Powell's case on Iraq... Definite Ownage against the Iraqi's

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Quick point of fact.

The USA only needs Congress to agree to declare war.  We do not, nor have ever needed the UN to agree with us.  There are no special rules.  It's the law.  The only thing special is that the USA has acted with the UN so much in the past 20 years, and not on it's own.

Study your history Bondo.  The precident was set long long ago, before the USA was even a country.  And it's been repeated throughout history.  The USA will not be setting any precident if they attack Iraq.  200 years ago, everybody in the world would have expected it long ago.

Yes yes yes, go ahead and say we should have evolved and should be better.  That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  I'm just saying that you are wrong.  Being that far off base weakens your point, that the USA should be better then that.

The plain and simple truth is, Saddam is a madman.  He is a ruthless murdering bastard.  And, no matter what other issues are out there, he should not be allowed to have weapons such as these under any circumstances.  If (again, IF) he has them, it needs to be stopped.  He has proven his willingness to use them in the past, and there is nothing to make me believe he wouldn't again in the future, given the chance.  So it doesn't really matter if it is innocent Americans, Russians, Isrealies, Iranians, Saudi's, or anyone else.  If he has them, he will murder innocents with them.  And he will not do it with the intention of not killing innocents, he will do it with the full intention of killing anyone in his way.  So, some innocents are going to die if he has them.  I'd much rather it be UN forces, that at least attempt not to kill innocents doing it, then that crazy bastard.

Oh, and I say again, those Iraq women that are forming human shields (another new article about them today), they are no longer non-combatents or innocent.  They are putting themselves in harms way, defending him.  

[EUR_Zaitsev]

That last post made me.....all the more stupid for reading it. I have to go to school and i will be laughing at Buccs ignorence the whole way

[Ghost of Bondo]

Way to not provide one puny little example/proof of your point Bucc.  When has the US attacked another country preemptively because it posed a threat.  I'm not talking about attacking because they attacked us, or attacking because we are defending another nation that was attacked.  I'm talking about attacking because, despite the country not having taken any military action against any other country, they pose a threat.

But if it isn't a new precedent, then I guess N. Korea, Iraq, and any other country we threaten to go to war with has full right in the world scene to declare war and attack.  And as they say all's fair in war...don't expect their military strategy be one that puts them head to head with ours.

[Info-Man]

Everyone, thank you for your input.

Zaitsev, you say Bucc's post made you all the more stupid and how you will be laughing at his ignorence. Well, one, Bucc made facts not stupid opinions.So if facts make you stupid, then I feel sorry for you. The only opinion he made was that he would rather have innocent civillians being killed by U.N forces trying to put down a mad man before he can cause more harm and death, rather than having a mad man slaughter the innocent before we act. And if we act after he uses these weapons on his own people or others, casualties will be far greater than if we didnt act before. Freedom and security come at a price.

Tell me Zaitsev, which would you rather have? 1,000 innocent civillians die  or  10,000?

But if it isn't a new precedent, then I guess N. Korea, Iraq, and any other country we threaten to go to war with has full right in the world scene to declare war and attack.? And as they say all's fair in war...don't expect their military strategy be one that puts them head to head with ours.

Bondo, read my last post.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Sorry, missed your post with the page change.  I agree that Iraq would get crushed...but it is the theory that is important.  And the UN technically should punish the US if the US attacks.

Secondly, the US hasn't proven itself to much of the world.  Unless saying you have proof is proof enough.  In which case once again other countries could just claim they have proven the threat.

[Cossack]

Sadaam, god damn sadaam. I am going to a Clinton speech tomorrow, will post what I think of it later. I do not like Clinton's endorsements of President George II.  I think Powell's argument is not very good. Iraq has chemical weapon CONTAINERS. I hear the word containers and boxes and empty chemical warheads used alot. The inspectors have not found actual weapons. Then one has to wonder, are these countries developing weapons because they want to defend themselves? Are they scared we will attack? I have only seen the Al Quada Orginization attack us, and that was 3,000 people. Hell Al Quada had killed more Russian troops in Chechnya than that. You dont see Putin bombing the living shit outta Afghanstan, although he has threatened invasion a few times. The fact still remains, you do not see Russia, who has suffered more casualties to Al Queada going off and invading other countries. Do not give me the typical American red neck shit, " The Russian army sucks, you suck, they cant take a country down" The thing is, Americans as a whole dont know their effect. I think George II is the reincarnation of Nero, George is a baffoon. Your SUV driving, your damn brown nosing in our buissness, you fucking tell other nations that their democracy is not "enlightened enough" yet you are taking away civil liberties. Hypocrites! I know I am gonna make many enemies with this post, but really, if you justify this than you are what I spit on. You disgust me. Back in Russia I idolized America. I wanted to grow up to reform my country to be like America in civil liberties, but now that I have lived here, I am truley sickened at your government's hypocracy. Dont get me wrong, your spirit is amazing, you all mean to do good, but god damnit so many of you people are ignorant. I am not just saying this to right wing republicans, I am saying this to total leftist nuts like Zaitsev and Bondo. Some Americans are in the midset: "If its European, its right!" It seems Americans are either fanaticaly loyal to the crown of George II, or want to make America just like Europe, sacraficing the American identity. Now that I have ended my rant. I will wear off my hangover with a few drinks.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I agree with everything Cossack had to say...especially the total leftist nut part

[alaric]

Cossack is right, we Americans do have a tendancy to over-react to things. I think our invasion of Afghanistan was justified. But it should stop here, there's been no reason given to explain the need for an immeadiate attack on Iraq. Yeah, Saddam is a bad dude but sometime it's best to leave well enough alone. We might be able to defeat Saddam's army easily and with few casualties on our side but there would be a huge cost for us in international relations. Right now, it's just not worth the price. Someday it might be, but that day is not today.

Also, I too am disgusted with the hipocracy of the American Government. This USA PATRIOT Act shit has to stop. Yeah, yeah, national security protect American lives etc. But there comes a time when we have to ask: Is destroying our enemies worth destroying ourselves?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

To think like an economist for a second...when trying to do a Benefit Cost Analysis of going to war, I can't imagine a scenario in which attacking Iraq has a positive result.  The possible benefits are Iraq will be "liberated" and have a good goverment installed that can actually lead its people.  Oil supply would be better and gas prices would go down.  Possible attack on Americans with WMD could be avoided.

Now the costs...we'll increase hatred by extremist and even some moderate Muslims.  We'll increase resentment from Europe over the US's all powerful attitude.  We increase the chance of a terrorist attack happening with the increased hatred mentioned earlier.  We run the risk of Saddam setting his oil rigs on fire causing incredible ecological devestation as well as likely raising gas prices.  We'll spend billions perhaps trillion/s between the war, rebuilding Iraq, and if it happened putting out the fires on the oil rigs.  thousands of American soldiers may die and millions of Iraqi soldiers and civilians...especially if biological/chemical weapons are used.  Add in all the other costs associated with such a huge deficit in the national budget on an already stressed economy with bankrupt state goverments.

From an economic view (economics and money are not the same despite popular use of the term) the war makes no sense.  The value of protecting America and correcting human rights violations does not make up for the great costs of doing so.

[tasty]

With this war and unnecessary tax cuts for the rich, Bush Jr. has destroyed the surplus Clinton built. Back to financial irresponsibility. There's my outraged rant for the day.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Tasty, money aint everything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If Saddam is proven to have chemical, biological or nucular weapons, or even to be shown trying to make or acquire them, why shouldn't he be stopped?

Someone answer that.

It's great to say you are against war, and war sucks, and innocents shouldn't die.  Who doesn't think that way?  Madmen like Saddam maybe.  But everyone here agrees that war sucks and innocents shouldn't die.

But does anyone think that if Saddam has or gets these weapons, innocents wont die?

Again, bashing Bush (and rightfully so in most cases) doesn't mean siding with Iraq.  That's childish thinking, but many people are doing it.  The issues in Iraq are not a Bush thing, and it shouldn't be turned into one, no matter how you feel about him.

Cossack, one added point to your post.  About the containers.  One of the things the US has been after that Iraq has been fighting is overflights by U2's to help the inspectors.  The US wants to put spy planes in the air over Iraq to help the inspectors find them.  Someone tell me why that issue shouldn't be forced?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Here is one reason Saddam shouldn't be stopped if he has or is trying to get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons...we have them.  As for the U2 flights, Iraq has recently conceeded that and the flights will resume.  My question is...do you really think Iraq can develop/use these WMD while the inspectors and U2 planes and such are looking all around?  No, I certainly don't think they can.  By having these things we keep the bad things from happening without war.  It puts things on hold for a while.

Another thing...you said that millions of Iraqis were dying because of the embargo...here's an idea.  We don't do that so those millions don't die.  We force Saddam to allow UN peacekeepers to move in and let, through the UN, the world supply Iraqis with food and other necessities.  This is what France, Germany, and Russia is suggesting (well, extending the inspectors and moving in peacekeepers).  I think it is a sound policy compared to war.

[abe]

Here is one reason Saddam shouldn't be stopped if he has or is trying to get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons...we have them

what kind of a dumb argument is that??? bondo, you are ignoring the fact the president of the US got there by being elected (well, and having his daddy's buddy's on the supreme court and his brother in the florida governors mansion, true), while saddam got where he is by murdering half of his family, terrorizing an entire country and starting wars. furthermore, the US isnt (officially) developing offensive biological or chemical weaponry and what we do have is to produce vaccines and antidotes (i suggest bondo doesnt get any if we do get attacked by such weapons, j/k) ) anyways i feel better about the WMDs we have because i have some degree of confidence, if not in george bush the noob, then in the US military, which i don't have in saddam or the iraqi military. could you picture bush and cheney gassing a village in vermont because they didnt vote for them? has anyone in your family had their children tortured in front of them because they were democrats and not republicans....? in iraq this stuff happens, so any comparison is unwarranted.
as for the UN oil for food program: it is a joke. saddam and his cronies have been diverting oil destined for that program and smuggling it through turkey ever since it began. that gives them foreign currency (read US$) which they use to a) strengthen their grip on power by handing out money to loyal supporters (even more effective now that UN sacntions have made everyone dirt poor) and b) buying weapons and equipipment in contravention of the UN embargo. the only reason russia and france support this plan you mention is because iraq owes them big time for arms purchases made before the gulf war and they want their money back. a new regime is likely to refuse paying those debts since they were accumulated by saddam. germany is a different story, although im sure they have debts to collect as well.
the point im trying to make bondo is that iraq has made a mokery of the UN for almost 12 years by cheating and lying, and that the counties that are oppising military pressure are just playing into his hands. can u imagine what kind of leverage he would have if UN troops were IN iraq. we couldnt bomb and they could simply take UN troops hostage like the bosnian serbs did in the mid 90s by chaning frech, dutch and british peacekeepers to potential nato targets during the air strikes there. i have great respect for the UN and i think its an important institution, especially today. but unless the UNs members can actually rally up some muscle and show that they are not just about talk, it will not deter people like saddam from breaking its rules. keep that in mind: he has broken chapter 7 security council resolutions. the UN charter even calls for a security council task force that can intervene in these situation but this article was never implemented.
i too believe in multilateralism and international cooperation, but what is going to happen if we can't collectivly deter bad guys? are we just going to let them get away with it and threaten us and our interests?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Here is one reason Saddam shouldn't be stopped if he has or is trying to get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons...we have them

what kind of a dumb argument is that???

I never said it was a good reason...I just said it was a reason...which is all Bucc asked for.

[Info-Man]

Here is one reason Saddam shouldn't be stopped if he has or is trying to get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons...we have them
what kind of a dumb argument is that???
I never said it was a good reason...I just said it was a reason...which is all Bucc asked for.

Bondo, just about every country has biological weapons. It isn't the fact that we have those weapons, its the fact that Saddam WILL use them, if given the opportunity.

And for Abe, you said just about what i was going to say to Bondo, if you didn't post  

As for the U2 flights, Iraq has recently conceeded that and the flights will resume.? My question is...do you really think Iraq can develop/use these WMD while the inspectors and U2 planes and such are looking all around? No...

Not to be mean or anything, but that is wrong. Of course the Iraqis can produce such weapons while inspections and U2 flights are flying over. It's called "underground bunkers" such as the ones that are presumed to be under Saddams palaces. And since Iraq isn't fully complying with the resolution 1441 which as for unconditional inspections, where as the inspectors can search anywhere they feel would be hiding such weapons.

As you are aware, Iraq is just buying time with the U-2 flights. A fact that Bush brought up, was that we are not there for U-2 flights. We are there to see that Saddam is disarming, which is obviously not doing well. He hasn't accounted for about 30,000 weapons.

People say that the U.S has to prove that Iraq isn't disarming, but what you need to know, is that Iraq is the one that needs to prove it IS disarming.

France has said that Iraq could be delt with, with Peace Keepers and tougher inspections, as you brought up Bondo and Abe. Abe brought up a good point with the Peace Keepers being used as prevention from us bombing Iraq. Or in other terms, using the U.N P.K's as a shield for Saddam to continue his mad regime.

France on the other hand is not being considerate to the other ally nations, such as Turkey. France used its veto power to not send in Patriot missles and other protection weapons against Missle attacks from Iraq, to Turkey. Some allies they have. And for your information, Turkey is a member of NATO. It bugs me that France, our ally, whom which we have protected for nearly 50+ years basicly won't let us protect other countries.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Here is one reason Saddam shouldn't be stopped if he has or is trying to get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons...we have them.

Too stupid to warrent a real reply.  Besides the fact that he's proven to use them ruthlessly and has signed agreements saying he wont have them.

My question is...do you really think Iraq can develop/use these WMD while the inspectors and U2 planes and such are looking all around?  No, I certainly don't think they can.  

Yes, I do.  The UN inspectors have been hampered and are not getting full access or cooperation.  And there aren't enough of them to see everything.    So yes, I think they could have stockpiles of them hidden (remember, he hasn't accounted for even close to the amounts he was supposed to destroy).

And Yes, I do think he could use them.  While the news has talked about large scale delivery systems, all it takes is one madman with the right biological infection to infect millions.  How do you stop that?  Only one way to be sure, don't let the weapon exist in the first place.

Another thing...you said that millions of Iraqis were dying because of the embargo...here's an idea.  We don't do that so those millions don't die.  

What??  Abandon the peaceful ways of protesting??  What should we do, call him a dumbass on some internet forums?  Oh, wait, here:

We force Saddam to allow UN peacekeepers to move in and let, through the UN, the world supply Iraqis with food and other necessities.  This is what France, Germany, and Russia is suggesting (well, extending the inspectors and moving in peacekeepers).  I think it is a sound policy compared to war.

How do you exactly "force" him?  Wouldn't that be a war if he resists?  He's already not followed other UN resolutions, you think he'd just lay down and accept this?

Sending in Peacekeepers is pretty much the same result as sending in UN sanctioned troops in my opinion.  So I back that.  Oh, France is just backing the extra inspectors from what I've read, so if you have seen something new, post it please.  

But like I said, there's only one way to force.

But either way, by no means should we lift embargos while Iraq still hasn't followed directives from the past.  Not until they do.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

On NBC news last night is where I saw about the French/German/Russian plan of having more inspectors plus peacekeeping troops.

As for how we'd force it...yes, you use or war...but I think Saddam would rather have UN Peacekeepers than US army attack...I think if you keep pressure on him he can slowly fold and be dealt with in a way that is beneficial to war.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

People say that the U.S has to prove that Iraq isn't disarming, but what you need to know, is that Iraq is the one that needs to prove it IS disarming.

Yes according to the previous agreements.  But people keep forgetting this.  Why?

Oh, as for France and their stance on Turkey (and Belgiums, but they follow whatever France does, and everyone know is), this shouldn't surprise you.  Disgust you, maybe, but not surprise you.  They have always been the fence sitters in NATO.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Info Man you want facts I will give you facts:

IT IS A FACT that attacking Iraq gurentees we get attacked by terrorists.
IT IS A FACT we financialy funded Iraq's weapons programs (specifically offensive missiles to defeat Iran)
IT IS A FACT that we hated being attacked 9-11 and now we are going to do the same thing to some one else.


NOW  a big lesson for a Info-Man and sometimes Buccaneer doesnt get this either you ready??

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
do you wonder why our terror warning is HIGH

[abe]

Zaitsev, thats pretty a loose definition of fact there. smells more like opinion to me.....and whats worse some pretty uninformed opinion.

it is a fact, according to our fbi and intelligence community, that a terrorist attack is currently guaranteed, whether we attack iraq or not. we have been expecting attacks and trying to prevent them (with some success) independantly of what is happening in the persian gulf.

it is a fact that iraq's offensive missle capability consists mainly of modified SCUD missles that were made in the soviet union. we helped with a lot of satillite imagery  and some military equipment during the iran-iraq war. much of his arsenal was supplied by european countries as well, but i guess thats pretty much irrelevant, right? (sarcasm)

it is a fact that we "hated being attacked" on september 11th and that we wan't to prevent the same thing (or much much worse) from ever happening again. if you have a problem with that then i suggest you volunteer as a victim of the next attack.

zaitzev, im not going to lecture you on being young or ignorant, but get your facts straight!! the United States HAS done some pretty nasty things and supported many bad people in it's time and i'm sure everyone here is aware of them (including buccaneer and info-man). but what u don't understand is that our enemies in this case don't hate US for anything specific, but simply because we are the dominant western power.
if it were france, they would all hate france the most and you would be telling me about how the evil french foreign legion comitted massacres on the poor helpless vietnamese or algerians and how now, that the eiffel tower was blown up by terrorists, they are going to do it to the poor iraqis and the poor afghanis. Please, just grow up and make your own opinions! If you cant just shut up for the time being.