Bill introduced to end US participation in UN

[Guest B-X]

Of course not. It's not like the military has ever burnt cities to the ground or raped school children. No, not at all.

[Guest B-X]

Or better yet, its not like the US is planning to destroy Iraqs major cities.

[Guest Powerplay]

1) The circumstances that Dresden occurred under were totally different than what Iraq will be. I think that it's kinda easy to see the "Subtle" differences there would be between the strategies used in World War II and a possible conflict in Iraq.

 

2) Well, though it doesn't mean much, false advertising because the woman was in her 20's, not a school child. This happened almost two years ago, and it's to be expected that there is a rapist thrown into EVERY profession. Sad fact, sorry, but it happens.

 

3) World Socialist Web Site? Am I the only one who has serious doubts of the crediblity of the source here?

[Guest B-X]

While I see your reservations have some merit in them, I still think the source does not deter from the fact that said document actually exists.

 

Also, do you think that the Military, when given the choice between fighting a costly war in the streets of Baghdad, that would cost military lives, and fighting a war from the skies and far away, forsaking accuracy and trading US lives for the lives on Iraqi men, women and children (collateral damage), which option do you think they'll take?

 

Also, on the rape of the schoolgirl, my sources got mixed up.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-paci...fic/1446350.stm

 

Residents of Okinawa, which has about 26,000 US service people stationed there, have been outraged by repeated crimes involving US soldiers, including the gang rape of a 12-year-old girl in 1995.

[Guest Powerplay]

While I see your reservations have some merit in them, I still think the source does not deter from the fact that said document actually exists.

 

Also, do you think that the Military, when given the choice between fighting a costly war in the streets of Baghdad, that would cost military lives, and fighting a war from the skies and far away, forsaking accuracy and trading US lives for the lives on Iraqi men, women and children (collateral damage), which option do you think they'll take?

 

Also, on the rape of the schoolgirl, my sources got mixed up.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-paci...fic/1446350.stm

 

Residents of Okinawa, which has about 26,000 US service people stationed there, have been outraged by repeated crimes involving US soldiers, including the gang rape of a 12-year-old girl in 1995.

In 1995? So how often does this occur? Really, I like how you judge the whole military by actions of the few decrepted souls.

 

Here's another of the nice little articles you have on that site:

 

The war against Iraq and America’s drive for world domination

 

I think that sounds just slightly biased there. Plus, looking at some of these arguments, it seems they are taking most of this stuff out of context and just stretching it as much as they can.

 

The report, dated September 16, 2002, was made available on the web site of the New York Times, which described the document in an article October 21. The study, which can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/intern...1dod_report.pdf, is entitled “Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations.” (In Pentagon terminology, “joint” designates an operation combining air, naval, ground and special operations forces under a single command).

 

The Times article is fundamentally dishonest, portraying the new strategy as aimed at bypassing cities, avoiding combat losses and minimizing civilian deaths. A careful reading of the report suggests the opposite conclusion: despite occasional lip service to such humanitarian concerns, it makes a case for using advanced weaponry on a massive scale—with an inevitably catastrophic impact on the civilian population—as a substitute for the perils and difficulties of house-to-house ground combat.

 

I find calling the NY Times fundamentally dishonest something of an oddity, really. I think you just found a seriously left wing site there that isn't going to give you anything near unbiased material.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

And I think they have to remove Dr. Do Little from chief inspector status

How the heck does Blix resemble Dr. DooLittle? Mr. Magoo maybe. He certainly looks the part.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm torn on this... the UN has been proving itself to be the League of Nations over the last few years...

 

BUT... why give up our permanent veto? If the French want to be pussies, we can start vetoing stuff that they need until they start playing the game. I guaran-goddamn-tee that if Algerian terrorists are rumored to be planning a strike on Paris that the French won't be asking for inspections of desert camps before they try to do something about it.

Thing is, WITHOUT us, they can't do squat anyway.

 

We can veto EVERYTHING by not being involved in the 1st place.

-=Mike --- who actually nearly died Friday and that is why I've not been here much

[Guest TheMikeSC]

That is utterly absurd.

 

The reason the UN has Israel's balls is because if they didn't, Israel would slaughter every fucking Arab in the Western Hemisphere, nuclear treaties be damned.

The UN doesn't have squat for Israel. The US would prop them up alone if need be.

 

And that Israel HASN'T wiped out all of their neighbors --- when they do have the military firepower to do so --- and to do so efficiently --- speaks highly of Israel.

 

I'm amazed that ANYBODY can paint Israel --- still the ONLY democracy in that God-forsaken hellhole --- as the bad guy.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

A hundred more than needed, but that would be welcome to the alternate possibility.

 

As far as the argument as to the fact that "the burden of proof is not on us", then stop using it as a fucking reason for going to war. Use the hard info we have.

The hard info is that IRAQ HAS NOT DISARMED AND IS NOT BEING 100% HELPFUL RIGHT NOW.

 

We already HAVE a resolution that authorized force from a few months ago and we don't NEED to ask for a NINETEENTH resolution.

 

Hussein HAD his chance. He had EIGHTEEN of them.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Or better yet, its not like the US is planning to destroy Iraqs major cities.

Are you LOOKING for the least credible sources possible?

 

Heck, even JMA (nothing personal, friend. You're just REALLY mistaken :->) wouldn't post pap from this group of idiots.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

While I see your reservations have some merit in them, I still think the source does not deter from the fact that said document actually exists.

 

Also, do you think that the Military, when given the choice between fighting a costly war in the streets of Baghdad, that would cost military lives, and fighting a war from the skies and far away, forsaking accuracy and trading US lives for the lives on Iraqi men, women and children (collateral damage), which option do you think they'll take?

 

Also, on the rape of the schoolgirl, my sources got mixed up.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-paci...fic/1446350.stm

 

Residents of Okinawa, which has about 26,000 US service people stationed there, have been outraged by repeated crimes involving US soldiers, including the gang rape of a 12-year-old girl in 1995.

Do members of the military to bad things occasionally?

 

Yup. No group is perfect.

 

Is it a MASSIVE aberration?

 

Yup.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

A hundred more than needed, but that would be welcome to the alternate possibility.

 

As far as the argument as to the fact that "the burden of proof is not on us", then stop using it as a fucking reason for going to war. Use the hard info we have.

The hard info is that IRAQ HAS NOT DISARMED AND IS NOT BEING 100% HELPFUL RIGHT NOW.

 

We already HAVE a resolution that authorized force from a few months ago and we don't NEED to ask for a NINETEENTH resolution.

 

Hussein HAD his chance. He had EIGHTEEN of them.

-=Mike

Would you disarm if there was a hugely massive fucking army waiting to invade your country, especially a massive fucking army that is going to invade no matter what?

[Guest Powerplay]

A hundred more than needed, but that would be welcome to the alternate possibility.

 

As far as the argument as to the fact that "the burden of proof is not on us", then stop using it as a fucking reason for going to war. Use the hard info we have.

The hard info is that IRAQ HAS NOT DISARMED AND IS NOT BEING 100% HELPFUL RIGHT NOW.

 

We already HAVE a resolution that authorized force from a few months ago and we don't NEED to ask for a NINETEENTH resolution.

 

Hussein HAD his chance. He had EIGHTEEN of them.

-=Mike

Would you disarm if there was a hugely massive fucking army waiting to invade your country, especially a massive fucking army that is going to invade no matter what?

Tyler, they've had 12 YEARS to avoid this. They've had tons of chances. Saddam just won't disarm. Whose fault is that?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The idiots who yelled at Clinton for "wagging the dog" when he bombed them for kicking out the inspectors in 1998.

[Guest Powerplay]

The idiots who yelled at Clinton for "wagging the dog" when he bombed them for kicking out the inspectors in 1998.

Because, God knows, Saddam couldn't have disarmed on his own. He's brought this upon himself, and only him. It was HIS job to disarm HIS country, and he failed to do that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It wasn't a national issue to disarm Saddam until very recently, and you cannot deny that with any ounce of your existance, no matter how pro-war you are.

 

If we had been proactive about this for 12 years, he'd have been disarmed ages ago. If you ran a country and someone left it up to you to completely disarm any weapons you had, would you?

 

Doubtful.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

A hundred more than needed, but that would be welcome to the alternate possibility.

 

As far as the argument as to the fact that "the burden of proof is not on us", then stop using it as a fucking reason for going to war. Use the hard info we have.

The hard info is that IRAQ HAS NOT DISARMED AND IS NOT BEING 100% HELPFUL RIGHT NOW.

 

We already HAVE a resolution that authorized force from a few months ago and we don't NEED to ask for a NINETEENTH resolution.

 

Hussein HAD his chance. He had EIGHTEEN of them.

-=Mike

Would you disarm if there was a hugely massive fucking army waiting to invade your country, especially a massive fucking army that is going to invade no matter what?

If I had 12 years to live up to my word, yeah, I'd probably have considered it before now.

 

You're making OUR point for us --- Hussein has NOT disarmed, even though he was supposed to be totally disarmed by April of 1991.

 

This is NO different than the West allowing Hitler to rearm Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

 

A defeated country MUST be made to live up to its obigations.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

It wasn't a national issue to disarm Saddam until very recently, and you cannot deny that with any ounce of your existance, no matter how pro-war you are.

 

If we had been proactive about this for 12 years, he'd have been disarmed ages ago. If you ran a country and someone left it up to you to completely disarm any weapons you had, would you?

 

Doubtful.

It doesn't matter. He signed a paper VOWING to do so. He did not do so. Just because we lacked leadership for a nice chunk of the past 12 years doesn't excuse HIS material breaches.

 

It's like saying it's the police's fault if a convicted child molester doesn't inform them that he has moved into the city.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It wasn't a national issue to disarm Saddam until very recently, and you cannot deny that with any ounce of your existance, no matter how pro-war you are.

 

If we had been proactive about this for 12 years, he'd have been disarmed ages ago. If you ran a country and someone left it up to you to completely disarm any weapons you had, would you?

 

Doubtful.

It doesn't matter. He signed a paper VOWING to do so. He did not do so. Just because we lacked leadership for a nice chunk of the past 12 years doesn't excuse HIS material breaches.

 

It's like saying it's the police's fault if a convicted child molester doesn't inform them that he has moved into the city.

-=Mike

Lacked leadership?!?

 

CLINTON BOMBED IRAQ FOR KICKING OUT INSPECTORS AND WAS FUCKING BITCHSLAPPED BY THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" FOR WAGGING THE DOG!

 

You're absolutely incorrigible!

 

We want him to disarm, so we should have gone through and FORCED him to disarm. Does it say anywhere in there that we have to go in and slaughter their military (a good chunk of which was likely conscripted against their will) in order to disarm them? NO! That means we take ahold of his balls, send that country SWARMING with weapons inspectors, and make the fuck sure we find that shit. When we find it, we destroy it. Simple as that.

 

How is that not a feasible solution?

 

It would SURE AS HELL avoid this holy war we're beginning. We're absolutely BEGGING some extremist to smuggle a nuke into our country, all in the name of Allah. We're acting like these are the damned crusades all over again (Bush's saying this is a crusade, saying God is on our side, etc) and forging a war against Islam now. Regardless of how secular Iraq is, our repeated militaristic attitude towards them is seen as ANOTHER attack against Arabs and Islam by that faction of the world. We are PUSHING FOR WAR, not wanting anything to DO with peace. It sure as hell looks bad to me! Given our attitude, we're making extremism look less 'extreme' to the Arab world.

[Guest SP-1]

And how do you propose we take Iraq by the balls and swarm it with Inspectors if they won't let us? If we don't force them, they'll just do the same shit they've been doing. If you know a way to do that, let the President know.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If they won't let them in, we send military in with them. If fired upon, we fire back. We don't provoke a war.

[Guest SP-1]

Sending military into Iraq qith Inspectors would provoke the same extremist reactions your talking about. It's virtual occupation and invasion. The end result is the same as far as Terrorists are concerned.

 

Plus we're on Saddam's turf waiting to get ambushed.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The idea is that the troops are "protecting" the inspectors. Since you guys aren't exactly concerned with troops getting killed anyway, I'm not sure what the big deal with them "perhaps getting ambushed" is.

[Guest DrTom]

CLINTON BOMBED IRAQ FOR KICKING OUT INSPECTORS AND WAS FUCKING BITCHSLAPPED BY THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" FOR WAGGING THE DOG!

Perhaps had he not let the dogs of war loose on the eve of his original impeachment hearing, that perception would have been avoided. Clinton was certainly intelligent enough to know that no Congress would move to impeach him with a military action going on. Maybe that wasn't his motivation, but if it wasn't, the timing was dashed convenient.

 

How is that not a feasible solution?

Because Saddam has some 125,000 "presidential buildings," which have been off-limits to weapons inspectors for much of the past dozen years. Even if we had 10,000 inspectors will unfettered access to every square nanometer of Iraqi property, it would be easy to shuttle things around and avoid the inspectors. Besides, Iraq also has mobile labs which could store weapons, and which we'd have a rather difficult time catching.

 

Regardless of how secular Iraq is, our repeated militaristic attitude towards them is seen as ANOTHER attack against Arabs and Islam by that faction of the world.

Boo Hoo. They've had a shitty attitude toward us for some time now. I really couldn't care less how they perceive us now. We're not doing this to win a goddamn popularity contest; we're doing this because Saddam has had 12 years to disarm, and because his continued presence in power is a threat to us and our allies.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Perhaps had he not let the dogs of war loose on the eve of his original impeachment hearing, that perception would have been avoided. Clinton was certainly intelligent enough to know that no Congress would move to impeach him with a military action going on. Maybe that wasn't his motivation, but if it wasn't, the timing was dashed convenient.

 

Unless you're suggesting Clinton had a chat with Saddam and asked him to kick the inspectors out when he was about to be impeached...

 

Convenient, perhaps. However, it's not his fault Saddam chose to be a massive cock on the eve of his impeachment.

 

Because Saddam has some 125,000 "presidential buildings," which have been off-limits to weapons inspectors for much of the past dozen years. Even if we had 10,000 inspectors will unfettered access to every square nanometer of Iraqi property, it would be easy to shuttle things around and avoid the inspectors. Besides, Iraq also has mobile labs which could store weapons, and which we'd have a rather difficult time catching.

 

We, apparently, have a lot of intelligence on these labs. I fail to see how we couldn't catch these by simply using sattellite imaging and whatnot. Perhaps it wouldn't be easy, but we COULD catch these labs. In a previous proposal to the UN by Russia I believe, they also suggested ways to track down these mobile labs. I can't recall their ideas offhand, but it's not beyond possibility to find them if the inspectors beef up their presence. Also, if these inspectors are constantly and incessantly poking their heads in buildings, night and day, they really won't be able to keep up. In particular, he wouldn't be able to shuttle them around because we wouldn't just be inspecting 5 buildings a day, we'd be inspecting... I don't know, a few hundred? How many inspectors does it take to inspect one site?

 

He couldn't keep it up forever, especially not if we have a massive amount of inspectors armed with intelligence. This would be a solution short of war.

 

Maybe if he kicked them out, I'd find it easier to justify going to war... but we've had a stance that is basically anti-peace.

 

Boo Hoo. They've had a shitty attitude toward us for some time now. I really couldn't care less how they perceive us now. We're not doing this to win a goddamn popularity contest; we're doing this because Saddam has had 12 years to disarm, and because his continued presence in power is a threat to us and our allies.

 

Honestly, I know where you're coming from, but we're converting more and more people to extremism through this war. I honestly believe we have a 0% chance at achieving peace throughout the Middle East, and any government we install in Iraq will likely be overthrown within months because of resentment and hatred.

[Guest SP-1]

A man that mentored me, who is very much like a second father to me, is a Naval Chaplain stationed overseas. My brother was a member of the 82nd Airborne, a Paratrooper.

 

So I very much have a vested interest in whether military personnel are killed. I'll thank you not to make such an assumption again.

 

Your plan is still military force, only one that's asking for us to find ourselves surrounded. Like Black Hawk Down in Iraq on a larger scale, AND with civillian Inspectors in peril. Unacceptable.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The idea is that the troops are "protecting" the inspectors. Since you guys aren't exactly concerned with troops getting killed anyway, I'm not sure what the big deal with them "perhaps getting ambushed" is.

What the hell kind of comment is that?

[Guest B-X]

I've seen people state numerous times on this forum that "soldiers die in wars, its unavoidable". They also say the same thing about civilian lives.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

They do die in wars. It doesn't mean people don't care about them.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If you truly care about their lives, you wouldn't be pushing for war nonstop in an attempt to make them martyrs.

 

Whatever, though. If such a resolution was passed in the UN, with the threat of a multilateral war against Saddam as the reprecussions for not complying to such inspections with teeth, Saddam would not attack them.