Forums | MacLife

I totally agree....I mean, they say, hey, we found stuff, destroy it, and he did, with the UN there.......and we say "oh not good enough" He did exactly what we asked, Bush is a smurfhead....he will not get reelected.

Just one thing:

Why can't the US just wait?  Why?

If the administration had no intent of waiting at all, we'd already be down there in Baghdad blowing shtuff up.  We're not though.  I've been pleasantly surprised that they've been so careful and deliberate in planning and working on getting additional UN resolutions and support before doing anything.  Yet, the administration waits.

They may or may not go in without UN support, I can't call it either way.

Iraq isn't really complying, either.  They're just taking enough small steps to temporarily appease the UN, stave off any military action, and make the U.S. look like a bunch of ravenous fools while they most likely work on covering things up, hiding and destroying documents; after all, why else can't Iraq show any documents about the biological and chemical weapons they say they've destroyed-surely if they destroyed these weapons awhile back as they claim they did they'd have the documents to prove that, right?

It's a mess no matter which way you slice it.  Let's hope that calm heads will prevail and that in the event of military action that things go well and that any collateral damage and civilian casualties which may be sustained during the fighting are minimal (which will be hard to avoid, since the Iraqi government and military likes to use their own people and towns as shields; the bunch of cowards).

Yea, I guess I forgot about MiniThink.

If a mod reads this, please move this there.  Thanks!

Consider it done.

i know this topic has been buried in the ground, but it's always a good debate. 

first off...inspections can work if the person/country being inspected is cooperating.  saddam is not cooperating.  again, they are inspectors, not detectives.

one thing that irritates me is back in the fall, the security council voted 15-0 to bring serious consiquences to iraq if they do not comply.

...the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations...

now that it's showing that saddam really isn't complying, alot of these nations are slowly backing away from what they agreed to a few months earlier.

it's better to take care of saddam now while we have the forces ready and can make this quick than to sit around and just wait for a "smoking gun".  and as always...

bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

1. he has the intelligence now to prove that we need to take out saddam, and pacifists are in an outrage.
2. or, he doesn't act now and take out saddam, then a terrorist attack either from iraq or related through terrorist ties occur and then bush is slammed for not acting on intelligence he had.

so either way, the pacifists are going to be angry.

Some nice points there, NokX.  You bring up a good point with:

first off...inspections can work if the person/country being inspected is cooperating.  saddam is not cooperating.

And I'd like to add that the same goes for diplomacy.  We can run the diplomacy flag up and down and scream and shout how badly we want diplomacy and peace instead of conflict and war, but diplomacy, like inspections, can only work if both sides are willing to cooperate 100% from the get go.

Iraq didn't want to sit down and reason this out at the start, so the U.S. upped the game by getting the UN and weapons inspectors involved.  Iraq didn't fully cooperate then, either (only now are they taking small steps towards temporary appeasement), despite the willingness of the U.S. to go through with inspections.

At this point Iraq has violated countless UN sanctions and resolutions, and has constantly defied both the UN and U.S. in regard to diplomacy and disarmament.

Iraq now has to sleep in the bed they've made for themselves.  This would have had an entirely peaceful resolution if Iraq had started out being reasonable and open to diplomacy and inspections instead of being indignant and unreasonable.  The U.S. has pushed for serious military consequences from the start, but has been open to diplomacy and inspections along the whole road.  Iraq hasn't cooperated, so it's time to show them that they cannot defy the will of the UN through constant, deliberate, and chronic violation of sanctions and resolutions toward the Iraqi gov't.

bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

so either way, the pacifists are going to be angry.

True.  I just think that since there are some results (even if they are to piss the White House off or to hinder war efforts) we should give the inspectors the chance to do their job.  When in doubt, please go peace. 

I'm not saying we should wait for a terrorist act, or the "smoking gun"... I'm saying that until the UN inspectors say Saddam is not complying - we should not go to war.  Once the inspectors say, "Hey, something funny is going on.  Saddam isn't doing what he should." or "Saddam isn't doing crap anymore to comply."  THEN the UN should do something, not just the US/Britain coalition.

The UN has already stated that Iraq wasn't complying (in Blix's first statement to the UN security council a month or two ago, I forget exactly when), but they went ahead with further inspections and a more drawn out process when Iraq turned around and took a few steps towards temporarily appeasing the UN with a few empty promises.  I'm all for inspections and making a hard case for or against Iraq before taking any action, though, but there's a point where we have to say "enough...we're not putting up with this anymore, Hussein.  Open the doors and let us do our job and stop you from constantly violating UN resolutions, or we'll blast the doors off ourselves."

Open the doors and let us do our job and stop you from constantly violating UN resolutions, or we'll blast the doors off ourselves."

Damn straight.

:nods:

They have to cooperate instead of look at us with indignation on their faces and defiance in their eyes.  Otherwise they won't have faces and eyes to look at us with anymore.

I totally agree....I mean, they say, hey, we found stuff, destroy it, and he did, with the UN there.......and we say "oh not good enough" He did exactly what we asked

No he didn't.  We're calling for full disarmament, not the destruction of a few missles.  There are still MANY weapons that Hussein has been unable to account for.  Until he provides proof that he has destroyed ALL of his weapons, and not just a handful, he'll have done NOTHING that we've asked him to.  The destruction of the al-Samoud missiles is a stalling tactic, nothing more.

Bush is a smurfhead

How mature.  You think that one up all by yourself?

....he will not get reelected.

Wow...are you a psychic?

What is a smart war?
I think the only ones who really know true why what and how of it in this Iraq deal, are the guys with the highest security clearance, and there is whole lot more to this than any one knows.
Bush stole the election, and now he is going to steal a war, and no one is going to stop him.

Bush stole the election...

Let's let this one go everybody and argue about the topic at hand...

Move along...

Nothing to see here.

Any of you participate in Desert Storm?

It would take 1 day, two max, of talking to the people of the region (POW's, Kurds, citizens of Kuwait) and you'd know what this is all about. Saddam has murdered millions, gassed entire Kurd villages of Women & children, his agents kidnap and torture priests and or anyone suspected of being subversive.

Funny the sensitive 90's man brigade of ponytail bleeding hearts have yet to protest these atrocities. Being pissed at The President takes priority over worrying about Saddams victims.

American & British troops will be welcomed in Baghdad as hero liberators after 3/4 of Saddams armed forces desert and or surrender rather than face being killed by US/British surgical strikes... just like last time.

The only problem the US will have is over-extending their stay after booting Saddam, however I trust the pussy French and every other spineless country will happily show up well after the fact as peacekeepers.. and I'm sure they'll try and take some credit for helping oust the mass murdering criminal they were too busy cheering on.

BTW Saddam loves all his loyal American fans who take to the streets and cheer him on, he knows as long as the clueless anti-war crowd ignores all his crimes, lies and deception.. he can get away with just about whatever he wants and still have you on his side.

He must be amazed he can kill, lie, torture, and ethnic cleanse and still have people flood the streets and support him.

I don't think Saddam's a nice guy, and I it'd be nice if those of the Iraqui population inclined toward ousting him would rise up and do so. . . I don't think it's our place to do so. . . especially since we've supported and will most likely continue to support brutal dictators elsewhere when it suits our interests.

Also there's the continuing instability that our little war on Iraq will help to foster. . .

. . . and the idea that this is all costing a ton of money. . . which could be used to fix problems here at home. . .