|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
then so be it. bypass the UN security counsel for fear of it being compromised. i can agree to disagree with you and jato on that one.
that still doesn't put to rest the apparent deceit in the bush admin's handling of evidence/support for pre-emptive strike. if you also share the same opinion as jato that the case for pre-emptive strike was strong enough without the additional make-up (which i don't think it was) then why try to dress it up with questionable/false/unreliable evidence?
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Dan â??? these are important questions, but kinda tough to answer when the references arenâ??t exactly clear. Help us out by telling us the reference and the source â?¦ ie: Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
It is clear that the UN security counsel was compromised, at least 2 (France, Russia) and possibly 4 (Ukraine, Syria) members were paid off, with confirmation that France had fully sold its veto.
Which Security Council resolution exactly did France veto? And although I donâ??t know if either Syria or the Ukraine were members of the Security Council at the time you are referring to, I was under the impression that only permanent members had a veto.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
France told Powell one thing then the next day votes the other way is further evidence of this.
Which vote are you talking about here? Or are you referencing Franceâ??s threat to veto any resolution that included an automatic trigger for military action â??? a threat they never had to follow through on because the resolution did not have any such reference?
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
I think it highly unlikely that UN inspectors would have put the issue of WMD to rest one way or another before invasion.
In fact, inspectors did not put the issue to rest prior to the invasion. What is debatable, however, is whether or not they could have with more time.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
More time for inspectors we now know would just be more time to hide,move to Syria, or whatever any WMD without any better intell as to their existance being made known.
An invasion launched without knowing where the WMD were located was sure to initiate exactly what you describe above. If he had them, thereâ??s no way Hussein would stand by during the first few days of the invasion and do nothing with his most valuable asset. He would put them in motion to ensure they were never captured, knowing that his time was done. And in any event, how do we know that Syria would be the most dangerous new owners â??? they werenâ??t. Unaligned terrorists are the most dangerous new owners and at this point in time, that could be exactly who has them.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
More time for inspectors ment more UN oil for food dollars pumped into Saddams coffers.
The effectiveness of this program is certainly debatable, but it was at least a point of leverage that the rest of the world had to control Hussein. There is no such thing as â??oil for foodâ? when it comes to unaligned terrorists. This program certainly could have been improved to our benefit and should have been. Or in the alternative, it could have been stopped altogether and new measures taken. Invasion was not the only alternative.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
More time that 4 aircraft carrier battle groups and 2 divisions would be tied up (their presence in the region was after all what got inspectors back in to Iraq).
Proof IMO that the threat of force can sometimes have greater effect than the use of force itself. More pressure of that sort should have been brought to bear. With inspectors in Iraq we can be reasonably assured that Hussein would not have tried to mobilize his WMD, or even to transport them to others. Inspectors in the region IMO would have significantly restricted Saddamâ??s options with respect to WMD.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
More French and soviet military hardware pumped into Iraq (we know it was being imported up to 3 weeks before invasion)....all just to be worse off that when we invaded.
Please quote your sources on this â??? was France and Russia shipping this equipment, or were they simply the country that originally manufactured it?
In any event, assuming there was new equipment, the prudent course of action would have been to try and cut off its supply, and failing that, surgical air strikes similar to those that allied forces made in the no fly zones against radar installations, could have mitigated any threat posed by new equipment.
Additionally, you also assume that other measures taken would have been ineffective. And although I can certainly understand why you might believe that to be true, the fact is we will never know; and so to your last point above I would say â??only if an invasion was totally necessaryâ? â??? which, of course, is the subject of this debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
