12-05-2003 22:54									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Yes, there are towns, but mostly it is desert, and no, hitting a convoy in the middle of the desert, away from towns, would mean few civilian casualties.

Their policy (for better or worse) was to avoid civilian casualties. Maybe it was the wrong policy (though I'm sure had he started shooting at them, people would criticize him for that)

quote: Bush said the point of this war (or the point he emphazised most before the war) was to protect Americans form Iraqi WMD's, specifically, from them getting into the hands of terrorist.

If the weapons are now in the hands of Syria, while I don't think we're worse off than before, you're right that it's a goal missed.

However, Syria already has some WMDs, and hasn't used them yet (to my knowledge), nor has it handed them to (the many) terrorist groups it supports, which is already a plus.

And no, I don't think it's a lie at all - missing a goal is hardly a lie. If I say I'm going to work hard and get a 90 on the test, and I study hard and end up getting an 85, was I lying?

	12-05-2003 22:56									#182
	Get a bigger avatar today!

BBC reports coalition forces just captured the head of Iraq's NBC program and they have discovered a second suspected Iraqi mobile lab.

	12-05-2003 23:00									#183
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Meaning (if this were true), Bush did not lie about WMD's, just the ability of this war to protect us from them. as I asked before, is this somehow a better lie?

Well, yes, if you even consider it a lie. In one case, Bush makes up weapons that don't exist in order to trick the populace into allowing him to invade another country for different reasons. In another case, the weapons were there, and there was a chance that the war might be able to keep them in the country and destroy them, so Bush gambles. A gamble, not a lie. OF COURSE the latter case is preferable.

quote: Originally posted by GePap They could not check every nook or cranny..but getting hundreds of mustard gas shells, thousand of tons of chemcial agents, 10,000 liters of anthrax, 28,000 liters of boutlism (spll?), 2 dozen SCUD's would surely require much more space than just a few nooks and crannies, would they not? (the afore mentioned stuff is what we said they had before the war)

Well 'nooks and crannies' were just to create an image in your mind, of course that would take alterations far more extensive. But even so, something as simple as welded false walls could be enough to fool inspectors that have been doing the same boring job for years.

Btw, do you have a source of some kind on inspections of Iraqi vessels? I can't imagine they are that intensive, but I could be wrong.

	12-05-2003 23:01									#184
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Edan However, Syria already has some WMDs, and hasn't used them yet (to my knowledge), nor has it handed them to (the many) terrorist groups it supports, which is already a plus. And no, I don't think it's a lie at all - missing a goal is hardly a lie. If I say I'm going to work hard and get a 90 on the test, and I study hard and end up getting an 85, was I lying?

Iraq had never given WMD's to terrorist either, but I guess those arguments, made before the war, somehow didn;t apply then, but all of a sudden apply now?

And yes, it is a lie: If I say: I will protect you 100% form this threat by this action, take the action, but end up doing nothing to actually make the threat smaller, yes, your claim was a lie. Before the war, as Uh Cem pointed out, the CIA siad there was a possibility of WMD's getting away (Which is not to say I think the pre-war estimates were turthful at all) but the admin. said nonsense. So i would classify it as a lie to the American people, if any of this were true (I think the numebr #1 lie is more likely)

	12-05-2003 23:07									#185
	Put an end to popups!

quote: S/RES/665 (1990) 25 August 1990 RESOLUTION 665 (1990) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2938th meeting on 25 August 1990 The Security Council, Recalling its resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990) and 664 (1990) and demanding their full and immediate implementation, Having decided in resolution 661 (1990) to impose economic sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, Determined to bring an end to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq which imperils the existence of a Member State and to restore the legitimate authority, and the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait which requires the speedy implementation of the above resolutions, Deploring the loss of innocent life stemming from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and determined to prevent further such losses, Gravely alarmed that Iraq continues to refuse to comply with resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990) and 664 (1990) and in particular at the conduct of the Government of Iraq in using Iraqi flag vessels to export oil, 1. Calls upon those Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait which are deploying maritime forces to the area to use such measures commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary under the authority of the Security Council to halt all inward and outward maritime shipping in order to inspect and verify their cargoes and destinations and t o ensure strict implementation of the provisions related to such shipping laid down in resolution 661 (1990); 2. Invites Member States accordingly to co-operate as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of resolution 661 (1990) with maxim um use of political and diplomatic measures, in accordance with paragraph 1 abo ve; 3. Requests all States to provide in accordance with the Charter such assistance as may be required by the States referred to in paragraph 1 of th is resolution; 4. Further requests the States concerned to co-ordinate their actions in pursuit of the above paragraphs of this resolution using as appropriate mechanisms of the Military Staff Committee and after consultation with the Secretary-General to submit reports to the Security Council and its Committe e established under resolution 661 (1990) to facilitate the monitoring of the implementation of this resolution; 5. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

	12-05-2003 23:08									#186
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin BBC reports coalition forces just captured the head of Iraq's NBC program and they have discovered a second suspected Iraqi mobile lab.

Um, she wasn't anywhere near 'head of Iraq's NBC program', she was only involved in biological weapons. Furthermore IIRC she wasn't in charge of bio weapons production, but only the creation of their anthrax stocks.

	12-05-2003 23:13									#187
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

So what in the resolution is supposed to give me an impression of how scrutinizing the inpections were? For all we know it could have been Mr. Magoo walking around in there for fifteen minutes, or it could have been 200 experts scouring all the decks for a whole day with state of the art equipment before allowing it to depart. A resolution instituting inspections doesn't say jack about the nature of the inpsections.

	12-05-2003 23:14									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Iraq had never given WMD's to terrorist either

But it has used them. Quite a lot. Against civilians. You know, the way terrorists would.

quote: And yes, it is a lie: If I say: I will protect you 100% form this threat by this action,

When did Bush say this?

	12-05-2003 23:15									#189
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 1. Calls upon those Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait which are deploying maritime forces to the area to use such measures commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary under the authority of the Security Council to halt all inward and outward maritime shipping in order to inspect and verify their cargoes and destinations and to ensure strict implementation of the provisions related to such shipping laid down in resolution 661 (1990);

In essence, is is saying that the navies that patrolled the Gulf had the ability to do whatever they wanted to a ship to insure that no contraband( as defined earlier) got through. NOw, the US, UK and others were the main players in the blockade. Do you think the US would be lax in searching Iraqi shipping for contraband when they had the legal authorization to stop and search whenever, whatever they wanted?

	12-05-2003 23:17									#190
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ditto Edan, unless I was mistaken he said that the threat was unacceptable and that we had to stop it, not that it would be stopped no matter what.

quote: Originally posted by GePap Do you think the US would be lax in searching Iraqi shipping for contraband when they had the legal authorization to stop and search whenever, whatever they wanted?

Yes. They're human beings and would almost certainly get lazy with the searches after doing them time and time again for over a decade to no avail, not to mention they had finite financial resources and probably would have seen excessive inspections as wasteful.

	12-05-2003 23:17									#191
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Edan But it has used them. Quite a lot. Against civilians. You know, the way terrorists would.

A terrorist would not use them againt an enmy army (Iran) or against civilaisn in open revolt (the Kurds), and they would hardly be able to delier them with artillery and aircraft.

Come on, this is subpar.

	12-05-2003 23:40									#192
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: No, the honest answer is that the Iraqi military fully expected to use chemical weapons at some point and they expected retaliation in kind. And how the hell would we retaliate in kind? chemicals wepaons are banned! The US should have no chem weapons, unless you believe otherwise.. (

GePap, you make a very good point here. If we have never used chemical weapons and if we do not have them because we are abiding by our treaty obligations, then this adds and does not subtracted from the hypothesis that the Iraqi soldiers had the chemical weapons gear because of the potential use of chemical weapons, not by the Americans, but by their own régime.

	12-05-2003 23:57									#193
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus If Iraq is in violation of an agreement with the U.N., does that give the U.S. or ANY member state the right(casus belli) to LIBERATE Iraq from it's established government.

This is a very good question and goes to the heart of the matter. Clearly for 1441 stated that Iraq was material violation of its obligations under UN resolutions. The question therefore was what was the appropriate remedy. The UN Security Council divided on that issue. No remedy was available through the UN Security Council. Does this mean that Iraq is free to continue to violate international law? If the question to answer this question is no, then how does one enforce international law when the UN itself is incapable of doing so?

The United States and Britain have adopted the position, first in Kosovo and now with Iraq, that a coalition of nations can legally enforce international law when the UN has been given an opportunity to do so and does not or cannot act.

The French, German's and Russians clearly strongly disagree with this position, particularly because it strips France and Russia of their veto.

No doubt, we haven't heard the end of this debate. However, Kosovo seems to have been a success. Iraq also seems to be a success in progress. But whether this provides a legal basis for the future is questionable for the very reason that France, Germany, Russia and many other countries do not agree with the action of the coalition.

	13-05-2003 00:05									#194
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, you make a very good point here. If we have never used chemical weapons and if we do not have them because we are abiding by our treaty obligations, then this adds and does not subtracted from the hypothesis that the Iraqi soldiers had the chemical weapons gear because of the potential use of chemical weapons, not by the Americans, but by their own régime.

However, as was already mentioned, Americans weren't the ONLY potential enemy Iraq was planning on. Iran and Syria have chemical weapons, and Iraq was probably just being prepared for any contingency when keeping its chem suits.

	13-05-2003 00:13									#195
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: Let me understand you GePap. Is it your position that we should have left Saddam alone to develop weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear? One of my points is that we could have left him there and he would not have been a threat to us in the way the admin stated he was.

GePap, I know we've been through this before, but your position seems to reduce the following:

The United States should not be concerned about other nations developing of weapons of mass destruction except to the extent that a particular country involved directly threatens the United States in some fashion. I assume, for example, that you would be in favor of doing something about Fidel Castro basing nuclear weapons in Cuba. But beyond this, you would not support United States action, either alone or in cooperation with others, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

	13-05-2003 01:25									#196
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 However, as was already mentioned, Americans weren't the ONLY potential enemy Iraq was planning on. Iran and Syria have chemical weapons, and Iraq was probably just being prepared for any contingency when keeping its chem suits.

Yes, but they were carrying the gas masks and nerve agent antidotes in combat against American and British forces.

	13-05-2003 01:48									#197
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned This is a very good question and goes to the heart of the matter. Clearly for 1441 stated that Iraq was material violation of its obligations under UN resolutions. The question therefore was what was the appropriate remedy. The UN Security Council divided on that issue. No remedy was available through the UN Security Council. Does this mean that Iraq is free to continue to violate international law? If the question to answer this question is no, then how does one enforce international law when the UN itself is incapable of doing so? The United States and Britain have adopted the position, first in Kosovo and now with Iraq, that a coalition of nations can legally enforce international law when the UN has been given an opportunity to do so and does not or cannot act. The French, German's and Russians clearly strongly disagree with this position, particularly because it strips France and Russia of their veto. No doubt, we haven't heard the end of this debate. However, Kosovo seems to have been a success. Iraq also seems to be a success in progress. But whether this provides a legal basis for the future is questionable for the very reason that France, Germany, Russia and many other countries do not agree with the action of the coalition.

It does not just strip these countries of their veto. It strips the U.N. of power to prevent countries from acting without U.N. authority. All the countries in the security council became powerless to stop the U.S. by democratic vote. The majority of the world became powerless against the will of the U.S. government.

	13-05-2003 02:18									#198
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, I know we've been through this before, but your position seems to reduce the following: The United States should not be concerned about other nations developing of weapons of mass destruction except to the extent that a particular country involved directly threatens the United States in some fashion. I assume, for example, that you would be in favor of doing something about Fidel Castro basing nuclear weapons in Cuba. But beyond this, you would not support United States action, either alone or in cooperation with others, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

You are moslty correct. We have no evidence whatsoever that Iraq did anytihg to porliferate any sorts of weapons, biological, chemical, nuclear, or missile technology. Unilateral force to enfrce non-ploriferation is a doomed act, as long as the Us keeps doing things like acrapping weapons treaties, or doing this like developing low yield nukes (which becomes in theory, weapons we could use). The world won;t toplarte hypocrasy, and as INdia and Pakistan prove, we don;t have the intelliegence to actually know how far the programs of other nations have gone.

I support actions if done with international legitimacy, since then, they are defacto legal and have international support. I do not support the sort of "coolition of the willing" or "whom can we cajole, bribe and so forth to join us in our little adventure" efforts, since they udnermine the international order, and I can;t see how undermining the order that makes us paramount helps us in any significant way, and we won;t be paramount for ever either, so why not try to create an order that will be seen as legitimate in the future that helps us, instead of an order built only on our current, but temporary, power?

	13-05-2003 02:30									#199
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned Yes, but they were carrying the gas masks and nerve agent antidotes in combat against American and British forces.

The way I read it, thousands of masks and suits were found en masse in schools, hospitals, etc., and NOT distributed to Iraqi troops. This should go to show that they only had the suits in the country as a precaution, and didn't expect to need them in this war.

	13-05-2003 02:32									#200
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I thought thousands of the suits were found in schools, hospitals, etc., and not distributed to all the troops. This should go to show that they only had the suits in the country as a precaution, and didn't expect to need them in this war.

Also note that the Iraqii's used schools, hospitals, churches, etc. as military bases so that the US would not attack them due to UN crap...

	13-05-2003 02:38									#201
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap I support actions if done with international legitimacy, since then, they are defacto legal and have international support. I do not support the sort of "coolition of the willing" or "whom can we cajole, bribe and so forth to join us in our little adventure" efforts, since they udnermine the international order.

Then, I take it, we should turn the NK matter over to Annan and the UN SC?

	13-05-2003 02:45									#202
	Put an end to popups!

No, but I would not support an unilateral attack on NK without council approval (which would really mean China) and obviously SK.

The US can act diplomatically with homwever without ever bringing the UN in. But acting militarilly, that is different, unless we are acting in self-defense (real self-defense, not made up, "future nebulous threat self defense")

	13-05-2003 05:28									#203
	Increase Your PM Length

Does self-defense include defending against threats to our allies, like Japan and South Korea?

	13-05-2003 05:37									#204
	Increase the size of your Attachments

What threats Ned? Please, tell me, what threats??? Have you ever thought that just as SK and the US considers NK missiles a threat to the region, then so does NK think of the US's carrier battle groups based on Yokosuka, the 2nd Infantry Division based in Korea and the plethora of Air Force fighters and bombers which could be deployed in the event of war? (not to mention the thousands of nuclear warheads which can be targeted at NK in an instant) Sheesh man, you don't seem to get it do you, that other countries are just as paranoid of the US as the US is of them, and just as the US feels it has the right to flex its muscles to persuade those countries to do as they wish, the other countries have the exact same right to do so? My god, step out of your little "the US can do it but others can't" mentality, it really makes your arguments look moronic.

	13-05-2003 06:09									#205
	Remove this text

Master Zen, I'm sorry, I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

	13-05-2003 07:34									#206
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned Does self-defense include defending against threats to our allies, like Japan and South Korea?

Yes, since they are allies and we have defense obligation with them. Nothing wrong with carrying out our diplomatic obligations.

	13-05-2003 08:03									#207
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ned :
Master Zen has a point. Do not forget NK is exceptioanlly paranoid, and its recent behaviour can be explained to some extent by the fear of an American attack.
You may say "the NKers have it coming, they should change their threatening behaviour to avoid such a fate". But be aware a NKer could say "The Yanks have it coming, they should change their threatening behaviour to avoid such a fate".
Both are equally valid statements. If NK had the possiblity, I'm sure they'd be tempted by starting a pre-emptive war to deter the American threat. It probably sounds utterly silly to you, but I'm sure it sound perfectly cohesive to Pyongyang's Joe.

	13-05-2003 09:33									#208
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Ned : Master Zen has a point. Do not forget NK is exceptioanlly paranoid, and its recent behaviour can be explained to some extent by the fear of an American attack.

Spiffor, in this case I do not think that North Korea is being paranoid at all. We have not taken the military option off the table and they know that.

What is perverse about the situation is that they seem to think they can prevent an attack by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver those weapons. Somehow I think they got the lesson of Iraq backwards.

	13-05-2003 09:37									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ned What is perverse about the situation is that they seem to think they can prevent an attack by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver those weapons. Somehow I think they got the lesson of Iraq backwards.

To me, they seem to think they can prevent an attack by having nuclear weapons and missile systems. In this sense, they have the Iraqi lesson straight : If you threaten of being threatening, the US will get you. If you are threatening, the US won't.

Please notice that I cannot criticize the US for appeasing NK, since it is absolutely normal they don't want LA to be nuked (or even Tokyo for that matter).

	13-05-2003 10:14									#210
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned What is perverse about the situation is that they seem to think they can prevent an attack by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver those weapons. Somehow I think they got the lesson of Iraq backwards.

They got it right. Consider this:

Iraq -> no nuclear weapons -> gets invaded
DPRK -> nuclear weapons -> talks under way

Is there any other conclusion that you could draw from this?