The US, The UN and Iraq

With logic like this we need to start in Iraq and work our way to the coast - Pacific coast. Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe win 8 more years!

PDiddie

Can I just quote you as saying--"Don't talk to me ---I know everything"

You know, if we nuke everybody else in the world quickly enough, before they can retaliate, all these problems would vanish--after all, the best defense is[/b] a good offense, and you never know when those gobshites will be coming after us . . .

And anyway, think how easy it would be to book a week in Cancun if there were only 280,000,000 of us, instead of 6,000,000,000.

<Can I just quote you as saying--"Don't talk to me ---I know everything">

No, you can't. Why so antagonistic this morning, perception?

PDiddie

Why am I so antagonistic? Take a look at your post that provoked my reply.

Your constant Bush bashing( I know from the past you're a Clinton lover) and your constant comparison of Iraq to Vietnam are very worn out.

I won't say anymore on this subject but if----thats a big IF---Bush is right about Iraq-----it would be nice to hear about 400 apologies on the forum

You know, Perception, you are like a good many supporters of the Shrub's dirty little war plans, in that you ignore the great many people here and elsewhere who do not deny that Saddam is a dangerous man, with a vicious agenda, and who do not[/b] consider that a justification for going to war. If we roll in there, and find nukes, or any form of deliverable CBN device, that will still not change my opinion. War is not the only option, it is not the best option, and i don't believe it should be waged. No amount of "proof" about Saddam's WoMD programs will convince me that we need resolve this by warfare.

Bush built this corner, primarily to win the elections in November. Now he has to live with it!

Totally irrelevant ... just an apology from me ... I've been neglecting the boards here the past couple days due to a struggle with the flu. Got some catching up to do, then I'll rejoin the dance.



timber

Glad to see you back (quite looking at me like that) and hope your feeling lots better timber! Hold your breath when you add responses for a couple of days, okay!

I hope you're winning, timber.

Use your WMD: TheraFlu, Nyquil, Aleve... :wink:

How will we know if Bush is right? That's subjective as hell! In fact, I can't see any scenario that he can't spin to say it vindicates his hawkishness.

snood, IF Iraq is shown to have been in possession, production, and development of prohibited systems, as well as disclosed as having hidden weapons, precursor chemicals, and development/production assets previously catalogued but undisclosed and unaccounted for in their 1441 declaration, there will be some egg on some faces, I'm sure. I'm also sure such will be the case.

I also feel this whole incident bodes ill for the future relevance and efficacy of The UN. A US vindicated will be unsufferably smug, and if anything, more headstrong.



timber

Gosh, now I'm thinking maybe we'll be at war by the State of the Union, which is next Tuesday, after reading this:

We are most definitely approaching crunch time on the Iraq war. The administration, knowing that they haven't come close to making the case for war against Iraq, has come to the last stop on the line: bullying allies into line. From the New York Times:

Bush administration officials said today that next week they would confront France, Germany and other skeptics of military action against Iraq by demanding that they agree publicly that Iraq had defied the United Nations Security Council...

Administration officials said their strategy was based on the belief that there might never be a "smoking gun" proving Iraq's possession of illegal weapons. Accordingly, they acknowledged that the case must be made in a negative fashion: that Iraq has failed to disprove the contentions of the United States and others about its weapons of mass destruction. The administration asserts, without offering evidence, that Iraq has thwarted inspectors by hiding the weapons.

From CNN.com:

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday dismissed French and German insistence that "everything must be done to avoid war" with Iraq, saying most European countries stand with the United States in its campaign to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," said Rumsfeld, a former NATO ambassador. "But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

From Capitol Hill Blue:

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.

"The President considers this nation to be at war," a White House source says," and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."

But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.

Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to "find and document" links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

"The implication is clear,""grumbles one longtime FBI agent. "Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq."

Demanding, threatening, accusing military brass of treason, grasping for pretext.

Does this sort of behavior strike anyone else as insane?

I knew someone will ask, so here are the links:

NYT

CNN

Capitol Hill Blue

PDid, Thanks for providing those links - for the skeptics that this is strickly GWBush's war, and not 'everybody' (or most everybody)else. c.i.

Timber, i would like to emphasize once again that i'm opposed to this action even if it can be irrefutably shown that Saddam is "in material breach." There will be no egg on my face, because i've said right along that i consider war unjustified, without regard to any claims or "proof" of Iraqi WoMD programs. The message doesn't seem to sink in with a lot of people (in which group i am not including you) that it is possible for people, in good faith, to opposed war as the solution to a problem described as Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction. I value your perception and intelligence enough, that i wished to make this clear to you.

Yet you were all (or certainly most) eerily silent when Clinton went after Milosevic.

What imminent threat did he pose to the US???

Clinton went into a sovereign nation with the specific intent of achieving regime change where a bad guy presented the US absolutely no threat whatsoever.

Now you may reply that you personally were screaming bloody murder when Clinton did it too, but that doesn't change the fact that most in the US and in the World had no complaint when we went into Belgrade, yet the same people are whining about Baghdad.

Egads, I never have to think again - I got Trespasser to do that for me and therefore I'll just turn the whole show over to him. I guess he must be living in my underpants!

I am astonished to read that Clinton went after Milosovic singlehandedly, meanwhile expelling his troops from Kosovo. And all this without a scratch. How convenient to ignore that this was not a uni-lateral military action -- there happened to me some partners in that war, NATO and the UN. There were neighboring nations who hosted our troops and military equipment. If this adminstration can organize a like coalition and attack Bagdhad, the results will speak for themselves historically. Whether it will bolster Dubya into the White House in 2004 is a gamble his cronies seem to feel is politically expedient.

LW, there wasn't almighty Oil involved - so we had no right to be there! And, we toook the side of the Muslim - shame and aghast!