BS: Why I support disarming Iraq

Subject: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM

Bracing for the Apocalypse

Charles Krauthammer
February 13, 2003

WASHINGTON--The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens pre-emptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin. This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it.

---

Lengthy copy-paste article deleted. Please provide a link, plus a summary in your own words.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Old guy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:05 AM

I agree with this except that I want to give Clinton credit for Bosnia and Serbia/Kosovo.

Those two military actions were successful and they are proof that the antiwar protesters are misguided.

Other than that I think Clinton was a lousy president. Somalia, aspirin factory bombings and some others were disasters.

I did not vote for him. I voted for old man Bush and George Bush.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Louie Roy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:10 AM

Everyone are entitled to their own opinion and I will state mine since this thread has been posted.We should learn from past history that we can't just stand idle and hope that the situation corrects itself.In 1936 Billie Mitchell made the statement (that if we don't quit shipping all of our scrap iron to Japan they will be sending it back to us in bombs)and for this statement he was court martialed but in 1941 his statement proved to be true and many lives were lost in WW2.Hitler also was building up his supreme power and taking over all the little countries in Europe and butchering all they Jewish people and the USA stood by and let this happen until he finally decided to take us on.It took 4 years and many lives to correct our ignorants.The same thing is taking place in Iraq today and if we don't take care of the problem and disarm him WW2 will look like a boy scouts meeting.The time is now not tomorrow to disarm Iraq.Louie Roy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM

One of the arguments against a war has been that it will destabilize the Middle East. If Saddam Hussein is allowed to continue doing what he's been doing, won't that destabilize the Middle East as well? (say, does anyone remember Kuwait?)

Because President Clinton didn't take this situation seriously, President Bush is now left with the cleanup, and Clinton supporters are complaining about it.

If your man had paid more attention to international affairs than to his Little Hobbit, we might not be having this conversation now.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:27 AM

Louie Roy - heres a link to some opinions from historians on comparing Saddam to Hitler vs Nasser.

Blast from the Past

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:28 AM

Those sound alot like real reasons... but with all due respect, they look poorly researched to me. I support disarming Bush, because he is just about the worst president in the history of this country. ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:06 PM

Charles Krauthammer is a warrior and he thinks like a warrior. Maybe that's the kind of thinking you want to listen to. But Mr. Krauthammer, like many warriors, is a one trick pony. Fighting is the only approach he knows for addressing problems.

I think it would be good for us to remember that disarming Iraq does not necessarily mean waging a first strike war against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:21 PM

Bagpuss: sounds to me as though those historians all went to the same University, and had the same history teacher. Interesting reading though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Frankham
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:35 PM

Krauthammer is a well-known hawk. However:
I think Iraq should be disarmed and would be OK with that if the US would disarm as well. The military solution in Bosnia and Serbia is a band aid on a large cultural sore and is by no means solved. It just isn't getting the press right now. Also, geopolitically, the Bosnia/Serbia issue and the Iraq situation is apples and oranges. What applies in one case doesn't always work in another. 22 Arab countries have met in Cairo to announce their solidarity to protect Iraq's borders. This didn't happen in Bosnia/Serbia. As I recall, that was a UN operation not a unilateral decision on Clinton's part. Besides, the inspections are working. If Saddam is cheating and hiding his weapons, it is now known world-wide. He is not Hitler, though. He's too cagey to attack without provocation because it's obviously not in his best interest to do so. Remember that with the rise of the Putsch and the Third Reich, Hitler was convinced that he could dominate the world. Saddam isn't interested in upsetting his dictatorial status-quo. But if the US attacks Iraq, it will give him the "moral" ammunition in the eyes of the Arab world to do damage. He is playing the Bush Administration for a fool by saying to his neighbors, look the US is just another imperial power who wants to boss you. You want that to happen to you? I think that the world would be surprised at his "allies". The way out of the quagmire is to let the UN inspectors do their necessary work and take time to get it right. Cowboy tactics will solve nothing but bringing American youth back in body bags and offering "freedom" to innocent Iraqi women and children by bombing them and calling it "collateral damage". Simplistic answers that the US should do what was applied in WWII make no sense.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM

Looks like Mr. Krauthammer forgot to mention these bits of US history:

U.S. Connection in Weapons of Mass Destruction

By Robert Novak

Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question earlier this month: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year old President pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered YES. An 8-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraqs war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Persian Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Hussein used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

San Francisco Chronicle, September 27, 2002

---

Lengthy copy-paste article deleted. Please provide a link, plus a summary in your own words.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:58 PM

the only reason inspectors are in Iraq right now is because
of the threat of war from the US.
its one thing to march for peace, but where were the peace marches
when Saddam killed a 100,000 Kurds, or the thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Even the outgoing Czech President Vaclav Havel, when asked about the
current situation in Iraq, said that the world has changed drastically over the last decade or so - you now have rogue state
developing weapons of mass destruction, and terrorists willing to use them. If something isnt done - one day there will be
a nuke going off in a US or western city, (or it may be a nerve gas
attack, or bio, or perhaps a dozen airliners will be shot down in one day with stinger missiles - what will happen then to the airline industry and the western economies)
the simple fact is that terrorists require support of rogue states,
or lawless regions to operate from, and if the trend continues we should be prepared for the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:59 PM

I'll be very interested to see what is posted on this thread. I tend to feel that 'conservatives' are not good at articulating their own beliefs and reservations. Through this thread I hope to be convinced otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 01:02 PM

It does remind me, however, when I asked my husband late in the night what he thought about a certain aspect of religion. He responded by saying, Well, my foster mother always said, etc... I said, No, I mean, what do you believe?   He said, Oh. I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 01:06 PM

My belief is that Saddam Hussein is a cruel and ruthless dictator who has committed serious human rights violations, and needs to be stopped. Exactly how, and by whom, I do not know.

My reservation is, I really don't want a lot of people to get killed.

Something I have been thinking about... here in America, we don't like for people to tell us how to live. So why should we insist on telling others how to live? Why do we insist that our way is the best way? Shouldn't other people around the world have the right to live the way they want to as well? But then, how many people really want to live under a cruel and ruthless dictator?

(how was that?)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

I am definitely in favor of disarming Iraq. Further, I would support Hussein being ousted. Just like Kim C said, I don't want to kill a lot of people. Further, i don't want the U.S. to disrupt the rule of international law, or Bush to unravel the Constitution in the name of security.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM

Oops. Looks like Mr. Krauthammer forgot to mention these important bits of US history as well:

Oops

I found this part particularly interesting:

Bush recently requested $3.5 million in funding for a consortium currently building nuclear reactors in North Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 03:42 PM

In the interests of historical accuracy, the quote that begins the article that CarolC links to, the infamous "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," was invented by reporter Peter Arnett. This was his way of summing up a conversation in which an American advisor to a South Vietnamese Army unit told him about the destruction of much of the town of Ben Tre by the Viet Cong who were trying to take it from its Vietnamese defenders.

Also in the interests of historical accuracy, and since someone mentions this above, nobody came back from Vietnam in a body bag. Body bags were used for casualties until they could be evacuated to a rear area such as Saigon or Danang, and then they were embalmed and shipped to the United States in aluminum caskets.

There was enough wrong about the Vietman war and about the potential one in Iraq that it is unnecessary to invent additional things or to perpetuate old lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:00 PM

I don't know enough about that quote to argue with you about it, artbrooks, but that wasn't that part that I thought was important enough for me to post a link to here. In fact, I was a bit concerned that it might put people off to reading the rest of the article, which I think is much more important than that one quote. But since I didn't write the article in the first place, I didn't feel that it would be a very good idea for me to try to edit it.

There is a lot of information in that article that provides a good counterpoint to the things that Mr. Krauthammer asserts, and that was why I posted a link to it. Please ignore the title and opening paragraph if they bother you, and read the rest of the article before passing judgement on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:02 PM

Is there something I said that would make you think I didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:07 PM

I guess not, artbrooks. My mistake. I am concerned, however, that some people might ingnore the article in its entirety just because of that one part, so I would encourage people to read the whole thing before passing judgement on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:14 PM

Carol and Norton, please note this from the FAQ:

The Mudcat Café ^TM

Thread #19340   Message #738292
Posted By: Joe Offer
27-Jun-02 - 01:05 PM
Thread Name: Mudcat FAQ - Newcomer's Guide
Subject: Please Don't Copy-Paste Long Non-Music Articles

Please remember that Mudcat is a Music Forum. We welcome discussion of all topics, but we give special emphasis to music.
If you wish to discuss other topics, you are welcome to post your own opinions. Please do not copy-paste the entire texts of lengthy non-music articles that are available elsewhere on the Internet - just post a link and summarize the article in your own words.
I don't routinely delete threads because they're political or controversial. I DO delete cut-and-paste non-music articles when I find them. We don't have room for people to debate simply by throwing newspaper articles at each other - but we DO allow political discussions if people express their own opinions.
If you find music information or lyrics you wish to share, particularly if it is about folk music, please DO post the entire text, plus a link to where you found it.
Thank you.
-Joe Offer-

---

I don't routinely delete threads because they're political or controversial. I DO delete cut-and-paste non-music articles when I find them. We don't have room for people to debate simply by throwing newspaper articles at each other - but we DO allow political discussions if people express their own opinions. -Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:16 PM

I support the disarming of Iraq because it needs to be done to promote peace and stability in the world.

The longer it is delayed, even by well intentioned people, the harder it will be later on. It will result in more loss of life, at a greater expense and the country will be harder to rebuild.

It will have to be done inevitably.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

The question is, isn't there any better way to go about it than all-out war? And if not, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:23 PM

Here, by the way, is an actual report of a scientific investigation of the effects of DU on Gulf War vets. You have to open the link into Word to read it...this section begins on page 33. This study involves solid particles; I have not been able to find any studies or anything that amounts to anything other than speculation regarding the dangers of inhaling DU "dust." This certainly doesn't say there is no danger.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:50 PM

Sorry Joe. The article I posted by Robert Novak can be found here:

Click (wait a few seconds for it to load to the article)

And here:

Click

Ironically (considering the issue of music versus non-music posts), the second link is to a guitar site. Here's their home page: Click

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 05:02 PM

"I support the disarming of Iraq because it needs to be done to promote peace and stability in the world.


This is the kind of thing I would like to see explored in this thread. How do you perceive peace and stability to be accomplished through our current plans? Are you relying on the presence in Iraq of the US and its allies after the war to accomplish it? Keeping in mind that changing the system of government in the area has been tried many times and over a period of many years and it has NEVER succeeded.

Do you foresee the US selecting a replacement ruler? Or installing a democracy? Keeping in mind that these are people who do not have a history of anything close to democracy. I have a friend from Poland- and historically their government is a LOT closer to a democracy than anyone in the middle east's is- and they're having a BIG problem with the new system and its host of new expectations.

Or do you mean that by eradicating the Iraqi regime, there will be peace and stability in the world itself? Keeping in mind that taking out Hussein will have done little or nothing to address the climate in which terrorism flourishes, does nothing about al Quaeda and bin Laden or Israel/Palestine or alleged cells of terrorists-in-training in the
US or a host of other items.

Please. I would like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 05:03 PM

Forum Lurker - PM

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 05:05 PM

Wait a minute.

This is/was/will be a 'war on terrorism'. That is why we are engaging in overseas conflict. REMEMBER?....

The one good thing I've seen Bush do, is call the attention of the world to the potential menace of Saddam. That was all he needed to do... aside from turning over pertinant evidence, and keeping the public informed and the forum alive (which I see little of)...

That's all folks!!! The rest of our energies belong to the destruction of al Qaida.

All the rest of this warmongering, posturing, and name calling, is superfluous, and harmful to our hard fought aliances around the world. I'm sorry friends, but I actually believe that Bush is a paper lion, and he hasn't got the principles necessary for the effective admonishment of other regimes. The only thing he seems to have going for him right now is access to WMD and a low threshhold... but I digress...

If we wish to be moral leaders, then perhaps we ought to start behaving morally with our foriegn policies... like... how's about now!!! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:44 PM

No link to the original article. I am swamped at work and at home so have not had the time to set at the puter and do as requested. With the original deleted it makes this a post without meaning. I will respect the Cat's policy and not further discuss my views on the upcoming conflict. I will confine further discussions to music.

Simply - I support the action as espoused by the current American administration. If we don't do this we are setting ourselves up for destruction. We have already been attacked many times. Take care you all -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:02 AM

Here you go, Steve:

Bracing for the Apocalypse by Charles Krauthammer

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:19 AM

I never thought I would see the day when Carol C. would post an article by Robert Novack. Will wonders never cease?

The other article you posted, Carol, other than the headline of the article was not a criticizm of GWB, at least in my opinion. It clearly stated that the money will not be used to construct nuclear reactors, and is simply the fullfilment of a pledge made when the agreement was reached with N. Korea. If he didn't honor the agreement he would be trounced on by the left wing folks wouldn't he?

Ebbie: if you don't know why Saddam should be disarmed, no conservative is going to be able to convince you that he should be.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:29 AM

CarolC, all I get from the NK article is that the US is honoring its commtiment under the 1994 agreement even though NK is not. I'm not sure of your reason for citing it.
Everyone keeps saying that we need to get rid of Saddam by non-violent means.
OK. HOW?
Some say by letting the inspectors "do their job". Which is? The inspectors job should be to check on the destruction of proscribed weapons listed in the agreement which Saddam Hussein signed to end the Gulf War. There is no proof that he ever did.
So what happens if they stumble over a large cache of, say, anthrax? Is Saddam going to say "Well golly gosh. How'ed THAT get there?" Or," OK guys. You caught me. Guess I'd better 'fess up to where everything else is hidden". Yeah, Right.
So lets hear it. What plan do you have to get him to disarm without the use of force?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:38 AM

Ebbie: if you don't know why Saddam should be disarmed, no conservative is going to be able to convince you that he should be. DougR, sometimes you are too disingenuous by half.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:40 AM

Thank you Ebbie.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:34 AM

I support disarming Iraq, and am not entirely opposed to war. Nevertheless I feel our current President is making a terrible job of articulating the case, expressing Kingly impatience with opposed views, and much more.

I don't know a great lot about the option of supporting other factions who would like to overthrow Hussein, but it's suggested by some who do know more about it, and if it's an option at all, it seems like a good idea. Surely somebody would like to run that country. It's silly to respect that Saddam is the legal leader of Iraq, it's merely reified in terror. He has a pretty solid resume of aggression, and will become a problem if he can.

   I don't really understand U.S. liberal respect for other cultures on some points. I believe in some basic human rights and I believe in them everywhere, always, no matter whose great tradition and culture, and blah blah blah. On the other hand I don't understand the (sometimes)conservative view that we aren't the world's police. We're the biggest power, and we should help, and stand for the better side of our culture, certain ideals, not just export the worst. We can't go to war everywhere, but we'd do well to aid and assist those who reflect our ideals--why not?why shouldn't we? who do you have to ask permission to believe in what you believe? We should not just befriend those who serve our economic interests, whatever beasts they might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:53 AM

Saddam has the weapons alright, you betcher ass. And he's scrambling to keep 'em hidden from the puny little inspectors. If you don't belive that, I got former prince of Nigeria I'd like to introduce you to. Old Saddam wouldn't be scrambling at all if we didn't have our weapons trained on him. Sanctions and inspectors wont' work with the likes of Saddam without the threat of force. Good on George W Bush! He willing, and even appears eager, to charge in there and crush Saddam. That's the only language Saddam understands. Is George W Bush actually eager to do it? Hell no he ain't! But Saddam thinks he is, and that means George W Bush is a good president.

Does George W Bush have the evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? Hell yes he does! Is he going to share this evidence with all the nice folks on the Mudcat? Hell no he won't, not yet, not while the sources are still at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Kim C
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 10:50 AM

I wonder if Iraq's weapons aren't in a neighboring country. Has anyone else thought of that?

All of this brings me back to a scene in The Two Towers. Merry and Pippin are trying to convince the Ents to join the fight against Saruman. The Ents say, this isn't our fight. And the Hobbits say, if you don't stand up for what's good and decent in the world, pretty soon there will be nothing good or decent left.

I wholeheartedly believe in peaceful, reasonable negotiations and discussions on the front end. Absolutely. But what is there left to do when negotiations don't work? More negotiations? I have heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:00 AM

Hey Leperichaun!... You said 'Saddam has the weapons alright, you betcher ass'... prove it, or we're sending the bombers to bury your house in twenty feet of flower pedals... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:06 AM

If Blix had reported that he was getting absolutely nowhere, some of those arguments might have some strength. But if you read his report you'll see that he didn't say anything like that.

It's as if you had some people levering open a door, so as to get into a building, and just as it is starting to move open, a bunch of people charge up with a bulldozer and are furious because they are restrained from flattening the entire building.

Here is a link to an article by an Iraqi exile and opponent of Saddam writing passionately in todays Guardian against the idea that this attck is anything that is likely to be in the interest of his fellow countrymen and women back home:

"Having failed to convince the British people that war is justified, Tony Blair is now invoking the suffering of the Iraqi people to justify bombing them...Despite what Blair claims, this has nothing to do with the interests and rights of the Iraqi people. The regime in Iraq is not invincible, but the objective of the US is to have regime change without the people of Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:21 AM

I never thought I would see the day when Carol C. would post an article by Robert Novack. Will wonders never cease?

I know what you mean, DougR. Surprised the hell out of me when I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchannan (sp?) on the Israel/Palestine situation, too. I don't know if I'll ever recover from the shock of that one.

The other article you posted, Carol, other than the headline of the article was not a criticizm of GWB, at least in my opinion. It clearly stated that the money will not be used to construct nuclear reactors, and is simply the fullfilment of a pledge made when the agreement was reached with N. Korea. If he didn't honor the agreement he would be trounced on by the left wing folks wouldn't he?

I didn't see it as a criticism of Bush either. I posted it because of this bit from Mr. Krauthammer:

--North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement--surprise!--was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:12 PM

Leprechaun, how about this scenario: Dubya has proof that Columbia has WMD's in violation of a treaty, but he can't show us the proof because it would compromise the sources. Does that mean we can invade? What if it were Canada? You can't honestly expect us to take a president's word alone as solid proof for war, when we won't take it for proof that he didn't have an affair. And Kim C, life would be a lot easier if it were a novel in which everything was bound to come out all right, but it's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM

Lurker, get real. You don't compromise your sources. Do it once and the entire world clams up because you are no longer reliable.
CarolC, the article you cited and Krauthammers column have very little in common. There are companies that entered into the NK nuclear powerplants contracts in good faith. They stand to lose a great deal of money since NK reniged on the agreement and a lot of jobs may be lost. Is it so wrong to help them survive until this problem is resolved?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Kim C
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:30 PM

Lurker, I didn't say that it was, and I don't believe that it is. The idea that evil flourishes when good people do nothing is a lot older than Tolkien.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:27 PM

CarolC, the article you cited and Krauthammers column have very little in common. There are companies that entered into the NK nuclear powerplants contracts in good faith. They stand to lose a great deal of money since NK reniged on the agreement and a lot of jobs may be lost. Is it so wrong to help them survive until this problem is resolved?

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I just keep seeing people like Mr. Krauthammer making vaguely worded insinuations and expecting the US to shape a foriegn policy and the decision to start a first strike war against another country on the basis of those insinuations. I was trying to highlight this practice and bring it to the attention of people who would use Mr. Krauthammer's words as proof of the need to wage a first strike attack against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:31 PM

So, Troll, you think that we should take the unsupported word of our president as assurance that a war in Iraq is justified? If our intelligence network in Iraq is so fragile that no evidence whatsoever can be revealed without compromising it, I'm surprised they can gather any information at all. It's not that insufficient evidence has been presented it's that NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER has been presented. It should be possible to reveal some small amount of evidence without undue risk, and it would greatly decrease resistance to his plans. The fact that he's given us nothing to go on makes me think that he doesn't have anything at all. Further, it seems a very bad precedent to go to war without the casus belli being clearly presented.

Kim C, I don't disagree that we sometimes have a moral obligation to take action. That action is not always cut-and-dry, however, and the wrong action can breed far worse evil than inaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:46 PM

Well, in any case, until the first strike actually happens, I'll reserve a little bit of judgement about the wisdom of threatening it. Every day that it doesn't happen, but spurs peaceful actions like inspections--that would not have occurred otherwise, may be put down to some good. I mis-trust Bush, but hope for the best, even if it made him look good. I'd just have to live with that, somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:16 PM

No, please Tommy, not flower pedals! (I'd like to get some flower pedals for my bike)

And McGrath, I actually had that happen to me once. Me and my fellow jack-booted thugs were lined up outside the door with our guns ready, except for my buddy who was getting ready to swing the battering ram. Then I reached out and tried the doorknob. It opened. Boy was he pissed.

I don't think GWB is the guy interpreting the satelite photos or talking to the informants. Perhaps you's like to think he just makes all this crap up or pulls it out of his ass. I suspect he has more significant resources than that.

On a much smaller scale, I have thirty or so prolific drug dealers whose door I could kick tomorrow morning if I didn't mind burning my sources. But I'll wait until I can do it so they have no idea where it came from. Sad for me that they get to continue selling drugs in my city until I can squeeze them without risking my informants'safety. But I refuse to put somebody at risk and I refuse to break the rules. Sure that gol-durn Constitution gets in the way every once in a while. But without it, there's be no challenge at all.

Now for Bush, the stakes are a lot higher. I hesitate, and some turds get to keep selling drugs. He hesitates and New York City gets blown away with a suitcase bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:21 PM

Yeah, because Saddam has suitcase nukes and will use them if, but only if, he finds out who's selling information to Bush? I don't see the logic there. I imagine that you could at least tell someone what evidence you have on at least one of said dealers without compromising your source so badly that you couldn't put him into Witness Protection. If Dubya has the information he needs, he can pull out an informant or two to keep them safe, and reveal what they have to tell. If he doesn't, then I guess he'll just keep telling us to trust him on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:42 PM

Ouch. Uh, tell ya what, leprechaun... I'll spell your handle properly, and you don't call me that awful name... So, ...we're loading up the bombers right now... what's your flower preference? Orchids, Roses, Lilacs, Dephiniums, Tulips, Whole wheat, or would you just like a big mixed arrangement? ...or have you got proof of Saddam's WMD? ;^) ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:31 AM

Sorry Thomas.

Tulips, daffodils, roses. Orchids would be nice, but aren't they awfully expensive?

I don't have proof on Saddam, I just feel it in my bones. Don't worry, none of our national leaders are going to take action based on my bones. The U.N. won't let them.

And Mr. Forum, people don't get the witness protection program for turning in mid-level drug dealers. Six months of witness protection for one person would eat up my entire unit's budget for two years. And I'll still nail the buggers. I just won't do it right now. But as I said, I'm on a much smaller scale than the president of the free world. There's no way GWB is making that much noise based on an informant or two. I imagine it's a tad bit more complicated than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 04:00 AM

Reading through these threads, I get the impression that a number of points with regard to the Iraq situation have been lost in the debate.

The Iraq issue is not new business, the current American administration did not suddenly decide to go after Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Iraq crisis is a continuation of UN resolution enforcement dating back to 1991.

Lots demand proof, hard evidence, that Saddam/Iraq has WMD, and seem to think that GWB must produce this proof. The same people demanding the proof completely ignore the UNSCOM report to the UN in January 1999, which states what they knew Iraq had at the time of departure in December 1998 - Were they lying? - If not, what is it that makes their report so unbelieveable to posters in this forum?.

Lots are demanding that the UNMOVIC and IAEA Inspectors and Teams be given a chance - a chance to do what?. What they need was exactly the same as their predecessors in UNSCOM needed - full and active co-operation on the part of the Iraqi Government, and they are not getting that. What they are getting is improved co-operation in bits and pieces as each deadline, as perceived by the Iraqi's, approaches. It is a staged performance with the sole intention of buying time . Saddam knows that UNSC will eventually tire of the effort required to seriously enforce this programme and that it will be dropped when the next "emergency" breaks onto the world stage. That is what he is banking on - that is what happenned before.

Pre-emptive strike? - Hogwash. In 1991 Iraq agreed to do undertake certain things as part of the terms of a cease-fire. They have failed to comply with the terms of that cease-fire agreement and the UN have given them every opportunity to do so for the best part of 12 years. Should Iraq fail to comply with UNSC Resolutions, should Iraq fail to provide full and pro-active co-operation to the disarmament effort, should Iraq fail to disarm and honour its undertakings with respect to human rights - should military force become necessary - it will not be a pre-emptive strike - it will merely be the resumption of hostilities resulting from a failed cease-fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:50 AM

That's a very sensible way to look at it, and if that were Bush's casus belli, I wouldn't be arguing against it. Unfortunately, Pre-emptive strike is what he's chosen, and if he gets away with using it now, when there are better reasons to give, we risk letting him and his successors use the same argument when there is no good reason. I demand proof from Bush because he's basing his call to war on the existence of WMDs that he has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt exist. The standards that we apply to wars should be at least as high as those applied to individual criminal convictions, but what Bush has shown us so far would have a hard time in court. The inspectors need to be given a chance to provide Bush with evidence he can use, or else he doesn't have a valid case for war.

Leprechaun, I understand your point, but once you actually make an indictment, you turn your informants' evidence over to the court, right? Bush hasn't done that. What he's asking is essentially that we convict Saddam, and incidentally thousands of Iraqi civilians, and once we've done that, he'll show us why it was the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:46 AM

Forum Lurker,

Can you explain why you dismiss the report made by the UNSCOM Inspectors, but seem to have tremendous faith in the capabilities of UNMOVIC. I believe a large number of the latter were part of the former.

George W. Bush has not "chosen" a Pre-emptive strike, under the current situation - i.e. Iraq failing to comply with what it agreed to do means that the terms of the cease-fire have not been upheld and hostilities are resumed. The question of a pre-emptive strike does enter the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:10 AM

Ebbie:

"NEVER succeeded."?

There have been several successes but I can give you one sterling example, Japan.

Is there any secret about how they plan to run things after the regime goes just listen to the national news. I don't think they are spouting propaganda like the news agencies under dictatorships.

Also you can look to Afghanistan to see how the leader will be chosen. Maybe Afghanistan is not perfect but it is a hell of a lot better and getting better every day. No more women are being executed in public in the soccer stadium with a bullet through the head.

leprechaun:

How about the link between drugs and terrorism? Dosen't most of the money from drugs eventually go back to the terrorists?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Alice
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:26 AM

"Pre-emptive", changing other countries government by force, is the stated strategy of the Bush administration. I posted a link on the "MILLIONS MARCHING FOR PEACE" thread last night to the Frontline program aired last night on the history of this strategy. I didn't want to start a new thread with the link, but as it has dropped toward the bottom of the page, many people here probably missed my post. The program was aired on PBS and can be seen starting on 2/25 online:
The "Grand Strategy" The hawk Paul Wolfowitz basically wrote this doctrine years ago and coached the Dubya Bush to adopt the strategy. The idea goes beyond just Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:58 AM

UMmmmmmm, are we talking about the divine right of Kings here? I just don't get the leap some of you are making that seems to imply that Bush has some God given right to be a slipshod Imperialist, in order to further some obscure vision of world domination created by the brute force of military invasions... to the tune of puppet dictator (didn't some used to call it the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?).

GWB is accountable to the American people, and we, as a nation owe the world peaceful solutions and solidarity (capitalist solidarity if you will) with the democracies around the world.

My fear is, that GWB has little respect for democracy here in America, and his record overseas is not improved much by the anhiliation of Afganastan... So, where do "The People" fit into GWB's little scenario? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:11 AM

Teribus, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't dismiss the U.N. reports, I simply state that they are not current, and that no court in the world will convict someone of having committed a crime now on the sole basis that they did it five years ago. As far as being pre-emptive, Bush has said that that is his cause. Like I said, I would have fewer objections if he were resuming military activity after a cease-fire. The problem is, if he gets away with a "pre-emptive" war now, it sets precedent.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:13 AM

Alice:

Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, who was the Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University for 7 years, submitted his idea of a regime change in Iraq to Mr. Bush after 9/11.

You can read his bio here

Can you give us a digest of what his strategy is?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM

Teribus, how do you know women in Afghanistan are not being treated as badly in their current situation as they were under the Taliban? All you know is that you have not seen anyone shot in a stadium in Afghanistan on your TV. That is proof of nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

Can you give us a digest of what his strategy is?

Here you go, Old Guy. It's all right here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:41 AM

CarolC - Huh???

Have things got better in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban - Yes. The female head of Afghanistans Television Service resumed broadcasting shortly after Kabul was liberated - the Taliban were not great fans of television or radio. I personaly never saw anyone in Afghanistan executed on television.

Girls are now allowed the right of an education - an offence punishable by death back in the good old Taliban days.

There are now musicians in Afghanistan - another thing the Taliban seemed to have a bit of a downer on.

Can things get better in Afghanistan - of course they could. Those improvements to the lives of the population are a damn sight more attainable now than they ever were under Taliban rule.

Or do you disagree?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

FOR A BETTER AMERICA...
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/ductapeer.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:06 PM

Lurk - There are ways of keeping informants' names secret, even after the indictments. It involves the language in the affidavits, such that even unnamed sources can be qualified as reliable. Their names may only be revealed under extraordinary circumstances. However, if I fail to find the evidence in a search warrant or arrest, then my only option for prosecution might be to expose the informant. With a particularly vulnerable informant, or one who adamantly refuses to testify, the case just goes away, and we have to wait for the next time.

So I could watch, (or even videotape) my informants going into the dealer's house to buy heroin two or three times. I can get a search warrant based on the controlled buys and other corroborating evidence. But if I search his house, and his stash is hidden somewhere else, or he sold the last of it the night before, then I got nothin', and the dealer is "innocent." I have all the proof I need for my own certain knowledge, but none of it is useable in court without the informant's testimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:16 PM

CarolC:

You read mine and I will read yours.

Thomas:

One protestor says Afghanistan was annihilated and another says the Taliban is still in control and things have not changed. I have a hard time figuring out which of these contradictory statements are correct.

To everybody:

Does anybody know the status of the ship headed for NK loaded with precursors of chemical WMDs?

At first I assumed it was from France, Germany or Russia. This morning I heard there might be 3 ships coming from Syria and the chemicals were smuggled thru Syria from Iraq?

If this is true, is this enough evidence that Saddam Hussein is supporting, supplying, aiding and abetting terrorists?


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:19 PM

Old Guy, I did read yours.

Teribus, I have been hearing and reading news that tells a somewhat different story than what you have been getting, apparently. Could you please provide me with some links to your sources?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:26 PM

Forum Lurker, you say above:

"Teribus, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't dismiss the U.N. reports, I simply state that they are not current, and that no court in the world will convict someone of having committed a crime now on the sole basis that they did it five years ago."

Prior to that you said:

"I demand proof from Bush because he's basing his call to war on the existence of WMDs that he has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt exist."

You do not dismiss the Report delivered to the UNSC by UNSCOM's Inspectors in January 1999. That report gave as accurate an account, as was possible under the circumstances, of the stockpile of WMD known to exist in Iraq as of December 1998. You say you don't dismiss that report but seem to totally deny that the reported proscribed munitions and material ever existed or may still exist. George W. Bush, and more relevantly his administration, many of whom had first hand experience dealing with Saddam Hussein from 1991, don't deny that possibility - that is why they acted to get the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors back into Iraq - it would never have happened without their efforts. That material, equipment and munitions did exist, the UNSCOM inspectors left in December 1998, what Hans Blix and Mohamed AlBaradei want to establish now is where it has all gone in a manner that can be verified beyond doubt. Somebody must know, and that person can only be found within the ranks of Saddam Hussein's military or civil service - But somebody must know.

You then go on to say:

"As far as being pre-emptive, Bush has said that that is his cause. Like I said, I would have fewer objections if he were resuming military activity after a cease-fire. The problem is, if he gets away with a "pre-emptive" war now, it sets precedent."

If you read through the text of UNSC Resolution 1441 you will note that it affords Iraq one final opportunity to fully comply with the UNSC Resolutions relating to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and it's aftermath. Those resolutions are the ones that formed the terms of the cease-fire. The question has got to be has Iraq fully complied - unless the answer is an unequivicable Yes - then the terms of the cease-fire signed in 1991 have been broken therefore hostilities can recommence. If Bush has indeed said that being pre-emptive is his cause, he has gone about doing it in a very strange way. Up to present George W. Bush and his administration have, in action, been totally inclusive with regard to the United Nations. At no time have they acted "unilaterally".

There is nothing in the United Nations Charter that bars any nation from taking action to protect itself if they believe that they are faced with an imminent threat. There is no precedent to be set.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:32 PM

CarolC:

I have not seen anyone shot in a stadium (by authorities) in the US on my TV. That is proof of nothing?

By the way, the video tape was taken by a woman, at very great personal risk of being executed the same way, in order to get the irrefutable word out to the rest of the world. You seem to say this woman's effort was for nothing. To me it seems it would be even more convincing to another woman.

Have all the video cameras been confiscated since the liberation?

Now there are musicians performing in Afghanistan. There are shops selling CDs. Women are dancing.

After the liberation people literaly dug up the radios, CD players, instruments and TV sets that they had to burry to keep them from being confiscated by the Taliban.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:43 PM

By the way, the video tape was taken by a woman, at very great personal risk of being executed the same way, in order to get the irrefutable word out to the rest of the world.

That fact is not lost on me, Old Guy.

You seem to say this woman's effort was for nothing.

I don't know how you can infer that from my asking for documentation of how things have improved for women in Afghanistan since then.

Can you provide any links or documentation to support what you are saying about the improved conditions for women in Afghanistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:50 PM

Hi Carol,

Try this http://womensissues.about.com/library/weekly/aa113001a.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:19 PM

Leprechaun-couldn't Bush do much the same, then? If Saddam's resources are greater than those of a drug dealer, then shouldn't Bush's also be greater than yours, allowing him to keep his informants safe while revealing their information?

Teribus-I don't deny that they existed then, I deny that positive evidence has been presented that they exist now. While resolution 1441 does allow Bush to resume hostilities, he has been stating that part of the reason is to prevent Hussein from threatening America, without presenting any evidence that he will so threaten us. My worry is that it sets a precedent for "pre-emptive" attacks without evidence of threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

"Teribus-I don't deny that they existed then, I deny that positive evidence has been presented that they exist now."

Exactly what the weapons Inspection Teams are in Iraq to establish - they can only do it with the full and pro-active co-operation and assistance of the Iraqi Government, its civil servants and its military.

The stuff was here in 1998 - where has it gone

Simple isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:32 PM

NicoleC:
It was blessedly short. It seems to consist of three points in a 1992 document about post cold war strategy for the US.

#1• The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.

That would be good if we would all act like gentlemen and gentlewomen and not try to take advantage of other weaker countries. I think it is obvious by the way that we aid others, even the Palestinians. America provides more aid than any other country for the Palestinian refugee camps. Please don't ask me to make a chart of how much we supply to every country in the world but if we wished harm on people that oppose us we would not support Palestinians.

#2. Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.

Being here in the US is a thing not to be taken for granted. I feel very lucky. I wish everybody in the world could live under the same conditions. That does not mean I should convert them to my religion or make them speak only my language or eat the same food that I do. When it comes to a religion or ethnicity that means harm or annihilation of anther religion or way of life that is a threat to peace for the other peaceful religions of the world. That should be dealt with.

If there are 50 people of different religions and ethnicities together in one room. One of them pulls a knife and says he hates someone there and is going to kill him, I think that person should be restrained by the others in the room that are capable of restraining him. I think it is for the good of all in the room.

#3 if necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.

If the only people in the room that are willing to risk their own well being to restrain the person in the room that wants to kill somebody are Americans, I don't see how that makes the Americans evil. Some others might not want to join the struggle to make it easier for the American but they should not hinder the Americans.

You can add all kinds of things to this analogy like suppose the person to be killed had something that the Americans wanted or suppose the Americans did not like the person that was going to be killed but the basic truth is that the Americans are only trying to help. An innocent person or an American might get hurt in the struggle but that cannot always be avoided. That does not mean the struggle should not take place. If the person that wants to do harm is successful, he will do it to someone else.


I don't see how these three points of the American military strategy as it was in 1992 are bad or evil in any way.

Can you now tell us if there are any flaws in Dr. Paul Wolfowitz's character or shortcoming in his intelligence and experience?

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:39 PM

Teribus-That's what the Weapons Inspection teams are there for, right? So let them do their job, and don't act until they're done.

Oldguy-That bit about protecting U.S. interests is the troublesome one. It seems to put our economic interests above the well-being of other nations and peoples. If so, then it is definitely bad and evil. Now, if someone says "I'm going to kill you before you kill me," do we have the same obligation to restrain them? If two people go after each other, don't we have an obligation to help whichever one will "Safeguard U.S. interests" by those points? That's where the trouble comes in.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:53 PM

Forum Lurker - do you believe that the UNMOVIC and IAEA teams are getting the full pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi authorities?

Neither Hans Blix or Mohamed AlBaradei believe they are - they have said that the degree of co-operation is improving, slowly bit-by-bit, but that is not what is required under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441. As each perceived deadline approaches Iraq makes a further concession - its a game, and we have been there before.

Both Hans Blix and Mohamed AlBaradei have said that the important answeres to the questions relating to those stocks of weapons remains outstanding - somebody in Iraq knows - why are they not telling, if full pro-active co-operation is the intent of the Iraqi Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:00 PM

Old Guy, I think you may be having some difficulty telling the women on this forum apart. I don't see Nicole C anywhere on this thread, and it was Alice who was debating with you about Wolfowitz. I simply provided a link to the part of the site Alice posted that addressed your question to her.

We (the women of the Mudcat) are individual people, not a hive consciousness or anything like that.

Thanks for the link Teribus. I'll check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:14 PM

Come on Carol. You both have the same last name, olC. Lighten up on us old guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:25 PM

Yeah CarolC, lighten up on Old Lepribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:31 PM

Thanks Tio.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:15 PM

Teribus, I don't think that they're getting full cooperation, but I don't think that their task is made any easier by Bush's constant saber rattling. If he wanted them to succeed, he could provide much more substantial support. In fact, according to him, he already has enough evidence to be certain Saddam has the weapons. Why doesn't he just hand it over to the inspectors, so they can find the stuff? If anything, a war will destroy any evidence that could be used to be certain once and for all that Saddam was lying, or that Bush was.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:07 PM

You guys really think you're all that old?

Ok, just exactly how old are you? C'mon... 'fess up.

(P.S. Alice ends with an 'e'.)

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:06 PM

St.Patrick's Day, 2001, I was 46 when they took that picture.

And their task may not be easier, but they're a good deal more effective with Bush's sabre rattling.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:23 PM

St.Patrick's Day, 2001, I was 46 when they took that picture.

Aaaaaaww... you're just a pup.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:27 PM

How so, Leprechaun? Why should they cooperate when any evidence will be used by Bush to get his war? I think they'd be far more effective if they were more worried about noncompliance than anything getting out.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:01 PM

Well I'm young, and I've go the goatee to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:15 PM

Yeah, but I've had a rough life.

It is a bit of a sticky wicket for old Saddam. Say he screws up and the inpsectors find the weapons. He'll have to say, "Where the hell did those come from?" (the old these aren't my pants defense)

Or he could pre-emptively destroy the weapons, then show the inspectors where the remnants are. (the old I've been clean for two whole days defense)

Perhaps he could have one of his clones assassinated, (oops I said ass) then get himself some plastic surgery, dye his hair blond, shave that awful looking mustache, and have his new blond self elected king again. (the old I'm not really me defense)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:28 PM

Goatee? I thought you were somebody's aunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:31 PM

Maybe we could keep him busy playing cat and mouse with the inspectors until he dies of old age, just like we did with Castro. Oh, wait, let me rephrase that...

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:39 PM

Nah..it's an acronym for something socially unacceptable that inexplicably stuck to me years ago. Any resemblance to actual spanish is purely coincidental.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 12:46 AM

Lurker, you may be a real fine musician but what you don't know about intelligence gathering could fill the Congressional Library. I rather suspect that if it was high noon in July in Texas and Bush said the sun was shining, you'd want irrefutable proof from someone other than him.
As regards WMD's, the ones found by the Inspectors after the Gulf War have never been accounted for although MMario said last night that he heard that the Mustard Gas had been located. Just what do people like you require as proof?
Even Tom Dascle (sp?) said in Nov.2002 that we KNEW that Saddam had Chemical and Biological weapons and that we were sure that he was trying to go nuclear. You don't have to take my word for it. Go read the speech for yourself. It was made during the debate in Congress over the War Resolution. Daschle voted FOR the resolution.
The Inspectors just found a bunch of missiles, imported by Iraq in direct defiance of the NU resolution that brought about the Gulf War cease-fire. They have too great a range (over 150 k. is illegal) and the diameter is too great. They have chemical and biological delivery capability.
Saddam has been ordered to destroy them as per agreement or be in material breach of the UN resolution.
Will he? We shall see.
To go back to intelligence for just a moment, very often you get information from someone who doesn't want to leave his/her country and their information is ongoing, sometimes for years. Or you have a situation where you could get them out, but not their family members. It is not an unknown technique to hold a few members of a family hostage because one or more of the family are working on secret projects.
If you'll put aside your hatred of George Bush for a few moments, you'll realize that revealing the source of the information which he has, while it would surely make his job here at home easier, would just as surely condemn an unknown number of people to a very unpleasant death.
Please think about it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 12:53 AM

,Forum Lurker:

People hear "US interests" and they see oil interests and money interests only.

Others see security interests, humanitarian interests or in the interest of peace. I see it as being all of those interests. The Iraqi people need money and they have oil to sell. Right now most of it is being diverted by Saddam for his non humanitarian activities.

The US has an interest in fighting terrorism and keeping war from breaking out in the middle east or anywhere in the world. In some places we cannot interfere like Chechnya. In other places we can and should. Some times it is a disaster like Vietnam or Somalia but most of the times it is a success like Panama or Serbia.

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 04:56 AM

Thanks for replies Forum Lurker:

"I don't think that they're getting full cooperation,"

Then Iraq is in material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 - serious consequences apply according to that same resolution.

"...but I don't think that their task is made any easier by Bush's constant saber rattling."

Bush's sabre rattling as you term it is the only thing that got the inspectors in there in the first place. Its the only thing that got UNSC Resolution 1441 passed unanimously by the UNSC. His continued sabre rattling is the only thing that has forced what Iraqi co-operation the inspectors are receiving. Within 48 hours of every Hans Blix/Mohamed AlBaradei report to the UNSC, the Iraqi regime comes out with some minor concession, but all the while they refuse to give full, pro-active assistance in the disarmament process - and as Old Guy has pointed out - absolutely no movement at all with regard to their obligations on human rights issues (602 Kuwaiti citizens are still missing inside Iraq - their fate entirely unkown).

"In fact, according to him, he already has enough evidence to be certain Saddam has the weapons."

So have we - the UNSCOM Report of January 1999. The onus is on the Iraqi Regime to either surrender those weapons for controlled destruction under UNMOVIC supervision, or, to provide verifiable evidence that those weapons/materials no longer exist.

"Why doesn't he just hand it over to the inspectors, so they can find the stuff?"

Intelligence information may only exist in the form that it corroborates the UNSCOM report and gives indications that programmes are still being actively pursued - It does not necessarily mean that exact locations are known.

"If anything, a war will destroy any evidence that could be used to be certain once and for all that Saddam was lying, or that Bush was."

Evidence will still remain, in some form or other. As to determining whether or not Saddam is lying - We (UNSC/UNMOVIC/IAEA & the world)
already KNOW he is lying, since the return of the inspectors and delivery of the Iraq declaration, the Iraqi Regime has been caught lying at least on three occasions - those also constitute a material breach under the terms of resolution 1441 - serious consequence time again.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 07:43 AM

Oldguy, if countries like Iraq are to be denied their few pathetic remaining weapons (from the vast quantities we in the west sold to them) what do you envisage as a reasonable counterbalance to the capabilities of the US? The US has bombed more sovereign states since 1945 than any other country, so it is surely not unreasonable that there should be some small deterrent somewhere.

DougR, that was a rather shallow response to a wide range of historians of various political leanings. What university did you go to yourself? And did it really teach you that Saddam has the world's most powerful and best equipped army, as Hitler had in 1939? The fact is that if Bush had not dragged it on to the agenda, Iraq would be causing us no more concern than (say) those south- and central-American states that routinely murder children as pests, or those repulsive dictatorships such as Zimbabwe's.

To the poster who asked if we've forgotten Kuwait, well obviously we haven't, because it's full of oil. The fact that Kuwait was an arbitrary creation of the British, depriving Iraq (also a British invention) of most of its natural coastline, doesn't come into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:11 AM

Troll-I suspect that neither of us are intelligence professionals of any variety. I would believe Bush if I saw the sun myself, but if I weren't in the state, and he was threatening a war based on sunlight in Texas, I'd want to see some independent weather reports first. I don't take Daschle's word as absolute proof anymore than I take Bush's. I hadn't heard about the missiles; my local news agencies prefer "human interest stories" to what should actually interest humans. If true, then it provides sufficient grounds to declare him in violation of 1441. If the only possible response to such a violation is war, then I would regrettably support it. As far as intelligence work goes, remember that a war will invariably kill more people than simply revealing the intelligence. They might not want to leave the country forever, but do you honestly think they'll object to a vacation for as long as Bush's little war takes? I don't buy the argument that every single one of Bush's sources is so precarious that any evidence revealed would break their cover. I realize our HumInt has gone south since 1990, but is it really that bad?

Olguy-I think that the present administration views our interests primarily in terms of commercial and political gain. I'm sure that the original intent was to mean all interests, but it can be interpreted in many different ways.

Teribus-I don't think that you can ever put the burden of proof on the defendant. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty," however awkward it may make things at times, is one of the keystones of a fair judicial system, and should be true in all things. As I said to Troll, though, if proof positive can be found that he is in violation, then Bush has a case for war. I'd greatly prefer just about any other form of regime change, but if Bush's planners don't think it's possible to do it any other way (rather than just thinking that it's the most politically advantageous way), then so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 12:15 PM

most of the times it is a success like Panama or Serbia.

Old Guy, maybe you ought to take a look at this site. It has an interesting take on our "successes". In particular, you'll want to check out what "Smedley Darlington Butler...one of the most decorated soldiers in the history of the Marine Corps and recipient of two Medals of Honor and the Distinguished Service Medal" has to say about it all. (You'll have to scroll waaaayyy down near the bottom to find that part.)

Black Arabs and Bandit Kings

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 02:59 PM

Old guy asked about the link between terrorism and drugs. I wouldn't say most of the money from drugs goes to terrorism as most of us define it. But some of the money does.

Depending on which drugs you use, you can support the terrorists of your choice.

Methamphetamine - Most of it is made in huge labs financed by Mexican drug lords, and they get a lot of their precursors from Canadian criminal syndicates, (read Biker gangs) who get bulk pseudoephedrine from various middle eastern counties. These same organizations are expanding into the Ecstasy market, so your adolescent children can also contribute.

Cocaine - Finances Colombian drug lords and contributes to a quagmire of death and destruction there, and everywhere in-between.

Marijuana, psilocybin and LSD - Homegrown United States Eco-terrorists are financed by marijuana and psilocybin syndicates. Want to blow up a ski resort or a car dealership? Buy some shrooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 06:20 PM

Well, Leprechaun, it's thread drift, but drug money isn't about drugs, it's about money. Prohibition gives you your Capones. The idea that smoking pot makes one responsible for "drug-related" murders is looney denial of the obvious reality. It's a rationalization of laws that make no goddamn sense in the first place. It's not in the realm of what things are, but what is reified by creating illicit drug-culture in the first place. Is the casual money-user responsible for money-related crimes? Does it fall on your head that someone was mugged for the bills that wind up in your wallet? No. People are responsible for what they are responsible for. Attempts to do better than that by boycotts or steering some choices doesn't make everyone responsible for what other people do, or have done, somewhere up the pike or anywhere down the line.
   It would be great if we really could vote our morals by what we spend, but it's too much to track, impossible to follow everywhere it leads. Just because you can follow it somewhere, sometimes, doesn't mean people are responsible for things they neither do nor intend. Think about it--it's a chaos theory of moral responsibilty. It's an idea you can make on paper, still it's just wrong. And it's a last ditch rationalization of other things that are wrong also.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 10:18 PM

Fionn, Fred, leprechaun... Excellent Posts. Terribus, Troll... thanks for giving your well worded opinions... and you know how I differ, right? leprechaun,...if you are able to trace drugs to terrorism, are you able to see the connection between oil and terrorism? Imperialism and terrorism? War and terrorism? Fionn's arguements, when applied to the greater questions facing us about preemptive war, are quite interesting. ttr (trying to resist thread creep...)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 10:50 PM

Too many folks focused on the center of Bush's magnifying glass. Watch for the slight of the hand.

This is absolutely nothing about "resolutions". What a Joke! It's very much about oil! Yes, oil! Yes, oil!

And is it any coincidence that the Bush/Cheney/Rice team are all "big oil" fat cats?

1441 is nothing more than a bunch of born-with-a-silevr-spoon-in-their-mouthes rich kids want *you* to think its about but when you strip off the sugar coating all that is left is the dog poop that it started out as...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 10:59 PM

Lurker, sorry to disappoint you, but I spent a good part of my life around professional intelligence gatherers. My Father spent his entire career in Intelligence (you never really get to retire) so I do know a bit about the field.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:22 AM

Fionn, you ask the following:

"Oldguy, if countries like Iraq are to be denied their few pathetic remaining weapons (from the vast quantities we in the west sold to them) what do you envisage as a reasonable counterbalance to the capabilities of the US?"

Fionn correct as of July 2002 here is a list of Iraq's "few pathetic remaining weapons:

Armed Forces strength excluding reserves - 424,000 organised into 7 Corps (2 Republican Guard and 5 Army)

Armed Forces strength including Reserves - 700,000

Main Battle Tanks - 2,200
Other Armoured Vehicles - 3,700
Major Artillery weapons - 2,400
Combat Aircraft - 316

Despite the Gulf War (Desert Storm) and the loss of 40% of its army and air force order of battle, Iraq remains the most effective military power in the Gulf.

I believe I am the poster - "....who asked if we've forgotten Kuwait, well obviously we haven't, because it's full of oil. The fact that Kuwait was an arbitrary creation of the British, depriving Iraq (also a British invention) of most of its natural coastline, doesn't come into it."

You have obviously not read the history of Kuwait. Kuwait has existed for centuries. It was an independent Sheikdom, whose ruler owed alliegence to the Caliph of Baghdad - Note the Caliph of Baghdad not to the Caliphate of Baghdad, and in that distinction there is a very significant difference. Before the First World War, in the days of the Ottoman Empire, the Sheik of Kuwait made an agreement with the British to protect his Sheikdom, he actually had a choice between the British and the Russians, he chose the British because British naval power meant that they could protect him more effectively than the Russians. The Caliph of Baghdad also agreed to this at that point Kuwait was larger than it is today and also included two islands in the Shat-Al-Arab.

At the end of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was dismembered, the Cilphate of Baghdad and, more importantly, the position of the Caliph of Baghdad dissappeared. That was done by the Allies - not solely by Britain - Under the League of Nations, Britain had the Mandate for Palestine and Iraq, France had the Mandate for Lebanon and Syria.

Since the 1920's Iraq has tried on a number of occasions to annex the State of Kuwait and as part of the negotiations the islands in the Shat-Al-Arab were ceded to Iraq in exchange for Iraq renouncing its claim to the territory. The Governments of Britain, Kuwait and Iraq were fully involved in those negotiations. In 1961 Kuwait threatened to invade and Britain sent troops and armour to defend Kuwait. The Iraqi's backed down.

Forum Lurker:

"Teribus-I don't think that you can ever put the burden of proof on the defendant. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty," however awkward it may make things at times, is one of the keystones of a fair judicial system, and should be true in all things."

Why do you automatically draw your parallel from the criminal judicial system? Why not compare it under the terms of a civil action and simple contract law. View the situation in the following terms.

In 1991 at the end of the Gulf War, Iraq, under the terms of the cease-fire agreement, contracted to undertake and comply with a number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. For nearly 12 years now it has actively failed to comply with the terms of that contract.

"As I said to Troll, though, if proof positive can be found that he is in violation, then Bush has a case for war."

That proof has been found with regard to the Al-Samoud II missiles, UNMOVIC have had the capabilities of the missiles evaluated and have had their evaluation independently verified. They have instructed Iraq to destroy those missiles and all associated equipment and facilities required for their development and production - At the moment it looks as though the Iraqi's are refusing to comply with that instruction - hopefully in the next few days they will change their minds - probably just before Hans Blix and Mohamed AlBaradei report to the UNSC - that's Saddams game to buy himself time (these missiles were mentioned by Hans Blix in his first report to the UNSC 27.01.03).

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:37 AM

Fionn,

In your post you claim that Iraq has been sold vast quantities of weapons by the west. Really?

The Iraqi Army is almost entirely equipped with Russian and Chinese weapons (Tanks, Armoured vehicles and Artillery). The only weapons systems they bought from the west are supplied by France (ROLAND short range air defence missiles and MILAN anti-tank missiles)

The Iraqi Air Force's aircraft is almost entirely supplied by Russia, with the exception of around 30 French Mirage F-1EQ aircraft.

The Iraqi Navy is equipped with Russian OSA and Bogomol guided missile patrol boats, Russian supplied inshore minesweepers, Chinese Silkworm missiles and French Exocet missiles.

So the Iraqi armed forces are equipped by Russia, China and France. I seem to recall that those countries also have something else in common - now let me see what was it? Its got something to do with the UN - No not the Security Council thing - I've got it, they are all in that "we-can-abuse-our-position-to-ensure-that-Saddam Hussein-remains-in-power-at-all-costs" club. Because he is one of our best customers, if not THE best. While UN sanctions are in force Iraq is paying about 10 times the going rate for the equipment being run through as contraband. All of which goes for a ball of chalk if the US and UK actually suceed in getting the UN to do anything.

France, Russia and China - Ulterior motives - What? - Perish the thought! They only ever conduct themselves with the highest of humanitarian motives based on the purest ideals - HELL AS LIKE!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:04 AM

Teribus, sure Iraq renounced its claim to Kuwait but like nearly every state in that territory the decision was not taken by an democratic government and many Iraqis, maybe a majority, believed in 1991 that they had an arguable claim over Kuwait. Whether they did or did not, the US was slow and ambiguous in making clear that invasion would mean war.

What are you trying to prove with that list of Iraqi machinery? 316 combat aircraft? WOW! Any idea how many Saudi Arabia has? 2,200 tanks? Have you any idea how many Turkey has? Are you aware of Isreal's military capabilities, including nuclear? Your list didn't mention WMD I notice. Was that because he hasn't got any, or because whatever he does have were facilitated by the US and UK?

Face it, T, Iraq is no threat to anyone. His natural enemy in the middle-east would be Israel, and do you seriously think they would not have done something about it, if he posed any threat? They did once before, you may remember.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:07 AM

Teribus, I draw my parallels from the criminal justice system because I think that both the charges and the penalties are more in line with a criminal trial than a civil one. The idea of suing someone for monetary reparations on the basis that they have killed thousands of people and threaten world peace seems rather ridiculous, as does the idea of a civil court imposing death or exile for Saddam, and regime change for the nation. Contract law applies to things voluntarily agreed by all parties. I don't realy think that a cease-fire when one side has achieved clear military victory qualifies. You are also quite right that Russia, China, and France have strong ulterior motives for wanting to leave Iraq alone. However, given our president's plan to install a military governor who would undoubtedly have consideralbe control over imports/exports "for security reasons," the U.S. has just as strong motives for invading.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:40 AM

Teribus, I read the link you provided about how the women of Afghanistan are doing these days, post-Taliban. Your link seemed a bit propagandistic, so I did a google search with the key words, Afghanistan, post-Taliban, women.

The search turned up some interesting stuff. Here's one example. This article says that while conditions have improved to a very limited extent for some women in Kabul, for most women in Afghanistan, things are still very bad:

"Gender-specific violence has also taken on a potentially deadly dimension elsewhere. Women continue to be assaulted or abused for not adhering to former Taliban edicts that strictly controlled women's behavior, dress, expression, and movement. In the second week of April, for example, Reuters reported an acid attack on a female teacher in Kandahar, after handwritten pamphlets were found circulating in the city warning men against sending their daughters to school or their wives to work."

The rest of that article (from Human Rights Watch) is here: Taking Cover: Women in Post-Taliban Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 01:53 PM

OK Fionn, lets compare (Royal Saudi Air Force has approximately 200 aircraft):

IRAQ: - The "few pathetic remaining weapons."
Main Battle Tanks - 2,200
Other Armoured Vehicles - 3,700
Major Artillery weapons - 2,400
Combat Aircraft - 316

UK: - The mighty forces of Imperialist aggresion
Main Battle Tanks - 386
Other Armoured Vehicles - 3,333
Major Artillery weapons - 249
Combat Aircraft - 482

"What are you trying to prove with that list of Iraqi machinery?"
The list could hardly be described as a few pathetic weapons, by any stretch of the imagination.

Your contention that the west has supplied Saddam Hussein with his military hardware is blatantly incorrect. I know this fact may not fall in line with your theories but Saddam Hussein was armed by Russia, France and China - Not the US - Not the UK.

".....sure Iraq renounced its claim to Kuwait but like nearly every state in that territory the decision was not taken by an democratic government.."

OH! I see only agreements made by "democratic" governments are valid - have you told the UN about that?

"... and many Iraqis, maybe a majority, believed in 1991 that they had an arguable claim over Kuwait."

Totally irrelevant - did the Iraqi's feel strongly enough about this claim to go to the UN about it - No they didn't they just went on a smash and grab - banking on the fact that the UN would not do anything about it.

"Whether they did or did not, the US was slow and ambiguous in making clear that invasion would mean war."

Again further back in this thread or one of the other Iraq related threads Wolfgang clearly exploded this myth. The Iraqi's were told in no uncertain terms that any invasion of Kuwait would be regarded by the US as serious.

"Your list didn't mention WMD I notice. Was that because he hasn't got any, or because whatever he does have were facilitated by the US and UK?"

He has got them according to the UNSCOM Report of January 1999. Only at the moment Saddam and the lads are having a bit of trouble remembering where they mislaid them. In relation to WMD the USA and UK did not supply Saddam Hussein with any WMD - Lower down in this thread Don Frith supplied some excellent links on the subject - you should read them.

"Face it, T, Iraq is no threat to anyone."

Well that is a comforting reassurance - you may well believe it - But given the mans track record I'm not sure that deep down in their heart of hearts any of his neighbours would, irrespective of what they may dish out for media consumption.

"His natural enemy in the middle-east would be Israel,"

Now why would Israel be his natural enemy? He has no border with Israel. Israel has never made any solemn declarations of destroying Iraq, erradicating it in its entirety. On the other hand Saddam Hussein has sworn to destroy the state of Israel and to drive the Jews from the middle-east. Saddam Hussein provides funds and sanctuary for various Palestinian Terrorist groups

".. and do you seriously think they would not have done something about it, if he posed any threat? They did once before, you may remember."

Provided the UNSC does what it is supposed to do Israel does not have to act - It didn't even retaliate when attacked directly by Saddam in 1991 (the Israelis were under considerable pressure from the US not to act - but they would have been fully justified). The incident you refer to is the Israeli strike on Saddam's nuclear power plant in the early 1980's - considering what course Saddam Hussein's foreign policy took shortly after it a damn good job the Israelis did flatten the place - otherwise Saddam could have had nuclear weapons and he would have used them.

Forum Lurker;

"Contract law applies to things voluntarily agreed by all parties."

At the time the cease-fire was signed Iraq had not been completely defeated - that complete defeat was staring them in the face - but they were not completely defeated and that is what brought them to the negotiating table - they wanted to salvage what they could and remain in power. They made and signed the agreements to achieve that end so in fact it was a contract, the obligations of which, they have
singularly failed to deliver on. At present they are in Material Breach of the requirements of UNSC Resolution 1441 on five instances and as such are liable to face the serious consequences mentioned in that resolution.

Germany and Japan didn't do too badly from benign occupation at the end of the Second World War - so don't discount it so readily. If the same effort was put into Iraq as in those cases it might be the only real chance the people of Iraq have of ever becoming a thriving prosperous democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 02:16 PM

It's not the occupation that worries me. I don't think that you could say that Nagasaki and Dresden didn't do too badly during the war. Also, IMHO, Truman was a lot more honest in foreign policy than Bush is. It's quite possible that Bush will use the occupation to assist his special interests (Big Business and the religious right), rather than the people of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 08:27 PM

Teribus, France is part of the west - just too bad that they sometimes beat us when it comes to clinching arms deals with dictators. (Maybe you've got France down as Warsaw Pact, but I can assure you they are allies of the UK, and were allies of the US, at least until the ridiculous pronouncement that countries must be either with, or against, the US.)

As you seem to attach some significance to common borders, I am surprised you forgot to mention Turkey in your conventional-weapons comparisons. Here's what you might have said about Turkey:

Combat aircraft: 600-ish?
Main battle tanks: well over 4,000 and rising
APCs: 5,000-odd
Artillery pieces: 3,000?
Standing army: something over 500,000.

There's maybe another 5,000 tanks in Syria, with other capabilities to match. And Syria has a huge border with Iraq. These near neighbours must be shaking in their boots at what the might of Iraq might wreak down on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:45 AM

Fionn,

When has Turkey ever even looked like threatening Iraq - never. It also happens to be part of NATO. Prior to the collapse of Soviet Russia, Turkey had a common border with Soviet Russia - that was the threat that required Turkey's armed forces had to be capable of facing.

Syria does have a long border with Iraq, but again, Syria has never made any threatening moves against Iraq. Both countries are political allies, both are governed by Ba'ath Partys. Syria, however is one of the "front-line" Arab states, in that it has a common border with Israel with whom they are still in dispute over water rights and seized land on the Golan Heights. It was a proposed merger between Iraq and Syria to jointly combat Israel that brought Saddam Hussein to power. In this coalition, as things stood at that time, Saddam Hussein would have been demoted, so he staged his internal coup to take over as leader.

I fully realise that France is in the west, but the general inference from your posts when referring to the west has been that it was the UK and USA that armed Iraq - They didn't.

CarolC:

"...some interesting stuff. Here's one example. This article says that while conditions have improved to a very limited extent for some women in Kabul, for most women in Afghanistan, things are still very bad:"

So your search did confirm what I stated that there has been some improvement - maybe not much, but these things generally tend to take time - it's not going to happen overnight. One thing is for certain, what little improvement there has been would certainly not have happened had the Taliban remained in power - Yes???

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:58 PM

Teribus, the suggestion that Turkey has armed itself to the teeth to defend itself against "Soviet Russia" (the common border was actually with the USSR) is faintly ridiculous. Turkey's main concern was, and is, Greece with which it has long disputed the sovereignty of various islands including Cyprus. However there has been plenty of tension with Iraq and more particularly Syria over water rights, and with the Kurdish populations in both SE Turkey and northern Iraq. The other main purpose the military has taken on for itself is to defend Kemal Attaturk's legacy of a secular constitution from Islam (98 per cent of Turks being muslim).

Whatever the reasons, the point is that there are some powerful militaries in the region. to none of which Iraq poses any kind of threat, simply because of that long-forgotten word, deterrance.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:08 PM

The conclusion I draw from what I saw in my search, Teribus, is that if the US pulls the same trick it pulled after the USSR lost its war with Afghanistan, ie: neglecting to secure the peace, and not providing desperately needed financial aid to Afghans, nothing will improve in any substantial way for the people most in need in that country, and our efforts there will have been for nothing. But the US has already lost interest in that country, and is now devoting the majority of the financial resources provided by the US taxpayers to its proposed adventure in Iraq (that is, after we subtract the billions of dollars we send to Israel every year).

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:31 PM

Not true CarolC - every American military unit in Afghanistan is assisting with humanitarian aid to the local communities - digging wells, harvesting crops, planting crops, medical units regularly traveling to local communities, plus tons of US Aid being taken in at the local level to eliminate skimming from any of the top layer in government.

The biggest threat in Afghanistan now is the land mines - many of them left by Russia and the Taliban. Mine clearing is slow work and many of the kids get blasted from playing with them. The US provides crews to find and eliminate them as fast as possible as well as the medical assistance to treat those injured by them.

From the letters I receive from troops in Afghanistan we have not ignored them in any way, shape, or form.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 03:22 PM

Can you supply some documentation (links) to support your assertions, GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 05:57 PM

Sorry Carol - it is me - Steve - I could forward the e-mails to you if you'd like. I'm cookieless at work and forgot to put my name in -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:03 PM

Gee whiz Fred, seems I hit a nerve there. I didn't mean to say the dope you're buying necessarily funds terrorists. Sure most of the pot dealers are independant contractors, and only funding their snowboarding, their fancy cars and their European vacations. But some of the eco-terrorists' funds come from the sale of marijuana and especially psilocybin. I've met a few pot smokers who would be glad to know that. (I was gonna burn down the Ranger Station, but then I got high)

If you're buying BC bud, you're definitely supporting the Hells Angels in Canada.

And the Middle Eastern terorists are getting a piece of the tweaker's recreational dollar. I never met a tweaker who would care one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:16 PM

Thanks Steve. I'd appreciate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:48 PM

(sending e-mail address in a PM)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

Fionn:

Are you including the 100+ al-Samoud 2 missiles that violate UN resolutions?
Are including the R400 bomb "found" today by the Iraqis?

The only thing I see that is "pathetic" is the conditions that the people live under. Money from oil sales that is supposed to spent on the people is diverted to buy weapons. Some of them violate UN resolutions so Saddam buys them clandestinely, at greater expense, and smuggles them in.
For example Saddam paid 10 times the going price for the fabled aluminum tubes. If these were not for a proscribed purpose, why were they smuggled in?

Then there are the palaces, 50 at last count, that are built at huge expense.

I do not like the fact that companies in many countries including Russia, France, Germany, the UK and even The US supplied these weapons to Iraq. I think the UN should be involved in preventing that too.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:13 PM

The miney from oil sales CANNOT be used to purchase weapons, as was thouroughly proved on a previous thread (though I can't remember who did so.) The UN makes the purchases.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:38 PM

Wow, so Saddam has missles that will travel 110 miles rather that 94 miles, or what evr the max is. Hmmmmmm? Well, even though when fired they will still fall in his own country, this is a darned good reason to go and bomb the crap out of thousands of women and kids! No, I ain't convinced that quite constitutes that smoking gun that Condi Rice, when the selling began, made the statement to the effect that Saddam had to be stopped or we would be looking up at a mushroom cloud over us.... A slight exageration.

Now, lets look at a couple situations.

I've asked my pal, DougR, a couple times to answer me this one, or anyone else fir that matter but, if you're neighbor came over in your fornt yard and huffed and puffed about killing you and you went out with a stick in your hand and well... bare with me here.... the guy yells at you to drop your stick, would you drop it? I wouldn't! Hey, it might only be a stick but the guy has allready made no bones about killng you so why drop the stick.

Oh, sure, someone will say that Bush says that Saddam must disarm. This is the same man who has said a while back that the US was going to bring about a regime change in Iraq. That was before Powell settled him down and made him see that there was this *wacking* protocol and then Bush, after a prolonged hissy-fit, went to the UN.

But like if I'm Saddam, my level of trust with Bush is zip! Might of fact, millions of people around the world feel the same way about Bush. Myself included. So Saddam would be stupid turning over whatever sticks he has knowing that he's goinna get whacked anyway.

And this ain't about weather or not Saddam is an evil man but very much about wheather or not he is a stupid man.

And, just for grins, how does one go about proving that they don't have something? Hmmmmm?

Like I could accuse Old Guy of having WMD hidden some where and like how would the Old Guy prove he didn't.

And so let's say that Old Guy fesses up to havin' 'em, then he's going to have to get *wacked* fir havin' 'em in the first place. Bad Old Guy!

Just a few simple questions.

Anyone have any simple answers that don't read like "assembly instructions" for some danged product that the guy who sold it to you said could be assembled in just "1 hour" and now your on your third day and it still don't look like the one in the store....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:53 PM

Oldguy. Ceausescu had the most grotesquely lavish palace of all and was a truly disgusting tyrant, even measured against Saddam. Didn't stop him getting to shake hands with the UK's dear-beloved monarch. Idi Amin wasn't great in my opinion, yet when he carried out his ethnic cleansing of Ungandan Asians (OK, with hindsight, they turned out to be the lucky ones) the UK could hardly have been more accommodating.

But yes, I have to agree with you entirely on your other point. Anything that might stem the worldwide trade in arms would surely be for the good. As someone said in one of these threads, the US for one (and I would guess maybe the UK too) has been ramping up its spend in the military. In the US this has coincided with cutting back on overseas aid. Whether or not such trend can be justified in the present climate, surely no-one can be sanguine that world affairs have come to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:10 PM

As usual Bobert, you are so in love with the sound of your own voice (metaphorically speaking) that you have overlooked one simple but important point, viz. it was not Bush who told Saddam to disarm. It was the Security Council of the United Nations and I believe the vote was unanimous.
Secundus, the proscribed missiles will not fall in Iraq if they are fired from the border of that country, always assuming that they aim them in the right direction. Tertius,if you are standing in your front yard holding a shotgun -which the police have told you you may not have because of past bad behavior- and a policeman comes by and tells you to put the shotgun down and step away from it, and you refuse, what do you think will happen.
I think that you'll take the celestial dirt nap.
This is a bit more realistic scenario that the "stick story". Basically, Saddam is between a rock and a hard place. He can destroy the missiles and lose their use if the UN forces attack, or he can hang on to them and guarantee that attack. If he gives them up, he loses "face" and if he doesn't, he could lose face literally.
So whats your take?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:53 PM

Except that the policeman has already sentenced the man with a shotgun to life without parole for owning the shotgun after he was told not to. While it's true that having the missiles will speed up the timetable, I don't think that anything will stop Bush from having his war.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:32 PM

A Man of Words (Anon)

A man of words and not deeds,
Is like a garden full of weeds;
And when the weeds begin to grow;
It's like a garden full of snow;
And when the snow begins to fall,
It's like a bird upon the wall;
And when the bird away does fly,
It's like an eagle in the sky:
And when the sky begins to roar,
It's like a lion at the door;
And when the door begins to crack,
It's like a stick across your back;
And when your back begins to smart,
It's like a penknife in your heart;
And when your heart begins to bleed,
You're dead, and dead, and dead indeed

Saddam has led the UN along for 12 years. More words and more time will not help anyone. It is time to send these people a clear message by actions not words.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:38 PM

Lurker, so far we have, and continue to, abide by the UNSC Resolution. We (the US) have not, to date, moved unilaterally against Saddam. While you may feel that Bush is a bit too keen in upholding the provisions of that Resolution, the Resolution is the document from which authority to prosecute the war is being derived. You may recall that the Resloution which stopped the Gulf War provided only a cease-fire while the UN inspectors went in to oversee the dismantling of Saddams war machine. If he didn't comply, by the terms of that Resolution, the UN could compell him to do so. That Resolution has never been rescinded to the best of my knowledge.
The Congress of the United States voted to give George Bush the authority to prosecute the war if saddam failed to comply with the terms of the UN Resolution. Saddam has been given too many "last chances" to comply.
The US, to our shame, created Saddam Hussein. It's time to take him out of the game permanently and it's our responsibility.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:04 PM

Saddam is in a corner and he will lash out like a cornered rat. His military is probably not wanting to be annihilated so they are wanting to defect or have a coup.

None of this would have happened, no inspections or revelation of any missiles and other proscribed weapons, would have occurred if it were not for the US, headed by George Bush, acting like a "bully" or a strong leader with a sense of conviction had not push the UN to do it's job and parked 200,000 troops with the most modern weapons available on his doorstep.
These protestors did not have to lift a finger. If we would all stand together all the people in all nations and say "we want Saddam Hussein out of power", this guy would be history. It would set a good example for the likes of UBL and NK.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:08 PM

We have not done so, but we have stated our willingness to do so. Recall that, before any evidence came to light that Saddam was not complying with Resolution 1441, Bush had already commited himself to a policy of regime change, and that Bush has stated that nuclear or chemical weapons might be used in a pre-emptive attack, even without Saddam using such weapons first. It's like the cop getting an arrest warrant before searching your house for the evidence he needs for said warrant. Even if he finds the evidence, he's not acting impartially.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

This is a non sequitur, troll. The first thing has nothing to do with the second thing...

the UN could compell him (Saddam) to do so (comply). That Resolution has never been rescinded to the best of my knowledge.

The first thing says that the UN could compell him to do so.

The Congress of the United States voted to give George Bush the authority to prosecute the war if saddam failed to comply with the terms of the UN Resolution.

The second thing says that the US Congress voted to give Bush the authority to prosecute the war if Saddam failed to comply.

Since it was the UN that issued the resolution you refer to, only the UN has the authority, under the terms of the resolution, to prosecute the war if Saddam fails to comply. The US Congress has no authority to give Bush the authority, under the terms of the resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:28 PM

Troll:

What Fortum Lurker has said and I said. Bush telegraphed his intentions a long time ago. Then Cond Rice and Colin Powell discovered that the Cheney/Dumsfeld folks were having secret meeting with Bush and then Powell confronted Bush about war "protocol" and after a 3 hour hissy fit, Bush came out of his play room and told Powell that he would be a better boy and do what ever Powell thought he needed to do to have his war. Thus, all this crap at the UN. And it is crap! This has no more to do with "disarming Saddam" than Bush has sending in an application to join the Menza Society.

You can pretend this never happened but it did! Regime change! Regime change! Regime chnage! Remember those days?

So, my friend, you expect Saddam to drop the stick? Hmmmmmm? Do you rreally think the man is a stupid as he is bad?

Now, being a peaceful kind of Christain guy, I wouldn't have ever done any of the stupid things that Saddam has done. Never! But I also pretty much know what Bush has on his mind. So, if you want the stick. Come get it!

That's the craziness of this entire situation.

We think mean people are also stupid? Hmmmmmm?

Bobert

p.s. Yo, troll, you know what my voice sounds like here on Mudcat? Think click, click, click.... Jus' funnin, but really, that's about it...

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:06 AM

Why sure Bobert, I could tell one of your posts with my eyes closed. Or my glasses off...I dunno, something like that.

I believe George W and his advisers knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before he ever mentioned regime change. I believe they could show us the proof if they wanted to, they're just not ready yet. Their concerns may not just stem from human intelligence sources. I think we have technology our leaders aren't ready to expose yet. And I don't blame them.

I kinda liked old Jimmy Carter, but he let the Iranians tweak his nose for long old while. I thought it was irresponsible of him to try to boost his macho ratings by announcing the existence of our Stealth Bombers. At the time, I'd rather not have known, so as to keep our enemies from knowing for while longer.

I have more primitive technology available to me, which I rarely get to use, that I'd rather my investigative targets didn't know about. If I can keep from it, I'm not going to let them know how I nailed them until I absolutely have to. So if I got a GPS tracker on somebody's car, I may delay using or exposing that evidence to the suspect, if there's any way I can avoid it.

Now how many of you poor paranoid buggers are out there looking under your car with a flashlight?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 05:29 AM

It may appear so Carol - but you can't fault the man's planning:

If you take the point about Iraq not honouring the terms of the cease-fire agreement - then hypothetically the UN could declare the cease-fire over at any moment and hostilities could resume - you are perfectly correct in saying that it would have to be the UN that did that - not one of the "Desert Storm" coalition partners.

If the UN did go down that line - the President would then have to go to Congress for the authority that would enable the US to rejoin that coalition and intervene.

What George W. Bush has done is to short-cut that process so that should the UN opt for military intervention the US would be at immediate readiness. Good planning.

It falls in line with what the US has done right from the start in this matter (Iraq) - irrespective of rhetoric, not once have they acted "unilaterally", they have always operated throughout in accordance with UN protocol.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 09:01 AM

Yet, Teribus, yet. Bush has threatened to act without UN approval many times. It's clear that he's not going to accept the UN's decision if it doesn't involve bombing Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 10:56 AM

Now how many of you poor paranoid buggers are out there looking under your car with a flashlight?

Every day, leprechaun, every day... ;-)

Teribus, you missed the key part of my post. I said "under the terms of the UN resolution". And I was right. If Bush "prosecutes a war" against Iraq with only the authority given him by the US Congress, it he would not be doing it "under the terms of the UN resolution". So my post was correct, and troll's post was a nonsequitur.

People who wave that resolution around as justification for Bush to prosecute the war need to understand that if he does so without the go ahead from the UN (which he does not have right now), he will be doing it in violation of international laws that the US is bound to by the fact of having agreed to them and having signed them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM

Forum Lurker,

I think it could be a case of "Judge not a man by what he says, judge him by what he does".

The President and members of his administration have talked extremely toughly at times and I think it has always been with a purpose. Initially to get the UN to face up to it's responsibilities, and to get things moving. The sort of rhetoric coming out is also aimed at unsettling Saddam Hussein and the senior members of his government.

Every time the Inspectors have gone to the UN, Iraq must have held its breath waiting for the US to act. Hence every time some sort of concession was made by the Iraqi's to prove that the process of inspections was getting results. That is a delaying tactic that will only work for so long.

And that I believe is the same reason from the US & UK's side for the apparent constant change of emphasis - I say apparent because that is what it is. With the exception of "Regime change", all the others (nuclear, chemical/biological and human rights) are all mentioned through reference to earlier UNSC Resolutions in 1441. They are all real and alarming concerns and they must be resolved. By seeming to change emphasis it keeps the regime in Iraq wondering as to what they are going to have to concentrate and focus on for the next meeting. Therefore the US & UK get more mileage out of their tactics than Saddam will get out of his.

I mentioned the regime change thing, because the current President is fortunate enough to have people in his administration who have dealt with Saddam Hussein and his senior ministers in the past, under fairly similar circumstances - that experience is invaluable in the game being played at the moment. I think they know that purely with inspectors there (and it does not matter how many you have), concentrating on a fairly narrow band, Saddam will continue to give them the run around. What the US & UK want is to see full compliance with the letter and the intent - they know that that will not happen as long as Saddam is in power - hence the call for Regime change. It's another string to the bow when it comes to unsettling the opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

Carol C: I think you are incorrect (Surprise!)

I do believe that it has been the policy of the U. S. to bring about regime change since the Clinton administration. It did not originate with the Bush administration.

The president of the U. S. is obligated to protect its citizens if he/she feels there is a clear and imminent danger, and is justified in doing so with or without allies or permission from the U.N.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:28 PM

But he is not justified if the danger is neither clear nor imminent, or if it violates international law, which does in fact take precedence over federal law.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:37 PM

DougR, I don't think you read either of my last two posts at all.

I do believe that it has been the policy of the U. S. to bring about regime change since the Clinton administration. It did not originate with the Bush administration.

The president of the U. S. is obligated to protect its citizens if he/she feels there is a clear and imminent danger, and is justified in doing so with or without allies or permission from the U.N.

I have no idea how you came up with this reply in response to my last two posts, because it has nothing at all to do with anything I said in either of them (or any of my other posts for that matter). Is this some kind of circular argument in which I say something like "today is a sunny day", and you reply with something like, "no, the ocean is not deep"?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 03:59 PM

That's my pal, Dougie, Carol. I ask him questions all the time and he either ignores them or gives me the "no, the ocean is not deep" reply.

But he's my buddy, even if he is a knucklehead...

Like I've said, the UN resolution is nothing more than a little *homework* assignment that Powell threw down in front of Bush to slow him down back when Cheney and Rumsfeld had Bush's ear in those secret meeetings. And, well, Bush never did like homework assignments but Powell made Bush promise to just try it. After a major pouting session, Bush tried it, decided it wasn't fir him and is now back to wanting to *wack* some folks.

Heck with the resolution. Bush never met a resolution, agreement or treaty not worthy of the shredding machine. The Constitution included...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 11:55 PM

Bobert, when you say "wack," it's confusing. From the context, you seem to mean "to kill, to put out contract on, to terminate with extreme prejudice." However, that should be spelled "Whack." "Wack" means crazy, outside the norm, undesireable, which I'm sure you would be happy to apply to our Commander-in-Chief in other contexts. There's also "Smack," which might fit in your particular reference, meaning to hit, plow into, deliver a blow.

So for quick reference, please cut and paste the following:

Whack - to kill (Gangster jargon)

Wack - crazy (Youth jargon)

Smack - strike (Old jargon)

Please get your acks together.

Kevin

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:34 AM

Carol C: you are half right. The first part of my post evidently related to someone else and for that I apologize. However, your message of 25 Feb at 10:56 applies to the second paragraph. You said Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U. N.'s approval. Not so. Read that portion of my post again.

Bobert: ask me a question.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM

However, your message of 25 Feb at 10:56 applies to the second paragraph. You said Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U. N.'s approval. Not so. Read that portion of my post again.

I didn't post anything on 25 Feb at 10:56, so I'm going to assume you meant 26 Feb at 10:56. Here's the part I think you are referring to:

People who wave that resolution around as justification for Bush to prosecute the war need to understand that if he does so without the go ahead from the UN (which he does not have right now), he will be doing it in violation of international laws that the US is bound to by the fact of having agreed to them and having signed them.

You take too many liberties with other people's words, DougR. Nowhere in that paragraph is there any language saying "Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U.N.'s approval"

What it does say is that he would be violating international laws (and US laws for that matter) that the US agreed to and signed. (Which would, of course, make him an international criminal, just like Saddam Hussien). Whether or not you can see the difference between those two statements, there is, nevertheless, a very big one.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

Yes, Carol, your date is right.

However, how you can read your own post differently from they way I interpreted it is beyond me.

You are saying that if Bush orders the attack of Iraq, he will be breaking international law. I say if he believes Iraq is a danger to the U. S., he can! What's so confusing about that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:10 PM

The thing is, DougR, that international law is also American law. If he launches an attack without provocation, without a clear casus belli, and without declaring war, he's committed a number of crimes, and fairly serious ones at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:02 PM

What Forum Lurker said.

It's not confusing, DougR. We must abide by the same laws to which we hold Saddam Hussien, or we don't have a case against him according to those laws.

If the only law we recognize is "might makes right", then God help us all. (That was, after all, the only law recognized by Hitler.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:31 PM

Okay, Dougie:

Why are you such a knucklehead? There, I asked you yet another question.

leprechaun:

Thanks fir the spellin' lession.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:43 PM

I'm going to rephrase part of my last post. I think it might make things a little clearer.

If we don't abide by the laws (or resolutions) to which we hold Saddam Hussien, we cannot use those same laws (or resolutions) to make our case against him. (And if we try to do that, the only law we are holding ourselves to is "might makes right".)

That is my point in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:54 PM

Ya mean "Do as I say and not as I do?", CarolC. Ain't that what hypocisy is?

Well, ya gotta admit that having the biggest s6tcik does have that built in advantage. May not make the world any safer, but as we a beginning to see, when you threaten to *whack* folks, you can always depend on a few folks to back you up for doing so.

(Snowin' agin' back up here in the ol' hood, CarolC... Danged, I hate this stuff...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 04:02 PM

(Sorry to hear about the snow, Bobert. Try getting yourself down to one of the Shepherdstown contra dances. That'll warm you up right quick ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 02:45 AM

Bobert -

Yer welkum.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:23 PM

Can anybody here explain what the Carter Doctrine is? This set our foreign policy for the Middle East a long time ago.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 02:15 PM

Carol C: "We" are not in violation of 17 (or is it 18)U.N. Resolutions. Iraq is. To compare the U. S. to Iraq is, I believe, a waste of typing energy.

Bobert: If I am a knucklehead, it is solely to rile you! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 02:20 PM

DougR, we will be inviolation of a number of UN resolutions and laws if we attack Iraq without UN consensus, and if Iraq hasn't attacked us first. Either we support the rule of law, or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oilman
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:09 AM

So we can go in a suck every last drop of our oil from under their sand.

Kill em all, let God sort em out.

Greedy Oilman

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:31 PM

Leprechaun--I lost track of this thread for a while. You don't need to be telling me anything about the drugs you think I buy, you cog in a in a fantasy perpetual-motion machine. I haven't bought an illicit substance of any sort in more than 20 years, not since I was seventeen, and you can take your assumptions about that and do something or other with them. I suppose I probably know people who do, and they are people you don't get to insult with your moral bullshit withouy my speaking up. You're wrong, that's all. And it hits a nerve with me when it is a giggling joke that our elected officials have done this and that, but other people are in jail for those things or less. It's wrong, it empowers criminals on the one hand, and stupid prejudices, racism, and every other sort of bias and bigotry in the enforcement of law on the other. It's quite out of hand.

I respect that you have a very difficult job, but think your reasoning is short-sighted, maybe based on having to deal with things as they are. But it's a losing battle. It should change, and it will, I'm quite sure. But having been stupid so long, people are slow and resistant to suddenly being smarter, because they have to confront what a stupid waste of time, effort, and human potential it's all been.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:51 PM

On second thought, Leprechaun, it doesn't sound like I respect that you have a difficult job, but I do, anyway. But I never quit buying any drugs out of respect for the drug law. I don't respect it--good lord how could I? How can anyone.   Long long ago pot got too expensive for a weed I should be free to pull up from choking my tomatoes, I liked it okay but not enough to hassle with. Like any other overpriced garbage I don't need--I shave with hand-soap. I have no idea what a tweaker is. My drug culture is antique.

But it misses the entire point whether some or all of what money goes to this or that. The nonsensical unprincipled laws enable the illegal drug industry. And the money you spend on anything might pay a child-abuser, or killer, or hobbiest bomber, for all you know. Your Nancy Reagan line of insinuation pisses me off. It's really dumb.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:58 PM

Gee whiz Fred, How about you wipe those flecks of foam from your mouth and see about getting some legal prescription medication? Your gonna burst a vein there any minute. It's really sweet that you've appointed yourself the arbiter of what's wrong and what's moral, and are so gently steering the rest of us on the path of righteousness.

I'll applaud your attempts to change things, and I fear you may succeed. The fact is, you're facing very little opposition these days, some of which is me. Perhaps you have a master plan for some comprehensive social engineering, the clarity of which will convince all us stupid people that you are indeed, the one.

But I'll probably still be insulting your doper friends every chance I get.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:10 PM

Good work, Fred!

Ol' Lepper is comin' 'round just like we drew it up on paper...Opps! Weren't 'sposed to say nothin' about the corn-spiracy. Ignore this! Burn it inthe fire place! Bury the ashes in the back yard!

Awww, jus' funnin'.

Yo, lep:

This ain't funnin'. Okay, maybe it it is. But here in the center of the universe, you know... ahhhh, Wes "By God" Ginny we got an annual "Liar's Contest" and well, the "Lepp" Brothers take turns winnin' the dnaged thing. Paul, bless his heart, passed two years ago but the younger Lepp is still taking home the blue ribbon.

Jus thought you'd like to know that...

Maybe you could come down and give him a run for the the money, ahhh, ribbon...

Awww, jus funnin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:30 PM

Bobert - You da man! I'm sure I'd enjoy that!

How's the Clampett family doin'?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:56 PM

Didn't ya hear, Lep. Ol' Jed was tryin' to shoot some Revenuer fir getting to close to the still and hit this hillside and danged if he didn't hit a soft spot in the Earth and just below that spot was a few million barrels of tea.. Texas tea, that is... and well Jeb pascked up the famille and with all that dough left town...

No one 'round these parts has seen hide nor hair of them Clampetts and I ain't got not Christmas card from Ellie May in, oh... about 30 years. Ya' probably guessed by now that me and Ellie May ahd this little thing going before her daddy missed the Revenue man and got rich. Yep, me and her were 'sposed to go to the prom together but all she wanted to do was go down to Black Pond and skinny dip so that's what we did... Well, so we got down to B;ack Pond and the moon was shining real bright and so Ellie May told me to turn my back while she got outta that "Flour sack" formal that her Granny made fir her and so I did and then I heard this spashing sound and she said to come on in so's I turned around and she was standing right there before me, in that bright moon shine with nothing on but her necklace and then....

Nevermind...

Ahhhhh, did I mention that Bush never went skinny dippin' with Ellie May? If he had then maybe he wouldn't be so Hell-bent on attacking a country that ahs done everything that the world has asked of it in the last few months. Inspections, U-2 palnes, destroying missles that wouldn't have hit anything but Iraq anyway. Hmmmmm? I'm waiting for Bush to demand that Saddam can fly with nothing but a pair of tennis rackets for wings...

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:52 PM

Well, Leprechaun I'm interrupting the thread here, and just found the bong bust thread. I'm not near busting a vein, just goofin' around with your nonsense and quick assumptions.

   As I say, screw you and your assumption that if I disagree with your nancy-reagan noodle-head notions I must buy drugs. Screw you and your reference to my doper friends which you seem to know better than I do that I have. I'm not so sure, but it seems pretty likely.

   I don't know everything that's right and wrong but I do know a line of bullshit when I see it. How often do you hold people accountable for the actions of other people who received their money, unless that money was paid for those actions? You don't even have the nerve to say it, you insinuate it, I think you know better yourself. It's bullshit. It's just as logical to say You do more to support those things by propping up the illegal industry. Illegality is marketing to teens. Good luck with your lost cause. If you can't keep illegal drugs out of prisons, I don't have the master plan, I 'm sure you do.

    And good luck doing the better part of your job, you're a better man than me, I'm sure, despite that you're full of bs.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:58 AM

Bobert:

"attacking a country that ahs done everything that the world has asked of it in the last few months"?

Where should we beam you up from? A cave in Afghanistan or a palace in Iraq?

I am not seeing a lot of coherence or logic in your posts. Hit your reset button.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:52 AM

Now Old Guy, don't expect logic from Ole' Boppert. No point in starting that now! He's still digging out from the snow and his senses are probably frostbitten! :>)

DougR