“Ours”, as in the United States.
I’m sorry, Chumpsky but citing Scott Ritter and the Campaign against Sanctions on Iraq hardly constitute believable, unbiased sources. As for this nonsense:
I hear nary a peep of protest from you regarding Saddam’s spending of oil money(allowed under the so-called oil for food deal) on his palaces, elaborate personal protection, military buildup, weapons programs, etc. Do you really think Saddam cares as much about his people as you do? Do you really believe that a single ordinary Iraqi’s life would be improved if all the sanctions were lifted tomorrow?
And you think that United States foreign policy is somehow “our” foreign policy?
Please elaborate.
Please stop changing the subject. Start a new thread if you want to.
Like the typical demagogue, if you cannot attack the argument or the facts, attack the messenger. The attacks from the right on Scott Ritter are particularly enlightening. Nothing illuminates the fundamental dishonesty of the warmongers when they attack the ex-Marine’s credibility.
Yes, without a doubt. We should stop killing Iraqi children.
And how many sanctions did Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Chile have placed against them as a result of losing a war that they started?
Oh, right, you forgot about that little Gulf War thingy, didn’t you? Yeah… that lil’ ol’ thing, such a bane to your arguments…
Saddam is killing those children.
Saddam led his country into multiple, bloody, foolhardy wars.
Saddam forced through a useless NBC weapons program.
Saddam misappropriated the oil for food money.
Saddam is the enemy and you would allow him to continue to successfully hold his entire nation hostage.
My God, on NPR of all places I have been hearing continual stories of reporters going to Iraq and having the people constantly ask them why America has not yet invaded and saved them from this tyrant that they were abandoned too 10 years ago.
We must invade because Saddams non-compliance with the treaties signed at the end of the Gulf War mean that the war never ended. It is time to finish the job and destroy that man.
Perhaps you have heard of the crime of “aiding and abetting”?
True, but you forgot to add “with our support.”
Sanctions only strengthen Saddam’s grip on power, and hurt only the poor of Iraq.
Not too surprising that you would hear pro-war propaganda on the hyper-establishment NPR. NPR is notoriously pro-war and servile to power, and always has been. In a country as large as Iraq, it isn’t suprising that NPR is able to find people who support Washington’s stand.
On the other hand, if you would like to hear a different perspective from state propaganda, check out the Iraq Journal:
http://www.iraqjournal.org/
I just thought this was bizarre enough to bear repeating.
You mean… the veto the US has on the Security Council? Or?
I mean, it’s not like any other countries have any influence on the UN at all. Not like Russia was ever not our friend, and China only has our best interests at heart…
Am I missing something here?
On second thought, let’s go back to the topic. And ignore Chumpsky’s hijack… if someone wants, they should open a Pit thread.
So. IF the US has evidence, real, substantial evidence of WMD in Iraq… Gods above and below, if a London paper can hear about Saddam telling farmers to hide chemicals with their equipment, I’m sure the CIA has heard more than that.
IF the US has evidence of WMD, real, substantial evidence that Saddam has not disarmed. And yet, he was supposed to have disarmed as he started a war and lost.
Yes, he may have thought the US wouldn’t get involved. It is possible. It would have been a very, very stupid thought, but it is possible. The US has very little control over what Saddam thinks. But he started the war. (Yes, I know about the accused slant-drilling. It’s reasonably sure it was a pretext, and even were it not, I’d consider it a political matter, not a military one) He started the war… and lost. Badly. Horribly. And he signed a peace treaty. Under duress of having more devestation brought to his country, but that’s what war is. So, he signed, and one of the provisions was to disarm.
And either he has, or he has not.
And if the US has evidence he has not? Then what should happen next? Is that a pretext for war, or (no pun intended) a just cause?
If it is a pretext, what would be a just cause?
I was going to ask what would happen if Saddam insists he has no WMDs, and, as is very likely, the inspectors find nothing (let’s face it, Iraq is a big country, they’ve had two months of the Security Council wrangling to hide things, and the inspectors will never turn up somewhere entirely unannounced).
The only way out for the US would be already held evidence. But what are the chances of the US having evidence that is sufficently sound to convince the likes of France, China and Russia? It can’t be evidence from on the ground, as far as I’m aware that is in very short supply. Would satellite photos be sufficient?
What is most likely to happen if the U.N. cannot find WMDs is that Bush will:
- Insist that there is indeed evidence and
- Such evidence cannot be shown to the American public because of national security concerns.
Both the demands and the supposed deadline are a farce.
While I understand that concern, Czarcasm, the nice thing about having a nominal two-party system and a theoretical free press is that if someone tries to pull something like that, he wiiiilll get ripped a new one.
I’ve got to say that your (2), I hope, won’t happen. I don’t see any reasonable occasion where it would… without becoming suicide for Bush.
I’m sorry, but Bush’s White House has been “pulling” this since he was sworn in.
I share Czarcasm’s concerns.
It is however inaccurate to suggest that Bush and not the U.N. set the 12/8 deadline, and as yet unfounded to state that Bush will declare Iraq not in compliance whatever they say. Diogenes appears to have missed the last part of the link he referenced:
*Fleischer said Bush is not yet making any judgments on whether those inspections will be successful in disarming Saddam peacefully. Should the inspections route fail, Bush has vowed that the United States will lead allies into war to rid Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction.
"The president is skeptical that Saddam Hussein will comply and it’s too soon to say. One week is not adequate time," Fleischer said. *
I’d be delighted if all the saber-rattling gets Saddam to behave. At least he hasn’t been invading other nations and killing their civilians in recent years, thanks mostly to the U.S. and a few allies.
Attitudes like this do more to create enemies for America than anything else. You know what? Al Qaeda carry out terrorist attacks because they can. They may not win in the end but they are making life very uncomfortable for us. The USA will also decline in the long run and I hope the legacy is somewhat better than “they bullied the world while they could and the rest of the world were relieved to see their decline”.
And what is the criteria for “failure?” What constitutes “compliance?”
How can Iraq “rid itself” of WMD if none exist? The US currently has no compelling evidence whatever that Iraq has either WMD or the missile technology to threaten the the US. Now if Iraq is not able to produce that which does not exist, then the Bushistas are going to pretend that Iraq is in noncompliance so that Junior can have his war. Objections by the UN will be met with typically arrogant, self-righteous handwaving by the US.
One criterion would be for Iraq to stop hiding the equipment they use to produce WMD.
Regards,
Shodan
Talk about prejudging the outcome. :rolleyes:
I’m saying hypothetically if no WMD’s exist. (and we have NO PROOF that they do) How can they possibly prove that none exist?
Shodan, SCUD missles are not WMD. WMD are defined as nuclear, biological and chemical.