Broad cross-section marches againt war

[John Feeney]

That's how it was in San Diego today, and apparently in much of the world:

The demonstrators seemed like a cross-section of modern British society. There were entire families-fathers and mothers with small children in tow-and elderly people moving slowly but deliberately on their own. Some wore costumes and some were in jeans. There were veteran activists and people who said they had never been on a march before in their lives.

Full article

I was heartened to see similarly wide support here. If by some chance world opinion, as expressed by such marches and the stances of France, Germany, Russia, and others helps prevent this war for the time being, I hope it will lead to much more investment in and investigation of alternative (non-war) methods of resolving the current situation. I've been appalled by the neglect of such methods to date.

[Jimbo]

You wrote "I've been appalled by the neglect of such methods to date." Well I suppose there is little need to invest in your book John. Just can't justify the expense with opinions like these in your post above.

[Clarkmeister]

There ya go Jimbo, I bet you've really hurt his feelings now. That'll teach him. Last time he thinks differently than you!

[Chris Alger]

And I'll bet it wasn't 35 degrees and overcast like it was in Colorado Springs, the regional antiwar locus because of it's military ties. Christians, communists, anarchists, "veteran activists" and more than a couple of Republicans. I was surprised at the turnout of seniors, given the weather, although quite a few brought small kids. At 3,000 strong I thought we looked pretty impressive lined up on the route to the Air Force Acadamy, trading peace symbols with sympathetic drivers. Then I heard on the radio that the Rome demonstration brought out 1 million. This in a country that supports the war effort. Wow.

[Chris Alger]

There isn't much in John's book about Iraq. It does, however, presume the reader's ability to cultivate certain mental habits, abilities if you will, that (as far as I can tell) you assiduously avoid. So you should probably save your dough for this reason.

But you're welcome in my game.

[Jimbo]

Clarkmeister I appreciate your wit. I had no intention on hurting anyones feelings, just utilizing my freedom of choice to donate my money to a wino rather than purchase his book. I served my country in order that John was able to not only think differently than I but so that he was able to freely express himself. What have you done lately in that regard? Checkraise a 4/8 player wirh the nuts?

[Jimbo]

Thanks for the invitation Chris. When do we play? Will other intelligent bigots be joining us as well?

[adios]

I wonder if these issues came up at any of the demonstrations today. From the article from the link in Rick's post:

"My 20 years of work in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program and military industry were partly a training course in methods of deception and camouflage to keep the program secret. Given what I know about Saddam Hussein's commitment to developing and using weapons of mass destruction, the following two points are abundantly clear to me: First, the U.N. weapons inspectors will not find anything Saddam does not want them to find. Second, France, Germany, and to a degree, Russia, are opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq mainly because they maintain lucrative trade deals with Baghdad, many of which are arms-related."

Does any body deny the veracity of these statements? Note who makes the accusations.

"Since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 we have witnessed a tiny team of inspectors with a supposedly stronger mandate begging Iraq to disclose its weapons stockpiles and commence disarmament. The question that nags me is: How can a team of 200 inspectors "disarm" Iraq when 6,000 inspectors could not do so in the previous seven years of inspection? "

Note the word begging and what about this point anyway?

"Put simply, surprise inspections no longer work. With the Iraqis' current level of mobility and intelligence the whole point of inspecting sites is moot. This was made perfectly clear by Colin Powell in his presentation before the U.N. last week. But the inspectors, mindless of these changes, are still visiting old sites and interviewing marginal scientists. I can assure you, the core of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program has not even been touched. Yesterday's news that Iraq will "accept" U-2 surveillance flights is another sign that Saddam has confidence in his ability to hide what he's got."

What about the claims that surprise inspections don't work? Where is the proof that they do? Is he lying about the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program?

"Meanwhile, the time U.N. inspectors could have used gathering intelligence by interviewing scientists outside Iraq is running out. The problem is that there is nothing Saddam can declare that will provide any level of assurance of disarmament. If he delivers the 8,500 liters of anthrax that he now admits to having, he will still not be in compliance because the growth media he imported to grow it can produce 25,000 liters. Iraq must account for the growth media and its products; it is doing neither. "

What about this claim regarding anthrax?

"Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes of higher tensile strength than is needed in conventional weapons has been brushed aside by the IAEA's Mohammed El-Baradei. He claims there is no proof that these tubes were intended for modification and use in centrifuges to make enriched uranium. Yet he fails to report that Iraq has the machining equipment to thin these tubes down to the required thickness (less than one millimeter) for an efficient centrifuge rotor. What's more, they don't find it suspect that Iraq did not deliver all the computer controlled machining equipment that it imported from the British-based, Iraqi-owned Matrix-Churchill that manufacture these units."

Where is this equipment anyways?

"Mr. Blix also discounted the discovery of a number of "empty" chemical-weapons warheads. What he failed to mention is that empty is the only way to store these weapon parts. The warheads in question were not designed to store chemicals for long periods. They have a much higher possibility of leakage and corrosion than conventional warheads. Separate storage for the poisons is a standard practice in Iraq, since the Special Security Organization that guards Saddam also controls the storage and inventory of these chemicals."

This makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

"What has become obvious is that the U.N. inspection process was designed to delay any possible U.S. military action to disarm Iraq.

Exactly.


"Germany, France, and Russia, states we called "friendly" when I was in Baghdad, are also engaged in a strategy of delay and obstruction. "

From someone who used to be involved hmmm....


"In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts to acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an Iraqi delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime?"

Could it possibly be that France is motivated by economic interests in Iraq?

"Germany was the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s. Our commercial attaché, Ali Abdul Mutalib, was allocated billions of dollars to spend each year on German military industry imports. These imports included many proscribed technologies with the German government looking the other way. In 1989, German engineer Karl Schaab sold us classified technology to build and operate the centrifuges we needed for our uranium-enrichment program. German authorities have since found Mr. Schaab guilty of selling nuclear secrets, but because the technology was considered "dual use" he was fined only $32,000 and given five years probation.

Meanwhile, other German firms have provided Iraq with the technology it needs to make missile parts. Mr. Blix's recent finding that Iraq is trying to enlarge the diameter of its missiles to a size capable of delivering nuclear weapons would not be feasible without this technology transfer."

Could it possibly be that Germany is motivated by economic interests in Iraq?

"Russia has long been a major supplier of conventional armaments to Iraq--yet again at exorbitant prices. Even the Kalashnikov rifles used by the Iraqi forces are sold to Iraq at several times the price of comparable guns sold by other suppliers. "

Could it possibly be that Russia is motivated by economic interests in Iraq?

"Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources by paying outrageous prices to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack of morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world of winks and nods to emerging rogue states--for a price. It remains for the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price is high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive."

Amen.

"Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000). "

He ought to know.

[MMMMMM]

Guys like Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic can only be removed by force.

I'm all for finding alternatives to war too. But doesn't it turn your stomach to think that if left in power, Saddam will go on torturing, mudering, terrorizing and rapng his own citizens on a wide scale on a wide scale?

How could anyone be for removing Milosevic yet be against deposing Saddam?

It seems the entire Left is rallying to defend the cause of this tyrant, as they do for many tyrants.

The coming war will probably kill fewer Iraqis than Saddam would manage to kill on his own over the next few years. The war will probably be over fast--very fast.

You can reason with reasonable people, and sometimes you can reason with somewhat unreasonable people, but tyrants only understand one thing.

And lastly I think Saddam poses a real and growing menace to the region, and even to ourselves.

[John Feeney]

"Guys like Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic can only be removed by force."

Why would you say something like that as if it were an established fact?

One of the most glaring facts, to me, is that, relative to the most conventional political steps, precious little has been invested in money, man power, or other resources, toward investigating alternative methods to solve these problems, including getting Saddam out of power.

"How could anyone be for removing Milosevic yet be against deposing Saddam?"

I don't know if anyone is. I'm not against it. i just don't agree that we've come anywhere near exhausting our attempts to do so through means other than war. That may require some new ideas. And it appears our investigation and development of new alternatives to war has been nearly nonexistent.

"It seems the entire Left is rallying to defend the cause of this tyrant, as they do for many tyrants."

I think you know better than that.

"The coming war will probably kill fewer Iraqis than Saddam would manage to kill on his own over the next few years. The war will probably be over fast--very fast."

As might the "something else," which we can't even identify because we haven't bothered to develop it.

Why do some folks assume that because a problem is very difficult, and involves someone who rules by force, the only way to solve it is through war? Don't you guys kind of think humankind might do well to work toward ending war? I mean, we've made a little progress in other areas over the centuries. I think we're lagging in the conflict resolution department. Are you going to say, "Yeah, sure, just not right now"?

(This serves as my response to Jimbo as well.)