Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force

[zimv20]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040420/ts_alt_afp/us_iraq_military_draft_040420172423)


WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.

(more)

that last sentiment is interesting...

[numediaman]

I hope Hagel keeps pushing this. Go Hagel, go!

[amnesiac1984]

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.


I'll have to disagree with that bit. I think there are plenty of Americans who don't understand, and that is why we're in this mess.

[pseudobrit]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040420/ts_alt_afp/us_iraq_military_draft_040420172423)


that last sentiment is interesting...

Perhaps if they only draft from constituencies whose Representatives voted for the Bush-Iraq War. See how fast they lose their seats.

[Desertrat]

Well, I've already posted in the thread "The Draft?..."

Hagel's smokin' some bad, er, "stuff".

'Rat

[SlyHunter]

Do we need a draft? No. Recruitment levels are high enough to meet current demand. There has been no significant decline in military recruitment since the start of the action in Iraq. In fact, recruitment went up after the 9/11 attacks.

[Desertrat]

mac, in answer to your question of me on the related but closed thread, yes, "all". It's cheaper than reinstituting the Draft, after all, $99K per grunt or no. Expansion of a bureaucratic effort will add to present costs. And, politically, it's a helluva lot less expensive than being a proponent.

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, in answer to your question of me on the related but closed thread, yes, "all". It's cheaper than reinstituting the Draft, after all, $99K per grunt or no. Expansion of a bureaucratic effort will add to present costs. And, politically, it's a helluva lot less expensive than being a proponent.

'Rat

Oh so NOW you are for an expanded troop presence huh. I thought you were one of those who said we could do this with the forces we had?

[Neserk]

Oh so NOW you are for an expanded troop presence huh. I thought you were one of those who said we could do this with the forces we had?


He is flip-flopping :D

[amnesiac1984]

Bit unrelated but why does it say you have 0 posts Rat? And you slyhunter, it says you only have 7 and you are both still newbies, wtf?

is this the case for anyone else or is it just me?

[mactastic]

If you only post in the political section you will never get beyond zero. Posts here don't count. What those numbers mean is that 'Rat has never ventured outside this forum, and Sly has only posted 7 times in the non-political sections of this forum. Probably because both are PC users.

[amnesiac1984]

Probably because both are PC users.

Scum!! ;) :D :eek:

[mactastic]

Scum!! ;) :D :eek:

Lol, I wasn't trying to say that, I was just trying to explain their lack of interest in the rest of our fine site.

[SlyHunter]

Lol, I wasn't trying to say that, I was just trying to explain their lack of interest in the rest of our fine site.
Repeating what I've said previously in another post. I did a google search for "forums iraq war" and this was like 3rd on the list. I did not come to this forum to discuss computers I do that on other forums. This is not the only forum I frequent.

[numediaman]

Maybe they own iPods? Maybe there is a link from the iTunes Store to the Political Board at MacRumors?

Hey, I got it: why doesn't MacRumors charge admission to people who can't prove they own a Mac? (Make them submit a GarageBand tune as proof.)

[amnesiac1984]

Repeating what I've said previously in another post. I did a google search for "forums iraq war" and this was like 3rd on the list. I did not come to this forum to discuss computers I do that on other forums. This is not the only forum I frequent.

hehe, I was only kidding, you have every right to use whatever kind of computer you want. I didn't know about the political forum not working with post counts, no wonder mine hasn't gone up for bloody ages.

[Neserk]

hehe, I was only kidding, you have every right to use whatever kind of computer you want. I didn't know about the political forum not working with post counts, no wonder mine hasn't gone up for bloody ages.


I like that my post count (which is non-existant) has no relationship to posting on political forums. That way no one can accuse me of posting here just to get the numbers up :D

[Desertrat]

'Scuse the heck out of me, but how does pointing out the lack of a need for a Draft, or pointing out other options to increase available manpower in Iraq translate to advocacy of increasing manpower in Iraq? Duh?

Since when does an effort to explain a "How to..." somehow become a "We oughta!"?

All a computer is to me is a tool. My usage is mostly for meddling around on the Internet; email, and writing snail-mail letters. Otherwise, the "My Pictures" folder pretty much ends my interest. Whatever's simple and cheap and works is plenty good enough for my purposes. A buddy of mine gave me an old PC with Windows 3.1, years ago, so I've just sorta naturally stayed in that playground. I wasn't gonna argue with a guy who'd been into computer stuff since the days of punch cards...

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

I wasn't gonna argue with a guy who'd been into computer stuff since the days of punch cards...

'Rat, you didn't need to be afraid to argue with him, that doesn't mean he was going to punch you! ;)

You're not still using Windows 3.1 are you?

[numediaman]

All a computer is to me is a tool. My usage is mostly for meddling around on the Internet; email, and writing snail-mail letters. Otherwise, the "My Pictures" folder pretty much ends my interest. Whatever's simple and cheap and works is plenty good enough for my purposes.
:), 'Rat

Sacrilege!! Oh the humanity!! A man who fallen from the alter of Mac!! (wow, six exclamation points in one post.) We must buy this boy a copy of Soundtrack or Final Cut Pro and get him on the righteous path of Mac-dom. ;)

[Desertrat]

:) Naw, Windows 98 on the Terlingua computer (From Tiger in 1997); ME on this one here in Thomasville.

That old 3.1 with a faster chip and more memory (It was a 386, and had about 100 megs) would be plenty good for what I do. I think the Terlinguoid to whom I gave it is still using it...

From what I hear/read, computers for a lot of folks are sorta like race cars to that crowd: Ya always wanna work up to something faster. Heck, a 200 mph Formula A car was a lot more fun than a 90mph VW-powered Formula V!

'Rat

[mactastic]

ME?? <shivers>

Well if that computer goes before you do 'Rat, let's talk about OS X. After all, I've been around computers almost since the days of punch cards!

[Desertrat]

The ME computer is a replacement. My wife was playing Mahjongg, and a very-nearby lightning strike blew through all the protections.

Anyhow, Word 97 was more user-friendly, IMO, than the version that came with ME. Same for the Money program; older was better. IOW, MS is adding sizzle, but no more meat...

Another thing I've noticed is that if either computer is left turned on for several hours, and I've logged off the Internet and then later log back on: Before long, something is gonna lock up. It takes a restart to get unlocked.

'Rat

[zimv20]

From what I hear/read, computers for a lot of folks are sorta like race cars to that crowd: Ya always wanna work up to something faster. Heck, a 200 mph Formula A car was a lot more fun than a 90mph VW-powered Formula V!

my VW is 90 hp, actually. but i need a fast computer to run protools.

[jefhatfield]

my VW is 90 hp, actually. but i need a fast computer to run protools.

i need a computer just fast enough to be faster than yours

[amnesiac1984]

All a computer is to me is a tool. My usage is mostly for meddling around on the Internet; email, and writing snail-mail letters. Otherwise, the "My Pictures" folder pretty much ends my interest. Whatever's simple and cheap and works is plenty good enough for my purposes. A buddy of mine gave me an old PC with Windows 3.1, years ago, so I've just sorta naturally stayed in that playground. I wasn't gonna argue with a guy who'd been into computer stuff since the days of punch cards...
:), 'Rat

A Mac, despite all its other functions out of the box, is probably the best thing to get for exactly your useage these days. Basically due to the complete non existence of viruses/spyware etc etc that makes the internet a pain in the ass. Cruising the internet on a Mac is just that, cruising.

And if you ahd gotten a mac at the time you got the Windows 3.1 PC you could probably still be using it now, I now we still macs that old in our offices. They struggle on more exciting websites but what do you expect, its like 40mhz (Quadra 840av)

[zimv20]

i need a computer just fast enough to be faster than yours
i curse you, mr. jones!

[numediaman]

If there is a draft, there will be only one sure way to be exempted . . . . From another site: "The Lord works in strange ways -- and the Bush draft may just end being the biggest recruiting tool for homosexuality in history."

[amnesiac1984]

If there is a draft, there will be only one sure way to be exempted . . . . From another site: "The Lord works in strange ways -- and the Bush draft may just end being the biggest recruiting tool for homosexuality in history."

I can't wait its going to be hilarious. the anti-gay bigots will think the world has ended as the number of homosexuals explodes! Do you think there will some demeaning process that you have to go to prove your homosexuality?
Anyone care to speculate on what that might be?

[Desertrat]

:D:D:D

You guys owe me a keyboard!

Proof? Hey, just smooch the guy at the office where you report! Buy stock in the cosmetics industry! Sales of makeup will skyrocket! For that matter, report in drag...

'Rat

[JamesDPS]

:D:D:D

You guys owe me a keyboard!

Proof? Hey, just smooch the guy at the office where you report! Buy stock in the cosmetics industry! Sales of makeup will skyrocket! For that matter, report in drag...

'Rat

I think Corporal Klinger already tried drag... didn't work... it's a perfect definition of catch-22 :)

[Frohickey]

Couldn't conscientious objectors be medics?

[vwcruisn]

i think that everyone who was so gung ho about the war at the beginning should be the first to go. I would think there are/were enought people that have supported the war to go so that not 1 person who was against this war all along would have to go.

[meta-ghost]

can i say that as a left-handed leftie i'm in favor of the draft? this wasn't always the case. few things have made me angrier then when mr. reagan forced me to register with the selective service to qualify for my financial aid. having no interests in the crimes we were committing and supporting in central america in the 80's joining the u.s. military was the furthest thing from my mind.

what happened?

"desert storm"! more specifically, the fact that our entire congress was voting to authorize the action when none of them had a son or daughter who was at risk. the same could be said to those holding elite postions in our society. what was the risk to them? the ivy league does not entertain the idea of military service. it changed my thinking. if we are to be a nation that leads the world, we must not be capricious in our use of force. the only way that will happen is if we all have a stake in our actions.

[Neserk]

Couldn't conscientious objectors be medics?

Yes, or chaplins in some cases...

[Desertrat]

meta-ghost, let's stipulate for the moment that the Iraq invasion should never have happened, so let's pretend we're not there. Just for this argument, okay?

Had we not gone into Afghanistan, what would be the situation for Al Qaida insofar as a base of operations and locales for training camps? Would you say it was a wasted effort?

Do you believe that there would be no perturbations in the mideast were we not there? Do you believe that the supply of oil would be uninterrupted, or uninterruptedly reasonable in its price?

Say for the moment there is a rise in governmental influence on the part of people who believe as did Al Khomeini in Iran, but who are in Syria and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. Not only is the US the Great Satan, but religious purity is more important than "mere" money. Could this not lead to a repeat of the 1973 embargo?

What would some variant of the 1973 embargo do to this country--as well as other developed or developing nations which import oil and/or refined products?

These sorts of questions are in the minds of both Democrats and Republicans who aspire to the White House and the Cabinet, as well as for many in Congress.

While their answers may be totally incorrect, or they may find less than perfect solutions, the questions are real.

(IMO, all this also shows why governments should not own resources, and governments should not be tied to any religion.)

Any government, "ours" or "theirs", is gonna do what's seen to be necessary for its survival. That's what governments do. If it's believed that a Draft is needed, that's what will happen. The SSS began under FDR; I registered in July of 1952 and was drafted in January of 1954. Sorta hard for me to care about Reagan and registration, since he was still almost a pup when it all started.

You'll note from earlier posts that I see no need for re-institution of a Draft...

However, when one is part of a society, does one merely pick and choose among governmental requirements based on what one wants to do or dislikes doing? How much of "I paid my taxes; let others do the fighting!" is justified? Do I choose to obey EPA requirements but shun military service because I agree with the first but don't agree with the second? Obey OSHA requirements, but ignore the Mann Act? :)

I don't pretend to have answers to a lot of this stuff. I guess I do a lot of second-guessing without a lot of pointless bitching; I try to figure out the "why" of goings-ons.

As usual, more questions than answers...

'Rat

[numediaman]

can i say that as a left-handed leftie i'm in favor of the draft? this wasn't always the case. few things have made me angrier then when mr. reagan forced me to register with the selective service to qualify for my financial aid. having no interests in the crimes we were committing and supporting in central america in the 80's joining the u.s. military was the furthest thing from my mind.

what happened?

"desert storm"! more specifically, the fact that our entire congress was voting to authorize the action when none of them had a son or daughter who was at risk. the same could be said to those holding elite postions in our society. what was the risk to them? the ivy league does not entertain the idea of military service. it changed my thinking. if we are to be a nation that leads the world, we must not be capricious in our use of force. the only way that will happen is if we all have a stake in our actions.

I believe that Congress should be required to do two things in order for them to authorize the President to wage war: 1) formally declare war; and 2) reinstitute the draft -- or at least authorize a new draft lottery.

I still remember the last lottery (barely). The numbers were posted on the front page of the newspaper, and everyone knew the consequences of the nation's war policies. (By the way, the "winning" number last time was September 14. Meaning you were off to boot camp if you were born on that date. My number was the 317th picked, effectively ending any chance I'd get drafted. Of course, I was also too young then, as well! If you want to see the numbers, here is a link:
http://www.landscaper.net/draft.htm

[meta-ghost]

let's stipulate for the moment that the Iraq invasion should never have happened, so let's pretend we're not there. Just for this argument, okay?

Had we not gone into Afghanistan, what would be the situation for Al Qaida insofar as a base of operations and locales for training camps? Would you say it was a wasted effort?

'Rat

only have a minute here (must work), but.... i said nothing about afghanistan. this is the problem. the administration's prop machine has equated the two and you and many others have bought it.

[SlyHunter]

only have a minute here (must work), but.... i said nothing about afghanistan. this is the problem. the administration's prop machine has equated the two and you and many others have bought it.
Right now we are fighting not only Iraq but folks in Syria and Iran are sending people accross the border. Had we not gone into Iraq I am sure Iraq would've been funnelling both troops and money into afghanistan to drive us out of there.

FYI Pat Tillman was just reported dieing over there in Afghanistan. He gave up a 3.5 million dollar contract so he could volunteer and fight in the rangers over there. If only those who believe that these battles are worth fighting went over there we would lose allot of valuable people while keeping those leaches who hang back and enjoy the freedom they are unwilling to fight for either for themselves or for another. But I'm not saying we should do a draft, until when/if it is decided we actually need one.

Saddam purposely played games instead of coming clean. His reasons for doing so are probably many. If he had simply showed us where he put the wmds, or destroyed the wmd's there wouldn't of been a war. If he gave them away that was a very bad decision on his part.

[skunk]

Right now we are fighting not only Iraq but folks in Syria and Iran are sending people accross the border. Had we not gone into Iraq I am sure Iraq would've been funnelling both troops and money into afghanistan to drive us out of there.
And just how would he have done that? Send them in buses across Iran?

If only those who believe that these battles are worth fighting went over there we would lose allot of valuable people while keeping those leaches who hang back and enjoy the freedom they are unwilling to fight for either for themselves or for another. But I'm not saying we should do a draft, until when/if it is decided we actually need one.
Presumably because you're a leech.

Saddam purposely played games instead of coming clean. His reasons for doing so are probably many. If he had simply showed us where he put the wmds, or destroyed the wmd's there wouldn't of been a war. If he gave them away that was a very bad decision on his part.
Not again! Most of the weapons were destroyed in the 90s, the rest were well past their Gas By date. How could he show what he did not have?

[mactastic]

...their Gas By date.

LMAO!! You just made me choke on my coffee!

[SlyHunter]

And just how would he have done that? Send them in buses across Iran?


Presumably because you're a leech.


Not again! Most of the weapons were destroyed in the 90s, the rest were well past their Gas By date. How could he show what he did not have?
He could show us where he destroyed them. The UN chemist would be able to find contaminants in the area proving that biologicals were destroyed there. You never actually destroy 100% of the evidence this stuff isn't that easy to get rid of. Thats what he needed to show.

[mactastic]

He could show us where he destroyed them. The UN chemist would be able to find contaminants in the area proving that biologicals were destroyed there. You never actually destroy 100% of the evidence this stuff isn't that easy to get rid of. Thats what he needed to show.

I thought he did that, and our response was that we couldn't tell HOW MUCH of the weapons he had destroyed there. All the contaminates would show is that SOME weapons were destroyed there, not whether all of them were.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
He could show us where he destroyed them. The UN chemist would be able to find contaminants in the area proving that biologicals were destroyed there. You never actually destroy 100% of the evidence this stuff isn't that easy to get rid of. Thats what he needed to show.

[QUOTE=mactastic]I thought he did that, and our response was that we couldn't tell HOW MUCH of the weapons he had destroyed there. All the contaminates would show is that SOME weapons were destroyed there, not whether all of them were.
I wish he did but no he expected us to take his word that he did.

[skunk]

[Quote]
I wish he did but no he expected us to take his word that he did.
Just like we were all supposed to take the B-twins words for it that he still had them.....

[SlyHunter]

I wish he did but no he expected us to take his word that he did.

Just like we were all supposed to take the B-twins words for it that he still had them.....
He signed a surrender agreement agreeing to getting rid of these weapons. It was up to him to prove he was abiding by that surrender agreement.

[skunk]

He signed a surrender agreement agreeing to getting rid of these weapons. It was up to him to prove he was abiding by that surrender agreement.
How was he supposed to do that when nobody knew what he had in the first place?

[mactastic]

He signed a surrender agreement agreeing to getting rid of these weapons. It was up to him to prove he was abiding by that surrender agreement.

So if the cops came up to you and told you they know you had some crystal meth in the past and would you please prove that you didn't have any in your possesion now or you go to jail, what would you say?

And then you allowed them to search everywhere they could think of and they didn't find any but said that not finding any was proof that you hid them or gave them away and took you to jail anyway, what would you say?

I'm guessing you wouldn't say "Oh ok, take me away."

[skunk]

So if the cops came up to you and told you they know you had some crystal meth in the past and would you please prove that you didn't have any in your possesion now or you go to jail, what would you say?

And then you allowed them to search everywhere they could think of and they didn't find any but said that not finding any was proof that you hid them or gave them away and took you to jail anyway, what would you say?

I'm guessing you wouldn't say "Oh ok, take me away."
"Bring it on"?

[zimv20]

"i hid the meth in syria"

[skunk]

"i hid the meth in syria"
Ssshh! :eek:

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
He signed a surrender agreement agreeing to getting rid of these weapons. It was up to him to prove he was abiding by that surrender agreement.

So if the cops came up to you and told you they know you had some crystal meth in the past and would you please prove that you didn't have any in your possesion now or you go to jail, what would you say?

And then you allowed them to search everywhere they could think of and they didn't find any but said that not finding any was proof that you hid them or gave them away and took you to jail anyway, what would you say?

I'm guessing you wouldn't say "Oh ok, take me away."
If they have proof that I went around displaying the stuff to "inspectors or detectors" Then they'd have proof that I had it and I could be tried and maybe given a break if I agreed to turn it over and show them proof of what I did with it.

If I signed an agreement agreeing to surrender them and failed to do so then I'm guilty of not following that agreement. You forget 1991 he showed UN inspectors allot of his chemical agents before kicking them out of the country. Also seem to forget the games he played to make it look like he was concealing what he had during the next set of inspections. He was guilty of not cooperating after agreeing he would cooperate.

Course in your example did I go around executing folks in my neighborhood for fun?

[numediaman]

If they have proof that I went around displaying the stuff to "inspectors or detectors" Then they'd have proof that I had it and I could be tried and maybe given a break if I agreed to turn it over and show them proof of what I did with it.

If I signed an agreement agreeing to surrender them and failed to do so then I'm guilty of not following that agreement. You forget 1991 he showed UN inspectors allot of his chemical agents before kicking them out of the country. Also seem to forget the games he played to make it look like he was concealing what he had during the next set of inspections. He was guilty of not cooperating after agreeing he would cooperate.

Course in your example did I go around executing folks in my neighborhood for fun?

Sly, do you read your own posts? How could he conceal weapons he didn't have? You keep pretending there were weapons to conceal. The UN went in and found NOTHING. Then the US Army went in and found NOTHING. Then the David Kay gave his report to the administration and Congress where he said they found NOTHING.

You know why? There was NOTHING. (I haven't used caps this much since I filled out my taxes.)

[SlyHunter]

Sly, do you read your own posts? How could he conceal weapons he didn't have? You keep pretending there were weapons to conceal. The UN went in and found NOTHING. Then the US Army went in and found NOTHING. Then the David Kay gave his report to the administration and Congress where he said they found NOTHING.

You know why? There was NOTHING. (I haven't used caps this much since I filled out my taxes.)
So he gassed the kurds with NOTHING.
He showed the UN inspectors in 1991 NOTHING other than mustard gas and some other items.
And they MAGICALLY dissappeared.

[numediaman]

So he gassed the kurds with NOTHING.
He showed the UN inspectors in 1991 NOTHING other than mustard gas and some other items.
And they MAGICALLY dissappeared.

No, they were dismantled. What do you think ten years of inspections and sanctions were for, Sly? Everyone knows he had WMD in 1991. But in 1991 Bush decided NOT to invade Iraq. After ten years of UN sanctions and inspections, Iraq had NO WMDs. But it was then that Bush II decided to invade.

Are you one of those Republicans that think nothing happened in the world between Bush I and Bush II. Well, you're wrong. Clinton kept up the no fly zone and kept the sanctions in place. Iraq was being bombed regularly. And guess what? It worked! Saddam invaded no country between 1991 and 2000. He threatened no one between 1991 and 2000. The only ones who suffered were the Iraqi people.

If Bush was so worried about Iraq, instead of invading the country he would have lifted the sanctions and let the country return to the 20th Century. (My God, I'm sounding bloody French.)

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
So he gassed the kurds with NOTHING.
He showed the UN inspectors in 1991 NOTHING other than mustard gas and some other items.
And they MAGICALLY dissappeared.

No, they were dismantled. What do you think ten years of inspections and sanctions were for, Sly? Everyone knows he had WMD in 1991. But in 1991 Bush decided NOT to invade Iraq. After ten years of UN sanctions and inspections, Iraq had NO WMDs. But it was then that Bush II decided to invade.

There was no proof presented that they were dismantled had there been Saddam would not have been in violation of the surrender agreement.


Are you one of those Republicans that think nothing happened in the world between Bush I and Bush II. Well, you're wrong. Clinton kept up the no fly zone and kept the sanctions in place. Iraq was being bombed regularly. And guess what? It worked! Saddam invaded no country between 1991 and 2000. He threatened no one between 1991 and 2000. The only ones who suffered were the Iraqi people.

And the tax payers paying for that fiasco. Why did we have to keep the sanctions in place, bombing aspirin factories and so forth when it would've been cheaper and easier to have removed him in the first place.

If Bush was so worried about Iraq, instead of invading the country he would have lifted the sanctions and let the country return to the 20th Century. (My God, I'm sounding bloody French.)
If the money for the oil went to the people and not Saddam, if Saddam had not fooled everyone into believing he still had WMD's he would've been replaced. We did not go in and finish the job the first time because the powers that be thought he would be removed by his own people if we pulled his teeth (forced him to remove the wmd's). Otherwise I don't think we would've went along with him remaining in power in the first place.

Everybody keeps running around what the real deal was. It was arranged so Saddam would not be able to stay in power and he played those games so he could stay in power. It was a stupid game that didn't need to be played because we should've done the job right the first time.

[numediaman]

Sly, why don't you take a minute to answer these basic questions:

1) at the time the US invaded Iraq, did Iraq have WMD?
1a) If yes, where are they?
1b) If no, then why did we invade?

[SlyHunter]

Sly, why don't you take a minute to answer these basic questions:

1) at the time the US invaded Iraq, did Iraq have WMD?
1a) If yes, where are they?
1b) If no, then why did we invade?
1. Don't know at the time we invaded I thought he had them. The reason I thought he had them is because he did his best to make the world think he had them while at the same time saying he didn't. He refused to prove their destruction. When the UN teams went to an inspection site allot of times we could see trucks leaving the other side of the buildings. Why did he bury those labs if they didn't have any biological traces from WMD's in them?

I think either he had them and hide them really well.
He gave them to Syria or Iran.
I don't see how but perhaps they were dumped at sea.

Irregardless he was suppose to prove to the UN he destroyed the WMD's. Not go and destroy them behind their backs and then expect everyone to take his word for it. And not to hide them. And also not to give them away to other who may use them.

I'm not psychic but Saddam could've played a more honest hand and there would not have been a war.

[numediaman]

"Don't know at the time we invaded I thought he had them."

You thought he had them? So, because you thought he had them you can justify violating international law and start a war? You can kill hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians because you thought he had them? Pretty sad thinking.

But, of course, you were wrong -- he didn't have them. And now you and Bush have your war, and today five more Americans are dead in a rocket attack.

This isn't a little Republican video game. This is about life and death -- about the reputation of the United States (which is now at the lowest point in the history of the republic).

This may not be Vietman. But in one respect this war is exactly like Vietnam. The supporters of this war are already reaching levels of desperation in trying to justify a war that can not be justified. And they are already blaming the anti-war crowd for the fact we are not winning.

[SlyHunter]

"Don't know at the time we invaded I thought he had them."

You thought he had them? So, because you thought he had them you can justify violating international law and start a war? You can kill hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians because you thought he had them? Pretty sad thinking.

But, of course, you were wrong -- he didn't have them. And now you and Bush have your war, and today five more Americans are dead in a rocket attack.

This isn't a little Republican video game. This is about life and death -- about the reputation of the United States (which is now at the lowest point in the history of the republic).

This may not be Vietman. But in one respect this war is exactly like Vietnam. The supporters of this war are already reaching levels of desperation in trying to justify a war that can not be justified. And they are already blaming the anti-war crowd for the fact we are not winning.
It was not a violation of international law to resume hostilities because he failled to hold up to the surrender agreement that he signed.

Not only that but the UN authorized "grave consequences" in that last 1741 I think it was. What did people think "grave consequences" meant a stern lecture?

Nah the Anti-war crowd can be blamed for giving the enemy hope. Their anti war rhetoric gives them something to hope for where all they have to do is not lose long enough maybe Kerry will win and pull the troops out. For example If the French, Germans, Russia, etc was 100% for the war while we were still talking about it odds are Saddam would've opened his borders to the UN completly and not pulled any of his tricks. They gave him hope we would not invade so he felt freer to play his games without which we would not have gone in. Without which he would still be free today to torchure the women and children of his country.

[skunk]

Without which he would still be free today to torchure the women and children of his country.
Better to leave the killing to you lot, eh?

[numediaman]

Better to leave the killing to you lot, eh?

skunk, sly is a pretty good psychological study, don't you think?

He seems to think in circles. He states, for instance, that unprovoked war is not a violation of international law because Saddam violated a "surrender agreement". He also says that the violation was that he did not give up his WMDS. Then, of course, he admits there were no WMDs (or makes the silly claim that somehow the WMDs went to Syria). Its a big circle. You can never win because one lie goes to the next which goes to the next. Kinda reminds one of Bush, doesn't it?

EDIT: I found this quote from Krugman on Atrios that hits close to home: "The mess in Iraq was created by officials who believed what they wanted to believe, and ignored awkward facts. It seems they have learned nothing."

[Ugg]

Sh along with the neocons and gw seems to be well-versed in the art of obfuscation. Unfortunately most of the US seems to ignore this fact and tacitly believes the bs it is fed.

[numediaman]

Sh along with the neocons and gw seems to be well-versed in the art of obfuscation. Unfortunately most of the US seems to ignore this fact and tacitly believes the bs it is fed.

obfuscation -- I always loved that word. Could you volunteer to be Sly's English teacher?

[skunk]

Sh along with the neocons and gw seems to be well-versed in the art of obfuscation. Unfortunately most of the US seems to ignore this fact and tacitly believes the bs it is fed.
"Per obfuscationem ad astra".
Latin teacher required? :p

[SlyHunter]

skunk, sly is a pretty good psychological study, don't you think?

He seems to think in circles. He states, for instance, that unprovoked war is not a violation of international law because Saddam violated a "surrender agreement". He also says that the violation was that he did not give up his WMDS. Then, of course, he admits there were no WMDs (or makes the silly claim that somehow the WMDs went to Syria). Its a big circle. You can never win because one lie goes to the next which goes to the next. Kinda reminds one of Bush, doesn't it?

EDIT: I found this quote from Krugman on Atrios that hits close to home: "The mess in Iraq was created by officials who believed what they wanted to believe, and ignored awkward facts. It seems they have learned nothing."
the consequences for violating a surrender agreement is the resumption of war thus it is not unprovoked war.

Also UN authorized force and so did congress.

The UN, France, Germany, Britqain, US, CIA, Bush, Kerry, etc all thought he had WMD's. Why is that? Maybe its because Saddam wasn't forthright as the surrender agreement required him to be. Oh and just because we havn't found them yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Using that logic no such person as Osama. We havn't found him yet maybe he never existed? Maybe Bush lied to you about Osama ever existing and used that as an excuss to attack AFghanastan.

[skunk]

skunk, sly is a pretty good psychological study, don't you think?
He seems to think in circles.
A study in endlessness...
One can only hope they eventually get hoisted by their own voluminous and fetid petards. Unfortunately, while they are all at it, torturing the language to make black appear white, more and more unfortunate victims are being created at the scenes of their imperialist adventures. Baghdad is burning, and all we can do is fiddle. :mad:

[skunk]

the consequences for violating a surrender agreement is the resumption of war thus it is not unprovoked war.
Strange how the "violation of the surrender agreement" meant nothing to the US when Saddam put down the Shia and the Kurds. Pure political expediency of the most unprincipled kind. You can't just cherry-pick. Same goes for UN resolutions.

[amnesiac1984]

The UN, France, Germany, Britqain, US, CIA, Bush, Kerry, etc all thought he had WMD's. Why is that? Maybe its because Saddam wasn't forthright as the surrender agreement required him to be. Oh and just because we havn't found them yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Using that logic no such person as Osama. We havn't found him yet maybe he never existed? Maybe Bush lied to you about Osama ever existing and used that as an excuss to attack AFghanastan.

Osama must be real! I've seen him on TV! :D :confused:

[Desertrat]

Y'know, this stuff about "International Law" and the degree of respect for the UN sorta bugs me. First, if a country violates a long sequence of UN resolutions, does anybody care? Are these resolutions part of International Law? Next question, if the UN is in the business of enforcing this International Law--or its own resolutions if they're not International Law, why don't/didn't they? Why were we supposed to spend our money in those ten years of hassling Iraq?

As far as Iraq and WMDs and Saddam Hussein, it wasn't just Bush and the neo-cons doing the yowling. Sens. Kerry, Feinstein and Clinton are all on record as saying, "Saddam's got WMDs; he's gotta go!" and some as late as 2003. What's the point of yowling and howling at Bush about this WMD issue? (Aside from the personal satisfaction of jaw flapping or the emotional security of belonging to a like-minded group...)

Before you go to jumping on SlyHunter about circularity, you need to do some checking for motes in thine own eye.

:D, 'Rat

[Desertrat]

Yuck. Double post.

[skunk]

Y'know, this stuff about "International Law" and the degree of respect for the UN sorta bugs me. First, if a country violates a long sequence of UN resolutions, does anybody care? Are these resolutions part of International Law? Next question, if the UN is in the business of enforcing this International Law--or its own resolutions if they're not International Law, why don't/didn't they?
'Rat, it's just like any other law: if you don't like it, you have to work to change it. If more diplomatic effort and less arm-twisting had been invested in this problem, we could all proceed by consensus. That's what the UN is all about. Jaw Jaw is still better than War War (I know it doesn't really work with an American accent, but it's the sentiment that counts).

As far as Iraq and WMDs and Saddam Hussein, it wasn't just Bush and the neo-cons doing the yowling. Sens. Kerry, Feinstein and Clinton are all on record as saying, "Saddam's got WMDs; he's gotta go!" and some as late as 2003. What's the point of yowling and howling at Bush about this WMD issue?
:D, 'Rat
It really isn't relevant who else was yowling: it was the Administration who tilted the table, and everyone else just went along with it. It was Bush and his buddies who were in a position to find out exactly what was sound and what was not.

[numediaman]

Y'know, this stuff about "International Law" and the degree of respect for the UN sorta bugs me. First, if a country violates a long sequence of UN resolutions, does anybody care? Are these resolutions part of International Law? Next question, if the UN is in the business of enforcing this International Law--or its own resolutions if they're not International Law, why don't/didn't they? Why were we supposed to spend our money in those ten years of hassling Iraq?
:D, 'Rat

Are you arguing that the U.S. is in the business of enforcing the laws set by other entities? If a U.N. resolution is violated who enforces that resolution? I would think it would be the U.N. What right does the U.S. have to enforce the rules and laws of a third party?

It is illegal to grow and manufacture narcotics in Columbia. Columbia is not enforcing this -- should we invade? In Saudi Arabia, there are laws that protect women -- but they are not being enforced. Should we invade?

No, we invaded Iraq because Bush wanted to. Bush would have gone along with the U.N. only if they had authorized force. They didn't. So Bush took his marbles home and said to hell with the U.N.

Bush must not believe in democracy. You don't win every vote. If you lose you are supposed to continue to garner support for another vote.

[mactastic]

This "International Law" and "The UN..." stuff is sorta gettin' to me. Who's supposed to enforce internationa law? The UN? Who's supposed to enforce UN resolutions? The UN? If nobody is supposed to enforce the Law or the resolutions, why bother? What's the point? If countries in the UN aren't concerned about what Saddam was doing, or what any other thugocracy was doing, why do they care if we decide to try to clean up a mess? Or care if we ignore a mess?

Opposition to UN policy is not the same as apathy to it. Just because we oppose (and veto any chance we get) any UN opposition to Israeli action, does that mean we don't care? Quite the opposite I would argue.

Why was it mostly left to us to piddle away our tax dollars to hassle Saddam for the ten years after Gulf War I? Where was "The UN" and its membership? Seems to me that there was a significant precedent set for "unilateralism".

Do you think we will 'piddle away' less tax dollars with this invasion that we did over those same 10 years? How many American lives did it cost to 'hassle' Saddam versus deposing him?

Did Saddam's behavior against his own citizens--e.g., the mass graves thing discovered after Gulf War II's combat phase--not constitute violations of International Law?

Yes. And if we'd acted in a timely manner to stop them I'd buy the 'humanitarian' argument to the war. As it is, we watched and didn't care when he did the deed, then used that as a fall back position in our justification for war.

As far as WMDs, it wasn't just Dubya and the NeoCons. Ya gotta include the Democrat's candidate for President, along with Sens. Clinton and Kennedy (among others) who were right in there yowling about Saddam's having WMDs--and as late as early 2003. The 20/20-visioned Hindsight Harrys and Harriets were just really, really quiet in the months leading up to the Decision To Go.

Fine. Include them. Clinton's already considered a pathological liar by the right, and you guys think Kennedy is da devil. Ok fine, if those two were capable of being less than forthcoming with us about Saddams WMD (which is what I'm assuming you are alleging here), why isn't Dubya? Now include the authors of PNAC. And answer me this, who bears the ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war? Senator Kennedy? Or George W. Bush? Whose desk should this buck stop at? When does personal responsibility come into play?

Seems to me that before folks go to jumping on SlyHunter for circularity, there oughta be a bit of a self-check...

There's lots of reasons to jump on SlyHunter besides circularity.

[blackfox]

And the tax payers paying for that fiasco. Why did we have to keep the sanctions in place, bombing aspirin factories and so forth when it would've been cheaper and easier to have removed him in the first place.

Oh yes, that's proved true...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to be ironic...thanks for the laugh.

[Frohickey]

So if the cops came up to you and told you they know you had some crystal meth in the past and would you please prove that you didn't have any in your possesion now or you go to jail, what would you say?

The police analogy does not apply here. Saddam was the 'elected leader' of a sovereign nation that signed a ceasefire agreement with multiple stipulations for the continuation of the ceasefire agreement. Gulf War 2003 is really a continuation of Gulf War 1990, with a 13 year cease fire in between.

The Korean War ain't over yet either. There was no peace treaty signed. :eek:

[Frohickey]

Do you think we will 'piddle away' less tax dollars with this invasion that we did over those same 10 years? How many American lives did it cost to 'hassle' Saddam versus deposing him?

And answer me this, who bears the ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war? Senator Kennedy? Or George W. Bush? Whose desk should this buck stop at? When does personal responsibility come into play?


In Gulf War part 1, we lost more to accidents than to combat. In Gulf War part 2, its mostly to combat and guerrilla action. Too bad Bush41 didn't have the guts to finish. He made the mistake of trusting bad people (Saddam) to behave.

Two branches of government need to agree before any war can begin. Senator Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquidick, belongs to the Senate, one branch of the government. George W Bush, belongs to the other branch.

[mactastic]

In Gulf War part 1, we lost more to accidents than to combat. In Gulf War part 2, its mostly to combat and guerrilla action. Too bad Bush41 didn't have the guts to finish. He made the mistake of trusting bad people (Saddam) to behave.

Two branches of government need to agree before any war can begin. Senator Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquidick, belongs to the Senate, one branch of the government. George W Bush, belongs to the other branch.

And which way did Senator Kennedy vote?

[Desertrat]

Skunk, you ever been in the middle of a mob scene? Or at a political rally? (The emotions commonly seem common to them both. :D )

From what I've read, this whole WMD thing was a bi-partisan mob scene of common belief. The movers and shakers reinforced each others' preconceived notions. For all that Bush&Co should have had sound information, well, they were all predisposed to believe they had sound information. This opinion of mine is why I don't bitch all that much about Bush and the WMD stuff. And, since before the invasion I'd seen reasons for it, I hadn't thought the WMD thing was all that important. I'm on record as having said that emphasizing it was a mistake, well ahead of a lot of other folks. There were plenty of other valid reasons to get rid of an evil bastard in an area of immediate national interest.

You'll note that here and there in threads in the forum I've commented about what I see as errors in our "how to", but that's a different matter. And, of course, 20/20 hindsight is a lot easier than correctly predicting the future.

'Nuff fer now...

'Rat

[Frohickey]

And which way did Senator Kennedy vote?

Senator Kennedy always votes wrong. :D :eek: :D