U.S.A. To Invade Iraq -- Part II (Official Iraq thread)

I would assert that many of you will never concede that Iraq should be dealt with using military force, no matter what evidence is presented.

The fact that a team of 113 men and women were able to find anything in a country roughly the size of California is a testiment to their hard work, but hardly gives any new insight into Saddam's stores of weaponry. Giving the inspectors more time to play hide and seek in this manner will most likely result in the team never uncovering anything that would prompt the United States' detractors to admit the need to use force and oust this tyrant, even though we know with absolute certainty that Iraq did, in fact, possess a greater store of weapons than it does now and yet refuses to detail it's current whereabouts.

The International Community and the United Nations continues to look after it's own individual agenda, leaving its real mandate to be forgotten amidst the demonizing of America and the condonation of Saddam Hussein and his actions.

 

I would assert that many of you will never concede that Iraq should be dealt with using military force, no matter what evidence is presented.

If this is what you truly believe, then there is no reason to debate this, is there?

Are you suggesting by your commentary, obhavekenobi78, that we need to use military force, including the use of 300-400 cruise missiles, including the possibility of nuclear weapons, to seize Iraq so that we may "learn the truth about the whereabouts of these WMD's"?

And what happens if we invade using such tacitcs... ...and we find nothing?

You have to realize that is a possible outcome. Disregarding for a moment the moral ramifications, this would spell political suicide for the United States in an era where our global nosiness is growing less and less tolerated.

 

Then why the obstructions and failure to cooperate fully with the inspectors?

Apply Occam's Razor to the situation...are they stonewalling and playing cat-and-mouse because they have nothing to hide? Wha?

 

Cheveyo:

And if not acting results in an attack by terrorists that makes 9/11 look like a Sunday school picnic, what then? Are the anti-war types going to say, "Sorry, we goofed," or are we going to get a lecture from these same folks about not continuing the circle of violence?

 

At this point I stand still with the majority of the world community. the inspectors are there, doing their job. As long as this works, and continues to work, there should be know threat of war. Despite what the White House is saying, progress is being made, according to Inspector reports.

Bush is trying to force his agenda by pushing for time constraints on the peace process.

 

Cheveyo, Bush pushing his agenda for war on Iraq is what caused the inspectors to have "success" in the first place.

But I wouldn't Iraq's refusal to show its weapons and documents success.

 

Chevey,

"At this point I stand still with the majority of the world community. the inspectors are there, doing their job. As long as this works, and continues to work, there should be know threat of war. Despite what the White House is saying, progress is being made, according to Inspector reports.

If you are asserting that 113 U.N. Inspectors are able to search a country the size of Iraq then I would assert that you don't understand how incredibly daunting that task truly is. In order to demonstrate, I have hidden a suitcase full of marbles in Idaho. You have one year to find it. Good luck.

***For informational purposes, Idaho is roughly half the size of Iraq (which is comprised mainly of desert plains, mashland, and mountains).

 

Iraq not disarming says Blix

Sounds to me the weapons inspectors arent too thrilled about how things are going over there. Anti-war group needs to realize this instead of pretending its working. The proof is in the pudding, Iraq is not disarming, if it was then why are the weapons inspectors finding things not in the weapons report? I wish someone from the anti-war camp can answer that, if there is an acceptable anser for it?

Edit: fixed the link

 

I'm for the war in Iraq, and i believe that it is the only to rid the country of WMD, but i can also see the anti-war point of view about giving the inspectors more time, and the arguements about the size of Iraq and the fact that there are only 113 inspectors, but if these few inspectors have found chemical Warheads and papers about enriching uranium, in such little time, isn't that enought to prove he has lied?

The inspectors have been hampered and have had to go through the 12,000 page report by Iraq, and investigate sites, so why the hell are there only 113 of them there. If people want them to have more time then send in 1000 or 10,000 of them.

 

[color=663300]As said above, the ONLY reason there are inspectors in Iraq to begin with is because of pressure from the US. And that was most likely only to try and call Saddam's bluff. I believe the plan was ALWAYS to strike Saddam because that is the only real way to insure he is disarmed. He let the inspectors in to delay such an attack but anyone who thinks the inspectors are actually in there to do any REAL work is mistaken I think. [/color]

 

I'll agree with you there, merlin. It has always been the intent of this administration to invade Iraq.

 

[color=663300]Because that is the only way to disarm Saddam effectively[/color]

 

Excerpted below is an op-ed from the WSJ by Peggy Noonan, one of Ronald Reagan's speech writers.

Most of the public believes--even many antiwar protestors say they believe--that Saddam is a bad and dangerous man, and that the world will be less safe if he develops nuclear weapons, if he doesn't already have them. Saddam doesn't have a lot of fans. Mr. Bush doesn't have to make a case against him; he needs to make the final case, the irrefutable one.

And for this, what's needed is the slow and steady buildup of fact upon fact, like brick upon brick. Mr. Bush has to build a final forceful case in a way the world can't miss.

Mr. Bush, as president, knows things we don't know. Presidents always do. It would be helpful here if the president would speak of things he has not revealed before. This would include some hard intelligence that has not been divulged to the public.

He needs more than "bleeding Belgium" rhetoric: "Saddam gassed his own people." He needs uncommon unknown data.

An example. I'm going to refer to a private conversation about another conversation, I hope in a good cause. Four months ago a friend who had recently met with the president on other business reported to me that in conversation the president had said that he has been having some trouble sleeping, and that when he awakes in the morning the first thing he often thinks is: I wonder if this is the day Saddam will do it.

"Do what exactly?" I asked my friend. He told me he understood the president to be saying that he wonders if this will be the day Saddam launches a terror attack here, on American soil.

I was surprised. We know of the arguments that Saddam is a supporter and encourager of America's terrorist enemies. We know the information that has been made available. But the president has not to my knowledge said in public that he fears Saddam himself will hit us hard on the ground in America, and soon.

Maybe my friend misheard, maybe something was misunderstood. But my friend is a careful man, and I suspect he heard exactly right. Which begs the question, what does Mr. Bush know that he hasn't said about Saddam's intentions and ability to strike America?

One hopes more information will come to the public. Presidents are always bound by the need not to compromise sources or operations, and rightly so. But at this moment, on the brink of war, an immediate and situational new flexibility would seem to be helpful. If you lose a source or an operation and gain more of the understanding of the people of the world and the people of your country--well, that would seem to be a reasonable deal.

Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002968

 

An excerpt from Blix's report:
Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.

Iraq is cooperating. The problem is that they are also claiming not to have wmd's any longer. So it stands to reason that when someone says they don't have them, they will likely not be able to provide you with the locations of them.

Set aside for a moment whether their is true or a political ruse, Iraq has complied with the UN resolution. If evidence is later found that this statement is a lie, then things change.

What I'm hearing from you is that there is no way the inspectors will ever prove positive that Iraq has WMDs. Why do you say this when you are so adament that the US does, in fact, have proof of their existence?

 

[color=663300]Great post mort. I wouldn't be surprised that after this is all over, we'll see that there was much more that we didn't know, and probably better that we DON'T know it now. [/color]

 

Che, if your supposition that Iraq is 'clean' is true, they must have answers to the very specific examples that Blix cites in his report. Their either must be answers, or vigorous effort on the part of the Iraqis to substantiate their claims, or there are weapons that are being hidden. Iraq is NOT acting like a state that has disarmed, other than the fact that they protest their innocence. Surely you see this?



I am hoping that the increase in rhetoric, and final preparations for war that are being made, finally force Saddam into a capitulation, and full cooperation with UNMOVIC. But, if the status quo of the last two months is maintained indefinitely, there will be NO verification of Iraq's NBC capability. The inspectors simply won't be able to bring Iraq's disarmament to a close operating against the Iraqi apparatus.

Iraq might be 'contained' during the inspections (which seems to be what you are supporting), and contained for another 12 years of fruitless inspections and painful sanctions. I guaruntee you, under the current pace of inspections, it is a fair bet that it is more likely that Saddam can outlast the political will of the UN security council than that a 'smoking gun' will be found, despite obstruction.

Iraq is cooperating, in part. But 1441 is not ambiguous about the consequences for 'partial cooperation'. Partially cooperating is non-compliance.

 

If they're going to convince the larger world that their cause is just, the US needs more briefings like Colin Powell's this afternoon.

Why can't he be President?

 

[color=663300]Colin Powell doesn't want to be president. But really, Colin Powell has more power in the position he's in than if he were president. [/color]

 

Sounds to me the weapons inspectors arent too thrilled about how things are going over there. Anti-war group needs to realize this instead of pretending its working. The proof is in the pudding, Iraq is not disarming, if it was then why are the weapons inspectors finding things not in the weapons report? I wish someone from the anti-war camp can answer that, if there is an acceptable anser for it?

I have repeatedly stated that I believe that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons yet I am firmly in the 'anti-war camp'. I fail to see a question that I and many others have not already answered.

 

EU Increasingly Divided Over Iraq Issue

Excerpt:

In their joint statement, the EU ministers said the Iraqi leader faced "a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully."

They added that Baghdad "must, as an imperative, provide the inspectors without delay with all the additional and complete information."

I guess "final" in Europe means, "Yes, comply now, or we'll be forced to ask again!"

 

Now, truth be told, how much is any other nation REALLY going to do anything in regards to Iraq save for the US and Great Britain? Answer: Little if anything and I really don't have a problem with that. I would rather see the US and the Brits do it alone, with nominal support from the EU.

If it were not for the threat of war on Iraq, do you think Saddamn Hussien would have ever allowed the WEapon Inspectors back into Iraq in the first place? Answer: No, he never would have. Just the threat of war has us in a position to try to avoid war, and to stop Saddamn from getting unspeakable weapons.

 

Chevyo wrote:

"But there are a lot of tyrants out there running governments right now. Why is he so special?"

- Because he has Weapons of Mass Destruction (don't delude yourself into thinking he doesn't).
- Because he has threatened to use them against Israel and the United States (and has used them against his enemy in the past, in violation of UN law).
- Because Iraq is a known sponser of terrorism, and adding the possibility of Nuclear weapons to the arsenal of terrorists is a deadly scenario.

"At this point I stand still with the majority of the world community."

What? Have you personally taken a poll of every single person on the planet to find out their opinion? I doubt most people on the planet really care about this issue. Issuing statements like this doesn't somehow legitimize your opinion. And if by "World" opinion you mean France or Germany, that doesn't count. They are motivated by financial reasons *NOT* to go to war. And if by chance you mean other muslim countries, then that doesn't count either. More and more muslim countries are joining the US in its position against Iraq, and the other muslim countries will always have anti-"anyone-isn't-muslim" attitude, because attacking a muslim country, even if the country needs to be attacked, is viewed as wrong in their eyes.


EDIT: Don't personalise the debate.

 

I was talking to my father on some of these issues. Here's what he had to say.

"Do you know what's going to happen? after we've invaded Iraq..."

'After we've invaded?' Not 'If we invade?'

"You don't think that there's any alternative?"

True.

"Anyway, after we've liberated Iraq, that's when we'll find all of the WMD. That's when we'll find the places of torture. That's when we'll find all of the horrible, despicable things he's done. It'll be just like U.S. troops walking into Auschwitz. And when that happens, the world will be horrified.

But you think that'll make people go, 'Well, I guess they were right.' No, they'll go, 'why didn't you act sooner? All of the dead are on your hands.'

In fact, it'll be many of the european leaders like Chirac and Schroeder saying that. You wanna know why they're opposing the war, why they won't commit troops or materials?"

They want their oil.

"That's part of it. But for some of them, it's because they want to see the U.S. get hurt. In fact, many of them would love to see dead U.S. soldiers.

As for an alternative to war, there's only a few ways. 1) If Saddam finally just hands everything over. 2) If his generals make him pose for some rifles. 3) A successful coup is launched.

You see any of that happening?"

No.

 

Yeah, but Jansons, why? The coup has been tried and crucial support has been denied to them at the last minute. That means that the important leaders and factions are gone, dipped in acid as per Saddam's taste. Yes that's because of Clinton and Lake, but it's not gonna help US/Iraqi Average Joe relations. Also, why do they want to see dead US soldiers? Because they've been lied to from their government. And because the US has a history in that region that's probably not the most inspiring viewpoint to them.

Also, Iraq is apparently not convinced of the need to disarm. Which is bad. Bad because, yes he's gonna be trumped back to the Stone Age and people, both US soldiers and Iraqis, are gonna be killed. But bad because we're not recognising the root of this problem. Rogue nuclear states are NOT going to disarm, voluntarily, so long as the Big 5 have nuclear weapons. And the Big 5 aren't gonna disarm so long as their's a threat of WMD attacks from rogue states. So we chase out tails around and occasionally we bite them, but the problem's still there - to the detached observer, this struggle would look frustratingly amusing, I'd imagine.

E_S

 

Why has this suddenly gone to talk of full disarmamant.

As I understand it Iraq has limits on what weapons it can and cannot have and so far there have been no weapons found that he is not allowed to have.
Correct me if I'm wrong.


EDIT: No songs, sorry.