Time for Bush to Step Up and Get the Nobel Peace Prize

Originally posted by glynch
bobrek, and others excuse the previous sarcastic approach. To get peace you must think outside the box.

In the box conventional thinking: Sadam is our enemy. He will probably get nukes and threaten us ; so we must at all costs go to war with him and install a new government. Then we must go all over the country rounding up any traces of chemical, nuclear, biological and other weapons. Each little conflict over a sanction, an inspection or a no fly zone is considered a valid excuse for the war.

Out of the box thinking: it is projected that ther earliest he could posssibly threaten the US or Europe with missiles in ten years or more. He is a much more immediate threat to Kuwait and more importantly as far as we are concerned, Israel.


<A HREF="http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/83/alb83.htm">The Iraqi Maze: Searching for a Way Out</A>

<i>.........Expert opinions regarding how close Iraq may be to acquiring nuclear weapons are uncertain and vary from a few months to several years, depending on the scenario. The most optimistic projection is offered by the U.S. government, which according to Einhorn, views Iraq as not capable of indigenously building a nuclear explosive for at least five years from early 2001.[46] Former Action Team Leader Dillon argues that as of 1998, Iraq would have needed "five years, plus or minus two years" to enrich sufficient uranium and produce a nuclear explosive. However, he adds that Iraq would need only "one year, plus or minus one year" to build a nuclear explosive if it secretly acquired enough fissile material or, in the extreme, a functional nuclear weapon.[47]ISIS's own assessment concluded that, as of late 1998, Iraq needed two to seven years to enrich enough uranium for a first nuclear device.[48] If Iraq should acquire fissile material abroad, ISIS estimated that it could assemble a nuclear explosive in less than one year.[49]......
</i>

Please provide the link that says 10 years.

<A HREF="http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/so98/so98hamza.html">Inside Saddam's secret nuclear program</A>

Too long to post here, it is an interesting read.

So once we clear up the Kuwait issue (just resolved) and the Israeli issue (could be quickly resolved if Bush has the balls) then we have no reason in the next ten years to fear Sadam, plan or threaten war constantly over inspection and no fly zones etc.


<A HREF="http://www.middleeastwire.com:8080/storypage.jsp?id=2039">US Skeptical of Iraq-Kuwait Deal</A>

<i>
The United States is voicing strong skepticism about a reported Iraqi pledge to never again invade neighboring Kuwait.

Reports of the Iraq-Kuwait reconciliation came Thursday at an Arab summit in Beirut. Under the deal, Iraq - whose 1990 invasion of Kuwait triggered the Gulf War - agreed in writing to respect Kuwait's "sovereignty and security."

But U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher says Iraq has never shown any real intent to respect Kuwaiti sovereignty, and said Baghdad has repeatedly flouted its international obligations.

Mr. Boucher says the test of Iraq's sincerity will not come from a public handshake but through Baghdad's future deeds.

In another public display of Arab summit unity, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and chief Iraqi delegate Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri shook hands and embraced as the summit closed Thursday.

The goodwill gesture was the first public contact between leaders of the two countries since the 1991 Gulf War.

Saudi Arabia broke off diplomatic ties with Iraq after Baghdad invaded Kuwait and threatened the Saudi kingdom. The ties have not yet been restored, but there have been increased efforts in recent months to normalize bilateral relations.
</i>

Since Saddam has been playing <i>games</i> for over a decade with the deal he signed to end the Gulf War, how can he be entrusted to honor his new deal with Kuwait?


Once the Arab World and Israel start doing big time commerce with each other and see the benefits of peace, Sadam would not dare to piss them all off by nuclear threats. Even Sadam needs his Arab funds.


Other than oil and some agricultural products, the Arab countries have very little to export to Israel. If it has taken half a century for the Muslim countries to agree to recognize Israel as part of the deal, what makes you think that they will go full speed into major Import/Export with them?

From the Washington Post:

<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A40544-2002Jan25">Unrest a Chief Product of Arab Economies</A>

<i>
...........A few of Egypt's neighbors, notably Tunisia, have dismantled much of their state economic apparatus and enjoyed modest booms.But elsewhere in the region, economies are often either steered by a royal family or, as is the case in Egypt, managed by governments that still reflect the socialism embraced in earlier decades. The result is a private sector that falls woefully short of the vitality needed to employ a burgeoning population. One statistic vividly highlights the feebleness of industry in this part of the world: Aside from oil, exports from the Middle East and North Africa (excluding Israel) are about the same as Denmark's, a country with less than one-fiftieth the population.........
</i>


Is the above anlaysis 100% certain to provide us with total safey? Of course not. Is going over there starting a conflict with the Kurds, the Iranians and even the North Koreans 100% certain to lead to total safety for us , of course not.

The Iraqi Kurds will likely be allied with the US in any action against Saddam.

<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-250090,00.html">Saddam and bin Laden help fanatics, say Kurds</A>
<i>
A TALEBAN-style Islamic group said to be linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is expanding its ranks at a stronghold in Kurdish northern Iraq.
The Iraqi Kurds say that Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) is the world’s newest al-Qaeda cell, established under orders from bin Laden. Ansar al-Islam, which fights under the slogan “Ten minutes to Heaven”, a reference to the time followers believe that it will take for their souls to reach paradise after death in battle, might also have links to Baghdad, a Kurdish military commander said.

“We have picked up conversations on our radios between Iraqi agents of Saddam Hussein and al-Islam,” Mustapha Saed Qada, a Kurdish military commander based in Halabja, said. “I believe that Iraq is also funding al-Islam. There are no hard facts as yet, but I believe that they are supporting them because it will cause further instability for the Kurds.”

Kurdish military intelligence said that the group received about £200,000, weapons and Toyota Land Cruisers from the al-Qaeda network. Commander Qada said that Ansar al-Islam guerrillas, captured by Kurdish soldiers and held in the city of Sulimanieh, received training in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and had admitted that links between bin Laden and Saddam that go back to 1992.

The two main political factions in Kurdish Iraq, the Kurdish Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), recently said that they had settled their differences after spending much of the past 11 years fighting. They say that they are united against Ansar al-Islam, which is based in PUK territory.

The enclave of ten Kurdish villages and about 4,000 civilians is in remote mountains near the border with Iran. Villagers who have escaped the area say that beauty salons have been ransacked and razed, girls’ schools bombed, men told to grow beards and women murdered for refusing to wear the burqa.

On September 23 Ansar al-Islam insurgents ambushed a convoy of Kurdish soldiers and killed 42 men, which was taken as a declaration of war. Since then, Kurdish fighters have pushed Ansar al-Islam back towards the Iranian border. Both sides have suffered heavy casualties.

Kurd military sources say that Ansar al-Islam's leader, Kreker, is a former member of a more moderate Kurdish Islamic political party. The group’s deputy, Abu Abdullah Shafae, is also an Iraqi Kurd who trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan for ten years. They say that the multinational group, with about 700 fighters, includes Moroccans, Jordanians, Palestinians and Afghans, some of whom fled the US attacks in Afghanistan.
</i>


As an aside I find it strange that everyone is supposedly so scared of Sadam when we just made peace with the Soviets who are probably 50 years ahead of Sadam when it comes to these weapons. Relax give the spin doctors a rest and start thinking about these issues.

The Soviets had numerous regime changes over the years and a gradual change in their perception of the world and how they related to it. The various treaties and arms reduction deals between the US and USSR have been adhered to much more closely than the deal that Saddam signed off on to end the Gulf War. A new government in Iraq would probably change their perception of the world and how they relate to it.



Mango

 

boy:

Hell, I don't know exactly how many Palestinians there are in the world, but I know that there are far more than 5 million. I believe that counting those in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, in addition to those in the West Bank and Gaza, plus those scattered around the world, there are at least 12 million.

It doesn't matter if the ratio is 3 to 1, 100 to 1, or 1.1 to one - there are more in the region alone than the 5 million that would be required to take over the Israeli government, and that is all that matters. The 3.2 million there already could "return" and get citizenship, and if only those in Jordan returned (and they would), then it would be enough.

The Israelis cannot ever allow that, or they can kiss the state of Israel goodbye. Period.

Israel is not governed by clerics, boy. Iran is. Afghanistan was. The Saudi people never got a say in whether Sharia would be the law of the land. There's a huge difference between the people of a country *choosing* a theocratic form of law within the context of a democratic political system, and the people of a nation having a religious system of governance *forced* upon them by an undemocratically elected group of clerics within the context of a feudalistic system.

For the hundredth time, Iran is not the great democracy you believe it to be.

 

Well that's ****ed up. Most come from within Israel huh? I guess that is suppose to make us Muslims feel a little better? Maybe our government should do something about these settlements if "everyone already agrees that is wrong"? Maybe we should worry about the atrocities being committed by the Israelis as well before going after more Muslims in Iraq and Iran.

 

What, exactly - *What* - are we supposed to do?

If we could stop the Israelis from building settlements on land that should rightfully belong to the Palestinians, then we would do so. But we cannot.

There is only one avenue of influence that we really have with the Israelis: $. But what everyone fails to understand is that our monetary influence over the Israelis is *not* great enough to actually persuade them to do anything.

If we told them tomorrow "Withdraw all settlements, or the money's gone", then they could safely ignore us and keep on building settlements, secure in the knowledge that even though they lost a major source of finance and arms, they can make up the difference on their own. If we did that, then we would only be removing the only leverage we currently have over them at this point. I fail to see how removing our (quite limited) leverage over them would serve any purpose but to remove one of the only possible engines for peace in the region, as well as alienating an ally.

It is not that simple.

We don't give a flying f* what religion those who want to kill us are. It's a pretty irrelevant factor when you're talking about WMD in the hands of people who have no compunctions about killing civilians.

Perhaps you should stop thinking in terms of "We're killing muslims", and start thinking in terms of "We're going to kill those people who want to kill is before they get a chance to do so"? That is the mindset of the current administration, and it's about time we started thinking like that.

As far as the "atrocities" being committed by the Israelis - we already know about those and acknowledge that they are wrong. Why don't you start thinking about the atrocities committed by the Arabs, and think about how they are backfiring on them right now?

Think about it now, not later. Because I guarantee that civilized people who actually want to live in peace will not put up with this sort of activity without responding - massively - forever. What you're seeing the Israelis do starting Friday is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the response goes.

Time is running out for the Arab world to start making the right decisions. And if they make the wrong ones, then they will die.

 

From glynch's first article:

Despite the breakthrough, delegates said a lot of work was needed before real rapprochement was achieved and Kuwait remained sceptical. "Let us see if Iraq will once again officially celebrate [the anniversary of] its invasion of Kuwait. The second of August is only four months away," a senior official said.

I guess the Kuwaitis still have at least half a brain left. They know that any promise coming from Saddam's regime should be taken with a ton of salt.

The second article was pretty much just filled with lies and propagandistic hopes (authored by someone who is apparently among the Euro hopefuls that Saddam will eventually see the light).

And now, on with the sentence-by-sentence deconstruction of glynch's logic...

Anything that leads you to believe that any Iraqi "proposal" is suddenly more valid than those that have been broken over the past 23 years must be a very well-written article. I read it, and it wasn't. You are a fool if you are willing to believe that Saddam will suddenly start making good on his commitments.

Uhh... I don't even know what to make of this one. The Arabs will be able to deal with Saddam? Really? Does this mean that they will send in inspectors to certify that he is no longer producing
WMD? Or does this mean that the Saudis new ballistic missile complex will nuke him if he invades again?

Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard an Arab League claim - "We can deal with Saddam on our own"... They can't even deal with each other - even those who don't aspire to take over the ME and bring down the US.

No, really??? We are all well aware of the fact that you favor leaving Saddam alone, and letting him develop his WMD. This is not exactly a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention, glynch.

Ahhh... This would be the same conventional wisdom that prompted us to invade and overthrow the Iraqi regime in 1992 when they first started breaking the sanctions, right? But wait! That never happened!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They've had 11 years. They made the wrong choice. Now they are going to be destroyed. Pretty simple, despite your attempts at obfuscation.

 

Glynch: you are convinced that Israel is in the wrong, right?

You also see how treeman and others are convinced that the palestinian terrorist bombers are in the wrong. I'm sure, despite these conversations, that you have given up any hope of convincing him otherwise.

If you can't convince treeman, an American who probably has no direct connections to the conflict, the virtues of peace in the region...what makes you think that anyone in the Arab world can be convinced to let Israel alone if they retreat to 1967 borders?

They have been taught to hate Israel from the time they were born. You can't reason with hatred. You can scare it back into it's shell, but you can't convince it not to hate. That is why Israel can't do anything but try to bargain from a position of strength. If they make agreements that weaken them, if they try to appease their enemies, they will just appear to be weak. This will foster more violence and aggression, not less.

Bottom line: Israel cannot afford to apply American logic and values to this situation. If your opponent is willing to fight to the death, you had better be prepared to do the same, or you will lose.

 

The televised interview with the Hamas spokesperson tells me that no matter what Isreal does, they will continue to be visciously attacked. Therefor, there is no reason for Isreal to give up anything to the Palestinians. Since these 22 or however many Arab nations are so concerned about how the Palestinians are being treated, I suggest that they just take in the poor oppressed people. Wouldn't that solve all of the ME problems a lot more easily than trying to negotiate peace between two groups of people that can barely recognize each other's rights to life.

 

glynch:

You can refuse to answer my posts all you want - but when you attempt to answer others' questions - asking the same questions I propose - it shows a certain level of denial on your part. You're really better off not answering anyone at all.

This is solid proof that you don't have the slightest idea about what is really going on in terms of Israeli public opinion. Really clueless.

That leftist "peace movement" has *totally* disappeared in recent weeks. It has been whittled down to less than maybe 300 activists throughout the entire Israeli state - totally irrelevant in a state of 5 million. You have once again totally misunderstood the situation, while trying to impose your own agenda upon the national mood.

You are 100% off this time.

The Israelis are *tired of being attacked*, and every Israeli with a brain knows that the Oslo process is what got them there in the first place. Trusting assholes like Arafat will get you only one thing: dead civilians.

As much as you may dislike the situation, you cannot rationalize it back into what it was before. The situation right now is a *war* situation - and the Israelis (to their credit) have finally realized that. They have finally realized that taking your advice and using your approach will only result in *more dead Israelis*, much as your approach in Afghan would have resulted in *more dead Americans and Afghans*

Have the balls (or the brains) to admit that your ideas about peace in the ME are dead. Not only are they dead, but they would result in even more death... Choke up and admit that you were totally wrong, and we can end this little fued.

 

Instead of giving one to bush WHY DONT WE TAKE ONE AWAY FROM ARAFAT?

REVOKE THE PRIZE!!!

Technically, they can't take the prize away. However, they do make some valid arguments.. CHECK IT OUT!!!

 

He hasn't exactly earned it...

More deserving of a seat in the Hague if you ask me.