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 do not even begin to understand my stance. We SHOULD by all means fight back.
We should NEVER, EVER throw the first punch, especially if everyone is telling us not to.
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.
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.
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.
Uh... the UN thought this was a grey area and the UN decided that the Iraqi violations did not call for war... yet. The UN has every right to make these sorts of decisions, and the US has no right to refute them.
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);
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Let's depose Saddam legally. And let's stop being hypocritical about how we handle insane leaders who kill their own people. An estimated 1,000,000 people have been dying in North Korea each year. And they have WMD. And their leader has threatened the US with Nuclear war. So let's invade Iraq. Against the mandate. Right.
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?
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Osama (or whoever's in charge at AQ these days) is laughing in his cave right now. Bumbling Bush Blows it Again.
Sort of like he was laughing after 9/11? Right, the US should base it policy decisions on appeasing Osama.
Maybe you should inform yourself about what it means to 'back:'
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?
Does anyone else's military involvement matter in the least?
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?
There has been evidence. It isn't overhwelming as of yet.
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.
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.
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.
Because any terrorist would care if you went through the UN?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Comments
---fumbles for dictionary---
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.
Originally posted by tonton
Jeez... what part of this war is "fighting back"?
You do not even begin to understand my stance. We SHOULD by all means fight back.
We should NEVER, EVER throw the first punch, especially if everyone is telling us not to.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
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.
" 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.
Originally posted by tonton
Geez... latest news. Bush has changed his tune completely and now claims we are invading Iraq specifically because of their link to Al Qaeda.
What? I thought this was about weapons.
Yup! Pretty damn hokey if you ask me. It's called a rationale or grasping at straws.
Originally posted by groverat
45 nations back us
Maybe you should inform yourself about what it means to 'back:'
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...oalition01.htm
Originally posted by tonton
Uh... the UN thought this was a grey area and the UN decided that the Iraqi violations did not call for war... yet. The UN has every right to make these sorts of decisions, and the US has no right to refute them.
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);
Originally posted by tonton
Let's depose Saddam legally. And let's stop being hypocritical about how we handle insane leaders who kill their own people. An estimated 1,000,000 people have been dying in North Korea each year. And they have WMD. And their leader has threatened the US with Nuclear war. So let's invade Iraq. Against the mandate. Right.
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?
Originally posted by tonton
Osama (or whoever's in charge at AQ these days) is laughing in his cave right now. Bumbling Bush Blows it Again.
Sort of like he was laughing after 9/11? Right, the US should base it policy decisions on appeasing Osama.
Maybe you should inform yourself about what it means to 'back:'
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.
Originally posted by groverat
45 nations back us, it's still unilateral.
Why?
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.
Originally posted by groverat
Dear God, giant, you're better than that.
Does anyone else's military involvement matter in the least?
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?
Originally posted by SDW2001
There has been evidence. It isn't overhwelming as of yet.
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.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
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.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Because any terrorist would care if you went through the UN?
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.
Originally posted by BR
Instead of attacking groverat, simply and calmly explain why the action is still unilateral even though 45 nations support us.
read my post and the link, BR
Originally posted by Tulkas
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?
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.
Originally posted by giant
read my post and the link, BR
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.
Originally posted by BR
I'm usually with you bunge, but I can't be here.
Word up.
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?
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.