This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[Gatekeeper]

Lincoln:

Eh, I'm not so sure. France and Russia seem to be really delighted in the latest developments. I wouldn't be surprised if economic interests they have in Iraq outweigh and potential future danger from the WMD Saddam may have.

Hmm ... now they're saying on CNN that the UN and Iraq won't even meet to begin discussing inspections for another *10* days. I'd think this would be something worthy of discussing NOW, or at least within a day or two.

Gatekeeper

[Velociryx]

Well said, GK, and a good point re: Israel.

Linc....I'm not sure if I agree. True, Dubya has his finger on the trigger and is looking for *any* reason to send troops into Iraq. D|cking around with the UN deadline may well be all the reason that's needed. If so, then you're right, and he's toast.

If he spins it right tho, he could put on the facade of cooperation, or cooperate *just* enough so that nations currently on the fence or backing away (*cough, cough* France), will be appeased, which would hurt efforts at building enough support to really go in and do anything.

The absolute LAST thing I wanna see is, we send our troops in with no clear cut mission, half-arsed support from our allies, and no clear plan. That's an invite to trouble, and we don't need that. IMO, we keep it really, blindingly simple. If the goal is eventually to be Sadam's removal, then we don't stop till the boy's dead. Simple as that. No punches pulled, no d|cking around.

-=Vel=-

[Lincoln]

Well we will have to wait and see. This could be interesting...

[Capt Dizle]

Wanna play what if? What if Saddam shucks and jives for 4 months and just before the sorry ass UN decides to act he announces that he has nuclear weapons and will use them to defend himself. What then?

And where are those missing SU nukes anyway?

[Ned]

Vel, The UN issued the no WoMD resolutions and sanctions with good reason. Those resolutions stand in breach. Saddam will shortly be presented with a UN ultimatum concerning his breaches. If he declines to comply, it means war.

The failure to abide by an ultimatum is an act of war. In this case, Saddam would be declaring war on the world. We do not have to await an attack by Saddam.

Remember, we gave the Taliban an ultimatum. They chose the path of war themselves.

(From an historical perspective, our embargo and demands on the Japanese in 1941 were effectively an ultimatum. I continue to be amazed that no one in the administration had any idea that Japan would declare war.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well said, GK, and a good point re: Israel.

Linc....I'm not sure if I agree. True, Dubya has his finger on the trigger and is looking for *any* reason to send troops into Iraq. D|cking around with the UN deadline may well be all the reason that's needed. If so, then you're right, and he's toast.

If he spins it right tho, he could put on the facade of cooperation, or cooperate *just* enough so that nations currently on the fence or backing away (*cough, cough* France), will be appeased, which would hurt efforts at building enough support to really go in and do anything.

The absolute LAST thing I wanna see is, we send our troops in with no clear cut mission, half-arsed support from our allies, and no clear plan. That's an invite to trouble, and we don't need that. IMO, we keep it really, blindingly simple. If the goal is eventually to be Sadam's removal, then we don't stop till the boy's dead. Simple as that. No punches pulled, no d|cking around.

-=Vel=-

Learned the lessons of Vietnam, have we?

[Velociryx]

Total agreement, JT....that's one possible scenario.

Same could be said of Castro tho (that sneaky bum has been too quiet lately)

Or Malomar QuaDaffy, or any number of other two-bit strongmen.

If we take this mindset with Sadam, then our only recourse, if we're gonna be consistent is to just attack 'em all.

Admittedly, the world would be a better place without guys like that in power, but that's an awful lot of globe-trotting.

I'm not saying don't attack the guy....I'm saying let's wait till he does something to warrant it. Last time, it was cut and dried. He bullied a little guy...little guy yelped for help, we pounced.

We don't have that this go 'round.

Ned - That's certainly true, however....all during the last ten years, Sadam has been thumbing his nose at those very same resolutions. Countries like France are happy to see some progress (even tho I suspect it's anything BUT progress) and it hurts our chances at building up a broad base of support.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Ned....absofreakinlutely bro....

-=Vel=-

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Wanna play what if? What if Saddam shucks and jives for 4 months and just before the sorry ass UN decides to act he announces that he has nuclear weapons and will use them to defend himself. What then?

If that were to happen, we'd just leave him be and not attack, as we should be doing anyway. We let him have his little kingdom, and go our seperate ways. He can have all the nukes he wants, he won't use them against another country. He knows that he did we'd just retaliate and blow his country to smitherines. If he uses conventional weapons to attack another country, we'll respond with conventional weapons. If he uses WOMD against other countries, we'll respond with WOMD, it's as simple as that. And in doing so we will united against such actions as a multilateral force instead of unilateral actions of the executive branches of two respective contries.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Thucydides


If that were to happen, we'd just leave him be and not attack, as we should be doing anyway. We let him have his little kingdom, and go our seperate ways. He can have all the nukes he wants, he won't use them against another country. He knows that he did we'd just retaliate and blow his country to smitherines. If he uses conventional weapons to attack another country, we'll respond with conventional weapons. If he uses WOMD against other countries, we'll respond with WOMD, it's as simple as that. And in doing so we will united against such actions as a multilateral force instead of unilateral actions of the executive branches of two respective contries.

Well thanks for laying it out for me. I guess I was having trouble working it out in my simple little head.

[Lincoln]

"We let him have his little kingdom, and go our seperate ways."

Of course if he decides he wants to add a little to his kingdom we can just let him do that too. Eventually I suppose he will be just another world power that we can talk with over a cup of coffee and resolve our differences...

[Capt Dizle]

Shoot, based on the Thucydides principal I'd say we should package nukes in care packages and be sure EVERYONE has them.

[leftover_crack]

hehe

[leftover_crack]

illegal op during upload...

[leftover_crack]

wtf? owell..