Why can America have what it wants, weapon-wise, but no one else can (Iraq)?

I admitted upon joining this board I was politically ignorant, so I know this must have a basic answer, but I've been dying to ask.

So please, enlighten me.

TIA!

I wouldn't say that no one else can't have weapons it wants:

Russia
China
Pakistan
Israel
India
Britain
France
South Africa
I might have forgotten someone

I do think we should be concerned with who else has WMD, but not necessarily go to war with them

Why can't Iraq have them?

Iraq entered into an agreement with the UN that specified it wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction.

Thanks for the answers... now, why did Iraq do that??

Well...he is a megalomaniac. He has, according to those once close to him, wanted to be the new "great leader of the arab world" or bring back the good old days when Iraq was a major player and center for the world.

As well as his desires for conquests he has two deep feuds. The Iranians and the Israelis/US backed. The Iranian/Iraq feud is an old and bitter one. The one with Israel is waged with the same fervor but for different reasons. Both stand in his way for Arab domination and domination of the middle east.

He needs WMD to stand up to the Israeli arsenal. He needs WMD to stand up to Iranian numbers. If he cant overcome their strong points how can he take over the middle east?

This is a refreshing thread. These are not politically ignorant questions at all.
This is the stuff that everyone has forgotten about.

For the most part, Saddam agreed because he had no choice. The entire world mobilized against this man because he invaded Kuwait. If he didn't agree to every last letter the world would've destroyed him. We even had Arab support back then. (mostly because they were all scared sh!tless)

He has no army and his airforce has been demolished. Even his surface to air and radar sites are constantly destroyed (because they lock on to allied aircraft).

So this new war on terror has sparked the thought that maybe Saddam would stoop to these levels since he can't win conventionally. That may be true and I think THAT is what really concerns those that are worried.

I think Saddam knows that we see damn near everything. If he supplied or trained terrorists and we proved it... it would be over for him, his family and everyone that looks like them.

It really comes down to one question, "Will, does, has Saddam support(ed) terrorism?"

How can you answer that? One can only assume really.

Non-mad non-max

Try this approach. Sovereign nations generally have the right to develop their own weapons program.

Saddam Hussein is a convicted felon and one of the things he can no longer do is legally carry a concealed weapon.

Simplistic I know, but I thought I'd try an easy (for me) answer.

Limiting weapons among sovereign nations is done through treaties, and those are accomplished through diplomacy.

GWB has backed out of one of these treaties to build the missile defense system. He has pushed N. Korea into backing out of its treaty to not build more nukes. Now he has turned to diplomacy to fix his *apparent* screwup.

Seems bass-ackwards to me. At least someone in his administration avoided a nuclear war between Pakistan and India.

In all this, I wonder what the real agenda is. I know what the actions are, and I know what the results are: We are being kept in a perpetual state of fear. Out of this fear, what else is happening? Well, we have given up a lot of our rights and are becoming accustomed to being regularly observed and searched. Our public lands have been opened up to gas/oil explorations. Our military budget has been significantly expanded. Soon, Bush will push an economic stimulation package through Congress

The politics of these situations are either extremely poor or very, very masterful. Let's see how this goes in 2003. War with Iraq is not looking like a very good idea right now because it may spark regional war in the east. If that happens, we may head into WW III and the WMD point of contention becomes moot.

Actually your statement is filled with so many un true'ism's I don't know where to begin. I would first suggest however picking up a newspaper every now and then...then reading it...and take notes at the dates they are delivered.

"Limiting weapons among sovereign nations is done through treaties, and those are accomplished through diplomacy."

-True enough, but N. Korea broke this treaty with the United States.

GWB has backed out of one of these treaties to build the missile defense system. He has pushed N. Korea into backing out of its treaty to not build more nukes. Now he has turned to diplomacy to fix his *apparent* screwup.

- Uhhh do you mean the agreement with Russia? I can only assume you know the difference between Russia and N. Korea. N. Korea backed out of the agreement with the US not vise versa.

Seems bass-ackwards to me. At least someone in his administration avoided a nuclear war between Pakistan and India.

-That what I was thinking when I read your "post"

In all this, I wonder what the real agenda is. I know what the actions are, and I know what the results are: We are being kept in a perpetual state of fear. Out of this fear, what else is happening? Well, we have given up a lot of our rights and are becoming accustomed to being regularly observed and searched.

- I would LOVE to know what your adgenda is besides not having the facts straight.


Back to lurking,

Darcaine

Darcaine STOP THE SNIDE REMARKS. Specifically:

This is on the border of a personal attack. It contributes NOTHING to the debate and it diminishes the civility that Mike and I have worked to acheive on this forum. One's position can be articulated without being condescending or insulting.

What nations bound themselves to in a treaty depends on their strength. We are the most powerful nation on Earth, if we wish to use that power to insure Iraq has no WMD's no one can stop us. The fact is, as much as it may not seem fair, might makes right. The initial purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from internal and external aggressors, that is what our administration is trying to do. I believe they do need to do a little work on the diplomatic end. Just because you can force another side to bow to your wishes does not mean you should forsake diplomacy. Just because you are the most powerful nation on Earth does not mean you do not have an Achilles' heal. Muslim fundamentalism will never be defeated on the battlefield.

Darcaine, you're hardly lurking. You never were. Nice of you to return your playground behavior to this board.

"Lead by example" That's what the military drills into your head. If we break treaties then how can we come down on anyone for following suit?

Don't bother with newspapers (unless they're from another country), indie web sites are much more real & actually report news.

We will not always be on top of the pile. When we fall the precedents we set with the abuse of our power will bite us right in the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Thank you all for explaining this to me... I have to admit, being new to debating/understanding politics it still baffles me, but at least now I know some of the basics. Thanks!!

Roy,

I don't believe debating facts is playground..and talking about something this serious you better have all your ducks in a row. I digress and I plan on going back to just lurking.

""Lead by example" That's what the military drills into your head. If we break treaties then how can we come down on anyone for following suit?"

The only treaty I can think of is the ABM treaty...and that was with the Soviet Union which no longer exists and really has no valid reason to exist in today's world. Thank you GWB for being progressive.

"on't bother with newspapers (unless they're from another country), indie web sites are much more real & actually report news."

Hogwash, the US news is worth reading. Roy I expected better from you. Last time I checked the news services in the US were not government run.

"We will not always be on top of the pile. When we fall the precedents we set with the abuse of our power will bite us right in the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***."

I can actually agree with you on this Roy. I think the previous administrations (ie Clintonian era) set a horrible precident of cover up and denial.

Now, I will try and go back to lurking,

Darcaine

PS. I will TRY and make an effort to not be insulting.

Darcaine, your political views aren't the problem, it's the snide comments and insults you incorporate. If everyone on this board agreed this would be a very boring place and none of us would ever learn a thing.

The ABM treaty is a big one. I'm sure North Korea see's their treaty as outdated as well. Didn't the ABM treaty also prevent Russia from selling the technology to other countires or do I have wires crossed? If so, backing out of this treaty could have disasterous results.

Our media isn't government run but it's strongly influenced by special interest groups and Jews. That's another thread...

...as is your Clinton bashing. There's no comparing Bush's abuse of self appointed international authority to ANYTHING Clinton ever did.

At least he paid attention to the root of all these problems. Israel and Palestine.

Roy, if you think that area's root problem is the Palestinian problem then you have been hood winked.

"Our media isn't government run but it's strongly influenced by special interest groups and Jews."

All I can say is holy anti-semetic batman. While I CAN agree that they over hype crap and under report things of importance...the OJ trial being the worst one to note.

"...as is your Clinton bashing. There's no comparing Bush's abuse of self appointed international authority to ANYTHING Clinton ever did."

No bashing was intended..it was the truth. Hmmm I thought one of the Presidents duties was to protect the citizens of this country. As President of the United States it is RESPONSIBILTY to deal with matters of international importance. All I can say is Bush hasn't dropped a few cruise missles and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off some terrorist to cover his BJ's in the Oval Office.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

Calling anyone who criticize Isreal's tactics anti Semetic is such a cop out. Wrong is wrong. The thing that bothers me most is the U.S. is starting to act just like them. Anyone who critizes the U.S. is Anti-American. It's just another cop out so they don't have to try to justify barbaric actions.

Ok Roy, 'splain this to me....how are Israel and palestine at the root of our curremnt issues with North Korea?

Please look at the post more closely. Nothing about Isreal was stated.

Thank you,

Darcaine

PS Going back to lurking for now.

Darcaine....I was responding to Roy, if that was meant for me

Didn't Clinton launch these missiles to attack Al Qaeda (sp?)

Didn't Bush start rattling America's sabre at Iraq at the same time the election season was beginning to be impacted by a string of corporate scandals, some of which had connections to the White House? Had Hussein's behavior during July and August of this year?

Hmmm I remember something about the axis of evil during the State of the Union Address...was that in August? Did Enron happen on GWB's watch...no. Did GWB help Enron?...no. What does a direct, possibly disasterous affect someones personal actions have to do with Enron? Enron was due to lack of oversight...we can follow the money trail and it's quite a trail...btw even in bankruptcy they were STILL in the top 5. Besides, we are sidetracking.

Back to lurking,

Darcaine

Clinton launched missles at a terrorist camp that the CIA said Bin Laden had recently left. He also organized a 60 man Pakistani Militia to hunt Bin Laden down but that plan was scrapped after Musharaff's coup.

Bush/Cheney, Harken, Enron, meetings with the Taliban months before Sept 11th, lawsuits to view personal documents, Haliburton... some Republicrat's cigar placement and BJ is all you come back with.

Korea has been a problem since the 40's. I'm speaking of all this mid-east turmOIL. Hell, we have a standing Declaration of War with the North.

Buuut I'll follow Darcaine off the subject and into the Clinton bashing as Darcaine always turns threads into some sort of Bush v Clinton discussion.

So if the Axis of Evil was revealed in the State of the Union address, why didn't we create a perpetual climate of the President acting Presidential then, when it wasn't the heart of the election season?

Did GWB help Enron? It sure seems that energy trading companies benefited from the California energy market by making fake trades that recorded extremely high electricity costs. The federal government stood by and watched our most populated states get brought to its knees by an artificially high energy market and that rippled out and created a boom in energy prices around the country.

Somewhere around this time Cheney, a public official, was holding secret meetings with energy company executives to offer advice to the GWB team on how to handle energy policy.

But I digress . . .

Yep, you certainly do. Gotta love Gray out Davis. You elected him...now live with it.

Back to lurking,

Darcaine

Darcain...my response about anti-semitism came from this statement you made:
All I can say is holy anti-semetic batman.
I don't know what you were trying to say on that maybe you could clarify.

Regarding the WHEN on the Iraq hype I remember clearly the Thanksgiving before last...right after the bombs stopped in Afgahnistan...that I saw my brother-in-law (the one in the Marines) and asked him about the recent stories coming out about Bush bashing Iraq. He replied only that we were definitely going to war. No doubt about it. That was over a year ago and before the state of the union address. My brother in law is now in Kuwait and has been since this Thanksgiving. His son is going there in 2 days.

Regarding Grey Davis...he was screwed by the whole energy thing. I remember the stories at the time of him having major complaints and being at odds with the Whitehouse during the Energy Meetings that Cheney is refusing to release records on. If you watch closely you will see that Davis has been a thorn in the side of the Washington ever since. Notice the recent signing of cell stem research funding here in California. I'm sure that was a swipe. Good for Grey. The state of California may be in a huge deficit but it's nothing compared to the deficit we are now in under Bush. He can hardly critisize our governer for something he is an utter failure at himself.

Danya,

When you quote someone it helps to read what was quoted..nuff said. That post had a quote by Roy..please read. Grey Davis is a baffoon and a moron. Only an imbecile would sign a 5 year energy contract that is NOW WAY above market price. California dug it's own energy grave and I have NO sympathy for them what so ever. They are relying on sources outside their state due to poor planning...Democrat or Republican or Donald Duck for all I care. The Energy meetings were in RESPONSE to Greyout Davis's idiocy and trying to get ways to solve California's energy supply problems. You are muddying the waters with basically Democratic jibberish. Of course they were at odds with the White House...they wanted the rest of the country to basically pay for California stupidity. When your energy needs are rising at 20% per year you would think building more power plants would be a #1 priority..not in CA.

Yes we were in a wonderful Clintonian recession. It's amazing what happens after the 8 years of "Credit Card" market he had...and payment came due on the principle. We are at wartime spending, lost the WTC. so hey blame the guy who had least to do with the pickle we are in now. You incoherent statement at the end had what to do with what? As far as I knew the Congress of the United States controls the purse..that means pays the bills BTW. Utter failure at....making all us us pay for California's mis-management?

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

I'm so glad you know so much about California's energy crisis. You should volunteer to go before Congress and tell them the things they want to know since Cheney sure doesn't want to reveal anything.

Danya,

It's not that I don't care for them, I'm just not willing to pay for their terrible energy policy. As for going before Congress, you of all people should know we live in a Represenative Republic. I vote what I want my Congressmen and Congresswomen to do. California has gotten away with paying "below market price" for 10+ years and now payment is due. I hope them the best and also understand that if they (California) continues to support the energy policy that they have...they have to live with it and pay for it.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

Don't forget, we vote for our governers too. And California voted for Davis. Did Cheney & Co. stand in the way of helping our Governer fix the situation? I think so. Now the Federal Government is screwing with our water. I would be happy if we became our own country. In that way I know how the south must have felt.

Darcaine and Dayna - take the California energy crisis to another thread. As you can see, we have gotten quite far away from attempting to address Madmax's questions. Let's try to do that.

In just the same respect that muslim fundamentalism will never defeat Christian principled governments, who practice those principles. I believe that God is on the side of America, as long as we are doing right. Look at history. We were the major reason Nazism was defeated in WWII. America prevented the Communist takeover of South Korea. But when we became the aggressor(Vietnam) we were not successful. And for all the liberal talk of war for oil that preceded Desert Storm, we won there as well because the goal was liberating Kuwait, not an oil grab, as the years after the war have borne out.

I don't remember much war for oil talk before desert storm. But then again...they had Kuwait to liberate so it didn't matter. They don't have anything like that this time...hence the accusations that this is for the oil.

I have an anecdote for you, Danya. In 1990, I was a freshman in high school. We were on the brink of going into the Gulf for the first time. I had heard there were going to protests downtown (Chicago) and I really wanted to go. Unfortunately, I was only 14 and my mother wouldn't let me go to the city by myself. I tried to recruit some of my friends to go, but they were more interested in other teenage crap.

I sat home and watched the people on TV chant things like, "Hell no, we won't go, we won't die for Amoco!" and longing to be there. So, yes, there were protests as far as I remember. I wish there were more now (not that I would go, but I'll save that for another thread ).

Some argue Sadam should not have nuclear weapons because he is a tyrant. Stalin had nuclear weapons and was far more brutal than Sadam.
The difference in approach the US is takng to North Korea and Iraq send the rest of the world a clear message. The U.S. will attack you as long as you don't have the bomb. The Iraqis would be well advised to get the bomb as quickly as possible.

I agree with the statement above. Well said.

I really paid so little attention back then, Jaime. It had so little effect on my life at the time. I can honestly say I didn't care a thing about it. The guy invaded someone else so that was cool with me.

Now, I don't know how I would feel about it. I know I would have dug a little deeper to our reasons for getting involved but I don't know that I would have ended up disagreeing at that time.

Looking back I can say I could agree with it to a point. But there is no invasion now. I feel there is no real reason now at all.

I haven't read this whole thread but I have some general personal thoughts. It seems to me that historically, the world went merrily along with each country basically deciding how much time and money they wanted to spend on the military. This was the case on up through the Cold War. But, when sensible minds decided that nuclear weapons could be catastrophic for the entire planet a movement was started to limit the spread of these types of weapons.

Now, there have been various treaties negotiated between various parties and countless resolutions enacted. But the bottom-line to me is that there is a loose agreement amongst nations to control the spread of nuclear weapons and the US feels that it is the traffic cop when it comes to non-proliferation issues. We also believe that we are a moral nation and can be trusted with our arsenal. This means that we get to keep our arsenal just in case someone gets out of line. It also means that if we believe that someone (i.e. Iraq or N. Korea) cannot be trusted, then we have the right to step up and solve the problem.

So, who elected us as the moral traffic cop? We did. Because we can.

I personally believe that we can be trusted with our arsenal and that we could be much more of a bully than we have been based upon our economic and military might.

By the way, I think there was some talk during the Gulf War that we came to Kuwait's rescue because of the oil situation. The theory is that had it been some African nation invading another we would have ignored it. I also have heard conspiracy theories that #41 allowed Kuwait to be invaded because he wanted to kick-start the New World Order (see The Illuminatti). By acquiescing to the UN, the US helped foster a world police to liberate Kuwait.

Mark

I personally believe that we can be trusted with our arsenal and that we could be much more of a bully than we have been based upon our economic and military might.

I believe the whole post above with the exception of this last paragraph. I would submit that as soon as we start taking pre-emptive strikes at people we don't like we have lost the ability to be trusted with our self appointed good-guy role.

Danya,

Ordinarily I would agree with you, but I believe that reasonable people can agree that (for academic discussion anyway) because WMD are so catastrophic, the idea of preemptive strikes has become in vogue. Historically, to be moral, you needed to be attacked so that you could invoke the self-defense argument. But now, since you can be destroyed in the first attack, preemption is necessary.

What is critical to the above, of course, is the truth. Does the country being attacked (by preemptive strike) have WMD and are they on the verge of using them?

Mark

It would take a considerable arsenal to destroy America in a single strike.
The situation with Iraq has very little to do with long range WMD's. Actually, it doesn't have anything to do with long range WMD's.

We're being manipulated into going to war for the "protection" of Israel and the growth of our oil access.