Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Saddam is bad, right?
And the US want to take him out, but what about the nations that may have helped Iraq? Maybe sold weapon to them, or just have good relations with Iraq. What about them?
Should they be sanctioned or something, are those governments any better then Iraq's gov. Are there such nation btw?

Should the US sanction itself? Hm. Interesting hypothesis...
Might lead to dangerous levels of schizophrenia though...

[Bosh]

Also you have to remember that Iraq did have some reason to refy the weopons inspectors, namely that the US inspectors were almost definately conducting espionage within Iraq which no soveriegn would take very well...

but would you really have these corrupt Arab regimes, which have been decried in many other threads, acting as the canary in the moral coal mine?

Don't follow you here.

Even a short bloody war will cause less harm in the long run than these monsterous sanctions.

Yeah, I probably join you here if it weren't for the destabilizing affect the war would have across the middle-east and the massive hit to US-Arab relations.

Note that every city mentioned is a port or can be reached by sea...

What?? We're going to have the Iraqi navy doing trans-continental sneak-attacks?
All this talk of Saddam attacking the rest of the world out of the blue is a little bizarre, that would be suicidal and the last thing the bastard wants to do is die.

And just because there is no indication of Saddam affiliating with terrorists

Well he was probably affiliated with secular anti-PLO terrorists but they're pretty much defunct now.

Factor in wilful breach of UN resolutions

If this was the case then the US administration would have been greatly pleased by Iraq starting to cave on some of these, but instead it just seemed to get angry that some of its pretexts were evaporating.

[Ned]

Roland, you are not a serious debater, are you?

[Roland]

About as serious as you and some others.

[Ned]

Roland, I presume you have a solution for ending the Iraq crises that will allow the Coalition to withdraw and UN sanctions to be lifted? Right?

[Roland]

There are only imperfect solutions. If the rightwingers in the Bush admin hadn't ****ed up foreign policy from the beginning, the solutions would be a bit less imperfect.

[Arrian]

Oh, please. US foreign policy has been ****ed up for a lot longer than the past 2 years.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boshko
If this was the case then the US administration would have been greatly pleased by Iraq starting to cave on some of these, but instead it just seemed to get angry that some of its pretexts were evaporating.

In thier defense, the administration has been demanding unconditional access for the inspectors and that wasn't what they recieved.

[Bosh]

In thier defense, the administration has been demanding unconditional access for the inspectors and that wasn't what they recieved.

Right.
But we're not hearing "that's not good enough, do THIS RIGHT NOW or ELSE" (which I wouldn't really mind all that much) we're hearding "ooooh what a waskaly wabbit, he's all tricksy! We have to kill him RIGHT NOW!"
also I don't think that haveing a condition about having no US (or very very close US ally) inspectors in Iraq would be all that unreasonable because of legitimate Iraqi espionage concerns.

[Sava]

Neddy boy, I'm not a Democrat. They have their own problems, I will vote Democrat in National Elections simply because they are the lesser of the two evils. Republicans the party of middle class? I guess there's no point in arguing with someone who believes that Also... Hitler wasn't elected....

An update on the whole Iraq thing. I agree with Ari Fleischer's insuation that the Iraqi people should assassinate Iraq. In fact, I would agree with supplying weapons to them. Let them fight their war for independence. America needs to focus on securing the nation so that Saddam or some other damn fool can't get a nuke or other WMD inside our borders.

This whole Iraq thing is just distracting the American people from the domestic issues in which the Republicans are screwing up royally.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boshko
also I don't think that haveing a condition about having no US (or very very close US ally) inspectors in Iraq would be all that unreasonable because of legitimate Iraqi espionage concerns.

That wasn't the condition the Iraqi's placed on the return of the inspectors. They want to continue to exclude from inspection 10s of facilities somewhere on the order of the size of London, IIRC. The US, understandably, finds that laughable.

[Clear Skies]

Quite true. Eight presidential palaces (read 'military bases') covering some 12 or so square miles and composed of 1000s of buildings.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
Quite true. Eight presidential palaces (read 'military bases') covering some 12 or so square miles and composed of 1000s of buildings.

I thought it was 57 presidential palaces.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Neddy boy, I'm not a Democrat. They have their own problems, I will vote Democrat in National Elections simply because they are the lesser of the two evils. Republicans the party of middle class? I guess there's no point in arguing with someone who believes that Also... Hitler wasn't elected....

An update on the whole Iraq thing. I agree with Ari Fleischer's insuation that the Iraqi people should assassinate Iraq. In fact, I would agree with supplying weapons to them. Let them fight their war for independence. America needs to focus on securing the nation so that Saddam or some other damn fool can't get a nuke or other WMD inside our borders.

This whole Iraq thing is just distracting the American people from the domestic issues in which the Republicans are screwing up royally.

Good to hear you are not a Democrat. I applaud your good sense.

FYI, I was born in Chicago, went to school at IIT and am an avid Bears fan. Go Bears.

On the economy, I don't know what Bush can do. The problem in my opinion is the FED. They need to lower interest rates. This has been obvious for quite some time. The message the stock market gives us is dramatically inconsistent with the rosy views paraded by Greenspan. Perhaps it is time for Greenspan to go.

On Iraq, giving arms to the Shi'ites and Kurds may actually destabalize the region because after they deal with Saddam, the Kurds and Shi'ites will more than likely with escallate the war in Turkey and begin one in Saudi Arabia. We really have to lead this effort and control the aftermath.

But, let's hope the UN gets serious and Saddam complies and disarms. But, given his track record, virtually no one expects him too even if the UN makes it crystal clear that further defiance means war against the whole world.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
There are only imperfect solutions. If the rightwingers in the Bush admin hadn't ****ed up foreign policy from the beginning, the solutions would be a bit less imperfect.

Roland, I don't know what "imperfect" solution you have in mind, but the possible solutions are, broadly:

1) Coalition pulls out and an ends sanctions; (Saddam is now free to do as he pleases.)
2) Continues with no fly zones and sanctions without more; (Saddam develops Nukes.)
3) No. 2, plus sham weapons inspections. (Annan get Nobel Peace prize. Israel gets nuked.)
4) No. 2, plus effective weapons inspections and disarmament; (Saddam is defanged, no war.)
5) Arm the rebels; (Destabalizes the region.) or
6) Coalition removes Saddam and installs moderate Muslim coalition government.

Do you see any other alternatives?

I assume that you would choose No. 4 on the list. This is what the US is working for. With a little cooperation from the French, Russians and Chinese, No. 4 may work.

Ned

[Sandman]

Doing a fine bit of conclusion-jumping there, Ned.

[Ned]

Sandman, Perhaps. But why can't the anti-Saddam faction do the same as the pro-Saddam faction? We don't seem to differ on the alternative courses of action, only on the consequences.

[Kramerman]

Ive agreed with just about every word Ned has said so far, and seeing as he is a bit more eloquent than I (I only have so much time i can spend on the forum), I'll just let him do all the talking . Tho, I'll feel free to chime in when ever/ if ever he fails me, heh.

Kman

[Sandman]

I'm not pro-Saddam, that's a false dilemma.

Your difference between effective and ineffective weapons inspections is a nuclear war in the Middle East, with a jibe at the UN included.

Since the Bush administration has already decided it wants war, no amount of weapons inspections will prove "effective". Ludicrous demands are the first chapter in the war-starting handbook. Any engineering department in any university could produce a nuclear bomb within weeks, if it had enough uranium.

I can just see it now, Saddam refuses to submit to a full-body cavity search, US declares war. After all, he could hide enough anthax up his deranged rectum to kill millions.

What's wrong with police and intelligence activity aimed at stopping him building a credible nuclear weapons programme, in the unlikely event that he actually wants to start a war in which he would certainly die?

[Bosh]

The US, understandably, finds that laughable.

Agreed.

The problem in my opinion is the FED. They need to lower interest rates. This has been obvious for quite some time.

Well the problem is that they already did quite a bit after September 11th and now if they lower them too much more they'll start getting close to 0 and we'll get Japanized.

Do you see any other alternatives?

How about let the neighboring Arab states know that if they want to get together to take out Saddam they've got US help and tell Israel to go **** itself until it pulls out of the occupied territories. Sounds good to me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boshko

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither Note that every city mentioned is a port or can be reached by sea...

What?? We're going to have the Iraqi navy doing trans-continental sneak-attacks?
All this talk of Saddam attacking the rest of the world out of the blue is a little bizarre, that would be suicidal and the last thing the bastard wants to do is die.

It seems a lot of people are fairly well stuck in conventional terms and feel that only what has happened in the past should be considered as possible in the future. It must be rude being woken up from time to time by people doing something unexpected.

Funny thing is these new and unexpected things keep on happening.

Gee, I wonder why the American government has become much more preoccupied with the possible in the last 12 months?

[Ned]

Sandman, I'm just pulling your leg on the "pro-Saddam" jibe. This is like others saying the pro-choice crowd are "anti-life."

But, if I understand you correctly, you would choose option 3, and "hope" for the best.

However, option 4 remains the preferred solution. It can happen only if the use of force is entirely credible if Saddam starts to again play games. It seems clear that Bush has you convinced that he intends to use force. So at least the threat is credible.

But now we need the UN to cooperate. If it does, there is a good chance, in my view, that Saddam will back down.

[Sandman]

Nothing the Iraqis can say or do is likely to prove good enough. If they agree to weapons inspections, they're 'playing games', if they don't, then they're developing weapons of mass destruction. There is no way for Iraq to do the right thing.

[Ned]

Sandman, that certainly is what Saddam says about Bush. But is this an argument for not trying option 4?

Besides, the issue of whether Saddam is complying or not will be based on reports from the UN inspectors to the Security Council. If they say Saddam is cooperating and in compliance, Bush will not have the legal authority under the Congressional resolution to use force.

On the contrary, if the UN inspectors certify that Saddam is not cooperating, the UN will undoubtedly itself authorize force. If it doesn't, then indeed, the UN will have gone the way of the League of Nations: Issuing proclamations that were ignored because there was no enforcement mechanism.

[Roland]

Let's see your options:

Forgetting 1-3:

"4) No. 2, plus effective weapons inspections and disarmament; (Saddam is defanged, no war.)"

Would be nice but that's not what the Bush admin wants.

"5) Arm the rebels;"

What rebels ?

"6) Coalition removes Saddam and installs moderate Muslim coalition government."

That would be the best solution but in the current situation it simply has too many drawbacks.

"Do you see any other alternatives?"

The weapon inspection option backed by threat of force would be much more effective if the SC could get around to authorize force now. But everyone is dragging his feet on this one as everyone knows the Bush administration will abuse such an authorization.

The regime change option needs a shitload more preparation.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Roland
The weapon inspection option backed by threat of force would be much more effective if the SC could get around to authorize force now. But everyone is dragging his feet on this one as everyone knows the Bush administration will abuse such an authorization.

Let's not do it because one bad ass subject to a congress and a court will be worse than the other bad ass who is subject to no one?

In any event, the UN has to act and then Bush has to fuss it up before the world can judge just how bad a job he did of it. No?

Or should they not pass resolutions because some Mercan somewhere might prove the rest of the world right?

[Roland]

"Let's not do it because one bad ass subject to a congress and a court will be worse than the other bad ass who is subject to no one?"

Congress is caving in to the war rhetoric, and what court ?

[notyoueither]

[Roland]

Oh no, not the SMILEY!

Anyway, what's the point ? You believe Bush does not want the war, or what ?

[Ned]

Roland, Thanks for your post.

I know you have been following events in Congress. The draft resolution authorizes force only if diplomatic means fail. So if they actually work, Bush would have no authority to go to war. If he did regardless, he probably would lose all support in the US and set off a constitution crisis. So I don't think it will happen.

However, if the UN does not act effectively, Congress and therefore the United States of America, not Bush, will have declared war on Iraq.

So to avoid war, the UN must act and act effectively to disarm Saddam.