President Bush - about bush

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 05:32:19

Certainly Shaun, I was just using simple language, and that's not the only part of it. For example, the inspectors found that Iraq was in violation (with the weapons that went slightly over the limit in 13 out of 40 tests), when Iraq themselves didn't realize (I'll play devil advocates on that point, so shoot with your childish insults). But there's a problem with this approach; of completly relying on the sanctioned nation to uncover everything. To UNMOVIC, something isn't ?destroyed? unless UNMOVIC is there to personally oversee it, or there is at least convincing evidence to suggest destruction. So even if, and I'm not saying I think this has occured, but I'm speculating; even if Saddam shut down his WMD program, and destroyed everything after Desert Fox (say, a stretch, in anticipation of more attacks or whatever), from UNMOVICs point of view, everything would still exist, at least, in this world of ?incontrovertible documentary evidence,? wherein things that are not accounted for, are considered existant even though the claims are in opposition.

Though I didn't seem to give the '91-'98 inspectors much credit, they really did destroy a majority of Saddam's weapons. Scott Ritter, one of the lead inspectors says that his capablity was hit pretty hard. I believe that it is.

I watched the British parlementary hearings last night, and the pro-war case was actually pretty convincing. Saddam has been toying with the UN, arguably, for quite awhile now. But unlike those who are pro-war, I think a more rational, tough approach is necessary (we arguably have not been tough from a diplomatic point of view). One with lots of inspections, UN troops, and even US forces. How could Saddam ?take advantage? of such a situation? Especially if a time limit was set.

You know, I think it's laughable that we could even contain something we think is there but aren't sure is there (let me say that Iraq says that the unaccounted for stuff was actually destroyed- basically they're trying to come up with some convincing evidence to prove it, to no avail- and so far we've found things which aren't huge violations- at least, not convincing enough to say that Saddam was a threat). Indeed, getting back to the hearings, one of the last statements the conservative side made (interestingly enough), was that they would need reassurance that the supposed WMDs were not allowed to leak in to terrorist hands after a war, stressing that if we couldn't find them because they were hidden, how could we keep that from happening?

Palomar · 2003-02-27 07:57:34

*Found this in another forum (what follows was entirely posted by a guy calling himself "Lupo"...nothing by me):

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … sp?ID=6359

The owner of a pizzeria in Denmark, Mr Bjerre wants France and Germany to
see the error of their ways.

"The French are cowards and they are banned for life, and as long as the
Germans behave disloyally towards the USA, I can't be bothered to make
food for them," he said.

-Lupo
"...we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb
beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry,
playthings that divert our attention from the sheer idiocy of the charade.
The years thunder by. The dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in
dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it the tomb is sealed."
-Captain Sterling Hayden

clark · 2003-02-27 15:44:59

There are two choices, we can pursue diplomatic options and try to impose some form of continual montioring of Iraq indefinitely, in perpituity, which means that the US maintains a state of near full mobilization, and the UN picks up yet one more "policing" duty; or, we invade, remove Saddam, and destroy any WMD's we find.

In both instances, we are accepting that foreign troops will be required to maintain a continuing presence- however, it is in the former option (diplomatic) that we must maintain troops indefintely to guraentee that Saddam is not trying to develop the weapons. The later option (war) means we can remove the actual problem, Saddam, and set up a peaceful and democratic government that is interested in regional stability and NOT invading it's neighbors. We also have an exit strategy with this situation- continual inspections only prolongs this stupid farce.

The problem is not WMD's. teh prblem is Saddam aquiring WMD's. He has demonstrated and intimated that he will use these weapons if it is to his advantage. His desire for WMD's isn't going to change, ever. So we either have him removed, or we end up with another Cuba- a fat lot of good that does the world.

And as a side bar, this whole French bashing, while funny, is pointless and only serves to distract from the actual discussion.

Diplomacy has not worked in 12 years, it won't work now. Saddam was given the last chance with resolution 1441. Saddam had ample opportunity to comply with 1441 as the US military was buildign up- it is only when the drums of war actually pound that he looks to be more concillatory towards UN demands.

Any further delay, or additional time will only embolden Saddam- it just puts off the enivitable and makes it that much more difficult to do what we all know needs to be done.

Let's be frank, Saddam must be removed. Whatever reason helps you sleep at night, go ahead and believe that is why we are doing what we are doing, but the simple fact remains that too many of our interests, and western democracies interests are threatened by Saddam. the people of Iraq will certainly be better off- unless brutal and repressive regimes are somehow acceptable for others, but not us.

Enough about being moral imperialists, or assuming "world police" responsibility. Getting rid of Saddam is a f-ing improvement, and we all know it.

Cry about technacalities, whine about mandates, and world opinion, it dosen't mean a damn thing. It's all rhetoric, it's all BS dancing around the issue. Saddam must go.

We are justified.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 16:28:07

Yes clark, and your whole post proves the very point I make, and I thank you for at least being honest about this fact. This is about Saddam, this isn't about UN violations. As long as we're hypocrites about it, we're not going to get anywhere. We need to simply send in a bunch of special forces to take him and other lead officals out.

Whining about UN inspections ?not being effective? when the whole while you're targeting is Saddam himself, is total dishonesty.

And of course, there is no evidence that with continued international pressure, Saddam wouldn't step down, or be pressured to leave by his own people, his ?ego? aside. We know that he cooperated when we hold a fire under his feet (to coin a term used in the hearings last night), and without any WMDs or with a lessened military strength (one must note that I want stronger sanctions, too, not just increased inspections- I want air space to be given up, I want US troops to be deployed in the region, and so on), his political strength would be very weak indeed.

I take a great issue with all of this stupid (yes, stupid, you're stupid if you say this) rhetoric that ?wanting inspections is aiding and abetting a ruthless dictator, and you're all un-American for wanting that.? Something our friend Bill O'Reilly preaches every day in his propaganda machine.

One man is not a justification for war,mainly due to the fact that this man stands behind a lot of innocent civilians.

dickbill · 2003-02-27 16:31:53

The war in 2 weeks hmmm,
Today I asked my colleague, a very smart woman, "what do you think would be the consequences in the long term of the war in Irak ?, a new cold war with china and russia ? "

I particularly worry that after the war, the message adressed to the world is that ultimately, the military force always prevails and this would will trigger a new armamament race, a new cold war, but this time with other countries like China.

she answered "nope !"
she is a kind of always optimistic person, while I am the reverse. She based her judgment on the fact that China has accepeted to host the next olympic game and visibly wants to integrate the world wide market.
so, no consequences....
Then I remembered this:
What are the expected consequences of a light piece if foam falling on the wing of the space shuttle ?., officially "notin". I just read the last spacedaily.com.

So, when you talk about people's life, better be sure of the consequences of your actions. Once the people start to die, you don't come back.

clark · 2003-02-27 16:41:08

This is about Saddam, this isn't about UN violations.

josh, you're one of the smart ones, which means that you have to live with the hypocritical bull-sh-t that politicans and media pundits spit out so the less than gifted others can understand what is going on. It's sad, but a certain portion of the population has to be spoon fed this information in a way they can understand.

You and I can say, yes, it's about Saddam. You and I know that the politicans are after oil, and the removal of Saddam. You and I also relaize that certain actions, however neccessary or prudent, must be given legitmacy through procedure and precedents. But not all who observe see as clearly as we.

Too many get caught up in rhetoric, or their own personal ideology. It becomes an argument over ideas, and not reality. "if we invade Iraq we set a bold new precedent, blah blah blah". Sounds pretty, and it makes good soundbites, but nothing is actually changing. The same things are going on that have always gone on, the packaging is different now though.

We need to simply send in a bunch of special forces to take him and other lead officals out.

In order to accomplish this, whioch has been attempted before, we need to invade. No one can get near Saddam, thats the problem.

. We know that he cooperated when we hold a fire under his feet (to coin a term used in the hearings last night), and without any WMDs or with a lessened military strength (one must note that I want stronger sanctions, too, not just increased inspections- I want air space to be given up, I want US troops to be deployed in the region, and so on), his political strength would be very weak indeed.

What you are talking about though is a peaceful invasion of Iraq- an invasion all the same. It's still pretense, bexcuase we still want Saddam removed- we will still be faced with the reality that Saddam does not want to be removed from power, and he will do whatever is neccessary to ensure his future.

One man is not a justification for war,mainly due to the fact that this man stands behind a lot of innocent civilians.

I will not quote history, but one man is sometimes more than enough justification for war. i am sorry, but that is the world we live in.

Those in power who are not subject to the law, will lead many more to ruin. Iraq itself hasn't the ability to remove Saddam, we do. We cannot wait idly by and hope that the Iraq people do what needs to be done- they tried, and failed. We cannot wait indefinitely for the world body to grow the balls to do what we all needs to be done. We have waited for 12 years, and nothign has changed.

Stronger sanctions won't work- iraq people will simply suffer, and more time slips by, and more opportunites grow for Saddam, if we continue this silly cat and mouse game.

We all know what needs to be done, so believe what you want for the reason, but at least agree on the goal.

Even if it is blood for oil, Saddam must go.

soph · 2003-02-27 16:42:42

I'd like to reply again to the "it's about Saddam" quote.

Who is violating the UN resolutions? Yes, it is Saddam. So the two are one and the same.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 16:57:57

Well clark, I never said I didn't want an invasion, just no war.

I do take issue with the whole, ?nothing has changed in 12 years? comment, because things have changed, Saddam's ablity was really hit hard by the '91-'98 inspections. If by ?nothing has changed,? you mean Saddam is still running around the table, sure, you could say that, by the same token, you could say that we could corner him at every go.

There really is no argument against a peaceful invasion except timelines, and perhaps, as people laughably suggest in the most ignorant way possible; doing so would be appeasing Saddam... But there are lots of arguments against a war, including unnecessary casulities, and potential WMDs getting in the hands of terrorists after the war.

My brother called my mom today. Apparently the 28th date has been cancelled. He'd called me the other day because he was under the impression that they were moving out, and that their phone lines would no longer be operable. Now, he could have just been misinformed, or something may have changed at the ground level, I dunno. Probably the former, since the British hearings talked about war in a few weeks, not a few days. And I don't think we'd start without British help.

And soph, no, the UN doesn't make people resolutions, it makes nation resolutions. If Iraq could show that they were complying, there would be now way we could legitimately go to war, under Geneva conventions and so on.

And dickbill, I totally agree with your last statement. We must be sure of the consequences of our actions.

soph · 2003-02-27 17:01:46

And soph, no, the UN doesn't make people resolutions, it makes nation resolutions. If Iraq could show that they were complying, there would be now way we could legitimately go to war, under Geneva conventions and so on.

Josh, Saddam is the leader of Iraq. He's the dictator, you know, the totalitarian ruler? Whatever he says, goes. Passing resolutions on dictatorial countries is the same as passing a resolution to that leader, because he is the only one with tht authority to comply.

That was really silly, josh.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 17:11:47

Oh yes, a dictator is all seeing, and all powerful. Yes, a dictator who sits inside his palaces hiding for the most part. There's no way one man could possibly oversee everything, soph. He can delegate orders all he wants, but thsoe orders have to be enforced somehow.

What if WMDs were destroyed by anti-Saddam scientists? It's not inconceivable. The Nazi nuclear program was sabatoged on many man ocassions, by scientists working within it.

The point is, you don't rely on one man for UN compliance, even in highly centralized dictatorial countries. I know what you're trying to say, but it just doesn't fit, because one person doesn't do everything. People don't always follow orders. And people sometimes actually screw up.

soph · 2003-02-27 17:21:23

If you're a manager, regardless of who "screws up," and the demanded results don't get achieved, you're sacked.

Should we have relied on Dr. Mengele to dismantle the concentration camps?

The Nazi nuclear program was doomed, because they went the heavy water route...regardless of sabotage, they would have failed.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 17:37:38

::shrug:: I was just saying. Obviously the end result of non-compliance would be regime change. But as it stands now, Saddam really is at mercy of those who do the paperwork.

Just imagine, what if certain anti-Saddam scientists destroyed the evidence that proved he did destroy his WMDs? It's plausible, so don't dumb doen the possiblity by dumbing down the Nazi nuclear program sabatoge. It's the act that counts; those who sabatoged it couldn't have known it wasn't going to be successful.

dickbill · 2003-02-27 17:50:02

Fine, fine, don't get pissed off, we go to war, allright. Hope everything you said is true....

About a second cold war, in the forum about Irak on C-span, last sunday a vietnam war veteran said that since the 50's, the US have always been at war. Do you feel that too ?(if you are old enough)
I really worry about the reaction of countries like China and Russia, after the invasion of Irak by the US troops.
Since C. Powell has been in China recently ,does anybody of you know what exactly he asked to the chinese ?
Did he ask some insurrances that the chinese won't try to rearm strongly ?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 18:00:00

I was just speculating dick.

I just don't think it's as black and white as people here make it...

I don't think China is a threat right now. They're trying their best to stay out of the spotlight, indeed, they aren't even attempting to make policy decisions, unlike France, and Germany. It is in China's best interest to build up their country econmically.

soph · 2003-02-27 18:41:29

America would crush China in a war...it is simply not a contest. China simply doesn't have the air or naval capabilities to stand a war with America.

2 billion people are meaningless if they can't get over the ocean.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 18:56:32

Oh, well, I think dickbill is more worried about a nuclear conflict, in which case no one really stands a chance.

soph · 2003-02-27 19:01:03

Once again, we have a strategic advantage, due to the distribution of American population, and the concentration of Chinese population along the coast.

I don't think the Chinese have any interest in a nuclear war, especially with their main trade partner. They would stand to lose their primary market and technological driver. They get a huge portion of their advanced tech from the U.S. To start a war with America would spell the end of their strengthening economy.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 19:44:23

I don't think they have any reason to attack either, they're becoming the worlds main exporter, obviously it'd be stupid to go to war. But that's not the point, if they did, it would practically be the end of then world. I don't care about population distributions.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 19:50:50

Iraq Agrees to Destroy Al Samoud Missiles

UNITED NATIONS - Iraq agreed in principle Thursday to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, two days before a U.N. deadline. Word of the agreement came as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Baghdad's disarmament efforts had been "very limited so far."

Source.

Hmm, we'll have to see where this leads. But it seems like they're going in the direction I said they would, even if it's going to be meaningless to avert a war.

soph · 2003-02-27 20:09:20

Yes, I saw an article to that effect. You seemed to leave out that they won't be meeting the deadline.

It's just more toying with the UN and the US..."I won't, I won't, I won't....oh dear, it's a day before a deadline I can't make, I think I should!"

Deadlines are meaningless to Saddam. If he doesn't meet the deadline, too bad, that's his own fault.

And if he doesn't know how to destroy them, how did he destroy the rest of his weapons arsenal?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 20:18:14

Hmm, where does it say they won't meet the deadline? It's probable that they'll start destruction on the deadline, and continue destruction, slowly but surely. But no where in the article does it say that they won't meet the deadline. All it says is we don't know if they'll meet it or not.

It's obviously more ?toying? as you say. I'd do the same thing. If someone threatened to blow my house up unless I gave over my weapons until a certain time period, I'd take my good old time, and weigh the possible outcomes, etc.

And I don't think deadlines are meaningless to Saddam, it's just that up until this point we really have been really lame at enforcing anything, and we've backed off too easily (from a diplomatic standpoint).

soph · 2003-02-27 20:21:43

" However, in a letter received by the United Nations late Thursday, Iraq asked for talks on how the Al Samoud 2 missiles, should be destroyed.

The letter gives no indication that the destruction will begin ahead of the Saturday deadline given by Blix.

U.N. experts determined that the missiles have a range beyond the 150 kilometers (93 miles) allowed under U.N. resolutions.

In the letter, Iraq said it does not know how to destroy the weapons and wants a technical mission to discuss the details, and repeated its contention that the order is unfair. "

If they don't know how to destroy the weapons, how are they going to do it by Saturday?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 20:53:52

This is just procedure, soph, stop looking where there is nothing, and trying to pull out justifications for your position. The deadline isn't for complete dismantlement, it's for the beginning of dismantlement.

I don't see how that doesn't mean they can't meet the deadline. It just means they need some details (most of which I would think are more related to classification and oversight by UNMOVIC rather than an inablity to really dismantle the weapons).

soph · 2003-02-27 21:04:45

Josh, it's plain English, I don't think I'm the one who's trying to twist a source here.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 21:11:53

I didn't say you were twisting it, I said you were making a bigger deal out of it than you'd think.

The Iraqi's wouldn't know how or what procedures to take to dismantle missiles. Why? Because they use them! It's like expecting a gun owner to dispose of bullets, and make them safe, without shooting them... you know?

There are a wide array of ways it can go down, most notably, with UNMOVICs assistance (pay attention to the news tomorrow). But there is no credible evidence as of yet that it won't.

Hopefully it will, but we'll have to see. Not that it will change anything, of course.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#701 2003-02-27 05:32:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#702 2003-02-27 07:57:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#703 2003-02-27 15:44:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#704 2003-02-27 16:28:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#705 2003-02-27 16:31:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#706 2003-02-27 16:41:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#707 2003-02-27 16:42:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#708 2003-02-27 16:57:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#709 2003-02-27 17:01:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#710 2003-02-27 17:11:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#711 2003-02-27 17:21:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#712 2003-02-27 17:37:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#713 2003-02-27 17:50:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#714 2003-02-27 18:00:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#715 2003-02-27 18:41:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#716 2003-02-27 18:56:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#717 2003-02-27 19:01:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#718 2003-02-27 19:44:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#719 2003-02-27 19:50:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#720 2003-02-27 20:09:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#721 2003-02-27 20:18:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#722 2003-02-27 20:21:43

Re: President Bush - about bush

#723 2003-02-27 20:53:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#724 2003-02-27 21:04:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#725 2003-02-27 21:11:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer