Quick question. Who here understands why inspections are even remotely being successful now? Take your time...
His speech came after Tony Blair last night faced fresh pressure to abandon the threat of war against Iraq when 16 eminent academic lawyers warned him that the White House doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" has no justification under international law.
In a letter sent to Downing Street and published in today's Guardian, the leading lawyers declare that the UN security council's existing resolutions on Iraq - including 1441, passed unanimously in November to enforce disarmament on Saddam Hussein - fail to provide authority for war. Nor were there currently any grounds for passing a new resolution to give the "clearly expressed assent" to a war that Mr Blair still seeks.
The signatories - specialists who include James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor at Oxford - also take a sideswipe at the prime minister for saying that he and George Bush would ignore an "unreasonable veto" in the security council.
The lawyers, noting that Britain itself has exercised the veto 32 times since the UN was founded in 1945, say "the prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes 'unreasonable' and may be disregarded has no basis in international law.
Not content with telling Mr Blair that a second resolution is legally necessary as well as politically vital if No 10 is to stem growing dissent among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, the lawyers, mostly British-based but of many nationalities, add a further sting.
The letter's signatories include six leading lawyers from Oxford, three from Cambridge and three from the London School of Economics. Also among them are Professor Phillipe Sands, a member of Cherie Blair QC's Matrix chambers, and Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the Sorbonne.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We also aren't the Leader of the Free World Either.Originally posted by: LandRover
I'd absolutely love to see anyone here stand up in front of the nation for nearly an hour and make a 100% flawless speech. The fact is that none of you could do much better. It's all too easy to sit behind your computer screen and tear apart everything someone says.
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
A) if that perp has a weapon drawn on an officer hell yes they shoot first. i.e. Saddam has WMD that he is not suppossed to have acording to the treaty THAT HE (his goverment) signed. He refuses to get rid of them.
B) I take it from the last part of that statement what you mean is that Bush wants to shoot first and ask questions later. What the hell have the last 12 or so years been?
Your analogy is significantly different from 'Busa's. But even if we took yours at face value it is clear you would be describing North Korea even Russia but NOT Iraq.
Even the Bush admin would admit there is much we do NOT know about Iraq's WMD capabilities. At the moment Blix/El Baradei are charged with answering those questions. Bush's perspective is that inspections will not work b/c Saddam is not cooperating. Fine. Bush then continues to say the ONLY way to answer the questions is to invade, depose Saddam, install a US-regime, and then try to find answers. The common refrain from the Bush admin is that inspections cannot go on ad infinitum. A reasonable statement to a nonexistent proposal. We can quibble about the French but even Chirac is proposing several months to see if inspections can make significant progress. Their resolve to address noncompliance may be consistent with a souffle but that's still a proposal for limited inspections.
The Bush admin loves to talk about 12 years of obstinancy but clearly the last 2 years were on his watch. Curiously, Iraq didn't become a pressing threat until August 2002 but the vast majority of Saddam's dastardly deeds predate the current Bush admin. Bush is either a slow reader or something's fishy about his calculus.
Ok how about this...if an officer feels his life is in iminent danger he has the authority to use deadly force does he not?
Most likely you will respond that Iraq has not proven to pose an iminent threat to the US. Well how do you know?
Are you privy to the same intelligence that our president is?
Are you an inspector for the UN and can you say for sure that Saddam has fullfiled his obligation in destroying all WMD?
Or do you just take Saddams word at face value?
There is more evidence pointing to the fact that he has WMD then the fact that he does not.
He is detroying missles which he is not even suppossed to have. He has gassed his own people. does that sound like someone you can trust when he says he has nothing?
Two points have been proven right there
a)he has lied and posses long range missiles which the UN said he could not have
b)he has the capability to manufacture chemical weapons, and is willing to use them.
So if we look at those two facts alone then we can see that he is not to be trusted. Therefore how can anyone believe it when he says that he has no WMD and that he does not manufacture said weapons. Error on the side of caution.
Why don't we know much about his capabilities? Because he kicked out the inspectors in 98. If the Clinton administration, and the UN had done thier jobs then the inspectors would most likely have been forced back in and we might not have reached this boiling point.
Why the hell wasn't anthing done then? Why weren't we the people asking our president to make sure we were protected back then? Beacause we were so happy with our economy, and all wrapped up in the fact the president got a hummer in office. Well the economy isn't really going to matter when Wall Street gets hit with a chemical or bioligical weapon that was produced by the Iraqi goverment, and delivered by a terrorist orginization that has ties with Saddam.
You seem to think that this is all coming to a head over the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. It has not, this is something that has been brewing for much longer. Yet because Bush is putting his foot down and saying enough, its all his fault. The majority of the people who disagree with this action just want to put thier faith in a handful of inspectors and hope that they will not find anything. Are you willing to put your safety and the safety of your family in the hands of 50 or so people covering such a large are? I'm not.
Bush's perspective is that inspections will not work b/c Saddam is not cooperating. Fine. Bush then continues to say the ONLY way to answer the questions is to invade, depose Saddam, install a US-regime, and then try to find answers.
Apply that logic to 911.
If the Bush admin had an "idea" that 2 planes were going to hit the WTC but no concrete evidence they should waited until the planes hit the WTC destroyed it and then there would have been the evidence. Even if they only had suspicions they should not have acted because there was no "proof". Sounds kinda stupid doesn't it?
Originally posted by: Phokus
I have to say, yesterday's speech was the most embarrassing thing i've ever witnessed. I'm ashamed that GWB is my president.
<GWB's lackeys> Ok, we know you're not good at speeches, and you tend to stumble a lot when you try to ad lib, so just repeat one of these 2 things and you should be all right:
- 9/11; doesn't matter what you say, just say 9/11 a lot and stir up anger and patriotism!
- Sadam is an evil lying bastard who is lying to the world community about his "weapons of b[TERRORISM]b" (emphasis on "terrorism!")
I mean, really, if a reporter asks you about the reprecussions on the economy by going to war and you end up going back to 9/11, YOU ARE A MORON!
Sounds like no matter what Saddam says, we will automatically assume that he is still hiding more WMDs, and thus be required to go in and kick some ass. Well now, was it so hard to admit our wish for war?
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: MrChicken
We saw a president who was clueless about why the majority of the U.N. was against immediate war and why millions upon millions of protestors world-wide might also think it's a bad idea. He was asked 4 different questions about world opinion and he ducked each and every one. Bush should care equally about a North Korean WMD going off in America. He doesn't. Iraq is obviously a personal crusade for Bush.
You saw a president that you and others can't understand. He is a man that will not sling insults back at his detractors, like you. He remains polite when faced by people like you, people blinded by their hatred so badly that they refuse to see the facts clearly. Undoubtedly he has a much clearer ubderstanding of why the UN is in opposition to him, simply because he is talking to the leaders of the UN and the rest of us are not.
He dodged more questions and forgot the two-parters so much it was downright awkward. We got no new information from Bush tonight. It's the same old story: Stay on script, hit the key cliches (e.g. 9/11, regime change, etc). Bush only barely held it together because every response was so heavily scripted.
You saw, I saw, they are clearly different, I gave my opinion above about the questions.
Why did you expect new information? He gave a small speech and took questions from reporters. None of those reporters asked a question that would have needed "new information".
Yes, we're going to enforce international law by ignoring international law. Bush logic: to have peace, we must have war. To save lives, we must kill Iraqis. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't we make the UN enforce the dozen or so resolutions concerning Isreal and its occupation of Palestinean lands? No wonder the whole world thinks we're a bunch of hypocrites...
You were not listening, he said clearly that when the us has to defend itself, it will, with or without the UN. You point about the Un is a good one. the UN cant make any country do anything unless the US backs it up with force. If you want to use isreal as an example of how worthless the UN is, I agree with you.
Everything's so black and white in Bush's world. It must be so comforting to see the world in such simplistic terms. Of course people have the right to protest. He, of course, isn't obligated to be influenced by them, however that may come back to haunt him in 2004.
I agree. Religion does that for you, it gives you a good picture of what is wrong and what is right. That is why poeple join a religion, it makes your life easier by laying out the rules. People often switch religion because they want different rules. Exactly my point about Bush, he does what he thinks is right, and he does not care if that means he will not get elected. I prefer this to a president that cares only for his own personal success and follows opinion polls to govern the country.
There are many, many countries aside from Iraq who could conceivably supply WMDs to terrorists. North Korea is imminently more likely to do so, since they don't have oil to subsidize their economy. They rely on weapon sales to keep their regime afloat. So what are we going to do? Make a list of countries we're not comfortable with and attack them one-by-one? Outrageous.
Again, you didnt listen or even watch him. He clearly said that dipolomacy would be used in some cases and then force if that failed.
He also challenged the neighbors of NK to do something. It is a regional problem now, it may become our problem later.
People want to say that Bush is the problem while completely ignoring the fact that countries like Iraq and NK starve their people to build weapons, conventional and WMD. KJI took his country down this path to starvation, by going militaristic and ignoring the health and welfare of his people. Just look at the two countries, which is better off, NK or SK? KJI wants food for the people, all has to is ask the correct way. Instead he wants to use the threat of Nuke to blackmail food out of the US, and yet there are people that think Bush is at fault for this. He made an agreement with Clinton and broke it, should the US reward him for that? Should we show the rest of the world that all you need is one nuke (or simply the threat of building one)and the US will give you anything you want?
If he doesn't want war so bad, let's not have a war? Right? Problem solved. Let the inspectors do their job. Iraq should only be disarmed by force if the UN agrees in majority to do so. Otherwise we will undermine our legitimacy, piss off whatever remaining allies we have & cause a terrorist backlash against our country. What will be the cost of attacking Iraq if it produces another 1,000 Bin Ladins powered by American arrogance and hegemony?
You opinon, his and mine is that by waiting we let him increase his stockpile of WMD and give him time to get them infiltrated to countries around the world by terrorist groups. I dont know how it could possibly be more obvious that "inspections" dont work. So far all that has been destroyed has been what the inspectors have found. Nothing has been brought forward to be destroyed. That is what the inspectors are there for, watching weapons being destroyed that Iraq brings forward as the compliance with disarmament. Thinking that even thousands of "inspectors" could search every square inch of Iraq is foolish.
What terrorsit backlash are you afraid of? Something like planes into buildings? It is going to happen even if we dont go after them. By not going after OBL, he was able to make a HUGE terrorist organization, and he still attacked the US and other countries. By being seen as weak and unwilling to act, the terrorsist are encouraged to attack us. Making countries pay when they support terrorist is the only way to limit how effective terrorist can be.
Impressive. Your reasoning seems to have scared off the repugs... They're intimidated by concepts such as reasoning, you know...
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: MrChicken
I watched the whole thing.
What I saw was a President that stands firm in his belief that he is going to protect the US. It was obvious that he was upset personally over 9/11, not just lip biting for votes. He doesnt care about polls, he doesnt care about getting re-elected, what he cares about is protecting the US from having an Iraqi made WMD going off in the US.
We saw a president who was clueless about why the majority of the U.N. was against immediate war and why millions upon millions of protestors world-wide might also think it's a bad idea. He was asked 4 different questions about world opinion and he ducked each and every one. Bush should care equally about a North Korean WMD going off in America. He doesn't. Iraq is obviously a personal crusade for Bush.
The guy you call a moron answered more hard line hostile questions about a situation tougher to handle, in one night, than any other President I can remember. The safety of the US and maybe the world is at stake, he really cares about the troops he is sending into combat and the civilians in Iraq, and he does not care what millions of protestors say against it. He only flat refused to answer 1 question the whole night, about whether the war would be a failure with the capture of Saddam. He didnt answer a couple of questions because some of the reporters tried ask several questions at one time, which they all know is a no-no because it takes time away from the other reporters.
He dodged more questions and forgot the two-parters so much it was downright awkward. We got no new information from Bush tonight. It's the same old story: Stay on script, hit the key cliches (e.g. 9/11, regime change, etc). Bush only barely held it together because every response was so heavily scripted.
He made a great case for the UN. Plainly put, he said they must back up their resolutions. He is giving the UN a chance to regain a position of authority by following through on their resolution(s). The US does not need the UN for this, but Bush wants the UN to step up. he knows that if they dont act now, nobody will ever listen to them ever again simply because they lack the resolve to do anything. Bosnia ring a bell?
Yes, we're going to enforce international law by ignoring international law. Bush logic: to have peace, we must have war. To save lives, we must kill Iraqis. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't we make the UN enforce the dozen or so resolutions concerning Isreal and its occupation of Palestinean lands? No wonder the whole world thinks we're a bunch of hypocrites...
Has not anybody out there noticed how Bush flatly refuses to insult those that disagree with him? He doesnt sling mud at the Democrats, certainly not we are used to. He refused to be engaged in denigrating our "Allies" such as France and Germany for their opposition. He stated that he likes that people are free to protest, and did not belittle the people that protest him.
Everything's so black and white in Bush's world. It must be so comforting to see the world in such simplistic terms. Of course people have the right to protest. He, of course, isn't obligated to be influenced by them, however that may come back to haunt him in 2004.
He politely pointed out, several times, that the cost of a WMD attack in the US unacceptable. This was his answer to why their was a need for the US to disarm Iraq, if the UN failed to do so, of what an attack on Iraq will cost in dollars, and to the question how the economy will be affected. He was much nicer than i would have been. How hard is it for a guy to see that if 9/11 did what it did to the economy, what would a Nuke in LA or smallpox in NY do?
There are many, many countries aside from Iraq who could conceivably supply WMDs to terrorists. North Korea is imminently more likely to do so, since they don't have oil to subsidize their economy. They rely on weapon sales to keep their regime afloat. So what are we going to do? Make a list of countries we're not comfortable with and attack them one-by-one? Outrageous.
Also he repeatedly said, and appearantly the reporters werent listening, that he is the last phase of diplomacy and that he hopes it works as he does not want war. It should be clear to everyone by now that he doesnt want war, if he did we would gone in before now.
If he doesn't want war so bad, let's not have a war? Right? Problem solved. Let the inspectors do their job. Iraq should only be disarmed by force if the UN agrees in majority to do so. Otherwise we will undermine our legitimacy, piss off whatever remaining allies we have & cause a terrorist backlash against our country. What will be the cost of attacking Iraq if it produces another 1,000 Bin Ladins powered by American arrogance and hegemony?
Impressive. Your reasoning seems to have scared off the repugs... They're intimidated by concepts such as reasoning, you know...
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Sounds like no matter what Saddam says, we will automatically assume that he is still hiding more WMDs, and thus be required to go in and kick some ass. Well now, was it so hard to admit our wish for war?
gee so you feel he is telling the truth when he says he has none? You're inclinded to believe him?
He AGREED that he would destry his arsenal, he AGREED that if he did not do so that he understood that we would be back with force. Now that we have someone in the Whitehouse willing to enforce the agreement he signed with the UN we are "rushing" to war? He kicked out inspectors in 98 something should have been done then.
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: hagbard
"Get out journalists...we don't want you to report what you see". I paraphrase here a bit.
Hagbard, why don't you actually try to learn something before about the situation before you open your mouth and stick your foot in. Wait, I'm forgetting whom I am talking to.
Pentagon Releases Reporters' Iraq Slots
News organizations slated to have journalists embedded with military units heading to Iraq were told Wednesday and Thursday morning how many slots they would get and, in many cases, to which units they would be assigned, according to a Pentagon official. He told E&P that U.S. troops expected to see combat would get the most reporters.
"We've tried to ensure coverage in-depth, which means units that are most likely to see combat get good, meaningful newspaper coverage, TV coverage, and other broadcast coverage," said Col. Jay DeFrank, director of press operations for the U.S. Department of Defense . "It is not based on the safety of the units." Journalists will not be allowed to carry firearms.
DeFrank confirmed Thursday that more than 500 journalists will be embedded with troops involved in the expected invasion of Iraq. DeFrank declined to reveal the exact number of embedded slots being assigned. He said the number could fluctuate as units are deployed and as access for reporters in different countries changes. "The journalists still have to get approval [to enter] the countries," he said. "Some may shut them out."
...
___________
Once again Hagbard got it completely wrong and tried to put his anti-American spin on something he knows nothing about. It's getting rather old.
That proves nothing. If they report what the military doesn't want them to report, they'll be out of there and their reports dealt with.
Exclusive: U.S. Military Document Outlines War Coverage
"In a section labeled "Ground Rules," the military describes 14 "releasable" categories of information, and 19 "not releasable since their publication or broadcast could jeopardize operations and endanger lives."
The document says, "Ground rules will be agreed to in advance and signed by media prior to embedding. Violation of the ground rules may result in the immediate termination of the embed and removal." One such rule is "Embedded media are not authorized use of their own vehicle while traveling in an embedded status."
The document adds, however, "These ground rules recognize the right of the media to cover military operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of derogatory, embarrassing, negative, or uncomplimentary information."
Is *** suppose to be a graphic of Bush's thoughts?*** President Bush's thoughts on Iraq
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: LH
Its fvcking war, people die, lots of people die, unless you are the US and are technologically superior. So what if the US buried bodies as they advanced the front line. I could care less about Iraqi military personal being killed and buried, or being buried alive.
You think they have a volunteer army? You know that most of his troops are likely young teenagers? Sorry, you don't GAF.
No, if they are holding guns and you are in danger of being shot, you are not going to give a fsck about how they got into the army, just that they are trying to kill you, and the best way to survive is to kill them first. You think we spend all that money on our all volunteer military so that we can achieve parity in arms, training, and leadership as commpared to other countries? We spend all that cash so that we have the BEST military. A 9 year old boy with an AK-47 can kill you just as dead as a 25 year old man. Maybe would should have just sent in the WWI vets, armed them with '03 Springfields, and had them first dig trenches, then go over the top and rush the Iraqi trenches. After all, you HAVE to fight fair in a war... but at least they are used to encountering mustard gas on the battlefield.
I could ask you the same question, but I think the point would somehow be lost on you.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Have you any idea at all what a complete fool you are.
I read parts of it. Just enough to know who the players are and that it desolved into the usual ATOT slug fest.You don't read the thread so you haven't the faintest idea what's being argued about
I can clearly see both sides of the issue. I know where I stand.and then YOU without batting an eye or the slightest insight into your own condition
Some of the posts here are insulting to the human condition. They devolve into the trivial and ignore the big picture.turn around and accuse others of being idiots because they don't know what they are arguing about.
more than 500 journalists will be embedded with troops involved in the expected invasion of Iraq