Quote:
Originally posted by gigi@Jan 22 2003, 01:28 AM
Quote:
GiGi, I agree - diplomacy is important.
War is a important part of diplomacy - it is an extension of it. Infact just the threat of war is diplomacy. If the rest of the world would stop giving Saddam hope, by stalling things, allowing him to play games, supporting him, etc.... we could maybe handle the problem diplomaticly.
|
I really don't see 'stalling' at this point. I see a process where there is investigation, and this process has been given an alloted time to complete. (I believe the day is January 28 or so?) One more week and we 'should' have an answer....war, or no war.
This is an important part of the process and it should not be forced along.
Quote:
|
Problem is every nation is looking out for their own interest ( which they should do) - and many of these Nations want to keep Saddam for $$ reasons ( oil contracts), stability in the region, or whatever reason... and some are trying to thwart the US to try and prevent the US from being more powerful, and control a very strategic part of the world. ( and of course oil - natural resources)
|
We all know that for Bush, for the most part, it's about oil...terrorism is secondary. No doubt about it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing....$$ is what America was built on...it's just the way it is....
I caught a quick news blurb and it said that 'Bush scolded the UN' for their unsureness. I think he should just leave them alone until Jan. 28. I'm sure they already know exactly what he thinks.  IMHO, they WILL agree to a strike. But I think they feel they MUST complete the process before announcing their decision.
BTW, Bush looked VERY tired and worn on the news....
|
I really don't see 'stalling' at this point. I see a process where there is investigation, and this process has been given an alloted time to complete. (I believe the day is January 28 or so?) One more week and we 'should' have an answer....war, or no war.
----------------------
he has been successfully stalling for 12 years. he is stalling now.
he submitted a weapons declaration which was supposed to have accounted for all weapons and/or their destruction which he was supposed to have done as a requirement of the ceasefire agreement he signed after he invaded Kuwait. The declaration he submitted recently was the same information that he submitted the first time and did not add any clarity to issues like massive stock piles of weapons which were not accounted for and biological and chemical weapons programs which continued even during the original UN inspections.
The inspectors themselves have been very clear recently in stating repeatedly that the current weapons declaration he submitted did not answer any questions that have been asked repeatedly for the last decade... such as info on nuclear programs, chemical and biological programs and stockpiles of weapons that are still not accounted for.... though the current declaration was supposed to be the one to answer all questions.
now they are finding weapons and documents which were not declared. its nothing new. on one hand he says "here is everything we have, we are cooperating 100%" ... then they say "oh,.. well yeah, we forgot about those". Can we assume that they forgot about all the missing equipment and weapons and documents still unacounted for and that its just ok to "forget" at this point? i mean "forgetting" is not really "defiance" right? its just an unfortuneate oversight from someone who really wants to help and the world should show patience and understanding?
The primary purpose of the weapons inspectors is to account for, verify and to destroy illegal weapons. Iraqs responsibility to the UN and UN Security Council is to cooperate unconditionally. They have NEVER done that in 12 years.
The inspectors do not conclude anything on the 28th January. they are merely submitting a report to the UN. the inspectors have said that comprehensive inspections to their satisfaction could take up to 1 year. Why should Saddam Hussein have one more year? He had 12. if he can be proven to be in non-compliance today... what should he be given? 12 more years?
Since the President is scheduled to give a State of the Union Address on Jan 28th, i think we can assume that is going to be D-Day for Saddam. Either that or in some way they are going to really turn up the heat.
and maybe i just dont get it.
can someone please explain to this ignorant kid from Alaska how the US/Bush will profit from or "control oil" as a result of overthrowing Saddam Hussein or invading Iraq to do so?
What are people suggesting? that the US will take over their economy, their markets, the eports, their oil fields?
i have not heard anyone explain this one aside from made vague remarks that "its all about oil".
If its "all about oil" would we have not been better served for the last decade by having sanctions lifted? Iraq is a significant world oil producer and the UN has been restricting their ability to export oil. We were the largest buyer. Was this beneficial to the US for the last 12 years to not have access to that oil on the market?
Is it beneficial to the US now to mobilize a military force and drive oil prices up for everyone at the mere threat of war?
can ANYONE make a convincing arguement as to how exactly the US will "control" oil in the region as a result of overthrowing Saddam Hussein? I really dont understand this statement. Do we "control oil" anywhere else? or do the producers and the markets?