Is Bush Competent?

Remove all ads!

ragusa,

You state:

Please show your sources proving this fact.

Blix has stated that the Iraqis are impeding the inspections process. According to the applicable UN resolutions, Iraq was supposed to disclose all prohibited weapons, delivery systems, and research projects. They were to assist the UN with the discovery and disposal of such items. Iraq provided no new information in their declaration. The UN inspectors were sent in to verify that all the listed items had been destroyed, and to look for evidence of continued weapons development. To that end, Blix has already stated that Iraq is in material breach. Iraq is impeding the inspectors at every turn. Evidence has been provided that Iraq has infiltrated the inspection teams, and has received advance notice of future inspection sights.

The key here is that the inspectors were not sent to find these weapons. It would be very lucky for 100 inspectors to find anything that was hidden in a landmass the size of Iraq. Yet, proscribed warheads, not listed on Iraq's declaration were found. Evidence of research into proscribed missile technology was found, again not disclosed by Iraq. Research notes regarding WMD were found hidden in an Iraqi scientist's home. Tons of chemical and biological agents that Iraq was known to have is missing. The rest of the world has no way of knowing what Iraq has. If they have nothing, why can't they tell us how they disposed of the tons of vX gas that the inspectors know that Iraq had in 1994? How can you claim that they are not a threat, and that they are "more or less contained"? How does anyone know if it is more, less or at all, and thus how does anyone know that they are not a threat. The world has given Iraq opportunity after opportunity to show co-operation, and they have not taken any of them.

As far as Iraq providing weapons to Al Quaida, your argument here doesn't work on 2 levels. One is your mantra of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and 2 Iraq is a known supporter of terrorism. There is no way to know that some of the support they provide to other terrorist groups isn't being funneled to Al Quaida.

Seems to me that Bush is connecting the dots better than the political leaders of the Franco-German alliance. Guess if Bush is a simpleton that makes your leaders morons. But then from what I have seen on the news lately, a lot of Germans think that already.

 

See it from a US taxpayers point of view: Wouldn't it be lovely to see the president of your country presenting evidence as a reason to blow up several hundred million taxpayer's money in munitions before doing so?

The US mantra "Saddam is evil and a liar" is at least not a good reason for a war. When they have all the evidence against Saddam - why do they only serve so vague crap? With good proof they would certainly gain more support and most certainly gain a better credibility. When the US have good proof and withhold it - then the US, as much as Saddam, only obstruct the work of the inspectors and for what can that be good?

The US don't care about the results of the inspections: When they find something that's fine - if not that's just a proof of how evil the Iraqis lie.
And best: It works - as evident in your line of thought you don't even question them. Whatever the results are - seemingly the war will happen. The US demands are designed not to be met. It would be interesting to know why.

The US are going to mess up another country, so it's them who should bring up the arguments. UN inspectors with international support *can* handle disarmament - they have shown that - eventually they only failed because of the lack thereof (thanks to russia namely).

You still have to find a satisfying answer to the question why a war, the last tool, is necessary. Actually you're not alone there, your president has to either.

And you don't understand me: I suggested that two enemies of the US don't have to be neccessarily united. That's something very different. And my mantra is quite different too: The US are as bound to international law as Iraq is. Or aren't they?

[ February 04, 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I don't believe that the UN should be the legislature, court, jury and executioner of any international law.

Iraq has been given years upon years to cooperate and disarm. They have not. The inspectors cannot and never will be able to disarm Iraq without Iraq's cooperation. As long a Saddam is in power, that cooperation will never be provided.

The UN was intended as, and should still only be, a means for countries to meet with other countries for discourse to avoid, or minimize the effects of strife in the world. It has outgrown its mandate. The ultimate responsibility to protect themselves belongs to individual nations. If those nations become unreasonable in their defense of their sovereignty, then the rest of the world is welcome to, though or outside of the UN, bring sanctions, or even attack the country that is too zealously defending itself. The UN is just a convenient place to meet and make these decisions.

If a republic is ruled over by another body of government, especially one not rooted in the ideology of being a republic, it fails to continue to be a republic.

Do you deny that Iraq had tons of vX gas, as far as the world knows, until 1998?

If yes, then where did it all go? You can't just pour the stuff on the groud and let it evaporate. If they had it 1998, and they won't show how they destroyed it, the only thing you can logically assume is that they still have it. Preponderance of the evidence.

If you don't belive that they did, then if the inspectors somehow manages to stumble on it, you sitll wouldn't believe that it was real.

From Boortz show notes 3/4/02 .

I have seen all the proof I need to justify the spending of the money.

[ February 04, 2003, 17:19: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Who else? The US? Alone? Why? I feel you seriously lack understanding of how international law works.

And why on earth do you seem to believe that only the US could do the job the UN inspectors are just as well suited for. Inspectors would even eliminate the need to kill a few tens of thousand Iraqis first - but what do you care - isn't your cause just?
The UN inspectors have destroyed large quantities of WMDs in Iraq before they were withdrawn. They can do so again - with support.

[ February 04, 2003, 17:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The UN inspectors played catch as catch can. They manage to find 1 thing while Iraq builds 3 new ones.

The US is not going to disarm Iraq. We are going to remove those who feel that Iraq should develope and have WMD. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Just as a side note, did you know that there is 4321 sq kilometers of land in Iraq per per arms inspector? Give me 4321 sq kilometers split between mountains and deserts and I could hide a fleet of semi trucks, and I promise, you would never find them all! Probably not even a few. Give me Saddam's resources and you would never find any of them!

[ February 04, 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

You remind me of the episode of Gorbachev when he first met Reagan in Helsinki. In the car he said to his foreign minister Shevadnaze: "I just met a caveman!"

 

I was actually waiting for you to say that.

That’s right, we are the cavemen! The pit bull! Everyone loves us when we do what they want, especially if it involves us giving our money away, or our soldiers dying to protect your rights, but they rest of the time we are uncivilized boors.

Well guess what ragusa, it is time for that little pissant backwater that you live in, and you little pansy allies to your west and and greedy allies to the east to put up or shut up. If the Franco-German-Russian alliance feels so strongly that the US is out of line, and that we are going to go needlessly slaughter thousands of innocent Iraqi's, you are honor bound, morally bound, and duty bound to oppose it, if necessary with military force. So when does your fleet leave for the Persian Gulf? When do your soldiers arrive in Iraq to appose us? Are your jet fighters on alert to go in and defend the Iraqis? Your government’s stance, and the one that they have fed you until you believe it, is based on political motives. I don't see how else that you cannot see that we have already logically proven that Iraq has WMD. Germany and France are so afraid of England gaining dominance in the EU, that they are opposing anything that England and her allies want. Germany and France are trying to prove that they are relevant as world powers. Guess what, they are not. Germany can't economically afford to do its part in a coalition action against Iraq, and Schroeder can't afford to be seen as being weak without committing political suicide. So instead of begging off and telling the truth, he opposes action to save face. The French hate anything American, and will oppose us on almost anything they can (unless it involves the transfer of US wealth to them). Russia at least is mostly honest about it. They want their $8 billion that Iraq owes them. As soon as we guarantee that, and promise them compensation for their costs in the war, the Russians will be rolling tanks across the Iraqi desert.

If Germany launched an unprovoked attack at Israel, I can promise you that the Germany would be looking down the barrels of US fighting forces before you could say gesundheit. I really don't think that we will see such a response from the German, French, Russian, or even one of the middle eastern governments.

Now you decide, is it because your country is too economically weak, not strong enough in your convictions, or maybe because your leaders know that they are wrong, and are afraid that they might get caught. Talk is cheap! Lets see what their actions say.

 

Ragusa,

We have hijacked this thread. If you want to continue this we need to move it somewhere else, or start a new topic. Let me know if you have a preference.

 

I fail to see an argument in your post. I'm still curiously awaiting replies of yours to answer some of my questions ... if you could spare some time and effort.

[ February 04, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I saw that before you edited it. What were you afraid of?

Which of your questions do you feel that I haven’t already answered.

And since we are asking each other to address unanswered questions.

What the hell do you think happened to the tons of vX gas that Iraq had? You can't say they are disarmed if you can't account for that! How is that not proof that they have chemical weapons?

 

Fine, then we are crystal clear. If you don't know what to reply to, re-read my posts and make notes. Something will inspire you, I bet.

 

Just so we don't go changing our posts again. You said:

.

I am not going to re-read your posts again. I read them again quickly before I asked you politely what question you wanted me to answer. You disapoint me Ragusa, I thought you were above being petty.

 

I'm just tired of talking to a wall.

 

Actually there is a post that I made about the Iraq stuff. And I got a picturew of Bush looking through a pair of binoculars...with the caps on.

 

Lets start another subject

[ February 05, 2003, 10:42: Message edited by: Shell ]

 

Off topic: When did double posts become possible again? It's my understanding that Tal had blocked that ability months ago...

 

Tarsakh, I saw that picture you were talking about. I've also seen a version of the picture were it is Clinton has the lens caps on. Just like those alien pictures with Clinton, Nixon, Reagen, etc.
Has anyone else noticed, that for the most part, there are some exceptions, that most of the people in here defending Bush are from the US, and most of the people calling him incompetent are from other countries not currently supporting the US against Irag? Just a thought.