If Not War, Then What???? - 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 02-07-2003, 02:40 AM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Popmartijn,

"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.
I also think that military action should be taken if that is the only way. The (obvious) 'problem' here is that you and I disagree when that point is reached. But, let's not go there in this thread, we can hijack another thread to discuss that.

Quote:
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.
I have to confess that I didn't. I was travelling at that time and partying (like it was 1999?) that evening. So I missed it. I'm still looking if I can see his presentation. The only thing I know about his presentation is that he did not present a 'smoking gun', but I know nothing (and won't say anything) about his other evidence.

Quote:
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.
Then again, Saddam doesn't even trust his own military, only the Republican Guard is allowed to protect him. So the figure of fighting an army of 430,000 man is overstated. Still, building a whole army would then take a long time. That's why I think they do not have to train so many people, but the key figures (the command structure) should be trained so they can bring change from inside Iraq.

Quote:
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.
Which is the current situation. Military forces stationed in Kuwait and Turkey, a threat to use military power if Saddam does not comply with resolution 1441, etc.
The only difference is that in the current situation some of the persons in command are implying they will invade Iraq, no matter what.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 02:43 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Scarletwine,

"I don't believe in getting personal, but "My God" STING2 you really do make it hard."

Why is that? Please explain. Have I said anything that was personal in nature?

"Why do you insist on going alone no matter what"

Because I'm interested in saving peoples lives. I see and understand the threat Saddam poses to the world. He has already killed 1.7 million people, I don't want to see him get the chance to kill over 17 million people. He must be completely disarmed for good or removed from power, before he gets nuclear weapons.

The United Nations did not approve military action in Kosovo, yet the USA along with other NATO members moved to try and prevent the Serb slaughter in Kosovo. Would it make any sense not to of acted because the United Nations did not approve the action.

I believe the United Nations has already endorsed military action against Iraq if it does not comply through UN resolution 1441 passed in October. But I could go back to UN resolution 687 or 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to find Global support for military action.

No matter how many countries in the United Nations support or do not support military action against Iraq, it only takes one country of the permanent 5 members of the Security Council to veto any resolution. If the French, Russians, and the rest of the members vote for it, China could still veto it. Or you could substitute the French or the Russians into that position.

The United Nations does not have to actually be involved with the military action to be involved in the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq. This has been the case in Kosovo.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 02:52 AM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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?
But the inspectors themselves disagree with your point. Both Blix as the head of the IAIE (? I forgot the correct name, the international nuclear agency) said that Iraq was complying to the resolution. Iraq could maybe cooperate more, but they did not breach the resolution. IIRC, even the UK now agrees that Saddam is not obstructing the inspections so they should continue.

The goal is disarming Iraq. The road of the weapon inspections is slower (and maybe slightly more frustrating) than the military option. However, my belief is that you have a better chance to get to the goal undamaged by using this (inspections) road than when you would take the other one. Should the road be blocked, then the situation changes. But for now, humans can still travel on it.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 02:52 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Popmartijn,

"Military forces stationed in Kuwait and Turkey, a threat to use military power if Saddam does not comply with resolution 1441, etc."

The problem is that the countries in the region will not let us maintain an invasion size force indefinitely on their soil. Saddam has to either comply or the military forces will do it for him.


"That's why I think they do not have to train so many people, but the key figures (the command structure) should be trained so they can bring change from inside Iraq."

This has already been tried multiple times in the past. Saddams overlapping 12 Security agencies picked them up and killed them immediately. In Iraq everyone spy's on everyone else. There are two security agencies that spy on the other 10 Security agencies.

The Republican Guard numbers over 120,000. The regular army though has had no problem follwing orders to crush revolts in the past. That is why you have to look at the 430,000 figure even if there is the chance many of them would not fight.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 02:59 AM   #50
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Scarletwine,

Why is that? Please explain. Have I said anything that was personal in nature?
.
.
.
He has already killed 1.7 million people, I don't want to see him get the chance to kill over 17 million people.
Maybe after a while when you keep repeating the same old rhetoric, such as above, people cannot help but feel frustrated and ultimately offended that you would dismiss our own intelligence and attempt to make such a baseless statement appear as fact.

NOTE to those reading with any semblance of an open mind: Saddam Hussein has not 'killed 1.7 million people'. This is merely a unproven and unfactual figure that STING has calculated.

I would doubt even the propaganda machines in Washington would come up with the calculation you have.

It's really getting rather tiresome now.

__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 03:10 AM   #51
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Because I'm interested in saving peoples lives. I
You are not interested in saving people's lives.

You can protest all you want that I'm offending you, I'm telling you my honest opinion. I sat back and shut up for a while to see if you could post anything but topics of war, but you can't.

But I can't sit here and stomach you saying that all you are interested in is saving people's lives.

If you were you would respond to other timely threads that deal with the situation where millions have and will die from a deadly disease. You haven't even given it a decent paragraph.

I think you should just admit it: you are obsessed with military stragetization and enjoy the topic of war. You study it endlessly. You post page after page of war topics.

Clearly, you are obsessed with war!
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 06:18 AM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:56 AM
I give one compliment and off we go....

Ideas please....options.......Any Ideas as to how we convince the nations around Iraq to stop the black market trading? This way we can get an embargo that works?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 08:36 AM   #53
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Why is that? Please explain. Have I said anything that was personal in nature?
Sorry, what I meant was that you appear so unbendable and intent on war, when finding an alternative was the point of this thread. So if you don't have a suggestion to handled Iraq without military action you shouldn't have replied in it.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 01:15 PM   #54
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: 08:56 AM
Scarletwine:

well i guess it's ok if Sting helps to falsify non-millitary scenarios. Everyone can think for himself which arguments are better (the therory or stings arguments why it probably won't work)

But to stay on topic (well at least a little)
A comedian in germany had a nice idea how to prevent war in iraq: take all the money the war will cost, get it in 1 $ bills and fly over iraq and throw out the 1 $ bills - iraqi people will have no time for war, they will love America and Saddam's regime will colapse ;-)

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 06:08 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Gabrielvox,

I'm not going to engage in your behavior. I'll bring this to the attention of the moderators.

Scartletwine,

If you read back to my post in this thread, you'll see that I stated that the best option barring a military invasion is the policy of containment. I have raised my concerns with each policy option that did not involve military invasion.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 06:48 PM   #56
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Alright.. everyone has their opinions here. I can understand the frustration of dealing with people that have a one sided mind and no matter how you debate with them they will always stick to their beliefs. But I have not seen STING2 get personal with anyone. If you dont agree with him or have a problem with his posts, you should ignore him.

STING2 I do not see where gabrielvox personally attacked you. Feel free to point it out.

What I see is a discussion gone tired.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 07:40 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Sicy,

I would never tell anyone that they are "not interested in saving peoples lives". Do you not see the personal nature in a remark like that?

"I think you should just admit it: you are obsessed with military stragetization and enjoy the topic of war. You study it endlessly. You post page after page of war topics."

Sicy,

Don't you consider that remark to be personal in nature. Where is the respect and objectivity in those remarks. Can anyone honestly make personal claims about another person you have never met, like that, on a message board?

If you think Gabrielvox words are fine and not personal, ok. Realize though that I and others then reserve the right to respond in kind.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 09:41 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Back to the thread.....

Does anyone else think a serious blockade, with black market tradding is possible? THis to me seems essential towards hurting Saddam economically.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 10:10 PM   #59
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: 08:56 AM
Dreadsox:
I think it is, but only if you can convince Iraqi neighbours that they want this too and therefore help.
I guess you need lots of troups (and preferable arabic troops to reduce unnecessary agression and give extremists no chance to call this an imperialistic US thing)

The only way to really change the situation down there is to convince the people that we are friends and not the imperium americanum.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 10:43 PM   #60
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 11:56 PM
STING2,

I do understand what you're saying. However, he did not call you any names. But I will repeat to gabriel.. please do not continue to make remarks to STING2 in such a manner. If you do not like the way he posts, then ignore it. You can only expect a fight to happen when you comment as you do. I am getting flashbacks of melon and Bubba. Eventually Bubba was banned, so I suggest you attempt to get along, or ignore each other. If it continues I will have to consider revoking your access to Free Your Mind.
__________________

__________________
Sicy 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 02:56 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