BS: Why I support disarming Iraq

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: leprechaun
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:31 PM

Thanks Tio.

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 - 05:14 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 12:50 PM

Hi Carol,

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

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