The looming war is not needed

[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?)