War on Iraq?

[edew]

Originally posted by latenight
My only addition to the discussion is that we had better have a pretty good idea of who is going to fill the vacuum if and when Saddam is gone.

Saddam is a known entity. We know how he operates.

We may not have that advantage over his successor.

Yeah, suppose they get an Ayatollah-type leader after all this. Sets them back for about 200 years (socially) and we'll probably arm Iran with chemical and biological weapons hoping they'll topple Iraq's leader.

Wouldn't that be funny?

[edew]

Originally posted by three_hundred_fifty_five
The US does support enemies of US enemies. You can label them as "terrorist" if your point of view is from the enemy, the US labels them as rebels. The US supported Afghanistan rebels against the ex-USSR, the US used to have relations with Iraq when we were against Iran, the US used to have relations with Iran until the Shah took over... we can go on and on but it all comes down to what is in the US's best interest at the time. If you don't like it, then leave. Every country out there is looking out for its own interests.

Which is why this "war" on terrorism will ultimately fail: what we call terrorists can also be called "rebels" by those supporting the terrorists.

One of the largest groups funding the IRA are Irish-Americans. They send money back to support, essentially, IRA causes. Part of that money goes to pay for what these IRA folks do: car bombs, kill school children, etc.

I must say, however, that the US never officially supported the IRA (at least not to my knowledge), but many upstanding US citizens have supported the IRA. If the "stop terrorists and those who harbor them" is the goal, there are lots of people in Chicago and Boston who should be peeing in their pants. But they're not.

"Terrorist" is not a clearly defined term. Those who are with them feel they're doing it for a just cause. Those who are against them feel they're just a bunch of, well, terrorists.

As for Iraq allowing Al-Qaeda to train in their camps, let's also look at Saudi Arabia, who also have camps such as that, and they fund a good part of the Al-Qaeda, and most of the members of Al-Qaeda are Saudis.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Spanky McFarland
Inq,

I would expect the reason the Iraqis are targeting American and British planes has something to do with the fact that every day for the last ten years, our planes have bombed Iraq. If Iraqi planes were flying over your country, dropping bombs on suspected military targets, would you just let them get on with it?

Oh, of course---it's actually the Iraqis who are the aggrieved party in this matter! I should have seen it before!

But seriously, the problem with that logic---and I can't believe that you genuinely don't see it---is that the reason that Iraq got bombed in the first place was that it invaded without provocation and then annexed a neighboring country, and then defied the rest of the world when told it wasn't going to be allowed to keep it. And when beaten, they signed a cease-fire agreement which established no-fly zones, to which it agreed as a condition of not being conquered completely. And shortly thereafter they decided they din't like the no-fly zones---because they hindered their efforts to wipe out the Kurds and the southern rebels---and announced that the no-fly zones were no longer "legitimate" in their view. And then they started shooting at allied planes patrolling them. And THAT caused the allies to start bombing AA and radar installations.

This has been going on for the whole of the post-War period, when there was no threat of "regime change". It stepped up after the inspectors were expelled, and has been going thus ever since. It is the Iraqis whose truculence causes bombings of their military installations, not the other way around. This is not a case of the poor Iraqis righteously defending themselves from unwarranted attack.

If Saddam doesn't comply with the weapons inspectors absolutely, then this situation willl continue. Let's face it, the West is already at war with Iraq.

I agree, and I too believe that renewed inspections are to be preferred to open war. I am hopeful that this option will be accepted, despite the Bush dismissal of inspections as useless. In fact, I hope that the Administration's reaction to the Iraqi offer is merely a tough bargaining stance designed to prevent Iraq from attempting to ease back into their previous gaming of the inspection process. I hope that most fervently---even, I regret to say, if it will mean leaving the Iraqi people to Saddam's tender mercies awhile longer...

I think Bush/ Blair want to attack Iraq for all the wrong reaons, but that something good could come out of their harebrained scheme. If we do attack Iraq and topple Saddam, then sanctions can be lifted and fewer people will die in the long run. It's a choice between slow strangulation of the population, and an unjustified, yet perhaps ultimately beneficial war.

Well, we are at odds regarding the motivation aspect---I certainly do not think that keeping WOMD out of Saddam's hands, much less keeping him from secretly providing them to terrorist catspaws is "unjustified"---but that's ultimately a matter for each of us to decide in our hearts, and isn't open to logical proof or disproof. De gustibus non est disputandum...

Having said that, the wider consequences in the Middle East could be extreme. If the West wants to encourage another 9-11, attacking Iraq is definitely the way to go about it.

See, now, I don't believe this is a great danger, either. Let's face it, a lot of people in the area hate us, for reasons both real and imagined, and would like to see us destroyed. These will ALWAYS hate us, no matter what we do. The only choice we have is this: do we want to be regarded with both hate AND contempt, or are we safer if the hate is tempered with a little healthy fear of the consequences of attacking us? Do we want them to believe that they can kick us with impunity, and that we will only moan and bluster but do nothing much in response---our modus operandi for decades now---or do we want them to fear justice if they do so? As Polonius advised Laertes, "Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, bear't that the opposed may beware of thee".

The old Roman dictum Oderint dum metuant seems tailor-made for the resion, where whatever other motivations may operate strength is respected...

[edew]

Those who would hurt us don't fear us. They thrive on the conflict because it gives them a reason (twisted, yes, but a reason none the less). The more moderate people in that regio don't want us to bomb them, and have no interest in bombing us. If anything, they would love to have a nice normalized relation with us, as that's economically beneficial to them. Who's them? Syrians, Iranians, Libyans, Iraqis, Egyptians, all others. The regular Joes of those country don't want us to bomb them and have no interest in bombing us.

Those who do want to bonb us isn't going to be afraid of US retaliation, because they know they can hit and hide. They know if the US bombs Baghdad and kills a lot of civilians, their cause just goes up in the eyes of the victims. Blood is thicker than water. Iranians and Iraqis will have an enemy in the US when it would not normally be. They'll hate us more than they hate each other. Who needs that?

Why is it the generals who have conducted military actions, like Powell, and Scowcroft and others are against attacking Iraq, but the draft-dodgers are going balls out for war?

As for Iraq being the aggrieved party, well, it's been ten+ years since the war. They've done no more wars against other countries, and they're wondering why they're being held in contempt. It didn't work with the Austro-Hungarian empire soon after WWI, with all that control over Germany after their part in WWI. The Iraqis know they were not involved in the WTC act. They don't feel like they should take some punishment for someone else's crimes.

Their gassing their kurd citizens is their business, they claim (supposedly, I don't know what they claim on this point). They're not invading or planning to invade any country (no evidence of any such thing). Why should other countries get to fly over their land, shooting down planes and such?

Of course, the Iran-Iraq war wasn't conducted without *some* provocation. No war was ever initiated without some provocation, some slight from one side to the other. Why bother if there's no reason and justification? Even Hitler's attack into Poland and Czechoslovakia weren't provocation-free. Of course, some of the provocation was made-up, but hey, even Hitler knew he had to have an excuse. In the case of Iran and Iraq, Iraq claimed that Iran was drilling for oil in lands that belonged to Iraq. That much was true. So there was provocation.

Now, suppose we attack Iraq with no provocation. Meaning, with no evidence of WMD, and them aimed at the US. The rest of the world is decidedly not on the side of the US, as we can read in the papers. So, suppose we attack Iraq. Then, the rest of the world beats up on the US, will you agree to letting French planes or Korean planes fly over parts of the US, shooting down US warplanes taking off from various AFB's?

[Iwant2bafencer]

I haven't really been following this thread, but I saw it, and I thought you guys would be interested in knowing that on the news tonight Isreal just bombed Iraq. SO they're kinda doing it for us so far. Don't know if any of you knew that, but I thought I'd put it up anyway.

----------------------------
Carpe Diem
Ad Asha

[Iwant2bafencer]

I lied it was Palastin. Wrong place. oh well they're bombing people.

---------------------------
Carpe Diem
Ad Asha

[edew]

There's a BIG difference between saying "Israel is bombing Iraq" and saying "Israel is bombing Palestine."

We know that Israel and the Palestine are having their troubles. Unfortunate, but it's pretty much contained between those two "countries".

But one shouldn't carelessly just say, "Israel bombed Iraq" as if that's a minor detail.

There's a MAJOR difference between the two.

If Israel bombed Iraq, we might not all be alive by tomorrow.

[Inquartata]

Don't scare us like that, Iwant2be! Whew!

As to the lengthy apologia for Iraq just preceding---it takes my breath away. It really does. Such sweeping and bold dissimulation would do credit to Tariq Aziz himself.

Wow. I am speechless.

No point in trying to answer that, I daresay---let it speak for itself.

Just...wow.

[Spanky McFarland]

[quote]Originally posted by Inquartata
Oh, of course---it's actually the Iraqis who are the aggrieved party in this matter! I should have seen it before!:rolleyes"

But seriously, the problem with that logic---and I can't believe that you genuinely don't see it---is that the reason that Iraq got bombed in the first place was that it invaded without provocation and then annexed a neighboring country, and then defied the rest of the world when told it wasn't going to be allowed to keep it. And when beaten, they signed a cease-fire agreement which established no-fly zones, to which it agreed as a condition of not being conquered completely. And shortly thereafter they decided they din't like the no-fly zones---because they hindered their efforts to wipe out the Kurds and the southern rebels---and announced that the no-fly zones were no longer "legitimate" in their view. And then they started shooting at allied planes patrolling them. And THAT caused the allies to start bombing AA and radar installations.

This has been going on for the whole of the post-War period, when there was no threat of "regime change". It stepped up after the inspectors were expelled, and has been going thus ever since. It is the Iraqis whose truculence causes bombings of their military installations, not the other way around. This is not a case of the poor Iraqis righteously defending themselves from unwarranted attack.

[quote]

You make a good point Inq (I only call you this because I can never remember how to spell Inqaratatataer), and I won't try to dispute it. However, if our planes weren't over their country, they wouldn't be getting fired upon, so Iraq aren't actively being aggressive outwith their boundaries, which was my point. I am well aware that there are reasons why this conflict began in the first place. I'm just not sure they are still valid. 10 years is a long time to be bombing a country.

A defeated nation will agree to almost any terms at the end of a conflict (if somebody has just kicked the **** out of you and is sitting on your back with your arm twisted, you'll do what they say). You can always expect a nation to backtrack.

Also, Iraq have been gassing Kurds and various other factions since the 80's, when we were chums with them, so I fail to understand why this is a reason to condemn the regime now.

[quote]
I agree, and I too believe that renewed inspections are to be preferred to open war. I am hopeful that this option will be accepted, despite the Bush dismissal of inspections as useless. In fact, I hope that the Administration's reaction to the Iraqi offer is merely a tough bargaining stance designed to prevent Iraq from attempting to ease back into their previous gaming of the inspection process. I hope that most fervently---even, I regret to say, if it will mean leaving the Iraqi people to Saddam's tender mercies awhile longer...
[quote]

From what I understand (and admittedly, I am speaking, like most of us, from a position of opinionated ignorance), I don't think this is a bargaining stance. Much has been made in the British press of documents which showed Bush intended to take out Saddam before he got into power and before 9-11. He considers it 'unfinished business'. Saddam has made the offer of unconditional access to weapons inspectors, but Bush's immediate response has been to dismiss it out of hand.

Somebody else said that Europe are against America, but that isn't true. America have managed to secure the backing of the UN, which was the right thing to do, and are now waiting for a resolution to be passed. Unfortunately, people in Europe are beginning to suspect that Bush wants a war at all costs, and if Bush goes in anyway, despite the offer and UN support, he will lose what little credibility he has in the international community, as will the British PM, Tony Blair, who is blindly following Bush's lead.

[quote]

Well, we are at odds regarding the motivation aspect---I certainly do not think that keeping WOMD out of Saddam's hands, much less keeping him from secretly providing them to terrorist catspaws is "unjustified"---but that's ultimately a matter for each of us to decide in our hearts, and isn't open to logical proof or disproof. De gustibus non est disputandum...

[quote]

I know this is a common argument, and has been touched on elsewhere, but every reason we apply to going to war with Iraq could equally be applied to going to war with other rogue nations. There are, as usual, other forces at work, and we can be sure that none of the publicly quoted reasons are the full picture.

[quote]
See, now, I don't believe this is a great danger, either. Let's face it, a lot of people in the area hate us, for reasons both real and imagined, and would like to see us destroyed. These will ALWAYS hate us, no matter what we do. The only choice we have is this: do we want to be regarded with both fear AND contempt, or are we safer if the hate is tempered with a little healthy fear of the consequences of attacking us? Do we want them to believe that they can kick us with impunity, and that we will only moan and bluster but do nothing much in response---out modus operandi for decades now---or do we want them to fear justice if they do so? As Polonius advised Laertes, "Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, bear't that the opposed may beware of thee".
[quote]

The more martyrs the West creates, the more terrorists will rise up. You can't bully terrorists into giving up. The more fear we try and apply, the more resentment and desire to fight back there will be. I live in Scotland, and I have seen this close up with the IRA over the last 25 years. That conflict is now well on the way to solution, and that happened politically, as the British government was unable to stamp out the terrorists. Bush will also fail. The only solution to this whole sorry mess is for the West to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. If there had never been any oil in the Arab world, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

Inq, you seem smart, and you have obviously thought about this situation and have access to information, so I have respect for your opinions. What worries me is the gung-ho attitude of the ill-informed, which I see every day in the street and in tabloid newspapers in my country.

It's easy for all of us to sit here and debate, and call for action or restraint. In the end, we can switch off the computer, sit down to a big meal, and watch it on telly. The civlians in Iraq don't have that choice. No matter what the West does, innocent people will die. We should be trying to minimise the number of deaths and that, ultimately, is the only thing that should matter.

BTW, on the Israeli front, to whoever it was that brought it up. Israel aren't bombing Palestine, unless something happened that I didn't see. Another suicide bomber blew himself up in Tel-Aviv, so the Israeli's have responded, as they normally do, by rolling tanks into the West Bank. They have surrounded and shelled Arafat's compound.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by three_hundred_fifty_five
George W. Bush and and the past US presidents rely on information provided by his staff. One man cannot know the details of everything from foreign affairs, economics, environment, etc. It is actually the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are providing the President with information and it is his decision to listen and act on what he hears.

Saddam is very paranoid and is not stupid about personal security so he is not going to expose himself to danger. It's not a secret that those around him are scared for their own lives. There is only so much US Intel can gather.

I'm not going to call you stupid, just hopelessly naive.

If there were any hard evidence, it would have been released by now. Even George isn't so obtuse that he wouldn't rush to bolster his position, if he had anything to bolster it with.

Instead, what we get is George, Colin, and Donald repeating the same refrain, over and over... "Saddam is bad, we should get him. Saddam is bad, we should get him."

Adolph Hitler said, "If you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, people will believe it." The administration is hoping that if they repeat their mantra loud enough and often enough, we'll fall into lock-step behind them. Maybe some already have. Maybe you have. It seems so.

But say what you like, this is just a president slipping in popularity who's decided to do a little saber-rattling to shore up domestic support, and the target he's chosen is the one that sticks in the Bush craw the most: the dictator that his father unconscionably--and incomprehensibly--left in power at the end of the Gulf War (what was he thinking??).

So believe him if you like. ..and while we're at it, I have a bridge for sale I'd like to talk to you about...

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Originally posted by lochinvar
...If there were any hard evidence, it would have been released by now. ...

I'm not going to call you stupid, just a babbling fool.

This we do know, Iraq has a special forces division and training facility designated just for terrorist training. This facility is outside of Baghdad and spy plane photos and insider information tells us this is true. This would be a more than likely place for al Queda members to further increase their knowledge and tactics for terrorist training. Iraq supports those against the US and is more than willing to help out al Queda members. You seem to think that's not enough of a threat to Americans.
Iraq has biological warfare facilities which he needs to cover up when the UN inspectors come in. Seriously, Saddam isn't that stupid to reveal what he's not supposed to have.
The US is spending it's own money to keep an eye out in the no-fly zones of Iraq because Saddam is evil enough to kill his own citizens who are Kurdish. Saddam has attacked his own people with biological and conventional weapons.
If the US allows Saddam to provide a command and control headquarters for al Queda, that's just increasing the terrorist's ability to carry out terrorist activites against the US.
US Intel has gathered information from the al Queda leaders who were taken prisoners into Cuba. There's so much the US is doing based on the information gathered. Everything from changing the way the INS works, security at airports, security in DC, security of water treatment facilities, closing US Embassies abroad, etc.

[lochinvar]

I'm not going to call you stupid, just a mindless automaton.

Well, whatever Georgie wants, Georgie will get. We'll be in a war by New Year's, I 'spect.

I'm sure they'll need a few zealots--maybe you could volunteer to be in the front rank, in view of your knee-jerk acceptance of everything Uncle Sugar spoon-feeds you.

Have a nice fight. Don't forget to call when you get there... We'll leave the light on for you.

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Originally posted by lochinvar
...I'm sure they'll need a few zealots--maybe you could volunteer to be in the front rank, in view of your knee-jerk acceptance of everything Uncle Sugar spoon-feeds you...

Everything I wrote about inside info on Iraq was presented in a documentary done by BBC reporters, not the US government. You can claim ignorance if you wish.

[135711]

Originally posted by edew
There's a BIG difference between saying "Israel is bombing Iraq" and saying "Israel is bombing Palestine."

We know that Israel and the Palestine are having their troubles. Unfortunate, but it's pretty much contained between those two "countries".

But one shouldn't carelessly just say, "Israel bombed Iraq" as if that's a minor detail.

There's a MAJOR difference between the two.

If Israel bombed Iraq, we might not all be alive by tomorrow.

I think he probably just made a mistake in reporting, but I'm curious as to why this would be a problem. To me, Israel and the Jews have gone through so much junk for so long, I think they've been very patient. It may have been an error to have developed a nation called israel, and there was a lot of controvery over it's inception, however, now that they're there, others should learn to live with them. They had no country of their own, they were driven off the land during the diasporia, then hitler and stalin tried to kill them off, where were they supposed to go. now, i'm not being biased, but, my family has jewish people in it. I'm almost of the opinion that we should just invite Israel to come back to the United States and live with us. We have more in common with them than the other guys. The US was sort of founded on a Judao-Christian Ethic, it would make sence.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by three_hundred_fifty_five
Everything I wrote about inside info on Iraq was presented in a documentary done by BBC reporters, not the US government. You can claim ignorance if you wish.

You mistake me. I do not claim ignorance of Irag's Evil Nature.

No one is arguing that Iraq isn't a terrorist supporting state, nor is anyone arguing that Saddam Hussein is a peace-loving but misunderstood philanthropist. I will be the first to grant that Iraq probably is doing all you claim, hates us, and would be happy to plant a bomb in our belly.

But the government is not asserting any of this as their justification for attacking Iraq.

Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction, in the form of chemical agents which we gave him). It is less clear that he has or is on the verge of having biological and/or nuclear capabilities, or that he has or is on the verge of having the requisite means of delivering those agents or bombs to the United States.

The fact is that Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld are not calling for a war with Iraq because Iraq is harboring al Queda elements. They are calling for a war because they claim that Iraq as a nation is a threat to the United States.

If Saddam had intercontinental ballistic missles, I'd buy it. If he had a navy with aircraft carriers, I'd buy it. But he has neither.

As for the threat posed by terrorist agents and saboteurs smuggling nuclear weapons and/or biological-chemical agents into the country, that is best met by improved security and counter-intelligence agencies. It calls for good police work, not military action.

And beating up Iraq won't stop the terrorist agents; they'll find somewhere else to go and someone else to get help from. We can't just start blowing up countries one after the other. We don't have the men, we don't have the money, and--most importantly--we don't have the right.

So if George and Colin and Donald have convinced you that it's the right thing to do, good for you. But they haven't convinced me. I find their reasoning shallow and their justifications spurious.

At the end of the day, Bush is just picking a fight to re-direct the public's eye away from the fact that his administration is mis-managing the economy, and Powell and Rumsfeld are backing him 'cause he's their boss.

[Gav]

I think he probably just made a mistake in reporting, but I'm curious as to why this would be a problem. To me, Israel and the Jews have gone through so much junk for so long, I think they've been very patient. It may have been an error to have developed a nation called israel, and there was a lot of controvery over it's inception, however, now that they're there, others should learn to live with them. They had no country of their own, they were driven off the land during the diasporia, then hitler and stalin tried to kill them off, where were they supposed to go. now, i'm not being biased, but, my family has jewish people in it. I'm almost of the opinion that we should just invite Israel to come back to the United States and live with us. We have more in common with them than the other guys. The US was sort of founded on a Judao-Christian Ethic, it would make sence.

Oh dear.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by 135711
...I'm almost of the opinion that we should just invite Israel to come back to the United States and live with us...

We could invite, but they wouldn't come.

The concept of the State of Israel is firmly rooted in the Messianic tradition, which is to say that the purpose for the nation to even exist at all is because the Messiah will come "when Israel takes its equal place among the nations." Some have interpreted this as meaning when the Jews have fully assimilated; others--and the founders and citizens of Israel were/are among them--interpret it literally, meaning the Jews must form a nation-state before the Messiah will come.

Therefore, they wouldn't come even if we asked them. By staying where they are, they are paving the way for the Messiah. In fact, there is a sizable number of Israelis who are getting really pissed off that the rest of the Jews in the world aren't coming to Israel: by not emigrating to Israel, those Jews are holding up the coming of the Messiah.

It's a religion thing.

[edew]

[...]

The fact is that Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld are not calling for a war with Iraq because Iraq is harboring al Queda elements. They are calling for a war because they claim that Iraq as a nation is a threat to the United States.

[...]

So if George and Colin and Donald have convinced you that it's the right thing to do, good for you. But they haven't convinced me. I find their reasoning shallow and their justifications spurious.

[...]

Correction, I think it's George, Dick, and Donald. I think Powell has reservations about going after Saddam and Iraq. He has toed the party line, but he has also been outspoken previously.

One should also note that a good number of republicans, notably Scowcroft, and others who were invovled in the 90's Desert Storm, are quite opposed to a conflict with Iraq.

[edew]

I heard on the radio that Saddam is making conditions on the inspectors. So, he's shooting himself in the foot (among other places).

Maybe there will be a war. Saddam certainly ain't helping...