A way out of Iraq

[Uryoces]

We spent a good two hours discussing the Iraq and North Korea situations Friday night at work. Not that there are Iraqis and North Koreans here at work Friday nights, I mean ... Anyway. We got interesting viewpoints from around the room. Mike, the quiet guy, talked about bible prophecy and the end of the world. I kindly threw in that the billion year cycle of the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. Beau thought we should have removed Saddam the first time around. I thought we left him there so we had a boogeyman to bring up if we needed one. Darren was a Gulf War I veteran; he thought we should have gotten Saddam the first time. He didn't like the idea of going back to or sending anyone to Iraq. He had some pretty gruesome stories about some of his buddies and some Iraqi tankers [men who drive tanks] they met up with. Lots of waiting, searing heat, numbing cold interspersed with bits of life-threatening action. Ruben thought we should have immediately gone in after Saddam if we thought he had weapons, no diplomacy. I think Ruben was kidding. Maybe...

I think we should have sent Dick Marcinko in after Saddam; a surgical strike. We have a policy of not assassinating political leaders 'cause it's wrong'. Last attempt was against Iddi Amin in 1975, which was CIA sponsored. I give a hearty and confused 'WTF' at the no assassination rule. Why are we going to war against the Iraqi then?

Someone will undoubtedly bring up our involvement with Afghanistan. We originally assisted the Mujahadeen -- of which Osama bin Laden was a member -- against the Soviet-backed government. Once the war was over, and we were through; we left. It's been suggested that we should have stayed and helped rebuild, but we didn't. We weren't popular with the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia should have stepped in, an Islamic country helping another, but they didn't.

It was kind of an interesting to discover that Osama bin Laden went to the Saudi defense minister and asked that they not allow the US into Saudi Arabia, that he be allowed to drive Saddam out. He didn't want the US's presence on holy ground. The Saudi government told him no, and Osama blew a seal. Whether or not Osama is pinnipedophelic is another story, but by this I mean 'went crazy'. He began advocating the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, and of course they weren't going to stand for that. He was branded a criminal and exiled. It became a case of me against my cousin; my cousin and I against the world.

I don't really see our government as good or evil. It is simply a massive entity that has no malice nor compassion. Our attempts at obtaining oil have produced some strange partnerships, and lead to some catastrophic problems. I don't think anyone in the government meant for anything to happen. We definitely need to reduce our dependence on oil, foreign or domestic. However that's for another post.

So to the heart of it: I think Saddam needs to buy a black market nuclear weapon. It may not even have to have the plutonium core; just enough to demonstrate there was a bomb. The Iraqi government needs to bring it forth -- to the UN, not the US -- and say "Well, we were lying. We were working on this, and thought better of it. You caught us. Boy you inspectors sure are good." The job is accomplished. Bush has proof of his nuclear weapon, and we can go home. Saddam saves face by giving it to the UN, and proving they are a capable nation, Bush saves face because he was right. I think congress and the senate will tell Bush to back down, he found what he was looking for. We can all exchange cards and flowers, and call it done. We can then send Jimmy Carter and some Marx Brothers DVD's to North Korea to settle that problem. I really get the feeling China is not going to step in to help North Korea if it does anything stupid. They're going to try and smooth things over, keep everyone talking, but that's it. But, as I said before, that's for another post.

[Thadius]

Thoughts from across the pond.

We have taken our part in world history and invaded, educated, molested, corrupted whichever way you see it being, and left our western mark on the Camel Jockeys of the east.

By doing these things we have exposed our underbellies to each other and have seen cross capabilities. On both sides there is distaste for cultures and practices. The suppression of thought and speech goes against our western beliefs, where as in the east it is there to preserve the sanctity of there gods. Is it right that we ' look in ' at other nations and tut, tisk and snort our disapproval at them? If it happened to us would we react the same?

Will Saddam role over and expose his underbelly? Probably not.. There will always be the background argument that he should have been extracted the first time. He has attracted a vast range of extremists to his side who will fire the gun that he may have loaded, and there we must act.

Since 9/11 there has been a major focus on world terrorism and more and more sideline nations are being drawn in. The specialist security forces are monitoring activities world-wide and require the assistance of local governments from all countries to maintain this level of vigilance. If Bush and Blair apply over bearing pressure on the sidelines they will become objectionable and stubborn.
So let them rest, and believe they are not involved, but let them be grateful the fight is there.

The United Kingdom has suffered internal terrorism for a long period of time; most of this would have been ‘Conventional’ terror i.e.; bombs and bullets. This is hard enough to live with on its own. The new breed of terror is taking more horrific forms, and is the world prepared to accept a terrorist who will die without thought or conscience for who he is killing?

Are Bush and Blair the saviours of the playground, maybe not. They have both seen the people of there country damaged by terrorism and are standing up to be counted.

[mw451]

Uryoces, while I think your solution is an interesting solution, and the basis for a great covert action novel/movie, I don't think that it would satisfy GWBush. He is just hell-bent on getting rid of Saddam. Look at who is this biggest risk, North Korea or Iraq. North Korea is developing nukes, Saddam has nothing, (well nothing we've found yet). We should be turning our attention to N. Korea and disarming them first, then focus on terror/Osama, then Saddam.

Think about this, one Stealth Bomber flies into N. Korea and bombs the reactor site, destroying it. One bomber, one bomb. Conflict over.

Why haven't we done this???

It's the simplest solution to the problem.

Your opinion?

[vsp]

Saddam: Okay, okay, here -- here's my bomb. (hands it to Blix)

Bush: See? He DID have a bomb!

Saddam: That's the only one I had.

Bush: That means he's HIDING TWENTY MORE! CHAR-R-R-R-RGE!


Next plan?

mw - Unfortunately, that can't work. We don't have a military option with North Korea for a number of reasons. For one, we have 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea, within easy striking distance of North Korean missiles. We also have two allies - Japan and South Korea - within easy striking distance. DPRK would be foolish to hit Japan, but, as jaguar said previously, they are blessed with some of the worst leadership of any modern nation. South Korea is a much more likely target, and - here's the kicker - South Koreans would be more angry at the US than DPRK over a DPRK strike because of an already rising anti-American sentiment, due largely in part to the recent acquittal of two American soldiers in the accidental death of two South Korean girls. South Korea would throw a shit fit if we struck North Korea.

The worst part is that DPRK knows this, and they are going to continue to escalate the situation because of our inability to strike right now. The only time a military option becomes viable is when we are directly threatened (read: a DPRK strike on American targets is imminent). We're not there yet.

Diplomacy is the only option we have right now.

[That Guy]

Originally posted by Uryoces
So to the heart of it: I think Saddam needs to buy a black market nuclear weapon....

I'm surprised they haven't planted something on him yet (I guess they missed this week's episode of NYPD Blue).
On the other hand, I've read and heard a few times that they don't have the satellite capabilities to even launch a long-range missile. Then again, I'm sure Saddam has a Sony PS2 he could forfeit for a few hours.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by Uryoces
We can then send Jimmy Carter and some Marx Brothers DVD's to North Korea to settle that problem

Its going to take a hell of lot more than Marx Brothers films and Jimmy Carter to teach those dipsticks to have a sense of humor...that *is* what you're talking about , isn't it? :p

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by blowmeetheclown
Then again, I'm sure Saddam has a Sony PS2 he could forfeit for a few hours.

*A* PS/2? How soon we forget...try 4,000 PS/2s.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21118

[jaguar]

My god, that is clear evidence of TERRORIST activity, only a TERRORIST could possibly want a PS2! Quick, nuke him before he gets the cheats to Vice City!

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Uryoces
We can all exchange cards and flowers, and call it done. We can then send Jimmy Carter and some Marx Brothers DVD's to North Korea to settle that problem.

Actually, I was reading Wednesday that Kim Jong Il has every Daffy Duck cartoon out there...hmmm...

[That Guy]

Originally posted by jaguar
My god, that is clear evidence of TERRORIST activity, only a TERRORIST could possibly want a PS2! Quick, nuke him before he gets the cheats to Vice City!

Or "Nice City."

[jaguar]

You know i keep hearing what an SOB the PS2 is to code on, somehow i don't think this is the most serious risk out there.

*sighs*, it's all just so silly.
DPRK mobilise troops, reopen reactors and start reprocessing fule rods to get plutonium for an admitted nuclear weapons program and the situation according to Bush will have a diplomatic solution. Keep in mind the DPRK has one of they worlds most formidable armies, and one of the largest, far larger than the ROK and US forces in the area combined as well as two suspected Nukes.

They find absolutely sweet fuck all in Iraq in terms of either links to terrorists or Chem/Bio weaponary (except for some ancient, empty chem shells which were probably sold to them by the US in the first place) despite a huge concerted intel effort and well - by god we better get in there fast and bomb the bastards back to the stone age - clearly they're hiding something.

I think the difference is that they can't garantee they would win a DPRK/ROK shitfest without losing a few people and maybe a million or 3 Koreans and that might cause them to drop a populatiry point or two. Whereas Iraq they can just bomb to hell from 30,000 feet and no one cares about killing half a million god damned terrorist supporting sandniggers, right?

As I detailed earlier, the US does not have a military option in DPRK. It will be solved by diplomacy because we have no other choice.

I also think your explanation of the situation in Iraq is extremely oversimplified and somewhat assuming and erroneous (i.e., warheads that the US gave 'em? Where's your backup, or are you just being an asshole?)

I'm still not sold on the war in Iraq, but it's silly to act as though we're treating one separately from the other for any reason except the fact that they're entirely different situations.

[Hubris Boy]

originally posted by dave
Where's your backup, or are you just being an asshole?

     A sinister figure clad in black robes enters the thread.
     There are sounds of labored, mechanical breathing, with
     an ominous bass line playing in the background.

     "Hmmmm. The Force is strong in this one..."


"Dave..."

Dave looks around, startled.

"Dave... call him a mouthbreather"

"Never!" says Dave, firmly. "I could never... That would be too..."

"Do it, Dave! Use the power that you feel inside you!"

"Noooo......"

"Yes! Now! Come over to the Dark Side..."

[jaguar]

The US can take a military approach to the DPRK, it simply is not as 'easy' as it is in Iraq. That was my point.
As for pissing people off, bombing the fuck out of Iraq is going to whip half of the Middle East into an anti-USA frenzy - Saddam has been smart and made himself into the hero of both the Palestinians and Islam, it's pretty obvious why. Of course there isn't as much trade between most of the middle easy and the USA as there is between ROK and USA.

When you bomb shit you're always going to piss someone off, personally I think both military options are fucking stupid and demonstrate a horrible lack of foresight and thinking.

Chemical munitions...The weapons by all accounts were produced for use during the Iraq-Iran war - the same time the US was giving material aid in the form of both chemical and biological material to Iraq. According to some articles the warheads were imported(please note - none of the articles contradict this, some just don't mention it), but no one is saying where from. I'm a cynic. Join the dots. Maybe they were, maybe they were not, if they were, it's bloody ironic.

The other issue is the number of them, the prestigious sounding Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank seem to think Iraq has 25000 rockets designed for Chem payloads. 11 here and 11 there is hardly going to make up 25000. Never assume something is cunning deception when it could quite easily be sheer stupidity and mis-management. 11 shells is a disused section of a munitions storehouse dating form 20 odd years ago is hardly solid proof of an active and large weapons development and production program.

Look personally I would not be surprised if Iraq had a very large and active dev program, I’d be quite surprised if they didn't. On the other hand they quite possibly have been smart, and don't. The point is this is no smoking gun, and as an excuse to wipe out a country and absorb it into empire Americana, it's pretty fucking lame.