|Was that it?||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 1:57 AM
|Was that supposed to be in some way conclusive evidence to justify a slaughter? Please.
If that's all they have, then let's just be honest and say "we don't have a clue, we don't give a damn, we just want a war".
If they have something better then they have no right to withhold it, and insult our intelligence with that rubbish peddaled yesterday.
As for the al-Qaida link - who wrote that script? He's have been better saying nothing.
A justification for war? No way. An embarrassment on a world stage? I think so.
Now what? No one that matters is convinced by that - the big Council players are asking for Blix to have more time. What're Bush's options?
|From the center...||Wayne|
Feb 6, 2003 5:57 AM
|I would say they made a good case that Iraq is in violation (a material breech) of the UN resolution. But I think we all kinda knew that anyway. I would say this means that it's up to the UN to decide what to do since it's their rules to enforce (and us, as an important member, should certainly continue to influence them in the direction of military action if Iraq doesn't comply).
I think trying to link Iraq to al-Qaida was very weak. There was no evidence that Iraq is doing anything other than trying to preserve/hide its WMD.
Consequently, I still don't think we are justified in a unilateral pre-emptive strike to prevent a future terrorist attack against the US supported or launched by Iraq.
Rumsfeld keeps making the case that there was "no smoking gun" before 9/11 to justify an action against al-Qaida BUT he fails to appreciate (or at least acts like he doesn't) that al-Qaida was an organization expressly intent on destroying the west. Hussein was a local bully, wanna be big player who was fought to a draw in the Iran war, found a weak neighbor to exploit, and then got his a*s handed to him by the neighbor's friend(s).
I think this is a good analogy: a few years ago some ghetto gangster tried to mug your friend thinking he was an easy victim, you being a cop walking your beat saw this and stepped out of the shadows and beat him senseless, leaving him with a permanent limp. A few years down the road you see this guy is still hanging out on the street corner with his crew (probably packing heat, almost assuredly engaging in criminal activity). For all you know he could come and rob your house one day, rape your wife, etc. So you get your machine gun and in broad daylight decide to do a driveby to eliminate him. Sure you might hit a few innocent bystanders, maybe alot of his crew, hopefully you'll get him, but at least you don't have to worry about him showing up at your doorstep one day.
Would you be justified in doing this?
|Nicely put. nm||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 6:40 AM
|Well thought-out views and analogy. -nm||Tig|
Feb 6, 2003 6:42 AM
|Here's the link to Al-Qaida||Fr Ted Crilly|
Feb 6, 2003 9:01 AM
|I would change the last part.||Sintesi|
Feb 7, 2003 3:36 AM
|You see him back on the street. You and your neighbors tap him on the shoulder and say, "remember what happened last time? Prove to us you're not carrying a weapon and we'll let you stay. Don't, and we'll beat you even worse than last time."
The guy gets belligerent, then backs down, then gets evasive, then tries to convince your neighbors that your the bad guy (the gall). Most of your friends crap out and decide they don't want to be involved anymore(they've made deals with the guy, they abhor violence all of a sudden, they don't like you being the bigshot all the time). You find yourself nearly alone with a couple of your buddies but you think you can take him....
|It is immoral and imprudent to be at peace with evil||Continental|
Feb 6, 2003 7:48 AM
|Ironically, the weakness and division shown by France, Germany and peace lovers around the world increase the likelihood that the battle with evil will need to be a violent war instead of a forceful diplomatic coup with strong, united free countries ousting a wicked, dictatorial regime.|
|Ha ha ha ho||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 8:01 AM
|"Diplomatic coup". How exactly would that work? Suddenly we wouldn't use all those guns, bombs, missiles, warships, troops etc we are packing into the region then?|
|Staring down a loaded gun changes attitudes||Continental|
Feb 6, 2003 8:54 AM
|Imagine NATO, Russian, and Chinese troups in Jordan, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar with UN leadership that doesn't stall and bluff. The Iraqi regime would collapse without a shot fired. Unfortunately, this is a fantasy, so the US most provide an overwhelming military force and strong leadership to minimize death and destruction in the impending war.|
|Don't see the logic||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 10:02 AM
|So what are you saying - there's not enough might without the other guys - in which case why is the US prepared to go it alone and ignore the UN and other nations?
If there is - then what difference does the presence of the others make?
How can the number of times you can turn Iraq from sand into glass matter - once is enough?
|Don't see the logic||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 6, 2003 10:25 AM
|Your postings have shown that you do not see logic that easily. Add economic sanctions by France, Russia, and Germany, who all get oil from Iraq, and you would see Saddam give in to pressure. If they were to stop purchasing oil from Iraq, how long would Saddam last?
Unfortunately, those countries are putting their short term financial interests over long term peace and stability in the world.
|I'll ignore||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 10:30 AM
|the cheap personal insult, and just lap up the irony.
You now have moved from "starting down the barrel of a gun" to economic sanctions.
These are not the same thing - even a simpleton like me can understand that.
So I ask again - what's the relevance of Russia et al having forces in the region?
Feb 6, 2003 11:22 AM
|As another post pointed out, you are troll baiting, much like Casual Viewer did last week. You are afraid to post with a real screen name, so you create one just to use on this board.
If Germany, France & Russia either applied economic sanctions, placed stronger political pressure or refused to buy oil from Iraq several months ago, military action may not have been needed. But that would have needed to be done before "Staring down the barrell of a gun" part to have any effect.
|More BS||War on War|
Feb 7, 2003 1:28 AM
|Are you really Solane? Or just another of those "don't like the question do I'll come up with some BS about you not having been here long enough to be allowed to post questions" or "I don't like your view/questions so I'm just gonna duck out by calling you a troll with a couple of weak personal attacks thrown in".
Yeah I read the Casual Viewer thread - hardy surprising that people drop in and out when you get that sort of nastyness as rsponses to questions.
Very weak, and pretty typical roadie snobbery, that's for sure.
The bottom line is that there seem to be a few characters who just like shouting the odds here, but either haven't actually thought out their position at all, or are unwilling to jusify it.
|Wiggle room and hope for Saddam||Continental|
Feb 6, 2003 11:52 AM
|Saddam has time and hope as long as Germany, France, Russia, the UN, and peace lovers are not aligned forcefully against him and as long as the USA allows itself to be restrained. If the "other guys" aligned with the USA, as demonstrated by troups on the ground, Saddam would be hopeless and out of time. A hopeless dictator without time would have no internal support and war would be averted or reduced to a virtual parade.|
|Hmmmm...Interesting thought. 2 Questions:||Kristin|
Feb 6, 2003 8:20 AM
|Would it have been better to have killed Hitler just before he began his campaign?
Would it have been right? (Assuming you didn't know the future when you killed him.)
|Clearly not||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 8:26 AM
|You can't go around killing people just in case they do something bad/nasty, or just because they say they will.
That's why we have rights, duties and laws, to mark us out from the savages.
Feb 6, 2003 9:00 AM
|Human Rights Watch puts the number of Kurds killed in Saddam's largest campaign of extermination at 50,000-100,000. Then of course there are also the thousands the people who have been killed because they oppose him or are related to someone who opposes him even now. Saddam has already has a long hisotry of Ethnic Cleansing and eliminating opposition by extermination.
So why don't question your logic again. If you would have killed Hitler early after he killed say the first 5,000-10,000 Jews would you have been justified in doing so? Of course you would.
"Doing something Bad/Nasty" are hardly strong enough words to describe genocide & ethnic cleansing.
|That was not the question||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 9:05 AM
|the point was BEFORE, not after he started.|
|I just took it a step further||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 6, 2003 9:28 AM
|I took your logic a small step further and jumped ahead a month or two. There are still pleanty of people being killed for even implying or being accused of being against Saddam.
THat is just one of the many reasons we should remove Saddam from power. Is he justified in killing non-supporters within his own border? Are we justfied in acting against Iraq to punnish him for his ethnic cleansing and prevent him from slaughtering more Kurds or other opposition groups? Or is it OK to allow him to continue his slaughter at the current slower rates thanks to the No Fly Zones?
You did not seem to want to reply to my post. Maybe I will give you one that a lot of people on this board try to use, that was 60 years ago, things are different now. Well, I would hope we have learned enough over the last 60 years to not allow history to repeat itself.
|That's not a small step||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 9:58 AM
|it's a very big one - the crucial temporal difference in knowledge.
But anyway - so on your logic, how come no-one gives a stuff about what happends in other places - Africa springs to mind - where that kind of slaughter and genocide are commonplace?
Because there in no self-interest angle perhaps?
|That's not a small step||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 6, 2003 10:18 AM
|Well, we have that "crucial temporal knowledge" on Iraq and we should act on it. It is one of the many reasons we should remove Saddam from power.
I think the world is getting less tollerant for these types of slaughters. The US did not have much interest in Kosovo, but we went there. The UN should step in on countries with goverments that do that type of large scales slaughters. Lets hope we can prevent these killings in the future by letting governments know they will not be able to get away with it. Milosivic & Hussain can be the first examples.
|Agreed, but||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 10:28 AM
|I think you choose bad examples. Even with NATO "will" Milsosvic went unhindered and then unapprhended for a very long time. Even now, his trial is rapidly becoming farcical.
Similarly, Hussain has got on quite happily for years and years - ever since the job wasn't finished last time in particular.
I think where your approach has real merit, is in honesty and justification. Let's quit the "Powell justficication" fiasco stuff, and just say we are going to war to make an example of you. That's what it all boils down to in the end anyway.
|Try looking to the future||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 6, 2003 10:44 AM
|If we let people get away with it now, they will think it is OK in the future. We do not need any more leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Hussain or Pol Pot.
Powell was just responding specifically to the UN inspectors yesterday. There are greater reasons to take out Saddam that he did not touch upon. The failure of the inspections is just one of them. The idea that France, Germany and Russia would permit the ongoing killings because they can get cheap oil is unconsionable.
|Many people consider Bush to be the next Hitler.||Tig|
Feb 6, 2003 8:45 AM
|I sure hope they are wrong! I don't mean foreign detractors, but native born American citizens. Wacko's perhaps, or students of history?
His over-agressive attitude does frighten me sometimes. Not at a Hitler level though.
|I should have said, "Some people". -nm||Tig|
Feb 6, 2003 8:56 AM
|Agree to a large extent...||Wayne|
Feb 6, 2003 8:39 AM
|a united UN threatening military action against Iraq if they don't comply would siginificantly increase the likelihood of a peaceful resolution of this issue. Saddam couldn't possibly be so stupid as to think he will get away with standing up to an impending western military strike for a second time, could he?|
Feb 6, 2003 9:22 AM
|I read a news analysis article awhile back on Saddam. In it, the writer was quoting Qaddafi, who knows Hussein fairly well, as saying the Saddam is prone to misjudgements. He thinks that Saddam is "rational" but proceeds on flawed assumptions. So yes, he is stupid enough to think he can stare down the U.S. and/or the U.N.|
|There's a vast cultural gulf that seperates us...||sn69|
Feb 6, 2003 10:03 AM
|...and that doesn't even take into account the man's apparent megalomania. Your question, however, is a good one. I think the best answer was provided by Saeb Erekat during a Frontline interview about the collapse of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. Erekat, incidentally, is Arafat's lead negotiator, and by most accounts the only "honest" leadership within the Palestinian gov't.
His point was in reference to preceived strength as a function of the Arab cultural norms. Whereas they--the PLO/Palestinian Fatah gov't--regarded Israel's withdrawl from the Bekkah valley as a major concession and peace offering, Hamas and Hezbollah regarded it as a military victory in spite of the massive casualties they suffered during the IDF occupation. Ereket's point was that in the Arab cultural paradigm, strength is perceived as a function of persistance and survival, not necessarily traditional military success. (It was a fascinating Frontline if you ever get to see it.)
Having spoken with several DOS foreign service officers, intelligence weenies and various other high ranking DOD people, I've started to believe that Saddam is not too far removed from that way of thinking. Specifically, he's a tenacious survivor who clawed (and murdered) his way to the top of the Ba'ath party, and who's perceived power is not only a function of domestic terror, but also of his ability to survive. Neveryoumind that his "survival" is a theatrical show of epic proportions including mobile command posts, staged events and a half dozen dopplegangers, secret TanTan Makut/Stazi-esque police, death camps, etc....
I think Saddam thinks/knows/realizes/fantasizes (whatever) that he bested the United States by not only surviving the Gulf War, but also by flaunting the UN resolutions since then. By his estimation, we'll back down like the spineless, weak, decadent Infidel pig-dogs that we are...either that or the rest of the Muslim world will rally to his cause simply to stand-up to Infidel aggression. Look at how he's attempted to court both Iran and Kuwait--countries that he's engaged militarily in the past. Yes, he's that clueless, but he's rational enough to know that if he can delay long enough, another president will eventually be in charge and the American agenda might change.
Much like Hitler was, he's an odd contradition in rational cognitive ability and bizarro, homicidal goofiness.
|re: Was that it?||Pygme|
Feb 6, 2003 10:23 AM
|This is why I dont come to cycling boards to gain political insight.
It was nice troll bait though. Good show.