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

[Ace]

Bushaneer: Bah. So we have to attack RIGHT NOW! Yeah lets have a "Blitzkrieg" on Irak - instead of waiting a littlebit longer. Sounds a little blood thirsty to me.

Bander, we should have gone in years ago. Saddam has violated UN Resolution 687 so many times. Clinton was a moron and just sent a few cruise missiles in, thinking that Saddam would care. Yeah, right. We can wait and wait and wait for only so long before he annexes the Sudetenland and gets the ball rolling.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bushaneer: Bah. So we have to attack RIGHT NOW! Yeah lets have a "Blitzkrieg" on Irak - instead of waiting a littlebit longer. Sounds a little blood thirsty to me.

Bander, do you always make shit up and put it like other people said it?  There is a good reason to quote people, so you don't just make up this bullshit and pretend that they said it.

I've never used the word blitzkreg.  Hell, if you actually took 5 minutes out of your otherwise worthless life, you would see that I've been wanting to hear more too, and that I also thought sending in peacekeepers is a good idea, just that I think it wouldn't work.

But no, you have to make shit up, trying to make me look bloodthristy, because you are just looking to start more flames.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Mauti, I've said it a few times, and you keep ignoring me.? I read non us papers, all the time.? I have formed my own opinions.? Thanks.? But you have it wrong.? Iraq does have to prove it.? They agreed to that at the end of the Gulf War.? We are still waiting for them to prove they destroyed the WMD's they admitted to having back then.?
So I'm not the one forgetting, you are.? You are fogetting that they have to hold up thier end of the bargin.? You are forgetting what happened in the past when things like this were ignored.

First Bucc I wasn't ignoring you I just was tired to filter out the information that has nothing to do with your love with Bondo which btw doesn't belong in this thread.

Sorry Iraq doesn't have to proof it they just had to destroy all WMDs and agreed not to produce WMDs anymore and furthers they agreed to let UN inspectors control their facilities and all other locations where WMDs could be produced. Generally letting UN inspectors into the land and they don't find anything is proof enough not to start a silly war.

Info-Man sorry it wasn't my purpose to take this out of context. Btw I didn't refer to turkey I refered to their voice against war(that was before the turkey issue).

Abe I just took out one name - unfortunaly the austrian national TV website doesn't have an archive they had quotes of all newspapers and magazines - well look at the Times magazine with their cover of a US soldier graveyard in France and read it. This is pure bush propaganda.

About applauding to 11/9 is of course stupid I just mentioned it because at 11/9 I was at a combat exercise when we got alert and I saw that many soldiers(dumbasses imo) were happy about it.

As you can see I am not adding more points because I already said everything and I think it is clear now that just few of you WANT WAR AT ALL COSTS. That few of you can't wait until a "WMD excistance" proof is given. That's really sad but I respect your opinion.

Mauti

[Info-Man]

Sorry Iraq doesn't have to proof it they just had to destroy all WMDs and agreed not to produce WMDs anymore and furthers they agreed to let UN inspectors control their facilities and all other locations where WMDs could be produced.

Yes true Iraq HAS to destroy all WMD and agree not to produce anything, but the one part that is wrong, is the part where you say "Sorry Iraq doesnt have to proof it..." the thing is, Iraq HAS to prove they are disarming, in order for the U.N to lift the sanctions which were placed on Iraq after the Gulf War. All they have to do is prove to the world that they dont produce these weapons and this would end. If Iraq claims they have none of these, why can't they prove it? They have failed to turn over 30,000 chem warheads i believe. So if Iraq doesn't want war, just turn over the information, instead of trying to play stupid. And yes we should have proof of their deceiving, but as earlier stated, Powell has turned over a bunch of evidence of Iraq avoiding inspectors, moving sites, and other links with terrorist.

And I have also told about how stubborn Iraq is and how they will never let go of their lies, so I won't get into that.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Mauti, the way I read the resolution, Iraq did have to prove that it destroyed the stockpiles it had to the UN.  It's part of the agreement.  They also have yet to let UN inspectors have unrestricted access (you know, to the Palaces and other places the inspectores haven't been allowed to visit).

So I don't agree when you say they don't need to prove it.  When I'm reading that they do.

[abe]

mauti,

i suggest you read this: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

it is a copy of the latest UN resolution on iraq (1441) that was endorsed by the UN security council, including china, russia and france. the paragraphs beginning with "deploring" seem particularily pertinent to me. now you have it in the exact words of the UN: iraq is not living up to its obligations!

now, from what we know of saddam hussein's previous behaviour in international politics, including the 1990/91 fiasco and his dealings with the UN? that he only responds to force and threats, and that even then, he only gives in at the 11th hour when he has played all his cards and has to save his ass.

given that, and the fact that the entire UN security council agrees that his behavior is not acceptable, how are we going to get him to obey this resolution if not by the threat of military force and the willingness to back those threats up if necessary? diplomacy and sweet talking didnt get him out of kuwait and it wont get him to comply now either!

about the press thing: the only reason i went in on that is chose the ny times out of all the newspapers in the US as an example of non-objective journalism and "only trying to raise the hate". if you look at their op-ed page (or the front page for that matter) youll find they are very critical of the administration and anything but pro-war or US propaganda. now, if you were talking of time magazine (a subsidiary of aol-timewarner, same as CNN) that is a completely different story and i have to say that there i basically agree with you.

i actually prefer the european press myself, not because it isnt biased or slanted in any way (generally speaking, it is), but rather because it is far more inquisitive and usually goes deeper than the american press, in my opinion. at the same time  i pay attention to the american press as well however to get a picture of the whole story, as you were saying. my sources are usually the bbc, www.spiegel.de, the economist and google news is cool too.

anyways, i respect your opinions as well, and its important that people stand up and raise their concerns because the possibility of war is somthing all reasonable people want to avoid as much as is possible. nobody, apart from the real meatheads, wants war at all costs. but there is no use in categorically excluding the possibily of using armed force, unless we are living in a perfect world where no one can hurt anyone else. that most certainly isnt the case so we have to be ready to defend our security by, when needed, flexing military muscle and when not, using diplomacy to avoid having to go to war. right now, the US government, which has access to a hell of a lot more information than any of us, thinks that the first option is needed and i happen to agree with them based on the the document i quoted at the beginning of my post and what iraq's general attitude towards the UN has been.

[abe the tard]

bah

i posted the wrong link. that was the draft reslution from the US and UK (kind of ironic i find....). anyways, the final resolution (http://www.mideastweb.org/1441.htm) is pretty much a toned down version of the same thing.

sorry folks, its late and im tired....

[rhettmatic]

Mauti, I've said it a few times, and you keep ignoring me.  I read non us papers, all the time.  I have formed my own opinions.  .

It's an fact (an scientific fact!) that only stupid europeans sailed to amerika 300 years ago.........well , thats one  fact we "all" know for 100%....... the other fact we all know is that europe doesn't get that much oil as the USA, wich is the only reason france tries to slow down the "commercial" for the US-army.
not because of PEACE(wuhahaha)...It's so funny that US-people think that europeans are afraid of war.....(good propaganda from junior)
no one killed so many people like european countries(that's nothing to be proud of it; don't get me wrong G.W bush influenced people) ... so the US has been attacked for only one time in it's hole "history"........people don't know how to handle that-> they have extrem FEAR....(even bigger than of black people )....an with fear you can't make an uninfluenced opinion when junior is talking to you  on TV (every day)

It makes no sence to be against the USA , beacause this war is an RUMSFELD-war,  (reliable since 25 years->vietnam...no one can stop Donald )
but it's also extremly stupid to think an war will stop terrorism......it's just an economy-fresh up

[*DAMN Mauti]

Alright now we come a little bit forwards, that's good. - Bucc I also added that if the UN inspectors didn't find anything it should be proof enough.

How can you proof that you have nothing? - An example: the police claims that you have drugs. How can you proof that you don't have drugs? You can't except letting them search your house and if they find nothing it should be proven that you don't have drugs. Yes of course you could have hid them somewhere else. There can't be a 100% proof that you have nothing, or!? That's the reason for: INNOCENT UNTIL  GUILTY HAS BEEN PROVEN.

You say that the UN inspectors don't have unlimited access to Sadaams palaces. I think that's true and probably that wouldn't be a bad argument to set Iraq under pressure. It's only interesting that this argument haven't been mentioned in any recent Bush, Powell or Rumsfeld speech so maybe they have unlimited access I don't know.

About the 30.000 warheads(sounds very much for me). They could have been destroyed in the Gulf war and  if the UN inspectors can't find even ONE of them there are probably none or much less.

So there are still no proofs to start a war and Abe I never excluded the possibility of using armed forces. I just would like to see a proof that Sadaam has some bad ass weapons. If he breaks the agreement consequences can be decided, whatever they are, but currently I don't see the necessary to start a war.

Mauti

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Well Mauti, I don't think your analogy fits the situation.  It would be more like the polliceman pulled you over for doing something wrong, you admitted to having a kilo of drugs.  He said he wouldn't punish you for those if you proved that you destroyed them before he cam back, but when he came back, you claimed it was only a few ounces, and didn't have any proof that you said you'd give.

Now, I'll give you the words right from Blix.  Yes, I watched this live again so that I could judge for myslef and not just take the clips from the news.

Blix said that in the declaration submitted by Iraq (in response to the USA's pressure) back in December, they omitted data needed to account for their past stocks of anthrax, VX gas and long range missiles.  And for the really good part, I'll quote him:

"Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it," he said. "Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

So you can see where the UN stands on who has to prove it.  Iraq.

Other things I noticed:
Half the ambassadors weren't listening or taking notes (Powell was taking a shit load of notes).  They read from prepared speaches after Blix.  They had made up their minds before Blix ever came to the table.  That's bullshit, no matter which side of the argument you are on.

Of note for those that will say the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, they did find things that are proscribed, just not full weapons.  Like rocket engines 5 times more powerful then allowed.

One thing I found very funny was that the aluminum tubes that much hub-bub is about.  Some people claim that these are built to the specs to use in the purification of uranium.  Iraq says it's just for building missile casings.  Well, the UN told them to destroy those before because that was for the making of missle casing that they aren't allowed to have anyway.  Classic.

One thing I found disturbing is how few actual inspectors there are in the 250 people there, and how few inspections they've done.  I don't consider 400 inspections in a country the size of Iraq to be a big number.  I could hide anything from 100 inspectors in just the city of Detroit, let alone the whole state.

A last thought.  Things that the UN has been wanting for over 10 years they are just starting to get.  U2 fly overs, the ability to interview people without observers, for Saddam to declare it illegal to import or produce WMD's (he did that about an hour before Blix started today).  Does anyone think that Iraq finally gave into any of these things for any reason other then the looming threat of war?  They still have much more to do to keep up their end, so it's not time to back off either in my opinion.  If they come clean with all their responsibilities then war should be avoided.  Iraq is making steps in the right direction, but it has much further to go, and I don't think they are going to continue without that gun to their back (they have caved more in the last few months then in the previous 10 years, there is a reason for it.)

[abe]

If he breaks the agreement consequences can be decided, whatever they are, but currently I don't see the necessary to start a war.

the UN is in agreement that he has broken the resolution (687, passed in 1991). right now, the consequences are being decided and the US believe that those consequences should be millitary in nature, because thats the only thing saddam responds too.

the analogy of the drugs: this guy the police is going after is a known drug kingpin, who has many cronies and many sneaky ways of hiding drugs (as they have found out in previous raids on his property). since the guy is slick, the only evidence the cops are finding are empty crack vials, but sometimes the cops do overhear his gangsters talking about "moving the product" and have pictures of suspicious activity. everytime the police puts pressure on him, he acts like hes gonna cooperate, then slams the door on them. one day (lets say sept. 11th) a bunch of crackdealers go and murder off the cops' family so now the cops are very harsh and take not one more iota of shit from any drug dealer (indcluding the kingpin saddam one). cops threaten that if he doesnt stop having drugs, they will kick down his door and shoot their way in if necessary, and turn the ghetto from which he runs his drug buisness into a normal, livable area again. the people in that ghetto want the drugdealer to leave so they can finally live in peace, but that is only possible if the police come and help since the drugdealer kills everyone who tries to mess with him.

omg, i went off on a rant.....i love analogies. anyway the above is a more appropriate one in my opinion.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

LOL Abe, I started with an anology closer to yours, but had to shorten it because my post was too long.  But you are right, it's still more accurate your way.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Probably a summary of all 3 analogies hit the truth best.

Bucc that's all true but Blix said much more than this. He also stated that they haven't found any WMDs,but he adds that they aren't sure about the excistance of 1000 tons of anthrax and VX gas. The inspectors didn't have any troubles to enter all desired buildings. Some conventional missiles have a a to long range(30 - 40km to much). There aren't any proofs about a nuclear program...

Iraq is making steps in the right direction, but it has much further to go, and I don't think they are going to continue without that gun to their back (they have caved more in the last few months then in the previous 10 years, there is a reason for it.)

Sure set them under pressure. That's nothing I am against, enforce more controls. Give the inspectors helicopters so they are more independant...

Iraq needs a gun in their back but without the UN that wants more facts Bush would already reload his gun.

Bucc I hope that you come with me to the decision that a war isn't necessary yet. (I know you will never admit or if you do there will be a huge BUT hehe.)

IMO war should always be the last possibility as my posts hopefully expressed.

Greetz,

Mauti

[alaric]

Great analogies bucc, abe!

I've been thinking about this whole Iraq thing a lot recently, it's hard not to. It's become clear to me that military action will probably be neccesary in Iraq. It saddens me to say this because I hate war and up to this point I've been against taking military action in Iraq. I just didn't see why NOW was so important, containment just seemed like a better alternative.

Two things came together today to change my mind. Powell's speech today before the UN was one, a movie called "The Pianist" is the other. Powell's speech helped me realize that the burden of proof is on Iraq to come clean, we already fought one war over this if it takes a second war to finish it, that's entirely Saddam's fault. He is the one who is making it neccessary to take military action. If he would just cooperate completly there would be no need for violence.

The Pianist reminded me of the brutality of the german army during the occupation of Poland in WW2. It reminded me that we, not as Americans or Europeans, but as Members of the Human Race, have a moral responsibility to stop atrocities from happening. To stand by and let a government in power brutalize a people is inexcusable. The people of Iraq cannot wait any longer to be freed from Saddam's terrible power!

Now, that said, does this mean I think we should attack right now? No. I am all for giving one last chance, Saddam has had 12 years of last chances so what's the hurt in one more? Give him one more chance: Immeadiatly (within 24 hours) disclose the location of ALL banned materials. This is not negotiable. If he does not comply, fuck him.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Iraq needs a gun in their back but without the UN that wants more facts Bush would already reload his gun.

This is one thing I think you have wrong Mauti.  If Bush really wanted to, he could have already pulled the trigger.  And there are countries that would have joined him and have said as much.  The UN isn't stopping him (the UN has never said that the USA can't attack on it's own).  It would just be stupid to act alone at this point.  Give the man a little credit (he doesn't deserve much, but give what he has earned).  If he was as bloodthirsty as you guys make him out to be, we'd be at war already.

Bucc I hope that you come with me to the decision that a war isn't necessary yet. (I know you will never admit or if you do there will be a huge BUT hehe.)

IMO war should always be the last possibility as my posts hopefully expressed.

And Mauti, if you go back and read my early posts, you'll see that I feel the same way.  While fighting to make people understand that the burdon of proof is not on the USA or UN, but on IRAQ in many cases (which was repeated today in the UN), people have pegged me for thinking that we should already be at war.  I've never said that, quite the opposite.  I've said that I want to see more facts brought in myself.  I've just also said that you can't wait forever. that 10 years is long enough and the issue needs to be forced.  So, the ball is in Iraq's court in two ways.  It needs to live up to it's side of the bargin, and it needs to do it now.  

So I admit it then and I admit it now.  War isn't necessary yet.  The preperations for war are, and should continue.  They are the gun the UN is holding to make Iraq listen.  To put that gun away now would be just as stupid as to fire it now.  And if he drags his heels, it will come time to put the gun in his face (peacekeepers, troops there, etc).  And if it goes on after that, you have to be willing to fire the gun.  Otherwise, you shouldn't have pulled it out in the first place.  IMO.

Alaric, I applaud you on looking at issues and changing your mind, and would even if you took the other side.  It seems I came off as a war monger, just because I accept that war is sometimes a necessary thing, and that I think it will soon be necessary.  But you seem to get it.  No matter what you think of Bush, or his reasons, it doesn't change who Saddam is, what he has done, what he has agreed to and what we should do about it.  Bush isn't the issue, and shouldn't be made one.  That's a politicians trick, to make the issue about the opponant, not the real issues.  Hey, look over there.  Bush is a bad man.  And while your back is turned, I'll just hide this little thing over here.

Some people seem to hate the fact that I accept the ugly truths.  War is sometimes necessary.  Sometimes, you have to use violence to stop even more violence (like using a bomb to put out a fire).  So be it.  I wont hide my head in the sand from the truth that they can't handle.  Sure, peace is wonderful, and it would be great if we never, ever had to fight another war.  It would be great if I could live forever too.  I'll bet you any amount of money that neither of those things will happen.

[*DAMN Mauti]

I just want to post that I am really happy that we could discuss out a topic without ending in a flamewar.

Although probably none didn't change their opinions I think most see the picture from all sites now and also learned some interesting facts .

I hope we'll see more of those high quality discussions here.

Bye,

Mauti