bonoman
Refugee
exactly what i was on about....
Make Your Case
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
STING2 said:
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,
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.
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.
deep said:
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
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.
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.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
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).
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).
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
I believe the case, if there is one, will be made on February 5 with the release of new declassified intelligence.
nbcrusader said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
"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.
Sting,
Yes, but that problem was within Nato's jusrisdiction right?
How many Arab countries are coming in on this operation?
I am just trying to convince myself. The book I am reading is convincing me....
The Threatening Storm
You would like it.
Yes, but that problem was within Nato's jusrisdiction right?
How many Arab countries are coming in on this operation?
I am just trying to convince myself. The book I am reading is convincing me....
The Threatening Storm
You would like it.
Dreadsox said:
Turkey is a nato member, and is part of the coalition... possible "justification" for Nato support.
btw halfway thru said book, but got sidetracked by The War Against The Terror Masters by Ledeen. Quick and easy read.
an aside, it seems strange the Tony Blair is getting such short-shrift w/ regard to Kosovo. If I recall he pretty much was the driving force behind the operation....
Dreadsox,
Kosovo did not fall under NATO's jurisdiction at the time. The UN had passed resolutions against Serb aggression and the unfolding humanitarian disaster it was causing. The US wanted to act with others just as it does in the current case with Iraq. The USA failed to get the UN to go along with using force but it did get NATO to go along. If NATO had not gone along, the USA then would of formed a smaller coalition of countries, as it is doing in the current case with Iraq, and acted to prevent the Serb slaughter in Kosovo.
Its true that few if any Arab countries will participate in this operation if it happens, and right now, publically, none are. Be sure to read chapter 6 ( the regional perspective) in "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack for more on this issue.
"The Threatening Storm" is a great book with lots of information. I'm almost finished reading it.
Kosovo did not fall under NATO's jurisdiction at the time. The UN had passed resolutions against Serb aggression and the unfolding humanitarian disaster it was causing. The US wanted to act with others just as it does in the current case with Iraq. The USA failed to get the UN to go along with using force but it did get NATO to go along. If NATO had not gone along, the USA then would of formed a smaller coalition of countries, as it is doing in the current case with Iraq, and acted to prevent the Serb slaughter in Kosovo.
Its true that few if any Arab countries will participate in this operation if it happens, and right now, publically, none are. Be sure to read chapter 6 ( the regional perspective) in "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack for more on this issue.
"The Threatening Storm" is a great book with lots of information. I'm almost finished reading it.
bonoman
Refugee
Sting we relize that they need to prove that they havent disarmed. But i think what alot of people are saying that they dont agree with the UN resolution! Just because the UN passed it doesnt mean everyone has to agree with it.
I personally think Bush started to make his case last night but he will need more to convince others.
I am convinced that Iraq is decieving the world. But many are not. You must look at this from others points of view.
Saddam will fall by summer. And i'm glad!
I personally think Bush started to make his case last night but he will need more to convince others.
I am convinced that Iraq is decieving the world. But many are not. You must look at this from others points of view.
Saddam will fall by summer. And i'm glad!
UKTan
War Child
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2002
- Messages
- 883
Genuine question for you all
Its been stated many many times that the US has not been able to share its evidence because of the risk to the intelligence network, those ppl providing the info etc etc, I'm intrigued to know why now (or rather 5th Feb) can this evidence be shared? Whats changed?
Its been stated many many times that the US has not been able to share its evidence because of the risk to the intelligence network, those ppl providing the info etc etc, I'm intrigued to know why now (or rather 5th Feb) can this evidence be shared? Whats changed?
Scarletwine
New Yorker
IMO Bush is being pressured by citizens in the US and recent polls. 70+% want the case made against Iraq and a coalition response against Iraq. Therefore he is willing to share some data with the security counsel to make his case.
I hope this is the reason and Powell will not just be regurgitating the same points. If so I have more hope for the US and the power of the people (sorry to be corny).
I hope this is the reason and Powell will not just be regurgitating the same points. If so I have more hope for the US and the power of the people (sorry to be corny).
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
But on the other hand, photos or films or articles can be manipulated so easily.
If the UN says they have nukes, so be it. Then they?ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed. I mean, just bc Hussein is a madman? Thats not very ... objective... pah.
Before bombing around the U.S. should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If Security is so important, why don?t the U.S. ratify it?
I know - from very reliable sources - that very probably other states would follow the U.S. example.
Without nuclear tests no development of nukes.
So whats the point w disarming (not that I?d be against it...)?
If the UN says they have nukes, so be it. Then they?ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed. I mean, just bc Hussein is a madman? Thats not very ... objective... pah.
Before bombing around the U.S. should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If Security is so important, why don?t the U.S. ratify it?
I know - from very reliable sources - that very probably other states would follow the U.S. example.
Without nuclear tests no development of nukes.
So whats the point w disarming (not that I?d be against it...)?
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I do not think that Saddam Hussein is so benevolent that he would dispose of his weapons simply because the U.S. ratifies the CTBT.
~U2Alabama
~U2Alabama
HIPHOP,
"Then they?ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed"
With that statement you seem to be forgetting what has transpired the past 12 years. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990. The US and UN pushed Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 and was ready to go to Baghdad if Saddam did not surrender and agree to the terms of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. In 1991, Saddam signed the ceacefire agreement and agreed to give over all WMD weapons. Saddam has used such weapons to target and kill civilians on a massive scale. The international community was in total agreement that Saddam should not have such weapons. UN inspectors spent the period from 1991-1998, before they were kicked out, attempting to make sure Iraq was disarming.
"Then they?ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed"
With that statement you seem to be forgetting what has transpired the past 12 years. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990. The US and UN pushed Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 and was ready to go to Baghdad if Saddam did not surrender and agree to the terms of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. In 1991, Saddam signed the ceacefire agreement and agreed to give over all WMD weapons. Saddam has used such weapons to target and kill civilians on a massive scale. The international community was in total agreement that Saddam should not have such weapons. UN inspectors spent the period from 1991-1998, before they were kicked out, attempting to make sure Iraq was disarming.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
look, for me, it's not nukes....(I don't think they have them). It's the biological agents.
why is this so hard for people to understand??? let's consider the scenario: al-queda is passed whatever biological agent from iraq, smuggles it into the u.s., and lets it free in times square.
think it won't happen if given the chance? why wouldn't it? YOU provide EVIDENCE that it WON'T.
