Bush to address the nation tonight...

I noticed. But I must also say there is a big difference between threatening to invade the country and moving several divisions on the border and claiming to invade no matter what. In that situation nobody would fully disarm their own country. Also claiming that he has to complete the disarming within a week like in the proposed next UN resolution by the US and GB is completely off base. There is no way he could fulfill that, even if he wanted to.

It must be a creadible threat of force. So, that means we can''t say we won''t invade and have those troops there. Think of how Saddam would be acting if the whole U.N. S.C. was behind going to war if he didn''t disarm? I think he would have done more or maybe left the country.

If everyone was willing to take him out I think we wouldn''t be close to a war at all.

"Ulairi" wrote:

It must be a creadible threat of force. So, that means we can''t say we won''t invade and have those troops there. Think of how Saddam would be acting if the whole U.N. S.C. was behind going to war if he didn''t disarm? I think he would have done more or maybe left the country.

If everyone was willing to take him out I think we wouldn''t be close to a war at all.

The UNSC is behind going to war if he does not disarm and following the diplomatic course. But your government is going to war even though he disarms, albeit very slowly. They want a regime change by forceful means and that is what the majority of the UNSC is against. You moved your troops there to prepare the regime change, way before any meaningful discussion about disarming were started. Your defense ministry talked about a regime change in Iraq way before they were talking about the disarm process.

"chrisg" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

It must be a creadible threat of force. So, that means we can''t say we won''t invade and have those troops there. Think of how Saddam would be acting if the whole U.N. S.C. was behind going to war if he didn''t disarm? I think he would have done more or maybe left the country.

If everyone was willing to take him out I think we wouldn''t be close to a war at all.

The UNSC is behind going to war if he does not disarm and following the diplomatic course. But your government is going to war even though he disarms, albeit very slowly. They want a regime change by forceful means and that is what the majority of the UNSC is against. You moved your troops there to prepare the regime change, way before any meaningful discussion about disarming were started. Your defense ministry talked about a regime change in Iraq way before they were talking about the disarm process.

Have you read 1441? It doesn''t say to disarm very slowly but to disarm now. Saddam is in breach. He did this.

I don''t think that''s the question at all. In fact, I don''t think there''s much argument that Saddam Hussein is a monumental asshole in breech of any number of treaties and directives. The question to me is: Is it worth the price necessary to open a land war in Iraq against a man who really isn''t a threat to anyone but his own people at this point. To me, the answer is no. the consequences for a variety of nations, including America, is high. The destabilizing factors are disturbing. The end result is probably not going to be significantly better. Oh, I''ve gone on and on about it. It just doesn''t make sense to me, and I''d be hard pressed to believe I''m in the minority on that point.

Really, aside from Ulairi, I can''t think of anyone I know that is in favor of proceeding with this war. I''m told they''re out there.

I read it. I also posted a link above to comments of the resolution. The point is that he won''t disarm quicker, since he is faced already with an invasion within 2 weeks time. It is impossible to disarm completely within two weeks if it even is that long. We can be lucky that he even admitted to destroying these weapons in the current situation.

Interesting report from the UNSC:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...

Apparantly some ""proofs"" Powell presented that Iraq tried 2 years before to get Uranium from Nigeria are forged. Powell in return claimed that he had further IA material while at the same time Tenet said the Inspectors have all material they have. If Powell has these proofs already, why are those not available to the inspectors so they can find and confiscate that material.

He additionally makes clear that currently the Iraq is under control regarding weapons of mass destruction and NK is a far greater threat.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...

Addendum: I am not trying to defend Saddam here. If we have any legit means, we have to get rid of him. Question is if what we have currently allows a preemptive strike and possibly risking a bigger crisis in the middle east than we ever expected.

"Elysium" wrote:

I don''t think that''s the question at all. In fact, I don''t think there''s much argument that Saddam Hussein is a monumental asshole in breech of any number of treaties and directives. The question to me is: Is it worth the price necessary to open a land war in Iraq against a man who really isn''t a threat to anyone but his own people at this point. To me, the answer is no. the consequences for a variety of nations, including America, is high. The destabilizing factors are disturbing. The end result is probably not going to be significantly better. Oh, I''ve gone on and on about it. It just doesn''t make sense to me, and I''d be hard pressed to believe I''m in the minority on that point.

Really, aside from Ulairi, I can''t think of anyone I know that is in favor of proceeding with this war. I''m told they''re out there.

So because he''s only slaughtering his own people, we''re supposed to give him a pass?
I think that alone is worth the UN intervening. Notice I said the UN, not the US. The treaty Iraq is in violation of is a UN treaty (and he is clearly in violation of it). Without a UN sanction, I really don''t think we should be invading. The president announcing he''s going to attack with or without a vote by the UNSC is a mistake, since it undermines any goodwill me may have with the other member nations. We''re basically saying we don''t care what they think, we''re going to do whatever we want no matter what. In that case, why be a member of the UN at all?
I don''t think president Bush is going to be happy unless and until Iraq can prove they don''t have so much as a pointy stick left. Of course, since it''s impossible to prove something DOESN''T exist, war is probably inevitable at this point.

Really, aside from Ulairi, I can''t think of anyone I know that is in favor of proceeding with this war. I''m told they''re out there.

I don''t think we are. None of my friends are for it and I don''t know anyone on campus for it. I''m a liberal and I''m alone.

I think that liberals should be the one pushing getting rid of Saddam.

""I don''t think president Bush is going to be happy unless and until Iraq can prove they don''t have so much as a pointy stick left. Of course, since it''s impossible to prove something DOESN''T exist, war is probably inevitable at this point""

We knew he had in it 1998 and he should be able to prove where it went. Dictatorships are known for their book keeping.

I am in favor of a forceful (if necessary) regime change in Iraq whether it be now or later. The people of Iraq have suffered long enough for Saddam''s world stage antics. I have zero tolerance for weasels that shift blame with such craft.

I have concerns about this upcoming war. I have concerns that the world sees President Bush as a bully. I have concerns that through this the world thinks all americans are bullies for supporting him. I am not naive. I know there is always a moderate degree of resentment towards America. Ill let you in on a secret. Foreign countries think we are spoiled yahoo''s. Americans dismiss this as jealousy. This isnt an either or opinion. The fact is American''s are spoiled and lazy. Is it to a fault? No. Does it affect our choices of whats right and wrong? Yes. Does it prevent us from doing the right thing? No.

Likewise, its true that those who are not spoiled Americans, display jealous sentiments towards them in small to large doses. Can you blame them with so many of the things we Americans just assume are natural? No.

I do doubt some of President Bush''s motives. However, the key here is I do not doubt my motives. I do not doubt Colin Powell''s motives either. Also, I do not doubt Prime Minister Blair''s motives. I do think Blair is prone to being misguided while playing the role of america''s staunchest ally.

I dont think Bush is looking at the big picture enough. Everytime he talks about post war Iraq becoming the bustling hub of democracy, it only serves to further this belief.

Sure we want Saddam out because he''s a thorn in our side. Sure he gets in the way of our goals. But the most important thing he prevents all of us from doing is: the right thing!

Entering the world stage means your more attractive to outside investment. We''ve got to stop this cycle of the way to gain entrance to the world stage is by oppressing and murdering your own people and playing mind games with the UN.

""I dont think Bush is looking at the big picture enough. Everytime he talks about post war Iraq becoming the bustling hub of democracy, it only serves to further this belief.""

Call me an idealist but I think Democracy is going to do very well in the Muslim world. It will take time but it will happen. Look at Afganistan, people are saying we failed there and it hasn''t been five years yet! The United States didn''t get it right at the start in our own democratic-republic. The kurds have proven that Democracy works in Iraq and I think that a Federalist, Democratic-Republic, will do very well in Iraq.

I''m not a big fan of Bush but I do not think he''s doing it for the wrong reasons. The polls show that the majority of Americans do not want this war.

At least I hope he isn''t doing it for the wrong reasons.

Since when has Bush let a little thing like a majority of those polled stand between him and what he wants?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Since when has Bush let a little thing like a majority of those polled stand between him and what he wants?

We''re not suppose to rule by the masses. Our founders warned us about that.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Rat Boy" wrote:

Since when has Bush let a little thing like a majority of those polled stand between him and what he wants?

We''re not suppose to rule by the masses. Our founders warned us about that.

I think people forget that sometimes. If our elected government only did what people wanted, we''d have no taxes, everything we want would be free, and we''d never have to fight a war.
Well it doesn''t work that way. Our government exists to do that which the common citizenry cannot do for themselves. This includes protection from enemies foreign or domestic, and sometimes includes doing things people don''t necessarily like. We have a great deal of freedoms in this country, but there are responisibilites as well. We pay taxes to support programs that help people in greater need then ourselves. We agree to the rule of law to create an orderly society. Just because something is unpopular, doesn''t mean it''s the wrong thing to do.

You call this a bi-cameral legislature?

I call it an idiocracy.

I think Kriegshund''s point is very well put. Nice Job.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

You call this a bi-cameral legislature?

Cheers, Rat Boy! What did he say when he got punched in the crotch a moment later? I was already laughing too hard to hear.

Most Accurate Representation of FoxNews Ever!

-- Recent Poll Reveals 92% of all Democrats Gay! --

Nice to run across a good new episode of The Simpsons.

"Elysium" wrote:

Most Accurate Representation of FoxNews Ever!

-- Recent Poll Reveals 92% of all Democrats Gay! --

Nice to run across a good new episode of The Simpsons.

That was great. I think all the cable news channels sucks. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. At least fox is up front about it.

I think all the cable news channels sucks. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.

I agree. I get most of my news from NPR. Yes, it''s biased, but at least it''s got a range of programming, and approaches topics from a generally intellectual perspective.

"Elysium" wrote:

and approaches topics from a generally intellectual perspective.

Unless they''re talking about the ""Schwetty Balls"" recipe.

Just because something is unpopular, doesn''t mean it''s the wrong thing to do.

Sometimes it is!

Like getting involved in an unpopular middle eastern war that''s;

A:Unpopular
B:Totally screwing up the countries involved budgets for the next 3 to 4 years; We''re going to be paying more taxes to rebuild a country we''re going to blow the crap out of, using bombs that our taxes payed for!
C: Not well thought out with regards to who or what we put in Saddams place afterward.

We pay taxes to support programs that help people in greater need then ourselves

not always, take this as an example of my taxes being used to support programs that line the Governments pockets.

The UK government gets so much money in fines from speed cameras (about £3.75 BILLION last year) that now cameras (not just speed cameras but digital cameras that recognize and record your face) are turning up everywhere and according to recent figures, will be on every road in the UK within 18 months. Already these cameras are often only 100 yards apart...Not for safety''s sake (actually this has led to an INCREASE in accidents as people are too busy watching either their Tachometers OR watchin for cameras instead of paying attention) but to get more revenue for local government.

This would be fine if the government put it back into improving healthcare or mass transit but too much of it goes into military black budgets or to paying for politicians wages or worse still just vanishing into ""accounting errors""

This has become so unpopular that cameras are regularly attacked or disabled by people frustrated with paying large amounts of money in the name of safety only to see the Government squander it.

Sorry didn''t mean to rant on,I just got annoyed thinking about above subject and had to vent.

Edit: I wonder what''s going to happen now that Jacque Chirac has come out and said they will Definately veto any resolution put forward for war with Iraq?

Kegboy, would you like to use those tax money to rebuild our own cities instead?

UN is a big fat joke. Iraq is on the Disarmament Committee and Lybia is on the Human Rights Committee.

Containment works? You mean Saddam hasn''t used his weapons means it works?
Inspection is a joke too. 6000 UN inspectors didn''t find jack shit few years back till someone from Iraq detracted and they think a few hundred will find much this time around? Where are the stockpile of chemical and biological weapons that were found by the inspectors few years back that are still unaccounted for? Iraq is destroying a bunch of missile that it adamantly denied having and France and a bunch of other pansys are applauding it? So they found a drone and a missle that''s designed to carry chemical/biological weapons today. What''s next? Iraq push them in a dumpster and have France pet on its back again?

Why war? Why now?
Would you like to wait till terror strikes again? Self defense is enough of a reason to convince me. While nobody can say with 100% certainty that Iraq''s weapons will be used when/if the terrorists attack again, given Saddam''s track record and hatred against US he''ll be more than happy to do everything to help terrorists plotting against US.

On the legality front, Iraq has violated the peace treaty it signed at the end of the Gulf War for 12 years. And after 17 UN resolutions and Iraq is still not complying. It is time to bring the hammer down.

And now there''s the controversy about what Hans Blix didn''t say on Friday but was buried deep in his report to allegedly make it look like Iraq was complying more than it actually is. One wonders what really is going on at the Security Council.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

And now there''s the controversy about what Hans Blix didn''t say on Friday but was buried deep in his report to allegedly make it look like Iraq was complying more than it actually is. One wonders what really is going on at the Security Council.

Hans doesn''t want to be blammed by the Europeans for starting the war. Hans is clueless. He said Iraq had no nuclear programme but after the Gulf War we found out that they did have one.

Inspectors have never found anything. We always get the goods from a defector.

Lock wrote

Kegboy, would you like to use those tax money to rebuild our own cities instead?

Locke, live in Northern Ireland a country that''s been wracked by terrorism for over 30 years now (and partly sponsored by Irish-American fundraising organisations like NORAID up until Sept 11th when the US government finally froze their assets for being a terrorist fundraising organisation). Ok so it may not have had a single attack as devastating as Sept 11th but in that time We''ve suffered just as many casualties as the US had but at no point did the British Government contemplate invading Ireland because it was hiding the terrorists.

At no point in my above rant did I actually say whether I was for or against the war. I actually think we do need to do this for various reasons, that doesn''t blind me but to the fact that at the moment just about every countries economy is being screwed up because of this. Also whilst I mght support the war, I also believe that we should have the backing of the UN first.

Make no mistake, the future of the UN, the European Union and American European relations is at stake here as well as the future of Iraq.Especially in light of the fact that there is now no chance of a second resolution in it''s current form. Are we willing to throw away everything that''s been achieved relationship wise since WW2?

"Ulairi" wrote:

Inspectors have never found anything. We always get the goods from a defector.

Or maybe they did and didn''t tell anybody.

Mind you, Blix has been the most ""palitable"" of UN Inspection heads to the Iraqis, mainly because he is neither American nor British.

Make no mistake, the future of the UN, the European Union and American European relations is at stake here as well as the future of Iraq.Especially in light of the fact that there is now no chance of a second resolution in it''s current form. Are we willing to throw away everything that''s been achieved relationship wise since WW2?

GW warned us about maintaing ties to allies for too long. France hasn''t been an allie of ours since they left the NATO defense force. I think that was in 1966. France is doing this not because they want inspectors in Iraq but they want a new world order to counter the United States. They are not our ally.

Most of Europe is with us and not with the French and Germans.

France could act like Canada if they weren''t for this war and just vote no or not vote.

I agree Ulaira but I still find it such a pity that it''s come to this.

"Ulairi" wrote:

GW warned us about maintaing ties to allies for too long.

Sad to hear you think that way about the partnership between EU/US :(.

France hasn''t been an allie of ours since they left the NATO defense force. I think that was in 1966.

I can''t speak for france, but I know Germany is and will be an ally/friend of the US. Is anybody who does not talk after your mouth an enemy?

France is doing this not because they want inspectors in Iraq but they want a new world order to counter the United States. They are not our ally.

You are reading too much into that. First and Foremost, France has the interest of not getting into an economic downward spiral due to the strike in Iraq as it is currently expected. You gov was very successful dividing the EU. Maybe you think about why they are so eager about that.

Most of Europe is with us and not with the French and Germans.

Actually most of Europe is against going to war at this point. You do though have support of several nation''s leaders, of whom we won''t see anybody coming back after the next election in that country most likely. Also what is support worth if these countries have nothing to offer to you but a ""we are not against a strike in Iraq"".