OT: Why are the INSPECTORS in Iraq ?

[michael saulnier]

I've been hearing plenty of comments on the media and here about "Give the inspectors more time to do their work." These comments imply that it's up to the inspectors to "find" Saddam's weapons, and they should have the time they need to do this. There have also been comments like, "Since they haven't found much, then Iraq must not have weapons of mass destruction." I think these comments completely miss the point of the inspections. - The inspections are designed to VERIFY the VOLUNTARY disclosure by the Iraqi's of the presense and destruction of the WOMD. This is a KEY point. Iraq has the RESPONSIBILITY to FULLY DISCLOSE its weapons and make available to the inspectors any and all evidence that the weapons have been destroyed or removed. - It is [b]NOT[/b] the job of the inspectors to "find" any hidden and undisclosed WOMD, although if they DO, it is confirmation that the Iraqi's are NOT complying with the UN resolutions. The inspectors are only tasked with VERIFYING the removal of the weapons. - In another international case where inspections WORKED... it was with the FULL COOPERATION of the government involved. They WANTED to remove the weapons, and moreover to PROVE they had done so. (This was South Africa)... It still took 2 years, but it was ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the process had the backing, and assistance of the government of South Africa. - The fact that the Iraqi's are playing a "hide and seek" game... With the idea that "if you don't find it, we don't have it"... is in direct violation of the intent of the inspection process and CONFIRMS their decision NOT to cooperate with the UN mandates. I don't think there's room for arguement here. The fact that many in the public MISUNDERSTAND what the Iraqi's agreed to, what the UN Security Council voted on, what the US expects... is only a weak public relations job by the administration... (although this is changing)... The Iraqi's are about to run out of time to change their position on this. This was the last chance to change their position. Have a nice war. guitplayer

[Rog]

:rolleyes: Sorry, this fish isn't going to take the bait today.

[not Cereal]

[img]http://www.trailersailor.com/uploads/1_enterprise.jpg[/img]

[Kendrix]

Guitarplayer, I beleive what you say is true and acccurate. However, many folks, and some of our supposed allies, seem to be wanting to avoid these facts and change the interpretation of events because they just do not feel a war is warrranted. I beleive that, if folks want the UN to be able to mediate disputes, then it is critical for them to insist that the UN adheres to its agreements and enforces any resolutions it has passed. If it fails to do this is will become useless and countries will have no incentive to rely on it to resolve disputes. For this reason I think both the doves and hawks among us should find it in their interest to have the UN enforce its IRAQ resolution- and not to twist/undermine its intent as you suggest they are. However, people are very emotional about this - on both sides. I see these threads as endless rants with everyone screaming and almost nooone listening. My .02 Se la vie.

[GZsound]

The only problem with your arguement is that nobody wants to hear the truth. You are spot on in the fact that the burden is on Iraq, not on the US or the UN. How stupid some are to insist 100 inspectors have the job of finding weapons in an area the size of California when the government, the people and the military are doing everything they can to hide them. The UN is showing just how powerless it has become. One thing I find interesting is how many in the American liberal community have taken the side of France and Germany. Socialists and Facists..interesting, but not surprising.

[Rick K.]

Guitplayer, I've been doing alot of reading and trying to figure out what the heck is happening, too. I agree with you totally. The point of the inspectors is to verify disarming. We already know that they existed at some point, hense the reasoning for the inspectors in the first place, what a decade ago. So, I guess we've been faced with a question of "where the heck are they?" when we are just trying to find proof that they have been destroyed. So far, they have seemed to disappear without a trace, except for those Bio missile that mysteriously showed up that the Iraqs' had no idea about.... They are definately hiding something. They definately are using our global sympathy against us because we cannot find their stash. They are only cooperative on the surface. It's such a shame. The whole thing sucks. Rick

[Alon]

Germany has a lot of past experience with fooling, decieving, manipulating, and lying to weapons inspectors. After WW I, over 300 inspectors operated in Germany, and we all know how that fiasco turned out. And the Europeans claim they have learned ? Learned what ? alon

[Mats Olsson.]

[img]http://www.claybennett.com/images/archivetoons/not_locked.jpg[/img]

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound@hotmail.com: [b] One thing I find interesting is how many in the American liberal community have taken the side of France and Germany. Socialists and Facists..interesting, but not surprising.[/b][/quote]:confused: Congratulations! This is the most inane post I have ever read, you must be very proud! :rolleyes:

[Chip McDonald]

Setting aside a moment the stated bureaucratic aim of the inspectors in finding proof of disarmament (which is sort of ironic; you destroy a weapons cache by blowing it up, what's left over?)(how would you be able to inventory what was left over after the first Gulf War, anyhow?) Scenarios: Iraq does have WMD and are hiding them: A) A place the size of California is very large and easy to hide relatively little things in B) In the event you presume he has them and attack, the likelyhood of finding them while the forces who would be using them are actively trying to evade you - again in this large land area - decreases. C) The likelyhood that they're used against you and others increases. People die. Iraq has *some* WMD: A) They're hiding a small leftover cache B) They would regard such things as extremely valuable, would make every effort to hide them C) Because of this likelyhood, they would also not use them casually. D) Because it is a very small amount, the difficulty in finding them skyrockets, particularly under war conditions. E) The likelyhood that they are used increases dramatically if Iraq is attacked. Iraq *doesn't* have WMD: A) You're not going to find them. From Iraq's point of view, it is in their favor to let the world think they *might* have WMD: the *threat* is just as useful as actually possessing them, from a deterrent standpoint. From a disarmament standpoint the same thing; he's not going to reveal his weak side by showing the world he's got nothing but handguns leftover from the war, if that is the case. Ironically, I would not at all be surprised that this is a bone being thrown to the moderate faction of Iran. Then the trick is insuring they take over Iran; otherwise, with a debillitated Iraq Iran runs in there and then we're worse off than before. OR We try to install a new regime, the people don't stand for it, gets overthrown, same boat. It's absurd. If the administration has a worked out plan they'd better reveal it, because "going to war" with Iraq just because the inspectors haven't found what Washington says they *should* find isn't an excuse. If there *is* proof that Washington has - then it should have been given to the inspectors, they should have found it and then you'd at least have some tenuous reason for "war". Look through the CNN archives. Note that around November of 2001 - based on reports in the news and the administration's own reports - it became obvious that it was absurd to try to find bin Laden, like the administration had bragged about doing. Note that at the same time, the administration starts complaining about Iraq. If you examine the rate at which the admin STOPS yammering about bin Laden and STARTS talking about Iraq, it dovetails perfectly. A veritable mass media flea-flicker. The inspectors just made it convenient to shift the timetable into the elections, added a layer of ambiguity so that the timetable didn't have to be pinned down exactly. If the admin has proof, it could have ended months ago, we'd already theoretically be at war. If the admin thinks it could be short engagement, why not? If it thinks it would be a long one - why at all? If the admin wants to start an anti-terrorism global jihad, that's fine, I'm all about that, let's start up the draft, instate a U.S. imperialist policy, and cut to the quick of the matter. Otherwise it's pretense and charades, it doesn't make sense to squeeze one nation while others slip through your grasp.

[strat0124]

Isn't it interesting that being Conservative has NOTHING to do with conservation? Thats why anytime I hear someone spouting Jabba the Rush propaganda that cannot be proven or disproven (which is the jist of every Republican bitchfest), I just sigh and look at my guitar sitting on the stand, and realize who I am and why I am here. It must suck not to know who you are.

[michael saulnier]

Chip, I'm not sure I follow your logic completely... In your senario's... The first is "Iraq does have WMD and are hiding them". We [b]KNOW[/b] that Iraq has weapons they have not accounted for. We know this from their own admission following the Gulf War and the additional information we received from Saddam's brother-in-law, the former head of the program, when he defected. There is NO reasonable dispute over them developing these weapons in large quantities. Particularly massive amounts of VX, anthrax, and chemical agents. The Iraqi's themselves gave us a big list... and then failed to properly cooperate in the inspection that followed. I agree that a "hide and seek" approach is not going to work. We're aware of "mobile bio-labs" that can easily be moved and hidden. They've had years with no inspection to find hiding places. Occupation and search is not going to locate all the weapons. What the US gov't is counting on is that with the removal of Saddam and the threat of the layers of secret police, along with a change in the regime... the people that DO know where these things are will tell us. I mean the scientists and technicians who actually work on and move this stuff around. As far as the Iraqi military USING the weapons against us. It's obviously a real possibility. Besides the normal defences we have, we've been making it clear to Saddam's military via propaganda that if they follow orders to use WMD against our troops... THEY will PERSONALLY be held accountable for war crimes after the war. Assuming we win, and Saddam can no longer threaten them, (whether we capture him or not), we hope this will be a limiting factor for the Iraqi use of these weapons. Who knows? As far as who will "take over" Iraq after the war... the administration is being cautious about disclosing our ideas about this... for what I assume are obvious reasons. Recent news stories have said that the current King of Jordan has expressed a willingness to be the leader... But I don't think it's smart for the administration to participate in this in public. It's too vital... and likely to be spun that we're putting in a puppet regime... there's almost no doubt that whoever controls Iraq will be pro-US... puppet or not. But I bet that it won't be Iran who controls Iraq. Or that we would allow Iran to "walk-in" to take over Iraq. I'm afraid we have an "occupation" job ahead that could last awhile. It almost certainly includes redeveloping the defensive military capability of the Iraqi army to at least prevent a hostile Iranian attack. I also don't disagree that the activity in Iraq came after the Taliban defeat and the pursuit of OBL was obviously not going to be immediately successful. These guys are politicians... what do you expect? If you're like me... not much. I also would expect, based on the track record, that when the conflict with Iraq is over, another "conflict" will fire up... maybe North Korea, or perhaps the Palestinian issue? Yemen? Singapore? The Phillipines? There are PLENTY of future conflicts to come. I'm not advocating these... nor am I saying I like it that this is happening... nor am I aplogizing for them. It is what it is. Reality. The "War on Terrorism" has made it possible that the US will attempt to resolve almost every conflict it chooses... with political pressure when it can, with economic pressure, and with military pressure. Just like the famous saying that the attack by Japan against Pearl Harbor was "waking a sleeping giant"... I would expect history to record the attack against the world trade center to be similarly viewed. Pearl Harbor was the "excuse" for the US to get into WWII. Certainly FDR had wanted the US to get into it sooner... but Pearl Harbor was the clincher. I think the same thing has happened here. It's unlikely that in spite of the growth in international terrorism, including against Americans overseas... we would have started all this without 9/11. But 9/11 changed the pov of the nation and created the support for this, and here we are. But I expect each conflict will play out in a different way. In Afghanistan, it played out that joining up with the Northern Alliance and providing air support was enough to win the day. In Iraq, we're going to remove Saddam by force and help foster a new government. In North Korea, political and economic forces will most likely be the main strategy. Different tactics depending on the situation. I think it's wrong to think that each situation will be or should be addressed in the same way. They're not the same. As far as the timing of this coming war with Iraq, it's clear that the admnistration decided to try to get an international coalition. In spite of the fact that it hasn't worked out as well as expected, Iraq will have a forced regime change. We never NEEDED the european nations or the UN militarily to do this... but it would have made it easier for us in world opinion and so on if we had been able to get a wide spread and solid group. You said: [quote]It's absurd. If the administration has a worked out plan they'd better reveal it, because "going to war" with Iraq just because the inspectors haven't found what Washington says they *should* find isn't an excuse. If there *is* proof that Washington has - then it should have been given to the inspectors, they should have found it and then you'd at least have some tenuous reason for "war". [/quote]This almost makes me think you didn't read my original post. The inspectors aren't there to [b]FIND[/b] anything. They're there to [b]VERIFY[/b] by inspection that Iraq has destroyed its weapons. FINDING something is NOT what will trigger the war. Let me say it again. Iraq [b]AGREED[/b] to disclose [b]ALL[/b] its WMD's after the Gulf War and to voluntarily provide [b]PROOF[/b] that it had destroyed them by providing the inspectors with the information they need to verify this. Since they obstructed this effort, the inspectors were pulled out in 1998. WE SHOULD HAVE ATTACKED [b]THEN[/b]. But oh, well. Now they have been given ONE MORE CHANCE to comply. But they haven't. So it's war. guitplayer

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Geenard Skeenard: [b]Isn't it interesting that being Conservative has NOTHING to do with conservation? Thats why anytime I hear someone spouting Jabba the Rush propaganda that cannot be proven or disproven (which is the jist of every Republican bitchfest), I just sigh and look at my guitar sitting on the stand, and realize who I am and why I am here. It must suck not to know who you are.[/b][/quote]Geenard, I guess you're pointing this at me... I'm not sure what you mean exactly... I'm not trying to take a Republican or Democratic pov. I don't support EITHER party. But the administration is right in this IMHO. I'm not sure what you think can or can't be proven or disproven... - Are you saying that the Iraqi's DIDN'T build up a WMD arsenal prior to the Gulf war? - Are you saying that you can't prove or disprove whether they destroyed it or not? - Are you saying that the inspectors with the actual assistance of a government committed to ending these programs couldn't help the inspectors to verify it? - Are you saying that this is all "propaganda" created by Bush... to get revenge on Saddam, or to get the oil, or whatever? - Are you saying that leaving Saddam in power with WMD and the plans to develop more is "conservationist"? :evil: guitplayer

[Botch.]

An interesting factoid I recently read in [i]Aviation Week[/i] (Dec 16, 02) : "Most of the underground structures have been built since the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war. In its wake, the sales of dual-purpose earth-boring equipment skyrocketed. "Sweden, Germany and other countries are selling machines that can carve a 25-ft-dia. tunel through several hundred feet of granite each day," the ISR official said. "After a year, you can have a huge underground complex"." The article goes on to point out that Syria, Russia, North Korea, China and several Middle East countries have been doing the same thing.

[michael saulnier]

War is Wrong. Or so the logic goes... Therefore, anyone who proposes war must be wrong. Because... Peace is good. Give peace a chance. No war. Peace. The Iraqi's don't want a war. They want peace. The US wants a war. They don't want peace. War is bad. Wanting war is bad. The US is Bad. Peace is good. Wanting peace is good. Iraq is Good. ... am I getting the logic right here? guitplayer

[sign]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b]War is bad. Wanting war is bad. Peace is good. Wanting peace is good. guitplayer[/b][/quote]War is horrible, a disaster, it's a disgrace for intelligent humans. There has never been any winner of any war, only losers. What have we learned from WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Bosnia? How many fine young men and women will come home in a bodybag? How many will come home alive, but mentally dead, frustrated, signed for life, never being able to live and love like a normal human again? Why didn't we finish the job in 1991, if you can point a camera on Sadam you can point a gun at him too now can't you? War sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck anyone who wants war! :mad:

[Mats Olsson.]

[quote]Originally posted by sign: [b][QUOTE] War sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck anyone who wants war! :mad: [/b][/quote]What he said! For those wanting to go to war: imagine a full-on war in your own country, in your own town, your neighborhood. Imagine a new 9/11 every hour of the day for week after week, month after month. On and on, over and over again and again and again. No water, no food, no electricity, no home, no nothing. That puts a little perspective on things, doesn't it? /Mats

[michael saulnier]

Although war is a horrible choice... It is sometimes better than OTHER choices. It's hard to agree with the statement that "There has never been any winner of any war, only losers." I guess I could point out that England would dominate the US if there hadn't been the Revolutionary War... Or Hitler and the Japanese would not have been defeated if not for the allied war effort that lead to victory in WWII. I can't imagine the horror of a world under Hitler's thumb. What's scary now, is result of the victory in the Gulf War. Prior to the land assault, you may remember there were dire predictions of maybe ten thousand US casualties to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. The actual casualties were in the low hundreds. And most of those were either from friendly fire or the lone Scud missle that hit the barracks in Saudi Arabia. Most of the actual battles were absurdly one sided. This kind of "easy victory" is scary. Because it makes it easier to pull the trigger. But what we're about to do in Iraq is different. We're talking invasion and occupation. If a country could invade the US, I know that massive retaliation would be attempted. Even if the aggressor had overwhelming force, most of us would join the "underground"... But we have something to fight for. Freedom. There is no freedom in Saddam's Iraq. Just the opposite. It's horrible oppression with the threat of betrayal and death at anytime. I wonder how many will really want to fight to retain that? That's the "thousands of lives" question... isn't it. Will the majority of the Iraqi people say "kill the invaders" or "Ding dong the witch is dead"... Let's hope for the latter. guitplayer

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by Coaster: [b] [img]http://www.trailersailor.com/uploads/1_enterprise.jpg[/img][/b][/quote]ROTFLMHO!!! :D

[Mats Olsson.]

The comparison with Hitler & Japan in WWII is just plain redneck stupid, on the verge to retard stupid. [i]They started the war[/i] and the allies fought back, right? Starting a war by attacking another country is bad bad bad and [i]never[/i] ok by any standard, fighting back when attacked is almost always ok. Starting an unprovoked war against Iraq will most likely set of a series of attacks all over the western world for many years. This is not about a rotten dictator at all, it is about fossile fuel intrests only. Total isolation until they comply 100% with UN decisions would be a way smarter way to deal with Iraq. It worked on South Africa, remember? /Mats

[Philip OKeefe]

Pretty hard to isolate Iraq totally. All you need is one person to get in and get out with a few instructions for building a WMD such as a nuclear device or "cooking up" some chemical or biological weapons on a CD-R. They can then make the device somewhere else. It would be pretty hard to stop that. It would also be pretty hard to prevent someone smuggling out a few vials of nasty biological agents that can be reproduced outside of Iraq. IMO, "isolating" them isn't going to work. :( If we knew Hitler was killing off Jews (and others) before we entered WWII, would a pre-emptive strike have been warranted? If we knew Japan was about to attack Pearl Harbor a few days before they did, would an attack on their fleet have been justified - even before they launched the first aircraft of the first attack wave - or would we have to have waited for them to kill a few of our people first?

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: [b]The comparison with Hitler & Japan in WWII is just plain redneck stupid, on the verge to retard stupid. [i]They started the war[/i] and the allies fought back, right? Starting a war by attacking another country is bad bad bad and [i]never[/i] ok by any standard, fighting back when attacked is almost always ok. Starting an unprovoked war against Iraq will most likely set of a series of attacks all over the western world for many years. This is not about a rotten dictator at all, it is about fossile fuel intrests only. Total isolation until they comply 100% with UN decisions would be a way smarter way to deal with Iraq. It worked on South Africa, remember? /Mats[/b][/quote]Ummm Mats... When I mentioned Hitler and Japan, I was responding to: [quote]There has never been any winner of any war, only losers.[/quote]I was pointing out that by saying "any war" he was including wars that most view as "justified". That includes WWII... I've tried to make my points without resorting to personal attacks... I'm sure you can do the same. :eek: It's clear that you have strong feelings about this subject. I understand. Remember that this war with Iraq has its basis in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait... Using your standards, a "justified" war since Iraq invaded. The dispute here stems from the agreements that Saddam and Iraq made in the wake of that war that Iraq has not carried out to the satisfaction of the UN Security Council or the US. Certainly oil is also a consideration, both the security of Saudi and Kuwaiti reserves as well as access to the major Iraqi reserves... but clearly we differ in the idea that it's not ONLY about oil. I know what I've said won't convince you... but maybe it will help you see I'm no redneck or retard. guitplayer

[patrick_dont_fret]

Wow, where have I been? Unless Iraq has the smarts and capabilities to hide huge weapons that the UN thinks they have, they don't have anything. Most likely, heat is produced from all of this...so why not scan the place with thermo scanners to see? It's not 200 degrees there in the night time, I'm sure. I doubt very much that Iraq has any weapons...if they did, they'd use them. Bush just wants the inspectors to not find anything so he has an excuse to kill them and take all the oil. Oh, and Iraq doesn't have to do anything to prove they don't have anything. It's not their war, yet.

[realtrance]

I think we need the REAL Chief Inspector in there, NOW: Wally Badarou -- get a good vibe going, everything be fine. :D As for the rest of this thread, we've foisted a double-bind logical situation upon Iraq, where it can't win no matter what choices are made. Thus, we're going to war. The fear, I am sure, probably backed up with enough intelligence to make it seem justified to "those in the know" is not just that Iraq has prickly toys it shouldn't, but that it will share them with others. The problem, when you become the big bully, is that others start to gang up on you. Nature of the situation. Whether we feel it to be justified or not, we're seen as the world's bully now, even by our allies. That means it's tar-baby time. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt -- read Euell Gibbons' "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" -- an exercise in indigestion produced by too much roughage in the diet... rt p.s. and no, I do not smoke weed, nor sniff glue, nor any of that. I...am...just...odd. Harmless, but odd. :)

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by patrick_dont_fret: [b]Wow, where have I been? Unless Iraq has the smarts and capabilities to hide huge weapons that the UN thinks they have, they don't have anything. Most likely, heat is produced from all of this...so why not scan the place with thermo scanners to see? It's not 200 degrees there in the night time, I'm sure. I doubt very much that Iraq has any weapons...if they did, they'd use them. Bush just wants the inspectors to not find anything so he has an excuse to kill them and take all the oil. Oh, and Iraq doesn't have to do anything to prove they don't have anything. It's not their war, yet.[/b][/quote]Patrick, Did you read my original post? Hmmm. Well, you can't find VX gas or anthrax spores with heat sensors... sorry. And as far as "Iraq doesn't have to do anything to prove they don't have anything." Well, that's not exactly right. You see they AGREED to dispose of all their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or programs as part of the terms of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War. Then they didn't comply fully with the inspectors to do this. Oh BTW, they agreed to all this AGAIN just recently in response to the unanimous UN security council demand and last chance. So YEAH, Iraq DOES have to do something to prove they don't have anything. Like they agreed. Or it means war. guitplayer

[GZsound]

What have we learned from WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Bosnia? War sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck anyone who wants war! :mad: [/QB][/QUOTE] I'll give you the names of 6 million jews who would disagree with you and your silly arguement about war. But don't let the facts get in the way of your warm and fuzzy...

[BNC]

"names of 6 million Jews..." Heck, I could introduce you to several of the survivors. The things they went through, and the fact that they went on to have normal lives is amazing. Back on topic. Hiding weapons- too easy. How about a take a brown paper lunch bag with trillions of $$'s and drop in in the Sahara. I then send you to the wast coast of Africa and say "find it, its yours". Even with how badly you want it, good luck finding it. Not only do they have extensive underground tunnels, Saddam has created several lakes since the gulf war, which happen to cover buildings that used to be there. Who knows what is stashed away under there. Sign- We did not carry out of removing Saddam during the Gulf War because 1. Rather than continuing a military campaign, the decision (a poor one) was made to let internal forces oust Saddam (ie. Kurds and other anti-Saddam Iraqis). They were obviously not enough. 2. After the "Highway of Death" or whatever it was called (US military destroying a huge convoy of Saddam's military and supporters), many American protesters thought we were being to "mean and bully like", so the military was called off to keep Americans from thinking Americans werew barbarians. A lame public relations problem. WWII- Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini planned to conquere the world. Italy would get Africa, Japan would get Asia, and Hitler gets everyhting else. Napolean had a similar world conquest plan. Luckily he attacked Russia in the winter and was sorely unprepared for it. Alexander the Great also planned to rule the world, which he basically did considereing the limited view of the world at that time. Imagine if any one of them actually did it. Mats- Imagine living in Israel. During the Gulf War, Iraqi people lined the streets cheering on our military, saying things like "God bless Bush, God bless Marines", holding banners reading "Please rid our land of the wicked Saddam", and holding up their babies so our military members can bless them with a kiss, pat on the head etc. Also, upon meething US forces in the Gulf, Iraq's "recruited" troops began to surrender by the thousands. Saddam gave them the choice to fight or be killed, so they chose to fight until they were in the position to surrender. Only the Republican Guard (Saddam's most elite, payed soldiers) were loyal to him. guitarplayer-your original post was very accurate. good post Upon Blix's report confirming that Iraq was not cooperating with the resolution, many of our allies are beggining to change their view of the situation. Keep in mind that it would be in the best interest of our allies (like France and Germany) to speak out against going to war; this separates them from us, making them less of a target (suposedly) in the eyes of terrorists. Keep possible alternative motivations in mind.

[patrick_dont_fret]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] [quote]Originally posted by patrick_dont_fret: [b]Wow, where have I been? Unless Iraq has the smarts and capabilities to hide huge weapons that the UN thinks they have, they don't have anything. Most likely, heat is produced from all of this...so why not scan the place with thermo scanners to see? It's not 200 degrees there in the night time, I'm sure. I doubt very much that Iraq has any weapons...if they did, they'd use them. Bush just wants the inspectors to not find anything so he has an excuse to kill them and take all the oil. Oh, and Iraq doesn't have to do anything to prove they don't have anything. It's not their war, yet.[/b][/quote]Patrick, Did you read my original post? Hmmm. Well, you can't find VX gas or anthrax spores with heat sensors... sorry. And as far as "Iraq doesn't have to do anything to prove they don't have anything." Well, that's not exactly right. You see they AGREED to dispose of all their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or programs as part of the terms of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War. Then they didn't comply fully with the inspectors to do this. Oh BTW, they agreed to all this AGAIN just recently in response to the unanimous UN security council demand and last chance. So YEAH, Iraq DOES have to do something to prove they don't have anything. Like they agreed. Or it means war. guitplayer[/b][/quote]Ok, so then they shouldn't have anything to worry about, since the inspectors haven't found anything as of yet. Screw Bush and his pretensious little campaign for oil. It has absolutely nothing to do with weapons, just a cover up for the real reason.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b]We [b]KNOW[/b] that Iraq has weapons they have not accounted for. We know this from their own admission following the Gulf War and the additional information we received from Saddam's brother-in-law, the former head of the program, [/b][/quote]If we KNOW this then WHERE ARE THE PLANS TO THE DEATHSTAR!? No, I mean, "weapons not accounted for" is a bogus notion when on the one hand one cites that as a "threat" and then on the other insists that pulling Hussein's finger on the issue is the way to solve it. The bottom line is that we're going there to knock off Hussein. King George should just come out and say it. [b]when he defected. There is NO reasonable dispute over them developing these weapons in large quantities. Particularly massive amounts of VX, anthrax, and chemical agents. The Iraqi's [/b] Show me where Iraq admitted to specific itemized weapons containing those agents after the war? [b]themselves gave us a big list... and then [/b] Where can I see the list? [b]Occupation and search is not going to locate all the weapons.[/b] Right, which gets back to the core issue: we're not going to war over weapons, but over who has control of said weapons. [b]removal of Saddam and the threat of the layers of secret police, along with a change in the regime... [/b] Yes, that is what the admin wants to accomplish, however that is not the expressed reason we're going to war. [b]the people that DO know where these things are will tell us. I mean the scientists and technicians who actually work on and move this stuff around.[/b] They won't tell us. *They won't be around*. They'll bug out, and hole up somewhere else and continue business as usual. [b]propaganda that if they follow orders to use WMD against our troops... THEY will PERSONALLY be held accountable for war crimes after the war. [/b] If they were to actually do that all bets are off. In fact, if they were to pull that I wouldn't be really surprised if for some reason or another Israel unloads on them. [b]Assuming we win, and Saddam can no longer [/b] *Assuming* we win? We're putting hundreds of thousands of American lives in danger, we will kill untold thousands in the process - we'd BETTER win. Is there *any fear at all* that we won't.....any little possibility....? [b]threaten them, (whether we capture him or not),[/b] He'll be gone just like bin Laden. Heck, he could be in Syria right now for all we know. Making a war out of hunting one man is the wrong way to trap one man. It didn't work in Afghanistan, probably won't work in Iraq. [b]war... the administration is being cautious about disclosing our ideas about this... for what I assume are obvious reasons. [/b] In the words of the immortally effervescent Mr. T "I pity the fool"... Who says they have any ideas? They obviously don't. The whole think smacks of made up on the spot agendas. King George better outline what he plans in a few minutes here tonight, or I won't be the only person asking questions. [b]Recent news stories have said that the current King of Jordan has expressed a willingness to be [/b] I hope not, that would be foolish as well as seen to be giving Iraq to Jordan. Which would be fine, EXCEPT it won't work... [b]public. It's too vital... and likely to be spun that we're putting in a puppet regime... there's almost no doubt that whoever controls Iraq will be pro-US... puppet or not.[/b] Obviously it will be a puppet regime. [b]But I bet that it won't be Iran who controls Iraq. Or that we would allow Iran to "walk-in" to take over Iraq. I'm afraid we have an [/b] We'll see. Will it be the U.S. who defends Iraq from Iran? [b]"occupation" job ahead that could last awhile. It almost certainly includes redeveloping the defensive military capability of the Iraqi army to at least prevent a hostile Iranian attack.[/b] YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING?????????? (just watched the SotU Address) February 5th apparently there will be "proof". It will be interesting to figure out why the proof can't be given *now*. [b]I also would expect, based on the track record, that when the conflict with Iraq is over, another "conflict" will fire up... maybe North Korea, or perhaps the Palestinian issue? Yemen? Singapore? The Phillipines?[/b] The fact is that terrorism is a globally endemic threat. It can not be stopped by attacking Iraq. It has to be a fully realized plan. [b]There are PLENTY of future conflicts to come. [/b] I'm presuming that, but the problem is that it can't be sorted out one at a time. [b]The "War on Terrorism" has made it possible that the US will attempt to resolve almost every conflict it chooses... with political pressure when it can, with economic pressure, and with military pressure.[/b] The U.S. does not have a bottomless pocket of resources either politically, financially, militarily or otherwise. It is beyond the scope of the U.S. to alone try to overcome "terrorism"; it is likewise not going to help the situation by just going after Hussein, particularly without other political support. In fact, it's counter productive, losing the cooperation of allied nations creates more barriers. It has to be a more globally monolithic approach. That would require what could only be called a U.S. imperialistic policy. That *could* happen with the appropriate political tact, but not with the current administration. It will require the cooperation of all nations, and for those that don't cooperate there has to be very explicit guidelines to indicate reprobative action. Otherwise it *will not* work, and likely incite more violence. [b]Just like the famous saying that the attack by Japan against Pearl Harbor was "waking a sleeping giant"... [/b] Not linear to what is going on today. [b]In Afghanistan, it played out that joining up with the Northern Alliance and providing air support was enough to win the day. [/b] Win what day? Have we found bin Laden? Have we eliminated Al Qaeda? [b]In Iraq, we're going to remove Saddam by force and help foster a new government.[/b] Maybe. [b]I think it's wrong to think that each situation will be or should be addressed in the same way. They're not the same.[/b] Right.... [b]Iraq, it's clear that the admnistration decided to try to get an international coalition. [/b] It's clear the administration misjudged in *expecting* to get an international coalition, and is further botching the situation by making inflammatory remarks such as Rumsfield made. [b]well as expected, Iraq will have a forced regime change. [/b] That would be imperialism. Which I am in favor of as long as it's the U.S., AND - it's stated as such. The problem is that without more careful political tact, it becomes tyrannical by default and could prove to be crippling in the long run. [b]We never NEEDED the european nations or the UN militarily to do this... but it [/b] The ironic thing is, thanks to the NWO, we DO need them. There are endless repercussions to this globally that has nothing to do with terrorism. Alienating Germany and France at this time is not exactly a smart thing to do from a global-economic standpoint. It might seem "cool" at the moment to stand up to the French, but the future always seems to bring questions not thought of "now". [b]would have made it easier for us in world opinion and so on if we had been able to get a wide spread and solid group.[/b] That would be the fault of the administration. This is the sort of thing I refer to in regards to the French and Germans: rebel posturing by the U.S., thumbing our nose at the Kyoto agreement for example, has implications down the road. [quote]This almost makes me think you didn't read my original post. The inspectors aren't there to [b]FIND[/b] anything. They're there to [b]VERIFY[/b] by inspection that Iraq has destroyed its weapons. FINDING something is NOT what will trigger the war. [/quote]King George refered to that tonight. Refered to 1999 findings; not *evidence* per se, but studies speculating they *could* have things. Other old reports saying he *could* have things, and THEN the *leap of cognition* to he *must* show he *doesn't* have these things *anymore*. Again - show me the itemized list that Iraq provided *after* the war of the things they're supposed to be presenting now. [b]Iraq [b]AGREED[/b] to disclose [b]ALL[/b] its WMD's after the Gulf War and to voluntarily provide [b]PROOF[/b] that it had destroyed them by providing the inspectors with the information they need to verify this.[/b] I think I heard that already... (about 9,000 times) [b]Since they obstructed this effort, the inspectors were pulled out in 1998. WE SHOULD HAVE ATTACKED [b]THEN[/b]. But oh, well.[/b] No, we should have annexed Iraq during the war instead of letting an obvious war criminal and terrorist off the hook, when we had the backing of the rest of the world.

[strat0124]

The military are unwittingly being made into gangsters for capitalism around the world. I support our troops 1000%, I just don't support the foreign policies our government has delivered in our name. It didn't start with Tweedle Dumb either, even the Dems tow the imperialistic mindset beholding to corporate world. Pisses me off to see the Dems who gave the Prez all this power now bitch about it. They seem to all be in cahoots.