Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by webwizard333
I was under the impression that what he was saying, that if the rest of the world didn't like it, they would have to take a more active role themselves.

Thank you WebWizard because that is what I was saying. They won't though - because then their people will have to make sacrifices (welfare programs for their own countries or international involvement).

<laughs at thought of the rest of the world commiting economic suicide> In all seriousness, the global economy would be pretty much ruined and all countries would suffer immense problems. Aid would instantly vanish and most of the world's population would instantly decline to even worst standards of living, while most trade would mostly dry up. Of course, thats not even taking into account the most certainly violent reaction of the US for having sanctions imposed upon it. We are the only superpower, and could dominate the rest of the world with our military.

And that is very very true. Look at what England had done when it was powerful - and they had countries that could balance their power. We have refrained ourselves and managed our power pretty well - especially if you look at the ruthlessness of the European countries.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The president DOESN'T have autonomous power in terms of the military. Although the president has always been Commander in Chief. The only thing Congress has given him is the rigth to act when it comes to Iraq. Not unilateral control around the world or at home.

Ask yourself where you would be if you imposed trade sanctions on the US. Most of your goods go to US consumers. Look at how the strike in the Pacific docks was having an affect around the world. Europe couldn't afford it anymore than the US could. It would like cutting off your hand beca

Who said anything about unilateral control I thought Iraq was the subject here?

Yes trade sanctions would be disastrous.......but I trust my government to do it if it is the right decision.......e.g the existing sanctions against Iraq......Iraq invaded Kuwait, this was of course wrong as Kuwait had taken no military action against Iraq

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So we need Hussein to invade a country again before we do anything?

No. But there needs to be some compelling evidence before we should even be contemplating an attack on Iraq. Since when did America wage unprovoked wars?

JD:
Hitler COULD have been stopped way before Poland - except no one really cared and Hitler kept assuring everyone he wasn't doing anything.

Yes, but in Hitler's case, he was actually up to no good, and it was observable. The fact that nobody wanted to get involved is another matter entirely. But the fact of the matter still remains: in the case of Iraq, there is NO EVIDENCE.

Get your evidence, and THEN attack. You seem to forget that if this war goes ahead, many civilians will die. These people didn't ask to be run by a madman. If America goes to war, thousands will die. They had just better make sure that they are right first.


Can we please refrain from the "blame x" theme? It's completely futile, and hardly pertinent to this thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Who said anything about unilateral control I thought Iraq was the subject here?

I believe you said this -

The Public=Representatives=Congress=President........a nd the president answers to?.........no one, he has just been given autonomous power

Sure you can post the opinions of the INDEPENDANT acting countries of Europe but why do I need to post each of the fifty states opinions? They don't mean a thing now that the president has autonomous power in this matter (say, didn't a man called Hitler once demand his government hand over autonomous power of the armed forces?) .............

You said this as if the president could just launch an attack against Spain if he felt like it with the powers that Congress has just given him.

Yes trade sanctions would be disastrous.......but I trust my government to do it if it is the right decision.......e.g the existing sanctions against Iraq......Iraq invaded Kuwait, this was of course wrong as Kuwait had taken no military action against Iraq

Wow - so you DO expect YOUR government to act in YOUR best interests. I believe the argument I have been making is that we expect OUR goivernment to act in OUR best interests.

[osszie]

Originally posted by webwizard333
<laughs at thought of the rest of the world commiting economic suicide> In all seriousness, the global economy would be pretty much ruined and all countries would suffer immense problems. Aid would instantly vanish and most of the world's population would instantly decline to even worst standards of living, while most trade would mostly dry up. Of course, thats not even taking into account the most certainly violent reaction of the US for having sanctions imposed upon it. We are the only superpower, and could dominate the rest of the world with our military.

Webwizard America is about to engage in a war because just one country did not care less about breaking away from trade with the rest of the world.........big shock time THOUSANDS ARE ABOUT TO DIE, in fact in Iraq today thousands have died If you think in this nuclear age that any country could dominate the world through military might than I can only fail to agree with you. DESTROY the world yes, dominate it no

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Can we please refrain from the "blame x" theme? It's completely futile, and hardly pertinent to this thread.

Oh, but I'm supposed to stand by while several times in this thread it has been said that America is the cause of the world's problems and that we do nothing good for anyone.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
in fact in Iraq today thousands have died (

Iraqi citizens have died at the hands of Hussein while he lives in his palaces. HUGE palaces that extend for city blocks.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Wow - so you DO expect YOUR government to act in YOUR best interests. I believe the argument I have been making is that we expect OUR goivernment to act in OUR best interests.

First off, a quick apology JD - I should have expressed that I was in fact referring to the thread topic earlier.

Well yes, of course we both expect our governments to act in our best interests.................surely this discussion would be redundant otherwise

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

Well yes, of course we both expect our governments to act in our best interests.................surely this discussion would be redundant otherwise

Well many times in this thread and others people seem to expect the US to put everyone else's interest ahead of it's own. I have always stated that ALL countries and ALL people act in their self interest first.

I DO want Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I think it is the best thing for the peace of the world. I do however hope that we can do it without going through a huge militray conflict. If we can somehow manage to take him out in the dark of night - that would be the best.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh, but I'm supposed to stand by while several times in this thread it has been said that America is the cause of the world's problems and that we do nothing good for anyone.

Nobody has been doing that, with maybe the exception of Sween. In the interest of staying on topic - now there's a novel thought - can we please try and stay away from bashing each others countries, and finger pointing? It has been done before, and really isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Can we just discuss the relations of Iraq without getting all personal about it?

Now. I agree with you JD, that the world would probably be a better place without Hussein. This person had the gall to take advantage of UN sympathy and use it to build his palaces instead of using it on medical treatment for those that direly needed it. The man is without a doubt, one of the biggest SOBs out there. BUT. I hardly think that waging an unprovoked war against someone that may or may not have WMD is conducive to the situation. By going in there with inconclusive evidence makes the US almost as bad as he is. I'll say it again: thousands of civilians will DIE if the US goes to war.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Nobody has been doing that, with maybe the exception of Sween. In the interest of staying on topic - now there's a novel thought - can we please try and stay away from bashing each others countries, and finger pointing? It has been done before, and really isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Can we just discuss the relations of Iraq without getting all personal about it?

Do I need to point out America Jr's coments?

Now. I agree with you JD, that the world would probably be a better place without Hussein. This person had the gall to take advantage of UN sympathy and use it to build his palaces instead of using it on medical treatment for those that direly needed it. The man is without a doubt, one of the biggest SOBs out there. BUT. I hardly think that waging an unprovoked war against someone that may or may not have WMD is conducive to the situation. By going in there with inconclusive evidence makes the US almost as bad as he is. I'll say it again: thousands of civilians will DIE if the US goes to war.

There is as of yet no guarantee that we are going to war. Also - the question remains - what happens if Saddam Hussein again comes up with excuses not to allow weapons inspectors to search without restrictions? What kind of proof do you want? Many of the previous weapons inspectors have stated that we are probably not going to find physical nuclear weapons - but evidence that they are being developed.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - the question remains - what happens if Saddam Hussein again comes up with excuses not to allow weapons inspectors to search without restrictions?

Well, by then we'll know that he's probably pulling fast one. And at least the proper channels will have been negotiated by that point. Hopefully.

And it really depends on which weapons inspectors you're talking about. They're hardly consistent in their opinions, ya know. Some are saying that there's no way that he could manage to pull out WMD in the next ten years or so. Really, there's no way of knowing, unless we can get some conclusive evidence.

I really hope these weapons inspections go ahead without hitch... and that *BOTH* sides behave.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

I really hope these weapons inspections go ahead without hitch... and that *BOTH* sides behave.

Well the inspectors are an international coalition. It's not the "US" going into Iraq - it's the UN. I hope that the UN doesn't put up with any crap though from Iraq and just let him off the hook like it did before. I think America has made it perfectly clear though that we are not going to accept a half a$$ job. Either the UN is going to do the inspections right and Hussein is going to cooperate or the US will handle it.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I really hope these weapons inspections go ahead without hitch... and that *BOTH* sides behave.

Certainly. This is the last chance we have of a diplomatic solution, if such a word is still relevant after Saddam's diplomatic maneuvres, the best case scenairio, the inspectors find nothing (wonder what will happen as regards international relations with Iraq then?). Worst case, they do find WMD and war is declared.

I agree with you JD a quick assassination would be the best outcome........but it will have a couple of small complications. Saddam is not an easy bugger to find (dopplegangers etc) and his son (who's name escapes me) is the head of his armed forces and from press reports his son is so mad he makes Saddam look like Father Christmas.............if they do have WMD then I think the son will have no hesitation in using them .......if they find WMD the only future I can see is a big Iraq shaped hole where people used to live.

[jerseydevil]

Show and Tell in Iraq
Reporter's Notebook: Inside One of Saddam's Factories

B A G H D A D, Iraq, Oct. 11 — Trust, but verify. Former President Ronald Reagan's watchwords during the days of Soviet disarmament don't apply when it comes to Saddam Hussein.

.....

As journalists, it is our job not to trust and always to try our best to verify with firsthand observation. So when the minister invited us to see for ourselves, we jumped at the chance, even though we all new full well that we lacked both the expertise and the equipment to prove anything one way or the other.

With uncharacteristic speed, Iraqi officials organized several buses to take reporters to one of the sites the White House identified Monday as a part of Iraq's ongoing effort to acquire nuclear weapons. Within an hour, we were off.

....

Reporters were taken first to a cavernous building identified with a yellow arrow on the satellite surveillance photos.

It is, as it was before, a metal-working shop. The inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believed Baghdad used the computer-assisted lathes to fashion centrifuges that would help them isolate enough fissile material to make a bomb. Iraq denied those charges then, and denies them now.

What was striking about the facility was how empty it was. There were three lathes, each about the size of a small truck, in a hanger big enough to house a jumbo jet.

There appeared to be no production line, no piles of material waiting to be worked on or just completed. In all this space, there were just a handful of workers working on a few rounded bits of metal.

Here and there on the floor, however, there were pools of oil. Recently, it seemed, some items — either equipment or supplies — had been moved.

....

This is hardly the first time that Iraq has led journalists through facilities that the U.S. has identified as potential targets. During the Gulf War, officials here famously took reporters to what the U.S. claimed was a chemical weapons lab and the Iraqis claimed was a baby food factory.

We were no better positioned than those reporters to say whether the equipment here was being used for perfectly acceptable purposes or to develop dangerous weapons.

Interestingly enough, along the road back to Baghdad, there was long train parked at a railway siding. The train was loaded down with tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other military hardware.

We couldn't help but notice how tracks would have passed right by the facility we had just left behind. But the train was not on the tour.

Is this what we're in for again?

[Draken]

Hussein has one and only one bargaining tactic - he takes up a strong position - stronger than where he needs to be, with rhetoric to suit - then at the very last minute "climbs down" a little, thought only to a position he initially would have been happy with. He's playing to the moderate Arab and non-aligned part of the gallery, making it look like he's the conciliatory one beset by bullies. Also he'll announce a sweeping "acceptance" only to clarify it a little later with conditions which mean it isn't an acceptance at all.

Let's face it, the West missed its chance in 1991. His army disintegrating, the Marsh Arabs in the south rebelling, the Kurds in the north hostile as ever to him - but for whatever reasons we bottled it and decided our remit was just the liberation of Kuwait. Well it might have been - but that remit was easier to stretch than building up a case for a "first strike", which is where we're at now.

Thorough inspections will drive weapons developments underground but I very much doubt they'll stop them. That Hussein is a deranged maniacal dictator is not in doubt - but in the past that hasn't been enough to prompt the West to attack a nation. It comes down to the weapons of mass destruction argument - and where they're concerned, "better safe than sorry" isn't such a bad idea. I just wish the evidence for that was proving a little more compelling than it has been so far.

[Cirdan]

Ye, I wish we had finished the job the first time. The reasons for not doing so then are the same reasons for not invading know. I think that Chaney & Co. regret not finishing Hussein off much more than I do. I can't help but believe that large egos are involved, however, if the case is made either by weapons inspectors finding nuclear materials, or by blocked inspections, then it may be enough justification to go in. If Hussein is willing to risk war with the US then maybe he is crazy. We must accept that this war would be very detrimental to the US in terms of finance, miltary readiness, and credibility in the world.

The war will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will come with a long term commitment. While the US miltary is advanced it's troop strength is weak and such a war would require a huge commitment of troops. If anything else happens we would be hard pressed to respond without a draft. Finally, every tinpot dictator will have an excuse to attack his neighbor. How long will India and Pakistan wait to "eliminate the nuclear threat"?

At least for show, the US must go through every last step to avert war while maintaining the pressure. Remember that the favorite tactic of US enemies has been to ameliorate until democracy changes the US players. Castro has gotten by on that for years. The formula that cantained Castro is the most effective policy outside war. Whilehe has been allowed to stay in power the long term effect has forced him closer to the US position. Threats of war will rally a people to the side of the worst dictator. Endless sactions and embargoes crush the will of the people to follow and they don't cost nearly as much. Cuba will probably be a democracy within ten years. Remember they had actually nuclear missles during the Cuban missle crisis.

[Lizra]

My closest neighbor, and a very dear friend both have young sons who joined the Navy and Air Force in the spring of 2001. Both signed up for 5 years. We are bumming heavily over this, but what can you do! The boy in the Air Force has already spent about 6 months in what he called "the big sand box", Quatar (?). Thank goodness he's back, but with several more years to go....?! The Navy boy is gearing up to go somewhere, they never know or can tell what they're doing. One mom prays a lot, the other chain smokes. Of course, the boys volunteered, but both sets of parents were unhappily surprised when they did. They are proud of their young sons, but would have preferred different scenarios for parental pride!

[osszie]

Originally posted by Lizra
My closest neighbor, and a very dear friend both have young sons who joined the Navy and Air Force in the spring of 2001. Both signed up for 5 years. We are bumming heavily over this, but what can you do! The boy in the Air Force has already spent about 6 months in what he called "the big sand box", Quatar (?). Thank goodness he's back, but with several more years to go....?! The Navy boy is gearing up to go somewhere, they never know or can tell what they're doing. One mom prays a lot, the other chain smokes. Of course, the boys volunteered, but both sets of parents were unhappily surprised when they did. They are proud of their young sons, but would have preferred different scenarios for parental pride!

Yeah, I can understand what your neighbour and friend are going through Lizra. I have two cousins serving in the Royal Navy, at this moment we are all just sitting around waithing for their next orders ................. one of them has a wife and three kids and she is almost frantic................the UN inspection, and the following decision on action against Iraq cannot happen fast enough for us.

[Sween]

same as for my mate hes in the signals in the british army hes a bit nervous he only joind a few mounths ago.

what i want to know is how do the people of iraq see sadam? do they like him? apprentally he's quite evil to them. If he were assinated how would they react?

If military action does take place what form will the action take? A full scale ingvaion or just air strikes?