Got enough information?

Undertoad · 08-31-2002, 10:13 PM

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.

elSicomoro · 09-01-2002, 01:21 AM

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.)

jaguar · 09-01-2002, 04:45 AM

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.

warch · 09-02-2002, 06:56 PM

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.

jaguar · 09-03-2002, 01:38 AM

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.

MaggieL · 09-03-2002, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
...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.

Undertoad · 09-03-2002, 09:31 AM

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.

elSicomoro · 09-03-2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
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.

Nic Name · 09-03-2002, 01:07 PM

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.

MaggieL · 09-03-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
I do think that Iraq's sudden interest in letting inspectors back in is bogus.

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.

Undertoad · 09-03-2002, 01:47 PM

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."

jaguar · 09-03-2002, 06:01 PM

Quote:

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

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.

Tobiasly · 09-03-2002, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
You can defend against chem and bio, you can't against a nuke.

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.

MaggieL · 09-03-2002, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
You can defend against chem and bio, you can't against a nuke.

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.

jaguar · 09-04-2002, 03:27 AM

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

08-31-2002, 10:13 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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.

09-01-2002, 04:45 AM	#3
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	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. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

09-03-2002, 01:38 AM	#5
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	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. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

09-01-2002, 01:21 AM	#2
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	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.)

09-02-2002, 06:56 PM	#4
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	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.

09-03-2002, 09:31 AM	#7
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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.

09-03-2002, 01:07 PM	#9
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	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.

09-03-2002, 01:47 PM	#11
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)