War on Iraq?

[sallearmourer]

Just to let you know I did know where that phase came from.

I just not a vietnam vet but desert strom as well. If we attack Iraq we are going to have to put troops on the ground no war has been won by airpower alone.


Isarel files the f 16 and the F15C is a airi to air only and F15 Eagle which is air to air and air to ground.

Sadui fly the F 15c They don't have the E model.

Irag has the MF! and the mig 29 which during the Gulf War flew to Iran.

Iraq has no armor to match the M1A2 tank that we use.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Swordsman

It's one point I missed, not the idea in general. I'm looking mainly at: Reaction to Germany's invasion (Folded, followed the crowd)

Folded, followed the crowd? That's not the France that I have heard of definitely not the France of today. The people that we study in history in France, the true heroes of the time, are the Jean Moulins, the Henri Soums and so forth. Living in an occupied country is not easy, so please do not say that France folded. In most of France, Petain was considered the ennemi as much as the Germans were at that time.

reaction after the war (Inhuman vengeance),

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. May be you would like to refer to the recent events in Afghanistan. Could this be considered as inhumane vengeance in your eyes? If in your eyes once you have been hit retaliation is acceptable I don't understand how France's reaction after the war was inhumane. If that's the case, we can talk of Russia's "inhumane vengeance" after WWII as well. Oh and by the way, Iraq flies Migs, "don't get me started on the Russians".

attitude towards the US and the world in general ("You all suck, go home"),

Yet another blanket statement. Once more, you prove your uncanny ability to state things which cannot be verified. At any rate I know a lot of countries in which most people regard the US much the same way than you seem to think they are in France, so what's the problem with France in particular? And again, how can you judge the attitude towards the world "in general" that France has, if you have not even been in France, much less all of the countries which you are refering to?
And I suppose that the US are greeting all immigrants into their country with wide open arms? Go tell that to the cubans and mexicans who are being sent back accross the border each day. If that's not saying to them "you all suck, go home" then what is it?

attitude towards the US after Sept. 11 (We'll help you - if you'll forgive these multi-billion-dollar debts)

I'm sorry, I heard again a different story. I heard stories of French firemen who came and helped their colleagues from NYC, I read countless messages of support from people on bulletin boards and such. To say that France was not affected by 9/11 and unwilling to help is not giving a lot of credit to the people who did help.

and a lot of other things I won't bother to point out right now.

Please do! I truly wish to understand what you have against France. What could possiblity trigger such hatred, when you don't even know anything about it?

If you'd like to classify me as impetuous based on my long-considered beliefs on the French, fine.

I seriously doubt that it took you such a "long consideration" to come up to these beliefs. I think that most likely you are just regurgitating whatever the media and other people around you are saying.

But that in itself is a blanket statement.

No. See, a blanket statement is something that you notice on a part of something and apply to the whole without having seen it first. In that case, I saw your reaction, and I am making my opinion, based on your reaction. So I am not judging anything or anybody else but you. But if misery loves company, I am sure I can find someone who think like you do somewhere in the world, unfortunately.

why should we wait for UN permission? The UN is toothless anyway. They aren't allowed to be combatants. They can be 'peacekeepers', but only if invited by the nation they'll be in. And that is IT. They have no other military powers, only embargoes. And we've seen how effective those are. So, two points here: First, the UN is toothless; there's nothing it could do anyway. Second, why DO we have to wait for their permission? Seriously, give me one good reason.

Because that's the way it's done. Civilized people don't just go after one another trying to hit each other just because the other one might. You have to accept the risk. If you have problems with your next door's neighbor's dog barking in the middle of the night, do you shoot it, because one day it might bite you? No, you go and talk to the owner first, and see if you can figure out a way. If that doesn't work, you escalate the problem with the appropriate authorities. In our case, the appropriate authorities is the UN. The UN has a small army who is supposed to support their operations (of peacekeeping, yes, peace is good!). But most important, I never said that the UN should go and beat up on Iraq for the US. I think that the US should make their case clear and prove to the UN's security council that their fears are justified and require preemptive action to be taken. Once this is done, the UN will allow force to be used. For the moment, and I don't care what your opinion on the situation in Iraq is, the UN hasn't been convinced of the necessity to conduct such a preemptive strike. Until the UN has not allowed force to be used, force cannot be used. This case has not been proven yet, so force cannot be used yet.

But do not patronize me. It serves no purpose. My age, again, is irrelevant. At that, you don't even know my age. In any case, I don't need the belittlement and you don't need to give it.

Again, I never patronized you. As you said, I don't need the aggressiveness towards France and French people in general, and you don't need to give it.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Swordsman
{snip}
As for standing up for others - why should we wait for UN permission? The UN is toothless anyway. They aren't allowed to be combatants. They can be 'peacekeepers', but only if invited by the nation they'll be in. And that is IT. They have no other military powers, only embargoes. And we've seen how effective those are. So, two points here: First, the UN is toothless; there's nothing it could do anyway. Second, why DO we have to wait for their permission? Seriously, give me one good reason.
{snip}

How about two reasons--you'll have to decide yourself whether they are "good." First, because we agreed to it, by signing the U.N. Charter.

For example:

Chapter I, Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
* * *
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
* * *

Chapter VI

Article 33
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

* * *

Chapter VII

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

* * *

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Article 43
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council,on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

* * *

U.N. Charter

Not precisely "toothless"--although a bit cumbersome--but it was made that way to foster peaceful resolution of differences. And, the U.S. is a signatory, afterall.

A second reason to go through the U.N. process is that one of the major reasons advanced for an attack (at least this week) is Iraq's failure to live up the cease-fire agreement, which after all, was a Security Council resolution--so it seems polite to ask them if they want it enforced, and how to enforce it. (To be fair, there is some contention that the text of the various resolutions does allow for responses without further resolutions--my review doesn't support this, but YMMV).

I don't think that anyone really is patronizing you, but it doesn't help to keep making claims about things that you aren't that well-informed on.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Which country has N Korea invaded and annexed, again?

Sourth Korea--and that would be attempted to annex. Much like Iraq attempted to, but failed to annex Kuwait. I realize this was 50 years ago, but Iran/Iraq was 20 years ago, so what's 30 more years . Also, N. Korea has continued military and covert/terrorist operations against S. Korea to the present.

On what grounds? {re: being dubious of evidence linking Iraq to assassinatino atempt of Bush}

Basically because of things I heard at the time and since, many of which are summarized by this Site

Endless repetition dulls the memory, but in 1993 (not 1994) the announcement of the Iraqi plot to kill the former President met a skeptical reception from many, including many current hawks. Many Republicans accused the new Clinton administration of seizing upon the first available excuse to demonstrate toughness against the Iraqi president. Seymour Hersch decisively discredited the supposed plot in a subsequent investigation for The New Yorker. Journalists on the ground in Kuwait reported widespread skepticism. Even the Washington Post wrote at the time that the United States had no evidence linking the alleged plot directly to Saddam.

The plot itself was revealed by Kuwaiti intelligence, which at the time had every reason to feel uneasy about the Clinton administration. During the campaign, Clinton had openly mused about the possibility of a new relationship with Iraq. But no president, not even Clinton, would be able to ignore such a provocation, and publicly presented with Kuwaiti evidence, he felt compelled to act. After former President Bush visited Kuwait in mid-April 1993, the Kuwaiti government arrested eleven Iraqis and five Kuwaitis who seem to have been involved in smuggling, and accused them of plotting Bush's assassination. Their confessions were produced under compulsion, presumably under torture. No corroborating evidence was ever produced. Indeed, at the time many news services with little reason to favor Saddam Hussein pointed out a wide range of holes in the story. Kuwait postponed the trial repeatedly, dismissed charges against the Kuwaiti citizens involved in the supposed plot, and then executed the others.

Yes, the first WTC bombing.

I'd agree the evidence for this is actually stronger than for the attempted assassinatino, but I had thought that there was never any official recognition of this?

Note "and", not "or". I would also argue that they have not called for the destruction of S Korea, they only believe that it should be reunited with the North ( under Northern rule, of course ). Unlike Iraq and a number of other Middle Eastern states, which want Israel and all of its citizens eradicated.

Semantics. The Arabs want it's jewish citizens eradicated (or exiled), not its arab citizens. With the N. Koreans, I doubt they'd have many compunctions about eradicating any S. Koreans who didn't want to live under a totalitarian dictator.

Also, while I'm not aware of any calls for the destruction of the U.S. by N. Korea, I'm not really aware of any by Iraq, either.

But is in such dire straits financially that it can't afford to "waste" them on weapons instead of power generation. Unlike Iraq, no bottomless well of oil revenues to finance WOMD for their own sake.

Hardly bottomless--and chemical/biolgical weapons are fairly cheap. With nuclear, the trick is access to fissionables--everything else is easily doable for a country. N. Korea has it, Iraq doesn't.

Not sure of this one. Which missiles?

Taep'o-dong 2

Well, I scarcely think that botching the PR for it, if one accepts that it has been botched, vitiates the core argument for intervention...

I agree. My point was more that botching the PR has jeapordized his ability to get international consensus and U.N. approval.

{snip}
In all candor, I agree with you on the superiority of a viable inspection program to war. In fact, I believe that that will be the solution eventually adopted---assuming that the Russians and French can be persuaded not to indulge in obstructionism over a new, stronger Resolution

{snip}

But I rather suspect that the only sort of inspection program which will work is one in which the inspectors are accompanied to every destination by a Ranger battalion, a squadron of Apaches and a fighter wing on call, with a clear understanding that any of Saddam's officers or soldiers who so much as opens his mouth to form words denying entry will get a bullet through it and the site will be entered by force...

I pretty much agree (although I think the potential nay-sayers are China and Russia, rather than France and Russia), and I doubt that Hussein's offer to allow inspectors is legtimate, and think that ultimately an attack will become necessary. I just think it should be done with the imprintatur of the U.N.
Sorry for the length

--Philistine

[dreadfoil]

all i wantt to know is this.......why are the french called frogs?


sssssSSSSsss

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by dreadfoil
all i wantt to know is this.......why are the french called frogs?


sssssSSSSsss

They're called frogs??

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Philistine



How about two reasons--you'll have to decide yourself whether they are "good." First, because we agreed to it, by signing the U.N. Charter.

For example:


U.N. Charter

Not precisely "toothless"--although a bit cumbersome--but it was made that way to foster peaceful resolution of differences. And, the U.S. is a signatory, afterall.

A second reason to go through the U.N. process is that one of the major reasons advanced for an attack (at least this week) is Iraq's failure to live up the cease-fire agreement, which after all, was a Security Council resolution--so it seems polite to ask them if they want it enforced, and how to enforce it. (To be fair, there is some contention that the text of the various resolutions does allow for responses without further resolutions--my review doesn't support this, but YMMV).

I don't think that anyone really is patronizing you, but it doesn't help to keep making claims about things that you aren't that well-informed on.

--Philistine [/b]

As Veeco pointed out, "Bush isn't president of the world." Well, neither is Kofi Annan. We're still a sovereign nation, capable of acting of our own volition. While it may slightly violate the UN charter, one has to debate the intelligence of getting beat up just to avoid breaking the rules against fighting.

Yes, getting a Security Council resolution to let us enforce the rules would be great. I think Bush gave them an excellent argument: "We're not the cowboys; we're just looking to enforce the rules for you." I hope it works. If not, though, I think that perhaps we'd have to move on our own, anyway. Time, unfortunately, is of the essence.

Veeco: You have had the last word on our French debate. If you wish to continue it, let's start another thread - it's off topic here.

-

Now: A summation of the issue, as I see it:

1. Iraq is violating UN rules, and has been for a long time.
A. Saddam's current offer to be a good boy is probably false.
2. Evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaeda is pretty thin
A. One should not attack based on this kind of evidence.
3. If the UN will not pass a resolution allowing the US to act, we might have to act alone.


These are the big points that I see. I know many of you don't agree with what I just wrote - that's the point. Can we agree, however, that the debate is primarily over those points? Or are there others? I'm just trying to keep the debate a little focused here.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Swordsman
As Veeco pointed out, "Bush isn't president of the world." Well, neither is Kofi Annan. We're still a sovereign nation, capable of acting of our own volition. While it may slightly violate the UN charter, one has to debate the intelligence of getting beat up just to avoid breaking the rules against fighting.

An unsanctioned invasion to replace the leadership of a sovereign nation is a bit more than a "slight" violation of the U.N. Charter.

{snip}
Time, unfortunately, is of the essence.

Why?

This is my major issue with the proposed war on Iraq. I don't understand why time is now suddenly so tight. It hasn't been over the past four years since Iraq has refused inspections. What has changed?

1. Iraq is violating UN rules, and has been for a long time.

Agree.

A. Saddam's current offer to be a good boy is probably false.

Agree--to the extent you are talking about his "offer" to allow "unqualified" inspections.

2. Evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaeda is pretty thin
A. One should not attack based on this kind of evidence.

Agree.

3. If the UN will not pass a resolution allowing the US to act, we might have to act alone.

Well, here I disagree--at least to the term "have to." I see no real reason why the U.S. must or should launch a unilateral attack. Whether they will do so or not, I don't know.

These are the big points that I see. I know many of you don't agree with what I just wrote - that's the point. Can we agree, however, that the debate is primarily over those points? Or are there others? I'm just trying to keep the debate a little focused here.

A good idea, I think to keep the debate focused, as there are a lot of side issues.

To me, the single biggest question that I have not seen a real answer to is: Why must the U.S. act to unilaterally attack Iraq immediately?
The downsides I see to such unilateral action are twofold:

First--Iraq doesn't really appear to be that immenently dangerours to the U.S.
As I indicated in previous posts, I think on paper, North Korea represents a greater risk, and nobody has hinted at potential military action there. Also, I consider the possibility of terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons/materials much more likely to come from Pakistan (which is a nominal--if somewhat reluctant--ally) than from Iraq.

Secondly, I just don't see that it would be justified on a cost-benefit analysis.
The potential downside that I see as somewhat likely from a unilateral invasion of Iraq (even a completely successful one with minimal casualties) is

1. a lessening of international cooperation in the war on terrorism, which would have a much larger effect on the actual safety of the U.S. than the continued existence of Iraq; and

2. a green light for any country to make unilateral invasions of its neighbors based upon amorphous "security concerns." Particularly Russia in relation to Chechnya and Georgia, but also China.

My $.02

--Philistine

[135711]

i like russia

[hi5]

First--Iraq doesn't really appear to be that immenently dangerours to the U.S.
As I indicated in previous posts, I think on paper, North Korea represents a greater risk, and nobody has hinted at potential military action there. Also, I consider the possibility of terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons/materials much more likely to come from Pakistan (which is a nominal--if somewhat reluctant--ally) than from Iraq..

True Iraq doesnt really appear dangerous to the US, But according to some they are a definite threat to our allies in Isreal who we seem invested on protecting. Also there are economic interests in the middle east that would suit us fancy if we could throw out saddam, and replace him with puppet leader, very much like with the taliban.
We really have no interests to gain from North Korea, so the only time something will be done about any threats imposed on us from Korea is if it is blatent.

[Swordsman]

[SIGH OF RELIEF]

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate...

Things are always more fun when it's a friendly and civilized debate rather than a heated argument that's quickly growing personal.

First of all - there have been sounds in the military and intelligence communities that Saddam is actually a lot closer to having nuclear weapons than we think. While this is not hard evidence, I think there is much harder evidence that we don't, and can't, know of. Sometimes the smoking gun casts a silhouette of the viewer. I don't think he could really use a nuclear weapon against the U.S., but it doesn't matter. A nuclear attack against ANYBODY is a major disaster - I don't care if it's Iran, it's still a really bad thing. The ecological effects, the massive casualties...Hiroshima and Nagasaki will look like firecrackers compared to whatever Saddam will have. Just about any war is worth the prevention of that.

Second, I don't think this urgency is so sudden. As I said, this has been something we've needed to do for a LONG time. It's just that more people are paying attention now. Additionally, it's a time bomb, and we can't see the clock. Saddam's going to go nuclear sooner or later. And the longer we wait, the greater the odds it will be tommorow.

Why not North Korea? Well, I don't really know. If I were more familiar with the situation over there, I would be glad to take a stance. If the situation is about the same or (as you have suggested) even worse, then it should be North Korea, too. But, I don't know.

I hope we don't have to launch a unilateral attack. That would do us a lot of political damage, which would in turn produce more damage. However, if we can't get anybody else with us, it might be most prudent to do it anyway. I think the prevention of a nuclear attack is worth the consequences we might have to face for launching a nuclear attack. Also, we have Britain and Italy behind us for sure. If we actually do something, more allies will probably pop up. So it probably won't be unilateral anyway.

-------------------------------

Summation:

1. I think Iraq is a serious threat because
A. They are a lot closer to nukes than we think.

2. Preventing a nuclear attack is worth just about ANY war.
A. If we go to war in Iraq, there's no way it will be worse than nuclear - unless Saddam uses one, then we're just too late anyway.

3. We've needed to do this for a long time, and it's just getting more urgent by day.

4. Why not North Korea? I don't know.

5. It probably wouldn't be unilateral.
A. Unilateral would be BAD.

-------------------------------

Agree/disagree, everybody?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Philistine
Sourth Korea--and that would be attempted to annex. Much like Iraq attempted to, but failed to annex Kuwait. I realize this was 50 years ago, but Iran/Iraq was 20 years ago, so what's 30 more years . Also, N. Korea has continued military and covert/terrorist operations against S. Korea to the present.

Well---ok. Although Korea was a "proxy war" between the Great Powers, really ( it was a result of partition between the Soviet Union and the US after WWII )...and it occurred under a different regime than the one in power today---whereas the Iran-Iraq War AND the invasion of Kuwait ( only 12 years ago---this is more like it! ) were both the doing of the present regime in Iraq...

Basically because of things I heard at the time and since, many of which are summarized by this Site

Hmm, yes, I'm sure that journalists would know more about it than intelligence services...

I'd agree the evidence for this is actually stronger than for the attempted assassinatino, but I had thought that there was never any official recognition of this?

This, and the assassination attempt claim, point up a problem inherent in the "wait for a smoking gun" view, to wit, the extreme difficulty of ever being able to "prove" anything when intelligence services and foreign powers are involved and witnesses are either dead, in hiding, living in hostile countries or uncooperative. For instance, even the case against Libyan intelligence in the Lockerbie airliner bombing, though generally accepted, is doubted by some, who believe Iran was responsible, or Syria, or...

So if Iraq is intentionally hiding its involvement in the first WTC bombing ( or the assassination plot ) its pretty hard to get evidence beyond a reasonable doubt---because the only ones who can say for sure are in Iraq, and they aren't talking.

Semantics. The Arabs want it's jewish citizens eradicated (or exiled), not its arab citizens.

Heh, maybe "Semitics" would be a better word than "semantics"...

Anyhoo, the militant Palestinian groups and many of its civilian supporters have as their stated objective the destruction of the "Zionist State". So too do many Arabs elsewhere, including a number of governments. If all the Jews were gone, there would be no "Israel" of Arab citizens, there would be either a Palestine or, more probably, a division of the Israeli lands among the Arab nations which owned it before, ie Egypt, Syria, etc.

With the N. Koreans, I doubt they'd have many compunctions about eradicating any S. Koreans who didn't want to live under a totalitarian dictator.

I'm sure...but the Palestinians would not, I suspect, give any Jewish Israeli the option of living under a Palestinian rule of a state encompassing modern Israel. They'd give them a choice of the noose or the bullet, I daresay.

Also, while I'm not aware of any calls for the destruction of the U.S. by N. Korea, I'm not really aware of any by Iraq, either.

I'm sure it would not take much looking to find one. And Iraq is certainly in the "Israel delenda est" school, at a minimum.

Hardly bottomless--and chemical/biolgical weapons are fairly cheap. With nuclear, the trick is access to fissionables--everything else is easily doable for a country. N. Korea has it, Iraq doesn't.

Iraq doesn't---IF it truly doesn't---only because of sanctions.

After desert Storm concluded it was estimated that Iraq was about six months from nuclear weapons. It had a good deal of bomb-grade fissile material. Supposedly, this was all destroyed or seized by the inspectors...supposedly. Given that the Iraqis changed their admissions of how much it had in the way of CB weapons material several times, and that even by their own figures some of that was never found, I'm not so sure they didn't manage a little prestidigitation with the plutonium as well...

My point was more that botching the PR has jeapordized his ability to get international consensus and U.N. approval.

Heh, we ARE dealing with W here after all! What are the odds that he'd manage a smooth, persuasive campaign?

I pretty much agree (although I think the potential nay-sayers are China and Russia, rather than France and Russia), and I doubt that Hussein's offer to allow inspectors is legtimate, and think that ultimately an attack will become necessary. I just think it should be done with the imprintatur of the U.N.

China has been more or less inscrutable---hasn't said it opposes a new resolution, hasn't said it would go along with one. Both France and Russia seem inclined to insist that the old one will do, despite the history of its failure. Both are probably amenable to bribery, er, that is, persuasion....

At any rate, I'd like to see UN approval, too...as long as debate doesn't turn into endless stalemate over "language", as it's prone to do.

In fact, I'd like to see a peaceful solution. I'm not holding my breath, though. Saddam has "played" the world like a fiddle for so long that he's probably confident he can go on doing it. ( And he may be right. )

[veeco]

"Iraq Official Suggests Bush Duel With Saddam to Resolve Standoff, Sparing People the Ravages of War"


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021003_1203.html

[Inquartata]

I saw that! Would that it might happen...

[135711]

it won't work, and i'll tell you what i've learned from simple daily experience:
the invisible lines that you and i don't cross over because we have repect for one another are completely ignored by those people, and those people like the freaks that send you garbage in the e-mails.

[135711]

sometimes, to be brave you need to hit and not be hit.