USA vs. IRAQ: part III (Official Iraq thread)

GrandAdmiralPellaeon said:
"Anything but war."

My response:
I've heard this tune before... oh, yes, Munich, 1938. The war still came, and it was a lot worse.

I don't know about Old Europe, but the U.K. and U.S. have learned from THAT mistake in the past, and we're not about to repeat it.

 

You know Britain wanted anything but war too, then Germany invaded Poland, so they really had no choice. Their policy of pleasing Hitler worked oh-so well. So anything but war 'eh? How about a bullet to Saddam's head? Or how about launching ten nukes toward Iraq? Technically there'd be no war since Iraq would be glass. How about we just say "Ahh the hell with it" and drop any opposition to Saddam? Would that be more to your liking?

 

For those who missed it or would like to look over it:

---

[b]Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks for the special effort that each of you made to be here today.

This is important day for us all as we review the situation with respect to Iraq and its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

Last November 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.

POWELL: Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.

And to assist in its disarmament, we called on Iraq to cooperate with returning inspectors from UNMOVIC and IAEA.

We laid down tough standards for Iraq to meet to allow the inspectors to do their job.

POWELL: This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives.

I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, ``Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it,'' unquote.

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, ``did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.''

POWELL: My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.

I might add at this point that we are providing all relevant information we can to the inspection teams for them to do their work.

The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.

I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling.

POWELL: What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraqis' behavior--Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort--no effort--to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.

Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 of last year, on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.

The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

1/8Speaking in Arabic. 3/8

(END AUDIO TAPE)

POWELL: Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know

 

in which case you're relying on Saddam's good behavior to keep him from invading and attacking other countries as he has done several times before.

He has done so several times and remember how both of the times he thought that he was stronger then said opponent and that the rest of the world would have no problems with him invading said countries and even help him with his invasions.

I'm for containement and letting the Iraqi people sort it out for themselves, I do not believe that war will lead to democracy peace and freedom in Iraq. Saddam is not suicidal, he just plays the game like everyone does in that area. It's not suicidal, it's pure politics, the Iran war was to be able to get Iraq out of it's confinement, the Kuweit war was provoked due to Kuweit jacking up it's prices after Iraq's economy had a major slump. Saddam thought it could be remedied by taking over Kuweit, consulted the USA on it's stance (who seemed to give him a green light) and attacked. His mistake in thinking that the USA ment that they would not interfere. None of his wars were fought with the idea of taking over the world or attacking the West. It all comes down to him being just another dictator whome we are being paranoid about. If you do want to attack the biggest threat N-K is much more of a threat then Iraq.

Oh god, are we comparing Saddamn and Hitler again, the thing is you people always forget something. Hitler was the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, Saddam is the leader of one of the weakest countries in the world. Hitler had the resources to take on the world. Saddam would be dead before it even started.

This is exactly the sort of attitude that turns people off the anti-war brigade. It's vaguely reminiscent of long-haired college students chaining themselves to trees.

If I'm anti-war, wouldn't that mean I'm for anything but war? So how would saying that turn people off? I'm not naive enough to think that war can't be avoided in some circumstances but this isn't one of those instances.

 

NK is a threat, however I have not seen much evidence that it is actively supporting terrorists as Iraq is doing.

You'll also notice that both times Iraq thought it could get awya with war, he was wrong. What prevents him from being wrong again and how many lives are you willing to wager he'll suddenly realize it?

If he is able to make so massive a failure in evalutaing the current threat that he continues to lie and decive thinking he will get away with it, why should I, or anyone, believe if we give him the chance to expand again his territories by warfare he will not take it?

 

Saddam and Hitler also have a lot in common too. Except Saddam is smarter than Hitler and plays the world for fools, including the US. IMO anyways.

 

And pray tell why would Saddam think he will get away with anything? That would not make any sense at all. How many lies are you willing to wager on the fact that he MAY or MAY NOT do a thing like that?

Also, there still are no proven ties with Al-Quada, as I said before, aren't those alledged training camps in KURDISH territory?

Saddam and Hitler also have a lot in common too.

But does Saddam have the resource to unleash a war like WWII? NO HE DOES NOT. Infact, Saddam couldn't even take over Kuweit 10 years ago, but now (after his military is much weaker then it was 10 years ago) he would suddenly be able to conquer an area the size of Europe and half Russia and kill millions of people? Give me a break.

 

He has a clear record of overestimating his own capabilites and underestimating those of his enemies. Combined with his personal megolomania, I think it's a very safe bet that he will continue on in the same vein as he did before the first gulf war.

Regardless of unproven ties to Al Quada, Saddam does provide support to terrorists and terrorist groups.

You continue to pretend that Saddam views the world in the same way you do. Since you would not have invaded Kuwait(if I may assume) why do you believe Saddam will see the same 'sense' that you do?

 

Again with the broad statement with no backing?

I have provided my arguements in length several times before. I just wanted to know why you thought that the anti-war campaign had no arguements left other than 'America is lying'.

And you can be anti-war as long as you provide some other way to acheive disarmement of Iraq.

I will freely admit that I don't have an alternative stratergy for disarming Iraq. I have never claimed otherwise. I don't see that this means I must support a war.

Perhaps your arguement will center around the fact you do not believe Iraq should be required to disarm. In that case, how can you also state that Iraq is not a threat to the West. Everything surronding Iraq is based on the need for disarmament. To say Iraq does not need to disarm is to state that all of that should go away, in which case you're relying on Saddam's good behavior to keep him from invading and attacking other countries as he has done several times before.

From whence comes your belief he can be trusts to refrain from again attempting to exapnd his borders?

I would like to see Iraq disarmed. I don't see it as absolutely necesary. I do not believe that he would try to expand his borders again. Invading Kuwait cost him dearly, he was lucky to survive. He must know that he would not survive another such attempt. I don't rely on Saddam's good behaviour to keep him mostly in line but his will to survive.

 

Look, he does not view the world in the same way we do, no, but he doesn't view it as a mad-man either. His politics are tribal politics that have been going on there for centuries, if you think you're the strongest you take what you want, any means nessairy, however, Saddam is not as stupid as to think that he can actually take on the USA and win. To say that he does is underestimating his intelligence.

 

>>>But does Saddam have the resource to unleash a war like WWII? NO HE DOES NOT. Infact, Saddam couldn't even take over Kuweit 10 years ago, but now (after his military is much weaker then it was 10 years ago) he would suddenly be able to conquer an area the size of Europe and half Russia and kill millions of people? Give me a break.<<<

He would've taken over 10 years ago, had we not stepped in and waged war on him. And you are 100% correct, he wasn't able to. But that only further proves that Saddam can be stopped as long as you take action against him. Not doing anything, accomplishes NOTHING, excepting giving him what he wants.

He says he doesn't want war with the us. He says it, acting like he means to live peacefully. You know the real reason why he doesn't want wars? Its because he knows we will kick his butt, and he will be finished if we do start a war with him. He definetly doesn't want that. He is nothing more than a coward. He will be the first one running for cover when the bombs start dropping over there, while he has his citizens stand outside of goverment and military buildings and bases as "human sheilds".

War is the only way to deal that that mad man my friends.

Trying to reason and settle peacefully with him, is about the equivelent of asking Michale Myers (from the Halloween movies) not to kill you and to work things out because you wanna become his friend.

 

I was responding to GAP's claims of US deceptions with my broad statements remark Karde. I thought the fact my post directly followed his and after he responded to my own post would make this obvious enough that I did not identify him by username.

I apologize if you mistook my remarks.

Let me respond to both of you know since your points are similar.

The US is a democracy and as such the leadership changes. There is no gaurentee that the next president will be equally as hard line with Iraq and, if he is not disarmed the current situation can not continue on indefinately.
The Sanctions given time, will be dropped.
Once the sanctions are gone, with no one willing to to pressure Iraq into inspections, what is to keep Iraq from gaining the same nuclear detterent which is currently making the situation in NK so difficult?

Furthermore, again poitng out a difference, Iraq's neighbors are not as powerful, or as powerfully supported as NK's.

Can there be any doubt that Saddam wants to aquire nukes? Can there be any doubt that given time it is impossible for the Western democracies to keep up the sanctions and other things which force Saddam to be circumspect?
Can there be any doubt, that with Nukes Saddam is a clear and present danger to the stability of the middle east and American intrests?

 

Oh please, hawks. You cry for war only because it's the easy, lazy solution. War is sloppy and leaves to many people dead on both sides.

If you are for a war with Iraq, you are against "rescuing" the Iraqi people from the clutches of SH's regime.

If you are for war with Iraq, you are for invading a country in the hopes of overthrowing a government who has weapons that--by all reports--can't even reach US targets.

War is not the only solution. It's the quickest. It's the easiest. But it is not the most effective.

If the inspections aren't working--if the inspectors say the inspections aren't working, then correct the method of inspections. Force SH's hand.

He doesn't allow spy planes overhead, force him to oblige by putting UN spy planes in the air guarded under Resolution 1441.

If the number of inspectors is not enough to adequately search (and I think it isn't), add more inspectors.

If the inspections aren't working, MAKE THEM WORK.

Sadly, we live in a western ideal where the motto is, "If something breaks, don't bother fixing it; just get something else to take its place."

Here's another little question for all the warmongers out there who say it is not the job of the UN inspectors to identify whether or not Iraq has WMDs: If that isn't their job, why are they there???

 

Thier job is to verify Iraq is disarming, a far cry from verifyign if he has WoMD.

Cheveyo look into the disarmament of South Africa for how inspections are supposed to work.

 

That's not at all what I'm saying, farraday. I'm not asking how they are supposed to work vs hwo they are operating now. I'm not an inspector. I don't have their experience or their knowledge. What I'm saying is, if the inspections aren't working, as the warmongers are quick to say, make them work.

War isn't the only solution, and it not the best by far.

 

Surely, Iraq must comply in order for them to work.

Do you think it's possible for them to be made to work if Iraq does not wish to comply?

 

Cheveyo inspections can only work if Iraq cooperates.

Is your intent to say we should force Iraq to cooperate, in which case how do you plan on going about that?

 

>>>War is not the only solution. It's the quickest. It's the easiest. But it is not the most effective.<<<

Ok, so I guess you know OF these better solutions that you think are better than war. Ok, then what are they? We are all waiting to hear your brilliant plan for disarming iraq.

Please, do not make a claim such as "(war) is not the most effective", when in fact you have no other ideas.

What are we gonna do? Keep inspecting for years and years to come? What is that gonna solve? Saddam is simply gonna keep hidding them and playing "cat and mouse". You can only inspect for so long. OK, so we inspect for a while more, and then its finally over. Do we let Iraq keep going about there busines? Are we gonna try to make Saddam admit to having these weapons, and then make him agree to volumtarily disarming? If your answer is "yes", and you seriously believe that is all gonna work as opposed to war, then to you I say:

 

The US is a democracy and as such the leadership changes. There is no gaurentee that the next president will be equally as hard line with Iraq and, if he is not disarmed the current situation can not continue on indefinately.
The Sanctions given time, will be dropped.
Once the sanctions are gone, with no one willing to to pressure Iraq into inspections, what is to keep Iraq from gaining the same nuclear detterent which is currently making the situation in NK so difficult?

Furthermore, again poitng out a difference, Iraq's neighbors are not as powerful, or as powerfully supported as NK's.

Can there be any doubt that Saddam wants to aquire nukes? Can there be any doubt that given time it is impossible for the Western democracies to keep up the sanctions and other things which force Saddam to be circumspect?

Thats actually one of the better arguements for war that I have heard. However where I disagree is:

A future US predident may take a softer line than Bush does but I cannot see a situation where a US president would be so 'dovish' that they would tolerate Saddam once again trying to expand.

The sanctions should be partially lifted, but I don't see them being fully lifted, to the point where nuclear technology could be imported, while Saddam remains in power.

 

Firstly, Clinton and/or Johnson are not in charge. Therefor a repeat of Somalia and Vietnam are not what is going to happen. This will not be a war, it will be an action.

Get ready to see a host of white flags as our tanks roll back through the Desert. Now while Baghdad may be slightly more complicated, it won't be much. We surround it and cut off the power; water; and supplies coming in. You'll have defections like you couldn't imagine.

Once the action begins we will smash every SAM site from here to Saddam's main palace, then our U-2 planes will be able to spot any attempt to move potentially damaging munitions. If a truck is spotted pulling up to a bunker, Kaboom! We drop a JDAM in the drivers lap.

Next I think that GW will, not like his Daddy, allow Isreal to participate. That means any stray launchers will be spotted and delt with quickly, preventing him from firing anything at Isreal. Iraq doesn't have a snowball's chance in Miami of winning. Remember all the Afghanistan hype. I actually worried a little about that.

Secondly, It appears to me by some of the posts that it doesn't matter what anyone shows you, you will be against military action. Either because you hate Bush, or because your an absolute pacifist. You say your worried about women and children, even though we spend billions of taxpayer dollars that we don't need to on precise, smart munitions that keep civillian casualties to a bare minimum. If you listen to the hollywood elites they act as if we carpet bomb indiscriminately, or drive our tanks through peoples homes. We haven't ever done that. There are times when things have gone very wrong, and their are legitimate instances of needless butchery that can be debated. But it is not at all the norm. We are about the nicest enemy a guy could have.

Lastly, after doing some more research I have decided this is about Oil. The French and Russians have huge oil contracts with Saddam and they are concerned those agreements, including the arms agreements since both countries have supplied arms to Iraq in the past, will be in jeapordy. So to protect Elf's oil stake, the French refuse to acknowledge our right to take action under already passed UN resolutions.

And about North Korea. Their next. Why do so many of you fear a world wide house cleaning. Are you happy with the status quo, just because your not persicuted. Are you happy that people in other countries can't get on the net and debate with us because their tyrannical regimes keep information to the masses well filtered. Why do some of you fear change so viamently?
Also why do you assume the UN has the world best interests in mind? Tell me how the UN has benifited anyone? The UN is a VIP club for thugs and known murderes who happen to be heads of state.

 

Do you think it's possible for them to be made to work if Iraq does not wish to comply?

Define comply. It has complied in that the inspectors are there. That is the first step. The next comes with forcing the issues set before them now by Blix and his cohorts. The inspections must be strengthened, this includes counter-intelligence and counter-espionage. If the inspectors are being bugged or otherwise monitor, work to eliminate that obstacle.

My biggest issue is that the UN, and as such, the world, must force Iraq to comply. With force as a last resort. The US walking into the country alone like Die Hard's John McClane is not the way to go.

I can't believe that with all our might, all our intelligence, and all our technology, we have no way have preventing information leaks, and no way of thwarting SH attempts to disrail inspections.

Problem is, we're not making the attempt, because the US would rather just invade.

 

In my view, complying means stepping back and doing whatever the inspectors want without being hindered in any way.

 

Secondly, It appears to me by some of the posts that it doesn't matter what anyone shows you, you will be against military action. Either because you hate Bush, or because your an absolute pacifist.

Sorry but I don't fall into either of these categories. I just don't think there is enough to justify a war.

 

I can´t see any convincing arguments in Mr. Powell´s speech.
I can´t see why Saddam should be a threat.
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction (or better said I suppose so).
But then Iraq would also need Scuds to carry those weapons. But the Scuds Iraq had back in 1991 couldn´t go further than Israel and Israel is the only target Saddam Hussein might have. The other one would be Iran - well but that would be no problem for the US. The US has already financed an Iraqi campaign against Iran.
How could Iraq hurt the US?
A link between Al Qaida and Iraq could not be proved so far.
And attacking Iraq is like opening Pandora´s box. It WILL completly wipe away any stability in that region and "produce" thousands of terrorists.
Oil may be a nice extra - but obviously the only aim is to protect Israel.
Is it worth protecting a dictatoric regime that supresses millions of people? A regime possessing weapons of mass destructions including nuclear weapons.
Don´t get me wrong - the people of Israel has a right to stay there and live in peace - but so do Palestinians.

EDIT: Mr.Powell didn´t have the balls to go to Bagdad back in 1991. Well...He´s a bit late after he could have finished Saddam off once and for all.

 

>>>Problem is, we're not making the attempt, because the US would rather just invade.<<<

Are you not aware that Iraq is about the size of California? They are hiding these weapons in places where any reasobable human being could not even begin to guess. And then Iraq makes the argument, "well, we don't have anything. you can't prove that we do." That is easy to say when u r hiding the weapons in places where no human being could find. NOw the only chance anyone has of finding one is accidentaly stumbling acroos some.

Also the audio tapes placed by Powell today should easily refute your argument that Iraq is complying. Here is the transcript from that section:

>>>Just a few weeks ago, we intercepted communications between two commanders in Iraq's Second Republican Guard Corps. One commander is going to be giving an instruction to the other. You will hear as this unfolds that what he wants to communicate to the other guy, he wants to make sure the other guy hears clearly, to the point of repeating it so that it gets written down and completely understood. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

(Speaking in Foreign Language.)

(END AUDIO TAPE)

Let's review a few selected items of this conversation.

Two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood:

"Remove. Remove."

The expression, the expression, "I got it."

"Nerve agents. Nerve agents. Wherever it comes up."

"Got it."

"Wherever it comes up."

"In the wireless instructions, in the instructions."

"Correction. No. In the wireless instructions."

"Wireless. I got it."

Why does he repeat it that way? Why is he so forceful in making sure this is understood? And why did he focus on wireless instructions? Because the senior officer is concerned that somebody might be listening.

Well, somebody was.

"Nerve agents. Stop talking about it. They are listening to us. Don't give any evidence that we have these horrible agents."

Well, we know that they do. And this kind of conversation confirms it<<<

I rest my case.