Cohen, are you one of the goalpost moving guys who say we need to go to war because Sadam is oppressing Iraqis?; that this is so,even if he admits inspectors and we don't find the forbidden weapons and/ or we destroy any of them that are there? BTW I agree he is a selfish, despiable dictator like many others around the world-- some of whom we have supported for various geopolitcal reasons. Of the probably 40 or so other despicable dictators around the world, in how many cases would you personally be willing to die in order to help their people?
North Korea, Myanamar, Laos, Nigeria, Syria, Indonesia, Sudan ,Rwanda, Sierre Leone, Equatorial Guinea, Burundi, Mozambigue. Much of Africa the Mideast and Asia. Many of the countries in Lain and Central America have in the last few years become more democratic. In the 1970's and 1980,s we supported dictators in Brazil, Haiti, Argentna, Guatemala, Paraguay, Naragua and El Salvador among others
And which of these is worse from a danger viewpoint and a treatment of their people standpoint than Saddam Hussein?
Refman, I think many of them are pretty bad. In Sierre Leone for instance or Somalia,Sudan, and I believe Ethiopia/Eritrea, just about as many pople have died. By the way prior to our destroying the bridges, sewer and water systems in Iraq there food distribution program was a model for the third world in many publi health stats. Turkey has killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds. BTW are you willing to die to liberate the people of Iraq if there are no wmd or those that are found are desroyed? How about the people of Somalia or Eritrea?
Somalia--dead issue...Clinton already sent our boys in there. As for Saddam...the guy has a history of obfuscating, lying and concealing. We could send a million inspectors in and still not know what he really has. Part of that is due to the politics of the region. If we were close to finding what he has then one of his neighbors (or a faction not necessarily in power) would be more than happy to hang onto his weapons info/weaponmaking material until the inspectors are gone. No...I don't want to die...in Iraq or elsewhere. I wouldn't have wanted to die in WW2 had I been there. But if I were asked I would serve. Sometimes you need to do what has to be done because nobody else will.
I don't know what a 'goalpost moving guy' is, but I mentioned the article because: 1) Wanniski's article seems to make poor li'l old Saddam out to be some inncocent, misunderstood dictator; 2) YOU always blame US for the effect that the sanctions have on Iraqi children. It has nothing to do with arguing 'for' war with Iraq. Once you have set in your mind what you think someone else's opinion is, it seems that you have a difficult time correcting yourself. Or maybe if someone doesn't agree with your view, you simply place them in the 'other' bucket. White or black. Again, I am not convinced war is necessary. Do I lean that way? Against those desiring to rule out war, yes, I will lean against them. But I am still undecided. I want to see what inspectors find. If they find nearly completed nukes and underground facilities, and cannot guarantee that they will find everything, I will want Saddam removed by force if necessary. You don't see a threat to our country, but I do (but then again, when do pacifists ever see a threat?). Its unfortunate that you do not accept how that differs from those that want war now. It's not that subtle a concept.
Even if the inspectors find nothing...will you ever be completely sure he really has nothing? Especially given that he is labelling certain locations as off limits.
If he sticks with 'off-limits' facilities, I may be very inclined to make a decision regarding war. As for the guarantee, I know that there will always be some unknowns and uncertainty. It depends on what type of 'monitoring' is available long-term.
I saw Ritter on C-Span the other day. I don't know what to make of the guy. He talked about Republicans "seizing" the power of the federal government. He made it sound like a violent revolution or something. I thought we had had free and open elections?! Makes me suspect his politicking on this matter.
Here's what you need to know about Ritter: 1) In 1998 he quit his job as a UN weapons inspector. He went before Congress and warned of the dangers that Saddam poses in regard to WMD. 2) In 2002 Ritter did a complete flip flop. You've heard his current rhetoric by now. 3) Ritter currently is making a documentary on Iraq. He has been given unprecedented access to high ranking Iraqi officials for the film. He also received $400,000 for the making of the film. The money came from an Iraqi businessman with ties to Saddam. All of a sudden it makes sense, eh?
Here's what you need to know about Ritter: 1) In 1998 he quit his job as a UN weapons inspector. He went before Congress and warned of the dangers that Saddam poses in regard to WMD. 2) In 2002 Ritter did a complete flip flop. You've heard his current rhetoric by now. 3) Ritter currently is making a documentary on Iraq. He has been given unprecedented access to high ranking Iraqi officials for the film. He also received $400,000 for the making of the film. The money came from an Iraqi businessman with ties to Saddam. All of a sudden it makes sense, eh? Well, technically, you could use these facts to make the case either way. On one hand, you could say he's been paid off to support Iraq (as I assume you are). On the other hand, you could say that he's had access to and seen things that the rest of our intelligence hasn't, and thus actually might know more than the rest of us.
on Ritter: it seems to me like he's just a contrarian to whatever any administration is going to say just to do what he perceives as his job. It'd be nice to take that attitude than insult the guy's patriotism every waking stance, eh?
So in the most generous of terms, he is a man who will ignore the facts and stir up controversy where none should exist because he feels he's taking the moral high ground in doing so. Not particularly productive.
