But, wait!! The media told me everyone was AGAINST invading Iraq...

maybe, but the pr blitz has been going on since way before yesterday. I'm still waiting for the smoking gun. Usually, when the US goes to war, it doesn't take a 6-month marketing campaign.

 

You ignore everyone's discussion and expect a response?

 

No...it took a lot more than that for our involvement in Vietnam or Korea. Hell...those NEVER gained public support.

 

Do you seriously think that the people who believe 9/11 was the work of Mossad-CIA will ever signoff on the Iraq proposal?

 

Were we busy with something else?
How long was Desert Storm after the invasion of Kuwait?
How long did it take us before we attacked Serbia?

 

Busy? no, the anti-iraqi rhetoric heated up as soon as the binladen trail went cold and the war on terrorism needed a target that you can aim a missile at but hasn't killed any americans in quite a while rather than cells of terrorists that killed thousands last year that you can't aim a missile at.

Desert Storm of course was not a preemptive attack, it was in response to a UN resoution. Serbia was a UN sponsored intervention in a civil war that was turning into a humanitarian nightmare, although it did have opposition from the isolationist crowd like pat buchanan, etc.

Those interventions didn't need marketing campaigns, this one does, and it's not even working.

 

Hopefullly you're not citing vietnam as a positive example. My understanding of Korea is that US forces were already there when NK invaded but I don't quite recall.

Apparently they did in 1990, enough so that unpopular Arab regimes could join in without fear of public revolt. Even Bin Laden and his extremists seem to object primarily to the fact that the us forces never left rather than the invasion of Iraq.

 

First of all I'm not saying to do nothing. Secondly I think the only threats he's issued have been with the condition if the U.S. attacks Iraq. Saddam isn't capable of expansion, and at the first attempt of expansion there would be a huge multilateral coalition formed against Saddam and he would be wiped out. It's completely possible to contain Saddam.

The resolutions Saddam broke were U.N. resolutions, let's work through the U.N. IF the U.N. wanted to inforce it's resolutions with a multi-lateral attack, then so be it. Weapons inspections with back up from amred forces is one possiblity to monitor and enforce the U.N. resolutions. That would gain more acceptance from our allies, would be more cost effective and could still rid the world of an IRaqi nuclear threat.

Just because the cold war is over doesn't mean that the comparison isn't valid.

You yourself mentioned India and Pakistan in your post. If we're worried that backward weapons systems and instability in a region increase the possibility of use of nukes, why not give those guys more advanced systems? Or why not invade every other country with nukes to make sure they don't accidentally go off? I don't actually propose those things, but those sollutions would be valid given your logic.

You yourself mentioned India and Pakistan in your post. If we're worried that backward weapons systems and instability in a region increase the possibility of use of nukes, why not give those guys more advanced systems? Or why not invade every other country with nukes to make sure they don't accidentally go off? I don't actually propose those things, but those sollutions would be valid given your logic.

Israel continues to expand via settlements. Also even Begin admitted that Egypt didn't intend to invade in '67. Egypt only sent in 2 divisions and those to Palestinian areas. Israel used that as an excuse to take over more land.

Also both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are a theocratic democracies at best and not a true democracy. In Israel anyone who isn't Jewish can't hold the office of PM. There can be no party that supports anything other than Judaism. That's not exactly democracy. Likewise Palestinians won't let Jews hold office. They are theocratic democracy at the best.

All the more reason that we sould be able to contain Saddam. This time the destruction would is heavily lopsided in our favor. IT should be easier to contain these guys.

That was in response to denying supplies needed to build weapons, not containment of countries with those weapons. I think that an effort should be made to fix the problem and leaks involved in denying those materials.

I do think he's lying, and I support getting weapons inspectors back in to find out, and take action to destroy the stockpiles if he does have those weapons. I support efforts to get rid of Saddam. I would support a multi-lateral U.N. force who decided the only course of action to stop Hussein was to go in and remove him. I don't support a Uni-lateral U.S. unprovoked first strike against an independent country.

I didn't say that the containment failed. I say it worked. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I was agreeing with you that denying nuke materials failed in the past... not containment in general. Also the proxy wars took place over four decades. The cold war was against far more powerful enemies. This is one third rate dictatorship. It wouldn't take four decades or dozens of proxy conflicts.

 

You know mav...that's the problem. There are some in this country who would just turn over our military to the UN. We USED to be the strongest nation on Earth...not any more. Now some would have us ask the UN before the President goes to pee. Who exactly deemed the UN as being so righteous that they would be able to decide what should be done worldwide?

Please don't hand me any of this moral high ground crap...we are dealing with a regime that will not fight fair. You try to fight them by taking the absolute moral high ground and we will end up with LOTS more dead Americans than we will have from the battle.

 

Couple of things ....

(1) From what I was told by a professor today (I haven't confirmed this anywhere else), Rumsfeld met with a number of Congressmen yesterday to justify the war on Iraq. Several just got up and walked out of the room because he refused to give them any reasons besides the usual stuff.

(2) Bush may be talking out of his ass to create this "immediate threat":

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/05/iraq.nuclear/index.html

<I>The Bush administration has suggested that Iraq may soon develop a nuclear bomb. But multiple sources in the U.S. government said they believe Iraq is years away from having a nuclear device unless the country receives outside help. Most of these sources also said they know of no specific intelligence that would lead to a new timetable assessment.</I>

While the intelligence agencies may reassess their thoughts, there's no evidence at this point to suggest Saddam is close on nuclear weapons.

 

There are some in this country who would just turn over our military to the UN. We USED to be the strongest nation on Earth...not any more.

Refman, do you really believe this? Do you really not see the benefits of trying to first work with global authority through the UN? In this latest scenario, the US hasn't even *tried* to go through the UN. It's one thing to try that route, fail, and then move forward. This administration doesn't even care to try, as of yet.

 

I posted it didn't I? Yes I believe it. We have become the UN's bullyboys. In Serbia our soldiers wore UN patches on their uniforms rather than the US flag patch. Bothersome.

I'm not opposed to getting international support...but I'm not prepared to ask for permission before we do something.

Why do you think it had been so long prior to a terrorist act in this country? Because they didn't have the funds to do it? No. Because they didn't have the knowhow? No. Because over the last decade or so we have become lax, lazy and there are no real reprecussions? Nailed it!!! That's why!!!!

Unless you want a repeat of 9/11, we need to worry about what is effective rather than what is popular.

 

I agree with you, I was responding to Mango's apparent assertion the support of the Arab "street" was ultimately unattainable and pointless. I agree that their feelings are important and apparently they go against us.

Part of that is our own fault, we have a corrupt relationship going on with arab state governments: you be our cheap gas station and we'll let your autocratic regimes perpetrate hideous human and civil rights abuses instead of developing democratic institutions or a modernized market economy, and create and foster religious radicals who spew anti us bile and create hijackers. But that is a whole other can of worms.

 

The UN is the only organization that has resolutions that Hussein has broken. He has broken no agreements with the U.S. Why shouldn't any actions be taken with the U.N. ?

 

I'm not opposed to getting international support...but I'm not prepared to ask for permission before we do something.

This is exactly the attitude that pisses off the rest of the world. No other country in the world really acts on big things without going through the UN (if they do, they get punished for it - Iraq 1990). When the US acts like its better than everyone else, that creates the breeding grounds for terrorism.

Why do you think it had been so long prior to a terrorist act in this country? Because they didn't have the funds to do it? No. Because they didn't have the knowhow? No. Because over the last decade or so we have become lax, lazy and there are no real reprecussions? Nailed it!!! That's why!!!!

No, it was because terrorism didn't really exist in its current form until the last decade or so. We weren't terrorized in the 80's (except for things like plane bombings) because the terror groups weren't nearly as advanced. The world was more centered around the two super-powers. The hatred for the US wasn't there at nearly the levels its at now. I don't see how it has anything to do with us being lazy?!? Bin Laden's whole thing hatred for the US got started AFTER the Iraqi war, so unless you think he would have built his terrorist network in a few years, of course we weren't going to be attacked in the early/mid 90's.

 

I don't have any faith in the UN as a supranational organization or world governing body. I don't care about moral high ground either.

I was merely citing UN support as a sign of international consensus.

I have not, nor do any credible voices of the US foreign policy establishment advocate ceding authority to the UN. Don't go black helicopter on me.

 

It is a fact that he tried to kill Bush. Under your 'there must at least be a trumped up excuse for intervention' criteria, whoop there it is.

It is not possible to stop a country that is serious about acquiring nuclear capability that goal forever through containment. You readily admit THAT FAILS. Do you understand how that changes your equation. Saddam acquires nukes, Saddam invades Kuwait again. Who is going to volunteer troops to attack nuclear armed forces of a despot? It will be infinitely more difficult, if not impossible, to 'contain' a nuclear armed Iraq.

Iraq is not allowing nuclear inspectors in. The UN does not (apparently) have the support to enforce THEIR OWN RESOLUTIONS.

Yeah. It does.

Safety systems? Sure, I got no problem with that, except of course you cannot do that if you are depending on a 'containment' policy to stop nuclear proliferation. Then every country will demand nuclear technology.

First, neither India nor Pakistan is hostile to the West. So there is no reason to invade either. Second, I can't jump in the HayesStreet Time Machine and change policy from thirty years ago to intervene in Pakistan or India BEFORE they got nukes, nor would I have advised that since we were opposed by an equally powerful Soviet Union. Third, if Pakistan was taken over by fundamentalists who harbored bin laden types I would be in favor of covert ops to take their capability out. With no Soviet threat that operation would be much less likely to cause a Cold War miscalculation. One of the ways the world is different now.

See above.

No, I propose stopping acquisition of nukes, not invading to remove nukes in relation to Iraq. And Iraq is the only country I believe it is necessary at this moment to stop by force. The other two countries still driving for nukes, Iran and North Korea, have moderating influences (N Korea needs mucho other help and Iran has a large moderate influence in the government). I could be wrong, and if so, and they are a legitimate threat, then military action is certainly an option we should consider.

Those settlements are part of Israel. That's what happens when you lose a war and your armies get driven back.

Irrelevant to my point that there is not a SINGLE decisionmaker in Israel that could launch nukes. That is one of the reasons that Iraq is particularly dangerous. Saddam is the only decisionmaker.

Not with nukes. Which you admit we cannot prevent him from getting at some point in the future.

Can't be done. I have given you example after example of proliferating countries that got aid in their drive for nukes by countries that should know better, but who do it for short term gain. You have given NO ANSWERS to these empirical FACTS except to say you would 'try to fix the leaks.' You would be the little Dutch FranchiseBlade with your finger in the dike.

Why not? The UN is not going to act. You yourself say the political will is not there. You admit we cannot stop him from acquiring nukes. Unilateral action CAN stop that by ensuring a regime change. If you have a better solution that is not wishful thinking, please let us in on it.

You might be able to contain conventional forces, although the reason that worked in the Cold War was that US and Soviet forces did not actually square off themselves, but rather through proxies. You cannot prevent acquisition of nukes with containment. When you admit that you lose your general containment arguments because you cannot contain a nuclear power without engaging in extremely dangerous NUCLEAR brinksmanship. If you don't understand that its infinitely more dangerous to EVERYONE, I am at a loss to explain it to you.

And you have NO ANSWER to the other 6 reasons I articulate as reasons to act, unilaterally if we must, against nuclear proliferation.