Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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?
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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".
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
What majority?
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
