Siddhartha
Lifer
Nope. I have not seen any good reasons to invade Iraq.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
POLL!!! SHOULD USA INVADE IRAQ????
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
etech - <<So we either take him out with UN approval or we let him sit there and let the whole region fester around him.>>
You forgot a third possibility. We take him out without UN approval. I know we've gone over this before, but when the president says it's a possibility, it deserves mentioning.
Press briefing from 12/18/02
Q We still don't know this key question, whether the U.S. and Britain are willing to go it alone in violation of what the U.N. --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said repeatedly on that question that the United States will assemble a coalition of the willing.
Q And that still stands?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
You forgot a third possibility. We take him out without UN approval. I know we've gone over this before, but when the president says it's a possibility, it deserves mentioning.
Press briefing from 12/18/02
Q We still don't know this key question, whether the U.S. and Britain are willing to go it alone in violation of what the U.N. --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said repeatedly on that question that the United States will assemble a coalition of the willing.
Q And that still stands?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
Really? Might want to do a little more reading and investigating of current events!😉
- Defiant Blair says UN has no veto on war
By Andrew Grice Political Editor
14 January 2003
An uncompromising Tony Blair said yesterday he would refuse to allow the United Nations to veto military action to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
The Prime Minister warned the public that Saddam Hussein's weapons posed a "direct threat" to Britain but angered his Labour critics by refusing to guarantee that any war in Iraq would have to win the approval of the UN.
He told a Downing Street press conference that Britain's "preference" would be for a fresh UN resolution before an attack but added a "qualification" ? that there could not be "an unreasonable or unilateral block" on a war. "We cannot be in a position where we are confined in that way," he said.
Completely denying a cabinet split, his remarks contradicted those of Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, who said on Sunday that the "logic" of the Government's position was that it would not act without UN backing.
Mr Blair kept open the possibility that the United States and Britain might act in tandem if France, Russia or China, the other permanent UN Security Council members, vetoed a second resolution.
Mr Blair said, though, he believed such a scenario would not happen and expressed confidence that the international community would act against President Saddam because he had breached UN declarations.
He also appeared confident that UN weapons inspectors would uncover evidence of an Iraqi arsenal, telling reporters to ask him about their work in a few weeks' time. His remarks prompted speculation that crucial evidence from US and Britain intelligence services will soon provide the "smoking gun" the inspectors have yet to find.
The Prime Minister also suggested a war could be launched even if the inspectors found no evidence, on the basis that President Saddam had obstructed their work. He had "no doubt at all" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "So whatever happens, Saddam will be disarmed. And it is his choice as to which route is taken. It can be the peaceful route, because he can co-operate with the inspectors, or it can be through conflict," he said.
Mr Blair said 27 January, when Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, will report to the Security Council, was an "important day" but insisted no one was fixing "speculative or arbitrary timeframes". The UN inspectors said yesterday that they may need six months to complete their sweep of Iraq.
Mr Blair said it was only a matter of time before terrorist groups obtained chemical, biological or nuclear materials. He denied double standards over North Korea, saying the world would have to tackle rogue states and terrorists systematically, which he admitted could take years.
The fact that support would be overwhelming when/if evidence is found is something I've been saying all along. It's also, IMO, not very likely that the UN wouldn't support an attack when/if evidence is found. That being said, the US should reveal it's evidence (that it has had for weeks now) to the UN. Unfortunately, our president feels that, even though Iraq's possession of WMD justifies a war...and by extension, the deaths of many many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, it isn't important enough to risk giving up our methods of intelligence.
So why not attack NK then? The US will always find some rational for using aggression, and bully the UN into a corner like they are now. I think any additional act of aggression will have deadly serious repercussions for the Police States of America, and will wind up dragging the rest of the world into it.
Have you ever read anything i posted? did that lead you to believe that i was not against a war in Irak?
If Irak does have WMD's, they have broken the UN resolution and that is all it takes... The UN does have my respect, it's not perfect, but it's the closest thing to a world-wide coalition we got...
gistech1978
Diamond Member
what this essentially boils down to is "hans moleman" cheney.
he wants to bomb iraq take their oil and have halliburton rebuild its infrastructure.
this is history repeating itself, there is proof halliburton sold oil infrastructure equip. to iraq when cheney was @ the helm of the company.
and that my friends is what this is all about.
north korea poses so much more of a threat than iraq could ever possibly pose.
but yet, our administration chooses to turn a blind eye to N Korea while N Korea could be preparing for WW3.
he wants to bomb iraq take their oil and have halliburton rebuild its infrastructure.
this is history repeating itself, there is proof halliburton sold oil infrastructure equip. to iraq when cheney was @ the helm of the company.
and that my friends is what this is all about.
north korea poses so much more of a threat than iraq could ever possibly pose.
but yet, our administration chooses to turn a blind eye to N Korea while N Korea could be preparing for WW3.
I'd like to address this point by itself.
I gather that you believe fully that Iraq does not possess ANY WMD's whatsoever by what you said and have said prior. May I asked how you arrived at this position? I'm going to point out a few facts which are easily backed up by documents not only those of the US, but those of many, many other countries including France, Russia, and Germany.
1) There were literally tons of chemical and biological weapons sitting and waiting to be destroyed at the time the inspectors left in late '98. That's a fact Blix himself has pointed out. Where did these go? Iraq did not claim them AT ALL in their declaration. If they would have destroyed them, logic would say that they would have listed them as destroyed as outlined, instead, they were completely ommitted from the declaration.
2) The declaration received in Dec. suddenly showed several more tons having been used against Kurds and Iran in the war and attempt to settle the uprising of Kurds. Prior documents showed a lesser amount in several tons, and suddenly it was increased 3 fold according to Blix. A simple miscalculation? I supposse it's possible, but, how then did they arrive at the new figures after so many years?
3) It is a FACT that Iraq has imported missile engines and parts used for long range and ICBM's. The inspectors have uncovered this and it is a violation. Now, as pointed out by the inspectors, and Blix himself, one can reason that it is illogical that these parts would be imported for use in conventional weaponry since the limited number of long range, or ICBM's they would have would make an attack with conventional weapons suicide as the response would literally obliterate them. Therefore, the only reasonable answer is that these engines and ICBM parts were imported to be used in conjunction with WMD's.
4) You like to use the fact that there are several other countries which possess WMD's, and this is a fact, but, none of the other countries signed and agreed to allow inspectors uncover and destroy the WMD's they possess, and the ability to manufacture more as outlined by the U.N as an agreement to end a war. Iraq DID.
Barnaby W. Füi
Elite Member
what's irak?
All for a war with iraq here... as long as I don't need to fight in it. 🙂 Maybe two polls would be a good idea - (seperate poll for those males of military age). Interesting how many of the current hawks were noticeably un-hawkish during the vietnam era when they were of military age... :/
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: 25K
-
-
-
