Judging from scraps of information there is evidence somewhere ...
Not good enough. Bush should show the information to the people that need to agree with him or forget it. Frankly I doubt it exists.

Let's say we use the "many Iraqi civilians may be killed" argument. Not likely. But again, even if some Iraqi civilians were killed, how can you say that this is better than MANY American civilians being killed. I just don't see where the possible numbers match up...
Either we DO kill innocent Iraqi's or Saddam in a round about way MIGHT have done something that COULD maybe kill some American's.

Again, not good enough.

Our freedoms aren't in jeopardy? Have you been to the airport lately? Eliminating the threat reduces the need for a defense, thats common sense.
What does Saddam have to do with the fact that security in our airports were shown to be a joke and need to be revamped permanently? Getting rid of Saddam would be a false sense of security to most people, I can see that now.

Alan, could you please explain this statement. Not sure what it's supposed to mean

I'm not suprised Blix said this.

Saddam is well known at doing this & i knew there was no way he has "reformed" himself

He's played his Cat & Mouse game, so it's time for the U.N. to prove that it isn't the League of Nations & act.

That is bull

Giving him more time is like saying "Here's ONE MORE CHANCE"

No, he's used all his chances. His time is up.

Alan, that DUMB IDIOT & the other DUMB IDIOTS before him have kept YOU from Heiling Hitler or becoming part of Imperial Japan...so have the troops that have died....to keep you FREE

Be thankful that you have the right to speak freely on this board.

Some don't have that privilage


By Alan: Posted: Jan 28 2003, 02:31 AM



The same American military that scared the living dog crap out of Saddam's Republican Guard or the same American military that accomplished Afghanistan but what the Brits or the Soviets couldn't??

Perhaps you should have caught up on all the posts before chastising Alan, goamerica.

"More than a fourth of the House of Representatives, including at least two dozen Democrats who voted to authorize force against Iraq, are petitioning President Bush to let the weapons inspection process conclude before launching an attack." boston globe



I'm not sure if you were calling my post bull or just disagreeing that we should give him more time. My opinion is there is not a clock that we should be going by.

Whether it is 2 more months or 100 years, there has got to be a standard of time put on resolution compliance, or the UN will REALLY be as ineffective as I already believe it is.

As long as they are in there and getting access we have a chance of finding these things if they exist. If we go to war we still don't know where they are... but someone there might and we still have to worry. I'm sick of the power struggle between Bush and Saddam. Bush needs to back off and let things work.

Is this better guys? This is what you all want? All to get Saddam, that insignificant little man? I will seriously be bitter about my country if it goes through with this.


"The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."
LINK

I'm going to preface this with reminding everyone I'm not so keen on physically fighting Iraq.

However...

I'm surprised at how many Americans are willing to complain about being jerked around by Bush & Co. for not showing their evidence against Iraq and aren't willing to complain much at all about being jerked around by Saddam.

Stotty sort of alluded to this earlier in the thread and I would like to elaborate. Basic semantics tells us that the weapons inspectors are unable to do their job. This is because they are not allowed the opportunity to inspect anything. Instead, they are weapons finders. That is not their job. They don't know how find weapons. They know how to inspect them once found (or presented to them as is required by U.N. resolution). Isn't Hussein required to turn over full documentation? Blix has said he has not.

I'm asking the more strong anti-Bush folks here, in complete earnestness, do you think we are being jerked around by Hussein? Is it greater, equal to or less than the amount of jerking around Bush & Co is doing? And - if (or perhaps when?) Hussein is found guilty of hiding illegal weapons, what should be the consequence(s)?

Maybe I should start another thread....didn't Alan ask about the impact on corporate America were we to fight Iraq?

Alan, are you OK with the direction this thread has gone?

To go in two directions in the same comment.

DTOM:

I believe the UN was designed to be ineffective. Countries signed up too use it as a tool of diplomacy without being bound to the mandates of the world assembly. Why else are the permanent vetoes. Why would we turn our sovereignty over to this organization? Why would anybody? It is a tool.

Danya

I do not believe in this pending war, but if we start it we better go in full force. Overkill is the goal. We are not looking for a close game. We have to use the maximum force (with limitations on WMDs) to roll over our opponent. Anything else will cost more American lives. And if the enemy sees hesitation or stumbling their resolve to fight will magnify. So if we engage, my fear is that we do not have the level of force in the gulf and the allied support that we had last time and we are trying to accomplish a much grander goal. If we fight, we have bring maximum force.

I hope we do not. I hope we clearly win world opinion first if we do.

The reason I don't complain about Saddam is because this is still not a good enough reason for war and war is the only option Bush is pursuing. Therefore, complaining bitterly about Saddam is not a luxury we that don't want war over his actions can afford.

Pre-emptive war is a bad idea...I don't care who we are talking about. If the case were satalite pics showing nukes ready to launch from Cuba that would be different. If Saddam had been the one who attacked us on 9/11 that would be different. Bush is pushing too hard with too little back up and I can hate Saddam without believing in Bush or his plans.

eeyore, we don't need back up to win militarily. We have all the bombs we need. That isn't the point. Or maybe it is the point, all the more reason we should'nt have to do anything to prove a point.

The Pentagon official in the linked article is not named.

Shock and Awe

There are 76 articles in google news that may give you the name of the official. You can look for it if you like.

Yes, pre-emptive war is always the resort of tyrants and dictators.

Fortunately, any attack on Iraq would not be pre-emptive.

Pentagon Planning Genocide in Iraq
by Andrew West and agencies • Monday January 27, 2003 at 01:56 AM

Read some of the headlines on the link I listed above.

It appears to be one big deadly game of 'chicken'.
On the one side we have SH pushing his luck to the edge of the envelope.
On the other we have Bush and his cronies threatening to destroy the very reason the Security Council was formed let alone Iraq.

Either way they are both jerking the World around.

Wether the forthcoming invasion is popular or not, Bush HAS to do it.
For him to stand back now would be an affront to his, and Americas, dignity.
America has succeeded in completely destabilising the World.
It has thrown its cards on the table and proclaimed itself the law, judge and jury by deed of might.

If the invasion is not sanctioned by the UN then technically America and its few allies could be seen as war criminals by the rest of the World.
An increasingly unpopular invasion that in the short term will benefit America but in the long term will hurt.

Regards.....Alan

It was a very crass and unjustified statement on my part.

A case of opening my mouth before my brain was engaged.

Apologies.


Regards...Alan

The UN Security Council resolutions that we are talking about affirm the use of force in an alternative if they are not complied with! Is the Security Council destroying itself?



That's a mighty big statement, but I see not one backed up with any facts.

What facts do you want?.

Surely France, Germany, China, Russia, Japan etc...etc..and their stand on the subject is enough?.
Surely the American unconditional backing of those Isreali thugs and the concequental Arab backlash is enough?.


Regards.........Alan

I don't think that those countries opposition to a war on Iraq is enough to destabilize the world.
I don't try and claim we are the moral beacon to the world, but with all of our shortcomings, I think that history has and will continue to vindicate us in MOST of our actions.

I won't go off topic with Israel/Palestine, as we're beating that horse in other threads.

First of all, the abilities and technologies of KH-11 and KH-12 satellite systems are classified. This includes showing actual pictures taken from them without significant doctoring which would defeat them as useful as "evidence." To compromise these tools would cost American soldiers their lives.

Too much details about intelligence sources, whether that be CIA, DIA, or whomever would not only cost the lives of American soldiers but would cost the lives of agents in the field and contacts. Obviously this would end any further information from those avenues.

I would like to have all the answers to life's questions, but I don't think I would expect the death of human beings in order to feel better about myself. One of the determinations for combat leadership is to make life and death decisions with little or no concrete information and without hesitation.



Its Eastasia. Please quarkhead, if you can't see the telescreen, speak up and we'll find you a better seat.
Oh and stretch first, injuries reduce productivity.

Their stance is based on greed. Going to need a little more than that. BTW Russia is starting to crumble on their stance anyway.

I agree with Dontreadonme, lets avoid the off-topic potshots about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Just like all debates, many of us have decided that, on either side of the issue at hand, we were justified in our original opinion. We also have offered a useful knowledge base for those who are undecided. Isn't freedom a wonderful thing! Though freedom is not available to eveyone in the world... well... I guess not eveyone is concerned with that fact.

Uh huh. And I'm sure that the CCN (Clonaid Community Newspaper) will also officially report, just how space aliens created life on earth, and how cloning humans leads to immortality.

Careful what you read on the Internet. These days, web hosts are $5 USD a month which means ANYONE can write an article, and post it for all to see. No facts/proof needed

--cheers

When you are talking about war there is only bad or worse. The way Bush is going I expect it to be 'worse'. This is a Christian president? Christians should be so proud that he is showing the religion for what it is. Violent.

Although I am not a practicing Christian, I am Christian. I do not appreciate the blanket statement that Christianity is a violent religion.

Sleeper

Read the Bible if you don't believe me.

Danya, that's a cheap shot. I don't like blanket statements about any religion, political parties or any other group. It is not productive to a good debate.

And I'm curious, is ANYONE here interested in discussing Alan's original question regarding the impact on US corporations were we to go to war with Iraq?

I expect there is much uncertainty in the minds of people owning large businesses. The access to the oil field could be a boon for business and that is balanced against the depressing effect of a war. Will the war affect international business deals? I would guess not.

The support of the high rollers has been won with the stimulus package.

The biggest threat to business is the uncertainty. Nothing hurts the market more than uncertainty.

I agree with you 100% on this point Gray. Inaction and uncertainty is very bad for the market and economy.

Sleeper

Sorry, but it's Bush that wants to bring faith into government. I don't think it's disputable that the Bible is violent although it may belong in another thread.

No

Once Iraq is liberated, International businesses will fly their best agents to Iraq to make contracts to open
Wal-Mart's, McDonalds, H & R Block, etc

Remember Afghanistan? Once American troops rolled into Kabul, McDonalds took the first plane their to make a deal to put up a couple McDonalds

No, I don't remember. Wait. I remember Afghanistan. I don't remember hearing about McDonald's setting up shop there. If you have any links, goamerica, that would be most helpful

It's very disputable and I resent you calling Christianity a violent religion Danya. Crusaders lived hundreds of years ago.

I have read the Bible. It preaches peace, love, kindness and tolerance. "Love thy neighbor" not "Kill thy neighbor"

The violence mentioned in the bible is little more than a history lesson of the past. Not of directions of what to do in the future.

And if we can have In God We Trust plastered on our money, and throughout DC, then the Pres can use the word "God" in a speech. Please provide a link that clearly illustrates how he is trying to bring religion into gov't, or start a new thread with your proof.

******************************

Back on topic. I don't really see how corp America benefits at all from war. Except maybe a few with military contracts.... Locheed Martin, etc etc.

Some of the talking heads think that the economy will get a boost once the war starts, or once Saddam has been disarmed. People seem to think that it is the uncertainty that is holding everything back.

War, no war, the economy moves on.

--cheers

DP, Bush Touts Religion-Based Drug Treatment

If you would like more examples we should start a new thread. Sorry for being off topic.

Major corporations the World over have only one thing in common.
The pursuit of money.

The French, German and many other governments are well aware of the reason why the American Corporate Military is being used in this case and are corporately shaking in their boots.
The game rules are changing.

I think that initially American corporations will benefit from the destruction of Iraq and its concequent re-settlement and re-building.
In the long term, because the rules were changed, they will suffer from the back-lash of the growing Anti-American feeling.

Regards....Alan.

PS....
A true story.
When the Abe Lincoln was parked off Freemantle I happened to be there and joined a bunch of people looking at it.
The bloke standing next to me turned and said "You know what mate, I reckon we had better do what we're told" and walked away.

I have a better story that has more fact. France and Germany broke the UN resolutions and sold stuff to Iraq. The US came in, of course with a larger military because France and Germany have been suckling the American tit all these years for protection, and said comply or else. Well, now when German and French large corporations pulled the money strings their governments folded and started barking like little rabid "french" poodles. I tell you if you look hard enough you will actually find PRO-American rallies especially in South Korea...it was huge. So, I'll take the 15 of the 19 members of NATO...and let you think all of Europe is against us.

Darcaine

Last time I checked there definetly was not a McDonalds in downtown Kabul.

But I do know that contracting companies like Brown & Root are making a killing in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and yes, would be in Iraq as soon as all the flying lead hits the ground.

From the Editorial Page of the Wall STreet Journal:

Eight European leaders are as one with President Bush.

Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

The leaders who wrote and signed this letter:

Messrs. Aznar, Durão Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.



For the entire article Click Here


This is not "Dubya's War"

THanks for the link Basheva.

My favorite part, is the last paragraph...that states..



We know, and the undersigned know it.

This never has been Dubya's war.

Dear Bush:
Keep friends like this close. They are very rare.

No where in the letter do they say they support military action. Most of them are safe to say all these things because they are not responsible for giving a thumbs up or down on the decision to go to war. But at least we have a few countries left willing to say nice things about us. That's all that matters, huh?

Transnational corporations, they will want "Dubya's war." There may be "uncertainty" at the moment, but corporations you can be sure will descend on Iraq in droves. Once we get Iraq firmly into the third world tow-the-line mode, we will be doing the usual: SAPs, privatization, etc. A boon for the market, a questionable path for the people of Iraq...

In the words of Thomas Friedman:

I agree with Basheva. this is not Dubya's war. He's far to ignorant to conduct this operation. It's an opportunistic war for oil and nothing more. Where was the bush "family" when atrocities were being commited all over the world. This man obviously understands very little concerning the behavior of tyrants, despots and other maniacs throughout history. I would really like to see him on Jeopardy, Hollywood Squares, or trying to win some of Ben Stein's money. That's probably what it would take to finally understand just what he meant by his "foreign-handed foreign policy".

*yawn* We've had this discussion before. Think about supply and demand. Supply goes up, price goes down, and the pockets of Bush's friends in the big oil industry get a lot shallower



Governor of Texas. Whats your point?



Your absolutely right. Understanding the behavior of Ivan the Terrible is certainly relevant to addressing the issue of WMD in Iraq and UN resolutions.



And I supposed you have NEVER slipped up in a public speech? Or been tounge tied before?

--cheers

DP:



You sound tired. Try and get some sleep.

Since when does controlling a resource automatically force it onto the market? Controlling Iraq's oil fields would be a huge deal for the US, and there are many many perfectly rational people who believe it. Control of Iraqi oil fields would allow us a bigger stake in controlling the international supply and demand, taking away power from the OPEC nations. DP, while you're yawning away at the stupidity of liberals, I reckon the CEOs of the big oil companies will be proving us right. And you, you support it, and you won't see a dime from it. The best they'll give you is what they give the rest of us - a kick in the teeth.

Any proof of this that you would like to share with us?

Where was Clinton while millions were being killed in Rwanda?