Saddam feels the gunsights on him

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011218/wl/iraq_arabs.html

...perhaps the more Saddam's attention is directed outward, the more easily he can be assassinated;-)

Excerpts and comparisons.

Saddam asked for Arab unity and warned that the United States and Israel are using the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington as a pretext to destroy Arabs.

``America is encouraging the Zionist entity to kill the Arabs,'' he said in a call to Arab governments and people carried by the Iraqi News Agency. ``The United States and the Zionist entity have one common goal, that is to destroy and humiliate the Arab nation.''

``Our position will be better if we are to hold an emergency summit ... in order to exclusively discuss the aggression toward the Palestinians,'' he was quoted as saying.


Another poster here states in a thread below:

"Lin's point about authenticity is a good one, but it sort of begs the question about who is and isn't "mixed up" in terrorism."

"Israel last week blew to pieces five Palestinian children engaged in the terrorist act of walking to school (they triggered a booby trap), bringing to just over 17,000 the number of civilians that have been injured and killed by Israel in it's attempt to subdue resistence to their occupation of Palestinian land. Neither the U.S. nor it's citizenry responded with widespread condemnation, the laying of wreaths, threats to cut aid, threats to retalliate by force, or anything of the sort. The reason that this didn't happen was that the U.S. supports this kind of terrorism, and tends to limit its criticism of teorrism (sic by poster) to cases when the other side hurts it and it's allies."


I don't see much difference between these to extreme statements. They seem very similar.Both Saddam and the poster put forth that Israel and the U.S.A. are the terrorists. I wonder who could that poster be?

No one that loves America. I think M should give "the poster" a piece of his mind.

That point was already discussed, and I was sort of planning on posting less on the Other Topics Forum for a while and getting back to posting on the Poker-Related forums. However you did cause me to consider something I had not previously considered, so if your goal was to stir something up, you may have hit the jackpot. Here's my controversial idea:


Who pays for the staggering costs we are forced to bear for things like 9/11, for the Gulf War, etc. etc.? We the Americans pay for them. Yet we are helping other countries immensely...look at Afghanistan, and the Gulf War of 1991 for instance. We essentially saved Kuwait from Saddam, and there is little doubt that Saddam would next have set his military sights on Saudi Arabia. I believe we should have been entitled to compensation from Iraq for this. A piece of land and a few oil fields might have just about covered the cost of the Gulf War. Likewise, the current precautions we must now take such as screening mail and greatly heightened security at airports...these are all incredibly expensive. Yes we may eventually win the war against terrorism but we just might go broke in the process.


Perhaps we should consider implementing a policy of holding those who are responsible, to be financially responsible as well. In other words if we are forced to bomb Iraq then we are going to charge Saddam for the bombs and the effort. Enough with this utter BULLSHIT from Iraq and terrorists and those who support them. Leave us and our allies alone and we'll leave you alone. Attack us or force us to take military action and you will pay for the cost of it all as well as getting beaten up in the process. If you can't pay the bill, well we could always use a few more oil wells.


I'm not saying it is necessarily practical, but it is probably right in a moral sense in some instances and I think there is a slim chance we just might be able to announce a new "NO-NONSENSE" policy with regards to belligerent nations or nations which support belligerents. This policy could entail financial resonsibility as well. The US has borne the lion's share of EVERYTHING with regards to security for most of the century, and perhaps it's time our NATO allies do their true share. And just maybe those who are responsible for belligerence could soon realize that they might not just lose the battle, but that they could lose some of their land too. The biggest trick would be getting Europe to go along with this. Seriously though, after all they've been through this century, Europe's degree of patience and tolerance is remarkable. Perhaps a bit too remarkable. However I believe they are in the process of waking up now.


Well, it seemed you wanted a "piece of my mind." Hope this qualifies;-)

M, you are one of the people that I really enjoy reading on 2+2. You are an intelligent person and you usually make excellent, thought-provoking points. Not this time. The arrogance of your post is astounding. I'm Canadian, and LOVE the USA, but that is exactly the attitude that provokes other nations to retaliate.


If you want to be the worlds' policeman, fine. Giddeup. But if you are going to pick and choose which battles to fight, do not start stomping around demanding to be paid for it. I don't see any interest in saving the people in East Timor etc. Presumably, alot of missions are charitable (Somalia for ex.). Obviously, it becomes problematic to demand money for charity.


Charge Saudi Arabia for the Gulf War? Do you really think that your government went over there to oust Saddam out of the goodness of it's heart? Now that is naive. I suppose you are going to go down the list of countries the US has "saved" and send them a bill as well. Maybe send the chinese government an invoice for that missile that blew up their embassy.


Aggression begets war. It is that simple. If you are aggresive towards a nation, you can expect that nation, and it's allies, to fight back. Personally, I think the US, and it's allies, should clean house. Iraq, Sudan and Lybia. But They should/will do it for selfish reasons, namely to protect their citizens from harm, or a $5.00 gallon of gas.


Adam.

Thank you Adam, for the compliment and your honest appraisal.


The post was partly tongue-in-cheek; I did put one smiley face in it, but I also feel there is a kernel of truth in it in certain parts. For instance, I didn't mean to suggest charging Saudi Arabia for the Gulf War. I was suggesting charging Iraq. And if Saddam won't allow UN inspectors to inspect his weapons facilities now, as per the 1991 cease-fire agreement, bomb those suspected buildings (and perhaps charge him for it;-)) Again partly tongue-in-cheek but on the other hand cleaning house in Iraq might be an excellent idea. Besides just why should we have to foot the bill for everything. I'm not saying charge those nations we protect or help; I'm saying charge those bastards who made it necessary for us to get involved in the first place.


If bin Laden had more money we could get at that would be nice, because the last I heard, the bill for the 9/11 disaster is going to reach 1 billion dollars or more, and I think we should be entitled to reparations. And that will likely be small potatoes compared to the total costs yet to come of inspecting, securing, detecting, preventing etc. that we shall now be forced to bear for a long time yet to come.


I know some of my post sounded arrogant but I also think it's at least as arrogant for these belligerent countries or terrorist/terrorist supporters to act in the manner they do. After all what could be more arrogant than that. So I'm not saying we should always take such an approach, or even necessarily take such an approach at all. I'm just saying perhaps we should consider it in certain cases. I also really do think that a lot (but not all) of the problems involved in dealing with these types of nations and organizations can be solved by simply taking a united stand against it and following through with thorough action.

All right, Adam, I admit that the idea of taking some land as compensation is wrong in many instances and perhaps I got a little carried away in that post. However it may not be wrong in every single case. I do think the idea of compensation in some cases does have merit, and I do think that Saddam's personal fortune should be up for compensation once he is deposed. Also, a Western piece of property in Iraq might not be such a bad idea, really.


I think that there really is a lot of BS that gets tried by these rogue regimes, and that they wouldn't try it if they knew they would be dealt with far more speedily and harshly than they have been in the past. Qaddafi did quiet right down after that bombing raid which unfortunately killed his daughter instead of killing him.

Actually, I think it would be a disaster. I would feel quite sorry for the people who would have live in, and be caretakers of, a piece of land flying the American flag in Iraq or in any other hostile nation.


The goal should not be for western powers to expand, but for our way of life to expand. Western society has evolved and flourished well ahead of the rest of the world. We, humanity as a whole, would be far better off if all countries followed our lead.


Adam.

"The goal should not be for western powers to expand, but for our way of life to expand. Western society has evolved and flourished well ahead of the rest of the world. We, humanity as a whole, would be far better off if all countries followed our lead."


I pretty much agree with this. However in the case of perhaps a few very dangerous belligerents I think the process might be speeded up greatly by considering the possibility of simply converting their country, or part of it, to a something like a joint Western power with the indigenous citizenship being allowed to vote after the dust gets settled. In other words get everything under control and then give them democracy. The fact is, a great deal of the populace in these countries do not support the tyrants like Saddam who rule them; they simply have no choice and no power. Most of their people would quickly be better off too, and people tend to choose political sides based on their pocketbooks in large part. People who are well-fed and more prosperous than before are generally happy with the status quo, and people who are significantly poorer than before or are hungry would often like to see the government in different hands...we even tend to re-elect presidents based on the economy. So I'm actually suggesting that everyone except the current ruling Iraqi clique would be better off in such a scenario, and that the idea of a large Western base in Iraq might not be so bad an idea either.


I don't believe that the arguments about territory and sovereignty are necessarily the most sacred of all arguments; perhaps other arguments weigh heavily too. The bottom line is that the Iraqis and the entire world would be better off if Iraq were temporarily taken over and permanently converted to a Western-style democracy.


In other words, just maybe the process should be speeded up instead of waiting another 50 or 100 years for the natural conversion during which time the Saddams and terrorists might well find ways to blow up London, Washington, Bonn, Paris, and other major cities with weapons which will make them uninhabitable for any foreseeable future. I generally believe in the natural process, letting things take their course, waiting, etc...but the big problem here is terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 9/11 could be very small potatoes compared to what almost surely will take place if terrorists are allowed to get ahold of thermonuclear weapons through Saddam in a couple of years.


Yes, the Middle East is way behind the times culturally, politically, etc. However if large elements in the Middle East continue to wage and/or support war against the Western world, perhaps they should be abruptly brought to meet modern times a lot faster than they otherwise would. After all they are taking the war to us first.

Your idea is very interesting.


I'm dissapointed that you didn't comment on Saddam's quotes matching the poster's assessment. Certainly, America and Israel are not the terrorists. For an American (perhaps the poster is not American)to state this is unthinkable.

Well I did address it in an earlier post, perhaps archived by now.


The most glaring difference is that, unlike terrorists, the USA and Israel do not seek out purely civilian targets...even Israel's assassinations are targeted military/political leaders, not mall shoppers. The incident with the booby-trap was tragic (and perhaps Israel needs to reconsider the use of certain types of booby-traps) but it obviously wasn't directed at children.

It's possible that radical Palestinians set booby traps to kill their own children, and blame it on Israel. Palestinian terrorists have been killing Israeli children since Israel's creation.


Anyone that states that the USA is committed to terrorism is a radical. I think that they should be investigated.