Has it ever occurred to you that...

[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?

Do you think Daschle and Gephardt would just blindly fall in line without seeing such evidence?

Anyone?

Mark

 

[Salome]

couldn't he at least show that evidence to 1 or 2 other people who have something to say in the UN ?

 

[U2Bama]

Well, Salome, apparently he has convinced one of your fellow Dutchmen, the guy who presides over the UN. I couldn't find the quote, but last night he expressed his skepticism of Iraq's offer by saying something like "We better sleep with our eyes wide open and our boots on."

~U2Alabama

 

[OzAurora]

I really think that probably the only imminent threat that Sadam could pose towards both the US and their allies is a trade embargo on oil

 

[Lilly]

I really think that probably the only imminent threat that Sadam could pose towards both the US and their allies is a trade embargo on oil

agreed. with a contingency.


i do believe that saddam has wmd's, but i'm not sure what gives the united states alone jurisdiction on who can and cannot have wmd's (not that i am at ease at all with saddam having them *shudder*).


i want the u.n in on this with us, it just feels strange going in alone.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am hovering somewhere around 90-99% certain that there was some evidence introduced.

Why?

Explain why Saudi Arabia and even more importantly Egypt would through their support behind a UN authorized action against Iraq within 24 Hours.

As for a threat to America....I think the Oil Embargo comment is way off.

What about the man lobbing Nuke/Bio weapons into Israel?

Do you think that may be enough to cause WWIII?

 

[Dreadsox]

i do believe that saddam has wmd's, but i'm not sure what gives the united states alone jurisdiction on who can and cannot have wmd's (not that i am at ease at all with saddam having them *shudder*).


i want the u.n in on this with us, it just feels strange going in alone.

HI Lilly!!!!!

I think the cease fire agreement which was agreed upon through the United Nations and Saddam and their Resolutions pretty much gave the Untited Nations jurisdiction.

The real question is will they enforce them. If we do have evidence and Bush is not being a cowboy, then do we wait for Saddam to attack Israel? He did so during Desert Storm and they were not a part of any action agains him at that time.

The scary thing is if the UN does not enforce their own Resolutions it is clearly a dead organization with no power over anything.

 

[U2Bama]

He has only violated 16 UN resolutions since 1991; give the guy a break. Sure he probably won't "launch" anything at the U.S. He might launch something at Israel, but I guess we should stay out of that one too. Right?

~U2Alabama

 

[sharky]

Yeah really, the worst Saddam could do is bomb Israel right? I mean, think about it, do you think someone in Afghanistan would have the power to blow up part of NYC? Its impossible right......?

I am a bit skeptical about this indeed. How do we know Bush isn't trying to finish what his father started? What about the oil?

But where did that anthrax come from last year? How much people can you take out by releasing nerve gas from Iraq in the Times Square subway station during rush hour? And was bin Laden was the sole monetary backer of the 9/11 attacks?

I don't want to go to war. And if we do, I don't want things to be unfinished like they were ten years ago. But the world we live in today is not the world we lived in ten years ago. If Bush was able to persuade Powell to his side that says alot about possible evidence. And if Bush strong armed Powell in to changing his position, that says alot about Bush. But I don't think Sec. Powell just changed his position because the president said so.

 

[rafmed]

He has only violated 16 UN resolutions since 1991; give the guy a break.

I will never say the guy is a saint and that he doesn't deserve to be banished from this planet, but speaking of UN resolutions, who is counting the ones Israel has violated?, I guess we need less hypocrisy in the US exterior politics to make this kind of arguments valuable.

 

[U2Bama]

rafmed:

I agree that Israel's violations need to be addressed as well. Thank you.

~U2Alabama

 

[Salome]

Well, Salome, apparently he has convinced one of your fellow Dutchmen, the guy who presides over the UN.

our government has already said that Holland will support the US to invade Iraq even without support of the UN

 

[Angela Harlem]

All we can do is speculate regarding this evidence Bush says he has. What a lot of people are wondering is why he isn't forthcoming to those who can and will help him and America if need be. I just think if the evidence is that credible, why is Canada and previously England, holding out? Whatever info is available shouldn't have to be made public knowledge exactly for those reasons of security, but I'm wondering about other leaders who still remain unconvinced. Its not too much to ask is it, when you are faced with making a possibly horrendous mistake plus endangering countless innocent Iraqi's and countless innocent service men and women of the US military, in the name of 'collateral damage'?
Your points are valid MadelynIris, just like the questions are.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

I'm watching the 11oclock news...

The newscast said that Bush has satellite photos of Iraq and Hussein's factory of mass destruction.

 

[bono_man]

He has only violated 16 UN resolutions since 1991

Why is it okay for the US to not follow the UN but not Iraq? The US has defied the UN by not signing the Kyoto Protocol yet, when another nation defies them they get speak out. Is this okay?

I am not saying I am for or against an attack on Iraq, I havent made up my mind yet. I just would like to know why this is okay.

 

[Dreadsox]

FACT: Saddam personally signed the agreement that ended the Gulf War.
FACT: The Kyoto Protocol has not been signed by the United States
FACT: You can't violate something you have not agreed to.
FACT: Saddam has violated resolutions.


In my eyes, and the eyes of many other people, any UN Resolution will not be worth the paper it is written on if they do not enforce prior resolutions.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

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?

Do you think Daschle and Gephardt would just blindly fall in line without seeing such evidence?

Anyone?

Mark

that would make no sense.
let's say bush has 'hard' evidence (blueprints etc) that a certain factory in iraq is manufacturing WMD's, why would he possibly want to withhold information like that? i mean if this info was read by, let's say iraqi consipirators or spies, then they would already have known this and it wouldn't matter DUUH! the public on the other hand, need to know this and if they did, then it would rack up on the supporters for a strike against iraq. so how on earth would it be useful to NOT let info like this out? it's not like bush will give out the names of the american spies in iraq or something.
by withholding that info, all bush would do is piss off more of his own people so again you hypothetical situation makes no sense.

 

[MadelynIris]

you hypothetical situation

CannibalisticArtist,

My hypothetical situation happens every single day in our government... we obtain evidence like this around the clock and we never reveal our sources - even if we received it via technical means (like say satellites). You understand why that is right?

It sets our foreign policy. It lets us know when people are lying.

To even share a photo lets people know alot about the source. That's why we don't. And why we share with some of our allies and not others.

Mark

 

[bono_luvva]

I am completely against launching an attack on iraq....i can't actually believe that some of you are saying that dubya may have hard evidence (which he obviously doesn't, or more people would confirm)......it doesn't make any sense at all

 

[sharky]

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

When we were trying to rally countries to our favor before going in to Afghanistan, the president shared classified information with the UK proving bin Laden was linked to the attacks. But did Bush show this evidence to the American people before he showed it to Tony Blair? No and for good reason.

so what if Bush has a satellite photo? Who's to say he doesn't have more evidence than that? And why the hell would we want our enemies to know what we know? that's how you create an element of surprise when you attack targets that are dangerous to Americans. It may be a weapons plant in the photo but by the time UN inspectors get there it will be a candy factory. We can't give our enemies a head's up as to the targets we're going to attack.

 

[Harper]

[And why the hell would we want our enemies to know what we know? that's how you create an element of surprise when you attack targets that are dangerous to Americans. ]

I think there's little chance of there being an *element of surprise* in this case.

 

[MadelynIris]

I think there's little chance of there being an *element of surprise* in this case.

What if we've figured out their pattern of moving their mobile weapons labs in tractor trailers...

That would be a bit of a suprise. Or we've discovered some bunkers - that's why in a way, the all the inspections do is give them a chance to move everything.

Don't be so naive folks!

Mark

 

[U2Bama]

Well, Salome, apparently he has convinced one of your fellow Dutchmen, the guy who presides over the UN. I couldn't find the quote, but last night he expressed his skepticism of Iraq's offer by saying something like "We better sleep with our eyes wide open and our boots on."

~U2Alabama

Oops, I just noticed my error in abbreviations of World Governments - I meant to reference the president of the EU, NOT the UN.

 

[U2Bama]

The US has defied the UN by not signing the Kyoto Protocol yet, when another nation defies them they get speak out. Is this okay?

If the US has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, then we are not a party to it, and thus are not defying it. Iraq agreed to certain UN resolutions as part of the 1991 cease fire.

And just the same as you not saying you are for or against an attack on Iraq, I am not saying I am for or against the Kyoto Protocol.

~U2Alabama

 

[V Nura]

I am hovering somewhere around 90-99% certain that there was some evidence introduced.

Why?

Explain why Saudi Arabia and even more importantly Egypt would through their support behind a UN authorized action against Iraq within 24 Hours.

As for a threat to America....I think the Oil Embargo comment is way off.

What about the man lobbing Nuke/Bio weapons into Israel?

Do you think that may be enough to cause WWIII?

I still think it's extremly important that the case be made to teh american people as soon as it is possible to do so.


Also the Saudi's and Egypt said...that they would allow support IF THE UN supported action


this makes it very important to secure UN approval before ANY action.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

blah blah blah
if bush had hard evidence, he would not hesitate to show it. it's the only logical thing to do. it gathers support and does NOT hinder the attack in any way. WHAT bad could possibly come out from showing a few satellite photos of weapons factories in iraq? hell, i'm sure they have shown FAKE photos of military installations to get people's support.
the public is not demanding OMG TOP ZECRET CLASSIFIED, 4 UR EYEZZ ONLY INFO, just some honest PROOF. I'm sure the terrorists have a nice US weakness book thanks to CNN and the like, there have been worse things spread around i assure you.

 

[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.

 

[BAW]

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.

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.

My son is about to turn 18 and will have to register for the draft soon after...if the time comes that he has to go defend his country, I want it to be for something more important than "might have's" and "could be's".

And yes, I do know that the draft hasn't been implemented for years but I also never thought I'd see the day when the US went to war again, but it looks like that's about the change too.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

My son is about to turn 18 and will have to register for the draft soon after...if the time comes that he has to go defend his country, I want it to be for something more important than "might have's" and "could be's".

And yes, I do know that the draft hasn't been implemented for years but I also never thought I'd see the day when the US went to war again, but it looks like that's about the change too.

The last thing any person serving in our "professional military" is some kid drafted into service who does not want to be there. Let's hope we do not reach a point where our military is so depleted that we must draft people.

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 will have to look for numbers to put forward the correct info on this.

 

[BAW]

The last thing any person serving in our "professional military" is some kid drafted into service who does not want to be there. Let's hope we do not reach a point where our military is so depleted that we must draft people.

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 gereational thing.

I will have to look for numbers to put forward the correct info on this.

And I'm sure our professional military wouldn't like it (the draft) and I hope it never comes to that, but whether you're drafted or go voluntarily, you risk your life just the same.

And maybe more Americans were willing to enlist after Pearl Harbor because it was clear what we were fighting for.