interesting political cartoon

[js1973]

Regarding the inspectors -

Is it naive to think that any number of inspectors would be able to reasonably accomplish the task at hand? Isn't what they're going to be attempting akin to finding a needle in a haystack? The UN and the media makes it sound like Iraq is the size of a two bedroom apartment, not a country with who knows how many places weapons could be stashed.

Or am I just buying into the hype GWB is feeding us?

 

[js1973]

BTW Jelly, Big Trouble in Little China rocks.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Do you want to wait for "another 9/11", this time coming from Saddam, before we do something about him?

Well here's the deal see: I can probably name a dozen rogue states who have WMD programs. Should I be waiting for attacks from them, too?

If our government can prove Saddum is an immediate, unequivocal threat to the United States, then I'm all for invasion. You simply can't prosecute countries on the fear the might do something bad to you in the future. Under that policy, every nation on earth would be at constant war with their neighbors.

I also understand Iraq's leadership is an enemy of my country's leadership but the Iraqi people are not enemies of American citizens. How can we be right to invade Iraq when Iraq was wrong to invade Kuwait?

Al Queda is my enemy because they inflicted mass random murder on the people of my country and sought to destroy it. There is no doubt, zero, that al queda must meet Allah. So lets focus on bringing those known criminals to justice, okay?

I think the difference between Iraq and other nations producing WMD is that allowing weapons inspectors full access to their country was part of thier unconditional surrender after the Gulf War. But from day one those inspectors were blocked and hassled by Saddam until they were kicked out. Clinton didn't seem to think that weapons inspectors were a priority (he also didn't make Bin Laden a priority, but that's another story for another post...) so he let Iraq get away w/breaking terms of their surrender. The way I see it, Bush jr. is just trying to fix what Clinton turned a blind eye to during his administration.

If weapons inspectors flew into Iraq tomorrow and met no resistance at all then I'd pull my support for an invasion (I'd still approve use of force if Iraq started to hassle the inspectors or anything along those lines though). But all Saddam understands is bruteforce so thats what the world has to show him. I'm happy we finally have a president who has the balls to say, "Follow the terms of your unconditional surrender in '91 or else..." and actually back it up.

For everyone who's saying "Why now, what has changed?" My question is why not now? They've been violating the terms of their surrender for years. How much longer should we let them do it?


Lethal

EDIT: spelling

 

[JellyBaby]

Jelly, Big Trouble in Little China rocks.

It's one of the best movies ever made.

If weapons inspectors flew into Iraq tomorrow and met no resistance at all then I'd pull my support for an invasion

War should always be the very last option after all else has failed and I believe it should be used for defense only. Otherwise you create a slippery slope and promote the idea it's OK to use war as a first measure, just like Bush is doing with the insane "First Strike" doctrine.

I'd like to see Bush muster up the courage to hold talks with Saddum. Hey, if Araphat and [name your Israeli leader] can enjoy coffee at a meeting table, anyone can. Personal meetings, IMO, helped immensely in drawing the Cold War with the U.S.S.R. to conclusion.

The "containment" policy combined with sanctions, though deplorable due to the suffering it's caused on the Iraqi people, may be working. There's proof Saddum has had to create an Elite Elite Republican Guard because he can't fully trust the first Elite Republican Guard. That's the way it should go down: interal strife leading to a new succession. It will mean more to the people of Iraq if they bear the brunt of earning liberty.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Jelly, Big Trouble in Little China rocks.

It's one of the best movies ever made.

If weapons inspectors flew into Iraq tomorrow and met no resistance at all then I'd pull my support for an invasion

War should always be the very last option after all else has failed and I believe it should be used for defense only. Otherwise you create a slippery slope and promote the idea it's OK to use war as a first measure, just like Bush is doing with the insane "First Strike" doctrine.

I'd like to see Bush muster up the courage to hold talks with Saddum. Hey, if Araphat and [name your Israeli leader] can enjoy coffee at a meeting table, anyone can. Personal meetings, IMO, helped immensely in drawing the Cold War with the U.S.S.R. to conclusion.

The "containment" policy combined with sanctions, though deplorable due to the suffering it's caused on the Iraqi people, may be working. There's proof Saddum has had to create an Elite Elite Republican Guard because he can't fully trust the first Elite Republican Guard. That's the way it should go down: interal strife leading to a new succession. It will mean more to the people of Iraq if they bear the brunt of earning liberty.

I agree the fighting should be the last option, but sometimes a legitimit<sp?> threat of force is the only way to get some people's attation. Saddam was betting that the US wouldn't be able to muster support and this would quietly slip away (like it has in the past), but Bush is, for better or for worse, hell bent on kicking Saddam's ass. Once Saddam realized this he said the inspectors could come into Iraq. Once Saddam realized that Bush wasn't gonna take anymore balking or lip service he said the inspectors could come into Iraq, and go anywhere they wanted to w/o getting hastled. Diplomacy has failed in Iraq. It has failed for the past decade. The only choice is to threaten force (and use force if need be) to make Saddam adhere<sp?> to the agreements he made as part of Iraq's unconditional surrend in '91.

Unfortunetly the santions have had little to no effect on Saddam because Saddam doesn't care about his people. Thru the "food for oil" program (which has been going on for years) Iraq has been able to sell off limited amounts of oil to make money so people won't be starving and living in utter poverty. But Saddam would rather spend that money on himself (6 new palaces have been built since the Gulf War) and his military than stop the suffering of his population. Saddam is a liar and a bully who only cares about himself and his power. The world has tried to "talk" him into submission for a decade and it hasn't worked. It's about time someone gave him an ultimatum and backed it up w/the threat of force instead of the threat of more ultimatums.


Lethal

 

[Fatt]

Originally posted by: minus1972

THE ONLY WAY TO "PROVE" THAT SADDAM HAS A NUKE IS TO WAIT UNTIL HE TESTS/USES ONE.

The UN has these people who used to ""inspect"" the munitions, or in simpler terms, ""weapons"", that Iraq has/had. They were kicked out, but have been offered re-entry now that we are ready to invade to find out. So, to put it in your plain english:

OR WE COULD USE THE FRIGGIN WEAPONS INSPECTORS AND SAVE AMERICAN LIVES AND MONEY.

Oh yeah....
I never thought of that.

You're right and I have complete confidence that the inspectors will be able to scour every inch of Iraq, while everyone in Iraq holds absolutely still so we are sure they don't go moving stuff around behind the inspectors backs.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
The "containment" policy combined with sanctions, though deplorable due to the suffering it's caused on the Iraqi people.

Yep, its the sanctions that make his people suffer. Definitely not the billions of dollars he spends every year on new palaces, or the thousands of tons of food he illegally EXPORTS for money: www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/09/iraq99.htm.

 

[JellyBaby]

However you want to spin it, had there been no UN sanctions against Iraq, as many as 1,700,000 Iraqis would not have been killed over the last decade.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
However you want to spin it, had there been no UN sanctions against Iraq, as many as 1,700,000 Iraqis would not have been killed over the last decade.

Okay, so it's the UN's fault those people died, even though Saddam repeatedly spent billions of dollars on himself instead of caring for his people? Oh, and let's not forget the Saddam killed millions of his own people in an attempted genocide (which is why all the Kurdish refugees live in the Northen No Fly where Saddam can't reach them). EDIT: Iraq could be the richest country on Earth, but the population would still be impoverished because Saddam would spend all the money on himselft and his army. He doesn't care about his people. If he did he would've let weapons inspectors back into the country years ago, thus lifting the sanctions against Iraq. Saddam is responsible for the state of Iraq, not the UN or the US.


You were makeing some good, non-flaming posts until now Jellybaby... What happend?


Lethal

 

[JellyBaby]

LethalWolfe, I'm not at all trying to convince you it was UN sanctions alone. Saddum, most assuredly, is also to blame. Sorry for the mixup. It's just that many here blame only Saddum for his people's plight when clearly UN sanctions have devasted the Iraqi populous.

I'm just very much against remote bureacrats (aka the UN) oppressing the people of a sovereign nation. Sanctions don't work vs. third-world nations. The UN ought to have known that but they went ahead and signed the death-warrants of those Iraqis anyway.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
LethalWolfe, I'm not at all trying to convince you it was UN sanctions alone. Saddum, most assuredly, is also to blame. Sorry for the mixup. It's just that many here blame only Saddum for his people's plight when clearly UN sanctions have devasted the Iraqi populous.

I'm just very much against remote bureacrats (aka the UN) oppressing the people of a sovereign nation. Sanctions don't work vs. third-world nations. The UN ought to have known that but they went ahead and signed the death-warrants of those Iraqis anyway.

But it has always been w/in Saddams power to lift those sanctions. Even with the sanctions in place the UN and the US have made sure that Iraq can make more than enough money to care for it's population, but Saddam chooses not to care for them. He chooses only to care for himself. How can you blame the UN when Iraq has enough money to feed it's population? Why would lifting the sanctions change anything? Saddam would just spend more money on himself and his army. He already has the funds to care for his people but he chooses not to. It's not the UN's fault that Saddam doesn't care that his people are dying.

I would suggest that the UN step in and force Saddam to spend the money to care for his people, but I know you're "...very much against remote bureacrats (aka the UN) oppressing the people of a sovereign nation."

If diplomacy (i.e. sanctions) doesn't work vs. third world nations then the only other alternative is force (which is exactly the scenario<sp?> we are seeing happen now w/Iraq).

 

[JellyBaby]

LethalWolfe, when a body of global bureacrats decides the fate of a country that "goes over the line", the results will always be less than perfect.

The UN's handling of Iraq, if you believe it should be handling it at all, is awful. I'd call it "half-assed". It's not easy for the 'crats to determine the course of action when one country invades another but sanctions lead to the death of up to 1.7 million Iraqis and the UN must live with that. That's easy to do, of course, since UN ambassadors and the leaders of member nations are many and their positions change frequently.

They miscalculated. "Everyone thought sanctions would have ousted Saddum by now." Instead innocent Iraqis have been reduced to poverty, picked up diseases for which there is no medicience or have died.

You're right, in the context of Iraq today, invading and removing Saddum's regime may finally liberate the Iraqi people and end their suffering. I don't believe for a minute that's why Bush plans to conquer that country and I'm not sure far away countries should be in the business of doing this at all.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I understand your point of view, as I'm sure you understand mine. So now I'd like to take the oppurtunity to agree to disagree and thank you for this discussion. It's nice to have a nonflamming debate every now and then.


Lethal

 

[JellyBaby]

No problem and you made some good points!

I'm not the inflammatory type. I've learned I can easily be taken advantage of when I'm off-kilter. Plus I like to actually get to the root of problems rather than point blame, dodge issues, shout, etc.