The Bush admin backed out of the Kyoto treaty (as well as other treaties the US govt. had previsouly committed to). They didn't simply express their right to vote on a UN resolution -- they backed out of a commitment the US govt. had made to its allies. That's why the allies were pissed. I'm not looking to tie this to the Iraq situation -- only trying to clear that up. If the US can provide evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 -- either leading up to the attacks OR after the fact, by harboring those responsible -- I believe the UN will authorize force. If the US, or anyone else, can provide evidence that Saddam's in violation of his terms of surrender, I also believe they will authorize force. I know that his refusal to allow inspections is in violation, but it has never been made clear that this was grounds for regime change. I say make that clear now. Today. The UN HAS failed to police Iraq under the terms of surrender. This is one area where I am less patient with Iraq than France, Germany or the UN. I say phone him up right this minute and say the inspectors are on their way. Tell him that no site will go uninspected. That every WMD they find, in violation of terms, will be destroyed immediately and that inspectors will remain present in the country indefinitely. Tell him that anything less than this will be grounds for removing him from office, by force if necessary, by a UN force led by the US. If he resists any of these terms, no reasonable nation will oppose an alliance to remove him. And I won't either.
franchise_blade, it is outdated information for you to continue saying that Bush's administration says there is no link between Iraq and 9/11. In his speech, he says Al Qaeda refugees are being harbored. It is self-defense, then. We are at "war" against the terrorists, and Saddam is breaking his terms of surrender in harboring them. We can attack. The Security Council would have to vote that we are the aggressors. Until they do, it is just your opinion saying that we are the aggressors. And I disagree. now...I'm not a huge Bush fan. But I always defer to the Executive Branch of the United States on such huge issues of security. Bush is involving the UN, now. He is warning them. The UN needs to freaking step up to preserve peace. They need to deal with our President's huge allegations. He does not need to show them sensitive information. They need to go knock on Saddam's do and investigate for themselves. rimbaud, I'll get bored listening to people's theories about Bush's allegations, soon enough. "If he would show me evidence...." sheesh and in the same month they'll say, "Doc Rocket has every right not to reveal his sources." hehe
could not agree more! i have absolutely no problem with putting weapons inspectors in first...or at least attempting to...if he doesn't allow it, then it should be pretty darn clear what's going on.
I didn't mean to say you had to be in NY to read the speech or have an opinion. Someone asked where I was on 9-11-01. I was just answering him. As far as the link to Al Qaeda, just two days ago Collin Powell admitted that the whitehouse no direct link, just a couple of days ago. I've seen nothing more recent than that saying that there is a connection. The only news I've heard about Al Qaeda being in IRaq was that they are in the northern Kurdish controlled area. Of course if they are harboring them, then I agree an invasion of Iraq is warranted. I think if there is evidence about Saddam being linked to 9/11 all that Bush would have to do is present it, and our allies would fall right in line with an invasion of Iraq.
Batman, I agree. The UN must act. The ball is in their court. Go knock on Saddam's door and see what he does. Make him react on the UN's TERMS and timetable, not his. btw: according to Bush's speech, this goes way beyond weapons inspections though. How are you going to deal with the allegations of Al Qaeda refugees by harbored there, especially if they are being allowed to restore terrorist operations and "command centers." franchise_blade, I agree then. I never meant to disagree that there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
I also agree with Batman, and HeyP posted something similar also. I don't know what it means, but when you can get Mad Max, Batman, HeyPartner, and I to all agree, it surely says something.
HP: We're in agreement on the big issue, I think. Not so sure on the details, though. I don't have the terms of surrender handy, but I don't think they specifically bar him from harboring terrorists. If there's proof he is, that would fall under our pledge to root out terrorists and punish those countries which give them comfort, which I also think the UN would support -- but not because of the surrender terms. A minor quibble, maybe. I understand there are security issues, but I really wish Bush and co. would go ahead and share the evidence they have with those most important parties. I'm not inclined to doubt or believe that they have such evidence, but until it is shared with the people we're trying to convince, the argument remains rhetorical, no matter how moving the rhetoric.
That is why it is better to make stuff up, write gibberish, and have all sorts of personal jokes invovled every now and then...to add variety and interest. Wait, that describes all of your posts excluding the hangout. I think the truth is that you got lonely, signed up for some Leisure Learning (or is it UH) classes on "Current Events," and decided to try to play with the mental giants that talk about each other's mammas when discussing their favorite movies about republicans and democrats.
I saw Cheney read that in response to Clinton's recent comments on last Sunday's Meet the Press. Though I don't like Cheney, I don't like Clinton even more.
Batman, Resolution 687. http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/gulf_states/resolution_687.html <blockquote>32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism. </blockquote> As for sharing evidence...in regards to the UN, that is not our responsibility. That is for the UN to investigate....by order of their OWN RESOLUTIONS. Is it just me, or is this a moment of truth for the UN? Hell, maybe I'll start a thread about that. Rimbaud, What is it with you and Achebe tailing me and trying to get me to growl? Are you jealous that people refer to me in Titles of their posts, but not you? Or are you just trying to flex your Hangout muscle's again. What is your only contribution to basketball again (thus, cc.net)....oh, I remember..."Jason Terry is not a point guard." Boy, you sure are clinging to that one. btw: don't toss out the Ace card email behind the scenes again..."hey, don't take anything I say seriously. I'm just trying to act cool by taking you on." If I were to take you seriously, I'd print out all these hangout posts and get out my Leisure Learning yellow highlight marker to archive the brilliant comments in the threads on politics and morals...and how to pick up girls. You know, all those threads that you frequent out of search for knowledge and/or boredom.
Batman, I didn't know that fact until Bush's speech, but I'm damn sure getting up to speed quickly. I am appalled at how many resolutions the UN has let slip. I really question UN's ability to keep peace....I always have. imo, this is their moment of truth. Last 9/11 was our wake-up call, and now this 9/11, Bush gave the UN a wake up. This is the UN's defining moment, imso. This is the first time in history that a Veto-power Security Council member as announced in front of the UN allegations for reasons of a first strike, and said they will attack without UN intervention. If this is not the strongest request for the UN to intervene in a peacekeeping moment of truth, I don't know what is. The US President has put the ball in the UN's court, because the UN is not following their own Resolutions. imo, if the UN votes on inaction....we need to withdraw our membership as a next step, and announce we will be attacking within one month. This is the UN's wake-up call. What is their purpose???? Except moments like this??? Enfore your damn resolutions or disband.
Is it me? Or would working a building a strong econpmy before even thinking about war be a great idea. War isn't free, and it would suck to see America go broke.
Damn, heypartner, don't take yourself so seriously. Or am I misreading you outplaying me? Anyway, I thought you understood...perhaps not. I will stick to heb and smeggy when fake arguing in the future. Nothing to see here. Lol," how to pick up girls"...that is probably just my wife logging in as me and getting tips.
I want to clarify something if it hasn't been already concerning the idea that Iraq must be hiding something if they don't allow inspectors in. Now I agree that they are hiding something, but my point is that they have a much better reason to block inspections and will continue to with everything they've got. Bush Sr. got busted putting intelligence boys in with the inspectors. Now, you can argue about whether it was a good idea or a mistake, in my opinion it was a good idea, and it was a mistake to get busted. Hussein would be crazy to let a team back in. In fact I bet he would prefer to go to war and go out fighting than risk any possibility of US intelligence perfectly targeting his factories, stores, supplies, bunkers, everything. Dude, with the precision bombs we've got now, all we need is precise ground info and I bet we could utterly, totally cripple most Iraqi military capability in 48-72 hours of bombing. Just watch- the UN is going to try and placate Hussein by offering an inspection team of non-military guys that can supposedly be trusted, and he's going to duck and dodge and refuse because if the US air force gets good ground info, he might as well put his head on the block and hand us an axe. I kind of like that idea, actually.
Most economists will tell you that it is virtually impossible for a President to build an economy. When the government does intervene things usually get worse...not better. Another thing is that the economy generally reacts VERY slowly to governmental policies. All being said...it should be primarily left up to the Fed...they are the driving force behind monetary policy.
I heard the same thing from former inspector Scott Ritter. That's why I don't believe it. Ritter has been spinning propaganda for Hussein for the last 2 years. His recent comments have been completely contrary to what he said about Iraq when he quit the job in 1998. This guy has ZERO credibility.
Two things: This addresses my biggest concern with invading a sovereign peripheral nation as some sort of 'shout out' to papa B. How exactly is Iraq in our critical path? There's been some perverse build up for a few months now, and intelligence has said that the Bush administration is wrong about Sadaam's capabilities, and we're supposed to believe the administration over the CIA? Who has the agenda again? If you're being political you might be a... That being said, if this is just some pile-on to kill whomever we can... if we have some sort of free check, "kill whomever you'd like 36 mos. after loosing a few thousand of your citizens", then I'm all for it. Securing Saudi assets would be a bigger coup (I'll take infrastructure and knowns over speculative holdings), but perhaps another time. There are crazies there, there are crazies everywhere. rimbaud, I would think that heypartner was just joking in reply.... but I emailed him once (I thought that it was obvious that I was joking around) about how 'he was such a big shot on the bbs' or some such silliness. And he replied back, w/ a ~1500 word email on how to be cool, or win bbs friends, or something. You'll have to teach me more obscure words/artsy words than the following 'surreal', but I honestly didn't know how to respond to it. It was so weeeird. Maybe 'oooh, icky' is the appropriate phrase. I forgot about his queer ego, "he's normally a great guy and everything but... he's kind of psycho in this situation" sort of moments. My post yesterday was intended to be in jest (in a long unfunny way to make fun of his patronization of a Clutch 'search works' post earlier in the day)... but, weeeeird, he seriously does take himself that seriously. Now I wish I had chosen the same topic (first quote in my reply) from some other poster. heypartner is going to go to bed masturbating to his references again.
You know I agree with you, and Bush performed better than anyone could have hoped for today. But that simple honest question many nations are going to be faced with... and we could all relate to this... is how long is too long? We combed that country until 1998. That's a borderline occupation. Sure Sadaam is a nut, but why do we only have provenience on his case of nuts? At some point, the world is made up of nuts, and national sovereignty winds back into the picture (sorry I'm being loose/incoherent w/ a pitcher in me). Iran, Saudi Arabia, Northern Africa, Turkmenistan, the nation of mud, all of those places easily house as many nutcases as does Iraq. Why is Iraq in our critical path; at this time of all times? We have a freebie, don't we? This is the time. Is that all there is to this? Milking September eleventh of last year to do something not done over a decade ago? Hell, anything that could happen would be worse than Sadaam's head exploding, but I think we need to call this for what it is. We're manipulating September 11th, the deaths of our citizens, to do something... that we might not be able to get away with in a year... or two years from now (when the dangers could be more pertinent, but the sympathy of the world lessened).
Exactly right, which really surprised me. I couldn't tell initially whether he was on the level and a patriot or some bonehead seeking the spotlight. Option 2, step up. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html Apparently, when he left his job in 1998, he said that Iraq had been thwarting him, now he says they were able to get their job done. Then he said they still had weapons, now he says they had none left in 1998 and haven't built anymore since (even though he hasn't been there for 4 years). Back then he said that the US was not taking its role...leading the security council to challenge Iraq's intransigence because we were afraid of confrontation with Iraq. Now... hmmm...he's full of it.
