permaculture playing cards*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Those wacky Iraqis Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Those wacky Iraqis" Watch "Those wacky Iraqis" New topic
Author

Those wacky Iraqis

Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I thought this was funny.
When David Kay and his team of United Nations weapons inspectors returned to their Baghdad hotel after a day in the field a few years ago, they craved a little down time from the tense game of cat-and-mouse they were playing with Iraq. But as each climbed into bed that night, it became clear that Iraq would have the last laugh this time: all of their beds had been short-sheeted. �I don�t think the Iraqis realized how funny this was,� said Kay, who headed one of the first missions after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. �I haven�t seen something like that since college.�

It seems the Iraqis also would do things such as call the inspector's rooms in the middle of the night and ask them if their refrigerator was running ("then you'd better hurry and catch it!"), or if they had "pop in a bottle" ("well then let him out!"). Their heartless attacks didn't stop there though. Occasionally Iraqi intelligence would call Domino's Pizza, tell them they were "the UN inspectors", and order twenty or so pizzas to be sent up to the inspector's rooms which they would then have to pay for. Just goes to show you that there's nothing too low for these guys. :roll:
[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
So what is the point? :roll:
Is this why USA is going to bomb Iraq?


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
What do you want to say Jason
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Sorry if the humor of the situation is lost on you. Short-sheeting a bed is a prank people sometimes pull when they are kids. The image of somebody instructing Iraqi intelligence officers to break into the inspectors' rooms and short-sheet their beds is a little amusing.
If you aren't familiar with the practice: How to Short Sheet a Bed.
And yes, we are going to bomb Iraq because they short-sheeted the UN Inspectors' beds. :roll:
[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
So what is the point? :roll:
Is this why USA is going to bomb Iraq?

I have to agree that "short sheeting" a bed is no reason to go to war. However, if the Iraqis ever go into the bathrooms of the UN weapons inspectors and put clear plastic wrap over the toilet bowl, then we would have no choice but to respond.


Dan Chisholm<br />SCJP 1.4<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.danchisholm.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Try my mock exam.</a>
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
However, if the Iraqis ever go into the bathrooms of the UN weapons inspectors and put clear plastic wrap over the toilet bowl, then we would have no choice but to respond.

Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Well, Ok, I agree that putting plastic wrap over the toilet bowl would call for drastic steps. Yesterday night I was reading about "pro" and "contra" of attacking Iraq, so I kinda interpreted Jason's last information in this context...
Jason, what do you think about Gregg Easterbrook's THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF "WMD." Term Limits (they already translated the article into Russian! )
"...I do not claim to have examined all of these citations, it is a safe bet that most referred collectively to chemical, biological, and atomic arms, implying equivalent power to inflict "death on a massive scale."
Yet their lethal potential is emphatically not equivalent. Chemical weapons are dangerous, to be sure, but not "weapons of mass destruction" in any meaningful sense. In actual use, chemical arms have proven less deadly than regular bombs, bullets, and artillery shells."
And the same goes for biological weapon, so basically Saddam is left with nuclear weapon he doesn't posess yet.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Jason, what do you think about Gregg Easterbrook's THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF "WMD." Term Limits

Sorry, it required registration so I didn't read it.
"...I do not claim to have examined all of these citations, it is a safe bet that most referred collectively to chemical, biological, and atomic arms, implying equivalent power to inflict "death on a massive scale."

I'm not sure of the whole context, but based purely on what is given above, he is making a false assumption. Who claims that WMDs have equivalent power to inflict "death on a massive scale"? For one thing, there are so many different types of NBCs (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical... the military term for WMDs) that you can't make any sweeping statements about any of them. They vary widely in means of delivery, persistance, and effect.
Yet their lethal potential is emphatically not equivalent. Chemical weapons are dangerous, to be sure, but not "weapons of mass destruction" in any meaningful sense. In actual use, chemical arms have proven less deadly than regular bombs, bullets, and artillery shells."

See above. Just because the author here has once concept of "mass destruction" doesn't make it correct. For that matter, who cares what is meant by "mass destruction"? These are the worst types of weapons on the planet. With conventional weapons it's one bang and it's over. The effects of NBCs often persist, continuing to kill in horrible ways long after the weapon is used initially. The effects of weather can sometimes greatly increase the area that is affected when chemical weapons are used.
As far as chemical weapons not being that big of a deal, are you familiar with Halabja (caution, graphic images)? Casualties were somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 killed and 10,000 injured. Chemical weapons used included mustard (a blister agent), cyanide, and nerve agents. I'm not sure what the author's definition is, but that's "mass" enough for me.
And the same goes for biological weapon, so basically Saddam is left with nuclear weapon he doesn't posess yet.

I personally think bio weapons are worse than nukes, but that's just my opinion. Anthrax, tularemia, plague, smallpox, ebola, ricin, aflatoxin, mycotoxins, haemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus, rotavirus... Take your pick. All nasty stuff, some worse than others.
Nukes we can all agree on as being a "bad" thing. I would put radiological weapons in the same category, although not as deadly as full-blown nuke (but still nasty). As far as him not having one... He has the scientists, the facilities, and at least most of the materials (and seeking to get the rest no doubt). Additionally we know he has the desire to attain nukes and the will to use them.
I suppose we should wait until he does use one against us or Israel (Europe knows they probably aren't in his crosshairs, that's why they could care less) before we come crawling on our hand and knees to the mighty UN begging for their permission to do something about it. Well, that's what Europe and some American liberals would have us do anyway.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Look, who is talking about Nukes & Weapons of mass destruction.
Additionally we know he has the desire to attain nukes and the will to use them.
US has it, and I read somewhere that US has nukes which can destroy earth more than 10 times and has already used it two times.
I suppose we should wait until he does use one against us or Israel
And I read that as per CIA report, Iraq does not want war with US.
AW may I know why US wants to attack on Iraq apart from reason that they are planing to acquire nukes and have/planing to have weapons of mass destruction.
I am saying apart from these because US also have these, when you have it, you lose the right to say others to not have it.
If you can have gun for security reasons then I have also right to carry gun for security reasons.
OR is it really oil ...
No hard feeling .. just curious
[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
It's even worse.
I have a pet Bengal Tiger and I gave an African Lion to my pal opposite the road. Other friend of mine next to your house, have a pet Python, but hey, don't worry, he is good.
But hey, get rid of your nasty kitten, OR I will sue you!
What? You mean you don't have one? I KNOW its hiding in your jewel safe. C'mmon, let me check, OR I will bomb you!

Just exaggerating. That's not what I really think.


[ flickr ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I am saying apart from these because US also have these, when you have it, you lose the right to say others to not have it.

All Western powers have these. The difference between these countries and say Iraq is that they are run by responsible leadership, not a petty dictator. There are checks and balances on our uses of these weapons, there are none on his. Even more relevant is the fact that he sells weapons to and otherwise supports and harbors terrorists. Further, he supports those who would destroy Israel and has himself launched attacks on Israel as well as funding those who do.
We are looking out for number one, and we are looking out for Israel. We will not permit WMDs to be used on either us or them. Simple as that.
As for us not "having the right" to tell people they can't have WMDs because we have them... That's laughable. Do you know the only reason Iraq didn't use WMDs (at least that we know of) during the Gulf war? Because we made it abundantly clear what the consequences would be. Not to be blunt, but power gives us the ability (or "right" as you call it) to protect our interests.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
The difference between these countries and say Iraq is that they are run by responsible leadership, not a petty dictator.
Oh really .....
responsible leadership ... .. big doubt
May I remind you of one more country where there is dictatorship and have Nukes and supported by US
Sorry Jason, this time you failed to justify US acts. AW you are not responsible for US acts.
I want to kill, I will kill, I have power.
I still do remember, whenever there would be hearing for Clinton in court, one bomb would be droped on Iraq. ******** [ edited by Tom: if you can't watch your mouth when talking about serious subjects then go play in word association ]..... this is what you call having power and responsible leader ??

There are checks and balances on our uses of these weapons, there are none on his.
Who checks and balances your weapons ??
you yourself. So they are doing themselves.
Even more relevant is the fact that he sells weapons to and otherwise supports and harbors terrorists.
We will not discuss who is terrorist and who is not...
But dont you sell weapons ??
he supports those who would destroy Israel and has himself launched attacks on Israel as well as funding those who do.
Looks like more interested in Israil than in yourself.
As for us not "having the right" to tell people they can't have WMDs because we have them... That's laughable.
I am laughing......., on your this statement
Do you know the only reason Iraq didn't use WMDs (at least that we know of) during the Gulf war? Because we made it abundantly clear what the consequences would be.
otherwise you will use WMDs .... OR nuke ..
I dont know .. what were consequences suppose to be...
Not to be blunt, but power gives us the ability (or "right" as you call it) to protect our interests.
& Israils interest also .....and abuse it ....
[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
{
Occasionally Iraqi intelligence would call Domino's Pizza, tell them they were "the UN inspectors", and order twenty or so pizzas to be sent up to the inspector's rooms which they would then have to pay for.
}
Domino's Pizza in Iraq???So they do like Americans then.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
there is no Domino's Pizza outlet in Iraq atleast as per Domino's Pizza site
http://www.dominos.com/dominos_pizza/contact.nsf/frmIntlLocator
I am in doubt .. who is wrong ...
I believe you as most of the time what you say truth .. but your truth is based on what are shown or you read in your newspapers..
so its not your fault
[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
Dave Vick
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 10, 2001
Posts: 3244
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
there is no Domino's Pizza outlet in Iraq atleast as per Domino's Pizza site

They probably left because of all the prank calls they were getting


Dave
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
there is no Domino's Pizza outlet in Iraq atleast as per Domino's Pizza site

LOL! When I said :
It seems the Iraqis also would do things such as call the inspector's rooms in the middle of the night and ask them if their refrigerator was running ("then you'd better hurry and catch it!"), or if they had "pop in a bottle" ("well then let him out!"). Their heartless attacks didn't stop there though. Occasionally Iraqi intelligence would call Domino's Pizza, tell them they were "the UN inspectors", and order twenty or so pizzas to be sent up to the inspector's rooms which they would then have to pay for.

I thought I was being obvious enough that most would catch the sarcasm. My apologies. These are simply other common childhood pranks on par with "short sheeting" (which they did do) and as Dan suggested, putting clear plastic wrap over the toilet bowl.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
OR Saddam was saying to hide his WMDs in their stores
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
These are simply other common childhood pranks on par with "short sheeting" (which they did do) and as Dan suggested, putting clear plastic wrap over the toilet bowl.

You Americans play lot of CHILDHOOD pranks ..
you naughty boys ..
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Admit it, if there were Super-Super-Power, that could safely attack you, the USA would be already bombed and its leader "replaced" with a better one... :roll:
So what do you think, can other countries also "act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed", if they have enough weapon, or is it US' privilege?
[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Admit it, if there were Super-Super-Power, that could safely attack you, the USA would be already bombed and its leader "replaced" with a better one... :roll:

Of course, we are such an evil and ruthless country. Horrible really.
So what do you think, can other countries also "act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed", if they have enough weapon, or is it US' privilege?

They can try. There's always the question of whether or not the rest of the world will back them or stand for it though. Do you seriously believe that when or if we decide to take any action in Iraq that we will not have the backing, publicly or privately, of the majority of western governments, Russia, and China?
I notice you haven't had anything to say regarding the actual threat that they pose however, as mentioned in the reply to your previous message. Too often, as in Germany for example, the typical response out of the rest of the world is simply a knee-jerk reaction against any position taken by the US, regardless of what it is. The actual validity of the US' position or our concerns don't seem to matter. I have yet to see an argument for keeping this guy in power. All we ever seem to hear is that the US doesn't have the "right" (whatever that is) to do anything about it, or some maybe pitifully weak arguments along the lines of "well so-and-so has WMDs too" as if from a wailing child on the playground.
[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Kevin Thompson
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 04, 2001
Posts: 237
I predict we will have still yet another "War to make the World Safe for Monarchy" (aka The Gulf War)
The reasons for G.W. Bush going to war with Iraq are exactly the same reasons as Bush's daddy had.
Reason 1.
Domestic US Economy is in bad shape. Have to do something, anything, to get people's minds off it. Besides most of the public likes the colesium type of thing (The legions try to bring the barbarian home in chains.)
Potential Reason 2.
Not man enough! A war is always a good thing for impotent men. He gets to be a macho macho man.
The results will be the same as the first war back in 1991: Iraq will win! (I.E. Bush will loose in the re-election and Saddam will still be in power.)
I wish things were different. But the US public is so easily duped it is frightening.
Kevin Thompson
NOTE: I led daily war protests during the first "War to make the World Safe for Monarchy"(commonly refered to as The Gulf War), but this time around I just give up.
NOTE 2: I really really wish that the Bush Administration would have taken up Iraq's offer for a duel. At least that way only the leading idiots would get hurt.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Jason, you are right ....
You can call any one whaky OR what ever you want ...
And whatever US does is right.
What happen if it does posses Nuke and other arms .....
Yes, who are not with you they are enemy...
AW its useless .... cause you dont want to come out of well..
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823

Kevin
Reason 1.
Domestic US Economy is in bad shape. Have to do something, anything, to get people's minds off it. Besides most of the public likes the colesium type of thing (The legions try to bring the barbarian home in chains.)

Actually Kevin, the economy went bad after the gulf war not before.
Your second point is just plain dumb.
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
{
NOTE 2: I really really wish that the Bush Administration would have taken up Iraq's offer for a duel. At least that way only the leading idiots would get hurt.
}
LOL. I think this is the best option. Let Saddam and Bush duke it out with pistols, knives.. while the rest of the world watches.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

.

Any good reason for bombing Iraq in reign of Clinton..
[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
Kevin Thompson
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 04, 2001
Posts: 237
Slacker! I am glad somebody agrees with me!
Just want you to know that I am not making that up. They really did offer a duel.
But the Bush camp said no.
Too bad.
Kevin Thompson
Kevin Thompson
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 04, 2001
Posts: 237
Ravish? You mean you are asking - "what are the reasons that Clinton had to bomb Iraq?"
Lets see... let me make a list.....
01. The sticky wet spot on Monica's dress.
02. Impeachment proceedings.
03. Federal lawsuits against clinton
04. Lazyiness
05. Boredom
I don't know - maybe he rolled out of bed the wrong way. They make up the reasons as they go along.
If you seek reason and logic - you could go insane with the effort.
Go see the movie - "Wag the Dog".
Kevin Thompson
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
[qb]
I want to kill, I will kill, I have power.


You have it backwards.
I want to STOP someone from killing, I will stop someone from killing, I have the power.
Yep - I agree with that. And I for one am glad that we would.

This guy has done mass killings before. He would certainly do it again if he had the means.


"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
You have it backwards.
I want to STOP someone from killing, I will stop someone from killing, I have the power.

With all due respect.....
I read somewhere that Bush has said that even UN says no, US would attack on Iraq.
When UN is there, then why does US want to be police.
Though UN is also almost in US control.
Why US has so much fear from Saddam.
Reason that he is dictator, is not good enough as US supports dictators for its own interest.
Its the same thing, who is not with me is my enemy.
If Iraq is not with US, bomb it.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
The US is the country being attacked, not Germany or China or Hungary or Kenya or Qatar. Why should the US allow itself to be attacked and then beg the UN to let us defend ourselves? The very idea is absurd. This whole thing goes away if Sadaam agrees to unlimited weapons inspections. He will never do that, of course, because he wants to build weapons to use on the USA and Israel.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
When UN is there, then why does US want to be police.

Name one instance where the UN has ever served in such a role effectively. The UN is inept. It cannot protect anybody, it cannot agree to enforce any of its resolutions, it is useless in just about any capacity other than as a forum for discussion. Why on earth would we place our safety and security in the hands of other uninterested or oppositional nations who rarely if ever show the will, desire, or ability to come through with anything when it counts? Can you name one reason we should do this?
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
I just took a quick look through this thread and noticed that a number of people seem to believe that the United States should not be playing the role of the world's police force. It is interesting to note that George Bush campaigned on the same philosophy and gained a great deal of support after arguing exactly that philosophy during the debates with Al Gore. Today, that philosophy is often referred to as the "Powell Doctrine" because it is based on the beliefs of our secretary of state and the first person to pledge support for Bush during the campaign in 2000.
Americans don't want to be the world's police force and during the campaign Powell and Bush had every intention of avoiding that role. Unfortunately, things have changed since then.
The two senior members of the Bush administration that have argued for a different approach are Cheney and Rumsfeld. Cheney's views probably changed on the morning of September 11 when two secret service agents physically pulled him out of his chair and carried him and his surgically repaired heart to a bomb shelter in the basement of the White House. Rumsfeld probably changed his mind when he personally helped to carry wounded service men and women to the helicopters that transported them to hospitals.
Bush now has an administration that is trying to pull him in two different directions. Powell still wants the UN to play the role of the world's policeman and Bush is providing Powell every opportunity to take that approach. On the other hand, Cheney and Rumsfeld are getting ready to step in when the UN fails.
To those around the world that would prefer to see the United Nations play the role of the world's police officer I would like to say that Powell and Bush would love to keep their campaign promise and pass the police officer role to the UN. There are a lot of Americans that would love to see the UN accept that responsibility, but Cheney and Rumsfeld are not confident that the transition will occur.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Good post. I even decided to throw away my pitiful weak response to Jason's pitifully weak arguments.
I think America needs more Dans more than more bombs!
------------------------------------
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe, and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."
George W. Bush.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I even decided to throw away my pitiful weak response to Jason's pitifully weak arguments.

Yet another personal jab at me by Map. <yawn>
You're not also Shura by any chance are you? There are some similarities. Ah well, maybe it's cultural. Anyway, I'll assume you were referring to this:
Too often, as in Germany for example, the typical response out of the rest of the world is simply a knee-jerk reaction against any position taken by the US, regardless of what it is. The actual validity of the US' position or our concerns don't seem to matter. I have yet to see an argument for keeping this guy in power. All we ever seem to hear is that the US doesn't have the "right" (whatever that is) to do anything about it, or some maybe pitifully weak arguments along the lines of "well so-and-so has WMDs too" as if from a wailing child on the playground.

I'm not sure how you construed that as being directed at you, particularly since I haven't heard any arguments out of you. I mean any arguments along the lines of "well so-and-so has WMDs too" that is. However if you closely identify with such arguments, as I can only assume is the case, you could always take the novel approach of arguing your position. Although you also seemed to seriously believe that I was making an argument to bomb Iraq based on Iraqis "short sheeting" the beds of UN inspectors, so I'm not really sure where your thinking is on this.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Jason, I did not mean it as a personal jab, more like last ritual exchange before signing an armistice
I sent you e-mail last night, at your hotmail address -- this was the only I could find. I'll post more today if I finally sort out my arguments...
As to me being Shura, you wont believe how many times I had the same feeling Makes me wonder if all Russians are the same or what.
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Why US has so much fear from Saddam.
Reason that he is dictator, is not good enough as US supports dictators for its own interest.


Colin Powell, the EU, Russia, and the Arab League have all voiced support for a two-state solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Powell often refers to the above group as "The Quartet". Although there is multi-lateral support for the two-state solution no progress can be made as long as the fighting continues. Nobody is being hurt by the conflict more than the Palestinian's and no one will benefit more from peace than the Palestinian people. I believe that the average Palestinian on the street would prefer peace, but the average Palestinian is not involved in the decision making process.
What the Palestinians need today is a stable government that is able to function as a democracy and keep the peace in the West Bank and Gaza. If such a government existed, then The Quartet could mediate a peace settlement that is agreeable to both sides and yes I have heard a number of American and Israeli officials speculate that the Israeli settlements would be removed. Unfortunately, a few organizations such as Hamas are not willing to accept a negotiated peace and Iraq has been sponsoring those organizations.
The Palestinians and the entire world will benefit if The Quartet is able to negotiate a peace settlement but Iraqi money is being used to derail the peace process. Bush and Powell have not publicly suggested a linkage between the elimination of Saddam and the success of the Arab/Israeli peace process. Even so, I think it is reasonable to speculate that Bush and Powell believe that the peace process will succeed if Iraqi and Iranian money is no longer made available to terrorist organizations that undermine the development of democratic rule in Palestine.
A second motivating factor for the replacement of Saddam is probably a desire to build stable, secular, democratic governments on both the western and eastern borders of Iran. The younger generation of Iranians is not particularly happy living under the control of a theocratic government. I think there is a belief that if Iran's neighbors are able to successfully develop secular governments then the Iranian people might demand the same within their own country. Since Iran is somewhat democratic, a secularization of Iran could potentially be achieved peacefully.
Of course, the above is just speculation.
Fred Grott
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 05, 2002
Posts: 346
Before we start comparing dictatorships lets remeber that there is alrge rift between secular and non secular arab states..
Iraq's mass destructions weapons are not for use on Israel or US..they will use it on Saudia Arabia..or any other secular arab state that gets in their way of making Saddam the next caliph


MobileBytes blog - Sharing Technology - My Programming Knols
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Interesting quote from Oliver North last night during an interview on The Daily Show: "Hussein is willing to fight right down to the very last Palestinian."
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Interesting quote from Oliver North last night during an interview on The Daily Show: "Hussein is willing to fight right down to the very last Palestinian."

It's sad but true. While the martyrs believe they are securing a palace for themselves in heaven their true function is to secure a palace for Saddam here on earth.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Before I said anything, let's set up meta-discourse. Jason, I like you, and I appreciate your posts, and I am not personally offended and I am not fighting neither back nor forth. I was going to respond yesterday, but after reading Dan's post decided not to. Since there is some apparent misunderstanding, I changed my mind as well as style and wording of my response.
I notice you haven't had anything to say regarding the actual threat that they pose however, as mentioned in the reply to your previous message.
You probably wanted to say "I notice you haven't said anything regarding the actual threat..."? In the reply to my previous message you said that you did not read the article about the actual threat Iraq poses I was asking about, so I was a little confused what my response should be. (If you do not want to register, you can login as "mapraputa" and type the same name as a password. Not that this article is of such a paramount importance, just in case you, or somebody else, wants to read.)
What do you expect me to say? I am not a CIA officer working on this particular line of research, all my "information" is obtained from highly dubious sources (aka Internet). During to some quirks of my personal history, I observed how easy it is to make decent and reasonable intelligent people believe in just about anything. Not sure "democracy" vs. "dictatorships" changes here a lot...
I came across an article that suggested that the term "WMD" can be misleading, and which <my proprietary opinion>potentially provides wide possibility to manipulate public emotions </my proprietary opinion> and I asked you what you think, as you are probably the most informed person on this board regarding "WMD". My own opinion -- I do not own one and probably never will, not regarding this particular question anyway. All I own are emotions, and when I read American people discussing the future of "post-Saddam Iraq" and should they introduce democracy or not, all I can say is: it sucks.
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Those wacky Iraqis
 
Similar Threads
Yes,can we now ask, where are the WMD?
Can we discuss this .....
no war
Q & A
Rumsfeld wins Harold Laski Memorial Fellowship