Should we fight? A liberal's view.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not claiming that this is some sort of master plan. I'm not claiming anything. All I'm saying is that none of us know anything about what is going on behind the scenes and that, in light of that fact, it is pointless (and annoying) to speculate on issues as important as the state of Iraq's nuclear program.

Also, I don't care if you decide to oppose an invasion. I prefer to wait until all the evidence has been laid out and the case has been fully made before I make my decision. Not that my opinion matters much...

[notyoueither]

Frogger, the guys against dealing with Saddam are going to have to come up with something better than insults about the current Murcan leadership (which includes Powell, btw) and denial that Saddam could possibly ever have something with which to menace world peace.

What is happening now is that Bush is seeking international agreement. He will most likely get it. Once he does, the game is on. It won't matter what you or I say.

[KrazyHorse]

Neither does mine...but Bush has been pushing for action nownownow. He wants a resolution before November elections...which means the vote would have to be held in October...which isn't very far away.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
If Saddam's dangerously close to acquiring a functional nuclear weapon, then what would stop Dubya from going in and coming back with the evidence and a fait accompli?

That's exactly what the Yanks have been being excoriated for. Unilateral action.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Frogger, the guys against dealing with Saddam are going to have to come up with something better than insults about the current Murcan leadership (which includes Powell, btw) and denial that Saddam could possibly ever have something with which to menace world peace.

What is happening now is that Bush is seeking international agreement. He will most likely get it. Once he does, the game is on. It won't matter what you or I say.

My insults were kept pretty tame, from my perspective. I'm not in any sort of denia about Saddam's nature or his abilities; it just looks like the US wants to go to war on a whim.

Now, for the real politics: do you really believe that Bush will get a UN mandate to oust Saddam?

Even assuming he gets something as good as a deadline to allow UNESCO(?) back in before force becomes an option, I think Saddam will do it rather than get taken down with the ship.

[Promethus]

Drake

I'll take the Frog for 10kt.

Why?

1. If he could just buy a Nuke he would have already.

2. If he could buy U235 he would have already (allthough even though the U235 might be worth the same price as a 10kt Nuke some people might sell it for less).

3. If he had the plants to make U235 we would have taken them out by now.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's exactly what the Yanks have been being excoriated for. Unilateral action.

Unilateral action sure...but afterwards showing that Saddam had nukes (or being able to prove that he was actually about to get them) would silence most criticisms.

I think it's unbelievable to assume that there's some sort of secret US evidence which proves this, which the US both refuses to share with anybody else and also refuses to act on alone.

[Drake Tungsten]

3. If he had the plants to make U235 we would have taken them out by now.

What if they're underground, like North Korea's is said to be?

[Promethus]

Drake

We know the North Koreans have built undergtound structures via seeing the digging. But whats in then we do not know, we supect, but do not jnow.

Have we seen Iraq do the same thing? Remember these are huge plants, you have move a lot of dirt (or in Iraq may be sand).

[Drake Tungsten]

Have we seen Iraq do the same thing? Remember these are huge plants, you have move a lot of dirt (or in Iraq may be sand).

I don't know. That's my point, really. None of us know, so what's the point of saying that Iraq is decades away from obtaining nukes because these plants don't exist, even though they very well could exist and we (the Western public) just don't know about it yet?

Anyway, I'm just a little cranky. After five months of speculation on Iraq, I'm starting to really wish people would just shut up and wait to see what happens. This especially goes for the media...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
Now, for the real politics: do you really believe that Bush will get a UN mandate to oust Saddam?

If the US has real evidence, they will get Security Council approval if they feel they can risk it. Remember that some intel is buried for years so as not to risk exposing how it was gained, even to most allies. Although, they have enough that Blair is risking his political neck.

The inspectors may not be much of an issue. We'll have to see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure inspectors going in will not be the whole story. There very may well be other provisions of any resolution.

And then there is Saddam's cantankerousness. That can be counted on to louse things up for him

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by orange


This is uncharacteristically naive of you, Laz...

I sincerely hope you're not becoming one of those fun posting trolls...you're too intelligent for that.

Don't be daft. The word used was "action". We aren't even sanctioning China- we're enthusiastically tongueing it's arse.

You might be too young to remember Tiananmen Square, but I'm not. Try a Google search on "Tibet", "Falun Gong" and "Human rights abuses on a massive scale".

Unlike Iraq, I think China would be more amenable to economic pressure in view of it's social reforms. War with China is obviously a much graver matter for terms of mere self-preservation, but the brutal truth is that we aren't even trying to do anything about it. Let's see if sanctions work there.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
I think it's unbelievable to assume that there's some sort of secret US evidence which proves this, which the US both refuses to share with anybody else and also refuses to act on alone.

I think they will act on it alone Frogger, or at least with a smaller number of allies. However, Bush seems to have come up for air and is at least seeking a broader international mandate.

If he didn't, whatever they find once in there will be poo-pooed in some quarters as having been manufactured to justify the action. Even with a UN mandate there will be some of that in the event the goods are found.

In any event, I think the point is that he is trying for the weapons. That is enough for me, now that I've thought about it and his record.

He should have been overthrown long ago. Remember the arguments against the ineffective sanctions have long been the suffering of the Iraqi people.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by bigvic
i'm just glad to know, for whateverr reason, that ron jeremy is a liberal

Always glad to help. I can help you with some other points you've missed too. Eli is Israeli, Frogger uses a cartoon frog as an avatar and there is no tooth fairy.

I'm not going to help you with the one about where babies come from because I think that should be dealt with by your parents.

[Ned]

If there is any lesson we learned from the last 10 years is that sanctions only marginally affect the behavior of a dictator. They do, however, harm the dictator's already oppressed subjects. I think the UN SC will draw the same conclusion and authorize force, not more sanctions, if Saddam still does not comply.