Make Your Case - 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 12-27-2002, 01:32 AM   #31
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 02:26 AM
exactly what i was on about....
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-27-2002, 06:27 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Interesting the poll takers did not ask the most important question of all: "Has Saddam proved to the world that he no longer has Weapons of Mass Destruction"? If military action does take place, watch Bush's poll numbers, even in liberal newspapers, rise. W's father went from just over 50% approval to 91% approval in just 6 weeks after the 1991 Gulf War ended with the ceacefire in March.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 03:07 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Interesting the poll takers did not ask the most important question of all: "Has Saddam proved to the world that he no longer has Weapons of Mass Destruction"? If military action does take place, watch Bush's poll numbers, even in liberal newspapers, rise. W's father went from just over 50% approval to 91% approval in just 6 weeks after the 1991 Gulf War ended with the ceacefire in March.
Sting,

If the inspectors find no WMD will you conclude that Saddam has proved he has no WMD?



Dread, et al ,

It is important that W gets support for this action. If the U S can not make a credible case before world opinion this action could prove very costly.

I have been gathering as much information about this as possible from many sources. I think oil is the main reason W had this put on his agenda.
The best case I have heard for action was on National Public Radio.
The program is called “This American Life.” If you don’t support action, you should give this a listen. It will be available online after Jan 02, 2003.

Why We Fight
December 20, 2002
Episode 227
This show's description and RealAudio will be posted after January 2, 2003.


http://www.thislife.org/
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 05:00 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Deep,

There is a significant list of weapons that Saddam has to either give or show the evidence that they were destroyed. There is no middle ground there. Either he has the weapons and must show them to us, or Saddam in fact destroyed the weapons in which case he must show the evidence, that there would be, if in fact the weapons were destroyed.

If inspectors do not find any weapons and Saddam does not give up the weapons from the 1998 list or show the remains of the destruction of such weapons, I will conclude that he has successfully hidden his WMD program in the vast territory that he has control of or in another country.

If Saddam is not hiding anything or comes clean, there are only two possible outcomes. He shows the weapons he has or shows the remains of the destruction of such weapons. Anything short of this will require the United Nations to use military force to ensure that Saddam is disarmed and all UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules and the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire are complied with.

I remind you that W got the United Nations to vote 15-0 in support of a current resolution that justifies the use of military force to disarm Iraq, if Saddam fails disarm. The USA and the international community already made the case 12 years ago. Its time for Saddam to prove that he has complied with the resolutions that were passed 12 years ago.

The Middle East and the Persian Gulf have always been important to the entire planet because of its vast reserves of oil. Greater supplies of oil on the world market drops the price of energy for average consumers like you and I. It benefits the economy, not US Oil Companies, to have more Iraqi Oil on the market.

But Billions of dollars worth of Iraqi oil is already out on the market, but certainly greater long term stability and Saddam out of power, will mean there will be a nice increase in the availability of Iraqi Oil. This though is not the reason for possible US military action. The reason for possible US military action is to ensure that Saddam is disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction, because of the obvious threat his possession of such weapons posses to the international community, because of his past behavior.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 08:46 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Sting,





Dread, et al ,

It is important that W gets support for this action. If the U S can not make a credible case before world opinion this action could prove very costly.

I have been gathering as much information about this as possible from many sources. I think oil is the main reason W had this put on his agenda.
The best case I have heard for action was on National Public Radio.
The program is called “This American Life.” If you don’t support action, you should give this a listen. It will be available online after Jan 02, 2003.

Why We Fight
December 20, 2002
Episode 227
This show's description and RealAudio will be posted after January 2, 2003.


http://www.thislife.org/
Deep thanks for the post. I am reading "Bush at War" and I am not happy about what I am reading. It seems very early on, Rumsfeld and others (not Bush) began saying lets get Iraq on 9/11 and the days following. This had nothing to do at all with the UN REsolutions and violations. Based on what I am reading, there were concerns early on that the administration needed to have something tangible to present to the Amercian people, because the war VS Al-Qaeda might not yeild enough to show the American public.

Yes, this is my interpretation of the politics behind what I am reading.


Very very good read for those that Like and Hate Bush by the way. Pick it up.

PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 07:10 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Did he make his case? I think not!

Senator Kennedy is rumored here in Boston, to be introducing legislation to remove the use of force issued last fall. He feels as many of you do that the President has not made his case. If the legislation is introduced, you all have a good opportunitiy to take some action and contact your local politician.

Senator Kennedy wants the case to be made, the way his brother did during the Cuban Missle Crisis. If he does, he will support the use of force. Last night did not convince him or me.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 09:07 AM   #37
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Dreadsox,

I agree Bush didn't offer any new information on Iraq. He basically stated statistics that have been around for months and more of the same rhetoric.

My husband is a Republican (though I influence him a lot) and his thought was that Bush really said nothing in his speech of substance with the exception of the AIDS initiative. Everything else was one liners. No hows or wheres or whatfors (I'm not sure they are proper English).
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 11:18 AM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:26 AM
I believe the case, if there is one, will be made on February 5 with the release of new declassified intelligence.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 11:30 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I believe the case, if there is one, will be made on February 5 with the release of new declassified intelligence.
I agree.

by the way, I heard the speech. bush said they're still unaccounted for:

28,000 warheads
however many liters of anthrax
vx nerve gas
said there's proof of mobile biological labs
saddam will kill the scientists and their families if they cooperate
links to al-queda

where are the warheads, anthrax, nerve gas, etc.?? WHERE??
it's a FACT they have them. WHERE ARE THEY??? they're not telling us. why? why wouldn't they tell us? gee, I wonder....

now let's see the evidence presented in a clear and precise manner before the world.....and then anyone who doesn't want al-queda to walk into times square with a biological weapon (or anywhere) will back up taking out saddam.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 02:52 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:26 AM
It is not incumbent upon on the USA or the UN to prove that Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction. It is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction.

That was one of the conditions of the 1991 Ceacefire that ended the Gulf War. Saddam Hussien agreed to that and all the other conditions.

That being said: There are nearly 30,000 chem/Bio munitions that Iraq has! The United Nations inspectors confirmed this before 1998! Iraq has to either give these munitions up, or show the evidence that they were destroyed between 1998-2002. There is no doubt that they have these weapons. But Iraq claims they destroyed them but refuses to show any evidence of their destruction. This all the evidence anyone needs. If Iraq does not want the inspectors to find and see this stuff, they have the power to hide or as a last resort block any UN inspectors efforts.

There are tons of Anthrax and other Biological and Chemical materials that Iraq has refused to give up or show the evidence of their destruction. Remember it is not the inspectors job to find all this stuff, it is their job to verify the destruction or the handing over of this material.

Senator Ted Kennedy had plenty of time last fall to appose Bush's resolution. There in fact was an alternative resolution last fall and it was overwhelmingly defeated.

Saddam will be far less likely to comply in the coming weeks if Ted Kennedy's resolution were to get any traction. Only the absolute threat of being eliminated will make Saddam likely to comply and disarm. Saddam only understands one language, the language of force.

Saddam's strategy right now is to drive a wedge between the USA and its allies and between Bush and the Congress. If Congress restrains Bush in doing what is necessary, Saddam wins. I think only when the full contingent of US forces reaches the Gulf around early March and Bush is about to give the final go ahead, will Saddam finally comply and disarm, maybe. Anything that lessens Bush's capability to act then, will lessen Saddam's willingness to disarm.

It was only the threat of action by the USA back in the fall that got Saddam to let the UN inspectors back in. Its clear he felt he could hide and "cheat and retreat" like he did prior to 1998. Now only the imminent threat of military invasion by the USA and others will get him to disarm peacefully. But if there is any chance that he will disarm, Ted Kennedy's resolution is not going to help that become a reality.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 03:19 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 09:26 AM
sting,

you keep saying that it's up to iraq to show it has dissarmed, not up to the inspectors to find the weapons. fine. but the rest of the world, as well as the majority of americans, want to see the evidence. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. it's a legitamate request. please don't respond with "it will compromise our intelligence sources". the idea of going to war and possibly throwing the world into turmoil is worth confiding intelligence sources, and you know they can find ways around saying exactly HOW they got the information, pictures, papers, video, audio, whatever they have.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 04:00 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 09:26 AM
besides which, my tax dollars are funding that intelligence gathering. I think I have a right to know what's going on before my tax dollars are used in funding a war.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 04:15 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:26 AM
JOFO,

Its not just me that says that its up to Iraq to prove that it has disarmed. The United Nations, Iraq, and international law per the resolutions and conditions of the ceacefire express this fact. Iraq says this because they signed the ceacefire that committed them to proving that they do not have weapons of mass destruction.

Where are the 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulin toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent, 30,000 Bio/Chem munitions? There are only two outcomes if Iraq is indeed complying or going to comply. This material is handed over or the physical remains of its destruction is handed over. If Iraq does not have these weapons anymore because they destroyed them, then the evidence of their destruction must be shown to the international community. Failure to do either of the above is the only evidence anyone should need that they still have these weapons.

Saddam has hidden these materials and other things so well that any intelligence we have on them comes from a source inside the government that knows about location of some or a fraction of this material. Saddam has divided the people who know where certain things are, so that if there is an intelligence leak, he only has to kill a smaller number of people who may of had knowledge of site A or B. Based on what ever intelligence the USA give out, Saddam will learn what the USA knows and will then kill the people in his government who had knowledge of that so as to ensure the elimination of the spy or mole that gave that info. Saddam has 12 different security agencies that spy on each other and know different things. Saddam will then remove and hide the evidence and present a different image to conflict with the USA evidence. The end result is the USA loses intelligence capability and its "evidence" is called into question because of Saddam's cover up procedures. Also, other intelligence sources in Iraq stop working with the USA for fear that the USA will release information that will result in their death or the deaths of their families. Thats the problem. But if the USA has other intelligence that cannot be compromised in this way or a similar fashion, then I think they can show this now.

The fact that Iraq does not account for the WMD we know it has from the information collected by UN inspectors back prior to 1998, is proof enough that they have the weapons. If you don't think so, their why doesn't Iraq show the evidence of their destruction if that is in fact what happened?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 04:19 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Sting,

I obviously have a lot of respect for your knowledge on the topic. I have a sincere question for you.

Is there any example of in history, where a country has decided to enforce a UN Resolution with force, without the support of the UN?

Maybe I am missing the boat here, but these are UN Resolutions. I am curious about past precident. Is it not up to the UN to decide what to enforce using the military?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 04:20 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Jofo,

"besides which, my tax dollars are funding that intelligence gathering. I think I have a right to know what's going on before my tax dollars are used in funding a war."

The fact that we pay taxes does not give us the right to know sensitive classified military intelligence. You do not have a right to know things which if made public would hurt US national security.
__________________

__________________
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 04:26 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