Iraq Attack

It seems politicians from both political parties agree that Saddam Hussein must go (although they may differ on the tactics that must be employed). The reason they give is that he is developing, or has developed "weapons of mass destruction."


What answer can one give to someone who would say the United States certainly has more weapons of mass destruction than any nation on earth and, what's more, has certainly used them more than any other nation? Why shouldn't someone plan a preemptive strike on the United States for the same reason one is being planned on Iraq?

Is this a rhetorical question or are you really wondering? I think Chris Alger posed a simlar question quite some time ago.


Saddam used gas on his own people. He invaded Kuwait. His personal hero and idol is actually Josef Stalin and he employs his tactics in a way that would make Stalin proud. Any political opposition, he simply executes them along with their extended families. He rules by sheer force and terror and lets his people live in poverty while he builds more and more lavish palaces and statues of himself.


So why should we not let him fully develop weapons of mass destruction? Because he will almost surely use them against: his neighbors, Israel, the USA--or will at the very least use them for blackmail.


If Stalin were alive today and were developing these weapons and we had the chance to stop him, do you think that would be a good idea? Well, Saddam is essentially Stalin reincarnated, so what do you think we should do?

More to the point: where is the evidence of these weapons in the first place, outside of various shrill claims by right-wing Americans? The Europeans and Russians don't seem to think it is plausible. The on-site inspectors, including most vociferously American Scott Ritter, don't think so. The only people who say these things also say blatant lies and deceits such as "we think there is a clear al Queda link to Hussein" when in fact they have zero such evidence.


Iraq is perceived to be a threat to Israel. Israel leads this administration around by the nose on a variety of security matters. Hussein is also loathed by Shrub, who thinks the Saddamic bastard tried to kill his dad when on a visit to Kuwait in '93. And there is a faction in the US government which has always felt that we should've invaded and wiped out the barbaric regime we have over the years assisted when it fit some narrow purpose. Since most Americans aren't in a lather to get their family members shot over someone who quite clearly isn't a threat to us, it is necessary to concoct all sorts of nonsense in the hopes that they'll scare the public sufficiently to support an invasion.

Saddam Hussein dies today of a heart attack...


No one in Jerusalem, Washington or London wants that. (For humanitarian reasons, of course.)

M,


Regarding Saddam, it sounds like you read the recent cover story from the Atlantic Monthly (link below). But if you didn't, take the time to read it.


Regards,


Rick

I didn't, but I'm going to read it now--thanks Rick

"What answer can one give to someone who would say the United States certainly has more weapons of mass destruction than any nation on earth and, what's more, has certainly used them more than any other nation?"


Andy,


Yes, the U.S. possesses more WMD's than any other country, but to my recollection we've only used them twice - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (I say this because I *think* the U.S. didn't use poison gas in WWI, however, I could be incorrect in this assumption.) People of good will can debate the morality of nuking cities with civilian populations in war time, but there is a substantial qualitative difference between an act during a war we didn't start and gassing one's own ethnic minorities.


The passing of time is also an issue. No, the U.S. isn't perfect and it certainly has dark periods from its past. What is important *now* is how we view those actions and our propensity to repeat them. With the exception of a few wackos on the fringe, I don't see us celebrating our history of slavery, or Indian suppression, or fire-bombing German civilians or nuking Japanese. In the former cases we tend to view them as stains on our history, never to be repeated and in the latter cases as, at best, necessary evils.


Is it even debatable that Saddam would use WMD's against the U.S. (most likely through third-parties) if he could get away with it? Is there any doubt that there would be joyous celebration in the streets of Palestine? For me, pre-emptive action against the current gov't of Iraq is the +EV play.


BR

Only the ignorant or foolish would believe Saddam isn't developing these weapons.

It's hard to form an opinion on the justification for attacking Iraq. We are not privy to what must be a deluge of intelligence information the President has been briefed on. We do know that he rewards homicide bombers families with a 25K cash award that is given at the funerals for these maniacs. Iraqi Intelligence officials are mired chin deep in contact with top terrorists in the world. I don't think we can ignore a man that rapes the wealth of his country to finance terrorism. He has reneged on every U.N agreement to inspect his nuclear and chemical weapons sites. He is proven to be a cold-blooded killer himself, even murdering his own family members. This is a man that has given interviews that only proves what a total incompetent leader he is. He has stated on camera that women are much dirtier than men and orders "his" women to shower at least twice a day. He attacks neighboring countries out of a maniacal control need. The man has drawn breath way too long. And as far as the rest of the world, if they can't understand how this imbecile needs to be taken down, given all that we know he's done and is capable of doing, then screw them. Like Bush says, we can't sit back and wait on these bastards to launch another attack. Let them start to scurry for cover like the rats that they are.

Speaking of showering, I think everyone, male or female, should shower or bathe twice a day (with occasional exceptions when impractical, and even more often when engaging in strenuous activity or sex).


Some friends of mine from Brazil consider Americans to be pigs because many Americans only bathe once daily. They shower three times a day as a rule and I think they are probably correct to do so.

Showering more than once per day is exceedingly bad for your skin (assuming you use soap), especially in a heated home in the winter where the relative humidity can drop to 10-15%. If it is really hot or if you excercise then of course it is different, but regularly showering that much will do more harm than good. Regularly showering more than twice a day is a telltale sign of being obscessive compulsive. What exactly is on a person that they have to get off every 8 hours unless he/she a professional mud-wrestler or prostitute?


http://www.aocd.org/skin/dermatologic_diseases/skin_care.html


It is funny that you mentioned Brazil, because in epidemology/infectious disease circles, Brazil is considered to be one of the worst contries in the world with regards to sanitation, etc... The slums around their major cities are the worst anywhere with regards to the spread of disease according to various experts. Maybe they should worry less about showering and more about the proper disposal of human excrement. (I believe most of this is discussed in the well-known book "The Coming Plague", although it may be from somewhere else...I am moving and all of my books are packed so I can't get a quote right now.)

I'd think that before engaging in massive invasions, slaughtering innocents and soldiers alike, and unleashing the terrible, mindless tyranny of The Law of Unintended Consequences (particularly in such a volatile area), even some of the Useful Idiots on the right might want at least some evidence, and give pause when the only people pushing for this have such transparent outside agendas.


Will M. be grabbing a rifle to help save the world from Saddamic perfidy? Or is this some of the typical yabber-jabber one hears from behind the ample blubber/bunker protection of the Rushmeister and similar dolts who remain comfortably out of the line of fire?


For his next trick, M. will perhaps demonstrate that Bush's police-state tactic of denying Americas the basic freedom to travel to Cuba if they so choose has nothing to do with crass political nepotism to keep yet another of this miserable family in power, and everything to do with supporting "Freedom".

Well, showering more than once a day doesn't seem to hurt MY skin. And I like feeling fresh and clean more than I like feeling a bit sweaty or sticky. Nothing compulsive about it. I just FEEL better--physically speaking, and of course that makes me feel better mentally too.


Who likes to lie down and sleep with the sweat of the day stuck to them? Even if you work in an office you still sweat somewhat. At least I sure as heck do, just from daily living.


What about swimming? I assume that would be bad for your skin too according to your info. But when I was swimming regularly I didn't have such problems and I guess lots of regular swimmers don't either.


My Brazilian friends don't live in the slums or in the rich cities...they live in a nice quiet little village on a farm. They also think we are pigs for not vacuuming the house everyday, and not damp-mopping the kitchen floor (like many they know in Brazil do). And you know what: they're right. Unless you live in a huge house it takes very little time to do these things lightly once a day. And with what we are learning about just how bad molds and dust are for us, and our respiratory systems, they're probably right from a scientific/health perspective too. Just because it isn't in our culture to be so clean doesn't mean it isn't beneficial, or even practical. As for me, I'm far too lazy to keep my surroundings that clean (but after this post I will have to consider the merits of attempting to develop such admirable habits;-)). But you can bet I floss at least once per day and brush after most meals or snacks and don't limit myself to one shower per day. Personal cleanliness just FEELS better--physically. Those who don't think so probably aren't as sensitive, physically speaking, to subtle things.

Listen, I don't care how many times you bathe a day nor am I interested in how often you think anyone else should bathe. You could live in water and burp soap bubbles for all I care.

You're not the dictator of a country that oppresses woman and you are not expounding on the subject of why women are "dirtier" than men in a world-wide telecast interview.

There's lots of evidence regarding Saddam's efforts in this area. You apparently just haven't been reading about it and aren't motivated to seek it out and I'm not going to help you. Your agenda is transparent and foolish: you weight others' agendas more highly than the reality of developing threats which could threaten us, our allies, and destabilize the world.


If he invaded Kuwait (his Muslim brothers) with conventional weapons, and gassed his own countrymen, just what do you think he might do with nukes? Just wondering.


The jab about Cuba is irrelevant to this discussion.

...and of course I don't agree with the tone of his remarks, or any oppressions of women.


I think Iraqi men who can should also shower twice a day.

I honestly don't care how much you shower or vacuum. This is the statement I took issue with:


"Speaking of showering, I think everyone, male or female, should shower or bathe twice a day "


This is an example of attempting to force your own (medically incorrect) ideas onto others.


As far as cleaning your surrounding to that extent, the risk/reward ratio most certainly does not justify it. If you spend an extra 30 minutes a day cleaning for 50 years, you are giving up over 1 year of your life to aviod some lint in your carpet or some dust on your floor. This almost certainly will not add 1 year to your life expectancy, nor will it improve the quality of your life to such a huge extent. Again, if you want to clean that much, fine. I would rather spend that year fishing, however.


My feeling on these issues is that obscessive cleaning, etc..., is a small issue that makes people ignore things that will affect their lives much more. Do the Brazilians (as a culture) excercise 45 mins a day and eat a well balanced diet? Do they have sufficient medical infrastructure to deal with the inherant problems of a populous country? These things will add much more to quality of life and life expenctancy, IMO, than dusting. Again, I really am not concerned which they choose, so long as no one tells me what I should choose (without proof).

My "agenda" is to not see my country and the world at large dragged into an idiotic adventure to quench the foolhardy desires of an idiot and his handlers and "influences".


Here's what people who don't get their news from der Washington Times unt der Weekly Standard are finding out:


"I need to say right out front," [Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector

in Iraq and twelve-year Marine Corps veteran] said minutes into his speech,

"I'm a card-carrying Republican in the conservative- moderate range who

voted for George W. Bush for President. I'm not here with a political

agenda. I'm not here to slam Republicans. I am one."


Yet this was a lie - Scott Ritter had come to Boston with a political

agenda, one that impacts every single American citizen. Ritter was in the

room that night to denounce, with roaring voice and burning eyes, the coming

American war in Iraq. According to Ritter, this coming war is about nothing

more or less than domestic American politics, based upon speculation and

rhetoric entirely divorced from fact. According to Ritter, that war is just

over the horizon.


"The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have

20,000 Marines deployed in the (Iraq) region for ground combat operations by

mid-October," he said. "The Air Force used the vast majority of its

precision- guided munitions blowing up caves in Afghanistan. Congress just

passed emergency appropriations money and told Boeing company to accelerate

their production of the GPS satellite kits, that go on bombs that allow them

to hit targets while the planes fly away, by September 30, 2002. Why?

Because the Air Force has been told to have three air expeditionary wings

ready for combat operations in Iraq by mid-October."


"As a guy who was part of the first Gulf War," said Ritter, who indeed

served under Schwarzkopf in that conflict, "when you deploy that much

military power forward - disrupting their training cycles, disrupting their

operational cycles, disrupting everything, spending a lot of money - it is

very difficult to pull them back without using them."


"You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October," said Ritter, "you

better expect war in October."


[...]


According to the Bush administration, Hussein has ties to the same Al Qaeda

terrorists that brought down the World Trade Center. It is certain that

Hussein will use these terrorist links to deliver a lethal blow to America,

using any number of the aforementioned weapons. The argument, propounded by

Bush administration officials on any number of Sunday news talk shows, is

that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, and the unseating of Saddam Hussein,

is critical to American national security. Why wait for them to hit us

first?


"If I were an American, uninformed on Iraq as we all are," said Ritter, "I

would be concerned." Furthermore, continued Ritter, if an unquestionable

case could be made that such weapons and terrorist connections existed, he

would be all for a war in Iraq. It would be just, smart, and in the interest

of national defense.


Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in

Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed

investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq

simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have

threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war

in Iraq exists. Considering the American military lives and the Iraqi

civilian lives that will be spent in such an endeavor, not to mention the

deadly regional destabilization that will ensue, such a baseless war must be

avoided at all costs.


From http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=7503&mode=nested&order=0

...by anyone with at least a baker's dozen of brain cells, so by ceding the field it seems you may be (marginally) brighter than you typically sound on these issues.

I asked a question hoping to learn something. I expected nothing more nor less than an insult from you. Thank you for not disappointing me.

Just read it Rick, thanks. Truth is stranger than fiction, isn't it? The guy's a lunatic, no doubt, and worse than that, a murderous lunatic. I don't think the comment that he's developing weapons of mass destruction is a sufficient ground for military action. Many countries have weapons of mass destruction. India and Pakistan were threatening to blow each other up not that long ago.


There is evidently a great deal of debate going on within the Bush administration on what to do. It's evident, I think, we're going to do something; I'd like to see some intelligent discussion from the administration, or from someone in congress or otherwise in the public eye on our longterm goals and plans, on expected casualties and costs, etc.

Just how is Ritter supposed to know more than major intelligence services of the world whose current assessments state otherwise? Because he USED to be a UN weapons inspector? lol.

I doubt your cited medical assessments are universally accepted.


For those who don't mind feeling semi-grubby going to sleep every night, I say, fine, they can certainly do what they like. But that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't do otherwise. As for vacuuming and dusting I suggest you are ASSUMING a certain risk-reward ratio which may or may not be the case. I'm simply allowing the possibilty that they may be right.

Consider that the more countries gain weapons of mass destruction, the more dangerous the world becomes.


And weapons of mass destruction in the hands of--in your words--"a murderous lunatic"-- (who also happens to hate us), is, in my view, an unacceptable risk.

Sorry this is causing you mirth, M.


You were provided a witness, but you still want to find comfort in the recourse of "major intelligence agencies"... Which agencies exactly, if you exclude American ones? And what better access into Iraq do these agencies have than someone who actually was there?


But I guess a Republican, Gulf War veteran isn't good enough when he doesn't sing the tune we wanna hear. Pity, really...

Ritter was there SEVEN YEARS AGO (and wasn't at least one weapons lab found and destroyed?)


Don't you imagine that German and USA intelligence services might have gained some new info. since then?


Anyway here's an excerpt and link for you...jeez I would have though that over the years you too would have reached the conclusion that Iraq has indeed been working on these things (based on your wide readings) but apparently that would be too optimistic an assessment on my part.


Excerpt from Washington Times, July 26 2002:


" Procurement agents from Iraq's covert nuclear-arms program were detected as they tried to purchase stainless-steel tubing, uniquely used in gas centrifuges and a key component in making the material for nuclear bombs, from an unknown supplier, said administration officials familiar with intelligence reports.


U.S. intelligence agencies believe the tubing is an essential component of Iraq's plans to enrich radioactive uranium to the point where it could be used to fashion a nuclear bomb.


Efforts by Iraq to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles are a key reason that the Bush administration has called for the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.


The covert nuclear-acquisition effort was detected in mid-June, and reports about the activities were then circulated to senior Bush administration policy officials.


"This is only one sign that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program," one official said.


Officials say other evidence exists that Iraq is rebuilding its nuclear program, which was to have been dismantled under U.N. sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.


Earlier this year, Turkish military intelligence informed the Pentagon that Iraq was believed to have at least one nuclear device. Officials said the report could not be confirmed.


A senior Bush administration official said intelligence reports of the efforts by Iraq to purchase stainless-steel tubing were a troubling sign."


See the full story here: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20020726-23093280.htm


I suggest you quit taking the devil's advocate position on so many things becauseit wastes both of outr time. If you believe that, with all things considered, we shouldn't invade Iraq, that is your reasonable opinion...fine... but the well-read and intelligent Cyrus I'm accustomed to posting with cannot possibly believe that Iraq ISN'T working on weapons of mass destruction...so why argue as if that is what you believe?

"I doubt your cited medical assessments are universally accepted"


I am sorry that I did not get quotes from a group of leading American dermotologists. I knew that just my word wouldn't be good enough so I provided a link. I underestimated how unwilling you would be to accept anything different from your own gut feeling. Your dobut means nothing to me. It is a cop out. You are basically saying "since you are you and not me you obviously know nothing" to both me and the dermatology school I used as a reference. You are doing the same thing you have been doing in the mideast arguements. You say that you are clean and those who don't do what you do are dirty. Loaded words, not logical arguements. That is not to say the side you take is necessarily wrong. However, your quick, unfounded black and white judgements are never going to convice people who disagree with you.


I like your posts, M. I am not one of those kooks who is here just to say "you are a moron". It just seems that you are on raving "Other Topics" tilt.


-Glenn

thanks Glenn.


I read the link but did not see where it actually claimed bathing more than once per day is unhealthful. Although it recommended once per day, it seemed to be basing this on the fact that dry skin "can" (not "will") lead to flaking or itching. I suggest if you don't experience overly dry skin, you aren't going to experience itching or flaking either. People have different skin types and some naturally tend towards drier skin. If one can wash more than once per day without ill effects, I don't think that would be bad.


the recommendations given appear to be a bit overly cautious on the side of worrying about dry skin. Of course this varies with the individual.


I would also suggest that if they recommend 15 minutes bathing once per day, then perhaps 2 showers of 7.5 minutes each would be the same in terms of dry skin, but much better in terms of germs and overall cleanliness.


Just because there is a brief recommendation given by a professional group does not necessarily mean that it is detailed enough to really provide the very best advice. Often such things are merely short-cuts...like the recommendation to eat from all 4 basic food groups each day. In the abscence of a more detailed and scientificaly designed diet this is good, but it is also far from truly optimal.


So I guess I should have said that I think bathing more than once per day is better unless you have, or discover you have, tendencies towards overly dry skin. Besides, NOT bathing more than once per day can create itchiness too, due to accumulation of sweat and germs, something they strangely failed to mention.

...I think you are right. I have been dreading cleaning the house today and this has been a convenient method of procrastination. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

I was/am avoiding packing/carry stuff to the truck in the hot weather /images/smile.gif.

"I suggest you quit taking the devil's advocate position on so many things because it wastes both of outr time."


Time is wasted as one chooses to waste it.


There is a thread running through American foreign policy. Students of it, in the distant future, will marvel at the way it was highjacked in our times and pursued objectives against American interests in the Middle East.


The unqualified, unrestrained support of Israel by the U.S. is at the root of all the problems in the Middle East. That the U.S. is at odds right now with Iraq can, of course, be viewed in isolation if that suits you. But it doesn't mean that everybody must have narrow vision. That Iraq is manufacturing "weapons of mass destruction" must be presented with more persuasion, if you don't mind : a country that its north and south sectors are effectively under international occupation, and its imports and exports closely monitored, to the effect that not a hypodermic needle passes, that country is able to manufacture nukes?? Allow me to doubt that!


"If you believe that, with all things considered, we shouldn't invade Iraq, that is your reasonable opinion...fine."


Yes, it is my opinion,reasonable or not, I don't know, that America shouldn't invade.


But allow me to qualify that : The general dispersion of nukes makes it not just possible but certain in this Kelly-follower's eyes that we will see a non-experimental nuclear device explosion somewhere in our lifetime. Therefore I believe that nat'l sovereignty in our times comes secondary after self-preservation, if by self we mean the planet and we ant the planet to stay alive. I had applauded the Israeli bandit air attack against Iraq's nuclear reactor years ago (remember that one?). Yes, Iraq would build nukes if it could, as would Libya, Iran, Turkey and a host of other notable nations -- and as has Israel.


Nonetheless the reasons for currently invading Iraq have more to do with putting off a solution to the Middle East problems than anything else (they should name it Operation Desert Ostrich). If Dubya wanted to go after the big financiers of terrorists, the guys who are really fostering religious fanaticism in the area, the truly backward regime, he would attack Saudi Arabia.

The picture of one dictator, long into his regime's duration, shouldn't be too different from another. I'd imagine the father of North Korea's current leader or Paraguay's Stressner would be like Saddam in most aspects. Just let's bear in mind that these folks, the long-reigning, fear-instigating dictators are petty human beings behind the facade.


An absorbing article nonetheless.


(By the way, Iraq isn't a "desert country", as the article has it.)

From everything I've read, it seems that Iraq has never abandoned its policy of working to build WMD. Even if we take te view that just maybe, out of the goodness of his heart and respect for international law, Saddam has somehow ceased working on these projects...does that mean we should count on it? I cannot see we reasonably could. He was building WMD before, then he kicked out the inspectors and...stopped??? He may or may not have functional nukes yet, but he surely is working on it.


Yes I think we are going to have to deal with Saudi Arabia somehow, that's for sure, and their financing of terrorist groups is a huge problem. But I'd rather not use that as an excuse to hesitate--we need to stop the lunatic with the armies and weapons first, especially before he increases the capabilities of his WMD (CW, BW and possibly NW).


The information I have read leaves me certain that Saddam was working on these things before, and there are many suggestions he is continuing. Why on earth would he stop anyway??? Would Stalin eschew the opportunity to develop new and better weapons systems? Well neither would Saddam.


Having some doubt that Saddam is doing this is OK...of course there is SOME doubt (but IMO it is virtually infinitesimal). However PRESUMING that he is not doing is an ostrich-like outlook which jibes neither with the available information, nor with the character of the man and his goals, nor with his past behavior. So if you are merely holding in reserve some doubt I have no major quibble with that, and likewise if you think our priorities should lie elsewhere at this time. It is the presumption that he is not working on WMD which I find so unsupportable.

If America gives precedence in invading Iraq before everything else, that means that Saddam must be at the root of the Middle East problems, if not world problems. (Dubya and his lot have repeatedly stated that they have no enmity against Iraqis, just Saddam.) Can that actually be the case? That's what we ge, since solving the "Iraqi problem" comes first before the "Palestinian problem" or anything else. I mean, if we really, really wanted to have peace in Israel/Palestine, like we wanted to have in Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia, Cyprus, and elsewhere, what's the first, the very first thing that we would do?


Why, send in troops to be deployed in and pacify the region, of course. Now, there's an idea!..


But excuse my little digression into fantasy land. My questions are these: Why not assassinate the SOB?? What's the technical difficulties, can any black bag veteran of this forum tell us? Why no moves to collaborate with the opposition or contact officers to topple Saddam? Why stepping on the brakes when the troops were in the 90s a couple hundred miles from Baghdad?


Who really needs the bogeyman?

"Consider that the more countries gain weapons of mass destruction, the more dangerous the world becomes."


Absolutely, 101% agree. (Am I allowed to say that, Mason?)


But what then is the example set forth by the world's superpower? The United States of America would be expected to be the first signatory in treaties that : ban the proliferation of nukes; the testing of new biological weapons; the unrestrained inter-country sales of weapons; the establishment of a world forum of justice; the empowerment of the United Nations; etc.


I'm not sure the U.S. is exactly at the forefront of any of that. I see the United States instead operating still in Cold War mode, in a go-it-alone mindset. American leaders might have not quite discarded yet one pf the prevalent notions during the time they were confronting the Soviets, which was that America should appear to be a little crazy and unpredictable in its conduct, and, thus, inspire fear and trepidation in other nations, and particularly the strongest ones.


Inertia or stupidity, or both, could be at work here. So where are the leaders that will take us out of this and into the 21st century? Dubya sure isn't up to it -- he looks like a character actor summoned to play the lead.

Mark,


On an unrelated note, I just received the new Atlantic Monthly with the second installment of "Unbuilding the World Trade Center". The first installment was terrific. Pick it up if you get the chance.


Regards,


Rick

It would be very hard to assassinate him. Of course it is an option under consideration, but we would probably have to be extremely lucky to be able to pull it off. He lives in constant fear of assassins and plans his days accordingly, sleeping under a different roof every night, and his security entourage is formidable. An inside job would probably be impossible because his relatives occupy practically all the positions of power. And the chances of toppling him through an common-type coup would be about nil. What were the chances of toppling Josef Stalin that way? Slim to none, because he had made a practice of routinely taking pre-emptive measures against just that--he simply had everyone he ever suspected of even potential disloyalty murdered (and frequently their extended families as well)--and Saddam has emulated his idol's methods in a manner that would have made old Josef proud.


The US has openly contacted exiled Iraqi military leaders and opposition--in Europe--the reason the opposition leaders aren't in Iraq right now is because they'd be DEAD if they were. The US is thus put into a position of having to guesstimate which internal military groups MIGHT turn on Saddam's forces once they realized he was being attacked. And they're all scared of him not just because it's him and they know he's ruthless, but they also would fear getting gassed like the Kurds were. It isn't like Afghanistan where we had ready-made internal opposition allies in force (Northern and Eastern Alliances). Saddam has been far too thorough to allow anything like that to exist on his soil.


As for why Bush Sr. stepped on the brakes eleven years ago, the main reason was purportedly that had we not done so, the Iranian Shi'ites might have moved into the power vacuum in Iraq, and that was considered an even more undesirable scenario. We succeeded in substantially setting back and crippling Saddam's military, but we didn't really want to reduce Iraq to complete defenselessness. We figured a sort of balance of power between Iran and Iraq held the best chances for stability in the region, and we certainly didn't want Iraq (and perhaps much of the rest of the oil regions) to be overwhelmed by a horde of rabid Shi'ites.

"The US has openly contacted exiled Iraqi military leaders and opposition--in Europe-- The reason the opposition leaders aren't in Iraq right now is because they'd be DEAD if they were."


They are not *all* dead -- and the U.S. has not being serious in contacting anyone that opposes Saddam, not even the ex-King's heirs. (Same mistake, by the way, when Iranians were rioting against the Shah: the U.S. weren't making contingency plans for the day after, they did not contact the moderate oppositon in exile, so they allowed Khomeini and his mullahs to fill the power vacuum.)


"The main reason Bush Sr. stepped on the brakes eleven years ago was purportedly that had we not done so, the Iranian Shi'ites might have moved into the power vacuum in Iraq. ... We certainly didn't want Iraq (and perhaps much of the rest of the oil regions) to be overwhelmed by a horde of rabid Shi'ites."


We are both speculating, of course (unless I'm talking to M of MI5!), but I don't buy for a second the argument that Iran would take over Iraq if Saddam was toppled! This ignores the politics, the history and the national rivalries of the region : Iranians are not Arabs. If Iran invaded by Iraq, all Iraqis would resist firecely, without a doubt, and be supported by all the Arab countries, even Kuwait.


I don't think that even Khomeini would invade Iraq, let alone Khattami.


"[Iraq] isn't like Afghanistan where we had ready-made internal opposition allies in force (Northern and Eastern Alliances). Saddam has been far too thorough to allow anything like that to exist on his soil."


Quite the contrary. There was concrete, armed and battle-ready opposition to Saddam in the early 90s -- the Kurds. The United States incited them to rebellion, made sure they were armed and then, when Operation Desert Storm was concluded, they abandoned them to Saddam's poison gas bombings. At the insistence of the Turkish regime (Israel's best friend in the area), which opposes any strengthening of Kurdish nationalism, and because the U.S. didn't have it as an objective to topple Saddam, we let the Kurds to die horrible deaths in the thousands, men, women and children.


If the U.S. was to behave more sensibly, we would have today a splinter indepedent country, Kurdistan, in North Iraq, and Saddam executed in the coup/uprising that was sure to follow such a humiliating turn of events. Look up how dictators are toppled when national catastrophy befalls them (eg, Greece, Argentina, etc). Instead, Saddam escaped and claimed moral victory.


"It would be very hard to assassinate him."


Oh, come on.

It would probably be as hard if not harder to assassinate Saddam that to have assassinated Stalin (internally speaking). The only advantage today would be satellite photos and the chance for surgical bombing, but bear in mind, Iraq has formidable air defenses and we can't just zip in there entirely on the QT, discounting their air defenses.


I don't fully agree with the rationale given for why we ended the war as we did, but that's more or less the rationale which was provided publicly.


We may have had the chance with the Kurds in the 90's but that doesn't present us much of a chance now. Besides how likely are they to want to be gassed again.


It would probably be as hard if not harder to assassinate Saddam that to have assassinated Stalin (internally speaking). The only advantage today would be satellite photos and the chance for surgical bombing, but bear in mind, Iraq has formidable air defenses and we can't just zip in there entirely on the QT, discounting their air defenses. You can't just penetrate such a collection of relatives and bodyguards, and daily his whereabouts is deliberately hidden and even systematically portayed as being elsewhere than where he really is, by design.


Even Israel probably couldn't assassinate Saddam without getting extremely lucky.