Make Your Case

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Many of you may be shocked to hear this, but my favorite President is President Kennedy.

President Kennedy made his case to the Amercian people during the Cuban Missle Crisis. He made a very clear case for the need for action. He prepared the citizenry for the days ahead. He led the country.

While I am very supportive of the UN Resolutions, if the President is to continue to say Iraq is in violations of the UN Resolution, he must make his case to the Amercian People. In my opinion, he HAS NOT done so. I sincerely hope he does so soon. It is looking more and more based on the news of day that the war is going to happen.

I for one would feel better about it if President Bush would pull a Kennedy sometime soon and present his case to the American people and the world. Given this administrations apparent fear of press conferences and addresses, I am worried the case will not be made.

Maybe I have the jitters over this, but based on what I am reading this morning February is not a good month to travel to the Middle east. To those of you with loved ones in the service, no matter what nationality, enjoy your holidays with them.

Peace to all.
 
I don't think the President has done enough to communicate with the American people about Iraq. I did admire his actions in the days following September 11th, his speeches reassured people who were afraid, uncertain, apprehensive about the future. Now is another time of uncertainty and people are looking for reassurance and leadership. They're afraid, of what happens if America does go to war with Iraq, of what happens if she doesn't. The President needs to be offering some leadership, making the case for war if that's what he perceives as necessary, or at least ensuring that people are aware of what is happening in Iraq with regards to the UN weapons inspectors and UN resolutions.

Maybe it's partly because so much in politics is now reduced to "soundbites" but it seems that politicians don't communicate with the people enougn now. Maybe the criticisms that are sometimes made of the President, that he's not smart enough to take questions from reporters, or to give a press conference are true. But it's sad if a fear of the President mis-speaking or answering a question incorrectly mean that the people never have a real opportunity to hear their leader address the important issues of the day.
 
I totally agree with you Dread. Bush would be in such a better postion if he had convehed to us what is to fear. If he laid all of what he can on the table i think his support home based and abroad would sky rocket. I dont know of too many people around this board that really honestly think Iraq isnt a threat. But they wanna see and hear the evidence. The real evidence. Maybe they will have that sort of evidence once the UN inspectors are done. I fully support a war againist Iraq if it is for the right reasons. Saddam is a killer and a dictator of the worst kind. I would rank him up there with Hitler (though not as bad, noone can be that bad!).

He might just be waiting for the right time. Doing it over ht e holidays isnt the right time, he wouldnt get as much coverage and people arnt as intrested during holidays. If he were to wait till early january and give a great speech then he would have the support of the world and the full support of his people.

On another note about speechs. When is the last time anyone has seen a great from the heart speech, you know the one you remember for life? I can say the one at ground zero when Bush was around the ruble and the workers were there listening and he said that thing about them hears us. Dont know the exact wording but it gave me chills for weeks and still does. I really cant remember Clinton giving one of the same magnitude. I do think they should let Bush speak more often. He might jumble his words but he does seem to be speaking from the heart, and that is usually where the best speeches come from.
 
bonoman said:
I totally agree with you Dread. Bush would be in such a better postion if he had convehed to us what is to fear. If he laid all of what he can on the table i think his support home based and abroad would sky rocket. I dont know of too many people around this board that really honestly think Iraq isnt a threat. But they wanna see and hear the evidence. The real evidence. Maybe they will have that sort of evidence once the UN inspectors are done. I fully support a war againist Iraq if it is for the right reasons. Saddam is a killer and a dictator of the worst kind. I would rank him up there with Hitler (though not as bad, noone can be that bad!).

He might just be waiting for the right time. Doing it over ht e holidays isnt the right time, he wouldnt get as much coverage and people arnt as intrested during holidays. If he were to wait till early january and give a great speech then he would have the support of the world and the full support of his people.

On another note about speechs. When is the last time anyone has seen a great from the heart speech, you know the one you remember for life? I can say the one at ground zero when Bush was around the ruble and the workers were there listening and he said that thing about them hears us. Dont know the exact wording but it gave me chills for weeks and still does. I really cant remember Clinton giving one of the same magnitude. I do think they should let Bush speak more often. He might jumble his words but he does seem to be speaking from the heart, and that is usually where the best speeches come from.

Nice post Bonoman!

I am afraid that the UN is not going to back force against Iraq. It does not appear based on the Chief Inspectors statements that they have much to go on.

I am also afraid, that the President is going to proceed with War without the UN. I am not saying I would not support it, however, he needs to make his case to us. Maybe you are right, the holidays are not the right time.

We are weeks away, and I truly believe the clock is ticking for February. As a Republican, I hope the president makes his case if the UN does not support the use of force.

Peace
 
"Make Your Case"

This is what Saddam has to do and has failed to do for nearly 12 years now. Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement in March 1991 that makes it incumbent on him to give up and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and to prove that he has done so, 100%. When Saddam signed this document, US military forces were only 150 miles south of Baghdad. There was nothing in the UN ceacefire agreement of March 1991 that said the USA or a US president 12 years in the future had to prove anything in regards to Saddams weapons of mass destruction.

There was nothing in any UN resolution or the ceacefire agreement that said or implied that Saddam could wait 12 years to comply with these conditions. It is up to Saddam to give up the weapons he has or if he no longer has them to prove that he destroyed them. Saddam must be disarmed peacefully or if that does not work, through military force.
 
Dreadsox said:


Nice post Bonoman!

I am afraid that the UN is not going to back force against Iraq. It does not appear based on the Chief Inspectors statements that they have much to go on.

I am also afraid, that the President is going to proceed with War without the UN. I am not saying I would not support it, however, he needs to make his case to us. Maybe you are right, the holidays are not the right time.

We are weeks away, and I truly believe the clock is ticking for February. As a Republican, I hope the president makes his case if the UN does not support the use of force.

Peace

thank you Dread!

I do think that the UN should back the US because Iraq has not complied with the resolutions. An all out war isnt in the best intrests of the rest of the world, not with the economy as it is now. Sometimes money speaks louder then reality. If my country had the reasourses to actually make a difference in the war then i might be more out spoken! but sadly my country is militraly weak but our word alone can change minds. The more countries that jump on board the less chance of countries saying NO to war. Really the only people(and as in people i say soliders) that this is going to affect is the US and UK. The rest of the world, sadly, see this as another thing to oppose the US on, which has become the fashionable thing to do.

As much as some would like me to go againist all things US that is not the case. I am for a war on Iraq if it is for reasons not only benifical of the opposeing country, which i dont see hear.
 
STING2 said:
"Make Your Case"

This is what Saddam has to do and has failed to do for nearly 12 years now. Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement in March 1991 that makes it incumbent on him to give up and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and to prove that he has done so, 100%. When Saddam signed this document, US military forces were only 150 miles south of Baghdad. There was nothing in the UN ceacefire agreement of March 1991 that said the USA or a US president 12 years in the future had to prove anything in regards to Saddams weapons of mass destruction.

There was nothing in any UN resolution or the ceacefire agreement that said or implied that Saddam could wait 12 years to comply with these conditions. It is up to Saddam to give up the weapons he has or if he no longer has them to prove that he destroyed them. Saddam must be disarmed peacefully or if that does not work, through military force.


Sting,

Nice post. ALL things we have said before. My point, is that President Bush, must convince AMERICA it is necessary. Frankly, I find very few people who are convinced that force there is necessary. We may have the legal right to use the force based on signatures on paper.

However, before the use of force is used, this President needs to make his case and quite honestly, showing up on TV holding up a piece of paper is not going to cut it with a majority of the people. If the man has clear cut proof, he needs to show it, explain it, and convince the people that this is necessary. Especially, if the Chief inspector from the UN is not currently agreeing with the Bush take on things.

I think it is clear, I would be willing to support it, from all of my other posts. I just feel that something is missing here, and quite honestly, it is the leadership piece. We may not have that type of President that can communiccate to us the way others have.

President Kennedy did a kick ass job making his case and it is time for the President to lead.

Peace
 
Last edited:
Dread,

President Kennedy's job of proving missiles were in Cuba was easy compared to what were talking about with Iraq, and also different in the sense that its never been incumbent on the USA or the United Nations to prove ANYTHING! Thats Iraq's job. I remind you that a Balistic Missile launcher can be up to 10 to 15 meters long and several meters wide. In addition, fuel and support vehicles are often stationed nearby. All of this was very visible from the air and the Soviets did little to hide these weapons.

Chemical and Biological weapons are much easier to conceal. If the USA were to lay all of its evidence on the table, 1. Our sources of information could be compromised 2. Iraq will see this evidence, realize what we know and don't know, and move to cover everything up, then destroy what ever means we had to know the info in the first place. That may include movement of the material to a new location that we don't seem to know about based on the evidence we present, thereby effectively concealing it from the rest of the world. It may include the murder of as many as as 1,000 Iraqi soldiers, security, workers, or more, just to kill the 5 or 10 people who may be giving us the information. This is a classic Saddam tactic and has occured numberous times throughout his administration.

Most Americans I know do believe it is necessary to disarm Iraq. Most Americans supported the 1991 Gulf War and the resolutions that followed. I don't recall any Americans voicing opposition to the March 1991 ceacefire agreement that required Iraq to give up and prove that it had given up its weapons of mass destruction.

Bush got the world to vote 15-0 in the security council to disarm Iraq. That was an amazing feat considering the opposition that Bush had to overcome. By and large, opinion polls have shown for the past year, strong support for disarming Iraq with military force if need be.

A better question to ask is how many Americans believe Saddam is honest? How many Americans believe that Saddam's word can be trusted? Saddam claims that he has no weapons, but has yet to prove that is so?

Honestly, the only proof the President needs to show, is the fact that Iraq claims to have destroyed weapons A, B, C, and D that we knew that they had in 1998 when the inspectors left, but refuses to show any evidence of their destruction.

I would be against showing any evidence that would compromise any of our intelligence gathering capabilities in Iraq. Doing that would simply produce the result I described above.

The UN ceacefire agreement is not just some piece of paper. This was a lawful agreement signed by Saddam in March 1991 when US forces were only 150 miles from Baghdad. These agreements and resolutions were passed under chapter 7 rules of the United Nations, the first time resolutions had been passed under chapter 7 since the Korean War. If violations of lawfully passed agreements are laws are excused with "its just a piece of paper" what reason does anyone have to obey any law or agreement anywhere.

Lets not repeat the mistakes of the Europeans when they failed to enforce the agreements and treaties of World War I and simply watched as Hitler re-armed and started retaking land. Many people then made the same excuse that it wasn't "necessary" to do something. 50 million people died in World War II. Whats the point in passing resolutions under chapter 7 resolutions if we do not intend to inforce them? Whats the point in a ceacefire agreement if we don't intend to enforce its conditions? Is it in the best interest of the USA and the United Nations to let Saddam violate 16 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules? Is it in the best interest of the world to let Saddam be armed with Weapons of Mass Destruction?

If the American people must be convinced of something, they must be convinced that Saddam no longer has WMD. Until it is proven by Saddam that he no longer has WMD, it must be assumed by all Americans that he does.
 
So we all agree. Except myself and Dread think its neccesary to try to convince as many as people in America first! Sting all of what you said we agree with. But sting you must relize not all of America see it that way. They see the resolutions and they see the WMD, i just think they want proff. And if that proof isnt able to be released then i think they should say that. We would understand! The berdon(sp) of proof is on Iraq to prove they destoryed the weapons, but the proof Bush must show is that they havent meet their side of the agreement. I just think if a little of what they know is released people will rally behind them even stronger.
 
Thing is, Iraq has already shown they have not met their side of the agreement. They are still in violation of 16 UN resolutions. Bush will never be able to convince everyone of what is necessary, but his poll numbers at this point are slightly better than his fathers 12 years ago in regards to the possible action about to be taken.
 
Sting,

I truly believe that if any of the violations are such that he can make a case to the people there are no problems with getting the support of the American people. You and I may recognize the UN Resolutions as being important and more than just a piece of paper, but others might not see that in the same light.

I think it IS more than a piece of paper. I also know, that if someone is speeding (a violation of the law) we do not use a missle on their car. The people, whose children, wives, husbands, grandchildren, ect.... who will be sent off to fight, deserve to have the case made. It needs to be made forcefully by our leader. Not Ari Flescher! Not Donald Rumsfeld! Not Colin Powell! The case needs to be made by the President.

Peace
 
STING2 said:
This is what Saddam has to do and has failed to do for nearly 12 years now.

In America, at least, the paradigm is centered around presumption of innocence. Whether it is warranted or not, we subconsciously revolve around this, and until the plaintiff--the U.S.--makes a very strong case, the defendant--Iraq--will continue to get a presumption of innocence.

Melon
 
melon said:


In America, at least, the paradigm is centered around presumption of innocence. Whether it is warranted or not, we subconsciously revolve around this, and until the plaintiff--the U.S.--makes a very strong case, the defendant--Iraq--will continue to get a presumption of innocence.

Melon

Very true Melon. However in Iraq's case, they were found guilty 12 years ago and received a suspended sentence, essentially a probation. The parole officer now has problems.....
 
nbcrusader said:


Very true Melon. However in Iraq's case, they were found guilty 12 years ago and received a suspended sentence, essentially a probation. The parole officer now has problems.....

Regardless of whether this is true or not, much of the world sees this as a new trial for a new offense. In addition, many also see this as vengeance for Bush, Sr.'s failures in the 1990s, and, as such, a personal grudge between daddy Bush and Saddam. Dubya's silence on Iraq, and his insistence that we all just take his vague words at face value is what is causing problems. Hence, why this thread was started in the first place.

Melon
 
Melon,

As nbcrusader said, the fact that Iraq is guilty of these crimes is not in dispute. They were found guilty and admitted guilt 12 years ago and signed and agreed to the resolutions of 12 years ago. Iraq is like a drug addict that has agreed to stay in rehab until they are drug free, or face extreme consequences. They have yet to prove they are in fact drug free.

Dread,

Lets not forget that many of are service men and women have already been sent off to various parts of the world where they could be engaged in combat at any time. I had a friend that just got back from being in Afghanistan for 6 months. Another may be sent to Iraq if there is a war. He is a Marine Cobra Helicopter pilot. The case was made 12 years ago. The ball is in Saddam's court. Its up to him to comply with the resolutions or else face the possibility of being disarmed by military force.
 
Melon,

Its not incumbent on W to prove Iraq has weapons of Mass destruction, its incumbent on Saddam to prove that he does not have weapons of mass destruction. A ceacefire was signed by Saddam in March 1991 with these and other conditions. This is not something new. This is still essentially the aftermath of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and their defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, put on hold by the UN ceacefire agreement. I don't think W has been vague about anything and the United Nations voted 15-0 to support his most recent resolution on Iraq.

The person you and everyone should be concerned about is Saddam. His decision to comply or not comply with resolutions signed 12 YEARS AGO, will determine if there is going to be war or not. Saddam's offense has been ongoing, at no time has he in the 12 years since the Gulf War fully complied with the ceacefire and UN resolutions. No one ever envisioned that we would be playing this game 12 years later with Saddam. The conditions of the ceacefire agreement did not say anything about Saddam having 12 or more years to meet conditions that could have been met in 1 or 2.
 
STING2 said:
Melon,

Its not incumbent on W to prove Iraq has weapons of Mass destruction, its incumbent on Saddam to prove that he does not have weapons of mass destruction.

I disagree, I think Dubyah does have to prove his case to the American people and the international community. I'm not convinced and dislike the way American's have been made to look to the world as a backwards world control freak.
 
Scarletwine said:


I disagree, I think Dubyah does have to prove his case to the American people and the international community. I'm not convinced and dislike the way American's have been made to look to the world as a backwards world control freak.

-not according to The Gulf War Treaty that Saddam signed and Clinton didnt have the gonads to enforce..

thank u
DB9:|
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
Melon,

Lets not forget that many of are service men and women have already been sent off to various parts of the world where they could be engaged in combat at any time. I had a friend that just got back from being in Afghanistan for 6 months. Another may be sent to Iraq if there is a war. He is a Marine Cobra Helicopter pilot. The case was made 12 years ago. The ball is in Saddam's court. Its up to him to comply with the resolutions or else face the possibility of being disarmed by military force.

Ummmm....

Have I forgotten that somehow???? I was active during Desert Storm ten years ago.

When I took the oath, I new what I was saying and I knew the consequences of volunteering. It eats at me, that friends of mine are again active and facing danger and I will not be going with them. They will obey their orders and do their jobs with integrity and honor.

That does not change the fact that this president HAS NOT, made a case to the American people or the world. I support the resolutions, I believe in acting in accordince with the UN's resolutions. If THEY authorize the use of force, I am 100% for it. If the President takes the go it alone road, without making his case, I cannot suuport him. He must make the case.

Peace
 
Dread,

I understand. But there are a lot of people in the general public that don't realize what the military does around the world on a daily basis. I was not specifically refering to any one person when I said that.

What more precisely would you like Bush to say or do(that he has not already done) in order to make his case to you?

I guess I don't look at it as "making a case". To me the case was already made 12 years ago and this is simply enforcement of that case.
 
However, this thread is about public opinion. Sure, we may have the resolutions to back up our assertions, and I'm not going to deny them. The public, at the same time, is ignorant of these! That is why it is imperative for Bush to make his case--to inform.

Melon
 
melon said:
However, this thread is about public opinion. Sure, we may have the resolutions to back up our assertions, and I'm not going to deny them. The public, at the same time, is ignorant of these! That is why it is imperative for Bush to make his case--to inform.

Melon

Melon hit the nail on the head. Ask the average American what the UN Resolutions are that Iraq is violating. See if they know or understand what the deal is. I think it would make a great Jay Leno segment, given the nitwits he gets to answer questions on the street.

Peace
 
I think we are highlighting the problem of formulating policy based on public opinion. It all depends on how you ask the question.....
 
Melon,

Thats a good point. Unfortunately, much of the public will continue to remain ignorant no matter what happens.
 
An interesting article I came across-

Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

LOS ANGELES (APOnline) ? More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified, according to a poll by the Los Angeles Times published Tuesday.

Ninety percent of respondents said they don't doubt Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. But without new evidence from U.N. inspectors, 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war.

The Times poll, which interviewed 1,305 adults nationwide, was conducted from Thursday to Sunday, in the week after Iraq handed over its massive report on its arsenal to the United Nations. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Support for a possible war appears to be weakening, with 58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq, according to the poll. In an August Times poll, 64% said they would support a ground attack. In January, the Times and other polls found support for military action more than 70%.

Yet almost three-quarters of Americans support the way Bush is handling the threat of terrorism, and nearly three in five like how he's handling the country's affairs.

Sixty-three percent of those polled said war would be justified only if the United Nations finds a pattern of serious violations by Iraq. Only 22% agreed with the administration's position that any error or omission in Iraq's arms declaration is adequate to justify war; 6% said it would depend on the nature of the omissions; and 9% said they were not sure or declined to reply.

If U.N. inspections fail to find evidence of Iraqi weapons programs, almost half said they would oppose war. Only 41% would favor war, and 10% said they were undecided. Only 26% said they were willing to support war if the United States acted alone.

Respondents also believe war would have serious ramifications at home and abroad. Sixty-seven percent said war would likely increase the threat of terrorist attacks in the United States; 51% said they feel it would destabilize the Middle East; and 45% said it will adversely impact the U.S. economy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom