BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:02 AM

Excellent debating here.....good points back and forth.......all of which forces me to ask, does anyone actually believe that complying with sanctions has had anything at all to do with this upcoming war? Saddam could have handed over everything including three H-Bombs and his left nut and it would not have mattered one iota. This is about power, pure and simple.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:26 AM

Catspaw49

I keep learning more and more about this, My opinion may be change as I learn more.

Right now I firmly believe that if the USA could be absoultely sure that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction then the troops would come home. I believe that the administration is secretly quite relieved that Iraq did not do more to comply because if they had, support from the American people would be jeopardized.

As it stands today, they can accomplish quite a bit of their agenda. By showing the world that they are this willing to spend such a huge amount of treasure and by risking so many US lives, they get
leverage when they deal with all of the other countries which are sources of instability. It allows them to comb every inch of the country to find the weapons and weapons programs which the Iraqis and this way, the US can be sure that they got them all.

It allow them, they think, to do some PR and buy goodwill in the Arab world.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:59 AM

Jack, I really don't know how much goodwill the US will garner from this operation. Remember that Turkey is the only Moslem country in the region that is a democracy. If the US can set up a viable democratic government in Iraq, it will show the common people in the other countries that there is another way besides the rule of "royal" families.
The current rulers are not going to be happy with that. The saudis support us right now because they are running a deficite that is greater than their GNP. They count on the US for help. The small countries like Kuwait and Qtar count on the US to protect them from their neighbors. I don't think they love us all that much.
I could be wrong and I hope that you are right.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 01:18 AM

I don't think they are looking for goodwill from the despots. I think the long term goal is the whole middle east.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:01 AM

Troll, your idea of the US "setting up a democracy" in Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter, has about as much chance as a snowball in hell. Democracy is not a suitcase. The best the US can hope for is to put in another dictator and be satisfied that at least he is your son of a bitch, rather than his own. I wish it wasn't so…but…

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:33 AM

For that matter take a look at Afghanistan, now and see how much the US has NOT followed through as promised.

Spaw, once again, I am posting "Ditto, what Spaw said.":-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 08:02 AM

"We've got too much money; we're looking for toys
Guns will be guns, and boys will be boys
But we'll gladly pay for all we've destroyed
"Cause we're the cops of the world, boys
We're the cops of the world."
       -Phil Ochs

But no longer, apparently. Now the US is going to have Iraq pay for the destruction & havoc it creates.

Once again: Stand Tall, America!
========

Iraqi Oil Money Slated to Pay for Relief

By DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:41 a.m., Wednesday, March 19, 2003

UNITED NATIONS -- The United States and Britain are drafting a plan to use Iraqi oil proceeds in a $40 billion U.N.-controlled account to pay for humanitarian relief during a war, The Associated Press has learned.

The plan would ease Washington and London's financial responsibilities for caring for the millions of Iraqis likely to be affected by the fighting...
FULL STORY HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:54 AM

ah! the "Food For Oil Account"?

CBC Radio just announced that Bush has stated that the US will still invade Iraq even if Saddam flees.

No surprise either that Britain and the US won't go through the UN regarding their attack, but they want to use it for the clean up. And I will expect that the usual contingent will whinge again about how expensive the UN is.

And, as usual, NGO's will also be expected to try to put shattered lives back together and deliver relief. Care Canada is having a devil of a time in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:44 PM

I suppose it's moot at this point, but I was surprised when Bush on 3/17 DIDN'T say that the assault takes place in the absence of disarmament, regardless of whether Saddam stays or leaves. Prior to 3/17, I heard Powell and one other official state that very clearly.

So the news you heard may be from a Bush quote that preceded 3/17.

The point is interesting in a legal or philospohical sense, as it directly relates to the motivation and justification for military intervention. On the surface, it could be interpreted as "I don't give a crap about the weapons, I want regime change." However, Saddam simply leaving certainly leaves questions about who's in charge the next day. What if Saddam should leave, with a civil war as the immediate result?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:26 PM

What Spaw said, with this addition: Saddam could even add his right nut to the list, and it would make no difference...the USA would attack anyway.

Needless to say, Saddam is not willing to give up his family jewels at this point.

If Saddam dies in the defence of Iraq, America will have given the Muslim World an unkillable martyr who will haunt the USA for at least a generation and inspire legions of suicide attackers and terrorists.

Bin Laden is no doubt delighted, as he could hardly have wished for anything more perfect than this, from the point of view of Al Queda. He hates Saddam, he hates the Ba'ath Party (for their anti-religious stand), and he has longed for the fall of Saddam from power, as he has longed to create a holy war between the USA and the entire Muslim world.

Now Bush is giving Al Queda exactly what they want, on a platter.

I wonder if Karl Rove (Bush's chief strategist behind the scenes) realizes that? I wonder if he cares? Probably not. He's never shown before that he cared about people's lives. Never once.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 04:26 PM

Why is this situation any different from what went on in 1998 under Bill Clinton? Even he said then, that Saddam had used up his nine lives.

Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 04:49 PM

its not KimC, please note that members of both US political parties signed the neo"Manifest Destinty" document, The New American Century.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 05:16 PM

Why does the conventional wisdom seem to think that Democracy will not work in Afghanistan or Iraq Are the Afghans or the Iraqis somehow inferior races that can't handle being free?
Or is the real reason that some people would rather see entire countries live under brutal dictatorships than see Bush and the Republicans succeed. How would you feel about it if the UN were running the whole show? Would that be better?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 07:12 PM

OK Metchosin - so why is the current administration being vilified for going back to finish something the previous administration started? That's what I don't get. It seems like, it was OK for Clinton, but it's not OK for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:34 PM

Troll-It's the same reason why democracy is struggling in Russia: they've lived under dictators for a long time, and it's a hard tradition to break. The idea of an occupier creating democracy seems kind of contradictory, because if it starts going wrong, you can either step in, destroying autonomy, or let them make their mistakes, destroying democracy. Either way, it's no good. Afghanistan may be worse, because it suffered from warlordism rather than a single tyrant. That doesn't mean it will be easy to set up the apparatus of democracy in Iraq, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:53 PM

But they are breaking the tradition, F.L. and that's the important thing. Even if it doesn't work, they at least deserve a chance to try for it.
The Japanese were less than 100 years out of Feudalism at the end of WWII and they learned democracy as did the Germany. The Turks taught it to themselves after the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire which was about as autocratic as it gets.
What Afghanistan and Iraaq end up with will not be American-style democracy but something that is uniquely theirs. It's up to us to see that they get the chance.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM

Troll-I didn't say it couldn't happen, just that it would be a long, hard road. German democracy came into existence only after some of the worst trials-and-errors in human history. I hope that Iraq and Afghanistan will do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

And now Mr. Hussein's only goal is to die. To be martyred - well the United States and Britain are going to assist that process.

Spaw - you have no clue what would have occurred had Saddam complied with the resolution. You can't read minds any better than anyone else. You don't "know" anything because, like the rest of us, you sit on the speculative spatula of life.

And for Doug - Yes he should have complied and yes the damn UN should have enforced it. And as Jack so eloquently pointed out, with proof I might add, that the US and Britain are well within their rights to wage war on Iraq. Very good debate Jack - my hat's off to you.

And the UN should not pass resolutions it has no intention of following through on. My personal opinion is that the UN is out of date, step and time. Good idea - just not quite ready for prime time.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 12:22 AM

Moot point now........

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 12:33 AM

Troll: interesting question you asked, "would you prefer the U.N. were running the whole show." I'd venture to guess that most of our liberal friends here would answer a resounding, YES!

I, of course, believe that would be disastrous.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:46 AM

If the UN were what is was intended to be, an effective and unified international body, it wouldn't need to invade, because it would have prevented both human rights abuses and weapons production. The UN being an ineffectual, divided, and utterly powerless institution, if it were running things, there would be nothing to run. Either way, it means no war, which I would prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:22 PM

Troll, I don't doubt that you are a nationalist and have pride in you nation's accomplishments. There are many democratic nations in the world whose citizens are justifiably proud of their accomplishments.

However, when it comes to the US's self appointment as sole judge, jury and police of the entire world, dismissing the worldview of other nations in the process and without international checks and balances, in order to expand and protect American interests, you are a dangerous force indeed. In fact, IMO, you undermine the very fundamental principals of democracy itself. Adolf Hitler called this the New World Order and this was one of the reasons for the formation of the United Nations in the first place. How far the US has drifted from its original ideals.

The UN is indeed cumbersome and fraught with problems, as are most democratic institutions, but it was an American dream at one time too.

If the UN has strayed from the hope and promise of its inception, part of the blame lies squarely at the feet of the US and its willingness to collect its marbles and go home, when UN decisions do not favour American Interests.

America's ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, knew exactly what was going on in Rwanda but blocked the Security Council from deploying an effective UN force because it had lost 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia five months earlier and didn't want to become embroiled in Africa again. And as has been pointed out, on numerous occasions, the Iraqi regime is not the only one in breach of UN resolutions.

No Troll, it never occurred to me that pointing out that democracy is a long drawn out process, would infer somehow that people who do not live in a democracy are somehow inferior. As I reiterated before, democracy is not a suitcase nor a MacDonalds' franchise, for that matter.

You can't expect to come rolling into a country in a tank, after bombing that country's infrastructure and people to hell, then hand the inhabitants a pencil to mark a ballot and expect them to believe you have offered them a better way. Unlike Japan, which most hold as an example of successful inception of Democracy at the point of a gun, Iraq and Afghanistan are neither religiously nor ethnically, highly organized, homogeneous societies.

Perhaps you should revisit The Ugly American in which Brando plays a smug reporter turned arrogant ambassador. At the end of the film, after Brando's cocksure attitude causes one disaster after another, Stewart Stern, the screenwriter, through Brando states "I can't preach the American heritage and expect to be believed if I act out of impatience or sacrifice my principles to expediency. I've learned that the only time we're hated is when we stop trying to be what we started out to be, 200 years ago. And I'm not blaming my country. I'm blaming the indifference that some of us show to its promises."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 03:13 PM

KimC, why do you assume I am vilifying one American administration over another? Given the lapse of time, by your reasoning, why not reenter Vietnam?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 04:41 PM

Great post, Metchosin.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 07:41 PM

Kim - I was tremendously opposed to Clinton's attacks on Iraq and various other small countries. He had the gall to bomb a pharmaceutical factory in Africa. This is not a partisan situation at all as far as I'm concerned. I regard both the Democrats and the Republicans as servants of the same game plan.

The only difference I can see is that the present administration has considerably poorer judgement in diplomacy than Clinton's and more of a tendency to flirt with real disaster. That makes them more dangerous than Bill Clinton was, but no less immoral.

You are the one who's reacting on a partisan basis, I think, so take a look at that and analyze your own motives.

troll - What did you mean by "the whole show"?

(How would you feel about it if the UN were running the whole show? Would that be better?)

Explain it, and then I'll tell you if I think that would be better. :-)

I certainly think it would be better if the USA would respect the opinions of a majority of other countries around the world before it launches pre-emptive (ha!) attacks on people. Putin's comments on the situation have been accurate, appropriate, and very much to the point. The USA is breaking international law, scorning the community of nations, launching an unjustified war, and telling lies on a regular basis to justify itself while it commits naked aggression on another opponent which it imagines it can easily destroy with little loss and much gain. Putin knows it. The World knows it. The World, however, is not strong enough yet to confront the USA directly (and they know it), so they will swallow their disgust, bide their time, and prepare...just as they did with Germany in the late 30's.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

By "the whole show" I meant the world.
I was unaware that Albright had blocked effective UN aid to Rwanda but I can understand it. After all, the US would be expected to provide the bulk of the supplies and men. Clinton had enough on his plate at that time. Still, it was pretty cynical of his administration.
BTW, L.H., I posted this on another thread but I think it bears repeating.
Resolution 678 was passed on November 29, 2990, soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678
"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait .. to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area."

Resolution 687, passed after the liberation of Kuwait, requires disarmament of Saddam Hussein and reaffirms
resolution 678. Since resolution 687 reaffirms 678, and since 678 allows Member States to use "all necessary
means" to implement "subsequent relevant resolutions", it follows that resolution 678 allows the United States (a
Member State) to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Resolution 1441, yet another resolution requiring Saddam to disarm, also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687. So ..
same logic applies."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:58 PM

Troll- you're forgetting that 678 also calls for us to "restore international peace." That means that we don't get to start wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:20 AM

Peace will be restored when the threat of Saddam Hussein no longer exists. We are not starting this war. This is the Gulf War continued. It never ended. There was simply a cease-fire, remember? Saddam didn't comply with the terms of the cease-fire so now we have to finish the job. And it is up to us. The UNSC has shown its total irrevalence by hemming and hawing with Iraq for 12 years with little or no action. If anyone is to blane for this war, it is the UN because they did nothing to enforce their resolutions.
For all the good the Security Council has done with its resolutions, it might just as well ahve stayed home.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the US is the big kid on the block and we are better equpied than anyone else to handle this sort of job. It isn't unilateral, by the way. Last I heard there are 45 other countries who have pledged support in one form or another.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:58 AM

Yes, troll, 45...and there are far more than that who are opposed to the war. Of the USA's 5 major partners in the World (the U.K., Russia, France, Germany, and China) only ONE is in favor of launching this attack.

One out of five. What does that tell you?

This is not a "coalition of the willing" it is a coalition of "the bribed, the coerced, and the dragged kicking and screaming", to quote a Canadian editorial comment on the subject.

The Toronto Sun (our local attempt at reviving Mein Kampf), like you, proudly held up that pathetic "45 other countries who have pledged support in one form or another". (I added the italics to make a certain point.)

The USA has had quite a shock in the last few months, in that a whole bunch of states which they had gotten used to thinking were in their pocket turned out to have minds of their own and said "No!" That is just the beginning.

The Security Council was suckered into passing Resolution 1441 before they fully realized the actual American gameplan, which was this: to invade and take over Iraq regardless of whether they had ANY weapons of mass destruction or not, regardless of what any inspectors said, regardless of whether Saddam left or didn't leave, regardless of whether Iraq was really any threat to anyone after 12 years of economic and military devastation.

You don't see it. You believe the propaganda of an administration that has kept changing its story about what its objectives are every time the wind changes. First it's fighting a war against terrorism. But it can't find Bin Laden. Then it's looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...but it can't find them either. Then it's looking for a Security Council Resolution to make war on Iraq, but it can't get that either. Then it's demanding "regime change", and demanding that Saddam flee the country. These were NOT the things that France, Germany, Russia, and China had in mind when Resolution 1441 was approved...they only had in mind that Iraq should dismantle and destroy any weapons of mass destruction that might exist there...and they had in mind sending inspectors in to determine if those weapons existed in the first place. The inspectors went in. They found no such weapons as yet, and there probably are none, or virtually none of such weapons in Iraq's inventory. Even if there were, Iraq would only be committing suicide by using them, so why would they? One has to wonder...

America also presented forged documents to the U.N. purporting to prove that an African country had sold "fissionable material" to Iraq recently. The documents were proven to be forgeries (very good ones) by forgery detection experts hired by the U.N. Accordingly, you will not have heard a peep on the American news about those documents since, but the Europeans and Chinese have not forgotten about them.

They have been lied to by the USA, they have been tricked, and they will not be tricked again. That's why the last resolution went down like a lead balloon. Even normally subservient American clients like Chile could not stomach any more at that point.

You are defending something that has no legitimate defence left, Alex. And it doesn't matter how evil Saddam is (and he is), that is not the point here. Saddam is a mere convenient excuse for imperial conquest by the World's biggest and most paranoid empire, and Iran is the next target after that...

And the World is not fooled. They were fooled for the last time when they passed Resolution 1441.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:25 AM

troll - "Should the U.N. run the whole show (the world)?"

I don't think that anyone should "run the world", but I do think that eventually a world assembly of nations should do the following:

1. establish a worldwide Bill of Rights, which would guarantee human rights in much the way the the Bill of Rights does in the USA or the Charter of Rights does in Canada, etc...

2. establish a worldwide system of economic justice such that: people get paid at basically the same approximate level for doing basically the same level of work. What do I mean? If a factory worker in the USA gets US $20/hour and one in China gets US 50 cents per hour, that is unjust in the extreme, and it leads to...

a) loss of traditional jobs in the USA

b) semi-enslavement of people in places like China

c) desperate attempts to emigrate to richer places by the poor in the poor countries, causing all manner of disturbance and suffering and graft

Until people in all parts of the world get a decent level of pay, there is no economic justice, and there will be great strife.

3. Establish a World Court to resolve international disputes. This has been attempted, but when the World Court rules against a powerful country like the USA, they are routinely ignored.

Thus...

4. There has to be a World Military authority of some kind to enforce international law, and it cannot be merely a coalition patched together on an adhoc basis by the richest, most powerful country, to serve its own interests. It has to be composed of enough non-aligned countries that it represents broader viewpoints, not parochial ones.

5. The above is not possible when certain great powers are armed to the teeth, such that the World Assembly is utterly weak in comparison. That is the present situation. It's actually anarchy out there, with rule by the robber barons. The USA is the biggest robber baron, but there are several others as well.

6. None of this is possible at this point, because there is not the will, at the highest levels of power, to actually do it.

7. However, some efforts have been made in these directions and will continue to be made.

8. There has to be a general disarmament of all nations to a great extent, but there isn't yet the will to do that either.

The fact is, we are still in a very immature state of social development, crippled by greed and fear.

So, given present conditions...no, I don't think the U.N. should run "the whole show", because they simply can't...but efforts should be made toward a more united and cooperative world, with a great deal more equality (specially on the economic level), and with plenty of local and regional autonomy at the same time, on a democratic basis. People cannot be forced to do things like this, they must be willing to and they must want to. Otherwise, it just won't work.

And with that I say...good night.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:39 AM

Little Hawk,

With regard to Resolution 1441 - I don't believe anyone was tricked into signing up to it - the five permanent members spent about eight weeks, collectively agreeing the wording of it. The original call for a new resolution came from the US, and it was fears on the part of Iraq as to what that new resolution might say that prompted their invitation to the UN for weapons inspection teams to return. France, Russia and China saw no need for a new resolution after this invitation had been issued. The US and the UK begged to differ, had the inspectors gone back on the premise of the previous resolutions it would have been easier for Saddam to give them the same run-around they experienced before. Even with 1441, the respective heads of the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspection teams did not receive the co-operation they required from the Iraqi authorities

Had the wording of 1441 been left as originally proposed by the US and UK, the inspectors would have returned to an Iraq that could be in no doubt about the consequences of non-cooperation - that would have made the task of the inspectors that much easier. As it transpired - Saddam saw that with the resolution as passed he still had room to manoeuvre.

Your proposal for the "world assembly of nations" is nothing more than a recipe for the creation of "Animal Farm".

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:08 AM

Mmmmm ! Call me a cynic, but if Saddam Hussain was cooperating with the Inspectors where did those missels fired at Quawait in the last few days come from then ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:26 AM

Good point Gareth, from reports by BBC's reporters in Kuwait the last two missiles fired from Iraq were aimed at targets (oil installations) 40 kilometers south of Kuwait City.

For those missiles to have been "legal" under UN terms they would have had to have been fired from inside Kuwait. They weren't they were fired from inside Iraq, from a position not yet reached by US forces. Launch signature would seem to indicate SCUD - not Al-Samoud 2. i.e. Saddam is firing missiles he says he does not possess, but missiles that UNSCOM said they suspected that he did have in 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:51 AM

Wasn't sure which of the many Iraq threads to post this to, but I thought the following article might interest some people.

Inspectors say US intelligence was wrong

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:19 AM

Ah, "The Guardian" again. Right. It seems our intellegence was pretty much on the ball in identifying where Saddam would be Wednesday night though, right? I have a feeling the inspectors could not find the weapons if they were pointed out to them.

As to those Scuds the Iraqis fired into Kuwait, I'm shocked. Saddam said he had no such offensive weapons! Saddam said he was abiding by UN rules! You just can't believe some people I guess.

Teribus: there you go again, confusing L. H. with facts. You did it in a kindly way though and that's nice.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:33 AM

Doug R - I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone here who believed that Saddam had none of the weapons he is not supposed to have. You are putting words into our mouths. Many of us do however believe that the most effective way of uncovering them and disposing of them was through the inspection process and that firce should only be considered as an alternative if and when it became clear to the weapons inspectors that no further progress was being made - and the weapons inspectors *did* believe they were still making progress.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:35 AM

I don't see why Saddam should not have a few scuds and why he should not use them under the present circumstance. They are hardly awe-inspiring weapons by today's standards. :-)

Your outrage that he is doing so is kind of like a guy with a machine gun and a grenade launcher bitching bitterly about the 12-year-old kid next door who just winged a pebble at him with a slingshot, after he ventilated the kid's house with 500 rounds of 50 calibre armour-piercing bullets. What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are! They can't bear to lose even one man for a thousand in a fight. My, my.

Facts work like this, Doug. People sift through them and find the ones that support their own position, while paying little or no attention to the ones that don't. They interpret facts in a way that they find convenient and agreeable.

You do it. I do it. Everybody does it. We do it because we are convinced of certain pre-existing moral conditions which underlie our opinions.

The difference is just this: The people whom you and teribus and troll trust the most are the people whom I and numerous others on this forum trust the least. And THAT is the whole reason why we continue to disagree...NOT the various facts that you or I marshall to support out views.

It's an emotional disagreement, period. There are enough facts out there to allow any one of us to compose a marvelously convincing position on whatever we choose, providing the listener is willing and eager to BE convinced.

Trust me on this. We are all opinionated and stubborn people, wedded to our established opinions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:42 AM

I think that now war has started, all bets are off regarding what conventional weapons he can use. The prohibitions were put on him to prevent him attacking a weaker neighbour, not from defending himself from an attack from a much more powerful attacker. But I agree things would be different if he used internationally prohibited weapons, like chemical and biological ones. But even if he did, it might be pointed out that many people said before the war that he would be extremely unlikely now to use those types of weapons (if he indeed has the capability to do so) unless he were attacked and backed into a corner. Another reason the inspections should have gone on longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:47 AM

So Little Hawk China and Russia are "Partners" of the US now? That's pretty funny. I guess they are "Allies" in the war on terror, but only because they have their own problems with radical Islam. None of those country except the UK has traditionally agreed with US policy. Why do you expect it to be different now? How did you pick "that" five? What about Japan, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Italy, Mexico or Spain? All of these are at least as close as partners.

No one in the Security Council has argued that Iraq did not have weapons of Mass Destruction. Which is to be expected. When the inspectors in 1998 left the world knew Saddam was hiding a weapons program and since then he's done nothing to indicate otherwise. The security council only argued for delays, but of course they didn't have young soldiers, in theater, wearing charcoal lined chemical suits over their uniforms who could litterally be killed by 120 degree heat if the delay stretched into summer.

America did lose the diplomatic contest and they certainly chose the elimination of Hussein over the long term usefulness of the security council. But don't pretend that they lost friends over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:58 AM

Yes, Jack. Russia has been an international partner of the USA in most respects that matter since the fall of the Soviet Union. They are referred to as an "ally" now.

China is one of the USA's biggest trading partners. Go check it out at your local stores.

Following Sep 11 America had partners (and sympathetic ones) in the whole developed world, and most of the rest of the world. That is not the case now. The Bush administration has squandered the goodwill of most of the World.

I picked those five because they are the most important and influential players...except that you are quite correct that I should have included Japan in the list. Japan is a major player, economically speaking and technologically speaking.

What you've fairly much got now in the World is the separation of the English-speaking nations from most of rest of the World, with the English-speaking nations embarking on a self-serving road to war, political anarchy, and disaster. Canada has had the wisdom not to engage in the latest round of hostilities...so far.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:12 PM

"What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are!"

Fuck you LH - since you have no experience or expertise in this area I'll assume you are just having a stupid attacks. Say what you like about the war or the political aspects - but you can take your asshole attitude about the men and women who are doing what they believe to be correct and stick it in your ass.

If you were anywhere close to me and made that statement I'd bloody your punk assed nose -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:27 PM

Well, I'm glad you don't live next door, Steve. :-) I would have an injured nose, and you would be under arrest, and that wouldn't be helpful to either one of us.

It's not actually the soldiers I am criticizing, so my choice of words may have given the wrong impression. It's the war policy makers at the top I am criticizing. The World in general has noticed how loath the American military is to risk casualties in a conflict. This has nothing to do with a lack of courage on the part of the American soldier whatsoever! It has to do with your politicians who are terrified of losing public support at home if too many body bags come back. They are haunted by Vietnam. Accordingly, they devise high tech ways of massacring 3rd World opponents from a safe distance. It is this that strikes the World in general as cowardly.

This does not mean American troops are cowards, and I have never wished to imply that they are, although you may think I have. The "warriors" I was referring to are the armchair warriors in the White House. I am implying that the American political leadership is lacking in moral courage and lacking in moral responsibility.

George Bush is about as inexperienced when it comes to war as I am, but he has no compunction about killing non-Americans whatsoever, and for no good reason whatsoever.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:19 PM

Steve, calm down Bro. He's a light-weight mouth and not worth your time. He has a right to express his opinion. You and I and our brothers and sisters in arms fought and bled to make sure he had that right.
I feel quite sure that the Web is the only place that he expresses his opinions, because if he spoke like that in front of any Canadian soldiers or sailors, they'd probably react just like you did.

The Navy and The Corps! Semper Fi!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:20 PM

"What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are!" Read the below e-mail for how much of a baby our "Warriors" really are. This is from my daughter who has survived artillery fire two days ago and this message about the rocket attacks she endured yesterday. Get clear on your speech - And I may have gone under arrest - but you'd still be shy a chunk of your persona - the nose you stuck where it didn't belong. Whiney little no nothing on this issue - a simple apology would have sufficed.

Troll - Roger that Brother - and he really isn't bothering me - I'm just not going to let my children come home to idiots that I came home to. There will be a major scrap if it occurs - and jail is not a deterent.

Semper Fi Brother
Steve

Hi Loved Ones,

Well as you have seen on TV it has been a really rough day for us here. Yes I am right in the middle of it near Kuwait City. Today when the alert went off I ran outside while putting on my gear at mach 10. I heard a noise in the sky and I looked up to see two of our Missiles going to attack the Missile from Iraq headed our way. Thank God they took it out before it got to us. Its amazing I am not really stressed out. When I am in the bunkers with 60 LBS of gear on I start to really think about the value of my life and how much I want to live it.

I think what kept me calm is helping the soldiers out that were doing things the wrong way, not putting their gear on right ect. I could see the fear in a lot of the younger soldiers and it is my job to show them all is alright. Under attack I'm sitting there in the bunker cracking jokes about how they should give me some C-4, a big gun, and a truck and send me up to Bagdag to take out Saddam.

Nothing worse than the wrath of a pissed off, tired, haven't showered in 3 days woman who has a huge attitude. It cracked everyone up. The second and third alert freaked me out. I felt as if we were going to be in this gear for life, tell you the truth I am scared to death to get out of it. I really never thought I would be so close to being in harms way. I am a chic, an intel analyst. But I guess I should have realized that Missiles go a long way and they always target the logistics.

I am keeping my head up, and have lots of hope to come home. I really thought today was it when the artillery boomed and I heard and saw missiles screaching across the sky. I don't think I have been that scared since I was a kid and afraid of the boogy man in my closet. We will have internet to the end, so stay in touch. Pray we don't get hit with any chemical. I don't know if I can handle being constricted for 24-48 hours with no food or bathroom ability. Just water through a drinking tube in my mask. I am definetly done with the military. I am serving my time to have my freedom and to keep things free and safe for our families. Now it is time for me to have my freedom and not have to worry if I am going to live or die through what ever it is we face.

Don't take that as a scary thing, but try to imagine being in my shoes right now. If you've never been in the military I don't think you can understand. So just love me a lot and write.

Love Danielle
US Army somewhere in Iraq/Kuwait

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:28 PM

Hey Steve. My best thoughts to you and yours for the safe return of your family members.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:30 PM

Oh, great, now we've got a dick-waving contest going, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:32 PM

Well Greg - at least we've one to wave -

Thanks CarolC

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:11 PM

Norton1: thanks for sharing that email with us. I hope your daughter and all the other sons and daughters get out of there alive and in good health. They won't all get back, of course, but I devoutly wish they could.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:37 PM

Ah, steve, I am understanding you better all the time. I repeat, I do not regard American servicemen (and women) as cowards. They have proven in any number of conflicts that they are not.

I am almost flattered that troll regards me as a "lightweight mouth", just because we happen to disagree. It's such a weight off my tired brow to know that the things I say don't really matter. :-) I would sure never make that mistake about him, though.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:21 PM

Brilliant, Nort. That's tellin' me. What a guy.