US - Iraq: what do you think?

[speedracer]

Because the point of critical thinking is to educate yourself about a topic, and reach a conclusion based on that education and your own personal beliefs. I feel I have done so, and reached a conclusion of my own, which I am quite happy with. You have not discussed anything other than your rigid POV wrt Iraq; clearly your mind is made up. That's fine - you have informed yourself, and this is the end result. Those of us who disagree are no different.

Rigid perhaps, but I think that on this particular topic Sting has done way more to articulate the reasons for his opinion than anyone else in this forum.

 

[Scarletwine]

Rigid - Yes very.

I don't have a problem with Sting's articulate reasons and I respect his opinion. It's more that he could be reciting a textbook "Why we are going to attack Iraq" from Bush's war cabinet. There is no varying from the strict party line.

I find it hard to agree with anyone else's position so absolutely. But that is just my POV.

 

[speedracer]

Rigid - Yes very.

I don't have a problem with Sting's articulate reasons and I respect his opinion. It's more that he could be reciting a textbook "Why we are going to attack Iraq" from Bush's war cabinet. There is no varying from the strict party line.

Whether Sting's arguments sound like they could have come out of the mouth of Donald Rumsfeld is irrelevant. The relevant point is, are they accurate?

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"and there isn't a single thing Bush and Co. or STING here or anybody could do to convince me otherwise"

Have I ever said that there was nothing anybody could do to convince me otherwise of my positions? To the best of my knowledge, I have never made such a statement.

I don't think there is anything rigid about my positions compared to several others expressed here. I've attempted to articulate why certain policies have been selected in different foreign policy situations and why I think those policies are the best ones for resolving each situation.

That certainly is not as rigid as those that simply oppose all war anytime, anywhere, regardless of any of the circumstances involved. But that is ok and I'm careful to read their viewpoints specifically because they are the opposite, or at least in some way different, than mine.

 

[Dreadsox]

Whether Sting's arguments sound like they could have come out of the mouth of Donald Rumsfeld is irrelevant. The relevant point is, are they accurate?

I have not known him to be otherwise. Using the UN Resolutions to make the case is a great idea, however, they are UN Reolutions and it is up to the UN to decide when to enforce their own resolutions.

I am 100% in favor of the United States doing something about the problem through the United Nations. If they say they want a year to inspect they should get a year. I am not sure that I buy that Iraq violating resolutions gives the US the right to enforce them without the UN. They are UN resolutions and it should be through them that we act.

However, the paper the resolutions are written on are less useful than toilet paper if they are not enforced. If they decide to give him a year after over ten year of Iraq's deceptions and lying then maybe they are running low on their supply and we should send them some TP so they do not have to use the paper the resolution is on.



What would change my mind on this issue????

I started a thread a while back stating that I had not felt that Bush had made his case. I still feel this way.

The President of the United States needs to make his case to the people if he is not going to follow the United Nations lead on this. He needs to prove to us that there is a Clear and Present Danger to us posed by Iraq. If the President makes his case and it is a convincing one I have no problem supporting us going it without the UN. According to Ari Flescher today, the President "will" make his case when the time is right.

 

[Scarletwine]

I have not known him to be otherwise. Using the UN Resolutions to make the case is a great idea, however, they are UN Reolutions and it is up to the UN to decide when to enforce their own resolutions.

I am 100% in favor of the United States doing something about the problem through the United Nations. If they say they want a year to inspect they should get a year. I am not sure that I buy that Iraq violating resolutions gives the US the right to enforce them without the UN. They are UN resolutions and it should be through them that we act. ...

What would change my mind on this issue????

I started a thread a while back stating that I had not felt that Bush had made his case. I still feel this way.

The President of the United States needs to make his case to the people if he is not going to follow the United Nations lead on this. He needs to prove to us that there is a Clear and Present Danger to us posed by Iraq. If the President makes his case and it is a convincing one I have no problem supporting us going it without the UN. According to Ari Flescher today, the President "will" make his case when the time is right.

This is my thoughts also. I'm not a pacifist, but I do feel the need to be convinced absolutely to support an armed conflict, otherwise it's just another VietNam and I'm totally against an unilateral action by the US. It stinks of Imperialism. And as a lover of history, I've seen where that has taken other countries without exception.

Also, I was not trying to offend you Sting, just make an observation. I'm actually impressed by your knowledge of the details.

I personally like to know the facts, but have to balance that with my conscience and emotional thoughts. Every problem can have multiple solutions. The world is not mathematics. At this time I cannot agree with Dubyah's policy.

 

[speedracer]

I personally like to know the facts, but have to balance that with my conscience and emotional thoughts. Every problem can have multiple solutions. The world is not mathematics. At this time I cannot agree with Dubyah's policy.

Saddam Hussein's Baath party isn't going anywhere. His sons Uday and Qusay are by all accounts just as evil as he is. He liquidates all opposition to his rule.

There's no credible opposition party currently within Iraq.

The half-assed UN sanctions have not done anything to weaken Saddam's grip on power.

What is this alternate solution, and why is it more likely to return a positive result than an attack on Iraq?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The half-assed UN sanctions have not done anything to weaken Saddam's grip on power.

Well, they have been described by those imposing them as "the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history" and having killed over half a million children at the most conservatie estimates, I wouldn't say they're "half-assed."

However, I agree they've done nothing to weaken Saddam. It just proves that sanctions hurt the most vulnerable in a society, not the strongest.

Why do we continue with the sanctions knowing that they're ineffective and only serve to cause great suffering to the Iraqi people?

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm not sure there is ultimately a viable alternative solution. However, I dislike the timing of the administration and feel it is a way to show a victory since they lost Osama.
Spending the money on breaking up terrorist cells and fostering goodwill seem more urgent to me. As you say Sadaam's gov't isn't going anywhere. I don't feel his ability to create nuclear weapons is imminent either. So let the inspectors do thier job, until they are satisfied.

 

[Desire4Bono]

Thanks for the detailed history, Sting.

 

[STING2]

Thank you Desire4Bono.

The sanctions on Iraq are not the cause of the suffering Iraqi people experience. Iraq is able to sell all the oil they want to to buy food and humanitarian supplies through the United Nations. With or without sanctions, people would suffer because Saddam controls the distribution of any food or humanitarian supplies brought into his country. He can starve one town or region while he rewards another with food, humanitarian supplies and other perks for cooperating with him. This is how Saddam maintains total control of the country. It is a Police State. This figure that 500,000 people have died from sanctions is an unproven theory. It is false primarily because Iraq has purchased more than enough food and humanitarian supplies to take care of everyone, each year. It is true that some people may have been denied by Saddam, food and humanitarian supplies and have suffered because of the fact. Rather than being an arguement for lifting sanctions, it is an arguement for regime change in Iraq because that is the only way that many people there will be lifted from the horror and restrictions they currently live under.

What sanctions have been able to do, is that they have prevented Saddam from rebuilding his military forces, most of which was lost during the Gulf War in 1991. For his conventional military forces, Saddam relied heavily on imports for all Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery, and Aircraft. Sanctions have prevented him from getting spare parts to maintain much of the military equipment that he has left. This has helped to make the region much more secure, and will save many lives if the USA, Coalition, or UN, decide that Iraq must be disarmed with military force.

Unfortunately now, Sanctions are really starting to break down. It is estimated that Iraq was able to smuggle in 3 Billion dollars worth of goods last year in addition the much larger sum in Billions that is purchased legally through the UN "Oil for food" and humanitarian supplies program. So far it does not appear that major weapon systems like, Tanks and Aircraft were smuggled in, but other smaller types of weapons more concealable may have been smuggled in.

 

[U2girl]

Iraq is able to sell all the oil they want to to buy food and humanitarian supplies through the United Nations

But you said earlier they spent everything on arms.
I agree, Iraq's people have suffered greatly from sanctions while Saddam is still in power.

I'm sorry, but unless US (or Britain) can come up with a evidence of WMD or that Iraq is a threat to the world I don't believe this attack is necessary and I think North Korea is far more dangerous to the world.

And I don't think that the "Iraq has to prove it has disarmed" point of view is valid. Proving part has to be done by the accusing party, not the accused party. US&Britain say Iraq has WMD, THEY have to prove it and so make their case. If they know something UN inspectors don't, maybe it's time to share.

 

[JOFO]

yeah, if they know something, just come out with it and the problem is solved.

"we have had spies deep within iraq for the last 5 years and know that there is an underground nuclear facility at such and such, and there are mobile laboratories on rail cars developing anthrax that rune from here to here, and we have photographic evidence of ......"

just do it, if not, they don't have it.

 

[STING2]

U2girl,

Money derived through the sell of Oil to the United Nations can only be used to purchase humanitarian supplies and food. The United Nations controls the flow of this money and buys food and humanitarian supplies when Iraq sales its oil. Money that is payed for Iraqi Oil goes straight to the UN and not to Iraq. The UN then purchases food and humanitarian supplies and delivers it to Iraq.

Any Money that Saddam Hussian got before Sanctions or gets after sanctions is spent primarily on the military and his personal security. Saddam makes far less money now than he did before sanctions. Saddam does not get any money from any oil that is sold legally. Who ever buys the oil pays the United Nations.

Saddam of course is becoming more successful in smuggling and selling his oil illegally and last year brought in 3 Billion dollars
from smuggling.


"And I don't think that the "Iraq has to prove it has disarmed" point of view is valid."

Actually the UN resolutions and the UN 1991 ceacefire agreement clearly state that it is valid. Iraq was already found guilty in 1991 of having weapons of mass destruction. Iraq agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction and also agreed that it was "incumbent on Iraq to prove they given up such weapons". The burden of proof has always been on Iraq. Iraq agreed to those conditions when it signed the 1991 ceacefire agreement and other UN resolutions.

So according to international law, Iraq has to prove it does not have weapons of mass destruction! So far they have failed to do this.

 

[speedracer]

yeah, if they know something, just come out with it and the problem is solved.

Well, we know that Saddam is a ruthless dictator who presides over one of the two most repressive regimes on Earth, has killed really large numbers of his political enemies within Iraq and has invaded several of his neighbors over the last 20 years. Why is this not enough reason to justify removing him from power?

Sometimes I wonder if the only thing that keeps ultra-liberal types from saying that the UN needs to initiate a "humanitarian intervention" a la Kosovo is the fact that Iraq sits atop the world's second largest oil reserves.

 

[STING2]

JOFO,

Its not that simple. Here is why. Putting out all are evidence could compromise the intelligence sources that allowed us to know such things. It may be that one or more of Saddam's top officials or perhaps someone intimately involved with WMD programs or sites is secretly and successfully providing intelligence.

If the USA puts out what it knows, Saddam will see this as well and will be able to caculate how the USA found such information out. If he can't pinpoint who the spy is, Saddam in the past has killed hundreds or thousands of officers, government officials, and scientist, just to insure that the spy is destroyed. Saddam will have an idea who had access to such secret information and it would not be beneath him to literally kill everyone who knew such information in order to destroy the spy.

If the US recklessly posted all its evidence, Saddam would find out what he needs to know to make his WMD even more hidden than before. He'll also be able to potentially eliminate are sources of information. He will then launch a massive cover up operation after having destroyed our only sources of info, and then present conflicting evidence that throws the USA evidence into dispute. Saddam wins not once, but twice in that situation.

 

[JOFO]

JOFO,

Its not that simple. Here is why. Putting out all are evidence could compromise the intelligence sources that allowed us to know such things. It may be that one or more of Saddam's top officials or perhaps someone intimately involved with WMD programs or sites is secretly and successfully providing intelligence.

If the USA puts out what it knows, Saddam will see this as well and will be able to caculate how the USA found such information out. If he can't pinpoint who the spy is, Saddam in the past has killed hundreds or thousands of officers, government officials, and scientist, just to insure that the spy is destroyed. Saddam will have an idea who had access to such secret information and it would not be beneath him to literally kill everyone who knew such information in order to destroy the spy.

If the US recklessly posted all its evidence, Saddam would find out what he needs to know to make his WMD even more hidden than before. He'll also be able to potentially eliminate are sources of information. He will then launch a massive cover up operation after having destroyed our only sources of info, and then present conflicting evidence that throws the USA evidence into dispute. Saddam wins not once, but twice in that situation.

fair enough, however, if they know for a fact that he's got them, if they tell the world where, how, and why, they can just go ahead with the war and it won't matter if saddam figures out who betrayed him, because his ass will be flying on a flagpole instead of sitting in a 14 karot gold chair.

 

[STING2]

That may infact happen.

 

[U2girl]

Well if the weapons are in fact hidden, who's to say they are still wherever US thinks they are now?

I wasn't thinking going publicl with this info, just exchange the info with UN inspectors confidentially. (besides, if war happens anway, there won't be time for Iraq to hunt spies)

 

[JOFO]

Well if the weapons are in fact hidden, who's to say they are still wherever US thinks they are now?

I wasn't thinking going publicl with this info, just exchange the info with UN inspectors confidentially. (besides, if war happens anway, there won't be time for Iraq to hunt spies)

I agree.
I was watching some CNN thing last night and 3 guys were like "yes, he's got them and the u.s. knows exactly what and where".

 

[gvox]

The solution

Here is how simple it IS:

The US provides the evidence to the 'world'. No, not to the idiot media outlets or to every nation of the UN, but to the UN Security Council AND to the UN inspection teams. There *should* be no compromising of intelligence sources in that event. That is one of the most bold faced lies the Bush admin has tried yet. Noone on the Security Council is going to leave such a meeting and get on the phone to Iraq ("Hey Saddam, check it out, I just saw a photo of missiles at such and such..better kill all the people working there and move that shit out dude..").

The UN inspection teams, armed with the plethora (and I try not to be too sarcastic here) of evidence that the US intelligence community has amassed including satellite images, etc etc, start showing up unannounced at the precise locations that the US believes to contain WMD, and inspect right away, and forget about the schedule.

Also, the US provides the full and unedited Iraqi declaration to the UN Security Council and allows them to determine what to do with it.

Also, the US provides to the UN a full inventory of all the weapons it has sold to Iraq over, say, the last 25 years and also owns up for why it was supplying weapons to a dictatorship.

Otherwise the whole things a farce and the Bush administration hasn't a drop of credibility.

Problem solved. If the US has the evidence, it will be hours and at most days before these supposed stockpiles of WMD are uncovered and the whole thing is a done deal.

Then they can turn their attention to the guys who are actually pointing their ICBMs across the Pacific as we argue about a nation that can't even defend itself.

 

[JOFO]

sounds good to me.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

In 1991, the USA avoided telling the Soviet Union when the US forces would launch Desert Storm. When we did inform them US intelligence intercepted the Soviets attempting to inform the Iraqi's. This of course did not matter because the initial operation was already in progess and the first bombs fell only minutes later.

The point here is that the Russians and Chinese cannot be completely trusted with such information and it is possible they would leak such information.

As far as the US inspection teams, you seem to forget that Iraq moniters the moves of the tiny UN inspection team and if they were about to find anything, could easily block access to any site until sensitive material had been removed. The old "Cheat and Retreat" strategy the Iraq's were very effective at in the 1990s. Bottom line, unless Iraq decides to come clean, the inspectors without military force have little chance of disarming Iraq. If the inspectors had significant numbers of US forces with them on their inspections then this would be an option that could be successful. So far, the UN inspection team only has 100 unarmed inspectors and two helicopters to search a country nearly the size of Texas.

The problem is that at any point that the USA gives information and the inspectors move in to search for something, they will be blocked. Saddam will kill anyone who might of known that there were WMD weapons there at some point and we will lose are source. Iraq will hide its materials some place else and we would of lost are ability to know where they now are.

Such sensitive sites should only be moved on when the USA can bring in military force to ensure their capture and destruction. Otherwise we simply repeat the same process where Iraq hides their materials through a cheat and retreat process and we lose perhaps are only intelligence sources in Iraq. If war does become necessary, we do not want those intelligence sources to already be compromised. Especially in case Iraq attempts to move the materials outside the country or to a terrorist group, or starts to outfit regular army or republican guard troops with such weapons.

Iraq has yet to explain what has happened to thousands of Chemical shells and other WMD items that they did still have back in 1998. They claimed they destroyed them but have shown no evidence to prove that is indeed the case. Until they give up those weapons or show the evidence of their destruction, that is all the justification the UN, USA and other countries need to move in with military force to finally force Iraq to comply with all their obligations that they signed on to in the ceacefire agreement from 12 years ago.

 

[gvox]

I think I have it figured out....Sting is an iRobot, incapable of any other perspective than that of what they've programmed him to beLIEve.

So when do you get on the plane to Iraq Sting?

 

[speedracer]

I think I have it figured out....Sting is an iRobot, incapable of any other perspective than that of what they've programmed him to beLIEve.

So when do you get on the plane to Iraq Sting?

Ah yes, good old ad hominem attacks. Are you a Chomsky fan?

How about actually replying to STING's argument?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Gabrielvox you do bring up some excellent points in your replies. This though, is the second time you have mentioned STING2 going to Iraq to personally support this war. That is about as valid as STING2 asking you when you are going to enter politics as Bush's opposition to actively back up your views and stop this war from happening. Are you just trying to shit stir here or what?

 

[gvox]

Its a perfectly valid question

The question I have asked is a perfectly valid one and one that I have seen discussed quite rationally on various media outlets by a number of respected senators and commentators.

The problem is that by far the majority of people who write on these types of forums in support of a war on Iraq are not personally volunteering to go over there, and that gets up some other people's noses, like mine.

I'm not responding to any of STINGS arguments because all he is doing is repeating the same old tired mantras over and over again, and it's not worth my time. He lost all respect from me when he posted about being in support of all past US military campaigns, Vietnam included.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

"I think I have it figured out....Sting is an iRobot, incapable of any other perspective than that of what they've programmed him to beLIEve."

"So when do you get on the plane to Iraq Sting?"

Possibly sometime in the future. Its a bit naive for you or anyone to assume so much about someone you do not know.

I'm sorry you have lost respect for me. I try to respect everyone in the forum even if I disagree with their viewpoint.

 

[gvox]

I try to respect everyone in the forum even if I disagree with their viewpoint.

The problem with our 'difference' of opinion is that acting on your opinion kills innocent people.

'Sorry' if I can't respect that.

I can agree to disagree though, so I leave it at that.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

Your course of action can result in the deaths of innocent people as well.