No WMD's, Wanna Bet ???

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by seeker6591, Jun 22, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    Mousey,

    He'd be wrong.

    Once the Iraqi generals signed the surrender document, that was an official cessation of hostilities, according to the papers and world opinion.

    It was the United States and Great Britain that continued an undeclared air war against the Iraqi people and with sanctions, doomed a million Iraqi children to death by malnutrition and disease.
  2. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    I can almost anticipate what that seeker dude will probably say in response to your post - and it's probably something like the aforementioned acts (bombing of sewage plants and schools) were committed during an already existing war and were valid targets either as insurgent hideouts or has some other "logistical" significance.

    But he is obvioiusly missing or purposely ignoring what I've been trying to say to him - which is EVEN if firing a missle at a foreign aircraft over your own territory is an act of war, that doesn't mean you need to wage war. And that's exactly what the US did - it declined to attack Iraq because to do so would not be proportionate response. Instead, the US took measured steps by immediately destroying the Iraqi missle batteries and pushing for continued economic sanctions on Iraq.

    Seeker was taking the ridiculous position that the mere act of firing a missle at US planes (which is nothing more than harrasment) would justify a full scale invasion.

    *Squeak!*
  3. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    So is bombing a country's power and sewage plants, schools, mosques and headquarters of businesses.
  4. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Part II

    http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

    [SNIP]

    In Muammer Gadaffi's case, this proposition is questionable. In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the "12 years of diplomacy with Iraq" that Mr. Bush now disparages. Back then, Libya was facing a deepening economic crisis produced by disastrous economic policies and mismanagement of its oil revenues. United Nations and US sanctions that prevented Libya importing oilfield technology made it impossible for Mr. Gadaffi to expand oil production. The only way out was to seek rapprochement with Washington.

    Reinforcing this economic imperative was Mr. Gadaffi's own quest for respectability. Fed up with pan-Arabism, he turned to Africa, only to find little support from old allies there. Removing the sanctions and their accompanying stigma became his priority.

    From the start of President Bill Clinton's administration, Mr. Gadaffi had tried to open back-channels, using various Arab interlocutors with little success. Disappointed, he turned to Britain, first settling a dispute over the shooting of a British policewoman in London and then offering to send the two Libyans accused in the Lockerbie PanAm 103 bombing for trial in a third country. For the US, accepting this offer had the advantage of bringing Libyan terrorists to justice. But it also generated pressure in the UN Security Council to lift sanctions. The task of US diplomacy then was to maintain the sanctions until Mr. Gadaffi had fulfilled all other obligations under the UN resolutions: ending support for terrorism, admitting culpability and compensating victims' families.

    That was why the Clinton administration opened the secret talks on one condition—that Libya cease lobbying in the UN to lift the sanctions. It did. At the first meeting, in Geneva in May 1999, we used the promise of official dialogue to persuade Libya to co-operate in the campaign against Osama bin Laden and provide compensation for the Lockerbie families.

    Libya's representatives were ready to put everything on the table, saying that Mr. Gadaffi had realised that was not the path to pursue and that Libya and the US faced a common threat from Islamic fundamentalism. In that context, they said, Libya would actively co-operate in the campaign against al-Qaeda and would end all support for Palestinian "rejectionist" groups, endorse US peace efforts in the Middle East and help in conflict resolution in Africa.

    On the issue of WMD, the US at the time was concerned about Libya's clandestine production of chemical weapons. Expressing a preference for a multilateral forum, Libyan representatives offered to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and open their facilities to inspection. In a subsequent meeting in October 1999, Libya repeated its offer on chemical weapons and agreed to join the Middle East multilateral arms control talks taking place at the time. Why did we not pursue the Libyan WMD offer then? Because resolving the PanAm 103 issues was our condition for any further engagement. Moreover, as Libya's chemical weapons programme was not considered an imminent threat and its nuclear programme barely existed, getting Libya out of terrorism and securing compensation had to be top priorities. We told the Libyans that once these were achieved, UN sanctions could be lifted but US sanctions would remain until the WMD issues were resolved.

    The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.
    [SNIP]


    And for the other minor gains you mentioned (and also admitted there is no guarantee they are permanent), do you really think they were worth the more than one hundred billion dollars we've spent on the Iraq war, not to mention the lives of over 2,500 US soldiers? I don't.
  5. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Part I

    There is no proof that Qaddafi's declaration of his WMD had anything to do with the war in Iraq. In fact, it appears that Libya was in back-channel communication with the Clinton administration about renouncing its WMD program. Apparently, they were desparate to end the sanctions that were killing their economy.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-26-libya_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

    [SNIP]
    A secret communications channel was finally established under the Clinton administration. Two assistant secretaries of State — Martin Indyk and Edward Walker — held five meetings from May 1999 through early 2000 with Libyans, including the head of Libyan external intelligence, Indyk and Walker revealed this month.

    The talks, held at homes outside London and Geneva belonging to the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Bandar bin Sultan, dealt with more than Libya's acceptance of responsibility for Pan Am 103.

    "We went with a long laundry list of things we expected the Libyans to do to 'graduate' from U.S. sanctions," Indyk told the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, on April 7. "They were prepared to accept pretty much all the requirements we had."

    In their second meeting, he says, Libya agreed to sign an international agreement renouncing chemical weapons and to submit to inspections. "At that point, as far we knew, they didn't have a nuclear program," Indyk says. Walker says negotiations were suspended in 2000 for fear they would leak during the presidential campaign.
    [SNIP]
  6. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325

    Look - go back to to polls done in those countries and many of them thought that the US was an arrogant bully. They're right, it is. But it could be a lot lot worse and is not and has not been.

    The US is losing credibility due to huge missteps during this war. Guantanemo (sp??), Abhu Gharib, failure to secure/provide security early enough, the earlier white washing of crimes against soldiers etc. etc. etc.

    But the war is also getting results. Other folks have noticed. Libya is trying to mend its ways. Bush's pro-democracy stand has emboldened actions (like the orange revolution, cedar revolution etc.) and slowly, at a snails pace, power is moving into the hands of the people.

    I saw an article about the "snapback" in pro-emocracy stance in the middle east. Many of the autocratic leaders had taken this stance but are now backsliding.

    Regardless. Arab leaders recognized that they needed to provide a greater voice - Saudi Arabia has held local municipal elections, In many of the countries women are allowed to run for office and have an increasing voice in their countries politics. Some of these may go away in some places - but still will be a net gain. And I believe that these gains will continue.
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2006
  7. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325

    It is too early to call it unsuccessful. You sell US capabilities short if you think this (or several such) will destroy it. The greater risk is non-action.
  8. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    I've "brought it on" (or in the words of an infamously bad movie: "I've brung it") several times already and STILL, you refuse to directly answer my very specific questions.

    Typical response from someone who's been "owned" is to cry foul: "Waaa, you hurt my feelings and I'm not gonna talk to you anymore if you keep on hurting my feelings, waaaaaa!" Suits me just fine.

    But what I will not stand for is when someone pisses on my back and tries to tell me it's raining!

    First of all, you accuse me of being "politically biased" while forgetting what forum you are in. Did you think you're in some sort of roundtable discussion w/historians or reporters where objectivity is expected??? You're posting in a thread (in a whore board no less!) where people express their political OPINIONS. So to that extent, yes, I'm "biased" but so are you and everybody else here.

    Second, you have the audacity to accuse of me of being "biased" and making "political innuendos" when it is you who started this silly thread: "No WMDs, Wanna Bet??" based on nothing more than *gasp* a FOX news "report". Your political agenda is manifesty obvious by trying to once again show credence to the (non)issue of WMDs, which has been proven to be demonstrably false by: 1) countless of international and national news organizations; 2) various U.S. Govt. agencies INCLUDING the CIA; 3) the 9/11 Commission; and 4) by the President and Vice President themselves. By the way, each time I (or someone else) brought up these last 2 facts (9/11 Commission Report and the admission of this Administration as to the non-existence of WMDs), you (and others) simply ignored it.

    Third, please oh please stop insulting people's intelligence by saying: "we were discussing the virtues of a direct versus indirect attack regarding the issue of legitamacy....not specifically Iraq..." Everyone knows you need not be directly attacked to use military force. That's a basic concept. (indeed, I called it a "no brainer" in a prior posting). But any reasonable person can easily tell that you're trying to use that concept to somehow justify the Iraq war. And along the way, you cited to historical events that are wholly inapplicable to the Iraqi situation such as a patently ridiculous comparison to the Soviet Union.

    So there, I've expressed my OPINION in response to your OPINION.
    Respond or don't respond. Don't matter to me. It's just amazing that as we celebrate the 4th of July, we still have people obsessed about non-existent WMPDs, while our troops are being killed daily by conventional arms and cell phone/household components.

    *Squeak!*
  9. Wowie69

    Wowie69

    Messages:
    788
    Oddfellow is wrong, again.

    The reality is that most people, especially Muslims, on this planet now perceive the US in Iraq as a bigger threat than Iran's attempt to build nuclear weapons.

    If anything, we are LOSING credibility with the world. They have SEEN THROUGH Bush's lies.

    Here is the report:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_danger_dc
  10. Rokin

    Rokin

    Messages:
    2,846
    How many of these unsuccessful "plantings" can we do before we destroy ourselves.
  11. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Not sure it it's OK or not. Given the difficulty of the mission, you can see the Bush doctrine as overreaching, flailing, or "about time!" given Sadaam's many threats and violations of human and international law.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2006
  12. seeker6591

    seeker6591 banned

    Messages:
    14,013

    1. we were discussing the virtues of a direct versus indirect attack regarding the issue of legitamacy....not specifically Iraq...so it completely applies and affirms the concept that the US does NOT need to be directly attacked to engage in military intervention.

    2. we were discussing what constitutes an act of war, not specifically what justified invading Iraq.

    3. it does not matter...it is still an act of war under long standing international rules of engagement.

    4. the UN was supposed to handle it then....remember ??????????????? Unfortunately, they were 100 percent ineffective up until Iraq 2.


    if your response contains emotional or politically biased statements...or political name calling...I will not respond further on this. If its rational without the political innuendo and does not contain off topic extensions based on probably incorrect assumptions....then bring it on !!!!
  13. Rokin

    Rokin

    Messages:
    2,846
    So it is okay to terminate a secular state run by a leader we don't like and "plant" a democracy which sprouts an Islamic led leadership we don't like at a cost of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
    NOw I understand.
    Silly me.
  14. seeker6591

    seeker6591 banned

    Messages:
    14,013

    thanks for explaining it so exactly OF.

    their are participants in here that analyze these situations on an emotional or political basis rather than realizing than all presidents must act on a situation on a real time basis. naturally, when presidents make decisions on military engagements, they are governed in part by prior treaties, international conventions, and doctrines. Some presidents even establish their own doctrine's. Truman established the BIG ONE . The use of nuclear force was justified if it saved American lives by in that case not invading Japan.

    So the decision to engage is indeed complex irrespective of the specific conflict.
  15. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Right or wrong, Legal or illegal (and this is clearly where some are calling for Bush to be impeached) we are operating under the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. If a nation supports terrorists and represents a threat to us, we have given ourselves the right to remove the threat. In my opinion, Iraq meets the specs. The fact that Iraq does not appear to have been a threat now that we have invaded and done a much more thorough job of looking in all the hidden places than the inspectors could have, does not change the fact that they appeared to be a threat at the time.

    The other Bush practice has been to plant democracy. But the results of that pratice will take years to measure. The people of Iraq do not want to be a secular state so they will have to sort that out.
  16. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    Again, you 'replied' without responding to my specific arguments and merely defaulted on a "you missed the point" response.

    You failed to specifically address:

    1) your unbelievable (to the point of being laughable) comparison of Iraq to the Cuban missle crisis;

    2) your unfathomably obnoxious argument that firing a missle at foreign planes over your territory justified invasion of Iraq and the spilling of blood by the hundreds of thousands;

    3) the fact that was NOT the reason why this administration attacked Iraq; and

    4) the fact that even if firing on US aircrafts is considered an act of war, then why the flying fuck we didn't attack Iraq years ago when it fired on US planes?????

    You have purposely failed to answer any of these specific points. I suspect that the reason is you can't.

    *Squeak!*
  17. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    Hogwash? So...you're saying I was wrong for saying that your Cuban missle crisis example does not apply to the Iraqi situation? In other words, you're saying that Iraq (after being reduced to merely harassing US planes by blindly lobbing missles at US planes over its territory) posed the same threat as the Soviet Union which was (is) the only country on earth that could obliterate the entire U.S. continent within minutes????

    Lemme guess, you're gonna say "you missed the point". No, I'm fully aware of what you're saying and I'm also equally aware that you used the Cuban missle crisis as justification for your "no-need-for-direct-attack" argument. But I called you on that point by saying that your comparison of Iraq and the Soviet Union is flat-out wrong and so far, you have done nothing to refute that, except cop out a "you missed the point" response.

    Oh, I'm sorry, in furtherance of your "you missed the point" argument, you proceeded to cite previous wars that are once again inapplicable herein. In each of those wars, the U.S. either responded because: 1) its allies were under attack or were already occupied (WWII Europe); and/or 2) the world community implored for our involvement (Bosnia); and/or 3) we were responding to overtly hostile moves from the Soviet Union which has always and continues to be the only country on earth that could snuff us out in a heartbeat.

    Although one or two of the above factors were ONCE present in Iraq (circa, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the resulting Gulf War which I fully supported), none of those factors ARE NOW PRESENT to warrant an invasion.

    For the record, I do agree w/you that you need not be directly attacked to use force. That's a no-brainer and the U.S. has always had that policy. What I'm saying, and what you (and this administration) is missing is that Iraq 2001 posed no threat (directly or indirectly) to the US; that Iraq (unlike Afghanistan) did NOT support terrorism; that Iraq had no capability to attack the US (look ma' - no WMDs!); and that after the Gulf War, Iraq w/its devastated hollowed out military, crippled economy and a strict no-fly zone enforced over its skies (not to mention nearby US bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to name a few) could no longer pose a credible threat to its neighbors.

    Ardent (blind?) supporters of this administration such as yourself are willing to use ANY peg to hang their hat on - be it non-existent WMDs, or "he's a bad guy anyway" argument or to your unbelievable comparisons to the Soviet Union.

    un-fucking-believable.

    *Squeak!*
  18. seeker6591

    seeker6591 banned

    Messages:
    14,013
    you missed the point again squeek

    it has nothing to do with Iraq.



    firing at any US military vehicle, air, ground or sea is an ACT OF WAR

    IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU LIKE THAT OR NOT

    those are the international "rules of engagement" established quite some time ago



    i hope I do not have to keep explaining this one !!!
  19. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    Whaaaaaaaaaa??????????

    Ummm, let me get this straight:

    ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THE VERY FEW MISSLES THAT WERE (INEPTLY) FIRED AT U.S. PLANES (WHERE NO U.S. LIVES WERE LOST AND SAID IRAQI MISSLE BATTERIES WERE IMMEDIATELY DESTROYED) JUSTIFIED A FULL SCALE INVASION OF IRAQ RESULTING IN THE EXPENDITURE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THE KILLING OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE?????????

    Jeezuz Christ in a chicken basket!

    Pardon me for asking but ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?!?!?!?!

    Last I check, this administration's excuse for attacking Iraq was due to alleged WMDs and NOT because of the few missles that were fired years ago.

    By the way, your still (purposefully?) confusing your examples: firing missles over foreign aircrafts over your territory (such as in the scenario in Iraq) is totally different from placing nuclear weapons just a few miles off of your country (such as in the Cuban missle crisis).

    Besides, based on your unbelievable eye-for-a-fucking-sledge hammer approach, then shouldn't the US invaded Iraq years ago when the first missles were fired at US planes??????


    *Squeak!*
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  20. seeker6591

    seeker6591 banned

    Messages:
    14,013

    wrong again

    firing at US military aircraft anywhere in the world IS AN ACT OF WAR.