W
Will
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
Wow, did we just engage in intelligent debate in the General forum? Better get the warning changed on the way in.
Originally posted by Itcheh
Wow, did we just engage in intelligent debate in the General forum? Better get the warning changed on the way in.
Originally posted by Wij
The whole tone of your previous posts on the subject has suggested you think that this is something made up by George Bush to improve his chances in the mid-terms in some X-Files style conspiracy.
I don't see how anyone can really believe that Saddam is NOT trying to stockpile weapons and develop new ones.
I'm certain he has some weapons and that he is in violation of UN resolutions. It's a non-issue.
Legal burdens of proof are irrelevant. This is not a court.
Originally posted by prime
The UK and US are trying to get a resolution passed that says "IF Iraq obstructs the inspectors again, IF they prevent the previous resolution" then we can use military force.
I can see nothing wrong with this resolution, because if Iraq actually DOES offer unfettered access and hides nothing, its got nothing to worry about from the UN.
Actually, that's not true at all. The vast majority of the "intelligence" within the JIC dossier has come directly from the political "opposition" to Saddam, who are currently in exile. The name of the party/group escapes me, I'll look it up though. Regardless, it can hardly be considered 'unbiased' intel - who stands to benefit the most from Saddam being removed, after all?Originally posted by prime1
the problem is the soruces for teh evidence against, well.. who are they? where did THEY get their evidence? You also have to rememebr that those sources dont have to worry about providing the same information in the future, or continued monitoring for future details. They also dont have to worry about their lives and their families. The dossier is based on field agent reports as well as eye witness details. The problem is that these field agents and eye wtinesses, if revelealed, run a very real risk of getting assisanted/executed. Its not a fair comparrison.
I'd venture to say that reports from INSIDE the country, from independent bodies (such as those above) are considerably less based on conjecture than the opinions of those OUTSIDE the country who have a clear and obvious agenda.The arguments agaisnt are also based on the same conjecture, except they can be more vocal, and sound more credible, because they have less to lose by doing so.
Actually war is incredibly profitable for the US. Defence is the biggest industry in the country, and generates billions of dollars of revenue a year. And because the US doesn't have the same restrictions on political donations that we have in this country, lots of that goes into political campaign chests. The defence industry is the second biggest contributor to the Republican party in the world (the first is the oil industry, btw). Companies like Mcdonnell Douglas and Boeing did not get that big by war being a loss-making industry.For teh reasons ive mentioend before I genuinely beleive that the US and UK psotion is based on a desire to make things better for everyone, including the Iraqi people, a war is an incredibly expensive thing (ever wonder why Britain isnt a super power anymore?). Every piece of ordanance fired costs money to manufacture, costs resources etc, and once its used, its gone, for good. They arent selling the explosion to the enemy, if war was pofitable it would happen far more often than it does now.
No, I can't particularly defend Saddam on ethical, moral or civil grounds. He's a vicious bully, who has no problem exploiting people to get what he wants. But there's a lot worse out there - Ariel Sharon, for starters. So don't tell me that we're going to go get Saddam because he's a 'bad man'.Can you honestly defend Saddam ? Can you honestly defend his regime? Do you honestly beleive that nothing bad will happen (not necassarily to us) if Saddam has the restrictions on him lifted and his leash removed? I certainly cant/dont, i see nothign wrong with implementing a regime change in Iraq, simply because the regime there genuinely needs changing and sorting out.
The USA has absolutely NO interest in establishing democracy or helping countries once it has achieved its objectives. Guatemala. Venezuela. Afghanistan (the first AND second time round). The Phillipines. Indonesia. Iraq (after the first Gulf war). They're just the few I can think of right now. I rest my case.I dont beleive the US will put a puppet in place, becuase the US will want a democracy in place there. Any puppet would have to go through an election at some point within the first few years, and if the people dont want them, theyl get rid of them.
Are you honestly telling me that you can't see the political or financial benefits for the US in a war on Iraq? Or are you telling me that the US doesn't do things for political and financial reasons? Because both of these leave me absolutely bloody incredulous.If you can genunely say yes, with absolute certainty to the above, then I would love to hear the arguments, because so far most of the arguments against, seem to be about accusing the US of wanting to gain something financial or pollitical through a war with Iraq, and that simply dosnt cut it.
no offence prime, but when I say something it's because I've got a source to back me up. Where do you get 100,000 from? In January Mark Erikson of the Asia Times reported that there were 50,000 US and British troops around Iraq. This was before Bush signed his illegal intelligence order to the CIA to topple Saddam. In the 4 weeks following this, the number grew to 100,000 US troops in and around Iraq - note this does not count operatives within the extended theatre. In August, 15,000 Turkish troops entered northern Iraq and seized a key airbase, in Mosul. They are still there, and their numbers have doubled since. Petra (the Jordanian news agency) reports 'tens of thousands' of US troops in Jordan, ostensibly for 'joint training exercises' with the Jordanian army - however the Jordanians are barred from the US camps, and no exercises thus far have taken place. The movement was unplanned before this year. The Kuwait Ministry of the Interior has reported exactly the same activity happening within its own country. As of the end of August, total troop deployment within immediate striking range of Iraq is around 400,000. Even if you assume that there have been NO deployments in the last 4-5 weeks, that is still significantly more than 100,000. And those numbers are reported by independent agencies with no reason to lie.The entire UK army is only 110,000, the entire Iraq army is 375,000 and they out number the US, its somethign like 100000 troops in the area, as convenient as it sounds a lot of those are there for a regualr yearly training exercise
Originally posted by Wij
To put this in more of a legal framework if you prefer then, the US will not name many of it's sources that it claims show that Saddam has weapons. This may not be enough for a conviction then but it would surely be enough for a search warrantIf you then refuse to allow the authorities in, with the appropriate documentation, then you have committed an offence no ?
I don't. That's my point. Look at all the hideously corrupt regimes out there, lots of them far worse than Saddam's Iraq. If they don't conflict with Western interests, then we don't give a shit about them. Hell, if they support western interests, then we bloody finance them! Look at what is going on in Indonesia at the moment - state sponsored widespread rape, torture and killing. The US won't do anything about it though, because it would threaten Exxon-Mobil's bottom line.Originally posted by Damini
you say we can't attack Saddam on the grounds of being "a bad man", and say there are worse out there. How do you differentiate?
We know that Ariel Sharon was directly responsible for the deaths of over 6000 Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila - the worst case of genocide since the Holocaust. We know that Israel keeps the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under 24 hour curfew, preventing civilians from leaving their homes to get food, medical attention, schooling, etc. We know that Israel is the only country in the "civilised" world where torture is legal. We know that Israel uses a tactic of 'targeted' assassination, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. We know that Israel has repeatedly blocked any investigation into the Jenin incident, and whilst laying siege to the city refused entry to the Red Cross. We know that Israel suppresses any Palestinian media and prevents international journalists from entering the area. We know that Israel continues to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land. We know, essentially, that Israel has committed all the crimes against the Palestinian people that Nazi Germany committed against the Jews. We went to war against the Nazis, supposedly to 'fight the good fight'. And yet not more than TWO DAYS AGO the USA once again abstained from voting (and therefore paralysed, given it has veto) a UN directive for the Israeli army to stop their occupation of Ramallah. We know that one country has used their veto in UN security council decisions more times than all the other countries in it put together - the USA. And we know that over 40% of those vetoes have been to prevent sanctions against Israel.We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that saddam has committed genocide. We know that he has used weapons that most store up for purely the threat factor. We know that he has no qualms about invading countries. We know those that oppose or threaten his regime end up getting killed, therefore irradicating the ability for an internally manifested revolution (other than by means of assassination or military coup pretty much, hardly open routes for democracy).
The USA sold Iraq NBC weaponry (contrary to UN resolutions and international law) to help them win the Iran/Iraq war. Well, that's over and done with now. So let's assume the USA even has the right to demand Saddam disarms - I concede that point. I have no problem with the UN weapons inspectors returning to Iraq - I wholeheartedly support it. UNSCOM reported that 95-98% of Iraq's NBC capability was destroyed or rendered inoperable, but we might as well double check, so send them in. Only, it would be good if the CIA didn't try and hide its stooges in the teams this time round - not too much to ask is it?You said yourself he had items which are used in nuclear weaponry, and at a guess he didn't have them because they make a nice focal point for the lounge.
We should intervene when there are proven, internationally recognised, consistent and gross violations of international law, civil liberties and human rights issues, state-sponsored torture and assassination. Unfortunately, we don't. You can't pull out the halo when it suits you - you either wear it or you don't.Should we let this pass, because you say Ariel Sharon is worse? Where do we draw the line? How much should we turn a blind eye to, and when should we intervene?
No one country is responsible for policing the world. That is what the United Nations is (partly) supposed to do. The onus on the US is to comply with the internationally recognised and sanctioned multi-national body that is designed specifically to deal with these issues. And BECAUSE they are the strongest, most affluent and most capable country in the world, the onus on them to set an example is greater than anyone else.You've heard the cliche With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility. The US is a very powerful, very rich country. Regardless of prior events, what is the onus on this country, with regards to political and global affairs?
It won't do, because all the countries in the region consistently call for the US NOT to attack Iraq. Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Jordan all do not recognise Iraq as posing a threat to them. Note the inclusion of Kuwait - the tiny little country that borders only Iraq, and which Saddam invaded. They're not scared of him, so why the hell are we? Like I illustrated above, Israel is a far more fitting metaphor for Nazi Germany than Iraq - and what a tragic irony that is.Nazi Germany is an obvious thing to compare to, as its a very good example of dictatorship and hostility towards neighbouring countries (yes, I'm aware of the many flaws and different circumstances, but its a recognisable model and so it'll do).
Afghanistan had a liberal, peaceful and stable regime, where women could walk down the street dressed sensibly, could go to school, could work. Political diversity was respected and not oppressed, media and education were encouraged. Unfortunately it was also Liberal Communist, so the USA funded Osama and his boys to overthrow it.I was happy as larry when the war happened with Afghanistan, not because I'm a grrr girl warmonger, but because finally somebody would be helping a population free from totalitarianism, and sexual/political/fundamental oppression and giving them the chance
Like I said above, of course it has responsibilities - it should comply with the wishes and intentions of the UN. Let's face it - if the USA can walk out on treaties, unilaterally cancel agreements, invade countries and overthrow regimes whenever it feels like it... why on earth should all these countries that we're trying to get to tow the line play by the rules?As a super power, does it have responsibilities? And what do you see these responsibilities to be?
OKOriginally posted by Damini
You've kind of circumnavigated my point and used it to beat the USA round the head again. Your point of what we know about Isreal doesn't contradict my point at all. What I was asking was when should intervention occur, if the suppression of democracy, the assassination of those that speak out against the regime, mass genocide and so on isn't incentive enough? I in no way said Israel is the easter bunny, or that these things should be ignored by the USA. These facts sit parallel to my point, so I don't know why you are trying to use them to contradict me. Of course the rule for one should apply to the other, I was just asking what you think that rule should be.