PDA

View Full Version : Jr arguing for 'regime change' in Iraq


opus512
09-07-02, 09:10 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/06/bush.iraq.message/index.html

Bush spoke Friday morning with the leaders of three of the five permanent Security Council members -- French President Jacques Chirac, Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. All three have expressed doubts about the need for military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and any one of them could veto Security Council resolutions on Iraq.

"He told these leaders that he valued their opinion," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters Friday. "The president stressed that Saddam Hussein is a threat and that the United States was going to work together with the world to make the world more peaceful, and we welcome their role and their involvement."

Bush's calls Friday were meant to "begin this process of collaboration -- to do exactly what the world would expect and exactly what the world deserves -- which is a free exchange of information, a discussion about the consequences and the risks," Fleischer said.

He would not characterize the leaders' responses except to say they all expressed their appreciation to Bush for consulting them. But in Moscow, Russian officials said Putin told Bush he has "serious doubts" about the legal or political basis for military action against Iraq.

Asked if the White House had new evidence of Iraqi weapons development, Fleischer said plenty of evidence exists already.

"Adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest," he said. "There already is a mountain of evidence that shows that Saddam Hussein, since the Gulf War and prior to the Gulf War, has sought to develop weapons for the purpose of using them. Now, as we saw on September 11th, when our enemies have weapons, they do not hesitate to use them against the American people."

The White House also is seeking a congressional endorsement of any military action, preferably before Congress adjourns in October for midterm elections. In a CNN interview Friday, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said Bush needs to build international support before making any military move against Iraq.

"Part of doing this the right way and the successful way is to put together a coalition," said Gephardt, D-Missouri. "Sometimes that takes diplomatic efforts as well as military efforts to get that done."

Both Gephardt and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, were in New York for a special joint meeting of Congress marking the coming anniversary of last year's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Hastert said the United States needs to make sure such attacks do "not happen again in this country."

"We know the history of Hussein, and we know he is a bad actor," Hastert said. "We know he's had weapons of mass destruction and used them against Iranians and used them against the Kurds in his own country, and he would use them against anybody else, too."

Ok, this started out as laughing at Jr's veiled attempt to pretend he cares about what the rest of the world thinks, but then I got to the bold part of the quote in the article.

There is a mountain of evidence. We just can't see it because it would compromise national security. He has sought to develop weapons, of 'mass destruction' I'm taking it. Of course he has, we gave them to him!

We gave Iraq, in the 1970's and 80's, though the CIA, biological weapon stock. The nerve gas used on his own people most likely came from us in the first place!

No one seem's to be mentioning this, and it's really starting to irritate me.

But back to topic. Bush has no international support for attacking Iraq. There is no support to be had. Of course England is with us, that's to be expected, we would do the same for them. And Australia really doesn't matter. Nice jumping off point for the region, but seriously, whether they help us or not will not determine the outcome of the action, let's be realistic about that.

And Gephardt and Hastert are just kissing election year @ss, doing some down home chest thumping, yeah, we're against evil and bad people! Duh! Like someone is going to say they aren't :rolleyes:

Hey, let's put together another coalition, it worked so well in taking out Hussein the first time! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Blackadder
09-07-02, 09:24 PM
"meet the new boss,same as old boss"

nextbillgates
09-07-02, 09:30 PM
Asked if the White House had new evidence of Iraqi weapons development, Fleischer said plenty of evidence exists already.

"Adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest," he said. "There already is a mountain of evidence that shows that Saddam Hussein, since the Gulf War and prior to the Gulf War, has sought to develop weapons for the purpose of using them.

Political spin to English translation:

We have no new evidence.

I wonder if Dubya will launch an attack, even if Congress and the UN don't support it.

opus512
09-07-02, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by nextbillgates
Asked if the White House had new evidence of Iraqi weapons development, Fleischer said plenty of evidence exists already.

"Adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest," he said. "There already is a mountain of evidence that shows that Saddam Hussein, since the Gulf War and prior to the Gulf War, has sought to develop weapons for the purpose of using them.

Political spin to English translation:

We have no new evidence.

I wonder if Dubya will launch an attack, even if Congress and the UN don't support it.

I suspect yes, but not as soon as he would with more support.

msan_msw
09-07-02, 10:16 PM
Sept. 7 — Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp


Between news stories such as this and the "going and going" thread I posted it really leads me to believe that Bush has his own personal agenda and he has placed that above the better interests of the nation.

nextbillgates
09-07-02, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by msan_msw

http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp


Between news stories such as this and the "going and going" thread I posted it really leads me to believe that Bush has his own personal agenda and he has placed that above the better interests of the nation.

Not just our nation, but out allies. The Arab league has said over and over and over again that an attack on Iraq is an attack on all Arab nations. This puts Israel, Russia, Japan, Australia, and any other of our allies in that region at risk. If they are attacked (which I don't doubt they will be), they will counterattack, and we'll have WWIII (only this time with nukes).

If Bush really has the best interest of our nation and our allies at heart, he'll not only make his case to the UN and congress, but he'll also (sincerely) ask why they don't support it. The way Bish is handling it now leaves a lot of room for mistakes, and even a small mistake could put us and our allies in much greater danger than we were a year ago.

opus512
09-07-02, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by msan_msw

Between news stories such as this and the "going and going" thread I posted it really leads me to believe that Cheny has his own personal agenda and he has placed that above the better interests of the nation.

msan_msw
09-07-02, 11:59 PM
Opus, I have more respect for Cheney than Bush because he flat out says what he thinks and doesn't turn it into propaganda. He said we would have to do some dirty deals to win this war. However, "dirty deals" and working with "terrorist states" and deals that give Iraq billions of dollars are different.

(PS... Opus, my dearest friend, it's bad "netiquette" in a formal discussion to quote someone and change a word (and incorrectly spell the word, lol). :) I saw that once in a faqs on a "civil" discussion board, lol).

Originally posted by nextbillgates


Not just our nation, but out allies. The Arab league has said over and over and over again that an attack on Iraq is an attack on all Arab nations. This puts Israel, Russia, Japan, Australia, and any other of our allies in that region at risk. If they are attacked (which I don't doubt they will be), they will counterattack, and we'll have WWIII (only this time with nukes).


NBG, I agree except for the part about WWIII (w/ nukes). Although I don't like the idea of going to war with Iraq again I do remember the same "fear" being discussed prior to Desert Storm. IMHO the same thing will happen this time. Countries will look the other way as long as they have a few dollars slipped their way as a deal. That's not right but sadly, imho, true. I wouldn't be to worried about WWIII anytime soon. They said the same thing 10 years ago.

I also don't think Russia is our allie anymore in this. They just signed a multi-billion dollar trade deal with Iraq which will kick into effect once the sanctions are lifted. Very complicated,... just don't know... :)

nextbillgates
09-08-02, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by msan_msw

NBG, I agree except for the part about WWIII (w/ nukes). Although I don't like the idea of going to war with Iraq again I do remember the same "fear" being discussed prior to Desert Storm. IMHO the same thing will happen this time. Countries will look the other way as long as they have a few dollars slipped their way as a deal. That's not right but sadly, imho, true. I wouldn't be to worried about WWIII anytime soon. They said the same thing 10 years ago.

I also don't think Russia is our allie anymore in this. They just signed a multi-billion dollar trade deal with Iraq which will kick into effect once the sanctions are lifted. Very complicated,... just don't know... :)

Remember that in Desert Storm, Iraq invaded Kuwait and we merely kicked them out. This time, we're talking about a pre-emptive invasion with a regime change (gauranteed pro-American). I think that warrants a bit more concern about possible repercussions.

msan_msw
09-08-02, 12:41 AM
True :)

I think there is a lot of fear of Arab countries uniting together in a Jihad against the United States. That I can see creating a lot of fear.

However, when you look at the real world concept of it then the fear starts to dissolve. What countries would band together to attack the U.S. Not Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam. Egypt would support it but I don't think they would be part of it. Iran, no, they're Persian and would probably not get involved as likely as other countries. Afghanistan.... no. Pakistan... no. Syria maybe but they are on our dime it seems and in it with us. Jordan, not a chance. Jordan and the U.S. are tight and their ruler is a smart fellow.

..... and just break it down. There really is no solidarity to make a real Jihad happen... All imho of course.

This puts Israel, Russia, Japan, Australia, and any other of our allies in that region at risk.

I don't think any Arab country would attack Russia in an effective way. Chechnia and other rebel countries might with rebels but no formal war. Isreal is in the hot seat. I think they'll get attacked if we go at Iraq. They're the ones that are a pivot point here.... but still not a "WWIII pivot point"... Japan and Australia are only at a mild financial risk because of oil supplies. That would be fixed once we "owned" Iraq anyway.

I'm sure we could haggle this to the bitter end but by that time we'll be at war and we'll know for sure anyway *sigh* :rollies:

incandescent
09-08-02, 12:45 AM
you're all right. Saddam Hussien is a great guy, I heard he bought everyone on his staff a new Radeon9700 :D. He also isn't and has no intention on developing any weapons of mass destruction. The former head of the Iraqi Nuclear program says this is so without equivocation. Oh wait. No he doesn't. He says just the opposite.

Frostic
09-08-02, 12:47 AM
I think people give the Middle East countries too much credit. Israel whipped how many Arab countries during the Seven Day War?

incandescent
09-08-02, 12:50 AM
Israel survives largely because of western support. Rightly so, being it as that Israel trades with western nations and is the closest thing to a real democracy in that region.

nextbillgates
09-08-02, 12:51 AM
That would be fixed once we "owned" Iraq anyway.

That's another thing I wanted to say above, but couldn't quite get the words right.

If the US uses Iraq as a major oil producer, that cuts into Saudi and Kuwaiti oil. Without their oil monopoly, the Middle East would be no better off than Africa. All the more reason to band together against the US.

I don't really see a full-scale war happening directly after an invasion. I DO see Israeli-style suicide bomber attacks happening, though. And if the the US handles it the same way Israel does (pushing further and further into Arab territory with each attack) I see it getting bad enough to escalate into a regional, and possibly a world-wide conflict.

GrimFaceOfReality
09-08-02, 05:34 PM
I think that unprovoked attack on any country will be the biggest foreign policy mistake ever. The precedent it will set will undermine much of the fragile relations in the world. What will we have to say to China if they invade Taiwan under some BS pretext (like staging some terrorist acts and blaming Taiwan for harboring the responsible people). LOL, if Arab countries decide to attack Israel because Israel is 1)Developed WMD 2)Has attacked its neighbors 3) Is therefore a destabilizing entity in the region?

babystinky
09-09-02, 02:59 AM
The Mandate is what? The fact Sadam probably has weapons of Mass Destruction? Really then if that is the criteria then you might as well go to war with North Korea.

It is dangerous waters.

IMHO if Sadam is really the problem, then go and get him. He sometimes is out in the open.

Iraq has suffered a lot more then we know, there is a lot of just ordinary folk who are trying to live, of course there is always the ignorant but they exist everywhere.

We really don't have enough to go on to go and launch an all out war....

Aragon47
09-09-02, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by babystinky
The Mandate is what? The fact Sadam probably has weapons of Mass Destruction? Really then if that is the criteria then you might as well go to war with North Korea.

It is dangerous waters.

IMHO if Sadam is really the problem, then go and get him. He sometimes is out in the open.

Iraq has suffered a lot more then we know, there is a lot of just ordinary folk who are trying to live, of course there is always the ignorant but they exist everywhere.

We really don't have enough to go on to go and launch an all out war....
Wow, mate: you're right on there. North Korea seems to be more of a threat than anyone else. They have a huge arsenal and the 3rd-largest army in the world. If Dubya is going to drum-up flaky criteria for tear-assing into a country and blowing shit up based on weapon-count and head-count, then North Korea, by these standards, should be a greater concern.

Dubya is totally nuts.

A change in regime or national philosophy DOES NOT come about easily through invasion: see what happened in Afghanistan? And in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993? In North Korea circa 1950-60? And in Vietnam? Neither were particularly successful in bringing about change because the citizens of those countries (as well as Iraq) are poor, uneducated and easily manipulated. They are "just trying to live".

Once again, the US is trying bully other nations based on "dubious" moral ground. Dubya and co. should watch their asses if Iraq is turned into a smoking crater.

opus512
09-09-02, 01:17 PM
Iraq should be taken out, but then a lot of other countries should be, too. So why is Jr singling out Iraq? It's an easy target, plain and simple. You realize what would be involved in taking out North Korea? For one, taking on the Chinese, as they wouldn't stand pasively by.

But no, if we are going to take out Iraq, then we need to be hitting Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China itself, too many countries to list. The US has spent considerable time and effort demonizing Iraq and Hussein, unfortunatly for Jr, the American people aren't as stupid as most people, including those in the administration, think they are.