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

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Cheveyo, Feb 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    "Hegemony" is a good word SCOTSITHLORD. It's a word one can use and either be praising or damning.


    E_S
  2. AdmiralOzzal Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 1
    FERALWOOKIE: Just when the U.S. economy was doing sooooooo well.... Giant defict, and the deaths of Iraqi civilians...you're paying for it

    Uhhh, according to the national debt count as of March 10, 2003, we are at $6.5 trillion (thats with a T) in debt . . . the article you quoted states that the war could cost $100 billion . . . the federal budget is over $2.2 trillion . . .

    first, where were these concerns about the debt when government spending was increasing at twice the rate of inflation . . . government deficit spending occurs every year not just a few months out of one year (like the Iraq conflict) . . . I think if the deficit and the economy worries you, you are focusing in the wrong area . . .

    second, $100 billion, in a budget of $2.2 trillion with a national debt of $6.5 trillion in a $10 trillion dollar (US) economy, is NOT that much of a concern . . .

    third, the federal government will go into deficit spending with or without the war in Iraq . . . the $6.5 trillion wasn't the result of Iraq . . .
    I guess it's easy to do so when you're rich and comfortable

    Of course Usama Bin Laden isn't a billionaire; and I thought the Taliban ruled a nation before they were dethroned; and the 9/11 attack didn't cost any money or resources to plan and execute; and of course such organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are poverty riddled agencies that they can barely support the suicide bombings, the suicide trainings, the anti-tank missles, the anti-aircraft missles, the thousands of tons of munitions and weapons, the thousands of support staff, etc . . .
    Yeah all those rich comfortable hollywood actors are so pro-war.

    I hear ya' Farraday . . . :)

  3. Madriver Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 7, 2003
    star 3
    More about Blix's apparent cover-up:

    BRITAIN and the United States will today press the chief UN weapons inspector to admit that he has found a ?smoking gun? in Iraq. Such an admission could persuade swing voters on the Security Council to back the March 17 ultimatum.
    The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting ? an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war.

    The discovery of the drone, which has a wingspan of 7.45 metres, will make it much easier for waverers on the Security Council to accept US and British arguments that Iraq has failed to meet UN demands that it disarm.

    ?It?s incredible,? a senior diplomat from a swing voter on the council said. ?This report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It?s a biggie.?

    An explicit report by Dr Blix of the discovery of an Iraqi violation would help the six swing voters ? Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan ? to explain a change of position to their publics.

    Unlike the outlawed Al-Samoud 2 missile, which was declared as a purportedly legal weapon, the drone was not declared. It would be the first undeclared weapons programme found by the UN and is considered by British and US officials to be a ?smoking gun?.

  4. AdmiralOzzal Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 1
    You know, it is stuff like that that shows how bias the entire UN bureaucrats are . . .

    this reminds me of when the UN bureaucrats sitting as the audience at the UN conference sat stone silence after Powell's and Straw's presentation (which by the way was the right thing to do since they are supposed to be non-bias and working towards the facts), but then these same people then cheered and clapped after the presentation of the the French minister . . .

  5. DARTHPIGFEET Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2001
    star 4
    Yep I agree AdmiralOzzal. So any predictions about what is going to go down this week?

    1. We will not get the votes we need. We will get 6 I predict.

    2. China will veto. They always do.

    3. The war will begin on March 19th.
  6. tenorjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2000
    star 5
    Someone on C-SPAN questioned this week [paraphrased] whether Hussein made Iraq, or Iraq made Hussein. I'm sure you're asking the question, "What does this mean, you Hippy liberal freak?" Well, allow me to expound

    The Bathe(sp?) party made Hussein. They over threw the government, killed any politician who defied them, and then many more as an example, and then Saddam tightened his grip from there. Everything about Saddam was obtained by force. The country was a shining star of the ME before he came to power. It has been in a steady state of decay since, due to wars and poor foriegn policy to put it mildly. Saddam made Iraq's current condition, but he never made Iraq, and Iraq never made him.

    The question is, will a tyranny still be needed to maintain control of the region, or can anotehr type of government (like Bush's idea of Democracy) peacefully reign over the region?

    The whole question of Iraq's future government is of course sticky. Personally I think 4 seperate Iraqi states, with equal representation on all government branches would be the best. This would have to include the military as well. Keep a level playing field is the key, and time will take care of the rest. Keep in mind that prior to Saddam Iraq was a very modern society with the best schools in the middle east. Much of their current adult population is well educated from the time before Saddam really brought the country down a road of decay due to it's war with Iran. This will go a long way towards having a successful rebuilding of Iraq's society and economy.

    But then, this really doesn't matter afterall, does it? We're not looking to disarm Iraq anymore, we're looking to overthrow Saddam Hussein

    We favor removing Saddam Hussein either through peaceful means or by force because even in his laughable signs of "compliance" he still shows reluctance and does not intend to comply. That in itself is enough justification. Then there's the crimes against humanity and war crimes that he has to face. 2 seperate issues, both with enough justification for removal, which especially for the liberal anti war crowd seems hipocritically silent about because their liberal european brotheren are against the war.

    Now Saddam's "compliance" is based soley off of 130 or so missles; which are not WOMD, and they're being destroyed at an incredibly s l o w rate. His reasons are 2 fold. One is that he gets this daily reminder to the world that "yes I really do take you seriously" and second he's buying diplomatic time because if he destroyed them post haste like he should have he'd have to address the real reason for the inspectors being there and there'd be no new compliance coming forth to point to. The Al Samod 2 missle destruction is a PR farce and nothing more. What would make me happy? How about an accounting of WOMD that could kill millions of people. Their destruction and the destruction of his mobile labs. Even at the 11th hour this would be sign enough that he intended to comply. Destroying 6 missles and a couple of war heads each day on the eve of invasion hardly qualifies as "compliance".

    You know what gets me about the anti-war protesters? The false fabrications they spout.

    It really truely does amaze me that such an "elightened" group knows so little about the issues. Truely. They're using the same lines and protests that they used in '91. Well the "finishing daddy's work" is new, I'll credit them with that. I'm actually surprised that so many intelligent people defend them to the point they do. At the very least if I was against the war I'd have to shout out "right side, wrong reason" And I think the reasons for supporting or opposing something like this is serious. If you're an absolute pacifist, fine that's legit. If you're afraid of the consequences, or feel it's none of our business, fine that's legit. But to spout off genocide, imperialsim, blood for oil, crusade, he got 100% of the vote, why defy the will of their people...I just want to slap some sense into them. Get it righ
  7. DARTHPIGFEET Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2001
    star 4
    Oh I forgot one more prediction. Turkey will come around this week before the 17th.
  8. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    It's the Ba'ath party tenorjedi. :)

    E_S
  9. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    This just coming to light on the news:

    Hans Blix has buried 2 smoking guns in an addendum to the 170 page report to the UN he presented the other day. He neglected to mention these to the UN.

    The first smoking gun is the find of a drone aircraft for the sole purpose of spraying chemical and biological agents over troops, civilians, etc. The other smoking gun is a series of cluster bombs capable of being filled with chemical and biological agents over large areas. Neither one of these were declared in the weapons declaration and represent material breach.

    Blix has lost all of his credibility if he chooses to bury such information and not bring it to light for alterior motives especially in such a critical time.
  10. Valkor Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2002
    star 4
    Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
    -Thomas Edison

    Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
    -Albert Einstein
  11. AdmiralOzzal Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 1
    Nice post TenorJedi . . .

    as for the predictions, here goes:

    (1) US/UK/Spain UN resolution passes by a vote of 9 to 4 with two abstentions . . .

    (2) If there is a veto it will be France who will veto the resolution . . .

    (3) Turkey will have a revote and let the US military stage an attack from their area (vote will occur late this week or early next week; no later than March 19, 2003)

    (4) I agree TenorJedi, the timetable for war will depend upon whether Turkey lets us in (late March if Turkey votes against or early April if Turkey votes yes) . . .

    (5) Iraq will lose . . .

    Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
    -Thomas Edison

    Good post for the argument going on the "should we kill/eat animal thread," but really, the mere existence of one organism is a threat to another . . . (does this mean we shouldn't cut grass, chop down trees to create paper or build houses/tables/desks, eat our veggies, take antibiotics to kill bacteria, viruses or parasites, etc . . . living beings is quite a broad group)

    Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. -Albert Einstein

    And any "fool" can also completely ignore evil and let it exist unchallenged and call it being moral/ethical . . .
  12. MRHA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2000
    star 2
    I dunno if this has been noticed here before, but this afternoon (in france so hum 2 hours ago) Russia has officially says it will veto.
  13. MRHA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2000
    star 2
    For Turkey there is a big turmoil ("when you don't know a word, search one that is in Star Wars :D") in the parliament today and yesterday because US presence in the country whereas deputies had forbidden it.
  14. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I dunno if this has been noticed here before, but this afternoon (in france so hum 2 hours ago) Russia has officially says it will veto.

    According to the story at CNN, they said they would vote against the measure, but did not use the word "veto". I quote:
    The minister, however, did not use the word "veto" and his boss, President Vladimir Putin, who has the ultimate decision on the matter, has not said what Russia will do. However, CNN's Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty said the statement, which is the strongest yet from the Kremlin, seems to represent the government's current position.
    Their veto is still up in the air, but they seem to be planning to vote against it.

    Kimball Kinnison
  15. toochilled Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 2000
    star 5
    currently Russia, China and France will veto.....

    It seems that their opinion is that if we can disarm Saddam without military force then that's better then using force. A solid standpoint in my opinion, after all, it seems unlikely to me that Saddam will use weapons against the west {if indeed he can} if we do not invade.
  16. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    I was understanding that a vote no by the 5 permanent members was a veto.

    The only way they could not veto and not vote for the measure would be to abstain.
  17. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    currently Russia, China and France will veto.....

    You are wrong there, tc. They have said they wil vote against it, not veto it. They have all specifically avoided saying that they will veto it yet.

    Why? What does it gain them to say now that they will veto? That can only encourage the US to move ahead that much quicker. If they leave the question of whether the resolution will pass or not open, they can delay longer and keep the US from launching an attack for longer.

    Kimball Kinnison
  18. MRHA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2000
    star 2
    In France, last week there was a debate in the parliament, I watched it on TV.
    Actually all political groups are against the war (form the right wing -UMP, UDF- to the left-PS, PCF, Ecologists-).
    All the left wing is for a veto and all the right is very dubious on the subject (some people are against and even for a war).

    Our actual gouvernment is on the right wing (UMP) of course.

    But the citizens are clearly majoritary for a veto, so we'll see...

  19. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Just on the news, an Iraqi army defector from the Republican Guard has stated that Saddam will indeed use chemical weapons in the advent of war.

    I have aslo heard on the news that Russia's Putin has spoken with GWB and said that Russia will not veto the measure (they will probably abstain).
  20. MRHA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2000
    star 2
    here an AFP article on the subject, first in french then an automatic translation by a bot (i am not very courageous today :p )

    ---
    NEW YORK, 10 mars (AFP) - La Russie opposera son veto à une nouvelle résolution autorisant le recours à la force contre l'Irak alors qu'au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies partisans et adversaires de la guerre jouent leurs dernières cartes auprès des indécis.

    Si une telle résolution est présentée à l'ONU, "alors la Russie utilisera son droit de vote contre la résolution", a annoncé lundi le ministre des Affaires étrangères Igor Ivanov qui a estimé que la volonté américaine d'imposer un régime démocratique en Irak était "vouée à l'échec".

    C'est la première référence directe à un veto faite par le chef de la diplomatie russe. Pendant ce temps, des consultations déterminantes pour l'issue de la crise irakienne s'engagent lundi au Conseil de sécurité.

    Washington, Londres et Madrid souhaitent que l'instance suprême des Nations unies se réunisse mardi et comptent y mettre aux voix un projet de résolution adressant à l'Irak un ultimatum fixé au 17 mars pour un désarmement complet.

    Le président français Jacques Chirac et le chancelier allemand Gerhard Schroeder pourraient participer à la réunion de l'ONU à laquelle la France a proposé que les Etats membres soient représentés au plus haut niveau. Le président russe Vladimir Poutine a indiqué qu'il n'avait pas encore pris de décision sur son éventuelle présence.

    De plus en plus isolé, le président américain George W. Bush a pu trouver quelque réconfort dans l'élection de Recep Tayyip Erdogan lors de législatives partielles en Turquie. Le futur Premier ministre turc a toutefois réclamé de nouvelles assurances de Washington en échange d'un nouveau vote au parlement sur le déploiement militaire américain dans son pays.

    Toutefois, le secrétaire d'Etat américain Colin Powell s'est dit confiant de réunir 9 ou 10 voix sur 15 autour d'une telle résolution. Il faut neuf voix et aucun veto pour qu'un texte soit adopté par le Conseil de sécurité.

    Ni Paris ni Moscou ne voient les choses de cette manière. Les présidents Chirac et Poutine se sont déclarés convaincus qu'une majorité des membres du Conseil s'opposera au recours à la force.

    Le ministre français des Affaires Etrangères Dominique de Villepin a entrepris une tournée, commencée lundi matin à Luanda, des trois pays africains actuellement membres du Conseil --Angola, Cameroun et Guinée-- pour s'assurer de leur alignement sur une position modérée. Sa première étape en Angola s'est soldée par un échec.

    Autre membre sujet à fortes pressions américaines mais également courtisé par la France, le Chili a exprimé dimanche par la voix du président Ricardo Lagos sa conviction qu'il y avait "encore un espace pour parier sur la paix".

    Dans le camp de la guerre, la perspective d'un conflit fragilise le Premier ministre britannique Tony Blair, qui s'est dit lundi "résolument déterminé" à obtenir le vote d'une deuxième résolution.

    Le ministre au Développement international Clare Short menace de démissionner si la Grande-Bretagne entre en guerre sans l'aval de l'Onu. Le député travailliste Andrew Reed l'a précédée dimanche, renonçant à son poste de secrétaire privé parlementaire.

    Ultime concession au camp de la paix, le gouvernement britannique a confirmé lundi qu'il était prêt à amender sa résolution, sur la suggestion de membres du Conseil de sécurité de l'Onu, pour fixer une liste "d'indicateurs détaillés" stipulant ce que Saddam Hussein doit faire avant la date butoir du 17 mars.

    Mais rien ne semble pouvoir ébranler la Maison Blanche. Condoleezza Rice, conseillère du président Bush pour la sécurité nationale, a proclamé que le temps des "ruses" de Saddam Hussein était "terminé" et que le moment était venu de faire cesser la menace qu'il représente, avec ou sans l'aval de l'Onu.

    Colin Powell a averti la France qu'un veto de sa part au Conseil de sécurité aurait des "conséquences graves" sur les relations franco-américaines, "au moins à court terme".

    Le président Chi
  21. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    I actually think this resolution will pass.
  22. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    I agree, StarFire.

    It remains to be seen if the French will veto the resolution even if it passes.

    I don't think the Russians will veto the resolution, as they are not as foolish as the French government is to damage its relations with the United States over a noncompliant dictatorial regime.

    I do not think neither Russia nor China will veto the measure - they may vote against it or abstain, but I don't think they will use their vetoes.
  23. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    Haven´t heard the latest news guys.
    Russia will veto this resolution.
  24. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    DM, I think a 'no' vote is the same as a veto, but I'm not sure. Ender_Sai should know...

    I know that Russia has said it will vote 'no', but I don't think that's the final word on the matter. China won't veto, because it's not in their interest. France has reached the end of the line and will probably abstain. I bet Russia will abstain too.
  25. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    DM, I think a 'no' vote is the same as a veto, but I'm not sure. Ender_Sai should know...

    If Russia votes no it´s a veto. And Russia has said it will vote that way. France too. I even doubt that 9 members of the security council will vote for this kind of resolution
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.