 |
03-08-2003, 02:28 PM
|
#1 | ||
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
OT - Iraq's ready for UN blessing.
I agree with their intentions. If the UN believes they have complied, the UN must lift sanctions.
So we've got the USA asking for action in one direction and Iraq asking for action in the other direction. Now what is the UN to do? Oh my, might the UN make a decision now?  http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...world&cat=iraq (Reuters) - President Saddam Hussein called on the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to lift 12 years of sanctions against Iraq after what he said was its fulfilling of its disarmament commitments. In a statement after a meeting chaired by Saddam, the Iraqi leadership made a set of demands it said the Security Council should implement after the reports by chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday. "The embargo against Iraq should be lifted totally and comprehensively after America's motives were revealed to the world and after Iraq abided by Security Council resolutions," |
||
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 02:29 PM
|
#2 |
|
|
More proof that this guy is living in his own fantasy world. Needless to say that in a couple of weeks he might not even be alive. Dumb bastard.
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 02:50 PM
|
#3 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
This should be interesting. If the UN denies the sanctions be lifted, but then refuses to ratify the US's resolution for action...they will be exposed as completely useless (which many already know).
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 04:47 PM
|
#4 |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Yes, the U.N. is useless because they refuse to go along with U.S. foreign policy. Defintaely agree 100%.
__________________
I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop. |
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 05:00 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
Hey, simpleton! Use your brain. The UN refuses to authorize action on Iraq, enforcing their own resolution, because they don't see him stockpiling WMD. The smart thing to do would be to repeal the sanctions, right? Or does he have WMD, but the UN is too puss to do anything about it? The UN is showing us how irrelevant they are. Last edited by rexalllsc : 03-08-2003 at 05:03 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 05:19 PM
|
#6 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
So because I don't agree with you I am a simpleton who needs to use my brain?  |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 06:21 PM
|
#7 |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
So what would you suggest, astral? Either Hussein is guilty of material breach of the U.N. resolutions of the last dozen years, or he isn't. If he is, then action needs to be taken. If he isn't, then the penalties need to be lifted. If the U.N. refuses to do either, that's a clear signal to every two-bit dictator that the U.N. will not enforce its edicts. Why follow the rules if there's no punishment for breaking them?
The embargo hasn't hurt Hussein in the slightest (just ask France and Germany). That would remain true were they implemented against any other such dictatorship. Those in power seldom suffer. |
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 06:46 PM
|
#8 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
Since you didn't insult my intelligence, I will give a response. First of all, we are dealing with two seperate issues. Dissarmament on the one hand and sanctions on the other. The two are not mutally exclusive. I don't think it can be proven that Hussein is in material breach of the call to disarm. Before everyone starts jumping down my throat let me explain. Nowhere in the resolution did it say, ever, that Saddam had to prove that he had disarmed. I realize that is what the Bush administration states and conservatives and other hawks keep repeating but it simply is not the case. In order for it to be proven that Iraq has failed to disarm, there must be evidence that he still posseses these weapons. He does not have to prove that he doesn't have them. First of all, it is impossible to prove a negative and secondly, as already stated, no resolution has ever required him to do this. Taking that in to account, I can see no case for war and I am sure that is why France, Germany, and others refuse to go along. I am favor of continued weapons inspections, as is the world generaly. In other words, since we cannot prove that he still has weapons, we should continue the inspections to ensure that he doesn't. If weapons are found, as in the case of the missiles found recently, then we should force him to dismantle them or then, and only then, threaten more extreme measures such as an attack. As to the second point, the sanctions, I agree completely that they have not had the intended effect. Saddam is just as entrenched in power now as he was at the time. The only effect the sanctions have had has been to cause massive suffering amongst the Iraqi people. Yes, ok conservatives, it was the invasion of Kuwait that brought the sanctions on and Hussein is more concerned with himself as opposed to the people, but the sanctions have had that effect and will continue to have that effect regardless of the motivation behind them. I am personaly in favor of lifting the sanctions for those reasons: they have had no effect on Hussein and the effects have only been felt by Iraqi civilians. However, as I stated, the two are not mutually exclusive. It is not a question of whether we go to war or whether we lift sanctions, they are two seperate issues. In my opinion, the United Nations has actually been showing the United States just how relevant they really are of late. For the first time in a while the U.N. is standing up to the U.S. and saying no. Our government is now throwing a tissy fit like a little child who can't have a cookie. The United Nations is fully prepared to continue with the inspections, which help keep Saddam in check in and of themselves, indefinately. Just because the U.N. solution isn't what the U.S. wants hardly makes it irrelevant.
__________________
I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 07:57 PM
|
#9 | |
|
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I try to stay out of these discussions, as I am generally less educated on them than others on the board..
However.. The one thing I wanted to mention is that to me, the inspections are a sham. Blix is going to unused palaces and abandoned weapons depots. He is not inspecting the rule guard or the many palaces that are in active use. Basically, he is going to places where he is not likely to find weapons. It seems that if we really want to inspect we should have many, many teams inspected all kinds of random places, at random times. Instead they are scheduled for certain times of the day, in unlikely places, and often somewhat predictable (i know the place is not scheduled ahead of time). I am in favor of inspections, only if the method of implementation is changed..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 07:59 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
Name the last time the US asked the UN for permission to attack somebody. The UN is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 08:00 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
There was a dron found a few days ago, and he didn't even mention it to the UN. He buried it in his report. It's a total sham. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 08:03 PM
|
#12 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
Ummmm....the Gulf War? Hey simpleton, use your brain.
__________________
I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 08:12 PM
|
#13 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
The US didn't need permission. A UN resolution was put forth. United Nations = League of Nations. Did we ask the UN if we could go to Korea? Vietnam? Panama? Kosovo? Now, the UN can't even carry out their own resolutions...it's pretty pathetic. How long ago was Saddam supposed to disarm? After the findings of the drone, it's pretty clear this is a big game to him. That the find of the drone was completely overlooked tells me all I need to know about how serious the UN is taking this. Last edited by rexalllsc : 03-08-2003 at 08:15 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 08:16 PM
|
#14 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
Thank you for proving my point.
__________________
I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 08:21 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
BTW, your boys @ the UN are doing a nice job taking care of NK breaking the ol Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, eh? UN = League of Nations = Joke PS - Libya is the chair for the UN Human Right Council Last edited by rexalllsc : 03-08-2003 at 08:22 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 08:23 PM
|
#16 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
My boys? Simply because I don't think the UN is irrelevant they are my boys? I didn't say that I supported anything the UN did, only that I don't think it is an irrelevant body. I do think that it is irrelevant to the United States government, but for different reasons than you do I am sure. Edit: Yes, it is ironic. Kind of like if the United States or one of our effective torture proxies like El Salvador chaired it.
__________________
I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop. Last edited by astralhaze : 03-08-2003 at 08:25 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 09:38 PM
|
#17 | |
|
College Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Burlington, VT USA
|
Quote:
Umm, actually, the UN asked us to step in in Korea. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 09:48 PM
|
#18 |
|
Sick as a Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Surfers Paradise, Australia
|
>Before everyone starts jumping down my throat let me explain. Nowhere in the resolution did it say, ever, that Saddam had to prove that he had disarmed.
That is completely wrong and is the starting point of much error in this debate. Resolution 1441 states that Hussein must declare the whereabouts of his WMDs or PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION INFORMING THE INSPECTORS OF WHERE AND WHEN HE DISPOSED OF THEM. It is known from the previous inspection regime, and indeed from his own use of them, that Iraq has had both chemical and biological weapons - a thousand or more tons of anthrax and nerve gas for example. It's also known he had missile developments with performance characteristics beyond those allowed in the 1991 cease-fire agreement and a nuclear weapons development program. It is not a question of proving a negative. He had these things. He needs to state where they are or show evidence that he has destroyed them. If he does neither, and so far he certainly hasn't done either (his 1200 page response to 1441 said nothing whatsoever about any of these), then he's in breach of resolution 1441! The understanding of the anti-war movement about the nature of Saddam Hussein is puzzling. Condemning the USA while ignoring Saddam Hussein is leading to a very unblanced view of the situation.
__________________
Mac Howard - a Pom in Paradise Last edited by Mac Howard : 03-08-2003 at 09:51 PM. |
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 10:05 PM
|
#19 | |
|
Lethargic Hooligan
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing
|
Quote:
you may want to revisit your list
__________________
donkey, donkey, walk a little faster |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 10:06 PM
|
#20 |
|
Lethargic Hooligan
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing
|
dola,
you don't ask the UN for permission to go to war. You ask the UN to go to War. (more or less)
__________________
donkey, donkey, walk a little faster |
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 10:09 PM
|
#21 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
No it does not. I'm sorry, I know that the U.S. government and pro-war enthusiasts generaly wish that it said that and think that it said that, but it doesn't. It says: "Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material" Iraq turned this report in. If you don't believe that they disclosed their weapons programs fully, the burden is on you, or, in reality, the United States, to prove that they did not disclose them by providing hard evidence that he posseses them now. If you are so sure that he has had and does have them (obviously, he has had them in the past as you say, he has used them), then it should not be difficult to prove. Only then can he be declared in violation of 1441. Even if it is found that he is in breach of the resolution, this does not mean that the U.S. has a free pass to attack Iraq. It simply means that he is in violation of the resolution and the security council would then meet to determine the next course of action. In this sense, the UN is irrelevant because the United States is obviously going to attack regardless of what the UN says. I think that says more about the U.S. than it does about the UN myself. As to your last point, one of the things I find puzzling about the pro-war movement is that they equate oposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein. No one in their right mind thinks Saddam is a cool guy or anything remotely like that. What the anti-war movement is saying is that just because he is a dictator who mistreates his own people does not mean that we have the right to attack him. You don't have to agree with that, obviously, but don't make the mistake of believing that anti-war activists support Saddam.
__________________
I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop. Last edited by astralhaze : 03-08-2003 at 10:10 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003, 11:27 PM
|
#22 |
|
Sick as a Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Surfers Paradise, Australia
|
>a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles,
What do you think that means? That we're not interested in weapons you've developed? That providing you can hide these weapons successfully it's ok by us if you keep them? What has happened to the weapons we know he has had is part and parcel of the "complete declaration"! It's not a game of hide and seek. Blix continuously makes that point and the point that Hussein has not provided evidence of the destruction of weapons known to be in his possession in 1998 when the previous inspectors had discovered them (incidentally not because 7 years of inspections had found them but because an Iraqui dissident had told them where to look). >If you don't believe that they disclosed their weapons programs fully, the burden is on you, or, in reality, the United States, to prove that they did not disclose them by providing hard evidence that he posseses them now. That is rubbish! It is not a game of hide and seek! The requirement is on Iraq to fully cooperate with all relevant information. It is not "you go and hide the stuff and we'll see if we can find it". >If you are so sure that he has had and does have them (obviously, he has had them in the past as you say, he has used them), then it should not be difficult to prove. Only then can he be declared in violation of 1441. Why "not difficult to prove"? It's like looking for a very small needle in a very big haystack. The first inspection team took 7 years and found nothing. Only when an Iraqi dissident fled Iraq and supplied the information did they find the weapons. Iraq has had 4 more uninterrupted years to develop its ability to hide the weapons. The truth is: he had them, he has provided no proof that he has disposed of them, he still has them! Not even France is denying that! >Even if it is found that he is in breach of the resolution, this does not mean that the U.S. has a free pass to attack Iraq. It simply means that he is in violation of the resolution and the security council would then meet to determine the next course of action. No it doesn't. It speaks of serious consequences which is diplomatic speech for military action. Everyone in the security council was aware of that. >In this sense, the UN is irrelevant because the United States is obviously going to attack regardless of what the UN says. That's merely your own cynical view. If Hussein comes clean then war will not take place. I'm not a great fan of Bush but he could never go in if Blix declares that Hussein has become fully cooperative and if the whereabouts of Hussein's chemical and biological weapons is revealed. Blix has made it plain that Hussein is a long way from full cooperation and also indicates that, what cooperation has come, has come because of the USA's belligerence. >I think that says more about the U.S. than it does about the UN myself. The UN has made numerous resolutions over the last 12 years and Hussein has ignored all of them. Resolution 1441, supported unanimously by all 15 votes, made it plain that refusal to respond to this one appropriately would result in serious consequences. If the UN allows Hussein to work the system again it will lose all credibility. That is probably the strongest reason why the UN should pass the new resolution. >As to your last point, one of the things I find puzzling about the pro-war movement is that they equate oposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein. I agree with that. Both sides go to the extreme in spinning their case. The lawyers (must do the best I can for my client) rule again! >No one in their right mind thinks Saddam is a cool guy or anything remotely like that. What the anti-war movement is saying is that just because he is a dictator who mistreates his own people does not mean that we have the right to attack him. Just because he mistreats his own people? Over a million people have died because of Hussein's ambitions to expand Iraq's borders. Over four and a half million Iraqis have fled their own country. The Kurds are slaughtered, the southern Iraqis starved to death. His tyrannical rule governs by murder, rape and torture. Over 200,000 of his own people have been slaughtered. Iraqis are so traumatised by Hussein that even half the refugees reaching Australia are Iraqi despite the distance and the awful mess in other parts of the world. Just because he mistreats his own people? But there are at least four reasons for disarming Iraq, Hussein's treatment of his people being merely one of them. A second is that you cannot allow a tyrant such as he has proved to be to destabilise the Middle East as he will if he has deliverable WMDs and can use those weapons to blackmail other nations (as North Korea is now trying to do). A third is that he could well make such weapons available to terrorists who share his hatred of the Evil Empire - the USA. It's silly to suggest that secular Iraq will not work with religous extremists such as Al Qaeda because of ideological differences. Were the USA and the USSR ideological bedfellows when they fought together against Hitler? A fourth is that it should be made plain to all nations ruled by such as Saddam Hussein that they will not be allowed to threaten world peace. If Hussein succeeds in denying world opinion (and regardless of whether you believe war is the answer, there are few who believe that Hussein should not be disarmed) then other dictators will take heart from that and confidence the world won't stop their activities. The four together make a very convincing reason for dealing with Hussein and the awful consequences of not doing so. >You don't have to agree with that, obviously, but don't make the mistake of believing that anti-war activists support Saddam. I don't make that mistake. I say that in order to support their anti-war arguments they conveniently ignore Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I also agree that in order to support war the other side distorts the arguments against. An example of where the analysis stops when the arguments become inconvenient: I've just been watching a tv program on BBCWorld News. They interviewed a number of Jordanians. These stated that they didn't want the USA to impose their style of democracy on Arab countries. According to them, these countries are not yet ready for democracy. There's some reason in that. But the imposition is not on Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. It's on tyrannical Iraq. The choice is between a US style of democracy and an appalling tyranny. They were making the same unbalanced mistake as you. They ignored what this imposition was to replace - Saddam Hussein's tyranny. They ignored that side of the argument: USA democracy not good?. But as bad as Iraqi tyranny? They didn't follow though on that argument. As Jack Straw said - this thing is not about war or peace it's about war or unmentionable violence that will come if Hussein, and others after him, get hold of WMDs. That is what the debate should be about - the consequences of war against the consequences of not dealing with Iraq. One side ignores the first and the other the second. It has become a very facile debate indeed. By far the best solution is that Hussein fulfills the demands of resolution 1441. We'll all breathe a sigh of relief, including Bush. The second that the UN bites the bullet and decides on military action. Not pleasant but the best military solution. The third that the US goes it alone. Big danger there on what happens in the Islamic world and whether it breeds terrorists on an ever greater scale. I come down eventually on the side of war but it's a pretty close thing. The last, that Hussein is left to do as he pleases. I do not want to be part of that world!
__________________
Mac Howard - a Pom in Paradise Last edited by Mac Howard : 03-09-2003 at 03:01 AM. |
|
|
|
|
03-09-2003, 01:29 AM
|
#23 | |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
There were terms of a cease fire that Saddam Hussein signed 12 years ago and 15 some-odd resolutions that Iraq had placed on them in 1990 and 1991. The United Nations were very much of the opinion that they had not obeyed *any* of them as none had been lifted. The burden of proof is that the international body has condemned Iraq for maintaining it's WMD. The UN has stated they want "more time". They haven't stated that Iraq is "Free and Clear". However, if you insist the burden of proof is on the United States. I agree completely. There are 300,000+ U.S. Weapons inspectors standing by. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2003, 04:22 AM
|
#24 | |||||||||||||||
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
I could be wrong, but I thought he 'provided' names of those involved in the 'destruction' of his chem/bio weapons. Either way, still doesn't change the fact he declares he does not have them and there has been no evidence (in my recolection) that he currently does, or is developing them. Quote:
So the alternative is we look, don't find, and rather than conclude it's not there assume it is but hidden? This is what you base war upon? Personally I am not comfortable comitting to war based upon possibilities. Quote:
This may be true, it is absolutely possible he does still have them, in fact it would seem probable he still does. But, during the period of inspections (which is what made able the dissention of his son, not the Gulf War) more WMD were destroyed than during the Gulf War. Inspections are more effective, wether it be through enabling dissention or simply discovering WMD through the inspections themselves. Quote:
We should also be aware of the timing of the resolution. It was a period when the world was united behind the USA and almost anything probably would have passed. In fact the US congress passed the Patriot Act giving extreme authority to the President and the GOP has even drafted the 'Patriot Act II' to expand even further. Now we see the Dem's scrambling (much like some UN members) to try to take away the power to declare war from the President... who should not have it to begin with... all a result of the timing. Quote:
The cynicism is in thinking that war is inevitable no matter what Hussein does. This is a doctrine established in 1992 by Wolfowitz, rewritten by Cheney (then Defense Sec) when US citizens balked at th use of "pre-emptive" and was still withdrawn due to it's globalist outlook. It was rewritten in 2000 by the PNAC, naming Bush's future 'axis-of-evil'. This is predetermined. Not to mention, if Saddam actually destroys anything it is simply a deception. Quote:
For 12 years he's ignored the resolutions? Is that entirely true? If so, why is it now that war is necessary? I do recall operation Desert Fox where cruise missiles and bombing runs targeted military complexes after Saddam ended inspections (under Clinton), but other than that why has nobody had issue with Saddam;s behavior until now? A point in time when he has not attacked anyone, has no connections to the 9/11 incident, and is weaker than he was prior to the Gulf War militarily. Inspections were fine then, after Bush Sr let the Kurds be slaughtered by Saddam after the cease-fire after encouraging them to revolt and overthrow with the US's help, which never came. But now is the time for regime change, not just disarmament as was the original point of the resolution. Quote:
Not only that, you are unpatriotic/un-American (for those of us in the US) because you question the true intent of this administration and the actual legitimacy of this war. Quote:
So are we then going to police the world (as the PNAC outlines)? I hope you Aussie's aren't doing anything our conservative administration sees as immoral! Seriously, if this a humanitarion issue (which is it even addressed in the resolution?) then the world better be prepared to go into Saudi Arabia which, according to Amnesty Intl, has one of the highest rates of execution in the world for trivial crimes. We better watch the Soviet Union closely with concern to the Czechens (sp?). the Turks with the Kurds, etc etc. If you want to fight oppression be prepared to be for it across the board, not just in Iraq which prior to the Gulf War had one of the highest (if not the highest, don't have the facts in front of me) standards of living in the Middle East.Quote:
N Korea is another poorly handled foreign policy decision which this globalist administration has made in destroying the pact the former administration had in place which had NK mothballing it's nuclear program and even developing the 'Sunshine Policy' (or something like that) with S Korea to 'unify' the peninsula. And, I'm not exactly sure how a war is going to be more stabalizing than inspections. Quote:
Well, Bin Laden called for the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. Yes they have a common enemy, but I'm afraid that the fact a single Al-Quiada member received treatment in a Bahgdad hospital and then hid out in Kurdish controlled part of Iraq doesn't really prove a connection to the terrorist group. Certainly I would think Saddam does have ties to terrorist groups, just as the majority of the Middle Eastern nations do, but again this begs the question why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia whose nationals were piloting the planes on 9/11? Quote:
Since the invasion of Kuwait, when has he threatened world peace? I don't recall Iraqi soldiers amassing on the Mexican or Canadian border to invade the US. The simple fact that he MAY have WMD is not a threat to world peace either, else the US would be the biggest threat. Look at his history of invasion, Iran (he was essentially made into who he is by the US to attacj Iran) and Kuwait (the US ambassador was told to tell Saddam when he asked what our stance was on his invasion of Kuwait that the US had a policy of not involving itself in Middle Eastern affairs). Granted, pre-emptive strikes are never acceptable, but considering the circumstances I find it ironic those same occurances are used as validation of a pre-emptive strike now. Quote:
If it's a matter of ending tyranny then be consistent and be prepared to reap the 'rewards' of allowing us (the US) to define who is a tyrant and who isn't. I'm (as I imagine most people are) all for democracy and freedom, I try not to take it for granted, but the idea of 'nation-building' is inherently against democracy. There are other ways to acheive the same means, such as supporting liberation movements and placing and upholding sanctions (don't forget Cheney was CEO of Haliburton (who ironically has already been named as one of the companies that will 'secure' Iraq's post-war oil industry) when they made 10's of billions dealing with Iraq when sanctions were in place). And anyone who thinks the US's "food for oil" isn't doing business with Iraq is insane... we're no different than France or Russia with their oil contracts. Quote:
The Iraqi people also have to suffer our missiles and bombs killing them, have you factored that into your equation? According to the Iraqi gov't 2,300 citizens died (who knows how many wounded) in the Gulf War air strikes in addition to the 10-12,000 combat deaths according to a US Air Force commissioned report. Add in the fact that Bush has already setup the use of 'tactical' nuclear devices and it becomes a substantial amount of death, with a good portion of it being innocents. They may have a different outlook than you or I. Quote:
I'm confused here, did Straw say "IF" Hussein gets a hold of WMDs? Suggesting he may at some point have them? I can only assume you/he meant to say "now that they have WMDs". Quote:
You absolutely discount the idea of continued inspections? It's either war or Hussein blows up the world? I don't see it that black and white. Blix and ElBaradei have with each report come to the table saying that Iraq continues to improve compliance and cooperation, neither has suggested that inspections should stop, in fact they maintain they should continue. It is the US/UK/Spain coalition that continues to press for immediate military action. I tend to think inspectors have a better feel for what is happening in the inspection process than Bush does from his Texas ranch or wherever he may be. Perhaps if these nations provided quality intelligence rather than dead-end after dead-end, sending inspectors on wild goose hunts as was reported by CBS News. You are right that this is not a game, if Saddam is trying to play one we need to catch him not play our own games. War is not the only answer, a truly dedicated international community (or even a truly dedicated US) could continue to contain, eliminate WMD, and even take steps to force Saddam from his seat in methods other than war, but that is not this administrations policy. It is instead a globalist stance, a militaristic stance, and an isolationist stance. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
03-09-2003, 04:32 AM
|
#25 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
The inspections AREN'T working now, HAVEN'T worked in the past, and WILL NOT work in the future. You're not dealing with a reasonable man, you're dealing with a sociopath. Handle the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2003, 06:16 AM
|
#26 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
I don't know, but the UN has verified that no scientists to date have shown any previous destruction of WMD. Quote:
Well, there's a possibility that you were simply joking with your responses here, but I doubt it. The UN has sanctions against Iraq because they do in fact have WMD. It's a truth, not an assumption. Quote:
You cannot destory underground weapons stockpiles with a B-52. So your argument here is pointless. 300,000 troops on the ground escorting scientists and "cooperative" Iraqi's around the country will be much more effective than the current game. More than 40 empty missles will be destroyed in a 4 month period. Guarenteed. But you are correct, we didn't destroy much of anything during the Gulf War, yet Iraq claims we did in fact destroy it during our air strikes. But, if you can remember, our air strikes against mobile scud launchers failed to produce more than a 5 or 10 percent kill ratio. Hardly sounds like we destroyed their WMD stockpiles that are underground. Quote:
Now you see it? Democrats and Republican's would scramble to take away toilet paper from each other if they thought the other not wiping there ass would secure them a vote. Don't ever act like one party is holier than the other in that regard. Quote:
It's called reality. Saddam Hussein is real. This is not some story concocted by Bill Clinton and the United Nations and now by George Bush. He's been there the whole time. The Saddam Hussein that you hope is a good guy, simply is not. Quote:
Absolutely Quote:
If for no other reason than to spare the Iraqi citizens. But the list has been thrown around a million times. You see, this is the exact same strategy of those who oppose war. "Let's rehash this over and over again until everybody gets tired." Well, times up. Quote:
The world has had an issue with Iraq. Hussein orders his AA batteries to shoot down USAF planes every chance he gets (nearly every other damned day) He does have connections to the 9/11 incident. He is weaker, yes, and more desperate too. Quote:
First of all, if you knew anything about the Kurds, you know they do not need encouragement from the US to revolt against anybody! They saw there opening and took it, regardless of anything our President said. Read about them sometimes. The original point is and was disarmament, but it simply won't happen with this dictator in charge. If Hitler agreed to a cease fire and agreed not to kill anymore Jews, I'd guess regime change would be out of the question there too? Your arguments are simply questionable at best. Quote:
If I saw any of our "anti-war" folks ever spend the effort to understand our situation, I would watch an amazing conversion. I don't think you are un-American (or anti-American). I just think you crave that conspiracy theory (like oh-so many Americans do, ya know...) and truly believe this is all a spectacular lie made up by the men in black and refuse to believe the very simply truth. Quote:
Bush is practically begging the UN to take over the role right now, and they are refusing. What would a US city be without police? peaceful or total anarchy? The Australian's are our friends, I trust there government like I trust ours. I suspect you don't trust the Australian government either, so don't go trying to play nice, like you trust any western government. Quote:
That former administration refused to allow N Korea's policy of building and buying and selling weapons be a hinderance. You can't play eyes-closed politics with countries like this. It will burn you in the end. The only fault Bush has had with regard to North Korea is that they have been speaking truthfully about them. Isn't that what you want, the truth? But now the truth hurts your argument, so you would prefer that Bush plays nice and lies? Quote:
Who's arguing against WWIII here anyway? Quote:
Everyday he maintains his motivations for refusing to agree to the Cease Fire and UN resolutions is a really big hint. Doesn't get any more neon than that. I think the world should be Nuclear Free, but the second the US gives there's up, some bad guy will turn there nuclear reactor into a bomb making plant and bomb the crap out of us. Until somebody else takes up the role of world police, I don't question for one second our need for nuclear deterent. Quote:
Why is nation building against democracy? We supported both liberation movements and sanctions. So what's next? Kill more Iraqi citizens is cool with you? Quote:
Let me help you out. "Remember to remove the words 'NERVE AGENT' from all your computer files." Iraqi officer prior to this round of inspections. Quote:
They also said that progress was only evident when the threat of war beckoned. And could you quantify any of your remarks? You make damned sure to have pro-US people quantify theirs....now your turn. Start with what Blix and Baradei say. Quantify cooperation and compliance in terms of perentage destroyed and estimated final destruction of WMD? You can't can you. I think Iraq has fooled you, young man! Quote:
Agreed. But you need to tell the Iraqi regime that, not me. But unlike us, Iraq isn't listening. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 11:24 AM
|
#27 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
**I apologize in advance for the formatting of this, I used notepad and cut&paste.**
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I could be wrong, but I thought he 'provided' names of those involved in the 'destruction' of his chem/bio weapons. Either way, still doesn't change the fact he declares he does not have them and there has been no evidence (in my recolection) that he currently does, or is developing them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know, but the UN has verified that no scientists to date have shown any previous destruction of WMD. ************ Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35768-2003Feb20¬Fou nd=true ************* quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the alternative is we look, don't find, and rather than conclude it's not there assume it is but hidden? This is what you base war upon? Personally I am not comfortable comitting to war based upon possibilities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, there's a possibility that you were simply joking with your responses here, but I doubt it. The UN has sanctions against Iraq because they do in fact have WMD. It's a truth, not an assumption. ************** This is the crux of the debate I suppose. You argue for war based upon the previous existence of something with no current proof while I argue no war until it is proven AND Iraq then refuses to comply. That's right, BOTH conditions should be true, the proven current existence and the subsequent refusal to comply. War should not be based upon a "He didn't tell us" attitude. If we find it, destroy it. If he won't destroy it, then military action. And of course military action if Iraq actually uses weapons, but nobody is arguing that. And as for those sanctions, how do you justify the hypocrisy of members of our own administration and friends having business ties to Iraq during said sanctions? I suppose it was alright to do business with them until control of office was gained and war could be waged instead? *************** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, during the period of inspections (which is what made able the dissention of his son, not the Gulf War) more WMD were destroyed than during the Gulf War. Inspections are more effective, wether it be through enabling dissention or simply discovering WMD through the inspections themselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You cannot destory underground weapons stockpiles with a B-52. So your argument here is pointless. 300,000 troops on the ground escorting scientists and "cooperative" Iraqi's around the country will be much more effective than the current game. More than 40 empty missles will be destroyed in a 4 month period. Guarenteed. But you are correct, we didn't destroy much of anything during the Gulf War, yet Iraq claims we did in fact destroy it during our air strikes. But, if you can remember, our air strikes against mobile scud launchers failed to produce more than a 5 or 10 percent kill ratio. Hardly sounds like we destroyed their WMD stockpiles that are underground. *********** Not sure what you are trying to point out. I think you agree that war does not destroy WMD, right? Isn't that the point? If it's the time table you are worried about question why our administration consistently says more inspectors will not help, because you apparently think 300,000 troops (who I can only assume do not have the equal training and expertise that a weapons inspector does) is plenty to increase the rate of destruction... or are they only effective with guns ablaze? France, Germany, Russia, and China (probably others) have all suggested increased inspectors. ********** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now we see the Dem's scrambling (much like some UN members) to try to take away the power to declare war from the President... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you see it? Democrats and Republican's would scramble to take away toilet paper from each other if they thought the other not wiping there ass would secure them a vote. Don't ever act like one party is holier than the other in that regard. ******* How do you construe this from what I said? Do you agree the President should have the right to declare war? It has never been the President's decision, it is a congressional decision... until now. And if you follow what is happening in the senate ranks it is true that Dem's had been trying (I think they have given up knowing that if it could get through the senate it would surely die in the House) to work up something to remedy the extreme powers they previously gave Bush with the Patriot Act. Links: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=nQdbIRkDgG&Content=153 http://www.icorpstech.com/insider/pdfs/cnn_neteffect.pdf http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/06/findlaw.analysis.mariner.patriotII/ ******* quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The cynicism is in thinking that war is inevitable no matter what Hussein does. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's called reality. Saddam Hussein is real. This is not some story concocted by Bill Clinton and the United Nations and now by George Bush. He's been there the whole time. The Saddam Hussein that you hope is a good guy, simply is not. ******** Here we go again with an anti-war supporter being on the side of Saddam. It's not reality, the reality is that there are other choices rather than war. How do you simply discount that due to inspections (yes, made possible by threat of war, nobody is suggesting stop the pressure) have resulted in missiles (that exceeded UN reg's by 15 miles in some cases, not having the ~800 mile range Powell told the UN Sec Council) being destroyed and inspectors continualy saying cooperation improves and more time is needed to do their jobs? The world is not black and white, there are variety of decisions and paths to follow, war being the most extreme. And since he's been there the whole time why was that not Bush's first priority? Why was it after the Hart/Rudman report this administration still did nothing, it took the World Trade Center coming down to take steps to _defend_ our homeland (and I stress defend). Link: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/Sept11/pre911intelligence/013101rudman.htm ******* quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For 12 years he's ignored the resolutions? Is that entirely true? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Absolutely ****** I was actually asking there, hadn't actually found what occurred during inspections. Although upon a quick search I came across some info. This of course can be read as Saddam didn't destroy all his weapons, but it certainly shows that for years inspectors were active in Iraq and were acheiving the ultimate goal of disarmament. And we all know of course that Saddam kicked out inspectors in 1998, but it would appear that there was some form of cooperation (be it poor or good I have no idea, but it seems it was somewhat effective) for ~6 years. Link: http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm ******** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If so, why is it now that war is necessary? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If for no other reason than to spare the Iraqi citizens. But the list has been thrown around a million times. You see, this is the exact same strategy of those who oppose war. "Let's rehash this over and over again until everybody gets tired." Well, times up. ********* Sort of like we hear that the war is to protect the American way of life and our homeland over and over again? How many times was it recited in Bush's last scripted press conference even when it didn't address the question? The reason I repeat it is because there hasn't been an answer. The human rights angle is a crock and you know it. Nobody argues he's a good man, he's evil, but there are many evil men out there in control of nations killing innocents but there are no US troops on their borders... in fact we but oil from some of them and call them allies. Links: http://www.amnesty.org/ or a direct link for Middle East summary http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/regMDE/regMDE?OpenDocument *********** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do recall operation Desert Fox where cruise missiles and bombing runs targeted military complexes after Saddam ended inspections (under Clinton), but other than that why has nobody had issue with Saddam;s behavior until now? A point in time when he has not attacked anyone, has no connections to the 9/11 incident, and is weaker than he was prior to the Gulf War militarily. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The world has had an issue with Iraq. Hussein orders his AA batteries to shoot down USAF planes every chance he gets (nearly every other damned day) He does have connections to the 9/11 incident. He is weaker, yes, and more desperate too. ******** I assume you are speaking of the 'war' in the no-fly zones? We bomb targets and they fire at our planes saying we invede their air-space? Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A57054-2003Jan14¬Fou nd=true ******** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspections were fine then, after Bush Sr let the Kurds be slaughtered by Saddam after the cease-fire after encouraging them to revolt and overthrow with the US's help, which never came. But now is the time for regime change, not just disarmament as was the original point of the resolution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, if you knew anything about the Kurds, you know they do not need encouragement from the US to revolt against anybody! They saw there opening and took it, regardless of anything our President said. Read about them sometimes. The original point is and was disarmament, but it simply won't happen with this dictator in charge. ******** I didn't claim to know anything about the Kurds. I didn't say they did need to be encouraged. I merely pointed out that the first Bush administration encouraged it and left them to be defeated along with the Shiites (sp?). For the record that is not a claim that I know all about the Shiites. Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_2_020917.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59052-2003Mar7.html ********* If Hitler agreed to a cease fire and agreed not to kill anymore Jews, I'd guess regime change would be out of the question there too? Your arguments are simply questionable at best. ****** What? Let's recap how the US got involved in WWII for all you apparent revisionists. It wasn't because of Hitler murdering the Jews, it was the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor; up till then the US was not involved in WWII. So you can stop with the 'holier than thou' routine in respect to WWII. Your example is simply questionable at best. And try to remember how the Bush family had no problem doing business with the Nazi's. Link: http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm ****** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not only that, you are unpatriotic/un-American (for those of us in the US) because you question the true intent of this administration and the actual legitimacy of this war. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I saw any of our "anti-war" folks ever spend the effort to understand our situation, I would watch an amazing conversion. I don't think you are un-American (or anti-American). I just think you crave that conspiracy theory (like oh-so many Americans do, ya know...) and truly believe this is all a spectacular lie made up by the men in black and refuse to believe the very simply truth. ****** I think I see what you are saying; because we provide an alternate view, do not buy into unproven accusations or speeches partly based upon 12 year old thesis papers, evidence that inspectors themselves say is wothless, an administration with more connections to terrorism than the nation we are set to invade, and point out how inspections are more effective than war in disarmament; for this we are not taking the time to 'understand' the issue. Pretty effective statement you make there. As for the conspiracy, it's hardly that; a conspiracy suggests some sort of concealment. This situation is documented, the ties are long standing, many of the players are the same as Gulf War 1, and you continue to turn a blind eye. How do you 'explain' these things away? And irregardless of the intent, the fact remains that us uneducated anti-war supporters propose an alternative to this predestined hasty war. Links: http://nc.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/2326_comment.php http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42276-2003Feb7¬Foun d=true ******* quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So are we then going to police the world (as the PNAC outlines)? I hope you Aussie's aren't doing anything our conservative administration sees as immoral! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bush is practically begging the UN to take over the role right now, and they are refusing. What would a US city be without police? peaceful or total anarchy? The Australian's are our friends, I trust there government like I trust ours. I suspect you don't trust the Australian government either, so don't go trying to play nice, like you trust any western government. ******* So now you are presupposing how I feel about other nations. You've consistently increased your personal attacks through this post. Not that it makes any difference to the validity of this war, in case you are trying to prove your point by suggesting I hate international govt's, but I have nothing against Australia or any other democratic gov't. The point I was making was that it is not the role of a single nation to police the world, not even the US. Sorry if that was too much for you to take in. Links: http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ******** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N Korea is another poorly handled foreign policy decision which this globalist administration has made in destroying the pact the former administration had in place. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That former administration refused to allow N Korea's policy of building and buying and selling weapons be a hinderance. You can't play eyes-closed politics with countries like this. It will burn you in the end. The only fault Bush has had with regard to North Korea is that they have been speaking truthfully about them. Isn't that what you want, the truth? But now the truth hurts your argument, so you would prefer that Bush plays nice and lies? ******* I think you are wrong. Light water reactors for mothballing their nuclear program. NK was a nation in need of energy. Bush comes into office and doesn't follow through with the deal, names NK as an axis-of-evil, and now refuses to even directly talk to NK. That's the part that seems really brilliant (sarcasm), the 'we're not talking to you because you aren't doing what we want' attitude. No problem with that foreign policy decision I suppose though. Link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/15/nkorea.us/ ******* quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this begs the question why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia whose nationals were piloting the planes on 9/11? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who's arguing against WWIII here anyway? ***** I assume you are joking and will leave it at that. ****** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the invasion of Kuwait, when has he threatened world peace? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everyday he maintains his motivations for refusing to agree to the Cease Fire and UN resolutions is a really big hint. Doesn't get any more neon than that. ***** He's not agreed to the cease-fire? I guess you are going back to the no-fly zone issue? ***** I think the world should be Nuclear Free, but the second the US gives there's up, some bad guy will turn there nuclear reactor into a bomb making plant and bomb the crap out of us. Until somebody else takes up the role of world police, I don't question for one second our need for nuclear deterent. ***** Nuclear free would be great, but you are right, it is a deterrent. But this point does not validate this war, it only validates that we should keep at least some of our nuclear arsenal. But I do agree. Although, an interesting idea would be if one of our 'allies', say Saudi Arabia, decided to 'go nuclear'... that would be interesting. Or what is your feeling about Pakistan being nuclear, a nation militarily run? ***** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I try not to take it for granted, but the idea of 'nation-building' is inherently against democracy. There are other ways to acheive the same means, such as supporting liberation movements and placing and upholding sanctions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is nation building against democracy? We supported both liberation movements and sanctions. So what's next? Kill more Iraqi citizens is cool with you? ****** Well, I guess killing Iraqi citizens is cool with you too, or do you think those missiles and bombs won't kill any? I am ignorant of any liberation movements we've supported, and would appreciate any links to read up on them. Obviously sanctions are ineffective when our own previous Sec of Def and future VP does business with Iraq, I did say upholding sanctions. If we effectively put Saddam in power to confront Iran when it was convenient for us, why is it we cannot effectively empower Saddam's enemies to remove him from power? Let Iraqi's gain their freedom with full support, but not at the risk of American lives when there is no threat to America. Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/050602.html ****** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm confused here, did Straw say "IF" Hussein gets a hold of WMDs? Suggesting he may at some point have them? I can only assume you/he meant to say "now that they have WMDs". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me help you out. "Remember to remove the words 'NERVE AGENT' from all your computer files." Iraqi officer prior to this round of inspections. ****** Thanks for helping me. You didn't answer my question, but whatever. I am quite lucky to have you around to straighten everything out for me. Maybe you can further educate me as to why the word "if" was used, if in fact it was, which is what I was questioning. ****** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blix and ElBaradei have with each report come to the table saying that Iraq continues to improve compliance and cooperation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They also said that progress was only evident when the threat of war beckoned. And could you quantify any of your remarks? You make damned sure to have pro-US people quantify theirs....now your turn. Start with what Blix and Baradei say. Quantify cooperation and compliance in terms of perentage destroyed and estimated final destruction of WMD? You can't can you. I think Iraq has fooled you, young man! ******* Nobody is suggesting stop pressuring Iraq to disarm, you seem to equate anti-war with letting Saddam run roughshod and unchecked. I've 'quantified' my remarks I think, I'm sure you'll let me know if there are any I haven't. Maybe you'd like to quantify yours now (excepting your personal accusations towards me which are unfounded and have no place in this debate), where is the intelligence that shows where these WMD are? Why hasn't it been provided to weapons inspectors so they can do their job and have them destroyed? As far as numbers, maybe you can provide me with the numbers of weapons has (not 'had' or 'could possibly' have or 'may have in the future') and then I'll work on the math for you. I will again say it, we do not know if Iraq has these WMD or chem/bio weapons. He very well may be hiding the 100's of tons of everything that is suggested, but where is the proof of the current existence of them? That is the point, you support war on the possibility of something while I support war based upon the proof of something and the refusal to then destroy it. And finally, what is the difference if it takes 20 years or 20 days to disarm Iraq if it meens no loss of life via military engagement? I don't Saddam invading other nations, they haven't since Kuwait, which was addressed with war. The nations most at risk do not agree with military action at this point and somehoe I'm to believe that the American way of life is threatened from a man who has never attacked the US? Ok, who's been fooled again? But, here is a quote from Blix's 3/7 report: "How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months." Does that give you a time frame? Links: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un.transcript.1/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elba/index.html ****** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- War is not the only answer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. But you need to tell the Iraqi regime that, not me. But unlike us, Iraq isn't listening. ****** So you are not agreed then, war is the only answer for you. When all that evidence comes pouring out about where all these weapons are that will still mean war, when inspectors find weapons that are banned by the UN resolution that will still mean war, every time Saddam does provide something that is requested it is deemed 'deceipt' rather than compliance and thus means war. I suggest the solution is to provide the apparent intelligence to inspectors and let them do their job and destroy the weapons, if/when they find weapons let them destroy them and find more, when Saddam provides something follow up on it, ask more questions, and keep up the pressure. If/when Saddam launches an attack on another sovereign nation then it's time for military action, if he's tied to a terrorist attack then take action. Why is this a concept that is so hard to understand? Or is it that the real goal is war, not disarmament? ****** A few interesting links: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1213-02.htm http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030310/D7PMI9IG0.html http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/jacor-common/local_news_common.html?ID=20030310190842&feed=loca l (the 2nd to last debate between Perle and Andrews is especially interesting) |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 11:33 AM
|
#28 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Sorry, I just checked a few of those links and it seems some of the Washington Post links do not work properly.
The links still appear to come up via a simple search. I used Google and obvious keywords like "Iraq names weapons destruction" for example for the first link. If anyone knows a way for me to format the links so that they work after posting please let me know. |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 11:56 AM
|
#29 |
|
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Neptune Beach, Florida
|
My question(s) is/are, let's say the United States does not attack Iraq. Either by the UN talking the US into backing down a bit or the US deciding on its own that war with Iraq at this time simply is not worth the cost..
What happens then? Does anyone really think Saddam will just quit the whole "Weapons Buildup Game" and sit peacefully in one of his palaces for the rest of his days? Or, as I would say most people believe, (including French and Germans) are Saddam & Co. a time bomb just waiting for the right opportunity to go off? This could be in the form of a full scale attack on Israel or one of Iraq's bordering countries.. aka another Kuwait situation.. Or even possibly some form of terrorism on US soil? And on another, sort of related topic, what is the UN currently doing or planning to do in regards to North Korea? They seem to be possibly an even bigger threat down the road than the Iraqis, as their government (if you want to call it that) has been very open about the kinds of weapons they would use if needed..
__________________
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BLACK & GOLD!! |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 01:12 PM
|
#30 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
The world community should continue to enforce weapons restrictions on Iraq. The idea of no war equalling leaving Saddam alone is false, please do not confuse them as being one in the same. Inspections are effective as was shown previously and is being shown currently (although obviously some disagree that WMD being destroyed shows their ineffectivesness somehow). The threat of action should remain, nobody concedes that it should not be a final option. This is the entire point. Additionally, support democratic reform via liberation movements and effective sanctions.
PS - love the Phil Hendrie reference, great radio show! |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 01:28 PM
|
#31 |
|
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Neptune Beach, Florida
|
Always good to see a fellow FOFC'er with great taste for comedy, qmpz..
 As for the Iraq situation, I should've been more clear.. I did not mean to imply that a US withdrawl of any thoughts of war would also mean an end to the UN inspections in Iraq. I agree that should continue, but for how long? I think it would have to be indefinitely. Now, would Saddam allow this to go on for an extended period of time? Or, as once happened previously, would he eventually tire of the UN inspectors and boot them out of his country once again? Bottom line, the guy has proven time and again that he is not trustworthy.. Dan Rather could've done everyone a huge favor if he would've just snuck a Machete inside of his Long Coat, took it inside of Saddam's place and sliced the SOB's head right off and onto that table Hussein was playing with his pen on. Now that would've been a ratings winner for CBS!!
__________________
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BLACK & GOLD!! |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 04:24 PM
|
#32 |
|
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
|
The irony of the iraq-discussion is an argument between countries that have not been at war at their own land in centuries (USA, UK) and those who have been only 50 years ago (France, Germany.)
Or maybe it's a little more than that. Good thing I have Bush so high, I don't expect him to be so stupid going to war without the UN support. EDIT - this topic asks for not including my signature... Last edited by MIJB#19 : 03-11-2003 at 04:26 PM. |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 04:43 PM
|
#33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
QMPZ, no offense, but this is getting really tough to argue and counter argue, so I'll pull out some good ones and answer and if I missed anything you care to hear an opinion on, please point it out.
 [EDIT: I lied, I made another dynast thread.] Quote:
This is what makes me so baffled. If people truly believed this and truly cared, where the hell were they for the last 12 years? I don't have a great memory, but I sure as hell remember a couple of weeks ago people protesting the USA for threatening war, but I don't remember anybody in the USA and Europe protesting in force about UN Sanctions on Iraq or Hussein waging war on his own people. Remember, there have been many anti-US government reports that have accussed Sanctions (not Hussein) of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people by neglecting them during the last 12 years. I'd provide proof, but the victims are dead, their families unable to speak, and Saddam isn't exactly reporting his own findings to the "Give peace a chance" foundation. Quote:
I think you are confused by thinking removing the current Iraqi regime would fail to open up doors. I do not believe you would think that, however. Quote:
They are not inspectors, that was being sarcastic. However, we found quite a bit more about Al Qaeda once we got a real process of investigation started. The military action only allowed us the opportunity and without it, we would still have no clue about Al Qaeda and they would be plotting more devastation and not hiding and running. Quote:
Yes, like Cuba, North Korea, Iran... if you think the countries you mentioned are the subject matter experts on the Iraq situation, I would find it amazing to know what you think the USA, UK, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Eastern Europe,Israel, Kuwait, (and probably others) might be considered. Quote:
You are assuming again that the Iraqi's are in full compliance and the inspectors have found everything... Quote:
The UN inspectors left in protest after the Clinton administration was so frustrated with the lack of cooperation on the part of the Iraqi's... so we are straight on that. Quote:
I think we hear that sometimes war in neccessary to defend freedom because so many hate us for it. Quote:
In this case, it sure seems so, but to tell me that you care about not going to war and encourage nations like Iraq to continue killing their own citizens as long as ours don't die...is hypocracy. Quote:
Who? But if it is about oil? What is the motivation? Oil contracts to Cheney? I think ensuring the oil market remains stable and fair would have more to do with it, but then again, I trust Bush, like I trusted Clinton. Perhaps Clinton was holding Iraq in place all those years in case Bush Jr. was elected and got Cheney and job in the White House? Ah, conspiracy theories, the're always fun! Quote:
Well, you might have to ask 8 years of Bill Clinton and 8 years of UN sanctions. (I only blame Clinton in retrospect, I didn't suggest we end sanctions back then. I've changed my mind. Hatred is growing like a cancer in the middle east, and something has to be done about it.) 8 years is a long time to breed hatred for the USA and I think we saw the benefit of that hatred on 9/11/01. Was Iraq involved in that? Well, you would suggest that since he says "No", that he wasn't. But his country does have Al Qaeda operatives in the northeastern part of the country, just south of the Kurds. But you'll have to trust Colin Powell when he says that, and the Senators on the Armed Services Committee. Quote:
You are suggesting one of two things. That the Bush administation not encourage them? That the Bush administration should encourage them and break the UN agreement by supporting further war after Kuwait was liberated? Because if it's the latter, I agree with you. If it's the former, it was a risk with great rewards. All risks are bad when they fail. Quote:
Much like Hussein, Hitler didn't exactly advertise! We didn't know that was going on. And now you are bashing the US for their motivations in WWII???? When does it stop? Quote:
Yes, Australia's Government is based fundamentally on the same beliefs and principals as the United States Government. The rules and opportunities that allowed George Bush to become president in the USA apply to a similar minded man in Australia or Europe. If I have offended you, good, you deserved it. But my unfriendliness is directed squarely at your viewpoints.Quote:
NK is a nation in need of everything (just so you are corrected). Bush doesn't follow through with what deal? NK is very much our enemy. Been so for 50 years. They sell ballistic missles, knowledge, and weaponry on the black market. That is well documented. And now we discover they are reactivating nuclear power plants with the capabilities of pumping out roughly 10 nuclear bombs a year and it's George Bush's fault? People just don't go absolutely pychiopathic because there feelings get hurt. I don't see France flipping out and selling their nuclear weapons...but with NK, it's a possability. Quote:
Well, the first check I think we have to make before going to war with anybody is are they reasonable? Can the be dealt with? And the answer so far with Pakistan's military leader, is yes. Now, we are trying like hell to keep him and his nation stable and I think we have given him about 650 million dollars last year than we used to. It's a big price to pay to keep nuclear nations our friends. If Islamic Fundamentalists take over, we are in a world of hurt, because we get to go to war again, and making friends with Pakistan has surely made India less likely to enjoy our company. You see, the nuclear world, where we let every Tom, Dick, and Harry play with the big boys is going to be a disaster. That is why it is so important to show the world's rogue states that the world isn't playing when some overly aggressive dictator wants to play with nukes. That's why NK cannot be dealt with financially, because the price will be too high and the message would be all wrong. Quote:
In the long run, a lot less. That's the core difference between my argument and yours. You think only short term. You care more about that short term spike in statistics than in the long haul of millions. Quote:
We liberated Afghanistan. Just recently in fact. Dominican Republic (or is that Haiti?), Grenada, Cuba (in the past). Quote:
We didn't put Saddam in power. But yes, after the fall of the Shaw of Iran, the fundamentalist regime of the Ayatollah Komeni posed a serious threat to US interests and the hostage taking and the large anti-US movements caused quite an effect on the US Administrations back then. So they supported Saddam Hussein, an unknown, who was not tied to fundamentalism, as a worthwhile risk. When risks don't pan out, they are failures, not conspiracy. Quote:
Well, thank God the Soviet Union collapsed so Cuba became a non player. But I'm not waiting for Islamic Fundamentalism to collapse in the middle east. Aint' happening, not without moving forward with relations. And that simply won't happen until Hussein is removed and the Israeli/Palestinian issue is resolved. Let me help you out. "Remember to remove the words 'NERVE AGENT' from all your computer files." Iraqi officer prior to this round of inspections. ---in response to Iraqi officers removing the words "Nerve Agent" from their records and Jack Straw saying "IF" Iraq gets ahold of WMD. Quote:
I think I answered the question clearly. The word "IF" has no meaning. I find it very irresponsible for France, German, Russia, China, (and probably others) to endorse the use of sanctions on Iraq all these years over unlikely possibilities. Don't you? Quote:
Good, we agree. I'm not pro-war. Like the top General of the Turkish military said. [paraphrased as close to correctness as possible]"They say Turkey is 94% opposed to war. That is incorrect, we are 100% opposed to war. But we have to understand that this is not a decision between war and peace, good and bad....but a decision between war and greater war, bad and worse." I agree with that. Quote:
And I gave you 12 years to come up with an alternate plan. Times up, Iraq has been playing for real all this time, you weren't. Quote:
What should it mean? Quote:
What should it mean? Quote:
And thus means war is an assumption. We have never threatened to go to war because he offered us a nugget. We don't want full compliance, we need it. Nuggets provided by Saddam to make you clap aren't doing anybody any good. Quote:
Okay, intelligence brief number one. Saddam Hussein is in Bahgdad. Round him up right now for crimes against humanity by using Chemical and Biological weapons on the people of Iran and Iraq. Other than that, I can't tell you that the US intelligence is dynamically 100% accurate, I'm sure it's not even close. Now you see it, now you don't is more like it. It's very difficult to spot something, tell a UN inspector in a bugged hotel room, and have them drive to an empty location. And the weapons/equipment/whatever somebody once knew was present is gone. However, I wish it were that easy, we could wipe out Drug Lords and Mafia's at the same time! Quote:
It will never happen. People will forget. That's part of the game. People always forget. It's silly now isn't it that we are wanting inspections on a country that was defeated 12 years ago. Well, we have forgotten that they never held there end of the bargain. Many have forgotten. And the UN will soon forget again. Just like Hussein predicts. Quote:
And then what? We can bomb the hell out of his cities and armies again? And he rebuilds again and accepts and punishment the world community gives him, so he can fight another day? That's cowardice. Quote:
Too late. Quote:
The goal is to save lives at the expense of a few and allow democratic societies on the planet to maintain their pursuit of happiness and freedom. Last edited by Dutch : 03-11-2003 at 04:48 PM. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
03-12-2003, 12:46 AM
|
#34 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
This is what makes me so baffled. If people truly believed this and truly cared, where the hell were they for the last 12 years?
**** I'd ask you the same question. Were you campaigning for the disarmament of Iraq? I remember an operation Desert Fox, so somebody was doing something. And that was 1998, not 12 years ago. **** Remember, there have been many anti-US government reports that have accussed Sanctions (not Hussein) of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people by neglecting them during the last 12 years. **** I didn't argue this and I do not see how people opposed to sanctions justifies a war. **** I think you are confused by thinking removing the current Iraqi regime would fail to open up doors. I do not believe you would think that, however. **** I never said it wouldn't. I'm not arguing that the removal of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq would not allow further inspections to continue, I am arguing that it is not the only way to do it, as proven by links I had provided in the last post. **** However, we found quite a bit more about Al Qaeda once we got a real process of investigation started. **** Which still no real link has been established between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and not even the administration has said Iraq had any lik to 9/11. **** The military action only allowed us the opportunity and without it, we would still have no clue about Al Qaeda and they would be plotting more devastation and not hiding and running. **** Are you suggesting we attacked the Taliban prior to having intelligence that showed them linked to Al Qaeda? I don't follow what you are saying. **** Yes, like Cuba, North Korea, Iran... if you think the countries you mentioned are the subject matter experts on the Iraq situation, I would find it amazing to know what you think the USA, UK, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Eastern Europe,Israel, Kuwait, (and probably others) might be considered. **** My text was in response to your statement that more than 40 empty missiles would be destroyed in 4 months, and my reply was to point out that there are nations that suggest increasing the number of inspectors. The nations (at least some of them) oppose the increase of inspectors for some reason. And on this point maybe you should review the link provided to Blix's report, it is not empty missiles being destroyed. **** You are assuming again that the Iraqi's are in full compliance and the inspectors have found everything... **** I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying continue inspections, how does that imply I think they have found everything? And this is the point, continue inspections, find them if they exist, and destroy them. **** I think we hear that sometimes war in neccessary to defend freedom because so many hate us for it. **** That's a lot of war, especially now, if we're fighting due to hatred. **** In this case, it sure seems so, but to tell me that you care about not going to war and encourage nations like Iraq to continue killing their own citizens as long as ours don't die...is hypocracy. **** Please provide the text where I encouraged Saddam Hussein to kill Iraqis, I do not recall typing that. I would contend that you would rather 100 or even a 1000 brave Americans die in Iraq so it saves you $.05 a gallon on gas while you take your SUV gashog on a joyride down the pacific highway, never once giving a thought to the Iraqi citizens suffering while the remaining factions in Iraq wage war among themselves for dominance after the US pulls out and leaves a shattered nation to fix itself (without their oil) like we have done in Afghanistan. I've provided links to support my point that you apparently ignored after asking me to do so. **** Who? **** Again, I provided links like you asked, read them. **** Perhaps Clinton was holding Iraq in place all those years in case Bush Jr. was elected and got Cheney and job in the White House? **** Any evidence of ties? **** Ah, conspiracy theories, the're always fun! **** Especially when they are substantiated. **** Hatred is growing like a cancer in the middle east, and something has to be done about it. **** As I said above, that's a lot of war if that's our solution to hatred. **** Was Iraq involved in that? Well, you would suggest that since he says "No", that he wasn't. But his country does have Al Qaeda operatives in the northeastern part of the country, just south of the Kurds. **** They are in a region of the country he doesn't even control? The Kurdish area? Could you supply a link to this report, I would be interested in reading it. And by the way, we trained Al Qaeda terrorists in this country, but I expect you do not believe the US is a terrorist nation. **** Much like Hussein, Hitler didn't exactly advertise! We didn't know that was going on. **** So we didn't know he was expanding German borders and rolling through Europe prior to entering WWII while we decided to sit it out until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor either? **** And now you are bashing the US for their motivations in WWII???? **** My response was to you bringing up this weak comparison to Nazi Germany and Iraq. It holds no relevence. You suggest that the US entered WWII to stop Hitler from murdering the Jews which was simply not the case. Saddam, to my knowledge, is not gassing traincar-loads of people continuously... if he is, please provide the link because I'm unaware. And please, no more of the gassing after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, we can't possibly be going to war now over a 15 year old event. In relation to the gassing, read these links: http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html http://64.176.94.191/article1779.htm **** The rules and opportunities that allowed George Bush to become president in the USA **** Meaning the right to be appointed by the US Supreme Court? Or the right to have equal protection by NOT counting votes and allowing 97,000 voters be refused the right to vote because they were confused with fellons? But this is a whole other issue. **** NK is a nation in need of everything (just so you are corrected). **** Thanks for correcting me, I thought they had everything else. **** Bush doesn't follow through with what deal? **** I provided the link as proof of my statements... read it. **** And now we discover they are reactivating nuclear power plants with the capabilities of pumping out roughly 10 nuclear bombs a year and it's George Bush's fault? People just don't go absolutely pychiopathic because there feelings get hurt. **** Again, read. **** I don't see France flipping out and selling their nuclear weapons...but with NK, it's a possability. **** It definitely is now, if they are allowed to produce them, we agree on one more thing. **** It's a big price to pay to keep nuclear nations our friends. **** And a big price to convince the supposedly threatened nations to let us use their bases. **** You see, the nuclear world, where we let every Tom, Dick, and Harry play with the big boys is going to be a disaster. That is why it is so important to show the world's rogue states that the world isn't playing when some overly aggressive dictator wants to play with nukes. **** We agree again. I do find it interesting you addressed Pakistan and not Saudi Arabia. **** That's why NK cannot be dealt with financially, because the price will be too high and the message would be all wrong. **** Again, read the link, if you think the situation now is going to be less costly than upholding the deal that was in place you are delusional. **** In the long run, a lot less. That's the core difference between my argument and yours. You think only short term. You care more about that short term spike in statistics than in the long haul of millions. **** You only consider the effects of the bombs and missiles and 'tactical' nukes we use, what about the aftermath of war, the starvation, lack of humanitarian supplies, following in-fighting, etc etc that war creates? And back to the human rights issue, we are not doing anything in any other cruel nation that kills it's citizens for frivolous crimes. **** We liberated Afghanistan. Just recently in fact. Dominican Republic (or is that Haiti?), Grenada, Cuba (in the past). **** My statement was obviously in relation to Iraq. Ironically you didn't list Iraq as one of the places we have supported liberation movements. **** So they supported Saddam Hussein, an unknown, who was not tied to fundamentalism **** And still isn't. **** When risks don't pan out, they are failures, not conspiracy. **** I didn't call it a conspiracy, you did. I was pointing out the ties that this administration has with Saddam Hussein. **** Well, thank God the Soviet Union collapsed so Cuba became a non player. **** What does this mean? When did we support any real attempt to overthrow Castro other than the Bay of Pigs (which was disastrously managed)? **** And that simply won't happen until Hussein is removed and the Israeli/Palestinian issue is resolved. **** I absolutely agree with the Isreali/Palestinian (or more like Isreali/Islamic) issue needing to be resolved. I would agree that a disarmed Iraq is also crucial. **** I think I answered the question clearly. **** No, you hadn't answered the question clearly, that's why I asked. **** I find it very irresponsible for France, German, Russia, China, (and probably others) to endorse the use of sanctions on Iraq all these years over unlikely possibilities. Don't you? **** No I don't, sanctions should absolutley be in place against Iraq. I do find it irresponsible of our VP to have dealt with Iraq during said sanctions. Don't you? **** Like the top General of the Turkish military said. [paraphrased as close to correctness as possible]"They say Turkey is 94% opposed to war. That is incorrect, we are 100% opposed to war. But we have to understand that this is not a decision between war and peace, good and bad....but a decision between war and greater war, bad and worse." **** Coming from a nation that is refusing to let us launch an attack from their lands because we won't pay them enough money. From a nation that the Kurds (who are supposed to be worried about Saddam) are lining up to defend their border against because they expect Turkish invasion while the US wages war in Iraq and our administration is leaning towards turning a blind eye. Do you also agree with that part of their vision? **** And I gave you 12 years to come up with an alternate plan. Times up, Iraq has been playing for real all this time, you weren't. **** You had 12 years to scream for war but didn't. And now you are because of semantics in a resolution, not over real desire to have Iraq disarmed. And 12 years is not an accurate number, inspections ended in 1998, try to remember that. 95% of the weapons had been destroyed, Perle even acknowledged that. **** What should it mean? **** I should have said IF the evidence comes pouring out. And what it should mean is we use it and destroy weapons because it would mean inspections are effective. **** What should it mean? **** It means we should destroy them and that inspections are effective. **** And thus means war is an assumption. **** You hit it on the head, maybe you did read a link. This war was predetermined. It is not about disarmament or human rights or removing a madman from power. Glad to see you finally came around. **** Round him up right now for crimes against humanity by using Chemical and Biological weapons on the people of Iran and Iraq. **** Agreed. Let him stand trial for the use of weapons deemed illegal by the Geneva Convention. As should whoever the Iranian leader was (if he's still alive). **** Other than that, I can't tell you that the US intelligence is dynamically 100% accurate, I'm sure it's not even close. **** According to inspectors it's worthless. Read the links. **** Now you see it, now you don't is more like it. It's very difficult to spot something, tell a UN inspector in a bugged hotel room, and have them drive to an empty location. **** You are suggesting that Iraq is moving the hundreds of tons of chem/bio weapons that are stored underground (according to you previously) before inspectors can get there? Are you also suggesting that WE (the US) do not have the ability to get intelligence to inspectors without having the phone line tapped? C'mon. By the way read Blix's reports (common theme here, read the links you asked my to provide) and you'll see he refutes the idea that Iraq is being tipped off. In fact here's the quote so you don't have to click... Blix: "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." **** It will never happen. People will forget. **** Who's fault is that? So because we as a nation lose interest to quickly we should wage war? That's a convincing argument. **** It's silly now isn't it that we are wanting inspections on a country that was defeated 12 years ago. **** No, it's not silly. They never should have stopped. What is silly is that we as a nation have such short attention spans and lack of concern for the rest of the world. This would not even be an issue had the world not forgotten. **** Many have forgotten. And the UN will soon forget again. Just like Hussein predicts. **** Well I for one hope we do not forget. I hope that the US has become aware of international issues and the fact that they DO effect us. **** And then what? We can bomb the hell out of his cities and armies again? **** Uhhhh... yes. What else do you propose we do if he attacks another nation? **** And he rebuilds again and accepts and punishment the world community gives him, so he can fight another day? **** Didn't say that, you did. Please point out where I ever suggest we walk away from Saddam. You just can't wrap your mind around the idea of continual inspections and containment can you. **** Too late. **** What was the terrorist attack he made? I'd love to see you substantiate this when the administration won't even make that accusation. **** The goal is to save lives at the expense of a few and allow democratic societies on the planet to maintain their pursuit of happiness and freedom. **** And how has Iraq infringed on you pursuing happiness and freedom for the last 12 years, or even before that? The goal is to disarm Iraq. It can be done peacefully through inspections, at least thusfar all signs show that it can, as indicated by the inspectors themselves. How many more lives can you save by going to war when no lives are lost due to inspections? Are you reincarnating? Again, since you cannot comprehend, inspections doesn't mean find a missile go home. It means continued, exhaustive research and destruction of banned weapons. It means continued monitoring to ensure Iraq does not re-arm. **** |
|
|
|
|
03-12-2003, 01:14 AM
|
#35 |
|
High School JV
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
I say skip attacking Iraq until the UN is taken care of first. A couple of them "Mother Of All Bombs" bombs should do the trick. "UN meeting adjourned ... with extreme prejudice!!!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
03-12-2003, 12:42 PM
|
#36 | |||||||||
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
I campaign every damned day for the disarmament of Iraq. Desert Fox is an interesting point. Firing cruise missles with no follow up has proven to be very ineffective use of the military. But that draws no protest because cruise missles with no follow doesn't allow what? Hmmm, the removal of French oil contracts? Quote:
I didn't say they were in the Kurdish area. But I'm amazed, for someone who had so many links, it's funny how you are absolutely floored everytime something supporting our government is said. It's like you have this amazing ability to only read what you want to read. Quote:
Are you suggesting that you are unhappy that the USA didn't enter that war earlier when the costs in lives could have been tens of millions less? Quote:
Interesting. On what grounds? Quote:
Interesting. Proof? How do we deal with that? Do we pay them off? Invade them? Expand. Quote:
Inspections come and go, but sanctions go on and on. Powell said Iraq hasn't accounted for "vast amounts" of chemical weapons, including 515 artillery shells with mustard gas, 30,000 empty munitions that could hold 500 tons of chemical agents and VX nerve gas. But he said evidence of these substances may be hard to find because Baghdad has integrated banned weapons programs with legal programs, otherwise known as "dual use infrastructures." "Any inspections in such facilities would be unlikely to turn anything prohibited," Powell said. "Call it ingenious or evil genius, but the Iraqis designed their chemical weapons program to be inspected." Those were the numbers the 1998 UN team had said were unaccounted for. So far, I haven't see 95% of that. Quote:
2 million lives lost and counting is not frivelous. Quote:
What??? Quote:
As a master of misquoting, you'll appreciate it when I say, "Amen, brother!" Can I get an "Amen!" back there brother? How about a, "God Bless the USA!"? No? Oh well, too bad. Last edited by Dutch : 03-12-2003 at 12:44 PM. |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
03-12-2003, 03:34 PM
|
#37 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
1) I know what you are doing now, I asked what you were doing since 1998, have you campaignED every day since then? Cruise missiles are more than doing nothing, that was the point, and thanks for concurring. Maybe you can explain how France and Russia are denounced for doing business with Iraq when the US has a 'food for oil' program. They pay money we send food, what's the difference other than that? And you continue to forget our VP did business with Iraq right up until he left the company to run for office, why not mention that in the same breath as France having a contract?
2) I'm amazed when someone asks me to provide proof, I do, I ask for the same, and he doesn't do it. Where is the proof, I honestly would like to read it. Everything I have read says the 1 Al Qaeda member who received hospitalization in Baghdad then went to the Kurdish region. If I only read what supports my position why am I asking you for the proof to read? Simply provide the proof not rhetoric. 3) Considering it is a much different time I do not know how I would have felt during WWII. I will say that if I were the same person back then that I am now, I would have been in support of defending Europe from Hitler's invasion long before we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. I have never wavered from the idea that sovereign nations must be defended. If you want to turn this into a debate about how the world should deal with human rights violations than we can do that, but it holds no relevence to this debate, read the resolutions. The administration hasn't even introduced any language in a resolution having to do with crimes against humanity although they use it as a reason for war. 4) Sanctions should be in place due to Saddam's brutal dictatorship and crimes against humanity, along with several other nations which I provided links to, read them. I have never contested he's evil, I claim he is also, but this war is not about human rights. Write Bush and have him draft a (reasonable) resolution concerning crimes against humanity and you'll have my backing. 5) I'm not providing proof for a statement you made and I agree with, how bout you do some research on your own. It's like you just throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks. The way to deal with it is comprehensive inspections. Start a different thread to debate NK if you want, it has no place in this lengthy one. (If you do let me know what the subject is) 6) What is your argument? I provided proof that everything was not destroyed during the first inspections. Iraq claims they unilaterally destroyed them. Inspectors have a list of names that were supposedly involved in that destruction. They ground penetrating equipment, methods of testing for destruction of items, etc. Read the links I provided. 7) Provide the source of 2 million lives and the context. Does that include the Iran-Iraq war? Is that including the gassing from 1988 which was done by both Iran and Iraq? You provided a partial quote from me with the word frivolous which is impossible to twist into what you accuse me of saying. The quote says frivolous crimes aare punished by execution. Don't try to paint me as anti-human, I'm not the one chomping at the bit to level cities and leave defenseless women and children at the mercy of fighting factions, you are. 8) You claim inspections cannot be effective because we forget. That suggests you think war is necessary because we will forget again. Is that or is that not what you are trying to say? 9) Let's take a scan back through this thread and review who has consistently misquoted. You yet again suggest I am anti-American even though previously you said you didn't think I was, must be easy to debate when you have no clear stance on anything and can prove your case with unfounded accusations. Before you reply how bout you read some of the links I provided so I do not have to keep reiterating the same thing. In addition maybe you can provide support for your statements as you have asked me to do and I did. You've yet to supply a link to support your statements. Amen! God bless America! (I'm sure you will construe this as deceipt on my part rather than compliance) |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 10:23 AM
|
#38 |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Okay, you want to appreciate what I know. Here. Read.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 1. Iraq’s government openly praised the September 11th attacks on America In the aftermath of the attacks on America that killed thousands of innocents from 80 countries, Saddam Hussein said, “America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world.” 2. Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former U.S. President. 3. Saddam Hussein has an appetite for nuclear weapons In 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. Were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Iraq still employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians and retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. 4. Saddam likely possesses biological and chemical weapons United Nations' inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein’s military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. Iraq has admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. 5. Saddam’s repression of the Iraqi people In the late 1980’s Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq’s Kurdish population killing thousands. Former UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Max Van der Stoel’s report in April 1998 stated that Iraq had executed at least 1,500 people during the previous year for political reasons. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents. Saddam blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the U.N., even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and buy arms for his country. 6. Saddam’s Abuse of Children Child labor persists and there are instances of forced labor. There are widespread reports that food and medicine that could have been made available to the general public, including children, have been stockpiled in warehouses or diverted for the personal use of some government officials. Saddam has held military training camps for children between 10 and 15 years of age. 7. Violence against women Human rights organizations and opposition groups received reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody. Amnesty International reported that, in October 2000, the Iraqi Government executed dozens of women accused of prostitution. 8. Iraq has not returned prisoners In 1991, the U.N. Security Council demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. 9. Saddam possesses prohibited missiles Iraq possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can use to inflict mass death throughout the region. 10. Weapons inspectors have been shut out of Iraq for four years It's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, build, and test behind the cloak of secrecy. The first time we may be completely certain Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbids, he uses one. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 10:27 AM
|
#39 |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...ade/sect3.html In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations - and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs. Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft. United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts concluded that Iraq's declarations on biological agents vastly understated the extent of its program, and that Iraq actually produced two to four times the amount of most agents, including anthrax and botulinim toxin, than it had declared. UNSCOM reported to the UN Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents. The Department of Defense reported in January 2001 that Iraq has continued to work on its weapons programs, including converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential vehicles for the delivery of chemical or biological weapons. The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through the UN. Saddam Hussein continues its attempts to procure mobile biological weapons laboratories that could be used for further research and development. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 10:32 AM
|
#40 |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Chemical Weapons - same source.
Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq's Kurdish population in the late 1980s, killing thousands. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein's military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. Saddam Hussein continues his efforts to develop chemical weapons: Gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard. Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads. Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent. Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use infrastructure that it could quickly divert to chemical weapons production, such as chlorine and phenol plants. Iraq is seeking to purchase chemical weapons agent precursors and applicable production equipment, and is making an effort to hide activities at the Fallujah plant, which was one of Iraq's chemical weapons production facilities before the Gulf War. At Fallujah and three other plants, Iraq now has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need for water treatment, and the evidence indicates that some of its chlorine imports are being diverted for military purposes. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 10:36 AM
|
#41 |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Nuclear Weapons (and subsequently the ballistics program).
Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf War and continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon: A new report released on September 9, 2002 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organization - concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material. Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. Iraq has withheld documentation relevant to its past nuclear program, including data about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, experimental data, and technical documents. Iraq still has the technical expertise and some of the infrastructure needed to pursue its goal of building a nuclear weapon. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling his continued interest in developing his nuclear program. Ballistic Missiles (Including the recently discovered Al-Samoud) Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers - as prohibited by the UN Security Council Resolution 687. Discrepancies identified by UNSCOM in Saddam Hussein's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a small force of Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warheads. Iraq continues work on the al-Samoud liquid propellant short-range missile (which can fly beyond the allowed 150 kilometers). The al-Samoud and the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both systems are nearing operational deployment. The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal site for testing liquid propellant missile engines. Iraq has been building a new, larger test stand there that is clearly intended for testing prohibited longer-range missile engines. At their al-Mamoun facility, the Iraqis have rebuilt structures that had been dismantled by UNSCOM that were originally designed to manufacture solid propellant motors for the Badr-2000 missile program. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 10:39 AM
|
#42 |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism (can't share the Al-Qaeda info yet).
Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions. In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals. Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians. Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer. Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 10:45 AM
|
#43 |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
"Why We Know Iraq is Lying" A Column by Dr. Condoleezza Rice
By Condoleezza Rice Originally appeared in the New York Times on January 23, 2003 WASHINGTON. Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding yet again that Iraq disclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no. There is no mystery to voluntary disarmament. Countries that decide to disarm lead inspectors to weapons and production sites, answer questions before they are asked, state publicly and often the intention to disarm and urge their citizens to cooperate. The world knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively give up its weapons of mass destruction. The critical common elements of these efforts include a high-level political commitment to disarm, national initiatives to dismantle weapons programs, and full cooperation and transparency. In 1989 South Africa made the strategic decision to dismantle its covert nuclear weapons program. It destroyed its arsenal of seven weapons and later submitted to rigorous verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors were given complete access to all nuclear facilities (operating and defunct) and the people who worked there. They were also presented with thousands of documents detailing, for example, the daily operation of uranium enrichment facilities as well as the construction and dismantling of specific weapons. Ukraine and Kazakhstan demonstrated a similar pattern of cooperation when they decided to rid themselves of the nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers inherited from the Soviet Union. With significant assistance from the United States warmly accepted by both countries disarmament was orderly, open and fast. Nuclear warheads were returned to Russia. Missile silos and heavy bombers were destroyed or dismantled once in a ceremony attended by the American and Russian defense chiefs. In one instance, Kazakhstan revealed the existence of a ton of highly enriched uranium and asked the United States to remove it, lest it fall into the wrong hands. Iraq's behavior could not offer a starker contrast. Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities. Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie. For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons. Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text. Far from informing, the declaration is intended to cloud and confuse the true picture of Iraq's arsenal. It is a reflection of the regime's well-earned reputation for dishonesty and constitutes a material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which set up the current inspections program. Unlike other nations that have voluntarily disarmed and in defiance of Resolution 1441 Iraq is not allowing inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access" to facilities and people involved in its weapons program. As a recent inspection at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist demonstrated, and other sources confirm, material and documents are still being moved around in farcical shell games. The regime has blocked free and unrestricted use of aerial reconnaissance. The list of people involved with weapons of mass destruction programs, which the United Nations required Iraq to provide, ends with those who worked in 1991 even though the United Nations had previously established that the programs continued after that date. Interviews with scientists and weapons officials identified by inspectors have taken place only in the watchful presence of the regime's agents. Given the duplicitous record of the regime, its recent promises to do better can only be seen as an attempt to stall for time. Last week's finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles. Many questions remain about Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and arsenal and it is Iraq's obligation to provide answers. It is failing in spectacular fashion. By both its actions and its inactions, Iraq is proving not that it is a nation bent on disarmament, but that it is a nation with something to hide. Iraq is still treating inspections as a game. It should know that time is running out. Condoleezza Rice is the National Security Adviser. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 02:34 PM
|
#44 |
|
H.S. Freshman Team
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Dutch - the US Government's website information is not an independant source, news sources that do not depend completely on quotes from US Government officials would be more accurate. The US Government site is there to sell the US Government position on Iraq, not to fact find.
|
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 04:54 PM
|
#45 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
First off, thanks Killebrew for stepping up to the plate and mentioning that. I would have been classified as a conspiracy-theorist again, or probably a traitor, had I been the one to say it.
But, even though the single source provided is the US Gov't, I will post some of my reactions... ---First post 1) You want to go to war because they wish ill-will on us? 2) Iraq/terrorists http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A26604-2003Feb4¬Foun d=true http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030212-76636216.htm http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=102772 All about the one man we already have established. June 2002 Rumsfeld accused Iran of being a terrorist haven, officials citing Zarqawi as an example, but your reference names Iran as a victim nation. I hope you are not basing this war upon assination attempts from 1993 which some say Desert Fox was partly a retaliation for (as well as the inspections being halted). 3) ElBaradei disagrees, and he's the head of the IAEA. http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030313/D7PODN282.html Two quotes from that article: "We have no clear evidence he has things he is hiding for him to admit," ElBaradei said. And in concern to the tubes: ElBaradei reported to the Security Council last Friday that his investigation concluded the tubes were unrelated to nuclear work. Secretary of State Colin Powell has since said "more information from a European country" suggested they were, indeed, meant for that purpose. "We have got this information," ElBaradei said, "and it doesn't change our assessment." 4) Read Blix's reports and the heading itself shows doubt with the word "likely" thus demanding inspections/proof. 5) Never argued it. Thanks for confirming the gassing was following the Iran-Iraq war (and if you further researched you would find there is doubt as to which country is responsible). 6) Again, never argued it, and why aren't we lining up to attack the many many other nations that do the same. In fact, chances are you've bought a diamond that who knows how many children died mining it. 7) See above. 8) This is not restricted to Iraq, a search will show many of Iraq's neighbors are guilty of the same thing. I will say that it is difficult to find an unbiased report of who exactly was released when Saddam declared 'amnesty' for much of the prisoners. http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList322/2D49B2E6E4012234C1256B660060EEE8 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,816017,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/20/iraq.amnesty/index.html 9) Read Bix's reports. 10) We know the break in inspections. ElBaradei apparently disagrees about the nuclear statement. ---Second post Hence the need for continued inspections to find and destroy. Maybe we should provide the locations of those secret labs so inspectors can go there. Remember the effectiveness of inspections, this is exactly what they are for, determining what he has, finding it, and destroying it. Combine this point that I (and Blix and ElBaradei and others) have been contending all this time with Blix's report. ---Third post Read my previous posts/links about the gassing. It very well may have been Iraq, could have also been Iran, most likely a combination of the two. Either way, this war isn't about what happened in the 80's. As far as chem weapons, I noticed a report on CNN that Iraq is supposed to present a letter to Blix to suggest additional ways in which to verify amounts of chem weapons that were supposedly destroyed. ---Fourth post Nuclear - read ElBaradei's reports, he continues to refute the aluminum tube issue, even with Powell's latest intel. Ballistic missiles - Read Blix's reports, Al Samoud 2's are currently being destroyed, if there are test sites/factories being built that are against UN regulations send the inspectors there to do their job. ---Fifth post I can't believe we're going into terrorist links again, it's not even part of the resolution, but ok. I'm not going to argue any terrorist activities in Iraq because it's impossible as no 'intelligence' is released. But if you are citing terrorist links that are publicly known as a reason for war than our troops in Saudi Arabia should start fighting our enemies and we should be lining up to attack Egypt, Palestine, Qatar, etc etc. Here's a link of where should start I guess... http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ ---Sixth post SA disarmed and now is opposed to war in Iraq, sort of ironic. Not sure what this proves unless, as I asked before, you want to go to war because of resolution semantics aka: not full compliance. Personally, and this is what I have been saying, I think war should be avoided until inspectors tell us that Iraq is preventing them from doing their job, no progress is being made, and disarmament is unattainable. Read Blix's and ElBaradei's reports, the present situation is far from that. |
|
|
|
|
03-13-2003, 04:55 PM
|
#46 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
By the way, is the latest FOF a huge improvement over 2001 or even TCY? I couldn't really get into TCY, but I always loved the FOF line. Figured it'd be as quick to get a response here than searching the forums.
|
|
|
|
|
03-14-2003, 11:03 AM
|
#47 | |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
There are no independent sources that can give you this information outside of the UN sponsored organizations that provided to the above posts heavily. The other source is American, British, and other allied intelligence agencies. I cannot prove to you, right now, that any of it is true by visiting the Washington Post, www.observer.com, or Amnesty International. Or whereever else. Same could be held true about the opposite. However, the chances right now are 95% that we will liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein shortly. And with that in mind, I will say that there is a 95% chance of all of the above being proved to be the truth. And a whole lot more... Here's hoping that Saddam Hussein and his gang of thugs exile soonest to allow for a peaceful resolution to this crisis. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-14-2003, 01:59 PM
|
#48 | ||||
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Another suggestion that waiting loses it's public support? Quote:
"clear"? Perhaps there is unclear evidence about Iraq's clandestine war programs he failed to mention? I don't know, but it's not clear. Quote:
Or it can't. The UN is under a lot of pressure right now. [qutoe]Either way, this war isn't about what happened in the 80's.[/quote] While I agree in principle, I would agree further if the same guy who did that wasn't still in power developing these very same chemical weapons. Quote:
It is my opinion that regime change dramatically alters the way nations behave. |
||||
|
|
|
|
03-14-2003, 03:51 PM
|
#49 |
|
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Well, I decided to see if the internet had anything to offer to the debate. That was very difficult to wade through, much, much anti-US opinion out there. But I found one that was a least pro-US, so I figured I'd share it.
War and psychology http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...c20030311.shtml War Never Solves Anything. So say dozens of callers to C-SPAN and left-leaning radio programs (yes, there are some). The answer to this argument, if you can call it an argument, could almost fit on a bumper sticker: Apart from securing American independence, ending slavery, and defeating Nazism and communism, war has never solved anything. There is a severe imbalance between the strength of antiwar arguments and the vehemence with which they are advanced. Liberals think of themselves as humanitarians, so it requires a peculiar form of dogmatism to oppose war against a man who is responsible for at least 1.2 million deaths (a conservative estimate), has turned Baghdad into a terror haven, has attacked three neighbors, has proclaimed his implacable hostility toward the United States, has built enough chemical and biological weapons to wipe out nearly everyone on the continent of Asia, has pursued nuclear weapons and has truculently defied countless United Nations resolutions. For liberals, the war against Iraq offends cherished fantasies -- such as the idea that the United Nations represents a disinterested distillate of world humanitarianism, rather than a cushy diplomatic posting for nations pursuing naked self-interest. But even if the U.N. were everything liberals wish it were, wouldn't justice be advanced by punishing defiance of the U.N. resolutions? Still, the U.N. is not a world court, dispensing justice impartially. China invaded and subjugated Tibet and Russia has committed atrocities in Chechnya, without putting undue strain on the consciences of U.N. member nations. Nor is it anything remotely resembling a world democracy. Five nations on the Security Council have veto power. So even if three dozen nations support the United States and Britain in wishing to overthrow the menace in Baghdad (as they do), France, Russia or China can prevent the United Nations from acting with the flick of a pen -- and for the most cynical of reasons. Antiwar activists tell us that Iraq is a distraction from the more important war against global terrorism. This argument has been dealt a serious blow by the capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. But let's also recall that many opposed taking action against Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, citing some of the same objections as are heard today: fear of Afghan civilian casualties, pessimism about the possibility of a "clean" victory and aversion to war on moral grounds. One could hardly argue that Afghanistan was not central to the war on terror. Antiwar types also find themselves in a contradiction when they urge simultaneously that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror and also that a war with Iraq will place the U.S. homeland in far more danger of terror attacks. If terrorists will hit us again because we're taking on Saddam, it must be because he is their ally. Besides, only those who choose not to see the evidence before their eyes could possibly believe that Iraq has no connection with worldwide terror. CIA director George Tenet testified in 2002 that Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with training in poisons, gases and conventional explosives. Saddam has rewarded the families of suicide bombers in Israel with huge cash prizes. One of the plotters of the first World Trade Center bombing carried a phony Iraqi passport, another fled to Iraq after the terror attack and is believed to be there still. The Salman Pak camp is famous for its Boeing 707, which is used to train terrorists in hijacking techniques. Opponents of the war -- perhaps permanently disabled by their Vietnam folly -- also fail to grasp the psychological benefits of victory. Osama bin Laden has said many disgusting things, but when he said that when "people see a strong horse and a weak horse they will naturally prefer the strong horse," he was not wrong. When we overthrow Saddam and continue to roll up the leadership of Al Qaeda, many of those in the Muslim world who once felt sympathy and even excitement at the idea of Muslim extremism will rethink their positions and slip their jihad notebooks into a bottom drawer. War does solve things. But you have to win them. In 1991, in Bernard Trainor's memorable phrase, George H.W. Bush snatched modest victory from the jaws of triumph. George W. Bush will not repeat that mistake. And when success is complete, today's antiwar types will probably claim that they were pro-war all the time. |
|
|
|
|
03-15-2003, 12:04 AM
|
#50 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Dutch,
Here's a link for you, rather than me continually posting sources, this page (upon a brief scan through) seems to have many of them, and others, already cited and linked to source articles. I will say up front I do not know much about 'Center for Cooperative Research'. It would obviously appear to be a 'liberal' site (or should I say anti-Bush), but it is riddled with links to legitimate news sources as well as sources I am not familiar with (they may be legit or not). I've read the administration's mantra (many times) including the White House links you provided here, how bout you peruse some of the points on this site and respond with some thoughts. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/home.htm |
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
