Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong. - Page 7

Bunge,

It's funny how I sort of agree with a lot of what you post in that last remark, especially some of Bush's motivations, that is finding himself unable to deal with the spectre of al queda, he might be tempted to fight a war he can spin into an abiding sense of security. If that is the intention (however unspoken and possibly unconscious it may be) then Americans are going to get a very ugly reminder in one form or another before they're done. I hope not, I hope they're thinking deeper, but that is a very legitimate concern about the state of mind of the American executive and of most of the American people, who WANT to forget.

The evidence is abundant, though it is disguised as rhetoric about "protecting our freedoms/way of life." Think, that the hyper-letigious American society has STILL failed to produce a lawsuit condemning the wide spread security practices of the airline industry despite MASSIVE loss of life and about 25 years worth of independent reports warning of just such a disaster. Ask the head of El Al in Isreal what he advised more than a decade ago, and whether any such measures were ever instituted? The airline industry got off scot-free whenthey deserved to be crushed by an avalanche of legalese. Why? Largely because Americans would like to believe in a fantasy of immunity.

America does want to put it's head in the sand.

I wish they wouldn't, I hope they aren't using Iraq to dig the hole, but I have to say also that he must be dealt with before his technological advance goes much further. Bush is late. Clinton was late, and you must lay a good portion of it on the republican led witch hunts that plagued him, and also his idiotic inability to control his libido, but that's besides the point now.

Getting Saddam is the right move, and very late, if all the wrong moves come, they will come AFTER Iraq v2.

Like you, I have my hopes that they are thinking deeper. I always have. Unfortunately the more inept they look, the less I trust their judgement.

It's funny, because on 9/11 my first thought was to move 100,000 (evidently 300,000 would have been a better choice) troops into Iraq. I had faith that the connections existed and just weren't public knowledge. Assuming they existed and concrete evidence was held away in some X-File, an attack would have been the right response.

Over the past year and a half though, I've been waiting for any public acknowledgement of the connections and there have been none. The only circulstantial evidence I've caught wind of is the fact that when the super-secret evidence was shown to Russia, China, Germany, France and others, it didn't move them. If it doesn't move them, then I'm pretty sure it's flimsy at best.

So my read of the situation with Bush is that we've gone down the wrong path. It may never come back to bite us on the ass, but I'm not very hopeful. The evidence over the past ten years has shown that our aggression gives rise to more aggression against us. I don't expect anything different with this situation.

I also don't expect Bush, who puts more faith in god than a president should, to understand global politics. He's not well traveled and doesn't seem to grasp the idea that the U.S. is one of many equals rather than the lone 'super-power'. That mentality, if it persists, will also lead to another bite on the arse.

America does want to put it's collective head in the sand. They really do want to believe that killing Osama & Hussein will end the terrorist threats. They really don't see how our actions as a nation lead to global problems including a severe rise in anti-U.S. sentiment. More and more the people want less say, and more the ability to trust in the Military to solve a problem far, far away.

Sorry, Bunge, wrong on both accounts. This person stated his hatred for Israel, no if's and 's or but's.
As far as his arguements, they are insane. 'Absorbtion' of terrorist attacks is an insane strategy and only comes from blindness and cowardness. Sorry, but go back and read his post and tell me his arguement has any merit. A brief run down of his beliefs:
Israel could VX Palestine, but Saddam doesn't have any WMD, so he is no threat. What sort of mind makes that up?He is more concerned that one of your GI's would nuke Bagdahd than he is about your GI's getting VX'd (because how could then when Saddam has none).
It would be better to allow terrorists to strike as they please, to prevent attacks.Umm...again, that's insane.
We shouldn't give terrorists more motives: Sit back and just take it. They will always hate you and try to kill you in mass numbers, but perhaps they won't be as angry when they do it.

Sorry, but his arguements hold no water. Most seemed based on 2 premises: Israel is evil and the US is evil. Now I know he is american, and will soon proclaim his patriotism, but it is hollow. He is quick to dismiss anything nehative about radical islam or Saddam and Iraq, but quick to point blame, with bizzare arguements anything bad in the world on the US and Israel.

You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, both those posters are advocating the US adopt a policy of absorb terror instead of preventing terror. Why fight back if it will anger them more, is what they are saying...

I think the color system has very little to do with reality. You ask this question to dispute my argument but I do not think you honestly put faith in that particular system. That is a childish way to engage someone in discussion.

tonton, I said absoultely nothing like that. At all. If I did you could have quoted me and refuted it but instead you just make it up so you can attack the made-up statement instead of what I actually said.

You are acting like UN mandates remove terrorist motivations and that is crazy.

What we need to do this is a UN referendum or at least apparent support from the rest of the world. We had such a consensus before each of the examples mentioned above. We have no such a consensus this time around.

We have 45 nations backing us now. Would it really be that much different if you counted France, Germany and Russia in with those 45?

I think that far from not moving them, the evidence probably incriminates a few of them. There's a LOT of surplus soviet weaponry that has never been accounted for, and after a history of backing Iraq's mortal enemy, Russia came to the rescue a few years back... hmmm... just things to think about.

It's always a waiting game, with the march of tech ticking away in everyone's mind. The Russians, Chinese, and French probably figured that nuclear or more advanced chemical threats are still a ways off. The US probably figures this might be the last chance they get to fight a clean fast war and not face the threat of some Iraqi dropping a battle field nuke in the middle of 50K soldiers, or something on that level.

They don't want to deal with another N.Korea, which is what they'll get if they wait any longer. And you can bet that N.Korea is dying to sell a nuke, Saudi's would pay BIG money for it, indirectly of course.

I think the actual belief is fight back under U.N. auspices to avoid making a bigger target out of ourselves.

Not true. There has been evidence. It isn't overhwelming as of yet. I saw photos the other day of a known terror camp in Iraq. Guess what was there? A fvcking 747 aircraft! That's right, bunge. Truthfully, they were posted on Rush Limbaugh's site. I know that's not exactly mainstream news. I suppose they could be faked....who knows. In any case, if Saddam gives WOMD to Al-Qaeda (and I don't care what you say, that's a real possibility), we could be in serious trouble.

I also need to say this. One can call Bush dumb. He's not, but one can call him that. He certainly doesn't speak in public well...one of his main flaws. I have heard the he is completely different in private and that when the cameras go on, it all just "goes away". His speaking is definitely getting better. BUT, one thing I do not believe is that he has some sinister motive for this. Oil may be a factor, but I really believe that HE believes he is doing this to liberate the Iraqi people and rid the nation of WOMD. I have no doubt that he KNOWS Iraq has these weapons and he KNOWS Saddam is lying about it. I also have no doubt that he truly considers Iraq a threat.

And that's the real issue. The President of United States considers Saddam's Iraq a threat to US national security. If you don't believe that, any and all further arguments are moot, because one assumes you believe that he has some ulterior, super-secret sinister plan up his sleeve. If you do believe him, then are you actually going to disagree? He has access to the best and most recent intelligence available. When he, and his national security team (not to mention Prime Minsister Blair...who has NO political motivation to support Bush) look at this intelligence and come to the conclusion that Iraq represents a threat...you are still going to disagree? Really? Do you have more info than the POTUS does? Or, is your opinion justified by simply dismissing Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Blair and others as hawks who for some unknown reason, love to kill people?

Actually I think it shows that the administration believes that attacking Iraq increases our immediate vulnerability even if in their minds (right or wrong) it increases our long term security and stability.


Yes, because with those, and at the very least an abstain from China, we're able to fight under the U.N. flag.

Because any terrorist would care if you went through the UN? Regardless, his beliefs go beyond that, into the realm of hysterical hatred and a blind belief that the hatred of radical islam is only the fault of the US and it's policy toward's Israel, which he also blindly hates.

Wow.....30 contries behind us and it's "unilateral".

---fumbles for dictionary---

The fact that we are throwing the first punch is what's wrong here.

This point in all it's iterations has been argued back and forth for months on this forum.

Well saber rattling boys and girls we should know soon if the argument you've used ( Saddam has WOMD ) should be settled. If I were Saddam and I had WOMD I'd be using them right about now. I mean what's he got to lose?

Now if he doesn't that leaves a big question. And no, I would find it very hard to swallow if the U.S. troops just happen across them in the aftermath of the war. If he has them he'll use them. If he doesn't that puts the whole premise under question.

You are right. I don't understand you stance. Your stance on Iraq is clear, let Saddam continue fooling the world and building weapons. Your stance on pretty much everything else is a muddled attempt to blame everything on the US.

The US isn't throwing the first punch. In case you missed it, the UN found Iraq to be in violation on the term sof their agreed upon ceasefire. And everyone is not telling you not to...and those that do are have agendas of their own to allow thousands of Iraqi's to continue to die under Saddam's regime.

45 nations back us, it's still unilateral.

Why?
Reason 1: The US bullied all of them to support us (when asked to give an example, there is silence).
Reason 2: The US paid them all off (when asked to give an example, there is the failed attempt to bribe Turkey and then silence).
Reason 3: They only fear they will be "next" if they don't support Bush (when asked to give an example, there is silence).

As you can see, the argument is bulletproof.

The driving motives are not secret. Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, etc. have been publishing papers on it for decades now. In fact, every paper coming out of hawk think-tanks has advocated it. It's also widely reported and, in case you haven't noticed, every print interview with every one of these men for the past 6 months has focused on the need to control Iraq for a) increased global influence and b) transform the middle east for Israel's sake. Go dig up the past couple of months of New Yorkers, New York Times and Atlantics to read these interviews. The whole disarming issue is hardly raised. Why not? Because most informed people realize it's BS. For example, out of 60 faculty here at Northwestern asked to speak at a 'teach-in,' only one, yes one, said she found the admin's arguments compelling enough not to speak. Every single other faculty member wanted to speak out against the policy and the war, and as many as there was time for did. Northwestern is an extremely conservative school, so you can't say they are just a bunch of liberals.

In the scholarly world right now it is a given that Saddam poses no threat. In fact, most scholars point out that it is specifically the weakness of Iraq under Saddam that makes this war possible.

What is also a given is the contents of the study group papers and strategic roadmaps put out by current admin officials for the past few decades. It started in the 70s with what was know as the 'Kissinger Plan' and has grown in strength ever since. Everything that is happening now has been in the works for a long time, and Iraq is just one stage. The basic idea is that control of the middle east will ensure US dominance for the next 50-100 years. The real discussion, therefore, is whether this is a realistic plan, which the vast majority of americans, scholars and even republicans do not think it is. If you want to discuss the actual issues, and not some myopic acceptance of war propaganda, forget about WMD (which anyone with any anount of self-respect and education does--hence the content of the above-cited interviews) and discuss the actual expressed US Strategic Strategy as articulated by the members of the current admin for the past 25 or so years.

If you still ignore the actual policies as articulated time and time again by the Administration for the past 25 years and think that this war is to stop WMD from reaching the hands of terrorists, you are conveniently ignoring pakistan, 9/11's state sponsor and current nuclear power. Some of Pakistan's top officials, including the head of the ISI (who wired $100,000 to Atta), have had to resign, though those were just tokens. Al-Qaeda is part of the ISI. How much more of a connection do you need? Pakistan poses, by many degrees of magnitude, a much greater threat of terrorism (and nuclear at that) than Iraq ever will. Not to mention that Pakistan is the main supplier of nuclear tech to NOKOR. Perhaps the Admin is 'keeping it's friends close and enemies closer,' but the pseudo-hawks in the public apparently have not realized that while all of the accusations thrown at Iraq are shaky at extreme best, they fit pakistan like a glove.

By Tulkas

" fooling the world and building weapons "

Give me an example. And not just tanks and guns. Lots of countries do that. A recent example please.

Yup! Pretty damn hokey if you ask me. It's called a rationale or grasping at straws.

Maybe you should inform yourself about what it means to 'back:'

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...oalition01.htm

Liar. Res 1441 finds Iraq in breach. No grey area about that. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

And you solution for a 'logal' way to depose Saddam? Dealing with differnt countries in different ways is not hypocritical. It is recoqnising the differences between countries. Different situations require different solutions.
An attack against Iraq is against to UN mandate? What mandate would it be against? That would presume some resolution barring attack against Iraq. Actually, the only mandates set out by resoutions on Iraq, specify that the ceasefire is conditional on the UN finding them to be in full compliance. The UN has found them not to be in full compliance, and in fact in full breach. So, what mandate is it against again?

Sort of like he was laughing after 9/11? Right, the US should base it policy decisions on appeasing Osama.

Dear God, giant, you're better than that.
Does anyone else's military involvement matter in the least? Sure the UK is committed and Dog bless 'em, but do you honestly think military support is what we were in the UN for?

Weak. Very very weak.

Weak. Very weak. Ridicule will get you no where groverat.

Anyone who claims that this isn't a unilateral decision by Busy is lying or stupid. Take your pick.

Hmmm. it's a military operation, so...um...yeah. That's kind of the point. Hell, spain is only sending 900! personel in non-combat roles.

But hey. What does reality matter? Go on pretending that their lack of commitment means that these countries are strongly committed to what the Admin is doing. Oh...wait. How does the principle of non-contradiction go again?

First off, I'd bet Bush's brain functions below the 50th percentile. Just a guess and an opinion though.

Second, the photos. I've seen camps like this recently, but it's to train people for the upcoming attack. Sorry, but that's 100% legit even if they're training to kill our troops.

Third, if even you'll admit that the evidence isn't overwhelming, you should know that it's not a solid basis for a war. Many hawks don't seem to understand the full implications of war. Saddam gone as the outcome sounds all nice and pretty, but war isn't all nice and pretty.

Actually, I don't see how that's ridicule. I have to disagree with the way you are handling this. Instead of attacking groverat, simply and calmly explain why the action is still unilateral even though 45 nations support us. If you don't feel his numbers are correct, demand his source. However, simply attacking him and then saying that anyone who claims it is stupid only demonstrates your inability to present an argument. I'm usually with you bunge, but I can't be here.

A terrorist might not, but popular support for terrorism will increase because of the unilateral attack. When the U.N. supports a move, the average 'Joe' is content that justice will be served. When the U.S. makes a unliateral pre-emptive strike the average 'Joe' will realize they have no chance to deal with the U.S. diplomatically.

read my post and the link, BR

It's not against a mandate, that's true. It is clearly against the U.N. Charter though. Hopefully Bush will be held responsible for the breach.

So britian will provide 40,000 troops and Australia will provide 2000 with fighters and warships. How again is this unilateral? Sure, the US is providing the overwhelming majority of the forces, yet, other countries are still supplementing them.

Word up.

giant:


I don't really care how strong their commitment is, but I think the fact that 30 nations will go on record as being with support. You try to make a degree argument out of an existence argument.

45 nations support the action (30 openly). So a lot of them are sheepish, so what? It's not an amazingly popular thing to back right now.

You can't question the existence of the support of those nations by saying they aren't providing military, that's just idiotic.

A few nations are providing military. Yet it's still unilateral.

You guys need that argument so badly you're willing to ignore plain fact. Let it go.

The United States, or Bush, has made a unilateral decision to attack Iraq outside of the U.N. Charter and our own Constitution. The number of countries doesn't matter. That's not how 'unilateral' is defined.

From www.dictionary.com:

# Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.

Bush has, without a doubt, recognized only his side of the subject. If others tack onto his decision, it's still his side of the subject. It's clear that even if Blair had to drop out because he couldn't get 'popular' support, Bush would move forward. Why? Because it's a unilateral decision. He's working only with his side of the subject.

Were he to take into account the reservations of other countries, which he's not, not even those of our strongest ally in this situation, then it would have been a joint decision. It's not. It's clearly not. It really doesn't matter if 200 Polish troops go to Iraq, because they're not involved in the process. It's clear that Bush, and Bush alone is calling the shots. That's unilateral.

"any color you want as long as it's black"

That's the process Bush has gone through. If you want war, then your opinion is OK. If you don't, then it's not considered relevant. That's unilateral no matter how many people you can get on your side.

I don't think most of these average joe islamic radicals care much for the UN, either way. I can't see Osama using UN violations as recruiting material. With or without UN approval, US superpower status is enough for those that would join up, to join up. US superpower status is enough for the to feel that they have no chance to deal with the US diplomatically.