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

I am more concerned about countries sharing their nukes with terrorists than nuclear proliferation itself. I think that's what a lot of people miss, is that Hussein does not need an ICBM if he works covertly with terrorists.

Jimmy Carter claimed that Iraq is not a threat to us. How can he guarantee that when Iraq gets/builds a nuke he won't give it to al qaeda? I never forgave him for his handling of the Iran hostage crisis anyway so I really don't care what he thinks, as long as he keeps it to himself.

 

So we caused 9/11 and other terrorist acts against our interests???!!! I agree with you a lot of the time...but you've totally lost your mind on this one.

 

You can't guarantee that he won't. But you can't guarantee that Pakistan and its ISI, which pretty much invented the Taliban, wouldn't do the same.

Don't be so extreme. On a theoretical level of course the US causes terrorist attacks by doing, or not doing, something, whether real or perceived that terrorsts are aggrieved by. That doesn't however, necessarily mean that the US should not do anything ever, as invariably it will be the target of contempt if only based on jealousy and envy.

As I said before, we certainly enabled the development of terrorists by propping up corrupt arab monarchs in exchange for cheap oil while discontent festersn among their populace. That doesn't make us the sole "cause", but it just illustrates for every action there is a reaction.(note, I didn't invent this idea, its the one mostly propagated by Thomas Friedman of the Times who is recognized as one of the most influential thinkers on Mideast affairs, Prince Bandar of SA circulated his arab israeli peace plan through Friedman before he approached the Bush administration.)

 

Originally posted by mav3434
You can't guarantee that he won't. But you can't guarantee that Pakistan and its ISI, which pretty much invented the Taliban, wouldn't do the same.

So since Pakistan has nukes, we should turn a blind eye to all other potential threats? What kind of logic is that?

BTW, Pakistan was doing a lot in Afghanistan with our blessing. Didn't we even train Pakistan's intelli svc?

Also, mav3434, please be careful on your responses. I don't always disagree with Refman ( ), but I don't always agree with him either. Please don't make it look like his quote belongs to me. Either use names on all quotes or none. Thx.

 

Agreed.

 

So we caused 9/11 and other terrorist acts against our interests???!!! I agree with you a lot of the time...but you've totally lost your mind on this one.

If you want to twist my words, then yes.

Realistically, there's no doubt that our actions ultimately led to people hating us which led to the terrorist group forming and thus the terrorist acts. If we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia, OBL wouldn't have hated us -- that was the entire core of his problem with us from Day #1 of his organization. If you leave people alone, they don't tend to care about you one way or the other. That doesn't mean that what we did was wrong, though -- just that our actions did have negative side-effects. ALL actions have side-effects.

Anyone who denies that and believes the Bush line of "they hate our freedom" is just deluding themselves. These people hate us for a reason, and its not that we have a good life. Whether they have a good reason or not to hate us is debatable of course. And before someone makes the next ridiculous leap of logic that always happens, no, this doesn't justify the terrorism in any way.

 

Didn't mean to imply it was yours, I figured everybody here knows who everybody is. I just don't know how to get the two quotes with everybodyys names in it and didn't want to double post.

Substantively, since everything is about making a "case" against Iraq, I don't see any problem in looking at other "cases" in order to determine the level of threat involved.

 

Refman: According to a recent poll, the majority of Europeans polled believe that US policies were responsible in part for 9/11. And they're our allies. That certainly doesn't justify 9/11 or mean that we deserved it, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. Bin Laden might be a madman, but he didn't attack Norway. He attacked us. There was a reason. Major's right and Bush is clueless (or lying) as usual -- it wasn't a hatred of freedom.

Max: I don't disagree that Carter's foreign policy left much to be desired, but I take exception with you saying he'd be the last person you'd ask for advice. You're a smart guy and I'm sure you know that Carter's a smart guy. You may not want him in charge of foreign policy, but you know he's well educated in it. Bush has his cabinet to advise him. We disagree about whether that's a good thing, as we are disagree as to whether they will steer him in the right direction. But, leaving out the cabinets, who would you expect to get a more thoughtful, informed opinion from -- Carter or Bush? There is only one answer to that question. Our current president is, without question, the least informed, least educated modern president with regard to international affairs. Before he ran for president he'd never even been out of the country. Not even to Mexico. He recently asked the president of Brazil if they had Blacks there. Be careful about whose foreign policy acumen you criticize while you're backing a guy who is so indisputably dumb in this area.

 

As far as Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, I think he's 1 win and 1 loss.

Iran is his loss, though I don't think it's totally his fault the helicopter with the rescue team crashed and the attempt was foiled.

His role in the camp david accords between Israel and Egypt is nothing short of amazing. He's one of the reasons I have hope of a peaceful solution to the situation in the middle east.

As an ex-president I think he's batting close to 1000 in foreign affairs. His agency monitoring elections, and his efforts around the world have been excellent.

 

That was almost ten years ago. If we were going to act the time to do so was then.

There are other ways to prevent him from acquiring nukes. Limited strikes on those facilities building them as opposed to full scale invasion. Weapons Inspectors with armed escort and enforcement is another. However if he did have nukes and invaded another country, I still believe it wouldn't be hard to find countries willing to join the coalition.

Bush hasn't even tried to propose any action via the UN. There was a sollution brought up recently in which Saddam would be informed that weapons inspectors with back up from UN forces would enter Iraq. If they were fired upon, or denied access, then a full UN force would invade. This is a proposition that could be brought up before the UN, and I believe would most likely pass. That way we could have access find and destroy his nuclear capability. It may also end in an invasion of Iraq, but the cost would be divided up amongst many nations and not just the U.S. It would also be done in cooperation with other nations around the world. It's called Diplomacy, perhaps Bush should look into it.

I might be in favor of covert ops taking out the capability too, and that includes Iraq. But that's different than a full scale uni-lateral invasion.

They aren't a legal part of Israel. They are illegal and claimed by Israel. They violate numerous resolutions, and treaties which have been listed in other threads.

Perhaps your right and denying him the materials won't work. I'll concede that, though I still think a more focussed effort should still be made.

But weapons inspectors with the UN forces behind them, that I mentioned before could keep him from getting nukes.

I do believe the UN might be willing to support the forced weapons inspectors, if someone would take the time to propose it. It wouldn't hurt to try. Hopefully Bush hasn't turned everyone off so much at this point that they would still be willing to listen to reasonable proposals like this. After 9/11 countries like Syria and Iran were willing to help us. Quickly Bush's saber rattling is deteriorating that good will.

I understand that it's dangerous to everyone to use implied nuclear threat as part of containment. I also think it's more dangerous to unilaterally invade a country that hasn't attacked anyone. It's especially dangerous when the region is already a powder keg, and this could be the spark that ignites it. It will certainly increase hatred toward the west(and with some justification this time.) That might well increase terrorists willing to carry out actions against the U.S.

Meanwhile the U.S. isn't even putting enough effort into stabalizing Afghanistan. The president has asked for more troops and says that they are needed for security. No one has been willing to give more, and today there was an assassination attempt. The fact that Bin LAden is till unaccounted for only goes to show that more effort should be placed there, but instead all the resources look as if they will be given to Iraq. What happened to Bush saying he was going to do whatever it took to get Bin Laden? Now he's moving on to another job before this one is finished.

In addition if this operation causes more instability amongst Arab nations currently helping us in the war against terrorism, and they then have to worry about other problems our efforts against terrorism are hurt even more.

1. I mentioned the giving of the technology to all the countries with nukes, or the weapons inspectors with armed escorts theory, or targeted strikes on those specific facilities.

2.Saddam hasn't given his chem and bio weapons to terrorists in the decades that he's had them, there is no indication that he would behave differently with nukes. Monitoring and containment should prevent that, and if he even came close to acting in that way, then an invasion would be warranted.

3.Again monitoring, and containment should be able to prevent this too.

4.It's wrong to invade based on someones prediction based on a 'crystal ball' of what would happen in the future with not history to back it up. China has a policy to actually use limited nuclear strikes against the U.S. in a war, but nobody seems too concerned with them. Iraq is far less dangerous.

5. If his regime fell we should rejoice. That's what we want. There is no way of knowing which faction it would be overthrowing him. But to invade based on the fact that someone MIGHT overthrow Saddam, and WHOEVER it is MIGHT not be someone we like is ridiculous. Given that logic we should invade every country that has nukes because SOMEONE that we MIGHT not like could overthrow the current regime.

6. The Saudis seem less concerened with that than they are with a U.S. invasion. I think they have their own oil fields and interests far more than we do, and if they aren't worried, then I'm not worried either. There is no evidence that we have to worry about that all, certainly not enough evidence to warrant a uni-lateral invasion. If the saudis lost their oil fields there are plenty of other countries that could sell to us. We would take over Iraq if that happened, and have their oil. Nigeria produces more oil than IRaq and we could still buy from them, and every other country with rich oil reserves.

 

From Clinton:

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/4276358p-5296555c.html

Clinton: Get bin Laden before pursuing Hussein
By CHELSEA J. CARTER Associated Press Writer
Published 4:10 p.m. PDT Thursday, September 5, 2002

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton urged the Bush administration Thursday to finish the job with Osama bin Laden before taking on Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11," Clinton said. "Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive."

Clinton made his remarks to several hundred people at a $1,000-a-plate fund-raising event in Orange County for U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove.

Although Clinton told the audience he did not have access to current intelligence information about Iraq, he said news reports citing American officials say the al-Qaida network remained a threat.

"I also believe we might do more good for American security in the short run at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flesh out the entire network," Clinton said.

Clinton said he supported President Bush's efforts in Afghanistan, including military actions and support of the Afghan government.

He told people the real concern in Iraq was Hussein's possible use of stockpiled chemical and biological weapons.

The former president reminded the audience of Hussein's propensity to use the weapons in the past, citing an attack on the Kurds and the Iran-Iraq war.

"He has maximum incentive not to use this stuff," Clinton said. "If we go, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose."

 

Can I have another beer?

 

I didn't know he was the voyeuristic type. Things you learn about that man every day...

 

You know, it's funny.

When the most respected Republican thinkers of the last couple decades advise caution, it's all about, well, they just don't have all the information.

When other countries advise caution, it's oh, you know, **** the UN and these other countries don't have to worry about terrorism (!!!!!!!!!) Never mind the fact that they've dealt with it a lot longer than we have.

And when Clinton or Carter say something about it, it's oh, Clinton and Carter. Won't they ever shut up. Carter made the Iranians kidnap our people! He's a peanut farmer! Clinton only cares about cameras! He's a media w****!

Check it out, simple folk: Carter had the ONLY success ever in the Middle East. EVER. LEARN FROM HIM. And Clinton was the only other president who even seemed interested in peace in that region. Yes, Bush got involved when the oil supply was threatened. But who worked on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Because that is, after all, what's at the heart of that region's problem with us.

Yeah. Blow off Clinton and Carter. Blow off yesterday's Republican war heroes. Blow off world opinion. Blow off Congress. Blow off dropping support in this country.

I mean, after all, Bush knows more than all those people, right?

I mean, he never got a blow job in the White House, right? He wasn't a poor kid who worked a farm, right? He's not a filthy European... He must know better than the rest of the world, than the rest of this country, than the rest of his party.

You guys aren't just making me mad, you're making me sick. I'm taking a break. I'll see you when I cool down.

 

And a good portion of Europe (particularly Frnace) is anti-Semitic. Many of them think we shouldn't support Israel...EVER...for ANY reason. Should we listen to them there too?

We get it...you don't like Bush. The time for snyde digs has passed. We'll just imply them for you from now on. And I suppose that Dems have never utilized rhetoric before.

They probably have most of the info. But they didn't go after Baghdad the last time when the military leaders were urging them to. They wound up with egg on their face...why in the hell would they want to admit it now?

That has ALWAYS been my thought on the UN...nothing new here.

I'm pretty sure that the 50 Americans who were held by the Iranians until Carter was out of office would tend to disagree that Carter was a foreign relations genius.

I don't see anybody suggesting that we blow off Congress. In fact, even Bush is seeking a resolution BEFORE doing ANYTHING. How...precisely...is that blowing off Congress?

Here comes the rhetoric. Blow job in the White House? Irrelevant. Peanut farmer? I've never used that as a knock on him. Europeans? Pardon me if I don't give a lot of deference on this to a bunch of anti-Semite French jackasses.

I'm actually very sorry to hear that. I'm NOT being a smartass about it either. You feel passionately about leaving Iraq be. Well...I feel passionately about making sure that Saddam and his goons don't blow you up. I'm sorry if that makes you sick. You must understand that I have no love of war...I just know Saddam's tendencies. If given the chance he WILL blow up you, me and everybody else he possibly can.

 

Damn, FB. So you have a statute of limitations on your 'must have an excuse to strike first?' He is still Saddam. He is still in power.

I think you overestimate satellite capabilities. You probably believe we've bombed some baby formula factories instead of chem weapons facilities, yes? Why did we do that? Because the technology is not as good as you think. Why did Saddam kick the inspectors out in the first place? So they couldn't give targeting information to the coalition. Piecemeal, ad hoc policy is doomed to failure.

If you have to ARM them then you can't send in 20 people at a time. They would just be killed.

Even if you are right, the risk of nuclear conflict is currently ZERO in a conflict with Saddam. The risk would be HIGHER than that after he acquires nukes. You cannot deny that. And the arguments you make now about him using weapons if he thinks he's going to lose will have that much more impact after he has nukes. And you very well could be wrong. Its very possible that NONE of the other countries in the Middle East would risk conflict with Saddam once he has nukes.

First, you believe it would pass based on WHAT? Give us a site from someone other than a journalist somewhere that believes that. Second, Kofi Annan has already said it is useless to try and put inspectors back in. Third, we agreed earlier that Iraq was LYING about having WMDs. Why would they let inspectors back in? Fourth, if there was support within the UN for action, Bush would surely know that. There would be no reason for him to AVOID it if the political will was there. As Jeff and others have pointed out, this could be very expensive if we go it alone. Bush has to know that. Others have said he is doing this for election purposes or popularity purposes. But as Bush Sr. proved, Bush will get CREDIT for action even if its UN action, so he has no motive to exclude UN action if it is LIKELY. Simply put, it is not.

You are either being silly or facetious if you seriously think Bush and the whole foreign policy establishment has NOT looked behind the scenes to see what, if any, support there would be for multilateral action.

That's problematic for you, FB. It would violate your 'not strike first' dictum. Oops.

Sure, I can understand that. You heart's in the right place .

Look, weapons inspectors are part of 'Containment.' That fails unless they are permanently stationed in Iraq, and have permanent rights to go whereever they want. That will not happen and you know it.

Neither Syria nor Iran have come anywhere close to saying anything about FORCING weapons inspectors back in. You are making that up. And it is highly unlikely for the same reasons that have been listed for non-cooperation from other middle eastern countries.

No. Simple math tells us that it is more dangerous, meaning more lives are at risk, if Saddam acquires nukes than if he is removed.

And so what is the impact of that? The ultimate (meaning worst possible) impact is use of nukes. People taking to the streets and being really pissed off is not that big of a deal in comparison. What is the worst thing that could happen? Arab countries invade Israel? Not likely. If they do I think we've seen that Israel can defend itself. The House of Saud falls? So what. They are the ones funding most of the terrorism to begin with. What else??? There is not a powder keg its a mini-keg. Are Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Iran going to attack the US forces, lol? I do not think so.

Could be. But the impact of more terrorism is less that a nuclear war. In fact, if the House of Saud falls, and those autocratic regimes that don't help their people with their oil money fall, maybe the Middle Easterners will turn inward with their new found power and prosperity and help fix the 'poverty' that is the alleged 'breeding ground of terrorism.' OR the new fundamentalist regimes DON'T fix anything. They just replace the current elites with themselves ala Iran. Eventually the people will become disillusioned with a religious regime, ala Iran, and become moderates. Then we no longer have to worry about looney religious zealots making policy in the Middle East. Doesn't sound bad to me either way.

An assassination attempt foiled by US forces I might add. There is no evidence that we cannot operate both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Although personally I would not have a problem with total withdrawl from both Iraq and Afghanistan post intervention.

President's ALWAYS have more than one thing on the agenda. Just the way it works when you are the most powerful person on the planet. The resources used for one of those operations is not trading off with the other. If you ARE worried about a possible tradeoff, then you should write your Congressman and tell them how much you support Bush, and how they should allocate more resources to each task.

Are they helping us? A government that gives international lip service on one hand, and incites their own people against us to distract from their own policies is not really helping us.

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

(Accidental Launch) So let Saddam have nukes and give him the safeguard technology? Or deny him the technology by continuing to bomb Iraq indefinitely? How long do you think we can do that? How 'popular' is that going to be in the Arab world, since it concerns you so? How likely is it that Saddam will allow weapons inspectors into NUCLEAR facilities? And without on the ground confirmation (ie weapons inspectors), we cannot TARGET FACILITIES. That's why Saddam kicked out the inspectors to begin with.

(Nuclear terrorism) Situations change. You believe that, right? For example, what if he got terminal cancer? He doesn't have a delivery system for nukes to the US. He could give them to terrorists, yes? Second, terrorists traditionally have struck to incite terror. They have (until September 11th) NOT tried to kill mass numbers of people. 20 here, 10 there etc etc. Even things like the Pan Am bombing was a couple of hundred people. That has changed. The motivation for mass murder was not there. Situations change. You don't seem to think that motivation and means can change. That is wrong.

How can monitoring and containment stop him from handing off weapons to terrorists? Or stop terrorists from stealing it once Iraq has it? How could an invasion stop it at that point?

(Miscalculation) How can monitoring and containment stop miscalculation between two countries, lol. Can we monitor and contain and India/Pakistan conflict, lol? Uh, no.

(Irrational Leader) No history to back it up? What planet are you from. Has Saddam used WMD? Yes. That is a fact. Has Saddam invaded a neighbor? Yes, two of them, lol. We cannot stop China from acquiring nukes. We can stop Saddam from acquiring him, but not through containment. You admit that. I do not understand how you think Saddam will be LESS AGGRESSIVE once he gets nukes. That makes no sense. For defense? The only time he has been attacked was in response to his INVASION of a neighbor. China, on the other hand, was worried about the former Soviet Union, which was already nuclear armed, and the US, which was already nuclear armed.

(Internal instability/Loose nukes) There is a simple difference in the equation between invading a country WITH NUKES and invading one WITHOUT NUKES. #5 is...internal instability. Do you think its dangerous to have loose nukes floating around in an unstable environment? If you do then we disagree. Ultimately the use or control of nuclear weapons outweighs ANY other impact in the area. That has to be the #1 priority in our criteria for action. Why? Well, because nuclear war is the most dangerous threat to the people and to the world's interests in the region and elsewhere.

(Nuclear blackmail) Well, Kuwait is on board, right? That should take care of that. And you assume the Saudis are correct. However, they are more likely to believe 'things can be handled.' They don't have an experience dealing with a nuclear armed hostile power.

(terminally ill revenge Saddam) Wow. Now you just dismiss Saudi Arabia getting nuked? 'We can get our oil from other places?' Didn't realize you had the ruthless thing going, FB. Nice.

 

I believe that should be "snooty European."

 

I think Carter did a lot of good things in foreign policy. He was not as big a wimp as people make out, and he got the brunt of a lot of crises he did not create.

He reversed much of our support, or at least gave notice there was a limit to what we would be accomplices in, for dictators like Pinochet in Chile. He did not abandon Pinochet, but he did use sanctions to get him on the path to the National Accords, which eventually led to the return of civilian rule there. He called for better energy policies, and talked straight to the American public about it (for which he was drummed out of office). He protested the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan with the grain embargo while Canada and Australia raked in the rubbles taking up the slack and market percentage at the expense of American farmers (take THAT GRizzled). Camp David Accords were amazing diplomacy. He was, IMHO, not the right personality to lead us into the 80s, Reagan was, despite some of his disasterous domestic policies. If you could combine Carter and Reagan I think you'd get the perfect president, or maybe even Bush and Clinton. But that is asking a little too much I think, to expect them to be perfect.

As for Carter's now, he suffers from the same problem he did then which is too much faith in the good intentions of his fellow humans, and his aversion to use force even when diplomacy had failed.

Clinton is more concerned about his own legacy. And I like Clinton. Think he's a smart man. But his comments smack too much of someone on the outside wanting to get back in the game 'cause he misses the action. Agreeing with Bush is not news, disagreeing is.