Has it ever occurred to you that...

[STING2]

You do not know the nature of the evidence they have, it may not be photo's from space. Revealing it past important congressional representives could reveal the source of the evidence in which case it could be eliminated. If way have a source of intelligence inside Saddam's inner circle, we can't have that be revealed or even indicated in any way. Just the word that Saddam has one spy in his top 50 advisors means that he would murder all 50 of them. I have no idea if that is the case, but we have to sometimes trust are elected officials to make these decisions secretly in sensitive national security area's.

The war has already been started by Iraq from a legal point of view because of their open non-compliance with the Gulf War ceacefire resolution. This is a FACT! I don't want to see an event 10 times worse than 9/11. It is incumbent on Iraq to prove to the world that they do not have weapons of mass destruction. They have failed to do so and when called on by the international community to do so, they offer only to allow inspectors to military sites with the same flawed inspection regime.

Its time for are elected congressional leaders to vote on the Presidents new resolution so we can move forward as a country on this issue. I am amazed that there are people that prefer to wait for an event to happen rather than preventing it from ever happening.

 

[Giant Lemon]

What is scary is to me is how after Pearl Harbor so many people rushed to their country's defence without hesitation and how few did so in the past year. I wish I could find the Article, but it seems that this time around it was mostly "prior servicemen and women" who came to the plate. I guess it is a generational thing.

I think A LOT of Americans were jaded by Vietnam- we're more cynical now.

 

[BAW]

I think A LOT of Americans were jaded by Vietnam- we're more cynical now.

I was going to bring this up too. I'm old enough to remember my father's friends coming home from Vietnam completely messed up. It really changed the way his generation saw military service and that was passed on to my generation and so on.

There will always be people willing to serve their country but it will never be the same as it was in my grandfather's time.

 

[STING2]

Text of Bush?s draft resolution on Iraq

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

Proposal sent to Congress

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 2002

Dear Speaker Hastert, Leader Daschle, Leader Lott, and Leader Gephardt,

As a follow-up to your discussion yesterday morning with the President, we enclose a suggested form of resolution with respect to Iraq. We stand ready to meet with you or your staffs to discuss our proposal,

As the President indicated to you, it is our hope that we can reach early agreement on the proposal at the leadership level to allow you to proceed to consider the resolution in your respective chambers as soon as possible.

Sincerely,


Nicholas E. Calio
Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President







The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Thomas A. Daschle
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington. DC 20510

The Honorable Trent Lott
Minority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Richard A. Gephardt
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515




WHITE HOUSE DISCUSSION DRAFT
9/19/02

Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations;

Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;
Whereas Iraq?s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its civilian population that threatens international peace and security under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with these ?subsequent relevant resolutions,?

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to achieve full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670,674, and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678;

Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102-190 has stated that it ?supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as bring consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102-1),? that Iraq?s . repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ?constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,? and that Congress ?supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688?;

Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-33 8) has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States;


Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ?Further Resolution on Iraq?.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United .Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

 

[MadelynIris]

I feel exactly the same way. According to some of the opinions stated here lately, anyone who feels this way is naive or "just doesn't get it." I do get it and I'm not naive, I just don't want my country plunged into a war without solid proof that it's absolutely necessary

And you think that our President, and all his advisors and congress, would just do it for fun? They're just bored and are looking for something to do?

You think they ALL would do this without REAL evidence? Just on a whim or guess? Hmmm?????????

Mark

 

[BAW]

And you think that our President, and all his advisors and congress, would just do it for fun? They're just bored and are looking for something to do?

You think they ALL would do this without REAL evidence? Just on a whim or guess? Hmmm?????????

Mark

Um yeah, that's what I think

You know, I really don't mind when someone disagrees with me or tries to point out another side to a story, but the sarcasm of your response is hardly necessary. I will listen.

My having another point of view in this matter doesn't mean that I'm 100% right or wrong or that you are either.

 

[Rono]

And you think that our President, and all his advisors and congress, would just do it for fun? They're just bored and are looking for something to do?

You think they ALL would do this without REAL evidence? Just on a whim or guess? Hmmm?????????

Mark

Maybe the advisors and ministers of Bush jr are fustrated by the fact that they failed when the worked under Bush Sr. And now they have the chance again,....

 

[TylerDurden]

And you think that our President, and all his advisors and congress, would just do it for fun? They're just bored and are looking for something to do?

You think they ALL would do this without REAL evidence? Just on a whim or guess? Hmmm?????????

Mark

And you think that if the US had real and credible evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the US or Israel they wouldn't hand it over to the leaders of nations such as France, Germany, Russia, Canada and stop them kicking and screaming about the US? If it was there and it was real, they'd all shut up, support the US, the UN would do what it has to do, because the above nations would vote appropriately and action would be taken. So why on earth would GW not do that? It means he gets the job done, and that would be in US citizens best interests, so I assume that is what you would want him to do.

Im not sure about Egypt, don't know much there, but as for Saudi Arabia, they may make a bit of noise, but in the end they will always fall in line with the US. Without US troops in Saudi, and US backing and US $ the Saudi Govt/Royal Family wouldn't last 6 months and they know it. I don't think it was evidence that made them swing behind the US. I'll try and find an excellent article about all the favours the US had to do to get support for Afghanistan, I'd say the same is true here.

Besides, think about it, I can't see why Iraq would be a threat even with the weapons. Saddam Hussein is your stereotypical mad dictator. Loves the power. Hates people that have him over their knee. Loves the games. Loves proving little political points against nations like the US. But I don't think he is stupid.

What has he got to gain from attacking Israel or the US/US interests? What if he lobs a missile into Israel with a chemical warhead? Israel has nukes and a short temper. If that wasn't the response, then he'd know that, yes, certainly then the armies of about 50 nations would be heading straight for Baghdad. Basically he'd be nothing more then a suicide bomber on a huge scale. Why would he give up 30(?) years of power? For nothing? He seriously wouldn't gain a thing.

Don't use Kuwait as an example 'he could do it again'. That's rubbish. Through the 80's he pushed and pushed and pushed and the US/rest of the world didn't care at all. He probably genuinly thought he could get away with Kuwait. But he forgot that a push for oil is where the US draws the line.... He now knows that a step out of line and he's screwed.

He has, with the inspectors (which means nothing, they'll find only what he wants them to find) like I said in a another thread, managed to put alot of governments in a very interesting situation all at once, and the UN. Maybe that was his goal. If it was he is very very smart.

The US is going to have to execute absolutely perfect diplomacy to even dream of getting through this with any sort of reputation intact. The UN has been put on notice to prove it's worth. If that doesn't work then it's like zapping back in time 50 years. The guy with the biggest guns rules the world and that's that, 'Might Is Right'. The UK, you've got Tony Blair wishing he had the international profile GW has, but he can't even get the support of his own party, let alone the population. Here in Australia the very Republican-like government we have in power is all behind the US and prepared to go in even without UN backing, but the population is resoundingly against it. In Germany you've got a government using as one of their slogans for a re-election 'a vote for us is a vote against an iraqi war' and it's working. The US and Russia have spent the last 10yrs trying to get along, China too, and they are two of the biggest opposers of military action against Iraq. The 'War On Terror' ... what happened to that?!? Way to make a move that will just create terrorism and cement anti-American feelings in the Middle East.

Still, GW will probably do better in the polls.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

and incase you missed it, read the post above this one.

 

[meegannie]

Nicholas E. Calio
Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs

Hey! I know him! I had to work with him when I was the White House contact person!

Ahem. Sorry.

As you were.

 

[bono_luvva]

so you don't think Bush has the hard evidence because YOU haven't seen it? That seems a bit egotistical to me.

I'm not saying that because I personally haven't seen it..if he had had evidence then surely he would share it with a few people but he hasn't....

 

[MadelynIris]

Bono's American Wife,

I do enjoy a bit of sarcasm every once and a while, but it is/was in no way meant to degrage your position or thoughts as I respect them fully and have many of the same positions.

I too am scared about the possible outcome of such a conflict. There are soooo many things that could go wrong and I would hate to see any go through such a terrifying scenario.

But I also understand and respect the need for certain national policies based on intelligence. Not to say they are always accurate, and or morally correct. I do believe though, that Bush's advisors are sane, moral, people and do have our best interests involved here.

I also believe that they only share evidence of that is very sensitive with their closest allies. Usually not France and Russia. Definitely not China!

UK, Australia, and Canada have always been first on the list - that's why I am puzzled by the Canadian PM's stance. The odd one out on our closest allies.

But what has me the most convinced is Daschle and Gephardt. To get those guys to join, well, it's got to be good evidence.



TylerDurden,

Your points are well take too. If this truly is a wag the dog/poll booster situation, there is no way the democrats would allow it.

And they are.



Mark

 

[BAW]

Bono's American Wife,

I do enjoy a bit of sarcasm every once and a while, but it is/was in no way meant to degrage your position or thoughts as I respect them fully and have many of the same positions.

I too am scared about the possible outcome of such a conflict. There are soooo many things that could go wrong and I would hate to see any go through such a terrifying scenario.

But I also understand and respect the need for certain national policies based on intelligence. Not to say they are always accurate, and or morally correct. I do believe though, that Bush's advisors are sane, moral, people and do have our best interests involved here.

I also believe that they only share evidence of that is very sensitive with their closest allies. Usually not France and Russia. Definitely not China!

UK, Australia, and Canada have always been first on the list - that's why I am puzzled by the Canadian PM's stance. The odd one out on our closest allies.

But what has me the most convinced is Daschle and Gephardt. To get those guys to join, well, it's got to be good evidence.




Mark

Thank you Mark...sarcasm isn't always a bad thing, I'm guilty of using it myself at times. I shouldn't have assumed that you were making fun of me or not taking my position seriously and I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

I really want to hear both sides of this issue and I admit that your points make sense...I know that sensitive evidence can't be made public and it would be crazy to do so, but I just want something more than satellite photos. I know that if the hard evidence exists, our allies will be given access to it and will base their decision on that evidence.

I also really, really want to trust that my government has our best interests at heart but I'll need a little more convincing in that area. If this is gonna happen, I just hope its for the right reasons.


Char

 

[hiphop]

He has, with the inspectors (which means nothing, they'll find only what he wants them to find) like I said in a another thread, managed to put alot of governments in a very interesting situation all at once, and the UN. Maybe that was his goal. If it was he is very very smart.

The US is going to have to execute absolutely perfect diplomacy to even dream of getting through this with any sort of reputation intact. The UN has been put on notice to prove it's worth. If that doesn't work then it's like zapping back in time 50 years.

This is a very, very interesting point.

 

[STING2]

Tylerderdun,

The USA would not necessarily show its evidence with countries like Russia, China, and France. The nature of the evidence again could reveal important intelligence gathering capabilities that we do not want Russia and China to know about.
Whether or not there is credible evidence, its a fact that the UN inspectors had failed to complete their job when they were thrown out in 1998. Saddam has had 4 years to hide and rebuild his WMD programs in this regard. Some of these types of development programs can be easily hidden from inspectors. The last inspection regime was a joke. Only one backed up with troops, could have the possiblity of being effective.

So Saddam is not stupid. Well then please explain to me what was rational about his choice to invade Iran in 1980. At one point during the Iran/Iraq war, the Iraqi's came close to defeat and being possibly overun. That whole war was a stupid risk for someone who "only wants to live and consolidate their power". Then to suddenly move troops to the border of Kuwait and then invade that country, only two years after ending a war with Iran that cost over a million lives on both sides and Billions of dollars, you wouldn't call that just a little bit dumb or irrational?

I knew the first day that Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 that this meant war with the USA. Most evidence suggest that Saddam himself knew this was a strong possiblity but that America was week. "America loses 50,000 in Vietnam and they pull out", I lost 50,000 men in one battle with Iran". "America does not have guts, their a paper tiger". Thats not the exact quote but close to it. A rather naive assumption by Saddam. With the might of the US military arrayed against them, and the likely possibility that US forces could go to Baghdad and take him out, he decides to stand and fight losing 2/3s of his military force and the ability to seriously threaten his neighbors with conventional military force. The fact is, Saddam could have lost everything in 1991, but believed he could inflict enough casaulties on the USA that they would withdraw. The US did not go to Baghdad for other political reasons, not because of casaulties inflicted by the Iraqi military.

The point is, Saddam is a dumb risk taker when it comes to international relations. You don't want to trust someone like that with Weapons of Mass destruction. The mans history and behavior are exactly the reason were going after him. How many other leaders around the world have invaded and attacked 4 different countries in the past 20 years? He caculates that he could get away with supplying weapons to terrorist, to attack the USA, and that we would be unable to trace it back to him. We can't take a risk like this considering how effective terrorist can be and how vulnerable we are to small hidden terrorist cells.

Certainly Saudi Arabia has are support, but if there is one country in the world that does not need money from the US government its Saudi Arabia. I and other private US and European citizens give Saudi Arabia plenty of money every time we fill up our gas tanks. But its cheap, and yes they do pump a few more barrels to keep supply and demand in equilibrium during a crises so prices won't sky rocket.

Its sad that other nations are unwilling to enforce UN resolutions regarding the 1991 ceacefire. Technically and legally we have been at war with Iraq since November 1998 when Iraq came out in open violation of UN resolutions and threw the inspectors out. After 9/11 we can't afford to risk an attack by terrorist with WMD capability supplied secretly by Saddam. The risk of continueing with the current containment regime seems to be much greater than the cost of invasion.

 

[Salome]

The USA would not necessarily show its evidence with countries like Russia, China, and France. The nature of the evidence again could reveal important intelligence gathering capabilities that we do not want Russia and China to know about.

wouldn't it strenghten your position if those countries knew you are capable of gathering information like this ??

 

[nbcrusader]

wouldn't it strenghten your position if those countries knew you are capable of gathering information like this ??

Actually, you are in a stronger position if you keep the other countries guessing about your information gathering capabilities. Show a couple of license plate photos taken by spy satellite - and let 'em guess about whatever else you are watching.

 

[STING2]

Yes but they already suspect this. But we do not want to risk national security by indirectly letting people know the extent of our intelligence gathering capabilities. There are still members of the Russian government and military that might still have some ties to Iraq from the days of the old Soviet Union. The same goes with China as well. Again the intelligence were getting could be from something or someone inside the Iraqi government and military, or even Saddam's inner circle. Revealing certain intelligence often will reveal capability which if leaked could compromise the whole intelligence operation. If Iraq has a better understanding of what we know about their WMDs, they could craft other ways to hide it based on that information. We then could lose a significant intelligence gathering capability.

 

[bullet the blue sky]

Note: Countries that make the first real military strike in a war a) lose the moral high ground and b) almost always lose.

 

[MadelynIris]

And the good news here is that it was Iraq.

In fact, they kept the war cooking through various methods for the last 12 years.



Mark

 

[kobayashi]

I just think if the evidence is that credible, why is Canada and previously England, holding out?

there are lot of mitigating factors going on in canada at this time. popular support for the war is low and our participation in it, even lower(myself included). at the same time a PM having just announced his retirement is now hellbent on developing social spending plans and ensuring his closest rival and former team mate never ascends to the position of prime minister.

regardless of the nations direct participation, canada has agreed to fill in holes left in NORAD and other north american initiatives due to US reassignments to the mideast.

none of this matters however. it seems increasingly likely that bush wants this war(and he may very well have the evidence to support it...none of us know) and he will eventually get it. sometime after the new year but it will happen.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Good points Kobe. I'm just musing I guess like all of us.
STING2 if that is indeed the case, and I am not questioning that, it would seem that it has to be taken on good faith that Bush and his agencies know enough, and can be trusted to make this decision. It involves putting plain faith in him and his fellow decision makers to be doing the right thing. I have nothing really against Bush, but the overwhelming lack of support all around the world is phenomenal. I dont doubt Bush could gain or access whatever information he does need to reach the conclusion an attack is the only viable option. I agree with the US being able to keep to their chests, what means they have of gathering intellignce. I dont believe in risking security in any way for the sake of proving something's worth, ie this evidence.
But what if he is wrong and your troops are being sent on a suicide mission?

 

[ultraviolet7]

Bush might actually have in front of him, on his desk, tangible, touchable, visible evidence of an impending, immediate threat to our national security and the security of our allies regarding Iraq/Hussein?

I've read alot of naive comments on this board, about the current Iraqi situation, and none of you seem to get this?

Can any respect the fact that we have means to gather intelligence in these matters, and at times, immediate action is needed?

Or do you demand that we expose all of our means of obtaining this evidence before you believe it?

Some of the logic on this thread is frankly hard to get. I quoted the opening post as representative of what I mean but similar points have been made later on.

1. If Mr Bush were to be in possession of vital information regarding an impending threat on US' security, logic indicates that he wouldn't be even threatening to attack Iraq. He would have already launched an attack since the US Congress wouldn't certainly have opposed such action and surely the US Constitution must include the granting of extraordinary powers for the President to act using force in extreme situations. On the international diplomatic front, if the security of American citizens was really at stake he wouldn't certainly withhold vital information from UN fellow states to obtain backing and authorisation from the UN to launch such an attack. I mean that if he should be in possession of such information and is delaying action then he could very well be accused in his own country of acting irresponsibly. I don't see that he is acting according to the "need of immediate action because of a real threat to US security" claim. He's either irresponsible or there is no such immediate threat.

2. Re the fact that the US "has the means to gather intelligence on these matters" OK, but it must be necessarily conceded that the efficiency of US intelligence services can be logically doubted after their major flop regarding the prevention of the 9/11 attacks.

3. No-one is asking the President to make intelligence sources or sensitive information public but rather that he shares such vital information with the UN Security Council or at least with the heads of ally states who could put pressure on the Security Council to give green light for immediate action. But then the excuse is that "we do not want to share our intelligence with certain states". Fair enough, but you can't expect them to believe you and much less to back you if no evidence is produced. What's curious here is that not only nations like Russia or China who are logical candidates for partial briefing (but who happen to be members of the Security Council) are reluctant to back the US on this one but also other technically ally states like Germany or Canada have refused to go with the US without UN backing. This in my view seriously hinders the theory that there may be actual proof of what is claimed.

It also poses a serious contradiction: according to the UN Charter any member state who wishes to undertake military action against another has to first pose its case to the Security Council, the Council has to evaluate the situation and decide what course of action is to be taken, meaning that a member state CANNOT act on its own initiative. But then the said state refuses to brief the Security Council regarding the actual proof that justifies its need to attack. How does the said nation propose to comply with basic UN regulations? How does the US act when it's another nation who wants to perform a military intervention in these terms?

On the other hand the "respect for UN regulations" principle is brandished as the legal argument that allows this attack under the post Gulf War cease-fire agreement!! In my view international law is either respected or it is not, it can't possibly be a two-way game. UN regulations cannot be invoked at will when they are suitable to defend a certain position and overlooked altogether when their application is seen to be an obstacle against the course of action a nation wishes to pursue.

4. The violation of the cease-fire agreement is an issue in itself.

Whether or not there is credible evidence, its a fact that the UN inspectors had failed to complete their job when they were thrown out in 1998. Saddam has had 4 years to hide and rebuild his WMD programs in this regard. Some of these types of development programs can be easily hidden from inspectors. The last inspection regime was a joke. Only one backed up with troops, could have the possiblity of being effective.

The fact that UN inspectors had failed to complete their job is fact, we agree. It's also fact that some of them reported that Iraq was not posing a serious threat regarding WMD at the time. It is also fact that if this was the case 4 years is not enough time to put up a WMD programme from scratch. It is also fact that if the inspectors who claimed that there wasn't such threat then weren't credible enough, other inspectors with access to other hypotetical "sensitive information" haven't been able to convince UN officials that the threat Iraq is posing to the West is serious enough. Then if it is so easy to hide development programmes from inspectors why was the inspection issue given so much relevance as a condition to grant cease-fire in the first place? I mean if inspections were, as you seem to imply virtually useless, what's the object of making the failure of their implementation such a strong point?

5. Supposing that it is true that Iraq really possesses WMD it could provide to terrorist groups, it is certainly not the only nation which does. In fact Pakistan, to name just one, also possesses WMD, it is ruled by a dictator who violates human rights, fundamentalism has a strong foothold in the area, in fact the Taleban accused of harbouring members of Al-Qaeda were trained in Islamic schools over there and organised from Pakistan their operation to seize power back in 96. Why isn't Pakistan a priority in the "war against terrorism" agenda? Because they helped the US during the war in Afghanistan? Beacuse it has not attacked 4 countries in the past??? In what way does that gurantee that they will not provide WMD to terrorist groups, which is supposedly the main objective this war is supposed to prevent?

I am amazed that there are people that prefer to wait for an event to happen rather than preventing it from ever happening.

6. I'm amazed that people still believe that this sort of war is the solution to prevent further terrorist attacks. It's plainly ignoring the reason why the US were the target of a terrorist attack in the first place and why other western countries may be possible future targets.

In conclusion I certainly don't like Hussein or his methods and wish he wouldn't be at the lead of a nation but frankly I can't help feeling that the arguments used as an excuse to unseat him stink, to say the least.

 

[ultraviolet7]

oh and by the way, hiding the truth is just as bad as flat out lying. if you believe otherwise, then you are lying to yourself. somethings you have to supress from people, PROOF for starting a full fledged war is not one of these things. the public NEEDS to know why their sons and daughters are risking life and limb, in a desert thousands of miles away. blind 'WARR ON TERRISM' is not enough a reason.

Good point.

TylerDurden you make some very sensible points.

 

[hiphop]

Again the intelligence were getting could be from something or someone inside the Iraqi government and military, or even Saddam's inner circle. Revealing certain intelligence often will reveal capability which if leaked could compromise the whole intelligence operation.

Why doesn?t intelligence prefer another kind of operation there? If there is such access to an inner circle, why not do an intelligence mission to have him removed? Let the C.I.A. get rid of the bastard. Why does Bush need a war?

 

[Popmartijn]

STING2 if that is indeed the case, and I am not questioning that, it would seem that it has to be taken on good faith that Bush and his agencies know enough, and can be trusted to make this decision. It involves putting plain faith in him and his fellow decision makers to be doing the right thing. I have nothing really against Bush, but the overwhelming lack of support all around the world is phenomenal. I dont doubt Bush could gain or access whatever information he does need to reach the conclusion an attack is the only viable option. I agree with the US being able to keep to their chests, what means they have of gathering intellignce. I dont believe in risking security in any way for the sake of proving something's worth, ie this evidence.
But what if he is wrong and your troops are being sent on a suicide mission?

Here's a nice quote I found yesterday. It's an introduction to a song and I'd forgotten about the song until I read about it yesterday.

"If you grew up in the 60s, you grew up with war on tv every night. A war that your friends were involved in...and I want to do this song tonight for all the young people, if you're in your teens... because I remember a lot of my friends when they we were 17 or 18, we didn't have much of a chance to think about how we felt about a lot of things. And the next time, they're gonna be looking at you, and you're gonna need a lot of information to know what you're gonna wanna do. Because [...] blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. Because what I'm talking about here is:

War!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing....

--Bruce Frederick Joseph Springsteen, Los Angeles, 9/85

Just something to think about...

Marty

P.S. Please take also a look at the lyrics to the song War by Strong & Whitfield. They still do make a lot of sense.

 

[Salome]

great post ultraviolet7

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

great post ultraviolet7

indeed

 

[TylerDurden]

great post ultraviolet7

 

[STING2]

In response to Ultraviolet7:

The US does not to go back to the UN to get approval for military action. The case for military action was already posed in the fall of 1990 and approved by the UN. The ceacefire agreement that stopped the fighting has been broken which means that the state of war has already returned. The US and hopefully other member UN states will bring Iraq back into compliance with ceacefire terms by a resumption of military actions in Iraq put on hold in March 1991.

In 1991 when inspections started, most people felt that most of what Iraq had as far as WMD had been destroyed in the war, inspections discovered this not to be the case. While they were certainly successful in finding many things, Saddam was obviously successful in hiding a good bit of his program. What is needed is not the inspection regime prior to 1998, but inspection regime that is backed up by military force.

About what the inspectors said when they were thrown out in 1998. They did state that Iraq was still a threat and could reconstitute its WMD program in a matter of months. Those are the facts. Even Scott Ritter who has been so critical of the adminstration said himself in 1998, the last time he was in a position to know anything sensitive, that Iraq still posed a threat to the international community and could reconstitute its weapon programs in 6 months.

Unlike Iraq, Pakistan actually cooperates with the USA and the international community. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan has not invaded and attacked four different countries with its armed forces in the past 20 years. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan is not in violation of 16 UN resolutions. In many cases, Pakistan has been more helpful than are allies in Europe. There is a world of difference between Iraq and Pakistan. Much of it to do with actual behavior which is the primary reason for are concern with Iraq. Past behavior is an indication of future behavior. The terrorist and Mushareff have opposite goals, so not only does Pakistans behavior show that they are not a threat, but the goals of Mushareff and the terrorist are polar opposites. The same cannot be said for Saddam and the terrorist. But if Mushareff is overthrown and a fundamentalist regime comes to power then, that possibly could be a situation where we would have to become involved. But I seriously doubt fundamentalist will be take over the country based on what I have learned from talking to people from Pakistan.

Please don't tell me you believe it was the USA's fault, or that our foreign policies were the reason we were attacked on 9/11, thats the same logic that Saddam and Bin Laden, who claimed initially that he was not involved, had a year ago. The west and the USA will continue to be a target of terrorism if we do not seek to bring terrorist worldwide to justice and try to somehow withdraw from the mideast or pursue policies that are basically appeasement.

The arguements for attacking seem rational, clear, and obvious to me, the arguements against seem to be naive and more about wishful thinking.