Weapons of Mass Destruction

[p_p_man]

That is not what I am saying. The point is that Iraq had the responsibility to provide support and access to verify that they had destroyed the WMD that they had. Iraq did not do this and prevented the Inspectors from doing their job. Because of this, it is necessary to go in and do it ourselves.

But it wasn't necessary at all. Bush has dragged us all into a war which may go on for months, killing untold numbers of young people, because he was unwilling to follow other methods of disarming Iraq.

He chose the very last option as his first...

ppman

 

[Linedrive]

He chose the very last option as his first...

I'd disagree with that 17 times over.

 

[zipman]

But it wasn't necessary at all. Bush has dragged us all into a war which may go on for months, killing untold numbers of young people, because he was unwilling to follow other methods of disarming Iraq.

He chose the very last option as his first...

ppman

Actually he did try diplomacy, and while he could have certainly done it better, the French declaration that they would veto ANY resolution that had use of force in it actually left Bush no choice.

What else did the "severe consequences" of Resolution 1441 mean (which was unanimously passed by the security council) if not force? Economic sanctions didn't work, and only resulted in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dhildren while Saddam used money to build enormous mosques and sent $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

Given the French declaration, Saddam's continued lack of compliance and his disregard for the suffering of his own people, what other reasonable option was there that would have worked?

 

[ImpWizard]

In reply to zipman7 (( That is not what I am saying. The point is that Iraq had the responsibility to provide support and access to verify that they had destroyed the WMD that they had. Iraq did not do this and prevented the Inspectors from doing their job. Because of this, it is necessary to go in and do it ourselves. ))

According to the IAEA and the UN Weapons Inspectors, the Iraqi government was being extremely cooperative and even pro-active in their cooperation during the month immediately prior to start of the invasion. The UN Weapons Inspectors main complaint was the lack of useful intelligence data from the USA; all the supposed "sites of suspicion" turned out to be innocuous, or even long abandoned.

 

[Lancecastor]

But it wasn't necessary at all. Bush has dragged us all into a war which may go on for months, killing untold numbers of young people, because he was unwilling to follow other methods of disarming Iraq.

He chose the very last option as his first...

ppman

Exactly.

After a whole 3.5 months of renewed weapons inspections, Bush decided another two weeks or two months even was "too long".

The alternative was going to be a "lightening war".

This board was filled with threads saying that anyone who thought Gulf War2 was going to be a week or two was an idiot.

75 Billion US Dollars for 30 days.

Untold deaths.

Who knows how many trillions in losses to the global economy.

Because the weapons inspectors were taking "too long".

Idiots. Savages.

 

[p_p_man]

but when it comes to dealing with threats of the security of my country

What threats? You're surely not suggesting Iraq?

While you may have talked to many Americans and maybe even visited here

And maybe have American born family there...

ppman

 

[Linedrive]

Thank you for clearifying that pp_man. Perhaps you have an informed enough opinion, what do you think about the 45% of the British population that is supporting this military action...?

 

[bad kitty]

In reply to zipman7 (( That is not what I am saying. The point is that Iraq had the responsibility to provide support and access to verify that they had destroyed the WMD that they had. Iraq did not do this and prevented the Inspectors from doing their job. Because of this, it is necessary to go in and do it ourselves. ))

According to the IAEA and the UN Weapons Inspectors, the Iraqi government was being extremely cooperative and even pro-active in their cooperation during the month immediately prior to start of the invasion. The UN Weapons Inspectors main complaint was the lack of useful intelligence data from the USA; all the supposed "sites of suspicion" turned out to be innocuous, or even long abandoned.

The key words here are "the month immediately prior to the invasion." They were trying to appear compliant enough tomake everyone back off, just as they have done every time in the past. They do just enough to get the UN to back down, then Saddam goes along his merry way of doing whatever he wants and rebuilding his arsenal.

 

[Lancecastor]

The key words here are "the month immediately prior to the invasion." They were trying to appear compliant enough tomake everyone back off, just as they have done every time in the past. They do just enough to get the UN to back down, then Saddam goes along his merry way of doing whatever he wants and rebuilding his arsenal.

I'd be interested in seeing links to the arsenal rebuilding Iraq has done since the end of Gulf War1 if you have them.

In following the news, the Coalition says Iraq has not fired any scuds, but are using a mixture of old short range 1960's missiles.

It appears they have no air force or at least no way to fly.

No mention of a navy.

In news clips, I've seen AK47's, bolt action rifles and shotguns in piles of seized weapons.

They seem to have a few old soviet made tanks and a bunch of rocket granade launchers and artillary, some old antiaircraft guns...but this stuff is all ancient.

So...please let us know about this "merry" arsenal building.

Thanks

Lance

 

[ImpWizard]

The key words here are "the month immediately prior to the invasion." They were trying to appear compliant enough tomake everyone back off, just as they have done every time in the past. They do just enough to get the UN to back down, then Saddam goes along his merry way of doing whatever he wants and rebuilding his arsenal.

----and this is proved by what exactly? They found zilch, nada, absolute zero, that Saddam Hussein had been doing any such thing over the past 12 years.

Every piece of evidence that the Bush administration had come up with turned out to be false in one way or another.

The British government could't provide any real evidence either.

 

[zipman]

Exactly.

After a whole 3.5 months of renewed weapons inspections, Bush decided another two weeks or two months even was "too long".

The alternative was going to be a "lightening war".

This board was filled with threads saying that anyone who thought Gulf War2 was going to be a week or two was an idiot.

75 Billion US Dollars for 30 days.

Untold deaths.

Who knows how many trillions in losses to the global economy.

Because the weapons inspectors were taking "too long".

Idiots. Savages.

Iraq was complying just enough to stave off war. The threat of force was the only reason that they even did that. 12 years of diplomacy didn't work. If you were fooled by Iraq's "limited cooperation" then you are very gullible.

Had France not said that they would veto any resolution that mentioned use of force (which is what 1441 basically did) they negated the reason for giving Iraq more time.

Lemmings. Appeasers. (Hey, that was fun, Lance, thanks)

 

[crysede]

They wouldn't use a chemical attack for several reasons. First, it would likely affect many of the civilians and second, evidence of a chemical attack remains, including the victims. There is no way for a chemical attack to occur and the western media not find clues of it. Is it impossible...well nothing is impossible. Of course I would assume that there are those that believe the US/UK would launch a chemical attack and blame it on Iraq, and for these people there is no debating, they are wrapped in conspiracy theories.

I wasn't suggesting that the US military would attempt to sneak an attack in, I think that the US population might well support such an attack. A great number of people have a very visceral eye-for-an-eye attitude to warfare, and I see the possibility of a large anti-Iraqi sentiment on the horizon.

The US media and Washington have been playing up the 'knights in white armour, bravely risking their own lives in order to liberate the poor Iraqis from the evil Saddam' storyline, so a large number of Americans honestly expect the Iraqis to be extremely grateful to the US forces. The problem is, I suspect that the majority of Iraqis will nothing but hostility towards the US.

From the discussions I've had, and heard, with those who have spoken with family in Iraq in recent days, the Iraqi attitude seems to be along the lines of: the US imposed Saddam on the Iraqi people (who hated him from the get go); the US did not so much as lift a finger to help, while Saddam was gassing, torturing, and killing his people (in fact, the US continued to increase their funding of his regime); the US then imposed crippling sanctions on Iraq for more than a ten years, knowing full well that Saddam would make sure his people bore the brunt of these sanctions; and now the Americans come in, guns blazing, and have the bloody nerve to tell them that they should be grateful to the very nation that has been the ultimate source of all their misery.

Now, my guess is that most Americans will be totally unable to comprehend this attitude – they'll look at the efforts their military endured to prevent civilian bloodshed, and the evilness of the man they removed from power, and will decide that the people of Iraq are a bunch of selfish bastards who didn't deserve to be spared. At which point, if things start to go badly for the US soldiers, I can see there being support for a chemical attack (probably not among those who remember the horrors of chemical warfare, but memories are short and selective).

Some of those agents could be spun as being the most humane solution to protect the troops: rendering people too sick to fight, or unconscious, without actually killing them. If Americans felt that the people of Iraq did not really deserve that much protection after all, and remained convinced of the righteousness of their cause (and thus of the corresponding evilness of their enemy) I think people could definitely be convinced to support chemical warfare.

And even though you are sure that the US would never, under any circumstances, do such a thing; is there any reason to think that a paranoid dictator like Saddam would be equally convinced?

 

[p_p_man]

Iraq was complying just enough to stave off war. The threat of force was the only reason that they even did that.

The threat of force is far more preferable to the use of force...

Especially when it's absolutely unneccessary...

ppman

 

[ImpWizard]

In reply, to zipman7 ((If you were fooled by Iraq's "limited cooperation" then you are very gullible.))
--- If you were fooled by Bush's excuses you were very gullible.

 

[bad kitty]

----and this is proved by what exactly? They found zilch, nada, absolute zero, that Saddam Hussein had been doing any such thing over the past 12 years.

Every piece of evidence that the Bush administration had come up with turned out to be false in one way or another.

The British government could't provide any real evidence either.

True they haven't found much of anything.... yet. There is still alot of ground to cover so no one can say one way or another 100% at this moment.

 

[Linedrive]

The US media and Washington have been playing up the 'knights in white armour, bravely risking their own lives in order to liberate the poor Iraqis from the evil Saddam' storyline, so a large number of Americans honestly expect the Iraqis to be extremely grateful to the US forces. The problem is, I suspect that the majority of Iraqis will nothing but hostility towards the US.

The liberation of the Iraqi people has never been the central goal, and aside from the fact that suppressing the Iraqi population is covered in the original cease-fire (UN resolution 660), it would likely not warrant an invasion if that were the only factor.

It makes no difference to me if those civilians are out there cheering or if they are pissed off.

 

[zipman]

In reply to zipman7 (( That is not what I am saying. The point is that Iraq had the responsibility to provide support and access to verify that they had destroyed the WMD that they had. Iraq did not do this and prevented the Inspectors from doing their job. Because of this, it is necessary to go in and do it ourselves. ))

According to the IAEA and the UN Weapons Inspectors, the Iraqi government was being extremely cooperative and even pro-active in their cooperation during the month immediately prior to start of the invasion. The UN Weapons Inspectors main complaint was the lack of useful intelligence data from the USA; all the supposed "sites of suspicion" turned out to be innocuous, or even long abandoned.

The Iraqi government was being cooperative enough to stave off an attack, but were either still not providing any proof of the destruction of their chemical and biological weapons. They also were not allowing immediate and unfettered access.

The line about being easily fooled which you quoted above was more of a joke to Lance, who loves to get people riled up. I respect those who are opposed to this war while I still disagree with them.

Btw, at the bottom left of each post is a button that says

. Clicking on it will automatically quote the post you are repsonding to. It is easier than bolding for you to write and others to read. If you already knew that then please disregard this paragraph.

 

[p_p_man]

The US media and Washington have been playing up the 'knights in white armour, bravely risking their own lives in order to liberate the poor Iraqis from the evil Saddam' storyline, so a large number of Americans honestly expect the Iraqis to be extremely grateful to the US forces. The problem is, I suspect that the majority of Iraqis will nothing but hostility towards the US.

There was a discussion on UK TV today about this. The general consensus being that when the war is over Iraqis as a whole will not welcome Americans and that most of the country will be a 'no go area' for the US. The reasons you have already mentioned but added to those is the constant bombing of Baghdad. Iraqis are seeing this war an invasion of their country and do not see the allies as a liberating force in any shape or form...

Iraqis in neighbouring countries such as Jordan are returning to Iraq to fight. Hatred for Saddam they may well have, but love for their country is greater...

ppman

 

[Lancecastor]

Lemmings. Appeasers. (Hey, that was fun, Lance, thanks)

Makes me feel all butch like Lavender and Ish!

 

[ImpWizard]

400 Iraqi migrant-workers are leaving Jordan to return to Iraq everyday. Many of them saying they want to fight for their country and protect their loved ones.

Doesn't sound at all like they're being bullied or threatened into fighting. They're volunteering, and the same is happening in other nations in the region.

 

[Linedrive]

Let them return, hopefully they will have enough courage to put on an Iraqi military uniform.

 

[crysede]

The liberation of the Iraqi people has never been the central goal, and aside from the fact that suppressing the Iraqi population is covered in the original cease-fire (UN resolution 660), it would likely not warrant an invasion if that were the only factor.

It makes no difference to me if those civilians are out there cheering or if they are pissed off.

But do you think most Americans feel the same?

You have obviously thought your position out very carefully, and base your support on valid reasons; but there is a depressing lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking these days. The majority of people (on both the pro- and anti-war sides, and regardless of nationality) seem only too willing to internalize the 'opinions' being handed to them: "It's all about oil!" or "It's all about liberating the Iraqis!"

 

[crazybbwgirl]

But do you think most Americans feel the same?

You have obviously thought your position out very carefully, and base your support on valid reasons; but there is a depressing lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking these days. The majority of people (on both the pro- and anti-war sides, and regardless of nationality) seem only too willing to internalize the 'opinions' being handed to them: "It's all about oil!" or "It's all about liberating the Iraqis!"

Unfortunately, most people are way too eager to willing agree with whatever CNN sound bite out there appeals to them. Apathy is our biggest enemy - in every situation. Inform yourself - tell your friends and kids to inform themselves. Read everything (both sides!) Question Everything!

 

[ImpWizard]

Let them return, hopefully they will have enough courage to put on an Iraqi military uniform.

Courage wouldn't have anything to do with that.....availability is another matter. Do you really expect that the Iraqi army has enough uniforms and logistics ability to freely supply every male adult in Iraq with a uniform?

If the USA was invaded, do you seriously expect that every citizen in the country is going to wear a uniform simply because they are willing to carry a gun and defend their country?

Reminds of a joke on the 'net;

Commentary / Humor -- http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1140
U.S. Demands Iraqis 'Fight Fair'

by Marc Moran

Loaded: 3/25/2003

(Reuters) -- After nearly a week of fierce combat, U.S. military leaders have begun to voice concerns the Iraqi military is fighting "an unfair war."

"We came into this thing with the intention of crushing the opposition and seeing them surrender by the boatload. They have not complied and we are getting a little frustrated by their behavior. In fact, several units have actually come under fire by the enemy and to be frank, we are not prepared for that kind of hostility," said General Tommy Franks, commander of the forces deployed in the Gulf.

What looked like a cakewalk on the planning tables in Washington has turned into a full-blown military conflict in the region. It has left countless American and British soldiers either wounded, captured, or killed by an enemy that up until a week ago was barefoot, illiterate, and ready to turn tail and run. Once the actual campaign began however, things took a sudden and unpredictable turn for the worse.

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer indicated that President Bush was upset by recent developments in the region, particularly the fact that the Iraqi people were unhappy about being bombed and shot. He was unable to make a comment however, due to an unfortunate 'pretzel incident.'

"The President has said repeatedly that if any Iraqi soldier actually shoots back, he will be held accountable for war crimes. This isn't the kind of war where a nation can claim self-defense as a self-defense. We have received numerous reports of civilians shooting American troops who have shelled their villages and blown their children to bits. What they don't understand is that we are killing them in order to liberate them from a cruel tyrant who has no respect for their right to access pornography on the web and eat at Mickey D's. If we don't replace their current dictator with one of our own choosing, then democracy is a sham."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that the enemy was inflicting serious casualties on American forces because they weren't dressed properly.

"We have said, from the beginning, that if they intend to fight, then they cannot hide behind rocks and trees or dig ditches and foxholes to hide in. This neutralizes our space-age technology and costs us a lot of money. In fact, from this point forward, regardless of who fights us, we expect them to dress up like the game pieces in Stratego. The officers must wear ostrich plumes and those big old Napolean hats and the spies must have top hats and monocles and look very sinister. Otherwise the world's most intelligent soldiers won't recognize them as a threat."

Field commanders have pointed out that the Iraqi opposition has been much tougher than expected, using such techniques as hiding and being really, really quiet.

"I called in an artillery strike on one group and they just ran away instead of standing there and taking it like men. How do you fight an enemy like that? This is not Space Invaders, I can tell you that right now," commented a defiant platoon leader from the 101st Airborne Division not long before his capture.

"We are dealing with an enemy that hasn't got the first concept of 'Shock and Awe' bombing and the proper response to it. They scurry into prepared defensive positions and then they come back out and fight. We tried to let them know that we are their true friends and when that didn't work, we bombed their towns and cities, burning their loved ones to death. We've done everything possible to show our love and compassion short of torture and for some reason they don't believe us. A lot of the girls in my unit are starting to get depressed and cranky and I don't blame them. You expect the enemy to just surrender like we were told, and what happens? Conflict," said one squad leader who refused to give his/her name.

The U.S. has appealed to the UN to try and talk some sense into the Iraqi regime. They insist that those who resist follow a strict code of conduct, very much like the one outlined by Bill Cosby in the comedy routine, "Flip Of The Coin."

"We think that it is only fair that since they have the home-court advantage, as it were, that they must stand out in the open, wear bright colors, surrender if we see them first and not use live ammo. It's bad enough we are going to miss the NCAA Final Four, to do so and be shot in the head is more than we are willing to accept. They need to get over the fact that we are invading their country without provocation and just lay back and enjoy it. Know what I mean, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?"

Yeah, we think we get the picture.

-Moran

 

[crazybbwgirl]

These pretzels are making me thirsty.