|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:06:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't know that Iraq didn't attempt to deal with its grievances with Kuwait some other way, but it's irrelevant to U.S. actions. The U.S. has no right to attack other countries at will. If it does, then everyone does. Pacifism has nothing to do with that, or most of what I've said here.
As far as your remark about conspiratorial, please offer some reasonable evidence if you wish to use labels that are taken by some as to mean wacko conspiracy theorist.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Conspiratorial. Requiring a conspiracy.
"The sanctions and the bombing were in no way tied to weapons inspection, just a way for the U.S. to keep troops in the area, and to wait for an excuse to install their own regime as they've done in the past."
The sanctions were tied to inspections. After the inspections are done and done properly, there is an incentive to lift them. Kofi Annan admits that weapons inspections were not done. Therefore, the sanctions continue. You are willing to give Iraq the benefit of doubt but are unwilling to give the same to the US. I have no wish to revisit the "negotiation" arguement as I am confident that you will not listen to a single piece of evidence to the contrary. In that way, you have the overtones of conspiracy.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:36:55 [Permalink]
|
Well, if you just stop a moment and think, you'll remember U.S. officials saying that the sanctions will not end until Saddam Hussein is out of power. This says that the sanctions were not in any way linked to cooperation. One need only to pay attention to people who were there such as Scott Ritter, to know that the Iraqis did largely cooperate, and there was no lessening of the sanctions (which hurt the people, not the regime) for their cooperation. Yes, they hid papers and scientists and such, but there are no weapons of mass destruction, or there were none when the inspectors were there, and there is no evidence there are any now. The inspections were a success, and there was no lessening of the sanctions, or the endless terror runs and missile attacks, and spies were discovered among the inspectors to boot.
Again, you, as Slater says, use the trollish method of calling someone a nut without anything to back it up. This doesn't help your case.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/09/2002 12:37:54 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2002 : 18:11:03 [Permalink]
|
I think, too, that it seems that we give great importance to UN resolutions when it comes to "Saddam" not doing everything to the letter of the "law," but of course, the UN or any type of international law means nothing when it comes to what the US does.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 13:09:28 [Permalink]
|
I'm no fan of the UN, or new world orders, or OPEC, or Israel, or any of that stuff. Nor am I a supporter of shameless US expansionism.
But the reality is that Saddam is a bad dude. He is obsessed with WMD. He already poses some, and is one of a very few that have actually used them since WWI. He spends more on it than on feeding his people.
This is political neccessity on his part. He is literally holding the country under his rule with force of arms. Chemical weapons are a top priority for his regime. We know, we supported it in the 80's.
Not only would he use them to retain power at all costs (not like '91 - he has nothing to lose if we invade now) but he would certainly supply pathogens to terror groups. For cash more than ideology.
Moreover, he cannot account for his arsenal very well. This is a big problem with nukes in the former USSR. They simply don't know what they have, where, and who has access to it. This is made worse by the extreme secrecy Saddam is forced to employ. The Soviets just didn't care if we knew they had nukes.
So even if he didn't sell to terrorists outright, we can't be sure that he can secure them from them either.
So while I'm not convinced just invading is the right idea, Saddam is simply too much of a threat to the US.
When it comes down to it, the defense of American lives are more important than the ideology and morality of it. Not just him, but he's a powerful place to start.
There's a club of WMD. The members choose who gets to join. To be a member, you have to have weapons you promise not to use. Saddam has used them and will again at the drop of a hat if his regime s sufficiently threatened. So he's out of the club. It may be globalist political BS, but the intent is to use them to maintain peace, not as a source of power. Saddam falls firmly in the latter catagory.
Given the righteousness of holding the moral high ground, or the shame of being the aggressor- I'm going with blowing his greasy ass to steaming chunks with a CBU.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 14:14:34 [Permalink]
|
According to Scott Ritter a chief weapons inspector, Iraq was qualitatively disarmed when the inspectors were withdrawn - not kicked out - so the U.S. didn't bomb them (no such warning for relief workers). There is no evidence that anything to the contrary has happened since. There is no evidence that any ICBM's are trained on your tutu.
There is no reason to think that Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons unless attacked.
Saddam is a bad dude. He was someone that was useful to the U.S., and now is no longer. Nothing more. Countless innocents will now have to die because of Bush's need for world domination.
End of story. All reasonable evidence to the contrary will be gratefully accepted.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 20:18:05 [Permalink]
|
No, he was a bad dude then and he's a bad dude now. We just sided with what we though was the lesser evil. Iran had been overthrown by Shiite radicals and hostages spent over a year in captivity.
Iraq went to war backed by the US to hopefully topple the Ayatollah's regime. We stayed in the shadows, feeding intel and money. We got busted selling weapons to Central American insurgents (Contras) to pay off Iranians anyway.
Saddam has used chemical weapons on civilian population centers on his own people. Facing dissent from the Kurds, he chose to merely exterminate them. Men, women, children. You'll recall shortly thereafter we distanced ourselves from Saddam and an Iraqi fighter "Accidentally" fired an Exocet missile into the USS Stark.
As for knowing he has a program, I'm not gonna say more. I still work for the government in a fashion, and coming from Military intelligence, I just should shut up. Rumsfeld might kick my ass.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 20:32:06 [Permalink]
|
I hate to say it but Gorgo is right. There has been a lot of talk but no evidence has been shown. And recently the spin doctors have been throwing out that Iraq qill have the bomb in 5 years. That's a little hard to believe considering.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 21:12:58 [Permalink]
|
But that evidence may very well be classified. The government is under no obligation to reveal it you or anyone but congress. You have no better information that what you hear on CNN.
Just because it wasn't posted here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The question isn't over the existance of proof, it's not even over plowing Saddam under, it's whether the evidence that they can share will convince the world opinion of those who don't own multi-billion dollar collection systems and espionage networks.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 21:39:00 [Permalink]
|
The evidence could be secret. If so they will have to un-secret something or no one is going to go along. Not the American people and not the rest of the world. Potential to produce these weapons is bad but that covers damn near every country. This is so dangerous an undertaking both militarily and politically that there has got to be a solid case.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 21:48:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But that evidence may very well be classified. The government is under no obligation to reveal it you or anyone but congress. You have no better information that what you hear on CNN.
Just because it wasn't posted here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, but just because it wasn't available doesn't mean it does exist. If the Bush administration says that Iraq has WMD, but provides no evidence (for whatever reason, whether justified or not), that is an argument from authority. Arguments from authority carry little, if any, weight. It is just as likely there is not evidence as there is.
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 06:15:11 [Permalink]
|
Well, could be they have information from high levels in Iraq that they don't want to reveal for fear of losing people crucial to executing some covert action.
The way things are going, I wonder if the war talk is just to make wusses like me glad when they do something which is less than all out war.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 09:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Acutally, it carries alot of weight, String. It carries the weight of ordanance tonnage if Bush decides to smoke Saddam. There are no declared wars anymore, so even approval from congress isn't really needed. Of course it's from Authority. And those authorities don't have to share their intel with you.
This is why I always get a kick from people who claim a lack of evidence exists and therefore war (not just with Hussein) is groundless and illegal.
Remember, there is an entire world of information that the decision makes get to see that you don't. There's a bunch of stuff that we didn't turn over to arms inspectors because the were UN. There are very specific rules about releasing that info to ANYONE, least of all the UN.
There may very well be overhead imagry or something that proves pretty well what he's up to. You and I will never see it. But the president does.
The issue isn't whether Saddam is in need of some buckshot implants. We have more than enough evidence of other crimes he's committed. What we are trying to do is build support internationally for the strike. But the pres has to make a case to people like you, who just don't have access to all the facts. We certainly aren't going to pass around decoded intercepts, imagry,etc to the entire world just to bomb a country. We can do that alone if we wanted to. But being as democratic as we are, we try to show the world we're not just randomly hammering other countries. But we have to balance releasing such evidence against the cost to national security.
Watch Rumsfeld answer a question during a press conference. He's not stammering because he isn't sure of the answer. He is searching for an UNCLASSIFIED answer he can give the media, and by extention, you.
What are you expecting? Bush to come out and give up a HUMINT source to be tortured and killed just to satisfy the public's need for 'proof' before we drop a bomb? The reason most imagery is Top Secret isn't because of what's in the picture, it's because the picture reveals the capabilities of the satellite. The same goes for intercepted communications. Revealing that we had them not only reveals the weakness to the target, but it also speaks volumes for capabilities and procedures.
Be glad we don't use CNN to form national policy, not only don't they have the clearance to know anything, but they suck up to psychics, ufologists, crop circle believers, etc. Not exactly where I go for solid news coverage....
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 10:41:12 [Permalink]
|
I'm finding it interesting all the "leaks" in intelligence that are showing up in the NY Times and on TV. This morning there were "commercial" satelite photos of a new US air field in the middle east with what looked like B-52s parked next to it.
I can't help but wonder what the game is behind all of these "security breaches." And if they really are.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 10:46:30 [Permalink]
|
War is illegal unless there is an immediate threat against the U.S. There are no credible, immediate threats that warrant an all-out attack against the people of Iraq.
quote:
Acutally, it carries alot of weight, String.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
