How can a war with Iraq now be justified

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 03:51 AM

Well our positions are all well already established. We have aluminium tubes, proven through independent testing at several world renound top physics laboratories and through 10 years of minutes taken from committee meetings inside Iraq to be part of an Iraqi reverse engineering missile attempt. (I am an engineer, so I know all about 'tolerances"). We have documents by the British government saying that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Iraq, dismissed as crude forgeries (having been compared to the originals inside Iraq and having been shown to have been doctored), we have inspectors physically visiting all of the sites listed in the satellite photographs (and some 27 others not listed) and finding no evidence whatsoever of any nuclear activity. There are so many holes in the US' argument for why a war with Iraq is a good idea, it is quite literally unbelievable.

If you had focussed from the start about this being a war due to Saddam's defiance and breaking of UN resolutions - and about the suffering of the Iraqi people, I'm sure you would have won many more people over by now. But all this trash talk about "WMD" and the "war against terror" have served only to isolate you and make people suspicious of your true motives. I still don't understand if this was all about defending the integrity of the UN why an all out attempt was made to override the authority and processes of the UN? An excellent Canadian plan exists that answers everyone's demands. Saddam must do specific things within a time period of no greater than a month, by the end of which he must fully have disarmed, inspections must be completely unhindered, all demands made by the UN should be answered without reservation, all missing items in his inventory must be accounted for etc. Even if Saddam was to fully disarm, experts say that it would take (going at breakneck speed) at least a month to fully dispose of everything. So in reality he isn't even being given the chance to disarm. Its war, war, or war. There is no choice here at all. I know the conservative right don't like 'evidence as a motive for doing anything. But I sure hope they find some (particularly something that can't be just flown into the country) that really conclusively proves their case. If all we hear after this is silence, then the world will be deeply resentful.

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by blown503
Pres Bush hasnt declared war yet, but when he does........

Shows what you know, Yet another chance, this about what 8-10 chances

?

Well....this has not been voted yet has it?

Declaration of war....welol the speech wasnt labeled "DEclaration of war" ....but....

If you stand up in front of the whole world and explain that no matter which decision that is taken in the UN about an attack you WILL attack....

Then....that is nothing else...rthan a declaration of war...

Unless the beholder is blind and deaf that is...

BlueLight

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 04:05 AM

Messed up..delete this.

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
You're going to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, but not your good friend JavaFox? Ah well.

At any rate, the Oil For Food Programme's website seems like it is mostly down right now (all of the links to resolutions and the like are 404), so I will have to get back to you on it. The UN Sanctions Commitee has not produced a list of what is okay and what isn't, as far as import into Iraq are concerned. They take applications and then approve or deny them. But Iraq is only allowed, under the resolutions of the Security Council, to import humanitarian items, such as "foodstuffs, pharmaceutical and medical supplies, as well as basic or standard medical and agricultural equipment and basic or standard educational items."

At any rate, while I don't have a link for you at the moment that explicitly bans aluminum tubing of that type (very adonized), under UN resolutions, "Iraq as well as the supplier States, will have to notify the joint unit of planned supplies of dual use. Also under the resolution, Iraq will be required to make detailed declarations about its intention to import a dual-use item before import occurs." So even if the tubes were not going to be used for nuclear programs, Iraq is still bound to tell the UN about their import, which they did not. Even as recent at 2002, Iraq tried to secretly import these tubes from China.

No you are wrong..there are lists for what is and what is not ok to import into Iraq.

I have seen one of them.One item i specially noticed was that Badminton rackets was not ok for Iraq to import.....yes it is true...no im not gonna look it up to verify it .

BlueLight

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I am completely for a relevant United Nations. The president has said that the US doesn't need UN permission to defend itself, and I also agree with that. But in this case, the defense of America isn't the primary concern. My primary concern is enforcement of UN resolutions. And under UN resolutions, the US is already authorized to take all means necessary against Iraq -- even unilaterally. It is some of members of the UN that are blocking war, but the UN has already produced resolutions authorizing military action.

Your primary concern is the UN.

Good so i take it you will support what tnhe UN decides then.

BlueLight

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 04:26 AM

Well blue I don't know why I'm helping you out, but yes these items are banned http://www.nonviolence.org/amhvigil/iraqban.html and http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~progres...rs/banned.html A quick search of Google turns up loads of stuff like this. Some of it is just plumb crazy. How can children's footballs have a dual use?

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 04:30 AM

Well you are helping me out because like me you do not see the use for badminton rackets in constructing nuclear arms ;-)

Are you sure these sites arent planted by Al Quaida or Hamas??

BlueLight

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 04:51 AM

No... I think their issued by the US Depatrment of Trade... I'm tierd and I didn't look too hard. But Google is full of lists of banned items. If you want official confirmation you can email the Department of Trade in the US or the UK to get the full list. Anyone can get it in case they need to check whether or not what they are doing is legal.

Anyway, check your PM blue...

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 05:45 AM

I wrote the thing about Hamas because that is the standard answer one gets these days....when questioning things.

Not that i do not believe that both of them actually are on the net in different ways ..but their propaganda is dismissable compared to the propaganda from the other side and ...easy do identify.

Your lists are obviously correct.

Bluey

UberLord · Mar 8, 2003, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ByteMe
Why do we need to justify anything? We are the USA. We can do whatever the hell we want!

Now you understand why many countries don't like you.

UberLord · Mar 8, 2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
How can children's footballs have a dual use?

Take a towel.
It has many uses

- wrap it around you as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan
Beta
- lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V
- make it wet for hand-to-hand combat
- wave it in emergencies as a distress signal
- cover your eyes with it as the Ravenous BugBlatter Beast of Traal is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it then it can't see you
- dry yourself

Now apply the same imagination to a football.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 8, 2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Erm... What was this war about again? Terrorism? No one can find any links. WMD? The Aluminium tubes have been examined by international nuclear experts and they have testified that they simply do not comply with the kind of tolerances needed for nuclear weapons research. "

With out modifications that is!

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517

Furthermore blueprints have been produced by the Iraqis to show how they were a part of a (failed) effort to reverse engineer some rockets. (Minutes from 10 years committee meetings were supplied that discussed these tubes in great detail to back this up). The British documents that were produced as evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger were dismissed as crude forgeries (they were compared to the originals and were shown to have been doctored) just like the British report on links with international terror was a blatant forgery. None of the sites listed in satellite photographs by the US administration have been shown to contain any nuclear material whatsoever. So we're down to arguing about what? That Iraq didn't comply fast enough? It seems to me (and this is just the tip of the iceberg) that Iraq has already complied, and done so in spades.

"that Iraq has already complied, and done so in spades.." you must be smokeing large amounts of crack... you mean not comply.... and i am tired of listing them.....basicly Iraq has complied with so very little its not funny.. That like saying I complyed with a 55 Mph speed limit by slowing down to only 110 mph....see I was going 125 so i am more in compliance but hardly anywere near where i should be..... so to you guys that little bit of slowing down means I 101% complyed with the speed limit right?.... that the way you people think!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517

There may well be some remaining questions. But how will these questions be answered if the time isn't going to be taken to answer them? Even if Iraq agreed to fully comply now, it is estimated by military experts that it would take them at least 1 month to completely destroy all their weapons. (At which point if they really did destroy everything, then the opposition forces would rise up and overthrow them). But the UK plan does not even afford this short time. It says 10 days, which just so happens is exactly the amount of time the UK Army needs to finish its preparations. Very generous I'm sure.

some um... they never answerd alot of them from about 10 years ago... try alot.
"it is estimated by military experts that it would take them at least 1 month to completely destroy all their weapons. " really wepons that you know are there not the ones that are hidden very very well... the equvilant of finding an exact grain of sand in the largest destert.

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517

All of this could have been so easily solved today. There was an excellent proposal on the table that was sponsored by Canada. Basically it said give the Iraqis 4 weeks and set them real and quantifiable targets they had to achieve during this time. If they failed in any one of these task this would be full and complete justification for war. It was a good idea because America could have supported it without conceding to the French and The French would have had to agree to it, because it catered for their one key demand, which was more time for inspections. A little diplomacy could have brought everyone on board. All you would be doing is calling the French's bluff and asking them how long is long enough and no more for inspectors to complete their tasks? It would be unreasonable of them to think we can afford (financially and in psychological terms) to leave an entire Army sitting in the desert. One month for Saddam to lay down his arms and fully comply (and thereby probably be overthrown) does not seem so unreasonable. Especially if this could mean this whole fight could be won without even having to spill a single drop of blood.

canda loyal to is france of course....ok ... now 4 more weeks then 4 more weeks then 4 more years then 40 all here forget it. lets just delay everything! yea we can put off our responseabilitys indefonatly... thats like saying nope dont need to take the trash out still a few more inches to the ceiling...
"how long is long enough and no more for inspectors to complete their tasks?"
properly given the levels of co-operation 100-200 years. "this whole fight could be won without even having to spill a single drop of blood" -not

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517

What gets me is why the UN has to be a victim in all of this. Some pretty simple straightforward horse trading could have resolve all of the bad feeling that now exists. The UN would have been seen to have worked, Saddam could have been ousted, America would have won without having to fire a single shot. Diplomacy almost certainly could have achieved all of the goals that Bush proposes to now achieve with guns. It is simply crazy.
Q

let un not inforceing it own resolutions coused thier problems. oh yea saddom will give us his chemicals/wmd... yea when they detonate after being fired no sooner... Its not just suddom .. really the whole goverment oused huh?- not!
"It is simply crazy." I know but it would all end if Iraq would 100% comply... Iraqs fult there not ours....

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 8, 2003, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well blue I don't know why I'm helping you out, but yes these items are banned http://www.nonviolence.org/amhvigil/iraqban.html and http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~progres...rs/banned.html A quick search of Google turns up loads of stuff like this. Some of it is just plumb crazy. How can children's footballs have a dual use?

Q

thats the whole point of a Sanctions. Everthing is banned!

Sanction
Pronunciation: (sangk'shun),

1. something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule of conduct, etc.
2.Internat. Law.action by one or more states toward another state calculated to force it to comply with legal obligations.
3. to impose a sanction on; penalize, esp. by way of discipline.

glad you guy work from up to date materal...

"The Following Items are Banned by the Iraq Sanctions; Ask President Clinton to stop the Iraq Sanctions " - quoted from the website

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 09:38 AM

Well I think we can work out where your coming from... 4 weeks is certainly a time span beyond which you may be capable of thinking. However not everyone suffers from this limitation. The last time I looked 4 weeks still meant 4 weeks. 4 weeks as proposed y the Canadians - those all out down and dirty opponents of the USA (isn't everyone these days?) - meant an absolute limit of 4 weeks, in which time all remaining tasks had to be completed. Instead of some vague demand for Iraq to disarm there would be real and quantifiable targets that they had to achieve in that time. If they didn't play ball, or even gave a hint of not playing ball they would be screwed.

As for aluminium tubes being modified to be made useful in nuclear research... Lol dude... I think it’s you who are smoking something... Precision engineered components are like parts of a jigsaw puzzle, even more so in engineering as components are commonly manufactured to within a few one thousands of an inch, or to within a few grams of stress tolerance, or a few degrees C of heat tolerance. Even just a slight fraction of degree above or bellow this could have catastrophic results. In any case it doesn't explain the 10 years of documentation supplied about these components, or the blueprints showing their inclusion in a rocket system, or the forged British papers claiming that Iraq bought Uranium from Niger, or the fact that all America's suspected nuclear sites have been visited and found to contain no evidence whatsoever of nuclear activity. They even took air, soil and water samples from several KM around these facilities. All came up blank.

Everybody acknowledges that Iraq is dragging it heels on some things. But on the real big issues, the ones that matter Iraq has moved a long way in the right direction. Now though what's being said is that even if they agreed to fully comply, they simply would not be given the time needed to do so. It seems we are to go to war based on nothing more than a procedural technicality. You aren't complying fast enough, but oh by the way, even if you did comply faster, we still wouldn't allow you the time you need to comply.

Fair enough, so what was all this shouting about WMD and links with international terror and that 'Saddam must comply' all about? Don't give me the old line that he had 12 years to comply. Nobody was particularly interested in those 12 years in forcing him to do anything. The UN went in after the air strikes in 98, but after that no one was much interested in keeping up the pressure. The UN can only work if the will exists to make it work. So if it wasn't about WMD, which looks more and more unlikely - and if it wasn't about links with international terror (which even our own security services admit is unlikely) then what is it about? All of the concerns that America has raised have been examined and answered. In one moth all of this could have been over without a single shot having been fired. What is preferable? 4 weeks of peace and then complete Iraqi compliance, or war in 10 days and thousands of Americans. UK and Iraqis dead? I'm sure I know which you prefer. Indeed you have made that very clear.

The truth is there is no interest in the US in Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions; Bush even explicitly said this 24 hours before the UN even met. Nor is there any interest in WMD or links with terror groups. The evidence for these has proved at best shabby. There are two reasons America wants Iraq and that's in order to establish a strong strategic presence in the region and oil. People keep saying its not about oil. But try telling me that in 18 months when the price of oil in the US has dropped to half its current level. This is what most analysts are now predicting as the likely outcome of a successful war in Iraq.

So were all back to our same old positions, with the whole world and his dog saying that Iraq can be disarmed peacefully, America saying he should disarm sometime last week, the Europeans saying we want evidence that he has done something wrong before we kill thousands of people, the US saying screw the evidence, what use is evidence? Let’s kill lot's of people now.

Mmm... I don't know about the rest of what you said, not much to that apart from a lot of jumping up and down. Aren't you the guy who thought the UN would take 200 years to search Iraq for WMD? Inspectors have already said it is not their job to search for these weapons. Iraq must account for them. If she had not done so within a month (as stated under the Canadian plan) then America could have had her little war anyway. Just like you, your government doesn't like playing with math too much. The Canadian plan was the compromise everyone had been looking for. The Canadians knew how long it would take to simply verify everything had been accounted for, so even if the Iraqis destroyed every bullet they had, it would still take a month to verify this.

You can go on as long as you want shouting that a month really means a thousand years - or however long. But this is not what the Canadian plan entails, nor has the UN ever suggested it, nor indeed does the French plan call for this. (Although at 120 days, they really are asking for too much). What has been asked for by UN inspectors is a realistic time frame in which they would be allowed to complete all the tasks they had been set. You can't just set a bunch of tasks and then say half way through their completion, 'Hey, we're not going to let you finish your tasks now, things aren't quite going our way. Get out of the way while we wage war. ' The whole purpose of the UN inspectors is to gather evidence for or against a war. The US provided them with the information they had, the UN did its job, found no evidence to back up these claims and delivered its conclusions back to the UN and US.

In any case this is all pointless. It doesn’t'[t matter what this is about, what the UN does, if there are any WMD or not, if there are any links with terrorism or not, America is going to war and that is that.

Like I said for the sake of everyone here, I sure hope you find those WMD when you go in. Otherwise everyone will say that this has all been one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the world in recent human history. And as much as I mistrust the American Conservative Christian right, I would not like to see a previously noble America burdened with this kind of reputation. If America has any sense of honour or integrity at all, this is now what she has placed at stake. I wonder if the gamble will prove worthwhile?

Q

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
thats the whole point of a Sanctions. Everthing is banned!

Sanction
Pronunciation: (sangk'shun),

1. something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule of conduct, etc.
2.Internat. Law.action by one or more states toward another state calculated to force it to comply with legal obligations.
3. to impose a sanction on; penalize, esp. by way of discipline.

glad you guy work from up to date materal...

"The Following Items are Banned by the Iraq Sanctions; Ask President Clinton to stop the Iraq Sanctions” - quoted from the website

Well I believe this list of banned exports has recently been extended by the Bush administration. Which is kind of in keeping with all of this nonsense. But if you really do want a fully complete up to date list, you can always e-mail your department of trade and ask. They supply lists like this to local businessmen all the time. And sanctions are not about 'banning everything’; they are about restricting access to products with a potentially dual use. That is they could be used for civilian purposes, or they could be use for military purposes. In light of some of the things that are banned, this criteria seems completely absurd.

I don't think this is very significant any more though. We're arguing about a very academic point. I mean were actually talking as if UN sanctions, or anything the UN does or says has any relevance to the US. Clearly it does not. And since this has been a goal of the American right for some time, might I say congratulations, you achieved what you set out to do! Now where previously there was unity, there is only division and no one in the world trusts anyone any more. Good job! Nice work... !

I think the point made by blue was valid. Yes aluminium tubes were being imported, but they had as much likelihood as becoming a part of a nuclear weapons system as would a football, if someone in Iraq had managed to illegally import one. Of course you could always melt them down and use the aluminium to try to make your own tubes (although Iraq is forbidden from having the machinery to do this). But why even bother importing the tubes, when you could just melt down a bunch of Coca Cola cans instead? (Strangely I believe this isn't banned). So under those circumstances would it be fair to accuse an American company of supplying components to Iraq that can be used as a part of a nuclear weapons system?

Hmm I wonder. Under Conservative definitions of what constitutes evidence, I have no doubt it would.

Q

UberLord · Mar 8, 2003, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
All of the concerns that America has raised have been examined and answered. In one moth all of this could have been over without a single shot having been fired.

Almost right.

In one month (esimtated by Hans Blix) all the concerns that have been raised can be answered with the current level of co-operation.

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 10:07 AM

Explain?

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 10:16 AM

Erm I think I get what you mean. You mean if the current level of co-operation (which has greatly improved recently) then all tasks set out by the US and UN could be completed in one month? Well that is certainly possible. I still like the Canadian's plan better - as it puts a very big rocket up Saddam's ass, and basically says that if he steps out of line once, he and Baghdad would fry. (I'm sorry for the rough way I put that, but that is what will happen). At the end of this time Saddam would be left so weakened, he would probably be overthrown by his own people. Then we all win. Saddam would be gone and not one of our troops or any Iraqi civilians would have to die. Given that possibility, it seems like a worthwhile price to pay just to wait a little while more. It is this very refusal to allow inspectors to complete the tasks the US has demanded they do, that makes me and many other people deeply suspicious of America's motives.

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
thats the whole point of a Sanctions. Everthing is banned!

Sanction
Pronunciation: (sangk'shun),

1. something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule of conduct, etc.
2.Internat. Law.action by one or more states toward another state calculated to force it to comply with legal obligations.
3. to impose a sanction on; penalize, esp. by way of discipline.

glad you guy work from up to date materal...

"The Following Items are Banned by the Iraq Sanctions; Ask President Clinton to stop the Iraq Sanctions " - quoted from the website

No everything has not been banned.Essentially things for the survival of people have not been banned after the "oil for food program"

The lists with sanctioned items have been produced ( as far as i know) by Usa and handed over to the UN which has ratified them...

And...why they shouldnt play badminton...well...there are a lot of things one does not understand ....

Maybe they were French badminton rackets ...one can never be to sure about those peole now can one?

BlueLight

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
With out modifications that is!

"that Iraq has already complied, and done so in spades.." you must be smokeing large amounts of crack... you mean not comply.... and i am tired of listing them.....basicly Iraq has complied with so very little its not funny.. That like saying I complyed with a 55 Mph speed limit by slowing down to only 110 mph....see I was going 125 so i am more in compliance but hardly anywere near where i should be..... so to you guys that little bit of slowing down means I 101% complyed with the speed limit right?.... that the way you people think!!!

some um... they never answerd alot of them from about 10 years ago... try alot.
"it is estimated by military experts that it would take them at least 1 month to completely destroy all their weapons. " really wepons that you know are there not the ones that are hidden very very well... the equvilant of finding an exact grain of sand in the largest destert.

canda loyal to is france of course....ok ... now 4 more weeks then 4 more weeks then 4 more years then 40 all here forget it. lets just delay everything! yea we can put off our responseabilitys indefonatly... thats like saying nope dont need to take the trash out still a few more inches to the ceiling...
"how long is long enough and no more for inspectors to complete their tasks?"
properly given the levels of co-operation 100-200 years. "this whole fight could be won without even having to spill a single drop of blood" -not

let un not inforceing it own resolutions coused thier problems. oh yea saddom will give us his chemicals/wmd... yea when they detonate after being fired no sooner... Its not just suddom .. really the whole goverment oused huh?- not!
"It is simply crazy." I know but it would all end if Iraq would 100% comply... Iraqs fult there not ours....

Are you on crack?? Im just curious....

Why do you keep leaving the fact outside that the whole bleeding Russia ,China and Germany are on the sdame path as France i the security council??

Why do you continually whine about France when the resistance about "your way" is five times bigger than that??

Bluelight

~~ByteMe~~ · Mar 8, 2003, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
Now you understand why many countries don't like you.

Yea maybe. I was wondering. Everyone says it is much better if the US had the cooperation of the UN (other countries). And my question is why? What real advantages (besides they will like us better) does the USA have in keeping anyone happy? Why should we care what france thinks (or anyone else)? Do they help us much?