Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on February 05, 2003, 08:39:59 AM
-
After Iraq threw out the UN Inspectors last time, what force, what factor, what issue made them to decide to let them back in?
Now that they're back in and Blix himself says they're not getting enough cooperation, what force, what factor, what issue is causing the Iraqis to try and accomodate the concerns and issues Blix has recently raised?
What if all that needs doing gets accomplished without a shot being fired? What if just moving troops around resolved the Inspection/disarmament concerns?
How would all of you view that circumstance?
I've read a lot of pro/con stuff on the bbs about the potential conflict in Iraq.
What will all the pro-sayers and nay-sayers post if this thing is "resolved" without resorting to invasion and "regime change"?
Yeah, it's a "what if"... but I'd like to see what the various posters here would say then.
Please comment.
-
Hussein is scared toejamLESS. He knows that this time, a war may mean the end of him and not just his army.
I seriously believe he doesnt have enough weapons to be a threat (much to his disdain) so he will do everything in his power other than getting on his knees to avoid a war and prolong peace long enough to find those weapons.
IMO this conflict can be solved without a shot fired - but some people want shots fired.
-
He's not scared, Animal. Arrogance breeds over-confidence.
-
He obviously dont want to look scared, but he very well knows that this may well be the end of his regime and his life. His days are numbered and there seems to be NOTHING he can do to stop it with Bush on the presidency.
Oh, he's scared alright.
-
I was thinking that by moving all the manpower and war equipment to the Middle East, Bush was in a win/win situation, even though the cost is huge...
The presence of the USA war machine just outside his gates greatly increase the likelyhood of Iraq's disarming - and its worth the cost involved if its settled peacefully.
If Iraq fails to disarm, USA forces are in place.
I'm all for a peacefull disarmament. That would be wonderful for the whole world.
-
Perhaps I should be more specific.
If Blix and the Inspector group get all the access they want on their terms.. U2 flights and all... for as long as they want WITHOUT shots being fired...
Will all the "pro" posters deluge us with "we still need to invade" posts
and will all the "no war" posters finally admit that maybe all the troops mobilization and sabre rattling was necessary to get this done?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
and will all the "no war" posters finally admit that maybe all the troops mobilization and sabre rattling was necessary to get this done?
Definetly (on my part)
And I'm sure most of the 'Pros' will continue posting with "We Need to Invade". They will look reasons. And not only the BBS posters but politicians as well.
Some people are warmongers even if they dont admit it.
-
Toad, I think its too late for that. Today, Powell will show satellite photos' of portable Chemical Weapons labs, taped conversions, etc. They have the smoking gun in the form of a few military shells, but today, they'll show us the source of the fire.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
What if it's all a pretext to attacking and invading France?
Ever think of that?
Oed
If its not, then it SHOULD be. :D
-
Perhaps I should be more specific.
If Blix and the Inspector group get all the access they want on their terms.. U2 flights and all... for as long as they want WITHOUT shots being fired...
Will all the "pro" posters deluge us with "we still need to invade" posts
and will all the "no war" posters finally admit that maybe all the troops mobilization and sabre rattling was necessary to get this done?
Inquiring minds want to know. - Toad
Toad, I think you've got the wrong mindset on this. Iraq has to "DISARM."
That is different than "ALLOW INSPECTIONS"
Even if Iraq would allow the Easter Egg hunt to continue, he is failing to disarm - that will be apparent after Powell's address.
-
No Shots Fired in Iraq as yet?!?!
Well only if you conveniently discount the almost daily bombings...
January 31st
January 26th
January 25th
January 19th
January 17th
January 13th
January 10th
January 8th
January 7th
January 4th
January 3rd ?
January 2nd
January 1st
Source: US Bombing Watch (http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html)
-
gotta be a time limit ....
wasn't 10/12 years long enough?
ultimatum time
-
Toad, my hope it's that this situation will be solved without a war, but maybe I need to clarify why.
I am against ANY dictator, religious or not.
Saddam it's a mad man, and a danger, for Iraq aswell the rest of the world.
But the price of the war will not be payed by him, but by the people under his foot, he will save his sorry ...... and run for a friendly country (even France, why not? ;) ).
Is this idea that disturb me, the price that innocent people would pay.
I imagin you will ask for a solution..... I have'nt.
Every scenario I "plan" have some ugly end.
The only one that have some lesser ugly end it's the same that helped the US to beat URSS (notice: helped), propaganda.
Something like Voice of America, Hollywood movies, and so on, to let that people see a bright and beautiful world on the other side of the fence (even if is not true ;) ), then wait the mix to boil up, and then send helps for the rebels.
But it's a too long in time plan for a president that have to bring results to a bloodthirsted electorate :( .
-
Dead,
If you want to debate the legality of the Security Council resolutions vis-a-vis the "no fly" zones, please do so in another thread.
The "no fly zones" have been in effect since the end of the Gulf War. One would think if the Security Council had a "problem" with them, there'd have been a clarifying resolution or at least an attempt to do so, no?
I'll be happy to continue to discuss it in a thread you start. You can clip this, post it and we'll begin anew in there, ok?
Thanks.
-
Naso, you miss the point of my question.
It's not about "war" per se.. it's about NO war.
What if all this build up to war achieves the goals of the UN without an invasion of Iraq?
What will the anti-war crowd that's been lambasting Bush say then?
What will the "must be a regime change" folks say then?
What if we achieve inspection/disarmament by doing what Bush is doing WITHOUT the war?
Will anyone praise him?
Will anyone still condemn him?
We're all looking for a "peaceful" solution. What if this serious preparation for war provides it?
-
I have no problem with saber rattling. I would say that the foreign policy folks in DC did a great job if the desired outcome is achieved through threats.
-
I see one problem with a peacefull solution to this conflict that dosn't involve Husseins removal as leader of Iraq and that is the continuation of status quo.
I've seen UN numbers claiming from 200000 dead Iraqian children since the start of the UN sanctions (and as a direct result of those) to 200000 dead Iraqians a year as casualties from the sanctions.
The current "peace" is slowly killing most of Iraqs population. I don't see these sanctions suddenly comming to an end if even weapon inspections and disarnament leads to an avoidance of war. Iraq qould still be lead by a man who would definitively not suddenly be deemed trustworthy by US, UK or most other western nations.
As I see it the realistic alternative to a war is the continuation of status quo with thousands and thousands of Iraqian people dying from lack of medication or pure starvation. I have a hard time seeing this as any positive outcome.
However there are a lot of more pragmatic reasons that a solution without a war would be a good thing since there is a lot of great riscs related to the war. The whole stability of the region, the general agression a war might unleash and the dangers of a new world order where "preemptive war" is a legitimate thing. There are other contries than USA who might allso want to conduct some preemptive wars against "terrorism" if that suddenly becomes an acceptable practise.
What I'm trying to say is that how good the outcome of the whole Iraq crisis will be is not simply determined by wether or not there will be a war. The situation is far more complex.
-
Originally posted by Naso
But the price of the war will not be payed by him, but by the
Is this idea that disturb me, the price that innocent people would pay.
Every war, Naso, every war.
Alittle off topic but...: Anyone catch the video clips of the celebrations in the streets of Bagdad upon news of the Space Shuttle disaster?
-
I would say 'good thing the US got an administration that has the balls to risk much politically to enforce UN resolutions'.
I KNOW that the only reason Saddam is semi-complying is because of the US forces in the region.
The world, and particularly Europe, failed miserably to police those resolutions after the war. Good thing the US will.
Saw a documentary on Hussein. It it h was receiving yet another gold sword and he said 'I know many wonder why Iraqis aren't getting medicine and food. First of all it is the UN's fault. Second, they ask why I build palaces instead of buying food for the population. Well. Mere animals think about eating and getting their pyshical body satisfied. We Iraqis are more than animals. One is not more than an animal if one craves food more than artistic expression'.
LOL. He lets thousands of people starve because of 'artistic expression'. 'Satisfying the physical body' - what is he doing with his hedonistic place-building and expensive food?
Idiot. Should be shot, then hanged. After being anally violated by a pig. Then he'd know why pig meat is considered dirty amongst Arabs.
Was much impressed by him in the interview with the British boot licker. Hah, the Brit was sitting at the edge of his chair talking to Hussein like he was a royalty of a new Messiah. Like a dog looking at his master.
Hussein did come across as very intelligent, thoughtful and relaxed though. Made a very good impression, despite his lies. Much different than the constantly blinking man on the verge of nervous collapse we saw after the 1991 war.
He'll get what is coming to him eventually, if there's any justice in the world. Should be tried at an international court. Wait, the Americans oppose that one. :D
-
Toad, if the scenario you describe occurs then I think it would be great. Hat's off to Bush, the master poker player. We can even start concentrating on the war against terrorism once again. However, it's hard to have confidence in any official motivation though beyond the fact that we want a regime change favorable to the West.
Hussein has literally been called a "Hitler," it's been pointed out that he's a war criminal deserving his fate, yet if he wants to leave the country we'll help him pack his bags and give him a first class ticket to exile - no Nuremberg here. If he decides to completely disarm his WMD programs, but stay in power, well... that will be interesting.
As an aside, what I find interesting, but easily coincidental, is the impact Iraqi crude will have when we're facing a major sulfur reduction in onroad (and potentially off road diesel as well) in the 2006 - 2010 time frame. By major, we're talking 80% or so, which is a significant investment/profitability issue for refiners. This was one of the excessive holdovers from the Browner administration at the EPA, but one which is supported in congress and by the current administration for political reasons.
This will not be easy to meet, and may result in serious under supply in various regions as small refiners decide not to invest the capital to produce what is a secondary product. For those that do, it represents a significant loss of efficiency for refiners that produce the product by running multiple desulfurization passes, or significant investments for new cracking towers. The result is potentially (likely?) significantly higher diesel prices for several years (and, of course, higher prices for everything that moves via diesel). Not very welcome in an already recessionary climate.
Refiners that produce the new diesel will benefit greatly by having low-sulfur crude supplies (but they will still face some problems). Guess what type of crude we find in Iraq :) Not something to go to war over on its own, IMO, but certainly another benefit behind a regime change that is not really public knowledge. BTW, if you depend on diesel or the trucking infrastructure for your business you better start taking this seriously. There is a lot of serious concern in the impacted industries over what will happen in 2006.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Every war, Naso, every war.
Alittle off topic but...: Anyone catch the video clips of the celebrations in the streets of Bagdad upon news of the Space Shuttle disaster?
I call the referee on the hilighted part of Rip's post :)
You are playing dirty.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Naso, you miss the point of my question.
It's not about "war" per se.. it's about NO war.
What if all this build up to war achieves the goals of the UN without an invasion of Iraq?
What will the anti-war crowd that's been lambasting Bush say then?
What will the "must be a regime change" folks say then?
What if we achieve inspection/disarmament by doing what Bush is doing WITHOUT the war?
Will anyone praise him?
Will anyone still condemn him?
We're all looking for a "peaceful" solution. What if this serious preparation for war provides it?
I see the point now.
I will applaud the result.
But will mantain the doubt about the intentions.
I dont condemn or praise Bush, in my book it's almost a puppet.
A powerfull puppet indeed.
-
I seem to remember Bush wasn't going to go the UN route and was going to invade unilaterally ASAP.
But, if this UN route has worked with no shots fired, including the sabre rattling, then I'll take my hat off to Bush for having the ability and wisdom to stand up for UN resolutions and Blair for presuading him to hold fire and use the UN.
-
Realistically, it was a US route that slowly gathered a few supporters. The UN, particularly the Security Council can hardly be said to have been "on board" until the US began to make preparations.
Clearly, it was the US preparations that moved the Security Council to act on re-instating the Inspectors.
Is there ANYONE left who believes that Blix and his crew would be in Iraq at all without the US.... led by Bush... putting the pressure on to start with?
-
Disarmament via UN weapons inspectors was definitely NOT Bush's original ploy.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I have no problem with saber rattling. I would say that the foreign policy folks in DC did a great job if the desired outcome is achieved through threats.
And if it fails I place the blame on the dissenters.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And if it fails I place the blame on the dissenters.
Ahhhh, The "Conservative personal responsibility" angle???
-
Well, ya know it's been said that Iraq invaded Kuwait because of mixed signals from the US. He's certainly getting mixed signals now.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: for Animal ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Dead,
If you want to debate the legality of the Security Council resolutions vis-a-vis the "no fly" zones, please do so in another thread.
The "no fly zones" have been in effect since the end of the Gulf War. One would think if the Security Council had a "problem" with them, there'd have been a clarifying resolution or at least an attempt to do so, no?
I'll be happy to continue to discuss it in a thread you start. You can clip this, post it and we'll begin anew in there, ok?
Thanks.
No need to get all freaked :) - not attempting to discuss no-fly zone legality or highjack the thread - I was merely pointing out that your contention (in the first post and in the title of the thread) that not a shot has been fired in Iraq is completely incorrect: There is an on-going US/UK bombing campaign, whatever the reasons or justifications are for it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Disarmament via UN weapons inspectors was definitely NOT Bush's original ploy.
I think Bush's point was the UN Inspectors had be summarily thrown out on their collective rear ends and NOTHING was done.
Not by the UN, not by the UN Security Council, not by any other nation.... not by anyone or any nation.
.....and NOTHING was the status quo until he made preparations to change that situation.
-
Well, consider the thread re-named
"No All-out 2nd Gulf War in Iraq as yet...SO"
Does that make you happier?
-
me thinks the first lazer dot will be on the palace which saddumb is in when the missile is otw... he won't even know what hit him
once it starts, it'll be over quick
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, consider the thread re-named
"No All-out 2nd Gulf War in Iraq as yet...SO"
Does that make you happier?
much :D
-
Then you're easily amused.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Then you're easily amused.
If I wasn't, why on earth would I be on the AH BBS ?