Why does it matter?

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Animal: But why would he use nerve gas on Toronto? Okay maybe to do something about the Leafs, but .... Basing a war on something that MIGHT happen is just plain wrong. It's akin to being guilty until proven innocent. Based upon something he's done in the past isn't justifable in my opinion, as every country has done grievous and horrible things to their own people as well as every other, but we don't wage war because of it. Slavery, Native Americans, the First Nations in Canada, the internment camps for Japanese in WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...we've all done it. What do we do about ourselves for these crimes we commited?[/QB]

I used Toronto because it struck closer to home for you, then Washington or LA would. And hey, as far as I can see it T.O. is just as a likley target as anywhere else in the west.

But the rest of your post I have adressed in my former posts. Yes, our nations are all guilty of doing something. But what are you going to do? Are we going to remove Harry Truman for ordering the bombs dropped on Horishima and Nagasaki? We cant, he has been dead a while now if you havent noticed.

However, Saddam is STILL in office, and is STILL a liabilty to do ANOTHER crime.

And I agree, if nerve gas hit Toronto it would defanilty be because of the Leafs .

[Animal]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: But why would he use nerve gas on Toronto? Okay maybe to do something about the Leafs, but .... Basing a war on something that MIGHT happen is just plain wrong. It's akin to being guilty until proven innocent. Based upon something he's done in the past isn't justifable in my opinion, as every country has done grievous and horrible things to their own people as well as every other, but we don't wage war because of it. Slavery, Native Americans, the First Nations in Canada, the internment camps for Japanese in WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...we've all done it. What do we do about ourselves for these crimes we commited?

I used Toronto because it struck closer to home for you, then Washington or LA would. And hey, as far as I can see it T.O. is just as a likley target as anywhere else in the west.

But the rest of your post I have adressed in my former posts. Yes, our nations are all guilty of doing something. But what are you going to do? Are we going to remove Harry Truman for ordering the bombs dropped on Horishima and Nagasaki? We cant, he has been dead a while now if you havent noticed.

However, Saddam is STILL in office, and is STILL a liabilty to do ANOTHER crime.

And I agree, if nerve gas hit Toronto it would defanilty be because of the Leafs . [/QB][/QUOTE]Don't get me wrong I don't want to see anyone get hit with gas, but I doubt he'd nerve gas anyone "just for the hell of it."

He is still in office yes, and he MAY be a liability to do another crime, however it shouldn't be up to the US solely to determine that. It's up to the UN, and as a part of the UN, the US should abide by it's decisions, not strike out on their own.

[john]

If we could go back to the late 30s and remove Hitler BEFORE he killed over 3 million Jews ,would we? Lets not wait till it's too late again!!!

[Animal]

Originally posted by john: If we could go back to the late 30s and remove Hitler BEFORE he killed over 3 million Jews ,would we? Lets not wait till it's too late again!!!

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's nice to say that now, but supposing we had killed Hitler and it turns out that he wasn't going to attempt to control the world. We'd be know better than the war criminals themselves.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: My answer is serious. War. It is not an over-the-top description, that is what will likely happen. I caution against glossing over the evils of war in order to fufill an agenda.

I'm not glossing over the evils of war at all. Sadly, these are occurring and have been occurring in Iraq since 1991. Saddam has employed these chemical weapons that "don't exist" against the Kurds to the North. He has brutally killed anybody foolish enought to speak out against him, and he as routinely eliminated members of his own cabinet and family that he felt were a threat to him. Generals that became too popular with the troops in the Iraqi army seem to suffer an unusual number of "helicopter accidents".

I also question the accuracy of your projected casualty numbers. In 1991, most Iraqi soldiers literally could not wait to surrender to the American troops. The National Guard unit from my hometown was one of the many in charge of seeking and securing P.O.W.'s. They said that - once the Iraqi soldiers learned they were NOT going to be savagely slaughtered - they were literally throwing the rifles down and lining up to be taken prisoner. It took the National Guard unit 3 days to advance 10 miles once, because all their prisoner transport vehicles were full and they had to return to their base camp.

Admittedly, this invasion will be far different. In 1991, we were just trying to drive them out of Kuwait...this time, we are coming into the heart of their land. I acknowledge that you may well be right about the resulting casualties...but I just don't believe Saddam has anywhere near the "full support" of his army. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they would be just as happy as we to see him dead and/or removed from power. Of course, that may just be wishful thinking on my part.

Originally posted by Chewbacca. If alternatives exist to disarm Saddam and avoid the evil carnage of war, then we should pursue those.

And this is the question I'm trying to get an answer to. Exactly WHAT alternatives exist? What other measures could we take that would stand a realistic chance of removing or neutralizing the threat presented by Saddam Hussein?

Frankly, I simply don't see one. Saddam has never cooperated fully with the U.N. Inspectors. In 1991, he openly defied them and refused to allow access to certain buildings. Other times, he blantanly delayed their inspections of a specific area for several days. The only logical reason for doing that would be to remove the illegal weapons before allowing them in. Finally, in 1998, he simply ordered them to leave Iraq altogether. He has been only moderately more cooperative this time....and he has never been any more cooperative than was absolutely necessary.

U.N. Resolution 1441 did NOT request that Saddam Hussein allow the U.N. Inspectors to conduct a country wide "treasure hunt" in hopes of finding illegal weapons. No, it ORDERED Saddam Hussein to provide full disclosure of ALL weapons in his possession and provide a comprehensive list of locations and quantities where these weapons could be found. Saddam agreed to Resolution 1441, but has NEVER complied with it.

So, the U.N. weapons inspections have NOT been successful in neutralizing the threat he presents. Can you suggest any "non-agressive" solution for neutralizing Saddam that you feel would work?

Originally posted by Chewbacca. Now back to my unanswered question: Is removing Saddam the lessor of the two evils when compared to the carnage of war?

Absolutely, positively, YES!!!! Many Iraqi's are suffering the "carnage of war" already....at the hands of Saddam Hussein. The gassing of the Kurds and the atrocities against his own countrymen are documented cases - not media propaganda.

The threat he poses to the U.S. specifically is indirect..but no less serious. He DOES have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam has always denied their existence, but just today, I watched a political discussion in which the "anti-war" delegate was bragging on the number of missiles that have been found and destroyed in just the last few weeks. He touted this as PROOF that the inspections are working. I offer it as proof that Saddam Hussein has lied through his teeth to the U.N. for the last 12 years and that these "illegal missiles" are just a token offering given to the inspectors to keep them from finding the truly deadly weapons hidden elsewhere.

Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorist organizations are also well known.....and so is his willingness to sell them weapons.

Given his history of carnage in his own country, coupled with the possibility of another devastating terrorist attack in our own country...I can say with absolute certainty that going to war against Saddam Hussein is most definitely the "lesser of two evils".

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Animal: Don't get me wrong I don't want to see anyone get hit with gas, but I doubt he'd nerve gas anyone "just for the hell of it." I dont. Maybe I am being cynical, but I dont put ANYTHING past him. He is still in office yes, and he MAY be a liability to do another crime, however it shouldn't be up to the US solely to determine that. It's up to the UN, and as a part of the UN, the US should abide by it's decisions, not strike out on their own.[/QB]

Good point. But it just takes us back into the never ending circul.

Lets say we give the inspectors a bit more time...So what? Saddam will never fully disarm. He would continue to lie and deceive.

I really dont see a point in waiting any longer.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Good point. But it just takes us back into the never ending circul. Lets say we give the inspectors a bit more time...So what? Saddam will never fully disarm. He would continue to lie and deceive. I really dont see a point in waiting any longer.

You see, this is what really bothers me... What was the point of all these inspections? Did the US go with them just so people wouldn't be able to accuse them of not listening to the UN? Why should Saddam disarm even a little if the US will call him a liar even if he does disarm? Would you disarm if you knew you'd be attacked even if you did? I sure wouldn't. I think the US doesn't care not even a little bit about the inspections or the UN for that matter, and would push this through no matter what. They just did all this so that people wouldn't be able to accuse them too much... Or so it seems to me.

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Why does it matter? It doesn't. No matter to what degree us insignificant schmos on this message board debate the why's, if's and wheretofores about this issue the fact is that none of our opinions matter. The decision of war will be made by a handful of humans at the top of the American hierarchy. UN vetos, global protest and weapons inspections mean nothing to a government who has no intention of following democratic principles when it comes the Iraqi War. And perhaps they are right not to listen to the majority voice (I think the last figures I read say that 52% of Americans (not to speak for the rest of the world) would prefer Bush to wait for UN approval). Perhaps they need to make 'unpopular' decisions. The fact of the matter is this is still a gang-mentality game. For Americans this is still very much a 'Republicans vs. Democrats' issue. For the world at large it is a 'pro-American vs. anti-American issue'. Why can't people put aside their differences and agree? Because then someone has to bite a bullet and surrender their stance on the issue. It doesn't matter what line you take, so long as you take a line. Argue for arguments sake. Pathetic. I'm sick of humanity.

You are right about what you say...except one little thing....the USA is not the only nation backing Military Action. Canada and Australia are also backing the US move, as are many other nations. France Germany, Russia, Belgium and China are in the minority on this issue. 3 of those five have "significant" monetary investments coloring their votes, one is taking a traditional stand that they usually take against anything proposed by the US, and the last and least probably just wants to get into the news papers since they really have no relevence on the world political stage.

[ 03-10-2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Good point. But it just takes us back into the never ending circul. Lets say we give the inspectors a bit more time...So what? Saddam will never fully disarm. He would continue to lie and deceive. I really dont see a point in waiting any longer.

You see, this is what really bothers me... What was the point of all these inspections? Did the US go with them just so people wouldn't be able to accuse them of not listening to the UN? Why should Saddam disarm even a little if the US will call him a liar even if he does disarm? Would you disarm if you knew you'd be attacked even if you did? I sure wouldn't. I think the US doesn't care not even a little bit about the inspections or the UN for that matter, and would push this through no matter what. They just did all this so that people wouldn't be able to accuse them too much... Or so it seems to me.[/QUOTE]That is not entirely true, Spelca. Saddam agreed to a complete disarmament after Desert Storm in 1991. But as soon as the inspectors showed up to catalogue the weapons and oversee their destruction, he began stonewalling them. He completely denied them access to certain buildings and delayed inspections of other sites for several days. He has NEVER lived up to his end of the agreement back in 1991.

I agree it is a circular argument. The "anti-war" group says "Give the inspectors more time", the "pro-war" group counters says "Saddam has already had 12 years - how much longer should we give them?"

I agree that President Bush made it clear from the very beginning that he would remove Saddam by force if necessary - regardless of whether the U.N. supported his decision or not. But he has stated all along that all Saddam has to do is provide full disclosure of ALL the weapons he has stockpiled and give a comprehensive list of locations and quantities where these weapons can be found. These are the terms Hussein agreed to - but never complied with - back in 1991.

I do agree that Bush could have been a bit more diplomatic in his approach to the U.N. and possibly gained much more support from them for his decision. But that wasn't the approach he took. He knows that Saddam will NEVER disarm nor leave power willingly. The ONLY way to get "compliance" from him will be through the use of force. That's why he has said from the beginning that he WILL go to war if that is what it takes...because the reality is that nothing other than war will remove or neutralize the threat posed by Saddam.

President Bush reiterated in his public address last week that Saddam could still prevent the war by complying with Article 1441. If he were to give his full cooperation to the U.N. Inspectors, I do believe George Bush would call off the military. Of course, I also realize that there is practically NO CHANCE of Saddam actually doing that...so war does seem inevitable at this point. [img]graemlins/verysad.gif[/img]

[Spelca]

What I wanted to point out is that everyone (ahem [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) is saying that Saddam will never disarm. Including representers of the US government that I have spoken to. So my question (if you've read my post) was what was the point of going to the UN if the US was planning to attack Iraq no matter what? You say you don't believe Saddam, but what if Saddam really would disarm, would you believe him then? Probably not, right. [img]smile.gif[/img] You'd say that he's still hiding some weapons somewhere. Soooo... if nobody is ever willing to believe Saddam, what exactly was the point of going through the UN? Can anybody answer me that? [img]smile.gif[/img] If the US had really wanted the oppinion of the UN and wanted to work through the UN, then okay. But right now it seems they'll go to war with the UN or without. So what was the real reason? [img]smile.gif[/img]