[xi_hyperon]

The question is, is it a genuine Good Thing� on the part of Saddam, or just a ploy to stall a possible U.N.-backed invasion? Please discuss.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
The question is, is it a genuine Good Thing� on the part of Saddam, or just a ploy to stall a possible U.N.-backed invasion? Please discuss.

Probably both.

[mchladek]

I'm glad to hear this.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by sambeau:


Probably both.

agreed. History repeats itself. Saddam has done this in the past, temporary compliance to a point, then kicks the inspectors back out or restricts their access...lather, rinse, repeat.

[xi_hyperon]

I dunno. Even if it is a temporary thing, I still can't help but breathe a sigh of relief. Had Saddam not done this and the U.N. backed an attack as a result, I would have understood why. However, it still would be a very unpleasant affair regardless of who supports it.

[sambeau]

Last time we killed 750,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them children. Any respite is a good thing..

[zigzag]

[From a thread that I started before I saw this one]

If true, where does this leave the administration's plans for a regime change? Will this satisfy the hawks? Were they privately hoping that Hussein would not agree to inspections? Will they press for an attack anyway? Or will this mean that the Middle East remains status quo for the foreseeable future?

Having forced the matter, is this a feather in Bush's cap, and an embarrassment to the moderates/leftists? Or can the moderates/leftists take credit for forcing Bush to go to the U.N., thereby diminishing the threat of war? Or neither?

[L'enfanTerrible]

Instead of criticizing Saddam H. or his "intentions", I'm going to bring this closer to home.

This is good news. Iraq is going to do their part to try to avert this crisis. Bush and his administration have had the stance, ever since support for the War on Terrorism feigned, that they would push for a regime change in Iraq, because Iraq supposedly has weapons of mass destruction.

Aside: gee I wonder where they got those from?

When the Iraqi foreign minister or whoever said they would comply with some UN resolutions to inspect their weaponry (about 2 or 3 weeks ago) Bush and his admin. still had the opinion that there is need for a regime change (and they are the country to do it).

Now they have offered to allow WI in unconditionally.

Good scenario: Iraq proves finally that they are not building WOMD, and we can put that debate to rest. The UN can then take further steps to ensure that they build no weapons. (IMO this should mean sanctions against the USA and the weapons manufacturers in that country so that they cannot export any more weaponry)

Bad scenario: Iraq is building WOMD and the UN figures this out. They can then make their resolutions to control those weapons and eliminate the threat in Iraq. They shouldn't have them, IMO, and if they do, we (the UN) should take'em back.

Either way, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, contrary to the will of the International community would be a slap in the face to the UN and the peace process..

Also, this so called regime change is only the US gov'ts excuse to impose their will on that region, and IMO is contrary to the beliefs of life, liberty, and happiness that they hold so dear. Who knows what kind of gov't will take Saddam's place? It certainly will ber a person of military background, a puppet of the United States, who will bend to the US's oil interests..

Thats what this is all about.

[arrested502]

I'm glad to hear it, but as others said, maybe it's just a ruse. Hopefully the Iraqi's do the right thing this time. Otherwise I can't see how war can be anything but inevitable.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but unless there is cooperation I can't see how it can be avoided.

[sambeau]

The other night I heard some TV news pundit say "given a supply of nuclear material iraq could have a bomb built within a month"..

.. who couldn't?.. is this the big threat?..

I mean you can build reasonably effective dirty bomb with a bungalow with a big enough drain pipe. Just drop one load of nuclear stuff down the pipe onto the other slightly different nuclear stuff.

.. it is not (and does not require) rocket science. Just a supply of really-hard-to-get-hold-of stuff. (and some fanatic nutters to handle it without proper safety equipment)

[ink]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Last time we killed 750,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them children. Any respite is a good thing..

Well, estimates put the number of deaths at 1.5M due to the economic sanctions against Iraq.

Which is better?

[ink]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Also, this so called regime change is only the US gov'ts excuse to impose their will on that region, and IMO is contrary to the beliefs of life, liberty, and happiness that they hold so dear. Who knows what kind of gov't will take Saddam's place? It certainly will ber a person of military background, a puppet of the United States, who will bend to the US's oil interests..

Exactly. While Hussein is an evil person, a country must take responsibility for their own leaders. Anyone that the US puts in place will always have El Presidente-minded people double-taking our picks and blaming us for every minor flaw in the new government.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by ink:


Well, estimates put the number of deaths at 1.5M due to the economic sanctions against Iraq.

Which is better?

buggered if I know. I'm not in favour of either.

those figures often include the bombing (and the broken infrastructure - dirty water etc) too. I have no idea why why can't sell them medicine & medical equipment.

this has bugger-all to do with justice and everything to do with money and oil - yet again.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by ink:

While Hussein is an evil person, a country must take responsibility for their own leaders. Anyone that the US puts in place will always have El Presidente-minded people double-taking our picks and blaming us for every minor flaw in the new government.

But it was the US & UK that put him in place in the first place, not the Iraqi people, and they who sold him his weapons in his war againsed Iran.

[daimoni]

.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by sambeau:


But it was the US & UK that put him in place in the first place, not the Iraqi people, and they who sold him his weapons in his war againsed Iran.

I think what Ink is trying to say is that Iraq should take responsibility for providing their own leaders..

(Ahhh, sweet democracy..)

Not that they should take responsibility for the leaders actions.. Especially if he was not elected democratically, but instead placed in power to serve the US..

[sambeau]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


I think what Ink is trying to say is that Iraq should take responsibility for providing their own leaders..

(Ahhh, sweet democracy..)

The real beauty of democracy is not that you can vote in a leader that you like, but rather that you can get rid of a leader that you don't.

Gawd Bless Tony Benn.

[finboy]

If you're even slightly inclined to believe that this announcement by Iraq means anything, I'd like to ask you to consider a potential equity investment in a small property of mine. There's a picture here:

http://batalion.ucsd.edu/images/dzag...classic.3.html

[macvillage.net]

Most likely both...



But on the plus side, this buys Bush some time. He no longer has to worry about his ego... He can think smart and not look like a coward. Hopefully he will be smart and ensure this works rather than start a war that will undoubtably reach American soil. He once again has a chance to avoid unncessary deaths.

[docbud]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Last time we killed 750,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them children. Any respite is a good thing..

Isn't Saddam responsible at all for those deaths (and if the number is correct)?And I was under the impression that it was UN (i.e., United Nations) sanctions, not US (i.e., United States) sanctions.

It's the U.S.'s fault that Saddam was building his new palaces while his people were starving?

Nope; sorry; no way--point the finger at Saddam "Mr. Wonderful" Hussein.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Most likely both...
He can think smart and not look like a coward.

Unlikely. Expect him to think the same and still look like a monkey.

[ringo]

Yeah, but could we really expect anything less?

UN support was falling into place for a new resolution that would probably be more demanding than the existing ones. So Saddams choices were to face a difficult resolution with dire consequences, face the US at war (and lose), or go "Oh, OK, Come on in" with no new resolution and no need for the UN to take a firm stance against him. Perfect, well done Saddam.

Sooo...he buys some time...let's see just what 'unconditional' really means. If he has nothing to hide then there will be no war, if we find something then we take it away, if he starts making conditions then its back to square one again and Bush starts all over gathering international support.

Great short term win for Iraq, if only because they slowed the momentum that was turning against them. Saudia Arabia said today that they would let the UN use their country to stage operations if need be. Some of the countries that were protesting US action were warming up to a UN-mandated 'solution' . Saddam did what he had to do, anything else would have worked to his disadvantage.

This is a victory for Bush too...when's the last time you heard about corporate scandal, enron, or the economy from the major news outlets? Gee, and what were the dems running with for the mid-term elections? So Saddam wins, Bush wins, Powell wins, the UN wins...for now. Let's wait and see what happens.

[Oneota]

Originally posted by finboy:
If you're even slightly inclined to believe that this announcement by Iraq means anything, I'd like to ask you to consider a potential equity investment in a small property of mine. There's a picture here:

http://batalion.ucsd.edu/images/dzag...classic.3.html

LOL

[NeoMac]

You guys are being way too simplistic.

Iraq agreed to the inspectors unconditionally, but did they agree to "anywhere, anytime, anyone" inspections? NO. And that is a key point.

Furthermore, it is only one of sixteen resolutions with which Iraq must comply. There is no mention of those other resolutions in this Iraqi letter and the U.S. is adamant Iraq abide by all of them.

I'll tell you what IMO is going to happen. The U.S. will push a resolution with a deadline to make Iraq accept all sixteen resolutions and all the other war obligations they agreed to. How Iraq responds after that is what will really shape the course of future events.

[EDIT] btw, Foxnews.com has a copy of the iraqi letter upon which I'm basing my comments.

[ink]

Originally posted by sambeau:
this has bugger-all to do with justice and everything to do with money and oil - yet again.

"yet again"?

The "first" war was the liberation of Kuwait, unless you're talking about Hussein's desire to aquire oil and power (which is why he invaded Kuwait in the first place). If that is what you're referring to, then you are correct.

[ink]

Originally posted by sambeau:
The real beauty of democracy is not that you can vote in a leader that you like, but rather that you can get rid of a leader that you don't.

That's the beauty of any type of government that involves a sufficiently large number of people. Just look at any single nation and you can find points in history where the populace decided not to "take it" anymore.

Democracy just makes the revolutions easier and less violent.

[rampant]

There are several types of voting methods- each can have a completely different victor.

We should vote here in the States with the sequential runoff method.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by rampant:
There are several types of voting methods- each can have a completely different victor.

We should vote here in the States with the sequential runoff method.

care to elaborate?

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by docbud:


Isn't Saddam responsible at all for those deaths (and if the number is correct)?And I was under the impression that it was UN (i.e., United Nations) sanctions, not US (i.e., United States) sanctions.

It's the U.S.'s fault that Saddam was building his new palaces while his people were starving?

Nope; sorry; no way--point the finger at Saddam "Mr. Wonderful" Hussein.

It's my opinion that the sanctions did far more humanitarian damage than potential both Iraqi/US conflicts could do when you consider the massive non-combatant casualties that arose.

From my 20/20 restrospect glasses, of course, the US should have removed Saddam in the first place.

I feel that the US has an obligation to put into place (or had an obligation to put into place) punitive arrangements that would harm Saddam, and not the population that happened to be born there.

Of course, I have no idea what those would be, so I guess I'm talking out of my ass

-DrSpk

[rampant]

Well, depending on what voting method you use, it can determine the winner, assuming we have more than 2 candidates. What if there are 2 liberals running for pres and 1 republican? The repub might get 40% of the vote, and each liberal got 30% of the vote- so in our method, the repub wins- the person who the least people aggree with, as libs want libs winning. So there are voting methods that would do things like group the 2 libs and group the 1 repub, and the libs would win.

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by rampant:
Well, depending on what voting method you use, it can determine the winner, assuming we have more than 2 candidates. What if there are 2 liberals running for pres and 1 republican? The repub might get 40% of the vote, and each liberal got 30% of the vote- so in our method, the repub wins- the person who the least people aggree with, as libs want libs winning. So there are voting methods that would do things like group the 2 libs and group the 1 repub, and the libs would win.

Which is why we can all thank Nader for electing Bush

[rampant]

bitter?

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by rampant:
bitter?

hahaha... Yes and No... I voted for Bush.. I'm actually more conservative than liberal, in the sense that I think that the overall well-being of our nation is going to depend on the fiscally conservative policies of the GOP rather than some of the liberal social policies, some of which I endorse.

I'm chagrined, though, every time I see him get up to speak on live TV. I know that he is probably smarter than he comes across, but for christ's sake, I think that part of being a good leader is being able to orate somewhat successfully.

[driven]

Iraq's track record is that they can not be trusted.

"Don't trust them ..... DON'T believe them .... " "... LET THEM DIE!"
-Captain James T. Kirk


Seriously ... this is Saddam throwing more bird seed at the ever-so-ready-for-appeasement doves .... and they will all flock to his bird-seed in a predictable manner.

[rampant]

Originally posted by DrSpookles:


hahaha... Yes and No... I voted for Bush.. I'm actually more conservative than liberal, in the sense that I think that the overall well-being of our nation is going to depend on the fiscally conservative policies of the GOP rather than some of the liberal social policies, some of which I endorse.

I'm chagrined, though, every time I see him get up to speak on live TV. I know that he is probably smarter than he comes across, but for christ's sake, I think that part of being a good leader is being able to orate somewhat successfully.

Ah, my kind of conservative.

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by driven:
Iraq's track record is that they can not be trusted.

"Don't trust them ..... DON'T believe them .... " "... LET THEM DIE!"
-Captain James T. Kirk


Seriously ... this is Saddam throwing more bird seed at the ever-so-ready-for-appeasement doves .... and they will all flock to his bird-seed in a predictable manner.

That's so true. However, the Bush administration can hardly to afford to move against Saddam with that offer extended.

Already in the news, the administration is quoted as being "highly skeptical". They can be skeptical if they want, but they are forced now into undergoing lengthy (time-wise) inspections, which buys Saddam more time given that he has successfully hidden some of these weapons Bush claims he has.

Though, I don't see Saddam directly using any WMDs. He will instead launder them through some other indescript radical organization. More bang for the buck, less liability.

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by rampant:


Ah, my kind of conservative.

LOL -- where might you fall within the spectrum?

[driven]

Originally posted by DrSpookles:


That's so true. However, the Bush administration can hardly to afford to move against Saddam with that offer extended.

Already in the news, the administration is quoted as being "highly skeptical". They can be skeptical if they want, but they are forced now into undergoing lengthy (time-wise) inspections, which buys Saddam more time given that he has successfully hidden some of these weapons Bush claims he has.

Though, I don't see Saddam directly using any WMDs. He will instead launder them through some other indescript radical organization. More bang for the buck, less liability.

I see him using them. He's shown how ruthless he can be already. At the time he took power he addressed his Baath party and announced that there were traitors among them. As he went on members of his own party were taken from the room and executed.

He invaded Kuwait, world be damned. If he did manage to get a nuke he'd just get more bold. Even if he didn't USE the nuke, we'd be hard pressed to stop him from using chemical or biological weapons from that point forward.

The ball is back in the hands of the UN. (And I think even they are a little skeptical at this point.) Let's sit back and watch how this plays out.

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by driven:


I see him using them. He's shown how ruthless he can be already. At the time he took power he addressed his Baath party and announced that there were traitors among them. As he went on members of his own party were taken from the room and executed.

He invaded Kuwait, world be damned. If he did manage to get a nuke he'd just get more bold. Even if he didn't USE the nuke, we'd be hard pressed to stop him from using chemical or biological weapons from that point forward.

The ball is back in the hands of the UN. (And I think even they are a little skeptical at this point.) Let's sit back and watch how this plays out.

I can see your point.. Though I think that Saddam knows the difference between attacking another country, and directly attacking the US. Attacking the US with WMDs would ensure complete, prompt, and utter annihilation of his government, and probably a pretty decent proportion of the civilian population (which he is probably not TOO concerned about, given past behavior).

Because of that, Saddam will do whatever it takes to stay in power and at the same time remain a prime but indirect antagonist of the US, and possibly the UN (don't think that the UN will honestly have much effect).

[driven]

Originally posted by DrSpookles:


I can see your point.. Though I think that Saddam knows the difference between attacking another country, and directly attacking the US. Attacking the US with WMDs would ensure complete, prompt, and utter annihilation of his government, and probably a pretty decent proportion of the civilian population (which he is probably not TOO concerned about, given past behavior).

Because of that, Saddam will do whatever it takes to stay in power and at the same time remain a prime but indirect antagonist of the US, and possibly the UN (don't think that the UN will honestly have much effect).

I too do not think that he will ever *directly* attack the US.

BUT: If he gets a nuke, he can reign terror on the nations around him (Iran? Saudi? Israel?) and we wouldn't really be in a position to stop him any longer.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by DrSpookles:


That's so true. However, the Bush administration can hardly to afford to move against Saddam with that offer extended.

Already in the news, the administration is quoted as being "highly skeptical". They can be skeptical if they want, but they are forced now into undergoing lengthy (time-wise) inspections, which buys Saddam more time given that he has successfully hidden some of these weapons Bush claims he has.

This is all true, but none of this is unexpected. What Iraq is doing is the obvous tactic of coaltion-splitting. There will be those in the coalition who will settle for form over substance in the inspections, but Iraq has a long history of non-compliance so it won't just be this administration who will be skeptical. Nothing would better convince the international community than a formal note from the new inspectors that they tried to do their job and were prevented from doing it.

Regarding time: well, we need time. You don't ready a huge invasion overnight. Those of you old enough to remember the Desert Shield portion of Desert Shield/Desert Storm will recall how many intensive months of preparation we needed. There is nothing wrong in seeking a diplomatic way out in the mean time.

Politically, of course, even this limited movement by Iraq is a huge victory for this administration. Don't forget that Clinton, Blair, and indirectly the UN coaltion bombed Iraq in 1998's "Desert Fox" campaign after Iraq pushed the UNSCOM inspectors out. Clinton and Blair failed ignominiously. Despite the bombing, Iraq thumbed its nose and the inspectors stayed out. After that, Clinton characteristically dropped the issue and moved on to other interests with a more apparent payoff. That left the momentum with Iraq. A little over a year ago, France and Russia were pushing the Security Council to drop the whole issue of WMDs, certify Iraq as compliant and lift the sanctions. Bush has managed to change all of that, and without firing a shot.

This news, though, is probably just a step. It would be smart to take a wait and see attitude. It's too early to declare victory, and way too early to declare "peace in our time."

[cjrivera]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Now they have offered to allow WI in unconditionally.

Good scenario: Iraq proves finally that they are not building WOMD, and we can put that debate to rest. The UN can then take further steps to ensure that they build no weapons. (IMO this should mean sanctions against the USA and the weapons manufacturers in that country so that they cannot export any more weaponry)

Bad scenario: Iraq is building WOMD and the UN figures this out. They can then make their resolutions to control those weapons and eliminate the threat in Iraq. They shouldn't have them, IMO, and if they do, we (the UN) should take'em back.

Either way, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, contrary to the will of the International community would be a slap in the face to the UN and the peace process..

Likely scenerio: Iraq plays the same game of not allowing inspectors into "presidential palaces" that span areas the size of small cities. (Some as large as England, according to ABC Nightline) The UN can neither confirm nor deny the existence of WOMD. Since there is no actual confirmation, the UN does not impose any further restrictions or punishment for Iraq. The US pushes for military intervention. The major players in the UN are again split. Back to square 1. (but now a few months later, giving Iraq more time to conceal or make more WOMD)

Does anyone have the actual transcript of this letter? I am sure it is filled with enough legal mumbo that even though Iraq says "unconditional", there will be restrictions placed by Iraq in where and when inspectors can search... just like the 1st time.

"Um, sure Officer, you can search my house, but I will only let you inside in about 8 hours, and you cannot check my basement, nor what may be buried underneath that newly shovelled dirt...."

[Nimisys]

Even more likely, iraq allows un inspectors in, who in turn find nbothing since iraq has aleready moved its programs into liberia/syria. the US which has intellegence proof (why do you think all the leaks about iraq came about after the speech) now has a major dilemma as iraq has fulfilled the un requirements, buyt it has not solved the probelm as iraq has moved the problem, but they lost all international support because iraq "is working with the un"

the UN is a tool of the EU, nothing more

[rampant]

Originally posted by DrSpookles:


LOL -- where might you fall within the spectrum?

Look to the left... more... more... past Gore... say hi to Jimmy Carter as we pass by... past Engals... Past Marx... Ah, here we are, right next to VI Lenin.

[El Pre$idente]

Load of nonsense and lies from couch potato politicians and anal-ysists.

The inspections don't mean ****. Saddam's ten Kalashnikovs don't mean **** too. He has about as much biological and nuclear weapons as the Minnesota militia.

The attacks on Iraq will go ahead regardless of inspections or whether there are any weapons in Iraq or not. This has been on the cards since before Bush won the election and so was the plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. 9-11 simply sped things up and allowed Bush and his business buddies to use the media to lie to the people about a massive network of terrorists...only Muslims ones of course, white man terrorism doesn't matter.

Iraq had been accused of everything from sending the Anthrax letters (the ones with US postage stamps) to training al-Qaeda. Yet both are lies. The attack on Iraq will go ahead because the Hawks of war don't give a **** if a brown skinned baby dies or if there is an attack on Israel as a reaction. These have been GOP plans for years. Not only do they want to grab every valuable resource but they have been trying to look like 'Israel's savior' for years and years. Best way to do that was to create, anger and sustain Israel's enemies.

War On Terrorism. Makes me sick to hear such propaganda. You watch them attack Iraq and then they'll progress on to Iran and other countries. Don't cry when terrorism occurs again. I won't, even if it happens on my doorstep.

Read all the plans they have been hatching for years. They admit it themselves on this site:

www.newamericancentury.org

[Face Ache]

That's what this guy says too.

Meanwhile...

[dillerX]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
That's what this guy says too.

Meanwhile...

Clipped Image

Classic. Pure entertainment.

[AlbertWu]

kinda like that ikea commercial with the lamp, and that dude with the accent that says

"most of you are probably feeling sorry for this lamp... you crazy! this lamp has no feelings! and the new one is much better!"


had me laughing for at least 5 min =D

[maxelson]

Believe it when I see it. Sorry to be so skeptical, but we have heard this before. And I will be stupid happy if it turns out to be true.

[daimoni]

.