Well, it is a given that War with Iraq is, what, days away? The way I see things is this: the Iraqis are cooperating, even though the level of cooperation is less than ideal. Blix, however is requesting more time to do his work. Why not give it to him? After all, Blix is not the U.S.'s lapdog. The Iraqis are basically accused of non-cooperation by omission, and not giving the answers that the U.S. wants. Though I am debating if this is the circumstance of a bumbling government who can't keep track of what they have and what they don't have.
Perhaps the biggest question being tossed around is: what if the U.S. is wrong about Iraq? Are you so sure that Iraq is hiding WMDs? What then if you find out that Iraq is indeed telling the truth?
I'm not supporting Iraq. I'd rather have the invasion carried out under the Auspices of the U.N., though I will admit, France's constant threat to a veto worries me.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I don't think there's much time left for any sort of compromise or peaceful solution. The US has basically given itself permission to act now, so it probably is only matter of days before the campaign begins.
I agree on France. They should have at least been open to compromises like the one suggested by the UK.
Just a quick thought... If Iraq has WMDs, why are the US apparently so sure he won't use them in this war? And what IF he uses them? That would be a pretty ugly scenario.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Weapons inspectors are being forced out by US agression once again. Only questions left are: How many innocent people are going to die? How long untill the US gets bored with trying to secure Iraq and leaves them to form an even worse devil then they know?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
If Iraq uses them, then American Aggression is justified. Then this whole discussion is moot. But then, what if they don't have them at all? How can we be so sure that they have them in the first place?
If the Americans are wrong, then this opens up a whole host of problems for them. I don't think anyone would be willing to trust the U.S. ever again, and anti-American sentiment would reach everlasting levels.
This is not something in which you could say "Oops".
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
If they don't find any WMDs, the Americans probably would go for the humanitarian argument and make us forget about the weapons. Just like they forgot about Osama bin Laden. He was supposed to be in Afghanistan.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Just a gut feeling, but with the Presidential address scheduled for tonight, I have a feeling that it'll be announcing the beginning of the attack. I'm thinking... Around 8 or 9 PM here will be past midnight in Baghdad, which will be past the �ber-vague March 17 deadline that Bush wanted. Not only that, but nightime fighting is all but a given again, considering what I've heard about the US military preparations.
I hope I'm wrong, of course.
The sad thing is, I think that Bush's basic position is correct -- that Saddam's government is hiding WMD's, that they're continuing to string the rest of the world along. That France and other countries are basically averse to another conflict because Hussein's been manipulating the flow of information and revelations to make it LOOK like he's cooperating just enough to keep a number of people fooled. That at best we're delaying the inevitable, and at worst giving him time to deploy something.
However, at the same time I don't feel that ANY disregard for UN rules is justified. No matter how I feel about the UN veto powers (see other thread), the current system is something that WE (the US) set up half a century ago; the same system we're ignoring now because it's inconvenient to some politicians. Tahna's right -- this isn't something that we'll be able to gloss over in the aftermath; we'll have proven ourselves to be an "aggressor nation" whether or not that label is applied officially, and few countries will be willing to truly trust us again.
I feel we're witnessing the beginning of the sunset of American power. Other nations don't do what we want, so we do it anyway and damn the consequences. (But that's a whole other topic.)
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I agree that 8 PM EST (7 PM where I live) is the ideal time to lauch an attack...it's when the last Gulf War started, and it's good prime-time television (Sarcastic remark) However, I think they would let the UN inspectors leave first, and they probably won't start leaving until tomorrow (says CNN.com). So military action may be put off for, say, 72 hours, in time for prime-time Thursday. But a "surprise" announcement about the start of an invasion would not surprise me.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Actually, I just checked the current CNN.com reports which say they're giving a 72-hour deadline. Three days.
*sigh*
At least Secretary-General Kofi Annan has come out point-blank and said that he believes a US attack would be a violation of the United Nations Charter. Whether anything will be done about that is another question, but it's good to hear that someone's saying that.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: At least Secretary-General Kofi Annan has come out point-blank and said that he believes a US attack would be a violation of the United Nations Charter. Whether anything will be done about that is another question, but it's good to hear that someone's saying that.
I've already heard at least one legal expert say that Annan's wrong, but aside from that...
Gee, I'm shaking. If Iraq can get away with disregarding 16 UN resolutions, I don't see how the UN could POSSIBLY justify doing anything about the US.
Besides, they'd never get a resolution past the Security Council, as France isn't the only country with a veto.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There's no doubt enough dirty laundry scattered throughout Iraq to justify almost anything. The U.S. doesn't need to find exactly what it's looking for. It just needs to find something. If it turns out later that that suspicious aspirin factory really was making aspirin, well...c'est la vie.
Iraq is really the perfect target for a war; justified, unjustified, or anywhere inbetween.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I've already heard at least one legal expert say that Annan's wrong, but aside from that...
Well gee, who would *I* believe... some anonymous (and presumably American) legal expert, or Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations?
And it doesn't matter if the UN actually passes any resolution to that effect anyway, being that the rest of the world would be pissed off at us regardless. Besides, if I remember my UN guidelines correctly, such a resolution could actually be passed in the General Assembly, where the veto power isn't worth anything. Sure, there are plenty of reasons to go to war against Iraq. There's also plenty of reasons not to piss off the other major nations in the world. So do you have your head so stuffed with self-glorifying, patriotic jingoisms to forget that the United States amounts to only a small fraction of the entire world, in terms of land and population? Or are you going to argue that might makes right?
I'd advise against arguing for the latter...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Kofi Annan isn't a legal expert, he's a diplomat.
And he isn't an American, but I suppose you could argue that a Brit is just as bad:
And no, I won't make the argument you propose above. However, I will say that being in the majority is no guarantee of being right.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
What majority?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
"If the Americans are wrong, then this opens up a whole host of problems for them. I don't think anyone would be willing to trust the U.S. ever again, and anti-American sentiment would reach everlasting levels."
Of course, if you're standing on, say, Firsty's side of the fence, your smugogance (� Wraith) will ensure that you could care less about the ramifications of Being Wrong, because there's No Such Thing in your narrow world.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No doubt it's a huge gamble, and people far more important than I will be in for an enormous credibility drop, should they be wrong, when the cards are all shown from this hand.
To sum up: One side of the argument is going to win big. One side is going to lose big.
It's all a matter of who's holding the aces.
Last night I imagined the Mother of All Conspiracy Theories. I know it's nuts, but I'd like to propose it just to get a reaction.
What if...
1. The Government Disinformation office never shut down. 2. Iraq really does have WMD, and is a threat. 3. But the Government Disinformation office has been responsible for helping to promote the belief that it isn't. 4. Because with the population of the opposition so strongly against the War, proof of Iraq as a threat would be an enormous propaganda victory for the Republicans. They could milk it for years and years. Probably at least the next eight. ("What do YOU know? You were against the Iraq War!") 5. Likewise, it would be an enormous propaganda victory for the US on the global scale.
So that the mistaken belief that Iraq is disarmed and not a threat is carefully being nurtured... just so that it can be disproven.
Nah. That's so paranoid. Only somebody REALLY devious could think of that...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
In his address to the state type thingy tonight, it seems that Pres. Bush has given Hussien 48 hours to leave Iraq. Sounds like we find out in two days whether it's war or not.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
So, Rob, what you're saying is that Republicans are deliberately feeding mis-information that is currently resulting in a domestic split on the war, and an international split that could rupture NATO and the UN? For political gain?
Man, Republicans are a bunch of greedy, short-sighted fuck-wads.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I... don't think he said that, actually. Having actually read the post, I see this little bit about just proposing a crack-pot theory just to get a reaction...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I see, so Rob is having fantasies where Republicans control disinformation to formulate domestic and international splits that threaten NATO and the UN?
Interesting.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I'm not saying that at all. I called it "paranoid" and "crazy," what more do you want?
No, they're not doing that.
But the results are likely to be the same.
The "split" will only last until the results are in. Then the human capacity for self-delusion will kick in, and the majority of whichever side turns out to be wrong will begin saying "Oh, but that [the side of the victor] is the side I was on all along... I was just too afraid to speak up" or something similar. That's the way these things always work. Look at postwar Germany. Look at the religious debates about what the "real Christians" were doing during the Inquisition. Even I did things that way, when I first switched allegiance from Bush I to Clinton, and when I dropped Clinton for... well, anyone)
It will only be the people who stuck their necks out this time (Like Bush, Blair, & Chirac, or, here, Myself, Cartmaniac, You, Jay, etc.) who will be in for a rise or a fall.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Looks like 8 PM Wednesday could be the start of the war...or sooner, if they say "He won't step down, so let's go in now."
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
now we begin to realize the true objective behind this mad plot.. to steal ENT's timeslot.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Suits me, ENT gets preempted here every week anyway...not that UPN has its own news service...at least, again, not here...they just show a rerun of the 6pm NBC news at 7pm.
Is it just me, or did Bush seem a little over protective of his babys...the oil wells?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
First -- Sorry to burst your bubble, but that conspiracy theory is a year old. Still funny, though. Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Am I the only one that feels the least bit troubled by the general assertion that in the end, whatever your methods for reaching a conclusion...the only thing that matters is whether you're "right" or "wrong" as judged by...well, thats a good question..judged by what?
Let's be even-handed about this, and play a little "what-if"
The best thing (for the pro side) that could happen, is the Iraq army folds like a wet paperbag (to demonstrate the weakness of Saddam's regime). Saddam manages to use a WMD (to "prove" how much of a threat he is) The American army walks in finds the proverbial "smoking gun." Plans to use terrorists against global targets with a variety of weapons. (to follow up the 9-11 attacks) Terrorists strike a few weeks later. (demonstrating the folly of waiting so long to hit Saddam)
The best thing (for the con side) is, the Iraq army folds like a wet paperbag (because that would minimise civilian casualities). Saddam manages to use a WMD (after being backed into a corner and needlessly provoked) The American army walks in and finds the proverbial smoking gun. Plans to use terrorists against global targets witha variety of weapons (in retailiation for invading Iraq) Terrorists strike a few weeks later (demonstrating the folly of unilaterally provoking the Arab world, despite world opinion)
Note the similarity when you take out the brakets. Just a thought.
I really doubt we'll find any simple answers. As you can tell, I'm getting rather disillusioned by both sides. Nonetheless, I bet that we'll probably see that reality will be even less black and white, let alone see a "big win" or a "big loss." History is rarely that simple.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Anti-American sentiment among muslim nations is growing. Moderate clerics (especially some in Pakistan) are now calling for war against the Americans. Isn't this what Osama Bin Laden wanted?
This has greater implications if the U.S. is proven wrong.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Consider how much worse it'll be if the US forces don't find the WMD's they're looking for within a reasonable amount of time. If they can't find the proof, that'll be the best-case scenario for the "cons," and it'll outrage just about everyone in the Arab world -- giving bin Laden exactly what he wants.
Also... even if Saddam does use a WMD, the most obvious target (aside from the immediate battlefield) would be Israel. And given the political situation there, I'm not sure that too many Arab populaces would shed any tears (or even be outraged) in that case. It'd end up as a "great victory" instead.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Wait a sec, if they don't find WMD, then that just means that they were too late in invading Iraq, and the terrorists have them already.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Or it would mean they were destroyed in the December 1998 air-strikes on Iraq. Remember, Osama has called Saddam "a godless leader" and an "infidel," and the only reason Muslims should support him is because "his enemy is worse."
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)