Archive through September 12, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Bush must stop: Archive through September 12, 2002

Goddessatlaw

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ritter has been completely discredited by his own report to the UN when he quit as an inspector in 1998, when he blasted them for failing to ensure weapons inspectors had full access to Iraq to carry out their inspections in a reliable fashion. At the same time, he reported to the UN that at least 5% of Iraq's known chemical and ballistics stock was still unaccounted for, and that Iraq could reconstitute it's stock of said items within 6 months. He essentially called the UN's inspection attempts a joke, and he wanted nothing to do with it. All of a sudden, Ritter's singing a different tune - after he received $500,000.00 from an Iraqi American business man with a direct pipeline to Hussein's third man in charge. The money is for Ritter to produce and direct a film in Baghdad. He is an inherently conflicted, financially biased and contradictory source for any opinion regarding Iraq's current state of affairs, outside of the fact he has had no access to intelligence for four years. Basically, he's a paid PR man for Hussein.

Nightcrawler

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
how do you prove you aren't doing something IF you are not doing it???

you let inspectors in and let them look at what ever they want and then IF you are not doing any thing. the world would see that.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Crossfire.. I'm not totally disagreeing withyou... I want those inspectors back in Iraq! But I will not blindly accept a pre-emptive strike unless it is a last resort. So far the Pres has made it very clear that he will accept nothing less than a regime change. Now... if I were a leader of another country... *I* would be unwilling to comply with another world leader if their only goal was to get me out of power.. that's just plain common sense!!!

I am glad that Bush wants the UN to handle this. That is how it SHOULD be... but to bully the UN by saying that if they don't deal with it in HIS time or the US will strike... well... that does NOT bode well.

And as far as the we wouldn't use them argument... are you sure about that??? We are willing to push for a pre-emptive stirke without any real proof... why wouldn't we attack without provocation?

See this is the problem I have... Sept 11th was a tragedy and yes... something needed to be done about it, but to use it as an excuse to further your own agenda and instill fear into the hearts of your own people and others internationally.. well... frankly I consider THAT evil!

I want the inspectors to go back into Iraq. If Iraq refuses, then we have cause to do something, but not before! And even then... we should still try to find a peaceful solution to get the inspectors back in there before we go to war.

I'm not saying that a conflict is the absolute wrong thing... I'm just saying there are BETTER ways to deal with things and we have not availed ourselves to the other options FIRST. Conflict may indeed be necessary, but it is the last step, not the first solution... see the difference?

It's all JMO... but it's the way I feel. They say that Tony Blair will be releasing the paper (the white paper trail Bush has eluded to) in a few days. I will wait to see that report before I make any further conclusions... and I will wait to see the reactions of the UN... but I will NOT blindly follow a President that is being led with a bloodlust.

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Nightcrawler, Iraq said they wanted weapons inspection to start up again to try to avert a war with the U.S. WE said no. We are saying they have the weapons, we refuse to come up with proof, we're demanding they prove they're not doing it, and we are refusing inspections.

This is a catch 22. We are going to invade Iraq and remove Hussein no matter what he does.

As far as I know, I haven't read one post saying this guy is a Saint. He's a bad guy, and there are tons more like him out there. (Are we planning on taking them all out?) Hussein needs to be watched, and more drastic measures may need to be taken if it is proven he constitutes a real and serious threat to us and our allies.

Quoting news reports of 14 years ago does not represent proof as to what he is doing today.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
how do you prove you aren't doing something IF you are not doing it???

you let inspectors in and let them look at what ever they want and then IF you are not doing any thing. the world would see that.

Nightcrawler... don't you get it??? even IF the inspector go back in and find nothing... then Bush will simply say that Saddam has hidden everything from the inspectors... either way Saddam can't prove it!

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
TY Margie.. you said that much better than I could!

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Nightcrawler,

Bush WOULD use first strike nuclear capabilities. Remember the plans for attack on China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria?

Here's a link to the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1864173.stm

The U.S. is a good country, we've always had the position that we would NOT bomb first - that seems to be changing rapidly.

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Faery, thank you! :)

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Pushing my way in here. Margie, I know you were not talking to me, but I just want to inject some comments.

First up, I don't want to put words into Nightcrawler's mouth, but he never said anything about First strike, and I hope he does not slip one in while I am typing this. :) He just said we/you/us are nothing like Iraq.

With respect to First use, that article really seems to dance around the issue. The only place it is even mentioned, is the photo caption, or byline, not sure which it is.

But the three uses mentioned seem reasonable, and do not necessarily indicate first use.

Max

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I like what Paul Harvey said on the radio yesterday (you can hear it yourself at http://paulharvey.com - it's in the Wednesday afternoon broadcast, about 8 minutes in).

"For perspective: Iraq's Sadaam Hussein may soon have nuclear weapons. So? China already has them. The United States, Britain and France already have them. India, Pakistan and Israel have them. North Korea has them or soon will have them. Maybe, when everybody has them, nobody will use them. In which case, there's nothing to worry about. Or, everybody will use them... in which case, there's nothing to worry about."

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Faerygdds: I know none of us are likely to change our opinions, so I am not going to beat on the issue. I will just say, I agree, if there is another answer, I am certainly interested in hearing it, and I also look forward to seeing what Blair has to show us.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Crossfire.. I would certainly HOPE that we are nothing like Iraq... however that being said...

I'm just not so sure anymore....

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
This bows... now I'm bummed and I can't have any chocolate to boost endorphines because I'm a diabetic!!! OH WOAH IS ME!!!!!!!!!

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Max: Ain't that the truth.

(The bits you posted that is. I've not listened to his report.)

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Crossfire, (One of my favorite shows, by the way)

Nightcrawler said:

"the USA in nothing like Iraq we do have nukes but we would not use them in the same way that Iraq will if they get some or have some!!! "


Using nuclear weapons to take out countries who we consider to be our enemy would be exactly what Iraq would do. We have nukes and we have drawn up plans to use them when we want. First strike would seem to me to be exactly what Iraq would do.


"The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause."


Surprising military developments can pretty much mean whatever they want it to at the time. Bush also wants small BATTLEFIELD nukes. First strike, hell, if they had already launched missiles at us, we would be using the big ones on them. The battlefield nukes are explicitly first strike.

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 01:03 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Great quotes here:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has 'closed', the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." --Julius Caesar


And this one...

Henry IV, on his deathbead, offers this advice to Prince Hal:


" ... Therefore, my Harry,
Be it thy course to busy giddy minds
With foreign quarrels ... "


Henry IV, Part II, Act 4, Scene 4

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 01:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Oh margie.. I love those...

Hail Caesar!

Oh no.. that's wrong... (giggling)
:)

I will be back to debate later... for now I must travel to the home of my father and prepare to celebrate the phenomenon known as Big Brother! :)

Oregonfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 01:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Margie, lovin' the Shakespeare. Always makes me happy to see a SP passage just about anywhere.

I am reading everyone's posts and find them very informative. I'm trying not to get involved because I may lose my head!

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 01:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"Using nuclear weapons to take out countries who we consider to be our enemy would be exactly what Iraq would do. We have nukes and we have drawn up plans to use them when we want. First strike would seem to me to be exactly what Iraq would do.

Right. But I am confused here. Did you switch sides? It seems like you are taking my position now as Nightcrawler said we are not like them. To follow that logic through, it means we would not utilize that against other nations.


"The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause."

Right, which is why I kind of did a bit of dancing myself, and did not come straight out and say affirmatively that we would not. I am hedging a little bit here.


"Surprising military developments can pretty much mean whatever they want it to at the time."

This I think can be read as an attempt to not have to write a phone book on the issue. Having said that, is someone does something of a military capacity that is surprising, then they did something first, making the eventual nuclear strike, the second move. I am thinking of Perl Harbor type events when I read that.


"Bush also wants small BATTLEFIELD nukes. First strike, hell, if they had already launched missiles at us, we would be using the big ones on them. The battlefield nukes are explicitly first strike."

Battlefield nukes are a great idea, from a military standpoint. A quick response weapon to an unexpected WMD or chemical attack. A mutual assured destruction kind of thing. If you are standing toe to toe with someone who pulls out a canister of a deadly toxin, you pull out your portable nuke. And with any luck, neither gets used. Also, if you are already on a battlefield, the first strike, has already occurred, regardless of who started the conflict.

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 01:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
With respect to those quotes, the first one in particular, I have no response, Julius Caesar is more clever than I.

Good quote nonetheless. :)

Ocean_Islands

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 01:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Wow that Shakespeare quote is amazing ... thank you!

Lancecrossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 01:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Faery, you said you asked someone that used to work on nuclear missles. Did they work on the missle (non-warhaed parts) or on the actual warheads? A missle with one or more warheads is mostly non-nulcear.

Next, it's not nuclear capabilities I'd be woried about so much as I would be biological weapons. All systems that can deliver neclear or thermonuclear warheads can also deliver biological warfare---and there are other systems that can deliver biological that can't deliver nuclear or thermonuclear. That means that there are more ways to deliver bological measures.

Not to mention the issue that many consider biological warfare worse in potential lethal affects.

As far as using them? There is only one country that has used nuclear weapons--and did so twice.

If you are on a battlefield and toe to toe, you don't want to be using any nukes. A couple of delivery systems that have nuclear capability used in the battlefield put the user right at the edge of safety---20 miles. (one of the lowest yields delivered)

"Portable" nukes are tactical in nature. Actually the systems used in battlefilds are thought of more in tacticle terms than in killing terms. They would more likely be used to make an area of land uninhabbitible. It would depend on the scenario which use would be primary--killing people or making an area such thaht no one could occupy it.

If it's an issue of taking out a country, Saddam doesn't have it--that would take multiple thermonuclear attacks.

As pointed out, a number of countries have nuclear capability--not all of them our friends. Then it comes down to the chances that country would use it. Although from strategy point of view, you don't have to woory about that issue if the country odesn't have the capability. I think it's that unknown issue of using or won't use that is of biggest concern--it just can't be predicted 100%.

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 02:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Crossfire, no I did not switch sides. Nightcrawler said we would not use nukes like they would and I offered proof that we would.

Battlefield nukes are not Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) because it's not going to deter anything. Hussein will take a loss of some of his own troups to destroy some of ours. He knows he's going to lose, so what risk is he taking? Battlefield nukes will not only put our troups at further risk, they'll preclude us from the possibility of sending ground troups into an area once we've (I'm assuming) dropped one. Our men will know that they may have no symptoms now, but wait 20-30 years for cancer.

We need less nukes not more.

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 02:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Oh, I'm glad everyone liked the quotes, the caesar one seems to be my favorite lately for some reason! ;)

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 02:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"Crossfire, no I did not switch sides. Nightcrawler said we would not use nukes like they would and I offered proof that we would."

I completely missed that. The proof was not terribly obvious to me. Now that I go back, I see you intend the whole message to be considered on the same point. I thought you were making two separate points.

Having said that, I still don't see the proof, but since I misread it the first time, maybe I am still misreading.