War is coming...

[The Afoci]

They just broke in on tv and said that the vote was never taken at the UN and war is likely by the end of the week. I am very pro-war in this case, but i do understand people being against it because i have fears that it won't be the short easy war I think it is going to be(if you can understand that).

[Ben E Lou]

The U.N. is in danger of becoming completely irrelevant if we attack without their approval. Will they authorize force now to save face?

[Fritz]

I wonder if the US not asking for approval is a move to save the US from the stigma of going against the UN, or to save the UN from irrelevance?

[sachmo71]

I am against the war, but since it's almost a guarentee that we are going to war, I have to say that it is my hope that this war ends quickly and that the loss of lives on both sides are kept to a minimum.

[The Afoci]

I think it is an attempt to make the UN not look so bad... Technically we have the right to go to war with the first resolution even though a second one would have made everyone happy. but that just wasn't going to happen. I think now it is time to just pray for a quick end to an era of suffering for Iraq.

Could someone correct me if i am wrong, but i heard this weekend that prior to saddam being the ruler of Iraq, it was actually the most advanced and one of the richest middle eastern countries.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I think it is an attempt to make the UN not look so bad... Hmmm....I didn't think about that. However, isn't that merely a technicality?

[ACStrider]

I find it interesting that in the history of the UN there have been only three instinces of a participating nation approaching the UN for permission to use force and successfully receiving a vote. Guess which countries were the nations responsible for this effort? The US, the US, and the US. Maybe we're the only nation in this time to ever use military action against another nation. Or maybe the UN is only relevant because we choose to make it relevant and that the other nations could care less about seeking UN approval for their actions.

[Killebrew]

I cannot see this era going down as a proud moment in US history.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by SkyDog
The U.N. is in danger of becoming completely irrelevant if we attack without their approval. Will they authorize force now to save face?

SD, the UN is already irrelevant, it just finally getting the message.

[TroyF]

SkyDog,

When an organization sets a deadline and still doesn't have the guts to fix things TWELVE YEARS later. . . you already have an irrelevant entity.

TroyF

[Ksyrup]

Not asking for a vote is, I think, an attempt to keep from making the impending war "illegal" under international law. Without a clear "no" vote, the US can point to the November (I think it was) "yes" vote that has enough ambiguous language in it so as to allow the US to argue that it authorized the use of force.

I just hope it's a quick one. In any case, be prepared for a bunch of propaganda about how we're only attacking orphanages and women's shelters...

I understand the opposition's reluctance to join us. I mean, if my country had active deals with Iraq and wasn't the primary target of terrorists, I probably wouldn't want my country getting dragged into war either. We face a different set of circumstances, and we're acting accordingly. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Fritz]

At least the security council will not be able to condemn the action.

[albionmoonlight]

Jon and SD

The UN IS "irrelevant." The US has the nukes and the economic might and the resources to kill and or enslave the 6 billion or so people on the earth who happen not to have been born here. Hell, the scary thing is if we had a no holds barred war right now and it was the entire world vs. the US, we would probably win with relative ease.

So, in the sense that we can kill whoever we want and make them do whatever we want without anyone else's help--the UN is "irrelevant." Hell, everyone who isn't the US is "irrelevant."

There are just some people who believe that the decades of post-WWII peace and economic expansion in America have had something to do with the fact that the US used its might during this time to create international alliances. It seems to have worked for 50 years or so. Now, Bush decides that unilateral action is the way to go. It may work in the short term. I think it will hamstring us in the long term by making everything we try to do from this point forward a lot harder.

Just because we can kill and enslave everyone does not mean that we should. Just because we can declare that the rest of the world is irrelvant does not mean that we should.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by TroyF
SkyDog,

When an organization sets a deadline and still doesn't have the guts to fix things TWELVE YEARS later. . . you already have an irrelevant entity.

TroyF

so the US is irrelevant too by your definition? ANd does it really take guts to kill people who will be retreating when you fire at them? Is this what you'll be saying in 12 years when we finally have the guts to find bin laden?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Just because we can kill and enslave everyone.

How can you kill AND enslave everyone? I mean, all your slaves would be dead. What would be the point?

[Senator]

War is coming.....


no shit.

[Vaj]

Operation Deserter Storm does have a ring to it...

[CamEdwards]

Albion,

Explain to me your concept of unilateral, please. I could swear I saw the prime ministers of England, Spain, and Portugal standing with the president yesterday.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Explain to me your concept of unilateral, please.

Thought I would help out here.

Unilateral is from old French. Uni meaning without (as in unicycle, or a bicycle without two wheels) and lateral meaning French*. Together they make unilateral, or without the French.


*Lateral is an old French political custom where the king or his advisors would sidestep the serious issues and talk about not bathing or eating slugs. The French became so adept at this they became known as laterals. This term went out of common usage when the French tradition of retreating became fashionable in the early 1800's.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
The UN IS "irrelevant." The US has the nukes and the economic might and the resources to kill and or enslave the 6 billion or so people on the earth who happen not to have been born here. Hell, the scary thing is if we had a no holds barred war right now and it was the entire.

Well, I don't think it's that easy. I don't think fighting the Chinese would be that easy.

Anyway, I think there's no choice but to go to war. While I don't want to see it happen, I think this war will lead to Iraq's use of chemical, biological or perhaps even nuclear weapons against the US troops, against his neighbors, and Israel.

The moment Saddam starts using WDM and any missile beyond the 93-mile radius, the UN nations not participating already will have no choice not to join. The question remains, whose side will they be on?

[RainRaven]

I don't fully support this war because I feel like it has been shoved down our throats while Bush says and does nonthing meaningful on domestic issues. Bush can go ahead and start this war.. but he better hope he can finish it or his poltical future is crap and it still might be anyways I can only hope.

[albionmoonlight]

unilateral meaning without significant international support and without the appearance of wanting significant international support.

Or, from the article that NoMyths posted

"In fact, while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel."

Take your pick of definitions.

I am not againt war with Iraq. I am not for war with Iraq. I do not have access to the secret security data that our government has. I cannot make an informed choice on the matter, yet. Whether, after we invade, it turns out that the invasion was "right" or "wrong," I feel that our position that we do not need the world will hurt us in the long run.

Gulf War I was not done unilaterally.

[Edit--delete 2nd part of argument]

[TroyF]

Easy Mac,

It obviously takes more guts and spinal fortitude than the UN is showing.

Sadaam is a tyrant who should have been finished off years ago. I'm glad we're doing it. Only regret is that we didn't do it sooner.
------------------------------------------------------------------
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world.”---

“And mark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

“If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors.”
-------------------------------------------------------
Looks like one man was convinced Saddam needed to be taken care of. Bill Clinton and I don't agree on much, but we agree 100% on the above quotes. (Well, he should agree, those are his words afterall----from 1998 no less) Too bad he didn't do what needed to be done after he said them.

TroyF

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Lets just pray that an unlikely solution to the coming storm will be met and that war will be averted for many innocent lives will be smitten before the week is out .

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
unilateral meaning without significant international support and without the appearance of wanting significant international support.

Or, from the article that NoMyths posted

"In fact, while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel."

Take your pick of definitions.

I am not againt war with Iraq. I am not for war with Iraq. I do not have access to the secret security data that our government has. I cannot make an informed choice on the matter, yet. Whether, after we invade, it turns out that the invasion was "right" or "wrong," I feel that our position that we do not need the world will hurt us in the long run.

Gulf War I was not done unilaterally.

[Edit--delete 2nd part of argument]

Ah, thank you. That's what I get for going by Webster's definition of unilateral:u·ni·lat·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-ltr-l)
adj.
Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: “a unilateral advantage in defense” (New Republic).
Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
Having only one side.


Now that we've cleared that up... can you define what "is" is?

:D

[Dutch]

Best case scenario.

It is certain that Hussein won't flee until hostilities begin. Hopefully, when his entire command and control infrastruture is attacked, he will be so blinded that he feels it neccessary to leave. Once he leaves, the game is up, and peace will prevail immediately.

Well, that's what I pray for, and hope for. I could care less about whether this helps or hurts Bush's political future. That's meaningless to me.

[albionmoonlight]

In my first post in this thread I used the term unilateral, but I did not use it in its dictionary sense. Some other countries and other leaders agree with attacking Iraq, meaning that our desire to attack Iraq is not, in the strict sense, "unilateral."

To the extent this flaw debunks my post, consider it debunked.


[Actually, I just like saying "debunked."]

[MylesKnight]

It's time for the "3 Star Alliance"... the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, to kick some Iraqi A$$!!!!!


USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

UK!! UK!! UK!! UK!!

ESPANOL!! ESPANOL!! ESPANOL!! ESPANOL!!

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
It's time for the "3 Star Alliance"... the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, to kick some Iraqi A$$!!!!!


USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

UK!! UK!! UK!! UK!!

ESPANOL!! ESPANOL!! ESPANOL!! ESPANOL!!

Glad you're excited. :rolleyes:

[Airhog]

CNN is reporting that a 72 hour ultimatum sounds right. The UN has ordered all their personell out of iraq, so it looks like war is inevitable.

[CamEdwards]

Albion,

I also like saying "debunked". :)

And I understand your concern. There's a big difference between reality and what the majority of the world thinks. Unfortunately, the court of public opinion in the world feels we're acting alone. It doesn't matter that the UK, Portugal, Spain, Australia, the Balkan states, and now Turkey, among others, support our position.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by sachmo71

Glad you're excited. :rolleyes:


It's not that I'm excited sachmo, but I would say I am on the Pro-War/Pro-Eliminate Saddam & His Regime side..

...and hey, if it's going to happen, I'm going to support the United States of America and its allies..

[CAsterling]

Another useless annocement from the American goverment - we give you 72 hours to get out or else.

So a couple of instant questions
1) Where is Saddam going to go - can you think of one country that will let him go into exile within their borders.
2) Who is going to replace him - there are no viable replacements within the country - Saddam killed them all. There are no viable replacements outside the country, Saddam either killed them, or they are too ineffective to be of any use.

Somebody actually suggested to me today that America should put the Kurds in charge of a democratic goverment !!
That should work well, I figure 3-6 weeks before a civil war broke out under that scenario.

Which reminds me, why is a democratic goverment necessary, Iraq has never had one, and it has governed itsself for far longer than the USA has been in existance. Just because democracy is the prefered choice of one country doesn't mean it is the right choice for every country.

If Saddam is going to be replaced, military force must remove him, and then the real slaughter will start. Like or hate Saddam he has kept that country under control for a long time (ok so he uses fear, intimidation, tourture and murder to do it), and unless the american goverment has (to quote Baldrick from Black Adder) 'A very cunning plan' that I have yet to understand, you may see the same military who win the war forced to remain behind as an occupying force.

Also the kurds are going to want revenge, so they will be practising the traditional slaughter of their enemies, Iran will probably take the opportunity to gain an additional piece of land after the war is over and who knows what Syria's intentions might be.

This isn't going to be quick and easy, nor will it be fun or something worth celebrating. So I would prepare yourself for a long and bitter problem that may occupy the American goverment and military for some considerable time.

Just my opinion.....but I detest this rule by press conference and opinion poll mentality that seems to be the current method of western goverments that cause these stupid pronouncements about 72 hour exile deadlines.

[couriers]

"When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says" Saddam

Apparently he is a professional boxer as well.

[astralhaze]

Who would have know Saddam was a Rickey Henderson fan.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by CAsterling
So a couple of instant questions
1) Where is Saddam going to go - can you think of one country that will let him go into exile within their borders.

There's actually a small town in Italy (or thereabouts, I think) that's been campaigning for Saddam to go into exile there. I don't remember exactly where they're at, but it's in the Mediterranean. To the extent that ANYBODY is willing to accept him in exile, those folks seem to be.

2) Who is going to replace him - there are no viable replacements within the country - Saddam killed them all. There are no viable replacements outside the country, Saddam either killed them, or they are too ineffective to be of any use.

Which reminds me, why is a democratic goverment necessary, Iraq has never had one, and it has governed itsself for far longer than the USA has been in existance. Just because democracy is the prefered choice of one country doesn't mean it is the right choice for every country.

Just that, y'know, I hardly think it counts as "governing itself" when what you really mean is one man exerting his will on the rest of the people. It works, I suppose, but it's so...feudal. Never mind the potential for abuse of such portions of the population as the head of state doesn't care for. For the rights of all men to be protected, everybody needs to have their say in an elected government.

If Saddam is going to be replaced, military force must remove him, and then the real slaughter will start. Like or hate Saddam he has kept that country under control for a long time (ok so he uses fear, intimidation, tourture and murder to do it), and unless the american goverment has (to quote Baldrick from Black Adder) 'A very cunning plan' that I have yet to understand, you may see the same military who win the war forced to remain behind as an occupying force.

You're familiar with the phrase "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," yes? You say on the one hand that a democratic government isn't necessarily the only way to do it, because Iraq has governed itself for centuries, etc., but on the other hand, you note that Saddam has maintained his control with a bloody fist. Given the history of the region, are you really trying to say that it'll all be peaches and cream if we can just get somebody OTHER than Saddam in there? I find that hard to believe, no offense.

Josh

[CamEdwards]

CAsterling,

Several nations have offered Saddam asylum. If he wanted it, he could do it.

As far as a post-war Iraq, that's the rub, isn't it. I mean, we can't expect the Sunnis, the Shii's, and the Kurds to get along in a democracy. I mean, that would be like asking Catholics, Protestants, and Hindus to get along in one country.

Oh wait... :)

Let me ask you this.. your people have been oppressed for 34 years. You've been gassed, you've been starved, you've been treated like 4th class citizens in a country where there are only two classes. Finally you're free, and the liberators helping to set up a democratic government offer you a seat at the table. Do you..

a) say no and urge your people to go on a killing rampage.

b) take a seat at the table and help govern your nation.

I think the ones in for a bad time of it are the Sunni. But I'm hopeful that the Shi'i, the Kurds, the Christians, and the Jews living in Iraq can get along. Believe it or not, every Iraqi-American I've spoken to says it's not only possible, it's almost a certainty that democracy will bloom.

[Flame Eater]

Intel sources are reporting that the Iraqis are arming artillery placements south of Bagdad with chemical rounds. I think that's a violation of some UN mandate isn't it?

Oh yeah, look for Scuds (very probably with chemical warheads) flying into Isreal (and everywhere else) after the President's address. This war will start long before the 48-72 hours is up.

[The Afoci]

There are many people on this board who think once we invade Iraq that the only chemical weapons they have will stem from mexican food.

[The Afoci]

dola... i am not one of them btw

[CAsterling]

To address a couple of the responses to regard to my ealrier comments.

Just that, y'know, I hardly think it counts as "governing itself" when what you really mean is one man exerting his will on the rest of the people. It works, I suppose, but it's so...feudal. Never mind the potential for abuse of such portions of the population as the head of state doesn't care for. For the rights of all men to be protected, everybody needs to have their say in an elected government.

Whilst I do understand your point, I just don't see democracy as the only good functioning goverment type. Saudia Arabia/Kuwait/Iraq/Syria all from the same region don't use it (to quote just a few) and they work ok. Goverment of the people and for the people isn't the most efficient form of goverment, and whilst we may enjoy it, it isn't always the best way to rebuild a nation - if you list the UN members country by country, you will find the majority don't have what can really be considered a democratic system.

You're familiar with the phrase "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," yes? You say on the one hand that a democratic government isn't necessarily the only way to do it, because Iraq has governed itself for centuries, etc., but on the other hand, you note that Saddam has maintained his control with a bloody fist. Given the history of the region, are you really trying to say that it'll all be peaches and cream if we can just get somebody OTHER than Saddam in there? I find that hard to believe, no offense

Thats just it I don't think it will work, but I can't think of a viable alternative - constitusional monarchy perhaps - but then I'm British so I tend to be fond of that form of goverment. I am hoping that somebody much smarter than me has thought this through and has a workable alternative, because at the moment I can't think of one.

Let me ask you this.. your people have been oppressed for 34 years. You've been gassed, you've been starved, you've been treated like 4th class citizens in a country where there are only two classes. Finally you're free, and the liberators helping to set up a democratic government offer you a seat at the table. Do you..

Remember Somalia - that is exactly what the US attempted to implement on a much smaller scale there, and the leaders chose to fight the civil war (and still are doing) rather than share power with each other. That was a much smaller scale than Iraq, so why should I have any faith it can be implemented on a large scale here ?

Several nations have offered Saddam asylum. If he wanted it, he could do it.

And then comes the usual ex-dictator situation, once out of power in exile, how long before he was in the Hauge on trial for war crimes, the goverment of his place in exile will surrender him in a new york minute under world pressure. He knows once he gives up power he will be hounded by the very people who offer him life in exile.
Also 10 minutes after he leaves and relatives and associates left behind will be slaughtered by those wanting to prove loyalty to the new ruler(s) - its always been that way especially in that part of the world. Would you agree to go into exile if you knew that everyone you were ever friendly with and every distant relative was likely to be tortured, raped and murdered as soon as you did.

I have no problem with a military solution or a peaceful one, but I don't think the aftermath is going to be easy to deal with, it will make the aftermath of Afganistan look easy. My whole concern with this whole scenario is that once the war is over, the consequences will be large and far reaching, yet nobody in any of the goverments seems wiling to discuss this aspect.

[MylesKnight]

Hey, how about some props for Australia (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030318/ap_on_re_mi_ea/australia_iraq_22)..

Add another to the Alliance!!!

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Hey, how about some props for Australia (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030318/ap_on_re_mi_ea/australia_iraq_22)..

Add another to the Alliance!!!

What happened, somebody must have offered them first go at the pretty sheep :D

[couriers]

France Says World Against Bush Ultimatum on Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=586&e=1&cid=586&u=/nm/20030318/wl_nm/iraq_france_bush_dc)

Apparently the United States, Great Britain, Spain & Australia are not apart of the world any longer. Considering that France doesn't hold much respect for the term "serious consequences" I wouldn't worry too greatly about the "heavy responsibility" that they now threaten.

[mrskippy]

Nuke Paris!!!

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by couriers
France Says World Against Bush Ultimatum on Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=586&e=1&cid=586&u=/nm/20030318/wl_nm/iraq_france_bush_dc)

Apparently the United States, Great Britain, Spain & Australia are not apart of the world any longer. Considering that France doesn't hold much respect for the term "serious consequences" I wouldn't worry too greatly about the "heavy responsibility" that they now threaten.

Well, the French may change their mind if US soldiers are attacked with chemical or biological weapons.

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.main/index.html)


France's ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte, said Tuesday that his country might re-think its position on war with Iraq if Saddam were to use biological or chemical weapons against coalition forces.

"If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," Jean-David Levitte said.


But I thought that Saddam convinced them he had no such weapons. :confused:

[CamEdwards]

yep... they're already lining up to get back in our good graces.