Going to War

[epeemike81]

Inq,

You don't ACTUALLY believe that conspiracy theory BS, do you???

In addition, as to the link between Iraq and terrorism, there is none. Generally, religious fanatics and violent secular despots are NOT the best of friends.....

-m

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
To those of you who feel that putting the burden fo proof on Iraq is reasonable:

Yes, it is difficult to find weapons in that large a country. However, at least the inspectors have the advantage of being able to check using intelligence.

It is MORE difficult to prove that there are no weapons in a country that large. In fact, you can't possibly prove that unless you can somehow surveil every part of the country at all times.

THAT is the logical flaw. it is virtually impossible for Iraq to prove this.

let us consider what swordsman suggests and what the likely US response would be:
US Response: A token gesture which doesn't address the further WoMD which SURELY lurk within Iraq.

um, they did......
They didn't, or at least to an extent that the inspectors themselves say that Iraq is so far in compliance, but that they need more time.
again, this proves nothing regarding what weapons remain, just what was destroyed. do you really believe that the US would all of a sudden believe that Saddam had no more? The reason it is unreasonable to put burden of proof on Iraq is that since they CANNOT prove they have no more weapons, the answer to all "proof" is "we don't believe you." it is a claim which is set up for them to fail.

however, if the burden of proof is on the inspectors, they CAN prove that Iraq has weapons. yes, it is difficult, but difficult is an improvement over impossible. the only burden Iraq has is to not interfere with the inspectors. if the inspectors say that they aren't able to inspect, then by all means further action should be taken.

In addition, maybe it isn't such a bad thing for the burden of proof for a war to be difficult.....

-m

You know, if they weren't always sneaking around and getting caught in lies, the Iraqis would be a lot more believable. Of course we'll say "You've got more" - and we'll keep saying it until number destroyed = number believed to exist. However, just showing that they are in the process would be a great start on things, and would earn them more time.

"the inspectors themselves said that Iraq is so far in compliance..." They said NO such thing.

In short, maybe we'd believe them if they ever gave us the hint of a reason to.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
You know, if they weren't always sneaking around and getting caught in lies, the Iraqis would be a lot more believable. Of course we'll say "You've got more" - and we'll keep saying it until number destroyed = number believed to exist. However, just showing that they are in the process would be a great start on things, and would earn them more time.

But don't you see the issue?? there isn't a hard number believed to exist! that is why it is a setup. if there were a number, then you would be right that burden of proof can be on Iraq. however, without a number, it is logically impossible for Iraq to prove they have no more. thus, the US is setting an impossible goal which will never be met. I think its pretty clear that this is all just a pretext for war. hell, if it weren't for Colin Powell's influence on the administration, we would already be at war.

"the inspectors themselves said that Iraq is so far in compliance..." They said NO such thing.

In his briefing to the security council, Hans Blix, when asked whether Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, said no, and that the inspectors needed more time. had they been in breach of the resolution, we would be at war. so, I guess technically you are right. rather than saying they are in compliance, he said they haven't breached it. If you want to interpret some small symantic difference there, go ahead.

In short, maybe we'd believe them if they ever gave us the hint of a reason to.

in short, no we wouldn't. This administration has been gunning for war with Iraq for a long time (according to some sources, since BEFORE 9/11). The search for the big, bad, WoMD is just a smokescreen for war. I suppose you also believe that the Spanish really bombed the Maine, huh.....

-m

[veeco]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Third, in "Debt of Honor", Tom Clancy wrote of an angry and desperate Japan Air pilot flying a 747 into the Capitol building; after September 11, many people were startled by the reference. Something few have noticed yet, though: In the next book in the series, "Executive Orders", the United States invades Iraq in the Second Persian Gulf War. At about the same time, terrorists unleash an Ebola plague in the U.S. Spooky?

So, Tom Clancy is a mordern day Nostradamus? In this case, in order to avoid the Ebola plague, one could say that the US should not attack Iraq, since Tom Clancy's novel is demonstrating a causality relationship between attack on Iraq and Ebola plague...

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
I suppose you also believe that the Spanish really bombed the Maine, huh.....

-m

Let's not get sarcastic now; the only way this board works is with us getting along. Personal comments/barbs are a bad way to get started. Time to agree to disagree.

Veeco - I trust you are kidding; I was simply pointing out a series of interesting coincidences.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Let's not get sarcastic now; the only way this board works is with us getting along. Personal comments/barbs are a bad way to get started. Time to agree to disagree.

Sarcasm is a very useful tool.

that aside, how about a response to the clarification my post made? it IS a logically impossible burden, whereas putting the burden on the inspectors is simply difficult. difficult is better than impossible.

Also, in a mostly unrelated development, this administration continues to prove that it is out to destroy the very civil liberties this country has always fought to protect. check out the proposed Domestic Security Enhancement Act.

-m

[Swordsman]

1. Sarcasm is useful indeed, so long as one remains civil and does not cross the line to being impolite.

2. Iraq submitted a report of what weapons they had, which we have no real reason to believe. However: Were they to begin going about destroying their weapons for real, visibly, their credibility would rise dramatically (mind you this is all hypothetical; Hussein can never be reasonably expected to be so compliant). Let me try again. Right now, the case stands thus: Iraq has no real credibility so far as WoMD are concerned. Were they to begin destroying them, however, there would be credibility. Also were they to begin the destruction, they would have no reason to hide anything more - thus no reason to lie in a report of their weapons stock. So we would not only believe them, but have a definite number on their stash. This is where we disagree: While I put a little more faith in this administration, you are more cynical.

3. We enjoy more civil liberties than anyone else on the planet, and possibly in the planet's history. Name me a specific liberty that is in danger - and I don't count privacy itself as an actual liberty, only a luxury. And if we are having some liberties suspended, so what? We're still head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world.

[Alazius]

Originally posted by Inquartata
OTOH, the media dote on providing coverage of every peace or antiwar protest march or protest, even if it consists of twelve people outside a city hall in Peoria. How many pro-war demonstrations have you seen reported, though? The net effect of this is to give the impression that the former attitude predominates among the public at large, when in fact quite the opposite is true....

This is especially true in California, where a good percentage of the generals discussing strategy and various polls are not shown in favor of stupid peace protests like 100 women taking off their clothes and with them writing out Passion, Compassion and various other BS.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Alazius
This is especially true in California, where a good percentage of the generals discussing strategy and various polls are not shown in favor of stupid peace protests like 100 women taking off their clothes and with them writing out Passion, Compassion and various other BS.

That's interesting, cuz I get the exact opposite impression. That these polls show numbers of people wanting to go to war, when not many people think it's a good idea. in fact, one person i know arguing against a war and people's support of it simply said, 'look at the american economy as the strongest sign that the majority of americans don't want a war.'

but then again, i don't believe in polls, nor do i believe in bush, or saddam...

[Swordsman]

What DO you believe in?

[135711]

did you see that north korea just fired a rocket into the ocean? what is with them? I'm very dissapointed, first they lobbed one at Japan in 1993 or 1994, [accidentially], and now the ocean?
zzzzzzz oh well!

[Dav3ey]

The whole N. Korea missile launce was no accident -- it was a message to the new South Korean president who was to be inaugurated hours later. Nor was it an accident in 1994 -- that was a demonstration to show the Japanese that they could have dropped a missile anywhere in their country and to (try to) show the world that they deserve to be treated like a major power.

The North Korean leadership isn't stupid or suffering from some biological insanity (like true schizophrenia). Rather, I think that they operate under a very basic disability: they have spent 50 years dictating to their people what reality is, they forget that telling us their version of the "facts" just sounds foolish. They just wholy out of touch with reality -- which makes them seem crazy, but they're not.

They're just very, very scary.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
Americans are not the majority, but it still seems to me like they are well represented.

Well, if you call 10% well-represented. Actually, it's better representation than independents, Greens or Libertarians get in Congress, at that. But then, how are they dispersed? Is there at least one per team? Are they technical experts, or intel guys? Do they get to decide where to go, or is that strictly up to Blix and the UN leadership?

If each country had an equal participation, there would be 6 or 7 Americans... That's three times as many...

Now factor in relative population sizes for the contributing countries. Skewed somewhat by the fervent desire to have a lot of inspectors from other Arab states...skewed perhaps still more by the UN and IAEA hiring practices...skewed by who knows what else?

But even if Americans are fairly represented, they still aren't going to see anything if they keep getting sent where there is nothing to see. And it strikes me as odd that the Iraqis always seem to have advance notice of which sites are going to be inspected next...

There has been no proven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. None at all that I know of.

Aside from affirmation by a defecting son-in-law of Saddam, later executed, no PROVEN link...that we have been told about.

However, let us not make the mistake of believing that Al-Qaeda is terrorism. It is one of many players in that game, and not all are as fastidious of their allies as Bin Laden seems to be. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, for example, seem to have no problem taking money from Saddam. Might they take material support as well? A weapon that's let them make a crippling strike against the hated Israel? Regardless of its source?

The proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" was coined in the Arab world, and the one about politics making strange bedfellows also comes to mind. Who'd have believed Hitler and Stalin, or the CIA and the Mob?

US already has had their shot at getting rid of Bin Laden, and Saddam, I might add.

Several, in fact. Ah, for lost opportunities and the clarity of hindsight....

attacking him because it is a part of the antiterrorism effort is THE wrong reason, I think. If you want to find a good reason, ask the Kurds, but don't say that Iraq is responsible for 9/11 when there hasn't been any proof of it yet.

I never said Iraq was rsponsible for 9-11, or in any way involved in it, though it is possible---there are some hints that Iraqi intelligence provided some funding and document assistence to the perpetrators of the WTC truck bombing years back. The point is that is they are permitted to develop WOMD unmolested they might well be part of the NEXT attack...and an unimaginably worse one.

It isn't terrorism per se which is really a threat in the world. Terrorist groups have existed for decades without accomplishing awfully much. It is when they obtain the assistance of a nation-state, or indeed co-opt control of one as in Afghanistan, that they become truly dangerous. As long as they are scattered and hunted they must waste a lot of their resources staying one step ahead of the police; with secure bases and state protection, however, they can concentrate all the more effectively on active attacks.

And now throw a few bioagents into that equation. If reports are correct, Saddam has them to spare, and if not could certainly make them soon enough if allowed to keep up the three-card-monte game he's been playing.

Paris has seen it's share of terrorist attacks too, I might say, in the 90s... We did not go all out against Algeria because the terrorist organizations that did those attacks were from there.

Yes, but as I've said, the difference was that there was no state sponsorship then. So such attacks as there were were small and uncoordinated, and there was no worry then about WOMD.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
1. Sarcasm is useful indeed, so long as one remains civil and does not cross the line to being impolite.

um, I don't think my rather tame comment about the Maine crossed any lines.

2. Iraq submitted a report of what weapons they had, which we have no real reason to believe. However: Were they to begin going about destroying their weapons for real, visibly, their credibility would rise dramatically (mind you this is all hypothetical; Hussein can never be reasonably expected to be so compliant).

they submitted an inventory of ALL of their weapons. the vast majority are allowed by the resolution. as for the ones that aren't, lets see what happens. they were talking to the inspectors about one missile type today....

Let me try again. Right now, the case stands thus: Iraq has no real credibility so far as WoMD are concerned.

agreed, which is why inspections are even necessary

Were they to begin destroying them, however, there would be credibility.

really??? I'm sure if Sadaam knew that he could gain credibility by destroying some token weapons, he would.

Also were they to begin the destruction, they would have no reason to hide anything more - thus no reason to lie in a report of their weapons stock.

huh?? you are gonna have to explain THAT reasoning. I can think of some very good reasons to hide things, especially if the UN actually thought the way you do. After all, if he could destroy half his weapons, say there were no more and have the UN leave him alone with half of his arsenal intact, I think he would.

So we would not only believe them, but have a definite number on their stash.

I have a few objections to this. first of all, if you truly think that Hussein could do ANYTHING short of stepping down to cause this administration to stop pushing for war, you are simply naive. frankly, I'm not sure even THAT would appease the Bush administration. Secondly, why WOULD the bush administration believe him?? do you actually believe that destroying a few missiles could give Hussein credibility?? if so, then you think this administration is even dumber than I think it is....

This is where we disagree: While I put a little more faith in this administration, you are more cynical.

What have they given me to have faith in? proposals for tax cuts that at least 10 Nobel winners in economics disagree with?? attempts to suspend (or at the very least circumvent) habeas corpus?? Blustering and posturing in an attempt to provoke an unnecessary war?? Isolationism and withdrawal from international commitments and treaties?? What exactly am I supposed to have faith in?

3. We enjoy more civil liberties than anyone else on the planet, and possibly in the planet's history. Name me a specific liberty that is in danger - and I don't count privacy itself as an actual liberty, only a luxury. And if we are having some liberties suspended, so what? We're still head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world.

we are head and shoulders above the rest of the world?? how do you figure that? most European countries have ALL of the civil liberties that our citizens have, not to mention other ones, like the right to LIFE. the right to not be executed. Which civil liberties are in jeopardy? how about the right to not be arrested in secret. that right is guarenteed as part of habeas corpus, and the DSEA proposes to allow secret arrests. It also suggests that anyone connected with terrorism (this can include having once donated to an organization which the AG BELIEVES is helping to fund terrorism) can have their citizenship revoked without trial. Also, privacy IS a right. Read the 4th amendment sometime.

-m

[epeemike81]

Inq, your state sponsored terrorism theory is indeed a great argument for Iraq to be invaded...... by Israel.

The ONLY funding of terrorist organizations which Sadaam Hussein has participated in is payment to the families of suicide bombers. if you will recall, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are NOT anti-American organizations. dispicable, yes, but hardly a reason for the US to invade.

Hussein would never give his weapons to terrorists. they are his prize jewels, and he enjoys power too much. he will not risk his life and his power by handing weapons to somebody who will use them against the US. that is the quickest way to assured destruction. the very fact that Hussein is a power hungry despot with a good sense of self preservation is why containment will work.

-m

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
um, I don't think my rather tame comment about the Maine crossed any lines.

they submitted an inventory of ALL of their weapons. the vast majority are allowed by the resolution. as for the ones that aren't, lets see what happens. they were talking to the inspectors about one missile type today....
agreed, which is why inspections are even necessary really??? I'm sure if Sadaam knew that he could gain credibility by destroying some token weapons, he would.
huh?? you are gonna have to explain THAT reasoning. I can think of some very good reasons to hide things, especially if the UN actually thought the way you do. After all, if he could destroy half his weapons, say there were no more and have the UN leave him alone with half of his arsenal intact, I think he would.
I have a few objections to this. first of all, if you truly think that Hussein could do ANYTHING short of stepping down to cause this administration to stop pushing for war, you are simply naive. frankly, I'm not sure even THAT would appease the Bush administration. Secondly, why WOULD the bush administration believe him?? do you actually believe that destroying a few missiles could give Hussein credibility?? if so, then you think this administration is even dumber than I think it is....
What have they given me to have faith in? proposals for tax cuts that at least 10 Nobel winners in economics disagree with?? attempts to suspend (or at the very least circumvent) habeas corpus?? Blustering and posturing in an attempt to provoke an unnecessary war?? Isolationism and withdrawal from international commitments and treaties?? What exactly am I supposed to have faith in?

we are head and shoulders above the rest of the world?? how do you figure that? most European countries have ALL of the civil liberties that our citizens have, not to mention other ones, like the right to LIFE. the right to not be executed. Which civil liberties are in jeopardy? how about the right to not be arrested in secret. that right is guarenteed as part of habeas corpus, and the DSEA proposes to allow secret arrests. It also suggests that anyone connected with terrorism (this can include having once donated to an organization which the AG BELIEVES is helping to fund terrorism) can have their citizenship revoked without trial. Also, privacy IS a right. Read the 4th amendment sometime.

-m

The comment about the Maine in itself was no big deal. It was, however, a mild barb - just a direction I don't want to get started in. I remember another similar thread starting in that direction, and it ended with me being called racist, sexist, stupid, etc. Let's avoid that again.

Your tone seems to be becoming overall more agitated. You and I disagree on many fundamental issues; I think I'll refrain from responding to all of it. While I have a response to each thing that you brought up, I have now neither the time nor the energy nor the inclination to disagree with you point-by-point. Neither of us has a valid argument without the supporting points being valid, and it is those supporting points which are opinions, and thus not provable (unless you think you can prove the true intentions of the leaders of various aforementioned states). So let us agree to disagree here; I think both of our positions are well understood by each other and everyone else on the board. If you'd like to view this post as a concession, then by all means believe what you like.

Swordsman, over and out.

[latenight]

Does anyone think that France's existiing oil contracts with Iraq have anything to do with France's position at the UN? I heard something about this to the effect that they would lose major money if these contracts were voided after an invasion.


If it's true it could start a new slogan, "Peace for Oil"

[Dav3ey]

Originally posted by latenight
If it's true it could start a new slogan, "Peace for Oil"

Actually, the slogan would be "Military appeasement and a total disregard for human rights for oil" -- something the French have down pat.