|So what if they don't find anything? What's your opinion?||Sintesi|
Dec 2, 2002 8:34 AM
|I believe weapons inspectors are saying it will take a year or two to conclude a thorough investigation but I think the initial report to the UN is due in Jan. So what will happen? As long as the inspectors are there and not finding anything major I find it hard to believe the US admin will launch a war. Do you think the Iraqi declaration that they have no WMD will be a sufficient "trip-wire" for the US to invade should the inspection teams find spotty or inconclusive evidence of WMD production? I don't think so.
A lot of people talk like the war is a foregone conclusion but I'm not so sure. As long as nothing major is found and the inspection goes unimpeded all this war posturing could go "POOF!"
|up to Saddam||trekkie1|
Dec 2, 2002 8:52 AM
|I think at some point they will be delayed or refused an area to inspect. At that point, they'd better get the heck out of dodge, because the bombing will begin.
If they are unimpeded and find nothing, good for everyone.
My solution? Inspect everything. They refuse or even delay ability to inspect a certain place, we bomb that place, and only that place. They'll get the message.
|Can you really search a whole country?||cory|
Dec 2, 2002 8:52 AM
|I'm convinced Bush wants war, and that he'll find some reason (real or imagined) to get it, probably just in time for the 2004 elections so the Repubs can campaign on that and divert people's attention from issues on which they're weak. Worked in November...
Aside from that, though, how do you search a whole frigging COUNTRY? Iraq is bigger than California. No way anyone's ever going to say, "OK, we checked everywhere and they're not hiding anything." Introduce a little doubt, leverage that to justify bombing in the summer of 2004, and there's your campaign issue.
|You got it. nm||Eager Beagle|
Dec 2, 2002 8:54 AM
|I dunno guys.||Sintesi|
Dec 2, 2002 10:40 AM
|I can't buy into that amount of cynicism yet. The UN has got to find something concrete first. Even if Bush found some reason for the full scale assault I think most people would find it so weak it wouldn't help in an election at any rate. Americans are "on board" with an Iraqi war only so far as they percieve it as a threat. So far, the WMD debate has been rhetorical talk and strong suspicion, but as the inspections go on the war argument weakens-the more belligerency seems unfounded. One more thing, if the economy continues to weaken or appear to weaken Americans will turn on Bush no matter what was going on in the land no American can find on a map.
Here's one that I'm sure you two won't buy but suppose Bush genuinely only wants to get Saddam because of sincere beliefs that Iraq is a threat to our interests and allies(remember that Clinton has said Iraq was the #1 foreign policy issue of his administration. This issue has been talked up in the State dept for over a decade.) and the #1 goal is disarmament. The build up, the war talk, the hard ball diplomacy could be a method of brinksmanship (a'la kenedy/bay of pigs) designed to get a brutal dictator to comply. If so, so far so good, right? If Saddam is the warped-but-sane survivor so many people say he is then the only way to make him budge would to make him genuinely afraid that he might be killed wouldn't it? Bush has the right foriegn policy with IRAQ? The world will actually be safer because of a strong, heavy US standing in the world? That's too much for the average republican hating liberal to handle.
I'm glad nothing has been found (acknowledging it is way too early to start feeling relieved) and can envision this War debate fizzling out in a year or so.
|"there's your campaign issue"||trekkie1|
Dec 2, 2002 9:15 AM
|Hey, that should be great, shouldn't it? Maybe the election will be a referendum on war. Maybe we'll know what America wants.
As for searching the "whole country", I don't think it's exactly like that. First, some places you don't need to search. What is Iraq, 99% sand and rocky mountians? Not much need to search there. Second, hopefully there is some intelligence that prioritizes areas to be searched, so that the most suspect are looked at soon. It's not like the UN is going in there totally blind. Also, don't forget that many plants and storage areas were destroyed 10 years ago, and no doubt the rebuilding has been watched carefully.
No, I agree that we may never know that they have nothing for certain. It's a matter of improving the probabilities (that we know), isn't it?
Another way to find what they have, or "out" them, is to start a war and see what they use or try to use. May be an effective strategy, if not very acceptable.
|"there's your campaign issue"||MJ|
Dec 2, 2002 9:23 AM
|you need to watch more James Bond - don't you know that all the secret hide outs just look like they're rock and sand - or some other improbable location? - really there's loads of guys in boiler suits inside merrily preparing the destruction of the world
come on man catch up already - we can't spoon feed you this stuff forever
Dec 2, 2002 9:37 AM
|But 007 always found them, didn't he? Plus, he single handedly (or with the help of a super-agent/model, blew the place up from the inside, after barely escaping a time-delayed execution device.
I'd have a hard time not believing there are satellites photographing every square inch of Iraq, and likely would show the excavation of sufficient material to construct an under ground world destruction headquarters.
|I think Bush has backed himself into a corner||PaulCL|
Dec 2, 2002 9:44 AM
|If Iraq is completely compliant...Bush is going to look like an idiot for all the WMD retoric of the last year.
If Iraq hedges, delays, etc...even if the Bush Administration hasn't seen any WMD's, he might be forced to attack just to save face.
I sincerely hope that Saddam, if he has an WMDs or remnants of the above, declares them openly. That's the only way he's going to survive. Saddam may be nuts, the devil incarnate, etc...but he's no dummy. He wants to survive and be in power. He can call Bush's bluff by giving Bush everything he wants. Its' the only way to survive.
|read this and see if this is just Bush||trekkie1|
Dec 2, 2002 10:02 AM
Dec 2, 2002 10:04 AM
|You would think you could substitute "Bush" for "Clinton" in the article, couldn't you?|
Dec 2, 2002 9:48 AM
|If they don't find anything, they keep looking. Forever, if necessary. Just the fact that they are there should hinder progress on new weapons. They keep looking until they find something or until Saddam is gone and the threat removed, but no sooner.
When they paint the Golden Gate Bridge, they start at one end, paint until the other side, then they start over. It takes so long to do, it ends up being a continuous job.
(That's the story I've heard, at least. I don't actually believe it. I've never seen a painter up there.)
|re: So what if they don't find anything? What's your opinion?||netso|
Dec 2, 2002 9:52 AM
|I certainly do not consider myself a Saddam apologist. He is not a nice person. However, I think that if they do not find anything, we will just say he is hiding the weapons. We will attack him no matter what!|
|Good topic, Sintesi.||eyebob|
Dec 2, 2002 11:47 AM
|I think that the Bush camp know that this is a possibility. They'll count on the fact that most people will not look up/recount Bush's "war words" rhetoric if nothing comes of this in which case Bush will claim victory because the world is "safer" now that we know Saddam doesn't have anything (even though it really isn't safer). On the other hand is stuff is found then what? You've put yourself into a troublesome strategic spot because you have UN people in country (ostensibly at the behest of the US). You can't just open up the can of whoop ass there and then because those folks need to be out of the way. Do you think that they'll be let out of the way? Pictures on CNN of the inspectors getting shot one at a time while our bombs drop around Iraq will harden Americans opinion against Saddam, but diplomatically we probably won't stomach it for long and the bombing will have to halt thereby introducing another round of negotiations. I'm sort of curious why the Bush Admin didn't just start bombing away when the Congress gave him the go ahead. To me, the better 2004 election campaign policy would be the armed intervention policy vs. the prolonged inspection policy and the quagmire that that presents.
|Herein lies the problem. . .||js5280|
Dec 2, 2002 7:17 PM