Adios Iraq

[House of Mustard]

So, we're going to war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Not like this was unexpected, but it's about time that something happened.

[Tage]

And it's being debated rabidly all over my workplace.

While I disagree with Bush's procedure, the whole inevitability of the situation makes me accepting of it.

[Fellfrosch]

As much as I'd love to give peace a chance, I agree that sometimes you have to take the gun away from the psycho. I, too, disagree with a lot of Bush's methods and reasons, but if we have a clear plan to remove Saddam from power I don't think it will take much longer than a few weeks. I mean come one, it's only Iraq--last time we fought them, they were so desperate to give up they started surrendering to automated recon planes.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm tired of arguing against this, since my arguments have proven futile, so at this point I just hope we'll get in and out.

However, I still feel the need to point out we haven't PROVEN that "the baby" even has a gun. In fact, some of the evidence our good ol' president supplied has proven to be manufactured. It's also terribly hypocritical (violating a UN decision in order to enforce a UN decision). Further, what Iraq DOES have they started dismantling already. I just CANNOT see this as anything approaching a "righteous war" or even a "right cause."

this, from the onion, would be funny if it wasn't almost accurate:

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC - Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

[Entsuropi]

about friggin time.

i hope it doesnt take 18 months to invade iran. at least the benefit of all this UN crap is that when we invade the next country we wont have to bother, since we will have proved the complete uselessness of the UN.

oh, and this a classic : france has, since 1960, enforced regime change 37 times, without UN approval. unilaterally.

[House of Mustard]

Not to start an argument, but...

What evidence has been proven to be manufactured?

Also, what has Iraq started dismantling?  About 25 missles?  How can that be viewed as anything remotely approaching dismantling?  Imagine if you were a goofy little country and a really big mean country with the world's best military had it's heart set on forcing you to disarm - would you drag your feet and dismantle about one ten thousandth of your weapons?  

I'll agree that Iraq isn't dismantling because they're sure that we're coming over there to shoot them in the head, but I can't see how you can imply Saddam is trying to work with us.

In regards to your claim that the US is acting hypocritical, I agree, but only to some extent.  The US set a bundle of sanctions and rules on Iraq after the last war (which was NOT a UN war), and it hasn't followed any of those rules either.  The US goes through the UN, because the world wants the US to go through the UN.  But, in reality, the US has never recognized the UN as having much authority, and, in light of recent events, I can't see that I blame them.

The US is not really going after Iraq because it's breaking UN resolutions, and they have never really claimed that that's they're real beef.  The US is going after Iraq because 1) they don't like Saddam, 2) Saddam has WMDs, and 3) he is supporting terror organizations.  That's what Bush has been pressing.  He brings up the 14 broken UN resolutions when he's talking to the UN saying "look, we want to kill him and you should too because he's breaking all the rules."

I think that this whole episode in world events proves that the UN is a weak and ineffectual body.  They make a resolution, the deadline comes, so they make a new resoultion.  They warn that they'll use force, then the deadline comes, and they issue another warning.  "Stop, or I'll say stop again."

Sure, the US doesn't really care about the UN, but can you blame them?  What good is an international body that sets policy it has no plans of enforcing?

[Spriggan]

amen Mustard.  I agree with everything you just said.  All I know is we'll find 2 things there.  1) Sadam has lots of nasty stuff.  2) France has been selling them that nasty stuff.  As for missle dismantling they dismanted 25 of like 150 and then inspectors found even more stuff they weren't supposed to have.   and if anyone even thinks that the inspectors would be there and Saddam even distroying those missles without US troops there then your realy naieve.  And anyway everysingle one of the past resolutions upto and including 14.41 gives us the right to kick sadams butt.  but I think the first few give us the unbridled right to do so.  the treaty we made with sadam was broken by him with him haveing just 1 of those missles not to mention him violating the no-fly zone all the time and shooting at us/brittish planes for the past 10 years.  The UN dosen't want to admit it but we have the legal authority by UN law to go in.  They're just Anti-US.  I'm personaly one of the people that say we should stopp footing the UN's bills.  we pay for like 60% (i'm too lazy atm to look up the real percent but its around there) of it.  That's a waste of my tax dollar.

[House of Mustard]

Interestingly enough, the Gulf War of 1991 has not legally ended (also, it wasn't really a 'war').  We are still, technically, in a cease fire.  Kind of funny, I think.

Actually, Spriggan, we were delinquent on our UN dues for most of the 80's and into the 90's.  Ted Turner actually donated 1 Billion dollars to the UN in 97, and he offered to pay the US's dues in 2000 since there was a big budget stalemate in congress.  Kinda funny.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Not to start an argument, but...

What evidence has been proven to be manufactured?

I *should* counter that by asking what evidence has been substantiated? Nothing that Bush or Powell has said has been of higher quality than I could make up in my bedroom in half an hour. None of it has any backing other than "I, Colin Powell, say this came from some guy in Iraq."

However, to give you an example, Powell stated that the recent poisoning plot foiled in the UK was using poison supplied by Iraq. Th poison was, by the report made by British investigators, of European origin.

Again, none of Bush's "evidence" that Iraq has WMD has been substantiated. If we were to convict someone in court on the basis of such evidence, it would be a travesty.

And further, he has provided NO evidence whatsoever that Hussein is directly or indirectly supporting terrorists. Get me straight here, I don't think Saddam is a nice guy. I don't think he's even on this side of neutral on the good-to-evil scale. But neither are a dozen other world leaders. It doesn't mean we can go to war over it and then place our own military officers in charge of a foreign country (and yes, that *IS* the plan as told to the media by the White House -- not expatriated Iraqis, not Iraqi citizens who opposed Hussein, but US Military officers). There is just SO much wrong with the approach, planning, and talk.

I nearly laughed when I read today's headline on the front page of the Washington Post. "Bush to Give Diplomacy Another 24 hours." or something along those lines. BS. He hasn't even begun to try diplomacy. "Stop that or I'll kick your ass" is hardly diplomacy.

[Entsuropi]

actually, yes it is saint. its just diplomancy with less BS.

and i really cant be bothered replying to your comments. i argu against them everytime i see my best friend. not worthy of my time.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

actually, yes it is saint. its just diplomancy with less BS.

Then I'll amend my comments to add a word. It's hardly persuasive diplomacy (and it obviously hasn't worked any better than investigations -- which seems to me haven't worked primarily because they haven't found what Bush wanted them to find, whehter or not it was really there).

and i really cant be bothered replying to your comments. i argu against them everytime i see my best friend. not worthy of my time.

Sorry if this sounds rude, but, then you really shouldn't have said anything at all. If you can really prove that Iraq a) has WMDs, or b) has been supporting terrorists, then prove it. Document your sources. Show me how that conclusion has been drawn. If you don't want to bother, than don't tell me i'm not worth your time (especially if you ARE going to take time to say that). So yeah, I guess I'm not sorry if that sounds rude, because I wasn't the first.

Seriously, I wish I *could* believe that Bush is entering this war for good reasons. But I can't. There just isn't any evidence, just plenty of suspicious behavior on both sides. Perhaps they should BOTH resign.

[jamer_nimro]

oh well, my concsience is clean im not the one attacking iraq!  it be quite funny if it was only me like running into iraq with a gun and mullering sadams troops, though im kinda worried about the after effects of the war! heres to the future prospect of peace

[Spriggan]

I've seen/heard enough eveidence to go take sadam out.  Granted I would like to know more but I trust our goverment.  especialy with todays technology we'll know realy quick if they were lieing to us.  as sadams terrorists links, he has no direct links to Al-quadia (or how ever you spell that) but other smaller terrorists groups have had tranning camps there.  And Sadam gives lots of cash to all the palastinin terriorist groups.  there are lots of sensitive material that our goverment can't share at the moment.  If they do someone could be killed or the source stopped.

but what about the human rights argument.  I think off of that along we have the moral right to remove him.  the stuff he does is just plain scarry.  And before you ask yes I think we should go into all the countries that have the same issues and remove the leaders.  weither it be weapons or human rights.

as for sadam and WMD he hasn't proven he dosen't have the stuff.  Last time the inspectors were there he has chemical/biological weapons, no one dienies that.  but he hasn't given any evedence that he's gotten rid of it.  given Sadams history of lieing and deceving people how can you take that chance that he's got that and worse.

[House of Mustard]

So much to respond to...

Sorry if this sounds rude, but, then you really shouldn't have said anything at all. If you can really prove that Iraq a) has WMDs, or b) has been supporting terrorists, then prove it. Document your sources. Show me how that conclusion has been drawn.

Um, Ehlers, where are your sources on:

However, to give you an example, Powell stated that the recent poisoning plot foiled in the UK was using poison supplied by Iraq. Th poison was, by the report made by British investigators, of European origin.

I can only assume you're talking about ricin, but I have no idea what alternative media you're reading where you say there's no connection.  CNN reports (2/5) that Karqwai (the terrorist in London) lived in Iraq last year.  That seems, to me at least, like a pretty strong 'Iraq connection.'

Hey -- I have plenty more things to say about this, but I have to go pick up my wife form work -- i'll post later tonight.

[Spriggan]

read this if you doubt sadam having chemical weapons

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html