Got enough information?
 

It's still the early days of this, the "big Iraq debate", I think. And to me it feels like OJ revisited.

During the early days of OJ, I would sway between guilty and not-guilty by the hour. As people made various points, they seemed to make sense and I would re-consider all the time.

It took until about halfway through the trial when things made sense; there was enough damning blood evidence, conflicting alibis, etc. that I swayed to the "guilty" side to stay.

I hear good points made on both sides of the debate. But how can you possibly have enough information to make the decision?

We don't see the military information that would tell us what parts of it were going to be easy and what parts difficult. We don't know how many troops are going to remain stationed elsewhere, or how many should be reserved in case the Koreas get snippy or etc. We don't get the intelligence information. We don't have anyone to bring all this together for us.

This is why Congress has to be consulted. There may well be intel information that says we have to go RIGHT AWAY! But we can't trust that decision to a select number of people in the administration with some flimsy pretext.

Congress is sometimes a moronic, stead, slow-moving bunch who really only represent a tiny fraction of the population (the ones in the political cliques that get races won). But at least they are elected and have a sense of responsibility towards their constituents. Sometimes. At least they have some experience making decisions, and a staff to manage response from the people.

If they take a look at all sides, and come to a decision, I think I would respect that and feel pretty good about it no matter what the decision is.

Interesting how lawyers were checking into whether Dubya needed to consult Congress or not. Perhaps he is already expecting the Dems to control both houses of Congress come January? (Though his own party seems to be splintering as well.)

Allot of the time the 'obvious faults' with governments that people point out are actually the best solution to complex problems, the context and depth of which people do not understand.


A democraic government needs ot eb able to justify its actions to its people. If it cannot, something stinks.

I dont know what to think about Iraq. I agree that the there may well be intelligence that says NOW! but I get nervous when Dick sez one thing (I trust him about as far as I can throw him) and Colin another.I tend to defer to the military man- the man out in the mix. And the cool thing with our government is that there are checks and balances of power or there should be- the Executive branch seems to be running a bit amuck. I am placing my hopes on congress or the law to help steer. Really, does the US public's opinion matter? I'd like to think so, but I wonder.

I have to admit I’m kind of torn on this one. On one hand there is no reason to attack now, apart from November elections, it’s risky as hell and could be extremely inflammatory, not to mention the question of what happens afterwards. On the other hand nukes are extremely sane and logical weapons. Once Sadam has a few the deterrence power they give him to resist a conventional attack in the future is huge. Sadam is a survivor, I don't think he has any interest in nuking the USA, one the other hand being able to tell the US to get stuffed when invading Kuwait again would be very useful.

And how many nukes and delivery systems would it take to reach that level?

I don't think a minimal nuclear capability increases Saddam's security, I think it severly diminishes it. The instant he can credibly claim nuclear weapons I think he's got severe problems.

Say what you will about George's saber-rattling, Iraq is closer than they've been in years to readmitting the weapons inspectors they agreed to in exchange for not gettting clobbered last time around. Unfortunately they're still playing rug-merchant with the issue, I don't think there's time left for that. Complete, immediate, actual compliance with what they agreed to is called for.

I do think that Iraq's sudden interest in letting inspectors back in is bogus. They just want to stall for time. Note that Iraq has never been in compliance with the terms of the end of the 1991 war.

In theory, then, the pres can say that the 1991 congressional authorization still applies. I hope he doesn't pull that one.

As I understand it, he IS trying to use that to a degree. Bullshit. Two different situations.

I thought the Congressional authorization was for the US to participate in a United Nations coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

It will take a very loyal White House lawyer to read into that a Congressional approval for a unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iraq more than a decade later.

But I guess that's what they're paid the big bucks for. ;)

Well, I do too...they want to tie it to getting back control of the norrth and south zones, and a guaranteed end to economic sanctions....*before* letting inspectors in and then giving them the same old run-around they got last time.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...raq/index.html is an interesting development. This is a pattern we've seen before; t'was Blair who released the intel on (9/11)/alQueda/Afghanistan when people were doubting on that issue.

And on that note, today's Pentagon news conference. Rumsfeld was asked about proof of Iraq's nuclear development. He said something like "I think I'll leave that to the next couple of days or weeks."

1? 2? He's got scuds that can reach Israel, that’s good enough for this stuff. Being able to say 'invade me and ill drop a nuke on Israel, or on your invading troops is a huge deterrent. You can defend against chem and bio, you can't against a nuke. This never was or will be about nuking mainland US, its not in his NI, regional control is.

Same applies with silly theories about him selling them to al queda, its not in his interest.

That's nonesense, as anyone who has been through U.S. Army basic training can tell you. On the day of nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare training (right after the "gas chamber"), all soldiers learn exactly what to do in case of a nuclear blast.

You simply lie on the ground, face-down, with your head in the direction of the blast. It is important that you form a completely straight line, with your arms at your side and your legs straight.

Then, the blast wave from the nuclear strike will harmlessly pass over you.

The funny part is that I'm not making this up. Kinda reminds me of those "Duck and cover" what-to-do-when-a-volcano-erupts PSA's on South Park.

Actually, the defense against a nuke has always been counterforce: you destroy it before it can be deployed. Much easier to nail this stuff while it's still in Iraq before it ends up in a shipping container on it's way to a target in "Dar-al-Harb".

Selling nukes to terrorists is no more in his interest than having them himself, or invading Kuwait. But that didn't stop him then either.

Maggie you are missing my point entirely. A nuke would not be for us against mainland US. Ill repeat for those up the back NOT FOR MAINLAND USA. It would be for regional use, and use as a deterrant against a conventional counterattack by the US or others. Regional counterattack, not counterattack on mainland USA.

Errr. No. Firstly having them is great, nukes give you instant power and instant weight when it comes to the realpolitik of these situations. It would give him fantastic regional bargaining power alone. Invading Kuwait was very much in his interest, it would give him unshared control of that oil field, and that is one big ass oil field. Selling nukes to terrorists for use against the US would gain him nothing directly and in the long term bring him down. He's not the most sane man on earth but there is a cold, hard inalienable logic about having nukes you cannot escape. He wants to survive and grow, in the region, nuking the US would work towards neither of those. Secondly a nationals national interest is defined the leaders of that nation, not our take on it.

How does invading Iraq make the world safer?
Who is going to replace Hussein?
Is Iraq a direct threat to the US?
Will an attack on Iraq be counter-productive to the unspecified goals of the perpetual war on terror or is that the point?
Why do knowlegable military guys like Zinni, Schwarzkopf, and Powell, oppose the war on Iraq?
Are we going to increase taxes or reduce spending to pay to continue the Bush/Hussein feud?

As we see with the Palestinian kids training with M-16s, once a weapon is built it's really hard to say who'll be using it for what. This year it's in Saddam's hands, next year he dies and it's in his kid Uday's hands and Uday is even more blood-lusty than Saddam, and quite a bit stupider as well.

Writing from an eastern port city, my concerns are not easily soothed. But as much as I would like to protect Philly or Boston or Baltimore or Washington or NYC, I would rather not see Tel Aviv or even Riyadh or Tehran nuked either.

And so it begins
 

Bush is announcing right now that he WILL consult congress and have a serious dialogue about the issues involved. Tony Blair will arrive in DC on Saturday.

Bush's language was specifically "world-oriented" in that the debate would not be US-only. "I believe it's important for the world to deal with this man, and I believe that it's important for the US Congress to have a dialogue about how to deal with it."

"The world must understand as well that its credibility is at stake."

No, I'm not missing it. But somehow I find your assurances on this point..well...less than reassuring, no matter how many times you repeat them. It's all well and good for you to sit there buying freshman textbooks a hemisphere away and lecture us on what you think is in Saddam's national interest.

We were at war with this bozo not all that long ago. Since then he's refused to abide by the agreements that saved his ass, he lies through his teeth constantly, and he's *got* WMD and is developing more as we speak.

If you think he wouldn't sell them to an organization that has *proven* they can deliver them anywhere they please against his enemies, despite all the weltpolitik cant you've taught yourself to dispense, you're still pretty naive.

Failing to close him down completely last time around was a big mistake, comitted in the hopes of pleasing largely uninvolved third parties like yourself. And if he *does* sell/give WMDs to alQueda or the like, and they use them, we'd end up spending the next six months playing the same game of proving to the likes of you that they definately came from him, and then debating what should be done about it.

No, thanks.

So to sum up, Jag, your positions are:

1) Citizens are not to be allowed guns.

2) Tinpot dictators who take control of their nation by force and who rule it through tyranny are to be allowed nuclear weapons.

Do I have this right?

Re: And so it begins
 

Well, discussion with England really doesn't mean much internationally -- England has been a decent US ally even when the rest of the Western world was giving us raspberries. And Bush seems to have an inborn talent for pissing off other world leaders.

I personally don't see any reason to move against Saddam -- but of course, it's quite possible that all of this saber rattling really is for a reason such as imminent Iraqi nukes (details as yet undisclosed) and not just an attempt by Bush to maintain his own popularity.

As for dropping one on Tel Aviv -- Saddam probably isn't that stupid. Israel almost certainly has better delivery systems than Iraq, and there's no way they wouldn't strike back in kind, no matter how unofficial their own nuclear capability is.

Re: Re: And so it begins
 

Depends on your definition of "better".

For instance, the delivery system used in the *first* WTC bombing, the OkeCity Murrah Building attack, and countless bombings within Israel over the last few years would do just fine.

OK, hypothetical scenario: a low-yield fission bomb, say tens of kilotons, detonates at ground-level in Tel Aviv. No aircraft or missles were tracked incoming before the strike. Isotope analysis fails to identify the source of the fissionables. A scenario as ugly as it is plausible, and the deterrance of retaliation is pointless unless there is a clear target *for* retaliation. It's still possible to detect the effort to manufacture of WMD at a distance. But once they are produced, you can forget about tracking them in deployment.

Welcome to Dar-al-Harb and the world of asymmetric warfare.

NO UT you don't, I seem to remember saying earlier this thread that my position on Iraq was undecided, it still is, there are good arguements both ways.

Judging by this:
You seem to be assuing that becase i'm saying its not for mainland USA its all ok as far as i'm concerned (which says something in itself). No, that does not make it ok. I never said he was 'allowed to, at best that was a massive misinterpreataion, and worst that was a very crude attempt to put words into my mouth. I merely said there is a very solid logic behind him having them.

Gah no time now ill cover this properly when i get home.

I think the sickest part of this whole debate (not on this website, but in general) is that hardly anyone is talking about the repercussions of the attack. In order for any form of Bush's 'regime change' to work, a standing military loyal to the new government will be necessary to unite the country's varying factions and force them to accept the rule of the new government, be they democratic or not. Otherwise, we get Afghanistan, where every day we hear another news report saying that the warlords and their lawlessness are taking over the countryside again.

We also need to wonder about the region. Pretty much every major country we have a base in in the region has told us we can't launch any strikes from their soil. This includes Kuwait, whose gold-plated asses we saved last time, and Bahrain, one of the most US-friendly Arab nations. (It was a major shock when Israel's invasion of Palestine last March sparked a riot in front of the US Embassy; in many Arab countries, this is a common event.) So how are these nations going to take our further invasion into their affairs? Is it going to kill any of our credibility in dealing with the Israel/Palestine conflict? Is OPEC going to impose an oil embargo (or higher prices) in retaliation?

This is never minding our credibility as a responsible country this attack will erode (don't worry, it's been going down the tubes for years, not only partly because we're the only one on top to pick on). It's very possible that it could unify the EU politically (they're already telling Turkey that they can't join unless they tell us we can't attack Iraq from their soil) and create a more solid bloc. Then there's always the question of whether we want to commit our soldiers' lives to a nation building exercise (which Bush used to claim he was against).

Don't get me wrong - all the talk about WMD is important, and should be considered. But then why isn't Israel showing any sign of concern? I know they're a bit pre-occupied with killing Palestineans (and getting killed in turn), but the Massoud is one of the world's best trained intelligence agencies. (Of course, our national security community knew nothing about 9-11, so maybe training's a moot point).

I think that's the base of my argument against the attack. I've typed enough that I don't quite remember everything I've put thus far.

<i>Pretty much every major country we have a base in in the region has told us we can't launch any strikes from their soil. This includes Kuwait,</i>

Kuwait gave the full green light last week.

<i>So how are these nations going to take our further invasion into their affairs? Is it going to kill any of our credibility in dealing with the Israel/Palestine conflict?</i>

It'll double our credibility AND cut off one of the major sources of Palestinian support. It'll also weaken the rest of the area's support of Palestine.

<i>Is OPEC going to impose an oil embargo (or higher prices) in retaliation?</i>

They can't; the economy of these countries is already at the bottom, and oil is their only source of income. The US strategic reserves are at capacity. If the Sauds cut the price of oil they will only find themselves in the midst of a revolution. Which would be good for everyone... except, of course, the House of Saud.

<i>Don't get me wrong - all the talk about WMD is important, and should be considered. But then why isn't Israel showing any sign of concern?</i>

Three weeks ago they started smallpox innoculations.

GWB plans to go before the UN to let them know that Saddam Hussein has been crawfishin'.

Re: Re: Re: And so it begins
 

The bozo is still there only because Cheney, et al in the George Sr administration screwed up big time - handed back the surrender to Saddam because they did not do their jobs. It is irrelevant that Saddam lies or does not keep agreements. He is the recognized leader of Iraq - even by the US.

Does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Only those who worship what George Jr claims would say yes. What are every one of our own allies saying - including ones who actually have spies in country? There is no valid evidence that Saddam has any WMD. That's right Maggie. There is no evidence of these WMD anywhere - except where fears rules the minds of leaders.

If Saddam was such a threat, then at least one adjacent nation would fear him. And yet the government of every adjacent nation more fears a US unilateral attack on Iraq than Saddam. How do you deal with that reality? Rumor that Saddam has WMD and hope at least one nation will bite? Every nation - even our closest ally Turkey, sees a unilateral American attack as worse than leaving Saddam be. None like Saddam. But every one agrees a unilateral US attack would be even worse - even Kuwait.

What has this nonsense about Iraq done to American credibility and international relations? It has damaged or destroyed virtually every relationship we have had with every nation. Need I cite the recent heckling of Sec of State Powell in South Africa this last week - not by third world nations but by nations considered America's closest friends - that fact stated directly in the Nightline broadcast. Nightline demonstrated these soured relations again in interviews among reporters of countries that are suppose to be our closest allies. Even many in Tony Blair's own party are not supporting his position on Iraq. Everyone else - yes everyone - considered an American ally is against an American unilateral attack - except one - the Likud party of Israel.

Our allies love America and hate this president. German Chancellor Shröder demonstrates the problem - try to stand close to your best ally while trying not to support the policies of its leader. A difficult political hand to play. Shröder is also up for relection. To increase German voter support, he now campaigns by outrightly opposing George Jr's attack on Iraq. Talk highly of America while associating George Jr with bad things like attacking Iraq. That position works well in Germany - and elsewhere. Germany will stand by American in every war BUT will not support the US if the Iraqi war is not first approved by the UN. Don't offend America but don't support George Jr either.

Words like unilateral and arrogant were not stated by America's friends four years ago. Now those terms are routinely used by citizens of America allies from Japan, to Columbia, to Venezuela, S Africa, Germany, France, and Russia. Nightline demonstrated how American popularity has fallen so quickly - directly traceable to an administration that would have attacked China over some silly spy plane - and uses the same mindset to claim Iraq has WMD. From the first months George Jr has been in office, his need to find enemies where they don't exist is ... well ... an example of his mindset.

Unfortunately some will preach his nonsense verbatium. Where is proof that Saddam has WMD? It does not exist. That is the response from our closest allies who have direct access to the same intelligence material. Those WMD exist only because Saddam had oppurtunity? What kind of nonsense reasoning is that? Reasoning from a president who even claims he need not consult Congress before unilaterally attacking a soveriegn nation. Attack only because George Jr does not like Saddam. Only Tony Blair agrees with this president. It may just cost Blair an election that should have been a landslide victory.

But where rumors of WMD come from is also where this report comes from. A briefing paper leaked to the Washington Post on 10 July describes Saudia Arabia as an enemy of the US:
As a result of this extremist (unstable) thinking, Saudi money has been moving out of the US. Obviously. Because the report created during this adminstration also recommended that the US force an ultimatium on the House of Saud to either stop backing terrorism, or face a seizure of Saudi oilfields and all financial assets in America. Where else does this administration see enemies hiding?

Is this Saudia Arabia conclusion from an honest nation or from a nation led by dicator metalities? Dictators act with arrogence, act unilaterally, and don't consult their allies. Exactly the recent criticism of America by other nations as reported in this last Nightline. Create rumors that Saddam has WMD and blood thirsty American extremists will rally to those excuses to attack Iraq - legal nicities and American principles be damned.

We have an example. Maggie has openly declared that Saddam has WMD when no such evidence exists. Why? Blood thristy extremist?

It's an old trick. Distract everyone by unilaterally attacking another nation. Then when nobody is looking, pass a law that would never get passed in peacetime. From The Economist of 31 Aug 2002:
This administration represents the America way of life? No wonder George Jr wanted to put all agencies including the CIA and FBI under one central command - like a KGB. All under one central bureau - Homeland Security - a name that sound like it came from the Nazi party. The Amerian public is not to be trusted by this administration - known also for its shortage of intelligence. More information about us will give them more intelligence? Apparently they think so.

Geroge Jr's reasonings for a surprise attack on Iraq are so pathetic that even major Republicans don't support him. From The Economist of 24 Aug 2002:
Armey is correct. Americans do not unilaterally attack another nation. Even worse, when America was unethical, our president created mythical reasons to attack N Viet Nam. So and again, George Jr creates rumors of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify a very unAmerican activity - an unprovoked attack on a nation that does not even threaten to attack us.

Amazing how history can repeat itself every 30 some years.

I do hate when people say that, its like asymmetrical warfare suddenly popped out of the ground on S11.

But that was containment!!! :rolleyes: Remember that? Looks kinda quaint in retrospect.

The only reason they didn't take out saddam the first time is because what would happen afterwards would be one big, ugly mess. Its the same reason that half the republican party elders are saying no now, the cleanup and possible aftermath are going to be a disaster.

Really? Cut off support sure, but double credibility? With who? Israel?

Iraq would be worse. This may come as a shock but allot of them actually like their leader, and dislike the US, unbelievable as that may seem.

That's a dangerous statement to make on the Cellar when we're supposed to be a couple of days away from being informed of the proof.

This in great contrast to his predecessor, who was content to ignore the enemies that did exist.

Something I hadn't read until yesterday: while it's probably a non-starter to try to link Iraq and al Queda, Iraq is very tightly traceable to the 1993 WTC bombing which, if it had worked, would have killed more people than the latest one.

Yup, they shot first. Do you care?

No, with every other tinpot dictator in the world, and especially with the Palestinians, who respect force and the will to use it.

No, it's not like that, nor did I say it was.

I was responding to a comment that was clearly grounded in a point-of-view driven by symmetric warfare thinking: "Israel has better delivery systems than Iraq"...as if that really mattered.

tw, I'm far from alone in thinking Iraq has and is developing WMD. Just the fact that he's worked so hard to keep the effective inspections he agreed to from happening is suggestive, if not probative.

Very soon I think we'll see which WMDs are "only rumors"...without randomly spraying ad hominems around.

Funny how that didn't work for the Israelis.

In many ways, that's an outdated thinking mode, my friend. It's left over from the Cold War. Sure, peoples and leaders fear retaliation for their actions, and that keeps war from breaking out every day. The world hasn't reached Fukiyama's New World Order (or was it Huntington? I always get them confused.) yet. But certain aspects do apply. When you're a population that is on the bottom rung of the world, being taken for a ride by the West (at least, according to your perception), no amount of force in the world will stop you from feeling resentful. And if that force killed your brother, and your neighbor's brother, and half the people you know, then you're going to fight back before that force is brought to bear upon you. Mary Robinson, the outgoing UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, called this the 'cycle of impunity.'
The difference is, in the Cold War, there were two groups that were on top - the US and its allies and the Soviet Union and its communist allies. Now you can't really choose a side if the ones on top seem to be bringing you down.

That could be as much to do with sovereignty as anything else. We don't have too many child rights abuses in this country - well, not gross ones, and those that do occur are generally dealt with (that's a whole different can of worms, but I'm trying to make a point here). But we haven't ratified the 1979 Child Rights Treaty (sorry, I don't remember the name of the treaty off the top of my head), making us one of only 3 or 4 countries to not do so. Our reasoning for this (and many other treaties, who can say Kyoto? ICC?) is that we don't want anyone invading our sovereignty. Now, if you were a dictator, wouldn't you want to ensure that you had the same rights to sovereignty that the most powerful nation on earth does? I wouldn't want inspectors coming in and poking around in my affairs, whether I had something to hide or not. In this country, it's called right to privacy. On an international scale, terms like "transparancy" get thrown about. I'm not disputing the possibility of wmd, I'm just saying that disagreements with inspectors don't automatically mean he's making them.

I'm not sure you really understand the dynamics of the Israel/Palestine mess. The general sentiment in the Arab world is that Israel is a bully and the Palestineans deserve the right to self-determination, not to find themselves facing bullets, tanks and missiles (and the Israelis also have a right to not be blown up by a suicide bomber. I'm not picking a side in that argument here.). In fact, several UN resolutions have called for Israel to do just that, and Israel basically ignored them, and we supported Israel - so a lot of that anger got transferred onto us. So, how is our bullying Saddam going to weaken their support of Palestine?

We're always a couple days away from being informed of the proof - which, this time, is coming from Tony Blair, not our leaders. (If our administration has announced any plans to stop hiding behind the 'national security' excuse - as valid or invalid as it may be - I haven't heard them.) Our administration seems to believe that secrecy and unilateralism are the only acceptable modus operandi. Hopefully, Bush's efforts before Congress and the UNGA will be worthwhile and not just lip service.

They most certainly can. Americans aren't going to stop consuming any less oil, our strategic reserve isn't going to last forever, and we only have 3% of the world's oil, even counting that 6-12 month supply up in Alaska. So there would be little to no economic impact in, say, Saudi Arabia, of higher price fixing on society. However, if there were, and there was a revolution, you'd better believe we'd be sending troops in there instantly to help the current monarchy. We wouldn't want an even more extremist regime to rise to power and tell us we couldn't have their oil anymore. That would really kill our economy.

The same thing would probably happen in many Arab nations. Israel's March attack on the West Bank is probably just a microcosm of how the Arab world will react.
I wasn't aware of that. But is that out of fear of Saddam or Arafat?

Or note that Anthony Zinni was forced to wait for 2 hours for the Moroccan diplomats to meet with him back when he was trying to stop Israel from rolling tanks straight through the West Bank. That's a huge diplomatic insult.

Tony Blair also reportedly warned Bush last week that attacking Iraq wasn't the best idea. So maybe even our closest European ally isn't too thrilled (their public definately isn't).

There's also the argument that Bush is just doing a masterful job of wagging the dog. Notice how there was a renewed fervor about Iraq in the press as soon as the media started looking into Harkin's business dealings?

"Sovereignty" was the excuse used to throw the inspectors out, and doesn't speak at all to the run-arounds, shell games, three-card monte and hand-jobs they were given while they were still in-country. Iraq waived its sovereignty in regard to weapons inspection in order to avoid prosecution of the war right on through to Bagdad and beyond.

Now the bazzar is open again: "What will you give us in return for us doing what we already agreed to do?" After their Kuwaiti land-grab fell though, Iraq should not be surprised if their own cries of "Sovereignty!" fall on deaf ears.

Re: Re: Re: Re: And so it begins
 

That's a ridiculous argument. Is that how we should determine when a particular nation or regime is a threat to us -- when their neighbors start to get nervous? I guess we can get rid of the FBI. I'm sure we can just trust Iran to let us know if Saddam is up to anything fishy.

Get outside the US - or even get away from this admininstration's closest supporters, and there is little reason to believe that Iraq has WMD. If US news services such as Time Magazine really reported news, then you would see how little the world agrees with George Jr and C Rice. If that evidence existed, then countries with spies in Iraq would not be disputing George Jr's claims. A proven existance of WMD is essential before anyone can justify an attack on Iraq. The UN will not authorize an attack on Iraq because the evidence does not exist - Chancellor Shröder's thinking. How to get around George Jr without destroying a long term relationship with America.

Before we can solve the problem, first Iraq's neighbors must see a threat. Unfortunately, Iraq will have to use some weapons on a neighbor before we have any right to attack - before anyone will see the threat. Those are realities of life.

Even worse, if he does have WMD and we do attack Iraq, then we are still the loser. As hermit22 notes:
Hermit22 provides but a few negative consequences if we unilaterally attack. The negative consequences to American would be worldwide.

Why were we so successful in the 1990 Gulf War? Every world embassy in Bagdhah was a spy center for the US led coalition. We paid almost nothing of the $100billion+ to fight that war. We obtained unprecendent logistical support from virtually any country we required. That means even JP4 refineries in the Signapore region changed whole production and delivery schedules to provide special, emergency support to US military needs. Countries throughout the world helped to keep military supply and actions secret - even going so far as to not make it known where US transports were or were going. Oil producing countries such as Venezuela and Mexico made special efforts to maintain and if necessasry, supplement world oil supplies. Did you know of hundreds of trains, just in southern Europe alone, specially diverted and rushed into service just to get US military into Saudia Arabia - so that the 101st Airborne was not a Saddam speed bump?

None of these advantages will be made available if we unilaterally attack Iraq. Why do you think the military keeps leaking attack plans? This attack nonsense being pushed down their throat will mean a second Gulf War not as successful and negative consequences for US military and intelligence services worldwide. Those military men understand the consequeces after fighting has stopped. The US will be #1 target of every suicide bomber. For those who don't watch the middle east, the US currently is not a #1 target. We were the #1 target last time we unilaterally interfered - in Lebanon. Remember all those dead in the Marine barracks and at both 'truck bombed' US Embassies in Lebanon? Those negative consequences are directly traceable to a Reagan need to attack 'terrorists' in Lebanon.

Our treaties do not say we must defend our allies. It says our allies must first maintain sufficient forces and defend themselves. First they must take the proper attitude and provisions. Only when they get in trouble, only then are we obligated to help. Iraq is first and foremost a problem of adjacent nations - none of which see a threat.

Already in too many parts of the world, other countries don't bother to provide sufficient military because the US will pay for it all. Take Europe as a classic example. Except for Britian, not one European nation can conduct any signficant warfare beyond their borders. Why bother? The US taxpayer provides Euorpe with all the necessary military both in Europe and overseas.

At some point, we must let the childern sink or swim. If not, they will never grow up. The middle east is just that. If Saddam is the threat as claimed by this meddling administration, then Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Syria, and Russia would be right in, on, and against the threat. None see a threat - and virtually all have spies in Iraq. We don't even have spies in country. They who have people on the ground don't see a threat that George Jr claims. If the threat exists, they will be the first ones at risk.

On Sept 12, George Jr goes before the UN to make his case. We have already seen some test ballons floated. None took flight. Why? There is no evidence of a threat. The threat only exists because the threat might exist. But since this administration has first decided a threat exists and then goes looking for the evidence, then everything George Jr and company say about Iraq between now and Sept 12 must be viewed like it was Gulf of Tonkin. This administration had decided Iraq was a threat before they had any evidence. Already the US has lost credibility throughout the world - and George Jr has not yet finished making his case.

This "Iraq has WMD" is but one more reason, in a long list of reasons, why other governments - America's closest friends - are saying off the record that they don't trust this President. They are hoping that George Jr will not be around for a second term so that they can again cooperate with America.

A unilteral attack on Iraq without Saddam first attacking will have far more negative consequences than any WMD that Saddam may have. One need only learn the lessons of Reagan, Oliver North, the USS New Jersey, and Lebanon to understand how destructive an attack on Iraq will be for all Americans throughtout the world. That is what major Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III understand.

Even Henry Kissinger (who favors an attack) says there is no evidence of WMD (Scary - Kissinger was also a contributor to that report that advocated confiscation of Saudia Arabian oil fields). Regardless of whether those WMD exist or not, we cannot attack without definitive proof of their existance. Even rumored proof will not be sufficient. The negative consequences of this presidents speculations, if acted upon, will be far reaching.

Keep in mind the difference here. On 1 Aug 1990 (11PM Eastern time), I knew we must attack Saddam with no reservations. I had been predicting the war months earlier. Back then, this was a minority viewpoint - even in the George Sr administration. Facts then made a military campaign necessary. One might then conclude I am a hawk. No. There were fundamentally essential reasons for going to war. None currently exist in Iraq. Therefore am I a dove? No. I use sources far beyond those who know only what is on Ch 6 Action News. Those same sources that demonstrated the 1990 Gulf War is necessary also demonstrate the fallicy of attacking Iraq today.

I'm not sure you really understand the dynamics of the Israel/Palestine mess. The general sentiment in the Arab world is that Israel is a filthy, dirty stain on their part of the map, and that the Palestinians represent the current best hope of demolishing them in as many number as possible. That's why, for instance, Hussein rewards the families of every suicide bomber with $25,000. That's why, for instance, the Saudis held a TV telethon to support those same families. That's why, for instance, the voices in the mosques in Arabia call not for peaceful settlements, but for Allah's help in destroying the filthy infidels. That's why, for instance, companies that want to do business with Arabic countries don't dare put Israel on their maps of the region.

When the Palestinians demand the end to occupation, they don't mean an end to occupation in the territories where they are. They mean an end to occupation of all of Israel. Not only the West Bank and Gaza... all of it.

And how exactly do you know they have spies in country? How do you know we don't?

And here you say it's hard to link Hussein to terrorism. You did it with no trouble at all.

Read books by ex-intelligence officers. It takes a decade just to build an effective intelligence network. We had almost none in 1990s Iraq. We have even less today since we have no embassies there. We cannot recruit. We cannot contact local sources. Our intelligence people sit outside the country hoping something will filter out. We have fallen back upon electronic methods. However other nations such as Germany et al, have little trouble supporting agents inside Iraq. They have an embassy there. Their people are not denied access. Every nation spies. Spying is even about requesting information from a reporter about what is happening inside government as well as buying secrets. Israel even has spies in the US - as we all fully are aware from news stories.

This is not new. Much of what we learned after 11 Sept was because we suddenly had access to so much in-country middle east intelligence from other friendly nations such as France. In some countries we have excellent intelligence. Iraq is not one since we have no one there that can contact local spies - essential in recruiting and contacting information sources.

Do we have one spy in country? Maybe. But one is too close to zero and too little information to be relevant.

That is not how the Middle East works. If we attack Iraq, then we become targets of most every of Saddam's Middle East enemies. Need I cite the Muslim Brotherhood who actually contacted the CIA to help in the murder of Syria's Assad? Syria's Assad, Iraq's Saddam, Egypt's Mubarak, and Libya's Kadafi - all adversaries. And yet all are targets of the Muslim Brotherhood. What happens if the US attacks Iraq? Then Americans become targets of the Muslim Brotherhood - those same people who hate Saddam. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand Middle East politics. Just because we attack their enemy, then we instead become their enemy - because we are the outside infidel who interferes.

Welcome to the complexity of the Middle East. Best to first let locals define who attacks whom and only get involved when it becomes as clear cut as a Kuwait invasion. Interfering too early only makes America a target of everyone. But then 1980s Lebanon is where we became everyone's enemy because we only attacked two Muslim factions. I had assumed you understood how these politics work. But then I forget how little too many really read/hear about what happens outside of Philly.

I was just at a funeral where the minister had just returned from Kenya. That naivity by most Americans - and even worse he cited KYW "all news all the time" - was his very first complaint about coming back to his homeland. Most of us don't have a clue about the world, and therefore would support an unprovoked surprise attack on Saddam. Ignorance here is dangerous - made moreso by a President well known for his ignorance of the world.

Read Shröder's comments since they represent the opinions of most of America's closest friends.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/05/in...pe/05SCHR.html
The German Chancellor has now changed his mind - maybe because so many other American 'friends' are quietly saying same to him. Notice comments normally made by countries such as France are instead coming from a country that usually remains quiet and most suportive of the US position even when they don't fully agree with that American position. It demonstrates how poor Geroge Jr has support even among America's closest friends.

Shröder will now oppose any UN support for an Iraq attack AND will not support any attack even if approved by the UN. Read why he takes that position in the NY Times article.

I'm afraid that you've grossly oversimplified the situation. Look at the Declaration of Principles, which ended the first Intifada and promised the Palestineans the right to self-determination. Look at Crown Prince Abdullah's offer to recognise Israel if they withdraw to pre-1967 borders. That telethon? That was for the thousands of homeless Palestineans Israel created when they sent tanks into the West Bank last March.
Wahabbism is the form of Islam supported by the Saudi family. It's like the Islamic version of Falwell - extreme and not generally accepted by mainstream Muslims. Yet the leader of the nation called for an Arabic recognition of Israel. Interesting.
Finally, Palestinean hopes of a full state of Palestine were dashed with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. International documents and agreements in the past 50 years that pertain to the matter have shown a gradual progression to acceptance of a 2-state resolution (which, of course, culminated in the Declaration of Principles). It's the unending cycle of violence in the region that has hardened hearts in places like Egypt and Jordan, for example.
The evening news isn't going to tell you any of this. The I/P situation isn't cut and dry. There are no good guys and bad guys to the issue - both sides have been brutal to each other. But the American media generally takes Israel's side, so Americans generally follow the lead. My master's thesis (I'm starting the program this year) is on this region, with an as-yet-undetermined focal point. I can point anyone in the right direction for resources that will give a broader explanation than a few words on a message board.

So, um, Hussein controls every terrorist in the world? Or are the terrorists responding to what they see as the perceived injustices of American (or whomever) actions and policy?

Sure, if you believe the House of Saud is more reputable than the Israeli government. It's one's word against the other.

Now, I find it convenient to side with the freely-elected government that respects human rights and doesn't rigidly control its nation's media to help ensure that it stays in power. (I know, I know, that means I don't side with the Bush administration. C'mon, that joke's too obvious.)

But also, when the name of the organization that held the telethon is the "Saudi Committee for Support of the Al Aqsa Intifada", it kinda gives it away. Yeah. Little bit.

Sure, no, that makes sense to me.

If Brazil were attacked, the US, a fellow Christian nation, would retaliate against the attacker in kind solely on the basis of its Christianity.

No of course it wouldn't, because that's too obviously insanity. Yet that's how the radical Islamic culture would work.

Now for the extra credit essay question. The long-term project of radical Islam is an Islamic world run by Islamic governments. Given their Brotherhood nature and their belief in a hereafter in which great rewards go to those who die in holy war, would the proliferation of nuclear weapons deeply into the radical Islamic circle be a good thing, or a really really really really bad thing? (Remember that Mutually Assured Destruction is the only known deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons. Please show your work.)

Oh, and one more thing tw, just for the fun of it:

Getting a lecture on not starting a war from a German is a little.. uh... ironic, don't cha think?

Ok, all this is toward Undertoad. Sorry Dude.

Actually, the general German sentiment these days is toward pacifism. Most mainstream Germans are embarassed, for lack of a better term, by World War II.

Your idea of radical Islam is generally correct. Saudi Arabia's rulers are the closest to a set of radical Islam rulers that I can think of (if someone else can find another one, then I stand corrected). The funny thing, though - Hussein is a secular ruler. He may impose ethnic restrictions, but he is as secular as Musharaff over in Pakistan. In many Arab countries, the trend was/is toward a more liberal set of ideals. Even Iran has been making a steady shift away from the hard-line clerics that overthrew the Shah. So you can't characterize the entire region as being full of radical Islamic mujahideen. I think my earlier Falwell corollary is fairly appropriate.

As for the telethon... the publicly declared intent was to raise money for the victims of the Israeli attacks. As for the motives of the organizers...it's very easy to assign motives from the outside. And without the numbers to show where the money actually went, not much more than that can be known.

I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea for a fringe group to get a hold of wmd. But when there's been no link provided between a leader and these groups and we declare that we're going to attack anyway, because we don't like the guy and think he's a threat? That's modern-day idealogical imperialism.

There's an excellent series of articles that started on Slate this week about what to do with the Middle East. While I can't say I agree with everything the author has said, so far, he seems to generally be on the right path:

link

The series is still in progress. Check it out.

And finally, deterrance becomes an archaic principle when we can't point the enemy out on a map. I don't know what should replace it though.

Oh hey, don't say sorry. I love this stuff and I love it more when I'm proven wrong. Which happens regularly, which is why I've gone with my current user title.

The only way we can figure this stuff out is by putting it all out there. We all put in and I think we all learn.

Heh, fair enough. Just didn't want you thinking I was picking on you, especially since I'm generally just a lurker.

To illustrate his open-minded approach, UT tells a favorite anecdote about economist John Maynard Keynes.

"It was late in Keynes's career, and a young man approached him after a talk and asked Keynes to explain a contradiction between what he'd said that night and an article he'd written earlier in his career. Keynes's response was simply: 'When I'm wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?'"

OK, so I made that up about UT telling the story ... but it could be true.

I would never quote Keynes. It would be... wrong.

Largest numbers of American immigrants were from ... Germany.

Yes, even Germans can be reformed. Just stick them in a melting pot - be it America or the European Union.

Original purpose of NATO? To keep America in, the USSR out, and Germans down.


Considering everything posted here and even Chancellor Shröder's benchmark political statements (his recent change of position), George Jr's speech to the UN on 12 Sept will be major news. Literally everything in the Bush doctrine - the 'axis of evil' - is now dependent on what he says in that speech. George Jr has no choice. He must make a case for the invasion of Iraq since nothing else was more important to his adminstration.

George Jr's admininstration was planning to justify attacks on Iraq before 11 Sept and before he publically declared an 'axis of evil'. For some strange reason, the elimination of Saddam has always been #1 on George Jr's list of priorities. 11 Sept and Intafada II simply distracted him.

This will be George Jr's showdown. He must prove that Saddam, the recognized leader of a sovereign nation, a UN member, can be removed by force only because of what he may do. This is not an easy task especially since so many major American allies have already declared that ervidence of a threat does not exist.

Adlai Stevenson went before the UN during the Cuban Missile crisis with his "I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over ..." confronation - complete with secret satellite photographs. Krushchev's famous "We will bury you" while slamming his shoe on the pulpit. Something rare in the UN - a dramatic confrontation. George Jr's speech must be on par with those famous historical events - to justify an unprovoked or suprise attack on Iraq. I have no doubt that he will be at his best in that speech. I doubt he can provide sufficient evidence to sway the French, Germans, Russians, and China. Expect that speech to be carried live on all commercial broadcast stations of any consequence.

Oh, dear. Still at it, eh?

"Unprovoked" there could even be debate about. But the only creatures that could possibly be *surprised* will be purple gas-filled jellyfish from Alpha Centaurus III.

9/11 was a surprise attack. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. But Iraq? Do you really need the negative connotation of "surprise attack" so badly you're willing to abuse the word that much?

You have a career awaiting you writing ad copy.

Re: Re: Re: And so it begins
 

If my name were Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't trust that Israeli intelligence WOULDN'T figure out the source of the fissionables. It's not like there's really more than two viable possibilities (Pakistan being the other). I also wouldn't trust that the nuked Israelis wouldn't nuke me back even without hard evidence.

Re: Re: Re: Re: And so it begins
 

I was only talking about isotope analysis...which still won't tell you who bombed you. Isotope analysis *might* even reveal that the source was a US reactor, albeit one with bad security. Currently the anthrax attacks are thought by some to have been carried out with anthrax stolen from US labs.

The problem wih Saddam having WMDs is two -fold: he might use them himself, or more likely provide them to non-state terrorists he considers "friendly". alQueda kamikazi bent on jihad are a much better (and cheaper) delivery system than a Scud clone.

Not deeply related to this point, I nontheless found this essay interesting...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...115884039.html

Hmmm seems a missed quite a bit. After reading though I decided i didn't miss much at all ;)

Yea i saw that essay in the paper here (I get the age and the Australian, generally i prefer age age opinion for ideas and australian for....technical accuracy). The only problem is that it doesn't address *why* there is a rise in fundamentalist Islam and thus misses the bigger picture nor does it make any great points. Solid piece of nonwriting.