Got enough information?

[Undertoad]

Does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Only those who worship what George Jr claims would say yes.

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.

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.

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?

double credibility? With who? Israel?

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

[MaggieL]

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

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.

[hermit22]

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

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In many ways, that's an outdated thinking mode, my friend.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.

Just the fact that he's worked so hard to keep the effective inspections he agreed to from happening is suggestive, if not probative.

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.

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'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?

Does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Only those who worship what George Jr claims would say yes.
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Three weeks ago they started smallpox innoculations.

I wasn't aware of that. But is that out of fear of Saddam or Arafat?

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.

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?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22

That could be as much to do with sovereignty as anything else.

"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.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by tw
If Saddam was such a threat, then at least one adjacent nation would fear him.

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.

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
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.

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:

hardly anyone is talking about the repercussions of the attack.

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.

[Undertoad]

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?

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.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by tw
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.

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

[Undertoad]

The US will be #1 target of every suicide bomber.

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

[tw]

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

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.

[tw]

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

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.

[tw]

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.

[hermit22]

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.

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.

The US will be #1 target of every suicide bomber.
And here you say it's hard to link Hussein to terrorism. You did it with no trouble at all.

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?

[Undertoad]

That telethon? That was for the thousands of homeless Palestineans Israel created when they sent tanks into the West Bank last March.

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.

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.

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.)

[Undertoad]

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?