Correct me, but as far as I can find out, the inspectors has gone to some of those sites that Bush and his buddy Blair said indicated that Saddam was building/hiding WMD’s and found…zults. Will those that wanted war over the flimsy evidence be willing to retract their words? - I doubt!
I guess I'll have to correct you Old Man. The time has not even passed for Saddam to disclose his list of weapons sites. As I understand it, the US government has not revealed its intelligence and information to the inspectors and is waiting for Saddam's declaration that he has no WMD or hidden sites. The US wants to catch him in the big lie so that the Security Council will declare Iraq in material breach of the UN Resolution. It would be totally counter-productive for the US to tell the UN inspectors and Iraq what we know before Saddam makes his required disclosure. If we did that, Iraq would just disclose the sites we told them we knew about.
The inspectors are just warming up revisiting some sites the prior UN inspector teams knew about. It is not surprising that a revisit to those sites has revealed nothing. Be patient.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
The US wants to catch him in the big lie so that the Security Council will declare Iraq in material breach of the UN Resolution.
[/QUOTE]
Shabaash kia baat hai. Guilty before proven innocent.
Old Man, the inspectors are beginning to visit a few of those sites and, thus far, have stated that they have met with cooperation on the Iraqi side.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Shabaash kia baat hai. Guilty before proven innocent.
[/QUOTE]
A more appropriate saying is "Give a man just enough rope to hang himself."
December 8 is a very important day for Saddam's future. The Declaration that must be filed with the UN is rumoured to repeat Iraq's claims that it has no WMD and no programs to develop WMD. With that rope placed around his neck by himself, it becomes up to the US or UK intelligence services and/or the weapons inspectors themselves to find the evidence that kicks the stool out from under Saddam's feet.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I guess I'll have to correct you Old Man. Be patient.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the correction, my"myvoice".
Will be interesting to see what will happen. Do you really think Saddam is stupid enough to still have "contraband" in his country after all that has happened? If the inspectors find nothing, will you and the USA accept it? How long has the inspectors to search?
Nadia_H, what is your viewpoint on Saddam? Should he remain in power?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *
Thanks for the correction, my"myvoice".
Will be interesting to see what will happen. Do you really think Saddam is stupid enough to still have "contraband" in his country after all that has happened? If the inspectors find nothing, will you and the USA accept it? How long has the inspectors to search?
Nadia_H, what is your viewpoint on Saddam? Should he remain in power?
[/QUOTE]
I think "stupid enough" are the wrong words. I think he is crazy enough to keep the WMD and that he is so into his own glorification/magnificence/cleverness that he believes he will be able to hide them from his enemies. He could be right on his ability to hide them. He's sure had a long enough period of time to try to do so. If the inspectors find nothing, my own personal belief will be that he played hide and seek better than them. I doubt the US government would "accept" a finding that Iraq has no WMD and no ongoing WMD programs. I think we'd look very hard for some other pretense to depose Saddam.
Old Man 
are you sure you want to ask me this? 
i think you would prefer a short, succinct answer over a long boring speech: i am in favour of him not remaining in power IF that occurs ONLY and only through the people of Iraq. Period. If any other entity is playing a role in his ousting, then i would not support his ousting for the following reasons (very briefly):
i. Questions regarding his replacement (stooge?)
ii. If previous policy is any indication of future policy… i would simply be extremely wary of any entity that did not previously wish to oust Hussein when he was committing his worst atrocities (even worse than invading Kuwait, which was gassing the Kurds of Halabja).
iii. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, i think the people of Iraq understand Saddam better than anyone else. Who governs their country is a matter for them, not - in my opinion - for anyone else.
Replace Saddam only through the people of Iraq? Which people? The ones he hasn't gassed yet? And how will they do that? Through the Great Iraqi Democratic Process? Iraqi citizens do not have the right to change their government, and they have no way to form an uprising because of the oppression. If you were really that concerned for the people of Iraq, I can't believe you don't have any other options. Should they just wait for him to die, so his equally evil son can take over?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: *
Replace Saddam only through the people of Iraq? Which people? The ones he hasn't gassed yet? And how will they do that? Through the Great Iraqi Democratic Process? Iraqi citizens do not have the right to change their government, and they have no way to form an uprising because of the oppression. If you were *really that concerned for the people of Iraq, I can't believe you don't have any other options. Should they just wait for him to die, so his equally evil son can take over?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly right. For all the lip service people on this board pay to the concept of a people's right to self-determination, no one has answered the simple question about how to help a group of people who are so repressed that they are afraid to even make faces at pictures of their leaders for fear of being punished. To pretend that the Iraqi people have even the remotest chance of expressing dissent much less changing their leadership is to live in FairyLand.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Iraqi citizens do not have the right to change their government, and they have no way to form an uprising because of the oppression.
[/QUOTE]
Here is a question from "Fairy Land": as far as Iraqi citizens not having the right to change their government - is the US in favour of ousting the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments? We have been down this path so many times. Now the reciprocating argument will be, have the Saudi and Kuwaiti govts. invaded another country and used chemical gas against their own peoples? Then i would counter respond by bringing up the I word (Israel).
Is there ever an end to the bickering - are we getting any closer to understanding the other's perspectives or is this just a way (for EACH of us) to kill some time?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Here is a question from "Fairy Land": as far as Iraqi citizens not having the right to change their government - is the US in favour of ousting the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments? We have been down this path so many times. Now the reciprocating argument will be, have the Saudi and Kuwaiti govts. invaded another country and used chemical gas against their own peoples? Then i would counter respond by bringing up the I word (Israel).
Is there ever an end to the bickering - are we getting any closer to understanding the other's perspectives or is this just a way (for EACH of us) to kill some time?
[/QUOTE]
Nadia:
You really ought to stick with Iraq when you try to defend your statements about Iraq. Nothing about Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is at all relevant to whether the Iraqi people have a sufficient voice of dissent to oust their repressive government. If they don't, should everyone just sit back and watch Saddam have his way with them? For how long?
Nadia,
Is this all about the US being too selfish in its foreign policy? Because I agree with you on that notion. In an ideal world, I wish the US was altruistic in all of its foreign policy, but since this a much more dangerous world than Fairy Land, I am glad the US govt watches out for her national interests. We should all be if we value freedom, equality and democracy. (Sorry HT guys, but you are probably not reading this thread anyway.)
If the US was not involved in foreign affairs over the past 100 years, all of the world-wide threats to freedom and democracy of the 20th century would not have been thwarted. Any of those tyrannical powers, gone unchecked, could have dominated the world by now. Not that Saddam would spread nazism, fascism, totalinarism or communism across the globe, but with the proliferation of WMD, he poses a new kind of threat that can not go unchecked. After American isolationism ecouraged WWI and WWII, the US became proactive. US can't just jump in the middle of World Wars anymore, it must prevent them. That means meddling in others' affairs who represent a threat to world security, but who else will do it? Bring them on, please. I would love the US to spend those defense dollars on humanitarian aid instead (and for the Republican guppies, lower taxes)
So is US foreign policy always fair and balanced? No. Does the US support dictators just because they serve American interests? Yes. In the long run, do those interests further the global cause of freedom, human rights and democracy? Yes, ask Europeans or Japanese. Would you rather today's superpower to be a fascist/totalinarist?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**Nothing about Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is at all relevant to whether the Iraqi people have a sufficient voice of dissent to oust their repressive government.* If they don't, should everyone just sit back and watch Saddam have his way with them? For how long?
[/QUOTE]
My Voice
Whether or not it's relevant, is your personal opinion. In my opinion, bringing up Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel is relevant.. extremely relevant. But everyone's opinions will differ.
We are going around in circles. We have been through this discussion so many times, in this very identical manner, that i have no hope of ever arriving at any agreement. Let's just leave it at a point where we can still respect the other's differing points of view.
By the way, will respond in the other thread by UTD much later tonight.
>>If that means meddling in others' affairs, who else will do it? Bring them on, please.<<
Seminole, i don't even know where to begin pointing out where i believe you are stating inaccuracies; amazing how easily one can equate US national interests with "freedom, equality and democracy". This is a different type of war, Seminole, this is not about communism/nazism/facism/socialism; this is not a type of war where the "bad guys" were as easily discernible as they were during the Cold War (i.e., any communist-leaning country). You attack Iraq, oust Hussein, and you will be fighting a type of war that you can never attain victory in via cluster mines and Scud missiles. Don't you see - a year subsequent to the campaign against Afghanistan, why are we still seeing acts such as in Bali? Kenya? Ousting one tinpot dictator while leaving ten others in the region, and supplanting another western stooge in his place, will solve nothing. i guarantee you it will exacerbate anti-US (or anti-western) sentiments around the world, to say nothing of the feelings aroused when al Jazeera will begin broadcasting live pictures from Iraq of dead civilians. Should there be a massive death toll in Iraq (as by many accounts from NGOs, there will be) - in situations such as those, even "moderates" like me will be hard-pressed to defend any positive aspect of the US. And i don't even consider myself an anti-American. Rather than unilaterally ripping up global treaties that have taken literally years to formulate and unilaterally deciding which country to invade, the US should be slightly more cautious of whom they push over the edge. This is not your conventional war that you can fight with sophisticated military technology.
Nadia writes:
"Whether or not it's relevant, is your personal opinion. In my opinion, bringing up Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel is relevant.. extremely relevant. But everyone's opinions will differ. "
Sorry to disagree yet again, Nadia. But, whether something is logically relevant to another thing is not a matter of opinion. If the issue is "whether the Iraqi people have a sufficient voice of dissent to oust their repressive government," please explain how anything that goes on in any other country is the least bit relevant.
The reason so many discussions get aborted in GupShup is the tendency of people to try to change the debate when they find themselves getting on uncomfortable ground. Let's just stick to one topic at a time. You stated that who governs Iraq is a matter for the Iraqi people to decide. That sounds very nice in theory. However, in practice, it has been brought to your attention that the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein denies the people of Iraq that right. Estimates range to as high as 10% of the population that Saddam has tortured and/or killed to silence any and all dissent.
Let's just start from a basic agreement: the Iraqi people presently have no ability to decide who governs them and no ability to remove Saddam from power. Can we agree on that? If so, we can then discuss whether that agreed upon FACT justifies any actions by third parties. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel might even become relevant to that discussion. :)
Estimates range to as high as 10% of the population that Saddam has tortured and/or killed to silence any and all dissent.
And does that ESTIMATE! justify another DEVASTATING war against the already beleaguered Iraqi people who have had so much suffering inflicted upon them; some analysts believe that the sanctions regime sponsored by the Bush Adminstration have already caused the deaths of over 1.6 million Iraqi children.. 
These figures are even confirmed by the UN which also has stated that a further 1 million children are suffering from malnutrition and starvation.
Evidently I am not the only one who thinks so. Here is an excerpt from a speech given by Benazir Bhutto, the democratic conscious of Pakistan, at American University last year:
We respect America as the beacon of the light of democracy for civilized people on this Earth. Four of the happiest years of my life were spent at Harvard where I learned – and flourished in – America’s freedom, tolerance, pluralism, openness, and equal opportunity for all your citizens. Your nation – and its dream _ of freedom and equal opportunity is a hope for men and women across the world. There is a reason that millions flock to your borders each year, to become residents, to become citizens. They come here fleeing from other places. Remember, remember that, at times of crisis and sadness, men and woman come here by the millions upon millions – seeking freedom, opportunity, equality and pluralism. These are values and these are the important values and these are the very values the fanatics and extremists deny, even as they promote the politics of violence and of terror…
I am just waiting for someone to say Bhutto works for the CIA :hehe:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Let's just start from a basic agreement: the Iraqi people presently have no ability to decide who governs them and no ability to remove Saddam from power. Can we agree on that? If so, we can then discuss whether that agreed upon FACT justifies any actions by third parties. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel might even become relevant to that discussion. :)
[/QUOTE]
MyVoice,
Yes we can agree upon the FACT that the "Iraqi people presently have no ability to decide who governs them and no ability to remove Saddam from power". There - i have just agreed with this particular fact.
Now let's discuss whether this fact justifies any actions by third parties. Care to provide a link to any UN Security Council Resolution, adopted in any time period, in which the ousting of Saddam Hussein is authorized?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Evidently I am not the only one who thinks so. Here is an excerpt from a speech given by Benazir Bhutto, the democratic conscious of Pakistan, at American University last year:
[/QUOTE]
Seminole
Sorry, but, Benazir Bhutto is the best source one was able to come up with? If she is the "democratic" conscience of Pakistan, then God Help us. To phrase it in a very generous manner, she and her family have been responsible for a few acts of corruption (now i am lying as that statement sounds way too mild in light of everything they have been responsible for). There is a reason that her husband is referred to as Mr. 10%. Sorry, but IMHO she is in no way representative of anything about Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Sorry, but IMHO she is in no way representative of anything about Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]
I guess not since she is such an advocate of democracy in a country that is not democratic.
I could have posted the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, the rebuilding and transformation into democracies of Europe and Japan after WWII, the democratization of Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism, or just the fact that the US has had a free, democratic, pluralistic society centuries before Pakistan even existed or even attempted a democracy.
To argue that US does not stand for freedom, equality and democracy is ridiculous. To what country are you comparing the lack of those qualities?