So What's the Rush? - 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 02-25-2003, 11:34 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:00 PM
So What's the Rush?

Doesn't it seem peculiar to anyone that, only a short couple months after the inspections that Bush demanded the UN resume on Iraq that he wants war? What is the rush? Why can't the war, for instance, happen in March 2004? Why 2003? Why now?

With inspectors and the U.S. / U.K. watching Saddam like a hawk, do you really think he'll create a nuclear weapon? If that is the case, then there's your "smoking gun" right there...

...but we all know the truth. The U.S. is pushing for war *now,* because what it fears the most is having the inspections *succeed* in disarming Iraq. This isn't about disarmament in the slightest, but regime change.

Whether you think that is right or wrong is not my perogative. Why the window dressing? Why not just be honest? We went into Kosovo not on the premise of disarmament, but for human rights violations--which Iraq has plenty of. So why not use that excuse? Or does this really show, ultimately, the poor diplomacy of the Bush Administration? Maybe it is not only a failure in domestic policy, but also foreign policy?

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:53 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 06:00 PM
perhaps the human rights aspect was avoided because there are other well known perpetrators of this sort who would also then qualify for a 'war'.

north korea has effectively painted the u.s. into a corner, in this regard, with their own acknowledgements of weapons of mass destruction.

following the terrorist attacks around the world of recent years posing saddam as the next big danger is a logical step and a seemingly obvious one for the people to make. in my mind, it is sensible then to draw attention to the weapons he shouldn't have, the danger he poses to his own people, his immediate neighbours and the global peace of the world at large.
__________________

__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:54 PM   #3
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Re: So What's the Rush?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
We went into Kosovo not on the premise of disarmament, but for human rights violations--which Iraq has plenty of. So why not use that excuse?
Because everyone knows that Bush could give a rat's ass about human rights violations.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:03 AM   #4
The Fly
 
the olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Above the golden arch
Posts: 282
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Re: So What's the Rush?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
This isn't about disarmament in the slightest, but regime change.
Back in August or so I saw an interview with Bush (I believe it was "60 Minutes II") where he discussed 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. When asked about what he wanted to see happen with Iraq, he replied "I support a regime change in Iraq".
This was long before the new resolutions, inspections etc.

For better or worse his mind was made up then.
__________________
the olive is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:09 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Yeah, what about all of the regimes on the globe that are guilty of human rights violations? There are places like Sudan that are also guilty of gross human rights violations. Why not a "war" against them? Why Iraq? A family vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Are we only dreaming and are we actually living in Renaissance Italy, with all of the vendettas going on between city-states? You'd think it was. Great, because that means we haven't invented nuclear bombs, or bombs, period, and have only catapults, handguns and cannons for combat.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention swords.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:15 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Melon,

Inspections are irelevant if Saddam is unwilling to cooperate. The inspectors are not armed and cannot get pass T-72 tanks if by chance that do pick up the smell of WMD that Iraq has had four years to disperse and hide in a country the size of Texas. The key here is Iraqi cooperation with the inspectors. The Iraqi's have yet to line of the 30,000 chemical/Bio capable shells that the UN found they had in 1998. Iraq claims they destroyed them, but will not show the evidence of the destruction. Bottom line, if Iraq does not cooperate and either hand over these weapons or show the evidence of their destruction, then inspections will never work.

What is the Rush? Many intelligence experts have speculated that Saddam could have Nuclear Weapons by next year. Even if it is a remote possibility, one cannot afford to be wrong. The risk of disarming a Nuclear armed Hussein could prove to be to great. Thats why action needs to be taken now to disarm Hussein before he can do massive damage to the international community with a nuclear weapon or decide he can afford to take more aggressive action in regards to his neighbors because he now has Nuclear Weapons. Regardless of what the possibilities of a Nuclear armed Hussien would be, its not something the world can afford to risk which is why Hussein must be disarmed before he gets such weapons. The only way to disarm Hussein since he is not cooperating is through military force.

"...but we all know the truth. The U.S. is pushing for war *now,* because what it fears the most is having the inspections *succeed* in disarming Iraq. This isn't about disarmament in the slightest, but regime change."

Iraq was supposed to have been disarmed by the summer of 1992. Instead, Saddam has toyed and played with the inspectors for 12 years now. If Saddam had any attention of disarming, he could have rolled out everything for the inspectors when they first arrived back in November 2002 having been kept out of the country for four years. Thats how inspections and disarmament are supposed to happen. The Inspectors are not detectors. The inspectors can only succeed at their job if Saddam is more than willing to cooperate. Saddam has never been which is why the inspectors have been unable to complete their mission which was only supposed to have taken 12 months. Its not up to the inspectors to search every square inch of a large country for WMD, its up to Saddam to line up everything for the inspectors to remove or destroy.

"Whether you think that is right or wrong is not my perogative. Why the window dressing? Why not just be honest? We went into Kosovo not on the premise of disarmament, but for human rights violations--which Iraq has plenty of. So why not use that excuse? Or does this really show, ultimately, the poor diplomacy of the Bush Administration? Maybe it is not only a failure in domestic policy, but also foreign policy?"

I don't consider disarming Iraq to be window dressing. Its been US and UN policy now for 12 years. The international community has tried nearly every alternative to war to disarm Saddam for 12 years. These actions have failed. Just like the only way to kick Saddams military out of Kuwait in 1991 was military action, the only way to disarm Iraq in 2003 will be military force, unless he suddenly surrenders at the last minute.

I agree that human rights for the people of Iraq is a good justification for military action against Iraq in a different context. Unfortunately, this arguement falls prey to those who say that there are dozens of dictators who abuse their people around the world and we cannot go into all of them to protect them. It is clear that there is a human rights factor to the question of regime change in Iraq, but people are more likely to act on that if they feel their security is threatened first, which indeed it is. It is a fact that the USA and other countries act on the threats to their security from other states first, human rights and humanitarian concerns within states second. So far I'd give the Bush administration an A on handling the Iraq situation. It was the Bush administration that got inspectors back into Iraq after 4 years, not the previous administration, the UN, or any other country. They have mustered multi-lateral support, they have worked through the UN, but at the end of the day, they have assembled a military force to do for Saddam, what he has failed to do for 12 years now. If Saddam will not disarm like he agreed to, he will be disarmed by military force.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:19 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:00 PM
We both know that first sentence is bull. Hans Blix has said himself that Iraq can be disarmed without active cooperation. It is just the newest catch phrase, along with "if you aren't with us, you're a terrorist."

I give Bush a C- so far. I think Clinton could have sold us on blowing up Iraq by now.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:25 AM   #8
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,441
Local Time: 05:00 PM
taking action after 12 years or repeated violations of every sanction the UN put in place really is a rush, isn't it?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:27 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
taking action after 12 years or repeated violations of every sanction the UN put in place really is a rush, isn't it?
I think it was right for Bush to push for inspections--but we only have had them reinstated for 2 months. That "12 years" figure is irrelevant, because we got what we wanted theoretically--the inspections back.

But we all knew that inspections were not on the Bush agenda, yes?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:34 AM   #10
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 05:00 PM

why is this argument continuously presented about not removing one tyrant because there are others similarly evil? by that reasoning Milosevic should still be in power along with Pinochet and a few others...

if it's determined that it is not necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power now, why would it be necessary to remove him in a year or two from now?
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:37 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Mellon,

That statement is not bull. If Hans Blix was correct, Saddam would have been disarmed by 1993. How would Mr. Blix get into a facility guarded by Iraqi tanks? If a 10,000 man Republican guard Division is guarding several WMD sites, how is Mr. Blix and 20 unarmed inspectors going to get in there to disarm the site? Inspectors are only in Iraq because Saddam let them in. Inspectors can only disarm Iraq if Saddam lets them. If thats not the case, please answer the questions above and explain to me how 200 unarmed inspectors will be able to disarm a country with a military of 430,000 that is preventing them from doing just that. Bottom line, if Saddam does not want to disarm, only military force can disarm him.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:38 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
if it's determined that it is not necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power now, why would it be necessary to remove him in a year or two from now?
But we aren't trying to remove Saddam because he is a tyrant, but because he refuses to disarm, remember? That's why we have the inspections that we wanted, but have disliked ever since they were reinstated.

If this was a war on human rights, like Kosovo, then maybe we would have less global protest. But this is about WMDs, remember?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:41 AM   #13
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,441
Local Time: 05:00 PM
where were these protesters when clinton went into haiti and kosovo without the UN or a declaration of war? Hmm... ohhhhh yeah... they were supporting clinton 'cause he was a democrat. How could I forget.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:42 AM   #14
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 05:00 PM
I didnt mean they were removing because of 'this' or 'that' reason, whatever the reason, if it's not justifiable now, why would it be justifiable a year from now? it's now or never for Bush, the only way to get this done was to link it to 9/11 and the further we get from 9/11 the more difficult it is to sell
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:43 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Mellon,

That statement is not bull. If Hans Blix was correct, Saddam would have been disarmed by 1993. How would Mr. Blix get into a facility guarded by Iraqi tanks? If a 10,000 man Republican guard Division is guarding several WMD sites, how is Mr. Blix and 20 unarmed inspectors going to get in there to disarm the site? Inspectors are only in Iraq because Saddam let them in. Inspectors can only disarm Iraq if Saddam lets them. If thats not the case, please answer the questions above and explain to me how 200 unarmed inspectors will be able to disarm a country with a military of 430,000 that is preventing them from doing just that. Bottom line, if Saddam does not want to disarm, only military force can disarm him.
Has Blix complained about a 10,000 man Republican Guard obstruction? Because that would certainly fall under not cooperating fully.

And why do they need arms? Saddam knows that if he puts a finger on the inspectors, he's dead. He *has to* voluntarily disarm, according to Blix's instructions, otherwise he's dead. Right now, he's challenging the order of the Al-Samood missile program destruction...which means we might get our "material breach" after all...

...but we don't have it yet. So, again, what's the rush? Have the UN inspectors complained about the Iraqi military being in their way, or is this, yet again, Bush blowing the horn too soon?

I'm fairly confident that Saddam will screw up in the next few months, when it is more apparent that he is not cooperating, so why should we go in sooner rather than later, when much of the world is unconvinced of failure, considering these fairly new rounds of inspections?

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon 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 05:00 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