PDA

View Full Version : Powell's Speech should be done....



The Overlord Returns
02-05-2003, 11:21 AM
Did anyone actually catch it on television? I haven't been able to watch it, as I'm at work.

What's the verdict? I know the key points included:


• An audiotaped talk Powell says reveals Republican Guard officers discussing hiding a vehicle from weapons inspectors.

• Satellite photos he says indicate "active chemical munitions bunkers" disguised from inspectors.

• Satellite photos he says show the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine site and a ballistic missile construction site from which the U.S. says evidence was removed.

• An assertion by Powell that Saddam Hussein has barred scientists from giving interviews to U.N. inspectors, on pain of death.

• Drawings of what Powell says are mobile biological weapons manufacturing labs.

• Satellite photos Powell says indicate that earth was moved at Al-Musayyib chemical production site to hide evidence.

• An audiotaped talk Powell says records a Republican Guard commander ordering references to "nerve agents" removed from wireless communications.

• Photos Powell says depict the "aluminum tubes" that the U.S. says were imported by Iraq for its nuclear weapons program.

• A satellite photo he says depicts Al Rafa'h, a liquid engine test facility, partially in production.

How do you think the world will react to what has been presented today?

Kidhuman
02-05-2003, 11:38 AM
Nope have not heard anything yet

stillakid
02-05-2003, 12:21 PM
Well, I have to say it was pretty compelling. He presented numerous audio and visual elements to support the accusations, a few of which were undeniably damning. Admittedly, much of the evidence relies on coraborated eyewitness evidence from Iraqi nationals who are now in hiding. If there is a weak point in the "proof" that Hussein could take advantage of, this is it. He could claim that we've made it all up. But there are still other photos and audio tapes that he couldn't really explain away easily.

I don't think that anyone at all really believes that Iraq doesn't have this stuff. Most people believe that Hussein is a cruel heartless dictator who has continued his weapons programs against the dictates of the Security Council.

What remains to be seen is if this really convincing evidence holds enough ooomph to allow those who are against an invasion to accept one as necessary at this time. We know that Iraq is building up it's weapons capabilities. The question to be asked and answered is are we comfortable in allowing it to continue? Will it take Iraq (or a terrorist that purchases said weapons from Iraq) to actually use these weapons against us or our allies before any action is taken? There's no doubt that the weapons are in there, but if we invade, how quickly can we locate them ALL and destroy them? How many more lil'Terrorists will we create in the process? They're being brainwashed against us from birth and now we threaten to invade. If we don't leave the place better than we found it, the situation might be worse in the end.

Ultimately it's just too bad that these crazed lunatics are born in the first place. Look at the mess they cause generation after generation after generation after.....

The Overlord Returns
02-05-2003, 12:30 PM
It's the visual evidence that really is compelling, IMO.

Obviously, the audio stuff is all open to interpretation, indeed, it could be forged.

The question is, does it merit war? Will military action succeed in dissarming Iraq where it has failed before? Why are the inspectors now "useless" when they did more to disarm Iraq the first time around than any military action did?

And then there is the question of what happens after.....

Exhaust Port
02-05-2003, 12:54 PM
I felt the satillite imagery was pretty telling. They had several "here's the facility as of ??/02 and here it is when the inspectors showed up on ??/02." There was indications that the Iraqi's were moving stuff out as trucks were surrounding the facilities prior to the UN Inspectors arriving. Of course those that don't wish to believe the worst could say there is no proof what was going in those trucks.

In my opinion, with the game Saddam's been playing for over a decade now I'm willing to believe those images show his continuing effort to play the shell game to hide his true weapon capability. It's no surprise, the French have already said that the UN inspectors have to be given more time. I'm assuming they would like to wait another 11-12 years. :rolleyes:

Perhaps they should be reminded that this game is exactly what allowed Hitler to quickly conquer most of Europe in the '30's. More time won't answer more questions but permit Saddam more time to prepare.

The Overlord Returns
02-05-2003, 02:04 PM
Yes, the satellite evidence is what I'm looking forward to viewing. Other than that, the audio, again, is easy to dismiss or dispute, and then there are the assertions that Iraq hasn't accounted for known WMD's from the past, nothing new there.


As for the Al Qaeda link, notice the wording. Never does he state that saddam has links to al qaeda, always using "Iraq". That has already been proven to mean the northern kurd groups "answar al - islam" affiliate that is linked heavily with Bin Ladens network. What they are doing is leading the community to a conclusion they want, rather than what is actually true.

I haven't seen it, but he certainly seemed to do a good job.

hango fett
02-05-2003, 02:31 PM
i don't think it would be forged:rolleyes: that would just be dumb on our part. unless bush wants the economy to go to hell now, rather than later. it is all comvincing in my book. i think war would be enebidible(sp?) anyway. they are hiding way too much. they need to get rid of suddam and then find bin ladden.....who is probably connected to suddam in some way, shape, or form.
h

The Overlord Returns
02-05-2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by hango fett
i don't think it would be forged:rolleyes: that would just be dumb on our part. unless bush wants the economy to go to hell now, rather than later. it is all comvincing in my book. i think war would be enebidible(sp?) anyway. they are hiding way too much. they need to get rid of suddam and then find bin ladden.....who is probably connected to suddam in some way, shape, or form.
h

Bin Laden, if he has any connections in Iraq, would have them in the north with the kurds, as I said above. Saddam is the opposite of a fundamentalist muslim, in fact, fundamentalism is a threat to him politically.

How would it be dumb? There's as few ways to prove it was forged as their are to prove it's the real deal. What I'm saying is it doesn't work as concrete proof, it's too easy to dispute.

sith_killer_99
02-05-2003, 04:22 PM
I agree that the audio is not concrete proof, though none the less damaging.

Powell has drawn some clear lines between Al Queda and Iraq IMO. Let's face it, Iraq being under economic sanctions would be greatly helped by a very rich Bin Laden. Likewise, Bin Bobo would be greatful to any country that provided a safe port in the storm, so to speak. Most telling to me was the history Powell layed out between Iraq and other terrorist groups.

stillakid
02-05-2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by hango fett
i don't think it would be forged:rolleyes: that would just be dumb on our part.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bush et al would fabricate that kind of evidence. What I suggested was that the evidence that Powell presented is all fairly circumstantial and could be accused of as being fabricated if Iraq wanted to (which I'm sure they will). Without a "smoking gun" from the inspections, say one of those mobile labs or a cache of armed and aimed weapons, we don't have much else to prove the case to the world.

What the Bush administration might be hoping for is that our invasion would be so swift, that we would find such material in the aftermath. Two problems with that: the first is that, again, the bad guys could claim that we planted it there. The second is that the bad guys would probably work to quickly destroy any evidence before we got to it, thus resulting in a situation where no evidence will ever be found.

Any way you slice it, it ain't good.

Emperor Howdy
02-06-2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
What's the verdict?

The verdict?! Well, for starters, those of us who have supported disarming Saddam from the beginning were shown more proof of what we already knew. However, I'm curious how you and Eric (not to mention a few others) feel. According to Eric, it's nothing more than a war for oil....no proof...Bush this..Bush that...I agree with Bin Laden's views....I want to marry Saddam....blah, blah, blah. I'm wondering if todays events have changed his naive point of view. Then there's you. ;)........no.....really though. You've found every avenue possible for accusing Bush of jumping the gun. Every claim made or presentation shown by the U.S. has been followed by your "still not enough to constitute war" speech. I'm not trying to be a wisearse, I'm just sincerely curious how you feel now that your brother Hussein is a dead man? :happy:

2-1B
02-06-2003, 03:16 AM
Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold was on the radio tonight, agreeing that Powell made the point that Iraq has been in violation. However, he said that the case for unilateral military action has not been made.

Overlord, you asked the question of "does it merit war?" and politically I think there will be much further debate. It seems like opposing politicians won't argue with UN action, but the question of "going it alone" is going to still draw PLENTY of debate (as Feingold's comments reflect . . . and I'm sure there will be several other members of his party taking the same approach).

:)

No matter what, I agree with stillakid that "it ain't good." :(

EricRG
02-06-2003, 07:12 AM
Marry Saddam? That's uncalled for, Howdy. (Especially since I hadn't even posted on this thread yet.)

My "naive point of view" remains the same...as it does with the UN security council. Since your SO familiar with how I feel on the subject, Howdy, you must also know that, to me, "proof" consists of the UN inspectors finding actual physical evidence of ALL the ingredients needed for a WMD, not to mention a direct threat to the US.

Since we "saw" these various trucks arriving at and leaving certain "questionable" locations by satellite or spyplane or whatever, why couldn't the spyplane have TRACKED these elusive trucks, and then tipped off the inspectors as to their destination? Seems like the US has a lot of high technology...with a bunch of "developmentally disadvantaged" people operating it.

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
The verdict?! Well, for starters, those of us who have supported disarming Saddam from the beginning were shown more proof of what we already knew. However, I'm curious how you and Eric (not to mention a few others) feel. According to Eric, it's nothing more than a war for oil....no proof...Bush this..Bush that...I agree with Bin Laden's views....I want to marry Saddam....blah, blah, blah. I'm wondering if todays events have changed his naive point of view. Then there's you. ;)........no.....really though. You've found every avenue possible for accusing Bush of jumping the gun. Every claim made or presentation shown by the U.S. has been followed by your "still not enough to constitute war" speech. I'm not trying to be a wisearse, I'm just sincerely curious how you feel now that your brother Hussein is a dead man? :happy:

Ya know Howdy, I've always looked at your 4th grader debating style as charming, even cute, but now you're just being rude and offensive.

A: I have NEVER, NEVER stated that I oppose disarming saddam. If you actually read other peoples posts, as opposed to jumping on them with childish insults aimed to shut them up ( a strategy you should know better than to use with me by now) you might realize that you don't have to approve of saddam in order to oppose war.

B: I've never accused GWB of jumping the gun. That would be ludicrous in light of how it's actually played out. I have questioned the integrity of his motives. I've asked what he really wants out of this. Again, learn to read a post, and you might realize this.


The fact is Hussein either needs to cooperate fully, or face the wrath of America and the United Nations. However, if disarmament is Bush's true goal, then leave inspectors there constantly searching for weapons. In the first inspections, they did far more in terms of getting rid of iraqs WMD's than any military action, a point you and others of your mindset blatantly ignore.


So Howdy, if you can discuss this like anything other than an infant, fine....if not, then just ignore me.

Exhaust Port
02-06-2003, 10:52 AM
I think a big reason that the US Intelligence didn't provide exacting details is they wish to protect their capabilities from those they watch.

I just don't think at this point that it's going to be a good idea to wait until they find the stock pile of weapons. The man has had 12 years to hide this stuff and Iraq is a big desert that's pretty formitable to search. The man has continued to shoot at Allied aircraft with missles since the day the war ended last time. It seems 12 years of firing off air-2-air missles isn't deemed a threat.

As Powell said, the Inspectors are just that, inspectors, they are not detectors. They basically go to a facility to make sure the old bomb factory isn't making any new bombs. It seems that Saddam is quite happy to show him the old deserted bomb factories, most likely since his moved to other locations in the last 12 years.

The UN has taken the stance that they want Saddam to prove that he's disarmed himself. Why are we leaving it to a madman to prove that he's no longer a threat? Several of the countries, France and Germany, want to give the inspectors more time to find stuff. I can tell you now that they will never find anything. Saddam is smart enough to move out incriminating evidence for suspected locations.

Remember this is a man that has had 12 years to prove he has disarmed himself. He can't even account for the bio-weapons he used against the Kurds in '92. We have video proof that he has had nerve agents in the past but since we can't find it now (and he hasn't given proof of it being destroyed) the UN wants to give him more time. More time for what? To produce more? To hide it better?

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port

The UN has taken the stance that they want Saddam to prove that he's disarmed himself. Why are we leaving it to a madman to prove that he's no longer a threat? Several of the countries, France and Germany, want to give the inspectors more time to find stuff. I can tell you now that they will never find anything. Saddam is smart enough to move out incriminating evidence for suspected locations.



Still, the original inspectors DID find loads of wmds and had them destroyed when they were there before. I don't understand this notion that they will be unable to locate and deal with them time around. It's not as if Hussein wasn't trying his hardest last time around.....

It's a difficult issue. What I'm more concerned with now is the aftermath. What happens after Hussein is toppled and America is left to dictate who controls Iraq, and what is done with their oil reserves.

As for France, I discount there blustering as much as I do Bush's. There motives for stalling action spring from oil, just as Bush's motives for pushing war/ invasion do.....

Exhaust Port
02-06-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
It's a difficult issue. What I'm more concerned with now is the aftermath. What happens after Hussein is toppled and America is left to dictate who controls Iraq, and what is done with their oil reserves.

For this reason it so important to have the UN involved in any action in Iraq. The last thing we need it the US left holding all the cards when the Saddam regime falls. Oil is one thing but I don't want to spend any more American money to prop up another failing economy/government. It should be a UN action with the responsibility being evenly distributed. Of course if Saddam was toppled I'm sure France and Germany will be there looking for oil handouts. "We were really supporting you when we said No. Can we have some oil now?"

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
For this reason it so important to have the UN involved in any action in Iraq. The last thing we need it the US left holding all the cards when the Saddam regime falls. Oil is one thing but I don't want to spend any more American money to prop up another failing economy/government. It should be a UN action with the responsibility being evenly distributed. Of course if Saddam was toppled I'm sure France and Germany will be there looking for oil handouts. "We were really supporting you when we said No. Can we have some oil now?"

I don't know how concerned germany is with what happens to the oil, but I know France and russia have oil contracts to firms pending with Iraq. I also know that the dissidents America has suggested placing in power after regime toppling have stated they would void these contracts and deal with American firms.

As for looking for hand outs, no matter what happens the oil should NOT be americas do dole out.

I think the best solution would be for the United states to facilitate a REAL democratic election in the country. Allow the Iraqi people to decide whats done.

derek
02-06-2003, 12:06 PM
no matter what happens the oil should NOT be americas do dole out

why not? if america leads in the removal of sadam, and has the vast majority of troops and resources involved in the war, along with being the major financial backer of the UN and NATO, why shouldn't the US re-coup it's costs to make the world a safer place?:)

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by derek
why not? if america leads in the removal of sadam, and has the vast majority of troops and resources involved in the war, along with being the major financial backer of the UN and NATO, why shouldn't the US re-coup it's costs to make the world a safer place?:)

Now here's someone who knows what the real plan is.;)

Quite frankly it is americas choice to spend millions of dollars on a war no one is asking for. Your government is pushing for this, so they should be expected to pick up the tab. Like I said above, if Bush's inntentions are genuine, allow a democratic election by the iraqi people to place their new government in control. They should choose what's done with oil in THEIR land....

Of course...that isn't what is going to happen......the reality is much closer to your suggestion.

derek
02-06-2003, 12:20 PM
They should choose what's done with oil in THEIR land....

you mean they should all split the money generated by oil sales, or their leaders should decide how the money is used? i say no, because that's socialism. what should be done is the US government should handle the sale of iraq's oil untill the costs of the war are covered. then the oil fields should be sold off to the highest private bidders. letting the iraq government own the oil fields will cause more problems with another potential dictator having a cash cow to milk. :) and governments shouldn't own property as it is.

but i'm all for democratic elections in iraq. but we're going to have to supervise them for a while to make sure no potential dictators crop up. world domination, it's so time consuming!:crazed:

stillakid
02-06-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Now here's someone who knows what the real plan is.;)

Quite frankly it is americas choice to spend millions of dollars on a war no one is asking for. Your government is pushing for this, so they should be expected to pick up the tab. Like I said above, if Bush's inntentions are genuine, allow a democratic election by the iraqi people to place their new government in control. They should choose what's done with oil in THEIR land....

Of course...that isn't what is going to happen......the reality is much closer to your suggestion.

Perhaps everything you say is correct. But to just play the devil's advocate for a second, let's recall Germany and WWII. Let's suppose that the world lets Iraq off the hook on this. Fast forward a few months or a year when they've developed long range missiles to deliver whatever destructive payload they can come up with. They either blast them off to wreak havoc themselves or sell them to terrorist groups to do the dirty work for them. How much damage will the EU tolerate before it starts whining to the US for help in containing this scourge? Regardless of the truth, this is not a "crusade" of Christians vs. Muslims, but those fanatical leaders are somehow convincing their small-minded populations that it is so nonetheless. Once you get a fundamentalist going, it's pretty hard to stop him 'til he's dead. Unfortunately, these guys are hell-bent on taking out as many innocents as possible at the same time.

Look, I don't know the answer to this. There really isn't a good one. But the fact is that every generation or so, a maniac like Hussein manages to take control of a region then threatens peace everywhere. Do we learn from history and take these guys out before the widespread swath of destruction begins, or do we wait around for the death toll to reach an arbitrary number before acting? I don't have the answer for that as both courses of action contain their own pitfalls.

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by derek
you mean they should all split the money generated by oil sales, or their leaders should decide how the money is used? i say no, because that's socialism. what should be done is the US government should handle the sale of iraq's oil untill the costs of the war are covered. then the oil fields should be sold off to the highest private bidders. letting the iraq government own the oil fields will cause more problems with another potential dictator having a cash cow to milk. :) and governments shouldn't own property as it is.

but i'm all for democratic elections in iraq. but we're going to have to supervise them for a while to make sure no potential dictators crop up. world domination, it's so time consuming!:crazed:

How are leaders deciding how the money is used any different from government spending in our democracies. Besides, IMO, there's nothing wrong with socialism (and NO, it is not the same as communism).

I'm not saying the governments should "own" it, however, countries have a right to have domain over the resources in their land. Obviously, the UN would supervise the restructuring of the country untila proper democracy existed, that's obvious. There are too many warlord types, and the kurds in the north might make a play for a fundamentalist government...something I guarantee would be worse than Saddam. Remember, the kurds are the iraquis that powell is actualy talking about in regards to al qaeda connections ;)

derek
02-06-2003, 12:30 PM
IMO, there's nothing wrong with socialism (and NO, it is not the same as communism).

now if this isn't begging for a new thread, i don't know what is!!!;) :D :p

start it up overlord!:)

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by derek
now if this isn't begging for a new thread, i don't know what is!!!;) :D :p

start it up overlord!:)

LOL........I argue about this too often in daily life with the surprising number of conservative right wing friends I have.......

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Perhaps everything you say is correct. But to just play the devil's advocate for a second, let's recall Germany and WWII. Let's suppose that the world lets Iraq off the hook on this. Fast forward a few months or a year when they've developed long range missiles to deliver whatever destructive payload they can come up with. They either blast them off to wreak havoc themselves or sell them to terrorist groups to do the dirty work for them. How much damage will the EU tolerate before it starts whining to the US for help in containing this scourge? Regardless of the truth, this is not a "crusade" of Christians vs. Muslims, but those fanatical leaders are somehow convincing their small-minded populations that it is so nonetheless. Once you get a fundamentalist going, it's pretty hard to stop him 'til he's dead. Unfortunately, these guys are hell-bent on taking out as many innocents as possible at the same time.


When did i suggest we let them off the hook? It's got nothing to do with just saying "hey, forget it", but there are alternatives to military invasion. As I've said about 5000 times now, the initial inspections in the 90's did more to get rid of Saddams WMD cache than military might ever did.

The other funny thing is this idea that Hussein is a fundamentalist. He couldn't be less fundamentalist, his entire party platform is against the very idea of fundamentalist islam, hell, it's one of the reasons he went to war with Iran.

As for taking out innocents, what do you think military action in the streets of Bagdhad is going to do?




Originally posted by stillakid

Look, I don't know the answer to this. There really isn't a good one. But the fact is that every generation or so, a maniac like Hussein manages to take control of a region then threatens peace everywhere. Do we learn from history and take these guys out before the widespread swath of destruction begins, or do we wait around for the death toll to reach an arbitrary number before acting? I don't have the answer for that as both courses of action contain their own pitfalls.

How, I say, how is saddam threatening peace everywhere? He hasn't the technology to get a missile more than a hundred miles or so. He doesn't have nuclear capability, as the UN inspections have detailed. And for that matter, why wasn't he threatening peace everywhere pre 9/11? Isn't it interesting that the talk of war on iraq popped up almost the very instant that the tanking us economy started to pop into the foreground?

Then there is the matter of North Korea, who yesterday said they would use the nuclear weapons they make no pretense of hiding if ever they were threatened by the U.S./ U.N. Sounds like their far likelier to "threaten peace" everywhere.

Obviously, there will be war, that's a foregone conclusion. Yet, there did not have to be. All I'm saying is there are other solutions...

stillakid
02-06-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns

I'm not saying the governments should "own" it, however, countries have a right to have domain over the resources in their land. Obviously, the UN would supervise the restructuring of the country untila proper democracy existed, that's obvious. There are too many warlord types, and the kurds in the north might make a play for a fundamentalist government...something I guarantee would be worse than Saddam. Remember, the kurds are the iraquis that powell is actualy talking about in regards to al qaeda connections ;)

You know how to solve this whole thing?!! FUEL CELLS! Screw the oil. With that stuff out of the picture, we could all tell Hussein and the rest of the Middle East to go f themselves. They're primary cash crop would be worthless and then they'd be forced to drop the religious pretense and join the world economy in a civilized manner.

STEP 1: Get the Oil-Baron President out of the White House.

stillakid
02-06-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
All I'm saying is there are other solutions...

Such as?

1. Indefinite "inspections" (which, if you believe Powell's summation, are being done with an evasive government staying one step ahead of the inspectors...again.)

2. ?

3. ?

4. ?

(feel free to start filling in the blanks)

5. ?

6. ?

7. ?

8. ?

9. ?

10. ?

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 12:55 PM
I like you're first one for a start.

Look, the inspections worked quite well first time around. IF you kept a constant un inspection presence there, Iraq simply would be to busy hiding what exists to further develop it. Eventually, there going to locate and dispose of far more material than military forces will, and hey, we get a nice bonus of not seeing more civilians die.

We could also look at empowering the iraqi people. Part of that means restructuring the current sanctions that really do nothing but hurt the innocent over there, they certainly don't affect Hussein....

Just like you, I don't have all the answers to this, but I do like the notion that there's one out there that doesn't mean invasion and US control of a country they have no purpose being in charge of.

Jedi Clint
02-06-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
In the first inspections, they did far more in terms of getting rid of iraqs WMD's than any military action, a point you and others of your mindset blatantly ignore.

I never blatantly ignored this point, and I think I basically share Howdy's "mindset". My position remains the same. Remove Saddam and his power structure (by force if necessary, and I have seen no alternative to force presented to accomplish this goal). Then let the U.N. inspectors or military inspectors or anyone else who will search the desert and paperwork for Saddam's arsenal, do so after he is no longer there to muck up the process.

I am still reviewing Powell's case. It is more proof of Saddam's desire to disrupt peace and stability in the mid-east and the world.

The (U.N. approved) oil for food program that France and others (who have been opposed to the war) have been involved in certainly limits their credibility.

I am not opposed to installing a more friendly government in Iraq, or to helping Iraq pay for their rebuilding with oil exports. Nor am I bothered by the idea of getting reimbursed for our efforts in their country. But, I don't believe for a second that the U.N. is simply going to let the U.S. gorge itself on Iraq's resources. Nor do I think our leaders have planned such actions as they are aware that the backlash from the rest of the world would be very dramatic and damaging.

Removing Saddam from the equation in the mid-east is the start of a peacemaking process in the region. That is why the U.S. is pressing for this action.

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I never blatantly ignored this point, and I think I basically share Howdy's "mindset". My position remains the same. Remove Saddam and his power structure (by force if necessary, and I have seen no alternative to force presented to accomplish this goal). Then let the U.N. inspectors or military inspectors or anyone else who will search the desert and paperwork for Saddam's arsenal, do so after he is no longer there to muck up the process.



You know something I found odd, and interesting, was the out of the blue offer of assisted exile from the US to saddam. I wondered for a while afterward if some secret deal wasn't being brokered, but, alas, it appearsthat isn't the case.

Funny thing is, I don't think our views on the situation are all that different, more our stance on what should be done about it....

On the topic of saddams disruptive presence in the middle east, I agree, he certainly is. Then again, so would a us invasion, and I don't think enough time has been spent analyzing that factor when considering what to do.

Exhaust Port
02-06-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
As I've said about 5000 times now, the initial inspections in the 90's did more to get rid of Saddams WMD cache than military might ever did.

How do you know that? There is no way to know what impact those inspections had on his total capability. Not only that but the man had nearly a decade after those inspections to build everything back up as well as spend the time and money to hide them better this time. Remember nearly once a week Saddam has one of his air-2-air missle facilities blown up after they shoot at the aircraft enforcing the No-Fly-Zone. The NFZ is another thing that he doesn't seem to mind violating either. How many rules are we going to let him break before someone steps in to put a stop to it? I believe the UN will only do anything AFTER someone dies as a result. No better proof then dead bodies right?


How are leaders deciding how the money is used any different from government spending in our democracies.

In a democracy the people vote on the expenditures of money were as Saddam gets to spend the money any way he pleases. I don't want to increase spending on the local schools then I vote down the levy's. I don't like how an official is spending other money then I vote him out of office.

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 02:11 PM
Still, the official spends the money before he's voted out of office whether you like it or not.

We were actually talking about whoever winds up running Iraq post saddam.

All you have to do is listen to the accounts of what went on from the inspectors themselves to find out how successful they were. And it hasn't been anywhere near a decade. The UN pulled it's inspectors out completely in 1998.


I found this, and thought it offered some interesting insight:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990224220.html

Emperor Howdy
02-06-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Ya know Howdy, I've always looked at your 4th grader debating style as charming, even cute, but now you're just being rude and offensive.

Lordy, TOR, wesa po' folks down here. We's cant affor' no bus to da the Diefenbaker Cup. Sorry bouts our 4th yeer scoolin' debatin' style (whatsever dats is).

LOL :D....My God....this coming from the King of Rude and Offensive Post Comments and One-Liners.......come on, TOR! :rolleyes:


A: I have NEVER, NEVER stated that I oppose disarming saddam. If you actually read other peoples posts, as opposed to jumping on them with childish insults aimed to shut them up ( a strategy you should know better than to use with me by now) you might realize that you don't have to approve of saddam in order to oppose war.

I see. Silly me. Let me try again: You say you never opposed disarming Saddam....but you oppose war. How do you think we're going to disarm him without force? Oh, that's right...the inspectors. (There now, was that better?)


B: I've never accused GWB of jumping the gun. That would be ludicrous in light of how it's actually played out. I have questioned the integrity of his motives. I've asked what he really wants out of this. Again, learn to read a post, and you might realize this.

Oooooooh, I get it. Just a semantics issue. My bad. I guess I have a different view of what "jumping the gun" is. So let's try something else: Overlord....you've said from the beginning that Bush will have war no matter what the US finds (or doesn't find). I believe I recall a comment.....to ME in fact....that Bush is "frothing at the mouth" for war. Yet, now we're beginning to see proof that outweighs the simplistic notions of a war only for oil, political gain, etc. So, in light of the presentation of some of the evidence, have you seen any changes in your callow perceptions?



The fact is Hussein either needs to cooperate fully, or face the wrath of America and the United Nations. However, if disarmament is Bush's true goal, then leave inspectors there constantly searching for weapons. In the first inspections, they did far more in terms of getting rid of iraqs WMD's than any military action, a point you and others of your mindset blatantly ignore.

Ah yes. The inspectors. The unarmed scientists who get slapped around like little girls and kicked out of the country anytime they want to go somewhere Saddam doesn't want 'em.......and when they DO find something, you have Saddam sympathizers like Eric calling the findings insignificant.....or France who will NEVER agree to war since half the stuff we will eventually find is going to be stamped with "Made in France" on the freakin' warhead. Ah, the inspectors. "Hand over your weapons, Saddam, or we'll crush you with our electromagnetic sensors!" :rolleyes:


So Howdy, if you can discuss this like anything other than an infant, fine....if not, then just ignore me.

Oh, stop being so sensitive. :rolleyes: That's not like you.

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 02:56 PM
See Howdy...much better!!!!! I knew If I poked at you a little, you'd get back on track ;)

Read the article above about who provided weapons technology to Iraq. There's just as likely to be a lot of "Made in America" stamps in there as well ;)

As for the weapons inspectors being "kicked out" by Hussein, well, that's just a blatant untruth. Again, see above or see:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00203.htm

Again, I have always believed Bush to be frothing at the mouth, that doesn't mean I think he's being impatient. Despite his own intelligent gaffes, he's surrounded by bright folks....

Again, I have to ask....why do you dislike Canadians so much?

stillakid
02-06-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I like you're first one for a start.

Look, the inspections worked quite well first time around. IF you kept a constant un inspection presence there, Iraq simply would be to busy hiding what exists to further develop it. Eventually, there going to locate and dispose of far more material than military forces will, and hey, we get a nice bonus of not seeing more civilians die.

We could also look at empowering the iraqi people. Part of that means restructuring the current sanctions that really do nothing but hurt the innocent over there, they certainly don't affect Hussein....

Just like you, I don't have all the answers to this, but I do like the notion that there's one out there that doesn't mean invasion and US control of a country they have no purpose being in charge of.

So, despite your claim that there are "plenty" of other options, it looks like just two: 1. indefinite inspections and 2. restructure the current sanctions to "empower the iraqi people" yet somehow "affect Hussein."

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for non-violent alternatives. I'll even let your "plenty of" pronouncement go. But I am very interested in the particulars of how to sanction Iraq so that the innocent civilians profit while at the same time the leadership suffers. I'm not saying it's not possible, but on the surface it sounds a bit like alchemy to me.

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns

Obviously, there will be war, that's a foregone conclusion. Yet, there did not have to be. All I'm saying is there are other solutions...

Stillakid, Who said anything about "plenty"?

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by stillakid

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for non-violent alternatives. I'll even let your "plenty of" pronouncement go. But I am very interested in the particulars of how to sanction Iraq so that the innocent civilians profit while at the same time the leadership suffers. I'm not saying it's not possible, but on the surface it sounds a bit like alchemy to me.

The leadership isn't suffering under the sanctions now, only the people are. They aren't even allowed chlorine and other such things that purify water.

The sanctions being lifted, to a point, only helps the people, it really affects the regime very little. It is however, highly improbable to make the leadership suffer, I agree with you there.

stillakid
02-06-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Stillakid, Who said anything about "plenty"?




Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
All I'm saying is there are other solutions...


I apologize. I misquoted. But the statement implies more than two "other solutions," one of which is occurring as we speak and the other you mentioned above.

stillakid
02-06-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The leadership isn't suffering under the sanctions now, only the people are. They aren't even allowed chlorine and other such things that purify water.

The sanctions being lifted, to a point, only helps the people, it really affects the regime very little. It is however, highly improbable to make the leadership suffer, I agree with you there.

So why would you suggest further or different sanctions as one of the alternatives to war if you agree that they can't hurt the leadership?

If that's the case, we're left with just one alternative which was lingering inspections. No?

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 03:56 PM
That's tricky, I'd have to look at the sanctions in detail. However, if you remove the public resentment that the sanctions have caused toward the US/ UN, then the people might start looking at the tyrant himself. It might be a way to spur a coup type event....

stillakid
02-06-2003, 04:04 PM
If I'm seeing the situation correctly at this point, Hussein only has three options:

1. Evade the inspectors indefinitely. This gives him time to either A) destroy the evidence, which is unlikely, or B) sell the material to terrorists. Why terrorists? Because...

2) If the UN or US invades and Iraq defends itself with the material it denies it has, then Iraq has proven our case for us.

3) If the UN or US invades, Iraq can defend itself with conventional weapons lest it prove our case. This leads to two scenarios:

In the event of an invasion, Iraq can only

A) fight until it wins, which means essentially taking over the world. Unlikely to happen, so that leaves

B) fight and lose, but in the meantime, it has to destroy it's WMD or else we'll find them and prove our case thus making it all justified.



In any case, Iraq CAN'T use it's own WMD or else our case is proven and even France will have to finally admit to the problem. This leaves just one option for Iraq: to sell as much of this stuff as possible to terrorist organizations before the inspectors find it or before an invasion. As much as even I hate to admit it, unless our intelligence assessments are totally wrong, this is probably the conclusion the the powers that be came to as well thus inspiring the "imperative" for military action.

Comments? Rebuttals? I tried to follow the logical train of thought. If it looks like I took a misstep somewhere, let me know.

stillakid
02-06-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
That's tricky, I'd have to look at the sanctions in detail. However, if you remove the public resentment that the sanctions have caused toward the US/ UN, then the people might start looking at the tyrant himself. It might be a way to spur a coup type event....

How long will that take? A year? Two? A couple of weeks? I have no idea, but see the above for the chain of events conclusion. While you're right and getting the disenchanted people of Iraq to turn on their own leadership would be the least messy and ultimately best solution, it probably isn't likely to happen anytime soon, no matter what we do. Even plopping a Disneyland Baghdad :p down most likely wouldn't get those people to start loving "America" or the rest of the free world in time.

As stated previously, the problem with invasion is that we potentially create a billion new terrorists. Face it: we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Our only two options are these:

1) allow Iraq to continue to make and distribute WMD to terrorists and accept the "loses" in favor of the long-term solution of making the oppressed people of the world like us to the point where new generations don't want to kill us indiscriminately.

2) go in now, stop the leadership, and theoretically the construction of WMD, and thus the distribution to terrorists or other rogue states. The downside is the potential for creating a new generation of terrorists, so the solution to that is to pour resources into rebuilding the region into a stable democracy, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan. This takes cash and manpower, which ultimately would probably have to come from Iraq's own wells.

The Overlord Returns
02-06-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
If I'm seeing the situation correctly at this point, Hussein only has three options:

1. Evade the inspectors indefinitely. This gives him time to either A) destroy the evidence, which is unlikely, or B) sell the material to terrorists. Why terrorists? Because...

2) If the UN or US invades and Iraq defends itself with the material it denies it has, then Iraq has proven our case for us.


I have to disagree. If Saddam is attacked, all bets are off as he knows he is either a: going to be killed in the invasion, or B) be deposed. He is more likely to use the weapons he may have if he feels he has nothing left to lose. Go out in a blaze of glory type of thing.


Originally posted by stillakid

3) If the UN or US invades, Iraq can defend itself with conventional weapons lest it prove our case. This leads to two scenarios:

In the event of an invasion, Iraq can only

A) fight until it wins, which means essentially taking over the world. Unlikely to happen, so that leaves

B) fight and lose, but in the meantime, it has to destroy it's WMD or else we'll find them and prove our case thus making it all justified.


A is unlikely, however, all he HAS to do is keep the fight going and exasperate his opponents. It begs the question of how long americans will support their government in a war that isn't producing results? Suppose they tire of the continued expense and loos of american soldiers, and saddam ends up not being deposed or killed. He would see that as a massive victory. Unlikely, but possible.


Originally posted by stillakid

In any case, Iraq CAN'T use it's own WMD or else our case is proven and even France will have to finally admit to the problem. This leaves just one option for Iraq: to sell as much of this stuff as possible to terrorist organizations before the inspectors find it or before an invasion. As much as even I hate to admit it, unless our intelligence assessments are totally wrong, this is probably the conclusion the the powers that be came to as well thus inspiring the "imperative" for military action.


The problem with this line of reasoning is how unlikely it is that Hussein could sell these weapons and get away with it. I imagine that, if a terrorist group suddenly popped up with loads of serin, nerve, mustard gas, and anthrax, the US is going to turn it's head directly in iraqs direction. A logical conclusion that still finds hussein at the wrong end of a patriot missile. Again, if invaded he's more likely to make a mark by using the weapons in a last ditch kill ride.....

stillakid
02-06-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I have to disagree. If Saddam is attacked, all bets are off as he knows he is either a: going to be killed in the invasion, or B) be deposed. He is more likely to use the weapons he may have if he feels he has nothing left to lose. Go out in a blaze of glory type of thing.

Right, exactly. Whatever happens, if he uses the weapons to try to win or go out in a blaze of glory, he's still proven our case. His only three options are to use them and die doing it, destroy them before we find them, or sell them before we find them.



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
A is unlikely, however, all he HAS to do is keep the fight going and exasperate his opponents. It begs the question of how long americans will support their government in a war that isn't producing results? Suppose they tire of the continued expense and loos of american soldiers, and saddam ends up not being deposed or killed. He would see that as a massive victory. Unlikely, but possible.
Whether the war is short or prolonged, Hussein has set himself up as the victim by saying that he doesn't have any WMD. If he uses them to get out of an invasion, he's proven our case. If he doesn't and holds us off, he still has to get rid of them before we do find them, either through destruction or by selling them. I can almost guarantee that UN/US forces will not leave before Iraq is no longer run by Saddam Hussein. The only way he can do enough damage is by using his hidden stores of WMD which leads back to his original problem. As soon as he does, the rest of the world will be all over him.




Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The problem with this line of reasoning is how unlikely it is that Hussein could sell these weapons and get away with it. I imagine that, if a terrorist group suddenly popped up with loads of serin, nerve, mustard gas, and anthrax, the US is going to turn it's head directly in iraqs direction. A logical conclusion that still finds hussein at the wrong end of a patriot missile. Again, if invaded he's more likely to make a mark by using the weapons in a last ditch kill ride.....
Maybe, but if a terrorist uses it, then he can still claim that it isn't/wasn't his. Logic dictates that it is, but it's all still circumstantial at that point...which just happens to be the situation we find ourselves currently in as of this date and time. Circumstantial evidence. Which again begs the question, do we wait until he or a terrorist uses one of these weapons or do we preemptively stop the process before it can begin?

Emperor Howdy
02-06-2003, 11:53 PM
I'm afraid the invasion of Iraq has dwindled in importance for me now. I just watched the Living with Michael Jackson thing and I'm feeling very strange and disturbed....like being nude in a glass elevator in a mall.....with animals and clowns walking about....and babies.....everywhere babies. Grrrrrrr, damn your voodoo, Michael! :mad:

For real, though. It's like he's completely insane....yet I want everyone to leave him alone. I.....I......I'm very confused right now and just want my mom, ok? :cry:

sith_killer_99
02-07-2003, 02:14 AM
Let's not forget that Saddam doesn't have to use his WMD directly. With his ties to other terrorist groups he can simply hand them over to someone else to us against us.

He's very good at that type of underhanded dealing. And yes, Saddam does have ties to terrorist networks. Weather he has ties the Al Queda or not, he has been known to allow groups like Islamic Jihad and others to operate out of Baghdad.

The Overlord Returns
02-07-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by stillakid

Maybe, but if a terrorist uses it, then he can still claim that it isn't/wasn't his. Logic dictates that it is, but it's all still circumstantial at that point...which just happens to be the situation we find ourselves currently in as of this date and time. Circumstantial evidence. Which again begs the question, do we wait until he or a terrorist uses one of these weapons or do we preemptively stop the process before it can begin?

He could claim as much as he wants.....the US would still go after him. I guess I'm saying if he is interested in remaining alive and in power.....he wouldn't risk that option. I am fairly certain that his life, and his continued power over what he has is more important to him than giving terrorists the means to kill a few hundred americans/ westerners, yet in the process, ending his own life.

stillakid
02-07-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
He could claim as much as he wants.....the US would still go after him. I guess I'm saying if he is interested in remaining alive and in power.....he wouldn't risk that option. I am fairly certain that his life, and his continued power over what he has is more important to him than giving terrorists the means to kill a few hundred americans/ westerners, yet in the process, ending his own life.

I suppose, yet this is the question I've asked myself since last posting here...what the heck does Hussein want anyway? Really. What is his ultimate goal? He could easily produce enough conventional weapons to fend off any attacks from neighboring countries. By invading Kuwait, then defying the UN terms continually, he's just inviting trouble. Why would someone (sane) do that? I don't get it.

As mentioned, he can't yank out any "illegal" weapons and use them for defense lest he prove our case for us. He could destroy them before we find them, but if that would defeat the entire purpose of creating them in the first place. Which only leaves the option of giving/selling them to a third party to inflict damage upon the civilized world. But doing that, he is still inviting his own regime to fall. There is no logic here. Am I missing something? What on earth could Hussein have been thinking all this time?

The Overlord Returns
02-07-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I suppose, yet this is the question I've asked myself since last posting here...what the heck does Hussein want anyway? Really. What is his ultimate goal? He could easily produce enough conventional weapons to fend off any attacks from neighboring countries. By invading Kuwait, then defying the UN terms continually, he's just inviting trouble. Why would someone (sane) do that? I don't get it.


That's a damn good question. Honestly, I think the man would be happy to live out his twilight years with what little power and territory he has.

The assault on Kuwait revolved around border disputes, and a massive oil field right next to kuwait that Iraq felt they were tapping into. Indeed, they approached the US with their intention, at which time they were told it was not US policy to get involved in middle east disputes....

Still, why he continues with the WMD's is beyond me. There's been a theory bandied about that many of these rogue nations view this kind of destructive capability as the only recourse to keep the US at bay...the idea has merit, but still doesn't explain it fully.





Originally posted by stillakid

As mentioned, he can't yank out any "illegal" weapons and use them for defense lest he prove our case for us. He could destroy them before we find them, but if that would defeat the entire purpose of creating them in the first place. Which only leaves the option of giving/selling them to a third party to inflict damage upon the civilized world. But doing that, he is still inviting his own regime to fall. There is no logic here. Am I missing something? What on earth could Hussein have been thinking all this time?

Again, there is no apparent logic. I almost hope he is captured, and turns celebrity politcal exile, revealing his odd motives and ideas that spawned all this......

However......death is the more likely end for the crackpot.

JediTricks
02-07-2003, 04:25 PM
Do we really have to impliment a 2-in-12 rule on this thread? Let's see, 2 days old, 50 posts, over half of them are by only 2 members... seems like that's a recipe for the ol' 2-in-12. Ease up on the back-and-forth and back-to-back posts please, this thread seems mostly civil (except for a few instances of discussing the forumites instead of the discussion itself) so it would be a shame if we had to put that rule into effect.

stillakid
02-07-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Do we really have to impliment a 2-in-12 rule on this thread? Let's see, 2 days old, 50 posts, over half of them are by only 2 members... seems like that's a recipe for the ol' 2-in-12. Ease up on the back-and-forth and back-to-back posts please, this thread seems mostly civil (except for a few instances of discussing the forumites instead of the discussion itself) so it would be a shame if we had to put that rule into effect.

Is management only picking on the political/religious threads or are all threads fair game? Because we've been "civil" I'm abit confused and a bit taken aback by this "threat" popping up out of nowhere. Just trying to understand the logic, if there is any. Thanks! :)


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Again, there is no apparent logic. I almost hope he is captured, and turns celebrity politcal exile, revealing his odd motives and ideas that spawned all this......

Can't wait for the Movie-of-the-Week! :) Who gets to play Saddam, the Misunderstood Tyrant?

Tonysmo
02-09-2003, 02:13 AM
Here’s a thought, If Saddam lets his son press the buttons ( which is the likely case, cause his son seems even more irrational than ol dad ) does that make "him" the terrorist? Saddam could just claim " darn kids!!, I though I had those chemicals locked away.. bummer.. "

I'd really like to know what options we have? I know you guys have discussed these things into the dirt, but really, what are our options? We can't go in and assassinate the guy, Actually, we could - easily.. but that would make him a Martyr.. we don't need that now do we?

I'm gonna go off the deep end here and suggest that WE, as AMERICANS, the ones who seem to put our noses in everyone else’s business, do what we say were going to do and take these folks out once and for all. Why do we put ourselves in these situations? Because NONE of the other countries will. Seems to be the norm for all the other countries to let it slide.. The United States is THE most dominate superpower in the world. While it sucks to have to flex that muscle for any instance - be it some freak of a leader in another country or over resources that fuel the entire world, sometimes someone has to step up to the plate to take care of the issue.. If we took the same stance as some of these other countries what would the world look like? Now of course you may all roll your eyes as this post as it doesn’t contain any political suggestions, and that’s because I cant think of this soon to be war as a democrat or a republican, but as an American.. Those are my brothers and sisters over there getting ready to do something other countries thumb their noses at. Am I excited at the fact that we may have casualties? of course not.. If they asked me to go right now and support my country, would I go? Absolutely..

what’s my point of this rant? I dunno, I guess while I do thoroughly enjoy what each one of you thinks about certain aspects of all of this, I think we need to take one step back, and SUPPORT OUR COUNTRY, who is trying to help the world.. cause no one else is willing to step up.

Real quick insight on how these people think – My mother has a doctor of happens to be of Middle Eastern decent. In a recent talk with her Dr. he reveled our downfall. He said the only way America will ever win is to deport all of these people out of America immediately. My mother said they cannot do that, as it is not the way of Americans to do that. We base our sole freedoms on that very thing. The Dr. came back with a disturbing rebuttal. “ That is your downfall as Americans. If you were in our country, we would shoot you dead on the street, no questions asked..“ Now I would assume this man doesn’t feel the same way, as I would certainly hope 90% of the middle east folks who work in this country feel.. as I work with a lot of them.. but it is a disturbing thought. This is the price we all pay for our freedom. Like it or not. It’s gonna happen, I would certainly hope you all SUPPORT these people who are fighting for our country and for the other parts of the world that don’t want to get their hands dirty..

As for our troops over seas... Looks like they get some overtime.. From Iraq to Korea.. just another puddle of injustice that needs to be soaked up and rung out. We can take em..

wow, that was refreshing..

mabudonicus
02-09-2003, 09:04 AM
Just to address the question of "what's saddam thinking"...

Maybe (and this is a devils advocate post) he's thinking that the US is going to attack his country no matter what, on the strength of "history" (and only highlighting the points of history that would strengthen their case, forgetting such things as the creation of an independent Kuwait by England 50 years back, a point that no-one ever mentions), and he really doesn't know what to do....
Especially in the last couple days, where the US administration has said more an more urgently that they will attack Iraq soon, and that the UN better hurry up, cause they're going to attack anyway.....

Imagine if you had a neighbor who hated you, and kept telling you he was going to blow up your house, and he started presenting his case to city hall, saying stuff like you're a pedophile, you torture animals, you threaten his property and family...... then city hall says, without anything other than a few history books the guy himself published, "well, there could be something there, we'll investigate", and then you've got agents all over the place, all the time (and please remember, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but thanks to those books the guy wrote, you technically are guilty, especially thanks to the way the case is presented in the news), tearing up your stuff, and the guy is speaking at city hall every day, saying "He's going to be doing something terrible, we HAVE to find some evidence and take him out, and if you can't, I'll blow the place up myself"
You never did anything, but you do have a nice car and you know the guy wants it and your wife... it's not true, but the media and your neighbor keep making accusations you could never disprove, but since he said you did, and you say you didn't (and because of the reverse onus nature of the situation, he's proven you did, now you must prove that you didn't, even though it's painfully obvious that he's got no actual reason other than greed) and the whole town hates you, and you know, either way, you're gonna die, right or not........
Maybe that's what he's thinking..
And just before my throat gets filled with posts, I'm not saying Saddam is an angel, but if the US is doing this for "everyone on earth", please count me out, as every time I hear another "we gotta have clearance, else we'll do this without it" announcement, it just gets more and more phoney..

Okay, mabudon for dinner tonight, come and get it:):):)

Jedi Clint
02-09-2003, 12:35 PM
No actual reason other than greed? Mab......babe......please.

Saddam's WMD program is indicative of his desire to play ball on a bigger field.

stillakid
02-09-2003, 08:32 PM
Just an alternative thought here, but regardless of the oil and weapons and stuff, shouldn't we go in and take this regime out anyway based purely on humanitarian reasons? The crimes he's accused of committing against his own people resemble those of Hitler, Stalin, and the recent atrocities in the Balkans. Forget the commodities and such, don't we have some responsiblity to rid the world of slime like this anyway? I always see those signs of "never again" whenever Nazi Germany is brought up. Well folks, here it is again, only with a different face on it.

Just a thought.

sith_killer_99
02-09-2003, 08:46 PM
You hit the nail on the head!

This is exactly what I have been trying to say all along. Saddam is guilty of some major human rights violations.

I have seen the video tape from the aftermath of his little WMD experiment, the deaths of hundreds, thousands of Kurds. Women laying dead, still clutching their dead babies.

Make no mistakes this guy is a monster.

Old Fossil
02-09-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Just an alternative thought here, but regardless of the oil and weapons and stuff, shouldn't we go in and take this regime out anyway based purely on humanitarian reasons? The crimes he's accused of committing against his own people resemble those of Hitler, Stalin, and the recent atrocities in the Balkans. Forget the commodities and such, don't we have some responsiblity to rid the world of slime like this anyway? I always see those signs of "never again" whenever Nazi Germany is brought up. Well folks, here it is again, only with a different face on it.

Just a thought.

Let's take out the People's Republic of China while we're at it. Talk about a destabilizing force in the region! Consider their history over the past 50 years:

(1) They boast a deplorable human rights record (Tiennamin Square, the Great Leap Forward, all that.);
(2) They invaded and continue to occupy Tibet, a huge country with as much right to exist as, say, tiny Kuwait;
(3) They continue to threaten our ally, Taiwan/Rep. of China;
(4) They maintain the largest standing army in the world;
(5) They have supported guerilla movements the world over, including (but not limited to) good old Pol Pot in Cambodia; and

(don't forget!)

(6) They got NUKES!!!

If we're gonna be the Savior of the World (aside from Jesus, of course), then by golly we better get some kind of a plan going on the PRoC, cause man, they make Iraq look like peanuts. I mean, aren't all these factors as alarming, if not more so (NUKES!) than anything Iraq has managed in its post-colonial history? What are we waiting for? Where's the spy plane photos, the Security Council resolution?

Or is Iraq just an easier target?

stillakid
02-09-2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Twodot Tatooine
Let's take out the People's Republic of China while we're at it. Talk about a destabilizing force in the region! Consider their history over the past 50 years:

(1) They boast a deplorable human rights record (Tiennamin Square, the Great Leap Forward, all that.);
(2) They invaded and continue to occupy Tibet, a huge country with as much right to exist as, say, tiny Kuwait;
(3) They continue to threaten our ally, Taiwan/Rep. of China;
(4) They maintain the largest standing army in the world;
(5) They have supported guerilla movements the world over, including (but not limited to) good old Pol Pot in Cambodia; and

(don't forget!)

(6) They got NUKES!!!

If we're gonna be the Savior of the World (aside from Jesus, of course), then by golly we better get some kind of a plan going on the PRoC, cause man, they make Iraq look like peanuts. I mean, aren't all these factors as alarming, if not more so (NUKES!) than anything Iraq has managed in its post-colonial history? What are we waiting for? Where's the spy plane photos, the Security Council resolution?

Or is Iraq just an easier target?

I obviously have no actual answers for that question, but I'd wager to say that the reason a country like Iraq is a more pressing priority is because of it's erratic and unpredictable nature. While indeed China has the manpower and technology and the philosophy to make them a threat, no actual threat to the world really seems to exist. It's those radical unpredictable religious ****ant third worlds we all need to truly fear.

But to be fair, we're not going into Iraq for those humanitarian reasons. Neither did we invade the Balkans when we should have. Nor did we join WWII in time to stop a large portion of the bloodshed. This argument over whether the US should be the world's police has never been honestly discussed or decided upon. I also think it's part of the schizophrenia that causes so much of the distrust and hatred towards the US from the rest of the world. As the worlds most powerful nation, we should be responsible for "policing" and keeping the downtrodden safe. But all too often, our "invasion" decisions are not made for those good reasons.

EricRG
02-10-2003, 01:05 AM
China has no................................................ ..oil?

stillakid
02-10-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
China has no................................................ ..oil?

Well, that too. ;) Why do you think we didn't go into the Balkans? Why do you think we've just upped our yearly expenditures in Colombia?

The answer to all these problems is finding a new way to power our cars and machines that doesn't rely on oil. Then we really could go out into the world and invade purely on the basis of humanitarian reasons. But that'll never happen so long as "we" keep putting Oil barrons in the White House.

The Overlord Returns
02-10-2003, 11:53 AM
Well...Interestingly, in the last few days Iraq has turned around and offered further cooperation on all the fronts that the Inspection heads said they were lacking.

They have:

Handed over new documents detailing what has happened to older stockpiles of Anthrax.

New scientist interviews are taking place in private.

Just announced that U2 spy planes will be given unfettered access to iraqi skies to aid in the inspection process.


What are we to make of these new developments?

JON9000
02-10-2003, 11:59 AM
I think the Iraqis are stalling. Saddam's plan is simple- pull a Kim Jong Il. Once he has a nuke and a missle capable of delivering it to Tel Aviv, he can tell the U.S. to go to heck, just like the North Koreans are.

That is why we are going to war regardless.

The Overlord Returns
02-10-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by JON9000
I think the Iraqis are stalling. Saddam's plan is simple- pull a Kim Jong Il. Once he has a nuke and a missle capable of delivering it to Tel Aviv, he can tell the U.S. to go to heck, just like the North Koreans are.

That is why we are going to war regardless.

Yet the Atomic faction of the inspection process say that is just too far off..... in fact, scientists who've since left Iraq also say it's something that is inconceivable any time in the recent future....

I doubt they could stall the US/UN for the deaced or so it might take...hell..it could take even longer.

Exhaust Port
02-10-2003, 04:00 PM
He's already stalled them for 12 years. ;)

The Overlord Returns
02-10-2003, 04:08 PM
Yet he's only a threat now ;)

mabudonicus
02-13-2003, 07:50 AM
Just for kicks, go check out the story on the front of the onion, about Iraq... (the korea one is funny too... btw, today kim jong il has demanded that the US weapons come under scrutiny as well, a call that makes pretty good sense in light of recent developments)
It looks like, in the terms of wubbya's "with us or against us", germany and france and belgium (!?!) are against....
No worries, though, our stupid government has pledged to help out in the war on Iraq whether it's sanctioned or not, so if the next target is germany or france or belgium or iran or whatever, we'll be there..... we just won't be doing any live-fire training this time, so there's no confusion
(note the sarcasm:D )

2-1B
02-13-2003, 11:47 AM
Does North Korea have any oil we could go and capture?
If not, Iraq will be good enough.

After paying $1.749 yesterday for regular unleaded, I'm supporting any and all conquests Bush Joonya embarks on (as long as they're based on oil).

:crazed:

The Overlord Returns
02-13-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
Does North Korea have any oil we could go and capture?
If not, Iraq will be good enough.

After paying $1.749 yesterday for regular unleaded, I'm supporting any and all conquests Bush Joonya embarks on (as long as they're based on oil).

:crazed:

Well...you're in luck....I imagine almost all of them will be... ;)