I just heard this morning on the news, maybe about 3 hours ago, that Bush intends to seek a declaration of war against Iraq today. Anyone else hear this? I checked CNN with no luck. I'll try some other web sites too.
Bush going for declaration of war today?!?!?
- Thread starter kherman
- Start date
I won't say he definately won't..............but I doubt he will...............makes no sense! (but then what does these days????
)
I suppose according to the new Gallop results he's got the support from the US though..................Approval rating over 70% again and if I recall most thought military action will be needed in Iraq and most would approve if we did.....................
) I suppose according to the new Gallop results he's got the support from the US though..................Approval rating over 70% again and if I recall most thought military action will be needed in Iraq and most would approve if we did.....................
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
- Oct 17, 2001
- 4,041
- 1
- 0
I agree we shouldn't do it(yet). I think it might be a move to call Saddams (probable) bluff. I think this agreement by Iraq is just a delay tactic.
If Bush gets approval from Congress, there's only one step l;eft. A declaration of war. Knowing that it is eminant, Saddam will be forced to cave on the demands of the UN, which the UN is still drafting right now. I hope they say that a new regime will be put in place in the demands.
If Bush gets approval from Congress, there's only one step l;eft. A declaration of war. Knowing that it is eminant, Saddam will be forced to cave on the demands of the UN, which the UN is still drafting right now. I hope they say that a new regime will be put in place in the demands.
Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
Oh, no, it's already happened!
Bush deploys U.S. troops to West Nile
LOL!
And it sounds so real too
It's not going to be a "declaration of war". It will just a resolution issued by Congress supporting him and authorizing him to take an necessary action. We haven't had a "declaration of war" since WW2.
308nato
Platinum Member
- Feb 10, 2002
- 2,674
- 0
- 0
Thank you. I thought a lot had happened since I had went to get coffee. Last I had heard the house was going to vote on a resolution the first week of October with the Senate to follow.
Then I saw declaration of war and thought wtf has happened. Is Pearl burning again ?
Let me get this straight:
1) Bush wants authorization from Congress for enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq, even though his administration has shown open contempt for many UN policies and resolutions and administration lawyers say it's unnecessary.
2) Bush went to the UN to rally support for a resolution to authorize enforcement arguing primarily the imminent threat posed by WMD.
3) Bush officials are now pressing for language from Congress that authorizes regime change and the official policy for months has been find a way to get Saddam "by any means necessary".
4) Bush wants this resolution before the UN Security Council decides even though he hasn't made a decision about the necessity of military action against Iraq (according to Rumsfeld this morning).
5) The same Rumsfeld (plus Cheney) were saying "when" not "if" just last week.
6) Now that the UN is beginning to gear up for inspections the problem is no longer inspections (which many of the resolutions explicitly relate) but the regime. The administration has pulled out the stops to show why inspections WON'T work and Saddam can't be trusted. The former is illogical considering that was a primary complaint. The latter is the ONLY thing world leaders agree about.
7) Rumsfeld scratched his arse with his elbow trying not to answer questions about the troop and financial requirement for an operation. Reasonable not to give away troop requirement but you can't dodge Congress on cost. A more interesting question is what happens afterwards. Rumsfeld's answer sounded a lot like "hope for the best and a lot of help" plus "they've got oil to pay for it".
I'm not sure what's more troubling. Members of the Executive that appear to be lying and/or unprepared versus members of Congress that don't challenge them.
1) Bush wants authorization from Congress for enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq, even though his administration has shown open contempt for many UN policies and resolutions and administration lawyers say it's unnecessary.
2) Bush went to the UN to rally support for a resolution to authorize enforcement arguing primarily the imminent threat posed by WMD.
3) Bush officials are now pressing for language from Congress that authorizes regime change and the official policy for months has been find a way to get Saddam "by any means necessary".
4) Bush wants this resolution before the UN Security Council decides even though he hasn't made a decision about the necessity of military action against Iraq (according to Rumsfeld this morning).
5) The same Rumsfeld (plus Cheney) were saying "when" not "if" just last week.
6) Now that the UN is beginning to gear up for inspections the problem is no longer inspections (which many of the resolutions explicitly relate) but the regime. The administration has pulled out the stops to show why inspections WON'T work and Saddam can't be trusted. The former is illogical considering that was a primary complaint. The latter is the ONLY thing world leaders agree about.
7) Rumsfeld scratched his arse with his elbow trying not to answer questions about the troop and financial requirement for an operation. Reasonable not to give away troop requirement but you can't dodge Congress on cost. A more interesting question is what happens afterwards. Rumsfeld's answer sounded a lot like "hope for the best and a lot of help" plus "they've got oil to pay for it".
I'm not sure what's more troubling. Members of the Executive that appear to be lying and/or unprepared versus members of Congress that don't challenge them.
Actually, that's already "official" US policy toward Saddam per President Clinton's legislation of 1998!
Well, close I guess.........CNN just posted that Bush has sent a resolution to Congress to authorize use of military force as soon as Saddam flinches on "Unconditional Inspections".....................CNN reports the measure is almost certain to be overwhelmingly approved immeadiately...............
My point is you can't command the world stage with pleas of help and challenges of "relevance" talking about saving the WORLD from WMD when your true goal is regime change . . . apparently change to any regime except the current one. It's a bait and switch. If we went to the UN with "Saddam has got to go" b/c he's a bad man we would get minimal international support. Bush went with the story of enforcing UN resolutions b/c the threat was from WMD.
Per Rumsfeld we don't know what will come after Saddam. If you believe him we just want to get rid of Saddam by force b/c that's the ONLY way to destroy the Iraqi weapons program. Per prior history we know that's untrue . . . UNSCOM
Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq produced enough chemical and biological weapons material to kill the world's population several times over. It is still trying to procure weapons technology. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed more weapons than were destroyed during the whole of the Gulf War. Its work is vital to the security of the entire Middle East.
The UN needs a legitimate program of inspection with adequate forces to move at will regardless of Saddam's "conditions" and NO involvement from the US akin to UNSCOM spying.
On January 6, the Washington Post?s Barton Gellman revealed in a front-page article, sourced to "advisors" and "confidants" of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, that Annan had "obtained what he regards as convincing evidence that United Nations arms inspectors helped collect eavesdropping intelligence used in American efforts to undermine the Iraqi regime." A similar story appeared in the same day?s Boston Globe.
Iraq had frequently accused UNSCOM arms inspectors of being conduits for American spying, and was often joined in its criticism of the disarmament agency by U.N. Security Council members like France and Russia.
But Gellman, who had produced some of the best and most enterprising coverage of UNSCOM during the past year, had known about the UNSCOM-spying story for months--all the way down to its "operational details," such as the brand names of surveillance equipment used in eavesdropping operations--and was in a position to publish what he knew by early October 1998. But at the behest of a senior U.S. government official, he and the Washington Post?s top management chose not to reveal the extent of U.S. intelligence?s links to (and possible abuse of) UNSCOM, for reasons of "national security."
As the head of a sovereign state, even POS like Saddam have rights. Now if we had supported the ICC and appropriate enforcement powers Saddam would surely be ripe for the picking. Instead we are caught up in this dance with Saddam, the UN, and the court of public opinion.
For those that trumpet Bush approval ratings, no news is good news from Afghanistan. The US economy continues to sputter as every level of government faces deficits +/- tax INCREASES and budget CUTS. Our good news comes from Pakistan yet another US-backed (marriage of convenience) dictator who creates/then enforces the law as he sees fit.
ATOT used to be filled with Arafat, Sharon, Enron, and Microso$t. Israelis are still dying from suicide bombers. Palestinians still live under a state of seige. Ken Lay still has money. And Gates is still trying to rule the computerized world. I'm not saying Bush is politicizing this issue but his timing seriously stinks and his operatives are playing it up.
We are better off paying the UN (dues) to do a mediocre job than getting involved at this junction. A new inspection regime has a greater chance for success if Americans (and possibly Brits) are not members. Make Russians and French go . . . on an operation run by tight arsed Scandinavians and Jordanians. Keep the pressure on Saddam by keeping the focus on Saddam. Every time Bush or some other mouthpiece talks about us . . . it sounds like WE are the issue not the POS from Baghdad.
Per Rumsfeld we don't know what will come after Saddam. If you believe him we just want to get rid of Saddam by force b/c that's the ONLY way to destroy the Iraqi weapons program. Per prior history we know that's untrue . . . UNSCOM
Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq produced enough chemical and biological weapons material to kill the world's population several times over. It is still trying to procure weapons technology. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed more weapons than were destroyed during the whole of the Gulf War. Its work is vital to the security of the entire Middle East.
The UN needs a legitimate program of inspection with adequate forces to move at will regardless of Saddam's "conditions" and NO involvement from the US akin to UNSCOM spying.
On January 6, the Washington Post?s Barton Gellman revealed in a front-page article, sourced to "advisors" and "confidants" of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, that Annan had "obtained what he regards as convincing evidence that United Nations arms inspectors helped collect eavesdropping intelligence used in American efforts to undermine the Iraqi regime." A similar story appeared in the same day?s Boston Globe.
Iraq had frequently accused UNSCOM arms inspectors of being conduits for American spying, and was often joined in its criticism of the disarmament agency by U.N. Security Council members like France and Russia.
But Gellman, who had produced some of the best and most enterprising coverage of UNSCOM during the past year, had known about the UNSCOM-spying story for months--all the way down to its "operational details," such as the brand names of surveillance equipment used in eavesdropping operations--and was in a position to publish what he knew by early October 1998. But at the behest of a senior U.S. government official, he and the Washington Post?s top management chose not to reveal the extent of U.S. intelligence?s links to (and possible abuse of) UNSCOM, for reasons of "national security."
As the head of a sovereign state, even POS like Saddam have rights. Now if we had supported the ICC and appropriate enforcement powers Saddam would surely be ripe for the picking. Instead we are caught up in this dance with Saddam, the UN, and the court of public opinion.
For those that trumpet Bush approval ratings, no news is good news from Afghanistan. The US economy continues to sputter as every level of government faces deficits +/- tax INCREASES and budget CUTS. Our good news comes from Pakistan yet another US-backed (marriage of convenience) dictator who creates/then enforces the law as he sees fit.
ATOT used to be filled with Arafat, Sharon, Enron, and Microso$t. Israelis are still dying from suicide bombers. Palestinians still live under a state of seige. Ken Lay still has money. And Gates is still trying to rule the computerized world. I'm not saying Bush is politicizing this issue but his timing seriously stinks and his operatives are playing it up.
We are better off paying the UN (dues) to do a mediocre job than getting involved at this junction. A new inspection regime has a greater chance for success if Americans (and possibly Brits) are not members. Make Russians and French go . . . on an operation run by tight arsed Scandinavians and Jordanians. Keep the pressure on Saddam by keeping the focus on Saddam. Every time Bush or some other mouthpiece talks about us . . . it sounds like WE are the issue not the POS from Baghdad.
Nice points and true, but, as mentioned above and confirmed by the French and even agreed to by the Russians today, yes, we have seen Saddam make these promises before......................IMHO everyone knows this offer will be as deceiving as the prior ones................
I reread your post a few times... you arent as bad as some say!
Regime change is necessary. Let me pose a couple questions to you. Why are UN inspections failing? What would allow UN inspections to succeed? How can this be accomplished?
The problem is Saddam. He is the one heading a government that is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. He is the one that has interefered with inspections for the last 11 years. Those reasons alone give cause for overthrowing Saddam. Now when you factor in ANY ties to Al Qaeda (as weak or strong as they may be), the case is strengthened, because while Saddam might have SOME sense of international politics that might give him pause, Al Qaeda only wants to kill as many Westerners as possible, and would not hesitate to use the most destructive thing in its arsenal.
Saddam is a bad man. He has killed his own people. He intends to kill many more. We have the ability to prevent that. Whatever regime takes his place cannot be any worse than he is. Saudi Arabia, who has the MOST to lose from a free Iraq, even agrees now.
If getting rid of Saddam could be accomplished through the wave of a wand or paiying him to leave, I would support that. It won't happen that way though.
On another note... hasn't the economy been GROWING for the past few quarters? Did I miss something?
Regime change is necessary. Let me pose a couple questions to you. Why are UN inspections failing? What would allow UN inspections to succeed? How can this be accomplished?
The problem is Saddam. He is the one heading a government that is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. He is the one that has interefered with inspections for the last 11 years. Those reasons alone give cause for overthrowing Saddam. Now when you factor in ANY ties to Al Qaeda (as weak or strong as they may be), the case is strengthened, because while Saddam might have SOME sense of international politics that might give him pause, Al Qaeda only wants to kill as many Westerners as possible, and would not hesitate to use the most destructive thing in its arsenal.
Saddam is a bad man. He has killed his own people. He intends to kill many more. We have the ability to prevent that. Whatever regime takes his place cannot be any worse than he is. Saudi Arabia, who has the MOST to lose from a free Iraq, even agrees now.
If getting rid of Saddam could be accomplished through the wave of a wand or paiying him to leave, I would support that. It won't happen that way though.
On another note... hasn't the economy been GROWING for the past few quarters? Did I miss something?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter