Has it ever occurred to you that... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-20-2002, 06:33 PM   #46
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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 ??
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 06:45 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
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.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 06:50 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:26 AM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 08:24 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,125
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Note: Countries that make the first real military strike in a war a) lose the moral high ground and b) almost always lose.
__________________
bullet the blue sky is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 08:30 PM   #50
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 08:26 PM
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
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 10:32 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
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.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 01:23 AM   #52
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:26 PM
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?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 02:13 AM   #53
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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?

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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 is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 02:16 AM   #54
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by CannibalisticArtist
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.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 03:41 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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 doesnt 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?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 11:29 AM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
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.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 12:06 PM   #57
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 02:26 AM
great post ultraviolet7
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 06:05 PM   #58
War Child
 
CannibalisticArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Coast babyeee
Posts: 511
Local Time: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
great post ultraviolet7
indeed
__________________
CannibalisticArtist is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 10:44 PM   #59
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
great post ultraviolet7
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-22-2002, 05:41 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:26 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com