France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War - Page 4

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 16:13

"Hurting the US" is not a common aim of the same category. What the hell does Saddam gain, other than being vaporized, from simply hurting the US? "
--the esteemed GePap

I don't know. What did Bin Laden get?

GePap · January 21, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Do you know anything about Kuwait, Gepap? It has a strong fundamentalist movement and growing anti-American sentiment. The latest attack is just one of many...

That have only occured over the past few months, as US forces have grown well beyond what is simply needed to deter Saddam, getting ready for an invasion of Iraq. No, Kuwait is not SA. What is Kuwaiti public opinion? It is generally pro-US. A small fundametalist movement (to say fast growing means nothing. A group than went from .5% popular support to 2% popular support is fast growing, but not important) doesnot public opinion make.

Lord Merciless · January 21, 2003, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Lord Merciless:

Al qaeda is not a state!

Who cares? Does it make a difference?

Quote:

"Hurting the US" is not a common aim of the same category. What the hell does Saddam gain, other than being vaporized, from simply hurting the US? Does he get US troops of his case? and end to the sanctions regime? No, an attack against the US with WMD gains Saddam none of the things he wants at this moment , or even in the future. There is no rational reason, or even a possiblly rationalized hope that Saddam could have to aid a bunch of fanatics (who don't like him anyway) do somehting that gives him to immidtate or long-term benefit.

I see that you are not evil enough to be a dictator. I also see that you are a reasonable person and think powerhungry tyrants are just as reasonable as you. I'd like to know you someday.

Quote:

As for selling nukes: if you have just one, you don't sell. Ten you have none and you are trully screwed. The N.koreans sell missiles cause they can make them in large quantity. Maybe, if and wen the N.Koreans get to biulding many nukes a year, we should worry about them selling nukes (though a group like Al Qaeda could hardly afford the probable asking price) but the notion that Iraq, with one solitary little nuke, would do so? No.

If you can produce 1 nuke, how about producing more? Why do you think that Iraq is restricted to having only 1 nuke?

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 16:16

Gepap, you say what does Saddam get, but your assuming Saddam is rational, when his entire history is irrational.

Defiant · January 21, 2003, 16:26

"MONEY" is the reason for France's veto besides being the asswipe country of the world. Their economy is in shambles and if they agree to the attack on Iraq the USA will come calling for financial help with the war bill. They don't want to pay or be financially involved. Russia votes no because Iraq owe's them something like 70 million and would like to be repaid and figure if the current Iraqi gov't is destroyed the bill becomes chapter 11. China would vote yes but have problems with the USA - Tawain issue. Always follow the money trail.

You have to remember in Bush's platform to become President he said he would lower taxes and remove an evil from the Iraq. We voted him in on that platform, now you are accusing him of fulfilling his promise, how hypocritical.

As for Saddam, he has tried to invade two countries, suceeded with one and was thrown out without direct responsibility held accountable directly to him. He should have been removed then. He has gased men, women and children in Kurd territory, he used chemical and biological weapons in his war with Iran. He launched 39 scuds into Israel who played no military part in the Gulf war, he threw out the inspectors in 1998, he has starved his people in the OIL for FOOD program and used the proceeds to try and buy illegal weapons and then turned around and said the USA is starving his people by continuing the embargo, he has said he will do whatever he can to end Israel's existance in the Middle East. Even if he isn't now allied with Al Queda politics make strange bedfellows. Afghanistan was no enemy to the USA prior to Sept'11 either but geeee what happened and the people responsible were located there. We are the enemy of both Iraq gov't and Al Queda, how long before they do work together against the USA, especially if they go uncheked. The USA and Britain are the only major powers confining Iraq now at a great cost but the cost would be much greater if let loose, given Iraq's past history.

If unchecked or not removed and he gains military power and technology, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind he would launch and attack on another neighbor again or Israel. He his determined to be the undisputer leader of the Middle East and he would nuke Israel in the hopes of instigating a full fledged war against the Zionists including the USA. We know it is futile but he doesn't and that's the danger and we need to void him the weapons to do it or remove him.

If you think you can just leave him alone and he will go away you are sadly mistaken and could pay dearly for it and in the process possibly hurt innocent people in the world and they could be my children. I guarantee you if the USA is hit again, especially with a nuke, and it could have been prevented, God save the world, because the USA will tear the world a new ass.

Use your common sense and lets settle this now so that horrible avenue is not a possibility. I strongly believe that Iraq's generals will say screw it and turn over their division's when confronted with the USA.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Hurting the US" is not a common aim of the same category. What the hell does Saddam gain, other than being vaporized, from simply hurting the US? "
--the esteemed GePap

I don't know. What did Bin Laden get?

His name in all the papers of the world, huge crowds of followers, immortality, and he is still alive cause we can't find him!

Saddam has a state to plunder. He has a fixed local. Lets just say that Saddam is like a home owner with a mortage, while Osama is a punk kid without even a credit card. Osama has lots to gain, little to loose. Saddam has a hell of a lot to lose, and very little to gain. Men who were the end of their state, and/or legacy are hardly ever remembered fondly.

Quote:

It seems that some people here are writing off the idea that al Qaeda and Saddam would cooperate in an effort againt its common enemy. I don't really understand why? So they hate each other, but they still should cooperate against a common enemy.

The US may be a common enemy of both, but for very different reasons. Iraq does not want to overthrow in a bloody revolution the world order: he would be fine living in that order, as long as he held a nice post in it. The notion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not as obvious as everyone seems to think. For example Gore and Nader had common archenemies, no? Bush & Co? Did they work together? No, because in the end, the differences between both these groups were so large that a common emnity was not enough to keep them together. Back in 1990, Saddam basically offered to be OUR (the US's) local thug, like the Shah used to be. For various reasons,we did not want him in that role, so the US anbd Iraq became Enemies. If the US wanted, it could always offer to make Saddam our local thug after all, and all the anti-US talk from Baghdad would end. I am not saying thast we should or we will, but there are many ways in which the US and Iraq could (if all went that way) become semi-allies, as they were in the 1980's. We can't return to the 1980's with Osama was well. Now that the SU is gone, we have nothign to offer Osama. We have become the sole pillars of the system, so it no longer makes sense for a revolutionary like himself to work with us.

Az · January 21, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Except in trying to make (c) happen 2 or 3 countries go fundie and 250 000 Iraqis die. And guess who's going to have to fight the follow-up war? It won't be the US, Azazel.

That scenario could happen. so could the "nuclear missiles fall on NY" one.
in any case, which option do you choose?

KrazyHorse · January 21, 2003, 16:28

GP, what they had was in UNH form, in which was contained 41kgs of U235. What they had to do was:

a) Divert the fuel
b) Build the processing facility
c) Run the facility long enough to produce some 25 kgs of U235 (so efficiency is important, since fuel is non-renewable)
d) Cast and build a bomb

18 months is very optimistic for this, never mind that the Taiwatha facility where the UNH fuel was held was among the first targets bombed by the US, and was under constant IAEA monitoring until the moment the Gulf War started.

Native processes (U235 separation and neutron bombardment on laboratory scale) had managed to produce, over the course of 10 years (1982-1991), something under 1 kg of weapons-grade material. Which tells me that without the UNH fuel (imported from France and Russia) the Iraqis don't have a hope in hell of building a bomb.

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 16:31

Kitty, I understand Iraq purchased some aluminum rods, used only in extracting weapons grade material from India last year.

Can't remember where I heard that though.

KrazyHorse · January 21, 2003, 16:33

IIRC, they can also be used for construction of microprocessors, and are banned as dual-use materials.

Drake Tungsten · January 21, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

We voted him in on that platform, now you are accusing him of fulfilling his promise, how hypocritical.

He wasn't really elected... thief in chief... blah blah blah...

Just saving everyone the trouble.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Gepap, you say what does Saddam get, but your assuming Saddam is rational, when his entire history is irrational.

Sorry Chris62, but the majority of his actions seem extremely rational, or at least, ones one can rationalize.

Lets go down the list:

Being evil: you have to be, to have total power.
Invading Iran in 1980: The new Iranian revoltuionaries were formenting revolts within his state, trying to assasinate members of his government. Plus the revoltuion had greatly weakened what had, until then, been a vastly more powerful military than his own. So he invaded to get Iran of his case, and end various border disputes to favor Iraq.
Using WMD against Iran: Iran is bigger and has more people and resources than Iraq. Why not use weapons that equalize this situation, specially when you know the world community won't care, since the guy you are hitting has become the world's No 1 badguy?
Using WMD on the Kurds: Kurds were trying to bring down his rule, his army had already gotten used to using chemical weapons on the battlefield, and using them against the kurds would be both cheaper than going in with conventional forces, and be of great psychilogical impact against his enemies.
Invading Kuwait: if he succedded, he owuld greatly imporve his finantial situation by erasing billions of billions of dollars in debt,a nd gain a better hand at keeping oiul prices steadily high so he could pay of the rest of what he owed and maintain his grip on power. Since the US was unclear about what it weould do gievn his act, he gabled.

One might say, he war irrational in not pulling back from Kuwait before the gulf war begun, but, you could say the same about the US not getting out of vietnam sooner, couldn't you? Saddam had too much to loose, and most people did not expect the war to be so quick (remember talk of 10,000 US casualties coming from inside the US itself.) And as for not giving up all hiw WMD after the guf war: he took a gable that he would outlast his persuers, and until 9/11 and Osama gave the Neo-cons. in the US the perfect cover to act, he was right: after all,the inspectors were gone, and yet talk in the UN about loosening the sactions regime was coming about, even in the Bush white house.

I fail to see the "irrational" actions you speak of.

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 16:46

Those are hardly the actions of a rational man, nor is defiance in the face of impending doom.

I'm convinced saddam believes the UN will save his ass, something the French are determined to do.

I can't agree with your reasoning at all, you say your not convinced on the case to attack, I say you have not convinced me doing nothing is the correct option.

Drake Tungsten · January 21, 2003, 16:47

Saddam is rational; I agree with Gepap on that. However, he is a megalomaniac who takes stupid risks to advance his own agenda. I don't want him anywhere near a nuclear weapon...

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 16:51

"Saddam is rational; I agree with Gepap on that."

Yes. You and David Floyd and all the rational people do.

Az · January 21, 2003, 16:53

I believe him to be capable of rational thought, though he is paranoid, and he has suffered greatly in his childhood.

Drake Tungsten · January 21, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

You and David Floyd and all the rational people do.

That hurts, SlowwHand. That really hurts...

GePap · January 21, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

Who cares? Does it make a difference?

It makes a huge difference. A private groups can get up and move, it can hide anywhere in the world: can Iraq hide? How? No matter where Osama is, hje can remain in control of Al Qaeda. If Saddam ever left Iraq again, do yuo think they would let him back in, into his palaces?

Quote:

I see that you are not evil enough to be a dictator. I also see that you are a reasonable person and think powerhungry tyrants are just as reasonable as you. I'd like to know you someday.

No powerhungry tyrant stays in power for 30 years being a psychotic megalomaniac. Hitler lasted only 12. The world doesn't crae how many of your own people you kill, as long as you are not killing othewrs outside the little piece of real-state the world has decided to let you rule.

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 17:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

You and David Floyd and all the rational people do.

That hurts, SlowwHand. That really hurts...

I apologize. I sincerely do.
It was just there, too good to pass up.
Cheap-shot. I know.

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 17:00

Not to hit this to hard, but rational people don't put their picture everywhere, give continous coverage of everything they do, and think that gassing and killing is the best way to hold power.

That may be pragmatic, but it's not rational.

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 17:01

Sloww, my sig says it all, it's a DIRECT quote, unaltered.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Saddam is rational; I agree with Gepap on that."

Yes. You and David Floyd and all the rational people do.

DF might be annoying, and may hold very radical notion's that 99% of people on Poly might disagree with, but he is logically consistent based on his assumptions.

You may not agree with what DF says, but he is a better debater than most people here: of course it seems that many people on Poly can't differentiate between beliefs and abilities. How sad.

Azazel, Drake:

Saddam has taken one crazy risk in his whole carrer, the invasion of Kuwait. Had things been a little different, it would have payed of. Yes, Saddam is immensely paranoid, but so was Uncle Joe, and yet Uncle Joe never pushed the button. Hell, even Mao, who kept saying that nuclear war is no big deal, never did anythign particularly crazy with nukes. Can either of you give me any evidence that we could trust Saddam with nukes less than Uncle Joe or Mao?

Az · January 21, 2003, 17:02

btw, I am still waiting for answers for my question, GEP.

Drake Tungsten · January 21, 2003, 17:04

Quote:

I apologize. I sincerely do.
It was just there, too good to pass up.
Cheap-shot. I know.

If I wasn't crippled by the flu, I'd kick your ass for saying that...

I can take a lot of abuse, but saying I'm like Floyd, well that's just plain nasty...

DinoDoc · January 21, 2003, 17:04

All this talk about DF has remionded me of a debate on proliferation I left unattended. Thank you guys.

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 17:07

Actually, he's a rotten debater, he ignores your argument and makes things up as he goes, but that's besides the point.

His best quality is no matter what, he will never alter his postion one iota.

Adam Smith · January 21, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
IIRC, they can also be used for construction of microprocessors, and are banned as dual-use materials.

Are microprocessors on the banned list too? Why would Saddam build something that he could buy for next to nothing and easily smuggle in even if it was banned?

GePap · January 21, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Not to hit this to hard, but rational people don't put their picture everywhere, give continous coverage of everything they do, and think that gassing and killing is the best way to hold power.

That may be pragmatic, but it's not rational.

Someone who is irrational can't be pragmatic: how can one judge correctly what will and won't be practical, if one is unable to reason and make good cost-benefit annalysis?

Moral people may not want to put their picture everywhere, and gas and kill thousands, but if your aim is to be the absolute ruler of a place, then you do such things. Quibble and argue all you want about Saddam's basic premises, but if I can assume, that once I know his basic premise, his basic values, I can judge with great accuracy what he will do, then the man is Rational. He may be an immoral, narcissitic, paranoid son of a *****, but that does not make one a raving lunatic that would do anyting.

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

I apologize. I sincerely do.
It was just there, too good to pass up.
Cheap-shot. I know.

If I wasn't crippled by the flu, I'd kick your ass for saying that...

I can take a lot of abuse, but saying I'm like Floyd, well that's just plain nasty...

Sorry you're sick. Had I known, I would have let it pass.
That was nasty, I admit.

Chris, yeah, I know about David's remark.

One thing I have to agree with GePap on,

Floyd is consistent. He is that much.
He has opinions that I have to believe are the product of a sheltered life.

Defiant · January 21, 2003, 17:13

GEP, correct me if I am wrong but did Uncle Joe and Mao ever invade another sovreign nation? I really don't know if they did, whereas Saddam has tried twice.