aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
RandFan said:
This American is not ashamed to admit he believes in the Irish.
MattJ
Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq?
- Thread starter RandFan
- Start date
This American is not ashamed to admit he believes in the Irish.
MattJ
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
OMG, I used to have to deliver plastic bags to a rendering company in Monfort Colorado. Their was no worse smell in all of the world. Whenever I had to make a delivery it made me sick the whole way just dreading the stench. I suppose you get used to it.Roadtoad said:
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Interesting article, written by, (big surprise!) John LeCarre.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
originalgagster
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 103
RandFan said:
A UN resolution allowing an attack is certainly needed otherwise the US is in clear violation of international law. The relevant UN resolution, resolution 1441 of nov 8 2002 says plenty about Iraqi arms, but nothing specific about action which should be taken if Iraq fails to comply. It doesnt even legitimise UN armed intervention in Iraq, never mind US attacks.
The clearest violation of international law are the no fly zones over Iraq which are maintained by the British and Americans. There is nothing in any UN resolution which Justifies no fly zones.
That doesnt follow from my logic at all. There are no similarities between Iraq and nazi Germany at all, apart from the fact that Hitler and hussein are a couple of bad eggs. The reason for WW2 is that Hitler was annexing most of Europe. Saddam is a crushed tinpot third world dictator facing the mightiest military machine on the face of the earth. You cant compare him to the ruler of nazi Germany which invaded most of Europe and started a war which cost 50 000 000 lives. The comparison isnt even funny.
You havent given any reasons why oil isnt a factor in this war at all. At least not in this thread - i even re-read your posts.
Dont you think it should even be proven that a breach of the agreement legitimises war? Or that a war is morally justified? Dont forget this is an area surrounded by nuclear powers. This has to be as cut and dried as possible.
Besides the resolution has only been in place for two months. Give it time. Even the US emphasises the magnitude and complexity of the task
Im not sure it is demonstrably untrue. Im struggling to think of a genuinely humanitarian war involving the US and the UK post 1945. You can always see a strategic agenda behind intervention. The west likes governments which are friendly to Western "investment" (read exploitation) and if there is no strategic benefit to intervention it doesnt happen.
In fact the US and UK have often propped up explicitly evil regimes which are freindly to big business. Central America is a good example of this.
Its an interesting thought though. Why invade Somalia and ignore far worse genocides in Rwanda? Why get involved in Kosovo but ignore genocide in East Timor or Turkey ? Im not just talking about the lack of US involvement, but western Europe also.
I dont have the time or inclination to get into a debate on Kosovo and Somalia at the same time as all this, we are off topic enough already i fear! But your points are well taken. I think what happened to the US soldiers there was genuinely awful. Ill leave it at that.
You dont give that much aid, in fact as a percentage of gross domestic income US overseas development aid lags well behind the vast majority of developed nations. In 2001 US ODA was 0.11% as a percentage of GNI. The previous two years it was even less. This compares to, for example Portugal on 0.25%, France at 0.34% and Holland at 0.82%. The average effort was 0.4% and the UN target for the period was 0.7%.
Any aid given is good news of course, but with the amount of disease and starvation in the world i think everyone in the west could do more.
Well maybe you are right, but i still dont think using the argument that you could have reduced the world to slavery, but chose not to really shows the US government in all that benevolent a light. One reason could be that the American people would never have stood for it.... you are correct to point out the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was unjust.
What do you base this on? Is there any proof Saddam Hussein has ever sponsored anti-US terrorism in the past? Is there evidence he has nuclear weapons, anthrax or sarin?
Former UN weapons inspector Scot Ritter had this to say about the Iraqi WOMD program: "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them."
This is crazy talk. Why would Saddam Hussein detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan? He may be evil but hes not stupid, he knows his entire country would be dust within minutes.
You may as well ask "what if Israel launches nuclear weapon strikes against Saudi Arabia?" or "what if the Indonesian government carries out a gassing in Australia?" Insane notions but just as realistic as the scenario you present, in fact probably even more so.
You cant use fanciful hypothesis as the basis of a brutal attack, you need something absolutely rock solid. Find evidence Saddam is planning a nuclear strike against downtown Manhattan and ill back you all the way in attacking the despot.
No-one outside the US has any fear of Saddam, you dont hear the Kuwaitis pleading with the international community to defend them from Iraqi WOMD. The Iranian government has alot more to fear from Saddam than the US, and they dont want him attacked, in fact they are even opposed to the war, and they have far stronger and more realistic reasons to fear him than the US, but they dont. Hate him for sure, but not fear him.
originalgagster
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 103
RandFan said:
This is probably my fault, i should have been more clear. I wasnt putting forward the scenario you criticise as something which actually happened. I am perfectly aware of simple things such as the FBI is a federal institute which has no authority outside the US.
What i tried to do was take your analogy of hate groups and illegal weapons and apply it to the current situation regarding Iraq, with the US government in the role of the feds, and the turf war with other thgs as the Iran/Iraq war.
Apologies for the confusion.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Saying so does not make it true. We can and will act if the UN doesn't. Believe whatever you want.originalgagster said:
Then why isn't there a resolution condemning thee US. We do not need a UN resolution. They surrendered.
It wasn’t meant to be funny and I'm not trying to make such comparisons. But just to give you a little history. Hitler invaded his neighbors and so did Saddam.
But this relevant, you are saying we can't do anything to Iraq because we enabled him. By that logic we shouldn't have done anything to Germany and Japan because we enabled the also.
I believe it is a factor. But read my very first post. If you still don't get it let me know and I will try and make it clearer.
Whatever it takes. If Iraq is in breech and Bush says "let's roll" then let's roll.
You are straying. Humanitarian war has nothing to do with what you were talking about. You claim we only do things for oil. That is pure and utter crap. We went into Somalia to feed them. We bombed Kosovo with no regard to our own interests.
Yeah, great for conspiracy theorists. The examples prove you wrong.
The examples prove that you are wrong. I will leave it at that.
We give one hell of a lot. Could please provide a source?
Our leadership flows from our people. We are a great nation because our people have a level of control over their leaders. You make my point for me. We are not perfect but we are nation that does care about others. The Peace Corps comes to mind.
Oh yeah Scot Ritter knows. Did he know about the war heads discovered only this morning? Thanks Scot for the testimony, but it looks like it is wrong.
This is a guy that set all of the oil wells on fire in Kuwait. This is a guy that launched Scuds at Israel. Why did he do that? He was not at war with Israel. He has proven that nothing is out of bounds with him.
Will you admit that Saddam is quite different and quite dangerous from most other leaders?
And why would he have to admit that he detonated a nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan? I wouldn't imagine that he would however I am certain he fantasizes about it. I'm certain that if he could carry out such a task he would do it in a heartbeat. Can you personally guarantee that he never would?
No, there is no motivation for that. On the contrary we know Saddam is royally pissed at the US for defeating him and he wants revenge. He has done what few others have. He invaded a neighbor, he launched Scuds at a sovereign nation that he was not at war with, he waged a scorched earth policy in Kuwait. He HAS the motivation and the resources to give him the means, if he does not already possess them. And it looks like that after this morning. He probably already has the means.
I'm damn glad we are taking this seriously.
There is nothing fanciful about the invasion of Kuwait, the burning of the oil fields, the launching of scuds at Israel, the lying about anthrax found years after he swore over and over that he did not have them. I don't get that people don't realize that this man is truly dangerous.
False, Israel fears him. Kuwait fears him and the Saudis fear him. That is why they are cooperating with us.
Moslems don't go to the UN to complain about other Moslems. You don't understand the politics in that region. The leaders say one thing in public and another in private. He has attacked 3 neighbors, 2 of them Muslim. Trust me, they do fear him.
Oh they fear him. The politics require them to stand against Israel and the US in any dispute, but they do fear him.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Randfan, I'm going to look for the report about warheads being found this morning. That would strongly bolster your argument.
I would also agree that you're not dealing with a sane mind. The notion that no one in the region fears him is irrational. The man's track record alone would indicate the danger involved.
If the No-Fly Zones weren't acceptable to the UN, I would have expected the UN would have said something by now. After ten years, I would think there would have been some record of a protest from someone other than Iraq.
I would also agree that you're not dealing with a sane mind. The notion that no one in the region fears him is irrational. The man's track record alone would indicate the danger involved.
If the No-Fly Zones weren't acceptable to the UN, I would have expected the UN would have said something by now. After ten years, I would think there would have been some record of a protest from someone other than Iraq.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
More fuel for discussion...
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.N. inspectors on Thursday found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported.
The weapons components found Thursday were not part of Iraq's declaration given to the U.N. in December under which Baghdad was required to itemize its doomsday weapons.
"It was a discovery. They were not declared," Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad, told The Associated Press.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Scranton, Pa., said the administration was "aware of the reports and we look forward to receiving information from the inspectors."
McClellan would not comment on how significant the find was.
At the United Nations, however, a U.S. official said the discovery only raised more questions.
"It's something that's going to have to be looked at really closely," said U.S. deputy ambassador Richard Williamson. "It raises a lot of questions from the declaration and other things."
Inspectors found a 12th warhead, also of 122 mm, that requires further evaluation, Ueki said in a statement.
The inspectors used portable X-ray equipment for a preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing, Ueki's statement said.
"The warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980's," the statement said.
The weapons components were found during a visit by inspectors to the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area, 75 miles south of Baghdad. It was one of several sites inspectors checked on Thursday.
Inspectors do not usually report specific discoveries, which made Thursday's announcement unusual. It is up to the U.N. Security Council to determine whether Thursday's find would amount to a breach of U.N. resolutions.
On Dec. 7, a chemical team secured a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas that had been inventoried by inspectors in the 1990s before the program was halted.
The mustard gas shells were the first batch of weapons of mass destruction brought under their control in the current round of inspections in Iraq.
U.N. inspectors have said Iraq's final weapons declaration made in December failed to support its claims to have destroyed missiles, warheads and chemical agents such as VX nerve gas.
The United States and Britain doubt Iraq is committed to giving up its weapons of mass destruction and have dispatched thousands more troops to the Gulf region for a possible military showdown.
Washington has cited nine areas in which it said Iraq's declaration fails to give a complete picture of weapons holdings. These include thousands of pounds of unaccounted-for materials for producing anthrax, and the chemical precursors for manufacturing mustard gas.
"It's something that's going to have to be looked at really closely," said U.S. deputy ambassador Richard Williamson. "It raises a lot of questions from the declaration and other things."
Were these warheads mentioned in the declaration? "We're trying to doublecheck. We don't think so. Washington's trying to go through that right now," he told AP.
What about adding pressure, urgency?
"There has to be urgency to this process. The president said it was a growing threat. It's still a growing threat. He (Saddam) has not satisfied the terms of Resolution 1441. So inspections have to be forward-leaning and the U.S. has made that view known and we will continue to push for that. And the decision is up to the council, not to any U.N. employee."
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.N. inspectors on Thursday found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported.
The weapons components found Thursday were not part of Iraq's declaration given to the U.N. in December under which Baghdad was required to itemize its doomsday weapons.
"It was a discovery. They were not declared," Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad, told The Associated Press.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Scranton, Pa., said the administration was "aware of the reports and we look forward to receiving information from the inspectors."
McClellan would not comment on how significant the find was.
At the United Nations, however, a U.S. official said the discovery only raised more questions.
"It's something that's going to have to be looked at really closely," said U.S. deputy ambassador Richard Williamson. "It raises a lot of questions from the declaration and other things."
Inspectors found a 12th warhead, also of 122 mm, that requires further evaluation, Ueki said in a statement.
The inspectors used portable X-ray equipment for a preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing, Ueki's statement said.
"The warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980's," the statement said.
The weapons components were found during a visit by inspectors to the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area, 75 miles south of Baghdad. It was one of several sites inspectors checked on Thursday.
Inspectors do not usually report specific discoveries, which made Thursday's announcement unusual. It is up to the U.N. Security Council to determine whether Thursday's find would amount to a breach of U.N. resolutions.
On Dec. 7, a chemical team secured a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas that had been inventoried by inspectors in the 1990s before the program was halted.
The mustard gas shells were the first batch of weapons of mass destruction brought under their control in the current round of inspections in Iraq.
U.N. inspectors have said Iraq's final weapons declaration made in December failed to support its claims to have destroyed missiles, warheads and chemical agents such as VX nerve gas.
The United States and Britain doubt Iraq is committed to giving up its weapons of mass destruction and have dispatched thousands more troops to the Gulf region for a possible military showdown.
Washington has cited nine areas in which it said Iraq's declaration fails to give a complete picture of weapons holdings. These include thousands of pounds of unaccounted-for materials for producing anthrax, and the chemical precursors for manufacturing mustard gas.
"It's something that's going to have to be looked at really closely," said U.S. deputy ambassador Richard Williamson. "It raises a lot of questions from the declaration and other things."
Were these warheads mentioned in the declaration? "We're trying to doublecheck. We don't think so. Washington's trying to go through that right now," he told AP.
What about adding pressure, urgency?
"There has to be urgency to this process. The president said it was a growing threat. It's still a growing threat. He (Saddam) has not satisfied the terms of Resolution 1441. So inspections have to be forward-leaning and the U.S. has made that view known and we will continue to push for that. And the decision is up to the council, not to any U.N. employee."
Smalso
Unregistered
S
Just for the record, the US did not invade Germany because Hitler was an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and had the means to build weapons of mass destruction. Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan the day following Pearl Harbor. I don't believe one has anything to do with the other.
As to invading Iraq, I really don't believe that Iraqi oil is the main reason for it. I believe that the security of all middle east oil is a large consideration. By some estimates it is 70% of the world's reserves. Oil has at least to figure into any action in that area. The main reason for invading Iraq is, of course, politics. Oil is part of politics.
As to invading Iraq, I really don't believe that Iraqi oil is the main reason for it. I believe that the security of all middle east oil is a large consideration. By some estimates it is 70% of the world's reserves. Oil has at least to figure into any action in that area. The main reason for invading Iraq is, of course, politics. Oil is part of politics.
E.J.Armstrong
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 3,806
See below.
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
Yes, E.J., I have read your Jedi Knight quotes before. Are you trying to be his apostle?E.J.Armstrong said:
The last quote from him seemed very familiar when I first read it. I think he paraphrased Ann Coulter. Substitute "liberals" for "media" and you may have her verbatim.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
And I'm not claiming that they did. There was a statement about comparisons and an invasion was left out. I just wanted to point out that there were more similarities than were originally stated.Smalso said:
Additionally my point was to rebut the argument that we couldn't invade Iraq because we had provided weapons to them in the first place. Well we were active trading partners with Germany prior to WWII and had provided materials for their military build up. Using the before mentioned logic we could not have gone to war with Japan or Germany. It simply does not wash.
I have stated that oil is a factor. I do not believe that this has anything to do with the fact that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice or any of the administration or friends of the president or others are linked to oil. And for the record, no one has provided any evidence to the contrary.
Smalso
Unregistered
S
RandFan:
I agree. What happened in the past concerning US relations with Iraq have little if anything at all to do with whether we invade now. The situation changes and 9/11 changed a lot of situations. This is not what Bush had in mind for his first two years in office but he is stuck with it. Perhaps he is using this opportunity to get a little payback at Iraq. Maybe he is using this opportunity to line his pockets and those of his friends. Maybe this, perhaps that. Your point is well taken that there is no evidence that compells the belief that this is all over oil. It's a nice fringe benefit, though. Excellent thread, by the way.
I agree. What happened in the past concerning US relations with Iraq have little if anything at all to do with whether we invade now. The situation changes and 9/11 changed a lot of situations. This is not what Bush had in mind for his first two years in office but he is stuck with it. Perhaps he is using this opportunity to get a little payback at Iraq. Maybe he is using this opportunity to line his pockets and those of his friends. Maybe this, perhaps that. Your point is well taken that there is no evidence that compells the belief that this is all over oil. It's a nice fringe benefit, though. Excellent thread, by the way.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I hate to be cynical but yes, I can’t eliminate money as "a" motivation if even it is a minor one. This would put the oil links into perspective. And it would be stupid to assume that a politican did not have at least some poltical motive for an action as important as this one. And let's be honest, Bush himself raised the issue that Saddam had tried to kill his father. I know that George W. Bush sought the Texas Governors office because of what Ann Richards had said about his father during the presidential campaign. So I don't think that it is far fetched at all to say pay back could also play a part.Smalso said:
So what do we have? A dynamic composed of oil, money, politics, revenge and national security. Hell, you take out the national security angle and you have a great episode from the TV show Dallas.
Good points Smalso
originalgagster
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 103
RandFan said:
Its got nothing to do with what i may or may not believe. The evidence is there in black and white. There is nothing in the resolution which legitimises violence.
Who is going to pass a resolution condeming the US against Saddam? No-one is powerful enough.
Just because there was no resolution doesnt mean you can assume the US and UK acted lawfully. The case is cut and dried, you dont have to depend on my word, the UN resolutions concerning Iraq are there in black and white, there is nothing in them which legitimises the maintenance of no fly zones.
Of course you need a UN resolution to invade Iraq, invading a sovereign country without a UN mandate is an outright breach of international law. It is right there in the UN charter to which the US is a signatory.
The war was not a US war to destroy Iraq, it was a coalition war to liberate Kuwait which was legitimised through UN resolutions. The US has no peace treaty with Iraq, any attack has to be done through the UN with regards to UN resolutions.
If you invade a sovereign territory without an international mandate you are no better than Saddam was when he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Yes Saddam did invade his neighbours. More than twelve years ago. What is relevant is the threat Saddam poses here and now, which is simply non-existent.
Not at all. First of all we did not supply Germany with the weapons she used to attack all her neighbours, we also didnt send her military aid while these attacks were taking place. Secondly, as you pointed out yourself Germany attacked other European countries, and as has also been pointed out it was Germany who declared war on the US and the USSR, not the other way round.
Well i guess if Bush says the US should attack, then any attack is entirely morally justified. Im glad you cleared that up.
Its not a conspiracy theory that the west did nothing in Rwanda while 1 000 000 were slaughtered, or that they have supported the Indonesian and Turkish governments while they massacred their own people.
Surely you have to concede that the inconsistency requires some explanation. Especially considering human rights is the reason so often given for foreign intervention.
These stats are easy to find, they are widely published. here is one source. http://www.just1world.org/development-aid.htm
If your point was that the American people are decent, i have never disagreed.
Well Scot Ritter was chief weapons inspector in Iraq for 7 years, so his testimony is valuable. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary.
And its my understanding that these are empty warheads. Not exactly an earth shattering find. Could well be some rubbish left over from the gulf war. No-one is sure yet, so its wrong of you to use this as evidence of Ritters incompetence.
Even if this find does put Saddam in breach of resolution 1441, it still has to be argued this is justification for attack.
This war could cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Is 12 empty warheads justification for such barbarism?
Yes Saddam is a dangerous and depraved man, but i honestly dont think he is any worse than half of the governments of the world. The Turkish governments has massacred thousands of kurds. The Indonesian government has carried out Pol Pot type massacres in East Timor. The Kuwaiti and Saudi governments have woeful human rights records. The list goes on and on.
He wouldnt have to necessarily admit it. Evidence is required though. If no evidence is required and any country could invade any other country on the basis of pure specualtion there would be a complete breakdown of international law.
Other countries could use similar justifications to begin wars. India could certainly attack Pakistan under the same pretext. Turkey could attack Greece. China could attack Taiwan.
The US is not exempt from international standards of law.
Is there no motivation? Australian troops invaded Indonesia, and Israel have threatened to attack Saudi Arabia before.
And he is not the only one who has launched attacks at countries he is not at war with. You do recall the bombing of Lybia? The invasion of Panama?
Again , no more dangerous than dozens of other leaders, and since he is completely toothless, far less so.
Anyway, it could easily be argued that these are reasons for not going to war, for if he does have the capability to launch strikes against Israel or detonate a nuclear device in downtown Manhattan there is no surer way of making him do it than launching an attack.
They are co-operating with the US because they fear losing the handouts which keep them in power. The Arab nations have no fear of Saddam. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia know they are under US protection and Saddam doesnt have anything like the might needed to threaten Iran.
I do have an undertanding of the politics of the region, and i know that fear in Arab countries is very real should the US attack. They are afraid of popular uprising by fundamentalist Islamic groups, they are afraid of an upsurge in terrorism. These are very real fears, especially to an oppresive regime like the Saudi government. They are much greater and more pressing fears than fear generated by any threat Saddam may pose.
These fears are stated time after time by Arab governments - with the exception of the partially democratically elected government of Iran which has no reason to fear a popular uprising.
The main fear Iran has, and the reason they have begun mobilising their troops is a fear of invasion by the US. I notice they didnt even bother to mobilise their army to meet the grave threat posed by Saddam.
And i have seen no statement by any Arab country regarding their fear of Saddam.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I really appreciate your responses. I think that they are thought out and you are obviously firm in your convictions. I look forward to further discussion.
One more thing and this not a slam against you but could you please run your text through a spell checker? There is a great one at www.spellcheck.com. I’m no great speller either. It’s just that I spend allot of time skipping over your words when I am spell checking my responses to you. Sorry, it’s just getting annoying.
Thanks again
RandFan
You simply don't know what you are talking about. We have the authority. We always have had since we agreed to stop firing and negotiated a surrendor.originalgagster said:
Sorry, you are making assumptions about things you don't know anything about. We negotiated the surrender of the Iraqis and we have the right to enforce the no fly zones.
See above.
You fail to grasp that Iraq has never honored its agreement. They have been in breech from day one. They have broken every resolution and we are with in our right.
See above.
See above.
Your argument is irrelevant. German declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan, so what? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that we were trading with Iraq is totally irrelevant as irrelevant as trading with Germany. And I have news for you we did sell materials and weapons to Germany. Are you sure you want to stay with that one.
We have the right to protect ourselves. We have worked with the UN. Which we set up by the way.
Are you really suggesting that we solve all of the problems around the world?
Again we can’t solve all of the problems. The examples only prove you wrong. Oil is not the only reason we will go to war.
Well he sure got it wrong didn't he. I think little of his testimony. The report the Iraqis gave us is stark testimony to how wrong he was. Look there is no need for them to obfuscate unless they have the weapons.
They assured us that they did not have them. They did. Like I said in another post, I wonder what else this guy lies about. And this was how important? We found them, did he even make the effort? Come on, I can’t believe that you are defending this.
You are being ridiculous. How many times must I lay out the facts. Invaded his neighbors, killed thousands of innocent lives, attacked Israel, waged a scorched earth policy, broke every UN resolution, and lied time and time again. Yes, it is enough. The time has long since passed.
He is the most dangerous to us at the moment. We can't solve all of the problems at once so we will start with him.
You give me chills. So Saddam could get away with detonating a bomb in Manhattan.
Sorry, none of those even come close to matching a country that invaded its neighbor, was forced out, waged a scorched earth policy, surrendered, and broke its agreement and every UN resolution. It doesn't wash.
No one said that we were.
Are you nuts? This is a man who said that he did not have biological weapons and after years of searching we found them. He has the motive and the means and you take his word of George Bush. ?????
BS, it's the best way.
That is flat out wrong.
Well according to the news 60 minutes and the other programs the Moslem world does very much fear Saddam. The idea that they don't is really rather silly. He fought Iran and invaded Kuwait. I will search for more evidence tomorrow but the whole notion is just stupid. And the Iranians think that we are going to invade them? Under what pretext? Saddam has proven that he will invade without provocation. It is not true of the US and if we go in there it will because Saddam did not live up to his end of the bargain.
One more thing and this not a slam against you but could you please run your text through a spell checker? There is a great one at www.spellcheck.com. I’m no great speller either. It’s just that I spend allot of time skipping over your words when I am spell checking my responses to you. Sorry, it’s just getting annoying.
Thanks again
RandFan
originalgagster
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 103
RandFan said:
Thank you, your responses are appreciated also. You are forthright and honest in your point of view, which naturally I respect.
Can you please post a link to or excerpts from the agreement from which you say the United States extracts her authority to attack Iraq. Iraq and the US have no surrender agreement or formal treaty. The only agreement Iraq has which is relevant to the current situation is with the United Nations. Only the United Nations can decide if Iraq is in breech, and only the United Nations can decide on an appropriate course of action.
For the US to “go it alone” and attack Iraq without UN approval is a clear breach of the United Nations charter.
You keep re-iterating the point of view that because the US was on the winning side in the gulf war they have the right to attack when they decide Saddam is in breech. This is clearly fallacious, as the gulf war was carried out under the auspices of the UN and Iraq’s surrender is formalised by UN resolutions, it has to be the UN which makes decisions regarding Iraq. No one member state has the right to attack on behalf of the UN, any attack must be decided on by the organisation as a whole.
There is really nothing to argue here, the argument that the US has a legal right to attack Iraq in the event of Iraq being in breech is refuted by the facts.
If you are aware of an agreement which allows the UK and US to take control of one third of Iraqi airspace then you should post a reference to it. If not you have no choice but to agree that both countries are in full breech of international law.
There are plenty of resources detailing the illegality of no fly zones, for example: here, here and here
That Iraq has been in defiance of UN resolutions several times over the past 12 years is not in doubt. Again you provide no argument to back up your assertion that it is a US right to attack Iraq in event of Iraqi breech of UN resolutions. As I have shown above trying to make such an argument with reference to any agreement or treaty does not wash because no such agreement or treaty exists.
The comparisons with Hitler don’t stand up to scrutiny. The allied powers did profit from Hitler’s rise, the rebuilding of his economy and the strengthening of his military, just as they did with Saddam. There are important differences. The west did not sell weapons technology to Germany then use German possession of those weapons as justification for an attack, as the US and UK are doing now. The reasons for war with Germany are completely different from the justifications for this war. We are using capabilities which Hussein would not possess but for our enabling them as our justification. This is arrant hypocrisy, pure and simple.
You do have the right to protect yourself. Under the UN charter you have the right to protect yourself in the event of an attack. You have no right to protect yourself in the event of unlikely theoretical possibilities.
Nope, just that the West should show a little consistency.
Yes Saddam did fire scuds at Israel and waged a scorched earth policy - when he was at war. Which backs up my point that if he does have WOMD the surest way to get him to use them is by attacking him.
The idea that Saddam could, any time soon, launch missile strikes against Israel is, frankly, insane. He knows full well he would be crushed within days. He may well be brutal, but there is no evidence he is suicidal.
Besides think about what you are saying - that the US has the right to launch an attack on Iraq because it is theoretically possible that some day soon Iraq could launch missiles at Israel. This is nuts. If Israel is concerned for her own security then it is up to Israel to take appropriate action by approaching the UN. The US has no right to invade sovereign states on behalf of the supposed security of foreign countries. That’s a crazy notion.
The breaking of UN resolutions, as I have pointed out is a UN matter, the US has no authority here. Any action to be taken has to be decided on by the UN.
Sorry, I misread your point. I thought you meant in the event of Iraqi plans to detonate a nuclear advice. Of course action could be taken then.
I believe you’ll find it hard to amass evidence that there is any Arab fear of Iraq. You will find plenty of evidence of fear of the consequences of an American attack, but none which provides real facts to back up the assertion that Saddam’s neighbours are afraid of him. No Arab country has made appeals to the international community or the Arab league which I am aware of. You will find that fear of Saddam is strictly an American paranoia.
Heh. Fair enough. I reckon that could have something to do with my use of British spellings, but its no biggie, ill do it anyway. Hope you find this post more readable, although the spelling is still UK.
Wolverine
Centered and One
