Do you reckon that whilst Bush is...

[p_p_man]

I believe that was the plan with OBL pre 9-11. Nothing has changed, except a lot of dead terrorist ,with less places to hide. Look for more dead terrorist in the near future.

I suppose it's a good idea if you've got a couple of thousand years to fill...

ppman

 

[Tungwagger]

You're thinking small time...

He doesn't want to be some worn out speaker on the the lecture circuit, he has bigger plans than that...

Notably the President of the European Union. But with his pro-Bush stance he's not going to get very far with that either. The boy has problems.

ppman

I find it funny how people will use the argument that a politician isn't considering his own political ambitions when making a decision....

Especially politicians they obviously despise...

Makes you think they are really worried the politicians they despise might just come out smelling like a rose?

One would think that an enemy should be given enough rope to hang himself with opponents sitting on the sidelines snickering...

I see all too often opponents of Bush ( actually the haters of Bush) saying he is commiting political suicide. If he's so bad, wouldn't it cause great joy to see him shot down in flames instead of appearing to have his best interests in their hearts?

Perhaps they would be happier with the stick the wet finger in the air to see which way the political winds appear to be blowing?
Then they can attack him for not being decisive....or worse....an actual "leader"....

 

[p_p_man]

I find it funny how people will use the argument that a politician isn't considering his own political ambitions when making a decision....

There's nothing more scary than a politician who's a Christian Fundamentalist and who is convinced he's right...

Mixing politics and religion never was a good thing...

ppman

 

[Tungwagger]

There's nothing more scary than a politician who's a Christian Fundamentalist and who is convinced he's right...

Mixing politics and religion never was a good thing...

ppman

You kinda missed the irony of my post obviously....

If they are such fuckwads who earn nothing but your contempt, why advise them?

 

[p_p_man]

You kinda missed the irony of my post obviously....

If they are such fuckwads who earn nothing but your contempt, why advise them?

There's always a faint hope they'll see the light...

ppman

 

[Tungwagger]

There's always a faint hope they'll see the light...

ppman

This would be correct if lifelong deeply rooted beliefs are capable of being displaced with a simple argument.

But I have yet to modify my views..

And I doubt yours have changed...

So really, who IS right, and who IS wrong? Subjective speculation at best.

The debate rages on....

 

[solid_]

So PPman you whould rather stand back and let saddam get his hands on the knowledge and materials needed to make a nuke that he can hold the western world to ransom with.

Me i'll rather the camal shit dropping be wiped off the face of the earth along with his croonies.

How long you wish to give UN inspectors another 12 years.?

 

[p_p_man]

So PPman you whould rather stand back and let saddam get his hands on the knowledge and materials needed to make a nuke that he can hold the western world to ransom with.

Me i'll rather the camal shit dropping be wiped off the face of the earth along with his croonies.

How long you wish to give UN inspectors another 12 years.?

Saddam is but one man. He has been as contained as we could possibly make him for 12 years and so far he has not been able to get his hands on materials to make a nuclear weapon. The IAEA have confirmed this. In some sense they have an easier job of it than the UN Inspectors. Nuclear components leave a nuclear footprint and the extremely sophisticated tracking devices the IAEA use can discover with comparative ease whether Saddam has anything nuclear in his arsenal, or is even developing nuclear weapons.

I can see no reason why Saddam could not be contained for a further 12 years if need be, though that would make him 77, and talk about 'wiping the camel shit off the face of the earth' is the rhetoric of those who probably don't have to fight or who have no feelings for the ordinary people of Iraq. The ordinary people who are basically going to be executed by the US and the UK when the bombing starts.

There is absolutely no justification for this war. There is no proof that he has developed or stockpiled weapons of mass destruction (and what exactly are they anyway) but there is ample proof that he is now giving the UN inspectors every aassistance possible and is destroying his own missiles. That at a time when his country is surrounded by hostile forces.

The argument as to whether or not he has any weapons of mass destruction will probably be answered if he uses them on the battlefied.

As I said Saddam is but one man. An evil man it's true but still only one man. By playing your ace this early in a series of wars spread throughout the world (I'm thinking of North Korea who will probably be target number 2) what are you going to do next time? Yet another costly build up of troops and equipment to a completely different area of the world. Yet another round of talks involving the UN which, if the result is not to your liking, you will probably ignore? Or will you bypass all those troublesome niceties and drop one big, fat nuclear bomb on the next country you deem is a danger to the world.

There's a saying 'horses for courses'. The military might of America and Britain is the wrong horse to use on the Iraqi course...

ppman

 

[Byron In Exile]

Yep. Us Brits are just realising just how dumb the man can be when he goes down the wrong route...

Hopefully he'll do his usual U-turn soon...

At least if he doesn't, you know he's not putting his own interests ahead of his principles, after all. Every cloud has a silver lining, eh?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Saddam is but one man. He has been as contained as we could possibly make him for 12 years and so far he has not been able to get his hands on materials to make a nuclear weapon. The IAEA have confirmed this. In some sense they have an easier job of it than the UN Inspectors. Nuclear components leave a nuclear footprint and the extremely sophisticated tracking devices the IAEA use can discover with comparative ease whether Saddam has anything nuclear in his arsenal, or is even developing nuclear weapons.

Without the US military backing it up, the resolutions of the UN are just hot air. He may have been contained until now, but the idea is to prevent him from becoming uncontainable.

I can see no reason why Saddam could not be contained for a further 12 years if need be, though that would make him 77, and talk about 'wiping the camel shit off the face of the earth' is the rhetoric of those who probably don't have to fight or who have no feelings for the ordinary people of Iraq. The ordinary people who are basically going to be executed by the US and the UK when the bombing starts.

He cannot be contained for another 12 years because the troops and equipment that are poised now to invade Iraq cannot stay there for another 12 years. And if they leave now, they aren't going back. And the moment that happens, kiss Iraqi compliance goodbye. If he wins a face-off with the United States, the UN won't get another ounce of VX out of him.

There is absolutely no justification for this war. There is no proof that he has developed or stockpiled weapons of mass destruction (and what exactly are they anyway) but there is ample proof that he is now giving the UN inspectors every aassistance possible and is destroying his own missiles. That at a time when his country is surrounded by hostile forces.

It's only because his country is surrounded by hostile forces that the UN is getting anything significant (and exactly how significant could be argued).

The argument as to whether or not he has any weapons of mass destruction will probably be answered if he uses them on the battlefied.

This is the thinking of the French in 1940: "let's wait and see what he does." They waited until Poland was dispatched and all Hitler's Panzer divisions could be applied westward. Once again, Britain urged action, France dragged their feet, and the result was a disaster.

As I said Saddam is but one man. An evil man it's true but still only one man. By playing your ace this early in a series of wars spread throughout the world (I'm thinking of North Korea who will probably be target number 2) what are you going to do next time? Yet another costly build up of troops and equipment to a completely different area of the world. Yet another round of talks involving the UN which, if the result is not to your liking, you will probably ignore? Or will you bypass all those troublesome niceties and drop one big, fat nuclear bomb on the next country you deem is a danger to the world.

Don't worry, I doubt the US would ever nuke France.

It's using the language of propaganda to call Saddam Hussein "evil," as if he's motivated by dark cosmic forces. He is simply a ruthless, pragmatic, old-school dictator. He obviously miscalculated 12 years ago, and he may be miscalculating again, or he may just be old and proud and not give a damn at this point. But relieving the pressure now would demonstrate to him that defiance is a viable strategy for him.

 

[p_p_man]

Without the US military backing it up, the resolutions of the UN are just hot air. He may have been contained until now, but the idea is to prevent him from becoming uncontainable.He cannot be contained for another 12 years because the troops and equipment that are poised now to invade Iraq cannot stay there for another 12 years. And if they leave now, they aren't going back. And the moment that happens, kiss Iraqi compliance goodbye..

I think we all agree that Saddam is now letting in the Inspectors and destroying the weapons he's told to destroy because he's surrounded by superior firepower. But that much firepower is not to get him to comply with UN Resolutions, that much firepower is to destroy him personally.

I can see no justification to kill large numbers of Iraqi civilians just because America wants to get rid of one man. That's the same kind of twisted thinking that Sharon has when he orders the bombing of an apartment block in the West Bank to kill one terrorist. Many innocent people die because of heavy handed and over the top reaction to a comparatively small problem.

Why not keep the military in place at a lower level of intensity to ensure that Saddam continues with his compliance?

Why not continue with heavy diplomatic pressure to get him to place himself in exile?

Why not continue with the patrols over the no-fly zones?

By saying that the large military presence can't be kept in place for another 12 years I take it you mean because of economic reasons. If America wants to finish the job quickly in order to regroup elsewhere and to save money then the deaths of those innocent Iraqis will be reduced to no more than a bottom line equation.

That, in itself. is enough to bring the world's hatred down on America's head.

As I write this I realise I'm saying America, but really I mean Bush...

ppman

 

[Gil_Favor]

Why not keep the military in place at a lower level of intensity to ensure that Saddam continues with his compliance?

so, You advocate a policy of containment.

Who do you want to do the "containing"

France? Germany?

What a crock, p_p_man

 

[p_p_man]

so, You advocate a policy of containment.

Who do you want to do the "containing"

France? Germany?

What a crock, p_p_man

I would expect someone who has got Bush as his avi to come up with a reply like that...

The UN of course.

But I suppose that never occurred to you with your mind being filled with George's particular brand of cowboy politics.



ppman

 

[KookyDooky]

...a huge part of ridding the world of terrorism.

I don't think we can acutally rid the world of terrorism...it's a good idea, and sounds good in speaches...but the best we can do is reduce it.

That being said, I'm not going to take sides in this thread...have in the past and it just leads to trouble.

And if anyone remembers my anti-American comments in other past threads...I should clarify myself and say that I'm anti-Bush. I have a lot of American friends and I love them. Also half my family lives in California. And although Americans and Canadians have a lot of differences, we also have a lot in common. I think Bush is the retarded devil, and it's too bad that he's running the US...what a terrible leader to show the world.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I think we all agree that Saddam is now letting in the Inspectors and destroying the weapons he's told to destroy because he's surrounded by superior firepower. But that much firepower is not to get him to comply with UN Resolutions, that much firepower is to destroy him personally.

But that's the only sort of firepower that will get him to comply. That, or the credible threat of it. If it were built up, then withdrawn, it would no longer be credible as a threat. (And we see how credible it is to Saddam now, with all the finger-wrestling that's gone on at the UN)

I can see no justification to kill large numbers of Iraqi civilians just because America wants to get rid of one man. That's the same kind of twisted thinking that Sharon has when he orders the bombing of an apartment block in the West Bank to kill one terrorist. Many innocent people die because of heavy handed and over the top reaction to a comparatively small problem.

Your second example may be twisted thinking, because one terrorist isn't responsible for all terrorism. But Saddam Hussein is responsible for what happens in Iraq. In the 1940's, America killed large numbers of German civilians in order to "get rid of one man." In the early 1800's, Great Britain fought in wars in other countries in order to "get rid of one man." This is not a new concept.

Why not keep the military in place at a lower level of intensity to ensure that Saddam continues with his compliance?

Because he would revert to the same minimal level of compliance there's been for years. And the next military build-up would be seen as just another bluff.

Why not continue with heavy diplomatic pressure to get him to place himself in exile?

Heavy diplomatic pressure? Like what? Stern letters from the Queen?

Why not continue with the patrols over the no-fly zones?

Why not have a couple beers and a pizza? Sure.

By saying that the large military presence can't be kept in place for another 12 years I take it you mean because of economic reasons. If America wants to finish the job quickly in order to regroup elsewhere and to save money then the deaths of those innocent Iraqis will be reduced to no more than a bottom line equation.

Look, there's expensive, and there's impossible. If you're saying that America is cruel because America won't spend unlimited amounts of money to save a life, then America is cruel. America has resources, but they aren't infinite. Frankly, I don't believe the US should be spending one thin dime on Iraq, one way or the other. Iraq's WMD are going to be a problem for Europe long before they become a problem for the US. If Europe wants to sit on its hands until the inevitable happens, then the US should kick back and let them arrange their own funeral.

That, in itself. is enough to bring the world's hatred down on America's head.

Whatever America does brings the world's hatred down on America's head. I'd think they should be used to it by now.

As I write this I realise I'm saying America, but really I mean Bush...

That's cool, peeps, don't get redundant: ya gotta mix it up... Bush, America, America, Bush, Bush's America, America's Bush, etc. Keeps the flow going.

 

[70/30]

How about a little more concrete proof. How about not forging that concrete proof. How about not continuing to use concrete proof after it has been proven to be forged. The average Republican can be mislead by unsound GWB proof. Around the world, not a lot of other people will be.

portion of: Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake
U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html

by Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.
ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said ElBaradei.

"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents...

...President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

...In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

...The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday that Powell's staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized coatings before Powell's address to the Security Council last month. "Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes," the institute's president, David Albright, wrote in the report.

 

[p_p_man]

But that's the only sort of firepower that will get him to comply. That, or the credible threat of it.

In that case why not let the UN take over the responsibility?

I feel that Bush doesn't actually want other countries or the UN to take the lead in all this. He's going along with the UN route at the moment as a way of showing the world that America is doing all it can to stay within International Law but I get a feeling that he can't wait for all this preamble to be over so that he can get down to what he likes best. Death and destruction, and showing how mighty America is, and that to raise her anger is taking your life in your hands.

Over the last few weeks the UN has shown it can speak as one voice if needed and if the case for Saddam's containment is put properly and not in the clumsy, amateurish way Bush has been presenting his own case for war, then there could well be an international UN force taking over the role of containment.

As I said war in the case of Iraq is unnecessary, wasteful of human life and in the end, counterproductive to the original aim.

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Look, there's expensive, and there's impossible. If you're saying that America is cruel because America won't spend unlimited amounts of money to save a life, then America is cruel. America has resources, but they aren't infinite. Frankly, I don't believe the US should be spending one thin dime on Iraq, one way or the other. Iraq's WMD are going to be a problem for Europe long before they become a problem for the US. If Europe wants to sit on its hands until the inevitable happens, then the US should kick back and let them arrange their own funeral.

In the case of Iraq America hasn't made any attempt to spend any money to save any lives. With Bush it's all or nothing. Comply now or be destroyed. This goes beyond cruelty. America is branding herself as the world's No 1 criminally rogue state. A state which sometime in the future will have to be dealt with by the world community before it rockets completely out of control.

Europe has always wanted to use the UN route. Saying that we are sitting on our hands is a common enough insult Americans throw at us, especially when we don't agree with Bush's method of dealing with the problem.

As far as we are concerned Iraq was already contained. We did not and still do not perceive it as a threat. Unlike Bush. But now that America is determined to invade no matter how criminally intended the act, Europe is just saying no, we won't follow you that way., but one thing we're not doing is sitting on our hands.

Two things will become plain when Iraq is invaded. Just how many stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction Saddam actually has, if any, and just how many men, women and children will die in the threatened bombing onslaught.

Go ahead, attack the country, but you won't be thanked for it...

On the contrary...

ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

but there is ample proof that he is now giving the UN inspectors every aassistance possible

This is dead wrong and you know it.

In that case why not let the UN take over the responsibility?

In terms of military personnel, the UN is the U.S.. A great deal of those blue-beret peacekeepers are ours.

I feel that Bush doesn't actually want other countries or the UN to take the lead in all this. He's going along with the UN route at the moment as a way of showing the world that America is doing all it can to stay within International Law but I get a feeling that he can't wait for all this preamble to be over so that he can get down to what he likes best. Death and destruction, and showing how mighty America is, and that to raise her anger is taking your life in your hands.

While he's not as bloodthirsty as you claim, you are right here. We were, and continue to be, under no obligation to get our military actions sanctioned by a body like the UN, whose Human Rights Commission elected Libya to be its chair, and whose Disarmament Council chair rotates alphabetically so that first Iran, and immediately thereafter, Iraq, get the gavel sometime in May, I believe.

And you're telling me we must get this pathetic bunch of clowns to hear our grievances, and must allow nations like Cameroon and Angola to rubber-stamp our military efforts, and must abide if France decides to get their wine-swilling rocks off by deliberately standing in our way? All I have to say in response is one big star-spangled "Fuck that."

However, Bush decided to at least bow to the international community, which is only right, since the UN considers Hussein a global threat. And the international community has, for the most part, rewarded our patience and goodwill by agreeing with us initially only to pull the rug out from under us when we announced that we were, in fact, serious.

I do think that Bush realized very well the possible negative consequences of going to the UN, and at least a small part of him recognized the possibility that they would say no. Quite frankly, I think he's very angry that they would do something like pass S.C. 1441, then, when we introduced another resolution that's slightly stronger but mostly identical, they'd stab us in the back. I think the rhetoric of "irrelevancy" lately from out of Washington reflects that attitude, and you know what? They've earned it.

Over the last few weeks the UN has shown it can speak as one voice if needed and if the case for Saddam's containment is put properly and not in the clumsy, amateurish way Bush has been presenting his own case for war, then there could well be an international UN force taking over the role of containment.

The problem is that it spoke unanimously with 1441, but now refuse to back up the "serious consequences" they agreed to in that resolution. The French et al are trying to diplomatically weasel their way out of the contract that they were a signatory to in November.

Europe has always wanted to use the UN route. Saying that we are sitting on our hands is a common enough insult Americans throw at us, especially when we don't agree with Bush's method of dealing with the problem.

As far as we are concerned Iraq was already contained. We did not and still do not perceive it as a threat.

This is a lie. If that's the case, then why the 16 Security Council Resolutions? Why the unanimous decision that Hussein must disarm? If you ceased to see Iraq as a threat, why would the UN waste their time making Iraq disarm? Does somebody bring them free cookies at the meetings?

Unlike Bush. But now that America is determined to invade no matter how criminally intended the act, Europe is just saying no, we won't follow you that way., but one thing we're not doing is sitting on our hands.

Well, that's true, but they have no right to say no to military action just because we want it and they don't. That's what 1441 forced them to do. Our determination to invade should play no part in their decision. Their only determining factor is whether Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Doing anything else based on how America responds is like a judge letting a murderer off because the public outcry for punishment is too great.

TB4p

 

[christo]

Getting back to the question asked at the begining of the post, I don't know if anyone in the media has made this point before, but I don't think al-Qaeda is very likely to pull off another attack on the scale of 9/11. Those attacks were so horrible that they provoked a massive, worldwide US response, as al-Qaeda must have anticipated. Any further attacks of that magnitude on US soil would be infinitely more difficult to pull off post-9/11.

Every law enforcement agency from the FBI down to mall security guards have made counterterroism their #1 priority. Any male with a beard or a decent tan risks close scrutiny not just by men with guns and badges, but by their neighbors, co-workers, passersby. Maybe that's a bad sign for our national psyche, but that doesn't help a terrorist trying to plan an attack. He's still getting dirty looks.

If al-Qaeda had the ability to hit us with chemical or biological weapons, I think they wouldn't have used airplanes as cruise missiles first. Horrible as those attacks were, bombing a half-dozen football stadiums with anthrax or nerve gas might have killed hundreds of thousands of people. While that's still a nightmarish possibilty, think how much harder it would be to pull that off now as opposed to two years ago.

Not that I think we're in the clear. Al-Qaeda is still a huge threat, because they don't have to blow up buildings or kill thousands at one blow to hurt us. Palestinian suicide bombers have shown how devastating small-scale attacks can be. The potential targets for attacks like these is limited on by the level of depravity of a terrorist's imagination.

Which helps to explain why the US is so hell-bent on getting rid of Saddam Hussain. He should have been eliminated 12 years ago, and it bothers the hell out of me to see that the people who in 1991 said that getting rid of Saddam would cause more problems than it would solve (Powell, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) are now willing to launch another war to do just that.

But, better late than never. Post 9/11, I don't think that the US, owner of the most dominant military in world history, can just sit back and hope that we know what's going on in hostile countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea. When people say that Saddam isn't developing nuclear weapons, I say, can you be sure? Could Saddam have gotten nuclear material during the collapse of the Soviet Union, or from sympathetic Pakistanis, or from cash-strapped North Korea? Might have North Korea given Iraq advanced missile technology, missiles that would allow Iraq to deliver the nerve agents they already have to Israel? We don't know. And I'm not particularly optimistic that UN inspectors could find out.

I'm amazed at how poorly Bush et al have made the case for attacking Iraq. Saying Saddam is deceiving the UN with no hard evidence to back it up is stupid, because it just gives ammo to the anti-war lobby. The point we should be making is much simpler and much more direct--the United States will no longer allow dangerous dictators like Saddam Hussain to remain in power. He's invaded his neighbors, used chemical weapons on Iran and Iraqi Kurds, he's threatened the US on half-a-hundred occasions--he's gone. He threatens US national security--he's gone. Tyrants like him, with the power to obtain weapons of mass destruction and a track record of using them can no longer be tolerated.

We'd like the UN to approve this, we will make our case, we will ask for a resolution authorizing force. We will try to use diplomatic pressure to end his regime. If the UN won't give us the resolution, the United States will invoke Article 51 and remove him without UN approval.

Same thing with Kim Jong Il. A nuclear-armed North Korea with missiles capable of reaching the West Coast is unacceptable. If you ask me to explain why Bush is wiling to unilateraly attack Iraq but says that North Korea is a localized problem that requires multilateral discussion, you got me. North Korea probably has several atomic bombs, and with their reactors up and running again they could start making more in months. There isn't a lot of time for this extremely dangerous situation to be addressed, and so far Bush hasn't done much of anything. China isn't going to solve this problem, nor is Japan or South Korea. They might help, we could sure use it, but in the end we'll have to get involved up to our armpits. Kim Jong Il with nukes is not something the United States can live with. And the rest of the world can't live with it either.

US military power has, many, many times, been the salvation of people all over the world. American troops fought to defeat Imperial Germany in World War I, helped liberate Europe from Nazi Germany, and prevented Soviet Communism from dominating the world. Call what's happening now typical American arrogance, or cowboy diplomacy, or whatever, but the fact is world peace is threatened by manifestly evil nations who. for the first time in history, have the capability of causing catastrophic damage to far more powerful (and, it turns out, democratic) nations. And if US miltary is needed to eliminate these threats, so be it.

I'm worried about Iraqi civilian casualties, but I think the US military is far more concerned about the fate of the innocent than Saddam Hussain is. Kim Jong Il has been content to let thousands of his own people starve to death so he can chase his dream of having nuclear weapons to threaten the world with. Iraqis and North Koreans would benefit enormously by having these monsters expunged.

And they have be removed. The stakes are too high. If Pyongyang hits Seattle with an atomic bomb and the US wipes North Korea off the map, is that an accepable exchange? If Iraq showers Israel with nerve gas and the capitals of every Muslim nation get nuked in retaliation, is that OK becase the retaliation was "justified", thanks to the deaths of thousands of Israelis? At what point does the threat become reason enough to act? 9/11 dramatically lowered the threshold for intervention. Saddam hasn't fully disarmed, Hans Blix himself has said that Iraqi cooperation is only "improving". That's not nearly good enough, not with a ruthless dictator like that. The UN should know better, and the fact that they're treating Iraq like the victim in all this is appalling.

 

[Guest]

In that case why not let the UN take over the responsibility?

It has been the U.N. responnsibility for the past 12 years and all the ambassiors just jack off on that responsibility which is why reso. 1441 was passed


edited to add, and they knew what we wanted to do then

 

[Gil_Favor]

I would expect someone who has got Bush as his avi to come up with a reply like that...

The UN of course.

But I suppose that never occurred to you with your mind being filled with George's particular brand of cowboy politics.



ppman

I change AVs on a regular basis

Yesterdays AV was Sean Penn, You know him as the "Hollywood" Expert on Foreign Policy.

The UN has proven to be quite ineffective at containing anything.

Where was the UN when it came to Kosovo?

Cowboys were honorable hard working individuals.

 

[teddybear4play]

Brilliant and worth quoting in its entirety:

Getting back to the question asked at the begining of the post, I don't know if anyone in the media has made this point before, but I don't think al-Qaeda is very likely to pull off another attack on the scale of 9/11. Those attacks were so horrible that they provoked a massive, worldwide US response, as al-Qaeda must have anticipated. Any further attacks of that magnitude on US soil would be infinitely more difficult to pull off post-9/11.

Every law enforcement agency from the FBI down to mall security guards have made counterterroism their #1 priority. Any male with a beard or a decent tan risks close scrutiny not just by men with guns and badges, but by their neighbors, co-workers, passersby. Maybe that's a bad sign for our national psyche, but that doesn't help a terrorist trying to plan an attack. He's still getting dirty looks.

If al-Qaeda had the ability to hit us with chemical or biological weapons, I think they wouldn't have used airplanes as cruise missiles first. Horrible as those attacks were, bombing a half-dozen football stadiums with anthrax or nerve gas might have killed hundreds of thousands of people. While that's still a nightmarish possibilty, think how much harder it would be to pull that off now as opposed to two years ago.

Not that I think we're in the clear. Al-Qaeda is still a huge threat, because they don't have to blow up buildings or kill thousands at one blow to hurt us. Palestinian suicide bombers have shown how devastating small-scale attacks can be. The potential targets for attacks like these is limited on by the level of depravity of a terrorist's imagination.

Which helps to explain why the US is so hell-bent on getting rid of Saddam Hussain. He should have been eliminated 12 years ago, and it bothers the hell out of me to see that the people who in 1991 said that getting rid of Saddam would cause more problems than it would solve (Powell, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) are now willing to launch another war to do just that.

But, better late than never. Post 9/11, I don't think that the US, owner of the most dominant military in world history, can just sit back and hope that we know what's going on in hostile countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea. When people say that Saddam isn't developing nuclear weapons, I say, can you be sure? Could Saddam have gotten nuclear material during the collapse of the Soviet Union, or from sympathetic Pakistanis, or from cash-strapped North Korea? Might have North Korea given Iraq advanced missile technology, missiles that would allow Iraq to deliver the nerve agents they already have to Israel? We don't know. And I'm not particularly optimistic that UN inspectors could find out.

I'm amazed at how poorly Bush et al have made the case for attacking Iraq. Saying Saddam is deceiving the UN with no hard evidence to back it up is stupid, because it just gives ammo to the anti-war lobby. The point we should be making is much simpler and much more direct--the United States will no longer allow dangerous dictators like Saddam Hussain to remain in power. He's invaded his neighbors, used chemical weapons on Iran and Iraqi Kurds, he's threatened the US on half-a-hundred occasions--he's gone. He threatens US national security--he's gone. Tyrants like him, with the power to obtain weapons of mass destruction and a track record of using them can no longer be tolerated.

We'd like the UN to approve this, we will make our case, we will ask for a resolution authorizing force. We will try to use diplomatic pressure to end his regime. If the UN won't give us the resolution, the United States will invoke Article 51 and remove him without UN approval.

Same thing with Kim Jong Il. A nuclear-armed North Korea with missiles capable of reaching the West Coast is unacceptable. If you ask me to explain why Bush is wiling to unilateraly attack Iraq but says that North Korea is a localized problem that requires multilateral discussion, you got me. North Korea probably has several atomic bombs, and with their reactors up and running again they could start making more in months. There isn't a lot of time for this extremely dangerous situation to be addressed, and so far Bush hasn't done much of anything. China isn't going to solve this problem, nor is Japan or South Korea. They might help, we could sure use it, but in the end we'll have to get involved up to our armpits. Kim Jong Il with nukes is not something the United States can live with. And the rest of the world can't live with it either.

US military power has, many, many times, been the salvation of people all over the world. American troops fought to defeat Imperial Germany in World War I, helped liberate Europe from Nazi Germany, and prevented Soviet Communism from dominating the world. Call what's happening now typical American arrogance, or cowboy diplomacy, or whatever, but the fact is world peace is threatened by manifestly evil nations who. for the first time in history, have the capability of causing catastrophic damage to far more powerful (and, it turns out, democratic) nations. And if US miltary is needed to eliminate these threats, so be it.

I'm worried about Iraqi civilian casualties, but I think the US military is far more concerned about the fate of the innocent than Saddam Hussain is. Kim Jong Il has been content to let thousands of his own people starve to death so he can chase his dream of having nuclear weapons to threaten the world with. Iraqis and North Koreans would benefit enormously by having these monsters expunged.

And they have be removed. The stakes are too high. If Pyongyang hits Seattle with an atomic bomb and the US wipes North Korea off the map, is that an accepable exchange? If Iraq showers Israel with nerve gas and the capitals of every Muslim nation get nuked in retaliation, is that OK becase the retaliation was "justified", thanks to the deaths of thousands of Israelis? At what point does the threat become reason enough to act? 9/11 dramatically lowered the threshold for intervention. Saddam hasn't fully disarmed, Hans Blix himself has said that Iraqi cooperation is only "improving". That's not nearly good enough, not with a ruthless dictator like that. The UN should know better, and the fact that they're treating Iraq like the victim in all this is appalling.

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

Where was the UN when it came to Kosovo?

Kosovo was a NATO task...

Wrong information is absorbed that way, the mixing up of international organisations.



ppman

 

[miles]

pp is so blinded by his hatred of America that it doesn't matter what the facts are. Sadaam could make a public confession on CNN that he has WMD and peepee would say it was a hoax. They could gas more of their own people and he'd say the US did it and blamed it on Iraq.

His logic is simpleminded. Everything the US does is bad, dishonest, and immoral.

He's a clown.