What if the U.N doesn't find anything in Iraq?

by kril 83 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  proplog2

  It is too difficult to get a blank check from congress without following through with war. Mobilization is very expensive. The decision for war has been made. Bush WILL come up with something. Part of the inspection process involves questioning of those who have worked in the Iraq weapons programs. If Iraq fails to cooperate in this questionable proceedure then Bush will consider that a material violation of the UN resolution.

  The new foreign policy of the US is unilateralism. They feel that if they want to do it they ought to be able to do it - even if it is illegal. There is nothing wrong with a sovereign nation having ANY kind of weapon they choose. There are no permits that have to be obtained. No country has to obtain a license from the US to have weapons of mass destruction. However if they use those weapons against another country in an offensive war then the offended country has the right to form a coalition to retaliate.

  Bush probably has enough justification for going to war over Iraq's shooting at American planes in the No-FLy zone.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Unilateralism? No, I think that was Clinton's policy in his piddly attacks on Iraq, and his Kosovo war. The US has a number of allies in it's policy towards Iraq, we just aren't prepared to bow to the idol of the UN.
• 

  Shakita

  I posted this yesterday:

  "Max van der Stoel, the former United Nations special rapporteur for human rights in Iraq, told the United Nations that the brutality of the Iraqi regime was "of an exceptionally grave character-so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War. Indeed, it is to comparisons with the obscenity of the Holocaust and Stalin's mass murders that observers are inevitably drawn when confronted with the horrors of Saddam's Iraq. Saddamist Iraq is a state that employs arbitrary execution, imprisonment, and torture on a comprehensive and routine basis. A full catalogue of the regime's methods of torture is not available. Suffice to say that based on voluminous accounts of witnesses and victims, the list is very, very long. In some ways, to try to name all of its practices would detract from the regime's monstrosity. A few examples, however, are useful.

  This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hld a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime(which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing does not match)would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue. This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because the husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens-not just on the fifteen thousand killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. This is a regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse the agents to inflict the greatest damage."--The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq, Kenneth M. Pollack, pg 123-124.

  Kenneth Pollack's is one of the world's leading experts on Iraq. He spent 15 years as an analyst on Iraq for the CIA and the National Security Council. He has studied Saddam as closely as anyone else in the US.

  How can humanity sit back and allow this to continue? How can anyone turn a blind eye to what Saddam has done to his own countrymen? How can anyone measure the cost financially on human life?

  What if the UN doesn't find anything in Iraq? When the inspectors left 4 years ago they had chemical and biological weapons. They had started a nuclear program. The inspectors left that country knowing then that Saddam would not stop his quest for more weapons of mass destruction. If the inspectors do not find anything, it is because Saddam has hidden them underground. He has had 4 years to do this. People slam Bush for being a war monger. I am no Bush advocate. But, whether it is Bush, Gore, or whoever is president of the most powerful country on the planet, the leader of the free world has a duty to see that his people are not held hostage by a nuclear Saddam.

  I have children who would be affected by any war. I do not wish to see anyone die in any war. But, unless the Saddam's of the world are held in check, you will see the whole world held hostage by nuclear annihilation.

  Mrs. Shakita
• 

  freeman

  I dont think that Bush is relying to much on this UN team and IMHO he shouldnt, considering that the teams head honcho was unable to find any evidence of nukes 10 years ago which we know Saddam has or had through acquired documents, and when the head of the Iraqi nuke program defected and spilled his guts, and lastly confirmed now by admittance of an Iraqi spokesmen just yesterday. Its a case of the blind leading the blind.

  As far as justification for the US entering into war with Iraq, the fact that they are currently hosting a top Al-Qaeda leader on there own soil who is on the FBIs most wanted list and refuse to hand him over to US authorities is enough alone. Add to that the fact that they are currently supplying financial aid as well as facilitating terrorist training camps on their soil is a good reason too. This falls under the so-called Bush doctrine of if you harbor terrorist then you are a terrorist etc. That is what he used to destroy the Taliban government.

  Last but not least is the fact that UN sanctioned over flights in the no-fly zone are currently being shot at almost every day. Again this too is reason enough all by its self.

  There are of course many side issues such as the fact that Bush has a hard-on for Saddam, the world would like to keep the oil flowing feely, the official objective of the US as articulated by former US president Bill Clinton is regime change, and everyone would like to see this dictator gone as he is genuinely a very nasty guy everyone would be better off without. These reasons dont constitute a legal or moral reason to go to war, but the others I listed above certainly do.

  Should we go to war? I just dont know. I personally hope we dont, but I have had to put in a lot of overtime at my job to make sure that if we do we will be ready; and trust me WE ARE READY.

  Freeman

  Edited by - freeman on 9 December 2002 10:23:54

  Edited by - freeman on 9 December 2002 10:25:45
• 

  Realist

  if they don't find anything then Bush will say hussein is hiding the weapons and the US will declare war...hussein is in a loose loose situation...no matter what he does this war is inevitable.
• 

  proplog2

  Shakita:

  Pure propaganda. You removed all credability to Pollacks statements by referring to his CIA credentials.

  All this crap about how Saddam is a simply awful dictator - "tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape," (quote from G.W. Bush) - could easily be said about Communist China. Mao's heirs have signed on to the idea of a never-ending "war on terrorism," and are doing their part by stepping up repression against any dissident minorities that might be less than happy with rule from Beijing.

  The same might be said of our Turkish allies, who have managed to repress the Kurds far more effectively than Saddam, and whose love for torture is well-known to human rights advocates. The Chechens are tortured by the Russians, the despots of Africa are remarkably brutal even by the bloodthirsty standards of twentieth century rulers - and what of Pakistan, a key ally in the "war on
  terrorism," ruled by a military dictator and armed with nuclear weapons? Are all these countries and peoples to be "liberated" by U.S. force of arms?

  The purpose of this war is about impressing the world that the US is going to control things from now on. Oh yeah - did I mention Oil? But of course we have more noble goals. Maybe we'll donate two pennies from every barrel to the aids crisis in Africa.
• 

  proplog2

  Yerusalym:

  I think you ought to do a little web research and start with google "The National Security Strategy of The United States of America"

  Then tell me that Clinton was Unilateralist. It's true though that Clinton had a horrible foreign policy and it had very little strategy at all. Bush has declared that he will try to form ad hoc coalitions for various projects (wars) but if he can't get anyone to sign on he'll do what he wants when he wants to.

  It isn't that those who sign on are really contributing anything significant except for PR. For PR the US will pay back with special financial rewards.

  As for Nuclear Weapons. I say the US and Russia ought to give every country in the world a dozen. Then - everyone would have an even playing field.

  Patrick Buchannan asked a good question a while back. He asked if "Sadaam is so dangerous why isn't Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. carrying on a pre-emptive attack? The US seems to be more afraid of Sadaam than those in his immediate area.
• 

  Xander

  What's REALLY funny is, if you trace back Muslim extremism, you'll find it's roots lie in Saudi Arabia.

  Nothing in the Koran talks about women as objects to be traded or bartered with. Managing to get a death sentance for adultery, according to the Koran, is near impossible (it requires 4 male witnesses to the act). etc.

  The extremist form of Islam, where women are not allowed to speak in the presence of a man and must where face concealing garments all day, originated and is contuining out from Saudi Arabia (the movement is called Wahabism, and it's roots lie in the bedoin originations of the land's current inhabitants).

  Of course, that these dictators would oppress their people anyway using whatever religion the people would follow shouldn't be overlooked (a rose by any other name, and all). It's just an interesting bit of trivia.
• 

  deddaisy

  If this does happen then unfortunately the islam world would be totally justified (according to them) in launching all out attack on the west.

  you mean the WTC didn't count as an "all out attack?"

  Edited by - deddaisy on 9 December 2002 12:5:57
• 

  Shakita

  proplog:

  Pure propaganda. You removed all credability to Pollacks statements by referring to his CIA credentials.

  Why? Do you consider yourself more knowledgeable than Pollack himself?

  Kenneth M. Pollack wrote "The Threatening Storm" as Olin Senior Fellow and Director of National Security Studies for the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1995 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2001, he served as director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, where he was the principal working-level official responsible for implementation of US policy toward Iraq. Prior to his time in the Clinton administration, he spent seven years in the CIA as a Persian Gulf military analyst. He is also the author of Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991. He is a graduate of Yale University and received a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  Right now Bush does not have the amunition to go to war with Saddam. The world needs proof, beyond the atrocities mentioned in my previous post, that Saddam is a global threat. Will Bush go to war without the proof he needs? No. He will not want to go down in the history books as the President who declared war on Iraq because he MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction. But, the UN now has the almost 12,000 documents from Iraq. Time will tell on what Saddam reveals in those documents. Or , doesn't reveal. But, does it really take 12,000 documents to tell the world that he has no weapons of mass destruction? He is biding time. He has had 4 years so far. How much more time does he need to development the ultimate weapon of power.

  Your reasoning for not going to war with Iraq is because there are also other countries that commit the same atrocities as Saddam. Isn't that a defeatest attitude? What would you do if you were Bush? What would you do if you had the power to keep the nukes out of the hands of a maniacal dictator? Would you just sit back and say "I just don't want to get involved, the cost is too high. If other countries have them, why not Iraq?" Curious about your answer.

  Mrs. Shakita