Congress authorizes Pres. Bush to use force in Iraq

[Pocatello]

I'm sure Saddam will let the UN inspection teams to go back again without any threat from the US. Yeah right. Perhaps if we're nicer to Saddam, everything will be dandy.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: broon

A girl I like is in teh army.. so we are trying tf co figure out how to get her out of going on duty.. if called upon.

I can't stand this attitude. When you enlist or join the military you agree to fight. Period. If you won't fight when the time comes, get out now. All those that try and get out when they get orders to go to war should be dishonorably discharged, and fined or sent to jail for a short period of time.

Yea, what a wonderful Patriotic American he is.

I wonder if he hated war this much when Clinton was bombing Iraq.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: The_good_guy

Originally posted by: broon

A girl I like is in teh army.. so we are trying tf co figure out how to get her out of going on duty.. if called upon.

I can't stand this attitude. When you enlist or join the military you agree to fight. Period. If you won't fight when the time comes, get out now. All those that try and get out when they get orders to go to war should be dishonorably discharged, and fined or sent to jail for a short period of time.

She now realises that joining the army was a mistake.. blame it on false advertising.. she was like "hell yeah theywill pay for college.. 3K does not pay for college). She doesnt mind it execpt she is anti war. I am sorry, but there are certain things girls like her shouldnt be in. Though she is one of the lowest ranks possible.. sending her to war wont be any good.. she has other things to take care of.

She has complied with her sargent so far.. but she cant take a bossy sargent who doesnt have one percent of "humanity" in him. She is a pretty girl. I love her... and she knows that (though our love is more ceremonial than real).

Anyway she has done it so far.. its just that she has other priorties now than fighting a war that she doesnt feel like doing so.

3k will pay for 3k of college. duh.

She joined the army and is anti-war. There is no logic to that. That doesn't mean the army, is pro-war, rather they are pro-peace. But for peace we need an army. If she seriously thought she could join the army, get some money without serving her country, then why didn't she just put herself on welfare and get state-funding for college. Just as dishonest but less risky. Or did she really originally join with the pride she was serving her country?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
I'm sure Saddam will let the UN inspection teams to go back again without any threat from the US. Yeah right. Perhaps if we're nicer to Saddam, everything will be dandy.

I think getting congress to vote for this resolution is a very crafty scare tactic. I'm thinking (and hoping) that Bush really has no intent of attacking Iraq first, he just wants the legal go-ahead in case something happens. I think Bush is using this opportunity to build up our forces and jumpstart the economy. Now, Saddam thinks we have the balls to enforce the treaty, so he's going to either show himself as a true bad guy or is going to cave and let inspector's in, per the UN. I don't know why the dem's don't see the genius in this move. This makes much more sense than giving Saddam nuclear missile blueprints and supercomputer technology, and asking "please don't attack us".

However... if we got Hitler and Germany because of his repression of the Jews, then how is this any different than what Saddam is doing to his own people? It seems to me that the liberal's anti-war sentiment is rather cold-hearted. There's no way we can enter Iraq, shake Saddam's hand, and say "please leave, we would like to restore human rights to the people". It has to be with force.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: The_good_guy

Originally posted by: broon

A girl I like is in teh army.. so we are trying tf co figure out how to get her out of going on duty.. if called upon.

I can't stand this attitude. When you enlist or join the military you agree to fight. Period. If you won't fight when the time comes, get out now. All those that try and get out when they get orders to go to war should be dishonorably discharged, and fined or sent to jail for a short period of time.

She now realises that joining the army was a mistake.. blame it on false advertising.. she was like "hell yeah theywill pay for college.. 3K does not pay for college). She doesnt mind it execpt she is anti war. I am sorry, but there are certain things girls like her shouldnt be in. Though she is one of the lowest ranks possible.. sending her to war wont be any good.. she has other things to take care of.

She has complied with her sargent so far.. but she cant take a bossy sargent who doesnt have one percent of "humanity" in him. She is a pretty girl. I love her... and she knows that (though our love is more ceremonial than real).

Anyway she has done it so far.. its just that she has other priorties now than fighting a war that she doesnt feel like doing so.

Jesus H Christ, what kind of crap is this...an anti-war person joins the army, then complains because her boss yells and hurts her feelings. Then she wants to escape commitment. She should be locked in the brig for stupidity and then dishonorably discharged. She is unfit to serve her country and I will be glad when she is out of the military.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: yellowperil

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
As for the Bush administration's foriegn policy: more power to them. As an American I want all threats to our way of life eliminated. That's as plain as I can put it.

Do I care if this way of thinking disturbs everyone who is not American? Not in the slightest.

Life is a jungle. Only the strongest survive.

Hey, at least I am honest. And if you don't think nearly every nation on earth is run by people equally as willing to defend thier interests you are sadly naive.
However, willing does not equal capable. No one is as capable of asserting thier interests as the US. Yay for us. Boo for you.

If we take your policy, terrorism will be a part of American life forever. The point is we will never eliminate all threats. This hawkish policy by the Bush administration is only making the problem worse. There are some people in America who actually want to visit and do business with other countries without being seen as the badass tyrant scum of the earth.

You are right, we cannot remove all threats. We can remove some threats so we do have pick and choose our battles. All countries that harbor terrorist that want to destroy America need to clearly know there are consequences for those actions. I think that is becoming fairly apparent at this point.

 

[bizmark]

quote from a locked thread by C'DaleRider... in case he didn't post it elsewhere. But this is mostly a ttt

According to the Bush administration, the threat posed by Iraq is serious enough to risk the lives of American soldiers, to end the lives of what would undoubtedly be thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and to risk a chemical or biological attack on the American homeland, but not serious enough to interrupt prime-time television. None of the big three broadcast networks carried Bush's case-for-war speech Monday night because, they say, the White House didn't ask. Pre-empting Saddam Hussein is one thing, apparently, but pre-empting Drew Carey is another.

The Washington Post reports that "the White House said it did not put in the usual formal request because it wanted to keep the American public from thinking we were going to war." As the hour for the speech approached, the Post says, White House officials had second thoughts and offered to "beef up" the speech to entice the networks, but it was too late.

This notion that a call to arms can be beefed up or beefed down at will, like the idea that people should give their support for a war without really thinking it's going to happen, is characteristic of the Bush sell job. Foreigners, the New York Times reports, read Bush's speech as backing down from an inexorable commitment to "regime change," while here in America it was seen as his toughest statement yet. Whatever.

Ambiguity has its place in dealings among nations, and so does a bit of studied irrationality. Sending mixed signals and leaving the enemy uncertain what you might do next are valid tactics. But the cloud of confusion that surrounds Bush's Iraq policy is not tactical. It's the real thing. And the dissembling is aimed at the American citizenry, not at Saddam Hussein. Saddam knows how close he is or isn't to a usable nuclear bombÂ?we're the ones who are expected to take Bush's word for it.

"Iraq could decide on any given day" to give biological or chemical weapons to terrorists for use against the United States, Bush said Monday night. The wording is cleverly designed to imply more than it actually says. It doesn't say an Iraq-sponsored biological attack could actually happen tomorrow. But the only purpose of the phrase "on any given day" is to suggest that it might.

So, the question then arises: If Saddam Hussein has the desire and ability to attack the United States with chemical and biological weapons, either directly or using surrogates, why hasn't he done so? Possibly because he fears reprisal. Bush's emphasis on the danger of Saddam giving these weapons to terrorists, rather than his using them himself, was another bit of careful wording, intended to suggest that Saddam could avoid reprisal by leaving no fingerprints. But Saddam surely realizes that evidence will be found linking him to any terrorist act for the foreseeable future, whether such evidence exists or not. Meanwhile, though, if the United States is inexorably committed to "regime change"Â?which, in any scenario, Saddam is unlikely to survive in one pieceÂ?any reason for him to show restraint disappears.

The CIA makes this obvious point in a document made public this week. The agency's assessment is that Iraq is unlikely to use biological or chemical weapons against the United States unless we attack Iraq and Saddam concludes he has nothing to lose. The administration disagrees, naturally. Whatever small basis either side may have for its conclusion, we who must follow the dispute in the papers have even less. Who knows who's right? But Bush cannot have it both ways. He cannot insist that Saddam Hussein is able and eager to do so much harm to the United States that we must go to war to remove him, and at the same time refuse to acknowledge the increased risk of such harm as one of the costs of going to war.

The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting. Arguments that stumble into each other like drunks are not serious. Washington is abuzz with the "real reason" this or that subgroup of the administration wants this war. A serious and respectful effort to rally the citizenry would offer the real reasons, would base the conclusion on the evidence rather than vice versa, would admit to the ambiguities and uncertainties, would be frank about the potential cost. A serious effort to take the nation into war would not hesitate to interrupt people while they're watching a sitcom.

But citizens ought to be more serious, too. They tell pollsters they favor the Bush policy, then they say they favor conditions like U.N. approval that are not part of the Bush policy. Many, in polls, seem to make a distinction between war, which they favor, and casualties, which they don't. Neither side in this argument has an open-and-shut case, and certainly agreeing with the president's case doesn't make you a fool. Agreeing with the president even though you didn't hear his case - because he apparently didn't much care if you heard it - is a different story.


While you do raise some interesting points, and this is a good post, we have WAY too many threads about this already. Please post this in one of the already running threads.


AnandTech Moderator

 

[tcsenter]

The CIA makes this obvious point in a document made public this week. The agency's assessment is that Iraq is unlikely to use biological or chemical weapons against the United States unless we attack Iraq and Saddam concludes he has nothing to lose. The administration disagrees, naturally. Whatever small basis either side may have for its conclusion, we who must follow the dispute in the papers have even less. Who knows who's right? But Bush cannot have it both ways. He cannot insist that Saddam Hussein is able and eager to do so much harm to the United States that we must go to war to remove him, and at the same time refuse to acknowledge the increased risk of such harm as one of the costs of going to war.

Unfortunately, CIA Director George Tenet disputes the interpretation of the letter found above and explicitly states there is "no inconsistency" between the CIA's conclusions and those articulated by Bush. So you have the Director of the CIA saying that a report from his agency has been mischaracterized by whatever leftist Bush-bashing rag from which this excerpt was taken. I agree, considering that back in March of 2002, Tenet gave this statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

--------------

20 March 2002

CIA Director Tenet Says Iraq Pursues Weapons of Mass Destruction

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet said Iraq is drawing neighboring countries into economically dependent relationships in hopes of further undermining their support for the
U.N. sanctions against Baghdad.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington March 19, Tenet said the profits Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gains from these relationships provide him the means to reward key
supporters and, more importantly, to fund his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

Tenet said the CIA believes that the Iraqi regime is trying to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them.

He said at present, the greatest near-term concern regarding Iraq is the fear that it could acquire fissile material.

The CIA chief said Iraq and al-Qaida share a mutual antipathy for the United States and the Saudi ruling family, creating the possibility for tactical cooperation between them, despite divergent ideologies.

Following are excerpts from Tenet's prepared testimony containing his comments about Iraq:

(begin excerpt)

Let me turn now to Iraq. Saddam has responded to our progress in Afghanistan with a political and diplomatic charm offensive. Since the turn of the year he has hinted at the possible return of inspectors,
allowed the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights to visit Baghdad, and had his Foreign Minister meet with UN Secretary General Annan-for the first time in over a year-to discuss resolutions pertaining to
Iraq.

......

Saddam has carefully cultivated neighboring states, drawing them into economically dependent relationships in hopes of further undermining their support for the sanctions. The profits he gains from these relationships provide him the means to reward key supporters and, more importantly, to fund his pursuit of WMD. His calculus is never about bettering or helping the Iraqi people.

Let me be clear: Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart UN sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf war. Today, he
maintains his vise grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force-which is less than half its pre-war size- remains capable of
defeating more poorly armed internal opposition groups and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals.

It has also had contacts with al-Qa'ida. Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides' mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical
cooperation between them is possible-even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.

......

Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing WMD. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industry in ways that could be diverted quickly to CW production. We believe it
also maintains an active and capable BW program; Iraq told UNSCOM it had worked with several BW agents.

We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by UN resolutions. It may also have retained the capability to deliver BW or CW agents using modified
aircraft or other unmanned aerial vehicles.

We believe Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq retains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure
that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program, but our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.

[end excerpt]

So....where's the inconsistency?

 

[bizmark]

The CIA makes this obvious point in a document made public this week. The agency's assessment is that Iraq is unlikely to use biological or chemical weapons against the United States unless we attack Iraq and Saddam concludes he has nothing to lose. The administration disagrees, naturally. Whatever small basis either side may have for its conclusion, we who must follow the dispute in the papers have even less. Who knows who's right? But Bush cannot have it both ways. He cannot insist that Saddam Hussein is able and eager to do so much harm to the United States that we must go to war to remove him, and at the same time refuse to acknowledge the increased risk of such harm as one of the costs of going to war.

to fund his pursuit of WMD

Pursuing WMD doesn't mean that he can or will use them against the US.

press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf war

Again, WMD (as if that alone is enough to scare us out of our wits... look at Pakistan, India, China, the former USSR, Israel... all have WMD, and some are even somewhat likely to use them. Did we declare war on any of these?) and military force... see next quote for that

even his reduced military force-which is less than half its pre-war size- remains capable of
defeating more poorly armed internal opposition groups and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

oh no, he's capable of oppressing internal dissidents who want to break away from the regime (hmm sound like anyone else whom we're friendly with? maybe Israel, China, Turkey ...?)

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals.

Prove it. Also, we're semi-friendly with others who have supported terrorism (Palestinians) although it wasn't against the US. But I doubt that Saddam has supported those who have committed terrorist acts against the US.... I think he's much more involved in supporting the intifada against Israel. So "Iraq supports terrorism" doesn't mean jack sh|t since we're still friendly with Arafat.

It has also had contacts with al-Qa'ida.

Again, Prove it.

Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies

This guy's got a knack for understatement

but the two sides' mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family

yeah, along with about half the middle east

[more stuff about nuclear, biological, chemical weapons]

Again, never even a hint that they could be used against the US.

So....where's the inconsistency?

Have I made it clear?