What right does the US have to go to war with Iraq?

haven - regardless of the delays by any country N. Korea was NEVER honoring their agreement from Day 1. They kept their nuclear program going, so they were the first to violate the agreement.

Good read here. This may have been posted already...

 

Sonny:

That site... was beyond terrible. Why not use valid academic references instead? Sure, there are ideologues amongst researches... but nothing like that rubbish.

I particularly enjoyed the "target" overlayed upon Sadam with the countdown to invasion on their front page.

Next time, maybe I'll do my research at www.pacifist.org or something.

 

Madmax:

From Washingtonpost.com

Regarding the bases, not so quick. Though at a cost of $14 billion, you can't say we haven't tried.

 

As far as invading North Korea goes, they are a very strong army and could do a lot of damage. It would be very tough. I think 70% of their army is deployed near the DMZ, they could launch a massive invasion on S. Korea and do some serious damage. There was a good read in Newsweek a few weeks back about it. Pretty scary.

Also the US is taking the nuclear problem with N. Korea to the UN and N. Korea is saying that any economic sanctions against them would be considered an act of war.

I know that N. Korea is a big talker but nobody should want to go to war over there, it would be a very brutal war that could go nuclear.

 

I'm glad someone realizes that NK is a significant threat if we decide to go to war with them. Almost 70% of their national budget goes towards their military, which explains the economic plight of their people. They have stockpiled their military for this exact reason: an attack from the West. Going there could be an absolute disaster. They would bomb the living sh*t out of South Korea, and we'd be forced to send in foot soldiers like in Vietnam.

 

Mr. Clutch, this is becoming ridiculous. This is the third time today that you have misread my posts. Let's play multiple choice.

You:
a) are an idiot that performs poorly on those little reading comprehension parts on standardized tests (my bet).
b) just despise me and make up stuff b/c of some random, perverse reason. Perhaps you hate monikers that begin with 'A'.
c) both of the above

I make a lot of jokes, but I assume that every post that you've read, by me, on the topic of Oil & Iraq... say within 3 mos... ridicules the idea that we'd fight Iraq solely b/c of Oil (or money, whatever that means).

 

Give me a ****ing break. Insulting my intelligence for a google search? I don't visit that site and I didn't claim to say that they were "a valid academic reference". Can you please give me a list of acceptable sites sir? I just thought that the page that I linked to was a good read, had some info on the N. Korean nuclear program. Geez.... As far as I am concerned you can visit www.getbent.com or www.kissmyass.com - enjoy the reading.

 

That was the point I was trying to make in another thread about North Korea. The same strategy applies for the same reasons.

It's not ludicrous.

 

It's B. I just hate certain monikers. How do you pronounce Achebe anyways? I don't see how I misread your post, since you do believe it's about oil.

 

MrClutch,
I think oil helps, but that's b/c I get horrible gas mileage, and b/c all of those sexy little hydrocarbons make poppa so proud (my ig/met/pet professor once told my wife he wanted to 'lick her for her nicoteine' (before we started dating; she stopped smoking when we moved to UT), but he was a great professor anyways).

I actually think it's all "a Jewish conspiracy". j/k. I think we're really just fighting the war b/c of long term stability in the middle east. I assume that Bush believes that a democracy in the ME will alleviate tensions throughout the region, and that Iraq is just a vehicle with which to plant a seed. Since terrorism correlates with a larger issue of poverty/fundamentalist Islam, etc... a far reaching technique is necessary... but we very well can't fight a war against all of Islam... (Saudi Arabia/Iran/Yemen). This is a stab at a long term solution (I know I get bored w/ the ME, so I'm sure simple-minded Bush is far beyond the requisite patience).

It's arguable that attacking Iraq will only provoke future aggression against us; either way, this is the only logical explanation I can give to the administration's preoccupation with Iraq. There just isn't any proof that Sadaam is a threat to us. Besides, if I look for the good in going to war with Iraq, then I'm at ease when the inevitable occurs.

 

I am surprised that DaDakota started this thread and raised this question, I used to think he was one of the "hawks" very much in line with treeman et al. when it came to these issues (I remember some posts along the lines of "we are the big bully and if somebody bothers us, we blow them away").

I find the question very legitimate.

haven:

"Our use of international law is farcical. We back international law whenever it's convenient, then openly violate it and cry for national sovereignty rights when it's not. Not entirely our fault: no state is ever going to obey international law w/o a believable coercive threat against them. And right now, there is no viable threat that the US fears on the international stage that supports UN resolutions.

So, sorry UN. When the US agrees with you, international law actually matters. That is to say, when there's an independent reason for the US acting on such law .

The only way this actually bothers me is that it undermines the future viability of the international framework when such laws will be essential."

I really could not have said it better myself. The only reason I did not say it is that I am not American. But this is the way the USA's actions are perceived in the world.

And I am not talking about your enemies. I am talking about your friends - Great Britain, Germany...

I am personally still undecided, though, because I don't KNOW how much of a threat Saddam really is to the rest of the world. If he is close to having nuclear weapons or comparable weapons of mass destruction, my gut feeling is "take him out and forget about international law" even though that goes against all I have learned.

And glynch, to say Iran is on its way to being a moderate country is an exaggeration at least. Just because it is not just as insane as it used to be under the old tyrant does not mean they are anywhere near being moderate yet.

 

That's some plausible reasoning. Actually Slate had an article a little while ago saying that maybe Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam so that the US could then pull of Saudi Arabia. We've been protecting Saudi Arabia and they probably have closer ties to terrorists. I guess Will didn't write it or you would have know about it. Gee, I wonder why that pickup line didn't work?

 

hehe, it was a halloween party, and the guy was dressed as a priest w/ a swank, I believe, sitting in the middle of the apocrapha(sp). His wife was running around dressed as a catholic school girl with a way-too-short mini-skirt *gulp*. When he said his line, I think I was so blown away by the thought that he had just risked the department to a lawsuit, that it didn't occur to me to punch him for her honor.

I didn't see that article you mention. I've read a lot of Hitchens' stuff though (if that's to whom you're alluding-- uggh, grammar). I disagree with many of the things he's written, as well as Kaus' and Will's work... but I read them for some strange reason.

 

That's a funny site.

 

A few too many drinks I think. I'm going to try to stay away from the cocktails at company events. I read Slate a lot too, I don't agree a lot of the time either, I just can't resist. Strange.

 

Haven,

I hope these references are acceptable.

I thought that the DPRK nuclear plant (Yongbyon) that was shut down was a relatively small producer of electricity and that the fuel oil shipments offset it being mothballed. Also, weren't the fuel oil shipments an interim stage until the lwr plants were built and onliine? The lwr project slipped, but the fuel oil was still flowing until this past fall.

<A HREF="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=rc99276.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao">Nuclear Nonproliferation: Status of Heavy Fuel
Oil Delivered to North Korea Under the Agreed Framework</A>

<i>.......Under the Agreed Framework, KEDO will purchase and supply North Korea with two light-water reactors with a combined total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 megawatts of electrical power to replace<b> a graphite-moderated, 5-megawatt electric (MW(e)) power reactor</b>; two unfinished graphite-moderated reactors·a 50-MW(e) power reactor and a 200-MW(e) power reactor·and related facilities, including a plutonium-reprocessing facility and a fuel rod fabrication facility. The United States pledged to arrange to provide alternative energy to North Korea in the form of heavy fuel oil for heating and electricity. generation.
</i>

<A HREF="http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eap/991012_northkorea_rpt.html">Review of United States Policy Toward North Korea: Findings and Recommendations</A>

<i>....The Agreed Framework of 1994 succeeded in verifiably freezing North Korean plutonium production at Yongbyon -- it stopped plutonium production at that facility so that North Korea currently has at most a small amount of fissile material it may have secreted away from operations prior to 1994; without the Agreed Framework, North Korea could have produced enough additional plutonium by now for a significant number of nuclear weapons. <b>Yet, despite the critical achievement of a verified freeze on plutonium production at Yongbyon under the Agreed Framework, the policy review team has serious concerns about possible continuing nuclear weapons-related work in the DPRK.</b> Some of these concerns have been addressed through our access and visit to Kumchang-ni......</i>

<i>.......Another close U.S. ally in the region, Japan, has become more concerned about North Korea in recent years. This concern was heightened by the launch, in August 1998, of a Taepo Dong missile over Japanese territory. Although the Diet has passed funding for the Light Water Reactor project being undertaken by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) pursuant to the Agreed Framework, and the government wants to preserve the Agreed Framework, a second missile launch is likely to have a serious impact on domestic political support for the Agreed Framework and have wider ramifications within Japan about its security policy.....</i>

<i>....Japan. Like the ROK, Japan's interests are not identical to those of the U.S., but they overlap strongly. The DPRK's August 1998 Taepo Dong missile launch over the Japanese islands abruptly increased the already high priority Japan attaches to the North Korea issue. The Japanese regard DPRK missile activities as a direct threat. In bilateral talks with Japan, the DPRK representatives exacerbate historic animosities by repeatedly referring to Japan's occupation of Korea earlier in this century. For these reasons, support for Japan's role in KEDO is at risk in the Diet........</i>

<A HREF="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=ns00035.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao">North Korea Hindering Food Aid Monitoring</A>

<A HREF="http://www.house.gov/international_relations/nkag/report.htm">North Korea Advisory Group Report to The Speaker</A>

<i>..........With respect to weapon design, North Korea reportedly has produced and tested explosive triggers for detonating nuclear weapons as recently as November 1998.(8) There is, however, very little open-source information on North Korea's efforts to weaponize its plutonium into a deliverable weapon......</i>

There have been runors for quite some time that A.Q. Khan (Pakistan weapons programs guru) was of assistance to North Korea in return for the missile tech that DPRK sent to Pakistan. In the past, I have read several stories and a short biography/background on A.Q. Khan, but that is straying a bit from the discussion.

<A HREF="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134582675_pakkorea24.html">Pakistan, North Korea set up nuclear swap</A>

<A HREF=http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/11/11212002/reu_49001.asp">Pakistan's Benazir oversaw Korea nuclear deal, says sources</A>

What would you consider the date that <i>KEDO</i> failed their part of the <i>Agreed Framework</i>?

 

Yeah... I did that on purpose



Thanks for the links Mango.

 

Linked is an article suggesting that Sharon/Israel ,not oil, is the main reason why we want to attack Iraq.

Never forget as mentioned by Karl Rhove, Bush's chief political advisor, that the Iraq war also helps create the type of "positive issue environment" that was skillfully played during the Nov election.

All in all, a great play for the Bush guys with several winning reasons. The only downside is if the war gets messy, oil triples or something and the economy tanks. Even then I bet the American public can be controlled through fear, with news releases of unconfirmed Al Qaeda threats etc.

BTW what has happened to the terrorist alerts? I guess no need for them now that the Nov. elelction is over. and Enron/Cheney/Halliburton is off the news. I think we can expect a few of these around the State of the Union or perhaps if it gets dicey that UN disapproval for Bush's war will happen and the US has to go it alone with just Britain or Bulgaria or whatever.. I see Tony Blair has resorted to the vague talk of terrorist alerts for Britain recently in his desperation to fight off the 81% super majority oposed to his and Bush's war.

For the article arguing Israel, not oil, as the main reason.



Israel not Oil

 

Well when I think of Iraq, I think of two things:

1) Saddam Hussein the terrible dictator

2) The abused civilian population

Since we all know that the civil population in Iraq has suffered unbelievably since the Golf war because of the shortage of food and medicine etc. And the fact that we know that it will once again be the civilians who will lose their homes and jobs and relatives then I don't see how anyone can support another war.

If GWB has evidence for Husseins plans to attack USA or it's allies he should put them forward now. The UN inspectors haven't found anything so Bush must know something that justifies an attack. Bush's reasoning behind the attack is not clear IMO.

There are a lot of examples of criminal actions in Iraq but one of them is the trade blockade that is still going on towards Iraq. The only thing we get out of this blockade is for innocent people to die and strenghten the hatred towards the western world.

Bush's answer to this is that we are not at war with the civilians only their political leaders! Well that is not gonna do them any good I think.

i don't hope that there will be a war, because that is only evidence of the fact that everything else has failed, or at least it should be.

 

The article is pure speculation...but hey, it's a possibility......but realistic?

Bush will risk a very very messy war (it won't be his Father's war; it will be the messy part his father avoided) to gain some votes from the massive Jewish voting block of...what is it...a little less than 2%?

Funny thing is, he won't get the majority of these votes...even with a war with Iraq. Even if it is, somehow the reason for the war, he can never make that claim and many of these Jewish voters will believe it's for some other reason. From what I understand, Jewish voters don't generally care for him (I think he's just a little too far to the right).

I can find some interesting 'suggestions' for why Bush wants a war (that is, other than oil/economy, terrorism, humanitairan, and...Israel):

The 'IMPERIALIST' reason:
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

The socialists say...'FINISHING THE JOB/AMERICAN PRESTIGE':
The obsession with going back and "finishing the job" is an extension of the desire to reassert American military and political domination on a global level. This is what is referred to as "American prestige".

http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org/Index2.htm?eng/2002/08/29us.html