What evidence will the US/UN have to show for you to be convinced that we must remove Saddam from his rule over Iraq?

Sleeper

It's interesting you ask it that way, Sleeper. Many conservatives tend to turn it around and say it is not up to the US/UN to provide evidence of violations, it is up to Hussein to prove cooperation.

Were this as simple as a breach of contract case, the US, the UN and Iraq would all be well past their discovery deadlines by now. And were I the judge, I'd put sanctions on all of them until they turned over their respective documents, etc. regarding the case

Well, folks, it seems to me that if you are waiting for the same types of pictures we were shown of Soviet missles on Soviet ships just off the Cuban coast during the Cuban Missle Crisis - you ain't gonna see 'em.

Do you expect to see pictures of jars sitting on shelves labeled "Seron Gas Made in Iraq?"

And if you did see that, would you believe it? Probably not. Many would say: how do we know it's really Seron gas and how do we know it's really made in Iraq? And how do we know that Iraq really meant to destroy it, but 'forgot?'

The request for proof could go on forever. The fact is, as I understand it, that everyone - Iraq, the UN, the past inspectors - all agreed that Iraq had a certain amount of gas/biological agents plus armaments. Iraq has offered no proof that it has been destroyed. Not even documentation that it was destroyed.

There does reach a point at which one must render a verdict. It isn't proof beyond any doubt - it's proof within reasonable doubt.

And as President Bush said last night it isn't a scavenger hunt - the inspectors are there not to find it - but to record it and see that it is destroyed. A compliant Iraq should be presenting the material to be destroyed. They could start by driving the mobile chemical labs up to the inspectors front door.

I agree Basheva. This post was mostly geared towards those who are against any kind of action against Saddam.

The case has already been made for myself. And it wasn't from the UN or the US. All I had to do was look back on his past actions. When a man uses weapons on his own people, attacks and invades his neighbors, and tortures the children of his enemies as they watch.... That speaks enough reason in it'self..

Sleeper


Oh and to add another point. My choice for taking him out would be covert operations or surgical military strikes. Not mass bombings.

I would like to see some verifiable evidence that weapons exist and this would have to come from the inspectors. If the U.S. or Britain after all this time pops up with pictuers taken two years ago that they are only sharing now it won't be enough.

The great thing about the Cuban missile pics is that not only did they prove the weapons existed they proved intent. They were pointed right at us.

Still, the president at that time was able to avoid war. Why can't Bush? .

Technology has changed tremendously since the 1950's Danya. You are not going to see weapons out in the open like this anymore.

It's like Basheva said in her post. "We are not going to see pics of Jars labeled 'Seron gas made in Iraq'"

Also I find it disturbing you will not believe the US or Britian if it provides the proof. By that logic since the US and Britian are part of the United Nations, how can you believe the proof it provides.

Sleeper

The US and Britain I have come to believe will say anything to go to war. They've not come up with the proof in all this time and instead just beat the war drums even louder. I have no confidence in either one anymore.

And if you don't have proof it may be because you have no business going to war in the first place.

So what you are saying that if the UN reveals a large cache of war heads designed to carry biological or chemical weapons, then that is enough to have Saddam removed?

Any sort of shred of evidence would be nice to see. You see a trader coming to trade with empty hands you know something is amiss. I can recognize an empty hand. The very fact that zero evidence has been shown so far will make me very skeptical of any evidence shown in the future.

The UN says Hussain will have to be removed, I could agree with military action then. Bush has not proven his case that Iraq is a threat to this country. If Iraq is not, then Iraq is a regional problem.

That Colin Powell will release convincing evidence and rationale next week is pretty much a pipedream. Yes, I am cynical and for good reason.

We were able to avoid war at that time because the Soviet Union backed down.

We don't have to prove that Iraq has the weapons - everyone agreed that they did - even Iraq. What they need to prove is what they did with them.

The onus is on Iraq. And they agreed to that - but have failed to live up to what they agreed to.

I'm going to jump in here and quickly jump back out... just to ask a couple of questions... I hope I am able to word my thoughts correctly.

SH had chemical weapons in the 80's when he used them against Iran.

After the Gulf War, SH agreed to disarm, agreed to allow weapons inspectors, agreed to this, agreed to that.... not so long ago, he kicked the UN inspectors out, re-nigging on the consequences (set by the UN) to what he did when he invaded Kuwait and then surrendered.

Even now, SH has not provided proof that he has destroyed the chemical weapons that were created over 20 years ago.

My question... what should the consequences for re-nigging on his agreement after he surrendered in the Gulf War be? and who should enforce them? and furthermore, why (when he re-nigged on them in the first place) weren't the ORIGIONAL consequences enforced by the UN?

Respectfully,
Dusty

I may be willing to think Saddam must be removed...if only I knew what the hell Bush planned to replace him with.

All I know is that Saddam has been quiet and hasn't threatened anyone in the last 5 years. I've seen nothing proving he is such a threat that war is necessary.

If Bush knows something we don't he should have told us a long time ago...now I have little reason to believe a word he says.

Whoever the Exiled Iraqi leaders decide

The U.S. will stay on the sidelines when it comes to the government but will probably help with writing up the constitution

Whoever the Exiled Iraqi leaders decide

The U.S. will stay on the sidelines when it comes to the government but will probably help with writing up the constitution

Exiled Iraqi leaders? Who are they? And please site your sources unless you admit you are only guessing about this plan.

The Bush administration set up an atmosphere of urgency on this matter prematurely. When we said that we had to have proof that he has disarmed or else we set the ticker for war. That clock is about to buzz and when it does we will be going to war.

I believed before 9-11 that Hussein was not living up to his agreement from 1991. His violations span three administration. I do not recall Bush saying anything about making Iraq live up to their side of the bargain during his election campaign or in is inaugural address.

But as soon as 9-11 happened Cheney was bringing up Iraq. Iraq is in violation of its 1991 treaty ( it is spooky that Bush jr. is on the same timeline, beginning his third year in his term as president as his father was). But I do not think this alone is a good reason to start with an ultimatum after a year and a half of business as usual.

The key element for me is the proof of a connection with al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein has fought this type of fundamentalism in the past, I don't see what possible benefit he could gain from helping them attack the US. He is a bad person who desires to stay in power. He is not an ideologue.

Sure it is frightening to think what might happen if this stuff gets out, but who is to say that our attack on Iraq won't get this stuff distributed to terrorists when it was going to stay hidden otherwise.

I want to see the connection. Bush said he had it last night. I think it should be strong.

We can be said to have aided terrorism by allowing al Qaeda agents to use our instructional facilities. The proof needs to be stronger than that.

As for the other, suck it up and submit to the process of inspections. Cooperate with the "civilized nations" of the world in a civil manner. Set a schedule. Prioritize and be methodical. We have time on that matter.

Eeyore - that is a very thoughtful post. Many good points. I would like to ask you - how much time would you allow? This is not a challenge - but a request to know your thoughts.

Iraq is a fairly large country, and the number of inspectors not that large. There has been plenty of time for Saddam to hide whatever he wants to hide.

How much time would you give the inspectors to find what Saddam is supposed to making available?

Taking large amounts of time will crush the Economy and stock market. As Gray Seal said in another post, uncertainty puts a big strain on the market and economy.

But maybe this is what the Democrats want. Inspections that last until the election. Keeping the economy and market down or stagnant.

We have to be honest about this whole thing. Democrats don't want to see the country bounce back from adversity under a Rebuplican controlled White House, Senate and House.

And I would also concede that if it was a Democrat White House, Senate and house the republicans would act in the same manner.

Sleeper

I would allow for a process to be developed with a wider community of nations assessing the risk posed by the regime and debating the actions needed and the results desired from this situation. I would allow the process to extend over several years if the was deemed to be an effective course of action. We have already gone twelve and he hasn't hit us yet.

I think the present process was started at the highest possible level of tension.

But then you must ask the question, if given much more time, how long will it be before SH turns up his nose at the UN inspectors again and says "Don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out?"

He had been shooting at U-2 unmanned reconnaisance planes, but now maybe that he thinks invasion day is coming soon, he says he will allow them to patrol again, as long as fighter jets stay grounded so they can't be defended.

The game of time is on SH's side, and again I ask... who is responsible for enforcing the consequences on a man who has the track record that SH has?

Respectfully...

Eeyore - did we not do this? and did he not previously kick the inspectors out? His record of dealing with inspectors is not very good - it's not even mediocre. Actually it, well, stinks. This looks to me like the same old path of "I hide it and you look for it. And when I get tired of it, I kick you out."

It is true he has not hit us yet. Shall we wait for that event?

It bothers me that Saddam could end this any time he chooses - and opts not to.

Being that this is a track record that was not been directed at the United States, I would return the question to you.

I believe the United States must take a leading role in many matters of foreign policy. But are we solely responsible for enforcing this. And if we are, is there a demonstrated urgency?

Why not send 10,000 inspectors? Does this have to be a US unilateral war or else? At the end of the day, we do have cause to fight Iraq, but we also have other options along the way to using the lives of our soldiers.

Other than the fact that we are threatening war against Iraq what reason does he have to hit us? It would be suicide.

We have the leverage to start the same old clunking process and set up more punitive whistles and bells along the way. I want more consensus from the world powers that this is the way to go. That is what I want. It does not have to be unanimous. It can be despite a French, Russian or Chinese veto in the security council. This should not be done in the face of strong international opposition. That leaves a reasonable doubt in my mind. If our case is strong, it will win support, but without the Al Qaeda link I do not see the urgency.

In 1998 we left and left the impression that Hussein could continue to play with toys in the shadows. Let's remove that impression and convince the world to support our effort to get Iraq to abide by every letter of our treaty. Let's work to get Hussein ousted, and let's be prepared to act behind our words. But attacking just because our troops are ready or because our economy is hurting is not good enough.

Since SH surrender in the Gulf War, British and American fighters have patroled the no fly zones set up by the UN.

U-2 reconnaisance planes have encountered anti aircraft fire flying over Iraq in recent weeks... These are American planes. I'm not sure how you can say that this isn't directed at the US.

The UN set forth the agreement of disarming Iraq (I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the exact details of this agreement, but they did not include inspectors being told when and where they could look or that they could be kicked out at any time).

So far I have kept my opinion out of this discussion... merely stating a few facts and asking questions. But here ya go... my opinion.

What you may not realize is I agree with you that this should not be a unilateral US effort. And I would like to see things resolved without a war. But that ball is in SH court. In fact, I think the UN should have the balls to enforce what they started, be it 1, 5, 10 12 years late, enough is enough. If they can get SH to buck up NOW, not 12 more years from now, and abide by the demands set forth, no problem... but giving him more time to play this game is NOT in the world's best interest. Send 100,000 inspectors in if you want... get him to abide by the demands... it's over.

There ya go, you have my opinion.

Respectfully...

Which was exactly Basheva's point. Sometimes I get the feeling that if we had a picture of Saddam with a devilish grin on his face, standing over the bloody corpses of inspectors, holding a .45 in his right hand, fondling a little boy with the other hand, and nukes in the background labeled "D.C. or Bust"....you would STILL be against war.

Even if it were shown to you, there are a lot of ways one can discredit the so called "proof"

- That picture wasn't taken in Iraq...I've been there before.
- Those missiles are facing the wrong direction to be aimed at the US
- That could be one of Saddam's look-a-likes in that picture
- OMG THE US DOCTORED THAT PHOTO!!!!

etc etc. Proof can always be disputed

I think, proof or not, whatever Colin shows us next week, will not change the minds of anyone...for, or against war.

--cheers

Good thing he doesn't have to prove it to me...just the UN Security Council. And don't blame me for being told over and over there was proof and not being shown any. Of course I'm sceptical and you should be too.

Some of us were sceptical - but are now convinced.

I would like to get back to Eeyore's point because I was thinking of just this scenario while eating supper (I think of strange things while eating supper - takes my mind off my cooking ) :



The last thing I want is France/Russia/et al having a veto over whether we act - in any capacity. And I sense from your post that you do too.

You mention a concensus of world powers - can you define that? What numbers maKe a consensus? What world powers are you thinking of besides Russia, France, Germany, Chinese? There are a couple of other European powers that are with us. What other world powers did you have in mind?

As for a consensus of nations in general that are truly on the margin of world affairs (let's be honest here - not all nations loom as large on the world stage) - is that an important enough consenus? I mean if France says 'no' but Cameroons and Sri Lanka say 'yes' - do the two yesses outrank the one no?

As for Arab/Islamic states, obviously some of them are with us in differing measures. From Kuwait's enthusiastic cooperation to Turkey's hesitancy. Many are either keeping silent or saying 'no' - while their actions are saying 'yes.' This is to protect themselves from the Arab 'street.' And, we understand that. Look at the actions - not the words. We are in Kuwait, Turkey, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, and, yes, even Saudi. And maybe there are others that are not being made public.

Are you looking for a preponderance? is it a preponderance of the security council or the United Nations as a whole? I am not trying to needle you - please understand - but I am trying to delve into this point because your's is the first post I have seen make this point and it's an interesting one.

This, mind you, is not a proposed plan. My consensus of nations as a prescription for action is filled with problems.

Let's just file it under the category of an example of a scenario that would put me more at ease.

After diplomacy waged in order to rally world support in earnest. (And remember foreign $$$ paid for a good chunk of the 1st War)

We have a group of nations that is representative of diverse interests around the world that supports us.

More the US/UK, we are supported by say, Japan, Germany, Turkey, China, and Sweden. They have fairly independent policies and faced with the situation they conclude that Bush's proposal is best for the world. Now we didn't set out for those particular nations, but they came around to the cause.

Also, more than one veto on the Security Council (or I guess more accurately more than one nation intending to use the veto) would greatly trouble me.

Now don't attack me for my choice of nations but my point is more support than just countries who can't afford to step out of our shadow.

A vast majority NATO vote would encourage me. Say 13-2. If our case is compelling it is in more than just our interest. Without the Al Qaeda link proof, we need to convince some people that we are doing the right thing.

These are scenarios that would put me more at ease, and I think arriving at these scenarios would take a slower approach with a clear line of reasoning for responses to resistance to removing the WMDs.

My humble opinion based on my own troubled imagination.

Actually, they are not Iraqi leaders...i should state that better: Leaders of the Iraqi Oppostion

And here is a link

Iraqi Opposition Groups

Sorry for the mis-statement

Wasn't it a consensus by the UN that Iraq disarm in the first place? Wasn't it a consensus by the UN that SH agree to weapons inspectors in the first place? Wasn't it a consensus that there would be consequences if SH did not abide by the demands set forth by the UN after the Gulf War?



I don't think anyone is attacking you for anything, Eeyore. I actually think this is a great discussion.

What I don't understand is this... If the UN is gonna stand by while SH just turns his back on what were the terms of surrender were after the Gulf war, then how does anyone feel comfortable that the UN is gonna follow through with anything they attempt to do now in Iraq?

I DON'T want the US to invade Iraq unilaterally, but I also feel something should be done with SH. I feel it IS the responsibility of the UN to enforce what they put together as the terms of surrender. Why aren't they? I don't feel confident that the UN as a whole will handle the situation any better than they have in the past... I'm just pessimistic about it.

What might be an interesting thought (if you want to turn this thing completely around) is that SH has the UN in his back pocket... or at least certain members from certain countries... This is not necessariliy what I believe, but just an off the wall thought.

Respectfully...

I feel the UN is handling it. The inspectors are there and working. Saddam is contained. How is that being ineffectual? It is much more efectual than simply dropping bombs everywhere.

Yes they are... but only after being kicked out once, and the case being made to them that they didn't do the job they were supposed to years ago...

Did I say that dropping bombs everywhere was the solution? Did I say that the US invading was the solution? no... I didn't... and I'm not even sure that the way the UN is handling it is the solution... confusion with this issue seems to be a "disease" and I think that may be the way SH wants it... mass confusion.

Respectfully...

If what Bush said is true, and that several large trucks have left chemical compounds shortly before inspection....would that qualify as "containment" to you?

--cheers

Sorry, I missed that accusation. What will a war do to get those trucks back do you think?

War might not get "the trucks" back (I haven't seen or heard this either), but what is being done to make sure the chemicals (if they exist) aren't being used/deployed on surrounding nations, or anyone for that matter?

And furthermore, if they do exist (keep in mind I said IF), that appears to be just one more thing that SH has hidden and not destroyed nor disclosed per UN demands. When is enough, enough?

Respectfully...

Whatever may be said of the republican and/or conservative set of values, there is much credit that can be given for their ability to avoid the responsibility for their mistakes. Kind of like reagan and his ability to never be held accountable for his utter disregard for law when it interfered with his agenda. Actually his acting ability was a benefit to his ability to avoid being stuck with being responsible. The people who surrounded this demented president (and I mean that in a medical sense) did not have the capacity to sway opinion like a hollywood actor and were in kind influenced by his swaggaring style.

Most of those in public office really hate to get caught with their pants down and when they do, they do their very best to pass the buck ( as ol' Harry T used to say) and avoid scrutiny by a curious but simple-minded press. The public is equally stupid and uneducated regardless what the politician has to say about the intelligence of the electorate. They'll believe anything they are told as long as it is done with the appropriate pomp, circumstance and language. From the wonders of heavens, ghosts and the devine inspirations of godly wisdom to the stories of swallowing pretzles and fainting, this American public has been like an ignorant sponge thirsty for more and more of the same. It is no wonder that they are so trusting of a moron and his entourage of ignorant and very greedy parasites. ( This includes, of course, those on the other side of the isle). Oil is not spoken of very much as a motivation for this coming war and everything is being done to avoid the issue.

The subject of this thread is the evidence for war being necessary for the pre-emptive strike. Even if there were evidence, how is it that they (meaning those in charge of military operations) cannot take responsibility for having left Saddam in power in the first place? It was their mistake and now more GI's are going to pay a heavy price for this "opportunistic" $$$ situation. If you don't think oil is the reason for this war remember the Russians had WsMD for many years and used them on their own people. (remember also that WsMD does not have to be nuclear, poison or bio. Bullets have killed many more people than all of those weapons combined). Deterrance worked for many years prior this-idiot-in-office but the American people cannot remember. They are really not interested. One test of the ignorance of any population of people is their ability to be manipulated.

First, the weapons inspectors have nothing whatsoever to do with the US. They are there to (finally) attempt to see that Hussein complies with a treaty between iraq and the UN. If he fails, it is up to the UN to decide how todeal with him, not the US.

As I do not believe in preemptive warfare, empire building, undeclared "conflicts", or precipitate global policing, for me, it would take an act of aggression against the US or one of our allies to justify an act of war. If it could be proved that Hussein had direct involvement with the Septemeber 11 attack, that woul;d also warrant some kind of retaliation - but I don't believe that even the Bush administration is making that kind of claim.

The adjective, Sen. McCarthy, is Democratic. I've admonished Basheva about this pejoritive, so I can't let anyone else escape unscathed either.

Ahh yes you are correct. Democratic is the adjective to describe a Democrat. Although this was not influenced by Sen. McCarthy, just an oversight on my part.

ahhhh very good... I agree...

When the UN decides to deal with Iraq by letting SH tell them to leave the country, because he doesn't want them to see this or that, or they may be getting too close to finding something and they just tip their hats and walk out, ignoring what they demanded of him in the first place, what happens then?



Shooting down U-2 reconnaisance planes that are property of the US and shooting at fighter jets that are patroling no fly zones set up by the UN that are US and British is not an act of agression? I'm not saying this in itself justifies war, but it would fall under my definition of agression.

Keep in mind, I do NOT want to see a preemptive strike by the US... but there NEEDS to be consequences for not abiding by demands set forth.

Respectfully...

Diplomacy and deterance worked for many years....yes.... but now both have failed. With Iraq and NK. It just so happened to fail, while Bush was in office.

Danya It has nothing to do with finding the trucks. Your missing the point. What if, those trucks contain chemicals Iraq is not supposed to posses? Isn't it conceivable that Iraq would move what it wouldn't want the inspectors to see? It was awful conveinant for those trucks to depart, just hours before inspectors arrived.

I'm not saying I buy into that statement, as I have only heard it come from Bush's mouth. When I see a photo, or move eveidence of it, THEN I will believ it.

Wertz I concur. The inspectors are not US they are UN.



While I understand your position, I am not willing to sacrifice lives so we can have proof.

IF Saddam uses a WMD against anyone, the total number of causalties resulting from that attack, plus the causalties from our attack (on both sides) would be far greater than if we pre-emptively strike now and get it over with.

It's a game of numbers.

--cheers

I think this boils down to whether or not 'what if' is a good enough reason to blow people off the face of the earth or not. For me it isn't.

It is always interesting to me, in a backhanded sort of way, when I see someone post in words to describe their opinions using labels like "idiot" - "moron" etc., it's so erudite, so meaningful - such a logical well thought out component to the discussion.

It demeans the poster more than the subject which is being so labeled.

It's so much easier to say "He's a moron" - rather than saying what constitutes that conclusion. If the arguments leading up to the conclusion are logical, then the conclusion will happen of itself and become obvious to the person who is reading the post. The actual label is superfluous.

If I were to say President Jones is a moron - what have I really said about that President? What have I said about myself and my ability to articulate my conclusions?

It's sort of like the gist of this thread......when the proofs are lined up - or not - that becomes obvious to the reader. Flinging around meaningless epithets adds nothing to the logic of the argument being presented. It becomes more like a junior high school playground at lunchtime than a discussion.

Applaud.......

You may very well be right, but if SH is allowed to slide by again, and something DOES happen... we'll be arguing about the fact that we had all this evidence... why didn't we do something to prevent it!!??!!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Respectfully...

Then let's go with the one that damn's us less. Less death is always the preferable route when you aren't sure I would think.

So if we aren't sure and don't do anything and we get attacked, many people die on our soil.

Then we launch a huge counter attack on Iraq.

How is this less Death if they attack us first?

Sleeper

::sigh::

He will not attack us. He may sell weapons if he has them....but there is no indication that he has any ties with Al Quaeda or any other terrorist group that is working to attack the U.S.

So, Iraq is hardly our problem. In a larger sense he is a global problem so let the UN deal with it as they see fit.

You have no good reason to belive leaving Saddam to the UN inspectors will cause any U.S. deaths there for you cannot ethically go in and kill Iraqi's.

Ahh, I was not aware Miss Cleo was a memeber of AD.

Pffft. People always think I'm somebody famous.

He's our problem alright.

Wether we take him out now, while he has no nukes or take him out when he DOES have nukes

pick your choice Danya...now or later

Bush didn't talk with North Korea because they WERE THREATENING US!

He wasn't going to resort to Kim Jong's blackmail