by Simon 865 Replies latest social current
he made the case that there were chemical weapons in those sites, but obviously he couldnt prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt without hard evidence on the ground
so the logical thinking would be to have a war and kill thousands in the process to see whether powell was right.
pleasure-
dont cloud the issue.....we are only talking about the evidence that powell made to the u.n. in his last report.....obviously there was a mountain of evidence against iraq before he ever even made that report, otherwise resolution 1441 wouldnt have ever existed.....lets not forget that the u.n. unanimously voted for res. 1441 which called for force against iraq unless they fully complied. i dont think anyone in their right mind could argue that iraq fully complied with that resolution.......the war was not based entirely on powells presentation, it was simply the last stand to try and unite the security council. obviously it failed, and the u.s./u.k. decided (along with the coalition) to enforce res. 1441 without the opposing members.
i am not hung up on powells evidence......simon is. my opinion that iraq had wmd was formed long before powells presentation was ever made, and ive stated my reasons for this many times.......and ive still yet to have one poster give me a reasonable rebuttal for those reasons.
honestly, i think that could be why simon is so sure there arent wmd in iraq......i think he has convinced himself that the entire justification for war was based solely on powells presentation, which is absolutely preposterous.
aa
realist-
that last post of mine reminded me....i havent heard from you on the mustard gas issue since i gave you those stats......any conclusions?
aa
dubla,
i tired to find recent numbers (respectively numbers about how much is still missing according to iraqi numbers) on the UN page but wasn'T sucessful.
conclusion...if hussein kept these weapons to the very last without even using them than he was an idiot.
1. Rebuild containment to last long term
3. Covert operations (coup d' e'tat)
4. Create another Afghan situation by arming Kurds and Southern Shieks.
5. Full scale invasion which will remove the Iraqi regime, scour the country for WMD, and rebuild a stable, prosperous Iraq.
"The Threatening Storm." Kenneth Pollak. P.xxix-xxx
Dubla,
I posted these options earlier. (Not that anyone cared) These were the choices as people who see "doing nothing but bitch" as not an option. I'm going to give you your debate. Not because I think the war was unnessesary or wrong but because I can't believe that some people can't set aside petty ideology and look at the "big picture." Their best argument against the war lies there IMO. [in the B P]
The US made the choice of a preemptive invasion. This is a new chapter in American forigen policy. Panama and the sorts is not the same. This was a full scale military invasion into a country that we were currently hostile with but not at war with. Congress did approve it but that still does not win the debate. In no way can the concept of "clear and present danger" be met. It just can't. I understand that the problem with this concept is that it means that any country that "feels" threatened has the right to attack. Which the answer is a sound NO. 1) The US may choose to stop them. 2) Iraq is an anomaly. This was really not sold as an issue to the global public. Probably because people like you and I don't need to hear it. We understand that. And the other side like Simon's debate team have no interest in exploring the history of the region the politics involved for the last 30 year and more than the TV offers as info. Their minds are made up. (Really) It is a waste of time.
So Dubla WMD or not how do you justify a preeminate invasion by yesterdays standards? IMO you can't; we have supported writing a new chapter in American and world history. We can't take it back. Nor would I want to.
jayson-
well, im not sure what part you would like to "debate"........as far as this being a new chapter in american foreign policy, i suppose thats true to an extent....but i think way to much emphasis has been put on the u.s. making the decision to invade iraq. whenever the subject is talked about, it always sounds as if we went at this unilaterally, which is far from the truth......the decision was made by many, the timing was decided by the u.s./u.k......ill elaborate:
So Dubla WMD or not how do you justify a preeminate invasion by yesterdays standards? IMO you can't; we have supported writing a new chapter in American and world history.
yesterdays standards? i suppose thats semantics....but what do yesterdays standards have to do with the threats we face today? as far as justifying a preemptive invasion, all i would say is that the u.n. security council unanimously voted in favor of a preemptive invasion of iraq if they failed to comply with res.1441.......so again, its not just the u.s. and u.k......the ONLY thing the u.n. security council was divided on was the TIMING of the invasion.....some wanted to drag out the process longer. i would also point out that the u.n. was split right down the middle on the timing of the war, which means in and of itself that half of the council agreed 100% with the decision to go to war when we did. and how many nations backed the u.s./u.k. war plan once the decision was made to go forward? forty to fifty (cant remember the exact number)? again, far from a unilateral decision........so, when it comes to ushering in a new chapter in world history, id agree that we have done that.......with worldwide backing.
do i think its scary that this new policy has been set in place? yep. do i think it was necessary to oust saddam at some point, and that it was always going to come down to a preemptive strike? yep.
aa
Dubla,
I just want the thread to end. In the start I tried to validate the other side. But I honestly think they wanted a fight. It would be nice to try to have a consensus. Someone needs to see both sides. There are more than one [side] here.
"Yesterdays" standards were "clear & present danger." That term has been around as justification for the use of force since like the 1850's. Iraq did pose a danger but was it a "clear & present one?" There is so much room for debate. It is a pandora's box. Crossing the line that the US did, that could still lead to a pandemic war. We have to remember that there are a lot of people who are really scared. And there are others who just hate Bush. Last (I speak of) are those who want to and work to understand the big picture. (They can be of either of the other 2) The US did change the rules. They did shut France out in the UN as much as the French stood in the way to protect Saddam's butt.
A lot of people think that the US are the good guys. And "They" those who oppose the US are the bad guys. I know that Saddam is the bad guy (or was) but, I also know that there are no angles here. We support the concepts of a preemptive strike & invasion. This is a big deal. There is no turning back. Saying "Well, I was wrong." That won't cut it. As where Simon's team has that luxury at any time. They can say "Well, we were mislead by the misinformation of the BBC and others."
We support a very serious change in US policy abroad and at home. We no longer stand by the principles of "Clear & Present Danger." I can understand why so many fear the saber rattling & the Governmental power. Can you?
jayson-
The US did change the rules. They did shut France out in the UN as much as the French stood in the way to protect Saddam's butt.
im sorry, but i just cant agree with you that the "u.s. changed the rules"........like i said in my last post, the ENTIRE u.n. security council (including, yes, france) supported a preemptive strike against iraq....what they didnt agree on was the timing of it. if france didnt support a preemptive invasion, they wouldve voted "no" for resolution 1441........theres no getting around the fact that res.1441 called for military action if iraq did not comply. whether or not iraq complied fast enough was where all the hair splitting came into play.....half of the u.n. thought it was time, the other half did not. the half that did think it was time, acted.
It would be nice to try to have a consensus. Someone needs to see both sides. There are more than one [side] here.
I can understand why so many fear the saber rattling & the Governmental power. Can you?
first off, i dont think youve really read my posts on the issue as a whole......if you had, youd see that i have indeed bent toward the other side on plenty of aspects of it. i agree that we need to look at both sides, and i agree that most absolutely refuse to do this. can i understand why so many fear the governmental power? absolutely....becuase i fear it as well. i fear the reprecussions of the new precedent, and i dont for one second think that everything that comes out of this is going to be flowers and rainbows. sometimes the good outways the bad.....and my hope is that this will ring true in regards to whats taken place in iraq. i think the jury is still out though, and it could very well come back to haunt the world at some point.
aa
"im sorry, but i just cant agree with you that the "u.s. changed the rules"........like i said in my last post, the ENTIRE u.n. security council (including, yes, france) supported a preemptive strike against iraq....what they didnt agree on was the timing of it. if france didnt support a preemptive invasion, they wouldve voted "no" for resolution 1441........theres no getting around the fact that res.1441 called for military action if iraq did not comply. whether or not iraq complied fast enough was where all the hair splitting came into play.....half of the u.n. thought it was time, the other half did not. the half that did think it was time, acted."
"first off, i dont think youve really read my posts on the issue as a whole......if you had, youd see that i have indeed bent toward the other side on plenty of aspects of it. i agree that we need to look at both sides, and i agree that most absolutely refuse to do this. can i understand why so many fear the governmental power? absolutely....becuase i fear it as well. i fear the reprecussions of the new precedent, and i dont for one second think that everything that comes out of this is going to be flowers and rainbows. sometimes the good outways the bad.....and my hope is that this will ring true in regards to whats taken place in iraq. i think the jury is still out though, and it could very well come back to haunt the world at some point."
D. I have read your posts I promise. But I am asking you to look at it through W. Europe's eyes. From "Their" point of veiw. It's scary I know but try it. Their argument is so simple it just takes a second; Their scared. And, "the jury is still out" isn't that what has been said over and over? I agree with you. Too bad this did not end it on page one.
t h-well, considering the o.j. case, im not sure what it takes to get a conviction in a u.s. court of law........ apparently a whole lot more than solid evidence though.
aa
Hmm, well, where is this solid evidence?
