War in Iraq?, version 4.0 (Official Iraq thread)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Ender Sai, Mar 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Waning Drill Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 1999
    star 5
    Here's a straw man. Have fun.
  2. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Waning Drill: [face_laugh] Nice one!

    E_S
  3. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    I find it strange that the people who are now pointing out how difficult it will be to find WMD in Iraq, it's a big country after all and Saddam will have hidden them carefully, are the very same people who were scathing of Hans Blix because he could not find these weapons under rather more difficult circumstances.
  4. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    What, hypocrisy from the new right? Surely you're not surprised, DarthKarde?!? :eek: It's like the peace protestors turning violent!!! :D

    E_S
  5. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    it's a big country after all and Saddam will have hidden them carefully

    Oh! I know where they are. Syria!

    ;)
  6. AdmiralZaarin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 5
  7. Madriver Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 7, 2003
    star 3
    I find it strange that the people who are now pointing out how difficult it will be to find WMD in Iraq, it's a big country after all and Saddam will have hidden them carefully, are the very same people who were scathing of Hans Blix because he could not find these weapons under rather more difficult circumstances.

    Not quite. During the UN inspections the US was critical of the weapons inspection process, not the inspectors themselves. They said basically the same things that are being said now...the inspectors are not supposed to search for weapons, Iraq (the size of California) is too large to search for hidden weapons, etc. The scathing remarks towards Blix were due to his constant assertions that the inspection process was working, not his inability to find any WMD.
  8. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    darthmomm:

    Check out this story from the New York Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?pagewanted=print&position=

    Sounds like he handed some off to Syria.
  9. Valkor Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2002
    star 4
    you said "handed some off" huh huh.

    but seriously, I have friends at Fort Bliss and I'm glad the P.O.W.'s came home. I went to college at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, NM which is only 4 minutes from El Paso, TX and Fort Bliss. Let's just hope and pray this war is over for good.
  10. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    Numerous credible sources are saying that Iraq destroyed WoMD just days before the invasion.

    Which means that the war to disarm Saddam would have done its job.
  11. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    1 scientist = "numberous credible sources"?
  12. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Pehaps someone can explain why Saddam would not destroy his weapons in order to avoid a war and thus retain power but would destroy them in the event of a war.
  13. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Not a clue. Treating the story with scepticism, as everything out of the region should be treated.

    NYT version


    Rebuilding Iraq
    NOW that the war in Iraq is (more or less) won, let attention turn urgently to winning the peace. There are three main tasks: to repair the damage done by the war to the United Nations, and in particular to relations between America and France, Germany and Russia; to secure a lasting solution to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which is somewhat likelier now that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to Israel is gone; and, above all, to reconstruct Iraq.

    Although the stated aim of the war was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, nobody, least of all the American-and-British-led coalition that now controls the country, should have any illusions: how history judges this war will depend largely on whether Iraq's people have been liberated to live a life unambiguously better than that under Saddam Hussein. Allow Iraq to muddle miserably on, and its vast oil wealth to fall into the hands of another corrupt, brutal regime, and it will become a symbol of the failure of the West, above all of America, to live up to its promises?and a powerful recruiting tool for the enemies of freedom. Create a prosperous democracy, and the resulting shock and awe could change the Middle East far more than sanctions or military force.

    But nobody should underestimate the difficulty of country-building. In Iraq, the tensions between the occupying coalition and certain other powerful nations may make the task harder, adding extra uncertainty about the role of international bodies such as the UN and World Bank, which have plenty of experience of how to?and especially how not to?go about reconstruction. You need look no further than, say, Germany, Japan and Poland to see that regime change, whether by military or by peaceful means, can be followed by a successful revival of the country. But, to succeed, those who will rebuild Iraq must learn the lessons of past reconstructions, of which there are many.


    The rebuilders, above all, have to understand that political and economic reforms are inextricably intertwined. One cannot succeed without the other. On the political front, countries abhor a power vacuum. Although the creation of a democratic system is one of the main goals of reconstruction, establishing effective governance, and fast, matters just as much. Order has to be restored rapidly; there should be zero tolerance of looting and other crime. In countries such as Iraq with strong ethnic, tribal and religious divisions, unless it is made clear from the start that everything possible will be done to try to hold the country together, the chances are that it will not stay together. This need not rule out a decentralised confederation?in Iraq this may be essential, not least to keep the Kurds on board?so long as local autonomy does not destroy the viability of the whole. The alternative may be having to cope with a tragic and bloody fracture, like Yugoslavia's after the death of Tito.

    The need for effective government should be at the forefront of the debate about what roles should be played in Iraq by the occupying coalition, other countries and international bodies. It would be good to have broad international backing, including the UN's, for the reconstruction process?not least for the technical expertise that comes with it. But not if the price is a power vacuum. Better effective coalition-led transitional administration in Iraq than weak UN-led rule.

    The same reasoning should apply to the role played by Iraqis in government. To add credibility and to tap local expertise, a representative group of Iraqis?not just Pentagon favourites such as Ahmed Chalabi?should soon be invo
  14. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    Indeed, the debts should be lifted, but I should add that if you lift Iraq's debt you should be consequent and also lift the debts from countries such as Argentina.
  15. yodashizzzle Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2003
    star 4
    "Here's a straw man. Have fun."


    nahhhhh.........you keep 'em. the people who want to find ANY reason to see a downside of the iraq situation have got to have SOMETHING to grab at, right?


    the finding of WMD is going to be a credibility issue for future policy decisions. the united states will be regarded with more skepticism if none are found. but iraq is going to be a markedly better place now than it ever would have been without intervention by outside forces to remove saddam hussein.


    the world isn't perfect and has lots of problems. i find it interesting that a lot of those who criticize the loudest NEVER offer solutions to the problems. they only like to complain. it's like a national pastime for those priveledged westerners who believe that peace will be suddenly and spontaneously generated because THEY'VE decided that its as simple as getting everyone to just hold hands and sing "merry X-mas, war is over (if you want it). when you've got some answers to the complicated situations the world faces, maybe it would be better to be constructive and post some ideas about how to fix some of those things. red-seven is one of the few i've seen who does that.

  16. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    I am beyond frustrated right now.

    How is it logically consistent to link War reperations of Iraq to Kuwait with IMF loans to Argentina? You are strrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeettttttttcccccccchhhhhhhiiiiiiiinngnnnnnnggggggg for that one.

    I am a big fan of Debt cancellation/reduction through unilateral and multilateral means, but I never once assert that situations shouldn't be views on a case-by-case basis. Trying for blanket linkages like Iraq debt = Argentina debt, once a case for reduction in Iraq is made, is completely disingenuous (note: that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons for some/all of Argentina's debt to be restructured, but to argue it for hte sake of consistency is maddening). It displays ulterior motives, and also somehow implies that hte US has the ability...nay, DUTY, to do all such things.


    edit: okay, now that I overreacted to a misunderstanding...

    cheers, GAP, glad that's all it was. I got worked up there for a second.
  17. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    EDIT: Sorry, I misread something. Red, you're right, bad linkage, I misread something in that article. I wasn't trying to link those debts.
  18. Jedi_Xen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2001
    star 4
    I find it strange that the people who are now pointing out how difficult it will be to find WMD in Iraq, it's a big country after all and Saddam will have hidden them carefully, are the very same people who were scathing of Hans Blix because he could not find these weapons under rather more difficult circumstances.

    Not quite. During the UN inspections the US was critical of the weapons inspection process, not the inspectors themselves. They said basically the same things that are being said now...the inspectors are not supposed to search for weapons, Iraq (the size of California) is too large to search for hidden weapons, etc. The scathing remarks towards Blix were due to his constant assertions that the inspection process was working, not his inability to find any WMD.

    Excellent point there Maddriver I my self wonder if the US and UK forces did find WOMD already if some of these same people who say the above, will say that it was planted there by the US and UK. Afterall the regime in Baghdad said they didnt have any, and Hans Blix said some progress was being made, the only way the US/UK would find them is by planting them {Sarcasm}.

    Afterall how could you not trust this face when he says there are no WOMD in Iraq?
    [image=http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39065000/jpg/_39065561_saed203ap.jpg]
    Such an honest fella isn't he? He would not lie to us about such things.
  19. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Jedi_Zen

    I wouldn't discount the possibility of the US and UK planting weapons in Iraq but since I never claimed that I believed Iraq to be free of such weapons it would be wrong of me to assert that any weapons found were in fact planted.
  20. Jedi_Xen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2001
    star 4
    Im not meaning to point fingers at one person or another here. But you know as well as I do that if the allies already found WOMD then the people who didnt support this war would be saying it was planted by the Bush-Blair administrations. At the same time these people are pointing to our lack of finding them saying that they didnt exist and the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to finish.

    Some people are so eager to villianize the US they are perfectly willing to forgive and forget about Saddam's evil past, and all his failures to meet UN quotas with the WOMD to make the US seem like Nazi Germany. Its ludicrous I tell you.
  21. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    If the only way Iraq destroyed the weapons was due to imminent war - as it looks like they may have done - then the war to disarm Iraq still achieved its purpose.

    If no WoMD are found because Iraq destroyed them because they were being invaded, then that should satisfy everyone as well.

    They clearly proved over 12 years that they weren't going to disarm due to the inspections process.
  22. Kuna_Tiori Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 20, 2002
    star 4
    andakin:
    2) The only problem with this thinking is that we don't have a direct link into Saddam's brain. The main focal point of this war is that we're not going to let our fate rest on our predictions of what moves a madman will make. I wouldn't put my trust in guessing that he wouldn't attack.

    But who gets to define who's a "madman" and who isn't? If anyone is the aggressor in this war it's President Bush.

    By this line of thought, the only way U.S. national security can be secured is if the U.S. takes over the whole world - and not even then.


    Btw, about all this crap on "we must bring freedom and democracy":

    Does anyone realize that if President Saddam Hussein had been legitimately elected, his regime would have been indeed democratic, in the technical sense of the word?

    Does anyone also realize that the U.S. is only remotely democratic, and that its president is no more legitimately elected than any other president of the U.S. and the former president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein?

    Cut the democracy crap. We don't live in a democracy and you know it./>
  23. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    You're right. We live in a Representative Republic. True democracy does not work.


    "Does anyone realize that if President Saddam Hussein had been legitimately elected, his regime would have been indeed democratic, in the technical sense of the word?"

    But he wasn't so what's your point?

    Reality bites.
  24. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    "But he wasn't so what's your point?"

    It means that dictatorships don't have a monopoly on evil men.
  25. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    "It means that dictatorships don't have a monopoly on evil men."

    True. But, it's easier for an evil man to have a monopoly of power under which system?

    ;)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.