1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

No Smoking Gun In Saddams Hands

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by nitewriter, Jan 31, 2003.

  1. nitewriter

    nitewriter To Perceive Is To Suffer

    Here is an article I ran across.

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq


    The following article states that the U.S isn't bringing that smoking gun that everyone was looking for, it's more like a smoking match.

    "UNITED NATIONS - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) is not bringing "a smoking gun" against Iraq to the United Nations (news - web sites) next week but will have circumstantial evidence to make a convincing case that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, a U.S. official said Thursday. "

    Excerpt
    http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet...20030131/wxpixx0131/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

    " The Secretary of State is expected to produce satellite photographs of Iraqi tractor-trailers with unusually big roof-mounted air vents, indicative of mobile biochemical weapons labs, USA Today reported Thursday. Other exhibits may include overhead photos of Iraqis driving bulldozers and performing clean-up operations in advance of visits by the UN weapons inspectors currently scouring the country."

    The first question that comes to mind is will circumstantial evidence be enough for the UN.
    Should it be ?
    Should the U.S, U.N or anyone else for that matter be allowed to attack another country without hard evidence.

    It seems we are about to find out.


    :(
     
  2. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    Considering that Saddam is in material breach of UN resolutions and is a danger to the world I fail to see the need for a smoking gun. If you watch the progression of those opposed to the war, they have first demanded UN resolutions, which were passed, then demanded inspections, which are being done, and are now demanding a smoking gun. This seems to me to be an illogical progression which would make any future involving a military conflict impossible. If a "smoking gun" were to be found I have little doubt then that some would require proof of intent to use this smoking gun. Unless of course this smoking gun violated the brady bill, in which case surely saddam is a monster that we must incarcerate :) .
     
  3. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I don't like the term "smoking gun" being thrown around in the first place. It's the new phrase being coined by the media that means exactly NOTHING.

    "Hmmm, is this new evidence a 'smoking gun'"

    "Sure it is."

    "Not to me. It's a 'smoldering gun.'"

    "What about this?"

    "No, that's a smoking match."

    Screw all that. It's a retarded phrase. Evidence is evidence, and there has been enough of it to go around. Everyone's waiting for some divine light to shine down and say "Oops, VX gas, now you die." It may never happen, and even after invasion, it may take time to fully understand the depth of Saddam's machine.
     
  4. nitewriter

    nitewriter To Perceive Is To Suffer

    Originally posted by Ravenink

    Considering that Saddam is in material breach of UN resolutions and is a danger to the world I fail to see the need for a smoking gun.

    -------------------------------------------

    Saddam is in material breach, of that there is no doubt.
    But does that constitute the necssesity of an invasion.
    Have all diplomatic avenues been taken, shouldn't war be a last resort.
     
  5. nitewriter

    nitewriter To Perceive Is To Suffer

    Originally posted by Copzilla

    Screw all that. It's a retarded phrase. Evidence is evidence, and there has been enough of it to go around. Everyone's waiting for some divine light to shine down and say "Oops, VX gas, now you die." It may never happen, and even after invasion, it may take time to fully understand the depth of Saddam's machine.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    The question that keeps nagging at me is what if the U.S goes in and find that they didn't have any WMD, what do you say to the widows and orphans
    "Oops, sorry about that, my mistake"
     
  6. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I'd say we ran a destabilizing bastard out of the region.

    But I also have little doubt that he has WMDs. To deny it, IMO, is purely pie-in-the-sky ignorance.
     
  7. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    the problem with diplomatic avenues is that they have been taken for the past decade to no avail. To have true negotiations you need two sides who are willing to uphold their agreements and in this instance I do not believe that is available. With a leader truly interested in disarmament I think the diplomatic path would have been succesful by now, or at least be moving in that direction. Saddam has had years to put himself in a position where diplomacy would be a viable option, but instead he has used the time for trickery and deception and as such has ruled out the possibility of negotiation.

    If I might intrude on your discourse with Copzilla I would like to respond to your last reply. Previous UN inspectors have determined that Saddam did posess certain quantities of VX gas, delivery systems, and antrax. It is unlikely that Iraq has destroyed them giving Hussein's past record of seeking such things. Iraq can claim to have no WMD, but unless the VX fairy has come to take them away, I find it improbable nearly to the point of impossible that he would no longer posess such things.
     
  8. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    I agree that this "smoking gun" business is utter nonsense. Please show me where the UN has required a "smoking gun" in any of it's resolutions.

    The bottom line for me, is that for 12 years, Saddam has ignored and/or broke every agreement he's signed. Technically, he's never lived up to the original cease fire agreement. He can't, and shouldn't be trusted, NOT to use the weapons he's hiding.
     
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Nitewriter,

    I doubt that would be the case but if it were, the US would make sure he had them. Not everyone knows all of the facets of this game and I doubt that would change.

    P.S. If you need to quote someone, hit the quote button. It's much easier than cutting and pasting each quote as you have been doing. ;)
     
  10. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Where was all the handwringing and gnashing of teeth when we and our NATO partners went after Milosevic and co. without even bothering with the U.N.? Was there perhaps substantially less international grumbling because that action was in defense of Muslisms rather than to depose a secular despot running a muslim country? Or is it because the president at the time was a centrist masquerading as a cartoon socialist?
     
  11. nitewriter

    nitewriter To Perceive Is To Suffer

    If the only thing you have to do to be invaded, is not abide by UN resolutions and have enough circumstantial evidence stacked up that you could possibly be a threat.

    Why aren't troops dropping into North Korea as we speak.

    Haven't they broken UN resolutions, kicked out UN inspectors, started a missle program, threatened world stabilty. started a nuclear power plant that could produce enough weapons grade plutonium for a bomb in six months.

    Don't get me wrong, I agree that Saddam is a threat, but North Korea is a threat as great in not greater. Yet they wheel and deal with North Korea and invade Iraq.

    Could it be because Iraq has oil and North Korea doesn't ?
     
  12. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Why do people keep bringing up the fact that Iraq has oil? Why would it be to our benefit to take out Saddam just because his country has oil? Are we planning on making Iraq the 51st state or something? Are we planning on stealing a bunch of oil on our way out of there? Seriously, why do people keep mentioning oil? :huh:
     
  13. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    Remember, we also have China and South Korea over there to keep an eye on NK. They don' t want a nuclear NK, just as much as we don't want a nuclear NK.

    With Iraq, we have no such neighbor to keep Saddam in check, and obviously the UN is not willing or able to do it as well.
     
  14. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    JACKPOT !

    Although the reasoning being offered up by the United States for invading Iraq is valid many questions remain. It is common knowledge that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions and has a miserable track record when it comes to human rights issues.

    Numerous other countries are in violation of UN resolutions as well and have similar disregard for human rights issues.

    The WMD argument is the *scariest* one and is the buzz word that keeps the war machine moving forward, albeit at a snail's pace.

    So I would say make no mistake, our hidden agenda is in fact oil and money.

    Stabilize the region and reduce oil prices by manipulating production levels and pricing. This can be accomplished by installing a *U.S. friendly* Iraqi government and we would have no need to *seize* the oil fields and/or *occupy* Iraq.

    The United States is not as blatant as to make a land grab but they are quite capable of propping up a puppet government that will be receptive to our *needs*.

    The fears France and Germany have in regards to their oil deals in Iraq although somewhat dramatized are in fact valid.

    If the above scenario is an accurate one they have every right to express reservations about our end game goals as they pertain to Iraq.
     
  15. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    What people forget is NK is a known. The "great leader" may be a nutcase, but he's a known nutcase and can be "predictable". Iraq is also known to gas it's own people, torture and has already stated they would use WMDs.

    So in reality, who's the greater threat? The leader who pounds his chest and makes threats? Or the one that has already demonstrated he's willing to wipe out his own people using gas to further his own agenda.
     
  16. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Not to take away from Steve Moore's excellent posts on the history of relations with North Korea, but:
    Might I suggest (or, suspect), one at a time, sir.
    How fast do you think aircraft carriers can go?

    Actually, I'm just kidding. But, I do believe:

    Iraq is a threat, due to the historic actions of the despot in charge of that nation.
    North Korea is playing a political game to get more aid ($MONEY) to enable their despot to continue to exist.
    Both situations deserve the attention of the world nations advocating freedom.

    But arguing that another world situation must be militarily dealt with while we are currently addressing another is, in my mind, a bit disingenuous.

    I suspect we'll get to it, especially if they keep up with the threats.

    Regards,
     
  17. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I concur...North Korea is looking just to save its regime, which is a pretty sad state of affairs. Hussein is looking to break out of the box.

    Just the same, the prospects of a fully armed DPRK is without question a chilling one. The DPRK does quite the same things to its own people that Hussein does--gulags, murder, rape, torture, starvation, even hints of vivisection and so-called "scientific experiments." They have not, to the best of my knowledge, used any WMD against entire segments of the population, however.

    The standoff on the peninsula--and I must reiterate this, because people seem to forget it--is between the DPRK and the ROK. The US is there as a tripwire and deterrent. That the DPRK continuously tries to get the US to sign a pact of nonaggression is one of their methods for trying to muddy the waters.

    So should the DPRK be "taken out" as a regime? I do think so personally. However, we were well down the road with Iraq when the DPRK began acting up. While our military is flexibile enough to face down two different but dangerous threats, I do not see anything inherently wrong with preferring to deal with them one at a time.

    SM
     
  18. nitewriter

    nitewriter To Perceive Is To Suffer

    Originally posted by RRedline

    Why do people keep bringing up the fact that Iraq has oil?
    Why would it be to our benefit to take out Saddam just because his country has oil? Are we planning on making Iraq the 51st state or something? Are we planning on stealing a bunch of oil on our way out of there? Seriously, why do people keep mentioning oil? :huh:

    -----------------------------------------------

    Maybe because Iraq is one of the largest oil producing countries.
    Although I do admit an ignorance to the exact amounts of oil that Iraq supplies to the U.S

    Yes, it would be a benefit to take Saddam out in order to stabilize oil prices and production.

    No, the U.S would not attempt to directly control Iraq, as this would of course destabilize the region even more than it is now.

    The U.S has no plans on stealing anything, they merely wish unfettered access, with reasonable control options.

    The reason oil is mentioned as often as it is, is that it seems to be part of a theme in wars where the U.S is participating.
    In the Gulf War , oil
    In Afghanistan, a 3.2 billion dollar oil deal to move oil from Turkistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan with U.S soldiers to aid and protect.
    And in Iraq, oil

    Just seems that if you follow the oil slick, you find a war.
     
  19. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    And Kosovo? And Israel? And Albania and Bosnia?
     
  20. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    The only operation I'm completely convinced was about oil--and I was told as such during initial briefs and INTSUMs--was EARNEST WILL, which became PRIME CHANCE.

    For those of you who do not recall these, this is when the Iranians were attacking Kuwaiti and Panamanian-flagged oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz.

    They did not expect the US to respond by deploying TF160's gunships off of Navy frigates. Poor them. ;)

    SM
     

Share This Page