Another point of contention...Even if you accept the contention that Sadaam somehow supplied the terrorists, nd then you say supplied terrorists who attacked us = attacking us, how do you then split hairs with those who accuse the US of attacking Arabs by supplying Israel, who has, at least at times, attacked Arabs with US supplied arms?
please feel free to read the rest of my post (which you quoted, by the way) which speaks of the threat if iraq turns over those weapons to al qaeda, which has shown itself to be quite "freaky!"
something that gets lost in the shuffle is the nature of the opposition to Saddam, not just our best buddies the Kurds (although we seem to ignore Kurd terrorist actions in Turkey, a NATO country, as well as Turkeys brutal retaliation), but the Shi'ite rebels in the south. Ah yes, the Shi'ite militia, those guys are a real throwback to the kinder, gentler age of Mideast terrorism, back in the 80's. Remember them? taking and executing American hostages in Lebanon, hijacking that TWA flight and the Achille Lauro and murdering hostages, bombing the Marine Barracks in Beirut and killing 300 servicemen. But I'm sure that these Iraqi Shi'ite guerillas are much different from those ones, they'll probably be so grateful about US assistance, as were the Afghan militants back in the 80's, that they'll never dabble in that sort of thing again.
Do you have documentation to support the statement about the <i>Achille Lauro</i> incident being linked to Shi'ite terrorists?
Mango, I am not saying you are amongst them, but have you ever noticed that there are posters in here who expect a much higher degree of documented evidence to support another poster's claims than they expect of the government's justification for going to war?
Yeah, I have a signed confession in my desk drawer. I'm looking at it right now. I just looked it up, I thought it was hezbollah, but it was something called the PLF which I have never heard of. Let's assume that you're right, and they are made up of Sunnis, does that make Shi'ite extremists less dangerous?
I have difficulty thinking of a poster that has a higher expectation of other posters (in regards to documentation) than myself........so you should have said that I am leader of the pack rather than implying my position as part of the pack.
More of a secular/Palestinian bent than a religious focus. Here is a nice background on them: <A HREF="http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=29">PLF</A> A Secular leader (Saddam), extreme Sunni, extreme Shia or extreme secular groups such as PFLP; all seem to have compatibility problems with Western/U.S. interests.
Bingo! That's more like it! Very pragmatic! When you put it in specific terms like that it really cuts through the propaganda. At least this way we know why, who and how things happen. CNN just likes saying "those terrorist." They are peddling to the lowest common denominator. They might as well say, "the Bogeyman!" Remember, there are very powerful people in high places in the middle-east. They know how to use religion as a tool. These are the people that we should fear. They have hidden agendas. Saddam is front and center. But, the master-minds that hide behind the scenes are the dangerous ones. The people that follow, are ignorant, but not blatantly guilty (if they get tempted to do "dirty work" in the name of religion). We just need to understand that, without fearing retribution from the "political correctness police."
It seems reasonable to say Saddam will acquire nukes in the future. That is not desirable. Therefore we will not allow it. Although there is not much 'public' evidence that he HAS nukes now, which I don't believe he does, he nevertheless has the budget, the scientisits, and the desire to acquire this capability at the earliest possible date. He has empirically done so and there is not even circumstantial evidence that he has had some epiphany and changed his desires/motives, nor his aggressive tendencies toward other states in the region. That does not even touch yet on the possibility Saddam has to give the WMD to terrorists or to have them stolen by terrorists, to lose control himself leaving the nukes in the middle of an unstable situation, nor the possibility of an accidental launch. Without all of those considerations there is enough evidence to conclude he will proliferate as soon as possible and that he will use that power, either through blackmail or actual use, at some point in the future. That should be our simple justification for going in. The fact that he commits genocide, that he is a despot, that he violently eliminates any opposition within Iraq serves as a response to those who strangely believe Saddam has some inherent legitimacy to rule, or that Iraqi sovereignty is more important than action on a moral level. So the policy with Iraq does not have to be unrealistic nor immoral. The opinion of other countries does not impact the morality of the action. It either is or is not. Other states have their own motives for positions and it is simply foolish to assume they make them according to some inviolate moral code. Re: Pakistan - first, again, we tried to prevent Pakistan's proliferation. The Pressler Amendment. second, dealing with nuclear states differently than non-nuclear states does not make a policy ad hoc. Re: other states will not know how to react.. I think this is really disingenous. it should be pretty clear that the goal is and has been to stop proliferation. pakistan became nuclear with help from China, not help from the US. Re: Rimbaud - I just like using the term 'Frogs' and know you have some connection (lived there, defend them frequently on the bbs).
Waltz believed that nuclear powers had to be balanced at the regional level for deterrence to reach it's maximum level of effectiveness. This is, in a large part, because Waltz viewed nuclear politics as distinct from conventional-force politics. I'm not so sure. In fact, the idea of a radically weaker neighbor, like Kuwait, possessing nukes scares me. Too easy for a stronger neighbor to believe they're bluffing to invade. Especially in close "quarters" like that. Even more so in a region characterized more by religious identification than nationalism. Pakistan/India is, of course, the new penultimate example of the value of proliferation. Myself, and others, believe that hot war would have erupted if only ONE power had nukes. Sorry to take so long to answer - I don't check as often as I once did .
HayesStreet, I see your point and follow the logic to an extent. Two questions. 1) Okay, we take Saddam out, and let's assume we do so in a fairly unilateral way, with our flunky the UK helping us. Does the ill will this action breeds internationally haunt us with respect to terrorism? Do you think the ill will aspect is overhyped? Do you agree that, ideally, we act multilaterally? (sorry, several questions, but they're related ) 2) What the heck kind of government do we prop up in Iraq, which again is a weird cobbled together state left in the wake of previous colonial misadventures? I like your posts, even when I disagree, because you're using logic and not relying on a proliferation of exclamation marks. Thanks.
I do not know why we would see an increase in terrorism for removing Saddam. Sure. I have no problem with a functional multilateral action. However, I also have no problem with a unilateral one if a multilateral option is not present. Doesn't matter. Preferably something democratic, since that should engender the least ill will. However, my opinion is that even if we remove Saddam and leave Iraq in chaos (a Somalian like situation), we will be better off. And that is the worst case scenario in my mind. More than likely a coalition government of some sort will form. Even if that is fundamentalist/radical then we are better off since Saddam is the worst possible of choices: a single decision maker with absolute authority and a willingness to gamble with aggression in the Middle East, with a desire and means to acquire nukes.
