The looming war is not needed

[hudini36]

The inspections appear to be working. Iraq at this point in time appears to pose no threat to the world. inspections can and should be given the time they need to succeed.

Attacking Iraq based upon a first strike policy breaks the traditional view of the USA supporting international law. I grant that the USA at times has not lived up to this image. The Gulf of Tonkin incident comes clearly to mind.

Risking the destruction of the Iraqi oil fields, the world's economy, and antipathy from the Muslim world
for solely personal reasons is foolhardy in my opinion.

If Saddam Hussein is contained, and affectively disarmed by the inspection process, then I believe no rush to attack should traspire. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the UN, nor the United States, should not continue to pressure Iraq for compliance. Certainly a years difference in time with 250,000 American military personnel posed to invade at any time, would be a small price to pay regarding housing and maintaining a large military presence in the region to show the world that the USA is a just society. I repeat that the inspections should be allowed to go forth.

North Korea is another beast entirely. Perhaps pre-emptive air strikes against their nuclear reactors would be appropriate in short order.

[Jimbo]

hudini36 wrote "The inspections appear to be working. Anything after this statement cannot have much basis in reality.

[hudini36]

Why is that? Because they haven't found anything? Do you really want the USA to be looked upon by the rest of the world as a country that attacks without provocation? The only superpowers to do that in the last century were Germany and the Soviet Union. Obviously, you have fascist tendencies.

[Jimbo]

I "obviously have facist tendencies"? Get a grip! What I obviously have is a realistic understanding that Saddam is better at hiding than the bugged UN inspectors are at seeking.

[adios]

"If Saddam Hussein is contained, and affectively disarmed by the inspection process, then I believe no rush to attack should traspire."

It would be much appreciated if someone could explain this concept of containment to me in relation to Hussein and Iraq. If the UN allows Saddam to break the rules and follow the ones he wants to follow isn't he, Saddam, in effect making the rules or at the very least regnotiating the rules? I keep reading that he won't let a U2 spy plane fly over certain areas of Iraq to do inspections. Supposedly this is in direct violation of the UN regulations. Also is there any doubt that he has weapons of mass destruction?

[wren]

"Why is that? Because they haven't found anything? Do you really want the USA to be looked upon by the rest of the world as a country that attacks without provocation? The only superpowers to do that in the last century were Germany and the Soviet Union. Obviously, you have fascist tendencies."

Let me answer your question with a question: true the inspectors haven't found anything, but do you--in your wildest imagination--believe that's because there is nothing there? Further, the United States could not function if it lived only in worry over what other countries might think of us. But if we did, we would know the world would be sooo grateful if we took out this monster. The most greatful of all would be the people of Iraq. Of course my response is moot because your premise is wrong--we have been provoked. Furthermore, the list of superpowers in the last century to attack without provocation is quite a bit longer than Germany and the Soviet Union. (Remember Pearl Harbor?) And by the way, how is that relevent? Just for accuracy, please note that the Soviet Union was never a fascist country, it was a communist country. Their arch enemies were the fascists. Lastly, how is name calling ("fascist tendencies") when someone disagrees with you helpful?

Are you sorry we got involved in Kosovo, or Afghanistan?

[brad]

'Are you sorry we got involved in Kosovo'

its confirmed dyncorp is involved in white slavery/ prostituition over there.

so if you like 12 year old girls for 5 bucks or whatever then i guess youre glad we're over there.

[John Ho]

Why would we launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea? They have not been aggressive towards anyone during the current regime. That is ridiculous.

Furthermore, they have the capability to strike back against South Korea in short order due to the small size of the peninsula.

[hudini36]

I'm aware that Nazi's are right wing and that communists
are left wing. I guess that makes the USA look as though it is tilting to fascism. The USA has not been provoked, nor attacked by Iraq. The truth about 9/11 is that 100k was wired to Atta by the ISI one week before the event. That happens to be Pakistani intelligence. Saudis comprise the alleged hijackers. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. The Bush family through the Carlyle group was doing business for years with the Bin Laden family. They stopped about a month after 9-11.
At Least the Justice Dept didn't have to seize Carlyle assets like did with Prescott Bush's company in 1943 under the trading with the enemy statutes.(Brown Brothers Harriman subsidiaries continued to trade with the Nazis through 1943)

I do stand corrected that Japan also initiated unprovoked attacks in the 20th century. They were fascists, too. It isn't very good company that the USA will be joining soon.

On a side note, heroin production and exports have tripled
out of Afghanistan since US troops invaded. I wonder who might be allowing that?

[hudini36]

Because they have threatened the United States with nuclear strikes, they have the capability confirmed, and they have openly kidnapped Japanese and South Korean citizens. That is more than Iraq has the capability to do by a long shot.

[nicky g]

No country in the world would permit spy planes to fly over it. It makes no diffference, as Iraq doesn't have the capability to prevent them from flying.

Israel and Morroco have been in violation of many UN resolutions for far longer than Iraq. Resolutions incidentally that the US did not see fit to veto, and hence cannot blame the nature of the UN (eg non-democracies allowed to participate etc). Noone does anything about it, even though Morrocco for example could easily be forced to comply with resolutions on Western Sahara, for example. Not only are these not enforced but both coutnries are major beneficiaries of US aid and support. The idea that the Bush administration, or any other recent US adminisration, have the slightest respect for UN resolutions, or indeed any international agreements, is laughable. They're may be reasons for that, but either way, it's true. The war has nothing to do with enforcing UN resolutions, and when it starts the UN won't be involved, and the international community only in the most token of fashions.

[Clarkmeister]

"On a side note, heroin production and exports have tripled
out of Afghanistan since US troops invaded"

Seriously now. You can't really expect to throw BS like this up without citing a source now, can you?

[andyfox]

"he won't let a U2 spy plane fly over certain areas of Iraq"

-Would you allow a spy plane to fly over your country if it was surrounded by hundreds of thousands of troops from the most powerful country in the history of the world who had been threatening you with war continuously for many months?

[Jimbo]

"Would you allow a spy plane to fly over your country if it was surrounded by hundreds of thousands of troops from the most powerful country in the history of the world who had been threatening you with war continuously for many months?"

andy get back to me on that one. I am still trying to raise the down payment for my own little country. But I bet Ray Zee wouldn't! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Chris Alger]

Attacking Iraq unilaterally would also violate international law, specifically Article 51 of the UN Charter. To answer your question, containment means being put in a box. Iraq has no ability to attack anyone without suffering a devastating retalliation, so it is fully contained.

I don't believe that many accept the notion that violating international law provides a prima facie case for war. With as much logic one could argue that if the police catch you speeding and you do it again, that their failure to firebomb your house allows you to "break the rules and follow the one [you] want to follow."

"Also is there any doubt that he has weapons of mass destruction?"

I think there's at least doubt. Over 500 UNSCOM site inspections, numerous defectors and continuous satellite photography have no revealed any proof that he has them, although Iraq hasn't "accounted" for the destruction of all of them, yet there's general agreement that nearly all of the CBW's he used to have have been destroyed.

Yet you find no room for even doubt? Honestly, how much of this stems from the fact that our government keeps saying so in the news?

[Jimbo]

Chris wrote "yet there's general agreement that nearly all of the CBW's he used to have have been destroyed." General agreement among whom? The French, Germans, Russians, liberals and you? Yeah that is a credible group!!

[nicky g]

There is general agreement that 95% of the WMDs he had were destroyed, by everyone including the US. The weapons inspectors prior to 1998 verified it. The question is what happened to the other 5% and whether he produced or acquired any more since. That's twice you've been scathingly dismissive of something that even the warmongers don't actually dispute. There's no need, really. Though even so, I don't see what makes the Bush government any more credible than the French or Germans.

[Jimbo]

That's twice you've been scathingly dismissive of something that even the warmongers don't actually dispute. Only twice, gosh I am behind on that particular subject. There's no need, really. Really? What if I believe a casual reader might believe the inacuracies without a 2nd opinion? Though even so, I don't see what makes the Bush government any more credible than the French or Germans Could that be because you are living in Europe and I am not? Or perhaps it is because the French have billions invested in Iraq and are attempting to protect their investment. As for the Germans they still have a long way to go to earn credibility on any subject involving world politics.

As far as " only 5% of the WMD's are unaccounted for" Everything I have read or heard says you have the percentages backwards including quotes from Hans (sp?) Blick. Even if you were correct 5% of way too much of something very bad is still pretty darn bad.

[nicky g]

"Even if you were correct 5% of way too much of something very bad is still pretty darn bad."

I am correct. I'm not disputing that would be bad. It's spelt Blix. What he was referring to is the possibilty that what the inspectors have found this time round is only the tip of the iceberg of what is currently held; what I am referring to, and I believe you were disputing, is the WMDs that Iraq was known to have prior to the 1st Gulf War and original inspections.

"Or perhaps it is because the French have billions invested in Iraq and are attempting to protect their investment."
Maybe it is that. I'm not saying they're particularly more credible. You'd have to be blind though to not see the Bush government's interest in Iraqi oil. Why is it that you impute a fnancial concern (lrgely to do with oil) to the motives of the French, but not to a government that is stuffed full of people with a string of close ties to and former employment in the US oil industry? i don't see that you can have it both ways.

[Jimbo]

"Why is it that you impute a fnancial concern (lrgely to do with oil) to the motives of the French, but not to a government that is stuffed full of people with a string of close ties to and former employment in the US oil industry?" I can see why you question the motives of our government. My reasoning is twofold:
1) There are currently and for the forseeable future planty of oil reserves available without going to war for oil.
2) If oil was our primary concern we would have taken care of Saddam during the previos Bush administration. Same family connections after all.

I must wonder why you do not believe that we are both truly concerned about WMD attacks and why we should let Saddam break the terms of his Gulf war (unconditional) surrender well as the latest UN resolution regarding Iraq. Personally if someone consistently lied to me for over a decade eventually I will punish them if only to prevent future potential damage.

[adios]

"No country in the world would permit spy planes to fly over it. It makes no diffference, as Iraq doesn't have the capability to prevent them from flying."

If the flight altitude is low enough they can be interfered with.

"Israel and Morroco have been in violation of many UN resolutions for far longer than Iraq."

Whatever (I could say a lot about the differences here but it's not necessary) but the question still stands which is what a lot of you all don't seem want to address. If Saddam is constantly violating the regulations and you let him get away with it aren't you letting him, Saddam, re-write the UN regulations?

"Resolutions incidentally that the US did not see fit to veto, and hence cannot blame the nature of the UN (eg non-democracies allowed to participate etc). Noone does anything about it, even though Morrocco for example could easily be forced to comply with resolutions on Western Sahara, for example. Not only are these not enforced but both coutnries are major beneficiaries of US aid and support."

All this shows is that the UN is a very weak organization and it's weakness continues to be demonstrated with the handling of the Iraq situation.


"The idea that the Bush administration, or any other recent US adminisration, have the slightest respect for UN resolutions, or indeed any international agreements, is laughable."

Apparently France, Germany, and Russia don't have the slightest respect.

"They're may be reasons for that, but either way, it's true. The war has nothing to do with enforcing UN resolutions, and when it starts the UN won't be involved, and the international community only in the most token of fashions."

I disagree totally. Without the events leading up to the Gulf War and the subsequent military encounters you don't have UN Resolutions and inspectors nor justification for a US military action. Now look I don't want to have a war but if the Bush administration is right then what other way is there to hold Saddam's feet to the fire? I suppose if the USA invades Iraq and topples the Iraq ruling regime then shows evidence of WMD a lot of you'll say that the USA is fabricating it.

[adios]

Ok fair enough here is a link to the resolutions regarding Iraq. You be the judge as to how well he has complied:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2246037.stm

Again the question is if you let Saddam comply with those resolutions and portions of resolutions that he wants to comply with and let him resist those that he does not want to comply with, isn't he, Saddam, renogotiating the terms of the agreement?

[adios]

"I don't believe that many accept the notion that violating international law provides a prima facie case for war. With as much logic one could argue that if the police catch you speeding and you do it again, that their failure to firebomb your house allows you to "break the rules and follow the one [you] want to follow."

That's a ridiculous analogy not even close to the situation IMO.

"I think there's at least doubt. Over 500 UNSCOM site inspections, numerous defectors and continuous satellite photography have no revealed any proof that he has them, although Iraq hasn't "accounted" for the destruction of all of them, yet there's general agreement that nearly all of the CBW's he used to have have been destroyed."

Fair enough so your position is that the USA intelligence data is faulty? Perhaps the USA govt. is misinterpreting the data? Perhaps is lying to justify an invasion? Or something else? I'm not dismissing what you state out of hand but it certainly is different than what the Bush officials are saying.

"Yet you find no room for even doubt? Honestly, how much of this stems from the fact that our government keeps saying so in the news? "

Noticed I posed a question and I'm trying to be open minded about the possibility that they actually don't exist and the USA govt is just wrong. If govt is right, however, then he's hiding them, then they must be eliminated.

[adios]

To say that we must diplomatically engage every country identically is stupid.

[MMMMMM]

North Korea is a major source of proliferation, and within a year they may be able to produce over one nuclear bomb per week (if the reactivate their old heavy nuclear reactors--which it appears they are now doing).

The last I read, they had the capability to strike Japan and were working on developing ICBM's to reach us, but I'm not aware that they have this capability yet.

However there are two things Iraq can potentially do that North Korea can't:

1) provide highly advanced biological weapons/toxins to terrorists (and perhaps some delivery methods as well)

2) destroy or severely contaminate the region's oilfields, and by so doing create economic upheaval which will greatly and adversely affect the world economy, and the West's economy especially.

[MMMMMM]

Which actually may be a good thing as the U.N. is largely a crock anyway.

This war is about preserving the security of the West--security from terrorist attack, security from threats from WMD, and security of the oilfields from threats of nuclear or biological blackmail.

It will also be nice to see another tyrannical regime deposed, but that's just my opinion.

By the way, in Afghanistan, girls are finally allowed to go to school now, although there are still some Islamist elements trying to stop it by threats of violence.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "Iraq has no ability to attack anyone without suffering a devastating retalliation, so it is fully contained."

This is simply not true if Iraq can attack through surrogates--such as by supplying terrorists with biological WMD--or if Iraq itself can attack with biological WMD (perhaps through Iraqi agents overseas). As long as there is no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks, Iraq would not necessarily be subject to devastating retaliation.

As long as Saddam has WMD, he poses a serious threat which will only grow in time.

[IrishHand]

LMAO

As long as there is no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks, Iraq would not necessarily be subject to devastating retaliation.
There's no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 and he's going to be "subject to devastating retaliation" regardless.

As long as Saddam has WMD, he poses a serious threat which will only grow in time.
A serious threat to whom? Last I checked, he's only been able to (a) temporarily occupy a small neighboring country with an insignificant military, and (b) kill large numbers of his countrymen.

I assume your hollow position is based on some assumption that he'll be aquiring all these weapons in order to sell them to terrorists that'll use them against the US. Apart from the fact that there's no evidence to suggest this (in fact, it suggests the opposite), how exactly does this benefit him? His goals, as best I can tell, are to (a) consolidate his power within his country (hence the internal killings) and if possible (b) expand his nation's power in the Middle East.

Try to be honest with yourself - if there was no oil in Iraq, we wouldn't care any more about Iraq's internal atrocities than we do anyone else's. Of course, if there was no oil in Iraq and the surrounding area (or alternatively, if we didn't feel the need to control as much of it as possible), we also wouldn't have a massive military presence there and the locals wouldn't despise us and they wouldn't feel inspired to blow up our things and the world might be a better place (although some Americans wouldn't be as rich as they are now which would suck for them but is a matter of indifference to me). An oversimplification, true, but valid nonetheless.

Irish

[MMMMMM]

You can trust in Saddam if you want. Others know better.

If you think Saddam's WMD won't somehow eventually be used against us, or our allies, or our interests, then you are incredibly naive or have a crystal ball which somehow displays an unlikely future.

How much would you be willing to bet that Saddam won't eventually provide terrorists with WMD (if he hasn't already)? Would you be willing to stake the security of our nation on it? Saddam is funding the Palestinian homicide bomber industry right now, and he himself called for jihad against the USA and Israel.


This business about "controlling" oil is hogwash--what we are doing is trying to ensure that some LUNATIC can't destroy it all--as he tried before.

Iraq is a great staging area from which to hunt down more terrorists. I agree it has strategic significance. Maybe someday in the next year or two after Iraq and Iran are liberated, and North Korea's nukes are gone, we can commence a campaign to SWAT-team out Hizbollah (which has announced they will be commencing attacks against the USA), Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, as we work to finish the job with al Qaeda.

[Chris Alger]

"This is simply not true if Iraq can attack through surrogates--such as by supplying terrorists with biological WMD--or if Iraq itself can attack with biological WMD (perhaps through Iraqi agents overseas)."

Which, were Saddam so inclined, he could have done so anytime within the last 10 years or even after his overthrow. According to the Office of Technology Assessment, two men flying a conventional crop duster with 100 kilograms of anthrax over Washington, D.C. could inflict between 1 to 3 million casualties. So it involves (1) smuggling or mailing a 100 kg parcel the US; (2) smuggling two operatives, perhaps disguised as Mexican farmworkers; and (3) renting a crop duster. This is one of a hundred scenarios involving a few people and modest quantities of anthrax, sarin, VX or mustard gas. Overthrowing Saddam cannot reduce these threats by one whit, and might even increase their likelihood. Your heartlessly inhumane argument that we should willingly inflict tens of thousands of casualties in Iraq just to be "on the safe side" is no better than arguing that the US must immediately go to war with all of the 28 or so countries known to have WMD programs, or indeed to wage war on as many countries and people as we can afford to on the grounds that more dead people means fewer potential terrorists.

"As long as there is no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks, Iraq would not necessarily be subject to devastating retaliation."

Given that he's going to be subject already to a devastating retalliation even without attacking anyone this doesn't follow.

Your comment is interesting because it smacks of the paranoia lying behind much of the war rhetoric. We project onto Saddam our worst fears of a hyper-insane maniac who wants nothing more than to kill as many people as possible, without regard even to his own preservation, like that other Arab, Mohammed Atta. Nevermind the fact that everything in his history suggests the opposite, that he's obsessed with the preservation of power and his personal aggrandizement.

It also betrays a lot of fuzzy thinking. We now that Saddam has been an aggressor because of his actions against Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds. From this are are assuming a proclivity, heretofore unexercised, for him to randomly murder people with no prospect of personal or national gain. It doesn't follow.

[MMMMMM]

I wouldn't bet my life, or my country's security, on Saddam's rationality or benignity, but maybe you would.

[hudini36]

The following is for starters. I'll post others coming out Afganistan itself.The Karzai goevernment now pernits open poppy growing to "stimulate" the economy.

From 2001
Only belatedly have major outlets like the Wall Street Journal (Oct. 2), The Associated Press (Oct. 5), and the Washington Post (Oct. 5) begun to acknowledge, in stories placed well back in the paper, and with much less emphasis, that the Northern Alliance - our allies against the Taliban - are now in real control of the heroin trade. Smuggling routes have shifted from south through Pakistan northward through Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. They acknowledge the obvious - that the Taliban is no longer the primary supplier of heroin. How could they be?

The Real Story

In March 2001 FTW reported from Moscow that Uzbekistan was "awash" in a sea of poppies. Since September 11 we have seen Uzbekistan not surprisingly become the hub for all U.S. military operations going into Afghanistan. It was, in fact, the very first place that U.S. military and "special operations" forces deployed - within days of the attacks. Unmentioned in press stories is the fact that firms like Southern Air, Evergreen and other CIA proprietary or contract operations have been establishing a presence in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent for more than a year. And Tashkent is a surprisingly modern city. It even has an Intercontinental Hotel. This is undoubtedly due in part to increased oil exploration, but it hauntingly parallels our experience from another era - Vietnam.

Now, as we are hearing the first reports that the Uzbeki government, fighting its own battle against a Muslim insurgency, will permit offensive operations from its military bases, FTW has had two reports that CIA operative Richard Secord has recently traveled to Tashkent. Secord's documented history of involvement in heroin smuggling, from Vietnam, Laos and Thailand in the 1960's and his criminal involvement in illegal operations, including drug smuggling during the Iran-Contra years, tells us exactly what is happening. These same intelligence sources have also reported that many other CIA veterans of Iran-Contra and Vietnam - despite their age - are converging on Tashkent like bees to a field of flowers - poppy flowers.

[John Ho]

But they have never done anything aggressive under this regime. The kidnappings occurred under his father and he repudiated that.

He has only threatened us with nuclear strikes because he fears we will strike first. Rest assured our government has said the same thing privately to many countries. There is no good reason to go after North Korea. That is imperialism at it's worst.

Iraq is a totally different matter.

[nicky g]

"If Saddam is constantly violating the regulations and you let him get away with it aren't you letting him, Saddam, re-write the UN regulations? "

You're letting him get away wth breaking them. That's not the same thing, but sure it's bad. But that's to be expected when you choose to let others rewrite and ignore UN resolutions for decades as they please, but suddenly expect the world to back you up on a rare resolution you actually support. The US hasb't even paid its contribution to the UN in years, andyet Bush suddenly expects it to support him now?

"All this shows is that the UN is a very weak organization and it's weakness continues to be demonstrated with the handling of the Iraq situation."

Well, yes. It's weak because Israel, Morroco, Indonesia and a host of others have been allowed to violate and ignore resolutions because they're US allies.

On the question: is war against Iraq wrong because we don't topple every bad regime, have done bad things ourselves in the past etc etc, I say no, not neccesarily (its wrong for other reasons). But on the motion "Just because we let some people away with breaking resolutions, we shouldn't let Iraq do the same" I'd say: once you enforce some resolutions but not others the whole thing becomes a dishonest waste of time.
MMMMMM says that the UN is a crock; sure it's a crock. It's been weak, incompetent and pointless for years. It was a good (well, nice) idea but it's inneffectual, rarely impartial and often catastrophically bad at resolving conflicts. Partly because despotic regimes have a say. Partly because of the Security council veto. Possibly the most fatal blow was the coincidence of its birth with the start of the cold war, which meant it was never really going to work. But arguing that it will demonstrate its weakness by not enforcing its resolution against Saddam through force (despite the fact that that resolution doesn't call for force), as Bush has, is absurd when you represent the very country that has endlessly prevented it from enforcing other resolutions in the past (AND, might I add - not because it changes the argument, but because I feel like it - the country that vetoed a resolution condemining Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. How's that for despotic regimes).

[nicky g]

"I suppose if the USA invades Iraq and topples the Iraq ruling regime then shows evidence of WMD a lot of you'll say that the USA is fabricating it."

I wouldn't be hugely surprised if they did. It wouldn't be too hard given that they could just take a fraction of their own stocks over with them. But really, I don't know whether or not Iraq has WMDs any more. Probably it has some. Certainly it used to have lots. I just don't think, along with others, that Iraq is a greater threat than many other regimes with WMDs, or a threat to the West in its current state, and I don't see the case for a war that will kill tens of thousands of people and may spark off global chaos. Specifically on this topic, I don't think the argument "we have to go to war or the UN looks weak" holds any water; the UN has looked weak for years, there are dozens of resolutions being violated all over the world, and the resolution 1441 doesn't call for war to enforce it. Surely having a second resolution calling for war imposed by the UK and the US would surely show even greater weakness in any case, given that the solution to other UN resolutions is virtually never war, except when the West has decided to start one regardless. Most of the people arguing that this is the time for the UN to show its usefulness have zero respect for it at all other times.

[brad]

youre right taliban banned opium production, cia has always been dope dealers. (golden triangle, anyone?)