Bush Gored!

[Xugumad]

Undertoad
Is that really the best you can do?

Yes, I don't remember the exact title of the Library of Congress compilation volumes that contain Senate transcripts. I've given a reasonably accurate description of what they look like, and what they contain. This is the closest you will get to documentary evidence that the US supplied unspecified types of weapons and financial aid to Iraq in the early 80s. It's been several years since I skimmed those volumes, and since I didn't reference them in dissertations or thesis, I can't provide you with the exact data. It's worrying that a Googled link to some newsbite PR source is considered acceptable, whilst actual Senate transcripts that I cannot provide an ISBN or web link for are thought of as insufficient, or outright ridiculed.
I don't understand why you seem to mock the provided proof; unless you provide better evidence that the US did not supply Iraq with weapons, we can safely assume that your ridicule of jaguar's earlier post has been proven to be untrue.

I re-iterate: Senate hearings transcripts, 1982-1983.

(regarding US support for Saudi Arabia)
It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You will note how the warmongering was first in order to bring the terrorists to justice, to catch and try Osama bin Laden. Having failed to deal with Osama, the spin machine started focusing on Iraq, and how Iraq was behind much of the terrorist problem. Having spectacularly failed to prove that, the focus moved to Iraq's WMDs, and how he used them against his own people - which was well-known for much of the late 80s and all of the 90s. As a cause was needed, the PR machine focused on the human plight, and on the possible danger for the US from bioweapons, with the justification being that Saddam won't hesitate to use them, since he's 'a maniac.'

Any basic schooling in PR uncovers the zig-zagging methods the US administration is using, 'releasing' information bit by bit to the media, which is eager to lap up any sensationalist PR piece on how the US is about to be wiped out by Saddam's evil weapons.

In the meantime, the genuine cause for the terrorist attacks in 1993 and 2001 - US support for the Saudi dictatorship - remains untouched, for obvious reasons.

That is why it's relevant to the discussion; snapping up whatever spin piece the administration is allowing the media to overhype on any given week doesn't address the fact that the current focus on Iraq is intended to cover up domestic and foreign-policy shortcomings with the one supposedly certain people-pleaser: winning a war, protecting America from Iraq's certain bioweapon attack, and bringing democracy and freedom to the world.

Would it not then be the US' moral obligation to go in and correct its terrible errors?

Here is one piece of information that I haven't told you yet, since you seem to be automatically assuming that I am against war in Iraq: I am fully behind an UN intervention in Iraq, under two conditions:

That UN troops are stationed for several decades there, to protect democracy, personal freedoms, and ensure stability. (akin to Germany, after-WW2)

That all other dictatorships in the region are also removed and replaced by democratically elected regimes; with UN troops stationed in force in all those democracies.

If you remove one tumor, but leave all the others intact, the cancer will spread again. Yes, it's the moral duty of the US and UN to go in, and deal with that evil - since I consider dictatorships and murderous dictators to be evil. But the proposed half-fix is an obvious PR ploy, and will cause more evil than good in the region.

Tobiasly
We will play be the UN's rules only as long as it serves our own interests. Up until now, it has served our interests to follow "international law". If that no longer is the case, we will buck the UN, as we have done in the past. [...]
Tell me why again Bush should listen to the UN?
I'll say it again, when the UN no longer serves our purposes, we'll act on our own.
We have a sitting president who wants regime change in Iraq. The majority of Americans support military action. means it's gonna happen; it's as simple as that. If we can convince the world that it's in their interest as well, and get them to support us, great. If not, we'll take care of it ourselves.

1. The last time the US attempted to remove a foreign regime of a non-microscopic nation on another continent without the consent of the UN, it was severely beaten and had to airlift its troops out in shame (and leave its allies to be tortured and brainwashed). This is not to say that the same would happen if the full force of the US came down on Iraq: Iraq is much weaker now than it was in 1990, and it has no nuclear weapons at all, with very few remaining biochem weapons left. It is merely a response to your "we have bucked the UN before" point: that the US has bucked the UN before doesn't mean that the US has been successful in similar endeavours. Thus, you cannot use that as an argument to back up your point and show that the US will do it successfully again, because it hasn't always been been successful previously. (If y relies on x being true in order for y to be true, and if x isn't always true, you cannot claim that y is always true either. QED.) The same logical fallacy is committed in the statement "We have a sitting president who wants regime change in Iraq. The majority of Americans support military action." That there is a will is undoubtable; that there is a way, however, is not. Simple logical mistake, illustrated here: "We have a sitting president who wants illegal hard drug importing/dealing eliminated. The majority of Americans support eliminating importing/dealing hard drugs. (crack, heroin, etc)." I do not equate remove hard drugs with remove Saddam, it is merely a comparison of fallacious logical conclusion-drawing.

2. Bush will not act without considerable UN support (unless there is some cataclysmic domestic event). I stand by that statement. Your quoted words are mostly posturing and sabre-rattling along the lines of "we will do whatever we want to and nobody can stop us." While the barking is very impressive in its own right, you will have to do some biting to back it up. The very second Bush backs up his claims of wanting to remove Saddam by having US troops occupying Baghdad, I will retract my words. Until that very moment, your claims are merely a paper-tiger argument. It's all nice and good to shout about how you'll kick major ass no matter what the UN says, but you need to get on with it, or find another PR angle to the whole affair.

3. Your posting accurately represents why the US has such a bad image overseas. While you may be sneering at the turtleneck-wearing, goateed, bespectacled, smelly French imbeciles who are mocking the US, the US tunnelvision modus operandi is the main cause behind foreign antagonism. I am not criticising the US for acting in such a manner - wanting "to act in whatever way you consider right, and damn the consequences, if you are strong enough to be able to do so", is probably the only natural reaction. I am merely pointing out what the cause is.

Thus, summing up: We are waiting to see how Bush will defy the UN and remove Saddam Hussein without a UN resolution. At that very moment, I will retract my words; until then, your argument must be considered a threat at best, and a delusion of foreign-policy grandeur at worst - until it is proven correct.

I would like to note that all of my points showing the parallels between the 'maniac' Saddam and domestic US policy went unchallenged. No evidence whatsoever has been provided that the US did not supply with a variety of arms during the 1980s. I am more than happy to acknowledge a fellow debater's point, if it is correct, and I am somewhat saddened that people simply choose to ignore truthful statements so their own arguments don't appear weakened by previous perceived 'losses'. Psychology 101, Debating 101, I'd assume.

X.