Remember: The alternative is the death of thousands (My guess +50000). Last war was fought in the desert. Unless Saddam accept to fight for his life where he will be most vounarible this time it will take place in Baghdad. Not good starting point if you want to keep the numbers down.
<strong>Nope, the military is bound by the oath they take to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Says nothing about obeying the President, except that the POTUS is the commander-in-chief of US forces,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who does the Constitution say is the ultimate leader of the armed forces. If they are to uphold the Constitution of the US who do they have to obey orders from. That is what I thought.
[quote]<strong> says even less about scripture. The phrase 'under God' was not added to the Pledge until 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, who thought that the country needed something to distinguish it from the godless communist hordes--as if freedom of speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights weren't enough.
The US is still a secular republic and no one is bound to obey scripture, except perhaps the fundamentalist f*ckwits who think that Jeebus shines down on our glorious land above all others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, go back an reread the thread again. When you find the appropriate posts that relate to the actual point I am making feel embarrased and then come back and post again. This has nothing to do with what you seem to think and I am too tired of this bull to correct you right now. If you cannot find it, let me know and I will post it here so you can get on topic instead of spewing your bigoted remarks.
Remember: The alternative is the death of thousands (My guess +50000). Last war was fought in the desert. Unless Saddam accept to fight for his life where he will be most vounarible this time it will take place in Baghdad. Not good starting point if you want to keep the numbers down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Russia, Germany and France, in close coordination, reaffirm that disarming Iraq, in accordance with the relevant resolutions since U.N. Resolution 687, is the common objective of the international community and must be achieved as soon as possible.
"There is a debate on how this should be done. This debate must continue in the spirit of friendship and respect that characterises our relations with the United States and other countries. Any solution must be inspired by the principles of the United Nations charter as were recently quoted by the secretary general Kofi Annan.
"U.N. Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, provides a framework of which the potential has not yet been fully exploited.
"The inspections led by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have already produced results. Russia, Germany and France favour the continuation of the inspections and a substantial reinforcement of their human and technical capacities through all possible means and in liaison with the inspectors, in the framework of the U.N. resolution 1441.
"There is still an alternative to war. The use of force can only be considered as a last resort. Russia, Germany and France are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to disarm Iraq peacefully.
"For the inspections to be completed, it is up to Iraq to actively cooperate with the IAEA and the UNMOVIC. Iraq must fully accept its responsibilities.
"Russia, Germany and France note that the position they are expressing is similar to that of a large number of countries within the Security Council."
Tell me, where is the answer in here? I see:
Lets inspect some more.
Iraq, you had better let us inspect.
More inspectors.
The inspections are working, lets keep at it.
More inspectors please.
Except that the inspections are showing us what we thought they would. Iraq does have banned weapons. Not only that but they are hiding them from us and are not declaring them. If we find one or two banned weapons how many more are we missing? It is like cockraoches, for every one you see there are 300 in your cabinets scurrying away from light sources. We have done the inspections route twice now and the results are basically the same. These last ones have been more fruitful however. Any guesses on why that is? Here's a hint, the threat of war is imminant and Saddam is trying every trick he can to divert the war and still keep his weapons and programs.
2) At sites that have been used for ABC weapons at one point in time UN guards are to be placed.
3) Soldiers under UN are to protect the inspectors.
4) Extensive air surveillance are to be put into use.
5) States having information like that Powell showed at UN are to be handed over to UN inspectors so they can take action against it.
So yes much more than is being done now can be done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) I see no benefit here. More likelihood that plans will be leaked to Iraq through wiretaps and other sources of espionage.
2) Yeah, UN guards are so effective. Ok, lets say they do this. How many sites are there? How many guards? What prior service should they have? Any particular nation they should come from? why not post US Soldiers, are we not part of the UN?
3) Once again, same thing. How many soldiers per inspector? How many inspectors? and so on...
4) This is already happening. The question is, is it already too late? Iraq denied this for a long time, now suddenly it is ok? And you are not at all suspicious?
5) Do you seriously believe this is not already happening? Also see #1...
Actually its not if I think it will be effective but if there is a remote chance that it will. Until we have tried this we have no moral ground in starting a war.
You talk about costs. How much is the life of +10000 (VERY conservative) iraqis worth?
You try to blur the lines between an invasion force and soldiers protecting UN inspectors. I hope you can see the difference.
And you say that the info collected by US was shared with UN inspectors. That isn´t true. SOme of the pictures was taken in November and wasn´t shared until after the presentation.
Yes we all hate Saddam and if one bullet could do the trick I would favor it. But right now the fate of +10000 innoncent iraqis are in our hands. The actions of us desides if they live at the next Macworld or not.
They have found banned chemical weapons warheads in the last month. Now they have found banned missile systems. At what point does this stop? Why more inspections...so they can KEEP finding weapons? They have already found DOZENS of weapons that are banned!
The anti-war argument just gets weaker every day. I'll say it again, the UN has found weapons! I'm sorry, but there is just no reasonable argument against war at this point. There will be another UN resolution, and we'll go to war. Please tell me what other option there is. I would be glad to hear it.
<strong>Actually its not if I think it will be effective but if there is a remote chance that it will. Until we have tried this we have no moral ground in starting a war.
You talk about costs. How much is the life of +10000 (VERY conservative) iraqis worth?<hr></blockquote></strong>
I never spoke of costs. I am asking you for numbers of persons and who will provide them.
[quote]<strong>You try to blur the lines between an invasion force and soldiers protecting UN inspectors. I hope you can see the difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you believe that US soldiers would fire on and kill people if they were not first fired upon by those people? US soldiers could be peacekeepers as well. We have done so before.
[quote]<strong>And you say that the info collected by US was shared with UN inspectors. That isn´t true. SOme of the pictures was taken in November and wasn´t shared until after the presentation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some is not all. I did not say all of it was shared. However they have been giving them information all along. The interesting part is that less than a day after getting the information we find Iraq moving stuff out of or around those very sites. Why?
[quote]<strong>Yes we all hate Saddam and if one bullet could do the trick I would favor it. But right now the fate of +10000 innoncent iraqis are in our hands. The actions of us desides if they live at the next Macworld or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very emotional statement and the numbers you give are at best only a guess. How many Iraqis have been killed already by Saddam himself? How many will be killed as the years go by because of his poilicies? Nobody knows either way do they? They war does not have to happen if he would only follow the UN resolutions put to him for the last 12 years. Think it over, it should start to sink in.
Comments
But I have two links if you want it.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/10/sprj.irq.france.text.reut/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/10/sprj.irq.france.text.reut/index.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.html</a>;
Remember: The alternative is the death of thousands (My guess +50000). Last war was fought in the desert. Unless Saddam accept to fight for his life where he will be most vounarible this time it will take place in Baghdad. Not good starting point if you want to keep the numbers down.
<strong>Nope, the military is bound by the oath they take to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Says nothing about obeying the President, except that the POTUS is the commander-in-chief of US forces,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who does the Constitution say is the ultimate leader of the armed forces. If they are to uphold the Constitution of the US who do they have to obey orders from. That is what I thought.
[quote]<strong> says even less about scripture. The phrase 'under God' was not added to the Pledge until 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, who thought that the country needed something to distinguish it from the godless communist hordes--as if freedom of speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights weren't enough.
The US is still a secular republic and no one is bound to obey scripture, except perhaps the fundamentalist f*ckwits who think that Jeebus shines down on our glorious land above all others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, go back an reread the thread again. When you find the appropriate posts that relate to the actual point I am making feel embarrased and then come back and post again. This has nothing to do with what you seem to think and I am too tired of this bull to correct you right now. If you cannot find it, let me know and I will post it here so you can get on topic instead of spewing your bigoted remarks.
<strong>Psst NoahJ. I sort of answered your question above.
But I have two links if you want it.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/10/sprj.irq.france.text.reut/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/10/sprj.irq.france.text.reut/index.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.html</a>;
Remember: The alternative is the death of thousands (My guess +50000). Last war was fought in the desert. Unless Saddam accept to fight for his life where he will be most vounarible this time it will take place in Baghdad. Not good starting point if you want to keep the numbers down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Russia, Germany and France, in close coordination, reaffirm that disarming Iraq, in accordance with the relevant resolutions since U.N. Resolution 687, is the common objective of the international community and must be achieved as soon as possible.
"There is a debate on how this should be done. This debate must continue in the spirit of friendship and respect that characterises our relations with the United States and other countries. Any solution must be inspired by the principles of the United Nations charter as were recently quoted by the secretary general Kofi Annan.
"U.N. Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, provides a framework of which the potential has not yet been fully exploited.
"The inspections led by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have already produced results. Russia, Germany and France favour the continuation of the inspections and a substantial reinforcement of their human and technical capacities through all possible means and in liaison with the inspectors, in the framework of the U.N. resolution 1441.
"There is still an alternative to war. The use of force can only be considered as a last resort. Russia, Germany and France are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to disarm Iraq peacefully.
"For the inspections to be completed, it is up to Iraq to actively cooperate with the IAEA and the UNMOVIC. Iraq must fully accept its responsibilities.
"Russia, Germany and France note that the position they are expressing is similar to that of a large number of countries within the Security Council."
Tell me, where is the answer in here? I see:
Lets inspect some more.
Iraq, you had better let us inspect.
More inspectors.
The inspections are working, lets keep at it.
More inspectors please.
Except that the inspections are showing us what we thought they would. Iraq does have banned weapons. Not only that but they are hiding them from us and are not declaring them. If we find one or two banned weapons how many more are we missing? It is like cockraoches, for every one you see there are 300 in your cabinets scurrying away from light sources. We have done the inspections route twice now and the results are basically the same. These last ones have been more fruitful however. Any guesses on why that is? Here's a hint, the threat of war is imminant and Saddam is trying every trick he can to divert the war and still keep his weapons and programs.
<strong>They made a choice by joining or being drafted into the Iraqi Army that they wanted to die. </strong><hr></blockquote>
v. draft·ed, draft·ing, drafts
v. tr.
To select from a group for some usually compulsory service: drafted into the army.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: kneelbeforezod ]</p>
2) At sites that have been used for ABC weapons at one point in time UN guards are to be placed.
3) Soldiers under UN are to protect the inspectors.
4) Extensive air surveillance are to be put into use.
5) States having information like that Powell showed at UN are to be handed over to UN inspectors so they can take action against it.
So yes much more than is being done now can be done.
<strong>1) More inspectors. A lot more.
2) At sites that have been used for ABC weapons at one point in time UN guards are to be placed.
3) Soldiers under UN are to protect the inspectors.
4) Extensive air surveillance are to be put into use.
5) States having information like that Powell showed at UN are to be handed over to UN inspectors so they can take action against it.
So yes much more than is being done now can be done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) I see no benefit here. More likelihood that plans will be leaked to Iraq through wiretaps and other sources of espionage.
2) Yeah, UN guards are so effective. Ok, lets say they do this. How many sites are there? How many guards? What prior service should they have? Any particular nation they should come from? why not post US Soldiers, are we not part of the UN?
3) Once again, same thing. How many soldiers per inspector? How many inspectors? and so on...
4) This is already happening. The question is, is it already too late? Iraq denied this for a long time, now suddenly it is ok? And you are not at all suspicious?
5) Do you seriously believe this is not already happening? Also see #1...
You talk about costs. How much is the life of +10000 (VERY conservative) iraqis worth?
You try to blur the lines between an invasion force and soldiers protecting UN inspectors. I hope you can see the difference.
And you say that the info collected by US was shared with UN inspectors. That isn´t true. SOme of the pictures was taken in November and wasn´t shared until after the presentation.
Yes we all hate Saddam and if one bullet could do the trick I would favor it. But right now the fate of +10000 innoncent iraqis are in our hands. The actions of us desides if they live at the next Macworld or not.
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78461,00.html"; target="_blank">Inspectors find banned weapons....today.</a>
They have found banned chemical weapons warheads in the last month. Now they have found banned missile systems. At what point does this stop? Why more inspections...so they can KEEP finding weapons? They have already found DOZENS of weapons that are banned!
The anti-war argument just gets weaker every day. I'll say it again, the UN has found weapons! I'm sorry, but there is just no reasonable argument against war at this point. There will be another UN resolution, and we'll go to war. Please tell me what other option there is. I would be glad to hear it.
I have to take issue with the estmates of civilian casualties. 50,000? Please.
<strong>Actually its not if I think it will be effective but if there is a remote chance that it will. Until we have tried this we have no moral ground in starting a war.
You talk about costs. How much is the life of +10000 (VERY conservative) iraqis worth?<hr></blockquote></strong>
I never spoke of costs. I am asking you for numbers of persons and who will provide them.
[quote]<strong>You try to blur the lines between an invasion force and soldiers protecting UN inspectors. I hope you can see the difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you believe that US soldiers would fire on and kill people if they were not first fired upon by those people? US soldiers could be peacekeepers as well. We have done so before.
[quote]<strong>And you say that the info collected by US was shared with UN inspectors. That isn´t true. SOme of the pictures was taken in November and wasn´t shared until after the presentation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some is not all. I did not say all of it was shared. However they have been giving them information all along. The interesting part is that less than a day after getting the information we find Iraq moving stuff out of or around those very sites. Why?
[quote]<strong>Yes we all hate Saddam and if one bullet could do the trick I would favor it. But right now the fate of +10000 innoncent iraqis are in our hands. The actions of us desides if they live at the next Macworld or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very emotional statement and the numbers you give are at best only a guess. How many Iraqis have been killed already by Saddam himself? How many will be killed as the years go by because of his poilicies? Nobody knows either way do they? They war does not have to happen if he would only follow the UN resolutions put to him for the last 12 years. Think it over, it should start to sink in.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>