hmm, i'm not buying it. he kicked out inspectors once before and nothing happened. if our military were sitting on his borders the entire time something might happen, but even now he was playing games the whole time.
we can't sustain that level of force in a foreign nation for every single country that might break the rules. that's why you say "obey the rules or we go to war".
if you can't get folks to follow the rules that are set out w/o a constant threat of violence, the rules are worthless.
Well, as I've said before wasn't the premise of this war Saddams WOMD?
Well, where are they?
Wasn't that the reason behind the need to attack now?
Wasn't that the reason we should be over there spending ( lots of ) money in a time of economic crisis? Oh I forgot the conservatives want to pretend it doesn't exist.
If they don't find anything substancial ( not an empty factory ) I hope people will continue to raise these questions.
he kicked out inspectors once before and nothing happened.
Are you sure nothing happened? The U.S. moved 300,000 troops into his neighborhood and lots happened to make the lives of the inspectors much easier.
Would war have happened anyway? Probably. Would it have cost the U.S. a lot less in support, dollars, and who knows what else? Yes.
As it stands, we've got to accept the brunt of all the negatives and we still haven't found a WOMD Factory in Iraq and still no one is admitting that the story actually was much ado about nothing.
I hate to say it, but that's because you guys are blinded by dogma. You don't have the ability to figure something like this out. Maybe it's ignorance, or lack of intelligence, I don't know. But it's not that difficult.
Work it out on paper and see what results you come up with. Then, where the process breaks down, think of a way to avoid it the first time around, impliment it in your paper plan, and rerun it. Keep working on it until you see where it ends up.
You're like children. Do you think you just say to Saddam "Saddam, have free elections" and then he says "No" so you give up? No offense, but you can't be that simple minded, can you?
Exactly how do you force an oppresive dictatorial regime to hold elections? Honest question, I have no idea what you are envisioning here. If we can't get Saddam to do anything else the UN requested of him, how does the UN get him to volunteer to give up power through an election?
If we can't get Saddam to do anything else the UN requested of him...
See, this statement is just wrong. Bush threatens war, moves a quarter of a million troops into the region and Saddam starts to do what the U.N. says. The pro-war crowd ignores it because it's easier to say "inspections failed" than to say "inspections had worked very slowly, but then were cut off, and and are now starting to work and work effectively" because if you go to such a length to say that you are cutting off your justification for war.
The point is the U.N. had gained the upper hand on Iraq thanks to the credible threat. That was enough. From that point we could have pressured for a great number of things because the alternative was (obviously) war. Saddam would have done anything to avoid a war because he knew that would be his death.
So, as far as elections are concerned, that might have been the straw that broke Saddam's camel's back. Pushing for that might have pushed him enough to strike first on the neighboring troops, or perhaps the U.N. would have moved in to monitor elections like they've done countless times.
See, this statement is just wrong. Bush threatens war, moves a quarter of a million troops into the region and Saddam starts to do what the U.N. says. The pro-war crowd ignores it because it's easier to say "inspections failed" than to say "inspections had worked very slowly, but then were cut off, and and are now starting to work and work effectively" because if you go to such a length to say that you are cutting off your justification for war.
No, you can say inspectors, on their searches, slowly found a few weapons after they returned, and destroyed them. Iraqis provided limited cooperation. At this point, the inspections can be called a failure, since the inspectors were not supposed to be playing hide and go seek. Visits were meant to verify the dstruction of the weapons, not to find new ones. People say they ere working because they found a few weapons. They were only working, not if they found them, but if Iraq produced them and desctroyed them. They didn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The point is the U.N. had gained the upper hand on Iraq thanks to the credible threat. That was enough. From that point we could have pressured for a great number of things because the alternative was (obviously) war. Saddam would have done anything to avoid a war because he knew that would be his death.
A threat is only credible is there is a believe that it will be used. The UN had managed to nullify that from it's end. So, why would Saddam listen to the UN again? Perhaps he'd listen to the US, but anything from the UN would pretty much be ignored, unless the US agreed to mouth everything the UN said.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
So, as far as elections are concerned, that might have been the straw that broke Saddam's camel's back. Pushing for that might have pushed him enough to strike first on the neighboring troops, or perhaps the U.N. would have moved in to monitor elections like they've done countless times.
I honestly still don't see how the UN could have forced elections. Saddam simply says no, this is a sovereign state, we will have our own form of govenment. Does the UN even have the right to force elections?
A threat is only credible is there is a believe that it will be used.
I honestly still don't see how the UN could have forced elections. Saddam simply says no, this is a sovereign state, we will have our own form of govenment. Does the UN even have the right to force elections?
A threat is only a threat when it's not used. After that, it's not a threat.
Elections were one idea off the top of my head. The point is the Security Council, backed by a credible threat, had pushed Saddam to the point where he was agreeing to all of the Inspector's stipulations. Why then go in and attack? It doesn't make sense. Could the U.N. force elections? They could force anything they wanted with 300,000 troops ready to invade.
As for the hide & seek comments, I've heard it before. As much as the point of the resolutions wasn't to play hide & seek, it also wasn't to trigger a war.
How do you handle how the people of Iraqi vote? Do you think they would suddenly lose fear of retribution and vote "democratically"? How do you enforce this new elected official not getting assassinated at every possible corner turned (with the regime still in place)? What if they just do what they always do and vote "Saddam"? Oops, plan foiled! Gee, that was tough! Does the UN simply conclude that that must be what the Iraqi people "want", so the UN's job is officially done, moves on, and pats them self on the back for keeping peace in the world?
There's about a thousand ways this idea can be rendered pointless.
hostory lesson: Blacks in the US voted against white racist running for office in spite of the fear of reprisals from terrorist groups such as the KKK and various Citizen Councils.
The UN could have eventually forced Saddam to throw actual multi party elections. It has been done in many other places in the world. A UN military effort that was clearly a UN military effort could have accomplished this AND had the side effect of wider local popular support. In fact this military force could have been manned by largely muslim soldiers.
But this was never about options. this has been about securing "national interests." it's about large oil contracts with certain companies. It has been about keeping Oil priced by the Dollar and not the Euro so that the US economy doesn't go to shyt. After all when 16% of the worlds population consumes over 50% of Oil and lives in a country with a trillion dollar deficit and high personal consumer debt, that lives off of floating bonds to other countries in order to stay solvent, a little war to protect your economy doesn't look so bad.
What, the idea that the U.N. had finally gotten to the point that Iraq was having to comply with the inspectors requests?
...and that's another thing. I hope more people are seeing your attempts at revisionist history here. Now that the war has begun and the previous "inspections" and "compliances" are become all but a wavery memory, it seems you have endeavored to grind it into our heads that these inspections were working wonderfully and Saddam's compliances were coming like the running water, but the evil US put a stop to that by insisting on the edict of war... Keep slipping that into your posts, and eventually it will be historic fact for anyone who reads it, right? Tulkas has it right- they weren't "working" and "Saddam's compliance" was in tiny, calculated steps to produce a media coverage but very, VERY little in the way of functional progress. I hope people don't forget that reality everytime they read your posts with clever little slips of "new history".
Furthermore, this whole terminology thing by the UN seems fishier by the moment, IMO. What more misrepresentative term can there be than "inspector/inspections". "Inspections" implies a search (thus the source of many people's misconceptions of what their function was in this whole mess). The real function was supposed to be and should have been named "Oversight and Verification". "Oversight" as in oversee the destruction of illegal weapons and materials. "Verification" as in verifying the documentation of previously disposed weapons and materials. All of that is predicated on unabashed compliance. W/o that, "Oversight and Verification" cannot exist to any effective degree. So what you get (in an effort to at least look busy since compliance wasn't in any great supply) was "Wild Goose Chase", but I'm sure they would never use that terminology.
hostory lesson: Blacks in the US voted against white racist running for office in spite of the fear of reprisals from terrorist groups such as the KKK and various Citizen Councils.
history lesson: The US was not a military dictatorship.
*sigh* why do i bother. anyone who thinks that blacks voting in the U.S. is at all similar to Iraqi's voting in Iraq isn't worth talking to.
as for elections, Saddam did hold "free" elections. he got 99.99% of the vote, and that was with U.S. troops on their way down and right outside his boarders, and UN inspectors in the country.
as for elections, Saddam did hold "free" elections. he got 99.99% of the vote, and that was with U.S. troops on their way down and right outside his boarders, and UN inspectors in the country.
Your use of the quotation marks is proof that you're being disingenuous.
No amount of sidestepping can dispell the fact that the inspections were progressing positively. Just as the disappearance of all the conservative hawks from this thread doesn't disprove the fact that the 'chemical plant' was in fact 'much ado about nothing'.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Whatever you say, sparky.
quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
We can always count on [zaphod_beeblebrox] to elevate the debate.
Umm, let's see. I specifically chose to not debate you and even that's a problem for you.
we can't sustain that level of force in a foreign nation for every single country that might break the rules. that's why you say "obey the rules or we go to war".
if you can't get folks to follow the rules that are set out w/o a constant threat of violence, the rules are worthless.
Well, where are they?
Wasn't that the reason behind the need to attack now?
Wasn't that the reason we should be over there spending ( lots of ) money in a time of economic crisis? Oh I forgot the conservatives want to pretend it doesn't exist.
If they don't find anything substancial ( not an empty factory ) I hope people will continue to raise these questions.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Umm, let's see. I specifically chose to not debate you and even that's a problem for you.
Sure, gotta get that last jab it though....
If you don't want to debate an issue, why were you and are you responding?
Personally I just thought it was funny that you ridiculed me for making an offhanded comment, and then went ahead and did it yourself.
Originally posted by alcimedes
he kicked out inspectors once before and nothing happened.
Are you sure nothing happened? The U.S. moved 300,000 troops into his neighborhood and lots happened to make the lives of the inspectors much easier.
Would war have happened anyway? Probably. Would it have cost the U.S. a lot less in support, dollars, and who knows what else? Yes.
As it stands, we've got to accept the brunt of all the negatives and we still haven't found a WOMD Factory in Iraq and still no one is admitting that the story actually was much ado about nothing.
Originally posted by bunge
Personally I just thought it was funny that you ridiculed me for making an offhanded comment, and then went ahead and did it yourself.
Your "offhanded comment" was to call conservatives stupid. Yeah, I'll ridicule you for that.
Originally posted by bunge
I hate to say it, but that's because you guys are blinded by dogma. You don't have the ability to figure something like this out. Maybe it's ignorance, or lack of intelligence, I don't know. But it's not that difficult.
Work it out on paper and see what results you come up with. Then, where the process breaks down, think of a way to avoid it the first time around, impliment it in your paper plan, and rerun it. Keep working on it until you see where it ends up.
You're like children. Do you think you just say to Saddam "Saddam, have free elections" and then he says "No" so you give up? No offense, but you can't be that simple minded, can you?
Exactly how do you force an oppresive dictatorial regime to hold elections? Honest question, I have no idea what you are envisioning here. If we can't get Saddam to do anything else the UN requested of him, how does the UN get him to volunteer to give up power through an election?
Originally posted by Tulkas
If we can't get Saddam to do anything else the UN requested of him...
See, this statement is just wrong. Bush threatens war, moves a quarter of a million troops into the region and Saddam starts to do what the U.N. says. The pro-war crowd ignores it because it's easier to say "inspections failed" than to say "inspections had worked very slowly, but then were cut off, and and are now starting to work and work effectively" because if you go to such a length to say that you are cutting off your justification for war.
The point is the U.N. had gained the upper hand on Iraq thanks to the credible threat. That was enough. From that point we could have pressured for a great number of things because the alternative was (obviously) war. Saddam would have done anything to avoid a war because he knew that would be his death.
So, as far as elections are concerned, that might have been the straw that broke Saddam's camel's back. Pushing for that might have pushed him enough to strike first on the neighboring troops, or perhaps the U.N. would have moved in to monitor elections like they've done countless times.
Originally posted by bunge
See, this statement is just wrong. Bush threatens war, moves a quarter of a million troops into the region and Saddam starts to do what the U.N. says. The pro-war crowd ignores it because it's easier to say "inspections failed" than to say "inspections had worked very slowly, but then were cut off, and and are now starting to work and work effectively" because if you go to such a length to say that you are cutting off your justification for war.
No, you can say inspectors, on their searches, slowly found a few weapons after they returned, and destroyed them. Iraqis provided limited cooperation. At this point, the inspections can be called a failure, since the inspectors were not supposed to be playing hide and go seek. Visits were meant to verify the dstruction of the weapons, not to find new ones. People say they ere working because they found a few weapons. They were only working, not if they found them, but if Iraq produced them and desctroyed them. They didn't.
Originally posted by bunge
The point is the U.N. had gained the upper hand on Iraq thanks to the credible threat. That was enough. From that point we could have pressured for a great number of things because the alternative was (obviously) war. Saddam would have done anything to avoid a war because he knew that would be his death.
A threat is only credible is there is a believe that it will be used. The UN had managed to nullify that from it's end. So, why would Saddam listen to the UN again? Perhaps he'd listen to the US, but anything from the UN would pretty much be ignored, unless the US agreed to mouth everything the UN said.
Originally posted by bunge
So, as far as elections are concerned, that might have been the straw that broke Saddam's camel's back. Pushing for that might have pushed him enough to strike first on the neighboring troops, or perhaps the U.N. would have moved in to monitor elections like they've done countless times.
I honestly still don't see how the UN could have forced elections. Saddam simply says no, this is a sovereign state, we will have our own form of govenment. Does the UN even have the right to force elections?
anyways....
more WOMD have been dropped on Saddam than he ever thought of having in his wettest of wet dreams.
Well?
Originally posted by Tulkas
A threat is only credible is there is a believe that it will be used.
I honestly still don't see how the UN could have forced elections. Saddam simply says no, this is a sovereign state, we will have our own form of govenment. Does the UN even have the right to force elections?
A threat is only a threat when it's not used. After that, it's not a threat.
Elections were one idea off the top of my head. The point is the Security Council, backed by a credible threat, had pushed Saddam to the point where he was agreeing to all of the Inspector's stipulations. Why then go in and attack? It doesn't make sense. Could the U.N. force elections? They could force anything they wanted with 300,000 troops ready to invade.
As for the hide & seek comments, I've heard it before. As much as the point of the resolutions wasn't to play hide & seek, it also wasn't to trigger a war.
There's about a thousand ways this idea can be rendered pointless.
Originally posted by Randycat99
There's about a thousand ways this idea can be rendered pointless.
What, the idea that the U.N. had finally gotten to the point that Iraq was having to comply with the inspectors requests?
The UN could have eventually forced Saddam to throw actual multi party elections. It has been done in many other places in the world. A UN military effort that was clearly a UN military effort could have accomplished this AND had the side effect of wider local popular support. In fact this military force could have been manned by largely muslim soldiers.
But this was never about options. this has been about securing "national interests." it's about large oil contracts with certain companies. It has been about keeping Oil priced by the Dollar and not the Euro so that the US economy doesn't go to shyt. After all when 16% of the worlds population consumes over 50% of Oil and lives in a country with a trillion dollar deficit and high personal consumer debt, that lives off of floating bonds to other countries in order to stay solvent, a little war to protect your economy doesn't look so bad.
Originally posted by bunge
What, the idea that the U.N. had finally gotten to the point that Iraq was having to comply with the inspectors requests?
...and that's another thing. I hope more people are seeing your attempts at revisionist history here. Now that the war has begun and the previous "inspections" and "compliances" are become all but a wavery memory, it seems you have endeavored to grind it into our heads that these inspections were working wonderfully and Saddam's compliances were coming like the running water, but the evil US put a stop to that by insisting on the edict of war... Keep slipping that into your posts, and eventually it will be historic fact for anyone who reads it, right? Tulkas has it right- they weren't "working" and "Saddam's compliance" was in tiny, calculated steps to produce a media coverage but very, VERY little in the way of functional progress. I hope people don't forget that reality everytime they read your posts with clever little slips of "new history".
Furthermore, this whole terminology thing by the UN seems fishier by the moment, IMO. What more misrepresentative term can there be than "inspector/inspections". "Inspections" implies a search (thus the source of many people's misconceptions of what their function was in this whole mess). The real function was supposed to be and should have been named "Oversight and Verification". "Oversight" as in oversee the destruction of illegal weapons and materials. "Verification" as in verifying the documentation of previously disposed weapons and materials. All of that is predicated on unabashed compliance. W/o that, "Oversight and Verification" cannot exist to any effective degree. So what you get (in an effort to at least look busy since compliance wasn't in any great supply) was "Wild Goose Chase", but I'm sure they would never use that terminology.
hostory lesson: Blacks in the US voted against white racist running for office in spite of the fear of reprisals from terrorist groups such as the KKK and various Citizen Councils.
history lesson: The US was not a military dictatorship.
*sigh* why do i bother. anyone who thinks that blacks voting in the U.S. is at all similar to Iraqi's voting in Iraq isn't worth talking to.
as for elections, Saddam did hold "free" elections. he got 99.99% of the vote, and that was with U.S. troops on their way down and right outside his boarders, and UN inspectors in the country.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I hope more people are seeing your attempts at revisionist history here.
There are plenty of threads that show your comments are utter crap.
Originally posted by alcimedes
as for elections, Saddam did hold "free" elections. he got 99.99% of the vote, and that was with U.S. troops on their way down and right outside his boarders, and UN inspectors in the country.
Your use of the quotation marks is proof that you're being disingenuous.
No amount of sidestepping can dispell the fact that the inspections were progressing positively. Just as the disappearance of all the conservative hawks from this thread doesn't disprove the fact that the 'chemical plant' was in fact 'much ado about nothing'.