by Amazing 28 Replies latest jw friends
Seawolf
well son of a gun...someone else knows about the April Glaspie meeting.
Yes indeed. Amazing is covering the events during the last ten yrs, but it's good to have a look at the maneuverings just before that, that kicked off the ani-iraq movement.
SS
Hi Saint Satan: Maybe this will help.
I recall the Galspie issue. I am not justifying any stupid errors the USA made, or any misleading posture taken with Saddam Hussien. When his troops finally went into Kuwait, they did not occupy for the purpose of simply siezing oil fields ... insead they raped Kuwait, caused a lot of destruction, raped, pillaged, killed innocent civilians deliberately like a bunch of Hells Angels in uniforms, etc., The need to remove him was that he had the 4th largest army and he was willing to use it for harm ... more than that, he planned to go into Saudi Arabia and take it too ... and that would give Saddam the overwhelming majority control on the world's oil supply if he were to have succeeded. That could not be tolerated.
The end of the Gulf War uncovered even more of what a despot he is with his own people. Yet, the USA-UK and other allies were handcuffed by their agreement with Islamic nations to not go into Baghdad or remove Saddam. The Islamic world otherwise agreed that Saddam needed to be removed from Kuwait. The balance of the last ten years have been the cat-n-mouse game of weapons inspections, etc.
What Changed? Saddam was not then known to be involved with any majori terrorists groups like Hesbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc. They did not like him, and he hated them as religious radicals. Saddam was more of a secualr ally of the former Soviet Union, but he played them against the Western nations. However, the evidence strongly shows that sometime during the Clinton years, after Clinton got involved in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia ... Suddan, and Afghanistan ... lobbing missiles into nowhere or into aspirin factories ... Saddam began to form an unholy alliance with some terrorists factions, including Al Qaeda ... given than Saddam is also actively trying to get a nuke developed with a long range delivery system ... then something needs to be done, regardless of past errors made by the USA-UK ...
Comparison: The police look the other way and allow a local thief to do his thing because he is otherwise a helpful source. The thief, given an inch, takes a yard and robs a bank and kills some tellers ... and takes hostages ... so, the cops surround the bank and storm it ... but with the provisions from the banking presidents to simply drive out the thief ... and so it is done ... then the cops are told to inspect the thief's home and get back the money taken ... the thief thumbs his nose at the cops ... then ...
... one day the thief gets hold of high powered and automatice weapons ... builds up his supporters again, and then he teams up with local Crips and Bloods gangs and uses his stolen booty to pay them for terrorizing the city and keeping the cops running around like crazy ... this goes on for many years ... so, a new Mayor is elected and he decides to disarm the thief and put his gang out of business and clean up the city ... but by then everyone is used to the thief, and fears more reprisals from other associated gangs and loss of the city's main revenue ...
... the critques stand up and blame past errors in allowing the theif some small booty, while looking the other way ... all that may be true ... but the big question the city's inhabitants have to ask is: Do you want to continue to live the way you are now simply because the city leaders years earlier made errors? Do you want to continue the fear and the knowledge that the now more powerful thief might blow up the shopping center where you get groceries? Or ... do you want to new Mayor to get the job done and get the bad guys out of town?
The Big Fear: I want the thief caught, dead or alive ... and hanged along side his evil cronies ... period. If we allow it to persist it will only get worse ... then one day, we will really be sorry when we wake up to CNN to learn that it is not just another World Trade Center that is going down ... but that the entire City of New York or London or Paris ... that is 8 million people were evaporated by a 10 magaton nuclear bomb ... it all boils down to pay a little now or a whole lot more later.
Amazing:
Again, I agree with you that Saddam is a despicable and evil man, but the world is full of such leaders. Do you suggest we go around the world and effect regime change wherever we, the US, the epitome of morality, find someone who we deem unfitting to lead a country. What gives us the right apart from our might. We have faired horribly in the past (just look at Afghanistan its worse and more corrupt than it was before we invaded just about everywhere but the capital).
You also seem to be repeating a lot of propaganda for the initial invasion of Iraq and the current campaign for another much of which has turned out to be false.
insead they raped Kuwait, caused a lot of destruction, raped, pillaged, killed innocent civilians deliberately like a bunch of Hells Angels in uniforms, etc
Beware of government propaganda, Libertarians say
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=611
more than that, he planned to go into Saudi Arabia and take it too
In war, some facts less factual
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
Saddam was not then known to be involved with any majori terrorists groups like Hesbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc.
Analysis: Iraq and al-Qaeda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2284123.stm
As well, your analogy fails. First, because Saddam currently threatens no one apart from his own population. Not us certainly. None of those who would be most threatened (his Middle Eastern neighbors or Europe) have asked to take him out. Instead they almost unanimously agree that any military action would destabilize the region further and would increase the Saddams threat to them, as well as increase further hatred towards the US and increasing not diminishing the threat against us posed by terrorist groups. This is confirmed by the head of the CIA. These neighboring countries have also declined to allow us to use their territory as a base to launch or support an attack against Iraq.
Second, we didnt just look the other way while Saddam committed his atrocities. We provided him the weapons, the knowledge, the delivery systems and the encouragement to attack Iran because we felt it was in our national interest to weaken Iran.
Just two years ago Dick Cheney as CEO of Haliburton did about $28 million worth of business with the Iraqi government (all perfectly legal and above board). But can you tell me how in the last two years, since Cheney took office, the threat of Saddam has increased so that he is suddenly worth attacking instead of doing business with?
Saddam has no nukes. He is unable to import the necessary equipment and materials to build or develop nuclear weapons. Republican Senator Robert Byrd was unconvinced by the administrations evidence of this or of his future capacity to produce such weapons. He has no means of delivering them. He may have some biological weapons, but again how will he deliver these penned in as he is?
CPiolo
Hi CPiolo:
Do you suggest we go around the world and effect regime change wherever we, the US, the epitome of morality, find someone who we deem unfitting to lead a country.
Essentially yes, when the bad guys have or are in the process of building nuclear, chemical, or bioligical bombs. After Iraq, we need to get North Korea. It's a simple issue to either get them now, or wait until they nuke us. It cannot be more simple. The alternative is to keep letting them terrorize, build bombs, and stand around as they kill us - then we and our children will be gone and they and their children will rule with an iron fist.
I don't like the idea of the USA-UK being the world's police ... but who else is there? The UN is a laughing stock, and has always been a weak pathetic joke ... so, as a nation we need to decide what we want to do and be ... maybe the best way is to have a national referendum and decide once and for all.
Edited by - Amazing on 9 November 2002 17:42:16
If I could include here a quote from the conclusion of a book I have recently been reading, The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq by Kenneth M Pollack....
"Saddam Hussein is not Adolf Hitler, mostly because Iraq is not as powerful as Germany was. And defeating Saddam Hussein will not require the same sacrifices as defeating Hitler did. But the threat that Saddam presents to the US and to the world is just as real, and the one we have today is no less pressing than those we faced in 1941. Franklin Delano Roosevelt defended the provision of aid to Great Britain against Nazi Germany under the Lend-Lease Act by arguing that if your neighbor's house were on fire and you had a hose, wouldn't you lend it to him--if only to put the fire out before your house caught too? Today another house is burning, and we are not the only ones strong enough to douse the blaze. An invasion of Iraq may not be cost-free, but it is unlikely to be horrific and it is the only sensible course of action left to us. We would do well to remember John Stuart Mill's remark that "war is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things." In our case, the ugliest of things would be to hide our heads in the sand while Saddam Hussein acquires the capability to kill millions of people and hold the economy of the world in the palm of his cruel hand."
I concur with Pollack completely. We cannot wait for Saddam to hold us hostage to "the ugliest of things."
Shakita
Edited by - shakita on 9 November 2002 18:7:40
Amazing,
Do you really think it is wise to attack North Korea?
It is highly likely that the U.S. would blunder into fighting North Korea and Iraq at the same time. North Korea, unlike Iraq, is capable of sending missiles at Japan and the United States.
One historical note: Hitler was given power by selfishly imposed European sanctions on Germany.
Why do we suppose dethroning Iraq and suppressing its people will engender democracy? More likely is creating instability that will give rise to an ideologically driven regime. I do mean that things could be much worse than now, under Saddam.
How long was it between the end of WWI and the invasion of Poland? (hint: less than 20 years)
cellmould
Strike a match, it's time for the bombs to fall
I have a historical comparison:
Again, I agree with you that Saddam is a despicable and evil man, but the world is full of such leaders. Do you suggest we go around the world and effect regime change wherever we, the US, the epitome of morality, find someone who we deem unfitting to lead a country. What gives us the right apart from our might. We have faired horribly in the past (just look at Afghanistan its worse and more corrupt than it was before we invaded just about everywhere but the capital).
Rome, in the waning days of its Republic, defeated Carthage, its longtime rival for Mediterranean control. With the Carthaginean fleet out of commission, piracy multiplied on the high seas. This threatened the grain shipments that fed the Roman populace.
So the Roman Senate gave General Pompey a massive amount of money, troops, and ships - with the proviso that he destroy the pirates. He was permitted to invade and destroy land bases up to 50 miles from the shore.
This was the beginning of the Roman Empire. It was a hard time to be a pirate, or a barbarian, but it was the grandest civilization in Europe until recently. Their might did not give them the right, but they had the right to use their might in their own defense.
Similarly, today, after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, hundreds of little terrorist organizations suddenly have almost free reign over large swaths of territory. They threaten the oil shipments that are just as vital to our way of life as the grain was to ancient Rome. What we need is a modern day Pompey, to lead our armies to victory over the pirates of today's world. Our might does not give us the right to destroy countries, but we have the right to use our might in our own defense.
Also, somebody said that Afghanistan is worse now than ever before. That is only partially true, and only because peacenik do-gooders who are too scared to risk their own political careers for the sake of world stability want to keep the peacekeepers in Kabul, and not let them do their job. These same bastards left the UN troops helpless observers in Rwanda.
CZAR
Amazing:
Essentially yes, when the bad guys have or are in the process of building nuclear, chemical, or bioligical bombs.
Theres only one problem with this. The US and British governments have shown no proof that Iraq has or is in the process of building nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The dossier provided by the British showed NO NEW evidence. What they presented was years old, some of it ten years old. They havent convinced ranking Republican members of Congress who have access to far more information than the general public. As of 1998 we had destroyed or dismantled ALL of Saddams weapons building facilities. Chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of about 5 years. So whatever chemical and biological weapons Iraq had in 1998 (no more than 5% remained according Scott Ritter) are almost useless now. There is no evidence that Saddam has any nuclear weapons nor that he is building any.
Amazing, youre a nuclear engineer. You better than almost anyone here, myself included, know what it takes to build nuclear weapons as well as how hot such a local would appear to our military satellites if Iraq was producing the necessary material to manufacture a nuclear weapon. We discovered North Koreas nuclear weapons by satellite (fortunately, North Korea wants to work with us over this issue). Dont you think our government, if it had such evidence against Iraq, would use that to sway public opinion? Of course they would. The PR for this war is enormous.
I believe new weapons inspections are the answer. Iraq has already demonstrated a willingness to allow new unrestricted inspections. They have also demonstrated that they are untrustworthy which reiterates the need for weapons inspections.
The alternative is to keep letting them terrorize, build bombs, and stand around as they kill us - then we and our children will be gone and they and their children will rule with an iron fist.
Building bombs is addressed above. Please name one incidence of Iraq terrorizing the United States. I know of none. In fact, up until the Gulf War they were our ally. Saddams big mistake was invading Kuwait (another repressive dictatorship) without our permission. Since the Gulf War we have reduced their military capacity by 80%, cut off all income from their oil (Oil for Food program and reparations to Kuwait), destroyed 95% of their weapons of mass destruction, destroyed 100% of their weapons manufacturing capacity, imposed the severest economic sanctions in the history of the world, illegally bombed civilian infrastructure (water treatment -- both for drinking water and for treating sewage -- and power facilities), these last two (collective punishment) resulting directly in the deaths of 500,000 innocent children (that doesnt include adult men and women many of whom are innocents as well), and set up no-fly zones in the north and south which have been subjected to regular bombing for the last 10 years. All of this has pretty well eliminated whatever threat Saddam might have been as well as his capacity to rebuild his military.
The two largest terrorist attacks on the US were not committed by Iraq. They were committed by Americans in Oklahoma City (Timothy McVeigh et al) and, for the most, part by Saudis (the Twin Towers).
There are currently countries that we know have nuclear weapons and who have threatened to use them (Pakistan and India). Pakistan is a repressive military dictatorship. There is only one country in the world who has ever used a nuclear weapon -- the US. What ever happened to dtente?
Even if Iraq did possess a nuclear weapon, they have no means to deliver it. We the US have a missile defense system that is, bar none, the best in the world. We spend more on the military than the next six or seven countries combined. We have military facilities in 160 or so of the 192 nations registered with the U.N. There is nobody in the world capable of threatening us militarily -- nobody. So even if Iraq did have the means, it is extremely unlikely that any missile would ever reach our shores. Saddam also knows that any nuclear attack on the US would result in massive retaliation that would utterly destroy Saddam himself and Iraq. He may be evil, but he isnt stupid and, as is obvious, his own survival is at the top of his list of priorities.
You are correct in that the U.N. is a weak and ineffectual organization. Much of that is our own fault. George Will recently pointed out that the Security Council reflects a post-World War II world. We dont live in such a world any more and power has shifted dramatically since then. Maybe we should be working on strengthening the U.N. as a peacekeeping force, reducing our need to police the world and increasing worldwide cooperation in such an effort. We have done a miserable job of it so far.
As well, Bush and his team planned control of the Middle East before he became president, before September 11th and regardless if Saddam was in power:
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
Rebuilding America's Defenses
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
The PNAC report also:refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';
calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;
hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';
and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.
So, no matter how theyre selling the war now, the plans were in place long ago.
CPiolo
