Small rant re: the "peace" movement

[Jackanape]

The Hollywood screen writers that got blacklisted may or may not have been engaging in acts of espionage. We don't know, as a case was never built. What we do know about them is that they were communist party members, which in and of itself is not a crime. They refused to testify in HUAC proceedings by taking the fifth. As far as a criminal investigation went, that was it. None of the Hollywood ten were ever charged or convicted of anything. It wasn't the government that enforced the blacklist, it was the film industry. The folks in charge of the studios determined that having an avowed communist on the payroll was bad for business (remember, this was the 50's). As such, the studios exercised their right not to employ communists, so as not to affect their bottom line. Kind of like when Hertz rent a car fired O.J. Simpson as a spokesman after he was charged with murder. These companies didn't want to be associated with people who could negatively affect their business. The horror... These folks still had the right to be members of the communist party, and the film industry had the right to protect their financial intrests. Where's the problem?

Bringing it back to the anti war crowd, why isn't the anti war crowd letting France have it for their unilateral troop deployment in Ivory Coast? No blood for Coffee and Cocoa! Why does France get a pass, and America is the great Satan? Let's get consistent here!

 

[faustulus]

Umm, have you forgotten every other Native American attrocity? Waco was a felony crime? David "I-wanna-be-Jesus-but-to-do-that-I-gotta-die-as-a-martyr" Koresh (sp?) was the one capping school kids in the back of the head, not Janet Reno (though the handling of the entire bloody affair was horrific to be certain).

No wasn't forgetting just didn't have time, effort or stomach to list them all.

I've seen the warrents in the Koresh case. The kids suffocated. What the government did was in essense attack a man with religous views they considered dangerous. At the very least it could have been handled better. Similar to this situation. The ATF went to war without first exhausting the alternatives.

I don't like Saddam, he is evil and deserves to be deposed. But where do we stop? There are a heck of a lot of hot spots in the world with corrupt and evil dictators. We are going to be very busy making the world over in our image.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Why Iraq? What about Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc,?
This is just a shot across the bow for some of the other tin pot dictators in the world.
As for Malone saying he didn't support Monica's War (aka Albright's Folly), I have read his statements of being against that action before. I remembered it because it was one of the few times I've ever agreed with him.

 

[Shweboner]

Why Iraq? What about Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc,?

Becasue the diplomatic efforts with Iraq have just about been exhausted... and for NK they are still in the early stages of dealing with the escalation.

Not to mention that Iraq has fired on US planes several times in recent months. IN the past, Saddam has murdered hundreds of thousands of his on people without reason (using WMDs), Invaded neighboring countries, defied UN resolutions for 10 years and has threatened the US...

So, of these things, which of them do you condone? How do you not see this guy as a threat to US interests?
And what do You propose to end the situation, besides war?


~Brian

 

[jmbg29]

We are going to be very busy making the world over in our image.

Better to crawl in a hole and hide, eh?

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Shweboner

Why Iraq? What about Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc,?

Just a rhetorical question, see next line...

This is just a shot across the bow for some of the other tin pot dictators in the world.

Good answer though, but don't forget openly supporting Palestinian terrorists ($25,000 per bomber) and plotting to kill a former American President.

 

[Pendragon]

NK is posturing because they want to be a player. They want aid, they want respect, etc. They are very open about their weapons and what they are willing to do.

Iraq is secretive and evasive about their weapons. SH wants people to get off his back so he can get down to business.

The situations are very dissimilar.

 

[jimpeel]

faustulus

We are told that we should give time for the inspections to work but noone has any idea of how long that is. If we allow the inspections to continue for 12 months, but Saddam finishes developing a nuke in 10 months, he would not, IMHO, hestiate to use it on Tel Aviv. Do we wait for that time?

If he develops a nuke, and sends it to the edge of America's territorial waters on a freighter, and places it on a fast boat inbound to NY harbor; could we stop it before it was detonated near shore? Do we want to wait for that time?

This is NOT a police action. It is a continuation of the war that was suspended in 1991. We are technically still at war pursuant to the declaration of the cessation of hostilities from 1991. We have every right to continue the war if he fails to adhere to the provisos codified within that document.

America's felony Record Crimes against her people

...

1945 First and only country to use nuke (2 counts)

Apparently, you have yet to come to the realization that the Japanese were not "Her" people.

 

[CZ-75]

Apparently, you have yet to come to the realization that the Japanese were not "Her" people.

Doe that include the ones who were US citizens too?

I seem to remember that they locked up a good number of US citizens, not just Japanese nationals/resident aliens.

 

[Zander]

It was before people made the distinction between European-style socialism and Stalinist communism.

The similarities are more prominent than the differences.

Socialism is just as much a failure as was communism. Both systems define their subjects as being of less worth than the tyrants and totalitarians who dominate them and run such "governments".

No human being of conscience can support such madness, even if he is willing to ignore the prominent and despicable history associated with it.

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Malone LaVeigh:
For a small lesson in getting world support, take a look at Bill Clinton and Kosovo. I was against that war, also, but Clinton did a much better job of getting world support.

Could you tell us the U.N. Resolution that Clinton used to bomb Kosovo?

You can't, because Clinton never even attempted to go to the U.N. because Russia would have vetoed it. Clinton went into Kosovo with NATO authority and over France's objections. He had virtually no more support from the world than President Bush has now!

It's rather disingenuous and hypocritical for all of the Democrats in the Congress who voted overwhelmingly for Clinton's action in Kosovo to be demanding that President Bush MUST have U.N. authority to invade Iraq. And yes, a few Republicans objected to Clinton's action in Kosovo but all Republican Senators, and most Republican Congress members, gave him their support.

 

[faustulus]

jmbg29,

Better to crawl in a hole and hide, eh?

Nah, I will be one of the first they kill. You my friend will be the one who has to live with it, and it won't be pleasant.

jimpeel,

If he develops a nuke, and sends it to the edge of America's territorial waters on a freighter, and places it on a fast boat inbound to NY harbor; could we stop it before it was detonated near shore? Do we want to wait for that time?

Short answer yes. If someone nukes this country odds are it will be China, in the extension of a battle for Twian, N. Korea, just because Lil Kim is crazy, or a terrorist who got the nukes from NK. Remember NK has been caught in the past selling weapons to suspected terrorist organizations of course there is always Georgia, which cannot account for all of its Soviet era nukes and refuses to let the Russian scientists in to check on them.

We are technically still at war

Technically we never were at war. Congress never passed such a declaration.

I am much more afraid of India and Pakistan with nukes than I am with Iraq. In fact in recent weeks even Bush has backed off his nukes assertion. Now it is mostly chemical and biological, although chemical is really more likely.

And you are right I shouldn't have put "her" in there, my mistake.

 

[jmbg29]

Nah, I will be one of the first they kill. You my friend will be the one who has to live with it, and it won't be pleasant.

Nah, if you have the capacity to defend yourself from these barbarians, and you choose not to, I'll probably just laugh derisively.

Then, before one can blink, I will have moved on.

 

[jmbg29]

Technically we never were at war. Congress never passed such a declaration.

Before you respond with the tired "The War Powers Act is unconstitutional" bit, please cite the court case (and the relevant links) that found it so.

A similar "House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq" was passed in January of 1991.

jimpeel is 100% correct in asserting that Saddam has been in violation of the conditions for the continued cessation of hostilities since the Spring of 1991; when he refused to meet the 60 day disarmament deadline after the suspension of hostilities.



10 October 2002

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
House of Representatives approves resolution October 10

Following is the text of House Joint Resolution 114, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," approved in the House of Representatives October 10, by a vote of 296 to 133: emphasis added

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to 'work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to 'work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that 'the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to —

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

 

[jimpeel]

CZ-75

That portion of the comment was on the nuking of Nagasaki and Hirosima, not Manzanar.

Your bad.

 

[jimpeel]

Malone

For a small lesson in getting world support, take a look at Bill Clinton and Kosovo. I was against that war, also, but Clinton did a much better job of getting world support.

Yes, your (P)resident lawbreaker did an excellent job; the first of which was to violate the NATO Charter. You may read same at: http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

From the Charter Preamble:

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.

For the first time in its 50 year history, NATO was used as an aggressor force in direct opposition to its founding principles that it is strictly a defensive force.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Kosovo was not a signatory to the NATO Charter. Neither was Croatia, Serbia, or Yugoslavia as a whole. Kosovo was a portion of Yugoslavia, just as Serbia and Croatia were. The Balkans war was an internal conflict of, by, and within Yugoslavia. Clinton used NATO as an aggressor force to settle a civil war taking place wholly within the borders of a sovereign nation.

Yugoslavia did not attack any signatory nation to the NATO Charter.

Regardless of the support Clinton gained, he once again broke the law; and on the most grand international scale he could.

Based on Clinton's unlawful use of NATO, and the precedent it set, NATO is now being touted as necessary to the settling of the disputes in the Arabic world as well.

I don't know about anyone else here but I certainly don't subscribe to having not one, but two, aggressor world armies -- NATO and the UN.

 

[faustulus]

Before you respond with the tired "The War Powers Act is unconstitutional" bit, please cite the court case (and the relevant links) that found it so.

Never said it was. The SCOUS passed turned down three cases that I know of to hear arguements on the act. It always seemed a useless act and more about congress feeling like it was doing something. Congress has ultimate control over the war machine with the purse strings.
I never said his ascertion wasn't correct, only that there was no formal declaration of war.

 

[jimpeel]

faustulus

The War Powers Act was simply one more example of the Congress ceding its powers to a third entity. There are no provisions in the Constitution for the Congress to do so but they do it all of the time.

They ceded the power to coin money to the Federal Reserve.

They ceded the power to glean tarriffs to the WTO.

They ceded the power to make law to the Executive department through the Presidential Executive Order. Remember the famous Begala quote "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool."

They ceded the power to declare war to the Executive department.

Worst of all, they ceded the power to create laws within the trilateral structure of our Republican form of government to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA and other departments.

 

[buzz_knox]

The only way I proved your point is if there has been a war in Iraq in the last 12 years I am unaware of. See there hasn't been and he still doesn't have anything other than what he had BEFORE the Gulf War.

Actually, there have been several conflicts in Iraq, which were put down with brutal force. The attempted coup in 1995 that Clinton pulled his support for at the last minute comes to mind.

As for Saddam not having anything he didn't have before, you're joking right? Or did you forget about the El Samoud 2 missles which violate the cease fire agreements (according to the UN inspectors, not the US) and which were fairly recently developed? Or have you also rejected the pedophile Scott Ritter's initial testimony in 1998 that Saddam retained WMDs at that time, and his programs for developing said items was continuing?

As for Congress ceding authority, please remember that the Constitution has a clause specifically authorizing Congress to pass such laws as are necessary to the implementation of the Constiutition. While many of the actions taken by Congress' agents are improper, there is nothing unconstitutional per se with granting agencies the authority to carry out Congress' will. That is, in fact, precisely what the framers anticipated.

 

[Jackanape]

More evidence that the "anti war movement" is actually an anti Capitalist movement. This morening a group of about 300 protestors converged in the financial district of San Francisco at 6:30 AM. Their goal, to shut down the Pacific Stock exchange. Around 60 were arrested at last count, many were resisting arrest as they were dragged away from the entrance to the Pacific Exchange. The group of protestors blocked commuter traffic, denied people access to their place of business, and generally made a mess of things. Now, if your goal is to try to stop a war, why are you trying to shut down the Pacific Exchange? Why not go protest at a recruitment center, or a military base? Could it be that the upcoming war is a good excuse to attack the institutions that these protestors hate the most? You know, financial institutions. Again, actions speak louder than words, and judging by their actions I'd say they hated Capitalism more than they hate war.

I had to wade through this mob on my way to work this morning. These fools actually seemed shocked that people such as myself were upset with their little tantrum. Oh well, such antics only succeed in giving the left more rope with which to hang themselves. I guess some good does come out of these protests after all...

 

[DRC]

Hello Mr. LaVeigh

Any relation to Anton? Just out of curiosity.

Anyway and not trying to beat a dead horse but I found some things intresting. If I may:

"1) Get the rest of the world community on your side instead of opposing you."

As has already been said there will never come a time that the entire world community will come together fully. The UN is a debating forum and not as conducive to unity as one would hope it would or could be. But we do have the majority of the world community backing us on this, some that don't will once action is taken and those that never will have too much intrest in the countries in question. Take France for instance. They are against because they have a failed economy and $230 billion in oil reciepts in Iraq. If they cannot aquire concessions with a new controling faction then their country will be the epitome of bancrupt. France has a viable reason for opposing the war but it does center around them and them alone.

2) Get consensus to use military power to disarm Saddam. The way to get that consensus would be to credibly convince the rest of the world that military doesn't mean invasion and occupation.

You spoken of attending anti-war rallies and some pretty big ones as of late, correct? Getting a concensus would still require military action and would be a declaration of war so I'm confused.

3) Turn the entire country into a "no-fly" zone. Right now there are areas inside the existing no-fly zones, mostly in the Kurdish north, that are essentially autonomous.

To accomplish this would mean a build up of the military and more frequent occupation of these areas which could and probably would be consider a decalration of war by the opposing regime. Remembering that if one side feels threaten and takes an act as a declaration of war it is in effect war whether it's called that or not (semantics don't play in this field) so again I'm confused.

"4) Turn the entire country into a "no-crawl" zone. Any military movements detected by any of our reconnaisance tools would be instantly destroyed."

Military and missile deployment is a declaration of war, although intended to stop impending pprogression of unsanctioned acts and or acts of aggression. These acts would also be seen as acts of aggression against us and in response we would declare war. Anti-war or war?

"5) Let the inspectors do their job. If the Iraqis refused entrance to any facility, it would be destroyed."

Not to reiterate too much but ditto to the afore mentioned. These acts taken against Iraq on Iraqi soil is a declaration of war, plus because of a joint resolution signed into effect in congress giving the decission for the use of force if necessary to the President a declaration of war is already in effect.

"6) In concert with 3 and 4 above, enforce effective sanctions. Use the oil-for-food receipts to distribute humanitarian goods to the population through the UN. Get them used to self-rule without Saddam in places other than the Kurdish territory."

This has and is already being done and it has in fact failed to get the results originally sought after. People are still starving while the controling factions are being well fed and financed. These sanctions and aid work like a colander. There are too many holes in them to be an effective vessel for water

"7) Crack down on oil smuggling so Saddam couldn't finance his weapons aquisition ambitions."

The sad part about that is that Saddam is financing his weapons aquisition ambitions by building and selling weapons to the highest bidder as well. He has weapons that are not disallowed by the UN resolutions that he also manyfactures and sells indiscriminantly to those with the money. Oil is just one financing venue being used by Saddam it is simply his only vissible means of support.

"8) Saddam's regime is administered by a small and shrinking circle of trusted officials. It may be impossible to get Saddam, but these characters have to move about to do the business of government. I would start picking them off one at a time, either by bribery or covert opps. The government could stand very little of this before it would collapse, or some insider would do the job for us. Right now, the kind of pressure we are putting on is guaranteed to sustain the loyalty of those insiders, because they know they have everything to lose if Saddam goes. I would let it be known that we have no prejudice against any post-Saddam government that wants to belong to the community of nations."

Saddam is between a rock and a hard place I agree, but he has too much undisclosed support to permamntly remove him if left to his own devices I'm afraid. I agree that covert opps would be a good idea. I'm all for bringing back Zombie Squads and Splinter Cells and would even be willing to volunteer for training in them, but then the question becomes; How many? How many covert opps would be needed to carry out this task and if discovered it would again be a declaration of war? Not to mention covert opps go in with little or no support sense they have to move quietly and unseen so if they get into trouble it's already too late for them.

"Understand in all the above, by "we" I mean an international coalition, not the US."

The international coalition is all countries in support of an action. Those outside of the coalitions agreement either abstain or obstruct but in any event are in effect removing themselves from the coalition willingly, based on principle or constituency necessity/popularity of said country.

"Much of the above could have been done long ago, but the US government, especially the first Bush admin, didn't want Saddam deposed. The US military was ordered to allow flights and troop movements following GW I so Saddam could crush Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings. Later the Clinton admin pulled the rug out from under another Kurdish uprising."

Actually GW I's mission was to liberate Kuwait which was accomplished, as to the rest of it "that should be their problem to deal with not ours." (to coin a phrase used in this thread.) was the attitude taken by the concensus of supporters for that particular war. As you said "Get consensus to use military power to disarm Saddam." GW I only had the concensus to liberate Kuwait. After that the course he took was to sit back and let the chips fall where they might. I didn't agree with that stance either but it was political in nature.

Anyway just my thoughts,

Take care,

DRC

 

[Jackanape]

Hoo Boy, it looks like we're in for more well thought out social protest tomorrow. At least the headline is more accurate as to what they're actually protesting:

Anarchists to take part in S.F. march
They say they're demonstrating against evils of capitalism

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/14/BA66439.DTL

Hope the link works... Anarchists, how fashionable... Just another of the many flavors of anti capitalists that comprise the so called "peace movement". Let's see, three protests, $50,000 worth of damage... And people take them seriously, why?

 

[jmbg29]

I never said his ascertion wasn't correct, only that there was no formal declaration of war.

10 October 2002

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
House of Representatives approves resolution October 10

Following is the text of House Joint Resolution 114, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," approved in the House of Representatives October 10, by a vote of 296 to 133: emphasis added

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2002

 

[JoeSF]

In San Francisco the marchers describe thenselves on the news as against War and Capitalism.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Hoo, boy, I thought this thread had died a long time ago. Too much to catch up on...

So glad you brought up Gulf war one. Baiting you in is so much fun! Go back and look at the record. The same moaners and groaners made the same trouble, right up to the last minute. As soon as they were certain which way the wind was to blow, they jumped on board.

Don't see too many jumping on board just now. I've been thinking the same way as you for some time, sooner or later, the rest of the world's leaders would be coerced along, but it hasn't happened. Bush's bungling of this is begining to look like the biggest foreign miscalculation since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

The question was not about establishment of the zones. It was about maintaining them. Thanks for paying attention.

You're right, my mistake. To answer your question: It wouldn't take long.

What an excellent question! How come not one of the peaceniks ever asked that when we killed 500 women and children that Saddam put in an underground Command and Control complex?

If you can't see the difference between the hypothetical case of orphans in a military convoy and people seeking shelter in a bunker in the middle of a highly populated metropolitan area, I can't help you much. Sure makes the job easier for the propaganda writers, though.

Wrong again Malone! Saddam was to present all of the outlawed gear and it was to be destroyed...

And how was Iraq supposed to prove a negative? Were the inspectors going to take Saddam's word for it? They're called "inspectors" for a reason.

Yes, your (P)resident lawbreaker did an excellent job; the first of which was to violate the NATO Charter.

My president? Were you a citizen of a different country at the time?

Now, if your goal is to try to stop a war, why are you trying to shut down the Pacific Exchange?

The leader of the protest is the retired former president of the Pacific Stock Exchange. Some anti-capitalist.

As has already been said there will never come a time that the entire world community will come together fully.

OK, but we coiuld do a lot better than Britian and Spain.

Take France for instance. They are against because they have a failed economy and $230 billion in oil reciepts in Iraq.

Their motives don't have to be pristine for Bush's to be wrong.

You spoken of attending anti-war rallies and some pretty big ones as of late, correct? Getting a concensus would still require military action and would be a declaration of war so I'm confused.

I'm against the current war plans. Specifically, I'm against bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq. That doesn't mean all solutions that include military options are unthinkable. Why is that confusing?

To accomplish this would mean a build up of the military and more frequent occupation of these areas which could and probably would be consider a decalration of war by the opposing regime.

Roughly half of the country is already in a NFZ (illegal, BTW). How much more buildup would it take to deny the skies to the Iraqi military? In the north, at least, the NFZ has caused a more or less autonomous Kurdish region to develop. They spend their oil-for-food dollars there as they see fit and the people are a lot better off than the rest of Iraq. I'm just proposing extending this zone to the rest of the country. Yes, it would mean military action. It would be nice if the rest of the world community would trust our leadership to use such action.

Military and missile deployment is a declaration of war, although intended to stop impending pprogression of unsanctioned acts and or acts of aggression. These acts would also be seen as acts of aggression against us and in response we would declare war. Anti-war or war?

(Scratching my head...) I'm not sure what you mean in 4 or 5.

This has and is already being done and it has in fact failed to get the results originally sought after. People are still starving while the controling factions are being well fed and financed.

Well, that's why I'm not advocating sanctions by themselves. I said "effective."

The sad part about that is that Saddam is financing his weapons aquisition ambitions by building and selling weapons to the highest bidder as well.

If this is true, effective sanctions would stop it.

Actually GW I's mission was to liberate Kuwait which was accomplished, as to the rest of it "that should be their problem to deal with not ours."

And no one's given Bush II the mission to do any more, either. Are you for unilateral action or against? Because it looks like the US is not going to be given the sanction to invade Iraq.