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. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    "Genghis, that's just military rhetoric to justify our preemptive strike. Everyone knows that, don't pretend."

    What is that supposed to mean? I actually agree with that interpretation (as I'm sure you are unsurprised) and have wondered why that hasn't been explained more thoroughly.

    That explanation is at least as credible (if not worlds more) than some of the other justifications put forward by both camps.
  2. anidanami124 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Ok I'm editing this because I thought about it I do't really want to talk about this much. There's just to much. I would rether read waht other people have to say.
  3. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    BlueMules
    IT is the US inflicted casualties.. WITHOUT tanks and bombs.

    Actually, that's the number of civilian casualties, including the bombings and tank battles.

    In Somalia, the civilian casualties ranged from 4,000 to 5,000 in a span of 2 days.

    Actually, it was 1,000 Somalis (including Militia and civilians) on October 3 and 4, 1993, not 5,000.

    Iraq has population density higher than Afghanistan, so I predicted Snorr Stulsson number to be the right one.

    You guys act as if the U.S. is incapable of fighting in Urban Combat. Hello, we train for that kind of war constantly, I think we're pretty damn good at it.

    Tukafo
    I simply am amazed that the current US Administration (and many here on this board) seem to be unable to see any issue of Foreign politics that does not involve miltary force (or the threat thereof), be it Korea or Iran or Iraq or Al-Quaeda. Have we not moved on from the stone age at all?

    Ugh, ugh, me want war. [face_plain]

    Seriously, I'm think we should and can deal with N. Korea and Iran diplomatically. Unfortunately for Iraq, Saddam is not willing to do things diplomatically, at least not in an acceptable manner.

    As for Al-Qaeda, who are supposed to deal with?

    McCartney
    It's just an old solution that has proven to have limited success.

    Yeah, that American Revolution, American Civil War, World War II, and Afghanistan sure were monumental failures that solved absolutely nothing. [face_plain]

    If we plan to fight the war on Terror and the war on Iraq only with military action, we are doomed to fail.

    It's not only military action. Don't you watch the news? We caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed without fighting, we've aided many governments in catching thousands of others, and we're uncovering more each day.

    It's not all war.

    Jabba
    My favorite part of this whole mess is the fact that while Bush's finger is hovering over the "LAUNCH IRAQ INVASION" button, Iraq's next door neighbor Saudi Arabia basically created Al Quaida,

    Wrong, Saudi Arabia did not create Al-Qaeda, a former Saudi citizen did.
  4. BlueMules Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 3
    BlueMules
    IT is the US inflicted casualties.. WITHOUT tanks and bombs.

    Actually, that's the number of civilian casualties, including the bombings and tank battles.

    How do you know? According to this site, the number of the dead would be in tens of thousands.
    http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20021009.htm

    In Somalia, the civilian casualties ranged from 4,000 to 5,000 in a span of 2 days.

    Actually, it was 1,000 Somalis (including Militia and civilians) on October 3 and 4, 1993, not 5,000.
    I have to check on the numbers, but that is one number I got from the documentary BlackHawk Down


    Iraq has population density higher than Afghanistan, so I predicted Snorr Stulsson number to be the right one.

    You guys act as if the U.S. is incapable of fighting in Urban Combat. Hello, we train for that kind of war constantly, I think we're pretty damn good at it.
    Hello.. I was referring the civilian casualties from the bombings and attack. Not the US casualties..

    My favorite part of this whole mess is the fact that while Bush's finger is hovering over the "LAUNCH IRAQ INVASION" button, Iraq's next door neighbor Saudi Arabia basically created Al Quaida,

    I have to agree with you on that one..
  5. Madriver Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 7, 2003
    star 3
    I have to check on the numbers, but that is one number I got from the movie BlackHawk Down

    Ouch, I don't know if it's right or not, but using Hollywood as a source of information is generally not a good thing. :p
  6. BlueMules Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 3
    Well, not from the movie, but from other Black Hawk Down documentary actually :)
  7. Tukafo Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    "Unfortunately for Iraq, Saddam is not willing to do things diplomatically, at least not in an acceptable manner."

    How do you know? I remember that the USA and Mr. Rumsfeld seemed to have no problem whatsoever negotiating with Iraq and Mr. Saddam when they supported them in their war against Iran. So if you were able to do things diplomatically then, why not now? There's oil to bargain with and you could easily "do a Saudi-Arabia" with him. Why not? It works with many other dictators that you support.
    Once again - the United States have tried NO diplomatic solution yet. They simply sit at home, threaten Iraq with annihilation and expect things to be done their way. That is NOT diplomacy. Diplomacy is sending Powell to Iraq and trying to negotiate a deal (that guy Bush can't do it as he obviously only travels once a year. Why doesn't this guy do anything apart from giving speeches written by others every second day? Maybe he's afraid of missing a ball game on TV). I know what you guys are saying now - you can't negotiate with a monster like Saddam. Well, if you would loosen yourself from the Black&White propaganda that your government throws at you for a monment - you can negotiate with ANYBODY. Blair was able to negotiate with the IRA with great results. Israel was able to negotiate with Palestine with good results (which collapsed years later , ironically due to Sharon's refusal to negotiate. Today Sharon seriously believes he can bring peace to his country by answering every bomb with 10 further bombs. Are people not able to see the stupidity of that policy?)
  8. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Jansons_Funny_Twin wrote:
    Wrong, Saudi Arabia did not create Al-Qaeda, a former Saudi citizen did.

    I think most people recognize that Al Quaida is, at heart, a Saudi enterprise. I'm not saying it's government-supported, but that it's a major civilian export, much the way the "Big Mac" is recognized as an American product.

    And what about Iran? Why is Iraq higher on our list of priorities than North Korea or Iran? While Bush is blustering about chemical weapons, Iran is getting closer and closer to building nukes.

    The one thing our pro-war JC posters have consistently failed to do on this board is explain why Iraq is higher on the list of priorities than countries with known connections to terrorism and countries that are about to go nuclear?

    Whenever faced with obvious evidence of Saudi connections to Al Quaida, Bush has simply trotted out the "friendship" between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Few Middle Eastern countries have cooperated less with our anti-terrorism initiatives than Saudi Arabia. Yet irrelevantly, Bush declared Saddam a terrorist threat and has unsuccessfully tried to link him to Al Quaida.

    I'm just asking people to think about what the real reasons for this war might be as opposed to accepting the Bush administration's ever-slippery and changing justifications for it.
  9. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Blue
    How do you know? According to this site, the number of the dead would be in tens of thousands.
    http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20021009.htm


    I couldn't find where it gave civilian casualties. Little help?

    I have to check on the numbers, but that is one number I got from the documentary BlackHawk Down

    I've studied the Battle of the Black Sea extensively, mainly because I had friends who were in the gaggle****, and the highest estimate of Somali dead was 1,500, but i see 1,000 the most.

    Hello.. I was referring the civilian casualties from the bombings and attack. Not the US casualties..

    The point I was making is that a) relatively few civilians will die due to bombings, and b) relatively few civilians will be shot by American troops engaged in urban warfare like many have claimed.

    Madriver
    Ouch, I don't know if it's right or not, but using Hollywood as a source of information is generally not a good thing.

    Even Hollywood put the death as 1,000. Then again they also said that 19 died in the fighting. The 19th died a month later during a random morter attack on the airfield.

    Tukafo
    How do you know? I remember that the USA and Mr. Rumsfeld seemed to have no problem whatsoever negotiating with Iraq and Mr. Saddam when they supported them in their war against Iran. So if you were able to do things diplomatically then, why not now?

    Because the whole damn situation is different. Back then, they were the enemy of our enemy rather than just being our enemy. We were wrong to aid them.

    When a someone spills a glass of water, you expect them to clean up their messes. That's what we're trying to do.

    Jabba
    I think most people recognize that Al Quaida is, at heart, a Saudi enterprise. I'm not saying it's government-supported, but that it's a major civilian export, much the way the "Big Mac" is recognized as an American product.

    So we should wage war on the people rather than the government? And if it were overewhelmingly pro-Al-Qaeda, why aren't there more suicide bombings. The Saudi people see bin Laden and his ilk as fools. And I think that it's unfair to say that all Saudis love terrorism.

    And what about Iran? Why is Iraq higher on our list of priorities than North Korea or Iran? While Bush is blustering about chemical weapons, Iran is getting closer and closer to building nukes.

    There's only so much the U.S. can do at a time. We'll get to them.

    The one thing our pro-war JC posters have consistently failed to do on this board is explain why Iraq is higher on the list of priorities than countries with known connections to terrorism and countries that are about to go nuclear?

    And the one thing our anti-war JC posters have consistently failed to do on this board is explain how to take care of Saddam in an acceptable manner.
  10. Madriver Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 7, 2003
    star 3
    Once again - the United States have tried NO diplomatic solution yet. They simply sit at home, threaten Iraq with annihilation and expect things to be done their way. That is NOT diplomacy.

    Actually, it is the UN that has done this for 12 years, threaten but with nothing to back it up. All Saddam has to do is account for all of his WMD (which everyone has admitted he hasn't done) and the forces will go home and the sanctions will be lifted. He obviously values his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and weapon programs greater than the welfare of his own people. What other kind of negotiations would you like? It is easy to sit on the sidelines and give out theories and criticism, but it is fairly straightforward what is required. If the man doesn't want to give up his WMD, you have to ask why?
  11. farraday Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    I understood Genghis' EU reference :_|

    I'd like to add something else. War proabbly won't start the 18th. The groudn war that is, we may start bombing. I fully expect that for a day or two of the air campaign we will hold back hoping that those generals will hear the bell toll and try to convince us it doens't toll for them.
  12. Madriver Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 7, 2003
    star 3
    And what about Iran? Why is Iraq higher on our list of priorities than North Korea or Iran? While Bush is blustering about chemical weapons, Iran is getting closer and closer to building nukes.

    The one thing our pro-war JC posters have consistently failed to do on this board is explain why Iraq is higher on the list of priorities than countries with known connections to terrorism and countries that are about to go nuclear?


    Different situations require different solutions. North Korea can probably be handled diplomatically, but it requires everyone in the region, not just the US. I would find it very difficult to deal with them, they don't hold to their agreements. The Clinton administration entered an agreement with them in good faith (and gave them technology and billions in aid), and it seems they started violating the agreement before the diplomats even left the country. North Korea is looking for more aid, because they are an economically barren nation. I think the US is doing the right thing, this should be a diplomatic venture of all of the neighbor nations.

    Iran is at least honest with the UN about their weapons program. This puts a different light on the situation and gives hope that it can be handled diplomatically as well.

    Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to handle a situation one at a time. Nations have been known to handle several at the same time. Iraq requires military resources, the others don't.

    Isn't it funny that the 3 nations Bush talked about in his "Axis of Evil" speech are the ones causing the most angst right now? Makes you think that national leaders might have a little more information than they are saying...
  13. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 10
    Iran is also a different situation because [link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/654135.stm]elections in the past[/link] have shown a tendency to swing towards reformist movements away from hard-line conservative religious leadership. Granted, the last election (fairly recently) swung back towards conservative but the mere fact that a reformist movement is possible in open general elections can only be a positive thing.
  14. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 7
    Jabba, No Korea and Iran NOT A PRIORITY?!

    Ummm....who were the 3 nations named in the "Axis of Evil" again?

    ;)
  15. Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2001
    star 4
    I have a question to the anti-war crowd who keeps boo hooing about North Korea and Iran. If we were building our forces up against them would you still be asking, Why them? Why now? Why not Iraq? I betcha would. I sometimes think it is against Dubya, and his "cowboy" ways.

    I much rather have a cow-boy as president over a cow-ard.
  16. SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    And the one thing our anti-war JC posters have consistently failed to do on this board is explain how to take care of Saddam in an acceptable manner.

    How has he been taken care of in the last 12 years?
    IMHO Iraq should be able to sell as much oil as they like to, but they shouldn't be allowed to import ANY weapons. UN inspectors should control that there's no progress in Iraq's nuclear program.That may be a solution.

    Did you know that Iraq isn't allowed to import pencils because of the graphite? That's ridiculous IMHO.
  17. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    Obi-Wan McCartney...
    "Genghis, that's just military rhetoric to justify our preemptive strike. Everyone knows that, don't pretend."

    If people believe that, they are ignorant of the facts of history as well as the current Iraqi situation.

    The abbreviated history of the current Iraq crisis is as follows:
    • April 3, 1991
      UN Security Council Resolution 687 - Section C
      Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq?s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles.

    • April 6, 1991 - Iraq accepts UN Security Council Resolution 687

    • 18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.

    • 2 Aug 1991 - Iraq declares to the first biological inspection team that it had conducted "biological research activities for defensive military purposes".

    • 15 Aug 1991
      Security Council resolution 707
      Demands that Iraq provide without further delay full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programs, as required by resolution 687 (1991).

    • 11 Oct 1991
      Security Council resolution 715
      Approves the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification submitted by the Secretary-General (S/22871/Rev. l) and the Director General of the IAEA (S/22872/Rev.1). The Commission's plan also establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission".

    • 12 Mar 1992 - Statement by the President of the Security Council noting a statement made in the Council by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and expressing the view that Iraq had not yet complied fully and unconditionally with its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions (S/23709).

    • May 1992 - Iraq provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosures for its prohibited biological and missile programmes. Iraq admits to having had only a "defensive" biological weapons programme.

    • Jun 1992 - Iraq provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited chemical weapons programme.

    • 8 Jan 1993 - Statement by the President of the Security Council, noting that Iraq's action in prohibiting the use of UNSCOM aircraft is an "unacceptable and material breach" of resolution 687 (1991) and warns Iraq of "serious consequences", were it to continue (S/25081).

    • 26 Nov 1993 - Iraq accepts resolution 715 (1991) and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification.

    • 15 Oct 1994
      Security Council resolution 949
      Demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions. Iraq thereafter withdraws its forces and resumes its work with the Commission.

    • Mar 1995 - Iraq provides the second (!?! ?[face_plain] Note: Their first one was a full, final and complete disclosure [face_plain] ) Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programmes.

    • Aug 1995 - Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme.

    • 8 Aug 1995 - General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme t
  18. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    How has he been taken care of in the last 12 years?

    He hasn't been taken care of at all!

    IMHO Iraq should be able to sell as much oil as they like to, but they shouldn't be allowed to import ANY weapons. UN inspectors should control that there's no progress in Iraq's nuclear program.That may be a solution.

    Did you know that Iraq isn't allowed to import pencils because of the graphite? That's ridiculous IMHO.


    I was a proponent of smarter sanctions, but we're past all that. The choices are fully and immediately disarm or face military action. Sanctions are no longer an issue, disarmament is.



    EDIT: I've noticed more ****'ed words in your posts recently. Tone it down.
  19. Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2001
    star 4
    How has he been taken care of in the last 12 years?

    Non-compliance and definace rewarded with appeasement, and economic sanctions that hurts the Iraqi people more than Saddam because he is fininacially irresponsible? I dont like this idea so far.

    IMHO Iraq should be able to sell as much oil as they like to, but they shouldn't be allowed to import ANY weapons.

    Theyre not supposed to anyway, but they are buying weapons on the black market.

    UN inspectors should control that there's no progress in Iraq's nuclear program.

    That works with Nuclear weapons, but what about Chemical and biological weapons?

  20. SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    He hasn't been taken care of at all!

    ANd did he do any harm to his neighbours?

    The choices are fully and immediately disarm or get the **** blown out of you.

    No, the choices are: go into exile or get the **** blown out of you.
    SH has a lot of money (7 billion $ I think - sanction made him very rich) but it's not money he wants (well he wants that too) but power.
  21. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    EDIT: I've noticed more ****'ed words in your posts recently. Tone it down.

    [face_blush]

    Will do.

    EDIT:
    No, the choices are: go into exile or get the **** blown out of you.

    No, I had it right.

    ANd did he do any harm to his neighbours?

    No, only his own people.
  22. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    "Iran is at least honest with the UN about their weapons program. This puts a different light on the situation and gives hope that it can be handled diplomatically as well."

    Iran is not being honest about its weapons program. It's claiming it has no weapons program.
  23. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Snorre, I posted on [link=http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=10431518&start=10820693]previous pages[/link] about the myth of Iraqi containment, the last 12 years, and going forward. Before using the 'he hasn't attacked anyone recently' logic, I suggest you read the post.


    [link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2838607.stm]UK pushes new Iraq initiative[/link]
    "The latest British ideas appear to be a slight modification of the draft resolution put forward by the UK, US, and Spain last week. UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock told reporters at the UN in New York on Monday that they were "still in examination".

    "There are people who want greater clarification," he told reporters in New York.

    However, the proposals are said to include giving Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a deadline - possibly 10 days - to make a strategic decision to disarm after which key tests would be applied. These are believed to encompass allowing Iraqi scientists to be interviewed abroad, destroying banned weapons and providing documentary evidence of any such destruction in the past."




    [link=http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1630141]Reluctant Vote-wielders on the Security Council[/link]
    "WHILE the United States and Britain are keen to press ahead this week with a second resolution at the United Nations Security Council, in effect authorising a war with Iraq, most members of the council have good reasons to prefer procrastination. The five permanent, veto-wielding members (America, Britain, France, Russia and China) have all made their positions clear, but six of the ten rotating members are playing for time, avoiding saying which way they might vote. None of them relish the idea of getting into the bad books of America?the world?s strongest military power, and the largest shareholder in multilateral lenders like the IMF and World Bank. After Yemen failed to support a resolution authorising the 1991 Gulf war, America cut off $24m a year of aid. Many of the council?s rotating members are just as reluctant to alienate France, the leader of the anti-war coalition, or fear the domestic political consequences of supporting a war that so many of their voters oppose.

    ...Even if (America and Britain) cannot prevent the other permanent members from exercising their vetoes, they would at least like to fulfil the other condition for passing a resolution: that at least nine of the 15 members vote yes. The undecideds are a mixed bag?ranging from Chile, one of the front-runners among emerging economies, led by a respected social democrat, to Guinea, one of the most backward of nations, ruled by an ailing despot. Thus the moral force of any eventual resolution would depend not just on how many countries back it, but which ones.

    ...For all the rotating members of the Security Council, the stakes are high. All the more reason to keep dragging their feet until the last minute, hoping that a compromise resolution can be found and, in the case of the poorer countries now being courted by the major powers, hoping that they can somehow find a way to accept the largesse of both sides without having to upset either."

    The political horse trading is ugly. But, ultimately, that is what nation-state politics is about. :/ However, one must ask how horse trading in this manner somehow translates into moral legitimacy (the same question America asks about ICC judge selection)?



    [link=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10378933]Spain's Aznar questions French "interests" in Iraq[/link]
    "Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, an active supporter of the United States on Iraq, on Monday linked the "material interests" of France, Russia and China in Iraq to their opposition to the use of force there.

    ..."We don't have any material interests in Iraq...France has material interests in Iraq. Russia has material interests in Iraq. China has material interests in Iraq. We don't have any," Aznar told Telecinco television in drawing a distinction between governments on opposing s
  24. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
  25. Madriver Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 7, 2003
    star 3
    Iran is not being honest about its weapons program. It's claiming it has no weapons program.

    Sorry, I should have said nuclear program, not weapons. And they are more open about it since they are letting the UN inspectors visit both acknowledged sites:

    On a visit last month to Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, visited the facility designed to enrich uranium that Iran is building near Natanz.

    But diplomatic sources quoted by TIME say he found the plant much further advanced than previously believed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced," involves hundreds of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.