But, wait!! The media told me everyone was AGAINST invading Iraq...

I do agree that it hasn't worked in the past. I would try and fix it rather than invade unilaterally.

Because Saddam isn't behind the 9/11 attacks. We know who did that, and have yet to apprehend him. I would rather focus on one task at a time. There may be a need to attack Iraq in the future, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe the time is now.

We know who was behind 9/11, and I'm all in favor of attacking Bin Laden. So far we haven't got Bin Laden, why open up a new front of war right now? We don't have Mullah Omar either. I think it's better to concentrate on those that have already attacked the U.S. rather than those who some say will in the future. I don't know what crystal ball anyone has to say that Hussein will attack us, but I don't believe that any crystal ball sees clearly enough to warrant a first strike.

Claiming 9/11 as a reason for attacking Iraq is about as legitimate as Hitler's claims about Poland.(I believe he did it in Czchechloslavakia as well.) I wasn't defending Hitler, but showing that even a man as evil as Hitler understood the need for not invading a country that hasn't attacked you.

But I thought China developed nukes before India. So China wasn't hemmed in by a nuclear power at that time.

You say there is no counter balance to a nuclear Iraq, but ISrael has nukes as well. Israel also has a policy of expansion.

We contained the Soviets under Stalin, and under Kruschev. Also under Kruschev during the cuban missle crisis despite comparitively primitive surveilence equipment the president went on TV and showed pictures proving the actual threat. Why can't this president make the case that definitively. Also that crisis ended without bloodshed. I refuse to believe that Saddam is more dangerous than a fully armed Soviet Union with ICM's. Saddam could be contained. As Batman pointed out, he's had the chem weapons for a long time, and there have been terrorists attacks against the U.S. in that time, yet none of them have involved chem weapons supplied by Saddam. Why would that change...? Unless of course Saddam was under attack, or an attack was imminent.

Conainment worked well with the Cold War, against more capable leaders with stronger militaries, and far more advanced nuclear programs. If Bush isn't capable of containment against an Iraq that has only about 1/3 military capacity of the time we fought them in the Gulf War, then he's the wrong man to be leading the country and he should resign.

 

But Al Qaeda isn't the same thing as Iraq. I'm all in favor hunting down and crippling Al Qaeda. People keep saying that Hussein will hand these weapons over to terrorists, but he's had Chem weapons for decades and hasn't handed them to terrorists to attack the U.S.

That implys either that Saddam is contained, and is unable to get the weapons into terrorists hands or that he doesn't have the inclination to give them the weapons in the first place. Either way I don't see how people would draw the conclusion that he will automatically supply the terrorists, or use the weapons of mass destruction himself against us.

As far as the weapons go, Saddam signed agreements that he has broken. Those agreements were with the U.N. not the U.S. and it should be up to the U.N. to decide how to deal with the issue. The U.S. is free to bring up all the resolutions if it wants.

 

Well IMO it looks like we're going to war with Iraq, so I hope that I'm wrong and that you are right. And I certainly dont' hold political disagreements against anyone, especially a Rockets Fans.

 

Allright, madmax, so Lott changed his mind. Big deal. Substitute baker, scowcroft, etc. Normally you'd expect to see those guys with a big american flag running around fort bragg saying support our troops at this point instead of calling for debate. I guess there's still time for that before the November elections conveniently enough, so that anybody who dissents can get appropriately vilified.

Regarding chemical weapons:
Chemical weapons are OK for Hussein to use in the Iran Iraq war, that won't shut off the cash flow from the US. But apparently now, when they have been sitting around unused for 15+ years, and when they weren't used in a previous war against the US, they are a big danger.

Sorry, I don't think anybody can use that as a justification. Yes, he used them before. THe US firebombed tokyo because the houses were made of wood. In war, people do bad things. He hasn't come close to using them since, not even in a war. Against US.

When you corner an animal, he's more likely to bite you. Yes, letting Saddam run roughshod and rampant and stockpile weapons and threaten everybody and everything isn't a good idea either, but the only people who think he's doing that to the point where it is the preeminent global threat and justifying an invasion are Bush, Wolfowitz and Co., and they didn't come to this realization, magically, till after the Bin Laden hunt went cold, and not very many people neither in the mideast (apart from the random emir who owes his cushy lifestyle to US support, whom his people hate) nor even his own party seem to be in agreement.

 

Photos of missiles in Cuba, Concentration camps in Bosnia, Invasion of Kuwait. That stuff is evidence. What I have heard so far from the pro war crowd is rhetoric and argument.

If this "support/evidence/information/case" that we keep hearing about against Iraq is so explosive, then I have to believe it would have been made by now, or it would have been made before September 11. War plans get leaked to the New York times, but this explosive info does not? Hell, Israel wouldn't hesitate to loudly proclaim whatever it was Iraq was hiding. But they haven't. The hyper-imminent Pearl Harbor like Iraqi threat cannot be proved at this time, but cannot be disproved, a common feature of UFOS and other things that do not exist.

 

I think the only way to solve the problem is too look at why Iraq needs an arsenal. I mean why did they invade Kuwait? Although I'm not very intelligent on the issue it would seem to me that Iraq was getting killed economically by Iran and Kuwait's over and under production of oil. Iraq believed it to be some kind of economic conspiracy against their country. Which it may have well been. Kuwait refused to pay some debt, so now you want your money. Not only did they screw you, but they refuse to pay you the money they owe you. That's a problem. So you invade a country who looks like easy pickins, and you assume the U.S. supports you. Not so, but alas, you were set up. The U.S. knocks you out with a simple blow to the face. So now you need to remove the U.S. from the equation. How do you do that? You need something to negotiate with. You need a weapon. That's your bargaining chip. A Nuclear weapon. No plans to use it. You just need one so that you can regain the money you lost.

So it seems to me this all comes down to that silly ecnomic agreement between the oil producing nations. If the U.S. could somehow negotiate the production of oil and make sure that it is guaranteed (no cheaters) by all countries then you have settled this whole dispute. Everybody knows what they are getting money wise. The problem is that all the countries agree and then one country shifts the whole ecnomic situation by under or over producing oil. Why do they do that? Maybe they had some ecnomic hardship. So the question becomes how can the U.S. prevent that from happening? If you do prevent it, then you keep Sadaam from needing a nuclear weapon. He has no reason to get one. His country is making money.

Bottom line, if you suspect a country needs help economically, you ask them to keep producing oil at the same rate and that the U.S. will find a way to support you in your time of hardship. We have the ability to do that. Not only are all the crappy countries happy, but there is peace between a very volatile region. Now I have no idea how you do that, but it seems to be the root and answer to this problem in particular.

ok. now you can shoot me down.

 

The article's a little missleading.


Former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, also speaking with Larry King, said he'd recommend military action "only if we not only consult with Congress, but have a vote. And then I think I would try the arms inspection one more time, but not let Iraq delay and dither and all those things."

Clinton agreed that the arms inspectors should be tried once more also (anyway, c'mon, its Clinton MadMax, what are you doing ).

 

Originally posted by mav3434
Photos of missiles in Cuba, Concentration camps in Bosnia, Invasion of Kuwait. That stuff is evidence. What I have heard so far from the pro war crowd is rhetoric and argument.

I'm not pro-war yet, but I am certainly not anti-war.

You may have to open you mind about evidence. Our enemies will be much more covert. You have an enemy (al qaeda) that doesn't even take credit for it's actions. It has been speculated that hussein has large underground facilities. Doesn't mean that he does. Doesn't mean that we have sufficient eveidence yet, but we all may need to change our expectations with the times.

If this "support/evidence/information/case" that we keep hearing about against Iraq is so explosive, then I have to believe it would have been made by now, or it would have been made before September 11. War plans get leaked to the New York times, but this explosive info does not? Hell, Israel wouldn't hesitate to loudly proclaim whatever it was Iraq was hiding. But they haven't. The hyper-imminent Pearl Harbor like Iraqi threat cannot be proved at this time, but cannot be disproved, a common feature of UFOS and other things that do not exist.

Can you think of no other possibilities? Is it possible, that we have some people on the inside gathering info, and once we make it public...

Try to empathize with our leaders. It's not some theoretical debate for them; if they're wrong, tens-of-thousands of Americans may die, including some of us or our families. If you were in their shoes, would you be so certain?

 

Insightful look into Rumsfield's opinions:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_search_for_a_way_to_fight_a_new_type_of_foe

 

??? I'm sorry FB, but this is nonsensical. If a man says I am going to shoot you, you do not wait until he fires to act. That is sheer folly.

Sigh. FB, the situation is not the same. You also ignored the rest of my answer about China 'Mao's main goal was ensuring the integrity of Chinese territory (or so michecon tells us). Saddam is expansionist. There are many more differences if you really want to get into it. You have picked a bad example, and an example from another period that is not relevant to the post-Cold War world.'

There are many reasons to oppose proliferation. Each new proliferator increases the risk of 1) accidental launch - the more backwards the system, the more likely it becomes, 2) nuclear terrorism - either by distributing the weapons grade material on purpose, or by having facilities without proper safeguards that are targeted by terrorists, 3) miscalculation - this is a big concern in India/Pakistan where a small conflict can go nuclear when one side miscalculated the intentions of the other, 4) action by irrational leader - big concern with a gambler like Saddam. he may make an aggressive move again and use the nukes as his plan crumbles, 5) internal instability - if the regime is overthrown from within, the nukes fall into the hands of either a new unstable regime or a local warlord. The more rudimentary the program the more dangerous it is. For example the US, Russia, China, England, and France all have strict security procedures and technological safeguards that prevent access and launches from occuring while those with first generation weapons do not (ironically because policies of 'containment' won't allow them to obtain technology related to nukes), or 6) nuclear blackmail - Saddam could threaten to blow the Saudi oil fields unless they embargo the US or the West. Certainly if he DID they could count on US retaliation, but what good would that do them with useless oil fields? Why would they risk it?

Each of those is a reason to oppose proliferation WITHOUT getting to the option that Saddam uses nukes for revenge, or to make his legacy against the US/the West. What if he finds out he has terminal cancer? We know he doesn't value the lives of normal Iraqis. What is to say he wouldn't nuke Saudi oil fields for his legacy of opposing the 'imperialist west and their lapdogs in Saudi Arabia?'

There are reasons to oppose proliferation without getting to ICBMs coming toward NY or SF.

Name a piece of land Israel took without first being attacked (which is suprisingly your criteria for justification). Also Israel has been given protection of the US nuclear umbrella, which could stay their hand in the event they were attacked. Also, Israel is a democracy so the decision to launch would not happen in a vacuum as in Iraq, where ONE person, the despot Saddam could make the decision. Also, why would Israel use their nuclear capability to protect Kuwait or Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Actually because of our policy of Mutual Assured Destruction by way of overwhelming offensively capable ICBMs, the USSR and the US fought the Cold War through proxies. There is no comparison between that bi-polar world and this one. It is not analogous. You cannot follow Cold War dictum, which is based on that symmetry in this asymmetrical world.

They did not get on TV immediately and give out all their intelligence information. And I am not saying that Saddam HAS ICBMs that can be photographed. I am saying he has the means and the motive and has empirically moved to acquire nukes. Waiting until he HAS nukes is much to dangerous for the reasons above as well as the UNIQUE threat he presents.

As dangerous as the Soviets were, they would only go so far in nuclear brinksmanship. With Kruschev and those that followed there were MULTIPLE decision makers. Kruschev himself could not have ordered the launch of ICBMs at the States. With Saddam there is no such safeguard. And no, if Saddam had several or many many nukes he would not be MORE dangerous in terms of possible devastation, but he is infinitely MORE dangerous in terms of PROBABLE USE than the Soviets.

Even you admit containment fails. "I do agree that it hasn't worked in the past." Those are your words. Containment fails. I cannot understand how you continue to advocate a policy that has NOT WORKED.

Interesting. The Iraqi foreign minister just got on TV and said that Iraqi HAD NO WMD. So you must think they are lying if they have 'had chemical and biological weapons for a long time.' Why are they lying? Why do you think we can trust Saddam if he is lying? To say Saddam has not supplied or used chemical weapons to terrorists so far is NO guarantee that he will not do so in the future. And it really has nothing to do with whether we should stop his regime from attaining nuclear status.

Nope. You just do not understand the dynamic of a bi-polar world and the way the US and USSR interacted vis-a-vis their nuclear strategy. And you've already recognized that containment FAILED. And I might add that even if you were right that Cold War containment COULD work, the proxy wars fought in lieu of risking nuclear brinksmanship in the Cold War killed more people than all the wars in human history before that.

 

Of course it is possible, but anything is possible. Billions of lives are at stake if there is an asteroid strike. Likewise, millions are at stake if Kim Jong Il wakes up and decides to invade South Korea. What about the other member of the axis of evil? Iran? THey stormed the US embassy, chant death to America on Fridays, and have been trying, with much less interferrence to get nuclear weapons for years, and have been alleged to be much closer than Iraq. Even worse, their real bad guys preach martyrdom, something that Hussein doesn't seem to be a big fan of, or else he'd be dead by now. They have made these calculations every day since the nuclear age began.

It didn't take uranium and icbm's to create september 11, it took 19 motivated, US-hating individuals ready to die and a few hundred thousand dollars. And guess what, against the backdrop of the Arab-Israeli bloodbath, you could probably find 19 more people no problem today. Now, a unilateral invasion/occupation of Iraq (which the Arab League, made up of representatives of our autocratic "allies" in arab governments, apparently warned would unlock "the gates of hell" earlier today) endorsed only by Israel, is supposed to decrease the risk of a similar thing happening in the future?

 

So we return to the original topic. It isn't the whole world against the invasion. Israel has always been pushing for it. Tony Blair in the UK is going against the opinion polls and is for the attack. Kuwait has recently come aboard after saying they were opposed.


Let's just say 98% of the world is against it.

 

Regardless of the serious questions surrounding UK support, and whether it exists at all, the fact that the rest of the world sees them as a bunch of American lackeys (a common taunt from Saddam and Bin laden, true, but not without a bit of truth) undermines the value a Blair endorsement may have. Support by an Emir who owes his Bentley to George Bush sr and Apache attack helicopters is likewise devalued (althought the Kuwaiti gov't, post 9-11, was roundly criticized by many within Kuwait for being too unsypathetic and ungrateful). Support by Saudi, Kuwaiti, Egyptian, etc. citizens, those same people who tend to believe that 9/11 was the result of a CIA-Mossad plot is more important IMO, as well as support of other European govt's and citizenry. Given Gerhard Schroder's recent denunciation, I find this prospect unlikely at the present time. Just imagine, if our friends aren't with us, imagine what our enemies think. and imagine what kind of things they will want to do. and imagine how hard it is for us to stop them.