Archive through November 08, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: Iraq will allow full weapons inspections!!!!!: Archive through November 08, 2002

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 02:36 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I have a hard time holding Senior's feet to the fire for 1) abiding by the mandates of our presence in the liberation of Kuwait in the first place 2) bowing to popular opinion, domestic and international regarding NOT taking out Hussein and 3) showing humanity to Hussein and the Iraqis in the line of fire by allowing him a chance to prove to the U.N. and the world that he could abide by the terms of the surrender and conform his behavior as befits a viable head of state. Senior did what he had to do - he didn't necessarily do what he WANTED to or COULD HAVE done. He made a presidential decision in a different time.

Misslibra

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 02:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hehehehe Hillbilly.

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 02:38 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'd do the horse and buggy thing. Well - maybe not.

Twinkie

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 02:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'd do the horse and buggy thing in the south. Not up here in big snow country.

Yuhuru

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 02:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Okay, I'm a little concerned about getting into this, but I'm curious regarding y'all's opinion. First, I'll state my concern about war with Saddam. My major concern is the lack of support from the international community. It may appear to them, as some times it appears to me that it's really about the oil and not about terrorism, etc. The US seems extremely concerned about Saddam and his nuclear and biological weapons. We want to act to destroy him, and as far as I know we don't really have a plan to leave, but to occupy.

Now then there's North Korea who has nuclear weapons and the small pox virus, but we're not making any plans to go over there.

Please don't approach your response as some sort of contest or debate, etc. I'm not into that & I don't have enough sources to cite to win. I would like an opinion, but more sort of explanatory than debative, if that makes sense.

Thanks

Twinkie

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 02:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Just an interesting side note. When the oil wells in Kuwait were burning there were also volcanos going off near the equator in other parts of the world. In Florida where I lived it made for the most beautiful sunsets I'd ever seen in my life. Ironic, huh?

Hillbilly

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:02 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well..Yuhuru...regarding North Korea...I kinda think its just been within the last month that they've admitted to pursuing a nuclear weapons program violating their agreement with the US. I'm sure there's probably alot of things happening behind the scenes that we don't know yet.

I think the issue with Saddam is (at least for me anyway) that while he might not use them against us himself, I have no doubt he wouldn't be willing to make a deal and share all his goodies he's been developing with someone else who is willing like Al Queda, etc. It's kind of like the 'get some else to do your dirty work for you' technique. This is probably already being done and just hasn't become known yet.

We've pretty much done without his oil all these years so why would we be concerned about it that much now. Especially with the Russian economy improving and their oil industry cranking back up. The Russians have gone against OPEC the last few times that OPEC tried to curtail oil production. The Russians have it right...they take care of their own people first.

Crossfire

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:02 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"We had the backing of other countries who were in there fighting with us."

Because we agreed not to make a point of killing Saddam. The international coalition included Arab nations who were not keen to have the man killed as their own populations would have had a fit.

The is not Bush seniors fault, this is Saddam's fault, he agreed to disarm among other things in return for the coalition forces to stop humiliating his military. He did not follow through.

At the time, it was a good deal, getting to avoid sending troops into the streets of Baghdad and fighting a war among civilians followed by a long dangerous occupation was very desirable.


Alternate energy sources is a another ball of wax. Suffice it to say, that basically all of the suggested ideas either cost too much, or do not scale enough to replace the energy provided by about 70 million daily barrels of oil. One that would work, is switching back to coal, but then we'd probably have a dead planet practically overnight. More nuclear reactors would be helpful though especially is we want to start running cars on electricity.

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:07 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Truthfully, Yuhuru - I view the lack of international support as being more about the oil, and a complete lack of concern for what may happen to America if Saddam is allowed to continue. France and Germany are trying to swing oil deals with Iraq. Hello - and Russia's already there with that. We have no plans to occupy Iraq - there will need to be an international peacekeeping force in place to ensure the safety of a new elected government for about 10 years after the liberation of the Iraqi's from that murdering freak, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be us. We would rather it NOT be. And the UN has not refused to be part of reestablishing Iraq as an independent state if we go it "alone" (alone is relative, here - we have the support of many nations in this). North Korea can be dealt with - they are not an immediate, America-destroying threat. They've got enough to keep them busy right now dealing with South Korea and other Asian affairs. And their admission of their attempts to enrich uranium is an encouraging sign. They did it to save themselves, because they knew they were next in our sites. THIS is progress. There is hope that the UN and the international community can negotiate with the powers that be in North Korea, and they will be given that chance (with close monitoring). N. Korea is a huge problem, but not as yet deemed beyond reason. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the same communist dictator who made the decision to admit to the nuclear program also has the savvy to make decisions designed to save the lives of his people and the future of his country.

Was that OK?

Calamity

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:07 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Okay, I'm back but this is it for today.

Hillbilly, great point about the solar panels, especially in the sun belt. Another possibility is geothermal energy. It costs more upfront because you have to dig so deep and install the equipment. But from then you've got virtually free, non-polluting heating/cooling. However I have to disagree with you about drilling in ANWR. Even if you're willing to overlook the environmental costs (which I'm not), it's been estimated that it will take ten years to get the field ready for production and even then the supply will only be a tiny fraction of our needs.

Crossfire, if it's based on principles, then why didn't we protest his use of bio-weapons back when those events occured? I understand the need for flexibility in life but principles don't mean anything if they only count when it's convienient. It's precisely that inconsistent and hypocritical mindset that has spurred much of the global anger against our country. We supposedly hold up democracy but look at all the dictators and despots we've funded and aided because it suited us. The heck with the people who have to suffer under their rule.

Hillbilly

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:12 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Calamity...I've actually done some preliminary research into having solar panels installed but it is expensive but you do get a big tax break on your return for doing it. The main issue seemed to be finding someone in my area qualified and knowledgable enough to install and maintain the system.

Crossfire

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"Now then there's North Korea who has nuclear weapons and the small pox virus, but we're not making any plans to go over there."

Good points. The reason for that is actually part of the reason why we have to race like hell to prevent Saddam from getting them too. The fact that he does not have them, and we do, provides for a very, very large stick to use when 'negotiating'.

Once he has them as well, our hand is significantly weaker. Some people like to trot out the MAD argument mutually assured destruction argument when dealing with this, but that is just a hold over from the cold war era that does not really apply with Iraq. With Iraq, while we most certainly have a big enough stick to pave the whole place, it's not something we really want to do. All he needs, is one. We are driving a BMW, and he has a rusty old Datsun. We are not willing to suffer so much as a single scratch to our car, while a smashed in fender is not so big a deal on the rust box he has.

So in the case of North Korea, if its true that they already have a nuke, there is really not one heck of a lot we can do about it now. They now have a much better hand to bring to the table than they used to.

What would be happening right now, is we would be trying to get them to voluntarily disarm, we are probably offering up all sorts of juicy carrots that were not on the table before this, but if they tell us to go stuff it, we'll be stuffing.

Misslibra

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:29 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
He would of killed himself since I doubt he would of wanted to be taken alive. Of course Hussien didn't follow through with the agreement he is a lair. who didn't know that. And for the US to think that agreement meant anything to Hussien makes us look foolish.

So now at this time we have the desire to go into the streets of Baghdad fighting war among civilians?? Because that is what we will probably have to do anyway to get to him. And where is Osama... planning his next attack, and thinking up something to out do the last. And he will have more fuel to add to the fire using the Iraq situation to get more to join him.

Yuhuru if it's true the Saudi's gave the terrorist there support using our oil money, and I don't see Bush going after then either. They are our friends... yeah right! It's about the oil up in them there hills.

Hillbilly

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
One thing about North Korea is figuring out what their leader really wants from us. Unlike Saddam, he doesn't really want to destroy America.

The North Korean leader wants respect on the world stage and he wants South Korea back. Hard to do with approx 30,000 US troops keeping him at bay.

I believe that if North Korea is going to be aggressive, he will do it for gain and not revenge. He will probably want the oil rich Spratly Islands that are currently contested by several countries in that area, South Korea, Laos, and a few other countries that could be easily gobbled up by North Korea.

The folks who have the most to worry about with North Korea is South Korea, Japan, and the Phillipines.

Yuhuru

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks guys! I appreciate your insights.

Crossfire

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"And for the US to think that agreement meant anything to Hussien makes us look foolish."

No argument here. But sometimes when playing international politics, you have to do things you don't want to. If there is a next time, we will probably have to do something else we don't want to do, which is to take Baghdad. With any luck, they will not fight back. There is an outside chance that just showing up will be enough this time.

We may, or may not get him, but what will happen, is that he will no longer have a state behind him anymore than bin laden does. As for where is Osama...well, that is obviously the million dollar question isn't it? I think he's probably dead. But the question does seem to come up a lot. Why go after Iraq when we are not done with the first problem. The answer to me is that they are all somewhat related, and because the US military is big enough to do both at the same time. Not all phases of the war on terror will be large scale actions like the one in Afghanistan, sometimes, it will just be a car suddenly exploding for no good reason in the Yemen followed by a news report that a high ranking Al-Queda member has recently deceased. That does not require the full attention of the entire military.

As for the Saudis, they are not our friends unless you mean on a nudge nudge wink wink basis. Part of dealing with them, is dealing with Iraq. Destabilization of the whole region is coming.


All of this just in my opinion of course. :)

Misslibra

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 04:02 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
They are all related which is the reason I said this war with Iraq will be another chapter to add to the terrorist reasons for attacking us on our soil again. I think this war will destabilize the whole region even more then it is today, and I'm very against it.

Crossfire sometimes a opinion is all you have. Thank goodness we live in a country where we can express all different views of opinions. I should run over and add this to my comfort list. To live in a country where your not afraid you'll be jailed or killed for expressing your opinion. Now that is a comfort! :)

Hillbilly

Thursday, November 07, 2002 - 03:55 am EditMoveDeleteIP
This will come to a vote at the UN this week. I expect that President Bush will get the backing he wants now that the elections are over. I'm sure France is very disappointed with the results and has been delaying this hoping that President Bush would lose control of the House instead.

Regardless of what the resolution says, Saddam is not going to cooperate with inspections. That's a given. The only question is what is going to happen when he doesn't. I think we all know that answer. Get ready.


Here's part of an article discussing this.

************************************
US signals Iraq breakthrough is near


UN members will discuss the latest US plan of action

US officials are signalling that a deal has been reached with France and Russia to overcome their objections to a new resolution against Iraq.
Senior diplomats are discussing the latest resolution drafted by the United States at a closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council.


The BBC's Middle East analyst, Roger Hardy, says, barring last-minute snags US President George W Bush could have new UN backing - along with his party's election successes - to give him added momentum in his desire to see regime change in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2408009.stm

Crossfire

Thursday, November 07, 2002 - 11:13 am EditMoveDeleteIP
"They are all related which is the reason I said this war with Iraq will be another chapter to add to the terrorist reasons for attacking us on our soil again"

This tells me that you believe the reason we got attacked, 9/11 in particular, was our fault. I reject that completely. The only thing we did to attract the attention is to be successful.

One can say, don't attack Iraq, or the terrorists will come get us.

How about instead we say to Iraq, comply fully with the UN resolutions that you agreed to, or we will come get you.

The benefit to them to do so is so great that it is hard to imagine any sane reason why they have not yet done so. If they would comply, we could ensure our safety, Iraqi citizen safety, lift the embargo, buy some of their oil,establish normal relations and the quality of life there will improve immeasurably for everyone involved.

The question...why not? Why for over ten years has this not happened? What are they hiding?

The world has already spoken. The UN resolutions are already in place. The resolutions mean nothing if they are not backed up. I think ten years of defiance is a pretty good indicator of their intentions.

The UN right now, is riding a super thin knife edge of becoming irrelevant. If Iraq is allowed to continue to flaunt the resolutions that the world and itself has agreed to, and nothing happens, then we lose the UN. Then what?

When this is all done, we will be able to add Iraq to the list of countries that have people who are also allowed to have and express opinions like this without the fear of being killed for it.

Nimtu

Thursday, November 07, 2002 - 11:20 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Just wanted to update everyone...the weapons inspectors didn't go in today so far..maybe Friday

Goddessatlaw

Thursday, November 07, 2002 - 01:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
News update: France agrees on UN resolution. Link:

U.S. Wants UN Vote on Iraq Friday; France Agrees

Goddessatlaw

Friday, November 08, 2002 - 08:01 am EditMoveDeleteIP
UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE IRAQ RESOLUTION AT THE UN. Just breaking.

Fluff

Friday, November 08, 2002 - 08:08 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Really? Oh my!

Goddessatlaw

Friday, November 08, 2002 - 08:13 am EditMoveDeleteIP
As I understand it, Iraq will now have 7 days to accept or reject the resolution as it stands. If it accepts, it must provide the UN a full listing of all weapons in it's possession within 45 days. All areas of Iraq, including the palaces, are subject to inspection without interference. Failure to accept or failure to cooperate will result in the UN and the US entering and disarming Iraq by force if necessary.

Edited to add correction: the language says "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to disarm and cooperate with inspectors. Everyone commenting on that passage says it means US and UN allies forcibly disarming.

Babyruth

Friday, November 08, 2002 - 09:02 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Should be an interesting Arab summit this weekend.