If Not War, Then What???? - Page 2 - 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 02-06-2003, 05:41 AM   #16
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:51 AM
JOFO:

I know that it didn't work, that's why we need lots of troups at the borders to iraq and battleships at sea to control every sincle parcel which is imported into this country.

In this scenario - he still might sell this medicine - but he has no more chance to get new weapons - or material for development for new weapons inside his country

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 11:15 AM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The opposition get little of the support the USA promised them. There was a lot of dispute in the Clinton administration at the time about whether or not to use them.
I'm not talking about the Clinton administration, but about the Bush I administration. Just after the conflict ended Saddam's position was weak and resistance against him was building (especially around Basra). Although Iraq wasn't invaded, there was a pledge of support for that opposition movement. But when push came to shove, the USA withdrew their promised support, causing the Iraqi army to crush any resistance.

Quote:
Thats true. But realize also that Iraq has had four years to hide and develop ways of concealing weapons of mass destruction in addition to being experience and enlightened from its previous UN inspection experience. Indeed, the circumstances have changed.
Yes, Iraq has more experience. But that was not the point you were making which triggered my comment about changing circumstances. You wrote about blocking inspectors and not immediately giving up detected WMD. That was in the '90s. In 2003 there is a harsher resolution that allows for an immediate report to the Security Council when Iraq is blocking inspectors. That's the changed circumstance I was talking about.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 11:23 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:51 AM
There are few options left on Iraq. If Saddam wasn't a real threat 5 or 10 years ago, after enough poking at the bear, he certainly will be a threat now. If the U.S. left him alone all of a sudden, I think he would pursue WMD more than ever.

I'm honestly disgusted at the way this has been handled in the last decade, and he should have been removed in the first Gulf War, when there was not only an obvious motivation to remove him, but Iraq's infrastructure and people could have been saved. We, essentially, have a formerly wealthy nation plunged into poverty, and it is going to take much more money and time to fix this mess--and it may never be fixed at all.

As much as I'm disgusted at the way Bush I handled the original Gulf War, and as equally disgusted as I am over Bush II for his "secrecy" mentality that has made everyone distrust America, I don't know if there are any more options with Iraq. Would you feel comfortable leaving Iraq alone after all this?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 11:27 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 10:51 AM
from what I 've read the reason they didn't go into bagdad and take out saddam in 1991 is because they arab states in the coalition were against it.

melon, you have a point. who in the world would feel comfortable leaving iaq alone now?
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 12:02 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Melon:

of course not! Not caring about a problem dosn't solve anything. But i guess we should ask neigbours of iraq first how they'd like to handle that. And make decisions in the UN. Bush's or Schroeders statements werent verry smart. Whe shouldn't give the world "our" solution before discussing the problem and thinking about it.
Sanctions / embargo which is enforced by UN troops could be the answer.

I guess it would be much easier for our Presidents, Prime ministers or Chancelors if they wouldn't have to please their lobbyists, most of the time the companies who spend a fortune for a ellection campaign wouldn't do it again if they wouldn't profit from this (and wars do not only cost a fortune - some people who sell their stuff get really wealthy)

People who say "either war or doing nothing" have either no political competence - or worse want a war - no matter what.

Imho war was never a solution it's just a chaos factor on the way to a the solution. Maybe we would have less wars on the world if the political leaders still had to ride on their horse in front of their army. It's easier to decide about thousands of lifes if your's isn't one of them.

So let's finish with a quotation of Karl Kraus:

"How is the world ruled and how do wars start?
Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read"

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 12:49 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:51 AM
But sanctions / embargos have been done for the past decade, and it is clear that they haven't worked.

So what's next?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 01:02 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Melon:

They did not work because they were just written on the paper, no UN troops at the borders who controled the embargos ;-)

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 01:05 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Melon:

They did not work because they were just written on the paper, no UN troops at the borders who controled the embargos ;-)

Klaus
The country is already as starved as it can be. You might as well sign a death sentence to the people of Iraq. Saddam, I'm sure, will be the last to suffer, and he's the one everyone is after!

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 01:11 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Well if they controll all the stuff that will be imported they can allow to pass food and medicine (as mentioned before) and take care that no more guns and ammunition come inside the iraq.
How long do you think can a Dictator keep on his place if he has no more ammunition?

I can't post a complete list what's allowed and what's not - that would be too much - but just think about these 4 goods as examples.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 01:22 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:51 AM
You can't completely seal this nation. Is a nation like Iran going to handle having foreign troops, even with the U.N., standing in its borders? As it stands, there's a radical Islamic terrorist group hanging around in Iran, near the northeast border of Iraq, killing off Kurds in the area (this is the group suspected of collaborating with Saddam, BTW). I'm sure they'd love a foreign, Western U.N. presence, now wouldn't they?

In fact, Saddam's son, Uday, has made a fortune off the sanctions over the past decade with all the black market trade. I'm sure he would love to see these sanctions continue on infinitely.

It is just too idealistic of a prospect, and I think will be even more damaging to the people. I can almost imagine what the people of the U.S. or Europe would say if they had an unruly leader that they couldn't depose, and were forced into internationally-sanctioned destitution as a consequence--and then told to either depose him yourself (and try and fight a well-fed army with guns and other high-tech weapons) or to wait the several decades until he dies.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 01:33 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Who says that UN troops must be American troops or western ones?

We all know that other arabic countries would like to get rid of Saddam too - but they just disslike the US style which they think is a little to selfish.
So if we put the money and the energy we need for a war against Iraq into that i'm sure it will work.

Why are we willing to spend hundreds of mio. of $ for war but not the same ammount for a peaceful sollution?
Why do Bush, Blair & Co. invest tramendous time for war preparation but have no time for solutions like the above?

It's not idealistic - it's realistic. The main change in US politics which would be neccessary would be "cooperation" talk with all affected nations (iraqi neigbours) and respect their point of view.
Don't try to make a deal with the devil and be surprised if fundamdental Islamic groups will be the real wiinner in the end. The US army which fights down Saddam, who will be replaced by a Taliban like regime, that's a worst case scenario - but quite possible.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 02:56 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Klaus,

The problem with a re-energized for of containment is that the nations that border Iraq do not want that. For the past 12 years, this has been the policy of the USA and UN and it has failed to disarm Iraq. It has also failed to maintain itself. Sanctions have completely crumbled because the smuggling that goes on is so profitable. None of these countries wants large numbers of foreign troops stationed on their borders indefinitely. Many attempts have been made to restart or re-energize sanctions and containment and they have failed because many of the countries that border Iraq have been unwilling to go along. The United States has spent Billions and Billions of dollars every year for the past 12 years trying to contain Iraq. Unfortunately, are efforts have been frustrated by the very countries we depend on in making containment work. It is the best solution though, if war is not an option which it is not in this thread. Unfortunately, it will never work.


"Imho war was never a solution it's just a chaos factor on the way to a the solution. Maybe we would have less wars on the world if the political leaders still had to ride on their horse in front of their army. It's easier to decide about thousands of lifes if your's isn't one of them"

hmmm....perhaps and arguement for military government. The use of military force is a legitamite and necessary solution to solve violations and problems of security, just as the use of force by the police force in your local community is sometimes justified.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 03:02 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Melon,

While I agree with you that the World should have taken Saddam Hussien out of power in 1991, I disagree that it was Bush I's fault that did not happen. If Bush I had been able to get the support to do that, he would have. But Bush I barely got enough support to got to war to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Most Democrats voted against using military force to push Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. The Senate vote was 53-47 in favor of the use of force. So I think you can see it was difficult enough for Bush to get the support just to push Iraq out of Kuwait. It was politically impossible in 1991 to go all the way to Baghdad.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 03:09 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Popmartian,

"I'm not talking about the Clinton administration, but about the Bush I administration. Just after the conflict ended Saddam's position was weak and resistance against him was building (especially around Basra). Although Iraq wasn't invaded, there was a pledge of support for that opposition movement. But when push came to shove, the USA withdrew their promised support, causing the Iraqi army to crush any resistance."

While this is true, there was no political support for the president at the time to send USA ground troops to Baghdad to aid the opposition in bring down Saddam. If Airpower alone had been used, it would not have been enough for 65,000 lightly armed resistance fighters to defeat Saddam's remaining 300,000 troops. Without extensive US military force, the opposition did not stand a chance. But this a thread the discusses options other that than large US military use of force.

The new security council resolution is mainly just a rephrasing of what existed in the 1990s. But anways, what do you plan to do if Iraq blocks the inspections and you are unwilling to invade the country to enforce those inspections? Remember this a thread that discusses non-military options.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 03:57 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The new security council resolution is mainly just a rephrasing of what existed in the 1990s. But anways, what do you plan to do if Iraq blocks the inspections and you are unwilling to invade the country to enforce those inspections? Remember this a thread that discusses non-military options.
Now you're re-phrasing the subject of the thread in a way that indicates you just want war. This thread is about what to do now Powell has presented his evidence. It does not talk about Iraq blocking inspections, it talks about the current situation. While there is a feeling that, although Iraq complies to the letters of the resolution, it should also comply with the intent and cooperate more, Iraq is currently not blocking the inspections.
Thus, what non-military options do you have at the moment.

Should Iraq start blocking the inspections and throw the inspectors out of the country, then the situation changes. Personally, I think military options should then be considered. But at this moment, I'll stick with my answer: They may continue with option #5 (training the opposition) and use option #6, let the weapons inspectors do their job of searching for (and if needed, destroying) WMD.

C ya!

Marty

P.S. I noticed it yesterday and saw it again a few times today. For a good debate you have to take into account who you are talking to. That begins with addressing people by their correct (nick)names.
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn 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 05:51 AM.


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