Iraq is destroying misseles and more scientists are talking

[cycloneye]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGARX53KRCD.html

Well folks it looks like the US will have a tougher time to sell the war option in the UN as Iraq is making more and more concessions.

Now the latest concession is to the scientists to come foward without minders and tape recorders and that is what the inspectors wanted for a long time to happen.

The UN has confirmed the destruction of 4 misseles already and they say that Iraq is in the proccess of destroying more.

With these moves by Iraq it looks more and more that if the US is going to invade Iraq it will have to do so without UN backing.

[southerngale]

LET'S ROLL!

[streetsoldier]

Since 1945, the UN has shown nothing but the "backbone of a chocolate eclair" except for countering the invasion of Korea in 1950...and that ONLY due to Soviet Russia's absence (and veto power) at the time the Security Council voted.

We would do well to ignore them, stop paying their bills, send them to another country to "congregate, castigate and commisserate" (maybe France might want them?), take the building back and use it for much-needed housing, and act without them...which is what we have had to do all along.

[M2]

Interestingly, the folks up in Los Alamos, New Mexico - the Northern New Mexico mountain town where the hydrogen bomb was designed and developed in secret ala Edward Teller, Robert Oppenheimer, et.al, - and where nuclear research & development is still underway today (in addition to the Lawrence Livermore National Labs in California) - those folks who still work at the LANL held a meeting to protest the upcoming Iraqi war, and one person actually said that the UN was functioning as a 'stop-gap' measure to ensure no one went from threats to Big Bomb all in one swoop. And there were others who basically echoed the ''let's talk about this before we use it" opinion. Now it's understandable that these brilliant scientists - physicists, nuclear engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, doctors, threat assessment analysts and the huge cadre of MENSA graduates have a unique perspective on what these weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can do, the effects, the lasting consequences. Some of them even witnessed the usage in person including testing and results. THEY are afraid of these weapons themselves even with all of their intelligence and analytical fortitude...and do not want to see them used when there are other methods to solve a problem. Now one has to ask the pointed question:
WHAT is the REAL problem - Define it in concrete terms.
Is the UN solving the problem?
Is Sadaam solving the problem?
What happens when the problem cannot be solved?
-------------------------------------

[rainydaze]

First of all let me start by saying I am a supporter of Bush, our troops and our country. Now, I am starting to get a little concerned. All along USA/Bush has maintained that Iraqi disarmenment (sp) was our focus and main goal. Thus, we pursue it through the UN and Resolution 1441. So for months now that is what we have been doing, going through the UN, going through the UN, going thru the UN. Due to major disagreements from a few countries, these UN inspections go on. OK great. Believe me, I do not want war ( my little brother is in the Army waiting to be deployed any day now). I do believe that Saddam is an incredibly dangerous person, and if our government thinks it is necessary to disarm him by force, I will support my government and especially our troops who may be send it for this dangerous job.

Then I read an article the other day that Ari Fliesher informs the press that not only is full disarmenment necessary, but regime change must also be part of the deal for America to back off.......huh? I know that Bush has been talking about regime change and bringing democracy to the Middle East, but when did it become mandatory to avoid war? Two days ago I guess. Regime change is nowhere to be found in any UN Resolution, if Bush's plan was to have regime change or face force like he is now saying........why did he go to the UN at all? Regime change is obviously one country's decision of what another country should do and cannot be materially backed up anywhere. I'm just getting a little frustrated with the administration. They say one thing (enforce 1441) all along, but when the opposition seems to be building up and Iraq is aparrently "complying" (wink wink), we come up with this other thing....oh yeah, and by the way, did we mention that regime change is also necessary to avoid force?......oh we haven't really made that clear, oh we're sorry....our bad. If Bush's goal is to get Saddam the heck out of there so the Iraqi people can be free from an awful tyrant, then why not just say it month's ago, why not just get the soldiers in and the heck out of there, so this can be over?
I'm starting to feel like this is going to be a political disaster and it's going to incite more hatred towards America in the long run.
The scary thing is, that I've been in support all along and now I am starting to wane.....Could I be falling into Saddam's trap? Is this why compliance from Iraq is trickling in? Are Saddam's tactics fooling the inspectors, the UN and so many people in this world? Is this why our government is being so stubborn in our quest for force? If it is, if Saddam has so many people fooled, then time is of the essence. Our administration is focused on war, but, the how and why and when is so murky, that it is gravely affecting our effectivness to see this through. Bush's timing for this war is slipping away and with it so much support we need make our argument stick. Each day that goes by, is another day that Saddam has to fool the world and torment his people. What are your opinions, I'm not much of a debater, but I do like opinions.

PS: This is the first time I have ever written anything political on any message board, so go easy on me Thanks.

[mf_dolphin]

IMO there has been absolutely no progress on the real disarmament issues with Iraq. I'll try and show you why I feel that way. If anyone can point out any real progress with the UN inspectors please post!

1. The missiles that are slowly being destroyed is only a token move by the Iraqis. The facts are that they Bought the components and built the missiles in direct violation of prior UN resolutions. They're not even sure on how many he's built! Somewhere between 100 and 120. Why don't we know the exact number? While it's good to get them destroyed they aren't that big of a threat to begin with.

2. There has been no progress on the chemical and biological weapons. Iraq has been characterized as having tremendouly detailed records and yet can't account thousands of tons of known chemical and biological weapons. We're just supposed to "trust" them?! This is the regime that denied for years that these weapons even existed.

3. How effective do you think and interview with an Iraqi scientists is when Saddam has custody of his/her family and children. How truthfully would you answer questions when you family was being held under a sentance of death? Blix has the option of taking the families and scientists out of the country and has failed to do so.

4. Even when the UN gets a concession there is always a catch. The U-2 can now overfly Iraq. Sounds like great progress but..... they have to give the Iraqis two days notice! Duh!

5. Saddam has still not volunteered any new information about his nuclear program according to the UN inspectors. Instead, boxes of technical information were discovered in the home of a scientist during a surprise inspection. How many US nuclear scientists have weapons design documents in their home?

The reason that regime change is important is that without it we'll be right back in the same position in a few years. Saddam is a lying brutal dictator who is a threat to the rest of the world. He is playing the deny, hide, and delay game hoping we don't have the patience and resolve to foolow this through to the end. We're there to rid the world of this threat and it's high time we get the job done. Let's roll!

[Stephanie]

Rainydaze - you did fine! This board can get pretty raucous on occassions, but there's been alot of good information and ideas that's been shared by all.

I agree that sometype of discussion, or "stop gap" is necessary as to prevent someone with an itchy triger finger from pressing the button too quickly. Desert Storm was supported and fought based on the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. To me it's no different than one country invading another because they don't agree with their policies, government, etc. Iraq, of course, is a much different scenerio, but to me it's the same idea and precedent. If one is allowed, than what would stop others from doing the same thing? We currently have the support from the international world on the War on Terrorism - THAT should be our focus. Yes, money is probably being funneled to al-Qaida via Iraq, but lets get the people that hurt us on 9/11, those we know that did us harm.

On a side note - my significant other's son is in the Air National Guard and has put brought into active duty over a week ago. First he was leaving for Saudi Arabia last Saturday, then this Saturday, today and now maybe tomorrow. HUH??? Is there really a game plan folks? I don't want to see him go, but can you imagine the anxiety of the people and families that are involved of not knowing what the hell is going on? Everyone has been pulled from their daily lives, secure jobs and living day to day on pins and needles. What the hell is going on?

[mf_dolphin]

Stephanie you seem to contradict yourself...

We currently have the support from the international world on the War on Terrorism - THAT should be our focus. Yes, money is probably being funneled to al-Qaida via Iraq, but lets get the people that hurt us on 9/11, those we know that did us harm.

With more and more evidence that Saddam is supporting terrorist groups monetarily this is a critical point. Terrorists groups must ave money and arms in order to carry out their attacks. Not only should we cut off every source of money but how hard can it be to see the next logical support for Saddam to give them. We know that al-Qaida is very interested in chemical and biological weapons. Saddam has those very weapons. Taking out Saddam is not only an important step in the war on terrorism it sends a very clear message to those other states that support this kind of terrorist group.

I also find it terribly disturbing that we have forgotten about the thousands of men, women, and children that Saddam has killed with these same chemical weapons in the past. These are the weapons that he now claims not to have. This man has absolutely no adversion to doing whatever it takes to stay in power.

[Stephanie]

No, I have not forgotten about the men, women and children that he has hurt/killed. Osama bin Laden does have his own money too and I'm sure that the source for outside funds are not only from Iraq.

[wx247]

Rainydaze brought up something that has been mingling in the back of my mind in the last couple of days as well. At first it was disarmament, and now since he is "apparently" (and I use that because he IS being deceptive like usual) disarming some, we change our policy to Saddam has to be gone before war can be avoided.

And something else... Mr. Bush campaigned ardently AGAINST nation building, yet so far that has been exactly what he has done in Afghanistan and what will most likely happen in Iraq. Hmmm...

Garrett

[mf_dolphin]

All I'm saying is that Saddam is one source of money and very potentially chemical and biological weapons. The very fact that we just got one of the top men in Osama bin Ladens network is proof that the war on terrorism is still very active.

As long as Saddam is in power his regime will pursue chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. The last twelve years should prove that to anyone that will open their eyes to the facts. The missiles that are being destroyed as we speak were developed after the last war in clear violation of the UN resolutions.

[Stephanie]

Rainydaze brought up something that has been mingling in the back of my mind in the last couple of days as well. At first it was disarmament, and now since he is "apparently" (and I use that because he IS being deceptive like usual) disarming some, we change our policy to Saddam has to be gone before war can be avoided.

And something else... Mr. Bush campaigned ardently AGAINST nation building, yet so far that has been exactly what he has done in Afghanistan and what will most likely happen in Iraq. Hmmm...

Garrett

I thought that it was an either or situation myself too Garrett. However, the nation building in Afghanistan had to be done after the Taliban was ousted for the most part. It had to be done after we sent in our troops to go after al-Qaida. That is a part of the War on Terror and it happened after Bush's campaign speech. I do see your point though.

[mf_dolphin]

Great point Stephanie on the timing of Afganistan. A lot of things changed after 9-11. If we don't assist Afganistan in building a stable government we will just be back there again.

[cycloneye]

Today still there are a few pockets of Al-Qaeda in Afganistan but in large that countrie has changed and will continue to do so as more and more help goes there and one of the changes is that 3 millon kids there are going to school something that whenthe taliban ruled there they didn't have.

But in terms of Iraq I too haved been for military action to disarm Iraq of all the WMD that it has and also to have regime change there but what I am seeing in the past few weeks is that the UN doesn't like that term regime change and and the example of that is the resolution 1441 which in any part says about regime change but what is says is to disarm Iraq of all WMD.

That is the controversy that is holding the votes for the resolution #18 from the US,UK and Spain.As I said I am for miitary action that without UN backing will start after Mr Blix reports of march 7th and I think it will be a big and fast victory for the coalition of the willing as I see no UN backing for this.

But what I am worried about is about the aftermath because the US will have to be inside Iraq after the war is over for a long time and that will be problematic because the arab world will see the US as imperialists with a general as a brief governor.

My 2 cents that I dont post almost never but this is a good time to say something.

[Stephanie]

Luis - that is one of the reasons why I want the UN to be apart of this potential war so we're not footing the bill in more ways than one. We are already looking like we are imperialists and that is something I'm not too proud of.

[mf_dolphin]

Imperialism - " The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nations over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

"US Imperialism" - that has been the battle cry of every group opposed to the US in the last 50 years. The term itself implies colonization. The last time I looked we don't have any new colonies. I did a simple search on Imperialism and here are some of the top search results:

1. Exposing Imperialist Policies
CENTRAL COMMITTEE. COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION [TsK KPSS]

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/w2compar.html

2. Oppose Imperialist Aggression - Defend Democratic Rights
Socialist Appeal Editorial Board September 25, 2001

[url]http://www.marxist.com/Europe/WTC_bombing_SA_editorial901.html
[/url]

3. Imperialist war in the Balkans and the decay of the petty-bourgeois left

World Socialist Web Site
http://www.wsws.org/polemics/1995/dec1995/balkan.shtml

"Imperialism" is a term that was made popular by the Marxist/Leninist camp of the past. If these people think we're Imperialists then so be it. Other than that we know better and shouldn't care what they think....

I do agree that we should only stay in Iraq as long as necessary to allow the formation of a new Iraqi government. However to create a power vaccum and then abandon the Iraqi people would be a disaster.

[M2]

Two things here:

1): First of all, we don't want to 'rule' or extend our territory into Iraq. When the regime change takes place, another of their locals will assume the 'administration' role. We don't want to rule Iraq, take Iraq over as a colony, or govern Iraq in any official capacity. A change doesn't mean a permanent residence. Think of it as a divorce followed by a transition relationship - Temporary.

2): Secondly, the main problem(s) are still not solved to date. The situation remains. But that doesn't mean everything is at a standstill; there is a tremendous amount of wheeling/dealing taking place behind the scenes. Everyone's just waiting for the outward signs, the visible proof that there's action. Now step back and turn 90-degrees - what's behind that mirror...

[Arizwx]

Two things here:

1): First of all, we don't want to 'rule' or extend our territory into Iraq. When the regime change takes place, another of their locals will assume the 'administration' role. We don't want to rule Iraq, take Iraq over as a colony, or govern Iraq in any official capacity. A change doesn't mean a permanent residence. Think of it as a divorce followed by a transition relationship - Temporary.

2): Secondly, the main problem(s) are still not solved to date. The situation remains. But that doesn't mean everything is at a standstill; there is a tremendous amount of wheeling/dealing taking place behind the scenes. Everyone's just waiting for the outward signs, the visible proof that there's action. Now step back and turn 90-degrees - what's behind that mirror...

..."A Divorce,followed by a transition relationship-Temporary".Interesting analogy M2.First of all,a Divorce is legally a 'Dissolution' of a contractual agreement.Not unlike an S2 Limited Partnership Corp,or Inc/Ltd,in where presumeably both parties contributed to an estate,and therefore may litigate or negotiate an asset ditribution,with debt assigned to the parties as well as liquid and non liquid real properties/investments/annuities/benefits/options/accounts recievable/ or offshore account funds . In a Dicatorship,there can be no legal dissolution of such per se,due to the lack of cooperative estate aquisition or interest therin.This may be rather, a removal by force leaving one innocent party 'held harmless'.This is the civilian population of Iraq.Secondly,I doubt that Iraq wants any kind of temporary relationship with the US,intimate or otherwise.This can take anywhere from 90 days to a few years ,depending on how vigorously the the served party(Proof of Service Reqired,30 days if out of state or country) chooses to contest the writ.At which point he has 20 days to 'Answer' before a sworn body(Again the 30 day rule applies if out of state our country)He may be considered 'In default if he chooses to ignore any option/remedy/contest aforementioned,in which case, the Petitioner prevails automatically)..If accepted by the sworn body,he may choose to counter sue by issuing an 'Order to Show Cause with Merit'.If so,the sworn body may choose to uphold with negotiations/Mediator or all/any peaceful & amiacable methods fail; a 'court date' is assigned or order dismiss,depending on the quantification of his strategy.Moreover the sworn body will look upon any resitance without legal representaion poorly,and will likely find in favor of the Petitioner.
A better analogy then,may be the 'Uncle' as in 'Sam' taking over Probate affairs for a traumatized third world cousin after a death.For such,the Uncle will take a healthy fee for services rendered,OIL.This shall be used in the negotiated pay down of percieved outstanding debt and of course our Military's 'Legal fees'..all or much of which we shall write off as bad debt..with collateral.Children will be aasigned to the responsible parent or state if orphaned and Mr Hussein shall have no visitation rights,with a probable permanent restraining oder issued by the warrant officer(USA),as per his history of gross negligence and domestic violence.He shall be ordered futhermore to repay any debt(s) levied against him in the final Decree,although methinks he is the granddaddy of Dead Beat Dictator Dads.If he perishes within the time horizon of the proceedings,we may option to 'forgive any debt' or may infact institute a Credit Line for the rebuilding process for stabilization purposes and his assests frozen for debt consolidation and reditribution,post debt servicing.Social Discourse however,will be met with severe penalties.Lastly,the longer the relationship(10yrs +),the more the Petitioner is likely to gain.
Moreover,the wheeling and dealing observations are correct,albiet they are more poised toward Russia,France and Germany,as they must be convinced that the next equally as crooked regime will be cozy to thier business deals already in place.This is where I believe a divorce may be in order,as our now post UN, per Statute:Irreconcilable differences are irretrievably broken.This would more closely,IMHO,'mirror' a post WW2 Japan/Marshall Plan.
BTW,M2...I PM ed you sometime ago here,possibly you could turn 90degrees and look behind that mirror!
~Tulane Law:Harvard of the South~

[M2]

Humm…Po-TAY-toe or Po-TOT-toe, it’s still a Temporary relationship nonetheless. Any number of analogies will do. You KNOW the France/Germany vacillation is based largely on their business connections within the Mideast & Iraq and partly on their apprehension of the escalating conflicts. As I stated in another thread, they are scared. Now there’s nothing wrong with a healthy apprehension of severe conflict, but they are 1) totally unprepared to deal with conflict/terrorism/war in their own respective countries, and 2) they have a substantial population of third-world fundamentalist/extremist sympathizers and financiers residing within their own borders, contributing to their economies and decision making. Scared, you bet. It’s hard enough for the U.S.; imagine them with no playbook and a no bat. Our administration understands this and tonight said very straightforwardly that a non-affirmative UN vote will not deter disarmament and a regime change. And let me emphasize that a regime change is no easy task either; there are many details and requirements dealing with the different factions currently living in Iraq namely the Kurds and Shi’a - and who will recognize & deal with the new powers that be. They have to play nice with the other kids in the sandbox. And someone has to ensure the other kids in the sandbox don’t whack the new kid in the head with a shovel.

[firefighter16]

So what you're saying is that if we go in there and stir the pot, We better plan on staying there for awhile.