Necessary Evil

[Japher]

I think Bush could have handled this better diplomatically.

For sure.

He gave the impression that he wanted to go to war no matter what.

I disagree.

As Clinton said, we passed that resolution last fall, and immediately sent over 100,000 troops.

Clinton has no right to talk... Remember Kosovo?

While we all know Iraq would not have gone through with disarmamanet. We didn't do a good job giving him the chance.

12 years wasn't long enough?

I'm not sure if that would have been enough to get France on board though.

France has their minds in the same place we have ours; the interest of National Security.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Dissident
I was unaware we are breaking the law. Maybe I'll have to rethink my arguments. Perhaps I'll become anti-war now

Well if we are breaking the law why doesn't the U.N. do something about it?

Dissident, The US is not breaking the law. It is acting lawfully under Chapter VII of the UN charter with the force of three resolutions authorizing action.

You are neithier evil or wrong. Most religions allow for wartime conflict. Most humanistic viewpoints allow for taking action for the greater good.

The evil ones are the ones who try to twist right into wrong to eithier boost their petty causes or egos. Rest assured that war is sometimes a necessay thing to save lives in the long run. Iraq is a case in point. Saddam has killed over 1 million people in his reign. This must stop. War is apparently the only thing that will accomplish this. There has been over twelve years of diplomacy involved in trying to oust him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been brutally murdered during this time.

If you stand against innocent death, you must support this war. To do otherwise simply signals that you accept ruthless murder and potential devastating actions by a dictator who holds none of the morals that anyone in this thread purports to have.

Enough...The war is upon us. It is time to move on to discussing how to make the aftermath the best for the Iraqi people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
I think Bush could have handled this better diplomatically.

He gave the impression that he wanted to go to war no matter what.

As Clinton said, we passed that resolution last fall, and immediately sent over 100,000 troops.

While we all know Iraq would not have gone through with disarmamanet. We didn't do a good job giving him the chance.

I'm not sure if that would have been enough to get France on board though.

We, the US!, did not give him a chance? What bull****!

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned


We shall now see if he responds to an ultimatum.

I always had hoped that a strong UN resolution that left Saddam no choice but to disarm or face war with the World would be effective. But that hope was sabatoged by the French and their lackey Blix.

Blix is lackey to no one. That's why he got this job. He doesn't kiss anyone's ass, not Bush's and not Saddam's. That's why Bush dislikes him, because Bush expect everyone to kiss his ass - "anyone who isn't with us is against us".

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


Blix is lackey to no one. That's why he got this job. He doesn't kiss anyone's ass, not Bush's and not Saddam's. That's why Bush dislikes him, because Bush expect everyone to kiss his ass - "anyone who isn't with us is against us".

Burying relevant details in reports to the UNSC is kissing France's a$$. Can you honestly say that was not politically motivated? Blix wants to justify his own existence...siding with France does this. And he has.

[Japher]

Blix is lackey to no one.

whew... I haven't laughed that hard all day... Thanks!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned


We, the US!, did not give him a chance? What bull****!

Since resolution 1441 had been passed - and this resolution should be Saddam's chance to disarm or let him show that he has disarmed - no real proofs have been brought up that Saddam possesses WOMD (which he still might do, but that's not the point). On the contrary: One "secret service paper" has been proved to be a "american student paper" and an alleged paper of Saddam going nuclear shopping in Africa has been proved an open fake. Does someone with ANY proof make such fakes? They had none, so they had to make up some. It seems to be merely a "feeling in the belly"...
When Bush and his gang decided to go to war, there was no chance anymore to prevent it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Since resolution 1441 had been passed - and this resolution should be Saddam's chance to disarm or let him show that he has disarmed - no real proofs have been brought up that Saddam possesses WOMD (which he still might do, but that's not the point). On the contrary: One "secret service paper" has been proved to be a "american student paper" and an alleged paper of Saddam going nuclear shopping in Africa has been proved an open fake. Does someone with ANY proof make such fakes? They had none, so they had to make up some. It seems to be merely a "feeling in the belly"...
When Bush and his gang decided to go to war, there was no chance anymore to prevent it.

Wernazuma, The burden of proof required in 1441 was on Iraq. NOT on the world to find weapons. He was to prove that he destroyed WMD that UNSCOM reported in 1998 that he had. Strangely, he has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that he has destroyed them.

I have posted 1441 more than once for everyone to read. If you do not have the wherewithal to research what it really says, then at least refrain from posting incorrect tidbits as if they were fact.

[Arrian]

Oh ****.

Dissident, wtf?

Thanks for giving the "America sucks" crowd more ammo.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Burying relevant details in reports to the UNSC is kissing France's a$$. Can you honestly say that was not politically motivated? Blix wants to justify his own existence...siding with France does this. And he has.

If you want to "bury" a "relevant detail" you simply don't put it in a report. It ends up (if you have a liability for mentioning it) out of order and unlabeled in some appendix that never gets circulated directly with the report.

The UAV as found didn't qualify as a "weapons" program, despite US hopes for a "smoking gun." Nothing indicated the UAV could carry an ordnance payload, so oops, range is irrelevant.

[Dis]

I hate to go to war. But we cannot let Saddam Hussein win diplomtically. He has played the world like a deck of cards.

Am I the only one who can see this?

Yes I know what your reaponse will be. Bush has played the american public like a deck of cards.

But I have yet to see any proof of this. I have completely ignored all the crap Powell put out a few weeks ago. I supported the war even without that.

Suddam Hussein is in open defiance of the U.N., The U.S., and the entire world

and it's time for someone to put a stop to that.

I don't think anything else needs to be said.

[HershOstropoler]

The US jumped on every Blix criticism of Iraq as a case for war now, so Blix became very cautious on that. Simple as that.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The US jumped on every Blix criticism of Iraq as a case for war now, so Blix became very cautious on that. Simple as that.

So you are saying that Blix modified his comments on Iraq in order to not provide a justification for war.

So much for the impartial Blix.

[PLATO]

The UAV as found didn't qualify as a "weapons" program, despite US hopes for a "smoking gun." Nothing indicated the UAV could carry an ordnance payload, so oops, range is irrelevant.

as found

The key words here. Are you entirely convinced that the aircraft description that got UNMOVIC's attention in the first place is really the balsa wood toy Saddam showed the world?

Don't you even wonder why Blix took this at face value?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Since I know a little bit about the subject of UAV's (one of the things I'm currently doing is working on flight control software for a privately funded one), yes. I didn't pay attention to whether Saddam showed a balsa wood toy to the world, I was more interested in the 7.5 meter wingspan one mentioned by Blix.

There was a thread about that specifically where I went into some detail about all the aerodynamic and flight control issues peculiar to UAV's and their flight envelopes. The basic deal is setting one up to deliver CW is quite complex, requires integration of the CW system into the UAV in a very obvious way in order to not compromise flight stability, payload and range. Beyond that, flight control in a profile for even near ideal conditions for CW agent dispersal is very problematic - UAV's aren't really set up for NOE flight, and don't have instrument packages sensitive and responsive enough to allow them to automatically maintain flight stability at their low operating speeds in the sorts of dynamic turbulence you get with NOE flight.

The types of adaptations you'd have to make for a low-altitude CW delivery platform on a 7.5 meter wingspan UAV are very sophisticated, and very obvious to anyone who knows about aeronautical or ordnance engineering. Had there been those types of adaptations in the UAV reported on, that fact would have been reported by UNMOVIC.

It's a different story if you're talking about a spray tank strapped onto a Mirage 2000 set up as an autopilot drone, but that wasn't what Blix saw or reported, or what the US tried to claim was a "smoking gun."