Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction

[walruskkkch]

I don't accept you version or interpretation of history in any regard. You can go on believing if you wish. I'm done with it. Are you claiming that Carter was preparing an October suprise and didn't bring it through? Most curious.

I can't believe you don't take Bush at his word in regards to Iraq, the rest of the world seems to think he'll move on Iraq and it won't come as a surprise to them. They whole move against Iraq is not being done for political reasons, it is being done for very important reasons that seem to escape your limited vision of the world. Also you seem to be hung up on a definition of surprise that is foreign to me.

I base my opinions of the Democrats on what their leadership says publicly. I THink they have gone great lengths to obstruct this action as well as dragged their feet on many other anti-terrorists issues for the sole purpose, in my opinion, of not wanting to have to actually do anything constructive. They do this, once again in my opinion, for purely selfish political motives, ie. regaining control of the house and the presidency. Frankly the president already has the authority based upon the already passed senate resolution of last September. THis new resolution will only reinforce that one and I know the Democrats dont' want to be forced to go on record with it before the election because, and here it is once again my opinion, they don't want to have to vote yes. They may do so for political purposes, ie getting reelected, but they would rather not be pinned down.

[GePap]

Nice Map paiktis: Surely Greece will want to join now that Saddam may have the ability to attack eastern Crete, that vital part of Greek territory- or Constantinople

He hasn't given me any reason to accept it. All I've heard is assertions with no evidence. If Blair's dossier is anything to go by, there's nothing new under the sun. So why now? Why not last year? Why not next year? Why harp on it right before the elections.

Because that way no one looks at the marke ticker or the new poverty numbers......
I don't worry about an October Surprise- we won't have enough troops or equipment there by even late October to carry out an operation that could be successful. And the dems. would immidiately cry "wag the Dog', so the risks are far to great, the promises to small (everyone already only focuses on the war and ignores everything else- he has gotten the political use out of the issue)

Again, why shall none of the Pro-invasion people tackle the simple notion of consequences?

Best Case scenerio of invasion:
The US attacks goes of without a hitch- The vast majority of Iraq's army surrenders without a fight, pockets of opposition destroyed with little if any colateral damage. The Iraqi opposition comes together and begins to form a stable goverment- ethinc violence is held to a tiny minimum. The world pledges huge amounts off reconstruction aide, iraq begins to rebuild and in just a few years, a new functioning democracy is up and running, with minimal need of outside forces. All of Iraq WMD destroyed- get pledge from iraq never to build them again. Democratic revoltion in iraq leas to democratic revolution in whole Arab world. Autocratic regimes begin to fall, women given rights- More Arab democracies pish for resoltuion of Palestinians-Israeli, Arab-Israeli conflict. Oil rpices plunge as Iraq increase production- OPEC broken up. Islamists driven unerground by a new, tolerant Arab public.

Worst possible case scenerio:
US attack stalls. Large parts of Saddam's military stay loyal, meaning bloody and higly destructive fighting in major cities- colateral damage high. Ethinc violence breaks out- Large bouts of retribution in the south, Kurds, arabs, and Turkmen struggle for the North. Kurdish factions call for independence- turkey invades to stop this. Shia's in south proclaim Iran-style revolution. Iraqi regime uses WMD to stay in power- thousands of casualties- attacks Israel with WMD- Israel retaliates. Anto-American, anti_Israel riots sweep pro-American regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia from power- Crisis in the oil markets, $50 per barrel forces economy into recession. New Arab-Israeli wa as both sides tae advantage of new chaos. Saddam does give what few WMD he has to terrorists, who smuggle them out of country- then use them on the US or Europe.

Now both are equally as unlikely to happen- but can anyone who favrs the invasion give me any intellectual arguments why more things in the upper list will happen than things in the lower?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

Do you really think that they feel so threathened. UK we are on the other side of Europe for his reach, but hey US - well you are on the other side of the world and Saddam surely has no Intercontinental missiles.

I assume you are in support of the US ditching the ABM treaty then?

Jon Miller

[GePap]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
I can't believe you don't take Bush at his word in regards to Iraq, the rest of the world seems to think he'll move on Iraq and it won't come as a surprise to them. They whole move against Iraq is not being done for political reasons, it is being done for very important reasons that seem to escape your limited vision of the world. Also you seem to be hung up on a definition of surprise that is foreign to me.

Again, you give little reason to actually beleive him- plus the president is not the only person in the admin. I worry about Karl Rove. It would be nice Walruskkkch for you to give evidence for this assetion of yours.

I base my opinions of the Democrats on what their leadership says publicly. I THink they have gone great lengths to obstruct this action as well as dragged their feet on many other anti-terrorists issues for the sole purpose, in my opinion, of not wanting to have to actually do anything constructive. They do this, once again in my opinion, for purely selfish political motives, ie. regaining control of the house and the presidency. Frankly the president already has the authority based upon the already passed senate resolution of last September. THis new resolution will only reinforce that one and I know the Democrats dont' want to be forced to go on record with it before the election because, and here it is once again my opinion, they don't want to have to vote yes. They may do so for political purposes, ie getting reelected, but they would rather not be pinned down.

Over 1000 historians disagree with you. The admin. has so few links between international terrorism and Iraq that he has made that the smallest piece of his case- ususally barely mentioning it. Thus any previous resolutions are mute. On that 1000 historians, and I agree wih them, for the president to attack Iraq pre-meptively without having shown an imminent threat (all his evidence points to iraq doing something in a few years, possibly. For Imminent threat, you need to show that a liely attack is about to happen NOW) or having gotten UNSC approval porbably, under our contitutional separation of powers, would call for a formal declaration of war, or something damn like it. The administration does not have the power to make war under the American system, nor should he ever.

[uh Clem]

Democrats have not been anywhere near as visible as Republicans on questioning US policy wrt Iraq. Limbaugh, among others, likes to rant about the opposition that Dems are giving Bush...I wish...

The "October Surprise," if it happens, probably has more to do with this. Third-quarter 401(k) statements will be arriving about 3 weeks before the mid-term elections. Maybe Bush doesn't think about this much, but I'll bet Karl Rove does.

[Bereta_Eder]

GePap,

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=62772

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Democrats have not been anywhere near as visible as Republicans on questioning US policy wrt Iraq. Limbaugh, among others, likes to rant about the opposition that Dems are giving Bush...I wish...

The "October Surprise," if it happens, probably has more to do with this. Third-quarter 401(k) statements will be arriving about 3 weeks before the mid-term elections. Maybe Bush doesn't think about this much, but I'll bet Karl Rove does.

I think about it. Laugh or cry time. I have lost 2/3 of my meager 401k.

I have given up on it.

[Ned]

GePap, Interesting summary on consequences of invasion. You need one more: no invasion, no inspections, UN capitulates.

On the issue of Congress voting, do you recall your position when

1) Clinton declared war on Yugoslavia without asking Congress? The action lasted beyond the 60-day period of the War Powers act.

2) Clinton launched hundreds of missles and bombs against Iraq in 1998 over a 4 day period.

3) Clinton attacked Afghanistan and the Sudan with cruise missles without asking Congress.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
On the issue of Congress voting, do you recall your position when

1) Clinton declared war on Yugoslavia without asking Congress? The action lasted beyond the 60-day period of the War Powers act.

2) Clinton launched hundreds of missles and bombs against Iraq in 1998 over a 4 day period.

3) Clinton attacked Afghanistan and the Sudan with cruise missles without asking Congress.

I know I was opposed, 'cept for the Afganistan part. But what do you do about a former President? I'm certainly willing to hand him over to the Hauge to stand trial for war crimes, but I doubt any of the Clinton haters here will go that far. Clinton certainly should have been impeached and removed from office for his violation of he War Powers Act, but the Republicans had already blown their wad on a blue dress.

Nor do I think the Republicans, despite their insane hatred for Clinton, wanted to enforce the War Powers Act. Despite their claims to be for small government, Republicans seem to love an imperial Presidency.

[Ned]

Che, All this really illustrates is that one's willingness to call for a president's impeachment for ignoring congress depends upon one's party or whether he or she agrees with the particular war. Now I am no fan of Clinton the person, but I did support everything he did on that list. Clinton was generally effective in foreign policy, save for Iraq and OBL. But he ignored Congress - probably because both houses were Republican. But I suspect if he had made the appropriate requests, he would have found a lot of support. Most Congressmen seem to be able to junk partisanship when issues of national security are before them.

[Ned]

Che, on the Republicans and the Imperial Presidency, this really represents a reversal from history. I was reading that just prior to Pearl Harbor, 76% of Americans opposed getting involved in the European War. Very few Republicans supported it.

During the cold war, Republicans were hard-lined anti-communists. This lead them to support LBJ in Vietnam, at times, even more than his own party.

Even with the fall of communism, the Republicans tend now to be more concerned with security issues than Democrats. The only reason I can think of is that the Democrats want to cut military spending to spend more on Welfare.

But, simply from a political point of view, the heightened international tensions favor the Republican party because the American people have more confidence in Republicans on these issues. Again, I think the lack of confidence in Democrats goes back to their constantly harping on the size of the defense budget. The people remember this more than Clinton's good performance overall on international issues.

[chequita guevara]

Wow, he really is THAT dumb.

Whuddaya know, Bush really is that dumb. Prooving Ned and I wrong, Bush is preparing to ask Congress for permission to train Iraqi oppositionists, despite the fact that this will harm long term US interests in a stable, unitary Iraq. C'est la vie, train my Commie brethren, Mr. President.

Report: U.S. May Offer Training to Iraqi Opposition


Sep 25, 5:57 am ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The White House, in a reversal of long-standing policy, is expected to seek approval from Congress soon to give military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
The goal of the training is to create an array of forces to assist the U.S. military in a possible attack on Iraq, the Times said, quoting Bush administration officials and Iraqi opposition sources.

The newspaper said the administration move, which could come as early as this week, reflected the depth of commitment to toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the quickening pace of military preparations targeting him.

"We have graduated to the next step of regime change," the Times quoted a well-placed administration source as saying.

Washington has accused Saddam of amassing weapons of mass destruction. President Bush has warned that if the United Nations failed to force Saddam to live up to his disarmament commitments made after the 1991 Gulf War, then the United States and its friends would do so.

Administration sources told the Times the forces, to come from all of Iraq's major ethnic and religious groups, would play a support role.

"They will be trained on military systems and military capabilities, but that does not mean creating an armed insurrection group to go in itself as a tripwire (for war). This is looking at them as support staff," the administration official told the newspaper.

In order to pay for the training, the White House plans to notify Congress it wants to use $92 million yet to be allocated from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which allows the Pentagon to provide training, non-lethal goods and services to seven opposition groups, the Times said.

Congress would then have 15 days to ask questions or challenge the president's decision.

The Times said the Clinton and Bush administrations previously resisted appeals from Iraqi opposition groups to use unspent funds for military training or for military and non-military operations inside Iraq.

U.S. officials were concerned such efforts could draw the United States into a conflict with Iraq, the paper said.

Iraqi opposition groups were notified within the past two weeks of the administration's intent to offer training to up to 10,000 Iraqis, three groups representing Shiite and Sunni Muslims and ethnic Kurds were quoted as saying.

U.S. officials said the number targeted for training could be lower, the paper reported.

Training would likely be conducted outside Iraq, with the forces empowered to act inside that country if Bush determined the United States would wage war against Saddam, according to the newspaper