CIA: Iraq not a threat to U.S. unless provoked.

[Roland]

And the source is almost perfect proof that the allegations are total bollocks.

[Arrian]

I remain unconvinced. I strongly disagree with Bush's new policy of preemptive strikes.

The more heavy-handed we are, the worse things will get. If we bomb and/or invade every nation that we suspect may, at some point, potentially, maybe, could, if mars, venus and jupiter are in the right alignment, be the source of WoMD that are used against us, we will become the Imperialistic nightmare that people like Che, Paiktis, Marky and others claim we are.

-Arrian

[SpencerH]

So if the secretary of defense says it it must be untrue? I'm afraid theres no discussion possible with that 'logic'.

[Roland]

I meant the Washington times.

If a politician puts forward self-serving claims I assume he's lying. That assumption is subject to further information - yet that's exactly what's not there. It looks like an innuendo game started shortly after the 9/11 anniversary.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian
I remain unconvinced. I strongly disagree with Bush's new policy of preemptive strikes.

The more heavy-handed we are, the worse things will get. If we bomb and/or invade every nation that we suspect may, at some point, potentially, maybe, could, if mars, venus and jupiter are in the right alignment, be the source of WoMD that are used against us, we will become the Imperialistic nightmare that people like Che, Paiktis, Marky and others claim we are.

-Arrian

But we're not discussing planetary alignments we're discussing a dictator who isnt content to simply sit back and rule his own people. I agree its a close call, but its not one without precendent (ie Cuban Missle crisis, Grenada)

[SpencerH]

So the Washington Times has become the (republican) administrations lapdog? I doubt it.

I think what is happening here is that the administration has realized that Iraq's possessing WMD is not enough justification for public support for military action against Iraq (and if that was all the justification I would agree). It doesnt mean the connection wasnt there before, it may simply mean they didnt feel the need to bring it up.

[Roland]

I assume the WT is still the silly joke it has always been.

"It doesnt mean the connection wasnt there before, it may simply mean they didnt feel the need to bring it up."

Well if it were the case, wouldn't they have used it from the beginning ? It's a much more powerful argument for war then just the weapons. Well, I still might buy that if it weren't for 2 things:
- It's highly implausible that a Baath regime sponsors islamist terrorists it can in no way control
- There is no evidence other than the Bushies' claims

[DinoDoc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

I can post the article here if anyone doesn't feel like registering.

[Arrian]

The Cuban Missle Crisis was a bit different. Soviet nuclear missles 90 miles off our coast, pointed straight at us... and even then we didn't really have the right to do what we did. But I understand the hysteria and our government's reaction - the threat was clear. The alleged threat from Iraq is unclear. I just don't believe that Iraq poses a threat to us. I don't know jack about Grenada, so I can't really discuss it.

As for Saddam's misdeads, I consider it to be the responsibility of the UN. I know that the UN has a tendency to move at a glacial pace, but that's what happens when you try to get world powers to agree on things. The current situation - no fly zones, sanctions, no weapons inspections (I include it because Saddam agreed to them) - is untenable and cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, something has to give. Bush has proposed that we invade and remove Saddam. It's an option, and though I sincerely hope it's not the option we pursue, I think it has managed to push the UN and its various member states to actually think about DOING SOMETHING. That's the good side of all of this.

What's pissing me off is that it looked like the UN actually was starting to move on this thing, and was trying to work out an agreement with Iraq on inspections, and meanwhile the Bush administration was doing its level best to sabotage that effort. That says, loud and clear, that the Bush administration doesn't really care about weapons inspections and UN resolutions. They want to invade Iraq, no matter what. Therefore, I am disinclined to believe a word they say.

-Arrian

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So if the secretary of defense says it it must be untrue? I'm afraid theres no discussion possible with that 'logic'.

Your not the country which intelligent service officially announced that they may lie and forward misinformations if the interest of the nation claims it ??

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
What's pissing me off is that it looked like the UN actually was starting to move on this thing, and was trying to work out an agreement with Iraq on inspections, and meanwhile the Bush administration was doing its level best to sabotage that effort.

As long as the UN is still agreeing with Iraq not to allow for unconditional access for inspectors, thier work will be a slow motion exercise in futility. The Bush administration is correct to point that out.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian

What's pissing me off is that it looked like the UN actually was starting to move on this thing, and was trying to work out an agreement with Iraq on inspections, and meanwhile the Bush administration was doing its level best to sabotage that effort. That says, loud and clear, that the Bush administration doesn't really care about weapons inspections and UN resolutions. They want to invade Iraq, no matter what. Therefore, I am disinclined to believe a word they say.

-Arrian

Unfortunately, the UN is a joke. I cant think of a single success that was clearly attributable to it as a group of like-minded nations. 11 years after the Gulf war Sad-ie is better equipped with WMD than during that time, with or without inspectors. Its a simple truth that this situation wouldnt exist without his ambitions and capabilities.

Why would an american president want to invade Iraq, no matter what?

[Arrian]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole weapons inspections thing is a mess that has to be cleaned up somehow. I have stated that I don't think we have the right to tell other countries what weapons they can and cannot have, so the destruction of Saddam's nasty collection isn't what I'm after. I'm after a resolution of the impasse of the last decade. I'm after an agreement that will lift the no-fly zones and sanctions without discrediting the UN (I know you consider it already discredited). Removing Saddam is the job of the Iraqi people. If they wish to get rid of him, they will.

Besides, Dino, the Bush Admin's basis for the war doesn't really have anything to do with the weapons inspections/UN resolution non-compliance. Bush & Co. couldn't care less about the UN. Bush's case for war is: Saddam is a threat to the US, so we must destroy him. I do not believe that and therefore do not support a war.

-Arrian

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by SpencerH
11 years after the Gulf war Sad-ie is better equipped with WMD than during that time, with or without inspectors.

Did you inspect Iraq factories ?

[Ned]

Arrian, et al., the problem with your arguments is that they seem to be made as if there were no history here, there was no gulf war, there were no UN resolutions, and there were no no-fly zones where American and British pilots daily risk their lives.

We find ourselves in a corner just as much as Saddam. He has put us there. We and the UN have put him there. We both need a way out. We need to resolve this situation.

The way to resolve it is for Saddam to stop playing games and to allow unfettered UN inspections. The only way this will happen is if Saddam knows he has no real alternative.