So now they DO have documentation...hmmm.
Iraq turned over more "documents" on VX, Anthrax, etc. today. I thought they didn't have any more information? Oh, jeez, I guess I was wrong. I guess now they're cooperating. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Resolution 1441 basically states that any
omission in the declaration they gave in December would result in serious consequences. Haven't they just admitted to an omission?
What a joke.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Resolution 1441 basically states that any
omission in the declaration they gave in December would result in serious consequences. Haven't they just admitted to an omission?
What a joke.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Comments
If they want to avoid war what do you want them to do?
<strong>Lets set up a meeting between Blix and Saddam and then we can bomb the **** out of where ever they are at. Killing Blix and other innocent people would of course be an unfortunate side effect but many fewer people would die than in a war or if Saddam's reign were to continue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but that would mean that you'd probably at least injure all of the UN inspectors' seeing-eye dogs. That's unfair to the animals.
<strong>Iraq turned over more "documnents" on VX, Anthrax, etc. today. I thought they didn't have any more information? Oh, jeez, I guess I was wrong. I guess now they're cooperating. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Resolution 1441 basically states that any
omission in the declaration they gave in December would result in serious consequences. Haven't they just admitted to an omission?
What a joke.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just curious SDW...is war the only option for you? Are you upset that we scared them into at least starting to cooperate? I'm still not quite sure if we should go to war or not so I'm not saying this as a liberal leftist scumbag antichrist or whatever you like to call people that disagree with you. Why the war mongering?
Can you give me a realistic best-case scenario?
I'm just not seeing how war is avoidable. I'd be very interested to hear a realistic best-case scenario.
<strong>BR:
Can you give me a realistic best-case scenario?
I'm just not seeing how war is avoidable. I'd be very interested to hear a realistic best-case scenario.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Best case scenario is a targeted assassination that is approved in a closed door security council meeting and obviously not leaked until it is done. We can't set the precedent of assassinating people whenever we feel like it. I don't see the situation improving unless we do some serious nation building so I understand that troops will eventually have to move in. However, I'd like to see exactly how much cooperation we can get with five aircraft carriers sitting next to him first.
<strong>Best case scenario is a targeted assassination that is approved in a closed door security council meeting and obviously not leaked until it is done. We can't set the precedent of assassinating people whenever we feel like it. I don't see the situation improving unless we do some serious nation building so I understand that troops will eventually have to move in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you admit that war is the only way this problem can be resolved?
[quote]<strong>However, I'd like to see exactly how much cooperation we can get with five aircraft carriers sitting next to him first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why?
Furthermore you propose that we involve 15 governments but at the same time mention the possibility that it will be kept a secret?
Beyond that, don't you think that we (via proxy) have been trying to assassinate him for a while now? Not quite as easy as we would like.
<strong>So you admit that war is the only way this problem can be resolved?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Long term...however, a targeted assassination and a serious effort to build up Iraq like we did for Germany and Japan could possibly avoid war altogether.
I don't believe that Saddam is the immediate threat that bush wants everyone to think he is. I don't like the fact that Rumsfeld is talking about how we are capable of sustaining a two front war.
[quote]<strong>Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There seem to be more immediate threats elsewhere...who actually admit to having nukes.
<strong>You're going to have the security council approve an assassination? They're more likely to approve war than an assassination.
Furthermore you propose that we involve 15 governments but at the same time mention the possibility that it will be kept a secret?
Beyond that, don't you think that we (via proxy) have been trying to assassinate him for a while now? Not quite as easy as we would like.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He asked for a best case scenario. He didn't ask for the easiest scenario to pull off.
I almost doubt we have. I mean, if a sniper kills Saddam today, by all accounts Uday would step right into his shoes and be an even more violent pyscho megalomaniac. We won't want to kill Saddam until we're ready to march right in and restore order under our own terms.
BR: assassination of a politcal leader is about the clearest act of war there is. Maybe the war will be shorter and cleaner if we kill Saddam first, but it will still most surely be a war.
<strong>BR: assassination of a politcal leader is about the clearest act of war there is. Maybe the war will be shorter and cleaner if we kill Saddam first, but it will still most surely be a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Short and clean is something to strive for.
<strong>BR:
Can you give me a realistic best-case scenario?
I'm just not seeing how war is avoidable. I'd be very interested to hear a realistic best-case scenario.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you, exactly. War is now the only option. We know he has the goods. We know he seeks more. We know he is a tyrant. We know he's lying and deceiving and has done so for 12 years. These are undisputed facts.
I am not excited for war. People will die, and that's a sad thing. When the rhetoric really started last summer, I was on the fence. I had the feeling that, well yes, I would support the administration if it felt we needed to do this, but I wasn't totally comfortable with it. I thought the inspections were a good idea...though I have to say I knew they would fail due to Iraq's game playing.
I am now totally with the administration on this issue. The reasoning is clear: We know he has WOMD. We know he is hiding them from inspectors. To let the inspectors have more time is just ridiculous at this point. For what purpose? Why? As the President said, the inspectors (despite popular public opinion) are not there to conduct a scavenger hunt. They are there to verify disarmament.
Iraq is supposed to provide accurate documentation of their efforts to destroy what weapons they still have. They are to lead inspectors to where the weapons are, not state "we don't have anything whatsoever" and wait for inspectors to run around playing "Go Fish"for 6 months. In South Africa, the country actively disarmed. The whole world knows Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction and is seeking more. This in itself shows a lack of cooperation. It is the very opposite of disarmament!
How many more "last chances" are there? What other options are there? I have considered every option, as you have too (I'm sure), BR. These, IMO, are:
--Diplomatic pressure to actively disarm. This has failed for 12 years.
--Sanctions. These have failed.
--Limited military strikes. These have failed
--Weapons inspections. Failed. In fact, they have found undeclared WOMD (122mm chemical warheads).
--Containment. Historically, not a good idea. Wouldn't you agree?
Even if Iraq appears to be cooperating "a little more" now, they have destroyed their credibility over the past years. This is nothing more than a game. I have to give Saddam credit: He's pretty good at fooling the world. Given all that we know, taking all historical context into consideration, are we to conclude that this latest gesture is legitmate?
Only a fool would say it is.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
So your idea is to kill Saddam and then "build up" Iraq. How would that work?
His regime would still stand. His generals and such are still around. His crazy-ass sons are ready to step into his place.
If Saddam were to drop dead of a heart attack we couldn't just waltz in to Iraq to "build up".
[quote]<strong>I don't believe that Saddam is the immediate threat that bush wants everyone to think he is. I don't like the fact that Rumsfeld is talking about how we are capable of sustaining a two front war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are capable of it. Very capable of it. A war in Iraq will be very very very quick. Shorter than the '91 war, which was very very quick.
It's not about Iraq being an immediate threat. I don't think I've ever heard the administration say Iraq was an "immediate threat" to any of the West.
[quote]<strong>There seem to be more immediate threats elsewhere...who actually admit to having nukes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's too late to intervene in North Korea like we are in Iraq. We can stop Iraq from getting to that point.
And I still don't understand how "look over there! " is a reasonable argument.
[quote]<strong>He asked for a best case scenario. He didn't ask for the easiest scenario to pull off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did say "realistic".
war within a breath
this land of death
There is two scenario possible :
a) make a war and destitue Saddam, and do his trial if you catch him alive
b) do not make a war, and wait until the system collapse by itself (it did not work for the last eleven years, but it can occur anyway)
Some muslims countries have suggested to give a golden exile to Saddam if he live Iraq, but it does not seem very realistic.