haven: The case against Saddam is fairly straightforward in my book, and I don't need specific linkage to 9/11 to consider action against Iraq justified (although terrorists at Salman Pak did train for unarmed combat to hijack jets on a 707 fuselage in groups of 5 or 6, which is highly suspicious, and the anthrax appears to be identical to Iraqi anthrax destroyed 5 years ago, which is also highly suspicious). It is constantly said that an attack against Iraq would be destabilizing, but I consider Saddam and his Baath party's existence to be destabilizing. Why are the Arabs really angry at us? The answer is that we are in the holy land. It isn't really about Israel, although that is always linked. But the real insult is that we occupy the land of Mecca and Medina - the land of Mohammed. And we wouldn't need to be there if Saddam was gone. You're always reminding us that we need to address the long term solutions, and I agree. I say we get the hell out of the ME (our military forces, that is), but we can't do that until Saddam is removed. And since he will never let inspectors back in, it is the only way to get rid of his WMD and get the sanctions lifted. Kill 3 birds with one stone. In addition, Saddam has pledged revenge for 1991 (the asskicking, I mean); he did try to knock down the WTC in 1993, remember - Ramsi Youssef was an Iraqi Intelligence agent. The man does not value human life at all according to those close to him who have fled, and he is just itching to get back at us, and do it big. If he does not already have nukes (and he likely does) he will soon, and it is widely acknowledged that he has a large bio/chem stockpile. And he has already shown a willingness to use them. I for one do not want to wait until he does. As for the destabilizing aspects, theregional governments would be tickled pink if we removed Saddam. They also realize that that is the only way we could ever depart from the ME, and he is threatening their sovereignty, after all. Yes, they would decry us publicly, and it would be hugely unpopular at first among Arab populations, but I have always argued that it would be suicidal for us to limit our national security policy based on what anyone else thinks... And they will calm down when they realize that Iraq had been liberated, not taken over. Just like in Afghanistan. glynch: I must say I'm glad to hear an answer to those questions; frankly I was getting tired of asking them. Let me guess, you'd rather that we let hostile governments take over (ala Iran) and destroy our oil supply (and destroy our economy), and you'd like to see us suspend all aid to Israel and throw away the only bargaining chip we have with them, so that we can't pressure Sharon into making a deal? You really should think these things through more thoroughly, and not just automatically take the liberal line on everything. God didn't have anything to do with it. Our SF lasing targets and the B-52Hs carpet bombing had alot to do with it. But first off, I believe the first words that I ever typed about Colin Powell on this board were words of respect (followed by concern). But 'counterproductive militaristic one sided tact'? Do you mean heavier bombing in Afghanistan? What the hell do you think caused that collapse? The Taliban didn't start collapsing until we started carpet bombing, glynch, which I believe we should have done earlier. I was right about Colin Powell attempting to prolong the war in order not to cause any diplomatic ripples. He (through Bush, who he appeared to have won over on that aspect)deliberately tried to prevent the fall of Kabul because he didn't want Pakistan to get offended; thank god the Northern Alliance didn't listen to us, because the Taliban might still be in control. You do know that we were planning a spring offensive, don't you? Well thanks to the heavier bombing and the Northern Alliance, that won't be necessary now. And you apparently didn't hear Powell today. Powell and all of those 'military and political leaders who have actual experience' are going after Saddam. Didn't hear Powell? Well, yoiu did hear Condaleeza, didn't you? If it's any consolation, it will probably end (the large-scale military actions actions, at least) with Iraq. Everyone else - Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon - probably everyone except for Saudi will fall in line and get rid of their terrorism support infrastructure. And the Saudis' isn't overt, and we're addicted to their oil, anyway, so... As for the idea of capturing these people - where they can be captured (Europe, here, ME, wherever they're found) and put on trial they are/will be. But many of them simply can't or won't be captured alive. I guarantee that neither Saddam not OBL will be caught alive. I will bet money on that. As for bashing the US, I don't care if you're critical of the US - as I've said many times before the US is not completely innocent and altruistic - just be fair about it. When you hop on here and post 20 articles that all basically say that the US is evil then that is not being fair. If you'd post one article which paints the US in a good light for every article that paints us as evil then I wouldn't jump on you as hard about it (and it would be very easy to get that 1:1 ratio, glynch - we are on the whole a relatively kind nation). You aren't really comparing our track record to the Nazis and Reds, are you? We haven't slaughtered 20 million people yet... As for the "militarism" and arms for profit sales - guess what: the entire world engages in arms sales. This is not something we are uniquely guilty in. Let me guess, you are angry because we are the most successful at it? Overthrowing of democracies... You mean when they elect communist or fundamentalist leaders who wish to do the US harm (and not just our business interests)? I say go for it, if they're hostile towards us then knock 'em down a peg. We'd be suicidal not to. It's a dangerous world, glynch. The sooner you realize that the faster you'll start understanding why things are the way they are. Clean air? Tell that to the Chinese. Court of international criminal justice? You mean the one that won't indict Saddam for murdering 5,000 of his own people (Kurds, 1986) with chemical weapons? UN? You mean the one that was designed by Cold War enemies the USSR and USA to purposefully fail? The same one that requires a unanimous SC vote (which has only happened twice in history - Korea and the Gulf War) in order to do anything? There are reasons we do/have done these things, and they don't necessarily make us bad guys. Very often we are doing something to counter an even worse actor, but that is of course never recognized by those that want to hate us... And glynch, you might not realize this, but you're pretty far to the left. I mean really far. I'm actually a little left of center on every issue except for defense (and that only because I realize it's a dangerous world), and if I look like a right wing-extremist from your point of view, then that means you're pretty damn far from the center...
Because we didn't humiliate and debilitate anyone else nearly 11 years ago, glynch. You don't seem to understand that the current status quo situation with Iraq is unacceptable as a long-term solution. He cannot deal with us, and we cannot deal with him. It's like when you have a really bad fight with a girlfriend and say really bad things that you can't take back, and while one or both of you may want to get back together you just can't because of what was said and done... He has vowed never to let weapons inspectors back in. We cannot lift sanctions until the weapons inspectors are let back in. He has been counting on us to cave and lift the sanctions for nearly 11 years, and he just doesn't get that we aren't going to do that. We have been waiting for him to have a heart attack, or for someone to overthrow him for nearly 11 years. Despite the occasional stroke or coup, Saddam has proven to be one tough SOB. The sanctions need to be lifted. Saudi, Kuwait, and Iran must be secure. The oil must flow at reasonable prices (until we brain up and get off it). Turkey needs some stability with regard to its Kurd 'problem', and Saddam pushing unwanted refugees into Turkish territory doesn't exactly help NATO's single islamic member's stability. The Iranians need to be kept in check. The terrorist infrastructure in Iraq needs to be dismantled. Their WMD programs need to be dismantled, because unlike Russia, China, France, India, etc the Iraqi regime is crazy enough to use theirs. Above all Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to attack the US with nuclear weapons. Such would be the ultimate revenge, and something he may decide to do in his old age... The only way that all of these problems can be solved is by going in and forcing a change in government. It is the only way. And I will bet you money that it happens.
Since everyone else is posting articles... : http://www.washtimes.com/world/20011120-70377512.htm U.S. sees Saddam as priority, cites biological weapons By Alexander G. Higgins ASSOCIATED PRESS GENEVA — The United States yesterday said Saddam Hussein's drive to develop offensive biological weapons was "beyond dispute," laying out a case that could make Iraq the next front in President Bush's global war on terrorism. "The United States strongly suspects that Iraq has taken advantage of three years of no U.N. inspections to improve all phases of its offensive biological weapons program," said Mr. Bolton, who was in Geneva for an international conference to review a proposed treaty on biological weapons. "The existence of Iraq's program is beyond dispute." In addition to Iraq, Mr. Bolton said Washington strongly suspects that North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and Sudan also are seeking to develop germ-warfare programs. But he refused to say whether any of the named states have assisted Afghanistan-based Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden in his reported quest for biological weapons. Mr. Bolton's comments were the latest in an escalating series of remarks recently by senior Bush administration officials singling out Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The administration has been internally divided over whether to expand the war on terrorism to Iraq. Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, on Sunday left open the possibility that Iraq could become a target in Mr. Bush's war on terrorism. "We do not need the events of September 11 to tell us that [Saddam Hussein] is a very dangerous man who is a threat to his own people, a threat to the region and a threat to us because he is determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction," she said. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, briefing reporters at the Pentagon yesterday, lumped Iraq with bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the Philippines-based Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization as critical to the international network of "terrorist-sponsoring states." "There is no question but that there has been a good deal of interaction" among these groups, Mr. Rumsfeld said. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told the official INA news agency yesterday that Iraq "was capable of standing up to the challenges posed by the United States in a bid to undermine [Iraq´s] security and weaken its resolve." The Iraqi newspaper Babel, which is run by Saddam's elder son Uday, said that the failure so far of the U.S.-led campaign to capture bin Laden increased the chances Washington would go after Iraq. Iraq "will be the focus of attention of the U.S. administration, as will be Syria, Somalia and Sudan," the paper theorized. In Geneva, Mr. Bolton told the 144 nations that have signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention that the United States finds North Korea's biological weapons program "extremely disturbing." He said the United States believes that North Korea has a dedicated, national-level effort to achieve a biological weapons capability and that it has "developed and produced and may have weaponized" biological agents. He also said the United States was "quite concerned" about Iran, Libya, Syria and Sudan, all of which appeared to have biological weapons programs. Mr. Bolton said the United States knows "that Osama bin Laden considers obtaining weapons of mass destruction to be a sacred duty and wants to use them against the United States." "We are concerned that he could have been trying to acquire a rudimentary biological weapons capability, possibly with support from a state," he added. But he said the United States was "not prepared to comment whether rogue states may have assisted" bin Laden in the plan. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the Iranian ambassador to the conference, said the accusation that his country was developing biological weapons is "unjustified and baseless." The United States, which has rejected a legally binding inspection plan under the treaty, said it would rather set up a mechanism under which the U.N. secretary-general would order inspections when violations are suspected. Other countries, including Japan, said the binding commitment is necessary if the treaty is to be effective. American officials in July rejected more than six years of negotiations on enforcement measures of the 1972 treaty, arguing they were ineffective. Mr. Bolton was speaking at the start of a three-week meeting in Geneva planned as a review of the agreement. He was presenting to other countries the new U.S. approach since the United States has come under an anthrax attack. The emergence of anthrax-tainted letters in the United States in the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attack has thrust the issue of biological warfare into the spotlight. Mr. Bush has demanded that all 144 countries that have signed the treaty enact "strict national criminal legislation" against violations of the treaty and apply strict extradition requirements. Pretty much just confirming what Mango posted earlier, with a little more detail.
No one in their right mind is going to say that Saddam is not a dangerous and reckless foe. He has no concern for anyone beyond his little circle of cronies and therefore has little to lose. We should have removed him from power the first time, but that was never our original objective, so we couldn't get the support to do it later on. It has now become painfully obvious, that we have to make a decision that ensures our national security first and then drum up the support for that decision later (isn't that your mantra, tree?). You're always reminding us that we need to address the long term solutions, and I agree. I say we get the hell out of the ME (our military forces, that is), but we can't do that until Saddam is removed. And since he will never let inspectors back in, it is the only way to get rid of his WMD and get the sanctions lifted. Kill 3 birds with one stone. Let's make the assumption that Saddam is removed from power and a "friendly" government is put into power. Let's assume Bush continues along the path of creating a Palestinian state and some of the tension over there eases (it will never go away, the irrational hatred on both sides is too deep). Then what? Are you saying we will finally realize peace in the Middle East? What about the lack of education? What about the poverty? What about the corrupt governments who use the people's misery to fuel hatred against others? How do we make that go away? Many of the government structures are at least 200-300 years behind Western government structures. (i.e. corrupt, rich, powerful men manipulating ignorant masses). Until that goes away, terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment will never go away. It doesn't matter if the U.S. is the most generous, peace-loving nation in the world. We're still the rich ones. Too many of them are still the poor ones. That allows hatred inspired by jealousy on one side and hatred inspired by a feeling of superiority on the other side. It's a bigger scale version of our internal race problems. I'm not disagreeing that we hit SH next. I'm just addressing this: Why are the Arabs really angry at us? The answer is that we are in the holy land. It isn't really about Israel, although that is always linked. But the real insult is that we occupy the land of Mecca and Medina - the land of Mohammed. And we wouldn't need to be there if Saddam was gone. Getting rid of Saddam is a nice second step, but there are many many more steps to be taken. And most of those steps can't be addressed with military power. Until the ME governments become more democratized and peaceful, we will always have security issues there. Therfore, if we're going to continue our dependance on oil, we'll have to keep our military in the Holy Land. and the problems continue...
TL: Good points, and all 100% on the money. I am personally of the opinion that education is the root of many of their problems. Until they place a high value on secular education over Koranic education, thery will be poor (as madrasas don't produce engineers, businesspeople, etc). As long as they are poor there will be corrupt, despotic governments to control them, as poor people have no way of influencing their leaders aside from the threat of revolution. I'm not saying that we shouldn't address these issues, or that removing Saddam is the answer. I'm just saying that removing Saddam is a part of the answer that will inevitably have to happen; we can't stay in the ME forever. And if you think that we can go home when old age finally gets him, do a little research on Qusay, his younger son and apparent successor. If anything, Qusay is even worse... The entire regime needs to be changed. But as for education and governments - there's really not a whole lot we can do. Whether they decide to value secular education is entirely up to them; we can't even really threaten them economically as long as we're dependent on their oil. And as for governments - it's always touted that we support corrupt, despotic regimes in the ME, but the fact of the matter is that ALL regimes in the region are corrupt and despotic, not just the ones we support. That's why I don't buy the argument that it is bad US foreign policy to back these guys - the alternatives would be just as bad. If Iran is an example of what kind of democratic government we could expect instead of the ones that exist (and not only US supported), then we are in trouble, because it is a despotic government if there ever was one, not to mention a sham democracy... Arguing with glynch and others has probably given some the impression that I propose a military solution to every problem. That is of course not true (and I have repeatedly stated so and given other examples of solutions) but people sling mud... As long as the ME governments become more democratized and peaceful, there's no problem with that. There are only two islamic democracies in the region: Iran and Turkey. Turkey has been extremely successful with its secular post-Ottoman government, and Iran has been a flop with its radical fundamentalist shiite mullah-run feudal excuse for a democracy. If more nations in the region follow Turkey's example then there is hope for the future, but if they follow Iran's then we are in for decades of trouble. Which example do you think they will follow?
of course you forget that turkey does discriminate and torture and kill people due to their level of adherance of islam right? and no i don't mean they kill religious fanatics...but those for example women who choose to cover their hair aren't allowed in government positions and such.
Treeman, in his zeal to justify an invasion of Iraq cites chemical and bio weapons. He says that Iraq is different from Iran, Russia, North Korea etc. despite their also having chemical and bio weapons: Because we didn't humiliate and debilitate anyone else nearly 11 years ago, glynch. This reasoning is exactly why your never met a war you didn't like. Your position is counterproductive and leads to circular thinking that always comes up war.. Iraq according to you is nearly crazy in its hatred of us because we humiliated and debilitated them. Therefore they are a danger to us and we have to go to war with them again. There is a certain validity to this. "Humilitate and debilitate" Germany in the First World War and the Peace Treaty; then have to fight them again in World War II. Fortunately we had a more productive policy after the war, based on recent experience. We didnt' "humiliate and debilitate" them and they have turned into our allies. In the Iranian Revoluition extremist Muslims captured our embassy, killed some Americans and imprisoned our diplomats for over a year. We had great provocation, but we did not invade Iran or start a war with them. We didn't "humiliate or debilitate" them. Now twenty years later they are moderating, becoming more democratic. less fanatically Muslim and are even somewhat our allies in Afghanistan. Because we didn't "humiliate and debilitate" them you argue correcty that it isn't necessary to go to war with them over the chemical and bio weapons issue In short your logic leads to war after war as the nations we "humiliate and debilitate", don't go away but later come back to be our enemies.
No, moron. You don't seem to understand that the war with Iraq never ended - at least not in Saddam Hussein's mind. Every single defenctor who has known him personally has said this, and he has repeatedly said it himself publicly over the past decade. He has pledged revenge, and those who know him say he's serious about it. Invading and removing your buddy Saddam would not be starting a new war, it would be finishing one that never really ended. And BTW, thanks for not disputing any of the facts/evidence against the Iraqis (like they tried to knock down the WTC before, their WMD programs, etc). Thank you instead for misreading my logic as a way to justify keeping Saddam in power. And that reminds me, I remember another thread where you argued in Saddam's favor and presented a list of around 10 points, and I came back and refuted every single one. Why didn't you ever answer that? Could it be because you still haven't researched the issue? Or that you started to research it and didn't like what you found, since it would support my position? Maybe I'll go look for that thread and save us both some time... You are clueless as usual.
Yes, here we go: glynch - 1) Sadam is not or at least certainly was not the crazy irrational person many make him out to be. He is or at least was a pretty modern , even Western guy for that region. A typical leader interested in power, pragmatic and not particularly anti-Israel or religious-- for that region. 2) He has been no more evil than many of the other dictators in his region in many aspects. In fact his economic policies were among the most just in the region. 3) He was a bulwark against religious fundamentalism in the area, just like Assad in Syria, who is supposedly in our current coalition. 4) Israel without provocation bombed his nuclear power plant, which largely had US blessing at that time. 5) We gave him chemical and I've heard biologocal weapons. We didn't mind their use too much if they were against Iranians and Kurds. 6) We virtually encouraged him to take part of Kuwait. 7) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died after we destroyed the water and serwer systems and before the food for oil program. 8) After the war, which many still disagree with we imposed a no fly zone which is probably legalistically ok since we were the victors. The no fly zone had nothing to do with: liberating Kuwait, protectin our oil or Saudi Arabia, his weaponry or any other reason we stated at the time for the war. We wanted to screw with him. We somehow use this no fly zone as an excuse to keep sanctions which led to the tremendous loss of life. 9) As Fleck says, once we've treated him like that. It is understandable that he has become very anti-Us and is trying his best to create the types of weapons many other countries have. 10) Fleck and Wanniski are essentially saying keep the facts straight. It doesn't help our cause to not even have the facts right. Me - 1) Pre-Gulf War Saddam was relatively moderate in his political, religious, and economic views. Iraq has a secular government that supports (-ed) open markets and generally opposed religious extremists. That is, used to. They are still secular, but they now encourage religious extremism when it serves their purposes; inflaming hatred for the US and Israel has become a very powerful method of maintaining support for Saddam. He is one of the most popular public figures throughout the ME among populations because he is seen as the only ruler willing to stand between the evil US and Islam. 2) There are no 'nice' regimes in the ME; Jordan would come closest. But not many other regimes continually threaten their neighbors and have established WMD programs. 3) Key word: "was". Refer to #1 above. 4) Israel obtained evidence that the Osirak plant was producing weapons-grade plutonium - a totally unnecessary byproduct of peaceful reactors - and rightfully concluded that the material was to be used in the construction of nuclear weapons. They had a very good reason to destroy the plant, and had they not done it either the Iranians or we would have. Probably the Iranians. 5) Again, we did not give him those weapons. He ordered them from US labs just like every other research scientist working for a university did, and he only got anthrax that way. The rest he has obtained through other means (Russian contacts or going to the natural source and getting a sample). 6) We did not encourage him to take Kuwait. The Ambassador told him that we didn't want to get involved, and this appears to be a miscommunication between the Ambassador and the administration. At any rate we did not tell him that we would OK an invasion of Kuwait; he mentioned his dispute with Kuwait and said he was considering military action, he did not say "We are going to invade Kuwait. Are you OK with that?" We then essentially said "That is your problem. We would hope that you solve it peacefully." and moved on to other subjects. In hindsight it did send a mixed signal - we should have been more firm and threatening. But the notion that we lured him into war doesn't hold up. Why would we lure him into war if we were so cozy with him before the invasion, as proponents of that theory constantly claim? 7) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died during the three+ years when he refused the oil-for-food program. Look it up. 8) We use the no-fly zone in the south to make sure that he doesn't attempt another invasion of Kuwait (which he has promised) or Saudi. He would be suicidal to attempt one without air cover and with our air supremacy in the area. We use the northern no-fly zone to protect the Kurds and our people on the ground there who administer humanitarian relief to them. Without that air cover he would send in the army and eradicate the Kurds. 9) Of course he hates us, and of course he's going to try to rebuild his army. I fail to see how that supports your arguments; if anything it supports mine. 10) Saddam's propaganda machine is easy to counter; all one needs to do is tell the verifiable truth, which is what I've been doing. Like I said before, I would encourage you to verify anything I've claimed that sounds fishy. Saddam is counting on your reluctance to do so. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23254&highlight=Saddam+AND+ambassador Why didn't you ever answer any of this, glynch? The truth sucks, don't it...
Treeman, many of your assertions are just that assertions, but you view them as proof. You consider them proven therefore anyone who disagrees with you is not as intelligent as you. Interestingly you seem to reject logic as since you have the "facts" ,why reason. Again, name calling makes you look extreme and discredits you. You seem like a reasonably smart guy. Why can't you understand that? A sizeable minority? of people in this country and virtually all of our allies are against extending the war to Iraq. Though this may be frustrating to you, those against extending the current conflict to Iraq are are not unintellgient, unpatriotic, etc.
glynch: I have repeatedly told you that if you don't believe something that I state as a fact, that you should research it yourself. Which of my "facts" are you confused about? Don't just dismiss everything I present as evidence - refute it if you can. I for one know you can't because I've actually researched this, which is why I present this stuff... Reject logic? WTF are you talking about? Everything I've posted here has been logical; you're the one who appears to be logic-deprived. Your logic is flawed, glynch, because it is based on lies. Two lies in particular: 1) that innocent Iraqis are dying because of the US-imposed sanctions, and it is our fault; and 2) Saddam Hussein is not a threat to the US. Do I need to explain again why these assumptions are false? I am getting tired of repeating myself to you. You either have an unusually short memory span, or you choose to ignore realities that you don't like... Goddammit, do some research glynch. Don't accuse me of being an illogical liar until you can support that assertion. Do some research. As for how many Americans support it, go to Gallup. 78% of Americans support military action against "other countries" - which means Iraq. So yes, 22% is a sizeable minority, but who do you think Bush is going to pay attention to when considering his prospects for reelection? Do some research and get your facts straight, and I'll stop calling you a moron.
glynch: I'm off to visit the folks for Thanksgiving now, but when I get back I trust you'll have refuted all of my suspicious "facts", correct? You seem confident that I'm incorrect, so I expect you've got some evidence to refute my arguments. I look forward to seeing it when I get back.
