Got enough information?

[Griff]

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?

[Undertoad]

A nuke would not be for us against mainland US. Ill repeat for those up the back NOT FOR MAINLAND USA.

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.

[Undertoad]

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."

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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?

[russotto]

Originally posted by Undertoad
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.

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by russotto

As for dropping one on Tel Aviv -- Saddam probably isn't that stupid. Israel almost certainly has better delivery systems than Iraq...

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.

[jaguar]

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:

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.

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.

[hermit22]

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.

[Undertoad]

<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.

[Nic Name]

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

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
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.

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:

the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent [in the Middle East]. The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain from planners to fiancier, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader.

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?

[tw]

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:

It is now well recognised that much injustice was involved in campaigns against communists and anarchists after the first world war, in the internment of over 110,000 Japanese-Americans during the second world war and in the McCarthyite witch-hunts at the start of the cold war. Such things could never happen again, some may argue. Yet the adminstration has been eager to start TIPS, a Terrorism Information and Prevention System in which millions of citizens will be asked to spy upon one another and send their titbits to a central database. Recent legislation will allow the police to demand records from any business about any person, including medical records from hospitals, educational records from universities, even the reading tastes of shoppers in bookshops and borrowers from libraries.

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.

[tw]

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:

So when Brent Scowcroft, George Bush senior's national-security chief, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal on August 15th called “Don't Attack Saddam”, it was the first sign of serious political debate. Mr Scowcroft argued that there was no real evidence tying the Iraqi dictator to terrorism. An attempt to overthrow him could destabilise the region and distract America from its real target, al-Qaeda.
Mr Scowcroft's broadside had echoes among mainstream Republican internationalists. A former secretary of state in the first Bush administration, Lawrence Eagleburger, concurred that Iraq was not necessarily public enemy number one. Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana chimed in: “Unless we plan this carefully, we're likely to destabilise other countries in the Middle East.” ...
Dick Armey, a congressman from Texas, was blunter. Mr Hussein, he said, has not shown “sufficient provocation” and “we Americans do not make unprovoked attacks.”

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.

[jaguar]

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

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

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 un-American activity - an unprovoked attack on a nation that does not even threaten to attack us.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.