[OAW]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
If you want to play this game of hair-splitting, fine. I'm in. .....

OAW

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by OAW:
Exactly. If you are going to be cowboy then be one openly and honestly. Don't insult my intelligence and try to pretend to be interested in international support when you are just going to do what you want to do regardless.

Or maybe you fell in love with your own rhetoric and are annoyed that it doesn't really describe Bush all that well.

[BRussell]

Does anyone understand what is happening tomorrow? I just watched the press conference and they made this big deal about tomorrow being a moment of truth etc. etc., but in the end I have no idea what's happening exactly. Are they voting on a new resolution? Are they proposing a new resolution? Going to war?

[OAW]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
This same sort of argument has been made in the past about democracy in the Middle East, in Jordan for example, and so far it has been proven wrong. I'm sorry, but to continue on with that argument begins to border along the lines of racism. To say they are not good enough for democracy, so therefore they can't be trusted with it. C'mon, the State Department doesn't believe this either, take a look a Qatar. It's a thriving Arab democracy and one of America's best Middle Eastern allies.

The horrible scenario you painted is one that is already happening in Arab countries where there is no democracy. In fact, I would be willing to state that because there is so little democracy in the Middle East, the rise of radical Islam was made all the more easier.

Apparently you have completely misunderstood what Mr. Natural said. He wasn't saying that Arabs and democracy don't mix. He was saying that the US government doesn't really want to see widespread democracy in the Middle East. Why? Because if people were able to vote and choose their own leadership, in many instances that would lead to the empowerment of those who represent the Arab "street" who generally hold a negative view towards the West in general and the US in particular.

For example ....

In Algeria (not the Middle East but "Arab" controlled nevertheless), there was an election in 1990 that brought the FIS, a "radical" Islamic movement, to power via free democratic elections. About a year later, the military of Algeria staged a coup d'etat and took the country back to military dictatorship. And the so-called "freedom and democracy" loving US government didn't say sh*t! Why? Because the US government, along with France (the former colonial power), did not like who was elected. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

If the monarcy in Saudi Arabia was replaced with a democracy, there is every reason to believe that the people would elect a government that is hostile to the US ... especially given the current US foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestine situation. Why do you think we have supported dictators and monarchs for so long in the Middle East? Because they "play ball" with the US in exchange for absolute rule and awesome wealth ... despite the viewpoint of their people.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think the basic problem is that the issue dividing the Security Council isn't Iraq any more. It's the extent of US power.

Agreed!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Or maybe you fell in love with your own rhetoric and are annoyed that it doesn't really describe Bush all that well.

Or maybe you are unwilling or unable to see the facts for what they are? When Bush first begain "saber-rattling" against Iraq, he along with Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to just deal with Saddam. It was Colin Powell who led the effort to get Bush to seek international support through the UN. However, from the very beginning, Bush has said that "we don't need the permission of the UN" to go to war with Iraq. IOTW, they wanted to use the UN for political cover if international support was forthcoming, but they were fully prepared to "go it alone" if needed.

The bottom line is that if Bush has always been willing to "go it alone" ... then his seeking of "international support" was disingenous at best.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Does anyone understand what is happening tomorrow? I just watched the press conference and they made this big deal about tomorrow being a moment of truth etc. etc., but in the end I have no idea what's happening exactly. Are they voting on a new resolution? Are they proposing a new resolution? Going to war?

After seeing the news reports, my understanding is that the US and the UK are giving another 24 hours for the rest of the Security Council to "see it our way or hit the highway". 2 permanent members of the SC apparently feel that the viewpoint of the other 13 members ... including 3 other permanent members ... are of no consequence.

As I've said before, their attitude is like ....

"You either play ball the way I want you to or I'll take the ball and go home."

The bottom line is that the US and the UK are not getting their way in the UN ... so they are serving notice that they will do what they want to do with or without UN support.

OAW

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by OAW:
Or maybe you are unwilling or unable to see the facts for what they are? When Bush first begain "saber-rattling" against Iraq, he along with Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to just deal with Saddam. It was Colin Powell who led the effort to get Bush to seek international support through the UN. However, from the very beginning, Bush has said that "we don't need the permission of the UN" to go to war with Iraq. IOTW, they wanted to use the UN for political cover if international support was forthcoming, but they were fully prepared to "go it alone" if needed.

They wanted the UN to mean what it says. 1441 called for Saddam to disarm immediately. Like all the other resolutions the UN has passed on Iraq, this one wasn't fulfilled. It just wasn't. No matter how much you want to blame Bush and the US for this, the simple fact is that Saddam hasn't complied. If the UN won't enforce it's own resolutions, the US doesn't need the UN's permission to go forward. Those are the facts as they really are.

[MrBS]

Even Bush is against a unilateral war

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...605441,00.html


well, Bush Sr. at least.

~BS

[Steve Bosell]

Does anyone really think that iraq has a formidable army?
I don't understand why people are so afraid of sadam hussain.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

Originally posted by OAW:
Apparently you have completely misunderstood what Mr. Natural said. He wasn't saying that Arabs and democracy don't mix. He was saying that the US government doesn't really want to see widespread democracy in the Middle East. Why? Because if people were able to vote and choose their own leadership, in many instances that would lead to the empowerment of those who represent the Arab "street" who generally hold a negative view towards the West in general and the US in particular.

For example ....

In Algeria (not the Middle East but "Arab" controlled nevertheless), there was an election in 1990 that brought the FIS, a "radical" Islamic movement, to power via free democratic elections. About a year later, the military of Algeria staged a coup d'etat and took the country back to military dictatorship. And the so-called "freedom and democracy" loving US government didn't say sh*t! Why? Because the US government, along with France (the former colonial power), did not like who was elected. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

If the monarcy in Saudi Arabia was replaced with a democracy, there is every reason to believe that the people would elect a government that is hostile to the US ... especially given the current US foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestine situation. Why do you think we have supported dictators and monarchs for so long in the Middle East? Because they "play ball" with the US in exchange for absolute rule and awesome wealth ... despite the viewpoint of their people.

OAW

I understand your point and it's well taken; however, I feel that after 9/11 happened some of the "powers that be" in Washington may no longer feel the Arab monarchs can be trusted. And, as some would say, "Now is the time."

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Does anyone understand what is happening tomorrow? I just watched the press conference and they made this big deal about tomorrow being a moment of truth etc. etc., but in the end I have no idea what's happening exactly. Are they voting on a new resolution? Are they proposing a new resolution? Going to war?

Well, the US has told everyone to get out of Iraq and the surrounding countries. So, I think it means that we play hardball in the UN today and bomb tonight.

Guess I'm spending the night in front of the TV watching Peter Jennings freak out in a calm and reasoned way.

[boots]

Now he (Bush) is calling for Saddam to leave Iraq to avoid war. He has scheduled an 8pm EST address. Bombs over Bagdad tonight.....

[S Monkey]

They dropped the resolution because they don't have a majority at the council. But guess who they will blame ? (starts with an F)

[Gripen]

Well, we can just sit back and put The Imperial March on now. Either tonight or tomorrow night the imperialstic hopes of the Pax Americana, oil-barons and governments come true.

[boots]

I hope (for our sake) that this does turn up some serious dirt on Saddam. Otherwise, the US is in for a whole lot of sh!t from the international community.

Lets hope they really do know something that they haven't told anyone else.

[Mastrap]

If not this will be the political end of Tony Blair. Which would be a shame. I can't stand Iain Duncan Smith.

[OAW]

Originally posted by boots:
I hope (for our sake) that this does turn up some serious dirt on Saddam. Otherwise, the US is in for a whole lot of sh!t from the international community.

Lets hope they really do know something that they haven't told anyone else.

You can best believe that even if they don't find any WMD stockpiles in Iraq .... there will still be some WMD paraded on the TV for public consumption ... with the US govt saying "See ... we told you so!".

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by S Monkey:
They dropped the resolution because they don't have a majority at the council. But guess who they will blame ? (starts with an F)

Exactly. They don't have a majority of the rotating members ... including Germany. They also have three permanent members threatening to veto ... including France, Russia, and China. Yet instead of simply conceding that the overwhelming majority of world opinion is against the US and the UK on this issue .... they try to scapegoat France and make it seem like it's just the French being "obstructionist" that's causing all these problems.

The really pathetic part is that there are plenty of knucklehead US citizens that actually fall for that crap.

OAW

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OAW:
You can best believe that even if they don't find any WMD stockpiles in Iraq .... there will still be some WMD paraded on the TV for public consumption ... with the US govt saying "See ... we told you so!".

OAW

And if they do find some, people will still say "It's NOT TRUE THE US IS MAKING IT UP!!!"

Either way they lose.

Not that it matters. proof is not up to the US. Iraq is the one that needs to show proof. Them showing NO proof, and not shareing ALL the information is what is getting them into trouble. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated in this forum before people start understanding it.


THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON THE US. IT IS ON IRAQ.

The really pathetic part is that there are plenty of knucklehead US citizens that actually fall for that crap

And there are plenty of knuckleheads outside and inside the US who think it's crap.

[nforcer]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not that it matters. proof is not up to the US. Iraq is the one that needs to show proof. Them showing NO proof, and not shareing ALL the information is what is getting them into trouble. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated in this forum before people start understanding it.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON THE US. IT IS ON IRAQ.

Even though it's certain there is going to be someone saying "It was all made up!", I still wonder what all the other Saddam supporters, and France and company (all the nations that are sided with France in this), and antiwar protestors, and weapons inspectors are going to say when Saddam starts using his weapons (god forbid), or when they are found and it is proven Saddam has been decieving everyone all along. Basically the US will have been right all along, but I'm certain they will shift the focus to something else.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

There's going to be a war, and if there was a vote in the SC to authorize the use of force and the resolution failed, and the US, Britian, and Spain went ahead and used force anyways, then they would be breaking the UN charter. Instead of embarrassing the UN, they decided to withdraw the resolution and take action now. I predicted this would happen a few days ago.

Let's face it, the UN has never authorized the use of force before a conflict has started as a way to stop a conflict from spreading. The one exeption would be the Gulf War, but then again it was only after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Rwanda would be a perfect example of stepping in with force to stop the killings from escalating, but the UN didn't. The UN can never truely protect anyone because they (other nations of the world) are always to afraid to take action before it's to late. Look no further than the 12 years the UN let Iraq get away with non-compliance, and 4 of those 12 years the UN wasn't even doing it's own job.

The US doesn't need a scapegoat, what Chirac did - he did to himself.

[OAW]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And if they do find some, people will still say "It's NOT TRUE THE US IS MAKING IT UP!!!"

Either way they lose.

You are absolutely correct on that one.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Not that it matters. proof is not up to the US. Iraq is the one that needs to show proof. Them showing NO proof, and not shareing ALL the information is what is getting them into trouble. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated in this forum before people start understanding it.


THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON THE US. IT IS ON IRAQ.

This is true based upon SC Resolution 1441. What I always found strange about that though is that Iraq is being asked to prove a negative ... which in most all other situations is considered to be near impossibility. IOTW, the US and the UK don't have to prove the existence of WMD in Iraq .... Iraq has to prove their non-existence. Guilty unless proven innocent. The US and the UK thinks Saddam has WMD ... and as far as they are concerned that equates to he actually does ... unless Saddam can prove that he doesn't.

Don't get me wrong. If I had to bet my next paycheck I'd say that he probably does have chemical and biological WMD. After all, the US government sold the sh*t to him in the first place (a fact that those on the other side of this issue like to conveniently overlook ). My point here is that Iraq is being asked to meet a nearly impossible standard ... which in my estimation amounts to little more than a pre-text for an attack that was going to happen anyway no matter what he did.

Bush himself said that "We know Iraq has WMD". Of course this means, we "think" because if they really knew then why didn't they tell the inspectors where it was so they could go and get it? And if they don't know where, then that means that they really don't know. But I digress ...

Bush in one of his latest press conferences said something to the effect of "We know Iraq has WMD ... and if Saddam was serious about disarming he would bring it out and destroy it in front of the inspectors for the world to see". Ok, let's say that there really aren't any WMD in Iraq ... then how could they publicly destroy something that doesn't exist? And let's say that they did bring some WMD to destroy, then how could the US/UK really know that they destroyed all of it? What would stop the US/UK from saying "Yeah, we see you destroyed X number of tons of WMD, but you haven't destroyed it all." .... and what could Iraq do to prove otherwise?

The bottom line is that Iraq is a big country. A lot of buildings and facilities ... above ground and underground. A lot of open desert and other spaces. There's simply no credible way to prove that the entire country is free of some particular item. If the US were asked, could it prove that there was no "XYZ" material in the entire state of California? Of course not, because there's no practical way to verify it even if they tried.

OAW

[boots]

Originally posted by OAW:
What I always found strange about that though is that Iraq is being asked to prove a negative ... which in most all other situations is considered to be near impossibility. IOTW, the US and the UK don't have to prove the existence of WMD in Iraq .... Iraq has to prove their non-existence. Guilty unless proven innocent. The US and the UK thinks Saddam has WMD ... and as far as they are concerned that equates to he actually does ... unless Saddam can prove that he doesn't.

I wish it really were that simple. But we DO know that he had them. He is to provide evidence that he has destroyed both what he had and the facilities he had to make them. So it isn't a clear cut "prove a negative," it is a "how do we know it was done" as Saddam claims in the case of chemical weapons. He says they destroyed them, but has not presented documentation to support the assertion.

[OAW]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
There's going to be a war, and if there was a vote in the SC to authorize the use of force and the resolution failed, and the US, Britian, and Spain went ahead and used force anyways, then they would be breaking the UN charter. Instead of embarrassing the UN, they decided to withdraw the resolution and take action now. I predicted this would happen a few days ago.

Embarrass the UN? I think not! The US/UK are going to do what they always wanted to do in the first place and "hang their hat" on the "serious consequences" language in SC resolution 1441 ... despite the fact that they know that the language does not mean military action because they had to soften the language from what the original text had in order to get Russia, China, France, et al to get on board! They are going to claim that "It was a unanimous vote and everyone knew what 'serious consequences' meant." ... IOTW, "military action". The problem is that it is just typical Anglo-American arrogance ... because 1) The US/UK knew that the rest of the SC did not mean "military action" which is why they balked at any language that even remotely allowed an automatic use of force, and 2) The US/UK apparently believes that its interpretation of "serious consequences" carries more weight than the interpretation of the 13 other members of the SC, including 3 permanent members.

The bottom line is that the US/UK do not have support for military action in the SC and amongst the vast majority of the world. They were going to lose a vote that explicitly authorized military action ... and lose badly by not getting a majority along with likely 3 nation veto. So let the "We are just enforcing SC Resolution 1441." apologies begin!

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:

The US doesn't need a scapegoat, what Chirac did - he did to himself.

Again, you miss the point. Chirac is notalone in what he is doing. There is Schroeder. There is Putin. Et al.

The point is that the only one we see getting "bashed" by the US Govt and the mass media ... and also by those on these boards who display an utter lack of critical thinking on this issue and only regurgitate what they hear coming from the former .... is the French. That's a scapegoat any day of the week.

We didn't hear anything about the House of Reps changing the name of German Chocolate Cake to "Freedom Cake", now did we? We certainly didn't hear anything about Bush and his buddies in AA calling for a boycott of Russian Vodka, now did we?

OAW

PS: Did I just snap on Bush like that? I suppose that wasn't very nice of me. My bad!

[nforcer]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
There's going to be a war, and if there was a vote in the SC to authorize the use of force and the resolution failed, and the US, Britian, and Spain went ahead and used force anyways, then they would be breaking the UN charter. Instead of embarrassing the UN, they decided to withdraw the resolution and take action now. I predicted this would happen a few days ago.

Let's face it, the UN has never authorized the use of force before a conflict has started as a way to stop a conflict from spreading. The one exeption would be the Gulf War, but then again it was only after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Rwanda would be a perfect example of stepping in with force to stop the killings from escalating, but the UN didn't. The UN can never truely protect anyone because they (other nations of the world) are always to afraid to take action before it's to late. Look no further than the 12 years the UN let Iraq get away with non-compliance, and 4 of those 12 years the UN wasn't even doing it's own job.

The US doesn't need a scapegoat, what Chirac did - he did to himself.

Another nail hit on the head post. It's exactly the UNs inability to use force before anything significant happens that causes it to be irrelivant. Without an enforcement body, the UN becomes little more than a popular vote council. Just because an idea is popular doesn't mean it should be followed. Appeasement was sure popular before World War 2...

The whole problem with the issue we are in now is understanding that the issue is more than just weapons. The speech Bush gave to the UN last year outlined a lot of problems with Iraq, and explained what Iraq has done and what Iraq has failed to do, and why Iraq was in violation of so many UN resolutions. It had several major points on the human aspect of things, and how Saddam has been treating his people, using chemical weapons against them, etc. I believe "France and company" fails to see that the issue is more than Saddam developing and hiding weapons (although it is a big part of the issue). However, still they persist that "weapons inspectors need more time". To them, I ask, how much time will it take for a weapons inspector to stop Saddam from oppressing his own people and stop threatening the stability of the middle east? The question is meaningless, of course, because a weapons inspector can't do that!

The other issue that has received a lot of attention from "France and company" has been the fact that Saddam has been "disarming" by destroying 2 missiles a day or whatever. But to them, I ask, how do we know that Saddam is not capable of producing 3 similar missiles per day? Weapons inspectors don't know that, and they can't tell us before it is too late.

The issue is more than weapons inspectors. But the UN doesn't seem to think so. The UN is so focused on doing anything to avoid war at all costs, that it fails to be a body to be taken seriously when it says something.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

Originally posted by OAW:
Embarrass the UN? I think not! The US/UK are going to do what they always wanted to do in the first place and "hang their hat" on the "serious consequences" language in SC resolution 1441 ... despite the fact that they know that the language does not mean military action because they had to soften the language from what the original text had in order to get Russia, China, France, et al to get on board! They are going to claim that "It was a unanimous vote and everyone knew what 'serious consequences' meant." ... IOTW, "military action". The problem is that it is just typical Anglo-American arrogance ... because 1) The US/UK knew that the rest of the SC did not mean "military action" which is why they balked at any language that even remotely allowed an automatic use of force, and 2) The US/UK apparently believes that its interpretation of "serious consequences" carries more weight than the interpretation of the 13 other members of the SC, including 3 permanent members.

The bottom line is that the US/UK do not have support for military action in the SC and amongst the vast majority of the world. They were going to lose a vote that explicitly authorized military action ... and lose badly by not getting a majority along with likely 3 nation veto. So let the "We are just enforcing SC Resolution 1441." apologies begin!

Ah, but we get into the intent of "serious consequences". If the words "serious consequences" replaced the words "use of force" in order to get the resolution passed, then there can be no doubt that every SC member knew the intent of what "serious consequences" meant. What else could "serious consequences" mean? There's already an embargo, and other sanctions. Half the people there are dependent on foreign food aid. I guess there's always the interpretation of "serious consequences" to mean shaving off half of Saddam's mustache or yanking his pants down in public.

Originally posted by OAW:
Again, you miss the point. Chirac is notalone in what he is doing. There is Schroeder. There is Putin. Et al.

The point is that the only one we see getting "bashed" by the US Govt and the mass media ... and also by those on these boards who display an utter lack of critical thinking on this issue and only regurgitate what they hear coming from the former .... is the French. That's a scapegoat any day of the week.

We didn't hear anything about the House of Reps changing the name of German Chocolate Cake to "Freedom Cake", now did we? We certainly didn't hear anything about Bush and his buddies in AA calling for a boycott of Russian Vodka, now did we?

Time will tell, but it's looking more and more like there was a deal made between Powell and the French at the UN and that deal was, "change the wording to "serious consequences" and France will vote for a second resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq doesn't comply". Well, Chirac got stupid, he listened to the protesters, and back-stabbed Powell by threatening to veto any resolution that authorized forced. He wanted to seize the opportunity and play a power struggle game with the US, he was betting Bush would back down under huge anti-war pressure, and France would then come out of this looking like the smart guys. He was wrong, he made the mistake everybody that goes up against Bush seems to make, they underestimate him.

I'll say it again -- What Chirac did - he did to himself, and it's unfortunate that Schroeder and Putin tagged along.

[tie]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not that it matters.

How can you say it doesn't matter whether or not Iraq poses a security threat to the US? Fine, the burden of proof is on Iraq. So what? We're going to war, it matters a lot whether there is a good reason for it.

[Athens]

Originally posted by tie:
How can you say it doesn't matter whether or not Iraq poses a security threat to the US? Fine, the burden of proof is on Iraq. So what? We're going to war, it matters a lot whether there is a good reason for it.

I havent read most of the posts on this thread but your reply cought my eyes, can you please tell me how a country that cant even take out Canada could pose any security threat to the US?

[OAW]

Originally posted by Athens:
I havent read most of the posts on this thread but your reply cought my eyes, can you please tell me how a country that cant even take out Canada could pose any security threat to the US?

Oh that's an easy one. Iraq is a threat because a conservative US administration says so! The Bush Administration says "We know Iraq has WMD (even though we can't tell the inspectors where they are) ... and Iraq might, one day, maybe give them to al-Qaeda to use against the US (even though the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda hate each other's guts and the so-called links between them have been roundly criticized as dubious at best). So we have to attack them now before it's too late! (even though for the last 12 years Iraq we have not suffered a WMD attack from Iraq nor from any terrorists supplied by Iraq).

That's all that's required for a large cross-section of the US population. Just goes to show you that common sense isn't always that common.

OAW

[mr. natural]

Just wanted to add to OAW's post above that The Washigton Post reports that the intelligence community and Bush administration officials believe they have Al Qaeda on the ropes with the recent capture of Khalid Seik Mohammed. Apparently, he's talking (ouch! ), and his files are a "mother lode" of information on the organization. Small scale attacks are still possible, but nothing like 9/11. And Osama bin Laden, his goose is cooked.

But as Hermann Goering said at his Nuremburg trial:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliment, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

[itai195]

Originally posted by OAW:
Actually I used the term European immigrants. You chose to twist my words into "Jewish". I guess you thought I wouldn't notice? Anyway, I'll let your dishonesty about my statement speak for itself.

OAW

Actually, I corrected your phrase, because you seemed to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Jews that fled to Israel from Arab nations. How many Jews emmigrated from Iraq to Israel again? And those nations were their ancestral homes as well.

As for the rest... I'd just like to say that I fully support the Palestinian claim to the land, but I think it's quite disingenous to ignore a Jewish claim. To suggest that either side has more of a claim to the land than the other just strikes me as ridiculous. They'll have to learn to coexist in either a one or two state system, or there can't be peace.

As for the diatribe on my use of the term "anti-Semitism" you know that I meant the colloquial usage, so why was it necessary again? If anything you seem to think that all Jews are European, which seems equally incorrect.

And sorry for the late response, I've been sick

[itai195]

Originally posted by OAW:
Oh that's an easy one. Iraq is a threat because a conservative US administration says so! The Bush Administration says "We know Iraq has WMD (even though we can't tell the inspectors where they are) ... and Iraq might, one day, maybe give them to al-Qaeda to use against the US (even though the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda hate each other's guts and the so-called links between them have been roundly criticized as dubious at best). So we have to attack them now before it's too late! (even though for the last 12 years Iraq we have not suffered a WMD attack from Iraq nor from any terrorists supplied by Iraq).

That's all that's required for a large cross-section of the US population. Just goes to show you that common sense isn't always that common.

OAW

Before the Gulf War, Iraq had one of the world's largest militaries and highly advanced nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons facilities. Saddam has shown a willingness to use these weapons. If we're ever to end sanctions against Iraq (something that the Iraqi people sorely need us to do), how can we do it in good faith while Saddam is in power?

[OAW]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually, I corrected your phrase, because you seemed to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Jews that fled to Israel from Arab nations.

It's not that I ignored non-European Jews, it's just that it wasn't germane to my point. Besides, my actual words acknowledged them by implication. Let me remind you ...

"The Israelis, comprised PREDOMINANTLY of European immigrants (whose historical, blood ties, to the land of Palestine is dubious at best) ..."

So as you can see, I'm speaking of Israelis (not any Arab Israeli citizens) and noting that they consist primarily of Jewish immigrants from Europe. This statement recognizes that there are other Jewish Israelis who are not European. There are Arab Jews there. There are even Ethiopian Hebrews (aka the Falashas) who live there. But I reiterate, the historical, ancestral ties to the land of the European Jews who control Palestine is negligible. Certainly, there are other Jews with such ties. The Falashas that I mentioned above can trace their lineage all the way back to King Solomon and Makeda, the Queen of Sheba and their son Menelik. Does Benjamin Netenyahu or Ariel Sharon look like they have any African or Asian ancestry? Or do they look like any other European white man?

My point is that being Jewish is based upon religion, not ethnicity. You can go to Mexico and find a lot of Catholics, but that doesn't mean they have a right to go and set up shop in Rome, now does it?

Originally posted by itai195:

As for the rest... I'd just like to say that I fully support the Palestinian claim to the land, but I think it's quite disingenous to ignore a Jewish claim. To suggest that either side has more of a claim to the land than the other just strikes me as ridiculous. They'll have to learn to coexist in either a one or two state system, or there can't be peace.

While I agree that they will have to learn how to peacefully co-exist, I disagree with the notion that neither side has more claim to the land than the other. As I've mentioned previously, that out of the 5000 year recorded history of Palestine, the Jews have only ruled the land for 533 years (not including the rule of the European Jews starting in 1948). Ever. And they didn't even show up until 2000 years after the recorded history of Palestine began. Now contrast that to the Palestinians whose ancestry goes all the way back to the original Canaanite inhabitants! 5000 does not equate to 533 by any stretch of the imagination.

Quite frankly, that's like saying that the British and Boer immigrants to South Africa that colonized the region several centuries ago have the same kind of claim to the land as the indigineous population who have been there since time immemorial.

Originally posted by itai195:

As for the diatribe on my use of the term "anti-Semitism" you know that I meant the colloquial usage, so why was it necessary again? If anything you seem to think that all Jews are European, which seems equally incorrect.

Well I'm not sure why you refer to it as a "diatribe". I just laid out the facts. Regarding the "colloquial usage" of the term ... that just goes to show you that if you tell a lie often enough and long enough, people will believe it to be the truth. Which is how the term in reference to European Jews who are definitely not Semites became the "colloquial use" of the term in the first place.

Originally posted by itai195:

And sorry for the late response, I've been sick

Well I hope you are feeling better now!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by itai195:
Before the Gulf War, Iraq had one of the world's largest militaries and highly advanced nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons facilities.

Indeed they did. Thanks to the good of US of A!

Originally posted by itai195:

Saddam has shown a willingness to use these weapons. If we're ever to end sanctions against Iraq (something that the Iraqi people sorely need us to do), how can we do it in good faith while Saddam is in power?

Well he used them against the Kurds to suppress a revolt. And the US of A didn't say sh*t because they don't want to see an independent Kurdistan. (Which is why they also double-crossed them and left them hanging during the first Gulf War after they encouraged them to rise up against Saddam). They also used them against the Iranians ... and again the US of A didn't say sh*t because they wanted Saddam to win and Iraq was about to get overrun and defeated by Iranian troops. The US of A even supplied Saddam with the satellite photos showing the Iranian troop positions so they could be gassed! On top of all that, the US of A sold him all these weapons in the first place!

I say this not to excuse Saddam's actions; rather, to point out how at the time good old US of A was all up in the Kool-Aid, and they definitely knew the flavor! So for the US to act like they are so "horrified" by the actions today, when they not just ignored, but actively encouraged these actions in the 1980s is just the epitome of hypocrisy.

Having said all that, I find it quite interesting that during the first Gulf War when he had this large stockpile of WMD ... he didn't use them even when we were kicking his army's ass all over the desert. Apparently, despite the fact that we were shooting at him, he had sense enough not to unleash such weapons against US troops.

Yet Bush & Co. tell us that 12 years later ... when he doesn't have nearly the stockpile that he used to have ... when his army is half the strength that it was in the Gulf War ... Saddam and his WMD are this great big threat when we are not shooting at him. Very strange thinking indeed!

OAW

[Troll]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
1441 called for Saddam to disarm immediately. Like all the other resolutions the UN has passed on Iraq, this one wasn't fulfilled. It just wasn't. No matter how much you want to blame Bush and the US for this, the simple fact is that Saddam hasn't complied.

I'm pretty sick of this statement being bandied about as if it's gospel. It seems to me that some of you guys hear American politicians saying this crud and then you repeat it in the fora without questioning whether it's true.

Please will one of you prove to me that 1441 has been breached. I want a legal argument because I don't see a material breach, France doesn't, Russia doesn't, Germany doesn't, Blix doesn't, most of the rest of the world doesn't, Kofi Annan doesn't.

[boots]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm pretty sick of this statement being bandied about as if it's gospel. It seems to me that some of you guys hear American politicians saying this crud and then you repeat it in the fora without questioning whether it's true.

Please will one of you prove to me that 1441 has been breached. I want a legal argument because I don't see a material breach, France doesn't, Russia doesn't, Germany doesn't, Blix doesn't, most of the rest of the world doesn't, Kofi Annan doesn't.

Go back and read the resolution (Someone posted it in a thread of its own). It starts by saying Iraq is in material breach of the previous resolutions. 1441 was a "good faith" last chance. This was approved unanimously by the security council. They are on record as saying Iraq is in and conitues to be in material breach.

As I posted above, there seem to be two interpretations of 1441:

1) Us and allies say if inspectors find ANYTHING, it is a violation

2) France and allies say it is a tool for disarmament.

So, one camp says "Inspectors found the Al-Samuud missles AND Iraq has still not formally accounted for the chemical weapons we already knew that they had." So they are in violation

The other camp says "The found the missles and are destroying them" so inspections are working as a tool.

Pick your interpretation. Given the language, I think the first is more inlines with the intent of the resolution. (Note that I do not think that full invasion is proportional to the threat posed by said material breach.)