Iraq

[Sween]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Just be glad your not speaking german right now.

god bless all of the men that fought in the war. My grandad did but his time is running out as is many of the people who foaught in the 2nd world war i hope we dont forget what they did for us ever.

But im english we would of never sucombed to the Germans even if we all died its not our way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
god bless all of the men that fought in the war. My grandad did but his time is running out as is many of the people who foaught in the 2nd world war i hope we dont forget what they did for us ever.

But im english we would of never sucombed to the Germans even if we all died its not our way.

I'm not so sure. Just look at what happened to the "high and mighty" French.

Also - as I said regarding us staying out of WWII until we were bombed at Pearl Harbor - it was Europe's war. You got us into another world war less than 20 years before - against the same country. American's did not support geting involved with the war. Also - we helped militarily by supplying weaponry and everything else. We weren't exactly uninvolved in it as you seem to suggest Sween.

[Earniel]

Why is Bush so bent on getting Saddam out? Is Saddam suddenly more dangerous than he was a year ago? Rather unlikely I think. In my view Bush wants to find another enemy to focus on since the taliban no longer control Afghanistan. I think it's really really stupid. The moment you pick up your gun to start a war you'll destroy more than you'll ever be able to rebuild in a lifetime. Yes, the taliban are defeated and Afghanistan has a new government but that didn't stop the war there. Look how long it took the two parts of Korea to come on speaking terms again. I don't think that removing Saddam is going to solve the iraq-situation like that. Most likely it's going to increase anti-american sentiments in the arab world even further.

Saddam probably has weapons, but there is a difference between having them and using them. So far he hasn't used them and I don't see the need of giving him a reason to do so. And seeing the time it took him and Blair to show us the evidence of the iraqi threat, I can't help myself but thinking that the evidence is either forged or exagerrated. It is as like nothing iraq can say or do will stop Bush from attacking.

What's even more frightening is how Bush seems to place America above every one else: American soldiers shouldn't be allowed to be judged by the international court of The Hague, America doesn't need to ratify Kyoto, if America wants to build a missile shield, the former treaties preventing that are simply abandoned.... It wouldn't surprise me if he attacked Iraq even when the UN says no. I'm not such a great supporter of the UN, they are slow and indecisive about a lot of things and each land has it's own agenda. But I believe it's a better way to deal with international situations than that each country does what it pleases.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Why is Bush so bent on getting Saddam out? Is Saddam suddenly more dangerous than he was a year ago? Rather unlikely I think.

Maybe you should be asking if 5 - 10 years from now will Hussein havethe weapons and will he be able to unleash them on the world or have thatr capibility? How long did it take Hitler to build up his army while the world stood back and watched?

Saddam probably has weapons, but there is a difference between having them and using them. So far he hasn't used them and I don't see the need of giving him a reason to do so.

Yeah - I guess we should just let him go and continue about his business. As I've said - personally I feel we should shut America's doors, take our troops back home, eliminate our foreign aid, require Europe to pay us back for the Marshall Plan like they were supposed to and worry about ourselves for a change.

What's even more frightening is how Bush seems to place America above every one else: American soldiers shouldn't be allowed to be judged by the international court of The Hague, America doesn't need to ratify Kyoto, if America wants to build a missile shield, the former treaties preventing that are simply abandoned.... It wouldn't surprise me if he attacked Iraq even when the UN says no. I'm not such a great supporter of the UN, they are slow and indecisive about a lot of things and each land has it's own agenda. But I believe it's a better way to deal with international situations than that each country does what it pleases.

Why shouldn't the President of OUR country put our interests first? I don't recall Belgium, New Zealand, England or any other country electing him or any of our other Presidents. I hate to tell you this - but our representatives report first to the American people. Oh - I know how people complain about lobby groups and claim that they really elect our representatives now. Of course these same people seem to have no problem with the Union lobby, or the lobby groups that they support (like the Sierra Club).

Why should we have signed the Kyoto treaty? And why can't we discuss with the country that we had a treaty with and leave it after mutual agreement. I don't recall Belgium or any other country signing the missile treaty. The only country we had to discuss pulling out of the treaty with was Russia - which we did. As far as I'm concerned it was no one else's business.

And yes - if we felt it was in our overriding best interest to attack Iraq and the American public supported it - we would. Right now the American public support is still very questionable. Everyone argued on this board months ago that America was going to attack anyday. Well we still haven't attacked. We did everything that the world wanted us to do - but it's still not enough. We don't say the right things. We don't give enough information. We don't give the information fast enough. Give me a break.

[Cirdan]

J-D, the Hitler comparison doesn't wash. Before WWI Germany was THE most populous industrialized nation. Very little happen to Germany in the WWI. They overcame the Depression and Post-war sactions to build tyhe most powerful military force in the world. The US was a hick town by comparison. It to the combined effort of many nations so subjegate them. Saddam doesn't even have an air force to speak of. Anything that was left from the Gulf War is decrepit and there is no sigh he can put forth more than lots on infantry. Syria could beat Iraq. If WMDs exist they will be launched agaist Israeli civilians of the first day of the invasion. We would be better served to devise a scheme of protecting our borders from ALL threats, not just imaginary, potential ones.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
J-D, the Hitler comparison doesn't wash. Before WWI Germany was THE most populous industrialized nation. Very little happen to Germany in the WWI. They overcame the Depression and Post-war sactions to build tyhe most powerful military force in the world. The US was a hick town by comparison. It to the combined effort of many nations so subjegate them. Saddam doesn't even have an air force to speak of. Anything that was left from the Gulf War is decrepit and there is no sigh he can put forth more than lots on infantry. Syria could beat Iraq. If WMDs exist they will be launched agaist Israeli civilians of the first day of the invasion. We would be better served to devise a scheme of protecting our borders from ALL threats, not just imaginary, potential ones.

Why would you need infantry or airforce if you have nuclear weapons or biological weapons and crazy enough to use them?

Oh and by the way - the only reason why germany was able to build their military up and overcome the sanctions 0- was because they weren't enforced by Europe. Forgive me if I'm wrong - but it does seem sort of similar. I'll grant you that Hitler put more money into his people than Hussein does though.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why would you need infantry or airforce if you have nuclear weapons or biological weapons and crazy enough to use them?

Beacuse just using a WMD without gaining anything isn't crazy, it's stupid. Hussein has proved he is wily if nothing else.

The chemical and biological weapons he has came from us. We intended him to use them on Iran. Nobody thinks he actually has any nukes. He has no way to deliver them except via terrorist. But then even if he is gone that threat still exists. It's treating the symptom and not the disease; namely piss-poor home security on the part of the US government.

[Earniel]

Why shouldn't the President of OUR country put our interests first? I don't recall Belgium, New Zealand, England or any other country electing him or any of our other Presidents. I hate to tell you this - but our representatives report first to the American people.

Frankly I'm glad I didn't elect him. Now will you try and tell him to stop trying to dictate our policies?

Well we still haven't attacked.

For which I am rather grateful, actually. Thank you.

We did everything that the world wanted us to do - but it's still not enough. We don't say the right things. We don't give enough information. We don't give the information fast enough. Give me a break.

Well that's the downside of being the wealthiest and most powerful, I guess. Everyone looks to America to make things right and to do the right thing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Frankly I'm glad I didn't elect him. Now will you try and tell him to stop trying to dictate our policies?

How are we dictating your policies? It seems as if the world wants to control the US and dictate ours.

For which I am rather grateful, actually. Thank you.

Well that's the downside of being the wealthiest and most powerful, I guess. Everyone looks to America to make things right and to do the right thing.

It is a downside. We should just stop babysitting other countries. Why should you look to us to make everything right? Why should our tax dollars go to constantly helping the world out of it's problems. Many of these problems occurred way before we had any role in world affairs anyway. It's not our responsibilty to fix the world. Let the countries that constantly complain about the way America does things get off their fat a$$es and do something for a change.

[osszie]

Well congress has just granted GW Bush the powers to use America's armed forces to attack Iraq

Lets hope the terrorists, in my view the most immediate threat to American security don't take advantage at this time

I think this is going to have consequences even out children (or granchildren) are going to both hate and be worried about

Go America

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Well congress has just granted GW Bush the powers to use America's armed forces to attack Iraq

Everyone knew that the House and Senate were going to give Bush the go ahead on it. I haven't read yet what Congress has actually given Bush the go ahead on though.

Lets hope the terrorists, in my view the most immediate threat to American security don't take advantage at this time

How do you know that Saddan Hussein hasn't been supporting any terrorists? He publicly supports the suicide bombers.

I think this is going to have consequences even out children (or granchildren) are going to both hate and be worried about

Go America

Yeah - and our children and grandchildren could also in many years from now be questioning why no one did anything sooner. Just like we do when looking back on Germany and WWII. People already ask why the government didn't do anything about Osama bin Laden. Iif the government had "declared war" on him prior to 9/11 and used armed forces - people would be screaming and yelling about why we were worrying about him.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Everyone knew that the House and Senate were going to give Bush the go ahead on it. I haven't read yet what Congress has actually given Bush the go ahead on though.
[/b]
How do you know that Saddan Hussein hasn't been supporting any terrorists? He publicly supports the suicide bombers.


Yeah - and our children and grandchildren could also in many years from now be questioning why no one did anything sooner. Just like we do when looking back on Germany and WWII. People already ask why the government didn't do anything about Osama bin Laden. Iif the government had "declared war" on him prior to 9/11 and used armed forces - people would be screaming and yelling about why we were worrying about him. [/B]

Google has a very good search engine specifically geared towards news from around the world JD

My main concern in this whole "war on Iraq" is that there is no physical proof!!.........You made reference to the days preceding WW2 earlier, can I remind you that negotiations between Chamberlain (the pm at the time) and Hitler actually took place because we knew that Hitler was creating his war machine (amassing armies, stock piling arms and armaments etc). The nightmare outcome in this Iraq scenario is that the US (or the UN if they back america) invade Iraq, kill thousands, only to discover that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction at all and Sadam was just another loudmouth who relied on propaganda to remain in control.............relations between the middle east and the west will never recover from such actions

Where is the evidence........surely it is not legal, or moral, to go to war just because a nation has voiciferically proclaimed hatred and prejudice against another ................ if the proof was there, sure I cannot argue against anyone defending themselves from a real threat...............but where is the proof

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Google has a very good search engine specifically geared towards news from around the world JD

You don't have to tell me to look at sites to keep up on the news. I am very well informed - but since I have been away for a while - I have been unable to keep up on the news as much.

I do however know that the polls still indicate that the majority of AMERICANS support taking out Saddam Hussein.

My main concern in this whole "war on Iraq" is that there is no physical proof!!.........You made reference to the days preceding WW2 earlier, can I remind you that negotiations between Chamberlain (the pm at the time) and Hitler actually took place because we knew that Hitler was creating his war machine (amassing armies, stock piling arms and armaments etc). The nightmare outcome in this Iraq scenario is that the US (or the UN if they back america) invade Iraq, kill thousands, only to discover that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction at all and Sadam was just another loudmouth who relied on propaganda to remain in control.............relations between the middle east and the west will never recover from such actions

Where is the evidence........surely it is not legal, or moral, to go to war just because a nation has voiciferically proclaimed hatred and prejudice against another ................ if the proof was there, sure I cannot argue against anyone defending themselves from a real threat...............but where is the proof

You know what - it's great that everyone claims they want proof - but when proof is given America is either accused of fabracating it or people rant on about how it's not enough proof.

This was Nightline a couple of nights ago -

TONIGHT'S SUBJECT: They were threatened, blocked, bugged, and they knew
that just by talking to certain Iraqis, they were sentencing them to
death. It wasn't easy being a weapons inspector in Iraq - something to
think about as the UN considers sending inspectors back in.

----

They couldn't talk about their plans in Iraq because they were certain their rooms were bugged. They couldn't talk about their plans at their headquarters in Bahrain for the same reason. In fact, they didn't even feel secure at UN headquarters in New York, so their planning was done in
loud New York restaurants. In Iraq they got threatening phone calls. One
inspector was in his hotel room when the knock on the door and the cry of
"housekeeping" came. He opened the door to find two Iraqi men in suits.
They would often arrive at a site after following a circuitous route, but the U.S. spy planes overhead could see convoys of Iraqi vehicles leaving out the back. And sometimes they would talk to Iraqis, who would never be seen again.

It all sounds like the stuff of a spy novel, and maybe even a comedy,
except that it was all very serious. It was a constant game of cat and
mouse, each side trying to outwit the other. As the UN is considering sending new teams of inspectors back into Iraq, we thought it would be a good idea to hear what it was like for the previous inspectors. We thought we had a pretty good idea of what had been going on before, but we were wrong. It was much crazier.

All of this comes as the debate continues in Washington. The House is
probably going to vote tomorrow, and the outcome is a foregone conclusion,
on the resolution authorizing the President to use military force against
Iraq. The Senate will probably vote next week, but passage there also
seems assured. The CIA sent a letter to the Senate saying that while
Saddam probably does have chemical and biological weapons, and is working on nuclear weapons, he is unlikely to use them against the U.S.unless attacked, in which case they expect Iraq to use whatever it has. There was a flurry this morning as the White House went out of its way to say that this in no way contradicts what the administration has been saying, and then released a letter from the CIA director saying the same thing. All this while the UN is still trying to work out the wording on a new
resolution about Iraq.

So Robert Krulwich will have the stories of the inspectors, and Ted will
be anchoring. The stories really are terrific, I hope you'll join us. Of
course, we are still watching the hunt for the sniper here in the
Washington area, and if there are developments, we'll report those as
well.

Wednesday, October 9, 2002

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices
Washington, D.C.

[jerseydevil]

Bush Wins Key Support of Daschle
President Bush Wins Key Support of Senate Majority Leader As Congress Heads Toward Vote on Iraq
W A S H I N G T O N, Oct. 10 — President Bush's request for authority to use force against Iraq drew solid support Thursday in both the House and Senate. The Senate voted 75-25 to end delaying tactics and open the way for final passage and the House overwhelmingly defeated efforts to weaken it.

In the Senate, 28 Democrats joined 47 Republicans in voting to draw debate to a close. The key vote came after the Senate's top Democrat, Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, told colleagues, "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice."

The House also rejected, by 270-155, the main challenge to the White House-backed resolution, a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats that obliged the president to return to Congress for a second vote on the use of American force against Iraq after he decides that cooperative efforts with the United Nations are futile.

Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said that without a multilateral approach, "this will be the United States versus Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world."

The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.

As the House wrapped up debate, a protester was escorted from the chamber after shouting "no war, no war for oil."

The Senate vote was procedural, but both sides viewed it as a key test vote. It choked off delaying tactics by a few Democratic opponents and made it all but certain that the Senate would pass the measure.

Only two Republicans voted against bringing debate to a close: Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Daschle's support was crucial to the administration's hope for a substantial vote and brought him praise from the White House. He was the last holdout among major Democratic congressional leaders.

"The president appreciates Senator Daschle's decision to vote with the president on this matter," Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Supporters of the resolution fought back efforts in both chambers to weaken the resolution.

Approval of the Iraq resolution in the GOP-led House was expected later Thursday. The Senate, which has been debating the measure for a full week, was expected to approve it late Thursday or early Friday. That could put the resolution on Bush's desk by the weekend.

By a 66-31 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. the most outspoken Senate opponent of the war resolution that would have ended the authorization for him to use force against Iraq after two years.

Minutes later, the House also turned back, by 355-72, an alternative offered by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would have committed the United States to the U.N. inspections process but not authorized unilateral force. "I plead with you to avoid this rush to war," Lee said.

Bipartisan support for Bush's request for war authority was growing steadily, and chances seemed good he'd have the measure on his desk by week's end to put the nation on combat-ready footing.

"The president hopes this will send a strong message to the world, and to Iraq, that if Iraq does not obey the U.N. resolutions, that the United States is prepared to enforce the peace," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Bush, who has stressed that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Baghdad, has urged Congress to stand with him as he presses the U.N. Security Council to approve a new resolution demanding that Iraq abide by comprehensive inspections and disarmament or face the consequences.

Progress was slower on the diplomatic front, where three members of the U.N. Security Council France, Russia and China continued to hold out against a U.S.-British proposal sanctioning military action if Iraq does not comply with coercive inspections.

A 25-minute telephone call between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac on Wednesday failed to yield a breakthrough over wording of a new Security Council resolution to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "This is intricate diplomacy and we are continuing our consultations," White House spokesman Sean McCormack said.

In Paris, Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said the French president was open to strengthening the powers of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, but still could not accept making military recourse an automatic response should they be hampered. In Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov relayed a similar stance.

[jerseydevil]

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. He said he considers Saddam "deterrable and containable at this point."

"I'm not convinced we need to do this now," Zinni said during a question-and-answer session at a Middle East Institute forum.

Debate in the House went deep into the night both Tuesday and Wednesday, with nearly every member intent on expressing the necessity, and gravity, of granting authority to send Americans into war.

"I know the heartache and pain of the families that are left behind," said a tearful Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., who was a pilot in the Vietnam War.

But Cunningham and almost every Republican backed the president. "It's time we go straight to the eye and dismantle the elements from which the storm of brutal, repressive tyranny and terrorism radiate," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., He said that as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, "I can attest to the evilness of Saddam Hussein."

On the Net:

Information on the House bill, H.J. Res. 114, and the Senate version, S.J. Res. 45, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You know what - it's great that everyone claims they want proof - but when proof is given America is either accused of fabracating it or people rant on about how it's not enough proof.
[/B]

I wonder why

IMO this is just another war based on hearsay, speculation and paranoia ............. everyone raves on how much of a psychopath Saddam is..........yet his physical actions against the western world are practically non-existant.

Hopefully this will not be viewed on as the next American Vietnam ( a pointless war )

So much conflict in the world......so many wars and America are starting one of their own

I hope someone finds those news reports you've posted usefull JD, personally I try to find as many varied news reports as possible, not just ones from my own country.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

Hopefully this will not be viewed on as the next American Vietnam ( a pointless war )

Well we got involved in Vietnam because of France. I've gone into this in other threads.

So much conflict in the world......so many wars and America are starting one of their own

I hope someone finds those news reports you've posted usefull JD, personally I try to find as many varied news reports as possible, not just ones from my own country.

I do read news and listen to news from other parts of the world. I also talk to many people from around the world. However, it seems as if people from other parts of the world really don't listen to American news FROM America. They get it only after it's been filtered through their own media with their countries' own biases thrown in and really have no idea what is going on in America.

Also since this news is FROM America and you're from England I don't exactly see your point about "personally I try to find as many varied news reports as possible, not just ones from my own country. "

You should try to understand the way the American system of government works before blabbing the two dimensional views that Europe and the rest of the world has about our political system. Very view people seem to understand our political system and just assume it works the same way as theirs. It's impossible to read a lot of outside news from the rest of the world about American policies because they water down the decision making process so much. The rest of the world seems to think that the US government revolves around the president. They have no understanding of our checks and balances or the role Congress and the Supreme Court play.

Outside views of America are very shallow and stereotypical. Europe claims we should work to understand the outside world more - but they seem to be very unwilling to take the time to understand us.

[Cirdan]

Americans are divided on this issue. Most people support the effort, but even more support waiting for weapons inspections and using the UN first. If the inspections go well we may yet avoid war. If we use the inspections as an intelligence gathering tool for the CIA as we did before, we will jepodize the unstable regimes in the Middle East when war begins. It is critical that the opposition here at home holds the administration's feet to the fire. The administration's credibilbity is questionable since the reasons and the plans have changed from week to week. At one point they were demanding first stike without the UN and regime change, weapons inspections or not. Only the poll numbers have moderated this position. I hope that the bellicose stance has the positive effect of producing successful weapons inspection and no war. Leave the regime change to the Iraqi people. Hussein will die eventually, one way or another.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
If we use the inspections as an intelligence gathering tool for the CIA as we did before...

There has been absolutely no proof brought forth that we had CIA operatives in the UN inspector contingent.

The administration's credibilbity is questionable since the reasons and the plans have changed from week to week. At one point they were demanding first stike without the UN and regime change, weapons inspections or not. Only the poll numbers have moderated this position. I hope that the bellicose stance has the positive effect of producing successful weapons inspection and no war.

A perfect example of people never being satisfied. People yell that the government should listen to the people and listen to our "allies" and then when they do - they're credibility comes into question for changing plans. I thought Bush gave everyone what they wanted when he went to the UN? We will now see where these "inspections" lead - but if Saddam Hussein back pedals (as is most likely) what then? What happens if all of a sudden the inspectors get there and the same things happen as before? When is enough enough? How many chances is the world going to give to Saddam Hussein to follow through with the agreements that were initially set forth after the Gulf War.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You should try to understand the way the American system of government works before blabbing the two dimensional views that Europe and the rest of the world has about our political system. [/B]

hmm if I blab my "two dimensional" view is this because my views were influenced by the media, or the way that America portrays itself to the rest of the world

JD I hope you are right, if your not then the next generation is going to have to spend an awfull long time clearing up this potential mess

Earlier in this thread I said that I would not become involved in this discussion (hypocrit that I am ) and now I think it is time to bite my tongue again

JD, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I did sense a teeny bit of animosity in your earlier posts .......... I viewed this thread as a discussion, nothing more (with maybe a small bit of flame on my part).