[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
So do we let Saddam win by using his weapon of cowardice?

If he choses to place military targets in civilian area's those deaths are on his head. There is a reason the majority of our tactical assets are out in the middle of nowhere.

Sadly Navy bases are another story. Because we are a capitalist nation we are a society that congregates near major ports (NY, LA, SD, Seattle, Norfolk, Charlston etc).

No we should not let Saddam win, everybody pretty much aggrees on this. What we should is let the UN inspectors take there time, in the mean time the UN should observe Iraq via all kinds of methods (from space, spies, etc) sooner or later, if there is something, the inspectors should find it. With all this technology, that exists, we should be able to find something in the long run.

Also is the UN is closely observing Iraq, I don't think there will be an attack from them against anybody.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by Damn True
So do we let Saddam win by using his weapon of cowardice?

do you mean long range weapons that could strike the u.s?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by SandMan
No we should not let Saddam win, everybody pretty much aggrees on this. What we should is let the UN inspectors take there time, in the mean time the UN should observe Iraq via all kinds of methods (from space, spies, etc) sooner or later, if there is something, the inspectors should find it. With all this technology, that exists, we should be able to find something in the long run.

Also is the UN is closely observing Iraq, I don't think there will be an attack from them against anybody.

You know, this has been stated before, but i think it needs reiteration.

The inspectors were not sent there to search every nook and cranny for weapons of mass destruction. They were sent there so Hussein could prove to them that he has none. The inspectors do not need to take their time. They need to see that Hussein has disarmed himself, and he is not showing that. It shouldnt be a massive search throughout the country. How much time should we give the guy to dick us around and either better hide what he already has, or find ways to sneek it out of the country? I dont think he deserves any more time at all.
The fact of the matter is, that he has not complied with the resolutions already set forth. We need to rectify the situation, not sit on out thumbs while he plays us like marianettes.
Yes, some civilians will die at Saddams expense, but the number may be far less than the damage that could be caused by his weapons. The fact that he shows no sympathy for his own people should tell us that the man doesnt deserve to be in power. The time to act has come.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
These are two separate diplomatic timelines, we are much further along that line with Saddam than we are with Kim Il-Jong(sp?).

Breaking news from CNN:
-- North Korea has untested ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast, CIA director George Tenet says.

So what about the North Korean threat now?

 

[Damn True]

Thank you BS for re-stating the fact that the inspectors job is not to find WMD, but to verify that Hussein no longer has them.

Think about this. Iraq is a land mass roughly equal in size to California. If you had something to hide do you think you could hide it from 150 inspectors who don't actually live there if you were given all of the rescources of the state of California to do it?

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
Thank you BS for re-stating the fact that the inspectors job is not to find WMD, but to verify that Hussein no longer has them.

Think about this. Iraq is a land mass roughly equal in size to California. If you had something to hide do you think you could hide it from 150 inspectors who don't actually live there if you were given all of the rescources of the state of California to do it?

With todays satellites I am sure we can check every square inch of Iraq. And for the parts we cannot see, we put more inspectors and broaden their mandate. I think this is much better solution then war. Unless your main goal is regime change and a puppet government?

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You know, this has been stated before, but i think it needs reiteration.

The inspectors were not sent there to search every nook and cranny for weapons of mass destruction. They were sent there so Hussein could prove to them that he has none. The inspectors do not need to take their time. They need to see that Hussein has disarmed himself, and he is not showing that. It shouldnt be a massive search throughout the country. How much time should we give the guy to dick us around and either better hide what he already has, or find ways to sneek it out of the country? I dont think he deserves any more time at all.
The fact of the matter is, that he has not complied with the resolutions already set forth. We need to rectify the situation, not sit on out thumbs while he plays us like marianettes.
Yes, some civilians will die at Saddams expense, but the number may be far less than the damage that could be caused by his weapons. The fact that he shows no sympathy for his own people should tell us that the man doesnt deserve to be in power. The time to act has come.

....and we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

I've heard this argument from the administration a lot. One thing I don't understand is why military action, by the US and its "coalition of the willing", is the natural conclusion it leads to. The argument (seems) to base itself on the definition of UNMOVIC/UNSCOM, saying that the inspectors are only "verifiers", not disarmers--- Saddam is the only one who can disarm himself. And therefore if he doesn't fully and actively cooperate, we will disarm him.

Well, why not send in 300, 500, 1000, 2000, or a whole army of UN workers to disarm him, if that's our goal? Change the name of UNMOVIC to UNDISARM?

When you say, "it shouldn't be a massive search around the country," isn't that what we're going to do once we invade? Or do we know where he's hiding everything, and we'll just bomb it---then why don't we tell the inspectors where the stuff is right now?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by patconnole
Well, why not send in 300, 500, 1000, 2000, or a whole army of UN workers to disarm him, if that's our goal? Change the name of UNMOVIC to UNDISARM?

Send in the UN...


...BBBBBWWWAAAAAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

[N8 v2.0]

The UN is as effective against Iraq as the League of Nations was against Nazi Germany...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by patconnole


When you say, "it shouldn't be a massive search around the country," isn't that what we're going to do once we invade? Or do we know where he's hiding everything, and we'll just bomb it---then why don't we tell the inspectors where the stuff is right now?

Perhaps we dont know where its hidden, and we will conduct a large scale search once that is a feasable option. We're having trouble getting a few inspectors around the country now, how is it that you seem to think Sadam would allow a few hundred "SPIES" in to search around?
What we will do is send in a few hundred MARINES to eliminate the existing threats, and then safely discard what we find. Why allow a powermad dicatator (Sadam, not Bush) the opportunity to even have a say in what goes on anymore? He's obviously not the man we want in control of much of anything.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by SandMan
Breaking news from CNN:
-- North Korea has untested ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast, CIA director George Tenet says.

So what about the North Korean threat now?

Seems to me that would include the coastline to the North of Bellingham. Makes it your problem too.

So what is Canada going to do?

I dunno exactly, but I'll bet you a box of Tim Hortons that it will hope like hell that we handle it.

Again.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
....and we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

I've heard this argument from the administration a lot. One thing I don't understand is why military action, by the US and its "coalition of the willing", is the natural conclusion it leads to. The argument (seems) to base itself on the definition of UNMOVIC/UNSCOM, saying that the inspectors are only "verifiers", not disarmers--- Saddam is the only one who can disarm himself. And therefore if he doesn't fully and actively cooperate, we will disarm him.

Well, why not send in 300, 500, 1000, 2000, or a whole army of UN workers to disarm him, if that's our goal? Change the name of UNMOVIC to UNDISARM?

When you say, "it shouldn't be a massive search around the country," isn't that what we're going to do once we invade? Or do we know where he's hiding everything, and we'll just bomb it---then why don't we tell the inspectors where the stuff is right now?

Okay fine send in 5000 UN inspectors. What do you do when he says get out? Like he did in 1998. Instead of telling him to stick it and send in troops to support the inspectors, what did we do. The inspectors packed up and left. Then the US bombed him into a willingness to readmit the inspectors but guess what.... the French were the ones against putting them back and nothing happened until 2002.

I'm all for someone else doing it BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE WOULD THEY GO AHEAD AND DO IT. They don't even need a freakin' resolution just send the damn inspectors, troops or whatever the 5000 folks you want. Send 10000 but quit talking about it and go and do it.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Perhaps we dont know where its hidden, and we will conduct a large scale search once that is a feasable option. We're having trouble getting a few inspectors around the country now, how is it that you seem to think Sadam would allow a few hundred "SPIES" in to search around?
What we will do is send in a few hundred MARINES to eliminate the existing threats, and then safely discard what we find. Why allow a powermad dicatator (Sadam, not Bush) the opportunity to even have a say in what goes on anymore? He's obviously not the man we want in control of much of anything.

Are we having trouble getting the inspectors around Iraq now?

It's not so much that I think he'll let a few hundred (or thousand) inspectors around his country--- but it would be the logical step to take if disarmament (sp?) was our goal. If he didn't let the UN inspect his country in the manner they see fit, as a result of his "inactive" participation in disarmement, then I'm all for a UN sanctioned military strike.

I think the US has the following goals in mind with Iraq (that I can think of right now), in order of priority:

1. Secure oil fields-- not for direct financial gain, but to secure the resource. Illicit control over something everyone wants-- a means of ensuring our place at the top, and everyone else's place somewhere below.
2. Get a strategic location.
3. Create something of our own in the middle east(in regards to oil), a "democracy" we can depend on for resources without the moral cloudiness of buying from Saudi Arabia, etc.
4. Kill Saddam, who is in conflict with our goals.
5. I'm not sure if WMD would even make the list--- maybe 1% of the goals.
6. Same for "save the innocent Iraqis" and bring them democracy.

"Why allow a powermad dictator......?" Remember (I should only speak for me here..), nobody wants Saddam in power, but I think many people are resisting this push for war because they don't believe the US when it says #5 is really goal numero uno. And many countries may not share the same perspective as the US, with #1, #2, and #3.

Even if my list is out of order, it's still complete-- The US may have the legit goal of stopping the use of WMD, but it's not so easy for everyone else to ignore 1, 2 and 3.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
Okay fine send in 5000 UN inspectors. What do you do when he says get out? Like he did in 1998. Instead of telling him to stick it and send in troops to support the inspectors, what did we do. The inspectors packed up and left. Then the US bombed him into a willingness to readmit the inspectors but guess what.... the French were the ones against putting them back and nothing happened until 2002.

I'm all for someone else doing it BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE WOULD THEY GO AHEAD AND DO IT. They don't even need a freakin' resolution just send the damn inspectors, troops or whatever the 5000 folks you want. Send 10000 but quit talking about it and go and do it.

Totally agree. Do it.

There was some cloudiness about the "kickout" in 98... at least in my memory. Can't remember, I'll post it later. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

 

[Damn True]

Do you mean "Why didn't we oust Hussein in '98?" or "Why did the inspectors get kicked out last time?"

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
Totally agree. Do it.

There was some cloudiness about the "kickout" in 98... at least in my memory. Can't remember, I'll post it later. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

They didn't actually get kicked out but Iraq stopped all cooperation of inspections and monitoring in Dec. of 1998 which lead to the bombing campaign that stopped the day before Ramadan. Iraq made noise about allowing the inspections to continue but the French made a big to do and nothing happened until 2002.

The inspections have been a waste of time since 1996 because of Iraq's lack of cooperation. But no one seemed to want to do anything about it.

 

[patconnole]

I saw the film "In shifting sands" by the UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter. Go see it if you can find it, a great explanation of how the inspections work, what they're about, the purpose, effectiveness.....etc.

Most interesting part of the film though was where he explains how he was told to "instigate a conflict" by some US official (can't remember). He was told to do so at some specified date by trying to inspect a site that they knew the Iraqis would not let them see (i.e., they're ministry of defense [pentagon], or a place like it). He had to do it on a certain date, because "we'll only have 5 days to bomb because of Ramadon".

I don't know if he was able to fulfill the request, but the bombing eventually did happen and was called "Desert Fox", of which, I know nothing about.

Another interesting section was how the Inspectors were turned into an espionage/spying operation to gather military and security evidence for the US. I think it was around that point where he resigned. I was not aware of these charges he's making against the US, I'd only heard that he was against an invansion for some reason.

from thread, "my prediction on how we'll start the war."

I'd love to see a real timeline showing when things happened in Iraq and when planning began to respond to those happenings, in the US-- as far as cause and effect (bombing).

The timeline in the movie was difficult to follow-- but it appeared he was asked to instigate the conflict before Iraq had completely stopped cooperating. So it makes me wonder if the bombing was actually a response to that..... ????

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
from thread, "my prediction on how we'll start the war."

I'd love to see a real timeline showing when things happened in Iraq and when planning began to respond to those happenings, in the US-- as far as cause and effect (bombing).

The timeline in the movie was difficult to follow-- but it appeared he was asked to instigate the conflict before Iraq had completely stopped cooperating. So it makes me wonder if the bombing was actually a response to that..... ????

Scott Ritter has certainly said some things and with his background certainly should be listed to. BUT take a look at all he has said starting in 1998. This is the same Scott Ritter who in 1998 after leaving Iraq ripped the Clinton adminstration for not confronting Saddam as "a real and meaningful threat." Read his resignation letter. The things that he says in that are not consistent with the things he says in Shifting Sands. And certainly not consistent with what he is saying now. I mean its like a 180 degree turn.

On top of all of that did you see how much he was paid for that movie and who paid him? Again much like a lot of what we discuss here, its hard to figure out what the motivation for things are.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
Seems to me that would include the coastline to the North of Bellingham. Makes it your problem too.

So what is Canada going to do?

I dunno exactly, but I'll bet you a box of Tim Hortons that it will hope like hell that we handle it.

Again.

Have nothing constructive to say or add DT?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
Are we having trouble getting the inspectors around Iraq now?

It's not so much that I think he'll let a few hundred (or thousand) inspectors around his country--- but it would be the logical step to take if disarmament (sp?) was our goal. If he didn't let the UN inspect his country in the manner they see fit, as a result of his "inactive" participation in disarmement, then I'm all for a UN sanctioned military strike.

That cooperation is based on the UN inspectors inspecting as they see fit right?. And does cooperation include Iraq providing everything that is asked of it? materials? documents? access to individuals? So how would you grade Iraq's cooperation with the UN weapons inspections from 1995 until now?

 

[patconnole]

I'm all for a UN sanctioned military strike.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by patconnole
I'm all for a UN sanctioned military strike.

Heck, maybe we could pull France and Germany's highway funding. It worked with Montana.

"Reasonable and Prudent." That was such a cool speed-limit.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Japan threatens preimptive strike against N Korea....

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by N8
Japan threatens preimptive strike against N Korea....

What????????

 

[N8 v2.0]

BBC News:

Japan has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against North Korea if it had firm evidence Pyongyang was planning a missile attack.

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by N8
Japan has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against North Korea if it had firm evidence Pyongyang was planning a missile attack.

Now that's some logic I can agree with! If only the US would follow suit.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by N8
BBC News:

Japan has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against North Korea if it had firm evidence Pyongyang was planning a missile attack.

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm

Domo arigato Mr Roboto...

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by patconnole
Now that's some logic I can agree with! If only the US would follow suit.

We don't really have to. A week or so ago we announced that we were pre-deploying squadrons of B-52 and B-1 bombers to Anderson Airbase on Guam and placing our B-2 stealth bombers on 12hr alert status.

That pretty much says, "If we even think you are going to try it we'll jack you up."

 

[N8 v2.0]

The planes were just for show....


You can bet you sweet ass we have boomers sitting on the sea bed cocked & locked.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Damn True

That pretty much says, "If we even think you are going to try it we'll jack you up."

Again, this is logic I am supportive of: If we have credible evidence of an immenent threat, we'll jack you up.

What I'm opposed to is having credible evidence of shannanigins with weapons inspectors, and using that as a basis for a US (and whoever we can tariff, or cut funding, into supporting us) war.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by N8
The planes were just for show....


You can bet you sweet ass we have boomers sitting on the sea bed cocked & locked.

You are most likely correct, in fact I wouldn't doubt that for a second.

But, I would hope that if there is an indication of an impending launch (apparently the fueling process on the vehicle they have takes days and it cannot be stored fueled) that we would wipe the site off the face of the planet with some sort of conventional weapons.

About 1/2 dozed thermobaric bombs (fuel-air explosives, aka "bunker-busters") and the entire payload of a B-52 squadron ought to just about do it.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
we would wipe the site off the face of the planet with some sort of conventional weapons.

About 1/2 dozed thermobaric bombs (fuel-air explosives, aka "bunker-busters") and the entire payload of a B-52 squadron ought to just about do it.

I don't know if you'll take this as an insult or a compliment (it's meant as neither) but you sound like a kid all pumped up to play with his new GI Joes...

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ohio
I don't know if you'll take this as an insult or a compliment (it's meant as neither) but you sound like a kid all pumped up to play with his new GI Joes...

My point was that we can and ought to eliminate the threat of a nuclear weapon release w/o resorting to the use of similar equipment.

N8 mentioned the boomers that are in all likelyhood sitting on the bottom just off the Korean peninsula. I would prefer we do not use a Nuke. They can launch a tommahawk though.

 

[slein]

why not give'm some money? like, try buying their reactor. they ain't suppose to be using it, so buy it, run it and sell power to them.

i thought the states were all about capitalism....

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by slein

i thought the states were all about capitalism....

"Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes-- eh, comrades? Eh?"

--Austin Powers, after the warm-liquid-goo phase.

 

[BurlyShirley]

The perfect Solution.THE KEY TO WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The perfect Solution.THE KEY TO WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR

 

[N8 v2.0]

Canada Says Will Not Join Solo U.S. Attack on Iraq

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada toughened its line on the Iraq crisis on Tuesday, saying it had no intention of contributing to a possible U.S.-led attack that had not been blessed by the United Nations Security Council.

U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) says if the U.N. backs away from the idea of authorizing force to disarm Baghdad, he is prepared to wage war with what he calls a "coalition of the willing".

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien has until now refused to rule out contributing forces to a possible unilateral U.S. attack, but on Tuesday he told Parliament this was not an option.

"We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing," he said in reply to a question asking whether Canada would join "a coalition of willing countries".

Chretien last week gave a speech in Chicago in which he strongly urged Bush to follow Canada's lead and tackle the Iraq crisis within the United Nations.

"If they (the Americans) want to go there all alone, they can go there all alone but we say they must go with the authorization of the United Nations. If they don't, the international system of peace and security will probably be more destabilized than it need be," he said on Tuesday.

Whether Canada's stretched armed forces could contribute anything to an attack on Iraq is in any case questionable, since last week Ottawa announced it would be sending up to 2,000 troops for a year to take part in a U.N. peacekeeping mission based in Baghdad.

---------------------------

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by N8
Canada Says Will Not Join Solo U.S. Attack on Iraq

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada toughened its line on the Iraq crisis on Tuesday, saying it had no intention of contributing to a possible U.S.-led attack that had not been blessed by the United Nations Security Council.

U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) says if the U.N. backs away from the idea of authorizing force to disarm Baghdad, he is prepared to wage war with what he calls a "coalition of the willing".

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien has until now refused to rule out contributing forces to a possible unilateral U.S. attack, but on Tuesday he told Parliament this was not an option.

"We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing," he said in reply to a question asking whether Canada would join "a coalition of willing countries".

Chretien last week gave a speech in Chicago in which he strongly urged Bush to follow Canada's lead and tackle the Iraq crisis within the United Nations.

"If they (the Americans) want to go there all alone, they can go there all alone but we say they must go with the authorization of the United Nations. If they don't, the international system of peace and security will probably be more destabilized than it need be," he said on Tuesday.

Whether Canada's stretched armed forces could contribute anything to an attack on Iraq is in any case questionable, since last week Ottawa announced it would be sending up to 2,000 troops for a year to take part in a U.N. peacekeeping mission based in Baghdad.

---------------------------

what is the purpose of this post??

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by rbx
what is the purpose of this post??

It appears to be pointing out that Canada would not particpate in unlaterial US action in Iraq.

Unless you are talking about the subliminal messages to buy more beer.