I still likethe idea of them waling around with something permenetly maring their face like a black or red C or a D for those who run to other countries and from there obligations. Hell brand it on the top of the hands for all I care but let them be known for who and what they are

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, a letter here or there might be helpful...you're welcome, btw.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

Gawd You can ignore all you want. Your still a bunch of fucking BLOWHARDS. You CAN NOT and are not even capable of credibly attempting to describe a threat to the US from any nation mentioned here. The rest of this is hot Air. You can type all pretty and make sure you don't say "FUCK" and still be gum flapping pompous bags of air.

The UN is not relevant. As the Americans only use the organization when its to its "personal" gain its decrees on any matter are worthless.

The Administrations position was that of a Military threat what arms were in Hussein's arsenal doesn't matter. What happened to all you John Wayne dick swinging Americans and you we kick everybody's ass attitude? ?!?!?! I want to SEE HUSSEIN'S BATTLE PLAN...HOw was this military Mastermind going to out fight even a portion of the US Military stained there.

There...only one fuck in quotes. SO you pansys quit your bithcing. crybabies

All of those things had been tried or just weren't feasible, though, Storman... after 11 years the sanctions were toothless and if the Security Council had let Saddam get off the hook for flouting Resolution 1441 - his so-called final opportunity to comply - then how much credibility do you figure the Security Council would have continued to hold on the issue going forward?

If you invaded the no-fly zones, it would have led to either the creation of independent Kurdish and Shiite states or a guerilla war on the scale of what's going on now, except supported by Saddam from his Baathist enclave. Besides, once you invade Iraqi territory, what's the operative difference between going half way to Baghdad and going all the way? Isn't the point that you actually crossed into Iraq?

You could try all of the Desert Foxes you want... but without a credible threat of boots on the ground, what makes you think they'd be any more effective than Rolling Thunder was in Vietnam? Once you run out of targets, what do you hit then?

I got a chuckle out of your Diplomatic idea - what do you figure the US could have helped Saddam with when it came to dealing with Al Queda? Al Queda is a bigger threat to the US than it ever was to Saddam.

Really? What greed was that? Bush was a successful businessman - if he had stayed in the Texas oilpatch, he would have ended up far wealthier than he did by going into politics. I don't think he deserves to be attacked for that - unless you had some credible evidence to back it up.

Because if they concurred, they would have been expected to participate. They just wanted the matter to go away, and the way to make that happen was to let Blix end up taking Saddam's word for it and then agreeing with his final report to that effect.

Further inspections leading to what, though? A fluffball report by Blix? The declaration was a test of Iraq's good faith - it was an indication of Iraq's willingness to actively cooperate with the inspectors. They failed the test. So what was the sense of proceeding with the inspections after that?

I disagree... Resolution 678 authorized "all necessary means" - the word "all" covers a lot of territory, does it not? Did it say "all necessary means short of removing Saddam"? I don't think so.

I don't know if I buy what you are saying here, Cord.....that the sanctions were toothless. We estimated that Iraq was about 30% of its pre-First Gulf War strength in 2000....and was only getting weaker. This is 9 years after the war...and he still could not rebuild his military. I think they had a little more teeth than you realize.
Well, the new state thing would definitely be a possibility and could cause regional problems geo-politically...that would need to be considered. But, I don't buy the remainder of your statement....at least, I don't believe it would be the simple either-or that you portray. But, I don't know....maybe it's not the best idea either.
You're not in the Sunni triangle dealing with them....and you are not picking up the peices of a destroyed central government....and you are not trying to establish stability, law and order, etc. in many parts of the country. I think there is a big difference, Cord....just about as big a difference as sitting in Kosovo instead of going all the way to Belgrade.
Better ISR/targeting capabilities and tactics.
Nothing.
.
Actually, I disagree. I think Saddam feared Al Qaeda just like he feared the Iranians....not to mention they had a few camps inside Iraq and had already performed a couple of terrorist attacks in Baghdad. Guys like Saddam always fear the religious radicals.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

You should have just said so... *L* Okay - for the final prize *Deep Breath*

Quote from Resolution 678:

"The Security Council.... Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area..."

Quote from Resolution 687:

"The Security Council, Recalling it's resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990, 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 and 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991..."

Oh Look... it's a list of Resolution 660 and all the subsequent relevant resolutions as of 3 April 1991... and what do you know? Resolution 678 is tied in there too.

Quote from Resolution 1441:

"The Security Council, Recalling all it's previous relevant resolutions, in particular it's resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999...

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of it's weapons programmes...

"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of it's obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)...

"2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with it's disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council...

"3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with it's disarmament obligations... the Government of Iraq shall provide... not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of it's programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems...

"4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution... shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12...

"12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"

Is there any doubt that Resolutions 687 and 1441 are among the "subsequent relevant resolutions" mentioned within Resolution 678? Does not paragraph 12 mandate the Security Council to consider the need for full compliance with all of the relevant resolutions? Full compliance doesn't mean overlooking Iraq's flouting of paragraph 4, does it? Moreover, does not paragraph 3 state that the Iraqi declaration is the beginning of the process? Without the first step of an accurate, full, and complete declaration, how can you proceed to inspections? Doesn't the process get tripped up at paragraph 4?

Did you fail to understand my statement?

Let's try this again...

You can claim "victory" real easy in this debate...simply provide the passage or passages in 687 and/or 1441 that called for going in and occupying Iraq/removal of Saddam.

What's my prize?

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

You gotta admit, in the context of our debate that's pretty damn funny too...lol.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

I'm basing my assertions on the Duelfer Report, Storman... specifically the Key Findings section of Vol. 1, Page 1:

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections - to gain support for lifting sanctions - with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

I think it's more likely it'd prove to be an insurmountable hurdle for you, Storman... the Turks wouldn't let you go into the north to establish a Kurdish state and I can't imagine the Saudis and Kuwaitis being much more pleased about having a Shiite State on their borders, can you?

NATO didn't invade Kosovo, though - it just bombed the Serbs there. Even so, you saw what that led to... an independent Kosovo. A three-state solution in Iraq is an open invitation for Iran to move in.

Guys like Saddam fear their own shadow... that's why they kill anyone who's even remotely a threat to their position. I think it's more likely he would have taken your intelligence on Al Queda (for what it'd be worth... probably not too much) and just keep on doing what he wanted on WMDs.