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

A single question:
Are those tapes produced by the same guys who dubbed the Bin Laden video tapes.

Don´t be naive. The US have dozens of spy satellites in the air. And tapes can be faked.

 

Yes, I read the transcript. I have yet to see how anything Powell said is "irrefutable", though. The fact that he had to explain most of it himself, including the objects seen on the satelite images...

...Well, I guess we just have to take his word for it that those are what he says they are, and that means what he says it means.

Yeah, I can see how this is irrefutable proof. Strange how th rest of the world doesn't.

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.

Then you advocate not only war to oust Sh's regime, but a full-fledged military take-over of the country in order to seek out and find these elusive weapons, yes? That's all well and good for Iraq. Are you willing to do that for Korea, as well? How about Syria? Iran? Russia? China? India? Isreal? No, of course you're not. Yet all of these countries allegedly have WMDs, and all of these countries have anti-american factions within them.

Why is Iraq more a threat than these? Oh right... terrorist links.

yeah, doesn't Syria openly sponsor terrorists? But they are not a threat. Why?

 

"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."

So it would have been right to do it then, but not anymore? That doesn't make sense.

 

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.

I disagree with that logic. Powell and the US military, under the command of Bush Sr, was not given the go-ahead to invade Iraq. Their job there was to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait which they did. Bush Sr. wanted to go in, but he didn't have the UN's support for such a maneuver.

 

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

No. Iraq considers itself a sovreign nation. SH will do what he wants, short of outright killing the inspectors. If a criminal resists authority in the US, then he can be arrested and even incarcerated (rightfully).

SH is like a little kid in international politics. He is testing the boundries the UN will enforce, just as Hitler did. It wasn't long after Munich that the Nazis invaded Poland. Does Saddam have the resources to conquer armies supported by the US? Heck no! But if no one opposes him he can do whatever he wants. Well the little kid is getting close to finding his dads gun and taking his revenge for the spanking recieved in 1991.

Whats left when the kid has the gun pointed at us? Attack and take a shot, or negotiate? How about we get up off the couch and prevent the kid from getting the gun? And while were at it search his room for other contraband.

And for the claims of the evidence being fake...either the kid is getting the gun or he isn't. Sitting on our asses as speculating won't do anything. The only way to know for sure is with physical evidence. Make the inspections work with the use of force.

 

I'm a little confused by all this talk that the inspections can "work". The purpose of the inspectors was to verify that Saddam had destroyed all his WMDs NOT hunt down and destroy those weapons themselves. And in this respect their missions has obviously been a huge failure.

I don't think that the US even needed to go as far as Powel went today. We don't need to prove he HAS WMDs. What he needs to do is tell us what he's done with the ones he used to have and for us to verify that they've actually been destroyed and make he isn't making any new batches.

As of today they haven't even begun to explain what happened to tons and tons of biological agents and thousands of delivery missiles and shells. It's not a case of the inspectors being unable to verify that they've been destroyed, but Saddam has YET to come up with ANY explanation of what happened to them.

So how are the inspection's "working"? How can they be made to "work". Even if we triple the number of inspectors, what happens when they occasionally get lucky and find something?

Saddam: "Shoot, we must have misplaced those nukes many years ago. I'm such a busy man with so many troubles. Can you really expect me to keep track of every nuke I have?"
UN: "That's it! We're passing another resolution! And if they find another nuke we're gonna form a group to investigate sanctions on porn movies to your country."
Saddam: "Noooo! Please! Anythin but that!"
UN: "Okay, okay, maybe that's a little harsh."

 

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.

Ok so anyone who supports war is a hawk, then anyone who doesnt support war is an appeaser. Sound Good? I want to hear your way of dealing with Saddam, have inspectors stand shoulder to shoulder combing everyinch

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

And if your against a war your for leaving them at the hands of the mad man. One bad accusation deserves another.

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.

If you are against the war you are for allowing Saddam to build WMD, torture and kill his own people, because you dont care about them or his neighbors.

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

Yeah another 12 years and Saddam might come around

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.

Yeah Saddam has a history of cooperating, maybe if we ask him real nicely he will cooperate now.

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

How do we do this with out him trying to shoot them down. YOu keep saying force him, then say dont use military force. How can you force Saddam with out military force?

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

Yeah stand them shoulder to shoulder across the entirity of Iraq and make them comb the entire country side.

If the inspections aren't working, MAKE THEM WORK

You keep saying this but you arent saying how.

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."

Its better than the motto is "If you have a problem, just try real hard to ignore it and it will go away"

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???

Once again with name calling, fine, Ill answer it HIPPY. The UN inspectors are there to verify Saddams weapons report which has repeatedly been shown as not being worth as anything more than to wipe your butt with.

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.

And why did Iraq comply? Did Saddam wake up one day and say, you know I think I should comply. NO he was forced to because of threat of the US military.

The US walking into the country alone like Die Hard's John McClane is not the way to go.

We are not alone. Britain, Australia, and several European countries are with us in this whole thing. And when we do go to war, we will have an ILA (Iraqi Liberation Army) joining us, they are currently being trained in Europe.

 

How do we do this (use spy planes) with out him trying to shoot them down. YOu keep saying force him, then say dont use military force. How can you force Saddam with out military force?

It's about reaction vs action. Protected under Res.1441, the UN flies spy planes to aid in the conducting of inspections. If they are shot at, the UN defends itself be retaliating against those aggressive targets.

The inspections continue AND bring home the point that the UN means business. Don't strike first, but defend. Isn't the US working on production of drone spy planes?

(I said)"If the inspections aren't working, MAKE THEM WORK."
You reply:
You keep saying this but you arent saying
how.

Actually, I did answer, but you either weren't reading or ignored it all together. Focus on why they aren't working, and aimn to fix those problems in the process. Are the inspectors being bugged? Counter their surveillance efforts--with technology that does exist. If they are being told not go somewhere (hasn't happened yet, by the way), proceed to the area with armed escort--Remember that Iraq did agree to unfettered access, so they can't deny access. And they have yet to this time around.

But really, why am I trying to answer questions you won't read anyway? Your mind and heart are set on invading. Surely nothing I can say would make you question your view, right?

And when we do go to war, we will have an ILA (Iraqi Liberation Army) joining us, they are currently being trained in Europe.

Oh yeah, that's right. We'll have a puppet regime all ready to go that caters to the will of the US... until it turns into another Iran or Afghanistan. And they say the liberals don't learn from history!

EDIT: One more thought, regarding:
The purpose of the inspectors was to verify that Saddam had destroyed all his WMDs NOT hunt down and destroy those weapons themselves. And in this respect their missions has obviously been a huge failure.

They have yet to prove or disprove that Hussein has has/had destroyed all his WMDs. Until they find definitive proof, they cannot be called a failure. The UN seems to agree with me on this. Funny how that happens.

 

>>>Then you advocate not only war to oust Sh's regime, but a full-fledged military take-over of the country in order to seek out and find these elusive weapons, yes? That's all well and good for Iraq. Are you willing to do that for Korea, as well? How about Syria? Iran? Russia? China? India? Isreal? No, of course you're not. Yet all of these countries allegedly have WMDs, and all of these countries have anti-american factions within them.<<<

First of all, the military take-over is to to not only destroy any weapons that we possibly can, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, over throw Saddam's regime. If we can drive him out, then I don't care how many weapons they have, they won't be threatening other countries and their own people with them anymore. And that is the most important thing to consider. AS far as I am concerned, every good and moral country in the word might have some weapons that are considered weapons of mass destruction. But the point is, that they are there only for defense in case of a serious threat. Saddam has been proven to be a serious threat himself with these weapons. He in short is a madman.

AS far as the other countries that you mentioned, the difference between all of them and Iraq, with the exception of North Korea, is that none of them have their own citizens mudered, none of them are considered a threat to the rest of the world either. Again, like I said, the KEY in all of this is the regimes running the country. THose other countries don't have evil regimes per se. With Saddam out, they could still probably have SOME weapons still remaining (it may be impossible to find and destroy them ALL in war), but they should have a new a democratic regime in by that time, and will pose no threat anymore. Again, and let me repeat myself so that you understand: THAT IS THE KEY TO THE WHOLE THING.

And the ant-american factions within each of the countries that you refer to, do not consist of the actual Governments themselves as the situation with Iraq is concerned. In these other country's cases, we will try to route out and bring these factions to justice independently, as we have been doing to various sectors of Al-Quada over the last year and a half. This indeed is part of the "war on terrorism". By the same reasoning you are basing your comment on, then we should consider our own country one of our enemies (haha), given that there are certainly anti-american people and factions living here.

 

First of all, the military take over is to to not only destroy any weapons that we possibly can, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, over through Saddam's regime. If we can drive him out, then I don't care how many weapons they have, they won't be threatening other countries and their own people with them anymore. And that is the most important thing to consider. AS far as I am concerned, ever good and moral country in the word might have some weapons that are considered weapons of mass destruction. But the point is, that they are there only for defense in case of a serious threat. Saddam has been proven to be a serious threat himself with these weapons. He in short is a madman.

From an economic standpoint, isn't a military takeover stupid when you think about it? Iraqi people are not used to democracy - you can't force it on them. If US has to have any kind of prolonged stay over there, it's going to be spending billions of dollars there. With the economy back at home being at a downturn, probably heading toward the recession since consumers seem unwilling to buy even after all the Fed's trying to do, I think we should focus on improving our conditions here before we go and try anything in Iraq.


I read Powell's speech either, and I don't agree that the evidence he produced is irrefutable either.

Aunecah

 

>>>From an economic standpoint, isn't a military takeover stupid when you think about it? Iraqi people are not used to democracy - you can't force it on them.<<<

No they aren't. In factthey are used to being murdered at the hands of their VERY evil dictator.

Yeah, it would be pointless to rid their country and to spare them of their madman leader.

 

It's about reaction vs action. Protected under Res.1441, the UN flies spy planes to aid in the conducting of inspections. If they are shot at, the UN defends itself be retaliating against those aggressive targets

Hence where the problem lies, Iraq believes these flights are US/Israeli tools to spy on them, not help weapons inspectors.

Isn't the US working on production of drone spy planes?

Theyre slow, and cant fly so high, Iraq has already shot a couple down.

Are the inspectors being bugged? Counter their surveillance efforts--with technology that does exist.

Im willing to go that route, and if proven the inspectors are bugged, shouldnt that send off alarms?

If they are being told not go somewhere (hasn't happened yet, by the way), proceed to the area with armed escort

Will Iraq allow such a thing, or would they accuse the armed escort of being spies for the US and Israel trying to put their forces behind their lines?

Remember that Iraq did agree to unfettered access, so they can't deny access. And they have yet to this time around.

They have delayed them a couple of times, taking hours to find a key to a locked door.

But really, why am I trying to answer questions you won't read anyway? Your mind and heart are set on invading. Surely nothing I can say would make you question your view, right?

If there was another way I'd listen, but there is no other way, as long as Saddam's regime is in power.

Oh yeah, that's right. We'll have a puppet regime all ready to go that caters to the will of the US

Its an army not a government. Its soldiers and Iraqi exiles who want to oust Saddam, most of these guys will probably never have anything to do with government.

until it turns into another Iran

You keep saying Iran, wasnt you the guy who said Iran had a democracy until the 1950s until the US put the shah in power? If youre that guy than sorry, you are WRONG! The Palhavi dynasty came to power as the Shah of Iran in 1925, I believe they took power in a coup, the US had nothing to do with it. The Palhavi dynasty was cruel, even thinking about joining Hitler in WWII, but Soviet-British occupation ended that in 1941. The incident in the 1950s you are reffering to was In 1951, Premier Mohammed Mossadeq, a militant nationalist, forced the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry. Mossadeq was opposed by the Shah and was removed, but he quickly returned to power. The Shah fled Iran but returned when supporters staged a coup against Mossadeq in August 1953.

And they say the liberals don't learn from history!

Gotta get the facts straight first.

 

The evidence is clear as day. It was before todays U.N. presentation with Sec of State Powell, and it's clear right now. Iraq's regime MUST GO!!!!

The history of SH mentality and what he has done in the past is evidence enough. The proof is there. The videotape is there. The Iraqis deny it today like it never happened.

What am I talking about?

During the war against Iran in 1981 SH used Mustard gas against Irani troops.

He has also used it on his own people. Lets not forget the dead towns and villages of Kurishs people ranging from men women and children laying dead in the streets from SH using chemical weapons.

He was told to disarm in 1991. He has not done that. He has played this cat and mouse game long enough and it's time for him and his regime to go.

He supports and condones terorist actions. He pays 10,000 dollars to families who give up family members who become suicide bombers. He does this on national TV.

For those doubters of this evidence you must understand that most of this information which is still only the tip of the icberg is gotten by people who can be killed if certain information is put out in public. Heck a few people probably may have died after todays information that was revealed.

Anyone who still thinks SH and Iraq is innocent is purely BLIND and it's the truth.

 

The ultimatum we provided was essentially "Comply or Die."

Everybody on God's green earth knows that Saddam Hussein has not complied. Even the French, in all their bluster, are sending an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean (although they claim it has nothing to do with the "international situation"; Ha!).

Saddam Hussein failed his test. The United Nations has not been satisfied. So now those who still oppose war are forced to ignore Resolution 1441 in their protests. And the result of that is ...

"Let the inspections work."



To what end? Iraq is very large, and the facilities required to produce chemical and biological weapons are comparably infinitesimally smaller. And as Colin Powell stated, Saddam Hussein has designed his plants to be inspected. Unless we are allowed full, complete access to all Iraqi government records, we will not be able to know the extent of Iraq's weapons programs--and even then we may not know for sure.
But assume we do manage to disarm Saddam Hussein. I know--good joke, right? Yeah, I know.
But assume we do. What happens then? Do we lift the sanctions and leave? There is absolutely no reason to believe that Saddam Hussein's almost irrational lust for WMDs has abated, or will ever abate. The second we turn away, he'll be at it again.

[cynical] "Let the inspections work" indeed. [/cynical]

 

Cheveyo - But really, why am I trying to answer questions you won't read anyway? Your mind and heart are set on invading

That's a good point, since your mind is clearly set on appeasement. You will never support any kind of military action, even if all the countries of the UN agreed, because you hate Bush. You have already stated that you think the UN is pure as the driven snow, and the the US is the only country with other agendas. France, and Russia couldn't possibly be opposed to it because of their cushy buisness dealings, right?

Remember that Iraq did agree to unfettered access, so they can't deny access. And they have yet to this time around. They are moving their stores around so the inspectors don't find them. I'ld say what part of that don't you understand? But the clear is answer is all of it, because you don't want to believe. Your convinced this utupion internationalism is the key to nirvana.

The UN seems to agree with me on this. Funny how that happens.
Some members of the UN agree with you. Some don't. As in Spain, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, Britain, Turkey, Luxemborg, and Bulgaria. No amount of support will be enough for you as you have already shown. The Iraqis are compromising the inspection process at every turn, you say the UN should force them, but then you don't want to use force.
Saying the UN should do anything is like saying the Government should pay for "x" social program. The UN, like the Government doesn't creat anything, therfor it doesn't have it's own money, as it has done nothing to earn it. So when you say the UN should..blah blah.. you really mean the worlds taxpayers should do this and this. When was the last time we had world wide elections to determine who spent our money in the UN.

Aunecah_Skywalker - I think we should focus on improving our conditions here before we go and try anything in Iraq.

Yeah, your right. Let's scrap all dues to the UN, pull back all international aid, and say, we can lift all the sanctions against Iraq too, sine our ships enforce it anyway. Then we could concentrate only on domestic isolationism. You think a war would destabaize the region, just watch if you let Saddam out of jail free.

 

That's a good point, since your mind is clearly set on appeasement. You will never support any kind of military action, even if all the countries of the UN agreed, because you hate Bush.

Wow, how well you know me. That was sarcasm, by the way. My mind is set on appeasement? I will never support military action? I hate Bush? Wow, I doidn't know any of this; I'm glad you're here to point all that out! I need someone to help me understand me. Thx, Rik. Problem is... never said any of that. You're closest statement was about Bush, but I can't hate the man, as I've never met him. I do strongly disagree with the vast majority of his policies, I think he is a terrible president, and I don't trust his motives. but I don't hate him.

You have already stated that you think the UN is pure as the driven snow, and the the US is the only country with other agendas. France, and Russia couldn't possibly be opposed to it because of their cushy buisness dealings, right?

I really said that? Gee, I'd like to see where. Until you show me where I said that, I'll have to stick with what I believed before you told me what I truly believe: The UN has the ability to resolve this without war.

I look forward to seeing you put more words in my mouth.

No amount of support will be enough for you as you have already shown. The Iraqis are compromising the inspection process at every turn, you say the UN should force them, but then you don't want to use force.

Once agian, I didn't realize I said that with no qualifiers. My goodness, how very hippy-ish of me. I do believe I said I didn't support a war. You infered from that to mean I am a roll-over pasifist, eager for... how did you put it... appeasement.

So go back to your fantasy world where I live to serve Saddam Hussein in your mind. This only perpetuates the ignorance of the issues.

Long live death and war, right?

 

OK then, your against the war. You know the situtation, what do you think should be done?

How do we deal with Saddam, his weapons, and his defiance of the U.N.?

 

>>>The UN has the ability to resolve this without war.<<<

How? That is what I wanna know. All, I keep hearing from the anti-war people is that there are better ways than war. The question is, WHAT? HOW? Explain this to me. If there are better ways, then how come u haven't shared any of those ways to the rest of us yet?

You said you know they have other ways, so you must know of them. And don't tell us that it is to keep on inspecting, because we all KNOW That it is useless and just goes around in circles while Saddam plays his little games.

 

So Cheveyo what should be done?

Let SH run amuck and keep playing cat and mouse games with the rest of the world?

Answer me this question please.

 

Guys, you're not going to like this but... if this evidence were taken before the International Court of Jusitce, the facts alone would not carry a verdict in the United States favour. Sorry. Whilst Powell has certainly outlined facts, the validity of them has yet to be estabished - except, of course, in some peoples minds. Whilst we're all gung-ho about this, let me say the following - facts, like this, must be verified. They must be debated and their validity ascertained.
Consider this; all Powell has done is present the US' position. Which, and I hate to rain on your parade, could very easily be tainted. I love how people don't trust the idea of big government, who accept politicians lie and that states act in their own self-interest, but willingly believe them when it suits you? Have you guys ever been to court? Ever seen lawyers argue over the specific definition over one word? And how both parties attempt to define the word as it pertains to their side of the arguement. I appreciate you'll foolish lump me in the antiwar camp; that's your call. What I'm actually saying is that if I'd actually finished my law degree, and this were my evidence in a case; I'd want to make sure that none of it could be questioned and that I was absolutely certain that they couldn't credibly deny it. And I don't think this speech is as watertight as you're making out.
Now, the whole thing is reminding me of the Cuban Missile Crisis - people's attitudes, showdown at the UN etc. There, the military (the same grop Ike warned against the gaining of undue influence in society of) insisted there was no alternative to war. None. Nada. Zip. JFK, being the astute mind he was, argued there was. He was right. And when Adlai Stevenson outlined his case, he had two things on his side - one, photographic evidence, and two (the essential part), Zorin had no idea that the missiles were actually there.

I'm not saying that I don't think Saddam has nukes. I'm aware he has NBC warheads and did in 1998. I also support UN approved use of force. I'm just saying this speech is in no way comparable to, say, Adlai's speech, nor is it the important nail in the coffin you're all making it out to be. If you hadn't already made your minds up with aboslute certainty of the just nature of your cause, you'd probably admit this. In short, Saddam = bad, Speech = OK at best...

E_S

 

>>>Whilst Powell has certainly outlined facts, the validity of them has yet to be estabished - except, of course, in some peoples minds.<<<

It also appears that recorded phone conversations of actual Iraqi troops ordering each other to hide the weapons (aka agents) that Powell played to the world today is not enough to convince people. I guess some people just don't WANT to believe it.

Either you believe it, or you believe that the US is out and out lying about this and Iraq is telling the truth that the Americans are making this up about them. Who are you gonna believe? Saddam? Or Colin Powell? Its one mans word against the other. You gotta believe one of them. Becuase one of them is telling the truth and the other is lying.

By not being convinced by what Powell presentated today, what you are basically saying is that you trust Saddam more than the US.

 

Ender_Sai, the evidence that Powell presented certainly fits in with what we know of the current Iraqi regime. It would be foolish to accept it at face value with no corroboration, but at this point I'm inclined to believe the evidence is indeed truthful and accurate.


There, the military (the same grop Ike warned against the gaining of undue influence in society of) insisted there was no alternative to war. None. Nada. Zip. JFK, being the astute mind he was, argued there was. He was right.

The situations are patently different. You know this.

 

Intresting way to put it Ender, putting it in a court room. Had this been a court, I do believe that Powell would have won the day. Especailly after watching the Iraqi delegate's response. In a court room this would of been important on making the final judgement for the jury, Powell the prosecutor laid his case out, and the Iraqi delegate made his case as the defense attorney. All Iraq could say was it was lies, fabricated material, and then went onto something about Israel (as did Syria). They didnt build their case as much as they tried to make everyone dismiss Powell's and drag Israel into it.

The argument now, no longer seems to be does Iraq have WOMD and have they been complying, but rather What actions do we take from here?

Had this been a court room, Iraq would have been found guilty, as their representative didnt prove that there is a reasonable doubt. The punishment now is up to the judge and what he rules. Of course we know if the "judge" doesn't give the punishment Dubya wants, hes going to do it anyway.

What I want to know is what good is giving the inspectors more time if Iraq wont give them the weapons to inspect? If not take military action what course do we take? And without hurting the innocent Iraqi people with sanctions that has no effect on Saddam?

 

Ender, if this was a trial, UN Resolution 1441 would mandate that Iraq would have to prove compliance: the United States doesn't have to prove anything.

Has Iraq demonstrated compliance? There's no question they haven't. End of discussion.


And how much further must we push the line? The pacifists demanded Congressional approval and got it. They demanded a new UN resolution and got it. They demanded hard, detailed evidence about Iraq's non-compliance and got it just a few hours ago.

Now that proof has to hold up in a court of law? Give me a break. The United States has jumped over every hurdle and has made its case as deliberately and clearly as possible. To demand more than what has lead up to this very moment is almost indistinguishable from implicitly supporting Hussein's regime.

 

Ender please lets keep issues like this out of the courts. There are too many lawyers as it is right now around the world. Lets not add issues like this to the realm of courts.

I will not label you and put you into the anti-war folk, but if you agree that SH had nukes in 98 then why not get rid of him? SH has failed to comply with what the U.N. said he must do back in 91. This is the equivalant of giving a someone a test and giving them 12 years to complete it only to find out they still failed the exam big time. What do you do? Let them take the exam again and fool around for another 12 years or do you get rid of them?