Topic awaiting preservation: should the USA attack Iraq II

Continued from here

I only have one question to pose...what are we basing this attack on...evidence, or what our respective governments tell us is going on?

My last post here was not my typical calm, cool and collected. I was, like a bad martini, harsh and agitated.
May I try again, please?

The US, consistantly and for a long time, has refused to take the 'high ground' in our international relations. We've , through the voices of our congressional, executive and business leaders, blasted away at the rest of the world. We've disagreed with almost everybody over peace in Israel/Palestine. We've argued with Japan over steel prices. We've fought with Europe over banannas. We've spent 60 years or more encouraging instability and violence in Central America. We've given support to Turkey for their oppression against their own Kurdish population. We've told the world we'll execute children if we want to. We've told the people of Nigeria we don't care if our oil polutes their water. We've told Greece we'd rather see them under a brutally fascist gov't than socialism. We've told Indonesia we'd go to war with them if they didn't let us import deadly drugs. We've told Africa we don't care about their AIDS epidemic.
I suppose I could go on forever.

When one of these leaders stands up and suddenly announces he's taking the 'high road' and we must go kill lots of people because it is the 'lessor of two evils', I am suspicious. I want to see proof this policy really is the lesser of two evils. I don't play 'follow the leader' very well.

Currently the Bush administration is saying there are two outcomes to this Iraq situation.
1)We attack Iraq
2)Iraq attacks us
I just don't think those are the only two options.

As I've said before, I don't give a damn about Saddam Hussein. He's a ruthless, brutal thug. He's a worthless waste of human flesh. The people about whom I am concerned are the people of Iraq who have suffered, by no fault or cause of their own.
I've heard the argument that 'Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and the people of Iraq will be better off without him.' In theory I agree. If one could convince me that whoever replaces Hussein will indeed be a fair and democratic leader; that the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis will be integrated into one national identity; that the infrastucture that has been destroyed in the last decade+ will be replaced, repaired and improved; basically that the people's lives really will be better; I would go along with that.

I've seen reality though. I know that our US leaders do not want a free and democratic Iraq. Bush and Co. have said nothing positive about what they will do when Hussein is gone and the country is in worse shape than it is today. Many of these CNN-esque talk TV experts (and the Democrats too) say "The White House has said nothing about what will happen after the Hussein is driven from power." I say those people aren't looking hard enough. Rumsfeld, Bush and other conservative leaders have said very clearly what they plan to do when Hussein is bombed out of Baghdad. He will be replaced by someone just as dictatorial, just as brutal, just as harsh...just for the US.

I think the word they use is 'iron-fisted'.

The people will not be better. The infrastucture will be replaced only by amassing huge Iraqi public debt -- and only infrastucture that will help out US and British oil companies. The regular people of Iraq will continue to live in the same deadly squalor in which they live today.

So, if my choices are:
1) kill a bunch of innocent Iraqis, destroy their lives even more, demean them by calling them 'collateral damage', ensure there is no way in hell they, their children, or their grandchildren will ever live regular lives,
or;
2) give international law a chance to work things out, don't kill anybody yet, hope maybe one day a real benevolent leader will step into some position of power (in the US, UK, UN, Iraq -- I'm not picky) and do the right thing;

I'm going to choose the lesser of two evils.

mobrul

Actually, Skaarjj, I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'we'? Do you mean us, here in the Asylum? Or do you mean the US Government?

I think I have spoken about my personal reasons on the matter...

As for Mr. Bush...well, who really knows why he wants to...that he wants to, is apparent, I think. That he doesn't seem to want to give his reasons 'price', is curious enough, granted. As I said before, though I do think that removing Saddam from power is necessary, the fact that Mr. Bush is leading the charge is sickening...

quote:

---

Currently the Bush administration is saying there are two outcomes to this Iraq situation.
1)We attack Iraq
2)Iraq attacks us
I just don't think those are the only two options.

---

Nor do I. He could attack anyone in the area that he wants to, including his own people. The US gov'mt. is focused on what he can do to us, yes, but there are a great many things he can do, can continue to do, to other people as well.

quote:

---

So, if my choices are:
1) kill a bunch of innocent Iraqis, destroy their lives even more, demean them by calling them 'collateral damage', ensure there is no way in hell they, their children, or their grandchildren will ever live regular lives,
or;
2) give international law a chance to work things out, don't kill anybody yet, hope maybe one day a real benevolent leader will step into some position of power (in the US, UK, UN, Iraq -- I'm not picky) and do the right thing;

---

I don't think that you are extending the timeframe on your second choice here. I don't think letting the UN or whoever take the time to try and figure things out is really an option. you seem to think that our time is limitless to make these choices. It isn't. The longer we take the stronger Saddam gets. (IMO)Before long this won't be a preemptive action to protect the US it will be a retaliatory action in response to an attack. So by choosing the lesser of two evils you may be condemning the US to biological, chemical or nuclear attack.

My response to your first option of action here touches on something that WS, Bugs, and I argued over for a week earlier on. While my viewpoints have shifted somewhat since then, I still think we should let the people of Iraq decide who to govern them. We have the capability and the incentive to remove the gov'mt in Iraq. We also have the incentive to increase stability in the area. We need the understanding of the people of Iraq and their support in setting up the new gov'mt. Perhaps then they won't hate us for putting them in a worse situation. They could elect a leader that they truly believe will try and make things better for them. Sure we (the US) will effectively be endorsing his 'crown' but at least we'll have some input into the basic structure of the gov'mt. over there. We'll have to set up a provisionary gov'mt. and do a lot of things that people in the US aren't going to like. Tough $h!t. It needs to be done. Perhaps with a reasonable plan of action after this war we can reduce the probablity of more violence. Violence does beget violence. At times violence also brings about a good result. We need to weigh the 'good result' against the consequences of this 'violence' the US proposes. Helping the gov'mt through it's struggling phases will reduce those consequences I believe.

This isn't going to be a slam bang affair. It can't be. We're likely going to have to protect the Iraqi gov'mt. from Iran and many other opportunistic countries in the area. We're going to be involved there for some time, I should think. Put that time to good use and get someone in power that the people of Iraq, and ourselves, can deal with.

And quit focusing on oil. We don't get enough from Iraq to make that much of a difference anyway. Especially considering we've already cut imports of Iraqi oil by 80-90%. A good portion of our oil comes from Russia now and we're looking to expand our African imports, besides.

This is a matter of national defense. We are working on finding and removing the people who attacked us and that encompasses those willing to protect and aid them. Saddam fits into that category even if he doesn't fit into any of the others you seem to see as necessary for us to attack him.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Skaarjj - Theres plenty of evidence. We just can't talk about it. Shhh!

-Jestah
Cell 277

Your lack of faith is astounding.

Just because the Government refuses to destroy it's informational sources you refuse to support it in what may be our only option? You aren't making a seperation between the government's need for information and the public's need for information. The Government needs information in order to plan its actions. The public needs information to 'feel' comfortable, secure, and morally justified. The public does NOT need to be givin specific information on our military actions if said information jeapordizes those very same military actions. That would be TREASON. If you want our president to compromise our informants and then be tried and hung for treason then sure, keep asking for information so you can 'feel better'.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

GD - Have you given any consideration to the possibility that this 'war' might be politically driven? It amazes me how some peoplewill blindy follow 'their' party. As I've said earlier, Bush Administration, by withholding evidence from the world supporting an invasion, is further jeopardizing the United States. Should Bush have what he claims to, support for a multilateral action against Iraq should be unanomous. Instead he's protecting a handful of people at the risk of the nation. Of course, thats assuming he has the evidence. It's much more probable that this is a political war that must begin before elections to bolester support for the Republican party during a decreasing economy. Of course it could just be about oil too. The reasons really never stop with the Bush Administration.

-Jestah
Cell 277

I so don't give a crap anymore.

Yes, let's pull out forever... let him do whatever he wants... even trade with the biznatch.

As soon as he lobs missiles into Israel or detonates simultaneous Nukes in several of the countries that are his enemy, I can say "I told you so."

Unless i'm dead, which might suck...
or you're dead, in which case my saying "I told you so" would just be cruel.

But do you really believe nothing will happen if we leave Saddam in power?

Well... Considering I'm not politically aligned in any way what-so-ever and the fact that I tend to disagree with (Hated in both Bush cases)most Republican presidents I would say that I'm not pulling for the Republican Party. I just happen to agree with Bush's intent, if not his reasons this time. I don't know about you but I elect my presidents by who I think will do a good job, not by the animal on his badge.

I have given great consideration to the fact that this war might be politically motivated. I give every military action that same critical examination. The political reasons for this war would be a good point... if the public supported Bush. The public doesn't support Bush, however. Not by a long shot. He seems to be willing to commit political suicide to make sure this happens. This war won't save him, fixing the economy would.

You need to understand something, Bush doesn't need to provide the public with ANY evidence what-so-ever. He needs to convince Congress that a war is necessary. We, the people, have the right to protest and bitch and whine with our freedom of speech and we also have the freedom to accept the decisions of our elected official who is doing his job, whether we like how he's doing it or not. If you really, really don't like how things are going... you also have the freedom to leave.

You need to make a choice, Jestah. You want us to have information or not? In one post you say we need more and yet you want us to sacrifice our informants in another post later on. That doesn't seem to click right. We have informants there to get us information. The only way we're going to get more information is to GO there, which is the point in contention.

Why do you continue to focus on nuclear weapons? We already know that he has biological and chemical weapons. Shouldn't you be more worried about the weapons we know he has rather than the weapons we think he has? I know I am. I want to see him removed from power before he can give these weapons to someone who will use them or uses them himself.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 10-01-2002).]

We also know that the United States has Nuclear weapons. Who's going to go in and disarm them?
I'd say if the US can justify attacking Iraq based completely on being scared (and until they provide some factual evidence, then it'll be hard to believe theres any more to it), than Iraq can justify attacking the US for the same reason. (I'd say Iraq definately has more to fear from the United States than the United States has to fear from Iraq).

Out of any country in the entire world, only the US would I want to have nuclear capability.
And not just because I live here, but because our populus actually has the capability to overthrow a corrupt government should it become so.
I am, of course, referring to our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms as citizens.

and I don't buy that we're scared of future action against us, except perhaps in Iraqi-aided terrorist form.

I see no reason why we (USA) should have nukes and no one else should. That is crazy. Everyone who wants to build one should have one. How can any country expect to be free if they can not defend themselves?

-^^-
--::--
\___/

I don't know where to begin...the list is large.

GrythusDraconis:
We seem to have some sort of temporal issue here. You are correct when you say time is not limitless. At the same time, the threat is not so imminent we can justify turning off our brains. People like to talk of Hitler and how somebody should have acted sooner, etc. Great. Believe it or not, there are often situations that require the opposite "sit-and-wait" attitude.
-most hostage situations get diffused just by playin' it cool, applying a little pressure, a lot of talk, and keepin' the finger off the trigger.
-Kennedy, Cuban missile crisis. JFK could have started jumping up and down yelling about threats and danger and pressed that proverbial red button. He didn't, he played it cool, and a few years later my parents were still alive to have me.

There are many situations in life and they all require their own special blend of action and inaction if we hope to survive, thrive. This is one of those times when we really need to honestly assess the immediate risk (very little immediate, imminent risk) and assess the potential cost (potential cost for imminent war is high) and measure our alternatives.

I have seen no reason whatsoever to justify a war to start immediately. War is a last resort, not the first.

Secondly, the people don't need information to "feel good", they need information because it is what makes democracy. You are correct when you say there are secrets that should be kept. For instance, to say "Ahmed al Hazzier, our spy who works in the Iraqi Dept. of Defense, said '...'" would be ridiculous.

But, for Bush and Blair to say to their populations, "give us your children and your money and don't ask questions" is too little information. Furthermore, Bush is saying to the UN "authorize us to go kill lots of people"
UN: "Why?"
Bush: "Uh, cuz I said so."
That is also too little information.

Do you really not see the large area between these two positions?

And it does have a lot to do with oil. It's not direct, like "We're going to kill you and take your oil", but it's a show of power. It's meant to show the region we are in total control and they better do exactly what we say.
After Bush was elected, but before he came to office, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and some other conservative leaders in the current administration put together a document (with the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank) that said, basically, sometime during the four years in power, Bush was going to find a way to start, fight, and win multiple wars.

It calls for the US to find a way to "fight and decisevely win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission" of the administration.

It also touched on Iraq:

quote:

---

The United States has decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

---

That means, we're going to take control and put our army in the Gulf, even if Hussein wasn't in power.
So, it's not about oil in that direct sense, but it is about oil in the "flexing our muscles" sense.

Dan
It goes even beyond what you are saying.
Israel has broken scores of UN resolutions. It should be alright for Germany, France, China and Russia to band together and bomb Tel Aviv, if we were using this same logic being presented by our govt.
The US broke UN resolutions in Nicaragua. It should be perfectly legal for Nicaragua to bomb Washington, and demand regime change.
The US is harboring terrorists here. There is one man in particular who, last I knew, was living in Florida. He is wanted in Cuba for bombing commercial jet planes. Wanted for killing over 500 people in Cuba alone and suspected of killing many others in El Salvador, Columbia, and Chile. The US openly admits he lives here, he is not a US citizen, and the US will not turn him over to any court -- Cuba's or otherwise. Under our current administration policies, Havana has a right to bomb Washington and drive the Republicans (the ruling party) from all aspects of government. They are obviously a party which is full of "evil-doers".

I could go on and on.

Maybe I'll go get some coffee.

mobrul

I remember reading something in a Melbourne newspaper a statement which said 'The Bush government says that Iraq should not be allowed to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, yet the USA is the only country ever to have used them in any kind of external conflict...twice'

Oh, and GD: While I respect your opinion as being yours and your right to have it, my lack of faith may be astounding, but it is also my right to have it. I'm sorry, but I need a little proof in this kind of thing. How does my wanting evidence of how Iraq is going to attack the US going to violate security or amount to treason? I know for one that I don't find pre-emptive strikes particularly noble or the kind of action I could just blindly support. Your accusation of what myself and other asylumites are saying as treasonous is rather unfounded and seems to have been said in the heat of the moment. Now, in light of that, I am going ot wait patiently until you to realise how stupid and unfounded it sounds, and how much it offends to be told that what you say amounts to treason and thus is wrong.

[This message has been edited by Skaarjj (edited 10-01-2002).]

GN - You can't honestly be telling me you think nuclear weapons are weapons of defense. They are weapons of war. Of course I classify weapons of defense as those that are used defending your own land. You want to use nukes to defend the US go ahead just make sure I have my shelter built first.

Mobrul - 15 years of waiting isn't enough? Saddam has been playing his games for at least that long. We do need more information and we aren't prepared for immediate action in any case. I just think that we don't need to be given a blow by blow account of what's happening. Regardless of what (or whether) the immediate threat Iraq poses we are still involved in tracking down the Al Queda members and we know that they are being harbored there. That alone is reason to enter Iraq.

Information is not what makes this a democracy, our ability to choose is. If you don't like the lack of information you're getting from Bush about the things he's doing with our country then vote him out. That is your democratic right. If you fail to vote him down then you have to live with him. I can't imagine he'll win the next election as a matter of fact, I hope he doesn't.

Specific naming of our contact would be foolish, yes. So would talking about a piece of information that only a few people in Saddam's regime know about. There is more to protecting an informant than just hiding their name.

I still don't see how oil figures into your arguement. Just because there is oil there and we want an army there isn't enough of a correlation to convince me that it's 'about oil'. We want an army there to help stabilize the region. I think it's the wrong way to do it but I can't do a whole lot about it. I'll write a letter to my representative but I don't think my lone letter or even a lot of letters will make much difference. But that's what I have to deal with because I voted and Bush won anyway. I'll do what I can to make my opinions known, maybe you should to.

Skaarjj - I wasn't saying that your want for information was treasonous. What you were saying was your opinion. What I was saying was that the person releasing that information would be treasonous. After re-reading my post I see it can be taken the way you took it though. It can also read that the people who release the information should be tried and convicted for commiting treason, which was the intent of the statement. Sorry for the misunderstanding, your opinion is yours and I'll not fault you for that. I also never said you were wrong, nor did I insult you intentionally as a matter of passing. Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is my fault and I apologize for that, but I didn't appreciate the tone of your last sentence. I'll try and write more clearly in the future.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Oh and Mobrul... It is perfectly legal for anyone to attack anyone. It just isn't usually recommended in most cases. Personally, I think the US could use a dressing down. We stick our nose into a lot of places it doesn't belong, I just don't agree that Iraq is a place it doesn't belong(not until things are resolved anyway).

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 10-01-2002).]

GD - Donald Rumsfeld's admitted in news conferences that his witnesses linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda have been of 'varying degrees of reliability' and as far as a government harboring of Al-Queda it 'happens to be a piece of intelligence that either we don't have or we don't want to talk about.' How convienent. The Bush administration admits they either have evidence linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda or they don't, but evidence they're not sure if they have isn't from reliable witnesses. We'll just have to guess. Secretary of State Colin Powel admits to there being no evidence linking Iraq to Sept. 11th, but won't rule out the possibility. Iraq happens to be a very secular nation. At one period of time there probably was members of Al-Qaeda living there. Of course there was also members of Al-Qaeda residing in Germany, but no ones talking about invading there ... yet. I do very much value information. If there is information or evidence of Iraq being a danger to the United States then action should be taken. All we've seen so far from the current administration is that they have evidence, they just can't show anyone including Congress and the United Nations. I would consider the with holding of pertenant evidence a security threat to the United States. I'd hate to wake up one morning finding out if Bush passed on his information to the UN a nuclear war could have been avoided.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Please read this.

Though I have personal reasons for removing Saddam, this guy has a very good point - namely, that our boys (and girls) get proper and immediate attention in case of 'strange' illnesses...the 'debacle' of Gulf War Syndrome should never, ever repeat itself...

And I don't trust Mr. Bush at all...his motives are suspect.

However, I do agree with removing Saddam...but only if we rebuild the country afterwards, and set up a real solution to the problems there...the people of Iraq should not be made to suffer...they should be 'freed' from tyranny, and given hope of a better future...a real future.

The article WS posted addresses my thoughts exactly. President Bush does in fact work for the people of the United States and it isn't anti-American to question his motives. A lot of people seem to disagree though.

My main concern however is what if we don't win? We're already drawing up plans for what to do when we do level the Baghdad, but what if Saddam proves to be as formidable of an opponent as Lt. Gen. Van Riper?

-Jestah
Cell 277

Nods agreeing to everyone...

Jestah, though I understand your concerns, Saddam (and his advisors) are in no way, shape or form equal to the likes of Lt. Gen. Van Riper. The reason? Well, apart from other things, the main reason is that Lt. Gen. Van Riper knows intimately how the US military works...and conducts itself in battle. With that in mind (consider it like a trader in the stockmarket who has 'inside information'...he makes a 'killing' on the market...), there is little to worry about along those lines. However, to assume that we would automatically win...well, that is just...arrogant.

Leave the warmaking to those who know how to make war...when it comes down to that. I think Vietnam taught us that very effectively...keep the politicians out of the actual war and its making...that's what Generals are for. I'm pretty sure that even Mr. Bush knows that...

Nods to WS.
I have to agree. Lt. van Riper knew what to do. Not only that but the military should have learned form that incident anyway and started working on ways to prevent that from happening. Especially, considering we ALL know how he did it now. Poor judgement I think in releasing so much info. Telling us that the military was utterly defeated in a wargame would have been enough. The methods of how it was done were just instructions for our enemies.

You aren't being called anti-american, Jestah. But I think our point here(at least my point) is that you can question his motives all you want. Complaining about it isn't going to do anything. Even going through the channels that are set up for your opinions to be stated might not do anything but that is the way it should be done. You're stuck with Mr. Bush(to use WS' term which I find incredibly humorous(Oh No! Mr. Bill!) ) and his choices. Don't vote for him in the next election and you, hopefully, won't have that problem. It's the American way of life to question our government's motives. I'm questioning them. I just think that regardless of the reasons we do this, it's the right thing to do. UN support would be great. I might even go so far as to say we should have it, not because we need it but because the rest of the world seems to think we do. I'm all for doing what is necessary to get UN support if it is deemed necessary for us to have it. If we aren't able to do that or get UN support for whatever reason, I still think that we should go after Saddam. It is possible that he is no more of a threat then he was before. But he was enough of a threat that the UN actually took action against him and the US has been watching him for the last couple of decades or so. So even if his threat level isn't increased, he is a known enemy that has posed a reasonably significant threat to the US. On that reasoning we don't need furthur evidence, we just need to finish what the old evidence started.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 10-02-2002).]

The real deal is Iraq will not let UN inspectors into the country to search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Period. Its not about oil.

Scott Ritter, the highly respected lead UN weapons inspector, in an interview with Ha'aretz news paper said that with the help of Israeli intelligence experts he managed to break an Iraqi code that governed concealing weapons from UN weapons inspectors. He said Saddam's operation works like a Mafia organization, with different cells performing different functions, with all members fiercely loyal to Saddam. Ritter says he and his inspectors were on the verge of a major breakthrough in finding concealed Iraqi weaponry in the summer of 1998 when UN inspections were abruptly halted.

On the matter of what he and his inspectors learned about Iraq's weaponry, Ritter lists them by category:

Nuclear: As long as Iraq does not have a fissionable core, it does not have a nuclear bomb. He believes Iraq has three implosion-type nuclear devices, which would become bombs if Iraq obtains fissionable material.

Chemical: An UNSCOM inspection found a document that shows Iraq "overdeclared" the number of bombs dropped and the tonnage of chemical agent used during the Iran-Iraq war, which means Iraq still has hundreds of tons of chemical agent.

Biological: There is evidence that Iraq has tested biological weapons on live humans in 1995.

Missiles: UNSCOM believes Iraq has an operational ballistic missile force of up to 12 al-Hussein missiles that were disassembled in 1997 and dispersed to various secret locations.


Some people think its ok to let Saddam continue to become more dangerous, by overlooking first hand evidence from people like Scott Ritter, but lets not lose sight of the facts, it is apparent that Iraq is not playing by the disarmament rules set forth by the UN and therefore, the United States is justifed in threating to disable Iraqs ability to produce weapons of mass destruction by use of force. Which means strategicly disableing fasilities suspected of producing weapons of mass desruction. On the other hand if Iraq agrees to new resolutions for inspection the US will not need to use military force. I hope Iraq accepts the new resolutions, but if Iraq does not agree to to accept new resolutions the use of force by the USA is surely justified.

Thanks,



asmith14

Ya, ahh. War. Too tired to think.War sucks. Yea. Umm, toasty fried buns wrapped in the ash of fallen bombs. Lets take all nukes and shoot them into the sun and see what happens, or better yet, into our moon. Yummy. Cheese cascading down through the atmosphere. Smirky smiled at smileless.

Eithere we should all have nukes, or no one should have them.

Well, unfortunately the UN has decided to appease Hussein. They have worked out a deal with Iraq on how to make sure unrestricted weapons inspections are restricted enough to be agreeable to Hussein. So if Hussein was not happy with unrestricted inspections but is happy with restricted ones it raises the question as to what purpose can they possibly serve?

For all of you who are celebrating this latest UN victory, can you please explain how this is going to make sure Hussein is disarmed according to the Gulf War agreements?

I would like to make one point about this equivalency stuff too. I don't know how many times it needs to be stated but if any party is willing to negotiate in good faith, we would most certainly go with that option. Iraq is one of those cases where not only are they abusing their own citizens but they have turned their aggression to other countries. On top of that, they refuse to negotiate in good faith. I would have thought this to be clear to all but when I hear things like "why don't we bomb everyone that has nukes"... I am stupified. Britain possessing nukes does not represent a clear and present threat to world peace, Iraq having them absolutely does. You *cannot* equate the two countries on that score.

Also, a UN bioweapons specialist Richard Spertzer said in an interview on Greta Van Susteren's show the other night that Iraq most certainly has small pox. There was an outbreak in that region back in the 70s and he had virtually no doubt they have developed it for use as a weapon.


( welcome, asmith14 )

Hey asmith14!

Yay Bugimus! You said a lot of what I wanted to post. Onthe Communist News Network(CNN to those who don't know) at lunch today I listened to the head of the UN speaking about how Iraq wsn't ready to accept weapons insections in 1998 and now they are.

Uh... isn't that the point? To inspect them when they aren't ready so we can find what they aren't supposed to have? What was Iraq doing to 'get ready' for the weapons inspections? Read asmith14's post. That's what they were doing and have been doing all along.

It's in the Senate now. The House supports Bush and the Senate is deciding. In an uncontested statement today the House said that the president does not need UN approval to follow through with plans that are for the protection of the United States.

I expect that we'll have Congressional Approval for action against Iraq within the month.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Why does Iraq have to disarm, yet we do not, this makes no damn sense? I mean, Hussein has never threatened to use nukes on the US as far as I know, and sure he may kill some of his own country folk with poison, but look at how the FDA allows the food corporations to poison us with Red #40, preservatives, steroids, and all sorts of other shit that causes cancer, premature growth, and other problems.

I don't see what makes it alright for all countries to have nukes except Iraq and the others who are not allowed, what is this all about?

Anyway, blah...

Gilbert, please read all of the above posts carefully and if you still don't have an answer to the question you just asked, then I'll be happy to restate it more clearly.

GN - Because by invading Iraq and forcing them to destroy all WOMD citizens won't be focusing on economic issues come election day. Studies show more Iraqi citizens have died because of UN/US sanctions against Iraq. The United States is proving to be the more aggressive actor here. And as history shows, the United States is just as, if not more, likely to use WOMD against other countries. So any excuse is really nonsense.

The true reason why we're forcing Iraq to dismantle all their WOMD and not our own is because theres plenty of people who will benefit in this war. The soldiers whose lives hang in the balance here take second seat to political reasons. It's the American way.

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 10-03-2002).]

Jestat - thats what I'm talking about. Its all BS.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

You've got to be F'ing kidding me. I've lost 12 co-workers in the last month. You think I'm not looking at the economy? Regardless of whether people are looking at the fact that the economy is in the can and sinking fast isn't the issue. You seem to think that Bush is going to gain something politically. Most Americans don't want this war to happen. When it does, how many Americans are going to say, "Well he didn't do what I wanted him to with Iraq, but thats okay because he didn't do anything for the economy either." and then go vote for him? I can't imagine there will be very many. The fact that there will be some, scares me. The poeple who don't want Bush to go to war will start looking at the other things he's done that they don't like... like ignoring domestic issues entirely.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Have any of the doves here realized that the only reason Hussein is talking about inspections again is directly due to the fact that there is a real and credible threat of violence ready to be weighed against him if he doesn't?

Big picture? Sometimes things work together. The UN wants Iraq to comply with its wishes but they are unwilling to back it up. So US/Britain/Italy rattle the saber and then Hussein takes notice.

Economy? Jestah, how can you complain about not believing Bush about why we need to move against Iraq in one breath and then swallow whole the Democratic mantra about the economy being the reason. Did you know that the DNC has set up a war room (no pun really) dedicated to convincing the public to remove its focus on Iraq and the War on Terror to the economy? Besides the latest poll I saw about which party most people thought had a better chance of improving the economy did not show the Dems in the lead.

GD - Read up on your political science. Take a look at the polls of each president during the start of every war since we've been taking polls. You'll probably notice a particular trend. Once you come to grips with the significant jumping of every presidential approval ratins re-address your theory that the reason we have to go to war directly before the election has absolutely nothing to do with the elections coming up. Bush isn't going to gain something politically? You seem to have some misconception that Bush is running in this election. The political advantage people are talking about is using this war to win seats in Congress. If you think Bush has nothing to gain by having a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, your off your rocker, although I suspected that from the beginning.

Maybe you've heard something about the 'rally around the flag' effect. It's been publicized quite a bit since September. We've known Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons for years now. This isn't a big secret. It isn't a big secret that Saddam dispises extremest groups like Al Qaeda either. He's been known to torture and execute them. There isn't an apparent connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. So exactly what is Bush's reasoning for having to invade Iraq before the elections? Why can't it wait until next Jan.?

Bugimus - I've never said the economy was the sole reason for invading Iraq. I said the Bush Administration is going to benefit greatly politically because of it. The fact that you dispute this is almost laughable. The fact that you haven't been able to provide any evidence or information on why the United States must attack Iraq directly before the elections and not a moment later is downright sad. Iraq's been trying to acquire nuclear weapons for a decade now yet it's never been a threat until right before this election. I'd ask you whats changed where now there such a threat and we need to invade but I think I have a good idea at your answer - 'I don't know but President Bush assures me he has good reasoning.'

-Jestah
Cell 277

---Why Bush wants to attck--- http://www.bushnews.com/empire.htm

-^^-
--::--
\___/

You're walking the very fine line that we're trying to get Genis off of, Jestah. Try arguing(debating, no less) with some decorum and respect.

That aside - I don't need to read up on my Political Science, I understand how it works. I just don't happen to think that this action is going to bring enough support to Bush and his party to make that much of a difference.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Exactly where have I been disrespectful?

So you admit you understand that his political ratings are going to go up and you don't think the reason he wants the invasion to go right before the election is due to that? Some people are just so thick headed its unbelievable.

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 10-05-2002).]

quote:

---

I don't know but President Bush assures me he has good reasoning.

---

To be honest, I think that is a cheap shot. I have given plenty of reasons to back up my position. Chucking informants into vats of acid is not my idea of a sane intelligence policy.

At this point, I'm really getting the impression you're not really considering them. I don't expect you to change your mind but I do expect you to read some of the opposing arguments and address them directly. If you can refute them, it's a good thing... and I will listen.

If I tell you we should attack for reasons A and B, I am more than thrilled to read a reply that logically explains why A and B are not good reasons. But attacking the motives of the President without facts and dismissing reasonable arguments as "laughable" for example isn't really helpful.

mobrul's on your side of this issue, he's an excellent example of how to argue the points with logic and as GrythusDraconis mentions, respect.

Bugimus - I'm giving plenty of examples on why Bush is pushing war for political reasons your just not listening. Theres a big difference with your examples, in that they aren't applicable to the situation. Pushing informants into vats of acid is hardly a threat to national security. Nor is a car bombing back in 1993. What I'm asking for is exactly what has changed where we need to invade Iraq specifically before the mid-term elections? So far I haven't been able to get a sound answer to anyone.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Ok, fair enough. I think we are in need of some clarification on both sides. I'm going to go back and read all your posts and see if I can frame the debate such that we can both understand the points we're both making. Stay tuned...

Bush wants to attack Iraq to get more Republicans re-elected in November.
Bush wants to attack Iraq because he doesn't want anyone focusing on the economy.
Bush wants to attack Iraq because of oil and finishing his father's work.
Bush wants to attack Iraq because it will boost his approval rating.
Bush doesn't really have any evidence, he's lying.

The *only* reason we should attack is if Iraq can directly attack the continental United States. No other reason is justified.

Is that a fair summation of your position?

Yeah, let's try to keep this thread clean, ok? Sets a bad example for...newcomers...we all know who I mean..and others are watching...

I am for removing Saddam, as I said before. I have also posted my stipulations for it. I am against Mr. Bush leading the charge, though. I get the feeling that he wants to do it out of personal reasons. That's a scary thought, because as President, he can't (and shouldn't) afford to let his personal feelings affect his judgement. As representative of the people (and one of the most powerful men in the world), to do so, is irresponsible. And dangerous.

Also, with the exception of Colin Powel (whom I greatly respect), Mr. Bush has 'surrounded' himself with advisors and 'inside' men (and women) I don't particularly either like, or trust.

Personally, the press conference, where Henry Kissinger spoke...I thought was very impresive and well-thought out. A very interesting man...

So, indeed, let's keep it clean, ok?

Bugimus - Sure that's a pretty fair summation. As I said before, I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I know exactly where that leads to.

Bush has evidence but can't show the United States citizens.
Bush has evidence but can't show the United Nations.
Bush has evidence but can't show Congress.
We should attack Iraq because they've been in wars before.

Is that a pretty fair summation of your position?

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, if you can tell me honestly that's what you've come away with after reading all my posts, then sure, it's fair enough.

Bugimus if you can dispute my claims by all means do. All I'm asking of you is to post the evidence Bush has as to why we need to go into Iraq. Is it really asking too much for Bush to share some of his 'evidence' with either Congress, the United Nations, or citizens of the United States? Why are you so willing to go along with him on anything when he's giving you no insentive to?

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, what evidence would you need to be convinced that we should attack Iraq? Tell me what it would take and I'll let you know whether I think that evidence has either been given or whether I think it's likely to be true.

[edit] On a side note, I am not usually surprised by most news reports but today I nearly choked on my VanillaCoke. Apparently Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg have both come out in favor of moving against Iraq. That's a pretty unpopular position to take in their industry. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 10-06-2002).]

HOT of the presses...

The real reason for war.

'Hussein had sex with Barbara Bush back in the 80's and George Jr. is pretty pissed about it.'

Ooooppppps

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-07-2002).]

I think what you need to understand, Jestah, is this. While Bush may or may not have information about Iraq or may be going into this war for the wrong reasons... I still think that we need to remove Saddam from power. There is enough existing evidence to condone the actions the United States is proposing. You have yet to refute that fact. You're hinging you're entire arguement on whether or not we have new evidence to support this attack. That isn't the issue here, we don't need the evidence. We are still at war with Iraq. The Congressional act of war in 1991 hasn't been recinded. That makes this an escalation of our ongoing war.

What Bush is doing right now isn't even necessary. He could escalate the military actions in Iraq without consulting Congress. He is consulting Congress and letting the world know what he's planning, well beforehand to cover his ass, basically. But, I will conceed this point, this is where your issue of timing has some merit. He doesn't have to do this publicly, or at all. So he is drawing focus to the issue of Iraq and thusly away from everything else. So yeah, he might be doing this for the wrong reasons or the right reasons with a separate agenda involved but that doesn't mean that action against Iraq shouldn't be taken. Even if I have to put up with another four years of Bush Jr. because of it(God Forbid).

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

I find this pretty pertinant to the topic. I never knew that Mr. Lincoln wrote such a letter...interesting...

Though I am for removing Saddam...as I said before, I am not for Mr. Bush doing it...and certainly not for 'rushing' the thing...I think we should first consider all the consequences...and make sure we have a solid plan.

Now this concerns me...

I don't like the fact that somethings being hidden here from the public. What could the Bush administration, along with the oil companies, be hiding from the US? That a General Order has been issued...the first time in history...bad stuff. Really bad stuff. Maybe that Enron scandal goes all the way up to the white house...what better way to 'head' that off, then with a war? Scary stuff...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-08-2002).]

Today, Congress began a three-day debate on authorizing President Bush to use force to disarm Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Well, in three more days we will see what is decided.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Supposedly by the end of today we should know what they decide.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

well the House has granted it, but we all knew that was going to happen.

and now... so has the Senate.
But we all knew that was going to happen, too.

Well...now comes the 'dangerous' stage...will the UN give the 'go ahead'...or not? I am very convinced (and now after all the 'gum-flapping'), that the US must do something...to do nothing now, sends a very dangerous statement. Either it will be an internationally sanctioned thing, or the US will 'go it alone' (with possibly a few allies...). I don't particularly like the idea of the US doing it against the will of the UN...*sigh*

Hmmm...the iminence of War...not something that sits lightly...

I just hope we are prepared for heavy chemical warfare.
The military that will be fighting this war report we are not --> here.

Gulf War Syndrome II - The Revival.

In theaters next year.



-^^-
--::--
\___/

Yeah, my greatest concern is our boys and girls in uniform. I take it that it will start with massive air raids...but at some time or other (unless they get Saddam with airpower...), they'll have to send in the troops. I personally don't think they will get Saddam alive...

*sigh*

I wonder how the 'home front' is going to view this...could be, that there will be massive protests against the war...I sincerely hope that the Generals have worked out a sound plan...and that it goes rather quickly.

I am rather concerned about how the international community will react. I can't shake the feeling that we are somehow at a deciding point in world history...especially where the US is concerned. I believe this is the first time we have attacked a land without warlike provoking from the other side. This is a hard line to cross...we are in the role of the aggressor (esp. without the approval of the UN). Sure, there was Vietnam...but they were at war with the French before we stepped in (and royally kicked the French out...). And Somalia? Well, there was also war there, before we 'stepped in', as well. But in this case? Hmmm...

Guess I won't be able to use the argument that we have never attacked another country after this...*sad*

Let's just hope our boys and girls in uniform get home in one piece...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-11-2002).]

We've led plenty of pre-emptive or otherwise "publicly unprovoked" (meaning they didn't actively engage us or our allies in war) attacks on other countries and their leaders (Panama & Noriega, Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba, Raids on Libya & Qadaffi), but I'd say none of this magnitude (full-out war), unless you go way back to when we seized our entire Southwest from Mexico.

This time, however, our problem won't end with a strike played out simply to capture or kill one person but to oust an entire regime... (weapons shmeapons, our problem won't end until Saddam and his regime are gone.)
I don't find it sad.

i hafta put my 2 cents in here...and this is just my opinion...and keep in mind in don't know every lil detail about all of the governments involved to really be able to form a seriously educated opinion...this is just a 'jo-blow' kinda opinion. ( i mean, i am origionally from montana, so the redneck side of me is going to show in this post lol)

i think that no matter what happens, the U.S. is screwed. we get hollered at for not policing the world and keeping everyone safe, fed, clothed, employed etc...yet we're the asses when something bad happens and we didn't do enough, quick enough and let the world know that this bad thing was going to happen..example: a reporter here in australia is blaming the u.s. for the bombing in bali. it's just...from what i can see...if something is not done about saddam now....the rest of the world will be squawkin when he blows some country up. i'm not a republician...but i do agree with what bush is doing. i DO think that there's ulterior (sp?) motives there...and i'm sure we'll never know what they are and i don't like that aspect...but if it's goin to help get the job done...then by all means, go for it. also, in one of the above posts someone said that the u.s. was the only country with weapons of mass destruction....have you forgotten that pakastan and india and perched on their buttons right now?? it's not that the u.s. is saying that NO ONE can have them, they are saying that saddam in particular cannot have them...which i agree with. i also agree with gd...
ok...that's all...thanx for listenin

i think yes there are other factors in play here, lacuna.
But I'm like most people who dismiss the idea that it is ALL a big conspiracy for oil, for money, for power, for influence, for political gain.

The fact is, I'm sure a portion of all of those things are in play at the same time as the main goal, which is eliminating a global threat in Saddam. Which, I believe is the right thing to do AND the main objective, not a side bonus.

Did we have to do it now? No. In fact it would've been better to play this card earlier, but Bush's administration pulled off a brilliant political manuever against the Democratic party by playing the card before November elections.

Another bonus of going after Iraq now is the fact that we'll now have presence in two countries that border Iran, the biggest evil in the axis of evil, after Iraq.

And oil could be another bonus, but I'm not of the opinion the oil lobby runs Washington. If a Saddam-less new regime in Iraq allows us to export more oil than current exports from Iraq, then good. That allows us to rely less and less on the Saudi Arabian government who has shown themselves to be much less of an ally as of late.

So you see I think plenty of reasons are factored into going after Iraq, but eliminating the global threat is the most pressing.

So where are things sitting currently? Things have been pretty quiet as far as news goes with everthing happening with the *ahem* 'sniper'.

And Welcome, Lacuna. Hope to see you around some more.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 10-16-2002).]

I think that one by one the world's countries are starting to agree that force may be required in Iraq. I think once France and Russia can guarantee their oil interests, they'll either abstain or vote for action in the security council. For them, I believe it *is* only about oil... for us it's partly oil and partly other things.

Welcome, Lacuna

quote:

---

"Our leader President SADDAM HUSSEIN, may God preserve him and look after him, has won 100 percent of the votes of eligible voters."

--Saddam's top deputy IZZAT IBRAHIM, reading official election results. Saddam was the only candidate.

---

AP

Just thought this was kind of funny.


~Insert sig here~

You know what has that beat? The headlines on the Los Angeles Times the day after the election:

The World; For Iraqis, Vote for Hussein Is an Exercise in Democracy
[HOME EDITION] Michael Slackman; The Los Angeles Times; Oct 15, 2002; pg. A.1

Can you imagine what it must be like for someone who actaully voted against him? Democracy, um yeah, ok, whatever.

is it the air in california or what?
maybe it's a statewide contact high from Tijuana.