The threat of weapons of mass destruction

Status
Not open for further replies.

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
In my constant web surfing (when not testing flashlights
smile.gif
), I came across this summary of states with nuclear weapons .

Highly interesting reading.

So...if you think we should oppose states that are developing nuclear weapons in the middle east...and have refused to allow inspectors access, have an interesting read.
 

MichiganMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
589
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
Actually what distinguishes Iraq among these nations is that it lost a war (quite badly in fact) and subsequently signed a treaty in which it promised to both abandon its WOMD program and to allow inspectors unrestricted access to its resources. The UN placed the onus on Iraq to provide definitive proof to the inspectors that the programs and weapons had been destroyed. That Iraq has blatently disregarded the terms of this treaty is really not disputed by anyone.

These points really render what other countries have WOMD irrelevant to the discussion of what actions need be taken to address Iraq's non-compliance with the UN's resolutions.
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Originally posted by MichiganMan:
...what distinguishes Iraq...is that it lost a war...and...promised to...abandon its WOMD
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So...if Iraq had never invaded Kuwait (and lost the war where we threw them back)...it would be OK that they were developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction?

I doubt if Israel would agree with that line of logic. After all, Israel carried out a sneak bombing attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor (Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq in Iraq in 1981) long before the invasion of Kuwait.
 

MichiganMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
589
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
Once again irrelevant. They did invade Kuwait, they were beaten (after having an opportunity to withdraw and avoid the inevitable outcome) and these were the terms they agreed to. They've blatantly violated the terms so now the requirements in the treaty are going to be enforced.
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
So...our foreign policy should be all about making sure that treaties and UN resolutions are enforced?

Be careful how you answer...
smile.gif
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
MichiganMan... excellent answer!!
icon14.gif
I've been saying the same thing to people 'til I'm blue in the face and none of them "get it".
rolleyes.gif


Bottom line is, creating/having WOMD is not the issue. The issue is that they lost the Gulf war and they are under restrictions and resolutions. WE (the US) are not under any resolutions. so the argument that we are living under a double standard is invalid. WE aren't losers!

So...our foreign policy should be all about making sure that treaties and UN resolutions are enforced?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ikendu... perhaps if you worded this question properly, it would be easier to answer. Should it be our foreign policy? Of course not! What we're doing right now isn't our foreign policy either... where did you get that ludicrous idea? What we're doing now is simply forcing the UN to grow a set of balls and enforce the treaties and resolutions that THEY imposed!!! What's wrong with that??? WE (the US) signed on to those treaties and resolutions with the expectations that they would be enforced. Don't we have the right to that expectation? Don't we have the right to force the UN to enforce their own treaties and resolutions? And if they won't do it, don't we have the right to at least look out for our own *** seeing as how they (the UN)aren't doing what they said they would? It has nothing to do with foreign policy. It has everything to do with enforcing and standing behind your word. Kinda neat to have a President who actually knows what that means, isn't it?
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Originally posted by Sasha:
...standing behind your word. Kinda neat to have a President who actually knows what that means, isn't it?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sasha, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I totally agree with THIS statement.

I found Clinton's dishonesty ("I was never alone with THAT woman"...yeah, right), to be thoroughly dis-honerable. Nice to know that there is something we agree on.
smile.gif
 

Sigman

* The Arctic Moderator *
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
10,124
Location
"The 49th State"
Sasha...Ditto, DAMN RIGHT, & hats off to you for saying it! ARrgghhhhhhhhh, to see these "jerks" on the telly and their little pansy protests....and the U.N. FRUIT CAKES "Well maybe we need more time".....makes me sick!
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
WOW, so being the aggressor and loosing the war actually has consequences? That there are some things that the rest of the world (at least on paper) doesn't want to have you doing if you are a PROVEN and self acclaimed aggressor?

What amazing concepts. Our actions have consequences!

If you accept that, and if you can dredge up a reasonably truthful accounting of those actions then you can't say that we have no business being there. We are obligated to uphold international law as established by those documents, as are all the other countries members of the UN.

The same logic applies to the discussion we were having in another thread about Israel by the way.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
We are obligated to uphold international law as established by those documents, as are all the other countries members of the UN.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now this is an interesting statement. I guess I never really looked at it that way (in those words) but it's a brilliant statement! (wish I'd thought of it...
wink.gif
)

Here we have been banging our heads against the wall trying to defend ourselves... trying to validate our position when in reality, the UN should be defending (or trying to) their position. THEY are in violation of their own resolutions!!! THEY are the ones who need to explain themselves! Why has the US been put in a position to defend why it is upholding these laws? That is simply... well... STUPID!!!

Thank you James...
grin.gif
 

MichiganMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
589
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
Originally posted by ikendu:
[QB]So...our foreign policy should be all about making sure that treaties and UN resolutions are enforced?
QB]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, that would be an absolute, and inflexible absolutes are only useful when building a straw man argument out of hypothetical situations. Yes, having a foreign policy that is all about enforcing treaties and resolutions would be a very bad idea. That would be the action dictated by those saying that Bush should deal with Korea in the same manner he is dealing with Iraq. Of course given that Korea is a nuclear power, such thinking is both sophistry and an exceedingly dangerous idea. They know this and would never actually advocate such action otherwise, but they are being driven mad by the fact that it looks like Bush will succeed in the Iraq venture and subsequently look good. Hence they are looking for any angle to divert the administration's current course, regardless of whether it is the right thing to do.
Sasha, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I totally agree with THIS statement.

I found Clinton's dishonesty ("I was never alone with THAT woman"...yeah, right), to be thoroughly dis-honerable.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think that its this characteristic of Bush, that he usually says what he means and does what he says, that many find so unnerving. The Clinton administration made many many bellicose statements to Iraq, and even sent cruise missiles into the country on several occasions. In fact Madame Albright's statements during this time were almost verbatim to statements that the Bush administration is being criticized for making (by Madeline Albright!) However there was no where near the level of panic there is now because Clinton's military actions were almost inevitably revealed to be feints that coincidentally attracted the public's attention from the domestic scandal du-jour. So while it lent itself to perpetuating cynicism of the public regarding the American government, there was a security that some miss knowing that no real action of any consequence would be taken. Bush's threats to take military action against Iraq if Saddam doesn't comply must be taken seriously.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
Originally posted by ikendu:
I guess my point about holding the UN to its resolutions is that sometimes that is in the interest of the U.S. and sometimes it is not.

It seems hypocritcal to say "we need to do this because..." and list UN resolutions as one of the reasons. There are many times that the U.S. simply looks the other way about UN resolutions...so it doesn't seem like a very genuine reason to me.

Much of the talk about Saddam seems to be situation ethics to me. We talk about his murderous acts of invading his neighbors...but we supported him with aid when he attacked Iran (and we didn't mind then that he was attacking his neighbors). We don't like that he tortures people, but he was doing that in those days while we were aiding him...and our gov't knew it.

So...I'm totatlly ready to agree that Saddam should go. That he is evil and cares nothing for the welfare of his people (I see that Saddam lived in luxury while his people suffered under the Gulf war sanctions). But...I would have thought the same thing while we were aiding him to kill people in Iran. I would likely have been against the policy of aiding him in those days (but honestly, it wasn't on MY radar at the time.).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sorry to have quoted the entire post but there wasn't anything in it that I felt could be omitted for reference purposes.

This is what I'm talking about. An entire post on what we did and allowed and supported in the PAST and how we are NOT doing that now and how come?!?!?
confused.gif
The overall tone of the post above indicates to me that ikendu doesn't approve of what we did in the past. So why does he (and MANY others!!) disapprove of us NOT repeating those same mistakes?!?! Talk about hypocrisy!

treek... I get your point. And to some degree, of course, I agree 100% with you. But we'll never know if we've learned from our mistakes or not unless we try. From where I'm sitting, I see an administration that is getting bitched at because it is doing something different. I'd rather see someone try something new than repeat something old and wrong. Call me goofy if ya want but that's just how I see it.

*added*... and so far, I haven't seen any logical or rational alternatives that uphold the treaties and resolutions that the UN itself has set forth. Start listing some viable alternatives that fit those guidelines and I'll be all ears. I'd love to discuss it.
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Sasha, the point of listing what was done in the past is to show that the reasons that are held up today, are not necessarily genuine.

As far as what we have seen from this particular president (George W. Bush '43), I agree, we should not judge him by what his father (George H. W. Bush '41) did or for that matter, what any previous president did. We should judge GW Bush on what he is doing.

So...let's talk about GW Bush.

If he is representing that we should enforce UN resolutions, will he pick and choose the ones that he wants to enforce? If the answer is yes (he will choose), then lets stop discussing "enforcing UN resolutions" as a reason for this war. If you don't think he will choose, then get ready for some strange policy from GW Bush. Because, many UN resolutions would keep us and our allies from doing what we want.

"Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past."

(I can't take credit for that thought)
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Originally posted by DieselDave:
...I applaud you for your honesty.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thanks!

Although, I apply the same integrity test to all presidents. Hmmmm. Let's see:

Reagan: We did not trade arms for hostages to Iran... (we did).
Bush '41: Read my lips...no new taxes (he later raised taxes)
Clinton: I was not alone with THAT woman (...not when you stained that blue dress?)

There are other examples.

What puzzles me is why people think that if you aren't supporting one policy of Bush '43 that it automatically means that you are for Saddam...or for Clinton...or whatever.

If you are really thinking for yourself, you might agree with Bush on this...but not on that. You might even agree we should shut down Saddam...but just not on the timing...or which tactic to take.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
If he is representing that we should enforce UN resolutions, will he pick and choose the ones that he wants to enforce? If the answer is yes (he will choose), then lets stop discussing "enforcing UN resolutions" as a reason for this war. If you don't think he will choose, then get ready for some strange policy from GW Bush. Because, many UN resolutions would keep us and our allies from doing what we want.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again I am baffled my this line of thinking. You are talking in "IFs". If I walk out to mail my bills and get hit by a car at the mailbox then you all are screwed 'cuz then who's gonna upgrade your software? So I'd best not pay my bills... right?
confused.gif
The logic of that is... not logical!

We should do nothing because we don't know what the future holds and we don't know alot of "IFs"?
confused.gif
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Originally posted by Sasha:
We should do nothing because we don't know what the future holds...?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sorry, I've posted on several threads and don't always keep track of what is in each one.

Two step plan:
1. Military operations (like Afganistan to take out terrorist bases)
2. Find and work on the roots of terrorism

I certainly don't propose we do nothing.

As far as #2 goes, we could start by figuring out if our support of Saudi Arabia and its repressive gov't might not be at one of the roots of the terrorismt that threatens us. After all, 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia (not Iraq).

This is discussed more in this thread: Terrorist warnings
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
Now you're going off on a tangent. I won't go there. Let's stick to the topic that you started. Who has WOMD and why are we enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq while we ourselves have WOMD as well? I believe all of that has been sufficiently explained.

The alternatives that I (we?) are looking for are alternatives to enforcing the treaties and resolutions that the UN created. Please note that above I specified logical, rational and viable alternatives.

I also believed that it has been sufficiently explained why we (the US) shouldn't have to defend ourselves for upholding the laws. Seems to me that a whole bunch of other countries got some 'splainin' to do though. If you'd like to try to defend their position NOT to uphold the treaties and resolutions, I'd be more than happy to let that go off on a tangent and discuss it.
 

Marshall Johnson

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
Messages
57
Location
New Jersey
Originally posted by Sasha:
[QB]Hell it's a different century!! The world was a hell of alot different back when Iraq and Iran were having a spat. Can we focus on now? Can we acknowledge that we've learned form our mistakes and are handling things differently now? QB]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The same principles were at work then as they are now. Things haven't changed much. The countries were are talking about have not changed much. Only our loyalties have changed. We formed alliances in the past not because we cared for those countries but because they were enemies of an enemy of ours.

The Soviet Union used to heavily influence our foreign policy. An enemy of the Soviet Union was a friend of ours. Do you think we really ever cared about Afghanistan? Hell no. But they were willing to fight the Soviet Union, so logically we were going to support them. If it wasn't for our mutual hate of the Soviet Union, we would have had nothing in common.

And as for Iraq, they were Iran's enemy, which made them a "friend" of ours. We were against Iran, Iraq was a neutral middleman to us, BUT they were at war with Iran. Since they were already fighting our enemy, we took sides with them.
 

Anarchocap

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
452
Location
Arizona, USA
Using the UN to justify attacking Iraq is like the Fox guarding the Hen house. 95% of the UN member nations are ones that have the same thing to lose in their own countries that Saddam has to lose in Iraq. They are dictators, fascists, socialists, monarchs, etc.

The simple fact of the matter is that the very reason "terrorists" have attacked this country and hate us is because the United States sticks its nose into countries for its own benefit, caring nothing about the hornet's nests it stirs up after the fact.

If the world doesn't want our help, we shouldn't help it. If they do want our help, they should pay for it. I am sick of the Empire of the United States stealing my tax money at what is essentially gun-point, then spending it on countries overseas via incentives, grants, loans, military protection, and etc. propping up countries run by the likes of the House of Saud.

Then the US government has the nerve to be borrowing money in a deficit capacity, printing fiat dollars (also illegal) in a faulty and inflationary socialist attempt to prop up the failing economy here so we can all blissfully pretend that our straw house isn't going to come down all around us.

We have manufactured the very problem our country says its trying to solve.

North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, and the long range missile capability to hit the United States. There has been a cease fire there signed with terms, and North Korea is guilty of everything Iraq is, yet why are we not trying to take over that country also?

The reason is our country is a bully. Iraq is weak, North Korea is strong, and so we are going to choose to pick on a weakling.

It is illegal in this country to have a standing army unless war is declared. We never had one until World War II. There is a historical reason why a standing army is dangerous to liberty. It has a lot to do with armies wanting to make war, and getting us into the exact situation we are in now.

The real sad fact is this country is dying. We don't manufacture any real goods anymore, we can't produce educated citizens to compete in a global economy, we are losing whatever technology leadership we had. Companies like the one I work for are beginning to divest itself from the United States for all those reasons.

We need to focus on the real problems with this country. Iraq is just a very expensive diversion, in which people are going needlessly suffer and die, some of which will be American soldiers.

We are guilty of everything the world says we are. As such, we should give it exactly what it says it wants. That means we stop paying for UN membership, and actually make those goofs pay for their headquarters being in New York, we stop sending out tax dollars overseas to prop up foreign regimes, we bring our boys home from every country they are in unless they are paid for, and we start taking care of our own.
 

DieselDave

Super Moderator,
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
2,703
Location
FL panhandle
Originally posted by ikendu:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by DieselDave:
...I applaud you for your honesty.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thanks!

Although, I apply the same integrity test to all presidents. Hmmmm. Let's see:

Reagan: We did not trade arms for hostages to Iran... (we did).
Bush '41: Read my lips...no new taxes (he later raised taxes)
Clinton: I was not alone with THAT woman (...not when you stained that blue dress?)

There are other examples.

What puzzles me is why people think that if you aren't supporting one policy of Bush '43 that it automatically means that you are for Saddam...or for Clinton...or whatever.

If you are really thinking for yourself, you might agree with Bush on this...but not on that. You might even agree we should shut down Saddam...but just not on the timing...or which tactic to take.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes I do think that, . If you not with us on war you are for Saddam. Clinton is irrelevant in many ways.

The war with Iraq has nothing to do with politics for me. I DO disagree with Bush on several fronts. I think he is wrong on the borders and immigration. I think he is too liberal in general. I have plenty I don't like about his policies but I cringe at the thought of a Gore, Liberman, Daschle, Kerry or similar being in his place.

Past presidential actions with Iraq are irrelevant. That includes Bush 41 not getting Saddam. (of course he didn't have the beloved U.N.'s authority to go after him.) It has nothing to do with the Dems. in Congress that tried to stop it in 91 by calling Bush a war monger and worse. Or, those same Dems. that later patted themselves on the back after the war started and they did the DC 2 step and got on board. It has nothing to do with Clinton lobbing a couple of missiles every time his scandal ridden presidency heated up. As you well know he had no UN resolution for what he did but the "independent" minded Dems. applauded his every action until they saw they could go down as well. Then in typical fashion they went silent.

This war is about the principles we supposedly value. It's about the U.N. and if they are more than a paper tiger. It's about resolution after resolution. The saber rattling has failed. For reasons I won't beat on you with we have lost credibility when we say, follow the rules or there will be dire consequences. We must act, alone or in coalition. Forget the U.N., forget the Dems. (You know they will get on board as soon as it starts, the old 2 step again) If Jesse Jackson, Al Gore or any other liberal were President, I, most Republicans and every Dem. Senator and Congressman would be for it.

It is not about politics. It is about right and wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top