If Not War, Then What???? - Page 3 - 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, 04:09 PM   #31
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: 05:50 AM
STING2: i didn't see any effort in the last years which came close to my suggestions.
So i'm not sure what you are trying to tell me.
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 04:23 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Klaus,

The USA has been talking and trying to get the countries that border Iraq to cooperate with a strong containment program for the past 12 years. This was initially successful, but has fallen to pieces. The Countries of the region are against the deployment of large numbers of UN forces on their borders for an indefinite period of time. The countries also benefit greatly economically from the smuggling with Iraq, so trying to pursuade them not to do that would be enormously expensive and difficult to maintain.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 04:51 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Popmartijn,

Sorry, I had to cut in paste that because I have got in locked into my mind somehow in spelling your name Popmartian instead of Popmartijn. a vs. j. Sorry!


"Now you're re-phrasing the subject of the thread in a way that indicates you just want war"

I totally object to that comment because it implies certain things that are not my feelings. I think military action should be taken if that is that is the only way to achieve our security objectives. I have brought up in nearly every post in this thread that it is discussion of non-military options. But that does not prevent me from discussing the serious negative sides to all these non-military options.

This thread was started before Powel presented his evidence. To the contrary though, Iraq is blocking inspections. It was the United Nations that requested the over flight of U2 spy planes and Iraq said no! Iraq has failed to show the evidence of the destruction or hand over, 30,000 chemical and Biological Weapons shells, and thousands of tons of Anthrax and VX Nerve Gas. Its failure to cooperate in that area is blocking UN inspectors from completing their job.

Did you see the evidence that Powel presented? How anyone could not see from that, that Iraq is decieving and playing the inspectors is beyond me.

So your chief assumption is the wrong one. Its not that Iraq has WMD capability or that it is blocking inspections because it is heavily engaged in both. The question is what are we going to do about that fact. This thread discusses the non-military options in handling Iraq despite the above facts.

So again option 5 is not possible because the time and land area and numbers of people needed to create and effective opposition does not exist. To raise and train an effective opposition force to take on Iraq's 430,000 man military would take nearly a decade and require the extensive use of land in countries that border Iraq. #1 Those countries are opposed to have large numbers of troops on their land for an extended period of time(beyond one year). #2 Even if that was not the case, such a process would take 5, 7 or 10 years to build a opposition force large enough to take on Iraq's 430,000 man military. Within that time, Saddam will acquire a Nuclear Weapon, making the option #5 not really a possibility.

Option #6 as you propose will never work unless there is the realistic threat of military invasion to force him to comply with the inspectors. The inspectors themselves have no ability to get pass or defeat Iraqi military forces.

In order to have the threat of military invasion, you have to have large numbers of military forces stationed in the neigboring countries. The neighboring countries will only tolerate such a large military presence for a temporary amount of time. Certainly not long enough for the inspectors to do any meaningful work, that is if you think that actually are being effective anyways.

The only longterm non-military option that is workable, is one that #1, does not require the stationing of large numbers of military troops indefinitely in the countries that border Iraq. #2 Is some how able to shut down all the smuggling that goes in and out of Iraq on a daily basis, now estimated at 4 Billion dollars a year. This policy is the Containment option. It is the best non-military option. Making it work under the current constraints and difficulties is the 60 million dollar question.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 05:30 PM   #34
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: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Klaus,

The USA has been talking and trying to get the countries that border Iraq to cooperate with a strong containment program for the past 12 years. This was initially successful, but has fallen to pieces. The Countries of the region are against the deployment of large numbers of UN forces on their borders for an indefinite period of time. The countries also benefit greatly economically from the smuggling with Iraq, so trying to pursuade them not to do that would be enormously expensive and difficult to maintain.
Sure it would not be easy - i can't find documents about the US efforts in the UN database, because of that i just have to guess.. they tried it the last 5 years directly without the UN?

If that's the case it's a mayor difference to what i was trying to tell you.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 05:52 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Here is an opinion piece, from someone with personal experience

Quote:
A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose

Leaving Hussein no hope will trigger his worst weapons, U.S. envoy in historic '90 meeting warns

By Joseph C. Wilson
Joseph C. Wilson, chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991 and acting ambassador during Operation Desert Shield, is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washingt

February 6 2003

Saddam Hussein is a murderous sociopath whose departure from this Earth would be welcomed everywhere.

I met with Hussein for the last time in a heavily curtained room in the Foreign Ministry late in the morning of Aug. 6, 1990, four days after his invasion of Kuwait. As the senior diplomat in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad at the time, it was my responsibility to tell him to get out of Kuwait and to let the several thousand Americans, including 150 so-called "human shields," leave the region.

I knew from previous meetings that he always stacked the deck to give himself every advantage, and this session was no different.

I was accompanied by a single embassy note taker, while Hussein had eight senior foreign policy officials with him. But only Tarik Aziz, then the foreign minister, dared speak in his presence. The others were as silent as furniture.

Hussein joined me in the middle of the room with the Iraqi news cameras whirring. Typically, when it came time to shake hands, he deliberately held his low so that to take it I would have to lean over. The cameras would then capture for posterity that his visitor had bowed to the potentate. I kept my back straight.

Later in the meeting, when he turned to others in the room to elicit a reaction, the discomfort was palpable. At one point, he made a move to his ever-present gun. My immediate thought was that I had said the wrong thing. To my relief he took it off, telling me that it hurt his back when he sat. I looked at his people, who were also on edge, watching his every move. He reminded me of a big cat at a watering hole, with the zebra and antelope wondering whether he is there to drink or to eat.

During our session -- the last he had with any American official before the war -- I listened as he offered his deal through a translator: In exchange for keeping Kuwait, he would give the U.S. oil at a good price and would not invade Saudi Arabia. In a matter-of-fact manner, he dismissed the Kuwaiti government as "history" and scoffed at President Bush's condemnation of him.

He mocked American will and courage, telling me that my country would run rather than face the prospect of spilling the blood of our soldiers in the Arabian Desert.

I was never prouder than when the American response was to confront Hussein and ultimately force him from Kuwait.

Desert Storm was a just war, sanctioned by the international community and supported by a broad multilateral coalition. Today we are on the verge of another conflict with Iraq, but unlike Desert Storm, the goals are not clear -- despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's eloquent argument for war in his address Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council.

Is it a war to liberate the people of Iraq, oppressed all these years? Is it a battle in the war on terrorism? Or is it, as President Bush often says, all about disarmament?

Clarity matters, because our goals will determine how Hussein reacts.

By all indications, Hussein is clear in his own mind about our intentions: He believes we are going to war to kill him, whether he disarms or not.

This is a major problem for us. My judgment was -- and is -- that only power will make him yield, but there also has to be some incentive for him to comply.

During the Gulf War, we were always acutely aware of the need to be confrontational on the issues at hand but to leave Hussein, a proud and vain man, a way to save face.

When he released the women and children hostages, Hussein initially threatened to keep dual Kuwaiti-American citizens. I told his underling that unless all Americans were put on the evacuation flight within half an hour, I would inform the American TV networks that Hussein had again reneged on his promises and was toying with the lives of children.

Hussein relented, and our official statements acknowledged Iraqi cooperation.

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

Hussein and Aziz both told me directly that Iraq reserved the right to use every weapon in its arsenal if invaded, just as it had against Iran and later the Kurds.

The fact that thousands of men, women and children had died in these attacks fazed them not one bit. In fact, Aziz could barely be bothered to stop puffing on his Cuban cigar as he made these comments, of so little importance was the use of chemicals to kill people.

It is probably too late to change Hussein's assessment, and that will make any ensuing battle for Iraq that much more dangerous for our troops and for the Iraqis who find themselves in the battlefield.

The assertion that Hussein might share weapons of mass destruction with a terrorist group, however, is counterintuitive to everything I and others know about him. The Iraqi leader is above all a consummate survivalist.

He acts as if he expects the people around him to die for him, but he has long known that every terrorist act, and particularly a sophisticated one, raises the question of his involvement and invites blame. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. In his mind he is Iraq, Iraq is Hussein, and as long as he survives, Iraq survives.

After then-Secretary of State Jim Baker made it clear to Aziz on the eve of the Gulf War that the United States would destroy Iraq if weapons of mass destruction were used, Hussein did not use them. He is not stupid, and for him living is better than dying in vain.

Now, however, if he feels his death is inevitable, he may well arm extremist groups in an attempt to have a last, posthumous laugh.

Along with our drive toward war, it should also be made clear to Hussein that -- in the little time remaining -- he still has a choice.

We should do everything possible to avoid the understandable temptation to send American troops to fight a war of "liberation" that can be waged only by the Iraqis themselves. The projection of power need not equate with the projection of force.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 07:41 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 04:50 AM
interesting point of view.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 09:21 PM   #37
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:50 PM
I've refrained from responding to this thread because I wanted to think and give Dreadsox's question the seriousness he expects. At first I had no answers to his original question. After watching the world's reaction to Powell's UN presentation (sorry to say I missed his to the SFRC today) I wanted to respond.

There is no way we can back off from this issue and save face as a nation. Although I disagree with Bush in almost every way, I wouldn't back off the subject of Iraq cooperating with the inspectors.

I believe the UN and the world would support, and has been stated, tripling the inspectors. It would be cheaper to support a quadrupling of the crews of inspectors than pay for the war and ten or more years of establishing a gov't. The inspector could then fan out and Sadaam would have a much more difficult time tracking and moving any alleged WMD.

If nothing else this would piss him off enough that he would digress publickly to the world as the Murderous Dictator he is. Wala, total UN supoort for regime change and less US Imperialism in the bargain.

This may be simplified, but then I believe he works on simple models.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 09:39 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Saddam is not going to comply with the UN inspectors, unless he has a conversion. Even if you had 10 times as many inspectors on the ground, they are not armed and cannot enforce inspections. Iraq has already demonstrated obvious non-compliance and obstruction, so it would seem redundant to send in a massive number of inspectors to demonstrate what we already know.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 09:52 PM   #39
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Saddam is not going to comply with the UN inspectors, unless he has a conversion. Even if you had 10 times as many inspectors on the ground, they are not armed and cannot enforce inspections. Iraq has already demonstrated obvious non-compliance and obstruction, so it would seem redundant to send in a massive number of inspectors to demonstrate what we already know.
STING2,
I agree with you 100%. But if we put 4 different teams on the ground and they were stopped from completing their objectives then Iraq would again be against a UN resolution and we would have most of the worlds support. If he stops cooperating then we are no longer spoiling for war. The international community would rally behind us and we wouldn't be the ones in wait for Iraqi oil.
This seem so simple. Too bad we don't have a President that can keep his F***ing mouth shut and think before he talks.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 10:25 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 04:50 AM
you could have 10,000 inspectors in iraq and still not find one of the 18 known mobile biological labs, simple as that.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 10:35 PM   #41
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by JOFO
you could have 10,000 inspectors in iraq and still not find one of the 18 known mobile biological labs, simple as that.
That wasn't the point. The point was influencing world persceptions. Offering Sadaam the opportunity to not be the tread upon but the aggressor.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 10:35 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Scarletwine,

We did this essentially for 7 years in the 1990s and then Iraq kicked the inspectors out. Because the world and the USA wanted to give Iraq one more chance to comply back in September the Bush administration threatened the use of force if inspectors were not let back in. Iraq let the inspectors in. The United Nations passed Resolution 1441 which threatened serious consequences if Iraq did anything to obstruct or not cooperate with the inspections. For the past two months Iraq has failed to cooperate with the inspectors. It has failed to disarm. This was clearly demonstrated in Powels meeting. This was Iraq's last chance. Any Country in the world that does not support military action at this point will never support military action on this issue. How many more "last chances" should Iraq have? What does "Serious Consequences" mean if nothing happens?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 10:59 PM   #43
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Scarletwine,

We did this essentially for 7 years in the 1990s and then Iraq kicked the inspectors out. Because the world and the USA wanted to give Iraq one more chance to comply back in September the Bush administration threatened the use of force if inspectors were not let back in. Iraq let the inspectors in. The United Nations passed Resolution 1441 which threatened serious consequences if Iraq did anything to obstruct or not cooperate with the inspections. For the past two months Iraq has failed to cooperate with the inspectors. It has failed to disarm. This was clearly demonstrated in Powels meeting. This was Iraq's last chance. Any Country in the world that does not support military action at this point will never support military action on this issue. How many more "last chances" should Iraq have? What does "Serious Consequences" mean if nothing happens?
I agree about the 7 years, however a blitz of inspectors could provide the needed impetious to bring in the UN.

The majority of US citizens, and remember we are the Gov't (supposedly), want a UN backed action. Why do you insist on going alone no matter what. This really could work playing on Sadaam's weaknesses. The will of the world is what I want.

I don't believe in getting personal, but "My God" STING2 you really do make it hard.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 11:27 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:50 PM
I am 100% convinced we will be bringing more terrorism upon ourselves if we act without the UN.

My ideal situation.....Hypothetical........

*More inspectors in Iraq.
*A serious blockade, one that convinces all of these nations, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, that the illegal trade with Iraq needs to stop.

I agree he has violated again and again, but to me we need the UN to do this so that it is not the US being the agressor.

We also need the UN to set up the after war government. Again, in the interest of preventing others from accusing the US of setting up a puppet governement.

This is on the condition that a more credible case of Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq is not made. Once that happens, I am all for a gloves off approach.


PEACE


Great posts by many people. I really was hoping this would not be a lets make a case for war thread. I really want other ideas.

Keep it going!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 12:26 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


That wasn't the point. The point was influencing world persceptions. Offering Sadaam the opportunity to not be the tread upon but the aggressor.
well, I don't understand that, but my point was: put as many inspectors on the ground as you want, but the production of chemical agents will continue undetected...and time will run out as france is saying "give it more time".
__________________

__________________
JOFO 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 11:50 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