Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Remind me again what the Tory stance on the war was?Lord Pounder wrote:At the time i swallowed Tony Blairs shit hook, like, sinker and copy of anglers weekley.
Today i feel like a fool for forgetting what a dishonest shit we have for a Prime Minister. Next election i'll be voting Conservative for this reason alone.
Geeze. the Torys were cheering for this shit even louder than Labour. they've just jumped on the post war band wagon.Lord Pounder wrote:At the time i swallowed Tony Blairs shit hook, like, sinker and copy of anglers weekley.
Today i feel like a fool for forgetting what a dishonest shit we have for a Prime Minister. Next election i'll be voting Conservative for this reason alone.
To quote Kang from the Simpsons "Go ahead, throw your vote away! mwahahahahah".FBHthelizardmage wrote:
Geeze. the Torys were cheering for this shit even louder than Labour. they've just jumped on the post war band wagon.
Vote lib dem.
I imagine the US wouldn't send its fighters patrolling other peoples airspace to prevent them being shot down because if they did go around violating say, Russian airspace on a regular basis I doubt the Russians would restrain themselves for very long.If any other country on Earth fired AA weapons at patrolling US fighters, war woulda been instant and inevitable.
If any other country on Earth consistently violated the UN policies on national sovereignty by maintaining illegal military aerial cordons, sanctions woulda been instant and inevitable.SPOOFE wrote:If any other country on Earth fired AA weapons at patrolling US fighters, war woulda been instant and inevitable.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
And if any other country flew into one of our no-fly zones, we wouldn't be so charitable with them, either. Firing at our planes when they were in a no-fly zone is hardly grounds for going to war, because we'd do the exact same fucking thing.SPOOFE wrote:I never believed nor cared about the possibility of WMD's in Iraq. I considered it utterly irrelevent, and saw Saddam's other transgressions over the past ten years to be PLENTY reason to blow the fucker up. If any other country on Earth fired AA weapons at patrolling US fighters, war woulda been instant and inevitable.
Could the P-3 incident not that long ago have bearing with this?Durandal wrote:And if any other country flew into one of our no-fly zones, we wouldn't be so charitable with them, either. Firing at our planes when they were in a no-fly zone is hardly grounds for going to war, because we'd do the exact same fucking thing.SPOOFE wrote:I never believed nor cared about the possibility of WMD's in Iraq. I considered it utterly irrelevent, and saw Saddam's other transgressions over the past ten years to be PLENTY reason to blow the fucker up. If any other country on Earth fired AA weapons at patrolling US fighters, war woulda been instant and inevitable.
A better argument is the no-fly zones weren't legal. If they were, violating them may have been grounds for war, depending of course on the wording of this "what-if" UN resolution.Durandal wrote:And if any other country flew into one of our no-fly zones, we wouldn't be so charitable with them, either. Firing at our planes when they were in a no-fly zone is hardly grounds for going to war, because we'd do the exact same fucking thing.SPOOFE wrote:I never believed nor cared about the possibility of WMD's in Iraq. I considered it utterly irrelevent, and saw Saddam's other transgressions over the past ten years to be PLENTY reason to blow the fucker up. If any other country on Earth fired AA weapons at patrolling US fighters, war woulda been instant and inevitable.
Israel violates UN resolutions, too, and we're giving them billions of dollars per year. Should we invade every country that makes the UN look bad? Saddam was a regional threat, and barely one at that. Strike one against the war.Traceroute wrote:That, and the 13 years of defying UN resolutions was getting a bit old. I think Bush (or his speech writers) made a good point ... The UN was looking like a paper tiger.
As for Israel, I agree that we shouldn't be giving them billions of dollars. That said, the UN's failure to enforce their resolutions on Iraq strikes at their very credibility on the world stage. Please explain what use the UN is if it's not willing to enforce 13 years worth of resolutions?Durandal wrote:Israel violates UN resolutions, too, and we're giving them billions of dollars per year. Should we invade every country that makes the UN look bad? Saddam was a regional threat, and barely one at that. Strike one against the war.Traceroute wrote:That, and the 13 years of defying UN resolutions was getting a bit old. I think Bush (or his speech writers) made a good point ... The UN was looking like a paper tiger.
Yes. We get the ones we can, and hope that our children can finish the work we start, instead of having to start it because we were too afraid to.And yes, he treated his people like shit. So do tons of other countries around the world. Do we invade them, too? Strike three.
Hold it a second ref. While Saddams WMD program may not have been as extensive a first believed, it was hardly nonexistant. From David Kay's report.What about his WMD programs? They're nonexistent. He had no weapons, and even if he did have such programs in place, he didn't have the resources to bring them to fruition due to economic sanctions and a generally unstable military and government. Strike four.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s ... 22003.htmlWe have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
* Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
So if we can't afford to rebuild Iraq, what do suggest we do? Turn it over to the UN? That means giving it to countries who are currently clamoring for billions in debts rung up by Saddam. Debts which would be a blow to a frigile iraqi economy. Not only that, but the UN pulled it's people out at the first signs that golly gee they might actually be at risk. If they don't have the will to go to the very places that they claim they are needed, then why are do they continually cry for more responsibilities there? Just acknowlege that the US is the occuping power, that they will offer support in the formation of a new government, even if only moral, and allow us to conduct anti-guerrilla operations under the UN flag. That way we can get support from member nations that are willing to share the danger.In light of all this, we made a pledge to rebuild Iraq with billions of dollars of our money. We can't afford this little reconstruction project. There was nothing even resembling a timetable for the post-war reconstruction and the planning for the reconstruction seemed to consist of waving the Magic Democracy Wand. Bush is now just asking for money as he needs it and trying to get it from countries in the UN that didn't want to go to war. They spent quite a bit of time on unsuccessful ploys like "Shock and Awe" but couldn't come up with something for afterward. The only thing positive about the war was how admirably our troops performed in adverse conditions during the advance into Baghdad. Everything else shows that our little project was poorly planned and very expensive.
Actually, the US did violate USSR airspace a great deal and the Soviets retaliated by trying to shoot the planes down, only got luky a couple of times IIRC.TheDarkling wrote:I imagine the US wouldn't send its fighters patrolling other peoples airspace to prevent them being shot down because if they did go around violating say, Russian airspace on a regular basis I doubt the Russians would restrain themselves for very long.If any other country on Earth fired AA weapons at patrolling US fighters, war woulda been instant and inevitable.
I really dislike this line of reasoning, for it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the UN works and is structure, but is also used as a poor excuse for a unjustifiable war.Alex Moon wrote:As for Israel, I agree that we shouldn't be giving them billions of dollars. That said, the UN's failure to enforce their resolutions on Iraq strikes at their very credibility on the world stage. Please explain what use the UN is if it's not willing to enforce 13 years worth of resolutions?
"Note what that sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories."Alex Moon wrote:
* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
"Possibly". Nuff said.* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
BW-'applicable' agents. Yet another 'oh, they could have, but we don't actually have any evidence that they did'* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
'Would have been useful' not 'was used'.* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
There is nothing in the Resolution 687 pertaining to the ranges of UAVs whatsoever, regardless, even if one interprets Res 687 this way (despite the 150km limit only applying to ballistic missiles), the US Air Force was of the opinion that Iraq's UAVs were for recon purposes, and were unsuitable for WMD dissemination. Which is hardly news, considering it was always a fucking stupid idea, and which ever idiot in the Bush administration thought it up was reading too much Tom Clancy.* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Once again, not a shread of evidence that they actually did.* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
"Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in future."* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Unsuccessful attempts.* Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
Actually, they *were* effective, and until vast stocks of WMD, long range missiles etc are found, that'll remain the case.Kay's report suggests that as soon as the sanctions were lifted, Iraq would have once again begun production on Chemical/Biological weapons, as well as reconstituted it's nuclear program. In light of this there are really only two options.
A) Continue the sanctions, at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqis per year over the course of 10-20 years with no guarentee that they would be fully effective.
The neoconservative fantasy flogged for the past decade by the Weekly Standard rears it's ugly head. I have zero confidence that a democracy imposed by a US military invasion and occupation will have any credibility with surrounding countries or populations. Iraq is now the World Cup of Jihad, nothing more.B) Remove Saddam from power. While this means a war and subsequent occupation, it would still be far less costly in terms of lives lost, would remove any threat completely and would have the added bonus of allowing for the creation of a stable democratic arab state, an alternative to the dictatorships that currently infest the region and channel money and young men into terrorist groups as a way of relieving social pressures within their own countries.
Few countries are willing to share the danger, because they didn't want the war in the first place.So if we can't afford to rebuild Iraq, what do suggest we do? Turn it over to the UN? That means giving it to countries who are currently clamoring for billions in debts rung up by Saddam. Debts which would be a blow to a frigile iraqi economy. Not only that, but the UN pulled it's people out at the first signs that golly gee they might actually be at risk. If they don't have the will to go to the very places that they claim they are needed, then why are do they continually cry for more responsibilities there? Just acknowlege that the US is the occuping power, that they will offer support in the formation of a new government, even if only moral, and allow us to conduct anti-guerrilla operations under the UN flag. That way we can get support from member nations that are willing to share the danger.
Ah, so the US was just concerned with the UN's image? How generous of us. We were saving the UN face by defying it. So what if a tin-pot dictator under economic sanction isn't cooperating? I think it's a little worse when the UN's most powerful member decides to tell it to go fuck itself and goes gung-ho into a situation for which it had jackshit for aftermath planning.Alex Moon wrote:As for Israel, I agree that we shouldn't be giving them billions of dollars. That said, the UN's failure to enforce their resolutions on Iraq strikes at their very credibility on the world stage. Please explain what use the UN is if it's not willing to enforce 13 years worth of resolutions?
Oh really? So we're the world's fucking police force now? This shit costs money, and the unemployment rate is at the highest it's been in the past two decades. I'd say that the US government's first responsibility is to, oh I don't know, maybe US citizens, but that's just me talking crazy liberal-talk again.Yes. We get the ones we can, and hope that our children can finish the work we start, instead of having to start it because we were too afraid to.
Hold it a second ref. While Saddams WMD program may not have been as extensive a first believed, it was hardly nonexistant. From David Kay's report.
My school's biology lab is suitable for biochemical weapons research too. Time to bomb the shit out of Illinois State University, I suppose. I'd better run and get my ass into a bomb shelter with some of our gorgeous psychology majors.We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
And I possibly had sex with Jesus Christ's long-lost great^10 niece. Good to know that the Bush administration considers that claim valid!* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
And that indicates a government program ... how? Uh oh, I have Feynman's lecture notes in my apartment. I must be researching nuclear weapons!* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
Actually, the sanctions were very effective. Iraq had not developed a single weapon. Could it be that he ... disarmed? Naaaaah.A) Continue the sanctions, at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqis per year over the course of 10-20 years with no guarentee that they would be fully effective.
Are you on crack? Muslims states don't like secular democracies! We're setting Iraq up as Public Enemy Number One in that region by introducing our culture and government there, which extreme Arab states just happen to despise.or
B) Remove Saddam from power. While this means a war and subsequent occupation, it would still be far less costly in terms of lives lost, would remove any threat completely and would have the added bonus of allowing for the creation of a stable democratic arab state, an alternative to the dictatorships that currently infest the region and channel money and young men into terrorist groups as a way of relieving social pressures within their own countries.
So if we can't afford to rebuild Iraq, what do suggest we do?
Yes, leave it to the fucking UN, because the UN imposed the sanctions and resolutions. It's the UN's business, and if it, as a body, was unconvinced that Saddam was a threat to anyone, then too fucking bad. Bush didn't exactly do a stellar job of selling the war to anyone but a gullible and apparently ludicrously stupid American public.Turn it over to the UN? That means giving it to countries who are currently clamoring for billions in debts rung up by Saddam. Debts which would be a blow to a frigile iraqi economy. Not only that, but the UN pulled it's people out at the first signs that golly gee they might actually be at risk. If they don't have the will to go to the very places that they claim they are needed, then why are do they continually cry for more responsibilities there? Just acknowlege that the US is the occuping power, that they will offer support in the formation of a new government, even if only moral, and allow us to conduct anti-guerrilla operations under the UN flag. That way we can get support from member nations that are willing to share the danger.
