece of the opec action which would have meant that kuwait would have had to agree to reduce their own quota in order for the iraqis to increase theirs. kuwait refused, and hussein conjured up some territorial claim to kuwait that dated back around four or five hundred years - i don't believe he ever clearly detailed the claim, it was understood by all, including other arab nations, that the claim had no legitimacy whatsoever.

when you misstate the events leading up to the kuwait invasion to make iraq's actions appear more defensible, you run the risk of having others wonder if your presentation is indeed unbiased or whether in fact it carries a hidden agenda.

 

[TIME TO MAKE $$$]

Loophole, thanks for the feedback. I probably should have mentioned this before but I took an international relations(Political Science) course a few years ago and these facts are from an author whose book I had to read, so those facts that I stated might be misleading or biased as you state.

My apologies,