How can a war with Iraq now be justified

UberLord

With the latest report by Hans Blix, I got the distinct impression that Iraq is complying with most of the inspectors requests - not all but most.

Face it - Iraq is complying and more nations are against a war than for a war. If the UK, USA and the others decide to go to war regardless then the leaders (Blair, Bush, etc) could be tried for war crimes.

digitalwanderer

...that isn't gonna stop the White House from doing what it wants and keeping to it's own personal agenda....you don't quite get how King George II does his thinking yet, do ya? (Don't feel bad, it took me a while too. Mix equal parts of selective realities along with self-righteousness....scary mix. )

UberLord

Maybe, but when Teh Rest Of Teh World want Dubya's and Brown-Nosed-Blairs heads for war crimes, that might just be the spark to the gunpower for World War 3. Or am I being overly paranoid here?

JavaFox

In regards with WW3, Uber, you are not being paranoid enough. If Iraq is allowed to continue with its clandestine programs of mass destruction, flaunt the will of the United Nations, and continue to deceive the world, then we will see bloodshed, on a scale of while we haven't seen for perhaps sixty years.

The French foreign minister said that "Iraq was less of a threat to the world than it was before the 1991 Gulf War and there was no need for a US-led assault on the country." Clearly, the French collective memory is short. When Hitler seized the Rhineland, his army was weak. In fact, history now shows that Hitler, recognizing the strength of the French military at the time remarked that it was the most tense and worrysome time of his entire life. If the French had stopped Hitler's expansion then --remember, the German army was posed less of a threat to the world than it did before WWI-- then millions would have been saved.

Those of you who think Saddam's destruction of the al Samoud II misiles is real disarmament are missing the point. Even destroying those missiles puts Saddam in breach of Resolution 1441, inasmuch as the Iraqi government concealed those weapons and did not include them on its weapons declaration.

So... how precisely are the statements "we have no illegal weapons, here is a list of our weapons" and "we are destroying illegal weapons now" consistent?

Why, may I ask, are you many of you enclined to give Saddam the beneift of the doubt, but not your ally, the United States of America?

The_Neon_Cowboy

yea not all just like mabe what 10% and not complying with aboit 90% and of there was no armed force at thier border there would be 0%

such as...
no aswers to qestions that haven't been answerd before... since the last inspections started

still not declareing thieir WMD that they Do have

still haven't accounted for huge chemial stores and war heads

before desert storm they were 6 mo. from haveing nukes wonder were they are now......

Can you really be sure you got all his no compliant missleswhen there in no exact counting to look for.....
uncomfirmed - but not suposadly we have intelligence that even though thier destorying the not complint missles thier makeing more in secret!

no need to go foward list is endless..................

little tid bit from the news.... saddom orders 15,000 us uniforms (maybe for confusion in inner city fighting) but most likey so that he can comit artocitys on his own people then try to blame it on the US.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

UberLord

I'd say that the French are now attoning for that mistake by vetoing any military action against Iraq at this time.

Not that I'm accusing the US of taking over the world - they're doing that through other means (ICAN for example).

Also, the USA is not my ally. For them to be my ally, I have to be on their side. On this matter I am not - on other matters I am. People call Saddam a murder - they would be correct. I'd also say that Dubya is a murderer as well. How many people did he send to death row when he was Govenor of Texas?

Who should I give the benefit of doubt to? Oh decisions, decisions.

UberLord

It's not that crazy - Dubya just likes to get his "gun off"

digitalwanderer

Nah, it's just that THAT isn't even enough to deter our King and his Royal Court....he's bound and determined to go invading Iraq even though world opinion and his own countries opinion is against him about it.

Seriously, he's gone. Did you see his speech last night? He looked like he was tanked to the gills on thorazine or something just so he could keep a straight face and not get pissed at everyone for not wanting to invade like he does.

I also thought the Helen Thomas snub was unforgivable and his skipping of Mike Allen was cowardly, but that's just my opinion.

blown503

You cant just read only the latest report from Mr Blix and make a decision. You have to understand that for the last 12 years Sadam has been trying to make weapons to kill anyone, including you if you just so happen to be in his path at the very moment. He has been building missles, making all sorts of bio chemicals to kill ANYONE that he so desires when he is ready. They have told him to disarm, not just the dang missles that they have been talking so much about, but all the terrorist matterials he posseses. He has buried bio chemicals, weapons, ect. He has been shipping this stuff all over the place to keep it on the move so inspectors cant find it. Just today March 7th reports show that France of all people have been smuggling stuff into Iraq as late as January. He has uniforms just recently purchased that are identical to Us troops uniforms, just so he can kill his own people and blame it on the US. I dont war either and I just wish he would'nt have kept trying to make things to kill a mass amout of people. But he was on target to make a day worse than September 11.
Thats what you have to understand. In fact Sadam has stopped destroying the missles that he was using as a front.

(QUOTE FROM RAID517) Basically it said give the Iraqis 4 weeks, 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

They did give them time, they said destroy all mass destruction weapons, not rifles, not tanks, not your Iraq army, just thigs that kill people, that are worthless to use as a weapon against an invasion

peroni

Found this last night. http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/st...882459,00.html

That's something Bush should read, I wonder if he would get the sarcasm.

I'm getting paranoid too Uber, I think WWW3 is getting closer and closer with China joining in with Russia, France and Germany.

bluelight

I take it you must have seen this in American media right??

And you believe it is true?? Right??

Ordering 15 000 American uniforms....to be sewn in Iraq?? One week or so before the war starts??

Yeah right.


BlueLight

UberLord

Wheres the proof that they have that? The inspectors today said they could find no evidence to prove WMD existance or manufactuer.

With your argument Iraq is dammed either way. If they continue as they are and deny it, the US is going to storm in to "find it". If they say "Yup, here's our WMD" then Iraq is damned.

According to the inspectors they have no nukes or the facilties for making them at this time. Or maybe you don't belive them? Hmmmmm

Unless an exact count is confirmed then no, we'll never know. It then comes down to trust. Without trust there can never be peace with anyone. I'm willing to trust - are you?

I agree - my arguments can go on for eternity

I quick scan on the internet brings up zero for that bit of news.
Got any linkage to a reliable news source?
Otherwise I say bullshit

raid517

I'm sure I remember that story being repeated in the last gulf war. Oh well it just shows good propganda never looses its usefulness. Well getting close to war guys, the BS will really start flying soon.

Q

bluelight

Last time thje war was kicked off by the "news" that Iraq`i soldiers were killing babies in Kuwait`i hospitals and were going complete bezerk in Kuwait city.

After the war it was confirmed that all of this was complete bullshit and actually invented by a publicity agency working for the American government with the obvious intent to fire people into hate.



I do agree to the necessity that time to attack Saddam:That time he .did...attack someone and he was a threat ...Today he is not.

Although...i could do without the lies .


BlueLight

JavaFox

The thing that you fail to understand, Uber, is that we don't need proof. We've got negative proof. What I mean is this: Resolution 1441 set down a deadline as to when Iraq needed to prodouce a compreshensive list of all their weapons. In addition to neglecting to mention things like the al Samoud II missiles --which are a violation-- the document also fails to address precisely what happened to stocks of VX, sarin, mustard, and anthrax that THE WORLD KNOW SADDAM HAD.

So what you anti-war people are collectively saying is this: Saddam is a bad man, but I want to do nothing to oust him. He isn't allowed to have WMD, and even though he has weapons that are illegal (al Samoud II, aluminum tubes, etc), I am going to take his word for it when he says he's got nothing else, even though he can't account for stuff WE KNEW he had.

I see.

UberLord

You mean the stocks which got destroyed in 1991? The report Hans Blix made stated that the disposal site is being excavated to work out how much was destroyed. What they need to know was how much he had to start with so they can work out if it all got destroyed or if he has some left.

Yes, we know he had it. Yes, we know he/we destroyed some of it. We don't know if he/we destroyed all of it. Thats why Hans Blix asked for more time.

Had being the operative word. The aluminium tubes you mentioned have been proven by the inspectors to have no use in production of nuclear weapons.

Let's say that I'm willing to take Saddam at his word until the inspectors prove beyond doubt that he's making or still got WMD. BTW, the missiles are being destroyed so hopefully that little part of your argument should disappear.

bluelight

We know you dont need proof.

Your president declared war about 12 hours ago when he explained that you would attack Iraq no matter what the result in UN.

So obviously you do not need proof.Nor do you need the rest of the world.

Good for you.


None of us has ever said that we dont want anything done about Saddam.

We have said.. we do not agree to the way it is planned to be done by your right wing conservative government.

Thats all.'


You have a government that has made it perfectly clear in their declaration of how they plan to run things that they plan to run the world.That they will actively interfere in other nations affairs with force.

They have expalined that they will...attack anyone THEY consider...a threat or an obstacle...

A politic like this has seldom been seen this side of WW2.


This is what this is all about..

The rest of the world has got the message...and they are not to happy about your plans....you see they are also interested in that they world is maintained stable....and...your governments description on how to keep it that way isnt very poular since they try to force it on tne rest of us.

The father of you current president did ...actually do a very good job in creating a coalition to attack Iraq last time.

He did so by diplomacy and discussion.Not by threats as your current government does.


That....is what..this is about..

That is how the rest of us sees this and it will be more and more clear even to you as time passes.In Usa peoles minds about this is continually changing.

What was a very very strong support for this has changed somewhat.A majority of the Americans ..want the UN to be part of a coalition if you are to go in.


You will evetually have your war...in a week or two maybe a month...Russia and France will not lay a veto of that in 99 percent sure.

And why...if they are so reluctant would they do so...Because they as opposed to you do actually believe in that the UN has...a function and that this funtion at the moment os not best with held by bimbing Iraq today.

They also believ i guess that the idea of the UN is not for one nation to dictate it work when it serves and reject it otherwise..


There are other ways...but your presicdent has alread put all of his prestige into this.so...there will not be...any other way.


Lets just hope the price will not be to high ...shall we.


BlueLight

JavaFox

No, I mean the stock that by all accounts --even vehement anti-war proponent and members of the previous disarmament regime-- have only been 90% destroyed. Where is the remaining 10%?

The aluminum tubes may not have been used for weapons, but they were purchased in a secret way, IN VIOLATION OF THE UN RESOLUTIONS. THOSE TUBES ARE ILLEGAL. So tell me this, Uber, how can you trust Saddam, when he has BROKEN THE RULES already?

Or let me put it this way. Why are you content to let the inspector engage in a cat-and-mouse game, where the Iraqis say they have no weapons, the inspectors find them, and then the Iraqis drag their feet and grudingly destroy them? 1441 calls for AN ACCURATE DECLARATION. The Iraqis are only destroying weapons because the UN FOUND THEM. Iraq isn't complying, they're just being caught.

blown503

Pres Bush hasnt declared war yet, but when he does........


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

UberLord

Thats what the inspectors will work out.

Got links to back this up? First I've heard of aluminium tubes being illegal.

I dunno how I'm going to trust Dubya after he wades into Iraq without UN backing. Heck, I dunno how I'm gonna trust Tony Blair!

ToshiroOC <